578 members have voted

  1. 1. FireFox or Opera ?

    • Firefox
      354
    • Opera
      224


Recommended Posts

Actually.. Firefox is only "lighter" feature wise, that is it.  And that's not neccesarily a good thing either.

585222802[/snapback]

I do think Opera is bloated, actually. There are just many options I don't need. With Firefox, there are many plugins to do whatever I want. Not that I'm a huge fan of plugins, but some are useful.

Also, Opera has ads. I find those annoying, I want to be able to show as much of a page as possible. And cracking Opera is something I do not find fair for the developers.

I do think Opera is bloated, actually. There are just many options I don't need.

Extra featres are not bloat IMO. Word 97 had alot of features I never used, but was the best word processor to date. Look at the differences between Word 2003 and 97. The features only grew modestly yet the file size exploded.

Opera comes with what is needed for the average user to have a good internet experience. You could argue that Firefox offers no real advantages over IE without extensions (if you are running good AV and firewall).

Extra featres are not bloat IMO. Word 97 had alot of features I never used, but was the best word processor to date. Look at the differences between Word 2003 and 97. The features only grew modestly yet the file size exploded.

Opera comes with what is needed for the average user to have a good internet experience. You could argue that Firefox offers no real advantages over IE without extensions (if you are running good AV and firewall).

585222991[/snapback]

One could argue that, but Firefox does have tabbed browsing :yes:

You could argue that Firefox offers no real advantages over IE without extensions (if you are running good AV and firewall).

585222991[/snapback]

You could argue it, but you wouldn't win. Firefox has tabbed browsing, is more customizable (without using extensions), and has a better and more mature rendering engine.

What are you talking about?? The ad is huge!? Also, $39 USD is a lot of money for a web browser, especially when Firefox is free and can do almost everything, if not everything that Opera can do.

585220811[/snapback]

I am so ****ing sick of this thread going around and around in circles, of points been addressed then some jackass chiming in about 10 pages later who obviously either didn't read earlier in the thread or who has a short term memory span comparable to brain damage.

Read back in the thread. Read all of its pages. See comparison shots showing the new layout for Opera's ads, and the price reduction if you're a student (and also what the new licese agreements are)Also, $150 AUD is a lot of money for an Operating System, especially when Linux is free and can do almost everything, if not everything that Windows XP can do.b>

You could argue it, but you wouldn't win. Firefox has tabbed browsing, is more customizable (without using extensions), and has a better and more mature rendering engine.

Umm, do you mean Opera there? Cos Firefox does not use true tabbed browsing, uses extensions, and has an older rendering engine:s:s

Umm, do you mean Opera there? Cos Firefox does not use true tabbed browsing, uses extensions, and has an older rendering engine. :s

585225969[/snapback]

No, I mean Firefox. Firefox uses "true" (whatever the hell that means) tabbed browsing from what I can see, doesn't need to use extensions, and has an older yet more advanced and more mature rendering engine.

Also, $150 AUD is a lot of money for an Operating System, especially when Linux is free and can do almost everything, if not everything that Windows XP can do.

585225969[/snapback]

You're absolutely right. That's why some people don't bother with Windows anymore. :p

No, I mean Firefox. Firefox uses "true" (whatever the hell that means) tabbed browsing from what I can see, doesn't need to use extensions.............

585226365[/snapback]

Not wanting to sound rude, did you ever use Opera? The default tabbed browsing is way superior in Opera than Firefox...depending on your answer to the above question, I'll post in my next thread.

Not wanting to sound rude, did you ever use Opera? The default tabbed browsing is way superior in Opera than Firefox...depending on your answer to the above question, I'll post in my next thread.

585226431[/snapback]

Yes, I have used Opera, and sure, while the tabbed browsing has few more features, it doesn't mean that Firefox's tabbed browsing isn't "true". After all, it's very real. If you want to add more features to Firefox's tabs, get the Tabbrowser Extension.

Yes, I have used Opera, and sure, while the tabbed browsing has few more features, it doesn't mean that Firefox's tabbed browsing isn't "true". After all, it's very real. If you want to add more features to Firefox's tabs, get the Tabbrowser Extension.

585226853[/snapback]

But you said without the need of extensions.

Firefox's Tabbed Browsing is not a true MDI (Multiple Document Interface). It's tabbed browsing is sub-standard as a result.

Edited by Chode
I do think Opera is bloated, actually. There are just many options I don't need. With Firefox, there are many plugins to do whatever I want. Not that I'm a huge fan of plugins, but some are useful.

Also, Opera has ads. I find those annoying, I want to be able to show as much of a page as possible. And cracking Opera is something I do not find fair for the developers.

585222950[/snapback]

You think wrong. The fact is, Opera is NOT bloated by definition. Bloated means there are more features than anyone would use, and THAT causes a SLOWDOWN. This is not the case, Opera is still FAST.

