Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 1st Sep 2009 15:31 UTC, submitted by KLU9
Opera Software After a long gestation period, Opera has released version 10 of their browser, which comes packed with a whole lot of improvements and new features. It's got a completely new interface, a turbo mode for those days of bandwith drought, automatic updates (finally!), and lots more.
Order by: Score:
I must say again
by dmrio on Tue 1st Sep 2009 17:01 UTC
dmrio
Member since:
2005-08-26

Beautiful

Reply Score: 2

Kroc
by OSNevvs on Tue 1st Sep 2009 17:03 UTC
OSNevvs
Member since:
2009-08-20

Can't wait to read Kroc's comment ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE: Kroc
by Kroc on Tue 1st Sep 2009 20:47 UTC in reply to "Kroc"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Why? If you expect me to be _unfair_, or unduly critical, then maybe yes; but as I see it, I am developing with cutting edge web standards and Opera simply doesn’t deliver. No HTML5 video/audio -- a *big* letdown as I don’t use Flash, and both Firefox and Safari already support it. No CSS3 rounded borders, gradients, animation or shadows. Pretty disappointing.

The skin is still awful in OS X. The only feature I can see that matters to web developers targeting Opera is that it has an auto-update feature so when it does get new CSS3 features, Opera users will actually be getting them.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Kroc
by mtzmtulivu on Wed 2nd Sep 2009 00:51 UTC in reply to "RE: Kroc"
mtzmtulivu Member since:
2006-11-14

big let down because it doesnt support html5 video/audio? ...can you give a link to where you or anybody else uses this functionality instead of flash?

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Kroc
by wakeupneo on Wed 2nd Sep 2009 02:01 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Kroc"
wakeupneo Member since:
2005-07-06

big let down because it doesnt support html5 video/audio? ...can you give a link to where you or anybody else uses this functionality instead of flash?


http://www.dailymotion.com

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Kroc
by mtzmtulivu on Wed 2nd Sep 2009 02:15 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Kroc"
mtzmtulivu Member since:
2006-11-14

using firefox 3.5 on linux here ..all videos both in SD and HD defaults to flash

can you give a bit more detail(like a direct url) on how i can see any video using html5 video/audio?

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Kroc
by wakeupneo on Wed 2nd Sep 2009 02:21 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Kroc"
wakeupneo Member since:
2005-07-06

can you give a bit more detail(like a direct url) on how i can see any video using html5 video/audio?


Oops...sorry. The html5 version is:

http://openvideo.dailymotion.com/en

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Kroc
by John Blink on Wed 2nd Sep 2009 12:29 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Kroc"
John Blink Member since:
2005-10-11

Well that sucks. Now how do I watch the video in full screen. At least with the plugin I have that functionality.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Kroc
by wakeupneo on Thu 3rd Sep 2009 03:54 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Kroc"
wakeupneo Member since:
2005-07-06

Now how do I watch the video in full screen.


If you're using FF, this might help:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/12576

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Kroc
by mckill on Wed 2nd Sep 2009 03:47 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Kroc"
mckill Member since:
2007-06-12

big let down because it doesnt support html5 video/audio? ...can you give a link to where you or anybody else uses this functionality instead of flash?


thats not really the point. stuff won't move purely to html5 video until major browsers support it. so far firefox and webkit support it, you would think opera would start too also since they're in the mobil business and its impossible to play flash video on mobiles, h264 works because mobiles have dedicated hardware decoding.

regardless it doesn't matter what opera chooses to support, they don't really affect today's market.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Kroc
by wanker90210 on Wed 2nd Sep 2009 07:57 UTC in reply to "RE: Kroc"
wanker90210 Member since:
2007-10-26

I'm really not aiming to be rude here, but this complete lack of pragmatism makes me assume your web development has little or no commercial requirements?

Regardless of which, on behalf of all living in reality (like still having to support IE6 etc), a big thank you for pushing the web forward. Really.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Kroc
by Kroc on Wed 2nd Sep 2009 09:33 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Kroc"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

My commercial work is a different thing from my personal work. I push really hard at moving things along personally, so that when I sit down to write for others—IE6 included—these new features are available to me to use. Opera 10 doesn’t push the envelope IMO and therefore doesn’t inspire people to move the state of the art forward and bring legacy up to speed.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Kroc
by slight on Wed 2nd Sep 2009 11:33 UTC in reply to "RE: Kroc"
slight Member since:
2006-09-10

HTML5 isn't a standard yet.

Reply Score: 3

v OPERA - a Fine combination
by bonedance on Tue 1st Sep 2009 17:09 UTC
RE: OPERA - a Fine combination
by spiderman on Tue 1st Sep 2009 17:28 UTC in reply to "OPERA - a Fine combination"
spiderman Member since:
2008-10-23

The ... compatibility ... of ... Internet ... Explorer ????? Ouch!
With what exactly?

