Opera 10
in [UK Mac]
|
Prev: Safari strangeness....
Next: Phoning Apple Store
From: J.J. O'Shea on 21 Sep 2009 16:44 On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 16:18:53 -0400, zoara wrote (in article <2003625572275256917.139570me18-privacy.net(a)news.individual.net>): > Ian McCall <ian(a)eruvia.org> wrote: >> On 2009-09-21 09:30:20 +0100, peterd.news(a)gmail.invalid (Pd) said: >> >>> James' suggestion to delete prefs fixed it though. > > Hold on a sec - how did we let you get away with James' for so long? > > >> I seriously dislike the number of times that this trick is >> recommended, > > People like voodoo. > > >> and in tandem the number of times for which it works. > > Scary, isn't it? It ain't voodoo if it works... -- email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
From: James Dore on 22 Sep 2009 09:28 On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 14:35:25 +0100, Pd <peterd.news(a)gmail.invalid> wrote: > I just downloaded Opera 10.1 and tried to run it. > > As well as the permanent dock icon I had for it, at least two other > temporary dock icons appeared to be spawning and vanishing at a high > rate. Force quit took a long time and many attempts to work to stop the > new flickering icons, and Opera still appears in the Force Quit dialog, > shows as running in the dock, but doesn't show up in the Activity > Monitor. > > Peculiar behaviour. > Out of interest, do you get broken images when browsing sites with Opera? It isn't all images, and it isn't all the time, but I'll often get the first one or two images corrupted when loading a web page. eg http://www.new.ox.ac.uk/~james/brokenopera-img.png This has happened for a while (since 9.0 for me) but it's only recently become irksome. Cheers, James -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
From: Pd on 22 Sep 2009 10:14 James Dore <james.dore(a)new.ox.ac.uk> wrote: > Out of interest, do you get broken images when browsing sites with Opera? No, but I don't use it as my main browser so I haven't used it much at all. -- Pd
From: zoara on 22 Sep 2009 14:10
J.J. O'Shea <try.not.to(a)but.see.sig> wrote: > On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 16:18:53 -0400, zoara wrote > (in article > <2003625572275256917.139570me18-privacy.net(a)news.individual.net>): > > > Ian McCall <ian(a)eruvia.org> wrote: > >> On 2009-09-21 09:30:20 +0100, peterd.news(a)gmail.invalid (Pd) said: > >> > >>> James' suggestion to delete prefs fixed it though. > > > > Hold on a sec - how did we let you get away with James' for so long? > > > > > >> I seriously dislike the number of times that this trick is > >> recommended, > > > > People like voodoo. > > > > > >> and in tandem the number of times for which it works. > > > > Scary, isn't it? > > It ain't voodoo if it works... Voodoo (as in, literally voodoo) works sometimes too. Those cursed really do drop dead; never mind that they would have done anyway without the curse. Deleting prefs is often recommended in the same vein as repairing permissions, as in "I don't know what the problem is, and this is one of the things you can try when the problem is unknown, and I've seen this solve weird problems, so give it a try". Just because it happens to work once in a while - often enough for us to see a pattern where it may not exist - doesn't stop it being voodoo. It's only not-voodoo when it's applied as a known fix for a known problem, rather than a "I've seen this solve other problems so it will probably solve this one too" fix. -zoara- -- email: nettid1 at fastmail dot fm |