luik

¬¬ Can someone please make the Opera cookies checkbox come ticked by default in the next version as it comes ticked for Internet Explorer, Firefox, Safari and Chrome? Or Opera should really be the only damn web browser which the damn cookies checkbox come unticked by default? (yes, I'm starting to get angry, anyone noticed this)

So I hope all browsers cookies checkboxes comes now unticked by default and that CCleaner becomes useless.

I can't agree on letting all browsers cookies checkboxes unticked by default. CCleaner is made to clean temporary files and cookies are included in that category. If we are going to untick these checkboxes then we should untick history, cache, recently opened things, temp files because they are important for safety or useful on some way? I don't think so. What would be the use of a cleaning software? The default setting for do not delete "24h or less time" files is enough for safety.

So why Firefox's cookies checkbox is ticked by default? ??

System Volume Information is a operating system protected folder, you need to disable the option operating system protected folders in the folder settings. Sorry, I don't know the exactly name of the place you enable it in English. It would be better if in the next version we can type the location because leaving the option I told you disabled is not what I can call "safe".

Ok!

Wow! Piriform follow all rules that Microsoft defines for development! (that's a good thing - I guess) Ok, my suggestion is somewhat useless (ok it's totally useless). Could an admin delete this thread?

Please tell me if I'm wrong... Internet Explorer 8 (with separated processes architecture) was released to the general public March 5, 2008 (Beta 1). <<<7 months>>> Chrome has separated processes since its first release in September 2, 2008. This feels like somewhat copying or just improving stability for you? Ok... Ok..., my opinion is that they are so near (in a browser development terms) that it feels like they had the same idea at the same time! Chrome release was about 1 year and a month ago so I don't think Mozilla is copying it, they are just changing to improve stability.

But I want to select Portuguese and still having the English and other languages as options, and the it's just 636 KB... My #2 solution would be the best but I don't know if it would be cool putting that language selection screen in the middle of the installer. Oh, I don't know why I'm thinking that way, some very popular software (and games) do that so why not? I think this check is just for checking if the version you are installing in the moment is the latest (in case you have this file saved in your disk to install later or downloaded a older version by mistake), will not affect the software when you open it later...

...

I think you should change the language files names so they could be easily recognized in the Lang folder of your applications. Actually they are lang-1025.dll, lang-1026.dll, lang-1027.dll, ..., lang-5146.dll so how I'm supposed to know which one is the file language for Russian which I'd like to delete for example because I'd never use it, or how I'm supposed to find the Portuguese (Brazilian) file when I have problems with it? Or how would I know if the language I want is really missing or it's a bug in the software's drop-down language picker list? You could add a command to replace (delete) the actual language files and install (copy) the new renamed ones on the next versions' installers.

Actually, I think it's better to have all languages in the installer and all them be installed. 1. One different installer for each language wouldn't be good, download websites such as FileHippo would have to have one different page/file for each language on their servers. And I need at least of English and Portuguese together for quick switch between these languages when helping an user in this forum or even all the languages so I can comment about the software with a "web friend" that lives in another country. 2. Adding an screen in the installer with checkboxes for all the languages available wouldn't be very user friendly / beautiful. 3. The lang files are very small!

No, I thought that Chrome lacks features then how can it be copied?

Ok, that's what you think. I think Chrome is turning popular just because of the Google name, because Chrome is a perfect clone of Firefox right now: they added themes and extensions, which makes Chrome have the same number of features than Firefox or more (bookmarks synch, etc), so it's not the minimalism that's winning (unless you think in "minimalism" as a word Google used to make their marketing, so people would think it's small and fast). And... I don't think people does notice the smaller Opera / Chrome UI, unless they had toolbars installed in IE / FF.

I think there's no way to do what you want to do with Defraggler yet.

Chrome gained a big market share because it was made by Google and most people think that web browsers = search engines (search for "what is a web browser?" on Youtube to see it in interviews), Google is the biggest name on Internet (most accessed website / most used search engine) and Chrome ads are everywhere and in some software installers. Opera haven't copied Chrome's apearence and features: there's a difference between minimalism and ellegance. Mozilla and Maxthon aren't going to copy Chrome visual either. The fact is that the web browsers' UI are becoming smaller to left more space for the webpage the user wants to see, that's all.

Wait... Some people are still talking about Opera eating up lots of RAM but I personally never had this problem.

Who know Opera is already working on this too? They have a ~13 year old browser so it mustn't be that fast/easy to adapt the window / tabs / MDI /page rendering/ js / plugins structure. No one have been talking about RAM problems lately (forums, blog comments, ...) so I think them doesn't exist anymore. And... opera.exe is 186 MB now here, I olny have this tab opened, you may think this is a lot of usage but: 1. 186 MB is being used because I already opened other pages in other tabs (Facebook, Yahoo! Mail, MyOpera, Twitter, Wikipedia, Youtube) and closed them, but instead of taking off everything from the memory (the cache of these pages), Opera keeps some things on it so you can quick access these websites again (either visiting them again by typing in the address bar or recovering from the "closed tabs" trash can which is very fast). 2. I have 3 GB of RAM so that doesn't matter for me. 3. While I was writing this the memory use of opera.exe decreased to 147 MB.

Exactly, but the bugs are going away, I'm using the latest 10.52 snapshots from the Opera Desktop Team blog and I didn't have a single error or crash.

Windows Vista / Seven's Clear Type comes enabled as default, maybe it received some improvements and that's why I can't notice this issue.

http://forum.piriform.com/index.php?s=&amp...st&p=165753

http://forum.piriform.com/index.php?s=&amp...st&p=165753

This is not the manual Defraggler update link, there's no manual update link for Piriform software, you need to see which is your current version and see if it's number is equal to the latest one. This link will aways show you the latest release available because the URL should look like this http://www.defraggler.com/update/?v=1.16.165 to work properly. You need to specify the current version installed via PHP (?v=1.16.165) because Piriform can't detect what is your version (not in a webpage, webpages can't do that unless there's a plugin installed [which doesn't exists for the Piriform softwares]). If you write the latest version number in the URL for example http://www.piriform.com/defraggler/update?v=1.18.185 you will get the message that the software is updated. So, the right thing to do is to use the "Check for updates..." link in the left bottom corner of Defraggler or select yes if it tells you that there's a new version and if you want to go download it. You can also use software such as FileHippo.com Update Checker to check for updates for you.

Ok, I get it now, that's a tiny difference... Well, the tabs and address bar text isn't "Clear Typed" also, right? Oh, I can't identify it, it's really a tiny difference! Why don't you simply hide this menu bar and use the 10.5+'s "O" button?

Check if the Windows default defraggler show less than 19%, if so take a look at this topic: http://forum.piriform.com/index.php?showtopic=27422