Opera 9.0 Beta 1 has been released
Rijk van Geijtenbeek
Opera 9.0 Beta 1 has been released.
Build 8367 (not 8371) has been released as Opera 9.0 Beta 1.
Linux builds are 236, Mac build is 3336.
After a long period of previews (alpha) and weeklies (development
snapshots/pre-alpha), Opera 9.0 Beta 1 has been released to the public.
This will allow a wider audience to test Opera 9 before it is released as
a final version.
You, the members of the community, have been of great help to us,
reporting problems and raising issues, and we'd like to thank you all for
helping us make Opera 9 even better!
Feedback is welcome in the opera.beta newsgroup, or opera.linux for
linux-specific issues.
Download link:
http://opera.com/download/index.dml?ver=9.0b
Press release:
http://www.opera.com/pressreleases/en/2006/04/20/
(has links to the changelogs and to widget info)
--
Rijk
Opera Software ASA
QA etc
Terry_P
> Opera 9.0 Beta 1 has been released.
>
> Build 8367 (not 8371) has been released as Opera 9.0 Beta 1.
> Linux builds are 236, Mac build is 3336.
What the announcement doesn't say is that it comes with *MS Installer*.
Where is the version with the Classic installer?
Terry_P
Terry_P
From the press release describing Opera 9 beta 1:
"Site-specific preferences - Do you need to view a site in a different way
or deny certain cookies? Want to block pop-ups on certain sites only? Site
specific preferences hold the key."
Not so. Cookie management and site preferences are not hooked up. This
build is useless until it is fixed.
Terry_P
Edith Gran
wrote:
> Ran the install, which failed with:
>
<snip>
> No Opera.exe has been created.
>
>
> Fully patched XP, Pentium M, 1 Gig of Ram.
>
The same thing happened to me.
I re-ran the installatione, chose repair, and everything seems to be ok.
Terry_P
I've found a version with classic installer at the ftp site. Look in:
/pub/opera/win/900b1/en/
Terry_P
Matthew Winn
> Opera 9.0 Beta 1 has been released.
When I run the installer it chooses a default installation directory
of "C:\Program Files\Opera 9 Beta\" and offers to upgrade the Opera
installation in that directory, even though I said I wanted to do a
new installation. Specifically, it said
An installation has been detected in the selected location
I don't know how it was detected, as there has never been any version
of Opera installed in that directory, or in any other directory under
"C:\Program Files\" come to that. All the software I install myself
goes elsewhere.
(Even though it got that directory wrong it did find an opera6.adr
from one of my other installations, so it may just be that the display
is showing the wrong string.)
--
Matthew Winn
[If replying by email remove the "r" from "urk"]
Valentin Brueckel
>
> "Site-specific preferences - Do you need to view a site in a different
> way or deny certain cookies? Want to block pop-ups on certain sites
> only? Site specific preferences hold the key."
Is there a way to set a different zoom for specific sites?
Val
Roland K!pp
> Opera 9.0 Beta 1 has been released.
Is there a changelog with all changes since TP1?
TIA
Roland
Rijk van Geijtenbeek
There's a link labelled 'classic installler' on the download page.
Rijk van Geijtenbeek
<vb.usen...@gmx.com>:
No, not in the Preferences. The settings from 'Tools > Preferences > Web
pages' will probably not be part of SSP in Opera 9.0.
Rijk van Geijtenbeek
<nichtse...@arcor.de>:
> quoting Rijk van Geijtenbeek:
>> Opera 9.0 Beta 1 has been released.
>
> Is there a changelog with all changes since TP1?
I don't think so. But you can still read about all the changes since TP2
here:
http://snapshot.opera.com/windows/w90p2.html
and after that:
http://my.opera.com/desktopteam/
Brian D Clary
>
> Opera 9.0 Beta 1 has been released.
>
> Build 8367 (not 8371) has been released as Opera 9.0 Beta 1.
> Linux builds are 236, Mac build is 3336.
So, just to clarify: those of us who have installed build 8371 are more up-to-date the Beta 1 and have no reason to install it?
--
Brian
Opera 9.00 build 8371
Windows XP Pro
sebas22
wrote:
>First issue to notice: closing tabs with middle mouse button no longer
>works.
It works ok here (but I had the Build 8367 from the snapshot, I guess
it is unchanged since the build# is the same)
But I still have pb with certain buttons on yahoo mail (classic),
"Spam", "move", "Mark, the checkbox for selecting all mails, the links
"select all" and "clear all" are not working (not working in opera
8.52 either) (see post of 30/03)
The keybord is still not usable on the wand lisbox if the name is not
visible (below the lower limit of the window). Using the down arrow or
"end"key should move the list upward so the selected name become
visible (working ok in opera 8.52) (see post of 08/04)
Should I feel bug reports for those ones, or is it enough to post
here?
--
Regards,
Sebas
Rijk van Geijtenbeek
<bdc...@dev.null>:
> On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 05:02:36 -0400, Rijk van Geijtenbeek
> <ri...@opera.removethiz.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Opera 9.0 Beta 1 has been released.
>>
>> Build 8367 (not 8371) has been released as Opera 9.0 Beta 1.
>> Linux builds are 236, Mac build is 3336.
>
> So, just to clarify: those of us who have installed build 8371 are more
> up-to-date the Beta 1 and have no reason to install it?
Yes, except to work around the regression in 8371 which caused us to
prefer 8367. But the next weekly build will hopefully be released tomorrow.
sebas22
>Should I feel bug reports for those ones, or is it enough to post
>here?
Ooops, I'm feeling myself very sensible if I can feel bug reports :))
I meant "should I fill bug reports" of course, sorry for the tipo
Mark V
>
> Opera 9.0 Beta 1 has been released.
I do not see this in opera.announce...
Thanks.
>
> Build 8367 (not 8371) has been released as Opera 9.0 Beta 1.
