Opera Bloatware
Jim
knows what else into their browser? What's next, an integrated media
player? IM?
Opera has become bloatware. And worse, the browser component is suffering
for it!
Even Microsoft, the undisputed king of bloatware, has been wise enough to
leave their browser intact!
If you want to create an email client, fine! More power to you. You can
even give it the look and feel of the Opera browser and provide hooks into
it.
I had purchased several Opera 6 licenses... I do not plan on purchasing
any for Opera 7. When's Opera 8 due out?
Bogdan Giusca
news, and god
| knows what else into their browser? What's next, an
integrated media
| player? IM?
|
| Opera has become bloatware. And worse, the browser
component is suffering
| for it!
|
Opera 7 download is only 3 megs.
A software is officially declared bloatware if it has more
than 10 megs.
:-)
| Even Microsoft, the undisputed king of bloatware, has been
wise enough to
| leave their browser intact!
|
| If you want to create an email client, fine! More power
to you. You can
| even give it the look and feel of the Opera browser and
provide hooks into
| it.
|
| I had purchased several Opera 6 licenses... I do not plan
on purchasing
| any for Opera 7. When's Opera 8 due out?
Opera 6 had an e-mail and a news client, too.
José Jeria
Bogdan Giusca wrote:
> | Why do Opera developers feel the need to integrate email,
> news, and god
> | knows what else into their browser? What's next, an
> integrated media
> | player? IM?
> |
> | Opera has become bloatware. And worse, the browser
> component is suffering
> | for it!
> |
>
> Opera 7 download is only 3 megs.
Even smaller than Opera 6...
Henk
> Why do Opera developers feel the need to integrate email, news, and
> god knows what else into their browser? What's next, an integrated
> media player? IM?
An integrated automatic troll filter.
> Opera has become bloatware.
Opera experts will no doubt throw the actual byte figures at you here, and
point at many useful new features. Some of these new features actually are
useful, once you get used to them. I admit it took me quite some time to
get used to Opera 7, too, and to tweak it a little until I felt at home
again. I also admit that I myself could live happily without features such
as the whole skinning thing. But it's all a matter of personal preferences.
What you label as "bloat" might be a core feature to some other user.
> And worse, the browser component is
> suffering for it!
If you mean that the M2 mail client is still a bit of a problem, and that
from the viewpoint of users who don't even need it, all the energy spent in
developing it might have been used much better in thoroughly debugging the
browser, then I myself agree with you. But I guess we also have to reckon
with other users who might appreciate the new email client, and all the
effort put in developing it.
> Even Microsoft, the undisputed king of bloatware, has been wise enough
> to leave their browser intact!
This is strange. If you are against integration, then you can hardly be
happy with Internet Explorer, the only browser that is integrated tightly
with an entire operating system - as you will know if you ever tried to
uninstall it...
> If you want to create an email client, fine! More power to you. You
> can even give it the look and feel of the Opera browser and provide
> hooks into it.
I've now removed the mail and news entries from my Opera menus. The M2
client sits in the Opera directory as a separate DLL file. So I've already
got what you suggest here: an Opera browser, and a separate Opera mail
client that (in my case) I choose not to use and not even to see anymore.
> I had purchased several Opera 6 licenses... I do not plan on
> purchasing any for Opera 7.
Unless I'm very much mistaken, there was a mail client attached to Opera 6,
too. So as for integration, what's the difference?
When's Opera 8 due out?
Why, when the new Opera OS/1 is ready to replace Windows XP, of course! The
Opera browser will then be integrated in the operating system in the same
way as Internet Explorer is integrated in Windows, in order to really
satisfy you...
Henk
Wojciech Eysymontt
"Jim" <j...@hotmail.com> was that kind to write:
> Why do Opera developers feel the need to integrate email, news, and god
> knows what else into their browser?
That's a good one!
Funny that you yell at integrated mail and news and... Send news from M2. :))
Say no more...!
Regards
Wojciech E.
Jim
> Jim <j...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Why do Opera developers feel the need to integrate email, news, and
>> god knows what else into their browser? What's next, an integrated
>> media player? IM?
>
> An integrated automatic troll filter.
You're very funny.
>
>> Opera has become bloatware.
>
> Opera experts will no doubt throw the actual byte figures at you here,
> and point at many useful new features. Some of these new features
> actually are useful, once you get used to them. I admit it took me quite
> some time to get used to Opera 7, too, and to tweak it a little until I
> felt at home again. I also admit that I myself could live happily without
> features such as the whole skinning thing. But it's all a matter of
> personal preferences. What you label as "bloat" might be a core feature
> to some other user.
I agree it's a matter of personal taste. That's why I gave my opinion and
you gave yours! As to actual bytes, I don't much care. Maybe I should
have referred to Feature-Bloat.
Yes, email and news are useful components, I just don't think they belong
integrated into a browser. And I realize these components were in Opera 6,
I didn't like them there either, but at least I could easily turn them off.
>
>> And worse, the browser component is
>> suffering for it!
>
> If you mean that the M2 mail client is still a bit of a problem, and that
> from the viewpoint of users who don't even need it, all the energy spent
> in developing it might have been used much better in thoroughly debugging
> the browser, then I myself agree with you. But I guess we also have to
> reckon with other users who might appreciate the new email client, and
> all the effort put in developing it.
Yes, I do wish more time had been spent developing the browser component.
It's shameful that after using Opera 7 for only a few days I've already
experienced so many issues. This software should still be beta. Oh, and
just to save you the trouble, I'm not implying Opera's software is worse
than industry averages, most software is far too buggy in my opinion. For
some reason, I was fooled into thinking Opera might be a little better.
>
>> Even Microsoft, the undisputed king of bloatware, has been wise enough
>> to leave their browser intact!
>
> This is strange. If you are against integration, then you can hardly be
> happy with Internet Explorer, the only browser that is integrated tightly
> with an entire operating system - as you will know if you ever tried to
> uninstall it...
Don't read into my comment that I like IE or MS or think IE is a clean app
(it is not). I was just trying to make a point, perhaps poorly.
>
>> If you want to create an email client, fine! More power to you. You
>> can even give it the look and feel of the Opera browser and provide
>> hooks into it.
>
> I've now removed the mail and news entries from my Opera menus. The M2
> client sits in the Opera directory as a separate DLL file. So I've
> already got what you suggest here: an Opera browser, and a separate Opera
> mail client that (in my case) I choose not to use and not even to see
> anymore.
I don't know how to do this. Are there instructions? Sounds promising...
>
>> I had purchased several Opera 6 licenses... I do not plan on
>> purchasing any for Opera 7.
>
> Unless I'm very much mistaken, there was a mail client attached to Opera
> 6, too. So as for integration, what's the difference?
As I said above, a) I realize Opera 6 had email, etc., b) it was not a
problem in 6 because I could easily turn it off, and c) I didn't realize it
could be removed from 7.
>
> When's Opera 8 due out?
>
> Why, when the new Opera OS/1 is ready to replace Windows XP, of course!
> The Opera browser will then be integrated in the operating system in the
> same way as Internet Explorer is integrated in Windows, in order to
> really satisfy you...
Can't wait!
>
> Henk
>
Howard Brazee
On 28-Feb-2003, Jim <j...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Why do Opera developers feel the need to integrate email, news, and god
> knows what else into their browser? What's next, an integrated media
> player? IM?
I imagine to answer customer demand.
> Opera has become bloatware. And worse, the browser component is suffering
> for it!
How?
> Even Microsoft, the undisputed king of bloatware, has been wise enough to
> leave their browser intact!
You mean it doesn't integrate email, news, and god knows what else into its
browser? Because they have a different name for IE and OE? They seem awfully
integrated to me.
> I had purchased several Opera 6 licenses... I do not plan on purchasing
> any for Opera 7. When's Opera 8 due out?
Huh? Why do you care? You know that Opera's not going to drop features.
Jim
Sometimes I use IE to browse also. That shouldn't imply I like it. The
fact of the matter is, I'm giving M2 a test run. Do you like your opinions
only from those who have never tried?
Henk
> I don't know how to do this. Are there instructions? Sounds
> promising...
You can (while Opera is not running) edit all the INI files in Opera's main
directory to your liking. Just scan them for mail/newreader related lines,
and comment out what you don't need. Like so:
in MENU.INI, section [Browser Menu Bar], put a ; comment-out sign in front
of the line
Submenu, "Mail", Browser Mail Menu
so you get
;Submenu, "Mail", Browser Mail Menu
and as a result the "mail" dropdown menu item will no longer show up in
Opera's main menu bar.
Of course you also need to configure Opera to call your email program when
you click mailto links: go to File|Preferences|Email and make sure Opera
has the correct path of your email program. You may also need a special
commandline argument here, to get mailto links handled correctly, but for
that you should look in your email program's helpfile.
BTW, maybe you also want Opera just to *look* a bit less bloaty, in which
case I can certainly recommend using the Windows skin (View|Skin|windows)
in combination with small buttons (right-click on the button bar and un-
tick "Large buttons"). In my own experience, getting a somewhat more
"normal" look really did help me to gradually accept Opera 7...
And once you find out that you can delete menu buttons, drag buttons,
change bars etc. just by right-clicking on them, you'll see that this
"bloated" interface also has some great advantages over the old ways of
Opera 6.
Henk
Al
> Why do Opera developers feel the need to integrate email, news, and god
> knows what else into their browser?
It would be nice to have a 1 Meg browser-only download :)
> Opera has become bloatware. And worse, the browser component is
> suffering for it!
I still find that I have to load up IE for some sites (not necessarily
Opera's fault).
--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Rijk van Geijtenbeek
> On Fri, 28 Feb 2003 07:49:54 -0500, Jim <j...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Why do Opera developers feel the need to integrate email, news, and god knows what else into their browser?
> It would be nice to have a 1 Meg browser-only download :)
http://www.opera.com/download/index.dml?platform=symbian&man=Sony%20Ericsson
885 KB ;)
Of course, the Symbian system provides some functionality so not all Opera modules have to be used. See http://www.opera.com/products/smartphone/brochures/smartphone.pdf , there are some technical details halfwy the brochure.
>> Opera has become bloatware. And worse, the browser component is suffering for it!
>
> I still find that I have to load up IE for some sites (not necessarily Opera's fault).
