Opera 9.20 final


Recommended Posts

Does opera work with the same number of websites that firefox does? Or is it incompatible with lots of websites?

- Download Opera

- Install Opera

- Test your Websites with Opera

If you don't like Opera, uninstall Opera.

The main difference between Firefox and Opera is the perspective of how the user should be catered for. I want a fast web browser, an RSS client, an IRC client, an e-mail client, desktop widgets, and so on, without having to fiddle with dozens of downloads for software installers and extensions and all that other stuff. Most of these features are not enabled by default (RSS is enabled when an RSS link is clicked on, e-mail is enabled when an account is created, IRC is tucked away in the menu, and so on) and take up practically no space on the hard-drive so if you do not have a use for them they are neatly tucked away as if they were never there.

Opera also includes some nice productivity features that most browsers totally neglect. The "speak" function is incredibly helpful when trying to multi-task. One can open an e-mail, select all the text in it, and then click "speak" so Opera will read the e-mail to you and while you are listening you can do other things like work on Word documents, write replies on Neowin, and so on. You've also got a built-in panel for making notes. If you find some particular bit of information you think you'll find helpful later on, you can select the text on a webpage, "Copy to Note", and Opera will not only make a note with that text in it but the note also serves as a bookmark if you double-click on it. Opera's fullscreen mode works in Projection mode so websites can either show themselves normally or they can switch to projector-presentation mode. Thus, if you write an article webpage you can make use of the CSS projection mode to break the information up in chunks in fullscreen mode for use as presentations. Combine this with the fact it is easy to install Opera on a thumb-drive and you've got a portable internet suite, research tool, and presentation device. None of the features in themselves sound awesome but they can incredibly powerful when used together.

These are some of my main reasons for using Opera. One could probably get the same results in Firefox if one is willing to fiddle with extensions, separate applications, and so on but this is too much work and consumes too much space (especially if used on a cheap thumb-drive) to be considered worth-while when one can easily install Opera with this functionality out-of-the-box.

As for standards compliance, I think some people have been confused about the purpose of the Acid2 test. The Acid2 test was created to test the ability of browsers to correctly handle certain features of certain specifications. In no way is the Acid2 test comprehensive. There actually is no such thing as a browser that inerrantly follows all of the standards created by the W3C. All rendering engines, and thus browsers, have their own little quirks and deviations from the W3C standards.

I cannot say whether Opera works with as many sites as Firefox. I haven't actually done any tests. I haven't noticed any problems on the websites I visit though. Opera and Firefox are rather close to eachother in terms of standards compliance so there shouldn't be much deviation between them. Most of the problems I've ever noticed in Opera were incredibly tiny ones -- perhaps an element is 1px over too far in a certain direction -- or ones that you would only find if you were somebody messing with the latest CSS features in an exotic way as part of some experiment that was never intended to work in most browsers. In general browsing, you shouldn't notice much difference between the rendering behavior of Opera and Firefox.

I cannot say whether Opera works with as many sites as Firefox. I haven't actually done any tests. I haven't noticed any problems on the websites I visit though. Opera and Firefox are rather close to eachother in terms of standards compliance so there shouldn't be much deviation between them. Most of the problems I've ever noticed in Opera were incredibly tiny ones -- perhaps an element is 1px over too far in a certain direction -- or ones that you would only find if you were somebody messing with the latest CSS features in an exotic way as part of some experiment that was never intended to work in most browsers. In general browsing, you shouldn't notice much difference between the rendering behavior of Opera and Firefox.

Opera passes the Acid2 test and is 100% XHTML and web standards compliant (which is more than Firefox,) so anything that works properly in Firefox should also work properly in Opera. If it doesn't it's the fault of the webmaster for not using standardized, compliant code.

"Does opera work with the same number of websites that firefox does? Or is it incompatible with lots of websites?"

If You encounter problems with Opera rendering certain sites in vast majority of cases it will not be Opera's fault. In such case press "f12" on keyboard while You are on problematic site and choose "edit site preferences". Here You can pick which browsers will Opera emulate(IE, Firefox..). Use the mask option since by choosing that 95% of those sites will now render properly. Talk about bad site coding ^^, luckily Opera has the answer to that :)

Opera passes the Acid2 test and is 100% XHTML and web standards compliant (which is more than Firefox,) so anything that works properly in Firefox should also work properly in Opera. If it doesn't it's the fault of the webmaster for not using standardized, compliant code.

I know that Opera passes the Acid2 test (a good thing) but it's not a comprehensive test for total web standards compliance [1]. Unfortunately, Opera is not 100% XHTML compliant [2] or 100% CSS compliant [3]. Opera is close, however. Right now, there is no such thing as a fully standards compliant web browser.

