[HN Gopher] Vivaldi Mail 1.0: Email client built into the browser
___________________________________________________________________
Vivaldi Mail 1.0: Email client built into the browser
Author : marban
Score : 117 points
Date : 2022-06-09 16:25 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (vivaldi.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (vivaldi.com)
| jtvjan wrote:
| Now just add an IRC client, and they've reinvented the Mozilla
| suite.
| pkulak wrote:
| Except that Mozilla wrote their own engine.
| jszymborski wrote:
| I miss Presto :(
| beebeepka wrote:
| Very fast on super slow embedded devices.
| marban wrote:
| Not complete without Gopher.
| hoistbypetard wrote:
| Needs Gemini.
| mosdl wrote:
| History is a closed loop. Maybe they can build their own
| browser engine!
| TheRealPomax wrote:
| "Maybe they can build their own browser again", but the web
| is not the cute little thing it was back when everyone was
| writing their own engines. Even a small team literally cannot
| write a web engine with enough support for the majority of
| common use cases anymore. It's literally why Vivaldi went
| with an off the shelf engine and focused on the browser part
| instead.
| memling wrote:
| Vivaldi's predecessor, Opera, actually included an IRC client
| that I used back in the day. I maintained an interest in
| Vivaldi because Opera Mail was easily the best client I've ever
| used, and while Vivaldi Mail lacks a few of the features that I
| appreciated about Opera (e.g., select-to-quote, default top-
| quoting/bottom-response, obvious text-based emails), it's still
| far and away the best current desktop application.
| oblio wrote:
| Opera used to have a torrent client.
| z3t4 wrote:
| RIP Opera mail, where you could sort mail using Bayesian filters
| and everything was grouped by date.
| pornel wrote:
| Opera Mail was awesome. I've used it while I was involved in
| W3C, and I could easily manage the barrage of bikeshed in
| multiple mailing lists thanks to its deep tree view of threads
| with fine-grained mute for any subtree.
|
| Nowadays all clients flatten email threads to a single list,
| and that becomes unmanageable beyond a handful of e-mails ;(
| c_prompt wrote:
| I continue to question why email clients with calendar, contacts,
| and tasks functionality don't have local sync integrated with
| Android or iPhone. Having said that, outside those "basic"
| integrated functions, my top 3 requirements to switch from
| Outlook are:
|
| - Full encryption integrated into the client for all data (e.g.,
| I don't want Windows Search able to index the mail so someone has
| access when the client is closed/unencrypted; I also remember
| testing Thunderbird years ago and was able to go into the
| individual unencrypted .eml files [I think that's what they were]
| and read the messages without having Thunderbird opened)
|
| - Full local sync with Android/iPhone (i.e., home WiFi,
| Bluetooth, or USB cable); it still amazes me that Thunderbird
| still doesn't have this built-in
|
| - Xobni-like functionality (e.g., showing all emails and
| attachments to/from sender when clicking on an email, keyword
| searches); yes, I know the plugin is still available but it
| doesn't work properly with current Outlook versions
| morsch wrote:
| Well, I'm trying out Vivaldi on Android. I've been using Firefox
| for, well, forever, but the tab handling[1] is bad enough that
| I'm willing to jump ship.
|
| So far it's... different? The tab handling is better, and I think
| I like having actual tabs in a mobile browser. I'm disappointed
| that the tab groups don't work as well as in Chrome. I like the
| link preview feature, in fact I could imagine all links opening
| like that by default (but that's not an option).
|
| I don't find it all that customizable, that only seems to be true
| for the desktop version. For example, I can't get seem to rid of
| the history button (which is styled like a sidebar button despite
| opening full screen).
|
| There is no reader mode. There are page actions, which let you
| apply all kinds of nonsensical CSS effects such as blur. But no
| reader mode. The built-in content blocker doesn't remove cosmetic
| annoyances as effectively as Ublock does, which makes me miss
| reader mode all the more.
|
| There don't seem to be any add-ons.
|
| Overall, not entirely convincing.
|
| 1. https://github.com/mozilla-
| mobile/fenix/issues/20012#issueco...
