[HN Gopher] Vivaldi Browser 5.0
___________________________________________________________________
Vivaldi Browser 5.0
Author : philonoist
Score : 137 points
Date : 2021-12-02 15:22 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (vivaldi.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (vivaldi.com)
| kkjjkgjjgg wrote:
| Used it for a while, but unfortunately performance was degrading
| eventually (earlier version).
|
| However I really miss one simple feature, that they have a search
| field above the vertical tabs that can be used to filter the
| tabs.
| nice_byte wrote:
| i've been using vivaldi for the past 3 years, and it's fantastic.
| i really like the customizability, the stacked tabs feature, the
| builtin rss reader (which by the way, lets you subscribe to
| youtube channels!). really hope they make it, because the thought
| of going back to chrome makes me shudder now.
| Nux wrote:
| Fun fact, Microsoft (Skype) will not accept user@vivaldi.net as a
| personal email address for new accounts.
|
| It needs to be gmail/yahoo/outlook etc.
|
| https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FETZDicXEAEjlSQ?format=jpg&name=...
| webmobdev wrote:
| This seems to be a new trend - even IBM doesn't allow you to
| create accounts with non-American / non-BigTech email IDs (for
| their free cloud offering). Makes you wonder what is going on
| behind the scenes.
| usr1106 wrote:
| The Linux foundation is in the same league: They are sending
| me spam^Hmarketing communication, but when I want to
| unsubscribe they tell me that I have an invalid email. The
| provider of that address ended up on some self-declared
| blacklist years ago for some time, which might explain part
| of it. But not stopping to sending email to those you don't
| want to deal with is nonsense. Not accepting unsubscribes
| probably illegal in many countries.
| handrous wrote:
| What's going on behind the scenes is that very few people
| don't use an email address with one of a handful of TLDs, and
| that restricting signups to a known-good list solves some
| support and a lot of abuse problems.
|
| Not saying it justifies it, but that's for-sure one reason
| places do that.
| Oxodao wrote:
| Pretty sure that's no longer the case or used to not be the
| case as I have a Microsoft account I use on Skype among other
| MS services that is firstname@lastname.fr
| mattl wrote:
| They also won't take hey.com
| luke2m wrote:
| I don't think it's anything against competition, just that they
| don't have vivaldi.net on their public email allowlist. They
| want enterprise customers to pay for enterprise Microsoft
| services.
| Nux wrote:
| IMHO it's a dumb policy and against competition. This is
| discriminatory and abusive.
|
| Pretty sure there are thousands or tens of thousands of email
| domains out there that are personal. Nobody can track them
| all. How many of you guys don't have your own personal
| domains?
| roody15 wrote:
| That is complete garbage. Lame Microsoft
| zamadatix wrote:
| I wouldn't be surprised if that because Vivaldi had/has a
| corporate MS service using the domain in some way. E.g. if I
| test with one of my personal domains with MX records/email
| configured it continues just fine, if I test with one of my
| personal domains without email configure it continues just
| fine, if I try to create a personal account using my work's
| domain (tied to O365) it blocks it.
|
| So it's not that you can only register gmail/yahoo/etc it seems
| that the domain can't already be registered for non personal
| use at MS. Maybe there are other criteria as well (perhaps a
| way to explicitly exclude your domain if you don't want people
| registering it for example) but it's a lot more open than "only
| these services allowed".
| Nux wrote:
| Ok, good.. Then vivaldi.net is specifically blacklisted then.
|
| I checked and vivaldi.net is their community, everyone can
| sign up for email, whereas vivaldi.com is their "commercial"
| email domain.
|
| Both hosted in Iceland with valid MX that has got nothing to
| do with o365...
| zamadatix wrote:
| Doesn't necessarily have to be that the domain is tied to
| specifically O365 like my work just that it is registered
| for non-personal use with Microsoft's cloud e.g. Azure AD.
| Or possibly still other factors unknown but yeah the main
| thing is it's blocked for a reason not because it was
| missing from a whitelist.
| drcongo wrote:
| Vivaldi is the exact opposite of what I want from a browser. I
| want a rendering engine and some tabs, that's pretty much it.
| Vivaldi decided to encumber those two good things with a 1000
| features and some horrific themes, making the entire application
| 1000 times slower than it could have been. Every time I've tried
| it it's just reminded me of that old screenshot of MS Word with
| all the toolbars switched on [0], a ton of unnecessary cognitive
| load that 0.1% of their users will find useful. Browser design by
| committee.
