win32 talkback build 2001061520, win98se 17-inch monitor, screen resolution 1280x1024 96dpi. Screen shot attached. I can't see the bottom border of the Toolbar buttons pane, so I can't tell if anything is missing. Oddly enough, when I change the Win screen display settings to use Large Fonts, everything seems to fit OK. I couldn't find this pref listed in bug 80392.

reassigning to Ben

->matt? since he recent changed the toolbar choices into checkboxes. matt, i also see this "cutting off" on mac classic, so marking All. i'll double-check the other platforms and both themes once i'm in the office tomorrow. the screenshot kchayka has attached is from Win98-classic, btw.

Matt, you bastard. I said my sr was conditional on the panel fitting :-)

FWIW, I see this also on linux in both the classic and modern themes. Build 2001061710

Strangely, WFM, running Win32 build 2001061610 on 1024x768 resolution, using both themes.

tested using 2001.06.18.08/9 comm bits. here's what i've found... linux modern & classic: wfm [resolution is 1280x1024] winnt modern & classic: wfm [resolution is 1280x1024, small fonts used, fwiw] mac modern: wfm [resolution is 1024x768] ** mac classic: clipped at the bottom! [resolution is also 1024x768]

fwiw, 1280x1024 96dpi is a pretty high resolution for a 17-inch monitor. The same screen size on a larger monitor might not yield the same results. YMMV

Hey, this worked on all platforms for the modern skin. Not my fault the classic skin on mac is wacky! So i'm either making it so you can't see the groove line or leaving it as is since it only happens on the mac classic and only the bottomline line is off the page. Or i might just file a bug to ben to give me 2 more pixels for the screen size.

hrmpf, I checked both skins on all platforms when matt originally checked this in - of course it's not like I could check all the resolutions...shucks. I wish there were some other UI sol'n. Everyone knows this is precisely why you can't count on hard sizing. Isn't there a fancy way to mnak the size alwyas work? matt, it's not just the Mac. The reporter has a diffn't config than either sarah or I have tested and still sees the error on Win98.

> I wish there were some other UI sol'n. Everyone knows this is precisely why > you can't count on hard sizing. Isn't there a fancy way to mnak the size > alwyas work? What is so horribly *wrong* with leaving the prefs windows resizable?

nav triage team: Moving out to mozilla1.0 since we're going to fix this in other ways as an interim fix for netscape release

using 2001.10.03.08-trunk bits, this is still a problem on Mac OS 9.x but only with the classic theme. the Navigator panel is clipped at the bottom. i still don't see this on winNT or linux [recent trunk bits], in either theme. ->samir, but do reassign as needed. clearing resolution an nominating for moz0.9.6.

Loss of functionality for some users. Let's try and get to this by 0.9.7.

Moving to mozilla0.9.8.

Moving to milestone after mozilla0.9.9 (mozilla1.0 for now).

*** Bug 116615 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Is this an issue with a current trunk build?

So is this Mac classic theme only? Someone want to confirm that and fix the Platform and OS

Mac OS problem is specifically addressed in bug 86918. So, I think this can be resolved as WFM.

Moving Netscape owned 0.9.9 and 1.0 bugs that don't have an nsbeta1, nsbeta1+, topembed, topembed+, Mozilla0.9.9+ or Mozilla1.0+ keyword. Please send any questions or feedback about this to adt@netscape.com. You can search for "Moving bugs not scheduled for a project" to quickly delete this bugmail.

Resolving WFM per comment.

Recently, this problem seems to have come back. See bug 134174. In addition, I as well as bug 133627 have noticed that an increased number of items are out of viewable area in recent builds than specified in bug 86918 in Mac builds. Please reopen or dupe as appropriate.

mass-verifying WorksForMe bugs. reopen only if this bug is still a problem with a *recent trunk build*. mail search string for bugspam: AchilleaMillefolium

*** Bug 181871 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

*** Bug 183463 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***