well as the title says, in windows and in Firefox i'll copy something, open a window and go to Google, press paste and nothing. I'll have to go copy, one,max two clicks, then paste for it work.

any suggestions?

- didn't know where to put this so here seemed nice, since it's non-worms/team17 related.

Try copying and pasting from elsewhere; I'm pretty sure your problem is a Firefox bug. I've had occasional trouble with it myself.

Tis a harmless but annoying firefox virus, there are fixes for it on google.

Firefox sux. Opera FTW!

Mozilla has always treated me well, but I must admit, I did have that problem for a couple of days so I did a quick Defrag and it was sorted.

i'll try that :)

Mozilla has always treated me well, but I must admit, I did have that problem for a couple of days so I did a quick Defrag and it was sorted.

That's a bit screwy. Defragging should never fix -- or indeed change -- anything other than the speed of your disc access.

That's a bit screwy. Defragging should never fix -- or indeed change -- anything other than the speed of your disc access.

True, it shouldn't but strangely it did, either that or it just happened to co-inside with me doing a defrag....hmm *ponders*

I would say that this is most likely not a Firefox bug or a virus. It's probably caused by a Firefox extension. The extensions that add features to the status bar can be particularly troublesome.

That's a bit screwy. Defragging should never fix -- or indeed change -- anything other than the speed of your disc access.

Unless there's a program which relies on a good disc access speed for some reason. I like far-fetched things.

I would say that this is most likely not a Firefox bug or a virus. It's probably caused by a Firefox extension.

Now that you mention it, it did involve a dodgy extension...

Oh well *skips off*

Eeeexactly. Get Opera, it doesn't have extensions that can **** up your browser; everything comes as a standard and there's no need to go ploughing through a big list. Plus Opera's settings are invincible to anything short of a reformat; they survived multiple reinstalls and a windows reinstallation. No idea how it does it.

Eeeexactly. Get Opera, it doesn't have extensions that can **** up your browser; everything comes as a standard and there's no need to go ploughing through a big list. Plus Opera's settings are invincible to anything short of a reformat; they survived multiple reinstalls and a windows reinstallation. No idea how it does it.

Windows reinstallation barely touches anything these days.

If they give you an installation disk at all.

Eeeexactly. Get Opera, it doesn't have extensions that can **** up your browser; everything comes as a standard and there's no need to go ploughing through a big list. Plus Opera's settings are invincible to anything short of a reformat; they survived multiple reinstalls and a windows reinstallation. No idea how it does it.

I pledge to Firefox

I use both Firefox and Opera. Although, I ONLY use firefox for gmail, as it's set as the homepage. Quite convinient.

I use both Firefox and Opera. Although, I ONLY use firefox for gmail, as it's set as the homepage. Quite convinient.

Yeah, I do that, too. Well, I use Firefox as a sort of Google Office: Google Docs And Spreadsheets, GMail, Google Calendar, and so forth. I've pretty well embraced Google.

May I ask why?

Because gmail works better in Firefox. Sure you can do the same things in the html version that Opera can handle, but it's not as nice and smooth.

Because gmail works better in Firefox. Sure you can do the same things in the html version that Opera can handle, but it's not as nice and smooth.

Aha! So why don't you use Firefox for the other stuff too?

Because it's gay.

Eeeexactly. Get Opera, it doesn't have extensions that can **** up your browser;

No, it just has plugins that can **** up your browser, because Opera takes numerous shortcuts to be the fastest. The way it uses Java is one example.

Eeeexactly. Get Opera, it doesn't have extensions that can **** up your browser; everything comes as a standard and there's no need to go ploughing through a big list. Plus Opera's settings are invincible to anything short of a reformat; they survived multiple reinstalls and a windows reinstallation. No idea how it does it.

Yeah, I can totally see how the browser not being at all expandable is a plus.


Get DOS! It doesn't have all those nasty Win32 viruses that can **** up your computer!


See how crazy that logic is? Saying Opera>Firefox because Opera doesn't have anything like the huge range of extensions that Firefox does is just as retarded as saying "Opera is bloatware, get Firefox and then get all these extensions!1".

Yeah, I can totally see how the browser not being at all expandable is a plus.


Get DOS! It doesn't have all those nasty Win32 viruses that can **** up your computer!


See how crazy that logic is? Saying Opera>Firefox because Opera doesn't have anything like the huge range of extensions that Firefox does is just as retarded as saying "Opera is bloatware, get Firefox and then get all these extensions!1".

...Opera doesn't need extentions, so since it doesn't have any you know that all the code in there has been checked by professionals. Clearly that's a plus.

Granted it has negatives, but almost every Firefox extention I've ever used has been there purely to add a feature Opera already has or to add functionality that could have been added with an Opera sidebar panel.

...Opera doesn't need extentions, so since it doesn't have any you know that all the code in there has been checked by professionals. Clearly that's a plus.

