From Opera 12.17 user perspective
-
Btw. one more thing.
I ask someone who is responsible for Vivaldi layout, to open more cards and check out how it looks on card bar - due to this "lolipop-outlook" or "apple-like" whatever you call it (lack of borders in graphic objects, like cards, scroll bar, menu, etc.) causes that it's hard to know where one cards ends and new one starts. It's ugly and user-unfriendly.
-
To avoid possible confusion, “cards” are usually called “Tabs”.
See the replies to this other thread on Tabs.
Because Vivaldi (and Chrome) run each tab in a separate process, if you open sixty tabs, then you're launching sixty processes. That has the benefit that if one tab crashes, the application keeps running. However, running 50 or 100 tabs in Vivaldi is impractical.
Tab-stacking is not working properly yet, but when it is that will be the best way to manage multiple tabs without running out of space on the tab bar. It will never solve the performance issues, due to the way that Vivaldi works, although lazy tab loading, which is in the pipeline should solve application startup speed issues.
If you must have more then 20-30 tabs, better stay with Opera 12.17 and add a menu item (as I have done) to open troublesome tabs in Vivaldi. That's the only practical solution for users who need lots of tabs. I doubt if that will ever change even after the current code is optimised and the first official stable version is released.
-
Youtube - space does not play/pause; playing movie does not block the screensaver.
-
Firefox with TreeStyleTab (Piro), ContextMenu Extensions (Piro), Flash Control, Greasemonkey, keyconfig, LastPass, MultipleTabHandler (Piro), OmniSidebar, RequestPolicy, SessionManager, Stylish (or User Style Manager, or both), SuspendTab (Piro), Tab Group Switcher, Tab Control, Tab Kit - Mouse Gestures, Vertical Toolbar, are we done yet… YouTube Flash Video Player ... finally.
Where were we, oh yes, Firefox is the new Opera 12, until Vivaldi kicks it to the curb at least.
Well except for, responsiveness, efficient memory use, actually releasing memory when pages/tabs/windows are closed.
Crash71 --- Opera 5 - 12.17 R.I.P
So it goes something like this, "upgrade" to Firefox from Opera 12, buy 8GB more RAM so you can actually use FF like Opera. -
Actually kernel of OS/2, as far as I remember, became the kernel of Windows NT
No this is not a 100% correct picture. Both OS2 2+ and NT 3.xx+ are based on thew work done together by MS and IBM, at the time of OS2 v1.x. But they are two independent products with very few commonalities.
OS/2 was a development based on IBM-DOS with a 16 bit kernel using the weird x86 protected mode with all four privilege rings (made virtualization impossible back then), while Windows NT (now Windows 10) was created from scratch based on VMS concepts for a fictional machine named N-Ten and later ported to multiple 32 and 64 bit platforms (x86, Alpha, MIPS,PowerPC).
There is no IBM code or work in Windows NT, otherwise IBM would have sued the hell out of MS after their exit out of the OS/2 joint-venture. The NT kernel was deliberately not created for the PC initially, so IBM would not get suspicious. The only thing that connects NT to OS/2, was rudimentary support for some OS/2 1.x command line applications in early releases to provide MS OS/2 customers with a migration path.
Unlike Presto OS/2 was a dead end by design closely tied to the 80286 IBM AT and constricted by it. Few years later even IBM finally got that and moved to Linux (which was made from scratch, too, and ported to multiple platforms
). -
OS/2 was a development based on IBM-DOS
Until OS2 v2 IBM and MS cooperated. So IBM DOS and MS Dos shared a large part of the code, and OS2 . v1 was a joint project.
There is no IBM code or work in Windows NT
NT3.x has its roots on the work done for OS2 v.1 exacly like OS2 v2+
otherwise IBM would have sued the hell out of MS after their exit out of the OS/2 joint-venture.
Indeed IBM asked MS to change most of the NT APIs before the OS2 v.2 and the NT releases.
BTW the OS2 legacy was still perceivable on the first NT releases. NT3.x was even able to read the OS2 filesystem and that was still possible even in the XP era trough the NT driver, while os2 retained the ability of running 16 bit DOS apps (natively) and the 16 bit win apps (trough the Win for OS2 environment).
Unlike Presto OS/2 was a dead end by design closely tied to the 80286 IBM AT and constricted by it.
OS2 was way less commercially successful than windows, but was all but a dead end project.
It is still in use and sold today on some niche areas.
you can still buy it here
-
@Sajadi:
Chromium has the advantage that it is the most advanced engine right now, and in combination with the CSS/Javascript UI quite a lot of customizations are possible.
The engine is called blink, chromium is a web browser.
