Opera Embraces Extensions For v.11

dkd903 writes "Opera is one of the most solid browsers around. It is very fast, extremely customizable, and has a lot of functionality that others do not have. Opera is also a very strong supporter of Web standards; it was one of the first browsers to pass the ACID 3 test. However, Opera has always been confined to a relatively small user-base because of one critical thing — lack of extensions. Well, that is about to change — at least the extensions part. Today, it has been announced that Opera 11 will support extensions."

Comments

Wish I ...

[Hylandr]

Wish I could Mod Op..

- Dan.

Re:Wish I ...

[mcgrew]

You could have, but it's too late now. That's essentially what the firehose is, a way to mod submissions up or down. Speaking of modding, both the parent and this comment are OT (although this one may be slightly informative... you mods will have to fight it out)

Re:Wish I ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish "Extentions for v.11" was less ambiguous.

I thought Opera was getting into the analog modem business...

Re:Wish I ...

[AmyRose1024]

Glad I wasn't the only one who thought this when reading the title...

Re:Wish I ...

[Hylandr]

You mad Bro?

- Dan.

Well...

[the_one_wesp]

It's about time! I'm now excited about Opera again.

Re:Well...

[XnavxeMiyyep]

Same here. I used to use Opera, but I switched to Firefox for a couple extensions that Opera was lacking (primarily /Find Bar/). I still miss some of the Opera shortcuts and would love to switch back.

Re:Well...

[sznupi]

They are sort of there already. People are making apps for Opera Unite which don't really use online/"serverlike" capability, just do useful things locally. And userjs, capable of adding stuff to right click menu, even longer.

So it's part adding few polishing bits, part marketing / it needs to be "extensions" apparently.

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

I tried Opera once, but found it to be too bloated. I'll stick with Links.

Re:Well...

[interkin3tic]

Me too, because I too am a very supporter of web standards.

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

Opera has a find bar. on any page just type a "." and continue typing the word you want to find.

I suppose getting extensions is kinda cool, but really, most of the extensions I hear FF ppl bragging about is something that Opera has had built in for a looong time.

Re:Well...

[aliquis]

And even more important. How bloated will it get? Sure one can argue some of the built in functionality is bloat to but whatever.

Kinda like running Irssi, was basic as it was but with all the extensions .. :D

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

Opera has a find bar. on any page just type a "." and continue typing the word you want to find.

I suppose getting extensions is kinda cool, but really, most of the extensions I hear FF ppl bragging about is something that Opera has had built in for a looong time.

Does it have element based content hiding or only address based content hiding?

Yeah, that's what I thought

U mad Operafags?
U Jelly?

>trollface,jpg

Re:Well...

[CrashNBrn]

Both, Via the GUI is address Based.
And UserCSS can hide elements, easily.

#im_popupFixed {
display: none !important;
}
div#im_popupDiv {
display: none !important;
}

And then there's UserJS to override badly behaving JavaScript on the page.

Re:Well...

[XnavxeMiyyep]

Sorry, I was unclear. /Find Bar/ is an extension for Firefox that allows me to perform regular expression searches on the page I'm viewing. It's quite wonderful.

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

Opera can hide content either way. So that's what you thought?

I'm not exactly sure what angle you're trying to work here, but clearly you're either uninformed or a moron. I'm betting it's the latter.

Grammar 101

[Anonymous Coward]

Opera is also a very [adjective needed] supporter of Web standards...

Re:Grammar 101

[GuJiaXian]

I agree. Is it really that hard to proofreader a paragraph before posting it?

Re:Grammar 101

[GuJiaXian]

Argh, and of course I mistype a word while railing against a lack of proofreading. Go figure...

Re:Grammar 101

[Hylandr]

Now if you left it alone everyone would have thought you were making a point. :)

- Dan.

Re:Grammar 101

[luckymutt]

You shoulda said nothing...I would've modded you +1 funny

Re:Grammar 101

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, they accidentally the whole summary.

Re:Grammar 101

[Laxori666]

I, for one, am glad Opera is a very supporter. Just being a supporter won't do!

Still too unstable

[Anonymous Coward]

I keep going back to Firefox because although Opera is much faster than Firefox it crashes too much. Annoying and a security risk.

Re:Still too unstable

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? Opera has NEVER crashed on me. While I've seen Firefox consume 700+ Megs of RAM with only a few tabs open. Memory leaking POS.

Re:Still too unstable

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? Opera has NEVER crashed on me. While I've seen Firefox consume 700+ Megs of RAM with only a few tabs open. Memory leaking POS.

Opera has a pretty widely held and solidly deserved reputation for instability and broken rendering on a lot of standards noncompliant web pages.

Re:Still too unstable

[GooberToo]

Its unfair, but years ago I tried Opera. It crashed shortly after using it. It was uninstalled and I've not tried it again. Since Firefox does everything I need, plus lots of extensions, which are not even available on Opera, I really understand why I should give Opera a second look.

Now that Opera is to support extensions, I know the no-extensions complaint isn't valid, but I still don't see a compelling reason to switch.

Re:Still too unstable

[interkin3tic]

Opposite experience here. Windows 7, my firefox is crashing wheras opera isn't.

Re:Still too unstable

[aliquis]

I've not tried it again

I still don't see a compelling reason to switch

Yeah, and you if anyone should had known the reasons if there was any!

Re:Still too unstable

[aliquis]

In my experience everything which crashes if Flash fucks up crashes. All the time.

Re:Still too unstable

[GooberToo]

Why is a statement, which up front made it clear its opinion, moderated flamebait when its absolutely not? I guess its safe to assume, if you have an opinion, you are a troll or flamebaiting...wish moderators would actually read the guidelines and learn how to do such a simple task.

Re:Still too unstable

[GooberToo]

I don't understand you basis of comment in the least unless you're being a dick and trolling.

So your saying any user experience is invalid unless its YOUR user experience?

What are the reasons to switch to Opera? Just because I don't see a reason doesn't mean there are not. I never asserted I was representing every user; which your comment seems to imply you believe you are.

So rather than troll and troll moderation, why should people switch when firefox is plenty good for loads of people?

At least I was honest about my view - which is seemingly more than you've been - unless I've completely misinterpreted your post. If so, clarify.

Re:Still too unstable

[aliquis]

I don't understand you basis of comment in the least unless you're being a dick and trolling.

It's quite simple actually:
If you have used it once and then never used it again you probably don't know much about it ...

So your saying any user experience is invalid unless its YOUR user experience?

No. But actually having experience, and recent such, does make a difference.

What are the reasons to switch to Opera? Just because I don't see a reason doesn't mean there are not. I never asserted I was representing every user; which your comment seems to imply you believe you are.

I never stated my opinion at all. All I said was that yours probably doesn't matter much since you're not even an Opera user. But thanks for giving it anyway.

So rather than troll and troll moderation, why should people switch when firefox is plenty good for loads of people?

Why should they switch to Firefox when ... is good for loads of people?
I don't say people should do anything at all.

If so, clarify.

I used Opera around the same time as Mozilla 0.7 when no browser was really good.

Switched from Firefox 1.0.7 to Opera 8.52 when Firefox had huge memory leaks.

Have used very shitty Safari 2 for long.

Safari 3 wasn't good either if 5 is the current version. 4 worked.

I haven't used Firefox 4 since it doesn't run on my OS, Firefox 3 is decent, Opera is decent, Chrome is probably decent to, heck even IE 9 is supposed to be decent and I assume Safari 5 work to.

I doubt any of them really suck. Judging from history I would probably had chosen Opera or Chrome. But there is plenty of good browsers around and standard support seem to be a more and more important point for the developers of all of them.

Re:Still too unstable

[xmundt]

Greetings and Salutations...
          I would not say "TOO unstabile", but, I have switched over to firefox after using opera for years specifically because of the memory leak issue. I have a fairly vanilla OpenSuSE 11.3 installation, and, have been running OpenSuSE for quite some time. On EVERY version of the OS and Opera, over a period of time (say, several hours of browsing), the memory used by Opera will go from a fairly reasonable amount to 90% or more of total system memory. When it gets up above 80%, it starts dragging quite a bit, and, with time will suck so many resources that it will bring the system to a screeching halt. If I am lucky, I can force a close. Most of the time, I have to power down the machine, and bring it back up.
            I REALLY like Opera's look and feel, but, that memory leak and dragging the system down has become so annoying that it is no longer possible for me to stick with it.
          It is a real shame, too.
          regards
          dave mundt

Re:Still too unstable

[moronoxyd]

I love such vague statements...

I hear people say that Opera/Firefox/Windows XP crashes all the time, and I wonder what they're doing with their systems.
I use Windows XP and Firefox daily, and they hardly ever crash. Same for Opery (which I'm not using quite that much, but still regularly).

I believe stories about software that crashes "all the time" tells more about the people who tell them and the way they are using (abusing?) their systems than about the software.

Re:Still too unstable

[GooberToo]

If you have used it once and then never used it again you probably don't know much about it ...

Which my comment made clear. So in stead of posting a sane, reasoned comment, you trolled and some other idiot moderator, troll moderated. Regardless, none of that invalidates my comments. The comments were reasonable and far from inflammatory.

The fact that you posted as you did and idiot troll moderators posted as they did seems to validate no one is missing anything with Opera as the user group is simply so ashamed of it they can't sanely discuss it. Furthermore, it attempt to invalidate absolutely valid point of view simply because your own shame is trollish in of itself. ...and if you're not ashamed, then why troll on an absolutely reasonable comment? Exactly.

Re:Still too unstable

[Anonymous Coward]

whaaateevaaah! :D

Re:Still too unstable

[aliquis]

Ok, now I've got one _HUGE_ issue with Firefox for you to digest.

I run the latest Firefox 3.x in OS X 10.4.6.

When under load thanks to multiple tabs (I uninstalled Flash so that's not it, but I guess all the javascriptcrap is enough to fuck it up) it simply drops lots of keyboard (and mouse?) input.

I may start to write a mail to someone, click the subject field, write some, change to the actual message, write a lot more, and the browser lags and nothing happens. Then after a while it fills in with a few of the last keys and that's it. How the fuck is that even possible? But sure as hell it happens the whole freaking time.

Often I also lick send / post when I'm done and it doesn't notice that either.

Pure shit. It ignores some script/action and that includes the UI to or what? ... like now, I clicked Preview, nothing happened. Great! But much worse than you've typed four sentences and only get a half one back and then have to try to remind what you had typed and rewrite it, the whole fucking time.

Replace W by H

[Dalzhim]

End result:

Hell... It's about time!

Re:Replace W by H

[hvm2hvm]

I can only assume the W you want us to replace with H is the upside down one in "time"... So you're trying to say "Hell... It's about tiHe". I don't understand what that means.

Other problems...

[Anonymous Coward]

I tried Opera a while back. It installed some files (mime-type information, or .desktop files, or something) that broke KDE. All file associations were lost. When I uninstalled Opera, things were back to normal.

Last time I tried Adobe's PDF reader, it installed its own icons that completely clashed with my desktop's icons (WITHOUT ASKING, and EVERY TIME IT RAN). It also, if I recall, set itself as the preferred reader. Without asking.

These companies need to realize that not all the world's Windows and we don't all need to be treated like Windows users. Fine, so Windows doesn't know about file types whose programs aren't installed: install your own icons, etc. KDE does know about a lot of file types, and might even (gasp) have associations set up with them (especially relevant with PDF: we have kpdf and xpdf at least). I will not try Opera and Adobe Reader anymore, because they have messed up my system. They didn't take the time to learn enough about non-Windows systems.

I'm very happy with Konqueror and kpdf/okular. They don't screw with my system.

Re:Other problems...

[Anonymous Coward]

It probably would've worked correctly with GNOME. That's the more-relevant non-Windows desktop environment, so companies probably start with that as a base before moving to alternate environments like KDE.

Re:Other problems...

[Mystra_x64]

How long ago was that again? I'm using Debian for the last 2 releases and this wasn't an issue for me.

Re:Other problems...

[ewanm89]

Opera is QT by the way.

Re:Other problems...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it isn't.
Opera uses whatever is available, be it GTK, Qt, or whatever.
It used to be Qt, prior to 10.50

Re:Other problems...

[Dj Offset]

Opera is QT by the way.

Unix versions used to be, but not any more (since version 10.50).

just a thought

[dx40sh]

I am also a very supporter of web standards. I think....


In other news, I don't think this will make Opera a "serious competitor" for Firefox/Chrome/etc, if for no other reason than most people haven't heard of it before. They'll continue to use what they've heard of and are familiar with. I do like Opera, though, they've made a lot of good changes over the years.

