1. Yeah, but that’s quite obvious.. :)

2. Presto 2.2 is a nice add-on with this 100/100 Acid3 result, but that’s a must have for any new release, so no surprise here (2.1.1 -> 2.2 not a big jump).

3-5. Just like before, it’s evolution, not revolution.

6. Not known yet, although 9.5 saw a completely new skin, but even Opera 10 has the same UI now (but will change) . That could be one breaking point!

7. More evolution.

8. We already have Dragonfly, although some developments are expected.

9. Even more evolution. But old problems go, new ones to arrive all the time anyway…

10. Surprise is always good, and expected. Yet, we only saw some catch-up with others with HTML mail editor, inline spell checker and auto-update. Two things, that would _really_ kick ass (and we already knew about them) are the brand new Carakan JS engine and GPU acceleration for Vega. None of them is sure to make it’s way to Opera 10 final.

So I’m sad to say, that so far I don’t see any change, that would make Opera 10 really special.

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.

http://www.favbrowser.com/opera-10-release-dates-leaked/

Far better then “X” or stupid letters after it that dont mean anything.