Slashdot Mirror


Opera 6.03 - The Wild Child of Browsers?

IEEE1394 writes: "Ever wondered what other Internet browsers are available outside of Internet Explorer? Opera 6.03 from Opera Software boasts itself on being 'the fastest browser on earth.' Does it really live up to its claim of being unique and being fast? Is it the wild child of the browser family and can it ever surpass Internet Explorer as the browser of choice? Let's find out." Funny, IE isn't my browser of choice ...

579 comments

  1. First Crapflood! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic
    How many days until LNUX is de-listed? The answer is here : gvotrvfkvv9619;æjnjujnjutrÃ¥ou798up pykÃpo8tvkugpjhip iyvp9vpvgvotrvfkvv9619;

    piyvp9vpvgvotrvfkvv9619;æjnjujnjutr Ã¥ou798up pykÃpo8tvkugpjhipiyvp 9 vpvgvotrvfkvv9619;æjnjujnjutr&#9619 ; Ã¥ou798uppykÃpo8tvkug pj hi

    piyvp9vpvgvotrvfkvv9619;æjn jujnjutråou798uppykà po8tvkugpjhipiyvp9vpvgvot vfkvv9619;

    æjnjujnjutrÃ¥ou798up pykÃpo8tvkugpjhipiyvp9vpvgvo trvfkvv9619;æjnjujnjutrÃ¥ou798u ppykÃpo8tvkugpjhipiyv p9vpvgvotrvfkvv9619;æjnjujnjut r

    Ã¥ou798uppykÃpo 8tvkugpjhipiyvp9vpvgvotrvfkvv 9619;æjnjujnjutrÃ¥ou798uppyk Ãpo8tvkugpjhipiyvp9vpvgv otrvfkvv9619;æjnjujnjutrÃ¥ou798u

    ppykÃpo8tvkugpjhipiy vp9vpvgvotrvfkvv9619;æjnjujnjutrÃ¥o u798uppykÃpo8tvku gpjhipiyvp9vpvgvotrvfkvv9619; æjnjujnjutr

    Ã¥ou798uppykà o8tvkugpjhipiyvp9vpvgvotrvfkv v9619;æjnjujnjutrÃ¥ou798uppykÃ&#96 19;po8tvkugpjhipiyvp9vpvgvotr vfkvv9619;æjnjujnjutrÃ¥ou7 98uppykÃpo8tvkugpjhip iyvp9vpvgvotrvfkvv9619;æjnjujn jutrÃ¥ou798uppykÃpo8t vkugpjhipiyvp9vpvgvotrvf kvv9619;æjnjujnjutrÃ¥ou798up py kÃpo8tvkugpjhipiyvp9vpv votrvfkvv9619;æjnjujnjutrÃ¥ou798up& #9619;pykÃ

    po8tvkugpjhipi yvp9vpvgvotrvfkvv9619;æjnjujnjutrÃ¥ ou798uppykÃpo8tvk ugpjhipiyvp9vpvgvotrvfkvv9619 ; jnjujnjutrÃ¥ou798uppykÃ&#961 9; po8tvkugpjhipiyvp9vpvgvotrvfk vv9619;æjnjujnjutrÃ¥ou798uppykÃ&#9 619;po8tvkugpjhipiyvp9vpv gvotrvfkvv9619;æjnjujnjutrÃ¥ ou 798uppykÃpo8tvkugpjhi piyvp9vpvgvotrvfkvv9619;æjnjuj njutrÃ¥ou798uppykÃpo8 tvkugpjhi

    piyvp9vpvgvotrvfkvv9619;æjnjujnjutr Ã¥ou798uppykÃpo8tvkug pjhip iyvp9vpvgvotrvfkvv9619;æjnjujnjutrà ¥ou798uppykÃpo8tv kugpjhipiyvp9vpvgvotrvfkvv961 9;æjnjujnjutrÃ¥ou798uppykÃp o8tvkugpjhipiyvp9vpvgvotrvfkv v9619;æjnjujnjutr

    Ã¥ou798up pykÃpo8tvkugpjhipiyvp 9 vpvgvotrvfkvv9619;æjnjujnjutr&#9619 ; Ã¥ou798uppykÃpo8tvkug pj hipiyvp9vpvgvotrvfkvv9619;æj n jujnjutrÃ¥ou798uppykà po8tvkugpjhipiyvp9vpvgvot vfkvv9619;æjnjujnjutrÃ¥ou798up&#961 9; pykÃpo8tvkugpjhipiyvp9vpvgvo trvfkvv9619;æjnjujnjutrÃ¥ou798u ppykÃpo8tvkugpjhipiyv p9vpvgvotrvfkvv9619;æjnjujnjut rÃ¥ou798uppykÃp&#9619 ; 8tvkugpjhipiyvp9vpvgvotrvfkvv 9619;æjnjujnjutrÃ¥ou798uppyk Ãpo8tvkugpjhipiyvp9vpvgv otrvfkvv9619;æjnjujnjutrÃ¥ou798up&# 9619;pykÃpo8tvkugpjhipiy vp9vpvgvotrvfkvv9619;æjnjujnjutrÃ¥o u798uppykÃpo8tvku gpjhipiyvp9vpvgvotrvfkvv9619; æjnjujnjutr

    Ã¥ou798uppykà o8tvkugpjhipiyvp9vpvgvotrvfkv v9619;æjnjujnjutrÃ¥ou798uppykÃ&#96 19;po8tvkugpjhipiyvp9vpvgvotr vfkvv9619;æjnjujnjutrÃ¥ou7 98uppykÃpo8tvkugpjhip iyvp9vpvgvotrvfkvv9619;æjnjujn jutrÃ¥ou798uppykÃpo8t vkugpjhipiyvp9vpvgvotrvf kvv9619;æjnjujnjutrÃ¥ou798up py kÃpo8tvkugpjhipiyvp9vpv votrvfkvv9619;æjnjujnjutrÃ¥ou798up& #9619;pykÃpo8tvkugpjhipi yvp9vpvgvotrvfkvv9619;æjnjujnjutrÃ¥ ou798uppykÃpo8tvk ugpjhipiyvp9vpvgvotrvfkvv9619 ; jnjujnjutrÃ¥ou798uppykÃ&#961 9; po8tvkugpjhipiyvp9vpvgvotrvfk vv9619;æjnjujnjutrÃ¥ou798uppykÃ&#9 619;po8tvkugpjhipiyvp9vpv gvotrvfkvv9619;æjnjujnjutrÃ¥ ou 798u

    ppykÃpo8tvkugpjhipiyvp9vpv&# 9619;gvotrvfkvv9619;æjnjuj njutrÃ¥ou798uppykÃpo8 tvkugpjhipiyvp9vpv

    1. Re:First Crapflood! by neal+n+bob · · Score: -1

      that is excellent sir. A truly eye catching display of crap. It is work like this that I believe makes the best argument for intelligent design of our universe.

    2. Re:First Crapflood! by News+For+Turds · · Score: -1
      I Agree With This Post

      Love Always,
      News for Turds

      --
      -- You are such a fucking fag
    3. Re:First Crapflood! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love trolls!!!

    4. Re:First Crapflood! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the ---- is this junk, anyway?

  2. d00t! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    w00p!

  3. Lynx by 00_NOP · · Score: 5, Funny

    Will be faster. GIFs are for whimps.

    1. Re:Lynx by vr · · Score: 2, Funny

      well.. you can turn off images in Opera. you think that will help? :)

    2. Re:Lynx by Sarin · · Score: 3, Informative

      actually I think gifs work under lynx and or w3m. A while back I ran an xwindows session and had to look up a page from a terminal and I saw some gifs/jpeg/png whatever they were in my little xterminal window.

    3. Re:Lynx by enneff · · Score: 1

      Pity 'lynx' is shit. It can't even draw tables, for fucks sake.

      For a REAL textmode web browser, try 'links'.

    4. Re:Lynx by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get real...we all know, that links is graphic browser ;]

      and if you don't believe me, check it's homepage

    5. Re:Lynx by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Install the w3m-img package (for Debian, at least), and you'll get images right in the terminal. Really scared me the first time I saw it... I didn't think that such a thing was possible!

    6. Re:Lynx by cyborch · · Score: 3, Funny

      NY Times random login generator there should be more of these, we need to make our lives easier, there is no need whatsoever for nytimes to require my userinformation to display free articles. If they want to display their articles freely why have these login requirements at all?

    7. Re:Lynx by gmack · · Score: 3, Informative

      Unfortunatly links caches dynamic pages and that makes a lot of sites completely unuseable.

      When I asked the author about this he said it was supposed to do that for speed reasons.

      I actually had all 3 of the major text based browsers on my system and between the 3 of them was able to browse most sites.. that was until I gave up and went back to Mozilla after I discovered that a simple php game I wanted to play wouldn't work with any of them.

    8. Re:Lynx by killmenow · · Score: 2

      Well, since Mel is here, why not use

      telnet host 80

    9. Re:Lynx by joss · · Score: 2

      Bah, I bet you're a vi (as opposed to ed) man.
      wget is the way to do it.

      --
      http://rareformnewmedia.com/
    10. Re:Lynx by egreB · · Score: 1

      I recon they do it to track how many people who reads their articles, and, more importantly, to direct the ads better.

    11. Re:Lynx by mat.h · · Score: 1

      So the parent of this was rated as "funny".
      But seriously, I'm writing this in lynx, on the
      console. All I ever use X for is opening up a
      lot of xterms, but I can get the same effect by
      using the console and screen. And the latter is
      quite a bit faster on this Machine From The Last
      Century.

    12. Re:Lynx by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > well.. you can turn off images in Opera. you think that will help? :)

      I know you were joking, but it does actually help quite a bit. I routinely run without images, and the speedup is quite good.

      Waaaaaay too much visual junk on most sites.

    13. Re:Lynx by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      So the parent of this was rated as "funny".
      But seriously, I'm writing this in lynx, on the
      console. All I ever use X for is opening up a
      lot of xterms, but I can get the same effect by
      using the console and screen. And the latter is
      quite a bit faster on this Machine From The Last
      Century.


      No need to say. You can recognize a Lynx user by the width of its posts. ;)

    14. Re:Lynx by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A response to a URL whose content changes frequently must include cache control headers to that effect, or the site is unusable because it's broken (just as much as if they're sending the wrong media type or their HTML is malformed). If Links caches without honoring cache control headers, it's broken. This is a solved problem on the WWW.

  4. must be ... by Hank+Chinaski · · Score: 2, Troll

    ... a very very slow monday for you to post such a story ... i think everyone slightly interested in opera that reads /. already tested it

    --
    IAAL
    1. Re:must be ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      I have submitted two stories that are both pending.. and I think they are quite interesting!

      Wake up /. and post em..!

    2. Re:must be ... by xtermz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Hmm... I guess car magazines shouldnt run reviews of new models, because anybody interested in those new cars already test drove them... and Money magazine shouldnt give any stock advice, because people who buy stocks already know what to buy...
      ...
      ..
      now do you see how flawed your argument is? So what if "everyone slightly interested in opera that reads /. already tested it ", believe it or not there actually are people who have _never used it_.. ...

      --


      I lost my concept of community when my community lost all concept of me.
    3. Re:must be ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      post them here

    4. Re:must be ... by nomadic · · Score: 2

      I've got to agree with the other guy on this point. Opera's well-known, and they occasionally have stories about new releases and such. To just spontaneously put an intro story like this is a little silly.

      To take your car magazine analogy, it would be like Car and Driver publishing a story that assumed its readers never heard of Chevrolet.

    5. Re:must be ... by rmohr02 · · Score: 2

      Read http://slashdot.org/~CmdrTaco/journal/8188. It should answer your question.

    6. Re:must be ... by NanoGator · · Score: 2

      "... a very very slow monday for you to post such a story ... i think everyone slightly interested in opera that reads /. already tested it "

      One of the biggest hinderances to using Opera today is not the browser itself, but how other sites support it. Anything that makes web-masters more aware of a new popular browser on the horizon is a good thing.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    7. Re:must be ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slow day or not, Thanks to /. for this one - I personally benefitted from this articles inclusion - not because of the articles content, instead because of 'dotters comments. I learned a bunch of tips/tricks to speed my Opera use even more. Maybe /you/ were having a slow day, to have to make your comment :)

      I used older Operas - they were OK. Newest versions rock - I only use IE on the *rare* occasion when I have to.

  5. IE often HAS to be your browser of choice by duffbeer703 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Many banking and other websites do not render properly with Mozilla, and I'm never going to pay for a browser like Opera.

    So unfortunately, sometimes you must choose IE.

    --
    Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
    1. Re:IE often HAS to be your browser of choice by ludey · · Score: 1

      Mozilla is the most 'correct' browser out there. If your sites are not rendering correctly, it's a poorly made page.

      --
      --------------
      David O.
    2. Re:IE often HAS to be your browser of choice by Pfhreakaz0id · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      c'mon man. I use Mozilla at home quite a lot and I design web sites (although I do more back end stuff than anything), but let's face the reality of the situation: If I'm designing web sites, I design for IE. Usually, my pages are fairly simple and work just fine in Moz, opera, etc, but I ain't waisting my time making scripts cross-browser compatible, etc, because those folks paying the bill don't care and the customer is always right.

    3. Re:IE often HAS to be your browser of choice by bsartist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If I'm designing web sites, I design for IE.

      They you're part of the problem.

      --
      Lost: Sig, white with black letters. No collar. Reward if found!
    4. Re:IE often HAS to be your browser of choice by rknop · · Score: 4, Insightful

      c'mon man. I use Mozilla at home quite a lot and I design web sites (although I do more back end stuff than anything), but let's face the reality of the situation: If I'm designing web sites, I design for IE. Usually, my pages are fairly simple and work just fine in Moz, opera, etc, but I ain't waisting my time making scripts cross-browser compatible, etc, because those folks paying the bill don't care and the customer is always right.

      You are part of the problem. You should be designing web pages to the standards, not to IE. Design to the standards, the site will work with IE. Your employer's happy, your customers (even those who don't use IE, or wouldn't if you weren't so ignorant in your web design choices) will be happy, and nobody even has to know that you aren't writing IE-specific stuff.

      Given that there are web standards out there, and that IE implements them, I just don't undersatnd this attitude that you must design for IE. What's the problem with you people? Sheesh.

      -Rob

    5. Re:IE often HAS to be your browser of choice by Domini · · Score: 0, Troll

      Leave the web designer alone, you standards compliant nazi!

      He's right, you know. Banks and large corporations don't give a stuff. It's not viable.

      The market and free economy will take care of things: If the browser was really that good people would be using it, and the sites would follow.

      Methinks it's the other browsers that are at fault.

    6. Re:IE often HAS to be your browser of choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dream on. Where IE isn't on the standards path, webauthors who get paid for their work follow IE - unless standards compliance or other browser support is specifically requested. It's called "the customer is always right" and "smaller expenses equals more profit".

    7. Re:IE often HAS to be your browser of choice by rknop · · Score: 3, Insightful

      He's right, you know. Banks and large corporations don't give a stuff. It's not viable.

      I simply do not understand this argument.

      Write standards compliant stuff, it works with IE. (OK, don't push the standards to the edge; use two-year old standards.) Nobody is losing here. The vast majority of your customer base has the functionality it wants. And those other 3% of your customers now also have the functionality they want. What's the problem here? What's the sacrifice? What's the tradeoff? Everybody wins. Your bank administrators paying for the web design are in better shape, because not only does it work for the 96% of their customers who use IE, it works for the 99% of their customers who use any of the relatively up-to-date web browsers. It's better for the bank. Why, why, why is there any rational argument for writing IE-speicific code, other than laziness and ignorance, given this?

      -Rob

    8. Re:IE often HAS to be your browser of choice by Pfhreakaz0id · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Look, I design HTML so it renders in anything, no problem. But the standards are ridiculous and have no bearing on the real world. W3 validators say I can't put form elements in tables!!!! Hello? What do I tell employers/clients when their forms look like sh*t!? Sorry, but even though Netscape, Mozzilla and IE all render this page just fine, It doesn't conform to standards and my ethics won't allow me to code it?

      But when I'm doing heavy Javascripting/DOM stuff, I ain't taking the trouble to write several versions of scripts. I always present the option of netscape/mozilla compatibilty, but when they use nothing but IE, they don't care. I'm working on an intranet project right now that has some government employees on Sun's. I said "we need to take the extra time to make this netscape compatible", the team lead says "oh, they have IE on termnial server, we're not bothering!".

    9. Re:IE often HAS to be your browser of choice by Carlito · · Score: 1
      Yeah right. Like when I had to do this dynamic page, and, not knowing anything about DHTML, did it reading the W3C documentation for CSS2 and DOM.


      I tested it with Mozilla and it worked just fine. But Internet Explorer choked at the first Javascript line... IE certainly doesn't implement the CSS2 standard (at least it doesn't recognize position: fixed;), neither the DOM API. So one must design for IE, that is, use the subset of the standard that IE implements.

    10. Re:IE often HAS to be your browser of choice by _14k4 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Part of the problem is the fact that IE pages simply *look* better. Take form inputs, buttons, etc. Netscape/Mozilla/Opera/etc simply lost. If they stepped up a few steps on the "make it look better instead making things that never work anyway" ladder, we'd be singing a different tune.

    11. Re:IE often HAS to be your browser of choice by Levine · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      IE is about the only browser that does adhere to standards, but even then there are some discrepancies. Have you seen Moz's version of "standards"? Hint: they're not.

      Regards,
      levine

    12. Re:IE often HAS to be your browser of choice by rknop · · Score: 2

      W3 validators say I can't put form elements in tables!!!!

      Funny, I've never had the W3 HTML validator (HTML 4.01) complain about this.

      -Rob

    13. Re:IE often HAS to be your browser of choice by Pfhreakaz0id · · Score: 2

      I may be confused. I frequently use HTMLTidy and it says "no no", I ignore it. I just ran the w3 validator and it choked on every "input" tag in a table, said "check which elements are allowed here".

    14. Re:IE often HAS to be your browser of choice by swfranklin · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Are you serious? It isn't the writing of the code, it's the testing! If you've ever written a major Web-enabled application, you know that nearly as many hours are spent testing as coding... and every platform that you want to try to support means virtually the entire test plan gets run again!

      I write two kinds of Web code. The "For Pay" stuff is written specifically to blow up when the end-user isn't using IE. The company doesn't even want users to TRY any other browser, it's a support nightmare. I'm not sure I'd have made that decision, but I understand the reasoning behind it.

      "My" Web stuff is written to render in any browser, but there are lots of extra features that I've coded in to make navigation, etc. easier for IE users. NetScrape users can buy stuff, but IE users get some helpful DHTML tools to make it easier.

      These tools are hidden to all other browsers & those just render the normal static content, because I don't have time to debug them on other browsers that represent 3% - 4% of my customers.

    15. Re:IE often HAS to be your browser of choice by unixmaster · · Score: 1

      Mozilla is mostly W3C standart compatible if you design for IE that means you design out of standarts.

      --
      Never learn by your mistakes, if you do you may never dare to try again
    16. Re:IE often HAS to be your browser of choice by BenJaminus · · Score: 1

      Sure it does look slightly different, but although it's always hassle developing on more than one browser I find Opera faster and less annoying than IE. Less stress is far better than the best looking 'still-in-development' pages I think.
      The tabbed feature alone makes the whole process less stressful (I'm not sure why when you can just switch between windows but it just does) even if you have to then check complex things in IE and tweak the lot when you're finished.

    17. Re:IE often HAS to be your browser of choice by rknop · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I may be confused. I frequently use HTMLTidy and it says "no no", I ignore it. I just ran the w3 validator and it choked on every "input" tag in a table, said "check which elements are allowed here".

      Hmm. I just checked mine again, and it validated as HTML 4.01 Transitional. This is a page where I do a stylistic, though legal, no-no, which is using tables for bulk formatting. (This is a nod to those few people who still use the ancient Netscape 4; NS4's CSS support isn't good enough to do a sidebar menu properly, so I do it the "wrong" way with a big table formatting the whole page.) In the "main" part of the page, there are lots of form elements, but the W3 validator didn't complain.

      The non-standards compliant thing I do use on this page is the "wrap" attribute in "textarea" tags. That's a nod to inconsistent browser behavior; using the attribute makes the major browsers consistent, but it's not a part of the standard. Oh well.

      -Rob

    18. Re:IE often HAS to be your browser of choice by wildfire1969 · · Score: 1

      We also design web sites. We use FrontPage Express to do it, just for the simple reason that it does help with making sure that the coding is in the proper place so it can be validated through W3C. And it is standard. There is no problem with our web sites being viewed under any browser. Any one who programs their sites with a message saying (and I have seen this many times) "This site is best viewed with Internet Explorer" has to be a novice because any professional would design a web site that can be properly and conveniantly viewed with any browser out there.

    19. Re:IE often HAS to be your browser of choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Here's why the argument is valid: Online banking is a security sensitive application. That means that the webinterface will have to be tested and has to work as expected. It must not cache data which shouldn't be cached, it must not display things which should be hidden, it must not create ambiguous formating, etc etc. This stage of application development is time consuming and therefore expensive. It won't be done for browsers with x10% fanbase. Browsers do behave differently. Most standards are not perfect specifications (without ambiguities), so there is no 100% safe "standard compliance".

    20. Re:IE often HAS to be your browser of choice by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 1

      Assuming he gets paid for designing websites, guess what? The guy that pays him 95% for sure uses IE, and if it doesn't work on IE and work well, and look right, he doesn't get a paycheck or a happy customer that comes back. Be idealistic all you like, but when it comes down to the line, i daresay most of the people who are paid for such things would rather it look right on IE than close-(but no cigar) on anything else

      --
      If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
    21. Re:IE often HAS to be your browser of choice by Domini · · Score: 2

      PS: Opera is the ONLY standards complient browser.

      If you had to make your page compliant, it may not work with most browsers still. (Acording to Opera.com)

      Most companies cannot afford the support and testing with ALL browsers.

      It's simple economics.

      Me.

    22. Re:IE often HAS to be your browser of choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am not sure what "standard" you are refering to. When implementing even the most basic of standards based code, it renders differently on IE, Moz, Opera and Konqeror. Frankly, the only browser that is actualy keeping up with "standards" is Konqorer. Give it a try.. write code in Konqueror, which IS standards complient, and then call it up in ANY other browser and it will display VERY diffferently on all other browsers.

    23. Re:IE often HAS to be your browser of choice by Zathrus · · Score: 1

      OK, don't push the standards to the edge; use two-year old standards

      Er... you're kidding, right?

      Two year old standards are crap... there's a reason the newer "standards" came out (or why various browsers just did their own thing) -- it's because the old standards didn't do what was needed.

      Frankly, IE is the defacto standard now. In the areas where IE performs differently from the standard, IE should (usually) be considered the proper guide. Things like PNG excluded.

      Why? Because IE is what is on everyone's desktop. It may not be on yours, but you are part of the 5% that doesn't use it then. And that's too small a group to bother with the immense amount of testing needed.

      This is exactly how it was back when Netscape was 90% of the marketshare. And it's how it was back when BSD was the de facto standard for TCP/IP -- where BSD did not comply to the RFC, you ignored the RFC. Because you had to talk to BSD-based TCP/IP stacks or you couldn't talk to 90% of the Internet.

      Get over the fact that IE is from Microsoft... writing a browser to be "standards compliant" doesn't make a lick of difference when the rest of the world is ignoring the "standard".

    24. Re:IE often HAS to be your browser of choice by radja · · Score: 1

      put your form tags outside of the table, or keep the form(including form tags) in 1 table cell.

      //rdj

      --

      No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
      --Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
    25. Re:IE often HAS to be your browser of choice by Darren+Winsper · · Score: 2

      I dare you to prove that statement. Fiver says you can't.

    26. Re:IE often HAS to be your browser of choice by rknop · · Score: 2

      "My" Web stuff is written to render in any browser, but there are lots of extra features that I've coded in to make navigation, etc. easier for IE users. NetScrape users can buy stuff, but IE users get some helpful DHTML tools to make it easier.

      These tools are hidden to all other browsers & those just render the normal static content, because I don't have time to debug them on other browsers that represent 3% - 4% of my customers.

      That's fine-- what you're doing I have no objection to. If there is "added functionality" for whatever subset of your users, that's no problem. (And, of course, it's best for you to add the functionality for either (1) the majority of your users, or (2) those for whom it is easiest to do so if there is a big difference.)

      If the core functionality works in all standard browsers, and the extras you've done for IE don't get in the way of the core functionality working for standards compliant browsers, then great.

      The "For Pay" stuff is written specifically to blow up when the end-user isn't using IE. The company doesn't even want users to TRY any other browser, it's a support nightmare. I'm not sure I'd have made that decision, but I understand the reasoning behind it.

      Here, however, I sincerely hope that your employer goes messiliy out of business as soon as possible, and that you find a job somewhere else. Yes, this will get modded down as flamebait and troll and everything else, but hell, it's what I think. And, no, I don't believe it will happen, what with the real world being the sad awful place that it is, but it's what I really wish would happen.

      -Rob

    27. Re:IE often HAS to be your browser of choice by bertvl · · Score: 1

      Write standards compliant stuff, it works with IE

      I agree with your comment wholeheartedly. I think the one major problem is that many (most?) web "programmers" don't really have much of a clue, and actually just use some off-the-shelf software to create the site with. The off-the-shelf software in turn generates code which only works with IE.

      I worked at a major investment bank (backend C++ stuff) where this was the case. The management figured that it was much cheaper to hire developers who could use Dreamweaver (or whatever), and they could code the sites more quickly that way. They figured that is was good enough to add smallprint to the web page saying that it only works with IE.

      I really hate this argument, but that seems to be what is happening.

    28. Re:IE often HAS to be your browser of choice by __past__ · · Score: 2
      Any one who programs their sites with a message saying (and I have seen this many times) "This site is best viewed with Internet Explorer" has to be a novice...
      Anyone who talks about "programming" web sites should be banned from publishing anything on the web.

      It's the number one clear sign that this person didn't understand the first thing about markup.

    29. Re:IE often HAS to be your browser of choice by bsartist · · Score: 1

      What are you babbling about? I didn't say he should write pages that don't work in IE. I said he shouldn't write pages that only work in IE. There's a difference.

      --
      Lost: Sig, white with black letters. No collar. Reward if found!
    30. Re:IE often HAS to be your browser of choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are missing the entire point.

      IE has in many ways become the unoffical standard.

      Microsoft always seems to misimplement certain standards (like various additions to HTML, and the noncompliant C++ monstrosity included in Visual Studio).

      The problem is, web developers will develop a webpage that adheres to the official standard, they show it to their clients, who then ask:

      Client: "Why doesn't the page display correctly in internet explorer?"

      Web developer: "Well, Microsoft has didn't implement the standard properly!"

      Client: "Are they going to fix it soon?"

      Web developer: "No."

      Client: "Are you aware that IE controls 90% of the browser market?"

      Web developer: "Yes"

      Client: "So just make the web page so that it works for IE then, ok? That way the largest number of people will be able to view the page correctly."

      Web developer: "But what about linux, what about open source, what about fighting for freedom and the american way?"

      Client: "You're fired!"

    31. Re:IE often HAS to be your browser of choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Standards ? We don't need no fsckin' standards --- except as put forth by the sellers and chosen by free-market Lusrs. Drool on, neocom ... sigheil, Komrad.

    32. Re:IE often HAS to be your browser of choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And Mozilla isn't standard compliant? How so?

      I can tell you off the top of my head that Opera doesn't support text-indent correctly when applied negatively against a margin. You have to double it to make it work right.

    33. Re:IE often HAS to be your browser of choice by weave · · Score: 2
      My bank (centura.com) says on their web site that they don't support NS 6 browsers, but it works just fine. My school's braindead portal program, Pipeline, does a browser sniff and says it won't work with NS 6, but if you use IE to find the logon page, and then go straight to that in Netscape 6 (or mozilla) and hence bypass the browser sniff, the entire site works just fine.

      Maybe I should be wondering if there is a conspiracy going on here! :)

    34. Re:IE often HAS to be your browser of choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, since you ignore 2 year old browsers, I assume you ignore IE 5/5.5? From your arguments, you seem to cater to just IE 6 only... and perhaps even just the newest patch level of it. Pretty small group there.

      When the anti-trust stuff is done, watch out, IE may not be on everyone's desktop by default.

    35. Re:IE often HAS to be your browser of choice by Pfhreakaz0id · · Score: 2

      no guys. I'm talking using rows and cells to make the form look the way you want it. Input tags inside td's and tr's... this is apparently a no-no, but works fine in IE, Netscape, Mozilla, Opera....

    36. Re:IE often HAS to be your browser of choice by varith · · Score: 1

      The problem is that it takes extra time to make it compatible with all browsers and if the people payng the money don't care then he can't either. He's not the problem.

    37. Re:IE often HAS to be your browser of choice by Asprin · · Score: 3, Informative

      The tabbed feature alone makes the whole process less stressful (I'm not sure why when you can just switch between windows but it just does) even if you have to then check complex things in IE and tweak the lot when you're finished.

      IMHO, popups are well contained, and desktop clutter is controlled - you only have to minimize one window instead of fifteen.

      Opera also has options to prevent popups entirely, but the controls aren't as robust as Moz (yet), which will also let you prevent child windows from doing *utterly* *ridiculous* things like resizing themselves, etc.

      --
      "Lawyers are for sucks."
      - Doug McKenzie
    38. Re:IE often HAS to be your browser of choice by radja · · Score: 1

      yes, so was I..struck me as strange too, but it works.
      [table][tr][form][td][input][/td][/form][/ tr][/tab le] is incorrect, but
      [form][table][tr][td][input][/td][/tr][/table][/ fo rm]
      IS correct..

      the form tag is incorrectly placed in the first example, input tags are, according to validator, outside of a valid form which makes'em wrong.

      //rdj

      --

      No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
      --Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
    39. Re:IE often HAS to be your browser of choice by (void*) · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It only takes extra time if you design with no forethought.

    40. Re:IE often HAS to be your browser of choice by Dwonis · · Score: 2

      HTML has been called a declarative programming language...

    41. Re:IE often HAS to be your browser of choice by Pfhreakaz0id · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ok, now that I've been modded out of existence and insulted, I'll go over this again, in slightly more forceful language.

      Despite the comment by a poster below, I'm "reasonably intelligent" (and have the IQ test to prove it) and certainly not ignorant of standards and fully capable of writing standards-compliant HTML/Javascript. But I don't. Here's the reason why folks: BECAUSE I'M NOT THE ONE PAYING THE BILL! I don't write web pages for me, I write them for folks who pay for them. If I want to do something for fun, or enjoyment, I'll play hockey or do some woodworking or play poker, but I program for a living. To house and feed my family.

      You CANNOT tell me it does not cost more to develop multiple versions of scripts to do interactive content. And any monkey with any number of graphical editors can knock out static HTML. You're only paid for dynamic, server side code in something and client-side scripting. It takes more development hours ($) to develop multiple versions of scripts, and more QA test machines and personnel ($) to test those pages on multiple platforms and more support personnel ($) to support those multiple platforms. Thus, many, many folks footing the bill for all this lovely web development chose not to incur those extra costs to support the 3-4% of the user base that doesn't use IE (those were the last numbers I saw). For an intranet/extranet application (where most of my work is done these days), that number declines to less than 1% in most cases.

      I guess you could call me immoral for working for such "heavens", but I don't consider browser/computer/OS/hardware platform choice a moral issue. Sue me.

    42. Re:IE often HAS to be your browser of choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He is the problem, I design web-pages for money. I validate them using W3C validator. I even get to stick a little picky at the bottom of the page if I want to!

