Recommended Posts

If you wonder whether it's only Opera that becomes Chrome:

Firefox-Menu-on-Windows-en-US-600x454.pn

I don't care if it's getting like chrome, Australis brought a tons of UX enhancements and the only downside, to me, are curvy tabs which can be easily removed with a userstyle. If Chrome got something right I don't see why others shouldn't copy it, as Chrome took something from others as well.

Edit - quoted the wrong post

This may interest some people that thought Opera was the best thing ever happened to internet..including me :)

 

 

Otter Browser
Web browser controlled by the user, not vice-versa

About

Otter Browser, project aiming to recreate classic Opera (12.x) UI using Qt5.

Official forum at The DnD Sanctuary

IRC channels: #otter-browser (main, international) #otter-browser-pl (polski / Polish) at freenode.net

 

 

http://otter-browser.org/

Like all such projects, byt the time they get anywhere Opera will be back where it was and then some and they'll still be stuck in 2010...it's the unfortunate truth of such projects. To much work to make something like Opera for a small group of hobby coders to get anywhere. 

Like all such projects, byt the time they get anywhere Opera will be back where it was and then some and they'll still be stuck in 2010...it's the unfortunate truth of such projects. To much work to make something like Opera for a small group of hobby coders to get anywhere. 

 

You could be right, but they already made immense progress in four months since the browser's inception, so I will certainly be watching the development with eagerness.

Well I think opera was not very popular compared to Firefox or IE and then Chome came along and basically pulled any share that Opera had out from under them, other than the diehard Presto Opera users, like me but eventually I found myself with compatibility issues with some websites using Opera, and with web developers not supporting Opera that much, I think they had no choice but to change to Chromium.

If you wonder whether it's only Opera that becomes Chrome:

 

Firefox-Menu-on-Windows-en-US-600x454.pn

Have you actually used the new Firefox theme? I have - I switched my default browser to Firefox 29 beta this weekend. And am pleasantly surprised - the UI works well (inspired by Chrome or not), and the browser itself is as fast as Chrome.

  • Like 1

Like all such projects, byt the time they get anywhere Opera will be back where it was and then some and they'll still be stuck in 2010...it's the unfortunate truth of such projects. To much work to make something like Opera for a small group of hobby coders to get anywhere. 

I think that's the real reason they moved to make Opera a blink based browser. They no longer have to divert their development effort into developing a rendering or javascript engine, can leave huge chunks of the development effort behind, and instead focus strictly on the features that differentiate Opera from other browsers. In many ways, it is a smart move when you realize that most users of Opera probably weren't there for the Presto engine anyway.

Well I think opera was not very popular compared to Firefox or IE and then Chome came along and basically pulled any share that Opera had out from under them, other than the diehard Presto Opera users, like me but eventually I found myself with compatibility issues with some websites using Opera, and with web developers not supporting Opera that much, I think they had no choice but to change to Chromium.

Chrome never took Opera users, opera users have been stead and growing in numbers, even it's marketshare was fairly stable in the ever growing browser market. 

I think that's the real reason they moved to make Opera a blink based browser. They no longer have to divert their development effort into developing a rendering or javascript engine, can leave huge chunks of the development effort behind, and instead focus strictly on the features that differentiate Opera from other browsers. In many ways, it is a smart move when you realize that most users of Opera probably weren't there for the Presto engine anyway.

 

Well focusing on just the browser and not the engine frees up a lot of resources. 

I always used Opera as my second browser after IE, with IE11 though I have been using Opera less and less.  The version of Opera I have installed right now is even pretty old, v12 iirc, so it's before the engine switch.  I guess it's a shame as far as competition goes, now we're just down to 3 engines, trident, webkit and blink.   Sure blink is a offshoot of webkit but it's forked off into it's own thing from what I understand.

I always used Opera as my second browser after IE, with IE11 though I have been using Opera less and less.  The version of Opera I have installed right now is even pretty old, v12 iirc, so it's before the engine switch.  I guess it's a shame as far as competition goes, now we're just down to 3 engines, trident, webkit and blink.   Sure blink is a offshoot of webkit but it's forked off into it's own thing from what I understand.

I'm counting four web browser engines - Trident, Gecko, WebKit and Blink. Mozilla isn't dead yet...

