backtop

Print 65 comment(s) - last by WTFzilla.. on Apr 2 at 3:44 AM

Opera Mobile 9.7 uses server side compression -- a feature Opera calls "Turbo" -- to deliver much faster page load times.  (Source: Opera)
New mobile Opera browser is among the first to add Flash Lite, Google Gears support

Even the most able of mobile browser often leave their users with significant woes.  According to early reviews those browsers -- which include the likes of Mobile Safari, RIM's browser, and Internet Explorer Mobile -- have been served notice by Opera Mobile 9.7

Opera Mobile 9.5, Opera Software's high-end mobile browser entry, showed a lot of potential, but still had a lot of rough edges. With the 9.7 version, Opera has added the polish mobile browsers desperately lack and has incorporated support for many users' most asked for features.

Among the new features in 9.7 is the inclusion of Flash Lite, which should open up a whole new world of web pages to the mobile community.  Also included is Google Gears, which will offer access to Google applications like Gmail and Google Docs when offline.  Finally, the browser adds support for silky-smooth OpenGL ES hardware accelerated graphics.  This should help make the browser's animations more fluid (this requires 3D hardware and drivers, available on many smart phones, including HTC models).

The new version also uses server-side compression to offer ultra-fast page load times.  In a speed test, the new browser loaded a website in 9 seconds that took Microsoft's Internet Explorer mobile over 3 minutes.  While such tests obviously have the potential for bias and fall short of independent testing, it's clear that Opera believes its browser to be much, much faster than many of its competitors.

It is worth noting that most of these features are available in the beta of Skyfire, a new independent browser entry for Windows Mobile smart phones.  However, Opera Mobile 9.7 one ups Skyfire as well, offering WXGA and VGA support.  Opera Mobile is also available on a couple of mobile OS's besides Windows Mobile -- it's also supported on S60 and UIQ operating systems.

Sadly, neither entry is available for the popular iPhone, due to Apple's restrictions on third-party browsers.  However, the good news is that these new entries place the onus on Apple and other smartphone makers to make more full-functioned browsers or risk losing business.

Opera Mobile 9.7 is currently being tested and will be released to the public in a few short months.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
By Penti on 3/31/2009 6:24:17 AM , Rating: 2
Norway is only a EEA member and they like to stay only that.


By WTFzilla on 3/31/2009 10:29:13 AM , Rating: 2
Opera is slow at development? News to me.

Are you saying that sending a letter with a complaint takes up lots of engineering resources? Apparently your knowledge of software development and management sucks.

And are you saying that Mozilla and Google are slow at development as well, seeing as they are behind Opera's complaint as well?

As for your comment about innvation, are you completely nuts? Who created all those features that Firefox, Safari and Chrome are ripping off, from popup blocking to Speed Dial?

Opera!

Claiming that Opera isn't innovating is like claiming that the earth is flat. Either you are extremely ignorant or extremely dishonest.


By Staples on 3/31/2009 10:58:19 AM , Rating: 2
Opera has lost their edge over the past year.

Spell check - negative
Private browsing - negative
Multithreaded tabs - negative

Of these, only spell check is planned for version 10 (which by the beta releases, I will guess isn't right around the corner).


By WTFzilla on 3/31/2009 11:44:04 AM , Rating: 2
Over the past year? Opera 9.5 was released less than a year ago with huge improvements, and it was the browser that actually started the performance race. 9.5 beat the other browsers so badly at performance that Apple had to go back to the drawing board.

Opera has done spell checking for years. A much improved one is in Opera 10.

Private browsing? Opera has had "delete private data" for years (something others ripped off from Opera again, and yes, I know it's not the same as "private browsing").

Multithreaded tabs? You mean one process per tab? Nice in theory. In practice it causes too much overhead. Opera works on even low-end devices, remember. So, not relevant.

