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 10.50 Beta Out, With Competitive JavaScript

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the fat-lady-hasn't-sung dept.

The Internet 143

Opera has released its 10.5 beta (for Windows only; Linux and Mac coming). Opera calls 10.5 "the fastest browser on earth," but the jury is out on this claim. WebMonkey says that the new beta feels snappy in their informal testing. Both CNET and ZDNet ran two quick benchmarks that measure JavaScript performance, SunSpider and V8. ZDNet found Opera beating out Chrome in SunSpider but lagging in V8. CNET found Chrome ahead in both tests. What is clear however is that Opera's Carakan JavaScript engine has made up much of the ground in the performance wars; The Reg estimates that 10.5 is seven times faster in the JavaScript stakes than Opera's shipping 10.1 release.

cancel ×

143 comments

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

Yes Muskelaufbau play (-1, Offtopic)

Muskelaufbau (1744312) | more than 4 years ago | (#31120972)

Muskelaufbau Play bei http://www.pharmasports.de/ [pharmasports.de] das ist Game of Muskelaufbau.

tag plz (-1, Offtopic)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 4 years ago | (#31120996)

Tag article with: pleasedontfeedthetrolls, kthxbye. :\

goatfucker (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31121058)

goatfucker

lolwat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31121652)

shut up, tranny

Let's just ditch JavaScript. (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31121062)

Can we finally just ditch JavaScript for something better? Python, Ruby, or some dialect of Scheme would be much better. Hell, even Perl and Tcl would be a huge step in the right direction.

JavaScript started out as a quick hack over 15 years ago, and has unfortunately stuck around far longer than it should have. We can do better, and we should do better.

Opera, Google, Apple, Mozilla and the KDE project should team up on this goal, and make it happen. If Microsoft doesn't want to get with the times, then leave them behind.

Re:Let's just ditch JavaScript. (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 4 years ago | (#31121152)

That is silly, any language, whether it is action script or perl or c or whatever, that is embedded into a web page will have to be translated by the browser somehow or maybe compiled even into something resembling bytecode or maybe even native instruction set (unlikely, given the security problems around that.)

So who cares what language it is? Javascript is fine. I would not mind having other options but even then, you can always write in something else and then run through a translator from your language of choice into javascript.

Maybe what really SHOULD be done is that regardless of what the source code is, the HTML page would instead require some sort of base 64 encrypted byte code.

Now THAT would speed things up. But then you cross into the Java on the client realm I think. If the implementation was better, faster, then who really would mind?

Re:Let's just ditch JavaScript. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31121522)

Ah yes, base 64 encryption. Possibly the most secure form of encryption out there!

Re:Let's just ditch JavaScript. (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 4 years ago | (#31122068)

you are an idiot. I said base 64 so that binary bytecode could be transfered as part of an ascii page if necessary, that is all.

Re:Let's just ditch JavaScript. (4, Informative)

Lachlan Hunt (1021263) | more than 4 years ago | (#31122396)

roman_mir, It would have been clearer if you referred to it as base 64 *encoding*, rathern than encryption, since it has nothing to do with cryptography.

On an unrealted note, with regards to the V8 performance test, the reason Chrome's V8 engine works well with the V8 benchmark is because the tests themselves are bias towards the specific optimisations that the Chrome developers have chosen to include in their V8 engine.

Carakan, on the the other hand, has, for various reasons, been developed to optimise for different cases. There are trade-offs here which, as a result, affect the performance of Carakan in some of the tests included in the V8 performance test.

Disclaimer: I work for Opera the on Carakan team. I cannot go into specifics about what optimisations and trade-offs have been made.

Re:Let's just ditch JavaScript. (1)

Barsteward (969998) | more than 4 years ago | (#31125226)

Great job on opera. Its still the best. Only downside is that you don't release all beta versions at the same time. Its a pain when the linux version is the poor relation in release schedules.

Re:Let's just ditch JavaScript. (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 4 years ago | (#31121430)

for the record, IE also supports VBScript and PerlScript [xav.com] . Maybe you should spend more time with IE.

Re:Let's just ditch JavaScript. (2, Insightful)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | more than 4 years ago | (#31121544)

VBScript is nothing to tout as a positive. Certainly not as a potential replacement for Javascript.

Maybe you should spend more time with IE.

Please don't say that.

Re:Let's just ditch JavaScript. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31121580)

*cowers in shame* Yes, *sigh*, I did once write all of my client side browser code in vbscript. ... For clients .... That also used active X .... When Netscape was still relevant. I was young, naive and lacked a positive role model in my life.

*Raises head in pride* I met Larry wall. Well, not in person, but in spirit. So ... I switched to perlscript!! I had to stop that after a period of time because "the man" couldn't handle my poetic genius.

