main
Report a problem

Opera promises faster surfing with new browser

Daniel Fleshbourne   on 10 October 2008 - 15:29 · 47 comments & 14210 views

Advertisement (Why?)
Opera Software, which is battling hard for market share with Google's Chrome, is promising users a faster surfing experience, an improved email client, and better browser-synchronisation capabilities, with the latest version of its browser launched this week. bThe Norwegian developer says that Opera 9.6 contains an expanded Opera Link. This means that users can more easily use their personal browsing identities on any computer. Essentially, it synchronizes a user's browser history, bookmarks and personal bar.

Opera has also tweaked its built-in email client, Opera Mail, with a feature designed for users stuck with a slow broadband connection. The email client's "low-bandwidth mode" allows users to retrieve mails faster when bandwidth is limited. Opera Mail also contains a new feature that will help users swamped with email overload, as the email client now has two new ways to prioritize emails, so that users can easily (with a single click apparently), track important threads, and ignore less important ones.

View: The full story @ PCWorld

Post a comment · Send to friend Comments · There are 47 additional comments
#1 +Minimoose on 10 Oct 2008 - 15:34
Downloading now, I hope it is faster.
(1 reply) #2 +chaosblade on 10 Oct 2008 - 15:51
Faster than what, Though. I'd rather say they can't compare to WebKit.
#2.1 +Minimoose on 10 Oct 2008 - 18:30
Faster than 9.5, unless that was just my computer. 9.6 seems to run a lot better for me.
(2 replies) #3 xfodder on 10 Oct 2008 - 16:33
opera is getting faster ... i just wish they would update that ugly icon ...
#3.1 Skyfrog on 10 Oct 2008 - 16:34
Me too, all I can think of when I see it is Overstock.com
#3.2 Magallanes on 10 Oct 2008 - 16:50
Or Oprah.
(3 replies) #4 duntkno on 10 Oct 2008 - 16:37
it sounds nice, but who actually uses an email client, gmail is pefect enough for me. i do wanna try out the browser tho
#4.1 vetbangbang023 on 10 Oct 2008 - 17:13
I use an email client (Thunderbird) so I can access all of my email accounts in one convenient location as opposed to visiting five different websites.
#4.2 Ledgem on 10 Oct 2008 - 17:14
I use Opera as my email client. I have about four email accounts that are all actively used, so this saves me the time of logging into each one separately. I also like to have offline copies of my messages. I don't believe that everyone operates the same way that I do, but I wanted to put it out there that there is definitely a place for email clients.
#4.3 +Shadrack on 10 Oct 2008 - 22:01
(bangbang023 said @ #4.1)
I use an email client (Thunderbird) so I can access all of my email accounts in one convenient location as opposed to visiting five different websites.


Yup. Most people have at least 2 email accounts. I've got four email accounts (personal, spam, shadrack, work) that I want to keep up with at work and at home. IMAP FTW. Too bad Outlook's IMAP sucks. Thunderbird and Opera mail have excellent imap support.
(6 replies) #5 Richardarkless on 10 Oct 2008 - 16:43
I hope they manage to make the memory usage less because so far I have seen k-meleon is the most lightest, does anyone else have lighter web browsers and agree that we dont need a email client
#5.1 Magallanes on 10 Oct 2008 - 16:50
Opera.exe (latest) : 12.5m (brand new).
iexplorer 7.0: 30.6m
firefox.exe (3.0) : 67m (using some plugins).
Safari.exe (latest): 82m (brand new with the latest webkit)

So at first view eat less resource.