I'm counting four web browser engines - Trident, Gecko, WebKit and Blink. Mozilla isn't dead yet...

 

Oh, you're right, lolz, I could never get used to FF, I've tried it at times and always go back to IE.  It just feels off to me and I don't care about extensions and so on, never used them and have no need to.

I so hate Opera for using chrome engine for their browser. Goddamn do i hate the new password management system, the bookmark system and everything about it. Nice way to ruin something so original and imitate crappiness. No offense to chrome users but i was never fan of it and never will. Presto engine had me since the day i first used it.

 

The only reason i am using it now is because i am so used to Opera, have like hundreds of bookmarks and so much data stored in it and for nostalgia of it. I am gonna write my own browser based on internet explorer and call it stnowser, at least i won't claim originality which opera so proudly claim now. It is basically chrome remodeled.

 

PS: You won't understand my frustration if you haven't been a fan of opera, i used it since version 8 and that was eternity ago and it truly was unique back then.

 

PS2: If anyone know of another awesome browser that isn't chrome/firefox, fire away.

 

Couldn't agree with you more! :)

I also so hate Opera for the treasonous act they pulled! Absolutely and totally a POS now! :x

 

I had been a very loyal fan of it since it was an ad based browser even, which was way back on version 5.04!

 

They took what I always considered to be the fastest, most stable and most secure browser (out of the box) and are totally trying to turn into just another fanboy based browser, which obviously that is being a total flop too.

 

I was also using version 12.16 for a while after their change, but that version is so old and who knows how insecure now, it is junk.

 

Have totally abandoned it and have actually been using Firefox, which I never could stand before, on 1 computer and either pcxfirefox or Cyberfox on all other (6) machines. Still not a real fan of Firefox but this computer is an older machine with an AMD Athlon processor that I can't install Cyberfox on. I could use pcxfirefox on it, but thought I would try using just plain Firefox on at least 1 machine.

Couldn't agree with you more! :)

I also so hate Opera for the treasonous act they pulled! Absolutely and totally a POS now! :x

 

I had been a very loyal fan of it since it was an ad based browser even, which was way back on version 5.04!

 

They took what I always considered to be the fastest, most stable and most secure browser (out of the box) and are totally trying to turn into just another fanboy based browser, which obviously that is being a total flop too.

 

I was also using version 12.16 for a while after their change, but that version is so old and who knows how insecure now, it is junk.

 

Have totally abandoned it and have actually been using Firefox, which I never could stand before, on 1 computer and either pcxfirefox or Cyberfox on all other (6) machines. Still not a real fan of Firefox but this computer is an older machine with an AMD Athlon processor that I can't install Cyberfox on. I could use pcxfirefox on it, but thought I would try using just plain Firefox on at least 1 machine.

 

 

You have to understand something, Opera is a small company with a few developers. just to make the browser engine, companies like MS, Mozilla and Google have dev teams several times the size of ALL of Opera. as advanced as the engines were getting Opera had no chance to keep up. Their only option was to pick another engine and just to the browsers, and that's what they did. 

 

There's nothing "treasonous" about it, seeing as it's their browser it couldn't be either. They're still making the same Opera browser, but with a switch to a new engine they had to start nearly from scratch to rebuild the browser on top of that, and they're doing that, and it's getting there, but it takes some time. 

To answer the OP: the upside of borrowing the bookmarks API from Chrome is that the existing bookmarks extensions from Chrome will work in Opera, such as Xmarks - Xmarks was supposed to provide an extension for Presto-based Opera but eventually gave up somewhere along the line. Now it works just fine. As for password management, recently I've switched out all password managers on my browsers to Lastpass (plus I've never liked how say a friend could go on my browser and with a few clicks view all passwords saved for my frequented sites).

 

No thanks, i feel much safer keeping passwords on my own computer. I wouldn't trust a third party site to handle my total online presence and even if they don't spy on it, if they were to get hacked (which is not that impossible if you consider Google and even steam have been hacked) you have to hope they really did what they said and your passwords are in encrpyted form in their database. I don't trust Google even or any of the big name companies.

 

And to the guy that said using same engine doesn't mean its the same browser, you apparently don't know what a browser engine is and what makes a browser different from another. I could make a quick browser myself (call it stnowser) using windows API but it will be nothing more than a redesigned internet explorer unless i render the html/css code using my own engine/code. So please do some research before you claim something. Go open a site with chrome/opera, firefox and internet explorer and you will see completely different loading times and loading style for each one of them except opera and chrome. How a browser looks has nothing to do with what it actually is.

