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 10.5 Pre-Alpha Is Out, and It's Fast

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the fat-lady-has-not-sung dept.

Opera 274

sgunhouse writes to let us know that, following a leaked internal build over the weekend, Opera Software has now released their official 10.5 pre-alpha. There are no Linux versions yet. And an anonymous reader adds, "Opera's 10.5 pre-alpha includes the Carakan JavaScript Engine. Benchmarks now show that Opera is competitive with Chrome, beating it in Sunspider and other tests. Safari, Firefox, and IE are all behind. This is still pre-alpha, so further speed gains should be expected."

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

complete whats new and opinions (4, Informative)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#30529384)

Complete What's new:

Carakan
Carakan is our new JavaScript engine. It’s fast, more than 7x faster in SunSpider than Opera 10.10 with Futhark on Windows (Mac optimization is not as far along). You can read more gritty details regarding register-based bytecode, automatic object classification and native code generation in the Opera Core blog.

Presto 2.5
We are now using Presto 2.5, which contains a huge numbers of improvements. It also includes support for CSS3 transitions and transforms, and more HTML5 features like persistent storage.

Vega
Vega is our new graphics library. It’s currently software based and displays everything you see on-screen. Vega can be hardware accelerated, but as you can see from the complex graphics benchmark in Peacekeeper, we don’t seem to need it yet. (Note that Futuremarks Peacekeeper test does no include the results of their complex graphics tests in the overall score. We believe this is wrong in 2009 and will simply be silly if not changed in 2010.)

Outside - Platform integration
On Windows 7/Vista, you will notice a lot of visual changes and use of APIs which allow the UI to display the Aero Glass effect. For Windows 7, we also added Aero Peek and Jump List support to easily access your Speed Dials, Tabs, etc. from the Taskbar.
For Mac, a complete rewrite in Cocoa brings an Unified Toolbar, native buttons and scrollbars, multi-touch gestures (try 3-Finger Swipe Left/Right or Pinch to zoom) and a bunch of other small details. We also added Growl notification support.

“Private tab” and “Private window”
You can open a new Private tab or Private window that forgets everything that happened on it once closed.

Non-modal dialogs
Dialog boxes (JavaScript alerts, HTTP authentication, etc.) are now non-modal and are displayed as a page overlay. This allows you to switch tabs or windows while the dialog is still displayed. Similarly, the Password Manager dialog is now anchored at the top of the page won’t block any content as it loads a new page.

Address field and Search field improvements
Both fields have been upgraded in looks and functionality. They can now remember searches, support removing items from history and show results in a better layout.

Opera just keeps getting better and better. It was in some Opera 10 beta that they improved the JS engine a lot, and now they've improved it over 7x again, along with the on-screen drawing. That's what I've always loved about Opera; UI responsivess and the smoothness of browsing (scrolling, mouse gestures) beats every other browser and everything is thighly packed in, so no need for clumsy addons which quality and speed differ a lot.

However, the preview [opera.com] images seem to have the Windows 7 like layout. I really hope this is just to show it off and it can be switched to normal - I like having my menubars easily accessible.

Re:complete whats new and opinions (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30529468)

*cough*KARMAWHORE*cough*

Sorry, had something in my throat. Did you have to go all the way to TFA to copy paste that? What, afraid opera.com can't handle a slashdotting? Fucking ridiculous.

Re:complete whats new and opinions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30529538)

Someone actually reads TFA?

Re:complete whats new and opinions (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 4 years ago | (#30529918)

Too many links to click... it's easier to scroll to the comments. Most of the time they have better information anyway. ;)

Re:complete whats new and opinions (0, Offtopic)

ShatteredArm (1123533) | more than 4 years ago | (#30530072)

If you hate karma whoring so much, why do you post anonymously? Worried about your karma?

Re:complete whats new and opinions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30530224)

Who cares? If you're logged in and your karma isn't already maxed out, you're probably a dick.

Re:complete whats new and opinions (1)

Errol backfiring (1280012) | more than 4 years ago | (#30529534)

Can you switch the HTML5 "features" like <a ping> and persistent storage off? When I read the HTML5 specifications, it seems to be mainly made for advertisers...

