Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Opera 5.0 for FREE!

By unstable in MLP
Fri Dec 08, 2000 at 04:22:05 AM EST
Tags: Software (all tags)
Software

This story on MSNBC states the the Opera 5.0 browser is now being offered for free with banner ad, or as a retail item ($39 US) without an ad. Opera currently has less than 1% of the market share in "the browser wars" but this move may help them grow.

P.S. I am posting this useing the Opera 5.0 free version and it is fast and the "feel" is nice IMHO.


Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
What browser do you use
o Netscape 30%
o Internet Explorer 31%
o Opera 4%
o Lynx 4%
o mozilla 18%
o kmeleon 0%
o Galeon 1%
o other 8%

Votes: 203
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o This story
o MSNBC
o Opera 5.0 browser
o Also by unstable


Display: Sort:
Opera 5.0 for FREE! | 48 comments (38 topical, 10 editorial, 0 hidden)
Opera (3.80 / 5) (#3)
by spinfire on Wed Dec 06, 2000 at 05:38:34 PM EST

I have tried opera, personally i find its interface annoying and the browser to be less than its been hyped up to be. Also, the idea of paying for a browser comes off a bit weird in my mind. $40 is also way to steep a price for many students to pay, and would likely be better spend on hardware "Free Beer" only also presents a possible privacy concern. As for ads, i would much rather use a different bowser than look at ads while browsing. I already see enough ads on the pages themselves.

As far as what i use, i am currently using a Mozilla CVS build which works excellently. It renders plenty fast and almost never crashes. There are indeed still some memory usage issues, but a lightweight Gecko based browser such as Skipstone or galeon solves much of the resource hog issues for less powerful computers.


Freelance Hacker. spinfire on FooNET.

Opera is nice (3.33 / 3) (#9)
by Delirium on Wed Dec 06, 2000 at 09:34:42 PM EST

I agree that $40 is too steep for a browser, but if it were free (or even cheap) I would definitely prefer Opera. I like having the MDI interface to auto-load the 6 or 7 pages I visit upon opening it (doing this in IE or Netscape requires me manually opening each of the pages from my bookmarks, and also takes up my entire taskbar with separate Explorer or Navigator windows). It's also much much faster at rendering pages: if I visit www.kuro5hin.org in Mozilla or IE, click on a story, and then hit the back button to return to the main page, it will take 1-2 seconds (on my pII 266) to re-render the page from cache. Opera will load and render the page from cache nearly instantly.

[ Parent ]
Offline mode (none / 0) (#32)
by delmoi on Thu Dec 07, 2000 at 01:11:02 PM EST

Um, The using IE or netscape to go back and forth is beacuse they usualy check the website to see if its changed before redrawing it. in IE go to 'file|Work Offline' and then try going back and forth. It should be almost instantainous.
--
"'argumentation' is not a word, idiot." -- thelizman
[ Parent ]
I use netscape... (2.44 / 9) (#4)
by evvk on Wed Dec 06, 2000 at 05:47:22 PM EST

... but old version 3.04. It is, in my opinion the best graphical browser for *nix platforms:

- netscape4: more bloated, slower, more unstable
- mosaic: I wish web pages still were browsable with this.
- mozilla: bloatzilla, creepingly slow, needless candies
- opera (linux; beta stage): I don't like MDI, often slower than netscape3, creeps with big images. The windows version is much better at the moment at least. I hope they'll get SDI someday and the bugs fixed as this seems the only prominent alternative to netscape on machines a few years old.
- Konqueror: I don't want to install a bloated desktop environment to run a browser. I've heard it is slow as well.
- Galeon, *gnome-browser, etc. **Again, I don't want a stinking bloated desktop environment to run a browser!** Why are all (?) the new *nix browsers for some lame DE? (And they claim to be light while the DE libraries are utterly bloated.)