Re:Let's just ditch JavaScript. (1)

aztracker1 (702135) | more than 4 years ago | (#31122322)

I actually like JavaScript/JScript a lot. Back in the mid-late 90's I did a lot of my server-side code in JS (LiveWire/LiveScript or ASP). The only hard part was dealing with COM objects in JScript was kinda dirty (having to use the enumerator all the time). I honestly don't have a problem with the language. I think the biggest issues at hand are most developers don't know/understand javascript, or confuse the browser's DOM APIs (rendering quirks) and inconsistencies with language itself. Tooling is another issue, but there's been some improvements here as well.

Re:Let's just ditch JavaScript. (1)

Toonol (1057698) | more than 4 years ago | (#31122756)

I tend to agree. Javascript (and Actionscript) is a pretty pleasant language to work with. It's the terrible integration into browsers that is the problem.

If history had proceeded differently, and Netscape had incorporated Python instead of jscript, everybody would be whining about how terrible Python is.

Re:Let's just ditch JavaScript. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31124322)

in all fairness, python is terrible.

Re:Let's just ditch JavaScript. (2, Insightful)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 4 years ago | (#31121990)

JavaScript is a de facto standard supported by all browsers. Unseating it would be as hard as migrating from GIF to PNG. And, unlike GIF, it doesn't have any patent problems, and in general it's just "good enough". Furthermore, there's no clear single replacement - quite a lot of people are actually very happy with JS, but even of those who are not, some would promote Python, some Ruby, etc.

Don't fix what's not broken badly enough.

Re:Let's just ditch JavaScript. (1)

ChunderDownunder (709234) | more than 4 years ago | (#31122492)

but even of those who are not, some would promote Python, some Ruby, etc.

You say that like language diversity is a bad thing. HTML's SCRIPT [w3.org] tag has supported multiple languages for some time. The only problem being that the only alternative to JavaScript was something only IE supported.

Assuming some, if not all, of these new-fangled JS virtual machines, operated via an intermediate 'bytecode', support for multiple dynamic languages shouldn't be too hard if enthusiasts of Ruby, Python & others do the legwork.

Target the open source ones and too bad if your clients use Internet Explorer. It's a new decade; browser wars are so 1990s.

Re:Let's just ditch JavaScript. (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 4 years ago | (#31122616)

You say that like language diversity is a bad thing.

It is a bad thing when portability matters. In this case, language is part of the larger standard (HTML), so, yes, it is definitely bad. If I have to guess whether the end browser supports language X out of 20 various scripting languages in active use, or if browser writers have to support all 20, it's an epic fail of any standardization effort.

Assuming some, if not all, of these new-fangled JS virtual machines, operated via an intermediate 'bytecode', support for multiple dynamic languages shouldn't be too hard if enthusiasts of Ruby, Python & others do the legwork.

It's rather tricky to come up with a reasonably high-level bytecode that can be shared between all scripting languages. Their semantics are rather different.

On the other hand, you can say that JS is such a bytecode - after all, we already have Java compiler to JS (GWT), and I've seen prototypes of other similar things, too.

Re:Let's just ditch JavaScript. (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 4 years ago | (#31123790)

What is pyjamas?
pyjamas is a stand-alone python to javascript compiler, an AJAX framework / library and a Widget set API.

Re:Let's just ditch JavaScript. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31122082)

Javascript is actually quite a nice language, with object oriented concepts as well as functional concepts. And it doesn't have semantic whitespace...

Re:Let's just ditch JavaScript. (1)

aztracker1 (702135) | more than 4 years ago | (#31122282)

Perhaps you should give some inherit advantages that Python, Ruby or Scheme have over JavaScript? Since the newer JS engines are probably much faster than any Python or Ruby engine currently. The language itself (as of ES3) is pretty feature competitive, it's simply that most developers don't understand the language. And confuse the language itself with the API that the browser exposes. A crappy API will be crappy regardless of the language used to interface with that API, if not translated. PHP for example isn't a bad language (IMHO) but most of the exposed APIs are horrible in terms of use within the language in question.

Damn you are a shitty coder. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31122610)

A Whiney little language fanboy bitch who can't form a thought or read the fucking manual. Javascript is simple and works well. Now let's just ditch your lazy ass shit.

Funny you should mention Scheme... (2, Informative)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 4 years ago | (#31124676)

Python, Ruby, or some dialect of Scheme

"The key design principles within JavaScript are inherited from the Self and Scheme programming languages." [wikipedia.org]

Javascript is almost already a dialect of Scheme [schemewiki.org] . Are you sure you know Javascript as well as you think you do? What would you want from a Scheme Variant you do not have today?

I can't find the reference, but on a StackOverflow podcast it was stated by one of the initial designers that the syntax initially even was very much like Scheme, but at the last moment they wanted to have it use a Java style syntax instead..