| siproprio wrote:
| Last time I tried to use vivaldi for day to day browsing, I gave
| up because it was too slow. Have they fixed this?
| TheFreim wrote:
| I use Vivaldi and there are no speed issues except the initial
| startup time and new window launch time. Since I always have a
| browser open on my machine the initial startup time isn't
| noticed and since I use tabs+tab-groups the new window time
| also doesn't matter, but it is a real pain when I /do/ want
| multiple windows.
| niccl wrote:
| Anecdata: I've been using it for a couple of years and not had
| any concerns with speed. I don't know what faster would be. I
| occasionally have to use firefox or something else on corporate
| machines and Vivaldi doesn't seem any slower than that on any
| sites I visit.
|
| I do use Pihole to get rid of ads so maybe that's a factor
| aliswe wrote:
| what did they say about a software that eventually starts to
| check email?
| srvmshr wrote:
| Jamie Zawinski's comment is a time tested classic which has
| survived well e.g. Moore's law or the likes.
| mrweasel wrote:
| "Every program attempts to expand until it can read mail. Those
| programs which cannot so expand are replaced by ones which
| can."
|
| http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/Z/Zawinskis-Law.html
| leephillips wrote:
| Vivaldi is my main graphical browser. I don't use the mail
| client, but I use the feed reader, which shares the interface.
| It's convenient, but clunky. You can read news from only one
| window, so if, like, me, you use windows instead of tabs, you
| have to search through all of Vivaldi's open windows to see which
| one gives you access to the news feed. The update didn't seem to
| change anything. I like being able to click on a button to be
| able to add a site's feed to Vivaldi's list, however.
| TheFreim wrote:
| > use windows instead of tabs
|
| I've used Vivaldi as my primary browser for a few months now,
| doesn't speed cause you any issues when using new windows? I
| really enjoy many of the Vivaldi features but opening a new
| window is VERY slow for me (on my good PC and laptop, windows
| and linux so OS isn't the issue).
| leephillips wrote:
| Yes, absolutely. I mentioned this in another comment here: I
| get at least a 2-second lag when opening a new window. This
| is annoying because I prefer to use windows instead of tabs
| and manage them with my tiling window manager. I'm handling
| it by, instead of closing a window when I'm done with it,
| leaving it open to receive a new URL.
| bmarquez wrote:
| The great thing about Vivaldi's feed reader is that you can
| subscribe to YouTube channels without an account (and without
| any ads as well).
|
| https://vivaldi.com/blog/when-it-comes-to-youtube-and-feed-r...
| rcMgD2BwE72F wrote:
| Nothing special:
| https://addons.mozilla.org/fr/firefox/addon/feed-preview/
| gives you the link to subscribe to all the site's feeds from
| any app/website.
|
| You can also set custom URLs in the add-on preferences to
| integrate with any online feed reader (e.g
| https://reader.miniflux.app/bookmarklet?uri=%S). I follow
| Youtube channels this way.
| jszymborski wrote:
| I do this (albeit with Thunderbird) and honestly it works
| pretty great.
| bityard wrote:
| Despite not being open source, I appreciate that Vivaldi lets you
| customize its UI and behavior to a reasonable degree. It's the
| closest thing we have a browser for power users, unlike Chrome
| and Firefox who actively remove useful options and features in an
| effort to cater to the lowest common denominator (passive content
| consumers).
|
| The built-in mail and calendar functionality looks very nice and
| I'm definitely interested in trying them out.
|
| The main thing I disliked about Vivaldi when I tried it last was
| that a lot of websites actively try to prevent automatic saving
| and filling of passwords, against all reasonable logic. Firefox
| is much better at skirting those efforts, Chrome-based browsers,
| not so much. Has Vivaldi improved in this regard lately? (Or is
| there an extension that can help with this?)
| forgotpwd16 wrote:
| >Vivaldi lets you customize its UI
|
| But still nowhere close to userChrome.css that Firefos has.
|
| >The built-in mail and calendar functionality looks very nice
|
| But does having that functionality built-in rather as
| extensions offer any advantages?
| avgcorrection wrote:
| Of course they cater to those awful "passive content
| consumers"; they need their online bank much more than you need
| your tiling tabs.
