FireFox or Opera ?

[vcv]

I am not convinced that you are aware of all the things Opera can do that Firefox can't (such as changing a theme without restarting), but I simply cannot be bothered to explain this to yet another badly informed Firefox user... Sigh. :no:

585292391[/snapback]

And people wonder why this thread is 22 pages. A few Firefox users spout uninformed opinions about Opera, and they are debunked. Rinse, repeat.

[megamanXplosion]

I was incorrect about the Wand earlier, it is indeed nothing more than a password manager and the other fields are seperate from the Wand. I have the wand disabled on my computer, I only have one user account (I have a hidden admin account, but rarely use it) and multiple people use my computer, hence my ignorance about it. After testing it a bit, I still believe that Opera's comparison was accurate because Opera can store several username/password combinations for sites [unlike IE] and it comes with a manager to handle editing [unlike IE.]

[Elliott]

Heh, I've observed something about you Opera fanboys. You almost always respond to the question "Why should I pay for Opera when Firefox does everything I need to do?" with "Do you even know how much Opera can do over Firefox?" Do you even realize how dumb that is? He just said "Firefox does everything I need it to do." If he doesn't need the extra features, then why should he pay for Opera? That's what you should be answering.

[Help]

Open Source is the future.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

Heh, I've observed something about you Opera fanboys. You almost always respond to the question "Why should I pay for Opera when Firefox does everything I need to do?" with "Do you even know how much Opera can do over Firefox?" Do you even realize how dumb that is? He just said "Firefox does everything I need it to do." If he doesn't need the extra features, then why should he pay for Opera? That's what you should be answering.

585294232[/snapback]

We were at 5 pages without the word fanboy being pronounced once until you came up. :no:

And if you really want that question answered you should re-read this thread because that's what it's all about. Or use Opera yourself extensively.

[vcv]

Heh, I've observed something about you Opera fanboys. You almost always respond to the question "Why should I pay for Opera when Firefox does everything I need to do?" with "Do you even know how much Opera can do over Firefox?" Do you even realize how dumb that is? He just said "Firefox does everything I need it to do." If he doesn't need the extra features, then why should he pay for Opera? That's what you should be answering.

585294232[/snapback]

You don't need tabbed browsing or any of the features Opera and Firefox have. The point is that Opera OFFERS more features than Firefox, and integrated at that. You won't understand why Opera lovers love it unless you learn these features.

[Chode]

I don't see the point in comparing the installed size. The download size is what matters.

But if you really insist on finding the size of the installed Opera, you should only measure the size of a clean installation, as otherwise, its size will depend on who you as. Just excluding the cache isn't enough either. You have to remember plugins, mail, the download folder, the uninstallation information (it takes backups of everything it replaces during installation), and so on. There's lots of user created info that starts piling up once you start using Opera.

585292297[/snapback]

I'm basing it off both applications, which I run on par with each other. And that is also Firefox with enough extensions installed to put it on par with Opera.

But installer size:

Opera 8 Beta 1: 3.47MB

FireFox 1.0: 4.68MB

+

FireFox Extensions: 1.86MB

=

6.54MB

And before anyone starts screaming "What extensions", I'm using

SessionSaver .2

FoxyTunes 1.0

Adblock v.5 d2

Tabbrowser Preferences 1.1.1

SmoothWheel 0.43.1.20041107

jsLib 0.1.244

Leechget Download Extension

[Fit4130Rider]

Chode, you speak oh so well. Preach it brother!

[Elliott]

You don't need tabbed browsing or any of the features Opera and Firefox have.? The point is that Opera OFFERS more features than Firefox, and integrated at that.? You won't understand why Opera lovers love it unless you learn these features.

585295333[/snapback]

You don't get to say what somebody's necessities are. I find that, on a 1024x768 screen, tabbed-browsing is a necessity.

Anyway, his needs are met with Firefox, so what does Opera have to offer that's worth the money?

