Microsoft should buy Opera!

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

No

[Sethos]

Yes, how terribly ugly and unnative this is...

Really? :p ? I wouldn't call that "horrible" by a long shot?

Are you kidding me? Looks like a dog's vomit

[ViperAFK]

IMO Opera has the most horrible and non-native interface of all browsers. They really need to work on that.

The only thing really non native about opera compared to other browsers right now is the menus... You are exaggerating quite a bit. Opera really looks quite similar to chrome.

Are you kidding me? Looks like a dog's vomit

You're being an idiot fanboy

[Mr. Gibs]

Are you kidding me? Looks like a dog's vomit

:rolleyes:

Just to point out, the speed dial can be configured; background changed, tabs removed etc. So all you're basically saying is the aero look (from 7), and the tabs look like vomit. What an interesting deduction. Hell it looks a lot like Firefox 4

And it looks a hell of a lot better than firefox 3 ever did.

[Sethos]

:rolleyes:

Just to point out, the speed dial can be configured; background changed, tabs removed etc. So all you're basically saying is the aero look (from 7), and the tabs look like vomit. What an interesting deduction. Hell it looks a lot like Firefox 4

And it looks a hell of a lot better than firefox 3 ever did.

No, remove all that and you got Chrome, eeeep.

[.Neo]

The only thing really non native about opera compared to other browsers right now is the menus... You are exaggerating quite a bit. Opera really looks quite similar to chrome.

Try using the Mac OS X version. The menus, preferences window, dialog windows etc. just don't have anything to do with Aqua anymore. And yeah, Firefox and Chrome are crap in this area too. Safari is the only browser that is truly native to Mac OS X.

[ViperAFK]

Try using the Mac OS X version. The menus, preferences window, dialog windows etc. just don't have anything to do with Aqua anymore. And yeah, Firefox and Chrome are crap in this area too. Safari is the only browser that is truly native to Mac OS X.

I don't disagree with this.

[Owen W Veteran]

IE9 stunning design + Opera speed and smooth scrolling will be amazing :)

...not to say that all bad coding websites will be gone very fast.

In the hypothetical world that Microsoft would even consider buying such a product, you know that Microsoft would just shut down the project, right?

[Andrew Lyle Global Moderator]

What would Microsoft actually gain from doing this?

[Owen W Veteran]

Try using the Mac OS X version. The menus, preferences window, dialog windows etc. just don't have anything to do with Aqua anymore. And yeah, Firefox and Chrome are crap in this area too. Safari is the only browser that is truly native to Mac OS X.

Firefox 4 is much better

Are you kidding me? Looks like a dog's vomit

Oh Gawd, it is ugly.

[Tom]

Are you kidding me? Looks like a dog's vomit

None of your posts are the least constructive in any shape or form. The UI is subjective. Personally I think it has the nicest UI over ff, safari, IE and chrome. With Chromes lack of features and the fact it's slower than Opera pretty much renders it useless. FF I would recommend to anyone who wants to use extensions, but for a mixture of speed and features I would say Opera was the best alternative.

Oh and by the way. There is such thing as "themes" if you didn't know. It means you can change how Opera looks. It's a miracle huh?

[Mr. Gibs]

Oh Gawd, it is ugly.

If people actually bothered reading they would know that the page is entirely configurable...you can change the background or get rid of tabs. Hell you don't even have to use the speeddial

Or get another theme =/

[.Neo]

Yes, how terribly ugly and unnative this is...

Slapping on an Aero or Aqua theme doesn't mean an application has a truly native interface that actually integrates with the services an OS has to offer.

Firefox 4 is much better

Integrates poorly with Mac OS X' services as well and in the end uses an Aqua theme as well, rather than using the real deal.

[Denis W. Veteran]

In the hypothetical world that Microsoft would even consider buying such a product, you know that Microsoft would just shut down the project, right?

Well said.

I know Opera the browser won't please everyone, but Microsoft buying Opera won't amount to much over acquiring and shutting down a competitor (a small but old one at that).

