Opera (Presto) - browser listing suggestion

Discuss anything related to portable freeware here.
Message
Author
Specular
Posts: 332
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2014 10:54 pm

Re: Is Opera 12 standard portable or not ?

#16 Post by Specular » Wed Jan 07, 2015 11:50 am

freakazoid wrote:I would also do it the other way around. Since the current Opera entry has a lot of comments spanning many years, to me, it makes sense that New Opera should have the new entry.
This is one issue with the current entry. The newest 20 or so comments are related to the Blink version while those before it to the Presto version, which share no similarities and seem to be causing arguments and bickering.

So here's another thought: if the current entry title was changed to Opera (Presto) then a new entry could be created named Opera which would contain the Blink version. The TPFC URL of the existing entry wouldn't need changing as it only affects the title. That way the old comments are kept relevant to that browser while new comments can be added for the Blink browser.

It would also avoid spammy comments seen recently there (tbh they could be deleted if there were separate entries).
freakazoid wrote:Btw, I'm using Bamboo as my RSS feed reader in Firefox. It's not too bad.
Had used Bamboo, but it was very unreliable and feeds that were new wouldn't appear even when refreshed. The interface was lacking also, so I moved to NewsFox which is far better. With some extensive style tweaking it's looking good.

User avatar
Midas
Posts: 4577
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 7:09 am
Location: Sol3

Re: Is Opera 12 standard portable or not ?

#17 Post by Midas » Thu Jan 08, 2015 3:37 am

FYI, it makes good sense to me.

freakazoid
Posts: 936
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 5:45 pm

Re: Is Opera 12 standard portable or not ?

#18 Post by freakazoid » Thu Jan 08, 2015 9:34 pm

Specular wrote:Had used Bamboo, but it was very unreliable and feeds that were new wouldn't appear even when refreshed. The interface was lacking also, so I moved to NewsFox which is far better. With some extensive style tweaking it's looking good.
I used to use NewsFox awhile ago, but there were a few bugs that caused me to switch.
Specular wrote:So here's another thought: if the current entry title was changed to Opera (Presto) then a new entry could be created named Opera which would contain the Blink version. The TPFC URL of the existing entry wouldn't need changing as it only affects the title. That way the old comments are kept relevant to that browser while new comments can be added for the Blink browser.
I believe we're proposing the same thing.
is it stealth? ;)

User avatar
webfork
Posts: 8302
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:06 pm
Location: US, Texas
Contact:

Re: Is Opera 12 standard portable or not ?

#19 Post by webfork » Fri Jan 09, 2015 6:14 pm

Specular wrote:I'd like some feedback as I'm thinking of creating a separate entry
Hang on. Before I get into anything else, I need someone to spell out for me a critical piece: as someone who switches over a LOT of entries here from dead sites to mirrors, who's maintaining the old version? Do the plugins work? I strongly suspect Opera wants very much to divorce itself from the old engine so we can expect them to ask mirror sites like Softpedia and others to lose the Presto version and -- given eventual or current security concerns -- they'll probably comply.

Admittedly we're linking to PortableApps who's is hosting v.12, but they have a DEV version of the Blink version posted to that site (http://portableapps.com/apps/internet/opera_portable) and it seems unlikely they'll maintain the old version once the new version gets out of beta.

---

Anyway, that said, here's what I see as the 3 main arguments for a second entry and my concerns.
  • Reason 1: We need to split the comments section up to correspond with what is a fundamentally different browser
    • While true, this is something Andrew would have to do and I'm not sure he's willing to do that. I suspect splitting entry comments is a non-simple procedure.
    Reason 2: The old version is fundamentally better (with stuff like the cool feed reader)
    • As implied above, I'm a little worried about security for what's now a fairly old browser and the fact that the Blink engine is now the most popular. Old Opera may be better but to whom and why? If we can't say that clearly and succinctly in an entry, we shouldn't list it.
    Reason 3:Just renaming it Opera/Opera (Blink) and Opera (Presto) will make sense to visitors
    • I'd have to post a pretty intense disclaimer/notice to prevent confusion. Nobody that's not fairly technical or a web developer knows the difference between Presto and Blink, much less has an opinion.

