Talk:Opera (web browser)/Archive 7

• http://celtickane.com/webdesign/jsspeed.php
• http://celtickane.com/webdesign/jsspeed2007.php
• http://lifehacker.com/396048/speed-testing-the-latest-web-browsers
• http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2319739,00.asp
• http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2319726,00.asp

GeeNeeYes (talk) 16:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you put in speed tests from a reliable source to replace the ones to removed? Thanks. -- Schapel (talk) 16:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The above links are from reliable sources. These tests comprise the first page of results for browser speed tests in Google search. LifeHacker and PCMag are renowned websites. Regards - GeeNeeYes (talk) 10:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Pleaz put the latest browser speed tests results. Wikipedia updated must be. Do'not put for beta. (Pleez forget my bad english) Goodbye —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.94.148.210 (talk) 21:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I was reading the article, and I noticed that in the third paragraph, it is stated that "It is currently the fourth most widely used web browser for personal computers, behind Internet Explorer, Firefox, and Safari". According to Net Applications, at the pie chart found at http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=0 , Opera is in the fifth place, following Google Chrome. Daniel Plummer (talk) 23:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The difference is minor and marketshare.hitslink.com is not a "reliable source" -- no one is, it's difficult to find sources about browser market share that agree 100%, also Chrome is a new browser, only the future will tell if it's going to grow or this was only a blimp on the radar because of the curiosity, I think we should leave that info as it is for now... at least till we get other supporting information from different source. man with one red shoe (talk) 00:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

That may be right, because Wakoopa is reporting something similar. Sadly Chrome has a slight lead. —IncidentFlux ^{[ TalkBack | Contributions ]} 07:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

GetClicky also reports that Chrome is #4 and Opera is #5. The only source I can find that shows Opera ahead of Chrome is Xiti, and that's for usage share only on European sites. -- Schapel (talk) 16:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Again the difference is of 0.1 that is well within the error or measurement. In any case I propose we wait a month or so and it will get clearer -- Chrome will get more market share or drop even more. Or we can use language that shows that Opera and Chrome are disputing the 3rd place? man with one red shoe (talk) 16:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing this (should I say frivolous?) claim is based on misinterpretation of NetApplications' data, which are US-centric (as recognized by the company itself) and can never be claimed to be representative of the rest of the world, especially since most European figures on browser usage give Opera a market share bigger than that of Chrome and Safari combined. I'm removing this from the article, of course. Squeal (talk) 19:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Where are these European figures, and why would they be any less biased than Net Applications' figures? —Remember the dot ^(talk) 19:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, you've got pan-European XiTi numbers mentioned in the discussion, and then a bunch of sources for Central and Eastern Europe already present in the article (I'll update the links and numbers soon.). Now, whether they're biased or not is irrevelant, as noone's basing any claim on worldwide usage on them. They're correctly presented as regional sources, all I did just now was correctly presenting another regional source as such. The only reason they were revelant here was because they show that the regional data of NetApplications is unlikely to be representative for the world as a whole.

Note that my edits are suppported by outside sources, while your reverting does not. Moreover, your argumentation for the revert relied on attacking an unimportant remark in my earlier post, while completely ignoring the actual reason for the edit. Please refrain from doing this again unless you find a more solid basis for it. Squeal (talk) 21:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You didn't just change it to state that Net Applications is from the United States. You said Net Applications measured all English-speaking web sites, which is not true. You also deleted all mention that Opera is fifth most-widely used. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 18:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the mention that Opera is fifth most-used because it's completely unfounded, and, by all clues we have, untrue (unless you add, say, "In the US"). And why "English-language" and not "US"? See the link in my first post, while a vast majority of hits recorded by NetApplications are from the US, there's also a significantly high number of them coming from the UK and other, less populated English-speaking countries. Squeal (talk) 21:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Then the article should be clarified to say that the data is biased towards the United States or biased towards English-speaking countries. Our readers are predominantly from English-speaking countries and would be interested in these statistics even if they are a bit skewed. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 04:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

why not? *g* no, but why not in alphabetic order? mabdul 0=* 22:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems like it would make more sense to list them in order of relevance to the reader. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 05:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

how about making for every edition (for example opera9 and oepra10) an extra article like firefox or ie has? it would be huge work, but we can expand this over the time. mabdul 0=* 16:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The latest versions of the browser deserve an individual article page because of their radical changes. GeeNeeYes (talk) 17:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

If this is a complete internet suite, not just a web browser then how about moving this page to the accurate title? The Opera (internet suite) page redirects here, and I suggest reversing this redirect. --Unpopular Opinion (talk · contribs) 09:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Please read the discussion concerning this at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Opera (web browser). In short, it was decided that it was too confusing to have the disambiguation be "Internet suite" because few of our readers know what an Internet suite is, especially since a "suite" typically refers to a set of programs and not a single one. It's much clearer to readers trying to find the article to see "Opera (web browser)" than "Opera (Internet suite)". And even the Opera Software company itself refers to Opera as a web browser: . —Remember the dot ^(talk) 00:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• Firefox abandoned support for Windows 95 May 30, 2007.

