AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Opera Mini for iPhone fails Acid3 test
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Opera Mini for iPhone fails Acid3 test - Page 2

post #41 of 74
4/15/10 at 5:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by insike View Post

You are kidding, right? You are comparing a mini-browser with the engine on a server to full browsers with the engine locally? If this isn't a joke, this site really needs to start laying off staff... Of course Opera Mini isn't going to pass Acid3. The way it works prevents it from doing that. Rendering on a server, remember? ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by insike View Post

... It does exactly what it was designed to do. And it isn't supposed to replace full browsers like Opera Mobile or Safari.

Quote:
Originally Posted by insike View Post

... Safari displays pages incorrectly too ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by insike View Post

Not terrible, just different. ...

I guess you are the one man Opera mini defence team today but you really go a bit overboard here.

The reason Acid 3 is important and the reason this article is justified for it's (minimal) taking of Opera to task for failing it, is that Opera itself uses Acid 3 to tout it's superiority in it's own promotional materials and has or a long time. Opera has a history of throwing their Acid scores in everyone's face and making claims about how fantastically compatible they are with web standards.

It seems to me then that it's completely relevant, and quite proper for someone to take them to task for putting out a browser that not only *doesn't* pass Acid 3, but is forever incapable of passing Acid 3. This browser will literally *never* be standards compliant (by design!) as you yourself mention.

Secondly, you try to equate Safari with Opera by saying that Safari doesn't render pages properly either, but it's strictly Apples and Oranges and you know it. There are huge, noticeable, visual differences between pages rendered with Opera mini and the same page rendered on a standards compliant browser that the end user can see and have commented on. People have been posting all over the web about it as well as in the comments for the app in the store. That's completely a different order of "error" than Safari getting a 100/100 score and rendering a couple of minor page elements slightly differently.

Finally, you several times use the defence that Opera "isn't supposed to replace full browsers," but there is nothing about that on the app store page they sell it from. I've never heard anyone from Opera make this claim before either.

You are just twisting things around and making stuff up to suit your argument and are clearly biased.
Reply
Reply
post #42 of 74
4/15/10 at 5:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

What's the point of this browser? Really.

Ya know, I've got to admit that I'm stunned by the negative press and attitude about this new Opera browser. I see there are some fleeting positive reviews, yet so far they seem in the minority.

Well, I downloaded it from the Application Store and gave it a whirl on a first-gen iPod Touch (32GB) just to see what I thought.

Yes, it could stand some refinement. However, the speed of it alone is phenomenal. Owners of new iTouch devices might not care so much about this with their faster processors and more RAM, but I thought the improvement on the hardware I have was striking to say the least. I'm going to keep the Opera browser and just watch how it goes.

I have nothing against Mobile Safari. Although I don't really care for its desktop counterpart, the mobile version is very good at what it does. By comparison, Opera's offering is a strong start and it will get better--if negative commentary and journalism don't do it in first.

One of the points is right there--Opera's feature set and speed are unlikely to be ignored by Apple. I'm sure Apple will implement some of the features that show up in the Opera browser.

On a brighter note, I got to see an iPad for the first time at an independent Apple retailer. I really wasn't planning to buy one--nor have I--but after holding it and using it, it's really very slick. I doubt that I will buy one just yet...rather, I will just watch and see what a previous model can be had for when a new one comes out. (I would have to say that I'd prefer not having a camera in place.)

I did notice that Apple had tagged the display models with a "not for resale" engraving on the back. I wonder if that means the demonstrator iPads have secrets?
Reply
Reply
post #43 of 74
4/15/10 at 5:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnexpectedBill View Post

I did notice that Apple had tagged the display models with a "not for resale" engraving on the back. I wonder if that means the demonstrator iPads have secrets?

