Talk:Opera (Internet suite)/Archive 1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
History and features
Should we try and stick to the developement of the most unique features in the beginning, and then go along with advocating them at the end in the "notable features" section? I felt I had to split the history section up as it was a mess really..
Also, please try to read the article before adding stuff to it. There is a LOT of duplication in there, mostly as a result of advocacy ad infinitum. Lets not make this part of a browser war shall we? ;-)
Miscellaneous
Source code availiability is now informed in the infobox. Issue resolved.
Furthermore, Internet Explorer was _not_ dominant when development of the Opera browser began. I'm not even sure wheter Internet Explorer _Existed_ at the time the development started. IE had a minimal marketshare when Opera was released, and Netscape was the Major competitor.
And, the relatively low marketshare. Well, heh, its kinda difficult to find out that a person is running Opera, if he doesdn't configure it to identify itself as it specifically. Opera defaults to identifying itself as Microsoft Internet Explorer for Windows. You can see the amount of people that _specifically_ has changed the settings, but you cannot see how many actually uses it.
- Opera's User-Agent string starts like MSIE's (if the option to identify as MSIE is on, which it is by default), but it includes "Opera" somewhere near the end. So competent studies are well able to distinguish the two. I have removed the misleading paragraph casting the market share numbers in doubt. --Robbe
Limitation of textbox size
I have found I cannot edit large pages with Opera 6.01 -- I think the limit is 128 KB. Today, I tried to edit Talk:List of famous Canadians but Opera deleted the whole page. I had to use MS Internet Explorer to get around this limitiation.
Is this an argument against using Opera, or an argument for refactoring talk pages? You decide. --Ed Poor 14:57 Oct 15, 2002 (UTC)
If broken web-browsers are damaging Wikipedia they should be blocked from editing. If people want to edit, they should be forced to use a browser that works!
- Just for the record, I use Opera 6.05 and have never had any problems with it here or elsewhere. And of course 6.01 users should not be blocked from editing - only a very small number of pages are large enough for this to be a problem, and when something gets deleted, it is easily revertable. --Camembert
- I use Opera 6.05 as well, without any problems by now. Is the limit really at 128 KB? Then we should think about splitting articles approaching this mark (for other reasons as well, e.g. loading time). Are there other browsers with limits in text boxes? Where are these limits? Does anybody know about this?
I hope that nobody else will suggest to ban Opera users... -- Cordyph
- Browser text box size limits are commonplace - or I should say used to be commonplace, but are fast dissapearing. Netscape 4.x had a smaller limit (was it 64k?) and issues used to pop up with that all the time. I use Opera 6.03 here (because I'm too lazy to upgrade a product that ain't broken) and have never met a problem. It's one of the nice things about Wikipedia, actually: the code is nice and clean and you can use any browser you like. Tannin
- I think they fixed it in some rescent version 24.77.246.184
Re: "This differing success can be explained by a variety of factors." for Russia and eastern Europe I think the generally lower CPU speed PCs there may be a reason to choose a less bloated browser. // Liftarn
Recommended version for UK Windows
I went to the Opera site and requested a download. However if I want the English (UK) version, I can only get an old version (6): the latest version (7) is only available in English (US). I would like to know whether I am better to stick to my guns and get the older version with the correct language settings, or should I get the newer version and hope for the best. What is the difference between the various language options? (I should add that I was thinking of using Opera exclusively for Wikipedia use to allow me to stack up loads of pages inside one Window: a mis-step?) Phil 11:41, Nov 7, 2003 (UTC)
- I think the only differences between english versions is spelling. Opera (7.20 at least) has a few small issues with wikipedia - its handling of the layout of R->L fonts (e.g. arabic) makes a few pages (e.g. the homepage) layout funny, and I sometimes have (hard to reproduce) layout problems, which seem to be related to CSS handling. -- Finlay McWalter 14:46, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)
-
- From which I infer that you recommend I go for the old version with the "correct" spelling, right? Phil 15:31, Nov 7, 2003 (UTC)
-
-
- Well, I use mozilla for wikipedia (I prefer its tabbed browsing to opera's), so I'm in no position to dole out definative advice. For general use, Opera 7 seems to me to be significantly faster than 6, and it fixes lots of page problems and some security issues. For me at least, spelling is not a significant issue. -- Finlay McWalter 15:58, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)
-
-
- Downloaded & installed it, now it refuses to work through our proxy server. A quick scout of the Opera Knowledge Base gives the rather unhelpful message that this is because our Proxy Server is demanding "the wrong kind of authentication" (shades of British Rail and the wrong kind of snow). It basically suggests that we replace our firewall with something slightly less demanding. Oh joy. Phil 16:40, Nov 7, 2003 (UTC)
- Methinks that Opera 7 is much better than Opera 6. When I used 6, it used to lag horribly when I tried to open pages much larger than 200 kb (dunno why, it even happened if I saved the site onto my hard drive). But 7.22 (the latest US version) fixes almost all of the problems... except humongous formatted message boards still get messed up sometimes... but by those I mean huge ones like on the board on this site.
- (by the way, that was me, awhile ago) ugen64 22:31, Dec 2, 2003 (UTC)