Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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 Benchmarked and Evaluated

CmdrTaco posted more than 5 years ago | from the faster-is-better dept.

277

CNETNate writes "Dial-up connections and flaky Wi-Fi are made significantly more tolerable with Opera 10, it seems. After yesterdays news that Opera 10's first beta had landed, some testing was in order. One major new feature is Opera Turbo — server-side compression — which shrinks pages before sending them down your browser. With a 100Mbps connection throttled to a laughable 50Kbps, Opera 10 proved itself to outperform every other desktop browser on the planet, and there are graphs to prove it. Javascript benchmarks put the new browser in fourth place overall, after Chrome 2, Safari 4 and Firefox, but it indeed passes the Acid3 test with a perfect score. If you ever use a laptop on public Wi-Fi, to not have Opera 10 installed could be a big mistake"

cancel ×

277 comments

first (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28208035)

first

Re:first (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28209147)

-1 wanker

Nobody gives a shit (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28208041)

About Opera. Seriously.

Re:Nobody gives a shit (-1, Troll)

Jurily (900488) | more than 5 years ago | (#28208313)

After the demise of KDE, Opera is our example of a Qt application done right.

Re:Nobody gives a shit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28208357)

Actually it's more of an example of an application nobody uses and that Chrome has already surpassed. They should just work on something else.

Re:Nobody gives a shit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28208405)

>and that Chrome has already passed.

Fixed that for you.

Re:Nobody gives a shit (0)

elcid73 (599126) | more than 5 years ago | (#28208811)

A bespoke, custom made, tailored suit is only worn by one person- but I'd rather have that than some Men's Wearhouse off the rack number.

...if you're thinking about FF extensions at this point, you're not getting the metaphor, so I would add:
"A bespoke, custom made, tailored suit is only worn by one person- but I'd rather have that than some Men's Wearhouse off the rack number, ...or have to learn and build a suit myself"

Re:Nobody gives a shit (2, Insightful)

parlancex (1322105) | more than 5 years ago | (#28209631)

As someone who uses Opera, Chrome is inferior in many ways and I would never be willing to switch unless they are able to fill some serious gaps in features and efficiency (which yes, believe or not is not only based on your javascript score!). If you don't need an efficient browser with the fastest network and UI performance and low resource consumption, and lowest reported vulnerabilities, feel free to continue using whatever you're using, but please also remove yourself from this comment thread.

Re:Nobody gives a shit (1)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 5 years ago | (#28209711)

"fastest network and UI performance and low resource consumption, and lowest reported vulnerabilities"...

That sounds like Lynx..

Re:Nobody gives a shit (4, Informative)

sznupi (719324) | more than 5 years ago | (#28209161)

Opera uses its own UI toolkit. Qt is only used in things like file selector in Linux version.

Re:Nobody gives a shit (4, Interesting)

SausageOfDoom (930370) | more than 5 years ago | (#28208613)

Well with the bandwidth bill they'll have after this little venture, I don't think you'll have to worry about them for too long.

How to get turbo browsing with free software (5, Interesting)

Ed Avis (5917) | more than 5 years ago | (#28208071)

Back when my net connection was a 56kb/s modem, I used to make an ssh connection (with compression) to a machine at university, and then tunnel through that to the university's http proxy server. That gave a handy speed increase compared to making http requests directly over the modem link. You could also try the RabbIT [sourceforge.net] compressing web proxy. All this relies on having a server somewhere with a fast net connection that you can run programs on - and this is the service that Opera Software are really providing.

Re:How to get turbo browsing with free software (1)

whyloginwhysubscribe (993688) | more than 5 years ago | (#28208267)

I didn't realise that was possible! Thanks for a great tip! In putty you can enable it in Connection->SSH - I do a lot of work over modems, so this is very useful...

Phenomenal browser (4, Insightful)

Jarlsberg (643324) | more than 5 years ago | (#28208127)

Opera is a phenomenal browser. Seriously, they keep churning out useful features for their browser, and it's a pleasure to use. It definitely feels faster than the other major browsers, though they're all pretty good nowadays.

Re:Phenomenal browser (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28208337)

[T]he other major browsers [are] all pretty good nowadays.

