Skip to main content

Topic: 1.0.01 (2019.01.01) (Read 7792 times)

  • Emdek
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Moderator
1.0.01 (2019.01.01)
And we finally have it, first release marked as stable. :-)
Not all planned features were finished in time, but hopefully at least some of them will make it into 1.1 later this year.

Changes since last RC:
  • some enhancements in experimental backend for QtWebEngine (Blink):
    • download dialog is now shown for tab that initiated it;
    • added support for handling requests to print page;
  • many other fixes.

Missing binary packages should be available soon.
Nadszedł już czas, najwyższy czas, nienawiść zniszczyć w sobie.
The time has come, the high time, to destroy hatred in oneself.

  • beastie
  • [*][*]
Re: 1.0.01 (2019.01.01)
Reply #1
Well, congratulations on the great job and thank you for your continued dedication!

  • kanakomoerer
  • [*]
Re: 1.0.01 (2019.01.01)
Reply #2
 :up:

  • Frenzie
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
Re: 1.0.01 (2019.01.01)
Reply #3
Great work!

  • ovas
  • [*][*]
Re: 1.0.01 (2019.01.01)
Reply #4
Waiting x64 :up:

  • Weilan
  • [*]
Re: 1.0.01 (2019.01.01)
Reply #5
My review after testing the new version:

I knew about it for a while, gave it a whirl every now and then. It's like Pale Moon, but worse. I mean in the web content handling department. It seems highly customizable, but:

- it can't play YouTube videos
- it can't play Spotify Web Player
- struggles on Google Maps just to move the map
- it can't utilize Ctrl+V on Imgur and doesn't play the videos there too
- it requires me to switch the user agent to Firefox or Chrome in order to display YouTube and Google correctly
- it can't play Twitch
- it has built-in AdBlock Plus, which allows you to add custom filters, but it doesn't enable them like "I don't care about cookies"
- on many websites it struggles and stutters when scrolling them, unless they are very simplistic

The good things are:

- very customizable
- built-in pop-up blocker is on the level of extension pop-up blockers for Chrome and Firefox
- has an UI that looks like the old days, which I really like


OVERALL:

A browser that is excellent on paper, but does a lousy-ass job at browsing - it's main purpose. It's like a car that can't drive, but has good stereo and seats, like a rifle that can't shoot, but has nice scope and laser sight.




I wish there was more work done on the rendering aspects of the browser and make it usable. I don't know why it doesn't play Spotify Web Player/YouTube/Twitch... is it because it doesn't support DRM or something? Using Chrome user agent on Twitch and YouTube results in the pages not fully loading. YouTube loads if Firefox user agent is selected, but Twitch only loads when the default user agent is used. Yet, in neither case they can play the videos. Same with Spotfiy Web Player. Imgur doesn't play the gif/videos either. Many websites cause Otter to lock up for a while or stutter like crazy.

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: 1.0.01 (2019.01.01)
Reply #6
@Weilan
You bring up points that never occurred to me to test. Which is good.

Old Opera itself always struggled with plugins, so I personally had plugins turned off in it permanently. I still do. When I need a plugin to play an audio or video, I open the same page in FF or IE. I use Otter the same way - plugins off.

So, I'd say Otter is not bad at browsing per se. Otter is bad at browsing the plugins and embeddings of Internet v2.0. And it might get even worse at Internet 3.0.

The borrowed rendering engine and ability to switch rendering engines and UA strings should have prevented glitches like this. This is an area that definitely demands more testing and polishing. Thanks for pointing it out.

That being said, YT videos seem to work for me in Otter when I turn plugins on. So something must be different with the configuration of my system. It's just that I hardly ever visit YT, FB, Twitter &Co in Otter.

  • Quetzal
  • [*][*]
Re: 1.0.01 (2019.01.01)
Reply #7
arf, just great... but no installer for the windows10 noob ??

it's not that the xp(and other) do affraid me...
but when i look to RC12 folder and the new list of files...
they do not correspond exactly...

and i used otter everyday... then no experimental binaries here ;)


  • Weilan
  • [*]
Re: 1.0.01 (2019.01.01)
Reply #8


That being said, YT videos seem to work for me in Otter when I turn plugins on. So something must be different with the configuration of my system. It's just that I hardly ever visit YT, FB, Twitter &Co in Otter.

I used the browser as it was. I never turned off plugins. If it came with plugins disabled, I can't have known that.

