Here are some suggestions for those looking for alternatives to Opera 12 (and use Opera Mail)
-
laurenbacall last edited by
Originally posted by rilef:
Add keywords to Firefox or SeaMonkey bookmarks by right-clicking any bookmark, then select Properties. No extension is necessary. Firefox and SeaMonkey keywords work like Opera 12 bookmark nicknames.
Ah, I can see it now (on OSX there's no Properties context menu item for bookmarks), there's an 'expand' arrow in the bookmark manager pane that displays the extra input box. Good to know
, saves an extra addon for some.I suppose the benefit of the addon is adding the Keyword input box to the pop-up bookmark star in the addressbar when you first create one, as well as Description, and a few other options, similar to expanding Opera's 'Details' button.
-
A Former User last edited by
SeaMonkey - same rendering engine as FF... only the GUI is a bit different.
Very nice. Have been using it on Linux for a while. -
frenzie last edited by
Originally posted by rilef:
The only "Pro" I see for SeaMonkey is an integrated mail client (which apparently you do not use).
Maybe I'm missing something, but SeaMonkey doesn't seem especially more integrated than any old browser and mail client, other than that they've got a few little buttons in the bottom left. Sure, the shared memory aspect could be of interest on low-memory systems, but something like Claws or Sylpheed is light too (or even something text-based like Mutt). I think it's the GUI integration that makes Opera's approach interesting.
-
stng last edited by
Originally posted by ocky:
SeaMonkey - same rendering engine as FF... only the GUI is a bit different.
Very nice. Have been using it on Linux for a while.The UI is awful when it's compared with Opera. I am disappointed about how a Mozilla-based browsers had no any appreciable progress in this area after a years of their evolution.
I hope someday someone will try to recreate Presto Opera's user interface(which is still unmatched) on XUL-layer.
-
Deleted User last edited by
Originally posted by ocky:
SeaMonkey - same rendering engine as FF... only the GUI is a bit different.
Very nice. Have been using it on Linux for a while.Look at the real estate you've lost at the top of your screen. To my tired eyes, this looks like my 1997 Netscape browser... only 16 years out of date now.
-
Deleted User last edited by
Originally posted by rilef:
Thus, there appears little reason to switch from Opera mail to SeaMonkey or Thunderbird mail (i.e. from one deprecated mail client to another deprecated mail client). Or vice versa. That is, if you use a mail client, and you like this mail client, you should keep this mail client.
To my way of thinking there is really only one viable email client (if you must have one) and that is the Bat. T-bird development has pretty much dried up since Mozilla dropped it. Other than a community offering security patches and bug fixes, it is what it is (and it's nothing to write home about).
-
blackbird71 last edited byOriginally posted by leushino:
Originally posted by rilef:
Thus, there appears little reason to switch from Opera mail to SeaMonkey or Thunderbird mail (i.e. from one deprecated mail client to another deprecated mail client). Or vice versa. That is, if you use a mail client, and you like this mail client, you should keep this mail client.
To my way of thinking there is really only one viable email client (if you must have one) and that is the Bat. T-bird development has pretty much dried up since Mozilla dropped it. Other than a community offering security patches and bug fixes, it is what it is (and it's nothing to write home about).
Is there really any significant reason for any continued development of any eMail browser, in general, these days? From my observations, most of them have rather fully plugged any browser exploitation holes over the last number of years, and their feature-sets have all long since peaked out. Which means, other than possibly finding one that's integrated into a web-browser (for those to whom that matters), there shouldn't be much user concern about whether or not there's active development of a particular eMail browser. And given that so many users simply rely on web-based eMail access, there's not much economic sense for purveyors of eMail programs to invest much into adding bells and whistles... so the eMail browsers out there now are likely not to change much in years to come.
Myself, I'm a firm believer in downloading and keeping permanent copies of all my eMails on-site... so I've primarily used a stand-alone eMail program (currently PocoMail, now out-of-production... before that, Outlook Express... and before that, Outlook) for years, using webmail only for a quick check of messages if I'm on the go somewhere. The main features of an eMail program, to me, reside in the user comfort-option category (foldering, sorting, searching, archiving/backup, security against exploitation, etc, etc). And those features for most eMail browsers currently available have remained largely static for quite a long time. Hence, the folks running Opera, Outlook Express, PocoMail, Thunderbird, or a myriad of other eMail browsers will probably be able to use them for years to come, as long as the OS will still support them (or vice versa). Bottom line: use whatever you like for your needs, whether or not it's still actively being developed... it isn't going to suddenly go away after you start using it.