Vega (4, Insightful)

pwnies (1034518) | more than 4 years ago | (#31121076)

I'm actually far more excited for VEGA (their new vector graphics lib) than the javascript update. Is having spiffy-fast js nice? Yea, but I think Vega is really where they're going to shine. It'll make transformations and other animations run far smoother in opera than any other browser (with the exception of firefox's direct2d experimental build that was released a while back). Kudos Opera, you're ahead of the game yet again.

Re:Vega (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31121154)

Yes, but wont those animations be controlled by javascript? Drawing them fast and *where* to draw them are both important...first being the accelerated graphics, second being programmatic control...javascript.

So, you should be double excited?

Re:Vega (2, Informative)

pwnies (1034518) | more than 4 years ago | (#31121252)

Possibly. Even under their older javascript library, the graphical draw was the bottleneck, not the JS. Think of it like upgrading a computer - sure the new processor is nice, but switching the cassette tape for a new ssd is going to be slightly more noticeable.

Re:Vega (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31121412)

What's VEGA used for - general rendering? SVG programming of some sort? Or <canvas>? And does anyone know of a good intro to general-purpose browser-based vector animation programming?

Re:Vega (3, Interesting)

pwnies (1034518) | more than 4 years ago | (#31121594)

It was originally targeted towards rendering svg files only. They needed something they could use to render them on their mobile releases, but they didn't find anything that cross-platform so they rolled their own. Eventually they added canvas support to it, and ultimately made it their primary rendering engine for all html elements in this release.

Re:Vega (0, Redundant)

cupantae (1304123) | more than 4 years ago | (#31122160)

VEGA has a girly voice, wears claws over his fists and climbs up the walls. What he's for is the enjoyment of seeing his mask and face bust in when you beat him.

Re:Vega (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31121712)

It'll make transformations and other animations run far smoother in opera than any other browser (with the exception of firefox's direct2d experimental build that was released a while back).

Except WebKit which has a similar engine (Safari, Chrome, AIR). VEGA and WebKit are GPU *capable*, but VEGA currently only runs on software. WebKit is GPU acclerated under OSX.

Re:Vega (1)

Radhruin (875377) | more than 4 years ago | (#31123152)

IE9 has hardware rendering as well, and it really makes a massive difference.

stop speeding up javascript (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31121100)

There is already a standard language for writing web pages and it's called HTML. JS was useful for getting some effects like rollover buttons that we can now do with CSS. AJAX turned web pages into client-server apps that also had occasional usefulness but was more often was just used to create cuteseyness. These days though, the amount of JS being imported into almost every page is staggering, and it's typically for evil and invasive purposes. If you use Adblock Plus or Firebug, take a look at the JS code browser tracking stuff from quantserve, google-analytics, and others, that show up all over the web. It's evil enough that those companies do cross-site tracking of your browsing at all, but the scripts they send reveal way more info about your browser than the mere HTTP hit to the tracking site would reveal. (You should of course configure your browser to not send referer headers). Even the fancy but legitimately useful UI toolkits (e.g. YUI, jQuery) are invasive because they are so often served from third party sites (Yahoo or Google) instead of directly from the app site.

Yes all this stuff can also happen through other means. But, JS is the mechanism making it spread so much. We can't get rid of JS completely but we were better off in the old days when it was cumbersome and slow.

Re:stop speeding up javascript (1)

BrentH (1154987) | more than 4 years ago | (#31121374)

Stop the trains, I wanna go back to horse and carriage!

Re:stop speeding up javascript (1, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 4 years ago | (#31121534)

Are you an alt for BadAnalogyGuy? Trains actually do something useful you can't do as well with horses. Javascript does nothing you can't do better with either plain HTML, or a native app. If you want to display a document, HTML is great and javascript adds nothing useful. If you want to write an app, there are any number of portable languages and toolkits that will perform much better than javascript.

Re:stop speeding up javascript (1)

aztracker1 (702135) | more than 4 years ago | (#31122406)

Well, browser based apps can be updated on a limited set of servers, without the need to update clients you don't control. Compiled apps need to be distributed, updated, etc. Automatic updating is troublesome and doesn't fit into the way many OSes are configured where administrative access is needed to install software. They allow for applications to be updated rapidly, and seamlessly.

Without JS HTML alone would not be enough. HTML allows for limited communications to/from a server refreshing a portion of the screen without refreshing the entire screen. This can be done via iFrames, but that isn't a better option. I will admit that in many instances JS is badly implemented, and loading a heavy UI toolkit for some simple events and/or styling doesn't make sense. That is a separate issue from the usefulness or not of the language.

Not to mention, it's actually a decent language in and of itself. node.js CommonJS and other movements are showing a lot of growth as a server-side platform. With all the emphasis on improving the runtime engines, it's probably the most efficient scripted language around today (in general purpose use).

