View Full Version : Warning about Opera
I have never liked Opera, but since Firefox made using their extensions
near impossible, I thought I'd give Opera another try. That was a
mistake!
Opera 10.63 is the last version that runs in Win98.
I installed Opera 10.63 in Windows 98se, and rebooted.
After the reboot, my screen went from 768x1024 to 640x480.
This also messed up the order of my desktop icons....
Is this a known bug in Opera 10.x?
[Note] This is not the first time older versions of Opera have corrupted
my operating system settings.
I quickly found out that Opera 10.x and below do not support extensions
anyhow.
Needless to say, I removed it from my system, and restored the registry
from a day prior to installing Opera.
That's the last time I ever use that piece of crap!
VanguardLH[_2_]
August 24th 15, 09:19 AM
radarlove wrote:
> Opera 10.63 is the last version that runs in Win98.
> I installed Opera 10.63 in Windows 98se, ...
The Windows 98 newsgroups are over at ---,
,----------------------------------------'
'---> microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
alt.windows98
alt.comp.os.windows-98[se]
When you next test Opera under Windows XP, the OS discussed in this
newsgroup, then report here.
On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 03:19:52 -0500, VanguardLH > wrote:
>radarlove wrote:
>
>> Opera 10.63 is the last version that runs in Win98.
>> I installed Opera 10.63 in Windows 98se, ...
>
>The Windows 98 newsgroups are over at ---,
>,----------------------------------------'
>'---> microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
> alt.windows98
> alt.comp.os.windows-98[se]
>
>When you next test Opera under Windows XP, the OS discussed in this
>newsgroup, then report here.
I reposted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion.
There wont be any testing of Opera on XP. I'll never touch that piece of
crap software again!
Ken Blake, MVP[_4_]
August 24th 15, 06:16 PM
On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 00:57:19 -0500, wrote:
> I have never liked Opera, but since Firefox made using their extensions
> near impossible, I thought I'd give Opera another try. That was a
> mistake!
I don't like Opera either, but why was trying it a mistake? If you try
it and don't like it, you can either uninstall it or even leave it
there and just not use it.
In fact, I normally recommend trying software. You never know what you
might like.
Nil[_5_]
August 24th 15, 07:08 PM
On 24 Aug 2015, wrote in
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:
> I have never liked Opera, but since Firefox made using their
> extensions near impossible,
No, they don't.
> I thought I'd give Opera another try. That was a mistake!
Paul
August 24th 15, 08:19 PM
Nil wrote:
> On 24 Aug 2015, wrote in
> microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:
>
>> I have never liked Opera, but since Firefox made using their
>> extensions near impossible,
>
> No, they don't.
He is referring to the addition of "signing" to plugins.
I don't know how an older (win98) browser is going
to deal with a signed plugin. As delivered from the
mozilla plugin server.
https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2015/02/10/extension-signing-safer-experience/
Paul
On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 10:16:10 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP" >
wrote:
>On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 00:57:19 -0500, wrote:
>
>> I have never liked Opera, but since Firefox made using their extensions
>> near impossible, I thought I'd give Opera another try. That was a
>> mistake!
>
>
>I don't like Opera either, but why was trying it a mistake? If you try
>it and don't like it, you can either uninstall it or even leave it
>there and just not use it.
>
It was a mistake because as I said, I had similar problems with earlier
versions. It tends to tamper with the OS. No piece of software should
modify the OS. (Except those written specifically for modifying the OS,
like Tweak-UI). Opera has no excuse to modify my screen settings or my
desktop.
From what I recall, I tried Opera back in the early 1990s, under Windows
3.x, and it screwed up my system. So, yea, I should have known
better....
>In fact, I normally recommend trying software. You never know what you
>might like.
I like trying software too, and have found some great stuff as well as
some real trash. If I dont like something, I just remove it, but when it
f**ks up my OS, I get ****ed!
On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 15:19:27 -0400, Paul > wrote:
>Nil wrote:
>> On 24 Aug 2015, wrote in
>> microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:
>>
>>> I have never liked Opera, but since Firefox made using their
>>> extensions near impossible,
>>
>> No, they don't.