Firefox 1.5.0.12 is the final version supported on Windows 95.

1.5.0.12 - May 30, 2007 - Stability improvements and security fixes. End-of-life of 1.5.0.x product line.

• Firefox abandoned support for Windows 98 December 18, 2008.

Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.x is the final version supported on Windows NT 4.0 and Windows 98.

2.0.0.20 - December 18, 2008 - Single security fix. End-of-life of 2.0.0.x product line.

http://www.opera.com/support/kb/view/386/ -68.236.103.195 (talk) 15:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted the screenshot image NonFreeImageRemoved.svg to NonFreeImageRemoved.svg. The latter expressly avoids the non-free Google logo, has a smaller filesize and uses transparency (consistent with other software screenshots), and emphasizes the browser's cross-platform nature by not including the window titlebar. The only rationale provided for replacing this image (on the edit summary) was that the it should depict the latest stable version. For screenshot purposes, this is a moot point since 9.6.3 is visually identical to 10.00. Noir (talk) 20:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The non-free Google logo is part of Opera's default settings and is covered by fair use. We try to show the default settings when making screenshots (including non-free elements) so that the user knows what the software typically looks like in the real world.

Look around the edges of File:Opera 9.5.png - there is transparency, it's just very subtle. There is no 3D transparent border; if I had a computer that did Ubuntu's 3D effects then I would try to have the screenshot feature them, but alas I don't, and really it's a minor detail that doesn't help the reader understand Opera better one way or the other. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 06:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The transparency issue is merely about consistency with other software screenshots (for example take a look at Finder, Windows Explorer, Irfanview, VLC, Firefox, and Google Chrome). It's certainly not a requirement, but consistency is a nice consideration, especially since a file with the effect already exists. I also contend that a window without a titlebar should not be "foreign" to any reader interested in the browser's functionality - in fact the suggestion page for software screenshots recommends removing the titlebar for cross-platform programs. At any rate, of main interest are the browser controls and the distinctive appearance of the application itself, both of which are clearly depicted. The Google logo can indeed be considered part of the default settings, but its inclusion is not strictly necessary; the images are very similar and it should be easily seen that both depict "real-world" use of the software; therefore the additional non-free content can and should be easily avoided. According to the same suggestion page, standardized resolutions are not imperative, but I certainly agree on 800x600 and have updated NonFreeImageRemoved.svg accordingly. In effect I simply view said image as a (marginally) better representation of the software and believe it is therefore more suited for use in this article. I also believe the caption would be better left without a reference to a particular operating system, viz. Firefox, since the titlebar is not included and the browser runs on multiple platforms. I have reverted the page to my previous edit; if more convincing rationale can be provided, you're welcome to change it back. Noir (talk) 16:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I also believe that the captions should not mention any OS especially that Opera is multiplatform program. I also think that the window shot without the titlebar is perfectly fine. man with one red shoe 17:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

can somebody help and provide a screenshot of the address bar showbing an ev certificate? thx mabdul 0=* 15:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the way the Wii and DS get their own sections like they belong with the other major Opera versions, the Devices site has changed since I last brought this issue up, now showing only the Wii since it is their primary focus but both the Wii and DS should fall into an "Opera for Devices" category, the site previously showcased a number of other devices that use it including the Pepper Pads, archos, and formerly the Internet Tablets, the entire list of them is still up --TMV943 (talk) 05:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I take your point, but with the emphasis Wikipedia puts on notability I think the fact that these versions are well known and have relatively large user bases compared to other "Opera for devices" versions I'd say they deserve separate sections. I would wager most Wikipedia readers interested in reading about "Opera for devices" will be reading about either of these two. _ɹəəpıɔnı 21:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Is the recent Opera Boycott notable enough too mention? Kc4 (talk) 16:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It was initially alleged that the boycott was initiated by the staff members of the jcXP community. However, the article was written by one member of that community, without consulting other moderators who later took issue with the boycott leading to him posting an apology in the jcXP fora and a disclaimer saying the boycott was from him as an individual and not the team there.