Re:stop speeding up javascript (4, Insightful)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | more than 4 years ago | (#31121810)

Flush out your headgear, new guy. The days of HTML- and CSS- only websites are over. Even though those sites still exist, there's an entirely new category of "websites" online: web applications. The application I've been working on for the last 3 years or so is composed of about 60% Javascript, 30% PHP, 8% CSS, 1% HTML, 1% "other". With the recent push in Javascript engines, I've actually been able to watch the performance of the application improve by a substantial amount through no effort of my own, just because the application uses Javascript for the entire interface and browsers have focused on that aspect.

Nearly all of Google's services other than search are powered by Javascript, from Maps to Mail. Javascript (or any widely-supported client-side scripting language) is here to stay, and frankly it's the future of anything that's going to be online other than your basic informational sites. Even sites which are taking advantage of all of the new features in HTML5 will continue to take advantage of Javascript as well. The difference between IE6/7 and any very recent (< 3 months) browser is staggering.

I'm glad to see Opera catching up again, they're my browser of choice. They were among the fastest of the "first generation" JS engines, but nearly everyone else other than Microsoft pretty much beat Opera to the punch in the next generation of Javascript. It's nice to see them catch up. I hope Microsoft is able to make better strides with IE9, if not before.

Even the fancy but legitimately useful UI toolkits (e.g. YUI, jQuery) are invasive because they are so often served from third party sites (Yahoo or Google) instead of directly from the app site.

You can't say that the libraries are invasive because they're included from third-party applications, the application developers are invasive. My chosen framework (ExtJS in this case) is served from the same domain as the rest of the application, all gzipped and everything.

HTML is not a Language.... (0, Offtopic)

ArcadeNut (85398) | more than 4 years ago | (#31121936)

It's a document format.

Windows only? (1)

Stratoukos (1446161) | more than 4 years ago | (#31121142)

Opera, my favorite browser for years just, lost some major credit from me. I find 10.5 to be an exciting release, especially Carakan, but I always admired them for delivering a quality browser simultaneously for most platforms and this time they failed at that. According to a developer's blog post, 10.5 final will also come out for Windows before it comes out for other platforms, and then they are going to shift focus to them.

At least he says that it's only for 10.5.

Re:Windows only? (1)

WiiVault (1039946) | more than 4 years ago | (#31121222)

Yeah sad to not see a day-and-date release, but they still have amazing support for lots of platforms. If they take as long as Google did there will be hell to pay though.

Re:Windows only? (4, Informative)

hkmwbz (531650) | more than 4 years ago | (#31121248)

I always admired them for delivering a quality browser simultaneously for most platforms and this time they failed at that

They quite clearly explained that this was because the Linux and Mac versions were undergoing much bigger changes than the Windows version. And they will be faster and better integrated as a result. How is that a "fail"?

Re:Windows only? (4, Insightful)

Vectronic (1221470) | more than 4 years ago | (#31122024)

On top of those major changes, they are pushing Windows at the moment because of the EU Vs. Microsoft thing, where in March Microsoft will have to add the "Choose Your Browser" dialog, and Opera wants 10.5 to be on that list, not 10.1.

Re:Windows only? (1)

Stratoukos (1446161) | more than 4 years ago | (#31122270)

They quite clearly explained that this was because the Linux and Mac versions were undergoing much bigger changes than the Windows version.

Could you please point me to where they explained that? In my original post I was referring to this [opera.com] post, where he says that all desktop platforms are undergoing massive changes to platform integration. I can't find anywhere that the Linux and Mac versions are undergoing bigger changes than the Windows version.

Of course, I am not saying that if they have the Windows version ready before the others they should hold it back until everything is ready, but that post seems (to me at least) to imply that the "large number of great engineers" where allocated to the Windows version, allowing other versions to fall behind.

I also have to admit that I didn't think about the browser ballot, as other posters pointed out.

Windows ballot screen (1)

Tarmas (954439) | more than 4 years ago | (#31121386)

In case you didn't know, Opera wants to have a new version ready before the Windows browser ballot screen for the EU is in effect.

Re:Windows only? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31122208)

I believe the reason for the focus on Windows for 10.50 is so they can get 10.50 out in time to be in the European ballot screen. This is not their usual pattern for releasing (as you noted).

A little known Opera feature: Small Screen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31121178)

In Opera go to:
>View >Small Screen

This decreases the horizontal width of pages greatly, making moderate to longer texts alot easier to read. If the horizontal length of a page is too great when you are the end of a line it takes longer to re-orient your eyes to reach the next line, re-adjust your mental focus to the new line and continue on. The small screen feature actually makes reading texts on a web browser more pleasurable and easy.

Re:A little known Opera feature: Small Screen (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#31121750)

Another similar feature is "Fit to Width" (on Status Bar lately, I think...unless I chnaged something; also in View menu)

Makes what it says, and typically manages to do it without breaking the layout. Usefull on, say, netbooks.

Firefox relevance? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31121182)

One must ask again, with Opera and Chrome speeds is Firefox even relevant?