Re:just a thought

[Yvan256]

Opera is available on the Nintendo Wii and the Nintendo DSi/DSi XL. Opera mini is available on a lot of cellphones. I bet a lot more people are familiar with the big red "O" than you think.

Re:just a thought

[froggymana]

Sure they might know it from their handhelds, but will look at Opera as *just* a mobile browser that they wouldn't want to use on their regular computer. Most people don't even understand that smartphones, handhelds, and consoles are computers just like their laptop/desktop computer.

Re:just a thought

[aliquis]

What happened with the Windows choose-your-browser-screen? I assume that would have had an impact.

Even more so if your OS only said things like:

Internet -> Web
Internet -> E-mail
Internet -> Chat

And such, with no mentioning of what the application is called.

Re:just a thought

[sznupi]

Thing is - a lot of those people don't even have computers (yet?). Opera is already the #1 mobile web browser by website stats... and that's despite how a lot of that share comes from users which are certainly very frugal about the number of sites visited / data transferred (and typically on so called "feature phones" - which is their main and often only means of web access). There's a high chance those people might start using desktop version, if it comes down to choosing - and in many places they do choose rather than settle on what's installed by default, "big" Opera is at the top or very near throughout the whole CIS (but there people have a motivation for choosing - machines last longer, are cheaper, slower; conditions where advantages of Opera become much more readily appreciated)

And as company they are steadily growing anyway, with nicely rising profitability (easily checked, they are publicly traded), even throughout the last 2 years.

That's What's Holding It Down!

[Pedersen]

Because, out of everything, the only thing has ever held Opera back is the lack of extensions. Yep. Definitely. Nothing about having a weird interface, or having preferences in unusual locations. Just the lack of extensions.

Sure.

Re:That's What's Holding It Down!

[characterZer0]

What is weird about the interface?

What is unusual about having the preferences in about:config?

The only think keeping me on Firefox instead of Opera is Tree Style Tabs.

Re:That's What's Holding It Down!

[Anonymous Coward]

What is strange about the interface? I've been using Opera since the 90s, and when forced to use another browser I've never noticed anything extremely different. I've never noticed the preferences being in unusual places either, so I'd be curious if you could expand.

Personally, the reliance on extensions is the problem with other browsers. Mouse gestures specifically is something I can't comfortably browse without, and I always feel its lack when I have to use another browser. This is one place where Opera just works and all other browsers are broken as far as I am concerned.

I've never understood Slashdot's hatred for little Opera either. It's the only browser with a built-in shortcut to Slashdot (just type /. in the address bar). I guess just because it's not FOSS?

Re:That's What's Holding It Down!

[Missing.Matter]

Like this? http://my.opera.com/haavard/blog/2010/08/05/tab-grouping

Re:That's What's Holding It Down!

[Anonymous Coward]

Compared to keeping Firefox's preferences hidden mostly in about:config or just plain missing, Opera has a really good place to store preferences.
And, Opera has one of the most bendable interfaces ATM. You want to make it traditional? Press the button on the menu that is called "show old menu" or like that.

Re:That's What's Holding It Down!

[Anonymous Coward]

Preferences in unusual locations and weird interface are something you get used to after a little while, and after a week or so don't even notice. Lack of functionality, on the other hand, is absolutely critical. As of now I have the following extensions on my firefox installation:

adblock plus
all-in-one gestures
beef taco
better privacy
compact menu 2
context search
distrust
download manager tweak
exif viewer
fasterfox lite
firefox sync
forecastfox weather
gmail notifier
nuke anything enhanced
optimize google
remove it permanently
stop-or-reload button
stylish
taboo

I'll be happy to switch to Opera (or any other browser, for that matter) when it can offer the same level of functionality. Granted, some extensions are purely cosmetical, like compact menu (although i guess i can't live without it now, even running firefox in a 30" (i run a staggered dual setup, a 30" eizo and a 24" nec for photography editing/processing) screen i run it maximized and want all the screen real estate i can get), or stop-or-reload button, and things like all-in-one gestures are already natively in opera from what i remember way back when, and stuff like exif viewer are nice to have (since i'm a photographer), but some stuff like adblock plus, context search, optimize google, taboo, etc, make everyday browsing so much better to the point it is painful and displeasant for me to now use a browser without them.

Re:That's What's Holding It Down!

[bunratty]

No, not the only thing ever. Opera was held back before by the ads displayed in the free version. Remember when they removed the ads and Opera usage skyrocketed?

Oh, wait. I see your point.

Re:That's What's Holding It Down!

[xehonk]

No, not like this.

According to your link opera supports showing tabs grouped by window.
Treestyle tabs offers a hierarchical order (over several levels) for tabs in the same window. If you start with a search for a topic, all results (those opened in new tabs anyway) will show up one level below the search. If you branch further from one of the results, it'll open a new level. It's an incredibly useful and mostly automatic way to generate order in your tabs.

Re:That's What's Holding It Down!

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the Tools->Preferences menu item was too hard for him.

Re:That's What's Holding It Down!

[Missing.Matter]

Ah, I see. That is indeed useful, although I've become accustomed to multiple windows using this method. Less automatic, but sort of the same effect. I agree that would be nice to have in Opera.

Re:That's What's Holding It Down!

[Anonymous Coward]

I totally agree. Probably the biggest thing keeping me back with FF is *portable* FF, which I just cannot live without anymore. That, and this rather extensive list of extensions: AdBlock Plus AniWeather BetterPrivacy Cache Status Download Statusbar FireGestures Fission Flagfox Flashblock FoxyProxy Ghostery Google Shortcuts Greasefire Greasemonkey Lastpass Linkification NoScript Open in IE Organize Status Bar PDFit Personal Menu RequestPolicy Right Links Tab Kit Tile Tabs TrackMeNot TweakTube I'm aware that Opera does many of these things natively (and the fact that I feel obligated to add them to Firefox should really tell me something about how I perceive its out-of-the-box functionality) but some I just can't give up.

Re:That's What's Holding It Down!

[AmberBlackCat]

I don't think Opera's problem is the lack of extensions. I think it's problem is websites that don't support it and, in some cases, specifically check for Opera so they can say the site is not compatible even if Opera could render the pages properly.

Re:That's What's Holding It Down!

[DarkXale]

Of the addons listed - the following exist partially or completly;

all-in-one gestures

compact menu 2 (looks like a ribbon which 10.50+ uses - you can easily tweak opera to better use real estate than firefox; which is currently a well known looser in this department)

context search

Distrust (Isn't this just 'private browsing? - also triggers automatically for me when i open a link from a program like Skype or MSN)

exif viewer (seems to do camera related things just fine - if theres more rare listings not implemented I don't know)

firefox sync (opera sync - which also works with phones)

gmail notifier (not an actual addon?)

remove it permanently (limited - can't do text at least although adds pictures movies etc works fine)

stop-or-reload button

In the end, thats not a whole lot of things you're actually missing out. A few firefox appearence things obviously and firefox engine tweaks. Really the only thing that sticks out to me of significance is adblock and potentially the addon that allows you to remove text elements. I'll leave any conclusions to you though

Re:That's What's Holding It Down!

[CrashNBrn]

Just install Opera on a USB Stick.
Choose the option for a single profile.
Then the profile is stored in it's program folder.

The operaprefs_default.ini should look like:

Opera Preferences version 2.0
; Do not edit this file while Opera is running
; This file is stored in UTF-8 encoding

[System]
Multi User=0 ; If enabled Opera will use Windows profiles to store individual user settings

Since I generally use the USB stick on Window's machines, I changed a setting in the profile/operaprefs.ini to place the cache on the Windows machine so I'm not writing to the USB for that.

Cache Directory4=C:\ProgramData\Opera\Opera 10.70\cache

Re:That's What's Holding It Down!

[jcombel]

when i hit the second item on the list - all-in-one gestures - i stopped reading. opera had mouse gestures since 2001, years before firefox was released to much fanfare. all-in-one (like most gesture extensions) copied opera's default mouse gesture setting scheme.
 
yes, i am dismissing his content based on having very little information, i thought there was nice circular story-telling there.

Re:That's What's Holding It Down!

[jcombel]

firefox has ad-block-type features built in. i don't use it, myself - the internet is not free, and i don't mind supporting websites by looking at advertisements that might be appealing to me.

Re:That's What's Holding It Down!

[jcombel]

lol gdmt.
 
opera* has ad-block-type features etc etc

Re:That's What's Holding It Down!

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right, the internet isn't free. I pay $40/month for access to it. I'm not wasting any of that bandwidth or my time to view advertisements on MY PC on MY connection.

If ad supported sites don't like it, they can switch to a different business model, make a genuinely good product that I would want to donate to or fuck off.

Re:That's What's Holding It Down!

[hkmwbz]

Actually, since Opera removed the ads, their desktop user base has doubled every two years. Opera now has more than 140 million users in total.

Re:That's What's Holding It Down!

[hkmwbz]

Weird interface? Have you even looked at Opera lately?

Preferences in unusual locations? You clearly haven't even bothered to try it.

Re:That's What's Holding It Down!

[Twinbee]

I don't recall anyone on Slashdot hating Opera. Perhaps being ignorant of its feature set and quality...

Re:That's What's Holding It Down!

[bunratty]

If that were true Opera would have about 7% usage share because there are about two billion Internet users. Opera in fact has 2-3% usage share.

The main thing I don't like about Opera is the hyperbole. It also hurts Opera because when people try Opera and see that the hype was just hype, they're disappointed. Try some humility if you want Opera use to actually double every two years.

Re:That's What's Holding It Down!

[sznupi]

That total number includes mobile users. Where, accidentally, Opera is the #1 browser.

Re:That's What's Holding It Down!

[bunratty]

It sounds plausible that the Opera *mobile* user base has doubled every three years, along with the doubling of mobile users every three years. Note, however, that the usage share of Opera mobile has dropped over the past year, from about 27% a year ago to about 25% today according to StatCounter. They may be gaining *users* as more users go mobile, but they're losing *share* of the mobile market as more users tend to go with BlackBerry and Android.

The Opera *desktop* user base has grown at approximately the rate of new Internet users, so their usage share has been around 2% for years. This story and the post I was replying to is about *desktop* Opera. Let's stop misrepresenting the numbers to try to make Opera look good. That makes it look like the actual numbers are something to be embarrassed about. Opera removing the ads in the desktop version did not result in a sudden surge of desktop Opera popularity, and extensions won't matter either.

Re:That's What's Holding It Down!

[sznupi]

By glancing at that list - basically everything, except more niche things with non-descriptive names, is built-in.

Now, such ignorance of the feature set of a product while, ultimately, keeping it's GUI paradigm familiar and simple - that's a fundamentally hard to solve problem. With barebones extensible browser people take their time, can start slow, gradually brining in all the functionality; not feeling overwhelmed.
But using something "static" they tend to assume there's nothing more than meets the eye (certainly they would capable of realizing it)

Re:That's What's Holding It Down!

[sznupi]

They're not loosing share of users - first, you might want to expand the time period displayed; secondly - that's website hits, not users. The way many new mobile users, in some places with current wave of smartphone craze, browse the web differs from how large part of Opera users do so - significant portion of them in very rapidly expanding but still "developing" world, where people are still much more frugal with number of sites visited (numbers are there)

Most of them on so called "feature phones" BTW, a category which is not going away, however the pundits in some highly atypical but highly visible markets would like us to believe. But once those places will be able to get on the PC bandwagon, many people might still appreciate Opera in such setting. Similarly to how it is the #1 or one of top browsers throughout most of CIS (and that's a matter of choice, of people valuing advantages of Opera which are much more visible on slower / cheaper / long-lived machines)

You yourself used a number which includes people browsing from mobile; to make it look worse...

Either way, Opera is profitable and their profitability has a healthy rise, also during the last 2 years. That's something, considering they are, among major browsers, the longest without any corporate granddaddy.

Re:That's What's Holding It Down!

[sznupi]

It has adblock built-in, you just have to provide it with a list (that plus GUI element blocker)

Re:That's What's Holding It Down!

[bunratty]

Yes, Opera is profitable and will continue to be profitable. Thank you for being more modest and honest with your claims. Opera's accomplishments are nothing to be embarrassed about, and therefore they need no embellishment or exaggeration. This is exactly the point I've been trying to make. Opera's good -- Opera users hyping Opera make it look like Opera has something to hide, which is far from the case.

In any case, I stand by my assertion that extensions will not cause a sudden dramatic rise in Opera use. I also claim that in a few years Opera fans will say that Opera use took off after they supported extensions, when in fact increase in Opera use will approximately match the increase in mobile browser use, just as it did before extensions. They will probably also try to claim that Opera was the first browser to support extensions.

Re:That's What's Holding It Down!

[sznupi]

...which at some point starts to look weird, if so relatively unchanging and common.

Re:That's What's Holding It Down!

[sznupi]

And what was not modest with pointing out how the numbers include mobiles (should, really, considering for how many people now that's primary or only available means of access) and what is Opera position in this most rapidly expanding segment?

(FYI, I'm lately not on Opera for almost half a year, except very occasionally on mobile...not exactly a case of hyping my darling)

Large part of what people expect from extension mechanism is already there BTW; userjs apart from expected types of actions can also put items in right click menu and bookmarklets; plus - people are "hijacking" Opera Unite mechanism for offline/local-only functionality. And no need to be a cynic, Opera desktop also grew nicely in some places; and mostly does so steadily, if slowly, wherever it some foothold. Since it doesn't seem to shred away what distinguishes it, that might as well continue with people in "lesser places" hooking up.

Re:That's What's Holding It Down!

[bunratty]

Because the poster who responded to me was making it sound like desktop usage took off after the ads were removed from Opera.

Actually, since Opera removed the ads, their desktop user base has doubled every two years.

I call bullshit! Opera mobile has taken off, and that's simply because the number of mobile users has taken off, and has nothing to do with users preferring Opera suddenly. More Opera mobile users certainly doesn't have anything to do with Opera removing ads from the desktop version.

Get it now? Opera disgusts me because its users continually make exaggerated and fabricated claims such as these, and I'm sure they drive off other potential users as well. It makes Opera look like a laughingstock when they've actually been doing well.

Re:That's What's Holding It Down!

[sznupi]

Only its users? (plus next time, in turn, don't make it sound, in the first reply, like I'm also doing something like that when providing numbers and clarifying what the previously used ones mean)

PS. Again, it's perfectly possible that CIS numbers wouldn't be quite there with ads / without some specific efforts, generally; though they would probably just use cracked versions. Also, claiming that its taking off in mobile is merely due to opening of that market is dismissive at best - doesn't account for how large share they have (how they actually enabled large part the market is a reason to be less dismissive, not more)

Re:That's What's Holding It Down!

[hkmwbz]

Opera has more than 50 million desktop users (up from 20 million two years ago). The 140 million number includes mobiles and devices. So yes, Opera does have 7% market share if you count all Opera browsers.

Try some humility if you want Opera use to actually double every two years.

It already does. Again, the desktop version alone went from 20 million in 2008 to 50+ million in 2010. Opera Mini more than doubles every single year. So as you can see, Opera's user base is growing very quickly.

Re:That's What's Holding It Down!

[hkmwbz]

Actually, if you look at the data they have gone up from 22% in the first quarter of 2009, to 25% in this quarter. And it's going to keep growing because Opera is pulling in major operator deals that are increasing their user numbers.

Re:That's What's Holding It Down!

[hkmwbz]

Because the poster who responded to me was making it sound like desktop usage took off after the ads were removed from Opera.

Which it did. From 20 million users in early 2008, to more than 50 million users in 2010.

Re:That's What's Holding It Down!

[hkmwbz]

Opera users hyping Opera make it look like Opera has something to hide, which is far from the case.

No one is hyping Opera. We are just countering the anti-Opera talking points that go "Opera doesn't have any users," "no one cares about Opera," etc.

Re:That's What's Holding It Down!

[hkmwbz]

Opera disgusts me because its users continually make exaggerated and fabricated claims such as these

No one has made exaggerated and fabricated claims. The numbers you are seeing are the ones that are reported by Opera to the company's own investors. And they have the revenue growth to confirm it.

If you are disgusted by facts, then so be it.

Re:That's What's Holding It Down!

[Anonymous Coward]

Um. No. I'm a web developer and I don't "target" Opera to make my pages not work. Opera is still buggy and doesn't follow standards closely enough. Today I came across another one: reading the background-position css property of an element that doesn't have a background returns the value "none". "none" is not a valid value for background-position, simple as that. Opera is the only one that returns this invalid value.

Opera has always been #2 behind Internet Explorer in terms of broken implementation of web standards. It gets better with every release, but some days I actually have more problems with the latest release of Opera than I do IE8. That's saying something.

Firefox lovers of bloat stay away

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd prefer the best browser to maintain its current level of anonymity and leave the IE and Firefox user as cherries to be plucked.

Re:Firefox lovers of bloat stay away

[kullnd]

I agree --- I love opera, and I think one of the things I love about it is that it just works very well the way it is... The day Opera bloats like Firefox is the day I will stop using it.

Re:Firefox lovers of bloat stay away

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd prefer the best browser to maintain its current level of anonymity and leave the IE and Firefox user as cherries to be plucked.

Did you mean "grapes"?

Flashblock

[JackDW]

Here's hoping. Some ad-heavy sites are almost unusable in Opera now, because of the sheer number of autoplaying Flash videos. Not mentioning any names...

Re:Flashblock

[Nichotin]

You can try out privoxy. It is an ad filtering proxy server, which will work with any browser. I don't surf the web without it. Just install it, set your browser to use proxy 127.0.0.1 on port 8118, and voilá, obnoxious ads be-gone.

Re:Flashblock

[Anonymous Coward]

On-demand plugin loading has been in Opera since version 9...

Re:Flashblock

[alvarogmj]

You can enable a setting that allows plugin content to be downloaded only after clicking on it. Very useful:
http://my.opera.com/dude09/blog/on-demand-plugin-opera-turbo

Opera is what it is. Either you like it (like me) or you don't. Its lack of popularity is not due to the lack of extensions (after all, chrome and safari had bigger market share before having extensions themselves).

I prefer it, over any of the others. But it seems there are a lot of bad misconceptions around and that's the biggest problem Opera Software needs to find a way to solve.

Re:Flashblock

[Anonymous Coward]

I just set the general settings to not allow plugins. If I run into a site I trust that uses flash or whatever, I enable plugins on that site in the site preferences. Every site you visit can have it's own settings. It's a little bit of a pain for some sites that redirect you all over hell's half-acre (ie. Google mail), but once you get it set up, it works flawlessly. I do the same for javascript, sound, animated gifs, etc.

Not as convenient as Flashblock, Adblock and NoScript, but potentially safer as I've only needed to enable scripting and such on a handful of sites and I don't have to worry about a new site sneaking in under the radar.

Re:Flashblock

[JackDW]

Thanks. This is not something I knew about Opera.

Generally I think Opera is very good. Only a few sites have been a problem, and then only because of Flash. I have tried the Privoxy solution (suggested elsewhere) but found that it doesn't actually block very much. ODP is most likely exactly what I need.

Re:Flashblock

[Anonymous Coward]

Use the urlfiter that comes with Opera. It's pretty much Adblock for Opera. Though by default, it doesn't do much. Get a more complete version of it http://www.fanboy.co.nz/adblock/opera/

Re:Flashblock

[dreemernj]

The same thing happened to me as I use UserJS to block external scripts and have plugins set to on-demand. In this case, the issue is that Opera needs to present these features to users in a more accessible way.

I have a feeling the first round of extensions for Opera will be simple front ends for settings that have been available in the browser for years, but not explained well to users.

Re:Flashblock

[kyrio]

FlashBlock works fine in Opera. http://fuxx.us/flashblock

Re:Flashblock

[cerberusss]

Privoxy tries to be clever and blocks all sorts of images and scripts which are essential for most pages. Even a simple webshop would suffer from blanked-out images. When all you want is not see ads, Privoxy in my opinion is overkill and too hard to configure.

Re:Flashblock

[Anonymous Coward]

Where is the problem?
I browse with Opera with flash generally turned off. Only explicitly enabled for some sites. Works fine.

I never got the point of installing extensions to Not Run some code.

Quick!

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone write a "FirefoxTab" extension. Who else would like their Opera to leak memory?

Re:Quick!

[eugene ts wong]

I find that Opera already does leak memory.

Re:Quick!

[WoLpH]

If it does than it's by an acceptable amount imho. I keep Opera running for weeks at a time without ever having problems with it.

With Firefox (atleast 3.5 and 3.6) I can't keep it running for more than a couple of days before it slows to a grinding halt. Perhaps the windows version is a little better but under Linux, Firefox is unusable for me. Way too slow.

Re:Quick!

[eugene ts wong]

I find that I can grind it to a halt, in about 5 minutes. If I watch several YouTube videos, or load pages with lots of Flash, then it seems to slow down. I typically shutdown my computer at the end of each day, or several times per day, and I still encounter the problem.

Do you know of any settings that can get rid of the Flash files from the cache when I leave the page?

I find it frustrating, because if I browse to another page accidentally and come back, then I have to reload the entire video. Why does Opera store that video in a cache, if I would have to reload it, anyways?

Any help would be appreciated. I assumed that most people experienced the same problem as me, and didn't bother raising any concerns. If anybody could offer advice, then that would probably redeem Opera, in my eyes.

Re:Quick!

[commodore64_love]

The same is true for Opera - grinds to a hat after watching youtube. I think it's Flash's fault, not firefox or opera.

Also aren't there opera WIDGETS that are equivalent to extensions?

Re:Quick!

[eugene ts wong]

Oh, okay. I think that you might be right about Flash. That makes more sense. I wonder if there is a way to get it to empty its own cache. I'll have to look that up.

Yeah, there are widgets that are supposed to be equivalent to extensions. That was the hype. The widgets were supposed to be good enough, compared to extensions, so there was supposed to be no need for extensions. I have not looked into those, though. I have been happy just browsing in a very simple way. I might start looking into using some Twitter widgets.

I honestly suspect that Opera is taking a different course than what they did in the past. I suspect that they are innovating a lot less, for better or for worse. The latest innovations have not captured market share, as people might have hoped. I have sensed that they are beginning to look towards Firefox for innovative ideas. Last time I tried Firefox, I have been very impressed with the way that they deal with RSS feeds.

Re:Quick!

[Mattcelt]

I use Opera and Firefox for different things, but 99% of my browsing is with Opera (and Opera Mini on my phone... there's nothing for love or money that's comparable there). I turned off my disk cache altogether and set memory cache to Automatic. I find my CPU temperature goes up after watching Flash-heavy sites such as YouTube, but going into the settings and clicking the Empty button on the cache page brings it right back down to normal. It's faster and more responsive than using the disk cache ever was.

FWIW, I also turned off the cache and cookies directly in Flash (on the Adobe website) for all sites, and have not noticed any issues with content whatsoever, so that may help as well.

Re:Quick!

[eugene ts wong]

I tried turning off the Flash cache and cookies, and it seems to work better. I find it odd that I suddenly got different Flash ads. I'm not complaining, though. I also tried getting rid of the disk cache, which seems to help, also.

Thank you, so much.

1 thing that I noticed is that if I load too many pages with Flash, then a lot of those videos stop working. I have to reload the page, if I want to watch the video again. Anybody know anything about that?

Who is going to write the extensions

[mmsimanga]

This makes things interesting, I wonder though if it is not too late. As a developer looking for maximum exposure, developing for one of the other browsers with a bigger market share makes more sense.

Re:Who is going to write the extensions

[amicusNYCL]

I find that Opera is the least of a developer's worries. If your application works in recent versions of IE, Firefox, and Chrome, it's probably going to work in Opera also. I virtually never find Javascript problems, but every now and then there's a CSS positioning or size inconsistency.

Re:Who is going to write the extensions

[amicusNYCL]

.. and now I read the title of your post. Foiled again!

Re:Who is going to write the extensions

[Anonymous Coward]

"developing for one of the other browsers with a bigger market share"

Sure thing. Lots of apps targeted to a specific browser work great *points out lots of IE 6-specific websites*

Use standards. Develop for everyone.

Re:Who is going to write the extensions

[InfiniteWisdom]

The only standard that matters is what works on a majority of browsers out there. Users dont' care how standards compliant your webpages are if it doesn't work on their browser. Ideally all browsers would support the same HTML, CSS, Javascript etc., but we don't live in an ideal world. Things are moving towards better uniformity, but the fact is Opera has about 1/3 the market share of IE6, so it make more sense to ensure something works on IE6 before bothering with Opera

Re:Who is going to write the extensions

[hkmwbz]

Well known extensions like WOT have already announced that they will make Opera extensions. Also, Opera has a lot of developers, and some even made custom stuff for Opera through the use of third party applications. So Opera users and whoever else wants more people to use their extensions will write them.

Re:Who is going to write the extensions

[Anonymous Coward]

"Things are moving towards better uniformity, but the fact is Opera has about 1/3 the market share of IE6, so it make more sense to ensure something works on IE6 before bothering with Opera"

Bullshit--leave that rotten dead pig known as IE6 out to decompose. It is unsupported by its own creator and was known from the start to be a horribly insecure piece of shit. It was a disgrace in its days, being completely abandoned by Microsoft by the time its illegally-obtained monopoly washed out all competition, stalling the entire Web in the process, and now its ghost continues to haunt people. And yet--people like you say that it's a good idea to support it instead of more modern and secure-by-default browsers?

It would make more sense to make sure a page works in Opera than in IE6; at least Opera is supported, modern, and more secure. Even on older (or is that antique?) Windows operating systems where IE6 is the last version available, there are better, more recent alternative web browsers that will work better on today's web pages while still supporting those OSes. Not sure what the earliest Windows OS the latest version of Opera still supports, but I can guarantee that the last version available for a particular version of Windows is still up for download at Opera's site (hell, they still have the last BeOS version...) and it will blow away IE6. Wikipedia's "Comparison of Web Browsers" article does, however, list Opera as still compatible with Win9x.

Anyone still on Win9x needs to upgrade their entire OS. And then get a modern browser. Or stick with Firefox 2.x. It's unsupported, but still a better option than IE6 on older Windows versions.

Re:Who is going to write the extensions

[InfiniteWisdom]

You're delusional if you think your "taking a stand against IE6" with your shitty website is going to get people who have been using the same browser for nearly a decade to switch. A lot of these are corporate users who are stuck with it because they have custom in-house stuff that doesn't work properly with other browsers, so it's a long slow upgrade path for them.

People who build successful websites make them work with what their users use... people like you stick "Valid XHTML 1.1" and "Optimized for Firefox" buttons on their websites to make them feel good about themselves.

Re:Who is going to write the extensions

[sznupi]

Yup, foiled. But regarding what you mention - it appears that starting in Opera, and testing afterwards in other modern browsers, might be giving even slightly larger chance of instant success...

Re:Who is going to write the extensions

[amicusNYCL]

Yeah it would be great to do it, but I'm not able to get everything out of Dragonfly that I can with Firebug. I'm really missing a request/response inspector that shows all of the details, headers, bodies, etc. Firebug is really the only thing that keeps me using Firefox for anything.

Logic

[schmidt349]

Um, I'm willing to bet that there are plenty of other reasons Opera has a small user base other than the lack of plug-ins...*

*(not that any of them is necessarily rational or deserved, mind you)

Re:Logic

[hkmwbz]

Small user base? It has more than 140 million users worldwide by now.

'Problem' is not Extensions

[mpapet]

If Opera has a 'problem' it's that it's most well-known as software one needs to buy versus Firefox and IE being included in the purchase of a Windows product.

They must be given a huge amount of respect for staying relevant and commercially viable versus costless competitors.

I'm glad they are doing extensions. While I live underneath a rainbow with unicorns and fairies, I'd suggest making Firefox extensions portable to Opera.

Re:'Problem' is not Extensions

[Anonymous Coward]

If Opera has a 'problem' it's that it's most well-known as software one needs to buy

What are you talking about? Opera has been a free download for years now.

Another feature not mentioned in the summary is that entering /. into the nav bar brings you to slashdot!

Opera is by far the best, and free, browser available.

Re:'Problem' is not Extensions

[characterZer0]

Opera has been free for a while.

Re:'Problem' is not Extensions

[The MAZZTer]

Given many Firefox extensions have traditionally worked with the internals of Firefox (though not recommended of course), this not only explains why many break with each new Firefox release, but why Opera can't do what you suggest. Opera would have to BECOME Firefox to get Firefox extensions.

On the other hand, Chrome has a fixed API for extensions, which you could theoretically implement in other apps easily enough (well, you need a JS engine first of course).

Re:'Problem' is not Extensions

[CannonballHead]

You've had multiple replies already, but ... Opera is free. I think the only product they were charging for, last I checked, was Opera Mobile, and that might be free now, too.

Re:'Problem' is not Extensions

[sznupi]

As others pointed out - free for half a decade. Also free and virtually the only practical choice for hundreds of millions of people who have a so called "feature phone" as virtually their only means of internet access.

But yes, respect, especially considering they are by far the longest without a corporate granddaddy keeping them afloat (remember Mozilla & AOL?)

Extensions are critical?

[Carik]

I've never understood that. "Why not use this browser that does everything you say you want?" "Because it doesn't have EXTENSIONS!"

I don't get it. I suppose this is nice if it gets people to use Opera, but honestly... if that's your excuse, there's probably a better reason you're using something else.

Re:Extensions are critical?

[characterZer0]

People do not not use Opera because it does not have extensions. People do not use Opera because it does not have a particular set of features provided by extensions in another browser.

Re:Extensions are critical?

[GooberToo]

I've never understood that. "Why not use this browser that does everything you say you want?" "Because it doesn't have EXTENSIONS!"

You didn't realize that those two are in conflict? Why not use this browser? It doesn't have extensions! Seems pretty cut and dry to me. Which means the initial question is wrong and loaded.

Re:Extensions are critical?

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

I don't get it. I suppose this is nice if it gets people to use Opera, but honestly... if that's your excuse, there's probably a better reason you're using something else.

People are hesitant to change, especially when they have a workflow they like. It's confusing, though, because nobody actually says that's the reason. "I don't want to change" sounds silly as a response to "it has better features!" Instead, "well I use a very specific set of extensions that I won't elaborate on" makes you sound much more level headed.

It's a shame, really, "I like what I got" isn't a bad excuse. At least I hope it isn't, it's the one I use.

Re:Extensions are critical?

[hairyfeet]

Well I can't speak for them, but for me personally it is because since Opera is proprietary most of the "extensions" are just bad hacks to get around its lack of features. For example it has NOTHING similar to Adblock Plus and Noscript. Instead you have to run a third party tool like privoxy, and do "all or nothing" JavaScript whitelisting to get a "kinda sorta, but not really" ABP and NS functionality. And that is just for two on the 10 extensions I use, I don't even want to see the number of third party programs and hacks I'd have to use to get the others.

Honestly the guy that came up with the Firefox extensions framework deserves a raise and a new car, as it is the best lock in system they could have ever built. With it even my just turned 68 year old clueless dad has the web HIS way thanks to installing extensions all by himself. The FF extension framework makes it trivial to have YOUR web YOUR way and MY web MINE. So I'm sorry Opera guys, I've tried your browser and sure it pops up quick, but so what? FF loads pages as fast as my cable connection can go, and with NS I CONTROL what those pages are allowed to do, which seeing the amount of drive by malware is important to me. So I think I'll just stick with the FF framewok, thanks anyway and good luck Opera.

Re:Extensions are critical?

[Kjella]

It's more like "Opera doesn't have $obscure_feature that is really important to me." and now it could be an extension. I like Opera, I find it works better out of the box than Firefox. Firefox can be custom tweaked in a zillion ways but it seems that because you got ten possible plugins they don't care how poor the default is. They'd rather just let the plugins fight it out than try picking one "best" and replacing the default.

Re:Extensions are critical?

[ampathee]

Who are these people who say "well I use a very specific set of extensions that I won't elaborate on"?

All the people I've seen posting about it have been very specific about what they need from a browser.

For example, I don't use Opera because it doesn't run AdBlock+. When it gets AdBlock+, I will give it another shot.

Re:Extensions are critical?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never understood that. "Why not use this browser that does everything you say you want?" "Because it doesn't have EXTENSIONS!"

I don't get it. I

It's like operating systems and applications. People desire specific features that no browser has built in. Firefox users can get the features from an extension. With any other browser, forget it.

Re:Extensions are critical?

[Tubal-Cain]

I've never understood that. "Why not use this browser that does everything you say you want?" "Because it doesn't have EXTENSIONS!"

It doesn't. Firefox doesn't do what I want, Chromium doesn't do what I want, and last I checked Opera doesn't do what I want.

Adblock Plus and AdBlock (Chrome extension) do what I want (EasyList). NoScript and NotScripts do what I want (simple javascript whitelisting on a site-by-site basis).

Re:Extensions are critical?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sadly on my list of needed extensions is IE Tab 2. At work, I would have to use IE if firefox didn't offer this extension.

Oh, also, NoScript, and CookieMonster are great. TabMixPlus (or ReloadEvery) is also really needed by me at work because our online testing GUI doesn't auto-refresh.

Re:Extensions are critical?

[MagicM]

For example it has NOTHING similar to Adblock Plus and Noscript. Instead you have to run a third party tool like privoxy, and do "all or nothing" JavaScript whitelisting to get a "kinda sorta, but not really" ABP and NS functionality.

Opera has had content blocking for a while now. Granted, it doesn't come with a pre-built blacklist.

Re:Extensions are critical?

[GrumblyStuff]

Opera does come with a way to block content. It's not quite as good as Adblock's design but you can still block stuff using asterisks (eg, *.doubleclick.* *adframe.php?* etc.). It's close enough that the deal breaker for me is mouse gestures since I've never found any extensions for FF that had the same responsiveness as Opera's.

Re:Extensions are critical?

[ampathee]

Yeah, but the killer for me is the automatically updated block list.

I don't want to build my own list of blocked domains when AdBlock+ is install and forget.

I liked Opera's mouse gestures too, but I learned to live without them eventually.

Re:Extensions are critical?

[Ksevio]

For example it has NOTHING similar to Adblock Plus and Noscript.

Except of course for the content blocker (right click on the page and select "Block Content" or just download a precreated list from the web). Or the ability to set javascript/plugins on/off for individual sites. I'm sure NoScript does some extra nifty stuff, but it's clear you didn't try Opera for very long. Also, you seem to miss the point on page loading speed. It's not only loading pages fresh for the first time, but also jumping around in history and cached pages load much faster.

Re:Extensions are critical?

[Hatta]

Can I configure Opera to act like Vimperator?

Re:Extensions are critical?

[Abcd1234]

I don't get it. I suppose this is nice if it gets people to use Opera, but honestly... if that's your excuse, there's probably a better reason you're using something else.

I think you're misunderstanding the answer.

"Because it doesn't have EXTENSIONS!"

Is not the answer. The answer is "Because it doesn't provide functionality that I can get through extensions for [browser X]".

Hell, the question you should be asking is, why *wouldn't* you want extensions? It allows you to add the features *you* want, without bloating the browser with features other people want that you don't care about.

Re:Extensions are critical?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know what CookieMonster does, and I'm a bit too lazy to find out...

NoScript is emulatable, but not as convenient (you can disable JS globally, and enable it per site, or the other way around).

"Reload every" has been an Opera feature for a long time. Right-click the page, reload every -> (several options from 5 seconds to 30 minutes, and custom).

Re:Extensions are critical?

[Tacvek]

There are two things that opera's content blocker lacks, that AdBlock Plus has. The first is subscribing to a block list (which is automatically updated).

The second is complex blocking rules. It has basic wildcard rules, but Adblock Plus also has has exception rules, regex rules, a special wildcard that only matches the beginning or end of a url, a wildcard that matches "separator characters", rules to block elements through specification of the element type, the element style or id, etc.

The end result is that the blocklists available block almost all ads with virtually no false positives, since one can specify exceptions for them.

Re:Extensions are critical?

[Anonymous Coward]

As always, perceived lack of features of Opera comes from critic ignorance.

It has been years since Opera got something similar to Adblock Plus and Noscript. In a bare install of Opera, you have:
- Content Blocking (http://help.opera.com/Linux/9.01/en/contentblock.html): You are viewing a website, and an annoying ad, banner, whatever is annoying you. Right button, Content Blocking option, clic on that offending thing, save changes: you will never see it again. OK, not exactly Adblock; but it gets you a long way, especially combined with the next point.
- Site preferences: for each website you decide only, you can set nearly every configuration option, overriding the global settings. You can configure Javascript, plugins, cookies, sound, animations, popups, CSS, frames, redirects, geolocation, local storage... You can even edit/create/delete any cookie for that site or choose which browser you want Opera to impersonate. You can set a personalized CSS or Javascript file for that site, one of these features of Opera that explains why Opera users don't need a lot of Firefox extensions.

90% of Opera functionality is not obvious at first glance. I have been using it for ten years, and still find some "new" feature sometimes. There is no browser with so much functionality and speed for so few requirements. That's the reason us long time Opera users love it, and would't change it for all the Firefox extensions in the world.

Re:Extensions are critical?

[GrumblyStuff]

I admit an updating block list would be very convenient but I like the game of finding what offending server is dishing me ads. Plus if it's a site I like and the ads aren't completely jarring to the eye and distracting me constantly, I'm more likely to leave them be rather than disabling all blocking to see what the site is like au naturel.