Your comment doesn't negate the fact that Opera has always innovated. Just because there's one feature Opera doesn't have doesn't change Opera's track record, even with version 9.5, 9.6 and 10.


By Sazar on 3/31/2009 12:13:12 PM , Rating: 2
And to add, Opera is still miles faster than IE8 or FF3.x in day to day usage. The only other browser that comes close is Chrome IMHO.

Opera has a lot of features that neither FF or IE come with standard (need to be added).


By omnicronx on 3/31/2009 12:41:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And to add, Opera is still miles faster than IE8 or FF3.x in day to day usage. The only other browser that comes close is Chrome IMHO.
Depends what your main usage is. Javascript for one is not Operas forte, its engine is years old and performs a good 2/3 the speed as both Firefox and IE in just about any test you can throw at it.

I find FF+addblock to be the best all around browser in terms of mixing speed with customization ability.


By WTFzilla on 3/31/2009 12:59:49 PM , Rating: 2
Opera's JS engine is NOT old, and it performs much faster than the others. Opera 9.5 completely destroyed the other browsers.

That's when Apple went back to the drawing board and started using new techniques to speed up the engine.

"Javascript for one is not Operas forte" is an ignorant claim based on Opera 6 and older, which didn't do dynamic stuff. But Opera has done dynamic stuff since version 7, and has always been the speed leader.

Now Opera is working on a new engine which uses the same techniques as Apple and Chrome, and it reportedly kills them completely.

What "any test you can throw at it" are you referring to? Let me guess, SunSpider or one of the other JS benchmarks? Sorry to break it to you, but these just test a tiny part of JS, and JS again just tests a tiny part of what makes up a modern web page. They are all artificial and say nothing about real world performance.


By omnicronx on 3/31/2009 3:11:15 PM , Rating: 2
Buddy, i do many pure javascript tasks on a daily basis, and it is not as fast as either Chrome or Firefox. So please do not come in here and make claims that are you cannot prove. The Benchmarks and real life performance seem to agree with me. While pure JS may not mean anything to you, last time I checked, you do not represent everyone else in the world.

Yes JS is only a tiny part of many webpages, but that was not the point of the comment YOU responded too. I never made any claim about Operas performance other than JS, so please hold your tongue.

Of course this will all change soon as Opera plan on releasing a new engine soon, but their current offering is definitely sub par compared to other browsers.


By WTFzilla on 3/31/2009 3:31:51 PM , Rating: 2
The benchmarks are NOT real life performance. Even the heaviest JS sites today only use 10% of the browser's CPU time for JavaScript. JS is NOT the bottleneck today.

Also, where were you when Opera 9.5 kicked the pants off everything else? Were you spreading anti-Opera FUD back then as well even though Opera completely destroyed everything else?

And will you keep spreading FUD about Opera's JS implementation after the new Carakan engine puts the others to shame again?

You were the one claiming that "JS is not Opera's forte" after all, as if that is some kind of global truth.

Their current offering is NOT sub-par. It's extremely fast. Other browsers have added certain tricks that get them ahead a bit for now, but that is irrelevant on real sites.


By omnicronx on 3/31/2009 3:42:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Even the heaviest JS sites today only use 10% of the browser's CPU time for JavaScript. JS is NOT the bottleneck today.
So I guess those that actually do heavy JS work do not count? Do you realize how many businesses heavily utilize JS with their web tier apps?

This is what you call REAL LIFE PERFORMANCE! This is not a mere small difference in the benchmarks, this is real life work with heavy JS usage. This is not a 3Dmark test, this is real usage.
quote:
Also, where were you when Opera 9.5 kicked the pants off everything else?
Read my original post you moron! This is exactly what I said about Opera and it performing better than other browsers in day to day usage : "Depends what your main usage is." I was only talking about JS, you are the one blowing this out of proportion for absolutely no reason.


By WTFzilla on 3/31/2009 3:53:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So I guess those that actually do heavy JS work do not count?

