Talk:Opera (web browser)/Archive 5

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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,^[1] most secure^[2] 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 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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)