578 members have voted

  1. 1. FireFox or Opera ?

    • Firefox
      354
    • Opera
      224


Recommended Posts

But if they're annoying, they do hinder your ability to use Opera. I don't think radio stations with commercials are free, since commercials are extremely annoying on radio. I don't think Opera is free either. Any diehard Opera user will probably spit out Opera is free by using the explanation you just said, but it really isn't. Stop fooling yourselves.

585306972[/snapback]

No, not any 'diehard Opera user'. More like any rational person who isn't fishing for tenuous excuses to criticise something. The software is fully functional without purchasing it, THEREFORE IT IS FREE. Honestly, this is not a difficult concept to grasp. The definition of free is 'costing nothing'. You can not dance around that, it's a very simple definition. You pay nothing to use Opera, so it's free, at least in the sense that normal every-day people call something free. ('Free as in beer'. I know there's also 'free as in speech', but i get the very distinct impression that the people bitching about banner ads in Opera (a) aren't talking about that at all and (b) don't even know what that term means.)

I mean, come on. Saying that radio isn't free to listen to because you don't like the commercials has got to be the stupidest thing i've ever heard. It's not even trying to be an arguement. You don't pay for it, so, by normal, lay-man standards, it's free. Jesus Christ.

No, not any 'diehard Opera user'. More like any rational person who isn't fishing for tenuous excuses to criticise something. The software is fully functional without purchasing it, THEREFORE IT IS FREE. Honestly, this is not a difficult concept to grasp. The definition of free is 'costing nothing'. You can not dance around that, it's a very simple definition. You pay nothing to use Opera, so it's free, at least in the sense that normal every-day people call something free. ('Free as in beer'. I know there's also 'free as in speech', but i get the very distinct impression that the people bitching about banner ads in Opera (a) aren't talking about that at all and (b) don't even know what that term means.)

I mean, come on. Saying that radio isn't free to listen to because you don't like the commercials has got to be the stupidest thing i've ever heard. It's not even trying to be an arguement. You don't pay for it, so, by normal, lay-man standards, it's free. Jesus Christ.

585307672[/snapback]

It costs screen space :p

Only kidding, really :)

In my opinion (and I really don't want to start a flame war; I'm just using this as a comparison), OS X is much better than Windows, and the learning curve a lot less. I've seen people do things with their Macs that they could only dream of doing on their PCs as easily. Same goes for Firefox. The ease of use and safety in browsing makes people really want to browse more. Firefox's ease of use caters to the newbies, but it has its powerful backend of XUL and Gecko to give it a punch that delivers an awesome experience for both advanced users and newbies alike.

585307105[/snapback]

I find Opera a lot easier to use. It has tons of little features and shortcuts that backup the "Fastest browser on earth" claim. Adding extentions to firefix STILL can't provide the same feeling for me. Firefox's XUL feels slow to me. It feels like there is always a slight delay. XUL may be a "powerful" backend, but i's overkill for GUI. Opera's UI engine (Quick or something, i cant remember the name) is faster and better suited for GUI IMO.
I laugh in the face of your ignorance HA HA HA HA HA

I'm no newbie, buddy, and I love Firefox. Is it because it's less "advanced"? NO. I find Firefox to be a lot faster and better for my uses than Opera is. Opera just seems to be very mediocre to me.

585307298[/snapback]

It was a general statement, and obviously does not apply to everyone. I will give firefox this, it has some extensions for advanced users that Opera doesn't offer, that make it very useful. You may be one of those. I have no use for those particular extensions, and thus have no reason to use Firefox.

I have said it before and I will say it again. Firefox is not for everyone. Opera is not for everyone. It depends on your needs and your experience.

BUT, it is not fair to dismiss another browser with an uninformed opinion, or because you had a bad experience with it a year ago. This goes for both browsers, but I tend to see it more with Opera. It saddens me that people spread lies like that. I don't care if a person truly tries Opera and doesn't like it. But they should give it a fair chance, because it is a great browser no matter what anyone says. I try every firefox version and don't put it down because of something I was told by someone else.

