CP versus Opera???
-
Have set the value...let's see if something good comes of it.... However, I still have not got a reply on why Opera has these issues with CP.....anyone?:sigh:
========================================================================================= "UNIX is basically a simple operating system, but you have to be a genius to understand the simplicity." -Dennis Ritchie
-
Quite Interesting. I am using FF2.0.0.2 on Ubuntu Linux; it is using all of 51 MB. I have put in the value 5000 just to see what happens. Thomas
-------- Micrologic Networks, India
-
OK, this might probably be a dumb question, but here goes.... Is there no way I can enjoy CP on Opera(9.10) ? I mean, there's no "Message View" on the view types, and so I have have to wait for the entire page to reload for viewing any post.... The "Message View" option works on IE and the_fox [read Firefox]; however, - I don't use IE, because, well, I THINK it sucks! - I love the_fox, but it is too much of a memory hog; just two tabs, and the memory it takes is more than a 100 Megs! Seems to have some kinda' problem freeing up the memory from closed pages or something...... So I ultimately opt for Opera as one of the best browsers(Opinions are entirely on my credit). Which brings me back to the initial question: HTF do I get CP to run "nicely" on Opera. P.S.: I think CP on Opera does force me to sacrifice CPHog...:^) Oh well, beggars cannot be choosers (unless they're politicians)
grv2k6 wrote:
mean, there's no "Message View" on the view types, and so I have have to wait for the entire page to reload for viewing any post.
You can get the message view with a little trick: 1. Browse to CP 2. Right click on the page and say "Edit Site Preferences". This will launch a dialog box. 3. Go To the Network Tab in the dialog box and under "Browser Identification" select "Mask as FireFox". Look at the following screenshot: http://www.codeproject.com/script/profile/upload/15383/Capture.JPG[^] Opera supports GreaseMonkey scripts, but I have not yet been able to make CPHog work. http://www.opera.com/support/tutorials/userjs/examples/[^]
-
grv2k6 wrote:
mean, there's no "Message View" on the view types, and so I have have to wait for the entire page to reload for viewing any post.
You can get the message view with a little trick: 1. Browse to CP 2. Right click on the page and say "Edit Site Preferences". This will launch a dialog box. 3. Go To the Network Tab in the dialog box and under "Browser Identification" select "Mask as FireFox". Look at the following screenshot: http://www.codeproject.com/script/profile/upload/15383/Capture.JPG[^] Opera supports GreaseMonkey scripts, but I have not yet been able to make CPHog work. http://www.opera.com/support/tutorials/userjs/examples/[^]
Nice one, man! Thanks a lot :) Wonder why I didn't think of that!:doh:
"UNIX is basically a simple operating system, but you have to be a genius to understand the simplicity." -Dennis Ritchie
-
grv2k6 wrote:
mean, there's no "Message View" on the view types, and so I have have to wait for the entire page to reload for viewing any post.
You can get the message view with a little trick: 1. Browse to CP 2. Right click on the page and say "Edit Site Preferences". This will launch a dialog box. 3. Go To the Network Tab in the dialog box and under "Browser Identification" select "Mask as FireFox". Look at the following screenshot: http://www.codeproject.com/script/profile/upload/15383/Capture.JPG[^] Opera supports GreaseMonkey scripts, but I have not yet been able to make CPHog work. http://www.opera.com/support/tutorials/userjs/examples/[^]
Rama Krishna Vavilala wrote:
Opera supports GreaseMonkey scripts, but I have not yet been able to make CPHog work.
Wag warning. Opera and FF don't have identical DOMs. That could cause problems if CPhog is trying to access something that opera doesn't have.
-- Rules of thumb should not be taken for the whole hand.
-
grv2k6 wrote:
- I love the_fox, but it is too much of a memory hog; just two tabs, and the memory it takes is more than a 100 Megs! Seems to have some kinda' problem freeing up the memory from closed pages or something......
No problem. Just spend $80 and buy a 1GB memory chip.
I get a kick out of people that are so apologetic to some applications but then decry others. In this case Firefox vs. Internet Explorer. Can you imagine the messages if Internet Explorer memory was leaking to that extent and someone came back with a response such as buy a bigger memory chip or configure some obscure memory setting? I understand that you were probably joking with your post (even though it lacked the just kidding vernacular), but I bet similar posts regarding Internet Explorer wouldn't have enjoyed the same warm reception.
-
I get a kick out of people that are so apologetic to some applications but then decry others. In this case Firefox vs. Internet Explorer. Can you imagine the messages if Internet Explorer memory was leaking to that extent and someone came back with a response such as buy a bigger memory chip or configure some obscure memory setting? I understand that you were probably joking with your post (even though it lacked the just kidding vernacular), but I bet similar posts regarding Internet Explorer wouldn't have enjoyed the same warm reception.
tgrt wrote:
Can you imagine the messages if Internet Explorer memory was leaking to that extent and someone came back with a response such as buy a bigger memory chip or configure some obscure memory setting?
The fact is, Win3.1 runs comfortably with much less memory than WinXP. In spite of this, i never recommend Win3.1 to anyone. There are other factors...
----
It appears that everybody is under the impression that I approve of the documentation. You probably also blame Ken Burns for supporting slavery.
--Raymond Chen on MSDN
-
tgrt wrote:
Can you imagine the messages if Internet Explorer memory was leaking to that extent and someone came back with a response such as buy a bigger memory chip or configure some obscure memory setting?
The fact is, Win3.1 runs comfortably with much less memory than WinXP. In spite of this, i never recommend Win3.1 to anyone. There are other factors...
