digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Opera releases experimental public build that passes Acid3

labs.opera.com — Internal build now available for download. They have achieved 100/100 passes on the DOM test and the layout is pixel perfect, but there is still some work performance work to be done for the animation to be smooth, apparently. Congratulations, Opera!

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Junyor, on 03/28/2008, -1/+8Screenshot at http://weblog.timaltman.com/archive/2008/03/28/aci ...
  • Junyor, on 03/28/2008, -18/+42Oh, and the build DOES NOT PASS ACID3! Read the post you're linking to. Really.
    • potifar, on 03/28/2008, -4/+52Yeah, sorry about that typo, the "almost" key on my keyboard is broken.
      • kingp, on 03/28/2008, -10/+2Yeah, my computer tells me to "Press Any key to continue" but I can't ever find it...
      • legendxx, on 03/28/2008, -10/+6100/100 is not passing if the animation is not smooth. Do your research.
        • bejayel, on 03/28/2008, -2/+13They said that the animation is somewhat machine dependant. However, they also say that it passes properly, but there are a few things that will be ironed out to make it better. Do your reading.
          • legendxx, on 03/28/2008, -1/+1Are you serious? If a machine can't render this smoothly than you couldn't watch youtube videos. It passes the pixel for pixel test, not the entire test.
          • eje211, on 03/28/2008, -2/+3To: legendxx
            Youtube is in Flash. The Acid3 test has nothing to do with Flash. 100/100 on a development browser does mean a pass in the real world. No, you're not the first one to report it but it's still true.
          • legendxx, on 03/29/2008, -2/+1No ***** sherlock. I'm saying if a computer can render flash animations.. it should have the hardware capabilities to render html/javascript animations. Why would the author of acid3 state on the test itself that to pass the test it MUST be rendered smoothly?

            Read reddit programming and you'll see I'm right. Anyone serious in the industry knows this.
        • PatrickBrown, on 03/28/2008, -1/+3Any GHz machine with any accelerated 2D should be able to handle it. If it cannot do smooth animation then the browser is at fault, not the machine.
        • Thoku, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2However if they can get it running on a high spec machine they at least have it working and just need some work on algorithm optimisation.
  • mark076h, on 03/28/2008, -32/+4Firefox FTMFW
  • nallelcm, on 03/28/2008, -39/+4Opera FTL
  • briguymaine, on 03/28/2008, -23/+7for a second I thought that said Oprah, that would have been sumthin'
  • RadiatedAnt, on 03/28/2008, -14/+6Prof. Fanrsworth says "Good news everyone, we're all safe because I used a web browser from the year 2008"
  • Quactaur, on 03/28/2008, -26/+5http://webkit.org
  • bcardarella, on 03/28/2008, -14/+5What would really impress me is if the speedy work that the Opera and Safari teams are doing on passing the Acid3 tests don't open up any new security holes in their software. It's great that they're dedicated to getting as standards compliant as possible, but the speed at which they're doing it makes me wonder how much security, memory leak, etc... testing they're doing. I guess we'll find out soon.
    • Protoss, on 03/28/2008, -3/+2Well isn't Safari 3.1 really speedy compared to 3.0?
      • TheKorn2, on 03/28/2008, -2/+6Yay? A Hyundai could have beaten Safari 3.0 in the speed department!
    • bcardarella, on 03/28/2008, -3/+5I'm not sure, I haven't seen any performance comparisons.
      BTW, to the people that are digging down my previous comment: it's a legitimate concern. It seems that the smaller market browsers are trying to pull ahead by using the Acid3 Test as a milestone for the next generation of browsers. Even the creator of the Acid3 tests says he is surprised by the speed at which Safari and Opera are getting this done: http://shaver.off.net/diary/2008/03/27/the-missed- ... (second comment down, Ian Hickson)
      What is FAR more important to web browsers is security rather than getting 100% on the Acid3 test. When development teams are progressing as quickly as Opera and Safari have the odds are that they're dedicating most of their time to it and neglecting other aspects of their software. I'm hoping that they aren't, I'm a web developer and nothing would make me happier than to see safe to use standards compliant browsers. Eat away at IE's market share, and if FF doesn't catch up then eat away at that as well. Anything to make my job easier.
      • dawpa2000, on 03/28/2008, -1/+2bcardarella, you think Opera has numerous unpatched security bugs?
    • tensvb, on 03/28/2008, -5/+9The last time I checked Opera and Safari had less memory problems than Firefox and less security holes than Internet Explorer, so I wouldn't worry to much.
      • Shawn4168, on 03/28/2008, -4/+6"less memory problems than Firefox and less security holes than Internet Explorer"

        That's really not saying much. You know that, right?
      • npowel, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1*fewer
    • palta38, on 03/28/2008, -1/+4they are not only working on passing acid 3 http://my.opera.com/desktopteam/blog/2008/03/28/pa ...
  • elbekko, on 03/28/2008, -16/+7Not very smoothly, but it does pass.