Edited by vcv

worbd don't be such a trolling fanboy I was trying to give an honest opinion of my experiences with both without being a fan boy for anything. Don't start flame wars and don't diss someone who is just trying to answer the original posters question based on their user experiences.

Edited by AZKABAZ
worbd don't be such a trolling fanboy I was trying to give an honest opinion of my experiences with both without being a fan boy for anything. Don't start flame wars and don't diss someone who is just trying to answer the original posters question based on their user experiences.

585307774[/snapback]

Look, I pointed out the fact that your comments didn't make sense at all. If you customize Opera to not feel cluttered, how can it still feel cluttered? Obviously, you did nothing of the sorts, but are just trying to find something, anything, to attack Opera with.

The same goes for your comment about the trojan.

I'm not the one making uninformed comments about programs I have no knowledge about.

This is exactly the problem we've been discussing in this thread: Firefox fans jumping in and making uninformed comments like yours.

Edited by worbd

Oh look i don't have any preference for a browser im not a fan boy for anything, whatever works and works well im happy with. Why would i want to attack Opera? I don't give a stuff about a "which browser is better war". Your paranoid. I will repeat myself to make sure you have it through your head... I am not a fan of any browser.

Apparently, my comments are still not getting through to you.

I replied to your post because you made uninformed and incorrect statements about Opera. You clearly let your preference be known: Firefox. And then you tried to come up with reasons for that. Rather than things like "I like extensions", you start throwing around typical anti-Opera FUD which can be heard from many Firefox fans.

I made comments from my user experience. Im not techy i don't want to be techy. Im just saying from my experiences with the two. Yes "clearly" i prefer Firefox because i've had a better experience with it. Doesn't make me a fan boy. I don't go preaching around like say uh.. you! For gods sake will you just understand I am not a fan of any browser!

But to say that Firefox's default interface is better is ludicrious.

585307059[/snapback]

Its all down to personal preference, I feel Firefox's interface is better.

Firefox caters to the newbies, but that's not always a good thing.  Opera is a more advanced product, not a more confusing product.  There is a big difference.  Some of the best things in the world are the hardest to learn.

585307059[/snapback]

Personally I feel Opera caters better for newbies because you don't have to worry about themes, extensions etc.

I think the Opera vs. Firefox war is very simply decided for me. Why in the hell would I want to look at a banner in my browser? Why would I want to pay to remove that banner? I find no features in Opera that is above Firefox making it worth to pay money to remove that banner.

The future of Firefox appears to be very prosperous at this time. More so then Opera. This will always be the case as long as Opera insists on a pay for model. The day Opera removes that banner I will give it a very legitimate chance on my computer. I'm sure this goes the same for many many people.

This may have already been brought up but I didnt have time to read through all 63 pages of posts. :)

No. I didn't jump the gun and I did have basis of my comment which was my experience of using the two.

585308087[/snapback]

You claim that Opera is cluttered even if you remove the clutter. You make a nonsensical comment about malware which is obviously not relevant in the least.

You messed up. Accept it, and don't make the same mistake in the future.

I find no features in Opera that is above Firefox making it worth to pay money to remove that banner.

Good for you. Some do appreciate it that Opera is smaller, faster, yet more functional than Firefox, and with lots and lots of useful features built in, enabling you to get started with your work right away instead of having to spend ages finding extensions to get more functionality.

This may have already been brought up but I didnt have time to read through all 63 pages of posts.  :)

Surprise, surprise...

Good for you. Some do appreciate it that Opera is smaller, faster, yet more functional than Firefox, and with lots and lots of useful features built in, enabling you to get started with your work right away instead of having to spend ages finding extensions to get more functionality.

585309286[/snapback]

You might want to take a look at this page... (Notice that it's https?) https://addons.update.mozilla.org/extension...ication=firefox (it's BETA, so don't point out all the errors and bugs etc..)

I don't understand how people can spend ages finding the extensions that they want. After all, the people who will be adding extensions will most likely be advanced users (they'd know where to look for it), and even if they aren't they, could always type something along the lines of "Top 10 firefox extentions" in the search bar on the top right. Finding an extension is not any harder then a couple of clicks/ typng a search query. And within minutes, you'd have all the Firefox extensions that you'd ever need.

I don't understand how people can spend ages finding the extensions that they want. After all, the people who will be adding extensions will most likely be advanced users (they'd know where to look for it), and even if they aren't they, could always type something along the lines of "Top 10 firefox extentions" in the search bar on the top right. Finding an extension is not any harder then a couple of clicks/ typng a search query. And within minutes, you'd have all the Firefox extensions that you'd ever need.

All nice in theory, but the fact is that there are lots of extensions, many doing the same thing, many conflicting with each other, not working together, and so on. Everything in Opera is integrated into a complete package. It all fits together. Two extensions mimicking Opera functionality cannot fit together the way Opera does.

I'm trying both browser, Opera8b1 and FF1.0.

OOB my experience with Opera was better, I can get going right from the start: customizations, ini editing, etc. The wand is a blast. With FF most of my time was spent looking for extensions. Why? I'm "picky", same reason I'm trying both Opera and FF and see which is better. I have 5 installed now and particularly like AdBlock coz Opera don't have it. At the moment I'm leaning on Opera because of the powerful customizations I've done with it in just a short time. Another thing, can someone point me to the most stable 1.0+ build? FF1.0 is considerably slower than Opera8b1. I went to the developers' page but the warning put me off.

Edited by ArKeYa
I'm trying both browser, Opera8b1 and FF1.0.

OOB my experience with Opera was better, I can get going right from the start: customizations, ini editing, etc. The wand is a blast. With FF most of my time was spent looking for extensions. Why? I'm "picky", same reason I'm trying both Opera and FF and see which is better. I have 5 installed now and particularly like AdBlock coz Opera don't have it. At the moment I'm leaning on Opera because of the powerful customizations I've done with it in just a short time. Another thing, can someone point me to the most stable 1.0+ build? FF1.0 is considerably slower than Opera8b1. I went to the developers' page but the warning put me off.

585315963[/snapback]

http://snbx.net/php/viewtopic.php?p=4#4 for adblocking. There's lots of Opera tweaks you can do, check out http://nontroppo.org/wiki/Opera7 , it has most of them.

I'm trying both browser, Opera8b1 and FF1.0.

OOB my experience with Opera was better, I can get going right from the start: customizations, ini editing, etc. The wand is a blast. With FF most of my time was spent looking for extensions. Why? I'm "picky", same reason I'm trying both Opera and FF and see which is better. I have 5 installed now and particularly like AdBlock coz Opera don't have it. At the moment I'm leaning on Opera because of the powerful customizations I've done with it in just a short time. Another thing, can someone point me to the most stable 1.0+ build? FF1.0 is considerably slower than Opera8b1. I went to the developers' page but the warning put me off.

585315963[/snapback]

I'm using Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8b) Gecko/20050114 Firefox/1.0+ and 31 extensions without any problems. The nightly builds cannot install themes so make sure you've got the ones you want before testing the trunk builds.

Neb: I've been to site forums of both Opera and FF. I'm refering to the functionality (GUI,etc) of Adblock. But, I'll look at the links you gave and see if there's an Opera equivalent if not better, plus other tweaks as well.

fpd: I'll get that build then. I've read that 1.0+ are faster than 1.0. I have only 9 extensions for now. I want to thoroughly try each first. Using mouse gestures 1.0 by optimoz, liking the mouse trails option.

Thanks both for the infos.

I'm using Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8b) Gecko/20050114 Firefox/1.0+ and 31 extensions without any problems.  The nightly builds cannot install themes so make sure you've got the ones you want before testing the trunk builds.

585317121[/snapback]

****... 31 extensions!! And how long did it take to install and find them all?

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!