I wish someone wrote a simple and light graphical browser with lynx-like keyboard-friendly interface; I don't have the time...


extension of browsing idealogy (2.50 / 2) (#10)
by codetoad on Thu Dec 07, 2000 at 12:21:44 AM EST

I think the problem lies in the natural progression of browsing, and how we handle it when computing. It seems the natural progression of browsing leans to an intergrated approach, rather than a stand alone platform. Microsoft is taking the intergration approach, obviously, and creating an OS/platform as an extension of the browser. Netscape has always pushed for the web as an independent platform, while making some progress, is seemingly loosing out. The reasoning behind this could include java's progress, compared to microsoft's continual push for closed APIs and a platform of not-so-innerworking components. just my 2cents

[ Parent ]
hmmm (2.83 / 6) (#11)
by Wah on Thu Dec 07, 2000 at 02:23:52 AM EST

- netscape4: more bloated, slower, more unstable

- mozilla: bloatzilla, creepingly slow, needless candies

- Konqueror: ... I've heard it is slow as well.

I think somebody has been violating Moore's Law for a number of years. Please visit your local remoorucation office and buy a new box. Thank you. Your software and your spare time will thank you, also.

:-)
--
Fail to Obey?
[ Parent ]

You just don't get it, do you? (4.00 / 2) (#19)
by evvk on Thu Dec 07, 2000 at 07:35:49 AM EST

Not everyone is willing to upgrade hardware all the time. Some of us, even "geeks", have better things to waste limited money on than hardware that will be "obsolete" next month. Oh, I know, you are an 31337 h4xx0r and l33ch 411 d4 w4r3z & mp3z! Or maybe I have a life and don't know about it or just have became too old, because I just couldn't care less about new hardware with lots of FPS, MHz, GB and buzzwords. With the right software, my system (pentium pro) suffices for my needs.
Not all of us like latest computing-power intensive games: I loathe most 3D games; ugly as hell and FPS/driving/etc. mostly suck, except for some classics (descent, castle wolfenstein 3d, doom, stunts, stunt car racing - and all of them run on a 80386!). Normal user programs, when written well, don't need lots of Mhz, FPS and GB. Why should rendering some text and graphics on screen require the latest hardware? It's been done before with lesser resources and most the features. Why should someone want a lame themed, sluggish and bloated application-specific gui? That just decreases usability (as if modern guis werent inherently unusable). And some of the old software are just much better than current. Word5.0 was much more usable, lighter, faster and less buggy than the current versions and could be run on a 486 (disclaimer: I prefer LaTeX).
(Of course there's scientific computing, signal/image processing, etc. for which there is never enough power but I don't do that on my personal computer).


[ Parent ]
You took that wrong (3.00 / 2) (#36)
by Wah on Thu Dec 07, 2000 at 01:46:42 PM EST

it wasn't an attack, just a gentle nudge.

I'm not 1337 in the least. I do like to get decent framerates in games I play, but that's far from whiz bang. The growth of the 3d accelerator market has slowed the need to get the latest and greatest processor and widened the margin for a useful machine.

With the right software, my system (pentium pro) suffices for my needs.

It's just a little slow for new software. That's why I obliquely recommended an upgrade. Sorry if it rubbed you the wrong way, but you might find that adding 10-20% (or a couple hundred) to the speed of your machine might save you more time than it costs. It certainly has for me. For the record, I run a celeron 500 and a tnt2, both of which can probably be had for less than a $100. I get decent framerates on anything I wish to throw at it, most software runs quickly, although I do agree, both Mozilla and NS6 have some serious rough points. Considering what they are trying to do and where along the developement cycle they are

I loathe most 3D games; ugly as hell ... except for some classics (descent, castle wolfenstein 3d, doom, stunts, stunt car racing - and all of them run on a 80386!).

Please, go look at this. Sometimes there's something to be said for visually appealing entertainment. Other activies inlcuding video of various sorts, audio, image editing, burning, etc. can all benefit from the added horsepower. What I'm saying is I don't see much reason to take such a hardline against upgrading.