-
Deleted User last edited by
Blackbird, that makes perfect sense. So why the angst among those who mourn the passing of Opera's suite? Just use Opera 12 for its email function alone OR use the standalone email client.
As for me... I got rid of my separate email clients (Outlook and Thunderbird) more than a year ago and haven't looked back. I've no need for email clients these days. The few "important" emails I do receive (via webmail accounts), I download and save on an external hard drive... and they are few and far between. Most of my communication these days is via texting and social networks. Email for me (as well as my family and friends) is pretty much passe.
-
kesetrum last edited by
Lets back to more constructive topic and give a spirit to Opera Dev.
This one of many thread discussion will let user speak their specific old behavior from 12 instead of giving bad score in to 17.
http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=1784592Still whole browser above cannot beat Opera 12 which handle "live mouse hover events" when inspect some element.
Read this http://my.opera.com/community/forums/findpost.pl?id=14960362
and hopefully can solve on next Opera 18 which is state here http://my.opera.com/community/forums/findpost.pl?id=14960572For me as a webmaster, DragonFly from Opera 12 nicely work to inspect element and manipulate it Live!!
This is what the reason I am stick in Opera, event on some cases Opera 12 DragonFly crash during inspect.Regarding, Tweaking or any shortcut function. I prefer the old Opera which is default activated. All browser had their own tweaking function. Most are same. I can't see big different here comparing other browser mention above.
I remember 6-8 years ago, afaik Opera being MOST innovative idea browser such first introducing TAB, Wand/Sync Link, Site Specific Setting, built-in Note, side menu, Private Tab, torrents (was) etc.. And built-in Download manager Opera is a mpost reliable I've ever seen for any network connection.
Well,
please continue constructive discussion.
And I see the SLEIPNIR browser using and try to using old Opera behaviour which is dismissed from current Opera 17.
Lets try SLEIPNIR... -
A Former User last edited by
Originally posted by leushino:
Originally posted by ocky:
SeaMonkey - same rendering engine as FF... only the GUI is a bit different.
Very nice. Have been using it on Linux for a while.http://www.imagebam.com/image/450a16288840872[/quote]
Look at the real estate you've lost at the top of your screen. To my tired eyes, this looks like my 1997 Netscape browser... only 16 years out of date now.
Nah, no real estate lost. Bars can be collapsed if so desired. http://www.imagebam.com/image/a5c685289411489
(Of course also comes with an html composer).
-
Deleted User last edited by
Originally posted by Frenzie:
I think it's the GUI integration that makes Opera's approach interesting.
Consistent tabbed interface, my favourite ever since Pegasus Mail. Eudora is even more perfect interface-wise. And old Opera. This interface makes best sense, but the dark side is forcing it into the oblivion
-
tranceplante last edited by
Originally posted by funksoulbro:
Originally posted by Salahuddin1:
You know leushino, if you're tired of reading negative things about the new Opera browser, maybe you should stop reading these forums. Not quite sure what possesses you to respond to everyone who makes an anti Opera sentiment on these forums. Not even sure how one man can commit so much time and energy to such a cause.
Well said. The guy is like some over-defensive fanboy getting angry when people criticise his beloved company. I'm looking around for an alternative to Opera as, like many long-time Opera users, I think the new version is terrible, so I found the OP's post useful.
Ah! That makes more sens now
-
j4jasbir last edited by
Originally posted by Salahuddin1:
Originally posted by leushino:
Did you say "quicker than Opera in loading pages"??? Not according to Peacekeeper. I challenge you to go over to http://peacekeeper.futuremark.com and test it for yourself. SM is one of the slowest browsers according to their bench tests. It's clunky all right and that is why it has such a small acceptance among users. It is definitely not a viable alternative to Opera unless you want a browser that looks like the old Netscape browser from 1998.
Peacekeeper is an overall benchmark of many different tests and only one of many benchmarking tools. It certainly is not a measure of which browser loads web pages faster.
Empty trucks(new opera) run faster than loaded trucks, so shall we start running empty trucks. Or do you use your browser for F1 racing? Why so much fuss about fastness ( by milliseconds).
When features are added back to new opera maybe it will become slow like chrome(and a huge memory usage pig).Thanks for mentioning the FF addons. Few more FF addons -
Fast Dial - closest alternative of opera speed dial
Secure login - wand replacement
Extended statusbar
Video Downloadhelper
Quick translator
Download stausbar
Flagfox
Image Zoom
Handy dictionary -
A Former User last edited by
Originally posted by j4jasbir:
Empty trucks(new opera) run faster than loaded trucks, so shall we start running empty trucks.
