578 members have voted

  1. 1. FireFox or Opera ?

    • Firefox
      354
    • Opera
      224


Recommended Posts

...wait a second.  You said Opera was for the ones you want to get the job done without all the bells and whistles? Heh, Opera has way more bells and whistles out of the box than Firefox. Firefox is the one that gets the browsing job done, and does it extremely well...

585108377[/snapback]

Way more bells and whistles? Maybe in your view, but I think it contains just the right items you need(don't forget this browser is actually a suite)..but does that mean it cannot get the job done? right after installation does the user have to first go and configure options? absolutely not, he can begin surfing right away, with just the right set of tools needed.

Lav, why do you insist on calling it Firetruck? That's like me calling Opera "Screaming Fat Lady with a strange hat".

585108377[/snapback]

Doesn't have such a nice ring to it. :/

Originally it was just my way of making fun of how they changed the name 18'000 different times (give or take 17'998), but i guess it kind of stuck for me. Also when i heard about that one extension that lets you change the name of the browser i had to play with it some and i kind of thought that was funny.

firetruck.png

/me shrug

Re: Trolls.

For those who illegally obtained Opera, it's a tossup b/w Opera & Firefox.

For the paying customer, however, in their minds, Opera would be the better choice. There's no way that they're going to admit that Opera was the inferior product (it's not, btw.) They're not going to admit to making a pointless purchase.

That's the way of the world. If you choose to put your hard-earned dollars towards a product that you believe suits you best, it'd be very hard for a troll to sway you the other way.

By the same token, Opera users who troll on a Firefox-oriented thread (there are quite a few, actually) should find something better to do. Keep in mind that fx-users paid next to nothing for a product that has a great following.

Firefox-fanboys, and Anti-firefox-fanboys are one in the same. You can't differentiate b/w the two, no matter how hard you try. Neowin seems to engender this almost-zealous behavior, quite understandably, as it's a public forum of ideas.

Neowin isn't at fault. Nobody is. At the end of the day, the database is nothing more than a glob of opinions: some good, some bad, some useful, some useless. Infer what you will from the series of arguments presented. You have the right to decide how much time you'd like to waste on a project that has no impact on your life whatsoever.

There's no need for you to be irritated by the member of the opposite party, nor is it neccessary for you to rebuke or act callously in return.

Just my 1.99 cents.

Re: Trolls.

For those who illegally obtained Opera, it's a tossup b/w Opera & Firefox.

For the paying customer, however, in their minds, Opera would be the better choice. There's no way that they're going to admit that Opera was the inferior product (it's not, btw.) They're not going to admit to making a pointless purchase.

That's the way of the world. If you choose to put your hard-earned dollars towards a product that you believe suits you best, it'd be very hard for a troll to sway you the other way.

By the same token, Opera users who troll on a Firefox-oriented thread (there are quite a few, actually) should find something better to do. Keep in mind that fx-users paid next to nothing for a product that has a great following.

Firefox-fanboys, and Anti-firefox-fanboys are one in the same. You can't differentiate b/w the two, no matter how hard you try. Neowin seems to engender this almost-zealous behavior, quite understandably, as it's a public forum of ideas.

Neowin isn't at fault. Nobody is. At the end of the day, the database is nothing more than a glob of opinions: some good, some bad, some useful, some useless. Infer what you will from the series of arguments presented. You have the right to decide how much time you'd like to waste on a project that has no impact on your life whatsoever.

There's no need for you to be irritated by the member of the opposite party, nor is it neccessary for you to rebuke or act callously in return.

Just my 1.99 cents.

585109924[/snapback]

NO FIREFOX IS BETTER ! ! ! !

lol j/k. i agree completely and there isnt' really a point to asking this question in a thread. just like the thread above states, the base of neowin people like firefox.

The only way to tell which one to use, is to use both of em and see for yourself

i notice that you use Windows. Were you aware that Windows is not free? Why aren't you using Linux? I also hope America's Army is the only FPS you play, because almost all of the rest cost money. And i'll trust that you don't use Photoshop or Word or Nero.

585081777[/snapback]

And I assume when you try two products you equally like you go for the one you have to pay more for. One for $30, one for free. Here, take my money. I like both equally, just prefer to use the free one, and no i don't want an adbar at the top of the screen. Here's what I want out of a browser, display webpages, be unobtrousive, block popups and spyware. I could care less about which one uses 15kb less memory or loads up pages .1 seconds quicker. It's just a browser.

Edited by mufdvr3669
Because it's free of course. Most people don't want to pay for anything, so they somehow manage to convince themselves that inferior free alternatives are better than professional, commercial ones ;)

585110024[/snapback]

You can use Opera for free as long as you like so thats not even a valid arguement. And there are many cases where free alternatives are better than commercial ones too.