|
| [0]
| https://blog.codinghorror.com/content/images/uploads/2006/02...
| y-c-o-m-b wrote:
| I've been using Vivaldi for at least a couple of years now -
| strictly for banking - and I fully agree on the slowness of the
| application. It's awful.
|
| I came from the original Opera (before it transferred
| ownership) and I loved the UI/UX and performance of it. I was
| hoping Vivaldi would replicate that, but it's been an enormous
| pain in the ass lately with websites either not loading (they
| work fine in Firefox and Chrome), tabs crashing spontaneously,
| the app crashing spontaneously, and the horrid performance.
| These issues seem to occur across my different other laptops
| also.
|
| I use it exclusively for banking as I said, so it's only used
| once or twice a month but I would never use Vivaldi on a
| regular basis with the way it currently works.
|
| I will say though, I really like their mobile app so far. There
| was a weird tab duplication bug on it earlier in the year and
| they fixed it really quick, but outside of that it's been
| pretty great.
| LinAGKar wrote:
| That's the sort of attitude that's ruining Firefox. They're
| removing everything that makes it useful in a appempt to turn
| it into a Chrome clone. Vivaldi is the only remotely viable
| alternative to Firefox.
| qwerty456127 wrote:
| > I want a rendering engine and some tabs
|
| Even tabs don't have to be a thing for an app (e.g. a web
| browser) to manage. A good window manager could tabify
| anything. This would require a standardized API for windows to
| expose the opened view URIs to be really good in replacing app-
| level tabs though.
| bogwog wrote:
| Vivaldi is clearly for power users, but you're definitely
| exaggerating. It's not that complicated, and performance is
| fine.
|
| Being based on Chromium is the only thing that keeps me from
| using it as my main browser.
| Tomis02 wrote:
| > making the entire application 1000 times slower than it could
| have been.
|
| Everything you think you gain in speed in Chrome/Firefox, you
| instantly lose when having to deal with their oversimplified
| UX. Vivaldi's focus on features means that I can easily manage
| and switch between tens of tabs - having an equivalent
| functionality on other browsers via extensions is both very
| slow and clunky, and the simple act of switching between two
| tabs is annoyingly unergonomic. By using Vivaldi I must've
| gained so far entire days of life that would've been otherwise
| lost by blindly ctrl-tabbing my way to the desired tab.
| RussianCow wrote:
| > a ton of unnecessary cognitive load that 0.1% of their users
| will find useful.
|
| Maybe it's been designed specifically for that 0.1%? There's
| nothing wrong with not catering to the masses.
| drcongo wrote:
| Yeah, sorry, wasn't meaning to hate on Vivaldi. I'm sure it's
| great for those who want those features.
| Tempest1981 wrote:
| Usually folks on HN are mad when they cater to the masses
| and ignore the 0.1% power-users. Can't win.
| ochronus wrote:
| +1 - I _really_ wanted to like Vivaldi, but... no.
| brnt wrote:
| On top of that, their open core model makes it hard to say how
| secure all that UI is and how pro-user they actually are. In
| that phone-home test they had some of the worst score n that
| regard, together with Edge.
| chimen wrote:
| Switch browsers then, you have alternatives. Nothing wrong with
| what they do, this is not the way to appreciate free stuff.
| We're not in 2003 when IE was your only tool.
|
| Are we offended by too many options now? I want a rendering
| engine with adblocker and a mail client blended in. Most of my
| time is spent in a browser when I'm online so, for me, it makes
| sense for my browser to be as capable as it can.
| kunagi7 wrote:
| There's a lot of browsers out there that already give the
| experience you want. Like Ungoogled Chromium (or regular
| Chromium).
|
| I always see a lot of power users being enraged to other
| browsers when they remove features that the 1~5% of their users
| use so it's a bit weird to see protests against one of the few
| browsers that attempt to reverse the oversimplification trend.
|
| Vivaldi's main deal is allowing the user to customize most of
| their browser. Themes, buttons, custom CSS, even side menu
| options. Even if they have improved it quite a bit there's
| still a performance hit.
