Why did you stop using Opera anyway? Opera's a lot faster than Firefox here, but I guess that depends on one's system.
If you like these extensions, Opera has loads of useful features. The validation thing was in Opera first, for example: Press Ctrl+Alt+V to validate (or access from the right click context menu).
"Firefox is overtaking Opera in functionality and configurability,"
Excuse me? Firefox is a very basic browser by default. They've been removing features, not adding them.
Opera's still the one innovating a lot (most?) of the time with new features.
"and is much more tolerant of broken web pages."
This is a myth, and I wish people would stop repeating it over and over and over. If a site doesn't work in Opera, 99% of the time it's because it uses browser detection to send Opera broken code. Try it out for yourself. Download Proxomitron and remove "Opera" from the useragent string. All these sites start magically working!
"How about firefox-complete.zip at 10 times the download size?"
Yeah, exactly. I think you just proved my point. Opera offers all these things in a smaller package, smoothly integrated and working out of the box. No hassle. No ten times the download size, no wading through loads of crappy extensions that try to mimic Opera's functionality.
And yes, Opera is still a smaller package even if you decompress the executables that are compressed using ASPack. Compare it on Linux - Opera is a couple of megs smaller there, too. Even smaller if you download the shared version.
I guess Firefox fits better in with the "build it yourself" mentality. Maybe that's why I primarily use Windows? I prefer to get the job done, and I don't have time to fiddle around.
(Of course, I use Windows because I'm used to it, but there is this "fiddling around" mentality in Linux, as it does require a lot of fiddling around, at least in my experience.)
"Why should I download something full of bloat I will never need? Haven't we been railing against that for years?"
Define "we". A lot of people actually like full-featured programs that can be used without having to browse through tons of extensions to get more functionality.
"I really have to ask exactly what *critical* features I'm missing with just the plain install..."
Mouse gestures, properly handled tabbed browsing, fast forward, proper zoom, sessions, continue where you left off when you closed the program, hotclick, quick prefs... And more. Those are just essential browser features to me. I also need stuff like an e-mail client with a properly indexed e-mail engine which allows me to search through tens of thousands of messages in less than a second. Opera does that.
"All too often software developers add things that seem good to them, but which the end user finds irritating or just confusing."
Speak for yourself. Not everyone is into the new and "in" stripped-down software craze. You may love it, but you only represent yourself, not everyone else.
" Opera is a good case in point, with lots of gee whiz cool features that I just never got around to using. That has never happened to me with Mozilla or Firefox."
That is Mozilla (SeaMonkey), actually. It's what Firefox wanted to get away from in the first place. But Opera is a lot more elegant than SeaMonkey.
Actually, Opera is a very polished package overall. Everything just works, and there are loads of useful features. And you don't have to install extensions to get this functionality, which is a plus in my book. Firefox extensions are often buggy, and go in all directions, whereas Opera's a tiny package where everything is created to work seamlessly together. One package, one goal, that's Opera. Extensions by different people with different goals, that's Firefox.
I'm up and running with Opera immediately when I install it. When I install Firefox I have to spend a considerable amount of time getting what I consider to be basic functionality.
But hey, we are all different. My point is that you shouldn't speak on behalf of everyone else, and pretend that stripped-down software is for everyone. For end-users, a smoothly integrated software package is often the way to go.
"The latest was the search bar that pops up at the bottom of the screen when searching in the page. How brilliant! After years of search boxes popping up on top of the text that you're reading, someone figured to drop it in a place that wasn't intrusive."
Yeah... This sort of brings up another important point. Opera had find as you type ages before Firefox did. Opera also had mouse gestures, and tabbed browsing, and so on. Opera is very innovative, and with each new version there's something useful there to enhance your browsing.
Many Firefox extensions are simply attempts at duplicating Opera functionality!
I don't know if this free iPods thing really is a scam, but what I do know is that after signing up with a throwaway e-mail address, it has been overrun by spam. These spam mails claim that I have bought something and forgot to pick it up, that the lottery prize I claimed hasn't been picked up, and so on.
Scam? Spam? Spam for sure, and the dubious claims in the spam must be a scam. And the free iPods site brought me all of this.
"Especially now that even people at Microsoft are switching to Firefox"
What is your source for this claim? If it's based on the stories/comments on Slashdot about how a security exec at Microsoft was using Firefox, that's simply not the case. He indicated that he had Firefox installed, not that he had stopped using IE or used FF as his primary browser.
