|
|
User Controls
|
New User
|
Login
|
Edit/View My Profile
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac
|
Articles
|
Forums
|
Links
|
News
|
News Search
|
Reviews
|
|
|
|
News Centers
|
Windows/Microsoft
|
DVD
|
ActiveHardware
|
Xbox
|
MaINTosh
|
News Search
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats
|
The Lobby
|
Special Events Room
|
Developer's Lounge
|
XBox Chat
|
|
|
|
FAQ's
|
Windows 98/98 SE
|
Windows 2000
|
Windows Me
|
Windows "Whistler" XP
|
Windows CE
|
Internet Explorer 6
|
Internet Explorer 5
|
Xbox
|
DirectX
|
DVD's
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips
|
Registry Tips
|
Windows 95/98
|
Windows 2000
|
Internet Explorer 4
|
Internet Explorer 5
|
Windows NT Tips
|
Program Tips
|
Easter Eggs
|
Hardware
|
DVD
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews
|
Applications
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002
|
|
Hardware
|
Intel Personal Audio Player
3000
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse
Explorer
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info
|
About This Site
|
Affiliates
|
ANet Forums
|
Contact Us
|
Default Home Page
|
Link To Us
|
Links
|
Member Pages
|
Site Search
|
Awards
|
|
|
|
Credits
©1997/2004, Active Network. All
Rights Reserved.
Layout & Design by
Designer Dream. Content
written by the Active Network team. Please click
here for full terms of
use and restrictions or read our
Privacy Statement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Time:
13:32 EST/18:32 GMT | News Source:
Press Release |
Posted By: Julien Jay |
Opera Software ASA today unleashed Opera 6.0 for Windows, a browser with an array of new and improved features, including a completely customizable user interface, and new speed boosting features for improving users' Internet experience. The previous beta version launched at COMDEX Nov. 13, has broken all records for a beta release, with more than 500 000 downloads in the two weeks since the launch. Opera 6.0 for Windows reaches out to users accustomed to competing browsers' single document interface (SDI), by offering an enhanced version of SDI as an added option on top of Opera's traditional multiple document interface (MDI). Opera newbies that are not used to browsing in MDI can now start in familiar surroundings, immediately making use of Opera's power-user features, and later have the option to change to Opera's more advanced MDI environment.
"Opera 6.0 was received with tremendous enthusiasm all over the Internet," says Dean Kakridas, VP Desktop Products, Opera Software ASA. "Opera 6 gives worldwide users of all levels an alternative to IE and a better Internet experience on multiple desktop platforms. We will continue to work extremely hard to provide the home, corporate and education markets the best browser solution possible." With this release, Opera for the first time also displays non-Roman alphabets, opening up the local markets in the Asia/Pacific and Eastern European region to true browser competition.
|
|
#1 By
116 (129.116.86.41)
at
11/29/2001 2:01:45 PM
|
I am actually very impressed with this browser. They have done a good job. I still prefer IE, however this browser just got the nod over Netscape/Mozilla. Way to go Opera!
|
#2 By
135 (209.180.28.6)
at
11/29/2001 2:17:30 PM
|
Yes, it is nice to have other alternatives. The mouse gestures are interesting. Microsoft was in a position to leverage such usability into their hardware market, by placing a back button on the Intellimouse. The extra button is far more useful, but not as wildly deployable.
|
#3 By
135 (209.180.28.6)
at
11/29/2001 8:25:03 PM
|
#11. So it's going to load in 1.5 seconds instead of 2?
|
#4 By
1845 (207.173.73.201)
at
11/30/2001 10:56:04 AM
|
Though I'd like to agree with you #23 because you support my anti-Opera view, I do think you are mistaken with respect to Opera's standards compliance.
"Without standards, anyone can claim to be a web designer. Just like there should not be a reason to misspell a word in an Office product when the spell checker is built in, so are the numerous tools that will check to make sure that your site is W3C compliant (w3c website, built-in tool for Homesite, etc.). Ignorance is not an excuse for horrible webpages. "
Is it bad for anyone to be a web developer. What is the more logical thing to do - design a site which the majority of users can use, or design a site which the minority of users can use. If the W3C specs had some of the more logical features that IE provides to developers, then I might support your view the compliancy is neccesary.
As I understand it, IE accepts multiple versions of HTML via the DOCTYPE directve at the top of the page. It also accepts "non standard" HTML. This makes IE far more versatile than a browser that says, if you don't do it right (despite the fact that very few sites do it right), I just won't display you very well.
