Opera 20 - Another unhappy loyal supporter

blackbird71

blackbird71

But please understand that there is a host of dissatisfied 'Old Opera' users 'out here' who nevertheless don't see a browser in the same terms as you do (or apparently as the current Opera developers do). Most of such users view a good browser as natively a highly configurable tool, not merely an entry-level portal for viewing media-sites which has to be manually patched with extensions>

@blackbird71, I find intriguing what you claim as to the dissatisfied user's view of a good browser. You claim it's configurability. That's a nice word. Configurable to what end? ...

Configurable to the extent that control of significant, discrete functionality can be individually applied to a native toolbar (meaningful buttons that can be customized for what a user needs), immediately accessible by the user. Configurable to the extent that the user is natively in full control of 'his' browser, its search engines, its downloading, and its defaults. Configurable to the extent that a user can fully control what gets downloaded onto his computer and when, in terms of browser "updates". Configurable to the extent that a user can import/export personal data (like bookmarks) directly from/to competitors' browsers (without having to first install a third browser, be it Chrome or Opera12). Configurable to the extent that bar displays can be made to show icons, custom text, or both. Configurable to the extent... well... I could go on and on, without ever mentioning the 'cosmetic' things to which you refer like panels or tabs and where/how they're able to be displayed on the screen. Presto Opera had all of this configurability. Blink Opera has little or none of it.

I agree that a few of these elements can be obtained via extensions, in both Blink Opera and competitor browsers... and I've indeed used them. From personal experience, I assert such extensions, even where available, are usually measurably inferior to the performance experienced natively within an integrated browser like Presto Opera. And they break... such that each and every browser update presents a user with a potential trial-by-fire to find out which of his multiple extensions have now been broken, and in what areas... followed by a quest (often unfruitful) for a replacement extension that works similarly - along with an entirely new learning curve and different limitations, even if the user finds an alternate. That is a decidedly inferior user experience when compared with a well-designed, integrated browser.

Your comment about configurability causing a browser to jump through an infinite number of hoops to the detriment of performance is not only exaggerated, it is outright wrong with regard to how good code actually works. Admittedly, it takes more effort and insight to design-in a specific hook or access point, but unless the particular option is actually exercised, the specific code/resource cost is microscopic. Unless, of course, the basic engine architecture simply doesn't support it... and that implies that a poor choice of engines has been made and/or the designers lack the necessary creative horsepower or resources to implement the hook or access point.

Indeed, the Blink Opera browser is free (as are all browsers currently). Indeed, users can instead opt for an increasingly obsolete Opera 12.x version... or even go elsewhere to a competitor. But none of that changes or reduces the limitations of basic configurability of the browser that is currently Blink Opera. And its the comparison of that Blink Opera browser with the configurability of versions which have been issued by Opera in past years that has set so many users on edge. Think about it for a moment... it's been a year of successive Blink Opera versions, yet the complaints keep coming. People who bother to come here and express negative experiences with Blink Opera can certainly be dismissed as so many whiners and complainers. But consider that they have bothered to make an effort to register and post here at all, that they have made some very strong points, and that they represent a major part of Opera's previous core user base. They and their points can be ignored, but in so doing, Opera risks becoming just another for-the-masses browser in a marketplace dominated with far more well-financed, larger-design-base browsers whose only distinctives are the color of the borders or the number of Speed Dials or other gee-gaws they happen to offer in any given version.

lem729

lem729

@Leushino

Thank you, I very much appreciate the kind comment. Don't give up on -- or lose interest in -- the forum.

@blackbird71, First, as for your statement that if Blink can't perform all of the gymnastics that you want in terms of customization, it was a poor choice of engines, I'd say, no way! I would rather have Blink as it is (without all of your added features), and access to the full range of Chrome extensions. I think the extensions now available to Opera are a huge bonanza. Nothing can take away from the tremendous plus that that gives -- the riches that it makes available to the user, the myriad of customizing possibilities, now, and even more so, in the future. Now I have posted in the wish-list part of the forum requests for better treatments of how a bookmark should be taken in a browser to match the standard established by the major competitors, including a better import and export feature. That's not only for my benefit (though I'd personally find it useful), but I think it's damaging to Opera not to have it. Because Opera is doing such a superb job right now, in my view, with it's transition to the significantly faster, more up-to-date Opera Blink, and I think it's a terrific and fun browser, I'd like Opera to succeed.

