[Mijzelf]

Has anybody already tried Opera 10 on his W9x system? My instance very soon starts eating 100% CPU time, and I would like to know if all 9x systems have this problem.

I switched off all features I could find in Opera, but no luck.

[lightning slinger]

Mijzelf, on Sep 3 2009, 07:17 PM, said:

Has anybody already tried Opera 10 on his W9x system? My instance very soon starts eating 100% CPU time, and I would like to know if all 9x systems have this problem.

I switched off all features I could find in Opera, but no luck.

I have been using Opera 10 for a while now, firstly with Beta 3 Build 1699 and then RC Build 1733 and Now Build 1750 and it does not soak up ANY resources quicker than Opera 9.64 did under similar conditions.

After 1 hours general surfing, the Resource Meter was giving System @ 65%, User @83% and GDI @65%.


Memload V2 gave a figure of 124M after that one hour and Process Explorer V11.10 generally gave a figure for Opera which varied between 0.50 and 8.00% CPU except when viewing a page with Flash content when it peaked @ 98%. 

These figures are no better or no worse than those presented by FF2 for a similar period and were taken on my 98SE2ME box.

I normally surf with everything disabled in Opera except for Block Unwanted Pop Ups enabled so I cannot imagine if you are doing similar where your problem lies.

HTH

[Offler]

I use opera 10 in windows 98SE since beta2. works fine for me. no trouble at all.

[Andrew T.]

Opera 10 runs on Windows 95! There aren't many (any?) other new software releases left that can claim that distinction. Performance is reasonable, too. Lately I've been using SeaMonkey as my regular browser, but I may seriously consider this instead.

The biggest issue I have with recent Opera versions is values not rendering properly in image property dialogues. (Any way around this?)

[cyberformer]

Great news! Andrew T


It's flying on my 98SE Box!

Although my 95 PC, is only 133Mgz, with only 64 MB, I hope it's going to still work well enough to use and keep once I install it.

Absolutely perfect though for my 98SE.
Very, Very fast with 667 Mgz, with only 191 MB!!!!!!!!!!!!

[triger49]

Curious ....

I too, am having problems with Opera 10..... after viewing several web pages
it will slow to a crawl and eventually just hang. I uninstalled it, reverted back to
Ver 9 and all is well again.

On a side note, the 100% cpu usage thing also occured, but only on certain
websites ...Yahoo in particular. Avoid yahoo and one or two others and Cpu
usage falls back to the 5 - 15 % range.


Jake

[lightning slinger]

triger49, on Sep 5 2009, 01:12 PM, said:

Curious ....

I too, am having problems with Opera 10..... after viewing several web pages
it will slow to a crawl and eventually just hang. I uninstalled it, reverted back to
Ver 9 and all is well again.

On a side note, the 100% cpu usage thing also occured, but only on certain
websites ...Yahoo in particular. Avoid yahoo and one or two others and Cpu
usage falls back to the 5 - 15 % range.


Jake

Curious indeed....


By default Opera has too much enabled for my liking. I only enable Block Unwanted Pop Ups and disable everything else. I only enable what is needed on a site by site basis with Edit Site Prefs.

My only suggestion is to disable everything and surf around the same sites again and see if the problem goes away.

I suspect Flash will be the culprit and this has been reported in other threads affecting various browsers. I use Flash 9.0.47.0 as I have had problems with the later versions and this version is considered by many as the last fully functional version under 9X.

The version of Flash being used by some posters reporting problems with Opera may have some bearing on the fact that some users are having problems and others are not.

Tihiy is looking into the issue of font leak in Flash if you refer to the threads relating to his current projects and a successful outcome of this may help us all.

HTH

[bristols]

Like some others I have had problems with Opera 10's resources usage. I'm not sure if a leak in Flash had anything to do with them, but I found that things improved significantly when the standard skin, special effects and smooth scrolling were disabled. Pity, it's a nice skin, and I like Jon Hicks (a senior designer at Opera responsible for it).

Has anyone tried Opera 10 with Tihiy's modded msimg32.dll (which, I think, ships with KernelEx) and noticed a difference?

This post has been edited by bristols: 07 September 2009 - 11:53 AM

[Gizmosis350k]

works fine. had to get a msimsg.dll file for 9 but 10 runs like a charm. p.s my machine is slow but no conflicting hardware

[fortcollins]

Opera 10 turned into a nogo for me.

I ran into the cache 100% copy utilization cache problem quickly. Doing some research, I found that same story with both Windows 7 and Linux. It doesn't seem to be a Win 98 problem. Somebody said it said a "non-XP" problem.

They took out the links to the aspell spelling checker and you only have the interactive spell checker. The underlines are hard for me to see with a high resolution monitor. With the old one, I could do a final spelling check by clicking the spell check and quickly getting a spell check complete box. Now I have to go back screen by screen and look for underlines I might have mixed. The new one sucks.

They also screwed up the color of a font, browser panels, something that has worked fine since Opera 3.

While some people claim to have had zero problems with 10, the number of problems and user frustration level seems to have hit a new high in the forum at http://my.opera.com/...forum.dml?id=26

Many people there seem very frustrated, such as one post "Disgruntled Opera 10 user: some things never change, eh?" http://my.opera.com/...c.dml?id=291379 The forum closed the thread as "Non-constructive"

[M()zart]

cyberformer, on Sep 4 2009, 11:52 PM, said:

Although my 95 PC, is only 133Mgz, with only 64 MB, I hope it's going to still work well enough to use and keep once I install it.

Tell us about the results, I'm curious.

I also want to try its new Opera Turbo feature. It should be very good for my dial-up connection om 98 se box.

[TmEE]

I've been running 10 for quite a while and I have never had any issues, other than redraw problems with large images, but those happened in Opera9 also...

[fortcollins]

Opera 10 continues to be an exercise in frustation.


See "Frustration Unlimited: Why can't Opera fix cache?"

http://my.opera.com/...c.dml?id=295728

relating a sequence of bugs followed fixes with new bugs each worse than the one before.

[cyberformer]

M( )zart! I just discovered your post.

I tried it on my Win 95 box a day or two after posting that post saying I was going to try it, and I've no idea if it worked or not!!!
I was distracted by some symptoms of a swine-ish flue type of experience--lasting two bloody weeks!
Turned out to be just a severe cold!
Bad enough though, to distract me from my PC experimentations.
I will try it out again, and see if it works! ...then post the results.

[cyberformer]

Well, i just tried to install the latest Opera 10.00 on my 95 B box with no luck!
For the record, this has the latest service pack, and still has the IE 3 version as given.

It goes through the commencing install, untill this message appears:

Error 1723. There is a problem with this Windows installer package.
A DLL required required for this install to complete could not be run.
Contact your support yada-yada-yada...
Action SetLocaleCode, Entry: SetLocaleCode, Library: C:\...\MSI1083.TMP


What am I doing wrong?
It works for Andrew T. But not for Me!

This post has been edited by cyberformer: 15 October 2009 - 09:06 PM

[Mijzelf]

You'll have to use the 'Classic Installer'.

[CharlotteTheHarlot]

cyberformer, on Oct 15 2009, 11:04 PM, said:

Well, i just tried to install the latest Opera 10.00 on my 95 B box with no luck!
For the record, this has the latest service pack, and still has the IE 3 version as given.

It goes through the commencing install, untill this message appears:

Error 1723. There is a problem with this Windows installer package.
A DLL required required for this install to complete could not be run.
Contact your support yada-yada-yada...
Action SetLocaleCode, Entry: SetLocaleCode, Library: C:\...\MSI1083.TMP

What am I doing wrong?
It works for Andrew T. But not for Me!

Get yourself the so-called 'Classic' Installer. You used to have to click around to find it but lately it is found right there on the main Opera download page.

You probably downloaded and used the normal setup which is typically an MSI installer wrapped in an Installshield package, which is indicated by your error message. Its a miracle the thing works at all on Win9x these days.

The Classic package is a basic Wise wrapper that only leaves a single registry key uninstall entry which is a very tiny footprint. Win95 has severe registry size limits so my advice is to use as few MSI installer packages as possible (their registry footprint can be gigantic!). This is FYI only since your error message appears to be locale related and not registry size related.

The really nice thing about the Classic setup is that you can just grab the files and drop them into folders yourself (if you know what you are doing naturally ). This is very easily done with WinRar as it opens the file directly. This can also be accomplished with WUN (Wise Unpacker) and 7-zip (7z.exe).

But before doing it manually, try running the Classic installer of course.

[cyberformer]

Well, I downloaded and installed Opera Classic, as an upgrade over version 9.27----and it did indeed, install.
But when I click on the Desktop Opera Icon, it does not open Opera up, even after waiting a good 10 minutes!

So I unstalled Opera Classic, and things rolled back to where they were---Now comming to you from my ancient 133Mgz machine with only 64 mb of Ram.

Either I've sinned against the Most High OS, or the machine is just too slow; or, I should remove Opera 9.27 first and Then install the latest virsion.

I will rest a tad, uninstall 9.27---and install 10.00 fresh!

[galahs]

Geez I thought I was struggling to view the web on my Pentium Pro 333mhz

[CharlotteTheHarlot]

cyberformer, on Oct 16 2009, 12:26 PM, said:

Well, I downloaded and installed Opera Classic, as an upgrade over version 9.27----and it did indeed, install.
But when I click on the Desktop Opera Icon, it does not open Opera up, even after waiting a good 10 minutes!

So I unstalled Opera Classic, and things rolled back to where they were---Now comming to you from my ancient 133Mgz machine with only 64 mb of Ram.

Either I've sinned against the Most High OS, or the machine is just too slow; or, I should remove Opera 9.27 first and Then install the latest virsion.

I will rest a tad, uninstall 9.27---and install 10.00 fresh!

Exactly what are the specs of your machine with Opera 9.27 working (including JRE version)?

Be aware that un-installing Opera may result in the loss of saved settings, passwords, bookmarks etc.

Opera 10 should work on any machine that runs 9.xx provided the JRE and stuff remain the same. Having said that, 9.2x was definitely faster than 10.

Can you estimate how long the delay was for 9.27 from the time you clicked the icon until Opera appeared? There is a delay while the JRE initializes. I have noticed a slightly longer delay from running Opera 10 versus 9 under the same exact JRE.

Note that I find it helpful to start Opera with no home page and no open tabs.

(1) It is possible that the shortcut you mentioned may not have pointed directly at the Opera.exe file, instead it may have been an MSI generated pseudo-shortcut that used the Application Data folder.

(2) Also, it is possible that the registry settings for Opera may have similar MSI generated bogus data.

If you cannot get it to run after re-installing, we should look at both of these (1) and (2) as likely suspects.

Also, please post here the exact path on your HDD to the Opera.exe file after you install Opera 10. This will make it easy to whip up a quick registry patch should you need it.

This post has been edited by CharlotteTheHarlot: 18 October 2009 - 02:48 AM