backtop


Print 78 comment(s) - last by MrModulator.. on Mar 31 at 12:26 PM


An Acid3 score of 100 percent on Windows was long thought to be a mythical creature like a unicorn or dwarf, but Opera proved otherwise.  (Source: Opera Team)
The Windows browser world has a new compatibility king

It looks like Safari's sole reign at the top of the Acid3 standings was rather short lived.  The new co-victor is Opera, maker of the Nintendo Wii and DS browsers, which has been hard at work preparing to release its PC 9.5 version of its browser, codenamed "Kestrel".  It released an alpha build in September and a beta build in October.  It plans on a final release of "Kestrel" this summer, squaring it up to take on Firefox 3.

Now "Kestrel" has some new bragging rights in its competition against Microsoft, Mozilla, and Apple's browsers.  The scrappy little company has become the first to produce a Windows browser capable of passing the Acid3 test.  On Opera's Desktop Team blog a team poster shared news from Lars Erik Bolstad, the Head of Core Technology at Opera Software, who states, "I have a quick update on where we are with Acid3.  Since the test was officially announced recently, our Core developers have been hard at work fixing bugs and adding the missing standards support.  Today we reached a 100% pass rate for the first time! There are some remaining issues yet to be fixed, but we hope to have those sorted out shortly."

Last month the best result had been set on a Mac computer using the Safari browser, which scored 90 percent.  The same day that Opera scored a passing result, Safari's nightly webkit build for Apple also achieved a 100 percent score, according to an online leaderboard with many statistics.  However, this passing result was for Mac only.  According to the list the previous leaders for Windows for in-development browsers were Firefox 3.0b4 at 68 percent, and for released browsers Safari 3.1 (525.13) at 75 percent.

The new results for Opera place it as the clear leader in compatibility among the Windows browsers.  While it has to share the overall crown with Safari, Safari is only fully compatible on Macs, lowering its userbase that get to enjoy Acid3 perfection.  For those who want to grab the record setting Opera browser, you'll have to wait about a week, while the Opera team fixes a few final bugs for the final preview version.

In his message  Bolstad states, "We will release a technical preview version on labs.opera.com within the next week or so. For now, the screenshot above shows the Acid3 test as rendered in our latest WinGogi Desktop build. WinGogi is the Windows version of our reference builds used for the internal testing of Opera's platform independent Core."

Opera use peaked in February 2004.  With the release of more stable/functional Internet Explorer versions and Firefox its support waned to its current marketshare of between 0.5-0.8 percent, according to current estimates.  However, with its new status as compatibility king of windows browsers some may care to take a second look at this alternative browser.


Comments     Threshold


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

All I want is one
By Chaser on 3/27/2008 10:35:35 AM , Rating: 5
Although competition is almost always a good thing I believe this "browser war" is more a personal choice statement than anything else.

Simplicity is my first priority. Just give me one browser that functions as required with as many sites as possible including my company's OWA. I care not to waste my time testing multiple browsers while I surf the net.




RE: All I want is one
By Wizard on 3/27/08, Rating: -1
RE: All I want is one
By BladeVenom on 3/27/2008 11:15:44 AM , Rating: 3
When was that, Acid Test 1 IE.vs Netscape?


RE: All I want is one
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 3/27/2008 11:32:02 AM , Rating: 5
Well, in terms of pages "working" IE is still on top. This is attributed to web designers building pages for IE based on IE standards, rather than the "Open Standards". This causes other browsers like Safari or Opera or Firefox to have to render the page "Like IE". Firefox does a pretty good job of this, but I have managed to find the occasional website that falls flat on it's face in anything but IE.

It's not "anyone's fault" and while some want to swear up and down it's all Microsoft's fault, they fail to account for the fact that Back when IE was gaining widespread adoption, none of the standards nor their respective organizations existed. They came later after Microsoft and IE were well entrenched.


RE: All I want is one
By xsilver on 3/27/2008 12:02:25 PM , Rating: 2
the one thing with html coding that irks me is how a lot of people are using various resolutions now to display their web pages. However coders still have to cater to the lowest common denominator so examples such as this DT page has about half the page covered by 2 gray bars down the side.

Is there no provision to adjust the page according to the resolution of the browser? This problem is going to only get worse as we move towards higher and higher resolutions?