Re:Extensions are critical?

[PRMan]

For me, it doesn't have NoScript. I don't use anything that doesn't.

Re:Extensions are critical?

[PRMan]

right click on the page and select "Block Content"

After the content has run, it's too late! I use NoScript to block you until I decide to let you run JavaScript or stop going to your site. My choice, based on the trust level of the site.

Re:Extensions are critical?

[Carik]

The thing is, I've had that exact conversation with several people. They list what they want, I demonstrate that Opera has all that built in, and they say, as if it's a bad thing, "Yes, but those are built in, not extensions!" I've got no objection to extensions, I just don't see why they're required.

Well... Ok. I do have an objection to extensions. I have to fight with them every time FF updates, and I need half a dozen of them to bring FF up to the level of functionality I have in Opera. And even then, mouse gestures just don't work right. But that's not an inherent problem with extensions, it's just a problem with FF evolving in a different direction from Opera.

Re:Extensions are critical?

[Abcd1234]

They list what they want, I demonstrate that Opera has all that built in

No, you list capabilities that pale in comparison. I've seen this over and over again. NoScript? AdBlock? Vimperator? Yup, there are weak, pale replicas of this functionality for Opera, but they suck compared to the real thing.

Re:Extensions are critical?

[hairyfeet]

Actually I would say, to steal a Soviet Russia Meme, critical ignorance is YOU! I did NOT say there was NO way to block content, I said it was a piss poor hack, which it is. With drive by malware if you wait until AFTER to block it, as Opera does? It is too late pal, you're already boned. With NoScript it is DEFAULT DENY, which you can NOT do in Opera except by killing ALL JavaScript, thus cutting off you nose to spite your face. likewise with ABP I have wildcards, blocking by element, autoupdating blacklists, easily customized filter elements based on ANYTHING that can be seen, and it is all blocked BEFORE it ever leaves the server, which means it does NOT ever touch your PC!

Now show me anywhere Opera can do THAT oh wise one, and WITHOUT using third party "hacks" like privoxy. Because if I have to run a bunch of third party crap just to make up for your defectiveness, why would I want your product?

Re:Extensions are critical?

[Mantrid42]

...It does have ad block. Built in. Right click, block content. That take too long? http://www.fanboy.co.nz/adblock/opera/ That'll block damn near every ad on the internet. And use css to remove the whitespace. I'm amazed at how many ads clutter every web page whenever I use somebody else's computer.

Re:Extensions are critical?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a matter of taste. Providing more functionality than the user wants is bloat. What's too little for you is just right for someone else (me, at least).

Re:Extensions are critical?

[Matt Perry]

Except of course for the content blocker

The content blocker doesn't autoupdate the block list like AdBlock Plus does. With AdBlock Plus you install it and then forget about it. The maintenance cost is higher with Opera as you have to find a block list to download and install, and then update it manually to keep current.

Re:Extensions are critical?

[Jesus_666]

Often enough, the EXTENSIONS! contain that one obscure feature nobody else has.

In my case only a Firefox extension (and as of Fx4 the browser proper) offers tab groups. I tend to work on various projects concurrently and to open tabs for each of them. Juggling them all and shoving unused ones off into bookmarks would be excessively tedious. With tab groups I can neatly organize them according to topic, save and restore entire goups at a time etc.

Would I use Opera if it supported tab groups? Actually, probably not because for some reason I never liked the Opera UI. But I'd consider switching to Safari (on OS X, not Windows) or a Chrome offshoot with a more traditional GUI if they had tab groups. Alas, they don't, neither natively nor per extension. Thus I stick with the second-slowest browser on the web.


Extensions are great in that they allow people to add the kind of functionality browser designers think to be too obscure to put into the browser proper. Like something that allows you to color-code your tabs or craft and send custom HTTP requests. Those can be killer features for people with unconventional requirements.

Of course if someone only uses Opera because it has extensions they're either an extension developer or a tool.

Re:Extensions are critical?

[Carik]

Mouse gestures, tabbed browsing, an excellent tool for organizing bookmarks, high speed, the ability to turn off JS entirely, and a good ability for organizing tabs. The vast majority of the people I deal with don't need the complexity of NoScript or AdBlock+, and I've never even heard of Vimperator, so I certainly can't tell people that Opera has those features, whatever they are.

Re:Extensions are critical?

[Ksevio]

The block content is like adblock. You can block any number of ads to start with, you only need to click on it if it's something new. For other stuff, you can just block javascript/plugins for all sites then make exceptions for the sites you want.

Re:Extensions are critical?

[Ksevio]

You can kill all javascript except for the sites you allow. Also, isn't NoScript a "third party hack" as well?

Re:Extensions are critical?

[Bazouel]

Too bad you did not press F12 while inside Opera before posting that rant...

Re:Extensions are critical?

[Anonymous Coward]

But it does have a built in equivalent to YesScript, which is far better than NoScript anyhow.

It also helps that JavaScript cannot crash Opera like it can crash Firefox.

Re:Extensions are critical?

[Dr.Syshalt]

...It does have ad block. Built in. Right click, block content. That take too long?

Yes, if you value your time. With AdBlock+ I don't need to click/block etc. It's already blocked, and the list is always up-to date. My custom block list in AdBlock+ is about 5 lines.

And use css to remove the whitespace

Or just build your own site...

Re:Extensions are critical?

[Twinbee]

YOUR web YOUR way and MY web MINE

There's also the BEST way, which will possibly be better if one gets used to it (and even otherwise).

As an extreme example, you could code the whole browser yourself and make it even more super-duper customizable...

Re:Extensions are critical?

[m50d]

But every time it comes up, it turns out opera actually has that feature built in.

Re:Extensions are critical?

[Anonymous Coward]

>Or the ability to set javascript/plugins on/off for individual sites

See: [and do "all or nothing" JavaScript whitelisting to get a "kinda sorta, but not really" ABP and NS functionality. ]

Noscript does by-page, by-domain, by-url, js/plugin blocking. It does auto-black/white lists with the capability of remember forever or until I restart the browser. With ABE I can get even more specific... and safe.

ex.

Site mail.google.com
Accept from SELF google.com *.google.com googleapis.com *.googleapis.com
Deny

Can Opera do that? No? Fuck-em

If I don't like the way a web page renders in Opera can I just dump some stuff in a text file and change it? /*Gmail Invite Hide*/ /*Gmail BS Footer Hide*/
@-moz-document domain(mail.google.com)
{
        div.nH.l2.ov div.nH div.l6 /*Last Activity -- actually usefull*/
        {
                position:absolute !important;
                right: 10px !important;
                top: 35px!important;
        }

        div.J-Zh-I.J-J5-Ji.L3[id=":rj"], /*Seacrh Web*/
        div.nH.pY, /*Invites*/
        div.nH.l2.ov div.nH div.mn, /*Learn More*/
        div.nH.l2.ov div.nH div.md, /*Storage -- Like I have anywhere near 8 GB of EMAIL*/
        div.nH.l2.ov div.nH div.mp, /*Interface Controls*/
        div.nH.l2.ov div.nH div.ma, /*Misc Bullshit*/
        div.AY.D.E /*Bottom Toolbar -- Copy of top*/
        {
                display: none !important;
        }
}

If I don't need some of the menu options, can I do:

#liveclick-options-menu,
#bookmarksToolbarFolderMenu,
#bookmarksToolbarFolderMenu + menuseparator
{ display: none !important;}

Firefox is hands down the easiest to customize browser on the market. No, not everyone is comfortable writing css or js to change their browser. But the fact that I can means that, for me, Opera is shit.

Re:Extensions are critical?

[Abcd1234]

Mouse gestures, tabbed browsing, an excellent tool for organizing bookmarks, high speed, the ability to turn off JS entirely, and a good ability for organizing tabs.

So you counter my list of must-have extensions with a bunch of completely unrelated functionality?

Why?

The vast majority of the people I deal with don't need...

Ahh, I see, so because you judge that Opera's weaker implementation of this functionality is good enough, those extensions aren't necessary.

Uhuh.

Frankly, I don't know who the hell you're talking to. Something tells me the set of people who value FF extensions intersected with the set of people who "don't need" AdBlock+ and/or NoScript is pretty frickin' tiny, given both communities are comprised of power-users.

Re:Extensions are critical?

[Anonymous Coward]

Heard of userscript? Custom CSS? All of which you can use in Opera?

Yet again you prove that you haven't really got a clue.

Re:Extensions are critical?

[Carik]

So you counter my list of must-have extensions with a bunch of completely unrelated functionality?

No. I counter your list of must-have extensions with the list I've been given by the people I've been talking to. I never told you that Opera would fill all of your needs... I told people it would fulfill their needs when it actually would. For you, clearly you need something that Opera can't offer, and that's valid. But your problem with Opera isn't a lack of extensions, it's a lack of features. If they implemented all the features you wanted (better ad-blocking, something equivalent to noscript, and whatever else), you'd have no reason not to use it.

The same goes for the people I've had this conversation with. They wanted a few features FF didn't have, and were getting fed up with things breaking on updates. I proposed Opera as an alternative which had those things built in, and they said they didn't like Opera because it didn't have extensions.

Re:Extensions are critical?

[Abcd1234]

I proposed Opera as an alternative which had those things built in, and they said they didn't like Opera because it didn't have extensions.

And did you delve deeper? Did you ask them what extensions they use? Because I can't imagine someone simply saying "the browser must be extensible through add-on components" without having a particular reason to want that feature (ie, specific extensions they use daily).

Re:Extensions are critical?

[hairyfeet]

Again, all or nothing. Show me how I can allow SOME but NOT all, then you may have a point. And no NoScript and other extensions are NOT third party hacks. Can you run them without Firefox? Do they run separate from the browser? No, they do not. A Third party hack is something like Privoxy, which is a completely separate program that has NO connection to Opera whatsoever, yet you'll see guys on Opera forums pushing it like it equals ABP and NS.

Again, if I have to run a bunch of different programs together, all eating at memory and CPU resources, just to equal a half ass implementation of what I already have, why would I want to run your product? And look at all the hoops jumping and half assedness we are looking at, with blocking AFTER download and killing ALL JavaScript, and that is just for TWO of the TEN extensions I have.

Now tell me how I'm gonna set up scheduled backups of everything from themes to user preferences ala FEBE default deny ONLY certain cookies, have other cookies auto-die at the end of sessions WHILE autosaving the cookies I want ala cookie culler? Autoscaling of JUST the image in a web page for those that have bad eyesight like my parents ala ImageZoom? Custom downloads to folder based on content, ala Downloadstatusbar? Easy downloads of videos from just about any site ala downloadhelper? Instant automatic bookmark and prefernces sync between several machines running several different Windows versions, both at work and at home, ala FF Sync? 3 day forecast along with radar and warnings if something is nasty heading my way ala Forecastfox?

Now do you see the power of extensions? Opera by being closed source simply can't match the functionality developers and programmers are able to easily add to Firefox via extensions. With extensions I can have MY brower MY way, and you can have YOUR browser YOUR way, without anything more than a couple of minutes at the Moz addon site. Normally I'm Mre porpreitary but I have to admit when it comes to browser the FOSS way seems to be the best way, just look at FF and webkit.

Re:Extensions are critical?

[hairyfeet]

Sorry Steve, I don't drink the iKoolaid, as it gives me gas. And code it myself? My 68 year old clueless dad has his own Firefox extensions, and he couldn't even run Win9X without me sitting there holding his hand. Tools>addons> there is a nice list with the things most folks want to do. if not Tools>Addons>browse all addons and there is a nice little search box that you can just type what you want it to do and they FIND you an addon that does IT! How easy is that? Hell my dad is the one that told me about Imagezoom, because with his eyesight he typed into the box "make images bigger" and it took him right to it.

I'm sorry, but saying the designers way is the "best" way ala iShiny, or comparing the "clicky clicky" of adding extensions to writing code? Nice straw men you have there, and just in time for Halloween! Now explain how I can do the things I listed here IN Opera WITHOUT using third party separate programs like Privoxy and I'll be happy to say you are feature level.

Re:Extensions are critical?

[sznupi]

And yet, in large part of posts with "because of those extensions I can't live without", it turns out it was ignorance of features which Opera has built-in for a long time. How many times are we supposed to see "because Opera doesn't have adblock!" bs?...

Re:Extensions are critical?

[sznupi]

The end result with Opera is that I don't remember ever needing to use GUI content blocker anyway, despite updating the list only semi-regularly.

Re:Extensions are critical?