Most likely, he has a number of browsers installed to see what they are like. Know your competition, and all that.
"Under Linux it doesn't integrate at all with Gnome, so it is a non-starter for me: It is not a GTK app (hence ignores system theme, no native file chooser, etc.), it has an MDI and absolutely does not follow the Gnome Human Interface Guidelines."
Opera's MDI is what other browsers are trying to copy. "Tabbed browsing" is all the rage these days.
"On Windows: It uses a theme that by default does not mimic the standard Windows look and feel."
Uh, "the standard Windows look and feel" hardly exists. Opera looks as much as a Windows application as any other application out there.
"It does weird things like popup a context menu when double clicking on a word."
So? It's a useful and time-saving feature.
"It has some crazy icon before the file menu in the menu bar."
That's what MDI apps do, you know. Well, actually, seeing the way you are grasping for straws, it seems that you don't know;)
"It doesn't use Windows' standard help system"
So? It's a cross-platform app.
"and the menus (especially the Window menu) are on serious crack."
Nah. It's useful and flexible.
"It's got an MDI (which is bad in itself) but is inconsistent with how every other MDI I have seen on Windows works."
You don't get it do you? Opera's MDI is proper MDI, and other browsers are now trying to follow up with "tabbed browsing". Opera had this ages before Mozilla did, and now Mozilla is bragging about it as if they invented it.
"Which is a big problem. On Windows it should look and feel like a Windows app. On Linux it should look and feel like a Gnome or KDE app. By default."
On Windows it does look and feel like a Windows app... Well, as much as any Windows app really. Same for Linux. For Mac there's more tweaking to make it more Mac-like.
"It should use platform-specific features: external protocol handlers, file choosers, session management, native VFS, proxy settings, etc. It should also conform to the platform's usability guidelines: Menu structure, preferences windows, widget usage and spacing, button order, system font, system colours, etc."
And you know for a fact that it doesn't do all or some these things? Or are you just assuming?
"Opera does use some of the features - but not all and completely ignores the usability guidelines. This is a big problem."
A sweeping statement with little contact with reality.
"No it doesn't. You may like it, but it is not great."
Uh, yes, it is great actually. It's low-key and functional. Much better than Firefox's new default theme.
Look, you keep making these misguided statements about what Opera supposedly does or doesn't do... Have you actually tried it?!:)
"It's a funny thing. Mozilla has a cross platform toolkit and do their hardest to make sure that their apps look and feel like a native app. Opera starts with a native toolkit on each platform and do their hardest to make their app look and feel like no other app out there."
Nope. Opera has an internal cross-platform toolkit. The UI is mostly the same on all platforms, except Mac where some parts have been "Macified".
"On Windows it looks like some 13 year old put it together as a l33t shareware app and on Linux it uses Qt (aside from being non-free) so it's a non-starter for me."
It looks exactly the same on Windows and Linux, and the Linux version only uses Qt for a couple of things like font handling.
Opera 7.5 has a great default skin. Firefox looked nice when it was using Qute. Now it looks like an amateurish piece of trash. Hope they return to Qute or get some professional designers like Opera has.
Anyway, it seems that you are just here to spread lies and filth about Opera, and you don't even know what you are talking about. Sad.
"Opera used to be MDI, which was *awful*, worse than non-tabbed browsing, and it wasn't until other browsers introduced the "tabbed SDI" interface that tabbed browsing really became usable."
Uh, read your browser history man. Opera had tabs years before Mozilla/Netscape had them. Years before everyone apart from Netcaptor had them, actually.
If you are trying to say that Opera is not innovative... Well what can I say?
" what makes a certain software (such as mozilla/ff) is the fact that it combines all of these"
Unfortunately, it will always be only an "emulation". Even when you install extensions to mimic Opera, it doesn't "feel" like Opera because they aren't all seamlessly and smoothly integrated like all the features in Opera are.
Yeah, installing extensions... Which takes quite some time, and it doesn't feel like Opera anyway.
You use Opera if you want the convenience of something that just works and has loads of useful features, as opposed to having to browse through hundreds of more or less buggy extensions and spend a lot of time finding the right ones.
This is a useless discussion. Either you prefer everything built in and integrated, or you prefer to install extensions to get what you need.
Extensions try to mimic Opera, but Firefox will never be able to "emulate" the complete Opera experience. That's simply because different extensions are created by different people with different goals, whereas Opera is created with a clear vision.