| drcongo wrote:
| I use Safari for actual browsing because it's really
| unbeatable at it - very fast rendering, has tabs. I'd argue
| Chromium doesn't quite live up to that promise thanks to the
| horrible UI rendering and spectacular battery drain that it
| inherits from Chrome. Firefox I think does a nice compromise
| between being a good browser and having all that
| customisation stuff that the kids seem to like, but it does
| have a tiny hit on performance there too, ie: when opening a
| new tab the UI lag is as bad as Chrome. Vivaldi takes it to
| an extreme, and obviously gets the extreme UI lag that goes
| with that.
|
| I'm probably in a minority, but for me anything that gets in
| the way of me opening a new tab and loading a webpage in it
| is just harm.
| the_other wrote:
| Safari user here too. It's great. Admittedly, I'm fairly
| invested in the Apple ecosystem and enjoy my laptop and
| phone operating as two views on the same computing state,
| so I'm biased... but Safari renders very nicely, has
| minimal UI, runs fast and I like it a lot.
|
| I'm not looking forward to the Monterey tab design tho'
| when I eventually have to upgrade to a "current"-ish
| version.
| Tsiklon wrote:
| The new tab design is entirely optional on Monterey, the
| reception to it was that bad. I personally don't use the
| new tab design on the desktop. But I do use the new tab
| design on iOS (which conveniently moves the address bar
| to the bottom of the screen)
| drcongo wrote:
| I'm on the Monterey tab design, and it's hit and miss.
| First time using it I was wondering what the fuss was
| about wrt knowing which was the active tab, it seemed
| fairly clear to me. However, I've since seen states where
| the active tab is lighter than the others (it is right
| now) and other times where the active tab is darker than
| the others (definitely happens in a private window) - the
| lack of consistency is the biggest problem with it. Also,
| it's _really_ hard to tell if you're in a private window
| on the latest Safari.
| Tempest1981 wrote:
| Does it help to do this:
|
| Preferences -> Tabs -> Uncheck "Show color in tab bar"
| handrous wrote:
| The chrome color-changing is obnoxious and plainly harms
| UX, and the design is weirdly wasteful of pixels for
| something that looks like it was intended to save space.
| It also continues the flattifying trend of making it
| impossible to distinguish individual interactive elements
| unless you're looking directly at them--gimme buttons,
| depth, and contrast, damnit.
|
| And that's _after_ switching it to the more-classic-like
| version that keeps the URL bar separate.
|
| The tab groups are sort of cool, but they're bugged for
| me (opening a link in a new tab results in a blank tab,
| after briefly displaying the intended content after I
| switch to it, but _only_ in named groups, not in the
| default unnamed tab group) and their relationship or lack
| of relationship with windows keeps throwing me off.
| Overall this feels like something the window manager
| should handle, in some fashion, though I admit existing
| features aren 't _quite_ enough to cover what it does. It
| also seems like the whole concept needs to be integrated
| with bookmarks. All in all, good direction, but something
| 's still missing.
|
| Oh, and I also forget to switch to them, so haven't used
| them at all since about the first week after initially
| setting a few useful ones up. I need a way to at least
| tell Safari to open tabs for certain sites in certain tab
| groups, regardless of where I start to load them.
| Otherwise I end up with the same 100+ tabs in the unnamed
| tab group as I always have.
| jayp1418 wrote:
| Gnome Web is also good
| ochronus wrote:
| I love Safari, too - my issue is that I use different OS's
| in parallel and not having bookmarks/settings sync is a big
| usability issue :/ so I'm stuck with Ungoogled Chromium,
| where I can at least solve for the bookmarks sync.
| [deleted]
| Tempest1981 wrote:
| I like having separate sync for work vs home. So I use
| different browsers for each. Any other suggestions for
| keeping things separate?
| kunagi7 wrote:
| As an iPad owner, Safari is great, it does the job for
| occasional browsing, displaying things to someone (small
| gatherings, meetings, family, etc).
|
| As a Linux Desktop user however, I don't care about UI
| speed since my browser usage is mostly static, a few
| documentation pages, a lot of heavy tabs at work (JIRA,
| Gmail, Chat, Teams, web related projects, etc). Maybe I
| have a powerful desktop bias since my Ryzen doesn't seem to
| have any visible performance hit, either Chromium, Brave,
| Firefox, Vivaldi open tabs in a flash. On my laptop (also
| Linux) every browser feels a bit sluggish though with
| Chromium being the fastest. Macs (specially the new M1s)
| are a different beast and feels like Safari is specially
| optimized for them.
| tomrod wrote:
| Its mobile browser is fantastic. Much better than Firefox,
| Opera, or Chrome, IMHO.
