What's the Point?

[burnout426]

burnout426 Volunteer last edited by

I'm aware all the sites work if you ignore the warning, my point was that if sites are going to single out opera irregardless then why bother with the new engine, stick with the older and better one

Despite all the changes, Opera made sure there's a way to identify the new Opera via its user agent string. That of course helps with usage stats for sites that look for the new Opera, but it makes it really easy to single out Opera like we know some sites like to do. You can change that though with the User-Agent Switcher extension. Just identify as Chrome for Windows by default and don't worry about it. Then, you can further get the Chrome compatibility you desire.

The downside to the extension is that the strings aren't auto-updated to match the newest stable build for the browser. But, you can update the string for "Chrome for Windows" for example manually to keep it up to date.

Another downside to the extension is that there's not an option to do it by just domain for those that want to help with usage stats on good sites.

Even with that though, there's still a way for a site to detect the new Opera (or that it might be the new Opera) by checking that it doesn't support mp3 and mp4.

Opera will probably always face these issues as long as it can't fully pose a Chrome.

[A Former User]

A Former User last edited by

I wouldn't call the loss of the old UI a bonus, quite the opposite.
Please consider the developer's side. They have less complexity to deal with now. Also, they took the opportunity to develop an UI that's more native to the OS than previous versions' UIs were.

Having small popups over a section of another page in the same window is my favorite feature
I don't even know how you keep that organized. In my experience as soon as I switch to another tab it'll cover any MDI "pop-ups". That's not very different than switching tabs. Also, you can drag and drop tabs out to create a new window and use the OS snapping feature for example if you want to have more pages available in the screen for some time.

I would put most of what you said in that category so I'm not sure why you say it isn't, supporting web standards properly, without bugs and in a reasonably fast way that doesn't make you think it's frozen is pretty much what compatibility is for a browser.
No, you're completely distorting what "compatibility" means.

the rest of your post is all about how chromium is more compatible
No, my post is about how the Chromium engines and architecture are faster and how they don't have to invest time and money into fixing and developing an engine both for performance and adding new standards support duplicating everything they could get from Chromium for free and in the blink of an eye. That's not "compatibility".

IMO there's no way they're going back to fix Presto's architectural and performance problems plus implementing new standards into it when it's much easier to copy the code from Chromium at the cost of sacrificing barely used features and settings, sorry, it's too much of a good deal to ignore it. In the long-term they'll be able to add new features, maintain and improve them without having to worry to assign developers to the task of constantly improving and fixing the engine.

That's the point.

[A Former User]

A Former User last edited by

http://tinypic.com/r/148qxj/8
Wait a second! "Upgrade your current version of Google Chrome"!
Are you using any extension to switch your UA-String? Are you using the most recent Opera version?

Outlook.com thinks you're using an outdated Chrome version, when you're actually using Opera.

[samkook]

samkook last edited by

Please consider the developer's side. They have less complexity to deal with now.
Sure it's much easier for them, but that doesn't make it better for us(me at least, if you don't miss any of the features, the extra stability of the new engine makes it better).
Also, they took the opportunity to develop an UI that's more native to the OS than previous versions' UIs were.
I don't even know what that means, all I know is that its appearance clash more than the old one with my OS.
I don't even know how you keep that organized. In my experience as soon as I switch to another tab it'll cover any MDI "pop-ups". That's not very different than switching tabs. Also, you can drag and drop tabs out to create a new window and use the OS snapping feature for example if you want to have more pages available in the screen for some time.
I'm only ever using 2 windows at most so no organization needed. It's very useful when you need to see information on the page below or it's faster to switch back to the page below by clicking right away where you need to instead of having to switch tab first.
I want to avoid using more than one main window since I've been burned many times by doing so by losing all my open tabs if I close the main one(or it crashes) and a popup remain. It seem less of an issue these days since I've seen options to restore all closed windows, but it still makes me very uneasy. It also keeps the clutter in the OS toolbar to a minimum which I really appreciate since I often want to see the information displayed there for some of them and I can't decide which gets grouped together so the less open window the better.

I would put most of what you said in that category so I'm not sure why you say it isn't, supporting web standards properly, without bugs and in a reasonably fast way that doesn't make you think it's frozen is pretty much what compatibility is for a browser.