Nebuchadnezzar, would you be happier with the term "zealots?" After all, it is a different word, even though it means nearly the same thing:p:p

[vcv]

You don't get to say what somebody's necessities are. I find that, on a 1024x768 screen, tabbed-browsing is a necessity.

Anyway, his needs are met with Firefox, so what does Opera have to offer that's worth the money?

Nebuchadnezzar, would you be happier with the term "zealots?" After all, it is a different word, even though it means nearly the same thing. :p

585295781[/snapback]

I think you need to go look up what a 'need' is.

We've already discussed what Opera has to over that's 'worth the money'.

I would not say he sticks with firefox because Opera would not suit his need just as well, if not better, and make him feel like it was money well spent, but rather because he wishes not to spend money when he doesn't NEED to, and because he hasn't experience Opera in full to understand why one might spend the money.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

I'm basing it off both applications, which I run on par with each other. And that is also Firefox with enough extensions installed to put it on par with Opera.

But installer size:

Opera 8 Beta 1: 3.47MB

FireFox 1.0: 4.68MB

+

FireFox Extensions: 1.86MB

=

6.54MB

And before anyone starts screaming "What extensions", I'm using

SessionSaver .2

FoxyTunes 1.0

Adblock v.5 d2

Tabbrowser Preferences 1.1.1

SmoothWheel 0.43.1.20041107

jsLib 0.1.244

Leechget Download Extension

585295516[/snapback]

Will people please quit using that stupid argument because it doesn't mean ****. Opera uses a more advanced compression method for the installer and the exe which eliminates any real comparision.

[Rix]

Opera.exe itself is smaller then Firefox.exe

Infact my opera.exe is only 76.5KB

Whereas Firefox.exe is 6.31MB.

opera.dll (which is that main dll that the exe calls when its loading im guessing?) is only 2.13Mb..

[megamanXplosion]

Opera uses a more advanced compression method for the installer and the exe which eliminates any real comparision.

I actually went through the Firefox directory to compress all of the DLLs and EXEs with ASPack and recompressed the directory (zipped with 'ultra' compression using 7zip.) I came around to the size of the Firefox installer; this tells me that Firefox's installer compresses just as good as Opera's installer because aspack didn't make a noticable difference. The only noticable difference between the installers is that after installation the Opera files remain compressed (due to ASPack) while Firefox's aren't. I do have to argue that size is important because some people keep their browser with them on their jump drives which has limited space and can be dreadfully slow to run if you're not on a USB 2 drive. Starting up the program and making cached copied of pages on the drive can slow down browsing drastically (I have Opera's disk cache turned off on my USB and use only computer memory so everything remains fast.) Size is important for some of us, so I'd have to argue that size is fair-game in a comparison.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

For the majority of the users it's still a useless fact and can hardly be seen as an advantage.

[Toxicfume Veteran]

For the majority of the users it's still a useless fact and can hardly be seen as an advantage.

585298930[/snapback]

You'd be surprised.

[jp10558]

Will people please quit using that stupid argument because it doesn't mean ****. Opera uses a more advanced compression method for the installer and the exe which eliminates any real comparision.

585298254[/snapback]

Well, first of all, on dialup (~50% of the US), an extra 1.2MB downlaod can mean 5-10 minutes more spent downloading ... SO it matters to us.

Also, that is usually posted in response to claims that FF is slimmer and less bloated than Opera. To me, slimmer would imply size...

How are you (or more specifically the FF people claiming bloat in Opera) measuring bloat?

If it's not size, is it features? Speed? I mean, what do you mean by saying Opera is bloated?

To me, I call applications bloated if some part of them is getting in the way of the core operation. Mozilla Seamonky is something I'd call bloated, so much crap it's slow to load, uses lots of memory and all around is too much stuff causing it to lumber around at web browsing.