| throw10920 wrote:
| > a ton of unnecessary cognitive load
|
| I'm curious - what features does Vivaldi have that add
| cognitive load to users not using them?
| WORMS_EAT_WORMS wrote:
| It is odd. Also harder to trust a small org.
|
| Maybe an angle to getting a size-able slice of the browser
| market for a start up at this point would be just being super
| simple, very private-first, and than have a better development
| experience + inspector than Chrome's. Then let all the "tech"
| people push it out. No easy task.
| amyjess wrote:
| Have Vivaldi's devs said whether or not they'll be requiring
| Manifest V3? I'd hope that if anyone rejects V3 it would be
| Vivaldi...
| gildas wrote:
| If Vivaldi doesn't have a store, then they won't have the
| choice to follow Google because developers won't be able to
| make their Manifest V2 extensions available for download.
| amyjess wrote:
| There's always sideloading at least.
| quaffapint wrote:
| I've read their business model...
| https://vivaldi.com/blog/vivaldi-business-model/
|
| I just wonder how well it works in supporting them vs asking for
| money from their customers to support a decent/private browser
| stack.
| webmobdev wrote:
| Honestly, what is there to support? Once you strip Chromium of
| all the code that uses any Google services, more than half the
| job is done.
| bogwog wrote:
| Vivaldi is not just another repackaged Chromium, it has it's
| own completely custom UI and special features. For example,
| it has built-in mail, rss, calendar, and contacts "apps", and
| a built in screenshot tool that lets you capture an entire
| page or a single element.
|
| Features like that are why you would want to use Vivaldi over
| another Chromium-based browser. I don't even know if they
| actually went through the effort of a thorough de-Googling.
| Also, their custom UI is not open source, so the browser is
| partially proprietary.
| bstar777 wrote:
| That was an interesting read, I was not aware that we got this
| info from the horse's mouth.
|
| Vivaldi has been criticized because it appears to phone home a
| lot. I've not tested that myself, but I assumed it was true. I
| might give it another shot because I do enjoy its Opera-like
| feel over Chrome or Chromium.
| jernejzen wrote:
| So guess that if you want extensions you need to go through
| Google machinery.. and your back to their telemetry empire?
| jadbox wrote:
| I don't follow- Doesn't Vivaldi support any chrome extension?
| mthoms wrote:
| Yes, but you have to get them through the Chrome Web Store.
| It's the same with Brave.
| sva_ wrote:
| You can also just add the extensions by temporarily turning
| the "Developer mode" switch on and dragging the archive
| into the extensions pane.
| pndy wrote:
| The ability to set texture beneath tabs bar and have it colored
| according to either theme color or site accent color remains
| still broken, since few major versions already. Shame because I
| really liked that little feature; despite of my reports, nobody
| dared to see what's up with this issue.
|
| Overall, it's a really good browser that fits my needs with few
| extensions. I've moved to Vivaldi after Firefox released version
| 60 - my heavily customized profile was damaged beyond recovery;
| luckily I had already bookmarks backed up and passwords stored
| outside.
| pseudalopex wrote:
| Themes and the translation panel are the highlights according to
| their blog. And speed improvements.[1]
|
| [1] https://vivaldi.com/blog/vivaldi-5-0-desktop-themes-
| translat...
| zamadatix wrote:
| "Speed improvements" in every release but there must be
| something about the way the browser is implemented that just
| kills performance/efficiency vs other Chromium browsers. Even a
| basic test like Speedometer 2.0 shoots out that DOM
| manipulations are 75% the speed of the same benchmark on
| Chrome, what on earth is it doing to cause that?
|
| The interface is great but between performance and bugs I've
| never been able to stay on it for more than a couple of months.
| cturtle wrote:
| The UI is written in React, and apparently runs as a sort of
| an extension to chromium[0] according to a Vivaldi dev. I
| expect that would be a large source of performance decreases
| with a JS powered UI. It's certainly an impressive UI though.
|
| [0]: https://www.reddit.com/r/vivaldibrowser/comments/f9ui2b/
| is_t...
| Isthatablackgsd wrote:
| That explains why I get beach ball of death in my macOS.
| Sometime it just hang indefinitely and I was wondering why
| this behavior exist in Vivaldi. I thought it was a bad
| memory leak.
| jadbox wrote:
| Is this still true of v5?