Even on heavy JS sites, JS computing makes up a relatively tiny part compared to the rest.

quote:
Read my original post you moron! This is exactly what I said about Opera and it performing better than other browsers in day to day usage : "Depends what your main usage is." I was only talking about JS

Actually, I was talking about JS as well. Remember when 9.5 kicked the pants off everything else with JS performance? I guess not.

Let me refresh your memory:

http://nontroppo.org/timer/kestrel_tests/

So the question remains, were you spreading anti-Opera FUD back then as well even though Opera completely destroyed everything else?

Will you be spreading anti-Opera FUD when Carakan beats everything else again?

Seriously, how can you claim that "JS was never Opera's forte" with a straight face?


By omnicronx on 3/31/2009 4:10:55 PM , Rating: 2
Speaking of FUD.. your link is comparing Opera 9.5 to Firefox 3 Alpha. Not to mention the site linked is not exactly a respected source.


By WTFzilla on 3/31/2009 4:46:58 PM , Rating: 2
Firefox 3 alpha was much faster than Firefox 2.

Respected source? Says who?

Funny how you are quick to reject anything that seems positive about Opera!


By omnicronx on 3/31/2009 5:23:19 PM , Rating: 2
Buddy, you can't compare an Alpha build to a release build. I used FF3 while in Alpha, and it was barely usable at all.
quote:
Funny how you are quick to reject anything that seems positive about Opera!
I have done no such thing, Its a quick browser and I love their mobile edition, but you are making it out to be the best thing since sliced bread, and that is just not the case.


By WTFzilla on 4/1/2009 1:42:46 AM , Rating: 2
It doesn't matter whether it is "usable". What matters is that it was much faster than Firefox 2, and as you can see, Opera 9.5 kicked Safari's butt as well.

quote:
you are making it out to be the best thing since sliced bread

Um, no, I am correcting your FUD about it, such as the "JS not Opera's forte", which is clearly wrong. How can you claim such a thing when 9.5 kicked everyone else's ass?


By WTFzilla on 3/31/2009 1:05:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Javascript for one is not Operas forte


No seriously, it's incredible that this kind of FUD is still alive today! It's a blatant lie.


By Sazar on 3/31/2009 3:09:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Depends what your main usage is. Javascript for one is not Operas forte, its engine is years old and performs a good 2/3 the speed as both Firefox and IE in just about any test you can throw at it.


Well the only tests I throw at my browsers are real world performance. I typically browse about 15 sites on average, typically have at least 5 or 6 tabs at a minimum open when on a browser. Usually I have pandora running on one of the tabs and might have video open in another (Hulu or Veoh).

Sites open faster and content loads quicker on other browsers than FF. Not to say that FF is not useful, I still use it a fair bit, but it's not the fastest browser by any measure when you use it in real world scenario's. IE was king, FF came along and now both have to innovate to keep up with the smaller browsers, in my opinion.

Competition is good.


By omnicronx on 3/31/2009 3:15:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Sites open faster and content loads quicker on other browsers than FF.
I can't disagree, both Opera and Chrome load pages faster in many situations. That being said, extension support is what keeps me using Firefox. I find it faster than I.E, but far more customizable. I've tried Opera many times, but there is always something that I could do in FF that I could not do in Opera. Eventually I found the few MS load time difference was not worth the features I was missing.
quote:
Competition is good.
Amen to that.


By omnicronx on 3/31/2009 12:46:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Multithreaded tabs? You mean one process per tab? Nice in theory. In practice it causes too much overhead. Opera works on even low-end devices, remember. So, not relevant.
I disagree, Chrome seems to pull it off quite nicely and has a smaller memory footprint than Opera. When I do use it, gone are the days when one tab crashes bringing the rest of the tabs with it.

As for low end devices, even the Atom can run all browsers in question without breaking a sweat. So what devices are you talking about? It is still a desktop browser, requires just a little less RAM then FF, and is still more power hungry than Chrome.


