What's the Point?

  • The whole point of Opera moving to a new engine was that it was to be more compatible with other websites. But as of today I've found a third major website that says it's now not compatible.... outlook.com warned me my browser was incompatible and to try Chrome or Internet Explorer. That adds to yahoo answers (which has the same message) and google (which just displays incorrectly)

    So my question is what's the point? if these websites are going to say Opera is incompatible (even if they aren't) then why bother. Go back to the presto engine, bring back the features we all want and focus on improving that.

  • The whole point of Opera moving to a new engine was that it was to be more compatible with other websites.
    It wasn't. Generally that was and still is (browser.js is much smaller) a plus - remembering Opera can't control what other sites do via browser sniffing! - but the point was to stop spending resources in developing a complex rendering engine when they can just borrow an open source one and focus in other things.

  • but the point was to stop spending resources in developing a complex rendering engine when they can just borrow an open source one and focus in other things.

    what things?

  • @awzx: I thought I had made myself clear...
    If you don't have anything constructive to say drop it!

  • @christoph142 for me saying something you don't like and not being constructive is not necessarily the same thing.

  • recreating old features really slowly... Ok, folders in speed dial and stash are great, but they can't for examplereplace bookmarks... And they were wven unable to provide us simple tool to import/export bookmarks... or button to add them...

    I'm still with Opera because it's elegant and have a few nice build-in feaytures but every time I launch Opera I wonder what they are focusing on. It seems that developing Presto take a lot of time and resources, where are they now/ I know, Chrome is even much more primitive ( has bookmarks but dosen;t have gestures, stash, speed dial) but.... Opera announcements after moving on Blink suggested that they will develop more interesting features faster... It's a bit unsettling how long we have to wait...

  • outlook.com warned me my browser was incompatible and to try Chrome or Internet Explorer.

    Hmm, no warning here.

    That adds to yahoo answers (which has the same message)

    Yahoo is just doing browser sniffing. If you dismiss the warning the page will work.

    google (which just displays incorrectly)

    Also browser sniffing and Opera being served with the old layout.

  • I;>> outlook.com warned me my browser was incompatible and to try Chrome or Internet Explorer.

    Hmm, no warning here.

    That adds to yahoo answers (which has the same message)

    Yahoo is just doing browser sniffing. If you dismiss the warning the page will work.

    google (which just displays incorrectly)

    Also browser sniffing and Opera being served with the old layout.

    I'm aware all the sites work if you ignore the warning, my point was that if sites are going to single out opera irregardless then why bother with the new engine, stick with the older and better one

  • The engine wasn't better per se. It lacked support for newer techniques and was slowly falling behind.

  • I must repeat that compatibility is not the major point of the switch to the Chromium engines.

    Presto was fast and competitive one day, it was my favorite engine in the past, but for the modern web of now it has fallen behind. It just lags so much in many websites by now, it can't handle them...

    Please compare the level of standards support (HTML5 spec, etc), performance and stability between 12.x and the new versions.
    The point is Opera would have to keep maintaining, improving, adding support to more web standards, keeping the engine stable with all that added, which is an herculean task. Not to mention to fix old bugs we were suffering with. Just remember how GPU acceleration in Opera-Presto never came out of beta. And the bug of performance hit with position:fixed and other elements meant for shadows (like box-shadow) and effects, ugh. Remember how when they implemented OOPP (out of process plug-ins) in Opera 12 in the following version they had to disable it in the 32-bit version and make it the default download for everybody because it was making the browser crash and hang a lot? Now imagine how long it'd take for them to implement the process model (per-tab, per-add-on, separate one for the UI, etc) they got now from moving to Chromium.

    See? This is all they get from the move to Chromium. Also, as a bonus caused by the incompatibility of the old UI and Chromium they can drop the thousands of superfluous features and settings no one really uses anymore and that were there making the code complex for disputable benefit.

  • I wouldn't call the loss of the old UI a bonus, quite the opposite. We lost the only browser with an MDI interface which is the main reason I've stuck with it all those years even though the engine compatibility with websites kept declining.