Re:complete whats new and opinions (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30530536)

is nice for advertisers, but it's a lot better for end-users. The current method of tracking clicks, involves Javascript "hacks" that can't be controlled by the client. Either you accept the tracking or you have to completly disable Javascript.
With the browser can offer the user a simple button to turn off the pinging.

Re:complete whats new and opinions (2, Interesting)

dunezone (899268) | more than 4 years ago | (#30530020)

Wheres the killer feature?

Firefox gained popularity because of Tab Browsing and being free. IE lacked Tab Browsing till 2006, and Opera was still Ad-Driven based by the time Firefox was first released in 2004.

I am not saying its a bad browser, but why should I switch over from Firefox? What does it have that Firefox doesn't and don't tell me obscure HTML 5 features that are not used yet or speed. Firefox is still pretty fast and acceptable.

Re:complete whats new and opinions (3, Insightful)

ShatteredArm (1123533) | more than 4 years ago | (#30530234)

I personally switched over a few years ago because, at the time, Opera was the only browser with built in speed dial, mouse gestures, email, RSS, etc. without any need for third party extensions with security vulnerabilities. Those were the killer features for me.

Re:complete whats new and opinions (1)

GooberToo (74388) | more than 4 years ago | (#30530488)

They might be killer features for other users too if you explain on what some of the buzzwords mean.

Re:complete whats new and opinions (0)

Kartoffel (30238) | more than 4 years ago | (#30530630)

Sounds like you're competing with Mozilla Navigator, not Firefox. If Opera comes out with a _web_browser_ without email, IRC and kitchen sink, yet with extensible addons like Firefox, then I'll consider it.

Re:complete whats new and opinions (5, Insightful)

ShatteredArm (1123533) | more than 4 years ago | (#30530698)

So, let me get this straight... You want Opera to compete with Firefox by stripping out features, and adding a feature that will allow users to install those former features, which are the same, except built by untrustworthy third party developers? I suppose if that's what you want, Opera is not for you.

Re:complete whats new and opinions (1)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 4 years ago | (#30530482)

I started using Opera before Firefox existed - long before it became trendy to switch from IE.

I'm not saying Firefox is a bad browser, but why should I switch over from Opera? Where's the killer feature?

(PS - Opera had tabbed browsing way earlier too, although it didn't use that terminology. And if you want an example of something Firefox still doesn't do, you don't have any flexibility over arranging the tabs, they always have to be full size, where as Opera allows you to resized the tabs, allowing you to view them side. Of course it's not a killer feature, but for heaven's sake, it's 2009 - browsers are mature, and no one browser is going to have a killer feature anymore.)

Re:complete whats new and opinions (4, Insightful)

HBoar (1642149) | more than 4 years ago | (#30530560)

I switched from FF when Opera 10 was in beta. I don't think there was any one killer feature, but it's UI responsiveness in linux was probably the main reason. At the time, it was a huge improvement over FF. I believe FF has improved a lot since then, but I'm sticking with opera due to a number of little things I like -- Speed dial, built in bookmark sync, built in (and fairly decent) email client, a "paste and go" option on the right click menu..... etc. None (or few) of the features are unique to opera, but they are packaged together in a browser that is very competitive in terms of speed under both linux and windows.

Re:complete whats new and opinions (2, Interesting)

Anders (395) | more than 4 years ago | (#30530668)

Wheres the killer feature?

For some reason, Opera does not have killer features (it had tabbed browsing for ages, and was ridiculed for its MDI UI). Features only become indispensable when someone else copies them.

Mouse gestures, vertical tabs, speed, no plugin conflicts, customization -- those are some advantages that I remember. These days I stick with Firefox because it's not too bad, and it's there by default. And RAM is cheap.

Re:complete whats new and opinions (1)

samkass (174571) | more than 4 years ago | (#30530102)

So the pre-alpha version of Opera is faster than the competition, but how does it compare against the pre-alpha versions of Safari, Firefox, and Chrome?

Re:complete whats new and opinions (0, Offtopic)

piquadratCH (749309) | more than 4 years ago | (#30530260)

It was in some Opera 10 beta that they improved the JS engine a lot, and now they've improved it over 7x again

Makes you wonder what those guys from pypy could do for Python if they got some proper funding [blogspot.com]

Re:complete whats new and opinions (1, Informative)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 4 years ago | (#30530722)

However, the preview [opera.com] images seem to have the Windows 7 like layout. I really hope this is just to show it off and it can be switched to normal - I like having my menubars easily accessible.

