Hi,
i just would like to know, what are the big differences between the web browsers (Opera, Opera Mini, Skyfire) ?
I am trying to find the browser that is most suited for my needs. I bet there's a lot of people who are wondering the same. So please, come someone enlighten us (me).
just a general note. you should try all browsers and then see as browser comfort is usually individual.
as of today i'd choose either the latest edition of Opera 9.5 or Skyfire... but for the sake of comparison.
Opera Mini is very fast and stable and is java based.. but doesn't have all the features the new browsers such as Opera 9.5 and Skyfire have.
Opera 9.5 is greatlooking and supports direct flash and has a fine comfortable interface.
Skyfire has a few options for browsing.. such as using a Mouse pointer to move across the page or sweep your finger to move the page. also it has a very comfortable home page which i use constantly with weather reports and google search. it also has a very fast loading time.
one major difference between opera and skyfire is the fact that skyfire supports most languages without having to use special language packs.
Internet Explorer sucks ass.
Netfront is great.. not as fast as the others but is very multilingual and has some new options.. you should look it up in google to see what it offers.
nir36 said:
just a general note. you should try all browsers and then see as browser comfort is usually individual.
as of today i'd choose either the latest edition of Opera 9.5 or Skyfire... but for the sake of comparison.
Opera Mini is very fast and stable and is java based.. but doesn't have all the features the new browsers such as Opera 9.5 and Skyfire have.
Opera 9.5 is greatlooking and supports direct flash and has a fine comfortable interface.
Skyfire has a few options for browsing.. such as using a Mouse pointer to move across the page or sweep your finger to move the page. also it has a very comfortable home page which i use constantly with weather reports and google search. it also has a very fast loading time.
one major difference between opera and skyfire is the fact that skyfire supports most languages without having to use special language packs.
Internet Explorer sucks ass.
Netfront is great.. not as fast as the others but is very multilingual and has some new options.. you should look it up in google to see what it offers.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
wow, great..thnx for the info
but i got difficulty to download skyfire. it doesnt support for my country phone number
I knew i wasnt the only one that would be helped ! =)
Thanks a lot!
I will try Skyfire, and if i'm not satisfied, i will go for Opera (but i wonder if Opera Mini could be fine).
You also forgot about one VERY important thing - both Opera Mini and Skyfire use server-side processing: the phone sends all information to opera's or skyfire's server, the server downloads the page as a normal browser would, then strips it of unnecessary data, resizes pictures, compresses the page and then sends it to your device.
So everything you browse, and all the data you send, including passwords is not exchanged directly with the target website, but instead goes trough a third party server. Of course all server-device communications are encrypted, but still i don't encourage using these browsers for sensitive data like banking or shopping using your credit card information. This might be a bit paranoid, but considering how internet looks like today, paranoia is a rather healthy thing
Besides, there were already cases where browser used incorrectly made all the encryption useless: when opera (and probably skyfire too) is started for the first time, it generates a random key to encrypt data and identify your device. But when opera is cooked into ROM or made into CAB installer after this key has been generated, the server recognizes every device using this version as the same one. So if person A logs into a email account and then person B (using the same broken opera install with the same key) goes to this email website - he'll see he's already logged in as person A and can see all of his/her e-mails.
Of course this doesn't happen often (actually i know of only one such accident and the faulty opera was quickly removed from ROM) but still - better safe than sorry.
However, the advantage of these browsers is that they're really fast - all the hard work is done on the server so our devices don't need to do any html/css/javascript/etc interpreting and only have to draw the simplified version of website (opera mini) or something like a screenshot of the website (skyfire) sent by the server. And since the data sent to the device is compressed, they both use much less bandwidth than conventional browsers which is important on cellular connections where you usually pay for transmitted data quantity.
On the other hand, Opera Mobile (all versions), NetFront, Pocket Internet Explorer (which really sucks) are _real_ browsers, like the one on your PC - they communicate with websites directly. But they also have to do all the processing and interpreting, not only drawing so they're noticeably slower than Opera Mini and Skyfire. Also, they usually download all website content and transferred data is uncompressed so they use up much more bandwidth.
Generally, i prefer to use Opera Mini for general web browsing, forums, etc. But for sensitive data (shopping, banking, e-mail), or when bandwidth is not a concern (on a wifi connection) i tend to stick with Opera Mobile or NetFront.
Of these two browsers, Opera 9.5 gives a bit nicer and more finger-friendly user interface. But this requires quite a lot of memory and processing power to work smoothly, so it's almost unusable on low memory devices like Wizard.
