Opera 9.01
Milhouse Van Houten
http://www.opera.com/download
Changelog:
http://www.opera.com/docs/changelogs/windows/901
John H Meyers
I'll get it, but wonder why "Check for updates"
has not yet revealed its availability?
(seems worthwhile to fix some issues I've encountered;
is it not significant enough to count as useful for everyone?)
-[ ]-
Richard Grevers
An opera usually appears on the download servers 24 hours prior to
official release in order that download mirrors mayget the build - but
that usually gets detected by people here who check regularly :-)
I'd expect an announcement tomorrow (Oslo time) and your check for updates
function only phones home once a week (Less, if, like me, you often run
Opera for 2 week sessions)
--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Tim Altman
We had some problems with the "Check for updates" functionality, but
they should now be resolved.
--
Tim Altman
Core QA
Opera Software
Remove NO SPAM from e-mail address to reply
Mark V
The changelog indicates:
"Solved problems with error console popping up unrequested.
Console Filter setting in opera.ini has been renamed to Error
Console Filter."
"opera.ini"? <G>
Does that include any modification to <profile>\opera6.ini?
I see no mention there regarding the reversed definitions (in 9.0-
8501) of two "Expiry" lines and whether that is fixed. And if so,
if values are presered as is or migrated.
"Solved letter-spacing issue in form fields when using zoom."
Also applies in opera:config view?
Tim, gotcha again regarding .announce <G>
Best recomendation sought here as regards "starting fresh" vs.
installing "over" 9.0-8501 (Win32). Generally because of the
apparent changes in opera.ini.
Prominent mention (for Win32 Opera 9.01) on the download page of
the "classic" installer is much appreciated.
Alt.:
ftp://ftp.opera.com/pub/opera/win/901/en/
Opera_9.01_Classic_Setup.exe
And _thank_you_ !!! for eliminating those dratted embedded spaces
in filename.
Remco Lanting
It's already announced here: http://my.opera.com/desktopteam/blog/
Remco
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Mark V
> In opera.general Milhouse Van Houten wrote:
>
>> Final (build 8552, same as the last weekly build):
>> http://www.opera.com/download
[ ]
>
> Tim, gotcha again regarding .announce <G>
[ ]
Whoops! Retracted. LOL
Thanks.
John H Meyers
> your check for updates function only phones home once a week
Even when I specifically click it?
What you refer to is only, I presume,
an extra check for long-running Opera sessions,
with "on Opera startup" and "on click"
still checking immediately, yes?
-[ ]-
Milhouse Van Houten
news:pgt1d2ltdqs669rgt...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 12:34:08 -0500, "John H Meyers"
> <jhme...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 11:43:21 -0500, Milhouse Van Houten wrote:
>>
>>> Final (build 8552, same as the last weekly build):
>>> http://www.opera.com/download
>>> Changelog:
>>> http://www.opera.com/docs/changelogs/windows/901
>>
>>I'll get it, but wonder why "Check for updates"
>>has not yet revealed its availability?
>>(seems worthwhile to fix some issues I've encountered;
>>is it not significant enough to count as useful for everyone?)
>
> We had some problems with the "Check for updates" functionality, but
> they should now be resolved.
For the record, that was working for me all along, back from when I checked
it over five hours ago now.
In the past, I have read comments from some who say it tends not to work for
them at all. For example, before today, if they checked with 8.54 they
wouldn't be told that 9.00 was available. I don't know why that is, but I've
never seen that problem.
Richard Grevers
Opera stores the last checked date. When you start it, it only checks if
that is more than a week ago. Otherwise people who start their browser 20
times a day would be wasting their traffic and Opera's.
Not sure about the manual check, maybe that's what is broken? I had
forgotten it existed)
Brian Redmond
Using the classic installer on my kids' PC (XP SP2), MacAfee gave a
"Potentially Unwanted Program" warning. Told it to "Trust" Opera - no
further issues. No such problem on my own PC (running AVG).
Regards,
Brian.
Mark V
Not re. 8.54
The manual check (Opera Win32 9.01-8552) works as usual. (and it
still does not mention, editing local files!).
I have automated checks disabled here and blocked intentionally any
"first run" attempt in 9.01
--
Opera Win32 9.0-8501; W2K
For Windows I suggest using the "classic" installer package in all
cases </opinion>
John H Meyers
> Opera stores the last checked date. When you start it,
> it only checks if that is more than a week ago.
> Otherwise people who start their browser 20
> times a day would be wasting their traffic and Opera's.
The user's "Home" page likewise :)
> Not sure about the manual check, maybe that's what is broken?
> (I had forgotten it existed)
Isn't the manual check to also automatically update file(s)
used for site overrides?
I invoked the manual check just before downloading 9.01,
and got only "You are using the latest version of Opera"
(although mine was then 9.00/8502)
Yesterday, however, I had suddenly got, for the first time ever,
a warning that the function could not be performed at all,
because Opera suddenly did not recognize my language preference,
which had always been something like "user specified: English"
That certainly took me by surprise, but when I selected another "English"
from the list, that problem subsided, so I didn't bother commenting here.
