backtop


Print 50 comment(s) - last by Belard.. on Mar 9 at 7:04 AM


Opera 10.5 release in action
The new browser from Opera sports a sleek new Aero look, but is it the fastest? We investigate the claims..

While Norway's Opera Software is the king of the mobile browsing industry, in the PC browser industry it plays the role of the underdog.  Opera currently holds a small chunk of market share -- 2.35 percent -- trailing Microsoft Internet Explorer, Firefox, Chrome, and Safari.  Still, 2.35 percent of the web's 1.7 billion users worldwide (according to Internet Web Statistic's 2009 survey) is still an impressive 40 million customers worldwide -- something not every tech company can claim.

Yesterday Opera released the final version of Opera 10.5 for Windows, a speedy build that brings a host of new features and improvements.  It offers a faster layout engine -- Presto 2.6 -- which also includes a host of bugfixes from the layout engine Presto 2.4 used in Opera 10.  It also offers a brand new Javascript engine Carakan, which should be substantially faster than the old engine, Futhark.

Rounding out the improvements is a new graphics library, Vega.  The browser also offers greater support of HTML5 and CSS3, cutting edge web standards that were partially supported in Opera 10.

The browser is now brought up to speed in Windows 7, as well, sporting a stylish new Aero-glass look and offering full support for Aero peek and jump lists.  Other newly supported Windows 7 features include Speed Dials, tabs and more from the Taskbar.

It also offers full thumbnail previews in the tabs section if you drag down the section's border.

Opera's popular Turbo (page compression for faster loads on slow connections), Unite (content sharing), and Link (synchronization of bookmarks, etc. over the web) make a reappearance in the new release as well.  They have been slightly tweaked and improved.  Users now have the ability to make any new tab a private tab, as well, and use private tabs alongside normal ones.

We took the browser out for a quick spin to evaluate Opera's claim that it was "the fastest browser on Earth."  In the interest of brevity we put it up against the latest test build of Google's Chrome -- Chrome 5 (Chrome is typically regarded as the fastest browser).

In the Peacekeeper browser benchmark, which measures a variety of performance factors including web graphics, database operations, and Javascript, Opera 10.5 managed a score of 3373 points, while Chrome 5 scored 4358 points (more is better).  In Celtic Kane's new JS Benchmark Opera 10.5 scored 211 ± 0, while Chrome 5 scored 498 ± 0 (more is better).  Lastly, in Sun Spider, another script benchmark Opera 10.5 finished in 353.4ms +/- 1.1%, while Chrome 5 took 409.0ms +/- 2.0% (less is better).

As you can see, against Google's top browser candidate, Opera 10.5 seems to trail just slightly in synthetic benchmarks, though Sun Spider did hand Opera a key win, somewhat of a surprise since the test is built on Web Kit and would seemingly give Chrome home court advantage.

We did not have the time or resources to conduct an exhaustive analysis of page load times on the top 20 websites, but from a basic feel approach Chrome 5 and Opera 10.5 feel neck and neck in page load speed on content-heavy pages like SI.com and Facebook.com.

The browser download weighs in at 9.4 MB.  If you want to give it a try, just visit Opera's homepage, here.

All tests were conducted on a MacBook Pro running 64-bit Windows 7 Professional.  The machine had an Intel Core 2 Duo T9600 processor clocked at 2.8 GHz and 4 GB of DDR3 RAM.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Is browser speed really an issue?
By Virtual Conan on 3/3/2010 11:16:02 AM , Rating: 5
My PC isn't new but it's not a dinosaur either. I find that it doesn't matter what browser I use they're all about the same speed wise. Maybe if we were all still on Pentium IIIs this would be an issue, just can't see it as one in 2010 when the majority of users are on dual core machines.

I end up using FF most of the time simply because of Ad-Block and how simply it is to setup and use.