    Let's hope FF3 can make this for b5.
    • ch33sehead, on 03/28/2008, -8/+9It's not a pass if it's not smooth! That's one of the requirements for passing.
      • TheKorn2, on 03/28/2008, -7/+3So, you don't care that it looks right? If they can get this far this fast, more tha likely they'll get the last extra bit.
        • legendxx, on 03/28/2008, -2/+9Did he say he didn't care? He pointed out a factual requirement of passing the test.
          • dawpa2000, on 03/28/2008, -4/+2legendxx, Opera passes the Acid3 properly. The problem is that the animation results are machine dependent.
          • legendxx, on 03/28/2008, -2/+1Not at all. Why would the author of acid3 explicitly state that a requirement of passing the test is that it must render smoothly?

            "To pass the test, a browser must use its default settings, the animation has to be smooth, the score has to end on 100/100".

            A machine that can render flash animations should be able to render html/javascript smoothly.
          • dawpa2000, on 03/29/2008, -0/+2legendxx, the article says the animation results are machine dependent. Testing is done with default settings.
          • legendxx, on 03/30/2008, -0/+1So the author of acid3 forgot to say you need a quad core with compatible browser to score 100/100 and render the animation to be smooth? I have a 3gz dual core and it does not render smooth. What kind of machine do you suggest we use to force a browser to pass the test?
    • comrade693, on 03/28/2008, -3/+11The team behind Firefox is working on getting a release out the door. That means no new features, so don't expect Firefox 3 to pass ACID 3. It does well now though - 71/100 and the animation looks pretty smooth.
    • HigherLogic, on 03/28/2008, -1/+4Firefox said it wasn't a priority in the article that was posted yesterday on here about webkit.
    • MacSuxWindozSux, on 03/28/2008, -1/+12Passing ACID3 a priority?

      I think meeting these tests demonstrates commitment to standards, and shows the reality of the implementation. We just got done with ACID 2. IE still doesn't pass it. And right away there's an ACID 3.

      ACID 4 will be here immediately after most browsers pass ACID 3. And so on.

      At this point I wouldn't get hung up about passing ACID 3. Getting a high score is nice, but ultimately doesn't decide how well the browser functions. It can play a major factor however.

      The tests are great but a 60 vs. 80 score on Acid 3 isn't going to make me switch browsers. A 71 vs. 100 isn't either. If your browser is close to the other browsers, chances are you aren't going to see an increase in incompatible websites any time soon.
  • colincornaby, on 03/28/2008, -11/+31Hey Firefox, what's up with you not getting 100/100 on Acid 3 yet?
    • MScrip, on 03/28/2008, -14/+11Acid3 is a nice test of web standards. But, it doesn't affect my browser choice. I've never come across a web page that renders as horribly as some browsers render the Acid test. So, for me, Acid test doesn't matter. Considering that 98% of web surfers out there are using a browser that destroys the Acid test... who cares? If I switch to a browser that gets 100/100, will it really affect my experience?
      • ehal256, on 03/28/2008, -3/+3hey, who knows, maybe you're looking at sites COMPLETELY differently from how they're supposed to look ^^
    • falafelkiosken, on 03/28/2008, -3/+28Mozilla have stated they won't try to make FF3 pass ACID3, they have more important stuff to do
      • Frost9999, on 03/28/2008, -4/+8I would like Firefox to fix one thing - the startup time. There are plenty of people who experience over 1 minute start times. Fix that, then worry about ACID3.
        • MacSuxWindozSux, on 03/28/2008, -3/+2Hahah what 1 minute?
        • daborg, on 03/28/2008, -2/+71 MINUTE? Seriously, you need a computer from this decade.
        • srg13, on 03/29/2008, -0/+3Are you using FF3 beta? I'm on Beta 4 and it's starting up in about four seconds - a nice improvement over FF2
      • comrade693, on 03/28/2008, -2/+1Like get the release of Firefox 3 done so they can work on this stuff?
      • HigherLogic, on 03/28/2008, -2/+3I can think of another browser that found other "important stuff" to do than stuff like this too.
        • MacSuxWindozSux, on 03/28/2008, -1/+1IE had obvious security flaws that were more important than compatibility. IE8 is supposed to have better compatibility.
          I don't use IE so it doesn't matter much to me.
        • HigherLogic, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1It matters to me, as a web developer. I've submitted two bugs to Firefox regarding HTML/CSS that otherwise worked in IE6/7/8, Opera, and Safari. It's annoying as *****.
      • ilgaz, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1For people remembering what Mozilla was and why it started at first place, what a sad statement that is.
    • MacSuxWindozSux, on 03/28/2008, -0/+5I doubt you'll see a major website coded in a way where the extra points matter.
      The reality is ACID 3 won't matter much for some time.