Que the "if adblock was a woman I'd finally get laid!" crowd.

Article Nonsense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31121186)

The two articles use different versions of Chrome. Both version 5 developer build and release build 4 of Chrome are used, thus the discrepancy. Pretty obvious really

Worth a look (3, Insightful)

WiiVault (1039946) | more than 4 years ago | (#31121196)

As an everyday Chrome user I have to say this new Opera beta is pretty spiffy. I've been using it for the past day and while the UI is certainly Chrome-like but seems to have a bit more polish. The best part is it seems on par if not even slightly faster with most rendering in comparison to Chrome. Lately I've switched from Safari/FF to Chrome, but I'll be seeing how Opera works this one out. This will be great to see on Mac and Linux at some point in the future. Especially Mac where Opera performance has generally lagged.

Re:Worth a look (-1, Troll)

Korin43 (881732) | more than 4 years ago | (#31121942)

But does it still look like ass on anything except KDE?

Re:Worth a look (1)

sapphire wyvern (1153271) | more than 4 years ago | (#31124000)

I dunno. It's mostly ok but the way the tab strip works bugs me.

When maximised in Windows, there's a two or three pixel wide strip of title bar between the tabs and the top of the screen, so you don't get "mile-high tabs" like in Chrome. That's really annoying and the devs have done it deliberately - they seem to think that there needs to be grabbable title-bar across the entire width of the window, which I disagree with.

And, if you double click inside the tab region but not on a tab, it spawns a new tab (which is fine) but if you double click inside the 3-pixel-wide strip it does a window restore instead. Again, this is a reasonable decision - except that there is no visual difference between the narrow strip and the tab region.

All in all I'd say "needs to copy Chrome's title bar more". The title bar design in Chrome is one of my favourite things about it, despite (or perhaps because?) its utter non-compliance with the usual Windows HIG layout.

Proxy issues (2, Informative)

Dartz-IRL (1640117) | more than 4 years ago | (#31121202)

I tried it, and found it still has some irritating issues. For one thing, proxy settings don't work right, which is a real pain in the butt for those of us in a university. I know it's beta software, but that's still a pretty nasty issue, and has been commented on on their forums already.

Otherwise, it seems to be quite nice. I like the new UI, newsgroups and mail features, but I haven't been using it near enough to get beyond that.

Why the obsession with javascript? (4, Insightful)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#31121236)

Note: I do recognize and appreciate the need to make javascript perform better.

Thing is...it seems that for many tech "journalists" hardly anything besides js matters anymore!

Notice how Opera said "the fastets on earth"; which might be still debatable of course, but they did not say "...fastest in javascript". Opera knows that's not the whole story in browser performance. You can see it especially when using Opera on some ancient machine where the difference is most startling. WebMonkey seems to know it too (nah, not reading TFA...)

CNET, ZDNet and The Reg seem to care only about JS...

What is it? Some new widespread fascination with numbers like in 3DMark heyday? "Journalists" taking the easy route by simply running automatic benchmarks? (written "for" Opera competitors BTW...)

Re:Why the obsession with javascript? (4, Interesting)

Kjella (173770) | more than 4 years ago | (#31121866)

Web applications. For pages with no to little javascript (and without the flash hog) the speed is just fine in all browsers unless you got an obsession about saving 30 seconds over a day of surfing. But if you are working in web applications for extended periods of time, the speed really matters. Now none of the big corporations has enough guts to publicly stab IE in the back, but IT departments aren't all clueless and web applications are becoming commonplace now that the hype has moved on and "the cloud" is the next big thing.

Re:Why the obsession with javascript? (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#31122130)

As I said I understand the value of better js. But that alone hardly justifies treating it as the hallmark; worse, not under realistic scenarios but...synthetic benchmarks. Yes, "representative ones" - but doing only js nonetheless and also having strong relation to some of the engines they test...

PS. Especially on highly portable machines, with small amounts of RAM, and on slow wireless connections I wouldn't call the experience (not only "speed"!) "just fine".

Re:Why the obsession with javascript? (1)

Draek (916851) | more than 4 years ago | (#31122080)

What is it? Some new widespread fascination with numbers like in 3DMark heyday? "Journalists" taking the easy route by simply running automatic benchmarks? (written "for" Opera competitors BTW...)

Well, it's partly that, and partly that Javascript used to be the slowest part of a webpage by far.

But now that we have Flash, AJAX with its incessant server queries and broadband ubiquitous enough that web designers feel free to go crazy with the 1 MB images, I'm not sure Javascript alone is the bottleneck anymore. But for what is worth, Opera 9 with its 'ancient' Javascript engine was fast enough to provide a decent browsing experience on my old P1 166mhz laptop (though sans Flash), so I think any performance improvement, while welcome, will go largely unnoticed on my AthlonX2 computer.