While an article by an individual may be considered fairly insignificant, the story has probably gained enough press to warrant notability. I'm not sure, I could go either way on including it. It won't hard the article, I don't know that it would benefit it. _ɹəəpıɔnı 21:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems to be fizzling out now anyway Kc4 (talk) 03:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what impression you have about Wikipedia, but it's definitely not a news site reporting about blogs. It's supposed to be an encyclopedia. man with one red shoe 13:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think whether Wikipedia is reporting "news event" or not will effect this. Notice that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. If an event is notable or worthy to be mentioned, then it should be included in the article regardless of it been a current event or not. --98.154.26.247 (talk) 02:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Is it worth mentioning that the beta release of Opera version 10 even passes the Acid3 test? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.151.189.117 (talk) 15:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think any version of Opera has passed the Acid3 test. It scores 100/100 and renders the page properly, but does not pass the performance aspect of the test. -- Schapel (talk) 15:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was only the alpha version that didn't pass the performance aspect. 70.51.229.3 (talk) 12:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

In any case, we need to cite a reliable source if we want to say that Opera 10 passes. -- Schapel (talk) 15:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Opera passes Acid3 completely, it's ridiculous to need to cite a reliable source when you can point your browser to http://acid3.acidtests.org/ and try for yourself. man with one red shoe 20:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

First, Opera doesn't pass the performance aspect of the test. Second, trying it for yourself is original research, which Wikipedia does not publish. -- Schapel (talk) 20:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Why do you say it doesn't pass the performance aspect? I have seen that message when I used betas, but I don't see it anymore when I test on http://acid3.acidtests.org/ as for OR some things are evident, you don't need quotes. Should I add ^{[citation needed]} for every time it is said in Wikipedia that the sky is blue? Don't get me wrong, I think that references are the best thing in Wikipedia and all the relevant content should be referenced, but let's not be silly, when something can be verified by any person who has a computer, that doesn't need a citation. man with one red shoe 22:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

When I and others try Opera 10 with Acid3, it doesn't pass. What type of computer are you running the test on? Is it equivalent to a top-of-the-line Apple laptop? Is it a new, fast desktop? It is not something that can be verified by any person who has a computer. Even if it could be, Wikipedia does not publish things that are verified by trying them. That is clearly original research. There needs to be a citation to a reliable source to anything that is challenged. I'm familiar with the "sky is blue" exaggeration. It never flies. -- Schapel (talk) 00:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, maybe it's true, it might not pass on some computers, it passes on two different computers (Linux) not very new, maybe it doesn't pass on Windows? As for citation see the Opera release info: http://www.opera.com/press/releases/2009/09/01/ "With a 100% score on the ACID3 standards compliance test, and support for CSS3 Webfonts, Opera 10 is ready whenever inspiration strikes." man with one red shoe 00:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The score is only the number of subtests that are completed successfully. As far as I can tell, Opera Software ASA has been silent about how Opera does with the performance aspect of Acid3 since March 2008. I've tried the test today on a new 2.4 GHz Core 2 laptop, and the Windows version always takes more than 50 ms for Test 26, and the Linux version always takes more than 80 ms for Test 26. I don't see how Opera could pass the performance test on a top-of-the-line laptop, because the processor would have to be running at more than 3.6 GHz. Maybe when the Core i7 mobile processors come out later this month. -- Schapel (talk) 02:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Talking about original research, this sounds like it, Opera says it passes Acid3 with 100% score, everybody (or, let me give you this, most of the people) can check that, I don't see anywhere in the result of the Acid3 a comment about the performance. Do you have a reference somewhere that the newly released Opera doesn't pass the performance test? Till the contrary proof the idea that it doesn't pass a test is just original research. man with one red shoe 04:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

To be strict, this is incorrect, Opera never stated, that it passes Acid3, only that it scores 100/100 (which is true - Opera 10 scores 100/100, but doesn't pass due to performance). 90.156.20.211 (talk) 16:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any reference that it doesn't pass the performance test? All the references that I saw referred to older or beta versions, if you don't have a reference than that's at best "Original Research". man with one red shoe 21:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Performance can be tested by clicking on the "A" in "Acid". Opera 10 passes, but does not get perfect scores in performance, on both low end and high end computers. Are we certain that safari passes the performance perfectly though, could someone check that? -AlexTG (talk) 10:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I can find no reference to whether Opera 10 does or does not pass the performance aspect. The most recent reference I can find is from an Opera developer saying that Opera did not pass the performance aspect in March 2008. The best we can do it state it gets a score of 100/100 and produces a perfect rendering. We cannot state it passes Acid3. -- Schapel (talk) 13:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Opera 10.00 gives me a 100/100 score for Acid3. I'm using Windows XP Pro SP2. The performance information is as follows:

Failed 0 tests.

