OLD IS GOLD, we want new opera with all old stuff
-
Deleted User last edited by
In rereading my reply above I'm amazed at the spelling and grammatical errors. Chalk it up to early morning and lack of coffee.
-
vitralizer last edited by
Sorry. Looks like you'll have to make do with Palemoon and various addons. Opera is dead and it probably won't come back. The fact that they threw everything out the window suggests Google implanted a trojan horse agent like Nokia's Elop.
-
Deleted User last edited by
LOL... have you ever thought about writing fantasy novels? I think you might have missed your calling. :-p
-
blackbird71 last edited by... Opera is dead and it probably won't come back. The fact that they threw everything out the window suggests Google implanted a trojan horse agent like Nokia's Elop.
Careful! Your paranoia's showing.
-
Deleted User last edited by
The reason why inOperate = Chrode is because I firmly believe that the devs were told by Opera that if they make it look like Chrode then some company will buy it for $$$ millions and that the devs will get a big chunk of that pie. Its all about money my friend. I still use to this day Opera 11.52. And I love it!!
Adding insult to injury, the stupid forum rules say that you cant comment negatively on inOperate because if you do, you might dissuade potential buyers (speculating companies) from buying inOperate.
I'm going to launch a thread urging all those die-hard Opera loyalists to join forces with me and in unison, voice our concerns in bringing Opera back. If the mods dont like it thats too bad.
-
Deleted User last edited by
Excuse me but if the moderator does not like it, then that's too bad for YOU! There are terms of service and evidently you have failed to read them.
-
blackbird71 last edited by admin
@taurusx5, is it your intention to copy the text of your post into every 'negative' forum thread?
-
vedicaudio last edited by
I haven't read every post on every thread, but I what I haven't seen anyone mention yet is the unfortunate fact that with Opera v12 and older (Presto), there was always a small minority of websites that simply did not display properly in Opera.
I have used Opera as my primary browser for 13 years. During that time, I came to use and appreciate many, many of its advanced and unique features. A few favorite examples: the ability to customize preferences such as browser identification, and whether plug-ins loaded automatically on a "per-site" basis with the "Edit Site Preferences" command, mouse gestures, and not losing typed entries in a web form when using the forward/back buttons when other browsers would tell you that the page MUST be reloaded (can anyone using v20 tell me if these features are implemented?).
Throughout these years, I always had to keep a secondary browser to deal with those few sites that just seemed to trip Opera up. I blamed this, of course, on the website developers, because they obviously did not test their site with Opera (presumably due to its small market share). I didn't really care which one, and used IE, FF, and Chrome at different times, while continuing to use Opera for 97% of my browsing.
However, it was always a little annoying to have to open up another browsing for that 3% of sites that didn't work (case in point, the new American Airlines site). For everything else, I usually have one program. It just makes things easier. I don't do 3% of word processing in a 2nd program, and I don't send 3% of my email with a 2nd program. I used to like GOM Player for video playback, but once I realized that VLC plays 100% of videos, I couldn't be bothered to have several different video players all installed on my computer.
All this to say: I can understand why Opera would decide to abandon their rendering engine and adopt one which would be supported by 100% of websites by virtue of the fact that all web developers test their sites with Chrome. So I am ready to support Opera v20+. But Opera ASA needs to understand that there was a compelling reason for users like me (who I believe comprise most of the folks posting here) to continue using Opera all those years despite the fact that we still had to keep another browser for those 3% of sites: We loved and needed the functionality of Opera on the 97% of sites!!! And after 5, 10, 15 years using that, it is not going to be easy to give that up. People who prioritized 100% compatibility would have dumped Opera ages ago for Firefox or Chrome. I think what has a lot of us scratching our heads is why Blink isn't being released in beta while Presto is still the official version. Until Blink has the functionality that compelled us to use Opera even when web developers weren't testing on it, we don't understand how Opera ASA could market this is as the official release of their product.
So here's the point: I already had Chrome installed to deal with the 3%. I'm not going to install a 3rd browser. So until Opera v20+ re-implements all the functionality of v12, I'm not ready to make the jump. Why would I install this browser when I still need to keep v12 around to do a lot of tasks that v20 can't do yet?
posted with Opera v12.15 x64
-
jito463 last edited by
I think what has a lot of us scratching our heads is why Blink isn't being released in beta while Presto is still the official version. Until Blink has the functionality that compelled us to use Opera even when web developers weren't testing on it, we don't understand how Opera ASA could market this is as the official release of their product.
I've been saying this since I first heard about the change. The launch of ChrOpera was so mind-bogglingly ill-conceived, that I just couldn't believe it.