They do contain a bunch of App Store apps, usually full paid versions. I think the engraving is simply to discourage stealing.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #44 of 74
4/15/10 at 6:07pm
I haven't tried opera since trying it on a Mac and I didn't care for how it rendered the font... But I have had some gripes with mobile Safari especially when Steve Jobs mentioned about not just making a bigger app on the iPad but rethink the whole app....why didn't Apple do that with Safari on the iPad? Yeah, it's works for the iPhone but I want tabs on the iPad.

Anyway, after someone mentioned about using Atomic Browser on here, I am in love.... It is fast, it blocks ads, I have tabs not background tabs as in Safari and that annoying refresh page is gone. You all should try it....

(sent from my iPad)
Reply
Reply
post #45 of 74
4/15/10 at 6:12pm
It complements Safari? Is that Opera's way of covering up for their browser's deficiencies? Just advertise it as a complement to Safari.
http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyimages/1713.jpg
http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyimages/1685.jpg
http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyimages/1704.gif
Reply
http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyimages/1713.jpg
http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyimages/1685.jpg
http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyimages/1704.gif
Reply
post #46 of 74
4/15/10 at 6:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by lowededwookie View Post

By passing the Acid3 test completely it means Safari - at least desktop Safari - 100% supports HTML5 and so is the best browser for pushing support of the new standard. Desktop Opera is very close behind. FireFox is some way behind and Internet Explorer... well the less said about that the better.

IE is the elephant in the room. IE8 is a vast improvement over previous versions but has still got a long way to go. IE6 which far to many people still use is not only bad but has enough holes it is flat out dangerous. IE9 is starting to embrace html5 but still only manages 55/100. Until IE can be fully brought into the html5 party many websites are going to be reluctant to full embrace the new standard.

There is also the fun of video codecs. The actual choice of codec is not part of the standard. Safari and Chrome use h264. FireFox - despite supporting the html5 video tag - does not.
Reply
Reply
post #47 of 74
4/15/10 at 6:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orlando View Post

There is also the fun of video codecs. The actual choice of codec is not part of the standard. Safari and Chrome use h264. FireFox - despite supporting the html5 video tag - does not.

Chrome also supports Ogg A/V while Google is clearly throwing its weight behind H.264 for their video, for obvious reasons. IE9 looks to be supporting H.264 at this point. Opera has also not chosen to support H.264, but with Apple, Intel, ARM, MS, Adobe and Google all in the H.264 camp from HW acceleration to apps and it clearly being better than Ogg Theora, Firefox's holdout looks silly, their only savign grace may be Google's VP8, but who knows if or when they will ever be a contender to H.264.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #48 of 74
4/15/10 at 6:43pm
Change the article title to Opera Mini Sucks, and the body to SSIA.

Single worst most successful app to date.
Reply
Reply
post #49 of 74
4/15/10 at 6:56pm
I don't get why there is so much hate for Opera. Complaints about the app is one thing, but a lot of people just seem to outright hate the app (like the app insulted their mother and punched their father). It isn't the best experience and there are issues, but that's what updates are for. For the initial release on the iPhone, it is decent. It isn't like any of us paid for it. So I'm not getting the hate (other than, you know, this is the internet and people like to hate things, lol).
Reply
Reply
post #50 of 74
4/15/10 at 7:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MatLu View Post

I don't get why there is so much hate for Opera. Complaints about the app is one thing, but a lot of people just seem to outright hate the app (like the app insulted their mother and punched their father). It isn't the best experience and there are issues, but that's what updates are for. For the initial release on the iPhone, it is decent. It isn't like any of us paid for it. So I'm not getting the hate (other than, you know, this is the internet and people like to hate things, lol).

because its not an apple product therefore people hate it. speed is everything with a mobile browser, and this is the one thing opera does well.
Reply
Reply
post #51 of 74
4/15/10 at 7:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zep View Post

because its not an apple product therefore people hate it. speed is everything with a mobile browser, and this is the one thing opera does well.

Speed is important only after rendering has been taken care.

An extreme example are WAP browsers for mobiles, text-based browser for desktops, or even turning off images or JS in your browser of choice. Any one of those will render faster, but that speed is pointless if the result makes it a pointless choice.

