Talk:Features of the Opera web browser

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software.

Neutrality

I think there´s an issue with the neutrality, since the article does not present any criticism and really sounds like an ad. I added the advert template, but if you disagree, feel free to discuss. --Alvatov (talk) 19:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really disagree with you on this article sounding like an ad, but I will overhaul it tomorrow and add some criticism. --Andylee Sato (talk) 00:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did look over the whole article deleting and reformulating a lot of very favourable parts so they sound more objective and neutral and also updated some contents.... hope this is enough to get rid of the ad-brick. --Andylee Sato (talk) 09:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It still had a lot of positive words. I have overhauled the article completely and this shouldn't be an issue anymore. --Rafaelluik (talk) 16:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for Organizational Structure

As a listing of features can get extensive and long, it's better to have this page seperate from the Opera (Internet suite) page. On the Talk:Opera_(internet_suite) page of that page, I proposed a more logical structure for the listing of features. But it's a lot of stuff. And needs a whole lot of cleanup.

I've started the process by shortening the entries on the main Opera page, and leaving more details on this page. --Applesanity 10:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Few minor modifications to "security" section

I know my changes will show up in the page history, the reason I'm writing this is to explain them. I've modified the information in "security" slightly to show the actual number of vunlerabilities in the browsers. Before the numbers only listed the number of advisories, but if you look at the details for some advisories you'll find a lot of them contain multiple vunlerabilities. Look for either the number of CVE references, or details in the description.

I did start to do the numbers for previous versions of browsers, but my calculator rather conveniently wiped itself when I was near the end of the IE numbers, and didn't want to do them again. If someone wants to add the number of vunlerabilities for older versions, make sure you don't hit delete.

I'm only writing this paragraph for future reference (as I know the changes show up in the history), the number of advisories doesn't necessarily equal the number of actual vunlerabilities. Not a big problem, but in some cases it's best to determine the actual number of reported vunlerabilities. --195.112.40.80 17:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I wrote that section, i chose to go with their immediate numbers - the advisories. If Secunia feels that number advisories are most important.... It seemed that counting vulnerabilities was a bit obsessive. The implied conclusion is all that really matters - that one of Opera's features is its security. Counting vulnerabilities vs. advisories is like finding new ways to skin cats - it's gonna get skinned either way.

There is a forum that actually did all the counting - operawatch. But that site is fully of fans; citing a fan site, whether they're right or wrong, is just inviting people to challenge your credibility.

For now, I still think listing advisories is good enough. Let's see how others feel. --Applesanity 05:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing the Tagline

A suggestion - since this page has grown considerably since the original tagline was written. I think it needs to mention "panels," and the tools that come with it, as well as Opera's security and customization features. Of course, this may be asking to much out of a couple of sentences. I'm not too good at writing these things. Applesanity 18:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree (on both counts): panels are one of the few ways that I have experienced that O has had for a while yet hasn't spread to other browsers. Arguably Moz's lot have their sidebars & IE has...something incredibly similar; Panels certainly appear to be much more flexible and have more obvious capabilities, and a more in-depth UI as a result. Go panels! :D _> MonstaPro:Talk 14:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Date Issue

Under Download Manager the Page says

Since: Opera 9 (2000) - BitTorrent support

This makes no sense since the version of Opera in 2000 wasn't version 9. Kc4 00:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tor [Opera]-bility & SOCKS-able

I have been making minor edits to the Tor (anonymity network) article, where it mentions that O can come preconfigured for and bundled with Tor and its (sort of) self-establishing proxy Privoxy. Since not all browsers are SOCKS compatible, which is required to use Tor, I thought that this item could be added to The List... I am very available for comments/suggestions/reasons-why-I-shouldn't've-said-this/(etc) on this item _> MonstaPro:Talk 14:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Opera Screenshot01.png

Image:Opera Screenshot01.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 07:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Zoom screenshot Opera.png

Image:Zoom screenshot Opera.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 19:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Opera Download Manager.png

Image:Opera Download Manager.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Opera fraud protection.png

Image:Opera fraud protection.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Out of date (or obsolete) information

The article doesn't mention anything newer than 9.2, and the screenshots have become visibly dated with the release of version 9.5. Among other issues, the compatibility information section leaves out mention of the Acid3 test. Shouldn't this be included? CarVac (talk) 23:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Please feel free to expand and improve this article. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 02:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MDI interface

I am currently using opera 10 alpha, and there doesn't seem to be an MDI interface (or I have forgotten how to activate it). Can anyone help me verify this? 123.176.7.148 (talk) 15:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tools->Prefs->Advanced->Browsing->Show window menu. Then, from this menu, you can "Cascade", "Tile", etc... (I like to tile two tabs vertically) You can also tear the tabs out of the window. Or from one to another. But hey this WP talk page is not a forum ! cheers --81.243.212.122 (talk) 22:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opera Turbo

Should Opera Turbo add in it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by C933103 (talk • contribs) 08:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, though I'm surprised there's no Unite section - that's a far more major feature than Turbo as far as I can tell. --_ɹəə pıɔnı 22:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Out of date and badly written

Since Opera has many features, I think it was sensible to create the page "Features of the Opera web browser" to avoid making the page about Opera too long.