    Having small popups over a section of another page in the same window is my favorite feature, it makes things so much more efficient and well organized than opening a single new window for it or for it to use a full page in a new tab.

    If the new interface would also have been MDI, the blow of starting everything from scratch wouldn't have been so bad.

    And I was also under the impression that, at least, the main point of changing the engine was to have better compatibility. I would put most of what you said in that category so I'm not sure why you say it isn't, supporting web standards properly, without bugs and in a reasonably fast way that doesn't make you think it's frozen is pretty much what compatibility is for a browser.

  • I must repeat that compatibility is not the major point of the switch to the Chromium engines.

    ok, but the rest of your post is all about how chromium is more compatible .... anywho this message (the reason I made the post) happens daily now

    http://tinypic.com/r/148qxj/8

  • I'm aware all the sites work if you ignore the warning, my point was that if sites are going to single out opera irregardless then why bother with the new engine, stick with the older and better one

    Despite all the changes, Opera made sure there's a way to identify the new Opera via its user agent string. That of course helps with usage stats for sites that look for the new Opera, but it makes it really easy to single out Opera like we know some sites like to do. You can change that though with the User-Agent Switcher extension. Just identify as Chrome for Windows by default and don't worry about it. Then, you can further get the Chrome compatibility you desire.

    The downside to the extension is that the strings aren't auto-updated to match the newest stable build for the browser. But, you can update the string for "Chrome for Windows" for example manually to keep it up to date.

    Another downside to the extension is that there's not an option to do it by just domain for those that want to help with usage stats on good sites.

    Even with that though, there's still a way for a site to detect the new Opera (or that it might be the new Opera) by checking that it doesn't support mp3 and mp4.

    Opera will probably always face these issues as long as it can't fully pose a Chrome.

  • I wouldn't call the loss of the old UI a bonus, quite the opposite.
    Please consider the developer's side. They have less complexity to deal with now. Also, they took the opportunity to develop an UI that's more native to the OS than previous versions' UIs were.

    Having small popups over a section of another page in the same window is my favorite feature
    I don't even know how you keep that organized. In my experience as soon as I switch to another tab it'll cover any MDI "pop-ups". That's not very different than switching tabs. Also, you can drag and drop tabs out to create a new window and use the OS snapping feature for example if you want to have more pages available in the screen for some time.

    I would put most of what you said in that category so I'm not sure why you say it isn't, supporting web standards properly, without bugs and in a reasonably fast way that doesn't make you think it's frozen is pretty much what compatibility is for a browser.
    No, you're completely distorting what "compatibility" means.

    the rest of your post is all about how chromium is more compatible
    No, my post is about how the Chromium engines and architecture are faster and how they don't have to invest time and money into fixing and developing an engine both for performance and adding new standards support duplicating everything they could get from Chromium for free and in the blink of an eye. That's not "compatibility".

    IMO there's no way they're going back to fix Presto's architectural and performance problems plus implementing new standards into it when it's much easier to copy the code from Chromium at the cost of sacrificing barely used features and settings, sorry, it's too much of a good deal to ignore it. In the long-term they'll be able to add new features, maintain and improve them without having to worry to assign developers to the task of constantly improving and fixing the engine.

    That's the point.

  • http://tinypic.com/r/148qxj/8
    Wait a second! "Upgrade your current version of Google Chrome"!
    Are you using any extension to switch your UA-String? Are you using the most recent Opera version?

    Outlook.com thinks you're using an outdated Chrome version, when you're actually using Opera.

  • Please consider the developer's side. They have less complexity to deal with now.
    Sure it's much easier for them, but that doesn't make it better for us(me at least, if you don't miss any of the features, the extra stability of the new engine makes it better).
    Also, they took the opportunity to develop an UI that's more native to the OS than previous versions' UIs were.
    I don't even know what that means, all I know is that its appearance clash more than the old one with my OS.
    I don't even know how you keep that organized. In my experience as soon as I switch to another tab it'll cover any MDI "pop-ups". That's not very different than switching tabs. Also, you can drag and drop tabs out to create a new window and use the OS snapping feature for example if you want to have more pages available in the screen for some time.
    I'm only ever using 2 windows at most so no organization needed. It's very useful when you need to see information on the page below or it's faster to switch back to the page below by clicking right away where you need to instead of having to switch tab first.
    I want to avoid using more than one main window since I've been burned many times by doing so by losing all my open tabs if I close the main one(or it crashes) and a popup remain. It seem less of an issue these days since I've seen options to restore all closed windows, but it still makes me very uneasy. It also keeps the clutter in the OS toolbar to a minimum which I really appreciate since I often want to see the information displayed there for some of them and I can't decide which gets grouped together so the less open window the better.

    I would put most of what you said in that category so I'm not sure why you say it isn't, supporting web standards properly, without bugs and in a reasonably fast way that doesn't make you think it's frozen is pretty much what compatibility is for a browser.

    No, you're completely distorting what "compatibility" means.

    the rest of your post is all about how chromium is more compatible

    No, my post is about how the Chromium engines and architecture are faster and how they don't have to invest time and money into fixing and developing an engine both for performance and adding new standards support duplicating everything they could get from Chromium for free and in the blink of an eye. That's not "compatibility".
    Google's definition of compatibility is the following:

    "the ability of one computer, piece of software, etc., to work with another."

    I interpret that as the browser being able to render a webpage as it was intended. If a webpage isn't displayed as it's supposed to like if the browser doesn't support the standards it use, a bug in the browser is preventing the webpage to be displayed properly or it hangs when trying to render a certain part of it so it never finishes displaying it as intended. If a webpage isn't displayed like in should because of any of those reasons, then it means it's not compatible with the browser since it's unable to do the job the webpage is asking it to.

    You seem to interpret it in another way which I'm not clear on.

    Your main message was that it's better for them to switch to the Blink engine, but almost everything you said to illustrate why is about it having better compatibility according to my interpretation of it.

    IMO there's no way they're going back to fix Presto's architectural and performance problems plus implementing new standards into it when it's much easier to copy the code from Chromium at the cost of sacrificing barely used features and settings, sorry, it's too much of a good deal to ignore it. In the long-term they'll be able to add new features, maintain and improve them without having to worry to assign developers to the task of constantly improving and fixing the engine.
    That's the point.
    I'm also certain of it, but I'm very afraid of the limitations the blink engine will impose on them since I've yet to see basic features I need find their way inside in 6 major versions change and they continue their quest in the opposite direction of where I'd like them to go since they're dumbing it down for the masses instead of giving us more control. There's a way to do both with an basic/advanced mode, but I'm afraid it will never show up.

  • What is the purpose of having a forum if we can not express our opinions on the new failed browser?

  • What is the purpose of having a forum if we can not express our opinions on the new failed browser?

    Isn't that what we're doing here, right now?

  • No. What you're doing is beating a dead horse. Presto is d-e-a-d to all intents and purposes. Deal with it. Move on to either learning how to adapt to the new browser via the extensions OR find another browser. But consistentlly whining about how wonderful the old browser was is not going to make one iota of difference in the long run.

  • I think calling Opera 21 a "failed browser" is far out :))) Look, there are many many users who love it. Count me as one. It doesn't replace Opera Presto, at least not yet, because Opera still offers downloads on its website of Opera 21 AND Opera 12.17. Opera 21 is an entirely different concept. Now I think it's awesome. If you are wedded to the features that came in Opera Presto, fine. Stay with it. If another browser doesn't have a feature that you want, that doesn't make it "failed." Opera 21 through extensions can add to the browser, customization features undreamed of by users of Opera 12. So I'm not sure which way the more customization argument cuts. I'd say that Opera 21 with its access to a hugely larger range of extensions in the end provides more customization opportunities than ever before for the user.

Log in to reply
 

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