United States of America
No favorite files added yet
SP3 Build 3264 RC1 (Jan 1, 2008)
XP service pack 3 (sp3) was installed on three different machines each with a CLEAN install of XP-sp2 and all three crashed immediately after reboot.
These machines had different ASUS mobos but most significantly, the high-end A8N32-SLI Deluxe was one of them.
I've not seen an early RC1 of any earlier Windows service pack (XP-sp2, W2K-sps1 to 4 etc.) cause this much havoc.
To me, this SP3-RC1 looks more like an early alpha than an early release candidate.
9.0 Build 8359 Beta (Apr 8, 2006)
"Opera 9 beta would not install, I got the following message: "configuration data for this product is corrupt".
It obviously works on others' machines. Anyone any clues?"
First, my thanks to 'osric' for providing mw with the Opera link, this version works.
For years I've looked at Opera with the view of making it my default browser but I've always rejected it for one reason or another; with version 9 I now can.
Why? Well, Opera has always had a number of advantages over Internet Explorer but, up until now, it has never had the ability to save a Web page as a single file archive, however IE has had this feature since early versions of IE5. The single page Web archive format is IE's .MHT format [Multipurpose Internet Mail Extension HTML (MHTML)], and until now it has ONLY been available in IE! (Yes, I'm well aware of Christopher Ottley's .MHT/.MAF/.MAFF extension for Firefox, but being an extension which often breaks with FF's updates, it's only been for diehards like me.)
Clearly, this is a breakthrough for alternative browsers for we now have a real alternative to the Microsoft product, as Opera now just about fully competes with IE when compared feature by feature. It has perplexed me for years (and still does) as to why MHTML/.MAF has been such a very glaring omission from alternative browsers. (I can see very few reasons why anyone would want to save a Web page in the normal fashion (.HTM), as the page saves in an unholy mess: there's all sorts of files, often dozens of them, .HTM, .GIF, .JS etc. including a directory. The MHT format allows all of this info to be encapsulated into one single file which means it can be archived, emailed, not subject to disintegration from duplicate file programs [which zap .GIFs etc.], and such.)
Question: I've not found how to make Opera 9 save in .MHT by default. Is there a way to do this? I'd be most grateful to know.
Immediate wish list
1. Opera 9 beta still gives me problems with Microsoft-specific pages, for instance Internet banking and frames--where the text is missing from (generally) the left hand frame. (I really wish the Opera people would swallow their pride and add an exceptions-to-W3C feature DLL or whatever. It's a fact of life that M$ just about runs everything--especially big corporations' IT departments--so allowances have to be made to accommodate this rubbish.)
2. Another M$ compatibility: make the default fonts EXACTLY the same size and type as IE (a good test is a Google search results page, in Opera the heading font is always too large). If it's not considered important enough for the default then provide for this option within the setup (I waste hours stuffing around with this nonsense--Opera uses more screen than IE does for this reason.)
3. Improve the configuration of the Toolbars (very inflexible outside what's already given).
4. Include a History icon on the default toolbar a la IE. Also, improve toolbars so that they can still retain all the selections but use up much less screen/desktop space.
5. A function key or CTRL+key to IMMEDIATELY and (dynamically) stop Java and Java script/applets etc. and restart it again by re-toggling. Here, Opera would clearly indicate whether Java/Java script is on or not--a big red Java sign with or without a diagonal black line through it or such. Not loading Java often makes a huge difference in site loading times. And it also kills off much of the other useless garbage that Java loads (to do this at the moment I use IE for my main browser with Java on and Opera with it turned off--both browsers are loaded and I cut-and-paste URLs from IE to Opera. This is very messy and a one-browser solution is sorely needed).
6. In a similar vein to (5), filters/key combos etc. are also needed to stop other types of content from being downloaded or being load. It's often very clear what kind of content a site has and often one is only interested in the data not the adds, links, embedded content, web bugs or junk loading from referred sites or data being sent to referred sites and other such rubbish. Being able to filter them out (a) in decent filters within the browser as presets AND (b) also toggle the features on and off on the fly would be a really marvellous feature. Whilst still needed, using permanent settings is often not the answer as for 'trusted' sites you often want this extra stuff and for 'suspect' sites you want it to be nuked. Most firewalls haven't got this fully sorted out either so there's a real need for it to be done within the browser.
7. And of course, being able to save .MHT Web pages by default and a and single function allocated would be just perfect (even CTRL-S).
There's more but I'll spare you all from that for now.
In summary, all in all, the Opera 9 beta is a very welcome development and I heartily recommend it.
9.0 Build 8359 Beta (Apr 12, 2009 - 7:13 AM)
The points are all related but there are significant differences.
Point 1. refers to the many different Linux distributions in circulation and the confusion this causes in the marketplace. People/Corporations new to Linux spend considerable time trying to figure out which distro is best, and or has the best support or is most appropriate to their needs etc. Windows comes from one supplier thus the decision is much simpler--you run with M$ or you don't.