-
Deleted User last edited by
And your point is? Look... that was months ago. What good can possibly come from whining about something that took place last July? Everyone (even fanboys like myself) have agreed that the release could have been handled better. Story over. Get over it and move forward.
-
stng last edited by
So here's the point: I already had Chrome installed to deal with the 3%. I'm not going to install a 3rd browser. So until Opera v20+ re-implements all the functionality of v12,
They won't re-implement the old functionality and customizability! Ideologically, C...Opera 15+ is radically different browser.
Read the interview with their PR's team: http://www.reddit.com/r/operabrowser/comments/1oufuu/a_few_comments_from_the_recent_interview_with/
This makes things clear.posted with Opera v12.15 x64
12.14 is better.
-
meridivs last edited by
The reason why some people would defend the new Chromepera is completely beyond my dumbed-down mind at this moment. That is beside the gold bars, energy bars, iron-rich cereals or whatever.
Maybe I should adapt to amoeba status again. After all, the overall trend is simplicity now. Sorry to miss the boat but I'm kind of slow since I'm "adapting" to a mainstream browser.
-
Deleted User last edited by
Sorry to miss the boat but I'm kind of slow since I'm "adapting" to a mainstream browser.
Then why are you here? Go adapt to your mainstream browser and be happy. I see you've been running from thread to thread to fan the flames. Since Opera no longer suits you and you've already abandoned it, go elsewhere.
-
vedicaudio last edited by
@stng: What's better about 12.14? I was doing great with 12.16 on a Win Vista, but when I got a Win8 x64 machine, I installed 12.16 x64, and started having lots of crashes. I've tried 12.15 and 12.16 both 32 and 64 bit, and still lots of crashes. 12.15 seems slightly more stable, but it could just be my imagination. Some days it runs fine, other days lots of crashes. It's gotten to the point that I'm considering downgrading to Win7 or even Vista on my new computer since Opera is such a critical piece of software, but I don't know if that will help.
Is anyone else having big stability issues with Opera 12.xx since last year or since switching to Win8?
-
blackbird71 last edited by
12.15 and 12.16 are identical versions (12.16 was a re-issued 12.15 after Opera's server was hacked while 12.15 was available for download). Some users find 12.15/16 to be less stable and more problematic than 12.14; also, 64-bit Opera has been more problematic than 32-bit for the 12.xx family. Consequently, 12.15/16 64-bit Opera is probably the least stable of the 12.1x bunch. For my usage, I've found 12.14 to be quite stable and effective; in cases where all 12.xx versions are problematic for whatever reason(s), the next-lower stable version giving users good results would be 11.64.
-
stng last edited by admin
@vedicaudio
12.15/12.16 has broken web-sites compatibility. The most problematic version is Opera 12.16 x64 for Windows.Details: https://forums.opera.com/topic/550/prweb-crashes-opera
-
Deleted User last edited by
You want old Opera 12 bugs in new Opera? OMG. No!
Its hard enough to report bugs, which may be fixed in months, years or never (thats true!) for current painmaker Opera 20.Opera 20 is ugly, has nasty bugs preventing me from using on website with logins (bad passwort manager, non-working password fill on webpages with Auth Basic). Bad debugging of Websites with WebInspector, and so on...
Stay with Opera 12 as long as you can.
-
albatros48 last edited by
@niransha
You want old Opera 12 bugs in new Opera? OMG. No!
Its hard enough to report bugs, which may be fixed in months, years or never (thats true!) for current painmaker Opera 20.
Opera 20 is ugly, has nasty bugs preventing me from using on website with logins (bad passwort manager, non-working password fill on webpages with Auth Basic). Bad debugging of Websites with WebInspector, and so on...
Stay with Opera 12 as long as you can.I find it not that bad.:-)
Why not using the LastPass-Extension??? It works fine and reliable.
-
Deleted User last edited by
Why not using the LastPass-Extension??? It works fine and reliable.
Because i need a account at LastPass' servers.
Because i dont want to host my passwords on external servers from US companies with weak data security and privacy.
Because i dont want to pay yearly for "extra" functionality to Lastpass.And ... (may be you laught at me) because a broeser's password manager has to work!
-
albatros48 last edited by
Why not using the LastPass-Extension??? It works fine and reliable.
Because i need a account at LastPass' servers.
Right, but where is here the problem?
Because i dont want to host my passwords on external servers from US companies with weak data security and privacy.
I totally agree with you! That's my concern also, but I didn't find any better. Even KeePass was not satisfying for me.
Because i dont want to pay yearly for "extra" functionality to Lastpass.
It's free! I didn't pay anything for, as I didn't need the Premium-Function.
And ... (may be you laught at me) because a broeser's password manager has to work!
Well, I use ist now since years and it never failed.:-)
