Opera 15/16/17/18/19/20+ - The Chrome Wars
-
opajanusz18 last edited by
Moim zdaniem nie ma sensu rozwijać tego projektu (18.19...).Bez funkcjonalności która miała opera 12.16 (presto) ta obecna przeglądarka (klon chrome) z niszowej stanie się zupełnie niedostrzegalną przez użytkowników.Szkoda pieniędzy,czasu i zaangażowania twórców skoro nie wzięto pod uwagę naszych uwag.
In my view, it makes no sense to develop this functionality projektu.Bez which was opera 12.16 (presto) is present browser (Chrome clone) of niche will become completely invisible by użytkowników.Szkoda money, time and effort artists since no account was taken of our observations. -
stevenjcee last edited byOriginally posted by leushino:
And as for the bloating, I don't care about it. My computer handles the resource requirements fine and my new computer will handle them even better.
You may not care about the bloating, but when one browser uses almost SEVEN GIGS OF RAM, it messes up my computer, which has 12 gigs, driving my remaining balance far too close to zero, so I do care, and think this much bloating is unsatisfactory...
-
blackbird71 last edited byOriginally posted by StevenCee:
... when one browser uses almost SEVEN GIGS OF RAM, it messes up my computer, which has 12 gigs, driving my remaining balance far too close to zero, so I do care, and think this much bloating is unsatisfactory...
That certainly is a lot of RAM usage. How many tabs/SpeedDials, extensions, or whatever else does Opera have open when the usage climbs that high? (And which Opera version?)
-
greekonsun last edited by
Originally posted by leushino:
And as for the bloating, I don't care about it. My computer handles the resource requirements fine
thats why you're a complete selfish idiot
-
Deleted User last edited by
Originally posted by magellan42:
Now, if one guy can make a simple but working Opera-like browser with Webkit in two months, what the (bleep) the Opera developers did last year beside, ahem, polishing their magic flute?
Calm yourself, please. He didn't make a browser with webkit but with QtWebEngine.
-
Deleted User last edited by
Originally posted by sergiol:
Calm yourself, please. He didn't make a browser with webkit but with QtWebEngine.
By integrating Chromium into QT.
And what is Opera ASA doing? Aren't they integrating (Google's) Blink into their new shell?
You might explain us the difference
-
-
tradeofjane last edited by
Originally posted by haavard:
The user interface was made from scratch, so it is not a copy. Chrome did not invent the basic browser interface, and we had to start somewhere to get the new version off the ground (namely with a solid foundation).
So it's just a coincidence that they happened to build from scratch a browser interface that looks like Chrome while also copying Chrome's extension system and rapid release cycle? And if Opera wanted to start somewhere they should have started with an interface that was more like it was in version 9 or at the very least 12. Tell me what does the new Opera look more like, Opera 12 and under or Chrome? It has more in common with Chrome than it does with its former self. I'm sure the people at Google are just laughing their ass off at how desperate and pathetic Opera is in trying so hard to be like them. I don't want a wannabe browser. I want the innovation and features that drove me to use Opera in the first place.
-
blackbird71 last edited by
Originally posted by Tradeofjane:
...So it's just a coincidence that they happened to build from scratch a browser interface that looks like Chrome while also copying Chrome's extension system and rapid release cycle? ... Tell me what does the new Opera look more like, Opera 12 and under or Chrome? It has more in common with Chrome than it does with its former self. ...
If the rendering engine is the foundational code of the browser (and it is), one might logically expect it to set many of the limits and boundaries of how the end result might look, regardless of the effort applied in designing a user interface. Whatever else, you have to build a round barn on a round foundation... you don't really build a square one on such a foundation. So there will be structural resemblances between all browsers based on the same rendering engine, no matter what else the developers might do or wish. However, over time and with enough creativity, features and forms of implementation can eventually be found that cross over or get around some of the limits and boundaries imposed by the rendering engine design. At that point, distinctive features can and will appear between different designs built on the same foundation.
But that round barn, while it might be made somewhat square-ish as it rises, will never be a fully square barn if the foundation remains round. Hence Blink Opera will never become just like Presto Opera was, though it may develop some similar features... nor does Opera intend to try to square that circle - and they've stated as much. What New Opera will ultimately become is yet to be seen... and how long it will take to "come into its own" will probably be greater than many would hope (probably including Opera ASA itself). At this point, all we users can do is wait, watch, and see...
-
Deleted User last edited by
Originally posted by blackbird71:
If the rendering engine is the foundational code of the browser (and it is), one might logically expect it to set many of the limits and boundaries of how the end result might look, regardless of the effort applied in designing a user interface.
Hate to say it but this is not wholly true.
You can convince yourself by looking at K-Meleon as an example.K-Meleon's development ceased some time ago so I'm not advertising it as an alternative browser.
