"Opera - Fast
Firefox - Not as fast
Firefox: 2 Opera: 1"
Opera is smaller and faster than Firefox. After all, Opera fits on mobile phones. Firefox doesn't. To fit it on mobiles, it needs to be stripped down.
"Opera - Very large initial footprint
Firefox - Tiny footprint
Firefox: 3 Opera: 1"
This is a blatant lie. Opera is 3.5 MB including Flash, while Firefox is 4.7. Besides, Opera uses less memory when running since it also needs to fit on smaller devices. See above point.
"Opera - Blocks popups
Firefox - Blocks popups and with adblock plugin, everything else you don't want to see
Firefox: 5 Opera: 2"
Opera blocks popups, and has a style sheet to block ads. Firefox stole the popup blocking from Opera anyway. Opera was probably the first browser with popup blocking, actually.
"Opera - Rendering problems on some pages
Firefox - Fewer rendering problems than Opera but more than IE (bad microsoft)
Firefox: 6 Opera: 2"
Firefox - rendering problems on Slashdot. Yeah, that's right. Firefox can't even show Slashdot correctly, and as you prove, Slashdot is a haven for Firefox zealots.
"The internet is information, and information should be free IMHO. No browser is worth $39, especially a closed source one."
It's well woth 39 bucks, considering that Opera innovates, and the rest try to keep up with Opera. Do you think tabbed browsing, popup blocking, mouse gestures, etc. would have been around if no one came up with them? Most of the features Firefox brags about on its front page were either invented by Opera, or implemented in Opera ages before it was available in Firefox.
There's a pattern here. Opera comes up with all these new things. Without Opera, Firefox and other browsers would have been in the Browser stone age.
This is why a company which makes money is a good thing: They are forced to do research and development beyond what everyone else is doing, to come up with new stuff to stay ahead.
"Let's face it, folks. DRM didn't just will itself into existence. It was the industries' response to people who wantonly ignored copyright laws for the sake of getting something without paying for it."
It was, was it? As a matter of fact, the region crap for DVDs has got nothing to do with piracy what so ever. In fact, it promotes piracy.
DVD regions were added to control distribution, in order to make as much money as possible. Now, people got fed up, and started cracking it as a response, or they simply downloaded the DVD or DVD-rip instead of having to wait for the latest and greatest movies to reach their country/region.
DRM is ultimately about control, as this story proves. It is not about piracy at all. It's about forcing people to license things for limited periods of time, thereby squeezing more money out of us.
Don't kid yourself with ignorant comments like "it was the industries' response to people who wantonly ignored copyright laws". It wasn't at all. It's just an excuse. DRM is about controlling distribution and forcing people to pay more for less.
"Opera took what it could get and then more-or-less got out of the desktop game as Mozilla/Firefox took off. Now they do mostly mobile browsers."
This is nonsense. It is the desktop version of Opera which spearheads new technologies, that in turn find their way to mobiles.
Opera is actively developing desktop software. In fact, there are long public beta tests/technology previews with new functionality and lots of fixes. Currently, the latest version is 7.60, and it is available for the desktop.
"And when mobile browsers become commoditized, they'll have to move on again."
Not at all. Opera is smaller and faster than Minimo, and most of the features Minimo is bragging about were invented by Opera, or have been in Opera for a long, long time already. Opera can deliver tailor made solutions, whereas Minimo requires you to hire your own developers. Minimo is not necessarily cheaper.
Opera's bigger than ever on the desktop, and that's a fact. It's never been a major player on the destkop at all, but right now, the PC revenues are higher than they've ever been. So what you are saying about getting "their market on the desktop eaten" is simply not true. How can they get a market eaten if they never had it in the first place?
"Now they are facing... getting that market wiped out too."
According to who?
Opera is available today, and all Opera has to do is to establish itself as the "standard" mobile browser.
Minimo might be completely free, but while Opera costs money, it also has dedicated developers that sell ready made solutions. If you want to use Minimo, you'll need to hire someone to do the job.