      Getting there first and last is all about bragging rights and perception.
    • blackrave, on 03/28/2008, -6/+9Yeah, they have too many more features to steal from Opera, and too many security holes to fix first. :)
  • ortucis, on 03/28/2008, -1/+18This is the link for Opera (betas) addicts > http://my.opera.com/desktopteam/
    • Muncher, on 03/28/2008, -0/+14Unfortunately, the desktop builds aren't "passing" yet. Build 9864 still fails 21 of the tests.

      Not that I care, what's important is that 9.50 final will be standards-compliant.
      • GrantTLC, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1Hmm, as a happy Opera user myself I recognise that Standards Compliance is a good thing for the future of the Web. But maybe the focus should be on Customer Experience, rather than brute adherence to standards few people are even using at present?

        I'd sure like to see improvements happening in the browser itself. Better Mail client, expanded RSS feature-set, improvements to the Wand....how about it, Opera?
    • fucayama, on 03/28/2008, -2/+13I've used 9.50 on and off for a while and loved it. fast and nice interface. It'll be a winner once they got the stability sorted.

  • spacebuddy, on 03/28/2008, -34/+2Opera Sucks!!!! Get a real browser FIREFOX.
    • TheKorn2, on 03/28/2008, -0/+14You're one of those idiots who actually stands around debating if Ford or Chevy is better, aren't you?
    • aznwild0, on 03/28/2008, -1/+24Opera is as real a browser as Firefox.It isn't a Netscape side project. It doesn't need plugins to have features, yet a standard install is a smaller download package and uses way less memory than a comparable Firefox install. It gave browsers a multi-window UI in 1994. Automatic session saving and zoom in 1996. Popup blocking and mouse gestures in 2000.

      It was 2 years after that that Firefox hit it's first public beta.
      • Fergy, on 03/29/2008, -1/+2Firefox doesn't need plugins either and knowledgeable people call them EXTENSIONS because plugins already mean flash, java, pdf etc. Personally, I have used Opera before 2003 and didn't like their multi-window UI and choose IE5.5 over it because I liked it more. I didn't like the way Mozilla 1.2 did tabs and only when Firefox 0.5 did I like the way they did tabs.
        Opera has had lots of 'reasons' why it didn't get popular instead of Firefox: price, ads, page rendering, masking/spoofing etc. But the main reason is probably that Opera doesn't feel comfortable to most people. Maybe Opera should make a second version that feels more like Firefox.
    • johnnysaucepn, on 03/28/2008, -3/+20Opera is a real browser. Firefox is more of a browser construction kit.
    • minigamer1896, on 03/28/2008, -1/+7You picked the wrong space to pick a fight buddy.

