Linked by Kroc Camen on Tue 22nd Dec 2009 19:50 UTC
Opera Software This is old news, but only just crossed my radar! Opera have made available a pre-alpha version of Opera 10.5. There's a massive amount of change under the hood, and I caught wind via taranfx.com.
Order by: Score:
Hmmmm ....
by WorknMan on Tue 22nd Dec 2009 20:09 UTC
WorknMan
Member since:
2005-11-13

Have they fixed text-to-speech in the Windows version yet? They kind of broke it in v9.5, COMPLETELY broke it in v9.64, and ignored all user inquiries about it on their forums. I haven't tested it past v10.0 though.

Yes, I'm still bitter about it ;)

Edited 2009-12-22 20:10 UTC

Reply Score: 3

good times
by poundsmack on Tue 22nd Dec 2009 20:21 UTC
poundsmack
Member since:
2005-07-13

Opera's new engine was been 18 months in development and i am glad they didnt rush it. its awesome.

Reply Score: 2

RE: good times
by kaiwai on Tue 22nd Dec 2009 22:49 UTC in reply to "good times"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Opera's new engine was been 18 months in development and i am glad they didnt rush it. its awesome.


True - but I've always wondered whether it would be possible to use OpenCL for Javascript acceleration? ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: good times
by KugelKurt on Thu 24th Dec 2009 00:04 UTC in reply to "RE: good times"
KugelKurt Member since:
2005-07-06

I've always wondered whether it would be possible to use OpenCL for Javascript acceleration? ;)

OpenCL is a single-purpose programming language, not some magic wand to speed up things.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: good times
by kaiwai on Thu 24th Dec 2009 01:22 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: good times"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

OpenCL is a single-purpose programming language, not some magic wand to speed up things.


The Javascript engine written to take advantage of any potential performance improvements that could be yielded. Who said it was a magic wand to speed things up when you're too intellectually bankrupt to read the damn message from start to finish within complete context.

Reply Score: 2

plugin support
by kap1 on Tue 22nd Dec 2009 20:29 UTC
kap1
Member since:
2006-05-12

Opera really need to sort out their support for plugins apart from flash working ok'ish almost every other plugin is broken or not supported.

e.g. quicktime, java, javafx, unity, silverlight, etc.

I hope they fix this situation soon.

Reply Score: 1

RE: plugin support
by poundsmack on Tue 22nd Dec 2009 20:56 UTC in reply to "plugin support"
poundsmack Member since:
2005-07-13

Opera's support for plugin's isnt' that bad. flash has been problematic recently (shockwave specifically) but Unity (I assume you mean http://unity3d.com/webplayer/ ) and many others (quick time also isnt perfect, but its not great on the windows playform either).

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Anon9
by Anon9 on Tue 22nd Dec 2009 21:31 UTC
Anon9
Member since:
2008-06-30

They already had a button for the menu. It just wasn't default. Just click File->Show Menu Bar.

I like the removal of modal dialogs, but I'm not sure about the implementation of it. As a regular Opera user, I have been annoyed by dialogs preventing me from switching tabs, but you make a good point about phishing.

Also, check out http://my.opera.com/ODIN/blog/show.dml/5513451#comment13791981. It looks like HTML5 video will be present in 10.5.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by Anon9
by Kroc on Tue 22nd Dec 2009 21:41 UTC in reply to "Comment by Anon9"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Doh, I knew I forgot to mention the button menu in 10.0. Thanks for spotting that comment, very good to know!

Reply Score: 1

Vega is now HW accelerated yet
by wumip on Tue 22nd Dec 2009 22:27 UTC
wumip
Member since:
2009-08-20

And speaking of rendering, the new engine also brings "Vega" which uses GPU-accerleration to render the page.

Actually, that didn't make it into this build! Neither did video (which they initially planned according to Twitter comments). So imagine the speed when HW acceleration is turned on!

Reply Score: 2

RE: Vega is now HW accelerated yet
by kaiwai on Tue 22nd Dec 2009 22:52 UTC in reply to "Vega is now HW accelerated yet"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Actually, that didn't make it into this build! Neither did video (which they initially planned according to Twitter comments). So imagine the speed when HW acceleration is turned on!