Largely because they've copied features originally introduced in Opera.

Re:Phenomenal browser (1)

mcvos (645701) | more than 5 years ago | (#28209283)

Opera isn't really ahead of the curve anymore, but for a long time it was the only browser that could handle my browsing habits.

Re:Phenomenal browser (1)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 5 years ago | (#28209739)

So opera forced other browsers to keep up, and those browsers forced opera to improve too...
No competition = stagnation = IE6...

Re:Phenomenal browser (4, Informative)

Racemaniac (1099281) | more than 5 years ago | (#28208345)

i've been using opera for quite a while, and i agree that it is an awesome browser.

the main problem however is that it's got bad compatibility with lots of sites. not really their problem, just that many sites don't bother to make sure everything works with opera.

besides obvious things like online banking, and microsoft junk, i've since a few weeks been having problems on facebook. lots of things suddenly stopped working, and it's seriously annoying....

Re:Phenomenal browser (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28208905)

Facebook constantly introduces new compatibility problems to Opera where there were none before, yet they're listed as a mirror when you download Opera. Weird.

Re:Phenomenal browser (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28209583)

Name me a worthwhile site that doesn't render correctly.

Re:Phenomenal browser (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28209721)

Re:Phenomenal browser (1)

Jurily (900488) | more than 5 years ago | (#28208353)

It definitely feels faster than the other major browsers, though they're all pretty good nowadays.

It uses native widgets. You hear me, Chrome and Firefox?!

Re:Phenomenal browser (1)

Shoe Puppet (1557239) | more than 5 years ago | (#28208651)

It uses native widgets. You hear me, Chrome and Firefox?!

No, it uses Qt.

Re:Phenomenal browser (1)

diskis (221264) | more than 5 years ago | (#28208771)

Opera widgets == Firefox extensions.
Refer to Qt as a toolkit and not as a widget set to lessen the confusion :)

Re:Phenomenal browser (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 5 years ago | (#28209125)

Opera uses Qt practically only for functionalities like file selector in Linux version. It really uses its own UI toolkit.

Re:Phenomenal browser (1)

Abcd1234 (188840) | more than 5 years ago | (#28208745)

You mean like the native widgets Firefox supports as of version 3?

Re:Phenomenal browser (1)

rishistar (662278) | more than 5 years ago | (#28208443)

I totally agree with this - in fact I started using Opera at version 5 and even paid for it. The BIG feature that made it brilliant above the competition in the year 2000 was the fact that with a single key press image downloads could be turned off, which really really helped when using the Caribbean dial up connection I had to use at the time.

Re:Phenomenal browser (1)

richlv (778496) | more than 5 years ago | (#28208701)

at home i'm using crappy gprs connection (no edge, no thing), which isn't even running at full plain gprs speed.
web is only somewhat usable with opera.
i have default set to use cached images only. if i come to an image i'd like to see, i can either right click and load it, or enable images temporarily (there's no need to refresh the page, opera just downloads the images). then i switch back to cached mode, and downloaded images are nicely used from that point on whenever i visit the same page :)

Re:Phenomenal browser (5, Informative)

sznupi (719324) | more than 5 years ago | (#28208531)

...It definitely feels faster than the other major browsers...

Especially since it remains fully responsive with much bigger number of open tabs than other browsers. So...you just open interesting pages in new tabs by middleclick where they load without locking the UI (Opera is quite multithreaded AFAIK) and wait, ready, for you (yeah, in that light I'm not that interested in Opera Turbo feature...perhaps when I'll be on 3G)

Plus it has several properly implemented ways of navigating said large number of tabs tabs (you don't have scroll tabbar or "window" menu, sidebar has treeview, and..."hold down RMB and, without releasing, move scrollwheel"), and also full keyboard navigation.

Squid + Gzip (4, Informative)

Albanach (527650) | more than 5 years ago | (#28208249)

Given this is server side technology, I presume it's not part of the opera web browser. Sounds like they're using a proxy server with gzip added. There's a beta stage patch for squid to allow you to do that yourself http://devel.squid-cache.org/projects.html#gzip [squid-cache.org]

Re:Squid + Gzip (2, Informative)

sznupi (719324) | more than 5 years ago | (#28208425)

They're definitely doing more, for example image recompression (perhaps using better at low quality setting format than jpeg, like jpeg2000, for example?)