NetFront has much simpler UI, closer to one seen in pocketIE and while it doesn't look as impressive an Opera's, it works much better on slower and low memory phones. Since they're both in open beta testing stage, it's best to download and try both to see which one you like more.
mr_deimos said:
You also forgot about one VERY important thing - both Opera Mini and Skyfire use server-side processing: the phone sends all information to opera's or skyfire's server, the server downloads the page as a normal browser would, then strips it of unnecessary data, resizes pictures, compresses the page and then sends it to your device.
So everything you browse, and all the data you send, including passwords is not exchanged directly with the target website, but instead goes trough a third party server. Of course all server-device communications are encrypted, but still i don't encourage using these browsers for sensitive data like banking or shopping using your credit card information. This might be a bit paranoid, but considering how internet looks like today, paranoia is a rather healthy thing
Besides, there were already cases where browser used incorrectly made all the encryption useless: when opera (and probably skyfire too) is started for the first time, it generates a random key to encrypt data and identify your device. But when opera is cooked into ROM or made into CAB installer after this key has been generated, the server recognizes every device using this version as the same one. So if person A logs into a email account and then person B (using the same broken opera install with the same key) goes to this email website - he'll see he's already logged in as person A and can see all of his/her e-mails.
Of course this doesn't happen often (actually i know of only one such accident and the faulty opera was quickly removed from ROM) but still - better safe than sorry.
However, the advantage of these browsers is that they're really fast - all the hard work is done on the server so our devices don't need to do any html/css/javascript/etc interpreting and only have to draw the simplified version of website (opera mini) or something like a screenshot of the website (skyfire) sent by the server. And since the data sent to the device is compressed, they both use much less bandwidth than conventional browsers which is important on cellular connections where you usually pay for transmitted data quantity.
On the other hand, Opera Mobile (all versions), NetFront, Pocket Internet Explorer (which really sucks) are _real_ browsers, like the one on your PC - they communicate with websites directly. But they also have to do all the processing and interpreting, not only drawing so they're noticeably slower than Opera Mini and Skyfire. Also, they usually download all website content and transferred data is uncompressed so they use up much more bandwidth.
Generally, i prefer to use Opera Mini for general web browsing, forums, etc. But for sensitive data (shopping, banking, e-mail), or when bandwidth is not a concern (on a wifi connection) i tend to stick with Opera Mobile or NetFront.
Of these two browsers, Opera 9.5 gives a bit nicer and more finger-friendly user interface. But this requires quite a lot of memory and processing power to work smoothly, so it's almost unusable on low memory devices like Wizard.
NetFront has much simpler UI, closer to one seen in pocketIE and while it doesn't look as impressive an Opera's, it works much better on slower and low memory phones. Since they're both in open beta testing stage, it's best to download and try both to see which one you like more.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
you're right. my bad.
Incredible. Thanks for the update.
You guys @ XDA need a real THUMBS UP. Thanks for the fast answers, i hope that this will help a couple of users who we're wondering the same thing as I.
=)
That settles it. I'll try Skyfire & Opera Mini and find out wich one i like the most (since i don't use my cell phone for private use (banking & shopping) but more for browsing (forums & other).
YOU GUYS ROCKS!
Related
:lol: Always wanted Netscape/Mozilla/FireFox/MiniMO on your WinCEPocketPC! :lol:
Mozilla Org released minimo which will be the best browser ever
Tabbed Browsing
Works on Internet Banking site etc etc
Goodbye Opera and PIE
8)
Heres the Link: http://www.mozilla.org/projects/minimo/
Regards
Skillie
somebody found America?
It's still *very* early stages. OK, so it renders better than anything else, but the rest of the interface is nasty. It's also hideously slow to respond on both 400Mhz XDA2 and 600Mhz iPaq. And the keyboard doesn't work in landscape mode. TBH a custom soft keyboard would be better.
Wait til 0.7 before you expect any sort of useable version (Current version is 0.013!)
There is a little-known browser called Thunderhawk which renders brilliantly to a 320x240 screen in landscape by scaling everything down. But it's a bit sluggish, and they seem to pass *all* traffic through their own server to perform preprocessing (and thus you need to pay a subscription.) I think Minimo has the potential to blow all of them out of the water if it can be faster than Opera and as impressive in its output as Thunderhawk.
Wait, WM5 only?
*tries it on his 2003SE device anyway*
If you're looking for a tabbed browser try ftxPBrowser. Same engine as PIE, so compatible with most sites. Also it uses the same favorites, cookies & cache. History seems not to be working though. & it's only 75K:!:
Regards, M
Many people don't like the IE rendering engine, or the IE way of rendering (e.g. Opera) which is why they seek alternatives.
Further, the reason it's "only 75k" is because it's not a browser. Whoever wrote it - and PIE - didn't actually write a browser themselves, they just instructed IE to render the page into the area they specified. The tabs just switch between visible IE areas. In short, if you uninstall IE then it won't work. It's like taking a Fiat Cinqecento and putting a Peugeot 407 body on it, then saying it's a whole new car which is very light but looks just as good as something else. If you take the Fiat out, it doesn't go any more.
(Coders out there - I know this is technically very loose, but I'm trying to put this simply for someone who doesn't understand the relevance of MiniMo)
Excuse me for being so dumb... I know what Minimo is about, tried it & opera (mini too) & thunderhawk as well.
Problem is though that PIE is still the most compatible:!:
I use firefox on my PC & probably will be using minimo when it's working properly. But at the moment minimo is almost useless from the user point of view.
Yes you got me P on this.
Minimo is also currently around 10Mb.... bit large methinks. (and bloody slow)
My take on this
Minimo is slow
Opera is fiddly and the download thing is a HUGE prob plus takes up too much space
PIE seems to work fine.
What exactly is up with PIE ? I mean on a desktop Mozilla rules but on a handheld ???
Huge problem with PIE for many people is that it's a M$ product. Personal I don't mind.
Serious problem is that it doesn't render, one column does help a little & there's the lack of tabs. For this last I use ftxPBrowser. Problem with that one is the lack of history & most important downloads are very problematic if not impossible.
Which make me use ftxPBrowser & Opera mini (no https :-( ) for browsing & PIE for downloads.
Now it's waiting for a good rendering, downloading & secured browser.
Cheers, M
Strange thing I know about people disloking MS progs, I know people do not like them, the thing is why are they using devices with MS op system on them when they could be using a Symbian unit.
It's a real problem, huh?
Palm and symbian have some really nice software to run on their devices, I'm especially a fan of the UIQ stuff that SE slaps on top of Symbian. The don't, however, seem to have quite got the knack of cobbling together really good hardware to run it all on.
Of course, the kids who make the really cool hardware seem content to slap Windows Mobile on there and be done with it.
So, in conclusion: come on HTC, go source a proper OS for your handhelds. Maybe have a word with Apple?
Back on-topic: it seems to run on WM2003SE, but not very nicely. It's all juddery and incomplete and frankly kind of rubbish. More evidence, if it was ever needed, that Magician-type devices are not meant for web browsing.
i use one of the beta versions on 2003
it's ok but slow
and it DONT SUPPORT COPY PASTE!!!
which is a biatch
ATEOTD no Firefox/Mozilla is worth using at such early test versions. It's worth keeping an eye on if you're that geeky - but Firefox (back when it was Phoenix then Firebird) wasn't really useable until version 0.7. Consider that minimo is at 0.07 or something - it has a long way to go before it's competing with IE/Opera. I won't put PIE in that list, because it's just not a browser. And Thunderhawk is simply incomparible in its function. I would like to see a browser which renders as well as Thunderhawk but more quickly and without needing to interface with a central server, though.
Minimo's greatest feature so far is that it does actually support JavaScript and AJAX systems like Google Maps, which no other browser can do. But to get the speed out of Thunderhawk, you would probably need to render to a static image. And that negates animated GIFs and any JavaScript that manipulates on-screen elements.
Hey guys some of you may remember way back earlier in the year a company called torch mobile launched a preview of their webkit browser called iris, it was a bit crap very buggy no real zoom etc etc most people wrote it off straight away.
Well now they have launched a proper beta and it has to be said its very impressive it has now got page overview zoom, mouse cursor, ability to import bookmarks and lots ofvother really quite kewl features.
It is a little slow to render pages, when compared to opera and is a memory hog but must say im quite liking it. not sure if flash works perhaps the experts in here may get it too work.
Anyhows just google torch mobile and you should be able to find the link to get it.
let me know what you guys think.
stevej26uk said:
let me know what you guys think.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, I spent the last couple of weeks comparing more or less all the available PPC browsers (IRIS, Opera 9.5 in different flavours, Opera mini, Opera mini with java addons, Netfront 3.5, Jataayu, Minimo, Skyfire and also IE addons such as PIE+, MultiIE, Webby etc.
I tested these on the road as well as at home, on WiFi as well as GPRS.
In the end I chucked them all except IRIS.
It basically has all I need (find in page, tabs, zoom, etc.) and runs very well on my Elf. It doesn't (yet) do inline videos like Skyfire does, but Skyfire is pretty useless otherwise.
Skyfire in many ways reminds me of a Java midlet like Opera Mini with pre-chewed pages. The advantage is that it doesn't cache pages on the PPC (just like Opera Mini). But it scores really low on usability and customisation
IRIS is similar in many ways to Netfront, but is open source and (so far) freeware. I also prefer the way IRIS zooms and has an option to present pages in one colums as defauls (rather than having to hit reflow in Netfront). NF visual bookmarks are pretty but rather useless. IRIS has a similar function for History, where it's much more useful. OTOH NF has loads of functions (including on-the-fly Japanese-to-English translation...) which may or may not be useful to you. And it's better at rendering non-Roman character content, such as Arabic or Hebrew pages than IRIS.
From PIE I only miss the possibility to search for bookmarks by typing the first letter of the bookmark title...
What I´d like to see in IRIS is more support for content, but the architecture with plugins will certainly take care of that. And extended copy and paste to page contents as well as in the address bar, as is currently the case.
Otherwise IRIS is my default browser and will stay that way.
Bernard
bfarkin said:
Well, I spent the last couple of weeks comparing more or less all the available PPC browsers (IRIS, Opera 9.5 in different flavours, Opera mini, Opera mini with java addons, Netfront 3.5, Jataayu, Minimo, Skyfire and also IE addons such as PIE+, MultiIE, Webby etc.
I tested these on the road as well as at home, on WiFi as well as GPRS.
In the end I chucked them all except IRIS.
It basically has all I need (find in page, tabs, zoom, etc.) and runs very well on my Elf. It doesn't (yet) do inline videos like Skyfire does, but Skyfire is pretty useless otherwise.
Skyfire in many ways reminds me of a Java midlet like Opera Mini with pre-chewed pages. The advantage is that it doesn't cache pages on the PPC (just like Opera Mini). But it scores really low on usability and customisation
IRIS is similar in many ways to Netfront, but is open source and (so far) freeware. I also prefer the way IRIS zooms and has an option to present pages in one colums as defauls (rather than having to hit reflow in Netfront). NF visual bookmarks are pretty but rather useless. IRIS has a similar function for History, where it's much more useful. OTOH NF has loads of functions (including on-the-fly Japanese-to-English translation...) which may or may not be useful to you. And it's better at rendering non-Roman character content, such as Arabic or Hebrew pages than IRIS.
From PIE I only miss the possibility to search for bookmarks by typing the first letter of the bookmark title...
What I´d like to see in IRIS is more support for content, but the architecture with plugins will certainly take care of that. And extended copy and paste to page contents as well as in the address bar, as is currently the case.
Otherwise IRIS is my default browser and will stay that way.
Bernard
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
thanks for the detailed comparison, I'll definitely link to it in my next story on Iris
I've had Iris installed since a very early public beta. I really wanted to like it. I love the browser on the iPhone. But Iris is still a memory hog, slow to render, and still crashes here and there.
Also, the overall design/layout if very amateurish. Some of the places they put options just don't make sense. Up until the latest beta, there wasn't even a way to go back to your home page.
Their favorite handling is just plan stupid. I want to scroll up and down to find the webpage I want to go to. What happens? I constantly ACCIDENTALLY move the favorite around instead of scrolling the list (which works sometimes but not consistently). Every version has gotten a little better, but it's nowhere close to a commercially viable product. PocketIE as old as it is renders most pages faster.
As a note, I view Mobile webpages when available and rarely go to desktop intended websites.
-Mc
Menneisyys said:
thanks for the detailed comparison, I'll definitely link to it in my next story on Iris
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You're welcome, and I apologise for the typos - I did type in IRIS on my Elf virtual keyboard...
Bernard
McHale said:
I've had Iris installed since a very early public beta. I really wanted to like it. I love the browser on the iPhone. But Iris is still a memory hog, slow to render, and still crashes here and there.
Also, the overall design/layout if very amateurish. Some of the places they put options just don't make sense. Up until the latest beta, there wasn't even a way to go back to your home page.
Their favorite handling is just plan stupid. I want to scroll up and down to find the webpage I want to go to. What happens? I constantly ACCIDENTALLY move the favorite around instead of scrolling the list (which works sometimes but not consistently). Every version has gotten a little better, but it's nowhere close to a commercially viable product. PocketIE as old as it is renders most pages faster.
As a note, I view Mobile webpages when available and rarely go to desktop intended websites.
-Mc
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Interesting.... I'm very pleased with the performance on the Elf, but I did move the cache to my SD card. I do find that it has improved since I did that. But maybe I'm just imagining things.
I agree about the bookmsrks and the somewhat haphazard menu item placement...
In order to avoid moving bookmarks around I do use the d-pad, but that is not really satisfactory. I also tend to use the URL auto fill-in. I wish you could do the same on the bookmark page, like in PIE.
Bernard
And I just found out that Skyfire does indeed cache pages on the device as well....
B.
I wasn't really impressed with the original couple betas of skyfire and would usually uninstall shortly after install, but now I'm using it more than Opera Mini which I was a big fan of. This page helped me give skyfire another chance:
http://blog.laptopmag.com/mobile-browser-showdown-iphone-3g-vs-opera-mobile-and-skyfire
Check out the performance stats!
Just wish they would incorporate tabs...
Oh yah, my biggest gripe: LET ME IMPORT MY IE FAVORITES!!!
-Mc
p.s. I'm still hoping that Iris gets to be almost as good as Mobile Safari.
McHale said:
Check out the performance stats!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wow, that *is* impressive!
And yes, I also feel handicapped without tabs....
Bernard
mach5 new browser with full flash download it for only ppc better than opera 9.7 download from this site www.netacceler.com
billapannu said:
mach5 new browser with full flash download it for only ppc better than opera 9.7 download from this site www.netacceler.com
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks
Info already posted
Anyway I´m still with Opera 9.7!!!!!!
Some wants me to pay for a browser? Really?
The website says free trial until June 2009.
They really expect us to pay for a subscription?
Yes, we have two types of browser available
Client side (which means your browser on you PPC/HTC does all the work) or Server side (which means a fast computer somewhere does all the work and sends your PPC pictures of what is happening)
Client Side positives
You decide settings
You install all your favourite add-ons (flash etc)
You keep all you log-on settings
The rendering and compatability is what you install/set (also could be a negative if you aren't competent here)
Server Side positives
Your PPC doesn't need to install anything extra (flash etc), as it's all done on server side
All rendering is done by Server side, so it's simply plug n' play!!
And the negatives (which usually make the choice on such small devices as PPC)
Client Side
Usually takes up memory to install all plug-ins required to visit different sited on the web (eg, flash) (i.e, the more you have installed your PPC, the more compatible it will be with more web sites/pages)
Slows the computer, and takes up memory to render the page (everything needs to be downloaded and processed)
Server Side
You're at the hands of the server (is it set up for QVGA/VGA, how does it input text etc)
The fastest it works is by sending you pictures (whereas you may have a dedicated flash player, such as TCPMP etc)
Your log-on settings are kept by the server (someone else)
The rendering is only as good as the server
The server may be in a different locale to you
The connection takes the bottle-neck (i.e, the faster your connection, the better videos will be - you really need a contract/cost limit on your data downloads!)
So as for Skyfire/Mach5 these are both "Server Side". The one advantage of Mach5 over Skyfire is that it renders as VGA. However, as pointed out, it will cost to continue using Mach5. Another disadvantage that Mach5 has is it's locale - as it's not USA/UK based (and if you are), you will find simply going to google is interesting
Opera is Client Side. This means it really can't be compared to Skyfire/Mach5.
However, Opera Mini is Server Side - and I think there's some great advances there.
Skyfire
billapannu said:
mach5 new browser with full flash download it for only ppc better than opera 9.7 download from this site www.netacceler.com
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
interesting.
scarfacedag said:
Skyfire
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Whoa, super digging, dug.
Sent from my HTC One S using xda premium
skyfire got really smart, think its now better than opera or others
While (as of today, a month after it being demoed at MWC for the press) there still isn’t any sign of the native iPhone version of one of the best Web browsers, Opera Mini, in the AppStore, the Opera folks don’t seem to have stopped with porting their browser into other platforms. In addition to the iPhone, there’s also a brand new Windows Mobile version released just two days after my publishing my previous news report on Windows Mobile browsers. (Please see the quick review of the Java version HERE)
Downloading, installing
Download it from HERE. The installer is WM5+ only and runs just fine on the iPAQ 210 (without the SMS / Phone DLL hacks.)
Pros / cons compared to the Java version
Pros:
- Visibly faster than the Java version
- Direct text copy to the system clipboard – no need to temporarily copy the selected and, then, copied text to any native text input area, as opposed to the Java version
- For a newbie, much easier to install than the Java version. (Although, with the latter, the custom third-party distributions with a pre-bundled Jbed JVM work just fine and are very beginner-friendly.)
Cons:
- The initial Opera Link synchronization throws an exception; however, it synchronized my mobile bookmarks just OK.
- There is no custom “smallest” character size – only three of them are available. They, however, are large enough on (W)VGA devices.
- While, as a native app, it could be invoked via an extension / type association (see my earlier articles / tutorials on this), by default, Opera Mini doesn’t allow the user to explicitly set up this, unlike, say, Opera Mobile. (I don’t know if the app indeed supports being invoked together with the link – haven’t had the time to test this in the Registry. Hopefully it is.)
Note that it, just like the Java version, doesn’t support italic characters either. It has, as with the Java version, has huge, easy-to-tap-with-finger drop-down lists – unlike, for example, NetFront 4.0. (Of course, they aren’t as nice as those on the iPhone, though.)
The native version uses the system-level keyboard, not the custom one of Opera Mini. This may be disadvantageous for people wanting to have a finger-only keyboard but refusing to install a third-party, large one. Nevertheless, I don’t list this as a disadvantage as, on Windows Mobile, it has always been preferable to have a system-level keyboard than a custom one - with all the niceties (seamless auto-completion, all keys etc.) By the way, with the address input field, the traditional keyboard shortcuts for quick text highlight (Ctl-A) / copy / paste don’t work. This could be fixed in a future version – as has also been done with Opera Mobile, back in 2006.
Memory usage
HERE (the official thread dedicated to the app) some people reported much better memory usage than with the Java version. I’ve pretty thoroughly tested this with my standard test pages (see THIS and THIS; more info on the test method in my past Web browser testing-related articles). Both versions were able to load several instances of these pages. (I’ve tested this to 19 with the native version and to some 6 with the Java one. The native version takes up about 520 kbytes of memory for each loaded test page, which is about one-tenth of the figure of other Web browsers.) Unlike on the BlackBerry, where 4.0 has a tendency to quickly run out of memory and, therefore, can’t really keep many pages in-memory at the same time – at least on the BB 8800 with the latest – official – firmware version.
Backspace Problem
when i hit the backspace key while entering text, it erases everything. I wrote a long email reply and when I hit backspace lost the whole thing. Seems like a pretty serious bug. Same thing apparently happened with an early blackberry version, but they fixed it. Any work-around?
I am extremely happy that Opera decided to make Mini native (I always thought Opera Mini was the best mobile browser available), but I will wait for Opera Mini 5 to leave beta before trying it.
I wonder why you guys like the new Opera mini? It's less usable than Opera mobile 10, because it's scrolling isn't much smooth (at least on my Touch HD). And Opera mobile 10 is less usable than Opera mobile 9.7, because of less settings, no option to change default page, ugly tabs, ugly animations wasting my time, no precise vertical scrolling (I mean when I scroll down, the page moves a bit to right/left) and no instant access to my taskbar (remember 9.7 where you tap the bottom-right icon to switch from fullscreen and you instantly see adress bar AND the taskbar? not anymore here). And I could continue, Opera mobile 10 and Opera mini 5 = useless crap. Opera mobile 9.7 = best mobile browser.
EDIT: Tell me, guys, what makes you use Opera mini 5/mobile 10? I just don't find anything positive on it and I'd like to know what makes it the best browser.
ZaxXx said:
I wonder why you guys like the new Opera mini? It's less usable than Opera mobile 10, because it's scrolling isn't much smooth (at least on my Touch HD). And Opera mobile 10 is less usable than Opera mobile 9.7, because of less settings, no option to change default page, ugly tabs, ugly animations wasting my time, no precise vertical scrolling (I mean when I scroll down, the page moves a bit to right/left) and no instant access to my taskbar (remember 9.7 where you tap the bottom-right icon to switch from fullscreen and you instantly see adress bar AND the taskbar? not anymore here). And I could continue, Opera mobile 10 and Opera mini 5 = useless crap. Opera mobile 9.7 = best mobile browser.
