Presto engine
-
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 -
-
greekonsun last edited by
Originally posted by Vikingen:
Why is it hard to keep Presto compatible? What happened to the standards?
I don't think the switch happened b'coz of compatibility problems
in fact Presto was always best at W3C standardsit was just the fact that webkit became dominant, no matter how shitty it is
so certain pages were either made just for sakes of webkit and started to block Opera completelytry to go to icloud.com with "older opera", you will get "Unsupported browser" error crap and be blocked
now hack your output to lets say Firefox 25, behold the miracle, no error message and webpage works perfectly fineit is just whole browser wars politics fiasco crap
so normally its easier for Opera devs to jump onto webkit train and do lazy approach instead continuing with their unique engine that "nobody wants" -
vikingen last edited by
So why don't everybody else switch to Presto, perhaps because Opera didn't want to give it away for free? Presto could have become open source. Or maybe it is already? I don't know.
-
blackbird71 last edited by
Originally posted by Vikingen:
So why don't everybody else switch to Presto, perhaps because Opera didn't want to give it away for free? Presto could have become open source. Or maybe it is already? I don't know.
It's not open source, and Opera spent a lot of years and money refining it into what it became. Moreover, it is still paid-licensed to vendors for use in a few non-Opera products. I believe Presto was built during an era when Opera was corporately focused on providing user features and configurability, so Presto incorporated a number of things that made Opera's user interface work better in those areas. As such, and being closed code, other browser makers chose to develop their own code instead, focusing on different target markets. And, being bigger outfits and better at marketing their products in a variety of ways, they came to dominate the non-IE marketplace. At this point, that's all simply history. Presto Opera is over, other than 12.16 which is merely on temporary life-support until Opera pulls that plug.
Some of us as users may not like the way things have worked out, but they are what they are; and we are mere users of a free browser that is being totally redesigned. We need to get over dreaming that Opera is going to somehow change its mind and revert its entire product line back to Presto... after a year or more of pursuing the costly conversion to Blink, it just isn't going to happen, period! End of story! Either we find other browsers to use or we hang in there with Old Opera if and until New Opera becomes palatable to us.
