244268 - There is no way to not use the download manager

Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 233122

(Toolkit :: Downloads API, enhancement)

Description

[Jason Keirstead]

User-Agent:       Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Konqueror/3.2; Linux 2.6.5; X11; i686; en_US) (KHTML, like Gecko)
Build Identifier: 

It is impossible to disable the download manager in Firefox for people who 
prefer the old behaviour. I do not want a "download manager", I hate them, I 
like having a window for each download so I can easily track its progress in 
the taskbar. 
 
Please add an option to disable this, even if you have to put it somewhere in 
about:config 

Reproducible: Always
Steps to Reproduce:
1.
2.
3.

Comment 1

[José Jeria]

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 235286 ***

Comment 2

[Jason Keirstead]

I do not agree with this resolution at all ( for those who don't wish to 
follow the bug trail it is marked as WONTFIX pointing at this document: 
 
http://www.mozilla.org/projects/firefox/ue/downloads/ 
 
The document does not have my complaint listed under "Concerns", that is, with 
the download manager solution there is absolutely *no way* to monitor the 
progress of your downloads without having an extra window on the screen. 
 
Thus my complaint is not addressed by this document. I will accept that this 
is a "wish"not a bug, but not that it has been resolved. 
 

Comment 3

[Jesse Ruderman]

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 233122 ***

Comment 4

[Jason Keirstead]

Er...

How the he** did this bug get marked as a duplicate bug 244268? They are totally
different. I most certainly *do not* want the download sidebar back. I want the
option to use seperate windows for each download like every other browser on the
planet has, so I can keep track of the downloads in the task bar. Why is it so
hard ot understand? There are many valid reasons for this as are outlined in my
original postings in bug 233122.

If you don't agree with the wishlist item, fine, but I don't see why it needs to
be closed off. Just let it sit here, at some point I will just get tired and
write it myself.

Comment 5

[José Jeria]

(In reply to comment #4)
> How did this bug get marked as a duplicate bug 244268?

This *is* bug 244268, did you mean another bug?

Comment 6

[Jason Keirstead]

Er, I meant bug 233122 

Anyways, it certianly is not a duplicate of it.

Comment 7

[Jesse Ruderman]

Jason: as far as I can tell, you're arguing that this *is* a duplicate of bug
233122 (and not a duplicate of bug 235286).

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 233122 ***