| am_lu wrote:
| I never had this problem. Using vivaldi full time, it remembers
| all the passwords (plus my home address and phone number for
| registering new accounts on shopping sites).
| axolotlgod wrote:
| Regarding the open source part, Jon has spoken about it on a
| podcast from last year[0][1]. Basically the only think keeping
| them from full open-source is the license which they think
| would make the company possibly fall to another competitor.
| It's hard being a small business, this makes sense to me. They
| actively encourage modding of the browser too.
|
| I'm not sure regarding the prevention of automatic
| saving/filling. I use Bitwarden and in my time using Vivaldi, I
| haven't had any issues, though maybe someone in the Vivaldi
| forums[2] would know?
|
| [0]: YouTube link: https://youtu.be/ivDiL9XeDw0?t=3410 [1]:
| Podcast website: https://destinationlinux.org/episode-243/ [2]:
| https://forum.vivaldi.net/
| jhasse wrote:
| Why not use AGPL for the UI code?
| bastawhiz wrote:
| That doesn't stop someone from using your code to build a
| compelling competitor product. It just means you need to
| pay more lawyers to argue about whether the AGPL was
| violated or not and maybe win a lawsuit.
| chess_buster wrote:
| GitLab took libgit vom GitHub, didn't they?
| AlecSchueler wrote:
| In regards UI customisation is there anything like Pentadactyl?
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| I would say use bitwarden rather than the built in password
| managers of these browsers, it does a pretty good job and you
| aren't tied to one browser.
| zeagle wrote:
| The killer feature that would make me use this would be EWS/OWA
| support. I have used davmail and evolution to access my work
| email this way and very few clients seem to be able to do this.
| Emclient is probably the best but stopped working presumably due
| to changes on our end so no great windows solution currently for
| me.
| forgotpwd16 wrote:
| Related, for anyone wanting a browser that has everything but the
| kitchen sink, SeaMonkey is still alive.
| eikeegi wrote:
| For the life of me, I am unable to add an account to Vivaldi
| Mail. I am not 100% sure, but I am guessing that the error is
| "ReferenceError document is not defined".
|
| Edit: after restarting, the message is "Mail client startup
| failed. Error: Not yet support for changing primary key".
| unethical_ban wrote:
| Vivaldi is my android browser, because Firefox has several bugs
| and anti patterns there.
|
| If I were reinstalling my desktop from scratch I would consider
| Vivaldi desktop as well.
| pipeline_peak wrote:
| 2006?
| Zachsa999 wrote:
| Everyone be critiquing its software license, speed, Gui, but holy
| crap tab tiling is the best feature, it increases productivity by
| a little bit.
|
| How many times to you get confused which browser window is in
| focus on your desktop
| TheFreim wrote:
| > tab tiling is the best feature [...] How many times to you
| get confused which browser window is in focus on your desktop
|
| If I'm just using my browser on a window then tab tiling is a
| great feature, I've used it quite a bit in Vivaldi, but the
| second I start using windows other than my browser it gets
| confusing because I have to remember two sets of bindings.
| encryptluks2 wrote:
| I see people give Chromium crap, but then you have a browser that
| is closed source now with access to your email and everyone is
| okay with that?
| hammyhavoc wrote:
| Different demographics will critique different aspects of
| different software. There will be an overlap between them, but
| it will be relatively small versus the people outside of the
| overlapping demographics who have used both.
|
| E.g. I have tried Vivaldi, but it not being open source means I
| don't have a horse in the race. I also don't like Chromium-
| based browsers. Which really just leaves Firefox, which I also
| don't like, because Mozilla the ever-increasingly out-of-touch
| company.
|
| FWIW: I hypocritically use Gmail because the UX is pretty much
| better than the sorry state of native email clients available
| on Linux. With that said, I also don't use email for anything
| sensitive, that goes via Matrix. Would I give access to my
| Gmail to Vivaldi? No.
| TheRealPomax wrote:
| Not sure how "closed source" is something to have a problem
| with in this context? Outlook is closed source, Apple Mail is
| closed source, and with rounding we all still use those too?
| michaelcampbell wrote:
| Not everyone, no, but I'd wager 97% are.