Test 26 passed, but took 62ms (less than 30fps)

Test 65 passed, but took 46ms (less than 30fps)

Test 69 passed, but took 212 attempts (less than perfect).

Total elapsed time: 2.83s

I don't see anything to indicate that a certain performance threshold should be taken as a pass or fail on the Acid3 test. It says "Failed 0 tests" and it doesn't say "failed" for anything else. -- leuce (talk) 16:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Added: The Acid3 web site says that the performance aspect does not affect compliance. At http://www.webstandards.org/action/acid3/ it says "The Acid3 test measures some performance characteristics. The test ... should not be used as a hardware benchmark. ... does not imply non-conformance." So performance is not part of the test, and Opera scores 100/100. In fact, Opera itself says they comply: http://www.opera.com/press/releases/2009/09/01/ -- leuce (talk) 16:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Just reading the Wiki and it says that opera has to be paid for, this hasnt been the case for quite a while, just wondering should someone ammend this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.22.151.244 (talk) 08:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it was my imagination, but wasn't there a small section in this article regarding the recent icon change for Opera?

Karandr (talk) 13:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I removed the "Carakan" addition by User 75.154.186.99, as they have said it's not ready for user's to see. Also, at the end of the referenced article, it says "According to the Opera Desktop QA manager, end users should not expect to see Carakan in Opera 10." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anunnakki (talk • contribs) 05:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Added information relating to Carakan and Vega. It's been widely circulated among software downlaod sites, blogs, CNET, etc., and is all over Opera's forums, development blogs, and even a few pages on their main website. I stated plainly that it is only available as an "unstable pre-alpha release". Nightly builds of Firefox are discussed extensively on its Wikipedia page, so I thought it acceptable to include information about the pre-alpha builds of Opera, so long as it is clearly stated that they are not in a stable stage of development. (Zerotonin (talk) 10:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC))

Yeah, I wrote the above before the 10.50 Alpha was released; Carakan definitely deserves what was added to the article, now that it's written about and available for public use. Anunnakki (talk) 20:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, hadn't noticed the timestamp. Sorry, still new here and figuring things out. And thanks for adding the citations, if that was you. Zerotonin (talk) 09:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

80.202.113.129, it's not just a matter of terminology. There is little to no information on "Evenes." It is likely the code name for a specific component of Opera, much like all the other codenames, so even for you to claim that it is a code name for a future version of Opera as a whole is unsubstantiated. The reference you give cites a vague comment on the Opera blog, so what you added is little more than speculation. —Anunnakki (talk) 00:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

However, the comment about Evenes is succeeding a comment about Peregrine, which was the code name for Opera 10. The context therefore implies that Evenes is the next major version planned. Also, the developer states that Evenes will include core updates, whereas e.g. "Kestrel" is a core update. -Bhsand (talk) 15:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

According to the latest Latest Language Files, Opera supports 44 languages in total (This was changed from the 40 languages); However Afrikaans and Punjabi are not supported in the latest 10.10 stable version. Should these be included? Or omitted giving a grand total of 42 languages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.174.12 (talk) 11:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC) --220.244.174.12 (talk) 16:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I suppose technically it's only 42, but it doesn't really matter that much. If anything, it will just add another layer of difficulty in updating this page, since we'd have to check which languages are actually supported with each new release. Change it if you must, but my vote it just to leave it. Anunnakki (talk) 19:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

44 languages it is--220.244.174.12 (talk) 12:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Anybody care to discuss the new 10.50 alpha release?. Someone who can coherently structure those points and update the article on our behalf. Please also mention of a leaked version of 10.50 that did not contain the new javascript engine 'carakan' among other features. Deatils could be found Here--220.244.174.12 (talk) 11:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Added some basic info to the Features section related to Opera 10.5's significant speed increase thanks to Carakan and Vega. Nothing beyond that though... The speed increase is the most noticable and talked about feature of Opera 10.5 at the moment so I didn't figure it was necessary to create an entire section for Opera 10.5 just yet. If anyone disagrees though, feel free to do so... - (Zerotonin 10:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zerotonin (talk • contribs)