Going back, if Opera would not check for a new release for a week,
even manually, would not that potentially delay any urgent security fix,
if ever needed? So would the "browser startup" check, for that matter.
-[ ]-
Bailey
<do....@spam.me.invalid> typed:
>We had some problems with the "Check for updates" functionality, but
>they should now be resolved.
Check for updates worked so well for me that it offered me a
futuristic version::
"A new version of Opera, Opera 90.1, is available. Would you like to
upgrade now?"
--
Jeff Bailey
jeff[at]baileyjs.com
www.baileyjs.com
"Writing is easy. All you have to do is cross out the
wrong words."
Mark Twain
John H Meyers
> Check for updates worked so well for me
> that it offered me a futuristic version::
>
> "A new version of Opera, Opera 90.1, is available.
> Would you like to upgrade now?"
That's what I got as I updated several more Windows systems this morning.
-[ ]-
Matthew Winn
> Check for updates worked so well for me that it offered me a
> futuristic version::
>
> "A new version of Opera, Opera 90.1, is available. Would you like to
> upgrade now?"
Wow! By then I'd expect brain control to have replaced voice control
and hand gestures to have replaced mouse gestures.
The critical question now is: will checking for updates be broken for
another 81 versions?
--
Matthew Winn
[If replying by email remove the "r" from "urk"]
Tim Altman
wrote:
>On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 15:00:11 -0400, Tim Altman
><do....@spam.me.invalid> typed:
>
>>We had some problems with the "Check for updates" functionality, but
>>they should now be resolved.
>
>Check for updates worked so well for me that it offered me a
>futuristic version::
>
>"A new version of Opera, Opera 90.1, is available. Would you like to
>upgrade now?"
Yeah.... So, unfortunately, Opera's version comparison algorithm
thinks that .00 is greater than .01, so we had to trick Opera by
changing the major version number, not just the minor version number.
"90.1" was the closest to "9.01" and we're not likely to see that
version while we're still using the current update system. We'll most
likely have to do the same thing for the entire 9.x series.
Mark V
> On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 07:04:29 -0400, Bailey
> <oper...@baileyjs.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 15:00:11 -0400, Tim Altman
>><do....@spam.me.invalid> typed:
>>
>>>We had some problems with the "Check for updates"
>>>functionality, but they should now be resolved.
>>
>>Check for updates worked so well for me that it offered me a
>>futuristic version::
>>
>>"A new version of Opera, Opera 90.1, is available. Would you
>>like to upgrade now?"
>
> Yeah.... So, unfortunately, Opera's version comparison
> algorithm thinks that .00 is greater than .01, so we had to
Ouch!
> trick Opera by changing the major version number, not just the
> minor version number. "90.1" was the closest to "9.01" and we're
> not likely to see that version while we're still using the
> current update system. We'll most likely have to do the same
> thing for the entire 9.x series.
Why would that be? Cannot this algorithm fix be slipped in sooner?
It looks _so_ bad to end users... :-\
--
Opera Win32 9.01-8552; W2K
For Windows I suggest using the "classic" installer package in all
cases where feasible. </opinion>
Ted S.
2006 03:20:38 GMT:
>> Yeah.... So, unfortunately, Opera's version comparison
>> algorithm thinks that .00 is greater than .01, so we had to
>
> Ouch!
Does this by any chance have anything to do with the Windows 98 issue of
certain numerical values always being shown to two decimal places?
(Just curious.)
--
Ted <fedya at bestweb dot net>
TV Announcer: It's 11:00. Do you know where your children are?
Homer: I told you last night, *no*!
<http://www.snpp.com/episodes/4F06.html>
Matthew Winn
> Yeah.... So, unfortunately, Opera's version comparison algorithm
> thinks that .00 is greater than .01
[Baffled] I'd love to see the code that made that mistake. I could
understand it if the comparison was between X.9 and X.10 as that's
a common error, but 9.00 and 9.01?
Tim Altman
wrote:
>Somebody claiming to be Mark V <notv...@nul.invalid> wrote at Fri, 04 Aug
>2006 03:20:38 GMT:
>
>>> Yeah.... So, unfortunately, Opera's version comparison
>>> algorithm thinks that .00 is greater than .01, so we had to
>>
>> Ouch!
>
>Does this by any chance have anything to do with the Windows 98 issue of
>certain numerical values always being shown to two decimal places?
I doubt it.
Tim Altman
wrote:
>In opera.general Tim Altman wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 07:04:29 -0400, Bailey
>> <oper...@baileyjs.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 15:00:11 -0400, Tim Altman
>>><do....@spam.me.invalid> typed:
>>>
>>>>We had some problems with the "Check for updates"
>>>>functionality, but they should now be resolved.
>>>
>>>Check for updates worked so well for me that it offered me a
>>>futuristic version::
>>>
>>>"A new version of Opera, Opera 90.1, is available. Would you
>>>like to upgrade now?"
>>
>> Yeah.... So, unfortunately, Opera's version comparison
>> algorithm thinks that .00 is greater than .01, so we had to
>
>Ouch!
