|
New build (3202).Opera Desktop Team posted:Presto has been upgraded to version 2.5.20 with improved stability and site compatibility fixes. Among the fixes are the crash when enabling fit-to-width, crash when opening a PDF, and the Acid3 and DOM performance regression from Saturday’s snapshot build. e:Link to post Wheany fucked around with this message at 07:52 on Jan 21, 2010 |
#
?
Jan 20, 2010 12:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 05:34 |
|
|
Wow, the latest 10.5 pre-alpha is a lot faster on my Mac. It's really noticeable how much faster it is compared to the previous pre-alpha.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2010 01:51
|
|
|
For some reason IE and Firefox started to give me a lot of crap. Crashing all the time and downloads stalling. I switched to Opera 1 month ago and don't plan on going back to IF or FF. Speed Dial is great, just wish I could edit the amount of boxes manually and not deal with presets.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2010 03:34
|
|
|
BinaryChef posted:Speed Dial is great, just wish I could edit the amount of boxes manually and not deal with presets. You can edit some .ini values to manually change the numbers, that's how people did it before they rolled out the "configure speed dial" settings. Basically just open the file selected in opera:config#UserPrefs|SpeedDialFile (in address bar) and set the last 2 lines ([Size] Rows=5 Columns=5) to whatever you want. Most of the other stuff is also pretty self descriptive. Here's the instructions for 9.5: http://cybernetnews.com/helpful-tip-add-more-speed-dials-in-opera-95/ The .ini is the same on my 10.10 build as well as the 10.50 labs pre-alpha. The changes still seem to work, but of course with high values the resizing can't keep up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2010 03:58
|
|
|
BinaryChef posted:Speed Dial is great, just wish I could edit the amount of boxes manually and not deal with presets. You can. Go to C:\Users\yourusername\AppData\Roaming\Opera\Opera, and open speeddial.ini. Go to the bottom and add: code:e:f;b
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2010 04:03
|
|
|
Epic, Thank you both! Perfect for my wide screen monitor.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2010 05:26
|
|
|
Hey guys, I haven't checked this thread in a while and I just decided to try out the pre-alpha. I was wondering if everyone still uses Fanboy's Adblock List and the Optimised Element Filter?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2010 19:59
|
|
|
Startacus posted:Hey guys, I haven't checked this thread in a while and I just decided to try out the pre-alpha. I was wondering if everyone still uses Fanboy's Adblock List and the Optimised Element Filter? http://pgl.yoyo.org/adservers/ 
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2010 00:06
|
|
|
Well this sucks. I was hoping that Opera's 10.5 builds could get into YouTube's HTML5 preview but no dice. Maybe it's time Opera get the ability to Identify/Mask itself as Chrome? It already has Firefox and IE.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2010 01:05
|
|
|
Sergeant Hobo posted:Well this sucks. I was hoping that Opera's 10.5 builds could get into YouTube's HTML5 preview but no dice. Maybe it's time Opera get the ability to Identify/Mask itself as Chrome? It already has Firefox and IE.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2010 01:39
|
|
|
Sergeant Hobo posted:Well this sucks. I was hoping that Opera's 10.5 builds could get into YouTube's HTML5 preview but no dice. Maybe it's time Opera get the ability to Identify/Mask itself as Chrome? It already has Firefox and IE. I actually just came here to ask about this. Please let us know if you get this working.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2010 02:17
|
|
|
Opera doesn't support h264, so all that'll happen if you do manage to get Youtube to give you the HTML5 version is you'll get a video you can't play.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2010 02:27
|
|
|
Plorkyeran posted:Opera doesn't support h264, so all that'll happen if you do manage to get Youtube to give you the HTML5 version is you'll get a video you can't play. Opera made the same stupid decision as Mozilla, so only the Ogg formats are supported for the <video> tag.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2010 03:28
|
|
|
Casao posted:Opera made the same stupid decision as Mozilla, so only the Ogg formats are supported for the <video> tag. Why did they make the decision to only support Ogg?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2010 03:46
|
|
|
Anunnaki posted:Why did they make the decision to only support Ogg?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2010 03:59
|
|
|