> Linux builds are 236, Mac build is 3336.
[ ]
> Feedback is welcome in the opera.beta newsgroup, or opera.linux
> for linux-specific issues.
>
>
> Download link:
> http://opera.com/download/index.dml?ver=9.0b
>
> Press release:
> http://www.opera.com/pressreleases/en/2006/04/20/
> (has links to the changelogs and to widget info)
What's with?
"Opera 9 Beta Classic Setup.exe"
"Opera 9 Beta Eng Setup.exe"
Some new naming convention? The difference? Embedded spaces?
Mark V
From reading apparently OS is playing with the MSI as an installer.
FWIW I will never install Opera on Windows again if that is the
only choice in the future. I absolutely despise MSI. Please never
discard your own installer and always make it available in the
future. (and lose those embedded spaces too!)
sebas22
wrote:
>From reading apparently OS is playing with the MSI as an installer.
>FWIW I will never install Opera on Windows again if that is the
>only choice in the future. I absolutely despise MSI. Please never
>discard your own installer and always make it available in the
>future. (and lose those embedded spaces too!)
Fully approved : MSI installs a lots of craps everywhere in the
system, as MS is used to do with its software. Every other installer
except MSI is neat.
At least, give us a zip file, but please do not leave us MSI as sole
alternative.
--
Regards,
Sebas
Bill Hallman
I agree with you. MSI installer = NO OPERA. for me.
--
Opera 8.54.7730, java 1.5.0_03, win98lite, PII 400mhz, RAM 320meg, video
Intel740 pv4.0.
Brian D Clary
Agreed. Maintain a zip file. The track record of MSI is not great, and I don't have the time to spend fixing things if MSI breaks something. Plus, a zip file makes it easier to recommend to other people who don't have (or want) MSI on their system.
Brian D Clary
What's the regression?
sebas22
<spamm...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>I agree with you. MSI installer = NO OPERA. for me.
Even if I don't like MSI, I cannot be THAT categoric ! When one accept
to install windows on his PC (like me), one is ready to more
compromissions than the use of MSI. For exemple, installing windows
means accepting MSIE on his PC (I cannot get rid of this horror, and
there is stiil some proggies that insist in opening MSIE instead of
the default browser), or WMP, etc...
Briefly : If I accept windows, my neck is flexible enough to accept
MSI :) Furthermore, I prefer Opera with MSI than Firefox without (but
I would definitely prefer Opera without, ha ha :)
From what I understood, OS is using MSI for net-install purpose. But,
I hope that OS will continue to provide both installers, as they do
for the Linux world where each distro has its own binary.
--
Regards,
Sebas
Bill Hallman
> On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 10:51:47 -0500, "Bill Hallman"
> <spamm...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
>
>> I agree with you. MSI installer = NO OPERA. for me.
>
> Even if I don't like MSI, I cannot be THAT categoric ! When one accept
> to install windows on his PC (like me), one is ready to more
> compromissions than the use of MSI. For exemple, installing windows
> means accepting MSIE on his PC
Off topic, here, but:
Wrong! You can get rid of, most of MSIE, if you run 98lite. There are a
few parts that must stay in order for other parts of the OS to work.
I can't download MSI installer. My system will not meet MS original OS
tests.
Win98lite is faster than any other OS that I have tried(linux, XP..) on my
old 400mhz pentiumII, it slows to a crawl with XP.
sebas22
<spamm...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>> Even if I don't like MSI, I cannot be THAT categoric ! When one accept
>> to install windows on his PC (like me), one is ready to more
>> compromissions than the use of MSI. For exemple, installing windows
>> means accepting MSIE on his PC
>
>Off topic, here, but:
>
>Wrong! You can get rid of, most of MSIE, if you run 98lite. There are a
>few parts that must stay in order for other parts of the OS to work.
Not with w2k or XP.
XPlite doesn't remove MSIE, it just hides it, and my system get
unstable because of XPlite (which was never the case with 98lite)
>I can't download MSI installer. My system will not meet MS original OS
>tests.
>
>Win98lite is faster than any other OS that I have tried(linux, XP..) on my
>old 400mhz pentiumII, it slows to a crawl with XP.
Agreed, if the PC can run with w98, which is not the case of mine, too
many problems of hardware without 98's drivers. Even w2k is a pain to
run with my HP zv5430. I would definitely prefer a w98 lited (I've had
it for a long time) than XP, but ....
--
Regards
Sebas
Jernej Simončič
> Wrong! You can get rid of, most of MSIE, if you run 98lite. There are a
> few parts that must stay in order for other parts of the OS to work.
Nobody in his right mind should be using any Windows based on 3.1 core.
> Win98lite is faster than any other OS that I have tried(linux, XP..) on my
> old 400mhz pentiumII, it slows to a crawl with XP.
If you have at least 128MB ram, Windows 2000 can be neatly tweaked to run
much nicer on such system than anything 9x-based.
--
begin .sig
< Jernej Simončič ><>◊<>< jernej simoncic at isg si >
end
Mark V
> On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 10:51:47 -0500, "Bill Hallman"
> <spamm...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
>
>>I agree with you. MSI installer = NO OPERA. for me.
>
> Even if I don't like MSI, I cannot be THAT categoric ! When one
I can! <G> There are many alternative to MSI, all better in most
ways (for me).
> accept to install windows on his PC (like me), one is ready to
> more compromissions than the use of MSI. For exemple,
> installing windows means accepting MSIE on his PC (I cannot get
> rid of this horror, and there is stiil some proggies that insist
> in opening MSIE instead of the default browser), or WMP, etc...
All true to one extent or another, but why should I accept only one
choice of installer pkg. from a 3rd-party vendor? Clearly the MSI
move is Windows-specific and, for me, a very very poor choice.
I dumped Acrobat Reader for many reasons, but one, and a
_significant_ one, was their insistence on using MSI and offering
no choices about it or within it.
