Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Opera to Stop Spoofing User Agent as IE

Posted by timothy on from the bold-new-world dept.

Anonymous reader writes "The Opera browser will stop spoofing its User Agent (UA) as Internet Explorer. Currently Opera, by default, spoofs its UA to identify itself as Internet Explorer. This is seen, by some, as a move that will bring up Opera's usage stats a bit higher, and will hopefully make webmasters, who develop IE centric sites, more aware of Opera."

43 of 360 comments (clear)

  1. Screwed both ways by intmainvoid · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They're dammed if they do (users getting blocked from sites they would otherwise be perfectly able to access with Opera) and dammed if they don't (on the usage stats).

    Can't they just stick the word "Opera" somewhere in the user agent string, but still make like they're IE?

    --
    Drag n' Drop DVD Recommendations
    1. Re:Screwed both ways by karmatic · · Score: 2, Informative

      Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0; Windows 2000) Opera 5.12 [en]

      That's what they currently do.

    2. Re:Screwed both ways by swright · · Score: 5, Informative

      gah, they *already do*!

      They've always had Opera and the version in the useragent string - they just have the MSIE bit in there as well.

      this fools the lame IE-only stuff, but lets any sensible software detect that really it is Opera.

      more info here: http://www.opera.com/support/search/supsearch.dml? index=570

    3. Re:Screwed both ways by dougmc · · Score: 4, Insightful
      and dammed if they don't (on the usage stats).
      Of course, this assumes that it actually matters how many people use Opera, and that they be accurately counted. I suspect that it only matters for bragging rights, but I'm sure that others will say that `if enough people use Opera, we'll support it'. (Except that if they did their site correctly, it would work on any browser already.)

      Opera (the company) has always whined that they weren't being properly counted because of they defaulted to pretending to be IE, so it'll be good to finally remove this whine. (Of course, they can still whine about it, as they'll say it's people using older versions, or people who have changed it manually, so maybe nothing will change.)

    4. Re:Screwed both ways by VoidWraith · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually, if they did their site correctly, it would work in everything but IE.

    5. Re:Screwed both ways by legirons · · Score: 2, Funny

      "They've always had Opera and the version in the useragent string - they just have the MSIE bit in there as well."

      We just have to hope that Opera doesn't become popular, otherwise you'll have to have "Mozilla/5.0 (compatible, MSIE 7) (Opera) TheActualBrowserName" in a user-agent to get pages served to you...

    6. Re:Screwed both ways by Linus+Torvaalds · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's irrelevant for the usage stats anyway. HTTP logs are a completely unreliable way of measuring browser usage.

      Example: if they change their browser to violate the HTTP protocol when hitting the back button, so that it does the same thing as Internet Explorer does, then they will show up in logs a lot more. Now how does that equate to higher usage? It doesn't. But the stupid people who think you can measure browser usage by looking at logs will think that a load of people have suddenly switched to Opera.

      Observing HTTP traffic is so unreliable, you might as well make up market share statistics. Ignore people who think they can tell you how popular a browser is without conducting a proper survey.

    7. Re:Screwed both ways by letxa2000 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      If I remember correctly, I couldn't even properly search for hotels in Expedia.com under Opera even under the IE setting. So I said, thank you, I'll take my business elsewhere. So I searched for hotels on Yahoo, found the one I wanted, and then booked directly with the hotel chain online and got a better price anyway.

      The best one yet (can't remember where) was a site that told me that I couldn't use my browser. There was a contact link so I clicked that to complain--and got yet another message saying my browser wasn't going to cut it. I couldn't even contact them thanks to some idiot web developers. I was going to look up contact information in their whois record and call and bitch but I decided I had already wasted enough time on those clowns. I don't remember what site that was, but I went to another site that had no problems with my browser and did business with them.

      Companies and web developers that continue to do IE-only developer are slowly going to become obsolete. This kind of IE-only nonsense was never acceptable but they could get away with it when 95%+ of the people were using IE. That's changing more and more every day and companies are going to look less and less fondly of their own website that's throwing away 10% of their potential profits, and that percentage is growing daily!

      NOTE TO TROLLS: Don't tell me a company isn't going to care about 10% of profits. If you have stock in a company that doesn't care about 10% profits, sell your stock, because it's probably going to go down soon. Companies might not develop Linux applications for a 10% market due to the R&D cost, but something like a web page that has no excuse for not handling everyone is a completely different story.

