Enough of Chrome engine



  • Good day to all. I'm a Opera user since version 3. The best versions of Opera were 9 to 12.17, unbeatable browsers. Since version 15 was started using the Chrome engine, and for that reason Opera disgraced. There are already too many browsers using Chrome engine. 1GB Ram spend on average when they are running, and each new tab is a huge consumption aditional memory. To make a difference, we must devise something else. Remember with Opera we could open more 60 tabs, save sessions, markers were much more agile and easy to visualize, copying 4 files we could recover all the customization for a new installation. I currently use Maxthon Cloud brouser. It has two engines that can be set manually or automatically, and quite comfortable markers. Of course, it is crap compared with Opera 11 or 12 versions. But it is as complete as I could find. Boys, do something different, inspired by Opera 12. Maybe it's a way more difficult at first; but if no personality, no history is written. In this way not achieve differentiated. If we wanted to Chrome engine, we would use Chrome. I'll keep testing Vivaldi a bit longer, because it is the first version, and I guess the authors will collect the concerns of users. Thanks in advance, some attention to my words. My respects.



  • Yeah, I agree. There are thousands of new browsers that uses Chrome engine, it's time to get some new fresh browsers that don't want to be Chrome like.



  • I'm not a fan of Chromium either, but what you're saying is "throw Vivaldi away and start over, and hire 100 more people to write a new browser engine from scratch". That's completely unrealistic.

    From the Reddit AMA a while back, we know 10 people or something like that are working on the code, and that's only because they built on Chromium. Opera had 100 people thanks to their own engine. I loved it too, but that's not happening here, no chance.

    In fact, I just heard something scary about how Firefox/Mozilla are considering going Chromium, and just went Nooooooo! Firefox with a few addons is my current go-to browser… and the last thing I need is for that too to be infected with Chromium.

    But as for Vivaldi... get used to it, the only choice here is continue with Chromium or just cancel the whole thing, and I doubt they'll cancel the whole thing.



  • Vivaldi made the smart choice to implement most of the browser functionality in Javascript. (It comes at a price though, compared to Opera 12 Blink performance is abysmal, it only looks faster because it supports multi-processing.)

    This decision allows for switching the rendering engine later without having to start from scratch like Opera ASA did with Opera 15.

    I don't expect Google supporting Blink on desktop forever. They may abandon it, once Android and ChromeOS fully serve their purpose for Google.



  • Well, think about it like this - you can either have Vivaldi based on Blink, or not have it at all. It's really that simple. Nobody in their right mind will write an entirely new rendering engine today unless they already have enough of a market share to actually matter.

    First - it's a question of resources. Like Jon mentioned a few days ago in his Reddit AMA - when he was still at Opera, they had around 100 developers to work on Presto, and it was still not enough, they needed more. In comparison, they made Vivaldi with around 20 developers.

    And second - if you introduce a whole new rendering engine in a minor web browser, you're at a tremendous disadvantage. When something doesn't work, you yourself have to work hard to fix it. You can't really ask the web developers to debug their pages for a browser that's used by a tiny fraction of users. They won't care. Do you remember the issues Opera faced for example with pretty much anything Google related? 'Cause I do. And it wasn't that small at the time anymore either. Yet things not working properly or being broken completely were part of the everyday experience. It would be suicide at this point.



  • Good afternoon to everyone.

    Initially, I was a little disappointed, and have published in Spanish and English forums, I would have preferred a new and different browser engine.

    However, I understand that is version 1.0 and someone like me who started using Opera since version 3.0 (16Bit), and saw the progress to version 12.17 also understand that, although it is not our heart of Opera users and hope to have it again, we must give time (and actively collaborate with them) for this small team of developers may be integrating changes. No doubt that if it were easy, the first version already had content, the impatience of the authors, as many aspects we enjoy in Opera 12 and whose longing has us gathered here. Perhaps the technical reality and availability of resources imposed the familiar outline found in Vivaldi is, so far possible.

    I agree that if we are going to participate in this community, we must observe a constructive spirit. The authors probably already have sufficient technical and financial resources to solve problems; we must avoid burdening them with our anxieties and frustrations.

    I give this team and this community my vow of faith. In fact, I started using Vivaldi as the default browser in Windows 10, to prove it daily.

    Just as I did before, every time I install or repair a'll let the latest version of Vivaldi running on the computers of my clients to know him, to experiment with it, and recommend this browser system.

    Consider that we are above average users because we work with a PC, and we need to organize large amounts of information. Most people use the minimum functionalities of a browser. The inexperienced user just knows how to turn on your computer: he gives the same use Explorer, Edge, Chrome or any other, because they simply do not perceive any difference between them, beyond the appearance and layout of controls.

    I'm not 24 hours in this community, having also belonged to the Opera community, and I feel excited and proud to belong ago. I read here knowledge, hope, love for the memory of Opera, and I sense will learn a lot from you, and bring me satisfaction.

    Thank you very much for your attention, and sorry my bad English.
    My respects.



  • Just out of interest how does it take 100+ people to create an internet browser? I mean there is lots of code to write but there are some pretty big games out there for example who only have really small teams. I'm not trying to insinuate anything, just an honest question?