Edited 2009-09-01 17:30 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: OPERA - a Fine combination
by rexstuff on Tue 1st Sep 2009 17:39 UTC in reply to "OPERA - a Fine combination"
rexstuff Member since:
2007-04-06

Opera, the web browser that lacks the stability and features of Firefox, the speed of Safari, and the compatibility of Internet Explorer.


I'm really not sure what you're talking about, and don't think you know, either. You do realize that most features in modern web browsers were pioneered by Opera, right? And that Opera was (arguably) the first browser with full Acid 3 compliance?

Reply Score: 6

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

I think he may be refering to the fact that a few websites still do some black magic to determine what mark up to present and fail to understand Opera.

Check out Kentucky fried chickens website www.kfc.com in opera 10. You get redirected to the mobile version of their site. (which oddly enough has nutrition info different than their regular site.)

Reply Score: 4

rexstuff Member since:
2007-04-06

I think he may be refering to the fact that a few websites still do some black magic to determine what mark up to present and fail to understand Opera.

Check out Kentucky fried chickens website www.kfc.com in opera 10. You get redirected to the mobile version of their site. (which oddly enough has nutrition info different than their regular site.)


By likening it to Internet Explorer? No, I'm pretty sure that's not what he meant. Nor does it address any of his other trollish remarks.

Let's not forget that Opera was the first major browser with tabs and mouse gestures. Or that benchmarks have shown that Opera "...generally outperforms all other browsers..." http://nontroppo.org/timer/kestrel_tests/

The troll's comments are not just baseless, they are actually contrary to the facts.

Reply Score: 5

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

The troll's comments are not just baseless, they are actually contrary to the facts.


Calm down, he was talking about how the vast majority of websites are designed around Internet Explorer.

You do get better compatibility with IE. You're not going find a site that tells you that your browser is unsupported.

The situation is certainly better than it used to be when everything was designed around IE6 but there are still a lot of websites that don't support minor browsers like opera and chrome.

Edited 2009-09-01 22:05 UTC

Reply Score: 2

vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26

Check out Kentucky fried chickens website www.kfc.com in opera 10. You get redirected to the mobile version of their site. (which oddly enough has nutrition info different than their regular site.)


Off topic - "subservient chicken" seems to be still online:

http://www.bk.com/en/us/campaigns/subservient-chicken.html

That being said - anyone prefer Opera 10 on a low-powered (Linux) netbook?

Reply Score: 2

Dave_K Member since:
2005-11-16

That being said - anyone prefer Opera 10 on a low-powered (Linux) netbook?


I'm a big fan of Opera on low end hardware like Netbooks. The more efficient use of resources comes into its own, especially if you like to browse with multiple tabs open.

I think Opera's UI can be great for small screens too, at least if you tweak it a bit. The fullscreen mode works well and is nicely configurable, and Fit to Width can by very convenient on some sites.

Then there's ctrl+tab (or right-button+scroll wheel) tab switching, and the window list in the panel (easily hidden when not needed), allowing the tab bar to be removed to save space. With mouse gestures you can get rid of toolbar buttons too if you want a really minimalist interface.

You can strip down the UI in other browsers, but I think that some of Opera's features allow it to maintain greater functionality in that kind of configuration.

Reply Score: 5

RE: OPERA - a Fine combination
by deathshadow on Tue 1st Sep 2009 18:18 UTC in reply to "OPERA - a Fine combination"
deathshadow Member since:
2005-07-12

Stability and features? Firefox has a track record on stability equal to Tom Cruise - especially once you add plugins which you pretty much HAVE TO to even make the damned thing useful...

90%+ of what people add for plugins to FF either already being built in or available as widgets.

Do some research and maybe try using a product before you open your mouth.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: OPERA - a Fine combination
by WereCatf on Tue 1st Sep 2009 21:43 UTC in reply to "RE: OPERA - a Fine combination"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

especially once you add plugins which you pretty much HAVE TO to even make the damned thing useful...

What are those exactly? Or is that just another pointless stab at FF without any merit?

Reply Score: 2

Bonus points
by KLU9 on Tue 1st Sep 2009 17:21 UTC
KLU9
Member since:
2006-12-06

Bonus points to commenters that find silly little changes that supposedly appeal to people coming from Firefox but really just serve to annoy long-time Opera-users.
(e.g. shortcuts that are part of muscle-memory now gone or changed, terminology "updated" like page>tab etc)

Reply Score: 2

RE: Bonus points
by deathshadow on Tue 1st Sep 2009 18:20 UTC in reply to "Bonus points"
deathshadow Member since:
2005-07-12

Tools > Preferences > advanced > shortcuts > Opera 9.2 Compatible

End of problem.

Edited 2009-09-01 18:20 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Bonus points
by KLU9 on Wed 2nd Sep 2009 11:16 UTC in reply to "RE: Bonus points"
KLU9 Member since:
2006-12-06

Thanks!