 

Which is what has angered most of Opera fans because now it is chrome with different graphics and features and always will be, i hate chrome engine...chrome browser actually looks pretty nice but that rendering engine...arghhh. I actually wish Opera good luck grabbing new user-base and holding on to their current user-base. Why not goto the source (Chrome) and use a browser made and updated by the internet giant than a mock-up by a bunch of hobbyists who change their mind so erratically, what if they don't like the limitations with chromium after a while and decide to switch to Gecko(FF) engine. Its apparent opera devs don't like their own browser so how can they expect us to.

 

Which is why after moving my huge bookmarks list and other settings slowly to FF, i am gonna make a switch to FF and delete Opera altogether. IE is lacking a lot of features otherwise the new version isn't that bad and i actually liked it more than chrome/ff.

 

 

PS: After trying out Maxthon, i didn't like it that much. Its dev tools are just meh and add-ons are seriously lacking. It is ages behind FF and chrome. I don't want to keep loading FF to use the add-ons and features it doesn't have, it looks an amazing and i am sure in a few years it might be but its not for me now.

And to the guy that said using same engine doesn't mean its the same browser, you apparently don't know what a browser engine is and what makes a browser different from another. I could make a quick browser myself (call it stnowser) using windows API but it will be nothing more than a redesigned internet explorer unless i render the html/css code using my own engine/code. So please do some research before you claim something. Go open a site with chrome/opera, firefox and internet explorer and you will see completely different loading times and loading style for each one of them except opera and chrome. How a browser looks has nothing to do with what it actually is.

I would wage that feature-sets are probably the most important part of the browser to most people. I myself don't particularly care if the content is rendered slightly differently between different engines and I don't think the average consumer cares either. Outside of javascript benchmarking and such, can we realistically say that there is noticeable real-world difference in performance between rendering engines at this point? I personally don't think so for most cases. There have been various browsers that share rendering engines yet distinguish themselves. The most notable being Epiphany (Various engines), Safari (WebKit), Chrome (WebKit), and Netscape (Mozilla Based). 

I would wage that feature-sets are probably the most important part of the browser to most people. I myself don't particularly care if the content is rendered slightly differently between different engines and I don't think the average consumer cares either. Outside of javascript benchmarking and such, can we realistically say that there is noticeable real-world difference in performance between rendering engines at this point? I personally don't think so for most cases. There have been various browsers that share rendering engines yet distinguish themselves. The most notable being Epiphany (Various engines), Safari (WebKit), Chrome (WebKit), and Netscape (Mozilla Based). 

 

Indeed.

 

Once upon a time I probably cared about which engine got the highest CSS3 benchmark score or who had the least amount of security holes discovered. Nowadays I just care about whether the browser is stable, whether it's fast, and what it has to offer to speed up my workflow.

 

At an engine level, Trident, WebKit/Blink, and Gecko are fine engines. Rendering speed is another aspect, but I suspect down the road the engines will eventually converge on being approximately as fast as each other. Trident's the best for power efficiency on Windows, but on IE11 rendering speed on image heavy sites took a nose drive (on my laptop, not my desktop). WebKit/Blink is usually fast and snappy, but its scrolling performance isn't the best and it's stupidly CPU hungry. As for Gecko... my laptop doesn't like XUL. Its UI never felt as snappy as even Chrome/ium/Opera's internal pages.

 

As much as how I liked Presto's instant rewind and forward, the site glitches were indeed annoying. For many years I had a problem with Opera where page elements become inaccessible - for instance, Neowin editor boxes. Then since the switch to 10.50, things sped up which was nice, but the Vega drawing engine was prone to leaving artifacts on pages. And the crashes. The damn browser was so unstable since 10.50.

 

Nowadays, Opera may be based off Chromium but I like how they have their own twist on the UI and of course Speed Dial and Stash. Probably things you can obtain via Chrome extensions, but it won't be as smooth. But most importantly, I no longer care about a site falling apart or complaining to some developers on Neowin *cough cough* that bits of the site are broken in Opera :P

 

But yeah, back to the point. Engine wars are passe.

