578 members have voted

  1. 1. FireFox or Opera ?

    • Firefox
      354
    • Opera
      224


Recommended Posts

They could.. they could.. they could...

... but they don't. Opera manages to keep it's footprint down to a minimum so it can use the same rendering engine on different platforms, including phones.

The ability for it to be flexible like this is very important for this. It is NOT easy to implement.

You seem to think that just because you don't use it, it's not all that important, or impressive.

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

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

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:

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.

585232736[/snapback]

1. As if you always act mature.

2. $40 for people who aren't students which is most people in this world. My point stands. "I swear, some people are not trying to convince other people but only convince themselves."

I'll leave it at that.

Battle of the flaming browser lovers in here...

I don't know the internals of Firefox or Opera, but I do know I like Firefox a lot better than IE. I also like the simplistic beauty of Firefox whereas Opera looks like too much is going on. One thing I am sure of is that everyone should stop using IE.

To each his own

Firefox is always the one that displays things the way I want them to.

Probably because you primarily code in Firefox, and only then check in other browsers... :no:

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

Opera has 100% support for JavaScript. The problem isn't that Opera can't do it. The problem is that sites send Opera outdated code from before Opera had proper DOM support, and that breaks Opera now that it does have it. If they sent Opera whatever they are sending to everyone else, it would work fine.

i did try opera, the interface is just too messy for me.
I also like the simplistic beauty of Firefox whereas Opera looks like too much is going on.

Did you people try Opera 8.0?

Opera is a nagware ass far as i am concerned.

It's adware, not nagware.

I don't see where I would ever use that, but any other browser could easily implement it. Adium does it for chat windows.

Uh, comparing a program's ability to transform pages it generates itself, and a program which does that to any web page is rather silly.

Apple could implement it in Safari. It's all a matter of what they want to do.

They could, but that is not to say that it's easy. Remember, this is about reformatting any page to any screen size!

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.

LOL. Opera invented SSR! :D

The SSR arconym came from Opera's name for its new small screen feature.

Opera's ERA (Extensible Rendering Architecture) is a step beyond SSR (Small Screen Rendering) and MSR (Medium Screen Rendering), and basically merges everything into one thing where you can use any size instead of being limited to only certain predefined sizes.

indeed. <yoda> begun the browser wars have. </yoda>

Opera and Mozilla are cooperating on several projects, actually, like an extension to HTML, and a new plug-in architecture... Seems to me that the "wars" are more about bickering between fanboys like myself and lots of others in this thread :laugh:

:yes: Firefox has won me over after using Opera for the better part of a year. Opera has an overly-busy GUI and does not offer the same security features that Firefox does in its present format. While Opera 8.0 has some useful add-ins, what a mess to look at.

Firefox is the clear winner. Simplicy on the face that is driven by finesse

Opera has an overly-busy GUI and does not offer the same security features that Firefox does in its present format.  While Opera 8.0 has some useful add-ins, what a mess to look at.

What "security features"?

How is Opera "a mess to look at"?

You are one of the people giving Firefox a bad name, with your badly formulated and vague attacks against Opera. It is like you haven't really tried Opera, but it's COOL to love Firefox and hate Opera now.

i sad everytime read fighting posts on neowin.

nature is watching us, tsunami is the prove, my country is mourning...

Offtopic...

I am truly sad for your area of the world. Ravaged now by a natural disaster... after years of conflict after conflict, poor economic conditions and instability in government (generally speaking) The reality is almost all of the people on Neowin are not poor and come from coutries where REAL poverty no longer exists. 80% of the people in the food kitchen lines (free meal lines) in New York City have VCRs at home. That's right, not only do the have homes, but the have VCRs.

Your perspective is unique and honest, just foreign to most everyone here. Maybe over time people will begin to have an understanding that the things that seem so important to them are not what is important in life.

i like firefox more probably becuase its free and i peronally like some of the extensions i can get for it.

although i have used opera before 7.somit and it was a good browser its just i prefered to use firefox over anything ive tryed so far.

but just becuase i like firefox doesnt mean that other people have to use it.. they are free to choose what they wish to run on their pcs/macs or whatever they use to browse.

Probably because you primarily code in Firefox, and only then check in other browsers... :no:

585235088[/snapback]

Well, I check in all browsers, and I have to put in hacks for IE and Opera. I admit that I primarily use Firefox, though. However, if I was to put together a web page in terms of code structure and CSS without ever looking at it at a browser, I'm sure it would look more like the intended in Firefox. I am not attacking Opera now, Opera is a fine browser, but there are still problems, like with IE.

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

585229584[/snapback]

I know, working on the backend atm, thanks for telling me anyway :)

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

585229584[/snapback]

Well, true. However I think I value "better" more than "advanced".

It's just like Sykil said, it is my opinion whether or not something is bloat. It is how I feel about it. This is personal for everyone. How you think about it may not be how I think about it. That does not mean either of us is wrong.

You are one of the people giving Firefox a bad name, with your badly formulated and vague attacks against Opera. It is like you haven't really tried Opera, but it's COOL to love Firefox and hate Opera now.

Absolutely not true. I have used Opera for several months, and it is a nice browser. However, I just like Firefox better. I've stated my reasons why I find Firefox better than Opera. I have used both, so I know what I am talking about. Yes, I also have Opera 8 beta on my computer. It still has problems displaying certain websites (like my own).

There are things I like better about Opera, like the Wand (it's nice to have to click just one button and then it loads the form immediately). Firefox has something like the Wand, which is auto-complete. I like the Wand better, though.

Overall, both are good, but I prefer Firefox. Perhaps if Opera improves in the future, I will use it again. Perhaps.

It's just like Sykil said, it is my opinion whether or not something is bloat. It is how I feel about it. This is personal for everyone. How you think about it may not be how I think about it. That does not mean either of us is wrong.

Ok.. but when you have an opinion.. you should at least have SOMETHING to back it up. Anything. Not just how you feel. If you only FEEL that it is bloated and nothing else.. then please understand that your feeling is illogical. We do have illogical feelings, so no one should hold it against you. But at least admit it. If it's more than just a feeling, then why not explain why you think it's bloated? I gave a comparison that shows the real story, fact for fact. You told me you get a 'feeling'.
What do you think guys, i need prefromance comments, i know that opera costs money and ff is free but i need some comments on the prefromance ( ex: mem usage, speed ) ... many thanks in advance :)

584793263[/snapback]

Opera is faster going back/forward in history.

Otherwise, regarding loading speed, I dunno... Firefox seems a bit slower, but I think that's because Opera starts displaying the page faster without all loaded. On the other hand, exactly that setting is tweakable in Firefox so you can set it to 0 millisecs if you want in about:config. I think it's something like .25 secs by default since many feel it's annoying to have page reflows while trying to read a page.

I regard the ad as naging thing which is also GIF supported.

If i get a better browser for free then why should i settle for a nagware or register for it?

585237287[/snapback]

You don't have to. No one is saying you do.

I sure hope you aren't implying people that are paying for opera are "settling" for it. I paid because I want to support the Opera team for the awesome work they have done, and because I think Opera gives me the superior browsing experience.. something I can and have backed up with facts.

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!