No, you're completely distorting what "compatibility" means.

the rest of your post is all about how chromium is more compatible

No, my post is about how the Chromium engines and architecture are faster and how they don't have to invest time and money into fixing and developing an engine both for performance and adding new standards support duplicating everything they could get from Chromium for free and in the blink of an eye. That's not "compatibility".
Google's definition of compatibility is the following:

"the ability of one computer, piece of software, etc., to work with another."

I interpret that as the browser being able to render a webpage as it was intended. If a webpage isn't displayed as it's supposed to like if the browser doesn't support the standards it use, a bug in the browser is preventing the webpage to be displayed properly or it hangs when trying to render a certain part of it so it never finishes displaying it as intended. If a webpage isn't displayed like in should because of any of those reasons, then it means it's not compatible with the browser since it's unable to do the job the webpage is asking it to.

You seem to interpret it in another way which I'm not clear on.

Your main message was that it's better for them to switch to the Blink engine, but almost everything you said to illustrate why is about it having better compatibility according to my interpretation of it.

IMO there's no way they're going back to fix Presto's architectural and performance problems plus implementing new standards into it when it's much easier to copy the code from Chromium at the cost of sacrificing barely used features and settings, sorry, it's too much of a good deal to ignore it. In the long-term they'll be able to add new features, maintain and improve them without having to worry to assign developers to the task of constantly improving and fixing the engine.
That's the point.
I'm also certain of it, but I'm very afraid of the limitations the blink engine will impose on them since I've yet to see basic features I need find their way inside in 6 major versions change and they continue their quest in the opposite direction of where I'd like them to go since they're dumbing it down for the masses instead of giving us more control. There's a way to do both with an basic/advanced mode, but I'm afraid it will never show up.

[Deleted User]

Deleted User last edited by

What is the purpose of having a forum if we can not express our opinions on the new failed browser?

[samkook]

samkook last edited by

What is the purpose of having a forum if we can not express our opinions on the new failed browser?

Isn't that what we're doing here, right now?

[Deleted User]

Deleted User last edited by

No. What you're doing is beating a dead horse. Presto is d-e-a-d to all intents and purposes. Deal with it. Move on to either learning how to adapt to the new browser via the extensions OR find another browser. But consistentlly whining about how wonderful the old browser was is not going to make one iota of difference in the long run.

[lem729]

lem729 last edited by

I think calling Opera 21 a "failed browser" is far out :))) Look, there are many many users who love it. Count me as one. It doesn't replace Opera Presto, at least not yet, because Opera still offers downloads on its website of Opera 21 AND Opera 12.17. Opera 21 is an entirely different concept. Now I think it's awesome. If you are wedded to the features that came in Opera Presto, fine. Stay with it. If another browser doesn't have a feature that you want, that doesn't make it "failed." Opera 21 through extensions can add to the browser, customization features undreamed of by users of Opera 12. So I'm not sure which way the more customization argument cuts. I'd say that Opera 21 with its access to a hugely larger range of extensions in the end provides more customization opportunities than ever before for the user.

[A Former User]

A Former User last edited by

What is the purpose of having a forum if we can not express our opinions on the new failed browser?
@wyzard Who is blocking you? Oh, UNFORTUNATELY no one. Because what's the purpose of having a forum if trolls like you keep hijacking the threads?

If a webpage isn't displayed as it's supposed to like if the browser doesn't support the standards it use, a bug in the browser is preventing the webpage to be displayed properly or it hangs when trying to render a certain part of it so it never finishes displaying it as intended. If a webpage isn't displayed like in should because of any of those reasons, then it means it's not compatible with the browser since it's unable to do the job the webpage is asking it to.
@samkook You're still distorting a little the meaning of compatibility. "Not hanging" is a characteristic of performance, not of compatibility.

Ok these scenarios may happen but have you checked that all of the compatibility issues mentioned this topic are not it, having nothing to do with the engine? They are caused by UA-String browser sniffing done by the third-party developers of those sites and not a bug in Opera's engine.

