578 members have voted

  1. 1. FireFox or Opera ?

    • Firefox
      354
    • Opera
      224


Recommended Posts

no obsious effect??

I'd like you to run MSN Messenger, Paint Shop Pro 8, RealOne and Opera (besides the background stuff like the firewall and antivirus) with 512mb... then tell me if you don't feel the lag...

I monitor my mem usage every time a instal a new app. I like to use my memory efficiently. :p

(call me a geek or what ever, but I will allways do it)

584813044[/snapback]

Geek. :D

no obsious effect??

I'd like you to run MSN Messenger, Paint Shop Pro 8, RealOne and Opera (besides the background stuff like the firewall and antivirus) with 512mb... then tell me if you don't feel the lag...

I monitor my mem usage every time a instal a new app. I like to use my memory efficiently. :p

(call me a geek or what ever, but I will allways do it)

584813044[/snapback]

Well, just to make as close scenario as possible to yours, here I am running Opera 7.6p2, photoshop cs, virtual pc(with windows xp on), windows media player and winamp...and guess what? Opera's responsiveness is perfect. And over system doesn't feel choked.(i got 512mb of ram too)

I feel it's pointless to bother about cause it has nothing more than a psychological effect. oh well...each to their own. :)

yeah firefox, your fanboy here forgot to mention the barrage of webpages opera doesnt load properly

and youd be suprised how many things it doenst load properly you dontnotice but will screw you up

i was an opera user for years until i discovered the web with firefox, will NEVER go back

584793302[/snapback]

Yeah? Show us some sites that don't load properly in Opera.

Bloat isn't how big the file is. It's how much crap that's packed into the software. Firefox just happens to have higher quality images and and less compressed stuff, so it's larger. Doesn't mean Opera has less bloat. Mac OS X is regarded by many to have less bloat than Windows, yet OS X is much larger than Windows in file size.

584798629[/snapback]

No. I've compressed/uncompressed both Opera and Firefox. Firefox is simply bigger. It simply HAS MORE CODE. I can GUARANTEE that to you. More code and bigger size do not mean bloat. Poorly written code causes bloat.

no obsious effect??

I'd like you to run MSN Messenger, Paint Shop Pro 8, RealOne and Opera (besides the background stuff like the firewall and antivirus) with 512mb... then tell me if you don't feel the lag...

I monitor my mem usage every time a instal a new app. I like to use my memory efficiently. :p

(call me a geek or what ever, but I will allways do it)

584813044[/snapback]

I'm running: mIRC, Photoshop, AIM, Visual Studio.NET, Visual Basic 6.0, Opera, MSN Messenger, rAdmin server, Google Desktop, editplus, Dreamweaver, and Outlook.

512 megs of ram on a 3.0Ghz p4 laptop. No noticable slowdown.

As far as customizability.. FF is more customizable if you don't mind editing the source. Otherwise, Opera is more. Have you people ever looked at how much you can modify the toolbars, menus, mouse gestures, and shortcut keys? COMPLETELY.

Edited by vcv
As far as customizability.. FF is more customizable if you don't mind editing the source. Otherwise, Opera is more. Have you people ever looked at how much you can modify the toolbars, menus, mouse gestures, and shortcut keys? COMPLETELY.

Bull****. Opera has _no_ extension system. In FF you can modify the entire UI in CSS and XUL (XUL is HTML like and CSS.. is well, the same as you use for styling your website), not to mention the amount of customization you can do by going to about:config in the location bar - far bloody more than Opera.

Personally I prefer uncluttered menus and sane defaults but with unlimited power when it comes to getting under the hood than some cluttered option menus where you cant find anything.

Sorry, but Opera's main weaknesses are that it has no support for W3C DOM until Version7, and even now it's pretty terrible in supporting most of the standard which makes writing powerful javascript hard (why do you think there is no spell checker in Gmail, and Gmail didn't work at all without a load of hacks), and very little extensibility.

PS: It would be much better if Firefox and Opera worked toghter instead of fighting. Fighting like this only helps IE, which I'm sure we all agree is something we don't want...

Bull****. Opera has _no_ extension system. In FF you can modify the entire UI in CSS and XUL (XUL is HTML like and CSS.. is well, the same as you use for styling your website), not to mention the amount of customization you can do by going to about:config in the location bar - far bloody more than Opera.

Personally I prefer uncluttered menus and sane defaults but with unlimited power when it comes to getting under the hood than some cluttered option menus where you cant find anything.

Sorry, but Opera's main weaknesses are that it has no support for W3C DOM until Version7, and even now it's pretty terrible in supporting most of the standard which makes writing powerful javascript hard (why do you think there is no spell checker in Gmail, and Gmail didn't work at all without a load of hacks), and very little extensibility.

PS: It would be much better if Firefox and Opera worked toghter instead of fighting. Fighting like this only helps IE, which I'm sure we all agree is something we don't want...

584815181[/snapback]

Firefox's extension system does give it points, ill give it that.

