578 members have voted

  1. 1. FireFox or Opera ?

    • Firefox
      354
    • Opera
      224


Recommended Posts

cmon i cant read mah gmail in opera , but then hotmail ( which i dont use) doesnt seem to work well with firefox , but still id say that firefox is better

585260941[/snapback]

This is what i have been trying to tell, and people here say "go for other alternatives". I have been using gmail for the past 6 months and it is my primary mailbox.

Not that it doesnt opens but it crawls and takes time to open up. Even mails take longer time to be send.

Exactley, he obviousley hasnt tried the latest version, Yet if we mentioned somthing about FF 0.9, we'd be flamed and told to use 1.0...Geesh..

585261255[/snapback]

1.0 is final. 8.0 is only in beta 1. If we don't want to run a beta, we don't have to. Stop touting 8.0 beta 1 and compare 7.54 to 1.0.

Oh, the voice library is only 2.5 MB according to the prompt Opera just gave me...

The sad thing in the browsers fight is that Opera seems to be forgotten completely. We only hear about FireFox around all the web.

Opera 8.0b1 is very intelligent IMO. I just love to see the status bar directly into the address bar.

FF's default UI looks more bloated than many other applications, but if you download noia 2.0, then it looks MUCH better than these old Windows 98 menus. In Opera, you cannot really pause the downloads, restart your computer and resume then (from what I've seen). Never tested this in Firefox, but if we can, then it's great.

Every browser has its weaknesses and strengths, but we have to remember that the real competitors are FireFox, Internet Explorer AND Opera.

This is what i have been trying to tell, and people here say "go for other alternatives". I have been using gmail for the past 6 months and it is my primary mailbox.

Not that it doesnt opens but it crawls and takes time to open up. Even mails take longer time to be send.

585260970[/snapback]

What do you mean crawl and take time? That's your connection, not opera. Plus, gmail has pop3 now, which you can configure gmail pop3 to read your mail within opera's m2 itself. I don't know about you, but that completely solves my problems.

1.0 is final. 8.0 is only in beta 1. If we don't want to run a beta, we don't have to. Stop touting 8.0 beta 1 and compare 7.54 to 1.0.

585261390[/snapback]

Eh!!!! This thread was started in October 2004. Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the almighty firefox still a beta then? So I think it's perfectly acceptable to compare opera 8 beta to firefox 1.0.

In Opera, you cannot really pause the downloads, restart your computer and resume then (from what I've seen).

I can. I done that yesterday when I was downloading Apache2Triad 1.5.0 (57mb) from sourceforge and needless to say, I've already installed it without any problems. If the download has problems resuming then it's probably due to the configuration of the server you're downloading from.

1.0 is final. 8.0 is only in beta 1. If we don't want to run a beta, we don't have to. Stop touting 8.0 beta 1 and compare 7.54 to 1.0.

I agree to an extent, comparing Opera 8.0 Beta 1 to a final release of Firefox isn't very fair; however, I think that comparing Opera 8.0 Beta 1 to the latest Firefox nightlies would be fair. And in this comparison, Gmail still works in Opera so I don't understand the purpose of this argument :p

What do you mean crawl and take time? That's your connection, not opera. Plus, gmail has pop3 now, which you can configure gmail pop3 to read your mail within opera's m2 itself. I don't know about you, but that completely solves my problems.

I'd have to agree with you here, Gmail's online interface crawls on all browsers I use (IE 6.0 SP2, Firefox 1.0 01/07 nightly custom built for AMD Athlon, and Opera 8.0 Beta 1.) I haven't seen any noticable speed differences between them. I only did that for testing purposes though, I use M2 and gmail's POP3 server to read my emails and it's always fast ;)

I think that comparing Opera 8.0 Beta 1 to the latest Firefox nightlies would be fair. And in this comparison, Gmail still works in Opera so I don't understand the purpose of this argument :p

585261547[/snapback]

:yes:

@jagedEdge, i never said you had to run the beta, But if gmail didnt work with firefox, and there was a new beta that did, and i complained that gmail didnt work with firefox, i'd be told to use the latest beta....

Listen dat version (7.54)is several mnths old.

and yes..if u r mad enough to use active x version then get this

http://www.meadroid.com/neptune/

and identify opera as IE!!!

shhh..u haven't been able to give really any valid reason.

And have been extremely arrogant.