Compatibility issues in the past and in the present are rarely caused by bugs or lack of standards support in Opera. Presto supported standards well but web developers broke their sites in Opera either by browser sniffing blocking Opera from accessing a JavaScript file on their server or by code written specifically to work with behaviors / small differences in implementation (that are not defined in the spec) for browser X and Y and ignoring what Opera behavior was, etc. Now that it aligns with Chromium implementation and the UA-String is detect as Chrome by the great majority of sites these issues are gone.

Yeah borrowing the engine brings new standards support and they won't have to write one line of code for it (though they may do), in turn it also brings compatibility with pages that will be developed in the future using these new standards (you see, not in the sense of issues caused by third-parties blocking Opera via browser sniffing or other ways to cause issues).

[A Former User]

A Former User last edited by

I thought I had made myself clear...
If you don't have anything constructive to say drop it!

Good heavens what a prat you are. That is all, as far as I am concerned, is what you have made very clear.

[samkook]

samkook last edited by

@samkook You're still distorting a little the meaning of compatibility. "Not hanging" is a characteristic of performance, not of compatibility.
Ok these scenarios may happen but have you checked that all of the compatibility issues mentioned this topic are not it, having nothing to do with the engine? They are caused by UA-String browser sniffing done by the third-party developers of those sites and not a bug in Opera's engine.
Compatibility issues in the past and in the present are rarely caused by bugs or lack of standards support in Opera. Presto supported standards well but web developers broke their sites in Opera either by browser sniffing blocking Opera from accessing a JavaScript file on their server or by code written specifically to work with behaviors / small differences in implementation (that are not defined in the spec) for browser X and Y and ignoring what Opera behavior was, etc. Now that it aligns with Chromium implementation and the UA-String is detect as Chrome by the great majority of sites these issues are gone.
Yeah borrowing the engine brings new standards support and they won't have to write one line of code for it (though they may do), in turn it also brings compatibility with pages that will be developed in the future using these new standards (you see, not in the sense of issues caused by third-parties blocking Opera via browser sniffing or other ways to cause issues).
Performance is how fast a task is done. If it hangs, it doesn't mean it lacks performance, it means something isn't processed properly and is blocking the processing chain which is why I put it with compatibility since it's very likely something that the engine can't process that's causing the hangup. If it were a performance issue, it would eventually manage to process it properly, it would only take longer.

Now it's true that it's not the new engine that's at fault for this topic problems, but the question asked was what's the point of changing the engine if compatibility, which was the biggest problem of the old engine, doesn't get better. At least with the old UI, they gave us the ability to identify as another browser to get around sniffing, but now, we have to rely on extensions for something that important which is the main reason for the change in most people mind and, as far as I'm aware, there's no way to do it on a site by site basis. Opera may not be at fault, but there's still not much point in changing the engine if things don't get better.

In my experience, most compatibility issues I've encountered in the past couple of years with presto couldn't be fixed by identifying or masking as another browser so I assume they were incompatible with the engine. It could still be the web designers not following standards though.

If every browser start using the same engine, compatibility will get better since everyone will be on the same page, but it also mean that all the same vulnerabilities will be present in all of them which is one of the reason I'm uneasy about the switch even though I understand the reasons behind it.

No. What you're doing is beating a dead horse. Presto is d-e-a-d to all intents and purposes. Deal with it. Move on to either learning how to adapt to the new browser via the extensions OR find another browser. But consistentlly whining about how wonderful the old browser was is not going to make one iota of difference in the long run.
I view it as constructive criticism since I always explain my reasoning and don't simply insult the new browser. It's my way of dealing with v12 death, by giving my opinion and hoping things change enough for me to be able to use the new version.
In practice, I've been trying to get used to firefox for months in preparation of v12 demise since it's the only good enough alternative for me right now, but I'm hoping I can stick with opera.

Oh and Opera hasn't been wonderful in my eyes since somewhere during v9 since it was declining in many ways in my opinion since then(with a few exceptions like speed dial) and things didn't change then so I don't really have high hopes for now with such a drastic change.

