Simple Browser
-
Simple is such a strange word. I think Vivaldi is aiming to be far from simple—we will offer a myriad of cutomization options, and in that be very complex. At the same time the out-of-the-box experience probably won't change very drastically. You can use it as a "simple" browser if you want, but there are others, like Jon and other power users, who will want to use it for all their Internet needs.
I wouldn't worry too much, instead share with us exactly what you would like to see.
Henrik Granaas-Helmers
Designer, Vivaldi Technologies -
OP has come to a Land Rover dealership to complain that it is not selling Vespa scooters.
-
There may be a generational split here - or perhaps it is just a matter of semantics. I suspect old-time Opera users like myself are here because we want the ability to customise our browser. That means the ability to create a browser for our needs. That may include the ability to exclude features we consider to be useless bling and fleeting fashion fads.
The term power user is unhelpful. Power lies in being empowered to get the browser we want to satisfy our particular needs.
No more sneers please from people whose definition of power user is having 30 tabs open at once. :lol:
-
I think Blackbird said it pretty well There are two distinct categories of browser. The first is the one that has the capability to use all of the web's latest technologies, in order to render heavy pages. That's gonna be where Vivaldi sits. The other browser category is the simple browser that tries to perform basic capabilities that are not much past the point of 1999 to render a readable (albeit probably ugly) page for the user.
Each have their merits. The heavy browser has to be very carefully crafted to avoid security issues, and requires much more manpower to do so. The simple browser may be more secure simply by having few parts to go wrong. Unfortunately, the simple browser (in some cases more secure) sometimes is not adequate for heavy sites, some of which are secure sites (banks), and we have no choice. We have to trust some not-so-simple browser, or walk to the bank.
I use the simple browser wherever I can. Often it's a text based browser or something like a personally modified Netsurf. Netsurf doesn't have javascript, which eliminates some security issues at first bat. Note: It may be that some experimental javascript support has been recently added.
There are two ways to be simple. The size of the code base (small=simple), and the simplicity of the interface (often big = simple). Anyone who's ever tried to compile Chromium or Webkit knows that those are not small=simple code bases. They-re gargantuan. But, Vivaldi may be simple in the second way. I think Vivaldi is simple in terms of its interface being intuitive, and easy to use, simply. It can present a lot of information at one time on the screen, but manipulate it in the most simple way possible. That's the mark of a nicely done browser. So far, so good. Interesting at least. As far as the security of the browser goes, time will tell us that.
-
There are browsers for everyone.
You can download simple browsers when you want or browsers that can do everything (except making the coffee…).
Vivaldi will be - as Opera was - a browser of that will give users the ability to make everything they want without using many extensions. -
I'm not a fan of 'simple browsers' but if that's what you're looking for you may want to look into Maxthon Nitro. It's just a browser. No extensions, no addons, no unnecessary features.
-
I might be totally wrong, but I think the original Opera had the problem of vast functionality. Maybe it took away too much resources from updating the Presto engine itself.
From my point of view, browser can have lots of functionality. That's not the problem. Problem is, that those millions of little things need to be developed and updated constantly. And when you focus on million things, there's a major chance that you don't focus on the most important things enough.
I also loved original Opera's extensions. They were really good. Compare them to Chrome extensions and they are just… Pretty much crap.
Maybe extensions could be answer to all those who want everything from their browsers? Do some things properly in the browsers extension APIs (or whatever, heck, I'm no software engineer) etc, and let developers create useful apps to your browser?
-
Well, there are good points on both sides. Obviously, many functions take lots of time to update and this might result in falling behind other browsers, which basically "outsource" any additional features to the addon makers, so they can concentrate on improving the core things: speed and good rendering of the webpages.
However, Opera has always been the "power browser" for me. I liked that it had lots of innovative features and many of them were really revolutionizing the browsing. Back in the days, while others were still using firefox'es (basically IE with different design) and other browsers, I enjoyed tabs, mouse gestures and convenient bookmarks. And all these features and customization were things that made me keep using 12.x version till the very end, despite the slow speed. But then most of the pages just didn't open anymore. So recently I had to switch to the new Opera just to find out that it is basically Chrome with more bugs and all the good features are gone.