Also, the error it gave me for YouTube videos was "unrecognized/unsupported format", Twitch error was similar and I tried some videos from Openload - same issue.

This is actually the secondary issue - the primary one was how it struggled with handling some websites. Do you have an issue with that? Like freezing/stuttering of the whole browser? If not, like you said you didn't have such issues, maybe your hardware combination is doing it for you, while mine isn't.

I have:

CPU: AMD Phenom X2 II 550 @ 3.1GHz
GPU: GT 630 2GB DDR3
RAM: 8GB DDR3

It's not a new PC by any stretch, but I can play some relatively new games like Fallout 4 and GTA5 on it.

I've seen developers of games/software use high end computers and the game/program runs fine for them, but when a regular user with a run-of-the-mill configuration attempts to test it, the experience is far from good.

  • jim0214
  • [*]
Re: 1.0.01 (2019.01.01)
Reply #9
I have a idea. Lets go knock on Opera's door (in China) and tell them since your not using it hand over Presto! Hell the Chinese have stolen enough codes from everyone. Are just maybe, GitHub has a old copy of the source code laying around.:lol:  :devil:

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: 1.0.01 (2019.01.01)
Reply #10
Great idea! I doubt that the source code has been forgotten somewhere in the open (it would have been found out by now) but it could be that, asking the right person, the source code might be handed over to us just so :)

Welcome back and happy new year, Jim!

  • beastie
  • [*][*]
Re: 1.0.01 (2019.01.01)
Reply #11
I have a idea. Lets go knock on Opera's door (in China) and tell them since your not using it hand over Presto! Hell the Chinese have stolen enough codes from everyone. Are just maybe, GitHub has a old copy of the source code laying around.
Great idea! I doubt that the source code has been forgotten somewhere in the open (it would have been found out by now) but it could be that, asking the right person, the source code might be handed over to us just so
Actually it was on GitHub (illegally of course) about a year or two ago and the repository was forked a few times before everything was taken down.

But it would be as useful as when Microsoft open-sourced MS-DOS 2.0 (from 1983) a few months ago (in 2018). It's only good as a historical curiosity and for sentimental purposes.

I had been an Opera user since the early 2000s after I stopped using Netscape's series of browsers. So it's with a heavy heart that I have to say this, but Presto was already showing signs of age when the company switched to Blink (and also ruined the browser in the process). Nowadays, legacy Opera is pretty awful at displaying many websites.

  • kwaku1
  • [*]
Re: 1.0.01 (2019.01.01)
Reply #12
Byłem zszokowany, jak zlikwodowano Operę Presto. :( Najlepszą przeglądarkę jaka istniała. Pamiętam jak tuż przed świętami w 2013 roku, dowiedziedziałem się, że ktoś chce robić przeglądarkę o możliwościach Opery Presto. Zaraz wtedy ściągnąłem w części funkcjonalnego Ottera, wersję 0.0.01. :)

A teraz już stabilna wersja 1x? Bardzo dziękuję za Twoją pracę. Myślę, że nie tylko ja jestem Ci wdzięczny. Dzięki osobom takim jak Ty, Internet wciąż ma szanse pozostać niezależnym medium. :)

I wielkie dzięki, że wciąż utrzymujesz wesję dla Winsowsa XP. :)

Wszystkiego najlepszego w Nowym Roku. :)

  • jim0214
  • [*]
Re: 1.0.01 (2019.01.01)
Reply #13
I tried 1.0.01 only on 2  websites. Yahoo and YouTube neither one loaded video's. YouTube said my browser didn't recognise any of the formats. Loading pages on Yahoo was so slow, I had to shave twice before it finished loading. Turned ad blocking off, thinking that may help. My thinking was wrong. Had nothing else open but 1 window of Otter and the normal background stuff. The interesting thing is RC 12 did work on both websites. I'm using Windows 7 Pro 64 bit and know Otter 1.0 is 32, but I've used 32 bit browsers before with no problem. Grasping at straws here to figure it out.:sherlock: The good thing about this is, Otter didn't crash. Enjoy your day boys & girls! 8)

  • jim0214
  • [*]
Re: 1.0.01 (2019.01.01)
Reply #14
Actually it was on GitHub (illegally of course) about a year or two ago and the repository was forked a few times before everything was taken down.
That's what I was referring to. The code was on GitHub for over a year before anyone notice.