Granted it has negatives, but almost every Firefox extention I've ever used has been there purely to add a feature Opera already has or to add functionality that could have been added with an Opera sidebar panel.

http://userscripts.org/

Thousands of Greasemonkey plugins alone. Greasemonkey plugins do insane amounts of things. My "Gmail" page displays my google calendar, my google reader, with ToDo management, spam hiding, and a hell of a lot more. And that's JUST for my GMail page. I have tons of Greasemonkey plugins for all kinds of things (A very tiny icon added after every link showing me what filetype it is (HTML, PDF, GIF, JPEG, EXE etc.) is one example), Slashdotter (Adds tons more functionality to Slashdot), and more (such as Stylish (Changes the CSS of any site you wish, so I can make websites I visit regularly look much more pleasing to the eye)).

(Yes, Opera can run some Greasemonkey scripts, but from what I've seen and tried they are terribly buggy, don't work as well, and have limited access to a lot of things that is not limited with Firefox - So it's buggy, unsupported and crappy, which for most plugins means you don't want to use them).

Do I think everyone would find these features useful? Hell no. Do I think that most people would be able to find several things they think would be useful? Hell yes.


Or, to summarize:

Can Opera make gmail.google.com appear ANYTHING like this:

http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t56/esengulov/gmail-greasemonkey-big.jpg

(That has far too much crap for my tastes, but the functionality is there, and I never EVER found that in Opera. I just found slightly fun features like zooming in on webpages, which I don't use regularly.)



Firefox has a much much larger range of plugins and can do all kinds of things Opera can't. Opera's features, although much less limited, are designed *by* the Opera team, and they know it will work without incompatibility issues. But Firefox sure as hell can do a lot Opera can't (And no, you won't want to use most of these features, but some people do!)

I know.

I never for a second denied any of the above. You asked how not having extentions could be a plus and I told you.

For almost all Firefox users, Opera provides all the functionality they'll ever want.

...Are you aware, for example, that GMail has RSS support built in anyway? Or that the Google Homepage can show Google Calendar, GMail and RSS feeds too?

I know.

I never for a second denied any of the above. You asked how not having extentions could be a plus and I told you.

For almost all Firefox users, Opera provides all the functionality they'll ever want.

...Are you aware, for example, that GMail has RSS support built in anyway? Or that the Google Homepage can show Google Calendar, GMail and RSS feeds too?

I asked no such thing! And I was responding to


but almost every Firefox extention I've ever used has been there purely to add a feature Opera already has or to add functionality that could have been added with an Opera sidebar panel.

I should have stated that "You must not have used many then", I suppose - Because your experience represents almost the complete opposite of what is the actual truth.

The GMail RSS support is poor, and the Google Homepage has *too* much stuff (If I want to google search, I'll use my Firefox search box, not have extra content on my homepage) - If I remove everything from my homepage except my GMail and Calendar, I have two tiny widgets. With the Greasemonkey scripts you can have the content expand to fill up your browser.

It's personal taste, anyway. Which is why I like Firefox. I have the things I want, and not the things I don't want, as opposed to using Opera (Or the full Mozilla Suite, for example).

I asked no such thing!
Not explicitly, but you did say this:
Yeah, I can totally see how the browser not being at all expandable is a plus.
I've used the internet long enough now to know that any sentence that starts in "yeah" and uses "totally" as an adverb is sarcasm. So you may not have asked, but you did implicitly state that you didn't know. So I told you.

I was just trying to be helpful and further the discussion in a less stupid way.

I should have stated that "You must not have used many then", I suppose - Because your experience represents almost the complete opposite of what is the actual truth.
"What is the actual truth" is a ridiculous way of stating it. There are more Firefox extentions than there are letters on this page, and I'd imagine more than 99% of them are used by less than 1% of Firefox users.

You're not talking about the difference between "Andrew's imaginary world" and "what is the actual truth"; you're talking about the difference between "what people could do" and "what people actually do". And sure, there are a handful of people, mostly nerds, who choose to kit out Firefox with hundreds of extentions, but they're such a tiny subset of the population it's hardly worth considering them. Most Firefox users have probably never even heard the phrase "greasemonkey".

For 99% of users, most Firefox extentions they'll ever use will either be integration for one particular website (i.e., StumbleUpon, Google or Alexa toolbars; Google Notepad; Jeteye, whatever), which could generally be done via a sidebar or a Widget in Opera equally well, or they'll be mouse gestures which Opera supports better out of the box it doesn't come in. In that case there are clear advantages to using Opera's built in code over code stuck into Firefox, often by amateurs and potentially by idiots. It's not unheard of for security holes to be found in Firefox extentions -- including your precious Greasemonkey scripts.

So my point is that for a great many users the "extentions" system in Firefox confers no advantages over Opera and can instead lead to problems. And that you implied it couldn't be anything but an advantage.