The problem is, the information on the Features of the Opera web browser page is outdated and written like an advertisement. Yes, Opera has great features and these deserve praise, but not on Wikipedia, as the rules insist articles are written from "a neutral point of view".

The page needs updating also, as it fails to mention that Opera has a spell checker for instance. TurboForce (talk) 13:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Security part

If nobody requests to keep it, I will delete the part on the security chapter talking about secunia. This is because those numbers are always just a temporary screenshot of the current situation and can change dramatically when a new version of a browser comes available and therefore don't provide any objective view on the subject of security. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andylee Sato (talk • contribs) 09:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Widget Section

The section about Widgets under Customization looks like it was copy-pasted straight from a tutorial! I would rewrite it myself, but not being an Opera user, I don't have a clue. --92.8.182.216 (talk) 21:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it looks like it was written especially for this article (as there are no other google results). However I agree it's not fitting of an encyclopedia article, and would support the motion to remove it (again). I would point out that a double-revert without a talk section even being created is very poor behaviour, documented in WP:EW —WOFall (talk) 23:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to write here that it looks insane and need a rework. :P There are great simple pages of programming languages with Hello World examples that could fit the Wikipedia way. --Rafaelluik (talk) 16:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Opera 15

Wait, what should we do for Opera 15? Many features aren't present anymore and I've already edited the Speed Dial section to include the changes in this new version. A user edited the top of the article to say these features are only pre-15.0 so that's a problem. --Rafaelluik (talk) 12:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is quite a problem. As long as 12.x is still being "supported", it might be useful to leave the page referring to Opera 12 except where noted otherwise. In the long run, I think we'll need to remove most of the page, and start building it up again as Opera picks up features. There's probably quite a bit of work in all this though. For now, perhaps we should have a seperate section for Opera 15+? —WOFall (talk) 05:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have an idea. I'll split the page in two big sections. The first will describe the features as they are available in Opera 15 and up and the second will contain the features only available in past versions. --Rafaelluik (talk) 12:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. ;) Now it only needs to be updated... Stash, Off-road, spell-checker!, etc. --Rafaelluik (talk) 16:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mouse-clicking functionality

In non-Chromium Opera there's a following navigation technique. Right-click on any part of actual page and hold it (except for flash or other embeds, perhaps, but that's not the most relevant thing at the moment), then left-click and hold (making it a hold of both buttons) — the "Back" command is triggered. Then you release the right-click, and then you release left-click. No other interaction is provoked by this. Should it start with holding left-click and follow the similar sequence (every right-left becomes left-right), it triggers "Forward". It is an ultra quick, super comfortable navigation means for me (especially on machines with mice lacking side buttons). I haven't seen it in any other browser, and it is gone with the chromium migration. I don't think it's a hotkey sequence, neither does it strike me as a "mouse gesture." Where should its description go? 212.119.226.254 (talk) 08:38, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These are referred to as mouse flips: flip back and flip forward. The behaviour is described in the article under Mouse Gestures, although these names aren't mentioned. You can edit the section to distinguish them more, if you like.

I'll agree that they are different from other mouse gestures, even having a seperate option to disable them in o:config. Nevertheless, I think it's appropriate to consider them a type of mouse gesture for the sake of the article. —WOFall (talk) 21:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

edit: and they do exist in other browsers as extensions, generally called "rocker gestures" or similar. I still think it's a distinguishing feature of Opera though ;). —WOFall (talk) 21:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added them to the list of currently supported features since it's already in the dev builds, it shouldn't do any harm as soon we'll have it in the stable version. --Rafaelluik (talk) 16:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opera 10.60 the last good version

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 version 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 from the most recent versions I have tried. ---Dagme (talk) 16:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I now use Opera 12.17. It works well and seems to be up to date in terms of compatibility and security. ---Dagme (talk) 02:01, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is a background tab?

What is a background tab? ---Dagme (talk) 01:58, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Opera Link

Got a Mail that this feature will end in December 2015. Not sure if that was really from Opera or a phishing mail...?--Manorainjan (talk) 22:03, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I really hope that it's not true. I hate feature removals! (E.g. Galaxy S6, Firefox 45) --S536870912 (talk) 10:19, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Features of the Opera web browser. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071012174112/http://operawatch.com:80/news/2007/03/opera-skins-will-support-animated-gif-images.html to http://operawatch.com/news/2007/03/opera-skins-will-support-animated-gif-images.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:53, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Features of the Opera web browser. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140506055139/http://userscripts.org/ to http://www.userscripts.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:44, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Features of the 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140402163944/https://link.opera.com/loginfront/ to https://link.opera.com/loginfront/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:40, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]