[ ]
> From what I understood, OS is using MSI for net-install purpose.
That explanation makes some sense here, but as I said, don't go
with MSI exclusively or I am gone OS. FWIW And for heaven's sake
why offer _only_ MSI via the standard download links? Yuck!
Users: go with the FTP download and get a choice!
> But, I hope that OS will continue to provide both installers, as
> they do for the Linux world where each distro has its own
> binary.
Yes! User Choice is _good_! <G>
--
(Opera Win32 8.52 7721 (reg'd); W2K,SP4; HSI; Sun JRE 1.4.2_10)
Eddie
<news:ltff42t3af2rt92ot...@4ax.com>:
> XPlite doesn't remove MSIE, it just hides it
Au contraire. It removes every trace of it.
--
Eddie's World @ http://fly.srk.fer.hr/~emodric
Hrvatski Opera Fan Site @ http://opera.dropbike.com
When freedom is outlawed only outlaws will have freedom.
Richard Grevers
> On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 10:51:47 -0500, "Bill Hallman"
> <spamm...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
>
>> I agree with you. MSI installer = NO OPERA. for me.
>
> Even if I don't like MSI, I cannot be THAT categoric !
I can - I've moved everything I can off my C: drive and work hard to
maintain 40-50MB free there for those apps which insist that their temp
files can ONLY use c:, but doing any MSI install kills my system. So until
I summon up the courage (and find a spare week) to reinstall my system on
my other HD, MSI is a complete non-starter
--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
fuxs
..
> until I summon up the courage (and find a spare week) to reinstall my
> system on my other HD,
It took me about 3 hours to reinstall my system on a new HD simply by
using a disk imager's 'clone HD' function and a little fiddling with bad
bad XP using wrong drive letters. Did you consider such solution?
..
X-post and FUP to .off-topic
--
fuxs
Mark V
> Quoting sebas22 <nos...@x.invalid> in
> <news:ltff42t3af2rt92ot...@4ax.com>:
>
>> XPlite doesn't remove MSIE, it just hides it
>
> Au contraire. It removes every trace of it.
It is not possible to "remove every trace" since files are shared and
used by the OS. Losing the GUI interface is cosmetic.
Eddie
<news:e290fe$qab$1...@news.opera.com>:
Those files are not removed ofcourse. But if you remove IE with XPlite and
then try to use some shell for it, you will fail.
Look here
Mark V
> Quoting Mark V <notv...@nul.invalid> in
> <news:e290fe$qab$1...@news.opera.com>:
>
>> In opera.beta Eddie wrote:
>>
>>> Quoting sebas22 <nos...@x.invalid> in
>>> <news:ltff42t3af2rt92ot...@4ax.com>:
>>>
>>>> XPlite doesn't remove MSIE, it just hides it
>>>
>>> Au contraire. It removes every trace of it.
>>
>> It is not possible to "remove every trace" since files are
>> shared and used by the OS. Losing the GUI interface is
>> cosmetic.
>
> Those files are not removed ofcourse. But if you remove IE with
> XPlite and then try to use some shell for it, you will fail.
Yes.
> Look here
>
> http://tinypic.com/w05r3n.jpg
>
--
(Opera Win32 8.54 7720 (reg'd); W2K,SP4; HSI; Sun JRE 1.4.2_10)
Matthew Winn
MSI doesn't seem to cause any damage for me, but spaces in filenames
are a definite no-no. They're enough of a pain on Unix, but at least
on Unix and Unix-alike systems the handling of command line arguments
is consistent enough that it's possible to work with them. Windows's
habit of reparsing command lines at arbitrary moments means that files
whose names contain spaces _will_ eventually cause problems if you
have an application that tries to run external commands from within
itself.
--
Matthew Winn
[If replying by email remove the "r" from "urk"]
Roland K!pp
> http://my.opera.com/desktopteam/
Thank you. That was the link I was looking for.
Roland
bubs
> On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 10:51:47 -0500, "Bill Hallman"
> <spamm...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
>
>> I agree with you. MSI installer = NO OPERA. for me.
>
> Even if I don't like MSI, I cannot be THAT categoric ! When one accept
> to install windows on his PC (like me), one is ready to more
> compromissions than the use of MSI. For exemple, installing windows
> means accepting MSIE on his PC (I cannot get rid of this horror, and
> there is stiil some proggies that insist in opening MSIE instead of
> the default browser), or WMP, etc...
You do NOT need to have IE on your computer so your comment about the
installation of windows is your acceptance of IE.
> Briefly : If I accept windows, my neck is flexible enough to accept
> MSI :) Furthermore, I prefer Opera with MSI than Firefox without (but
> I would definitely prefer Opera without, ha ha :)
>
> From what I understood, OS is using MSI for net-install purpose. But,
> I hope that OS will continue to provide both installers, as they do
> for the Linux world where each distro has its own binary.
>
--
Opera8.54,WinXP,ProCorp,SP3
Haavard Kvam Moen
wrote:
...
> I can! <G> There are many alternative to MSI, all better in most
> ways (for me).
The benefit of MSI is that it is the official installer system for
Windows, and is therefore more "forward-proof", as someone put it.
Other installers may not be maintained a few years from now. In
addition to that, it supports international languages and network
deployment.
Maintaining several installers is expensive and time-consuming. It
basically means double the testing workload for each available
installer, and testing is expensive.
If the choice was two separate installers -or- another developer to
fix more bugs, I wonder what people would choose...
> All true to one extent or another, but why should I accept only one
> choice of installer pkg. from a 3rd-party vendor? Clearly the MSI
> move is Windows-specific and, for me, a very very poor choice.
Aren't all Windows installers Windows-specific, since they come as
Win32 binaries?
...
> why offer _only_ MSI via the standard download links? Yuck!
There's a link to the classic installer on the download page.