Opera doesn't have that issue - it takes about 5 minutes to turn off anything I don't need, and in the next release (8?) I hear nothing is activated until you use it (mail, chat, RSS,etc...) Even better!

Now, clicking to turn things off doesn't take any more time (I claim it takes less time) than searching for, downloading and installing extensions. So the complaints about configuring Opera are hypocritical, unless you use FF without any extensions at all. I find that to be very unlikely - the vast majority of posts about FF configs list 3 to 6 extensions installed.

Now, I'd like to address why I use Opera myself.

Easy to use - integrated features. Secure - no third party toolbar capability to be exploited for spyware or browser hijacking. FAST, the UI, the history, the rendering are all faster and look better(to me) than IE or FF.

The main thing now is inertia. I've used Opera for a long time now - 3 years. v8 is a free upgrade. I see nothing from any of the competitiors that are good enough to even make me wonder about switching. FF has a LONG way to go to make me feel that there are features I'm missing out on. Opera would have to be complicit here, and allow the browser to stagnate like IE did...

Also, I'm still very concerned about the security risk of extensions. I know they are ok now, but browser toolbars were where the IE nightmare began IIRC. They are out for FF. And most spyware isn't gotten through browsing to sites, it's through installing weatherbug or the purple monkey...

People do install browser toolbars, from wherever. Some are going to spy on you, maybe do worse. Extensions allow for hijacks through installed programs etc...

[Nebuchadnezzar]

You'd be surprised.

585298941[/snapback]

I'm waiting. :pinch:

jp, I totally agree with you on the bloat thing, that's also one of the reasons I use Opera and hate FF. I see you. (Thanks for pointing out Gryphon's filter)

[fpd]

I use firefox as my primary browser and also occasionally use Opera 8 Beta 1.

I believe that firefox is the MORE bloated of the two. It starts up slower, it is coded in non-native xul, and when there are too many images on the page, scrolling using the mouse wheel is a little sluggish.

However fx better fits my needs. I don't care about extensions hell because its not hell for me. And I use 35 extensions! I like being able to:

Block ads using regular expressions

View the weather forecast on the status bar

Download all files with specified extensions (eg. PDFs and JPEGs) with just one mouse click

Control foobar or any other media player

Use an intuitive xul app to search amazon uk

Save sessions (Yes this is in opera too!)

Easy access to RSS (in opera, I know)

Receive Gmail notifications (with pop3, operamail could probably also do this)

Scroll a window by holding down the right mouse button

Use a full featured google toolbar with UK localisation

and lots more...without a significant hit on page rendering and system performance on my computer. Firefox is currently using just 25 MB RAM atm on my system with 3 windows and 12 tabs open. In fact with a few tweaks, pages load faster than the default opera settings for me. This may not be the same on all internet connections; mine's 1Mbps cable.

Maybe I am wrong but I don't think opera can do all of these things. Some of you are probably saying "but I don't need all that!". Well good for you. Use the extensions that provide functionality useful to you. Or if Opera does all that you want it to, use that. My only criticism of opera, and i know its not their fault, is that some pages render poorly unless you change the User Agent string, but that will change in time I am sure.

Opera is better for some people, firefox for others, can't we all just get along?

Edited January 15, 2005 by fpd

[megamanXplosion]

To me, I call applications bloated if some part of them is getting in the way of the core operation.

I agree, that's what I've never understood about people saying that the interface is bloated. The way the interface is setup allows all of the features to be used in an effecient manner, it's not like they're just slapping everything everywhere. Most of the changes to the default interface were chosen by the Opera users themselves by posting polls in the Wish-List forum. Bloated, to me, would mean that they add things to the interface which aren't helpful and if that is true then you're probably in the minority because it usually takes the majority of people to vote for a certain change on the forums for it to take place. Sometimes the developers themselves make changes which weren't mentioned at all on the forums and those are usually good changes, if they're not then they're changed in the next release because people talk about the changes on the forums. If there is something about the interface which you don't like then feel free to post a suggestion on their forums, if it's a good suggestion then it'll likely be implemented.

