Recommended Posts

IMO Opera has the most horrible and non-native interface of all browsers. They really need to work on that.

The only thing really non native about opera compared to other browsers right now is the menus... You are exaggerating quite a bit. Opera really looks quite similar to chrome.

Are you kidding me? Looks like a dog's vomit

You're being an idiot fanboy

Are you kidding me? Looks like a dog's vomit

:rolleyes:

Just to point out, the speed dial can be configured; background changed, tabs removed etc. So all you're basically saying is the aero look (from 7), and the tabs look like vomit. What an interesting deduction. Hell it looks a lot like Firefox 4

And it looks a hell of a lot better than firefox 3 ever did.

:rolleyes:

Just to point out, the speed dial can be configured; background changed, tabs removed etc. So all you're basically saying is the aero look (from 7), and the tabs look like vomit. What an interesting deduction. Hell it looks a lot like Firefox 4

And it looks a hell of a lot better than firefox 3 ever did.

No, remove all that and you got Chrome, eeeep.

The only thing really non native about opera compared to other browsers right now is the menus... You are exaggerating quite a bit. Opera really looks quite similar to chrome.

Try using the Mac OS X version. The menus, preferences window, dialog windows etc. just don't have anything to do with Aqua anymore. And yeah, Firefox and Chrome are crap in this area too. Safari is the only browser that is truly native to Mac OS X.

Try using the Mac OS X version. The menus, preferences window, dialog windows etc. just don't have anything to do with Aqua anymore. And yeah, Firefox and Chrome are crap in this area too. Safari is the only browser that is truly native to Mac OS X.

I don't disagree with this.

IE9 stunning design + Opera speed and smooth scrolling will be amazing :)

...not to say that all bad coding websites will be gone very fast.

In the hypothetical world that Microsoft would even consider buying such a product, you know that Microsoft would just shut down the project, right?

Try using the Mac OS X version. The menus, preferences window, dialog windows etc. just don't have anything to do with Aqua anymore. And yeah, Firefox and Chrome are crap in this area too. Safari is the only browser that is truly native to Mac OS X.

Firefox 4 is much better

Are you kidding me? Looks like a dog's vomit

Oh Gawd, it is ugly.

Are you kidding me? Looks like a dog's vomit

None of your posts are the least constructive in any shape or form. The UI is subjective. Personally I think it has the nicest UI over ff, safari, IE and chrome. With Chromes lack of features and the fact it's slower than Opera pretty much renders it useless. FF I would recommend to anyone who wants to use extensions, but for a mixture of speed and features I would say Opera was the best alternative.

Oh and by the way. There is such thing as "themes" if you didn't know. It means you can change how Opera looks. It's a miracle huh?

Yes, how terribly ugly and unnative this is...

Slapping on an Aero or Aqua theme doesn't mean an application has a truly native interface that actually integrates with the services an OS has to offer.

Firefox 4 is much better

Integrates poorly with Mac OS X' services as well and in the end uses an Aqua theme as well, rather than using the real deal.

In the hypothetical world that Microsoft would even consider buying such a product, you know that Microsoft would just shut down the project, right?

Well said.

I know Opera the browser won't please everyone, but Microsoft buying Opera won't amount to much over acquiring and shutting down a competitor (a small but old one at that).

While you guys are arguing over how Opera fits in on OS X, the Unix version doesn't look native either. Although I find it fits in better with KDE than Gnome. Despite that, on school computers it's more responsive than Firefox at times.

Despite that the Windows version looks pretty polished for the most part. Here's another background:

Speed%20Dial%20-%20Opera.png

I don't use any userscripts, but If I wanted to, I can just append them to the filter. Big ****ing deal, I have to copy and paste a file.

Exactly. It's a "big ****ing deal". It's 2010 and we still have a browser that makes users copy and paste files to some obscure location buried deep within the hard drive to access a feature that is available via point-and-click in other browsers?