  2. A better idea... by mendaliv · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I would think a better way to combat the "sites that target opera users" problem would be to have a big button next to "refresh" that says "if the page looks weird click here!"

    In that case, the page would refresh and the browser would lie to the webserver about what browser it is for the remainder of that session on that domain.

    Best of luck to Opera though. Hopefully there aren't so many sites that will screw the browser over.

    1. Re:A better idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What would be nice is if the search engines (google, yahoo, etc) accessed the webpages once as IE, once as Opera, and once as "Search engine", and if the static contents differ too much between the three results, ignore that page totally. Perhaps non-trivial but it'll go a long way into making the web less browser-dependent.

    2. Re:A better idea... by QuietLagoon · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Hopefully there aren't so many sites that will screw the browser over.

      www.cvs.com is one of the more major sites that block Opera. You receive an error page stating, "At this time, our site does not support the Opera browser. We hope to remedy this in the near future.".

      If you write to the webmaster about it, you receive a canned reply that says they are planning to have Opera support very soon. Unfortunately, cvs.com has been giving that same canned reply for about four years.

  3. Not likely by NutscrapeSucks · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Our stats package can supposedly detect Opera's spoofed UA, and I'm still seeing numbers like 0.2%.

    Despite my username, right now IE5/Macintosh is the bane of my existance as it is still over the magic 1.0% line.

    --
    Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
    1. Re:Not likely by NutscrapeSucks · · Score: 2, Informative

      Supposedly as in they claim to detect it, but I haven't actually verified it myself.

      Doesn't that tell you that the "supposedly" above might be wrong? Most people agree that (even with today's flawed browser stats), Opera has at least closer to one per cent globally.

      Actually it reinforces my opinion that "flawed stats" are an excuse that allows Opera Fans over-estimate their marketshare by dismissing any emprical evidence that runs counter to their assumptions (just what you did). Quite frankly, Opera's issue with stat packages are their problem, not mine, and one I'm glad to hear they are addressing.

      Regardless, it's site-dependant, so it's quite possible Opera has 1% marketshare somewhere else, but on this (large, consumer, CSS2) site it's 0.2%.

      --
      Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
    2. Re:Not likely by croddy · · Score: 2, Interesting
      those are aggregate statistics from the the web sites hosted by a university's libraries, representing quite a few different designs, all of which have worked just fine when we tested them in Opera. (as you might suspect, we do focus practically all of our testing on Firefox, Safari, and IE)

      i installed Opera just now, and browsed around our 4 primary applications, and they work just the same as in Firefox, Safari, and IE.

      so it's not a case of "an interface that doesn't work in opera"... it's an example of a demographic (our students, faculty, and staff) who simply don't seem to use Opera in any significant numbers.

  4. Er by shreevatsa · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is seen, by some, as a move that will bring up Opera's usage stats a bit higher
    Bring up the usage stats, or maybe, thanks to the websites that don't even serve you if you're not using IE, bring down the usage itself? (Hopefully not the latter!)


    ...will hopefully make webmasters, who develop IE centric sites, more aware of Opera.
    More aware of the standards, you mean.
    Anyway, Opera has much fewer users than Firefox, so I think any difference that Opera makes will be much less than what Firefox would.... still, it's a good thing; I wonder if Opera users weren't ashamed all this while to be identified as IE users? :P

  5. It's about darn time, but not really... by Sr.+Pato · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Opera has the option to identify itself as Opera, Mozilla, and IE. IE is by default, for some reason which I don't know (anyone care to explain?) why. Anyone using Opera would probably already be savvy enough to change those settings if they wanted too. But some people are just too lazy, and since there's no real benefit to it, they just leave it as is.
    Expect IE's market share to drop a bit, and for Opera's to go up. :-) Not significantly though, but it's a step in the right direction.
    It's useful, but there's no reason why someone else's browser should be set by default. Don't know, I just never really understood why they did that to begin with.

    All-in-all, my point was, that although this is a good thing for the numbers, it's not something largely significant.

