FireFox or Opera ?

[Kilroy-was-here]

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.

[betasp]

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).

[Kilroy-was-here]

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:

[exograpix]

I feel opera is much faster and very fast page display speed in comparision to

firefox. It provides more or less every facility that firefox provides.

[Elliott]

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.

[Chode]

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

[Elliott]

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

[trigger_my_passion]

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.

[Rappy Veteran]

Tough One......Would be Firefox for me :)

[Elliott]

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.

[Gulfisland]

I like them both.. but I only use Opera because it is soooo fast...

I use firefox to test out by site code.. and to load the occasional page that some jackass built wrong...

[Chode]

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 January 4, 2005 by Chode

[vcv]

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.

[imtoomuch]

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.

[Sykil]

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).

[Redestium]

I just switched over to Opera 8 Beta from FX and I couldn't be happier.

[Kilroy-was-here]

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.

[vcv]

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 ;)

[ZZOOzzoo]

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'.

[blowMeNeo]

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.

[Elliott]

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.

[Sykil]

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.

He thinks it's bloated in a different manner. He's not wrong, nor is he right because it is an opinion.

[vcv]

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.

[Chode]

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.

[Elliott]

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.