| lizardactivist wrote:
| To me it makes perfect sense to combine e-mail and browser into
| one, with a single click you can either view your web tabs, or
| your e-mail.
|
| I think what stopped me from switching to Vivaldi last time was
| lack of secure DNS with DoT or DoH, and no control over TLS 0RTT,
| which is a critical security hole masquerading as a performance
| optimization.
| kelthuzad wrote:
| I would prefer a Vivaldi light version without all the bloat.
| programmarchy wrote:
| For a minute, I thought this was a web app that did POP/IMAP/SMTP
| in the browser without a server backend, but I suppose that
| wouldn't be possible without browser extensions.
| geocrasher wrote:
| hfsh wrote:
| Honestly, mail, notes, and calendar are the things that _do_
| make sense in a browser for me. Old-school Opera style.
|
| Noways we basically do the same anyway, but just in a browser
| window, not locally.
|
| [edit: and RSS feeds. RIP]
| memling wrote:
| > [edit: and RSS feeds. RIP]
|
| Vivaldi has an integrated RSS reader and Reading List.
| unethical_ban wrote:
| Are you under 25? This "suite" style of World Wide Web tooling
| was quite popular at the turn of the century. It may not be
| your style, but I'm surprised at the surprise.
| geocrasher wrote:
| Nope, 45. I've seen this come full circle. Hated it the first
| time around too.
| hammyhavoc wrote:
| Yeah, wasn't keen the first time around either. Always felt
| like a compromise. I like an app for each task, otherwise
| it just feels like using a blunt knife to cut something
| tough, for want of a better analogy.
| eddieroger wrote:
| Why reply then? Just move on. I don't think this is a product
| for me, either, but I was curious enough to click through and
| make that determination, and decided against telling the world.
| If you're so disinterested that you don't even want do that,
| why reply?
| geocrasher wrote:
| Probably for the same reason you replied to _me_ , oddly
| enough. Funny how that works.
| eddieroger wrote:
| I replied to you out of curiosity, not because your comment
| wasn't for me. I genuinely want to know.
| geocrasher wrote:
| Fair enough, sir. Sorry for the snark. It's one of those
| things. I edited my original comment to explain why I
| posted.
| longrod wrote:
| I don't see how this is any better than opening a browser tab
| with a mail client in it? But putting that aside here were a few
| problems with Vivaldi and their Mail client the last time I tried
| it.
|
| 1. Vivaldi is slow. It's so slow that you could open 2 tabs on
| Brave/Chrome before it opens.
|
| 2. Side loading speed, memory and CPU usage is a lot more
| compared to other chromium based browsers. Don't know why.
|
| 3. And UI. There are so many options in settings. So many options
| and yet very few of them are something I'd want to change or
| adjust. I can't skin Vivaldi like Firefox. There are a few
| toggles and sliders but their overall effect to the UI is
| minimal.
|
| 4. Not to mention that the UI is in no way fancy or unique. But
| that's just personal preference. I like Chrome's simplicity. It
| gets out of the way. Vivaldi makes sure you notice the chrome.
|
| 5. And then the mailing client. I was really excited to try it
| out so I logged in via Gmail. As email accounts are these days,
| it contained thousands of emails. The surprising thing was
| Vivaldi started syncing all of them. Literally downloading
| thousands of emails. For no reason other than offline search? Is
| that really a good enough reason to make the user wait centuries
| while you index all their emails? Maybe they have added some
| option to specify which folders you want synced.
|
| 6. Aside from that, it was really buggy. Opening emails,
| composing, etc. Now that it's out of beta I hope those are fixed.
|
| I went to Vivaldi for the UI. I had heard it was customizable. I
| left Vivaldi while it was still loading...
| TheRealPomax wrote:
| The same benefit of any other mail client: you don't have to
| open a tab that connects to the internet to download and sync
| just enough data to show "that" there are updates, but not
| "what" those updates are until you click through to something
| that then needs to pull data to show those changes.
|
| The real question is "why is this better than a standalone mail
| client" like Thunderbird, Apple Mail, or even the hot mess that
| is Outlook. To which the answer is "depending on how you do
| mail, it might not be better at all. But if you use Vivaldi
| already, or if you miss the days of Netscape Communicator 4.7,
| or you wish you had a mail client that got updated based on
| user feedback more than once every few years, then this might
| be something worth looking at for you.