    43. Re:IE often HAS to be your browser of choice by Dwonis · · Score: 2

      If the security of your web application depends on browser-specific behaviour, you should not be writing security-sensitive web applications, because you clearly don't know what you are doing. Learn a bit about cryptography and secure programming first.

    44. Re:IE often HAS to be your browser of choice by nirvdrum · · Score: 1

      How so? By trying to reach his target audience? Or should he lose customers with the only consolation being that some OSS browser might (but probably won't) somehow benefit from it?

      It must be nice in your world.

      --
      If there was a "-1 Not Funny", that'd be my most used mod.
    45. Re:IE often HAS to be your browser of choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hahaha, trying to use an IQ test to prove that you're intelligent does the opposite. People with high IQ's don't necessarily know more, they just have the ability to learn and understand more.

      You CANNOT tell me it does not cost more to develop multiple versions of scripts to do interactive content.

      That's why standards are important. Rather than have Netscape go off in one direction, IE in another and Opera in a third, if they all followed the same standards, you'd only have to write once! Designing things that work in IE and in standards compliant browsers isn't that hard... especially for someone with as high an IQ as you.

    46. Re:IE often HAS to be your browser of choice by Pfhreakaz0id · · Score: 2

      Well, I see the problem. Most sites I design use a big table to resize page dynamically. So the base of the page is one big table with a menu pane on top, a menu on the left, (both of which are big cells), then big tables inside the main area. So ALL forms are going to be inside a table. Moving the form tags completely outside the table is a pain to read, but I guess I could do it....

    47. Re:IE often HAS to be your browser of choice by arkanes · · Score: 2

      Totally untrue. If you're using nearly any sort of non-basic javascript or DHTML, you have to write at least two totally different sets of scripts because of the differences in the object model. Thats totally aside from dealing with rendering differences or compensating for bugs in individual browsers. Sure, JS and DHTML and all that may be lame flash crap that shoulnd't be on web pages, but if the customer wants it....

    48. Re:IE often HAS to be your browser of choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Hahaha, trying to use an IQ test to prove that you're intelligent does the opposite.

      I think you are defining intelligence to mean "quantity of things one knows", and that is wrong.

      Did you know that IQ means "Intelligence Quotient"?

      People with high IQ's don't necessarily know more, they just have the ability to learn and understand more.

      So, you mean, they might not have a lot of facts and information, but they are *intelligent* and are good at problem solving.

      You are an idiot.
    49. Re:IE often HAS to be your browser of choice by NanoGator · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "If I'm designing web sites, I design for IE.

      They you're part of the problem. "


      I got news for ya: The people who decide what browsers to support aren't the people who program it. They make decisions like this:

      "I hear that Internet Explorer has 98% of the market share."

      "Oh, that means we can support IE, and then we can skip worrying about other browsers and save time and money!"

      "Exactly."

      You really want to talk to the Pointy Haired Boss, it's his decision.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    50. Re:IE often HAS to be your browser of choice by NanoGator · · Score: 2

      " I just don't undersatnd this attitude that you must design for IE. What's the problem with you people? Sheesh."

      Don't you think that you should be telling his boss this? He's the guy who decides this stuff. Believe it or not, bosses have a way of making sure you have to cut corners to make your deadline. If you read about all the 'quality' jokes in Dilbert cartoons, then you know why it's so ironic.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    51. Re:IE often HAS to be your browser of choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > PS: Opera is the ONLY standards complient browser.
      > If you had to make your page compliant, it may not work with most browsers still. (Acording to Opera.com)

      You should consider that you're getting your info on Opera from a site (opera.com) with a slight bias..

    52. Re:IE often HAS to be your browser of choice by bsartist · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It takes more development hours ($) to develop multiple versions of scripts, and more QA test machines and personnel ($) to test those pages on multiple platforms and more support personnel ($) to support those multiple platforms.

      That's precisely why standards exist. Why should anyone waste money and time developing multiple browser-specific versions of a site, when a single standards-based site that supports all browsers will work just as well, for far less money?

      I don't consider browser/computer/OS/hardware platform choice a moral issue.

      Are you trying to tell me that when you create pages that say "you're using the wrong browser, go away," you're not making a value judgment? Rubbish. If you were truly neutral on the issue, you'd let your users decide for themselves what browser to use, instead of expecting them to use your own personal favorite.

      Sue me.

      If a blind user finds your site to be inaccessible to his screen reader, and decided to take issue with it, that is a possibility. Criminal prosecution is another possibility; in the US at least, discrimination against the handicapped is a crime.

      --
      Lost: Sig, white with black letters. No collar. Reward if found!
    53. Re:IE often HAS to be your browser of choice by Moonshadow · · Score: 2

      The first example is incorrect, but it quite nice when you're trying to eliminate the spaces that automatically surround a form. Quite helpful when you're strapped for screen real estate :)

      That said, if you don't HAVE to do it that way, don't. It'll break in some future browser implementation.

    54. Re:IE often HAS to be your browser of choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe in this case, it would be civil penalties, and not criminal ones. And, depending on the arrangements, would likely fall on the owner of the website (who could possibly in turn go after the designer depending.)

    55. Re:IE often HAS to be your browser of choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm in a similar boat, but haven't found it too difficult to support IE/Mac and Mozilla/NS6 as well as IE/Win 5+.

      Note that I generally do intranet or extranet stuff, and NONE of my customers ask for anything other than IE support. I just write standards-based stuff, and it generally Just Works (although Netscape's JS interpreter is a little more picky about some things, and until recently lots of DOM stuff crashed the thing, and I had some minor issues with floating divs and form elements).

      The irony is that Mozilla/NS6 has virtually NO userbase, while Netscape 4 still has 5% marketshare or so. Seems like the Netscape fans I talk to would rather switch to IE than Mozilla.

      Now, supporting Netscape 4? Serious expense involved. Opera? Konquerer? Who fucking cares -- if those browsers want to make themselves Mozilla compatible, go right ahead.

    56. Re:IE often HAS to be your browser of choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's because many of the NS4 fans were really turned off by the first releases of NS6 and don't want anything to do with it. The few remaining I've talked to, once explained to about Mozilla and it's goodness, have begun to switch. Most are quite happy they did it.

    57. Re:IE often HAS to be your browser of choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Opera's standards support sucks ass. They just feed that line to dupes like you who wonder why their browser can't render lots of sites.

    58. Re:IE often HAS to be your browser of choice by PipianJ · · Score: 1

      Given that there are web standards out there, and that IE implements them, I just don't undersatnd this attitude that you must design for IE. What's the problem with you people? Sheesh.

      The problem lies in the EXACT fact that I wrote this rant [link] on my blog.

      To summarize briefly what I say in it: I try to code by standards, but the problem lies in the fact that you cannot code by standards and expect it to look and act the same in every browser, due to the different interpretations OF the standards.

      It is due to this fact that people code specifically for browsers, or at the least, have to have browser specific code executed by either JavaScript, PHP, or Perl.

      And thus I, in part, lend credence to coding only for IE. It would be nice to put in browser-specific code, but some people have neither the time nor the patience to code as such. And considering the near monopoly IE has on browsers, unless you aim to please all of your users, or you have an abnormal abundance of Mozilla users, it is perfectly acceptable (in my opinion) to code specifically for IE. I choose not to, but it's up to others to make the decision.

      One of the reasons *I* prefer to try to make it AT LEAST compatible with Mozilla and IE is for the simple fact that the percentages of browsers may easily shift (though not completely, I'm sure) soon, what with AOL potentially switching its internal browser to Mozilla [link] (which has already been done with Compuserve [link]).

    59. Re:IE often HAS to be your browser of choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you should put that a different way. If security is so important that you wish to make life hell for your customers, then by all means, don't make a web application. Do a verifable client in Java or something, or make 'em actually come into your office.

      As for browser-specific behavior, of course it matters. How do you know if Joe Bob's Browser is sending information over http: instead of https: (early Moz bug), or spewing session cookies all over the hard drive (old IE bug), or saving your password when you are on a public terminal (old Moz/Netscape behavior), etc etc etc.

    60. Re:IE often HAS to be your browser of choice by bsartist · · Score: 1

      When standard markup is used, the "target audience" is still reached. No potential customers have been lost; instead, the "other 5%" have been reached too.

      --
      Lost: Sig, white with black letters. No collar. Reward if found!
    61. Re:IE often HAS to be your browser of choice by Domini · · Score: 2

      I agree fully with you! You just don't know it!
      :)

      Opera may be standards compliant in the same way that most PCs today are more IBM compatible than IBM!

      Standards compliant is not really necesarily a good thing! I'd rather use a browser that works...

      Go IE!

    62. Re:IE often HAS to be your browser of choice by nirvdrum · · Score: 1

      We've obviously have had two very different web coding experiences then. I've used standard markup, that either doesn't display properly, or in some cases at all, across various browsers. And don't even get me going with CSS.

      My point is, I wouldn't look to the commercial sector to try and change the browsers it targets (whatever it may be, maybe one day the role will be reversed). The commercial sector will target what the masses are using. I would think the change needs to start with Joe Schmoe's page, and then the commercial sector will eventually catch up to meet the new demands of its customers.

      --
      If there was a "-1 Not Funny", that'd be my most used mod.
    63. Re:IE often HAS to be your browser of choice by stand · · Score: 1

      Yoo-hoo! guys! The article is about Opera, not IE or Mozilla.

      I just downloaded Opera again after about 2 years of not looking at it. It looks pretty good. The article berates the mouse gestures, but I thought they were pretty cool. But the greatest feature of all (not even mentioned in the article for some odd reason) is File|Quick Preferences|Refuse pop-up windows. I know you can do it in Mozilla too, but right off the File menu? Thank you Opera!

      --
      Four fifths of all our troubles in this life would disappear if we would just sit down and keep still. -C. Coolidge
    64. Re:IE often HAS to be your browser of choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the "other 5%" are Netscape 4.x users, and that browser does not support standard markup.

    65. Re:IE often HAS to be your browser of choice by DahGhostfacedFiddlah · · Score: 1

      That's precisely why standards exist. Why should anyone waste money and time developing multiple browser-specific versions of a site, when a single standards-based site that supports all browsers will work just as well, for far less money?

      This is the second time this argument has come up in this thread. It's a great point, but it has nothing to do with the original post. If I had a choice at getting 3 jobs done that worked perfectly on IE and sub-par (to varying degrees) on 3% of the browsers out there, or a single job that worked perfectly in all browsers, I'd take the former. Every time. Standards are a great idea. They should be used. They should be conformed to. But when the use of a standards breaks *98% of running browsers*, you have to make a choice.

      I fully agree that MS is screwing the community by ignoring standards. But it's just another example of using their monopoly to crush competition. I'll fight on other ground. I use OSS all the time now. But when it comes down to affecting the way I live and make money, my principles can suck it. I don't care about the movement enough to cut my performance in 3, especially when many of the alternative browsers out there will do just fine.

    66. Re:IE often HAS to be your browser of choice by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hmmm... last time I checked, IE did support the same W3C DOM that Mozilla/Netscape does. So why should supporting both require multiple versions of scripts? What's done on the server-side is invisible to the client, so that's not an issue; and if you write DOM-compliant code it will still work on IE with no loss of functionality. I haven't seen anything worthwhile that the IE-specific code can do, except for infect boxes.

      FYI I also code for a living, but (apparently unlike you) I have access to the various server logs. Last I checked (a few days ago) the split was running 75/25 to 80/20 - and locking out 1/5 of your userbase is NOT smart.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    67. Re:IE often HAS to be your browser of choice by TaxSlave · · Score: 1

      Anyone who talks about "programming" web sites should be banned from publishing anything on the web.

      That's funny. I often do my work in Zope, and have spent the last week working on some Python code that generates HTML pages from dynamic data pulled from elsewhere. Programming is the hard work of designing my stuff. HTML is the easy stuff.

      Of course, my .sig is pointing to an almost blank page right now, so I'm one to be talking.

    68. Re:IE often HAS to be your browser of choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Here's why the argument is valid: Online banking is a security sensitive application. That means that the webinterface will have to be tested and has to work as expected. It must not cache data which shouldn't be cached, it must not display things which should be hidden, it must not create ambiguous formating, etc etc.



      Quite right. However, you just described what a user friendly system should work like, not a secure one. If you really meant secure, then I sincerely hope I'll never have to use any of your websites! Doesn't matter how you look at it, you can never fully trust the client. A bug may be introduced in a future browser. Anyone with some knowhow can reverse engineer the pages, fake requests, etc. Whatever. Your must enforce the rules on the back end, not in the browser. You can do it in both places if it allows you to create a nore friendly interface, but one is not a substitute for the other. You do NOT have secure system if it is enfornced in the browser.




      This stage of application development is time consuming and therefore expensive. It won't be done for browsers with x10% fanbase. Browsers do behave differently. Most standards are not perfect specifications (without ambiguities), so there is no 100% safe "standard compliance".



      unfortunately this is true. especially once you move beyond static pages, and you need to script some things you will run into differences even in trivial code.

    69. Re:IE often HAS to be your browser of choice by Rytsarsky · · Score: 1

      Man, if only someone would make some standards, we wouldn't have to worry about browsers not renderng pages correctly... Oh well.

      --
      God became man to enable men to become sons of God. -C.S. Lewis
    70. Re:IE often HAS to be your browser of choice by gol64738 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You CANNOT tell me it does not cost more to develop multiple versions of scripts to do interactive content.

      multiple versions? what for? this is the reason why the World Wide Web Consortium exists at all! develop your scripts to written standards, and you'll only have to do one version that will work for every platform.

      haven't you noticed that web sites are becoming more and more standards compliant? if you keep scripting for an IE only audience, then soon your web sites will be considered 'broken' and your employer (or customers) will be asking you why their website looks/acts screwy.

      trust me, save yourself time and effort now and base your code on existing, internationally recognized standards. the money is the same, and you'll be doing both customers and future developers a favor.

    71. Re:IE often HAS to be your browser of choice by jx100 · · Score: 1

      You could've just pressed F12 for the same menu.

    72. Re:IE often HAS to be your browser of choice by Nicopa · · Score: 0, Troll

      I'd like to see one of your sites. There we will learn that the reason you really don't support other browsers is ignorance.

    73. Re:IE often HAS to be your browser of choice by BlueArchon · · Score: 1

      Try F12, pops up the same menu in the center of your screen.

    74. Re:IE often HAS to be your browser of choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Web Developer:"Commie."

    75. Re:IE often HAS to be your browser of choice by bobv-pillars-net · · Score: 2
      But the first example will allow you to have two tables with no intervening space (in IE) while the second will insert a paragraph-sized block of whitespace after the /form tag.

      Of course, the first example is improper tag nesting (the tr tag shouldn't contain anything but td or th) but I do it that way because IE requires it and the other browsers don't complain.

      --
      The Web is like Usenet, but
      the elephants are untrained.
    76. Re:IE often HAS to be your browser of choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The main problem with the standards is that most browsers either A) dont follow the standards,or B) take months to include the standards in their browsers. Anyone who has worked on a large dynamic site understands that it takes houndreds (thousands?) or hours to make your site crossplatform/cross browser safe. These is the one key fact that management has to take into consideration with their pages. Allmost following the standards isnt enuff, one pixel difference can throw an entire site out of wack.

    77. Re:IE often HAS to be your browser of choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Write standards compliant stuff, it works with IE.

      And will probably work with other browsers as well.

      MS may be evil. IE may be their most hated product. But IE is still the most compliant browser out there.

    78. Re:IE often HAS to be your browser of choice by Azureash · · Score: 0

      I've got to take issue with this. Where I work my clients nearly all use Netscape 4.7. Why do they use an outdated browser when they can get a new (more standards-compliant) browser for FREE?? Because for one reason or another, they don't care. I could educate them, but this would require a baseball bat and some rubber hose. So, as much as I'd like to code in XHTML 1.1 and use style sheets for all my formatting, I'm stuck hacking something up to work with good ol' Netscape 4.7. The simple truth is that you can't drive technology from the supplier side. And you can't create dynamic, attractive web site that have complex layouts by adhering to the most recent standards. Most techies are hypocrites. They chastize others for not adhering to certain standards, while ignoring other standards themselves. For Pete's sake, look at the source for this site!

      --
      Look at my karma - I'm bad, just like Michael Jackson!
    79. Re:IE often HAS to be your browser of choice by Bedouin+X · · Score: 2

      Uhhh... I have never had Dreamweaver generate IE Specific code. A List Apart had an article a few weeks ago on how to make it generate valid XHTML code (by closing BR tags and automatically inserting DTDs).

      --
      Dissolve... Resolve... Evolve...
    80. Re:IE often HAS to be your browser of choice by Alien+Being · · Score: 0, Troll

      If you're writing apps for an M$ only audience, why use browser technology at all?

      You program for windows yet call yourself a "web programmer". You are helping M$ co-opt a technology that belongs to the free world. You are helping M$ get away with their illegal practices.

      The reason you do it (to feed the kids) may be honorable, but the act itself is not. You are part of the problem.

    81. Re:IE often HAS to be your browser of choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think this attitude is the reason that programming will someday be regulated and need certification.

      If a building contractor built defective buildings because the customer said he didn't need that much strength in the walls, he would be in trouble.

      Programmer does same thing, and he's not.

      Someday, someone is going to get pissed.

    82. Re:IE often HAS to be your browser of choice by bsartist · · Score: 1

      the problem lies in the fact that you cannot code by standards and expect it to look and act the same in every browser

      That's not a problem, it's a feature. How do you expect a page to look and act exactly the same way when displayed on a 21" monitor, a 2" cellphone, and a WebTV browser? It can't, so get over it.

      --
      Lost: Sig, white with black letters. No collar. Reward if found!
    83. Re:IE often HAS to be your browser of choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "... Frankly, IE is the defacto standard now. In the areas where IE performs differently from the standard, IE should (usually) be considered the proper guide..."

      Please post your address here so I can come over and kick your ASS! Idiot.

    84. Re:IE often HAS to be your browser of choice by PipianJ · · Score: 1

      I'm not complaining about the fact that there are different views by appliance. With some of the limitations of them (Cell phones, TVs) it's difficult to find any other implementation. The problem, however, lies in the fact that there are two different and fairly prominent methods (~12% Netscape/Mozilla, ~85% IE) of viewing the page on the computer alone. The fact that program code (in the form of PHP, JavaScript, etc.) is needed to differentiate between the two methods of illustrating style (as opposed to context) in order to display the page properly in either context defeats the purpose of having a standards agency (the W3C).

    85. Re:IE often HAS to be your browser of choice by icoloma · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I also have a 99% IQ test that proves that IQ tests aren't worth the paper they are written on. They are only orientative.

      On the subject here, making cross-browser scripts costs more ONLY THE FIRST TIME. Once you learn what to use instead of document.all and other MS crap over the code, the same code will work on Mozilla and IE, period. There is 1% of different code in a standards-compliant code full application (I mean, over 100 server-generated web pages and full of pretty jscript effects).

      If you're bitching about having to work twice it's because you have never tried.

    86. Re:IE often HAS to be your browser of choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Well, I see the problem...."

      So do I.

      You are using tables to layout your webpages when you are supposed to use style sheets.

    87. Re:IE often HAS to be your browser of choice by aWalrus · · Score: 1
      Well, I'm a web developer myself, and in my experience, there is not much involved in supporting mozilla/ns6* along with IE.

      I dropped support for NS 4.* altogether because of too many implementation issues, but with the new DOM and other standards made by the W3C, the real differences between explorer and Mozilla are few and far between (window.open does not work well when using _self in mozilla, but it does in IE, and a few other points).

      Mozilla is less forgiving of coding mistakes (in ns tradition), so I think a good way to ensure properly coded apps is to develop them using mostly Moz to check the results, and then IE. This does not take as much time as you think. Actually, I develop entirely using mozilla over linux and then I test on IE. Aside from a few layout rearrangements there's usually not much to do to have identic behavior in both browsers.

      Also, bear in mind that as soon as you don't rely on a far-out IE-exclusive technique for your website navigation or other vital component, your site should be usable in most browsers. It bugs me when a page won't display AT ALL in Mozilla, being that they almost have to be coded SPECIFICALLY so that they won't.

      --
      Overcaffeinated. Angry geeks.
    88. Re:IE often HAS to be your browser of choice by shobadobs · · Score: 1

      Extra time? The only way to make sites _incompatible_ with the world wide web is to do extra work. It takes a lot of idiocy and inexperience to make an incompatible site.

    89. Re:IE often HAS to be your browser of choice by DA_MAN_DA_MYTH · · Score: 2
      haven't you noticed that web sites are becoming more and more standards compliant? if you keep scripting for an IE only audience, then soon your web sites will be considered 'broken' and your employer (or customers) will be asking you why their website looks/acts screwy.

      Besides there is nothing worse in the world than writing in some form of clientscripting anything that resembles the following line
      ns6=(navigator.userAgent.indexOf("Gecko")!=-1)?tru e:false
      The evils of web development. Customers often ask for a lot to be done, that other browsers cannot provide, or if they can with a lot more hours coding to make them both compliant. Most coporate environments choose to use IE, therefore you make it a specification to develop for IE only. This does save time and money, especially when you are building weblications for their company Intranets that support various things like Remote Scripting.

      But here is where the evil-ness comes in. What happens when the sites become broken? Well the first question you ask the customer is well what browser are you using? If they answer something else other than what is listed in the specification, which often is a legal binding contract, then you don't have to support it and if you choose to support it you can make a couple extra bucks consulting. (The constant circular life cycle of web development)

      To sum the above in two words: Job Security.
      --
      "It takes many nails to build a crib, but one screw to fill it."
    90. Re:IE often HAS to be your browser of choice by shobadobs · · Score: 1

      the problem lies in the fact that you cannot code by standards and expect it to look and act the same in every browser

      I'm sure that your visitors are going to open your web page in different browsers and compare the two views.

      Of course, I agree with rest of your comment, except for that one line.

    91. Re:IE often HAS to be your browser of choice by spoco2 · · Score: 1

      Oh, now that is ridiculous... From coding all sorts of things in Javascript I've come to hate Netscape 4.x... there are so many bugs in it, it has constant issues with all sorts of things. And then if you try and use dynamic content in it... BAH, good luck... and no, it's not 'Netscape more accurately reflects the standards than IE'. No it doesn't it has bugs, they are painful, and caused me so much damn grief to get things to work across browsers, if I only had to make it work in IE I would have been laughing... and then there are the differences between Netscape 4.x and Netscape 6.x urgh...

      If you want to reach the VAST majority of users in the least amount of time, and with the best ability for fault checking (Due to only having to check one browser across multiple platforms rather than multiple browsers across multiple platforms), then just code for IE, it'll save so much time.

    92. Re:IE often HAS to be your browser of choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IE only appears to be more compliant because people write stuff specifically for it. now be silent, child.

    93. Re:IE often HAS to be your browser of choice by gol64738 · · Score: 2

      Most coporate environments choose to use IE, therefore you make it a specification to develop for IE only. This does save time and money, especially when you are building weblications for their company Intranets that support various things like Remote Scripting.

      in the case of corporate intranets, you're not coding html to be compliant with w3c standard web browsers. instead, you're coding for a specific web client (IE).

      What happens when the sites become broken? Well the first question you ask the customer is well what browser are you using?

      if you would adhere to w3c standards when coding, then sites wouldn't become 'broken', in which case there wouldn't be any questions to ask...
      is this so hard to understand?

      To sum the above in two words: Job Security.

      this last sentence truly baffles me. i'm a python and php coder and have a terrific high paying job. all of my linux friends are employed as administrators and/or coders making good money as well. it's this gigantic pool of MSCE's that are either taking the low end jobs or not employed at all...

    94. Re:IE often HAS to be your browser of choice by toby · · Score: 1
      You CANNOT tell me it does not cost more to develop multiple versions of scripts to do interactive content.


      Yes I can: Write once, test everywhere. How hard is that? Learn what (JavaScript, CSS) features are common to the popular browsers and shun the rest. None of the web sites I maintain contain browser-specific code; that would be a maintenance nightmare. But they successfully test with many different browsers.

      ... It takes more development hours ($) to develop multiple versions of scripts, and more QA test machines and personnel

      See above. By definition the web should be browser-agnostic. Writing portable code is no more difficult; aucontraire, it just takes a light touch and the exercising of some of your touted intelligence.

      ($) to test those pages on multiple platforms and more support personnel ($) to support those multiple platforms.

      For public web sites, mere professionalism dictates you should be doing such testing already - or at the very least, responding to user problem reports.

      I guess you could call me immoral for working for such "heavens", but I don't consider browser/computer/OS/hardware platform choice a moral issue. Sue me.

      It is a moral issue. So is Free Software. I would sue you if I could - apparently you're among those people I curse daily for helping build an unnavigable web.
      --
      you had me at #!
    95. Re:IE often HAS to be your browser of choice by jonasj · · Score: 1

      FYI, in Mozilla 1.1 you will be able to prevent new windows from hiding the status bar. Mozilla rocks.

      --
      You know, Microsoft's street address also says a lot about their mentality.
    96. Re:IE often HAS to be your browser of choice by yog · · Score: 1

      Even sweeter is that you can access the quick preferences with F12 followed by accelerator key, e.g. F12 r to disable popups.

      --
      it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
    97. Re:IE often HAS to be your browser of choice by Pope · · Score: 1
      FYI, in Mozilla 1.1 you will be able to prevent new windows from hiding the status bar

      Know what? In IE for the Mac, you can always go up to the menubar and unhide all the hidden navigation controls. And in Mozilla on OSX, you can usually click the Toolbar widget to get the controls back. Pretty cool IMO.

      --
      It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
  6. Opera was Mozilla A Long Time Ago by Onionesque · · Score: 4, Interesting

    At work I use a Win32 box, and I use Opera exclusively. It has been stable, well-featured, and fast-fast-fast for years. I pray that they'll put enough work into their experimental OSX port to make it usable.

    I haven't quite understood the mania over Mozilla, which still doesn't begin to compete with Opera for stability and speed. Mozilla is unusably sluggish on every platform I have tried (Win32, OS X, OS 9).

    1. Re:Opera was Mozilla A Long Time Ago by ultrabot · · Score: 2, Informative

      Mozilla is unusably sluggish on every platform I have tried (Win32, OS X, OS 9).

      Try the new release candidate (or any release candidate). As fast as IE, and better features (popup killing, tabbed browsing).

      --
      Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak
    2. Re:Opera was Mozilla A Long Time Ago by jilles · · Score: 2

      I use the mozilla rc3 version. It is nice, but much slower than IE in some things. Particularly opening new windows is slow (I use the quickloader of course). However, popup killing is cool and so is tabbed browsing and bookmark groups.

      Other than opening new windows, it is pretty fast. Especially the HTML rendering component has a nice performance. It needs good performance because the entire GUI runs on top of it!

      --

      Jilles
    3. Re:Opera was Mozilla A Long Time Ago by xtremex · · Score: 2

      I don't use windows, but I don't open new windows....I DEPEND on tabbed browsing..I'm completely lost if I don't have it

      --
      If you're not a Liberal in your 20's, then you have no heart.If you're still a Liberal in your 30's you have no brain.
    4. Re:Opera was Mozilla A Long Time Ago by sk8king · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I use Opera on tha administrative web interface of our E-mail server because of the keyboard shortcuts and that when you hit the back button, you are instantly BACK. I've tried Mozilla on this server, but it renders a large (x rows)*(2 columns) table with text boxes in each cell VERY slowly....1/2 minute or more and all other browsers I've tried [Opera, Netscape 4.x, Explorer] all seem to render it lightning quick.

      I do use Mozilla for all my other browsing though, just because I really like the feel of it and tabbed browsing. Opera is good too for regular browsing, but it just doesn't feel right [crashed a few too many times when I first started trying it I guess]. Basically, I'm using Mozilla because I want it to succeed.

    5. Re:Opera was Mozilla A Long Time Ago by tshak · · Score: 2

      Although Moizlla has caught up recently you are right that Opera has been way ahead for most of the race. Even now, aside from a few features (Mozilla has smarter popup control, for example) I still agree that Opera seems more stable and it is a very lightweight browser. It just doesn't get as much recognition here because it's Closed Source.

      --

      There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
    6. Re:Opera was Mozilla A Long Time Ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      I haven't quite understood the mania over Mozilla

      * Open Source

      * Standards Compliance

      * FREE w/o ADVERTISING

      Hope this sheds some light on the situation.
      Speed matters, but it ain't everything.

    7. Re:Opera was Mozilla A Long Time Ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eh?

      Mozilla has run fine (fast, very stable) on my machines for quite a while now. When was the last time you tried it? (over a year ago?)

      On the other hand Opera STILL (I've tried every version since 1.0) has extreme stablity problems. Sometime it'll just be sitting there and then disappear (crash). Not when I clicked on something or did anything at all, it might even be in the background and bam, it just "goes away". That annoys me to no end.

      I've had Mozilla running (one instance; heavy usage) for weeks without crashing. And that's using the mail and news applications too...

      Of course this is on Linux. I haven't used Mozilla or Opera very much under Windows. I did notice that the Windows version of Opera is different than the Linux version, you can tell they put more effort into the Win32 version.

    8. Re:Opera was Mozilla A Long Time Ago by Herr_Nightingale · · Score: 1

      "As fast as IE" isn't good enough, sometimes. Sorry to poop on your party, but Opera is miles faster on all my machines (PIII600 and up) than IE. Mozilla?? Surely you jest! It takes five times as long to load and I haven't noticed a difference in rendering speed to offset the disadvantages.

      Sure, Mozilla has built-in popup blocking, and an ad server blacklist, but Opera has had the popup kill feature ever since I started using it (was it 5.x? long time ago, man) and the ad server blacklist isn't selective (eg, try to block the ads on /. using Mozilla's inbuilt function and you'll lose your stupid little pictures by each story too)

      As far as it goes, I like the new Mozilla enough to give it a chance every month or so, but it hasn't met my expectations even once. Personal preference, mate, not a troll :P

  7. IE browser of choice by AlgUSF · · Score: 1

    Funny, IE isn't my browser of choice ...

    I really wonder how many /.ers don't use IE. I personally don't use IE, because I move between Windoze, Sun, and Linux platforms so much it is nice to have a common interface. I use netscape on Win and Sun, and Mozilla on Linux. I don't want to have to remember O on Windows, and L on mozilla, etc... :-)

    --


    I want my rights back. I was actually using them when our government stole them after 9/11.
    1. Re:IE browser of choice by goldspider · · Score: 1
      I remember there was a Poll about this a few months back, and interestingly enough, about 2/3 os the respondants reported using IE.

      I tried to find that old poll, but I remember that IE at the very least had the majority.

      --
      "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
    2. Re:IE browser of choice by telstar · · Score: 2
      I don't want to have to remember O on Windows, and L on mozilla
      • Umm... I hate to state the obvious, but it looks like you already DO remember O on Windows and L on mozilla.
    3. Re:IE browser of choice by blixel · · Score: 1

      I really wonder how many /.ers don't use IE

      According to this highly scientific poll, most DO use IE.

    4. Re:IE browser of choice by Junks+Jerzey · · Score: 1

      I really wonder how many /.ers don't use IE.

      I think a lot of Slashdotters don't use it out of spite, because it's Microsoft software. But it's one of those unfortunate situations where the alternatives really aren't as good, just as with Microsoft Office vs. Star Office. I know, I know, it pains me to say that, but I'd be unwilling to foist any other browser on someone who isn't going to understand why certain pages don't render correctly with Mozilla and Opera.

