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 9.0 Released

timothy posted about 8 years ago | from the too-bad-it's-not-open-source dept.

395

Nurgled writes "After teasing us for months with betas and snapshots, Opera Software have finally released version 9.0 of their web browser. The new version features correct ACID2 rendering, native support for the SVG Basic profile, a built-in BitTorrent client, support for Microsoft's designmode and contenteditable extensions, per-site configuration, Atom support, Web Forms 2.0 support, Canvas support (and some Opera-specific extensions), NTLM authentication, some support of parts of CSS3 and lots more. The full changelog is available." p14nd4 adds "And for you *nix users, it hasn't hit their .deb repository quite yet, but there are regular installers available for the major players, including a fixed Ubuntu installer and an x86 Solaris version."

cancel ×

395 comments

How about an API (4, Interesting)

Magada (741361) | about 8 years ago | (#15568301)

I love Opera. I'd love it even more if it came with the possibility to create extensions.

Re:How about an API (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15568370)

Just simple ad-block capabilities would make me happy.

Re:How about an API (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15568386)

Maybe the correct approach is NOT to browse the sites that bother you with ads. Otherwise, it's like going to the movies but not paying for it.

Re:How about an API (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15568491)

> Maybe the correct approach is NOT to browse the sites that bother you with ads. Otherwise, it's like going to the movies but not paying for it.

Do you consider switching channels when commercials come on as stealing as well ?

Re:How about an API (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15568849)

And would YOU pay to be able to read slashdot or download from sourceforge (which both display tons of ads) or would YOU pay their bandwidth costs? Hmm.

Re:How about an API (2, Insightful)

trifish (826353) | about 8 years ago | (#15568882)

> Do you consider switching channels when commercials come on as stealing as well ?

Actually, if nobody watched the commercials, the TV channels would have only two options:

1) Switch to pay TV model
2) Announce bankruptcy

PS - Or another example, if everybody blocked Google ads, Google would die (99% of their income is from ads, which is verifiable).

Re:How about an API (1)

thebdj (768618) | about 8 years ago | (#15568517)

Um, no it is more like buying your ticket and not sitting down until after the advertisements have played or just as the movie starts. You still bought your ticket. Another reply to you asked if you thought switching channels during commercials was stealing and this is another valid point. Seriously, no one said I should have to watch these ads. The ones online are getting ever more invasive. At least the ones with sound are beginning to have options where you actually have to click to make the sound turn on.

Re:How about an API (1)

ceeam (39911) | about 8 years ago | (#15568397)

It does have simple and effective ad-blocker.

Re:How about an API (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15568429)

It will make you happy then...

Re:How about an API (4, Insightful)

ZzzzSleep (606571) | about 8 years ago | (#15568450)

Right click, select "Block content..." click on what you want to go away, and that's about it.

Easy.

Re:How about an API (4, Informative)

neonprimetime (528653) | about 8 years ago | (#15568613)

Have you ever used Opera? There is quick & easy to use ad-blocking capabilities built-in ... It's under Tools->Options ... and there are like 4 stages ... ranging from Allow-All to Block-All

Re:How about an API (1)

TychoCelchuuu (835690) | about 8 years ago | (#15568906)

Opera doesn't even have and "Options" category in the Tools menu.

Re:How about an API (5, Informative)

Mark Gillespie (866733) | about 8 years ago | (#15568545)

It supports netscape plugin API, and Widgets, is that enough entensions for you?

Re:How about an API (5, Insightful)

Nik13 (837926) | about 8 years ago | (#15568696)

Most people seem to take your comment as "I wanna block ads", while it's one purpose of extensions in firefox, there are so many other great ones, like the web developper toolbar and such.

I really love opera, and it's really innovative and advanced (you don't see features like xhtml + voice in most browsers, it's pretty cool stuff), very standard compliant, lightweight, fast, etc. But the thing that keeps me primarily on firefox is the extensions (even though it pretty much always takes over 500MB of RAM even with tweaks, and crashes every couple of days).

The day Opera gets extensions I'm definitely switching - instantly. I'd even pay good money for it. I think they'd increase their market share significantly - much more than by adding a BT client really.

Re:How about an API (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15568807)

What I love about Opera is that all of the extensions I use in Firefox come by default in Opera (ok, it doesn't have FireSomthing but I can deal without that). And it's configuration is simple to back up and copy between machines. Anytime I sit down to Firefox I have to remember which of the tabbed-browsing extensions actually works and gives me the functionality I want (session-saving, duplicate tab, ability to reorder tabs, open absolutley everything in a tab not a window)

Re:How about an API (1)

jZnat (793348) | about 8 years ago | (#15568888)

Well, there still is the old fashioned adblock via Privoxy [privoxy.org] , but that's kinda overkill sometimes...

Re:How about an API (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15568801)

Sorry, but no one cares about Firefox extensions outside of a small circle of geeks. Firefox extensions are the number one cause of bugginess and memory leaks in Firefox. This has more to do with the craptastic way Firefox was designed than anything else (if anyone wants, I'll be happy to expand on that), but the fact remains that Firefox extensions slow the browser down and accelerate the already large memory leaks.

Essentially, Firefox + Extensions = Opera + Memory Leaks + Excessive CPU Load + UI Freezes.

In other words, with Opera, you get all the functionality that Firefox has with the extensions added, just without the massive memory leaks, the excessive CPU load, and the random UI freezes. All three of those are caused by Firefox's JavaScript design - extension JavaScript runs single-threaded in the UI thread, so anything extensions do to process data causes the UI to freeze while it's running. Opera suffers from none of that.

Now I suppose Opera could always create extensions in some way that doesn't suffer from the miriad of problems Firefox extensions do, but I'll take Opera without extension support over Firefox with extensions any day.

Re:How about an API (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15568877)

Sure, but is it ACID3 compliant?

How does it fair on Web2.8?

Will it support fully open standards like CSS23352 or Linux Tux Racer Extensions?

Opera obviously still has a lot of work a head to appeal to that 5% thats too nerdy even for nerds.

Re:How about an API (4, Informative)

TAiNiUM (66843) | about 8 years ago | (#15568958)

Opera does have extensions. They call it User JS.
Here is a good repository: http://userjs.org/ [userjs.org]

A bit torrent client? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15568302)

And all that other crap - sounds like bloatware. So much for Opera being known as the speedy browser. It has more crap than Office XP.

Re:A bit torrent client? (1)

BlackCobra43 (596714) | about 8 years ago | (#15568323)

ACID2-passing capabilities, bloatware? Are you insane or just really, really sarcastic?

Re:A bit torrent client? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15568574)

You are arguing a specific against a generality.

Re:A bit torrent client? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15568771)

For anyone that feels Opera is "bloatware"?

LOL... Guys, it's the fastest browser there is! And, I am running 8.54 alongside it, & it takes up 30mb, & this new version 9.0 only takes up 22mb!!!

Ok, not enough? WELL, then take a read:

The URL below is the MOST even-handed browser speed comparisons page I have ever run across online, that covers IE/Mozilla variants/Opera & across multiple OS platforms as well, where Opera blows away the competitors (especially in Windows, and even in other OS too):

http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/browserSpeed.html [howtocreate.co.uk]

APK

Re:A bit torrent client? (4, Informative)

Nurgled (63197) | about 8 years ago | (#15568351)

The main Opera.exe plus the Opera.dll that contains all the fun stuff still only adds up to a paltry 3.12MB (Windows version, obviously) even with all this stuff. It might be experiencing a bit of creeping featurism, but it doesn't seem to be suffering for it. I've noticed no speed decrease from Opera 8.51.

I'm actually quite pleased with the BitTorrent support; There have been many occasions when I've gone to download something and a site has offered both BitTorrent and a normal HTTP download, and I've picked HTTP just because it saves me launching some other app. Obviously the prolific downloaders aren't going to use it in preference to Azureus or uTorrent, but I expect it'd come in handy for more casual users and is also a good first step to greater adoption of BitTorrent.

Re:A bit torrent client? (5, Insightful)

infestedsenses (699259) | about 8 years ago | (#15568557)

"Sounds like"...? Have you actually tried it?

I am an avid Firefox user but I have always been impressed with the speedy interface Opera offers, despite all the extra features they put in. And from release to release, they manage to simplify the interface more and more. The options menu is no longer the scary mess it used to be, I suppose they are learning from Firefox's success. They may be adding a lot of stuff in that people would consider bloatware, but they manage to add it in a way that the browser doesn't seem to be suffering from it one bit. Take into consideration the constant advancement of the rendering engine and the unusually wide spectrum of platforms it supports and you've got quite a good browser.

I'd also like to hear your reasoning for complaining about the built-in BitTorrent client. After all, downloading is one basic feature of a browser, so why not jump in at exactly that point and help advance the system to a more server-friendly standard. Most common users don't know about Azureus and uTorrent and whatnot, so I think it's a good way to introduce the protocol to a wider audience.

Finally (4, Insightful)

amazon10x (737466) | about 8 years ago | (#15568303)

I'm glad they finally released; I'm looking forward to it.

However, I am weary of all these new features; it seems like it is possible they could turn Opera into a bigger resource hog.

Re:Finally (2, Interesting)

someone300 (891284) | about 8 years ago | (#15568378)

More of a resource hog?

In my experience, Opera is the least resource hogging browser there is that supports the latest standards (except IE maybe, but that's broken so it doesn't count). I usually use firefox but will start Opera when I'm low on RAM.

Re:Finally (4, Interesting)

Danga (307709) | about 8 years ago | (#15568599)

I used to agree but after downloading and installing Opera 9.0 it is using 33MB RAM with just this slashdot article open while IE and FireFox are hovering around using 23MB RAM. While typing that last sentence it has now gone up to 34.5MB. I love Opera and it has everything I need and has always been fast and reliable but this is starting to worry me. There are only 34 comments in this thread so far, what is so much memory being used for? I suspect some type of caching but of what on a slashdot article page? Strange.

Re:Finally (2, Interesting)

baadger (764884) | about 8 years ago | (#15568748)

While it's true that Opera and Firefox run neck and neck, with Opera losing the overall resident memory battle in some cases, Opera doesnt suffer from the runaway memory issues some people report with Firefox (although i've never experienced it that badly myself) and it always seems to _feel_ much more responsive and snappy than the fox.

I personally find myself using Opera exclusively on Windows and Firefox on my Gnome/Linux desktop.

Re:Finally (4, Informative)

Danga (307709) | about 8 years ago | (#15568983)

I totally agree about the responsiveness and how snappy Opera is versus firefox, that was what initially got me using Opera a few years ago over Moz. It is my main browser as well on Windows. I have noticed that on some websites Opera does seem to have run away memory issues where I have to close it using task manager, it does not happen very often but it does occur. I have also noticed that if I leave msdn.com open in a tab that there seems to be a memory leak and I need to close and restart Opera to get the memory back as just closing the tab does not seem to work. When this last issue occurs the mem usage goes to 100MB+, it is quite annoying. Overall I am a happy Opera user, I don't need all of the extensions available to firefox as Opera has everything I currently need.

Re:Finally (4, Interesting)

ceeam (39911) | about 8 years ago | (#15568535)

They tend to try different combinations of features and then check users feedback. They had built-in ICQ client once, for example. If no-one uses something it will probably go away.

Re:Finally (3, Informative)

RonnyJ (651856) | about 8 years ago | (#15568566)

I've been using Opera weekly builds for ages now, and I haven't noticed any difference in resources from Opera 8.51 (and it certainly uses less than Firefox). Opera 9 does contain BitTorrent support, an IRC client, a mail client, widget support, etc, but I certainly wouldn't be able to tell that from running it.

Anyway, my favourite new feature in Opera 9 has to be the 'create search' function to easily create new search engines for Opera to use (and to use in the search dropdown). I'd explain how to use it (exceedingly simple), but a good overview is perhaps here [opera.com]

Re:Finally (1)

jZnat (793348) | about 8 years ago | (#15568908)

That's been a [useful] feature in Firefox/Mozilla (maybe even Netscape) as long as I can remember! It's nice to see that browsers like Opera and Firefox borrow good ideas from each other to make the web browsing experience all that much better. :)

Re:Finally (2, Funny)

cloudkiller (877302) | about 8 years ago | (#15568586)

Speaking of features, does anyone else have a problem with the models [opera.com] Opera selected to include in their marketing? Who are these idiots? It looks more like a bad Gwen Stefani [google.com] video more than uber browser.

Re:Finally (1)

WoLpH (699064) | about 8 years ago | (#15568953)

The new release has some good points (the svg support for example) but also some bad points.
Opera 8 and lower (atleast from 6 and up) have M-Jpeg [wikipedia.org] support and since the new jpeg engine in 9 that support has been removed (I used it a lot for monitor ip-cams)

fp (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15568306)

fp for my bruder dandan. i use opera, he uses firefucks p.s. we love gnaa

Opera who? (-1, Troll)

pdr77 (748376) | about 8 years ago | (#15568319)

And still no-one notices...

Huzzah! (-1, Redundant)

ZzzzSleep (606571) | about 8 years ago | (#15568326)

Hooray! Hooray! Hooray!
I checked the opera site earlier today, and there was no mention of this. Must go download it now.
brb!

Good, (1, Troll)

SpokeBot (884906) | about 8 years ago | (#15568343)

but still closed-source though.

