578 members have voted

  1. 1. FireFox or Opera ?

    • Firefox
      354
    • Opera
      224


Recommended Posts

I think everyone would agree that horizontal scrolling is the most irritating thing while surfing.

Opera helps you to get rid of that.It has an option to autometically fit pages to window width.

Another feature I would never use. I hardly ever come across pages where I have to do horizontal scrolling.

Another feature I would never use. I hardly ever come across pages where I have to do horizontal scrolling.

585254162[/snapback]

Yes, only in some porn sites we find use for horizontal scrolling. I dont visit porn sites .

@pallab,

You talk abt the small download size, remember the help files are not included and it has online help one, unlike firefox.

Also the for the voice commands we will have to download a additional 2.5mb.

I agree opera now has support for gmail, but i tried opening gmail.com in both Firefox and opera( V. 8) , FF opened much faster. opera took time to open.

^ Hmm, someone's never heard of monitors that aren't set to 1600x1200 :sleep:

Are you actually criticising Opera for not having an offline help system? A web browser, intentionally designed to be used for THE INTERNET, not having an OFFLINE help file? Oh noes, call the fire brigade!!!!1111oneoneoneelevenusefirefox

You have the choice of the 2.5mb, whether you download it or not. Once you ahve downloaded it, it should remain between versions of Opera.

Time to open gmail.com. Hmm, so many variables here (not limited to user stupidity) that I am forced to question the validity of your comparison.

I use Firefox myself, but I'm seriously thinking of switching to Opera. Firefox was using 113mb of memory the other day! Needless to say, it stopped responding. I tried to kill it via Task Manager and that ended up locking up too. :wacko:

Does anyone have any ideas on how to do decrease memory usage? I only run one extension (Adblock).

I use Firefox myself, but I'm seriously thinking of switching to Opera. Firefox was using 113mb of memory the other day! Needless to say, it stopped responding. I tried to kill it via Task Manager and that ended up locking up too. :wacko:

Does anyone have any ideas on how to do decrease memory usage? I only run one extension (Adblock).

585254545[/snapback]

Although Firefox uses unnecessarily large amount of memory, that is ridiculous.

If I were you, I'd reinstall Firefox and see if the problem still exists.

Refering back to the thread topic, I believe theres room for both browsers, they have similar goals, but different philosophies. I have great respect for Opera users, Yes I'm a Firefox user. Opera has some nice features, as does Firefox with its powerful extensions.

But I have little or no respect for users of IE and the IE rendering engine, its buggy, slow, security problems seem to happen on a daily basis. Lets face it, Microsoft can't follow W3C standards if it tried, hell its been atleast 2-3 major revisions and I'm still waiting for proper support for transparient png or even proper CSS2 support.

I don't care how cool the interface is, or how fast it is, or how many features Maxthon, Avant etc has, its severely limited by the aging IE engine, and this will only be worse when we see more advanced CSS2 and CSS3 based websites slowly develop over this year and without IE support, or with IE Support but with cutdown interface. Both Opera and Firefox are already implementing CSS3 into there browsers, wheres Microsoft in the picture? "Just Wait till IE 7", thats like waiting for Duke Nukem Forever. Are you IE fanboys really going to wait that long before you see any decent features? And even so, I bet with any CSS3 support in Microsoft's new browser will be either partially supported or unsupported, we've seen it before, it will happen again. *sigh*

Just to sum up, if you choose Opera, great, good stuff. If you choose Firefox or Mozilla Suite, great, good stuff. These browsers are going somewhere.

just my 2c.

But I have little or no respect for users of IE and the IE rendering engine, its buggy, slow, security problems seem to happen on a daily basis. Lets face it, Microsoft can't follow W3C standards if it tried, hell its been atleast 2-3 major revisions and I'm still waiting for proper support for transparient png or even proper CSS2 support.

585254783[/snapback]

But what is worse is ASP.NET a .NET extension which has controls which write HTML, more and more people use it and yet it does not support the w3c standard either. Microsoft need to wake up and do things the correct way no matter how damaging of demeaning they find it. Standards are not there so you can do it your way.

But more on topic the best way to decide on whether Opera or Firefox is best for you is to try it yourself, or if u cannot decide then use both, open one page with firefox and another with opera loading alternate pages in each so to use each one fairly :p

Well consider this FF doesn't even have voice commands!

585255120[/snapback]

I still think voice command systems are more trouble than their worth. They don't work like they should, and ambient noise totally kills the idea.

