Opera's financial results are open to anyone since it's a publicly traded company. Take a look at the investor information linked at the bottom of this page. Opera is not struggling financially, and the new Opera for desktop is growing nicely.

You're right, but it would help to actually read the financial reports and verify your information before posting it as fact.

Here is a link to the 2013 4th quarter report: http://www.operasoftware.com/content/download/4902/159080/version/2/file/4Q13.pdf

I quote "the number of Desktop users was approximately 51 million, down 7% versus 4Q12. Revenue was lower in 4Q13 compared to 4Q12 due to lower search revenue, which was partly offset by higher content and advertising revenue."

The majority of Opera's profits are in the Mobile domain, particularly through Mobile Publishers and Advertisers.

So there IS a problem with the desktop version of Opera and its pretty clear that they most of their energy is invested elsewhere.

I fixed this problem by disabling hardware acceleration in opera:config. Not an ideal solution because you obviously want to have it on.

Another potential solution is to use this site: http://pdfmyurl.com/ to save to PDF and then print.

lol, even when you think you're using logic, you aren't. You're constantly trolling everyone's posts when they have nothing to do with you. Why don't you take you're own advice? "Look at it this way, you like Opera Next even though it has lost the functionality of the old Opera. YOU think its a viable alternative. Good for you. I've used Opera Next since its inception and frankly, I find it horrendous, period. Use it and be happy. Why don't you leave others alone to discuss the topics they wish to discuss in their posts?... Oh yeah, your misplaced fanboy pride can't stand anyone using any other browser or saying anything against your featureless browser! So you MUST respond negatively to everyone possible who doesn't like the new Opera! You MUST show everyone that integrated email, bookmarks and whatever feature anyone else wants really doesn't matter! I get it, ok..."

I continue to read this thread because of its topic. I'm looking for what other alternatives people have tried and what is working for them. I didn't say SeaMonkey was the best, I didn't say anyone should switch to it, and I've actually learned a few things from other Opera users (not you of course) who have posted here.

I was defending the viability of SeaMonkey because of nonsense you posted in this thread. Making statements like they are fact when you have very little understanding of what you are talking about. I mentioned my testing because you claimed SeaMonkey was not a viable alternative and I proved you wrong. What is YOU'RE point in posting here other than to degrade other people's alternatives in this thread? This is a thread discussing Opera alternatives which you obviously don't need. So, since we are NOW talking logic, I suggest you go troll somewhere else.

You know, you may think you're pretty intelligent, but all you're doing on these forums is annoying people. If you were truly intelligent you would see that. Or perhaps annoying others is what gives you satisfaction in life. You're not going to force people into loving or using the new Opera and all these witty posts you think you make are just serving to further turn off existing Opera users (the less than 1.5% of users worldwide that bother with it as you would put it). If you think the Opera team appreciates that or that you're helping them in any way, by all means continue.

Originally posted by leushino:

I tested SM, FF, IE 10 and Opera Next and SM came in dead last on the Peacekeeper site. That is where I got the comparison. If SM were such an awesome suite, it would have far more supporters than it currently does. BUT... if it floats your boat, then more power to you.

Aside: the Tom's Hardware tests are a half year old and therefore reasonably inaccurate.

I wonder if you ever reread your posts to realize how devoid of logic some of your statements are. I've already demonstrated that Peacekeeper isn't the holy grail of browser performance. Why don't you run Dromeo on all those browsers and post your scores? Or use Numion to see which browser loads pages the quickest? I just ran Peacekeeper and got 2069 in SeaMonkey 2.22 and 2628 in Opera 12.16, where SeaMonkey supported 7/7 HTML capabilities and Opera only 4/7 (click details on the results to see).

And just to take your own sentence to show you how absurd it is: "If "Opera" were such an awesome suite, it would have far more supporters than it currently does." Obviously the number of "supporters" a browser has is not directly related to how good it is. It is related to how well known it is. Opera has had a <1.5% desktop usage share for years. I guess that means Opera is a bad browser? Internet Explorer 10's browsers share is second to Chrome, well that must mean IE is the second best browser! SeaMonkey is relatively unknown and is not advertised, of course it will have low usage. I would think an Opera user of all people would understand this.

Your "Aside" statement also makes no sense. Browsers haven't changed so much in 5 months that any of those tests would be significantly different. Peacekeeper scores have remained pretty similar between browsers for years with Chrome>Opera>FF>IE. Opera Next can't even get bookmarks in 5 months, but that whole Tom's Hardware review is "reasonably inaccurate" because you said so... right.

Oh and btw, Opera 12 only supports 4/7 HTML5 capabilities in Peacekeeper. SeaMonkey supports all 7.

Also, try playing this next generation browser launched game from Crytek: Warface. Opera 12 can't support it. SeaMonkey can.

So clearly your comment on SeaMonkey not being a "viable alternative to Opera" holds little weight.