And on a quick off-topic sidenote, as far as compying with Moore's law with it devastating your pocketbook goes. I try to stay at about half to the top market speed. When I go to upgrade I look for the fastest machine I can find, cut the speed it half, double the RAM, back-up and jump. This happens about every year and a half (plenty of time for Christmas and birthdays for you younger folks).
--
Fail to Obey?
[ Parent ]

Re: You took that wrong (2.00 / 1) (#40)
by evvk on Thu Dec 07, 2000 at 04:28:20 PM EST

Yes, I may have overreacted a bit. I just hate it when many (most?) tech people always excuse software problems with buying new hardware to it. "X is bloated. Get a job!" "Y is sluggish. Get a new computer!" So lame... Why don't people demand for better software? Companies will keep robbing with crappy software and kludged frying-pan hardware so long as people are willing to pay for it.

[ Parent ]
Galeon (3.66 / 3) (#13)
by dorward on Thu Dec 07, 2000 at 03:40:46 AM EST

You don't need all of Gnome to use Galeon. Just (IIRC) the library files.

[ Parent ]
I use IE. (3.00 / 1) (#17)
by ambrosen on Thu Dec 07, 2000 at 06:24:27 AM EST

Which seems to me to be the best graphical browser on the *nix platform I'm using (Solaris). It's such a shame it won't get ported to Linux.

Ambrose

--
Procrastination does not make you cool. Being cool makes you procrastinate. DesiredUsername.
[ Parent ]

IE/solaris (4.00 / 1) (#21)
by evvk on Thu Dec 07, 2000 at 07:49:14 AM EST

I've tried IE on solaris, but wasn't really fascinated about it. It was very heavy (half of windows attached?) and there was no consistency in the UI - half resembled motif, half windows. IE on windows (and mac?) is a completely different thing (I prefer netscape or opera on windows too, though. Although IE is mostly better than netscape, there are lots of minor things I don't like about it, such as how page layout changes while loading images).


[ Parent ]
Who said you have to install all of KDE/Gnome? (2.50 / 2) (#25)
by ScottW on Thu Dec 07, 2000 at 09:37:30 AM EST

- Konqueror: I don't want to install a bloated desktop environment to run a browser. I've heard it is slow as well. - Galeon, *gnome-browser, etc. **Again, I don't want a stinking bloated desktop environment to run a browser!** Why are all (?) the new *nix browsers for some lame DE?
You don't have to install KDE just to run KDE apps, all you need the libraries, same with Gnome. You can also run KDE apps in Gnome, and vice versa. As long as you have at least the libraries (and, maybe, the base), you should have no problems running KDE/Gnome apps on an DE you want.
Why are all (?) the new *nix browsers for some lame DE? (And they claim to be light while the DE libraries are utterly bloated.)
Dude, what are you running, a 486?!?! Just for kicks, I picked up a copy of RH6.2, and put it on an old computer (a P1 233MMX with 64MB ram and 4.3GB HD) that I had lying around. I had it boot up into gdm, and logged into KDE, thats funny, it sure didn't feel slow, it sure didn't seem bloated. The display wasn't as good as I would of liked (the best it could do was 800X600X32bit or 1024X768X16bit), but that was more the fault of the 4MB STB Nitro 3D card and the SVGA Xserver than anything else. That system is 3 years old, it's not even recent by today's standards, it wasn't even "lastest and greatest" when I got it 3 years ago.

[ Parent ]
Mixed results (4.00 / 1) (#38)
by kmself on Thu Dec 07, 2000 at 03:11:06 PM EST

While the GNOME and KDE browsers may not require running, or even installation, of the entire supporting environment to use these products, results if you don't do so are decidedly mixed.

I've got Konqueror installed on my system, KDE2. Under KDE itself, the browser is usable. Under WindowMaker alone, the appearance and results are rather worse. Simple things such as font sizing are a pain to configure because it appears these are assumed to be centrally controlled within the KDE environment. While I can specify fonts for Konqueror, I can't specify default sizes. The font chooser also doesn't provide for previewing the font(s) chosen.

Despite its many bugs, I still find the visual presentation of straight text from Netscape 3.x and 4.x to be superior to any other browser. Everthing else is "dirty" or "grainy" somehow. Hard to describe, I should post some screenshots. This subjective appearance is very important to me.

