"Tabs. Mouse gestures. User-agent switcher. Dedicated transfer window. Pop-up blocking and javascript abuse filtering. Integrated search box. Page zoom. Session saver. Chew on those features. We'll be coming back to them."
Post a Comment
Member since:
2005-11-12
Fans: 3
I think thats the issue with it and sometimes no matter how good it is, it just dont jell with people.
Personally I just dont like it, I've tried to love it but Opera never hit the sweet spot. The themes are dull, way to many options and lacking linux support. My mate has used Opera for years and once I introduced him to Firefox 2 he just seem to just like it better.
You can throw all the innovation and features into Opera but if people just dont like there's not much you can do. I even prefer Konqueror over Opera.
Member since:2007-03-04
Fans: 2
I think thats the issue with it and sometimes no matter how good it is, it just dont jell with people.
I know, this is because Opera used to have ads or to be paid, and people got angry at Opera. Their image of evil company has stuck and if there's a browser to hate, no matter how good it is, it's Opera. There's nothing Opera can do at this time. It's a brand recognition problem.
The themes are dull
The themes were dull. Now Opera has native OS integration and you can use skins submitted by users. You can have Opera look like Safari or IE for instance 
way to many options
These options are hidden, and shouldn't annoy the average user. And they are essential for power user. Having them out of the box is better than having to go to a web site to download extensions that not always work across upgrades.
lacking linux support
What is missing exactly? I'm using Opera on Linux and it's worked great so far.
You can throw all the innovation and features into Opera but if people just dont like there's not much you can do.
Sadly, this is true.
Member since:2005-12-31
Fans: 0
To speak to OS integration, I use Opera precisely because if fits perfectly into my KDE desktop, right down to correctly inheriting transparent menus. I find the user interface to be perfect. The only down side is stability. It crashes more than all the other browsers I use. To rate them from most to least stable:
1. Firefox
2. Safari
3. Opera
So while I continue to user Opera due to its perfect integration with KDE and superior features to Konqueror, I sometimes switch to Firefox when Opera crashes.
Member since:
2006-01-10
Fans: 0
This article is very accurate.
I've installed opera...but I still use firefox. My reason, as sad as it is:
Opera does not have live bookmarks for rss feeds.
I don't know. Every else seems to like separate rss readers...but I just like live bookmarks. I plop them onto my bookmark toolbar and I can check the feeds without leaving the current tab or opening up anything new.
I think it's just how I've gotten used to it. But again, that's the point of the article...it's a better GUI because that's how I've always used it.
Member since:2005-07-06
Fans: 11
The way I do feeds is via the mail/feeds panel. To show the panel, I do a quick mouse gesture, and the same to hide it. It tells me if I have new mail or any of my feeds are updated. I like it better than the live bookmarks. I don't have to move my mouse to a specific spot and click. Just hold the mouse button down for a split second while doing a quick gesture.
Member since:2007-03-04
Fans: 2
Member since:2006-11-01
Fans: 0
[quote]
Opera does have RSS feeds, it's in its mail client.
[/quote]
The parent post did not say that Opera doesn't support RSS feeds.
He said Opera doesn't has Live Bookmarks for RSS feeds..
[quote]
Personally I think it makes a lot more sense to have news feeds in the email client than in the toolbar. It's much more organized and easier to read.
[/quote]
Live bookmarks are a very simple implementation for RSS, but very convenient if all you need is a quick inspection of the latest headlines, without putting the current document out of focus. RSS are often use to syndicate web content, so why take them out of the browser? They are not e-mail, nor newsgroup postings.
In terms of personal preference, if better organization is a necessity, I'd rather use a standalone aggregator.
Edited 2008-01-31 20:30 UTC
Member since:
2005-07-08
Fans: 0
It does not matter whom implemented the feature first. It does not matter who was the innovator. All that matters is how that feature was presented.
By default, the Opera interface SUCKS. Yes, I know that it is customisable, and you can make it look similar to Firefox, Safari, or another browser. And, yes, I've done that. For a laptop, it's the best browser (on Windows) because its keyboard navigation is second to none. You can move focus on objects up, down, left, right with CTRL+ARROW KEYS.
The problem is that people do not want to invest the time to customise. They want it it look good from the start. They want it to make sense from the start.
Not to mention, people now want extensions, which are not available for Opera.
They need to hire a UI designer, and they must make sure that it blends in on all relevant platforms.
It should blend in on Vista, XP, KDE, OSX.
You do not see its ugliness when you browse the web with the Nitendo Wii.