It was basically a two-man work. One programmer responsible for the core browser and another fellow working on the macro language which replaced XUL. Both of them working on K-Meleon in their spare time.You can test the old K-Meleon's portable package to compare it with Firefox (of that time - 2010) since both are using Gecko (layout engine).
-
-
-
tradeofjane last edited by
Originally posted by blackbird71:
If the rendering engine is the foundational code of the browser (and it is), one might logically expect it to set many of the limits and boundaries of how the end result might look, regardless of the effort applied in designing a user interface. Whatever else, you have to build a round barn on a round foundation... you don't really build a square one on such a foundation. So there will be structural resemblances between all browsers based on the same rendering engine, no matter what else the developers might do or wish. However, over time and with enough creativity, features and forms of implementation can eventually be found that cross over or get around some of the limits and boundaries imposed by the rendering engine design. At that point, distinctive features can and will appear between different designs built on the same foundation.
That's not entirely true when it comes to the user interface, which has to be built before the browser can even be released. Opera could've added the ability to change it to suit a user's own personal preference or at least have tried to make it less Chrome like. If I want Opera to look more like it did pre-9.50, then I should have the ability to do so since that's what I'm use to and have been able to do up to 12.16. I don't expect to have all the features back that were included in 12.16 since some features, like Opera Mail, are tied to Presto's code base. However, I do expect Opera's management to be at least smart enough to innovate and not do something stupid like leaving out bookmarks or basing their efforts on trying to be so much like Chrome.
-
Deleted User last edited by
So... if I read you correctly you are saying that haavard is either very stupid or a liar. Which is it? Curious minds would like to know. :whistle:
-
blackbird71 last edited by
Originally posted by Tradeofjane:
... Opera could've added the ability to change it to suit a user's own personal preference or at least have tried to make it less Chrome like. If I want Opera to look more like it did pre-9.50, then I should have the ability to do so since that's what I'm use to and have been able to do up to 12.16.
While I completely agree that I wish New Opera had far more advanced user configurability (one of the two or three major things that really block me from adopting it), nothing involving 'design, development, and testing' comes without a price - in money and in competition for scarce company resources with other key projects. And whether the price is deemed worth paying depends on how the creators evaluate the market they're designing into and their own inside knowledge of their ultimate cross-product relationships, their business strategies, and their internal costs of doing the work they anticipate would be needed. Providing configurability costs design and test effort, unavoidably. And in a corporation supplying multiple user-related products, those costs will be significantly different from those of two guys working in their garage on a part-time project or even some third-world startup operation. How much and whether it's "worth it" to add levels of configurability simply cannot accurately be evaluated outside the company itself. Of course, whether it would have been worth it will ultimately be determined by the general market's reaction to the product that doesn't have it; but until that verdict comes in, we on the outside can only guess.
Originally posted by Tradeofjane:
I don't expect to have all the features back that were included in 12.16 since some features, like Opera Mail, are tied to Presto's code base. However, I do expect Opera's management to be at least smart enough to innovate and not do something stupid like leaving out bookmarks or basing their efforts on trying to be so much like Chrome.
One more time: bookmarks weren't "left out"... bookmarks don't "come naturally" to code and have to be cut out. Instead, "bookmarks" weren't designed in. There is a design-cost difference between the two, perhaps significant. Whether we believe Opera's initial market 'survey' was accurate or not, they've stated they believed the market demand for bookmarks did not justify their knowledge of the resource costs involved in providing them. They may or may not have been wrong, but that does not make them stupid.
-
tradeofjane last edited by
Originally posted by blackbird71:
While I completely agree that I wish New Opera had far more advanced user configurability (one of the two or three major things that really block me from adopting it), nothing involving 'design, development, and testing' comes without a price - in money and in competition for scarce company resources with other key projects. And whether the price is deemed worth paying depends on how the creators evaluate the market they're designing into and their own inside knowledge of their ultimate cross-product relationships, their business strategies, and their internal costs of doing the work they anticipate would be needed. Providing configurability costs design and test effort, unavoidably. And in a corporation supplying multiple user-related products, those costs will be significantly different from those of two guys working in their garage on a part-time project or even some third-world startup operation. How much and whether it's "worth it" to add levels of configurability simply cannot accurately be evaluated outside the company itself. Of course, whether it would have been worth it will ultimately be determined by the general market's reaction to the product that doesn't have it; but until that verdict comes in, we on the outside can only guess.
And yet...
In an interview with Digi.no, Opera's CEO Lars Boilesen notes that as a result of the WebKit transition, the company now has twice the resources working on the desktop as it previously did. Freed from having to expend effort on its engine, the company can focus on the interface and other software features.
Originally posted by blackbird71:
One more time: bookmarks weren't "left out"... bookmarks don't "come naturally" to code and have to be cut out. Instead, "bookmarks" weren't designed in. There is a design-cost difference between the two, perhaps significant. Whether we believe Opera's initial market 'survey' was accurate or not, they've stated they believed the market demand for bookmarks did not justify their knowledge of the resource costs involved in providing them. They may or may not have been wrong, but that does not make them stupid.
