'View in other browser' addon?
Chris John Jordan
that sends the current page to e.g. IE? Thanks.
--
Chris
Manni Heumann
> Is there an Opera addon that provides a 'View in other browser'
> command that sends the current page to e.g. IE? Thanks.
Yes:
http://www.winexif.com/kreacom/opera/optool/
HTH,
Manni
Howard Brazee
On 9-Sep-2002, Manni Heumann <manni....@gmx.de> wrote:
> > Is there an Opera addon that provides a 'View in other browser'
> > command that sends the current page to e.g. IE? Thanks.
>
> Yes:
> http://www.winexif.com/kreacom/opera/optool/
This is a first generation of a very nifty tool. It's big nice thing is being
free. It's big weakness is it doesn't recognize Mozilla. Another weakness is
that I can't read a page in another browser, link to a new page, and then open
that new page in Opera without cutting and pasting the URL.
Chris John Jordan
>> Is there an Opera addon that provides a 'View in other browser'
>> command that sends the current page to e.g. IE? Thanks.
>
>Yes:
>http://www.winexif.com/kreacom/opera/optool/
Excellent - thanks.
--
Chris
Martin Larsen
> This is a first generation of a very nifty tool. It's big nice thing is being
> free. It's big weakness is it doesn't recognize Mozilla. Another weakness is
> that I can't read a page in another browser, link to a new page, and then open
> that new page in Opera without cutting and pasting the URL.
Both coming soon!
Martin
============================================================
Note: please remove the "spamfree" part of the email address
============================================================
Chris John Jordan
>Manni Heumann <manni....@gmx.de> wrote:
>>> Is there an Opera addon that provides a 'View in other browser'
>>> command that sends the current page to e.g. IE? Thanks.
>>
>>Yes:
>>http://www.winexif.com/kreacom/opera/optool/
I'm finding this invaluable. Without it I think I'd have to face up to
binning Opera.
Now what would be really great is the option to open the IE browser window
inside the Opera main window... ;) And ideal would be the option of
toggling an Opera browser window between the Opera renderer and the IE (or
should we say 'Windows'...) renderer (though I guess the implementation
would have to be through native Opera code). I say ideal because for me
almost all my problems with Opera arise from its renderer and all the
advantages over IE from the UI (the touted rendering speed being something
I've never even noticed let alone benefitted from). I wouldn't be
surprised of the majority of users agreed. Shame then that Opera Software
are putting so much effort into a new renderer for Opera 7.
--
Chris
Rijk van Geijtenbeek
<chr...@despammed.com> wrote:
Without this rendering engine, I doubt there would be any development
for Opera 7 right now... Writing skins for MSIE is not the most
profitable business, and wouldn't help at all when selling Opera on
embedded devices :)
--
If you don't like having choices | Rijk van Geijtenbeek
made for you, you should start | Documentation & QA
making your own. - Neal Stephenson | mailto:ri...@opera.com
Chris John Jordan
>>Now what would be really great is the option to open the IE browser window
>>inside the Opera main window... ;)
> Writing skins for MSIE is not the most profitable business,
Then I wonder how writing the same but with a replacement renderer is
profitable, despite the sharing of the renderer cost across platforms. Can
it *really* be that users buy specifically for a replacement renderer?
> and wouldn't help at all when selling Opera on embedded devices :)
AAMOI, what is an 'embedded device'? Since not e.g. a PDA.
--
Chris
Adam i Agnieszka Gasiorowski FNORD
> Rijk van Geijtenbeek <ri...@opera.com> wrote:
> >>Now what would be really great is the option to open the IE browser window
> >>inside the Opera main window... ;)
>
> > Writing skins for MSIE is not the most profitable business,
>
> Then I wonder how writing the same but with a replacement renderer is
> profitable, despite the sharing of the renderer cost across platforms. Can
> it *really* be that users buy specifically for a replacement renderer?
YES.
--
O seksie, sekszeniu, seksolatkach...-> news:pl.soc.seks.moderowana <- :8)
Opera - browser dla hobbystów, entuzjastów i fanatyków róznej maści. Czy
już sciągnałeś swoją kopię? m$ chce tego zabronić! http://www.opera.com
http://hyperreal.info | http://szatanowskie-ladacznice.0-700.pl | SiRE^23
Rijk van Geijtenbeek
<agq...@sieg-heil-szatan.org> wrote:
>Chris John Jordan wrote:
>
>> Rijk van Geijtenbeek <ri...@opera.com> wrote:
>> >>Now what would be really great is the option to open the IE browser window
>> >>inside the Opera main window... ;)
>>
>> > Writing skins for MSIE is not the most profitable business,
>>
>> Then I wonder how writing the same but with a replacement renderer is
>> profitable, despite the sharing of the renderer cost across platforms.
On other platforms, there is no MSIE renderer to share.