By WTFzilla on 3/31/2009 12:56:16 PM , Rating: 2
Chrome does not pull it off. It uses far more memory than Opera, especially with a lot of open tabs.

Opera is a smaller download than the other browsers, and requires less memory and less CPU.

Opera works any PC that runs Windows, from Windows 95 and up. Does Chrome? Nope.


By omnicronx on 3/31/2009 3:34:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:

Opera works any PC that runs Windows, from Windows 95 and up. Does Chrome? Nope.
Well you must have the same mentality as those at Opera, and they wonder why their share is so small. Please explain to me why Windows 9x support makes Opera a better browser, when 99% of Windows systems that would actually make use of a browser on a constant basis are running on Windows XP+ with more than suitable machines to run ANY BROWSER.

As for RAM usage, I have done the tests myself, use Opera for 10 minutes with 5 tabs and it will quickly jump over Chrome in terms of RAM usage. Look it up or try it yourself if you must, I am sure there are many benchmarks around the net. While I have not tested more tabs than that, I think 5 is enough to test everyday usage. (not sure what you consider 'many' tabs)

Also don't forget Chrome is in its first release, Chromium is much speeder and uses even less RAM than Chrome. I've been testing the nightly builds for a while and they are damn fast.


By WTFzilla on 3/31/2009 3:39:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
they wonder why their share is so small

Wow, yet again you prove that you just mindlessly repeat what the marketing people are telling you. You are basing this on the stats from the liars at NetApps, right?

FYI:

http://tinyurl.com/netapplies

Opera actually has up to 50% market share in some countries.

quote:
Please explain to me why Windows 9x support makes Opera a better browser

The point is that Opera is able to run on old systems. Chrome is not.

quote:
As for RAM usage, I have done the tests myself, use Opera for 10 minutes with 5 tabs and it will quickly jump over Chrome in terms of RAM usage

Not according to my test, and I actually performed a number of tests on several different systems. Opera is much more memory friendly, which isn't strange, considering that the whole browser, including the JS engine, has been optimized specifically for that.

quote:
Also don't forget Chrome is in its first release, Chromium is much speeder and uses even less RAM than Chrome.

And Opera 9.5 was much faster than 9.2. 9.6 was much faster than 9.5. 10 is much faster than 9.6. And so on. Your point being?

Also don't forget Chrome is in its first release, it will slow down as they start adding more features.

quote:
I've been testing the nightly builds for a while and they are damn fast.

That's because you want it to be fast, and because the Google marketing machinery has convinced you to a degree where the placebo effect kicks in. Most of your comments so far confirm that you blindly accept marketing claims as truth. For example, performance claims, market share claims, etc.


By omnicronx on 3/31/2009 3:54:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Wow, yet again you prove that you just mindlessly repeat what the marketing people are telling you. You are basing this on the stats from the liars at NetApps, right?
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.a...

Now what.. are you going to tell me W3 (the group that sets most of the web standards as we know them today) is just a bunch of BS the 'marketing people' are trying to tell me?
quote:
The point is that Opera is able to run on old systems. Chrome is not.
And your point is? Chrome came out last year, why would they support an OS nobody uses? Now lets go back to W3 and look at OS usage.
quote:
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp
1.7% use Windows 2000 and Windows 98 is no longer on their list as of 2009, probably because it accounted for less than 0.1% of the market. Yep.. sure makes sense for Chrome to support an OS that is no longer used!

quote:
And Opera 9.5 was much faster than 9.2. 9.6 was much faster than 9.5. 10 is much faster than 9.6. And so on. Your point being? Also don't forget Chrome is in its first release, it will slow down as they start adding more features.
Now you are just being naive, it was the first release and they had many kinks to smooth out. Of course when they start supporting extensions and such, it is bound to slow down, but they are still in the processes of optimizing the code. Until then, it can go nowhere but up, I assure you Chromium is much faster than Chrome, and is not merely a version with 'more features'. Most of the changes were behind the scene.


