Why Opera 9.5 sucks
Jeffrey Needle
first time, when I look at my mailbox and my spam contents, each mail
takes two lines. It's so distracting! I switch back to Opera 9.2, and
all is well.
2. More irritating, if there are only a few mails in my mailbox, Opera
9.5 won't download them. I have to wait until there are a dozen or so
before Opera 9.5 can figure out there's something there.
3. No new news -- I STILL can't limit the download size of an e-mail.
Suck, suck, suck.
--
---------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Needle
jeff....@gmail.com
Marie Paige
"Jeffrey Needle" <jeff....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:op.t0y5uymbftg7du@d9ns6561...
> 1. For some godforsaken reason, when I go to the gmail site, for the
> first time, when I look at my mailbox and my spam contents, each mail
> takes two lines. It's so distracting! I switch back to Opera 9.2, and
> all is well.
>
> 2. More irritating, if there are only a few mails in my mailbox, Opera
> 9.5 won't download them. I have to wait until there are a dozen or so
> before Opera 9.5 can figure out there's something there.
>
> 3. No new news -- I STILL can't limit the download size of an e-mail.
Use Mozilla Firefox. Download your gemail in outlook express.
Jeffrey Needle
wrote:
Every program has its limits. OE is okay, but I'm unsure how safe it is
in these dangerous computing days. Firefox is a monster these days.
Nicetameetya
<jeff....@gmail.com> magnanimously proffered:
>1. For some godforsaken reason, when I go to the gmail site, for the
>first time, when I look at my mailbox and my spam contents, each mail
>takes two lines. It's so distracting! I switch back to Opera 9.2, and
>all is well.
>
>2. More irritating, if there are only a few mails in my mailbox, Opera
>9.5 won't download them. I have to wait until there are a dozen or so
>before Opera 9.5 can figure out there's something there.
>
>3. No new news -- I STILL can't limit the download size of an e-mail.
I have my gmail account configured to send all mail directly to my
ISP's mail server and open it in Thunderbird - which I can configure
to limit the size of incoming emails if I want (which I don't).
Man-wai Chang ToDie
> ISP's mail server and open it in Thunderbird - which I can configure
> to limit the size of incoming emails if I want (which I don't).
You could configure your Gmail account to offer IMAP access. Then you
don't need to download and lost the webmail convenience.
--
@~@ Might, Courage, Vision, SINCERITY.
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and Farce be with you!
/( _ )\ (Xubuntu 7.04) Linux 2.6.23.1
^ ^ 21:39:01 up 3 days 2:06 0 users load average: 1.00 1.02 1.00
news://news.3home.net news://news.hkpcug.org news://news.newsgroup.com.hk
Craig
>> I have my gmail account configured to send all mail directly to my
>> ISP's mail server and open it in Thunderbird - which I can configure
>> to limit the size of incoming emails if I want (which I don't).
>
> You could configure your Gmail account to offer IMAP access. Then you
> don't need to download and lost the webmail convenience.
>
Tbird (& SeaMonkey) pop3 can be configured to leave messages on the
server as well ... I'll bet most "modern" pop3 clients offer that.
hth,
-Craig
Jeffrey Needle
>> I have my gmail account configured to send all mail directly to my
>> ISP's mail server and open it in Thunderbird - which I can configure
>> to limit the size of incoming emails if I want (which I don't).
>
> You could configure your Gmail account to offer IMAP access. Then you
> don't need to download and lost the webmail convenience.
>
Hmmm, how do I do that? And what do I lose if I do that?
Craig
Let's get that from the horse's mouth ...
<http://mail.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=75725>
Wrt what you "lose," you don't really lose anything. The key is that
everything is managed on your mail server, not on your desktop. I wrote
up a little ditty wrt Google's IMAP in another thread started by BB "
Turn Thunderbird into the Ultimate Gmail IMAP Client." It outlines what
I know about Google's service & gives a couple of references.
hth,
-Craig
=======================
Bear Bottoms wrote:
> Gmail's IMAP support roll-out this week had nerds all atwitter ...