Anyway, assuming these issues can get cleared up or aren't really a problem, then I'm fine with a 2nd entry.
Last edited by webfork on Sat Apr 11, 2015 11:09 am, edited 3 times in total.
Reason: (fixing wording, two "reason 2"s)

Specular
Posts: 332
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2014 10:54 pm

Re: Is Opera 12 standard portable or not ?

#20 Post by Specular » Fri Jan 09, 2015 7:10 pm

Thanks for your thoughts webfork. You raise some good points, and I'll attempt to answer these in sections.
webfork wrote:Who's maintaining the old version? Do the plugins work?
Opera has discontinued support for the Presto version, however they keep all previous versions available from the official site, and were releasing point updates for security until about six months ago. All the addons for v12 still work (and often being maintained) from the official site, and can be found with a Google search.
webfork wrote:Admittedly we're linking to PortableApps who's is hosting v.12, but they have a DEV version of the Blink version posted to that site (http://portableapps.com/apps/internet/opera_portable) and it seems unlikely they'll maintain the old version once the new version gets out of beta.
Haven't heard of the PortableApps.com Blink version, but it's a valid point. Although the 12.17 version is still the current download and has been for the longest time.
webfork wrote:
  • Reason 1: We need to split the comments section up to correspond with what is a fundamentally different browser
    • While true, this is something Andrew would have to do and I'm not sure he's willing to do that. I suspect splitting entry comments is a non-simple procedure.
Since Opera 15 (Blink) was released the comments have centered both around the desire for a split and in general continuing to focus around v12, both with sensible and not so sensible comments and arguments. In all 18 from my count, from when the Blink version released.

However my proposal wasn't necessarily to split the comments section, but to leave the vast amount of previous, useful comments for the Presto version in tact and create a new entry for the Blink version, where it can fairly receive comments not mixed in with Presto user comments.

In fact this continues to be an issue on Opera's own forum, where many of the posts to this day are still questions about Opera Presto, or regarding the lack of x feature in the Blink version. Even having deleted the original forum they're now having to consider a Presto-only section.
webfork wrote:Reason 2: The old version is fundamentally better (with stuff like the cool feed reader)
  • As implied above, I'm a little worried about security for what's now a fairly old browser and the fact that the Blink engine is now the most popular. Old Opera may be better but to whom and why? If we can't say that clearly and succinctly in an entry, we shouldn't list it.
Opera Presto has a list of unique features that aren't available natively in other browsers even with addons in various cases (and certainly aren't available in the Blink version). Users in every forum I've been part of have been vocal with their support and praise of the browser, as well as the lack of ideal substitutes. The current entry itself has users expressing this, although not always clearly.

As for being discontinued, it's a valid point. However there are numerous apps in the database that haven't been updated in years, including some internet clients: OperaTor, xB Browser, Ghostzilla, and others. The entries of all these reflects this with a note.
webfork wrote:Reason 2:Just renaming it Opera/Opera (Blink) and Opera (Presto) will make sense to visitors
  • I'd have to post a pretty intense disclaimer/notice to prevent confusion. Nobody that's not fairly technical or a web developer knows the difference between Presto and Blink, much less has an opinion.
[/list]
The Blink version would simply be 'Opera', as it's the current browser. The Presto version would have a description to note it's the older version/engine. Those looking for Opera 12 (as it's commonly known, I refer to it by the Presto engine as it actually covers all previous versions as well) would be able to download and discuss the browser it a separate entry, which myself and other users here have suggested is better than the current single entry.