RE: All I want is one
By wien on 3/27/2008 12:23:25 PM , Rating: 5
Of course you can make dynamically sized pages. Easily even. Most people just don't take advantage of it. The grey bars on this page is a decision 100% in the hands of the developer responsible for the HTML/CSS.

Personally I like pages that cap the text's line length at sensible amounts though. Lines that cross the entire screen can get tiresome to read.


RE: All I want is one
By cochy on 3/27/2008 12:55:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Lines that cross the entire screen can get tiresome to read.


That's very true. I never thought about that. Why is it that we have shorter attention span for longer lines even if the word count ends up being the same?


RE: All I want is one
By MrBungle on 3/27/2008 1:24:26 PM , Rating: 4
It's not so much about attention span, but more about how your eyes work:

http://webstyleguide.com/type/lines.html

Think of a newspaper page - it's normally divided into 4 or 5 columns of text. If you had to read a news story all the way across the page, it would be difficult (at least without very large gaps between each line) to keep track of the line that you're on, and where you're at on that line. It's easy to lose where you're at.

As a web designer, I used to be bothered by the constraints of having to design for an 800x600 browser window. I'd still prefer to at least have 1024x768 as the lowest common denominator, but that limited width forces you to make some critical layout decisions that I think ultimately improve your designs, at least for the most part. Also, I think many people with higher-resolution monitors prefer to have several windows open at once - i.e. not maximized - so the smaller width may also be appropriate for their needs, as well.


RE: All I want is one
By xsilver on 3/27/2008 9:12:00 PM , Rating: 3
it would be great if the browser could realize that you've got spare resolution lengthwise and therefore could arrange the page in a newspaper like column format automatically.

I have no idea how its going to work, but one can dream...

well all i can do now is have two windows open at once.


RE: All I want is one
By wien on 3/28/2008 7:35:40 AM , Rating: 3
http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-multicol/

Don't expect to see it in use for another 7 or 8 years though.


RE: All I want is one
By ChronoReverse on 3/27/2008 1:50:22 PM , Rating: 2
Indeed. This is one of the reasons why I dislike widescreen monitors so much.


RE: All I want is one
By wolrah on 3/27/2008 7:53:45 PM , Rating: 2
You know, since Windows 2.0 we have had the ability to control the size of our program windows. You don't have to keep your browser maximized. You could even have *gasp* two programs on the screen at once!

Even better, any good widescreen will have a rotating stand so you can flip it to "tallscreen" mode which is great for reading forums and news sites.

Seriously, there hasn't been a reason to maximize most apps (Photoshop and similar MDI apps where there are a lot of contained tool windows being the exception) since 1024x768 or so. Past there, it really doesn't make sense to have one enormous window.


RE: All I want is one
By robinthakur on 3/27/2008 12:34:19 PM , Rating: 5
Yer its called absolute versus relative positioning! Its a very deep, head-hurting subject but one which is useful to know. Its always a tradeoff, and the slightly unpredicatable nature of how items will resize plus IE's not supporting a 'min' CSS value until recently meant it wasn't really used and is still a bit on the edge for most people!

This situation *is* Microsoft's fault mainly, in answer to the previous poster, there's unfortunately no getting away from it. They abused their position to ignore the standards set down in plain english by the W3C for roughly ooh, 5 years, instead favouring their own proprietary little behaviours in the browser which nobody used and neglecting such obvious faults like umm...the broken box model and now we're in a situation where the majority of people in the world use a browser which is majorly broken in the way it displays stuff. We're not talking small things here either. You really need to design a site for IE 7 yourself, then try it out in IE6 to see just how much is utterly cocked up and the pain which is involved in fixing it. (This is without hacks etc.) Remember alot of people are still using IE6 and either don't want to upgrade or cannot. The box model fault alone turns designing exact dimensions of pages into a trial and error exercise which takes maybe 5 times as long to carry out.

Most people here look at the Acid test from the perspective of people browsing the net, not as developers and see little difference between them apart from rendering time and crap like phishing filters etc. What is far more important to all of us is that they *all render the pages to look identical* to a standard and then differentiate themselves through whatever features they want. What with the publicity surrounding the acid test and the embarassment that Opera and Safari can render the test correctly, yet IE can't, hopefully MS will make an effort with this release to keep standards compliance. Its not unreasonable given how quickly Opera can put together a build which passes the test yet MS with all its billions of dollars and hundereds of thousands of talented individual employees cannot.


