Talk:Opera (web browser)/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Kill the Criticisms section

The Criticisms section is just a place where people will spew out POV nonsense (as is evident from the discussion just above this one). The article on Firefox (and Safari for that matter) does not have a criticisms section, so why should Opera? It's not like Opera is the only browser with problems/bugs. -Numbnumb 18:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I'm against Criticism sections or articles, they are original research and troll magnets, and 9 out of 10 cases they are not encyclopedic. -- AdrianTM 19:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

So it seems that people agree with my post from above... :) -Localzuk^(talk) 19:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course, I'm 100% with you on that. -- AdrianTM 19:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I also support removing the Criticisms section GreyWyvern 22:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Get rid of it, it looks an ode to bias!—RadicalSatDude 18:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

This whole article sounds like an advertisement for Opera! ... so if one can have bias one way, shouldn't one have it the other???

Actually, I say there should be a Criticisms section, or page. If Opera doesn't get its own criticism section, the writers will be dismissed as "fanboys." We wouldn't want to compromise our credibility now, would we? At any rate, it'll be fun to compare the size of an Opera criticism section to say, the Firefox or Internet Explorer equivalent.

There are plenty of criticisms for Opera, albeit not so major. For example, Safari passes the Acid2 Test just like Opera, but is somehow much more tolerant and forviging to poorly written websites. Or Opera's screwy IMAP controls. Or that really really annoying way where the right edge of fixed-width pages dissapear when the vertical scrollbar is present.Applesanity 22:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it really puts a negative spin on the article, particularly calling it "Criticisms". If there needs to be an entry about criticisms of Opera, move it to its own page and link to it, don't uglify the rest of the article with it. And as said above, it really isn't fair to have a criticism section without other browsers having it. Either everyone has it, or no one has it. -Ice Ardor 00:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a little bit silly arguing that other articles are bad this one has to be bad either. No, a bad thing never justifies another bad thing. -- AdrianTM 03:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Timeline Merger

The timeline section is already in History of the Opera Browser, I agree that it should be merged and removed from this article. The whole reason for the olrigional split was because to control the size. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Klingoncowboy4 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

I agree. The main article itself is rather long; the timeline contributing a good deal to it's length. Rather than sacrifice quality and information by shortening it, the timeline's purpose is best served as the separate article. Removing it from this article, and merging it with History of the Opera Browser shortens the main article and allows one master timeline to be kept up to date. Twigge 10:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 14:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Death to the Criticism Section

V. 1 - Hmm...where to start? Non-MyOpera forum members are probably wondering and being skeptical about the source I'm quoting and the new format.

First and foremost. 2 main things:

Operafan2006 and me are not related. I have a separate account on MyOpera under the same name as the signed wikipedia account and it just happens that Operafan2006 has a page encouraging users to try Opera. (The footnote link).

That's nice that he's trying to make a page that notes the facts and fictions, but the Myths section looked too close to that particular page to be comfortable with. That's why I removed it as possible copyvio before I read this. --w^{L<speak·check·chill>} 04:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

And #2: I don't know how to put multiple footnotes so I apologize for what happened in the reference link.

It came out as a url in the references section. Not a problem since someone can fix it to our citation ways. --w^{L<speak·check·chill>}

As far as NPOV, I'll let you judge for yourselves. Even though I was quoting a fan of Opera, I tried to remove the POV and most of the myths debunked are general knowledge among veteran Opera users and I'm sure there are better sources that people can find through a quick search. I'm just testing the format out and see what criticisms might there be to the new lay-out.

Somehow the way its laid out makes the section look like either an ad for Opera or an FAQ, both that aren't found in an encyclopedia. Ideally, I would blend the criticisms seamlessly into their topic areas, but there's a lot to work on. -w^{L<speak·check·chill>}

As far as turning the individual myths into sub categories: I was considering whether they should or shouldn't and I went with should.

As I said before, the list looks sloppy, and I would like to see them blended in with the rest of the article. -w^{L<speak·check·chill>}

It seems overkill that the Myth section have more categories now than any other sub category of Opera but when I think of how much damage the myths have caused already like there are still people believing that there are ads in Opera; maybe just maybe the myths are necessary to be highlighted in such an easy to spot way rather than just including words like ad-free in certain areas for the sake of better informing the reader.