| zamadatix wrote:
| That's where I pulled the 75% result from just now, not
| sure if it's as systemic as it was originally as that's
| where I gave up bothering to test further this time.
| thanatos519 wrote:
| It's fine on my 4-core Haswell Xeon desktop but I really
| notice the lag on my Haswell 2-core laptop. I suspect
| there's a bit too much Electron-type stuff in the UI.
|
| It's a small price to pay for a browser that lets me
| configure the UI the way I want it. If Chrome supported
| tabs on the side as well as Vivaldi, even with an
| extension, I might not have switched. The rest of the
| configurability is just gravy for me.
| Chevalier wrote:
| Vivaldi is easily the best browser I've ever used, bar none. But
| for lacking two-factor authentication on the account itself, I
| have no complaints - the vertical tabs, web panels, bookmark
| tree, and the Human theme are unrivaled by any other browser.
|
| I didn't discover Vivaldi until recently, but I'm a fanatical
| convert now. Strongly recommended.
| [deleted]
| kangaroozach wrote:
| Is it built on chromium?
| pseudalopex wrote:
| Yes.
| TheDesolate0 wrote:
| No, they are not.
|
| They use open source code, but are not open source.
| sandreas wrote:
| https://vivaldi.com/blog/vivaldi-browser-open-source/
| cute_boi wrote:
| No container support? It was the most requested feature. I use
| vivaldi instead of brave when firefox fails to support website.
| But having no container is kinda sad :(
| SwiftyBug wrote:
| I don't understand that obsession browser developers have with
| themes. To the point it's a highlight in a major version.
| KarlKemp wrote:
| Agreed... there's very little surface that isn't taken up by
| the website, so it makes far less sense than, say a terminal.
| It's a uniquely bad fit for theming.
|
| A useable method of styling webpages, however, would be quite
| interesting. CSS just doesn't quite work when used generically
| on all sites, except for maybe font sizes. Chrome's in-beta
| automatic dark modes are maybe one working example.
|
| I'd appreciate, for example, some way to make better use of the
| 6000px of screen width I have. Unfortunately, with mobile-first
| and portrait-mode prevalence, the trend seems to be going back
| to optimizing for 800px.
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| Yes, the last thing I want are things competing with the page
| I'm reading.
| riidom wrote:
| That#s what I like most about this browser I think. I have
| the UI scaled down to 80% (would recommend to anybody to give
| this a try as well!).
| handrous wrote:
| As far as just colors and font size and such, that used to be
| an OS feature that every (native) application got for free.
|
| FF had it years and years ago, too. I tried it a bit back then
| and then stopped, because almost all the themes just made it
| harder to use. Not sure what's up with their making such a big
| deal out of adding a weaker and less-customizable version of it
| recently with their color themes. "We redid an old feature, but
| worse".
| wussboy wrote:
| Agree. I've never used one for longer than it took to briefly
| click to it to see what it looked like.
| webmobdev wrote:
| Users like it, especially if you can customise it. (Winamp
| comes to mind - themes were a huge deal with it and one of the
| reasons behind its popularity). And it also generates a lot of
| community activity around the software, which adds value and
| provides free publicity.
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| Music software skinz can add some value, because they do not
| not directly compete with the content. Browsers not so much.
| zamadatix wrote:
| There is a bigger group of users that care about how
| cute/fun/whatever their browser looks than the group of users
| that care about engine improvements and new technology support.
| Tempest1981 wrote:
| As someone who has installed in dozens of custom fonts and
| themes for my IDE, there's a definite appeal!
| smoldesu wrote:
| I think Chrome handles themes best, at least on Linux. It
| automatically grabs your GTK stylesheet's color palette and
| recolors the window accordingly. Combined with proper window
| decorations, it's a surprisingly "native" feel out of the box.
| skinkestek wrote:
| User configurable themes is fantastic!
|
| Look at Firefox now for an example of what happens when
| developers can introduce their "I know best" themes:
|
| I constantly get confused and think the active tab is next to
| the actually active tab.
|
| Irony is the idea behind removing actual themability seems to
| be to prevent people from seeing badly styled browsers, and yet
| this is the second most annoying one I am aware of. (Chrome
| annoys me more, not because it is bad but because I don't like
| Chrome ;-)
| pvinis wrote:
| color.firefox.com is great for that!
| crispyalmond wrote:
| Are the colors sticking around? Last time I checked they
| were "limited time". (Unless you already applied one of
| their colors)
| noahtallen wrote:
| Firefox color is different from the new built-in color
| thing. It's an official extension that has been around
| for a while which lets you customize a lot of the colors
| used in different parts of Firefox.