RE: All I want is one
By lantzn on 3/27/2008 5:08:24 PM , Rating: 2
robinthakur is absolutely correct. MS promised us a web standard compliant browser with the release of IE7. Unfortunately in many ways this has not even been met. IE6 was such a hindrance to the advancement in web development. I can't wait for the day when that browser is dust.


RE: All I want is one
By robinthakur on 3/27/2008 1:20:18 PM , Rating: 3
It depends when you would say it was "gaining widespread adoption" The W3C was setup in 1994. There are several standards in HTML which aren't even respected by IE6 (2002 release as I recall) and I think we would both agree that HTML was a stable standard long before IE was a twinkle in Billie's eye. It might all be ok if it wasn't so obviously broken from how its meant to work on paper or in logic (regardless of standards)

In an ideal world, people would avoid a broken product, but sadly if its part of the standard OS on the PC which they buy 99% won't change it. Why didn't MS fix it or add standard features like transparent PNG in the 5 years it took to get IE7 out the door?? Still its better than having to BUY Netscape like in the olden days!!

While I personally do blame MS for producing a browser which renders things incorrectly (there is no getting away from this fact, you need to put in workarounds to get it to display as one would expect) Its also the fault of developers for pandering to IE more and modifying their layouts to cater for its broken system. After all, what would you do if a browser you were trying out didn't render a page properly? As most have done with Opera for "not rendering pages correctly" (ho ho) they change browser!

In hindsight its easy to say this, but still leaves us in a predicament where the entire progress of presentation on the internet is stuck at a IE6 level without being able to meaningfully change... until everybody stops using IE6. Btw I use IE7 and Firefox :D


RE: All I want is one
By wien on 3/27/2008 2:36:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Its also the fault of developers for pandering to IE more and modifying their layouts to cater for its broken system. After all, what would you do if a browser you were trying out didn't render a page properly?
While I'm fine with talking some of the blame, realistically, what are my options? Those of my customers who actually use IE are usually completely incapable of understanding that a browser can have bugs preventing their brand new site from working. It's just way over their heads. If the site looks wrong in IE, it's my fault and I need to fix it.

I could of course sit down with every one of them and explain the problem in detail, but what about their customers visiting the page? They won't know what's up either.

It's just a fscked up situation all around. The only remedy really is for IE to die, die, die, or for Microsoft to adopt Gecko or Webkit. What value does Trident provide these days anyway? It's just a huge buggy mess they have to keep pouring man-years into to catch the other engines. The only thing I can think of that may the preventing them is the Not Invented Here Syndrome, and that's just not a valid excuse, even for Microsoft.


RE: All I want is one
By winterspan on 3/27/2008 7:27:08 PM , Rating: 2
Not anyone's fault??? Are you joking? Of course it's someone's fault. It's the fault of the moronic web developers who created a non-standards compliant website and just focused on compatibility with IE's bugs and faults. How can you *NOT* blame the developers? I've been involved in web development and E-commerce on various levels for years, and today, THERE IS NO EXCUSE for an IE-only website. That's just pure laziness and incompetence and makes all of us look bad.


RE: All I want is one
By Oregonian2 on 3/27/2008 1:43:46 PM , Rating: 2
That's because the compatibility standard is IE itself. One asks "how compatible with IE are you"? IE does well usually.


Opera rocks
By mackintire on 3/27/2008 11:34:43 AM , Rating: 5
Here's basically the difference.

To get the same functionality
Opera (out of the box) = Firefox (with 44 extensions) installed.

Is that better? Who knows and who cares. Better = it does what you want the way you want it. You decide for yourself.

I personally prefer opera. I keep IE around for the one or two websites that refuse to play nice with opera. But 99% of my web browsing is on Opera.




RE: Opera rocks
By Chaser on 3/27/2008 11:46:32 AM , Rating: 3
And I have yet to find even 1% this isn't compatible with Internet Explorer.


RE: Opera rocks
By Etsp on 3/27/2008 12:08:01 PM , Rating: 3
I know of some sites that code to the standards and do not utilize workarounds for IE on a matter of principal.


