Talk:Opera (web browser)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article Opera (web browser) is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 7, 2009.

Infobox screenshot[edit]

Its page claims that the screenshot is from a vanilla installation of Opera but it isn't:

  • shows the Bookmarks bar, disabled by default;
  • uses a custom theme instead of the default one. (talk) 14:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Opera next?[edit]

This not the right place but I wonder what happen to the 'next' branch caused by the recent changes on opera web site.2A02:8422:1191:6E00:56E6:FCFF:FEDB:2BBA (talk) 19:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Feature changes in Opera Next - Mail not integrated[edit]

Mail is now a new application. Mention in page but only when Opera Next is stable(?). Then page will need a massive rewrite. Mention new Mail app there or create new page? Comp.arch (talk) 16:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Opera 15 (Stable) is released[edit]

Opera 15 is released, please update article and new logo:

Whether it is stable or not, currently v12.16 (released this week) is what is offered at the moment from the download page. Both versions should be shown, and maybe a totally separate section to cover Opera 15. Maybe an expansion of the 'Reception' section to cover Opera 15 is needed, most of the reception has been pretty hostile... Dsergeant (talk) 13:38, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Opera 15 is no longer Opera (presto), it's a Chromium clone.[edit]

Due to the fact that Opera has abandoned it's previous browser & engine, I would like to suggest all references to the previous opera be moved into a "pre-chromium" section, or deleted. Most if not all features no longer exist in the new browser, and the awards could almost be seen as blatantly false advertising (demonstration of merchantability) of a different product. The new Chromium engined version should stand on it's own merits, and not rest on the laurels of something it is not. AE7EC (talk) 07:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, but not sure what is the best way of handling it. For some considerable time there will be many of us using Opera 12 and not updating to O15+. A totally separate section for Opera 15+ is probably best, maybe in front of the Presto version description which could stay largely unchanged. Or totally separate articles, they are so different that you simply cannot cover them in one. Dsergeant (talk) 16:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Please don't get sentimental on Wikipedia. There's no need for a different section for Opera 15. The current stable version should be described and the legacy version will have its space in History of the Opera web browser article and also in the main features article. Since it still have similar major features like Speed Dial and it isn't a "Chrome clone" it shouldn't be hard, but the article needs a major rework since it's still citing beta products or products for older platforms like Windows Mobile that are long in the past as if these were the highlights of Opera Software's work. I can take a look when I have time. --Rafaelluik (talk) 21:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Sorry Mr. Rafaelluik, but the non-Presto Opera IS a clone of Google Chrome, period. To say the contrary is to deny factual evidence. (talk) 18:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly agree with this. The article is outright obfuscating the radical change that happened and doesn't reflect the bold (the stupid kind of bold) step of starting everything (the product, the community) from scratch again, confronting everyone with a new product (under the same moniker) that lost 90% of its functionality. That's pretty much as if Ford would say "the last cars we made were a technological dead end, let's start with the model T again" and WP doesn't even notice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:05, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Hm last one I was testing with presto is Opera 12.01 /12.01 with SPDY and Opera 12.02 on a Windows 98SE system with KernelEx. Must say Opera was not bad for its time back then and they also (read the article) use presto for Opera mini, but you can turn it how you wont it they never won an award again after 2012 (where they didnt use Blink/Chromium). Also on Android none of the Opera browsers with Blink or Webkit ever worked for me(and that are versions 14,15,15.10 and 16) they all crash. Last good one is 12.10 Mobile and thats not only from 2012 but also the best browser for Android Gingerbread I ever used considering results where it has over 100 points more than the stock browser or some like Dolphin mini/UC mini. Strange but logical: First Gingerbread used the Webkit 533.1 from 2010, second Opera 12.10 is the last mobile browser with presto that also already uses SPDY(another compression method). So you are right presto was besto ;). -- (talk) 11:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Opera 15 is stable; article describes legacy versions[edit]

Opera 15 and recently Opera 16 are stable builds and are promoted as the current versions by Opera. This page needs to be reworked, especially in the features section (see Features of the Opera web browser ). Tagging it as incorrect until someone corrects it (I can't at the moment). — Preceding unsigned comment added by TvF (talkcontribs) 16:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Opera 10.60 the last good version[edit]

I still use Opera 10.60. I have tried later versions and found them unsatisfactory.

•Newer versions cannot display multi- page articles.

•Newer versions cannot tolerate multiple instances of Opera running simultaneously.

•Newer versions always try to update on start. This feature cannot be turned off (there is a setting to turn it off, but it does not work).