Indeed. Apart from M2 and a completely custimizable UI, there was also a lot of work done on getting Opera to understand even more of the web 'as it is'. This isn't as visible as the UI and M2, but it actually used more development resources. This includes both implementing new standards (DOM) and better bugward-compatibility with MSIE.
--
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
Cliff Heller
> Why do Opera developers feel the need to integrate email, news, and god
> knows what else into their browser? What's next, an integrated media
> player? IM?
I've got to agree. A standalone stable email client is preferable.
I have yet to meet a browser that doesn't crash from time to time.
It's nice to have email and news in separate dedicated clients.
--
"Letters may be used to construct words, phrases and sentences that may be
deemed offensive."
-Warning label on children's alphabet blocks
Kyle A. Miller
> Why do Opera developers feel the need to integrate email, news, and god
> knows what else into their browser? What's next, an integrated media
> player? IM?
Please, don't tempt them. They might add CD burning too. :(
> Opera has become bloatware. And worse, the browser component is
> suffering for it!
I think the HTML rendering is a lot better than O6, but the rendering
has a serious challenger in Gecko. I don't think MS is putting much
effort in IE's engine these days because they want .NET to rule the land
of internet applications. .NET increases Windows reliance; browsers
negate the importance of OS platform. But I digress... :)
> If you want to create an email client, fine! More power to you. You
> can even give it the look and feel of the Opera browser and provide
> hooks into it.
They should have released a browser component and email/news client and
sold each for $20US and $30US respectively or both for $40US. This would
have lowered the cost of the browser component for many not willing to
pay a higher price for the browser. It would also allow users who like
M2, but want to use a difference browser, to buy just the email/news
component. In the long run, a better, more diversified revenue stream.
Maybe with increased email/news revenue, Opera could budget in
development costs for a spellchecker! :)
Wojciech Eysymontt
"Kyle A. Miller" <ky...@millerdevelopment.info.no_spammy> was that kind to write:
> Jim wrote:
> > If you want to create an email client, fine! More power to you. You
> > can even give it the look and feel of the Opera browser and provide
> > hooks into it.
>
> They should have released a browser component and email/news client and
> sold each for $20US and $30US respectively or both for $40US. This would
> have lowered the cost of the browser component for many not willing to
> pay a higher price for the browser. It would also allow users who like
> M2, but want to use a difference browser, to buy just the email/news
> component. In the long run, a better, more diversified revenue stream.
> Maybe with increased email/news revenue, Opera could budget in
> development costs for a spellchecker! :)
Cast spells in mail client?! That would be a heavy bloat!! ;-))
The rest of your idea sounds logical but I have the feeling that it's impractical. OS must have conciously decided to go current path, not the one you suggested. But maybe they will decide to split the products when their email/news client one day comes out from baby stage and will be competitive enough to survive alone...
Regards
Wojciech E.
Al
wrote:
>
>>> Opera has become bloatware. And worse, the browser component is
>>> suffering for it!
>>
>> I still find that I have to load up IE for some sites (not necessarily
>> Opera's fault).
>
> Indeed. Apart from M2 and a completely custimizable UI, there was also a
> lot of work done on getting Opera to understand even more of the web 'as
> it is'. This isn't as visible as the UI and M2, but it actually used more
> development resources. This includes both implementing new standards
I haven't had problems with the good sites in Opera 6, and Opera 7 seems
better yet.
> (DOM) and better bugward-compatibility with MSIE.
>
It's funny that you have to maintain "bugward-compatibility". Wouldn't it
be nice if everyone just followed standards :) It would make our jobs so
much easier. Or maybe that would just make the world a boring place...
Wojciech Eysymontt
"Al" <alm...@yahoo.not> was that kind to write:
> On Fri, 28 Feb 2003 17:20:59 +0100, Rijk van Geijtenbeek <ri...@opera.com>
> wrote:
>
> > (DOM) and better bugward-compatibility with MSIE.
> >
>
> It's funny that you have to maintain "bugward-compatibility".
It's not funny at all.. It's PITA. :-|
Regards
Wojciech E.
Priestes
client then I use news and I dont want it neccessarily in my browser. Think
your idea is a good one....
"Kyle A. Miller" <ky...@millerdevelopment.info.no_spammy> wrote in message
news:b3o3nd$ifj$1...@mail.opera.no...
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.459 / Virus Database: 258 - Release Date: 2/25/03
Kelz
> Opera has become bloatware.
Is this a new definition for the word 'bloat' of which I was
previously unaware? (i.e. it's becomes 'bloated' by actually *
reducing* the file size)
> And worse, the browser component is suffering
> for it!
Yes it's now faster, has more features (such as better DOM, CSS,
HTML, customisation, etc), works on more sites than before and
takes up less disk space. Such suffering..
> Why do Opera developers feel the need to integrate email, news, and god
> knows what else into their browser?
Why do Ford put coat hooks and cup holders in their cars? It's a
car for god's sake, not a wardrobe or cafe.
> What's next, an integrated media
> player? IM?
I'd like to see an "Engage brain before mouth" option in the user
preferences.
> I had purchased several Opera 6 licenses... I do not plan on purchasing
> any for Opera 7. When's Opera 8 due out?
So, to recap... Opera has had Mail and News clients since god knows
when... and you're so happy with this that you buy not one, not two,
but 'several' Opera 6 licenses. Then Opera 7 comes along with the
only notable differences being greatly improved support, faster
rendering and reduced size and you can't stand the thing any more.
If this is the case why does it matter to you when Opera 8 comes
out? Obviously Opera 8 is a very long way off so that was just a
silly question ending a silly post...
Howard Brazee
On 28-Feb-2003, "Kelz" <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Why do Opera developers feel the need to integrate email, news, and god
> > knows what else into their browser?
>
> Why do Ford put coat hooks and cup holders in their cars? It's a
> car for god's sake, not a wardrobe or cafe.
>
>
> > What's next, an integrated media
> > player? IM?
Ford does that too!!
> > I had purchased several Opera 6 licenses... I do not plan on purchasing
> > any for Opera 7. When's Opera 8 due out?
>
> So, to recap... Opera has had Mail and News clients since god knows
> when... and you're so happy with this that you buy not one, not two,
> but 'several' Opera 6 licenses. Then Opera 7 comes along with the
> only notable differences being greatly improved support, faster
> rendering and reduced size and you can't stand the thing any more.
> If this is the case why does it matter to you when Opera 8 comes
> out? Obviously Opera 8 is a very long way off so that was just a
> silly question ending a silly post...
Obviously he hates having Opera bloat down in size. But he hasn't given up as
all the competitors bloat up in size. So he's waiting to see if Opera decides
to follow industry trends with the standard definition of bloat.
doug robbins
> When's Opera 8 due out?
>
> Why, when the new Opera OS/1 is ready to replace Windows XP, of course!
> The Opera browser will then be integrated in the operating system in the
> same way as Internet Explorer is integrated in Windows, in order to
> really satisfy you...
No, no... it should be the other way 'round: the operating system
integrated into the Opera browser! It would solve all those
platform/porting problems....
Kyle A. Miller
> Is this a new definition for the word 'bloat' of which I was
> previously unaware? (i.e. it's becomes 'bloated' by actually *
> reducing* the file size)
Bloatware is not restricted simply to program file size. If an
application can be too much at one time in one package, it's bloat. As
an application matures, an application partitioning strategy should be
implemented so modules of an application begin to work in concert with
another rather one monolithic beast.
I think the original poster believed the major overhaul called version 7
would have introduced the modern concept of application collaboration
instead of the archiac monolithic design.
> Yes it's now faster, has more features (such as better DOM, CSS,
> HTML, customisation, etc), works on more sites than before and
> takes up less disk space. Such suffering..
My contention with all-in-one Opera has nothing to do with drive space.
In the age of broadband and huge hard drives, space is secondary to me.
Yes, I know that's not the case with everyone.
> Why do Ford put coat hooks and cup holders in their cars? It's a
> car for god's sake, not a wardrobe or cafe.
I can take those things out. Don't begin to compare any software with
modern cars. Many people believe modern vehicles are bloatware,
especially in size and efficiency. Comparing software with vehicles
would be insulting to the software.
> I'd like to see an "Engage brain before mouth" option in the user
> preferences.
It seems Opera needs to implement Eurdora's MoodWatch.
Mark V
> Why do Opera developers feel the need to integrate email, news,
> and god knows what else into their browser?
They are trying to sell a product that will fit the needs of the
"mass market". If you don't want to use M2, don't. You can even
remove the Mail Menus if you like.
> Opera has become bloatware. And worse, the browser component is
> suffering for it!
How so? It's a very small download/install compared to many
alternatives. Have you checked out Netscape or Mozilla lately?
I do agree that the Browser developement appears to have suffered for
all the other work being done. JMO.
> Even Microsoft, the undisputed king of bloatware, has been wise
> enough to leave their browser intact!
Gads! Better if they just killed it. ;) JMO
[ ]
Whappo
> knows what else into their browser? What's next, an integrated media
> player? IM?
It's difficult to get into the semantics of 'bloatware', but I agree that integration
is not my design philosophy. I was first drawn to Opera when it was adverstised
as fitting on a single floppy disk. I thought 3.62 an excellent starting point for
the evolution of a truly great 'browser', not that Opera hasn't improved over time,
but, like you, I would like a version without the mail/news client. I'm sticking with
6.05 and K-Meleon for now. I won't try to second guess Opera's marketing/design
startegy, although I would like to think that the general Opera user is not a
PC/web novice, trying to lure th AOL/IE masses seems an exercise in futility.
Opera is getting a lot of press lately for its use on handhelds, kudos to them and
may its customer base and fortunes grow, but as for the PC web browser market,
I have my doubts. I think the American expression "A Jack of all trades, master
of none" pretty much somes up my idea of 'bloatware'.
jbinc...@nospam.dslextreme.com
Well with the frequency of the *point* versions ar arriving, maybe,
ahhh, two weeks?
jbinc...@nospam.dslextreme.com
Henk wrote:
>
> Jim <j...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Why do Opera developers feel the need to integrate email, news, and
> > god knows what else into their browser? What's next, an integrated
> > media player? IM?
>
> An integrated automatic troll filter.
HaaaaaHaaa, (Pause) Cough, cough
>
Axel Siebert
> I do agree that the Browser developement appears to have suffered for
> all the other work being done. JMO.