But I'm talking about customization for the average user with the default install. With Opera, everything is there and customizing keyboard shortcuts, menus, interface.. is EASY. In firefox, it requires a bit more work.

firefox is open source and thus super customizable right? but to take full advantage of that the majority of users must have a working knowledge of code and be able to write their own extensions etc for their own specifiied purposes. however, i think the normal joe sixpack user just dls these extensions which other people release. there is no big difference in ideology then downloading addons for MSIE/ or winamp.

opera on the other hand allows the user to customize pretty much anything minus the broswer engine, with no need to download/patch/code.

There is no comparison. Firefox is and always will be, free, and Opera isn't. End of Story.

584816665[/snapback]

free-- and end of story? they gave out free pepsi vanilla down the street. that wasnt the end of the story for my stomach. there's no free lunch. somebody must have told you there is always an opportunity cost to anything free. time is the opportunity cost. and time is what i dont have to sit like a goof in front of my computer downloading and deleting extensions and figuring out that im working on a skeleton of a broswer with an average site rendering engine.

but opera, imo, really is different. but w/e firefox users should continue to use it, keeps the security/spyware issues on other less popular browsers down. if using firefox makes you feel smarter, then use it.

PS: It would be much better if Firefox and Opera worked toghter instead of fighting. Fighting like this only helps IE, which I'm sure we all agree is something we don't want...

584815181[/snapback]

It's competition. You could extend your argument, why not FireFox and Opera work together with Microsoft? I am not suggesting this. We just need competition to entice people to create bigger better things.

I prefer Opera, but have found times I need to use IE because FireFox nor Opera could render the page. I have had no other trouble with Opera, it is customizable enough for my tastes and very fast.

However, Opera and FireFox are fighting different battles. FireFox is 100% fighting IE on the Desktop. But Opera is fighting for the mobile devices also and offering innovative new features.

So for the Desktop, FireFox may actually be better.. but for some reason I just like Opera's simplicity.

I use Opera everyday. Not that I think it is better than FF, but I find it to be more intuituve and faster for MY needs. Try both, I have both installed but find myself always using opera.

PS. Call me crazy, but I actually own a copy of Opera (that is right, I paid then). I thought they deserved my money for making a good product that is fast and simple to use for my needs. The interface is faster on my computers, too.

I say opera, works great, takes way less memory than ff does on my comp, is faster than FF on my comp, and just overall the usability of it, no need to be looking for extentions and what not, everything is in it and the file dl is smaller than FF. i tried ff for about a month of 2 and didnt feel comfortable with it, but when 1.0 final gets out i'll give it another try just to see if is worth it, to see if it can actually perform as good as opera 7.6 becuase as of right now opera is just way better in every way... alot of people prefer ff becasue is free, well if you pay for opera you get what you deserve, free software is not the best just because the source gets worked on nby many people, but thats just my opinion of course....

