XYplorer Beta Club

neminem wrote:Web Developer is particularly essential for its "View Generated Source...

One particular function in Web Developer I often find very helpful is Linearize Page, when I want to print or otherwise deal with just a portion of a very complex web page. It will flatten out the entire visible structure. The Nuke Everything Enhanced add-on can also be used in conjunction with this.

http://my.opera.com/desktopteam/blog/20 ... and-beyond


Cheers,
Filehero

Since I am a long time (portable) Opera user (Opera was on my radar already before its Unicode support, was it version 4, or something like that?) let me say a few words here too...

The ethics of Opera is the profit. They are tightly coupled with Google for a long time, see for instance: http://thenextweb.com/google/2012/08/22 ... sers-2014/ from August 2012.

Also, in messing with Google, they were badly messing with us, the users,... see for instance my comment in this thread: http://my.opera.com/community/forums/fi ... d=13882162 , not to mention their crazy Opera Turbo idea.

When I hear/see Google, Yahoo!, Facebook,... now Opera and many others, you surely can guess which DoD agency I nowadays have on my mind... "One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them."

So, no, I will not switch browsers. I will happily stay with my Opera@USB 12.15, as long as I can, further using Ghostery and Adblock Plus, and making my searches with duckduckgo instead of you-know-what.

Since this appears to be the destiny of all good software, the most important question for me is: "Hey, Don, if and when the men in black come and say: "Hey, Don, just name us some big number with at least 6-7 zeros in it, and sign here that you do not care for the future of XYplorer!", then Don, what are you going to do?"

And, BTW, is that Google Analytics thing in your page making such a difference for you? It seems to make it for me.

Borut wrote:And, BTW, is that Google Analytics thing in your page making such a difference for you? It seems to make it for me.

I don't know, but I always have google and the other google related sites blocked in Firefox with NoScript and never stay signed in to my google account. When I need to sign in to Google or use the blocked features, I just do it in Chrome.

Borut wrote:So, no, I will not switch browsers.

I already have. I've found FF is indeed much snappier on most sides I regularly visit (and none of which is amongst FB, TW, YT .. and all those other "Yes, we scan"-sites).

I don't have a problem with companies making their profits - most of us would like to be paid well as well, I guess. But I want to have the profit engine being transparent, especially when I - the user - am the central part the profit chain is based upon/build around. I haven't used an explicit ad blocker for years, because I once realized running quality web services simply doesn't come for free. So I let them get their page impressions in return for their service offer. But I do use script and tracker blockers - to protect myself from all this intransparent and dodgy web bugs offered "for free" and everywhere today.

Of course, I'll have a regular look on the route this Opera Next experiment will take. But as far as I understood the technical implications set by the Chromium switch, my hopes aren't very high. Too much restrictions, I'm afraid. But offering an _extension_ to improve the font rendering of the modern render engine they've just switched to is simply bizarre ....


Cheers,
Filehero

While we're all talking about Firefox here, don't forget to grab my OpenDownload² extension. I'd also recommend you to check out Pale Moon, a lightweight Firefox descendant with its own profile so it won't screw up your existing profile directory. (Use the Import tool from the website.)

Oh, and:
Firefox is the fastest browser.

(To be honest, I never understood why people used Opera.)

tux. wrote:(To be honest, I never understood why people used Opera.)

I have used it because it had the smallest RAM usage of IE, FF, Chrome & it...and on my old laptop with limted RAM, that makes a HUGE difference! And it gave me all what i needed w/o any 3rd party extensions.

Just got an idea (doesn't happen that often).

An Easy Access PopSel combo.
Quite nice, if I may say so myself

j_c_hallgren wrote:

tux. wrote:(To be honest, I never understood why people used Opera.)

I have used it because it had the smallest RAM usage of IE, FF, Chrome & it...and on my old laptop with limted RAM, that makes a HUGE difference! And it gave me all what i needed w/o any 3rd party extensions.

Ditto. Opera worked out of the box, from my USB stick, on very low end PCs and was faster than others back then. But compatibility issues with accessing my favorite websites made it unusable.
Today, I use Chrome not only for better compatibility but also for its simple, clean layout and decent security and extensions.