Re:Squid + Gzip (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28208513)

So, porn is faster but more blurry and blocky?

Re:Squid + Gzip (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 5 years ago | (#28208561)

Well, if they're using different, better, image compression format like jpeg2000 than perhaps more blurry, but not more blocky ;p

But essentially - yeah.

Remember that you can always turn off Turbo feature with one click if you don't see enough details...

Re:Squid + Gzip (2, Informative)

TheP4st (1164315) | more than 5 years ago | (#28208499)

More specifically what it does is resizing images and disables a lot of plugin content that otherwise would slow the page loading to a crawl on a slow connections. This of course is done on a proxy server as you correctly assumed. Granted you end up with somewhat pixelated images and plugin content that you have to "activate" by clicking. While this is not of much interest to most of us here there is also a very big share of people that certainly can benefit from it.

Re:Squid + Gzip (1)

Burdell (228580) | more than 5 years ago | (#28208583)

This is nothing new; it sounds like the same thing the "download accelerators" have been doing for years. My ISP has been offering Propel [propel.com] for almost 5 years. The only difference is that now a browser vendor gets to collect stats about your web use.

Re:Squid + Gzip (2, Interesting)

IBBoard (1128019) | more than 5 years ago | (#28209063)

Yeah, from one of their pages [opera.com] it is basically a proxy server with added compression (not just GZip since a lot of servers can deflate content anyway).

Since it isn't part of the Opera browser but is actually an Opera-run server, I wonder how long it'll take for someone to write a Firefox extension that piggy-backs on to those servers and gets the speed increase itself? :D

Ugly. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28208255)

Words cannot describe how ugly this is on OS X. The purple colour (a colour option picked up from an earlier version) clashes with the grey of any other window, that can be changed though. The black is overbearing and doesnt meld with the title bar. The whole thing stands out like a sore thumb. I somehow feel like the chrome looks like a webpage, rather than something for browsing web pages.

I cannot believe someone who created the Firefox icon could create something so hideous and inappropriate, especially when Opera marketshare is bad enough already. I could not bear to look at this all day, every day, it would drive me mad.

A browser should be transparent, a thin veneer between me and the web page. Not a clown honking his horn in my face.

I went into preferences and changed to the Mac "native" theme and no particular colour, mildly improved, but still the black is overpowering, the new-tab button is the wrong colour, and the side pane has a tinge of blue that doesnt work well with the OS X grey. The tab touching the title bar also just looks poor and conflicting.

This is the same terrible interface design they've had since 2006. It's goudy, non-native, clashes with the websites you view, and generally gets in the way, the toolkit underneath still rears it's ugly head in how the app works, and the general layout of the widgets. The dialogues throughout the app crap all over the spacing guides in the HIG. Every inch of this app is annoying and grates on me. I'm not an interface elitist or an apple fanboy, but I can't use software that gets on my nerves and Opera and Vista occupy the top two slots for that.

The browser is eclectic, with too many preferences, too complicated preferences, too many customisation options. Features not everybody needs, or wants.

Re:Ugly. (5, Insightful)

moronoxyd (1000371) | more than 5 years ago | (#28208721)

The browser is eclectic, with too many preferences, too complicated preferences, too many customisation options. Features not everybody needs, or wants.

I'd rather have a browser that provides functionality that I do not (yet) need than a browser that's slimmed down so much it doesn't offer functionality that I do need.

If you don't like Opera -- fine, don't use it.
But please remember that not all people are like you, and some may like, want or even need what you despise.
If we would only write software with features that everybody or at least a majority of people would need, we wouldn't have any progress.

Re:Ugly. (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 5 years ago | (#28209099)

No, "user" software should be slim and have only basic functions. Extra functionalities should come in form of plugins/extensions, so everyone can choose and install what they want, according to their needs and PC resources.

Re:Ugly. (2, Insightful)

MrHanky (141717) | more than 5 years ago | (#28209633)

Who made you king of software? Users may use whatever available software they choose to. You can fuck off.

