Opera 20 - Another unhappy loyal supporter
-
blackbird71 last edited by... 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 last edited by
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 last edited by
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 last edited by
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 last edited by
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 last edited by
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 last edited by
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 last edited by
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.
-
linuxmint7 last edited by
No, bundling it (as an extra download) with almost every piece of software (mainly freeware) that can be downloaded. Plugging it on almost every site that one can visit. Installing it on peoples machines usually without them knowing or without their consent. Acts that could almost be bordering on malware or the actions of a virus.
-
-
lem729 last edited by
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?>Feature additions don't have to be be new to be desireable. However, let's recognize that Opera has changed track and is clearly a browser that now makes major use of extensions. Some of the requests for power-user feature-exotica (making a near fetish of infinite customability) in the native, "free" browser are just far out. We all have personal views. Mine is that I don't want Opera spending-wasting time right now on my total control over all aspects of my browser, or of, maybe, tabs on the bottom, tabs on the side, tab stacking, tab tiling, tab dancing, tab genuflecting ;))))) (forgive my gibes). Those type of features are fine for extensions (tab dancing? hmmm, now maybe if it's a sexy tab in a miniskirt), but that's about it. Or for a browser that people will be willing to buy ( like maybe pay $100 a year?) but not a free one. It has to be real money, because how can a company afford to build and keep current and fast an exotica-browser, if it isn't. A free browser has to find a real market. How many power users would pony up that kind of money?
And I don't think it's phony to be positive about good things about the Opera Blink browser, including the awesome Speed Dial, (the Discover feature, if you like it) (one can't lie, though one could change views ;)))) and the huge number of extensions Opera users suddenly have access too, not through the Chrome browser, but in the Opera browser, run by a company I trust far more, and which I know to have a track record of creativity and innovativeness. Maybe I see the positive more because I generally like this browser, but the complainers (and I'm not knocking anyone's discussing features the user thinks would be good) . . . but the complainers with their negativism (who always lament the glass is half empty, and never see the half-full) and "the world is coming to an end, Opera has betrayed us menatlity" are unhealthy, destructive really. Didn't Beethoven once say, "There's something about a tone."
And it's nice when people have a good tone in the forum that helps people, and encourages them with the new browser.Opera is a small company competing against economic giants. In additon to being positive about the good parts of the browser, of which there are, in my humble opinion, at least a few, what's wrong with people focussing more on additions to the basic browser that would benefit nearly everyone? Because if the additon is widely popular, it will help Opera survive -- which from the perspective of a user who likes this browser (and has always appreciated what Opera has added to the market), it's a benefit (that Opera is doing well) for me. I don't think they help themselves when the put time, energy, expense in providing a feature where only a tiny universe of users, would benefit. And maybe in the back of my (sometimes shaky) mind is an issue of trust. I have a decade long experience with Opera. I still think that they will contine in the future to do innovative, creative things with the desktop browser, even as they recently have in the mobile market with Coast for Ipad, and now for Ipod too.
-
samkook last edited by
Some of their choices are very questionable though, especially the decision to force auto-updates(something almost unheard of) with only exotic ways of disabling it.
If I didn't have such a long history with them, this would have been enough to make me run away without trying anything further and never install any of their product ever again.
Normal user don't see the problem with this since they don't want to know how things work, but the threat is very real and someone with enough computer experience will see it.
There's already people having trouble with it around here.
-
lem729 last edited by
That would be a slight fix for them, though in having to reprogram for a new browser engine, there are no doubt a pile-up of priorities, and most users just take the updates. I'm computer-suicidal
so I take the updates. Have you posted in the wish-list forum on that? It seems like something in Opera:flags ought to give the user an out on that. Does Firefox give you an out on the updates? I believe you said you use that also? -
blackbird71 last edited by
... Does Firefox give you an out on the updates? ...
I'm presently writing this on FF29, and yes, it gives you the 'traditional' option of auto-accepting updates, blocking updates but being informed they exist, or blocking any mention of updates. Chrome forces updates like Opera, but I'm not sure about Chromium.
-
samkook last edited by
Yeah, FF does and you can even set each extension to auto-update or not(Default, On or Off) which is the perfect way to handle things since you can set most of them to auto and the ones that could screw things up to not do it.
Quite frankly, I shouldn't have to request this and it should have been implemented from the very start, it's a really dumb decision to make and it NEEDS to be in the options, not hidden in opera:flags if it gets implemented.
I'll check in the wishlist later and request it if it's not there, although I have little faith since requesting something as simple as having the option to make the whole address bar text black never made it in after years of asking and that's a pretty big accessibility feature since the gray can be hard to read for some people or at a distance.
-
lem729 last edited by
There are a lot of features-issues that are important, and one sets priorities. If ability to read an address is critical, then that is important for you.
The print in the Opera address bar is significantly bigger for me, than the address I see in Firefox. They seem the same to me in terms of blackness-greyness. (In Chrome the print is the biggest). In Firefox, it's clearly the smallest. It can't be that something I adjusted in Windows 7 is causing any of these differences. I adjusted Menu and Message Box. But they apply to all browsers.
Also the address in Opera 21 looks a little bigger than in Opera 12.17, and not much difference in darkness.
Now the icons on the icon bar (for extensions) in Firefox are incredibly small. Maybe 1/2 the size of the icons in Opera 21.
-
Deleted User last edited by
My experience, lem, is just the opposite of yours in terms of icon size. In FF and Chrome they are perfect. In Opera they are miniscule... about 1/2 the size of the others. I'm using Windows 8.1 if that makes a difference.
-
lem729 last edited by admin
Might make a difference -- that you're using Windows 8.(And I think Samkook is using Windows 7). I did adjust Menu and Message Box in the Personalization feature of Windows 7, and it worked great, but that should cover all browsers. So why should the address and icons in Firefox be so much smaller than in Opera 21?
Now leushino, you seem to have a problem in the opposite direction. I don't use Windows 8, but here's something you can look at and see if it helps you adjust stuff a little -- though I think I'd stay away from the registry editor. This link relates to Windows 8 and 8.1.
Here's the forum discussion for Windows 7. https://forums.opera.com/topic/2661/version-20-21-increase-tab-text-font-size/5
since you may want to try something similar for windows 8.
-
Deleted User last edited by
Hi, long time Opera user here. Since Opera 3, and in fact a paying customer at the time.
Can someone explain to me why I should stay with Opera Next instead of some other, maybe less basic, Chrome clone such as Coolnovo which has mouse gestures, since I'm supposed to go to Chrome Market anyway hoping for some extensions that supposedly can give back old Opera features I want to keep using (and there are no extensions, as far as I'm aware, that can give me back customizable tab setting or table stack or a bunch of other Old Opera features I happen to like.And if there were they would be working with every Chromium browser).
Can you give an estimate of how much such extensions would slow down the browser and clog the memory, since speed seems to be what Opera Next is supposed to offer in place of everything it used to offer?
Also, since I'm supposed to use whatever extension Chrome Market offers to me, how is Opera going to guarantee to me, its user, that those third part extensions are safe and not, let's say, some kind of happy spyware? And should those extensions be discontinued, as it happens all the time, what am I supposed to do, go without and hope some other developer steps in?
-
blackbird71 last edited by
... Can you give an estimate of how much such extensions would slow down the browser and clog the memory, since speed seems to be what Opera Next is supposed to offer in place of everything it used to offer? ...
The impact of any set of extensions for any browser will depend on both the particular extensions which are involved, the system itself, what other software might be running, and the usage load placed on the browser itself (eg: number of tabs open, Flash involvement, etc). The simplest extensions may consume little in the way of resources or have minimal speed impact; the most complex can have significant impact. In the case of Opera/Chrome/Chromium-lineage browsers, extensions each require an additional process running (by design, intended to keep a crash in one process from bringing down the entire browser).
I've found the best approach is to simply try out some extensions and see what they do on your own system. Pick a typically complex website (or several), open tabs, and see what the browser does before installing the extensions, then install them and check the same sites again. All the while, keep active the other system-intensive software (if any) that you expect to have running at the same time as the browser is being used. The extensions are easy enough to install and remove, so that it's not that big a deal to test their effects, and what really matter to you will be the impact (if any) to your browser and other software, used in the way you normally do.
Your other questions I'll leave for others to address.