--
Håvard Kvam Moen, QA SaD
Gunnar
This would be perfect but it would require a complete rewrite of Opera's
path handling and ini-file structure which would be not the worst idea
btw. ;)
--
Gunnar
Jernej Simončič
> The benefit of MSI is that it is the official installer system for
> Windows, and is therefore more "forward-proof", as someone put it.
It may be forward-proof, but it's failing for many right now :)
Mark V
> On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 13:25:09 -0400, Mark V
> <notv...@nul.invalid> wrote:
>
> ...
>> I can! <G> There are many alternative to MSI, all better in
>> most ways (for me).
>
> The benefit of MSI is that it is the official installer system
> for Windows, and is therefore more "forward-proof", as someone
> put it. Other installers may not be maintained a few years from
> now. In addition to that, it supports international languages
> and network deployment.
I understand why you (OS) want to make MSI available. What you
need to understand is that there are a lot of end-users (non-
corporate) that despise it with passion for it's behavior. Some,
such as myself would unwilling be forced to give up the application
if only MSI installation were offered.
> Maintaining several installers is expensive and time-consuming.
> It basically means double the testing workload for each
> available installer, and testing is expensive.]
More expensive than losing users? I guess that applies a lot less
now than when Opera was a paid application... I kid you not that
there are some who would simply not install Opera from an MSI
package at all. My feeling is that an alternative must be made
available, even if it is a ZIP package with instructions for
"advanced" users.
> If the choice was two separate installers -or- another developer
> to fix more bugs, I wonder what people would choose...
Separate installers! If that were the choice. Seriously.
>> All true to one extent or another, but why should I accept only
>> one choice of installer pkg. from a 3rd-party vendor? Clearly
>> the MSI move is Windows-specific and, for me, a very very poor
>> choice.
>
> Aren't all Windows installers Windows-specific, since they come
> as Win32 binaries?
I have assumed (perhaps wrongly) that common base code has been
used or partially used across platforms by OS to date. But the
real point is how _disgusting_ MSI is received by many.
> ...
>> why offer _only_ MSI via the standard download links? Yuck!
>
> There's a link to the classic installer on the download page.
Then I missed it. I clicked Download from (???) and was offered
only the MSI package. However, I did use the FTP source and saw
(confusing at first since no "readme" there) the two choices of
download-able files.
Admittedly I am no MSI expert and perhaps MSI can be cajoled into
giving the end-user more choices than is commonly seen. But I
doubt it. Tons of excess droppings and bloat strewn all about the
Windows "boot" drive and registry, "repair" that cannot be avoided
or controlled, and on and on. It really is a PoS from the informed
end-user's perspective. And no, I do not mean the masses of
clueless users that like "Click here and come back in a few
minutes." installations on multi-GB partitions.
Anyone checked the actual installed "footprint" (disk and registry)
of the current MSI installation of Opera? I won't be.
Mark V
Agreed!!!
But I find the possibility of MSI-ONLY installtaion to be of far
far greater concern at the moment...
Ought to be:
Opera_9_Beta_Classic_Setup.exe
or
Opera9BetaClassicSetup.exe
or similar without embedded spaces.
--
(Opera Win32 8.54 7730 (reg'd); W2K,SP4; HSI; Sun JRE 1.4.2_10)
Leon Fisk
Wrote in <e2b1nv$plf$3...@news.opera.com>
<snip>
>But I find the possibility of MSI-ONLY installtaion to be of far
>far greater concern at the moment...
Hi Mark,
Back up a few weeks, okay maybe 4 weeks and load some old
beta postings that I think you missed. Several of us gave
our opinions about MSI when Opera first decided to thrust it
upon us.
Here is the text from one of the first complaints with all
the headers:
>Path: news.opera.com!news.opera.no!uninett.no!news.banetele.no!news-out1.kabelfoon.nl!newsfeed.kabelfoon.nl!xindi.nntp.kabelfoon.nl!news2.euro.net!62.253.162.218.MISMATCH!news-in.ntli.net!newsrout1-win.ntli.net!ntli.net!news.highwinds-media.com!newspeer1-win.ntli.net!newsfe3-win.ntli.net.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail
>From: Spartanicus <inv...@invalid.invalid>
>Newsgroups: opera.beta
>Subject: Installer trouble
>Organization: None
>Message-ID: <hmkt12pkn8lifvae5...@news.spartanicus.utvinternet.ie>
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>Lines: 29
>Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 16:14:54 GMT
>NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.9.170.37
>X-Trace: newsfe3-win.ntli.net 1142871294 82.9.170.37 (Mon, 20 Mar 2006 16:14:54 GMT)
>NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 16:14:54 GMT
>Xref: news.opera.com opera.beta:60670
>X-Agent-Group: opera.beta
>
>I'd like to lodge a protest to the switch to the MSI installer for the
>Windows builds. First the &^$£" thing threw the "Incorrect command line
>parameters" error that several others are reporting. From that you have
>to figure out that you first have to update some other piece of MS crap,
>the MS download page then insists that you "validate" your OS software,
>which I refuse to do on principle, I'm not disclosing any information to
>those bastards. I then had to download the *&^$& MS crap from an
>untrusted source, although running it through my virus scanner doesn't
>throw up a warning, it's still bloody objectionable. Trying to run that
>junk then throws up an error box saying "The specified service already
>exists".
>
>On previous encounters with the MSI junk I've had problems when it
>refused to run under Litestep, I had to switch to bloody explorer and
>reboot just to run the *&^"%£ crap.
>
>The old installer was great, if ever you had a damaged file you could
>unzip the exe and retrieve the individual file without having to run the
>installer with the risk of overwriting something.
>
>Grrrrrrr, not at all happy with Opera Software at the mo!
>
>If the old installer really has to be replaced, why not use something
>like Nullsoft's installer, brilliant software, open source, free for all
>types of use including commercial, tiny overhead size wise despite being
>very powerful feature wise.