RE: Is browser speed really an issue?
By Yawgm0th on 3/3/2010 11:35:16 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
My PC isn't new but it's not a dinosaur either.
I have a Core 2 Quad with 8GB of RAM on RAIDed hard drives running Vista 64-bit. I can still get Firefox and IE to lethargic states if I open enough tabs (in FF, anywhere from 50 to 200, depending on the content of the tabs). IE8 isn't usable for browsing with numerous tabs even on this system. Somewhere between 15 and 50, it consistently crashes (as has been the case on every system I've used).

I agree to the extent that downloading and rendering a single web page should not display an appreciable speed differences between browsers, but the ability to store numerous tabs of rich content while still remaining responsive is crucial. I'm fairly satisfied with what I can do in Firefox now, but it could be better, and I'm not always so fortunate to be on my home computer.

More so than tabs, not having the browser lock up because of poor third-party plugins (usually from Adobe -- Flash and PDF, particularly). This isn't measurable by a synthetic benchmark effectively, but it is a speed-related measurement and an important one for the browsing experience.


RE: Is browser speed really an issue?
By SeeManRun on 3/3/2010 12:27:03 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I can still get Firefox and IE to lethargic states if I open enough tabs (in FF, anywhere from 50 to 200, depending on the content of the tabs).


Do we really want browser makers trying to make it so you can have 200 tabs open at once and it is still snappy. It doesn't seem like much of a sacrifice to ask the user to close some of those tabs and keep it down to 20 or less. I would rather have functional features than hacks to enable this kind of use case.


RE: Is browser speed really an issue?
By Yawgm0th on 3/3/2010 1:01:39 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
It doesn't seem like much of a sacrifice to ask the user to close some of those tabs and keep it down to 20 or less.
Seriously? I mean, I'll admit that 200 is extreme, but I have more than 20 open right now. I frequently find myself having between 20 and 50 open just for regular usage. I certainly don't think it's unreasonable to expect the browser to be able to open more than 20 without crashing. (I'm looking at you, IE7 and IE8)

In any case, the quantity of tabs doesn't affect functionality in a negative way. My point is that making browsers "faster" with tabbed browsing as the standards requires that browsers are able to handle numerous tabs with rich content. One page is going to load reasonably fast on any modern system on any browser (that renders it properly), but it might not with ten, twenty, fifty, or two hundred tabs already open -- depending on the system and the page content.


RE: Is browser speed really an issue?
By zinfamous on 3/3/2010 3:27:24 PM , Rating: 3
I think you guys need to look into your tabbing problem.

I'm sure there are some support groups out there now that can help with this growing addiction.

Tabaholics anonymous?
;)


RE: Is browser speed really an issue?
By BZDTemp on 3/4/2010 4:01:42 AM , Rating: 4
I find it easy to get 30+ open tabs.

One of the reasons is that with Firefox one can let it open bookmarks in section with one click "Open All in tabs" and I use this with online news. It is rather addictive as loading them with one click not only saves clicks it also means once I get to tab #2 and on all info is there for me to read with 0 wait.


By kextyn on 3/5/2010 10:14:26 AM , Rating: 2
You should really look into RSS readers. I see no point in opening up 20 different news sites when you can have them all in one page on Google Reader.

Also, Opera can open bookmarks in the same way (open all in a folder.)


By DanNeely on 3/3/2010 1:20:33 PM , Rating: 3
I regularly have 40+ tabs open at a time on my home computer consisting of the sites I visit on a daily basis. Since favicon's became widespread the icon is sufficient to ID the tab and I can view it more quickly than by either typing in the URL or opening my bookmarks. When I'm browsing image sites I can have 100+ tabs open at a time.

My system never blinks at the load Opera generates when doing so, and hasn't since early versions of 9.x. I never used 8.x hard enough to compare, and while I haven't stress tested 10.50 much yet my initial impressions are favorable.

The only limitation is that if you double the number of tabs open at a time you need twice as much ram for the browser. 100 tabs isn't realistic on a netbook or conventional bottom spec system but on a higher end model with 4+GB of ram the fact that the browser eventually ends up consuming a gig isn't an issue. Ram's cheap, my time isn't. Putting enough ram in that the swapfile is never hit hasn't been a problem for years.


By smokedturkey on 3/3/2010 1:48:58 PM , Rating: 3
realistically, it would take me literally HOURS to open 200 tabs. he must be looking at p0rn hahaha

Do not forget and do not suffer any delusions..Opera is the browser that innovated tabbed browsing. Funny how the big boys copy ideas!


RE: Is browser speed really an issue?
By bhieb on 3/3/2010 12:28:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
, but the ability to store numerous tabs of rich content while still remaining responsive is crucial

Crucial??? 50-200 tabs?? Come on it is not "crucial" that you have that many open and you know it.

"Hey I did a PC search for *.exe and opened them all why is my computer slow."

Be realistic there is certainly a need for a 1/2 dozen or so tabs at once (maybe even up to 20), but past that and your just being lazy. I mean a simple middle click will close them you know.


By Yawgm0th on 3/3/2010 1:16:39 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Crucial??? 50-200 tabs?? Come on it is not "crucial" that you have that many open and you know it.
I said numerous, as you quoted. I use 50-200 tabs in some circumstances, but I would define "numerous" as much lower, more like 10 - 30. I can't be that much of an outlier for using more than five tabs at once. Two hundred is unreasonable, yes, but fifty isn't insane and twenty is pretty reasonable.

quote:
Be realistic there is certainly a need for a 1/2 dozen or so tabs at once (maybe even up to 20), but past that and your just being lazy. I mean a simple middle click will close them you know.
Lazy or efficient? Tabbed browsing itself, by the same logic, is just "being lazy" since you can just open everything in different browser windows. You don't need tabs.


By Veerappan on 3/4/2010 3:46:19 PM , Rating: 2
I have to disagree here.

I've got 22 tabs open in opera at the moment, and while 4 of them are for random stuff (one anandtech, two DT, and 1 xkcd), the other 18 are all for work-related reference resources that I am using as references throughout the day. Note: This number was over 30 before I hit a milestone in my current project earlier this week.

Being able to quickly reference a document while coding, making a change in an editor, flipping to another few tabs where you've got test windows open (doing some web dev at the moment), and then checking another reference to see where you went wrong is a very nice thing to be able to do.

The one thing that I've noticed about Opera on my system is that it doesn't bog down on my system nearly as bad as Firefox when I've got 15+ tabs open (I've counted as high as 39, and I'm pretty sure I've had more). It also doesn't get nearly as unstable as FF does when that many pages are open on my machine (Solaris 10, 64-bit Sparc, 1GB RAM).


RE: Is browser speed really an issue?
By Virtual Conan on 3/3/2010 12:37:17 PM , Rating: 4
I'm an IT person. My day to day work PC is an AthlonXP 3200+ 2.2GHz with 2GB of ram and Windows 7 Enterprise. I use FF is my primary browser.

I typically run 15-20 tabs but never more than 20 I would estimate. Most of these tabs are displaying fairly complex IT management tools. The machine is completely usable.

200 tabs is unrealistic to 99% of users. I would say your average user is running between 1 and 5 tabs at a time with a power user running between 5 and 15.


RE: Is browser speed really an issue?
By Yawgm0th on 3/3/2010 1:23:22 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
200 tabs is unrealistic to 99% of users.
That's why it's the upper limit in my range. Even for me, 200 tabs is an outlier. But 50 isn't that far-fetched, and plenty of other "power users" operate with as many as 20.

quote:
I typically run 15-20 tabs but never more than 20 I would estimate. Most of these tabs are displaying fairly complex IT management tools. The machine is completely usable.
It's not the IT management tools that do it, depending on what they're coded it. It's having a mixture of tabs with heavy Java or Flash or similar technologies. Open five tabs of your tools, five tabs of Facebook or a similar site, a couple flash games, a couple news sites, maybe a few forums, and a couple of PDFs. All of a sudden you have fifteen or a twenty tabs and a noticeably laggy browser. That system might not have issues running XP, depending on how well you run it on just how many tabs you open.


