Recommended Posts

OK...I've read all the rants about speed issues between the two browsers, but what about security?? Firefox is leaving Opera for dead in that regard...as for it's camparing to IE, we can just inset "laugh" here!!

Can I back that up?? Well leaving aside the online propaganda that seems to fly in either direction depending on the biases of the individual critic, I refer to advice I was given in person. I recently spent a few thousand getting my new PC built and being concerned about security asked around about which is the most secure browser - Firefox kept getting the recomendations. As for Opera, a couple simply laughed (and yes I am refering to the latest version!!), one of those being an electronic securities company, so I think they might count as "being in the know" don't you??

As for speed, I've had little to do with Opera personally, but I figure why pay for a browser when the Firefox browser I have works plenty fast for me.

OK...I've read all the rants about speed issues between the two browsers, but what about security?? Firefox is leaving Opera for dead in that regard...as for it's camparing to IE, we can just inset "laugh" here!!

Can I back that up?? Well leaving aside the online propaganda that seems to fly in either direction depending on the biases of the individual critic, I refer to advice I was given in person. I recently spent a few thousand getting my new PC built and being concerned about security asked around about which is the most secure browser - Firefox kept getting the recomendations. As for Opera, a couple simply laughed (and yes I am refering to the latest version!!), one of those being an electronic securities company, so I think they might count as "being in the know" don't you??

As for speed, I've had little to do with Opera personally, but I figure why pay for a browser when the Firefox browser I have works plenty fast for me.

585467747[/snapback]

Keep your FUD out of here kiddo. Opera is NOT insecure. Opera always has been and is VERY secure. Whoever you were speaking with has no clue what they are talking about.

If you really want to take this ridiculous claim any further, please provide tangible evidence.

P.S. I have written security auditing software in the past and will be in the future. I do know a little about security.

what about security?? Firefox is leaving Opera for dead in that regard

huh? I fail to see how you could make a judgement like that about Opera.

Secunia - Opera 7.x

Secunia - Firefox 1.x

There are 3 "vulnerabilities" mentioned to be "unpatched" on the Opera page. I have just looked at all three and only one (IDN) of them is still a problem with the 8.0 beta and it was only reported a week ago, and it's also a problem in Firefox. Now, take a look at the Firefox page and you'll see that there are 7 which remain unpatched. I haven't looked at all of them, but I verified that the "Dialog Overlapping Weakness" still exists (therefore Mozilla already has 2 verified unpatched security problems in comparison with Opera's 1) and I'm sure that a few more issues still exist.

Let's also not forget that Spybot Search & Destroy utilizes some of the built-in security features inside Opera (the ability to ignore particular plugins when it loads up; this prevents malicious plugins from being initialized so they can be safely cleaned off the system.) Firefox users are more likely to execute malicious plugins than Opera users are.

Trying to say that Opera suffers security-wise would be a mistake. It's currently the most secure browser available :yes:

huh? I fail to see how you could make a judgement like that about Opera.

Secunia - Opera 7.x

Secunia - Firefox 1.x

There are 3 "vulnerabilities" mentioned to be "unpatched" on the Opera page. I have just looked at all three and only one (IDN) of them is still a problem with the 8.0 beta and it was only reported a week ago, and it's also a problem in Firefox. Now, take a look at the Firefox page and you'll see that there are 7 which remain unpatched. I haven't looked at all of them, but I verified that the "Dialog Overlapping Weakness" still exists (therefore Mozilla already has 2 verified unpatched security problems in comparison with Opera's 1) and I'm sure that a few more issues still exist.

Let's also not forget that Spybot Search & Destroy utilizes some of the built-in security features inside Opera (the ability to ignore particular plugins when it loads up; this prevents malicious plugins from being initialized so they can be safely cleaned off the system.) Firefox users are more likely to execute malicious plugins than Opera users are.

Trying to say that Opera suffers security-wise would be a mistake. It's currently the most secure browser available :yes:

585467982[/snapback]

Don't forget that Firefox 1.x has been out since nov 2004 and Opera has been out since May 2003. Add Firefox 0.x into the mix and you have 29 total vulns in under a year.

There's more to a browser than speed. Firefox is the best browser for Windows if you value standard compliance and open source flexibility and security. Opera is very fast - there is no doubt about it, and it looks nice too, but it isn't my browser, and I'm not wrong and neither are Opera users. I tried Opera 8 beta recently btw, and it is pretty nice and is getting closer to complete standard-compliance. Still, I'm not a believer in security by obscurity.

There's more to a browser than speed.  Firefox is the best browser for Windows if you value standard compliance and open source flexibility and security.  Opera is very fast - there is no doubt about it, and it looks nice too, but it isn't my browser, and I'm not wrong and neither are Opera users.  I tried Opera 8 beta recently btw, and it is pretty nice and is getting closer to complete standard-compliance.  Still, I'm not a believer in security by obscurity.

585468040[/snapback]

Sigh. Neither Mozilla or Opera is COMPLETELY standard-compliant. But both are pretty on par, and I'd like to see you prove otherwise.

And obscurity doesn't seem to affect IT's insecurity, why would it affect Operas?