I'm trying to decide which is more amazing, that Opera is actually still that primitive in this age of modern browsers, or that you seem to think its perfectly normal.

Exactly. It's a "big ****ing deal". It's 2010 and we still have a browser that makes users copy and paste files to some obscure location buried deep within the hard drive to access a feature that is available via point-and-click in other browsers?

I'm trying to decide which is more amazing, that Opera is actually still that primitive in this age of modern browsers, or that you seem to think its perfectly normal.

Have you realized that 60%+ of the world doesn't give a **** about user-scripts?

And no you don't have to copy and paste it to some primitive location on the hardrive.

OH SNAP!

Have you realized that 60%+ of the world doesn't give a **** about user-scripts?

Users don't care about this, users don't care about that, they just don't use Opera because they're ignorant and misunderstand it, bla bla bla.

And no you don't have to copy and paste it to some primitive location on the hardrive.

OH SNAP!

Except that it's a stupid CSS file that only hides ads, not prevent them from downloading like how urlfilter.ini does.

OH SNAP!

Users don't care about this, users don't care about that, they just don't use Opera because they're ignorant and misunderstand it, bla bla bla.

You know thats a BENEFIT of having multiple web browsers. YOU USE THE ONES THAT HAVE FEATURES THAT MATTER TO YOU.

Did you pay for my computer? No. Did you pay for my windows? No. I don't give a **** about your browsing habits, if you want to run a billion extensions, by all means go ahead. I don't need them, and I don't see the point of them. Hence the whole extension **** is useless for me.

And yes 60% of the world doesn't use user-scripts, because they use IE. And I'm also quite sure a lot of chrome, firefox, Opera, and Safari users don't use them either.

Except that it's a stupid CSS file that only hides ads, not prevent them from downloading like how urlfilter.ini does.

No thats the user stylesheet, not the adblock.

And yes the stylesheet doesn't prevent them from downloading (you need urlfilter.ini for that), but that doesn't affect me too much. I have an unlimited 25/2 connection here, and a 100/100 connection back home. And I have no problem with showing ads on websites that I would like to support. I block the ones that have excessive ads that interrupt my browsing.

Yet again, MY COMPUTER, MY TIME. I'll do what I please with it. Ok?

And yes 60% of the world doesn't use user-scripts, because they use IE.

Rolling On Floor Laughing My Ass Off. Why does Opera bother sinking so much research and brag about how fast its Javascript engine then? Why bother to have so many built-in features? 98-99% of the desktop market don't give a ****, they're using browsers slower than and with less features ootb than Opera. Maybe all browser vendors should focus on the heights of mediocrity of IE6/7/8, that would be what the majority of users want. :rolleyes:

Rolling On Floor Laughing My Ass Off. Why does Opera bother sinking so much research and brag about how fast its Javascript engine then? Why bother to have so many built-in features? 98-99% of the desktop market don't give a ****, they're using browsers slower than and with less features ootb than Opera. Maybe all browser vendors should focus on the heights of mediocrity of IE6/7/8, that would be what the majority of users want. :rolleyes:

Are you retarded? Using userscripts HAS VERY LITTLE to do with how fast their javascript engine is. A HUGE part of the web uses javascript, especially when it comes to interactive content like AJAX. Having a faster JS engine means those webpages load and respond faster not because userscripts can be run.

And like I said THE BENEFIT OF HAVING CHOICE IN THE BROWSER MARKET IS YOU USE THE ONE THAT HAS FEATURES YOU WANT.

Want extensions? Go with Firefox

Want speed and great standards support? Go with Safari, Chrome, or Opera

Just want a browser that allows you to read your email? Use any of them, or hell stick with IE8

I mean lets look at some statistics shall we? 500 million people have DOWNLOADED firefox since 2004. 32 million people have DOWNLOADED Greasemonkey. That means a whole 6.4% of people who downloaded Firefox use Greasemonkey. 96 million have downloaded Adblock plus. That means a whole 18-20% of people who downloaded Firefox use Adblock plus (the most popular extension).