By WTFzilla on 3/31/2009 4:04:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Now what.. are you going to tell me W3 (the group that sets most of the web standards as we know them today) is just a bunch of BS the 'marketing people' are trying to tell me?

That's not the W3C (not W3). That's w3schools, a private site with a very specific audience. Not representative of the rest of the web at all.

quote:
And your point is?

The point is that Opera is more resource friendly. Chrome could never have run on low-end systems the way Opera does.

quote:
1.7% use Windows 2000

W3schools again? Also, it's actually impossible to measure browser market share. There are too many variables. As an example, Opera identifies as different browsers on hundreds of major sites due to browser sniffing.

quote:
Now you are just being naive, it was the first release and they had many kinks to smooth out.

And as they add more, there will be more kinks to smooth out.

quote:
Until then, it can go nowhere but up

Except when tradeoffs are needed. For example, Opera's current JS engine was optimized for low memory usage, footprint and CPU. The new JS engine will be purely optimized for speed, but as a result, it will likely increase in size and require more memory.


By omnicronx on 3/31/2009 4:26:48 PM , Rating: 2
Pick whichever site you want that measures share, they all paint the same picture.
quote:
The point is that Opera is more resource friendly. Chrome could never have run on low-end systems the way Opera does.
You are changing points, There is no reason why Chrome could not run on 9x systems, it was a support reason, it has nothing to do with with resources.
quote:
As an example, Opera identifies as different browsers on hundreds of major sites due to browser sniffing.
But it does not on many others, you will not find any site out there that will show Opera as having any considerable share, with it usually being less than 1%. I'd be glad for you to prove me wrong.
quote:
And as they add more, there will be more kinks to smooth out.
You just keep thinking that, feature wise Chromium (aka Chrome 2.0) is essentially the same as Chrome 1.*
quote:
Except when tradeoffs are needed. For example, Opera's current JS engine was optimized for low memory usage, footprint and CPU. The new JS engine will be purely optimized for speed, but as a result, it will likely increase in size and require more memory.
Unlike all other browsers today, Google had the opportunity to build their browser from scratch, major changes, like what is about to take place with Operas JS engine, are not going to happen for sometime with Chrome.


By WTFzilla on 3/31/2009 4:45:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Pick whichever site you want that measures share, they all paint the same picture.

They do not, and as I said, browser stats are basically unreliable.

quote:
There is no reason why Chrome could not run on 9x system

Except it is too heavy compared to Opera.

quote:
But it does not on many others, you will not find any site out there that will show Opera as having any considerable share, with it usually being less than 1%.

False. Example:

http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser-RU-daily-200807...

Yes, I know what you are going to say. The point is, stats are unreliable.

quote:
Unlike all other browsers today, Google had the opportunity to build their browser from scratch

Actually, they did NOT build it from scratch. It uses Apple's WebKit.


By omnicronx on 3/31/2009 4:54:50 PM , Rating: 2
It is a well known fact that IE does not have nearly as much traction in Russia.

Those stats are correct, Opera even make the claim that it is the #2 browser in Russia on their site. This can be proved, as they know how many people have downloaded from them and from where.


By WTFzilla on 4/1/2009 2:43:15 AM , Rating: 2
Downloads != users.

Mozilla uses the Firefox auto update features to count users. I bet Opera counts the same way. They are reporting active users at least (and the user base has more than doubled in two years).


By Sazar on 3/31/2009 3:05:45 PM , Rating: 2
It's a good idea, undoubtedly, but unfortunately the actuality is not quite as nice as the idea.

Also having each tab with it's own process, when you go to kill it in the taskmanager, there are so many instances and if the tab does not have a "not responding" notification, it is hit and miss.

Fortunately, Opera and Chrome don't crash as often as Firefox, and they use less memory.