This "most advanced" title makes no sense whatsoever, does it allows the live editing of page source and reloading from cache yet ? then this "most advanced" engine is behind a "less advanced" engine by missing an essential feature that has been around for years. -
Because Vivaldi (and Chrome) run each tab in a separate process, if you open sixty tabs, then you're launching sixty processes. That has the benefit that if one tab crashes, the application keeps running. However, running 50 or 100 tabs in Vivaldi is impractical….
If you must have more then 20-30 tabs, better stay with Opera 12.17 and add a menu item (as I have done) to open troublesome tabs in Vivaldi. That's the only practical solution for users who need lots of tabs. I doubt if that will ever change even after the current code is optimised and the first official stable version is released.
That's very unfortunate. That's exactly what I'm looking for, that's why I'm asking for multi-line tab bar as well. ATM I have 3 browsers open with 20-30 tabs open on each because Opera 12 is not supported any more. I may replace Comodo Chromium Secure with Vivaldi when it becomes more stable but I still believe this could become great.
By the way, having multiple processes doesn't help with crashing. Every time something failed my whole browser crashed and that has happened on both Opera 17+ and Chromium Secure. It's just a waste of resources.
-
NT3.x has its roots on the work done for OS2 v.1 exacly like OS2 v2+
NT was developed from scratch, just like Linux. Linux never shared any code with Minix, and so didn't NT share code with OS/2.
NT was developed clean-room with a micro-kernel for an obscure (emulated) hardware platform explicitly for the purpose that IBM can't claim later that it is based on "the work done for OS/2", which is your claim, which is wrong. That would have meant big legal trouble and the end of this project. Instead it got a huge share of GUI code from Windows 3.1.
And we have the same case with Vivaldi now. It's in no way based on Opera Presto. Because that would mean Opera ASA could get Vivaldi into legal trouble. Instead it's based on Chromium (and not developed from scratch).
BTW the OS2 legacy was still perceivable on the first NT releases. NT3.x was even able to read the OS2 filesystem and that was still possible even in the XP era trough the NT driver,
Linux is able to read the Minix filesystem up until today, that doesn't mean it is based in any way on Minix legacy (you know it, legal trouble). NT's primary filesystem was NTFS right from the beginning and it got HPFS and FAT drivers for migration/compatibilty purposes.
And again we will see the same thing with Vivaldi, which can read and import Opera's data. And still has nothing to do with any work done on Presto, which is now basically dead and lost forever.
Unlike Presto OS/2 was a dead end by design closely tied to the 80286 IBM AT and constricted by it.
OS2 was way less commercially successful than windows, but was all but a dead end project.
No one could imagine, how an OS with a 16 bit kernel could have survived beyond the year 2000. Not even IBM could. They knew, that they either had to start over completely or they use the work already done in Linux. Windows 95 was commercially successful and didn't survive the year 2001 either for the same technical reasons. MacOS Classic was also abandoned. The whole 1980s stuff is gone.
-
NT was developed from scratch, just like Linux. Linux never shared any code with Minix, and so didn't NT share code with OS/2.
Where I wrote that they shared the code ?
I wrote that OS2 and NT had common roots. Exactly like Opera and Vivaldi.
Do you really believe that a developer who worked for a project, suddenly forgets all the work done before, just because legal things ?
The experience on OS2 was important for the NT developers exactly like the experience of Opera for Vivaldi ones.
That experience is already well visible on Vivaldi's UI and behavior (and, by some extent, on Opium too).
You don't have to blatantly copy and paste a single line of code to put your experience on something new, meant for the same purpose.
No one could imagine, how an OS with a 16 bit kernel could have survived beyond the year 2000
You are mixing things about OS2 v1.x and its successors.
OS2 was and still is a 32bit OS, unlike win95 series, and much like the former OS2 v.3 aka Win NT.
OS2 (ecomsatation) is still used and still sold in 2015, so is not that hard to imagine how it could survive.
There is nothing to imagine about it, one could just imagine its evolution, If MS was more loyal to IBM
-
However, running 50 or 100 tabs in Vivaldi is impractical.
Tab-stacking is not working properly yet, but when it is that will be the best way to manage multiple tabs without running out of space on the tab bar. It will never solve the performance issues, due to the way that Vivaldi works, although lazy tab loading, which is in the pipeline should solve application startup speed issues.
If you must have more then 20-30 tabs, better stay with Opera 12.17 and add a menu item (as I have done) to open troublesome tabs in Vivaldi. That's the only practical solution for users who need lots of tabs. I doubt if that will ever change even after the current code is optimised and the first official stable version is released.