    --
    Nobody's gay for Mole-Man. :-(
    1. Re:It's about darn time, but not really... by kronocide · · Score: 4, Informative

      Because some sites will simply give you an error page if the agent is not IE or possibly Mozilla. Since Opera is highly IE compatible, it's meaningful to circumvent that "feature" of some sites and just pretend to be an IE browser. I hope this is a sign that Opera is now common enough so that the Opera people feel confident that site owners will not filter them out.

  6. Opera not supported by joepeg · · Score: 2, Funny

    I tried to read the linked article with the new Opera release, but it said it only supports IE ...

    --

    ZEN is a prime number in base-36

  7. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Informative

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  8. Sparked in part by Eric Meyer? by DamienMcKenna · · Score: 4, Informative
    In the past few days Eric Meyer, CSS guru and general cool guy, released a version 1.1 of his wondeful S5 presentation system. Right afterwards a part-time employee of Opera Software posted a rant on his weblog bitching that Eric gives Opera the "cold shoulder" and questioning S5's status as being cross-browser compatible. As Eric says in a follow-up blog on the topic
    Lying about S5's cross-browser nature? Giving Opera the cold shoulder? Utterly wrong on both counts. I've done everything I can to make sure Opera is still at this particular table.

    As a test Eric disabled the Opera-validation code, changed Opera to properly identify itself and ran the default S5 slideshow...
    Everything worked just fine except for two things. One, the browser window had a vertical scroll bar for no apparent reason. Two, the controls were nowhere to be found, either by hovering over where they're supposed to be or using the "C" key to toggle them.

    So is it possible that Opera took this as a slap in the face and maybe are starting to change their opinion of their place in the world, i.e. "if I can't easily detect your browser I can't begin to fix my code"? Are they trying to stand up against the PR machine that Firefox has behind it to say that they're still in the running, and maybe also make life easier for web developers who'll finally be able to easily identify their browser?

    No matter what the reasons, its a good decision IMHO.

    Damien
    1. Re:Sparked in part by Eric Meyer? by hkmwbz · · Score: 2, Interesting
      "So is it possible that Opera took this as a slap in the face and maybe are starting to change their opinion of their place in the world, i.e. "if I can't easily detect your browser I can't begin to fix my code"?"
      No.

      First of all, Meyer might be a big CSS guru and all, but the creator of CSS actually works for Opera, and Meyer's word on browser useragent strings doesn't really make much of a difference if you are going to use Opera on real web sites.

      Also, you can easily detect Opera even when you identify as IE. It still includes "Opera" in the user agent string.

      So no. Meyer is irrelevant when it comes to changing the user agent string, as far as I can tell.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
  9. Well, kinda... by Sr.+Pato · · Score: 2, Informative

    All you have to do is press 'F12' to see the menu with the options to change between Mozilla/Opera/Internet Explorer. Anyone that uses a new browser would most-likely play around with all the options to get accustomed to the interface. It's not a menu that would go undetected. "Quick Preferences" is a bit attention grabbing as well. ;-)

    --
    Nobody's gay for Mole-Man. :-(
  10. Re:Firefox needs US Spoofing by Scoria · · Score: 3, Informative

    Have you considered installing the User Agent Switcher extension for Firefox?

    --
    Do you like German cars?
  11. Prediction: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    IE usage statistics will be down by two.

  12. Necessary evil... by Lisandro · · Score: 2, Informative

    Thing is, while Opera can render pages "designed for IE" just fine, a lot of sites still refuse to load if the browser's not IE. Nevermind sites like Hotmail, which deliver purposedly broken CSS if the browser detected is Opera - making the page look funny or disabling functionality like purging of the spam mail folder.

        Opera makes it easy to change the browser identification (via "Quick preferences"), but still, it can be annoying. Specially for non-technical users.

  13. Re:Firefox needs US Spoofing by Akaihiryuu · · Score: 3, Informative

    Sounds like you need User Agent Switcher. Go to http://update.mozilla.org/ and look for it, it's a Firefox extension that comes in handy (though I rarely need it). You can define custom user agents in addition to the ones it includes. Here's a link, not sure if it will work as a direct link though.

    https://addons.mozilla.org/extensions/moreinfo.php ?id=59

  14. Whining? by hkmwbz · · Score: 5, Insightful
    "Opera (the company) has always whined that they weren't being properly counted because of they defaulted to pretending to be IE, so it'll be good to finally remove this whine. (Of course, they can still whine about it, as they'll say it's people using older versions, or people who have changed it manually, so maybe nothing will change.)"
    I don't get it.

