Simple Browser
-
-
This comment indicates you are completely unfamiliar with the WAY in which SeaMonkey "integrates" its email, or with the way in which Opera did it, and why the two cannot actually be compared. The benefit of email in Opera was that one could keep the mail account and email list visible and open while working on the web, and shift back and forth between email and browsing seamlessly, which was/is essential to my work flow, for instance. This is impossible in Sea Monkey, which hides its inferior email client while you are on the web. In fact, in order to try to duplicate the functionality of old Opera, I have to keep a browser open in the right 3/5 of my screen and an email account and mail list open and visible in the left 2/5 of my screen at all times, which is of course also impossible in SeaMonkey.
The fact of having an "integrated" email client does not make SeaMonkey in any way similar to old Opera.
-
Can you actually have a version of the browser that have nothing fancy on it. Just browser. I don't want to import things, see adverts, fancy flash graphics. Just browsing. If I need to go to a page I can type it… (I still have fingers and brain cells, thanks GOD), don't need links to overload the browser with add on stuff just so I don't have to use my brain.
You don't want any downloading either in the browser? Images off? Maybe a console browser like Lynx is for you.
By the way, one of the major fortes of Opera was absolute configurability. If you wanted your browser to do nothing else but browse, you could configure it for that, and remove all buttons and menu items that do other things.
-
This is entirely true. Old Opera was the only browser in the world that could be as simple or fancy as you wanted.
With Luck, Vivaldi will allow similar flexibility.
-
… one of the major fortes of Opera was absolute configurability. If you wanted your browser to do nothing else but browse, you could configure it for that, and remove all buttons and menu items that do other things.
+1 many times over. The longer I use browsers (and I have, since their inception), I find that their degree of configurability comes to outweigh almost anything else (assuming they have a reasonable assortment of features). But then, I've always used a browser as a tool, not as a glitzy multi-media viewing appliance.
-
-
Never heard of Seamonkey ? Integrated mail client is nothing new.
Looks like YOU never tried it, not the others "never heard".
The email client of netscape communicator/seamonkey is a STAND ALONE program.
The only integrated thing is the menu item to launch it.
Well, not quite. If it were truly stand alone, you could open two windows and view both web and mail at the same time. However, you can only see browser OR mail, never both together, which makes it worse than if the two products were not packaged. The way old opera had them integrated, you could see your mail list and a web page, plus your bookmarks bar, etc, at the same time. Or, if you had an actual email opened, you could still see your other tabs, bookmarks, et al. SeaMonkey makes that impossible. I counterfeit that effect here, by having email and browser open in partially overlapping windows. But it's still not satisfactory.
-
Yes, maybe "stand alone" is not a 100% correct description.
Maybe a suite of independent programs "badly glued together" is a more accurate description.
The only things that vaguely resembles the Opera functionality, is sticking the Metro mail program on 1/4 of the screen and use a browser on the remaining 3/4.
Something that anyway wasn't possible when win 8 was released.
-
Yes, exactly.
-
Never heard of Seamonkey ? Integrated mail client is nothing new.
Netscape Communicator and Opera had that long before Seamonkey even existed :p
BTW: I can remember Mosaic 0.98 - which came out short after the WWW was invented - it had a built in news client ("news" like in newsgroups / usenet) …
-
@RRR13
I still completely disagree, but your opinion is your opinion.
-
@Sajadi:
Let's see it that way, for example for a good Antivirus solution most people are also willing to pay, because it is simply useful and/or offer features which free solutions in most cases do not have.
Not exactly the best example.
Firstly because the antivirus sw is (still) a mass marketed SW, secondly because some free AV are surely way better by some paid ones.
The point here is that aside some little open source projects (like Otter) nothing is free.
You will pay in different ways, currency/privacy/relax.
What you pay per copy is highly dependent by the SW diffusion. NO MATTER IF IT'S FREE (as a bier) OR PAID.
So let's do some simple math:
Vivaldi right now was downloaded 400k times.
Try to think that 1/10 of the users pays 10€ for it. wold be a 400K euros of income.
Then think to the cost and the tax and likely less than 200K € will remain to pay the developers.
Is way not enough.
And the some will apply for ads charging. Vivaldi users are power users. Most of them would use adblocks and tracking blockers, and anyway arent tens of millions, so ads are hardly an option too.
If the numbers are so small, a paid version would likely cost 100€, not 10.
How many of you would spend 100 € for something available for free elsewhere ?
That's Vivaldi challenge.
Keeping the browser free or cheap would mean to enlarge it's user base, would be very hard (Opium proved it) and would delude the historical Opera users.
"Selling" the browser for an high price, or for a monthly fee will be hardly accepted by the users.
So, I believe, the only viable alternatives are a combination of both of the above, or a totally Open development, like happened with Netscape and sons.
I really hope Jon wins his bet, but is not easy.
-
@RRR13:
I keep seeing this "you can get it for free" crap all over these forums.