Re:Good, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15568436)

So, Does closed source make it worse. It would be nice if people like you had an Open Mind

Re:Good, (4, Interesting)

elrous0 (869638) | about 8 years ago | (#15568464)

While it is closed source (and doesn't benefit from extensions like Firefox) I'd still like to say that, in my experience, Opera is probably the best browser out there for both supporting standards like Acid and simultaneously rendering IE-specific pages with a great deal of fidelity. In fact, at one time, I actually suspected it was just a skin for IE--since it was so consistently good at rendering IE-specific pages that sent Firefox into a tailspin.

-Eric

Re:Good, (1, Troll)

ceeam (39911) | about 8 years ago | (#15568465)

So fucking what? If a limited set of developers kept in a single company or scattered around the globe - what difference does it make? Have you submitted any patches to Firefox? Didn't think so.

(Ok, ok - maybe I troll a bit, but seriously? It's a good and free to use browser. They even have FreeBSD binaries... Closed source or not - some appreciation is due methinks... What would _you_ do with the source if it were available?)

Re:Good, (1)

gid13 (620803) | about 8 years ago | (#15568885)

"What would _you_ do with the source if it were available?"
I would use the extensions created by others, and enjoy the feeling of security caused by the fact that others can and do look at the code. :)

Seriously.

I use what works best for me, and Firefox works best for me because of all the extensions. I have no beef with Opera, but I think it'd be fair to say that open source has some benefits to the end user.

Re:Good, (1)

kintin (840632) | about 8 years ago | (#15568961)

Are you insane? Just because a project offers free binaries [ati.com] doesn't make them amazing. In fact, to compare closed-source to open-source:

1. Can't fix problems

2. Can't adapt software to specific environment/use

3. Can't verify the software isn't spying/serving porn

Free binaries don't solve any of those, and when you think about the problems that software is SUPPOSED to solve, closed-source seems to be a step backwards. Besides, it's pretty asinine to ask someone if they've contributed software to an open-source project to qualify their beliefs. We call it ad-hominem [wikipedia.org] around here.

Re:Good, (4, Insightful)

cruachan (113813) | about 8 years ago | (#15568538)

Insightful? Good god. Opera may well be closed source but it's a far better browser than Firefox which still suffers from memory issues and runs like a pig if you happen to hit the wrong website with the wrong combination of plugins installed.

Firefox has been getting better of late it's true, but it still suffers from the common Open Source Project issue that the sexy visible eye-candy stuff gets priority over unexiting but essential background code.

Which is not to say I don't like and use Open Source software, indeed given the choice between equal programs one Open Source and the other not then Open Source usually gets my vote. However to roll out closed source as if it's some fundemental problem with a truly excellent browser smacks of RMS zealotry.

Re:Good, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15568759)

Firefox has been getting better of late it's true, but it still suffers from the common Open Source Project issue that the sexy visible eye-candy stuff gets priority over unexiting but essential background code.

What is this sexy visible eye-candy you speak of? Firefox hasn't really changed its look much since the 1.0 release (they leave that up to people who make themes anyway). Config menu changed in 1.5, that's the only major change I can think of (and there wasn't any eye-candy there, just a reorganization). That's about the only major GUI change in the last release. It's a browser, so there really isn't a lot of fancy eye-candy to work on anyhow.

Unless you are talking about rendering eye-candy? I still don't get what you're talking about here.

Re:Good, (2, Insightful)

X3J11 (791922) | about 8 years ago | (#15568991)

Firefox has been getting better of late it's true, but it still suffers from the common Open Source Project issue that the sexy visible eye-candy stuff gets priority over unexiting but essential background code.

I'm guessing you don't use a whole lot of F/OSS, do you? In most cases, the reverse is the biggest complaint. A lot of F/OSS has tons of great functionality, and you could really accomplish so much with it... if only it had a better interface.

Rather than try to word it myself, I'm going to quote from http://homepages.cwi.nl/~steven/vandf/2004.1-itch. html [homepages.cwi.nl]

Open Source software is produced by programmers. Programmers are very different from the general public (a far greater proportion of programmers are intuitives than in the general public, for instance). This means that when programmers produce open source software, since they are largely scratching their own itch, they will tend to produce the software for themselves, and in particular be perfectly content with the (programmer-oriented) user interface. - Steven Pemberton.

OMG!? "Opera-specific extensions"!? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15568348)

Ehh.. What happened to the worlds "most standards complient browser"? *dismay* 8-O

Re:OMG!? "Opera-specific extensions"!? (5, Insightful)

Nurgled (63197) | about 8 years ago | (#15568413)

I didn't want to bloat my summary by going into too much detail about that, but to be specific they've created a new rendering context for canvas which is designed to make it easier to create 2D games by giving more raw access to the framebuffer. It is using the designed-in extensibility for canvas (which was, of course, a Safari extension to HTML in the first place!) and Opera is working with other browser manufacturers on a 3D rendering context for canvas which will allow full hardware-accelerated 3D when it's done.