      Mouse gestures FTW! (FF's add-on version doesn't cut it)
  • suzywang3000, on 03/28/2008, -26/+3can't frigging stand that fat bitch...
  • n0c0ntr0l, on 03/28/2008, -11/+12I don't expect Firefox to pass it any time soon, they seem to focus more on general rendering and performance for the user rather than getting every point in some test. Afterall what's the use in getting 100/100 if it takes 1 minute to render?
    • sfury, on 03/28/2008, -5/+13no point, but also Opera and Safari are significantly faster in page rendering then Firefox
      • fredmv, on 03/28/2008, -14/+1That's an outright lie. Gecko is consistently noted for its superior rendering times.
        • Angostura, on 03/28/2008, -1/+10It's going to take several months to render Acid3 though.
          • Fergy, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1Acid3 is a test it is NOT a feature. The reason why it will take until the next Firefox version is because Acid3 is not really useful in real life.
        • johnnysaucepn, on 03/28/2008, -0/+7Superior to drawing it by hand?
        • minigamer1896, on 03/28/2008, -1/+4Might I ask you for your sources, fredmv?
    • Thoku, on 03/28/2008, -0/+4Because the test aims to show that you have correctly implemented a large number of complex issues that are specified withing the HTML and JavaScript standards as defined by W3C. That standard/specification is what web designers should be working from when making their websites to guarantee it works in all browsers.
    • nirvaorg, on 03/29/2008, -1/+2Actually firefox team is focused on fixing memory leaks and making thier browser work at least less then 5 times slower than Opera and Safari do.
    • ilgaz, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1They are amateurs, Safari and Opera are professionals. Why? In professional software, you fix your code first (in this case, Acid3) and you optimise it. They are still adding things without fixing the issues and caring about backwards compatibility.
  • dangwoot, on 03/28/2008, -6/+16firefox only scored 52/100 :(
    • fodder0, on 03/28/2008, -3/+8firefox 3 beta 4 scoring 68/100 satisfactory enough for me, try on Internet Explorer :P
      • surKaz, on 03/28/2008, -3/+3hmm, how bad is it if I only see 12/100?.. Do I kill the browser? or Do I kill myself for using it?.. I use FireFox/Opera (mostly FF but occasionally Opera) at home.. but at work.. ooold ooold IE. (IE 9-3).. .Kill me.. Freakin IT
        is it for safety/security reasons?.. or allows them more control?
      • cesclaveria, on 03/28/2008, -4/+2I'm getting a 71/100 on swiftfox
      • HigherLogic, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2So is that the saving grace now? "Well IE can't do it." I remember when everyone's reason for getting people to switch to Fx was how it adhered so well to standards :)
    • kronix2, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2FF3 beta 5 RC2 scores 71/100.
    • svivian, on 03/29/2008, -0/+2Well the number it gets to doesn't mean a huge amount, I think many of the tests are independent of each other. It could fail on 52 but pass everything else (eg if it skipped 52).
  • funkyp56, on 03/28/2008, -18/+8No Mac version? FAIL!
  • dangwoot, on 03/28/2008, -19/+2hah ie cant even pass the test! ROFLMAO
  • Lick, on 03/28/2008, -14/+3LOL. Bookmark teh Acid3 and visit it every single day, for the rest of your life. (People really seem to care.)
    • legendxx, on 03/28/2008, -3/+6You don't really know what you're talking about, do you?
      • Lick, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1In fact, I do. I just don't care about synthetic tests that have so little to do with real world cases.

        It's just browser vendors flipping their e-dicks right now. And all the fanboys with them.
  • Danikar, on 03/28/2008, -0/+22Acid 3 makes refreshing your browser fun and colorful!
  • SiXiam, on 03/28/2008, -9/+3Now if they could only fix all the java and script rendering problems...
  • DaviDTC, on 03/28/2008, -4/+554/100 with firefox
  • ReK42, on 03/28/2008, -2/+13I ran the test on several browsers:
    Opera 9.50 - 77
    Chameleon 1.1 - 53
    Firefox 2.0.0.13 - 52
    IE6 - 11
    IE7 - 4

    Apparently IE7 actually got worse...
    Also, anyone with safari mind posting your score?
    • bengringo, on 03/28/2008, -22/+4safari gets 100
      • falafelkiosken, on 03/28/2008, -1/+17no, that's WebKit nightly.
        Safari 3.1 gets 75
        • DarkDx, on 03/28/2008, -1/+4opera 9.5 *is* a nightly
        • Gavagai80, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1No, 9.5 is a beta (for the score above -- also a nightly for the 100 score).
      • WiLLGT09, on 03/28/2008, -0/+11regular Safari 3.1 - 75/100
        new WebKit version - 100/100
    • surKaz, on 03/28/2008, -0/+4I got 12 with IE 6... 6.0.2
      • cesclaveria, on 03/28/2008, -0/+5I got 4 with IE6 under wine
        • surKaz, on 03/28/2008, -0/+4Dang... I'm going to drink some myself ..and see if the numbers improve..
          Then again, I'm at work... A drunk employee starting a fight with co-workers ...
          *Hic*.."You owe me money.."
          ( I know what you mean, I'm not that ignorant)..
    • Angostura, on 03/28/2008, -1/+4The Webkit nightlies score 100/100 - but not smooth IMHO.

