10 Reasons Why Opera 10 (Peregrine) Will Be Special

The only problem that I see with Opera 10 is not related to any of the features, performance, speed or UI. I see the move from single digits to multiple digits as a unlucky move. Think about it. How many applications are you currently running or have installed today that break past version 9? There are very few if any I’m sure! I’m wondering if Opera will soon find a naming strategy in order to make their version numbers sound more friendly. Many people may not know that Opera has been around since the 90′s and may just think that Opera is a high maintenance piece of software that they will have to continuously work at to keep up to date. Inter net Explorer is just now at version 7..soon to be version 8. They will most likely not move onto version 11, 13, 17 with this product. Versioning in my opinion is good for a product until it reaches an unreasonably high version, where it really needs to just be renamed a bit to start over. Firefox’s strategy is a bit different in that they are a newer product name than IE and Opera, however, it seems to me that they are not so quick to jump to the next major version. Firefox 1 was out for ages with minor updates and revisions. Now that Firefox 2 has been out publicly for some time now it has also slowly progress. Unfortunately they will be bumping up to version 3 soon. How long has the Mozilla Suite been out? They are currently at version 1.7.13. Mozilla Suite was first introduced after renaming the product from Milestone to Mozilla at the end of 2000. Milestone had reached version 18, which is a bit over kill will versions 3-18 released within 2 years. Now that is a lot of versions. After the rename Mozilla has evolved to version 1.7.13 over ~7 years now. I’m not sure if Mozilla Suite is still developed on, but this version strategy is exactly what Opera needs to be doing. Look here for the stats..
http://www.mozilla.org/releases/history.html
This is amazing to me. The move from Opera 9.x to Opera 10.x is understandable in this case since there are so many rewritten parts of the browser that will be released, however, was it really necessary to jump from 7 to 8 and then to 9? I honestly think that these updates could have been compressed. Correct me if I’m wrong. Opera 6 to 7 introduced a new rendering engine called Presto. Opera 9 is currently still using the Presto engine and will be slowly transforming into the new engine via updated versions such as 9.5 and 10. Like I said earlier, builds 7,8 and 9 could have been compressed into a single major version and we might still be at version 7! Just judging by the minor versions since version 7 Opera, my guess is that Opera could have been at version 8.30 now instead of 9.22 (7.54,8.54,9.22->.54+.54+.22) had it been compressed. It could have however been compressed more. I understand that marketing had a hand in upping the versions of Opera so dramatically. They want to sell Opera with each major build as a Brand New browser, but for one the marketing is obviously not as good as for instance Firefox’s marketing, so they should have just held off. Don’t get me wrong through this post, I’m an Opera nut. I’m just growing tired of seeing small mistakes such as this that cause problems in the long run. I know this post will probably never be read in entirety, but hopefully Opera will soon find out that going much further than version 10 is not a great idea. Still excitedly awaiting version 9.5 and 10!

While I agree with your point that it sounds like crapware when you have versions 15 or higher of a software. For example, Mac OS X has been stuck on version 10 for quite some time, because OS XI just looks dumb. Corel Paint Shop Pro XI also looks dumb.

But your reasoning for being on version 8.30 is completely wrong. Software vendors use versioning systems to control their code. It allows them to work much more efficiently, especially when finding regressions or adding new features. During development, software vendors will make a copy of the working code and set it off in a branch. That branch gets rigorously tested for bugs, has features added to it, etc. Up until this point, it would make sense to version a browser by its build number or how many branches have broken off from the trunk. But because branches are taken from branches, and everything is worked on simultaneously, you must have a versioning system that allows you to know that 9.10 and 9.12 largely have the same code, while 8.54 has very different code, even if they branched off of the trunk at about the same time (and thus, could have close build numbers).

I would rather have software version numbers make sense than be aesthetically pleasing. I don’t think that software should be renamed to restart the versioning system, as that causes confusion for its userbase, for past articles written in newspapers, and for people wanting to understand all of the browsers. One exampe is MyIE turning into Maxthon. Another example which really annoys me is the renaming of Netscape. Versioning systems exist to make software updates easier to understand.

Software releases shouldn’t slow as a product matures. They should continue to innovate new features. Enough new features demand incremented versions. That’s just how it works.

From a PR standpoint, employees like to reach milestones and new version numbers–it gives a reason to party or celebrate. And as Opera has done with those parties, they’ve given back to their users for those parties. In addition, they get a lot of press from tech sites reviewing their new features. Peregrine will make more headlines if it is named Opera 10 instead of Opera 9.8. That’s just how it is. More press means more users, and I would not for one second think in my mind that Opera should reduce their version just because it isn’t aesthetically pleasing. Opera 10 will be well earned. They’ve been working on it just as hard as Firefox 3. Opera is only receiving a 0.5 increment while Firefox is receiving a 1.0 increment in version number. Yet Opera will have a new rendering engine. Opera will have a new GUI. Opera will have a new mail backend. Opera will have a new everything. Practically everything is being rewritten. I think that alone deserves enough merit to call Peregrine Opera 11. I’m not saying they should call it Opera 11. I’m just saying that Opera 10 is well-earned. All future versions will be well-earned if they continue developing at the workhorse rate they are now–and that’s faster than the majority of software vendors out there.