Re:Ugly. (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28208845)

Quit being a fag, no one cares about your monochromatic mac bullshit. If it is so hideous then just shut the fuck up and don't use it. No one cares. The rest of the world who actually gets work done will use what functions and what we like while you can keep sitting in starbucks with your pirated little version of Photoshop drawing penises.

Re:Ugly. (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 5 years ago | (#28208977)

Yeah, the rest of the world actually gets work done without using Opera.

Re:Ugly. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28209081)

Yeah, I have never understood what their deal is with the look and feel. This isn't helped by the fact that they're still using the ancient Qt3.

Opera feels foreign on every platform.

Re:Ugly. (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28209205)

How to tell if you have SPS (Small Penis Syndrom): Read parent post

Re:Ugly. (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28209223)

Too many features, and it's not pretty enough.

Typical Mac user.

Re:Ugly. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28209293)

Calm down. This is the first beta of Opera 10. Fixing look and feel stuff usually comes near the end.

Re:Ugly. (1)

Millennium (2451) | more than 5 years ago | (#28209607)

I'm not an interface elitist or an apple fanboy, but I can't use software that gets on my nerves and Opera and Vista occupy the top two slots for that.

Sounds like an interface elitist to me. Possibly even an Apple fanboy, if you insist on "native widgets" instead of controls that are actually suited to a Web environment (for example, by responding to styling). Users of other platforms conceded the necessity of this long ago; only the Apple zealots hold out against it, and they hurt the Web by doing so.

Well that's BS (1, Funny)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | more than 5 years ago | (#28208273)

This [isc.org] outperforms every browser on the planet, especially over dialup or flaky wifi. As for the Acid3 test, it passes provided you squint hard enough.

I don't browse the web (4, Funny)

jsnipy (913480) | more than 5 years ago | (#28208281)

"I don't browse the web often, but when I do I ... prefer to use Opera" -the most interesting man

Re:I don't browse the web (2, Funny)

Gothmolly (148874) | more than 5 years ago | (#28208461)

Stay browsy, my friends.

Now test HTTPS performance (1)

El_Muerte_TDS (592157) | more than 5 years ago | (#28208299)

How well does Opera Turbo work with sites that use secure connections?

Re:Now test HTTPS performance (4, Informative)

alta (1263) | more than 5 years ago | (#28208537)

They say in their specs they do NOT compress https at all.
Those are encrypted pages you're requesting, which jumbles up the data. Jumbled data does NOT compress well at all. Plus, they're 'secure.' You don't want someone else handling your secure files.

Re:Now test HTTPS performance (1)

TheP4st (1164315) | more than 5 years ago | (#28208773)

It don't, so https traffic will not be loaded through the proxy instead it will be loaded in the normal way. The same goes for intranet pages.

Does not work with Fortigate web interface (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28208307)

Opera does not work with the Fortigate Firewall's web interface which made me switch to FF. I had logged a bug when 9.x came out. Tried the 10 and it still does not.

Re:Does not work with Fortigate web interface (4, Informative)

TheCRAIGGERS (909877) | more than 5 years ago | (#28208435)

I don't use Opera myself, but as far as I'm concerned, if Opera passes ACID, the problem is with your firewall's web interface. It's not Opera's fault your software is non compliant.

Re:Does not work with Fortigate web interface (2, Insightful)

sed quid in infernos (1167989) | more than 5 years ago | (#28208937)

Fault is essentially irrelevant to anyone who has already purchased this firewall.

Re:Does not work with Fortigate web interface (1)

parlancex (1322105) | more than 5 years ago | (#28209717)

It may be irrelevant to the discussion of which browser best suits that organization's needs, but it isn't irrelevant to the discussion of which browser is best period.

Re:Does not work with Fortigate web interface (1)

TheP4st (1164315) | more than 5 years ago | (#28208943)

Tried the 10 and it still does not.