Reply Score: 1

Using it right now
by bannor99 on Tue 1st Sep 2009 18:07 UTC
bannor99
Member since:
2005-09-15

I've been using Opera since the 2.2 days and, until Firefox Extensions won me over, it always was my go-to browser.

Even paid full price for it back around version 4.

Reply Score: 1

Speed Dial
by kenji on Tue 1st Sep 2009 18:28 UTC
kenji
Member since:
2009-04-08

Now I can finally add OSNews to my speed dial. Being limited to 9 in prior versions meant that OSNews didn't make the cut.

:)

Reply Score: 2

Automatic updates?
by msundman on Tue 1st Sep 2009 18:50 UTC
msundman
Member since:
2005-07-06

Automatic updates have no business being within an application! In all common variants of popular OSes the permissions are user-based, and the user running a browser shouldn't have access to upgrade system applications. Also, normal applications should NOT go mucking around in /etc/apt or somesuch! (I had to modify the opera debs to remove all that nasty system modification code from the installation scipts. Bad!)

Reply Score: 5

v RE: Automatic updates?
by WorknMan on Tue 1st Sep 2009 20:23 UTC in reply to "Automatic updates?"
RE[2]: Automatic updates?
by TechStorm on Tue 1st Sep 2009 21:08 UTC in reply to "RE: Automatic updates?"
TechStorm Member since:
2005-07-06

Complete pain in the ass to use?
Just what is it that you find so difficult?

Edited 2009-09-01 21:19 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: Automatic updates?
by tobyv on Wed 2nd Sep 2009 01:29 UTC in reply to "Automatic updates?"
tobyv Member since:
2008-08-25

Applications that update independant of the package system should be installed in the home directory, not as system software IMHO.

Reply Score: 2

Much more useful feature!
by spinnekopje on Tue 1st Sep 2009 19:04 UTC
spinnekopje
Member since:
2008-11-29

Opera 10 has the option to synchronize speed-dial, bookmarks and other stuff.
For me that is very useful since I use different computers. I even created an opera account for it.
I guess this feature will make its way to other browsers in the near future...

I started using opera a number of versions ago and kept using it, first because it was the only browser with properly working mouse gestures, now because off other features I don't get out of the box with other browsers.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Much more useful feature!
by iliks on Tue 1st Sep 2009 19:13 UTC in reply to "Much more useful feature!"
iliks Member since:
2008-07-08

Opera Link was there since 9.5...

Reply Score: 2

RE: Much more useful feature!
by phoenix on Tue 1st Sep 2009 22:31 UTC in reply to "Much more useful feature!"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

Opera 10 has the option to synchronize speed-dial, bookmarks and other stuff.
For me that is very useful since I use different computers. I even created an opera account for it.
I guess this feature will make its way to other browsers in the near future...


Bookmark sync has been available in Firefox since the fairly early 2.x days. First with Google Sync, then with whatever XMarks was called back then. Now you can even sync your bookmarks across IE, Safari, and Firefox using XMarks. And some FF extensions save their preferences in bookmarks, so those sync as well.

Google Chrome and Opera were the only ones missing this feature. ;)

Reply Score: 3

Just more of a good thing.
by deathshadow on Tue 1st Sep 2009 19:14 UTC
deathshadow
Member since:
2005-07-12

I've been using Opera 10 since alpha - as my primary browser on my desktop since for me it was more stable than FF, I didn't have to run around like a chicken with my head cut off looking for plugins to bring it up to what I've come to expect as BASIC FUNCTIONALITY since Opera 8.5. (flip navigation, favicon only bookmarks on any toolbar, tab trash can, custom buttons, session saving, auto-refresh, etc, etc).

It's funny though because I've seen retards out there citing it for stability issues (the ALPHA is more stable for me than any version of FF ever released) or calling it 'bloated'... Bloated would be a 7.7 megabyte download WITHOUT any of the features built in like FF 3.5 - Opera adds a mail client, bittorrent client, speed dial, flip navigation, mouse gestures, in-built spell checking (no longer need GNU ASpell to function), a full featured website/filesharing tie-in module (Opera United) all for 6.6 megs.

I have also rarely seen a browser maker actually LISTEN to it's userbase as much as Opera actually does. Not all users are going to agree on things, but they do listen - expanding Speed dial to more pages was much requested, so they did it. With the beta they introduced thumbnails in tabs, but it didn't work in portrait mode where many of us thought they'd work better - so they implemented that AND finally allow the user to resize the taskbar in portrait - though they still have a max-width implemented ;) Running the tabs in portrait mode lets you make actual use of all that extra screen real-estate we have on widescreens... When most websites are designed to max-out their width at 1024, it's nice to be able to do something with the extra 896 pixels of my primary displays on the desktop. Likewise on my 1024x600 netbook it's nice to use a few pixels as a sidebar giving me all 600px in height available even if it does narrow the browser width to the 800 mark. On my netbook I have my Win7 taskbar on the left, and tabs on the right making as much space top to bottom available as possible. Other browsers don't even give you the OPTION of moving where the tabs appear.