Originally posted by leushino:

Did you say "quicker than Opera in loading pages"??? Not according to Peacekeeper. I challenge you to go over to http://peacekeeper.futuremark.com and test it for yourself. SM is one of the slowest browsers according to their bench tests. It's clunky all right and that is why it has such a small acceptance among users. It is definitely not a viable alternative to Opera unless you want a browser that looks like the old Netscape browser from 1998.

Peacekeeper is an overall benchmark of many different tests and only one of many benchmarking tools. It certainly is not a measure of which browser loads web pages faster. Firefox, for example, has almost always trailed Opera and Chrome in Peacekeeper. Go use Numion Stopwatch and test any page in Opera against SeaMonkey. Its a straight forward stopwatch of how fast it takes to load a web page. I couldn't even find ONE page that Opera loaded faster than SeaMonkey.

Also, I tested Firefox, Chrome, SeaMonkey, Opera and Opera Next in many different benchmarks, not just Peacekeeper. Some browsers do well in some, and less so in others. SeaMonkey performs pretty much on par with Firefox. And as you can see in this review by Tom's Hardware, Firefox is overall much faster than Opera (which comes in last).

So yes, I did say "quicker than Opera in loading pages."

BTW, where do you see Peacekeeper showing SeaMonkey as one of the slowest browsers? I couldn't even find where it ranks the different browsers. A link proving your claim would be welcome. On the same system, SeaMonkey should score only about 500 points less than Opera in Peacekeeper, which would really put both browsers in a similar performance category for this benchmark.

I don't find SeaMonkey to be "clunky." Not quite sure what you mean by that exactly. I'll agree that it is not as visibly appealing as Opera 12 or some of the other common browsers, (it basically looks like the old Firefox). However, it is snappy, quicker than Opera in loading pages, is highly customizable and has many built in features. Personally, a browser's appearance only involves less than 1/10th of the screen, so I don't put too much value on how it looks as long as its functional. That being said, there are many themes you can download to change the appearance of SeaMonkey if that is important to you.

Wow, that is a great list. Those certainly are a lot of extensions. Did you run them all on Firefox? What is the memory usage like with so many extensions?

Also, is anyone using the Simple Mail extension? I was thinking of testing it out with Firefox, but according to the reviews, it seems like every so often the extension gets broken with a Firefox update and then the extension developer has to catch up with a new version.

I used to use unMHT a while back when I used Firefox (before Opera) and I found that some files didn't work/save properly. Perhaps these issues have been ironed out now, but just in case, I have been saving websites to PDF instead MHT. I personally use Foxit Reader as my primary PDF reader (faster, more functional and lighter than Adobe) and it installs a PDF printer, so you can just print a website to a PDF file. There is also PDFmyURL, which you can drag to your Bookmarks Toolbar.

Originally posted by Makavcio:

Hey, Salahuddin1
I tried to contact you through private msg system but it requires some kind of an account I'm unable to create... Hope you'll read this.

Hey Makavcio,

I've pretty much completely transitioned to SeaMonkey. The addons I use are: Adblock Plus, Flashgot and Seatabx (had to get this from a russian site, I can give you the link if you need it).

There isn't a Speed Dial extension that I found, but I never really used it much in Opera. To replace the functionality I needed for this, I just used the Bookmarks Toolbar (in fact, to create space, I dragged it up beside the top menu (where file, edit, view etc is). Of course this only works well if you have less than a dozen or so sites. There are SeaMonkey Speed Dial extensions called Speed Dial WebPage and Speed Dial, but they have not been updated for use in the latest version. I guess you can give it a try to see if it works.

I don't think you can get tab stacking functionality on SeaMonkey. You could try this addon: Tab Stacking

Obviously, depending on the functions you need, some of the other options mentioned here might be better. Firefox has more addons, so I can see Firefox or Waterfox with the Simple Mail extension more appealing depending on your needs. I haven't tried Simple Mail myself, but the email functionality of SeaMonkey is great. It seems just as robust as Thunderbird.

On a bit of a side note, I was tinkering around with Numion Stopwatch and SeaMonkey seems to be really quick in loading pages. In fact, Firefox, Seamonkey and Chrome seem to be mostly be about the same speed (within 1 second of each other), with Opera 12.16 being quite a bit slower and Opera Next being even slower than that. In addition, the odd page seemed to load exceptionally fast on SeaMonkey, but took particularly long on other browsers (betanews.com was one example). There was less than a handful of sites I found that did this however. If anyone is interested in testing this out to confirm/refute, I would be interested in the results.

Originally posted by sgunhouse:

As far as it goes, Firefox has gone the same way as Opera has - recent versions are based on Webkit rather than their previous engine. I wouldn't bother with it yet. Give it some time to stabilize ... same as Opera.

Do you have a link to this? All releases of Firefox scheduled up to 27 are on Gecko link. I also thought Firefox already stated they would not switch from Gecko.