>
>--
>Spartanicus
Haarvard recently bragged about all the things they did to
fix the MSI installer, but from what I read in this thread
it still has problems...
None of my issues brought up concerning MSI have been
addressed, nor do I expect them to be. Unless Opera has
plans to rewrite the MSI installer program themselves :)
At this point in time I am just happy that they are still
offering the old installer. Ripping the MSI package apart to
manually extract Opera is a pain.
I've been burnt by MSI every single time I've had to use it.
It does have a 100% record of pain that I sure don't need.
--
Leon Fisk
Grand Rapids MI
Remove no.spam for email
Opera 9.00-8372/PII/NT4sp6a
Mark V
> Maybe, Mark V <notv...@nul.invalid>
> Wrote in <e2b1nv$plf$3...@news.opera.com>
>
> <snip>
>>But I find the possibility of MSI-ONLY installtaion to be of far
>>far greater concern at the moment...
>
> Hi Mark,
>
> Back up a few weeks, okay maybe 4 weeks and load some old
> beta postings that I think you missed. Several of us gave
> our opinions about MSI when Opera first decided to thrust it
> upon us.
Thank you Leon for informing me the suject has come up previously.
Unfortunately my time is limited now and I have _not_ followed
along in the 9.x series of releases to date. Neither have I kept up
in the news groups. In previous major versions I have done so,
hopefully with useful input.
That it (MSI) is still offered by default tells me that OS has not
heard the hue and cry yet! <G>
That an alternative is currently offered means, based on previous
experience, that its demise is more than likely only a release or
two away. Seen it before from OS and expect that to be in "The
Master Plan" down the road. :( I hope I am wrong.
> Here is the text from one of the first complaints with all
> the headers:
[ ]
>>Subject: Installer trouble
>>Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 16:14:54 GMT
>>Message-ID:
>><hmkt12pkn8lifvae5...@news.spartanicus.utvinternet.
>>ie> MIME-Version: 1.0
(quoted from above referenced post)
>>I'd like to lodge a protest to the switch to the MSI installer
>>for the Windows builds. First the &^$£" thing threw the
[ ]
>>The old installer was great, if ever you had a damaged file you
>>could unzip the exe and retrieve the individual file without
>>having to run the installer with the risk of overwriting
>>something.
>>
>>Grrrrrrr, not at all happy with Opera Software at the mo!
>>
>>If the old installer really has to be replaced, why not use
[ ]
Anything else is better tha MSI!
[ ]
>>--
>>Spartanicus
(end quote)
> Haarvard recently bragged about all the things they did to
> fix the MSI installer, but from what I read in this thread
> it still has problems...
I see the same postings, but even "fixing" the product details code
will not change the nature of the beast. MSI is a beast, plain and
simple, and is ultra-heavy-boot with the users' systems. Exactly
opposite of Opera's lean, mean, and simple personality. A true
mis-match if ever I saw one.
> None of my issues brought up concerning MSI have been
> addressed, nor do I expect them to be. Unless Opera has
> plans to rewrite the MSI installer program themselves :)
Right. All the more reason to retain the current installer
technology or switch to something off-the-shelf other than MSI for
Windows platforms. Open source perhaps.
> At this point in time I am just happy that they are still
> offering the old installer. Ripping the MSI package apart to
> manually extract Opera is a pain.
"At this point..." is operative as it seems clear OS would prefer
to dump it and go _only_ with MSI on Windows. A (pardon me
respected OS representative that post here) purely BONEHEAD idea.
> I've been burnt by MSI every single time I've had to use it.
> It does have a 100% record of pain that I sure don't need.
When 3rd-party software is offered _only_ in MSI installer format,
I seek alternatives in every case and try to let the company know
why I did not buy their product. Lost sales (for most companies)
do have some impact occasionaly.
Again, I appreciate the back-reference and will review that
thread/threads when possible.
fuxs
..
>
> Another problem: clicking on the active tab to go back to the tab that
> was open before is also broken.
Tools\Prefences\Advanced\Tabs -> [x] click on tab to minimize
--
fuxs
fuxs
..
>
> First issue to notice: closing tabs with middle mouse button no longer
> works.
>
Are the settings in Tools\Prefences\Advanced\Shortcuts -> Middle mouse
button - dialog correctly set?
--
fuxs
Matthew Winn
I'm wondering if perhaps "click on tab toggles focus" might be a
better phrase. Does "minimize" have any meaning in tabbed mode,
where all pages are exactly the same size?
Klaus Seidenfaden
wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 21:31:35 +0200, fuxs <fu...@nikocity.de.invalid>
> wrote:
>>
>> Tools\Prefences\Advanced\Tabs -> [x] click on tab to minimize
>
> I'm wondering if perhaps "click on tab toggles focus" might be a
> better phrase. Does "minimize" have any meaning in tabbed mode,
> where all pages are exactly the same size?
Certainly, as tabs/pages can indeed be "restored" from their maximized
state and thus be of different sizes. Try pressing Ctrl+Shift+F3 (or
select 'restore all' from the 'window' menu) and then click on some
focused and unfocused tabs. (Hmm... I get the feeling that I'm missing a
point. This is fairly basic, and you're an oldtimer...)
--
Venlig hilsen / kind regards
Klaus Seidenfaden
Gunnar
> On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 21:31:35 +0200, fuxs <fu...@nikocity.de.invalid>
> wrote:
>> On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 13:19:06 +0200, Tilman Hesse wrote:
>> > Another problem: clicking on the active tab to go back to the tab that
>> > was open before is also broken.
>>
>> Tools\Prefences\Advanced\Tabs -> [x] click on tab to minimize
>
> I'm wondering if perhaps "click on tab toggles focus" might be a
> better phrase. Does "minimize" have any meaning in tabbed mode,
> where all pages are exactly the same size?
Every tab can have it own size. Clicking on an active tab does actually
minimize it (the same way windows are minimized when you click on them in
task bar).
