Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Opera 9.0 Released 395

Posted by timothy
from the too-bad-it's-not-open-source dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Opera 9.0 Released

Comments Filter:
  • How about an API (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Magada (741361) on Tuesday June 20, 2006 @09:02AM (#15568301) Journal
    I love Opera. I'd love it even more if it came with the possibility to create extensions.
    • Re:How about an API (Score:5, Informative)

      by Mark Gillespie (866733) on Tuesday June 20, 2006 @09:31AM (#15568545)
      It supports netscape plugin API, and Widgets, is that enough entensions for you?
      • Re:How about an API (Score:4, Informative)

        by Bogtha (906264) on Tuesday June 20, 2006 @12:17PM (#15570002)

        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.

    • by Nik13 (837926) on Tuesday June 20, 2006 @09:51AM (#15568696) Homepage
      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 (Score:3, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        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)
      • Well, there still is the old fashioned adblock via Privoxy [privoxy.org], but that's kinda overkill sometimes...
        • Since most large ad serving companies use third party cookies to track you around the web, this means that you can block most ads by blocking relatively few hosts.

          I've put about 8 in my DSL routers Web Filter page and that's it sorted for my whole network. I'm quite happy to read Google ads as they target them much more effectively. I've even clicked one or two!
      • Re:How about an API (Score:4, Informative)

        by pkiff (959365) on Tuesday June 20, 2006 @11:09AM (#15569393)
        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 (Score:4, Informative)

      by TAiNiUM (66843) on Tuesday June 20, 2006 @10:21AM (#15568958)
      Opera does have extensions. They call it User JS.
      Here is a good repository: http://userjs.org/ [userjs.org]
  • Finally (Score:4, Insightful)

    by amazon10x (737466) on Tuesday June 20, 2006 @09:02AM (#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 (Score:3, Interesting)

      by someone300 (891284)
      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 (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Danga (307709) on Tuesday June 20, 2006 @09:39AM (#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 (Score:3, Interesting)

          by baadger (764884)
          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 (Score:4, Informative)

            by Danga (307709) on Tuesday June 20, 2006 @10:23AM (#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 (Score:5, Interesting)

      by ceeam (39911) on Tuesday June 20, 2006 @09:30AM (#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 (Score:4, Insightful)

        by pstorry (47673) on Tuesday June 20, 2006 @11:13AM (#15569430) Homepage
        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 (Score:4, Informative)

      by RonnyJ (651856) on Tuesday June 20, 2006 @09:34AM (#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]

      • 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 (Score:3, Insightful)

          by RonnyJ (651856)
          It works slightly different in Opera, a bit more user-friendly I believe.

          In Opera, you can right-click any search-box to add it to the search engine dropdown box, as well as defining it as a 'search keyword' at the same time.

          Firefox lets you define a search keyword in a similar manner (rightclick, 'Add a Keyword for this Search'). This doesn't add it to the search dropdown box though like Opera does - if you want to do this, you need to use the 'Add Engines' feature located in the search drop down box.

    • Re:Finally (Score:2, Funny)

      by cloudkiller (877302)
      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.
  • Acid Test (Score:3, Funny)

    by roman_mir (125474) on Tuesday June 20, 2006 @09:26AM (#15568498) Homepage Journal
    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 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by professorhojo (686761) * on Tuesday June 20, 2006 @09:37AM (#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. :)
  • by zxSpectrum (129457) on Tuesday June 20, 2006 @09:37AM (#15568587) Homepage Journal

    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.

  • by porneL (674499) on Tuesday June 20, 2006 @09:48AM (#15568657) Homepage
    • 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>
    • by octaene (171858)

      Well, I'm going to give Opera a try for a week to see if I can get used to it. I will say that the ad blocking features aren't as good as the Firefox Adblock plug-in (so far as I can tell). I could block IFRAME elements with that, but seemingly cannot in Opera. I'll keep trying...

  • nice! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by MrP-(at work) (839979) on Tuesday June 20, 2006 @09:51AM (#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
    • 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::
      • view>by time visited fixes that ::starts breathing again::

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

  • pet bugs still there (Score:4, Informative)

    by richlv (778496) on Tuesday June 20, 2006 @10:08AM (#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 :)
  • by ThatDamnMurphyGuy (109869) on Tuesday June 20, 2006 @10:12AM (#15568884) Homepage
    "# Initial support for NTLM authentication."

    It's about farging time already.
  • Frightening the Fox. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by delire (809063) on Tuesday June 20, 2006 @10:34AM (#15569082)


    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.

    • by Anonymous Coward
      Well, there are a few things I'd like to point out:

      1. Firefox development is focused on Win32. Ben Goodger, the lead developer, does not use Linux.

      2. Firefox 'memory leaks' are just a myth. Firefox keeps the last few pages stored in RAM for the instant back/forward functionality. Popular extensions, such as ForecastFox, are known to cause leaks as well.

      3. The entire interface is rendered by the Gecko rendering engine itself, as XUL - which may cause Firefox to appear sluggish. The benefit of XUL is Firefox'
      • by Kelson (129150) * on Tuesday June 20, 2006 @01:57PM (#15570847) Homepage Journal
        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.
        • by jp10558 (748604)
          What's most amusing about this is that Opera has the same feature sort of problems. For years there'd be people complaining about memory use till FF started doing the same caching in memory. Then it suddenly dried up as most people came to understand the "memory leak" was actually memory cache, and disabling that reduced memory use but hurt back/forward performance.

          Opera loves it some memory cache, on my 1GB box with memory cache set to auto it will eat 350MB virtual memory without a problem. Of course, the
  • 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? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Some Pig! (103985)
    How about adding an Opera topic to Slashdot? It seems popular enough. (I swear by Opera myself.)
  • do they allow focus on non-'input' elements via TABINDEX yet?
  • EMAIL CAUTION (Score:5, Interesting)

    by sl3xd (111641) * on Tuesday June 20, 2006 @11:00AM (#15569303) Journal
    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.
  • Have you guys looked at the Nostalgia style?

    Definitely a stroll down memory lane if you were into computers in the 80s.
  • Yawn (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Autonomous Crowhard (205058) on Tuesday June 20, 2006 @11:32AM (#15569618)
    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.

    • Re:Yawn (Score:3, Funny)

      by Cheeze (12756)
      you're probably running windows 3.11 too, on a 486-33mhz with 16MB of ram.

      I can't believe you can't be bothered touching the mouse, and yet you spend 5 minutes writing a diatribe about how "old school" you are.

      back in my day, we didn't have these internet thingys. If we wanted to get news, we'd sit out on our porch and wait for the paper to be delivered. It was slow, and we liked it like that.
  • by guidryp (702488) on Tuesday June 20, 2006 @12:06PM (#15569895)
    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.

Power corrupts. And atomic power corrupts atomically.

Working...