Its rendering engine is one of the best, if not the best. It supports a lot of HTML5, for example. They are innovators, but they are not presenters.
Member since:2007-07-30
Fans: 0
By definition, aesthetic judgements are subjective.
I like Opera's interface. I use Firefox mainly for the dev tools and to test sites I'm doing, but much prefer Opera for browsing in general, due to all the positive points listed in the article. I've never been bothered by the "it's too different" aspect. I guess I like the differences. It hasn't been a problem to find new skins (which Opera can use immediately -- no restart needed) so in that regard too there's really no problem. My point is just to emphasize the subjectivity of interface design. To some people, Opera does feel better to use than any other browser.
-- Gary
Edited 2008-01-31 01:12 UTC
Member since:2005-12-15
Fans: 3
Member since:2007-07-30
Fans: 0
By definition, aesthetic judgements are subjective. "
True, but I agree with him. [/q]
That's fine, and thanks for taking the time to provide another illustration of my point. But as long as enough people want to use Opera to keep Opera Software in business, I'm a happy camper. :-)
Member since:2005-07-06
Fans: 1
I disagree. I believe there is an objective component. I think its actually quite an important question i.e. whether or not things like beauty or aeshetics are intrinsically so or at least have an intrinsic component which makes them beautiful.
There is a little book called "The abolition of man" by C.S. Lewis which you may find interesting.
Member since:2007-07-30
Fans: 0
You realize, I hope, that your statement here ("I believe...") makes explicit the subjective nature of your viewpoint. That illustrates the problem of looking for something objective underlying aesthetic judgements, I think. No matter what "intrinsic component" is found, I suspect it will only be "objective" within a certain social context or world view or philosophy/religion, etc.
An interesting question, but my inclination is to think aesthetic judgements depend on criteria that are valued by a culture or an individual, etc.
Maybe the closer an aspect of appreciation gets to being objective, the less it involves aethetics per se and the more it is related to function (and so quantifiable, such as when involving ergonometric factors, in the area of computer GUIs, for instance).
An individual may not be conscious of the "presets" brought to an aesthetic judgement, but arguments throughout history about what makes a woman beautiful, a man handsome, a painting great, a song good, or (these days) whether a computer interface sucks or not tend to suggest the criteria are not constant though time or shared universally at any given time.
Of course it can be maintained that the "intrisic component" of aesthetics is actually objective and its lack of recognition as such is a failing of societies and individuals, but maintaining this position in itself is a subjective act. So the argument goes beyond aesthetics and focuses on the nature of objectivity. Personally, it seems to me pretty much all examples of objectivity are only objective within a context that specifies rules, such as in mathematics.
Thanks, I'll have a look sometime.
Member since:2005-07-06
Fans: 1
My acknowledgement that I may be wrong does not change the fact I believe beauty is not subjective, at least in part. It just means that being human I am limited and realise I could be wrong about my belief.
The conclusions one draws about things like beauty or aesthetics will always goes back to one's central reference point and the nature of that reference point. Try as we might it is impossible for any human to do without that central reference point although many try. I believe that things like beauty flow from that central reference point. So for some calling something beautiful is an irrational almost meaningless statement. For others they can look at calligraphy produced by a master and perceive its innate beauty and look at my cursive and know that its ugly.
Member since:2007-03-04
Fans: 2
By default, the Opera interface SUCKS.
Please tell what you like in Firefox and what you don't like in Opera, based on this comparison screenshot: http://i27.tinypic.com/en77n.png
its keyboard navigation is second to none
Ok, please take a look at these two links and tell us what you're missing, maybe Opera devs could add it to the next version.
http://www.opera.com/products/desktop/keyboard/
The problem is that people do not want to invest the time to customise. They want it it look good from the start. They want it to make sense from the start.
Opera and Firefox (and other browsers) look pretty much the same from the start: http://i27.tinypic.com/en77n.png Or am I missing something? If the problem is the Opera logo in the title bar, then I tend to think the problem of Opera is not a technical problem, but rather a brand problem. People dislike Opera because it's Opera.
people now want extensions
Not people, geeks.
which are not available for Opera.
No need, these functionalities come already out of the box. Isn't it better? Who wants to chase for extensions that not always work across upgrades?
It should blend in on Vista, XP, KDE, OSX.
Now, this is interesting. Opera has native OS integration in Vista, XP, KDE and OS X. However, Firefox doesn't have native integration for KDE, although it has for Gnome because Opera uses Qt and Firefox uses Gtk.
They are innovators, but they are not presenters.