Well, duh.. it's not like a bug preventing the Web interface on x brand of corporate firewall to display is going to get high priority. Besides if the web interface fails I rather blame the coding of the interface then the browser, to write html that works in all modern browsers is significantly easier than to write a rendering engine that interprets fugly IE6 hacks "correctly"

Turbo looks buggy (1, Interesting)

paziek (1329929) | more than 5 years ago | (#28208349)

I'm using it since yesterday, and I had to disable Turbo mode, since all images were looking like crap, flash sometimes didn't work, some sites never finished loading (stopped at for example 18 element of out 25).
But I guess that for dial-up (people still use that? @_@) or crappy Wi-Fi it might be good.

Re:Turbo looks buggy (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28208453)

I'm using it since yesterday, and I had to disable Turbo mode, since all images were looking like crap, flash sometimes didn't work, some sites never finished loading (stopped at for example 18 element of out 25).
But I guess that for dial-up (people still use that? @_@) or crappy Wi-Fi it might be good.

Umm, perhaps you should take a look at what Turbo's intended usage is for.

Re:Turbo looks buggy (3, Funny)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#28208567)

I'm using it since yesterday, and I had to disable Turbo mode,

I, too, had to disable Turbo mode. I found that I couldn't play some games with it enabled.

But, damn, 12 Mhz is FAST!

Re:Turbo looks buggy (1)

eulernet (1132389) | more than 5 years ago | (#28208865)

If you want to browse anonymously, Opera+Tor gives OperaTor http://archetwist.com/opera/operator [archetwist.com]

You'll be able to experience dial-up nowadays.

OperaTor is super slow, mostly because Tor is slow, and also because ads are frequently bigger than the pages themselves.

Re:Turbo looks buggy (1)

lhoguin (1422973) | more than 5 years ago | (#28208889)

All images look like crap because of the recompression. I can only assume that they will fine-tune the compression during the beta stage based on people's input. I didn't try it on flash but it's understandable that there might be a few problems there. While the technology has been widely tested for mobile browsers (Opera Mini), it hasn't for desktop usage yet. For everything that doesn't work on Opera Mini (like Flash) problems are to be expected.

Now here's the interesting part, and I really wish they will allow this. Take your favorite heavy website (Slashdot for example). Enable Turbo and it'll load pages 2 to 3 times faster. That's pretty nice considering how long it can take to load some of the pages sometimes. You don't really lose anything from the compression, Slashdot is 99% text. So having Turbo enabled on that kind of site would be a big improvement, even on a desktop with DSL. Unfortunately they don't allow per-site settings yet, so you can't enable Turbo only on Slashdot. But if they add per-site configuration, then all those and only those annoyingly slow and heavy websites would take 2 to 3 times less time to load for Opera users. I certainly hope they will.

That's wonderful... (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28208365)

...and as soon as Opera has anything that compares to NoScript, I'll be all over it!

Unfortunately, their solution of "F12 then allow certain types of content" isn't NEARLY as good, because you can't allow scripts granularly -by origin- for each page. The F12 solution is "all or nothing" in comparison, which I am not willing to live with having used NoScript for years.

Re:That's wonderful... (1)

KiwiRed (598427) | more than 5 years ago | (#28208507)

That's curious; I use Opera over FF because NoScript is too hard to configure for a site compared to Opera's equivalent, for my taste at least.

Re:That's wonderful... (1)

Actually, I do RTFA (1058596) | more than 5 years ago | (#28209579)

you can't allow scripts granularly -by origin- for each page.

I find blocking scripts by origin globally to be sufficent. If I don't want your crappy ad scripts on one page, why would I want it on another? That, combined with Opera's block scripts on the site I'm looknig at, combine nicely.

Thing opera geeks read /.? (1)

alta (1263) | more than 5 years ago | (#28208469)

Re:Thing opera geeks read /.? (1)

kitzkar (980045) | more than 5 years ago | (#28209555)

Sure they do! They even have their own little shortcut. Just type /. in the address bar and it leads to slashdot

Turbo browsing? (2, Insightful)

holiggan (522846) | more than 5 years ago | (#28208485)

I love Opera and have been using it since version 3 or something :)

But about the "new" Turbo thingy... isn't this basically the kind of thing that those dial-up "accelerators" did? Like compressing pictures and stuff? Because when I activate Turbo on Opera, the quality on image files degrades quite a bit, so I don't know if this actually much diferent from those "accelerators" of old age :)

Re:Turbo browsing? (1)

raynet (51803) | more than 5 years ago | (#28208935)

It basicly is the same thing, just that the accelerating and recompressing proxy is hosted by Opera and works even if your ISP doesn't offer similar service.