By omnicronx on 3/31/2009 3:17:30 PM , Rating: 2
Try using minefield, It is much more stable in this respect to threaded tabs than Chrome 1.*

I can't believe how fast chrome is actually progressing, if minefield is a glimpse of things to come, Google may have a winner on their hands.


By omnicronx on 3/31/2009 3:18:22 PM , Rating: 2
Ah **** I'm tired.. I meant Chromium... not Minefield


By WTFzilla on 3/31/2009 3:34:04 PM , Rating: 2
Chrome isn't actually processing much faster. On real sites, Opera actually inches ahead, while Firefox is just behind Chrome.

Considering your earlier comments, such as "JS is not Opera's forte", you seem to be easily fooled by marketing fluff, and are just repeating what the marketing people wanted people to believe.


By omnicronx on 3/31/2009 3:59:36 PM , Rating: 2
Same marketing fluff as W3 showing actual Opera usage?


By WTFzilla on 3/31/2009 4:06:26 PM , Rating: 2
1. W3schools != W3C, and those stats are just for that single site

2. It is impossible to measure browser market share due to things like caching, browser spoofing, etc.

For example, Net Applications manage to claim that Chrome had a higher market share than Opera at a time when Google reported 10 million Chrome users while Opera reported 30 million users!


By omnicronx on 3/31/2009 4:48:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
For example, Net Applications manage to claim that Chrome had a higher market share than Opera at a time when Google reported 10 million Chrome users while Opera reported 30 million users!
You say this as though it is some kind of mass conspiracy. There are many sites that do correctly report this information. All I am asking for is one, unless you can provide this information, why on earth should anyone believe a word of what you are saying?

I know about the false reporting, but many sites will just display those browsers as 'OTHER'. I have yet to see any indication that shows that Opera has any considerable amount of share. No matter where you go, it always checks in at under 2% for all opera releases.


By WTFzilla on 4/1/2009 2:46:29 AM , Rating: 2
It is a fact that NetApps manipulate their stats:

http://tinyurl.com/netapplies

It is also a fact that it's impossible to measure actual browser market share. You simply don't have a representative sample, and the error sources are too numerous.

quote:
No matter where you go, it always checks in at under 2% for all opera releases.

This is a blatant lie, as I showed you with the link to Russia and other stats. And Russia isn't even the only country with 20%+ market share for Opera.

But NO sites report "global" stats correctly because they don't have a representative sample, and Opera has to identify as other browsers for hundreds of major sites. I already explained this to you.


By Staples on 4/1/2009 12:22:58 PM , Rating: 2
Jeez Louise WTFzilla, you can not admit that any browser does anything better than Opera. As the guy who even started this argument by criticizing Opera, I am an Opera user. I have been using it since it went free a few years ago. I am very very familiar with all its features. It is the best all around browser but I can admit that there are other browser that do things a lot better.

Opera has not been doing spell check for years. The spell check they have is a GNU plugin that works like crap. Firefox and Chrome do it the right way, the same way Office has been doing it for 15 years. Opera 10 will do it the right way but who has any guess when that will be coming out.

Erasing all data and cookies is useless. It erases everything where private browsing erases only data from that session. In Opera you can however delete individual history which is the alternative. Of course I just use Private Browsing in IE8.

What does Opera need in order to catch up?

Spell check
Multiprocess tabs
They need to save the toolbars customization on Opera Link because the default toolbar is God awful
Change the default skin to Opera classic, the new one sucks
Stop complaining that IE is holding you down, every other browser does not seem to have a problem growing their market share


By WTFzilla on 4/2/2009 3:44:37 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Jeez Louise WTFzilla, you can not admit that any browser does anything better than Opera.

That is not what this is about, and you know it. I caught you spewing nonsense about Opera's development speed as well as the EU case. Why the jingoistic hypocrisy?

quote:
Opera has not been doing spell check for years. The spell check they have is a GNU plugin that works like crap.