Running down the new features:
Opera Turbo - cute, and I know a number of people on METERED connections who are praising the Nine for this addition. Sure it makes images look like ass, but if you are still in area's where dialup is the only choice (plenty of that still around!!! Northern NH, western ME, the Dakota's) or your high speed connection gets throttled for bandwidth use (down in Oz for example) this technology is a godsend.

Web Integration - Not a big deal IMHO, oh look it can now link to webmail and send feeds to the mail reader... Not blowing my skirt up, but some people may find it useful.

New Visual Tabs - those thumbnails I was mentioning. They talk about dragging the size to show thumbs when it's on top, but really you folks should try it in portrait mode which is where it really shines.

Resizeable search field - means nothing to me, I usually delete the search field because I can remember to type the letter g for google before typing in my search phrase in the address bar. (or e for ebay, y for yahoo, z for amazon, w for wikipedia, etc, etc) and know that I can add/remove/change those under tools > preferences > search

Speed Dial can now go up to a 5x5 grid. I'm running the 5x4 because it looks best on my 1920x1200 widescreen.

Faster Engine and Web Standards - When are browser makers NOT bragging about faster engines and better standards support. Oh yeah, IE. My bad. At least Presto and Webkit give us decent testing platforms to see what we might someday in the future actually be able to deploy on websites... I'm figuring sometime around 2010 IE will catch up and we can deploy things like SVG and Web fonts.

Inline Spell Checker - To my knowledge Opera has had this built in since version 8, the problem was you had to install GNU ASpell separately to enable it. I imagine making it use HunSpell didn't take too much work given they already had the mechanisims and dialogs in place, it was just a matter of making it look elsewhere for the dictionary.

Auto Update - They finally seem to have joined the rest of the crowd when it comes to not having to download the entire thing just to run an update, making it a lot smoother/faster a process - and at least unlike Google and Safari it will still ask you first.

E-Mail The additions of RTF, HTML and other mails brings M3 (the inbuilt mail cleint) up to the competitions level of functionality - suprising since the distro didn't even grow in size significantly and is STILL one of the smallest browser downloads around. (Laugh at Google and Apple hiding the actual download size behind their 120k .exe download managers)

Automated Crash Reporting - I've not had Opera crash EVER on windows, and the handful of times it crashed on linsux the sessions system let me pretty much pick up where I left off. Still, crashes do occure and having it auto-report when it happens will let them fix it quicker. Sure beats the crap out of the train wreck that is bugzilla.

Dragonfly - The new O10 dragonfly brings it up to firebug in functionality for the most part, though it exceeds it in a few areas. During web development I actually use both as the two compliment each-other filling missing gaps.

It really is my browser of choice, it's lean, fast, HIGHLY customizable and has more features built in than any other browser - it makes Firefox look like a buggy unstable bloated mess, makes Safari and Chrome look like tinkertoys, and, well, they all make IE look like trash.

Reply Score: 7

RE: Just more of a good thing.
by cycoj on Wed 2nd Sep 2009 05:51 UTC in reply to "Just more of a good thing."
cycoj Member since:
2007-11-04

How do you enable the thumbnails for portrait mode? I can only see them when hovering over them with my mouse, which does not really help. Nothing like when the tabs are at the top and just resizing will make the thumbs show up.

About Opera, I've started using it because I was simply fed up with the way firefox is treating linux. They give the impression of treating linux as a second class citizen. Currently most annoying is the that it's slow, I've constant 0.5 second lockups which seem to be related to me using a proxy.

Reply Score: 1

deathshadow Member since:
2005-07-12

How do you enable the thumbnails for portrait mode? I can only see them when hovering over them with my mouse, which does not really help. Nothing like when the tabs are at the top and just resizing will make the thumbs show up.

Right click > customize > enable thumbnails in tabs

Not as intuitive as the 'drag-down' it has when tabs are on top, but functional enough.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Just more of a good thing.
by adkilla on Wed 2nd Sep 2009 17:25 UTC in reply to "Just more of a good thing."
adkilla Member since:
2005-07-07

Nice gimmicks. Where are the more useful features:
- Where is auto-complete and form history?
- Why no multi-touch gesture support on OSX?

I see people pissing on FF all the time, but FF is the most complete and extensible browser known to man!

-Ad

Reply Score: 2

deathshadow Member since:
2005-07-12

Where is auto-complete and form history?

It's called the Wand, Opera has had that since version 7 (that I'm aware of) so what, 2003? Pretty much before Firefox was even a twinkle in a FLOSS fanboy's eye.

Why no multi-touch gesture support on OSX?

Because Opera had more than enough normal mouse gestures, had them first, and sees no reason to waste time implementing it for the 0.000001% of systems that might actually support that?

I see people pissing on FF all the time
I see people pissing on ALL the browsers all the time - From vague meaningless 'dislike' for Opera's appearance (which honestly doesn't look all that different than FF or IE to me - and if you don't like it, change it), to IE's being absurdly insecure and lack of standards compliance, to Firefox being a buggy bloated mess, to webkit pushing the envelope so hard on the renderer it's like nobody is bothering to concentrate on the user interface which has all the functionality of IE 3.0 (and no, that's not a compliment)

but FF is the most complete

Not out of box it isn't. It's probably one of the most incomplete out of box from the buggy next to useless download manager (which seems to be the leading cause of lockups when I do use it) - hell, even IE does more out of box.

and extensible browser known to man!

No more extensible than IE. Yes, you heard me right!!! There is ZERO difference from a functionality standpoint between what activeX controls are able to do on IE and what extensions can do in FF. The difference is the approval and installation process for them.

Not to actually defend IE, but the rabid fanboyism with people making wild claims about Firefox's 'unique' or 'superior' capabilities that have NOTHING to do with fact gets a wee bit annoying after a while. It's the media darling, that doesn't necessarily make it any damned good.

Edited 2009-09-03 00:53 UTC

Reply Score: 4

adkilla Member since:
2005-07-07

It's called the Wand, Opera has had that since version 7 (that I'm aware of) so what, 2003? Pretty much before Firefox was even a twinkle in a FLOSS fanboy's eye.


The wand is a piece of trash compared to FF and even Chrome's auto-complete and form history functionality. The only the Wand is good for is auto-completing login and passwords, nothing else.

Because Opera had more than enough normal mouse gestures, had them first, and sees no reason to waste time implementing it for the 0.000001% of systems that might actually support that?


Do you have any data to backup that "0.000001% of systems" claim of yours? All notebooks/laptops shipped by Apple since last year have this capability. If Opera is going to do a sloppy job of supporting OSX, they might as well not develop for it all.

I see people pissing on ALL the browsers all the time - From vague meaningless 'dislike' for Opera's appearance (which honestly doesn't look all that different than FF or IE to me - and if you don't like it, change it), to IE's being absurdly insecure and lack of standards compliance, to Firefox being a buggy bloated mess, to webkit pushing the envelope so hard on the renderer it's like nobody is bothering to concentrate on the user interface which has all the functionality of IE 3.0 (and no, that's not a compliment)


Your comment here reeks of utter fanboyism. You are (like any other anti-FF fanboy) a good example of pissing on FF, when the browser you defend is not as extensible and standards compliant. Also Opera has a raft of stupendous functionality rolled in, but little to no extensibility for features that people really find useful. Speed dial? Ever heard of bookmarks? Yeah it does the same thing. That says a lot about its small user-base doesn't it? I'll rather take ABP and DTA with FF over Opera's raft of worthless functionality any day. If you think Opera is more stabler than FF, then you are yet to use most of its functionality. FYI FF does a better job supporting proxy servers than Opera ever has. How about that for basic functionality?

Not out of box it isn't. It's probably one of the most incomplete out of box from the buggy next to useless download manager (which seems to be the leading cause of lockups when I do use it) - hell, even IE does more out of box.


Need only the basic functionality, then use it as is. Need more functionality, choose from a raft of quality extensions. I've never had any issues with the built-in download manager, not sure what you are doing wrong. What does IE do more out of the box? Just saying so is pretty, you know, meaningless. If you think that Opera is without bugs, try using it with a HTTP 1.1 compliant proxy through auto-proxy configuration, you might change your mind instantly.

No more extensible than IE. Yes, you heard me right!!! There is ZERO difference from a functionality standpoint between what activeX controls are able to do on IE and what extensions can do in FF. The difference is the approval and installation process for them.


You mean, you can install themes into IE to completely change its UI into anything you want? It is that extensible!? Please do share, I am dying to know this info. If you could also direct me to mere ActiveX controls that could do that for IE, that would do great too.

Not to actually defend IE, but the rabid fanboyism with people making wild claims about Firefox's 'unique' or 'superior' capabilities that have NOTHING to do with fact gets a wee bit annoying after a while. It's the media darling, that doesn't necessarily make it any damned good.


Try replacing 'Firefox' in this comment of yours with Opera. By the way, the media loves it because it is actually that damned good. Just ask any webmaster!

-Ad

Reply Score: 1

deathshadow Member since:
2005-07-12

The wand is a piece of trash compared to FF and even Chrome's auto-complete and form history functionality. The only the Wand is good for is auto-completing login and passwords, nothing else.

So you've never used it's "personal" features, or the ability to plug in data from 'notes'.

Do you have any data to backup that "0.000001% of systems" claim of yours? All notebooks/laptops shipped by Apple since last year have this capability. If Opera is going to do a sloppy job of supporting OSX, they might as well not develop for it all.