It's nothing new - they've had the option to hide the menu bar for God knows how long (since 7.x, I think? maybe even before that), it was just buried deep - it was an UI command with no key bound by default, so you had to bind it first. In 10.0, they've added the option to hide main menu to the menu itself. And in this build, they've made that setting the default, but you can, of course, change it back (and generally change the UI to look like it used to be).

Note though that menu is still accessible with mouse only - that Opera logo in top left corner, when clicked, shows all the items normally displayed on the main menu in a popup menu. In that, it's quite similar to Ribbon "pearl" button. So it's better than IE, where you have to use keyboard (Alt or F10) to activate the hidden menu.

About Opera's GUI (4, Informative)

thc4k (951561) | more than 4 years ago | (#30530824)

I love two things about Opera: One is integrated www, email and rss and the other is it that it's one of the most customizable software I've ever seen. You can change *every* keyboard/mouse/mouse-gesture setting and you can customize *every* ui element (and with a good menu to do so, too).

For software i spend hours each day using, like a browser, I think the most important thing is a good user interface - and there is no better one than the one you built yourself. But it kinda makes talking about the interface pointless - spend 10 minutes with it and it will look like (your personal version of) perfection.

Re:complete whats new and opinions (1)

richlv (778496) | more than 4 years ago | (#30530826)

Dialog boxes (JavaScript alerts, HTTP authentication, etc.) are now non-modal and are displayed as a page overlay.

woohoo. does that also include download dialogs ? excellent if it does, lame if it doesn't.

also, i'll use the chance to point out things i'm annoyed about opera (being opera user since version 3, 4 or so, exclusively).

1. inability to disable refresh for history httpd pages. my current major annoyance. i've set history mode to 3, i've explored every other history option - nothing helps. can somebody from opera software who reads this help me, finally ?

2. new one - i can't find out how to customise opera to be more useful :)
http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=302392 [opera.com]

3. a pretty old one - "reload every" functionality got silently regressed, and nobody really responded on why usability was so seriously fucked up on this one.
http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=225510 [opera.com]

other than these i'm a quite happy opera user for many years and i'm excited about performance improvements for sure.

I tried it out earlier (5, Insightful)

pwnies (1034518) | more than 4 years ago | (#30529440)

...and was quite impressed. Very snappy, a better UI, some very nice tab management capabilities (ability to tile tabs horizontall/vertically, not sure if this was in previous versions or not). However the one thing I was even happier about was their new vega library. If you didn't read over the summary, it's a new graphics library that they're using for 2d animation/rendering which has the capability of being hardware accelerated. If you've tried out the direct2d build of firefox, you'll know how nice this is. Pages animate and scroll so smooth you'd swear it was warm honey running down Kiera Knightly's body.

Re:I tried it out earlier (4, Funny)

rxmd (205533) | more than 4 years ago | (#30529550)

Pages animate and scroll so smooth you'd swear it was warm honey running down Kiera Knightly's body.

I'm sure your nice metaphor will appeal to the tech crowd here, but if you've ever try running warm honey down anything, body or otherwise, you'll realize it is not the metaphor you want to use if you want to describe smooth rendering behaviour on a computer screen :)

Re:I tried it out earlier (1)

tautog (46259) | more than 4 years ago | (#30530406)

It was lifted from a top gear episode.

http://www.jeremyclarkson.co.uk/jc-top-gear-quotes/ [jeremyclarkson.co.uk]

OP probably has never a) experienced warm honey doing anything or b) seen a female body, warm or otherwise.

Come on, either make up your own quips or at least attribute the most obscure ones...

Re:I tried it out earlier (0, Flamebait)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 4 years ago | (#30529646)

Mmmmmm, but can it be warm honey running down Brittany Murphy's body instead?

Nom nom nom.

Re:I tried it out earlier (2, Insightful)

pwnies (1034518) | more than 4 years ago | (#30529756)

Something tells me that'd be cold honey very quickly.

Re:I tried it out earlier (1)

ShatteredArm (1123533) | more than 4 years ago | (#30530168)

That's a morbid fetish you have, given that she's dead and whatnot.

Re:I tried it out earlier (2, Interesting)

Mystra_x64 (1108487) | more than 4 years ago | (#30529656)

Hardware acceleration is not enabled yet.

Re:I tried it out earlier (1)

Compuser (14899) | more than 4 years ago | (#30530090)

What do you mean by "ability to tile tabs vertically"? Did they finally add vertical tabs on the side of the window rather than on top? I am too lazy to install alpha releases so it would be nice to know from someone who has gone to the trouble.

And I agree with other comments: the first thing I think of when presented with an image of honey on skin is "sticky" not smooth.

Re:I tried it out earlier (1)

pwnies (1034518) | more than 4 years ago | (#30530320)

http://i.imgur.com/vvhxP.png [imgur.com] Here's what I'm referring to when I say tile. It allows you to show multiple tabs at once in the main rendering window. Quite nice for large, widescreen monitors.

Re:I tried it out earlier (2, Insightful)

ZERO1ZERO (948669) | more than 4 years ago | (#30530408)

Pretty surethis has been in Since about Opera 1. It was/is one of the features of Opera, having a full MDI interafce, where the tabs aren't just tabs, but actual windows that can be displayed together, resized, tiled, cascaded etc etc.

Re:I tried it out earlier (1)

ZERO1ZERO (948669) | more than 4 years ago | (#30530456)

Crap I just looked at the link, and ou seem to be right that 'tiling' is a new thing apparently ? Or maybe just a new way to display it?

Re:I tried it out earlier (2, Informative)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 4 years ago | (#30530758)

Tiling itself isn't new (Window -> Tile Horizontal/Vertical was there since 1.0), but in previous versions, when you tiled the windows, it worked precisely as in any other Win32 MDI application - you'd see two "child" windows, complete with title bar and other chrome, positioned one after another; if you then dragged the border of any window, only it would resize (possibly overlapping the other windows). Now, though, they've got rid of the child window chrome, and make it look more like a bunch of frames (or windows in a tiling window manager).

Re:I tried it out earlier (1)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 4 years ago | (#30530368)

Did they finally add vertical tabs on the side of the window rather than on top?

This was already in earlier versions. I use it in 10.10 in Linux.

Re:I tried it out earlier (1)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 4 years ago | (#30530544)

Indeed, in fact it's been in Opera for years, and probably the very first version that had "tabs", since they far more sensibly used standard OS features (e.g., MDI on Windows) rather than writing a custom windowing system.

Later on they also added their own custom windowing system ("tabs" rather than MDI or whatever), but I don't see the point. It was probably in response to criticisms that "tabs were better than MDI" from Firefox fans, but that makes no sense to me. Judging by the screenshots it looks like the latest change is doing this with their "tabs", but it seems like a waste of effort to reimplement what they already have.

It's fast but buggy (2, Informative)

mantis2009 (1557343) | more than 4 years ago | (#30529480)

I'm a regular Chrome user. I've tried Opera 10.5 pre-alpha for the last few hours, and I find it at least as snappy on my regular rounds of javascript heavy websites. I also really like the trend in browsers toward simple UI, with no real estate wasted on menubars. The new Opera looks almost as minimalistic as Chrome. Nice. However, be warned, this early build really is wonky. Lots of small errors and things that simply don't work. Don't uninstall your main browser just yet. But, I think you might be able to rely on this pre-alpha build of Opera as your (superfast) gmail client, and then have another browser open for your browsing needs.

MOD PARENT -1 REDUNDANT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30529928)

I'm a regular Chrome user. I've tried Opera 10.5 pre-alpha for the last few hours, and I find it at least as snappy on my regular rounds of javascript heavy websites. I also really like the trend in browsers toward simple UI, with no real estate wasted on menubars. The new Opera looks almost as minimalistic as Chrome. Nice. However, be warned, this early build really is wonky. Lots of small errors and things that simply don't work. Don't uninstall your main browser just yet.

I'm wondering WTF you thought "pre-alpha" means and why you felt a need to point any of this out.