>
>He is referring to the addition of "signing" to plugins.
>I don't know how an older (win98) browser is going
>to deal with a signed plugin. As delivered from the
>mozilla plugin server.
>
Exactly. I've had problems updating at least one extension in FF 28.x
using XP. I've used that extension for years, and it's dead now. But on
Win98, running FF 3.6x I cant install any of them at all. Even if they
were intended for FF 3.x and marked as "SIGNED", they will not install.
I even tried to save some of them as .XPI files and run them offline. It
dont work.
What I cant understand is that I have not changed my copy of FF 3.6x, so
how can it not install an older plugin? You'd think that the browser
would determine what it can install. That tells me that apparently
mozilla must have modified my INSTALLED browser, while I was online.
I have some older extensions saved as .XPI. As soon as I can find them,
I want to see if they install. They are years old and written long
before this "signed" crap.
I also want to compare all my FF files from my backup drive to the ones
on my system, and see if I can determine what file was modified....
>
> Paul
VanguardLH[_2_]
August 24th 15, 11:24 PM
wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 03:19:52 -0500, VanguardLH > wrote:
>
>>radarlove wrote:
>>
>>> Opera 10.63 is the last version that runs in Win98.
>>> I installed Opera 10.63 in Windows 98se, ...
>>
>>The Windows 98 newsgroups are over at ---,
>>,----------------------------------------'
>>'---> microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
>> alt.windows98
>> alt.comp.os.windows-98[se]
>>
>>When you next test Opera under Windows XP, the OS discussed in this
>>newsgroup, then report here.
>
> I reposted to microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion.
>
> There wont be any testing of Opera on XP. I'll never touch that piece of
> crap software again!
See my reply over in the Win98 newsgroup. You have not proven the
change in screen resolution was Opera's fault.
Bill in Co
August 25th 15, 01:04 AM
wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 15:19:27 -0400, Paul > wrote:
>
>> Nil wrote:
>>> On 24 Aug 2015, wrote in
>>> microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:
>>>
>>>> I have never liked Opera, but since Firefox made using their
>>>> extensions near impossible,
>>>
>>> No, they don't.
>>
>> He is referring to the addition of "signing" to plugins.
>> I don't know how an older (win98) browser is going
>> to deal with a signed plugin. As delivered from the
>> mozilla plugin server.
>>
>
> Exactly. I've had problems updating at least one extension in FF 28.x
> using XP. I've used that extension for years, and it's dead now. But on
> Win98, running FF 3.6x I cant install any of them at all. Even if they
> were intended for FF 3.x and marked as "SIGNED", they will not install.
> I even tried to save some of them as .XPI files and run them offline. It
> dont work.
>
> What I cant understand is that I have not changed my copy of FF 3.6x, so
> how can it not install an older plugin? You'd think that the browser
> would determine what it can install. That tells me that apparently
> mozilla must have modified my INSTALLED browser, while I was online.
When you go online, their server determines what you are running (reading
the user agent string, and all that), and if it's out of date (which FF 3.6
most certainly is!), will likely prevent you from installing many plug-ins,
I believe.
So you may not have changed your copy of FF 3.6, but that's irrelevant.
Their server (like that of many web sites) wants to see an updated browser,
and they're not allowing many add-ons with these older versions so they
don't have to deal with any issues that might arise from these "obsolete"
versions.
Have you ever tried to get support, or even purchase, an older version of
software from most manufacturers? It's often impossible (they don't want to
deal with those support issues AND they want you to get the updated
versions).
Nil[_5_]
August 25th 15, 01:10 AM
On 24 Aug 2015, Paul > wrote in
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:
> He is referring to the addition of "signing" to plugins.
> I don't know how an older (win98) browser is going
> to deal with a signed plugin. As delivered from the
> mozilla plugin server.
>
> https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2015/02/10/extension-signing-safer-experience/
I figured he was, but the fact is that they not yet implemented it.