Will Vega acceleration be across the board? will that mean that Opera will end up using Direct2D/DirectWrite? hopefully this will be the version of Opera that will pull me over - but then again, I have been spoilt by process separation and plugin isolation which chrome brings to the tale - that is the one and pretty much only reason I use Chrome ;)

Reply Score: 2

Stratoukos Member since:
2009-02-11

Well, Vega is their graphics library and it powers both webpages and the UI, but that doesn't mean that it's hardware accelerated. Currently it's software based and they still have about 4 times faster speed. According to some of the developers' blogs it is designed so that it is trvial to add a hardware acceleration backend and they have Direct3D and OpenGL backends, but they don't seem to be needing them

Vega can be hardware accelerated, but as you can see from the complex graphics benchmark in Peacekeeper, we don’t seem to need it yet.

Reply Score: 1

Comment by eksasol
by eksasol on Tue 22nd Dec 2009 22:28 UTC
eksasol
Member since:
2009-04-05

sorry i am typing on mobile phone.

i stopped reading osnews for a while because the review for opera 10 was bias and unfair. (this is coming from a fan of firefox more than opera). the desinger who designed the opera and firefox buttons is the same person. those buttons style was used by opera first, so its firefox that is copying opera (among many other things). although i do have to admit Opera need to listen to customers more, fixing bugs and replying to customers request, this will gain them more users. if they want to compete with firefox, they'll need an addon system (not the limiting widgets.)

there are still more things firefox need to copy off from opera to improve, such as the bookmarking system. adding and maintaining bookmarks in firefox is a pain (the very little window that pops up when you press ctrl+d). it can't even sort them in alphabet order for christ sakes. i hear there are some people who uses "tab mix plus" to have 500 tabs opened at the same time in firefox. if they could maintain bookmarks as easy like opera they wouldn't had to require 500 tabs.

the opera ui provides maximum freedom, which is what osnews criticize about. people prefer to be limited of functions than to have too much. so in a way, it seem to backfired for people who are used to the firefox ui which is fixed solid and left-to-right oriented (unless with addons), which really came from internet explorer interface.

with that said, i am so spoiled with firefox addons that i will not likely switch back to it soon, unless there is noscript for opera (i know there are some, but doesn't work too well).

Edited 2009-12-22 22:43 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by eksasol
by wumip on Tue 22nd Dec 2009 22:30 UTC in reply to "Comment by eksasol"
wumip Member since:
2009-08-20

Opera does listen. Opera 10 was full of user-requested features. Opera 10 was also incredibly stable and bug-free.

Widgets are NOT supposed to be like extensions. They are supposed to be like regular apps.

Reply Score: 1

HTML5 is a proposed standard
by nt_jerkface on Tue 22nd Dec 2009 23:15 UTC
nt_jerkface
Member since:
2009-08-26

the default codec still hasn't been decided.

As for speed I think all these javascript benchmarks are rather silly. It isn't as if when you visit websites your cpu is choking on javascript. If your cpu chokes on anything it is Flash. It reminds of video card benchmarks that tout a gpu as 'the best' for having superior gpl performance when the games that challenge the gpu are written in directx.

Reply Score: 3

RE: HTML5 is a proposed standard
by google_ninja on Tue 22nd Dec 2009 23:58 UTC in reply to "HTML5 is a proposed standard"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

its not like they don't have time. HTML5 isn't scheduled to be a proposed recommendation until 2022 http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/programming-and-development/?p=71...

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: HTML5 is a proposed standard
by wumip on Wed 23rd Dec 2009 00:00 UTC in reply to "RE: HTML5 is a proposed standard"
wumip Member since:
2009-08-20

Yeah, but it will have to be implemented long before that. The 2022 thing is a huge misunderstanding. People think it means nothing will happen until then, which is wrong.

Reply Score: 1

google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

browsers can support whatever they like, the problem is that the standard itself is going to be up in the air until then. Considering that there is currently no free implementation that is good enough for google to consider using with youtube, I wouldn't be suprised if they just wait another 5-10 years to hammer out that detail.

Reply Score: 2

wumip Member since:
2009-08-20

Just because it isn't a final recommendation doesn't mean it's up in the air. Browsers will work on aligning implementations all along, and the more mature the spec becomes, the fewer changes, even if the final spec is years away.

You need to educate yourself about how the process works before spouting nonsense.

Reply Score: 1

google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

So maybe you didn't get what I was saying; this is one thing where the different vendors have different requirements and there is no technical solution that currently exists that meets everyones needs. This is one of those details that aren't going to get aligned for awhile, and it doesn't really have to be because we are nowhere near deadlines for it.

