Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Opera 10 Alpha 1 Released, Aces Acid 3 Test

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the now-it-sees-all-the-spiders-and-tastes-color dept.

Software 258

Khuffie writes "It seems that the upcoming version of Opera 10, of which the first Alpha has recently been released, has already passed the Acid 3 test with a 100/100. The only other rendering engine to have a complete score is WebKit, which can be seen in Google Chrome's nightly build. Opera 10 Alpha 1 will also finally include auto-updates, inline spell checking, and see some improvements to its built-in mail client, including much-requested rich text composition."

cancel ×

258 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Tom Wolfe Says ... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25994505)

Opera was last spotted moving across the country [wikipedia.org] in a technicolored school bus called the "Further."

Re:Tom Wolfe Says ... (1)

Wiseblood1 (1135095) | more than 5 years ago | (#25996135)

It's "Furthur", bro.

No Sparc/Solaris port? Bah (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25994515)

I scoff at the lack of sparc/solaris ports of the latest Opera browser!

There was a time not long ago when Opera was the browser of choice for Solaris, but now it isnt even an option.

dubya tee ehf, mates?

Re:No Sparc/Solaris port? Bah (1)

AnonGCB (1398517) | more than 5 years ago | (#25994843)

Give it time, this is only an alpha, not even a beta. I'm sure by the final launch they'll have a version.

In-line spelling and grammar? (4, Funny)

cptdondo (59460) | more than 5 years ago | (#25994527)

Perhaps the submitter could have benefitted from those.....

Re:In-line spelling and grammar? (3, Interesting)

Khuffie (818093) | more than 5 years ago | (#25994673)

In my defense, I DID spell 'sign' right. It's not like the spell checker would have caught it...

Meh.. (4, Informative)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 5 years ago | (#25994545)

The acid test is important but what about important things for users..

Other features include a spell checker and auto updating.

Firefox had this years ago, seriously is this accurate, Opera just got these?

Re:Meh.. (5, Informative)

Stuart Gibson (544632) | more than 5 years ago | (#25994615)

Well, I guess it made up for it by having tabs, mouse gestures, speed dial, spatial navigation and dozens of other things before any of the other browsers.

Re:Meh.. (3, Insightful)

maxume (22995) | more than 5 years ago | (#25994863)

By that standard, Mosaic is the best browser ever, as it added inline images before most other browsers existed.

Re:Meh.. (2, Informative)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 5 years ago | (#25995003)

No. This analogy fails. It has nothing to do with Opera implementing stuff first, it has to do with them making up for lack of certain useful features by having their own useful features.

Besides which, spell check, mouse gestures, etc are hardly world-rocking features. It doesn't affect the user experience much if they aren't there.

Re:Meh.. (2, Informative)

boredMDer (640516) | more than 5 years ago | (#25995157)

'Besides which, ... mouse gestures, etc are hardly world-rocking features. It doesn't affect the user experience much if they aren't there.'

Indeed, until you start using them. They make the browsing experience better overall.

Re:Meh.. (4, Interesting)

AVee (557523) | more than 5 years ago | (#25995207)

I will never go back to a browser without mouse gestures. No other browser feature affected my user experience as much as that one. Not even tabs (but perhaps that's because I've often used a separate virtual desktop for the webbrowser).

Re:Meh.. (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25995711)

I'll second that. Literally the very first thing I do after running Opera the first time after I install it is enable the mouse gestures (which happens automatically the first time I use one, which I do the first time I open a new page).

The mouse gestures in Opera, combined with the address bar search shortcuts, make Opera the fastest browser for me to use.

The fact that they keep releasing new versions before I've even had a chance to really put the previous one through all of its paces is equally impressive.

I've never missed auto-updates in Opera. It sort of annoys me with Firefox when I run Firefox and before it opens it installs a bunch of updates, including updates to plugins, then asks me if I want to keep using the plugins, then destroys the previous session I was going to load and shows me a page telling me that Firefox was just updated. It's nice that I'm always running the latest version of Firefox, but I don't always *need* to run the latest version, and I don't really like seeing that process as often as I do.

I could also harp on the memory usage with Firefox, but not only is that discussion out of place here, but it's been really difficult to find the reason why my version of Firefox sucks up all available RAM and other people I'm talking to running the same plugins (Firebug, AdBlock, Forecastfox) on the same sites don't see that. It doesn't change the fact that Firefox uses a ton of RAM, but it's hard to place the blame when it's not repeatable. But for reference, right now Firefox is using 344MB RAM, 397MB virtual with only 27 mins of CPU time. It has 2 tabs open to the same website. Opera is currently using 224MB RAM, 297MB virtual with 10 tabs open (including the same 2 as Firefox), with a total of 13 *hours* of CPU time compared to Firefox's 27 minutes (I already restarted Firefox once today; I think I restarted Opera a week or two ago). Again, it's hard to find the reason why Firefox uses so much RAM, but that doesn't change the fact that it does.

