Opera Vs Mozilla

[astral]

Can you not configure it to block all ads?

It's set to block ALL pop-ups.

Not banners, google ads, and flash ads?

Ad blocking is NOT a subject we wish to discuss, thank you.

I swopped from Opera to FireFox a couple of months back.

I should have done it earlier but was out of by FireFox's in ability to import my 100's of Opera book marks correctly.

The direct FF import for Opera book marks STILL does not work if the bookmarks are subdivided in folders.

I solved the problem by having Opera output the book marks in html form,

that was readable by FF.

[penguin]

The only thing I don't like about Opera is that I can't highlight and copy a web page then paste it elsewhere as it is displayed on the webpage. When I highlight a webpage then copy it into, lets say into a Microsoft Word document, it is displayed in a text format. Also, when I highlight a webpage, the pictures aren't highlighted and cannot be copied along with the text. I'm sure I was able to do this in earlier versions of Opera before I upgraded to versions 8 and 9.

For now, when I need to copy an entire webpage for pasting elsewhere, I have to open the webpage in Internet Explorer. Can anyone tell me what is wrong with my Opera application and how to correct the copy and paste problem?

Pattaya Dave

Any suggestions on how to correct this problem?  I've explored every toolbar and pull-down in the program and it still leaves me scratching my head.  

I don't think you can copy a webpage including pictures with Opera for a Word document, even in earlier versions l always used IE or similar if l had to do this.

When l want to copy webpages l either print to a PDF or take a screenshot. I haven't got Word on this computer so l can't test it but you should be able to paste a screenshot into Word, shouldn't you?

[Tywais]

When l want to copy webpages l either print to a PDF or take a screenshot. I haven't got Word on this computer so l can't test it but you should be able to paste a screenshot into Word, shouldn't you?

Yes, that works. Use ALT + Print Screen, open Word and paste. However it will only show what is on your screen so if it is a long window the rest will not show.

[sabaijai]

I'm a long-time user of Opera and prefer the interface to other Mozilla Firefox and MSIE. It's much faster the MSIE of course and I've always felt it was faster than Firefox as well. On the other hand Firefox's interface has come closer to Opera (the first to have tabbed pages, but I wish Firefox had a close box on every tab rather than one all the way to the right, nitpicky I know).

Firefox now has a close box on every tab. That's always bothered me too, but they fixed it in 2.0.

I don't quite understand how Opera is faster than Firefox? I mean, Firefox is based on Mozilla, so the code base behind it is a big ugly mess - understood. But the interface is nice, and I wait for the network, never for anything else. It's not like Firefox uses any CPU. Memory footprint is another matter, there the whole Mozilla mess comes to light.. I live with it because I like FF and the many brilliant plug-ins.

I don't think I would be able to surf the web without Flashblock, for example...

There's an Internet shop in Pai that has all three browsers installed. I've compared Opera and FF side-by-side there and Opera is noticeably faster (and that matters in a place like Pai where DSL connections are relatively slow to being with). I should install FF on my home system and compare them. The speed difference between Opera and MSIE is stunning.

When I want to save web pages on Opera I click Files > Save As. If I want the pictures as well as the text (I usally don't) then I use the Print with Images function or save to pdf.

[sabaijai]

Can you not configure it to block all ads?

It's set to block ALL pop-ups.

Not banners, google ads, and flash ads?

Ad blocking is NOT a subject we wish to discuss, thank you.

I swopped from Opera to FireFox a couple of months back.

I should have done it earlier but was out of by FireFox's in ability to import my 100's of Opera book marks correctly.

The direct FF import for Opera book marks STILL does not work if the bookmarks are subdivided in folders.

I solved the problem by having Opera output the book marks in html form,

that was readable by FF.

Astral, why did you switch?

[penguin]

I swopped from Opera to FireFox a couple of months back.

I should have done it earlier but was out of by FireFox's in ability to import my 100's of Opera book marks correctly.

The direct FF import for Opera book marks STILL does not work if the bookmarks are subdivided in folders.

I solved the problem by having Opera output the book marks in html form,

that was readable by FF.

I imported my bookmarks (700++) from Opera to Firefox including numerous multi-level sub-folders only a week ago using the direct import method. That was using the latest version of each browser so maybe whatever problem there was has been fixed, didn't need to use the html method.

[nikster]

The only thing I don't like about Opera is that I can't highlight and copy a web page then paste it elsewhere as it is displayed on the webpage. When I highlight a webpage then copy it into, lets say into a Microsoft Word document, it is displayed in a text format. Also, when I highlight a webpage, the pictures aren't highlighted and cannot be copied along with the text. I'm sure I was able to do this in earlier versions of Opera before I upgraded to versions 8 and 9.

For now, when I need to copy an entire webpage for pasting elsewhere, I have to open the webpage in Internet Explorer. Can anyone tell me what is wrong with my Opera application and how to correct the copy and paste problem?

Pattaya Dave

Any suggestions on how to correct this problem? I've explored every toolbar and pull-down in the program and it still leaves me scratching my head.

I don't think you can copy a webpage including pictures with Opera for a Word document, even in earlier versions l always used IE or similar if l had to do this.

When l want to copy webpages l either print to a PDF or take a screenshot. I haven't got Word on this computer so l can't test it but you should be able to paste a screenshot into Word, shouldn't you?

Hmm.. couldn't you just save as HTML in Opera where it saves all the pictures in a folder next to the HTML file, then just open that HTML file in Word? Then save as normal .DOC document?

Opera can save as HTML, Word can open as HTML - this should not be a problem. I know I can do this with Firefox..

[nikster]

There's an Internet shop in Pai that has all three browsers installed. I've compared Opera and FF side-by-side there and Opera is noticeably faster (and that matters in a place like Pai where DSL connections are relatively slow to being with). I should install FF on my home system and compare them. The speed difference between Opera and MSIE is stunning.

When I want to save web pages on Opera I click Files > Save As. If I want the pictures as well as the text (I usally don't) then I use the Print with Images function or save to pdf.

Interesting. I just went to a website I never, ever go to to avoid having to clear my cache for a fair comparison. I entered the full web address in the address bar, and measured the time from when I hit return until the site was 100% loaded.

www.msn.com

Opera 9.1: 16 seconds

Firefox 2.0: 23 seconds

Wouldn't have thought... I mean, both speeds are pretty ###### slow, but Opera was quite a bit faster.

The back button in Opera is instant! This is the way it should be, of course, it's all in the cache. On Firefox, it takes 2 - 3 seconds.

Maybe I will give Opera a go now

Edited March 11, 2007 by nikster

[cdnvic]

Run Firetune and retry it. Firefox's default setup favours a slow connection, but it can be tweaked for a faster connection and is way faster than the default.

[cdnvic]

Or if you like, type alt:config in your address bar and tweak it yourself.

Using these settings the main Thaivisa forum page loads in about 3sec for me;

[Gary A]

During this past week I have fiddled with Firefox a LOT as well as IE7 and spin off browsers like Avant and Maxthon. I can't say I'm in love with Opera, BUT, I have to say it is MUCH faster than all the others. Actually the difference is astounding. I'll just keep tweaking it until I get used to it.

[nikster]

Or if you like, type alt:config in your address bar and tweak it yourself.

Using these settings the main Thaivisa forum page loads in about 3sec for me;

Thanks for that! I installed FasterFox extension to conveniently modify those settings.

FasterFox also has the instant cache feature. I have tons of RAM so I set it to keep the last 10 pages in instant cache. And now I have instant back and same speed as Opera. Didn't want to use Firetune because it's an .exe - I feel more comfortable with a normal FF extension.

Playing with Opera, the problem is the user interface. A good user interface has presets that just work - no fiddling required. A bad user interface allows you to configure everything and anything but also requires you to configure everything and anything because the presets are unusable. And Opera seems to fall square in the latter category for me. Weird popdown appears when selecting text - sorry that's not good. Weird popdown also appears when typing in address bar. <deleted>? I am sure it can be configured but I shouldn't have to.

Firefox pretty much works as-is out of the box. Apart from the speed settings above, I don't think I have changed any presets.

Edit: Yes, FF is a *lot* faster with these settings. Makes a pretty big difference. I also like to be able to cache DNS entries for a very long time...

Edited March 11, 2007 by nikster

[Gary A]

Run Firetune and retry it. Firefox's default setup favours a slow connection, but it can be tweaked for a faster connection and is way faster than the default.

Thanks Vic, Opera is now in the trash after I ran Firetune. Opera is fast but things kept changing from one use to the next.

[astral]

Astral, why did you switch?

Good question.

Firstly, everyone raves about FF, and I had given it a try earlier.

I was impressed with the interface.

Secondly Opera still does not handle menus on airline booking screens correctly.

I found myself having to use IE, which I hate.

Thirdly. My bank accepts FF, but not Opera.

When FF 2 came out I tried it and managed to transfer all my hundreds of book marks.

So Opera has been deleted and FF is now my default

[wpcoe]

Since this thread seems to have the attention of some Opera aficianados and experts, I'll ask an Opera question here.

Opera is my browser of choice, and I'm used to its quirks and methods so not interested in changing, but one thing that irks me is I cannot send html-formatted e-mail with the integrated e-mail client. I like the integration so that with only one app open my e-mail gets checked while I surf, but is there any tweak, adjustment or add-on to enhance the e-mail part to create formatted e-mail? (I'm pretty sure the answer is no, but I've learned to not ass-u-me....)

[Plus]

Opera will never catch up with Firefox in terms of user numbers - it used to be supported by advertising and couldn't be considered as an alternative to IE. Firefox made a big splash, for it was free, when it came out.

Will I switch from Opera to FF? Not likely, I got used to it, I suppose I can set Firefox to look and work exactly like Opera, but I don't know how and I don't want to waste time trying.

I can fully customize any new installation of Opera to my exact liking in less than five minutes. I don't know where to start in Firefox. Where are the blooldy mouse gestures? Download them? From where?

I know FF extentions is a good idea, but in Opera everything is already there - the trick is to switch most of the features off.

The popdown box under the address bar is cool in its own way - you can customize its content (or turn it off completly). On my computer I can type anything I like and popdown gives me the option of finding it in google. There are ten different ways to search in Opera when you install it - just disable those that you don't like with a right click.

Opera's mail client does not compose HTML but it can display it, and it makes e-mailing so much easier - highlight, right click - send by e-mail - done, in less than a second. I can't stand waiting five minutes for Outlook to load after using Opera. I suppose Mozilla's Thunderbird is like Outlook, not like Opera in this regard.

I remember someone mentioned writing two different CSS sheets - one for IE, one for FF, and none for Opera. Do people still do that? All recent browsers are capable of displaying standard CSS exactly as it was intended. FF and Opera are less forgiving than IE, but if you get CSS right with any of them, IE will comply, too. That's the idea of having standards, isn't it?

If a website warns me of using the "wrong" browser (like BMW Thailand), I just ignore the warnings or click identify/mask as IE (or Mozilla, for that matter). These things happen only on Thai websites, in my experience. They still use tables for layouts, for chrissakes, and stolen MS software/Dreamweaver is all their know.

Back to FF-Opera debate - there's no debate, if you haven't got Opera yet, go for FF, that's the future.

Opera:config will open a config file where you can tweak speed and cache options to your heart's content, just like in FF, btw.

[wpcoe]

Plus, you echo my feelings on Opera: the intertia I have with knowing just how Opera works and how to tweak it keeps me from wanting to switch to anything else.

I downloaded Firefox just to see what everybody raves about, and saw nothing there that I "must have" that I don't "already have" with Opera.

However, I disagree with this:

All recent browsers are capable of displaying standard CSS exactly as it was intended. FF and Opera are less forgiving than IE, but if you get CSS right with any of them, IE will comply, too. That's the idea of having standards, isn't it?

The three browsers do NOT interpret CSS sheets the same way. If they displayed CSS "exactly as it was intended" life would be SO much easier for web site designers.

[pumper]

a web master issue came up this week.

I use FF 2.02

my bkk friend Douglas has a brand new website to sell a coffee table picture book of Siamese Body Builders. Current IFBB world champion is Thai .. 80kg class... & he is featured in a large format black & white coffee table book ..

anyway

he sent me a link .. http://www.prapiim.com/adoration_project/home/

it only partially opend in FF .. FF goes to the uRL but i only get a 'black' screen .. not a 'time out' just no text or images in FF .. source code is there.

it opens in a FF - IE 6 window .. = opens in IE but in FF does not work ..

It's in HTML 4.01 with css & looks like pretty fancy htlm code.

He also has published a coffee table book on Khmer Art.. it's on a different web site.

http://www.artmediaresources.com/adorationandglory/

he also occasionally does personal tours into remote Cambodia .. his condo looking down on klong saen sap is like a museum!

this verbage is at the top of the source code page.

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">

[Tywais]

this verbage is at the top of the source code page.

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">

Removing that does allow the page to show in FF. Also, seems that website has several other errors in it. It can be checked here > HTML Validator

An addon for FF for HTML validation > https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/249/

[Plus]

A preconfigured shortcut for validation in Opera - Ctl-Alt-V. But it's nice to know that I can download a validator for FF from the Internet, I'll do that.

I maintain for a moment that CSS sheets are displayed by all three browsers exactly the way they should be. The problem for designers is to write standard compliant CSS.

In the example above, "HTML 4.01 Transitional" would tell the browser that the page is not standard compliant right away, and that's where the actual headache for webmasters lies - in displaying non-standard pages. Each browser would treat deviations in a different way (Opera and FF usually agree with each other).

IE by default assumes that every page is written to IE's own, outdated and non-standard specifications. To force IE to apply standards the page must be "HTML 4.01 Strict" and there must be a link to w3.org page with standard definitions.

[wpcoe]

I maintain for a moment that CSS sheets are displayed by all three browsers exactly the way they should be. The problem for designers is to write standard compliant CSS.

Maybe we are talking apples and oranges, but my feeling is that if CSS sheets are displayed by all three browsers exactly the way they should be, then the displays should be identical.

Take a look at: http://www.wpcoe.com/css/ The "HTML 4.01 Strict" DTD is specified in the index.htm file, and using the w3.org validators for HTML and CSS, the code passed with no errors or warnings.

However, using IE6, Firefox 2.0 and Opera 9.2, the display is different in all three.

Even though I am an Opera fan, I must say that IE6 displays what I would expect: the border around the entire <div> container, and the orange background-color of that container showing under where the blue right-hand column ends.

Even the way the dashed-line border is rendered is different in each browser.

[Plus]

In your example Opera and FF treat the CSS correctly - your "content" is a container of floated "left" and "right" divisions. According to the rules the container ignores heights of the floated children. You, however, want the container (the orange background) to include all the floated boxes.

I think it's a clear mistake and IE simply treats it differently, as I said earlier.

You probably should rethink how to arrange your boxes and where to put floats on them.

Once you get it in FF or Opera, IE will compy.

As a quick fix you can clear your floats by placing an empty div after them (but still within the "content" box). That would make the container extend down to include this new fake div.

Something like: <div style=clear:both></div>

Validated CSS or HTML means only that the syntax is correct. It doesn't mean that page will appear exactly as you might imagine it.

[pumper]

I find opera to display different form FF or IE .. opera's rendition of pages is very readable.

I do not use IE except in emergencies because i do not trust microsoft

i use FF 99% of the time because with the right 'add ons' it is quite functional .. sometimes i am forced to use an IE window.

[pumper]

I forwarded your input to Douglas

He said he will forward to his web master.

thanks!

this verbage is at the top of the source code page.

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">

Removing that does allow the page to show in FF. Also, seems that website has several other errors in it. It can be checked here > HTML Validator

An addon for FF for HTML validation > https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/249/

[wpcoe]

As a quick fix you can clear your floats by placing an empty div after them (but still within the "content" box). That would make the container extend down to include this new fake div.

Something like: <div style=clear:both></div>

Thanks for that little trick. I wouldn't have thought an "empty" div would be valid, but apparently it is!

It would be nice if all three browsers made the same interpretations and application of CSS *and* HTML code, and until they do, it's a bit of a PITA. I already figured out that if I code a page for Opera, it generally will display the same way in IE. And, *generally* Opera and FF display the same way, but not always.

BTW, that "test page" of mine was part of a challenge to see if I could re-code a site currently laid out using tables, entirely with CSS. The only part I could not attain without tables, was the part where the "columns" would remain equal length when one of them would shrink or expand with different content. e.g. On that page, the I wanted the blue right-hand column to fill down to the bottom of the container and not show any orange. With a table that happens, with a <div> container it doesn't.

(See www.kecsvcs.com for a tables version, and see www.kecsvcs.com/test for my CSS experiment. The Welcome and QuickBooks pages are all-CSS, but the Services page seems to be the required compromise: only one table. Also, I could not get a 240px-width graphic to display within a 240px <div> container in IE, it has to be 236px or less. )

[Plus]

Rewriting table based page into CSS is a PITA indeed.

There are certain issues with CSS implementation by different browsers but their number is far far less than it used to be ten years ago during IE-Netscape wars. For most common purposes one standard complying CSS sheet would suffice.

The issue with your example is two fold.

First, the application of "float" for wrong purposes. You (don't take it personally, whoever wrote that example) used "float" as if it was a replacement for "align" from MS Word. That is not the case - float means telling ALL OTHER elements to go up and around it, excluding the element from the normal flow. Think of it as hanging open tag. Until you close it with "clear", all the elements must move and follow the float rule.

Second issue is with IE calculating the height of the container element - it somehow thinks that floating rule shouldn't apply to a parent/container (i.e. go up and around) but all other elements must follow it as usual.

I don't know why it happens. It could be IE peculiarity, or it could be some undeclared property of containing block that IE gives a different default value. In that case you should just find what the property is and explicity set its value so that IE will comply.

Otherwise - what if you wanted your page look like in Opera and FF but IE keeps screwing up and extending your orange box to include floats?

Let's assume that it's a bug in IE - what can you do about it? Do you need a separate CSS sheets for IE and the rest or can you find a workaround that would satisfy all?

At the moment it's a hypothetical situation as your page doesn't look right in standard complying browsers yet.

>>>>>>>>

I took time and downloaded FF add-ons and customised it to my taste. I think add-ons is a good feature in general but it's getting out of control. How do you know what you want if you've never heard of some particular option before? There are thousands of them and many duplicate each other, browsing them is like typing a random URL and hoping that the site is useful to you. IE tab was hidden on the second page of results, for example, even if I explicitly searched for "IE tab". Mouse gestures was at the bottom of the result page.

Now I have to repeat the process for all other computers that I use - go to the website, search, download, install, restart. I'm not sure it's worth the trouble.

I like Opera's approach better - they give me tons of preinstalled options that I can see, check out, and decide whether to keep them or turn them off.

Eqivalent of add-ons for Opera is called widgets, and I think they are truly "add-ons", as everything I need is already included in the browser.

Another issue - how to make FF work as fast as Opera? I don't like that redrawing "back" page takes so much time, in Opera it's instant.

[penguin]

I took time and downloaded FF add-ons and customised it to my taste. I think add-ons is a good feature in general but it's getting out of control. How do you know what you want if you've never heard of some particular option before? There are thousands of them and many duplicate each other, browsing them is like typing a random URL and hoping that the site is useful to you. IE tab was hidden on the second page of results, for example, even if I explicitly searched for "IE tab". Mouse gestures was at the bottom of the result page.

Now I have to repeat the process for all other computers that I use - go to the website, search, download, install, restart. I'm not sure it's worth the trouble.

I like Opera's approach better - they give me tons of preinstalled options that I can see, check out, and decide whether to keep them or turn them off.

Eqivalent of add-ons for Opera is called widgets, and I think they are truly "add-ons", as everything I need is already included in the browser.

I know what you mean about the extensions getting out of control. I used to know a lot of them back when there were only a few hundred but now it must be thousands. With Firefox instead of downloading extensions straight into the browser everytime you can save them to a file and install from there. If you have a number of computers running Firefox you can keep all your extensions on a flash drive and install from that. If they're outdated Firefox can check for later versions, something that was once messy but now quick and easy.

[Plus]

Can I easily copy add-ons from one computer to another? Or is "save to file" option available only during the initial download?