Bookmarks were left out of the design plan which is why 5 versions later they have yet to return. Opera never asked their users which features they would like to keep. Instead they collected usage data from 100,000+ randomly-selected people ( exact number unknown) and claimed that 90% of their 300 million+ users don't use bookmarks.
This isn't a resource issue, it's a problem with Opera not getting their priorities straight.
According to the latest blog post (and comments by Odin Hørthe Omdal), you shouldn’t expect native bookmark functionality in the near feature as Opera’s first priority is the quick access bar. Instead, they suggest relying on the third party extensions, which doesn’t sound like a good idea.
Source: http://www.favbrowser.com/opera-real-bookmarks-is-not-our-priority/
-
blackbird71 last edited by
Originally posted by Tradeofjane:
...
And yet...In an interview with Digi.no, Opera's CEO Lars Boilesen notes that as a result of the WebKit transition, the company now has twice the resources working on the desktop as it previously did. Freed from having to expend effort on its engine, the company can focus on the interface and other software features.
And you perhaps don't think the resources to completely code a user-interface engine for a rendering engine you've never developed or seriously handled aren't significantly greater initially than those needed to maintain and occasionally add to an engine set you've been exclusively developing for many years? Whether they have (or are willing to) express it, there's got to be a gigantic learning curve for Opera just to get up to speed to crank out even a basic UI engine in such a situation. It's that belief that has kept me hoping that an Opera version will eventually come along that I can use much like I did Old Opera: eventually their learning curve will flatten out, and all those resources will become more truly productive.
Originally posted by Tradeofjan:
Bookmarks were left out of the design plan which is why 5 versions later they have yet to return. Opera never asked their users which features they would like to keep. Instead they collected usage data from 100,000+ randomly-selected people ( exact number unknown) and claimed that 90% of their 300 million+ users don't use bookmarks. This isn't a resource issue, it's a problem with Opera not getting their priorities straight.
Opera believes they did ask users, via their random survey. I believe there were major flaws in their survey assumptions; you may believe even worse about it. But none of that matters. Opera says they believed it, and they based their design priorities upon it. Priorities which drove program management, work assignments, staffing levels in various sub-projects, and schedules. All of which affected countless lower-level detail tasks and assignments. And when the bookmarks backlash hit, how was Opera to then gauge the depth and validity of that backlash with respect to their product planning which had been geared to fashioning a browser to compete for a larger, less-technically-inclined marketplace? Once Opera determined they needed to provide some kind of bookmarking, do you think all the bookmarkless planning and development underway to that point could just have all those other priorities and efforts suddenly re-directed without causing even more chaos? If Opera believes the answer to the bookmarking situation also involves a coherent form of integrated control of SpeedDial and Stash functionality, that certainly complicates the design solution.
Originally posted by Tradeofjan:
According to the latest blog post (and comments by Odin Hørthe Omdal), you shouldn’t expect native bookmark functionality in the near feature as Opera’s first priority is the quick access bar. Instead, they suggest relying on the third party extensions, which doesn’t sound like a good idea.
Source: http://www.favbrowser.com/opera-real-bookmarks-is-not-our-priority/
I strongly suspect Opera still believes the number of folks demanding bookmarks is much smaller than you or I believe... which means the priorities of developing features or browser aspects Opera does believe most of its potential users demand will remain higher than bookmarking.
-
leocg Moderator Volunteer last edited by
Originally posted by blackbird71:
I strongly suspect Opera still believes the number of folks demanding bookmarks is much smaller than you or I believe... which means the priorities of developing features or browser aspects Opera does believe most of its potential users demand will remain higher than bookmarking.
I said it sometime ago and i still believe that bookmarks - at least in the way we know then today - will be past in a few years. Opera may be just starting it.
Bookmarks were very helpful in the beginning of the web when we had addresses like "www.somehostservice.com/somethingrandom/anotherrandom world/nowsomerandomnumber/pagename/8lettersname.html and search mechanisms were virtually nonexistent.
Now they may be still helpful for some people, specially the ones who have enought patience and methodism to categorize them, sometimes in more than one category. But, for people inpatient and disorganized like me, approaches like the page index on Opera Presto or a way to tag a page are many times better.
-
Deleted User last edited by
I have to agree with you, Leo. Furthermore, most young people with whom I'm familiar simply do not use the internet or their computers the way we did back in the 90's and continue to do. My grandson and his 800+ friends visit FB many times a day, use Snapchat, Instagram, Twitter and of course texting... texting... texting. And when he wants to go somewhere, he just starts typing it into the address bar and the search engine finishes it for him. I believe this is the future whether we like it or not (and no, I don't like it).
-