Does opera work with the same number of websites that firefox does? Or is it incompatible with lots of websites?
- Download Opera

- Install Opera

- Test your Websites with Opera

If you don't like Opera, uninstall Opera.

And while you are at it report the sites that dont work to Opera. (Help>>>> Report a Site Problem)

I know that Opera passes the Acid2 test (a good thing) but it's not a comprehensive test for total web standards compliance [1]. Unfortunately, Opera is not 100% XHTML compliant [2] or 100% CSS compliant [3]. Opera is close, however. Right now, there is no such thing as a fully standards compliant web browser.

Some of W3C standards are not 100% clear how a specific feature should work thus making Opera's and Mozilla's implementations a bit different. These things are usually fixed along the way - therefore I must say that we (yes I work for Opera) are 100% W3C compliant. A couple of our guys are sitting in W3C group and working on standards and proposals. When it comes to CSS I have to say that there is no browser that is more CSS compliant than Opera since H?kon Wium Lie, who btw. is inventor of CSS works at Opera Software.

As previously said, unfortunatelly all pages do not work as they should on Opera due to bad coding and UA sniffing. If a page does not work as expected please report it to us with extensive description and how to reproduce (either via Help->Report a site problem or our OpenTheWeb team).

Difference between Opera and Firefox are mainly these:

* Opera exists for virtually every platform, Firefox does not

* Opera uses approximately two-thirds the amount of memory of Firefox

* Opera is optimized for speed and renders pages faster

* Opera Software strives to always have the latest bleeding edge technology built-in the browser (latest additions are canvas, SSE, SVG)

* Built-in tools for web developers

* All W3C standards are followed to 100%

Please remember I'm not a fanboy - just giving you the hard facts.

goodness.. that's pretty good stuff

I'm wondering about RSS in FF compared to Opera, why can't I just get a drop down list of what happend lets say on latest news on BBC while opera just takes me to a page where I have to scroll down to read everything.

note I'm a noob on RSS.

goodness.. that's pretty good stuff

I'm wondering about RSS in FF compared to Opera, why can't I just get a drop down list of what happend lets say on latest news on BBC while opera just takes me to a page where I have to scroll down to read everything.

note I'm a noob on RSS.