| vorticalbox wrote:
| > why is this better than a standalone mail client
|
| In my case its because I always forget to open it or I close
| it by mistake.
|
| I'm always in my browser, github, documentation, jira. so
| having it in my browser means I have one less thing to
| remember.
| keb_ wrote:
| > I don't see how this is any better than opening a browser tab
| with a mail client in it?
|
| What mail client are you comparing this to? At least compared
| to most webmail clients I've used, these points from press
| release are obvious enhancements:
|
| * Combine all your email accounts and manage them easily from a
| single client
|
| * Indexed offline mail access
|
| * Built-in feed reader
|
| * Optionally offline calendar
|
| I can't speak to the performance issues you've had since I
| haven't used Vivaldi. I find offline access and backups of
| e-mails important, personally.
| pjerem wrote:
| Fastmail web client is really nice IMO : clean and fast.
| josefresco wrote:
| >1. Vivaldi is slow.
|
| Vivaldi is not slow. I use Chrome, Firefox and Vivaldi every
| single day and haven't notice a single hesitation or lag when
| launching it. Do you have a very slow PC?
| dubcanada wrote:
| I have noticed Vivaldi consumes vastly more memory and CPU
| resources.
| kitsunesoba wrote:
| One could argue that if an app in a class of apps is slow on
| given hardware while others are not, it's slow, particularly
| for something as basic and essential as a web browser.
| TheRealPomax wrote:
| One could, but that's not the argument that was being made.
| I too use Firefox, Chrome, and Vivaldi on a daily basis and
| one of those three feels slower than the other two due to
| when UI aspects update, and it's not Vivaldi.
| longrod wrote:
| Last version I tried (5.4 or something), it took >10 seconds
| to open. I didn't have too many extensions either. My PC is
| far from slow since Chrome/Brave open in <2 seconds.
| riidom wrote:
| The startup time is indeed pretty slow, but otherwise it's
| fast, which is what matters for me. I restart Vivaldi
| usually after it got updated, or I reboot my PC, so it
| doesn't bother me a lot honestly.
| Normille wrote:
| >I don't see how this is any better than opening a browser tab
| with a mail client in it? But putting that aside here were a
| few problems with Vivaldi and their Mail client the last time I
| tried it...
|
| It's not. it's much much worse. I've just spent about an hour
| of my life i'll never get back, trying to setup some of my
| throwaway email accounts in Vivaldi to save opening WebMail
| when I want to check them. A couple of the accounts threw up
| server errors requiring me to visit a URL to authorise the
| client [ie. Vivaldi] to access the accounts via IMAP.
|
| Vivaldi showed the server message but made it so that the
| message text [including the URL I was supposed to visit, which
| ended with a long alphanumeric string] was not selectable.
|
| Nor could I 'view source' to copy/paste it that way
|
| Nor could I print the page to PDF to try and retrieve it from
| there.
|
| Nor could I save the data I'd entered for that account, so I
| could come back to it later.
|
| So I was left with the choice of painfully transcribing about
| 100 char alphanumeric string by hand [for 2 separate accounts!]
| to go to the required authorisation URL, or throw Vivaldi in
| the bin. Guess which option I chose?
|
| Incidentally. There's a special place in hell reserved for
| developers who make text on error messages and alerts non-
| selectable!
| lmkg wrote:
| > I don't see how this is any better than opening a browser tab
| with a mail client in it?
|
| One big benefit is the dedicated Side Panel. Keep the folder
| view visible on the left while you browser.
|
| Another benefit, which may or may not matter to you in
| particular, is that the client can handle multiple email
| accounts without mixing them. This generally isn't possible in
| a webpage unless there's a single service that has access to
| all mail accounts, which isn't desirable for privacy & security
| reasons. But this is admittedly a niche feature.
| memling wrote:
| > Another benefit, which may or may not matter to you in
| particular, is that the client can handle multiple email
| accounts without mixing them. This generally isn't possible
| in a webpage unless there's a single service that has access
| to all mail accounts, which isn't desirable for privacy &
| security reasons. But this is admittedly a niche feature.