| riidom wrote:
| I wondered about that too. It seems like a bit of "filler
| content" to be honest. There are not many new features at all,
| the new thing here is the theme management in first place. The
| release notes in general are pretty weak compared to pervious
| releases of Vivaldi.
|
| I mean I don't care there is always a bit of a hanger now and
| then, I still love Vivaldi. Just saying I can relate to these
| observation.
| hulitu wrote:
| Because chrome and firefox literarly thrashed the browser
| experience. Not everybody loves gray or black and 1 font size
| does not fit all people.
| pixelgeek wrote:
| So two questions for the groupmind here.
|
| 1) I asked this previously but is it really that difficult to
| take a screenshot on Windows?
|
| "Vivaldi's built-in Capture tool lets you capture either a Full
| Page screenshot, or a Selection of the screen that you define. It
| can be accessed in a number of ways through the Vivaldi UI to
| give you flexibility in how you implement the tool."
|
| 2) The fully loaded version of the browser comes with a mail
| client, calendar and contacts. Didn't Netscape Navigator already
| show us that this confluence of features was a disaster for a
| browser?
| Isthatablackgsd wrote:
| > "Vivaldi's built-in Capture tool lets you capture either a
| Full Page screenshot, or a Selection of the screen that you
| define. It can be accessed in a number of ways through the
| Vivaldi UI to give you flexibility in how you implement the
| tool."
|
| Not difficult, it is the limitation of the OS. Desktop OSes
| don't have a way to tell the browser to take a screenshot of
| the full page. So it is limited of what it can do. This is
| where Firefox and Vivaldi comes in, they provided the tools
| that allows them to scroll the entire page internally and take
| a screenshot. If there is a website with 5 pages, the OS only
| can take a picture of what is actively displaying. The browsers
| itself can barrow deeper to get a full pages.
|
| There is one issue I have with Vivaldi Capture, it seems to
| capture the webpage with lower DPI than OS capture tools.
| Windows and macOS capture tool looks crisp and clean. In
| Vivaldi, it is not crisp and I have a hard time to read the
| text in it. Not sure if they improve it lately.
| fpoling wrote:
| A Vivaldi developer here. In which OS and on which pages do
| you experience this effect? Also, what is DPI of the screen?
| tssva wrote:
| Taking a screenshot on Windows is easy. PrtScn key will copy a
| screenshot of the current screen to the clipboard, Alt+PrtScn
| will copy the current window to the clipboard, Windows+PrtScn
| will save a screenshot of the current screen to the Screenshot
| folder of the Pictures folder. Additionally, Windows ships with
| the Snip & Sketch tool which is activated with Windows+Shift+S.
| It allows you to capture a whole screen, a window, a rectangle
| or a free form area of a screen. It also has tools for
| annotating the screenshot.
| wejick wrote:
| I personally can't live without Firefox capture functionality.
| Control + shift + S. Very convenient.
|
| It may be similar situation for vivaldi user.
| rpdillon wrote:
| Yes! The ability to hover over parts of the DOM and grab
| screenshots is a big upgrade from the built-in OS
| functionality on Mac and Linux, since it removes the fiddling
| I normally have to do to grab the optimal region. I don't use
| Windows, so I'm not sure about the comparison there.
| stetrain wrote:
| I think the point of that feature is to take a screenshot of
| the full web page, even the part that is currently scrolled out
| of view. That's not something that the OS screenshot tool can
| do.
| csomar wrote:
| I've been using Vivaldi for a few months now and basically forgot
| about Firefox.
|
| 1. Address Bar abd Tabs in the bottom without having to hack
| Firefox XUL/CSS.
|
| 2. Tabs. I have 7-8 stacks at any point. For example, I can start
| reading HN articles, leave the tabs open and them move to another
| stack for work, research, whatever. I have around 100+ tabs open
| at any time (and they consuming a little over 12Gb of memory).
| The tabs stick at restarts.
|
| 3. Email. Simple notifications. Useful since I'm running on Arch
| with no desktop/notifications, etc...
|
| 4. Chromium. I'm sorry but as of right now it's better than
| Firefox Quantum.
|
| 5. Screen Capture, Transaction, QrCode support, Chrome plugins,
| etc...