      And what's most personally disturbing is that IE does a *much* better job of adhering to the standards than the alternatives. You can't write this one off on Microsoft leveraging their position. Why is no one else able to write a browser of the same quality?

    5. Re:IE browser of choice by GAlain · · Score: 1

      Doesn't a big majority of the votes came from a .microsoft.com domain? 8-)

    6. Re:IE browser of choice by goldspider · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't think that would be the case, being that Slashdot.com is probably permanently banned by their firewalls :)

      --
      "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
    7. Re:IE browser of choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mozilla + netscape = 21132 is more dan IE !

    8. Re:IE browser of choice by thunderbee · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Most /.ers have a big mouth, a large ego, and little in the way of actual courage.

      It's always the same story. Sony does a nasty thing, boycott sony, Sony has a new toy, "I wish I had one".

      Same goes for IE. I'm not into browser wars, I didn't try Opera, but I use Moz 0.9.9 everyday since it was released and it works. It's not "better" or anything, it just displays the sites I visit, and that's about all that matters to me. And when I hit a site that requires IE, then I skip it. Really. If I can't get to their site, they don't want my business. It's as simple. And yes I do this at work, and yes, I set the company policy, and we're doing quite OK without IE (nor a single windows as it is).

      Instead of bashing M$ and using their products nonetheless, what about actually trying to live by your values?

      --
      In my opinion, Scientology is a cult you should avoid.
    9. Re:IE browser of choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I live by my values.
      I bash MS for doing bad things but I am using their browser because it is simply the best.
      Do you see any problem with that ?

    10. Re:IE browser of choice by 13Echo · · Score: 1

      As most people use software that adheres to specific IE compatibility, which relies on closed protocols and standards, then yes you can write this one off on Microsoft leveraging their position.

      A lot of web designers just don't care to write HTML code that works with all browsers. They just want it to work with IE. Use Frontpage or another popular program, and you will find that they are only IE compatible for certain specific things.

    11. Re:IE browser of choice by Junks+Jerzey · · Score: 2

      As most people use software that adheres to specific IE compatibility, which relies on closed protocols and standards, then yes you can write this one off on Microsoft leveraging their position.

      No, no, no, you're missing the point. If you create a web page that follows the standards to the letter, then there's a much better chance that it will display correctly in IE than in Mozilla and Opera. We're not talking about closed standards at all.

    12. Re:IE browser of choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mozilla + netscape = 21132 is more dan IE !

      Yes but remember this was a slashdot poll. Make that a "real world" poll and you'll find IE being used by more people than all other browsers combined by a huge margin. So it should tell you something when the majority of readers are slashdot are IE users as well.

    13. Re:IE browser of choice by cyborch · · Score: 1

      The sad thing is that you actually have to post this kind of comment! I have been living without windows (and still is) and seeing what it means. It means having load times for starting Star Office whenever some jerk mails you a MS Office document in stead of using text/plain messages even when all the word document contained was text and some .sig

      The company I work for use Windows boxes in their administration (Navision Axapta is really the only way to go) but production is strictly windows-less and way better off. It seems that people who use their computers as their single tool at work are mostly more happy without windows while those who could have used some other tool than their computer will mostly prefer windows.

  8. lamers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    Galeon rules!

  9. And the winner is.... by jlrowe · · Score: 1
    MoZilla. By a nose. Runs on Win32, Linux, OS/2, all of which I use. Runs good, has great options, and plugins can be copied from Netscape if missing.

    How many browsers can you use anyway? I've got IE (need for work), Mozilla, and NS 7 beta. Mozilla gets 95% of the usage now, and has an email program I can trust which I certainly can't say about Outlook.

    Opera is just too late on my radar screen to make a difference. YMMV however.

    1. Re:And the winner is.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      too late for what ? as in your too lazy to try it ? that makes no sense. Opera runs circles around Mozilla. Try a 4 second start time for Opera versus 17 for Slowzilla

    2. Re:And the winner is.... by AnyoneEB · · Score: 1

      If that's what you want to argue about then you have to also say that IE opens instantly on Windows (98+).

      --
      Centralization breaks the internet.
  10. Advertisment? by W2k · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I was expecting to see "This article sponsored by Opera Software" at the end of that posting. Has Slashdot started taking cash for posting articles that are little more than advertisments for a particular product? Or in this case, a link to a review which is as far from "news for nerds" and "stuff that matters" as can be?

    In either case, I read the review, and it beautifully disproves Opera Software's claim of making "the world's fastest web browser", with load times varying between 50% and 300% of IE's on the pages that were tested. Opera also displays ads unless you register it (for $39!) -- why bother when it doesn't offer any major advantages over another non-MS browser like Mozilla?

    It should also be noted that Opera has had some Microsoft-esque security holes in the past ...

    --
    Quality, performance, value; you get only two, and you don't always get to pick.
    1. Re:Advertisment? by discogravy · · Score: 3, Informative
      I'm a rabidly happy opera user, and while the /. article does sound a bit like an advertisement, I can honestly say it wouldn't surprise me at all if it were coming form a very happy user (like myself).

      Tabbed (or windowed) browsing, a search box (deafulted to google, but you can change that,) in every window, skinnable, a hotlinks/bookmarks folder with stuff that's actually usefull and gestures; in addition to that you can magnify or resize the entire page...not just pictures or text, but the entire page (sometimes it looks like ass, true, but it comes in usefull when you're tired of looking at really small letters...can't tell you the amount of times I've set /. to 140% and sat a few feet further away from the old 19" monitor.

      Opera has definitely made my browsing a much better experience. I happily shelled out 40$ today (even though I've been using the free version for like four months or so, I have been too broke to consider paying real $$ for software that is *quite* functional even with the ads....and a note about that: none of the ads were annoying blinking neon sex ads, either. In fact, if i recall correctly the last ad i saw before I payed up was an ad for User Friendly.

      I can see how a user of Moz (and I have all 3 browsers on my machine, and I use all 3 regularly (although I really only use IE for windows update and on the rare occasions in which Opera does not render a page well. So far, this is the only page i've come across that doesn't render well.

      Give it a try for a week before you knock it, it's way better than IE and at least as good as Moz (although I like it tons more than Mozilla, personally.)

    2. Re:Advertisment? by Chucow · · Score: 1
      Opera also displays ads unless you register it (for $39!)

      Banner ads on your browser and pages really doesn't help increase speed when you are on dialup.

    3. Re:Advertisment? by Moox · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "why bother when it doesn't offer any major advantages over another non-MS browser like Mozilla?"

      Ok, I really like Mozilla too, because it's open source, it's free, it has many neat features, it runs on many platforms, it displays nearly as much websites as IE and and and ....

      But I was happier than seldomly before when I recognized today that Opera also runs on my new FreeBSD box. I used only Mozilla/Galeon for some days now exclusively, and starting Opera today was like switching from a supertanker to a speedboat.

      Mozilla can have *whateverneverbeforeseenfeature* it is, compared to IE in Windows or to Opera in FreeBSD/other Unix just unusable due to it's unbearable sluggishness.

      Mozilla for my Online-Banking site, Opera for everything else.

    4. Re:Advertisment? by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

      Blah blah blah... Count the articles about Mozilla, compare them to Opera. So, next time we see an article about Mozilla/Netscape, we will say AOL sponsored link? Is it THAT cheap? Would be, if Slashdot wasn't taking ads and if they weren't removed if you subscribed.

      "Opera shows ads", yea its coming from a TRUE software company which makes money by the product they did. They did it real unique way too. So people having money and liking it, pays. Some as me, isn't sure yet, so happy surfing with an ad window.

      Count your major advantages of Mozilla, all of them was on Opera for years! Tabbed browsing etc. Oh, popup blocking? :-) Yea, I bet Netscape branded Mozilla will have them... heh, yea :-)

      IMHO its a fast browser on my browsing habits, for you, I maybe not. Maybe whatever it does, you will bitch about it since its closed source and you are opensource advocate.

      Leave choice to people. Go to download.com and check numbers. Also its spoken that, Opera is selling well.

      Its long spoken at April 1, about "paid slashdot articles", let me say, which company wants 10-20 of clueless geeks to bitch about their software?

      Oh that "security hole" was fixed in 2 HOURS, yes, 2 HOURS and all Opera users got alerted about it. It must be a record for an closed source app.

      We are speaking about Opera here so I won't tell anything about Mozilla. Eh, at least, I want a browser that SCROLLS fast.

      95% of Mozilla demos works for me here too...

    5. Re:Advertisment? by Darren+Winsper · · Score: 2, Informative

      Mozilla had tabbed browsing before Opera. See http://www.mozillazine.org/weblogs/hyatt/2002_05_1 9_mozillian_archive.html for more details.

      As for major advantages:
      1) Good DOM support
      2) Not crap CSS2 support (Where's IE's and Opera's fixed positioning support?)
      3) Image blocking
      4) Better cookie management
      5) A saner UI. Opera's only good if you really know it.
      6) The sidebar (Opera's is nowhere near as customisable)
      7) The UI takes up less space than Opera
      8) Javascript console
      9) DOM inspector
      10) XUL

      That's just off the top of my head.

    6. Re:Advertisment? by pb · · Score: 2

      Of course there will be trade-offs--there are so many HTML pages out there that it isn't surprising that there is some feature that IE renders faster than Opera.

      One (bizarre) area I've found where IE is massively slow, Mozilla is somewhat sluggish, and Opera is blazing fast is when you need to paste a LARGE amount of text into a TEXTAREA. (I mean like 1MB or more) AFAICT, IE is completely CPU-bound here; maybe it has something to do with the implementation of textareas in Windows? Also, Netscape 4 truncates these to 30,000 characters.

      --
      pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
    7. Re:Advertisment? by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

      Oh, I hope they give mozilla karma points to that. It would surprise you that I am a supporter of mozilla too.

      Tabbed browsing is the _natural_ result of MDI interface. I don't know if Mozilla existed (opensource one) at '95 but seems the first version of Opera (pre-alpha) was created MDI in mind: http://www.igd.fhg.de/archive/1995_www95/proceedin gs/posters/31/index.html . I was using Opera 3.62 too, and it HAD tabbed browsing which was called "stupid" by the same people who love tabbed browsing of Mozilla now... :-)

      I am an end user, I don't need Jscript console OR DOM inspector. For many of us, XUL isn't anything more than skinning and we have even Mozilla skin here :-) I hope after feature freeze, many XUL apps will show up. Not just skins, real apps.

      BTW; Opera always alerts me AOL uses "illegal cookie path" and tells I should alert AOL webmaster for it (Netscape.com, every site). If its wrong, would be shame for Opera. If its real and it causes some privacy problems and gets ignored by Mozilla, I am not the one to be shamed.

      Oh I am surprised about DOM too... What I wonder is, I didn't see a single site using those.

      You forgot Opera has no IRC support too :-)

    8. Re:Advertisment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another major advantage of Mozilla:

      Takes 24 hours to start on a Pentium 133 MHz.

    9. Re:Advertisment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too bad I didn't get a chance to moderate today. This was definitely overrated.
      Please mod down to 'flamebait'....

    10. Re:Advertisment? by Darren+Winsper · · Score: 1

      Developing a site that makes use of DOM is impossible on Opera. In fact, unless Opera gets some useful developer tools, real developers will develop and maybe test on it, instead of maybe using it as their reference platform.

      As for MDI, while some people seem to like it, I hate it, except for tabs, which are a sort of mix of MDI and SDI.

      Skinning Mozilla never touches XUL. A Mozilla skin simply provides new images and CSS files. XUL applications are being written, look at mozdev.org. There's even a functional Jabber client.

      And finally, what exactly surprised you about DOM? Lots of sites use DOM, the developers just know it as part of DHTML. I'm getting quite keen on DOM, because there's some funky stuff you can do with client-side scripting, rather than having to use server-side kludges.

      Oh, and here's a page that Opera doesn't render correctly because it uses DOM:
      http://homepages.nildram.co.uk/~dwinsper/sch edule_ moz.php3?force_tree=1

    11. Re:Advertisment? by Ambassador+Kosh · · Score: 1

      I absolutely agree with this. Overall I open up opera only to test if a page works and I send it the same version of the page that I send IE because of how limited its CSS support is.

      I usually have an output filter for konqueror and mozilla based browsers, an ie one which opera gets also which does not use some of the nicer features the newer browsers are capable of and a backwards compat site for just about everything else with each version being 100% spec according to the w3c.

      Without more attention to developers I don't see why I should spend any time with opera. I find almost none of my customers use it and almost no hits on the sites come from it. I see more hits from konqueor then I do from opera. (Also in case you are wondering when opera cloaks at another browsers it still puts its ident string at the end and my script still pulls that out and IDs it as opera and not another browser.)

      I tend to use konqueror as my reference platform becuase I find it to be very picky about rendering bad code at least with the doctype I give it and once I get stuff fully debugged there then the other browsers will usually render the page correctly except for features that other browsers don't support.

      In my own experience I have found konqueror is often faster then opera especially when working with large forms.

      As for tabbed browsing I don't like it at all. I prefer using virtual desktops under KDE and task grouping.

      --
      Computer modeling for biotech drug manufacturing is HARD! :)
    12. Re:Advertisment? by Darren+Winsper · · Score: 1

      The primary problem I have with Konqueror3 is it has a bug when handling widgets and CSS positioning. When I have a banner at the top a page using fixed positioning, if there is a form on the page the buttons show up over the top of the banner no matter what z-index I use. This bug doesn't show up in Mozilla, so I think it's a Konqueror limitation.

    13. Re:Advertisment? by neibwe · · Score: 1

      Opera also displays ads unless you register it (for $39!)

      Well, we're deluged with ads in IE and Netscape and other "free" browsers anyway... I think it's because everyone wants free content paid for by ads or tax dollars (government/public pages.)

    14. Re:Advertisment? by nesthigh · · Score: 1

      I used to be a simi-rabid opera user, but now a mildly-rabid Galeon zealot. Galeon (since 1.2.0 at least) does all of this:

      tabbed browsing
      search boxes (smart bookmarks w/ aliases)
      skinnable (along with the rest of your GTK+ apps)
      bookmarks (this is an uber-feature ?)
      gestures (I love this)
      zoom (text only)

      and has these additional features:
      it "really" works with N$ plugins (it is netscape)
      it really uses the *nix system's .mime.types
      it doesn't mung the fonts out of the box
      it's FREE GPL'd software

      Best part is the chance that Gecko will get used by AOL, and even more pages will be written with standards in mind.

      The choice was obvious to me, and I'm using a WinChip C6 @ 200Mhz / 96MB. Pages do load maybe a second or so slower, but the rendering and fonts are beautiful.

      Next

    15. Re:Advertisment? by splitfyre · · Score: 1

      Wow, that's a first. I didn't want it to come off as being an advertisement. It was more geared towards showing some of the coolest features that I found in the product. After reviewing I've had the opportunity to download it and run it on my little BeOS box. Verrry cool :)

    16. Re:Advertisment? by HeywoodJablomi69 · · Score: 1

      Anybody else read this article about viral marketing? Deja vu.

    17. Re:Advertisment? by Horn · · Score: 1

      I'd only wish there was a windows version of Galeon. I use Opera but I would much prefer to use a Gecko based free browser but I can't find one that has all the features I love in opera (gestures, search boxes, a GOOD MDI interface). That and Moz doesn't seem to be able to import Opera's mailboxes.

    18. Re:Advertisment? by nesthigh · · Score: 1

      I recently exported mine to html from the latest Opera for Linux.

    19. Re:Advertisment? by The_Spide · · Score: 1

      I'm on a connection where I'm charged per
      MB for my downloads, originally I was
      careful about using Opera because of the
      Banner Adds.

      However I've noticed that if you set Opera
      to "not load or show images" it will not
      download or display any Banner Ads.

    20. Re:Advertisment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I use Opera/Linux in fullscreen mode for two public browsing computers, no ads. (Opera 6 dosen't fill a screen larger then 1024x768)

      I use Galeon for as my main browser.

  11. Opera Memories by SynKKnyS · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I remember Opera (Win32) being able to fit the installer on a disk and running on a 386 with only 8 MB of ram. Quite a feat. I used to enjoy its zippy speed on my 200 mhz Pentium class computer compared to the hulky behemoths Navigator and Internet Explorer. However, when Navigator started to lose out and IE hit version 5 and became quite a bit faster (along with the fact that it was intergrated into the OS heh) I stopped using Opera. It is nice to see that it still is small in foot print (although no longer fits on a floppy and no longer runs on a 386 with 8 MB of ram) and is still faster than the larger competition in most cases. I think this article has done it, I am gonna download the new Opera and give it a try. :)

    1. Re:Opera Memories by qurob · · Score: 0, Troll

      8mb 386 running Windows?

      Hah

      running 3.1 is a joke on that system

      Give it a rest, quit using yard-sale hardware

    2. Re:Opera Memories by SynKKnyS · · Score: 1

      Add about 7-9 years ago to the picture and it was running Windows 95 just fine as well as Yggdrsil Linux. Nice try troll.

    3. Re:Opera Memories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are stoned. Win32, yeah right. You mean WIN16 and you still do not remember correctly. You are so stoned. Drink some coffe and read your post.

    4. Re:Opera Memories by SynKKnyS · · Score: 1

      Having a nice cup of coffee right now. Apparently you were still in diapers when Windows 95 was released. Around the time the first Pentiums started to come out, Windows 95 was released that boasted the new (although crippled and not crippled in NT) Win32 API. Next time check your facts before you waste the time to post.

    5. Re:Opera Memories by qurob · · Score: 1

      9 years ago you ran Windows 95?

  12. Opera owns Mozilla and IE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fact.

  13. Opera may be the fastest... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...but even hat doesn't help against a good old Slashdottin'. Google cache here

  14. Notes from the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't get me wrong though, Internet Explorer 3 and 4 had to be the best versions of their browser to date!

    And IE3 didn't even support frames. =)

    1. Re:Notes from the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and this is a bad thing, Why?

  15. Popup disabling... by Jerdie · · Score: 1

    I do love that quick pop-up disable feature... and it still allows me to run javascript.

    --
    Programming is simply the application of logic to creativity
    1. Re:Popup disabling... by Saoi · · Score: 1

      I havn't used opera for a long time, however it has always had features I found to be ahead of its time. I first used it years ago when I couldn't afford big downloads and found it to be a great companion browser to IE (mozilla wasn't around & well netscape...). Its speed wasn't the only thing that attracted me but its tabs and easy picture/java blocking allowed easy perusal through the most 'popupiest' warez sitez. It may not support all the plugins and may not render all sites perfect, but it can be used as quite a powerful tool in the right environment. Just make sure u got a different browser handy for all the eye candy.

    2. Re:Popup disabling... by Darren+Winsper · · Score: 1

      Opera is hardly ahead of its time in this day and age. Its CSS support has been surpased in Mozilla and probably IE. It has no useful DOM support and its UI is a mess.

    3. Re:Popup disabling... by Saoi · · Score: 1

      Thats perhaps why I stopped using it :) Oh yeah and the ads :)

  16. The wild child of browsers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Somebody needs to get out more.

    "Oh yeah - he's a PARTY accountant!"

  17. "Wild child" a compliment?? by Creosote · · Score: 5, Funny

    Sorry, Kiniski, but when I hear "wild child" I think Truffaut (as in his film "l'Enfant sauvage"). So if Opera is the wild child of browsers, it would be incapable of parsing or rendering HTML, would periodically generate frenzied outbursts of sound and signals, and would occasionally defecate on the desktop.But with years of patient training, it might become a functional browser.

    1. Re:"Wild child" a compliment?? by Clue4All · · Score: 1

      So if Opera is the wild child of browsers, it would be incapable of parsing or rendering HTML, would periodically generate frenzied outbursts of sound and signals, and would occasionally defecate on the desktop.But with years of patient training, it might become a functional browser.

      No, that's Mozilla you're talking about. ;-)

      --

      Is your browser retarded?
    2. Re:"Wild child" a compliment?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sadly, Truffaut only told part of the story: the poor kid ended up being substantially abandoned by the academic and living in penury with his house-keeper. But that doesn't make a nice film, so the story ends before that ...

      I'm biassed, but I'll also add that Opera doesn't live down to the analogy. Quite a lot
      of the web-sites which are designed to only work for MSIE (as opposed to conforming to open standards, for instance) might fit the analogy quite well though...

    3. Re:"Wild child" a compliment?? by Adhoc · · Score: 1

      Wild Child, full of grace
      Savior of the human race

      -- The Doors

      May have been more along the lines of what he was thinking.

    4. Re:"Wild child" a compliment?? by Aldurn · · Score: 1

      You know, what you're talking about reminds me a lot of coding in ASP:

      "Mutations", where on one load it will be different than subsequent loads

      "Tempermental Language", where arrays will reverse themselves, or it will give you an error to call a function as a sub, or vice versa, with or without parenthesis

      "Inexplicable errors". Yes, I've had it croak on comments before. And completely empty lines.

      --
      char sig[120] = "\0"
    5. Re:"Wild child" a compliment?? by bafu · · Score: 2

      Sorry, Kiniski, but when I hear "wild child" I think Truffaut (as in his film "l'Enfant sauvage").

      Maybe they should have called it the "upstart" web browser. :-P

    6. Re:"Wild child" a compliment?? by paulcammish · · Score: 1
      ...So if Opera is the wild child of browsers, it would be incapable of parsing or rendering HTML, would periodically generate frenzied outbursts of sound and signals, and would occasionally defecate on the desktop.But with years of patient training, it might become a functional browser.

      Didn't you just describe IE?

  18. Opera and compatibility by kilogram · · Score: 1

    It seems to me that most web-sites design their pages to run well with IE, and IE only. I've been using Opera steadily for the last two years or so, and I am extremely impressed with it's features and the usability.

    Opera *is* fast, no questions there. I have measured the download times on sites between IE and Opera, and this is a definitive fact.

    Opera does follow the W3C standards, in contradiction to IE, which most likely won't display W3C-standard pages properly.

    Opera is one of the products that I would recommend. At the moment, I am at school, and here we have IE. It crashes constantly. Opera is rock stable on the single computer I've installed it on.

    1. Re:Opera and compatibility by NineNine · · Score: 0, Troll

      Opera does follow the W3C standards, in contradiction to IE, which most likely won't display W3C-standard pages properly.


      Good troll kid, but IE displays their own standards AND W3C standard pages properly. A hint... if you know what you're talking about before you troll, you're more effective.

    2. Re:Opera and compatibility by jonathan_ingram · · Score: 1

      Take a look at the ComplexSpiral demo at css/edge. IE gets 'background-attachment: fixed' completely wrong.

    3. Re:Opera and compatibility by NineNine · · Score: 1

      NO browser is perfect. My point is that IE *does* make an attempt at suporting W3C (you know... document.getElementById()). Mozilla isn't perfect either... it doesn't support *any* of element.click(). I don't know about Opera... I'm not a fan of adware, and my Opera user base is about 0.01% (literally).

    4. Re:Opera and compatibility by mczak · · Score: 1

      I have to disagree. IE6 is certainly not the most W3C standards compliant browser. It does support CSS1 almost 100%, but CSS2 is a different story - Konqueror, Opera, IE5 Mac (!) and of course Mozilla do a lot better job of supporting CSS2 (but none of them is 100% CSS2 compliant - yet). IE6 for instance doesn't understand "position:fixed" (which you could use to implement navigation menues on web sites without having to use frames), CSS2 selectors are very limited, absolutely positioned elements can't have a relative height and so on. Of course, IE6 renders all pages out there just fine, but this is because the web pages are built so they work in IE, if you make a web site just with the w3c html and w3c css2 specifications in mind, chances are it won't display properly in IE6 (done that - and it didn't work in IE6, there were some issues in Opera6 and Konqueror3 too, but IE6 had the most problems).

    5. Re:Opera and compatibility by kilogram · · Score: 1

      Good troll kid, but IE displays their own standards AND W3C standard pages properly. A hint... if you know what you're talking about before you troll, you're more effective.

      It might be I got misunderstood earlier, and that one was definetly a typo.

      Anyhow, my main point has to be that when I design web-sites, I (now) use Opera as my starting point. If everything looks perfectly in Opera, it requires quite a bit of knob-turning before it works properly both in Opera and IE. Several times I've had to redesign entire pages because IE does not support it the way standards are designed.

      Of course, this works the other way as well. Once, when I was young and ignorant, I used IE as my starting point, designing pages that worked in Opera and other browsers as well, were a pain in the ***. I then sat down, re-learned the basics of HTML, this time with the W3C standards as a guide, and now the pages I design work well in most browsers. (I haven't had the time to rewrite my current homepage to support Opera)

      I mainly learnt HTML through use of FrontPage (yes, now I know that it sucks), and this was a very bad starting point. It "learns" you HTML code that is entirely bad, but try explaining *that* to someone who is new to programming.

    6. Re:Opera and compatibility by 13Echo · · Score: 1

      Opera seems fine on all of the tests, except for Complex Spiral. But it does do a better job than IE 5 for Win. Opera seems to handle the transparencies just fine, until you scroll down the page. IE just makes the whole image move. There is no transparency.

  19. Choice words for a choice browser by Flakeloaf · · Score: 4, Interesting

    We're forced to use Mozilla at work 'cause IE has more holes than a Peter North fan club. On a Win32 platform it's unstable with many instances running (I suspect they're all the same process), crashes for no apparent reason, takes forever to load and is fugly.

    I can't blame it for crashing when it tries to load certain sites, since many people are obviously using Bill's Malformed HTML to generate IE-friendly (read "IE-Only) web pages.

    Even with the kind of vulnerabilities that made me want to dump IE in the first place and flaky Javascript support, I'd still use Opera if I could.

    Unfortunately, MS is the VHS to everyone else's Beta. Inferior technology, bloody annoying to use, but way better market permeation. Bleh.

    --

    Am I the only one who heard Roxette to sing "I'm gonna get blitzed for some sex"?

    1. Re:Choice words for a choice browser by NineNine · · Score: 1

      I can't blame it for crashing when it tries to load certain sites, since many people are obviously using Bill's Malformed HTML to generate IE-friendly (read "IE-Only) web pages.

      Call me nuts, but I don't expect my browser to crash, no matter how ugly what it's trying to parse is. If it can't handle it, it should say so and not crash. NS/Mozilla is still completely unacceptable.

    2. Re:Choice words for a choice browser by 13Echo · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      "...more holes than a Peter North fan club."

      Oh god, how I will remember that quote. :)

    3. Re:Choice words for a choice browser by xtremex · · Score: 2

      I remember when I used windows, it woulc crash for no reason whatsoever. Mozilla 1 RC3 hasnt crashed ever. Actually. I havent had mozilla crash in months.

      --
      If you're not a Liberal in your 20's, then you have no heart.If you're still a Liberal in your 30's you have no brain.
    4. Re:Choice words for a choice browser by sanity_slipping · · Score: 2, Interesting

      We're forced to use Mozilla at work 'cause IE has more holes than a Peter North fan club. On a Win32 platform it's unstable with many instances running (I suspect they're all the same process), crashes for no apparent reason, takes forever to load and is fugly.

      Wow. Are we using the same browser? It sounds like you're talking about IE here (fits well), but context says you're talking about Mozilla.

      I currently have 45 tabs open, divided among 10 windows of Mozilla. It hasn't crashed on me in months. With quicklaunch it doesn't take long to load, and the modern skin actually looks pretty cool (a friend once uses the Mozilla widgets for his programs and pages =]).

      Mozilla is stable, though it could probably be faster.

      --
      I can feel my sanity, beyond my reach and slipping...
    5. Re:Choice words for a choice browser by Phroggy · · Score: 2

      We're forced to use Mozilla at work 'cause IE has more holes than a Peter North fan club. On a Win32 platform it's unstable with many instances running (I suspect they're all the same process), crashes for no apparent reason, takes forever to load and is fugly.

      Enable the QuickStart thingie, and change the theme to Modern - that should help with loading and fugliness. And be sure you're running 1.0RC3, or wait another 2 weeks for 1.0.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    6. Re:Choice words for a choice browser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's still Fugly even with Modern.

      The UI philosophy of IE seems to be Get The Hell Out Of The Way.

      The UI philosophy of Mozilla is Get In Your Face (and be super sluggish while doing it). Which wouldn't be so bad if all the themes didn't look like ass warmed over, or worse, a star trek computer or a golf course or something inane.

      I'm using the Pinball theme because it's at least small, but it's got ugly icons and big fitt's law problems. Hopefully the API freeze will encourage some new themes.

    7. Re:Choice words for a choice browser by PunchMonkey · · Score: 1

      I can't blame it for crashing when it tries to load certain sites

      Can't blame it for crashing? Why the heck not? Shouldn't it be up to the coders of the browser to code in error trappings and handlers.

      --
      I'll have something intelligent to add one of these days...
    8. Re:Choice words for a choice browser by AnyoneEB · · Score: 1

      I use IE (forgive me, I used to use NS, but the lack of compatibality (at the time) was too annoying). IE by default opens all windows in the same process, but there's a very simple registry hack to fix that. I know it should be an option, but this is M$ software, don't expect it to make sense. Link to registry hack

      --
      Centralization breaks the internet.
  20. of course it's not your browser of choice, but.... by TheLocustNMI · · Score: 5, Interesting

    for upwards of 80% of the Earth it is, and frankly, it's getting bigger. I work for a web-development company, and the last couple of projects that we have designed and developed have revolved around IE, and IE only -- why is this, you say? Well, because of certain things that MS has built into IE, and IE's overall "acceptance" by commercial customers. Granted, most of these projects are intranet applications, but it makes no difference! To the consumer, more and different browsers are a "good thing", but to web-development companies, and the folks who write applications for a broad number of people, one browser is a "good thing". Integration with MS services (like that god-awful MS-only authentication thing), better embedded plugin support, and the fact that many dotNET web-apps *may* have a hard time running correctly in Moz and Operea all contribute to smaller-mindshare browsers low acceptance ratings.

    Now, before i denegrate my ENTIRE character, let me say that I am a staunch anything-other-than-IE-and-mostly-Mozilla supporter. I use Mozilla 95% of the time (and mostly IE when i have to A) fill out my timecard on our IE-only intranet at work -or- B) pay my Capital One card :) ).

    So, what can we do to help? Advocacy. Get folks using Moz or Opera -- your mom, your brother, your sister, your dog, whatever. Brief them on how Moz came to be -- it's free as in speech, ma! Or, we could just wait for MS to cock-up IE... :)

  21. Problem with /. links by AVee · · Score: 2

    True, it's fast most of the time but it does seem to have severe problems with link in the /. articles. The just take forever to load...

    1. Re:Problem with /. links by Nakarti · · Score: 1

      True, it's fast most of the time but it does seem to have severe problems with link in the /. articles. The just take forever to load...</i>

      I propose that this comment be modded to some negative value as Lies, Pure Lies.
      I can attest that Opera is loading /. links awfully quick and I have over ten such open on it right now(I'm ID as Exploder 5.0 for compatibility with Stupidity) which I can vouch is not possible(for me) in Mozilla(RC2; yet) for any great length of time without freezing(and plenty of my 512MB ram being free.)

  22. TIMMAH! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    TIMMAH, you're FIRED!

  23. Opera isn't complient by Domini · · Score: 1, Troll

    Whatever you may have to say about IE, it's still the browser of choice. The choice I refer to of cource being the choice of web designers.

    What's the point of using another browser anyway with this being the case.

    I always seem to have to return to IE when I have trouble browing sites. (Such as all the banking sites in my country...)

    1. Re:Opera isn't complient by rknop · · Score: 2

      What's the point of using another browser anyway with this being the case.

      How about "IE is not available for the platform I choose"?

      How about "I don't want to open my computer up to the Microsoft security flaw of the week"?