I don't think that relation between the features *in the UI* and in the *engine* used to render the pages that people come up with is correct...
Actually there's a fact to back my suspicion. If you aren't a very new Opera user you should know that Opera 10.50 and a subsequent version that I don't remember very well of beat Chrome in the speed tests at the time it was launched.
I'll keep my previous suggestion (just update it to 18). :whistle:
-
j4jasbir last edited by
Originally posted by rafaelluik:
Originally posted by j4jasbir:
Empty trucks(new opera) run faster than loaded trucks, so shall we start running empty trucks.
I don't think that relation between the features *in the UI* and in the *engine* used to render the pages that people come up with is correct...
Try firefox/opera with and without plugins,addons . You will see the difference.
Originally posted by rafaelluik:
If you aren't a very new Opera user you should know that Opera 10.50 and a subsequent version that I don't remember very well of beat Chrome in the speed tests at the time it was launched.
Kindly read again my post as I don't care about speed tests.If I had cared about speed test or reviews, then I would have never used opera as my main browser.
-
A Former User last edited by
Originally posted by j4jasbir:
Originally posted by rafaelluik:
Originally posted by j4jasbir:
Empty trucks(new opera) run faster than loaded trucks, so shall we start running empty trucks.
I don't think that relation between the features *in the UI* and in the *engine* used to render the pages that people come up with is correct...
Try firefox/opera with and without plugins,addons . You will see the difference.
Originally posted by rafaelluik:
If you aren't a very new Opera user you should know that Opera 10.50 and a subsequent version that I don't remember very well of beat Chrome in the speed tests at the time it was launched.
Kindly read again my post as I don't care about speed tests.If I had cared about speed test or reviews, then I would have never used opera as my main browser.
Hey I was just saying that the truck comparison makes no sense in this context...
Plug-ins and add-ons aren't plain features in the UI, they indeed may affect the engine. Now, something like M2 and panels never affected Opera's rendering engine performance. -
j4jasbir last edited by
Originally posted by rilef:
On these Peacekeeper tests, a loaded Opera 12 clearly outperforms a loaded SeaMonkey and a loaded Firefox.
Kindly read my post again.I don't care about these tests
Originally posted by rilef:
You have to load these empty trucks with extensions/add-ons, to achieve even a portion of the same capabilities natively available with Opera 12
You are right Opera 12 was unique and great but there is no more opera 12, accept it now or after few months/years.I stopped using it when websites started showing me -You are using an outdated browser and also because of yahoo mail nag screen.I came across one site which won't even let me in.I could not ignore these things anymore.(I used to ignore these happily earlier when Opera12 was alive)
Originally posted by rilef:
Even Opera 18 without extensions has more capability, or soon will have, than Firefox or SeaMonkey without extensions.
lol .I would never say that about opera 18 but hope in future releases opera webkit add features rather than asking users to use extensions.(they already asked to use extensions for
bookmarks,notes). -
blackbird71 last edited by
Originally posted by rilef:
... Even Opera 18 without extensions has more capability, or soon will have, than Firefox or SeaMonkey without extensions. ...
Uhmm... since the validity of that statement largely depends on many unknowns lying within the phrase, "or soon will have" (something undiscernable outside of Opera's design group and subsequent testing pace and results) and is entirely dependent on the meaning of "capability", one could just as legitimately state: "Even Firefox or SeaMonkey without extensions have more capability, or soon will have, than Opera 18."
-
Deleted User last edited by
Originally posted by rilef:
Nonetheless, in my view, Opera 18 without extensions already has more capability than Firefox or SeaMonkey without extensions.
I'm not sure "how" Opera 18 has more capability HOWEVER I will say that I like it better. Why? I like the way it renders pages on my Windows 8.1 machine. Right now FF has a bug that results in a muddying up of fonts when I use Firefox. So... I can't use FF until it addresses this known issue. SeaMonkey, to my way of thinking, is an old, clunky suite reminiscent of Netscape circa 1998. I don't want to go back fifteen years in my browser's appearance. I like the cleaner look of Opera 18 and I like its speed. These are reasons I have made it my default.
-
Deleted User last edited by
Originally posted by rilef:
But, that does not automatically and immediately make Firefox, SeaMonkey, and other competing browsers, superior or more virtuous or a better choice than Opera 12. The Peacekeeper testing, in part, points that out.
Actually... when Opera 12 fails to prove compatible with more and more websites, then that "does" make the other browsers superior for what really is a browser's function but to open websites? Presto dies a little more each day and it's time to move on.
