Opera 9.0 Released

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."

How about an API

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

Re:How about an API

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

Re:How about an API

Not just plugins and widgets, it also supports user JavaScript, which is basically the same as Greasemonkey. In fact, it was the original inspiration for Greasemonkey, and Opera has even added compatibility support so that lots of Greasemonkey scripts can run in Opera unchanged.

Re:How about an API

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

If you like Firefox because of the the web developer toolbar, then you may be interested in the Opera W3-Dev Menu: http://tobyinkster.co.uk/opera [tobyinkster.co.uk]

Re:How about an API

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

Re:How about an API

Opera's User JS is just equivalent to the particular Firefox Greasemonkey extension, not an extension system on its own. You can "only" add site specialized Javascript functionality with User JS, not change chrome, and so on up to providing complete application extensions like DownThemAll [downthemall.net].

Re:How about an API

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

Easy.

Re:How about an API

> 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

if everybody blocked Google ads, Google would die

True. However, if everyone blocked popups and Flash banners that play music then these forms of advertising would die and be replaced with things that don't get blocked, such as Google's text-only ads. This is a Good Thing.

So to reiterate: blocking all adds - bad, blocking only excessively annoying ads - good.

Re:How about an API

However those who actually pay for the site aren't people who view the ads but ignore them anyhow. The people who pay for the site are the small fraction who actually go and buy whatever it is being shown. Without that fraction, advertisers see no return on their investment in ads, and would stop funding sites anyhow.

So a logical extension is that we all must buy junk we see advertised to support our favorite sites? Well, in that case, why don't we just give the site the money directly. It may feel weird to financially support a free website but its certainly a better way to do it than to pay some other company so that they keep funding the site via advertisement.

Of course, its not that everyone has to pay in either model. In the advertisement model, you're basically feeding off of those who either have enough money they can toss it at random things at a whim (i.e. just based on seeing some banner ad deciding to spend $50 or so) or who are very gullible or easily manipulated (the same people who purchase things they get spam for).

So to make the analogy go over, what most sites need is a way to get donations from the idle rich and the gullible. They need hooks, gags, things which make no difference to the average site user but which someone with money to burn can donate to get special priveleges. The same sort of stuff that leads people to buy cellphone ringtones and screensavers and the like. Like letting their posts use some special inline images or whatever.

Re:How about an API

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

Finally

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

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

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

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

They didn't drop ICQ because it wasn't used, but because Mirabilis(?) kept changing the ICQ protocol to get rid of non-ICQ clients. Opera got tired of having to chase a moving spec, so they dropped it and eventually put an IRC client in instead.

My observation is that Opera wants to produce a great web browser that also contains unobtrusive, useful but lightweight Internet tools that some people expect from their "internet suite".

Their bittorrent client isn't the best in the world - but it works, it's fast and for a quick download it's far more useful than firing up another torrent client. Their chat (IRC) client isn't going to give mIRC sleepless nights, but it's fast and convenient. Their mail application is fast, powerful and small but subject to personal preference. Their RSS reader works fine for small numbers of RSS feeds, but lacks the organisational finesse of a purpose-built reader.

But the really nice thing with Opera is that all of these things add very little to the footprint, yet are there if you want them. Personally, I use Trillian for my IM needs and The Bat! for email, and serious torrenting will still be done with Azureus. But Opera's RSS reader is great for my needs, and if I'm just quickly downloading a smaller torrent why should I start a second bit of software?

Anyway, gotta go download O9 and install it, as I'm still running the beta... ;-)

Re:Finally

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]

Good,

but still closed-source though.

Re:Good,

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,

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.

OMG!? "Opera-specific extensions"!?

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

Re:OMG!? "Opera-specific extensions"!?

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:OK, since you're so well informed..

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"!?

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... ;)

BT Client sucks

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

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

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.

SVG Basics?

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?

The Lifestyle that is Opera...

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.

Acid Test

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

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

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.

More goodies since v8

• 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!

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

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

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

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/)

pet bugs still there

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?

What are they so afraid of?

Welcome to the party..

"# Initial support for NTLM authentication."

It's about farging time already.

Exchange server

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.

Coming soon in version 10!

"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.

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.

FreeBSD

The FreeBSD build works great. I'm using it as of now. Although, some of the mirrors had the the names of packages incorrect and when I installed Opera the script complained about a missing icon directory..but it works fine so far..

Frightening the Fox.

