A few thoughts on the speed of Kestrel (Opera 9.5)
Friday, 7. September 2007, 19:27:10
Opera 9.5 alpha (codenamed Kestrel) is full of great features, so it shouldn't be hard to convince your friends and family to give Opera a try, especially by the time we release Opera 9.5 final--which is going to rock! Even now, people are noticing how much faster Opera 9.5 is, and that's just the alpha release.
For example, see today's article on Slashdot: Opera 9.5 Beats Firefox and IE7 as Fastest Browser
What most of the Slashdot readers didn't notice, however, were the even more exhaustive set of benchmarks found here: http://nontroppo.org/timer/kestrel_tests/ (Someone mentioned that page, but it's buried in the comments.)
Obviously, being fast isn't everything, but it's definitely important. You already know that Opera's goal is to bring the Internet to all kinds of devices, which means that we have to work on technology that generally has less processor power than the most advanced desktop PCs. Another advantage of Opera, however, is that we work very well on older computers, providing a secure, fast, and modern browser to millions of people who don't have the luxury of buying a new computer every couple of years (or even more frequently than that).
Software like Opera gives older computers a longer life, which means that fewer of them have to be disposed of before their time, which would place a burden on the environment. As such, prioritizing speed and performance is not just about outgeeking our competition, bragging rights, or pushing the limits of cutting-edge technology. It's about creating efficient and intelligent technology that makes our everyday lives and the lives of our neighbors just a little bit better.
For example, see today's article on Slashdot: Opera 9.5 Beats Firefox and IE7 as Fastest Browser
What most of the Slashdot readers didn't notice, however, were the even more exhaustive set of benchmarks found here: http://nontroppo.org/timer/kestrel_tests/ (Someone mentioned that page, but it's buried in the comments.)
Obviously, being fast isn't everything, but it's definitely important. You already know that Opera's goal is to bring the Internet to all kinds of devices, which means that we have to work on technology that generally has less processor power than the most advanced desktop PCs. Another advantage of Opera, however, is that we work very well on older computers, providing a secure, fast, and modern browser to millions of people who don't have the luxury of buying a new computer every couple of years (or even more frequently than that).
Software like Opera gives older computers a longer life, which means that fewer of them have to be disposed of before their time, which would place a burden on the environment. As such, prioritizing speed and performance is not just about outgeeking our competition, bragging rights, or pushing the limits of cutting-edge technology. It's about creating efficient and intelligent technology that makes our everyday lives and the lives of our neighbors just a little bit better.
You must be logged in to write a comment. if you're not a registered member, please 
(29%)
Hey, I mentioned that and posted a Forum Post in the "Beta testing" topic.
By Southern Cross, # 7. September 2007, 22:02:16
It's an article that deserves attention.
By Lawmune, # 7. September 2007, 22:12:38
I'd like to see a test where you decide on a set of webpages to be visited by a browser, where the browser spends X minutes for one webpage and Y for another (simulating a natural browsing habit - reading news articles takes so long, watching a youtube video takes as long as the video is...) and comparing how far you get using IE, Safari, Firefox or Opera on the same laptop using the same battery. I have NO clue if there is any significant difference. If there is, you can think of new marketing slogans.
"Fastest" browser is meaningless to most people. Although it's really the same thing, what you have to emphasize is "Spend less time waiting for web pages to load with Opera". Integrate the total amount of time needed to load the set of webpages opened in the above mentioned test and you can say "you wait X minutes of your day waiting for webpages to load with IE, but only Y with Opera!" and such.
By WildEnte, # 7. September 2007, 22:18:03
I don't know about the laptop scenario you describe (anyone willing to set up the experiment?), but it's certainly true that being able to use Opera on low-powered devices could result in significant energy savings.
By Lawmune, # 7. September 2007, 22:44:59
By larskl, # 7. September 2007, 23:27:39
WildeEnte: I think Opera would probably cause less battery drain on some of the tests (raytracer is the most shocking difference), but how that impacted overall battery life depends on endless other factors. You are welcome to try - just set the full render on a timer, unplug the power and sit and wait with a clock... ;-)
By non-troppo, # 8. September 2007, 00:26:32
By WildEnte, # 8. September 2007, 01:10:26
mfg
mabdul
By mabdul, # 8. September 2007, 11:02:43
By ResearchWizard, # 8. September 2007, 11:40:37
"Opera wins in test that was designed for it to win!"
By WildEnte, # 8. September 2007, 13:47:04
Also, if you want to make that comparison: Opera corresponds to FF+TB .... think about battery life again.
By WildEnte, # 8. September 2007, 13:50:58
By mabdul, # 9. September 2007, 09:52:46
By WildEnte, # 9. September 2007, 14:40:32
By mabdul, # 10. September 2007, 13:29:55
By WildEnte, # 10. September 2007, 14:35:07
By ADuda, # 10. September 2007, 20:17:46
By kjana, # 10. October 2007, 10:28:40