Vivaldi
-
sgunhouse Moderator Volunteer last edited by
I don't know... Going nervous and getting some new, suspicious product out of nostalgic reluctance?
Suspicious? Now, it is a preview and missing some features that would prevent me from using it regularly yet (notably, no dropdown Back menu so I don't have to click Back 10 times), but I wouldn't consider anything involving Jon, Olli, Yngve, et al particularly suspicious.
-
christoph142 last edited by
They are trying to rebuild old Opera with Blink engine.
I installed it and I notice the interface is pretty similar to Maxthon.
-
christoph142 last edited by
They are trying to rebuild old Opera with Blink engine
... what Opera should have done instead of this one-to-fit-them-all approach without any customizations IMHO. They fell from one extreme into the other...
I installed it and I notice the interface is pretty similar to Maxthon.
The interface is entirely written in HTML. That makes it incredibly flexible. You can basically do anything you want with it.
-
Deleted User last edited by
They are trying to rebuild old Opera with Blink engine
... what Opera should have done instead of this one-to-fit-them-all approach without any customizations IMHO. They fell from one extreme into the other...
I must agree with you.
I installed it and I notice the interface is pretty similar to Maxthon.
The interface is entirely written in HTML. That makes it incredibly flexible. You can basically do anything you want with it.
Opera interface is written in what?
-
-
A Former User last edited by
I tried it and I like it, it has the old style notes option and integrated mail is coming soon. I think Opera have a serious competitor now.
-
Deleted User last edited by
Vivaldi has some positive aspects. Builtin features.
- Opera forces many users to install extensions and move resposibility for features into hands of external programmers and hobbyists. You like to have many extensions to be seen in addressbar? Yes, thats Opera Stable.
- Opera is missing sitespecific information/settings in addressbar show by the globe/lock button as in Chromium or Vivaldi
- Opera is missing shortcuts for bookmarks
- Opera note extensions are more of rubbish
- Opera is missing functional navigation with keyboard (Spatial Navigation)
You think Operas Userinterface is really good and usable for beginners and pros? No.
-
christoph142 last edited by
I installed it and I notice the interface is pretty similar to Maxthon.The interface is entirely written in HTML. That makes it incredibly flexible. You can basically do anything you want with it.Opera interface is written in what?
No, not Opera's. You were talking about Vivaldi.
It's written in HTML5. So it's the same like a webpage. Thus you can e.g. style Vivaldi's interface with CSS :ninja:Opera forces many users to install extensions
That's true. If you're a power user (and most of us were), you can't live without them. However, I personally don't feel it's such a bad idea to provide a solid base that can be extended with extensions. It keeps the browser slim and fast.
Having said that, making people rely on extensions, but not providing a highly flexible API as well as giving options for the most basic things that can't be done with extensions, is very poor.
I appreciated it very much when Opera announced they'd move to Chromium. Opera 15 was the solid base that I expected. But from there on, it looks like Opera and I are heading different directions with our expectations. And I guess most of us former power users feel the same about it... So if Vivaldi can eventually do what I had expected from Opera to be done, be my guest. Time will tell... :wait: -
Deleted User last edited by
What code Opera uses in interface? That what I meant.
Vivaldi is a good browser for power users, but for beginners it is not. Sometimes a person just to browse on the web and don't need a software with a lot of features that does not need.
-
-
-
-
A Former User last edited by
I was very exited on first speculations about new browser more than a year ago..and now... I don't know what to think
It is closest to old Opera, but in the meantime (year since), I've been testing lots of browsers, and there is a whole bunch of them, usually chromiums from Asia, that had similar features (SB, recent tabs trash...) and most of them failed (abandonware).
Vivaldi is one of those skinned chromiums, no doubt. And that's not a bad thing.
How good it is, depends on a developers vision.
Opera's "vision beyond O15" kinda sucked. They didn't capitalized their independent window layer (and that should be a game changer).
Instead they were running around in circles with bookmarks and SD (and no sync), and selling stories how they won't copy old features.
Seriously, wtf?!? :faint:Jon's vision was simple.
Mimic as much as possible of Presto features in chromium environment.
And result is, even at this stage, everyone's thrilled with new Vivaldi browser, while spitting on Opera for abandoning power users.
I kinda felt sorry for O-dev's yesterday, reading tons of disqus mail notifications, because every twelve year old troll in the known universe had to say something about new browser on Opera blog.Vivaldi does looks like our beloved old Opera
but is it gonna be a good browser, we shall see... :sherlock:
Like pig and German boy said, it's very sluggish, but I don't think it's because of preview build only.
That HTML5 bling-bling UI shares same resources (single-threaded) with all pages, very noticeable when loading multiple tabs at once. -
Deleted User last edited by
Personally I like the idea of the browser, as I've hoped all the time for a good alternative to Opera 12, but I have to criticize one thing:
It seems to be highly demanding for the hardware. I mean, I'm using a pretty good multimedia notebook, and I can use Opera 12 without any problems.
But Vivaldi causes high cpu usage, resulting in the fan getting pretty loud every 10 minutes or so, which is very disturbing, and also in the fan being turned on the whole time.This gets even more disturbing when I'm watching Youtube videos. Like in chrome, the html5 player is used. And this is awfully demanding, even some of my games use less cpu time. Therefore my fan gets into top gear and I'm not able to watch a video in fullscreen and 720p without being disturbed by my fan. Even when watching 360p without fullscreen, my fan turns on. In Opera 12 with flash I can watch 1440p videos and my fan turns on only a tiny little bit. This is similar in Firefox.
Comparison of watching a 360p video in fullscreen:- Opera 12 with Flash: 3-5% cpu-usage
- Vivaldi with Html5: 9-13% usage, that's 2-3 times more!
Of course this could be fully the fault of the html5 player. What do you think?
But when I'm comparing the normal browsing, Vivaldi still is much more demanding, like I already said.
Overall this confirms my general bad impression of chromium-based browser. I just don't like their general behavior.
So personally I will continue using Opera 12, with Firefox support, when certain sites aren't displaying properly. But this still keeps in reasonable limits, so my combinations will still do the trick for some time...
But of course I will watch how Vivaldi develops. Maybe these efficiency issues are completely fixable and not caused by the software architecture itself.
-
fałek last edited by
Because Vivaldi is based on HTML5, does it mean that hardware acclereation of HTML5 can rise Vivaldi performance very high?
-
A Former User last edited by
Comparing the time line of both the browsers (Opera 15+ and Vivaldi) and the features incorporated it looks like Vivaldi would turn out to be a good browser.
Some of the useful features still missing after almost 2 years with new Opera but implemented in Vivaldi in Tech Preview itself.
Site specific preferences
Import from Old Opera (including bookmarks)
Panels
Closed Tab trash icon
Bookmarks (Opera did few experiments with this one and the current one also lacks some options)Will have to see how Vivaldi shapes in coming days and months...
Yandex browser has also done some nice innovations which is also based on same engine
Another competitor coming up is Spartan (or the new IE).Back to Opera.... Another question to be thought about is... Has Opera set the priorities right? It's clear that new Opera does not want to mimic the old one but is something like closed tab icon that difficult to implement that it has not been considered yet?
Opera had a pretty good user base established over the years which could have carried onto new version with providing some most used features and not just stick to bare minimums which has pissed off lot of users to switch to other browsers.
-
Deleted User last edited by
Otter is closer to old Opera than Vivaldi. Vivaldi is a better Chropera, but still Chropera.
-
treego last edited by
Otter is closer to old Opera than Vivaldi. Vivaldi is a better Chropera, but still Chropera.
That's absolutely right!
-
sgunhouse Moderator Volunteer last edited by
Comparison of watching a 360p video in fullscreen:
Opera 12 with Flash: 3-5% cpu-usage
Vivaldi with Html5: 9-13% usage, that's 2-3 times more!
Of course this could be fully the fault of the html5 player. What do you think?
But when I'm comparing the normal browsing, Vivaldi still is much more demanding, like I already said.Chromium is much more demanding than Presto, pure and simple. Try the same comparison only between Opera 12 and Opera 27 and see what you think.
-
username342342345 last edited by
Looks very promising. It's what should have happened with opera, add customization to a mainstream rendering engine. It may harm performance to have all features and UI in javascript, but it also bring the ability to affix opera, erm Vivaldi, to any rendering engine. I think it is funny that a browser created only a few months ago is already better than new opera.
Their website is horrible though, and doesn't render well in presto. Looks like a designer ate up all the fad mobile/metro styles and pooped them out onto a web server.