Oh yeah, good attitude there. If you think it's that important, go to opera's forums and put it in as a feature request - you might be suprised how quickly it will be implemented... Though I was unaware apple even had working multitouch (given I usually disable the trackpad and use a REAL tracking device this isn't suprising)...

Your comment here reeks of utter fanboyism. You are (like any other anti-FF fanboy) a good example of pissing on FF, when the browser you defend is not as extensible

Actually, I do take them to task for that - BUT, it does so much more out of the box I don't NEED extensions to it. Greasemonkey? Built in. Firebug? Built in. Flip navigation and gestures? Built in.

and standards compliant.

Ok, right there you showed you don't even know what you are talking about. Firefox is NOT more standards compliant than Opera - while on paper it has more things IMPLEMENTED that does not mean any of them are implemented PROPERLY. There are still gaping holes in it's HTML4 and CSS2 implementations (see bugzilla 915 to see just how far back these gaps date - try a decade!) which is why their adding CSS3/HTML5 shit before they even have HTML4/CSS2 done correctly pisses me off.

Also Opera has a raft of stupendous functionality rolled in, but little to no extensibility for features that people really find useful.

Such as?

Speed dial? Ever heard of bookmarks? Yeah it does the same thing.

Can you launch bookmarks with a single keystroke? Can you at a glance tell the various pages apart or do you have to read through your list to find it?

If you think Opera is more stabler than FF, then you are yet to use most of its functionality.

Ok, can anyone translate that into english for me?

FYI FF does a better job supporting proxy servers than Opera ever has. How about that for basic functionality?

Really? Hmm... Tools > preferences > network > proxy servers. Doesn't look any different... doesn't seem to work any differently from FF - just exactly what are you on about?!? Let's see in FF that's tools > options > advanced > network > Connection | Settings - yeah, pretty much the same options... Opera has a box to select HTTP 1.1 for proxy, FF has options to select Socksv4 or v5 (Opera auto-detects)

Never had a problem with proxies in O - I'd be interested to hear you explain just what you meant by 'better support'.

I've never had any issues with the built-in download manager, not sure what you are doing wrong.

Starts downloads without so much as a by your leave, when you turn that off it loses said setting every time they run an update, and it seems to have been the core of the majority of my crashing/memory problems with FF since 0.89. That it's buggy as hell AND they route even stupid **** like saving images on a page you are currently viewing through it just excaserbates the problem until once again I end up hitting that wonderful 100% cpu forcing me to kill it's process...

What does IE do more out of the box? Just saying so is pretty, you know, meaningless.

Well with IE8 we now have javascript debugging tools, a developer tools system similar to Dragonfly/Firebug, a malware website blocker and quick links to security flushes under the 'safety' menu, 'accellerators' giving you ways to send your currently viewed page through services like language translation, ability to reload last browsing session, webslices being the equivalent of the 'live bookmarks' FF plugin, and don't forget the research panel.

If you think that Opera is without bugs, try using it with a HTTP 1.1 compliant proxy through auto-proxy configuration, you might change your mind instantly.
I tick the box that says 'use http 1.1', it works... Your problem is what exactly?

You mean, you can install themes into IE to completely change its UI into anything you want?

While you cannot outright skin it (which is where Opera and FF both shine compared to other browsers) you can add new toolbars, change the functionality of any existing buttons, re-arrange the placement of most any control. Those pesky toolbars are just the tip of the iceberg on what ActiveX can do on IE. From an under the hood standpoint there is little if any difference.

It is that extensible!? Please do share, I am dying to know this info. If you could also direct me to mere ActiveX controls that could do that for IE, that would do great too.

Well, I don't use IE all that much apart from code testing, but off the top of my head there's Trixie, which is the IE equivalent to greasemonkey. There are activeX controls to add the ability to view file formats not normally supported - the flash plugin on IE is an activeX control. There are download magagers like Enterra, transfer managers (up and down) like Catalyst FTC, popup and ad killers like "Power IE", and some even work in BOTH IE and FF - Many FF extensions will in fact have activeX equivalents from the same person - like iMacros and Zemanta.

By the way, the media loves it because it is actually that damned good. Just ask any webmaster!

As a web developer I think you'll find mixed reviews on that, most of the 'webmasters' promoting FF so zealously doing so out of ignorance. It still has gaping holes in it's HTML/CSS implementations, still is doped to the gills with netscape-isms that cause rendering errors, still ignores the system metric on default fonts, and worst of all refuses to do math the same as anyone else resulting in multiple height declarations in anything other than px. It's still entirely possible to declare three elements one atop the other as 1em tall next to a 3em tall box, and have them NOT be the same height - just because the font-size doesn't divide evenly into pixels (an affliction every other engine seems to avoid), it plays random games with line-height meaning you pretty much need to explicitly declare it any time you change font-size, omitting top or bottom on an absolute element can result in completely misplacement, and don't even get me started over how "background-position:center" is calculated using different math than margin:0 auto; resulting in a 1px 'jog' - or how position:absolute; right:0; will often be short 1 pixel of where it should be if the parent element you are positioning off of...