    In what way is pointing out the fact that sites often fail to detect Opera because it spoofs as IE by default whining?

    What do you mean by "whining" anyway?

    Is it whining if your browser is being discriminated against, and you make a point of that? Were the black slaves in the US "whining" when they wanted freedom? Were those who wanted to abolish slavery "whining"? Yeah, I'm purposedly exaggerating slightly, but surely you get my point.

    I don't get the hostility towards Opera. The company pays several people to work with web standards in the W3C. The guy who invented CSS works for the company. Even as tiny as Opera is it has still defined what a modern browser is supposed to do. A lot of the "innovations" in Firefox and IE7 were introduced by Opera. Heck, the company even officially opposes software patents, so it's not even trying to prevent free software from just doing whatever Opera can do (or at least trying). Stuff Mozilla representatives are bragging about in Minimo, such as Small Screen Rendering, spatial navigation, and other things Minimo is supposedly going to revolutionize the mobile browser market with, were invented by Opera, and have been available to users of mobile phones with Opera on them for ages.

    Why the constant derogatory comments about Opera on Slashdot? I mean, the first paragraph you wrote was informative, but then you just had to add that second paragraph to make sure that you showed everyone how you really think Opera is lame, "so please don't mod me down for saying something remotely positive about Opera"?

    --
    Clever signature text goes here.
    1. Re:Whining? by dougmc · · Score: 2, Insightful
      In what way is pointing out the fact that sites often fail to detect Opera because it spoofs as IE by default whining?
      Opera (the company) and Opera users have often claimed that the numbers of Opera users were being drastically under-reported because of this spoofing.

      And often it took the form of whining ... `This report is so unfair to Opera users ... there's so many more of us than your web server logs show, etc.'

      Is it whining if your browser is being discriminated against, and you make a point of that?
      It's whining when every time soembody attempts to count how popular each browser is, somebody has to point out how innaccurate it is because `it doesnt' count Opera users properly.' If the Opera developers wanted Opera to be counted properly, it wouldn't spoof it's user agent by default. Mozilla doesn't, Firefox doesn't, Netscape doesn't, IE doesn't ...

      Surely they were aware of the risk of not being counted properly when they made the decision to spoof their User agent. It was their decision, and they knew what they were doing. They need to live with the (minor, imho) consequences, or fix it (as they're finally doing, good for them.)

      And as for the users, if they feel that it's important that Opera be counted properly, the first thing they need to do is make sure their own personal installations report their User agents correctly.

      Were the black slaves in the US "whining" when they wanted freedom? Were those who wanted to abolish slavery "whining"? Yeah, I'm purposedly exaggerating slightly, but surely you get my point.
      No, I don't get your point. Are Opera users slaves or something? What does any of this have to do with slavery?

      All I'm talking about is if Opera makes up 0.2% of the browser market, or some higher percentage. To try and compare that to slavery, well, makes it look like slavery was/is a trivial issue.

      Why the constant derogatory comments about Opera on Slashdot?
      If you're asking me, you're asking the wrong person. I said nothing about Opera the browser. My comments were about Opera the company and Opera users, and probably only a small (but vocal) minority of those.
      but then you just had to add that second paragraph to make sure that you showed everyone how you really think Opera is lame
      I said no such thing. Your English comprehension skills may be lame, but I said no such thing about the Opera browser.
    2. Re:Whining? by masklinn · · Score: 2, Insightful
      If the Opera developers wanted Opera to be counted properly, it wouldn't spoof it's user agent by default. {snip} IE doesn't
      Wrong, the "Mozilla/4.0" at the beginning of the IE UA is nothing more than spoofing Netscape's old UAS, and adding (compatible, mybrowsername) doesn't make it any better.
      The Mozilla Foundation is the only one supposed to use the "Mozilla/x.y" UAS, anyone else using it is spoofing, case closed.
      --
      "The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
    3. Re:Whining? by jc42 · · Score: 2, Informative

      The more browsers there are, the more work for web developers.