You might be interested in browser versions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Timeline_of_web_browsers.svg or versioning systems http://my.opera.com/IceArdor/blog/2007/07/13/opera-builds

@IceArdor
You have a very good point and I understand that bumping up to the next major version gains a lot of publicity, however, I still feel that there were several major version changes that were unnecessary. Opera 10 will be well deserved, in fact I mentioned that in my post, as Opera will be converting over to the next rendering engine. I like the links that you submitted. Your list is very impressive. I have however seen similar lists and am aware of the major work done between versions. Opera 10 will be a well deserved name and also very welcome, I just wonder what will happen several releases after that.

I can’t remember to have read about a new rendering engine for Peregrine. Could anyone provide a source? Main parts of the rendering improvements are announced already for Kestrel and more to come with Peregrine.
The main backend renewals for M2 is already announced for Kestrel while Peregrine will bring major UI and usability features for M2.
Kestrel will have a new JS engine.
Some new, yet censored and probably great feature is announced for Kestrel.
Peregrine will most probably (not really announced) have a new overall UI and other new features while Kestrel already starts with greatly improved Mac integration and most probably (at least this was planned some months ago) provides some synchronization between devices (esp. Opera Desktop / Opera Mobile).

Looking at this list I’d say from a technical point of view Kestrel has already deserved to become the next major version (10), especially with side glance at Firefox 3 and maybe some IE8 beta which will be around the same time and thinking of Opera is in need for (planned and announced) improved marketing for the next version.

For the lack of versions of IE6: it’s clearly only due to the total lack of development. The IE team was especially built up for the development of IE7 as there was none the years before.

For the versions >10 I agree that this could become a bit ugly, but taking the versions for mobile and devices into account it seems to be recommended to continue with this numbering.

alpha is out

When will be the stable Opera 10 will come out. (Full version)
Any ideas?

Although it’s an old conversation, I try to add my opinions to versioning… We can look at this question from many point of view.

From an aestethical point of view versions above 10 do look a bit weird. But! This all software-writing stuff is very young, so it’s simply not common to have softwares with such a long history. So that could mean even maturity. Besides these numbering do exist with some old and special applications, CorelDraw, OrCAD, Maple, Matlab to name a few. To be among them is not so bad, i guess.

As for “version number compression”, I agree,that some steps were a bit bigger, than should. But in the recents years Opera provided a – mostly – acceptable system. First the main release (ex. 9.00), than a few bug fix release (9.0x), adding some not-so-small new feature (9.x0), like Speed Dial, and bug fixes for them (9.2x). Than the sneak-peak into the next main release (usually version X.50) and some new fixes (x.5y) or features (x.60) for them or both, when the next release is stilll nowhere to some. The one exception was 8.5 which was only a free 8.1x. That step is definitely not worth a whole version number jump, but was important enough. That’s a simple and logical system, and works well. Obviously not every whole step is equal, and there’s some time constrain, it’s not wise not to release single a new version in a 3-year period. On the other hand, if Opera 10 would be called Opera 8.3, than what? That wouldn’t diminish the problem, just postpone it.

But if not this, than what. Let’s take a look at other possibilities. I don’t think, that the way followed usually by open source softwares is any better. I mean that creepy 1.321.76.235 numberings, that are usually pretty correct and on the other hand completely unusable. A numbering that wants to go through all the numbers that exist is confusing. The better case, when they actually reach 1.0… There’s always something to fix, something to improve and something to implement, there’s no reason not to give out full releases some time. Even Mozilla’s 1.7.12 is confusing. As a “non-professional”, can you tell, what’s the difference between 1.6.2 and 1.7.11 for example. You don’t even have a wild guess, nor for the release dates (which are better indications of the work spent on developing anyway). At Opera, a whole release jump takes about 1-2 year.

As for Firefox it’s much more confusing. Why have 2.0.0.3 when there is no 2.0.1 and not even a 2.1? The 2 -> 3 step can be justified, but the whole is inferior to Opera’s practice. 3 versions in 5 years is not better than 10 in 15 years…

An other style is year numbering, like Norton Antivirus 2009. That, of course assumes, that only one release comes out during the year and don’t really allows sub releases. Not speaking about the fact, that in 2009 we will already have programs named 2010 (which is way too higher number, than 11 or 12 anyway…).

So concluding that all, Opera’s system is far from flawless (but that sort of thing doesn’t exist anyway), but good try.

Thank you , Vygantas Lipskas .

opera was not instal in our system