So the thing is, both Opera and Minimo will cost money in the end. It all comes down to TCO, and if Opera has cheap and tailor made solutions, as well as a better product (it's smaller and faster than Minimo, remember, and has all the features Minimo is bragging about), then a lot of people will still choose Opera, because Minimo could turn out to be a hassle in the end.
Re:Does not work with Opera 7.54
on
Google Suggest
·
· Score: 1, Troll
"In my experience, Opera is a really finicky browser to work with compliantly."
Not really. If you know what you are doing, you shouldn't have any problems with Opera.
"the fact that not that many people use it anyway..."
If by "not that many people", you mean "millions of people", then you are probably right. Opera does have a market share of 2-3 per cent worldwide, and in many European countries it has an even higher market share.
I don't buy the "Mozilla innovation" argument. Look at the features hyped by Firefox. Most of them were invented or pioneered by Opera. Look at the Minimo article from yesterday, where they brag about many things to make mobile surfing better. Minimo only has prototypes of those, but Opera invented them, or had them ages ago. While those things are Minimo work in progress, Opera has had them in production browsers for years.
You mention several different gesture packages as "innovation" even though it came after Opera's. That's not innovation. That's confusion.
Bayesian filtering was not invented nor implemented first by Mozilla. By the way, I heard that Mozilla's filtering isn't really Bayesian, but who cares, as long as we can use buzzwords, eh?
"At the time Mozilla seemed to be adding new and innovative features more quickly."
When was that? And what innovative features are you referring to?
I think you are forgetting that Opera is a commercial browser, probably with people dedicated to solving problems and coming up with new stuff. They are professionals, paid for this because that's what they do, and they do it well.
Opera is inflexible? At least you don't have to restart the entire program to apply a theme. You can create custom menus, toolbars, buttons, and so on, and install them with a single click. Same with skins.
You can get a web dev toolbar which kicks the shite out of anything you find for anything else.
"a good and necessary kick up the arse for those two"
Opera has always been the underdog. It has always innovated.
"You didn't address the GP's point at all. Even with your no CD patch, you still need a CD to install the game if you get a new system, your system is hosed, etc. Steam removes this requirement."
I fail to see the problem. At least you have the installation files on the original CDs in that case. If you use Steam, you'll have to download the whole thing again.
And now you'll probably say "but Steam allows you to burn a backup on CD". Er, right. Wasn't that what you just argued against? "No need for CDs" and all?
""the way valve treated its customers"???? How did they screw you?"
Non-functional online activation for offline play, for many customers. Lies. Deception.
"They took their time making a great game. then they released it. if you wanted to play it then you paid and you can play it."
Or you can't be bothered with online activation for offline play, and simply download the cracked version.
"Are you claiming lost fun during the years it was in development? BTW, there is NO game developer in the WORLD that gives so much back to their customers like Valve. I bought half life and as a bonus, I got deathmatch, Counterstrike, DoD and a huge number of netcode improvements and upgrades over a 6 year period."
And it kept the money flowing into Valve's wallets. Do you really think they did this out of the kindness of their hearts? This online activation for offline play business shows that they didn't. Be glad that they don't have more power, because they would probably make a monopolist as evil as Microsoft.
"Copy protection ineffectual? Sure, it's obviously already been cracked. However, it's effectual in other ways, such as was seen before the official release when they were able to keep a tightlid lock on the distribution of leaked copies beforehand."
How is copy protection relevant here? The reason it wasn't cracked before was that no one had gotten their hands on a copy. What was effective was that Valve made sure no one got the game until it was actually released. Online activation has got nothing to do with it. The effect would have been exactly the same if they had dropped the online activation for offline play.
"It's also effective in that if I want to buy a copy of HL2 and am too lazy to go to the store, all I need to do is go through Steam, buy it and download it there with little to no wait."
Little to no wait? We're talking gigabytes of data here, downloaded through Steam.
"You say that Steam has made it impossible for many people to play the game?"
It is silly to require online activation if you just want to play offline. It does nothing to stop piracy, and only serves to annoy legitimate customers.
"So as long as a company treats their customers "poorly", its ok to steal from them?"
Why are you asking me? My opinion on this is irrelevant. I am explaining what I see in general. People are starting to hate Valve, and that makes it a lot easier for them to just download the pirate release.
"Have you used steam? I have had no problems with it whatsoever."
That doesn't mean that no one has problems. People did have problems. They just wanted to play offline. They shouldn't have to wait for hours or day for online activation for an offline game.
"1) I can't pirate the game as easily"
You can. It was pirated the day it came out.
"2) I couldn't play the game for a day because the Steam servers were overloaded on the first day."
Correct. When I buy a product, I expect to be able to use it without asking someone for permission. And when I first have to ask for permission, and they don't repond...
"So at worst you had to "purchase" the game (oooh the horror!) and could not play on the first day. Wow, you've been terribly mistreated......"
See my comment about using a product I've paid for.
"If youre pirating the damn game they have every right to ban you."
What are you talking about? Oh, you mean the Steam accounts? Why should I care? I don't use Steam, I don't need Steam. I don't give a rat's ass about Steam. I am talking about offline play.
"Online activation is also very easy"
Except it didn't work very well for a lot of people.
"Honestly, the only people that I've seen that are mad about this are people that were trying to pirate the game."
You haven't been paying attention then. Pirates are not having problems, customers are, which was my point if you had taken the time to actually read and comprehend my post instead of knee-jerk-posting.
"No matter what you seem to think, it's clear that recent online activation makes it much harder for normal users to pirate games. I see no problem in them wanting to stop piracy especially when it really barely affects you. Online activation, if you haven't noticed, has been a lot more difficult to crack in recent games."
You are completely wrong. Online activation is not hard to crack. A pirated release was out the same day of the release.
This does nothing to prevent piracy. All it does is to cause problems for legitimate customers.
Remember, it only takes one person to crack it, and everyone else can download it.
You should probably get informed before posting again on this subject...
I see your point, and I agree. I see no reason to try and justify pirating software or games. Either you think it's right or you don't.
I am, however, explaining that this, to many, is an even better reason to get a warez version: Valve is trying to screw them. People tend to get hostile when corporations try to screw with them. I'm not saying what's right or wrong, I'm just explaining that Valve is becoming increasingly unpopular, and that means that people may warez their games just because they hate Valve (but still want to play their games).
"You can't really fault them for the delays. I mean, there are a lot of games that get pushed back further and further, but you see people bitching about those companies, do ya?"
When I buy a product (say, a game), and bring the product home, I expect to be able to use it right away, as I can with all other products.
However, many couldn't.
Delays are irrelevant. The game isn't out anyway. But the fact is that people couldn't play the game they bought even after it was released!
"How many customers do you think this would piss off? Do you think Valve is so out of touch (clearly indicated by how terrible the game is... cough) that they would do that sort of thing to their customers?"
Didn't they just do it with the activation for offline play farce? And everyone trying to activate the game they bought, only to fail? Having to wait until Valve was ready for it before they could play the single-player game they bought?
And what about the lies from valve? The deception? The terrible way they treat their customers?
Valve already pissed a lot of people off, simply by lying about things like "the game is done" over a year before it was actually released, showing a pre-recorded demo on E3, claiming that it was part of the finished game, and that the AI was real, and so on.
"Why do I get this rather annoying feeling that a rather large segment of slashdot is rooting for the warezers, as though they're doing something good?"
I guess that after the way Valve has treated its customers, a lot of people don't see the problem in screwing Valve. Corporations usually get away with screwing their customers, as Valve did here. And so, some people may find justice in the fact that they are screwing Valve back.
The whole online activation thing for offline play, as well as lies and deceptions, and basically terrible treatment of loyal fans and customers, has led to a lot of ill will among geeks.
"There are two issues. 1) Does/. spread FUD about Opera? 2) Does/. ignore Opera?"
Or 3: Does Slashdot ignore Opera, except for stories that are posted to spread anti-Opera FUD?
"The "FUD" you cited was a legit news story. Financials, and the impacts of them, can be argued to death. That's not FUD."