RE: Opera rocks
By Chaser on 3/27/2008 12:23:45 PM , Rating: 2
Meh


RE: Opera rocks
By kelmon on 3/27/2008 12:26:03 PM , Rating: 2
I can really appreciate why that is the case but I think we all know that all major sites are going to be coded to work in at least Internet Explorer before other browsers are considered. It's a sad fact that IE is so dominant but yet it is a fact and you'd be nuts not to support it until it becomes standards-compliant and the old non-compliant versions are a minority of visitors.

Just trying to be a realist...


RE: Opera rocks
By Etsp on 3/27/2008 12:39:37 PM , Rating: 2
I never said that we should attempt to call for other sites to do this, because you are right, this is reality. I'm just saying that there are such sites that have quiet protests such as this. Some go so far as to check to see if your browser is IE, and then displays a message for you to download Firefox. None of these sites are intended to be mainstream(as that kind of bandwidth would likely kill them) but they at least try to send a message.


RE: Opera rocks
By lantzn on 3/27/2008 5:17:45 PM , Rating: 2
Yes these sites are simply doing the same thing as those site who throw up a message that says you need IE to view the site. Oftentimes you can just go in and things will work just fine.


RE: Opera rocks
By TrueDego on 3/27/2008 3:52:21 PM , Rating: 1
I JUST downloaded Opera 9.50b and it got a 65 on the acid 3 test. I think they were using an internal build, which would be ridiculous. How can they come out touting "We do it better then you!" but not supply the browser for it so everyone CAN see for themselves.

Also for those who have commented that they use opera on linux, you totaly missed the point man. Linux, Open Source. Opera, Closed source. That the community spirit of FireFox and all of those great distro's we use. The ability to help and create something as a whole, then as a monolithic group. (not litteral for Opera anyways). I can find a problem, rewrite the code and you can take a benefit from the changes I made. I'd hate the see the little parts Opera is hiding that NO ONE knows about yet.

And 44 plugins just to equal one opera, I'll pass. I bet I can find 44 features that I hate and still be able to enjoy my FF2. Id rather rewrite my FF to pass the acid 3 test legitimately knowing I didnt cheat, then to use something to where I know there will always be doubt. Humm....sounds like the ATI & nVidia 3DMark cheating wars of a few years back.....we might have something here.......


RE: Opera rocks
By saiyan on 3/27/2008 7:48:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I JUST downloaded Opera 9.50b and it got a 65 on the acid 3 test. I think they were using an internal build, which would be ridiculous. How can they come out touting "We do it better then you!" but not supply the browser for it so everyone CAN see for themselves.


Okay. I just could not stand it when people post stupid messages without knowing (or reading) all relevant facts.

You think they were using an internal build?
Of course they used an internal development build for the testing.

Did you even read that blog at opera.com?

Opera's development staff posted a message informing users about their progress in browser development. They simply said they were able to pass Acid3 test with their latest development build and they are planning to release a technical preview release on labs.opera.com.

No where in that blog did they claim "We do it better then you" nor did they claim their released (downloadable) version is able to pass Acid3.

I think you feel insecured that Firefox you worshipped so much may be threatened by a browser with less than 1% of marketshare.


RE: Opera rocks
By grimdeath on 3/27/2008 11:58:42 AM , Rating: 2
Same here, I have prefered to use opera for the last while but as a web designer I do tend to have several browsers installed just for testing my work in.

I use Opera and FF equally and IE when I have to. The ram problems on FF are my biggest gripe but looks to be solved or at least better in version 3 so I may give it another chance as my primary browser at home.

I have only had one major gripe with Opera where I started receiving and error when I tried to launch it, after days and then weeks searching for a fix, reinstalling opera and so on I finally resolved the issue....after I reformatted. It's been smooth sailing since then though.

I think IE has been bring pretty decent competition in terms of features but I just wish they would get things in gear and use open standards, multiple browser hacks are so silly.


RE: Opera rocks
By Oregonian2 on 3/27/2008 1:47:47 PM , Rating: 2
In Firefox I don't need to bring up IE for those sites that do IE specific stuff. I just click a little logo on the lower right of my screen and that tab will use the IE engine and effectively be an IE screen within Firefox. And just be one of many tabs in the Firefox interface (the others being Firefox tabs). So, IE is always around (actually it doesn't seem to be uninstallable in Windows XP -- it just reverts to IE6) but doesn't have to be brought up.