----
It appears that everybody is under the impression that I approve of the documentation. You probably also blame Ken Burns for supporting slavery.
--Raymond Chen on MSDN
Shog9 wrote:
Win3.1 runs comfortably with much less memory than WinXP. In spite of this, i never recommend Win3.1 to anyone. There are other factors
Agreed. But, we're talking about browsers not operating systems. There is a vast difference between the two.
-
Shog9 wrote:
Win3.1 runs comfortably with much less memory than WinXP. In spite of this, i never recommend Win3.1 to anyone. There are other factors
Agreed. But, we're talking about browsers not operating systems. There is a vast difference between the two.
tgrt wrote:
But, we're talking about browsers not operating systems. There is a vast difference between the two.
Of course. But my point is, both IE and Firefox have built their respective reputations on factors that have little to do with performance. Opera is famous for its small footprint and fast rendering. Firefox grew popular via a clean, fairly simple interface, advanced features and add-ons, and compatibility with most websites. IE is notorious for being the lowest common denominator: everybody has it, it provides just enough functionality to be considered a modern webbrowser, and while there are sites that will cause massive memory leaks, necessity has forced most developers to learn how to avoid such problems. So if someone's looking for fast, you don't recommend IE - Opera is much, much faster. And if someone is looking for good ad-ons, you don't recommend IE - Firefox has many more quality add-ons (assuming you don't count the thousands of spyware toolbars for IE). You recommend IE when the user needs to use a site written for IE and IE only, or if their needs are so basic that giving them anything beyond the white bread of browsers would only be a waste. The memory thing usually matters only to folk like us, who'll be running ten other memory-hungry apps while browsing. ;)
----
It appears that everybody is under the impression that I approve of the documentation. You probably also blame Ken Burns for supporting slavery.
--Raymond Chen on MSDN
-
tgrt wrote:
But, we're talking about browsers not operating systems. There is a vast difference between the two.
Of course. But my point is, both IE and Firefox have built their respective reputations on factors that have little to do with performance. Opera is famous for its small footprint and fast rendering. Firefox grew popular via a clean, fairly simple interface, advanced features and add-ons, and compatibility with most websites. IE is notorious for being the lowest common denominator: everybody has it, it provides just enough functionality to be considered a modern webbrowser, and while there are sites that will cause massive memory leaks, necessity has forced most developers to learn how to avoid such problems. So if someone's looking for fast, you don't recommend IE - Opera is much, much faster. And if someone is looking for good ad-ons, you don't recommend IE - Firefox has many more quality add-ons (assuming you don't count the thousands of spyware toolbars for IE). You recommend IE when the user needs to use a site written for IE and IE only, or if their needs are so basic that giving them anything beyond the white bread of browsers would only be a waste. The memory thing usually matters only to folk like us, who'll be running ten other memory-hungry apps while browsing. ;)
----
It appears that everybody is under the impression that I approve of the documentation. You probably also blame Ken Burns for supporting slavery.
--Raymond Chen on MSDN
-
I think you missed my point in this whole exchange. My point is that the vast majority of the community is much more forgiving of problems in Firefox than it is of problems in Internet Explorer -- all other things considered equal.
tgrt wrote:
My point is that the vast majority of the community is much more forgiving of problems in Firefox than it is of problems in Internet Explorer -- all other things considered equal.
And my point is, all other things aren't equal, or even close to it. If we're forgiving of Firefox's inefficiencies, it's because the trade-off is worthwhile. FWIW: I don't know how often it's been brought up here, but IE can and does leak memory. Without careful handling of certain objects, even fairly trivial JScript can cause significant memory leaks. Since i do quite a bit of coding for both browsers, i can say with a fair bit of confidence that IE leaks memory much, much more easily than FF does. We're forgiving of IE in this instance, because having your app work properly with the most popular browser on the market is worth the trade-off in development headaches.
----
It appears that everybody is under the impression that I approve of the documentation. You probably also blame Ken Burns for supporting slavery.
--Raymond Chen on MSDN
-
Rama Krishna Vavilala wrote:
Opera supports GreaseMonkey scripts, but I have not yet been able to make CPHog work.
Wag warning. Opera and FF don't have identical DOMs. That could cause problems if CPhog is trying to access something that opera doesn't have.
-- Rules of thumb should not be taken for the whole hand.
OK, the first problem regarding Firefox emulation is solved....Now can anyone kindly point me to something like GreaseMonkey for Opera?
================================================================= "UNIX is basically a simple operating system, but you have to be a genius to understand the simplicity." -Dennis Ritchie
-
OK, this might probably be a dumb question, but here goes.... Is there no way I can enjoy CP on Opera(9.10) ? I mean, there's no "Message View" on the view types, and so I have have to wait for the entire page to reload for viewing any post.... The "Message View" option works on IE and the_fox [read Firefox]; however, - I don't use IE, because, well, I THINK it sucks! - I love the_fox, but it is too much of a memory hog; just two tabs, and the memory it takes is more than a 100 Megs! Seems to have some kinda' problem freeing up the memory from closed pages or something...... So I ultimately opt for Opera as one of the best browsers(Opinions are entirely on my credit). Which brings me back to the initial question: HTF do I get CP to run "nicely" on Opera. P.S.: I think CP on Opera does force me to sacrifice CPHog...:^) Oh well, beggars cannot be choosers (unless they're politicians)
I stick to IE and FireFox.
Vasudevan Deepak Kumar Personal Homepage Tech Gossips