| skrowl wrote:
| Rather than tab stacks, try Firefox Containers +
| https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/conex/
|
| It gives you the option to hide all tabs that aren't in your
| current container. The other advantage it gives over tab stacks
| in Vivaldi / Edge / Chrome is that they're actually
| containerized. Tabs in container A can't access anything from
| tabs in container B.
|
| If you're running a device with low RAM, you can add
| https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/auto-tab-disc...
| with the option turned on to discard tabs as soon as they're
| hidden.
| st3fan wrote:
| "Can't use $ in password" - i'm curious what the story is
| freediver wrote:
| Congrats to Vivaldi!
|
| There is a good interview with Vivaldi founder on Tedium [1]
| where he basically says that because most browsers are built on
| Chromium nowadays, you have to innovate on features and that is
| the direction they took. And really the number of features in
| Vivaldi is staggering including some great ones like Tab Stacking
| and Tab Tiling.
|
| But adding this many features took a toll on performance and it
| is about 25% slower than other Chromium based browsers. Also I
| assume that is the reason why is there no Vivaldi on iOS.
|
| [1] https://tedium.co/2021/02/05/vivaldi-browser-history-
| profile...
| drewcoo wrote:
| Low performance seems strange, given the perf culture at Opera.
| I assume they still beat a potato, though.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaT7thTxyq8
| therealmarv wrote:
| There is not even one Chromium (or Firefox) based browser on
| iOS because it's not allowed to publish other browser engines
| on iOS!
| ajhurliman wrote:
| I'm using Brave on my iPhone right now.
| speedgoose wrote:
| It's safari with a skin and some cryptoscams.
| RankingMember wrote:
| I really wish the crypto garbage would be dropped from
| Brave. Makes it feel jumbled and spammy after a fresh
| install.
| PixyMisa wrote:
| Well, yes, except no. Brave on iOS is Webkit with a fancy
| wrapper.
| KarlKemp wrote:
| A shitty wrapper. The answer to the question "why isn't
| there another middleman between content and readers,
| scamming both?"
| ajhurliman wrote:
| TIL!
| freediver wrote:
| To be more accurate there are no Blink or Gecko based
| browsers on iOS. Both Firefox and Chrome (and many other
| Chromium browsers) exist on iOS, using WebKit rendering
| engine.
| skrowl wrote:
| Technically correct, but the Firefox and Chrome listed in
| the iOS lockdown store are basically just skins on top of
| WebKit, not actually different web browsers (like they are
| on Android and other modern operating systems).
|
| It sounds like the EU and others may be fixing this soon by
| forcing Apple to allow other app stores on their devices if
| they want to continue selling devices in their regions.
|
| Presumably Amazon store / Epic store / etc on iOS will
| carry real Firefox / Chrome.
| freediver wrote:
| What do you mean by skin on top of WebKit? WebKit itself
| just renders the web page. The browser manufacturer has
| to build an entire browser and decide how to treat user
| privacy for example, does it have telemetry and what
| kind, whether to use native controls or not, what browser
| features to implement like reader mode, how to handle
| multiple tabs, gestures etc.. Calling that a skin is same
| as calling Vivaldi a skin of Chromium disregarding the
| effort made to make it different.
| shortformblog wrote:
| Author of that piece--was great chatting with Jon von
| Tetzchner. FWIW, I daily drive it on an M1 MacBook Air now that
| there's a native Apple Silicon version and I don't really see
| the slowdown issues.
|
| Also, his recommendation in the piece of creating a minimal
| profile is one that I think a lot of people might find valuable
| when using Vivaldi.
| rjzzleep wrote:
| Is the UI still as horribly laggy? I try vivaldi every other
| year because people say it's faster, but it's almost as if
| those people only run that beast on a desktop or fully specced
| 15" laptops
| vadfa wrote:
| Exactly what I was going to ask. They wrote the UI in
| javascript with obvious consequences. The day they rewrite it
| in a normal language they will see me again.
| Tomis02 wrote:
| Runs fine on my nothing special 6-7 year old computer. I also
| disable tab rendering and use the tab side panel instead, I'm
| not sure if that makes a difference.
| nsonha wrote:
| it's not that it's slow or resource hogs, it's janky which
| gives the same impression as being laggy
| Chevalier wrote:
| If anything, Vivaldi seems faster for me than Chrome was. I
| haven't seen any of the performance slowdowns that other
| people on this thread have mentioned. Possibly because I
| haven't enabled the Mail/Calendar/Feeds full-fat option?