Oh, you're right, lolz, I could never get used to FF, I've tried it at times and always go back to IE.  It just feels off to me and I don't care about extensions and so on, never used them and have no need to.

 

Ah, how the mighty have fallen, when we forget about Gecko. :p

  • Like 1

At an engine level, Trident, WebKit/Blink, and Gecko are fine engines. Rendering speed is another aspect, but I suspect down the road the engines will eventually converge on being approximately as fast as each other. Trident's the best for power efficiency on Windows, but on IE11 rendering speed on image heavy sites took a nose drive (on my laptop, not my desktop). WebKit/Blink is usually fast and snappy, but its scrolling performance isn't the best and it's stupidly CPU hungry. As for Gecko... my laptop doesn't like XUL. Its UI never felt as snappy as even Chrome/ium/Opera's internal pages.

Scrolling performance is the one difference I have personally notice between IE11 and Chrome in certain cases. That being said, that has never gotten me to move to IE11 because it has never been enough of an issue. I value the syncing and extensions far too much to let what amount to a small differences and temporary defects to take a front-seat. I imagine at some point these engines will improve and it will be a non-issue.

 IMHO Opera made a huge mistake by going to Webkit and Blink now. The reason they went with it in their words was a focus on developing features rather than focusing on the engine(as it currently stands Opera is severely lacking in those promised features), but how is that different than releasing Presto as an Open source and leaving the community to deal with the engine and Opera developing features as they claim they are doing now. The main problem Presto had was the lack of visibility, and making it Open Source would have solved that. I suspect there was much more to the switch than just the focus on browser features, money in form of Google payoff certainly comes to mind. Too bad..for now, as new Opera can't smell a hiney to the Presto Opera.

I don't mind the new opera, I like its interface and its speed dial is still far better than the new tab pages found in all the other browsers, they just need to get their arses in gear when it comes to adding a proper bookmarks system and getting opera link working, those are the two reasons I'm not using it, otherwise I'd consider it. bookmark sync has become such a basic feature of a browser these days and I can't stand using a browser where I can't easily sync my bookmarks across platforms.

I so hate Opera for using chrome engine for their browser. Goddamn do i hate the new password management system, the bookmark system and everything about it. Nice way to ruin something so original and imitate crappiness. No offense to chrome users but i was never fan of it and never will. Presto engine had me since the day i first used it.

 

The only reason i am using it now is because i am so used to Opera, have like hundreds of bookmarks and so much data stored in it and for nostalgia of it. I am gonna write my own browser based on internet explorer and call it stnowser, at least i won't claim originality which opera so proudly claim now. It is basically chrome remodeled.

 

PS: You won't understand my frustration if you haven't been a fan of opera, i used it since version 8 and that was eternity ago and it truly was unique back then.

 

PS2: If anyone know of another awesome browser that isn't chrome/firefox, fire away.

 

They switched because people would rather have a browser that actually renders the modern web properly than one that has "unique features".

Presto in general didn't have a problem rendering pages, except pages that sent it garbage code on purpose. Ironiucally Google was one of the worst offenders of itnentionally adding code to it's webapps that caused bugs in Opera. 