It's becoming increasingly vaugue these days what constitutes a "standard" in the web sphere. Various other organisations are springing up outside of the W3C and proposing their own extensions and new specs, and I for one am quite enjoying the new stuff we're seeing as a result of this "competition". Other such third-party "extensions" include XMLHttpRequest (Microsoft), canvas (Apple), opera-2dgame (Opera), Web Forms 2.0 (WHATWG) and probably other stuff I'm forgetting. Opera supports all this stuff and also supports several W3C standards to boot!

Re:OMG!? "Opera-specific extensions"!? (1)

ruckc (111190) | about 8 years ago | (#15568474)

Who cares if it supports every known web browsing extension available. You arn't going to find sites that use the more fun extensions until IE does. Webdesign still has to be done to the lowest level for maximum compatability with users, which is now IE 6.0.

I hate this, but its true. If you design something that looks great in Firefox/Opera/Other superior browser, if it doesn't work in IE then thats 85% of the people on the internet that can't/won't use the website.

Re:OMG!? "Opera-specific extensions"!? (1)

truedfx (802492) | about 8 years ago | (#15568565)

I hate this, but its true. If you design something that looks great in Firefox/Opera/Other superior browser, if it doesn't work in IE then thats 85% of the people on the internet that can't/won't use the website.

Perhaps, but does that matter if they wouldn't use the website anyway? (Obviously, this depends on the site's target audience.)

Re:OMG!? "Opera-specific extensions"!? (0, Offtopic)

ceeam (39911) | about 8 years ago | (#15568576)

I hate those jokes, but are you from France perchance?

OK, since you're so well informed.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15568523)

Are these extensions "open" as in they can be implemented by other parties? otherways they are meaningless. I use mostly Opera and Firefox, but I would never implement _any_ web page/game/solution if only Opera users can view it. Don't get me wrong - I love the browser but I'm realistic towards the amount of people using it.

Re:OK, since you're so well informed.. (4, Interesting)

Nurgled (63197) | about 8 years ago | (#15568610)

It varies. Web Forms 2.0 is open and specified at the URL linked in the original summary, though it isn't actually finalized yet. It's also designed to be backwards compatible, so there's no reason why you can't go ahead and use most of it on sites now and suffer no ill-effects. As for canvas, I believe it now works in Firefox, Safari and Opera but obviously not IE. SVG can be added to most browsers via a plugin if they don't support it already.

Certainly we're not going to be making use of most of these things tomorrow, but it's getting to the point where IE is the only one left that doesn't support them. Obviously that's a biggy, but the IE team has shown recently that they are willing to play nice by implementing everyone else's adaptation of their XMLHttpRequest object, so it's not inconcievable that they'd implement some of these other new toys if they prove useful.

Re:OMG!? "Opera-specific extensions"!? (1)

POWRSURG (755318) | about 8 years ago | (#15568568)

Another extension that Opera recently added is that it now supports the DOMContentLoaded event [edwards.name] . This means that now every popular browser (IE, Mozilla/Firefox/Netscape, Opera, and Safari/Konqueror) can now call scripts once the DOM has been loaded, but before the page has finished loading (i.e., before images are done downloading).

Re:OMG!? "Opera-specific extensions"!? (3, Insightful)

ceeam (39911) | about 8 years ago | (#15568487)

http://www.webstandards.org/files/acid2/test.html# top [webstandards.org]

Open in Opera, then in Firefox. I don't know how to answer you better.
Oh, don't even bother with MSIE... ;)

Re:OMG!? "Opera-specific extensions"!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15568772)

Hehe.. done it already.. ;) .. But that wasn't my point. The point is that Opera was so anal about standards, implementing them even when they knew it would break many non compliant major sites. They were always the heralds of standard compliency - and I've always respected them for that. To now release something that's "Opera Only" (think IE marquee tag) is for me.. shocking..

Re:OMG!? "Opera-specific extensions"!? (1)

sydneyfong (410107) | about 8 years ago | (#15568579)

Opera may claim to be standards compliant, but my collegues have run into some critical bugs in Opera 9 which Opera failed (declined) to fix.

http://cuhk.hkoi.org/~sydneyfong/public/operabug.h tml [hkoi.org]

You'll see why this is a frustrating bug to us if you look at my homepage url.

BT Client sucks (1, Troll)

iamdrscience (541136) | about 8 years ago | (#15568361)

I love Opera, but their integrated bit torrent client sucks. It doesn't show transfer rates, you can't limit your upstream, you can't see how many people you're connected too, you can't see if there are any seeds and it doesn't keep track of your share ratio.

Nice try Opera, but for now I'm sticking with my old BT client.

Re:BT Client sucks (4, Insightful)

FinchWorld (845331) | about 8 years ago | (#15568452)

Joe average will not care, nore try to understand any of that. He'll just see it as another way to download things.

The only problem with it would be if it automatically (not overridable in settings) used its built in when ever you click a torrent file. Though I understand a half decent built in client would be nicer.

Re:BT Client sucks (1)

compm375 (847701) | about 8 years ago | (#15568913)

I'm sorry, but I had to reply to this. "Joe Average" is not using Opera (at least not on his computer). The kinds of people that do use Opera are probably going to want either a decent bittorrent client or no bittorrent client at all.

Re:BT Client sucks (1)

roror (767312) | about 8 years ago | (#15568969)

you can change association of torrents. go to download extensions and there is a check box to show hidden file types. after that it becomes visible.

Re:BT Client sucks - about:config (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15568506)

about:config / opera:config -> BitTorrent -> Max Upload Rate
Not that I'd use Opera for mail, bt, irc, notes and whatnot. Damn featurebloat, just let me surf :/

Re:BT Client sucks (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15568508)

Obviously you haven't used Opera9 at all. The BT client in Opera9 works similar to regular downloads and so does indeed show transfer rates and the number of seeds/peers. In addition to that when you download the torrent file it will allow you to limit your upload and download speed. It also shows the amount of data uploaded/downloaded and the number of current connections going out/in.

Re:BT Client sucks (1)

ceeam (39911) | about 8 years ago | (#15568511)

Hey! My cellphone camera lacks dynamic range!! I'll stick with my DSLR....

(Oh. Every browser's download manager sucks compared to separate utilities. But they have different target audiences I guess...)

Re:BT Client sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15568521)

Duh, It is advertising itself as a Browser.
The bit torrent thing is an add-on you may want to use. I've been using Opera for 7 years now and even then, it would take a lot to make me use anything but utorrent.

"Nice try Opera, but for now I'm sticking with my old BT client."

Re:BT Client sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15568572)

Btw, for those looking around in the Preferences dialog to disable the built-in Bit-torrent client -- you won't find it there. Go to opera:config > Bit Torrent and uncheck 'Enable'.

Re:BT Client sucks (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | about 8 years ago | (#15568624)

I'm still downloading it ATM, but my guess is it's designed for more "common folk" who probably wouldn't know what a Bittorrent client was if you asked them. They're used to clicking on a link and a file downloading. Configuring something like uTorrent or Azureus isn't going to be fun for them. I'll end up sticking to uTorrent myself, but I do think that simply progs like this are a good thing for some.

Re:BT Client sucks (1)

Rits (453723) | about 8 years ago | (#15568731)

I love Opera, but their integrated bit torrent client sucks. It doesn't show transfer rates, you can't limit your upstream, you can't see how many people you're connected too, you can't see if there are any seeds and it doesn't keep track of your share ratio.


A not so thorough examination of BT in Opera...

In the transfer manager you can see various statistics, like upload/download speed, number of peers. In the BT preferences (available in the dialog when you open a .torrent file) you can limit your upload speed. Opera defaults to sensible upload values if you set nothing.

Of course you don't get all the features of heavy duty BT clients - most people wouldn't know what to do with them. But for the casual BT user, this implementation should be quite useful.

Suck my cock Failurefox, you won't be missed. (-1, Troll)

lennyhell (869433) | about 8 years ago | (#15568376)

Opera 9 rocks. Small, fast (even on linux), compliant, feature packed but not bloated. 0% of GNOME/GTK crap. No fake download counters.

get wet (0, Redundant)

WhiZa (875583) | about 8 years ago | (#15568418)

Has their CEO reached the US yet since their last release? http://www.opera.com/swim/ [opera.com]

SVG Basics? (1)

clear_thought_05 (915350) | about 8 years ago | (#15568475)

Can someone verify how well the svg rendering works in Opera? Some simple tests like at svg basics [svgbasics.com] would be nice to check. I've heard all sorts of varying reports on how well this worked, then compared to Firefox native rendering, then the adobe plugin. When will we see some consistency in the svg world?

Re:SVG Basics? (1)

porneL (674499) | about 8 years ago | (#15568694)

Seems pretty good. I've even found one example [dyndns.biz] where Opera 9 beats FF.