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • A 13 billion year old secret about our Universe's origin was revealed by Sayan Sen Image by Pascal Küffer via Pexels Researchers at the Max-Planck-Institut für Kernphysik (MPIK) in Heidelberg had recreated a key chemical reaction from the early universe, producing results that could change scientists' understanding of how the first stars formed. The study focused on the helium hydride ion (HeH⁺), which is widely regarded as the first molecule to form in the universe. Scientists believe HeH⁺ appeared around 380,000 years after the Big Bang, when the universe had cooled enough for electrons and atomic nuclei to combine into neutral atoms in a period known as recombination. This marked the beginning of chemistry in the cosmos. Immediately after the Big Bang about 13.8 billion years ago, the universe was extremely hot and dense. As it expanded and cooled, hydrogen and helium became the dominant elements. Once neutral helium atoms formed, they could react with ionised hydrogen nuclei, or protons, to create helium hydride ions. Although simple in structure, HeH⁺ played an important role in the young universe. It was the first step in a chain of reactions that eventually produced molecular hydrogen (H₂), a molecule made up of two hydrogen atoms and now the most abundant molecule in the universe. Molecular hydrogen later became a key ingredient in the formation of the first stars. At the time, the universe had entered a phase often called the cosmological "dark age." Matter had become transparent to light following recombination, but there were still no stars or galaxies producing visible light. Several hundred million years would pass before the first stars appeared. For those first stars to form, large clouds of gas had to collapse under their own gravity. To do that, the gas needed to cool by releasing energy. While hydrogen atoms can help with this process at high temperatures, they become less effective below about 10,000 degrees Celsius. Molecules can continue the cooling process by releasing energy through rotational and vibrational motions. Scientists have long considered HeH⁺ a potentially important coolant because of its comparatively large dipole moment, a property that describes how electric charge is distributed within a molecule and allows it to release energy efficiently. The amount of helium hydride present in the early universe may therefore have influenced how easily the first stars could form. At the same time, HeH⁺ was constantly being destroyed. Under primordial conditions, its main destruction mechanisms were recombination with free electrons and chemical reactions with hydrogen atoms. These reactions ultimately helped produce molecular hydrogen, linking the formation and destruction of HeH⁺ to the chemistry that shaped the early universe. For many years, theoretical studies suggested that reactions between HeH⁺ and hydrogen atoms would become much slower at low temperatures. Scientists believed there was an energy barrier along the reaction pathway that reduced the chances of the reaction taking place in the cold conditions of the early universe. The new study suggests otherwise. To investigate the process, researchers recreated a closely related reaction using deuterium, a naturally occurring isotope of hydrogen that contains one proton and one neutron in its nucleus. When HeH⁺ collides with deuterium, it forms an HD⁺ ion and a neutral helium atom. This allows scientists to study the reaction in a controlled way while closely mimicking the behaviour of the original reaction involving hydrogen. The experiments were carried out at the Cryogenic Storage Ring (CSR) at MPIK, a specialised facility designed to recreate conditions similar to those found in space. Researchers stored HeH⁺ ions in the 35-metre storage ring for up to 60 seconds at temperatures just a few kelvins above absolute zero and merged them with a beam of neutral deuterium atoms. By adjusting the speeds of the two particle beams, the team measured how the reaction rate changed with collision energy, which is directly related to temperature. The researchers found that the reaction rate remains almost constant as temperatures decrease. In other words, the reaction does not slow down at low temperatures as earlier models predicted. “Previous theories predicted a significant decrease in the reaction probability at low temperatures, but we were unable to verify this in either the experiment or new theoretical calculations by our colleagues,” explained Dr Holger Kreckel of MPIK. “The reactions of HeH⁺ with neutral hydrogen and deuterium therefore appear to have been far more important for chemistry in the early universe than previously assumed,” he continued. According to the researchers, the reaction appears to be barrierless, meaning there is no energy obstacle preventing it from taking place efficiently even at very low temperatures. The findings support recent theoretical work led by physicist Yohann Scribano, whose group identified an error in a widely used potential energy surface, a mathematical model used to describe how the energy of a system changes during a chemical reaction. The error appears to have caused previous studies to significantly underestimate reaction rates under primordial conditions. The new calculations closely match the experimental results. Together, they suggest that helium chemistry in the early universe may need to be re-evaluated. Because molecules such as HeH⁺ and molecular hydrogen played an important role in cooling primordial gas clouds, the findings could help scientists build more accurate models of how the first stars formed. By showing that helium hydride was likely destroyed more efficiently than previously thought, the study offers new insight into the chemical processes that shaped the universe during its earliest stages and helped set the conditions for the emergence of the first stars. Source: Max-Planck Institute, EDP Sciences This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • "What an interesting smell you've discovered"
    • It could EASILY be 70 for the base game BUT + lots of FOMO to make it up to 100-120, like a few days Early Access, online money, pre-order bonus cars, weapons, missions, clothing, avatars or profile stuff, etc... And still WAY TOO MANY people would buy those and make Rockstar insane money.
    • Just to understand: your solution to getting rid of an online password manager is...another online password manager?
    • Cjam 2.5.0.0 by Razvan Serea Cjam is a lightweight and fast MP3 editor for Windows that lets you cut, join, and edit MP3 files without re-encoding. This means your audio quality remains untouched, and edits happen instantly. Cjam is ideal for quick, lossless edits—whether you're trimming music, combining tracks, or preparing audio for learning tools or podcasts. It features batch processing, scripting support, cue and playlist file handling, and a simple interface. Cjam is perfect for anyone who needs efficient MP3 editing without the complexity of full audio suites. Cjam requires a PC running Windows 10 or later and Microsoft .NET 6.0 or later. Key features for Cjam: No Re-encoding: Edit MP3 files without losing quality. Cut and Join MP3: Easily cut, trim, and combine MP3 tracks. Batch Processing: Edit multiple files at once for faster workflows. Scriptable Interface: Automate tasks with a custom command language. Cue and Playlist Support: Handle CUE and playlist files for seamless audio management. Fast and Lightweight: Quick processing with minimal system resources. Lossless Audio Editing: Ensure your edits don't affect audio quality. Simple User Interface: Clean, intuitive design for easy navigation. File Format Support: Works with MP3, Cjam-specific file formats (CJAMC, CJAMJ, CJAM). Cjam 2.5.0.0 changelog: Added clipboard-based import/export support for mp3DirectCut Added clipboard-based export support for REAPER Added support for naming IMP3 elements Changed the Reset behavior to preserve Undo/Redo history; use Shift key + Reset button to clear it Added a new command parameter (qcp) Added 8 new entries to lang.txt (main_c124-126, main_d150-151, main_m082, vme_c014, vme_d005) Fixed a bug where the il parameter was incorrectly applied when pasting VMP3s into the main list Fixed several other minor bugs Download: Cjam 2.5.0.0 | 1.4 MB (Freeware) Links: Cjam Home Page | Cjam Manual | Screenshot Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware
  • Recent Achievements

    • Dedicated
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • First Post
      DrWankel earned a badge
      First Post
    • Reacting Well
      DrWankel earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • Week One Done
      Supreme Spray LV earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Genuinetonerink- Dubai earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      504
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      163
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      91
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      75
    5. 5
      Michael Scrip
      72
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!