#5.2 Skynetfuture on 10 Oct 2008 - 17:08
memory huh

who cares it is like memory is expensive this days
#5.3 Skyfrog on 10 Oct 2008 - 17:17
When considering the amount of RAM today's PCs have, all of those are negligible though. You cannot judge a browser's performance based on the amount of memory it's using, especially when they use such a tiny amount. The one using the most memory could actually be much faster than any of the others. RAM is there to be used after all, and if you are running low because a program is using 30MB then your PC has some serious issues. In short, it doesn't matter. The speed of the rendering engine is what's important, and it has nothing to do with how much RAM it's using.
#5.4 DJ-Light on 10 Oct 2008 - 17:29
(Skyfrog said @ #5.3)
When considering the amount of RAM today's PCs have, all of those are negligible though. You cannot judge a browser's performance based on the amount of memory it's using, especially when they use such a tiny amount. The one using the most memory could actually be much faster than any of the others. RAM is there to be used after all, and if you are running low because a program is using 30MB then your PC has some serious issues. In short, it doesn't matter. The speed of the rendering engine is what's important, and it has nothing to do with how much RAM it's using.


Alfin!! someone with brain!!
#5.5 +Shadrack on 10 Oct 2008 - 22:18
(Skyfrog said @ #5.3)
When considering the amount of RAM today's PCs have, all of those are negligible though. You cannot judge a browser's performance based on the amount of memory it's using, especially when they use such a tiny amount. The one using the most memory could actually be much faster than any of the others. RAM is there to be used after all, and if you are running low because a program is using 30MB then your PC has some serious issues. In short, it doesn't matter. The speed of the rendering engine is what's important, and it has nothing to do with how much RAM it's using.


Except for in cases of MMORPGS that need to coexist with your web browser XD.
#5.6 +Dakkaroth on 11 Oct 2008 - 03:00
(Shadrack said @ #5.5)
(Skyfrog said @ #5.3)
When considering the amount of RAM today's PCs have, all of those are negligible though. You cannot judge a browser's performance based on the amount of memory it's using, especially when they use such a tiny amount. The one using the most memory could actually be much faster than any of the others. RAM is there to be used after all, and if you are running low because a program is using 30MB then your PC has some serious issues. In short, it doesn't matter. The speed of the rendering engine is what's important, and it has nothing to do with how much RAM it's using.


Except for in cases of MMORPGS that need to coexist with your web browser XD.


I know you're just messin' around, but my computer's 4 years old running on 1.5GB DDR RAM. WoW with many addons, settings on high, WMP11 going, and Firefox with several addons as well... it still runs very decently. Could add the few applications as well that run in the background, but I think my point stands clear that it's still not much of an issue.

Just thought I'd make that a little clear in the concerns for memory consumption.
(1 reply) #6 Faisal Islam on 10 Oct 2008 - 17:45
Opera hangs & crash more thn any browser. it sucks
#6.1 Juan4Ever on 10 Oct 2008 - 19:04
i am sorry to say the problem seems to be only in your pc. Not a single crash in my PIII800 with 768MB of ram.
#7 +Smigit on 10 Oct 2008 - 17:51
Glad synchronisation has hit a mainstream browser. Been using the Foxmarks plugin with firefox to achieve the same in regards to bookmarks for some time now.
(1 reply) #8 thealexweb on 10 Oct 2008 - 18:14
Sigh slower than Firefox for me.
#8.1 ramik on 15 Oct 2008 - 07:58
That depends on your machine, but i didn't feel that Firefox is slow till i tried Opera last week, while my firefox 3 (with my 15-20 essential plugins) load and start getting responsive in no less than 15-20 seconds, opera is ready upon clicking its icon !!!

but unfortunately, Firefox has much of those nice plugins that opera doesn't have, so i guess i have to stay with Firefox for now...
(1 reply) #9 2Cold Scorpio on 10 Oct 2008 - 18:16
It really does seem faster. I've liked Opera for quite a while now, much more so than FireFox 2 or 3.

