Opera Presto Features

  • It's there any reason because Opera Presto features are not in new Opera?

    I suppose that as me, many people ask why they are not implemented.
    2013 ==> 2017 = O.O... 4 years

  • You're asking us?

    Some features are implemented as extensions, some are not feasible in Blink ... the rest you'd have to ask the developers.

  • It's there any reason because Opera Presto features are not in new Opera?

    I can think of some reasons:

    • They've never been really necessary and/or useful ;
    • They don't make sense within Opera Blink
    • They are hard to implement and maintain in current Opera
    • They don't bring enough revenue or its implementation cost is too high.
  • SGunHouse

    You're asking us?

    It is a question for all,

    since some users follow all the growth of Opera, or in the blogs with the publications of different products and areas in which Opera is present as in the forums, where there is also information and debate, but on the other hand, even though the Opera employees read the message does not mean that they can respond.

    So I do not expect any Opera employee answer.
    I would like to be wrong.

    Some features are implemented as extensions, some are not feasible in Blink ... the rest you'd have to ask the developers.

    But the extensions consume to much resources, if I / We know that, they know it.
    Feasible (a new word in my vocabulary xD), they could create an expansion / extension pack supply to avoid that, or it's Blink, it's the same problem¿?

    Developers, let's see if they know about this discussion and many others asking about Presto Features in Opera Blink, what reasons block the import evolution and if they plan to port it in the future.

    LeoCg

    I can think of some reasons:

    • They've never been really necessary and/or useful ;
    • They don't make sense within Opera Blink
    • They are hard to implement and maintain in current Opera
    • They don't bring enough revenue or its implementation cost is too high.

    But if Vivaldi has implemented some options, why Opera didn't? At least yet¿?
    I used almost every Opera Presto options, don't you? and each one more useful than the other! Fused, The fastest browser on Earth! :o :)

    :rolleyes:

    "Despite the cost" Do they have they OBlink full of extensions¿? Or do they browse with OPresto¿?
    Do they browse? :(|) :banana:

    Once the features are ready they just work and most of them are already created :)

    I not really understand what happened... :|

    Maybe report to Chromium Devs to keep in mind Opera Presto features could be the solution :sherlock:

    Thanks for your responses. ;)

    Today there is a Public Vivaldi meetup via EvenBright, something like this would be very nice from Opera Team. :)

    Let's see what they talk about... at 4am in my country!!!... :zzz: :|

  • ...
    But if Vivaldi has implemented some options, why Opera didn't? At least yet¿?
    I used almost every Opera Presto options, don't you? and each one more useful than the other! Fused, The fastest browser on Earth!

    "Despite the cost" Do they have they OBlink full of extensions¿? Or do they browse with OPresto¿?
    Do they browse? Once the features are ready they just work and most of them are already created
    I not really understand what happened...

    Features once developed for Presto Opera had different coding and architecture than what would be needed for use in Blink Opera. In some cases, what was easy in Presto may be very difficult with the Blink engine. Whenever code must be written/debugged/tested, there are costs associated with that. Those costs include not just the money to fund the coding effort, but other costs in terms of increased size/complexity/performance of the overall end browser and the diverted effort that would have created other things but couldn't because the resources were tied up in (re)creating the particular Presto feature in Blink.

    As a result, when a browser maker chooses what to put into their browser (with the associated costs), they take into account several factors: who they are primarily trying to attract by writing the browser code a certain way; whether a particular feature set matters very much to the largest part of that target audience; and what is the payback likely to be in terms of resulting browser market share. If extensions already exist that will work to provide a particular less-popular feature for a browser, the browser makers will logically reduce the importance of their building it into the browser (with all the costs that would include), and they'll go on to do other things instead.

    Vivaldi was created with a somewhat different target audience in mind than was Blink Opera. Consequently, Vivaldi's makers assess the tradeoffs of included features versus development costs differently from Opera's current makers, since those to whom Vivaldi is trying to appeal view their browsing somewhat differently than do the target users to whom Opera is trying to appeal. Neither one is 'right' nor 'wrong', just different in what they're aiming for or prefer. There will never be one browser to rule them all - there will always be a mix of different browsers serving different browsing emphases, with that mix continually changing as browsers, user tastes, and the web all evolve.

  • But if Vivaldi has implemented some options, why Opera didn't?

    Because they are different browsers/companies aiming on different publics. While Vivaldi aims on old Opera users unsatisfied with Opera Blink - and was basically created just to please them - Opera seems to aim on a more 'general', more 'current' public.

    I used almost every Opera Presto options, don't you?

    Some of them, but when Opera Blink arrived I started realizing that many of them wasn't necessarily essentials.

    Do they have they OBlink full of extensions¿? Or do they browse with OPresto¿?

    They who?

    Once the features are ready they just work and most of them are already created

    For Presto, not for Blink.

    I not really understand what happened.

    The world changed, that's it. Technology and the web have changed as well the access to them and browsers needed to adapt themselves.

    Maybe report to Chromium Devs to keep in mind Opera Presto features could be the solution

    Solution for...?

  • Opera Presto was magical. It was an elite treat!

    Nothing has come along since that rivals it. That said, the current Opera browser is probably the best modern browser going with Vivaldi running neck-and-neck with it. Vivaldi is more like Opera Presto in terms of features, but it seems slower/heavier than the modern Opera browser.

  • Vivaldi's interface is mostly in HTML - that is to say, the browser interface is a web page. As such, they can do anything they want to that interface - sidebars, split screen, tab stacks, whatever - but it is inherently slower than a native interface can be. Opera chose to focus on speed.

    I won't claim to have used every option in Presto - I rarely have enough tabs open to need to wrap the tab bar, for instance. But I did have custom shortcuts, I built my own content blocking list, and most people would say I was a power user (though I rarely used UserScripts). I use both Opera Blink and Vivaldi - I'm a tester on both projects even. If I want to quickly look at one web page (check the weather forecast, movie showtimes, etc.) I'll reach for Opera because it'll get me there and done quicker.

  • Opera Presto was magical. It was an elite treat!

    Opera Presto was indeed a very good browser, but for the 1990's/(beginning of) 2000's when computers and the web were basically territories for geeks/nerds.

    With both computers and the Internet becoming something popular, Presto turned something too complex.

  • But the extensions consume to much resources, if I / We know that, they know it.

    how do you know that?? :sherlock:
    if the feature is implemented into browser, it does consume resources as well
    ...and probably all time, even if some (or majority) of users don't even use that feature

  • Didn't know about Vivaldi uses HTML and because of this they can customize the interface as they want and / but because of this it's slower than Opera, in the other hand I've seen it a bit loaded, but in the latest months didn't used.

    Now that I know about Vivaldi's HTML interface, Blackbird post take sense because at the beginning was something generic to understand for me, since they use Blink in both cases.

    Thanks SGunHouse for the clarification.

    I understand that Presto it's not Chromium and they should rewrite every feature, what I tried to explain it's, if you have something really good, why did you leave? Even with the "what kind of users they want" they should let Opera for Opera for real, that's why Vivaldi exists, so, after read I'm sad about to know that It will be just another browser with the need of extensions to do what he did...

    Despite some cool things (that I don't use the way the do, VPN for the whole browser)

    I suppose some features even in the browser may consume some resources, but really the same quantity¿?
    I know you are Dev Vux777 and will know more than me, but I don't remember OPresto using unneeded resources even plenty of features

    They are not all the extensions that I use, nor the OPresto features alternatives (It's not my main OProfile) but they are consuming, at least for me, even I have a bit more than 4Gb system but I don't like to waste resources, I suppose, no one wants...

    I think if they are implemented in the browser they are more optimized in every way, at least from what I learned with Opera Presto.
    Rely on others to be, it's a bad thing.

    Opera was Magical, An elite treat! +1

    I felt OPresto as a tie Swiss Army knife.

    Depending what you choose the cost may vary, off course, maybe the costs of Mini servers, VPN, Sync... eats the payroll for devs :rolleyes:
    They made good design tweaks but they lack in basic options.

    "They" Opera employees, what they use? They use Opera Presto while crying?

    As the world "changes" and tech too should be easier and complete, but still wars on 2017...

    Talk to Chromium devs to find a solution to avoid the limitations, Go there and learn from Presto! :rolleyes:

  • Just downloaded Vivaldi's "last version" for XP - **.46.
    Used somebody? On XP I mean - if it's working?

  • ...
    I understand that Presto it's not Chromium and they should rewrite every feature, what I tried to explain it's, if you have something really good, why did you leave? Even with the "what kind of users they want" they should let Opera for Opera for real, that's why Vivaldi exists, ...

    Because the rendering engine (whether Blink or Presto) is what first 'touches' and interprets the website's code to turn it into something that an interface and display layer can make use of, there must be very high compatibility between how the rendering engine operates and what the site code designers have written. However, not all rendering engines will operate the exact same way against the same web code. Website code can be (and is) written and tested by website designers for maximum compatibility with how only the most popular rendering engines are known to operate.

    Unfortunately, if the rendering engine (eg: Presto) and its adopting browsers don't command a major market share, website designers won't code for compatibility with it - in fact, they may actively "sniff" for the less-popular rendering engines and intentionally cause their site to refuse to operate with them at all to avoid user mis-functionality complaints... hence the commonplace website listing of "supported" browsers. That means a browser relying on a less-popular rendering engine design must support its own extra overhead costs of constantly attempting to create workarounds and spoofing mechanisms to fool such sites in order to allow maximum user site access. Employing Presto, even with some of its flexibility features, put Opera ASA into that position over and over again. It's also one of the reasons Vivaldi chose to go with chromium/Blink as well, in order to avoid the overhead expense of constantly having to deal with their own custom rendering engine compatibility issues.

Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to Opera forums was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.