I think calling Opera 21 a "failed browser" is far out :))) Look, there are many many users who love it. Count me as one. It doesn't replace Opera Presto, at least not yet, because Opera still offers downloads on its website of Opera 21 AND Opera 12.17. Opera 21 is an entirely different concept. Now I think it's awesome. If you are wedded to the features that came in Opera Presto, fine. Stay with it. If another browser doesn't have a feature that you want, that doesn't make it "failed." Opera 21 through extensions can add to the browser, customization features undreamed of by users of Opera 12. So I'm not sure which way the more customization argument cuts. I'd say that Opera 21 with its access to a hugely larger range of extensions in the end provides more customization opportunities than ever before for the user.
Failed may be too strong a word for it, but, even though he's very likely trolling, I very much understand his point of view.
You know I tried to achieve a few things I needed and failed on 3 out of 4(but I haven't tried 21 yet so maybe I'm at 2 out of 4 now), but I still have a very hard time grasping the concept that people can like the new browser(as well as chrome), that's how horrible it is for me.

It's funny that I don't think I've seen people here having a neutral opinion about it, everyone seem to either really dislike it or really love it, nobody's saying it's just okay.

[lem729]

lem729 last edited by

@samkook

I have Chrome on my desktop loaded and ready to go. I prefer Opera 21 more. Nothing weds me to Opera. I'm capable of deciding what I like, and what I don't. BUT if I didn't use Opera 21, I would use Chrome over Firefox, or Internet Explorer. Now there must be some reason I prefer Opera 21? Listen, when I used Chrome back some months (I was concerned then about bookmarking in Opera 21 and didn't understand how to do it), the memory footprint was a matter of concern. I every now and then got messages on my computer (from a security suite) that the CPU was almost totally used BY CHROME. I got some blue screen crashes (probably related to memory and Chrome, though I can't be certain there). Since I use Opera 21, almost exclusively, none of that happens. I can get whatever the benefit of Chrome via its extensions was, because I can still use them in Opera. I love the Speed Dial in Opera 21 (with folders) (not available in Chrome), which the more I got to use it, I found to be a wonderful killer feature for me. I think of Marshall McCluhan, "the medium is the message." The speed dial, for me, (with the innovation of its folders) is a totally different medium than bookmarks, which puts the world of the internet at my fingertips. Now I do like though the other new innovative features that come with Opera 21 -- and I use them: Stash, Discover Mode (where I often change the language to find out what's going on around the world in a different language (one of my hobbies is reading in French) without having to hunt for the stuff myself) (no, I don't use it everyday, but I still find it useful). I think Off-Road Mode is great, because at least Opera thinks about people who have dial-up modems, or weak wifi signals, or laptops that aren't that powerful. Opera does a superb job with the aesthetics of customization of the speed dial. It's so easy to add the art I want on the internet as a theme with a right click, and I can add my own art on my computer. (The last I remember Chrome, you could only use their wallpaper for background (couldn't even save it to your computer)(they were so into property rights, or whatever). Look, I'm not into features in the name of features. I prefer the greater speed of Opera 21, it's better accessibility of sites. Plus I trust Opera to build a browser, that I will like, more than Google. To say -- as certain Presto diehards do -- that Opera 21 has failed is to me a joke. It's not serious. I can't take you seriously. One can easily argue that you can customize more (using the hugely increased world of extensions in Opera 21, than you can in Opera 12.17. No, you cannot replicate easily every feature in Opera 12.17 in Opera 21, but you can find features in Opera 21 with extensions undreamed of by users of Opera 12.17. Go ahead, say you prefer Opera 12xx That I can understand. We are different users with different needs. But when you suggest that Opera 21 is a failed browser, you lose me. There, my friend, you let passion be father to your thought and go off the deep end.

[herrpietrus]

herrpietrus last edited by

To be honest, now I think i'ts just ok. Mainly thanks to some extensions, but still ok... It has a few basic features build--in so it's still better than Chrome. Perhaps I could get even more using FF with some good extensions but I've never liked FF

[samkook]

samkook last edited by

I didn't mean to say it was useless for everyone, I know many like it quite a lot, and I've read enough of your(lem729) posts to know you love it, but for what I need it to, it makes it so much harder to use for my everyday tasks that it's not something I consider as an option in its current form which is why I find it hard to grasp that others do.

I've also never liked FF and only used it for the live http headers extension I sometimes needed, but it's the one that I can best make behave according to my needs after opera v12-.

