Jump to content

Talk:Opera (web browser)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 98.154.26.247 (talk) at 01:40, 7 August 2009 (Update on the Wikiprojects, the article is now an FA). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Featured articleOpera (web browser) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 7, 2009.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 8, 2006Good article nomineeListed
October 28, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
November 18, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
December 20, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
June 7, 2009Featured article reviewKept
Current status: Featured article

Browser speed tests

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Opera fifth-most widely used?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
That may be right, because Wakoopa [1] is reporting something similar. Sadly Chrome has a slight lead. —IncidentFlux [ TalkBack | Contributions ] 07:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

"why on earth was "Comparison of BitTorrent Clients" at the top?"

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

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)[reply]

opera versions articles

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Opera (web browser) ---> Opera (internet suite)

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. --[[::User:Unpopular Opinion|Unpopular Opinion]] ([[::User talk:Unpopular Opinion|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Unpopular Opinion|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: [2]. —Remember the dot (talk) 00:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only currently maintained browser for Windows 95 and 98?

  • 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)[reply]

Screenshot

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Address bar

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

Opera for Devices

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 [3] --TMV943 (talk) 05:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Opera Boycott

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

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)[reply]
It seems to be fizzling out now anyway Kc4 (talk) 03:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Opera_(web_browser)&oldid=306516653"