I really don't think the problem is a GUI issue. It's rather a branding issue. Who here dislikes the Opera application but likes the Opera Software company itself? I'm sure not many.
Member since:2006-01-23
Fans: 0
...
Now, this is interesting. Opera has native OS integration in Vista, XP, KDE and OS X. However, Firefox doesn't have native integration for KDE, although it has for Gnome because Opera uses Qt and Firefox uses Gtk.
...
I really don't think the problem is a GUI issue. It's rather a branding issue. Who here dislikes the Opera application but likes the Opera Software company itself? I'm sure not many.
Opera always feels odd. It may not be any different but it always makes me work harder to do things. e.g., I thought it was great that they had PhishTank integration. I thought that it was ridiculous that I had to activate it. For similar reasons, I don't use Safari unless I need something specific.
Opera is a third browser on all my systems, even when I only have two browsers installed.
Member since:2007-02-05
Fans: 0
I can't really agree with Opera's interface sucking. One thing is it's appearance witch is subjective, but one is the working of it. Although Opera is slightly different from Firefox they are quite similar and both very simple.
A lot of criticism against Opera seems to nothing more than "Why isn't Opera like Firefox" represented in other argumetns. To that I say: why should Opera be like Firefox? It's it's own browser and Opera have the guts to be different. The fruit of it is innovation, but the price it that a lot of people don't like it that much.
One thing about Opera is that when people do like Opera they tend to *love* Opera. I would even go as far as compare us to the Apple-fans that just LOVE their OS. (Now many say that that Apple-thing is because of marketing... but considering how really flawed the Opera marketing really is that argument doesen't really count here.)
Member since:
2005-07-14
Fans: 0
I have used Opera off and on since Version 5 or maybe even earlier. I loved the OS2 version of Opera at the time OS2 was still mainstream, I have always loved Opera and felt it was way ahead of it's time. The last few years though although I still use it and love it, I tend to use other browsers and use Opera for a backup for some sites. I am not sure why either because every time I do use it I like it. On OSX I use Safari first and Opera if a site has issues and on Windows Firefox then Opera.
Member since:
2007-03-20
Fans: 0
I used to use Opera back in the days when Mozilla was the big bloaty browser and Phoenix wasn't around. It wasn't the greatest browser but it was certainly better than IE, although you had to use IE quite frequently for sites which only worked in IE - nobody even considered other browsers with IE being so dominant.
However after using so many plugins in Firefox, even though it probably isn't quite as fast as Opera I still prefer it. Hopefully Firefox 3 will turn Firefox into an even faster browser.
I've tried going back to Opera for the improved performance, but could never quite get used to some of the minor quirks which you just can't change.
Member since:
2006-01-26
Fans: 24
Yes... at least for me that's a large part of it.
I'm either going to use an open source browser (currently Firefox - maybe something webkit-derived in the future) or I'm going to use IE for those corner-case compatibility issues (Yes, I'm primarily a windows user...)
Let's also keep in mind that web developers are HUGE advocates for browsers - and without web developers behind a browser, it's not going to be taken seriously. I don't remember running across many websites "built for Opera" during the years.
I also hate all the built-in functionality of Opera and would rather have the extensions-based functionality of Firefox. This gives me the option of getting all those unwanted features out of the way up front, and only adding what I need. It's a minimalist thing I guess - I just don't want them in front of me unless I ask for them. At this point, the only extension I really *need* with Firefox is AdBlock (go crazy without it).
What I didn't see explicitly mentioned in the article (except in the comments) is that Opera started out as commercial non-free (as in beer) software. It eventually became adware (horrible for someone who only had 31.2kbps dialup while everyone else was on 56kbps or moving to DSL), and by the time they made it completely free, other good free alternatives had risen to overcome it. This was probably their biggest mistake. If they'd given the damn thing away, they would have gained a lot more market share. Granted, that's not exactly a sustainable business prospect in itself...
I gave Opera a serious shot once or twice before Phoenix/Firebird/Firefox hit the market - and just couldn't justify the cost, or the ads eating up my screen, bandwidth, and senses. Couple with that the tons of configuration to get stuff off the screen that I didn't want... It was just a needless hassle. At that time, it didn't even render as well as Firefox did when it hit the scene.
Ultimately, Firefox was one of the major nails in the Opera coffin...
I probably have a lot of other thoughts on this, but don't have the time to think of them
Member since:2007-03-04
Fans: 2
I also hate all the built-in functionality of Opera and would rather have the extensions-based functionality of Firefox.