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: 1.0.01 (2019.01.01)
Reply #15
Actually it was on GitHub (illegally of course) about a year or two ago and the repository was forked a few times before everything was taken down.
That's what I was referring to. The code was on GitHub for over a year before anyone notice.
I didn't know this. But if you noticed it, then surely so did many others, and some probably even downloaded it. I guess that only fear of legal repercussions prevents them from publishing their own rendering engine based on that code.

  • exley
  • [*][*][*]
Re: 1.0.01 (2019.01.01)
Reply #16
is there a way to tell us how to compile a build so we don't have to wait so long for own architecture ?

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: 1.0.01 (2019.01.01)
Reply #17
is there a way to tell us how to compile a build so we don't have to wait so long for own architecture ?
Do you mean this? https://github.com/OtterBrowser/otter-browser/blob/master/INSTALL.md

  • beastie
  • [*][*]
Re: 1.0.01 (2019.01.01)
Reply #18
I guess that only fear of legal repercussions prevents them from publishing their own rendering engine based on that code.
1. Probably it requires too much work to raise it up to be on a par with today's industry standards and that much work isn't worth anyone's time.
2. Probably the code is too complex for the "uninitiated" to wrap his head around it so as to a) improve it and b) use it in a meaningful way within a completely new browser project, while the "initiate" is probably already using something else.
3. It would be a legal hell. The list of "third parties" included in opera:about is informative both for what it mentions... and for what it omits. As you can notice it's quite a long list and there's only FOSS and public domain libraries. Maybe it means the rest was developed entirely in house. But again, maybe not. Presto included both a browser engine and an ECMAScript engine (Carakan). I have a feeling such a huge software must be filled with code covered under multiple NDAs. So you'd have to deal with the legal departments of several companies, not just Opera's. It's probably why they didn't bother open-sourcing it in the first place.

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: 1.0.01 (2019.01.01)
Reply #19
1. Probably it requires too much work to raise it up to be on a par with today's industry standards...
How about up to some lower standards? I, for one, am very happy with w3m and Elinks.

But yes, I understand that it can be (and usually is) pure pain for a developer to read someone else's messy code. Even one's own code after a decade...

  • Frenzie
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
Re: 1.0.01 (2019.01.01)
Reply #20
That's what I was referring to. The code was on GitHub for over a year before anyone notice.
Wasn't that just Presto? As in, you can't just make some fairly minor tweaks and have your own Opera that plays AV1 or something, but you'd have a loose rendering engine that'd only be useful after a ton of work to either build a GUI or integrate it into one.

  • exley
  • [*][*][*]
Re: 1.0.01 (2019.01.01)
Reply #21
so many garbage to install just to have ~70 MB app
think i'll just wait for x64 installer -_-

  • jim0214
  • [*]
Re: 1.0.01 (2019.01.01)
Reply #22
Wasn't that just Presto? As in, you can't just make some fairly minor tweaks and have your own Opera that plays AV1 or something, but you'd have a loose rendering engine that'd only be useful after a ton of work to either build a GUI or integrate it into one.

I started this as a joke, but since we're talking about it... I'm guessing after months and months of going through the code, you maybe able to put some lipstick on the pig to get Presto working. What I mean by working is, for todays standards, but what about 2 or 4 are more years from now? Unless you know a couple of kids sitting in their dark bedroom, trying to hack in to US Pentagon that would be willing to dick with the thing,,, The cost factor would be through the roof! It's all a dream and if I'm going to dream. I'd perfer to dream about sleeping with Jennifer Aniston! As a matter of fact, I'm doing that now. :flirt:

  • exley
  • [*][*][*]
Re: 1.0.01 (2019.01.01)
Reply #23
I'd have to disagree with some of you here
Opera 12x was made with HTML 5 standards compliant
and it still runs pages made with W3C standards, normal
in fact the only thing wrong with it, is a java script engine that Opera had.
and naturally h264 support and whatever came after they killed it...

  • jim0214
  • [*]
Re: 1.0.01 (2019.01.01)
Reply #24
the only thing wrong with it, is a java script engine that Opera had.

JavaScript was always Opera's problem! Back in the stone age, Opera had to use Netscape's JavaScript among other borrowed goodies. Remember having to copy & paste Netscape.exe into Opera's menu to make things work. On top of all that, it wasn't free, you had to pay for it! At least until the box ads showed up. They were in the top right hand corner of the browser. Only then it became free. I'm talking about Opera 3. something are another. Easily 20 years ago. I just realized 2 things while writing this. I know way to much about this browser and I'm OLD!