So anyway, yeah, mouse gestures rock!

Re:Meh.. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25996569)

Same here dude. It's awesome for browsing porn, plus the fact if you gesture forward (with the mouse, ahem) on a page of thumbnails it will cycle through the linked images.

I actually emailed Opera after an all night drunken 'test' session to tell them how awesome mouse gestures were and they sent me a t-shirt and a note of thanks. Obviously I told them I was cycling through hubble deep field pictures and not some hubba hubba deep feel pics.

Re:Meh.. (1)

FlyingBishop (1293238) | more than 5 years ago | (#25995233)

This analogy fails.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Re:Meh.. (1)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 5 years ago | (#25995289)

A spell check might not affect your experience but it does for anyone reading your (not parent) posts.

Re:Meh.. (2, Interesting)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 5 years ago | (#25995563)

I can't tell if you're trying to criticize my spelling or not... :/

At any rate, I never felt a need for spell check. Chrome's spell check just annoys the piss out of me, because 99.9% of the time, it's wrong. I'm spelling something legitimately, but because it's not in the rather limited dictionary, it gets flagged. For the spelling on my posts, I guess I've always just been one who gives my post the once-over to make sure that there aren't errors.

Re:Meh.. (1)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 5 years ago | (#25995587)

I'm not criticising your spelling however there will be times when I am on forums and it's just obvious who it posting from internet explorer..

Re:Meh.. (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 5 years ago | (#25995659)

Piples spalling can be apolling, but it ish interestering how much inphormesion stil get thru.

Re:Meh.. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25995785)

>> who it posting from internet explorer

Indeed. You on 5.5 or 6?

Re:Meh.. (1, Redundant)

aliquis (678370) | more than 5 years ago | (#25995557)

Though, Opera really IS the best browser still even if it lacks inline spell check (which I have just recently started to use anyway.)

Re:Meh.. (1)

qoncept (599709) | more than 5 years ago | (#25994893)

And then it un-made up for it by being an oddball browser that next to no one used (and at the time had ADS??).

Competition is almost invariably a good thing for users, but in the case of web browsers, all it does is force the developers to add countless new "features" to "stay ahead of the competition" instead of spending that time making it do the things it already does the way it should.

Re:Meh.. (4, Insightful)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 5 years ago | (#25994981)

Competition is almost invariably a good thing for users, but in the case of web browsers, all it does is force the developers to add countless new "features" to "stay ahead of the competition" instead of spending that time making it do the things it already does the way it should.

Like passing the ACID test? Like giving you a start page that's ridiculously useful? Like making tabbed browsing work? Like making sure that everything runs in its own process?

What exactly would you like to see the browser do better? It seems to me that they're refining things faster than they're adding features.

Re:Meh.. (1)

elcid73 (599126) | more than 5 years ago | (#25995165)

In other words- "I don't care about standards at all, just one company's interpretation of them. We can't control what these companies are going to do with their products, so we might as well just go along with one of them, standards be damned. Oh, lets do that under the guise of 'open source' to sound sanctimonious about it- that way we can all be chained to a single company's interpretation, allowing developers to be lazy (saves money for companies hiring developers! yay!), but we still reserve the right to complain about closed source companies that are essentially doing the same thing!"

While you have a good point about focusing on features instead of rendering, I mean- come on, one of the biggest claims in this summary is Acid 3 passing. Once the standards are down, why can't a company start working on the way it presents and interacts with the web? Why should one UI fit all? What's wrong with competition? ...and the ads/paying for browser. Back in 2001, I was more than willing to pay 20 dollars (student discount) for a browser that was far more advanced than anything on the market. mouse gestures alone was worth the price of admission. 20 dollars? (Maybe it was 40 full price) That's the price of a meal for two for one night compared to a software product that gets how much use per day?

What's wrong with paying to promote innovation?

Re:Meh.. (2, Informative)

pizzach (1011925) | more than 5 years ago | (#25996283)

I don't care about standards at all, just one company's interpretation of them.

It's not the interpretation of one company. Do you know what W3C stands for? World Wide Web Consortium. Do you know what consortium means? "An association of companies for some definite purpose."

Yes, that means that people from Microsoft's Internet Explorer, Apples' Safari, Mozilla's Firefox, and Opera's Opera all take part in it. Many of the features that are introduced and later get standardized start as propriety features of one browser. Examples are the rounded CSS borders in Mozilla, Text field resizing in Safari, and a lot of DHTML stuff from Internet Explorer. Firefox is now trying to push for OGM support in the HTML 5 spec by putting it into their browser now.

The standards that W3C publish do not impede on creativity. They just create a baseline for compatibility.