Face it. Not everyone, even on firefox, uses extensions.

Are you retarded? Using userscripts HAS VERY LITTLE to do with how fast their javascript engine is. A HUGE part of the web uses javascript, especially when it comes to interactive content like AJAX. Having a faster JS engine means those webpages load and respond faster not because userscripts can be run.

And like I said THE BENEFIT OF HAVING CHOICE IN THE BROWSER MARKET IS YOU USE THE ONE THAT HAS FEATURES YOU WANT.

Want extensions? Go with Firefox

Want speed and great standards support? Go with Safari, Chrome, or Opera

Just want a browser that allows you to read your email? Use any of them, or hell stick with IE8

I mean lets look at some statistics shall we? 500 million people have DOWNLOADED firefox since 2004. 32 million people have DOWNLOADED Greasemonkey. That means a whole 6.4% of people who downloaded Firefox use Greasemonkey. 96 million have downloaded Adblock plus. That means a whole 18-20% of people who downloaded Firefox user Adblock plus (the most popular extension).

Face it. Not everyone, even on firefox, uses extensions.

Are YOU retarded? When did I say that using user scripts had anything to do with how fast the Javascript engine is? All I was saying was that if you claim that 60% of people don't care about feature X because they're on IE and IE doesn't have it, then why on earth is Opera wasting its time developing all sorts of features not found in IE?

According to you Opera shouldn't have improved its JS engine and developed all its features, it should just become an IE clone because thats what 60% of desktop users care about. I don't care much for Opera, but even I think that's completely retarded. Your logic sir is utter crap.

Are YOU retarded? When did I say that using user scripts had anything to do with how fast the Javascript engine is? All I was saying was that if you claim that 60% of people don't care about feature X because they're on IE and IE doesn't have it, then why on earth is Opera wasting its time developing all sorts of features not found in IE?

According to you Opera shouldn't have improved its JS engine and developed all its features, it should just become an IE clone because thats what 60% of desktop users care about. I don't care much for Opera, but even I think that's completely retarded. Your logic sir is utter crap.

You don't get it do you?

NOT EVERYONE USES EXTENSIONS AND ITS WHY WE HAVE CHOICE

And considering how you didn't reply to that bit of my post, you know the one that includes facts, I'm going to show you another bit of lovely information:

139,270,226 add-ons in use

From Mozilla's statistics. 500 million downloads + of Firefox, only 140 million addons. So that would mean if everyone used 1 extension ONLY, only 140 million people use them. Now considering most people do not just use one, the number drops sharply.

As for userscripts? I'm pretty dam sure even less people use that. So yes MOST PEOPLE DON'T USE USER-SCRIPTS.

THAT IS MY POINT. And considering you didn't manage to get that, and just replied with a personal attack...I'm going to guess your age as being 5. Isn't it past your bed time yet?