    Also if you are making a browser why not just follow someone popular and instead of standards just follow everything they do. Couldn't that help with compatibility? I really liked opera12 but one of its downfalls was the incompatibilities. Every now and then some site just didn't work and it was annoying. Opera also had the options to pretend to be ie or firefox but those did not really work never for me.

    As I understand it wasn't really opera's fault. It was just that people weren't writing web pages to a standard but more or less tweaked them so they work on various versions of ie and firefox (no doubt a lot of the incompatilibities were done on purpose by microsoft to weaken its competitors).


  • Moderator

    @Aghors:

    Just out of interest how does it take 100+ people to create an internet browser? I mean there is lots of code to write but there are some pretty big games out there for example who only have really small teams. I'm not trying to insinuate anything, just an honest question?

    Also if you are making a browser why not just follow someone popular and instead of standards just follow everything they do. Couldn't that help with compatibility? I really liked opera12 but one of its downfalls was the incompatibilities. Every now and then some site just didn't work and it was annoying. Opera also had the options to pretend to be ie or firefox but those did not really work never for me.

    As I understand it wasn't really opera's fault. It was just that people weren't writing web pages to a standard but more or less tweaked them so they work on various versions of ie and firefox (no doubt a lot of the incompatilibities were done on purpose by microsoft to weaken its competitors).

    Per Alex Russell, engineer on the Chrome team:

    "While I don't know that any browser team reveals the overall size of their team, I can say with some certainty that it's not possible to produce a competitive, modern browser soup-to-nuts with fewer than 100 engineers. Now, some teams (Apple, MSFT) may be able to get below that in their "browser team" by pushing much of the work into the OS, but the overall size of the effort in producing a browser is larger than what is involved in some successful OSes. Consider that modern browsers comprise the following (Chrome team projects in parens):

    Languages and Virtual Machine teams (V8, NaCL, Traceur, Dart)
    Compiler, build, distribution infrastructure/build tools (GYP, clang, ninja, Omaha)
    Per-OS/device UI (Design team handling Windows, Mac, Linux, Chrome OS, Android, iOS)
    HTML/CSS/DOM/layout & web compat (Chrome staffs a sizable, talented WebKit team)
    A security sub-team (Chrome's sandbox infrastructure, etc.)
    A GPU team (WebGL/Compositor sub-team)
    A networking & storage subteam (LevelDB, Cookie Monster, SPDY, etc.)

    Now, as I alluded to, you can appear to do more with less if you can decide to work on a single platform only, can push work out to other teams (either through vertical integration or OSS), and/or don't want to compete on some axis (performance, compatibility). But the base number of mostly-C++ engineers remains the same."



  • Q: How many software engineers does it take to change a light bulb?
    A: None. That's a hardware problem.



  • @Aghors:

    Just out of interest how does it take 100+ people to create an internet browser? I mean there is lots of code to write but there are some pretty big games out there for example who only have really small teams. I'm not trying to insinuate anything, just an honest question? …

    Because games and browsers both consist of code, they are more like apples and oranges - which are both fruit, but with significant internal differences. There are countless reasons for design effort differences which are wrapped up in the quite-different purposes and constraints involved in the two software product areas. Just a few factors to consider:

    1. Games have to deal only with code written by the game's own designers plus the stable API's provided by an OS or hardware drivers. Browsers by their very nature must constantly deal directly with site-code written by countless unknown site authors plus the stable API's provided by the OS or hardware drivers - plus the 3rd-party code written by extension and plug-in authors… plus the rendering engine code (and its occasional handed-down changes) when written by outside authors.

    2. A game has to deal with essentially the same thing over and over, with the game AI and graphics/shading engines producing the primary content variables. A browser has to deal with whatever peculiar scripted audio and visual content oddities a near-infinite number of web sites' authors decide to create.

    3. If a game breaks, an 'issue' exists between the game maker, its user, and possibly the hardware maker. If a website breaks on a browser, an 'issue' exists between the browser maker, the site coder, the site coders for the URL remote call-outs embedded in the original site's code, the plug-ins installed into the user's systems, the extensions installed into the browser, and possibly the hardware maker - the more possible 'issue' complexities, the more effort is required to protect against them.

    4. Games are usually run on systems dedicated at that moment to only running the game, hence they usually have the full use of the system resources. Browsers are frequently run as part of a multi-tasking user environment, hence have to share system resources with other running software - this means CPU and RAM management efficiencies are major continuing design considerations.

    5. Games are self-contained entities and cannot be directly compared with their competitors. Browsers all operate against the exact same websites, so direct and immediate comparison between brands is frequent - hence competitive pressure and the importance of unique features and performance attributes requires constant designer effort to distinguish a browser from its competitors in side-by-side usage.



  • @Aghors:

    Just out of interest how does it take 100+ people to create an internet browser? I mean there is lots of code to write but there are some pretty big games out there for example who only have really small teams. I'm not trying to insinuate anything, just an honest question?

    Big games are all paid and paid a lot.

    A successful game can sell millions of copies… 1,000,000 of copies x say 50$ means 50 millions of dollars.

    If you want to play a game you don't have any alternatives (other than piracy). If you want to browse the internet you have already a zillion of options.

    In short google or ms can make easily big money with the browser, the competitors, must find a nice of the market and a viable business model that hardly will compare with games market. especially in Vivaldi's case. A browser aimed mainly to power users and/or opera orphans.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to Vivaldi Forum was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.