Therefore, they have not yet made "using their extensions near
impossible." And even when they do start it, using extensions will
not be "near impossible." Just the unsigned ones. What's making it
"near impossible" is trying to shoehorn software written for modern
OSs into Windows 98, and then complaining that it doesn't work.
In other words, it just more whining and disinformation from this,
uh... "gentleman".
And I am sorry to see this policy go into effect, as I use a couple
of plugins that are unlikely to be signed.
On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 17:24:58 -0500, VanguardLH > wrote:
>See my reply over in the Win98 newsgroup. You have not proven the
>change in screen resolution was Opera's fault.
I responded over there, and you'll just have to take my word for it
because I'm not going to screw up my computer again, particularly for a
piece of really ugly software. I have never liked Opera anyhow!
On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 18:04:05 -0600, "Bill in Co"
> wrote:
>When you go online, their server determines what you are running (reading
>the user agent string, and all that), and if it's out of date (which FF 3.6
>most certainly is!), will likely prevent you from installing many plug-ins,
>I believe.
>
>So you may not have changed your copy of FF 3.6, but that's irrelevant.
>Their server (like that of many web sites) wants to see an updated browser,
>and they're not allowing many add-ons with these older versions so they
>don't have to deal with any issues that might arise from these "obsolete"
>versions.
>
>Have you ever tried to get support, or even purchase, an older version of
>software from most manufacturers? It's often impossible (they don't want to
>deal with those support issues AND they want you to get the updated
>versions).
>
I have no need to install software anymore. I have every piece of
software I could ever need in Win98. 98 does everything I need except
for web browsers. It's obvious the web keeps making old software
obsolete, in order to sell their newer OSs and make us buy new
computers. AND FOR WHAT REASON????? Websites are supposwed to be about
their CONTENT, not all sorts of worthless bloated crap. The older
websites from the 90s were actually more useful than most today. They
were content oriented, loaded fast, and still could be made to look
really nice.
I could probably still run Win98 in 20 years from now, if I did not use
the WEB....
Win98 dies a fine job of playing and editing music, videos, photos, etc.
In fact I mostly use the older software, for example, Photoshop. The
newer versions are so goddamn complicated (bloated), I dont need them,
or even want to try to learn them, when the older, simple versions work
for all my needs.
On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 20:10:55 -0400, Nil
> wrote:
>I figured he was, but the fact is that they not yet implemented it.
>Therefore, they have not yet made "using their extensions near
>impossible." And even when they do start it, using extensions will
>not be "near impossible." Just the unsigned ones. What's making it
>"near impossible" is trying to shoehorn software written for modern
>OSs into Windows 98, and then complaining that it doesn't work.
>
I have updated my FF extensions for years on FF 3.6x under win98. I
updated them just a few months ago with no problems. Now, none of them
will install, and I always check to eb sure they are made for FF3.x.
Many would install on ANY version of FF.
Like I said, video downloadhelper was the one extension I have used the
most and for many years. Now it refused to update in XP, then I removed
it entirely, downloaded the file (which says SIGNED), and it installed,
but dont work.
I normally only use 3 extensions. Downloadhelper Flashblocker, and
Cache viewer.
Nil[_5_]
August 25th 15, 07:07 AM
On 24 Aug 2015, wrote in
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:
> I have updated my FF extensions for years on FF 3.6x under win98.
> I updated them just a few months ago with no problems. Now, none
> of them will install, and I always check to eb sure they are made
> for FF3.x. Many would install on ANY version of FF.
>
> Like I said, video downloadhelper was the one extension I have
> used the most and for many years. Now it refused to update in XP,
> then I removed it entirely, downloaded the file (which says
> SIGNED), and it installed, but dont work.
>
> I normally only use 3 extensions. Downloadhelper Flashblocker,
> and Cache viewer.
I have no sympathy for you at all. If it worked the way you like it,
you shouldn't have updated anything. You should know by now that
nothing written today is guaranteed to run with an unsupported 5-year-
old browser in an unsupported 17-year-old OS.
Find an old version of the extension. Restore from a backup. But don't
whine.