|
| Also nice is that you can tile the original email and the
| response side by side for sake of context, rather than having
| to scroll excessively.
| leephillips wrote:
| You went to Vivaldi for the customizable UI, but list that as
| one of its defects. There are "so many options".
|
| That's the point, and the reason I use it, despite its relative
| heaviness and slowness.
| memling wrote:
| > 5. And then the mailing client. I was really excited to try
| it out so I logged in via Gmail. As email accounts are these
| days, it contained thousands of emails. The surprising thing
| was Vivaldi started syncing all of them. Literally downloading
| thousands of emails. For no reason other than offline search?
| Is that really a good enough reason to make the user wait
| centuries while you index all their emails? Maybe they have
| added some option to specify which folders you want synced.
|
| You can un/subscribe to IMAP folders in Vivaldi. The mail
| options tab also has a toggle for downloading messages for
| offline searching and uploading sent messages to the
| appropriate folder.
|
| I'm personally not a huge fan of IMAP, though I've largely
| avoided the convergence of phone and computer; I still prefer
| to have my email offline on a single device, though I think
| these days that's a minority position. I've found that offline
| clients do a better job of searching email and contact
| management, and I have ready access to the raw text of the
| email in case I want or need to find something custom. It also
| enables me to make on-site backups.
|
| > I went to Vivaldi for the UI. I had heard it was
| customizable. I left Vivaldi while it was still loading...
|
| Yeah, with a sufficiently large inbox--or maybe expansive
| browsing habits?--I would guess Vivaldi probably is a bit
| slower than some of the alternatives. But my usage patterns
| accommodate this pretty easily by rarely opening and closing
| the browser (after all, it's my email client). My browsing
| experience is usually very fast because I disable Javascript
| and cookies by default, so I haven't really noticed any
| differences compared to more common browsers.
| andai wrote:
| Disclaimer: It's been a while since I looked into this stuff so
| there are probably some inaccuracies below.
|
| Have you ever used Opera back in the day? (mid 2000s, before
| Chrome came out.) AFAIK Vivaldi is made by the same guy who
| made Opera, being its spiritual successor. (Opera also had
| builtin email, note-taking etc.) IIRC opera itself was sold to
| a Chinese company and is now basically a Chrome reskin? (It
| used to have its own rendering engine, which was faster in some
| benchmarks.)
|
| As for why Vivaldi is slow, the UI is done in JS (also possibly
| nodejs?) rather than C++ in the interest of development speed,
| but at the cost of performance and memory usage.
|
| I did quit using it due the lag on my older machine though. Now
| that I've upgraded my hardware I might give it another spin!
| smusamashah wrote:
| I used opera as main browser from Opera 5 to Opera 10. Use to
| have Opera mini on my J2ME phone as well. With every new
| version, the stack of bugs from previous versions was piling
| up and features were being reduced or getting lost to bugs.
| There were bugs in mouse gestures which was my main way to
| navigate Opera. Stopped using it when Chrome came.
|
| If you remember, at some point Opera even use to ship custom
| build for you. With name or custom title or something, don't
| remember the exact customization.
|
| My most used utility in Opera use to be notes and irc client
| which I used to ask questions basically. Never used mail
| though. Vivaldi promise features at the cost of performance.
| I have tried to use it 2 or 3 times. It feels sluggish, every
| click feels late. Can't use all the packed in features like
| that. Opera was always fast, Vivaldi is just not.
| netsharc wrote:
| I'm a tab-hoarder and Vivaldi with 4-5 windows and 100 tabs
| is fast on a Zen 2 Ryzen CPU, except when using the F2
| shortcut key (it's a Spotlight-like quick menu), after
| entering a tab title I'm searching for, I have to be very
| patient as it freezes for several seconds while iterating
| through all the tabs. If I click on any other UI element or
| any other Vivaldi window , it crashes...
| szundi wrote:
| Tried months, maybe a year ago. Could not handle my 15 year old
| corporate email accont with 300k emails.
| blameitonme wrote:
| I'd use vivaldi if they improve their ui
| memling wrote:
| > I'd use vivaldi if they improve their ui
|
| Suggestions?
