mailto: blog -at- heyrick -dot- eu

The fastest browser install-uninstall in history

Today I installed Google Chrome... and a minute later uninstalled it.

Google asked if I'd please supply a reason. I think this sums it up:

I'm a Firefox guy, and I wanted to install Chrome primarily for tsting that my website works with it.
The simple installer is a nice idea, however I was disappointed that I was not asked where to install the browser (I'd have put it on my SD card), plus I was slightly confused that the entire browser was put in a user-specific location in Documents and Settings, not Program Files.
Let me know if/when the installer can drop Chrome onto an SD card (as E:) and I'll try again...
[<email address>]

Like I said, Chrome, for some obscure reason, installed itself here:
C:\Documents and Settings\Rick\Local Settings\Application Data\Google
Would this imply that a new install (plus 47-odd Mb installer archive) would be necessary for each user?


The second fastest browser install-uninstall in history

This time, Opera 10.51. I wanted, as before, to install onto the SD card. Opera went in, a rather smaller 12.2Mb (12.5Mb on disc), but as the operation completed, I received the following error:
Opera 10.51 installer fail

I okayed this, and received possibly the most idiotic contradictory response possible:

Opera 10.51 installer stupid message

My system has not been modified? Opera is now installed? Excuse me?!?

As it happened, the program was installed, however running it (either shortcuts or directly clicking the executable) resulted in nothing. Really, it came and went so quickly there wasn't time to see a task load blip in ProcessExplorer!

I tried to Repair the installation using the installer. It reported everything was fine, but I still couldn't coax life out of Opera.
Given that I felt more inclined to try this one than Chrome, I uninstalled and reinstalled. Same behaviour.

I really didn't want to install to the second SSD. After all, I have an entire installation of apache with PHP5 running from the SD card, so why can't a browser? But, well, Rob said there was an issue with the calendar table and Opera which would be nice to see (and look to correcting). So I caved, and installed to D:.

Same behaviour. Oh, and I am running with administrator privs to allow the software to install. It keeps flaking at the firewall exception (the top picture).
I have reported this to Opera as a bug, I wonder what the reply will be...

Update 1: Same thing with Opera 10.50. It may be something quirky with my system (XP SP3 on an eeePC), but what?

Update 2: Finally got it installed, by using the "Classic" installer.


HTML compliancy

Thanks to Opera's easy validation system, I have taken the time to tweak my b.log so that it will pass official validation with only two errors, which are:
  • <base target="_top">
    This is used, along with a small amount of JavaScript, in order to break out of any frames this site may find itself stuck in - this is usually due to the site author making an external link without an appropriate "target"; as you may or may not have noticed, all internal links on the b.log replace what you are seeing, while external links open in a new window (or tab).
  • <deftitle "..."> and <deftitle "...">
    These are tags inserted at the start of every entry file in order to provide to the script the title of the entry (which is thus displayed in various ways, such as the pop-up caption in the calendar) and (for future expansion) defines various 'tags' that are applicable to the entry in question.
    These take the form of HTML tags with parameters as browsers will ignore tags that are not recognised with no unwanted side effects. However a validator will notice and fault this...

But, wait... Why HTML 4.01 loose?
This is because the strict version relies too heavily on CSS for its formatting, which is not much help for older browsers that either don't do CSS or don't do the fancier bits. As an Acorn RISC OS enthusiast, I have to keep in mind that the majority of Acorn browsers are around a decade out of sync with the wired world. Sure, this is a problem with RISC OS, but additionally the inability of heavily CSS'd HTML to degrade to something 'nice' is an issue of HTML itself.
To give you a good example, visit a nice looking site. Many - try Amazon or The Register. Now save the page you're looking at to disc as a "complete page" (not HTML only or, in IE, the MHT encoded file). The page will be saved, in Windows at least, with a directory of much the same name that contains the resources required for loading that page.
Erase all the .css files. Then try to reload the page that you saved...

Watch as this:

El Reg with all the fancy styles
dissolves into a bad parody of HTML 2.0:
TheRegister, exactly as above, without the styling - icky!

Because of this, I format my site using a mixture of HTML tags and CSS, and a big mess of tables. It isn't recommended practice, but then such practice often emphasises looks over content. I am attempting to do both.
But I do accept that, as is the most common case these days, your display will be 1024 pixels across (though this site should, in the majority of cases, degrade back to 800 pixel wide displays - such as SVGA setups).


Work woes

My work hours were looking to be 2pm to 9.30pm, which was quite nice. It helps that England is an hour behind so I could get home and watch stuff on TV.
But... well...

Production is splitting into two groups. Apparently there are some lucrative orders in the offing, and as such my new hours, as of the week following next, will be 6.30pm until 2am. Bloody marvellous.

I am thinking it is perhaps time to cast around, see if there is something else I can do. A job with hours that will stay constant. I don't hold out much hope, because I think world+dog is busy looking for work. But, can't hurt to look...

PS: Mom's a morning person who likes the sun. As she is also the Mom-Taxi, wanna ask her how much she's going to be loving these hours? Go on - send an email to the address at the top of the page and I'll print it out and hand it to her. Go on, say hello, say "god, that sucks", say something to cheer her up, because 20% extra on "night wage" doesn't quite cut it...


Your comments:

Please note that while I check this page every so often, I am not able to control what users write; therefore I disclaim all liability for unpleasant and/or infringing and/or defamatory material. Undesired content will be removed as soon as it is noticed. By leaving a comment, you agree not to post material that is illegal or in bad taste, and you should be aware that the time and your IP address are both recorded, should it be necessary to find out who you are. Oh, and don't bother trying to inline HTML. I'm not that stupid! ☺ ADDING COMMENTS DOES NOT WORK IF READING TRANSLATED VERSIONS.
You can now follow comment additions with the comment RSS feed. This is distinct from the b.log RSS feed, so you can subscribe to one or both as you wish.

Mick, 28th March 2010, 00:50
Didn't know Opera had a html checker built in? 
Work sucks!
Rick, 28th March 2010, 14:55
If you call up the menu by right-clicking on the page itself, there is a "Validate" option that will handle it. It's clever enough to be able to upload pages, so you can one-click validate things held on a local server! 
Here's a picture of it in action: 

Add a comment (v0.11) [help?] . . . try the comment feed!
Your name
Your email (optional)
Validation Are you real? Please type 07576 backwards.
Your comment
French flagSpanish flagJapanese flag
«   March 2010   »

(Felicity? Marte? Find out!)

Last 5 entries

List all b.log entries

Return to the site index



Search Rick's b.log!

PS: Don't try to be clever.
It's a simple substring match.


Last read at 04:28 on 2024/05/25.

QR code

Valid HTML 4.01 Transitional
Valid CSS
Valid RSS 2.0


© 2010 Rick Murray
This web page is licenced for your personal, private, non-commercial use only. No automated processing by advertising systems is permitted.
RIPA notice: No consent is given for interception of page transmission.


Have you noticed the watermarks on pictures?
Next entry - 2010/03/31
Return to top of page