578 members have voted

  1. 1. FireFox or Opera ?

    • Firefox
      354
    • Opera
      224


Recommended Posts

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.

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.]

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.
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.

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...

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 by fpd
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.

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:

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.

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:

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.

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:

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.

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!