...and to think people bitch about IE's 3px jog, at least that **** can be fixed with a valid doctype and haslayout.

Edited 2009-09-03 21:05 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Just more of a good thing.
by Kroc on Fri 4th Sep 2009 10:30 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Just more of a good thing."
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

How about Opera not supporting position: absolute correctly on CSS generated content (and just spasming it over the page when you scroll), or balking at line-breaks in CSS selectors (which other browsers handle fine), or its second-rate JavaScript engine.

All browsers have bugs, so don’t point a finger at Gecko when Opera’s engine has plagued web-developers with equally inane problems for years. Opera’s marketshare is so low that developers can’t be bothered to debug for it, Google included (GMail/Opera debacle)

Reply Score: 1

phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

"Where is auto-complete and form history?

It's called the Wand, Opera has had that since version 7 (that I'm aware of) so what, 2003? Pretty much before Firefox was even a twinkle in a FLOSS fanboy's eye.
"

The Wand has been around since around at least version 4 or 5. I stopped using Opera shortly after 4.x was released and remember the Want terminology from back then. Back when Opera fit on a floppy diskette. ;)

Reply Score: 2

RC (Qt4) -> Release (Qt3)
by tyrione on Tue 1st Sep 2009 19:17 UTC
tyrione
Member since:
2005-11-21

No explanation, but they rolled back to qt3.

Reply Score: 2

RE: RC (Qt4) -> Release (Qt3)
by mgl.branco on Tue 1st Sep 2009 20:10 UTC in reply to "RC (Qt4) -> Release (Qt3)"
mgl.branco Member since:
2009-07-22

Yeah, it seems, but there's qt4 builds as well

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: RC (Qt4) -> Release (Qt3)
by tyrione on Tue 1st Sep 2009 21:09 UTC in reply to "RE: RC (Qt4) -> Release (Qt3)"
tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

Debian Qt4 was in RC candidate 3 and in Final released was rolled back to Qt3.

No explanation for the change has been stated and if they were going to roll out a qt4 for Linux they'd better have it ready before yanking it back to fix more issues.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: RC (Qt4) -> Release (Qt3)
by kfet on Tue 1st Sep 2009 21:18 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: RC (Qt4) -> Release (Qt3)"
kfet Member since:
2005-07-06

The mirror selection script prefers the qt3 build for some reason (maybe a bug?), still there is a qt4 build out there:

ftp://get.opera.com/pub/opera/linux/1000/final/en/i386/

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: RC (Qt4) -> Release (Qt3)
by tyrione on Wed 2nd Sep 2009 01:20 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: RC (Qt4) -> Release (Qt3)"
tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

The mirror selection script prefers the qt3 build for some reason (maybe a bug?), still there is a qt4 build out there:

ftp://get.opera.com/pub/opera/linux/1000/final/en/i386/


Glad to see for i386. Now when they get amd64 I'll be picking it up.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: RC (Qt4) -> Release (Qt3)
by tyrione on Wed 2nd Sep 2009 17:02 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: RC (Qt4) -> Release (Qt3)"
tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21



Thank you. I got it the day it was just released and the site drove me to qt3 only.

Reply Score: 2

looks bloated
by mckill on Tue 1st Sep 2009 20:03 UTC
mckill
Member since:
2007-06-12

i'm sure its a nice browser at the engine level, but the UI just seems bloated and out of place, too many different elements/widgets, at least on OSX.

Reply Score: 2

What's wrong with the UI?
by Dave_K on Tue 1st Sep 2009 22:20 UTC
Dave_K
Member since:
2005-11-16

I really wish the people criticising Opera for it's "hard to use" or "bloated" UI would actually explain what the perceived problems are. Are these issues that could be fixed, rather than simply being a matter of aesthetic preference?

Opera Software seem very responsive to criticism. I've made quite a few suggestions and feature requests on the Opera forums and a surprising number of them have been implemented. It's hard for Opera to fix problems with their browser if nobody will state what they are.

Of course Opera not working exactly like your favourite browser isn't a bug in itself...

Reply Score: 9

RE: What's wrong with the UI?
by Laurence on Wed 2nd Sep 2009 08:07 UTC in reply to "What's wrong with the UI?"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

I really wish the people criticising Opera for it's "hard to use" or "bloated" UI would actually explain what the perceived problems are. Are these issues that could be fixed, rather than simply being a matter of aesthetic preference?

Opera Software seem very responsive to criticism. I've made quite a few suggestions and feature requests on the Opera forums and a surprising number of them have been implemented. It's hard for Opera to fix problems with their browser if nobody will state what they are.