>
>> trick Opera by changing the major version number, not just the
>> minor version number. "90.1" was the closest to "9.01" and we're
>> not likely to see that version while we're still using the
>> current update system. We'll most likely have to do the same
>> thing for the entire 9.x series.
>
>Why would that be? Cannot this algorithm fix be slipped in sooner?
>It looks _so_ bad to end users... :-\
It'll be fixed in the next Opera release. However, those that are
still using 9.0 will not be notified of any release before 10.00
without a work-around in place.
Tim Altman
<o*@matthewwinn.me.urk> wrote:
>On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 22:41:30 -0400, Tim Altman <do....@spam.me.invalid> wrote:
>> Yeah.... So, unfortunately, Opera's version comparison algorithm
>> thinks that .00 is greater than .01
>
>[Baffled] I'd love to see the code that made that mistake. I could
>understand it if the comparison was between X.9 and X.10 as that's
>a common error, but 9.00 and 9.01?
We're hiring, if you really want a look. ;)
Tim Altman
wrote:
>In opera.general Milhouse Van Houten wrote:
>
>> Final (build 8552, same as the last weekly build):
>> http://www.opera.com/download
>>
>> Changelog:
>> http://www.opera.com/docs/changelogs/windows/901
>
>The changelog indicates:
>
> "Solved problems with error console popping up unrequested.
>Console Filter setting in opera.ini has been renamed to Error
>Console Filter."
> "opera.ini"? <G>
>Does that include any modification to <profile>\opera6.ini?
No. The fix is to simply stop using the old INI setting.
>I see no mention there regarding the reversed definitions (in 9.0-
>8501) of two "Expiry" lines and whether that is fixed. And if so,
>if values are presered as is or migrated.
It's not fixed.
> "Solved letter-spacing issue in form fields when using zoom."
>Also applies in opera:config view?
Yes. It would happen in any form text input field while zoomed.
>Tim, gotcha again regarding .announce <G>
Sorry, I was a bit late with the posting.
>Best recomendation sought here as regards "starting fresh" vs.
>installing "over" 9.0-8501 (Win32). Generally because of the
>apparent changes in opera.ini.
Upgrading should be "safe".
FV
+0200:
>> Why would that be? Cannot this algorithm fix be slipped in sooner?
>> It looks _so_ bad to end users... :-\
>
> It'll be fixed in the next Opera release. However, those that are
> still using 9.0 will not be notified of any release before 10.00
> without a work-around in place.
Is it not possible to let the upgrade server send different upgrade
versions to different older versions of the browser by sniffing their
version number? (So users of Opera 9.0 are told 90.x is out, while users
of 9.01 are told 9.0x is out.) I believe this is already the case; if I
use an older Opera version, I'm correctly told 9.01 is out instead of 90.1.
Anyhow, I don't see the point in keeping this weird hack for the remainder
of the 9 series. People who have upgraded to 9.01 will have a version that
correctly understands again that 9.02 is higher, whereas people still
using Opera 9.0 in a few weeks have thereby clearly indicated either not
to use the upgrade function or not to pay any attention to it.
--
Fabian
Mark V
Thanks Tim. As I understand it then, it is "chicken or egg" right
now. :-)
Hopefully all 9.0 users will manage an upgrade long before "10".
Mark V
> On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 15:02:16 -0400, Mark V <notv...@nul.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>In opera.general Milhouse Van Houten wrote:
>>
>>> Final (build 8552, same as the last weekly build):
[ ]
>>> Changelog:
>>> http://www.opera.com/docs/changelogs/windows/901
>>
>>The changelog indicates:
>>
>> "Solved problems with error console popping up unrequested.
>>Console Filter setting in opera.ini has been renamed to Error
>>Console Filter."
>> "opera.ini"? <G>
>>Does that include any modification to <profile>\opera6.ini?
>
> No. The fix is to simply stop using the old INI setting.
Understood. And I see that somewhere along the line a entry for
"Error Console Filter="
has been added. That covers the "do we need to add/rename it
manually" implied question. Can we (tweakers) assume that "Console
Filter=" is now supeerflous and can be manually removed? As
appears the case.
But I have a question on either entry. What is the maximum line
length and did you anticipate that it may grow to exceed many text
editors max-line-length?
>>I see no mention there regarding the reversed definitions (in
>>9.0- 8501) of two "Expiry" lines and whether that is fixed. And
>>if so,
> It's not fixed.
;-(
[ ]
>>Tim, gotcha again regarding .announce <G>
>
> Sorry, I was a bit late with the posting.
Turns out you were posting while I was composing. Mere minutes...
;) and LOL. Thanks.
[ ]
Peter Karlsson
> Understood. And I see that somewhere along the line a entry for
> "Error Console Filter="
> has been added. That covers the "do we need to add/rename it manually"
> implied question. Can we (tweakers) assume that "Console Filter=" is
> now supeerflous and can be manually removed?
Yes, the new name completely replaces the old one.
--
\\// Peter Karlsson, software engineer, Opera Software
The opinions expressed are my own, and not those of my employer.
Please reply only by follow-ups in the newsgroup.