Well consider this FF doesn't even have voice commands!

585255120[/snapback]

First we will have to download 2.5mb, then it will be more heavy download than FF (u always talk abt small file size).

Then we will have to train opera with our voice.

So voice command feature isnt that hot and i have no use for it.

Do u really use all these voice commands?

You dont need to train it.

585255793[/snapback]

Come on now, you don't expect him to actually read this, now do you? It's been said what.. 3 times now.. and he still thinks you need to train it? Obviously, he's content with remaining misinformed about Opera.

Others seem content with being convinced that Opera is someone majorly affected by these features "I'll never use". As if having a few extra features will some how magically make their browsing experience worse.

But hey.. that's fine. It could be worse. They could be still using Internet Explorer.

gawd will these debates EVER end.

i prefer opera because for me it loads pages faster AND has less bs in it, no need to download umteen extintions to get it working the way opera dose out of the box.

and so u know mozilla-firefox may be at an early number but look at where it came from b4 u say its better because its got a lower number i use BOUTH.

opera is by far more gui costomizable ppl here who use ff only would crap there pants if they saw what i do with my opera layout.

opera's voice works fine no training needed and no noise dosnt kill it. i rarely use it now because well im use to NOT using it and also i havent got my mic setup on my system anymore(loaned to my mother for her laptop)

opera is good as long as the page is made using proper code or hell even bad code works it may render some things wrong but when there are 440+ errors or ur avrage page u gotta think somebodys using frontpage or dreamweaver and not checking there code. FF renders some pages HORRIBALY most it renders fine But also reammber that some pages send opera a broken code version of the page because they can see that its opera and they want to mess with it ( try www.msnbc.com for an example )

oh and gmail works fine with opera8 havent had any problems yet.

the gmail notifyer is for ALL browsers though its still not 100% compatable with opera(googles and opera are working on the mail:to issues)

all in all i prefer opera for my day to day stuff and if i find a page it cant open properly i load up ff or ie*shudders*

Oh dont even get me started on "opensorce" i hate to tell yall but i have seen more BULLSH!T POS apps come out of opensorce then i can count ff and mozilla have been stealing ideas from opera since like version 3 (yes i had opera ver3) and they still do it and thats koo to a point since it dose make their browser more usefull.

oh and 25$ isnt bad for a browser that can do all that opera can do OUT OF THE BOX and that has a responcive staff OH and 25$=whole household all ur systems AND os's now :D

Sumdy asked earlier on for an example, well I just then stumbled on one so i thought I'd bring it here for you.

I got no idea why this is, but if you open this page in IE, FF, and Opera then see what happens. FF somehow screws it up, at least it does on my computer. I like its prettiness and it's got some great extensions, but it needs a fair bit more cooking to come up to standard IMHO.

Sumdy asked earlier on for an example, well I just then stumbled on one so i thought I'd bring it here for you.

I got no idea why this is, but if you open this page in IE, FF, and Opera then see what happens. FF somehow screws it up, at least it does on my computer. I like its prettiness and it's got some great extensions, but it needs a fair bit more cooking to come up to standard IMHO.

585257646[/snapback]

The site was done in Frontpage. That should explain any problems you're having. :p

The site was done in Frontpage. That should explain any problems you're having. :p

585258050[/snapback]

Yeah, M$ Frontpage messes things up a bit for firefox :pinch:

So when ever I was designing my site in Frontpage I had to do

some css shizz to make it look decent in Firefox

Here's my site :/

I tend to like Firefox better (Y)

Another feature I would never use. I hardly ever come across pages where I have to do horizontal scrolling.

585254162[/snapback]

oh i guess just because you don't use it, it must not be useful! if that's the case then the firefox fanboys shouldn't use the whole open source thing as a reason. after all a lot of people don't use the code so it's obviously useless.

and grudge you complain about voice but no one is telling you to download it, it's optional! you should be able to understand that seeing as you have to download the stuff you want in firefox! Also don't complain about how downloading the voice feature will increase the size of opera compared to firefox. i mean what if you were to download extensions for firefox for features that are already included with opera, what would firefox's size be then?

firefox ...

next question...

585260418[/snapback]

Question: Ya, Firefox or Opera?

Answer: Opera. Period.

From the Admins: We sincerely thank you for expressing your exalted opinion (as if things were going to change by your wishing) and wasting precious time, space and bandwidth. In future please substantiate your unintelligent answers with intelligent facts.

Now go play with yourself.

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!