Here is a link that debunks the bloated myth -> http://www.scss.com.au/family/andrew/opera/firefox/

No, I mean Firefox. Firefox uses "true" (whatever the hell that means) tabbed browsing from what I can see, doesn't need to use extensions, and has an older yet more advanced and more mature rendering engine.

You're absolutely right. That's why some people don't bother with Windows anymore. :p

585226365[/snapback]

More advanced rendering engine? Does firefox have anything equivalent to Opera's Extensible Rendering Architecture which allows it display sites on smaller resolutions without an hscroll bar? Resolutions such as those on phones, and older computers/oses. I didn't think so.

I am so ****ing sick of this thread going around and around in circles, of points been addressed then some jackass chiming in about 10 pages later who obviously either didn't read earlier in the thread or who has a short term memory span comparable to brain damage.

Read back in the thread. Read all of its pages. See comparison shots showing the new layout for Opera's ads, and the price reduction if you're a student (and also what the new licese agreements are)

Also, $150 AUD is a lot of money for an Operating System, especially when Linux is free and can do almost everything, if not everything that Windows XP can do.

:sleep: 

Umm, do you mean Opera there? Cos Firefox does not use true tabbed browsing, uses extensions, and has an older rendering engine. :s

585225969[/snapback]

Waaaah. Cry about it. I was responding to somebody's comment which was at the end of the thread. Get over yourself.

Also, Windows XP may be $200 but that means Opera, which is merely a browser costs 1/5 the price of an entire OS. If Opera was $20 bucks it wouldn't be outrageous. I like how everybody always defends Opera's price, but I would bet that most people that use Opera and don't complain about the price are pirating it. Also, you can't compare Linux to XP. Ease of use comes in to play there. The average person could not use Linux on a daily basis while most people can use XP without problems.

As for the last part, betasp was saying Firefox was no better and he's just a total idiot. I'm sure even you could agree on that. jagedEdge was just replying to betasp.

My problem with Opera is that it (last I checked) doesn't support XSL or MathML. Other than that, it's a great, sinfully speedy browser. I don't much like the ads, however.

I still find Firefox more suitable to my needs, however, and use it with pride; however, that doesn't mean my reasoning is justification enough for someone else to use it, nor does it mean that it is more suitable to someone else's needs (such as a frequent PDA user -- a fine point made by vcv).

You think wrong.  The fact is, Opera is NOT bloated by definition.  Bloated means there are more features than anyone would use, and THAT causes a SLOWDOWN.  This is not the case, Opera is still FAST.

Here is a link that debunks the bloated myth -> http://www.scss.com.au/family/andrew/opera/firefox/

More advanced rendering engine? Does firefox have anything equivalent to Opera's Extensible Rendering Architecture which allows it display sites on smaller resolutions without an hscroll bar?  Resolutions such as those on phones, and older computers/oses.  I didn't think so.

585227431[/snapback]

I'm sorry, but if I think something is bloated, I am definitely not wrong. Anyway, you can simply not argue that Opera has a better rendering engine. I code using valid XHTML 1.0 strict and CSS 2 and Firefox is always the one that displays things the way I want them to. Opera has some quirks, IE has too many to mention.

I used to be a huge Opera fan, but I switched to Firefox, because I had this weird feeling in Opera. I had the feeling every page I visited was fake. I don't know why, but I do feel that way.

Opera does have many things that are better, but overall I think Firefox is better.

Things I like about Opera are mouse gestures (though there's an extension to do that in Firefox) and the fast previous page button, it shows the previous page immediately without having to wait for some things.

Oh, and also, Opera does not have extensive Javascript support (at least I haven't seen it) that is needed for some pages.

I'm sorry, but if I think something is bloated, I am definitely not wrong.

Yes, you are. Bloat is something that can reasonably measured, and the link I provided shows that if Opera is 'bloated', that firefox is as well, if not more bloated.
Anyway, you can simply not argue that Opera has a better rendering engine.

I didn't say it was better, I said it was more advanced. There is definately a difference.

I used to be a huge Opera fan, but I switched to Firefox, because I had this weird feeling in Opera. I had the feeling every page I visited was fake. I don't know why, but I do feel that way.

I feel that way about Firefox, so I know what you mean. It's an illogical feeling, but there nonetheless.

Oh, and also, Opera does not have extensive Javascript support (at least I haven't seen it) that is needed for some pages.

Actually it better support for ECMAScript than any other browser. I think what you mean, is that it is a little lacking on DOM. It supports it quite well, but not as well as Firefox, at this point, unfortunately.

P.S. your site doesn't validate as XHTML 1.0. Might want to check it out ;)

What's the meaning of 'bloated'???

Opera has much more features than Firefox, yet Opera has smaller download size (w/o java) and smaller memory usage.

