But Opera has one drawback which is Java/javascript handling. It often doesnt handle sites that both firefox and IE handle fine.
Why are you assuming that it is Opera that is unable to handle those sites? More often than not, it's actually a matter of browser sniffing gone wrong. Opera can handle stuff just fine, but it isn't given the chance to because the site doesn't accept Opera.
Maybe this explains a thing or two. Low market share? Maybe. But Net Applications is the wrong place to go for browser statistics anyway, so you'll never really know.
In what way? I'd have thought that other browsers aren't particularly "IE-compatible"
"In what way"? Firefox support stuff like document.all, and lots of IE quirks. It has to live in the real world, remember? You can't just blame the rest of the world if you live in the real world.
There are some differences still. A major reason for that is that other browsers have to stay IE-compatible, so they have less time to perfect their actual standards support. Acid tests like these place focus on open standards, and more focus means that more people talk about it, creating more pressure on Microsoft to deliver, and other browsers to improve.
their overall rate of development seems behind what others are managing these days
That's an odd comment, considering that Opera 9.5, which was another huge release with basically a new engine since 9.2x, was released just recently with massive performance improvements, and now it's happening again with Opera 10.
Opera has been falling behind in JS overall
Not really. Opera 9.5 had massive performance increases over 9.2. The only way the other browsers could beat it was by using these techniques which Opera hasn't even applied yet to their own engine. When they do, the others will be left in the dust again.
it feels like they're still falling behind in the new, turbocharged browser race
What makes you think it's impossible for Opera to use the same techniques for the JS engine as the other browsers and overtake them? Also, JavaScript is just one part of page rendering. And SunSpider only measures specific parts of JS (those Safari do well at), apparently leaving out others (the ones where Safari's JS techniques might actually make it slower).
That's a straw man. The point he made was that Opera had all these other very useful features. He never claimed that it made Opera better or anything like that.
Opera Software is an independent company. It didn't have sugar-daddies with large pockets like Mozilla, and therefore had to actually make money to survive. And before Google agreed to pay for searches, what else could they do? They couldn't just give it away for free and go bankrupt.
Then Opera came up with the search box which pays Mozilla's bills today. Yes, the thing which Mozilla makes money off of today was invented by Opera.
For a developer, Acid3 helps to align browser implementations and makes it easier to develop cross-browser solutions. This saves time and money in the long run. For a user, the benefit is that more sites work better in more browsers. So these tests are indeed valuable.
Opera is doing very well on the desktop, actually. 25% market share in countries like Russia, 63% revenue increase since the same quarter last year, user base doubled in two years, etc. Firefox and Opera are "incompatible". Opera can run on mobile phones Firefox could never even dream of running on.
it's the one phone on the market that is overwhelmingly not covered by this patent
You mean showing the full web? Opera, Nokia and others did it ages before Apple, so the iPhone is definitely not "the one phone" not covered by the patent.
There were lots of proxy solutions before Opera Mini. And besides, the patent seems to talk about converting to XML, whereas Opera Mini uses some proprietary binary format (OBML) to send to the client.
That's amazingly honest of Gibson, admitting that they aren't aware of all the prior art, and that they haven't even researched it. Hope these people get fined or something for their pathetic patent trolling.
I remember reading one thing (although it may have been science fiction) suggesting that our ability to lock our knees is what let us survive while the neanderthals died.
I'd love to read more about that. Got any links or something?
But why? Wasn't it created by Apple and optimized against by Apple all along? If you can use SunSpider, why can't you use the V8 test suite? In fact, SunSpider would be an equally poor choice.
Slashdot Mirror
Why are you assuming that it is Opera that is unable to handle those sites? More often than not, it's actually a matter of browser sniffing gone wrong. Opera can handle stuff just fine, but it isn't given the chance to because the site doesn't accept Opera.
Maybe this explains a thing or two. Low market share? Maybe. But Net Applications is the wrong place to go for browser statistics anyway, so you'll never really know.
Exactly. It's very rare. I'm sure there must be other bugs that are much worse, and therefore should be prioritized.
"In what way"? Firefox support stuff like document.all, and lots of IE quirks. It has to live in the real world, remember? You can't just blame the rest of the world if you live in the real world.
Interesting you should mention that, since you later ask:
There are some differences still. A major reason for that is that other browsers have to stay IE-compatible, so they have less time to perfect their actual standards support. Acid tests like these place focus on open standards, and more focus means that more people talk about it, creating more pressure on Microsoft to deliver, and other browsers to improve.
That's an odd comment, considering that Opera 9.5, which was another huge release with basically a new engine since 9.2x, was released just recently with massive performance improvements, and now it's happening again with Opera 10.
Not really. Opera 9.5 had massive performance increases over 9.2. The only way the other browsers could beat it was by using these techniques which Opera hasn't even applied yet to their own engine. When they do, the others will be left in the dust again.
What makes you think it's impossible for Opera to use the same techniques for the JS engine as the other browsers and overtake them? Also, JavaScript is just one part of page rendering. And SunSpider only measures specific parts of JS (those Safari do well at), apparently leaving out others (the ones where Safari's JS techniques might actually make it slower).
That's a straw man. The point he made was that Opera had all these other very useful features. He never claimed that it made Opera better or anything like that.
Then Opera came up with the search box which pays Mozilla's bills today. Yes, the thing which Mozilla makes money off of today was invented by Opera.
For a developer, Acid3 helps to align browser implementations and makes it easier to develop cross-browser solutions. This saves time and money in the long run. For a user, the benefit is that more sites work better in more browsers. So these tests are indeed valuable.
Opera is doing very well on the desktop, actually. 25% market share in countries like Russia, 63% revenue increase since the same quarter last year, user base doubled in two years, etc. Firefox and Opera are "incompatible". Opera can run on mobile phones Firefox could never even dream of running on.
That looks like a corner case situation to me. Maybe you would do better by not inflating the importance of bugs you report? :)
Something must be wrong on your end. The latest versions of Opera work on more sites than ever.
That's odd, major Russian sites show Opera at 20-25%. Why is "Hotlog" so different?
Based on what? Surely not Net Applications? They have been caught manipulating their own statistics several times.
You mean showing the full web? Opera, Nokia and others did it ages before Apple, so the iPhone is definitely not "the one phone" not covered by the patent.
Actually, I wasn't being sarcastic. I was genuinely interested in learning more, because I had no idea what that comment was all about :)
There were lots of proxy solutions before Opera Mini. And besides, the patent seems to talk about converting to XML, whereas Opera Mini uses some proprietary binary format (OBML) to send to the client.
Because if Apple falls, so will all other mobile browsers? It will set back internet access on your phone by many years.
That's amazingly honest of Gibson, admitting that they aren't aware of all the prior art, and that they haven't even researched it. Hope these people get fined or something for their pathetic patent trolling.
I don't understand this comment. Haven't both Opera and Nokia been doing this for years before Apple came around?
I'd love to read more about that. Got any links or something?
But why? Wasn't it created by Apple and optimized against by Apple all along? If you can use SunSpider, why can't you use the V8 test suite? In fact, SunSpider would be an equally poor choice.
Of course there is no point in continuing when faced with a mountain of evidence.