Also while I have no personal desire or need for all of this full control that you want -- and I have no need for all of the custom text and buttons that you seem to want --- I have no objection to that part of it which doesn't impair browser performance, assuming Opera deems it cost effective. I suspect, though, that some of it might by itself or in the aggregate, impair performance and/or that Opera would not find it cost effective. I mean, really, would you have us believe that if it were so easy and minimal in cost to write "good code" (the kind that should not impair performance at all, you suggest) for all the features that you want (let alone the features that all of the other disgruntled want), Opera would not gladly do it. Because they have heretofore not, I suspect it's not easy and/or cost-effective... Or at least not for immediate implementation. If it is, in time, easy and cost effective, the features will come Though count me as a skeptic on this issue of "easy," and "cost-effective." In my universe, nothing is free, everything has a cost, even if the cost is simply that it's harder to make new changes to code (that are what you call "good code)," when 20, 30, 50 or 100 changes have already been made that add features, of varying levels of sophistication. I mean, it's a given that extensions can impact other extensions and affect browser performance. It's plausible to me that even if Opera does the programming of the additional features you want, the more changes that one makes to add levels of sophistication, the less easy (and cost-effective) it will be to make additional changes.

And what about that wish list of others of the disgruntled group. Now come on! I'm in the forum every day seeing what people write about and want. My comment in my last post about configurability is not greatly exaggerated. I generally took examples of what people have been asking for, which by the way, includes a wide range of tab features (stacking, multiple pinning, grouping, tiling, tabs in side panels, etc.), tabs on the bottom of the screen (because they have a laptop) or the right side, etc.that you now refer to as mere "cosmetic" changes. (I'm not sure that others of the Presto preference would agree with you there on that characterization). Now I don't want Opera, in trying to address the different desires of what the disgruntled group purportedly wants in the basic, native ("free") browser, to end up in the unseemly role of circus-like contortionist. I fear the result of such efforts to please would put them in just such a posture on the way . . . well, I fear bankruptcy. To your statement that extensions are inferior to what Presto provided, my thought would be that if the extension doesn't measure up, uninstall it, and look for a competitor's. I believe in the market place, where the best widget will out. There are strong extensions, and less strong. Opera is not a programming god. Others can do a good job, in cases, maybe even a better job. What I want in Opera is an architecture in the browser so built that if you add an extension, and then uninstall it (because you're unhappy with it) the browser is not adversely affected. And in no way do I want to be stuck in a browser with your wished-for total control. What I want in the new Opera is the perfect browser for extensions. :))) You put on the browser what you want via extension, and don't put it on my browser. And I'll give you the same consideration. I have 16 extensions right now. I'm delighted with what I have. They're not affecting your Opera one bit. There's a justice and beauty to the extension model.

Deleted User

Deleted User

"There's a justice and beauty (and utility) to the extension model!" Indeed there is. Why else would most users flock to Firefox and Chrome?

blackbird71

blackbird71

"There's a justice and beauty (and utility) to the extension model!" Indeed there is. Why else would most users flock to Firefox and Chrome?

Enormous amounts spent on advertising, favored product placements/tie-ins, financially ensuring websites code for compatibility, and marketing machinery. The same as its always been throughout all the browser wars. In the case of Firefox, it also came into its own at a time when there was an open-source reaction against IE.

edited to add And for some reason, this double-posted after an edit of the other post. Sigh...

blackbird71

blackbird71

... I mean, really, would you have us believe that if it were so easy and minimal in cost to write "good code" (the kind that should not impair performance at all, you suggest) for all the features that you want (let alone the features that all of the other disgruntled want), Opera would not gladly do it. Because they have heretofore not, I suspect it's not easy and/or cost-effective...

I nowhere stated it was either easy or cheap to write such code. I stated that the code would, if properly written, have minimal impact on its ultimate code size and host system resources required to implement the hooks and access points themselves. Do you seriously believe that employing 10 extensions to implement 10 essentially simple browser functional controls is less resource-intensive than the many fewer aggregate lines of native code required to implement those same 10 functions within a browser? That's the nature of well-written code.