Both of these approaches have their good and bad sides. You happen to like installing extensions to get stuff done. A lot of people don't, so they pay for a smooth experience where everything is ready to use immediately after installing the program.
Exactly. You need to install extensions to mimic Opera's behavior. Unfortunately extensions don't work as well as "the real thing". With Opera it's install and go. With Firefox it's browsing through hundreds of extensions to try and find something which actually works decently.
Firefox is a great browser, but it just can't measure up to Opera in many regards. Then again, Firefox is infinitely extensible, and Opera isn't.
Yes, I have seen it. It has navigation buttons at the top. not exactly rocket science. It has a panel selector on the left with icons and text belot to show you exactly which panel each icon represents. And then there's the bookmarks bar with important links.
Not exactly complicated or difficult to figure out. Even complete newbies I've shown Opera didn't have any problems understanding the UI.
"or are almost all telephone ringtones *overpriced*"
Mobile services are way overpriced. At least in Europe. The reason? Mobiles allow the people who run the network to make deals with people who deliver contents.
Because mobiles have traditionally had very limited software capabilities, they have been able to charge outrageous sums for mobile services. Instead of browsing the web you'll be browsing some specialized service with content created specifically for mobiles.
And the problem isn't just that the mobile operators and content owners do everything they can to keep it that way.
And even worse, people like Danish mobile analyst John Strand from Strand Consult are attacking anything which threatens this mobile hegemony by operators and content owners.
John Strand has been known to use his influence to try to make sure that today's situation with crappy and overpriced services will remain. He basically tells the press that "yeah, these people don't understand the mobile market and won't survive for long" if it threatens today's hegemony.
One specific example is the rise of software on mobiles that can browse the web instead of the customer being force fed what the operator wants him to. John Strand is using his influence to claim that companies that offer such solutions will never survive because they operate outside the "mobile food chain".
John Strand and his ilk are basically trying to maintain today's situation because overpriced mobile services are a good thing to them. It's a mobile market they know, and they are making good money by just being "consultants".
So yeah, mobile services suck and are over priced. Software like real web browsers is arriving to give the customer an actual choice and make it cheaper, but on the other hand, corrupt "analysts" like John Strand are doing everything they can to stop this more customer friendly development, and really fight to keep today's system with customer lock-in and over priced services.
Stop it, all of you! Isn't it obvious? Lucas stole the AT-ATs from everyone at the same time! That's right! Tolkien, Hannibal, War of the Worlds... The list continues.
So stop bickering. Lucas obviously ripped off whatever you can think of - and you can all score cheap points from mods by mentioning whatever comes to mind.
"in the time it took to write out that detailed reply, you could of configured firefox for your own 'personal' experience, or configured it to be exactly like opera."
No, I'm afraid that is wrong. I would have to go through hundreds of extensions, trying them all out to find the best ones to even begin to approach all the features I need and use in Opera. That takes time.
In addition to that, you forgot the point about everything in Opera being tightly integrated and working together towards a common goal. Everything is designed to fit together. You cannot say the same about many/most extensions.
"Give it a shot."
Believe me, I have tried Firefox, many times. I use it for cross-browser testing. And Firefox has forced me to reinstall extensions too many times. Sorry, but I'm kind of lazy, and I just want it to work.
Firefox is great at what it does, but Opera it isn't.
Slashdot Mirror
For Opera I'd just use the Proxomitron "extension" :P
If you like these extensions, Opera has loads of useful features. The validation thing was in Opera first, for example: Press Ctrl+Alt+V to validate (or access from the right click context menu).
Opera's still the one innovating a lot (most?) of the time with new features.
This is a myth, and I wish people would stop repeating it over and over and over. If a site doesn't work in Opera, 99% of the time it's because it uses browser detection to send Opera broken code. Try it out for yourself. Download Proxomitron and remove "Opera" from the useragent string. All these sites start magically working!Why did you stop using Opera?
And yes, Opera is still a smaller package even if you decompress the executables that are compressed using ASPack. Compare it on Linux - Opera is a couple of megs smaller there, too. Even smaller if you download the shared version.
I guess Firefox fits better in with the "build it yourself" mentality. Maybe that's why I primarily use Windows? I prefer to get the job done, and I don't have time to fiddle around.
(Of course, I use Windows because I'm used to it, but there is this "fiddling around" mentality in Linux, as it does require a lot of fiddling around, at least in my experience.)