Safari's popularity on the iPhone is because it rendered well, used intelligent zooming and still resolved text well when zoomed. It set the bar.

Personally, I had intended to use it when on EDGE, GPRS, or a very slow WiFI connection (when there is no carrier signal). I doubt I'd even use it then unless they don't improve the app considerably.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #52 of 74
4/15/10 at 8:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal View Post

For those that believe having a "choice" should trump functionality. I had a strong feeling that the Opera browser would be utter garbage, I'm sure there will be those vocal supporters that will spin this into something else.

The supporters want to apply the PC-paradigm to the iPhone platform and turn it into the ADHD mess that the PC platform is. So much choice that nothing works well.

If you want to design a great iPhone web-platform, stick with Safari. Eventually the other players will figure that out and either get their apps properly standardized or get out of the field.

I'm not sure what you are talking about here - I've been using Firefox, IE and Chrome on my PC and all work well. I've even tried Safari for a while on my PC and it was doing just fine.

Idea that choice is, by default, creating problem, is a bit off the target, I believe.

That being said, I also haven't seen much of a point of having Opera on my iPhone. It is same-old with some ugly rendering issues... but I'll keep it on my iPhone until I have a chance to test it in some 2G-bad signal situation. I did noticed a few times simple pages taking forever to open on Safari (sometimes going that slow that I gave up), so I'm guessing sooner or later I'll have same situation and Opera might prove to be useful.

In the mean time, it is one more app in my iPhone. I'm not short of free space and this program really doesn't create any inconveniences by being there. Once iPhone OS 4 is available, it will end up in some MISC APPS folder and that's about it.
Reply
Reply
post #53 of 74
4/15/10 at 8:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zep View Post

because its not an apple product therefore people hate it. speed is everything with a mobile browser, and this is the one thing opera does well.

That is not the reason at all and anyone who thinks that is a troll.

Speed is only one aspect of Internet Browsing and according to one app it's almost a 50/50 split in favour of both Opera and Safari in terms of speed.

I prefer Safari because I don't like a lot of apps that do the same thing taking up space on my phone or Mac and because I extensively use Safari on my Mac (well WebKit nightlies to be honest) I just like using Safari on my iPhone because all my bookmarks are ported over.

Opera is nice just like it's desktop version but there are things that really bug me about it so I won't be using it either desktop or iPhone.
Reply
Reply
post #54 of 74
4/15/10 at 9:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnexpectedBill View Post

Ya know, I've got to admit that I'm stunned by the negative press and attitude about this new Opera browser. I see there are some fleeting positive reviews, yet so far they seem in the minority.

Well, I downloaded it from the Application Store and gave it a whirl on a first-gen iPod Touch (32GB) just to see what I thought.

Yes, it could stand some refinement. However, the speed of it alone is phenomenal. Owners of new iTouch devices might not care so much about this with their faster processors and more RAM, but I thought the improvement on the hardware I have was striking to say the least. I'm going to keep the Opera browser and just watch how it goes.

I have nothing against Mobile Safari. Although I don't really care for its desktop counterpart, the mobile version is very good at what it does. By comparison, Opera's offering is a strong start and it will get better--if negative commentary and journalism don't do it in first.

One of the points is right there--Opera's feature set and speed are unlikely to be ignored by Apple. I'm sure Apple will implement some of the features that show up in the Opera browser.

On a brighter note, I got to see an iPad for the first time at an independent Apple retailer. I really wasn't planning to buy one--nor have I--but after holding it and using it, it's really very slick. I doubt that I will buy one just yet...rather, I will just watch and see what a previous model can be had for when a new one comes out. (I would have to say that I'd prefer not having a camera in place.)

I did notice that Apple had tagged the display models with a "not for resale" engraving on the back. I wonder if that means the demonstrator iPads have secrets?