I think an extra section is worth being set up due to not only having speed improvements, but also <video> and <audio> tags working in Opera 10.5, geolocation added as a new feature and Widgets completely removed from the browser. This are major changes that need to be mentioned seperately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andylee Sato (talk • contribs) 10:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's particularly groundbreaking enough for its own entire section, but it probably deserves its own paragraph in the history section or something, once the stable version is released and everything's working. The HTML5 tag support is already a feature in Chrome and Firefox, and Opera so far has stated that it will only support the Ogg Theora video codec for the <video> tag. –Anunnakki (talk) 00:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Alright, now that 10.50 is officially released, I have moved the "Future Development" section to the end of the History section for now, and reworked it into the present tense. The screenshot that User 173.30.227.108 was blank, so I replaced it with an original screenshot.

I suppose we should work in all of the added features into the other parts of the article, as described in the changelog here, such as Carakan's speed improvments, Vega, HTML5 video, widgets being separate from the web browser, and private browsing. –Anunnakki (talk) 01:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

"and Opera has innovated many key features of modern browsers"

Opera has not innovated anything. The developers of the browser are innovaters. Can this sentence be more graceful? "Innovations in Opera have quickly been adopted in other web browsers." Just a thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CLSwiki (talk • contribs) 18:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Rephrase: It seems kind of nit-picky, since it's obvious that the programmers did the actual coding, but Opera is the innovative software. However, I don't see the harm. –Anunnakki (talk) 02:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree, that's they way it is usually formulated, iPad was created by Apple (even though it was technically created by people who work at Apple) same for innovations. man with one red shoe 00:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I do agree that "and Opera has innovated many key features of modern browsers" sounds bad though. man with one red shoe 22:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this sentence is right the way it is. Furthermore, your replacement suggestion would indicate that other browsers do now include all (or at least most) of the features Opera does. This is not true at all if you compare it to widely used browsers like Internet Explorer or Google Chrome (and it's derivatives).Andylee Sato (talk) 10:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

On another note for "clumsy wording," I think maybe now that Opera 10.50 is available as a stable beta, the bolded part of this sentence seems kind of unnecessary:

However, Opera 10.50, which is currently only available as a stable beta release for windows, and an unstable alpha release for Mac and UNIX, features a new JavaScript engine (codenamed Carakan), as well as a new hardware-accelerated vector graphics library (codenamed Vega), which together significantly increase Opera's overall rendering speed.

I think the sentence as a whole just works better without it. Any thoughts? –Anunnakki (talk) 21:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

What the heck is "stable beta"? It should be "is available as a Beta release for Windows and Alpha release for Mac and UNIX". man with one red shoe 22:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Good point, I think what I meant was that it is significantly more stable than the previous alpha releases. Also, your sentence suggestion works well. –Anunnakki (talk) 22:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

"as well as a new hardware-accelerated vector graphics library (codenamed Vega)"

Vega as of yet does not include hardware acceleration. This is planned for a future release--220.244.174.12 (talk) 13:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

It has it, but it's turned off until it's stable internally I think. That line should be reworded alright. _ɹəəpıɔnı 13:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes it should. Probably O will decide to enable it when IE9 hits.--220.244.174.12 (talk) 08:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

This article was recently edited to state that Opera was the first TDI browser, an edit that was reverted by Mabdul here - in which Mabdul stated "netcaptor was the first! look at TDI article". So I went and looked at the TDI article.

The TDI article says Opera added tabbed browsing in version 4, in 2000 (Netcaptor was 1997), however version 4 of Opera had exactly the same tab/window management facilities as version 1, 2 and 3 (version 1 was 1995).

The Comparison of document interfaces article defines TDI as a sub-class of MDI (which was in Opera 1), which would completely conflate the two terms.

There's two ways of looking at it - either (a) TDI is entirely distinct from MDI, in which case Opera 4 didn't have a TDI at all, and doesn't belong in the TDI article, or (b) the terms are interchangeable.

