SeaMonkey 2.49.5 thankful for the release.

Hi,

A big thanks to the developers on the release of 2.49.5

Seamonky 2.49.5 fixed a website that did not display correctly. Once 
again thanks.

I would like to help out and test 2.53.x--I am hesitant since I have 
heard that once you have installed 2.53.x the user profile changes and 
is no longer compatible with 2.49.x so I am hesitant to do any testing. 
Maybe when 2.53 is ready for full time use I will consider testing and 
filing bugs.

Thanks developers and testers. BTW I am using MacOS.
0
Paul
9/5/2019 2:06:47 AM
mozilla.support.seamonkey 13325 articles. 0 followers. Post Follow

7 Replies
53 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 34

Paul Bergsagel composed on 2019-09-04 21:06 (UTC-0500):

> I would like to help out and test 2.53.x--I am hesitant since I have 
> heard that once you have installed 2.53.x the user profile changes and 
> is no longer compatible with 2.49.x so I am hesitant to do any testing. 
> Maybe when 2.53 is ready for full time use I will consider testing and 
> filing bugs.

Create and use a different profile. I have more than a dozen to cover various
versions of Firefox, SeaMonkey and New/Pale Moon, 4 of which are typically running
at once, and for days at a time.
-- 
Evolution as taught in public schools is religion, not science.

 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!

Felix Miata  ***  http://fm.no-ip.com/
0
Felix
9/5/2019 2:22:01 AM
On 9/4/2019 7:06 PM, Paul Bergsagel wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> A big thanks to the developers on the release of 2.49.5
> 
> Seamonky 2.49.5 fixed a website that did not display correctly. Once 
> again thanks.
> 
> I would like to help out and test 2.53.x--I am hesitant since I have 
> heard that once you have installed 2.53.x the user profile changes and 
> is no longer compatible with 2.49.x so I am hesitant to do any testing. 
> Maybe when 2.53 is ready for full time use I will consider testing and 
> filing bugs.
> 
> Thanks developers and testers. BTW I am using MacOS.
> 

Before I update SeaMonkey, I copy all five of my profiles into a folder
named "Save SeaMonkey Profiles".  There have been a few instances where
I reverted back to a prior version of SeaMonkey, after which I delete my
profiles and replace them with the saved profiles.

-- 
David E. Ross
<http://www.rossde.com/>

Immigration authorities arrested 680 undocumented aliens in meat
processing facilities in Mississippi.  Employing someone who is not
legally in the U.S. is also illegal.  How many of the EMPLOYERS are
being criminally charged?  If none, why not?
0
David
9/5/2019 6:07:28 AM
Paul Bergsagel wrote on 05/09/2019 04:06:
> Hi,
> 
> A big thanks to the developers on the release of 2.49.5
> 
> Seamonky 2.49.5 fixed a website that did not display correctly. Once again thanks.
> 
> I would like to help out and test 2.53.x--I am hesitant since I have heard that 
> once you have installed 2.53.x the user profile changes and is no longer 
> compatible with 2.49.x so I am hesitant to do any testing. Maybe when 2.53 is 
> ready for full time use I will consider testing and filing bugs.
> 
> Thanks developers and testers. BTW I am using MacOS.


Hi, please do it as you're using macOS! So we can compare our experience.
If you use Time Machine you can go back to the previous profile, or just 
compress the current profile (it's inside
/Users/YourUserName/Library/Application Support/SeaMonkey/Profiles/xxx.default) 
and then if it's not working you just decompress it and go back.

I'm using 2.53 since a few monts and I have an odd problem affecting the GPU or 
something that after a certain period of time makes the screen "flashing" just 
like the video was broken and I need to shut off the Mac and restart. This is 
happening more often if I use the Mail and News section of SeaMonkey; I also 
noticed it happens less if I go in off-line several times a day. Very weird!

So I'd appreciate if you could try SM 2.53 on your Mac and tell me if it's 
working fine.
NB: my sessionstore.json file is now about 18MB (it was up to 40 before).