Standards can be a good thing. If standards bodies responding quickly to developers' and users' needs AND if from the beginning the were implemented, then all would be well. The problem is, you shouldn't ignore the fact that many sites are written in non-compliancy. To be useful to the largest number of people, the browser should support both good and bad code.
#19 "It has been forecast that in two years time, less than 50% of web page accesses will originate from "personal computers" - set top boxes and internet devices will have hugely increased market share. Many of these devices are using only 8-16Mb RAM and small, realtime Operating systems." I don't believe those numbers for a second. I'd like to know who forecast it and what data they used to make the projections. A lot of people forecast a lot of things, and a lot of things don't happen as they are forecast. Also, I'll be that when and if such a day comes, they will have more than 8-16 Mb RAM. Just look at the new iPaqs with 64.
|
#5 By
1845 (207.173.73.201)
at
11/30/2001 3:09:41 PM
|
First don't get me started on the arrogant folks at alistapart. And as for being a site for those who make websites, they ought to make their site a bit more attractive. If the claim is "look what we have done with CSS, aren't we cool" then they ought to have a site that looks cool. I think the color and layout of the site are eye sores. Just personal opinion though.
"If you mainly browse toy websites (the ones where usability is not the webmaster's priority goal), then MSIE is certain to do better. If you mainly browse information websites, Opera is a superb choice."
Our views of the current situation with websites is different. Here's mine. Back in the day, Netscape made browsers. They didn't fully implement W3C standards, so authors made pages to match the browser but NOT the standards. IE came along and competed with Netscape. It also didn't fully implement standards. People made pages to match either IE or Netscape or both, but usually NOT the standards. At some point Opera came along and was and has been pretty standards compliant (from what I understand). Since most sites are not written to strict standards, most sites will have issues in standards only browsers.
You seem to confuse usability with accessibility. If I want my site to be accessible (I assume you mean desktop browsers only - no WML references here) to the greatest number of users, I have to write in code that the majority of users' browsers will understand. If BrowserA doesn't implement the standards, it won't render a standards compliant page correctly. You would then say that to that browser the page isn't accessible OR usable. If BrowserA happens to have the lead in market share, then your site is not as accessible as it could be if it had "bad" code that BrowserA could understand.
Now, let's say the reason BrowserA doesn't implement standards is that it accepts extensions to standards. These extensions enable it to do far more than that which the standards outline. It's true that if you use these extensions, that your site wll only be viewable in BrowserA, but it will be more feature rich than it could be if it only used standards compliant code. Using the non standard language accepted by BrowserA is much more usable, but not as accessible.
As I see it, BrowserA is Internet Explorer. Particularly 5.0 and above. Some of the best features I've seen on the web are supported in Internet Explorer only. That's greater usability, but lower accessiblity.
"MSIE supprting non-compliant pages is a *bad* thing". If from the beginning all browsers were compliant, then I might agree. Since that isn't the case (and since standards don't always offer the best functionality), I think you are wrong. If Intel took that approach, then programs that worked on PentiumIII (even on the accidental flaws in the instruction set) wouldn't work in Pentium4's. That is very bad practice. Backward compatibility is a VERY GOOD THING.
Finally, so many people say that it is so good to support W3C standards. Umm, why? If the standard doesn't do what I want, then why should I support it? There are many events which IE supports which are not in the W3C spec. That is annoying. There are functions in the DOM which IE supports which are not in the W3C spec. That is annoying. It is annoying that the spec is limited. Microsoft provides me with a feature rich set of formatting abilities and dynamic formatting API's. That makes me very happy. If W3C doesn't suppor them, I don't care, I prefer the Microsoft standard.
|
#6 By
135 (209.180.28.6)
at
11/30/2001 3:55:45 PM
|
Actually I like alistapart.com and have used some of the ideas presented on my own website. Good information. I agree the colors are really bad and the site looks hideous. But Zeldman and the others involved point out clearly that this is a site dedicated to pushing the limits of the technology and the 'look, this is cool.'
It's useit.com which is arrogant and insists we use technologies available in 1995 and nothing else.
But back to alistapart.com, I especially liked the article a few months back on using CSS for layout, isntead of tables. I made use of that, and consider it a really good thing, however it requires good support for CSS to display. This means it doesn't render on Netscape 4.x.
I think the point of webstandards.org and alistapart.com in terms of Standards compliance is that if all the browsers met good W3C standards compliance you could use a lot of the really nifty features of CSS that make your site extremely maintainable and useable... and because the browsers supported them correctly it would also be accessible by default.