April fools :)
Actually, Opera is a very polished package overall. Everything just works, and there are loads of useful features. And you don't have to install extensions to get this functionality, which is a plus in my book. Firefox extensions are often buggy, and go in all directions, whereas Opera's a tiny package where everything is created to work seamlessly together. One package, one goal, that's Opera. Extensions by different people with different goals, that's Firefox.
I'm up and running with Opera immediately when I install it. When I install Firefox I have to spend a considerable amount of time getting what I consider to be basic functionality.
But hey, we are all different. My point is that you shouldn't speak on behalf of everyone else, and pretend that stripped-down software is for everyone. For end-users, a smoothly integrated software package is often the way to go.
Yeah... This sort of brings up another important point. Opera had find as you type ages before Firefox did. Opera also had mouse gestures, and tabbed browsing, and so on. Opera is very innovative, and with each new version there's something useful there to enhance your browsing.Many Firefox extensions are simply attempts at duplicating Opera functionality!
Scam? Spam? Spam for sure, and the dubious claims in the spam must be a scam. And the free iPods site brought me all of this.
Thanks, but no thanks.
Most likely, he has a number of browsers installed to see what they are like. Know your competition, and all that.
Look, you keep making these misguided statements about what Opera supposedly does or doesn't do... Have you actually tried it?! :)
Opera 7.5 has a great default skin. Firefox looked nice when it was using Qute. Now it looks like an amateurish piece of trash. Hope they return to Qute or get some professional designers like Opera has.
Anyway, it seems that you are just here to spread lies and filth about Opera, and you don't even know what you are talking about. Sad.
If you are trying to say that Opera is not innovative... Well what can I say?
You use Opera if you want the convenience of something that just works and has loads of useful features, as opposed to having to browse through hundreds of more or less buggy extensions and spend a lot of time finding the right ones.
Extensions try to mimic Opera, but Firefox will never be able to "emulate" the complete Opera experience. That's simply because different extensions are created by different people with different goals, whereas Opera is created with a clear vision.
Both of these approaches have their good and bad sides. You happen to like installing extensions to get stuff done. A lot of people don't, so they pay for a smooth experience where everything is ready to use immediately after installing the program.
Problem is, most stats programs can't detect Opera even if it's possible.
Firefox is a great browser, but it just can't measure up to Opera in many regards. Then again, Firefox is infinitely extensible, and Opera isn't.
Not exactly complicated or difficult to figure out. Even complete newbies I've shown Opera didn't have any problems understanding the UI.
How is Opera complex and intimidating?
Because mobiles have traditionally had very limited software capabilities, they have been able to charge outrageous sums for mobile services. Instead of browsing the web you'll be browsing some specialized service with content created specifically for mobiles.
And the problem isn't just that the mobile operators and content owners do everything they can to keep it that way.
And even worse, people like Danish mobile analyst John Strand from Strand Consult are attacking anything which threatens this mobile hegemony by operators and content owners.
John Strand has been known to use his influence to try to make sure that today's situation with crappy and overpriced services will remain. He basically tells the press that "yeah, these people don't understand the mobile market and won't survive for long" if it threatens today's hegemony.
One specific example is the rise of software on mobiles that can browse the web instead of the customer being force fed what the operator wants him to. John Strand is using his influence to claim that companies that offer such solutions will never survive because they operate outside the "mobile food chain".
John Strand and his ilk are basically trying to maintain today's situation because overpriced mobile services are a good thing to them. It's a mobile market they know, and they are making good money by just being "consultants".
So yeah, mobile services suck and are over priced. Software like real web browsers is arriving to give the customer an actual choice and make it cheaper, but on the other hand, corrupt "analysts" like John Strand are doing everything they can to stop this more customer friendly development, and really fight to keep today's system with customer lock-in and over priced services.
So stop bickering. Lucas obviously ripped off whatever you can think of - and you can all score cheap points from mods by mentioning whatever comes to mind.
In addition to that, you forgot the point about everything in Opera being tightly integrated and working together towards a common goal. Everything is designed to fit together. You cannot say the same about many/most extensions. "Give it a shot." Believe me, I have tried Firefox, many times. I use it for cross-browser testing. And Firefox has forced me to reinstall extensions too many times. Sorry, but I'm kind of lazy, and I just want it to work.
Firefox is great at what it does, but Opera it isn't.
On the other hand, Opera opens a lot of pages Firefox can't. Oh well.