So I believe that Vivaldi should implement lots of features. It is refreshing for me to finally open a normal, separate settings window and really customize my browser :whistle: . I hope the good old days will be back.
However, people who are talking about simple browser also have good points. I always liked as minimalistic look as possible. And when you have to fit the page in your 15'' laptop screen it matters even more. So usually the first thing I do when I install new browser is turning off unnecessary things that take up too much of the screen space and leave the basic functions. While I can always go back and turn on what I need later.
Things like tab colors depending on the webpage should be removed (people will turn them off anyway), the looks should stay minimalistic and intuitive (I really like the direction you are going now) but the functions should be numerous, as this is where the power of (old) Opera and Vivaldi lies.
-
I might be totally wrong, but I think the original Opera had the problem of vast functionality.
I agree. You might be totally wrong.
The most likely culprit for original Opera's ongoing struggle was the Presto engine itself. Maintaining its vast functionality actually seems to have been fairly trivial in comparison to its inability to snare market share due to site incompatibility brought on by the fact that Presto was written for a standards-compliant web, and the web was not written for standards compliance, but rather for Trident and Gecko.
There was some manpower eaten up in keeping the UI and features up to date with the continual changes in Presto in search of speed, and up to date with changes in user habits. But had Opera ever grabbed the market share it deserved, it could have afforded double its development staff or more, and that manpower would have been as nothing against all of the staff necessary to take care of sales and partnering deals and contracts, and all the accountants to track the money and the lawyers to fight off patent infringement.
-
… Maybe extensions could be answer to all those who want everything from their browsers? Do some things properly in the browsers extension APIs (or whatever, heck, I'm no software engineer) etc, and let developers create useful apps to your browser?
One issue with that is not all developers are created equal, and certainly not all developers will be equally skilled at intimately interfacing another program (what is termed an extension) with the browser's own code and API's. Moreover, once one separates intimately-associated code into a separately-maintained package, there also arises the question of what happens when the browser code itself has to be updated and how that will affect any number of "somebody elses' " extensions. Certain extensions for Firefox and Chrome are frequently found to be defective or unusable after a significant browser update. I'd much rather the browser developers test the particular functionality as part of the browser update development, rather than it being left to chance in the hands of some third party.
Which raises another related issue: trust or security. When I install Vivaldi or any other browser, I am trusting in the skill and competency of its developers with my system and browsing security. When I must rely on extensions, I am also forced to extend that trust to a host of other developers, most of whom I may never have heard of or have no practical way of vetting. There's a solid reason behind the disclaimers when loading extensions from the various FF and Chrome extension repositories that state the user should be careful about trusting a given extension or its author(s).
I realize extensions are all the rage currently for browser customization, but it should be kept in mind that such extensions come at the price of possible performance, quality, maintenance, and security problems.
-
You are joking right? I think you got the wrong forums and wrong browser.
The browser you are looking for is called Lynx.
You will like it. Its slim, no images, nothing, just a pure fast text web browser:
http://lynx.isc.org/lynx2.8.7/index.htmlJust like the good old days :woohoo:
-
I want LOTS of features/options. Like Opera 12 has. I don't want a simple/stripped down browser like Google Chrome.
-
Nice to see some conversation here.
I agree, some things that affect the way and feel how you use the browser, I mean like mouse gestures, tab behaviour etc, should be hard-coded to the browser. No doubt about it.
But you have to remember, that Vivaldi is created by a small company (I believe). It's resources are limited. That's why I wouldn't like to see those resources to be wasted on such things as a mail client. There are plenty of mail clients out there and computers have heck of a lot power to use two programs at the same time. And besides that, everyone uses their smartphones to read mail, right? Wouldn't these kind of features be the ones to be outsourced to developers?
By the way, I think managing limited resources in a company is the hardest thing.
-
@RRR13:
:silly:
Where are the good old days where the browser was for browsing. Nothing else, no emails, no fancy graphics, not add on programs.If you don't need an useful browser, just use Chrome or IE6!
Or we can continue to use Firefox which has all the useful features that Vivaldi currently lacks plus addons for those who need them. If you mean a dreary compulsory CSS UI when you say "fancy graphics" then I do not need it.