Re:Why the obsession with javascript? (1)

bigbigbison (104532) | more than 4 years ago | (#31124886)

I would guess that it isn't that CNET, ZDNet, and The Reg only care about JS but that the press release Opera sent out bragged about JS and they just cut and pasted from it.

It will still suck (1, Interesting)

moronikos (595352) | more than 4 years ago | (#31121244)

I've wanted to like Opera for years, but I don't like the way it caches data...for example using the Yuku (old EZ Board) message board. If there are new articles, I have to manually hit refresh to detect them when I navigate back to the page later on. IE, Firefox, and Chrome automatically detect the changes, Opera does not. Maybe there is a setting I could change, but why should I when the other browsers work fine out of the box for this.

Re:It will still suck (1)

aztracker1 (702135) | more than 4 years ago | (#31122484)

Is there a check document frequency setting? I usually set all my browsers to set every time, iirc there was a setting for this in opera. My current job is IE6 internally (where IE8 and Firefox 3.x may be allowed in the next few months). I've pretty much been developing with Firefox + Firebug then cleaning up IE8 (then IE6 issues, wont be sad to see that one go). Usually the browser will respect an if-modified-since header and 304 response, though most web applications aren't configured to respect this behavior.

Re:It will still suck (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31124178)

Is there a check document frequency setting?

Yes. Preferences>Advanced>History.

Re:It will still suck (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31124192)

Indeed there is an option (in the current non-Beta anyway, can't install the beta on this machine) for how often it should check the cached version against the server. I leave it set to "Always" for full pages, and "5 minutes" for images.

Re:It will still suck (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31122998)

Prefs > Advanced > History. I think by default it sets to 5 hours for Documents and Images, which is obviously far too long. I've been carrying over a set of preferences since sometime around version 9, so I have no clue what the default is these days. But setting Documents to "every time" and Images to whatever pleases you (mine's at 5 minutes, which I think might be a little much) should solve the issue.

Re:It will still suck (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31124044)

I've wanted to like Opera for years, but I don't like the way it caches data...for example using the Yuku (old EZ Board) message board. If there are new articles, I have to manually hit refresh to detect them when I navigate back to the page later on. IE, Firefox, and Chrome automatically detect the changes, Opera does not. Maybe there is a setting I could change, but why should I when the other browsers work fine out of the box for this.

Greedy caching is always better. No exceptions. Reconnecting over the web is a waste when your were just here 5 minutes ago, or worse, if you misclicked a link and have to wait for it to reload over a dialup or bad Wifi connection. When you block flash and ads at a proxy or hardware level, and even turn JS off, it is stupid to have a page reload again when you click back.

It is silly to forget that 10 years ago pages were not expected to have new blog posts, breaking news or twit / myspace / facebook garbage considered an update to be urgently pushed to the browser; hell, we still don't get minute by minute data unless flash, java or JS addins are riding on to of the webpage, making refresh buttons not necessary for important data (realtime quotes, for instance, use ActiveX; businesses don't trust your HTML layer for refreshing.)

We have been coerced by MS to forget that we can use a refresh botton if we are on ... the front page of slashdot. Hell, HTML and cookies both have TTL functionality, so more webmasters should play a larger part if you are really that bothered about Opera not "being told" which pages to never cache.

It really pisses me off when I'm on a legacy but maxed out PC with a mainstream browser and every single Back click destroys the whole point of having a browser history. Most browsers don't even let you define when to refresh content, and use a messed up model of refresh everything instead of refresh only webpages whose tags suggest to do so.

Pretty impressive release (1)

bheer (633842) | more than 4 years ago | (#31121282)

I tried several of the Chrome Experiments on Opera 10.5, and everything ran very smoothly. Good going Opera.

Now if only they'd add an option to make the keyboard/mouse options more like Firefox/Chrome, I could use this as my default browser. It still bugs me that it's very, very hard to make a customizable browser like Opera open new tabs with a ctrl-click like every other browser.

Re:Pretty impressive release (2, Insightful)

AmigaHeretic (991368) | more than 4 years ago | (#31121316)

Yeah, Opera can't win that one. Opera has been around longer than FF and Chrome combined, so when you start changing "Shortcuts" to be more like FF/Chrome the people that have used Opera forever complain.

Re:Pretty impressive release (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#31121772)

"Use Firefox Keyboard Shortcuts" wouldn't be a completely absurd option to include.

Re:Pretty impressive release (2, Funny)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#31121872)

Would require some big organizational changes though; usually the ideas, solutions flow in the other direction ;)

Re:Pretty impressive release (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31121970)

Good idea!

"Use User Agent String" worked out well in the past...

Re:Pretty impressive release (2, Insightful)

bheer (633842) | more than 4 years ago | (#31121838)

Netscape/Mozilla is older than IE, but Firefox still changed over to IE-ish shortcuts on Windows in order to be a more comfortable transition.

Also, I'm not asking Opera to shaft their loyal users. Opera is very customizable. There's no reason why they couldn't create a Firefox-ish shorcut set and let users choose that as an option. In fact, right now my biggest gripe is that their customization doesn't allow you to redefine ctrl-click consistently.

Re:Pretty impressive release (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31122428)

No, but Opera can't be expected to support the keyboard layout of every Tom, Dick, and Harry browser that comes along. They lose even if they did because people will complain "theirs" is not the default.

Re:Pretty impressive release (2, Insightful)

bheer (633842) | more than 4 years ago | (#31122486)

Every Tom, Dick, and Harry browser that comes along? IE8/Firefox/Chrome/Safari, which are #1-4 in the marketplace, have very similar keyboard shortcuts. You'd think Opera would at least study its competition. Alternatively it could continue enjoying its niche as #5.

Re:Pretty impressive release (2, Informative)

A Friendly Troll (1017492) | more than 4 years ago | (#31121368)

It still bugs me that it's very, very hard to make a customizable browser like Opera open new tabs with a ctrl-click like every other browser.

What's wrong with the middle mouse button?

Opera used Shift for that purpose before other browsers even had tabs, and it still works that way (I think - I really don't know, because I've had a mouse with a scroll wheel for many years now).

Re:Pretty impressive release (1)

bheer (633842) | more than 4 years ago | (#31121760)

> What's wrong with the middle mouse button?

Laptops don't have a middle mouse button unless you buy an add-on.

> Opera used Shift for that purpose before other browsers even had tabs

Do you mean shift-click? That opens a new tab and gives it focus. I'm looking for opening a new tab in the background, which is currently bound to ctrl-shift-click. And of course the biggest oddity is that you can not change this binding easily [blogspot.com] .

Re:Pretty impressive release (2, Informative)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#31121950)

Laptops don't have a middle mouse button...

Most laptops don't have a middle mouse button.

Re:Pretty impressive release (1)

InfiniteLoopCounter (1355173) | more than 4 years ago | (#31125172)

Laptops don't have a middle mouse button unless you buy an add-on.

Try clicking left and right mouse buttons simultaneously.

Re:Pretty impressive release (1)

TangoMargarine (1617195) | more than 4 years ago | (#31124556)

Because it's not really a button. The reason I've never gotten into middle-"clicking" anything is because it takes like 3 times the normal amount of effort to make sure you're pressing it straight down, instead of scrolling it. And God help you if you have one that you can tilt side-to-side.

Re:Pretty impressive release (2, Informative)

hkmwbz (531650) | more than 4 years ago | (#31121420)

Now if only they'd add an option to make the keyboard/mouse options more like Firefox/Chrome

Preferences, Advanced, Shortcuts?

Re:Pretty impressive release (1)

bheer (633842) | more than 4 years ago | (#31121808)

> Preferences, Advanced, Shortcuts?

Please, show me how to open a new tab in the background with ctrl-click, like Firefox/Chrome/Safari/IE8. I have tried and it's been a bit difficult [blogspot.com] so far.

Re:Pretty impressive release (1)

XnavxeMiyyep (782119) | more than 4 years ago | (#31122806)

On a Mac, command click opens a new tab in the foreground with command click and in the background with command shift click. I'm pretty sure you can just use ctrl shift click on Windows/Linux.

Re:Pretty impressive release (1)

ZERO1ZERO (948669) | more than 4 years ago | (#31121472)

Now if only they'd add an option to make the keyboard/mouse options more like Firefox/Chrome, I could use this as my default browser.

Please, no. Either A) Use those browsers or B) request those browsers to be more like Opera.

Re:Pretty impressive release (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 4 years ago | (#31122064)

GP is absolutely correct. Opera is already a browser that lets you do complete customization of all keyboard shortcuts, and a lot of mouse shortcuts - it's one of its major features, and it's worth it. But the fact that, for all that, something like Ctrl+click on a link is not customizable, is just stupid. And I say this as someone who's been using Opera as a primary browser since 2001.

Re:Ctrl+t (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31121822)

In Opera you press:
Ctrl+t
to open a new tab, I do not see the big deal and why Ctrl+click is better in any way. I am sure you can edit this in the ini anyway to make +click.

Re:Ctrl+t (1)

bheer (633842) | more than 4 years ago | (#31121924)

Ctrl-click allows you to open a number of pages in the background, quickly. Give it a try in Chrome/Firefox/IE8/Safari, on a link-rich page like news.google.com [google.com] . Opera is alone in making it shift-ctrl-click. And no, this isn't something you can edit the .ini for -- at least, I've not been able to find a way so far. I'd be very grateful if you could point out a solution.

Re:Ctrl+t (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31124530)

middle button of your mouse. try it.
or try mouse gestures.