Whether you think it's crap or not, it has been there for a long time.

quote:
Erasing all data and cookies is useless.

Most certainly not. It might not be exactly what you are asking for, but it certainly does the job when needed.

quote:
What does Opera need in order to catch up?

This is just insane. Everyone is copying Opera all the time, and OPERA is the one that needs to catch up?!

quote:
Multiprocess tabs

Too much overhead.

quote:
Change the default skin to Opera classic, the new one sucks

Subjective nonsense.

quote:
Stop complaining that IE is holding you down

Opera's market share has grown. For example, Opera's market share in Europe has nearly doubled in less than a year.

And you didn't respond to the fact that both Mozilla and Google are behind Opera's complaint as well. Why the jingoistic focus on Opera alone? Why are you whining about Opera when others are involved as well?

Now, are you going to actually respond to my previous comment or are you going to keep pretending that your arguments weren't torn to shreds, only to try to change the subject?


Cmon
By FITCamaro on 3/30/2009 4:30:20 PM , Rating: 4
Picking on IE mobile? Isn't that like challenging the fat kid to a 100 yard dash WITHOUT a twinkie being at the finish line?




RE: Cmon
By omnicronx on 3/30/2009 5:30:34 PM , Rating: 2
Good news is PIE 6.0 for Windows Mobile 6.5 is looking good!
I've tried the latest WM 6.5 builds and they are finally pretty stable.


RE: Cmon
By cheetah2k on 3/30/2009 6:33:32 PM , Rating: 2
Jobs mate, are you listening??

iPhone needs flash support!


RE: Cmon
By pxavierperez on 3/30/2009 9:16:51 PM , Rating: 2
i use firefox on my pc and one of my favorite extensions is the one that turns off flash.


RE: Cmon
By cheetah2k on 3/31/2009 1:00:32 AM , Rating: 2
In case you've not noticed... We're not talking about PC browsers :-D


RE: Cmon
By pxavierperez on 3/31/2009 3:06:32 AM , Rating: 1
my point being, if i didn't want flash running on my PC (which is more capable than any phones) I sure as hell wouldn't want it on my phone.


RE: Cmon
By GaryJohnson on 3/31/2009 3:58:08 AM , Rating: 4
If you don't want it running on your PC why wouldn't you just disable it? Having an add-on to block another add-on seems kind of superfluous.


RE: Cmon
By cheetah2k on 3/31/2009 6:56:13 AM , Rating: 3
Blonde moment??


RE: Cmon
By Ryanman on 3/31/2009 8:58:51 AM , Rating: 2
I believe the add on will allow you to enable it on certain pages that you trust and/or need to see.


RE: Cmon
By therealnickdanger on 3/31/2009 2:15:04 PM , Rating: 2
Skyfire

^
IMO, there is only one mobile browser worth a sh*t.


RE: Cmon
By WTFzilla on 3/31/2009 3:40:43 PM , Rating: 2
It's too bad that it's extremely slow when zooming and panning. And the company has no real business model apart from selling user data to advertisers...


advertisement, not news
By lycium on 3/31/2009 3:53:38 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Opera Mobile 9.7 is currently being tested and will be released to the public in a few short months.

cha-ching!




By thesafetyisoff on 3/30/2009 8:21:57 PM , Rating: 2
Trying to watch those videos on my Blackberry was killing me.




Skyfire on Symbian
By jvillaro on 3/30/2009 10:12:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It is worth noting that most of these features are available in the beta of Skyfire, a new independent browser entry for Windows Mobile smart phones


The beta of Skyfire is also available on Symbian S60, I have it on my Nokia E71 and for me it's the best mobile browser out there, at least for S60. It can render every page I've visited, including YouJizz... sorry YouTube, Gamespot, CNET etc and I can watch the flash content and videos.