Opera is free-as-in-beer, BTW (4, Interesting)

noidentity (188756) | more than 5 years ago | (#28208495)

For some reason I thought Opera was a pay browser (or had ads or something making it not free-as-in-beer). Yesterday I happened to visit their page and apparently it's offered without charge for desktop platforms (and without source code, of course). Ironically, it's the only browser that still supports the older Mac OS X 10.3.9; Apple's own Safari hasn't for years, and Firefox 3.x doesn't either.

Re:Opera is free-as-in-beer, BTW (1)

Delkster (820935) | more than 5 years ago | (#28208621)

For some reason I thought Opera was a pay browser (or had ads or something making it not free-as-in-beer).

It used to be that way years ago. You could either pay or watch ads. I think that was changed somewhere around version 8.x or so, though.

Re:Opera is free-as-in-beer, BTW (1)

imakemusic (1164993) | more than 5 years ago | (#28208643)

Opera has been free for the best part of a decade now. Before that it had an ad which you could pay to remove.

Re:Opera is free-as-in-beer, BTW (5, Insightful)

kextyn (961845) | more than 5 years ago | (#28209165)

Opera has only been ad free since 2005. Back when it had ads it was definately worth the $30 or whatever for the full version. Just look at the competition (or lack thereof) it had during those years. I started using it back in the v5 days and refuse to give it up.

There is one thing that bugs me about this article though. They say Firefox is more customizable. The main reason I couldn't get used to Firefox (this was back in v1&2, dunno about 3) was because I couldn't customize the UI to look like what I was accustomed to without using poor quality addons. As far as I can tell Opera has always been more customizable "out of the box" than Firefox.

Re:Opera is free-as-in-beer, BTW (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28208825)

Irony has nothing to do with it. Please learn what the word actually means before it becomes the next Americanism of "done a 360" to change one's mind.

Re:Opera is free-as-in-beer, BTW (1)

IBBoard (1128019) | more than 5 years ago | (#28209135)

Camino still works on OS X 10.3.9. I've got the wife's old iBook and it's the best browser I can find. Not quite as good as Firefox, but most of the way there, plus it doesn't look ugly and out of place on not just one but all desktops!

Firefox just has too many useful addons (3, Insightful)

Octorian (14086) | more than 5 years ago | (#28208565)

Yeah, so much of my web browsing today depends on a number of Firefox add-ons that simply JFW for a variety of things. Opera could be the greatest browser on the planet, but without AdBlock Plus (no, a manually configured host-filtering hack is not equivalent) or GreaseMonkey, or any other FF extensions I occasionally find use for (FxIF, del.icio.us, TwitterFox, , I simply can't adopt it seriously.

Re:Firefox just has too many useful addons (1)

kobaz (107760) | more than 5 years ago | (#28208637)

I agree. If Opera had equivalents of Tab Mix Plus, Firebug, Liveheaders, Flashblock, and Adblock... I would switch.

Re:Firefox just has too many useful addons (1)

Octorian (14086) | more than 5 years ago | (#28208727)

I guess I spoke too soon on the GreaseMonkey bit:
How To : Greasemonkey in Opera [opera.com]

Re:Firefox just has too many useful addons (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 5 years ago | (#28208921)

Adblock - built in (check this post http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1256745&cid=28208737 [slashdot.org] )

Firebug - built in.

Flashblock - built in.

Tab Mix Plus - sorta built in, similarly to the above, only more (of course other browsers won't copy functionalities from Opera in the same way as they are implemented in Opera) - it has sligthly different ways of navigating tabs, also no need for scrolling in menu listing tabs (no matter how many), also treeview in sidebar, and..."hold down RMB and move scrollwheel"

I haven't heard about Liveheaders funcionality though; I guess it could be done with UserJS.

Re:Firefox just has too many useful addons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28209403)

Tab Mix Plus, Firebug, Liveheaders, Flashblock, and Adblock

GIYF.