...And why is Opera having to battle with Chrome? Chrome is a POS browser in comparison.
#9.1 +Smigit on 10 Oct 2008 - 18:24
The chrome thins IMHO is a bit unfair atm given Googles a big name and much of it's useage currently is probably people just testing the waters rather than some consistent level of usage at the moment. That said, regardless of the quality of chrome for better or worse it does come with a lot more brand recognition than Opera in the wider market and it could be a difficult battle for them given they have had to sit behind other browsers for so long as it is.
#10 Juan4Ever on 10 Oct 2008 - 19:15
this version gets one point more in the acid3 test than the 9.5 version. It is not a reason that matters for a change from your favorite browser to Opera anyway
#11 shakey_snake on 10 Oct 2008 - 20:09
*yawn*

How's this any different than what any other version of Opera promises?
Not to say they don't deliver on that promise, but this doesn't really seem like front page news.
#12 solardog on 10 Oct 2008 - 20:15
Opera has always been the fastest broszer for me. Response time out of the gates its the clear winner. The new Firefox has pulled up even with Opera's surf speed...IMOIMOIMO xxoxoxx0...oops
(3 replies) #13 john0877 on 10 Oct 2008 - 21:13
can Opera's email client connect to hotmail as well as gmail or is it strictly POP3? if it can connect to hotmail i might consider it since im seeing thunderbird with only webmail plugin sitting here using upwards of 288mb ram O.o thats outrageious.
#13.1 rm20010 on 11 Oct 2008 - 03:53
POP3 and IMAP only.
#13.2 / -Razorfold on 11 Oct 2008 - 04:32
(rm20010 said @ #13.1)
POP3 and IMAP only.


Hotmail has a pop3 address too for subscribers
#13.3 john0877 on 11 Oct 2008 - 04:37
(/ -Razorfold said @ #13.2)
(rm20010 said @ #13.1)
POP3 and IMAP only.


Hotmail has a pop3 address too for subscribers

is it possible for a subscriber to give a non-subscriber that address to use or would it not authenticate ?
(1 reply) #14 IntelliMoo on 11 Oct 2008 - 04:35
This thing support real extensions yet?
#14.1 john0877 on 11 Oct 2008 - 04:38
(IntelliMoo said @ #14)
This thing support real extensions yet?

no extensions im aware of and its closed source.

you can however get some sort of extension-like functionality with use of UserJS.
#15 Mav Phoenix on 11 Oct 2008 - 04:52
You have to hand it to them for hanging in there all these years. Go Opera!
#16 GFree678 on 11 Oct 2008 - 07:38
Bah, I don't even use a web browser. I just wget the HTML and parse through it myself.
#17 cork1958 on 11 Oct 2008 - 09:23
To many websites simply don't work in Opera for me to use it anymore. Always was my default browser since version 5 something up until they hit version 9 series. To herky jerky anymore when surfing the net too.

A known bug ever since version 9 also is when you change the default max global views in the opera ini file, half your browsing simply stops. I HATE having a back dropdown button that shows eith million previously viewed pages.

http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=80858
Max Window History Lines=10
Max Direct History Lines=10
Max Global History Lines=10

Do still install it on many machines though. Still think it's the fastest, most secure browser of them all though, especially with the default settings.
(1 reply) #18 LaXu on 11 Oct 2008 - 13:08
I stopped using Opera at 9.5 because it was released very half baked. 9.6 seems better but it still can't work its way back to my list. Opera was great before Firefox 3 was released but now you can get pretty much all the nice features from Opera for Firefox as plugins so the only benefit it has is that it's got faster rendering and more responsive UI (apparently that will also change with FF3.1).

What I don't like about Opera is that it's kind of a closed ecosystem. No external RSS reader support for example and getting it to work with external programs can sometimes be more difficult than it should be. The amount of little annoyances that have been around for several versions are the reason why I no longer use it. It also doesn't help that Opera seems to have more problems showing websites right than Chrome, it seems Opera is more strict about correct markup.
#18.1 PF Prophet on 15 Oct 2008 - 05:00
opera has a built in rss/news reader, so you dont need to grab an external program for that.

part of why opera is the most secure browser, unlike FF it dosnt have alot of external plugins/extentions that can make it insecure and unstable.

and 9.5 first run was rushed out, they effectivly admited that much, if you want to stay on top of the latist build of opera try

http://my.opera.com/community/forums/forum.dml?id=31

watch that section, they do weekly builds when a new builds in the works (most of the time)