After all, almost all reader would know this fact from asking about it in the MyOpera forums and checking multiple review sites of Opera but somehow there are still people believing some of the myths in Opera ---Trailing 21:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion for Reorganizing the Features Section

The Features list, I think, is getting long and unorganized. It seems the only structure it has is alphabetical. I'm suggesting a format, much like the way the Opera page lists its own features in Opera Features Something like this:

• New Features for Opera 9.x
  • Bittorent, widgets, thumbnail preview, site preferences, shortcut searching, etc
• Browsing Tools
  • Mouse gestures, notes, keyboard shortcuts, fast forward, sessions, etc
• Security Features
  • TLS 1.0, private data
• Email/Chat Client
• Customization
  • .ini access, drag and drop buttons
• Accessibility
  • user style sheets, voice, zooming
• Standards Support and Web Development
  • W3C Validation, info panel
• Misc Features

I know organizing the features section like this is verging on an all-out advertisement for Opera, but I think, it can be done with NPOV, and thereby making a more logically organized "features" section. Unless, the entire Features section should be moved to its own page.

There already is the Features of the Opera Browser. I would suggest implementing the above on that page and heavily trimming the section here. Ideally the end result would be a paragraph or two describing Opera's main features on this article, and a much more in depth article at Features of the Opera Browser. You can always move content that is not duplicated across to the specific article. There is already a 'main article' link at the top of the Features section to dirext people to the right place. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 11:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I've begun re-organizing the Features page. It's going to need a lot of clean-up, but at least now the flow of the page is more understandable. I've also removed some of the non-vital information from the features section of this page to the actual Features of the Opera Browser page.Applesanity 01:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

AON, I still think this section is way too long, particularly regarding The Other Article. Not sure what it should be cut down to, but if there's a more detailed reference in The Other Article then link to that? _> MonstaPro:Talk 14:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The swedish chef!

We should mention the Bork version of opera. [1] Mathmo ^Talk 04:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Bring Back the Criticisms Section

With careful monitoring and even more careful fact-checking, I believe that it can be done with NPOV. Opera is not perfect. Opera does receive criticism. All we have to is to watch out for the Firefox fanboys. Did you know that they bury and ban any user who posts www.firefoxmyths.com on Digg? A section that covers the cons of the Opera internet suite will level out this article, bring in some objectivism, increase credibility, and is a better approach than having this information scattered throughout. Plus, we can dispel some myths. Applesanity 04:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Real Criticisms about Opera

• Strange behavior with IMAP controls in the mail client
• Lack of tolerance with poorly-written pages (compared to say, Safari 2.x)
• Ads (old versions) - which, I think, seriously hurt potential Opera market share after Firefox was released
• Inconsistent scrollbar behavior with fixed-width pages
• It's proprietary

Lets not forget the inability to write HTML email with M2. Kc4 16:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

False Criticisms about Opera

• Opera Features are bloatware
• Opera is not the fastest, most secure browser
• No extensions
• It's totally proprietary