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • DVD only? What kind of self-respecting optical disk backup/ripping tool doesn't support Blu-ray these days? I burned all my DVDs like 15+ years ago...
    • ...but you're Johnny, from Australia?    
    • Glow 26.9 by Razvan Serea Glow provides detailed reporting on every hardware component in your computer, saving you valuable time typically spent searching for CPU, motherboard, RAM, graphics card, and other stats. With Glow, all the information is conveniently presented in one clean interface, allowing you to easily access and review the comprehensive hardware details of your system. Glow provides detailed information on various system aspects, including OS, motherboard, processor, memory, graphics card, storage, network, battery, drivers, and services. The well-organized format ensures easy access to the required information. You can export all the gathered data to a plain text file, facilitating sharing with others for troubleshooting purposes. No installation needed. Just decompress the archive, launch the executable, and access computer-related information. Glow runs on Windows 11 and Windows 10 64-bit versions. Glow 26.9 changelog: New Features The processor hardware detection engine has been significantly enhanced beyond traditional Intel and AMD architectures. Native support is now available for modern platforms such as Apple Silicon (M-Series) and the newly introduced NVIDIA Spark. In addition, all ARM-based processors can now be accurately distinguished between ARM32 and ARM64 architectures, providing precise hardware reporting. This marks a major milestone for Glow's hardware detection capabilities. The RAM manufacturer identification algorithm has been expanded. JEDEC vendor codes for popular brands such as Patriot, PNY, Team Group, GeIL, Lexar (Longsys), and Asgard/Gloway have been integrated into the database. This significantly reduces the likelihood of incorrect or "Unknown Manufacturer" results and improves overall hardware detection accuracy. New Public IP Address and Internet Service Provider (ISP) features have been added to the Network section. To ensure reliability, this information is retrieved from the trusted service ipwho.is. When Hiding Mode is enabled, no requests are sent and these features remain hidden, as they may expose sensitive information. The search engine used in the Installed Drivers, Installed Services, and Installed Applications sections has been enhanced. You can now perform more flexible and accurate searches using initials, partial matches, and loosely arranged character sequences. The TS Preloader loading bar has been rebuilt using our modern TS Custom Controls graphics library, developed entirely in-house. As a result of this infrastructure upgrade, the loading bar now features smooth rendering and rounded corners that align with the visual style of Windows 11. [TS Updater] A new validation algorithm has been added to check whether the target application is currently running before the update process begins. Bug Fixes Resolved a condition that could prevent TS Preloader from shutting down safely during rare application crash scenarios. Fixed a text alignment issue in the Network section affecting the display of DNS addresses. Alignment is now rendered correctly. [TS Updater] Fixed an issue that could prevent the updated application's executable "*.exe" file from being located after the update process. [TS Updater] Fixed a bug that could leave outdated "*.sha256" files in the application directory after an update. [TS Updater] Fixed a rare issue that could cause subfolders to be moved into the root directory after an update. [TS Updater] Fixed an issue during the first launch that could cause flickering and a temporary white window appearance due to Windows Defender interactions. Changes A small improvement has been made to the internet connectivity detection algorithm. Connectivity checks are now performed in the background with minimal impact on the user interface thread. The keyboard shortcuts in the top menu have been reorganized and simplified to provide a consistent experience across all Türkaysoft applications and to avoid potential conflicts with standard Windows shortcuts. The TS Preloader splash image has been updated with a Türkiye-themed stadium design to celebrate Türkiye's qualification for the 2026 FIFA World Cup—its first appearance in 24 years. Congratulations, Türkiye! The TS Custom Controls module has been updated to version 26.6, delivering improved stability and a more polished visual appearance. [TS Updater] The application icon has been redesigned to provide a more modern and refined look. Note: Always unzip the program before using it. Otherwise you may get an error. Download: Glow 26.9 | 1.8 MB (Open Source) Links: Glow Homepage | Screenshot | Github Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware
    • DWARF mini review: the world's smallest smart telescope for night and day sky captures by Steven Parker DWARFLAB reached out to me asking if I was interested in checking out the DWARF mini, which is a portable astronomy telescope designed for amateur astronomers. Why do I say it's for amateurs? Well, for starters, it's not what you'd call "high end"; it's more of a professional-grade starting point for amateurs serious about capturing what's up there in our night and day skies. A typical amateur astronomer is most likely thousands of dollars deep into the hobby, and I will make no claims that this DWARF mini (at a fraction of the cost) could replace it all, okay? Well, if you read on, it will be clearer what I am trying to convey. Disclosure: DWARFLAB provided a free sample without any editorial input or review pre-approval. I have always been interested in looking up and observing the night sky. I see satellites crossing the sky above my garden most nights, and I am always looking at the moon. Yeah, I have a 200MP camera on my phone, but at 200X zoom, AI takes over and makes the pretty moon pictures that I snap, the DWARF mini does not, you get an actual true picture of what you can barely see with the naked eye. Before we start, let's share the highlights of the DWARF mini in bite-sized format: Pocket-Sized & Ultra-Lightweight Weighing just 1.85 lbs (840g), the DWARF mini easily fits into a backpack or large pocket. Its all-in-one, compact design makes it the ultimate grab-and-go digital telescope for hiking, camping, or traveling to dark-sky locations. Intuitive App Control & Built-in Sky Atlas Go from unboxing to your first shot in just 3 minutes! The DWARFLAB App provides a seamless experience with an interactive star map. Simply select your target and start exploring without the steep learning curve of traditional setups. Auto GOTO & 360° Pivot Freedom Enjoy pinpoint automated tracking with full 360° rotation. Powered by a high-sensitivity Sony IMX662 sensor (1/2.8-inch, 2.9μm pixels), it captures amazing, low-noise astro details, bringing faint nebulas and star clusters to life with stunning clarity. Pro-Level EQ Mode & Long Exposure Unlock advanced deep-space imaging with Equatorial (EQ) Mode. Supporting impressive single-frame exposures up to 90 seconds and featuring built-in light pollution filters, it easily cuts through city glow to reveal intricate celestial structures. Smart Cloud Processing & All-Ages Fun Effortlessly enhance your raw data with integrated cloud processing for professional-grade results. Perfect for beginners, kids, and adults, this telescope makes exploring and sharing the wonders of the universe an exciting, family-friendly adventure. The packaging is a pretty minimal affair with the outer box opening like a flap to reveal the plastic mould of the DWARF mini sitting in it. Below, the Sun filter, charging cable, cleaning cloth, and documentation can be found. DWARFLAB also provided a Mini Hydraulic Tripod ($89.99), and I highly recommend getting it if you plan on purchasing the DWARF mini, as it fully supports the motorized tracking feature of the telescope; plus, at 840g, the weight of the telescope, you will need a tripod that supports more than the weight of a smartphone anyway. What's in the box DWARF Mini Smart Telescope × 1 Sun Filter x 1 Type-C to Type-C Cord x 1 Cleaning Cloth x 1 User Guide With that out of the way, here are the full specs: DWARF mini Dimensions (DWH): 60.70 mm x 100.38 × 183.61 (2.39" x 3.95" x 7.23") Weight: 840g (1.85lbs) Aperture diameter: 30 mm (telephoto), 3.4 mm (wide angle) Image Sensor: SONY IMX662 1/2.8" (Telephoto) OmniVision OS02K10 1/2.8" (Wide-angle) Focal length: 150 mm (telephoto), 6.7 mm (wide-angle) Equivalent focal length: 1016 mm (telephoto), 45 mm (wide-angle) Shutter Speed: Tele - 1/10000-90s, Wide - 1/10000-30s Maximum exposure time: 90s (telephoto & wide-angle), Both in EQ mode Rotation range: Lens: 225°, Base: 360° Effective Pixels: 2.07M Maximum Resolution: 1920 × 1080 (Telephoto & Wide-angle) Built-in filters: Astro, Dark, Duo-Band (Telephoto), Astro (Wide-angle) Output: JPG, FITS, TIFF, MP4 Shooting Mode: Photos, Videos, Astronomy, Burst Shooting, Time-lapse Photography Storage: 64 GB Battery: Built-in 7000 mAh, supports external USB charging Charging Port: Type-C NPU: 1 TOPS Features: WiFi, NFC NFC One-Touch Connection Astronomy Post-Processing/Appointment Shooting/Astronomy Mosaic Wi-Fi Transmission Range: 15m (open environment) Color: Black Compatibility: iOS & Android smartphones/tablets Warranty: 2-years (24-months) MSRP: $399 Design Charge port On/off button Lens On the DWARF mini itself, it is a pretty minimal affair. On one side, there is a Type-C USB port to charge the non-removable 7000 mAh battery, and on the other side, a large button to power on or off the telescope. The button is flanked by an LED that is green when connected via the DWARFLAB app, or lights up red when being powered off. Below the button, there are four LEDs that indicate battery power. The DWARF mini does not have any sharp edges as all sides are rounded off; it has a good heft to it, but the weight of it feels quite balanced in the hand, so it isn't top or bottom-heavy. On the front there is the DWARFLAB logo which is quite small and there are no other markings on it. The tripod offers full 360° rotation of the motorized base, which allows for tracking for the time-lapse mode, but also for the 90-second captures of nearer objects in the sky, such as the Sun or the moon. Usage To get started, simply power on the DWARF mini and open the DWARFLAB app, tap on Connect, and it will scan for the DWARF mini over the Wi-Fi network. The device supports both 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz Wi-Fi, as well as Bluetooth for discovery, so connection issues were minimal in my experience with it. As previously noted in