--
Gunnar
Matthew Winn
I've never used the tabbed mode. I stick with MDI, and was under
the impression that when people talk about using tabs they're
referring to having windows filling the Opera workspace. That's
certainly how all other tabbed products work, and it's the only
interpretation that makes the tab bar actually have tabs on it
instead of buttons. And in that situation all windows are the
same size.
I think of Opera as having three modes:
* SDI mode, where there is no Opera workspace as such and each
new window opens in a new window-manager widget.
* MDI mode, where there are multiple overlapping windows inside
the Opera workspace.
* Tabbed mode, where the Opera workspace is filled by a single
window, but the tab bar allows different pages to be displayed
but only one at a time.
(Yes, I'm aware Opera allows some mixing, such as having two SDI
windows each containing several MDI pages, but I'm referring to
the basic layout options.)
If there are restored windows that's MDI mode. I'm surprised that
tabbed mode allows that, given that many, MANY times we've been
told by Opera staff that users can't possibly understand restored
windows and without tabs they'd never be able to use the internet
at all.
Haavard Kvam Moen
<jer...@deepthought.ena.invalid> wrote:
> on Fri, 21 Apr 2006 12:10:14 +0200, Haavard Kvam Moen wrote:
>
> > The benefit of MSI is that it is the official installer system for
> > Windows, and is therefore more "forward-proof", as someone put it.
>
> It may be forward-proof, but it's failing for many right now :)
In what way?
Haavard Kvam Moen
wrote:
> What you need to understand is that there are a lot of end-users (non-
> corporate) that despise it with passion for it's behavior.
What kind of behaviour?
> I kid you not that there are some who would simply not install Opera
> from an MSI package at all.
Indeed, and I was one of them at first. But then I came to the
conclusion that my reasons for doing so were irrational and not based
on any actual problems I had experienced with MSI.
...
> >> All true to one extent or another, but why should I accept only
> >> one choice of installer pkg. from a 3rd-party vendor? Clearly
> >> the MSI move is Windows-specific and, for me, a very very poor
> >> choice.
> >
> > Aren't all Windows installers Windows-specific, since they come
> > as Win32 binaries?
>
> I have assumed (perhaps wrongly) that common base code has been
> used or partially used across platforms by OS to date.
Yes, the program itself. Installers are obviously platform specific.
> But the real point is how _disgusting_ MSI is received by many.
If they explain exactly why, bugs can be fixed and problems can be
solved. If they just hate MSI but can't explain why, that doesn't
really help a whole lot.
> Tons of excess droppings and bloat strewn all about the Windows
> "boot" drive and registry, "repair" that cannot be avoided or
> controlled, and on and on.
How is this different from how Windows works in general, though? I
mean, it's Microsoft. If you hate MSI, shouldn't you hate Windows?
> It really is a PoS from the informed end-user's perspective.
Because it adds files to the boot drive and entries to the registry?
Haavard Kvam Moen
<lf...@no.spam.iserv.net> wrote:
> Haarvard recently bragged about all the things they did to fix the
> MSI installer, but from what I read in this thread it still has problems...
Heh. I didn't brag, I just responded to your claim that we ignored
problems. What kind of problems did you see mentioned in this thread?
> None of my issues brought up concerning MSI have been
> addressed, nor do I expect them to be.
Would you mind giving me the Message-ID of the post where you
mentioned those issues?
Steven Saunderson
<haa...@opera-dot-com.invalid> wrote:
>> It really is a PoS from the informed end-user's perspective.
>
>Because it adds files to the boot drive and entries to the registry?
This sounds like a good reason for users to be wary. Do you expect
users to be happy about system pollution because Opera doesn't want to
bother to support a good installer ?
--
Steven
Lauri Raittila
Bugs can be fixed. But MSI means bugs that CAN AND WILL MAKE YOUR
COMPUTER USELESS. I and many others won't want to find these bugs AGAIN.
It may work just fine. But IT MAY NOT. And there is no way to be sure
about it.
The problem is not that there is bugs. The problem is that bugs are far
too likely to be very severe.
The fact we have no specific problems to tell is that we don't even dare
to try. That is your problem as well. If advanced users that actually do
have backups don't want to try, what about general public?
Maybe it works. Maybe it don't.
> > Tons of excess droppings and bloat strewn all about the Windows
> > "boot" drive and registry, "repair" that cannot be avoided or
> > controlled, and on and on.
>
> How is this different from how Windows works in general, though?
Truth is that Windows works best when there is as little MS programs on
it as possible. At least 98 and earlier.
> I mean, it's Microsoft. If you hate MSI, shouldn't you hate Windows?
Of course. It is just that I am using Opera here on Windows as I have no
other option than Windows. I don't have windows on my new machine.
I bet more people use Opera rather because IE sucks than because Opera is
so great.
--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Jernej Simončič
> In what way?
At my workplace we have 2 machines that have troubles with MSI - on one,
any MSI-based install will come almost to conclusion, then rollback without
giving any error message. On another one, all icons created by MSI
installer will first display the MSI "Please wait while configuring the
applicaion" dialog box for a few minutes before launching the application.
The first box is scheduled for Windows reinstall in the near future, since
nothing else we tried would get us MSI functionality back (on the other
one, simply creating shortcuts directly to executables works around the
problem).
MSI is a great idea, but it's implementation has too many flaws.
Leon Fisk
Wrote in <fl5p425slruv0n2sn...@4ax.com>
cs73221reo0b8m168...@4ax.com
Hi Haavard,
This should be the ID:
or get it from Google groups and view the whole thread:
It is a general gripe about MSI. It really isn't Opera
specific, it is the nature of how MSI functions. I doubt if
Opera can "fix it", without delivering some new MSI
binaries.
Note that Mark V., Lauri Raittila, Spartanicus, Josef W.
Segur and a few others have noted this same behavior from
MSI installs. These are all people that have a proven track
record within Opera groups for technical expertise and
general helpfulness.
