Linked by vodoomoth on Fri 2nd Jul 2010 09:03 UTC
Opera Software Opera 10.60 has been released July 1 for Mac OS X and is available for download. The features highlighted on the changelogs page are: layout engine (codename 'Presto'), HTML5 with support for offline web applications, WebM, which has been available in Opera (in a special build) on the very day of the announcement at the Google I/O conference, web workers for running scripts in the background without impeding the browsing experience, and geolocation. Version 10.60 is also available for Windows and Linux/BSD.
Thread beginning with comment 432380
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Comment by mtzmtulivu
by mtzmtulivu on Sat 3rd Jul 2010 04:02 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by mtzmtulivu"
mtzmtulivu
Member since:
2006-11-14


The problem I have lays with the features Opera doesn't provide when compared to what Safari provides or the fact that a certain website doesn't load with Opera but works perfectly fine with Safari. Those are the comparisons that I believe should be done and not the, quite frankly, trivial sh-t based on ones subjective feels.


And here lies the core of the complain, a review of this browser here seem to come from people who are irritated enough to bother to write about those irritations and not what the browser has to offer to users of web browsers. There

ok, so lets say opera decides to add all the features that are in safari most safari users want and the next review will come from somebody who complain because it doesnt have all the features they like in firefox and if opera add those too, the review will come from a person who is complaining because it doesnt have all the features they want from chrome. Adding those too and a review will come from somebody complaining about too much bloat even though in term of disk space usage, opera takes the least amount of memory with all the features it provides out of the box.

There is too much focus on the negativity in reviews of this browser here for some reason.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by mtzmtulivu
by kaiwai on Sat 3rd Jul 2010 08:11 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by mtzmtulivu"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

There is too much focus on the negativity in reviews of this browser here for some reason.


Because it doesn't step up and provide a viable alternative; again, users want OOP, Tab process isolation, 64bitness with interoperability between 32bit and 64bit plugins, better security, lower memory usage, and hogs the CPU less. It has nothing to do with negativity by reviews on here, it has to do with Opera developers not stepping up to the crease and providing an alternative that meets those minimum expectations users have of their browser.

Again, I provided a laundry list of grievances and you seem to be ignoring in them by claiming that that I'm spewing negativity from an unnamed source. I'm not spewing unsubstantiated grievances - they do actually exist and they do need addressing. Until those issues are addressed people like me will continue to moan, groan and write 'negative' reviews because Opera fails to step up and provide what I want from a web browser. It has nothing to do with preferences it has to do with Opera failing to meet the minimum standard that end users expect these days in a web browser.

Reply Parent Score: 0

mtzmtulivu Member since:
2006-11-14


Because it doesn't step up and provide a viable alternative; again, users want OOP, Tab process isolation, 64bitness with interoperability between 32bit and 64bit plugins, better security, lower memory usage, and hogs the CPU less. It has nothing to do with negativity by reviews on here, it has to do with Opera developers not stepping up to the crease and providing an alternative that meets those minimum expectations users have of their browser


As far as i know, firefox just got some of these features and it manage to do pretty well without them. Safari has them and chrome just passed it in browser usage numbers.

Evidence does not support this claim.


Again, I provided a laundry list of grievances and you seem to be ignoring in them by claiming that that I'm spewing negativity from an unnamed source. I'm not spewing unsubstantiated grievances - they do actually exist and they do need addressing. Until those issues are addressed people like me will continue to moan, groan and write 'negative' reviews because Opera fails to step up and provide what I want from a web browser. It has nothing to do with preferences it has to do with Opera failing to meet the minimum standard that end users expect these days in a web browser.

you did provide a list of features and you said those are features in safari you/safari users want/expect opera to have and i think it should have them and they need to address them and then i went on to say if they did give you all the features you want, the next review will come from somebody else whose review will focus on what they want/expect the browser to have and not what the current release has to offer, something most people expect from a review.

A comparison against Safari on a mac is useless to someone like me who only uses linux and safari doesnt exist in linux. I can say this lack of native existence of safari on linux is a critical shortcoming and i am sure you will have something to say if all reviews of safari here came from linux users and they keep focus on this shortcoming on each and every review and either ignore or dont give sufficient air time to all other features the new release is offering.

It is one thing for a commenter to express his wishes and complains on comments and a commenter can express the same wish on each and every discussion of the browser and it is another thing for reviewers to do the same.It will be annoying if you start writing opera reviews and mention all these safari features you want on each and every review. It will not be an issue if you mention those lack of features in comments section on each and every review.

Edited 2010-07-03 14:44 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2