--
Karsten M. Self
SCO -- backgrounder on Caldera/SCO vs IBM
Support the EFF!!
There is no K5 cabal.
[ Parent ]

Opera works well... (3.25 / 4) (#5)
by Nafai on Wed Dec 06, 2000 at 05:55:08 PM EST

I've tried opera on Win32 and really like it. It's REAL zippy, by that I mean you enter in a page and boom-bam-boom, the page is up and you are reading. Neither Netscape or IE have as much responsiveness IMHO.

Older versions of opera didn't handle java very well, but these newer versions handle java well. Also, page rendering has improved as most every page renders itself correctly.

My hope is that Mozilla can eventually reach the same responsivness level as Opera. I don't use Opera as my "main, dedicated" browser because of the price (and now the ad), but it's a very good browser and to many it may be worth the cost.

banner ad (3.38 / 13) (#6)
by molo on Wed Dec 06, 2000 at 06:03:39 PM EST

"for free with banner ad"

This is an oxymoron. The cost is your distraction.

--
Whenever you walk by a computer and see someone using pico, be kind. Pause for a second and remind yourself that: "There, but for the grace of God, go I." -- Harley Hahn

Banner ads and such (none / 0) (#28)
by ucblockhead on Thu Dec 07, 2000 at 12:41:27 PM EST

I've got it loaded right now. The banner ad is on their button bar, and on my screen at least, pretty small. (I do run at 1600x1200 though.) Also, opera doesn't appear to complain when I put WinAmp over it. (Eudora will detect when you cover its ad, but Opera hasn't yet.)

The ad opera puts there is about the same size as the banner ads on most sites, so I really don't see it as much of distraction. Most people have gotten quite good at ignoring ads.

In my case, the minimal "cost" of my distraction is near zero, certainly less than the $40 the software would otherwise cost, so I'm glad to pay it.

-----------------------
This is k5. We're all tools - duxup
[ Parent ]
Opera! (3.33 / 6) (#12)
by Beorn on Thu Dec 07, 2000 at 03:04:09 AM EST

I love Opera. It is the greatest norwegian invention since the cheese cutter.

1. It's fast, small and stable.
2. It uses a Multiple Document Interface. (You can't possibly know how useful this is until you've tried it. I'm having 7 webpages open right now, and I couldn't do without any of them.)
3. It does bookmarks very well.
4. All downloads are shown in a single window.
5. It obeys standards, no questions asked.
..and several other small, but useful inventions that *still* hasn't been copied by the big guys.

On the negative side, Opera Software have been tempted by the dark side to add non-web functionality like e-mail and news. It is also rumoured that they will add an optional SDI mode(!!!) in the near future, for those dinosaur-brainwashed users who find MDI confusing.

And to all you Free-As-In-Beer enthusisasts who complain about the price, and the ads, and the definitely non-GPL license, I have only one thing to say: Screw you.

- Beorn

[ Threepwood '01 ]

hmm.... (2.33 / 3) (#18)
by gregholmes on Thu Dec 07, 2000 at 06:51:48 AM EST

An article on suck. That'll show us.

Have you actually used Mozilla? The latest milestone? Each one just gets better and better.



[ Parent ]
Mozilla (3.50 / 4) (#20)
by Beorn on Thu Dec 07, 2000 at 07:41:31 AM EST

An article on suck. That'll show us. Have you actually used Mozilla? The latest milestone? Each one just gets better and better.

You know, I think skepticism about this project is justified. It shows all the signs of bloatware. By Netscape and IE standards, Mozilla will propably be a good browser, finally liberating Linux from the tyranny of Communicator. But those are pretty low standards, barely raised since 1994.

My attitude towards software is very simple and brutal: Show me the money. How many of Opera's simple&brilliant(tm) UI inventions have been implemented in Mozilla? How many *new* UI features nobody has seen before?

- Beorn

[ Threepwood '01 ]
[ Parent ]

new ui features (2.50 / 2) (#23)
by gregholmes on Thu Dec 07, 2000 at 08:38:20 AM EST

I'm definately going to try Opera now that it is free.

Still, I'm not sure new UI features are necessarily an indicator of success. There is a reason familiar UI features are familiar; either they work very well, or people are very used to them (and therefore, paradoxically, they work very well).