      How about, "The web was designed for interoperable standards, and web designers who know what they're doing should design accordingly, thus making it unimportant exactly which browser you're using so long as it's a current one"?

      How about "People who say that designers have to design IE-only sites are bloody clueless and lazy because real standards are out there which IE even works with, and there's no need to kiss Microsoft's butt on this one"?

      -Rob

    2. Re:Opera isn't complient by WebMasterJoe · · Score: 2

      The choice I refer to of cource being the choice of web designers.

      Actually, the browser of choice for a knowledgable web designer is "as many browsers as you can install." I've got Netscape Nav 4.72 and 6.2, Opera, and IE 6 on my machine at work and I use Konqueror (both the KDE 2 and 3 versions) at home. If I had a mac I'd test on that as well, but I don't.

      As far as having to use IE when you have trouble browsing sites, blame that on MS - their browsers are more forgiving with bad data (such as missing table tags or quoted values in style sheets). Some web designers don't program their pages correctly and rely on IE to jump to the correct conclusions. I bet that if you were to put the web pages in question through an HTML validator, you'd get more than a few errors. The solution should be to properly code pages, but with Front Page and MS Word coding so many sites, I don't think that will happen.

      Personally, I have become a big fan of Konqueror for KDE 3 (I don't remember if it is also version 3). At work, I now use Netscape 6.2. If you let Netscape run its little app in the systray, it loads just as quickly as IE (which makes sense, since IE uses a similar tactic but doesn't let you turn it off). And you don't have to deal with stupid IE extensions (like page wipes and image resizing).

      --
      I really hate signatures, but go to my website.
    3. Re:Opera isn't complient by Domini · · Score: 1, Troll

      How about "IE is not available for the platform I choose"?

      * Choose Microsoft.
      * Choose VMWare
      * Wait for Microsoft to split the Browser from the OS

      If not, then web browsing is obviously not that important to you.

      How about "I don't want to open my computer up to the Microsoft security flaw of the week"?

      * Since you are web browsing, you are connected to the web, thus you can run regular updates. Most of the virii and security problems can be fixed quickly. (Faster in some cases than sendmail, inetd, smbd/nfsd, etc. bugs and flaws)
      * Use a personal firewall. I recommend At-Guard.

      How about, "The web was designed for interoperable standards, and web designers who know what they're doing should design accordingly, thus making it unimportant exactly which browser you're using so long as it's a current one"?

      * How about, they don't care.
      * How about, customers with money dictate.
      * It get's the job done.

      How about "People who say that designers have to design IE-only sites are bloody clueless and lazy because real standards are out there which IE even works with, and there's no need to kiss Microsoft's butt on this one"?

      * Sure fine, with that all said and done, standards compliant web pages suck. They lose customers in our capitalist society to flashy sites.
      * People go where the money is. Get down from your standard's compliant podium and get your hands dirty, or you may miss out on the money too...

      -Me.

    4. Re:Opera isn't complient by Domini · · Score: 2

      'knowledgable' being thr operative word.

      Your lack of support for Mac is to a large degree the view of most web designers. They are not as literate as they could be, thus they only support that which they know. Hence not Linux.

      Perhaps Konqurer should become available for thr win32 platform as well?

      Hmmm..

    5. Re:Opera isn't complient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's far easier for someone with Windows to have linux around for testing, or vice-versa. They both run on the same PC hardware. I use VMWare, which lets me have versions of Windows 98 w/ IE5, 5.5, etc for testing. It's great. However, I can't find a good solution that'll let me test for Mac short of having a Mac. I don't have one. I can't afford one. (It's just a hobby for me.) It's unfortunate that I can't test for that platform, but what can I do?

      This is why Mozilla is great. It's essentially the same across platforms. Works on Linux then it works on Windows then in works on Mac (in almost all circumstances.) IE can't say that. I don't believe Opera can either.

    6. Re:Opera isn't complient by xtremex · · Score: 2

      Actually, I like Konq, but until they get tabbed browsing, I just can't use it..I'm too dependant on tabbed browsing.

      --
      If you're not a Liberal in your 20's, then you have no heart.If you're still a Liberal in your 30's you have no brain.
    7. Re:Opera isn't complient by scrytch · · Score: 2

      How about, "The web was designed for interoperable standards

      The web was designed in order for CERN to make papers available on demand. To this end, a hack on SGML was created that wasn't compliant with any SGML "standard", and a whole new protocol was invented (HTTP/0.9), one that could be implemented in literally minutes.

      There might be standards now, and they're good ones [1]. The web most certainly was not "engineered"
      with such standards in mind. It's a pull model for arbitrary MIME docs. Get used to the fact that it's not all text/html.

      Oh, and "bloody clueless and lazy" might get your fire and brimstone rocks off, but it pretty much shuts off rational discourse. Not that it appears you wanted that...

      [1] ones that Opera, I might add, has one of the worst available implementations of (read: DOM. It's read-only for crissakes).

      --
      I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
    8. Re:Opera isn't complient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mozilla is a hog,

      An unstable one at that.

    9. Re:Opera isn't complient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let me tell you something my friend.
      The real standard is what people are using and coding to and not what some meaningles organization think it is.
      In this case, the real standard is IE so the original poster was quite correct.

    10. Re:Opera isn't complient by Codifex+Maximus · · Score: 2
      • How about, "The web was designed for interoperable standards
        1. The web was designed in order for CERN to make papers available on demand. To this end, a hack on SGML was created that wasn't compliant with any SGML "standard", and a whole new protocol was invented (HTTP/0.9), one that could be implemented in literally minutes.
        2. I believe the writer you are responding to meant that HTML was designed for platform transparency. Your reply is nothing more than a dissertation on history.

      Oh, and "bloody clueless and lazy" might get your fire and brimstone rocks off, but it pretty much shuts off rational discourse. Not that it appears you wanted that...

      • True, not a very edifying statement - "bloody clueless and lazy" but nevertheless true. Coding specifically for IE and disregarding the standards is nothing more than being "bloody clueless and lazy" - not to mention being bloody irrational; after all, you are shutting out potential users who are following standards.
      This reply constucted using standard HTML.
      --
      Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
  24. Unfortunately... by jgerman · · Score: 2, Redundant

    and to my constant shame, IE is MY browser of choice. For the most part it is simply the best (god I feel sick), I prefer Opera for the features, but for rendering web pages, IE is it. Maybe if I got off of my ass and started looking into anti-aliasing for X I might feel different. As far as Opera is concerned, I really like it, and have had few problems other than rendering quality, though now that I think about it, Opera under Windows may blow IE away.

    --
    I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
    1. Re:Unfortunately... by gila_monster · · Score: 1

      I had Opera loaded on my Win32 machine for about a year. I had a lot of problems with a number of web sites, although I wasn't able to determine if the problems were in the site, in Opera, or both. It may even be an issue with the myriad plug-ins that seem to be required for just about everything. (Whatever happened to content over format?)

      At any rate, I have not found Opera to be particularly faster than either Mozilla or IE in most cases. I did like the features better, though.

      --
      Ad luna, Alicia! Ad luna!
    2. Re:Unfortunately... by rtaylor · · Score: 2

      I almost asked how you managed to use IE with anti-aliasing under X -- then I read on to discover that you're actually comparing the underlying systems and not browsers.

      --
      Rod Taylor
    3. Re:Unfortunately... by jacoplane · · Score: 1

      I use IE with thee proxomitron. Blocks ads & pop ups. Very nice.

    4. Re:Unfortunately... by Zathrus · · Score: 2

      I hear you... sadly.

      I used NS 4.x (whatever the last version prior to 4.5 bloat was - I don't recall now) for years. I finally got fed up with the slow rendering, poor rendering, and crashes. So I switched to Opera 5. It was great - fast, worked well, and life was good.

      Then I started hitting a bunch of random websites that simply wouldn't work with Opera 5. Sometimes changing it to ID as Netscape worked. Sometimes ID'ing as IE worked. Increasingly it just wouldn't work, period -- usually it was the javascript engine crapping out. And while I will heartily agree that it was probably because the page in question was non-standard, it didn't make an ounce of difference - that page had information I needed and it wasn't rendering under Opera.

      So to my everlasting shame I switched to IE. I try to keep it up to date and patched, but I still don't like that it's inherently bug prone.

      And I have to admit one other dirty fact - I rather like it. Yes, I miss tabbed browsing from Opera (which took me a bit to get used to, but I do prefer it). I really miss gestures. But I like the auto-completion features (despite an abiding fear that they're not wonderfully secure...), I like knowing that pretty much every page will render as it was designed to (excepting PNG stuff... blearg), and it's fast. Opera was fast too, but I still remember the horrors of NS 4.x.

      Yes, once I get my Mandrake box up and running I'll be checking out Mozilla at home -- yes, different platform and whatnot, but I'm more willing to screw with my Linux box than I am a Windows box. Linux is easier to reinstall, and less likely to start getting flaky from DLL hell.

      I should also check out Opera 6, since I hear it's mostly fixed the JS issues. C.F. above - my Windows box is stable, and I like it that way.

    5. Re:Unfortunately... by mike77 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      peoples, you're making a slight error in your statements.

      Browser of choice = your top choice of what you want to work in.

      Browser of necessity = what you're forced to work with even if you don't want to.

      slight difference, but it is an important one.

      mike

      --

      --Keeping the flame wars alive, one post at a time

    6. Re:Unfortunately... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, if having to use IE makes you feel sick, here's a simple practical suggestion: take the time to View Source on the pages that force you to use IE, by abrogating standards, and write polite e-mails to webmaster@ the sites in question, explaining the error of their ways and pointing out that they can write standards-compliant web pages which will work nicely with IE, like they imagine all their customers use, but will have the advantage of working with other browsers: it can't hurt them to expand, from 80% to nearer 100%, the user-base who can use their sites, after all. Keep doing it and encourage others to do it.

      Some day, who knows, some of those web `designers' might even get a clue and start abiding by the open standards of the internet rather than allowing microsoft's tools to write non-compliant pages for them so that only IE can display their work. Then you'll be able to chose a browser that suits you rather than the poser who designed the site ...

    7. Re:Unfortunately... by jgerman · · Score: 2

      ;) Yeah I didn't make that absolutely clear, I really should try Opera under Windows, like I said I like most of the features of Opera, it's only the non-separate process issue that I don't particularly care for, and that's a pretty minor annoyance.

      --
      I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
    8. Re:Unfortunately... by jgerman · · Score: 2

      That's a gray area. My browser of choice is IE, I want to work in it because it's easiest on my eyes, and never has any problems rendering any websites. I also want to work in Opera, or another non-MS browser, however I tend to do all of my web browsing under Windows, mainly because I prefer IE for practical reasons. Which admittedly (as someone mentioned above) it is really a platform complaint. Technically I was inaccurate, but since I only use Windows for IE (and sometimes games) it means the same to me.

      --
      I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
  25. Rats! by finny · · Score: 1

    Stupid Mozilla, if only I was using Opera I would've been first post!

  26. Give it up for... by Rivard · · Score: 1
  27. What is Opera's competitive edge? by Orangedog_on_crack · · Score: 4, Insightful
    If any "alternative" browser is going to succeed it has to have some kind of edge over IE. This is only MY opinion, but unless Opera, Mozilla and the like are going to be a serious contender for the MS desktop, it will have to offer some more than just being faster. MS has a BIG advantage....IE is free (even though there is the "making a deal with the Devil factor involved with IE).

    I don't know too much about Opera, but are there any other "features" that it offers that IE doesn't, or at least doesn't do as well as Opera? I like competition in any market, but if it doesn't have anything substantially additional with it that IE doesn't, then I can see it gaining much market share, especially since one has to pay for the ad-free version? Maybe someone here can shed some light in this.

    1. Re:What is Opera's competitive edge? by Jucius+Maximus · · Score: 1
      "I don't know too much about Opera, but are there any other "features" that it offers that IE doesn't, or at least doesn't do as well as Opera? "

      Tabbed browsing (well they're not tabs but it's the same thing.) And it is much easier to kill all the cache, history, cookies because there is a tool to do that. And if I was on my home machine with Opera I could give you some more items.

    2. Re:What is Opera's competitive edge? by Bohnanza · · Score: 1

      The MDI is addicting. Try it...

      --

      -----

      Sorry, I'm only a 1336 h4x0r.

    3. Re:What is Opera's competitive edge? by anshil · · Score: 1

      IE is not free. It's bundeled with the windows OS. You pay for IE development when you buy windows, no matter if you need or plan to use IE at all.

      Can I download IE to use in example in wine? No, thats not allowed. Additonaly from ms sites you cannot get a selfinstaller download at all. Everything are just upgrade packages.

      --

      --
      Karma 50, and all I got was this lousy T-Shirt.
    4. Re:What is Opera's competitive edge? by sffubs · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Opera/Win32 vs. IE:

      Gestures, disabling pop-ups, custom searches, opening new pages inside Opera instead of on the desktop, easy download management including pausing and resuming, restarting browsing where you left off, improved stability.

      Even the adverts don't annoy me.

      The only advantages IE has over Opera is that some sites are written solely for IE, and that Opera's ftp client sucks (but who uses ftp in browsers anyway?).

      I don't know about Mozilla, but IE really does suck compared to Opera.

      --
      ݼ)s$æúßðíÊ'öX'îò5^àûßQç£
    5. Re:What is Opera's competitive edge? by jeddak · · Score: 4, Informative

      To this customer, Opera beats IE in that it provides:

      • stability
      • speed
      • nice interface (even w banner ads!) - and lovely TABS TABS TABS
      • configurability - the Preferences window is very detailed
      • cross-platform experience - I run it on Windows, Linux, and MacOS X.
    6. Re:What is Opera's competitive edge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "disable all popups"

      advantage: opera.

    7. Re:What is Opera's competitive edge? by Zathrus · · Score: 2, Informative

      easy download management including pausing and resuming

      Opera's ftp client sucks (but who uses ftp in browsers anyway?).

      Er, so which one is it? Good or bad?

      I'd bet that most people use ftp via web client now, unless you have needs for things like automatic FTPing on a scheduled basis or often do FTPing (since browsers are usually stateless and don't keep the control connection open - problematic with ftp sites that are hard to login to).

    8. Re:What is Opera's competitive edge? by xtremex · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why can't you just install Opera on your work pc? Or do you have one of those jobs where the users can't install anything on their pcs? (That in my opinion sucks. Since in my job, I work better with my own tools. You can't tell a carpenter to use certain tools that YOU want him to use..makes no sense to me.)

      --
      If you're not a Liberal in your 20's, then you have no heart.If you're still a Liberal in your 30's you have no brain.
    9. Re:What is Opera's competitive edge? by Jucius+Maximus · · Score: 1
      "Why can't you just install Opera on your work pc? Or do you have one of those jobs where the users can't install anything on their pcs?"

      Exactly. It sucks but I'm a student and jobs are very hard to come by for people like me so I have to take what I can get. (At least this job pays well.) I am in a 100% microsoft immersion during the day because of this.

    10. Re:What is Opera's competitive edge? by ThorbyBaslam · · Score: 0

      Two words.
      Mouse. Gestures.

    11. Re:What is Opera's competitive edge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One URL: OptiMoz Gestures for Mozilla.

    12. Re:What is Opera's competitive edge? by ThorbyBaslam · · Score: 0

      Is there a plugin which will stop moz from sucking quite so much as it does ?

      I use it moz, IE and Opera on a daily basis, but I greatly prefer Opera.
      Moz is just too slow, at least on my windows machine, but I can run Opera on a PII 300 in linux and it works like a charm.

    13. Re:What is Opera's competitive edge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well ... one feature really stands out, for me at least; indeed, I'm amused no-one has pointed it out here already ... I can run it on my Linux box ! Of course, I can also run half a dozen others (and sometimes do), but you asked about Opera/IE differences and, somehow, I doubt MicroSoft will be porting IE to Linux any time soon.

      As the good judge pointed out so plainly, MicroSoft knows full well that the `Application Barrier to Entry' is the foundation of their monopoly: it's why they won't quite be faithful to any W3C standard until all their competitors are dead and the standard is written in-house by MicroSoft (and I'm not saying they will support one even under those conditions); and it's why they'll never port their browser to Linux, because that would mean all the geeks on this site who're lamenting that they have to use a hopelessly insecure piece of software to communicate with their banks would have the option of doing so from a machine on which they haven't paid the MicroSoft tax.

    14. Re:What is Opera's competitive edge? by sharkey · · Score: 2

      ...are there any other "features" that it offers that IE doesn't, or at least doesn't do as well as Opera?

      Opera renders www.microsoft.com MUCH faster than IE.

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
    15. Re:What is Opera's competitive edge? by Jonny+Ringo · · Score: 1

      You forgot

      -Mouse gestures (can't go back now!)

      -quick easy keyboard shortcuts

      -pop up killer

      -set up nick name for url's. so instead of typing the full url for slashdot I can just set the bookmark slashdot.org to equal "s". Now I can just type "s" in the url and BAM!

    16. Re:What is Opera's competitive edge? by sffubs · · Score: 1

      HTTP downloading is very good. But FTP browsing leaves a lot to be desired, although once you have found the file you're looking for, actually downloading it is is easy. Whilst downloading, Opera allows you to pause/resume from HTTP and FTP. However, there are better programs than both IE and Opera for this; e.g. SmartFTP. -s

      --
      ݼ)s$æúßðíÊ'öX'îò5^àûßQç£
    17. Re:What is Opera's competitive edge? by NanoGator · · Score: 2

      Sadly, stability (or lack of) is Opera's weak point. Though it's stable enough to be tolerable, I've had some rather inopportune crashes that I just don't have in IE. My girlfriend has it worse. Hers crashes quite a bit more. (Although her machine is an 'E-Machines.. heh) She lost all her bookmarks, though. One thing IE does right is it stores it's favorites as a bunch of individual shortcuts, makes it lots harder to trash them that way. Once they figure this stability issue out, I'll plunk down my $40 for it.

      However, Opera does recover pretty nicely in most cases. It'll let me get my lost page back after a crash. Pity, IE doesn't do that.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    18. Re:What is Opera's competitive edge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I love Opera - even with the damn ad window. I install it on everyone's computer in hopes to increase the 0.1%age it registers on my site logs. The extra features really do differentiate the product enough so that I notice if I'm not using Opera. However, they take a little time to get used to (Mouse gestures take a while to learn - but are well worth the effort).

      Pros:

      MDI interface allows you to kill pop-up attacks with one button

      +/- zooms in and out. Wow. This alone is worth the switch.

      Mouse Gestures take a while to learn but are sorely missed when using other browsers. The two-button forward/back gestures are handy enough to have me completely trained to try them no matter what app I am using. This should be a new standard.

      Starts downloading files before asking where to store them.

      Transfer window keeps list of everything you've downloaded for later use. This is remarkably handy.

      Built in google search. Many others available as well.

      Allows you to write holier-than-thou emails to webmeisters telling them how they will go to hell since their IE-specific hacks fuck up your websurfing. Cons:

      News Client not as good as MS OE.

      You will undoubtedly still need IE for some sites. At least one of my bank sites works with Opera, though!

      I love the app but will sooner castrate myself than pay $40 to remove ads. I would probably pay $20, though.

    19. Re:What is Opera's competitive edge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's probably because microsoft.com sniffs IE and spews all sorts of DHTML out that other browsers don't get.

    20. Re:What is Opera's competitive edge? by stand · · Score: 1

      For god's sake, it's only US$40!!! That's the cost of 2 cds. A week's worth or caffeine. After food, drink and ticket price, one trip to see SW:AOTC with a date. OK, 2 trips sans date for most of us. For my money, the ability to easily turn off all the Flash and pop-up ad crap is worth it. Besides, if you don't pay, you get a single ad at the top of the browser which you can mentally tune out after about a week. It's also somewhat faster than mozilla in my experience. It is well worth your consideration.

      --
      Four fifths of all our troubles in this life would disappear if we would just sit down and keep still. -C. Coolidge
    21. Re:What is Opera's competitive edge? by MisterBlister · · Score: 1
      IE is hellishly stable and fast, and has been since 5.0. So wtf are you talking about? If you're going to point out its weaknesses, point out real ones (like, I don't know, security issues?).

      I've used Opera, and Opera is neither faster nor more stable than IE. That is an urband legend the MS haters like to tell each other without showing any facts to back it up, and flies in the face of the common sense of non-MS bashers who have run both browsers.

    22. Re:What is Opera's competitive edge? by cpeterso · · Score: 2


      I think Opera makes money from supporting embedded platforms that are scared to use GPL Mozilla code. For example, I think Opera supports the Symbian embedded OS.

    23. Re:What is Opera's competitive edge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The full screen mode (F11) with appropriate CSS allows the monitor to simulate a LCD projector.

    24. Re:What is Opera's competitive edge? by jesser · · Score: 1

      set up nick name for url's. so instead of typing the full url for slashdot I can just set the bookmark slashdot.org to equal "s". Now I can just type "s" in the url and BAM!

      Mozilla has the same feature, but it's hard to find because the feature is called "custom keywords". (Opera's "nickname" isn't much more transparent.) Internet Explorer accepts the name of a bookmark in the URL bar, which is better IMO. Unfortunately, in IE this feature only works for bookmarks in the root folder, so you can't stuff the shortcut-bookmarks into a folder called "shortcuts" and still have the shortcuts work.

      Look under "Fast keyboard access to bookmarks" on http://www.squarefree.com/bookmarklets/browsers.ht ml.

      --
      The shareholder is always right.
    25. Re:What is Opera's competitive edge? by AnyoneEB · · Score: 1

      IE wasn't orginally built-in to the OS, so couldn't you find a really old install (3.x?) and install that and go to M$'s site for a upgrade. I'm not sure if this would work, but if you want IE under WINE (for testing I assume) then it's worth a try.

      --
      Centralization breaks the internet.
    26. Re:What is Opera's competitive edge? by ealar+dlanvuli · · Score: 1

      Managing 3000 clueless users and those rules are there for a very good reason.

      Generally the IT guys can install whatever they want, but they IT guys are generally capable, the average user thinks the klez virus is a new toy.

      --
      I live in a giant bucket.
    27. Re:What is Opera's competitive edge? by xtremex · · Score: 2

      Oh, I agree with you 100%, but when an IT department tells you what IT geeks must use, that's when it becomes ridiculous.
      I've had a job like that. They thought by installing Linux on MY personal laptop and hooking it into their network would ruin their netowrk. I kid you not. This was what the Sr Network Admin told me. Not a very enlightened response from their "lead" net admin.

      --
      If you're not a Liberal in your 20's, then you have no heart.If you're still a Liberal in your 30's you have no brain.
  28. Well Tim, by $0+31337 · · Score: 0

    Funny, IE isn't my browser of choice ...

    Thats ok Timothy, your not our editor of choice either

  29. Not that memory heavy browser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I use Galeon (Based on Mozilla) couse its not that memory heavy as the other browsers.

  30. Opera vs IE, no, Opera vs Mozilla. by Penguinoflight · · Score: 1

    Opera doesn't have to beat IE as a browser, it has to beat Mozilla. Opera is a good browser in ways, but it's got to be a lot better than Mozilla to attract a market.

    --
    "And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
    1 John 4:14
    1. Re:Opera vs IE, no, Opera vs Mozilla. by NineNine · · Score: 0, Troll

      Opera doesn't have to beat IE as a browser, it has to beat Mozilla. Opera is a good browser in ways, but it's got to be a lot better than Mozilla to attract a market.

      Ummm... what market? You mean that whopping 1.5% of non-IE users out there right now? Considering that even those people are mostly Open Source fanatics that are living with their parents with an average annual income of $200, I really doubt that's much of a "market".

    2. Re:Opera vs IE, no, Opera vs Mozilla. by Penguinoflight · · Score: 1

      1.5%? How stupid! I'd guess there's more people still using netscape 2.0 than 1.5%, and definatly 20% using some version of nestcape 4.x or earlier. You can't run a website well with such stupidity, and you might ought to get training from one of those "Open Source fanatics". Sorry, you're just being dumb.

      --
      "And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
      1 John 4:14
    3. Re:Opera vs IE, no, Opera vs Mozilla. by NineNine · · Score: 2

      1.5%? How stupid! I'd guess there's more people still using netscape 2.0 than 1.5%, and definatly 20% using some version of nestcape 4.x or earlier. You can't run a website well with such stupidity, and you might ought to get training from one of those "Open Source fanatics". Sorry, you're just being dumb.

      You're guessing.

      I'm looking at server logs with hundreds of thousands of users a day.

      Now who's "just being dumb"?

    4. Re:Opera vs IE, no, Opera vs Mozilla. by tshoppa · · Score: 2
      definatly 20% using some version of nestcape 4.x or earlier

      You aren't interpreting your website logs appropriately if you come to this conclusion.

      Many of the web crawlers advertise themselves as being early Netscape/Mozilla clients in the HTTP request; if you are including these in your figures as "real people using a browser" you're going to come up with horribly skewed figures like your own. Most decent server log analysis tools (such as the ever-present Analog) do a pretty good job of removing bots from the "real browsers" totals. See the Analog ROBOTINCLUDE option documentation for starters.

    5. Re:Opera vs IE, no, Opera vs Mozilla. by xtremex · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It all depends on your target market. At my last job, we had 45% of users using netscape or mozilla. Why? I have no clue. They also happened to be on Solaris or IRIX machines. Which was another oddity. Hollywood uses IRIX. We weren't marketing to the film industry.

      --
      If you're not a Liberal in your 20's, then you have no heart.If you're still a Liberal in your 30's you have no brain.
    6. Re:Opera vs IE, no, Opera vs Mozilla. by NineNine · · Score: 1

      t all depends on your target market. At my last job, we had 45% of users using netscape or mozilla. Why? I have no clue. They also happened to be on Solaris or IRIX machines. Which was another oddity. Hollywood uses IRIX. We weren't marketing to the film industry.

      Very true. I'm basing my numbers on porn sites, which I would guess would be a fairly decent cross-section of Web users. Not perfect, but pretty far reaching. I actually thought the number would be higher too (the number of non-IE users), but I just checked some logs this morning, and they spanned a full month. So, suffice to say, the work that I was doing to work around a Mozilla/Netscape bug promptly stopped.

    7. Re:Opera vs IE, no, Opera vs Mozilla. by xtremex · · Score: 2

      I just went to your site on my Linux box using mozilla ..I didnt have any problems.....

      --
      If you're not a Liberal in your 20's, then you have no heart.If you're still a Liberal in your 30's you have no brain.
    8. Re:Opera vs IE, no, Opera vs Mozilla. by NineNine · · Score: 1

      There actually *is* at least one problem that most people wouldn't notice. Unfortunately, the Mozilla developers have decided that it's not a bug, but a future enhancement. Actually, it's just a part of the W3C spec that they're not supporting for whatever reason.

    9. Re:Opera vs IE, no, Opera vs Mozilla. by viper66 · · Score: 1

      I think you guys are also forgetting that in Opera (and some other browsers) you can easily change the user agent and pretend to be any browser. Personally I leave it on IE most of the time. So your logs mean nothing.

    10. Re:Opera vs IE, no, Opera vs Mozilla. by Codifex+Maximus · · Score: 2

      I have a question...

      If Opera users are changing the reported ID of their browser... doesn't this also effect the usage standings as reported in the blogs?

      My guess is that Opera usage is largely unreported.

      --
      Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
  31. CrazyBrowser by MonkeyInTree · · Score: 1

    If you feel the need to stick with IE, you can at least try out CrazyBrowser (at www.crazybrowser.com). It's basically an add-on to IE, but you get noticeably faster (tabbed!) browsing and popup blocking. And it's only a 600k download, what a deal!

    1. Re:CrazyBrowser by dodgio · · Score: 1

      Why don't you try Fastbrowser.(fastbrowser.net)

  32. Yes it's faster by El+buen+guiri · · Score: 1

    It is faster. The performance advantage is really noticable on old PCs. On a new 1GHz with 128 Mb ram, everything is so fast it doesn't really make a difference.
    The disadvantages of Opera is there is no DOM and most of the bugs don't get fixed.

  33. Opera vs. K-Meleon on older MSW computers by afflatus_com · · Score: 4, Informative

    I run an quite old laptop that came with Windows OS. I picked up the free K-Meleon (which despite the name, isn't for KDE):

    K-Meleon on SourceForge

    Stripped of bloat, Mozilla's rendering engine runs fast and light on a P133Mhz laptop with 16MB.
    A sample screenshot is here:
    Screenshot of UI and context menu

    For comparison to Opera, I found: Opera 5 to be faster than K-Meleon, but with Opera 6, they were batting close to even.
    K-Meleon images don't dither very well if set to 256 colours (often the case with older computers) because of a palette shift. Opera dithers them nicely
    K-Meleon renders HTML better than Opera 6 (though Opera 6 does do a better job of difficult CSS than Opera 5).
    Opera is a full suite of apps, with alot more features vs. K-Meleon, whereas K-Meleon is a browser and browser alone.
    K-Meleon does let all the toolbars (URL, menu, URL bar) be placed in a single row to maximize screen real estate on a laptop.
    K-Meleon doesn't have Opera-style tabs yet, which is about the one feature missed the most.
    K-Meleon is Free.

    --

    -----
    Cast a Cold Eye
    On Life, on Death
    Horseman, pass by
    --W.B. Yeats' gravestone
    1. Re:Opera vs. K-Meleon on older MSW computers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Opera doesnt have tabs (like mozilla) but MDI windows - that's much much better.

      if mozilla had them i'd trash Opera.

    2. Re:Opera vs. K-Meleon on older MSW computers by evilviper · · Score: 2

      I tried K-Meleon (current version) up against Mozilla 1.0 rc2.

      K-Meleon starts up faster (obviously) but is significantly slower loading each page. (Just for completeness' sake, I was using the "Early Blue" theme.)

      Mozilla has tabs (which behave much better that Opera's), and is even MORE FREE than K-Meleon.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  34. Re:of course it's not your browser of choice, but. by radja · · Score: 2

    no, we do NOT need 1 browser. We need a clear standard for writing web-pages. Strangely enough, there is just such a standard..

    //rdj

    --

    No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
    --Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
  35. Bad review... by AVee · · Score: 1

    After several attempts to go through and learn all the different mouse gestures I decided to disable this function as it started to become more of an annoyance.

    If thou can not learn even that thou art not worthy of reviewing Opera.

  36. "Funny, IE isn't my browser of choice ... " by telstar · · Score: 2
    Funny, IE isn't my browser of choice ...
    • Welcome to the minority...

  37. Stats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does Slashdot publish the statistics on what browsers visitors to this site are using? I'm sure it's overwhelmingly IE.

  38. Opera 6.03 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I love it!! Works wel on my OS!!!

  39. Opera is my browser of choice... by Randatola · · Score: 1
    because one simple feature: an Accept/Refuse pop-up windows option.

    I could do this back when I used Netscape, but I had to disable all javascript and it involved navigating through preferences and deselecting boxes and whatnot. Perhaps Mozilla has this option now, but it runs too slowly on my system.

    I had some problems with things like Flash and Quicktime in earlier versions, but they all seem to work fine now. The multiple document interface also saves a ton of real estate on the taskbar. I never thought that it would matter, but once you get used to it you can't stand seeing 6 different tabs of IE/Netscape/whatever.

  40. Does Opera use IE code??? by JeanBaptiste · · Score: 1

    My girlfriend uses this stupid freemail at www.iwon.com. One day, she was unable to log into it as it said her session was expired (this is with IE). I cleared the cache, deleted cookies, tried again, same thing. I then installed opera and had her try again with opera. Same thing, said her session had expired - please re-login. So then I install netscape and she is able to get into her mail with that. This would tell me that opera and IE have to be sharing some code somewhere.... any ideas?