      Not in my experience. I've written lots of code to produce lots of web pages, and I routinely try them in every browser I can get my hands on (including several PDA browsers). In my experience, my code only really needs to distinguish two cases: IE and everything else.

      And even this usually isn't technically necessary. Without the tests, the HTML that I generate will "work" everywhere, in the obvious sense that what's on the screen is usable (though not necessarily exactly the same to the pixel) with any browser.

      Usually the reason for the test is that the people I'm working for insist that it do something very precisely defined and very peculiar on IE. That's what they use, and they want things exact to the pixel. They don't know or care what it looks like in other browsers, because they don't have any other on their desk, and will never see anything but the rendering with their version of IE.

      So my code can send standard, general-purpose HTML to all browsers except IE. Silly things like WIDTH= attributes can be dropped, allowing the browser to resize things to fit the actual window. But special code is needed for IE, to make it look "right" on the boss's screen.

      In my experience, that's what the so-called "real world" is actually like.

      Of course, after everything is working and approved, I can often silently make the code default for no IE test, making the pages even work with an IE window that's not the same size as the boss's screen. The boss never looks at it again, and doesn't notice that it now works better on his other employees' screens than it did before when his silly demands were still enabled.

      The "real world" can be a funny place sometimes.

      (I'm not kidding here; I really have been told things like "The window must be exactly 800 pixels wide". There are many managers around that think this is a good way to specify things. ;-)

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
  15. Re:It doesn't say just IE by Ark42 · · Score: 2, Informative


    Exactly. Only really really braindead software actually misidentifies Opera, so its usage stats will likely not shoot up any significant amount. What will happen though is webpages from 1998 will have to be updated to stop checking for IE vs NS4 with silly useragent checks and start using object existance checks.

    --
    Morphing Software
  16. A Question by fossa · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Ok, browsers have User Agent strings. Not all browsers are compatible with every web standard. Websites are becoming more complex (google maps etc.) and taking advantage of newer browsers. So, the question is, do we limit ourselves to the lowest common denominator (among browsers above a certain market share threshold at least), or do we make sites that can change depending on the browser?

    If yes, then should the site do browser detection and serve up different pages? If not (and I think if certainly should be "not"), then how do we go about supporting an ever widening gap in browser features? Simply wait for all browsers above our threshold market share to catch up? I suppose that's what we do now, but it's quite annoying to not be able to use some nice features because of that.

    Another thought: web apps (vs. installed apps) have the great advantage of being upgradeable with no user action. But eventually we get to the point where upgrades require the user to take action and upgrade her browser... So the web app just serves as a buffer to user action.

  17. Forget granny. Different people - different needs. by hkmwbz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Maybe Firefox or IE aren't "just as good" for everyone. Maybe people have different needs. Maybe some people just want a small, fast, feature-rich browser which is secure, and which doesn't require tons of confusing extensions to do various things.

    --
    Clever signature text goes here.
  18. In Two Minds by gidds · · Score: 2, Interesting
    ...about this issue, at least.

    On the one mind, I agree it's ghastly that Opera (or Safari, or Firefox, or whatever) has to pretend to be MSIE just to get served certain web pages. Changing the string might inconvenience some users in the short term, but it'll encourage web authors to better support other browsers, which is a Good Thing(tm) in the longer term.

    But on the other, aside from stats, why should it have to identify itself at all? What's wrong with something like

    Mozilla/5.0 (compatible) Exact browser name none of your business
    or similar? Groucho Marx is quoted as saying that he wouldn't want to belong to any club that'd have him as a member; I feel the same about web sites; if a site has to customise its pages for my browser, whatever that browser is, then I'm suspicious of it.

    --

    Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.

    1. Re:In Two Minds by myov · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The Mozilla/5.0 string should also go. After all, every browser is pretending to be Netscape, and it's become redundant now.

      What the string should should indicate is what version of the various standards it supports. Something along the lines of:
      HTML/4.0 CSS/2 PDF JPEG PNG etc.

      Don't support CSS? You get the table layout. Don't support HTML 3? You get an upgrade message. Etc.

      The string itself would need to be enforced by the W3C so we can't get something like MS's "we'll impliment what we want or make our own standard" attitude. Supporting CSS 2 means you support the spec entirely, and it's no indication that the browser is IE, Firefox or anything else, which means you can't code to one browser.