Re:Meh.. (1)

elcid73 (599126) | more than 5 years ago | (#25995215)

Oh- and the "next to no one uses..."

So what? Again, if the standards are there browser makers could all agree on them, what difference does it make if next to no one uses it?

Re:Meh.. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25995007)

Only thing Opera is missing is something along the lines of "no script", its really disapointing they left this out.

Re:Meh.. (4, Informative)

AVee (557523) | more than 5 years ago | (#25995285)

Press 12, en/disable Javascript, Java, Plugins, Sound etc. globally, or choose 'Edit site preferences' to change the setting for just the current website...

Re:Meh.. (1)

AVee (557523) | more than 5 years ago | (#25995327)

That's F12 offcourse.

Re:Meh.. (2, Insightful)

BrentH (1154987) | more than 5 years ago | (#25995721)

That still doesnt allow easy whitelisting javascript from certain adresses, only whole webpages.

Re:Meh.. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25995325)

Only thing Opera is missing is something along the lines of "no script", its really disapointing they left this out.

Opera has built in script blocking.

Re:Meh.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25995871)

>mouse gestures, speed dial, spatial navigation

useless features do not count

Re:Meh.. (0, Flamebait)

bunratty (545641) | more than 5 years ago | (#25994625)

Well, to be fair, Opera had the idea first and those Firefox dudes stole it!!!

Behind the times? (4, Funny)

CaptainPatent (1087643) | more than 5 years ago | (#25994649)

Other features include a spell checker and auto updating.

Firefox had this years ago, seriously is this accurate, Opera just got these?

So Opera is a little behind the times...

Personally I can't wait until they get around to implementing horrendous security holes [slashdot.org] as a subset of its features!

Re:Behind the times? (0, Troll)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 5 years ago | (#25994745)

Do you have anything relevant rather then four year old news?

Re:Behind the times? (3, Funny)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 5 years ago | (#25994775)

Well, if LingNoi's known about that hole for 4 years then I think we might have some idea who's been exploiting it...

Re:Behind the times? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25994807)

*ahem* sorry to barge in on the conversation...

That particular /. summary was posted Dec 4th 2008 about an article posted Dec 4th 2008.

Unless I just came out of a coma I didn't know about I think that's today's news.

Re:Behind the times? (0)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 5 years ago | (#25994915)

Yeah my bad.. Slashdot is using a weird date format I didn't pick up on.. 08/12/04

Re:Behind the times? (1)

Randle_Revar (229304) | more than 5 years ago | (#25995919)

It would be an excellent date format if only it used the 4 digit year.

Re:Behind the times? (4, Interesting)

CaptainPatent (1087643) | more than 5 years ago | (#25994983)

My gp comment was just as relevant as your original post. Yes Firefox had spellcheck as an implemented feature for a longer time than Opera, but length of implementation is fairly irrelevant - both of them now have the feature and should be judged as such.

If you can't live without spellcheck in submission spaces in a browser (which I no longer can after using this feature in Firefox since implementation) I understand that was and should have been a determining factor. At this point and for reasons of that particular feature though, they should be judged on equal ground. Additionally and as I pointed out, another factor for a lot of people should be security. I personally am considering switching to Opera (or at least downloading / running side-by-side to Firefox) now that it has a much larger feature set and for the time being seems to be more secure.

I just think the argument of "but this already has those features" is an argument borne of fanboyism alone and the browser should be judged on full merits. Opera for that reason looks pretty good right now.

Re:Behind the times? (1)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 5 years ago | (#25995069)

I misread the date, you are correct it's latest news.

A spellchecker is an important feature I'm sure you will agree if you have had to read anything posted by someone else on the internet.

I don't believe Opera is anymore secure then Firefox. It is less popular which means it's not targeted by malware, perhaps this is the reason that it looks more secure?

Don't let that stop you from using it, I'm all for people being able to choose their own tools (unless it's IE6, then you have to die in a fire), however choose them for the right reasons and not on false assumptions.

Re:Behind the times? (1)

CaptainPatent (1087643) | more than 5 years ago | (#25995955)

A spellchecker is an important feature I'm sure you will agree if you have had to read anything posted by someone else on the internet.

You can say that again!

I don't believe Opera is anymore secure then Firefox. It is less popular which means it's not targeted by malware, perhaps this is the reason that it looks more secure?

I completely agree with this statement. Opera may actually be less secure than Firefox overall. I'm sure Opera will end up having at least some minor, if not a couple major security holes in its lifetime. For this moment though and because there seems to be a known and exploitable hole in Firefox for financial information of all things Opera just looks on the surface to be a better option... for now.

Don't let that stop you from using it, I'm all for people being able to choose their own tools (unless it's IE6, then you have to die in a fire), however choose them for the right reasons and not on false assumptions.

The original post made it sound like you were going against the above statement but I think we're pretty much on the same page.
Shall we start the bonfire?

Re:Meh.. (2, Insightful)

Kees Van Loo-Macklin (859394) | more than 5 years ago | (#25994819)

Firefox had this years ago, seriously is this accurate, Opera just got these?

Funny, considering most other browser alway feel like an old version of opera to me. Especially Firefox.

Honestly the only thing Firefox has going for it over opera is the plugins. Which I dont entirely trust.

Re:Meh.. (1)

elcid73 (599126) | more than 5 years ago | (#25994823)

Right, those are important features for sure, (arguably two of the most important), but to classify Opera has being "behind the times" as far as feature sets is inaccurate at best.

Re:Meh.. (1)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 5 years ago | (#25994947)

It's a good thing I never said "behind the times" then isn't it?

Re:Meh.. (1)

elcid73 (599126) | more than 5 years ago | (#25995245)

the quote is from another slashdotter (apologies), but don't front like that's not what you were implying.

Re:Meh.. (4, Interesting)

mobby_6kl (668092) | more than 5 years ago | (#25994881)

Opera had spellcheck since about forever, just not one that would underline the incorrect words like Word does. And it also isn't nearly buggy enough to require frequent automatic updates, so clicking the occasional prompt once a new version is available (detected automatically) worked just fine.

However, I'm disappointed that they finally bent over and decided to include HTML mail.

Re:Meh.. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25994891)

Firefox had this years ago, seriously is this accurate, Opera just got these?

Different software packages have different features? Details at 11!

Opera's had spell checking through ASpell for a long time. The new inline spell checking (as Firefox has had) is indeed a huge improvement.

Opera also has had a half-assed auto-updater for a long time. It would automatically and silently patch its local JavaScript (used for site compatibility fixes), but when a new rev appeared, it would merely direct the user to the download page, rather than do the download/install/restart cycle with a single click. For computer enthusiasts, really, that update system wasn't a serious problem.

Re:Meh.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25994973)

For computer enthusiasts... that used Linux that wasn't even a problem in the first place.

Re:Meh.. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25994977)

Other features include a spell checker and auto updating.

Firefox had this years ago, seriously is this accurate, Opera just got these?

This being Slashdot, I'm sure you'll be amazed to learn that no, it's not true!

I'm using Opera 9.62 right now. It has a spell checker, which wants to turn Slashdot into "Slashed" and doesn't like the word "Firefox."

It has an automatic update checker. It doesn't automatically download and apply the update for you, but it'll tell you when a new update is available and send you straight to the download page which is close enough in my book.

Both Opera and Firefox have a "Check for Updates" menu item in the "Help" menu, and both check automatically.

These aren't new features that Opera is only just now getting. They may be refined in Opera 10, but they're not new.

Re:Meh.. (5, Insightful)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 5 years ago | (#25995045)

Firefox had this years ago, seriously is this accurate, Opera just got these?

Now you know how Opera users feel every single time there's a FireFox upgrade story.

Re:Meh.. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25995129)

Actually, Opera had a spelling checker before Firefox. The thing that is new is that this is now an inline spelling checker.

As for automatic updates, Opera has had those in some form for years as well. I think the new thing here is that it actually performs the update itself if you let it, and I don't believe Firefox does that yet, does it?

Re:Meh.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25995141)

It's had the spell checker option for ages - it just needed GNU Aspell installed

Re:Meh.. (2, Informative)

mini me (132455) | more than 5 years ago | (#25996161)

Every Cocoa application gets spelling and grammatical checking for free on OS X. Having to include it at the application level does seem rather ridiculous.

Re:Meh.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25996657)

You probably pride yourself on being a techy because you use firefox and read slashdot but know nothing about the development of alternative applications? Sheesh.

Opera came up with a lot of things you have to install a plugin in for and on the other hand Opera and other browsers have implemented functionality that came first in firefox. Keep up chap, don't make yourself look stupid.

sign? (1)

unityofsaints (1213900) | more than 5 years ago | (#25994547)

How could anyone confuse "sign" with "seen"?
the mind boggles...

Re:sign? (1)

Khuffie (818093) | more than 5 years ago | (#25994689)

Whoopsie? And I re-read the damn thing before I posted it. Sometimes I tend to use one word that sounds similar with another. My bad.

Yes, but... (2, Interesting)

snl2587 (1177409) | more than 5 years ago | (#25994589)

...is it smooth? I thought that was part of the criteria for passing the test, not just the 100/100 thing.

Still, congratulations to the Opera team. Now for Acid4, whenever that comes out.

Acid is just a dick size comparison anyway... (4, Insightful)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 5 years ago | (#25994593)

From a user's perspective: Yes, it's cool to pass the Acid tests, but unless one of my favourite websites breaks in Firefox (or IE, for the less geeky among us), I really won't care.

From a developer's perspective: Until the really atrocious browsers (*cough*IE*cough*) get up to standard, developers will continue to have headaches coding for cross-browser compatibility anyway. Currently, you have to test for "IE" and "everything else" (ok, so you need to test in all the non-IE browsers for completeness' sake, but if it works in one of them it's very likely going to work in all of them).

Re:Acid is just a dick size comparison anyway... (1)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 5 years ago | (#25994761)

Mod parent up. We can wibble on about Acid tests all we want, but we still have a 750lb* gorilla in the room.

*Yes, MS have lost a little weight recently, haven't they?

Re:Acid is just a dick size comparison anyway... (4, Insightful)

Phroggy (441) | more than 5 years ago | (#25994895)

From a user's perspective: Yes, it's cool to pass the Acid tests, but unless one of my favourite websites breaks in Firefox (or IE, for the less geeky among us), I really won't care.

If both Firefox and Opera pass the Acid tests, then there's a very good chance that your favorite web sites won't break in either of them. Passing Acid3 is not a reason to switch to Opera. Passing Acid3 removes a reason why you might not want to switch. If you're perfectly happy with your current browser and have no other reasons to consider switching, feel free to ignore this announcement.

From a developer's perspective: Until the really atrocious browsers (*cough*IE*cough*) get up to standard, developers will continue to have headaches coding for cross-browser compatibility anyway. Currently, you have to test for "IE" and "everything else" (ok, so you need to test in all the non-IE browsers for completeness' sake, but if it works in one of them it's very likely going to work in all of them).

Internet Explorer 8 passes Acid2; Microsoft is definitely working on getting "up to standard". Neither IE nor Firefox pass Acid3 yet, but it's definitely a goal that Microsoft and Mozilla should be aiming for. The purpose of the Acid tests is to highlight areas where some browsers don't precisely adhere to W3C recommendations; if these issues can be corrected in the browsers, so that all browsers behave the same way, then developers' lives will become MUCH easier. Indeed, as you point out, the current situation is that you only really have to test for IE and "everything else"; this is a dramatic improvement from the days of testing for IE on Windows and IE on Mac and Mozilla and Opera and Safari, and there would be significant differences between all of them. IE8 will mean a huge leap forward in cross-browser compatibility, and the Acid tests are one reason why.

Re:Acid is just a dick size comparison anyway... (1)

devotedlhasa (1298843) | more than 5 years ago | (#25995135)

Yes... but can it pass The Electric Kool Aid Acid test??

Re:Acid is just a dick size comparison anyway... (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 5 years ago | (#25996331)

Is that the one where you pour Kool-Aid into your computer box and see what happens?

Re:Acid is just a dick size comparison anyway... (2, Insightful)

mixmatch (957776) | more than 5 years ago | (#25996463)

Sure, IE8 will help, but there is still the problem of penetration. IE7 was released over two years ago [msdn.com] , and still has less than 30% penetration [w3schools.com] . IE6 is still being used by around one in five users, and it has outright horrifying CSS rendering. Unless there have been drastic changes since the release of IE7, this is what can be predicted for the next few years of browser usage:
- IE6 usage will continue to decrease at a rate of 1-2% per month, putting it between 5-8% by the end of next year.
- IE7 will continue to increase for 4-6 months until the release of IE8. At a rate of 0.5-1% per month, that would put it at about 30-31% when IE8 is released. IE8 release will cause of decrease in usage of 10-15% in the first two months, and 1-2% per month afterward. This will put IE7 at about 12-18% by the end of next year.
- IE8 will be released between April and July. It will immediately gain 10-15% in the first two month. Usage will then increase at a rate of 0.5-1% per month, mostly at the expense of IE7 usage.This will put IE8 at about 18-22% by the end of next year.
- FF will continue to grow steadily at a rate of 0.75% per month. FF will be around 55% by the end of next year. Chrome poses the biggest threat to FF growth should a final version be released in the next year. This could affect from 2-10% of FF usage stats, depending on Google marketing and 'geek cred'.
- Safari growth will continue at 0.1%/month, leading it to 4-4.5% by the end of next year.
- Opera growth will continue around 0.1%/month, leading it to 3.3-3.5% at the end of next year.
- Chrome will remain around 2.5-4% until a release or increased advertising causes it to gain visibility, after which growth is unpredictable.

Acid3 (4, Interesting)

bunratty (545641) | more than 5 years ago | (#25994613)

Scoring 100/100 on the JavaScript subtests is only part of passing Acid3. A browser also has to render the page correctly (including the proper favicon) and complete each subtest within a certain amount of time. From reports in the Opera forums, it looks like Opera 10 still isn't passing the performance aspect of Acid3. I think Safari 4 is still the only browser to fully pass Acid3.

Re:Acid3 (2, Informative)

Blice (1208832) | more than 5 years ago | (#25995553)

Midori for Linux also passes Acid3 with a 100/100... Just say "Webkit" is the only engine to pass Acid3..

Re:Acid3 (1)

mixmatch (957776) | more than 5 years ago | (#25996525)

I can't wait until Midori [twotoasts.de] can remember open tabs and not crash constantly. I can't wait for a fast, lightweight, and cutting edge browser to be available for linux once again.

Re:Acid3 (2, Informative)

Fweeky (41046) | more than 5 years ago | (#25995973)

WebKit nightly, best of 6 runs (several failed at 98%):

Failed 0 tests.
Test 65 passed, but took 35ms (less than 30fps)
Total elapsed time: 1.18s

Opera 10 alpha:

Failed 0 tests.
Test 26 passed, but took 46ms (less than 30fps)
Test 69 passed, but took 27 attempts (less than perfect).
Total elapsed time: 0.62s

Not doing too badly. Test 69 failed on one of the WebKit runs too, but I guess a random nightly is gonna be worse than a scheduled alpha release.

Using it (3)

Rinisari (521266) | more than 5 years ago | (#25994621)

I've been using it all day (Ubuntu 8.10, gcc4/qt4) and I've not encountered any major setbacks or bad renderings. There's some graphical distortions on the tab bar, but I have a feeling that's a purely cosmetic, chrome issue which could be resolved with a quick flick of the wrist.

Really, I think Opera is slowly becoming my browser of choice for day-to-day activities. It's just faster than Firefox or Safari or Chrome. I'd like to see it get the process separation abilities of Chrome and the extensibility of Firefox, and it would be awesome. I still use Firefox for development, though, because its market share is much, much higher and the tools are there (Firebug and Web Developer, plus Venkman, etc.).

However, the mail client and feed reader are still lackluster. Thunderbird does a better job of the former, Google Reader handles the latter better. If Opera could act as a frontend to Google Reader, I'd be a very, very happy man, and so would thousands of others who like desktop applications with web-based backends.

Submitted using opera.... (1)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 5 years ago | (#25994675)

" which can be sign in Google Chrome's "

I guess they still have some work to do.

submitted using opera.... (1)

euice (953774) | more than 5 years ago | (#25994727)

submitted using opera....

or on a firefox with the language setting for soviet russia.....

.... where Chrome signs you.

Items of note (4, Informative)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 5 years ago | (#25994735)

Okay I gave the OS X alpha a spin. It does get 100 on the Acid3, but still doesn't manage smooth animation on my machine and probably not on the reference hardware. Javascript performance is behind compared to the latest Webkit and the Sunspider test. On my machine the Opera alpha is very slightly slower than the release version of Safari and about six times slower than the nightly Webkit with the new javascript improvements. The alpha does support some OS X system services, but still fails to use the default spelling and grammar checking, instead offering only a proprietary spellcheck that ignores my carefully trained dictionaries that work in most all of my other programs.

It's nice to see Opera is still in the game and trying, but it feels like they're still falling behind in the new, turbocharged browser race. Now if only IE would fix their flat tires and get back in the race.

Re:Items of note (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25994965)

So, when is FF and the company going to get in-built ad blocking, email and BitTorrent clients, preferences per site, and so on?

Re:Items of note (1)

mixmatch (957776) | more than 5 years ago | (#25996695)

FF is not gonna make most of the features you listed in-built for several reasons.
- Ads support a large portion of the internet. It would be in bad faith and could cause a downfall in the economic feasibility of many internet services. It could also make them liable for sites that are blacklisted for ads. Additionally, some people won't/don't want this. Blocking ads interferes with the display of some web sites, such as some network TV sites that will not show the content unless the ads can load.
- I have built-in support to open G-Mail on mailto: links, why on earth would I want a built in email program? Web-based/software programs do it better.
- BitTorrent. Seriously? The worst time to be downloading from BitTorrent is when I am trying to actively browse the web. FF already has a large enough RAM profile as it is.
- And so on... This concept of 'make it all built-in' leads to bloat and badly-maintained code. They went through the effort of making FF easily extensible through add-ons to avoid this problem in the first place.

Re:Items of note (1)

junglee_iitk (651040) | more than 5 years ago | (#25995335)

One could, if it were me, would say the same for OS X.

Pun aside, you are using an ALPHA software - it's not even a beta! Believe me it will be better.

- From someone who switched from Firefox 3.1alpha1 today, and who has never seriously used a Mac.

Re:Items of note (1)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 5 years ago | (#25995577)

One could, if it were me, would say the same for OS X.

One could what?

Pun aside, you are using an ALPHA software - it's not even a beta! Believe me it will be better.