I think some people here have paranoid fear something else will prove to be better (and/or be more popular) than Apple product. I know it sounds weird, but that's how it looks to me
Reply
Reply
post #55 of 74
4/15/10 at 9:15pm
This is one bad App that deserves the heat. It's worth pointing out how arrogant the concept is of building a better web browser than Safari, on the iPhone platform, using the tools Apple gives you to build with. Its not going to happen, because its simply not possible without A) copying Safari implicitly, B) extensive testing on the hardware, which will never outpace Apple's own development on their web browser.

The concept of building a "companion" browser and not a "replacement", is even more of a joke, because this is a mobile platform. We don't need more than one browser. Mobile browsers, even the best, do one thing....Browse. There are no download windows or extensions to install/manage. There is no handling of these features, better in one browser than the other.

All you get is browsing, so it had better be fast, and it had better be accurate, and it had BETTER not suck...

Apple has the fastest, and most popular mobile web browser in the world. Get used to this fact.
Reply
Reply
post #56 of 74
4/15/10 at 9:16pm
Duplicate, deleted.
Reply
Reply
post #57 of 74
4/15/10 at 9:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmz View Post

This is one bad App that deserves the heat. It's worth pointing out how arrogant the concept is of building a better web browser than Safari, on the iPhone platform, using the tools Apple gives you to build with. Its not going to happen, because its simply not possible without A) copying Safari implicitly, B) extensive testing on the hardware, which will never outpace Apple's own development on their web browser.

I think it should be pointed out that it's very possible to build a better browser than mobileSafari on the iPhone/Touch or iPad. You have to use WebKit as the engine, but the browser itself can be anything you wish. I'd think that with Opera's long history of innovating great browser concepts that eventually become standard that they would have done better to build their idea of a quality iPhone OS browser using WebKit for the engine. If they made it that much better than the other option available, I'd pay money for it. I won't pay money for the browser they just released.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #58 of 74
4/15/10 at 10:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikon133 View Post

I think some people here have paranoid fear something else will prove to be better (and/or be more popular) than Apple product. I know it sounds weird, but that's how it looks to me

huh. have you tried opera on the iphone? i just tried it and i don't think it's a keeper... \
Tofino
Reply
Tofino
Reply
post #59 of 74
4/16/10 at 12:41am
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

That's really the lamest defense of crappy software I've ever read, and it's been given twice. Well, most users won't even bother to take a look at v2, so I guess they were too clever for their own good.

Maybe it would be a lame defense if we were talking about a random company releasing crappy software. However, Opera have a track record of producing innovative and quality software - both for desktop and mobile devices.

If people won't bother looking at v2 then that will be their own loss.
Reply
Reply
post #60 of 74
4/16/10 at 2:31am
Quote:
Originally Posted by zindako View Post

Have you used Opera on the iPhone? its freaking terrible.

Well that all depends. If I want to look at some timetables or how a shop is open or their telephone number and im on some GPRS slowassconnection. Which will i use? Safari will take 5 minutes to load the two pages I need. Opera does it in 15 secs... And the formating, well, couldnt care less if i just want to click a link on a page to get to the information i need...

So I will use both.... Opera has some neat ideas that safari also should have... thats my 2 cents anyway.

I think Safari definately shouldnt
-reload a page everytime i go back to an open tab. THAT IS THE WORST feature of the mobile version. On GPRS networks this is very frustrating.

It sould have:
-quicklinkpage for important pages like opera/safari os x 4.0 has
-better tab browsing.
Reply
Reply
post #61 of 74
4/16/10 at 4:40am
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I think it should be pointed out that it's very possible to build a better browser than mobileSafari on the iPhone/Touch or iPad. You have to use WebKit as the engine, but the browser itself can be anything you wish. I'd think that with Opera's long history of innovating great browser concepts that eventually become standard that they would have done better to build their idea of a quality iPhone OS browser using WebKit for the engine. If they made it that much better than the other option available, I'd pay money for it. I won't pay money for the browser they just released.