It depends on the meaning of the "free" word.
If you could, these forums would be EMPTY.
That's not true at all.
Instead the opposite is true.
W/O the open source movement most of modern commercial SW would be nonexistent or poor.
Aside Vivaldi which is based on blink, which is based on the KDE project, think to macos, think to IOS and Android, think to the Windows network stack and so on.
Even the original Opera that is mostly original, includes an endless list of free sw, as you can easily read from the credits.
Thinking the there is an equation "free=bad" and "paid=good" is unfair, to say the best.
-
@RRR13:
My opinion is based on facts which I presented. If my opinion would be wrong, you wouldn't be here, but somewhere else happily using one of those feature rich free browsers you are talking about.
Well I was done with this conversation, but I see you're not, and we apparently have attracted the conversation of other users, so I'll continue. I am happily using a different browser right now. In fact, I've only used Vivaldi three times in the week or two since I discovered it. I've been using Maxthon 4 for the last several months and it does everything I need it to do. There are a couple things I'd still like to see it be able to do, but it's fascinating how I can live without tab grouping or a built-in email client.
@Sajadi
I use a free anti-virus program, actually. It works perfectly fine, does everything I need it to, and it's more secure than any anti-virus I've ever paid for. Comodo Antivirus.
How many of you would spend 100 € for something available for free elsewhere ?
+1
This is exactly my point. The only feature Vivaldi is offering to have that my current favourite browsers don't all have is a built-in email client. I don't need that. I currently use a standalone email client, and everything works exactly the same way. It's very slightly less efficient, mind you, but it does exactly what I need it to.
@RRR13:
It looks like I have to say it again: NO, YOU CANNOT GET IT FOR FREE SOMEWHERE ELSE!.
If you could, these forums would be EMPTY.Refer to everything else I just said.
Also, for the record, I actually don't have the money to throw at software that does the same things as nearly identical free software. It doesn't matter how expensive it is, I have other priorities in the real world right now that my money would be much better serving. If I can get free software that does exactly the same thing that I need premium software for, I will always use the free software.
I'm using these forums, interested in using this browser, because @Tiamarth:
I was a fan of Opera 12 and I enjoy testing new software.
See that? I've sunk to repeating myself now.
-
I think it's worth noting that there are multiple ways to capitalize on software, particularly browsers. Affiliate and partner contracts with search engines is one. If Vivaldi made a penny a day from each user off of search engine use and there were 3 million users (that number will be surpassed pretty early in the game, I should think), it would be profitable.
That said, some companies charge for their software and stay open and operating even though there are "free" kinds of software that supposedly do the "same" thing. For instance, Gimp and Paint.net, while both staggeringly capable, have not killed the market for PhotoShop. If you can't find EXACTLY what you need on the free side of the aisle, you will pay for it, because you NEED it. For this reason, I have a pay-for image editor, pay-for email client and a couple of pay-for Office programs on my machine. I need their exact capabilities I can't get elsewhere.
But I am a special case - including that I am among the special cases who would pay for Vivaldi if it had EXACTLY what I NEEDED, because I do NEED it. However, there are other ways for Vivaldi Technologies to be profitable, so, I think we are lucky in that we are going to have access to the only actively maintained feature-rich browser, and it's going to be free for us to use. If it DID have to make money solely from subscriptions, I'm not sure there are enough special cases out here like me who would pay to keep their lights on.
-
As an aside, does it strike anyone else as curious as it does me, that heavy computer users so often balk at paying the equivalent of $100 per year for a piece of quality software that they use continually, but think nothing of spending the equivalent of the same amount per month for cable/satellite TV and its programming? I'm sure that in different countries, details vary somewhat, but I'll bet the underlying principles remain the same no matter where.
-
@RRR13:
@The_Solutor:
I did not say paid is good and free is bad, because that is not true. That's just your FOSS fanboyism acting up."MY" FOSS fanboysm ? Are you joking or what else? :blink:
I've barley mentioned it here, because is not the right place to do it, and if I mentioned it is to reply to your sentences.
Here the point is not commercial v.s. free and/or open sw (as a matter of fact Vivaldi belongs to both worlds).
The point is that is way hard to make Vivaldi survivable economically, I said hard, not impossible.
-
Lot's of talking and strong opinions here.
Just remember, your opinions are still your opinions and they don't mean that one can do or should do business based on your opinions. Or your opinions are the winning ones. That's when company steps right in and makes the decision. Only way to make a good product is through healthy business.
For example, I'm sure some people could pay for browser. Some people would pay for even a crappy browser (I'm not meaning Vivaldi is one!). But the company decides the strategy whether to ask people to pay for browser (or browsing!) or to give it free. But niche markets are always balancing between resources and income.
-
Surely you jest. Whats wrong with the tonnes of other simple browsers out theres like IE that you feel the need to come to Vivaldi and suggest an idea that will ruin it
-
Ppafflick moved this topic from Vivaldi for Windows on