Re:MOD PARENT -1 REDUNDANT (0)

mantis2009 (1557343) | more than 4 years ago | (#30530594)

There's no need for a reviewer of pre-alpha stuff to mention stability? Really? Even when the original post provides a download link but doesn't mention any problems with stability? And the OP doesn't define pre-alpha for the noobs? OK, anonymous coward, you have a nice time flaming out there.

finally. took em long enough... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30529518)

As the dead-last loser of all the sunspider tests I've ran recently on windows and linux,(hell, even IE*6* was just barely slower) it couldn't get much slower than Opera10. Have to take a peek finally.

Carakan is cross-platform (5, Insightful)

A Friendly Troll (1017492) | more than 4 years ago | (#30529544)

Carakan is cross-platform. That cannot be stressed enough. Since Opera is used on a *lot* of devices, from mobile phones, over fridges (!) and airplane entertainment centres, to the Wii, this is truly a major step forward for Opera.

Looking forward to the final release!

Re:Carakan is cross-platform (3, Interesting)

nschubach (922175) | more than 4 years ago | (#30529968)

With all these improvements to Javascript bytecode, how long will it be until it replaces conventional VMs? Should I even worry about learning Clojure (which I just started on) if Javascript bytecode is becoming fast enough to develop on?

</hypothetical hat>

Re:Carakan is cross-platform (1)

jamesswift (1184223) | more than 4 years ago | (#30530754)

Because Clojure's aim as a general purpose language is to help you leverage parallelism with no locks and minimal state.
Javascript is for something else entirely.

You might even write Clojure code to emit Javascript.

Re:Carakan is cross-platform (2, Insightful)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 4 years ago | (#30530772)

Regardless of performance of JavaScript VMs, JS itself is far from a perfect language. Too many quirks, and oftentimes too verbose syntax, especially when you compare it to the likes of Clojure or Ruby.

As well, regardless of any JS perf improvements, it's not going to beat a statically typed language. JVM is still faster, for example (once it loads).

Not Even Close To Chrome In Real World Usage (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30529588)

Like every other browser, the latest Opera doesn't come close to Chrome in real world usage for both general speed and specifically Javascript. It is funny though to watch every Browser developer other than Google falling over themselves to get their own cherry picked benchmarks for their niche fanbase to cling to.

Re:Not Even Close To Chrome In Real World Usage (3, Funny)

Mystra_x64 (1108487) | more than 4 years ago | (#30529706)

Your facts are astound... or wait you don't have any.

LOL! An Actual Opera Fanboy (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30529838)

Just check the clown's post history...

Re:LOL! An Actual Opera Fanboy (1)

Mystra_x64 (1108487) | more than 4 years ago | (#30529884)

You are even using "LOL", poor boy.

You Fucking Piece Of Shit (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30530730)

Get the fuck off this forum you fucking garbage. Every fucking browser story is littered with you fucking Opera losers and your piece of shit browser no one wants to hear about let alone actually use.

We really need to build a 'B Arc' to ship you fucking losers straight into the Sun along with Amiga freaks, Xbox fanboys, Slackware users, HD-DVD owners and every other Shit Platform the computing world just can't get rid of.

Re:You Fucking Piece Of Shit (3, Funny)

ShatteredArm (1123533) | more than 4 years ago | (#30530768)

Did an Opera user pick on you when you were a child or something?

Re:LOL! An Actual Opera Fanboy (1)

causality (777677) | more than 4 years ago | (#30529966)

Just check the clown's post history...

His/her history is quite irrelevant, but nice try at an ad-hominem there. Gp is correct; that AC did not provide any benchmarks, statistics, or other facts to back up the claim that was made about Opera performance vs. Chrome performance. Now, if GP really is a "fanboy" and you want to do something about that, how about some solid evidence for why Opera is inferior?

Note, I use neither Opera nor Chrome. I use Firefox. But this low-quality nonsense that passes for debate gets old.

Re:LOL! An Actual Opera Fanboy (1)

ShatteredArm (1123533) | more than 4 years ago | (#30530272)

The funny thing is, the OP used the phrase "every Browser developer other than Google," and we're talking about whether the poster who responded is a fanboy.

Re:LOL! An Actual Opera Fanboy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30530292)

Just check the clown's post history...

Hah, just check your own post history. Truly abysmal.

Re:Not Even Close To Chrome In Real World Usage (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 4 years ago | (#30529978)

True. Chrome is 28% faster at displaying ads.