Not to say a new killer UI feature couldn't work; just that it is a huge gamble. I'm developing an application for a non-techie audience now; they definately are not interested in having it work in ways unlike their other desktop software.



[ Parent ]
UI Innovation (4.50 / 4) (#26)
by Beorn on Thu Dec 07, 2000 at 09:40:18 AM EST

Still, I'm not sure new UI features are necessarily an indicator of success. There is a reason familiar UI features are familiar; either they work very well, or people are very used to them (and therefore, paradoxically, they work very well).

Absolutely. I'm talking about subtle changes, unobtrusive features, handy shortcuts. For instance, Opera 5.0 which I just downloaded has a search engine field (Shift-F8) right next to the URL, which by default uses Google. Very simple and esthetic, very practical and easy to use, perfect UI innovation.

This is the kind of focused creativity Microsoft and AOL lacks. IE & Netscape feels like they're written by committees, Opera by a brilliant hacker.

- Beorn

[ Threepwood '01 ]
[ Parent ]

Actually (4.00 / 1) (#27)
by Biff Cool on Thu Dec 07, 2000 at 11:37:05 AM EST

IE 5 has had a search pane in it from the start, and if you install the "power tools" you get a thing called quick search which allows you to create address bar macros

My ass. It's code, with pictures of fish attached. Get over it. --trhurler


[ Parent ]
Not good enough (3.80 / 5) (#29)
by Beorn on Thu Dec 07, 2000 at 12:57:57 PM EST

IE 5 has had a search pane in it from the start,

Yeah, but it isn't done by far as elegantly, and that *matters*. I would never use Explorer's horrible search feature, (which btw is limited to Excite). Opera is to IE as command mode Linux is to MS-DOS.

- Beorn

[ Threepwood '01 ]
[ Parent ]

Nope (4.00 / 1) (#45)
by Biff Cool on Fri Dec 08, 2000 at 12:43:15 PM EST

It's not limited to Excite, there's nine different search engines you can set it for: Altavista, Exctie, Lycos, Northern Light, MSN, Goto, Go, Euroseek, and Yahoo.  Now I'm not trying to defend IE's search I can't stand it (however the power tools thing is kind of nice), I'm just saying it's there.


My ass. It's code, with pictures of fish attached. Get over it. --trhurler


[ Parent ]
MDI sucks (3.00 / 3) (#30)
by delmoi on Thu Dec 07, 2000 at 01:01:04 PM EST

I hate MDI (Multiple document interface), and I don't really see how it could posibly make the browser more usefull. I mean, I have no trouble opening up more then one IE or Mozilla window, just hit ctrl+N. On IE this actualy duplicates the window you already have open so you can surf in multiple directions. Both IE and Netscape have "open link in new window" options when you right click, to.

I don't know of *any* browser that limits you to only one open window. And I much prefer top level windows to those annoying sub-windows. I don't find MDI confusing, I find it ugly and counter-intuative. The reason programs are switching from MDI to SDI is beacuse people simply *don't like* MDI.
--
"'argumentation' is not a word, idiot." -- thelizman
[ Parent ]
Re: MDI sucks, IMHO (4.00 / 1) (#33)
by Kartoffel on Thu Dec 07, 2000 at 01:12:20 PM EST

It uses a Multiple Document Interface. (You can't possibly know how useful this is until you've tried it. I'm having 7 webpages open right now, and I couldn't do without any of them.)

I've tried MDI and while it can be handy, it's also a real pain in the ass.

I've had up to 20 webpages open at a time. I keep them in separate workspaces. This can be done with any windowmanager or OS that gives you multiple workspaces. AFAIK, MacOS and Windows are the only systems still stuck in the stone age with just one desktop. Depending on your setup, you can keep different workspaces at different screen sizes.

MDI is annoying to me because all of the sub-windows in an MDI application are permanently stuck inside the main window. You <u>can't</u> spread stuff out over several desktops because it's all stuck inside one window.

Now, you could maximize the one big window an use the application's own particular interface to simulate switching between multiple workspaces, but not every MDI application can do this elegantly. You're depending on the application provide faux-multiple-workspaces. It's a kludgy attempt to solve a UI problem at the application level, when it really ought to be addressed at the windowmanager/OS level.