The FUD here is that Firefox was mentioned in the story, and then everyone was going on about how Firefox was killing Opera. "Opera is in trouble, Opera doesn't stand a chance", and so on.
"You point out that Opera's revenues are higher than ever. However, their losses are too."
See? This is the kind of FUD mentality I'm talking about. If you have two dollars and lose one of them, then you've lost half of your money, which could be a big deal. However, if you have one thousand dollars and lose one dollar, then it is an insignificant loss. See, Opera's revenues are higher than ever, and they can afford the tiny losses due to the fact that Opera has to expand to be able to deliver more products, in order to make even more money. Losing X dollars with Opera's current revenues is close to insignificant. Losing half of that amount last year was a bigger problem.
"Opera is spending money to try to get market share"
If you view the webcast on Opera's site, the losses were mainly due to the fact that they are hiring more people to be able to deliver more products.
"As far as Opera's cutting edge status, you first mention that Opera isn't old, but follow that up with mentioning how Opera innovated things that all modern browsers take for granted. I'm sure it did, in 1992. I'm not impressed, and that's no reason to choose a browser."
It is not about choosing a browser, but about impact. You cannot deny the fact that Opera has been the innovator for many years. You argue that Opera should be ignored because it is unimportant, but you are ignoring the fact that Firefox's most advertised features, such as tabbed browsing, popup blocking, Google search, etc. were introduced in Opera long before they were available in Mozilla/Firefox.
"Your "geek appeal" point is made by noting that Opera is available to Linux and FreeBSD? Good Lord, that's lame."
What's lame is your inability to take a point. I mentioned it as an example. Look it up in a dictionary.
"Opera was always the little company that couldn't."
Yeah, I guess that's why they have defined what a modern browser is. Also, you could say the same about Apple. The little company that couldn't!
"As for the Opera skin for Firefox, think hard about what that means. It means that people who got to know and love Opera back in the day are now using Firefox."
What do you mean, "Opera skin for Firefox"? Who said anything about skins? "Lame."
"In the case of/., it's because Opera embodies absolutely none of the values that these people believe so much in."
You are going in circles. I have already pointed out several companies that aren't open-source, and so on. Try to come up with something new, for God's sake!
"Two, non-zealots will never use it because it isn't free. It's hard to sell iceboxes to eskimos, but damned if Opera isn't trying."
You think the whole world is like Slashdot. A lot of people don't see a problem with spending money on good software.
"But I'm sure you'll label me a FUDder like you probably have anyone else who attempted to explain to you, in unbiased terms, why people don't care about Opera. We don't FUD, we don't care. You should be happy it merited a story at all."
There's that "we" again. Funny how an unemployed geek is trying to speak on behalf of the entire Slashdot community...:)
Opera is not "old". In fact, some of Firefox's most advertised features were borrowed from Opera, and there are many extensions to try to emulate Opera.
Opera "creating no impact" is also wrong, considering the fact that Opera pioneered most features modern browsers take for granted today. And Opera is on its way to dominating the mobile market, where Microsoft is trying to gain a foothold. Microsoft was thrilled when Opera announced a port to Windows Mobile, because Opera not being available for Microsoft's mobile operating system was a disaster for Microsoft.
For more geek appeal: Opera is even available for Linux and FreeBSD.
The bottom line is that Slashdot's FUD against Opera and ignoring the fact that Opera has defined what a modern browser should be, is of great concern to those who actually know what they are talking about.
Opera has been well known for fighting Microsoft's dominance.
"As for overall marketshare, selling something and competing against people that give things away is a really dumb business model."
I guess that's why Opera's revenues are higher than ever, eh?
The Doom 3 textures wouldn't look awful if applied correctly. The D3 textures you see in the source engine aren't really full textures. They are just one part of it. So obviously it's going to look worse, since the HL2 textures are the actual textures, while with the D3 textures, there's much more to them, and whoever put them in the HL2 engine didn't get all the parts.