Why? There's gotta be some reason for that...
Isn't having built-in functionality more convenient?
I just don't want them in front of me
Which functionalities are in front of you? Most functionalities are hidden (ex: mail client, RSS reader, chat client, Usenet client, mouse gestures, etc...). The default interface is not particularly bloated to me: http://i27.tinypic.com/en77n.png
At this point, the only extension I really *need* with Firefox is AdBlock (go crazy without it).
Have you tried Opera's built-in ad blocker?
It eventually became adware (horrible for someone who only had 31.2kbps dialup while everyone else was on 56kbps or moving to DSL)
I'm puzzled. How much bandwidth will a 10KB banner ad take off your bandwidth when downloaded every 5 minutes? There were even text-based banners. It's really not a bandwidth issue, it's rather an annoyment issue. No one wants to see ads, me neither.
by the time they made it completely free, other good free alternatives had risen to overcome it.
By the time it was free, it was too late, people already hated Opera and got their revenge with Firefox which was free of charge and with no ads. Freeing Opera: Too little, too late.
If they'd given the damn thing away, they would have gained a lot more market share.
Absolutely.
Granted, that's not exactly a sustainable business prospect in itself...
When you have a partnership with Google and have hundreds of millions of users, you do make money (see the Mozilla Corporation). Opera was maybe too greedy and didn't expect Firefox would arise and eat them alive. Opera should have been free from the beginning, it would have eaten IE6.
Member since:2006-01-26
Fans: 24
Why? There's gotta be some reason for that...
Isn't having built-in functionality more convenient?
um ... no. Clearly you come from the "more is better" camp. I'm sorry, but that's just not true, at least not for me.
Which functionalities are in front of you? Most functionalities are hidden (ex: mail client, RSS reader, chat client, Usenet client, mouse gestures, etc...). The default interface is not particularly bloated to me: http://i27.tinypic.com/en77n.png
Heh... thats certainly not the default interface that opera started with last time I tried it (prior to Firefox). Opera had its chance to sway me, it failed. I'm no longer interested.
Have you tried Opera's built-in ad blocker?
No, because Opera is no longer on my radar. Adblock works exactly how I expect it to - why would I want to try another ad blocker on a browser I don't use?
I'm puzzled. How much bandwidth will a 10KB banner ad take off your bandwidth when downloaded every 5 minutes? There were even text-based banners. It's really not a bandwidth issue, it's rather an annoyment issue. No one wants to see ads, me neither.
It was more often than every 5 minutes... and it wasn't a 10kb ad either. At a time when ad-supported software was an absolute disaster for me, this was a huge turn-off. In retrospect, ad-supported software simply got a bad name - and Opera was lumped into that category. Being an annoyance was certainly part of that.
By the time it was free, it was too late, people already hated Opera and got their revenge with Firefox which was free of charge and with no ads. Freeing Opera: Too little, too late.
If they'd given the damn thing away, they would have gained a lot more market share.
Absolutely.
At least you agree with me on that one.
When you have a partnership with Google and have hundreds of millions of users, you do make money (see the Mozilla Corporation). Opera was maybe too greedy and didn't expect Firefox would arise and eat them alive. Opera should have been free from the beginning, it would have eaten IE6.
I loved Firefox when it was still Phoenix - and I'm guessing the Google partnership didn't yet exist then. It was a simple browser with a clear goal. It was open-source, cross-platform. It hit my target as both a user and a developer.
Opera didn't.
Member since:2006-12-06
Fans: 0
Member since:
2006-01-10
Fans: 1
Another problem with Opera used to be the price. In the 1990s, you could choose between IE which was free and Netscape which was free for Universities (most users with internet at that time). Opera had a "free" version but that ran ads and most users did not want banner ads running in their application especially since it kept giving the impression that their (already slow) net was being clogged up downloading ads.
Apart from extensions, the other big thing that Mozilla Corp managed with Firefox is to tie up with Google and hide ads behind the search bar and thereby making a product that was ad driven but not overtly so.
Of course, now Opera is doing the same thing. But I don't know if it is too late and if browser features have already matured too much (therefore you get somewhat similar features in all browsers), giving people very little reason to actively switch.
Member since:
2005-08-12
Fans: 0
The Opera 9.5b is actually pretty good. I like the native sync support linked to you myopera account. My BIGGEST complaint with Opera is something that's gone un-addressed. I can't use it for dev work or tunneling because the don't allow you to trust certs on the fly. In every other browser, you get a popup if the cert is funky, and you are given a chance to accept or reject....Opera...nah it flat out rejects the connection, anyone ever found a way around this?