I hope this is really not the case. Even if they get everything I love about opera moved over if they did not allow for an easy management of over 80 tabs, I do not believe I would be able to make an actual en masse conversion to vivaldi from opera 12. Before the site I utilize really started progressing and becoming opera unfriendly I needed to open 150+ tabs on a HOURLY basis. Right now with a clean cache/cookie cleanse of opera and certain images blocked i can still attain 90+ hourly. This would be a MAJOR issue at final stage of vivaldi.
-
Well if this Pesala is the same as the one that was trolling the opera community, I would not give too much credit to his words.
-
Pesala a troll?!
He/she may sometimes be a bit brusque but has been a consistent source of useful information, feedback and advice since the early days of Myopera…
-
@Al-Khwarizmi:
I hope Vivaldi releases a stable 64-bit version with single-process architecture.
I don't think that would be possible with Blink engine due to its architectural design.
-
Actually kernel of OS/2, as far as I remember, became the kernel of Windows NT
No this is not a 100% correct picture. Both OS2 2+ and NT 3.xx+ are based on thew work done together by MS and IBM, at the time of OS2 v1.x. But they are two independent products with very few commonalities.
OS/2 was a development based on IBM-DOS with a 16 bit kernel using the weird x86 protected mode with all four privilege rings (made virtualization impossible back then), while Windows NT (now Windows 10) was created from scratch based on VMS concepts for a fictional machine named N-Ten and later ported to multiple 32 and 64 bit platforms (x86, Alpha, MIPS,PowerPC).
There is no IBM code or work in Windows NT, otherwise IBM would have sued the hell out of MS after their exit out of the OS/2 joint-venture. The NT kernel was deliberately not created for the PC initially, so IBM would not get suspicious. The only thing that connects NT to OS/2, was rudimentary support for some OS/2 1.x command line applications in early releases to provide MS OS/2 customers with a migration path.
Unlike Presto OS/2 was a dead end by design closely tied to the 80286 IBM AT and constricted by it. Few years later even IBM finally got that and moved to Linux (which was made from scratch, too, and ported to multiple platforms
).Yeah right…
IBM grew concerned about the delays in development of OS/2 2.0 and the diversion of IBM funds earmarked for OS/2 development towards Windows.[citation needed] Initially, the companies agreed that IBM would take over maintenance of OS/2 1.0 and development of OS/2 2.0, while Microsoft would continue development of OS/2 3.0. In the end, Microsoft decided to recast NT OS/2 3.0 as Windows NT, leaving all future OS/2 development to IBM. From a business perspective, it was logical to concentrate on a consumer line of operating systems based on DOS and Windows, and to prepare a new high-end system in such a way as to keep good compatibility with existing Windows applications. While waiting for this new high-end system to develop, Microsoft would still receive licensing money from Xenix and OS/2 sales. Windows NT's OS/2 heritage can be seen in its initial support for the HPFS filesystem, text mode OS/2 1.x applications, and OS/2 LAN Manager network support. Some early NT materials even included OS/2 copyright notices embedded in the software.[citation needed] One example of NT OS/2 1.x support is in the WIN2K resource kit. Windows NT could also support OS/2 1.x Presentation Manager and AVIO applications with the addition of the Windows NT Add-On Subsystem for Presentation Manager.[20]
-
Do you really believe that a developer who worked for a project, suddenly forgets all the work done before, just because legal things ?
Well, if you put such a developer on a new related project, you risk legal trouble. That's US copyright law right there. You just don't do that.
The experience on OS2 was important for the NT developers exactly like the experience of Opera for Vivaldi ones.
Actually MS made sure that the NT developers had no OS/2 experience for the sake of a clean room implementation. Chief developer Dave Cutler joined Microsoft from DEC and never touched OS/2 even once. (Actually, he hated it, read his book).
OS2 was and still is a 32bit OS, unlike win95 series, and much like the former OS2 v.3 aka Win NT.
OS/2 never got rid of its 80286 PM 16 bit kernel for compatibility reasons. This was one of the key reasons why it was impossible to paravirtualize all versions of OS/2 for a long time, while it was easy with Windows 95 and NT (32 bit flat memory model). OS/2 was as much a 32 bit OS as Windows 3.11 was with the Win32s add-on.
Nobody has the source code, but VM implementors know quite well, what this weird OS is and what it does and what it clearly is not.
OS2 (ecomsatation) is still used and still sold in 2015, so is not that hard to imagine how it could survive.
Well, people still praise technological advantages, which never were there, except in IBM's marketing. Fun fact: IBM already admitted that in early 2000s and dropped OS/2. eComStation doesn't even run on hardware built in the current decade.
BTW: Wikipedia confuses "NT OS/2" (made up prerelease BS from the IT press) with the real OS/2 and is no reliable source at all.