0
Gabriel
9/5/2019 9:06:17 AM
Gabriel wrote:

> 
> 
> Hi, please do it as you're using macOS! So we can compare our experience.
> If you use Time Machine you can go back to the previous profile, or just 
> compress the current profile (it's inside
> /Users/YourUserName/Library/Application 
> Support/SeaMonkey/Profiles/xxx.default) and then if it's not working you 
> just decompress it and go back.
> 
> I'm using 2.53 since a few monts and I have an odd problem affecting the 
> GPU or something that after a certain period of time makes the screen 
> "flashing" just like the video was broken and I need to shut off the Mac 
> and restart. This is happening more often if I use the Mail and News 
> section of SeaMonkey; I also noticed it happens less if I go in off-line 
> several times a day. Very weird!
> 
> So I'd appreciate if you could try SM 2.53 on your Mac and tell me if 
> it's working fine.
> NB: my sessionstore.json file is now about 18MB (it was up to 40 before).
> 

I have a spare Mac that I use for testing -- it's an older machine that 
won't upgrade past High Sierra. I just threw SM 2.53 (Bill's 9/15 
release) on there.  I haven't made a systematic test, but I'm finding 
that with a number of media sites that are scripting-heavy, I'm getting 
pretty sluggish performance, and lots of "spinning beach ball" wait 
cursors.  Although I normally am an enthusiastic user of extensions, 
this particular profile is almost entirely tweaked, other than changing 
the default search engine.

As a point of comparison, I have Firefox 69.0 on the same machine, that 
has several extensions (especially NoScript and AdBlock Plus), and that 
one performs at a level I pretty much expect.

Since this is not a working machine, I can do lots of testing without 
disrupting any active profiles.

Smith
0
NFN
9/17/2019 4:50:12 PM

NFN Smith wrote:
> Gabriel wrote:
> 
> I have a spare Mac that I use for testing -- it's an older machine that won't 
> upgrade past High Sierra. I just threw SM 2.53 (Bill's 9/15 release) on 
> there.  I haven't made a systematic test, but I'm finding that with a number 
> of media sites that are scripting-heavy, I'm getting pretty sluggish 
> performance, and lots of "spinning beach ball" wait cursors.  Although I 
> normally am an enthusiastic user of extensions, this particular profile is 
> almost entirely tweaked, other than changing the default search engine.
> 
> As a point of comparison, I have Firefox 69.0 on the same machine, that has 
> several extensions (especially NoScript and AdBlock Plus), and that one 
> performs at a level I pretty much expect.
> 
> Since this is not a working machine, I can do lots of testing without 
> disrupting any active profiles.
> 
> Smith

Make sure you are running NoScript 5.1.9 and the latest classic uBlock 1.16.4.11
Latest AdBlock+ 2.91 and 2.53 also do not mix well.

FRG
0
Frank
9/17/2019 5:51:52 PM
Paul Bergsagel wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> A big thanks to the developers on the release of 2.49.5
> 
> Seamonky 2.49.5 fixed a website that did not display correctly. Once again 
> thanks.
> 
> I would like to help out and test 2.53.x--I am hesitant since I have heard 
> that once you have installed 2.53.x the user profile changes and is no longer 
> compatible with 2.49.x so I am hesitant to do any testing. Maybe when 2.53 is 
> ready for full time use I will consider testing and filing bugs.
> 
> Thanks developers and testers. BTW I am using MacOS.

Back up your profile before you test anything new.  That way, you can always 
restore it.

0
EE
9/17/2019 6:05:34 PM
Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote:
>> As a point of comparison, I have Firefox 69.0 on the same machine,
>>  that has several extensions (especially NoScript and AdBlock
>> Plus), and that one performs at a level I pretty much expect.
>> 
>> Since this is not a working machine, I can do lots of testing
>> without disrupting any active profiles.
>> 
>> Smith
> 
> Make sure you are running NoScript 5.1.9 and the latest classic
> uBlock 1.16.4.11 Latest AdBlock+ 2.91 and 2.53 also do not mix well.

A good reminder.

In my regular Seamonkey installation I have both, and copies of the the 
..XPI downloads for both NoScript and uBlock in my archives.

For the testing installation, at least for now, I'm trying to stick as 
closely as I can to default configs, and I hadn't planned to do anything 
with extensions. In one sense, it is useful to see how pages truly 
appear without blocking of scripts and ads, but if I do very much with 
that particular profile, I'll eventually find the ads sufficiently 
intrusive that I resort to ad blocking.

Smith
0
NFN
9/17/2019 6:17:23 PM
Reply: