Presto engine
-
linuxmint7 last edited by
Originally posted by coolclerk:
they at least should make the engine open source,
There is already a thread/topic about that very thing elsewhere on the forum, seems pointless duplicating it here.
-
adamniepodam last edited by
I cant see opera future as another chromium clone. Opera was Great because of differents
When someone need chrome - should install chrome
it's sad, that it looks like in nearest future there will be only one so called "BEST" engine (maybe 2 - IE) with its bugs, spying,
It sounds for me like - "dont choose - we've done it for you", "We know what is the best for you" -
serious last edited by
I dont give a crap about the engine (apart from maybe that it should not be trident) as long as UX works for me. In Op15+ UX does not work at all for my needs so I am staying with Op12 for now, but it is a purely UX-based decision and not based on engine.
-
vikingen last edited by
Originally posted by sgunhouse:
Presto is great generally, but is simply not compatible with some of the latest web designs.
I think Presto have less and less compatibility problems. Web designers and especially the designers at big websites are using web standards, aren't they? Presto should handle it unless the Presto programmers do something wrong.
By the way I don't like how the web have changed. I don't know what is causing it, if it's something called Ajax or just Javascript, but so many websites have become slow on old hardware. I often suspect it's caused by huge amounts of Javascript, but why is that necessary? Just look at Outlook.com. Before when it was Hotmail it operated MUCH faster. Outlook webmail is slow as syrup because so much CPU processing is needed. Btw, Flash content is not activated until I click it, and I also have adblock.
Originally posted by opera1216fan:
I have 6 years old PC and presto running really faster lol.
I have a 12 year old laptop! Presto is still running fast enough on many sites (though not as fast as in the past), but many sites have becomes slow.
-
chris-chx last edited by
Please. In the name of all that is holy....
Bring. Back. Presto.
Why?
"Fit to width" - No other engine has ever been able to flow a page on unconventional screen layouts with anything even approaching the slickness of Presto. With Smartphones becoming such an important market and being used for more and more for accessing the web, ditching the engine with that advantage is nuts.
I've used every version of Opera since 1996, when I begrudgingly semi-defected from Atari to Windows.
I have *not* upgraded from version 12.16
'nuff said.
-
A Former User last edited by
Originally posted by chris-chx:
Please. In the name of all that is holy....
It won't happen. Specifically "Fit to Width" won't ever come back. They said it confused users:
Presto-based Opera had become overloaded with features, a number of them confusing rather than helping our users — you can’t imagine how many reports we’ve gotten from users telling us that their favorite site was broken, simply because they had turned on fit-to-width by accident, for instance.
-
martintangsl last edited by
Originally posted by sgunhouse:
On the other hand, Presto uses less system resources (processor, RAM, etc,) ... anyone using a system more than about 5 years old may have trouble with WebKit.
Not only with older computers, but memory intensive works on a 2-year-old computer. 8GB RAM is just enough to use Presto.
-
sgunhouse Moderator Volunteer last edited by
Originally posted by desktopteam:
you can’t imagine how many reports we’ve gotten from users telling us that their favorite site was broken, simply because they had turned on fit-to-width by accident, for instance.
Pesala and I don't really have to imagine - we see the posts regularly here in the forums. There are certain types of content which FTW breaks, horribly. It most definitely does have its uses, but on a desktop system you shouldn't have it as an "always on" setting. Site preferences though ...
-
Deleted User last edited by
Originally posted by sgunhouse:
Originally posted by desktopteam:
you can’t imagine how many reports we’ve gotten from users telling us that their favorite site was broken, simply because they had turned on fit-to-width by accident, for instance.
The same would apply:
you can’t imagine how many reports we’ve gotten from users telling us that their favorite site was broken, simply because they had turned scripting or cookies off. So we decided to remove such confusing rather than helping features.
-
frenzie last edited by
Originally posted by Krake:
The same would apply:
you can’t imagine how many reports we’ve gotten from users telling us that their favorite site was broken, simply because they had turned scripting or cookies off. So we decided to remove such confusing rather than helping features.
That's already the case. Also note that since Firefox 4, the cookies manager is hidden under "use custom history settings" which is extremely unintuitive.
-
blackbird71 last edited byOriginally posted by Frenzie:
Originally posted by Krake:
The same would apply:
you can’t imagine how many reports we’ve gotten from users telling us that their favorite site was broken, simply because they had turned scripting or cookies off. So we decided to remove such confusing rather than helping features.
That's already the case. Also note that since Firefox 4, the cookies manager is hidden under "use custom history settings" which is extremely unintuitive.
"User should not attempt repair or adjustments. No user-serviceable parts inside." It's becoming a way of life...
-
sigmark last edited by
I used opera for the very reason that it was not compatible - less spam, less crap jumping out of thin air, less spying by the google almighty. Why oh why have you abandoned us, developers! I already hate chrome thank you very much, and now my opera which was with me since version 3 is gone for good and turned chromish, with all the feats( notes, mail) which made it so lovely and easy to work with dead as a dodo.
I loved opera as it was for 12 years with incremental, but continual improvements. Now i do not think i want to use it anymore.
I realize very well my post is not one of the most constructive ones, but I had to tell it to you. You have traded a legend with devoted fans for another chrome clone, which are heaps of out there.I will miss my opera 10 a lot, friends
-
A Former User last edited by
Originally posted by rs79:
What exactly is gained by the move to webkit?
A major boost in site compatibility, and freeing up resources to do interesting things instead of constantly having to fight the web.
Originally posted by Vikingen:
I think Presto have less and less compatibility problems.
Unfortunately, this is not the case. It became more and more of an uphill battle to keep Presto compatible with the web.
-
stng last edited by
Vikingen
I think Presto have less and less compatibility problems. Web designers and especially the designers at big websites are using web standards, aren't they? Presto should handle it unless the Presto programmers do something wrong.
Presto as an rendering engine is great. Fast, sleek, standards-compliant with some of unique features such as multiple rendering modes (MSR aka Fit to window width for an example).
I think that Presto's compatibility problems came mostly due to low market share. Low market share is direct consequence of relatively poor marketing and financial power of the Opera Software ASA. Unlike Opera, all mainstream browsers has a monopoly or giant adv investments behind them.
Opera(desktop) was(and still is, AFAIK) a "mainstream" browser in my county. In best times it was even more popular than Firefox with 25%+ of desktop browsers share. But its popularity was earned mostly by "from user to user" as principle of spreading, not by a massive advertising/paid for install campaign. And for those reasons, I am glad to tell you that i almost have no problems related to a web-site compatibility in my native speaking language segment of the internet. Because with its local share (Opera12 still holds nearly 10%) Opera/Presto is STILL the browser to be reckoned with. -
sigmark last edited by
haavard:
you dont mean it do you? chrome opens.every window as a standalone process and in sum it can take up way above 1/2 gigabyte of RAM.With opera as it was I never.managed to get over 1/4 gigabyte with 40 windows open simultaneously.
at least where the system resources are concerned
-
sigmark last edited by
Originally posted by RoadHazard:
Moving to Webkit/Blink was a good idea, it will ensure great compatibility and allow the Opera devs to focus on browser features rather than engine development. They just need to get the features back in there.
aye, and the focus on the browser features bereft us of all the features it had. now it is no better than chrome
-
berng last edited by
Originally posted by Sigmark:
haavard:
you dont mean it do you? chrome opens.every window as a standalone process and in sum it can take up way above 1/2 gigabyte of RAM.With opera as it was I never.managed to get over 1/4 gigabyte with 40 windows open simultaneously.
at least where the system resources are concerned
Do you have an issue with page faulting? If not it doesn't matter. If the ram is there its to be used, provided the coding is efficient. Unused ram is wasted ram.
I once changed a program that read in buffers of 50 records to a buffer, allowing 20 buffers. Before it read unbuffered one record at a time. It was our nightly input file conversion. A buffer would be read, the 50 records processed in ram and when done the changed buffer would be written to disk. While one buffer was processed, other buffers would be read from the disk drives. This means when I was done with a buffer and the new buffer was being written to disk, a new buffer was being processed in ram. The nightly batch job went from 3 hours to 5 minutes. Then someone criticized because I was using so much "ram." Didn't matter. The ram was used well and operations was ecstatic because that 3 hours batch run which held dozens of other jobs up was reduced to 5 min.
If you can, try to process your data in ram. Its fastest.
-
vikingen last edited by
Originally posted by haavard:
Originally posted by rs79:
What exactly is gained by the move to webkit?
A major boost in site compatibility, and freeing up resources to do interesting things instead of constantly having to fight the web.
Originally posted by Vikingen:
I think Presto have less and less compatibility problems.
Unfortunately, this is not the case. It became more and more of an uphill battle to keep Presto compatible with the web.
I didn't know that because my personal experience is a bit different.
Why is it hard to keep Presto compatible? What happened to the standards? There was a time when much of the web was coded to work with IE6 but that was way back in the past.
-
frenzie last edited by
Originally posted by Vikingen:
Why is it hard to keep Presto compatible? What happened to the standards? There was a time when much of the web was coded to work with IE6 but that was way back in the past.
Webkit became the new IE6. See e.g. http://www.opera.com/docs/specs/presto2.12/css/aliases/
Blink actually promises not to do that anymore: http://www.chromium.org/blink/developer-faq#TOC-What-s-stopping-Chrome-from-shipping-proprietary-features-
(Then again, they shipped Dart…)
-
sigmark last edited by
Originally posted by BernG:
Originally posted by Sigmark:
haavard:
you dont mean it do you? chrome opens.every window as a standalone process and in sum it can take up way above 1/2 gigabyte of RAM.With opera as it was I never.managed to get over 1/4 gigabyte with 40 windows open simultaneously.
at least where the system resources are concerned
Do you have an issue with page faulting? If not it doesn't matter. If the ram is there its to be used, provided the coding is efficient. Unused ram is wasted ram.
If you can, try to process your data in ram. Its fastest.
youre carrying wood into forrest
If chrome takes ram it forces the system to use swap file, which loads up the drive and slows all operations. its the principle of the thing! I have issue of having sofware junk up my pc when i dont ( didnt) have to. Opera kept the resources lean and did not waste them. wasted ram is as wasted as unused one, but since the browser is only one of the activities simultaneously running, its the share of the cake it fills that annoys me. and we are told resources are being freed by moving to big brother googles chromoid clone