    1. Re:Does Opera use IE code??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most likely the server was having issues at iwon.com rather than the browser. By the time you went through all these browsers the problem was probably fixed.

    2. Re:Does Opera use IE code??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can identify the browser in different ways with OPERA.

  41. Re:of course it's not your browser of choice, but. by John+Percival · · Score: 1

    AOL is about to switch to a Mozilla based client in their next version of their software, so that is huge numbers of people switching from IE to Mozilla. I am a staunch IE supporter, mainly because of bad tables, Javascript and CSS run-ins with Netscape in the past, and never being able to get over our differences. If Netscape/Mozilla has CSS/JS support on par with IE, I would be happy, but when designing a website, Mozilla is just a right pain. So although many people seem to be running IE, things may start to head back the other way with the advent of the next AOL.

  42. Features IE will never have by Zapdos · · Score: 2

    Security and Privacy. The ability to prevent unwanted pop-up, pop-under, and browser hijacking. Microsoft will not go against advertisers. You can download and install addons to rid yourself of unwanted adds, but when that happens in bulk MS will release a brower update incompatable with that addon.

  43. Dillo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dillo from is the best browser for "browseing".
    http://dillo.cipsga.org.br

  44. Features by eddy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yes, I use Opera because of the features. I like the MDI. I cannot live without the ability to go back/forward using only the mousebuttons ("gestures"). I can press ctrl+g to quickly apply my own stylesheet to the page, as can I disable image-loading with a click. I can use the zoom-control to get up close when I need to (which happens), I can press F12 and quickly enable and disable javascript/plugins/popups. I can press CTRL+J to get a window with all the links on a page. I can enable automatic periodical refresh, I maximize frames with the click of a button. When exploring large link-collections I can use the special 'create linked window' to browse efficiently without having to open/close lot's of windows.

    I'm sure mozilla can do much of this, but IE? IE is - as far as I'm concerend - a joke as far as features go.

    Opera is all about the small things which makes my browsing fun and efficient. That said, I have a long list of things I wished it could do, some of them from IE (I want a page 'properties' function)

    --
    Belief is the currency of delusion.
    1. Re:Features by Zathrus · · Score: 1

      Sigh... all the Opera features I've forgotten and loved...

      A couple quickies - does Opera now offer the same kind of form entry memory IE does (e.g. - for names, addresses, etc. -- not the quick entry list that was in Opera 5, but auto-completion like IE does), as well as username/password entry memory (which IE manages to do the right thing and ASK you if you want to remember new ones every time instead of globally doing yes or no)?

      Has Opera improved on it's popup disabling, or is it still all or none? I like the way Mozilla does it - click on a new link that has a popup and it works. But onLoad/onUnload JS don't work if more than x milliseconds after the mouse click.

      BTW - in Opera (v5 at least), graphic disabling was G. No click needed :)

    2. Re:Features by eddy · · Score: 2
      A couple quickies - does Opera now offer the same kind of form entry memory IE does

      It says so, but I've never used it.

      username/password entry memory (which IE manages to do the right thing and ASK you if you want to remember new ones every time instead of globally doing yes or no)?

      Sounds terribly insecure. Opera does not do that, and I wouldn't want it to.

      Has Opera improved on it's popup disabling, or is it still all or none?

      Yes.

      (all or nothing. Yes, I wish they would give us more options)

      --
      Belief is the currency of delusion.
    3. Re:Features by germinatoras · · Score: 1

      Why I DON't use IE:

      • "AutoComplete can fill in commonly used fields in forms. Would you like to turn AutoComplete on now?"
      • "Would you like to save this password in your password list?" Um, sure, and I'd also like to put up a billboard in grand central station with my credit card number on it
      • ""Microsoft Internet Explorer has detected an error and will be closed. Would you like to send an error report to Microsoft?"
      • "You are browsing this over a secure connection. Information in this transaction cannot be view by third parties."
      • "You are submitting this form insecurely. The information can be view by a third party while in transit."
      • "This page cannot be view correctly due to your current security settings. To enable unsigned ActiveX controls, go to..."
      • "Hi, I'm the office assistant!"

      A really nice feature for IE would be a "leave me the hell alone" button.

    4. Re:Features by Zathrus · · Score: 1

      A couple quickies - does Opera now offer the same kind of form entry memory IE does?

      It says so, but I've never used it.


      That would be a no then... IE simply does it. First time you fill in a form w/ name, address, etc. you type as normal. The following times, as long as the form titles are similar, it will drop down a list of entries once you start typing. So instead of typing my address I can type the first few chars and hit down arrow, enter. Very convienent.

      username/password entry memory

      Sounds terribly insecure. Opera does not do that, and I wouldn't want it to.


      In theory it should be totally secure. Assuming, of course, your browser doesn't have any backdoors into it's own memory space, and your OS is reasonably secure as well. All it does is auto-fill the forms so you just have to click enter instead of remembering what bloody password you used for THIS site. And, as I said initially, it asks if you want to remember the PW. If you click no then it won't remember your username or the pw. If you click yes then next time you surf there and start to enter your userid it will let you autocomplete the userid (as above) and then fill in the password field automagically.

      This is the kind of thing that users want, and the kind of thing that should be done. As long as the overall system is secure. I use this feature for some stuff, like webboards, but not for REALLY important passwords - like my online banking. Those are kept only in my wetwired memory.

    5. Re:Features by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > "Microsoft Internet Explorer has detected an error and will be closed. Would you like to send an error report to Microsoft?"

      Out of your valid list of nagwindows, that single one didn't bother me - it's more like using a Mozilla talkback build.

    6. Re:Features by stevey · · Score: 1
      I can press CTRL+J to get a window with all the links on a page When exploring large link-collections I can use the special 'create linked window' to browse efficiently without having to open/close lot's of windows.

      Both of these things are cool tricks which I accomplish with the use of Bookmarklets

    7. Re:Features by foghorn19 · · Score: 1

      Lemme add another one to the nice list of things above: on laptops and small sized monitors, you can turn off the "windows" bar (tabbed windows, i.e.) and use rightclick-mousewheel to move from one window to another.

  45. Dillo is much faster (and lighter) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While Dillo is still missing some features like Java, and JavaScript, it is by far, much faster then Opera. Besides being fast it is very light.
    Check out of the screenshots from this wonderful browser.
    PS: I'm posting this in Dillo, too!

    1. Re:Dillo is much faster (and lighter) by xtremex · · Score: 2

      I use Dillo on my FreeBSD box. When I'm on that box, it's usually for research and looking up information. No javascript needed. And I reallt couldnt care less if I missed the designers COOL flash intro. It's content content content.

      --
      If you're not a Liberal in your 20's, then you have no heart.If you're still a Liberal in your 30's you have no brain.
  46. Speed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hmm, Mozilla 0.99 seems plenty fast for www.futurelooks.com right at the moment. Must be the Slashdotting.

  47. Ultimately... by Evil+Adrian · · Score: 0

    Ultimately, who gives a fuck? This browser argument is the same as people arguing whether a Dodge Viper or a Ferrari is better. You can come up with pluses and minuses on both sides, so shut up and cover some real news.

    --
    evil adrian
    1. Re:Ultimately... by hkmwbz · · Score: 1
      Who is arguing about browsers? It is a piece of news on Slashdot about a browser. No one is saying that everyone must use Opera.

      Oh well, you are obviously just a troll.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    2. Re:Ultimately... by Evil+Adrian · · Score: 0

      Yes, obviously douchebag, since every post is anti-IE and pro-anything but, there is obviously argument going on. It happens every time someone mentions the word browser. And I'm sick of it. Te browser war is over, everybody should just shut the hell up. IE renders fast, works well, what is the problem? Oh jeez because MICROSOFT made it it's evil? Big fucking deal. Hey so you think I'm a troll, why don't you blow me.

      --
      evil adrian
    3. Re:Ultimately... by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

      There is no problem. Apart from the fact that Opera caters for my needs, while IE does not. In fact, both Mozilla and Opera are superior to IE from a usability standpoint.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    4. Re:Ultimately... by Evil+Adrian · · Score: 0

      How so?

      --
      evil adrian
    5. Re:Ultimately... by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

      Because. And to be specific, MDI, keyboard shortcuts, mouse gestures, disable images with a single keypress, apply user CSS with a single keypress, disable annoying JavaScript popups, size, speed, security, etc. etc. etc. I could go on forever.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
  48. new improved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    slashdot has turned to a forum for angry windows users.

  49. Alternatives to IE by sirinek · · Score: 1

    I can't say much about Opera since I have not personally used it, but MOZILLA is a quite suitable alternative to IE, and free. The newest versions of MOZILLA are at least as stable and work just as well. I have no problems using Mozilla on all the sites which Konqueror chokes on such as my bank and other favorite sites that make heavy use of java and javascript. I dont use IE because I am on Linux.

    siri

  50. Opera vs. Mozilla? by purpledinoz · · Score: 1

    I haven't used opera in a long time, but I'm using Mozilla and IE right now. Mozilla isn't very stable, as far as my experience so far. If Opera is faster and stable, and compatible with all the crap out there, i'd use it... I'll have to give it a try.

    1. Re:Opera vs. Mozilla? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mozilla doesn't crash for me anymore (RC3)... it hasn't crashed in literally weeks. And, those crashes tended to be Java related. If you upgraded over a previous install, it's best to do a new fresh one. That often eliminates many crashes... and if it doesn't, document your crashes so they'll get fixed!

  51. What Opera doesn't do... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    DHTML. It has huge dom issues. It's not a bug, it's simply an non-implemented feature. Check out the Dynamic Threading on kuro5hin.org in Opera. It doesn't work, not because of bad coding, but because Opera simply doesn't support all the stuff necessry to make it work.

    Opera also has some strange negative text-indent behaviors (you have to double it!), and a few other odd quirks (but every browser has those.) It's definately better than IE in most things (24 bit PNG transparency rules!), but my browser is Mozilla. (Oh, and Mozilla is also free.)

  52. choice? by mattdm · · Score: 2

    I think you're confusing "choice" with

    • "It came installed on my system and it hasn't occured to me to look for something else."
    • "It came on my system and I'm used to it now so I actually kinda like it."

    and of course

    • "What? I'm not using Internet Explorer. I'm using AOL."
    1. Re:choice? by Aanallein · · Score: 1
      and of course "What? I'm not using Internet Explorer. I'm using AOL."
      *grins* And I'm still confused over this one having become a good things... o.O
  53. Opera vs Crazy Browser by Mr_Silver · · Score: 3, Interesting
    This is probably the wrong place to post it, but IE is my browser of choice. I don't like Opera's inability to render PRE tags to the right size and iffy javascript handling and I unfortunately don't have 20 hours to sit around to download Mozilla at 2k/sec on my modem.

    However, I have found Crazy Browser which is a replacement for IE using the IE rendering engine.

    In fact thats what I'm using now and for a 690k download, it's lovely. Full support for websites (even those with iffy HTML), tabbed interface, Windows XP theme support, popup filter and a really nifty feature which indicates when pages have changed in your links list.

    It's also free (as in beer). Having access to the source doesn't bother me (and 90% of the population) in the slightest since I wouldn't understand a word of it or really look at it.

    I appreciate that this is a geek site and therefore most people won't touch IE with a barge pole but if you do like IE (and I do) but want tabbed browsing then check it out.

    As far as I'm concerned, it does everything that I'd use in Opera, so therefore I don't really see the point in paying for Opera. Granted they've done a fine job - but it's just not for me.

    --
    Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
    1. Re:Opera vs Crazy Browser by mczak · · Score: 1
      This is probably the wrong place to post it, but IE is my browser of choice. I don't like Opera's inability to render PRE tags to the right size and iffy javascript handling and I unfortunately don't have 20 hours to sit around to download Mozilla at 2k/sec on my modem.
      Just a little math: if you really only get 2k/sec (even my old 28800bps modem does more than that!), the download is nowhere near 20 hours. A download of, say, IE6, is a lot larger (then again, you get half the OS with it, too). Mozilla 1.0rc3 talkback enabled full installer = 9.8MB. That's not even one and a half hour with the 2k/sec. And don't you download things like jre 1.4, which is about the same size?
    2. Re:Opera vs Crazy Browser by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

      Opera does the right thing and draws monospace fonts with the same font size as other fonts (12). Other browser are completely illogical and draw monospace fonts with a smaller font size (10) but others with 12. What's the point? To confuse users?

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    3. Re:Opera vs Crazy Browser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The big problem with Mozilla/Netscape and modem users is that they don't release binary patches. Every time there's a security update or something, it's another 10-20MB download, while Microsoft's (more frequent) patches are usually less than 1 MB.

  54. Lynx users try links by rwa2 · · Score: 5, Informative
    I discovered links while browsing through dselect a few years ago, and it's pretty awesome for a text mode browser: It supports tables, frames, and will even pass mouse clicks through when run through an xterm... it's almost exactly like using a GUI browser with the graphics off! I'm really surprised more people don't know about it by now.

    Hmm, from freshmeat, it looks like the new version even has graphics support now :/ . Oh well :P . Give it a shot!

    dillo was the only graphical browser I could ever get running on a 486/33Mhz with 16MB RAM (mozilla 0.8 ran, but swapped too much to be usable). Actually, come to think of it, Opera (5.x?) didn't work too bad either.

    1. Re:Lynx users try links by Anna+Merikin · · Score: 1

      Hmm, from freshmeat, it looks like the new version (of links) even has graphics support now

      Thassright, graphics support can be compiled in, but I could not get it to display graphics from a terminal as one poster suggested w3m/lynx can do.

      To get a graphical-enabled links up, just specify the -g option; otherwise it's a text-mode browser.

      The graphical Links seems to be about as fast as Mozilla or Opera for Linux but not nearly as quick to display pages as Dillo (which begins to show text before parsing anything else and, so, is faster if what you want is textual information.) IIRC the graphical links is still Beta, and one might expect the final product to be faster without debugging flags, etc.

      As most of my browsing is done on simple pages w/o the need for plugins, Dillo is still my first choice, with Moz next, even though I have an ad-free, registered version 5.x Opera. Dillo is king of speed, beating even lynx to display text.

    2. Re:Lynx users try links by stevey · · Score: 2, Funny

      I use links in preference to W3m and Lynx nowadays - but I really wish it had a different name:

      "So you're using Links then?"

      "Yeah - I've been using lynx for years.."

      "No not Lynxs - Links..."

    3. Re:Lynx users try links by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want a graphical browser that will run on a 486, you might consider running DOS and Arachne (there's also a Linux version now, I believe). When you ask why use DOS, since it's not protection safe or supports multitasking, realize that at least the latter is a performance penalty and the former usually is. In any case, there are a good many various DOS internet tools here:

      http://www.fdisk.com/doslynx/

      If you have an old 486 lying around, it's probably already got DOS running on it, so why not give running some DOS internet tools a go? You can also try out DR-DOS or FreeDOS. I'd suggest the former, if you can validly use it (go to ftp://ftp.lineo.com/pub/drdos/LICENSE.TXT to find out). You can then go to www.drdos.net to download it. Anyways, I hope this helps, since old 486s aren't really trash, even if you can't easily use Linux or Windows on it because of archaic hardware.

    4. Re:Lynx users try links by bcaulf · · Score: 1

      Bah! Spring for the 32MB and run either Linux/X/Opera 6 or Win98/Opera 6. A 486 is plenty enough CPU to run modern web software. Heck, if all you have is a 386/8MB, still go for Win3.1/Opera 3(iirc). Arachne's niche is truly obsolete hardware like less than 6MB RAM or less than i386.

    5. Re:Lynx users try links by rapidweather · · Score: 1

      The links browser comes with Grey Cat Linux 2.x. This little linux distro installs in a directory on your windows machine, and you can make a boot disk for it using batch files. I have windows 95 boot disks for Grey Cat Linux on several machines, and it also can do e-mail. I have mine set up so I connect to the internet like so: #dial , and when I am connected, a message says "You are connected to the Internet!" comes up. To disconnect, #hangup
      There are three consoles, so you can use one for "TOP", one to dial & hangup, and one for "links". Fix an internal start page with your favorite links in place of the default one. It'll come up when you start "links", and get you going quicker. Like most linux distros you can customize Grey Cat to your tastes. Soon (I hope soon) Grey Cat 3.x will be available, and this will have a gui, and use Netscape 3.04 as the browser. If one disables Javascript, NS 3.04 is tolerable. Opera did not have a browser for Linux then, too bad.. One thing about Grey Cat is the ease of connecting to the internet via dial up. The setup provided is well done.( Also the email setup)

  55. Better get used to standards... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If AOL is planning on using Netscape for 8.0. People may scoff at AOL but they do have a huge subscriber business.

  56. What's the point of voicing my opinion? by Domini · · Score: 2

    This slashdot community is to Linux-centric to even want to see that other people like using IE.

    How about:

    IE has NEVER crashed for me and I can browse anywhere? And this is not an isolated incident?

    I have had several versions of Opera, Konquerer, Netscape, Mozilla. Thay all have crashed on me, and they all have trouble with sites.

    So moderate me down on this one too. I don't care, I have karma to burn, baby!

    Me.

    1. Re:What's the point of voicing my opinion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, we're different. IE crashes for me, Mozilla doesn't (nor have I ever seen Opera crash for me in my limited testing.) Mozilla used to crash... but that was long long ago.

      You don't see IE have trouble for sites because people code around it's trouble spots.

    2. Re:What's the point of voicing my opinion? by interstellar_donkey · · Score: 2

      You're not alone.

      Up until mid '99, I was a die hard anti-MS Netscape/Opera user. Finally I tried out IE.

      The thing that got me was, it works. It worked well. Netscape has been behind the curve since it's 4.x release.

      About every 6 months I'll try the latest netscape/opera, and recently mozilla. While they may be faster (on paper), IE still seems to work just fine for me.

      While I still dislike MS the company, I do like IE the software package. After running MSIE on XP for four months, the browser has never crashed on me, and continues to earn my loyalty.

      For a competetor to get me to switch, they can't be 'just as good', they have to be signifigantly better.

      --
      The Internet is generally stupid
    3. Re:What's the point of voicing my opinion? by hkmwbz · · Score: 1
      Of course IE doesn't crash. If a site crashes IE, it will quickly go out of business. Site developers work their butts of trying to make it work as flawlessly as possible with IE because it has 80% or so of the market.

      That said, I use IE for testing, and it frequently crashes. On several systems. Go figure.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    4. Re:What's the point of voicing my opinion? by Explo · · Score: 2

      I have seen all the browsers you mention crashing several times, including IE. Congratulations for your extremely good luck. All of them have also misbehaved at some sites. There's no such thing as a perfect browser, thus it's good that there's choice to find the browser that causes the least amount of annoyance for your particular browsing preferences, be it Mozilla, IE, Opera or something else.

      --
      Everyone who makes generalizations should be shot.
    5. Re:What's the point of voicing my opinion? by Domini · · Score: 2

      You don't see IE have trouble for sites because people code around it's trouble spots.

      All the more reason for me to use it then. Was this your point?

      The same mime/tree/forest point. If it does not crash for me, it's stable.

    6. Re:What's the point of voicing my opinion? by Domini · · Score: 2

      If people try so hard to make sites work flawlesly with IE, all the more reason to use it.

      Besides, it's rarely the browser that crashes, but the plugins or other 'dirty' applications with messy DLLs.

      It can even be bad video drivers or a buggy version of DirectX.

      I've been told that IE5.5 sp2 is quite stable compared to earlier ones.

      With that said:

      I've BOUGHT Opera - I try and use it out of principle... But I still NEED (work related) to use IE, and I do grudgingly admit it's superiority.

    7. Re:What's the point of voicing my opinion? by hkmwbz · · Score: 1
      Your logic is flawed. You say that IE is superior because:

      a) It dominates the browser market
      b) Sites are written specifically to work with it

      Neither of these say anything about IE's quality. It simply says something about its position in the market. And as we all know, superior products don't have to dominate the market. Betamax vs. VHS, anyone?

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    8. Re:What's the point of voicing my opinion? by Domini · · Score: 2

      End-Users do not care about HTML standards.

      Since most of the users using browsers are these, they dictate the average measure of standards.

      The "better" browser browses the best.

      If most people had Beta, and more Beta tapes were available, and Beta had better policies with regards to licencing development specs and marketing, then they would have been the best. But they were not because they could not play the majoity of media out there.

      Thus the "best" machine would be the one that made the average man happy, and not the perfectionist superior technologist.

      I personally always support the underdog (especially if it is technologically superior) thus I was one of the Beta idiots, an Amiga nut and a Linux luser.
      ;)

      I also OWN Windows Commander, Opera, Agent and Eudora. I've also used Cello, NCSA Mosaic, Mozilla, Lynx, konqueror, Neoplanet, Netscape and IE.

      Make what you want, I guess.
      I just tried to play devil's advocate... especially if there could be a bit of truth to it...

    9. Re:What's the point of voicing my opinion? by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

      I'm not talking about HTML standards, but about the quality of these products. The reason IE works on all sites isn't that it is the best browser. It is that it is the most widely used browser - by far. It isn't most widely used because it is the best browser either, it is because Microsoft included it and integrated it with their operating systems - which happen to dominate the consumer desktop market. "Better" means that it has to be better at something. Overall, other browsers to far better than IE at most things. The only thing IE is better at is being more widely used. And this doesn't say anything about the quality of the product (see above).

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    10. Re:What's the point of voicing my opinion? by Domini · · Score: 2

      Actually I have found problems in other browsers (Opera 6.03 and Mozilla 1.0) where certain pages display partly the first time, and then displays diferently on a refresh...

      This is not a sign of a different implementation of an HTML standard... It's just plain a bug.
      See this site for an example.

      You have made a valid point, but said nothing that could convince me. Have you seen the IE codebase to make such an assumption? It would seem you are besing better on the fact that IE cannot (will not by MS) be split from the OS and that they do not want to give it away for free and that the source code is not open source. THESE are the reasons I would not want to use it either, but not reasons I would think it inferior anyway...

      Also the fact that it has so many security flaws stem from feature overextension... something the other browsers lack. And even though you and I may not NEED these features, many people DO.

    11. Re:What's the point of voicing my opinion? by hkmwbz · · Score: 1
      What site are you referring to with the resfresh issue? If you didn't know, refresh and reload are two completely different things. Refresh refreshes the display, while reload reloads the entire page, including scripts. It would be expected that things can break when refreshing, as not all the scripting is re-run.

      As for your comment about IE and the OS, etc. etc. you are still off the mark. I am not talking about that at all. It can be glued to the OS with superglue, but it doesn't say a thing about the quality of the browser.

      As I've already stated, I am purely talking about the quality of the products themselves. MSIE misinterprets standards, has serious bugs and errors (ever tried absolute positioning using CSS with IE? Don't), has numerous security holes, etc. And when it comes to usability, Mozilla and Opera leave IE in the dust. Tabbed browsing, mouse gestures, easy handling of user CSS, etc. etc.

      And if these security holes are caused by feature bloat, it only underlines my point further. With Microsoft's bottomless pockets, they should at least have the resources to properly check their products for bugs and especially security holes. What are you saying? They actually leave their products vulnerable because it is more "user friendly"? Like the way they allow attachments to execute automatically in OE because it is more "convenient" for preview?

      Well, what can I say...

      BUT you have gotten me completely off track here. Again, you are saying that IE is better because everyone uses it, and that it handles sites because it is better. Not so. It is more widely used because it is distributed with Windows, and it shows sites "properly" (though this is often in fact incorrect, in reality) because it has a near monopoly.

      This is the point, and this doesn't say anything about the quality of the browser. Only its position in the market.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
  57. Re:of course it's not your browser of choice, but. by barzok · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yeah, it's such a terrible burden to have to write HTML-compliant code, instead of having IE render just about anything you throw at it.

    Write correct, clean code and you won't have any trouble with Mozilla-based browsers.

  58. Sandscript? by Sinistar2k · · Score: 2
    With Opera Unicode allows users to read pages from literally any language, except Sandscript. Then again, last time I checked I heard that language is dead!

    Is the reviewer referring to sanskrit here or is there actually a dead language called sandscript?

    1. Re:Sandscript? by medscaper · · Score: 1

      Yeah, he's an idiot. I had a flame ready for this one, but refrained until I searched /. for 'Sandscript' comments.

      I refused to continue reading at that point.

      --
      Any sufficiently well-organized Government is indistinguishable from bullshit.
    2. Re:Sandscript? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was precisely the point where I found I couldn't read any more of his inane review.

    3. Re:Sandscript? by ahfoo · · Score: 2

      Same here. I was really put off by that. My Mom spent several years studying Sanscrit at UCB in the 60s and I've always been proud of the fact. Oh well, shit happens but that with the non-mention of Mozilla was enough to give up on it.

    4. Re:Sandscript? by Fiver-rah · · Score: 2, Funny

      Sandscript: the language *so* dead that nobody, except possibly the reviewer, has heard of it.

      --
      Read Bujold. Free (as in
    5. Re:Sandscript? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, the reviewer's use of English was so shoddy I reckon it's a safe bet they simply got it wrong. I'm living in Norway these days and most of the locals speak and write English better than this guy ... sigh - how does the Anglophone world manage to be so damn illiterate ?

    6. Re:Sandscript? by NanoGator · · Score: 3, Funny

      "Is the reviewer referring to sanskrit here or is there actually a dead language called sandscript? "

      It's the primary written language of Jawas. Unfortunately, it all but disappeared after the Empire instituted the death penalty for anybody that didn't speak 20th century Earth English.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    7. Re:Sandscript? by AnyoneEB · · Score: 1

      Unicode doesn't support Sandskrit(sp?)? I thought it did... (not that I would ever view a page with that script...)

      --
      Centralization breaks the internet.
  59. mouse gestures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    they should have tested it a bit more thoroughly.

    firstly you can disable mouse gestures and secondly they are really great once you get used to it (yea, they got on my nerves too at first, but believe it or not, they're very practical. if you've you hand on the mouse you dont have to put the cursor to the toolbar or put your hand on the keyboard.. just make "zzaaaap" and you're where you are:-)

    1. Re:Mouse gestures by phriedom · · Score: 1

      Mouse gestures are terrific. I only use the "forward" and "backward" stokes and can't imagine why the reviewer would find those "annoying" and turn them off.

      --
      Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
  60. Sandscript? by dramaley · · Score: 1

    >With Opera Unicode allows users to read pages from
    >literally any language, except Sandscript.

    I've never heard of Sandscript. Is that like Applescript? Or is it more like Sanskrit?

    --
    ----- "I'm still sane on three planets and two moons."
  61. Re:No, but OPERA identifies itself as IE 5 by veddermatic · · Score: 2

    You can choose which browser you tell servers you are (OPera, IE, a bunch of Netscapes) and by default, this is IE 5 (because so many stupid site builders check for IE only and won;t let you in of you don't have it).

    Go to Quick Preferences in the File menu and change Idenfiy As... to whatever you want.

    HTH

    --
    Department of Homeland Security: Removing the rights real patriots fought and died for since 2001
  62. MSIE Only.... by Vireo · · Score: 1

    I regularly come across websites that performs a check before showing the content and sometimes prevents you from viewing it if you're not using MSIE. A year ago or so, that was the case with two financial institutions where my wife and I kept our money...

    I don't know if Opera still has this feature but I remember that it was possible to make the Opera browser present itself as Netscape or MSIE; that was a nice feature, that I would like to see in Moz right now.

    1. Re:MSIE Only.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First, let me say, this is a *BAD* thing for the Internet. It's bad enough that IE goes around telling sites it's Mozilla/4.0, having Opera or Mozilla lie about being IE who's lieing about being Netscape is just silly.

      If you want to fake the browser string, you can put the following in your user.js file (in your profile directory):

      user_pref("general.useragent.override", "fake agent string");

      This just alters what Mozilla sends, not it's behavior.

      There's also the Useragent Toolbar which lets you adjust this on the fly.

  63. Re:of course it's not your browser of choice, but. by goldid · · Score: 1

    Mark me as redundant, but DAMN STRAIGHT!

    Building sites on Mozilla isn't a pain. If you're doing what you should be, they work!

  64. Uh, No. by crisco · · Score: 5, Informative
    I'm sorry, but Mr Hyatt is incorrect in asserting that Mozilla had tabbed browsing before Opera.

    He claims that "Opera only added tabs in its newest version after Mozilla had them already in its trunk builds."

    Opera introduced its 'Window Bar' (buttons for each open within the MDI) with Opera 4, wich came out in spring of 2000. Around that time Mozilla was at M14 and the first Netscape 6 Preview was being released. Neither of those had the equivalent to Opera's Window Bar. The first mention of Mozilla 'tabbed browsing' I can find is a year later, contained in this post to the Mozilla newsgroups. Implementation didn't happen until late summer or fall of 2001, possibly being beat to it by the Multizilla project.

    Of course NetCaptor (A shell for the MSIE HTML rendering component) had them back in '99, maybe even earlier.

    --

    Bleh!

    1. Re:Uh, No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Although not it's primary function, Lotus Notes 5 does do a form of tabbed browsing with the IE control. This was beta'd in 98 and released in 99.

      Of course, Tabbed Spreadsheeting goes way back, so lets not give these guys too much credit.

  65. not a big fan of opera.... by jms258 · · Score: 1

    to me, the interface seems clunky (i.e. the refresh and stop button are one and the same, and change state according to whether or not you are fetching a page) and i have noticed no significant difference in the speed of rendering pages when compared to mozilla, ie, or konq. call me a cheapskate, but another thing that turns me off opera is the fact that it isn't free.

    1. Re:not a big fan of opera.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > call me a cheapskate, but another thing that turns me off opera is the fact that it isn't free.

      Yes it is.

      The free version will show ads, from a set downloaded once a week, in a small upper-righthand-corner area. Easily ignored, and the ads have seldom (but not 'never') been intrusive.

  66. What does this guy have against the MOUSE GESTURES by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can anybody agree on the opinion, that the mouse gestures are annoying? I think that they are one of the best ideas that I have ever seen. It's incredible fast and really easy to handle. I told a lot of my friends of that function and I just got positive response.
    Maybe for some people it is too complicate to learn as much.

  67. It's still not too late to shift the market though by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Right now, many pages are still browser neutral, if not standards compliant. Before IE completely takes over the web, there is still time for Mozilla, Opera, etc to keep it from becoming proprietary. The less spent on IE stuff only, and the easier it is to switch. VHS succeeded because once people had VHS tapes, they wouldn't move to something and lose their investment. Here, we still don't generally have that problem. Moving to Mozilla, Opera, etc doesn't lose too much of an investment.

  68. Slow as shit on Macs by sudnshok · · Score: 1

    I've been using Opera 5 on Mac OS9 for about a month now and I'd say it is by far the slowest browser of the three. Pages load about 3 times faster on IE, and 2 times faster on NS. Sometimes it takes 30+ seconds just to shut the program down. And while a page is loading, no chance of letting it load in the background - it ties up the whole computer and you're stuck.

    I'll be upgrading to OSX shortly, and maybe it'll be better for that.

    I've tried as hard as possible to resist IE, but unfortunately it really seems to be the best browser.

    --
    People who say "money does not buy happiness" are just people without money trying to make themselves feel better.
  69. Mouse gestures... Annoying?! by levik · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The comment on the reviewer's part about the mouse gestures being annoying pretty much invalidated the whole review for me. I am using Opera full time, and find genstures indispensible to the extent that when forced to use IE/K-Meleon due to Opera's rendering issues, I constantly find myself trying to "go back" by right-dragging the mouse to the left.