>> Can
>> it *really* be that users buy specifically for a replacement renderer?
>
> YES.
There's also that. Mainly because it is fast, and also because Opera has
a tendency to properly support standards that are useful for the User
(CSS).
About embedded:
http://www.opera.com/embedded/
So yes, there are PDAs and other devices with Opera on it.
Chris John Jordan
>>> Rijk van Geijtenbeek <ri...@opera.com> wrote:
>>> >>Now what would be really great is the option to open the IE browser window
>>> >>inside the Opera main window... ;)
>>>
>>> > Writing skins for MSIE is not the most profitable business,
>>>
>>> Then I wonder how writing the same but with a replacement renderer is
>>> profitable, despite the sharing of the renderer cost across platforms.
>
>On other platforms, there is no MSIE renderer to share.
'The same' is not on other platforms! ;)
>Mainly because it is fast,
I wish there was some way of demonstrating that scientifically, because
I've yet to experience this speed advantage.
>and also because Opera has a tendency to properly support standards
>that are useful for the User (CSS).
That's not been my experince (e.g. viewing http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/
c.f. IE) sadly. However I'd love to see evidence to change my impression.
>About embedded:
> http://www.opera.com/embedded/
Ah yes, I know what an mbedded browser is. I was wondering:
> what is an 'embedded device'?
;)
--
Chris
Yngve Nysaeter Pettersen (Developer, Opera Software A/S)
Sorry, but it's been rather hectic here, so I've not had the time and
opportunity to finish this before now.
On Sat, 14 Sep 2002 14:23:23 +0100, Chris John Jordan
<chr...@despammed.com> wrote:
>
>Rijk van Geijtenbeek <ri...@opera.com> wrote:
>>>Now what would be really great is the option to open the IE browser
>>>window inside the Opera main window... ;)
>
>> Writing skins for MSIE is not the most profitable business,
>
>Then I wonder how writing the same but with a replacement renderer is
>profitable, despite the sharing of the renderer cost across
>platforms. Can it *really* be that users buy specifically for a
>replacement renderer?
Why are there several brands of Operating Systems around? And several
different Window Managers on Linux and Unix systems?
The short reason is that people have different requirements (in the
case of customers and users) and different ideas about how things
should be done (in the case of developers).
>> and wouldn't help at all when selling Opera on embedded devices :)
>
>AAMOI, what is an 'embedded device'? Since not e.g. a PDA.
-------------------
http://www.netrino.com/Publications/Glossary/#E
Embedded system
A combination of computer hardware and software, and perhaps
additional mechanical or other parts, designed to perform a dedicated
function. In some cases, embedded systems are part of a larger system
or product, as is the case of an anti-lock braking system in a car.
Contrast with general-purpose computer.
-------------------
Embedded devices (or systems) covers PDAs, mobile phones, refrigerator
and microwave browserscreens etc. Such devices generally comes with
all their software in hardware (ROM), and has very limited memory,
storage and processing facilities, as well as limited expansion
options, due to their small physical size. The group "Embedded
computers" also includes such things as the computers controlling
washing machines, TVs, cars etc. Admittedly, some of the devices Opera
are focusing on are bordering on "general-purpose".
Using IE's rendering engine is not an option, even as a backup viewer,
period. It's bad enough that we, for practical reasons, have to
identify ourselves as something we're not.
Opera has had it's own rendering engine since long before the IE
engine could be used as the foundation of a skin.
The most obvious reasons for not using the IE engine (even as a
backup) is that then the product would no longer be "Opera", but at
most "IEpera", at worst "IE+UI", and that it would make us dependent
on what a certain company decides to do, or not to do. Additonally, I
am not so sure that the IE engine (I have not studied it) would be
able to get the document from Opera's cache, but rather would retrieve
it using it's own cache and HTTP implementation, unless a lot of
preprocessing was done before handing it to the engine.
Opera's rendering engine is, with its emphasis on standards
compliance, part of what makes Opera Opera. It's not perfect, and
we're constantly working to improve it.
Besides that, our display code people definitely do not (to put it
mildly) like the way IE do a lot of things; they've got their own
ideas about how to do things, for example how to pack functionality
into such a small package that it fits quite nicely on a mobile phone
(try to fit the IE engine into that, without losing functionality, and
without converting that pocket phone into a laptop phone, or should
that be a desktop phone?), and how the various tags in the various
display languages should be interpreted and displayed.
Opera has been ported to several platforms besides Windows (the first
versions was developed on SunOS), such as Linux and Mac on the desktop
side, and Symbian and Embedded Linux for the small device side. Quite
a lot of our sales revenue comes from these ports. On these platforms
a rendering engine is a MUST, and the people developing these
platforms have absolutely no intentions of asking You-Know-Who if they
could please borrow his code. Therefore we would need an independently
engineered rendering engine anyway.