I have rarely had a site that opera wont load in, and most times thats been due to my own "oops" with stuff i have done.

one peice of advice i have for everybody is to check operas forums(linked above) when you have a question or find a bug, the community is VERY helpfull as are the programers/staff of opera, honestly i see that little red O and smile because its been the best browser i have ever used.

ff1/2/3 all have alot of issues that bother me, so much so that i rarely open FF other then the current alpha to use the APNG creator, Chrome to me is handy and nice, i use it for flash conten since it honestly gives the best perf in flash content of any browser PERIOD(check the perf numbers, chrome main installs arent tops but I run nightly builds of Chromium and they work great for some jobs where no other browser really cuts it(InstantAction runs under Chrome FAR better then under any other browser!!!)
#19 Skynetfuture on 11 Oct 2008 - 13:14
faster the better .... but i hope the don't compromise security for speed
#20 Bri- on 11 Oct 2008 - 19:37
Firefox will always be "the other browser," with Opera trailing behind. The "other, other" browser still doesn't offer me anything I can't get somewhere else and I can't think of one person that actually uses it on a daily basis. It's still nice to see alternatives, I guess.
#21 +Shadrack on 11 Oct 2008 - 22:45
I've been using 9.6 for the past hour or so. I've tried a bunch of different web sites. Everything seems very zippy on my system indeed. The mouse gesters are really nicely implimented as well as the "speeddial" page. I think I'll be using this instead of Firefox 3 for awhile. Firefox 3 seemed to crash on me more often than v1 or 2 ever did. Lets see how Opera compares.
(3 replies) #22 john0877 on 12 Oct 2008 - 01:48
one big advantage over Firefox it has though is way more efficient memory use. more importantly IT DOESNT LEAK MEMORY lol
ive NEVER seen Opera using 300-400mb ram for a couple pages that arent even YouTube pages.
after this long in the game there should be no reason why it should be sitting idel and just soak up the RAM usage likea sponge leaving none for other programs. Thunderbird is the same way. ANNOYING
#22.1 +M2Ys4U on 12 Oct 2008 - 02:23
guess what? Firefox doesn't leak memory either!

Using lots of RAM != memory leak.

Besides, Firefox 3.0.x hasn't hit 300 MB for me unless it's been open for a couple of days.
#22.2 john0877 on 12 Oct 2008 - 02:54
(M2Ys4U said @ #22.1)
guess what? Firefox doesn't leak memory either!

Using lots of RAM != memory leak.

Besides, Firefox 3.0.x hasn't hit 300 MB for me unless it's been open for a couple of days.

i leave opera open as long as my computer is running and that gets to be weeks at a time, it releases memory when it isnt needed unlike firefox and thunderbird.
so youre saying that with two text based sites open like forums that theres a totally logical reason for the browser to use 200-300 mb ram ? i dont think so. it should be like 20-30.
#22.3 MR_Candyman on 12 Oct 2008 - 07:01
Srry to tell you this +M2Ys4U but firefox leaks memory like CRAZY. It is the primary reason I switched to Opera in the first place. No matter how many new versions would come out it would never get resolved. This was causing problems for me as there was times it was using almost all of my 4 gigs of ram with 1 or 2 tabs open.

I have had none of thoe memory problems running Opera since 9.5.0. Since switching I have also realized it is simply a better browser all around anyways.
#23 soldier1st on 12 Oct 2008 - 07:14
opera is still awesome to use and opera memory usage does not matter,if an app needs the memory opera will back off.opera for me usualy is around 500MB but then i got plenty of tabs(like 50 or more)but then i got tons of memory availible for use and opera is making use of it like it's sposed too.google chrome is horrible but it is beta still.
#24 tsupersonic on 12 Oct 2008 - 15:14
It's amazing how even on an internet2 connection, you can tell the "speed difference" among browsers. I find IE to be the slowest. Firefox and Google Chrome get swept by Opera. Opera is the fastest browser on a few OC3 connections. It uses less resources, but sometimes it doesn't render pages correctly.

Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!

Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.

Advertisement (Why?)