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 The problem is that sites send Opera outdated code from before Opera had proper DOM support, and that breaks Opera now that it does have it.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

    • Poll: Grand Theft Auto VI price predictions, cast your vote by Pulasthi Ariyasinghe After years of waiting, Rockstar will be solidifying the launch date of Grand Theft Auto VI with the launch of pre-orders next week. While the studio has confirmed a date for this occasion, it is yet to attach a price to the highly anticipated game. So let's see what our readers think it will cost at launch. The Grand Theft Auto VI pre-orders will kick off on June 25 for digital and physical editions. Unless some last-minute changes happen, the release date will be November 19, 2026, across Xbox Series X|S and PlayStation 5. Unfortunately, there's still no information about a PC version from the developer or the publisher Take-Two. Now the question becomes, how much will Grand Theft Auto VI cost at launch? The game is predicted by some analysts to be the biggest launch of an entertainment product ever. With the amount of hype that has been built behind it and with ballooning development costs, Take-Two may price this Grand Theft Auto entry differently from other AAA titles. The current price of a AAA game is $69.99. That norm almost rose to $79.99 before calming down. But with such a massive release, Grand Theft Auto VI may be the game that pushes the boundary again. It's also possible that Take-Two keeps the price relatively low to increase the number of players that jump in early and keep them hooked on Grand Theft Auto Online to spend on microtransactions for years to come. Keep in mind that the below poll is asking for a prediction of the standard edition price, not a deluxe or any other special edition that Take-Two will introduce for additional benefits. Also, there is also the chance of the company splitting up the campaign and online portions. If you think that will happen, put your vote on what you think will be the total cost of the two. Poll Poll: How much will Grand Theft Auto VI cost? $59.99 $69.99 $79.99 $89.99 $100 or more Submit Vote If you have a very specific prediction in mind, sound off in the comments below.
    • Would you please fix your graphics. They are outdated and don't fit the article.
    • The Light of Life? We actually do glow till our Death, study finds by Sayan Sen Image by Rafael Rendon via Pexels A study by researchers at the University of Calgary has found that living organisms produce an extremely faint light known as ultraweak photon emission, and that this glow appears to drop significantly after death. The research was published in the Journal of Physical Chemistry in April 2025 and quickly drew widespread attention, leading to more than 200 news stories about the findings. Ultraweak photon emission (or UPE), sometimes called biophoton emission, refers to tiny amounts of light released by living cells as a result of normal biological activity. A photon is the basic particle of light, and researchers say every living system examined so far, including plants and animals, has been found to emit these photons. The glow is far too faint to be seen by the human eye. “I suppose it has a little to do with people being reminded of auras,” says Dr. Christoph Simon, PhD, one of the authors of the study and a professor in the Department of Physics and Astronomy in the Faculty of Science. “It is a fact that living beings glow. It’s a very weak glow, but it’s there and visible with very sensitive cameras.” According to the study, the light involved is extremely weak, ranging from 10 to 1,000 photons per square centimetre per second across a spectral range of 200 to 1,000 nanometres. For comparison, a nanometre is one-billionth of a metre and is commonly used to measure wavelengths of light. Detecting emissions at such low levels requires highly specialized equipment. To study the phenomenon, researchers used electron-multiplying charge-coupled device (EMCCD) and charge-coupled device (CCD) cameras. These imaging systems are designed to detect extremely small amounts of light, including individual photons, while minimizing background noise. The technology allowed researchers to capture signals that would otherwise be impossible to observe. The team worked with the Human Health Therapeutics Research Centre at the National Research Council of Canada (NRC) in Ottawa to examine photon emissions in mice. Researchers took two-hour exposure images of the animals before and after death and compared the results. “We saw that the level of light that they emit – this biophoton glow – is distinctly different between living and dead animals,” says Dr. Daniel Oblak, PhD, an associate professor in Physics and Astronomy and the corresponding author of the study. The images showed a clear decrease in photon emissions after death across the entire body of each mouse. According to the researchers, this provided direct evidence that living and dead tissue produce different levels of ultraweak photon emission. “It’s a very small amount and it’s, of course, very tricky to detect,” Oblak says. The study grew out of discussions between Simon, whose research interests include quantum biology, and Oblak, whose work focuses on detecting light for quantum communication experiments. Quantum biology is a field that explores whether processes described by quantum physics, which studies matter and energy at very small scales, may also play a role in living systems. “Since I work as a quantum physicist on light detection for quantum communication, I thought that experimentally we have a lot of the tools to be able to detect the light,” Oblak explains. The researchers also investigated UPE in plants and found that the light changed in response to stress. When plants were exposed to higher temperatures or physically injured, their photon emissions increased. Chemical treatments also affected the glow. Among the substances tested, the local anesthetic benzocaine produced the strongest emission response when applied to injured plant tissue. These findings suggest that ultraweak photon emission is closely linked to biochemical and metabolic activity inside living organisms. Metabolism refers to the chemical reactions that allow cells and organisms to stay alive and function. Because these reactions change when an organism experiences stress, injury or disease, researchers believe UPE may provide a way to monitor those changes. The researchers stress that the glow is a physical and biological phenomenon, not a metaphysical one. Oblak says more research is needed to understand exactly how the light is produced and what information it may reveal about the condition of living tissue. “We must understand what that is to figure out what’s happening,” he says. “If we can understand how that relates to certain influences on the body – stress, diseases – then that could be used as a diagnostic tool.” The researchers believe the technique could eventually help scientists study health and disease without invasive procedures. Because UPE can be measured without adding dyes, markers or labels, it may offer a way to monitor whether tissue is healthy, damaged or alive. In plants, it could help researchers better understand how organisms respond to injury, heat and other forms of stress. While the work is still in its early stages, the study demonstrates that ultraweak photon emission imaging can provide a non-invasive and label-free way to observe biological activity. Researchers say the approach could become a useful tool for studying vitality, stress responses and other important processes in both animals and plants. Source: University of Calgary, ACS publication 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.
    • Damn, I loved this show back in the day.  
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Year In
      hhgygy earned a badge
      One Year In
    • One Month Later
      AMV earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      AMV earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Collaborator
      ryansurfer98 went up a rank
      Collaborator
    • One Month Later
      Eurosoft10 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      512
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      171
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      82
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      74
    5. 5
      Michael Scrip
      72
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!