The Problem With Opera

Opera has always been a bit of a curiosity to me. Nearly everyone seems to tout its speed and adherence to web standards — and yet, no one seems to use it. Well, at least not in the United States anyway, and really not that many people worldwide either. Why is that?
Today, Opera announced a new version (10.52) available for OS X. The promise is that it’s ten times faster than the last version I used (10.10). In fact, they’re saying it’s the “world’s fastest browser for Mac.” So I decided to try it out as my primary browser the entire morning.
First off, let me just say that the thing does seem pretty fast. Noticeably faster than Chrome or Safari? No (more on that below), but definitely faster than Firefox. And, a few rendering issues aside, it does seem like a pretty solid browser. But still, the entire time I was using it, I found myself itching to go back to Chrome or Safari. It took me a while to figure out why. But I’ve come to the realization that it was staring me in the face.
I simply don’t like the way Opera looks on a Mac.
Now, I say that knowing full well that they’ve revamped the look for OS X since the last version. And it does look much better than that version — not quite so pixelated. But there’s still too much chrome (no, not the browser Chrome, UI chrome). Worse, the chrome seems to be too dark. The bottom toolbar is cluttered up with buttons I’ll simply never use (Unite? Widgets?). And those blue status indicators on the top of tabs are simply hideous.
This latest version of Opera looks as if it’s the spawn of Safari and Firefox mating. On paper, that may sounds like a good idea, but the result is awkward. It just feels alien.
That’s not to say I demand all applications to look the same. Safari is obviously Apple’s own web browser, but it’s not my browser of choice. I like Chrome much more for a number of reasons (the first of which is the Omnibox), even though it doesn’t particularly look too Mac-like. Before Chrome for Mac was available, I had used Mozilla’s Camino browser for a number of years rather than Safari as well. That’s two other browsers made by two other vendors that seem (at least to me) to have nailed browser development on the Mac. Opera, in my opinion, still hasn’t. (Nor, in my view, has Firefox.)

Opera on Windows is a different matter. I don’t use Windows on a daily basis (or really, at all, except when I have to test something out) so take this with a grain of salt. But Opera on Windows looks pretty solid compared to the competition in my view. It’s much, much better than Internet Explorer, and on-par with Firefox. Safari for Windows doesn’t look right in the same way that Opera on the Mac doesn’t look right, so I never use that. While Chrome, of course, is still king of the hill in my book on Windows too.
I guess what it boils down to is that when browsing the web, I basically just want a giant window that renders an HTML page correctly and fast — that’s it. All these features sound nice, but most are just clutter. That’s especially true on the desktop, where most of us are on fast connections (or fast-enough), and things such as Opera’s “turbo-charging” don’t seem to make much of a difference (obviously, that’s different on the mobile web — but usually only with Edge connections, in my experience).
Chrome nails this experience that I’m looking for, and that’s one of the reasons why Chrome OS excites me so much. Anything not rendering HTML on my screen is just noise. Opera has a lot of noise.

written by,
MG Siegler

Gmail for IPAD

Google has just announced on its mobile blog that it has created a web-based version of Gmail that’s optimized for the iPad. The HTML5-based site, which is automatically activated when you visit Gmail.com from device, features a slick looking two-column view, with a list of messages in the left column and message content on the right.
Of course, the iPad comes with a built-in native Mail application, but the Gmail web app offers a few advantages, as it allows you to use Gmail features like starring, labels, and (perhaps most importantly) threaded conversations. Google launched a similar web app for the iPhone last year.
We haven’t gotten to try out the app for ourselves yet, but it will be interesting to see how responsive it is. In general, I’ve found the iPhone web app for Gmail to be good, but not great — it’s never matched the responsiveness I get on the native Gmail app Android (perhaps the iPad’s speedy processor will make up for this). Unfortunately, it’s highly unlikely we’ll be seeing a native Gmail app launch on the iPad given the ongoing conflict between Google and Apple.
As part of its post, Google highlighted some of the native applications it has that are included on the iPad — Apple is using Google as the default search provider (though there have been rumors that may change to Bing), Google powers the Maps application, and there’s also a native YouTube app.

Google Shows How HTML5 Can Run Quake In The Browser



A lot of attention lately has been put on the video capabilities of HTML5 browsers, since the iPad doesn’t support Flash. It turns out not to really matter that much because most online video platforms are now drinking the HTML5 Kool-Aid. But what about other things that Flash does well, like games? Well, HTML5 might be a more powerful game engine than most peopel think.
To show off what is possible with HTML5 in the browser, some of the engineers on the Google Web Toolkit team created an HTML5 port of the classic first-person shooter game Quake II. Check it out in the video above. It is based on an open-sourced Java port of Quake called Jake2. A post on the Google Code blog explains how they did it :
We started with the existing Jake2 Java port of the Quake II engine, then used the Google Web Toolkit (along with WebGL, WebSockets, and a lot of refactoring) to cross-compile it into Javascript. You can see the results in the video above — we were honestly a bit surprised when we saw it pushing over 30 frames per second on our laptops!