Technically one could argue all modern browsers use a form of MDI, as there are multiple documents (webpages) within one window - the only reason a distinction is made is because a newer more popular term was coined - "tab". We know Opera was the first MDI browser either way, but is are TDI and MDI the same thing? If not, what's the difference? Is it purely an aesthetic difference? _ɹəəpıɔnı 13:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

TDI is pretty much a subset of MDI. TDI just allows multiple documents to be switched among within a single window, along with displaying an index of those documents (i.e. the tab bar). But MDI treats every one of those documents as a sub-window, allowing you to minimize, maximize, restore, resize, move, and arrange, thus allowing you to arrange multiple documents to be viewed simultaneously, perhaps at different sizes, all in the single window. With MDI (seen in Opera from the beginning), you have the full ability to treat each document as a sub-window. But with TDI (i.e. what Firefox uses), one single document always fills the entire window. TDI provides less. 24.215.141.26 (talk) 03:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

http://www.opera.com/docs/history/

While final 10.10 non-alpha Peregrine/Futhark shows correctly text cursor in Windows Me, initial Evenes/Carakan 10.50 non-alpha and all later subsequent versions doesn't show text cursor in Windows Me at all. 79.143.184.239 (talk) 16:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Eep! That's no good. I'm try testing Opera 10.5 and subsequent versions of the browser under Windows Millennium Edition sometime to see if this is the case. If so, I might want to consider updating my post. --184.12.229.155 (talk) 20:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Article has deprecated info regarding opera mobile pricing. It's free now.

85.76.84.108 (talk) 18:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I am trying to track down when Opera first introduced/enabled HTTP pipelining as opposed to HTTP persistent connections. A press release for 4.0 mentions it, but we need a reliable source, and/or some technical details about how aggressive it was. I also vaguely recall that they rewrote/revised the pipelining in a later version in order to work around the many real-world problems in HTTP pipelining. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

this may help if someone has access to Journal of communications and networks. --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

From my experience, the absolute minimum system requirements to run Opera 10.5 (Opera@USB version) and later is Windows 98 (original release) with at least 64 MB of memory. Although Opera will run on Windows 98, it won't run too well despite its functionality in the old operating system.

While the latest browser will run on Windows 98 and later, Opera 10.5 and later dropped support for Windows 95 as most of the users stopping using the OS and I've been thinking that developers might have used API calls and dynamic link libraries (DLLs) that are not present in Windows 95.

Here is a screenshot for proof: Opera 10.61 running on Windows 95 OSR2 and Windows 98.

According to the screenshot shown in the link (Windows 95 under VMware Player 2.5.4 and Windows 98 running under Qemu 0.9.0), Opera 10.5 will not run on Windows 95 at all, because the opera.dll file failed to load due to a failure in the dynamic link library initialisation routine.

Additionally, if you copy the older version of the opera.dll file in a attempt to get Opera 10.5 (or later) working in Windows 95, you will receive this error message:

The OPERA.EXE file is linked to missing export ADVAPI32.DLL:DuplicateTokenEx

This is because the DuplicateTokenEx function is not available in Windows 95...even Windows 98 or Windows Me, however Opera 10.5+ seems to run okay under Windows 98 and Windows Me.

Have you ever gotten the latest version of Opera running under Windows 98 or Windows Me whatever you ran in on a old PC or in a virtual PC? Please discuss this. --184.12.229.155 (talk) 20:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I am running Opera 10.63 - last one from Opera 10 series fine on Windows Me. All is fine except invisible cursor. Anything later since Opera 11 series fails to work and install on Windows Me at all. 83.26.50.68 (talk) 17:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Opera (even 12.50) still work on all 9x OS with KernelEX2A02:8422:1191:6E00:56E6:FCFF:FEDB:2BBA (talk) 19:40, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Is it correct release date for Opera 10.62 - 07 September 2010, I thought that it's 09 September 2010 (http://my.opera.com/desktopteam/blog/). (Рудський (talk) 09:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC))

In contradiction to what is said in this article (Opera does not allow any extensions due to stability, security and such), it is planned for Opera 11: http://my.opera.com/chooseopera/blog/2010/10/14/opera-11-will-have-extensions —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.190.253.149 (talk) 12:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC) New as version 11 has been released It now supports extensions. Kawaiipikachu (talk) 01:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Is this section on the release procedure for a particular security issue back in 2007 noteworthy? If so, it needs clarification!

"In January 2007, Asa Dotzler of the competing Mozilla Corporation accused the Opera Software company of downplaying information about security vulnerabilities in Opera that were fixed in December 2006. Dotzler claimed that users were not clearly informed of security vulnerabilities present in the previous version of Opera, and thus they would not realize that they needed to upgrade to the latest version or risk being exploited.[65] Opera responded to these accusations the next day." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.253.76.71 (talk) 17:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Chrome browser comes build in with Chrome OS. Thus leaves Opera the only (major) browser not to be packaged with an OS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaaskaas (talk • contribs) 10:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