    That somebody who took it upon themself to review the product did not wish to take the time to familiarize themself with one of its biggest features speaks to a certain lack of proffessinalism... That aside though, I don't see how the gestures can be considered a "con". Even with them turned on, I find it difficult to perform one accidentally (I myself only use the back and forth navigation and never run into a problem of triggering another gesture accidentally). Finally, since there's an option to turn them off, I really fail to see how, iven if they are "annoying", their inclusion can be held against the browser.

    I think that it's by providing these features that Opera can succeed in the marketplace alongside of IE. One great feature would be trying to predict the next link you will click and pre-loading that page. (Like for multi-page articles).

    --
    Ñ'
    1. Re:Mouse gestures... Annoying?! by arcadesdude · · Score: 1

      I also find it odd that the author listed Mouse Guestures under "Cons" if he turned them off and didnt have to worry about them if he didn't like them.

      If, on the other hand, he did find them useful (I sure do) then he would have that option.

      I guess he's not pro-choice :)

      --
      --arcades
    2. Re:Mouse gestures... Annoying?! by Ian+Peon · · Score: 2
      The way that it seperates the documents is by an overhead tab system that can be easily modified to be placed on the bottom, top or side of the browser. Overall this is a very cool and unique feature...

      Need to do a little more homework there sluggo.

      It also looks the editor (if any) was asleep at the wheel. After showing that all the sites he visited rendered well, he states:

      For the most part I could not find a site that didn't completely blowup in Opera.

    3. Re:Mouse gestures... Annoying?! by sean23007 · · Score: 2

      I completely agree with you. The mouse gestures are an incredible feature for a web browser. I have grown so accustomed to using them that, whenever I am forced to go back to another browser for whatever reason, I too right-drag to go back. It even happens in Windows Explorer!

      You're right that the author invalidates himself by saying that they are an annoyance, but he further invalidates himself by writing such poor English. I was supremely disappointed by this article: it just doesn't do Opera justice.

      --

      Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
    4. Re:Mouse gestures... Annoying?! by jesser · · Score: 2

      If gestures annoy the reviewer, what makes you think they won't annoy a normal user? You can reasonably say "This reviewer seems to be writing for users who won't spend an hour tweaking prefs in order to get a browser that doesn't annoy them, and I'm not that kind of user". But you're not justified in calling the review invalid.

      By the way, when I tried Opera 5, I accidentally triggered a gesture while trying to activate a context menu. I had barely moved the mouse while clicking. Even though I knew I could disable gestures, that annoyed me. It also made me suspicious that there would be more annoyances like that if I continued to use Opera.

      --
      The shareholder is always right.
    5. Re:Mouse gestures... Annoying?! by RevLizard · · Score: 1

      "Me Too!" I've used most of the browsers since the "beginning of the Net as we know it" - and I have yet to use ANYTHING that can compete with the feature set of Opera. Mouse gestures, MDI, general customization features.

      Normally you have to dig around IE to find anything of note, and Moz/Netscape...well..we'll just leave it there for me.When the "Reviewing Clown" wrote about the mouse gestures as a "Con", I just gave up on reading. Sure - how long does it take to move 6 inches across my screen to hit the back button? Well, a little bit more than clicking a right button and sliding a quarter inch to move back.

      Yup, I do have to roam to a different machine at times to access certain sites. But for the most part, the IE 5 compatibility mode can handle even SSL sites without trouble. There's probably more problem from my proxy than my browser though.

      Nope, all my machines - Linux and Doze have Opera on them and I wouldn't give Opera up for the world. It saves me far more time overall than the annoyance that a few - very few - sites give me in rendering.

      Here's a good example - I open up 10-15 windows while scanning news in the morning and let them load..then simply click through them at my leisure. But what happens when I need to get to something behind them? In Opera? Minimize the window - period. I can slide 'em around, copy, paste, etc. In a "normal" IE browser? Spend half a minute minimizing all those windows.

      Opera is the one to beat if you're shooting for it. Oh yeah, and I'm a web dev primarily coding for IE.

    6. Re:Mouse gestures... Annoying?! by Eythian · · Score: 1

      The comment on the reviewer's part about the mouse gestures being annoying pretty much invalidated the whole review for me.

      Really?! For me! it was! the exclmation marks! after things like! ancient Babylonian!!! :)

    7. Re:Mouse gestures... Annoying?! by levik · · Score: 2
      I think that it's a job of any reviewer to spend an hour playing with a program's settings. I would be fine with it if he said: "The gestures were confusing and annoying at first, but if you give it a little practice they become an indispencible part of navigation." (Which really is the case). The fact that he found himself not using them, and disabled them, hardly makes them annoying.

      Besides, he completely fails to mention that Opera informs you the first time you use gestures, and, as I recall gives you an option to disable it right then and there.

      --
      Ñ'
  70. Opera's nicest features by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Multiple document interface.
    Ability to accept/refuse popup windows without disabling the rest of javascript.
    Mouse gestures!
    Fast downloads and renders.
    Actually informative status bar which only appears while a page is loading.
    Built in functional mail and news client.
    Ability to toggle quickly between a page's css and a user defined css.
    Easy to access 'Delete private information' section available right off the File menu, for quickly emptying cookies, cache, history, etc.
    Has ads, but they're not all that distracting.

    Woo! Opera!

    1. Re:Opera's nicest features by fuali · · Score: 0

      ... Adware Spyware ...

    2. Re:Opera's nicest features by hkmwbz · · Score: 1
      Wrong.

      Several people have also actually taken the time to check their facts before spreading FUD and lies. Independent people have analyzed the ad traffic, and Opera is not spyware. Check their newsgroups.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
  71. Re:of course it's not your browser of choice, but. by tcdk · · Score: 1
    So, what can we do to help? Advocacy. Get folks using Moz or Opera -- your mom, your brother, your sister, your dog, whatever. Brief them on how Moz came to be -- it's free as in speech, ma! Or, we could just wait for MS to cock-up IE... :)

    I'm not going to install anything but IE on anybodies computers anytime soon. I use moz my self, but I'm also the person they are going to call the moment (no matter what that hour that moment happens to happen) when some site tells them that they are using an unsupported browser.

    They are not calling me to thank me for standing up for what is right and to making it very clear for them that the site they tried to visit is created by a bunch of microsoft oriented retards. They are not going to tell me that they aren't interested in the site anymore now that they are aware of this fact.

    No. They are calling me to ask how to enable this other browser that actually works everwhere.

    --
    TC - My Photos..
  72. Chimera All the Way! by Krach42 · · Score: 1

    Ok, Chimera claims the crown on Macs as "the fastest web browser" it renders pages significantly faster than IE, and that ain't no joke! It also bothers to smooth your text fonts, so that it makes pages look REALLY nice.

    I actually HATE to look at web pages in anything else, because Chimera makes things look THAT much better... and Chimera does it faster... beats the crap outta me why people can't do the same... oh, yeah, that's why we still have x86... people would rather make what they have work, than switch to something that works better.

    --

    I am unamerican, and proud of it!
  73. Don't read the news? by xrayspx · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Go to CNN.com with Opera 6/Linux. It's a shame.

    I use Opera 90% of the time under Linux, it's great, fast, looks great most of the time. However one major feature that it lacks is a "delete URL" button, like the X> that Konq has. When you're cutting and pasting a URL in, you can't then highlight the current URL and delete, because then you have to go back and RESELECT what you wanted to paste. It's a pain. Much easier to select, hit X>, mid-click.

    1. Re:Don't read the news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's a nickle, kid, go buy a computer with a clipboard.

    2. Re:Don't read the news? by keeg · · Score: 1

      Highlight the text you want to copy, click somewhere in the URL field, (don't highlight the current URL), and hit Ctrl-backspace.

    3. Re:Don't read the news? by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      When you're cutting and pasting a URL in, you can't then highlight the current URL and delete, because then you have to go back and RESELECT what you wanted to paste. It's a pain.

      This is one of the things I hate most about X, and one of the reasons I use a Mac for my desktop work.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    4. Re:Don't read the news? by awa · · Score: 1

      Instead of playing with the location bar, you could just press F2 and use the Go To Page field. It won't "go to" until you're done editing the URL.

      --
      --Moo
    5. Re:Don't read the news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another cool thing about MacOS is that you can select a URL pretty much anywhere and then Drag-N-Drop it onto your browser window.

      For some reason this doesn't work in Windows except rare cases.

    6. Re:Don't read the news? by Talla · · Score: 1

      Open search.ini, and make a search which has
      URL=http://%s
      Then you can just select the URL (from www...), select search with, and whatever you called it, and the URL will open. Here are a couple of bonus entries for searching perldoc and IMDB:

      [Search Engine 10]
      Name=&IMDB
      URL=http://us.imdb.com/Find?selec t=Titles&for=%s
      Query=
      Key=i
      Is post=0
      Has endseparator=0
      Encoding=iso-8859-1
      Search Type=7

      [Search Engine 14]
      Name=&Perldoc
      URL=http://www.perldoc.com/cgi -bin/htsearch?words= %s&restrict=perl5.6.1
      Query=
      Key=p
      Is post=0
      Has endseparator=0
      Encoding=
      Search Type=3

      If you don't want to replace Engine 10 and 14, you have to call them something else. Use "i insomnia" or "p date::calc" to search. This is what makes Opera *really* timesaving.

    7. Re:Don't read the news? by greydmiyu · · Score: 1

      When you're cutting and pasting a URL in, you can't then highlight the current URL and delete, because then you have to go back and RESELECT what you wanted to paste.

      Funny, I don't have that problem. But then I do recall that this is unix and under unix one can hit CNTL-U to delete any entry field. So what I do is highlight, click in the URL bar (not highlight) and hit CNTL-U. Clean bar ready for entry. Don't blame the editor for your ignorance of the environment in which you're operating.

      --
      -- Grey d'Miyu, not just another pretty color.
    8. Re:Don't read the news? by pclminion · · Score: 2

      In addition to the bazillion other ways people have already mentioned, you can also just right-click on the address entry field and select "Clear".

    9. Re:Don't read the news? by xrayspx · · Score: 2

      I should have been more specific. I wanted to clear the URL field without touching my keyboard I have multiple PCs on my desk, and often I will have my left hand on the keyboard for one of the PCs and my right hand on the mouse for the other.

      You're absolutely right, that works, but a "Clear URL Field" button is far more convenient.

    10. Re:Don't read the news? by greydmiyu · · Score: 1

      That would be "New". A new window has nothing in the URL bar. One could also double-click on the workspace of Opera itself to open a new window within it. If you're using the non-MDI style there is always the new tab button.

      --
      -- Grey d'Miyu, not just another pretty color.
  74. Intentional Blocking of Opera by Sites by arcadesdude · · Score: 1

    I've noticed some sites intentionally block/cripple Opera.

    To get around that you can use a proxy and change your user agent string to:

    Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98; Actually 0pera 6.03)

    (or something similar...)

    And fool 'dem com-pee-u-ters!

    --
    --arcades
    1. Re:Intentional Blocking of Opera by Sites by fuali · · Score: 0

      (Now I know this isn't right or fair, but it is reality)

      As a web-developer with a heavy design department to please, more often than not we target content to browsers. There are basically 3 browser types we deal with:
      IE 5.x and above(about 72% of traffic)
      Netscape 4.x (about 25% of traffic)
      Other (about 3% of traffic)

      "Other" Content is designed to be safe, and will run on anything from Lynx, Opera, Omniweb, iCab, Mozilla,Konquerer, or whatever.

      I know it's not fair, it's just the reality of things.

    2. Re:Intentional Blocking of Opera by Sites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In my logs, I don't see Netscape 4 getting anywhere near 25%... In fact, I have more Gecko users than NS 4 users now.

    3. Re:Intentional Blocking of Opera by Sites by SystemFork · · Score: 2, Informative

      You're insane, just hit F12 in Opera then select, "Identify as MSIE 5.0"

      From that point on, any webservers you visit will think you're using IE. It's a great way to get around uppidy webmasters who shut other browsers out completely before testing to see if they actually are broken.

      --
      Slogan-free since April! We pass the savings on to you!
    4. Re:Intentional Blocking of Opera by Sites by arcadesdude · · Score: 1

      Actually if you do it that way there will still be the string "Opera" in your user agent (go ahead and try it).

      With the proxy way, you can have it any way you want with out the "Opera" in there which sites will (unfortuatly block).

      If you look closely, you'll notice my user agent string has 0pera not Opera (pera vs. pera).

      This way works better and gets around the evil sites that block Opera. If I wanted I could leave out the opera part altogether but I'd like those who actually review the logs to see Opera Rules!

      --
      --arcades
  75. Nice by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

    Opera is much faster than IE and the interface is much smarter. You would think Microsoft would copy it but they are obviously to incompetent. Its just the little things that make it good - like the way i can CTRL+SHIFT Click on a link and it will open it in a new window in the _background_ thus i don't even have to stop reading the page. Absolutly perfect for anything like slashdot or e2. Not to mention the way i can carry on from where i left after a crash (when windows crashes, you loose all 30 windows you had open).

    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
  76. Opera is great but crashes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does this happen to anyone else?
    It seems to happen when manipulating bookmarks.
    I'm running 6.0 on Red Hat 7.2.

  77. Opera , the spyware/Adware infested browser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    Opera is infested with their own implementation of Cydoor tracking technologies, sure they claim it isnt spyware and is Adware and go to great lengths to say otherwise, but then they would wouldnt they ? then end result is the same the users privacy is at risk!, their info page does say , and i quote....

    "Once the browser has connected, it receives a unique user code back from the registration server. This is a unique ID which will be used in all subsequent communication with these particular servers" (emphasis mine)

    also

    "Without being able to set a unique ID to your browser, it would not have been possible to sell ads in Opera"

    hmm i wonder why ?

    of note is the "Unique ID" that Cydoor assign to you, tie this to your IP and/or a cookie and they can basically monitor the adverts shown to you and your response specifically to your machine , sure they havent got my name but then they have the next best thing, a supercookie, and we all know how much power doubleclick have/had by just using a simple cookie, it doesnt take a rocket scientist to imagine the data mining possible by using unique id's and a relational database

    Spychecker list it as Adware

    Spywareinfo do not reccomend it either and have a forum thread here and here where again Opera try to dispell concerns about Cydoor saying "cydoor used to spy on their customers" things get a little heated as workers/advocates clammer to defend their business relationship with Cydoor, but the fact remains that Opera "sponsors" Cydoor for want of a better word in their business practices however un-ethical, by continuing to use them.

    Opera should revise their business relationship with Cydoor if they don't want their name dragged through the mud, there are hundreds of ways of generating revenue without resorting to "unique id's" being used

    fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me

  78. Opera probably spams. by Xaltlee · · Score: 2, Troll

    Hate to say this, because I used to love Opera as much as anyone could love such an underdog. Opera, however, as far as I can tell, engages in the deplorable practice of spamming. I used an untouched address to send them a bug report. Within days I was receiving 6-10 spam mails per day - and this was a business address, which had never received spam before and was not used for any other online activity save for legitimate email receiving. It's died down since I started reporting them all to Spamcop, but it still surprised the hell out of me. I sent Opera another note protesting the whole thing and asking for an explanation, but I haven't yet heard back from them. If anyone knows contrary, please post - I'd love to stop thinking they'd do such things and go back to supporting them.

    1. Re:Opera probably spams. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I sent them a bug report once with my home email address. No notable difference in receiving spam. Maybe you were just unlucky.

    2. Re:Opera probably spams. by nafmo · · Score: 1

      The e-mail addresses posted to Opera's bug tracking system is only used to respond to the bug reports to request further information. They are not distributed to any third parties.
      - Opera employee

    3. Re:Opera probably spams. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This fucker is probably hired by M$.

      If i get my hands on him he WILL die painfully.

    4. Re:Opera probably spams. by FFFish · · Score: 2

      I have visited Opera's HQ. I have talked to the people who manage it and who program there. They consistently and completely impressed me with their professionalism, vision, ethics, friendliness, and honesty. Every last man and woman there were among the best people I've met in the past thirty-five years.

      I will stake my *LIFE* on this: that Opera *does not* practice spamming, nor does it sell email addresses.

      In short, I believe you must have submitted your email address to someone else. What you describe is simply impossible.

      --

      --
      Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
    5. Re:Opera probably spams. by Xaltlee · · Score: 1

      Good to hear. I really would appreciate it if they'd get back to me with this too, though. They really were the only place I put that email address. Maybe I need to wait a few more weeks for a reply? We'll see.

      Oh. To the troll: No. I don't work for Microsoft. I'm also a girl. Kindly take your flaming somewhere that cares.

    6. Re:Opera probably spams. by FFFish · · Score: 2

      It's a small and extremely busy company, with an absolute minimum of extraneous personnel. If you haven't received a reply, then you may well have slipped through the cracks. I can't imagine responding to someone who's claiming they do something they don't do is a high-priority ticket!

      --

      --
      Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
    7. Re:Opera probably spams. by Xaltlee · · Score: 1

      I can imagine it is an important thing to respond to direct questions, especially when the person involved is a web developer. The whole point of the mail I sent them was to ask them whether or not they did this, not to accuse or condemn, though it does seem rather likely that they did do it and I made that very clear. But like I said, I'm still waiting patiently to find out for sure. If I get no response whatsoever, it seems like I have good reason not to develop for Opera, and to warn my friends and business away from it - if they aren't even willing to face up to a serious request for information, doesn't that seem a bit lacking anyway? Bad business practices mean I avoid them to the best of my ability.

      Anyway... the goal of this post was to see if anyone else had a similar experience, and let them know mine, which was so incredibly bad that I do indeed have bad feelings towards Opera. In that, I think this has been a successful enough inquest. I still don't trust Opera, but I'm not quite throwing the book at them yet. I hope that in the end you guys who like them so much are proven right. I used to feel that way about them too.

  79. one more thing by AirLace · · Score: 2, Flamebait

    You forgot to mention one thing:

    K-Meleon is dead. It's been unmaintained since 10-30-01 and doesn't support any of the more recent Gecko snapshots.

    1. Re:one more thing by maxume · · Score: 2

      Check out the forums. They all have a bit of recent activity. Apparently there are some issues with embedded mozilla, like no file save dialog, and problems with https, so they are waiting for those bugs to get fixed, before they release a version based on the latest code base.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  80. Re:of course it's not your browser of choice, but. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The worst is when you write compliant code... and IE screws it up.

  81. Re:of course it's not your browser of choice, but. by sporktoast · · Score: 2

    You'd be surprised at how large a portion of that 80% is AOL. If they switch, you'll see a BIG drop in that lead. "Browser of choice" is a bit misleading when you account for them, too. They chose AOL, and so only chose IE indirectly.

    --
    In a related story, the IRS has recently ruled that the cost of Windows upgrades can NOT be deducted as a gambling loss.
  82. Ads Don't Slow Down Opera by Dan-DAFC · · Score: 1

    Banner ads on your browser and pages really doesn't help increase speed when you are on dialup.

    That's not the case as Opera only downloads its adverts once a week. It caches them and rotates them throughout the week. You also get to configure the adverts from the preferences based on your interests, age, location etc. so that you at least get adverts that are likely to be relevant to you.

    I've never even noticed Opera downloading the ads, and I've been using it on dial-up for 18 months now.

    There are two features that Opera has that blow the competition (including IE, Mozilla and Galeon) away as far as I'm concerned. The first is its Multiple Document Interface, which is vastly better than Mozilla/Galeon's tabs and infinitely superior to IE's single document interface. The second is the mouse short-cuts for back and forward, which I now can't live without (hold down left button and click right button to go forward, hold down right and click left to go back). Simple but brilliant. Add to these the fact that it's highly configurable to suit your own preferences and I wouldn't use anything else.

    The only site I've had problems with in Opera recently is this one, but that wouldn't work in Mozilla, Galeon or Netscape 4 either, so it's obviously another case of shoddy IE-only web development.

    --
    Suck figs.
    1. Re:Ads Don't Slow Down Opera by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Mozilla tabs are great. If you need even more tab features, there's MultiZilla.

      If you want mouse gestures in Mozilla, there's OptiMoz Gestures. They work just great.

      So, really, how is Mozilla blown away?

    2. Re:Ads Don't Slow Down Opera by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The only site I've had problems with in Opera recently is this one [workthing.com], but that wouldn't work in Mozilla, Galeon or Netscape 4 either, so it's obviously another case of shoddy IE-only web development.

      Well, I just used Windows Opera, trying (via Quick preferences...) each of the various browser IDs, and *none* of 'em work - including IE. I'd class this as shoddy web development, period.

    3. Re:Ads Don't Slow Down Opera by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It actually looks like workthing.com is attempting to support different browsers, but their javascript shit is so bugged up that it barely works on IE. I'd write this one off to incompetance rather than malice.

  83. Re:of course it's not your browser of choice, but. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hah, sorry. If you're writing a "Hello World" page.. maybe.

  84. The funny thing here is... by gamorck · · Score: 4, Informative

    That all these people seem to feel Opera is so teribbly secure - yet not a one of them know about this major security hole discovered last week:

    http://www.securiteam.com/windowsntfocus/5YP0O20 75 S.html

    Being that this consitutes a majorly braindead security hole (allowing the value attribute on a file field to be filled in by the webmaster?!?!?!) I think its safe to say that all browsers in existence are lacking on the security front.

    J

    --
    I love idealists not because I am one, but because they make life bearable for pragmatists such as myself.
    1. Re:The funny thing here is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I submitted this to Slashdot last week, along with the release of Opera 6.03 to fix it, and got rejected.

      Instead, we get what is virtually a paid ad for Opera.

    2. Re:The funny thing here is... by hkmwbz · · Score: 2, Informative
      Why don't you post the URL to the people who discovered the hole?

      http://sec.greymagic.com/adv/gm001-op/

      You could also quote this from their report:

      Opera was informed on 15 May 2002 and confirmed our findings. A day later, in the evening of 16 May 2002, Opera informed us that the vulnerability was fixed and committed to Opera's own version control system.
      On 27 May 2002, Opera released version 6.03, which addressed this issue.
      Opera has been extremely responsive and quick to understand and patch this vulnerability. They have shown that they truly do take security seriously.
      The hole was fixed very quickly after it was discovered. Your comment is a bit out of place, unless you are really trying to say "all software in existence is lacking on the security front".
      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    3. Re:The funny thing here is... by gamorck · · Score: 0, Troll

      Yet when Microsoft patches something the same day as the vulnerability is announced they get raked over the coals but its great that Opera does the same thing. Now this may not apply to you personally - but your comment does seem a bit hypocritical considering the comments that are normally posted on such subjects here.

      J

      --
      I love idealists not because I am one, but because they make life bearable for pragmatists such as myself.
    4. Re:The funny thing here is... by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

      Having a dominant market position actually means that you have a certain responsibility to secure your products properly (although monopolists usually don't care about this - just look at Microsoft). Their products should be the most secure products, yet serious holes are constantly found, and Microsoft usually take their sweet time fixing things.

      And not only that, sometimes the fixes don't even work, or they break something else.

      If you want to call me a hypocrite because of comments posted by others, that's fine with me, as long as you realize that Microsoft have a terrible track record when it comes to security.

      Let's look at Apache vs. IIS. Now, Apache is the most widely used web server software, but doesn't IIS have considerably more serious security holes? Can it even compare to Apache?

      The bottom line is that Opera show through their actions that they care about security. I am sure you can agree with me that they handled this flaw extremely well. So well in fact, that the ones that uncovered the flaw commended Opera on the way they handled it.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
  85. um... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    K-Meleon is an exellent Gecko based web browser, it is a nice bare-bones borwser that does not need to have Mozilla installed in order to work, too bad it only comes in a Windoze version, if this browser ever gets ported to Linux Galeon will crash & burn...

  86. My Top 5 Favorite Opera Features by spike2131 · · Score: 2, Informative


    5. Using mouse gestures means no more having to find that pesky little back button.

    4. I love that button in the corner where you can easily toggle weather or not to load images... its great for slow loading graphics laden pages over dial-up.

    3. The "quick preferences" submenu under the File menu allows you to enable or dissable cookies and javascript, accept or refuse popup windows, or spoof the identity of your broser, all with one click.

    2. Tabbed browsing - Opera had it first!

    1. Google searches, straight from the address bar.

    ---
    I could have done ten, but there is work to be done...

    --
    SpyDock: Scientific Python in a Docker container
    1. Re:My Top 5 Favorite Opera Features by hkmwbz · · Score: 1
      5. Or use Z (and X to go forward)

      4. You can also use the G key for the same thing.

      3. Use F12 for quick access to the quick preferences :9

      2. It had MDI at least. Call it what you will. Netcaptor were first with the "tabbed browsing" name I believe.

      1. And a lot of other search engines. Check the Search preferences in Opera.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    2. Re:My Top 5 Favorite Opera Features by spike2131 · · Score: 1

      Hey, thanks for the tip on Z, you just made my browsing even lazier!

      --
      SpyDock: Scientific Python in a Docker container
  87. good thing you dont work with the fcc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    different phones would not be able to talk to each other.

    what a dick

  88. and you suck black cock.. so ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    gaymo

  89. web browser security??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what needs to be done for web browser security is make web browsers incapable of viewing\editing and having any thing to do with local files (no browsing harddrives) and file managers that can not access the internet...

  90. Awesome features by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Opera has window tabs and search in address-field (type "g foobar" to search Google for "foobar"). The most useful feature, though, is saving all of your open windows if the browser closes or crashes. Next time you start Opera you can easily pick up where you left off.

  91. I use Opera by rben · · Score: 1

    I use Opera as my main browser. It is fast, mostly by doing things the smart way, like starting the download of a file you select and downloading in in the background while you figure out where you want to put it on your hard drive.

    Opera doesn't always work because there are lots of people who code only to IE rather than to the documented standards. Also, some bugs in the way that IE and Netscape implement the standards make pages written to work with them look bad in standards compliant browsers such as Opera. Opera does have a compabibility mode that it uses to try to accomodate pages written for IE, but you can only go so far.

    IE isn't the be all and end all of browsers. Netscape isn't either. It's interesting how slow innovation has become since Netscape got sold to AOL and Microsoft decided that they own the net.

    I'd encourage everyone to try Opera out. Try it again if you haven't since version 6.0 came out. You may have to keep IE around for some sites, but then it's not like we have much of a choice on that if we run XP anyway.

    --

    -All that is gold does not glitter - Tolkien
    www.ra

    1. Re:I use Opera by Wonko42 · · Score: 2
      I use Opera as my main browser. It is fast, mostly by doing things the smart way, like starting the download of a file you select and downloading in in the background while you figure out where you want to put it on your hard drive.

      Mozilla does this too. In fact, I think even IE does this, if I remember correctly.

  92. hrm.. proof read? by BOFslime · · Score: 0

    How does a simple post saying 'They you're part of the problem. get modded up to 5?. Didn't even proof read. it'd be different if it were a long paragraph.. but its a simple phrase. technically even the contraction isn't proper in this instance.. should be 'you are'. but what do I know.. I've never been modded up on anything.

  93. Hm.. What internet connection he was using? by saikou · · Score: 1

    After reading his "timings" I decided to try to open same sites in IE. On my machine (PIII 350, Win NT with IE 6) Fark was under 3 seconds, The Tech Zone - 2 seconds, ClubVibes -- 3 seconds, Sputnik - 1 second + 2 seconds for flash to start. FutureLooks - 3 seconds.
    I guess all those huge margins are nothing more than hickups in guy's internet connection.

  94. All browsers suck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Opera just sucks less.

  95. It's the lemming factor... by gosand · · Score: 2

    It is what I like to call the lemming factor. People learn how to code HTML to the MS Standard. (ugh, it pains me to even say those words). "Web designers" take classes in said topic, only to be actually learning MS-only code. They are taught it is better, and they don't question it. No reasonably intelligent person would knowingly code something like that unless they were in MS's back pocket, or are simply ignorant. They are lemmings, they follow what they are TOLD is the way to do things without actually looking into it objectively.

    --

    My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

  96. Uninformed reviewer... by rainmanjag · · Score: 1

    The reviewer seems remarkably uninformed about the state of alternate browsers, possibly because, as he suggests, he's been enslaved to IE for the last few years. But he seems naive to certain subleties, such as Mozilla has about as much cross platform support as Opera does or that both Mozilla/Netscape (new betas) and Galeon have support for tabbed browsing. Galeon's is as if not more versatile as Opera's.

    But in his defense, some of his inexperience put some shock back into some of the things we have become immune to. For example I'm glad to see he addressed Opera's outrageous subscriber price.

    Not the best browser competitive analysis I've read. It reads much like a paid endorsement for Opera.

    -jag

    --
    http://starboard.flowtheory.net/
  97. MODERATORS: Mod the parent UP by Dixie_Flatline · · Score: 2

    There's nothing worse than people taking credit for things that aren't theirs, ESPECIALLY open source software authors. I'd also like to point out that Galeon had tabbed browsing LONG before Mozilla integrated it.

  98. You don't need the URL field! by Dixie_Flatline · · Score: 2

    Why bother with it? Like most UNIX browsers, you can copy the link and middle click ANYWHERE in the current window (except on a link) and it'll take you to the site that you want. :)

    It actually drives me nuts that I have to go through the trouble of actual cut and paste operations in Windows when the UNIX versions of browsers always make things so simple.

    1. Re:You don't need the URL field! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was definitely one of my favourite features.

    2. Re:You don't need the URL field! by xrayspx · · Score: 2

      Awesome. That feature takes care of one of my major gripes. Joy!

      Thanks

      x

  99. Mozilla vs Opera by Fweeky · · Score: 2
    > Mozilla had tabbed browsing before Opera

    MDI is quite similar (I would say superior) to tabbed browsing. Certainly it doesn't take a great leap to get from MDI to tabs. Either way, Opera's tabs implimentation doesn't break when you open tonnes of them like Mozilla ;)

    > 1) Good DOM support

    Never been interested in DOM support. DHTML is almost universally awful, and none of the sites I use regularly use or depend in it (quite rightly).

    > 2) Not crap CSS2 support (Where's IE's and Opera's fixed positioning support?)

    Opera does fixed positioning; it just doesn't do overflow, so no emulating frames-based sites in it.

    IE supports fixed positioning by switching to default positioning, breaking sites like www.w3.org/Style/; isn't that nice ;)

    > 3) Image blocking

    I have a user css file which blocks most banner adverts :)

    > 4) Better cookie management

    Never seen the point. I couldn't really care less if someone wants to tag my client and watch what banners I never even see.

    > 5) A saner UI. Opera's only good if you really know it.

    If you say so. Having to look in Mozilla's dodgy directory hierachy and overwrite one of the files to add my user css file was so much easier than just selecting it in the prefs window in Opera..

    > 6) The sidebar (Opera's is nowhere near as customisable)

    What, you mean that thing I always turn off in either client?

    > 7) The UI takes up less space than Opera

    No it doesn't. In fact, with tabs and the document <link> bar it takes about 20px more vertical space as my everything-on Opera display.

    > 8) Javascript console
    > 9) DOM inspector

    Not being a DHTML weenie, I can't say I have a use for them.

    > 10) XUL

    What? How is XUL an advantage? It results in slow, non-standard UI's (Mozilla's URL bar still doesn't work like any other string input bar on Windows. I wonder why).

    And don't forget:

    11) Exceptional progressive rendering.

    On the other hand, Opera has over Mozilla:
    1. Full MDI and SDI tabs, whichever your taste (I can't live without MDI :)
    2. Document/User modes, allowing you to override stupid designers who think 11px fonts on dark backgrounds are the height of readability.
    3. Better printing support (less clipping).
    4. Full screen and projection modes.
    5. Standard OS widgets, not custom, slow, misbehaving ones.
    6. Not an application platform for a load of junk you're never going to use.
    7. More configurable network, cache and security settings, without resorting to user JavaScript files.
    8. Complete page zooming support; not just text size zoom with a tendancy to break layouts.
    9. Doesn't also try to be a complete email/HTML editor/IRC client/tea lady.

