703892 - Handle for Address Book window not operable in Win 7 except in XP compatibility mode.

Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 609245

(Thunderbird :: Address Book, defect)

Description

[JJ]

If the Address Book Window is not displaying a leftmost pane containing a directory of Address Books, the user should be able to drag the leftmost handle in the window to the right.  This should reveal the list of available Address Books, from which the user can then select one.

However, I am not able to "grab" the handle in this window.  In hovering over the left window border, the double arrow appears, but the left edge does not "fatten up" and allow me to grab and move it with the mouse.

I am running:
Thunderbird 8.0
Windows 7 Starter edition, Service Pack 1
on a Toshiba NB205 Netbook.
1024 x 600, the recommended screen resolution

However, if I run Thunderbird in Compatibility Mode, Windows XP, SP3, I can "grab" the handle, collapse the leftmost pane, and restore and resize the leftmost pane as expected.

Other clues / symptoms:
- I can manipulate a similar handle in the Thunderbird main screen without any problems - the handle which collapses, hides, and resizes the list of email folders.

- If I restore the list of Address Books in the problem panel in XP compatibility mode, exit Thunderbird, then re-launch Thunderbird in native Windows 7, the leftmost Address Book directory panel is retained from the prior session, and I can grab the handle.  However, if I collapse the left panel entirely, I can no longer grab the control / edge.

- This problem existed for me in Thunderbird 7 as well.

Comment 1

[Hashem Masoud]

(In reply to JJ from comment #0)
Agreed. If you drag the handle to the left-most windows border, it disappears and can not be retrieved. I'm running:
User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0
Build ID: 20111105021619

Comment 2

[Mike Conley (:mconley) (:⚙️)]

squib:  any relation to bug 609245?

Comment 3

[Jim Porter (:squib)]

(In reply to Mike Conley (:mconley) from comment #2)
> squib:  any relation to bug 609245?

Same bug. Specifically, this would be resolved by the not-yet-reviewed attachment 498078 [details] [diff] [review] over there.