Re:Not Even Close To Chrome In Real World Usage (1)

hkmwbz (531650) | more than 4 years ago | (#30530214)

It is funny though to watch every Browser developer other than Google falling over themselves to get their own cherry picked benchmarks for their niche fanbase to cling to.

Like the V8 benchmark, you mean? LOL.

Does it have Adblock? (3, Interesting)

MrMista_B (891430) | more than 4 years ago | (#30529618)

I hate to keep harping on this, because I hate Firefox, but I hate intrusive ads even more.

And by 'Adblock' I don't mean 'sorta like Adblock but not really', but something that straight-out duplicates the functionality, allowing be to block any element of any website anywhere, with nothing more than a right-click and perhaps a wildcard.

Please, someone save me from RAM slaying bloat of Firefox!

Re:Does it have Adblock? (1, Funny)

negRo_slim (636783) | more than 4 years ago | (#30529654)

Please, someone save me from RAM slaying bloat of Firefox!

I hear ya there bro, all these pristine gigs of DDR2 I have in my machine... It's so beautiful, would be a shame to dirty up all them bytes by loading something into it.

Re:Does it have Adblock? (2, Insightful)

daveime (1253762) | more than 4 years ago | (#30529772)

I hear ya bro, you've got 2 gigs, you might as well fill 350 megs with bytes to display about:blank.

Hang on though, which bytes are actually needed to display an EMPTY PAGE ?

Even considering he's storing the DOM which is basically a set of empty containers for js, document head, document body, css objects etc., why in fucks name does it take 350 meg ???

Re:Does it have Adblock? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30530526)

Support sites you like, keep their ads.

I mean, skip sites with obnoxious ads.

Re:Does it have Adblock? (4, Informative)

micksam7 (1026240) | more than 4 years ago | (#30529704)

Yes.

Right click, choose "Block content", then select elements on a page you'd like to have blocked. Flash, images, iframes, what have you.

May not be as complete as AdBlock, but it's certainly useful.

Re:Does it have Adblock? (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 4 years ago | (#30529740)

I think he was looking for more a preemptive block, not so much something you do after you've seen the ads already.

Kind of like a Shoryuken to web advertising's Hadouken.

Re:Does it have Adblock? (2, Informative)

moronoxyd (1000371) | more than 4 years ago | (#30529900)

I use an (older) version of AdSweep to get rid of more than 90% of the ads, and Opera's own block content function for the few things that still annoy me.
Yes, it's not quite AdBlock+, but close enough.

Re:Does it have Adblock? (2, Informative)

Icegryphon (715550) | more than 4 years ago | (#30529952)

Shoryuken will only get you so far, Most likely when you come down you are going to eat a Hadouken.
Prefered method would be a Tatsu-maki Senpuu-kyaku nowadays since you will go through any wave motion fist Shenanigans.

Re:Does it have Adblock? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30530180)

No but...

Right click, choose "Block content", then select elements on a page you'd like to have blocked. Flash, images, iframes, what have you.

May not be as complete as AdBlock, but it's certainly useful.

Fixed

Re:Does it have Adblock? (1)

benjamindees (441808) | more than 4 years ago | (#30529712)

Please, someone save me from RAM slaying bloat of Firefox!

Aside from a few sites (cough), I have never witnessed Firefox being anything but snappy and responsive on any OS with a reasonably-powered machine. How much RAM do you have?

Firefox on Linux always works well, and on Windows I've seen it use ~250 MB before, but that's fairly reasonable for the average Windows machine these days. I don't consider my machines to be particularly well-spec'd (a couple are nearly 10 years old), but I'm not trying to run Windows with only 256 MB of RAM either. What am I missing?

Re:Does it have Adblock? (2, Insightful)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 4 years ago | (#30529976)

You have fewer tabs open than most people?

Re:Does it have Adblock? (4, Informative)

mister_playboy (1474163) | more than 4 years ago | (#30529822)

Re:Does it have Adblock? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30530008)

I second this motion.

Re:Does it have Adblock? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30529852)

Opera has a built-in "Ad-block-like feature": Right-click on an empty area of the page, select the option to block content, click on your hated ad, ???, profit.