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

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Python programmers in a nutshell. Now, guess what lang most AI programmers use... :-)
    • There was nothing whatsoever wrong with Vista as an OS after the SP1 update. People who claim it wasn't were using ancient machines for some silly reason. Not kidding, no hyperbole/exaggeration. Vista was good.
    • Windows ME was worse.
    • Dude, im talking about simply disable it from settings app. Because of the eu regulation, you could disable it here for years.
    • One big question about Mars was answered thanks to Einstein's 100 year old theory by Sayan Sen Image via DepositPhotos Scientists at the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have calculated how time passes on Mars compared with Earth, adding detail to how timekeeping would need to work beyond Earth’s orbit. The study, published in The Astronomical Journal, found that clocks on Mars run an average of 477 microseconds, or millionths of a second, faster per day than clocks on Earth. A microsecond is one millionth of a second, a very small unit used in precise scientific timing systems such as atomic clocks, which measure time using consistent atomic behavior. This difference is not constant. Because Mars moves around the Sun in a non-circular path (an eccentric orbit, meaning its distance from the Sun changes over time instead of staying fixed) and is affected by gravity from other bodies, the daily difference can vary by as much as 226 microseconds over a Martian year. The study also identifies smaller repeating changes of about 40 microseconds per day linked to synodic cycles (repeating periods that describe how planets line up with each other as they orbit the Sun from different positions). These longer patterns affect how time differences slowly rise and fall. To make these estimates, researchers compared Mars with Earth and the Moon. The work looks at relativistic proper time (the time actually measured by a clock depending on its speed and the strength of gravity where it is located, as described in Einstein’s relativity). This shows that each world has its own slightly different “rate” of time. This becomes more important as space missions expand into cislunar space (the region between Earth and the Moon) and toward Mars. On Earth, time systems rely on atomic clocks and satellites, which stay closely synchronized for navigation and communication. The study is based on Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity, which shows that time is affected by gravity and motion. Stronger gravity makes clocks run slower, while weaker gravity makes them run faster. “The time is just right for the Moon and Mars,” said NIST physicist Bijunath Patla. “This is the closest we have been to realizing the science fiction vision of expanding across the solar system.” A day on Mars is about 40 minutes longer than on Earth, and a Martian year lasts 687 Earth days. But the main question is not just about days and years, but how fast time itself passes. An atomic clock placed on Mars would function normally, but compared with one on Earth, the two would slowly drift apart due to differences in gravity and motion. This requires careful calculation of what is similar to a time-zone difference across planets. Researchers modeled Mars using a reference surface and included gravitational effects from the Sun, Earth, the Moon, and other planets. This includes a multi-body gravitational system (often described as a three-body or four-body problem, where predicting motion becomes difficult because multiple large objects all pull on each other at the same time through gravity). Mars also follows a Keplerian orbit (an idealized elliptical orbit based on simple gravitational laws that assume smooth motion, before adding real-world disturbances from other bodies). In addition, the researchers accounted for solar tides (small changes in gravitational force caused by the Sun that slightly distort planetary motion and timing, especially in systems involving Earth and the Moon). These combined effects are described as relativistic proper-time offsets (small but measurable differences in elapsed time between locations caused by gravity and motion), which must be included when comparing clocks across planets. “But for Mars, that’s not the case. Its distance from the Sun and its eccentric orbit make the variations in time larger. A three-body problem is extremely complicated. Now we’re dealing with four: the Sun, Earth, the Moon and Mars,” Patla explained. “The heavy lifting was more challenging than I initially thought.” Although the differences are extremely small, they matter for navigation and communication systems that depend on precise timing. Even modern networks on Earth, such as mobile systems, rely on timing accuracy at very small fractions of a second. Communication between Earth and Mars currently takes about four to 24 minutes or more depending on planetary positions, meaning signals are not real-time. A shared and accurate time system could help future missions reduce confusion in navigation and data exchange. “If you get synchronization, it will be almost like real-time communication without any loss of information. You don’t have to wait to see what happens,” Patla said. Researchers note that fully developed interplanetary communication networks are still far in the future. However, understanding how time behaves across planets helps prepare for those systems. “It may be decades before the surface of Mars is covered by the tracks of wandering rovers, but it is useful now to study the issues involved in establishing navigation systems on other planets and moons,” said Neil Ashby. “Like current global navigation systems like GPS, these systems will depend on accurate clocks, and the effects on clock rates can be analyzed with the help of Einstein’s general theory of relativity.” Patla added that the results also help improve understanding of time itself under relativity. “It's good to know for the first time what is happening on Mars timewise. Nobody knew that before. It improves our knowledge of the theory itself, the theory of how clocks tick and relativity,” he said. Source: NIST, IOPscience 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.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Grand Master
      Jaybonaut went up a rank
      Grand Master
    • One Year In
      Philsl earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Dedicated
      Scoobystu earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • First Post
      Tom Schmidt earned a badge
      First Post
    • One Month Later
      D0nn13 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      443
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      177
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      124
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      78
    5. 5
      Xenon
      76
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!