Firefox 3 features listed
Ville Herva
http://www.squarefree.com/burningedge/releases/trunk-for-firefox-3.html
I think at least these two might be relatively easy to implement for opera:
23485 - Browser window should strip newlines from url pastes.
73373 - Multiple Selection of Text with CTRL.
Matthew Winn
> The Firefox 3 features seems interesting:
> http://www.squarefree.com/burningedge/releases/trunk-for-firefox-3.html
>
> I think at least these two might be relatively easy to implement for opera:
>
> 23485 - Browser window should strip newlines from url pastes.
That's something that annoys me a lot. I often come across split
URLs in mail, and when I copy and paste I have to manually strip out
the unwanted white space. (Before anyone suggests it, this isn't
something that should be fixed in the mail client. I'm running the
mail client in a terminal window so it isn't aware that the copy is
happening.)
> 73373 - Multiple Selection of Text with CTRL.
That may be quite tricky. Although Windows Explorer and similar file
selection interfaces do this, it's not part of the regular selection
behaviour and might be quite difficult to add. (I'd like to see this
sort of feature; I just don't think it'll be easy to put in.)
--
Matthew Winn
[If replying by email remove the "r" from "urk"]
Alexey Feldgendler
>> 23485 - Browser window should strip newlines from url pastes.
> That's something that annoys me a lot. I often come across split
> URLs in mail, and when I copy and paste I have to manually strip out
> the unwanted white space. (Before anyone suggests it, this isn't
> something that should be fixed in the mail client. I'm running the
> mail client in a terminal window so it isn't aware that the copy is
> happening.)
Hint: use trimSelection resource for xterm.
--
Alexey Feldgendler <ale...@feldgendler.ru>
[ICQ: 115226275] http://feldgendler.livejournal.com
Ville Herva
<ale...@feldgendler.ru> wrote:
> On Sun, 28 May 2006 21:41:09 +0700, Matthew Winn <o*@matthewwinn.me.urk>
> wrote:
>
>>> 23485 - Browser window should strip newlines from url pastes.
>
>> That's something that annoys me a lot. I often come across split
>> URLs in mail, and when I copy and paste I have to manually strip out
>> the unwanted white space. (Before anyone suggests it, this isn't
>> something that should be fixed in the mail client. I'm running the
>> mail client in a terminal window so it isn't aware that the copy is
>> happening.)
>
> Hint: use trimSelection resource for xterm.
Helpful, but not everyone uses xterm at all times, and that probably
doesn't help when copying from screen (the "screen" program).
--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
roman modic
"Ville Herva" <vhe...@v.iki.fi> wrote in message news:op.s979f...@news.opera.no...
Unfortunately, no more support for Windows 95, 98/98SE and ME! :((
[quote]
"327675/330276 - [Windows] Drop support for pre-Win2k versions of Windows."
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=327675
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=330276
[/quote]
Switching to http://www.mozilla.org/projects/seamonkey/
(so I now use the following three browsers: Maxthon, Opera and SeaMonkey)
Cheers, Roman
FV
+0200:
> Unfortunately, no more support for Windows 95, 98/98SE and ME! :((
>
> [quote]
> "327675/330276 - [Windows] Drop support for pre-Win2k versions of
> Windows."
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=327675
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=330276
> [/quote]
>
> Switching to http://www.mozilla.org/projects/seamonkey/
> (so I now use the following three browsers: Maxthon, Opera and SeaMonkey)
I guess SeaMonkey won't be using the current Win 9x compatible Gecko 1.8
core much longer. If I understand the situation correctly, it is the
underlying Gecko 1.9 codebase that's broken for Win 9x now, and probably
sooner or later not only Firefox 3 but also a new SeaMonkey will be built
on top of that.
Also from the bug in question, they seem to use as an argument that "we're
in the year 2006". Apparently the fact that new computers with Win 98 were
still sold until at least well into 2002 is not enough reason to keep
supporting it. Opera's excellent performance on old hardware and operating
systems (and the explicit goal to make the software work on machines up to
ten years old) is commendable.
--
Fabian
Jernej Simončič
> Also from the bug in question, they seem to use as an argument that "we're
> in the year 2006". Apparently the fact that new computers with Win 98 were
> still sold until at least well into 2002 is not enough reason to keep
> supporting it.
Problem with the whole Win9x/ME line is, that it's severely lacking certain
APIs - or as some developer put it - "Every time you find something nice in
the Windows API, you notice that it requires at least Windows 2000 - or
XP." Not to mention whole stability issue, which make it a pain debugging
software on those OSes.
It doesn't matter that the computers with Win98 were still sold in 2002 (in
fact, the company I work for sold a Win98SE license last week, for a POS
that used to run in pure DOS), what matters is, that the OS has been
discontinued by the vendor, and that keeping support for it requires too
much effort for too little gain (which is especially obvious if you're
open-source developer, working in free time).
--
begin .sig
< Jernej Simončič ><>◊<>< jernej simoncic at isg si >
end
Terry_P
> systems (and the explicit goal to make the software work on machines up to
> ten years old) is commendable.
Don't be so sure. I have seen no commitment from Opera Software to continue
supporting Win9x on future versions. Perhaps someone from OS would care (or
dare!) to comment?
Terry_P
FV
2006 22:48:46 +0200:
> It doesn't matter that the computers with Win98 were still sold in 2002 ,
> what matters is, that the OS has been
> discontinued by the vendor, and that keeping support for it requires too
> much effort for too little gain (which is especially obvious if you're
> open-source developer, working in free time).
The first part of your comment (following OS vendors instead of customers)
shows an utter disrespect for the (potential) users of the program. Of
course Microsoft doesn't support Win95 anymore: they want to earn money by
making people upgrade. That's of no concern to Opera.
> The whole Win9x/ME line [...] is severely lacking certain APIs
That may well be, but Opera is developed for a lot of operating systems,
including mobile devices. If a few missing API's would be reason enough to
drop one of them, I don't think Opera would be as widely available as it
is today.
Regardless of which, I wouldn't be surprised if Windows 95/98/ME still
have more users now than either Mac or Linux ever had, which would
certainly justify further developer attention. Please look at the absolute
figures instead of the relative...
--
Fabian
FV
I believe Opera's CEO himself clearly indicated this.
--
Fabian
Jernej Simončič
> The first part of your comment (following OS vendors instead of customers)
> shows an utter disrespect for the (potential) users of the program. Of
> course Microsoft doesn't support Win95 anymore: they want to earn money by
> making people upgrade. That's of no concern to Opera.
I was speaking from the perspective of open-source developer - many of us
aren't doing this because of users, but because we find it fun to do it
(don't believe me? Ask around a bit). Supporting obsolete, unstable OS
takes the fun out of it.
> Regardless of which, I wouldn't be surprised if Windows 95/98/ME still
> have more users now than either Mac or Linux ever had, which would
> certainly justify further developer attention. Please look at the absolute
> figures instead of the relative...
You sounded like you're complaining about Firefox dropping support - like I
said, many of us that work on such projects have little patience for the
whole 9x/ME line of "operating systems" (I know of a developer that said he
wants to drop support for those systems 5 years ago alreay - except that
back then, this wan't quite possible yet). It's not just because the user
base is small, but also because most developers moved to NT-based systems
long ago, since they're infinitely more stable, and you won't need to
reboot just because your program crashed badly.
Opera being a commercial product has much more incentive to keep support
for those system going for a while.
Terry_P
If that is confirmed it would be very good news!
Terry_P
Haavard Kvam Moen
> Also from the bug in question, they seem to use as an argument that "we're
> in the year 2006".
I think the main reason for this is that they are moving to an
"accelerated" UI, and that would probably not even be possible to
support under Windows 9x. I read some comments to that effect at
least.
--
Håvard Kvam Moen, QA SaD
Tommy A. Olsen
We test on Windows 98 and later regularly on a few low end (about
300Mhz/256MB RAM) machines. One of our main developers actually refuses to
run anything but windows 98! :)
--
Tommy A. Olsen, Desktop QA, Opera Software
roman modic
"Tommy A. Olsen" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message news:op.tbs2y...@localhost.localdomain...
> We test on Windows 98 and later regularly on a few low end (about 300Mhz/256MB RAM) machines. One of our main developers actually
> refuses to run anything but windows 98! :)
>
That's nice to hear... :)
BTW, what antivirus and firewall does he use?
Regards, Roman
Tommy A. Olsen
wrote:
I'm not sure he uses any of those ;)