>
http://lifehacker.com/software/geek-to-live/turn-thunderbird-into-the-ultimate-gmail-imap-client-314574.php
>
Thanks Bear. A couple of caveats:
1) for people new to imap: in an imap configuration, your mail server(s)
hold your email until you explicitly delete them. This means you need
to be clear about how much space your server allows and you need to
manage it. Otherwise mail to you will bounce. For more on imap
<http://imap.org/>:
2) for people familiar w/imap: Be aware that Google does *not*
currently support:
* \Answered and \Recent flags on messages.
* Folder subscriptions. All folders are always in the 'Subscribed' list.
* Substring search. All searches are assumed to be words.
* Searching arbitrary headers. Only some headers are available for
searches: From/CC/BCC/To/Subject.
* There is no SIEVE interface to Gmail filters.
* Only plain-text LOGIN over SSL tunneled connections are supported.
<http://mail.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=78761&topic=12762>
A decent "first-look" at the service is here:
<http://blog.wired.com/monkeybites/2007/10/first-look-hand.html>
hth,
-Craig
Jeffrey Needle
wrote:
> Jeffrey Needle wrote:
>> Man-wai Chang ToDie wrote:
>>>> I have my gmail account configured to send all mail directly to my
>>>> ISP's mail server and open it in Thunderbird - which I can configure
>>>> to limit the size of incoming emails if I want (which I don't).
>>> You could configure your Gmail account to offer IMAP access. Then you
>>> don't need to download and lost the webmail convenience.
>>>
>> Hmmm, how do I do that? And what do I lose if I do that?
>
> Let's get that from the horse's mouth ...
> <http://mail.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=75725>
>
> Wrt what you "lose," you don't really lose anything. The key is that
> everything is managed on your mail server, not on your desktop. I wrote
> up a little ditty wrt Google's IMAP in another thread started by BB "
> Turn Thunderbird into the Ultimate Gmail IMAP Client." It outlines what
> I know about Google's service & gives a couple of references.
>
> hth,
> -Craig
> =======================
>
Thanks! Gmail's server indicates that IMAP is not yet available, but will
be in a few weeks. I'll look into it.
Victor Garrison
> Thanks! Gmail's server indicates that IMAP is not yet available, but
> will be in a few weeks. I'll look into it.
Have you tried just setting it up and using it? My account showed no
signs of having been upgraded(?) but it just worked anyway.
I don't see why it wouldn't, I think the Web interface has always used
IMAP internally ;-)
DevilsPGD
<vrgarris...@TH15.gmail.com> wrote:
>I don't see why it wouldn't, I think the Web interface has always used
>IMAP internally ;-)
Then you're an idiot. IMAP adds substantial overhead, and that overhead
is pointless when the web interface has direct access to the backend
data (which is obviously the case since Google developed both the
backend and frontend themselves)
--
You can get more with a kind word and a 2x4 than just a kind word.
Nicetameetya
<jeff....@gmail.com> magnanimously proffered:
>On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 18:58:29 -0500, Craig <netbu...@REMOVEgmail.com>
Regardless - and presuming you have an ISP - you can easily configure
Gmail to forward all your mail to the email client of your choice and
configure that client (eg: Thunderbird) to reject mail that exceeds a
certain size.
bealoid
news:FyPVi.2105$yV6....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net:
[snip]
> 1) for people new to imap: in an imap configuration, your mail
> server(s) hold your email until you explicitly delete them. This
> means you need to be clear about how much space your server allows and
> you need to manage it. Otherwise mail to you will bounce. For more
> on imap <http://imap.org/>:
And to make this really clear for Thunderbird users: You need to delete
something, then empty the trash, then you have to "compact" the trash
folder.
Jeffrey Needle
Yes, it does, but I download all my mail. It's just the way I've always
worked. More comfortable to me.
Thanks.
Jeffrey Needle
I have Mobility Email and OE set up to do just that. Sadly, both have so
many flaws that I've stopped using them. I guess I'm just spoiled...
Zombie Elvis
>1. For some godforsaken reason, when I go to the gmail site, for the
>first time, when I look at my mailbox and my spam contents, each mail
>takes two lines. It's so distracting! I switch back to Opera 9.2, and
>all is well.