If Opera will be better than whe're in for a treat, but it's got good competition in Skyfire if they get it out of beta and thats good for all of us (who don't suffer from having an Iphone).




Thanks
By adiposity on 3/31/2009 11:43:46 AM , Rating: 2
Thank you for changing the title to reflect what's going on with Opera. Hopefully you are right about it.

-Dan




Poor title
By adiposity on 3/30/09, Rating: -1
RE: Poor title
By CrazyBernie on 3/30/2009 4:25:22 PM , Rating: 2
And if you read the whole title, it in no way claims to have actually put anyone to shame, merely that it is poised to do so.

It'll just end up looking really silly if it flops.


RE: Poor title
By omnicronx on 3/30/2009 5:14:51 PM , Rating: 2
Meh, I've had 3.1 on my device for months now with Opera, upgrading to the newest and most stable builds frequently.

The part which should have been highlighted in this article is the OPEN GL ES support. Flashlite 3.1 and Google Gears is anything but groundbreaking, but hardware acceleration would definitely set them a part from the competition.

Funny you mention HTC though, as most of their devices don't even ship with OpenGL ES drivers (my Diamond did not), and some devices like the HTC touch, won't support this at all.


RE: Poor title
By adiposity on 3/31/2009 11:41:09 AM , Rating: 2
The title read, "Opera puts competitors to shame." It was changed, presumably in response to my post.


RE: Poor title
By chiguy2891 on 3/30/2009 4:28:18 PM , Rating: 2
I agree that sometimes titles can be misleading but in this case the title isn't misleading. I think you overlooked the word 'set' meaning that it is about to but hasn't done so already.


RE: Poor title
By adiposity on 3/31/2009 11:40:21 AM , Rating: 2
No, I did not overlook this. It was changed after my post.


RE: Poor title
By invidious on 3/30/2009 4:59:01 PM , Rating: 4
I can assure you that from my experiences on my iPhone, mobile safari does a sufficient job of bringing shame to itself. And this is on their own hardware which you would assume it is optimized for. I love almost everything else about this phone, but they really need to get with the program when it comes to browsers. Either fix safari or allow 3rd party.


RE: Poor title
By ExcaliburII on 3/30/2009 5:20:45 PM , Rating: 2
Skyfire still puts them all to shame, only one that I have found that gives normal internet browsing on mobiles. Looks like all the others are finally playing catchup.
It's still in beta, but hasn't crashed on me to date.


RE: Poor title
By omnicronx on 3/30/2009 5:29:30 PM , Rating: 2
Skyfire is not a full featured browser, it is like Opera mini. While it supports flash, it only supports it via download the same way as the iphone. With the powerful new devices being released, a full featured browser can finally be realized on mobile phones. On my old phone I used skyfire, as my phone just did not have the horsepower or memory to run Opera, but with my HTC diamond Opera is almost as fast fulling rendering pages as skyfire is downloading its images.

Opera Mini is much faster than skyfire too, and I still can't figure out why they don't cache previously viewed pages. Opera Mini instantly goes back when you hit the back button, skyfire actually re downloads the page.


RE: Poor title
By ChoadNamath on 3/30/2009 10:09:17 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know if Skyfire has gotten any better since I tried it, but I hated it. It gives you the illusion of quick loading times by just loading essentially a thumbnail of the page when you first click, and then once you zoom in you have to wait for each individual block to load as you scroll around. I'd rather just wait for the page to load than to have the browser pretend that everything's there already.


RE: Poor title
By WTFzilla on 3/31/2009 10:31:48 AM , Rating: 2
Isn't Skyfire's zooming and panning annoyingly slow for anyone else?

Considering that Opera Mobile did full browsing years ago, there's no need to "catch up" with Skyfire.


"So, I think the same thing of the music industry. They can't say that they're losing money, you know what I'm saying. They just probably don't have the same surplus that they had." -- Wu-Tang Clan founder RZA











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki