why is opera not as popular as other browsers?

[evident]

I think it's a great browser, better than chrome or FF.
I still think it suffers from its history that it used to be a paid for app.

sometimes it doesn't render websites correctly, but chrome/ff is also guilty of this. i use it in conjunction with IE and everything's all good.

 

[Chiefcrowe]

I like it but for me, it runs Much slower on certain sites than firefox such as gmail.

 

[lxskllr]

I like Opera, and use it on occasion, but my biggest problem with it is its closed code. If they opened the code, I think you'd see its popularity increase.

As to why it isn't more popular, I think it's lack of advertising. Back when they were the only real competitor to IE, you had to pay for it. Many didn't dislike IE enough to bother. Firefox came along as a free and libre competitor, and the geeks noticed, and pushed it amongst the non-geeks(free advertising). Chrome gets pushed all over the place, and people are now more open to using non-stock browsers. That leaves Opera as a niche many don't know about, or care to research.

 

[Binky]

Because it has a stupid name.

 

[Maximilian]

Because its not as well coded as chrome and its 1 tab = 1 thread thing.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

Because it's a memory hog and uses tons of resources and it's never been given that much exposition by word of mouth and by mainstream media.

 

[gmaster456]

Because in my opinion it's not as good. I used it in Ubuntu 8.04 years ago as my main browser but in Windows, it's FF only. I do however use Opera as a secondary browser. It is solid but it does need a bit more polish. It also doesn't feel as snappy as firefox. And then there's the fact that it hasn't gotten anywhere near the word of mouth that firefox and more recently google chrome has gotten.

 

[immattobrien]

I think it's a great browser, better than chrome or FF.
I still think it suffers from its history that it used to be a paid for app.

sometimes it doesn't render websites correctly, but chrome/ff is also guilty of this. i use it in conjunction with IE and everything's all good.

I think Opera is better in mobile devices then any other mobile browser.

 

[zokudu]

Because it's a memory hog and uses tons of resources and it's never been given that much exposition by word of mouth and by mainstream media.

Opera Caches a set % of your Ram on startup. This can be disabled in Opera:config.

 

[Berryracer]

Because it has a stupid name.

Exactly, it has a clumsy name, and its bookmarks interface sucks, andthe add-ons of Firefox blow it out of the water!

Get a real browser, get Firefox FTW

 

[MrDuma]

there are some sites that opera is not so friendly to. made a comparison between firefox and opera: firefox wins by far

 

[Broheim]

Because its not as well coded as chrome and its 1 tab = 1 thread thing.

it's one tab = 1 process. Each tab/process has many threads.

 

[nemesismk2]

I try out all of the browsers from time to time and found that Opera is very fast but I kinda been using Firefox for years so decided against using Opera as my main browser.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

it used to be amazingly awesome back before it was free and had these crazy features like tabs back before anything else had them

then FireFox came out which was open source, and then Chrome which did what Opera does only with better advertising to get it off the ground

if Opera Software had the foresight to make it freeware from the get-go they might have had something, but now there's just no catching up to the open source nature of FireFox and Internet Explorer and Chrome who are backed by software juggernauts with the resources to buy the popularity they need.

And at this point there's really no amount of innovation that they can come up with to set themselves apart to gain any real ground.

 

[Rackmountsales]

Opera does not have a mail checker, an accelerator, and a sharing facility, not even RSS - but what it does have, it does right. It seems that Opera cannot make a decision between the two.

 

[Broheim]

Opera does not have a mail checker, an accelerator, and a sharing facility, not even RSS - but what it does have, it does right. It seems that Opera cannot make a decision between the two.

 

[mikeymikec]

I like Opera, and use it on occasion, but my biggest problem with it is its closed code. If they opened the code, I think you'd see its popularity increase.

Name one product that achieved mainstream popularity because it is open-source. Or even that its open-source nature is a major reason why it is so popular.

Take Firefox as an example - I bet that 95% of its users, probably more, don't know that it is open-source or even what open-source means.

The only way that I can think of for your statement to apply in the real world is the fact that a mainstream product is open-source affects its popularity is through an indirect effect - because companies can adopt it on their platform without having to pay a licence.

you had to pay for it.

I think this is the most likely reason for its lack of success. If it had become free sooner, it wouldn't have missed a key point in time for its potential growth.

 

[lxskllr]

Name one product that achieved mainstream popularity because it is open-source. Or even that its open-source nature is a major reason why it is so popular.

Firefox

 

[mikeymikec]

Firefox

Did you read the rest of my response?

 

[lxskllr]

Did you read the rest of my response?

Yes, point? Are you talking about whether most people know something is libre or not? That's irrelevant. Most people are lucky if they can successfully turn their computers on. Netscape/Firefox went from nothing to the second most popular browser by opening the code.

 

[KAZANI]

Yeah, I know. There's so much ignorance and FUD regarding Opera, it almost makes me want to give up arguing with people on this anymore. For the most part, I'm just happy I'm using the best browser there's ever been and can't bother convincing narrowminded folks that "Opera" is not a bad name (or that a browser's name is reason enough to avoid using it, for that matter). I understand however the need for wider adoption so the developer company can make the revenue required to continue offering updates to this amazing piece of software. Now, if only I could master enough patience and idiot-proof eloquence to explain things like bookmark handling in Opera (although one of its weakest points, IMO) is still more functional than that complicated and cluttered UI, "can't-import-Opera-bookmarks" half-baked solution by FF.

Now that I'm at it, I don't get all this "should have been free from the get-go" rhetoric. It has been free LONG BEFORE Chrome came along, yet has a much smaller user base than Google's offering. How much time does it take to spread the word around the online community that Opera is a superior browser and offset any of Google's advertising funding leverage? You people are holding a 10 year-old grudge for those ad banners and this prevents you from even mentioning Opera as an IE alternative! I mean, BE LOGICAL, FFS! Having consistently been the avant-garde of browser technology for more than a decade now should have earned Opera the minimum respect required to refrain from asinine comments like "it's poorly coded" or "opera is not so friendly to some sites*"!

(*:seems friendly enough once the aforementioned sites deign to feed it with proper code - don't even start me on this)

 

[mikeymikec]

Yes, point? Are you talking about whether most people know something is libre or not? That's irrelevant. Most people are lucky if they can successfully turn their computers on. Netscape/Firefox went from nothing to the second most popular browser by opening the code.

You said this:

I like Opera, and use it on occasion, but my biggest problem with it is its closed code. If they opened the code, I think you'd see its popularity increase.

And that's what I was responding to, so yes, it's relevant.

Personally I think the reason why Firefox went from nothing to the second most popular browser was because Netscape screwed up badly (AOL's purchase of Netscape might have something to do with it, as pretty much anything that AOL touches turns to dust) and open-sourced the Netscape code because they gave up. Therefore instead of a company trying to turn a profit out of something that there's little to profit from, people doing it for free out of their own desire to build a suitable alternative to IE did a better job.

Microsoft would have died as well if IE was their only/mainstay product.

I think Firefox succeeded due to a timeline of events (and it was free):

1 - Some people wanted an alternative to IE, mostly techie-types.
2 - Firefox caught the media's attention, it did what it said it would, and a further reason to adopt it was that it wasn't vulnerable to the onslaught of malware/adware/toolbars affecting IE.

The second point doesn't really apply any more today, because of Firefox's popularity it is as much of a target as IE.

If Opera went open-source, it would have zero effect on its popularity. Come to think of it, I think a major reason for Chrome's popularity is similar to IE's desktop bundling - having Google Chrome on the front page of Google's web site. Google don't have a reputation for crapware, and their bit on the front page simply says "a faster way to browse the web".

 

[lxskllr]

You said this:
And that's what I was responding to, so yes, it's relevant.

It isn't relevant. The general population are idiots. They use what they're told to use, and don't have the slightest idea regarding licensing, or its implication. By opening the code They give coders a new toy, and a fully featured browser to play with. They will then push Opera's use to the general population.

Chrome is running on a minimalism meme that's gained popularity in the last couple years. There's also some backlash against Mozilla due to the fact they're popular. Not everyone is into minimalism, and many of those that are will get tired of not having features. A libre Opera would give those people a competitor to Mozilla, as there isn't anything else like it in the browser market, especially the libre browser market.

 

[zokudu]

Yeah, I know. There's so much ignorance and FUD regarding Opera, it almost makes me want to give up arguing with people on this anymore. For the most part, I'm just happy I'm using the best browser there's ever been and can't bother convincing narrowminded folks that "Opera" is not a bad name (or that a browser's name is reason enough to avoid using it, for that matter). I understand however the need for wider adoption so the developer company can make the revenue required to continue offering updates to this amazing piece of software. Now, if only I could master enough patience and idiot-proof eloquence to explain things like bookmark handling in Opera (although one of its weakest points, IMO) is still more functional than that complicated and cluttered UI, "can't-import-Opera-bookmarks" half-baked solution by FF.

Now that I'm at it, I don't get all this "should have been free from the get-go" rhetoric. It has been free LONG BEFORE Chrome came along, yet has a much smaller user base than Google's offering. How much time does it take to spread the word around the online community that Opera is a superior browser and offset any of Google's advertising funding leverage? You people are holding a 10 year-old grudge for those ad banners and this prevents you from even mentioning Opera as an IE alternative! I mean, BE LOGICAL, FFS! Having consistently been the avant-garde of browser technology for more than a decade now should have earned Opera the minimum respect required to refrain from asinine comments like "it's poorly coded" or "opera is not so friendly to some sites*"!

(*:seems friendly enough once the aforementioned sites deign to feed it with proper code - don't even start me on this)

Preach on good brother.

 

[beginner99]

Because it's a memory hog and uses tons of resources

I think last tiem I gave it a chance, that was the main reason I dumped it again besides other stuff that pissed me off. Also was slow...