That's a really bad idea. Please introduce in the article everything that's relevant, having a "Criticism" section attracts original research and poor quality contributions and of course POV pushing -- AdrianTM 04:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Put the criticisms where they are relevant and not in one troll magnet section.-Localzuk^(talk) 18:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, beside the idea that criticism sections are bad in general I forgot to add this: the criticism itself has to be notable to be included into an Encyclopedia, not some fanboyish complains like: "Opera doesn't do [...], while IE or Firefox does". For example in the case of IE criticism section or even a separate page is OKish because criticism against IE or Microsoft products in general is rather notable and pervasive (it has large percentage of the OS and browser market and the browser cames preinstalled and cannot be actually removed), who cares if a product with 1% of the market is criticized, it's not like anyone is forced to use it.... if the product has downsides, fine, those should be mentioned, but inside the article, in the right place. Example: it is mentioned in introduction that Opera is a proprietary program, why have another section to complain about that (besides it's debatable if that's a downside, so it should be presented in a no-POV manner: info vs. advocacy) same thing about extensions, there's a section about that in the article, why duplicate that in other side of the article? Ads? There are no ads anymore, why talk about ancient version as criticism, at most present that in the history section. "Strange behaviour" and "inconsistencies" should be placed in the apropriate sections if they are encyclopedic enough to be mentioned. That's pretty much all the I can say about the issue at hand.... -- AdrianTM 23:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I suppose the majority has got me beat. Fair enough. You guys make valid points. I just get the feeling (irrationally or otherwise) that even though the article is great and fact-checked, it seems unbalanced. At any rate, I'm glad I put my opinion on the talk page first, instead of writing a whole section on the actual article, and getting yelled at. Sorry about putting this part first, and not at the bottom of the page. Didn't know the convention.Applesanity 05:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes the criticisms section should be brought back, and so should it be on all other browser articles as well. This is meant to be an encyclopedia so we really should provide both sides of the story. Quote:"Did you know that they bury and ban any user who posts www.firefoxmyths.com on Digg?" The reason they do that is because one person (who has many alternate accounts) keeps spamming that site not only at Digg but at many other forums and blogs. The criticisms on that site are outdated anyway. Mvent2 06:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Having just come back to look at the Opera page after a little while I am pleased how good it looks now that the criticisms section has been removed. As pointed out above most of the 'criticisms' constantly heard about Opera are 'false' and even those which are not are irrelevant for most people. WP should always stick to stating the facts and leave people to make up their own mind - with the current version they may well say 'OK, I'll give it a try, can't see any reason not to use it'. Dsergeant 15:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. Criticism sections should be only in articles about art, Opera (despite its name) is just software. -- AdrianTM 12:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, what exactly are you referring to when you say "Opera is not totally proprietary"? I don't neccessarily dispute the truth of that, but it's very vague. Has Opera released some source code at some point of which I was not aware? It should be noted this is a subject on which I am somewhat ignorant. 68.150.226.191 08:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Whom do you quote? Of course Opera is proprietary. If you deduced that from "False criticism" let me tell you that's not me who wrote that, somebody didn't sign their post, is useless to ask what do they meant if they don't sign their contribution, I usually just ignore this kind of posts. -- AdrianTM 12:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. 68.150.226.191 19:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The argument that "having a "Criticism" section attracts original research and poor quality contributions and of course POV pushing" is pretty dumb, it could be sai that "Wikipeida attracts original research and poor quality contributions and of course POV pushing", just because a section can be abused, doesnt mean the section shouldnt exist. Dopping the critism section smacks of fanboyism by the opera using editors of this page.--82.35.192.193 (talk) 06:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

This article currently places a distinct positive spin on Opera. 90.128.37.21 (talk) 22:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Merlin information

"Merlin is the current code base used for version 9.0, 9.1 and 9.2. It will see only minor feature improvements (one announced for 9.2 which, according to the Opera developers, hasn’t been included in desktop browsers so far; Speed Dialing) and mostly bugfixes. After 9.2, it will no longer be used."

With the release of version 9.2 this is no longer future development. Kc4 16:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

1996 Software

I see User:Snesfm has added the article to Category:1996 software. Since 1996 was just the release date of the first public version and there were earlier development versions since 1994 I suggest this is rather clutching at straws. Certainly since the only other program in that category is Windows NT... Dsergeant 12:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Differences between Classic Installer, English (US) 4.0 MB and English (US) 4.7 MB (at current version 9.21)

I am trying to work out what the differences are between these two versions listed on the download page (for 9.20 upgraders). It would be nice if this info could go into the article (as that is what I come to Wikipedia for!) as I can't seem to find an answer anywhere else!? Regards, Mattjs 04:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The classic installer uses the original installer developed by Opera and used for all versions prior to v9. Since then they have also offered new versions which incorporate the MS Windows Installer which offers a few more options on install. Multilanguage versions are only available in the Windows Installer version. The browser itself is identical, only the installation package is different. If you only want the English version then the Classic installer is perfectly adequate. You must use the other version on Vista though. You can find more information on the my.opera.com forums. Dsergeant 07:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Helpful answer -- thank you!!-68.236.103.195 17:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

MHTML support

Has anyone tried to save various pages as MHT file? I heard about some problems with scripts but I would be satisfied if it saves images problem-free (not like IE 7). 84.173.229.233 11:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