    It's swings and roundabouts, really; Mozilla and Opera are both good browsers, with different enough approaches to cover most users. If I didn't get a student discount on Opera I'd be using Mozilla.
  100. That is the worst review I have ever read. by MemeRot · · Score: 1

    "Sandscript" is a dead language. Uh... Is that maybe what ancient India used to program or something? And a script error on every page, beautiful.

  101. Re:hrm.. proof read? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just curious, why isn't "you're" proper compared to "you are"?

  102. FrontPage doesn't make web pages... by dodongo · · Score: 1

    ....it breaks them. The author of this article makes some claims about how Opera needs to be WC3 compliant. Last I checked (and if I'm wrong, y'all are gonna give it to me ;) Opera is as much a WC3 compliant browser as Mozilla, and certainly moreso than IE.

    The issue that designers, programmers, and ultimately the end-users must combat is that all sorts of flash-bang features that go into making pages look great in IE screw the hell out of those same pages in other browsers. Opera's efficient standards compliance measures wind up backfiring a bit because when this Made For Internet Explorer crap comes along, Opera chokes on it like the worthless coding it really is.

    Mozilla really floats the middle ground well; pages that don't render quite right in Opera always show up fine in Mozilla, and if there were a good mouse gesture plug-in (I admit it, I love 'em), Mozilla would be all I use. Can't wait for 1.0!!

  103. Re:of course it's not your browser of choice, but. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "for upwards of 80% of the Earth it is"
    i don't think 80% of the people on earth even have a browser or internet at all buddy. i don't think 80% of americans even have a "browser of choice"
    just a little perspective buddy

  104. The redundant web page design summary. by Maul · · Score: 2

    Web developers should never, never, never, never assume that those who visit their sites are using any one particular browser. IE might be the most commonly used browser for whatever reason, but that doesn't mean EVERYONE uses it. If you are being lazy because of the supposed marketshare of IE and just writing for IE, you are only helping Microsoft's plans to totally own the web. Making sure that the W3C standards are met is worth the extra effort in the end.

    --

    "You spoony bard!" -Tellah

  105. Not in the slightest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a developer of K-Meleon, I can tell you that development is active. The latest code in CVS compiles against Mozilla 1.0 code. You can check it out and compile it if you like - or at least browse the CVS and see the activity for yourself.

    We're currently hung up on two Mozilla bugs which make it essentially unusable (no download progress dialog and troubles w/ SSL), but K-Meleon 0.7 *will* be released soon after those bugs are fixed.

  106. "Standards" don't work by R@Bastard · · Score: 1

    I agree with the philosophy of coding to the standards; I've been _trying_ to do that for 7 years.

    Unfortunately, nobody really hits the standards. Sure, Mozilla and Opera and IE all hit 85% or so, maybe even higher for "two year old" standards.

    But they hit /different/ 85 percents.

    IE doesn't even get the CSS box model right. On ANY version. Even 6. That's a fundamental deal, that's not frosting like rollovers and hover tags.

    Mozilla and Opera have different ideas of what lots of the fundamentals mean. Who's right? I don't know. After a while, you realize that it doesn't matter. It should, but it doesn't. The code itself can validate against strict w3c rules, but it works differently in all three browsers.

    What I do is try and code for Mozilla and/or Opera as the standard, get it "done" and then see how broken it is in IE, and fix it accordingly.

    If you start with IE and go the other way, it seems to be a much longer and harder journey, since IE is so loopy with the standards.

    --
    Mucous membranes are the part of your brain that, like, make you think about mucous. --Beavis
    1. Re:"Standards" don't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not altogether clear on whether sites are being built to IE standards or what, but you only have to spend time browsing the web from IE to notice a lot of cool and useful features go missing when viewing the same sites in NS6.

      Right now I'm thinking of the help dialogs on eBay - you can see them in IE5, they're absent in NS6. Is it because of some failing in NS or did they just code for IE? If the former, well then, NS sucks if you want cool features like help dialogs. If the latter, then the problem is definitely developers.

      In this way, the debate is framed by the question of usefulness and what *ought* to be the standard.
      However, maybe those who code strictly to standard ought to become standard makers, pushing the boundaries rather than whining about strict adherence.

  107. Frontend designer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I I am a front end graphic designer/coder, which menas I design what people see and use, I get dirty with some javascript and asp when necessary but my company has backend/plumbing people to take care of the database and heavy coding needed. As a frontend designer I use Dreamweaver to rapidly create a page the way I want it too look and quickly switch to code view to tweak/ change things and go back to layout the rest of the page. I can code by hand but when its done so much quicker visually I dont need to do it by hand. Thus Dreamweaver/FrontPage/Interdev etc. need to be the ones creating the inital code to be crossbrowswer. I should'nt have to remember what one browser does versus another and on which version it does and doesnt do it. Thats just ridiculous. The standards are a base from which to jump off from and it seems that IE has made quicker strides in developing what people want to see unlike Netscape or others.

    Slashdot is a biased community of very talented,smart techno savvy individuals. Most internet users are not. Most users are Windows/IE platform based not Linux/Mozilla or otherwise.

    With the staggering amount of sites out there and the number of designer/developers and platform combinations and developemtn tools. Expect diversity. Expect it too be different and you won't be dissappointed.

    Flame On!

    1. Re:Frontend designer by hether · · Score: 1

      You don't need to remember what one browser does versus another. You just need to code to the W3C standards and preferably also meet the accessibility guidelines.

      Even though IE is incorporating things people would like to see, they are are often not adhering to the standards. And by doing so, they are making things worse for web designers/developers. By allowing poor designers with screwed up code to have pages that render properly they are doing a disservice. We should be able to only make one version of a site and have it look fairly good in most browsers if it validates. Everyone should be able to view the page, not just a person with a certain browser. And the way to do this should be by coding to meet the standards with the assurance that the various browswers use those same standards. And I wouldn't depend on a particular software to do that for you.

      I don't really see what the point of the last part of your post is. Why did you inform us that slashdot users are tech savvy or that people use a variety of development tools?

      --

      Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do.
    2. Re:Frontend designer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was going in a different direction with the post and forgot to delete it.

  108. Couple of advantages by ChrisWong · · Score: 5, Informative
    There are a couple of Opera features that make it hard for me to switch to any other browser:

    • Firstly, it pioneered mouse gestures: I'm so used to navigating with the mouse (for example, back/forward through history) that it's annoying to use a browser without this feature.

    • Secondly, no browser on the planet seems to whip out pages from cache anywhere as fast as Opera. They just seem to snap onto the screen, (again) making browsing through history a breeze.

    • Finally my favorite: the little author/user mode toggle button. I can't stand the font/color choices on many pages, but a single click of the mouse instantly makes a web page readable in Opera. Not relevant to the IE/Opera debate, but this is a great feature for Linux users as TT fonts often come up too tiny on many web sites.
    1. Re:Couple of advantages by PunchMonkey · · Score: 1

      * Firstly, it pioneered mouse gestures:

      Didn't Black & White pioneer mouse gestures? It's the first software I remember using the idea.

      It is still a cool feature though.

      --
      I'll have something intelligent to add one of these days...
    2. Re:Couple of advantages by evilviper · · Score: 2

      * Finally my favorite: the little author/user mode toggle button.

      Amen. That is the SINGLE feature I wish Mozilla had. Besides that single feature, Mozilla 1.0 is better than Opera IMHO.

      Most pages fonts and colors (and CSS) are fine, and overriding them seriously impairs navigation. (i.e. Slashdot completely black with light grey text, the green bars, different coloration of heading information, all is defeated).

      However, too many morons use white backgrounds with black text! Just because books are white with black doesn't mean it works with a huge monitor. Reading a PDF or HTML doc with black on white colors on a monitor is like trying to read the label on a flourscent light bulb !!! That is the kind of travesty that user mode fixes, and that's the single reason Opera got the registration cash out of me. Now, I use Mozilla, and pine for the user mode option...

      Besides that, I miss nothing. Odd-ball bookmarks, uncustomizable main toolbar, cluttered menus, strange categorization of options (javascript is under programs eh?), and most importantly, Mozilla goes anywhere I want it to. Any system can have Mozilla ported to it (although the OpenBSD developers are doing their damnedest to prove me wrong).

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  109. All right, I know this is nit-picking by argStyopa · · Score: 2

    But:

    "Sandscript" a dead language (Sanskrit)
    "heatsync" on a hardware website (heatsink)

    I have a good friend who is a high school teacher. I'm not sure whether to sympathize with him or punch him.

    --
    -Styopa
  110. Whatta Maroon by FuzzyBad-Mofo · · Score: 3, Funny

    One of the biggest areas where Opera seems to fail is with a lot of newly developed websites that didn't take Opera into consideration since IE seems to continue to dominate the browser market with authority.

    Oh, obviously it's the browser's fault when it fails to render broken pages correctly. Sheesh!
  111. Opera works well, except on some secure pages by hether · · Score: 2

    I use Opera mainly because of the tabbed browsing and the ability to turn off images with one click. On our crappy dialup at home, that's important. I also enjoy the zoom feature, the quick preferences and the ability to open popup windows in the background, or not at all. Not to mention that it eliminates the problem of page widening posts!!

    I'd love to use Opera exclusively, and I use it for almost all of my browsing, but it seems to have a problem with many secure sites. It just can't open the pages and I get a could not locate remote server error. Anybody have any ideas why this occurs? Anything I can do to fix it? Too bad I have to use IE as a backup just for instances like this.

    --

    Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do.
  112. Re:It's still not too late to shift the market tho by Knightmare · · Score: 1

    Actually it's widely known that VHS was the technology of choice because it's what the porn industry embraced and started releasing titles on. And while you can try to ignore it. Porn is a HUGE pull on any media known to man. And has influence in people's decisons.

  113. Re:It's still not too late to shift the market tho by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We need to get porn behind ogg and png then. It's already behind Mozilla somewhat... Pornzilla!

  114. Too clumsy to read by ROU+Nuisance+Value · · Score: 1

    It doesn't do Sandscript (sic)
    Is anyone doing reviews literate anymore?

  115. Shameless plug by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nuff said.

  116. SMIL by incrustwetrust · · Score: 1

    do any browsers other than IE 6 offer support for SMIL? i've started working with it a little, because of how much easier it is to create web page animation when compared to the likes of javascript... i am rather unknowledgable about browsers, i admit...but so far out of the ones i've tested, IE was the only one that read SMIL correctly.... which irritates me, because mostly i find it isn't that great for other things.

  117. Slashdot sucks, I can't post a correct example! by Knightmare · · Score: 1

    I had a really nice example typed out using &lt; and &gt; and it told me I violated the "postercomment" compression filter. Try less whitespace and/or less repetition. Comment aborted. Way to go slashdot, lock it down so that valid comments can't get through! Why not just leave these things to the modding system and let valid content through! I believe this is the last time I attempt to post help on slashdot as I have had nothing but trouble when trying to do so now and in the past.

    1. Re:Slashdot sucks, I can't post a correct example! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would you like some cheese with that? Nobody else seems to be having problems.

  118. Re:hrm.. proof read? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is because he is a protocol droid.

  119. Mozilla doesn't do everything right by Cee · · Score: 1

    Just an example from my last project, where I used quite a lot of JavaScript code.

    It seems that Mozilla 1.0 RC1 has problems with obeying the selectedIndex property. The JavaScript reference tells us this: "If no option is selected, selectedIndex has a value of -1" But setting the property to either -1 or 0 in Mozilla makes no difference! And it all works in IE 5-6.

    Also, the project is using CSS extensivly. Mozilla doesn't show anything but the background color, and it works perfect in IE. And both the CSS and HTML code passed the W3C validator without any errors or warnings. Why, Mozilla, why? What am I doing wrong here?

    1. Re:Mozilla doesn't do everything right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you filed bug reports?

    2. Re:Mozilla doesn't do everything right by Cee · · Score: 1

      Well, I guess I should file a bug report, but I didn't have time to do it. And I don't know how it works in the latest and greatest Mozilla, since I only have a dialup connection currently.

      Right now I'm "just a web developer" who's expecting the software to work.. I mean, the CSS2 standard has been out there for some YEARS now.

  120. List of other browsers (200+) by gnasby · · Score: 3, Informative

    For a list of alternative browsers (over 200 in fact) have a look at: www.browserlist.browser.org.

    This list is a bit old (it hasn't been updated since June 2000), but it gives you a good idea of what sort of stuff is out there.

  121. Re:of course it's not your browser of choice, but. by Lumpy · · Score: 2

    Ahem capitol one 's web pay system works prefectly under netscape (you know that old one on EVERY linux install). This is how I pay it with My no-microsoft computer system.

    It has been that way for over 4 months, after myself and 30 other friends sent them daily "your web designers suck, fix your webpages" email and snail mail letters... I am waiting for the new netscape to become stable and then start the campain all over again...

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  122. http/1.1: Pipelining and zlib by zhiwenchong · · Score: 1

    I'm surprised nobody mentioned that Opera has stuff like pipelining and http compression since version 5. I was a staunch Mozilla supporter until I discovered Opera -- so far it has been able to do everything I need, and more. The keyboard shortcuts are a big plus point. Tabbed browsing has been around for ages in Opera. Browsing with Opera is a very fulfilling experience.

    1. Re:http/1.1: Pipelining and zlib by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Umm... http compression is nothing new. IE since atleast v4 I believe, and Netscape since like 4.08 (althought NS 4.x still has quite a few quirks), and of course Mozilla all support it.

      As for pipelining, Mozilla's got it too. You just have to turn it on. Prefs > Advanced > HTTP Networking > Enable Pipelining.

  123. YES by Bastian · · Score: 2

    /. mentioned quite a while ago that they would start having no more than one advertisement per day hidden in the articles.

    Maybe they should charge a few bucks extra for consulting about ads, though, to avoid little quirks like Opera not seeming to realize that the browsers they should be FUDing about on Slashdot are Mozilla and Konqueror.

  124. Opera has lots of missing standards support by starvingartist12 · · Score: 2, Informative

    No wonder Opera is "so fast"... it's missing even the most basic Document Object Model (DOM) support.

    While everything seems to render perfectly in Opera (which probably has one of the best CSS rendering engines out there), the underlying DOM1/2 support is really bad.

    This means standard compliant ways of altering different elements on the page don't work at all.

    Things like changing display attributes (to make things visible and invisible... great for expanding/collapsing bars) dynamically doesn't work in Opera, when the same exact standards compliant code works in Mozilla, IE:Mac 5 and even version 5 of Internet Explorer for Windows.

    Opera seems to look great on the outside, but the underlying engine is flawed. No wonder it can claim to be so fast and so small... when several-year-old standards support is still missing.

  125. Re:of course it's not your browser of choice, but. by kawika · · Score: 2

    I try to do cross-browser pages but Opera falls short of Mozilla, NS6, or even IE5. By default it lies and identifies itself as IE in the user agent field. DOM2 support is almost totally missing although some functions seem to be there but are non-functional stubs. Arrrrgh! Here's a list of documented Opera annoyances.

  126. Since when does IE implement the standards? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You should look up some of the insane CSS workarounds people have come up with to deal with IE's special quirks. And if people aren't designing web sites for their customers (of whom 96% use IE), who are they designing them for? People without Windows? People without computers?

  127. IE Required? by Kettleboy · · Score: 1, Redundant

    I use Opera at home. My online bank says that I must use IE or NN to do my banking, Opera won't work. Inside Opera, I pick the option that disguises Opera as IE and presto-chango, I can now use all of the online bank services.
    I suspect other web sites that reject Opera could be similiarly fooled.

    --
    Enjoy your life, it's the only one you've got!
  128. After man moons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What I like and don't

    I've been using Opera 6.01 on Windows ME ever since in came out and have only recently switched over to the newest beta of Netscape. Why did I switch? The main reason I began using Opera was because it had an integrated email client. Also it had free email with pop3 abilities. For whatever reason Opera no longer offers free pop3 support for their "free web mail" which seems like an attempt to generate revenue from those of us who refuse to pay for a browser. I try to not use Microsoft products whenever possible but am not above using the best application regardless of who makes it. Netscape pickup up a few tricks from Opera but what I like about Opera best are:

    Gestures. Very nice.

    Tabs. But they are now on Netscape.

    The old free web mail with pop3 support.

    Good security control. But Netscape is nice as well.

    Nice bookmarking abilities.

    What really sucks:

    You can't export your mail and contacts easily from Opera to Netscape or Outlook

    Netscape names your bookmarks for you until you go in and manually change their names.

    The skins for Opera don't affect the viewing size of the browsing window because of the damn ads. You can't use smaller buttons and whatnot.

    Netscape's newest beta does not have options to change button size or available buttons. Read: Toolbar options.

    Just my two cents. I'm on a dial up modem and use the internet for very mundane purposes. Because of this, the different load times aren't that important to me. Can't wait until Mozilla 1.0 is released.

  129. Just my �0.02... by advid · · Score: 1

    In my experience, I've not noticed much of a speed difference between Mozilla and Opera. Mozilla definitely sluggish for me, although I can only claim to have tried the Win32 version.

    *shrugs*

    --
    - "I'll probably get modded down for this."
    1. Re:Just my �0.02... by slashhot · · Score: 0
      Mozilla definitely sluggish for me, although I can only claim to have tried the Win32 version.

      Fortunately you haven't tried Linux version of Mozilla, 'cause if you find the Win32 version sluggish... Worst of all, when you're getting a ftp:// URL in one window, all others choke. Man, this is annoying...

  130. Re:It's still not too late to shift the market tho by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    PNG is a pretty crappy choice for photos because it's lossless.

  131. Keep coming back to Opera by N3P1u5U17r4 · · Score: 1

    I used IE until the beginning of this year when I dumped my windows 98. I now run mandrake and initially used Opera (with the banners) as my browser... I tried out Mozilla for a while and then Konqueror for a while with KDE3. I found both Mozilla and Konq dissappointing in rendering many sites... and I couldn't access my online banking with them. So, I switched back to Opera when version 6.0 was released... I even broke down and paid for it! It is in my opinion the best browser available for Linux... nothing can beat it for rendering and speed (at least for all the sites I visit on a regular basis).

    --
    You're Just Jealous Because The Voices Are Talking To Me.
  132. Free opera is loaded with spyware by macdaddy357 · · Score: 2, Informative

    The free version of Opera is so loaded with spyware that it fed me an ad for Monster.com job listings in Cincinnati, OH. Since the spyware knew where I was, I don't trust Opera.

    --
    How ya like dat?
    1. Re:Free opera is loaded with spyware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which spyware programs are bundled and how do unistall them and Opera?

    2. Re:Free opera is loaded with spyware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is your IP address one that would be easy to use to determine a location? It's not that uncommon of a technique to target things to location that way.

    3. Re:Free opera is loaded with spyware by hkmwbz · · Score: 2, Informative
      Quit spreading FUD. Opera has documented every aspect of its ad implementation:

      http://www.opera.com/support/supsearch/supsearch.c gi?options=index&name=570

      Not only that, but anyone with a brain (and a packet sniffer) can analyze the traffic and see that they are telling the truth.

      And the code in Opera which handles ads is 100% written by Opera's own people. It uses no external code.

      And while they are partnered with Cydoor, that's no problem since Cydoor has "cleaned up its act considerably", according to this site:

      http://www.cexx.org/cydoor.htm

      So get your facts straight please.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    4. Re:Free opera is loaded with spyware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      and if you read Operas own docs properly you would see "without a uniqueID it would not be possible to sell adverts" which is a GUID therefore identifying specifically your machine, compromising your privacy

      also while cexx do mention its cleaned up its act, further reading mentions it still hides critical function calls from the user and cexx continues to call it "Cydoor spyware"

      so quit trying to convince people otherwise without the full facts instead of just the ones you choose to believe

      no smoke without fire

    5. Re:Free opera is loaded with spyware by splitfyre · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There is an option within the preferences section in Opera that allows you to specify what type of advertising you want it to serve up. However you can also choose to refuse those ad popups as well from the File menu in Opera.

    6. Re:Free opera is loaded with spyware by macdaddy357 · · Score: 1

      No, you cheerleading beyotch! get your facts straight. Just because I am speaking ill of a microsoft alternative does not mean I am spreading fud Cydoor is an invasion of privacy, and the violated feeling I got when I got an ad that knows where I am makes me wonder what else they know.

      --
      How ya like dat?
    7. Re:Free opera is loaded with spyware by hkmwbz · · Score: 1
      How is "Cydoor an invasion of privacy"?

      Well known anti-spyware sites would disagree with you.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    8. Re:Free opera is loaded with spyware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you sir really are , in the words of slashdot

      a retard

      "sites" the one you mention cites numerous concerns from, downloading extra executables to hiding processes from the user at no point do they say "sure Cydoor is fine" in fact they give explicit removal instructions.

      would you trust a thief even if they had a sign round their necks saying they wern't ?

    9. Re:Free opera is loaded with spyware by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

      The site gives removal instructions dating back to when it was spyware. Today, the only point in replacing these files is to lose the ads. It is not because it is spyware, and the site states this.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
  133. Re:It's still not too late to shift the market tho by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For some photos, especially those over the web. But if you actually *need* a lossless photo, 24bit png is a good choice.

  134. You just don't get it by D_Gr8_BoB · · Score: 2

    wget -O -

  135. Re:of course it's not your browser of choice, but. by nick_davison · · Score: 2
    "Write correct, clean code and you won't have any trouble with Mozilla-based browsers."

    No, it'll just be employment you have trouble with.

    Whether all browsers should work with standards based HTML, the reality is that as soon as you want to do anything complex: almost all of them break from the standards; interpret standards their own way; do random unique stuff; whatever.

    So, if you want a nice, safe, white page, some blue links, maybe a table with no background, standards work wonderfully. Unfortunately, most of the people who commission websites seem to believe that the latest gimmic and losing 5% of users is a far better bet than a circa '95 web page that everyone can, and nobody will, use.

    Are all of those claims nonsense? Who cares? The point is, these are the people who are paying for the sites to be made and, if they want their gimmic, they get it or they hire someone else.

    (And yes, my personal website does run pretty much standards compliant and you know what, people love it, but that's about the only one where I get complete creative control.)

  136. You're wrong. They've had it all the time! :) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're wrong too. As far as I remember, Opera had tabbed/windowed browsing in the 3.xx series too, and if the girl beside me is correct - they've had it since the first 2.x release.

    So there! Mozilla was _really_ slow in adding this. Oh, and I think galeon had it before mozilla did too. ;)

  137. FUD by hkmwbz · · Score: 2, Informative
    You should really take the time to get educated about this. Not only is Opera's ad implementation carefully documented, several independent people have analyzed the traffic between Opera and the ad servers. No spying.

    As for spywareinfo.com, it is obvious that they aren't interested in facts. The site they point to, to explain that Cydoor is spyware actually says that Cydoor are no longer into spyware. How can you trust them when they don't even bother to include information about this?

    You have been fooled by spywareinfo.com. Then they pretend to fix it, but they fool you again. Cexx.org clearly states that Cydoor have cleaned up their act. But that doesn't matter to people who only want to push their own agenda.

    --
    Clever signature text goes here.
  138. Mouse gestures and "vi[m] syndrome" by mactari · · Score: 1

    I remember the first time I used vi. It *stunk*. (give me a second -- I'm not trolling) There wasn't even an obvious way to get the heck out of the application. At school, elm was our default mail handler and by default it often used vi for editing emails. I found this horribly annoying, quickly changed to pico, and [almost] never looked back.

    Now here I am a dozen or so years later and I do all my dhtml, asp, and php coding in vim (www.vim.org). Turns out vim's done a perfect job of creating a "mouseless" UI, and it's much more efficient to edit text with both hands on the keyboard than just one (with the other running shuttles to and from the mouse).

    If <functional unit>Opera can be to mice when browsing</functional unit> what <functional unit>vim is to the keyboard when editing text</functional unit>, they'll have something much better than simply being faster than IE or some other browser. Opera may already be that good, and the "vi[m] syndrome" I experienced years ago might help explain this reviewer's initial reaction to mouse gestures. I'd be awful happy if I could navigate through a browser without bothering with menu items and tools at the top of the screen (Personally I'd prefer a browser ready for "elegant" use without a mouse, but I'm prolly in the minority there!).

    The most efficient interfaces (notice I didn't say "best"), ultimately, aren't the ones that have their instructions on the screen at the same time. More than one browser falls short of that mark right now.

    --

    It's all 0s and 1s. Or it's not.
    1. Re:Mouse gestures and "vi[m] syndrome" by thedeletekey · · Score: 1

      For those of you that wish to have mouse gestures in every application, you can download StrokeIt . It's free, ~100k download with an equally sized memory footprint, plugin extensible, translatable, pretty much everything. So now you can get your Opera gestures in Mozilla if you want. Or IE. Or MS Word, or Solitaire, or anything else you run.

      -Del

  139. Standards, schmandards. What matters is customers by JohnQPublic · · Score: 1

    Standards compliance is an excellant tool for measuring compatibility, etc., but what really matters about a commercial website isn't whether it's standards-compliant but whether the desired customers can make use of it. My bank has recently upgraded their net-banking site such that Opera works perfectly with it, where it hadn't just a few months ago. Yet another reason not to use Netscape Navigator! (I never use MS-Internet Explorer, it's too untrustworthy).

  140. Re:What does this guy have against the MOUSE GESTU by viper66 · · Score: 1

    It also asks you the first time you do one if you want to turn it on/off. I don't see what his problem is either.

  141. More FUD. by hkmwbz · · Score: 1
    Spyware involves spying on the user. Using an ID to track which ads have been served is not spying. It is only spying if they gather information about your system

    Which they don't.

    I would advise you to check the full facts rather than just the ones that fit your own lies.

    --
    Clever signature text goes here.
  142. Advantage over Mozilla/NS: true XP availability by jopet · · Score: 1

    one big advantage over Mozilla/Netscape is that Opera is so easily available for so many platforms. Mozilla just makes available Win32, Linux and Mac builds and unless somebody contributes, thats the end of the story. Netscape offers support for some non win/linux/mac platforms only through partners' sites - e.g. for the Solaris version you have to register with Sun and then you still dont get a 2.6 version.

  143. and a "uniqueID" is my imagination ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and the "uniqueID" bit is just my imagination while reading Operas docs ?

    you obviously have no idea what a uniqueID (guid/customer id etc) is or its uses in advertising

    sorry but i believe you are without the full facts and i suggest you read all the documents , not to mention cexx continue to call it "Cydoor Spyware" even though its adware and while its not spyware (arguing about semantics) it still compromises the users privacy by using unique identification to identify the user

    but sure its your privacy so do with it what you wish, but i and others obviously value it a bit more

    and as spywareinfo is non-profit they have nothing to gain from "pushing their own agenda" yet Opera have a reputation and ca$h to hold onto, maybe if they didnt do business with these kinds of companies they wouldnt attract the accusations that they get.

    maybe you should get educated a bit more

  144. more stupidity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    lies?

    read Operas documents yourself

    1. Re:more stupidity by hkmwbz · · Score: 1
      I've done that already. Can you explain exactly how they spy on people? Do they gather information about your system? About your browsing habits? No? Then what "spying" is there?

      Yes, lies. Or ignorance. I don't know which is worse.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    2. Re:more stupidity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      from their documents

      "Once the browser has connected, it receives a unique user code back from the registration server. This is a unique ID which will be used in all subsequent communication with these particular servers"

      if the communication was totally above board, why use a unique ID ? , why not just use ordinary communciation instead of unique ?

      is the user simply and clearly informed about this and its usage and the possible privacy implications in Opera's 1000 word click through license ?
      can he switch this unique id off ?

      doubleclick didnt spy on their users either but that didnt stop them being labeled as bad by privacy advocates

      sorry but Opera has chosen to deal with the devil in doing so must take the consequences of such a business relationship

    3. Re:more stupidity by hkmwbz · · Score: 1
      1000 word clickthrough license? Have you even bothered to read Opera's FAQ?

      http://www.opera.com/support/supsearch/supsearch.c gi?options=index&name=570

      It has links to Opera's privacy policy and a detailed technical description of the ad module.

      As for the unique ID, it would naturally keep track of which ads have been downloaded already to avoid too many duplicates.

      If Doubleclick didn't spy on their users but were labeled as "bad" by "privacy advocates", it would seem that these "privacy advocates" aren't trustworthy, and that facts don't matter to them.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    4. Re:more stupidity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow you are persistant u got stocks in Opera :p,

      having read this thread it seems there is a differing opinion , which you don't do yourself any favours in your rebuttal as it consists of links to the said Opera company and a spyware site called cexx.org which is talking about a differing application, no third party explicit reviews of Operas customers security or privacy concerns.

      * The business facts are its an advertising based software model (similar to broadcasting) where the customer is the product not the software as that is only a vehicle to the customer.

      * It has adverts served by Cydoor technologies servers using a unique identification number (also known as a GUID) and cookies (turned on by default) which is transmitted to Cydoor, this coupled with a relational database and statistical analysis can bring data mining results above what ordinary server technology and browser security sandpits allow.
      Speaking as a database programmer who deals with statistics on a daily basis if you think its used as a method of weeding out "duplicates" you are either stupid or very nieve, as Cydoor explicitly demanded its inclusion or revenue would not be paid because information could be supplied that standard server technogies couldnt deliver increasing its attractability to advertisers.

      As for not trusting the "privacy advocates" i think you are very mislead and i will leave out commenting on that statement as an insight to your state of mind and rational

      Steven Saunders
      ---------------

    5. Re:more stupidity by hkmwbz · · Score: 1
      You don't quite get the point:

      Cexx.org talks about Cydoor. People keep talking about how terrible Opera are for using Cydoor's ad servers. I am pointing out that Cydoor have cleaned up their act.

      You then go on about two completely irrelevant things:

      1. Business model? Sure, it is a way to distribute the software for free. But it is irrelevant when it comes to spyware.
      2. The id issue has been cleared up ages ago. It is not used to track the user, but the ads. Opera does not spy on the user, and this has been proven beyond any doubt.

      Lastly, I am not talking about all privacy advocates, but the ones who are either ignorant or lie about what is and what isn't spyware. Spyware has a clear definition: It is software which spies on the user.

      So-called "privacy advocates" who don't give a damn about facts should not be trusted, as they obviously have a hidden agenda.

      You are not commenting on it because you dare not distance yourself from people who refuse to give people facts, rather than play their own game?

      And finally, anyone can see what is sent to the ad servers from Opera. It is carefully documented on their site. If people refuse to even check this, but still go on about how it is "spyware", it says something about them and their inability to use facts rather than speculation and hype.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    6. Re:more stupidity by Tiado · · Score: 1
      You don't quite get the point:

      It's no use trying to argue with an Anonymous Coward who is convinced that Opera is spyware.

      despite that I found no sites that that prove that Opera has spyware, this AC will still spread word that Opera is spyware because the unregistered version uses banner ads.

      I'm willing to bet that this AC has known (proven) spyware such as Gator, Kazaa, Morpheus, or Radlight DivX Movie Player (at least one of the above).

  145. Lynx as in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lynx as in Screech (cat) not Gears (bicycle chain links).

  146. Re:Uh, No, still wrong by Arker · · Score: 2

    It was NOT introduced in version 4. I started using Opera at version 3 point something, 3.6 I believe it was, and it had it then. It's had it since the earliest alpha version if I'm not mistaken. What was added recently was the ability to turn it off, for the whiners out there that complained about it endlessly.