Casao posted:Opera made the same stupid decision as Mozilla, so only the Ogg formats are supported for the <video> tag. Sure supporting both would be nice, but since browsers aren't exactly cash cows anymore, you have to be careful what you put in them. Also: Don't worry, Internet Explorer will hold everyone back for 10 years, not supporting either (or HTML5 tags)
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2010 04:48
|
|
|
Remember to submit those bugs. I've already found a few ones that I can repeat %100 and they need all the data they can get.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2010 04:58
|
|
|
Anunnaki posted:Why did they make the decision to only support Ogg? Apparently on linux it supports most formats as it uses the GStreamer decoder. They also do this on other platforms, but codec support is limited. info here: http://my.opera.com/core/blog/2009/12/31/re-introducing-video
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2010 06:42
|
|
|
Can you @import other css-files from inside a user css file or is it blocked for security? I'm planning on having one base user css file, then doing site-specific tweaks in other files, so something like: code:edit: Yep, I forgot to add !important; in my site-specific css file, so it didn't override the definitions in my base css file. v  v
Wheany fucked around with this message at 07:57 on Jan 22, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2010 07:53
|
|
|
http://is.gd/6NjND Very cool little tool for shortening url from the address bar.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2010 11:57
|
|
EVERYTHING I SAY ABOUT JAPAN OR LIVING IN JAPAN IS COMPLETELY WRONG, BUT YOU BETTER BELIEVE I'LL
|
unruly posted:I don't see how avoiding costly licensing fees and legal battles -- yet supporting an unrestricted format -- is somehow a dumb idea. Because h264 is a superior codec that's the modern de facto standard. It's the same as saying "I'm not gonna bother including HDMI in my television because it has costly licensing fees, let's stick to composite in." or "I'm only going to support XHTML 1.1 Strict in my browser, HTML is stupid." While it might save money to do this, you're cutting off 95%+ of current content. Top it off with Presto/Opera having gently caress all for market share and you've got a recipe for "Never gaining market share ever again." Firefox can make this kind of stand because it has a big enough market share that they might convince some people to move to the Ogg formats. Opera doesn't, and will depend 100% on Firefox getting poo poo done. The second Mozilla folds, Opera's hosed and has to fold too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2010 13:01
|
|
|
Wouldn't be surprised if they have an implementation already and are just waiting to see what happens when Firefox doesn't fold. Consider the market share of Chrome versus firefox. Though personally I'd rather see h264 because it's awesome.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2010 13:09
|
|
|
Mithaldu posted:Wouldn't be surprised if they have an implementation already and are just waiting to see what happens when Firefox doesn't fold. Consider the market share of Chrome versus firefox. Consider that Google owns Youtube, and Google's effective userbase just blasted past Firefox's. It would take Google all of 10 minutes to convert half the world to Google Chrome. Google brings HTML5 out of beta, makes it default for everyone. In big, bold letters where the video should be in Firefox "Seems like you're using Firefox! Mozilla has chosen not to support our new video format. Download Google Chrome now to view your videos faster and in higher quality on more devices! or click here to switch to flash video"
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2010 13:15
|
|
|
That is certainly a possibility. However i'm reasonably sure Google will opt for compatibility of youtube instead of engaging in Browser Wars II. Also, I think you're a bit too optimistic about the inherent laziness of people. Consider how many still use IE.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2010 13:29
|
|
|
Mithaldu posted:Consider how many still use IE. Beyond just using IE, using IE 6. That was the vector of China's sophistcated attack on Google, apparently. WTF? People at Google are still using IE? IE6??
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2010 13:34
|
|
|
kapalama posted:http://is.gd/6NjND Before I clicked the link, I thought it would be about typing "condensed" URLs and having Opera expand them. What I mean is that if you type: google/calendar into your address bar, Opera will automatically expand it to "google.com/calendar" and go to the correct webpage. I find it useful mainly for google/calendar and google/voice I tried it on Firefox and it seems that Firefox doesn't do this (yet?).