But nothing well-written comes cheap. I made no argument that a fully-configurable browser would be a cheap development... I only pointed out that Blink Opera is not a fully-configurable browser, and a number of users both notice and are continuing to complain about such a lack of configurability. I'm certain that the accumulated cost of developing the configurability of the Presto browser wasn't cheap either, but abandoning it and setting course with the Blink engine with all the ramp-up demands on cost and limited resources it entailed was a decision Opera took on its own, not its users. If that decision has caused its developers to be "cramped" for the time/resources to develop configurability or if the architecture Opera chose refuses to economically support rich configurability, those are again consequences of Opera's decisions, not of anything inherently "wrong" with the desire of many of its users to see such native configurability retained in the browser.

If you want to defend Opera as trying to make the best browser it can with the very-limited resources that are the cost results of its decision to dump its already-cost-sunk past efforts in order to redesign its entire browser line and because of a mediocre-configurable engine set it has chosen, I would agree. But that does not make it a configurable browser for users, even with extensions. Employing extensions can be a useful thing to supplement browser functionality, but it is not a solid framework on which the basic browser configurability ought to be erected. At the end of the day, browsers whose configurability resides in extensions are browsers-on-the-cheap, because the cost of the functionality thereby attained is exported to outsiders. Economically that appears to be great for the browser maker, but for stability, continuity, and performance, it ends up being inferior for the user. There is simply no mechanism to assure that all extensions will work properly after a browser update... that's why they can break - and they do. The ability of an extension to attain the performance levels and details of well-integrated browser code simply does not exist without heavy interfacing modules with and through the browser APIs. These realities remain true, even if every popular browser out there were to make full usage of extensions for their configurability... though such universality is not the case, at least currently.

I too believe in the market place, but software related to the Internet has become a highly-distorted marketplace. Internet-related software revenue is writ in terms of click-counts, renting favored placements, software bundling, sale of user-tracking data, and all manner of other 'hidden' elements. Browsers are now being created simply as glitzy vehicles for bumping up such forms of revenue, not because the browser product itself is superior and commands its price in the marketplace. I've said this before and it bears repeating: a number of users, myself included, would gladly pay significant amounts of money for a browser that was configurable to the degree Presto was, but kept up to snuff in terms of site compatibility and basic web standards. However, that is not how browser makers, Opera included, currently look at the market any more... browsers are merely a vehicle to be given away freely in order to facilitate all the other modes of revenue intake. The result is that web browsers are not responding to the pressures of a 'normal' marketplace any longer, but to the peripheral revenue desires and mechanisms of their makers. This is something I decry, and while I do understand it, does not mean I accept without being critical of the browser results when genuine user functionality has been lost in that ongoing process.

A Former User

"There's a justice and beauty (and utility) to the extension model!" Indeed there is. Why else would most users flock to Firefox and Chrome?

Enormous amounts spent on advertising, favored product placements/tie-ins, financially ensuring websites code for compatibility, and marketing machinery. The same as its always been throughout all the browser wars. In the case of Firefox, it also came into its own at a time when there was an open-source reaction against IE.
edited to add And for some reason, this double-posted after an edit of the other post. Sigh...
In this I agree with you. Plus the dozens of notices of "we don't support your browser, download and use this one instead" and other issues caused by browser sniffing and bad coding from devs. And Chrome bundled (offered) in various software installers... And don't forget Google backed Firefox growth back then when they didn't have their own browser (since they were helping spread a browser where Google is the default search engine), with ads, bundles, Google Pack, etc, and it was more about IE6 sucking so bad and Fx rising as the only free alternative than any increased awareness about open source software.

PS. I can't reproduce the problem with duplicating the post after editing here, though I saw your duplicated comments and deleted them.

blackbird71

blackbird71

"There's a justice and beauty (and utility) to the extension model!" Indeed there is. Why else would most users flock to Firefox and Chrome?

Enormous amounts spent on advertising, favored product placements/tie-ins, financially ensuring websites code for compatibility, and marketing machinery. The same as its always been throughout all the browser wars. In the case of Firefox, it also came into its own at a time when there was an open-source reaction against IE.
In this I agree with you. ... and it was more about IE6 sucking so bad and Fx rising as the only free alternative than any increased awareness about open source software.

Perhaps. But in my own fairly wide circle of browser users (among friends and at work places) the Firefox thinking at the time was dominated mostly by those who were especially enamored of open-source software because Firefox (or Firebird in the earlier days) was such an outstanding example of what could be created via open source techniques. The "spirit" of that day was that, at last, the users could influence the design of a browser to do what they wanted, instead of what suited out-of-touch 'corporate' interests somewhere. That, enhanced by effective marketing and placements, meant one ran across free Firefox download icons on countless web and forum pages... and the product reviews, aided greatly by aggressive Mozilla marketing, ran hot and heavy in favor of the browser, specifically because it was open source and thus somehow magically free of Microsoft or Netscape corporate-ish influences.

In any case, Firefox's rise to popularity orbited around all of that (marketing and open-source cachet) rather than users worshipping at the altar of "extensions".

lem729

lem729

In any case, Firefox's rise to popularity orbited around all of that (marketing and open-source cachet) rather than users worshipping at the altar of "extensions">

No way. Why does it have to be black/white, either/or. Just like in a dream where an image can have dual motives, the rise of Firefox was always the two -- open source AND extensions. In a way both were a symbols of a "power for the people," a revolution of sorts, in reaction to the closed nature of Internet Explorer, run by Microsoft, the dominant oligarch of the industry. Open source meant a sharing of the code for every man/woman. And extensions provided a delightful exercise of control by the user. Put onto your browser what you choose, and it only affects you, not another. For years Opera ignored at its own peril the "pleasure of power" that extensions gave to users. Google was far more perceptive, and adopted the extensions model for Chrome, whereupon its browser share skyrocketed.

Deleted User

Deleted User

The kind of thinking that "it's all marketing" is a diversion, lem. It's ALL about extensions today and THAT is why Chrome and Firefox (and now hopefully Opera) have succeeded. Initially marketing may have played a role in drawing people away from IE but that would not sustain users over these many years. The idea of adding to the browser just what you need and want as opposed to having everything already there and simply activating what you want is a huge help for the developing team. But my suspicions are that you're not going to convince Opera die-hards (and die hard they will) so in the final analysis: what does it matter what they believe? Opera will continue as it sees fit whether they agree or disagree. And new users will be added as word spreads about this awesome new browser.

drewfx

drewfx

My argument is that MORE IS MORE. Believe me, Opera Blink offers more! The Speed Dial with folders is more (far more) AND better than what Opera Presto offered in a Speed Dial. Stash is more. Discover is more.

It's only "more" if it's useful. Folders in Speed Dial is somewhat useful, but I've yet to find any use for Stash. And Discover is the just a link page like Yahoo or a bazillion others that I can see absolutely no advantage to having it built into the browser (regardless of whether you like it better than any of the bazillion other link sites).

And the ability to utilize a hugely greater number of extensions is also far more. There are a near infinite number of configurability permutations via the extension route, that were not available before. Maybe all the extensions aren't there right now.

The problem is many extensions are limited by the extension API and rather than elegant built in functionality, you end up with something that feels like a workaround or a complete kluge. And that's after you've wasted much time searching for, installing and then uninstalling extensions that don't work well, work intermittently or just don't really do what you want.

That's not to say that there aren't some great extensions as there are. It's just that extensions are inconsistent, are inherently limited by the API and just aren't the miracle solution you paint them to be.

And with each new release, the users kept asking -- in the name of innovation -- for more in the native/basic "free" browser.

This is irrelevant. Because something is "free" doesn't mean users aren't allowed to have an opinion. Expressing our opinions is how Blink can be improved and useful features can be added back in (where feasible).

The extension vehicle for configurability in a free browser is a far better vehicle.

In the many areas where it's limited by the extension API it's not capable of being "better".

Opera Presto was at a dead end. It had nowhere to go.

I'm not sure if it was at a dead end, but they made a decision to go in a different direction. And personally I can understand that decision, and some of the advantages it brings them, despite my preference for Presto's functionality.

But that doesn't mean they can't or shouldn't restore some of Presto's functionality over time.

lem729

lem729

@drewfx, In chess a brilliancy is a spectacular game or maybe a move or series of them. In my humble opinion, Opera's adoption of the Chromium-Blink engine which in one fell swoop took a share of the goose that lays the golden egg, and gave Opera users access to all of the Chrome extensions is nothing less than a brilliancy. Say what you will about the extensions API, limitations of Blink, etc., I see the access to the extensions (which catapulted Chrome ahead of Firefox in browser share) a huge, dazzling plus, that way more than offsets any negatives. Now, you say, that's "not to say that there aren't some great extensions as there are. It's just that extensions are inconsistent, are inherently limited by the API and just aren't the miracle solution you paint them to be." Well, isn't that the nature of extensions. Some will be good, others less so . . . Who ever said that every one had to be a wonder? More and better ones will come in the future. Though I have quite a few working for me now that are making my browser sing, in ways Opera Presto never sang for me.

Let's celebrate a few things in the new Opera. And for one, isn't it also enlightened self interest to do just that? If we focus on some of the good (and really, it is there just try to see, look, be fair, instead of always viewing the glass half empty, some of the lurkers, and others passing by, may sense positivity and vibrancy here, and think to give the new Opera a try. I believe -- and is this crazy? -- if Opera starts to have in its desktop a success, the company is far more likely to invest time and energy into providing a bit more of the "stuff" that some are clamoring for in the native browser. If it goes nowhere, they could easily cut and run from desktop -- divert their energies to the mobile market entirely. In that regard, lol, I wouldn't characterize the Speed Dial with folders as "just something useful," though I must admit I"m attracted to Speed Dials as a moth is to light, so this is easy enough for me :))) I call it one of the 7 Wonders of the Browsing World! Now really, it is a wonderful breakthrough Speed Dial, that makes me smile, and whistle a happy tune, whenever I'm on the Speed Dial Page.

As for the rest: Stash? Give it some time to simmer. It's like closet space, where you haven't maybe quite found the use. I bought a chest with three drawers recently, and a couple are still mostly empty. It's no big deal. (I'm still happy about the purchase). One day, the use will come. And it's a feature -- Stash -- that could still be furthered through add-on enhancements by Opera, like accessing what's been saved alphabetically, chronologically, through folders etc. Maybe Discover, you have to really like or not like. I've never seem something with the click or two of a button that gives you perspectives from 30-40 different countries and multiple languages (on such a wide range of subjects). It puts the Google and Yahoo portals to shame, is in my view tantamount to an RSS feed that I rate up there with Feedly (which is quite good). Off-Road Mode (Turbo was in Opera 12) (with its compression of web pages for quicker loading) is a feature that can be extremely useful, particularly on web pages, like the forum here, that are not graphics intense. And I don't see any of the other major browsers yet providing something like this.

As for what Opera should provide in the native browser (and you want to restore some of Presto's functionality over time), okay, why not think about what's good for the users AND Opera (a small company, trying to make a free browser without anywhere near the financial resources of a Google or Microsoft. We ought to focus on features in the basic browser that the vast bulk of users could instantly benefit from -- like enhanced bookmarking (ability to put the bookmark in a folder/subfolder, create a new folder for it, as a seamless part of taking the bookmark, or the import/export bookmarking manager) (truly essential if we want to attract users from other browsers), maybe some keyboard shortcuts (to move from tabs -- control 1,2, 3, 4) or to move to locations on the speed dial -- (all of these, I believe, could really help, not just me, but Opera) as opposed to some of the more exotic customization features that a small power-user klatch/group constantly laments the loss of in Blink and asks for as a sort of restoration.

samkook

samkook

His point wasn't that there are good and bad extensions, it was that even the best extension is limited in what it can do by what the browser let them modify which means that there are things that are completely impossible to do with extensions.

blackbird71

blackbird71

... In chess a brilliancy is a spectacular game or maybe a move or series of them. In my humble opinion, Opera's adoption of the Chromium-Blink engine which in one fell swoop took a share of the goose that lays the golden egg, and gave Opera users access to all of the Chrome extensions is nothing less than a brilliancy. Say what you will about the extensions API, limitations of Blink, etc., I see the access to the extensions (which catapulted Chrome ahead of Firefox in browser share) a huge, dazzling plus, that way more than offsets any negatives. ...

The "access to all of the Chrome extensions" already existed for Chrome/Chromium itself; Opera's "goose" provided nothing in that regard that users could not already get by just using Chrome/Chromium. You mention "gave Opera users" as if Opera Blink provided the same rich performance as it always had for 'Opera users' and then added Chrome extensions on top of it, like icing on a cake. Therein lies the kernel of the problem: that is not what happened. Instead, users were suddenly presented a bare-bones, alien browser that had stripped out most of Opera's former features and dumped users entirely into the realm of Chrome extensions in an attempt to recover their necessary functionality. You've closely followed much of the ongoing negative reactions from users, so I know you've seen the many posts where users ask that exact rhetorical question: "why should I stick with Opera and not simply migrate to Chrome or Chromium?" Each time that question was asked, Opera 'loyalists' rallied to ridicule the poster, but unfortunately missed the whole point being made.

Now I grant that Opera has added some elements over the Blink version progression thus far, "features" if you will, that are unique to its browser and useful for a number of users. But nothing that was added returned Opera to anything approaching the native flexibility of the browser itself as it had been before... so that rhetorical question remains: why should an Opera user employ Opera and not simply migrate to Chrome if the rich features they needed all require Chrome extensions anyway? There's a product-identity price to be paid for using (and promoting) a competitor's accessories.

The simple reality is that at heart, Opera is Chrome/Chromium, uses the same extensions, and is subject to most of the same foundational, architectural limitations. While Opera's own GUI can give the browser some unique "feel" characteristics, the DNA underlying the entire browser remains the same as Chrome/Chromium - and Opera cannot escape that any more than we can escape our own lineage. Which means Opera has abandoned every one of the built-in distinctives that set it apart as a browser in bygone days, and now instead seeks to lure users by creating some kind of distinctive GUI "feel" that resides alone in cosmetic things like Stash or Discover or tab gee-gaws... but which fall well short of the true functional distinctives that used to exist under Presto. This is what troubles many of us who used Opera for those genuine distinctives, now missing... it's like Opera has traded its birthright for a mess of pottage.

Whether Opera's move is a "brilliancy" or a "blunder" remains to be seen... the match is still developing, and Opera has given away a lot of pawns in its opening gambits thus far.

A Former User

In any case, Firefox's rise to popularity orbited around all of that (marketing and open-source cachet) rather than users worshipping at the altar of "extensions">
No way. Why does it have to be black/white, either/or. Just like in a dream where an image can have dual motives, the rise of Firefox was always the two -- open source AND extensions. In a way both were a symbols of a "power for the people," a revolution of sorts, in reaction to the closed nature of Internet Explorer, run by Microsoft, the dominant oligarch of the industry. Open source meant a sharing of the code for every man/woman. And extensions provided a delightful exercise of control by the user. Put onto your browser what you choose, and it only affects you, not another. For years Opera ignored at its own peril the "pleasure of power" that extensions gave to users. Google was far more perceptive, and adopted the extensions model for Chrome, whereupon its browser share skyrocketed.
You two are romanticizing the history too much...

I was younger, but I saw the "first" Fx ads. I became a Firefox user back then because of them (before I met Opera)!
The market speech was ambiguous as it used the world "freedom". I can tell you none of the Firefox users I know care about open source, most of them don't even know what it means nor know about anything "evil" Microsoft has done. The other ads were about speed and things like that, and all the reviews/pages/something praising the tabbed browsing Microsoft failed to deliver in Internet Explorer for a long time, yes there were themes that people like and many extensions that sites reviewed/wrote about/recommended but they're only part of the reason Firefox became so successful at that time.

The kind of thinking that "it's all marketing" is a diversion, lem. It's ALL about extensions today and THAT is why Chrome and Firefox (and now hopefully Opera) have succeeded.
I remember Chrome's launch very well, and its success has nothing to do with the extensions! The Chrome extension catalog was shit compared to Mozilla Firefox's, the APIs were a lot more limited than Fx's so they couldn't do many things. It was all about it being the fastest browser around (until Opera 10.50! :D).

drewfx

drewfx

Let's celebrate a few things in the new Opera. And for one, isn't it also enlightened self interest to do just that? If we focus on some of the good (and really, it is there just try to see, look, be fair, instead of always viewing the glass half empty, some of the lurkers, and others passing by, may sense positivity and vibrancy here, and think to give the new Opera a try.

I AM giving it a try, and agree that it has some advantages. I just don't think Stash and Discover are among them.

But it is also lacking in many ways, and glossing over all the (obvious) shortcomings is not "fair" either. It's not in one's "enlightened self interest" to pretend everything is great when some key features (IMO) have been dropped.

Why can't we express that there are things missing that we'd like back without every point we make being argued?

It's a work in progress. Does every feature added with subsequent releases have to be "new" to be considered worthwhile when there is no shortage of "old" features missing that can still be implemented in the new engine and are actually useful to some of us?

blackbird71

blackbird71

You two are romanticizing history too much...
I was younger, but I saw the "first" Fx ads. I became a Firefox user back then because of them (before I met Opera)!
The market speech was ambiguous as it used the world "freedom". I can tell you none of the Firefox users I know care about open source, most of them don't even know what it means nor know about anything "evil" Microsoft has done. The other ads were about speed and things like that, and all the reviews/pages/something praising the tabbed browsing Microsoft failed to deliver in Internet Explorer for a long time, yes there were themes that people like and many extensions that sites reviewed/wrote about/recommended but they're only part of the reason Firefox became so successful at that time.
...

I guess your experience was considerably different than mine. I first installed Firefox as Phoenix/Firebird when it was evolving away from Mozilla Suite. Finally it emerged as Firefox, and the first other 'Firefox' users I knew back in the early 2000's adopted it because they viewed IE with utter hatred since it was Microsoft's baby and Microsoft was evincing "attitude" toward browser users; at the same time, they viewed Netscape as having 'sold out' because it had been bought by AOL. In those days, Firefox exuded the allure (to most of those in my circle) of being coded by "rebels" outside the mega-corporate empires, and thus more creative and responsive to users - that was what the "freedom" slogan tied into for a lot of adopters. Perhaps not all the users I knew fully grasped 'open source', but they understood Mozilla was non-profit with a lot of non-commercial coders, and that appealed to them. In those days, I was circulating in some very high-tech arenas, so perhaps my circle of users was more 'geeky' than what you encountered. In any case, it was because of those 'geeky' acquaintances that I got ultimately turned on to Opera in the first place.

A Former User

perhaps my circle of users was more 'geeky' than what you encountered
Definitely. I'm talking about the mainstream users that were actually responsible for bringing Firefox to its pinnacle of 32% market share. And open source / fight against Microsoft didn't play the role you're thinking there, it was all about Firefox being 1. advertised, 2. free, 3. faster than IE, 4. things that IE6 lacked and beyond: tabbed browsing / UI, integrated web search field, all kinds of awesomebar matches and "I'm feeling lucky"-like behavior, themes, extensions...

lem729

lem729

Yes, thank you, "extensions." and not deserving of being listed last. Believe me. I was there at the time. I wasn't in Blackbird' 71's group , all enamoured with open source. The lure in my circles were extensions first, and second, open source. I remember it quite well. The extensions were vital and a breath of fresh air. If Opera were to once again somehow ignore thus, it would be at its peril. It would appear, though, that this time they have not. One can try to re-write history, but it was what it was.

Rafaelluik, you suggest that Chrome made it because of speed, not extensions. Hmmmm.. it also announced right at the beginning that it was going the extensions route. It did okay at the beginning, partly because the public was excited that it would take on Firefox, the extensions master. The public didn't expect numerous extensions right away, but they did expect them. Chrome took off, and passed Firefox, only when its extensions became quite numerous. And if it was only speed , not extensions, that made Chrome the hot browser, why did they end up going the extensions route. Listen they went that route because they knew that's what the public wanted. Surely Chrome has the financial resources to put tons of stuff in the native browser. They chose extensions as the way to go.

You can market something, and spend money in it -- just look at Microsoft with Internet Explorer, though they were fortunate to have their product bundled with Windows, that saved them a terrible fall -- but in the end, (unless you're bundled with Windows you have to have a product the public wants.

linuxmint7

linuxmint7

but in the end, (unless you're bundled with Windows you have to have a product the public wants.

Or shove it down their throats like google did, and pretty much still does.

lem729

lem729

Do you mean the Google Search bar? Or better yet maybe their thoroughly nasty (invasion of . . . ) privacy policy. The public seems to generally like Chrome. In any event, they have passed Firefox in usage data if that can be deemed evidence of popularity.