      Standard Safari on Mac scores 75
    • augie754, on 03/28/2008, -2/+3I got these scores all on Windows XP SP2, I did them yesterday

      Safari 3.1 - 75
      Firefox 3 beta 4 nightly build 0327 - 71
      Opera 9.5 Beta 1 - 60
      Firefox 2.0.0.12 - 52
      Internet Explorer 7 - 13
      Internet Explorer 6 - 11
    • Thoku, on 03/28/2008, -0/+4Internet Explorer 8.00.6 (64 bit) - 18
    • Bleeding_Heart, on 03/28/2008, -0/+4Firefox 3.0pre 28 Mar 08 Nightly - 71
      Opera 9.5 9864 - 79
      Internet Explorer 8 Beta 1 - 18
      Opera WinGogi - 100
      Safari 3.1 + Webkit 31386 - 100
    • svivian, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1I just posted this above but I don't think the score necessarily reflects how well the browser does. Most of the tests are probably fairly independent from each other so a browser could fail at #20 but pass everything else, while another might fail at #60 but also fail 61-100.

      Though IE's general low scoring is likely representative of how ***** it is.
      • Thoku, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1From what I've seen it seems possible to get 99/100 after failing the first one so I don't think the tests are at all linked. Otherwise it wouldn't provide a fair score.
  • Trixrox, on 03/28/2008, -0/+5With the speed at which these browser development teams are working, passing the Acid 3 test in a pretty short period of time, you'd think they had their homepage set to the acid3 test. Every waking moment of their day on their computer would remind them of the holy right of passage that is the acid 3 test.
  • falafelkiosken, on 03/28/2008, -7/+2if it's not pixel perfect it didn't pass, it clearly stated in the test
    • cesclaveria, on 03/28/2008, -1/+4thats right... but I am using lingogi and I do not see any difference between the result and the reference.
    • dawpa2000, on 03/28/2008, -2/+3falafelkiosken, Opera passes the Acid3 properly. The problem is that the animation results are machine dependent. This means your machine may not pass but someone else's machine may pass.
  • Shaddai, on 03/28/2008, -12/+1at first glance, I thought the headline said "Oprah"
    • wtfbatman, on 03/28/2008, -6/+0I did too, I was thinking "Oprah is the new google?"
  • wtfbatman, on 03/28/2008, -9/+0this would matter to me if opera didn't have pretty bad optimization.
    • wtfbatman, on 03/28/2008, -6/+0well from what i've read people seem to agree it has better optimization than firefox but i tend to disagree.
      while on stickam or browsing after about 1 hour with multiple tabs the mem shoots up to about 100K 12 CPU and with 1 gig of ram it's a pretty big number.
      firefox only tends to get up around 70K
      and internet explorer.. i don't even want to know.
      • johnnysaucepn, on 03/28/2008, -1/+5That just means Opera is caching effectively. Try your back button, you'll see the difference.
  • justinp, on 03/28/2008, -11/+1Opera sortof passes Acid3... People around the world continue to not give a *****.
  • ChayesFSS, on 03/28/2008, -7/+2Trying to drudge up some care out of the factory but I'm having trouble
  • Cannon49, on 03/28/2008, -2/+10You know you've seen too many political articles when you glance and think it says "Obama" instead of "Opera"

    My bad
  • hamGrenade, on 03/28/2008, -5/+0meh
  • MrViklund, on 03/28/2008, -0/+7I don't use Opera but good for them. At least it's not IE.
    • ilgaz, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1If they sold out to Microsoft, MS would have a great Mobile "IE" built on Opera code only available to WinCE users and they would also get rid of those courts in EU bugging them for standards support since they would have a "IE-Standard" or something in hand.
      We should be really glad they exists.
  • vij26, on 03/28/2008, -7/+2Opera is the Ron Paul of the Internet browsers...
    • minigamer1896, on 03/28/2008, -1/+4It's not a hype. It's been around since 1996.
    • DestroyFascism, on 03/28/2008, -1/+4Adn I think FF is the one you are referring to...
    • thegreatanti, on 03/29/2008, -5/+2That's true. Soon it will be forgotten as well.
  • Thisistooboring, on 03/28/2008, -8/+3Opera is on my ***** until they give javascript the capability of cancelling the context menu. You can't provide a functional context menu for your javascript application when theirs shows ABOVE yours. Sure, they give you the "allow javascript to receive right clicks" but that doesn't do ***** for THEIR context menu showing above yours! Control+Click for your apps context menu is useless when you want to provide intuitive control+click multiselection in grids or lists.

    300% faster javascript execution than leading browsers, but no support for hardcore javascript applications? Hardly a way to ensure widespread adoption.
    • minigamer1896, on 03/29/2008, -1/+1The problem is that some of those leading browsers have their own specific code/hacks that are widely used. If everyone stuck to only the standards, then it'd be an easier situation.
      • Thisistooboring, on 03/30/2008, -0/+1Nope, all of them support oncontextmenu, even Safari does. Hardly considered a hack, moreso an industry-created standard - no W3C needed for that one.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.