578 members have voted

  1. 1. FireFox or Opera ?

    • Firefox
      354
    • Opera
      224


Recommended Posts

I see we're going nowhere, just nevermind.  :sleep:

585305299[/snapback]

The point is that firefox is a BAREBONES BROWSER and is 4.5MB, and opera is a FEATURE-RICH INTERNET SUITE (browser,chat,irc) and is 3.5MB. Both are compressed. Both are cross-platform.

This does not mean that Opera is better, or firefox sucks. But it does show that Opera has more tightly integrated code and less crust.

If you still don't believe that, then I'm sorry. As a programmer, I can assure you it means a lot.

Opera might be smaller in filesize, but bloat in the overall interface opera losses there, take a look at default Opera install vs a default firefox install, the default firefox interface is simple, no nonsense, easier to understand for a new user.

I'm targeting the newusers because they'd be the majority of ex-IE users, so If these new users tempted fate and tried a different browser, firefox is quiet an easy conversion from IE. Firefox/Mozilla has additional IE friendly rendering (its not perfect, but works well most of the time) , so any unusual IE quirks is found in the webpage, its displayed properly. I've seen numerious webpages not displaying correctly in opera, but looks fine in IE and Firefox, compatibility reigns still.

opera IS free, actually.

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.

585303342[/snapback]

You forgot to put with an annoying a@# adbar. God no wonder opera is becoming more and more hated all over the place with the noobs shouting out false claims they haven't a clue about. (calling someone a noob on the internet = good diss) ;)

And who the hell cares about which one uses 1mb more of memory than the other. Go buy some more dang ram for $20 and quit complaining.

firefox = free.  end of decision

585305911[/snapback]

IE = free. end of decision.

Opera might be smaller in filesize, but bloat in the overall interface opera losses there, take a look at default Opera install vs a default firefox install, the default firefox interface is simple, no nonsense, easier to understand for a new user.

585305937[/snapback]

http://weakmind.org/opera/startup.png

Hm.. Opera looks smaller for me. That's the default interface I got when I installed it. No modifications.

You forgot to put with an annoying a@# adbar.  God no wonder opera is becoming more and more hated all over the place with the noobs shouting out false claims they haven't a clue about.  (calling someone a noob on the internet = good diss)  ;)

And who the hell cares about which one uses 1mb more of memory than the other.  Go buy some more dang ram for $20 and quit complaining.

585305948[/snapback]

1mb more of memory? It's 1mb more of the installer's download size. Good thing you paid attention.

http://weakmind.org/opera/startup.png

Hm.. Opera looks smaller for me. That's the default interface I got when I installed it. No modifications.

the default install has no adverts? and that strange popdown menu in address bar? that can't be right. theres only one "default" install. not only that people would get confused with an extra set of forward/backward buttons. I'm refering to the absolute default for a new user, who hasnt paid for the product trying Opera, too many buttons confuses the user.

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.

585303342[/snapback]

I think your signature speaks for your maturity, 'nuff said.

Opera might be smaller in filesize, but bloat in the overall interface opera losses there, take a look at default Opera install vs a default firefox install, the default firefox interface is simple, no nonsense, easier to understand for a new user.

I'm targeting the newusers because they'd be the majority of ex-IE users, so If these new users tempted fate and tried a different browser, firefox is quiet an easy conversion from IE. Firefox/Mozilla has additional IE friendly rendering (its not perfect, but works well most of the time) , so any unusual IE quirks is found in the webpage, its displayed properly. I've seen numerious webpages not displaying correctly in opera, but looks fine in IE and Firefox, compatibility reigns still.

585305937[/snapback]

Exactly, if Opera included any features I needed that Firefox didn't include I would consider it but there aren't any, with Firefox I can choose exactly what I want on top of the basic browser.

You forgot to put with an annoying a@# adbar.  God no wonder opera is becoming more and more hated all over the place with the noobs shouting out false claims they haven't a clue about.

585305948[/snapback]

Uh, what's false about saying that Opera is free? It costs nothing, therefore it's free. Whether it comes with an advertisement or not makes no difference at all. It doesn't inhibit your use of the product, there's no trial period, it's just an ad banner. That's like if i said that listening to the radio is free and you said NUH-UH IT HAS COMMERCIALS GOD STOP LYING AND SHOUTING FALSE CLAIMS U NOOB.

The advertisements are extremely annoying, and i don't really know why anybody would want to use Opera while they were enabled. But saying that people are 'shouting out false claims they haven't a clue about' is just completely fallacious. It is free. Comes with a really really annoying ad banner, but it is free. So, uh, noobs should probably stop shouting false claims they haven't a clue about when they bitch at people for calling Opera free.

Also i really wish they'd hurry up with Opera 8. :/

Uh, what's false about saying that Opera is free? It costs nothing, therefore it's free. Whether it comes with an advertisement or not makes no difference at all. It doesn't inhibit your use of the product, there's no trial period, it's just an ad banner. That's like if i said that listening to the radio is free and you said NUH-UH IT HAS COMMERCIALS GOD STOP LYING AND SHOUTING FALSE CLAIMS U NOOB.

The advertisements are extremely annoying, and i don't really know why anybody would want to use Opera while they were enabled. But saying that people are 'shouting out false claims they haven't a clue about' is just completely fallacious. It is free. Comes with a really really annoying ad banner, but it is free. So, uh, noobs should probably stop shouting false claims they haven't a clue about when they bitch at people for calling Opera free.

Also i really wish they'd hurry up with Opera 8. :/

585306783[/snapback]

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.

http://weakmind.org/opera/startup.png

Hm.. Opera looks smaller for me. That's the default interface I got when I installed it. No modifications.