    --
    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
  147. standards aren't enough by Tumbleweed · · Score: 2

    Even if all the browsers supported all the standards, you'd still have to code for multiple browsers because of bugs. I have found that that is often the biggest problem - even with simple code like css1, the different browsers will handle even the simplest stuff very differently, thus making 'standards' useless. If the quality isn't there, the standards the browser is supposedly built to don't matter. (and yes, I'm referring to Netscape's bugs in css).

    While on the topic of Opera - does it handle HTML layout correctly yet?

  148. Hyper Text Markup Language by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Never has been, never will be a programming laguage.

    You can do CGI programming to generate your HTML, but HTML isn't a programming language.

    The vast majority of people who know what they are talking about won't say that it is.

  149. Where do they get these reviewers? by entrigant · · Score: 1

    After having the opportunity to fully test out Opera I find that paying $39 is slightly expensive for the browser, especially if you're Canadian as that works out to $61.99. To pay $62 for a browser seems to be a little far fetched.

    I wonder if the thought that the Candian Dollar is worth a different amount than the US Dollar ever crossed this guys mind? Does he even realize that just because they are both called Dollar doesn't mean they are on in ethe same? If you traded $39 US Dollars for Canadian Dollars and hiw calculations are correct, I'd guess that you'd recieve somewhere in the neighborhood of $62. Does he even realize just how ignorant that made him seem... which is exactly what you dont want to seem like as a reviewer..

    1. Re:Where do they get these reviewers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I read it and he was making fun of the Canadian dollar. Obviously you cannot read into sarcasm.

  150. Re:of course it's not your browser of choice, but. by John+Percival · · Score: 1

    I tend to write XHTML-compliant code, and Netscape baulks over that many more times than IE.

    But that was not the point of my post: my point was that AOL was switching, which would bring lots more Mozilla users potentially.

  151. Not that anyone will read this far down... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But the thing about Opera I love the best is my Morning News folder with all of my favorite bookmarks and having a *single* command to load them all into tabbed pages.

    When a page finishes loading, the color of the tab changes to let me know it's ready for me to read it.

    OMG, that is sooooo cool.

    Being able to load a new page in the background behind the current page is nice too.

    My dislikes:

    Weird text sizing screws up some pages.

    Occassional crashes.

    Web pages with thousands of links can hang the program.

    The inability to fully customize the toolbars (let me make one auto-hiding bar with only the buttons/fields I want).

    Conclusion:

    I'm using it daily and am greatful enough to have paid for it.

    BTW - Does anyone really read this far down?

    1. Re:Not that anyone will read this far down... by hether · · Score: 2

      I read this far down and to make this on topic, you're completely right about the wierd text sizing. I find that sometimes I'll have to zoom in on pages to read them. At least that zoom option is there for us to use.

      --

      Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do.
  152. A few points: by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 2

    In almost any case in computers, certain products will do better in one arena while failing in another. The question is - Is it better overall with a few failures, or a failure overall with a few advantages? (It's been this way with CPUs for ages - Athlons waste P4s in most arenas, but there are a few cases where a P4 will eat an Athlon alive)

    Same goes for this - Overall, Opera was faster than IE in the arena of page loads. Of five sites: Half the load time for 2. Close to half for the next. MAJOR disadvantage for one. Slight disadvantage for another. Overall, Opera wins in this (limited benchmark)

    Let's not forget other factors, such as overall responsiveness (How it "feels", of course page load times are a part of this), and startup time from launch.

    Most importantly - Usability on a slow system. Opera ran fine on my old P133 laptop with 64M of EDO RAM. Hell, it ran OK with only 32M RAM, when Netscape 4.x took 10 minutes to start. (NS 6.x/Mozilla - Don't even think about those bloated memory hogs).

    Opera, if not the fastest graphical browser on Earth (Hard to beat Lynx. :), is up there at the top, WAY above NS/Mozilla or IE.

    --
    retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
  153. Designing sites which work in Mozilla and IE by Nicopa · · Score: 3, Informative

    That's FUD and your web designing license should be revoked.

    Explorer and Mozilla are very similar in their object model. You have just to take care of 3 or 4 things like:

    • Both support document.getElementById, but IE4 only support document.all. If you care about the old IE you must use a tiny function which will try both.
    • Event handlers in Mozilla get the event object in the argument instead of window.event. So you need to do function handler(event) { if(!event) event=window.event;
    • Mozilla is very tidy and bind objects only where they need to be. IE binds objects everywhere, so something like window.myForm won't work in Mozilla, you should the old and standard way.

    That's almost all the most seen problems. It takes no extra time to support both browsers.

    1. Re:Designing sites which work in Mozilla and IE by HelpfulPete · · Score: 1

      You're right if he's referring only to Moz/NS6, but you, me, and about twenty other people actually use it.

      Most Netscape users are using the excremental v 4.x, and there are *scores* of well documented problems in this browser with positioning, borders, css, javascript, etc. When you have to deal with a creative dep't that doesn't understand the web and wants designs to be pixel-for-pixel perfect on all platforms, this is a big issue.

      --
      "Society is like a stew. If you don't keep it stirred up, you get a lot of scum on top. " - Edward Abbey
    2. Re:Designing sites which work in Mozilla and IE by bsartist · · Score: 1

      When you have to deal with a creative dep't that doesn't understand the web and wants designs to be pixel-for-pixel perfect on all platforms, this is a big issue.

      The first thing you need to do in that situation is educate your creative department about what's possible on the web, and what's not. It's called managing expectations.

      --
      Lost: Sig, white with black letters. No collar. Reward if found!
  154. Hidden Mozilla Prefs by mr3038 · · Score: 2
    copy the link and middle click ANYWHERE

    If you liked that feature you might want to try some of these too: http://www.geocities.com/pratiksolanki/. For example, you might want to enable the feature for Windows too.

    --
    _________________________
    Spelling and grammar mistakes left as an exercise for the reader.
  155. On sloppy code and standards adherence. by maikeru · · Score: 1

    No competing browser is going to gain anything on IE until they can render anything on the web just as well as IE. That includes the ability to render horribly broken HTML. Yes, it sucks. But there's nothing anyone can do about it at this point. Microsoft certainly has no reason to push for cleaner code, and no one else has the market share/leverage to dictate anything about the web anymore. The only group that comes to mind that could have any impact here is the W3C. And from what I understand, they're actually addressing that issue.

    XHTML, due to its XML-based nature, is very strict about how documents are parsed. Non-well-formed documents are explicitly denied the ability to render. Even IE obeys that. As for what's out there now, there's not much you can do. I've found that, luckily, there's a pretty strong correlation between quality of site mechanics and quality of site content. Most of what won't render on standards-compliant browsers isn't worth looking at, anyway.

    In any case, IE's competitors have taken great strides in the past few years. Just two years ago, there was nothing even remotely close to IE in terms of capability. Remember Netscape 4? Feature sets have become very similar among browsers, and standards adherence is much better than it used to be. Things are improving. Give it time.

  156. Your radar screen has blinders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Opera has had a very usable product (with a nice email client, I might add) since before "OpenSource Netscape" was ever cried.

    Ok, probably someone yelled for it as soon as it was released. But Opera has been around a long time before the Mozilla project was ever started, let alone usable.

    It is my browser of choice. Has been for over 2 years, and I am a late comer.

  157. Browser of Choice? by White+Roses · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    IE isn't a "broswer of choice." It's the broswer of it-got-forced-down-my-throat-and-I-can't-get-rid-o f-it-without-hosing-my-system for most users and the broswer of it's-there-and-I-am-too-lazy-or-uninformed-to-inst all-anything-else for the vast majority of users not covered by the first part.

    --
    Do not touch -Willie
    1. Re:Browser of Choice? by White+Roses · · Score: 2
      Yes, well, I suppose I deserved the Flamebait rating. Shouldn't post angry.

      But really, what I meant was that IE for the most part is just there. I don't think most users actively choose it.

      --
      Do not touch -Willie
  158. Re:of course it's not your browser of choice, but. by rhizome · · Score: 2

    That's fine to advocate your dog using an alternative browser, but nothing's going to gain steam until people like YOU do this kind of advocacy in your company. The reason that many webapps are IE only is because people like YOU and the others at your company aren't making it an issue. Mom and dog are going to use whatever browser is at hand when trying to connect to their bank and 401k, and unless that browser is IE my Mom is going to get shut out. Companies like YOURS are building the fences that keep site IE-only apps because my dog isn't using Opera.

    Well gosh, isn't that tidy? You won't be making standardized sites because my Mom still uses IE, and my Mom still uses IE because all the webshops are making IE-only sites. I don't know if this is news to you, but people like you have a lot more influence on these issues than my dog does. When was the last time you asked your manager how long it will be until your timecard app will work with Mozilla?

    Is there really anything that IE does that can't be done a different way which is more compatible? Sure Microsoft can make this stuff seem easier, it's part of maintaining mindshare and you sound like you sold your share quite easily. Ever heard of the phrase "tyranny of the majority"? It's what happens when everybody jumps on the bandwagon.

    --
    When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
  159. Links users, try Links-2 by HishamMuhammad · · Score: 1

    If you like Links, try Links-2, a fork that adds graphics (X11, AtheOS, framebuffer and SVGALib!) and javascript support.

    It seriously rocks. Even the original Links author contributed code to this fork. Finally, a great graphic browser has arrived to the console. I use X much less often now...

  160. Re:of course it's not your browser of choice, but. by Arandir · · Score: 2

    I hear you. Unless there's a skin for Mozilla that makes it look absolutely identical to IE, and it comes with a rendering plugin that makes it render pages in exactly the same way as IE, then I could never put it on my mom's computer.

    I used her computer last weekend to check my mail while visiting. Two hours later my mom is telling me that her computer is broken. Turns out that I had unmaximized the IE window and forgot to maximize it again when I was done. The computer screen looked different to her, and and thought it was broken.

    --
    A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
  161. Form entry: kinda by bcaulf · · Score: 1

    Opera will do form autocompletion, but only using the personal info fields you put into the preferences dialog. So for example your address and email work fine, if you entered them. Put in that first letter or digit and you get the popdown list; hit down arrow and tab off to the next field. Not as automatic as IE but works fine for most purposes.

    Which reminds me, Opera's overall keyboard form handling is way superior to IE. Hit tab and you go to the first form field on screen; keep (shift-)tabbing and you navigate only among form fields. IE highlights all sorts of crap when you tab through a page; tab is mostly useless in IE.

    1. Re:Form entry: kinda by AnyoneEB · · Score: 1

      That is helpful that [tab] only selects forms, but in IE I've used [tab] for hyperlinks when the mouse wasn't working very well. (not on my computer)

      --
      Centralization breaks the internet.
  162. How funny....(or is it me?) by dugrrr · · Score: 1

    The article's page didn't seem to support Opera...at least my regular old v.6 that identifies itself as Opera (non-java). Didn't have a single image load (unlike the cache-brimming pics from /. ) I gotta say, I LOVE Opera. Only recently, did IE stop that annoying habit of expiring pages so easily--something Opera was always good about avoiding. In fact, after an OS got totally fubared, I was able to slave the drive and correct the .ini/.cfg files and save EVERYTHING no sweat. (Now my forlorn MCSE-innerchild kinda sees this as a security loophole but it sure saved me a headache) I LOVE IT---I lOVE it--I loVe IT!!!

  163. Ah, no. by bcaulf · · Score: 1

    IE runs fine performance-wise if it has a big fast machine all to itself. But when your CPU is heavily utilized it will bog, and it is just slow on an older system. Opera is still quick under low resource conditions. Opening new browser windows is also still quick even with low resources.

    As far as stability goes, both Opera and IE are pretty darn stable in my experience, but IE still dies more often.

  164. Re:of course it's not your browser of choice, but. by scot4875 · · Score: 1

    Yeah, it's such a terrible burden to have to write HTML-compliant code

    HTML isn't the problem. It's all the scripting features that are the problem. Even trying to write simple standards-compliant javascript will end up horking most non-IE browsers. IE has an even better implementation of javascript than Sun does.

    --Jeremy

    --
    Jesus was a liberal
  165. Opera vs. Mozilla by NickRob · · Score: 1

    So far I have't seen anybody offer points on which browser is faster. I use both of them and it actually seems like Mozilla is faster.

    Maybe I'm a version behind or something.

  166. the latest Opera's by DABANSHEE · · Score: 2

    are stable as..

    While Moz is still a bit young.

  167. Come on, face it... by Ogre332 · · Score: 1

    IE is the superior browser, bar none.

    --
    Shut up brain or I'll stab you with a Q-Tip. - Homer Simpson
  168. Eh by DABANSHEE · · Score: 2

    Most of the time its heap faster

    Just do some tests yourself.

    Save a random sample of obviously different sourced web files off the web onto your hard drive, then comparing remdering times, between IE (Mac, Windows, Solaris), the Geckos (Moz being the main one), Konq & the various Operas (like Gecko its cross platform). Most of the time Opera comes 1st.

    You see all the others have some codebase that originated from Mosaic. Opera's code's fresh, it has no bloated/hacked legacy Mozaic code in it.

  169. Some of us have to work in the *real* world by HelpfulPete · · Score: 2, Informative


    I have no love of M$, but:

    - their browser is generating well over 90% of hits on my clients' servers

    - their browser _actually works_, unlike piece of shit NS4...as for NS6, it rocks - why? BECAUSE IT CAN RUN FORMERLY IE-ONLY CODE and doesn't crash as often as fuckwad NS 4.x

    - pages don't forget their css and take all day to re-render (incorrectly) when you resize in IE and NS6...DHTML works much better allowing me to avoid Flash...

    None of this means I ignore NS4; it means I have to write *double* the javascript and sometimes double the HTML to support a dead piece of shit, but I do it. Though I'm making fortune 500 sites on increasingly tight budgets, nearly everything I make is usable in Lynx.

    So get off the IE-hating trip, it's irrational. And ferchrissake, what's worse, MS or AOHell?!?! Remember folks, Nutscrape is AMERICA ONLINE now. Are you AOL users?

    Jesus fucking christ.

    --
    "Society is like a stew. If you don't keep it stirred up, you get a lot of scum on top. " - Edward Abbey
    1. Re:Some of us have to work in the *real* world by bsartist · · Score: 1

      So get off the IE-hating trip

      Don't put words in my mouth. Not once have I suggested that pages shouldn't support IE. Not once. What I have said, several times, is that pages should be written to standards, so that they work in every browser. What part of "every browser" do you find so difficult to understand?

      --
      Lost: Sig, white with black letters. No collar. Reward if found!
    2. Re:Some of us have to work in the *real* world by shobadobs · · Score: 1

      So get off the IE-hating trip, it's irrational. And ferchrissake, what's worse, MS or AOHell?!?! Remember folks, Nutscrape is AMERICA ONLINE now. Are you AOL users?

      I thought that the article was about Opera.

    3. Re:Some of us have to work in the *real* world by HelpfulPete · · Score: 1

      I wasn't responding solely to your comments, there's a ton of silly IE bashing in this thread is all.

      That said, pages of the complexity corporate clients (unwisely) demand ALWAYS require plenty of tweaks and workarounds to look the same in all the major browsers. I'd be perfectly happy if 99% of the web was times roman text flowed around the occasional gif, but they want the bandwidth-hogging complicated crap their competition has so I do it.

      The "part I don't understand" is how you can write strictly to the standards when NO BROWSER conforms perfectly. To say nothing of the result of resizing a prefectly valid CSS-using doc in NS 4.0 and waiting for the reload.

      --
      "Society is like a stew. If you don't keep it stirred up, you get a lot of scum on top. " - Edward Abbey
    4. Re:Some of us have to work in the *real* world by bsartist · · Score: 1

      I wasn't responding solely to your comments, there's a ton of silly IE bashing in this thread is all.

      Fair enough. Sorry for the flamage, then. You're right about IE - recent versions of it are very, very good about standards compliance. But then, IE is a product of the Evil Empire, so I don't expect to see very many unbiased opinions about it here.

      how you can write strictly to the standards when NO BROWSER conforms perfectly.

      I'm not afraid to bend the rules a little, when it can be done safely. By definition, unknown attributes and elements are supposed to be ignored by standards compliant browsers. So, if the only complaint a validator has about my page is that I have an "align" attribute here and there, that's good enough. It may be technically invalid, but the errors are harmless, so I don't have a problem with it.

      What I do have a problem with is pages that depend on nonstandard markup or specific browser features for their basic functionality. Enhancing pages with non-critical bells and whistles that only work in Browser X is one thing; creating pages that require Browser X in order to function at all, is quite another.

      --
      Lost: Sig, white with black letters. No collar. Reward if found!
  170. Opera had MDI befoe Moz was born by DABANSHEE · · Score: 2

    Moz's 'tabbed browsing' is just a nasty hack copy compared to Opera's MDI.

    Say you check the same half dozen website every day, well in Opera you can have all 6 together as a multi-home page setup. You start Opera & they all come up together with their own tabs.

    1. Re:Opera had MDI befoe Moz was born by Darren+Winsper · · Score: 1

      Psst...Mozilla can do that too.

  171. yeah but... by grappler · · Score: 2

    ...can it parse XML and do XSLT transformations? How about MathML and SVG support?

    --
    Vidi, Vici, Veni
  172. Best Opera Resource by wideangle · · Score: 2
    SearchEngineWorld's Gigantic Opera Resource

    Notable is their Opera 7 wishlist, which includes a wish for configurable keyboard shortcuts. (yes please)

  173. Re:Uh, No, still wrong by crisco · · Score: 2
    Hmm, you could be right, I didn't start using Opera a great deal until v5 came out, although I did use it some previously. When I originally wrote this up I used the evolt browser archive to check my claims, unfortunately they don't have the 32 bit installer for 3.6. v3.51 didn't seem to have it but I wasn't feeling all that great when I was playing with the old versions so I could have missed it. A check of Google Groups seems to indicate spring of 2000 for the first mention of a Window Bar. Of course, it's first incarnation could have been named something else and have been overlooked in my search.

    I am glad Mozilla has adopted the tabs, there are a few other Opera features that would be well appreciated in Mozilla as well (remembering open windows, gestures, whole page magnification to name the most obvious ones), at least some of these are in the works at mozdev.org. And proper DOM support would go a long ways toward making Opera the ultimate browser.

    Oh, and even though this is buried in the thread, that article had one glaring mistake, the Opera download includes the JRE 1.3, not 1.1. Big difference, Java has come quite a ways since 1.1 and it is useful that they have a relatively modern JRE included in the download.

    --

    Bleh!

  174. Yes, you can put form elems in tables by tmoertel · · Score: 2
    W3 validators say I can't put form elements in tables!!!! Hello?

    You can put form elements in tables. What you probably did was hose up the element nesting by placing your FORM inside of your TABLE. If you look closely at the validator output, it will tell you where you hosed your nesting.

    If you inspect the HTML 4 Transitional Document Type Definition, you would see that FORM elements may contain %flow; content -- which includes both inline elements and block elements like tables. So if you want to do it right, place your TABLE inside of your FORM, not the other way around, and then place the form elements inside the appropriate table elements.

    Easy as pie.

  175. what else? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I used to browse using IE5. One curious thing however, it kept getting slower and slower...I tried to use moz 0.9.9 but it was just too heavy for my old Pentium 150MHz (with 80Megs of ram). So I gave opera a shot...It is clearly at least 5 times faster than IE , not to mention moz. Plus it can block those annoying popups with a press of a button. Soory folks,when you have a computer as old as mine, IMHO opera is the ONLY viable solution.

  176. What a horrible review by Wonko42 · · Score: 2
    Opera is great and all, but Jesus Christ on a toasted bagel. Why did this review get posted? It was written by a moron who seems to think "Sandskrit" is a language and $62 Canadian is worth more than $39 US. What's more, the review tells us nothing new about Opera and the pageload "benchmarks" seem to have been done by a guy holding a stopwatch.

    The review could have just said "BEST BROWSAR EVAR" and that would've accomplished the same thing, only it wouldn't have wasted nearly as much of my time.

  177. Re:of course it's not your browser of choice, but. by Stalin · · Score: 0

    i just have to throw out that opera will let you pay your capital one card (and it might even work on your time card page)

  178. Typo. by Sniser · · Score: 1
    page 4, bottom (http://www.futurelooks.com/display.asp?i=80&p=4)
    As you can see some sites will come up error free where as some may only have some slight discolouration. For the most part I could not find a site that did n't completely blowup in Opera.
  179. benchmarks.. by skt · · Score: 2

    As much as I would like to see rendering performance benchmark comparisons between browsers, this doesn't seem to be one. I have no idea what kind of benchmarks those are.. do those test the guy's connection to the Internet, rendering performance, caching, CPU speed, or RAM? I think that if one were to test a BROWSER's performance, the webpages need to be stored on a fast hard drive, the memory and disc caches need to be disabled, and you need to use a really fast machine in general. Then, the only problem would be getting some kind of _accurate_ rendering time..

    I'm guessing that none of these were actually done with this set of benchmarks. I mean, 8 seconds to render and download a page, where opera takes 3 second?? I tested the website on my relatively underpowered machine using IE4 and it only took a few seconds to display on a cable modem.

  180. Re:Arachne 1.70 by rapidweather · · Score: 1
    Yes, Arachne 1.70 running in a DOS partition is quite nice. I have it running in all my Windows 3.x partitions, and have a menu for it:
    • http://www.angelfire.com/ms/telegram/menu.html
    Since I made that menu, I have Grey Cat Linux added to the menu on one machine, since it will run in a directory on a Windows 3.x machine. Grey Cat has the links browser bundled in GCL version 2.x. (very nice) Getting back to Arachne, if you set it up, go to this page in Arachne:
    • http://www.angelfire.com/ms/telegram/dial.html
    There you can "dial" and "hangup" your dialup internet connection in Arachne from the web page, and also get your pop-3 email there, etc.
    There are instructions there for setting up such a page locally on your machine for use with Arachne. You'll want to do this, and not use the default arachne start page. Be sure and use a hardware modem with Arachne, just as you need to when using Linux. btw, the Linux version of Arachne is alpha, and you need to stay with the DOS version, which is very good. Does email really well, too. Arachne works very well with MS-DOS 6.21, but, if you use Caldera Opendos 7.01, you'll have more conventional memory to run Arachne.
  181. Opera Lies by gusnz · · Score: 2

    Opera... I've got v5.12 and v6.00 installed at home, and am moderately impressed. It handles HTML and CSS pretty well (at least on most sites), but my major complaint is its JavaScript support.

    Opera Lies. Default installs pretend to be IE, adjusting the userAgent string and adding some of IE's DOM properties. This isn't so bad... document.all works, for instance, but try something like document.body.insertAdjacentHTML and things will go belly up rapidly. Things like clipping, dynamic DIV creation and innerHTML are still not implemented -- as of v6 it's still playing catchup to Netscape 4 in these areas. So you need to detect Opera specifically in any advanced project to do workarounds.

    A good test to distinguish between browsers used to be for document.createElement, which IE and NS6 support but Opera 5 didn't. For those of you not familiar with the DOM this allows you to create tags anytime and place them in the document. Run this in Opera 5 and 6:

    alert(document.createElement);

    and you'll find that v6 reports it exists. But it doesn't -- it's simply a blank function, to allow more pages to think they can run in Opera. This is pretty foolish -- if a coder like me decides a page requires that ability to run, why report that it exists when it clearly doesn't?

    So in conclusion, hopefully Opear v7 will clear this up and implement proper DOM1 support (that is, beyond getElementById and similar). Until then, I'll browse with IE6 or Mozilla.

    (Random note: Anyone know if Konqueror can or has been ported to Windows? I'd be interested to try that too as an alternative... and don't have the HD space for a Linux partition).

  182. Re:of course it's not your browser of choice, but. by kephunk · · Score: 1
    I hear you. Unless there's a skin for Mozilla that makes it look absolutely identical to IE, and it comes with a rendering plugin that makes it render pages in exactly the same way as IE, then I could never put it on my mom's computer.

    Well here's the skin. Personally I find Mozilla renders pretty damn close to IE these days.

  183. security holes by drini · · Score: 1

    and so has mozilla (remeber the one discovered by GreyMagic)?

    my poijnt is both are great browsers.
    but it's a bit manipulative to mention one browsers flaws (I've been with opera since version 4 and those are very rare)
    and not mention the other ones

    for the record, I'm using mozilla since 0.6 and I have RC3 now. however I still prefer opera.

    --
    Math is the weapon!!
  184. Re:Uh, No, still wrong by Arker · · Score: 2

    Thanks for the link. Nice to know those binaries are still out there - I like Opera 6.03 great, but it could still be very handy to have access to 3.62 - an HTML 3.2 compliant browser that will fit on a floppy and run on win16 could come in very handy.

    Win 16 means it's compatible with not just win3.1 but also even very old versions of OS/2, WINE will run it perfectly (I know, I was running it on a dual boot Win 3.11/Slackware box for quite awhile, it was very handy, the same binaries running from the same directory, with the same settings files regardless of OS.)

    --
    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
  185. Other Alternative Browsers by PRickard · · Score: 2

    Besides Opera there are a lot of others you might want to check into... Replacements for Internet Explorer on every computer platform: MSBC's The Alternative.

    --

    == Paul Rickard, Editor of The Microsoft Boycott Campaign ====

  186. Re:of course it's not your browser of choice, but. by Juanvaldes · · Score: 1

    Remember AOL just stared using Mozilla (or was it NS 6/7?) for it's Prodigy users. After that they will likely move over its' AOL base to Mozilla as well, for that exact same reason. to hurt M$.

  187. Have you actually read the specs? by Crag · · Score: 2

    As someone else pointed out,
    form
    table
    tr
    td input
    /td
    /tr
    /table
    /form

    works.

    Not only that, but div tags are an even better way to do layout. Check out my friend's completely table-less site:

    http://thatsnice.org/

    and check out my table-less weblog:

    http://defore.st/

    Tables are great for tabular data, but they're not so great for layout.

    1. Re:Have you actually read the specs? by danox · · Score: 2

      http://thatsnice.org has a big table around the whole page. plus it doesn't validate as the XHTML 1.0 Traditional it claims to be.

      my site http://brownplanet.netforce.com.au is an example of purely tableless site. and it validates as XHTML 1.0 strict!

      --
      "Me and my girl named bimbo . . . limbo . . . spam" - Captain Beefheart.
    2. Re:Have you actually read the specs? by Crag · · Score: 2

      bah, Christian must have changed it since the last time I checked. Once more I must savor the taste of fresh foot.

  188. What standard are you talking about? by Crag · · Score: 2

    If it breaks 98%, it's probably not standard.

    Show me what non-standard thing you do that can't be done within the standards without breaking a popular browser?

  189. 5.12 Re:Opera Memories by leuk_he · · Score: 2

    I have a shorter memory. I am stuck at version 5.12. My OS=win95 and 64 MB on a 400 Mhz PIII. version 5.12 is fast. when i tried version 6.0 it became very slow.

    Yes, you say, memory is cheap and there are newer OS'es. But this a a company PC. So i keep using opera 5.12 hoping there are no big exploits actually used.

  190. No, *you* are wrong by jonasj · · Score: 1
    I'm sorry, but Mr Hyatt is *absolutely right* in asserting that Mozilla had tabbed browsing before Opera.

    You write:
    Opera introduced its 'Window Bar' (buttons for each open within the MDI) with Opera 4, wich came out in spring of 2000
    Yes, with version 4, Opera introduced an MDI interface. So what? What does that have to do with tabs? Tabs are what Opera calls "pages", and it didn't appear until version 6.0.
    --
    You know, Microsoft's street address also says a lot about their mentality.
  191. Arachne by PiGuy · · Score: 1

    My favorite alternative is Arachne. It's a fullscreen graphical browser available for DOS and for Linux using SVGAlib/GGI. It supports tables like nothing I've ever seen, is extremely fast, very reliable, and supports ftp/smtp/pop3/etc. I used to even run the DOS version on a 386SX/20 with 4MB ram - a little bit slow, but it ran fine! It does not yet support Java(Script) yet, but JavaScript is in the works. It is among my favorites for Linux, and is the BEST for DOS.

  192. Please mod this parent up... by Sits · · Score: 2

    I believe this post has it spot on. What Hyatt is pointing out is a technicality (the window bar probably worked in a similar fashion to tabs) but Hyatt's not wrong - it wasn't tabs.

  193. I'm using Opera right now by Tiado · · Score: 1
    And it looks great under the majority of webpages I go to, the only time when Opera doesn't render correctly is when I go to a site that has IE-centric code. I hear other people's claim that IE is superior because it renders IE-centric sites better, that's because the site is made to look good with IE by using M$ "standards".

    Opera is a great browser, when a page doesn't render correctly, it's because the site's webmaster doesn't care about browsers other than IE.

    One thing that pisses me off the most is when I'm denied entry to a site because I "don't have IE" and I "Need to install IE to view the site properly".

  194. Troll? by crisco · · Score: 2
    But I'll bite anyway, to keep some basic facts straight.

    Opera had a MDI interface well before version 4.

    Lets compare the functionality of the 'Window Bar' and the 'Tabbed Browsing'. The window bar is a row of buttons labeled with the title of each open page. When clicked they bring that page to the foreground of the MDI interface. The Mozilla tabs are a row of buttons (they respond to a mouse click) with rounded corners and shading to make them look like a folder tab. They carry the page title and when clicked bring the document to the foreground. Functionally identical.

    Now, for the version numbers you are so sure about. Run Windows or X86 Linux? Go to evolt's browser archive and download some old versions of their browser and turn on the window bar.

    Now I've finally figured out why all of you think that Opera introduced this in version 6. With version 6, Opera works in SDI mode. Now I'll admit they copied other browser in this, the first version of Netscape I downloaded worked in SDI mode. And, like Mozilla, Opera allows a hybrid of SDI and MDI modes within each SDI interface with a page bar (sound familiar? a row of buttons that allows you to choose the foreground web page?). However, you can't say that Opera copied Mozilla with this feature, people have been complaining about Opera's MDI mode for as long as they've had that feature.

    --

    Bleh!

    1. Re:Troll? by jonasj · · Score: 1
      Opera had a MDI interface well before version 4.
      If you say so. I never used Opera before version 5.0. But the guy I was replying to said that it had been implemented in version 4.0, so I belived him. Now you say that it was there before version 4.0. Now I believe you instead. I could choose to download an old version and check it out, but I don't see the point, really.

      Lets compare the functionality of the 'Window Bar' and the 'Tabbed Browsing' [...] Functionally identical.
      Windows return focus to the last focused window when they are closed (which is good for normal application use but terrible for web browsing). Tabs give focus to the tab next to them (which is great for web browsing). Functionality far from identical.

      Opera allows a hybrid of SDI and MDI modes within each SDI interface with a page bar (sound familiar? a row of buttons that allows you to choose the foreground web page?)
      Yeah, it sounds familiar. It sounds like tabs, which it what it is.

      However, you can't say that Opera copied Mozilla with this feature
      Huh? All I said was that David Hyatt was not wrong in stating that Mozilla implemented tabs before Opera did. I have never, ever claimed that Opera copied Mozilla. In fact, I can name several web browsers which implemented tabs before Mozilla did.

      And what exactly made you think that I was trolling?
      --
      You know, Microsoft's street address also says a lot about their mentality.
  195. Re:of course it's not your browser of choice, but. by maikeru · · Score: 1

    Nonononono. IE has a better interpretation of the DOM. Javascript's pretty standard, and simplistic enough that pretty much everybody gets it right. I also can't see why that would shock you, as the only part of JavaScript that Sun contributed to was the name.

  196. Opera Not So Bad Now.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just read the review and found it to be pretty good. The ad thing ain't bad at the top.