Point 2. says that Linux--the X Windows shell at any rate--should look and feel much more like Windows. Windows users should be able to go to a PC running Linux AND BE FOOLED INTO THINKING THAT THEY ARE RUNNING WINDOWS (at least initially). Gnome and KDE are just too different for the average Windows user and they cause a lot of resistance to Linux acceptance (especially to those who are thinking of converting). For them, staying with what they know is much easier and safer.
[I know many Linux die-hards will disagree citing the fact that the UNIX-like GUI (X Windows/CUA interface standards etc.) was around before Windows. True, but when you've been reduced to a pimple on a pumpkin you can no longer argue from a position of technical purity. I know it's very difficult for techies to accept that rational arguments rarely win in the face of blatant marketing and propaganda but it's true--the later wins every time (at least until the race is over). It's better to run with the winner and subvert from within--you can't do this if Linux fails or is reduced to running industrial controllers and traffic lights etc.
Remember, this is what happened to the forerunner of all NT Windows [NT/W2K/XP/Vista/Win7]--IBM's OS/2. In the war between IBM and Microsoft OS/2, despite initially being the best O/S, was reduced to rubble by superlative 'Gatesian' Marketing (there's no doubt that Gates is one of the best marketing strategists of all time). Anyway, the surviving remnants of OS/2 were relegated to running IBM banking ATMs. This ought to be a strong lesson for Linux adherents but I think the message has been lost in the eons of time. It seems that history might be about to repeat itself).]
Point 3. says that unless you're as big as Microsoft you won't have the clout to compete effectively or even at the same level. Current Linux distros are far too small to do that so the only option that's left is to amalgamate with other very large institutions such as governments. The open source nature of Linux is its strongest point, so the Linux community should put superhuman effort into convincing Governments around the world that using open-source Linux in preference to secret-source Windows is in their strategic best interest.
P.S.: Apologies for not being more succinct. Noted your ref. to 'better'. The Linux community continually says Linux is 'better'. Maybe I've caught the Microsoft disease of being overly strong on hyperbole. Perhaps in the circumstances this is not a bad thing.
9.0 Build 8359 Beta (Apr 11, 2009 - 8:09 AM)
As a Linux lover I find it upsetting but the facts speak for themselves. Linux just doesn't have the clout nor does it offer enough advantages over Windows. Moreover, I've tried Windows 7 (build 7000) on my tiny Eee PC notebook and it runs just fine.
Nevertheless, I don't like Windows 7 at all. I find it a struggle to get rid of all the dross, fairy-floss and other unnecessary graphics overhead in order to make it look like Windows 2000--with XP this at least was achievable.
That said however, I'm now of the opinion that Windows-7 will not only conquer the netbook market but it will also do very well in the server market too. It's pretty clear to me that Linux will have a struggle to hang onto the server market from its new aggressive competitor--Windows-7.
Microsoft is tenacious and its goals are often longer term (think of those early Windows prior to first successful one--Windows 3.1--and you'll know what I mean; Microsoft has come a long and very successful way since then). On the other hand Linux development is essentially dispersed, uncoordinated and headless: and besides where's the 20-year plan--the road-map for its future development?
Of course there is none!
I wish what I've said weren't true, I would have loved Linux to succeed but that's now a forlorn hope as every day its fortunes seem to be sinking further downward. (See my post further above that justifies my assertions.)
9.0 Build 8359 Beta (Apr 11, 2009 - 7:17 AM)
"Why do people continue to write stories about Linux losing share to Windows? I don't understand it."
Right. I'm a Linux fan and even my most optimistic view is that it will never compete with Windows--at least not in its present form. It can't because people behind Linux have niche-based interests and no matter how good the Linux product is, those interests will never sufficiently coalesce to provide strong unified competition to Microsoft.
The fact that Linux is 'open' and better is irrelevant, we saw a similar scenario played out 20 or so years ago in the Betamax versus VHS debate when the technically superior omega-loop Betamax lost out to VHS's better marketing. The average 'PC Punter'--who'll determine the outcome--couldn't care less about such things. I dearly wish this wasn't so but unfortunately it is, in today's world marketing and propaganda are everything and the gullible and those who are indifferent just acquiesce. (History has shown us many times that gullibility and acquiescence amongst the populace is widespread, witness the outcome of the very effective marketing and propaganda on the 1930s. Even if the messages are evil and the outcomes tragic people are still easily sucked in.)
For Linux to become effective competition to Windows three things must happen:
1. Linux needs to become much more unified. Most of the distros need to go (or amalgamate) and that a unified Linux front must be presented and marketed to the world.