Forgot the ad bar. Oh, and Firefox defaults with the link bar turned on, because IE users are accustomed to it. Does Opera even have a link bar?

the default install has no adverts? and that strange popdown menu in address bar? that can't be right. theres only one "default" install. not only that people would get confused with an extra set of forward/backward buttons. I'm refering to the absolute default for a new user, who hasnt paid for the product trying Opera, too many buttons confuses the user.

585306653[/snapback]

The "strange popdown menu in the address bar" is only visible when the address bar is in focus.

I think the point you're trying to make is that Firefox is more friendly to IE users. And it is, because most IE users are idiots that get confused by change.

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

no thats not the end of discussion, ie IS NOT free, u have ti buy a computer or a copy of windows in order to get IE.... ie is integrated into windows so thus IE is nt free...

585306661[/snapback]

Free is free. You can get IE for free whether or not you pay for windows.
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.

Forgot the ad bar. Oh, and Firefox defaults with the link bar turned on, because IE users are accustomed to it. Does Opera even have a link bar?

585306972[/snapback]

Yes, it has a link bar.

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

I tried both Opera and Firefox to see what worked for me. I run on 800x600 and no matter how much i tried to customize the Opera GUI i just did not like it and it always felt clutterd. Also, it did not feel right to use not to mention that first day of trying Opera, I got a trojan in my Temp file...... so that was that, no Opera for me.

Firefox does what i want which is to browse the internet and be ad free (ad block)... minimal GUI works nicely on 800x600 never had a virus or Spyware problem with it and it feels right for me. Only complaints would be to have a nicer skins available and mabey a better download manager because mine always breaks.

Firefox is the go for me :)

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.

585305155[/snapback]

are you even paying attention? you claimed that

Opera uses a more advanced compression method for the installer and the exe which eliminates any real comparision

i just showed you that you are wrong, and that the smaller size is not just due to compression.

firefox = free.  end of decision

585305911[/snapback]

opera = free. end of discussion.

Opera might be smaller in filesize, but bloat in the overall interface opera losses there, take a look at default Opera install vs a default firefox install, the default firefox interface is simple, no nonsense, easier to understand for a new user.

typical firefox fanboii. the default opera doesn't open a blank page, and the start bar only appears if you focus the url field.

the 'opera's ui is bloated' crap is only used by firefox fanbooiiis when firefox's real bloat is mentioned. opera 8 has a far better ui than firebloat.

opera = free. end of discussion.

585307499[/snapback]

Then what's the $39 price tag attached to it? Sorry, but I don't want ads in my browser, and, if so, I would have to pay for it.

Oh, and if you mean by cracking it, then you have absolutely no right to sit up and defend it like the Opera fanboy you are.

Opera might be smaller in filesize, but bloat in the overall interface opera losses there, take a look at default Opera install vs a default firefox install, the default firefox interface is simple, no nonsense, easier to understand for a new user.

I fail to see the bloat in Opera's default user interface. In fact, if you remove the ads, Opera's user interface is a lot more compact than Firefox by default.

Opera doesn't lose on "bloat", because Opera isn't bloated.

I've seen numerious webpages not displaying correctly in opera, but looks fine in IE and Firefox, compatibility reigns still.

I've seen numerous web pages not displaying correctly in Firefox, and Opera handles them perfectly. Slashdot, for example, is not handled very well by Firefox. And Slashdot is one of the major sites pushing Firefox. I'm sure you can see the irony...

Then what's the $39 price tag attached to it?

That's what you pay if you don't use Opera for free. Saying that Opera is not free because it displays ads is riciculous. Are there no free sites on the web? Almost all of them carry ads, remember.

Opera is free because you can download and use it for free. Free is free.

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.

Opera is smaller yet more functional than Firefox. It also fits on mobile phones, which Firefox does not (and Minimo still doesn't fit - they need to strip it down. Opera does not need to be stripped down for mobiles). How you can make something smaller, faster and more efficient out to be "mediocre" is a bit of a puzzle to me.

I tried both Opera and Firefox to see what worked for me. I run on 800x600 and no matter how much i tried to customize the Opera GUI i just did not like it and it always felt clutterd.

Sorry, could you run that by me again? Even if you customize the UI not to be cluttered, it still feels cluttered? So even if you disable all toolbars and menus, or press F11 to go to fullscreen mode, it still feels cluttered?

How, pray tell, is that possible? Something tells me that you are just making things up as you go along here.

Also, it did not feel right to use not to mention that first day of trying Opera, I got a trojan in my Temp file...... so that was that, no Opera for me.

Now this is just uninformed nonsense. Opera is not vulnerable to trojans, and "a trojan in my temp file" probably means that Opera cached a page containing a JS exploit for MSIE, but that doesn't mean that you are infected. By writing what you just wrote, you are proving that you are nothing but an uninformed Firefox fan of the kind that scares people away from Firefox. You are not helping Firefox by spreading FUD about other browsers.

And unlike Firefox, Opera does not have an API which lets trojans and viruses easily hook themselves into the program. So Firefox is actually more vulnerable in that regard.

"So... By the way, I was browsing around with Firefox the other day, and I got a virus! So now I stopped using it. Sad."

Opera is smaller yet more functional than Firefox. It also fits on mobile phones, which Firefox does not (and Minimo still doesn't fit - they need to strip it down. Opera does not need to be stripped down for mobiles). How you can make something smaller, faster and more efficient out to be "mediocre" is a bit of a puzzle to me.

585307597[/snapback]

It's just IMO... The way it feels to me... I don't know, and I'm not saying it IS mediocre. I just don't like the way it works.

But, as I've probably said many times in this thread, to each his own.

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!