Also, I'm still very concerned about the security risk of extensions.

DLL plugins (like Flash and Java but malicious) which could be installed by malicious software is something else which Firefox/IE users should be afraid of. Spybot Search & Destroy protects Opera from loading those kinds of plugins by modifying Opera's plugin-ignore.ini file; however, it has no hook it could use to prevent Firefox/IE from loading malicious plugins when they start up. Firefox and Internet Explorer users will usually activate these malicious plugins (by opening their browser) before they're removed from their system, unlike Opera users because Opera refuses to load ignored plugins. You can count that as +1 point for Opera when it comes to security.

[Chode]

Will people please quit using that stupid argument because it doesn't mean ****. Opera uses a more advanced compression method for the installer and the exe which eliminates any real comparision.

585298254[/snapback]

It was in answer to another post.

I know it means crap, but read back the number of people in this thread who say Opera is bloated. :no:

[d_ralphie]

Will people please quit using that stupid argument because it doesn't mean ****. Opera uses a more advanced compression method for the installer and the exe which eliminates any real comparision.

585298254[/snapback]

wrong. opera is smaller even when uncompressed.

but let's compare other operating systems, shall we? these are taken from ftp.opera.com and ftp.mozilla.org:

mac:

- firefox: 8 846 kb

- opera: 4 290 kb

linux (static tar.gz, no installer):

- firefox: 8 032 kb

- opera: 5 442 kb

the numbers speak for themselves.

[apoorv]

both Firefox and Opera have their advantages and disadvantages BUT............. :angry:

BUT :D you will all agree $39 :x is not at all worth it. and FIREFOX is FREE :D :D. I am not saying Opera ds not have good things BUT..........

ITS FREE :D :D :D :devil: :woot:

[d_ralphie]

BUT :D  you will all agree $39  :x is not at all worth it. and FIREFOX is FREE :D  :D. I am not saying Opera ds not have good things BUT..........

ITS FREE :D  :D  :D  :devil:  :woot:

opera IS free, actually.

and we don't all agree that paying for opera is not worth it.

oh well, i don't expect you brainwashed firefox fanboy newbies to understand, or to even read the discussion. this has been discussed several times in this very thread, but you just had to jump your 133t open-source fanboy butt in here and start the whole thing all over again.

no wonder firefox is becoming more and more hated all over the place, with all the newbies shouting about things they haven't a clue about.

[megamanXplosion]

you will all agree $39  is not at all worth it.

Opera Software are innovators, that is enough reason to spend $39 on their products. There's about 100 more reasons I could mention which would justify a measly $39. The people who bought Opera 7 when it came out have been using it for 2 years and that equals up to 5 cents per day. If you take into consideration that Opera 8 is a free upgrade for customers and will likely be on the market for at least a year then it will be about 3 cents per day for customers to use ad-free. Heck, that's 3x less expensive than using a public copying machine just once per day! I don't see people complaining about shoving a dime into a machine to make a copy of a peice of paper, so why do I see such penny-pinching when it comes to software? It's absolutely pathetic, in all honesty.

While we're speaking about the cost of software, Firefox wouldn't have even been possible if it weren't for AOL sending millions of AOL CDs to people. Firefox is able to continue development because they recieved millions from AOL, which AOL only recieved (and thus, Mozilla only recieved) by sending out millions of CDs. I'd pay 3 cents per day just to ensure I don't get another AOL CD in my mailbox :whistle:

[Nebuchadnezzar]

wrong. opera is smaller even when uncompressed.

but let's compare other operating systems, shall we? these are taken from ftp.opera.com and ftp.mozilla.org:

...

585303260[/snapback]

Are you gonna compare programs by their size? Seriously, what's the damn logic behind this except for the god bless shorter download time? They're 2 different programs coded in completly different ways. For me that's simple fanboyishm.