EDIT: Tell me, guys, what makes you use Opera mini 5/mobile 10? I just don't find anything positive on it and I'd like to know what makes it the best browser.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I imagine many will have the same reason it's so much faster than Opera Mobile "any version"
For me even with the not so great scrolling it's so much faster to load the page i need... Has the fast dial so very page i need again very fast to choose..
Many of us also have limited data so that'll be another reason.
stylez said:
I imagine many will have the same reason it's so much faster than Opera Mobile "any version"
For me even with the not so great scrolling it's so much faster to load the page i need... Has the fast dial so very page i need again very fast to choose..
Many of us also have limited data so that'll be another reason.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Would agree with Stylez on this....I use it for the speed
Using Opera Mini 5 Beta 2 on WM6 and loving it! Skyfire is now uninstalled
How do I make it my default browser? My RSS readers keep opening up IE.
This review is just based on July 2010 situation, when Opera Mini 5.0 final and BOLT 2.1 are released, UC Browser (UCWEB) version 7.2 is officially released as well. All this comparison is based on my own experience. The purpose is to introduce you the alternative choice for mobile internet surfing.
Scale used (points)
1. Feature is missing.
2. Feature exists but implementation is poor.
3. Implementation of the feature is adequate.
4. Feature is well implemented, aka it's good.
5. Implementation of the feature is excellent.
OS Supported
Bolt 2p
Opera Mini 4p
UC Browser 3p
Bolt is a Java ME based mobile browser, its rendering and processing is restricted by the Java MIDP 2, especially in Symbian and WM OS.
Except Java based version, Opera mini could support Blackberry/Windows mobile/Android.
To UC Browser, exclude the generic Java version, the dedicated Symbian/Blackberry/Windows mobile/iPhone/Android version is all available
But is it too much and complex for the user to download? Whatever, more choice is better.
Speed and traffic cost
Bolt 4p
Opera Mini 4.5p
UC Browser 5p
Bolt Opera Mini UC Browser
BBC.COM 7.8s 5s 4.5s
Traffic 700K 320Kb 251k
Opera mini and UC browser is based on proxy server-to-client architecture, the speed and traffic cost is much better than Bolt.
With the same architecture, it seems that the UC browser compressed more than Opera mini, But the high speed and less traffic UC gained is at cost of page quality loss.
Please see the rendering comparison below. At least, according to the speed and traffic volume tested , UC browser is the winner.
Bookmarks favorites
Bolt 5p
Opera Mini 4p
UC Browser 4p
Here are only assessed the simplicity and efficiency how bookmarks can be arranged on client side, not the possible synchronizations tools.
[image not allowed]
Managing bookmarks on Bolt 2 is quite simple. Bookmarks are displayed on start page for easy access. Folders can be used, and what is best is the possibility to arrange bookmarks and folders. Therefore it is actually possible to do the same as on Opera Mini: show few "speed dials" at first and then all the rest in folders. Access is easy thanks to #0 key shortcut.
Bookmark folders are finally implemented on Opera Mini 5 as well. However, bookmarks and folders can't be arranged, but they are in alphabetical order. Access to bookmarks is under menu, so several steps (clicks or finger moves) have to be taken to use bookmarks. User can however, create nine speed dials on start page. Unfortunately only small thumb nail images are displayed for speed dials. In case you have two exactly similar speed dials for the same Web site, you can only rely on your memory to distinguish them. Using speed dials and bookmarks are made simple and easy especially for touch screen phones, but this turns into disadvantage on non-touch screen devices.
Using bookmarks on UC Browser 7.2 is somewhat similar as on Bolt 2. Bookmarks can be rearranged and organized into folders. Access to bookmarks is almost just as simple as on Bolt. The bookmark can be synchronized and backup both from/to local mobile phone and server. You could share your bookmark both by SMS and Bluetooth.
Cookie and password manager
Bolt 5p
Opera Mini 5p
UC Browser 5p
Saving passwords and using cookies is possible on Bolt 2. Keeping passwords saved is very useful since some sites just does not seem to keep login cookies saved. All private information can be cleared at once.
Opera Mini 5 gives possibility to save passwords and keep the cookies, just like Bolt 2. There's separate settings to clear passwords and cookies.
There's no password manager on UC Browser 7.2 but cookies are saved. There is a option to clear the cookies as well
Download and upload manager
Bolt 3p
Opera Mini 4p
UC Browser 5p
Downloading and uploading works somewhat fine on Bolt 2. No special or highlights in Bolt
Downloading and uploading files on Opera Mini 5 works as well. Currently there is some server issues because uploading fails sometimes, and it has to be started again.