Compatible with standards or compatible with Acid 3?
By nafhan on 3/27/2008 11:12:34 AM , Rating: 2
Benchmarks like this always make me wonder if they are really bringing the software to compliance or just coding to get the benchmark to pass.




By wien on 3/27/2008 11:49:03 AM , Rating: 2
You can't get one without the other. They may very well be coding specifically for ACID3, but since that test is (arguably) made up of oft-requested features most browsers lack support for, they gain useful standards support through the same process.


By ChronoReverse on 3/27/2008 1:56:17 PM , Rating: 2
Except it's not. Acid3 is made up of mostly corner cases that are rarely if ever encountered in real web pages.

So yes, passing Acid3 means you're more "standards compliant" but it likely won't have any real effect in terms of real-world benefits.


By wien on 3/27/2008 2:15:11 PM , Rating: 2
It won't have any effect yet. But it will open new possibilities once all browsers support the features tested, and most importantly; support is consistent across all of them.

Not that that's likely to happen any time soon as long as Microsoft keep poking at Trident instead of taking advantage of one of the vastly superior open source alternatives.


By ChronoReverse on 3/27/2008 2:23:46 PM , Rating: 3
Let me reiterate. Acid3 is a test consisting of almost exclusively corner cases. By definition, these are cases that don't show up often. For instance, one of the things it uses is fail-over recovery. This shouldn't even appear at all.

A reasonably coded and compliant page is unlikely to ever encounter these cases much less be dependent on them in a manner that's striking.


By wien on 3/27/2008 3:04:21 PM , Rating: 2
Firstly, I don't agree at all about it testing mostly corner cases. People keep parroting this argument everywhere the ACID tests are mentioned, but it's just not true. For instance the DOM tests in ACID3 are for me very important as a passing grade here gives me a good consistent platform to work against across browsers. This is very important as the DOM is a complete mess to work with currently.

Also, the reason it focuses mainly on more exotic parts of the standard is because that's what's left for complete support in most of the proper browsers. The ACID tests aren't meant to test stuff everyone gets right anyway. There's no point in that. The browser vendors have regression tests for that stuff.


By ChronoReverse on 3/27/2008 3:13:28 PM , Rating: 2
But that's clearly not true. If "what's left for complete support" is the exotic parts, then most pages should look the same and have no errors across Firefox, Opera, Safari, IE, etc. But that's clearly not the case yet.


By wien on 3/27/2008 3:20:54 PM , Rating: 2
If you actually develop to the standard, you'd be surprised. It's been a long damn while since I've had (big) problems with differences between FF, Opera and Safari. They're extremely close for the basic JS and CSS stuff. What little trouble there is is usually easily worked around. IE is completely off the mark of course, but IE wasn't even taken into consideration for ACID3 for that exact reason. It's rubbish.

The reason many pages look different in these browsers has more to do with developers getting it wrong or just plain targeting IE than anything else.


By lantzn on 3/27/2008 5:25:38 PM , Rating: 2
"The reason many pages look different in these browsers has more to do with developers getting it wrong or just plain targeting IE than anything else."

That right there is it in a nutshell. It's nice to see more and more web developers putting demands on MS to get their sucked up browser in order. I can remember WAY back when CSS was just starting to gain recognition amongst web designers and we would all sit around in our seminars just wishing for the day when IE would play nice. We're still sitting and wishing in many ways. It's taken WAY to long.


I love Opera
By evident on 3/27/2008 10:29:00 AM , Rating: 2
It's a truly sweet browser. Two features i wish it had are the google search bar "autofinish" feature and a better inline search like firefox.




RE: I love Opera
By phil126 on 3/27/2008 10:36:21 AM , Rating: 2
It is also my browser of choice for about the last 8 years. I started using it when I started using Linux. Been using it ever since on both Windows and Linux.


RE: I love Opera
By eye smite on 3/27/2008 11:31:26 AM , Rating: 3
Yep, I started using opera 6 yrs ago in the 7.0X days. I use IE and firefox as well, just alot of times I prefer Opera. It's really just preference more than anything. This is the browser I've always wanted to tinker with and just never have.

http://www.cubiceye.net/

That would be an interesting browser to use.


