578 members have voted

  1. 1. FireFox or Opera ?

    • Firefox
      354
    • Opera
      224


Recommended Posts

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.

585306972[/snapback]

No, not any 'diehard Opera user'. More like any rational person who isn't fishing for tenuous excuses to criticise something. The software is fully functional without purchasing it, THEREFORE IT IS FREE. Honestly, this is not a difficult concept to grasp. The definition of free is 'costing nothing'. You can not dance around that, it's a very simple definition. You pay nothing to use Opera, so it's free, at least in the sense that normal every-day people call something free. ('Free as in beer'. I know there's also 'free as in speech', but i get the very distinct impression that the people bitching about banner ads in Opera (a) aren't talking about that at all and (b) don't even know what that term means.)

I mean, come on. Saying that radio isn't free to listen to because you don't like the commercials has got to be the stupidest thing i've ever heard. It's not even trying to be an arguement. You don't pay for it, so, by normal, lay-man standards, it's free. Jesus Christ.

No, not any 'diehard Opera user'. More like any rational person who isn't fishing for tenuous excuses to criticise something. The software is fully functional without purchasing it, THEREFORE IT IS FREE. Honestly, this is not a difficult concept to grasp. The definition of free is 'costing nothing'. You can not dance around that, it's a very simple definition. You pay nothing to use Opera, so it's free, at least in the sense that normal every-day people call something free. ('Free as in beer'. I know there's also 'free as in speech', but i get the very distinct impression that the people bitching about banner ads in Opera (a) aren't talking about that at all and (b) don't even know what that term means.)

I mean, come on. Saying that radio isn't free to listen to because you don't like the commercials has got to be the stupidest thing i've ever heard. It's not even trying to be an arguement. You don't pay for it, so, by normal, lay-man standards, it's free. Jesus Christ.

585307672[/snapback]

It costs screen space :p

Only kidding, really :)

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.

585307105[/snapback]

I find Opera a lot easier to use. It has tons of little features and shortcuts that backup the "Fastest browser on earth" claim. Adding extentions to firefix STILL can't provide the same feeling for me. Firefox's XUL feels slow to me. It feels like there is always a slight delay. XUL may be a "powerful" backend, but i's overkill for GUI. Opera's UI engine (Quick or something, i cant remember the name) is faster and better suited for GUI IMO.
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.

585307298[/snapback]

It was a general statement, and obviously does not apply to everyone. I will give firefox this, it has some extensions for advanced users that Opera doesn't offer, that make it very useful. You may be one of those. I have no use for those particular extensions, and thus have no reason to use Firefox.

I have said it before and I will say it again. Firefox is not for everyone. Opera is not for everyone. It depends on your needs and your experience.

BUT, it is not fair to dismiss another browser with an uninformed opinion, or because you had a bad experience with it a year ago. This goes for both browsers, but I tend to see it more with Opera. It saddens me that people spread lies like that. I don't care if a person truly tries Opera and doesn't like it. But they should give it a fair chance, because it is a great browser no matter what anyone says. I try every firefox version and don't put it down because of something I was told by someone else.

Edited by vcv

worbd don't be such a trolling fanboy I was trying to give an honest opinion of my experiences with both without being a fan boy for anything. Don't start flame wars and don't diss someone who is just trying to answer the original posters question based on their user experiences.

Edited by AZKABAZ
worbd don't be such a trolling fanboy I was trying to give an honest opinion of my experiences with both without being a fan boy for anything. Don't start flame wars and don't diss someone who is just trying to answer the original posters question based on their user experiences.

585307774[/snapback]

Look, I pointed out the fact that your comments didn't make sense at all. If you customize Opera to not feel cluttered, how can it still feel cluttered? Obviously, you did nothing of the sorts, but are just trying to find something, anything, to attack Opera with.

The same goes for your comment about the trojan.

I'm not the one making uninformed comments about programs I have no knowledge about.

This is exactly the problem we've been discussing in this thread: Firefox fans jumping in and making uninformed comments like yours.

Edited by worbd

Oh look i don't have any preference for a browser im not a fan boy for anything, whatever works and works well im happy with. Why would i want to attack Opera? I don't give a stuff about a "which browser is better war". Your paranoid. I will repeat myself to make sure you have it through your head... I am not a fan of any browser.

Apparently, my comments are still not getting through to you.

I replied to your post because you made uninformed and incorrect statements about Opera. You clearly let your preference be known: Firefox. And then you tried to come up with reasons for that. Rather than things like "I like extensions", you start throwing around typical anti-Opera FUD which can be heard from many Firefox fans.

I made comments from my user experience. Im not techy i don't want to be techy. Im just saying from my experiences with the two. Yes "clearly" i prefer Firefox because i've had a better experience with it. Doesn't make me a fan boy. I don't go preaching around like say uh.. you! For gods sake will you just understand I am not a fan of any browser!

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

585307059[/snapback]

Its all down to personal preference, I feel Firefox's interface is better.

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]

Personally I feel Opera caters better for newbies because you don't have to worry about themes, extensions etc.

I think the Opera vs. Firefox war is very simply decided for me. Why in the hell would I want to look at a banner in my browser? Why would I want to pay to remove that banner? I find no features in Opera that is above Firefox making it worth to pay money to remove that banner.