Hi' Back,

Lots of interesting info here, and the links are useful! Thanks everyone.

After a bit of digging and trying, you were right: Firefox is faster to launch and run than Opera (<15). So that's great! And there's plenty of extensions to play with. That's great too!
Same goes with Thunderbird.

Unfortunately, I'm not that convinced though - please correct me if I'm wrong:
+ FF/TB have all the fixes that Opera needed (quite often because of regressions too), and they're faster, compliant, etc.
+ FF/TB have "basic" missing features that Opera lacked after they practically stopped inventing/implementing new features (around v7 when they released M2, I fear!), e.g. for email: can not delete attachments...
- Unfortunately, Opera was already so far ahead (web & email) that to reach the minimum usability and customizing I'm used to (even by only tweaking 1 skin + 1 ini file), it seems I'm gonna need dozens and dozens of extensions...

For those wondering why some of us bothered with Opera: Yes, with time passing by and each release, Opera's shortcomings had become borderline unbearable (read "unreliable"), and even without v15 it was at the end of its life in this state. But its (legacy) numerous features were so useful and distinct that they're still no alternative to it - or so it seems...

I'd be glad if at least I could find a decent email client alternative, as efficient as Opera's M2 (e.g. lots of accounts managed in one unified "filtered" view - but easily isolated). But robust (!), and with all the basic functions expected from a modern email client (i.e. that's evolved in the last decade...)

Feels like I'm gonna have to download hundreds of Thunderbird and Firefox extensions and try them.
Played a bit with The Bat! too. Really great on security! But so-so in efficiency for my taste... And not so keen on trying Outlook! If someone uses another email client, I'd be glad to hear about it!

---

PS: btw, I second what's been said previously: Opera 15, 100Mb, for... an empty shell!
Oh okay they have to reinvent the wheel... oh no, sorry, we're talking about the rim!

Try Postbox (http://www.postbox-inc.com/) as an e-mail client.

Derived from Thunderbird and it looks like, it fulfills your requirements.

Thanks for the info!!!
I'm eager to try it.

FluxTorpedoe wrote:Played a bit with The Bat! too. Really great on security! But so-so in efficiency for my taste...

I am using TheBat! since the Netscape days, I think. In the meantime I have "switched" to their Voyager, which is, in a way, nothing else but a portable TheBat!

I am not on the latest version (and there were reasons for that, which I forgot in the meantime). I have both the program and the DB encapsulated in a Truecrypt volume, so I am - in principle - fully portable regarding mail. The DB is, in my case, some 3 GB in size (well, some 20 years of mail, or so) and I still have not encountered substantial problems - stable and fast, at least for my work flow.

I would be interested in learning what have you found "so-so" regarding efficiency. As far as I can remember, the "virtual folders" (or whatever they are calling them) were prohibitively slow for my needs from the day one of their existence, which is a pity. (But, I have not tested that for a long time now and my mail DB is admittedly a huge one, I would say.)

Thanks for the input about "the Bat!" Borut.
I only have a ~10 years email database (made a backup and restarted from scratch, I guess just after Opera's M2), so size isn't really a problem. The number of accounts I have to manage is, though: I only use ~3 frequently but I've ~10 in total and Opera's virtual view was perfect for that.
From what I've tested in the Bat!, I couldn't have a whole "unified" view of all Unread, Received, Sent, etc., (easily switchable to an account only), plus I encountered several shortcomings in my way of working (even though I'm willing to evolve).
But you gave me the incentive to test it again more thoroughly, so I will!
BTW, my comment on its efficiency wasn't a general critic, only a personal view for my personal case. Because it seems quite strong it general.

And after a few tests with Postbox -nice !-, for each nice new feature I find, I find and remember another one very useful feature I need that I don't find...

It really looks like the "brains" working at Opera half a decade ago were terrific. Too bad it was mangled by management choices with mobile platform and whatever...

At least Don is alone, it's reassuring!...

highend wrote:Try Postbox (http://www.postbox-inc.com/) as an e-mail client.
Derived from Thunderbird and it looks like, it fulfills your requirements.

That's the Eudora replacement that's at the top of my list. But I first have to migrate my 18 years of Eudora mail into Thunderbird, and then from there import into PostBox.