RE: I love Opera
By dutchMasta on 3/27/2008 11:35:51 AM , Rating: 2
Use . or / to use inline search.
Use , to use link search.
You can customise it so ctrl+F becomes inline search.
Opera is incredible, but some of the features like inline find, menu customising, UserJS need to be better advertised somehow (or made more obvious to the user somehow), since users often complain about those type of things when it's actually already available in the browser.


RE: I love Opera
By Sundox on 3/27/2008 12:17:41 PM , Rating: 2
opera does have these features.


Actually...
By Zandros on 3/27/2008 10:42:31 AM , Rating: 4
...no browser truly passes the test. While Opera does get a 100/100 score, the rendering is not the same as the reference picture (Safari passes this), and neither Opera nor Safari has a perfectly smooth animation (they stutter at test 26).

Also, I believe there is a Webkit build available for Windows getting a 100/100 score now.




RE: Actually...
By kelmon on 3/27/2008 11:23:55 AM , Rating: 3
Correct on all accounts. Both the Mac OS X and Windows version of WebKit (http://nightly.webkit.org/) deliver 100/100 results but definitely don't deliver a smooth animation yet.

With respect to Opera's announcement, I remain skeptical about this because there is no way to verify that they have made this achievement. In contrast I have installed both versions of WebKit and have seen the result first-hand. Perhaps I should go and find my tinfoil hat...


RE: Actually...
By kextyn on 3/27/2008 11:24:44 AM , Rating: 2
I was just going to mention this. I've been using Opera for many years but I wouldn't lie about what it can do. It's a preview build and the 9.5 release will not get 100/100 (it will in an update sometime.) But they said themselves that it isn't a full "pass" because of the rendering issues.

I'm just glad to see that the developers are actively working to make the browsers compliant. I think the Acid test should be updated more often to keep them on their toes.


The easy way ...
By MAIA on 3/27/08, Rating: 0
RE: The easy way ...
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 3/27/2008 11:05:10 AM , Rating: 2
I prefer to blame these "self appointed" standards bodies that cropped up years after the internet was born and do all sorts of weird things.


RE: The easy way ...
By thartist on 3/27/2008 12:12:12 PM , Rating: 2
DON'T BE SUCH AND IDIOT! Download the browser and test it yourself!!!

You don't even seem to have done it ever cause you would have noticed how particularly it's rendered, opposed to a simple picture.

$%@&#!


RE: The easy way ...
By Sundox on 3/27/2008 12:28:12 PM , Rating: 2
why must anything we do on the web be lucrative to anybody?
it's just stupid we want to browse the web and yes we want to spend our money. I just don't get the idea why it must be difficult.
just standardize that crap, afterwards IE, FF or Opera can create browsers that differ from features not functionality. I might be greeneyed like my baby son, but I think in a industry as "inteligent" as IT one of these nerds should think about this.


I don't know if it has changed....but...
By SilthDraeth on 3/27/2008 11:54:35 AM , Rating: 2
The one time I decided to try Opera a few years back it failed to render several pages properly, whereas Firefox and IE worked just fine. So I gave up on it.




By dutchMasta on 3/27/2008 12:00:50 PM , Rating: 2
It's improved a lot, but still has problems with certain sites, and IE and FF are still better in that department. But, if like me, where 95+% of the sites (and 100% of the regularly visited sites) you go to work fine in Opera, then I'd recommend switching back, unless you also have certain FF plugins that you need that aren't in Opera. Maybe wait til 9.5, but FF and IE are improving quickly as well. In the end, it's all up to preference.


I really, really want to like Opera
By cputeq on 3/27/2008 12:44:26 PM , Rating: 2
I recently tried out Opera on a frakenstein of a computer I have running right now (old Celeron 2Ghz laptop, 512MB RAM, XP SP3).

It ran beautifully until it got to MSNBC.com, where it basically locked up. Turns out, there is a high CPU usage bug with Opera and flash.

Until they get that major issue sorted out, it'll be Firefox for me.

I didn't try all my normal websites, so I'm not sure if Opera would have choked on them also.




By Gravemind123 on 3/28/2008 10:24:10 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, it has a few flaws that keep me using Firefox for now, but Opera is looking good, so I might switch sometime soon.