And I assume when you try two products you equally like you go for the one you have to pay more for.  One for $30, one for free.  Here, take my money.  I like both equally, just prefer to use the free one, and no i don't want an adbar at the top of the screen.  Here's what I want out of a browser, display webpages, be unobtrousive, block popups and spyware.  I could care less about which one uses 15kb less memory or loads up pages .1 seconds quicker.  It's just a browser.

585110029[/snapback]

Hmm, you know, i may have been a little more rabid than necessary. What i had assumed (mistakenly, i guess) was that your entire basis for using Firetruck was the freeness. But i guess if it's like that i probably can see your logic. Sorry. :p

Because it's free of course. Most people don't want to pay for anything, so they somehow manage to convince themselves that inferior free alternatives are better than professional, commercial ones ;)

585110024[/snapback]

Heh, so why not stick with IE then? :p

Also, Opera don't have to cost you anything besides an ad bar.

I personally think there are more to it than that...

Maybe better advertising job on Mozilla's part, maybe more features, maybe both.

There's definitely something else than money involved though, since I don't recall myself coughing up money to try out Opera.

Lav, why do you insist on calling it Firetruck? That's like me calling Opera "Screaming Fat Lady with a strange hat".

585108377[/snapback]

I like it...

(not a photoshop, my browser's title is now set to this)

Re: Trolls.

For those who illegally obtained Opera, it's a tossup b/w Opera & Firefox.

...

Just my 1.99 cents.

585109924[/snapback]

And since they're likely to be knowledgeable on tech stuff doesn't that tell you something?

585109936[/snapback]

A mob is only as smart as it's stupidest member. This especially proves true when you read posts by half of our members here. This thread is a shining example of the caliber of member you will find here on Neowin.

Oh yeah, Use Opera. :cool:

A mob is only as smart as it's stupidest member. This especially proves true when you read posts by half of our members here. This thread is a shining example of the caliber of member you will find here on Neowin.

Oh yeah, Use Opera.  :cool:

585110505[/snapback]

As rude as that sounds, I agree for the most part. Neowin has both extremes. Just because it prefers firefox as a community, does not make it better. This argument will fail over and over again. It is a logical fallacy.

I consider myself to be very very tech saavy. I work as a Software Engineer for a living, earning very good (and potentially excessive) money. I have used Opera since 3.x and Firefox since somewhere around 0.40. Now, since I prefer Opera.. does that make my opinion weigh more than another persons who is not as tech saavy? Absolutely not.

Opera is something that grows on you. The more you use it, the more little things you find, the more you like it. Firefox grabs you from the start. It's all about target audience.

Firefox tends to target newbies and people that want to migrate over from IE. They also target those who always want something new, and want control.

Not to say Opera doesn't do the same, but it's to a lesser degree.

Heh, so why not stick with IE then? :p

Because it's crap.

Also, Opera don't have to cost you anything besides an ad bar.

I personally think there are more to it than that...

Yes, Firefox is completely free. No ads or anything.

There's definitely something else than money involved though

Doubtful.

I've tried them both - I don't like either of them - but opera was better then firefox. Why? Yes opera has ads and yes it's a huge download if you want java; but opera loaded faster then firefox, opera had a better design and layout, and you can bearly see the text ads.

if you want a great browser, go with IE. but if you insist on not using IE, I'd say use opera :)

All the drive-by posters in this thread going 'lol ffox is betta cos oepra sux!11' and 'duh use opera :rolleyes:' lack common sense, not tech knowledge.

585110524[/snapback]

I second that.

'OK, here's what i'm going to do, everybody. I'm going to sign up for a forum and then i'm going to accumulate 1258 posts by just reading the thread titles and replying to them without thinking about or expounding my reply.'

CHECK

I'm going to end up getting banned because i can't stop pointing out idiocy. :(

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

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • I grew up a Star Trek fan and never watched Star Wars movies. To this days I've not watched most Star Wras movies. As a result I rarely get these references, I have no idea what this post means. Given the popular reactions these get I have to accept I missed out.  
    • Spotify really have turned in to a butthole of a company. Assuming this isn't a bug then this is a low act for Premium users. Honestly, YT Premium which includes YT Music is a genuine alternative. In any event, the internet enshitification continues unabated...next up, the banning of VPN's.
    • This is why science is the only path to truth. It isn't rigid in its beliefs, rather it changes its views based on scientific discoveries.
    • 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.
  • 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
      92
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      76
    5. 5
      Michael Scrip
      72
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!