The future of Firefox appears to be very prosperous at this time. More so then Opera. This will always be the case as long as Opera insists on a pay for model. The day Opera removes that banner I will give it a very legitimate chance on my computer. I'm sure this goes the same for many many people.

This may have already been brought up but I didnt have time to read through all 63 pages of posts. :)

No. I didn't jump the gun and I did have basis of my comment which was my experience of using the two.

585308087[/snapback]

You claim that Opera is cluttered even if you remove the clutter. You make a nonsensical comment about malware which is obviously not relevant in the least.

You messed up. Accept it, and don't make the same mistake in the future.

I find no features in Opera that is above Firefox making it worth to pay money to remove that banner.

Good for you. Some do appreciate it that Opera is smaller, faster, yet more functional than Firefox, and with lots and lots of useful features built in, enabling you to get started with your work right away instead of having to spend ages finding extensions to get more functionality.

This may have already been brought up but I didnt have time to read through all 63 pages of posts.  :)

Surprise, surprise...

Good for you. Some do appreciate it that Opera is smaller, faster, yet more functional than Firefox, and with lots and lots of useful features built in, enabling you to get started with your work right away instead of having to spend ages finding extensions to get more functionality.

585309286[/snapback]

You might want to take a look at this page... (Notice that it's https?) https://addons.update.mozilla.org/extension...ication=firefox (it's BETA, so don't point out all the errors and bugs etc..)

I don't understand how people can spend ages finding the extensions that they want. After all, the people who will be adding extensions will most likely be advanced users (they'd know where to look for it), and even if they aren't they, could always type something along the lines of "Top 10 firefox extentions" in the search bar on the top right. Finding an extension is not any harder then a couple of clicks/ typng a search query. And within minutes, you'd have all the Firefox extensions that you'd ever need.

I don't understand how people can spend ages finding the extensions that they want. After all, the people who will be adding extensions will most likely be advanced users (they'd know where to look for it), and even if they aren't they, could always type something along the lines of "Top 10 firefox extentions" in the search bar on the top right. Finding an extension is not any harder then a couple of clicks/ typng a search query. And within minutes, you'd have all the Firefox extensions that you'd ever need.

All nice in theory, but the fact is that there are lots of extensions, many doing the same thing, many conflicting with each other, not working together, and so on. Everything in Opera is integrated into a complete package. It all fits together. Two extensions mimicking Opera functionality cannot fit together the way Opera does.

I'm trying both browser, Opera8b1 and FF1.0.

OOB my experience with Opera was better, I can get going right from the start: customizations, ini editing, etc. The wand is a blast. With FF most of my time was spent looking for extensions. Why? I'm "picky", same reason I'm trying both Opera and FF and see which is better. I have 5 installed now and particularly like AdBlock coz Opera don't have it. At the moment I'm leaning on Opera because of the powerful customizations I've done with it in just a short time. Another thing, can someone point me to the most stable 1.0+ build? FF1.0 is considerably slower than Opera8b1. I went to the developers' page but the warning put me off.

Edited by ArKeYa
I'm trying both browser, Opera8b1 and FF1.0.

OOB my experience with Opera was better, I can get going right from the start: customizations, ini editing, etc. The wand is a blast. With FF most of my time was spent looking for extensions. Why? I'm "picky", same reason I'm trying both Opera and FF and see which is better. I have 5 installed now and particularly like AdBlock coz Opera don't have it. At the moment I'm leaning on Opera because of the powerful customizations I've done with it in just a short time. Another thing, can someone point me to the most stable 1.0+ build? FF1.0 is considerably slower than Opera8b1. I went to the developers' page but the warning put me off.

585315963[/snapback]

http://snbx.net/php/viewtopic.php?p=4#4 for adblocking. There's lots of Opera tweaks you can do, check out http://nontroppo.org/wiki/Opera7 , it has most of them.

I'm trying both browser, Opera8b1 and FF1.0.

OOB my experience with Opera was better, I can get going right from the start: customizations, ini editing, etc. The wand is a blast. With FF most of my time was spent looking for extensions. Why? I'm "picky", same reason I'm trying both Opera and FF and see which is better. I have 5 installed now and particularly like AdBlock coz Opera don't have it. At the moment I'm leaning on Opera because of the powerful customizations I've done with it in just a short time. Another thing, can someone point me to the most stable 1.0+ build? FF1.0 is considerably slower than Opera8b1. I went to the developers' page but the warning put me off.

585315963[/snapback]

I'm using Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8b) Gecko/20050114 Firefox/1.0+ and 31 extensions without any problems. The nightly builds cannot install themes so make sure you've got the ones you want before testing the trunk builds.

Neb: I've been to site forums of both Opera and FF. I'm refering to the functionality (GUI,etc) of Adblock. But, I'll look at the links you gave and see if there's an Opera equivalent if not better, plus other tweaks as well.

fpd: I'll get that build then. I've read that 1.0+ are faster than 1.0. I have only 9 extensions for now. I want to thoroughly try each first. Using mouse gestures 1.0 by optimoz, liking the mouse trails option.

Thanks both for the infos.

I'm using Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8b) Gecko/20050114 Firefox/1.0+ and 31 extensions without any problems.  The nightly builds cannot install themes so make sure you've got the ones you want before testing the trunk builds.

585317121[/snapback]

****... 31 extensions!! And how long did it take to install and find them all?

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!