Opera developers have come under the negative influence of inferior browsers such as Chrome and Firefox. Opera has been essentially ruined --- at least, judging by the most recent versions I have tried. ---Dagme (talk) 16:23, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, it's hard to believe how a wonderful browser turned into an unstable heap of dogshit around v12 and then was turned into a useless, much smaller but way more stinking and incompatible heap of dogshit thereafter. (talk) 04:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. I was a hardcore Opera user, and now I'm on Chrome. I don't know anyone who is left using Opera anymore, and I have personally known a lot of people. Deskop Opera is definitely dead or in <1% zone. Cheerz, Mike. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:28, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I now use Opera 12.17. The GUI can be made like that of 10.60 and it does not force auto update. Presumably it is more secure and has updated capabilities. ---Dagme (talk) 14:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Status of Linux and FreeBSD support[edit]

The article currently lists Linux and FreeBSD as platforms "until 12.16". This is true but somewhat misleading, as Opera Software have said many times that Linux support is planned and underway. The current listing gives the impression that these platforms have been discontinued. (Although, this may yet turn out to be the case for FreeBSD.) I feel we need some sort of wording such as "* these platforms have not yet been updated from 12.16". The real difficulty with this approach is choosing words to fit in the sidebar, and my edits have already been contested. I think the easiest solution would be not to make any remark about the temporary lack of support, which is not untrue, as 12.16 is currently still supported. —WOFall (talk) 00:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I've now replaced the text with a note, although I still think it's unnecessary to mention at all. —WOFall (talk) 20:14, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Sadly, it seems the note is only drawing attention to this conflict, so I've left it out this time. Is it entirely unreasonable to just wait either until a new nix version is released, or until Linux quietly disappears from —WOFall (talk) 20:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


A contributor has suggested this article needs to go through featured article review, citing the "update" tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: The update template have been tagged since August 2013. Remember the dot, please take note. If problems are not solved, I will list it at FAR. HYH.124 (talk) 09:32, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Listed. HYH.124 (talk) 08:48, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Stop re-adding the PC World review[edit]

This site is called Wikipedia, not "PC World outdated opinionated review place". Above everything, a review has no place in the History section. If you want to include at least do it properly, and don't make facts up. --Rafaelluik (talk) 21:27, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Text in question:

Michael Muchmore, writing in PC Magazine, commented in a review of Opera 20 shortly after its release that, on replacing its own Presto engine by Google's, Opera had become largely an interface built on top of Chrome, using Chrome's underlying code. Users who wanted the ingenious Opera features dropped in later versions could download version 12, still maintained. Opera 20 was rated lower than Google Chrome 33, Firefox 27, and Internet Explorer.[1]

The text as-is doesn't say anything and isn't encyclopedic, so I agree it should be removed. However, it might be an appropriate place to comment on Opera 15's general reception, if it's considered noteworthy, and if anyone is bothered to research it. Side note: PC World isn't an ideal reference, but I wouldn't object to it based on the overall standard of referencing in the article. —WOFall (talk) 00:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Major changes[edit]

I have rewritten the article in order to reflect recent events and newly available information. These are some of the changes.

  • I deleted out-of-date information related to the market share and added new info with references.
  • I changed the links to with the original links or with Wayback Machine's ones, due to's links are not permitted on the English Wikipedia.
Wikipedia:Link_rot#Internet_archives RFC
  • I modified the information in the section of Features to indicate only Opera Blink's characteristics. Opera Presto's features are still available in Features of the Opera web browser.

Opera Turbo[edit]

To comment on this recent edit, Opera Turbo is still a feature of Chromium-based Opera. It was renamed to "Off-Road", and then changed back to "Turbo" in Opera 22 or 23. I don't particularly care to revert the edit myself, because there seems to anyway be an effort to move features into the features of article (such as the previous edit moving "mouse gestures"). —WOFall (talk) 19:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

The Opera team's branch from Opera named Vivaldi[edit]

There is a browser named Vivaldi: that has been created by Opera staff and is supposed to be the successor. I think this should be added to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

See Vivaldi (web browser) Dsergeant (talk) 17:52, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit to "Market adoption"[edit]

The sentence "In the area of browsers for mobile telephones, Opera has a more significant usage share" implies that Opera for computers (desktop) would have a less significant usage share or an insignificant usage share. Any assessment whether the usage share is significant or not is subjective. Wikipedia policies require that editors use a neutral point of view. In other words, Wikipedia editors should refrain from publishing their personal, subjective assessments in the article. The sentence "In the area of browsers for mobile telephones, Opera has a more significant usage share", which contains a subjective assessment, has therefore been removed.--K1812 (talk) 10:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Opera 12 (Presto) still supported?[edit]

Is there any evidence that Opera 12 is still maintained with security patches? If not, the claim in the opening section that it is still supported should be removed or qualified. Oogbus (talk) 23:54, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I changed "Supported" to "available". For "available", we have a source. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Feels like an advertisement[edit]

Is it just me, or does this article kind of read like it's advertising Opera as a product? The way it lists features and downplays anything negative feels strange for an encyclopedia entry. Krehel (talk) 20:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Opera, produced by Qihoo 360?[edit]

Hello, people

I am here to discuss to validity of a contribution by our esteemed colleague, Nealmcb. The contribution says Opera is now produced by Qihoo 360, not Opera Software. It has sources too. Of course, I am contesting the contribution, as I am allowed to Wikipedia:Editing policy § Talking and editing.

Now, before I start, anybody who is going shout bloody murder and say "How dare you question the reliability of [such-and-such] source?", please read Blue Screen of Death § Incorrect attribution to see in action how the sources that you take for granted publish ... well, questionable material. Engadget, which Nealmcb has used, is among them. To sum it up: When a source fails very simple tests of validity, yes, I question it.

The test that has failed this time is:

  • website says it is owned by Opera Software, not Qihoo 360.
  • Opera installation package, digitally signed five days ago, still says Opera Software AS.

So, what's the problem here? Are we counting our chickens before they are hatched? Or has the merger been an incorrect rumor altogether? I suspect it is the former.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 04:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Lisa, I appreciate your intent to ensure the quality of wikipedia. But the edits you reverted contained further clarifications and two more reliable sources (including the WSJ), which clearly demonstrate that the sale did take place. First, the title of this section and your comments don't reflect the article content at the time that you posted it, which was "owned by a Chinese consortium, Golden Brick Silk Road fund, and originally developed by Opera Software." The article I linked to yesterday starts off with "China’s Kunlun Tech announced on Friday that it has completed the acquisition of the web browser Opera and plans to build it around a content platform driven by artificial intelligence., so the notion that this is a matter of counting our chickens before they are hatched is false. I has already revised my wording to reflect your point that we don't yet see evidence that the day-to-day production of the software is being done by different workers, but the ownership change is a done deal, covered by many sources, and clearly important for the article. If you google for this sort of news you'll find several sources on which to build a yet more complete story, like "Chinese antivirus cheats offer $1.2 billion to buy Opera Software -". 2016-02-10. Retrieved 2017-05-20.  and "BRIEF-Opera Software says has closed $575 mln with China's Golden Brick". Reuters. 2017-11-04. Retrieved 2017-05-20.  and reddit discussion from this year:
If you think the wording can be further improved, please do so, or make suggestions as to how, rather than reverting constructive edits. ★NealMcB★ (talk) 13:57, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
As long as the software in question is still digitally signed by Opera Software, it is the sources that either inaccurate or wrong. Digital signatures are not a matter to pass on indifferently. They are paid for and the certificate authorities vet their certified subjects properly.
However, what you are defending here isn't what you write. You wrote that Opera was originally developed by Opera Software, indicating that at least one version developed by another entity is released. Per WP:CRYSTAL, regardless of the ownership, one version developed by another entity must actually be released first.
Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 06:37, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Lisa, I now see that you deleted the text "On 4 November 2016 Opera's Norwegian consumer business, including the browser, was acquired by a Chinese group of investors under the name Golden Brick Capital Private Equity Fund I Limited Partnership" while talking in the edit summary about "irrelevant rambling about corporate affairs", so you already knew then that the acquisition had in fact occurred. I also see that Pinportal made similar changes back in November. This news belongs in the article. Please be constructive rather than deleting the work of many other wikipedians. ★NealMcB★ (talk) 14:35, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Starting off with an accusation without asking me to defend myself isn't the the way to start a discussion. (It is actually forbidden in Wikipedia.)
In my defense, you don't see the whole picture the way I saw it back then. Let me give you an example: StarCraft II is made by Blizzard Entertainment. However, Blizzard itself has changed hand quite a number of times. Right now, it is a subsidiary of Activision Blizzard. But it once belonged to Vivendi Universal; now, there is no Vivendi Universal. You see none of these corporate-related ramblings in StarCraft II article.
If Opera Software was to become a subsidiary of Qihoo 360, and retain its name, the article never needed a change. On the other hand, if Qihoo was to acquire Opera Software's browser business the way Microsoft acquired Nokia's mobile phone business, all we need to do was to change the infobox name.
Now, you are proposing a third angle. You are saying that the development task of Opera has been transferred to Qihoo 360 entirely, and the matter has been that of an asset purchase only. Even your sources indicate that it was not so. Opera even sold its brand name to Qihoo 360.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 06:37, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Opera (web browser). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:29, 20 May 2017 (UTC)