(If I want to google search, I'll use my Firefox search box, not have extra content on my homepage) - If I remove everything from my homepage except my GMail and Calendar, I have two tiny widgets.

For reference, that passage is gibberish.

Hmm... the non-html version of Gmail works fine for me in Opera.

Not explicitly, but you did say this:

I've used the internet long enough now to know that any sentence that starts in "yeah" and uses "totally" as an adverb is sarcasm. So you may not have asked, but you did implicitly state that you didn't know. So I told you.

I was just trying to be helpful and further the discussion in a less stupid way.

Fair enough.


"What is the actual truth" is a ridiculous way of stating it. There are more Firefox extentions than there are letters on this page, and I'd imagine more than 99% of them are used by less than 1% of Firefox users.

You're not talking about the difference between "Andrew's imaginary world" and "what is the actual truth"; you're talking about the difference between "what people could do" and "what people actually do". And sure, there are a handful of people, mostly nerds, who choose to kit out Firefox with hundreds of extentions, but they're such a tiny subset of the population it's hardly worth considering them. Most Firefox users have probably never even heard the phrase "greasemonkey".

For 99% of users, most Firefox extentions they'll ever use will either be integration for one particular website (i.e., StumbleUpon, Google or Alexa toolbars; Google Notepad; Jeteye, whatever), which could generally be done via a sidebar or a Widget in Opera equally well, or they'll be mouse gestures which Opera supports better out of the box it doesn't come in. In that case there are clear advantages to using Opera's built in code over code stuck into Firefox, often by amateurs and potentially by idiots. It's not unheard of for security holes to be found in Firefox extentions -- including your precious Greasemonkey scripts.

So my point is that for a great many users the "extentions" system in Firefox confers no advantages over Opera and can instead lead to problems. And that you implied it couldn't be anything but an advantage.

I've heard of one Greasemonkey exploit, almost 2 years ago when the Firefox base code was a lot weaker - 2 years ago Firefox 2.0 wasn't even a Release Candidate, AFAIK.

And yes, a lot of users don't use Firefox plugins. A lot of users don't use any features in Opera except for browsing webpages. A lot of users don't even use Opera (Hell, most of them don't. And not many more use Firefox.) Is it not worth considering Opera users because they are in such minority? I think not.

For a great many users the "inbuilt features" in Opera confer no advantages over Firefox, and can instead lead to problems (Such as the Java issue Bloopy mentioned, or for a very small minority (Probably the same percentage as people who use hundreds of Firefox extensions), disk space wasted). And that Muzer implied it couldn't be anything but an advantage.

Anyway, I don't fancy entering any more debates, they were one of the reasons I left the community for over a year.


For reference, that passage is gibberish.

Not really.
"(If I want to google search, I'll use my Firefox search box, not have extra content on my homepage) - If I remove everything from my homepage except my GMail and Calendar, I have two tiny widgets."

1) If I visit my personalised Google homepage, I have lots of small widgets, and then the large Google Search at the top. I can see what, 5 emails, a tiny calendar, and a large google search. Plus an additional google search built in to Firefox. And then a LOT of white empty space.

2) If I visit my Greasemonkey'd GMail, I get my Inbox with a large amount of emails, a slightly larger-than-Google-Homepage-calendar, a Google Search (Built into Firefox), and a popup whenever I get a Google Reader update.

Instead of lots of glaring whitespace, I have a lot more emails, and a slightly larger calendar for easier reading.

And yes, a lot of users don't use Firefox plugins. A lot of users don't use any features in Opera except for browsing webpages. A lot of users don't even use Opera (Hell, most of them don't. And not many more use Firefox.) Is it not worth considering Opera users because they are in such minority? I think not.

For a great many users the "inbuilt features" in Opera confer no advantages over Firefox, and can instead lead to problems (Such as the Java issue Bloopy mentioned, or for a very small minority (Probably the same percentage as people who use hundreds of Firefox extensions), disk space wasted). And that Muzer implied it couldn't be anything but an advantage.

What? No, I don't care about any of that.

I don't care what "that Muzer" said, and I know that for many users Firefox is better -- that's why I'm typing this post in Firefox right now; I'm one of them (except on my laptop where I use Opera). All I meant was that your post was unhelpful and overly argumentative, and you've done no harm to my point by starting this huge argument about it.

Instead of lots of glaring whitespace, I have a lot more emails, and a slightly larger calendar for easier reading.

That simply isn't true. If you customise it properly you can have two columns, with loads of emails shown, then a calendar, perhaps with RSS feeds underneath it, and you can get a range of other gadgets to show the same calendar in different formats until you find one that you like. And no white space at all.

If you're taking "Firefox" to mean "Firefox, with the optimal set of extentions" then you have to take "Google Homepage" to mean "Google homepage set up just exactly how you like it". Otherwise you're making an irrelevant comparison.