Reply Score: 2

wumip Member since:
2009-08-20

The vendors are working together on doing the same thing and finishing the spec.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: HTML5 is a proposed standard
by Coxy on Wed 23rd Dec 2009 20:26 UTC in reply to "RE: HTML5 is a proposed standard"
Coxy Member since:
2006-07-01

Jeez... won't we be using HTML 10 by then? No wonder browser makers make their own standards if it takes so long for the w3c to do anything!

Reply Score: 2

wumip Member since:
2009-08-20

It takes a long time to do things properly. It would have been quicker if "someone" (hello, Microsoft and Apple!) didn't keep sabotaging the process.

Also, just because the final recommendation isn't out until 202x doesn't mean that the spec won't be usable before that. The more it matures the better the browser support will be, and that will happen many years before the final spec is out.

Reply Score: 1

RE: HTML5 is a proposed standard
by Kroc on Wed 23rd Dec 2009 08:07 UTC in reply to "HTML5 is a proposed standard"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

There is no such thing as a default codec. And there shouldn’t be. There should be consensus, yes, but no one mandated codec.

When the image tag was created the spec could have mandated the XBM format, since that was common at the time.

Mandating a codec now will be just as out of date and impractical as only allowing XBM files for image tags in many year’s time.

Reply Score: 3

RE: HTML5 is a proposed standard
by KugelKurt on Wed 23rd Dec 2009 18:41 UTC in reply to "HTML5 is a proposed standard"
KugelKurt Member since:
2005-07-06

the default codec still hasn't been decided.

There is no defined image format for the web either.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by talaf
by talaf on Wed 23rd Dec 2009 00:08 UTC
talaf
Member since:
2008-11-19

Windows 7 integration too (the Speed dial with the right clicking thingy and stuff).

I'm not sure I like everyone going the Chrome way, though having more real screen estate is really nice ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by talaf
by wumip on Wed 23rd Dec 2009 13:29 UTC in reply to "Comment by talaf"
wumip Member since:
2009-08-20

I'm not sure I like everyone going the Chrome way, though having more real screen estate is really nice ;)

What's the Chrome way, though? Hidden menus are the default in Vista/Windows 7. Tabs above the address bar is something Opera did ages ago. Hiding the title bar perhaps? That's the only new thing Chrome really did I guess.

Reply Score: 1

Downloaded and played...
by Tuishimi on Wed 23rd Dec 2009 00:13 UTC
Tuishimi
Member since:
2005-07-06

...Visited a few sites. Not too shabby! I do like how it integrates with W7. Looks good. Some visual glitches (as was mentioned) while browsing but if it is fairly decent now, I can imagine it will be a fine piece of software when it is released. I should have gone and tried it on those [work] web apps that never worked with opera in the past. Maybe later (I do have to submit my time tracking for the week).

Reply Score: 2

HTML5 video doesn't matter
by Zifre on Wed 23rd Dec 2009 00:43 UTC
Zifre
Member since:
2009-10-04

I really don't think it matters that Opera doesn't support HTML5 video yet. Opera's market share is extremely small, especially compared to IE. The only sites that will start using the video tag before IE supports it are sites with a target audience of more technically inclined people and that don't mind telling IE users to switch browsers. If they are okay with leaving out IE users, I'm sure leaving out Opera users would be okay too. And I'm sure that if IE did implement it, Opera support would soon follow. So it really doesn't matter.

Also, I find it rather ironic that there is another unrelated vector graphics library with the name of vega (it is a OpenVG state tracker for Gallium3D). Coincidence? I think not!

Reply Score: 2

RE: HTML5 video doesn't matter
by Kroc on Wed 23rd Dec 2009 08:09 UTC in reply to "HTML5 video doesn't matter"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

It’s not about leaving other browser users out-- http://camendesign.com/code/video_for_everybody It’s about providing a _better_ video experience for the websites that do use HTML5.

Reply Score: 2

Unmentioned improvements
by Stratoukos on Wed 23rd Dec 2009 03:32 UTC
Stratoukos
Member since:
2009-02-11

Carakan brings some improvements that no tech site mentions and that are relatively buried in Opera's site.

With Carakan each tab gets its own heap for memory so a common operation of javascript (garbage collection) becomes a lot faster. Basicly the speed benefits of Chrome's process separation without the stability.