Wow, how dare anyone have a different opinion on the matter?!:)
"Apparently people like you don't like high action, or graphics, or story, or anything like that was new and creative, because someone seriously put some fun ideas in HL2."
Graphics were mediocre. Already outdated. Looks OK, but nothing mind-blowing.
Action... Yeah, HL2 is a First Person Shooter, like FC. So they both have action.
The story in HL2 is mediocre too. It's nothing new or original or incredibly involving. It's better integrated into the game than, say, Doom 3, but it still feels forced a lot of the time.
"The physics were freakin' awesome. They singlehandedly solved one of the largest problems I had getting into a game, which is, "Why can't I do X? Well, because that object is not an object at all, it is a part of the map.""
Yeah? What about all the things you couldn't manipulate in HL2? Why can't I throw corpses around?! This ruins the experience.
"Exactly what made FarCry the best game ever?"
Contrary to popular belief, it is possible that people have different tastes, and therefore find different games to be enjoyable. You happen to prefer HL2, but you are not the Übermensch everyone else is measured by. It's just your opinion, and you can't force it on others.
"Yeah, FarCry was good, but please, "shrubbery sneak attack" does not make game of the year."
And HL2 was good too, but "more of the same and too many mediocre moments" does not make game of the year either. I found myself being nearly half way in the game at one point, and wondering when the game would start for real. And suddenly I was in this ghost town, completely out of the blue, with no real reason other than Valve apparently going "hey, we need some survival horror here too! Let's throw in a deserted town with lots of zombies, and figure out a lame excuse for putting it there..."
Slashdot Mirror
The same is true for Minimo. Did you read the CNET article about Minimo and all the "fantastic innovations"? Guess what, Opera invented all those things, but the Minimo spokesperson tried to make it sound like they were Mozilla firsts.
There's a pattern here. Opera comes up with all these new things. Without Opera, Firefox and other browsers would have been in the Browser stone age.
This is why a company which makes money is a good thing: They are forced to do research and development beyond what everyone else is doing, to come up with new stuff to stay ahead.
DVD regions were added to control distribution, in order to make as much money as possible. Now, people got fed up, and started cracking it as a response, or they simply downloaded the DVD or DVD-rip instead of having to wait for the latest and greatest movies to reach their country/region.
DRM is ultimately about control, as this story proves. It is not about piracy at all. It's about forcing people to license things for limited periods of time, thereby squeezing more money out of us.
Don't kid yourself with ignorant comments like "it was the industries' response to people who wantonly ignored copyright laws". It wasn't at all. It's just an excuse. DRM is about controlling distribution and forcing people to pay more for less.
Opera is actively developing desktop software. In fact, there are long public beta tests/technology previews with new functionality and lots of fixes. Currently, the latest version is 7.60, and it is available for the desktop.
Not at all. Opera is smaller and faster than Minimo, and most of the features Minimo is bragging about were invented by Opera, or have been in Opera for a long, long time already. Opera can deliver tailor made solutions, whereas Minimo requires you to hire your own developers. Minimo is not necessarily cheaper.Opera's bigger than ever on the desktop, and that's a fact. It's never been a major player on the destkop at all, but right now, the PC revenues are higher than they've ever been. So what you are saying about getting "their market on the desktop eaten" is simply not true. How can they get a market eaten if they never had it in the first place?
According to who?Opera is available today, and all Opera has to do is to establish itself as the "standard" mobile browser.
Minimo might be completely free, but while Opera costs money, it also has dedicated developers that sell ready made solutions. If you want to use Minimo, you'll need to hire someone to do the job.
So the thing is, both Opera and Minimo will cost money in the end. It all comes down to TCO, and if Opera has cheap and tailor made solutions, as well as a better product (it's smaller and faster than Minimo, remember, and has all the features Minimo is bragging about), then a lot of people will still choose Opera, because Minimo could turn out to be a hassle in the end.
You mention several different gesture packages as "innovation" even though it came after Opera's. That's not innovation. That's confusion.
Bayesian filtering was not invented nor implemented first by Mozilla. By the way, I heard that Mozilla's filtering isn't really Bayesian, but who cares, as long as we can use buzzwords, eh?