[sznupi]

Opera has adblock relying on provided list for a long, long time http://www.fanboy.co.nz/adblock/opera/

(no auto update; but I never had to resolve to GUI content blocker, despite only rarely updating the list)

Re:Extensions are critical?

[sznupi]

http://www.fanboy.co.nz/adblock/opera/ (that functionality is available for a long time; yeah, no autoupdate - but despite very rarely updating the list, it didn't ever cause for me the need to use GUI content blocker; I'm sure you can add your 5 lines, too)

Re:Extensions are critical?

[Twinbee]

Yeah, extensions are good, but ideally they should still be part of the default feature set (as long as they don't clutter the UI too much etc.).

I'm talking about the case when UI designers who spend too much time adding options instead of concentrating on getting the UI right in the first place. Everyone ends up with a different setup, and it leads to bloat, bugs, and an inconsistent experience for everyone (plus makes upgrading more of a challenege). If they just spent that time getting it right initially, rather than rely on the user changing a thousand different settings, that would be nice.

Of course, what's even worse is when they get it wrong, *and* there is no option to change it. That's when I sympathize with your position. I'm just talking about ideally.

For the record, I didn't really know that was Apple's philosophy, and I don't have any Apple product. Their iTunes software for Windows is pretty bloated in my eyes.

Re:Extensions are critical?

[hairyfeet]

If anything I'd argue that is what makes the Firefox extension framework GREAT, in that the default is VERY slim and clutter free yet you don't HAVE to change it unless you want to. I have many customers that simply have ABP...that's it. No other extensions, just ABP. Some would argue that ABP should be a default part of the featureset, but there are some that may wish to keep the ads, or wouldn't know how to disable for sites they wish to support, so by having ABP as a separate extension it means you have to explicitly install it and that to me is what makes Firefox extensions great.

I have yet to see any other tool that makes it sooo simple to customize. Like the default? Use it as is. Just want ABP? No problem. Want to completely customize your web? I am running close to a dozen..ABP/NoScript, Downloadhelper, Downloadstatusbar, FEBE, Firefox Sync, ForecastFox,CookieCuller, and iMacros. With these I have a completely custom web where download are auto sorted by type, videos are just a click away from being on the HDD, I even automate web forms and other repetitive tasks.

Now if you were to build all that in? Would be great for me, for everyone who didn't want those features it would just be unneeded bloat. The problem with letting the designers handle it is...well they think like designers and NOT users. Some users live by the keyboard and know every shortcut, others never leave the mouse. Some like me love to customize and have hundreds of bookmarks, other don't even know how to save their favorites to the bookmarks toolbar. By trying to force everyone to fit into the same mold you end up with either the iShiny approach where it works great for a certain targeted demographic and is hated by everyone else, or you end up with the MS Office kitchen sink approach where they are hundreds of features that frankly a good 90% of the audience will NEVER ever use, but if you remove them you will cripple the other 10%. I would argue either is a BAD approach to software design, and that plugins are the way to go.

While I appreciate the raw speed that Opera can crank up, especially on low resource devices, their browser is simply too locked down for me. My oldest nephew uses nothing but Opera and thinks it is perfect, but to him the web is simply a way to get where he is going, period. He never explores, he knows where he is going and only wants to get their quickly, period. For folks like that an iShiny approach works well, as they are using very few features and are simply using a tool in one way and one way only. Hell I doubt he'll even ever use the BT client or email, so if anything they could strip it even more and it'd be great by him. But that course ends up severely limiting your market, as the growth of Opera has shown. While I have no doubt that Opera and Chrome will gain some share, until someone has a rich framework so all of us that don't fit into one of the niches can still enjoy the web I think FF has nothing to worry about. If I ran Mozilla the guy that designed the extension framework would have a $10k bonus check and a new Mustang waiting in the lot at work, as I still say it is THE "killer app" that makes FF the browser so many of us simply refuse to leave.

Re:Extensions are critical?

[Twinbee]

Some like me love to customize and have hundreds of bookmarks, other don't even know how to save their favorites to the bookmarks toolbar. By trying to force everyone to

But my point is we can have the best of both worlds. Those who never use keyboard shortcuts for bookmarks won't know the feature is there, but it won't matter, and it won't get in their way.

Look I realize in practice, extensions are a good idea, because developers get it wrong often, and/or they don't have enough to implement them. I'm just saying ideally (i.e. 'think how a user views it', and listen to your customers). In fact, I use a program called Mediamonkey, and have written an extension for that called MegaDJ. Imo, it's a really good tool, and uses a logic-complete system for any search query you could imagine. I still think though that it would be even better if it *wasn't* an addon, but instead included by default!

Muphry's Law

[MarbleMunkey]

Muphry's Law strikes again!

Re:Muphry's Law

[hvm2hvm]

And you want us to think you mispelled Murphy on purpose too, yes?

Opera user here!

[Nichotin]

I have been using Opera for quite some time, and the speed and feature set is very good. What I do wish for, more than extensions, is to have each tab have it's own thread in a similar fashion as Chrome. I have experienced some crashes on my Mac because of plugins, and it would be good to only have one tab crash, not the whole browser.

Re:Opera user here!

[alvarogmj]

some versions in the past were particularily crash-prone. I think 9.64 was the worst.
But apart from that, the crashes are so infrequent that I don't mind the whole 'one process per tab' thing. Actually, firefox on Linux crashes a lot more using the exact same flash plugin as Opera

Re:Opera user here!

[B Nesson]

No way. Please please please no. I tend to run with between 20 and 30 open tabs on Opera, and any time I approach that on a process-per-tab browser, everything slows to a crawl.

Re:Opera user here!

[hkmwbz]

9.64 was unstable? Not in my experience.

Re:Opera user here!

[Nichotin]

Well, Opera is very configurable. They could perhaps provide one thread per tab as a option? I think that would be in line with the Opera spirit.

Re:Opera user here!

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't used Opera in a long while, but I recall that it used to get right back to where I was when restarting after a chrash. Maybe that was an option somewhere. Probably doesn't work with cloud apps, though.

Re:Opera user here!

[alvarogmj]

well, for me it was. Would crash every now and then for no specific reason. As usual, YMMV.

Slashdot Editors

[Anonymous Coward]

Once again we see that we have very editors here at /.

Re:Slashdot Editors

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, for sure the editors here at /. are very.

Hurray!

[parlancex]

I used Opera for about 7-8 years and loved it, and I still do, but I recently had to switch to Firefox because the security vulnerabilities in Adobe Reader and Flash Player plugins were just too great of a risk and I need the blocking plugins that Firefox has. Although I was able to replicate a lot of my Opera experience in Firefox through plugins, like speed dial, a plugin that emulates the search strings functionality, mouse gestures, etc., the startup times, load times, and UI in Firefox are way slower than what I knew and loved in Opera. I hope noscript, adblock and flashblock-esque plugins make to Opera very quickly so I can finally go back.

Re:Hurray!

[alvarogmj]

check the comments above regarding On Demand Plugin :)

Re:Hurray!

[Anonymous Coward]

Err, what? Just set disable plugins as default and off you go. re-enable for websites that you trust and that *need* the plugins.
Makes for a smoother web experience, too!

Re:Hurray!

[XRagnar]

There is an option to only load plugins when you click them in opera (opera:config#UserPrefs|EnableOnDemandPlugin). I don't know how noscript, adblock or flashblock work exactly, but with the on demand plugins and an urlfilter.ini (http://www.fanboy.co.nz/adblock/opera/) you should be safe and ad free.

Re:Hurray!

[Zerimar]

I was in the same boat as you, although I couldn't switch to Firefox - it was way too slow. I ended up switching to Chrome - with three plugins (Speed Dial, Smooth Gestures, RSS Subscription Extension), I was close enough in feature parity to be happy. The only thing I'm really missing is that Opera would not close when you closed your last tab, but Chrome does. Everything else works about the same (other than no built in e-mail, bit torrent, news, unite, etc.), but that one still bothers me. The nice benefit - more sites work in Chrome, and Chrome feels a tad bit faster.

Opera is consigned to a small user base because

[Anonymous Coward]

For many years Opera was the most advanced browser. What prevented adoption of it in the businesses that I am familiar with was the $30 charge. "Why pay for a browser?" clueless management said. Since those days Firefox, and now Chrome and Safari, have come on strong and surpassed Opera in user base. Mobile Opera has a good chance of being a major player if the price is kept reasonable.

Re:Opera is consigned to a small user base because

[alvarogmj]

I've been using Opera since 2002, never payed a cent. Yes, at first it has an ad on top of the window, but it was usable and good. The ad was removed in version 8.5, 5 years ago.

Re:Opera is consigned to a small user base because

[hkmwbz]

Opera has more than 140 million users. Small user base?

Also, the mobile Opera is free.

Re:Opera is consigned to a small user base because

[sznupi]

Opera is the #1 mobile web browser worldwide, by website stats (and that despite many of its users certainly being cautious with the number os sites visited, without the luxury of cheap data transfers)

Opera was unpopular even before extensions existed

[findoutmoretoday]

It doesn't matter,  Opera does not fit.   Extensions, speed, bloated, ... are just excuses. 

Zotero

[dumfrac]

I'll consider switching to another browser when Zotero is ported.

Why?

[MonsterTrimble]

I use Opera on both my desktop and laptop and I honestly don't understand what the heck people have against using Opera as their browser. It's super fast and lightweight, the built-in RSS feeder is the best I've seen anywhere, and it works on 99.9% of the websites (the only issues I've had is when Adobe releases a particularly buggy version of Flash). And although I will get strung up for this, I LIKE Opera's Unite feature. It makes file sharing super easy when I need to set up something quick and easy for sharing photos with family or friends.

Frankly, the stock Opera gives me everything I need in a browser. Why do I need extensions again?

Re:Why?

[dumfrac]

Zotero

Re:Why?

[satoshi1]

Hm, nope.. Not seeing why I need extensions.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

AdBlock, FlashBlock, and NoScript are how a lot of us prefer our web experience. Opera currently makes this onerous. I'd use Opera a lot more often if they offered this. As it is I have an Android phone that constantly reminds me how crappy the web is without these extensions.

Re:Why?

[EvanED]

As someone who has been using Opera for a while, I just tried out the beta of FF4. (I was considering writing my own extension; the "4 beta" doesn't matter, but I figured might as well giv it a short.) Yeah, whatever. More FF. But in the process I installed NoScript -- and it kicks the ass of Opera's feature. It tells you when it's blocking something (as opposed to Opera, where you have to sort of get a feel for when a site isn't working right because JS is off), is fewer clicks to whitelist a site, and lets you selectively whitelist only some of the JS on a particular page. It's wonderful. I've switched to FF here at work since that's where I installed it, and will probably switch at home when it hits a RC. All by virtue of NoScript.

If NoScript comes to Opera 11, I'll probably switch right back though.

Re:Why?

[Rockoon]

NoScript? You mean like BlockIt, a UserJS for Opera that has all the features you detailed as requirements?

Re:Why?

[dumfrac]

Are you saying that you don't have a use for it (the humourous interpretation), or you think that implementing it as an extension is the wrong way to go (the serious interpretation)? I do think that it would be best if Zotero was a browser independent web application, although I'm not sure how that would be implemented.

Re:Why?

[Abcd1234]

Frankly, the stock Opera gives me everything I need in a browser. Why do I need extensions again?

*You* clearly don't.

But let's say some guy comes along and insists that his browser should provide functionality X, Y, and Z. Would you prefer the stock browser get bloated with all those extra features you don't want? Or would you rather they be externalized and made optional through, oh I don't know, some kind of extension mechanism?

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

"But let's say some guy comes along and insists that his browser should provide functionality X, Y, and Z. Would you prefer the stock browser get bloated with all those extra features you don't want? Or would you rather they be externalized and made optional through, oh I don't know, some kind of extension mechanism?"

Define "bloat". Broken down, IMO:

Firefox - Contains relatively few features by default. Often feels bloated, slow, unresponsive--even by default. Ironically, I recall a time the Mozilla Suite/SeaMonkey felt faster, yet "bloat" was the reason Mozilla trimmed it down to make Firefox and basically abandoned its parent. I recall 1.0.x and 1.5.x being the last truly snappy versions of Firefox; its stability and speed dramatically went down from there. Adding extensions only adds to the already-bloated feeling. And unfortunately because of the browser's lack of functionality, at least a few extensions are damn-near required, including mouse gestures (Mouse Gestures Redux / FireGestures) and Download Statusbar.

Opera - Contains many features by default. Typically starts fast, feels lean and responsive--more so than a typical Firefox install. Extensions cannot currently be added, but when they can we'll see how much they slow the browser down. The good thing is, with Opera's already-good functionality, extensions are mostly unnecessary; for example, it has supported mouse gestures for years, and if I recall correctly it was the first browser to do so.