By Staples on 3/27/2008 1:48:39 PM , Rating: 2
I have been using Opera 90% or more of the time since it went free two years ago. I really love this browser but I occationally use IE or Firefox just because Opera is too closed source for Google to make a toolbar addon for it. I have tried the beta release of 9.5 and I love the online bookmarks (which is why I use google toolbar) but I find it really buggy so I went back to using 9.2.x. I hope their new preview will work well. Firefox 3 beta is more stable than the mature Firefox 2. Hopefully Opera can repeat Mozilla's quality on a beta release.

And speaking of buggy, seems the lastest release 9.26 has a few bugs because I run into strange things once in a while and I have not in the last year.




Firefox 2.0.0.13
By Suomynona on 3/27/2008 1:57:35 PM , Rating: 2
Mozilla managed to squeeze out another two points with the latest version of Firefox 2. Now I'm getting a whopping 52/100.




Uh oh.
By ZaethDekar on 3/28/2008 1:38:09 AM , Rating: 2
So I am on my Wii dinking around and figured I would try the test.

It locked the wii up at number 39. I ended up having to turn the power of manually. Oh well. It deffinatly was a good test.




By amandahugnkiss on 3/28/2008 3:46:17 AM , Rating: 2
This seems like something new for Anand/DT, but a real pisser all the same.




position saved
By perzy on 3/28/2008 8:36:33 AM , Rating: 2
I love Opera for one reason: Whenever i close it and restart i get bak to exactly where I was. Exactly the place on the page(s) I was. Dont any other browser have this?




Opera rocks - Tracker?
By Belard on 3/29/2008 12:13:00 AM , Rating: 2
I've been using Opera 9 for about 6 months now for more than 99% of the time. No pop-ups, easy to use, Tab function blows away Firefox & IE (has thumb-nails, better management).

Its an easy download and its worth checking out - almost everyone who've I have shown or install Opera on their PC's have ended up keeping it. Some of them have used FireFox (includeing myself) but didn't use it much if at all...

For those with Windows XP or Vista, I recommend you go to Appearances - and in the SKINS tab, go to Get More Skins - choose POPULAR SKINS, LIX 1.5 looks great - especially with XP Media Center Edition. Also, I prefwe to have the VIEW BAR turned on and placed at the bottom. It has easy ZOOM menu and FIND box - which locates text/words on the web-page which does a better job than any browser on the market!

But recently - Someone told me that Opera has a "tracker"(?) that is collecting user data and traffic and transmitting the info to China... it doesn't make sense, people and govt. wouldn't use it.




Ie7Pro seems to be forgotten.
By MrModulator on 3/31/2008 12:26:58 PM , Rating: 2
I'm amazed that so few people seems to be using this fantastic extension to IE7. It makes IE7 far superior to the other browsers, I think.

For me it gets me all the functionality I want from
firefox(with plugins) or Opera. And at the same time it doesn't bog down the computer due to RAM leakage and it starts much faster than firefox. And I won't have to bother about compatibilty with various videoplayers, it just works out ot the box(after a simple download).
It has got a fantastic ad-blocker, mousegestures, additional plug-in capability (user created), forms for auto-filling and so on.
You get the nice "firefox like" plugin capabilities like being able to download many streaming video formats (like youtube) with a click and a nice "show password with mouseover" function, for example.

I must say that the one thing I really miss though is that auto completeing ability of firefox(matching hits as you type), but otherwise it does all the things I want.




Time to switch?
By Runiteshark on 3/27/08, Rating: -1
RE: Time to switch?
By overzealot on 3/27/2008 11:15:27 AM , Rating: 2
Opera is far from as concise as it once was, too. I remember when it fit on a floppy, and used around 1/4 the ram of IE.
And it got really bloated at one stage (I think the major part of this was the integrated mail client).
And then they optimised the crap out of it in one major release. It has run sweet as for me ever since.
I disabled the bittorrent part though, still quite buggy.

I have to say, though, that I'm impressed by the fact that Firefox FINALLY has a page-scaling function in beta. And their image scaling is better than Opera when doing so. A few years late for me though.


RE: Time to switch?
By Runiteshark on 3/27/2008 1:00:30 PM , Rating: 2
Honestly it amazes me more that I was rated down for seemingly no reason, rather then any cognitive based responses.


RE: Time to switch?
By ChronoReverse on 3/27/2008 1:58:57 PM , Rating: 1
What extensions do you have? I have not even once been able to reproduce the memory issues claimed by people on a clean copy of Firefox despite opening the same tabs they claimed. Because of this, I'm extremely skeptical that the issue is as large as claimed.