Why a new rendering engine?
Too put it another way: How would you upgrade a car from using a V8
engine to a V12 engine (or should that be a V6 engine into a V7
engine ;-)? Patch 4 new V sylinders on the old engine, or get a new
engine? In some cases you would probably need to do a bit more work
than just insert the patched engine; after all, it might no longer fit
the engine compartment after you patched it up.
While much, if not all, of the new functionality in the rendering
engine, to my knowledge, could have been added in the old codebase,
sometimes you would not get full effect for doing so, or it would just
not be cost-efficient. In such cases it is better to take what can be
kept, throw out the rest, and use your accumulated experience with the
old code to build something better, more flexible and more efficient
than what you had.
This has happened several times throughout Opera's history, not just
with the rendering engine.
Two and half year ago requirements for my part of the code, the
loading and storage of data, had reached a point where it was
difficult, if not impossible, to accomodate them in the code we used
then. The solution was a complete rewrite of that code, which has
given you improved support of HTTP, FTP, cookies, authentication and
cache management. Just to mention some of it.
A year later I scrapped the engine used to parse email and news
messages, and rebuilt with almost no code from the old. Why? Because I
could no longer add new functionality, and other things were done in
ways that were undefendable. The result: a much more compact and
flexible code, with a much better, and flexible, display of email and
news messages.
These days the email and news clients are being rewritten from scratch
(excluding the above mentioned parser) because they were not flexible
enough, or portable enought, and converting them would probably cause
more problems than writing the entire thing from scratch would cause.
It really comes down to an old truth: To improve something you
sometimes have to tear down the old and build it up again using your
accumulated experience to avoid the problems that plagued the
old.
You also asked "Can it *really* be that users buy specifically for a
replacement renderer?"
Well, V7 is not just about a "replacement renderer", it's just what is
going to cause the broadest impact. There is quite a lot of new or
updated stuff in there. Stuff that people have been demanding for
quite a while: Better/more DOM support, better/more CSS, better/more
Javascript support, a new and better news client, a better email
client, to mention some of it. Things that could not be done without
without rewriting a lot of code, or writing a lot of new code.
It is our belief that the "replacement renderer", and everything else
in V7, is wanted, not just by our present users, but by people that
are not yet using Opera, and that many of those will buy V7 (if they
are not eligible for an upgrade). We also believe that many of the
companies that develops embedded devices, internet appliances, PDAs
etc. will want to buy it for their products.
I think that when you are finally able to test V7 you'll agree that
Opera has improved significantly on many areas, and that it is worth
the wait, and the price.
--
Sincerely,
Yngve N. Pettersen
********************************************************************
Senior Developer Email: yn...@opera.com
Opera Software ASA http://www.opera.com/
Phone: +47 24 16 42 51 Fax: +47 24 16 40 01
********************************************************************
* Opera v7.0b1:
ftp://ftp.opera.com/pub/opera/win/700/beta1/en/std/ow32enen700b1.exe
*
********************************************************************
Chris John Jordan
wrote:
>Opera's rendering engine is, with its emphasis on standards
>compliance
I'm sorry to say that I see that emphasis in the marketing, but not in the
product.
>I think that when you are finally able to test V7 you'll agree that
>Opera has improved significantly on many areas, and that it is worth
>the wait, and the price.
I'm testing beta 1 at the moment, and haven't come to that conclusion.
Perhaps because some of the functionality that presumably a beta is to
allow testing of is missing. But I do welcome the fact that (so far)
itunlike Opera 6 it doesn't frequently hang my machine, and for that alone
I will buy it when it becomes as complete as Opera 6.
--
Chris
John Carpenter
wrote:
> yn...@opera.com (Yngve Nysaeter Pettersen (Developer, Opera Software A/S))
>
> wrote:
>> Opera's rendering engine is, with its emphasis on standards
>> compliance
>
> I'm sorry to say that I see that emphasis in the marketing, but not in
> the
> product.
I can't really agree with you there. They have every right to give o7 a
big marketing push because it's a really decent browser to use. I've
barely used IE at home since the beta came out and am very pleased with it.
I don't see it purely as a marketing job at all. But obviously they have
to sell it because it's there business..!?
>> I think that when you are finally able to test V7 you'll agree that Opera
>> has improved significantly on many areas, and that it is worth the wait,
>> and the price.
>
> I'm testing beta 1 at the moment, and haven't come to that conclusion.
> Perhaps because some of the functionality that presumably a beta is to
> allow testing of is missing. But I do welcome the fact that (so far)
> itunlike Opera 6 it doesn't frequently hang my machine, and for that
> alone
> I will buy it when it becomes as complete as Opera 6.
Hopefully you're opinion will change the more you use it and the further
the betas progress. I think it's one of the most significant major browser
updates I've ever seen.
John