The two extensions that I consider mandatory in any browser I use are Adblock Plus and NoScript, and due to their nature and corporate interests (ie. advertising companies) I doubt there will ever be any major browsers that support them by default (with the exception of basic functionality of disabling scripts completely, which is not as easily possible now as it was in the past due to just about every damn site's reliance on them).

In short, I would prefer to have a lean, mean browsing machine with already-good functionality (Opera) and additional extension functionality for those few things missing; over a sluggish, featureless browser that requires several extensions for expected functionality, making it even more unresponsive in the process. If Adblock Plus and NoScript are fully ported to Opera, I will finally have that--and that's the kind of thing that would make me switch from Firefox.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

>Why do I need extensions again?

Because you don't have userChrome/userContent ??? //userChrome /*Enlightenment Theme Matching*/
#navigator-toolbox,
#navigator-toolbox #toolbar-menubar,
#navigator-toolbox #nav-bar,
#navigator-toolbox #PersonalToolbar
{
-moz-appearance: none !important;
border: 0 !important;
} /*Fix Feed Sidebar Context Menu Background*/
#feedbarContextMenu
{
        -moz-appearance:menupopup !important;
        min_width: 1px;
        color:menutext;
} /*Remove bad parts of Feed Sidebar*/
#feedbar-preview,
#feed-sidebar-statusbar,
#preview-splitter
{
        -moz-appearance:none !important;
        display: none !important;
}; /*Hide Forward Button*/
#forward-button{ display:none !important} /*Hide DropDown*/
#back-forward-dropmarker{ display:none !important } /*Hide Live Bookmark DropDown*/ .cm-button .toolbarbutton-menu-dropmarker,
#personal-bookmarks .toolbarbutton-menu-dropmarker{ display:none !important;} /* Remove the Bookmark Star */
#star-button { display: none !important; } /*Hide Context Menu BS -- I have mouse gestures*/ /*Hide unwanted menu entries*/
#context-openlinkintab,
#context-sep-open, //SNIP
{ display: none !important;} //userContent /*Google sidebar remover*/
@-moz-document domain(www.google.com)
{
        #leftnav{ display: none !important; }
        #center_col{margin-left: 0px !important;}
} /*Gmail Invite Hide*/ /*Gmail BS Footer Hide*/
@-moz-document domain(mail.google.com)
{
        div.nH.l2.ov div.nH div.l6 /*Last Activity -- actually usefull*/
        {
                position:absolute !important;
                right: 10px !important;
                top: 35px!important;
        }

        div.J-Zh-I.J-J5-Ji.L3[id=":rj"], /*Seacrh Web*/
        div.nH.pY, /*Invites*/
        div.nH.l2.ov div.nH div.mn, /*Learn More*/
        div.nH.l2.ov div.nH div.md, /*Storage -- Like I have anywhere near 8 GB of EMAIL*/
        div.nH.l2.ov div.nH div.mp, /*Interface Controls*/
        div.nH.l2.ov div.nH div.ma, /*Misc Bullshit*/
        div.AY.D.E /*Bottom Toolbar -- Copy of top*/
        {
                display: none !important;
        }
}

More factors

[Xtifr]

Isn't bundled with the OS is probably the biggest factor, followed by lack of name recognition. Lack of extensions is probably down near not-open-source as far as most people are concerned. Anyway, can-run-extensions isn't going to help until extensions appear, unless it can run Firefox extensions. That said, I think it's a great move on their part, and it certainly makes me more interested. But I'm a nerd. :)

Blame it on extenstions

[milkasing]

If only,
... opera had embraced a free model earlier
... had the backing of a massive corporation to have it pre-installed
... or had inherited a large core of users and developers
... or had the appeal of being open source

I have been an opera user / fan for a while, and wish more people use it. But blaming the low adoption on extensions is insane.
Opera 10 has been very disappointing in terms of quality control and I wish the team focused more on making it crash -proof and fixed all the non-working features (such as voice) instead of adding more and more functionality.

Re:Blame it on extenstions

[GooberToo]

But blaming the low adoption on extensions is insane.

Its the primary reason I wouldn't reconsider using it. Extensions directly translate into features. Lacking features which are important to users is far from, "insane."

Re:Blame it on extenstions

[amicusNYCL]

I have been an opera user / fan for a while, and wish more people use it. But blaming the low adoption on extensions is insane.

I don't know, as an Opera user also I frequently see comments about no support for NoScript and AdBlock as reasons why people don't even want to try Opera. Granted, those same people will probably find another reason once that one doesn't exist, but it is frequently cited as a reason.

Re:Blame it on extenstions

[hkmwbz]

opera had embraced a free model earlier

That's easy to say. Opera had to make money, or they would go out of business. They couldn't just go free without an alternative revenue model.

But blaming the low adoption on extensions is insane.

"Low adoption" is a myth. It might not have 50% in the US, but it has a significant presence in other parts of the world. It has 10% market share or so in Europe.

Opera 10 has been very disappointing in terms of quality control and I wish the team focused more on making it crash -proof and fixed all the non-working features (such as voice) instead of adding more and more functionality.

Opera 10 has been incredibly stable for me. I really don't understand what you are talking about.

Well well well

[atari2600a]

look who FINALLY decided to show up!

Supporter of Web Standards?

[Yvan256]

They sure weren't the first ones to support rounded corners and drop shadows. It may seem silly to complain about such things but the more browsers support visually appealing CSS, the less hacks will need to be done for simple visual effects.

Re:Supporter of Web Standards?

[satoshi1]

I'm pretty sure Opera had drop shadows far before Firefox. I don't count rounded corners since Firefox did it using -moz... CSS options. That's not really a standard, now, is it?

Re:Supporter of Web Standards?

[Yvan256]

AFAIK Safari had drop shadows and rounded corners before both Firefox and Safari, vendor extension (-moz, etc) or not.

Re:Supporter of Web Standards?

[amicusNYCL]

Safari had drop shadows and rounded corners before both Firefox and Safari

Damn, how did they manage that? Is that some quantum version of Safari?

Re:Supporter of Web Standards?

[Omestes]

Safari had drop shadows and rounded corners before Safari had drop shadows and rounded corners?

Thank you, your koan lead to much enlightenment.

Re:Supporter of Web Standards?

[Yvan256]

(re-read before clicking post... re-read before clicking post...)

AFAIK Safari had drop shadows and rounded corners before both Firefox and Opera, vendor extension (-moz, etc) or not.

Re:Supporter of Web Standards?

[hkmwbz]

So what you are saying is that because they weren't the first to support rounded corners and drop shadows, they are not supporters of web standards? Wonderful logic, I must say...

Re:Supporter of Web Standards?

[Anonymous Coward]

They are supporters of Web standards, but they are becoming the slowest ones to adopt them. They used to be the very first.

Re:Supporter of Web Standards?

[hkmwbz]

It is completely false that they are becoming the slowest ones to adopt them. Just because you found two things they weren't the first to implement doesn't mean that they are slow in general.

It's the advertisements

[Anonymous Coward]

I want a free browser, without ads, that isn't IE. Chrome, Safari, Firefox, but not Opera.

Re:It's the advertisements

[satoshi1]

Opera hasn't had ads for nearly half a decade now. Where are you?

Re:It's the advertisements

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess I gave up on it and never went back. Is there a compelling reason to revisit?

Re:It's the advertisements

[Rockoon]

Opinions differ, but the main arguments you see here today are "Opera doesnt have NoScript" and "Opera has a weird interface"

The later one is asinine since its also one of the most configurable browser in regards to the interface. You can move buttons and menus pretty much anywhere, and so forth.

The former one.. well.. there are multiple Opera alternatives to NoScript, some built in and some in the form of UserJS .. The UserJS BlockIt certainly isn't as polished as NoScript, but it does have an extensive feature set (even blocking images and so forth, with per-element whitelists .. the whole 9 yards..) Personally I dont have a desire to be sp paranoid that I need that granularity .. I have JavaScript and plugins disabled by default and whitelist an entire site for JavaScript when I need it (either I trust the site, or I don't.. I'm not going to actually look at the scripts), and run plugins only on-demand.

Re:It's the advertisements

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, so you can stop looking like an ignorant nigger.

Re:It's the advertisements

[PRMan]

I don't trust Doubleclick ever, regardless of what else I allow. Just the minimum, thanks.

Re:It's the advertisements

[Rockoon]

I don't trust Doubleclick ever, regardless of what else I allow.

Relying on NoScript to avoid connecting to DoubleClick doesnt seem like a foolproof method. Wouldnt it be superior to banish DoubleClick forever with your hosts file, or firewall, or any of the other ways that actually prevent all communication with DoubleClick? NoScript doesnt prevent communications with DoubleClick.. it just prevents scripts from being run, which doesnt seem to be your actual intention.

Will there be a "fix the interface" extension?

[realmolo]

Opera's interface is a total fucking nightmare, and always has been. Obviously it appeals to some people, but those people are a minority. And insane.

I swear, Opera's interface reminds me of a bad KDE application, with its enormous collection of settings and buttons, and default settings that almost EVERYONE hates.

Re:Will there be a "fix the interface" extension?

[eddy]

We already have many other browsers with the "other" type of interface. Why make Opera an also-run? I use opera because I like the interface. I like having my mail view up in the side panel to the left of my browser windows, with my tabs at the bottom. I don't get what's so odd about the interface.

Just more crying about things being slightly different, just like we hear about Blender and GIMP.

Re:Will there be a "fix the interface" extension?

[hkmwbz]

That's quite a claim you are making about Opera's interface, especially since it has changed a lot through the years.

It actually sounds like you tried Opera a decade ago, and are making assumptions based on that. Opera today has very few buttons in the default UI.

Our main weakness ...

[RAMMS EIN]

Our main weakness is that we don't support extensions, and that we are not free software, ...

Our two main weaknesses are that we don't support extensions, and that we are not free software, thus preventing inclusion in purely free-software systems and smooth integration in distributions. That, and the fact that few people know us.

Our THREE main weaknesses are ... hmm, I'll come in again.

I've found Opera a fantastic browser from the first time I used it, because of its great support for web standards. I used it to test all my web sites. However, I eventually left Opera for a lot of small reasons: no Linux support, then crashes on Linux that wouldn't really go away. Nagging, then ads. And finally, open source browsers became so good that Opera wasn't worth the hassle anymore.

Still, Opera does a great job and is right at the front of innovation. It's also fairly popular in east Europe. Good job, keep it up!

Opera fails because of Noscript, Not Extensions

[Silentknyght]

Extensions only matter if we're talking about porting over NoScript.

I recently made an honest effort to try out the latest stable release of Opera. I was pleased to note that it had a lot of the features baked-in that I was adding to Chrome and Firefox. It was fast and seemed to do a good job as a web browser. However, the first time I visited some forums looking for solutions to a random problem, I was sorely disappointed with the lack of Noscript. Sure, the message boards usually say "Sure you can disable Javascript, do 'this' from the menu", but that isn't the kind of granularity that NoScript offers. Then, there's a substitute called "Blockit", which is apparently supposed to act like Noscript. However, the configuration screen is painful and the addon appeared to be broken; it didn't appear to give me a NoScript-like button to control each page. The plethora of annoying bits on the sites I visited researching how to get a working Noscript substitute in Opera encouraged me to drop Opera. What irony.

I've been spoiled by NoScript. I'm not particularly a Firefox fanboy--it has its own share of problems and issues--but it does run NoScript and I can't stand browsing the web without it.

Re:Opera fails because of Noscript, Not Extensions

[ledow]

Right-click, Site Preferences - set your options and it always remembers them for that site (e.g. Javascript off, flash off, identify as IE, etc.). You can even turn off parts of Javascript like allowing it to open other windows or hiding the address bar. Maybe not as powerful but it's there and on the "magic F12 / right-click" menu too.

Fanbois and their toys

[Chicken_Kickers]

I don't get Fanboyism either, which are mostly on mass consumer products and even more baffling, on free, open source software. Even the most low spec netbook can run 2 or more browsers. Why not have them all, especially if they are free? Why limit yourself to one particular browser, as if by doing so, you earn karma, expiate your sins, restore balance to the Force and prevent the sky from falling down. And why the vitriol on people who have a different browser/game console/airline/computer manufacturer/OS/processor/ad nauseum preferences? I have said before when iPad just came out. We as consumers owe nothing to manufacturers, rather they owe everything to us. If you like their products, good for you and good for them. If you don't like it, try something else and move on.