Of course Opera not working exactly like your favourite browser isn't a bug in itself...


+1

Bang on!

Reply Score: 4

RE: What's wrong with the UI?
by Axord on Thu 3rd Sep 2009 08:30 UTC in reply to "What's wrong with the UI?"
Axord Member since:
2005-06-30

I really wish the people criticising Opera for it's "hard to use" or "bloated" UI would actually explain what the perceived problems are.

What is it about those terms that you find unclear?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: What's wrong with the UI?
by jarlea on Thu 3rd Sep 2009 09:35 UTC in reply to "RE: What's wrong with the UI?"
jarlea Member since:
2006-05-09

I think he was asking for specific examples of functionality which makes Opera hard to use. For example, if someone asks me "why is it difficult for you to drive a car in England?", I would answer something like "because I am used to driving on the opposite side of the road" or "I am used to shifting gears with my right hand, in England I have to shift gears with my left hand". I wouldn't simply say that it's difficult because it's difficult.

So please provide some specific examples of features which makes Opera harder to use than, say, Firefox or Safari.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: What's wrong with the UI?
by Axord on Thu 3rd Sep 2009 13:22 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: What's wrong with the UI?"
Axord Member since:
2005-06-30

Ah? I was assuming that "hard to use" here was another way of expressing the concept of of UI bloat.

Reply Score: 1

Easy
by JeffS on Wed 2nd Sep 2009 14:13 UTC
JeffS
Member since:
2005-07-12

To those complaining that Opera is "a pain in the ass to use", or it has a bloated UI ....

Whaaaht?????

I find Opera extremely easy to use, and I find the UI very attractive, modern, comfortable, functional, easy to use, and for as many features Opera has built in, very well integrated and intuitive.

I'm also impressed with rendering speed, and the speed of start up - comparable to Chrome, but with a much better UI and many more features.

I'm also really enjoying the "Widgets" feature - I'm currently using a little calendar widget that is fitting my needs perfectly.

As a long time Firefox user, I'm getting more and more impressed with other alternatives. Firefox is still too slow starting up, and it's rendering speed hasn't improved as much as Chrome, Safari, and now Opera. I'm also really really liking the new UI of Opera.

I have to say that Opera has done a great job.

I'm impressed that they have maintained a profitable business model with just having a browser (a crowded market that most people can get for free) - I guess they get some Google ad revenue from built in searches (a la Firefox), and they actually sell the mobile version to phone/PDA OEMs.

Reply Score: 4

I remembered now why I don't use Opera
by WereCatf on Wed 2nd Sep 2009 15:15 UTC
WereCatf
Member since:
2006-02-15

I like the addons I have installed in FireFox, some of them are fun, some of them are useful, and none of them are available for Opera. That is bothersome but that's still not a showstopper. I could probably do without them if I had to.

But the fact that Opera insists on having its own shortcuts for everything and doesn't follow the platform standards annoys the hell out of me. I use ctrl+number on Windows and alt+number on Linux to switch to different tabs but neither of those combinations work on Opera. Every single other app I use works just fine, only Opera refuses to allow that. Cycling through the tabs isn't the same thing. When I press ctrl+number/alt+number I jump directly to the tab I want, no hassle and no need to cycle through them all. You may think I'm crazy, but that just is a no-go for me :/

Reply Score: 3

iliks Member since:
2008-07-08

WereCatf, platform shortucts are pain in a... Opera has much better alternative - I cycle from tab to tab using 1/2 keys on keyboard. No f-ing Ctrl-Alt-Shift-....-Tab.
Just 1 - go left, 2 - go right. Fits left hand perfectly.

The same for back/forward - Opera uses Z/X. Instead of STUPID Alt-Left, Alt-Right where you need TWO hands to press it!! (eg. many smaller notebooks don't have right alt)

P.S. You have to enable 'one key shortcuts' in settings for this to work.

Reply Score: 2

WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

WereCatf, platform shortucts are pain in a... Opera has much better alternative - I cycle from tab to tab using 1/2 keys on keyboard

Thatt is better for you, does not and will not work for me though. I am often f.ex. writing something on some form and have to switch tabs, check something on another and switch back..but if the shortcut is only one key it'll get entered in the form instead. And as I also said, cycling tabs is slower than jumping directly to the tab I want.. As such, Opera doesn't suit me.

Reply Score: 2

qt3 qt4
by Xender on Wed 2nd Sep 2009 18:30 UTC
Xender
Member since:
2006-06-28

Nice to see shared qt3 and qt4 compilations.

Reply Score: 1

Comment by Bustanut
by Bustanut on Fri 4th Sep 2009 08:18 UTC
Bustanut
Member since:
2009-09-04

At the end of the day Opera is a shitehouse name. Pure marketing baby. Good product - shite name ... superficial yes!

Reply Score: 1