P.S.: MHTML allows to save a HTML page with all images and other stuff in one file. 84.173.229.233 12:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I tried saving a few MSDN articles (with the left TOC). When I reopened, Opera's processor usage spiked to 100% and stayed there till I force-killed the process. When opened in IE, half the page rendered. I had to open in Word and extract the text to use. Later I figured out a simpler solution: disabling scripts opened the files perfectly in both browsers. I wont recomment Opera for MHT files, IE7 is much better in at least this respect. Though others may have varying mileage. --soum ^talk 17:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your valuable comment! I wonder whether this script thing is exactly speficied in the correspondent RFC. 84.173.229.233 07:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Nintendo DS

A section on the Opera Browser for Nintendo DS/Lite states "Available for Nintendo DS and Nintendo DS Lite is an Opera version that comes on a regular DS game card, but with an additional Game Boy Advance cartridge for extra memory that can be plugged into the DS's 2nd port." The correct term would be "Nintendo DS Option Pack" as the memory expansion is not comaptible with the Game Boy Advance.Chugger1992 16:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Recursion

How did you manage the recursion in the jpeg? (the picture of the same page viewed through opera?); I can't get my head around it.

which toolkit libs?

Is it GTK-based, or Qt, or wxWidgets? Inquiring nerds wanna know (then we'll have a religious war on whether it is lightweight/efficient or not. You game?). If it said so in the article, then you have my apology. Or not, depending on where it was.
--Jerome Potts 18:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

QT.

The Linux downloads used to have Static/Dynamic QT versions. Although it now has a certain amount of GTK stuff in it for compatibility with Mozilla plugins etc.

--ledow 18:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Market adoption

Also, a number of Linux distributions have made Opera available through their package management systems. Ubuntu and Gentoo, for example, allow users to easily download and install Opera through their respective package managers.

This paragraph is out of context in the "Market adoption" section.--190.66.146.238 04:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

How so? The fact that Opera, which is proprietary software, is offered in the application catalog of some free Linux distributions is quite significant. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 05:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Some Linux distributions offer non-free programs (such as Flash, Adobe Reader, and others) that's not really notable. -- AdrianTM 05:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the fact that a proprietary application with such a tiny market share (far, far less than Flash or Adobe Reader) has found a foothold in the Linux world deserves mention. I think we can spare two sentences to note this detail. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 05:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Availability in Linux distribution repositories does not imply it is widely used among users of those distributions. Hence, it does not imply market adoption. Also, it is too much distribution specific. Finally, Opera has been available for Linux for so long before net repositories became so popular.--190.66.158.5 21:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

No, Opera's inclusion in the application catalog does not indicate high market share among Linux users, but it does show a high enough demand for Opera to justify including it in the catalog. Opera has been available for Linux for a very long time, but here we see Linux actually embracing it a bit. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 22:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

To me this sounds a little bit like an interpretation and hence it's a little bit of "original research", it also doesn't sound like encyclopedic info, distros can add or drop programs at any time. But do as you consider better... -- AdrianTM 22:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The "Opera market share by version" table seems to be all wrong. I fixed the link to the source, as the link was to usage share for search engines, not browsers. After checking the numbers in the table, they do not agree with the source at all. Could someone clarify where the numbers in the table came from? -- Schapel 15:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

You're right. It's very weird. I can't find these numbers at all on their site anymore. I think it makes the http://marketshare.hitslink.com source not reliable at all.--Fenring 16:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

