Greg

Hmm.. is that the Red Hat Technician thing? Well done, is it easy?

Now I'm curious as to what these modifications are, I'll assume they're frontpage/website related.

Although I have to admit that Opera 9 actually renders some things slower then its' previous versions. There is a good reason for this though, previously it downloaded and then rendered the whole thing, now it renders it as it gets it, which takes longer.

A resizable message box is fine, but one that automatically adjusts would be preferable I think, to me at least. :)

True Crise, but this is a new feature, I have ever confidence it'll develop and block flash to, and that google ads will be blocked in future too. As to the automatically importing of lsits, again this may well be availble in future as the feature develops, as this is probably already stored in a seperate file already i guess you kind of can "import" more manually. Hopefully Opera will build this into the client a lot more, it could be really good if they do it properly.

Right-click then "Block content...", what do I miss in Firefox, the fact that it didn't work tell for me. I set it using extentions to mimic Opera for mouse shortcuts, opening stuff in new tab by default etc.. To be quite honest though, I have Firefox installed now with a load of extentions and admitted they have advanced somewhat since I used Firefox as my main browser. It's jsut small things, like when I go back a page in Opera it goes straight back to where I was on the page (maybe Firefox can do thsi too - but it's not something I feel I should search for), the fact that when I go back it just shows me what was in the cache rather than redownloading everything. Now, again this may be possible to do in Firefox with extentions or whatever, but once again I don't feel should have to search to do this. On the other hand that page from cache thing is something that caused problems with phpbb for me, if i edit a post I have to refresh the page after it redirects me back. The thing is, there's small differences which make it just a matter of preference. Lots of people (myself included I guess) will try and argue on one side often though. Either because they have nothing better to do, want to have there opinion/preference justicfied by others, or they just enjoy arguing, or maybe they genuinly feel the browser they use is streaks ahead and others should try it... or maybe they ahve a personal interest in it.

Opera really did a bad thing not making it free prior to Firefox. The vast majority would be using Opera otherwise. A lot of these fairly small things which Firefox users state doesn't exist in Opera are coming, the Opera browser is still most definatly advancing. Extensions are the only thing which give Firefox a posible edge on Opera, although I do accept that this was the point or whatever, advanced users are supposed to have extentions installed. It's just there's so few things I miss that were availble in Firefox, and things I did miss from Opera. (Although a lot of them were availble after hunting down extentions) I also recognise there's features in Opera people don't want, such as the IRC and bittorrent. Yet I still love Opera, I'm not missing anything. The largest thing I missed from Firefox to quite honest when I left Firefox to come back to Opera was the whole stumble toolbar/buttom... And that's an unimportant thing really. The strange thing is that Firefox isn't fast, not on Windows at least. Even Internet Explorer, not to even mention Opera, is faster than Firefox. Ironically, Mozilla 1.6 was faster than Firefox too. Security? According to Secunia, Opera has 0 vulnerabilities, whereas Firefox has, well... many some highly critical and one extremely critical. There's even a few things from 2004 though in Firefox which havn't been patched. However, jsut like most other people are, on either side, I'm somewhat biased. Firefox is great, but (in my opinion, and many others at least) so is Opera.

Yeah, for you. I didn't even know about it till the next day... heh, oh well. :)

Oh right, I see what you mean I think. Like this: Alright, shame I can't do that. I'm sure it'll be possible to do in the future? :)

Well I don't know what version you were using Crise, but the 9 beta 2 or whatever can put the tab bar at the bottom fine. The same way that you'd put any other toolbars at the bottom.

Yeah, I guess so, if Crise wants to do it. Is there many people that would use it?

Hehe nice, we've had 100 users on at once two? Not bad, not bad at all.

You can also use fastefox, but Opera's engine still means it can render the pages faster, it's not just about the speed of downloading from the servers, that of course can be changed in Opera too. As to the fancy features... I'd say it's lacking them really but there are some which arn't needed. As to the memory it uses, I'd say firefox is worse. I've been using Opera as my main browser for years, but I did switch to firefox for quite a while, and it's far from a bad broswer and it's more custimizable then Opera, but the problem I find it that it's more you can add stuff then change. What's already there actually allows fairly little customization really, the same is true with Opera to a large extent.