| jjordan wrote:
| I'm in the same boat. I've _wanted_ to switch to them for
| years, but once I get it loaded with my requisite plugins and
| start using it for a while, the UI inevitably begins to
| experience random lags and moments of unresponsiveness.
| zaiste wrote:
| Congrats on the release! I like this browser a lot; it's a
| comprehensive, battery-included solution.
|
| If they supported Firefox-like multi-account containers [1], it'd
| switch entirely to Vivaldi. Their tab grouping is really good,
| the session separation is the only thing missing here. :)
|
| [1]: https://forum.vivaldi.net/topic/25289/multi-account-
| containe...
| throwaway123x2 wrote:
| With FireFox becoming more and more unusable, does anybody with
| experience know if Vivaldi or Brave are objectively better (or
| faster or more stable)?
| maccam912 wrote:
| I switched from firefox to vivaldi about a year ago. So far
| it's been an improvement, tab stacks especially in my opinion.
| malermeister wrote:
| What's your problem with FF specifically? I keep hearing people
| complain, but it seems like the same ol browser to me?
| Scarbutt wrote:
| Mozilla should switch to chromium.
| laumars wrote:
| No. Competition is healthy and that includes browser
| rendering engines too.
| patall wrote:
| Honest question, how is FireFox becoming unusable for you? I am
| using it on both Linux and Windows and do not really have any
| problems with it. Sure, sometimes a web site does not load
| properly but more often than not is because some add-ons like
| ad-blocker and no-script are intervening for me. In other
| cases, its obvious that the website was never tested in
| anything but chrome. In those cases where I really need it, I
| have some chromium-based browser as backup on all my devices.
| But daily work on FireFox is just fine for me.
|
| Your comment reminds me of how people were complaining for a
| long time that FireFox had become so slow, while I was browsing
| with multiple dozens of open tabs on my 8GB system all along. I
| do not want to say that this is not the case for you, but I
| honestly cannot reproduce it on three different laptops.
| bogwog wrote:
| Agreed, it has been my daily driver for years and I have
| never had any problems with it. I think the guy your replied
| to is just riding on the Mozilla hate train.
|
| To be fair, Mozilla does deserve 99.999% of the hate it gets,
| but that doesn't justify making dishonest claims about
| Firefox just to stick it to Mozilla.
| Eelongate wrote:
| With Firefox 93, I was restarting the browser 3 or 4 times a
| day because it kept crashing while playing videos. It would
| start with videos loading but not playing, and then moments
| later the whole browser would lock up and leave no choice but
| to kill it and restart. So far Firefox 94 seems to have that
| issue resolved, but that experience with 93 was very nearly
| enough to make me quit.
|
| (I should probably mention, another long-running complaint I
| have with Firefox is the community's habit of gaslighting
| anybody who talks about Firefox's problems with the usual _"
| I never experience that so your experiences are invalid"_ So
| please spare me this time.)
| patall wrote:
| Yeah, I totally understand what you are saying. One should
| point out however that my parent comment is pretty much the
| same, i.e implying that 'it's become unstable and slow for
| everyone'. Not that I want to blame them, we all have a
| limited point of view and comments on the internet often
| sound harsh simply by negligence and not intentionally.
| GNOMES wrote:
| I had this issue in my Firefox Nightly for about a day.
| Next update or so resolved the issue for me. Obviously
| unstable bleeding edge isn't for everyone, but I does have
| it's benefits at times.
| y-c-o-m-b wrote:
| I'm also curious about this. I finally upgraded from a 4GB
| RAM system to something modern, but FireFox was my primary on
| that machine for _years_ with no issues. Firefox mobile has
| atrocious performance for me, but their desktop app is solid
| and it 's what I'm viewing HN on right now. I especially love
| the silent updates.
|
| EDIT: by "modern" I mean I'm on an I5 with 8GB RAM lol. I do
| have a Lenovo Legion 7 with a 3080 but use it only for
| gaming. This I5/8GB combo is my daily driver and works great
| with Firefox, loads instantly and I can have a dozen or more
| tabs open no problem.
| ibdf wrote:
| I switched to Brave this past year... so far so good. Firefox
| is fine, but I need a chromium browser for development, so
| chromium - google seems like a good alternative. I tried
| Vivaldi a couple of years ago but it didn't stick... will try
| again.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-12-02 23:02 UTC)