Re:Firefox just has too many useful addons (1)

emocomputerjock (1099941) | more than 5 years ago | (#28208687)

I have to agree with this. I've been browsing for so long with NoScript and AdBlock that I can't go back. No one should have to endure purple monkeys and flashing balloon animations on their pages.

Re:Firefox just has too many useful addons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28208835)

You don't have to with Opera either. I haven't seen those in years now.

Re:Firefox just has too many useful addons (5, Insightful)

sznupi (719324) | more than 5 years ago | (#28208737)

Mehhh...in every thread about Opera those misconceptions.

Adblock - http://www.fanboy.co.nz/adblock/opera/ [fanboy.co.nz] that's basically the same list that Adblock addon uses. It certainly blocks everything just as well. And the functionality itself is built in, no messing around with plugins. According to my buddy who moved from FF to Opera, style file works slightly better at hiding empty spots. And, if something isn't blocked, you have a nice way of blocking this and similar elements through Opera UI.

GreaseMonkey - you do understand Opera pioneered also this functionality, right? Check UserJS (it is capable of running many GreaseMonkey scripts btw)

FxIF - built in. Didn't it ever occured to you to just right click on the frakking image and bring up properties?

del.icio.us, Twitter - something wrong with bookmarklets placed within one click, on navigation bar?

I guess the main problem of Opera is that people assume, because of beeing used to other apps, that there's now way it can pack so much in so little executable, so properly/speedy implemented.

Re:Firefox just has too many useful addons (1)

tnk1 (899206) | more than 5 years ago | (#28209239)

Actually, the main problem with Opera is compatibility with sites I use. It may or may not be Opera's fault, but it still means I have to open FFX or (shudder) IE to use them. If I have to open either of them to use one site, I almost would rather just use one of those.

People don't know about the add-ons/widgets and other features of Opera because they are called different things and people also assume they are FFX only. That's their fault, technically, but as you know, its not the consumer's job to change their mind about a product that works well for them.

On and BTW, I am posting this from Opera right now. It's too bad that it is having trouble with some of my sites I need to use for work, because I installed it in order to not have my browser take up 500MB of physical memory just to run a few tabs. In that regard, Opera is working much better than the gigantic memory hog that FFX has become.

I've installed and used Opera sporadically in the past. I've always wondered why it always ends up with such a small install base for a browser that actually works very well. I think they need better marketing (and to fix the compatibility problems).

Re:Firefox just has too many useful addons (3, Informative)

sznupi (719324) | more than 5 years ago | (#28209683)

The reason why some sites don't work well in Opera is that webdevs at your place still think in terms of browser monopoly, "we can just target IE", only they exchanged it for browser duopoly "we can just target IE and Gecko". I think it will improve though, with Webkit on the rise, which is similarly standards-compliant and nonstandards-intolerant to Opera. Yeah, a bit chicken and egg problem.

Once your part of the web becomes browser-agnostic, Opera will work great. Like it is here to a large degree; current stats:
  - Gecko 46.8%
  - IE 42.8%
  - Opera 8.4%
  - Webkit 2%

Even better in one neighbouring country, IMHO:
  - IE 41%
  - Opera 31.9%
  - Gecko 24.5%
  - Webkit 2.6%
And not because of much larger Opera usage; as you can see, they seem to go towards roughly equal usage share of all major engines (with Webkit/Chrome (no Macs here...) having also relatively more rapid uptake), of which I would be glad the most. Everybody could use the engine/browser they simply like more.

BTW, content-wise, my part of the web is rather poor so I usually browse through "IE & Gecko" dominated part...and it's already good IMHO (though that might have something to do with the kinds of sites I browse...)

Re:Firefox just has too many useful addons (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 5 years ago | (#28209481)

What about DownThemAll, NoScript, Brief and Vimperator? Maybe Opera can work for most people, but Firefox is still so much more adaptable...

Re:Firefox just has too many useful addons (1)

KDEWolf (972921) | more than 5 years ago | (#28208941)

Yeah, so much of my web browsing today depends on a number of Firefox add-ons that simply JFW for a variety of things. Opera could be the greatest browser on the planet, but without AdBlock Plus (no, a manually configured host-filtering hack is not equivalent) or GreaseMonkey, or any other FF extensions I occasionally find use for (FxIF, del.icio.us, TwitterFox, , I simply can't adopt it seriously.