I'm sure it will be better by the time it is finalized, but we don't know in what ways and the alpha doesn't bring a whole lot of hope for features that concern me. You might note I was comparing it on speed and compliance to a nightly version of Webkit... not even an alpha.

From someone who switched from Firefox 3.1alpha1 today, and who has never seriously used a Mac.

Both Opera and Firefox are a lot better on Windows and Linux than on OS X. They both tend to ignore all the cool bits of OS X that make it nicer than other OS's in particular respects. I mean, Apple goes and implements a universal grammar checker that automatically works in everything that uses the default text APIs and cross platform browsers like Firefox and Opera both use nonstandard text handling for cross platform compatibility and don't bother to find a way to make it work. It makes them both second class applications, bounded by the limitations of the other OS's they're targeting.

On Linux and Windows I use Firefox, but when I can I use OS X and Safari because the combination is more featureful. If you don't use OS X I can see why you would not see the difference.

Re:Items of note (1)

junglee_iitk (651040) | more than 5 years ago | (#25995759)

Well the pun was on your last line. As I said, I have never seriously used OS X, so I won't know particular problems on it, but otherwise, here on Windows and Linux, Opera is much much better when compared to Firefox or IE.

If only some one would port top 10 Firefox extensions to Opera...

Re:Items of note (1)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 5 years ago | (#25996223)

Now if only IE would fix their flat tires and get back in the race.

One could, if it were me, would say the same for OS X.

One could what?

Well the pun was on your last line.

Maybe I'm obtuse. I still don't get it. I didn't say anything about someone could anything and I don't see a double meaning for a word if you're trying to make a pun (as you say). Would you mind explaining?

Re:Items of note (1)

Phroggy (441) | more than 5 years ago | (#25995729)

Now if only IE would fix their flat tires and get back in the race.

IE is definitely back in the race, but they have some catching up to do. When it's released, IE8 should be a pretty decent browser, by last year's standards. It passes Acid2 and everything.

Re:Items of note (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25996981)

It's nice to see Opera is still in the game and trying, but it feels like they're still falling behind in the new, turbocharged browser race.

Hmm, well. Actually it slaughters Opera 9.6x in terms of performance, so it's definitely a step up, and still only the very first alpha.

CSS3 let-down (1)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 5 years ago | (#25994889)

No border-radius? *sniff*

Is it specified in some stupid way like Mozilla & Webkit do it?

Still no local storage (1, Interesting)

chrysalis (50680) | more than 5 years ago | (#25994967)

It looks like it still doesn't implement any kind of local storage.
  A feature that other browsers have for years, including IE since IE 5.5.

No big improvement in their Javascript engine either.

And Dragonfly is still way behind Firebug and Web Inspector.
Opera used to be great, it was ahead of time in the Mozilla Firebird days. But nowadays they seem to fall behing other browsers. Plus Opera is closed-source and there's even no NetBSD/OpenBSD/DragonflyBSD blob. Plus it used to be fast and light compared to other browsers, but according to recent stories published on /., it's now the opposite.

I was an Opera lover, but nowadays, I really see no point in using it over Firefox and Webkit.

Re:Still no local storage (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25995093)

but according to recent stories published on /.

Just keep moving somewhere else. Seriously, WTF nowadays to whine about love and switching? Do it like a man, silently.

Oh, please no, not "rich text" (2)

eddy (18759) | more than 5 years ago | (#25995039)

I hope that's something you have to explicitly enable, because I won't be upgrading if I'm forced into some horrible rich-text editor. I hate those. Colored text in different sizes, vertical bars instead of proper > quote indicators, and animated smileys, I crave these like I crave my penis falling off from leprosy.

Poor Firefox. (1)

chopper749 (574759) | more than 5 years ago | (#25995057)

The latest beta only gets 92/100. They'll never be able to catch up!

No Color Profiles (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25995257)

Something both Safari and Firefox 3.1 [mozilla.org] have by default
Here is the test [color.org]

Nested tabs please! (2, Interesting)

Twinbee (767046) | more than 5 years ago | (#25995511)

I love Opera more than any other browser out there and use it all the time, but wake me up when it starts to support nested tabs. There was a post by a Firefox user not so long ago who mentioned such an addon. People are rightfully raving about this time saving feature (and similar addons).

Tabs are grouped hierarchially according to where they are opened from in the form of a tree, but they can be expanded if need be. Tab names can be fully seen (instead of just graphical icons), and a whole branch may be closed (e.g. a site + its sub pages). A massive space saver when you are working with loads of sites.

I posted a message on the Opera forum. One can but hope:
http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=257296 [opera.com]

Re:Nested tabs please! (1)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 5 years ago | (#25995679)

I love Opera more than any other browser out there and use it all the time, but wake me up when it starts to support nested tabs.