Reading changelogs such as these [opera.com] should strike fear into the hearts of the Firefox developers, while that they squander so foolishly their hard-earned market share. If it wasn't for Opera, Joe Clickit wouldn't have reason to think FF was so poorly cobbled together.

Firefox, while it started with good intentions has become thick around the midriff. It's memory useage is embarassing, and I use Linux which is apparently the build target Firefox is most optomised for. [howtocreate.co.uk] How long can we be told we're sick of being told they're imagining FF's gushing memory leaks.. Why does an open-source application fall so miserably behind a closed-source competitor? The trend is the inverse.

Re:Frightening the Fox.

2. Firefox 'memory leaks' are just a myth. Firefox keeps the last few pages stored in RAM for the instant back/forward functionality.

If Firefox memory leaks are just a myth, then what are all those memory-leak bugs that were fixed in 1.5.0.1, 1.5.0.2, and 1.5.0.4?

Firefox does have memory leaks, but not to the extent that detractors often claim. Mozilla is working on these, and has even released a tool to help track down more leaks. It also has features, like the back/forward cache you mentioned, that consume lots of memory, which probably overshadow the actual leaks by several orders of magnitude.

The problem comes when people oversimplify, as in "I hope they fix the memory leak (singular)" or "Firefox doesn't have memory leaks, it has features." Either way, it obscures the actual problems.

accciiid

I can't put my finger on it, but something about that acid2 test reminds me of drugs.... you have to wonder what the web standards people do for a good time.

Opera topic?

How about adding an Opera topic to Slashdot? It seems popular enough. (I swear by Opera myself.)

tabindex?

do they allow focus on non-'input' elements via TABINDEX yet?

EMAIL CAUTION

Opera's email client is awseome in general (and is usually my primary email client) -- but there is one issue that I've found that they have yet to fix: IMAP mail...

It's a bit of a weird one: If you use a non-opera email client (with IMAP, at least -- I don't use POP), and that email client is the first to see a new message, there are a few issues. (Say, you use your 'company mandated' email client to get the mail at work, then Opera at home.)

Opera doesn't acknowledge the existence of emails that have been first detected with a non-opera browser. I noticed this because I kept looking for particular emails that had seemed to vanish on me. I finally noticed the problem -- Opera simply wasn't detecting the messages. They were sitting there in my inbox, but Opera coudln't see them.

Otherwise, I've been using the Opera 9 (beta) series, and I've been quite pleased.

Portable

Now if they'd just release a U3 or "PortableApps" version then I could use it. It's a shame too, because it's such a great product.

For fun

Have you guys looked at the Nostalgia style?

Definitely a stroll down memory lane if you were into computers in the 80s.

Yawn

Background) I'm an Opera user from way back. In fact I'm currently typing this in Opera 3.62 which I paid for. 3.62 is fast, tight, renders ugly as sin, and the javascript doesn't work. But it is the fastest best thing I've ever used for scanning huge number of pages at once. Tabbed browsing is a gimic that steals screen space and makes me move my hands from the keyboard to the mouse.

Today) Opera has missed the boat. They may have more features and more neat and whizzy things in a tigher package than anyone else, but they don't have the few things people want. Firefox is The Way and what I use when I want anything more than raw reading capability. The delays in getting versions out shows just how dead the "We'll do all the work for you" model is.

I'm sorry guys. I'm glad I could support you when IE was free, but you're just not fast enough or extensible enough.

A lesson for everyone) If you change the UI you put me into a position where I have the learn something new. It could be new elements, new keystrokes, or removing old keystrokes that used to work. Ultimately, if I have to learn something new to use you're product, I might as well learn something new to learn a product that works a little better. People like to be comfortable. If you force them to change, don't expect them to just change a little.

But how does it work with Google?

I have always loved the Opera browser, I really think it is the best browser available out there. Fast, standards complaint, everything well integrated together, it has also a very clean, nice, intuitive and easy to use interface. I really was a huge Opera fan. However I had to give up and stop using it essentially for one reason: it does not work well with new Google products. Gmail used to break every other week, maps didn't scrolled properly, I never managed to properly render the calendar. Dunno who's fault is this Opera for not implementing some relevant stuff heavily used by new Google's technology, or Google for heavily using technology on which there is still not yet a standard. I am now downloading the new Opera 9.0 to see it for myself, but does anybody knows whether the situation has improved, or if there is at least some interest on either party to solve this very frustrating problems??

Better Native Mac Support

A real disappointment is that you have to use "Wand" to manage passwords. I wish it would integrate with Apple's keychain and Apple's bookmarks. Then I could sync it more easily. I guess the Mac market isn't large enough for them to create better NAtive support for OS X.