The Lifestyle that is Opera... (1)

Super Dave Osbourne (688888) | about 8 years ago | (#15568478)

Ok, first off, the DL for OSX [apple.com] was simple and quick, total time to install and relaunch was less than 1 min. Can't beat that... Features, it is pretty extensive, I don't necessarily care for integrated BitTorrent clients in my browser, yet it is forethinking of Opera [opera.com] to include it since BT seems to be the #1 traffic on the Net [theregister.co.uk] by about 4:1 ratio. Now for the weird part, who are these "lifestyle" models they have photoed for the browser's new help and information? The Features shows two girls, looking like they are college crack whores [opera.com] gotten at the 9.0 release party's rave. :) Just some thought here, maybe Opera could actually consult a professional modeling agency for its photo shoots.

Re:The Lifestyle that is Opera... (1)

pdr77 (748376) | about 8 years ago | (#15568524)

You know it's really not nice to talk of your sister that way.

Re:The Lifestyle that is Opera... (0, Offtopic)

Carewolf (581105) | about 8 years ago | (#15568620)

Not crack whores. It's how Norwegian girls dress.

Re:The Lifestyle that is Opera... (1)

baadger (764884) | about 8 years ago | (#15568811)

Why so we can see some crappy generic bland boring models like on every other ad campaign? Atleast it's a _little_ distinctive, even if corny, give them some credit.

Re:The Lifestyle that is Opera... (0, Offtopic)

jweller (926629) | about 8 years ago | (#15568830)

You say college crack whore like it's a bad thing.

... and don't forget (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15568486)



Buggy as all get out ! Oh, how I miss the days when software worked ALL of the time.

Acid Test (2, Funny)

roman_mir (125474) | about 8 years ago | (#15568498)

So, I guess once you can see that face on acid correctly in your browser you really have reached the end of the Internet, there is nothing more to see. Good bye, all the Opera users, it's been nice while it lasted.

Bless them (4, Insightful)

professorhojo (686761) | about 8 years ago | (#15568584)

Ah, I see they fixed some stability issues. That's pretty much the only problem I had with Opera 9 Beta 1, though even when it crashed, it wasn't an issue, because Opera simply let me continue my last session from before the crash. Bless the hearts of those Opera developers. :)

The Opera canvas extension (3, Informative)

zxSpectrum (129457) | about 8 years ago | (#15568587)

The canvas extension in question is the opera-2dgame [opera.com] context. Some of what it features is:

  • setPixel and getPixel
  • point in path-detection, using checkCollision
  • canvas update locking

There is work underway to get a similar API for the canvas into the specification. [whatwg.org]

Disclaimer: I am the author of the mentioned blog post detailing the opera-2dgame context.

Standards Compliant? (-1, Redundant)

sydneyfong (410107) | about 8 years ago | (#15568614)

What good is being ACID2 compliant, when they failed to handle some trivial (and common) code?

http://cuhk.hkoi.org/~sydneyfong/public/operabug.h tml [hkoi.org]

Re:Standards Compliant? (1)

baadger (764884) | about 8 years ago | (#15568879)

That seems like a pretty obscure feature to me. Absolute positioning inside a scrolled block? Is there actually any mention of how such a situation should be handled in the relevant standards?

Opera seems to update the visible area once the box has been scrolled, placing the box back where it was as if it is floating over the blue box, Firefox seems to make it stick to the scrolled area.

I was under the impression absolute positioning was always relative to the inside of the browser Window, not the container.

If you're convinced this is a bug, have you reported it?

Already switched from Firefox (0)

edxwelch (600979) | about 8 years ago | (#15568628)

Now that it has ad blocking there's no need to use Firefox anymore. Finally I have features that work 100% (password manager, download manager) and no need to close down the browser every time the memory usage gets too much

More goodies since v8 (4, Informative)

porneL (674499) | about 8 years ago | (#15568657)

  • adblock
  • user-defined search engines, opera:config
  • mht (web archives) reading and writing
  • XSLT, XPath, JS XSLTProcessor, xml:id. DOM2 Stylesheets in weekly version.
  • TLS/1.1 with workaround for buggy TLS/1.0-only servers
  • fixed long-standing bug with z-index of <iframe>

nice! (2, Interesting)

MrP-(at work) (839979) | about 8 years ago | (#15568700)

Just upgraded to 9.0 on my work PCs (windows and ubuntu linux) without any problems.

Will upgrade my home PC within a week probably.

I just love how easy it upgrades, from version 7.x to 8.x and now 8.x to 9.x I've had my same skin/custom buttons and it just works. I remember upgrading previous versions and the skins would no longer work and I'd have to find a similar one and customize it from scratch again.

Now its so easy.

Only bad part is the new widgets menu.. I'm very anal/obsessive compulsive and I hate change (which is why ive had the same skin since version 7 and similar skins in 5 and 6).. now im all twitchy.. i hate when they add/remove menus =P

Re:nice! (1)

MrP-(at work) (839979) | about 8 years ago | (#15568880)

Wooo! I got rid of the widgets menu by commenting out

Submenu, -235137047, Browser Widgets Menu

in the standard_menu.ini file

But ahhhhhh! I opened my history to come here to post this and I dont like the new history. i like the giant list, not collapsable folders.. AHHHHHH ::head explodes::

Re:nice! (1)

MrP-(at work) (839979) | about 8 years ago | (#15568938)

view>by time visited fixes that ::starts breathing again::

yay opera 9, now its just like opera 8 which is like opera 7.

Re:nice! (1)

zxSpectrum (129457) | about 8 years ago | (#15568992)

But ahhhhhh! I opened my history to come here to post this and I dont like the new history. i like the giant list, not collapsable folders.. AHHHHHH ::head explodes::

There is a View view button in the history tab. Select "By time visited" and you have what you used to have.

I would however also suggest that you learn to use the new history, and the quickfilter feature. I love the "By time and site" feature. Usually when I want something in history, I have a vague idea about what I wanted to go back to, and when I did so.

Doesn't work with the one site I'd like it for (1)

Raleel (30913) | about 8 years ago | (#15568751)

An internal web site that works kind of slow with fire fix and IE. I try going through our single sign on web page and it can't handle it. no idea why.

Looks like it's still beta (1)

edxwelch (600979) | about 8 years ago | (#15568764)

I am just trying out the new version... looks like it's still beta quality. The edit boxes have 2 spaces instead of one. For instance when posting this message I see two spaces between each word in the subject edit box.
Also Opera can't log in to codeproject (http://www.codeproject.com/)

Re:Looks like it's still beta (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15568939)

"Also Opera can't log in to codeproject (http://www.codeproject.com/)" Judging by that comment, we can all assume you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about and disregard your comment completely.

You can login to codeproject fine in Opera 7, 8, 8.5 and 9 - It's not the browsers fault if the user doesn't know what they're doing.

pet bugs still there (3, Informative)

richlv (778496) | about 8 years ago | (#15568845)

unfortunately, my own pet bugs still are there...

1. opera constantly stats all files in the download list, including already downloaded ones;
2. bittorrent downloads don't work through an http proxy;
3. systray icon in kde breaks icon arrangement with 48px tall kicker

though it is good that google maps buttons now work and icon is transparent :)

Why isn't it Open Source? (1)

TristanGrimaux (841255) | about 8 years ago | (#15568861)

What are they so afraid of?

Welcome to the party.. (2, Informative)

ThatDamnMurphyGuy (109869) | about 8 years ago | (#15568884)

"# Initial support for NTLM authentication."

It's about farging time already.

Exchange server (1)

Maset (190867) | about 8 years ago | (#15568946)

It finally connectes to the web interface of Exchange at least as well as firefox. However it still doesn't do the public folders bit (IE does though).

I refuse to use IE, and now that Opera works with the websites that I have had some problems with (youtube.com for some reason also) I'm giving firefox the flick.

Re:Exchange server (1)

Maset (190867) | about 8 years ago | (#15568973)

oops, apparently public folders is there, just not as elegantly displayed as if you were using IE

Coming soon in version 10! (1)

X3J11 (791922) | about 8 years ago | (#15569006)

"After teasing us for months with betas and snapshots, Opera Software have finally released version 9.0 of their web browser. The new version features correct ACID2 rendering, native support for the SVG Basic profile, a built-in BitTorrent client, support for Microsoft's designmode and contenteditable extensions, per-site configuration, Atom support, Web Forms 2.0 support, Canvas support (and some Opera-specific extensions), NTLM authentication, some support of parts of CSS3 and lots more. The full changelog is available."

All that's missing is the proverbial kitchen sink.

Am I the only one wondering why a web browser is including a BT client? I'll stick with Firefox, thanks.

Amazed by the platforms supported. (1)

Jessehk (894352) | about 8 years ago | (#15569007)

I am consistently amazed by the support Opera has for different platforms.
They have Ubuntu packages (that can be installed with dpkg) for all (past and present) versions of the operating system.
I saw at least 10 other supported distributions.

I can honestly say I have never seen a consumer product so supportive of *nix.
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...