More importantly with Carakan the engine cahces compiled code. That means that the second time the engine encounters the same code it's going to execute much faster. Obviously this is something that has a huge impact in real world for when you are loading multiple pages of the same site, when you are reading different news stories on a site etc.

Reply Score: 4

ruario
Member since:
2009-12-22

Linux/UNIX users might want to give this a scan through whilst they await versions of Opera 10.50 for their own platforms:

http://my.opera.com/ruario/blog/unix-10-50-evenes-work-in-progress

Edited 2009-12-23 07:26 UTC

Reply Score: 1

KugelKurt Member since:
2005-07-06

stripping out Qt (...) We are also working on KDE integration

So they first remove Qt and then they'll try to integrate it into KDE?

Reply Score: 2

ruario Member since:
2009-12-22

So they first remove Qt and then they'll try to integrate it into KDE?


If you read the comments by Arjan (an Opera developer) within that thread, it will make a lot more sense.

Reply Score: 1

wumip Member since:
2009-08-20

Yes. So?

Maybe you should read what the developers are saying instead of being an ass about it:

http://my.opera.com/ruario/blog/unix-10-50-evenes-work-in-progress#...

Reply Score: 1

I like it
by spinnekopje on Wed 23rd Dec 2009 08:10 UTC
spinnekopje
Member since:
2008-11-29

I've used opera for years now and I will most probably continue to do so. A major reason is that opera only uses 1 window, others are the speed dial and opera unite.

I'm typing this comment in the new pre-alpha on a virtual xp and it works great. I hope the linux version is just as good. Thanks to Opera Unite I could try my favorite sites very quickly. (when will others follow?)

Dialogs in page is just a very good idea, why stop the whole browsing experience for one page.

I've read about extensions in the comments. I won't say no to them, but the way they are implemented now in other browsers is not the way to go for me. I tried to use them with firefox, but finding good ones for me was a nightmare.

Reply Score: 1

I like it
by spinnekopje on Wed 23rd Dec 2009 08:10 UTC
spinnekopje
Member since:
2008-11-29

I've used opera for years now and I will most probably continue to do so. A major reason is that opera only uses 1 window, others are the speed dial and opera unite.

I'm typing this comment in the new pre-alpha on a virtual xp and it works great. I hope the linux version is just as good. Thanks to Opera Unite I could try my favorite sites very quickly. (when will others follow?)

Dialogs in page is just a very good idea, why stop the whole browsing experience for one page. The effect on security just depends on how it is done under the hood.

I've read about extensions in the comments. I won't say no to them, but the way they are implemented now in other browsers is not the way to go for me. I tried to use them with firefox, but finding good ones for me was a nightmare.

Reply Score: 1

v But...
by Kwitschibo on Wed 23rd Dec 2009 08:25 UTC
RE: But...
by wumip on Wed 23rd Dec 2009 13:30 UTC in reply to "But..."
wumip Member since:
2009-08-20

If Opera's UI is so bad, why does everyone else keep copying it?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: But...
by KugelKurt on Thu 24th Dec 2009 00:02 UTC in reply to "RE: But..."
KugelKurt Member since:
2005-07-06

If Opera's UI is so bad, why does everyone else keep copying it?

Mozilla folks think it's the opposite: http://design-noir.de/log/2009/12/opera-firefox-ui/

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: But...
by eksasol on Thu 24th Dec 2009 00:38 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: But..."
eksasol Member since:
2009-04-05

For the last time, Opera has that button menu on the top left system for a very long time. Long before it was introduced for Mozilla 4. They just makes it the default settings.

Try playing around with the settings of the softwares you are using sometimes.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: But...
by wumip on Thu 24th Dec 2009 14:04 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: But..."
wumip Member since:
2009-08-20

"If Opera's UI is so bad, why does everyone else keep copying it?

Mozilla folks think it's the opposite: http://design-noir.de/log/2009/12/opera-firefox-ui/
"
That's because the Mozilla people are evidently retarded. A leaked version of the Opera pre-alpha was released two days before the Firefox UI mockups were posted. So if anything, Mozilla stole from Opera. Again.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: But...
by Kroc on Thu 24th Dec 2009 15:22 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: But..."
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

And the Mozilla mockup goes back to December. http://design-noir.de/log/2009/12/opera-firefox-ui/#comment-14680

What matters more than "who killed who" is consensus. The more apps that adopt the idea, the better.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: But...
by wumip on Thu 24th Dec 2009 19:53 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: But..."
wumip Member since:
2009-08-20

The Mozilla mockup did not appear until two days after Opera 10.5 was leaked. They may have been presented at a Mozilla meeting, but I seriously doubt that people from Opera are attending internal Mozilla meetings!

Never mind the fact that the button is already in Opera 10.0, only disabled by default.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: But...
by KugelKurt on Fri 25th Dec 2009 23:05 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: But..."
KugelKurt Member since:
2005-07-06

if anything, Mozilla stole from Opera. Again.

You can't steal ideas.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: But...
by wumip on Sat 26th Dec 2009 14:33 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: But..."
wumip Member since:
2009-08-20

Wow, your nitpicking sure defeated my point! I'm sure you understand what I was saying. Copying/stealing/whatever. Point is: Mozilla are assholes for trying to be funny and pretending like Opera was following their lead, when all the evidence points to the opposite.

Reply Score: 1

MDI browsing
by Dave_K on Wed 23rd Dec 2009 10:30 UTC
Dave_K
Member since:
2005-11-16

Some cool stuff in this build, but the first thing I notice is that MDI browsing is completely broken. I really hope that this is something that'll be fixed in the release version; to me MDI's flexibility constitutes about 90% of the reason why I prefer its UI to other browsers.

Can I just say how much I loathe and despise pointlessly non-standard GUIs - with their oddly shaped windows, buttons that are inconsistent with anything else, and more often than not reduced functionality and damaged usability. That’s one of the reasons I took an instant dislike to Chrome, use Foobar 2000 and VLC rather than fancy skinned media players, and usually breathe a sigh of relief when I turn on Opera’s Windows Native skin.

I hate to see Opera breaking its best features and going in that non-standard direction.

Reply Score: 6

Comment by motang
by motang on Wed 23rd Dec 2009 15:51 UTC
motang
Member since:
2008-03-27

I used the whole day ysesteday on my Win 7 notebook (the most I have used it since buying it), and I loved it. I am a FF user, but Opera 10.5 with it's UI for Win 7, support for Jump List, and stuff just makes using it a nice experience. Oh not to mention it's wicked fast. ;)

Reply Score: 1

Benchmarks
by n.l.o on Sat 26th Dec 2009 06:05 UTC
n.l.o
Member since:
2009-09-14

I just ran Futuremark Peacekeeper to compare the latest browsers on my MacbookPro 4,1 (Snow Leopard 10.6.2) and here are the results:

Safari 4.0.4 (Build r52531) - 4331
Chrome 4.0.282.0 (Build 35277) - 3390
Opera 10.50 (Pre Alpha) - 2350
Minefield 3.7a1pre (Gecko/20091225)- 2274
Firefox 3.5.6 - 1499

Interesting results methinks!

Reply Score: 1

RE: Benchmarks
by wumip on Sat 26th Dec 2009 14:34 UTC in reply to "Benchmarks"
wumip Member since:
2009-08-20

Opera for Mac isn't as optimized yet. But those results you've got there sure don't agree with all the other tests showing Safari lagging behind both Chrome and Opera.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Benchmarks
by n.l.o on Sun 27th Dec 2009 16:18 UTC in reply to "RE: Benchmarks"
n.l.o Member since:
2009-09-14

Opera for Mac isn't as optimized yet. But those results you've got there sure don't agree with all the other tests showing Safari lagging behind both Chrome and Opera.


I just ran Peacekeeper in the Windows version of Opera 10.5 using Crossover 8 on the same machine.

Safari 4.0.4 (Build r52531) - 4331
Chrome 4.0.282.0 (Build 35277) - 3390
Opera 10.50 Win32 (Pre Alpha) - 2580
Opera 10.50 OSX (Pre Alpha) - 2350
Minefield 3.7a1pre (Gecko/20091225)- 2274
Firefox 3.5.6 - 1499

Slight improvement over the OSX native version but still way short of Chromium and even more so of Safari.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Benchmarks
by invent00r on Sun 27th Dec 2009 17:31 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Benchmarks"
invent00r Member since:
2009-04-27

Right, so now you're comparing Opera results with different browsers on a different OS. How useful.

Also I'm pretty sure you weren't very scientific and redid those tests at least 5 times.. One time might be enough for you, but don't share inaccurate results.

Reply Score: 1