When was that? And what innovative features are you referring to?I think you are forgetting that Opera is a commercial browser, probably with people dedicated to solving problems and coming up with new stuff. They are professionals, paid for this because that's what they do, and they do it well.
You can get a web dev toolbar which kicks the shite out of anything you find for anything else.
Opera has always been the underdog. It has always innovated.http://stuff.techwhack.com/archives/2004/11/26/ope ra-more-productive-firefox/
http://www.gungfu.de/facts/archives/2004/11/22/why -i-love-opera/
OpSed
And now you'll probably say "but Steam allows you to burn a backup on CD". Er, right. Wasn't that what you just argued against? "No need for CDs" and all?
Bah.
This does nothing to prevent piracy. All it does is to cause problems for legitimate customers.
Remember, it only takes one person to crack it, and everyone else can download it.
You should probably get informed before posting again on this subject...
I am, however, explaining that this, to many, is an even better reason to get a warez version: Valve is trying to screw them. People tend to get hostile when corporations try to screw with them. I'm not saying what's right or wrong, I'm just explaining that Valve is becoming increasingly unpopular, and that means that people may warez their games just because they hate Valve (but still want to play their games).
However, many couldn't.
Delays are irrelevant. The game isn't out anyway. But the fact is that people couldn't play the game they bought even after it was released!
And what about the lies from valve? The deception? The terrible way they treat their customers?
Valve already pissed a lot of people off, simply by lying about things like "the game is done" over a year before it was actually released, showing a pre-recorded demo on E3, claiming that it was part of the finished game, and that the AI was real, and so on.
The whole online activation thing for offline play, as well as lies and deceptions, and basically terrible treatment of loyal fans and customers, has led to a lot of ill will among geeks.
Lame.
Opera is not "old". In fact, some of Firefox's most advertised features were borrowed from Opera, and there are many extensions to try to emulate Opera.
And Slashdot does indeed spread anti-Opera FUD.
Opera "creating no impact" is also wrong, considering the fact that Opera pioneered most features modern browsers take for granted today. And Opera is on its way to dominating the mobile market, where Microsoft is trying to gain a foothold. Microsoft was thrilled when Opera announced a port to Windows Mobile, because Opera not being available for Microsoft's mobile operating system was a disaster for Microsoft.
For more geek appeal: Opera is even available for Linux and FreeBSD.
The bottom line is that Slashdot's FUD against Opera and ignoring the fact that Opera has defined what a modern browser should be, is of great concern to those who actually know what they are talking about.
Opera has been well known for fighting Microsoft's dominance.
I guess that's why Opera's revenues are higher than ever, eh?The Doom 3 textures wouldn't look awful if applied correctly. The D3 textures you see in the source engine aren't really full textures. They are just one part of it. So obviously it's going to look worse, since the HL2 textures are the actual textures, while with the D3 textures, there's much more to them, and whoever put them in the HL2 engine didn't get all the parts.
Graphics were mediocre. Already outdated. Looks OK, but nothing mind-blowing.
Action... Yeah, HL2 is a First Person Shooter, like FC. So they both have action.
The story in HL2 is mediocre too. It's nothing new or original or incredibly involving. It's better integrated into the game than, say, Doom 3, but it still feels forced a lot of the time.
Yeah? What about all the things you couldn't manipulate in HL2? Why can't I throw corpses around?! This ruins the experience. Contrary to popular belief, it is possible that people have different tastes, and therefore find different games to be enjoyable. You happen to prefer HL2, but you are not the Übermensch everyone else is measured by. It's just your opinion, and you can't force it on others. And HL2 was good too, but "more of the same and too many mediocre moments" does not make game of the year either. I found myself being nearly half way in the game at one point, and wondering when the game would start for real. And suddenly I was in this ghost town, completely out of the blue, with no real reason other than Valve apparently going "hey, we need some survival horror here too! Let's throw in a deserted town with lots of zombies, and figure out a lame excuse for putting it there..."