Name/nick: Greg / Grogs Gender: Male Age: 15 (15th July 1990) Country: Great Britain Zodiac sign: Cancer (not sure of hand but semi-sure it's cancer - more interested in astronomy than astrology, only ever met one astrologist and that's whilest I was doing astronomy, heh.) Hobbies: Listen to lots of music, watching lots of movies, playing with computers, and maths interests me. Funniest thing to happen to me on DC: Well, does this have to be from my point of view, or can it just involve me? You see I was once staying round a friend's hosue and I'd fallen asleep and he decided it'd be funny to put his webcam on and give a link to the members of a private hub we're both on and then proceed to slap me and put shoe polish on my face whilest I slept. Not too funny for me, but I know others certainly found it funny, so I guess it was the funniest thing to happen to me on DC. On DC for: A bit under three years I guess, maybe nearer two.

Yes, but most hubs don't really send that imformation to the user (do they? :S), I can see the message length thing being useful to some degree to some maybe, but by choice I wouldn't want to see it all the time.

Yeah I have a load of tab rows myself, although I have to say it doesn't look great and takes up a laod of space, but oh well.

Hehe, nice little addition Crise, we need documentation for that kind of stuff. Anyway, in relation to OPs being willing to run a seperate client, well sure we are, but that doesn't mean that on the hubs we use more specifically for sharing that we wouldn't like to see this feature either, and value the feature somewhat if it did happen. I just don't have a problem sharing all of my share in most hubs.

The internet would not work without IP addresses. It's like the mail system, or the phone network. We need addresses and numbers, I can't see it being possible in any network to remove such a thing... and I don't even want it to be honest. The best way to have anonymity would be to just have hubs but all the data transfered via the hub, I guess that'd work. Yet it'd waste every so much bandwidth, I don't just mean the transfered amount, the speed too. With private hubs you also know the users you're downloading and the quality of the files will be good, you can ask people questions about files prior to downloading, you can request slots and get them.

You do realise that since version 6 (not seen tests to previous versions) it has been the fastest browser on Windows, and not just out of Firefox and IE either. It's also free and has been for quite some time. As to that bug, it's either in the beta because it's a beta, or it's not in the new beta. Also, my post what in quotation marks for a reason... that is/was their slogan.

If he codes it and there is some demand for it sure. The whole attitude of just putting in for no reason seems a little pointless, seeing as I've had my own suggestions fired back because they'd clutter the GUI or settings or whatever. I just think that this isn't required, if there's any real demand for it then I'll take back my statement, by all means.

As an OP on 19 hubs myself I see running a seperate client as fine. One with full share for private hubs, another for public hubs which I OP without any movies or whatever, just music basically. I did also run another client with a seperate share for just one hub once, but that wasn't a massive problem. I can see the use for it and all, but it's not a priority to me.

A resizable one would be enough, I'd just refer one which automatically adjusted according to the inputted message. May well be more coding or whatever anyway.

What language do you speak? Maybe we can find some who speaks both languages? EDIT: Looked at the actual screenshot and it seems you're Russian. So... anyone know any Russians who would like to translate a load of feature requests? :unsure:

Alright, lets show you some more cool stuff blackbox can do. This is a setup I just created this afternoon. It's pretty similar, just different theme, and some new cool stuff added... wallpaper gone too. There is a system monitor there (custom built) and foobar/winamp controller (again, custom built). I can working on adding loads more stuff to the deskop... and also button to show and hide this stuff. My Desktop Tell me what you think, only a 32KB screenshot too, heh. If simplicity and low resources look like that, I'm staying.

But which is faster and uses less resources? That or blackbox, that may look visually simpler than a lot of blackbox setups, but it's by no means faster I wouldn't have thought, with the XP theme and posible sliding start menu etc.