That's just it. WebKit. Why wouldn't someone want to use WebKit??

iCab Mobile is the best alternative I've used.
http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyimages/1713.jpg
http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyimages/1685.jpg
http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyimages/1704.gif
Reply
http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyimages/1713.jpg
http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyimages/1685.jpg
http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyimages/1704.gif
Reply
post #62 of 74
4/16/10 at 5:08am
I dont get it why so many will just outright shoot it down. I would give Opera 4/5 just because of the plain speed. There are instances where its not important HOW the page looks like but what information is available fast.

WIFI-testi on iphone 3G

safari: hs.fi 37 seconds.
opera: hs.fi 7 seconds.

I rest my case. This is just one page. Many times when searching for information you might have to click a few links to load other pages to get to what you need. multiply that by 5 pages and you get difference that is extremely REMARKABLE.
Reply
Reply
post #63 of 74
4/16/10 at 7:54am
Quote:
Originally Posted by habi View Post

I rest my case. This is just one page. Many times when searching for information you might have to click a few links to load other pages to get to what you need. multiply that by 5 pages and you get difference that is extremely REMARKABLE.

Apple has never been about raw speed. They never use the fastest available components.

Instead, they choose quality. And Opera falls far short in that regard.

If you want a crummy fast experience, choose Opera.

If you want the best possible user experience, choose Apple. Every time.
Reply
Reply
post #64 of 74
4/16/10 at 8:00am
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL View Post

Maybe it would be a lame defense if we were talking about a random company releasing crappy software. However, Opera have a track record of producing innovative and quality software - both for desktop and mobile devices.

If people won't bother looking at v2 then that will be their own loss.

I've never been particularly impressed with their browser. So, no, I don't think it will be anyone's loss but Opera's if people download this browser, see that it's crap and don't bother to look at anything they do again.
Reply
Reply
post #65 of 74
4/16/10 at 8:03am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

I guess you are the one man Opera mini defence team today but you really go a bit overboard here.

Yeah, I think insike was assigned to AI.
Reply
Reply
post #66 of 74
4/16/10 at 8:39am
Quote:
Originally Posted by habi View Post

I dont get it why so many will just outright shoot it down. I would give Opera 4/5 just because of the plain speed. There are instances where its not important HOW the page looks like but what information is available fast.

But if I can't utilize the info on the screen then it's for naught. Opera for iPhone only zooms into text once. After that, it'll snap back to a full screen if you try to make the text bigger. This is doubly useless that the text won't get bigger and that instead of my attempt to scale it larger will bring it back to fullscreen again. If they rendered Flash content the way Skyfire can, then maybe I'd see how it can be useful.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #67 of 74
4/16/10 at 9:21am
Quote:
Originally Posted by foobar View Post

So we can all pad ourselves on the back...

Dear lord.
Reply
Reply
post #68 of 74
4/16/10 at 10:05am
Quote:
Originally Posted by habi View Post

I dont get it why so many will just outright shoot it down. I would give Opera 4/5 just because of the plain speed. There are instances where its not important HOW the page looks like but what information is available fast.

WIFI-testi on iphone 3G

safari: hs.fi 37 seconds.
opera: hs.fi 7 seconds.

I rest my case. This is just one page. Many times when searching for information you might have to click a few links to load other pages to get to what you need. multiply that by 5 pages and you get difference that is extremely REMARKABLE.

yeah. maybe. but if you have to then go and reload the page in safari so you can use it, then the page load time goes to 7 + 37 + time to copy/paste the url. seems extremely ANNOYING.
Tofino
Reply
Tofino
Reply
post #69 of 74
4/16/10 at 11:11am
It is funny to see that much hate for a browser. It's also clear that many of you don't really have the slightest idea about Opera Mini.

Opera Mini is a kind of "browser light". Mini itself is a client which sends requests to the Opera servers about the page you want to see. The servers download the page, reformat and compress them, then they send you back to the phone. That's the reason for being so fast and moving so small amount of data (about 1/10th of the original page). But because of this, there are some obvious limitations in rendering capability, especially with stuffs like JavaScript. So I think 100/74 is not bad at all.

