578 members have voted

  1. 1. FireFox or Opera ?

    • Firefox
      354
    • Opera
      224


Recommended Posts

Ok, I'm sorry. I didn't realize you use FF too.

I guess it's what you're used to. I can make firefox more effecient than Opera for myself. It's what you get used to and the way you use the browser. I've layed out my FF so that it's similar to IE because that's what I've learned to use effeciently. Its like Macs. I can't use them.. and I'm not a n00b by any means. For something that would take me 30 seconds on Windows, it takes me 2-5 minutes on a Mac.. but that's all due to familiarity.

I know you didn't TELL him to leave, but just saying "you could leave" can imply the same thing, you know? I'm not saying he's right, but he's entitled to his opinion at least.

True. Well if you feel that strongly about correcting the misinformation, then by all means go for it. I personally don't think it'll give Opera a bad image. I mean if someone is going to switch to FF or Opera, there is going to be a learning curve regardless, so I doubt a few things like that would sway their opinion. Actually the only thing that disgusted me with Opera were the ads - and I know I don't have to dish out a lot to get them removed, but I'd rather not have them. So, to each their own.

Now lets make a new analogy using cupboards! Opera doesn't provide slots. Opera is just a big block of wood, and any plugins you actually want to use go on the outside, all jumbled up. Firefox, on the other hand, provides an infinite array of slots that can be filled with whatever the hell you want to fill them with. They fix into the design of Firefox so they're not a jumbled mess.

Opera all the way IMO. I've really liked Opera for a year or two now. I used Firefox for a few weeks but I really cant understand what all the fuss is about, to me i think Opera is much better, especially for tabbed browsing, as I have about 500 favourites, I couldnt live without it now ;)

I dont know how you can say that. I have Fx and Opera on a pII 450mhz and opera is slower than molasus on the north pole. I use Fx with no extentions and i can have 20+ tabs open without it slowing.

I find this extremely hard to believe. I'be run Opera and Firefox on a 400 MHz PC with 64 MB RAM, and Firefox was nearly unusable, while Opera ran fine.

It is a well known fact that XUL makes Firefox unsuitable for lower-end systems.

R1ck13, the Mac ports of both Opera and Firefox aren't the best, but my comparison does show that Firefox ports better to other OS's than Opera.

It most certainly shows nothing of the sorts. Just because Opera uses more RAM on your system doesn't mean that Firefox "ports better". This has got nothing to do with the portability of either program.

Also, in my opinion (this whole thing is about opinion anyways) the toolbars in opera are much too fat compared to FF.

How about trying Opera 8 before commenting?

the multi-engine search bar in the top corner of FF is nice and small and clean. Opera has to have one bar for each search engine you want.

So, you haven't actually tried Opera? The search field in Opera's address bar is a multi-engine search. Click the dropdown arrow and see for yourself.

and frankly, I dont like how I have to config opera to make the site think im using some other browser in order to make some sites work properly. All I have to do for firefox is install it and surf.

All I have to do with Opera is to install and surf. Ever tried reading Slashdot in Firefox?

That's so very true! I was an Opera fan until I failed to enrol in one of university courses before the due date.

(Long story: Opera kept said the server was unavailable or something similar and I couldn't access the required page.

"Server was unavailable"? Sounds rather vague to me. Sure you aren't making this up?

I warn you guys: not rendering webpages properly in Opera is a serious issue. It can affect your life! So make sure you browser critical websites using several browsers.

The same goes for any browser, including IE. If you set the settings too strictly, sites will fail to work. This is not an Opera issue.

Now lets make a new analogy using cupboards! Opera doesn't provide slots. Opera is just a big block of wood, and any plugins you actually want to use go on the outside, all jumbled up.

That is not true, actually. Opera has panels, ini files and other ways to plug both external programs into Opera, and to customize Opera to do things it doesn't do bey default.

Firefox, on the other hand, provides an infinite array of slots that can be filled with whatever the hell you want to fill them with. They fix into the design of Firefox so they're not a jumbled mess.

I guess you could say that Opera has shelves so you can put things on them. In Firefox, you have to add your own shelves. And extensions do conflict with each other and cause quite a bit of clutter, unfortunately.

How about trying Opera 8 before commenting?

585347453[/snapback]

That is beta software, have you tried the latest nightly of Firefox?

That is not true, actually. Opera has panels, ini files and other ways to plug both external programs into Opera, and to customize Opera to do things it doesn't do bey default.

585347461[/snapback]

But with Firefox it is far simpler, just click a link, click "Install" and restart.

That is beta software, have you tried the latest nightly of Firefox?
Betas != Nightlies. Betas are put onto the front-page for Opera. Preview Releases are available, but you have to look on the ftp or the forums. Firefox has RC's which are probably the same thing as Betas. Wouldn't you say it's fair to compare a Firefox RC to Opera? I'm going to guess yes.
That is beta software, have you tried the latest nightly of Firefox?

Wasn't this thread started while Firefox was just a beta?

But with Firefox it is far simpler, just click a link, click "Install" and restart.

You have to restart Firefox? Heh. I can switch Opera themes, etc. without restarting. Funny, that :)

Just found an interesting tidbit.

Google sites (search, news, etc) send Mozilla and IE pages compressed via gzip, but send Opera the pages uncompressed even though it can handle them compressed just fine. However, identifying as IE or Mozilla tricks it enough.

Some pages were 70k uncompressed and 15k compressed. That's a noticable difference sometimes.

I wonder how many other sites do this kind of thing?

Just found an interesting tidbit.

Google sites (search, news, etc) send Mozilla and IE pages compressed via gzip, but send Opera the pages uncompressed even though it can handle them compressed just fine.  However, identifying as IE or Mozilla tricks it enough.

Some pages were 70k uncompressed and 15k compressed.  That's a noticable difference sometimes.

I wonder how many other sites do this kind of thing?

585351909[/snapback]

Not doubting you, but you got linkage to back to up?

You make me curious...I've been identified as Opera for a long time now.

notice you don't have to restart opera to do a simple things like applying a theme?

585351691[/snapback]

Yes, but themes aren't extensions. And you do realize how little themes customize Opera in comparison to Firefox, right? Firefox themes are much more in depth. You can do a lot more with Firefox themes because of the power of CSS.

Not doubting you, but you got linkage to back to up?

You make me curious...I've been identified as Opera for a long time now.

585353128[/snapback]

Don't need a link. Go to any google side and open the info panel. Look at the byte sizes. Load each page twice, once as opera, once as mozilla or ie.

Yes, but themes aren't extensions. And you do realize how little themes customize Opera in comparison to Firefox, right? Firefox themes are much more in depth. You can do a lot more with Firefox themes because of the power of CSS.

585353202[/snapback]

Actually, they're about the same. Show me a theme in firefox that has something Opera can't do.

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!