You do need to read some more /. hehe:
You just don't need addons, it's right here for you to use! [slashdot.org]

Re:Firefox just has too many useful addons (1)

parlancex (1322105) | more than 5 years ago | (#28209761)

Consider that with increased peformance ads no longer have any measurable perfect on your browsing anyway, or perhaps consider many other robust ad-blocking software packages that work directly at the socket level, blocking connections to black-listed ad-serving servers below the browser.

Nice slashvertisment (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28208645)

I would try it out if it was open source.
I would perhaps consider it if it at least came with source code (even under a proprietary license).
Being accustomed to open-source, it seems very unnatural to pay for software and get no source code,
when the free equivalent comes with source.

Firefox is reasonable for my use.

Re:Nice slashvertisment (1)

Mystra_x64 (1108487) | more than 5 years ago | (#28208707)

Pay? You are trolling it seems.

The significance of Opera Turbo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28208717)

is not so much for using public WiFi. The big win of Opera Turbo is when you use your laptop tethered to a cell phone.

'turbo' (1)

SCHecklerX (229973) | more than 5 years ago | (#28208725)

so, the software somehow uses a gas or liquid turbine? I'm confused.

Evidence (1)

Saba (308071) | more than 5 years ago | (#28208809)

> Opera 10 proved itself to outperform every other desktop browser on the planet, and there are graphs to prove it.

Well damn, colour me impressed!

Imagine Hamlet utter: (1)

WaroDaBeast (1211048) | more than 5 years ago | (#28208851)

“To be or to not be, that is the question.”

Opera should get off the high horse (-1, Troll)

saikou (211301) | more than 5 years ago | (#28209353)

And get on a smaller horse, by making itself by default behave _exactly_ like Firefox (or IE) regarding those "non-standard-compliant-enough" sites.
Add "I want to browse Opera style" for those who prefers principles over ability to view most sites normally :)

Once it gains, say, 10% of the marketplace across most high-traffic sites, developers will bother to try to make their sites compatible with Opera too.

Otherwise it's like making a car that is great, user friendly, but can only drive on fully standard-compliant roads, causing horrible clunking and unpredictable turns and jumps on not-so-compliant roads (that won't be re-paved because other cars don't have many issues). Good for principles, bad for market share.

I remember when (1)

fast turtle (1118037) | more than 5 years ago | (#28209505)

I used to have a 33.6k dialup connection (that's all my modem did). What I ended up doing to speed up my web browsing and such was add as many of the damn advertiser websites into my hosts file. The advantages included never having to wait for a flaky doubleclick to respond, thus speeding up the page loading plus the obvious of never seeing the ads. The other trick I used to use was disable the loading of images and with IE I could at least get a placeholder to show where an image was. This really sped things up.

Opera test drive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28209529)

I've been using Opera 10 for about 24 hours now. It's smooth sailing. Everything works better than expected. My only complaint was one of my Opera Widgets stopped working, but maybe I just have to re-install it. Some sites that didn't work well in Opera before have been fixed.

My parents are still on dial-up (not their fault, there's no other service provided there) and I got them using it. The connection is 3-4 times faster in Opera 10 (when using Turbo) than in Opera 9 or Firefox 3. Some images get a little dulled in the Turbo transfer, but nothing serious.

Opera has been my main browser for a while now, but I always had to keep Firefox around for a few odd sites that didn't work 100% under Opera. Those days are over.

The new automatic spell-check in Opera is nice too, glad they caught up to Firefox in that arena.

This is great! (1)

HolyMackerelBatman! (1291838) | more than 5 years ago | (#28209675)

Hopefully the way things go will be something like this: The newest generation of browsers (Firefox 3.5, Safari 4, Opera 10) all leave beta. They all pass acid3 (Chrome almost) and are standards compliant. Web developers can't resist all the HTML5 & Javascript goodness and a few killer apps start to support compliant browsers only. IE dies overnight, cue celebration scene from Endor!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...