2. Linux has to be made much more Windows-like. Most people want to go to an appliance and have it work for them without fuss--same with PCs. Here Linux STILL offers considerable barriers; even though the Linux community has known about this issue for years, it has done very little to rectify the problem--for example WINE never seems to be finished, now it's too little too late. The WINE issue is but one of many. Similarly, even user-surveying Microsoft has been badly bitten by users rejecting Vista because of its significance difference to its predecessor XP.
You'd think users' rejection of Vista--a product from the same stable as XP--would awaken the Linux community into doing something about the Windows compatibility issue but apparently even this is not enough to move them. (Also, the world has slowly learned that relearning the same old stuff under another guise or cover without significant improvements or outcomes is essentially learning low-grade knowledge and wasted effort. For users, the status quo makes much more sense, and they've already applied this logic and thinking to Linux.)
The propeller-heads in the Linux movement are both cognisant and conscious of these facts but have essentially chosen to ignore them. In the grand wash up, their infatuation with underlying Linux technology is significantly more important to them than is compatibility with Windows. Tragically for Linux, it's another instance of where self-interest wins out over the utilitarian greater common good.
3. Unless some kind of worldwide unified Linux alliance is formed that involves large corporations and governments that use Linux and who want to see it promoted and developed further into a more unified and standardized product (and who will financially back this development) then I see Linux going nowhere. In today's world where markets and pragmatism are everything and 'altruism' has become a rarefied word hidden between the pages of dusty dictionaries, Linux will remain a lost cause relegated to the boondocks and relative obscurity.
Such is the stranglehold Microsoft has on the world that all three of the above must come together for Linux to even get a foot in the door. Anyone who has been in the IT game as long as I have will be aware of the tragic story of how IBM only accepted MSDOS for its PC as its second choice but in so doing it set in concrete the road for Bill Gates and Microsoft to dominate and monopolize the world's operating system market.
We urgently need strong competition in the operating systems market even if it is somewhat unequal (a la Intel and AMD--where the smaller player still can force effective competition). Sad and unfortunate as it is, Linux is unlikely to ever be that competitive smaller player.
9.0 Build 8359 Beta (Apr 10, 2009 - 6:22 PM)
1. What ROYALTIES do owners of copyright PAY for the formative ideas inculcated in them by their education--which is often paid for by the State? (Right--their education is, in part, paid for by us copyright 'thieves'.)
2. What ROYALTIES do owners of copyright PAY back to society by the virtue of the fact they live in and come from this society? Ideas which they've inculcated--taken directly--from society and built upon and which Copyright Law gives them total exclusivity to and to regurgitate in any way they please. Ideas which were never fully theirs in the first place.
3. What ROYALTIES do owners of copyright PAY for the formative ideas that they have acquired by standing upon the shoulders of the forefathers of prior art? Ideas and knowledge without which they would never have been able to to produce their art.
...Right, absolutely NONE.
I am not calling for the abandonment of Copyright Law but I am calling for it to be made much more equitable.
In 1886 while the world was sleeping, dreaming or otherwise occupied, right under its nose a small band of influential people headed by the Frenchman Victor Hugo managed to hoodwink governments into giving them total and exclusive control over anything that they wanted to say, write or regurgitate in a slightly different form to that which had been said previously. This 'right' they have held onto tenaciously and increasingly so ever since and to the very considerable detriment of the general population and society as a whole.
Laws such as this outrageous HADOPI are the continuation of that 1886 'Outrage', and they need to be strongly resisted by the citizenry on the basis that they are an affront to and and assault on society.
For the first one hundred years of the International Copyright Treaty it was a fait accompli for the 'Victor Hugos' of this world as few had printing presses or the ability to make gramophone records. Now technology has changed everything.
We all know something is seriously wrong with Copyright Law even if we can't articulate it. Moreover, that's why the power elites defend it so strongly, they're worried that a small leak in the dyke might bring about its collapse. Propping up bad Law requires ongoing effort, and when it's not the natural order of things then it becomes hard work. Ask yourself why do so many millions of normally law abiding people--who'd never steal anything say from a shop or supermarket--treat Copyright as a joke or with contempt? The answer is simple: there IS something naturally wrong in protecting ideas. Saying this is my idea and I'm going to lock it away and you'll have to pay an arm and a leg to see it is not seen by our society as being normal or a sociable thing for humans to do.
We really do need a world movement to strike back at these pernicious Copyright Laws. They need to be dragged kicking and screaming into the Twenty First Century, drastically overhauled and adapted to the modern world of the Internet and electronic data transfer. Outrageous Copyright provisions such as copyright being valid for 70-plus years after the author's death must go. Orphaned works should automatrically be in the public domain and so on.
Copyright Law is another instance where those with power and influence have wielded it to gain even more. It's time we ordinary people made the imbalance a little more equitable.
9.0 Build 8359 Beta (Apr 10, 2009 - 4:09 PM)
Wonderful music to my ears. The thieving bully gets a just reward--hoist with his own petard.
....Isn't experiencing Schadenfreude just wonderful?