Hopefully there can be some consensus on the entry as I believe it would benefit both users of the Blink and Presto versions. TBH I didn't come to thinking of two entries with an overwhelming desire or anything, but based on the existing feedback, comments section, and the fact they are effectively two individual browsers it seemed worthwhile :).
Edit wrote:(Added additional info)

User avatar
webfork
Posts: 8302
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:06 pm
Location: US, Texas
Contact:

Re: Is Opera 12 standard portable or not ?

#21 Post by webfork » Fri Jan 09, 2015 8:57 pm

Some good points but I'm still wondering if the Opera company's hosting, the community surrounding Opera-Presto, and the rest of the internet aren't just waiting for one important vulnerability notice that's going to render this all moot.
Specular wrote:... there are numerous apps in the database that haven't been updated in years, including some internet clients: OperaTor, xB Browser, Ghostzilla, and others. The entries of all these reflects this with a note.
True, but projects come and go all those were active at least when they were added so it's a bit of a different situation. Adding an inactive browser is something quite different.
Specular wrote:Opera Presto has a list of unique features that aren't available natively in other browsers even with addons in various cases (and certainly aren't available in the Blink version). Users in every forum I've been part of have been vocal with their support and praise of the browser, as well as the lack of ideal substitutes.
The question isn't "do people use and care about this program?" but rather "why should people use and care about this program?" Ultimately every entry on the site is a sort of advertisement for something that, while free, is still something that's going to take some amount of time and effort to get going. We need to answer questions like: "why should I download this? Why should I use it? What will it do for me?"

Also, if the answer is "but Opera Presto people will care," I don't think that's our audience; those folks probably already have it or know how to get it.
Last edited by webfork on Fri Jan 09, 2015 8:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: (bad wording)

Specular
Posts: 332
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2014 10:54 pm

Re: Is Opera 12 standard portable or not ?

#22 Post by Specular » Fri Jan 09, 2015 10:16 pm

webfork wrote:Some good points but I'm still wondering if the Opera company's hosting, the community surrounding Opera-Presto, and the rest of the internet aren't just waiting for one important vulnerability notice that's going to render this all moot.
In terms of the hosting Opera has maintained installers, changelogs, etc for all versions going back to version 9 (changelogs going back to version 6). I don't see that side of things to be an issue tbh. I can see where you're coming from in terms of wondering about a potential critical vunerability, and of course this is the case with any discontinued software (frankly it's the main point to this whole discussion imo but important and entirely valid).
webfork wrote:The question isn't "do people use and care about this program?" but rather "why should people use and care about this program?" Ultimately every entry on the site is a sort of advertisement for something that, while free, is still something that's going to take some amount of time and effort to get going. We need to answer questions like: "why should I download this? Why should I use it? What will it do for me?"
The second point you raise is essentially about the usefulness of the browser to new users. I'd argue it speaks for itself feature wise, and the very reason there is more than one entry for any type of app on TPFC is everyone is looking for something that suits their needs differently. Certainly compared to the Blink version which literally only last October implemented a bookmark manager, more than a year after v15.

As for what features that stand out there are several that could be mentioned, and part of the long-lasting appeal of the browser is being a Swiss army knife, catering to a variety of users with different wants and needs. Main components/features: a very lean footprint (both in filesize and especially memory usage) for a browser, which is still one of the reasons it continues to be used. A built-in email client, feed reader, IRC client, BitTorrent downloader, in addition to native content filter, userstyle and userscript support.

General unique features: mouse gestures, tab stacking (still the most intuitive method of tab management I've come across), visual tabs, a minutely customizable UI from toolbars to menus, powerful hotkey options (honestly unparalleled), native side panels (bookmarks/notes/mail/etc), custom bookmark nickname support and and custom searches, spacial navigation, and generally polished configurability for every part of the browser. All but two of the above is not found in the Blink version.

Obviously far more than can fit in a regular entry description, but it gives an idea of what the browser is useful for. If it wasn't for official support being discontinued it would be a no-brainer having two entries, but as such it's open for debate as to whether it should fill the current entry and a new entry created for the Blink version.