As it is right now, some of the things work but differently. My CSS enabled website worked great under IE 5.5 and 6.0. But it didn't under IE 4.01. As it turned out, I changed one line which detailed how to import the CSS file and now it works under IE 4.01 as well. It'd be nice if I didn't have to resort to such loopholes.
But I agree that one of the problems with strictly following standards is that it stifles innovation. Someone at some point has to cross the standards boundary and push forward. It may very well become a standard after the fact, such as many of the W3C items.
But still if the browsers do support the existing standards well, and you do desire to make a site accessible to many, at least then your job will be extremely easy.
Opera has been relatively good with standards support, as has IE. It's Netscape that needs to be burned at the cross.
|
#7 By
1845 (207.173.73.201)
at
11/30/2001 6:25:08 PM
|
Backup the claim #30. Which independent research firm confirms that Netscape 6 has the best standards support? Was that 6.0? 6.1? or 6.2? or did you mean all three? Was the study published before or after the release of of IE5.5? sp1? sp2? IE6?
Perhaps you are correct, but I want you to show me the proof of your claim (and to prove that you know what you are talking about and not just repeating the non-substantiated claims that others have made).
|
#8 By
1845 (65.0.207.79)
at
11/30/2001 9:49:13 PM
|
No offense but articles from a year ago (when IE 5.5 and Netscape 6 were released) don't persuade me. I'm still not sure that I care which is more standards compliant, but I don't feel that anyone has shown from at least largely unbiased sources that one browser is that much more compliant than another.
I'd also ask what it means for a browser to be standards compliant. Is that HTML 0 - 4, DOM1, DOM2, CSS1, CSS2, XML 1, XSLT 1, XPATH 1, EcmaScript x (don't know what version ECMA is on), HTML + TIME, etc. How 'bout VML, SMIL, and others. Which standards are we talking about? All of these certainly apply to the Internet browsing experience.
WebServices via HTTP/SOAP/WSDL are also standards, but you can only call them from IE 5 with an attached behaivor. I don't think behaivors are in the DOM (I could be wrong), but I'm pretty sure no other browser supports them.
I use XML/XSLT all the time, so it's important to me that a browser support XSLT. Netscape 6 doesn't do too well there, so I have to do server side transforms. I use CSS for "prettying" not for structure (I disagree with ALA on this one), so I don't care too much how compliant a browser is with CSS, but I care very much about XSLT. I like the extensions to the DOM that Microsoft has added (the HTML DOM and the XML DOM), so I use them. That makes my code not standards compliant, but it makes my code easier to write.
This beginning to ramble (again), so in brief - what does it mean to be standards compliant (which standards)? Why should I care so much when the nonstards make my coding life easier? If W3C standardized the extensions, then IE would be more standards compliant than the others. This is a hard fight to win with me, and I am not sure why everyone wants so much to fight it.
|
#9 By
1845 (65.0.207.79)
at
11/30/2001 11:27:57 PM
|
I can see you are being objective - that is why I'm still responding. :)
True, previous versions of IE didn't support the final spec of XSLT. As of Oct 2000 with MSXML 3, though, IE could support it. But IE 6 is the first to ship with MSXML 3. I was glad when I didn't have to code against the work draft implementation any more.
I'm also pretty good at convincing my clients to use IE, so I usually can assume that they will use IE to access my pages. That is the glory of writing web apps to increase internal business processes. Internally I can depend on IE as long as I convince my clients that it will be cheeper for them if I code to IE. Since very few don't use IE to begin with, it isn't too dificult to get a firm commitment to standardize internally on it. Kind of funny that I depend on standards when it suits me. :-)
As for standards for browsing on the Internet, I do think they are important. I just don't think, per se, they are as important as they are made out to be these days. During the browser wars of the 90's I never heard any one say, this browser is awesome it is more standards compliant than that browser. Only with Netscape 6.0 did I begin to hear how great it was to be compliant (probably because it wasn't until then that Netscape was close to being compliant to a standard).
I guess my conciliatory thought is this - being standards compliant is great, but being standards compliant AND backward compatible is better. This is where I think IE excels. It doesn't pretend non compliant HTML is not out there (as Opera and Netscape seem to do), instead it says, OK if you wrote your pages well I'll display them, if you wrote them not so well, I'll forgive you and display them anyway. I think this is the way things should be until authors and browser makers write and render fully compliant code/script/style sheets.
|
|
|
|
|