Mozilla Thunderbird 0.6 RC2 Now Available
Saturday May 1st, 2004
Scott MacGregor writes: "Our hopefully final set of Thunderbird 0.6 candidate builds are available for testing on all platforms. We could use help testing these bits to help find any last minute issues as we come down the final stretch for this release. For more information about where to get the builds and to report issues with the build, see my post in the forums."
Thunderbird 0.6 includes a new Windows installer, new artwork, upgraded junk mail controls, and a slew of other new features. Read more about it in the draft release notes.
Thunderbird 0.6 RC 2? Did I miss RC 1? Oh, well...
I'm downloading RC 2 now and can't wait to check out the new artwork--and, of course, the new features and upgraded junk mail controls.
#2 Question about directories for thunderbird builds
Saturday May 1st, 2004 2:31 PM
I have a question about the directory structure for where the nightly thunderbird builds can be found. In <http://ftp.mozilla.org/pu….org/thunderbird/nightly/> i see directories that end in .6 and trunk. What exactly is the difference? Which ones will eventually become the releases? Thanks.
I just went through the process of uninstalling 0.5 and installing 0.6 RC2, and guess what....it's still 0.5. :(
Did you try the link in the forum post? (<http://ftp.mozilla.org/pu…rbird/nightly/latest-0.6/> )
- MXN: <http://mxn.f2o.org/>
I used the link at <http://www.mozilla.org/pr…cts/thunderbird/releases/>
Which link am I supposed to use there, please?
Use a mirror!
#8 Re: Re: Download link is still 0.5?
Saturday May 1st, 2004 6:02 PM
What's a mirror?
I figured it out.....even though the release notes page still is 0.5 for downloading.
#9 Re: Re: Re: Download link is still 0.5?
Saturday May 1st, 2004 6:07 PM
TB 0.5 is the latest release, 0.6 is just a release CANDIDATE.
#10 No big deal, but the old icon is nicer, I think
Saturday May 1st, 2004 7:07 PM
What else can I say? The earlier icon was easier to see/interpret/identify/etc. I'm still not sure what I'm looking at with the TBird icon on my desktop. No big deal, though.
#11 Re: No big deal, but the old icon is nicer, I thin
by erik <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sunday May 2nd, 2004 5:30 AM
I think the new icon looks great at 64x64+ but it is a lot harder to find at 16x16
#12 Information needed
Sunday May 2nd, 2004 8:03 AM
I like to see some additional information like download statistics. How many people downloaded Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5? What browsers was used for this download? What can be done in Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5 but not in the Mozilla suite or vise versa? Why not use the new images for the suite as well?
It looks promising so far but I found some small bugs:
1) The buttons "Install New Extension", "Install New Theme" and "Manage Stored Passwords" should have dots or none of the other buttons should have dot's. 2) Buttons on Certificate Manager need to be disabled/enabled when needed 3) Certificate Manager should have Close button instead of OK button 4) The above button should have an accesskey 5) the edit certificate window looks horrible 6) Tabpanel on Certificate Viewer need padding/margin 7) Buttons on Certificate Viewer are on wrong position 8) The Category buttons in Options window should match the width of Mozilla Firefox
This was just after seeying it for the very first time and only after five minutes. Looks nice for a 0.6 version but it is based on Mozilla so that's not very surprising. One thing I really hate, the 7.9 MB download, for something I already have when I install the mozilla suite.
I am very sure that most user of Mozilla Thunderbird already use Mozilla Firefox as their browser, or even the Mozilla suite, so what do I win?
Mozilla Thunderbird is 19.7MB and Mozilla Firefox is 17.5MB installed while the Mozilla suite is 'only' 21.3MB. I should add NVU because that makes it even worse with its 19MB That's almost 35MB more!
Mozilla Firefox uses 7216KRAM, Mozilla Thunderbird 18664KRAM and NVU 9368KRAM while the Suite uses 'only' 28236K RAM. That's a small 7MB less RAM!
It seems you end up having more/longer downloads and use more diskspace while I cannot do everything I can do with the Mozilla suite. Great.
>>t looks promising so far but I found some small bugs:
You should post that list in the Thunderbird->Builds Forum.
>>I am very sure that most user of Mozilla Thunderbird already use Mozilla Firefox as their browser, or even the Mozilla suite, so what do I win?
If you're using Firefox, you "win" an excelent e-mail client. If you on the suite, you win some great new features, and better UI, and a generally more polished application. Although if you're on the suite, you might as well as stay with the integrated mail/news.
>It seems you end up having more/longer downloads and use more diskspace while I cannot do everything I can do with the Mozilla suite. Great.
True, but I have the option of WHAT e-mail program I want, what HTML editor I want etc. Plus I'm getting better products (IMO). Also, if the browser or mail client crashes, It doesn't take everything down. Also, I don't ALWAYS have thunderbird open, meaning I'm usually only using 7216KRAM and ocasionally 8664KRAM when I need to check my mail, or write a message.
#17 Re: Re: Information needed
Monday May 3rd, 2004 2:14 AM
"you win some great new features"
Ok, but what exactly? There should be some sort of a feature comparation chart for this, not just people saying it is better or offers more features. What is good for you might be bad ass stuff for other people or the implementation might suck big time
Download statistics would be interesting, but there have only been rough statistics available for all the recent releases. Because the downloads are from a whole bunch of mirrors, it's difficult to collect the information together Knowing what was used to download would be pretty much impossible, because you don't get that information for ftp downloads, even if you had full logs from all the servers.
You are right about the memory. The programs are being build "statically" which means they each use thier own GRE (Gecko Runtime Environment). If I recall, Ben said they are built like this so their individual filesize is smaller. In the future (way down the road), they are all going to share the same GRE and reduce the footprint. At least that's what I remember them saying.