|
|
|
Opera 10 Beta available
Showing all messages in thread #1244073384
Windows 98 Annoyances Discussion Forum
The following are all of the messages in this thread (6 in all), shown in chronological order. Click any message subject to view that message by itself or to view the thread hierarchy.
|
Opera 10 Beta available
Wednesday, June 3, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Posted by gewg_
(3925 messages posted)
I like Mozilla browsers because of the community-created extensions,
but the gap has closed a bit with Opera 10 Beta.[1]
With the latest Windoze versions of Gecko/Firefox being NT-only[2],
the fact that Opera continues to support Win9x is a BIG plus.
The fact that you can use Opera on almost _any_ platform (Linux, Mac, etc.)
is a **GIANT** plus.
For those still stuck using Internet Exploder 6, think about this:
On the Acid3 standards compliance test for browsers,
Opera 10 Beta (based on the Presto engine) gets 100 out of 100.
Konqueror, Safari, and Google Chrome[3] (all based on the WebKit engine)
have gotten 100% on Acid3 for many months now, BTW.
No version of Internet Exploder has yet cracked 20% on Acid3.
cache
of http://miglius.lt/acid-3-browser-test/1457
...and, of course, IE6 can't even pass Acid2.
I mentioned Mozilla's extensions.
For a while, Opera has had community-generated scripts
that HIDE Flash objects *AFTER* you've wasted bandwidth downloading them.
In addition to Presto's recent speed optimizations,
Beta 10 has an optional feature that loads images faster (via compression)
and can BLOCK unwanted plug-in-based stuff,
really revving up pageloads on slow connections / bloated pages.
The way they do the compressing and filtering
is to feed your requests thru their proxy servers.
(Privacy sticklers may bristle at this point.)
Here's a page listing their new whiz-bang stuff:
cache
of http://www.opera.com/browser/next
...and when you finally DO dump The Borg and use an OS with REAL security,
cache
of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_Mint
both Opera and Mozilla will be there waiting for you.
[1] It bugs me the way M$ perverted the original meaning of "beta"
from "This is for in-house use only" to "We're too lazy to test this; you do it".
[2] There *is* a tweak you can make to 98/ME
to get Firefox 3, OpenOffice 3, Flash 10, etc. working under 9x:
http://www.annoyances.org/exec/forum/win98/1244047289
[3] Google Chrome runs under Windoze
--but not YOUR Windoze (if you're running 9x).
[Reply or follow-up to this message]
| |
re: Opera 10 Beta available
Thursday, June 4, 2009 at 4:17 am
Posted by Keith Stanier
(1248 messages posted)
gewg_ wrote:
|I like Mozilla browsers because of the community-created extensions,
|but the gap has closed a bit with Opera 10 Beta.[1]
|With the latest Windoze versions of Gecko/Firefox being NT-only[2],
|the fact that Opera continues to support Win9x is a BIG plus.
Yes gewg Opera 9.64 is the last version that runs on a Win9x/ME system.
Firefox 2.0.0.20 is th last one that also supports Win9x/ME.
[Reply or follow-up to this message]
|
Opera's latest (beta) version CONTINUES to support Win9x
Thursday, June 4, 2009 at 11:12 am
Posted by gewg_
(3925 messages posted)
gewg_ wrote:
||With the latest Windoze versions of Gecko/Firefox being NT-only,
||the fact that Opera continues to support Win9x is a BIG plus.
||
Keith Stanier wrote:
|Yes gewg Opera 9.64 is the last version that runs on a Win9x/ME system.
|
Do NOT try to distort what I said; what you said is HOGWASH.
Opera continues to support a mind-boggling array of platforms
(including mobile phones).
On the older platforms, they rely on *users* to find and report bugs
but Opera **does** patch the bugs that are reported.
From the Usenet Archive (opera.general) Rijk van Geijtenbeek, Opera Software
news:op.uklrydi8j2qftn@desktop-01.lan
Opera's download links have always listed "Windows"
with NO distinction between variants.
In its effort to compete with Free Software / Open Source Software,
(closed source, freeware) Opera has NOT dropped any of its supported platforms.
With a minor system update, Opera will run under Windoze 95 as well.
cache
of http://www.opera.com/support/kb/view/886
[Reply or follow-up to this message]
|
re: Opera's latest (beta) version CONTINUES to support Win9x
Thursday, June 4, 2009 at 12:31 pm
Posted by Keith Stanier
(1248 messages posted)
gewg_ wrote:
Keith Stanier wrote:
|Do NOT try to distort what I said; what you said is HOGWASH.
I'm only saying what I read
Opera 10.0 Beta (Build
1551)
[Reply or follow-up to this message]
|
Filehippo is a LOUSY source for information
Thursday, June 4, 2009 at 1:29 pm
Posted by gewg_
(3925 messages posted)
Keith Stanier wrote:
|I'm only saying what I read
|http://www.filehippo.com/download_opera/tech/
Use a better source of downloads/information:
http://majorgeeks.com/Opera_d559.html
[Reply or follow-up to this message]
|
Running Windoze-compatible apps under other platforms (was: Filehippo...)
Sunday, June 7, 2009 at 4:21 pm
Posted by gewg_
(3925 messages posted)
(Received via email) DanTheMan wrote:
|i see you hate windows
|
Well, I DO despise MSFT's business model.
WRT Windoze, with rare exceptions it's simply second-rate.
WRT security, Windoze is 4th-rate--and 9x is in last place among that lot.
Since 2001, Apple has offered a Unix-based environment (OS X)
which is more secure than anything M$ offers.
There are currently clone makers getting that to run on plain-jane x86 hardware.
Since 1991, Linux has been building on its Unix roots
--again, providing a far more secure environment than M$ offers.
The fact that the source code is available for that ecosystem's elements
and the fact that essentially all of the executables are GRATIS are big pluses.
|and it looks like you know more about different os's
|
I'm a fan of software ecosystems that *don't* have their roots in CP/M.
Others I sometimes tolerate.
|well windows 9x is good
|
Windows is a joke. All the 3rd-party band-aids needed by the average user
to use Windoze online are clear evidence it is a poor choice for those tasks.
...and, again, Win9x is the worst of that lot.
If used **without** a network connection, 9x *might* be considered acceptable
--unless you compare it to what is available FOR FREE.
|any way am thinking to run linux
|am not sure which one
|but i want the one that will support most of M$
|
Since MSFT signed that we-promise-not-to-sue-you-to-death pact with Novell,
most Free Software enthusiasts have been viewing Novell with a jaundiced eye
(since everything M$ touches, they corrupt).
Folks who don't hold a realistic view of The Borg, however,
may have a special appreciation of Novell and their offering: SuSE Linux.
openSuSE is the gratis variant (no pre-paid factory support).
openSuSE has been #2 on DistroWatch's popularity listing for some time now.
NOTE: As an example of their closeness with The Borg,
go-oo.org is Novell's version of OpenOffice.org
and it is always out front WRT M$ compatibility (e.g. VBA support).
It should also be noted that
when you look at the poor version-to-version compatibility of M$Office,
OOo's compatibility with M$O documents is BETTER than M$O[1]
...and M$O's compatibility is even poor
when simply taking an M$O-format document from machine to machine,
so if OOo can even read the document, it's keeping up with M$O.
Beyond that, I'm not quite sure what you mean by "will support most of M$".
NOTE: Like XP (and unlike 9x), Linux has a Hardware Compatibility List.
DO check that to avoid disappointments
e.g. wireless cards that use Broadcom chips will suck because Broadcom sucks.
The amount of RAM you have will also determine how successful you will be
when trying to run a specific distro / desktop environment.
If you are in doubt, DO go to the distro's home page and look at the requirements
e.g. there are lighter versions of Ubuntu (Xubuntu and Fluxbuntu).
WRT *which distro*, Ubuntu has been #1 on DistroWatch's list for quite a while.
OTOH, the problem with most **gratis** distros
is that they don't come with PROPRIETARY stuff (see "sue-you-to-death", above).
People bitch about this--but all you have to do to get that junk is RUN A SCRIPT.
With modern distros, this is just a tick box away
--but if you don't have a fat pipe, that's a minus.
Linux Mint is an offshoot of Ubuntu that basically says "Screw that";
it includes the codecs, restricted drivers, Flash, etc. on the CD.
Mint has been holding steady at #3 on DistroWatch's list.
NOTE: *DONT* get the "Universal Edition";
that one kow-tows to the ridiculous "intellectual property" laws of the USA,
and other nations headed for oblivion.
|now i know linux [does] not support M$ software(e.g. nero and starcraft)
|but with WINE it does
|
First, Linux **COMES** with LOTS of FREE equivalents to most payware apps.
That said, WINE provides excellent compatibility with Win9x-era apps
and smart app developers assure that their apps will run under WINE.
NOTE: When folks found that their old apps were broken under Vista,
many of them found that those apps were NOT broken under WINE.
The game-oriented fork of WINE used to be called WineX;
it is now called Cedega and that is payware.
|so whats the best linux that will support wine
|
WINE support is essentially independent of distro.
I'm thinking all the *big* distros ship with WINE these days.
When choosing a distro/version[2], you likely want one with the most recent kernel
(the latest Linuxes *should* also come with the most recent version of WINE).
Ubuntu sets the pace here with releases every 6 months (April & October).
Other distros that release between those times
may be momentarily more up to date.
...and if the distro you choose is one that doesn't include WINE,
you just get WINE from a repository.
...and using your Package Manager[3],
you can update ANY of your stuff to the latest stuff
--no muss, no fuss (no cost, no DLL Hell, no viruses).
|oh and if [there's] any thing else like WINE can you tell me
|
If you have a legit Windoze licence
(and who has purchased x86 hardware that *didn't* have one forced on him),
you can always dual-boot; Linux will set that up for you when you install.
NOTE: If you then have to reinstall Win9x, it will nuke the boot sector
(and maybe even your Linux partition).[4]
If your hardware is sufficiently $talwart,
the ideal way to run Windoze is inside a Virtual Machine.
(Free Software) VirtualBox is the king of the hill--better than M$'s freeware.
If you run Linux as the host, you get the full functionality of Windoze
with the security of Linux; when you close the virtual machine,
all the infections and Windoze-specific crap go poof.
...and with a VM, there's no rebooting to use a different OS.
Another thing with a VM is the *too much RAM* thing isn't a problem with Win9x.
[1] When faced with the old **M$O can't open that document** thing,
many folks have learned to use an old trick:
Try opening the document using OOo. (It's rare when OOo *won't* open it.)
OOo is more M$-compliant than M$ is with itself.
[2] Some folks try an old version (e.g. a copy of Knoppix 3.x)
to get Linux to run on their really old box directly from the CD.
NOTE: Old versions of Linux can be updated for FREE;
providing a stark contrast with M$ stuff.
[3] A Package Manager is something SORELY lacking in the Windoze ecosystem;
1-click updates of ALL your software (not just the OS) is SO cool.
[4] The *Windoze nuking your Boot Sector* thing
is a good reason for installing the Linux part of your dual-boot setup
on a SEPERATE hard drive.
This way, all you have to do when M$ screws up things
is reinstall your "boot manager" (which would properly be called an "OS selector").
[Reply or follow-up to this message]
| |
Tip: Use one of the [Reply or follow-up to this message] links above to add a message to this thread
| |
Return to the Windows 98 Discussion Forum
|
|
|
|