While you guys are arguing over how Opera fits in on OS X, the Unix version doesn't look native either. Although I find it fits in better with KDE than Gnome. Despite that, on school computers it's more responsive than Firefox at times.

Despite that the Windows version looks pretty polished for the most part. Here's another background:

[progh]

In the hypothetical world that Microsoft would even consider buying such a product, you know that Microsoft would just shut down the project, right?

I don't care as long they add the speed, smooth scrolling and speed dials to IE9 :)

[Growled Member]

First, Microsoft has a browser. Secondly, the DOJ and the EU would never approve such a sale. And third, Opera would never sale. They dislike MS with a passion.

[Arcademus]

I don't use any userscripts, but If I wanted to, I can just append them to the filter. Big ****ing deal, I have to copy and paste a file.

Exactly. It's a "big ****ing deal". It's 2010 and we still have a browser that makes users copy and paste files to some obscure location buried deep within the hard drive to access a feature that is available via point-and-click in other browsers?

I'm trying to decide which is more amazing, that Opera is actually still that primitive in this age of modern browsers, or that you seem to think its perfectly normal.

[Mr. Gibs]

Exactly. It's a "big ****ing deal". It's 2010 and we still have a browser that makes users copy and paste files to some obscure location buried deep within the hard drive to access a feature that is available via point-and-click in other browsers?

I'm trying to decide which is more amazing, that Opera is actually still that primitive in this age of modern browsers, or that you seem to think its perfectly normal.

Have you realized that 60%+ of the world doesn't give a **** about user-scripts?

And no you don't have to copy and paste it to some primitive location on the hardrive.

OH SNAP!

[Arcademus]

Have you realized that 60%+ of the world doesn't give a **** about user-scripts?

Users don't care about this, users don't care about that, they just don't use Opera because they're ignorant and misunderstand it, bla bla bla.

And no you don't have to copy and paste it to some primitive location on the hardrive.

OH SNAP!

Except that it's a stupid CSS file that only hides ads, not prevent them from downloading like how urlfilter.ini does.

OH SNAP!

[Mr. Gibs]

Users don't care about this, users don't care about that, they just don't use Opera because they're ignorant and misunderstand it, bla bla bla.

You know thats a BENEFIT of having multiple web browsers. YOU USE THE ONES THAT HAVE FEATURES THAT MATTER TO YOU.

Did you pay for my computer? No. Did you pay for my windows? No. I don't give a **** about your browsing habits, if you want to run a billion extensions, by all means go ahead. I don't need them, and I don't see the point of them. Hence the whole extension **** is useless for me.

And yes 60% of the world doesn't use user-scripts, because they use IE. And I'm also quite sure a lot of chrome, firefox, Opera, and Safari users don't use them either.

Except that it's a stupid CSS file that only hides ads, not prevent them from downloading like how urlfilter.ini does.

No thats the user stylesheet, not the adblock.

And yes the stylesheet doesn't prevent them from downloading (you need urlfilter.ini for that), but that doesn't affect me too much. I have an unlimited 25/2 connection here, and a 100/100 connection back home. And I have no problem with showing ads on websites that I would like to support. I block the ones that have excessive ads that interrupt my browsing.

Yet again, MY COMPUTER, MY TIME. I'll do what I please with it. Ok?

[Arcademus]

And yes 60% of the world doesn't use user-scripts, because they use IE.

Rolling On Floor Laughing My Ass Off. Why does Opera bother sinking so much research and brag about how fast its Javascript engine then? Why bother to have so many built-in features? 98-99% of the desktop market don't give a ****, they're using browsers slower than and with less features ootb than Opera. Maybe all browser vendors should focus on the heights of mediocrity of IE6/7/8, that would be what the majority of users want. :rolleyes:

[Mr. Gibs]

Rolling On Floor Laughing My Ass Off. Why does Opera bother sinking so much research and brag about how fast its Javascript engine then? Why bother to have so many built-in features? 98-99% of the desktop market don't give a ****, they're using browsers slower than and with less features ootb than Opera. Maybe all browser vendors should focus on the heights of mediocrity of IE6/7/8, that would be what the majority of users want. :rolleyes:

Are you retarded? Using userscripts HAS VERY LITTLE to do with how fast their javascript engine is. A HUGE part of the web uses javascript, especially when it comes to interactive content like AJAX. Having a faster JS engine means those webpages load and respond faster not because userscripts can be run.