Yeah, I love the RSS "Live Bookmark" implementation in Firefox. It's the only way I'll use RSS feeds.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • It STILL has horrid theme support. Hard to look at for me. The white is too bright, and the black too dark. I'm using classic outlook for the Dark Grey theme. It's just right for me.
    • inb4 someone leaves the usual "what an unfortunate name" comment
    • Cuktech 10 Ultra charger review: big display, four ports, 110W total power by Taras Buria Cuktech recently announced a couple of Ultra-branded chargers, including a desktop 300W charger, which I reviewed a few weeks ago. For those who do need that much (or who do not want to spend that much on a charger), Cuktech also offers the 10 Ultra, a traditional wall charger with similar features. Four ports, a big display, and up to 110W of power output. After using it for a few weeks, here are my impressions. Disclaimer: Cuktech provided the review unit without any editorial input or pre-approval. Like the 30 Ultra, the 10 Ultra arrived in a box made of nice cardboard with quality print all over it. Inside, besides the charger, you will find a 240W 6A charger, which, this time, is fully braided. While Cuktech always bundles high-power cables with its chargers and power banks, they are usually regular and unassuming. This time, the cable is much nicer, matching the charger's $59.99 price tag. The charger itself measures 67 x 76 x 33 mm or 2.6 x 3.0 x 1.3 inches and weighs about 250 grams. Considering the charger has four ports and a big display, I would say the compact size is quite impressive, albeit a little hefty. The overall design is similar to other chargers from the manufacturer, minus the chrome Cuktech logo next to the four ports. The Cuktech 10 Ultra has retractable prongs for better portability. Its front side is covered with piano black plastic housing two elements: a capacitive button with backlight and a quite large display for various charging stats. Ports are downward-facing, and I have mixed feelings about such a design. It is not the most convenient when you frequently connect and disconnect cables. It makes you bend over to find the right port to connect, and it is a no-go with outlets mounted closer to the floor. On the bright side, design like this eliminates clutter and sagging, especially when using four cables at once. Plus, you get plenty of space for a big display. Ports include two high-speed USB Type-C ports, one Type-C for less demanding devices, and one classic USB Type-A. The first two ports deliver full 100W, while the third is capped at 45W. As for the Type-A port, its maximum output is 18W. In total, the charger delivers 110W of power, but in my testing, I managed to squeeze 117W when charging two power banks and a tablet. Quite impressive. Type-C1 Type-C2 Type-C3 Type-A Single-port 100W 100W 45W 18W Two ports 80W 20W - - Three ports 65W 20W 20W - Four ports 65W 20W 10W 10W The charger can detect handshake protocols and balance power across all four ports according to each device's needs. As such, power is not limited to the values in the table above. You can have two ports charging at 55W, three ports at 45W + 20W, and more. For some reason, Cuktech is not listing the supported protocols, but a quick test showed that it is compatible with PD3.0, PPS, QC5, DCP, and UFCS. When you connect a compatible device, the charger automatically detects its charging standard and displays it on the screen, for example, Apple 6A or Samsung 3A. Speaking of the screen. The main highlight of the 10 Ultra is its 1.57-inch display with a maximum brightness of 700 nits and 160-degree viewing angles. The display takes up most of the front, and it shows various charging-related information, including total output power, current temperature, power distribution across ports with watts, volts, and amps, a screensaver, and more. You can toggle between the different views by tapping the button, and holding it changes the screen orientation (portrait or horizontal, plus flipped) according to your socket position. The screen is very nice. It is sharp, vivid, and the fonts are easy to read. As for settings, you can change the following: Keep the screen on or off Lock the screen orientation (hold the button to change the screen orientation) Keep the USB Type-A port on Toggle power modes The charger has three power modes: AI: standard mode that automatically allocates power to each connected device. Power Priority: prioritizes power for high-demand devices, such as laptops or power banks. Balanced: splits power evenly across connected devices according to their needs I was skeptical at first, but after testing a few devices in different modes, I can see the benefit of these three modes. The most useful is power priority, which gives the first Type-C port more power. When I was charging a 100W power bank (port 1) alongside a 140W power bank (port 2), Power Priority split the total output about 75-30. Balanced mode, as the name suggests, splits the total output between the two ports more or less equally. As for AI mode, the charger uses its brain to detect which device needs more power. In my testing, it figured out that the 140W power needs a bit more juice. As I said, I expected this to be more of a gimmick, but the three built-in modes turned out quite useful. For example, you can prioritize your laptop while giving other ports a little less power, but still enough to charge at acceptable speeds. Unfortunately, unlike the 30 Ultra, this charger cannot display the battery level of the device being charged. This small feature turned out to be very useful when I was testing the 30 Ultra, as it allowed me to see my phone's battery level without picking it up. Like other Cuktech chargers I tested, the 10 Ultra one proved itself reliable and well-made. It uses Gallium nitride semiconductor technology to reduce the charger's size and improve efficiency. It is also better at dissipating heat, but I have to say that when charging two power banks at 117W total, the charger got hotter than what I would call comfortable (hold it for a few seconds, and you start feeling a burning sensation at your fingertips). However, the built-in thermal indicator remained below the temperature threshold, with the screen reassuring that the device operated at "High performance" (I tested it in a 21 °C / 69 °F room). Overall, the Cuktech 10 Ultra is a solid choice. If you need four ports and you like to nerd out on various stats, it is a very easy recommendation. It will take care of your laptop, phone, tablet, and power bank without breaking a sweat, plus the build, material, and cable quality are top-notch. The mode switcher is handy when charging different devices with different power needs, too. I cannot say a display is a must-have in a charger, especially when it makes you more conscious about where to plug it, but it is a neat addition if you have a socket at your table or bed level, so that you can actually use the display and its features. The more important fact is that despite its size and quality, the display does not make the charger that much more expensive than similarly powerful chargers from competitors. Plus, you can save 10% on the 10 Ultra with a promo code on Amazon. Buy Cuktech 10 Ultra charger - $53.99 on Amazon with a promo code As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
    • Last week I was investigating an issue with contacts and tried using the new Outlook. In the real (Classic) Outlook, you can easily go to any Outlook folder and present it in a Table View, then customize the columns to show/sort any field, which was exactly what I needed. But of course, the new Outlook doesn't have this feature at all. I gave up. Oh, and can we possibly stop claiming the new Outlook has PST support? What it really has is the ability to use the real Outlook in the background to pretend to have PST support. There is no PST support without the real Outlook installed.
    • Honestly just before Panos left it started to feel like MS just wasnt interested in them so they were being less innovative with them, and then when he DID leave for Amazon its kind of clear the direction is gone. It felt like Panos had both goals and drive, and a vision, but it felt like no matter what his title/department was the Surface devices never had the full interest of the rest of management and he was just pushing a bolder up a hill that MS was adding dirt to as he went.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      mobandz earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Apprentice
      fernan99 went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • One Month Later
      nothanks earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Month Later
      B2Proxy earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Year In
      MadMung0 earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      477
    2. 2
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      247
    3. 3
      Skyfrog
      79
    4. 4
      FloatingFatMan
      76
    5. 5
      Michael Scrip
      60
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!