Opera 9.0 Released 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."
How about an API (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:How about an API (Score:5, Informative)
Re:How about an API (Score:4, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
Re:How about an API (Score:2)
Re:How about an API (Score:2)
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)
Re:How about an API (Score:4, Informative)
Here is a good repository: http://userjs.org/ [userjs.org]
Re:How about an API (Score:4, Informative)
Re:How about an API (Score:2)
Re:How about an API (Score:4, Insightful)
Easy.
Re:How about an API (Score:5, Informative)
Re:How about an API (Score:2)
Re:How about an API (Score:3, Informative)
Anyway, Opera 9 does have what would be commonly known as an 'ad-blocker'. To get to it, right-click somewhere and select 'Block content'.
Re:How about an API (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you consider switching channels when commercials come on as stealing as well ?
Re:How about an API (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:How about an API (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
Good you mention Google ads. Google is the only major ad provider which I don't block. You know why? Because their ads are unobtrusive, don't slow down my system to a crawl with some badly written Flash and, God forbid, sometimes they are helpful! If all the other ad providers where as consumer friendly as Google, we wouldn't even need AdBlock.
Re:How about an API (Score:3, Insightful)
Take your own advice. The world would be a better place without television as we know it, anyway. It would be an even better place without advertising, again, as we know it today. The broadcast model of television is on the way out regardless (though it will be a long time going) and play-on-demand is on its way, already proliferating throughout cable.
Re:How about an API (Score:3, Informative)
Ads are annoying. We all agree with that. There is a point to be made, though: If everybody blocks ads, whether they're for TV or for the net, sooner or later we can expect sites to either mandate paid registrations or die out all together. Maybe 'stealing' is a strong word, not interested in debating that, not that it would go anywhere useful anyway. It's the consequences one has to be mindful of. These services cost mo
Re:How about an API (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:2)
Finally (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
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)
Re:Finally (Score:3, Interesting)
I personally find myself using Opera exclusively on Windows and Firefox on my Gnome/Linux desktop.
Re:Finally (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Finally (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Finally (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
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 (Score:2)
Re:Finally (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
Acid Test (Score:3, Funny)
Bless them (Score:5, Insightful)
The Opera canvas extension (Score:4, Informative)
The canvas extension in question is the opera-2dgame [opera.com] context. Some of what it features is:
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 (Score:5, Informative)
Re:More goodies since v8 (Score:3, Informative)
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)
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! (Score:2)
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
Re:nice! (Score:2)
yay opera 9, now its just like opera 8 which is like opera 7.
Re:nice! (Score:2)
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)
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
Re:pet bugs still there (Score:2)
opera -notrayicon
Re:pet bugs still there (Score:2)
Welcome to the party.. (Score:3, Informative)
It's about farging time already.
Frightening the Fox. (Score:5, Interesting)
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. (Score:2, Informative)
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'
Re:Frightening the Fox. (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:Frightening the Fox. (Score:3, Informative)
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
accciiid (Score:2)
Opera topic? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Opera topic? (Score:3, Funny)
What in Opera's name are you talking about?
tabindex? (Score:2)
EMAIL CAUTION (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
For fun (Score:2)
Definitely a stroll down memory lane if you were into computers in the 80s.
Yawn (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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.
Looks like Opera is back. (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:A bit torrent client? (Score:2)
Re:A bit torrent client? (Score:5, Informative)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
"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:OMG!? "Opera-specific extensions"!? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.. (Score:5, Interesting)
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"!? (Score:4, Insightful)
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"!? (Score:2)
Re:OMG!? "Opera-specific extensions"!? (Score:2)
http://cuhk.hkoi.org/~sydneyfong/public/operabug.
You'll see why this is a frustrating bug to us if you look at my homepage url.
Re:OMG!? "Opera-specific extensions"!? (Score:2)
clicking & scrolling behaved identically for me with opera build 344 and firefox 1.5.0.4
Re:OMG!? "Opera-specific extensions"!? (Score:2)
Re:BT Client sucks (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:2)
Re:BT Client sucks (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:BT Client sucks (Score:2)
Oh, and since when is Joe average even using Opera. Not everything is intended for that group of people.
Re:BT Client sucks (Score:4, Informative)
Re:BT Client sucks (Score:2)
(Oh. Every browser's download manager sucks compared to separate utilities. But they have different target audiences I guess...)
Re:BT Client sucks (Score:2)
Re:BT Client sucks (Score:2)
A not so thorough examination of BT in Opera...
.torrent file) you can limit your upload
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
Re:BT Client sucks (Score:2)
Are you so sure Opera tried to replace your old BT client with this feature?
Re:Good, (Score:5, Interesting)
-Eric
Re:Good, (Score:5, Insightful)
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, (Score:2, Insightful)
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 quot
One size fits all? (Score:2)
Surely this is a personal point of view? You might very well argue that Opera is better programmed, or more efficient, or does a better job of rendering pages, but just "better" is a subjective assertion.
I'm impressed with Opera, but until it supports the same level of extensions, I personally wouldn't class it as "better" (as otherwise, I'd be using it!)
Re:Good, (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, but Opera is just a browser whereas Firefox is slowly becoming more of a platform for web based tools. Let's forget about whether Opera is open source or not. The real issue is that until Opera supports the ability to add some type of extensions, like Firefox does, then there wil
Re:Good, (Score:2)
I think it's just guilt-by-association. No, Firefox does not have any "eye candy" to speak of. When trying to find fault with FOSS apps though, it's a popular criticism to trot out. So, we'll complain about the icons and say all Mozilla cares about is "eye candy."
In any event, my opinion of Opera is pretty low. I used it exclusively back when Firefox was nascent, and Mozilla was a bloated warthog. But when Fir
Re:Good, (Score:2)
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, (Score:3, Insightful)
Note how, for example, the Google Toolbar was developed first for MSIE, and only much later for Firefox.
Re:Good, (Score:2)
Re:Good, (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:SVG Basics? (Score:2)
Re:SVG Basics? (Score:2)
Both Firefox and Opera developers have found difficulties in implementing SVG, because the spec was not written with webbrowsers in mind. Interaction between SVG and HTML and CSS is not so well defined. It was also found that existing SVG content (often written for use with the Adobe plugin) is not always usable in the browser if you follow the spec.
Re:The Lifestyle that is Opera... (Score:2)
Re:The Lifestyle that is Opera... (Score:3, Interesting)
Not a deal breaker for most people, but the lack of good skins is enough to keep me using Safari+Saft (it looks very nice with Unified Aqua applied). Anyone have any ideas?
Re:Standards Compliant? (Score:2)
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.
Re:Standards Compliant? (Score:2)
Re:Standards Compliant? (Score:2)
Re:Standards Compliant? (Score:2)
Without this feature I might as well browse the web with a banana!
Re:Coming soon in version 10! (Score:3, Insightful)
One could equally ask why web browsers tend to include FTP clients. In practice, many people tend to use their web browsers to download stuff, and BitTorrent is an increasingly-popular way to download stuff.
Note also that Opera manages to do everything but the kitchen sink in less than 4MB, while Firefox's executable (on Windows) is 6.5MB before you even consider the multitude of XPCOM components, XUL documents, XBL bindings and JavaScript source files that make it actually work. I'll stick with Opera. :)
Re:ACID2 -- excellent (Score:3, Informative)
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.