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2010 14:32
|
|
|
NashAsh posted:Before I clicked the link, I thought it would be about typing "condensed" URLs and having Opera expand them. What I mean is that if you type: google/calendar into your address bar, Opera will automatically expand it to "google.com/calendar" and go to the correct webpage. I find it useful mainly for google/calendar and google/voice Ctrl+Enter in Firefox will do it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2010 14:33
|
|
|
Casao posted:Because h264 is a superior codec that's the modern de facto standard. It's the same as saying "I'm not gonna bother including HDMI in my television because it has costly licensing fees, let's stick to composite in." How much did you pay for Opera? Consider that Opera has to pay an h.264 license fee for every browser download (how else to work out a per-user fee?). This adds up quickly, and it'd be especially stupid to add this functionality now before the "standard" codec is actually decided. Opera doesn't have the resources that Google does to pay these fees. The other option is to negotiate a fixed rate per-year (or whatever) with the h.264 license holders. Again, no reason to do that yet. They'll just support the actually open standard that anyone can use until they're forced by the market to do otherwise. This is the smart thing to do, and hopefully they'll win. P.S. I don't actually know how licensing works with h.264. But I don't care about the superiority of your codec if I have to pay a license fee or agree to curtail my rights to use it. I want to kick whoever decided not to require an open standard for the HTML5 video tag in the balls.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2010 18:17
|
|
|
Given that Flash and QuickTime both support h.264 video, and are free downloads, I suspect that the licensing issues are more of a legal problem than a monetary one. Opera is using the open source gstreamer framework as a back end, and Firefox is open source from back to front, which can lead to issues.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2010 21:16
|
|
|
Aaand now Vimeo has opened their HTML5 beta - H.264, of course. Dammit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2010 00:35
|
|
|
ufarn posted:Aaand now Vimeo has opened their HTML5 beta - H.264, of course. Dammit. Because Flash adopted x264, meaning any intelligent video storage site has been using x264 for a while now. This is why I said it's the de facto standard and why, "moral" objections aside, x264 is the far better choice for this. I will be shocked if any current flash video site opens up and offers anything in ogg format, since they would have to convert every file in their system to ogg. Most of them have already done this for x264.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2010 00:54
|
|
|
Casao posted:Because Flash adopted x264, meaning any intelligent video storage site has been using x264 for a while now. This is why I said it's the de facto standard and why, "moral" objections aside, x264 is the far better choice for this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2010 01:05
|
|
|
ufarn posted:We agree - I'm just annoyed that Opera backs ogg, leaving most, if not all, HTML5 video services useless. Yeah, just trying to explain it because a lot of people are  about OUR FREEDOMS.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2010 01:07
|
|
|
Casao posted:
(Why is that picture Spergin?) I think HTML5 should use wmv since that is actually the de facto standard of video. I also think sites should block anything but IE since that is the de facto standard for browsers. It's not so simple if you make the argument based what's used most. What's used most, instead of following open standards, is the reason Opera is locked out of many sites.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2010 01:24
|
|
|
kapalama posted:(Why is that picture Spergin?) x264 is the de facto standard of web video which is what's being discussed. And a browser's not a standard. IE6 and IE7 are damned different too, so split them. The point is, you're making lovely arguments. Again, this is like saying "I'm going to make an HDTV but not include any HDMI ports, just composite." You can make all your OUR FREEDOMS arguments but the simple fact is there's nothing wrong or evil about using x264, especially when the standard you back is mostly unused and technologically inferior to the alternative.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2010 01:41
|
|
|
Casao posted:x264 is the de facto standard of web video which is what's being discussed. And a browser's not a standard. IE6 and IE7 are damned different too, so split them. The point is, you're making lovely arguments. I back any standard that is freely re-implementable. h.264 doesn't have that feature. Theora is the best video codec that does, so it's the obviously best choice. You might not care about signing away your rights, but many people do, no matter how many little pictures you spit at them. And once again, there's no reason for Opera to support the more expensive and legally complex option until the market forces them to. In the meantime, they can support the cheaper, simpler option in the hopes that it wins out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2010 01:53
|
|
|
kapalama posted:(Why is that picture Spergin?) http://forums.somethingawful.com/dictionary.php?act=3&topicid=1947
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2010 02:04
|
|
|
ColdPie posted:I back any standard that is freely re-implementable. h.264 doesn't have that feature. Theora is the best video codec that does, so it's the obviously best choice. You might not care about signing away your rights, but many people do, no matter how many little pictures you spit at them. And once again, there's no reason for Opera to support the more expensive and legally complex option until the market forces them to. In the meantime, they can support the cheaper, simpler option in the hopes that it wins out. Honestly, I'm all for open standards and whatever, but I've tried encoding some HD videos with Theora, and it really does suck. There are the monetary/legal issues, yes, but if a codec sucks, it's not viable for widespread use, no matter how free and open it is. When it comes up to snuff, then your argument would be valid, but it's not there yet.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2010 03:36
|
|
|
ColdPie posted:I back any standard that is freely re-implementable. h.264 doesn't have that feature. Theora is the best video codec that does, so it's the obviously best choice. You might not care about signing away your rights, but many people do, no matter how many little pictures you spit at them. And once again, there's no reason for Opera to support the more expensive and legally complex option until the market forces them to. In the meantime, they can support the cheaper, simpler option in the hopes that it wins out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2010 05:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 05:34 |
|
|
Theora as a codec isn't terrible. The problem is that the encoding tools available are very primitive by comparison to anything that's come out of MPEG lately. More importantly, though, can we take the religious arguments to another thread or something?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2010 15:50
|
|