Some other user opinions would be useful.

User avatar
webfork
Posts: 8302
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:06 pm
Location: US, Texas
Contact:

Re: Is Opera 12 standard portable or not ?

#23 Post by webfork » Sat Jan 10, 2015 10:49 am

Specular wrote:Swiss army knife
Yeah that's what I was looking for, thanks. Are you serious that Opera-Blink doesn't come close to all those? I get that it can't be lightweight with the Chromium memory manager, but none of those features are in their latest version?

Edit: just checked and couldn't find a BitTorrent or IRC plugin, which is admittedly weird.

Specular
Posts: 332
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2014 10:54 pm

Re: Is Opera 12 standard portable or not ?

#24 Post by Specular » Sat Jan 10, 2015 4:55 pm

webfork wrote:
Specular wrote:Swiss army knife
Yeah that's what I was looking for, thanks. Are you serious that Opera-Blink doesn't come close to all those? I get that it can't be lightweight with the Chromium memory manager, but none of those features are in their latest version?

Edit: just checked and couldn't find a BitTorrent or IRC plugin, which is admittedly weird.
Having followed the fall out over the Blink version, no. Comparing both versions would show just how stripped of features the Blink version has been, and why it has received so much backlash. As mentioned for the longest time there were no bookmarks, even with both users and non-users asking for the feature. It's lack of features was joked about even amongst general bloggers. Here's a quote from Tech Crunch at Opera's addition of a simple bookmark bar being re-introduced in v19:
Tech Crunch wrote:What the browser is still missing, though, is a regular bookmarks menu. #facepalm ... Opera was always a very capable browser, but it stood out from the competition because it offered so many built-in features. At some point, it even included a built-in web server, though nobody ever figured out what to do with that. Now, it’s a very stripped-down version of its former self and it remains to be seen if that will help it gain new users in the long run.
The browser is a shell of the Presto version, feature wise as outlined in the previous post. And yes, the only two features in that list above that survive in the Blink version to this day are custom searches and limited, non-customizable mouse gestures. All the other features were removed. It's virtually unrecognizable as Opera. As a Chromium fork, yes, but then a user may honestly as well use Chrome as there is little to distinguish the two (and Chrome has better addon support). For a TPFC entry your criteria was what features stand out and I listed many, larger than the differences between Chrome and Opera Blink which currently share entries in TPFC, let alone between the Blink version and Presto.

If you're wondering what functionality of that list can be reproduced with addons, here are the most general features, including what can't:

Can be replicated with addons:
  • - Userscript manager
    - Userstyle manager
    - Feed Reader
Partial:
  • - Notes (if including any note adding extension, however nothing replicates the original implementation)
Can't be reproduced:
  • - Email Client
    - IRC client (or Newsgroups)
    - BitTorrent downloader
    - Side panels
    - Tab stacking
    - Visual Tabs
    - Customizable UI (in any way)
    - Customizable hotkeys (in any way, originally possible to create a hotkey for literally any function/setting)
    - Bookmark nicknames
    - Spacial navigation
    - General configurability
    - Skins
Other:
  • - Apart from native per-site Javascript and plugin management Presto also inspired several excellent Javascript manager addons (ala NoScript for Firefox) that were never ported to Presto due to API limitations. No equivalent addons are available on Presto to this day.
    - Customizable Speed Dial (there are a couple addons that offer replacement speed dials, natively the Blink Speed Dial can't be customized to the same degree)
    - Opera Turbo (aka Off Road mode) is available for both Presto and Blink.

I hope these posts have detailed why Opera Presto stands out feature wise, as it's clear to both myself and many others. Not sure there's much to add, as spending time with both would reveal the differences. As it stands the only reason why Opera Presto may be debatable for it's own entry is it's discontinuation of support, but otherwise I can't see a reason against one. If anything these posts have at least outlined what made the browser so loved ;)
webfork wrote:True, but projects come and go all those were active at least when they were added so it's a bit of a different situation. Adding an inactive browser is something quite different.
I'll just add lastly that it's regrettable the split in entries wasn't made sooner, while Opera 12 was still being officially supported, as it was requested several times. I'd like to think this could be taken into consideration.