|
| The interfaces are pretty customizable, so it's surprising to
| find that this is a particular problem--unless there's
| something specific.
| blameitonme wrote:
| i honestly don't like their icons and paddings around the
| objects, maybe I'm nitpicking but those things go straight to
| my head.
|
| Didn't know that they allow changing the css, will try that
| later
| memling wrote:
| > i honestly don't like their icons and paddings around the
| objects
|
| Under Appearance is "User Interface Zoom."
| sphars wrote:
| One of the biggest complaints I've seen (and I've experienced
| firsthand) is that because Vivaldi is using a completely
| custom UI for their browser chrome, it's much slower than
| other other chromium-based browsers. For me, it takes 2-3
| seconds from starting the application to being able to use
| it, thanks to the rendering is has to do.
|
| Though I still use Vivaldi thanks to all the customization it
| offers.
| taylodl wrote:
| Isn't a browser something you always have running?
| Genuinely curious. Yes, Vivaldi takes a couple seconds to
| launch, but how often do you launch your browser? For me a
| browser is one of those applications I'm always running and
| I rarely shutdown my computer except when applying updates
| so the launch time doesn't really affect me. Just wondering
| what you're doing different than I.
| hammyhavoc wrote:
| When I work on audio, I only have my DAW open. I'm sure
| modern hardware can handle it, but force of habit really.
| leephillips wrote:
| The slow startup applies to new Vivaldi windows, too,
| unfortunately. This affects me because I use windows
| instead of tabs for the most part. Tabs open quickly, but
| opening a new window is a 2-second lag.
| oxff wrote:
| I'd use Vivaldi if it wasn't so very slow.
| josefresco wrote:
| I don't get this. 3 comments (so far) from people claiming
| slowness. I've been using Vivaldi for my "time wasting"
| browser (Hacker News, Reddit, Techmeme etc.) for quite some
| time and never see any slowness. I launch it dozens of times
| each day. I have a 2+ year old i7-9750H with 16 GB of RAM and
| I always have Chrome with 4 tabs min, and Firefox with 2 tabs
| min open simultaneously with Vivaldi.
| yborg wrote:
| Perception is reality. One commenter above felt that the
| "2-3 seconds" it took Vivaldi to start up was intolerable.
| Every post about this browser is always flooded by people
| whose main benchmark is that if a browser does not match
| Chrome on subjective performance, it's shit. I don't get it
| either.
|
| For me, tab tiling is an absolute killer app, unique to
| Vivaldi, and the somewhat slower UI performance than Chrome
| is well worth it just for that.
| TheFreim wrote:
| I think the people complaining about speed use new windows
| instead of tabs. I love Vivaldi but new windows take that
| 2-3 second load time meaning I don't even consider opening
| new windows outside very specific situations. Tab tiling
| alleviates this but then I have to remember different
| focus/bind schemes from my window manager.
| infinitezest wrote:
| I'd use it if the browser sync worked at all
| memling wrote:
| > I'd use it if the browser sync worked at all
|
| Out of curiosity, what doesn't work? I've had a few issues
| where I got logged out, but generally it's been pretty solid
| since intro.
| sirius87 wrote:
| If you know CSS, you can tinker with the actual browser UI.
|
| /opt/vivaldi/resources/vivaldi/style/common.css
| TheRealPomax wrote:
| You know where to find their issue tracker, help them help you?
| alephnan wrote:
| > A powerful email client built right into your browser.
|
| But I don't see a link to demo this on the web? There are only
| CTAs to download?
| lmkg wrote:
| You seem to be misunderstanding. "Built right into the browser"
| means that it is a feature of Vivalid, which is a browser, like
| Chrome. This is the _opposite_ of a page. It 's not _through_
| the browser, it 's _built into_ the browser.
| sergiotapia wrote:
| Just set up my email and calendar with Vivaldi. I'm probably
| going to switch from Brave, the features work really well. I miss
| Opera so much this feels like home. I'm back in 2004. :)
| e9 wrote:
| Is there a reason why you are not happy with current Opera
| browser?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-06-09 23:00 UTC)