Totally separate installation?
-
- Posts: 215
- Joined: April 10th, 2010, 1:39 am
Re: Totally separate installation?
2.49 is not. Standard install from some time back.
The new one was just installed, never run before.
Not running Linux ... Win 7
The new one was just installed, never run before.
Not running Linux ... Win 7
-
- Posts: 1361
- Joined: December 15th, 2015, 1:20 pm
Re: Totally separate installation?
Running 2 different versions at the same time on the same system is not supported. The only obvious exception is running them in different virtual machines. I suggest you go this way if you want to test side by side.
FRG
FRG
-
- Posts: 1353
- Joined: July 25th, 2011, 8:11 am
- Location: Poland
Re: Totally separate installation?
How about using ZIP versions and "-no-remote" switch? Like I'm doing all the time...frg wrote:Running 2 different versions at the same time on the same system is not supported.
--
- therube
- Posts: 21714
- Joined: March 10th, 2004, 9:59 pm
- Location: Maryland USA
Re: Totally separate installation?
Agreed.
I don't know about "supported", but there is no reason that one cannot run 100's of separate instances - without any issues what so ever.
(I run multiple instances all the time. And I do not use "portables" nor do I need to use "virtuals".)
(Even in FF, you can [still] do the same. I'm sure, sometime in the [near?] future...)
I don't know about "supported", but there is no reason that one cannot run 100's of separate instances - without any issues what so ever.
(I run multiple instances all the time. And I do not use "portables" nor do I need to use "virtuals".)
(Even in FF, you can [still] do the same. I'm sure, sometime in the [near?] future...)
Fire 750, bring back 250.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.19) Gecko/20110420 SeaMonkey/2.0.14 Pinball CopyURL+ FetchTextURL FlashGot NoScript
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.19) Gecko/20110420 SeaMonkey/2.0.14 Pinball CopyURL+ FetchTextURL FlashGot NoScript
-
- Posts: 215
- Joined: April 10th, 2010, 1:39 am
Re: Totally separate installation?
I've never been able to run both. Portable installed on E: along with all of the sub-folders. If there was another step to separate it from C:, I have no idea what it might have been.
That said I finally got around to doing some testing this morning. I got most of my stuff imported, but not all.
But the bigger issue is that it still doesn't work on at least some of the sites I tested. Appears to be OK on HomeDepot. But on BigLots and Capitol One, a good portion of the pages don't load at all. Don't ask me what version of Portable because I can't say at the moment. Whatever version was the latest when I posted above.
That said I finally got around to doing some testing this morning. I got most of my stuff imported, but not all.
But the bigger issue is that it still doesn't work on at least some of the sites I tested. Appears to be OK on HomeDepot. But on BigLots and Capitol One, a good portion of the pages don't load at all. Don't ask me what version of Portable because I can't say at the moment. Whatever version was the latest when I posted above.
- therube
- Posts: 21714
- Joined: March 10th, 2004, 9:59 pm
- Location: Maryland USA
Re: Totally separate installation?
If you don't need, disable.Lightning/5.4
Or, if you do use, I'm pretty sure there is an option to block that part from appearing in the useragent.
Something like that (the "Lightning"), alone, has been known to break some sites.
Fire 750, bring back 250.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.19) Gecko/20110420 SeaMonkey/2.0.14 Pinball CopyURL+ FetchTextURL FlashGot NoScript
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.19) Gecko/20110420 SeaMonkey/2.0.14 Pinball CopyURL+ FetchTextURL FlashGot NoScript
-
- Posts: 215
- Joined: April 10th, 2010, 1:39 am
Re: Totally separate installation?
When I look in Extensions it shows as the calendar in email, which I use. Is it redundant somehow? If I can keep it from showing in the UA, will it still work in email?
- LinuxUserSince1991
- Posts: 339
- Joined: February 2nd, 2007, 5:03 pm
- Location: Los Angeles area
Re: Totally separate installation?
Your system info (at the bottom of your posts) indicates that you're using Linux, at least while posting on this forum. Is that a work computer? Or something else where you're not allowed to install your own stuff?Wish You Were Here wrote:I've never been able to run both.
As I've said, I can install as many different versions of SM as I want, on any of my computers' main hard drives, without jumping through any hoops. It's literally a 5-second task! So if you're free to install what you want on the Linux computer you're posting from, let us know. There's nothing to it.
That....I can't help you with. I'm seeing it more and more, too, and it's really annoying.Wish You Were Here wrote:But the bigger issue is that it still doesn't work on at least some of the sites I tested. Appears to be OK on HomeDepot. But on BigLots and Capitol One, a good portion of the pages don't load at all.
-
- Posts: 215
- Joined: April 10th, 2010, 1:39 am
Re: Totally separate installation?
^^^ I've tried different UA-strings to see what happens. Running Win 7 Home. Have no plans for anything else until I can't avoid it.
-
- Posts: 215
- Joined: April 10th, 2010, 1:39 am
Re: Totally separate installation?
Cleared that and am on 2.53 portable, so I'm not sure what it will show.
How can I get it to show what the UA really is instead of a modified string?
How can I get it to show what the UA really is instead of a modified string?
-
- Posts: 215
- Joined: April 10th, 2010, 1:39 am
Re: Totally separate installation?
Testing UA Reset per Help Pages