Think about how many extensions FX will need to match the amount of features Opera has, after all those extensions I can't imagine how heavy Firefox will be.

If one of them has to be classified 'bloated', I think Firefox is the one because it's unnecessarily heavy without any special features. (Tab or ad-block is really not that unique)

And the reason why I'm sticking to IE based browser is that both browsers felt too foreign for me. I think it's ironic that FX user is calling Opera 'unfriendly'.

Let me start by saying that I really like Firefox. That being said, this Browser A vs. Browser B threads won't ever matter. IE will always be number one based on the fact that it is part of the OS. IE is like your car radio. It comes with the car and if it works, you will likely not get a different one. Firefox, for the time, will always be number two because it is a safe AND free alternative. Opera users will say "but Opera is inexpensive". That may be true, but what if you don't have a credit or debit card or checking account? People will always choose free. And most won't use the free Opera because of the ads at the top. Again, Firefox is the best alternative (free & safe), but as long as IE is part of the OS, it will always be number one.

More advanced rendering engine? Does firefox have anything equivalent to Opera's Extensible Rendering Architecture which allows it display sites on smaller resolutions without an hscroll bar?? Resolutions such as those on phones, and older computers/oses.? I didn't think so.

585227431[/snapback]

If all you mean is downsizing a web page so it fits on a tiny screen, that doesn't sound like the job of a rendering engine. If Opera put it into their rendering engine, great for them, but it seems any program could do that with any rendering engine if you built it that way.

Oh, and Opera doesn't use MDI on OS X because OS X doesn't use MDI for its GUI. I don't see how MDI provides an advantage to tabbed browsing anyway.

If all you mean is downsizing a web page so it fits on a tiny screen, that doesn't sound like the job of a rendering engine. If Opera put it into their rendering engine, great for them, but it seems any program could do that with any rendering engine if you built it that way.

Why don't you go read up on what MSR actually does, then come back and try to debate:

http://www.opera.com/pressreleases/en/2004/01/20/

Oh, and Opera doesn't use MDI on OS X because OS X doesn't use MDI for its GUI. I don't see how MDI provides an advantage to tabbed browsing anyway.

Tabbed browsing + ability to detach pages. That's what. No other browser can do this.
He thinks it's bloated in a different manner. He's not wrong, nor is he right because it is an opinion.

Maybe if Opera was actually bloated by any definition, I'd let it slide. The link I provided shows that in no aspect is Opera bloated. And like I said, if he wants to call Opera 'bloated', he should call Firefox the same.

Having a lot of features is NOT a definition of bloat. If he wants to think that, fine, let him be a delusional moron. But I will still point out his invalid points.

Waaaah.  Cry about it.  I was responding to somebody's comment which was at the end of the thread.  Get over yourself.

And the maturity of this thread is now at.......13% :sleep:

Also, Windows XP may be $200 but that means Opera, which is merely a browser costs 1/5 the price of an entire OS.  If Opera was $20 bucks it wouldn't be outrageous.  I like how everybody always defends Opera's price, but I would bet that most people that use Opera and don't complain about the price are pirating it.

$20 USD if you're a student. Now that also means it's an unlimited cross-platform license too.

Also, you can't compare Linux to XP.  Ease of use comes in to play there.  The average person could not use Linux on a daily basis while most people can use XP without problems.

Ahh, but ease of use has everything to do with not only an Operating System but also a web browser. The aesthetics and ergonomic desings of a web browser are important as it will almost surely be used daily. But layout of the browsers is something that was discussed a lot of pages ago :sleep:

As for the last part, betasp was saying Firefox was no better and he's just a total idiot.  I'm sure even you could agree on that.  jagedEdge was just replying to betasp.

585227656[/snapback]

I don't think anyone's an idiot (bar one or two earlier posts in this thread). People should use the browser that makes them happy, but not rubbish every other browser on planet earth to try justify their own choice. I swear, some people are not trying to convince other people but only convince themselves.

Why don't you go read up on what MSR actually does, then come back and try to debate:

http://www.opera.com/pressreleases/en/2004/01/20/

Tabbed browsing + ability to detach pages.  That's what.  No other browser can do this.

585232442[/snapback]

I don't see where I would ever use that, but any other browser could easily implement it. Adium does it for chat windows. Apple could implement it in Safari. It's all a matter of what they want to do. Either way, that's not real tabbed browsing anymore. That's windowed browsing.

MSR seems interesting, but it's not that new of an idea. SSR (which they mentioned) has done this for a while (or at least the better SSR browsers). They just took the idea and modified it a bit. Besides, Gecko is modifiable. If Mozilla wanted to write a browser for those screens/devices, they could introduce the feature. Right now, Mozilla's browser only runs on Windows, Mac, and Linux and there's no real demand for a feature like MSR. When Opera released their browser to devices with smaller screens, customers probably wanted that feature.

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!