User avatar
webfork
Posts: 8302
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:06 pm
Location: US, Texas
Contact:

Re: Is Opera 12 standard portable or not ?

#25 Post by webfork » Mon Jan 12, 2015 7:11 pm

You went over many good points but one concerned me ...
Specular wrote:I'll just add lastly that it's regrettable the split in entries wasn't made sooner, while Opera 12 was still being officially supported, as it was requested several times. I'd like to think this could be taken into consideration.
Hang on ... are you saying because we didn't respond to users' initial interest when it was active that we owe it to them now that it's not? I'm sorry but I don't follow: just because we missed an opportunity to highlight a supported program means we should now highlight one that's unsupported?

Also, just because something's requested doesn't mean we take action; this is a volunteer site and several of the users involved in the discussion could have created a separate entry themselves over a year ago. Maybe I missed something in the forum but I don't think anybody's hands were being tied with an anti-two entry policy. The only reference there was when I wrote: "Andrew is free to step in here, but traditionally we don't do two listings for the same program. The preference here is one forum per named program. I personally don't have an opinion."

More to the point, I've msg'd Andrew directly to see if he has some kind of technical or policy reason for denying a second entry. I maintain my objection that a single vulnerability notice could sink the whole Opera-Presto ship, but it's not my call.

User avatar
Andrew Lee
Posts: 2235
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 9:19 am
Contact:

Re: Is Opera 12 standard portable or not ?

#26 Post by Andrew Lee » Mon Jan 12, 2015 7:30 pm

Thanks to webfork for alerting me to this.

Given the situation, I will give a "Yes" vote to forking. Both the old ("Presto") and the new entry should have a short paragraph stating the differences between the two versions and providing a link to each other.

Once the new entry is up, I will manually migrate the relevant comments from the old to the new entry. Leave that part to me.

Specular
Posts: 332
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2014 10:54 pm

Re: Is Opera 12 standard portable or not ?

#27 Post by Specular » Mon Jan 12, 2015 8:12 pm

Andrew Lee wrote:Thanks to webfork for alerting me to this.

Given the situation, I will give a "Yes" vote to forking. Both the old ("Presto") and the new entry should have a short paragraph stating the differences between the two versions and providing a link to each other.

Once the new entry is up, I will manually migrate the relevant comments from the old to the new entry. Leave that part to me.
Thanks so much, I've backed up all the Blink version's details and will edit the existing entry to contain the Presto details before adding a new entry titled 'Opera' containing the previous description + the links to each other.

Specular
Posts: 332
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2014 10:54 pm

Re: Is Opera 12 standard portable or not ?

#28 Post by Specular » Mon Jan 12, 2015 9:00 pm

Updated the previous entry, and added a new entry for the Blink version. Let me know if needs to be anything changed. Otherwise feel free to vote.

freakazoid
Posts: 936
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 5:45 pm

Re: Is Opera 12 standard portable or not ?

#29 Post by freakazoid » Mon Jan 12, 2015 11:24 pm

Thanks for putting this together, Specular. And thanks Andrew for the work you will do in porting over specific Blink-related comments to the new Opera entry.

I have made some edits to Opera Presto. Others: feel free to edit as you see fit.
is it stealth? ;)

User avatar
Andrew Lee
Posts: 2235
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 9:19 am
Contact:

Re: Is Opera 12 standard portable or not ?

#30 Post by Andrew Lee » Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:34 pm

I have migrated what I think are the v15-relevant comments over to the new entry.

I have also given my votes for some of the v12 comments to be removed (those that are no longer applicable now that a new v15-specific entry has been created).

If you have the time, do drop by at the v12 entry and vote them down as well.

Thanks!

Post Reply