This was actually what the article said some time ago, if I'm not mistaken. I'm not sure why it was changed. –Cosmopolitan (talk) 08:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm actually pretty sure I used some linux distribution or other with opera packaged; having said that, I am not sure if it was the default for a desktop os, as the distro may have been live cd only, or just packaged with a load of other browsers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.37.213 (talk) 19:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I see that we use in this page a screenshot from Windows 7, from what I understand that's not a free image because the GUI elements of Windows 7 are copyrighted, pages for other browsers (Firefox, Chrome) use screenshots from free operating system such as Linux. Can anybody change the image? Thanks. man with one red shoe 16:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The GUI elements of Opera are also copyright protected. Furthermore, Microsoft has already extended generous licensing terms for the screenshots of its software, so what you are talking about is of less concern that Opera's copyright-protected elements. Fleet Command (talk) 17:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Screenshots of Opera are necessary to portray the subject of this article, shots of Windows are not. man with one red shoe 16:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

What kind of trolling is this? By that logic, we should remove all pictures of books from their articles, because after all, the picture is supposed to be of the book, not of words printed on paper! –Cosmopolitan (talk) 05:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

man with one red shoe wanted to say it doesn't make a difference on which operating system the application is running. In case of Opera it looks on every os similar. The GUI elements of Windows, Linux, Mac OS or other operating system doesn't beloing to the software itself and because Opera isn't a free (open source) software it doesn't make any difference if displaying it under Windows or Linux since the screenshot would be (by license) unfree. See WP:NFCC. mabdul 06:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok? So what? Opera is desktop software—you cannot have a screenshot of Opera without including some OS GUI elements. But it doesn't matter, Wikipedia has license directly from Microsoft to display Widnows GUI elements. So what's the issue here? –Cosmopolitan (talk) 00:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but we could use a free OS that doesn't have this problem. It doesn't matter if Microsoft gave license to Wikipedia, that doesn't make the image free for somebody else From WP:FUC "To support Wikipedia's mission to produce perpetually free content for unlimited distribution, modification and application by all users in all media." If Microsoft give right for unlimited distribution, modification for all users than yes we can use shots from Windows, otherwise we should avoid them if we can (and we can very easily). man with one red shoe 02:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

What problem are you talking about? The image isn't free for anybody else anyway. Screenshots of Opera are unlicensed by Opera Software. As of right now, screenshots that have elements of the Widnows OS are fair game for Wikipedia. Screenshots of Opera, no matter the OS, are not fair game, in any context. The OS isn't the issue with the screenshot. What part of that are you not understanding? –Cosmopolitan (talk) 03:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

If Opera allows me to publish screenshots with Opera I still cannot use this image because of Microsoft restrictions. So it matters if there is one or two non-free elements in an image ("it's not free anyway" is not a good argument in this case). BTW, that's one reason why the screenshots of browsers (even if they are not free like Opera and IE) display Wikipedia content, if your argument would be valid it wouldn't matter what content they display because the image is not free anyway. man with one red shoe 04:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

First of all: yes you can. If the wiki page about Microsoft licensing wasn't good enough for you, here's a web page directly from Microsoft giving you permission to use screenshots of software. Secondly, your personal license to publish screenshots has nothing to do with this Wikipedia article's use of a non-free screenshot. And finally, my argument is entirely valid. Web content is copyrighted, but falls under fair use (which is why Facebook and Twitter are allowed to post screenshots of those web interfaces). You're right, it really doesn't matter what content web browsers display if the purpose is just to showcase its interface... but it should be obvious why all browsers' screenshots show Wikipedia's main page. –Cosmopolitan (talk) 06:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Took a look at that link and the content doesn't sound that free to me:

"provided that, in addition to the requirements above, you:

1. Do not alter the screen shot except to resize it.
2. Do not use portions of screen shots.
3. Do not include screen shots in your product user interface.
4. Do not use screen shots that contain third-party content.
5. Do not use screen shots that contain an image of an identifiable individual." man with one red shoe 13:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't sound very aligned with "Wikipedia's mission to produce perpetually free content for unlimited distribution, modification and application by all users in all media" man with one red shoe 13:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

We're not doing any of those things, nor would we really want to, even if they were not restrictions. You see a problem where one doesn't exist, and are ignoring the one that does—again, even just having a screenshot of Opera does not align with the mission statement you keep repeating unnecessarily. Since this argument has now reached a full circle, I will not reply from hereon unless you address this last point. (But there is no solution to that; permission to post screenshots of Opera are entirely up to Opera Software, so there's nothing we can do to solve licensing issues for Wikipedia users.) –Cosmopolitan (talk) 19:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

