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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Comments
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
So we can all pad ourselves on the back...
Dear lord.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Fat lady singing on this sum b'ich
Nearly 3 million active iPone users. Yeah, singing indeed...
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.
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.