Member since:2007-07-10
Fans: 0
Member since:2005-08-12
Fans: 0
Not for me, or at least last time I checked a 9.x version. For instance, I have some appliances that I manage. Because of their location in the environment, I have to tunnel through a jumpbox to access the gui. This of course changes the real address I am accessing from my local machine to say https://127.0.0.1:5555. Opera flat out tells me the cert is invalid, with no chance to accept the cert with the mismatching...Why? (shrug) you got me. Work's fine for literally every other browser on Windows and Linux I've used, only Opera bombs out.
Member since:2005-07-06
Fans: 0
Member since:
2005-07-06
Fans: 0
i keep bumpinng into hotkeys that are moved, missing, or in other ways different from firefox.
i could probably remap them, but like i said, some are plain missing.
and with me now using linux for day to day computing i have firefox and konqueror at hand.
still, its still not roses without thorns. i at times find myself using firefox in windows, and there the default hotkey for going to a specific tab is ctrl+a number.in linux its alt+a number...
Member since:
2005-11-13
Fans: 3
The user interface in Opera is just 'off' ... some people like it, but most just don't, including me. I've been hacking away at Opera for months, trying to get it to work the way I want it to, and it still doesn't behave quite right. For example, every time I open an HTML file on my hard drive, Opera opens up with 2 tabs.. one is the html file I opened, and the other is a page with an error message about can't open page. WHY!?!? This kind of sh*t makes me just want to pull my hair out. They concentrate too much on the crappy built-in email program, while most of the features in the browser remain about 90% implemented. (Case in point.. annoying bugs in the voice feature that have been around since v8 are still there.)
So, why do I use it? For one reason and one reason only. It has a stellar (though sometimes frustrating) text-to-speech engine built right in. (Only available on Windows.) I just like to kick back and have Stephen Hawking read web pages to me. If I could find a voice engine to use for the Firefox voice plugin that works as well as the one in Opera, I'd drop Opera like a bad habit and never look back.
BTW: Out of all the features that Opera introduced, one thing it didn't come out with first is Adblock. Version 9 has the content blocking, but I like in Firefox being able to download an extension that keeps the filter list updated.
Member since:2007-03-04
Fans: 2
For example, every time I open an HTML file on my hard drive, Opera opens up with 2 tabs.. one is the html file I opened, and the other is a page with an error message about can't open page. WHY!?!?
This has gotta be a bug, you could report it.
They concentrate too much on the crappy built-in email program
Ah, no, you can't say that. Opera's email client is probably the best around. It's the only email client that I know that uses a database and filters to handle messages. If you use filters to manage your mail, it's like 10x better than Outlook Express or Thunderbird.
Member since:
2006-11-26
Fans: 0
<rant>
Opera used to be so wonderful. I started using 2.1 on Windows 3.1 (in '97) or so and it just ran circles around everything. At the time it was said to be written in assembler, and it probably was given how well it ran.
In fact I used it faithfully until I discovered Konqueror and then the early incarnations of Firefox.
The computer press, as all of our media seems to, loves a dichotomy. It's easy to write about, easy to analyze, and to understand. The much vaunted rivalry between Netscape and Microsoft has garnered so much attention, there hasn't been room for a third browser.
What would make me move back to Opera when Firefox suits all of my needs? Nothing. I think Opera has missed its chance. Firefox is so good that only a major stumble in its development would make me consider anything else.
I think the Opera browser offers us another opportunity as with Be, as with Amiga, of something technically superior, which never reaches critical mass. I'm tempted to throw Linux into that mix as well. What all of these lacked was targeted marketing, presence, a clear vision of the future (this doesn't mean supported the latest standards, this is about ideas), aggressive goal-setting.
When the web now is such a backwards-ass non-standards compliant waste-land, html5 won't get you anywhere. What is Opera? How does it enable me to work differently?
Take a stand.
The vast majority of computer users don't want choice. A C compiler and a shell prompt is infinite choice, is it not? They want direction. They want to be shown new ways of working, they want to be lead by the hand. This is the market direction.
<end rant>
Member since:
2006-05-18
Fans: 1
For years the engine was horrible, not in the sense that it didn't conform to the standards (it did and it does), but the fact that it wasn't interpreting the common quirks as well as Firefox. As a web-developer I need to see sites exactly the way the author intended, and I don't know how Firefox can almost all the time do that.