It hasn't. M2 was done by about 4 people who wouldn't have been hired without
it and the additional revenue it generates. So without M2, the browser
wouldn't be different one bit.
Axel
Axel Siebert
> I think the original poster believed the major overhaul called version 7
> would have introduced the modern concept of application collaboration
> instead of the archiac monolithic design.
And that's exactly what happened. M1, which was more closely integrated with
the main browser, has been completely ripped out and was replaced by M2, now
solely residing in M2.DLL, only communicating with Opera.exe over well-defined
APIs and interfaces.
>> Why do Ford put coat hooks and cup holders in their cars? It's a
>> car for god's sake, not a wardrobe or cafe.
>
> I can take those things out.
So can you M2. Remove M2.DLL, and you're done. It'S depending on the browser
for all the UI, file, internet and rendering functions, but otherwise it's a
standalone application.
That said, I really don't see any point in complaining about M2.
Axel
Axel Siebert
> It would also allow users who like M2, but want to use a difference browser,
> to buy just the email/news component.
No. As I said in my other reply, M2 is depending on the browser for all the
UI, file, internet and rendering functions. Making it an application which
could run without the main browser component would mean to almost start from
the beginning and write a mail client. That's something Opera Software
*really* doesn't want.
Axel
Axel Siebert
> I sure would prefer it without the mail and news as I use different email
> client then I use news and I dont want it neccessarily in my browser. Think
> your idea is a good one....
So where is the freaking problem? Just delete M2.DLL and you have the plain
browser without mail and news. And don't you complain about the gigantic
186 KB of extra download you didn't need!
Axel
Jim
news:Xns9330A61C999BF...@193.69.113.75:
Thanks for the info... I'll give it a try on Monday.
Is there any advantage (aside from saving a few bytes on disk) to deleting
M2.DLL?
Jim
Jim
news:upk7fkx...@panix3.panix.com:
> Jim <j...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>> Why do Opera developers feel the need to integrate email, news, and god
>> knows what else into their browser? What's next, an integrated media
>> player? IM?
>
> I've got to agree. A standalone stable email client is preferable.
> I have yet to meet a browser that doesn't crash from time to time.
> It's nice to have email and news in separate dedicated clients.
>
>
Thank you! Someone at least agrees with something I said!
Actually, the same goes for a news client. It's extremely unlikely an
integrated news client will ever match the stability or power of a
dedicated app. And I would think casual users would be happily served by
Google Groups.
And let's face it, Opera users tend to be power users. Most casual users
will use whatever ships with their system (i.e. IE).
Jim
Ever Swanson
"Jim" <j...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:oprla1xg...@news.opera.com...
> Why do Opera developers feel the need to integrate email, news, and god
> knows what else into their browser? What's next, an integrated media
> player? IM?
>
browser much the same way as the M2 client. IE developers are doing this now
with IE6, but the Opera integration of M2 (subsume into the browser) is
conceptually superior to what M$ is doing with the media player in IE6.
Jim
>> Opera has become bloatware.
>
> Is this a new definition for the word 'bloat' of which I was
> previously unaware? (i.e. it's becomes 'bloated' by actually *
> reducing* the file size)
My choice of the term bloatware was apparently not a good one. However, in
any case bloat does not only (nor usually) refer to download size. It CAN
refer to feature creep and MOST OFTEN refers to size in memory (RAM).
>> What's next, an integrated media
>> player? IM?
>
> I'd like to see an "Engage brain before mouth" option in the user
> preferences.
FU, there's no need to be a DH.
Jim
news:1103_10...@news.opera.no:
I wish I could have been so eloquent. I especially like (and agree with)
"A Jack of all trades, master of none". Thank you.
Jim
Ever Swanson
>
Nowadays the mass storage or RAM limitation for desktop systems is not an issue,
performance, reliability, and refinement are always fundamentally more important
than code size once the software has been installed on the users system. The
problem is that dial-up V.90 connections only allow about 5 KB/sec download
speed, and users can get impatient waiting; this is the number one problem for
Win-XP users; service pack downloads require broadband connections. Win-32
systems cannot be maintained over dial-up, Opera can be easily downloaded over
dial-up.
Henk
> Is there any advantage (aside from saving a few bytes on disk) to
> deleting M2.DLL?
Not as far as I know. Leaving it in place (or renaming it) has the
advantage you can always try M2 some other time again.
I don't think deleting it makes a difference, it's not like with Opera 6
where you could magically cleanse the menu just by deleting/renaming the
mail file.
Henk
Haavard K. Moen
haven't seen this discussion a million times before, and that your
comments haven't been made before and corrected every single time?
Google Groups is your friend:
On Fri, 28 Feb 2003 07:49:54 -0500, Jim <j...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Why do Opera developers feel the need to integrate email, news, and god
> knows what else into their browser? What's next, an integrated media
> player? IM?
The e-mail client has brought us lots of revenue, which means that we
can spend more resources on improving the complete product.
> Opera has become bloatware. And worse, the browser component is suffering
> for it!
Without the e-mail client we would sell fewer licenses, and as such we
would have far less resources, and the browser part would indeed
suffer.
> Even Microsoft, the undisputed king of bloatware, has been wise enough to
> leave their browser intact!
What, you mean the way some versions of Outlook Express could only
open links in MSIE? Or the way MSIE is an actual part of the operating
system? Or the fact that it hasn't even caugh up with tabbed browsing
and other useful features?
> If you want to create an email client, fine! More power to you. You can
> even give it the look and feel of the Opera browser and provide hooks into
> it.
Read Axel's explanations.
> I had purchased several Opera 6 licenses... I do not plan on purchasing
> any for Opera 7. When's Opera 8 due out?
Opera 8 will be out when we finish our kitchen sink technology.
Van Grieg
> Actually, the same goes for a news client. It's extremely unlikely an
> integrated news client will ever match the stability or power of a
> dedicated app. And I would think casual users would be happily served by
> Google Groups.
When M2 came out, I happily got rid of Agent and XNews on my system. I want
to read and post news. Opera allows me to do it and manages messages in an
extremely convenient way. Not to mention that all the standalone programs
require significant tweaking if you want them to read non-Western
characters. Moreover, it seems to be a multi-thread newsreader, something
that most standalone clients miss. And I compared quite a few newsreaders,
M2 is the one I like best. Why don't you want me to use my favorite client
just because *you* don't like it?
>
> And let's face it, Opera users tend to be power users. Most casual users
> will use whatever ships with their system (i.e. IE).
I can consider myself a "power user", my Program Files directory is almost
3GB. Which makes me really happy to have an integrated newsreader. It saves
me plenty of time.
--
Van Grieg
Van Grieg
> I wish I could have been so eloquent. I especially like (and agree with)
> "A Jack of all trades, master of none". Thank you.
Master of none? Opera 7 has the best CSS support in the market, better DOM
support than IE6, by far the best mail and news client. All in one. Slow
Javascript and interface that doesn't allow using tons of features are
drags though. But this has nothing to do with the program being bloated.
Improve the preferences manager, make the interface match the functionality
that's in the code, improve "quirks" mode and you get the best browser/mail
suite ever.
--
Van Grieg
Jim
news:tel16v0kedkj4is5a...@4ax.com:
> Before you proceed to my responses, can you honestly say that you
> haven't seen this discussion a million times before, and that your
> comments haven't been made before and corrected every single time?
Actually, I don't usually follow opera newsgroups. So I haven't seen this
topic discussed before. That's not to say I shouldn't have checked
first...
I posted out of my disappointment w/ Opera 7. Believe me, I do want Opera
to succeed. I've been using it almost exclusively for several years.
Uh, "corrected"? Come on!
> The e-mail client has brought us lots of revenue, which means that we
> can spend more resources on improving the complete product.
Oh. If true, that surprises me.
Some final comments before signing-off from this thread...
I am an advocate of the UNIX Philosophy tenets "small is beautiful", "make
each program do one thing well" and "make every program a filter
[component]".
That is my preference. I understand everyone has their own preferences.
I like my applications to be focused and independent of each other, but to
work seamlessly with each other. (The best example I can give is my
bookmark manager, Compass, which is independent of and works with several
browsers.) I want to construct my computing environment from the building
blocks which suite me best. Others apparently prefer to have all-in-one
solutions.
In my opinion, MS Windows is a prime example of way too much integration.
If Windows were just an OS, whose primary function was to provide a stable
and flexible platform on which to build and run third-party applications, I
believe everyone's computing experience (except Bill's) would improve
dramatically.
In any case, it's apparent that my way does not make money. So I don't
blame Opera or MS for their behavior. I only wish it was otherwise...
Thanks for listening.
Jim
Luca
Best mail client? I probably have a chip on my shoulder since this
wonder has lost all of my email, but your definition is preposterous. No
spell checker? Bugs all over the place? Please, receiving and sending
email is not exactly complicated, solid apps have been around for quite
sometime even in the freeware arena(Pegasus, Eudora lite). To make it
'best of breed' Opera has to do a lot better than this. Inmho PocoMail
has the features and the stability to be called best. Try bouncing an
email with M2, using multiple dictionaries to write in different
languages (ops forgot it doesn't even have English), managing different
address books for the same user. Not to mention the scripting abilities
for REAL power users. To me, a power user is somebody that actually USES
a program, not somebody who first pays and then debugs or wonders why is
this missing?
Bloatware is not the best term, since we all have to deal with programs
that are far more bloated than Opera. Also, I don't see the need to have
a floppy-fitting program in the age of CD-RW's everywhere. But bug-ware,
a plague of the software industry, is an adjective I never attached to
Opera before. Now I do, and just scroll on the list of posts before
telling us this is the best program.
--
The light at the end of the tunnel
has been turned off to save overhead expenses.
_________
Mark V
news:1106_10...@axelsiebert.de:
Perhaps it would be both satisfiying to some users and easy for OS to
just put in a option that in effect stops loading M2 and hides the M&N
menus in one step.....
Van Grieg
wrote:
> Best mail client? I probably have a chip on my shoulder since this
> wonder has lost all of my email, but your definition is preposterous. No
> spell checker? Bugs all over the place? Please, receiving and sending
> email is not exactly complicated, solid apps have been around for quite
> sometime even in the freeware arena(Pegasus, Eudora lite). To make it
> 'best of breed' Opera has to do a lot better than this. Inmho PocoMail
> has the features and the stability to be called best. Try bouncing an
> email with M2, using multiple dictionaries to write in different
> languages (ops forgot it doesn't even have English), managing different
> address books for the same user. Not to mention the scripting abilities
> for REAL power users. To me, a power user is somebody that actually USES
> a program, not somebody who first pays and then debugs or wonders why is
> this missing?