Re:Fanbois and their toys

[Omestes]

Even the most low spec netbook can run 2 or more browsers. Why not have them all, especially if they are free? Why limit yourself to one particular browser, as if by doing so, you earn karma, expiate your sins, restore balance to the Force and prevent the sky from falling down

Why would I waste space on redundant software? If a browser does what I need, then why bother with the others?

On my Linux boxes, currently, I only have Chromium. I used Firefox since it was called Phoenix, and recently hopped shit to the Chrome family. They did the job better, for my tastes (not a universal statement, use what works). Once Adblock for Chrome started actually... you know... blocking ads, Firefox became redundant. On my Win7 box, I have Firefox (testing the beta), Chrome, and... sadly... IE. I use Chrome for 99% of my personal browsing though.

I tried Opera along time ago, and wasn't impressed. It seemed nice, it worked, etc... but it didn't quite match my expectations. It wasn't a version problem, either, it was a general schema problem. The way Opera wants to do stuff doesn't match how I want to do stuff. It might match someone else's though. And that is fine. Same thing with Safari, it was a decent browser, I have no problems with it, but it just didn't quite do it for me. Something intangible was missing.

IE is crap, so I won't bother trying to justify my reasons for not using it.

I agree, fanboyism is among the dumbest things in the world. But it is human nature, we like to feel justified in our (often arbitrary) opinions.

You say that like it's a good thing

[obarthelemy]

I never switched to Firefox because without extensions, it does too little, and with extensions, firefox is a mess of incompatibilities, leaks, and security concerns. I *like* that Opera does almost everything I need (bookmark synch, mouse gestures, adblocking...) right out of the box, with no flaky extensions.

Nothing to do with extensions

[codepunk]

I downloaded some ad supported version some years ago and ran it once, I was not impressed at all. It
only took that one time to shun it forever.

Re:Nothing to do with extensions

[robot_love]

How wonderfully...short-sighted.

I love Opera, but...

[falken0905]

I'm using Opera as I write but unfortunately I'm stuck with v10.10. Opera has this habit of breaking stuff that used to work well when new versions are released. My current gripe is streaming/motion video from various types of webcams like the Panasonic network cams and pc cams streaming using Webcam32 (and some cam other software too). I have a bunch of these that monitor remote sites, watch spectrum analyzers that monitor satellite uplink gear, etc. If I upgrade to the latest Opera version it breaks the ability to view all of my cameras. I have filed bug reports and made Opera blog posts regarding the issue all to no avail. So, I keep using the last version known to work and hope for the best in future versions. Sure, I could use Firefox but I really do prefer Opera and there is a lot about Firefox that I do not like.

Re:I love Opera, but...

[CrashNBrn]

I'm on the latest, and I use that for the most part. Every now and then I need to fire up 9.62 or 10.10.

The new javascript engine can be touch and go atm. It's not very forgiving and fails on numerous things that work in every other browser (including Opera's older versions).

Re:I love Opera, but...

[hkmwbz]

Those sites are probably using browser sniffing, and forgot to add support for the latest versions. You should contact the sites and tell them to fix it.

Re:I love Opera, but...

[hkmwbz]

The new JS engine is actually more compatible than the old one. Why are you assuming that it's the JS engine specifically, and not something else, or even just browser sniffing that doesn't take the latest version into account?

Re:I love Opera, but...

[CrashNBrn]

Because if you bother to open the Developer Tools/Error Console --- then you can see all the Warnings and Errors.
And when code does not run in Opera 10.62 and it does in 10.10, 9.62, FireFox, and IE. and the Error is visible in the console. Then gee maybe it's the new JS Engine?
JavaScript: Uncaught exception: TypeError: Cannot convert 'toggler' to object

Tamper Data?

[Shemmie]

First browser to give me Tamper Data and Web Developer Toolkit extensions gains a big fan. Sick and tired of 400 meg RAM use from a browser. I'm looking at you, Firefox. O'course, sods law would be that somehow my extensions cause the FF memory leak. :o/

Wrong focus

[vlueboy]

Lack of extensions is not a "critical bug." Being unusable for several major webmail clients for many years is, because there's no excuse --chrome, firefox and safari have not affected in years.

Before Opera dares allowing extensions to "standard" web content, they must make sure this "standard" is usable.

Firefox is the most compatible of my mother's 4 alternative browsers, but she hates its slowness on this single core pc. I can't recommend Opera to people like her because hotmail and yahoo are both broken.

Re:Wrong focus

[CrashNBrn]

Opera definitely has issues with some websites and (some javascript with the new Engine) --- but Hotmail, Gmail, and Yahoo definitely work.
I'm on 10.62 and have all three open currently.

Re:Wrong focus

[hkmwbz]

Why are you making all these weird assumptions about the new JS engine?

Re:Wrong focus

[hkmwbz]

Being unusable for several major webmail clients for many years is, because there's no excuse --chrome, firefox and safari have not affected in years.

Really? Opera works fine for me at Hotmail, Yahoo and Gmail.

On the other hand, Chrome keeps failing at Gmail(!). How about that? Firefox also has lots of problems with sites.

Re:Wrong focus

[CrashNBrn]

Assumptions? I've personally filed 2 JS bugs. Where the more recent versions of Opera completely choke on JavaScript errors that the previous JS Engine handled just fine as well as I.E. and Firefox.

At least three sites that I know of that are non-functional due to Opera's new JS Engine.

To solve a problem, you first have to...

[QuietLagoon]

... identify the problem.

.
However, Opera has always been confined to a relatively small user-base because of one critical thing -- lack of extensions.

The reason Opera has never built up a large userbase is that it did not work on many sites that were important to perspective users. The Opera javascript engine, while fast, does not work with a lot of websites.

Re:To solve a problem, you first have to...

[/dev/trash]

Name some?

Re:To solve a problem, you first have to...

[hkmwbz]

The reason Opera has never built up a large userbase is that it did not work on many sites that were important to perspective users. The Opera javascript engine, while fast, does not work with a lot of websites.

I really don't understand why people keep repeating this nonsense. Opera's JavaScript engine works fine. Opera's JS problems were before version 7, because it couldn't handle dynamic content. That was fixed with verison 7, and there are no major problems these days.

If a site isn't working it's highly unlikely to be because of Opera's JavaScript engine. It's more likely to be browser sniffing, and if you mask as Firefox these sites will start working.

Re:To solve a problem, you first have to...

[QuietLagoon]

I've submitted them all via the Opera support areas. I'm not about to waste any more time on it.

Re:To solve a problem, you first have to...

[QuietLagoon]

I really don't understand why people keep repeating this nonsense. Opera's JavaScript engine works fine. Opera's JS problems were before version 7, because it couldn't handle dynamic content. That was fixed with verison 7, and there are no major problems these days.

.
Instead of wondering why people keep repeating the same issues over and over, perhaps it would be a better approach if Opera were to fix the issues. I had these problems on all of the 10.x versions, up to and including 10.60. It has been a problem long since version 7.

If a site isn't working it's highly unlikely to be because of Opera's JavaScript engine. It's more likely to be browser sniffing, and if you mask as Firefox these sites will start working.

That's a second problem which I didn't mention, lack of support of Opera by many web sites.

Re:To solve a problem, you first have to...

[hkmwbz]

Instead of wondering why people keep repeating the same issues over and over, perhaps it would be a better approach if Opera were to fix the issues.

The problem is, of course, that Opera doesn't have any more "issues" than other browsers.

Re:To solve a problem, you first have to...

[/dev/trash]

Sure you have.

Wake me up when Opera 10/11 has respectable HTML 5

[tyrione]

Opera 10.70 is abysmal regarding HTML 5, let alone the parsing algorithm is no where near the level of WebKit.

I have always used Opera for one feature, CloneTab

[Anonymous Coward]

Opera was the first browser to introduce DuplicateTab, (now renamed CloneTab), It clones your history, sessions, cookies, everything from one to the other, this has always allowed me to login once, then constantly clone that login into different tabs for different things. Once I showed my co-workers this little trick ,many quickly switched to Opera over FF, is also handy for searching, finding something you like, clone, keep original tab open to check out later, backup cloned tab, continue searching where you left off. I also personally like obscurity, are less exploits aimed at opera. FF gaining more ground as most popular browser next to IE, also makes it next most targeted for exploits. =p

     

At a small karma risk...

[icannotthinkofaname]

I want to choose an adjective!

"Opera is a very athletic supporter of Web standards..."

This post will be either +4, Funny or -1, Troll. Either way, I'm happy with my pun. :)

Re:At a small karma risk...

[owyn999]

Meh that's alright you were just playing mad libs with the op.

Opera is from the pre-opensource-browser era

[Anonymous Coward]

Opera was started in 1996, in the browser-wars era.

Now, the main browsers are open source: Firefox and Webkit-based.

Imagine starting a browser company now.
I am going to start a new company to create a cool closed source browser to compete against Firefox and Webkit browsers. Anyone with me?

The sea of the state of the art in open source is constantly rising. If the sea rises above your product, it's time to innovate a new product. There are many other areas to add value in the industry.

HOSTS are better than Privoxy, AdBlock, etc.

[Anonymous Coward]

A custom HOSTS file will do what the Privoxy, or Adblock softwares will, for less CPU usage (& very possibly RAM usage also) simply by making it impossible to go into KNOWN BAD SITES/SERVERS.

After all: You cannot get burned by what you cannot touch, essentially... & making it impossible to access known bad sites or servers is ONLY A GREAT PART of what hosts files can do (because they do even more, read on)... sound familiar to this Privoxy software? Yes, it does in that case!

However: Can Privoxy speed you up more, ontop of protecting you? Yes!

HOSTS files can also not only protect you vs. known bad sites or servers, but they can also aid in speeding you up online websurfing even more by avoiding DNS lookups by using hardcodes of hostsnames/domainnames to IP addresses of your favorite websites and by blocking ad banners also (which have also been shown to have malicious script in them many times over the years now no less).

You can keep a hosts file updated daily that way easily, by using the following whitehat sites for information on what are the "latest/greatest" known bad sites &/or servers found daily in fact:

http://hosts-file.net/?s=Download
http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm (great overall explanation of what HOSTS files can do for you is here and how to manage them (such as tips on turning off your local DNS Client Cache if you use a "largish" hosts file))
http://www.malware.com.br/lists.shtml
https://zeustracker.abuse.ch/monitor.php?filter=online
http://www.malwareurl.com/
http://hostsfile.org/hosts.html
http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/
http://hostsfile.mine.nu/downloads/
http://ddanchev.blogspot.com/
http://www.safer-networking.org/en/download/index.html

Used in combination with AdBlock for instance? Great layered security, albeit redundant. Used in combination with NoScript though? An EXCELLENT defense vs. malware attacks online.

APK

P.S.=> HOSTS files do what other wares do, albeit, without eating up CPU cycles &/or RAM as Privoxy, DNS servers, or even the NEW "BLADE" software that just came out... & hosts files are not programs, they are filters - They won't have "programming bugs" in them either, because they are NOT code (just IP stack filters)! apk

"Relatively small user base"

[hkmwbz]

140 million, and counding... Small?

Re:Wake me up when Opera 10/11 has respectable HTM

[hkmwbz]

What makes you say that? Opera is among the top browser in regards to HTML5.

mistake...

[xushi]

They're mistaking... I for one (and I'm sure many others) don't use Opera, not because it doesn't/didn't have extensions, but because it took them this bloody long to figure it out. How much longer will it take them to figure out other important things that we'll need too??

Re:Opera was unpopular even before extensions exis

[hkmwbz]

Opera has more than 140 million users. Sounds pretty popular to me. Its market share is something like 30% in countries like Russia, Ukraine, etc.

adblock?

[batistuta]

Does it have an ad blocker that doesn't suck big time like the one they used to have? If yes, I might consider it. Otherwise thanks but not interested. Please focus on what customers want rather than claim that your small market share is all due to Microsoft practices.

Re: NFL Jerseys

[Anonymous Coward]

I am one of probably a minority of people who have actually studied abnormal psychology.This is great information. [url=http://www.nfl-malls.com]NFL Jerseys[/url]

It's not the lack of extensions

[yurikhan]

It is not the lack of extensions that stops people from using Opera. It's that they bundle features that should be extensions right into the core.

Re:It's not the lack of extensions

[hkmwbz]

Considering that those features neither bloat up the browser nor get in the way, that's quite irrelevant I'd say.

Re:It's not the lack of extensions

[Mystra_x64]

Actually that's what I like about it. I don't want to download bazillion extensions and pray it'll not break next update.

the best browser

[Anonymous Coward]

Just got even better. I feel sorry for those suffering with Firefox and Chrome.