      --
      I use Macs to up my productivity, so up yours Microsoft!
  19. Re:Good by hkmwbz · · Score: 2, Insightful
    "Opera is a great browser for both speed and standards. However it lacks simplicity and is /too/ rich a browser."
    Have you actually tried Opera 8? It's got "everything" disabled by default and stuff doesn't appear unless you start using it. The "Opera is too complicated" argument doesn't work anymore.
    --
    Clever signature text goes here.
  20. No Comment. by Palal · · Score: 2, Funny

    http://www.kuvaton.com/kuvei/ff.jpg

    --
    -Palal
  21. we need a new borg icon by maxpublic · · Score: 2, Insightful

    We need a new borg icon for the Firefox fanboys. Just like the Billy-G worshippers, any time anyone mentions the virtues of a non-Firefox browser they shit their pants, whip out their willies, and start jacking off at the altar of free software.

    I've said it before and I'll say it again: ANY monoculture is a bad monoculture. It doesn't matter what the dominate monoculture is, it's always a bad thing to have a market overwhelmed by a single product. If the fanboys had any brains at all they'd welcome every non-IE browser into the market and encourage the whole passle to compete against one another, rather than blasting everything that might take market share from their precious One True Browswer(TM).

    I sincerely hope that Opera and Firefox continue to take IE down a peg. I also sincerely hope that neither Opera nor Firefox ever reaches a dominant market position. It's better for everyone involved if the market for browsers remains in contention among as many products as possible.

    Well, better for everyone except the fanatics, of course. But it's about time we stopped listening to their ilk anyway.

    Max

    --
    My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
  22. Re:Good by interiot · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Great, it's the return of excessive capital-and-symbol anonymous man! I'm thrilled. Again, please post as a logged-in user.

    Look, the difference between Opera and Mozilla is pretty simple. Ready?

    Opera = Vi. Mozilla = Emacs. Got it?

    Opera = small download, very small memory footprint, a lot of attention paid to making it fast.

    Mozilla = as intelligently designed as Opera, but with a different philosophy. Make it flexible as hell by adding a powerful extension language (emacs gets lisp, mozilla gets javascript). Everybody adds interpretted code to it, and eventually it becomes a mail reader, web browser, operating system, and kitchen sink...

    So it's really different strokes for different folks. You like minimalism, and have a growing collection of 80's-era hardware? Use Opera. You like lots of features, and maybe enjoy hacking bits of your favorate app-becomes-OS? Use Mozilla.

    (yes, I'm aware that vim can now emulate emacs lisp code, which is definitely a perversion of its original principles. And Opera's no slouch on features. Nevertheless, there's still a difference in original philosophies... Opera won't implement anything that's not light and fast. And Mozilla actively WANTS to have a third of its default functionality implemented in javascript)
  23. Good, now for the rest... by arose · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm looking at you Internet Explorer, you Safari and you Konqueror (they don't even tell you the default, but on Ubuntu it spoofs as "Mozilla/5.0 (compatible;" as well as "(like Gecko)" ).

    --
    Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
  24. Confirmed. by Mishura · · Score: 2, Informative
    Using Opera 8.01 on GNU/Linux (Kubuntu):

    We regret that we do not currently support your web browser and/or browser version.

    Please upgrade to one of the following browsers versions by clicking on a link below:

    Netscape

    Internet Explorer

    Mozilla/Firefox

    Safari

    At this time, our site does not support the Opera browser. We hope to remedy this in the near future.

    CVS.com is committed to your satisfaction, and we apologize for inconvenience that this situation may have caused. Your interest in our site is appreciated.

    If you have any questions or require additional assistance please contact us by email at customercare@cvs.com.

    Thank you for visiting!


    I will give them props for at least supporting Firefox and Safari, but not supporting Opera specifically is just...wrong. Has anyone got Opera to render the page anyways? Does it look horrible? Looked fine in Firefox...
    1. Re:Confirmed. by chiseen · · Score: 3, Informative

      you could use ua.ini to completely remove "opera" form the us string. just type "cvs.com=5" and thats it.

  25. Re:0.2% Opera on our site by toddestan · · Score: 2, Funny

    Looks very familiar. I came across IQ stats some days ago and they looked very similar...

    Like the original poster, it appears that you've lost about 6% somewhere.