The javascript interpreter seems to have the same problems as a lot of scripts that work in IE and Firefox fail miserably in Opera. Maybe it's not their fault, because they might respect all the standards in the world, but this really isn't enough.
Also, the UI is not one of the best. I hate the fact that I have to jump through hoops to get the damn tab bar below the location bar, the menus are cluttered and the skins don't look very well on either platform.
As someone said above me ... it's the little things.
Edited 2008-01-31 06:40 UTC
Member since:2007-03-04
Fans: 2
The javascript interpreter seems to have the same problems as a lot of scripts that work in IE and Firefox fail miserably in Opera.
Sad but true. This is not only the Javascript engine. It's also the CSS and HTML engine. This is because web devs don't test their pages in Opera. But it's a fact.
Member since:
2006-11-18
Fans: 0
Why Opeta did not get bigger userbase while Firefox still gets new users all over the world? Because of the same reason why Linux is a lot more poppular then BSDs, HYPE and FUD.
Endless HYPE for Firefox which growed to almost saver of humanity to daily FUD spread here and there, most funny (jelous) thing is that if you ask most of these screamers spreading FUD about Opera (or any other product) if they tried it they will tell you NO with big smile on their face.
Member since:2007-03-04
Fans: 2
Member since:2006-07-01
Fans: 1
Member since:2007-03-04
Fans: 2
Member since:
2006-11-18
Fans: 0
Several years behind I was a happy Firefox user, I do not looked at other browsers because I just was happy with Firefox, but some pages loaded slowly, random crash here and there, nothing really big generally, so I decided to try Opera, I was 8.x at that time, beginnings were strangem diffrent behaviour, diffrent tab switching algorithm, minimising tabs, panels, custom buttons, a lot of choices and you do not know what exacly you want to have there, but as time passed I got used to it, I liked the speed and forgot what crash means, now I have all panels customized, hidden menus and many other customization and I cannot live without all that stuff, SRSLY
When I must do something in Firefox or any other browser, even browse several simple pages I feel like handicaped, I do not have all that power and options that Opera gives me, not telling about taking ages for the page to load.
Also when I must setup opera from scratch, I do not need to search all over the Internet to get my extension that work with this exact version of Firefox, I just setup.exe Opera, turn on gestures (enabled by first gesture) and I am done. I am ready to work, do anything and with Opera Synchronization feature I have all my tabs and favorites here, wven without access to my box, that is what I call a browser, Opera, "The Power to Serve" :p
Edited 2008-01-31 08:15 UTC
Member since:2007-09-07
Fans: 0
I must say I somehow agree with the feeling of being "handicaped" when I use another browser. But to me, the first and main reason I use opera is their "tab trash". Closed the wrong tab ? No problem, two clicks and it's back just as if nothing happened, with its history and stuff. Same behavior with windows in the beta. I may be a bit reckless, but... wow I use this every single day.
Member since:2006-01-03
Fans: 0
Member since:2006-12-06
Fans: 0
Member since:
2005-07-07
Fans: 0
Member since:2007-03-04
Fans: 2
Member since:
2005-07-06
Fans: 1
Opera never gained traction because it cost money to not be ad-supported.
The boom of the internet saw the boom of popup and other adverts. People didn't want to use a browser that showed them ads in their toolbar, especially when there were alternatives that wouldn't ... and they didn't want to pay to remove those ads, when they could use another product that was free.
The advert alluded to "grandma" type users that don't care about extensions etc. Well those same people wouldn't have understood why they had to pay for a product that should be free (at least the others were, so why not Opera). This was around the time of those "free" dialup internet connections - the ones that still cost you per minute, but all of a sudden didn't cost a monthly charge. Again, why pay for something if you can have something else for free? It's how the majority think.
It's only recently Opera became "free" financially and I honestly believe *that* has helped it gain traction in the modern browser competition. It's just a shame Mozilla has developed such a community around Firefox, along with all the clever branding and marketing, to drive its adoption. Mozilla were lucky - users were getting frustrated with IE and its ability to get your machine infected, so they were *actively looking* for an alternative. Heck I even remember trying different IE shells, only eventually giving up and going Firefox full time. Once a couple of people got the free Firefox, they became advocates without realising it.
In my defense, I used Opera from about version 3.5 to now, but never exclusively. Even today, it is installed but hardly gets used, even though it feels faster and more efficient. Why? I'm not entirely sure, maybe like the millions of other web users out there, I am a creature of habit, and Firefox has just stuck with me.
Member since:2007-03-04
Fans: 2
Member since:
2006-07-01
Fans: 1