Opera previews/betas are perfectly stable and useable just like any official realease. Here we go again through this retarded beta BS, first the FF users always coming up with that excuse in response to bugs and now critic O8.0b1 because it's 'beta'. Sorry but I never saw anybody complain when FF was in 'beta'.

Opera betas are not like firefox nightlies at all. They tend to be very stable. Especially this beta, I have had very few crashes with it, and it is much faster on all accounts. There is nothing in this beta that makes it not usable, unlike the firefox nightlies.

I have to agree with you, they are quite different in nature, but they want up-2-date comparisons so that's what they'll get, hehe. I also have to agree with you about the stability of this beta release (in the previews before it,) it's been incredibly stable for me. In 7.54 I experienced about 2-3 crashes a day; I haven't had a single crash in Opera for almost a week now and I'm loving it.

off-topic: Hey Pallab, where did you get that "Kill Firefox" image? That's funny! I remember when the Mozilla Foundation tried to do a Firefox vs Opera comparison and totally lied throughout the whole comparison. On the "Opera" column, they repeatedly said "not available" for particular features when Opera actually had the features and, in many cases, surpassed the functionality offered by Firefox. Needless to say, the Opera community was all over that like flies on cow crap! The page magically disappeared from their website to reappear later only half-corrected, grrr. I do wish that the Mozilla Foundation would quit spreading lies. One of my favorite lies (this is from the fanboys and not the moz foundation, just to clarify) is "it's open source so it'll be fixed very quickly!" but upon looking through BugZilla you can easily see that there are "moderately critical" security problems which have been present for almost 3 years (such as the "browser history gets lost" bug which was duplicated around 60 times...) And before anyone tries to flame me for this, I understand that problems can take a long time to fix, it's the lie about it which bothers me, not the time...

Did I say there was something wrong with the betas? No. I just said that you should compare final to final. I don't want people to use the Nightlies. If Gmail didn't work in Firefox, I would not be the one to tell you to use the Firefox nightly that did work. Not everybody wants to run a beta, even if its stable.

Oh, and don't compare nightlies to betas. Nightlies are very different. Preview Releases are betas.

The memory usage depends on tabs opened etc. Opera also have memory issues. But if you select other than automatic settings on memory in Opera it gets better. My Opera currently use 148mb of ram...

585254708[/snapback]

38MB here. :p I'm thinking of switching from Firefox. Only thing I hate is Blogger.com support of Opera. It looks crappy. Oh well, switching to MovableType anyway.

Edit:I still love Firefox though as it was my first. Boy I had some great times I won't forget. I think that as long as they aren't using IE then we should all be happy for them.

Question: does Blogger work better with Opera 8 beta 1?

Edited by NeoTech
Oh, and don't compare nightlies to betas. Nightlies are very different. Preview Releases are betas.

I don't see anything wrong with comparing them, as long as you do not dive into stability or speed comparisons (afterall, one mistake and the speed and stability of the program could take a nosedive.) Feature comparisons between Opera betas and Firefox nightlies is perfectly fine IMHO. Just because they are different, that doesn't mean they don't have similarities.

I don't see anything wrong with comparing them, as long as you do not dive into stability or speed comparisons (afterall, one mistake and the speed and stability of the program could take a nosedive.) Feature comparisons between Opera betas and Firefox nightlies is perfectly fine IMHO. Just because they are different, that doesn't mean they don't have similarities.

585263112[/snapback]

Eh, I wouldn't even compare features. Features can evolve from one nightly to the next. It's when you have a Preview Release and a Beta that you should compare features.

I think any version with a direct link on the front-page is fair game for comparison.  Thus, Opera8b1 is fair to compare against FF1.0

585263900[/snapback]

Yea, since my Opera 8.0 beta 1 actually is more stable than any other earlier versions on my computer. Have used it since it was "released" a month ago. Haven't had one crash yet. And I use it almost all the time...

Well, from my experiences, I like Firefox more. I used Opera for quite a while not too long ago and I just didn't really like the way it worked. It seemed far too cluttered and slow for me. Firefox just performs very quickly. I also like how minimal it is even with every feature I need.

To each his own though.

Try them both out... That's the best way to decide which is better for you.

If Opera, the world's fastest browser, seemed slow to you then that is likely the fault of your antivirus or firewall software and not Opera itself (there are many many many topics about this on the myopera forums and these are the culprits about 75% of the time.) I should also mention that the 8.0 beta has many interface (mainly uncluttering and reorganizing) changes.

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!