Recommended Posts

You are sick of it because everyone keeps killing your arguments.
Nobody has destroyed one of my arguments, because the logic of my arguments is undeniable.
resort to the adware argument. How predictable :sleep:
It's not an argument. It's a fact. Again, you dismiss the facts as 'arguments' because you can't accept the facts. Opera displays ads, which classifies it as adware. I didn't say whether or not this made it better or worse. In fact I have never said whether opera or firefox is better or worse.

Regarding gzip, the difference between 7k and 30k is not noticeable for me. On my 100mbit connection (12500k/sec) it would take a fraction of second and would not be noticeable at all. Now we all know that it obviously wont operate at full speed, so lets say it uses one percent of total bandwidth, or 125k/sec. 30k would take .24 seconds, and 7 would take .056.

0.19 - ungzip time, is not a meaningful difference.

I'm sick of this stupid argument since vcv, gnt, wordb and every other fanatic just chants the same phrases over and over.  I feel stupider every time I read their posts.  Anyway, Opera is adware, bottom line.

585519284[/snapback]

And... you... aren't a Firefox fanatic?

Browser Statistics Month by Month

2005  IE 6  IE 5  O 7/8  Ffox  Moz  NN 4  NN 7

February  64.9%  4.3%  2.0%  20.0%  4.0%  0.2%  1.1%

January  65.3%  4.4%  2.1%  19.3%  4.0%  0.3%  1.1%

now for those folks who thought the  very well known news/security site was somehow  biased  and fake lets try these shall we.    http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp. thats pretty  good stats because thats what kids are using everyday in the real world.  we know kids start and follow the trends of society dont we. oh look another that says 20%  hmmmmm 

next.......Firefox continues gains against IE,    Firefox drawing fans away from Microsoft IE

I could sit here and quote sites all day that state between 14-20% of market as of this month but it be a lost cause , because like all microsoft people they will not admit there's a problem till it's too late . this is no different. when the browser is down to 2% they will still be claiming victory.  below im posting a link to a site that is  non profit and has no biased either way.  the watched  42 million users,  thats right 42 million and I think you'll fine the numbers very very intresting.  also read all the stats on this page you'll see microsoft come sout ahead in most other cases..cept browser use.  take a peek ..  thats all im gonna say on this matter. if you can sit and read all these numbers and still deny to yourself and others that this isnt true its all a lie then you my friends need more help then im trained to provide.  have a wonder day  :)

http://www.boingboing.net/stats/awstats.boingboing.net.html

585508907[/snapback]

http://www.websidestory.com/services-solut.../spotlight.html

They've been doing this since 1999 and they say less than 10%.

I accept apologies in the form of money, "you are right", or spare computer parts.

The problem with speed tests is that making a compeletely unbiased benchmark is almost impossible. Opera and Gecko engines are very different, I'm sure that with little research an experienced codemonkey could come up with benchmarks that prove either one the fastest browser.

As for this article claiming to be unbiased, it would be a good starting point to use benchmarks that aren't created by Opera fansites.

It's currently the most secure browser available :yes:

585467982[/snapback]

Can't resist.. now that 1.0.1 is out Firefox is again the most secure browser , at least according to secunia.

Both Firefox and Opera have 3 open advisories on secunia.com, but all Opera's vulnerabilities are ranked one notch more critical.

Can't resist.. now that 1.0.1 is out Firefox is again the most secure browser , at least according to secunia.

Both Firefox and Opera have 3 open advisories on secunia.com, but all Opera's vulnerabilities are ranked one notch more critical.

585554858[/snapback]

You forgot that their are 5 "partial fixes" for FF vulnerabilities.

Of the 3 Opera vulnerabilities...

1. IDN - fixed in 7.6 and 8.0

2. Multiple Browsers Window Injection Vulnerability - Fixed in 7.6 and 8.0

3. Multiple Browsers Dialog Box Spoofing - Fixed in 7.6 and 8.0, again.

7.6 has been available as Preview Releases since August, but we won't count those.

8.0 has been available publically since the end of december.

The 3 in mozilla, the first one still is vuln for 1.01. The other two I don't know because there is no information on that and no test cases.

So that's 3 for each which are unpatched. 11 total for FF 1.x alone (which has only been out since November), and people DO still use 0.9. Since november there has been 6 for Opera.

I'm not saying FF is not secure, but to say FF is more secure than Opera is a joke.