Therefore Opera Mini is not meant to be a Safari replacement, but a program that you can rely on if you need information fast. Working this way allowed Opera to send Mini to the Apple store, because it doesn't violate any Apple development rule.

The "real" mobile browser of Opera is Opera Mobile, but - because of Apple's strict regulations - I don't think you'll see it on iPhone any time soon.

Now, to remain on topic: the article states:

"current iPhone OS Mobile Safari ... does do much better on the test than any other mobile browser (even browsers that use the same WebKit rendering engine that Safari uses)"

That's simply not true! Check out Opera Mobile (so Mobile, not the desktop version) on Windows Mobile, Symbian s60 (and in the near future: Android): it will score 100/100 and pixel-perfect on Acid3. And that was Opera Mobile 9.7 beta about a year ago...

And a small comment: reaching 100/100 on Acid3 doesn't make any browser fully HTML5 compatible.
Reply
Reply
post #70 of 74
4/16/10 at 11:18am
Quote:
Originally Posted by cousin333 View Post

It is funny to see that much hate for a browser. It's also clear that many of you don't really have the slightest idea about Opera Mini.

Opera Mini is a kind of "browser light". Mini itself is a client which sends requests to the Opera servers about the page you want to see. The servers download the page, reformat and compress them, then they send you back to the phone. That's the reason for being so fast and moving so small amount of data (about 1/10th of the original page). But because of this, there are some obvious limitations in rendering capability, especially with stuffs like JavaScript. So I think 100/74 is not bad at all.

Therefore Opera Mini is not meant to be a Safari replacement, but a program that you can rely on if you need information fast. Working this way allowed Opera to send Mini to the Apple store, because it doesn't violate any Apple development rule.

The "real" mobile browser of Opera is Opera Mobile, but - because of Apple's strict regulations - I don't think you'll see it on iPhone any time soon.

Now, to remain on topic: the article states:

"current iPhone OS Mobile Safari ... does do much better on the test than any other mobile browser (even browsers that use the same WebKit rendering engine that Safari uses)"

That's simply not true! Check out Opera Mobile (so Mobile, not the desktop version) on Windows Mobile, Symbian s60 (and in the near future: Android): it will score 100/100 and pixel-perfect on Acid3. And that was Opera Mobile 9.7 beta about a year ago...

And a small comment: reaching 100/100 on Acid3 doesn't make any browser fully HTML5 compatible.

i think we got it just fine. i guess we just don't see a point in having a 'light' browser when we have a full one. that was the whole point of having a real browser on the phone.
Tofino
Reply
Tofino
Reply
post #71 of 74
4/17/10 at 9:09am
Sure, it's not as polished as Safari but on a 3G, Safari blows.

Example: Digg.com took 10 seconds to load with Opera Mini on my 3G. With Safari, I cancelled loading after 45 seconds.

Safari on my 3G is borderline unusable because it is soooooo slow. I disliked Opera at first but now I use it instead of Safari due to its superior performance.
Reply
Reply
post #72 of 74
6/5/10 at 5:19am
Quote:
Originally Posted by DimMok View Post

Fat lady singing on this sum b'ich

Nearly 3 million active iPone users. Yeah, singing indeed...
Reply
Reply
post #73 of 74
6/5/10 at 5:20am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

Opera itself uses Acid 3 to tout it's superiority in it's own promotional materials and has or a long time. Opera has a history of throwing their Acid scores in everyone's face and making claims about how fantastically compatible they are with web standards.

No, Acid3 is just something Opera has been promoting as a tool to focus on standards compliance. That doesn't mean that pages shouldn't degrade gracefully. It doesn't mean that Acid3 defines standards compliance either. It's a marketing tool.
Reply
Reply
post #74 of 74
6/5/10 at 5:22am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tofino View Post

i think we got it just fine. i guess we just don't see a point in having a 'light' browser when we have a full one.

Speak for yourself. Apparently nearly three million people think differently.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac Software
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Opera Mini for iPhone fails Acid3 test