-
:silly:
Where are the good old days where the browser was for browsing. Nothing else, no emails, no fancy graphics, not add on programs.
Back then you had only 256 kilobits connection and the browsing was faster (ok not faster, just a bit over the top) than now at 20Megabits speed, but with browsers that are full with adverts, email links etc.Ahh them good old days of viruses popup adverts and java attacks by the dozen. Yup how I miss having a fresh installation of windows virused into oblivion and spending another few hours repairing the damage.
I remember fondly, happily waving to people on the train as they sped by my poppy field where I had my computer on my desk lovingly putting right every bit of the damage spammers, data theft artists, identity fraudsters and adware merchants could throw at me. Oh happy days -
Ahh them good old days of viruses popup adverts and java attacks by the dozen.
….....and then we moved to Linux.
-
@RRR13:
I hope it finds some way to make a very good paid version.
I can't speak for everyone, but I would not continue using Vivaldi if I had to pay to do so. I'm perfectly happy with most of the free browsers that already exist.
-
I wouldn't like to see those resources to be wasted on such things as a mail client. There are plenty of mail clients out there and computers have heck of a lot power to use two programs at the same time. And besides that, everyone uses their smartphones to read mail, right? Wouldn't these kind of features be the ones to be outsourced to developers?
By the way, I think managing limited resources in a company is the hardest thing.
Bite your tongue!! First of all, Jon stated explicitly first crack out of the box that there would be mail, and that it is being worked on. The inclusion of mail, by the way, was one of the primary reasons to even write this browser in the first place, and is one of its primary guarantees of regaining and retaining the old Opera 12 user base - LIKE ME. If I don't get integrated email, there is basically no reason on God's green earth for me to switch to Vivaldi.
You do not understand the benefits of having an email client persistently visible in your browser window, and that's fine. But because you don't understand it, you believe such a benefit does not exist. If you understood my work flow, you would say "Oh, I get it. It's actually essential." But you don't, and so I counsel you to not recommend the absence of features just because you don't get why someone would rely on them.
-
@RRR13:
Not surprised at all. A lot of people think browsers grow on public trees.
So, if you are perfectly happy with most free browsers that already exist, why are you here?!
I'm here for the same reasons that a lot of people are here: I was a fan of the pre-Chromium Opera, and I enjoy testing new software.
As for free vs paid browsers - all of the most popular browsers, and the vast majority of browsers I'm aware of are free. I don't see Vivaldi or any web browser going very far in the market if they charge for usage, or even if they have both free and 'pro' versions. Not when the competition like: Firefox, Chrome, Maxthon, Opera, Yandex, Sleipnir, and so on are all free. I can't even think of a premium browser not designed specifically for mobile that hasn't died due to lack of a user base or public attention. Premium browsers don't do well in the market.
-
Charging people to use Vivaldi just to be set apart from other browsers is quite possibly the worst reason to charge for a product that I've ever heard. It makes the software sound pretentious - like the user base is exclusive.
Example: "Bah, if you can't pay to use this browser then you should just stick with Google Chrome like the rest of the riffraff."
Making the browser free will always be more welcoming than charging for it to any community.
So, what are some examples of major browsers rich in features that happen to be free?
!
Mozilla Firefox:
! - Highly customizable- Tab grouping
- Vast extension library
- Downloads manager
- High Security
- Impressive loading speed
- Data syncing
- Fullscreen GUI
- Huge and friendly community
- Helpful devs who listen to users
- Doesn't use the Chromium, Blink, or WebKit rendering engines
! Maxthon:
! - Highly customizable- Data syncing
- Notes
- Reasonable extension library
- Night mode
- Reading mode
- Media grabber
- Active, albeit small, community
- Devs who try to be helpful, and do listen to the community
! Sleipnir 4
! - Highly customizable- Data syncing
- Tab groups
- Uses either Blink or Trident engines
- Fullscreen GUI
- Social networking integrated
- Support for Google Chrome extensions
- Reasonably secure
- Attentive devs
! Still feature rich, but not quite as much as those listed above, are:
! Comodo Dragon
[Sleipnir 6](Sleipnir 6)
Torch
Yandex AlphaBut do feel free to give me examples of popular, feature rich browsers that require users to pay for use.