Partially fixed means in this case that it's fixed in Firefox. For some reason Secunia doesn't track Mozilla Suite and Firefox as separate products. (There's no Mozilla Suite release with the latest security patches => only partially fixed).

8.0 is not available yet, beta is but those never count when talking about security issues. Just like security fixes that are checked into Firefox trunk don't count until there's an official release.

Partially fixed means in this case that it's fixed in Firefox. For some reason Secunia doesn't track Mozilla Suite and Firefox as separate products. (There's no Mozilla Suite release with the latest security patches => only partially fixed).

8.0 is not available yet, beta is but those never count when talking about security issues. Just like security fixes that are checked into Firefox trunk don't count until there's an official release.

585555108[/snapback]

If a release is made available to the public (such as a direct download link on the front page), it is fair game.

If a release is made available to the public (such as a direct download link on the front page), it is fair game.

585555428[/snapback]

If you take a look at opera.com main page it's pretty obvious that 7.54 is still the latest stable version.

And if you really want to split hairs there the main page doesn't have a direct link to the 8.0 beta.

Opera 8.0 is available ON THE FRONT PAGE OF OPERA, and IS TESTED INTERNALLY before being released.

Firefox nightlies are NOT available ON THE FRONT PAGE, and are UNTESTED.  In fact, they are not easy to find unless you know what you are looking for.

585555605[/snapback]

Wow, great for Opera. The reason nightlies are untested is because they aren't betas. Is the Mozilla Foundation going to hire a team to, every night, test each nightly before release? That would defeat the purpose of the nightlies. It's meant to be a cheap way to let other people find the problems with the builds.

Now, what you should compare is Preview Releases to Betas, or Finals to Finals. Since 1.01 is final, we're going to compare it with Opera 7.5. Opera 8 Beta does not count in this discussion.

Wow, great for Opera. The reason nightlies are untested is because they aren't betas. Is the Mozilla Foundation going to hire a team to, every night, test each nightly before release? That would defeat the purpose of the nightlies. It's meant to be a cheap way to let other people find the problems with the builds.

Now, what you should compare is Preview Releases to Betas, or Finals to Finals. Since 1.01 is final, we're going to compare it with Opera 7.5. Opera 8 Beta does not count in this discussion.

585555958[/snapback]

First, compare preview releases to preview releases. Opera HAD preview releases before these betas. They were not available on the front page, and were only found it you looked on the FTP or the "beta testing" forum.

So because they chose to call it a "beta" release as opposed to doing 8.0, 8.01, 8.02 until they got it perfect.. you're not allowed to compare it to the latest public firefox release?

Please. You can't pick and choose. If a release is tested for public consumption and available to the general public via a recommendation on the vendors front page, it is fair game, no matter the label they choose for it.

By your argument, it was wrong to EVER compare firefox to anything before it was 1.0.

Even if we were to disregard 8.0 beta because it's not a "final release".

First, compare preview releases to preview releases.  Opera HAD preview releases before these betas.  They were not available on the front page, and were only found it you looked on the FTP or the "beta testing" forum.

So because they chose to call it a "beta" release as opposed to doing 8.0, 8.01, 8.02 until they got it perfect.. you're not allowed to compare it to the latest public firefox release?

Please. You can't pick and choose.  If a release is tested for public consumption and available to the general public via a recommendation on the vendors front page, it is fair game, no matter the label they choose for it.

By your argument, it was wrong to EVER compare firefox to anything before it was 1.0.

Even if we were to disregard 8.0 beta because it's not a "final release".

585556167[/snapback]

Pre-1.0 for Firefox was very different because it was completely new (and don't jump on that "but it's based on Netscape code!" crap; It's based on it, but that doesn't mean it is it).

As far as Preview Releases go, Mozilla seems to like the term better to describe betas, so they really are betas.

Pre-1.0 for Firefox was very different because it was completely new (and don't jump on that "but it's based on Netscape code!" crap; It's based on it, but that doesn't mean it is it).

As far as Preview Releases go, Mozilla seems to like the term better to describe betas, so they really are betas.

585557285[/snapback]

It's too bad that FF IS based on and uses the same code as Mozilla, whether you like it or not. In fact, there is very little difference between Firefox and Mozilla aside from the build options and deployement. Yes, the UI is different, but it uses the same technology to display it (XUL). As well, it uses the same rendering engine, the same extension architecture, etcetera.

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!