Imagine buying a new refrigerator and having it
delivered/installed in your home. While the crew is moving
it in they scrape up the woodwork on your doorways, tear
your carpeting and swig a couple brewskis from the old
refrigerator, leaving the empty cans on your kitchen table
in a puddle of spilt beer. The new refrigerator works just
fine and looks good, but you are left with a mess to clean
up and just don't really feel too good about the whole deal.
This is what you get with MSI.
Mark V
> On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 12:32:55 -0400, Mark V
> <notv...@nul.invalid> wrote:
>
>> What you need to understand is that there are a lot of
>> end-users (non- corporate) that despise it with passion for
>> it's behavior.
>
> What kind of behaviour?
Aside from failures that borks the system you mean? :-\
While sometimes MSI works as advertised, other times, other
packages and other systems it fails. Why does MS have to "update"
MSI so frequently and why do you (OS) feel that your users should
have to update not just your own Opera product but also a huge
installer monster as well? That's not clear thinking in my book.
It is also very atypical for the OS we have known for so long.
What ever happened to "minimal size", "minimal impact"? Gone out
the window it seems.
MSI is not "lean", not "simple" and not (by far) "user friendly".
By "user friendly" I am not talking about its UI (although I hate
that too), but not "My Computer"-friendly. It "hits the system
hard" and without any end-user control. Making many registry and
disk writes and most of those are nearly "hidden/obscured by
design". It deposits huge files (often the entire .MSI) file in
obscure locations _on_the_boot_drive without regard or control.
(rude!) and litters the partition and registry with entirely
unnecessary (compared to "classic" or other available installers)
"junk". It often imposes "repair" where none is wanted or needed
and stores "everything" on disk where this is not necessary or
desired. I _always_ take a partition image before even considering
running an MSI install and on more than one occasion have found it
useful as a fallback since when MSI goes wrong there is no easy way
to cleanly un-install. Why does MS have to offer a special tool
specifically to "cleanup and remove" old or aborted MSI
installations? This is insane.
For many here, an important goal is to absolutely minimize the
"boot" partition, limiting it to just the OS or close to that. MSI
has no respect for that and no user-control.
(snipping history of MSI-installed applications I have actually
tried where no alternative was available. Let me say though that I
have in every case had to manually "hack" post-installation to
"clean up" all the unwanted litter.)
And for reasons good to me (and I hope good to OS) I say again,
"Opera Software _must_ provide an alternative installation" or lose
some who have for years and years paid and supported Opera through
leaner times.
If your "development and maintenance costs for the 'classic'
installer are 'too much'" to bear it is likely because you see the
MSI as "a gift from MS". Some of us see it otherwise and would say
that you _should_ look a gift horse in the mouth. MSI is a
millstone to be endured in my opinion and not something OS should
embrace so readily and with such determination. Especially in
consideration of it's very rude behavior and history and OS's
history of "light touch". The very core philosophies are at
extreme odds.
>> I kid you not that there are some who would simply not install
>> Opera from an MSI package at all.
>
> Indeed, and I was one of them at first. But then I came to the
> conclusion that my reasons for doing so were irrational and not
> based on any actual problems I had experienced with MSI.
What can I say? Track the installer, measure the heavy footprint,
observe problems being reported here (not all of which are "script
issues), and for once hearken to some of the "old-timers" opinions.
[ ]
>
>> But the real point is how _disgustingly_ MSI is received by
many.
Why would OS so blithely treat their users this way? I cannot
fathom it myself, but suspect that "marketing pressure" has once
again overridden common sense.
> If they explain exactly why, bugs can be fixed and problems can
> be solved. If they just hate MSI but can't explain why, that
> doesn't really help a whole lot.
I have seen people "explaining why" repeatedly around here. Almost
no one is listening. Experience with MSI is a harsh teacher. One
cannot fix the core technology with revised install scripts.
>> Tons of excess droppings and bloat strewn all about the Windows
>> "boot" drive and registry, "repair" that cannot be avoided or
>> controlled, and on and on.
>
> How is this different from how Windows works in general, though?
> I mean, it's Microsoft. If you hate MSI, shouldn't you hate
> Windows?
I hate many things about Windows! <G> The full list would likely
exceed the posting limits. The _point_ is not about the Windows OS
but rather two others. Another MS-tool that was poorly conceived
and badly executed that _is_not_necessary_ and not the best choice
by far. OS's extremely poor (IMO) choice to use such a tool
_exclusively_! Fine, corporate America (et al.) wants MSI for
network deployment? Give it to them. That is good business sense.
But for heaven's sake don't saddle millions of single-system end-
users with such a poor and unjustifiable choice.
>
>> It really is a PoS from the informed end-user's perspective.
>
> Because it adds files to the boot drive and entries to the
> registry?
Among others.
There is a simple solution to the quandary. Even if OS
(unbelievably) thinks it cannot support it's own installer in favor
of getting in bed with the MS Way (bloat, failures, time & trouble
constant huge updates and excess flatulence). That is, provide an
alternative, any alternative to the MSI. 1) "geek install" - a ZIP
archive with a readme.txt file of configuration tasks (eg edit INI
paths). 2) A third-party maintained open-source installer.
A ZIP packaging can be provided for next to nothing at all and
would probably satisfy the majority of users that will choose to
drop Opera if _only_ MSI is offered.
There is nothing left to say really. We have presented our
arguments and opinions and have, I believe, presented sufficient
evidence to OS that MSI-only is neither a good decision nor one
that might have ever been expected from OS based on there former
philosophy and concern for their users.
Matthew Winn
> Fine, corporate America (et al.) wants MSI for
> network deployment? Give it to them. That is good business sense.
The thought occurs that the sort of company that is likely to deploy
Opera (or any other non-IE browser) throughout the corporation is not
likely to be the sort that would rely on Microsoft technology to do
the deployment.