the specs, the DWARF mini will stay connected with a phone or tablet up to 15 meters in an open environment, such as a backyard. Lighting status Powering on: The green circular light will rotate and breathe in turn Powering off: The red circular light is gradually extinguished Connecting: Green light strip rotating Connected: Green light strip solid/always on 4 lights 1= 0-25%, 2= 25-50%, 3= 50-75%, 4= 75-100% battery power To view the full lighting status, such as tracking mode and connection failure, you can check the user guide on the official DWARFLAB page. DWARFLAB app Above, you can see the steps undertaken to connect the DWARFLAB app to my Galaxy S26 Ultra. Weirdly, I got an alert that a firmware update failed to get uploaded to the DWARF mini the first time, but upon retrying, it worked. Then place the DWARF mini outside, make sure your smartphone or tablet is connected to it, and then head back inside, because you can manage it from the comfort of your home. Simply enter the Atlas tab in the app and search for what you want to capture, and then tap on the camera icon; the DWARF mini will then attempt to track the object and give you a live view right on your connected device. Results I've had the DWARF mini since April, but even though my garden is south-facing, I had a lot of trouble trying to capture a good image of the moon. In the end, it was possible after I took it with me on a trip to my parents in Southend, UK, at the end of May. Here is a capture of the moon, resulting from 20 stacked images over a 90-second exposure. What you are seeing here is not AI-assisted. A good example of what I mean is the latest flagships with their 200MP cameras claiming to capture things like closeups of the moon, and while they are not as good as the above example on the DWARF mini, the resulting image on smartphones is actually AI-assisted above 30X zoom. Here is an example of a similar shot at the moon at 200X zoom using an HONOR Magic8 Pro. The difference is clear. Next, here we have a shot of the daytime moon. Here is a shot of Arcturus, the red giant star, which is the fourth brightest in the night sky. As previously mentioned, it could be a bit clearer, but clouds passing in front of it muddied the shot a bit. The Sun The DWARF mini also ships with a sun filter, meaning you can take great shots of the sun as well. Tracking Sun Resulting (stacked) shot Live zoom The pictures themselves are limited to Full HD, and some of the examples actually came out in HD (1280x720), but this is because the standard telescopic result is in 720p while "Wide" is in 1080p. Above you can see how in the app the Sun is tracked, the resulting capture, and Live zoom. I have only scratched the surface of what is possible with this telescope; I found several examples online of shots of the Milky Way, among others, such as nebulae and galaxies. All of this requires patience and knowledge, although if you know what you are looking for, simply enter it in the Atlas tab in the DWARFLAB app, tap the camera icon, and the telescope will attempt to track it. Conclusion The good The DWARF mini definitely places itself in a price point that makes astrology accessible to anyone looking to get started in the hobby. Say you want to have a closer look at the moon, simply enter it in the Atlas, and the Live view also lets you zoom in and snap pictures. The bad Some issues I came across while operating the DWARF mini were that it sometimes failed to connect unless I held my smartphone right next to it, and finding and tracking sometimes took several attempts to get it calibrated. I discovered that it helped if I sort of positioned and pointed the telescope in the general area it was supposed to detect, but this obviously wouldn't work with objects you can't see with the naked eye; more testing is required for that. Another bit of advice is to ensure that the lens is clean. While making the examples of live zooming on the sun, I discovered that the telescope lens and sun filter were not completely clean, and only after cleaning with a microfiber cloth was I able to get a decent shot of the sun. Where to buy and a coupon Okay, $399 is not cheap for a side hobby, but nor is a $1,500 smartphone flagship that you'll most likely have for a couple of years. This is a one-time entrance into astrology, and it won't become obsolete in one year like a smartphone. It's a thumbs up from me. The DWARF mini is available to buy right now in the U.S. and U.K. at the links below. DWARF mini for $399 on the official site DWARF mini for $399 on Amazon U.S. Use the NEOWIN5OFF coupon code for an additional 5% off at checkout (expires June 21) As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases.
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Month Later
      lamborghiniv10 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      lamborghiniv10 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Reacting Well
      X-No-file earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      pestcontrol46 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      pestcontrol46 earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      504
    2. 2
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      270
    3. 3
      +Edouard
      75
    4. 4
      Skyfrog
      74
    5. 5
      Steven P.
      71
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!