And like I said THE BENEFIT OF HAVING CHOICE IN THE BROWSER MARKET IS YOU USE THE ONE THAT HAS FEATURES YOU WANT.

Want extensions? Go with Firefox

Want speed and great standards support? Go with Safari, Chrome, or Opera

Just want a browser that allows you to read your email? Use any of them, or hell stick with IE8

I mean lets look at some statistics shall we? 500 million people have DOWNLOADED firefox since 2004. 32 million people have DOWNLOADED Greasemonkey. That means a whole 6.4% of people who downloaded Firefox use Greasemonkey. 96 million have downloaded Adblock plus. That means a whole 18-20% of people who downloaded Firefox use Adblock plus (the most popular extension).

Face it. Not everyone, even on firefox, uses extensions.

[Rigby]

anyways , Microsoft never took browser wars seriously (even now , IE9 is only for Vista sp2 and W7 , what?)

I know, like yesterday I was trying to install IE9 on Windows NT 3.51 and it wouldn't even work. That's lame.

[Arcademus]

Are you retarded? Using userscripts HAS VERY LITTLE to do with how fast their javascript engine is. A HUGE part of the web uses javascript, especially when it comes to interactive content like AJAX. Having a faster JS engine means those webpages load and respond faster not because userscripts can be run.

And like I said THE BENEFIT OF HAVING CHOICE IN THE BROWSER MARKET IS YOU USE THE ONE THAT HAS FEATURES YOU WANT.

Want extensions? Go with Firefox

Want speed and great standards support? Go with Safari, Chrome, or Opera

Just want a browser that allows you to read your email? Use any of them, or hell stick with IE8

I mean lets look at some statistics shall we? 500 million people have DOWNLOADED firefox since 2004. 32 million people have DOWNLOADED Greasemonkey. That means a whole 6.4% of people who downloaded Firefox use Greasemonkey. 96 million have downloaded Adblock plus. That means a whole 18-20% of people who downloaded Firefox user Adblock plus (the most popular extension).

Face it. Not everyone, even on firefox, uses extensions.

Are YOU retarded? When did I say that using user scripts had anything to do with how fast the Javascript engine is? All I was saying was that if you claim that 60% of people don't care about feature X because they're on IE and IE doesn't have it, then why on earth is Opera wasting its time developing all sorts of features not found in IE?

According to you Opera shouldn't have improved its JS engine and developed all its features, it should just become an IE clone because thats what 60% of desktop users care about. I don't care much for Opera, but even I think that's completely retarded. Your logic sir is utter crap.

[Mr. Gibs]

Are YOU retarded? When did I say that using user scripts had anything to do with how fast the Javascript engine is? All I was saying was that if you claim that 60% of people don't care about feature X because they're on IE and IE doesn't have it, then why on earth is Opera wasting its time developing all sorts of features not found in IE?

According to you Opera shouldn't have improved its JS engine and developed all its features, it should just become an IE clone because thats what 60% of desktop users care about. I don't care much for Opera, but even I think that's completely retarded. Your logic sir is utter crap.

You don't get it do you?

NOT EVERYONE USES EXTENSIONS AND ITS WHY WE HAVE CHOICE

And considering how you didn't reply to that bit of my post, you know the one that includes facts, I'm going to show you another bit of lovely information:

139,270,226 add-ons in use

From Mozilla's statistics. 500 million downloads + of Firefox, only 140 million addons. So that would mean if everyone used 1 extension ONLY, only 140 million people use them. Now considering most people do not just use one, the number drops sharply.

As for userscripts? I'm pretty dam sure even less people use that. So yes MOST PEOPLE DON'T USE USER-SCRIPTS.

THAT IS MY POINT. And considering you didn't manage to get that, and just replied with a personal attack...I'm going to guess your age as being 5. Isn't it past your bed time yet?