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.
"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.
On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 11:02:36 +0200, Rijk van Geijtenbeek <r...@opera.removethiz.com> wrote:
> 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"]
> "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?
> 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."
> Is there a way to set a different zoom for specific sites?
No, not in the Preferences. The settings from 'Tools > Preferences > Web pages' will probably not be part of SSP in Opera 9.0.
>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?
> Some new naming convention? The difference? Embedded spaces?
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!)
On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 11:20:04 -0400, Mark V <notva...@nul.invalid> 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.
>> Some new naming convention? The difference? Embedded spaces?
> 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!)
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.
On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 11:49:32 -0400, sebas22 <nos...@x.invalid> wrote: > On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 11:20:04 -0400, Mark V <notva...@nul.invalid> > 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.
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.
On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 10:51:47 -0500, "Bill Hallman"
<spammesi...@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.
>> 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. -- Opera 8.54.7730, java 1.5.0_03, win98lite, PII 400mhz, RAM 320meg, video Intel740 pv4.0.
On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 12:02:40 -0500, "Bill Hallman"
<spammesi...@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 ....
|