Also, there are several ad-block plug-in-ish software for Opera. Try this: http://www.fanboy.co.nz/adblock/opera/

Or just google "Opea adblock"

Alpha (1)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 4 years ago | (#30529642)

This is still pre-alpha, so further speed gains should be expected.

Isn't the opposite ussually the case? Alphas and betas are often a bit quicker than the final releases. I've always assumed it is an artifact of trying to tie off issues quickly right before release so maybe this isn't ussually the case with the Opera dev team?

Re:Alpha (1)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 4 years ago | (#30529720)

No, many features aren't fully implemented and there are shortcuts that avoid blocks of required code. This is why not all pages are rendering properly. Once these get fixed it will seem to slow down in order to fill all the requirements.

Re:Alpha (1)

hkmwbz (531650) | more than 4 years ago | (#30530356)

No, they won't slow it down in the final version because they actually optimize the code.

Re:Alpha (1)

ezelkow1 (693205) | more than 4 years ago | (#30529790)

This is what I assume as well. At this stage most of their logic is pretty sound and I dont think any of their engines are going to drastically change, however as they start adding more things running in the background things are going to start slowing down more. Generally you would think the major logic behind an app is done first then all the pretty things that slow it down and functionality that is bolted onto it is added later.

I remember this being the case with xp, tried out a beta on a 400mhz box with 128mb ram and it ran snappy and just fine. Final release comes around and it is definitely not the beta it once was.

Re:Alpha (2, Insightful)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 4 years ago | (#30530200)

Alpha's and Beta's also usually have debugging/trapping stuff in them so that users can more easily report problems, so there really isnt a general rule that alphas and betas are usually faster, or usually slower.

I'll say this tho.. I ran Opera 10 alpha for quite some time before the official release, and the official release was just as snappy.

Opera has always been snappy. It is arguably the best browser available and has always been a trend setter. They are playing a little bit of follow the leader this time, but they again seem to be doing it just as well if not better.

Re:Alpha (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 4 years ago | (#30530592)

Isn't the opposite ussually the case? Alphas and betas are often a bit quicker than the final releases.

I don't know what software you're using, but on any normal code, alphas/betas aren't quicker at all, simply because they often do not have asserts and other similar checks compiled out to assist in debugging, diagnosing crash reports, etc.

Re:Alpha (1)

hkmwbz (531650) | more than 4 years ago | (#30530614)

No, final releases are usually more optimized.

IPv6 (1)

nnet (20306) | more than 4 years ago | (#30529752)

Did they fix IPv6 functionality?

Private browsing! (2, Funny)

trickyrickb (910871) | more than 4 years ago | (#30529878)

The prayers of a thousand left handed mouses users have been answered.

Re:Private browsing! (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 4 years ago | (#30529934)

The prayers of the thousand left handed mouses users have been answered.

FTFY :)

...pre-alpha, further speed gains xpctd... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30529990)

The way it's going it might as well surpass in a couple months even native code... wow...

So what? (-1, Flamebait)

kellin (28417) | more than 4 years ago | (#30530030)

Its still Opera, and it probably still sucks.

At least they stopped trying to get money out of people for their craptastic browser. I think I tried like v 7 or 8, and couldnt believe how unpleasant it was to surf the net..

Re:So what? (1)

trickyrickb (910871) | more than 4 years ago | (#30530088)

Me too, it didn't even work with BonziBUDDY. Opera dev's are totally clueless

Re:So what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30530124)

Fast and secure... how unpleasant that must have been for you.

Re:So what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30530340)

Hey... 2006 called, they want your comment back.

Re:So what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30530424)

They're on 10 now. All you've demonstrated is that you've formulated your opinion with your head up your ass.

No Linux? :( (1)

Token_Internet_Girl (1131287) | more than 4 years ago | (#30530140)

[quote] There are no Linux versions yet [/quote] Those insensitive clods...

Dropping hard Qt requirement (Unix build) (1)

Sits (117492) | more than 4 years ago | (#30530166)

One of the comments makes it clear that Opera will no longer have to use Qt for the *nix build [opera.com] . Will this just mean better platform integration or more speed though?

Cool. (0, Troll)

AP31R0N (723649) | more than 4 years ago | (#30530208)

Is it FOSS?