Some People keep on claiming UC Browser has the best file manager on J2ME browsers. According to my experience this time, it is much better than the others.
Fast speed, resume broken downloads, maximum 9 concurrent download tasks, maximum 3 downloading tasks, manually default download folder setting, and etc…
All files downloaded even deleted are remembered in download manager, so once you re-download it again, the system will remind you so that you could save your time and traffic.
Select, copy and paste text
Bolt 3p
Opera Mini 4p
UC Browser 4p
Select, copy and paste text works adequately on Bolt 2. Personally I find the Bolt's "select box" cumbersome and inaccurate.
In Opera Mini 5, complete new and improved tools to select, copy and paste text were introduced. Selecting text works almost as it does on desktop browsers. You can select and copy almost anything, and paste it exactly where you like using inline mode. Only reason why I did not give full 5 points is lack of possibility to copy link URL.
I like very much is the possibility to copy link URL. This makes it possible to copy URL without need to open the page, but what is even more important is the possibility to copy URL addresses of PDF and other closed source format files. The copied content is stored in mobile clipboard rather than browser clipboard which can allow you to send the content by SMS or Bluetooth.
Settings preferences
Bolt 3p
Opera Mini 5p
UC Browser 4p
There are adequate selection of preferences on Bolt 2. Worth to mention is possibility to install fonts. Personally I find no use for it but I admit it can help making the UI more usable with proper choice of font used.
Opera Mini is full of useful settings. For some strange reason part of them are located on so called power user settings page.
There are plenty of preferences on UC Browser 7.2. Worth to mention are possibilities to change the shortcuts and choose the night theme (useful at night time).
Rendering
Bolt 4p
Opera Mini 5p
UC Browser 3.5p
Page rendering aka way how pages are displayed is very delicate issue and certainly a matter of personal tastes. All the comments here are certainly just my own opinions but when it comes to rendering, it's important to remind the reader about this.
Bolt 2 continues showing Web pages as true as possible. This approach has it's advantages. For example many pages and features that just does not work on any other J2ME browser works on Bolt, and looks just the same as on desktop browsers. For example here at MyOpera I can easily access all features of my photo albums. I can edit and sort photos etc. There's also rather interesting split screen view available on Bolt, which is useful sometimes. However, I personally like Opera Mini's zoom more.
[Image not allowed]
In case of Opera Mini 5, I must confess being just so used to the way it renders the pages. I don't care if pages are not always showed exactly as they are on PC browsers. Usability is the most important issue for me and if the Web site provides a page that looks nice and is easy to use, then I really don't care if mobile site is different than users on PC can see. Many Web sites have finally started to understand how important it is to offer all the same features for all users, no matter what device they use. It is perfectly acceptable to give different content for mobile phone users, but it just should never be something less or limited compared to desktop browsers. Opera Mini 5 shows pages as I want to see them and that's all I have to care.
Rendering on UC Browser is not so good as opera mini. But I still have to say it's adequate, because at least they tried to offer a sort of desktop view. Their default setting is page view which is more fit able for the mobile with small-sized screen. In desktop view, many pages I use just looks not so good as opera mini. But on normal mode many pages are much better.
Save page
Bolt 3p
Opera Mini 3p
UC Browser 4p
Save page works just fine on Bolt 2 and it's easy to access saved pages on start page.
Save page feature works fine also on Opera Mini 5. It's easy to save pages and open them via menu. On Opera Mini 4.2 I liked the possibility to show few of the saved pages on start page. This is no longer possible on Opera Mini 5 but the lack of this feature is a question of start page features.
Except the saved URL page as opera mini and bolt, UC Browser 7.2 has an option to save the page as txt format which could save the mobile memory and easier to extract the content you like. Then you can easily copy to your word document or send SMS to your friends. After all, the content is more important than the URL, isn’t it?
Conclusion and summary
Bolt 3.55p
Opera Mini 4.27p
UC Browser 4.22p
From the point perspective, Opera mini is the most function-Rich browser with
most users around the world, and actually it is!
But its leading position is facing the challenge from new mobile browser players such as Bolt and UC browser. Especially for UC browser, comparing with its 7.2.0 version, more function and optimization is deployed in version 7.2.2.Botl is good as well. But not good enough. As a java based mobile browser, the function they provided is enough for the java supported feature phone. But not for the smartphone with high processing ability and more memory. Bolt should consider how to satisfy these customers.