Wikipedia

Criticisms of Opera: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Jowan2005 (talk | contribs)
563 edits
RussBot (talk | contribs)
Bots
1,402,469 edits
m Robot: Fixing double-redirect -"Opera (Internet suite)" +"Opera (web browser)"
 
(8 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 1:
{{mergeto|#REDIRECT [[Opera (web browser)]] {{R from merge}}
{{noncompliant}}
 
Since [[Opera Software]] started developing their browser [[Opera (browser)|Opera]], they've been innovating the browser market in a number of ways, such as by introducing a search field in the interface, [[mouse gesture]]s, reload cache, certain features in its M2 [[e-mail client]], custom rendering modes, user scripting ("User[[JavaScript|JS]]"), and site-specific settings. It was a commercial browser for 10 years, and was recently made [[Gratis versus Libre|free of charge]] (as of [[September 20]], [[2005]]). However, there are still many '''criticisms of Opera'''.
== General criticisms==
* Opera Software does not run an open-readable Bug Tracking system. This means that users are less likely to submit good (or any) bug reports - compiling a bug report can take considerable time and the reporter has no idea if they are wasting time because they cannot know if the bug is already reported. Further to is the "one-way street" nature of bug reports to Opera, in that reports are sent to, but seldom replied to or acknowledged in any non-automatic way by Opera developers. These criticisms were brought to the attention of Opera Software in January 2006 [http://interviews.slashdot.org/interviews/06/01/03/147256.shtml Slashdot interview with Jon von Tetzchner] the CEO of Opera Software, however no change has been made to address these issues since the interview.
 
==Website rendering==
Opera has been criticized for different or incorrect website rendering. There are several reasons why Opera sometimes does not render a website as the others do:
* Since [[Internet Explorer]] and Netscape/[[Firefox]] have held such a strong position in the market, some web site authors code exclusively for these browsers and their features and bugs. Opera is often given bad code since sites do not recognize it as having a good rendering engine. Opera has a spoofing feature that can work around this in many cases though.
* Broken websites that rely on error handling in certain browsers. Since error handling is poorly specified, this is different in all browsers.
* An Opera bug or unimplemented standard.
 
It is notable in the face of criticisms of rendering accuracy, that Opera 9.0 passes the [[Acid2]] rendering test by the [[Web Standards Project]], which is designed to test compliance with the latest [[HTML]], [[CSS]] and other web standards. Browsers such as [[Internet Explorer]] 6 and IE 7 [[beta version]] do not pass this test, and Microsoft has stated publicly that it does not propose to make them [[W3C]] and CSS 2.0 standards compliant to the point where they will.<ref>{{cite web| url=http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2005/07/29/445242.aspx| title=Standards and CSS in IE| publisher=IEBlog| accessdate=2006-05-16| first=Chris| last=Wilson| year=July 29, 2005}}</ref>
 
== Browser upgrade ==
Opera users must download a whole setup file for every minor release, where some other browsers have implemented incremental updates. Nevertheless, the classic installer size for Opera is still noticably smaller than Mozilla Firefox (3.8 MB vs. 4.9 MB).
 
== Functionality ==
Although Opera provides more features than other browsers out of the box, it does not provide an architecture to add extra programs in the browser, like Mozilla. It provides an interface for adding in User-Javascripts and with version 9 has widget functionality.
 
==References==
<references />
 
[[Category:Criticisms|Opera]]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticisms_of_Opera"