Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Opera 10.5 going Cocoa, sounds promising

mabaker

mabaker

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Jan 19, 2008
1,217
582
I do love my Opera browser. It is indeed fast and NOT at all a ram hog like Safari.

I'd love to use Safari all the time cuzz of its elegance and sleekness but it's a huge master RAM hog - within 1 h of heavy surfing the RAM it uses jumps to 600+ MB with huge VM page outs thanks to all the Top Sites eye candy and what not cache.

I still use Safari and still think it's the best browser for Mac but here comes Opera 10.5 that is at last fully optimized for Mac. After a long time.

Just read it on the opera blog:
http://my.opera.com/desktopteam/blog/2010/01/20/return-of-hot-chocolate

Anyone here using Opera as secondary browser?
 
I use it from time to time. I would use it 100% of the time if I could find a theme that wasn't hideous. But maybe when Opera releases a good cocoa beta I'll give it another shot.
 
opera's theme is indeed strange.

however, seems Opera 10.5 will be at least triple the js speed compare to other browsers. Those who are after extreme Javascript speed now have a new option!
 
The theme for Opera 10.5 seems to be quite nice now that they have switched to Cocoa.

I for one am really excited about the 10.5 Opera Leopard release. :p

And guys, how about your Safari RAM usage statistics? Certainly you're - just like me - pretty heavy web users. Does Safari take so much RAM in your systems? Not initially, but let's say after 1-2 h and with 10-12 tabs open. Cuzz for me it starts being sluggish after 1-2 h as soon as it hits 600 MB+ RAM usage and is in dire need of restart.
 
mabaker said:
I'd love to use Safari all the time cuzz of its elegance and sleekness but it's a huge master RAM hog - within 1 h of heavy surfing the RAM it uses jumps to 600+ MB with huge VM page outs thanks to all the Top Sites eye candy and what not cache.
Click to expand...

Safari a ram hog: It was true up to Safari 3.*: http://dotnetperls.com/browser-memory
But not anymore with Safari 4.* http://dotnetperls.com/chrome-memory

Opera on the other hand was never good in this category.
Maybe is the new version better .. only maybe :eek:

Cheers
 
Am I missing something? The blog post praises the under-development version 10.5 and yet they are already at v 10.10 on the regular/main download?

Or, did someone there confuse 10.10 with 10.1?
 
10.1 = 10.10.

Is anyone keeping track of the progress on Mac? Is it improving?
 
TuffLuffJimmy said:
Not when it comes to revision numbers. If it were a decimal why would most revision numbers have two decimals? That doesn't even make sense.
Click to expand...

It was due to people using different numbers. Version 10.5 is also reported as 10.50 in some places, such as when I go to About Opera it list 10.50. It's stupid, but that's how it is. You can't control how others report things. Version 10.50 is the accurate version number. I like aspects of Opera, but other parts have bothered me enough to report them to Opera. Hope they get fixed.
 
I hope they continue to improve the user interface. Technology and features have never been Opera's problem, they've always been ahead or on equal footing with the competition in that area.

What is lacking is that lots of the menus and usage paradigms are way old and awkward to use. I used Opera for years because it was much better than Firefox, but by FF 3.0 Mozilla had caught up and most of the nice features of Opera like Speed Dial had been ported to FF.
 
I'm using Safari , Opera, and Chrome in that order. They finally have the bugs out of Opera and I'm really enjoying it. I have always used more than one browser as I do a lot of web based research, and enjoy the different browsers for the individual strengths. I keep my bookmarks in delicious so thats not an issue for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back