RE: Is browser speed really an issue?
By Virtual Conan on 3/3/2010 1:37:17 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
It's not the IT management tools that do it, depending on what they're coded it. It's having a mixture of tabs with heavy Java or Flash or similar technologies. Open five tabs of your tools, five tabs of Facebook or a similar site, a couple flash games, a couple news sites, maybe a few forums, and a couple of PDFs. All of a sudden you have fifteen or a twenty tabs and a noticeably laggy browser. That system might not have issues running XP, depending on how well you run it on just how many tabs you open.


Actually, yes, they are quite intensive, especially the logging tools that are basically streaming data, correlating it and graphing it for you in real time. The data is of course stored in a DB on another machine but the front end application is doing all the "real" work for me, the Sys Admin.

For what it's worth, I typically have several YouTube windows open at the same time and still I don't have a problem.

The idea that developers should or would have users running 200 very intensive sessions open at a time is not realistic.


By Yawgm0th on 3/3/2010 4:58:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Actually, yes, they are quite intensive, especially the logging tools that are basically streaming data, correlating it and graphing it for you in real time. The data is of course stored in a DB on another machine but the front end application is doing all the "real" work for me, the Sys Admin.
The most well-written front-end database web app can never match the processing wastefulness of poorly written Java. ;)

In any case, I'm not saying that your system or most of the current browsers can't handle what you need. I'm saying that the usability and speed of the browser when it's actually stressing the system is what should be measured. Who gives a crap if a page loads in 150 milliseconds instead of 175? I can if I switch tabs and it locks or up doesn't go instantaneously, that's a problem.

quote:

The idea that developers should or would have users running 200 very intensive sessions open at a time is not realistic.
I never said it was. No one did. That number was the absolute highest that I think I've ever hit, and it was an outlier even for me. But I don't think asking for 20, 30, 40, or even 50 tabs is insane. And the point is not the developers should be aiming for a certain number -- the point is that under these conditions, it would be good to see which browser performs the best. I can tell you there's a huge disparity between how IE8 and FF perform under these circumstances, but I might want a test to indicate how Chrome, Safari, Opera, FF, and IE all do.


RE: Is browser speed really an issue?
By Sunday Ironfoot on 3/3/2010 12:45:17 PM , Rating: 2
You're completely missing the point! Faster JavaScript performance means websites can do increasingly sophisticated things with JavaScript, and move the web forward in general.

For instance, someone wrote a simple 3D engine using javascript, it performed quite well in Chrome, but ran like a dead dog in IE8.

No doubt if all web-browsers had fast JavaScript performance, all the major websites would take advantage of it and we'd have very interesting interactive websites, and unique and novel ideas for web applications. But of course, IE is holding us all back, as usual.


By Sunday Ironfoot on 3/3/2010 1:05:32 PM , Rating: 2
This demo http://deanm.github.com/pre3d/monster.html seems to run marginally faster in Opera 10.50 than Chrome 4. It runs quite poorly in Firefox 3.6. And it doesn't work at all in IE8.


By probedb on 3/3/2010 2:37:22 PM , Rating: 2
Well being a web dev my work PC is usually on 24 hours a day and Firefox stays open. After reloading lots of times and after a couple of days it's not unusual for FF to be eating nearly 1GB RAM. This isn't with lots of tabs, it's with a few open.


RE: Is browser speed really an issue?
By bug77 on 3/3/2010 5:59:54 PM , Rating: 2
I've said this before, but I'll say it again.

Browser performance is the 3d acceleration for the internet.

You also couldn't care less if your video card took 2 or 10 milliseconds to render a single triangle, but when 3dfx came and sped that up 100x thus allowing the rendering of many more triangles at once, the whole world changed.

It's the same for browsers: it's not about the loading of a bland page, it's about allowing more content.


By DominionSeraph on 3/4/2010 12:59:37 AM , Rating: 2
I don't want more Evony ads.


RE: Is browser speed really an issue?
By drycrust3 on 3/4/2010 10:57:30 AM , Rating: 2
I've just maxed out my monthly download allowance and now have to spend the rest of my month at 64kb/s.
Other than that, I do wish they would include things like how secure a browser is. I realise I'm more on the paranoid side, but if I'm doing internet banking or paying with a credit card then I want to know that nosy people aren't looking. To me "fast" = "questionable security". From what I've seen there isn't anything in this article that would even get me excited enough to download it.
Also, this article says the browser runs on Windows 7, well I run Ubuntu, so I would have to wait for the Linux version anyway.
So, yep, FF will do me fine.


RE: Is browser speed really an issue?
By Veerappan on 3/4/2010 3:52:51 PM , Rating: 3
You shouldn't have to wait long. Opera is usually pretty good about getting the *nix versions out within a few days of the windows releases (I'm surprised they weren't same-day this time, but their website says my Solaris version is "coming soon").

For now, bide your time, and then in a few days check back. Honestly, if you haven't tried Opera, it's worth checking out.


By kextyn on 3/5/2010 10:20:46 AM , Rating: 2
They explained why the other versions are taking longer a couple months ago. Here's the link explaining it:

http://my.opera.com/desktopteam/blog/accelerated-p...


content-heavy website
By compuser2010 on 3/3/2010 11:21:31 AM , Rating: 2
si.com and facebook.com content-heavy? I would have used altaposten.no and/or expressen.se instead. Both have obscene amounts of pictures and advertisements.




RE: content-heavy website
By ussfletcher on 3/3/2010 11:48:38 AM , Rating: 2
Or Anandtech.com, have you seen the amount of ads and pictures? Absurd.

:D


RE: content-heavy website
By bhieb on 3/3/2010 12:31:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
have you seen the amount of ads and pictures?

Not in a long time FF+ad block = WIN!

Did go there on friends machine a while back and it is literally a different site, just looked wrong.


RE: content-heavy website
By smokedturkey on 3/3/2010 1:45:41 PM , Rating: 3
actually... Opera+adblock = FTW.

Also, 10.5 is the right version. the next will be 10.51 and so forth... 10.5beta is what the one guy was talking about

Opera user since version 3. Opera rocks!
I can't see why people still use IE. Go find a replacement for the dinosaur!


RE: content-heavy website
By Reclaimer77 on 3/4/2010 1:39:11 AM , Rating: 2
Opera is for Linux fanbois who like to pretend they are en vogue or something.


RE: content-heavy website
By leexgx on 3/8/2010 3:28:37 AM , Rating: 2
i been using Opera for years always preferred it, tried Firefox but the tab session is an bit of an fail as it only saves the last window that is open be it an popup as i last happened to me

i use opera for most activity for Quick links i use Chrome (msn msg chat links for the most part) i do use that as my default browser so it goes to Chrome, but i use Opera for every thing els as the tabs stay open even if i restart it or an crash


RE: content-heavy website
By Sazar on 3/4/2010 3:44:40 PM , Rating: 2
I can't use any browser but IE on my corporate network unfortunately :(

Otherwise I use Chrome, FF and Opera.

The 10.5 build is fast and I have seen the benchmarks but it honestly doesn't FEEL much faster, even with the turbo feature, than FF and Chrome's latest builds.


By Belard on 3/3/2010 2:32:10 PM , Rating: 1
I love opera... especially 10.0... and 10.5 looks even better.

But Opera has some bug problems that makes it difficult to replace IE for many people.

1 - Printing!
Opera can't print out to save its life. Selection printing usually causes crashes... or printer errors. Page printing prints out garbage more often then not.

I've experienced these problems on ANY computer with Opera
9.x and up. My computer, friends, clients, AMD, intel.. notebook, WindowsXP, Windows 7...

UGH! HOW HARD IS IT TO PRINT OUT A WEB PAGE?!?!

2 - Spell Checking in TEXT boxes
Even a text box like this, on this blog or any other site... if you spell check a word and it changes the number of characters, you lose the last line or so of text... you have to PRESS ENTER to get the line back and then delete the CR to fix your text.... UGH!?




By Belard on 3/3/2010 6:56:13 PM , Rating: 2
Okay... Downloaded & installed Opera 10.5. For the most part, they got rid of the menu & title bar so now Opera takes up even less space. Its color matching with XP is very good... and unlike Google Chrome which forces the Aero effect on a non-Aero OS.

An issue I am having is that there is no simple icon/button way to pull up the PANEL... its always been a button on Opera 9~10 and they SHOULD have left it there... The only real easy way is to press F4. The SAVE page off the menu is gone.. and should be there on the O-MENU button. Unlike IE8, its very easy for the end user to toggle between 10.5 and the 10.1x look.

I'm testing the the text mode on this as well to see how well Opera does. Looks like #2 is resolved... I'll know for certain in the next few hours.

As terms of performance... I'd say that 10.5 feels faster than 10.10. Things do load a tad faster.

Other features added is a private browser tab. The whole interface has more activity of sliding tabs, buttons and shading (turning down the lights) when doing a text search on the page.. Overall... I like it.

I'll test out the printing over the next few days.


By shadowofthesun on 3/4/2010 4:23:41 PM , Rating: 2
The panel button is now in the bottom left corner, its a little gray bar with a triangular arrow


By Belard on 3/9/2010 7:04:39 AM , Rating: 1
It wasn't on my custom configuration.

The new view bar is sharp in Windows7, but I put my FIND TEXT box (FireFox 8.x and older) down there and it freaks out with mouse over. :(

But... the TEXT box / spell checking bug is fixed (Only told them several times about it in beta.. almost a year ago)

And the PRINTING ability actually works! (mostly) Printing "selection" doesn't crash Opera, but doesn't print graphics/photos that maybe on a page. Something that IE has been doing since version 3 quite well. But printing page numbers and ALL work very well.

With previous OPERA versions, it sucked to have to open IE just to print something out... Rare, but still it was a pain and showed a serious flaw in opera, even thou it has so few.

Opera 10.51 is needed... there are some bugs, but some of it is most likely caused by out-dated FLASH by Adobe.

What I do miss about Opera 10.1x is that the tab-bar is black and easier to read/see over the new one as it now uses grey/silvers (old style) or system colors in Aero-style... which is okay if you're in Aero.... I wouldn't mind a BLACK over-ride option... the way google's chrome is always blue.

Opera 10.5... easily better than ever!


Verb Predicate
By DominionSeraph on 3/3/2010 10:33:32 AM , Rating: 2
I've been using Opera 10.5 since last night. It's pretty slick, but I did have to break out IE8 to raid a Fox News poll. Opera gave me an endless hourglass and semi-locked. (Couldn't mousewheel scroll, but scrollbar still worked)




RE: Verb Predicate
By Taft12 on 3/3/2010 11:22:48 AM , Rating: 1
Blocking you from getting to Fox News is a feature I have been requesting for quite a while. I'm glad it was finally implemented!


RE: Verb Predicate
By leexgx on 3/3/2010 11:35:28 AM , Rating: 2
http://www.opera.com/browser/download/

you can get the International from the link above its 12MB (i think the US one is the same for UK or US but i always get the International one as the default download is the US download)


Version # is wrong
By djdjohnson on 3/3/2010 1:25:21 PM , Rating: 2
Somebody ought to take a look at the version number referenced in the article. The version released is not 10.5, but 10.50.

The way that Opera numbers their version numbers, 10.5 would be much older. In fact there probably was a 10.5, and it would have been released months ago. The version just posted is 10.50, as in ten point fifty.




RE: Version # is wrong
By Natfly on 3/3/2010 2:15:29 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, software version numbers shouldn't be treated as standard decimals. I had to go to Opera's site to realize it's actually 10.50, I've been using 10.10 for several weeks and was confused at first.


Chrome 5 is final?
By Dwaren on 3/3/2010 2:46:37 PM , Rating: 2
For sake of testing it would be nice to compare final Opera 10.5 with final Chrome (4.x)

benchmark results from betas are indeed impressive but history teach us that final releases gets reality check :)




RE: Chrome 5 is final?
By Belard on 3/3/2010 3:42:30 PM , Rating: 2
Google Chrome marking team sucks balls.

Chrome 4? Just came out... Now 5 is coming out? Geez! Chrome has been on the market for barely a year... It should be called 1.4 with 1.5 coming out soon.

If Opera followed Google's model numbers, we'd be up to version 15 by now. I guess google wants to get their numbers up to look like its an older product.

Can anyone really tell a visual difference between Google 1.x and 4.0? No.

Other than Operas Printing issues (I don't know in version 10.5) its a very damn good browser.


Bad test.
By bandstand124 on 3/3/2010 10:55:25 AM , Rating: 3
Chrome 5 hasn't been released yet.

I think you will find that Opera 10.5 is the fastest production browser on earth, which is what any right minded individual would have taken for their meaning in the first place.

I would test again with browsers that have been actually released.




Yes!
By Roffles on 3/3/2010 11:17:26 AM , Rating: 2
I love how they have brought it up to speed with Win7. Now I can go to my tabs thru the aero peek. My favorite browser just got better.




By reretteK on 3/3/2010 12:23:06 PM , Rating: 2
As already pointed out, Chrome 5 is not out yet...not even in BETA...it is a dev release.

Compare to Chrome 4, IE8, and FF 3.6 please.

Only seems fair.




Try these things in Opera:
By FaceTheSlayer on 3/3/2010 1:02:31 PM , Rating: 2
POP and IMAP mail, RSS, IRC, Opera Unite, Widgets, Synchronization, skins and see for yourself what Opera can offer. For ad blocking use hosts file from here:

http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm

Works great for all browsers.




Come on Jason
By bug77 on 3/3/2010 5:53:40 PM , Rating: 2
Your numbers are all wrong again.

Win7 x64, 4GB RAM, 3.00GHz dual-core, Opera 10.50 scores about 5000 and all versions of Chrome five score between 4900 and 5100 in Peacekeeper. Yet you claim Chrome is 25% faster than Opera.

And it's not the first time this happens. Last time you were using OS X, but now both our systems are virtually the same. How on earth do you do your testing?




The polish on this thing....
By Roffles on 3/3/2010 8:12:33 PM , Rating: 2
For those who don't use or don't regularly use Opera, I want to say that they REALLY polished this release.

A few things that I find impressive compared to the prior release:

1. FTP client is amazing.
2. When you press the period key "." to initiate a word search, the screen dims and it highlights the words you are looking for with the added option to scroll from word to word. AWESOME!!!!!
3. The password manager is improved
4. Minor graphics tweaks make it feel more professional. I encourage people with large monitors to double click the tab bar to expose the tabbed windows full time.
5. When you mouse over tabs, it changes color and it's also easier than before to see where your active tab is amongst all the other inactive tabs. If I recall, Firefox uses all these ugly and distracting prime colors.
6. The menus have been tweaked for a "less is more" approach.
7. Content blocking (right click, block content) is polished and improved.
8. It keeps a closed tabs list on the right. You don't have to Ctrl-Z endless times to get that one tab you accidentally closed. PERFECT!
9. Ctrl+Shift+L appears to have more options on top...I can't remember before, but being able to lock it to the current page will be very helpful.

This is mazing and I can't wait to discover more goodies! It really is that much better than the previous release. Who the hell cares about speed with all these other tweaks. I am going to try using pop, rss, sync, and unite.




By toyotabedzrock on 3/4/2010 8:36:41 PM , Rating: 2
Opera 10.10 and 10.10 used Presto 2.2.15. Opera 10.50 uses Presto 2.5.22. A few of the betas had Presto 2.6.x.

Your performace numbers are way off too. I have 70 tabs open and the celtickane test gives me a 455.

http://my.opera.com/DanielHendrycks/blog/2010/03/0...

That is a table of speed tests for all the Opera 10.50 versions go check it out!




Speed dial "finally" supported! LOL
By mino on 3/6/2010 6:04:11 PM , Rating: 2
"... newly supported Windows 7 features include Speed Dials ..."
It is almost funny to hear of an Opera-first feature copied by Microsoft being "supported" by new version Opera.




"We don't know how to make a $500 computer that's not a piece of junk." -- Apple CEO Steve Jobs














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki