Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 11th Feb 2010 18:29 UTC
Opera Software Everybody's favourite Norwegian browser maker has released the beta version of Opera 10.50, the next iteration of the featureful web browser. As Kroc already touched upon late last year, Opera 10.50 comes packed with a lot of improvements across the board, from a new JavaScript engine to an improved address field.
Thread beginning with comment 409181
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
PresentIt
Member since:
2010-02-10

Only if you use the latest versions of Windows and their standard skins, change that and Opera's default look doesn't fit in.


Opera 10.10 and earlier do not use a cross-platform UI - that's something Opera have added in 10.5 with vega.

Wrong. They use a UI toolkit called "quick".

Opera 10.10 and earlier do not emulate MDI, they are pure Windows MDI apps that can work exactly like any other pure Windows MDI app.

Wrong again. They rewrote the UI using Quick in version 7. They had to re-implement everything from scratch.

They have directly stated that previous Windows versions used standard Windows MDI, and that the change to the vega graphics library

Wrong again. Yes, the situation is because of Vega, but they did not use standard Windows MDI. How could they, when they were using the Quick UI toolkit?

This is the case because Opera 10.10 and earlier are standard MDI apps under their skin.

Wrong. All "MDI" in Opera 7 and later is all re-implemented by Opera.

No, it isn't irrelevant, it's a separate, optional utility

It was made part of Opera (there's UI in the actual browser) after a beta. Fail.

No it isn't wrong. Look at the Opera version history that you linked. That makes it completely and unambiguously clear that those features were added in Opera updates, not features that changed between the beta and final.

Again, you are wrong.

All I'm saying - and this point is supported by Opera's history - is that their past betas were typically highly functional, more-or-less feature complete, and perfectly usable - with the major problems reported in pre-betas already fixed.

This is wrong. And furthermore, MDI is not a major problem. It's a trivial corner-case.

I simply find the fact that 10.5 is an exception to that rule very disappointing.

Again, you are wrong.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Dave_K Member since:
2005-11-16

Wrong again. They rewrote the UI using Quick in version 7. They had to re-implement everything from scratch.


I'll concede that I forgot about the Quick toolkit, but that doesn't mean that everything in the underlying Windows version MDI UI had to be recreated from scratch. If you can provide a link showing that to be the case then I'll admit that I was wrong about this.

The idea that MDI window management had to be completely re-implemented, rather than using standard Windows MDI, contradicts recent statements from Opera staff. They've talked about Opera 10.10 tabs being true MDI child windows, with 10.5 the first time in Opera history that this isn't the case.

For example:

http://my.opera.com/desktopteam/blog/2009/12/22/from-all-of-us-to-a...

Rijk (Opera staff member):Opera doesn't create a real Windows 'window' for each document anymore as it did until now, it's all Vega now inside a single 'window'. So now we have to decide what of the old MDI features need to be implemented - or maybe other features.

Of course, nitpicking about past toolkits doesn't change my main point that Opera 10.10 and earlier did implemented all the standard Windows MDI features. Whether they were reimplemented or not, it worked exactly like other MDI apps, right down to small details. There was certainly no functional difference between MDI pre and post the Quick cross-platform toolkit.

It was made part of Opera (there's UI in the actual browser) after a beta. Fail.


Whatever. I'd consider Dragonfly a separate utility and not part of the actual browser. The fact that it's classed as an alpha test itself, despite being included with a final, seems to make it clear that it's separate from the browser.

Obviously you're free to disagree and consider it one of the very few exceptions to the rule that Opera betas are feature complete. Even with Dragonfly that's three small exceptions you could find in Opera's entire beta testing history, right?

Well, you really proved me wrong - I only said that there were "one or two" exceptions...

Again, you are wrong.


Again, you seem unable to read the simple document that you linked to yourself.

Here are the examples you gave:
Cookie manager - Apr. 11, 2003: 7.1 final
Wand/Password manager - Apr. 11, 2003: 7.1 final
Fraud Protection - Dec. 18, 2006: 9.1 final

All new features that were added via point releases, after the .0 final, not after a beta.

Now, are you still going to tell me I'm wrong about this?

Reply Parent Score: 2

PresentIt Member since:
2010-02-10

The idea that MDI window management had to be completely re-implemented, rather than using standard Windows MDI, contradicts recent statements from Opera staff. They've talked about Opera 10.10 tabs being true MDI child windows, with 10.5 the first time in Opera history that this isn't the case.

No, what he's referring to is simply that the way Opera handles windows has changed.

Whatever. I'd consider Dragonfly a separate utility and not part of the actual browser.

It's part of the browser. It was added with UI and all, after a beta.

All new features that were added via point releases, after the .0 final, not after a beta.

Again, wrong. They were added right into the final version, after beta.

Reply Parent Score: 1