>
>2. More irritating, if there are only a few mails in my mailbox, Opera
>9.5 won't download them. I have to wait until there are a dozen or so
>before Opera 9.5 can figure out there's something there.
>
>3. No new news -- I STILL can't limit the download size of an e-mail.
>
Well, it is beta. You've got to expect a few problems. Also, the
problem might be on Google's end. The alpha version had troubles with
Google Reader for a while but Google fixed them so that it worked
perfectly.
>Suck, suck, suck.
Fast, fast, fast.
--
Cause, really, nothing says "I'm a counter culture
rebel, fighting the establishment" like an Aibo on
a skateboard.
- Seen on Slashdot
Roberto Castillo
roberto...@ameritech.net
Jeffrey Needle
>>
> Well, it is beta. You've got to expect a few problems. Also, the
> problem might be on Google's end. The alpha version had troubles with
> Google Reader for a while but Google fixed them so that it worked
> perfectly.
>
Nope, Opera simply doesn't have this feature. Period. Not a beta
problem, an Opera problem.
Franklin
wrote:
> 1. For some godforsaken reason, when I go to the gmail site, for
> the first time, when I look at my mailbox and my spam contents,
> each mail takes two lines. It's so distracting! I switch back to
> Opera 9.2, and all is well.
>
> 2. More irritating, if there are only a few mails in my mailbox,
> Opera 9.5 won't download them. I have to wait until there are a
> dozen or so before Opera 9.5 can figure out there's something
> there.
>
> 3. No new news -- I STILL can't limit the download size of an
> e-mail.
>
> Suck, suck, suck.
>
Page rendering in Opera has never been 100% satisfactory. It's one of
the main arguments against Opera. To be fair, it has got better over
the years.
It would be so much more useful if there were a "compatibility mode" for
rednering pages the same way that IE sees them. This may not satisfy
those "standards purists" but it would make the Opera a whole lot more
useable on those badly rendered pages.
Spacey Spade
> Every program has its limits. OE is okay, but I'm unsure how safe it is
> in these dangerous computing days. Firefox is a monster these days.
In what way is Firefox a monster?
Jeffrey Needle
wrote:
Too large a footprint, and the newest versions seem to be getting poor
reviews.
Anonymous Sender
> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 22:48:15 -0500, Spacey Spade
> <spac...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 29, 5:47 pm, "Jeffrey Needle" <jeff.nee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Every program has its limits. OE is okay, but I'm unsure how safe
> >> it is in these dangerous computing days. Firefox is a monster
> >> these days.
> >
> > In what way is Firefox a monster?
> >
>
> Too large a footprint, and the newest versions seem to be getting
> poor reviews.
It's footprint is no different than any other browser. Smaller than
Opera's initially, in fact. Way smaller than IE. With several addons
installed it's footprint barely outdistances Opera's, but as sessions
continue Opera grows faster and releases resources slower than Firefox,
so it's overall footprint is notable larger.
And what "reviews" are you referring to? A cite would be nice, although
a person's like or dislike of a product isn't the definition of
"monster" even if they are legitimate complaints.
No.... methinks you have a hardon for Firefox for some reason and you're
spewing made up nonsense. Your "facts" a purely bogus and your
"reviews" are an obvious straw grab.
turtl...@hotpop.com
> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 22:48:15 -0500,Spacey Spade<spacey...@hotpop.com>
>
> > On Oct 29, 5:47 pm, "Jeffrey Needle" <jeff.nee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Every program has its limits. OE is okay, but I'm unsure how safe it is
> >> in these dangerous computing days. Firefox is a monster these days.
>
> > In what way is Firefox a monster?
>
> Too large a footprint, and the newest versions seem to be getting poor
> reviews.
Personal experience in using all three browsers: Firefox is compatible
with more sites, Opera is faster. Both are more a ton more secure,
despite what Secunia states on Firefox. The reason, methinks, is that
malware producers are producing for IE, and pretty much leave Firefox
alone. They target the weak: those who wouldn't go so far as to
actually INSTALL a browser. Opera: what vulnerabilities? I love
Firefox addons, though Firefox becomes a bloated pig with too many
addons, or perhaps bloated addons.