Yeah, nested tabs are a great idea. Also, they should steal resizable text fields from Safari, man that's hard to lose when using other browsers.

Re:Nested tabs please! (1)

eddy (18759) | more than 5 years ago | (#25996091)

I requested pretty much that [opera.com] almost exactly five years ago. Most comments then showed that people really didn't get it. Maybe they're more mature now. Maybe I'm just bad at communicating my ideas.

Re:Nested tabs please! (1)

Twinbee (767046) | more than 5 years ago | (#25996235)

Interesting. Your idea is pretty much what I thought of before I came across this plugin.

The advantage this has over our idea is how any arbitrary tab could become a group. Opening a new link in a new tab would created a child tab under the current one. This does away with the hassle of manually grouping tabs (though the plugin I'm talking about will allow you to do that too).

Safari did it too! (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25995709)

Web-Kit is also the core for Safari. And it first passed Acid 3 Sept 25, 2008 in the nightly build of Safari.
http://webkit.org/blog/280/full-pass-of-acid-3/

Great feature only on solaris (1)

gerrysteele (927030) | more than 5 years ago | (#25995791)

$ bzip2 -dc opera* | tar vxf -
$ cd opera*
$ ./opera
Segmentation Fault

Alphatastic.

Very nice, but when is Opera Mobile coming out? (1)

klausner (92204) | more than 5 years ago | (#25995981)

When is Opera Mobile 9.5 coming out of Beta? Is Opera following the Google model of leaving things in permanent beta?

Re:Very nice, but when is Opera Mobile coming out? (1)

petehead (1041740) | more than 5 years ago | (#25996473)

Its comments like this that make me wish there was a +1 offtopic...

epiphany-webkit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25996035)

Is acing the acid3 something new? I've got a debian lenny laptop with epiphany-webkit that gets 100%.

acid test? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25996101)

Why is it called the ACID test?

ACID was originally used for databases: Atomicity, Consistency, Isolation, and Durability.

Hijacking the term for a browser test is just dumb.

Why keep going (1)

clamle (1403149) | more than 5 years ago | (#25996257)

I like Opera, but it seem like they are at the end of an endless battle with the bigger browsers. I think they should try to team up with firefox somehow to help capture more of the market from IE. I'm sure they could do more damage

KDE integration? (1)

gamemank (1022407) | more than 5 years ago | (#25996655)

I used to use Opera for several years, but switched to a mix of Konqueror for most web browsing, Firefox for gmail and other broken sites and KMail for other mail because Opera just didn't fit in well with the rest of the desktop and my applications. You could tweak the look some with skins, but I could never get it to use my Qt style. At the time I was also using the OS-X-like menu bar which Opera wouldn't use, and there were some other annoyances. Since Opera uses Qt I would think it would be a great browser for KDE, but so far that hasn't been the case. Any improvements here?

But does it work with Hotmail? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25996699)

Opera 9 doesn't since Microsoft's recent rework.

Acid3 != Standards Compliance (5, Interesting)

TodLiebeck (633704) | more than 5 years ago | (#25996873)

Just tried it out, and of course it passes ACID3 as advertised. I still can't recommend this browser on the grounds that it can't correctly render absolutely positioned CSS elements, as demonstrated by the following code:


<!DOCTYPE html
          PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
          "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">

<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en">
  <head>
    <title>Resize your browser with the vertical handle!</title>
  </head>
  <body>
  <div style="position:absolute;left:20px;right:20px;top:20px;bottom:20px;background-color:lime;">
  <div style="position:absolute;left:20px;right:20px;top:20px;bottom:20px;background-color:red;">
  </div>
  </div>
  </body>
</html>

Hosted version of the above:
http://echo.nextapp.com/content/test/operacss/ [nextapp.com]

Opera 9.50, 9.60, and now 10.0alpha will not render the above properly if the browser is resized vertically. (9.27 and prior work perfectly) On the initial render, 9.5/9.6 and 10 do fine, but the moment one resizes the browser vertically (and NOT horizontally as well), things go awry. I reported this to their bug tracker six months ago, and posted a thread on their forums 2.5 months ago: http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=250572 [opera.com] Have also mentioned it in their 9.6-about-to-be-released-post-non-working-sites thread.

This bug has additional consequences for AJAX applications that make use of on-screen measuring using offsetWidth/offsetHeight information. In such cases, even the initial rendering can be seriously flawed as offsetHeight returns incorrect values. (Note: offsetXXX properties are not part of a proper W3c standard, but are universally supported).

Apologize for the quasi-rant, but I just don't want to see another bug report about how our applications don't look right in a supposedly ACID3 compliant browser, thus indicating that the problem "MUST" be our fault. Please realize that passing ACID3, while a neat accomplishment and generally good thing, is far from a guarantee of standards compliance.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>