The one thing that bothers me with opera..

Is the non-native interface. I like all my apps to look and behave the same way. Custom interfaces was cool with winamp 2.x.

Looks like Opera is back.

I used Opera for years, but once firefox hit 1.0, I switched. I kept trying new Opera versions, but they fell short in compatability area or content control like Flashblock that I just couldn't live without.

But now with all the per site configuration, I may finally switch back. Per site identities, per site masking, per site control of multimedia; These were things I always said Opera needed to deal with a poor web pages. The diehard Opera heads would always tell me we have the change all the bad web sites. Being a realistic person, I knew that wasn't going to happen. So I stuck with Firefox.

But now I am ready to give Opera another shot. It was a great browser, now with more control and compatability, it may be back in my books.

Bravo Opera dudes.

And it still doesn't support my friggin' bank...

My bank, once you log in, does a redirect within a frame of the top using "top.location.href=..." javascript.

Opera doesn't seem to like a redirect to a different domain from within a frame; when I load the inner frame as a top level page, the redirect works fine, it's only from within the frame the javascript doesn't fire.

It's shit like that that keeps me from switchin to it.

I've submitted the issue to them, but I'm sure they just blame the site developers, even though the site works in FF, IE, Safari, and KHTML...

Noticeable difference in performance

Right off the bat I was able to find an improvement in performance that I've been hoping I'd see.

I have a folder of about 20 bookmarks that I click to open when I open the browser. In Opera 8.54, and probably 3 or 4 different builds of Opera 9 beta, loading those 20 bookmarks would cause Opera to get a bit sluggish and mouse gestures wouldn't function correctly. Typically the minimize and close tab gestures would trigger a new tab being opened. Finally that isn't happening. Glad to see they've streamlined it and gotten it running more smoothly.

Good News

Actually I used FF for year, but it annoyed me by it's permanent crashes and unstable work. Extensions - great plus, but I don't see any extensions I can't live without in Opera. Opera - my choose. Especially after they released, and some serious bugs were fixed.

Re:A bit torrent client?

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

Re:A bit torrent client?

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?

"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.

Re:Standards Compliant?

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?

Re:Standards Compliant?

You've posted this URL a couple of times in the comments by now. Maybe you should report it to Opera instead? What is the "trivial (and common) code" you are referring to? What is the actual problem?

Re:Standards Compliant?

You posted that link a few minutes ago as well. Did you file bug reports with clear testcases, or are you just whining here? Offset properties are underspecified, so hard to implement - something Opera is working on at the moment.

Re:Standards Compliant?

Yes, because if there's one thing I need in a web browser, it is the ability to click a white box around inside a blue box.

Without this feature I might as well browse the web with a banana!

Re:Standards Compliant?

The test page doesn't validate (no doctype, for one). What is the 'correct' behaviour in quirks mode? Have you tried it with a validating page?

Re:However good

Thanks for keeping Slashdot open minded by trying it out.

Re:get wet

Has their CEO reached the US yet since their last release?

Yes, actually -- he's in Seattle right now [operawatch.com].

Re:ACID2 -- excellent

Firefox at least is working on it [howtocreate.co.uk]. The Gecko trunk is getting close, and there's a "reflow" branch that passes (but hasn't been merged in yet).

These fixes will miss Firefox 2.0, which will use roughly the same rendering engine as Firefox 1.5 does, but should be in in time for Firefox 3.0.

As for IE -- last we heard from Microsoft on the subject, they had no plans to target Acid2. Maybe IE8 if we're lucky, but if they maintain their current schedule, that could be in 2010.

Re:Yeah, but...

I mean, will it use shared libraries _and_ be able to deal with foreign characters

Yes, depending on your distro. They have shared builds for many Linux distros [opera.com] including versions of Debian, Gentoo, Fedora, Xandros (for some reason the download page always defaults to Xandros on my Fedora box), SuSE, Ubuntu, and more, plus the static builds in .deb, .rpm, and .tar.gz form.

And at least on Fedora Core, it has no problems (that I've noticed) with international characters.

Re:ACID2 -- excellent

Have you actually tried Opera 9 and the acid 2 test? While its the closest to doing it proper, it STILL doesn't do it right, as claimed.

My statement is, if you have standards that NOBODY meets, then your standards are too high!

I won't lose any sleep that my browser doesn't handle the ACID2 test properly.

Re:I can't get it to run on my Apple II+

1200 baud? Have you been living in a barn for oh so many years? TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! TROLL! :p