Open Source software is open for all to see. If it could be exploited, it would be. Open source software is not nearly as vulnerable to surprise exploits. Opera is a good browser and is very, very close to web-standards. I would use it except, it is a selling product, it crams too much browser-unrelated stuff into its package (like mail), it is not open-source, and it doesn't work with many of the Internet's services. Firefox doesn't work with all, admittedly, but it works with many more. Eveng Google doesn't make things work in Opera always...

Still, I started using Opera at version 6, and I've never disliked it - I just choose Firefox, because it is just different in a way that I like. I feel I have a good, rough analogy based on personal experiences:

Google is to Firefox as Yahoo! is to Opera as IE is to MSN.com (Safari is like Google too)

I use Google, because my primary Internet function is to search. My father uses Yahoo, because he wants lots of features like Sports and Games at his disposal. I can see why people use Yahoo - it is a good service, and they can generally see why I use Google. Neither are better; they're just different. MSN.com offers NO advantages over Yahoo! just like Internet Explorer offers NO advantages over Opera, and in both cases the m$ product is crappy, but people still use it. Google and Yahoo have different qualities that give them each a place on the web, just like Firefox and Opera. The only one that does not belong is MSN.com, and transitively IE.

Maybe you didnt read his post

hmmm quote " no way i have tried opera,maxthon,firefox and I.E " unquote

he hasnt tried A,B,C,D, but thinks E (firefox) is faster just because. doesnt make any sense.

585450692[/snapback]

oh yess i did i would surely post what i have actually done

not here to increase my post count

thats what i experienced on my system on my net connection

i found FF the fastest

i never meant that iam against those results

nor did i meant i did not use those proggies

ahhh my bad should have made the sentence much elaborate

opera simply drags I.E and Max. are like ok

but somehow not as fast as FF thats what i experienced

thats all

no need to have a fight over this :D

Open Source software is open for all to see.

oh come on! don't tell me that you are one of these open source fanatics! do you really think joe blow is going to sit down and read through the source code of a program?

do you know who most vulnerabilities are found? by testing the compiled program, not by someone else reading the source code!

If it could be exploited, it would be.

nope. it isn't as widely used, so there's too much work for too little benefit to do it.

Open source software is not nearly as vulnerable to surprise exploits.

there are lots of security holes in open source software. what makes you think otherwise? firefox even has more open vulnerabilities than opera!

Opera is a good browser and is very, very close to web-standards.  I would use it except, it is a selling product, it crams too much browser-unrelated stuff into its package (like mail)

and it's still smaller, faster, and better than firefox. tried opera 8?

Opera is a good browser and is very, very close to web-standards.  I would use it except, it is a selling product, it crams too much browser-unrelated stuff into its package (like mail),  it is not open-source, and it doesn't work with many of the Internet's services.  Firefox doesn't work with all, admittedly, but it works with many more.  Eveng Google doesn't make things work in Opera always...

I always wonder why people complain that there are too many features in Opera (like Mail and IRC), but these things hardly take up any space, and can be disabled easily. And one reason Opera doesn't work with all Internet services is because they tend to use non-standard scripts. It's because Opera strictly follows most of W3C's standards (Firefox is slightly more relaxed).

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • 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.  
    • Rufus 4.15.2393 Beta 2 by Razvan Serea Rufus is a small utility that helps format and create bootable USB flash drives, such as USB keys/pendrives, memory sticks, etc. Despite its small size, Rufus provides everything you need! Oh, and Rufus is fast. For instance it's about twice as fast as UNetbootin, Universal USB Installer or Windows 7 USB download tool, on the creation of a Windows 7 USB installation drive from an ISO (with honorable mention to WiNToBootic for managing to keep up). It is also marginally faster on the creation of Linux bootable USBs from ISOs. A non-exhaustive list of Rufus supported ISOs is available here. It can be especially useful for cases where: you need to create USB installation media from bootable ISOs (Windows, Linux, UEFI, etc.) you need to work on a system that doesn't have an OS installed you need to flash a BIOS or other firmware from DOS you want to run a low-level utility Rufus 4.15.2393 Beta 2 changelog: Add RISC-V 64 support to UEFI:NTFS Improve the guards for using the "silent" option Improve the ability to cancel during write retries Improve progress reporting for compressed image extraction Fix unrestricted XML entity expansion and integer overflow in ezxml parser (courtesy of @esadowski4) [GHSA-55r2-34wg-8mv9] Fix "silent" Windows installation failing at 75% in most cases [#2960] Fix a crash during boot when using UEFI:NTFS on Snapdragon X based ARM64 platforms [#2934] Fix the first WUE option always being checked by default [#2965] Fix an infinite loop when using Windows ISOs that contain multiple WIMs Fix "Enable runtime UEFI media validation" checkbox not always being properly enabled Other WUE improvements/fixes for OneDrive removal and username validation (with thanks to @christian8641) [#2984, #2991] Download: Rufus 4.15 Beta 2 | 1.9 MB (Open Source) Links: Rufus Home Page | Project Page @GitHub | Screenshot Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware
  • 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
      515
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      171
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      83
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      74
    5. 5
      Michael Scrip
      72
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!