That's odd. We've been adding NetApplications/Hitslink information to the usage share of web browsers and Mozilla Firefox articles (both market share by browser and market share by version) for quite some time, and I've never seen a problem with suddenly not being able to find the same numbers. I'll go ahead and change the numbers to match, and we'll see if they mysteriously change. -- Schapel 17:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, maybe we've been using NetApplications numbers for some time. But today, it seems they have some inconsistencies. I don't know where the problem lies, but anyway we should remove these numbers until they fix the issue. They publish claims that are not verifiable, even on their own website. Lack of accuracy and reliability. NetApplications is making itself a questionable source. --Fenring (talk) 19:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The statement "These estimates depend on user agent strings, and may be low, as Opera is often configured to identify itself as a different browser to work around poorly coded web sites." about usage share is misleading, as Opera still contains the string "Opera" in the user agent string when it identifies itself as another browser. This is the spoofing used most often, and it doesn't seem to fool the major browser stats. When it masks itself as another browser there is no reference to Opera. This spoofing probably fools the browser stats, but it is used for very few sites. Therefore, Opera's identifying itself as another browser is unlikely to significantly affect browser stats. I'd like to see a reliable source cited to support this statement. -- Schapel 16:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. There is no statistics about the usage of u-a masking in Opera. I'd simply remove the word 'often'. --Fenring 16:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok I see you've removed the word 'often'. Good. But you introduced "[estimates] may be slightly low". I'd like to see a reliable source cited to support the word "slightly". --Fenring 23:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Fine, I've removed the world "slightly". —Remember the dot ^(talk) 23:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I see that someone has removed the OneStat source and reinstated the W3Schools source because "it is the best we've got now that the other web site we're using seems to be giving low estimates for Opera." W3Schools is not the best we've got. We have several sources for global usage share that state Opera's usage is around 0.6%. W3Schools stats are for their own server only, and by their own admission, the people who visit their site "are more interested in using alternative browsers than the average user," which would cause Opera to be overcounted. W3Schools' stats should not be used as a source of "Opera's overall global share of the browser market." -- Schapel 18:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't actually remove the OneStat source. In any case, I've removed the W3Schools source again and put in a more reliable one. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 18:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Another problem with references is that Browser JavaScript Explained is used as a source to support the statement "Opera sometimes identifies itself as a different browser to work around poorly designed web sites." The problem is that browser JavaScript, as explained by the source, does not cause Opera to identify itself as a different browser. Instead, it modifies the site's code so that it works in Opera. This modification shouldn't affect any browser stats. -- Schapel 18:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Good point, that particular page really doesn't go into changing the user-agent string. I've changed the reference to this page instead: [2]. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 21:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The new reference does talk about changing the user agent string, and does verify that Opera identifies itself as a different browser to some sites. On the other hand, it doesn't seem to say anything about estimates of Opera usage being low because of it. In my experience, Opera still includes "Opera" in the UA string unless it masks itself as another browser, and the masking is done for only a few very sites by default. The browser stats sites seem to be able to accurately detect Opera even when it's identifying itself as another browser, and therefore Opera is not undercounted significantly because of the feature. I think this article should be like all other browser articles and simply state the reported browser stats, without saying that they may or may not be over or under counted. -- Schapel 00:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It's all right with me if you remove that statement, but Samsara might be upset. Samsara said "Opera masquerading as other browsers for website compatibility is important to mention, as this affects estimates of market share." So, do as you see fit. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 01:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not alright with me if you remove the statement. You can find a huge amount of sources (should I replace the reference by this one ?) that explain (isn't it obvious anyway ?) how Opera's masquerading may affect statistics. It's a fact. Though, by definition, we can't evaluate how it scales. How many users turned IE masking on by default ? Maybe a lot. But we really don't know. All we had to do is get rid of all the PoV like 'often' and 'slightly'. And it's done. --Fenring 11:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Come up with one good, definitive source (the one you just gave is just someone's personal blog, which is no better than a forum post because it is a self-published source) that says Opera is undercounted because of its user agent spoofing, and you may put that information in the article. -- Schapel (talk) 13:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

There are these ones: [3] [4] [5]. But while I read the article again, I finally find it better without the sentence. Instead of insisting on ua-spoofing, maybe we should simply say that these statistics accuracy (especially with so low numbers) is "questionable", "questioned", or "controversial". What do you all think ? --Fenring (talk) 19:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Those all look like self-published sources. They also describe how the number of page views for each browser may be overcounted or undercounted, but that does not mean the number of visitors, which usage share is based upon, will be overcounted or undercounted. I think it makes the most sense to say that Opera's usage share is about 1%. That gives a number with one significant digit and includes the word about, which tells the reader there's quite a bit of uncertainty in the measurement. The number 1% agrees to one significant digit with all the sources given, so is easily verifiable. And whether the number is undercounted or overcounted somewhat, it's still about 1%. We can all agree, and the reader can readily verify, that Opera's global overall usage share is about 1%, right? Let's not make it more complicated than it needs to be. -- Schapel (talk) 14:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree. It'll make the article easier to keep up to date, too. --Fenring (talk) 14:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)