[ Parent ]

MDI good, MMDI better (4.33 / 3) (#37)
by Beorn on Thu Dec 07, 2000 at 02:35:13 PM EST

AFAIK, MacOS and Windows are the only systems still stuck in the stone age with just one desktop.

Actually, there's a very handy utility for that in Windows, so that's not why I prefer MDI. It's just practical to have similar functions in one place. I feel no need to convert you from your heathen ways, but personally I find MDI far superior, (although a compromise using several separate MDI's could be better.)

- Beorn

[ Threepwood '01 ]
[ Parent ]

VirtuaWin for Heathens (none / 0) (#44)
by Kartoffel on Fri Dec 08, 2000 at 11:14:46 AM EST

I feel no need to convert you from your heathen ways.

Thanks for the link to VirtuaWin! Looks like a fun utility. We're still forced to use heathen operating systems at the orkplace, this may come in handy ;)

[ Parent ]

Why I don't use Opera (4.00 / 2) (#31)
by Fyndalf on Thu Dec 07, 2000 at 01:04:25 PM EST

I've tried Opera before. I liked it. I was impressed with the way it rendered things, but most especially with its small size and memory footprint.

Unfortunately, the user interface is such that I cannot possibly use it. I have many windows of a wide variety of applications spread out across 4 desktops. I do *not* want all my web browsers congealed together in one window on one desktop. Yuck. Plus, if I want to see anything behind that window, I have to crowd things even more by shrinking it. I much prefer a flurry of 700x700 netscapes scattered liberally with my other apps on my 1152X864 desktops, with logs and irc clients and such peeking out from behind them.

I hope they do an SDI version some time, I would like to support any software company that views "small and fast" as a design goal.



My personal hatred for MDI (4.00 / 1) (#39)
by Nick Ives on Thu Dec 07, 2000 at 03:11:24 PM EST

I cant stand MDI. Its awful. Why anyone would want an MDI web browser is beyond me. My personal preference is to have one desktop devoted to mozilla and just stack fullscreen browser windows on top of each other. Thinking about it a bit more, why anyone would want MDI anything is beyond me.

Whenever I'm in 'doze I use mIRC as my IRC client and I hate it. If anyone knows of an IRC client for 'doze which acts more like irssi then please reply or something to tell me. I like making /query windows in my client sticky so I can take a conversation across desktops with me, when im particularly busy I'll spread all the windows across a couple of desktops and just flick between the two. MDI makes this impossible (or at least very unworkable).

I hate MDI word processers too, for exactly the same reasons I hate MDI IRC clients. I've met some strange people in my time who actually do quite like MDI as an interface, if your out there reading this and thinking "hey, I like MDI too" then your strange too. This rant really doesnt have a place here on K5 or even in this discussion, but I just *really* hate MDI. If you read this far, well, I dont know, I really dont, some people eh? ahwell....

[ Parent ]

Please! I love MDI! (4.00 / 1) (#42)
by DigDug on Fri Dec 08, 2000 at 04:35:15 AM EST

While you may not like MDI, don't be so quick to attach your point of view to others. There are a lot of people out there (me, for example) that love MDI and hate separate browser windows. You may not like that particular way of browsing, but I detest having 50 different IE windows open, which is why I use NetCaptor to do my IE browsing.

For example, I can open 10 news sites, and then open several stories from each in a different window, have them load in parallel, and then read them all. Sure, I can do it with separate windows as well, but they are not nearly as easy to manage.

In NetCaptor (and Opera, if you use Opman) there are little squares that let you know the status of each window. You can easily see which ones you've read and which ones you haven't. Also, it is much easier to switch between windows in an MDI environment. With Opera, I can open a whole folder of bookmarks (those same 10 news sites, for example) and not be afraid to run out of memory or overflowing my taskbar.

I do think that it would be a good idea for Opera to provide the option of working in an SDI environment. I don't think that you need to attack MDI with such zeal and hatred. They are different concepts with different strengths and weaknesses. However, one is not hands-down superior to the other. Please, let's not turn this into another vi/emacs flamewar.