On Tue, 25 Aug 2015 02:07:43 -0400, Nil
> wrote:
>On 24 Aug 2015, wrote in
>microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:
>
>> I have updated my FF extensions for years on FF 3.6x under win98.
>> I updated them just a few months ago with no problems. Now, none
>> of them will install, and I always check to eb sure they are made
>> for FF3.x. Many would install on ANY version of FF.
>>
>> Like I said, video downloadhelper was the one extension I have
>> used the most and for many years. Now it refused to update in XP,
>> then I removed it entirely, downloaded the file (which says
>> SIGNED), and it installed, but dont work.
>>
>> I normally only use 3 extensions. Downloadhelper Flashblocker,
>> and Cache viewer.
>
>I have no sympathy for you at all. If it worked the way you like it,
>you shouldn't have updated anything. You should know by now that
>nothing written today is guaranteed to run with an unsupported 5-year-
>old browser in an unsupported 17-year-old OS.
>
>Find an old version of the extension. Restore from a backup. But don't
>whine.
APPARENTLY YOU DONT UNDERSTAND ENGLISH
THE EXTENSION NO LONGER WORKS AT ALL. NOT ON WIN98 OR ON XP!
Google these words:
VIDEO DOWNLOADHELPER NO LONGER WORKS
Read all of the 35,000 hits
Begin here:
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/1049131
Also
The older versions of VDH
dont work on FF 3.xx or FF 28
No "signed" extensions can be installed into FF 3.x.
(Even if they clearly say theu will work on FF 3.x)
I MAY BE OLD,
BUT I REMEMBER WHEN THE INTERNET USED TO WORK,
AND IT DID SO WITHOUT TORTURING IT'S USERS WITH REPEATED PROBLEMS.
I THINK THE TIME HAS COME TO GO BACK TO THE GOOD OLD DAYS!
WHEN ALL WE HAD WERE BOOKS, AND THEY WORKED PERFECTLY EVERY TIME!
Nil[_5_]
August 25th 15, 06:44 PM
On 25 Aug 2015, wrote in
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:
> APPARENTLY YOU DONT UNDERSTAND ENGLISH
>
> THE EXTENSION NO LONGER WORKS AT ALL. NOT ON WIN98 OR ON XP!
>
> Google these words: VIDEO DOWNLOADHELPER NO LONGER WORKS
>
> Read all of the 35,000 hits
Try googling "shoebox hedgehog will shaving". Read all of the 205000
hits and ask yourself if you are any more educated. If you think the
number of google hits on any random string of words has any
relevance, you're confused.
> Begin here: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/1049131
Youtube doesn't want their videos downloaded. Every time someone
comes up with a way to do it, Youtube will find a way to thwart it.
It's a game they all play. If you choose to participate, you have to
be prepared to lose the game sometimes and take the loss gracefully.
> I MAY BE OLD, BUT I REMEMBER WHEN THE INTERNET USED TO WORK, AND
> IT DID SO WITHOUT TORTURING IT'S USERS WITH REPEATED PROBLEMS.
Most of the problems you constantly whine about here are of your
own making.
> I THINK THE TIME HAS COME TO GO BACK TO THE GOOD OLD DAYS! WHEN
> ALL WE HAD WERE BOOKS, AND THEY WORKED PERFECTLY EVERY TIME!
Yes, that would be the best thing for you. Don't delay.
On Tue, 25 Aug 2015 13:44:06 -0400, Nil
> wrote:
>
>Youtube doesn't want their videos downloaded. Every time someone
>comes up with a way to do it, Youtube will find a way to thwart it.
>It's a game they all play. If you choose to participate, you have to
>be prepared to lose the game sometimes and take the loss gracefully.
>
On dialup, there is no other way to watch their videos. They dont stream
at 5K bps. And at a WIFI, I'm not going to watch full movies at a public
place. I DL them and watch at home later.
But I have now found a website where you just paste the YT URL, and DL
the video. No extra software needed.
VDH claims that YT changed something, every time their extension dont
work. While there is some truth to that, they used to be the second most
popular FF extension, but that is dropping fast.
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.