As I explained before, a photo that is encumbered by 2 non-free copyrights is worse than one encumbered by only one, the solution to that is very simple, post a picture from a free operating system like it's done on the rest of the articles about browsers. I don't understand the tooth and nail opposition to that. man with one red shoe 19:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The section claims "website compatibility is no longer a significant issue in more recent versions.[120][121]". The 2 sources for this bold claim are from Opera itself. First off, this is not a reliable source for such a claim and secondly it's just not true, totally wrong and completely pulled out of a nose. Site compatibility is being fixed in updates coming when the site in question has already changed its code again. Prominent example are recent versions that were not even compatible with Google.com, not to speak of the longstanding and recurring issues with YouTube and other Flash based sites. This is not a browser, it's a W3C testing application invented on an ivory tower. /rant 80.171.136.166 (talk) 00:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Where's the section discussing the thing from January 2011? Anyway, whoever had this idea it's just impossible. Look at the size of Features of the Opera web browser! It's full of valuable content (just need a rewrite on some parts and updates...) so it simply can't be merged with this page. That's my opinion. Some users talking about it. --Rafaelluik (talk) 16:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

There is a move discussion in progress which affects this page. Please participate at Talk:Safari (web browser) - Requested move and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 01:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I found a bug that affects Opera 11.60 Build 1185 for Linux i386 and Opera [Next] 12.00 Build 1191 for Linux i386 but I have not found any coverage for it. If any sources are found that mention this bug please add a reference to it in the article. Thank you in advance. – Allen4names 20:55, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you think Wikipedia is a site for bug reports... Numbnumb (talk) 14:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

If this bug gets mentioned in a review then this bug may be considered notable enough to be included in this article. That is why I looked for sources for this bug. – Allen4names 16:16, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

If you are going to start listing every single bug that's mentioned in some online publication the article is going to become terribly boring and uninteresting. I'd suggest a different way of reporting bugs if that's your goal. - Numbnumb (talk) 00:42, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

It should be showing the default speed dial instead of a customized one. tablo (talk) 02:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions about Opera (web browser). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Its page claims that the screenshot is from a vanilla installation of Opera but it isn't:

• shows the Bookmarks bar, disabled by default;
• uses a custom theme instead of the default one.

— 85.243.219.127 (talk) 14:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

This not the right place but I wonder what happen to the 'next' branch caused by the recent changes on opera web site.2A02:8422:1191:6E00:56E6:FCFF:FEDB:2BBA (talk) 19:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Mail is now a new application. Mention in page but only when Opera Next is stable(?). Then page will need a massive rewrite. Mention new Mail app there or create new page? Comp.arch (talk) 16:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Opera 15 is released, please update article and new logo:

http://web.archive.org/web/20130705214910/http://my.opera.com/desktopteam/blog/2013/07/02/opera-15

http://web.archive.org/web/20130706012308/http://my.opera.com/chooseopera/blog/2013/07/02/better-browsing-on-your-computer-with-opera-15

Whether it is stable or not, currently v12.16 (released this week) is what is offered at the moment from the download page. Both versions should be shown, and maybe a totally separate section to cover Opera 15. Maybe an expansion of the 'Reception' section to cover Opera 15 is needed, most of the reception has been pretty hostile... Dsergeant (talk) 13:38, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The article currently lists Linux and FreeBSD as platforms "until 12.16". This is true but somewhat misleading, as Opera Software have said many times that Linux support is planned and underway. The current listing gives the impression that these platforms have been discontinued. (Although, this may yet turn out to be the case for FreeBSD.) I feel we need some sort of wording such as "* these platforms have not yet been updated from 12.16". The real difficulty with this approach is choosing words to fit in the sidebar, and my edits have already been contested. I think the easiest solution would be not to make any remark about the temporary lack of support, which is not untrue, as 12.16 is currently still supported. —WOFall (talk) 00:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I've now replaced the text with a note, although I still think it's unnecessary to mention at all. —WOFall (talk) 20:14, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Sadly, it seems the note is only drawing attention to this conflict, so I've left it out this time. Is it entirely unreasonable to just wait either until a new nix version is released, or until Linux quietly disappears from opera.com? —WOFall (talk) 20:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

A contributor has suggested this article needs to go through featured article review, citing the "update" tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: The update template have been tagged since August 2013. Remember the dot, please take note. If problems are not solved, I will list it at FAR. HYH.124 (talk) 09:32, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Listed. HYH.124 (talk) 08:48, 5 April 2014 (UTC)