Re:Cool. (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 4 years ago | (#30530782)

No, it's free but proprietary.

Lacking the best feature of 10 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30530312)

The ability to right click a link and drag down thus opening a link in a new tab. This no longer works. Where did it go?!

Pre Alpha?? (1)

AP31R0N (723649) | more than 4 years ago | (#30530326)

Beta is when you let outsiders test your product. Closed if you are controlling who and how many, open if you aren't.

Alpha is internal testing.

How could something that is alpha or "pre-alpha" be "out"? If it is out... it's should be called beta, or even public beta. If alpha is the first testing, how can there be anything before alpha?

This sounds like it should be called a public beta. Just because it's not on the schedule, doesn't make it less public.

Can i blame Google for causing the abuse of these terms?

Or have i been lied to about these terms ever having meaning?

Re:Pre Alpha?? (2, Informative)

Ksevio (865461) | more than 4 years ago | (#30530468)

Opera has sort of broken away from that traditional model since so many people like to try the latest versions. They usually release weekly builds and "pre-alphas" on their blog, betas and RCs on their beta download page (more public), and then the stable version. This one seems to have the title "pre-alpha" because it compiled, but not all the UI is complete, and a lot of things will crash it. Basically they haven't finished writing stuff and know some stuff doesn't work, so it's not even to the testing stage (which would be "alpha") or the large scale testing "beta".

Re:Pre Alpha?? (1)

AP31R0N (723649) | more than 4 years ago | (#30530508)

+1 Informative. Thanks. Gave you a point on the goldfish thread.

Re:Pre Alpha?? (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 4 years ago | (#30530660)

Beta is when you let outsiders test your product. Closed if you are controlling who and how many, open if you aren't.

Alpha is internal testing.

I've no idea where you've got those definitions from. The ones that I traditionally see being thrown around are:

Alpha - feature set not frozen, planned features may be missing, likely to have bugs; released to get feedback on new/changed features and new feature requests.

Beta - feature set frozen, likely to have bugs; released to get bug reports.

RC - feature set frozen, no known bugs except for those deemed non-release-critical and postponed for next release; if no more release-critical bugs found in a set period of time, this becomes release.

Now in practice, today, everyone is using "alpha" and "beta" essentially at random, and even "RC" can mean "beta" occasionally (heck, "release" can mean "beta" - see Vista; and it can even mean "alpha" - see KDE 4.0). But Opera guys actually use the terms in their traditional meaning: their alphas aren't feature-complete, their betas usually are, and their RCs tend to really be release candidates.

And they are dropping the Qt dependancy! (1)

grandmofftarkin (49366) | more than 4 years ago | (#30530332)

Re:And they are dropping the Qt dependancy! (1)

HBoar (1642149) | more than 4 years ago | (#30530734)

"We are also working on KDE integration as well but I don't have screens shots for you yet." Finally!!! I love Opera, but it does look like crap under KDE at the moment.

Where's the Linux Version? (1)

Kartoffel (30238) | more than 4 years ago | (#30530640)

This is Slashdot after all.

FAIL (2, Informative)

Lawrence_Bird (67278) | more than 4 years ago | (#30530796)

Fast? Really? Not. The acclaimed SunSpider test:

Opera 10.5 A fresh install:

Total: 4790.0ms +/- 0.2%

FIrefox 3.7a1pre20091222 (with extensions all enabled)

Total: 1928.0ms +/- 3.4%

and just for the heck of it

Opera 10.10

Total: 8887.6ms +/- 1.9%

is there some secret 'disable slow' preference in Opera I need to change?

Granted, this is on an old dual-cpu Athlon MP system so the absolute results are not comparable to anyone else but the relative results are - Opera Fails.

Rendering speed (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 4 years ago | (#30530804)

People seem to be focusing a lot on JS speed (often meaning specifically number crunching), but equally, if not more, important part is rendering speed, and DOM manipulation speed. And Opera has always been really, really good at that.

Now, I don't have hard numbers... but as an anecdote, consider that of all browsers that I've used, only Chrome and Opera (not just this alpha build, but 9.x and 10.x stable as well) are fast enough to not visibly lag while scrolling "Web 2.0" Slashdot discussions. Firefox, in particular, is slow, and IE is simply a non-starter.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?