Mark V
> On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 10:57:24 -0400, Mark V
> <notv...@nul.invalid> wrote:
>> Fine, corporate America (et al.) wants MSI for
>> network deployment? Give it to them. That is good business
>> sense.
>
> The thought occurs that the sort of company that is likely to
> deploy Opera (or any other non-IE browser) throughout the
> corporation is not likely to be the sort that would rely on
> Microsoft technology to do the deployment.
Someone, somewhere (I forget) claimed MSI was the "_only_" solution
to corporate software rollouts on MS platforms. Horse hockey! <G>
It may well be that it is the only "recommended and 'supported'"
one Microsoft talks about. Big surprise! <G>
Then again, and from Bill's perspective, MSIE is the only
officially sanctioned browser on Windows to begin with. Seems all
the more reason for OS or other developers to avoid MSI in the
first place.
--
(Opera Win32 8.54 7730 (reg'd); W2K,SP4; Sun JRE 1.4.2_10)
Jernej Simončič
> Someone, somewhere (I forget) claimed MSI was the "_only_" solution
> to corporate software rollouts on MS platforms. Horse hockey! <G>
> It may well be that it is the only "recommended and 'supported'"
> one Microsoft talks about. Big surprise! <G>
It definitely is the cheapest.
Soenke Dibbern
<haa...@opera-dot-com.invalid> in opera.beta:
> On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 12:32:55 -0400, Mark V <notv...@nul.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> What you need to understand is that there are a lot of end-users (non-
>> corporate) that despise it with passion for it's behavior.
>
> What kind of behaviour?
>
>> But the real point is how _disgusting_ MSI is received by many.
>
> If they explain exactly why, bugs can be fixed and problems can be
> solved. If they just hate MSI but can't explain why, that doesn't
> really help a whole lot.
>
Haarvard, please don't act the fool here. Bugs in MSI installations _do_
wreak havoc on the system, and please don't tell us again, that bugs can
be fixed. We know. And we (Beta users) are generally able to handle them.
But usually it's too late if you encounter one with MSI. This generally
doesn't happen with any other installer I know of.
If nothing else, the necessity to use something like the MSI Cleanup
Tool[1] just to be able to do a second install to another folder is simply
ridiculous (see <gq9u42p00njtj5cu5...@4ax.com>). You (OS)
can't honestly plan to rip off your customers' free choice to administer
their machines to their likings and impose such things on them (ie us).
This is completely non-Opera, as we know it (or must I say 'knew'?).
[1]Would you buy a car for which the manufacturer delivers a special hook,
whose only purpose is to pull the cars out again of the drivers' living
rooms?
--
Have a nice day!
Soenke
Normal mail: s_dibbern[G]web[!]de
Roger Johansson
> If nothing else, the necessity to use something like the MSI Cleanup
> Tool[1] just to be able to do a second install to another folder is simply
> ridiculous
Maybe we will see pirate versions of "Opera unpacked" distributed by
others.
The msi version can be installed by a few brave people, they zip up the
resulting Opera folder, and distribute Opera to all the people who do
not want to take their chances with the official exe (msi) distribution
package.
Tell me where I can download the latest Opera in a zip file, please,
anybody?
--
Roger J.
Matthew Winn
> If nothing else, the necessity to use something like the MSI Cleanup
> Tool[1] just to be able to do a second install to another folder is simply
> ridiculous (see <gq9u42p00njtj5cu5...@4ax.com>).
Crap. I didn't notice that. That's going to bugger up future public
testing, as I'm sure I'm not the only person who sometimes installs
a second copy of Opera so I can check that the reason something isn't
working is not because of some configuration parameter I've changed.
Josef W. Segur
>on Tue, 25 Apr 2006 16:15:49 -0400, Mark V wrote:
>
>> Someone, somewhere (I forget) claimed MSI was the "_only_" solution
>> to corporate software rollouts on MS platforms. Horse hockey! <G>
>> It may well be that it is the only "recommended and 'supported'"
>> one Microsoft talks about. Big surprise! <G>
>
>It definitely is the cheapest.
Free is free, and it's not the only member of that class. Complexity
has a cost in time and effort, my judgement is that MSI costs much
more in those terms.
Opera Software should have the skills necessary to adapt an open
source installer, e.g. <URL: http://nsis.sourceforge.net/Main_Page >.
That one already has the capability to deliver many languages in one
installer.
I think what we're really seeing is an attempt to make Opera attractive
to network administraters who do not have the needed IT skills for their
job.
--
Joe
Jernej Simončič
> Opera Software should have the skills necessary to adapt an open
> source installer, e.g. <URL: http://nsis.sourceforge.net/Main_Page >.
> That one already has the capability to deliver many languages in one
> installer.
AFAIK, NSIS doesn't support Unicode (and neitehr does Inno Setup, another
excellent open-source installer), which is one of the reasons why they
choose MSI.
Brian L Johnson
> On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 23:33:35 +0200, Soenke Dibbern <no...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
> > If nothing else, the necessity to use something like the MSI Cleanup
> > Tool[1] just to be able to do a second install to another folder is simply
> > ridiculous (see <gq9u42p00njtj5cu5...@4ax.com>).
>
> Crap. I didn't notice that. That's going to bugger up future public
> testing, as I'm sure I'm not the only person who sometimes installs
> a second copy of Opera so I can check that the reason something isn't
> working is not because of some configuration parameter I've changed.
The problem seems to be that Windows tracks certain folders very
closely. You can rename them (or the .EXEs within) but it will still
know where they are.
If you do want to install 2nd copies of things, one possible way around
this 'feature' is to *copy* the folder somewhere else and then *delete*
the original folder. Doing it this way ensures that Windows (and,
hence, MSI) loses track of it.
Of course, there's no telling then whether MSI will throw a hissy fit
and trash your system out of spite.
Microsoft would **love** Opera Software to use MSI.
--
-blj-