Re:Pretty impressive release (2, Informative)

Backward Z (52442) | more than 4 years ago | (#31121918)

I've been using Opera for some time now but I've become very attached to many of their other shortcut keys.

Most indispensable is going forward/back by holding left click and right clicking and vice versa. It's just so intuitive. I catch myself trying to use it constantly in file explorer.

That's what I want. Customizable Windows shortcut keys. Why not?

Shortcut to download the beta (1)

haruchai (17472) | more than 4 years ago | (#31121434)

  Go to http://www.opera.com/browser/download/?os=windows&ver=10.50b1&local=y [opera.com]
to download as navigating from the info page on the features in 10.50 Beta returned an error

Looking forward to seeing how this performs as i've been using Opera for 10 years but FF have been my go-to browser
for the last 3.

Z1-Glass (2, Informative)

BountyX (1227176) | more than 4 years ago | (#31121562)

If your trying the beta out, try the Z1-Glass theme, its pretty spiffy. I think it looks better than the default skin. You can download it by pressing Shift + F12, Select "Find More Skins" radio, then sort by Top Rated tab.

Re:Z1-Glass (2, Informative)

BountyX (1227176) | more than 4 years ago | (#31121660)

I forgot to mention, to really feel the speed of the new Vega engine, you should set Opera to draw instantly. By default, its set to draw after 1 second. To change this, hit ALT + P, Advanced Tab, Select Browsing on the list off to the left. The first combo box under the Loading text label contains the "Draw Instantly" value. Select it and save. There should be a noticeable increase in perceived page load.

Re:Z1-Glass (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 4 years ago | (#31122222)

Congratulations, you have successfully melted the PC of the unfortunate author of that skin by Slashdotting.

(if it's you, then you should check yours ASAP!)

LOVE this new version (1)

CraniumDesigns (1113153) | more than 4 years ago | (#31121830)

The new Chrome-like minimal UI, the javascript. VERY slick. Loving this new version. Keep up the great work Opera :)

Still fails at trivial CSS rendering/1.5yr old bug (2, Interesting)

TodLiebeck (633704) | more than 4 years ago | (#31121940)

Love the new UI, and really appreciate the option of another well done browser. But they still refuse to fix a trivial CSS bug which has horrible consequences for AJAX apps.

Just go to this page, and resize your browser with the vertical (not horizontal) handle.
http://echo.nextapp.com/content/test/operacss/ [nextapp.com]

(This is very hard/impossible to do on a mac, as they don't really have one).

Unfortunately the bug is not limited to resizing with the vertical handle...it manifests itself in other ways. It seems the browser is incorrectly measuring/reporting the vertical size of elements, and sometimes uses this data internally (as in the case of this test).

Full thread is here:
http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=250572 [opera.com]

And one of the Ajax apps that experiences more serious failures as a result: http://demo.nextapp.com/ [nextapp.com]

Re:Still fails at trivial CSS rendering/1.5yr old (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31124954)

I'm not seeing that behavior at all in Opera 10.1 under Windows 7.

Re:Still fails at trivial CSS rendering/1.5yr old (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31125210)

Funny... no problems for me.

UI lead designer also created FF's icon (1)

Arty2 (1742112) | more than 4 years ago | (#31122034)

It's is also noteworthy that John Hicks of http://hicksdesign.co.uk/ [hicksdesign.co.uk] the guy that created the Firefox logo is now lead UI designer in Opera

SunSpider means very little to most people (1)

Rui del-Negro (531098) | more than 4 years ago | (#31123078)

SunSpider is a "core JS benchmark". It does not focus on interaction with the renderer (which is what JS is used for in >95% of web pages), it basically tests JS performance as a computing platform. While this is likely to become more relevant in the future, it's still not a good measure of how a browser's JS performance impacts user experience.

Opera 9 was quite slow at running SunSpider and yet reacted faster than any browser of its time to user interaction in most pages, simply because it was faster "where it mattered" (interaction with the DOM and renderer).

If I was a cynical person, I'd say that SunSpider (a benchmark created by WebKit) was designed specifically to make WebKit look better than Opera and Firefox... :-P

Re:SunSpider means very little to most people (1)

KillShill (877105) | more than 4 years ago | (#31123688)

And by cynical you mean someone who understands that in the business world, dirty tactics often work and by you realizing this, call yourself a cynic rather than someone who can see what's really going on.

The only feature I want is Gmail and iGoogle (1)

djscoumoune (1731422) | more than 4 years ago | (#31123590)

The only feature I want is being able to run Gmail, iGoogle without bugs, and being able to log in Youtube and any google service. I've been using Opera for a while but it's really annoying to have to switch browser just to be able to read the news and emails.

1pv4/6 hybrid site bug fixed!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31124116)

Finally!!! This has been pissing me off for a long time. I almost switched browsers over this it was so annoying.

I can finally access FreeBSD.org and other such sites again...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?