--
Yavista - if you haven't found a nice homepage yet.

[ Parent ]

isn't that still an MDI? (none / 0) (#46)
by Delirium on Fri Dec 08, 2000 at 10:25:15 PM EST

My personal preference is to have one desktop devoted to mozilla and just stack fullscreen browser windows on top of each other.

Isn't this just an MDI by another name? Instead of switching to Mozilla and then switching windows within it, you switch to the Mozilla desktop and then switch windows within that. It's still windows inside of a bigger window (except in your case you call the bigger window a virtual desktop).

[ Parent ]

I was going to say "My condolences". (none / 0) (#48)
by static on Sat Dec 09, 2000 at 04:19:53 AM EST

I find that the MDI of Opera makes it easier to have lots of browser window open. Back before I used Opera, doing this in Netscape simply never occurred to me. I don't do it a great deal, mind, but Mozilla's SDI approach feels somewhat clumsy by comparison.

And unlike yourself, I usually give my web browsing it's own virtual screen in WindowMaker. It's even called "Web". Each to his own, I guess...

Wade.

[ Parent ]

I won't use Opera (2.00 / 3) (#35)
by titivillus on Thu Dec 07, 2000 at 01:36:34 PM EST

I tried Opera on Linux a while ago. It was ~M12, when the Mozilla people were wondering what needed to be done before they could call this alpha. I put Opera beta head to head with Mozilla pre-alpha.

Since then, phrases like "Do you mean 'alpha' like the Opera beta? Or do you mean 'beta', like the Mozilla alpha?" I have a nice, extendable, standards-compliant open source browser at ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/ , and I'm happy with it.



Beta as in Alpha? (none / 0) (#43)
by yojimbo-san on Fri Dec 08, 2000 at 10:24:04 AM EST

An Opera beta around M12 time?

Sounds more like the beta _Technology Preview_, rather than the product. Basically just proving that the product existed, rather than intending to be for real use.

I used M16, got fed up with the speed. Tried Galeon and Skipstone (using M16 gecko), got fed up with the crashing (although Skipstone often recovered very well after a crash). Stuck with NS4 for a stable Java environment. Used Opera for main, still it crashed :-( kfm had it's place, too ...

Now I'm back on a Win desktop for work (for a while) I'm more than happy to use Opera 5 - yes, I do need to use IE for some tasks, but hey - that's pretty much part of the OS, now isn't it? :-)

Quick wafting zephyrs vex bold Jim
[ Parent ]
Try it again, sometime. (none / 0) (#47)
by static on Sat Dec 09, 2000 at 04:14:47 AM EST

The 2nd Beta was much better than the 1st or 2nd and both were much much better than the Technology Preview.

That said, I'm currently using Mozilla nightly 113008 on Linux and it's pretty good. Opera still has some bugs to address. I guess that's why they're still calling it a beta. Then, too, I was one of those some years ago who pledged as much as US$50 to purchase a Linux client. Basically, on Windows, Opera wins hands down almost every time.

Wade, paying Opera user.

[ Parent ]

The coolest "alternative" browser (3.00 / 1) (#41)
by Potsy on Fri Dec 08, 2000 at 12:23:09 AM EST

In my opinion, the coolest "alternative" browser out there is iCab. I'm typing in it right now.

It's a tiny little program (the download is just over 1 megabyte), yet it has support for HTML 4.0, CSS, Javascript, plugins, etc. It's also very standards-compliant. It comes with its own built-in HTML verifier, and has checkboxes in the prefernces dialog that allow it to purposely break its own standards compliance so that pages that contain incorrect HTML but work with IE or Netscape will work with it.

iCab also has some nice filtering capabilities -- it can filter images by URL (doubleclick.com ... gone!) or by size (standard 468x60 banner ad images ... gone!), and it can filter cookies based on URLs or other criteria.

The most amazing part is that it is written by one, yes one person! A German named Alexander Clauss. Overall it's an impressive piece of work.

There's only one drawback ... it's Macintosh-only. But hey, Macs are computers, too!

Opera 5.0 for FREE! | 48 comments (38 topical, 10 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!