And I'm glad to have seen someone who thinks it's only ok, it's a rare sight, but it does mean it's getting more balanced.

[A Former User]

A Former User last edited by

Look, I don't want to play a game of interpreting semantics on loop.
The point: even if compatibility problems arise, the developers didn't lose any time writing one line of code to make the browser engine work with high level of performance and standards support.

Now it's true that it's not the new engine that's at fault for this topic problems, but the question asked was what's the point of changing the engine if compatibility, which was the biggest problem of the old engine, doesn't get better.
Doesn't get better? Forgot about the much smaller number of patches in browser.js I mentioned?

At least with the old UI, they gave us the ability to identify as another browser to get around sniffing, but now, we have to rely on extensions for something that important which is the main reason for the change in most people mind and, as far as I'm aware, there's no way to do it on a site by site basis.
Actually there's a --user-agent command line switch that works, but it's enabled for all sites as you said also.

It's funny that I don't think I've seen people here having a neutral opinion about it, everyone seem to either really dislike it or really love it, nobody's saying it's just okay.
I don't love it, but I think Opera is better than any other browsers for my needs and for my ideology too.

[blackbird71]

blackbird71 last edited by

At this point in time, I believe the foundational "driver" for what has occurred with the Opera browser is simply cost. There are two kinds of cost in creating anything: the direct cost of adding a particular feature, and a "forgone" cost of not adding some different feature because your scarce resources have been diverted in adding the first feature. This cost conflict is especially acute when starting up a wholly new design, which (though New Opera is built upon an existing Blink foundation) involves a complete new learning curve for the developers. As a result and given limited resources, triage must necessarily be imposed on what things are to be done, and in what order.

With Old Opera, over any given time in its earlier and middle-period days, the engine code was already well-understood, so developmental effort towards tweaks, configurability, and features did not greatly conflict with the resources needed for further basic design. Later in life, Opera's developer resources appear to have increasingly been overwhelmed with trying to keep up with both exploding standards and the new technologies which began negatively impacting the basic code engines in major ways. Hence, from Opera's perspective, it seemed necessary to off-load the basic rendering engine effort to something which was already more up-to-date and could be kept that way by others, other than just by Opera's own resources. Moreover, trying to turn Presto into such an open-source engine, contributed to by "outsiders", would have interfered with Opera's existing Presto-based income-producing business ventures, would have required a lot of resource expenditure documenting Presto code for "outsiders", and would have meant long delays waiting for "outsiders" to pick up the ball and contribute meaningfully to updating/upgrading Presto to re-acquire the compatibility that was already available in Blink... so, Opera being a business, open-sourcing Presto was not an acceptable solution.

The unavoidable result of the change was that, in turn, Opera imported unto itself some major re-learning and developmental ramp-up effort that has been a mostly 'invisible' pacing factor imposed on its resources to date. At the same time, different rendering engines impose different constraints and trade-offs upon developers trying to interface with them. As a result, some features are inherently much harder or more complex to add in one engine, compared with another. This all makes the feature/configurability "triage" more drastic or painful than it might seem otherwise. Eventually, I do expect Opera to make much more headway incorporating features and improving configurability, once the dust more fully settles on its becoming more familiar and conversant with Blink. But I wouldn't therefore assume that many of the Old Opera features will ever return like some of us might like... too much has changed, both in inherent constraints of engines and in the marketplace and what the bulk of users "demand".

Out of all this, I've learned to better appreciate the well-designed browsers for the uniquenesses they offer, but especially I've come to realize none of it is "forever". You have to be willing, and prepared, to encounter change, even in your most dearly-held usage elements - because, ready or not, change will come. At some point, I have hope Blink Opera will have evolved to where I can employ it successfully for the work I need to do - but, frankly, that point isn't yet. At the same time, I have no illusions that any other browser will offer any more than a medium-term solution, either. After all, change looms on the horizon... always and universally.

[Deleted User]

Deleted User last edited by

Well written. Necessity and the inevitable nature of change in software. Nothing stays forever so we simply move with the changes as best we can. And unless our work is seriously dependent upon former Opera features (and I can't think that this is actually the case as many claim... after all... surely we can learn to make do with what is available) then it behooves us to learn to adapt. And really... that's the long and short of it.