Perhaps you'll be the exception. I'm actually curious.


RE: Time to switch?
By Runiteshark on 3/27/2008 4:59:45 PM , Rating: 2
Download statusbar, Showip, and adblock plus are the only extensions I run.

The theme I use is Minifoxflat.


RE: Time to switch?
By Quiescent on 3/27/2008 6:28:57 PM , Rating: 1
Listen up Firefox fanboys. Stop your downrating. You should stop being fanboys and actually take what we say as something that is not falsified information. Downrating posts like this is the job of some jackoff who thinks Firefox is as good as Jesus' ass. No software is perfect.

I experience the same phenomena whether at school with no extensions or at home with the same extensions runite has.

On my Eee, I had to kill Firefox after it asked for an update. It stopped consuming so much CPU after I had killed it and it had updated. It was quite random. It wasn't consuming hardly any CPU load, but once it wanted to update and I clicked later, oh the fun began.

I have noticed that the feature that saves closed tabs and it's information is a direct cause of this ever so hungry new version of Firefox. Once you kill it and re-open it, it will no longer eat that much RAM.

Also to point out that I have had this issue with running maybe 3-4 tabs sometimes more at a time. I run 3 main tabs, though. My website, my gmail, and Eeeuser.com.

Truth be told, I would switch to Opera, but some of the things about it just do not appeal to me. So I will continue to suffer with Firefox.


RE: Time to switch?
By Quiescent on 3/27/2008 6:52:48 PM , Rating: 1
I add to this the other problems:

When I do experience a full CPU load, firefox is the only one who responds with a pause to any inputs. I can sit here and type in IRC with no problem.

Also like others have said, flash or java sites have been one to make Firefox nasty. And you have to kill firefox and bring it back up after using Java in order for it to not be so bad.

Sure you think an Eee doesn't have much processing power anyways, but I overclocked the thing to 1Ghz and Firefox was still eating CPU load. It did this at school, it did this on my desktop, too.

This is my experience in Windows. I do wonder if it is different in Linux. However, I do not java is worse in Linux. Eating up like 256mb RAM with a good version of firefox on just a simple java site, no java game.


RE: Time to switch?
By Suomynona on 3/27/2008 2:03:17 PM , Rating: 1
Are you running buggy extensions maybe? I haven't really had problems with memory leaks for quite awhile, and I generally only get delays in switching tabs when I have a crappy flash site or Youtube open. Firefox is far from perfect, and has gotten somewhat bloated, but I still think it's pretty good.


RE: Time to switch?
By Runiteshark on 3/27/2008 6:05:53 PM , Rating: 2
Our ratings are being carpetbombed.
Why though?


Is it just me?
By retrospooty on 3/27/08, Rating: -1
RE: Is it just me?
By Micronite on 3/27/2008 10:49:54 AM , Rating: 2
Perhaps, but all this talk ends up making things MUCH easier on web developers. The less time and resources developers have to put into web debugging, the quicker they can roll out stuff to us.


RE: Is it just me?
By retrospooty on 3/27/08, Rating: -1
RE: Is it just me?
By wushuktl on 3/27/2008 11:46:01 AM , Rating: 1
icompletely agree. anybody who says things like "i love opera" or "i hate IE" or "firefox is stupid" needs a readjustment on what's important in life


RE: Is it just me?
By freeagle on 3/27/2008 3:23:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I did switch to firefox over IE6 years ago becasue of the extension support. Beyond that there had not been a single feature I care about


So you don't care whether you have bazillion IE6 windows or one Firefox window with tabs? C'mon, you have to admit tabbed browsing was revolutionary.


RE: Is it just me?
By retrospooty on 3/27/08, Rating: 0
RE: Is it just me?
By freeagle on 3/28/2008 10:37:50 AM , Rating: 2
You were referring to IE6, not IE7 before


RE: Is it just me?
By lantzn on 3/27/2008 5:34:47 PM , Rating: 2
Well it just didn't happen that way by following web standards. They work because many unneeded hours of designer's time was wasted and customer's money spent because of all the IE hacks it took to make them work.


"This is about the Internet.  Everything on the Internet is encrypted. This is not a BlackBerry-only issue. If they can't deal with the Internet, they should shut it off." -- RIM co-CEO Michael Lazaridis

Related Articles













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