A spellchecker is something I can't care less for. I know one that works
with Opera, although it's expensive and has only a Russian dictionary. I
think it should be a separate application anyway. I don't need multiple
address books, I'm not schizophrenic (at least that's what I think:)). It
never crashes here. I have no intention of bouncing emails, why would I? I
have 19000 messages in my three accounts, and please show me any other
program that works with large mailboxes with at least half the speed of M2.
I know one that's really fast, Mulberry. But it looks like it came from the
stone age. The ones you mentioned are crap in this sense. M2 is safe. The
access points idea is great. I USE the program a lot, I compared it to lots
of other clients, and found it to be the best. I have yet to see a mail
client that will let me view and search through the mail as conveniently as
M2 does. I get 50+ messages a day and read newsgroups all the time, and I
don't see how having three applications open will facilitate my work.
What's wrong with this approach?
> Bloatware is not the best term, since we all have to deal with programs
> that are far more bloated than Opera. Also, I don't see the need to have
> a floppy-fitting program in the age of CD-RW's everywhere. But bug-ware,
> a plague of the software industry, is an adjective I never attached to
> Opera before. Now I do, and just scroll on the list of posts before
> telling us this is the best program.
I agree, there are lots of bugs (or rather missing features). But it's off-
topic here. If you don't like M2, don't use it. Delete or rename M2.dll and
save yourself 180K of memory. I just don't understand why people keep
insisting on removing mail client from the suite. For me, this integration
is the best feature Opera is offering, and that's why I paid for it. Like I
said, it never crashes here. I had a problem during the beta period with
emails not being sent, now it's fixed. I'd love to see more features here,
but even at this stage it's a very powerful thing. Sorry to hear you lost
your mail. I read the newsgroups and the forum though, and in all such
cases people experienced this problem as a result of their own actions,
IIRC. Which means that the documentation on how M2 works is poor. But
again, this is a different topic. Bugs and problems should be fixed, but if
Opera stops working on them as the author of this thread suggests, they'll
never be fixed. I see nothing wrong with expressing my opinion. I think
it's the best client out there, and if you disagree, it's your sacred
right. But I will speak about it whenever I'm so inclined.
--
Van Grieg
Mark V
news:3E60EE2...@netscape.net:
[ ]
>
> Best mail client? I probably have a chip on my shoulder since this
> wonder has lost all of my email, but your definition is
> preposterous. No spell checker? Bugs all over the place? Please,
> receiving and sending email is not exactly complicated, solid apps
> have been around for quite sometime even in the freeware
> arena(Pegasus, Eudora lite). To make it 'best of breed' Opera has
> to do a lot better than this. Inmho PocoMail has the features and
> the stability to be called best.
[ ]
OT
While I agree that Pocomail is very good, I wonder why you hold it up
here in connection with spell-checkers as it's spell-checker is as
slow as as a glacier! It's (IMHO) the very worst "feature" of
Pocomail in the current release.
Luca
I must feel the global warming already, I have no issues with the
spell-checker(s), they are just like all the others, not fast and not
slow, just there.
Luca B
The fact that you do not care about a spell checker (or was it kekker?)
doesn't mean that it a standard feature in a program, that many people -
I dare say most people - would find useful and would expect to find in
an application. I'll pass on the very expensive Russian one, for now.
One never knows though.
Bouncing: I used the term in the sense is used in PocoMail, and I will
explain it. If I receive an email that was actually supposed to go to my
wife, or a colleague, whatever, PM allows me to bounce it rather than
forwarding. This means that the intended addressee will receive AS IF it
had been sent to him by the original sender. This way, if she hits reply
to, it won't come back to me, but to the original sender. I apologize if
I did not explain myself, but I can hardly believe that a person with
that much email (do they feed you at the computer?) has never received
mails that were better directed for someone else. I have a fraction of
your mails, yet I archive them regularly so I cannot speak of the
comparative speed of the applications, and I certainly trust your
word. I can however say that the search function is a pretty basic one,
even Microsoft programs seem to be able to perform it, so I am inclined
to say that it's hardly the cornerstone for a good -best-mail program.
Anyway, the fact that in a matter of days a few people have reported
loosing their email can be brushed off as a speckle on the BEST's
record. I am an experienced user, and the fact is that I wasn't even
using the thing when my PC crashed. Restarted and the email vaporized
(see yesterday's thread).
I never insisted in removing it, it's quite harmless when dormant so I
won't reply to that. I suggest making it bug free, improve on the
documentation, and most of all TESTING it properly and not using this
kind of community for their testing. Something I am prepared and willing
to do for Mozilla, not for a software company. This is my point here,
this is not a Linux community, and I am complaining for a product that
is bug ridden. I like the browser, always have, but a lot more at the
time of dial ups when the difference in speed was phenomenal. No my
Netscape is faster, and sometimes even IExploder is faster. So I say
test the dam thing instead of sending it out and then patch it, upgrade
it fix it in a circle that reminds me of YES! bloatware.
See, I have done a full circle here.
Van Grieg
>
> The fact that you do not care about a spell checker (or was it kekker?)
> doesn't mean that it a standard feature in a program, that many people -
> I dare say most people - would find useful and would expect to find in
> an application. I'll pass on the very expensive Russian one, for now.
> One never knows though.
I don't mind if they include a spellchecker. I just said I don't care
whether they do it or not. Of course it doesn't mean nobody else needs it.
But this thread is about bloated code. Personally I hate bloated code, that
being one of the reasons why I don't use standalone mail clients.
> Bouncing: I used the term in the sense is used in PocoMail
Thanks for the explanation. Although I've never used it, I have to say that
this functionality is already there in M2. It's called redirecting. A much
more intuitive name, IMHO.
> your mails, yet I archive them regularly so I cannot speak of the
> comparative speed of the applications, and I certainly trust your
> word. I can however say that the search function is a pretty basic one,
> even Microsoft programs seem to be able to perform it, so I am inclined
> to say that it's hardly the cornerstone for a good -best-mail program.
If you have so many emails, it *is* a cornerstone, no doubt. But the most
interesting thing here is that I don't have use it often since the
introduction of access points. It's presorted and organized by M2
automatically. For me it's worth 100 spell checkers.
>
> Anyway, the fact that in a matter of days a few people have reported
> loosing their email can be brushed off as a speckle on the BEST's
> record. I am an experienced user, and the fact is that I wasn't even
> using the thing when my PC crashed. Restarted and the email vaporized
> (see yesterday's thread).
Sounds like a serious bug indeed. I've lost my mail before. Once with
Outlook, once with the Bat. Very painful. Now I back it up on a regular
basis.
> I never insisted in removing it, it's quite harmless when dormant so I
> won't reply to that. I suggest making it bug free, improve on the
> documentation, and most of all TESTING it properly and not using this
> kind of community for their testing. Something I am prepared and willing
> to do for Mozilla, not for a software company. This is my point here,
> this is not a Linux community, and I am complaining for a product that
> is bug ridden. I like the browser, always have, but a lot more at the
> time of dial ups when the difference in speed was phenomenal. No my
> Netscape is faster, and sometimes even IExploder is faster. So I say
> test the dam thing instead of sending it out and then patch it, upgrade
> it fix it in a circle that reminds me of YES! bloatware.
I agree that the habit of releasing buggy code is a bad one. It's quite
ubiquitous though and not exclusive to Opera. And it just turned out that
my definition of a showstopper is similar to that of Opera Software. I
don't share your sentiments about Mozilla, it just stopped developing a
while ago IMO and has nasty bugs that have been out there for over a year
now. Like disappearing cache. And lost mails and profiles, BTW. I don't
care if they are a community or a company, it's not an excuse in any case.
I don't care about browser speed either, not anymore. Not that nobody cares
though - there are lots of people on dial-up. It's the functionality and
the _extremely well-integrated mail client_ that keep me loyal to Opera.
The day it takes any time for my client to react to clicking on a mailto
link will probably be the last day without looking for an alternative to
Opera for me. Switching to another application to read mail and yet to
another one to read news is annoying. I just can't and don't want to waste
time on that stuff. Now, does everybody has to have the same preferences?
Of course not. If you want to spend hours organizing your mails and moving
them from folder to folder, that's fine. But I prefer that software do it
for me, at least for the most part. Like I said, I have too many messages
every day, literally hundreds of contacts on my contact list, and time is
the key issue. And I have a feeling that M2 was created with people like me
in mind. That's why I say it's the best client out there. Buggy, you say?
Probably so, although I'm not worried by any of them really. Missing
features? Yeah, you bet, and sometimes crucial ones. But the rest of what
the market has to offer is just pure crap compared to M2, even in this
condition.
--
Van Grieg
Shannon Orem
*snip*
> Bouncing: I used the term in the sense is used in PocoMail, and I will
> explain it. If I receive an email that was actually supposed to go to
> my wife, or a colleague, whatever, PM allows me to bounce it rather
> than forwarding. This means that the intended addressee will receive
> AS IF it had been sent to him by the original sender. This way, if she
> hits reply to, it won't come back to me, but to the original sender. I
> apologize if I did not explain myself, but I can hardly believe that a
> person with that much email (do they feed you at the computer?) has
> never received mails that were better directed for someone else. I
> have a fraction of your mails, yet I archive them regularly so I
> cannot speak of the comparative speed of the applications, and I
*snip*
Bouncing in reference to e-mail is usually along the lines of a bounced
back message from the receiving mail server. e.g. the TO: address was
invalid and couldn't be delivered. A lot of anti-spam tools give you the
option of bouncing a message back to the original sender in a manner that
they look like they're undeliverable. This causes the spammer to believe
in some cases that your address is not valid and they remove you from
their list.
I've more commonly heard of what you refer to as bouncing as being called
"re-directing".
Sincerely,
Shannon Orem
--
[ http://www.zion13.net/ ]
[ PGP Key ID: 0xB6DCB250 DH/DSS 2048/1024 ]
[ E-mail with html or attachments will not be delivered. ]
Andrew Gregory
> Some final comments before signing-off from this thread...
Stay around! I think you started this, didn't you?
> I am an advocate of the UNIX Philosophy tenets "small is beautiful",
> "make each program do one thing well" and "make every program a filter
> [component]".
If you perhaps change your point of view slightly, that's exactly how Opera
have designed their software. The email/news program is a separate DLL,
that does it's thing (email and news) very well (although there is plently
of room for improvement). It doesn't do anything else. It doesn't browse
the web. That's what the main Opera web browser part is for. It just so
happens that M2 reuses the web browser UI to display emails and news
postings.
> I like my applications to be focused and independent of each other, but
> to work seamlessly with each other. (The best example I can give is my
> bookmark manager, Compass, which is independent of and works with several
> browsers.) I want to construct my computing environment from the
> building blocks which suite me best. Others apparently prefer to have
> all-in-one solutions.
From another persepctive, your PC taken as a whole is an all-in-one
solution. It's all a matter of degree. I'm guessing you'd rather have your
PC instead of a web box, an email box, a word processor box, an accounts
box, etc. If separate functions were always truely useful and worthwhile,
that's what we'd all have instead of PCs.
If I can pick a phrase from another message (can't remember whose): "jack
of all trades and master of none". If I was part of the small Opera
development team that have specialised in developing the M2 module (largely
independently of the web browser), I would be insulted by that remark. You
like your apps to work seamlessly together. That implies a certain level of
integration and commonality.
> In my opinion, MS Windows is a prime example of way too much integration.
>
> If Windows were just an OS, whose primary function was to provide a
> stable and flexible platform on which to build and run third-party
> applications, I believe everyone's computing experience (except Bill's)
> would improve dramatically.
This is a poor comparison. Integrating a web browser into an operating
system is a vastly different proposal compared to integrating an email
client into a web browser. You're right, an operating system should be
managing the local computer and hardware, not worrying about communicating
with other computers. However, when it comes to web communications,
integrating the two biggest methods of Internet communication in current
existence, the web page and email, is a very worthwhile thing to do.
> In any case, it's apparent that my way does not make money. So I don't
> blame Opera or MS for their behavior. I only wish it was otherwise...
Separate products would still make money, but it's much, much cheaper for
Opera to re-use the work they've put into their web browser to provide a UI
for their email/news client. Developing a UI for an app is often considered
to consume at least half the resources required to develop the program as a
whole. Opera have probably *halved* the required effort to develop an email
client. They can take that saved effort and put it improving the quality of
the rest of the package. This is only possible because it was possible to
share UI code in this particular case.
--
Andrew Gregory
<URL:http://www.scsoftware.com.au/family/andrew/>
Ralph Friedman
> improve "quirks" mode and you get the best browser/mail suite ever.
But that's only interesting if you want the mail capabilities. I for
one don't The Bat! serves all my current and anticipated need for mail
and has an UI that is not counter-intuitive besides.
--
Regards,
Ralph
Van Grieg
wrote:
> But that's only interesting if you want the mail capabilities. I for
> one don't The Bat! serves all my current and anticipated need for mail
> and has an UI that is not counter-intuitive besides.
>
The Bat has a lot of problems which led me to discontinuing its use. If you
like it, use it. It's a good program. It doesn't mean that it's impossible
to create another good program. If you want to keep using The Bat! and
don't want to switch. That's fine. Don't use M2 then. But there are other
people, too.
I don't find M2's UI counter-intuitive by any means. It's just a bit
unusual, but these are different things. Neither I nor my wife struggled
with its interface - somehow it was clear after fifteen minutes how
everything works. Moreover, it makes more sense if you think about it
without prejudice.
--
Van Grieg
Rijk van Geijtenbeek
In theory, it should be possible to 'remove' some functionality from the UI (mainly the address bar, the goto dialog and the 'new page' function)(iow mutilate Opera), and set it to always start with the Hotlist and the Unread window open. Then add the possibility to open URL links in an external browser, instead of having it opening in a new page inside Opera. The added functionality would make this M2 stand-alone mail & news client only a few KB bigger than the current 3.3MB of 7.02 ;)
--
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
Rijk van Geijtenbeek
..
>> I had purchased several Opera 6 licenses... I do not plan on purchasing any for Opera 7. When's Opera 8 due out?
> Opera 8 will be out when we finish our kitchen sink technology.
Mozilla is already working on it. They might beat us to it ;)
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=122411
Haavard K. Moen
...
> Uh, "corrected"? Come on!
Well yes. You are not the first to believe that resources are "wasted"
on the mailer, when it was, in fact, added because it was probably the
number one requested feature.
...
> I am an advocate of the UNIX Philosophy tenets "small is beautiful", "make
> each program do one thing well" and "make every program a filter
> [component]".
...
It is of course possible to not use M2 at all, and it is just a small
DLL file which can even be deleted without causing problems.
Haavard K. Moen
> Perhaps it would be both satisfiying to some users and easy for OS to
> just put in a option that in effect stops loading M2 and hides the M&N
> menus in one step.....
Delete m2.dll?
Haavard K. Moen
<newsg...@garlinsoftware.com> wrote:
> But that's only interesting if you want the mail capabilities. I for
> one don't The Bat! serves all my current and anticipated need for mail
> and has an UI that is not counter-intuitive besides.
The Bat! is a great e-mail client, and I've even been using the
registered version. But working for Opera, I had to use M2 some to be
able to help others with it, and I found myself annoyed by the normal
folders in The Bat, when access points are so much more convenient.
Van Grieg
wrote:
> In theory, it should be possible to 'remove' some functionality from the
> UI (mainly the address bar, the goto dialog and the 'new page' function)
> (iow mutilate Opera), and set it to always start with the Hotlist and the
> Unread window open. Then add the possibility to open URL links in an
> external browser, instead of having it opening in a new page inside
> Opera. The added functionality would make this M2 stand-alone mail & news
> client only a few KB bigger than the current 3.3MB of 7.02 ;)
>
Oh no please don't do it!!! The guys who want it separate don't want to use
it as a matter of fact, so it doesn't matter how you implement it, they'll
bitch anyway. Those who do use it don't complain about the integration!
--
Van Grieg
Mark V
news:2hb46vg1ghfiuv6js...@4ax.com:
Of course, but I said "satisfiying to some users" to have a one-stop
Preference. Me, I long ago renamed m2.dll and did the customization to
remove the Mail menus. I am talking about ease of configuration not
that such a configuration is possible. Just 2 cents.
Mark V
news:oprle1tw...@news.opera.no:
But in terms of marketability there just might be a bigger paid
market for a stand-alone browser, stand-alone mail client and a
combined product. That may interrest OS as it tries to build market-
share and paid licenses. ...just a thought. I am not asking for it
even though I do not use M2. But if such an option _were_ available,
I'd get the browser-only in a heartbeat.
Ralph Friedman
> when access points are so much more convenient.
Just goes to show you, different strokes for different folks. The
access points were what turned me off to M2. The ability to organize
the way that I want to is what sold me on The Bat!. Not doing my mail
with Opera, in turn, has caused me to use my registered version of O7 a
lot less than I was using O6. I use Phoenix for may day to day work. On
an average page it appears to be noticably faster (observation, no
scientific measurement there) than O7. I only print from Phoenix.
--
Regards,
Ralph
Richard Grevers
wrote:
>>
>> No. As I said in my other reply, M2 is depending on the browser for all
>> the UI, file, internet and rendering functions. Making it an application
>> which could run without the main browser component would mean to almost
>> start from the beginning and write a mail client. That's something Opera
>> Software *really* doesn't want.
>
> In theory, it should be possible to 'remove' some functionality from the
> UI (mainly the address bar, the goto dialog and the 'new page' function)
> (iow mutilate Opera), and set it to always start with the Hotlist and the
> Unread window open. Then add the possibility to open URL links in an
> external browser, instead of having it opening in a new page inside
> Opera. The added functionality would make this M2 stand-alone mail & news
> client only a few KB bigger than the current 3.3MB of 7.02 ;)
>
The biggest problem is, if you separate mail/news from browser, how do you
hand off an HTML email to the browser in a safe manner? (i.e. with no
scripting, no external images allowed. etc_
--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
R.A.G. Seely
news:oprlfbki...@news.opera.com:
FoxMail will do that for you - plain html rendering without the bad stuff.
Personally I only use FoxMail for the few items I want "at home", but
instead log on to a machine at work (telnet - rather TTSSH) and use pine on
that machine remotely. The advantages: my mail is equally accesssible to
me whereever I am in the world, I have *no* virus or trojan worries, and
storage is not an issue. I realise not everyone has that possibility
though. I'd recommend FoxMail for at home use on a windows machine (or
pine - it's really all one needs!).
I find Opera as a browser, Xnews as a newsreader, and Pine/FoxMail for
email make an excellent team - and I didn't find M2 even tempted me
(setting it up for news alone was enough to turn me off!). The access
points are somewhat of an acquired taste I think - and certainly would mean
adopting an entirely new set of habits for something that suits me just
fine at the moment. I cannot see the benefit, personally. But of course
YMMV.
-= rags =-
--
To reply by email, use "@" not "__A@T__"
<rags AT math . mcgill . ca>
<http://www.math.mcgill.ca/rags>
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.
Ever Swanson
> to succeed. I've been using it almost exclusively for several years.
>
running on Win-95R2 over slow connections, but that was more than 3 years ago;
times change. Win-Me and Win-XP go a long way to lock-in the consumer, and
lock-out the third-party or independant developer, except those firms with close
strategic ties to M$. Therefore, Opera has no future on Win-32. I will be
building my next box with linux, although this machine that I'm on now (which
isn't mine) will be upgraded to Win-XP home-ed. I look forward to using Opera
on a platform where the software package actually has a fighting chance to work
properly.
>
> I am an advocate of the UNIX Philosophy tenets "small is beautiful", "make
> each program do one thing well" and "make every program a filter
> [component]".
>
on the customers system, they tend not to worry about the size. There are many
excellent small bits of software (components or programs) or ideas that lie in
wait for some developer with vision to integrate or synthesize into a cohesive
whole that will please the end user. I also think that it's best to offer
customers a single price point.
>
> I like my applications to be focused and independent of each other, but to
> work seamlessly with each other. (The best example I can give is my
> bookmark manager, Compass, which is independent of and works with several
> browsers.) I want to construct my computing environment from the building
> blocks which suite me best. Others apparently prefer to have all-in-one
> solutions.
>
which the product is used. Here's a link that may shed some light on this:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technology/2003-02-26-desktop_x.htm
>
> In my opinion, MS Windows is a prime example of way too much integration.
> If Windows were just an OS, whose primary function was to provide a stable
> and flexible platform on which to build and run third-party applications, I
> believe everyone's computing experience (except Bill's) would improve
> dramatically.
>
web technologies will be the basis for information transaction and processing,
so they are now on an evolutionary path of transforming the PC platform from a
self-contained system into a net centric client, where every client has a
broadband connection. Right now, M$ does not control the internet platform, so
it's a big problem for them.
Ted Baker
> Why do Ford put coat hooks and cup holders in their cars? It's a car for
> god's sake, not a wardrobe or cafe.
Just delete cupholder.dll
--
Opera, the browser for hobbyists, enthusiasts and fanatics of various
stripes.
Wojciech Eysymontt
"Jim" <j...@hotmail.com> was that kind to write:
> Cliff Heller <fn...@panix.com> wrote in
>
> > Jim <j...@hotmail.com> writes:
> >
> >> Why do Opera developers feel the need to integrate email, news, and god
> >> knows what else into their browser? What's next, an integrated media
> >> player? IM?
> >
> > I've got to agree. A standalone stable email client is preferable.
> > I have yet to meet a browser that doesn't crash from time to time.
> > It's nice to have email and news in separate dedicated clients.
>
> Thank you! Someone at least agrees with something I said!
That does not neccessarily mean you are both right.
I'd want to point out that you both mess up ideas and problems.
1. stability - integrated / separate application
M2 is less integrated with Opera (almost not) than Outlook Express (which seems to be totally separate) with IE.
M2 code is absolutely separated - in ONE .dll file. There is only some reference to it from Opera.
Outlook Express and IE are partially built into operating system, they're tightly together in same files, many files, shared between them only and some with other applications. I think some version of OE even was launched by calling IE executable only with some parameters that changed it to be OE. The fact is that from the programming point of view, OE and IE are *much* more tightly together than M2&O. So don't say M2 or O is integrated and that it means that either or both of them are much less stable.
Therefore integration of M2 client has NOTHING to do with stability or any other problems like unnecesseary menu entry which can be removed (removing could be easier and probably will be soon as it was in O6 but this is not the case). The ONLY problem here is usage of resources (programmers' time&OS's money) for developing M2 - but many people do like M2 and Opera Software itself claims that it brings benefits, so these expenses are JUSTIFIED - as both clients and OS are happy. So stay away from this area and do not try to undermine arguments presented here 'cause you'll fail and be called out a troll again. No comments please.
2. users' convinience
I can understand many would like to launch M2 as a seperate application or even have it as a seperate download. You can ask for it. Even more - DO IT - you are invited to do this. But only *once* for some reasonable time and consistently motivate your wish. But it looks like OS does it intentionally. There may be plenty of reasons, so don't be disappointed if they don't do this in near future - don't expect too much. One of the reasons is probably the need of some programming effort to seperate the environment for M2. My personal opinion about other reason is that OS realize that M2 would not survive as a separate download, especially when payed separately. Maybe not yet. When it will be improved, expanded, polished - it may become an unbeatable client for much more people than currently. But it's just a thought. Many can disagree and Opera will never deny or confirm it officially so let's don't argue about it 'cause there's no point in doing so.
> Actually, the same goes for a news client. It's extremely unlikely an
> integrated news client will ever match the stability or power of a
> dedicated app.
Answered above. There does not seem to be any problem with "integrating" M2 into Opera. Stability problem is your imagination.
The power... Call it a convience to use. Someone said he prefers integrated so I think it would be best if it's optional.
But hey, I got some trick for you. If you want to watch some folder for some longer time (do not switch on hotlist), drag a page (for page header on pagebar) and drop it to a Windows task bar. The window will open as a totally separate window. You can feel like it's a separate application. :) Unfortunately changing access points in Hot List does not affect this window anymore - which is why said that use it if you want to work for some more time in one AP.
> And I would think casual users would be happily served by
> Google Groups.
>
> And let's face it, Opera users tend to be power users. Most casual users
> will use whatever ships with their system (i.e. IE).
You're wrong again. Teoreticaly I thought the same way some time ago, but practice proved it's not true - people which are totally novice to computers may also be *VERY* satisfied by using opera instead of IE.
I convinced 2 novice computer users to use Opera (didn't try more, so 100% success) - you won' t believe how simple - by only one feature per each of them (both are girls if matters to anyone):
- one beloved the convinience of integrated Google search
- second enjoys the page loading progress bar (also a No.1 feature for me) and she doesn't even mind that some pages do not load properly in Opera - that she has to open the site once again by IE time to time - she finds it as extremely valuable and critical information - to know what happens (what's the progress) with loading of the page
So I *don't* believe anymore that Opera is *not* able to satisfy user on any experience level. Opera is good for everyone. If we only show it to people which doesn't know that such great browser exists. Cause there's a lot of such people. So spread the Opera name across the web and convince friends to use it.
Regards
Wojciech E.
Mark V
news:oprlfiuf...@news.opera.no:
> On 28 Feb 2003 18:53:41 GMT, Kelz <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Why do Ford put coat hooks and cup holders in their cars? It's a
>> car for god's sake, not a wardrobe or cafe.
>
> Just delete cupholder.dll
Sorry, they use the MS embedded AOS (automobile operating system) and
cupholdr.dll is a shared (by 42 other critical sub-systems) resource.
If you remove it your car will BSOD shortly after catastrophic brake
failure and engine fire.
;)
Van Grieg
<wojci...@NO.SPAM.komtech.com.pl> wrote:
> 2. users' convinience
> I can understand many would like to launch M2 as a seperate application
> or even have it as a seperate download. You can ask for it. Even more -
> DO IT - you are invited to do this. But only *once* for some reasonable
> time and consistently motivate your wish. But it looks like OS does it
> intentionally. There may be plenty of reasons, so don't be disappointed
> if they don't do this in near future - don't expect too much. One of the
> reasons is probably the need of some programming effort to seperate the
> environment for M2. My personal opinion about other reason is that OS
> realize that M2 would not survive as a separate download, especially when
> payed separately. Maybe not yet. When it will be improved, expanded,
> polished - it may become an unbeatable client for much more people than
> currently. But it's just a thought. Many can disagree and Opera will
> never deny or confirm it officially so let's don't argue about it 'cause
> there's no point in doing so.
They way M2 is using the browser interface right now I get tons of
benefits. It reacts instantly - who will prefer a delay, I just don't get
it. I see which account received mail instantly in the hotlist - whether
it's business or personal or news. If it's a mailing list, the respective
access point gets bold, same goes for spam. I don't have to switch to
anything or click anything to see if the message is important. Isn't this
convenience?
Those who say that M2 should be a separate application don't want to use
it. I have never heard such a request from people who use the built-in
mail/news client.
--
Van Grieg
Matthew Winn
> Those who say that M2 should be a separate application don't want to use
> it. I have never heard such a request from people who use the built-in
> mail/news client.
Actually a week or two ago there was a request from someone who wanted
to use the O6 mail client with the O7 browser. It's not possible, of
course. That's the downside of built-in software, and that's why I
maintain that the best way of working is to have separate applications
which merely appear to the user to be integrated. Integration is great
if that's what you prefer, but it does mean that you're forced to use
the same version of each element of the application. What are you going
to do if the O8 browser has a vital feature you need but the O8 version
of M2 has a user interface you can't tolerate? If M2 was separate you
could continue to use the O7 M2 with the O8 browser.
The ideal situation would be if all applications were swappable, so if
you want integration but don't want M2 you could rip M2 out and replace
it and still get the same level of integration. Unfortunately that's
not yet possible, and for security reasons it may never be possible.
(To work it would mean that each application would need an API which
allowed full access to all features, and it's _really_ not a good idea
to have a mail client which can be controlled externally to that extent,
as all those who have been on the receiving end of Outlook-based worms
can testify.)
--
Matthew Winn
Matthew Winn
> But in terms of marketability there just might be a bigger paid
> market for a stand-alone browser, stand-alone mail client and a
> combined product.
I'm not convinced that's true. Most people who download Opera are
looking for a new browser but are likely to have a email client already.
They may try M2 if it's bundled in with the browser but I doubt many
would bother with a separate download of the email component. I doubt
they'd bother with M2 even if offered a choice of "download with M2" or
"download browser only". It's my belief that the only way M2 will gain
market share is by being included in the package.
I'm not bothered by having to download M2 even though I won't use it.
It's only a couple of hundred kilobytes every month or two, and even if
a new version of Opera came out every month it would average out at only
half a bit a second.
--
Matthew Winn
Axel Siebert
>>> I have yet to meet a browser that doesn't crash from time to time.
>>> It's nice to have email and news in separate dedicated clients.
>>
>> Thank you! Someone at least agrees with something I said!
>>
> OE and IE are *much* more tightly together than M2&O. So don't say
> M2 or O is integrated and that it means that either or both of them are
> much less stable.
As much as I wholeheartedly agree with your other points, you missed the
original poster's point here. M2, while relying heavily on the Opera UI,
is almost a separate application, but it's loaded as a DLL, which means that
if Opera crashes, which, as the poster said, sadly happens from time to time,
it takes M2 down as well. The same goes for OE and IE, being so tightly
integrated as you described, if one goes down then the other will most
certainly die too.
That won't happen if you use a totally separate mail client, which minds its
own business when the browser crashes.
Axel
Van Grieg
wrote:
> On 2 Mar 2003 17:23:24 GMT, Mark V <inv...@notvalid.net> wrote:
>> But in terms of marketability there just might be a bigger paid market
>> for a stand-alone browser, stand-alone mail client and a combined
>> product.
>
> I'm not convinced that's true. Most people who download Opera are
> looking for a new browser but are likely to have a email client already.
Maybe you are right that they want to try the browser, that's what I did.
But I *purchased* Opera only after I found that there is a mail client so
smoothly integrated. It's that integration that made the suite unique. I
would never have paid for a standalone browser - there are too many of them
for free. An integrated mail client was something that I'd always wanted
and that's what I found. My $39 as an example.
--
Van Grieg
Van Grieg
wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Mar 2003 22:00:40 -0500, Van Grieg <n...@spam.net> wrote:
>> Those who say that M2 should be a separate application don't want to use
>> it. I have never heard such a request from people who use the built-in
>> mail/news client.
>
> Actually a week or two ago there was a request from someone who wanted
> to use the O6 mail client with the O7 browser. It's not possible, of
> course. That's the downside of built-in software, and that's why I
He didn't ask to make it a separate application though. I see the downside,
but making the mail client a separate application will kill this app for
me. I won't need Opera anymore.
--
Van Grieg
Sanford Aranoff
> the top, and out slides the cup holder drawer!
Richard Grevers
> On Mon, 3 Mar 2003 00:20:56 +0100, Wojciech Eysymontt wrote:
>
>>>> I have yet to meet a browser that doesn't crash from time to time.
>>>> It's nice to have email and news in separate dedicated clients.
>>>
>>> Thank you! Someone at least agrees with something I said!
>>>
>> OE and IE are *much* more tightly together than M2&O. So don't say
>> M2 or O is integrated and that it means that either or both of them are
>> much less stable.
>
> As much as I wholeheartedly agree with your other points, you missed the
> original poster's point here. M2, while relying heavily on the Opera UI,
> is almost a separate application, but it's loaded as a DLL, which means
> that if Opera crashes, which, as the poster said, sadly happens from time
> to time, it takes M2 down as well. The same goes for OE and IE, being so
> tightly integrated as you described, if one goes down then the other will
> most certainly die too.
And the Operating System! ;-)
Although I hate having OE on my system now that I am using Win2K, the
instructions for removing it assume that you are doing so to replace it
with a different version. There is a worry that one or more of its dozen
dlls is essential for some other part of Windows.
Marjolein Katsma
> The biggest problem is, if you separate mail/news from browser, how do
> you hand off an HTML email to the browser in a safe manner? (i.e.
> with no scripting, no external images allowed. etc_
Simple. You *don't* hand off HTML email - just show it as plain text or do
what Eudora does when you tell it not to use IE for rendering. Perfectly
safe.
I don't *want* HTML email anyway and unsubscribe from any mail list that
doesn't give me a choice.
--
Marjolein Katsma - from Amsterdam, NL
* Help with HomeSite/Studio: http://hshelp.com/
* HomeSite Help Blogs: http://blogs.hshelp.com/
Marjolein Katsma
> Yes it's now faster, has more features (such as better DOM, CSS,
> HTML, customisation, etc), works on more sites than before and
> takes up less disk space. Such suffering..
Suffering is right. Because it *still* doesn't support the HTML standard
completely. Pick and choose is not the same as supporting a standard.
Opera used to be the first browser I would use to test for compatibility -
now Mozilla is first and Opera is *last*.
Wojciech Eysymontt
What I ment is that M2's and Opera's code are clearly seperated - so:
1. there is no way a programmer of M2 can screw something in Opera browser when making changes/improvements in M2's code (and opposite)
2. when Opera and M2 run together, they will not cause a crash by somehow interfereing each other's code
But of course you are right - a crash occuring in any of the parts is indeed a situation where the integration has it's bad consequences for both parts.
Regards
Wojciech E.
Wojciech Eysymontt
"Marjolein Katsma" <nob...@spamcop.net> was that kind to write:
> Richard Grevers wrote in news:oprlfbki...@news.opera.com:
>
> > The biggest problem is, if you separate mail/news from browser, how do
> > you hand off an HTML email to the browser in a safe manner? (i.e.
> > with no scripting, no external images allowed. etc_
>
> Simple. You *don't* hand off HTML email - just show it as plain text or do
> what Eudora does when you tell it not to use IE for rendering. Perfectly
> safe.
>
> I don't *want* HTML email anyway and unsubscribe from any mail list that
> doesn't give me a choice.
You're fanatic... You should go to a doctor to get some pills...
I'm tired with people like you - who have deep in the a** needs of 90% of users and look no further than tip of their own nose. They are simply not wishing well to Opera Software.. They don't care about it's success or failure. Although HTML mail is not standarized, it's handy and useful for lot's of users, which will not be using M2 if it does not display HTML mails. Opera have already taken up the right decision to display it so SHUT the fuck UP. Nobody cares you don't like it.
Regards
Wojciech E.
jim
news:b44k3j$2g0$1...@mail.opera.no:
Wojciech, you're an ass.
Henk
Dear Wojciech, maybe you should consider getting a few tranquilizers
yourself? What's the point of getting so rude and intolerant just because
someone doesn't share your opinion?
As for HTML email, the perfect middle-of-the-road solution, one that many
email clients already build in, is of course to offer the user a *clear*
choice whether he wants to see messages by default in HTML or in plain
text.
Where almost all mail clients fall abominably short is in explicitly
*warning* novice users, such as my old father... When a user for the first
time selects to view/compose all messages where possible in HTML, the email
program ought to pop up a warning dialog with a text like this:
WARNING!
Messages may look more colorful and have a better layout in HTML, and can
include things like pictures that may be important to you, but... this
option also brings serious dangers. Such as:
- Just by previewing an HTML spam message, and loading the images in it,
you may unwillingly notify the spammer that your address is valid and the
message has been opened, thus generating more spam to your address;
- By opening HTML messages with the scripts that may be embedded in them,
you may become much more vulnerable to viruses infecting your computer or
to other malicious exploits;
- By clicking obfuscated links in seemingly innocuous HTML messages you may
be send to places on the Web where you did not expect or intend to go;
- In the other direction, when you send out HTML messages, many recipients
may consider this impolite or suspect and therefore discard your message
unread, even when assuming their mail reader would allow HTML mail at all.
Considering these dangers, are you sure you want to make HTML your default
email mode? Yes/No
My hunch is that an inbuilt warning like this, paternalistic as it may
seem, would actually prevent a lot of trouble for a lot of people.
Wishing you a good health ;-)
Henk
Howard Brazee
newsgroup program I end up using.
Mark V
>
Wojciech E.,
No call for that kind of personal attack whatsoever. Each is
entitled to their own opinion. If you feel otherwise you should stop
posting so others' opinions do not upset you.
<opinion=On>
HTML mail is evil and hazardous and is not part of the RFC standards
for e-mail. I will accept no HTML mail whatsoever and automatically
discard any such mail immediately. I never send HTML e-mail and tell
any corespondents to send to me in TEXT-only format. Not even dual-
format. I will not subscribe to any mailing list that will not
provide plain text message content. If you study the subject in
depth it will become obvious that HTML mail is just too potentially
dangerous to use for any cautious and sensible being. My opinion is
shared by many and you would see that if you bothered to do adequate
research. I have studied and worked in the computer security field
for over a decade.
If Opera permitted HTML to do what IE has allowed now and in the
past, then that would surely be to Opera's detriment as Users would
find themselves tracked by spammers and marketeers (at the least).
The most reasonable thing to do is to provide users safe choices and
to further warn them when they select other than the most secure
choice. If that is not sufficient for you, go back to IE/OE or other
juicy target of spam, viruses, worms and such.
<opinion=Off>
Wojciech Eysymontt
"Wojciech Eysymontt" <wojci...@NO.SPAM.komtech.com.pl> wrote:
"Marjolein Katsma" <nob...@spamcop.net> was that kind to write:
>> Richard Grevers wrote in news:oprlfbki...@news.opera.com:
>>
>> > The biggest problem is, if you separate mail/news from browser, how do
>> > you hand off an HTML email to the browser in a safe manner? (i.e.
>> > with no scripting, no external images allowed. etc_
>>
>> Simple. You *don't* hand off HTML email - just show it as plain text or do
>> what Eudora does when you tell it not to use IE for rendering. Perfectly
>> safe.
>>
>> I don't *want* HTML email anyway and unsubscribe from any mail list that
>> doesn't give me a choice.
>
> I'm tired with people like you - who have deep in the a** needs of 90% of users and look no further than tip of their own nose. They are simply not wishing well to Opera
Answering both to Henk and Mark V.
I was impolite, as:
- this person was a typical clear-text mail fanatic, a nazist who does not care about others' needs. Such people are narrow-minded to RFCs and treat HTML mail as the worst evil on Earth, whereas it's not. HTML mail cannot be treated to be equally non-RFC element like say a <marquee> tag. HTML mail is not a new tag, new language, it's just a statement: "let's put HTML page in email". That's all. You can always tell me that this is non-RFC but there is no alternative! (see comments below before commenting this one)
- I've heard so far - and you both do exactly the same - lot's of frightening with disaster that HTML mail can cause, while they are not really true - look below
Don't mess two things - reading and sending HTML.
1. Reading
M2 does not allow external references and scripting so all your worry's are pointless. I definately like these restrictions of M2 as I'm concerned about security.
2. Sending
When I create a HTML mail to send it to my friend, I am sure that it has no active scripting or tracking references for spammers. Therefore those frightening about how HTML bad is, is pointless also.
Warning presented by Henk is very welcomed - with only one more point maybe:
"If you are sure the person you are sending this email to, has email client capable to display HTML mail and doesn't mind receiveing it, feel free to use HTML mail to this recipient, as there is no risk nor danger in it, except some bigger message size"
You missed it, but it's definitely common situation - sending mails between friends, which both don't mind HTML mail.
The only problem about HTML mail is people's attitude to it. I accept it, you do not. We will never come up to agreement. To please the most however, Opera should support HTML mail, as there is no alternative. Text mail is absolutely not an alternative (for justification and study of this topic, go back to "HTML mail" discussion a few months ago).
Regards
Wojciech E.
Van Grieg
<wojci...@NO.SPAM.komtech.com.pl> wrote:
> The only problem about HTML mail is people's attitude to it. I accept it,
> you do not. We will never come up to agreement. To please the most
> however, Opera should support HTML mail, as there is no alternative. Text
> mail is absolutely not an alternative (for justification and study of
> this topic, go back to "HTML mail" discussion a few months ago).
The problem I have with HTML mail is its size. I get 50-70 messages a day
and don't want to clean my mailbox any more often than I do now. It's a
time-consumig process, and I'm not a particular fan of it. Sending HTML
mail to people without warning is at least impolite.
On the other hand, 99% of my contacts use Outlook. And in fact nobody sends
HTML mail to me, only spammers and occasional strangers. On the one hand,
it suggests that it's not as dangerous as many people tend to think. On the
other hand though, it means that there's really not much demand for this
feature, since people don't use it when it's present. It could be a waste
of time and money. I personally wouldn't bother with it if I were to
decide. I don't have any scientific data to prove this of course, but I'm
sure you don't either. So saying that Opera "should" have it, and that
there's "absolutely no alternative" is clearly an exaggeration.
However, I agree that security concerns are irrelevant here. If a malicious
person wants to compose a message with a harmful script, he/she has plenty
of options to do so. While I think that HTML mail is bad and useless, it's
already out there, and lack of support for it in Opera doesn't solve the
problem anyway.
--
Van Grieg
Howard Brazee
On 5-Mar-2003, Van Grieg <n...@spam.net> wrote:
> On the other hand, 99% of my contacts use Outlook. And in fact nobody sends
> HTML mail to me, only spammers and occasional strangers. On the one hand,
> it suggests that it's not as dangerous as many people tend to think. On the
> other hand though, it means that there's really not much demand for this
> feature, since people don't use it when it's present. It could be a waste
> of time and money. I personally wouldn't bother with it if I were to
> decide. I don't have any scientific data to prove this of course, but I'm
> sure you don't either. So saying that Opera "should" have it, and that
> there's "absolutely no alternative" is clearly an exaggeration.
In my job, I need the ability to send formatted screen images which show up
quite well using HTML. So I need an e-mail program that can handle this.
Van Grieg
> In my job, I need the ability to send formatted screen images which show
> up
> quite well using HTML. So I need an e-mail program that can handle
> this.
>
I send and receive a lot of formatted documents, too. But everybody
attaches them to messages. It's much easier for the recepient to organize
and sort them later this way. And it saves space on server. I save
attachments and delete mails.
--
Van Grieg
R.A.G. Seely
news:b47n2p$h2s$1...@mail.opera.no:
This argument has been given many times before - certain professional uses
require some formatting or display, so please let's make all email
programmes send and receive in html. I don't buy this, for two reasons.
First, there are programmes that do what you want - why request others to
do so too, if there is a niche (it's becoming that!) for ones that don't.
And second, what's wrong with attachments? I could tell you (truely) that
most of my professional email requires me to send and receive tex and
postscript files - should I demand my email programme display such files
in-line? That would be seen by most (me particularly) as nonsense, but it
really isn't different in principle from your comment. I solve my
"problem" with one of two methods: I send the code (tex files) and expect
my recipient to compile the code (and vice versa for files I receive), or I
send the compiled file (ps files) as an attachment, and view that with the
appropriate viewer - if my computer is properly set up, that's a very
simple procedure, and one I perform *very* often. (I confess, if Opera
included an in-line ps viewer, it wouldn't make M2 any more attractive to
me - I only judge email programmes on the basis of what they do with text.)
So, you don't really *need* an email programme that handles formatted
screen images - you *want* one that does. There is a world of difference
in those two states.
So - by all means use html if your business requires it, but that is no
reason to be evanglical about the issue (as other posters have been). If
Opera wants to include an html-aware mail sender, it'll do so, and if you
want that, by all means mention it (once or twice, without excessive
abuse!). But there the issue ends - after that, it's up to the marketting
droids at OS, I guess.
bunyip
> j...@hotmail.com (Jim) wrote:
>
>> Why do Opera developers feel the need to integrate email, news, and
>> god knows what else into their browser? What's next, an integrated
>> media player? IM?
>
> Agree. Me too wants a "only browser".
>
> Bye,
> Frank
>
>
>
if the email client isnt required all you have to do is delete the mail.dll
file
Van Grieg
> if the email client isnt required all you have to do is delete the
> mail.dll file
They know it pretty well. They won't stop trolling anyway.
--
Van Grieg
Ralph Friedman
> if the email client isnt required all you have to do is delete the
> mail.dll file
and if the Opera developers truly wanted you to be able to do that they
would have provided a "preferences" choice for it. What you describe is
normally called a hack.
--
Regards,
Ralph
bunyip
wrote:
granted it may be a hack, but it does the job
Van Grieg
Not to mention that you need to remove it only if you are religious about
the thing.
--
Van Grieg
Mark V
news:b49j57$eb1$2...@mail.opera.no:
Re: m2.dll
It's not a "hack" it is a "manual option" :)
Really. OS has stated here that it is supported to rename or remove
m2.dll and then remove "Mail" menus if you wish to.
A Preference option would be nice though.
Lasse Reichstein Nielsen
> Re: m2.dll
> It's not a "hack" it is a "manual option" :)
> Really. OS has stated here that it is supported to rename or remove
> m2.dll and then remove "Mail" menus if you wish to.
>
> A Preference option would be nice though.
It would be a support nightmare if people could easily remove the mail
ability, but not just as easily turn it back on. If m2.dll was
deleted, it could not be turned back on, so I don't think Opera
Software will ever make it that easy to shoot yourself in the foot.
/L
--
Lasse Reichstein Nielsen - l...@hotpop.com
Art D'HTML: <URL:http://www.infimum.dk/HTML/randomArtSplit.html>
'Faith without judgement merely degrades the spirit divine.'
Chris J Breisch
loading that DLL manually in the Opera code. A preferences option would
just allow them to load the DLL or not. It wouldn't have to be physically
removed, unless you really are that bothered by its very existence.
On 07 Mar 2003 17:10:14 +0100, Lasse Reichstein Nielsen <l...@hotpop.com>
wrote:
> Mark V <inv...@notvalid.net> writes:
>
>> Re: m2.dll
>> It's not a "hack" it is a "manual option" :)
>> Really. OS has stated here that it is supported to rename or remove
>> m2.dll and then remove "Mail" menus if you wish to.
>>
>> A Preference option would be nice though.
>
> It would be a support nightmare if people could easily remove the mail
> ability, but not just as easily turn it back on. If m2.dll was
> deleted, it could not be turned back on, so I don't think Opera
> Software will ever make it that easy to shoot yourself in the foot.
>
> /L
--
Chris J. Breisch
Mark V
news:adg7up...@hotpop.com:
> Mark V <inv...@notvalid.net> writes:
>
>> Re: m2.dll
>> It's not a "hack" it is a "manual option" :)
>> Really. OS has stated here that it is supported to rename or
>> remove m2.dll and then remove "Mail" menus if you wish to.
>>
>> A Preference option would be nice though.
>
> It would be a support nightmare if people could easily remove the
> mail ability, but not just as easily turn it back on. If m2.dll
> was deleted, it could not be turned back on, so I don't think
> Opera Software will ever make it that easy to shoot yourself in
> the foot.
No, for the OS provided Option it would just set internally to not
load m2.dll and comment-out the menu. Reversible.
Hey, User's shoot themselves in the foot all the time. :)
Kyle A. Miller
> "download browser only". It's my belief that the only way M2 will gain
> market share is by being included in the package.
A quality product speaks for itself. If M2 is innovative enough, the
people will come. Look at the following for The Bat! and Eudora.
If the browser component's development didn't share its time M2 so much,
maybe the browser piece would be so fantastic, a user might think "This
browser is really good. If the mail client is half as good as this
browser, it must be really good."
In addition to this, each product would promote the other through
various means.
> I'm not bothered by having to download M2 even though I won't use it.
> It's only a couple of hundred kilobytes every month or two, and even if
> a new version of Opera came out every month it would average out at only
> half a bit a second.
How do you know the storage impact of M2?
Kyle A. Miller
> Simple. You *don't* hand off HTML email - just show it as plain text or do
> what Eudora does when you tell it not to use IE for rendering. Perfectly
> safe.
Eudora allows you to IE rendering on and off. Even with IE rendering on,
you can turn off Javascript support, which how I use it.
> I don't *want* HTML email anyway and unsubscribe from any mail list that
> doesn't give me a choice.
The trick is to bang the rocks together. ;-)
Kyle A. Miller
> Opera used to be the first browser I would use to test for compatibility -
> now Mozilla is first and Opera is *last*.
Sadly, that has become the case for me. I try to go back and give Opera
a change, but in many important areas, it remains in the stone age.
Mozilla's Gecko is also faster than Opera. Mozilla's XUL interface is
now as fast a regular Windows interface on my machine.
Kyle A. Miller
> In theory, it should be possible to 'remove' some functionality from the
> UI (mainly the address bar, the goto dialog and the 'new page'
> function)(iow mutilate Opera), and set it to always start with the
> Hotlist and the Unread window open. Then add the possibility to open URL
> links in an external browser, instead of having it opening in a new page
> inside Opera. The added functionality would make this M2 stand-alone
> mail & news client only a few KB bigger than the current 3.3MB of 7.02 ;)
<soapbox>
Oh come on. You are not being sincere about this. I am a developer, and
you are speaking poppycock.
If you had an email/news client, you would not need bookmarks
management, history, transfers, and browser GUI support like navigation.
Removing the supporting code for these things would shrink the
application, not increase its size.
You would use shared libraries so if you did install the browser
component, it would be a minimal download for email/news since common
libraries were already installed. One product could upgrade the other
through an update feature where you would select the additional
enhancements you would like to add to your Opera install. See RealOne's
Update feature for an example.
In regards to size, I really don't understand this obsession with size.
Being efficient is great, but not at a cost to functionality. Sure,
Opera is small, but it is also missing features which would make the
application better.
Sure, the inner logic is better, but that isn't what bloats software
size. What greatly increases the size of an application install is the
GUI support via controls, images, etc.
Opera stays small by not providing some basic facilities. Look over this
newsgroup and read how many people have given solutions to user's
troubles with the words "go into this or that.ini file with a text
editor and edit variable XXX." This evidence of a deficiency in Opera
interface.
The message composer can't even do basic HTML email composition. Not
everyone agrees with HTML email, but what about those who have no
problem with it? How about a spell checker? These _modern_ email/news
client features add size to the precious microsize install.
Sure, you can keep a bare minimum GUI interface and have users customize
their application with text editors, but this is short changing the
users for the sake of bragging about how small an Opera install is.
You can make the minimalists happy and those wanting a more modern
application by offering a different degrees of installation. Even
Microsoft offers a "Minimal" install for IE.
A well thought out (engineered) solution would result in a smaller
minimal install while providing a foundation which a user could "build
up" their application with the features they want.
Lastly, email still doesn't support secure POP connections with AT&T
Broadband (now Comcast) servers. x-( Please fix it. I don't care if it
add a few K to the program size. I'm not counting bytes.
</soapbox>