Opera 11 is better than the latest Chrome and Firefox Nightlies

[.Neo]

You think Chrome is just being handed out for free and Google gets nothing out of it? What do you think an advertising company does?

Same can be said of Opera.

[iuerg87yerg879e0rg9erugjer]

chrome 10.0 canary is already 77% faster then 9.0 so opera is going to be nothing as what chrome is going to be soon when 10.0 comes in the developer stage

[~Johnny]

Same can be said of Opera.

Opera gets plenty of money for their browsers else where, and it doesn't send any usage data back at all unless it crashes :p Opera also aren't known for being a big advertising platform or passing on data to other parties. It's certainly not easy to say the same about Opera.

chrome 10.0 canary is already 77% faster then 9.0 so opera is going to be nothing as what chrome is going to be soon when 10.0 comes in the developer stage

Chrome 10 is 77% faster on a certain Javascript test - and whilst the validity of that test is questionable, there's still the important fact that there is far more to the web, and web browsers, than just javascript. You have parsing speeds, rendering speeds, DOM speeds, HTML5 canvas speeds, etc, all of which can be far more important than javascript on many websites, and areas in which other browsers do clearly beat Chrome. There is no one single browser that has standout performance in every single area. Certainly, there are very big discrepancies in HTML5 performance between the browsers at the moment, none of which relies on how fast a browser is doing in a javascript test :whistle: (Though that's just on paper, not that many of us have much use of HTML5 right now)

<img>

[Jebadiah]

You think Chrome is just being handed out for free and Google gets nothing out of it? What do you think an advertising company does?

Google gets to provide its cloud services as they wish through Chrome. They didn't like the performance and standards non-compliance of other browsers, so they started building a browser on their own through which they could provide the best user experience. Chrome is there to get people more reliant on the Web so that people will rely less on desktop based software. Ultimately, the goal is to get people on the Web which will help increase ad revenue several fold.

They are guilty of nothing more than a lot of web based companies do, gathering usage data to tailor their products. All that they store is information about websites that you visit, the same information for the record that is stored by your ISP. I don't see people having psycho fits about the data their ISP stores.

Ah, but you see Google is NOT ONLY storing usage data. They data mine my data , my location, my browsing history, my cookies, my bookmarks, etc. with other data that they already have from other people to show me targeted advertisements, in the descending order of probable revenue from ad clicks/impressions for all I know, and search results, without giving me the option to turn it all OFF. Further, when I delete an e-mail, it's still stored on their servers. I would be throwing fits at the ISPs if they were doing the same. What makes it all worse is that the government cannot do anything because they're puppets of these corporate ****tards. (Mind you Bing has not started doing the same with user data so far, but I am pretty sure they'll end up data mining user data just like Google is, because that's the only sure way to show advertisements that are meaningful to the user and gain internet ad market share.)

There is nothing inherently bad in what Google do, unless you have something to hide which most ordinary people do not.

That is simply an utterly wrong way of understanding privacy. Who are you or the government or Google to decide what I have should be hidden or not? Who made Google the moral police? What I do with my data is my choice and nobody else's. If I don't have my choice, then I see that as a threat to my privacy. And that is the end of it.

If you are okay with giving your information to Google, then you should be okay with giving your data to me or anyone else on the Internet. So why don't you? Google and anyone else on the Internet are for all intensive purposes equals, that is "strangers". Why do you trust Google more than anyone else on the Internet, when clearly, by law, the corporation has equal rights as a human does? What is with this religious trust towards Google and nobody else on the Internet? Why don't you open all your ports on your computer, and start serving all your data? Do you have something to hide? If you answer "No", then clearly you've hit a blindspot in your thought process.

When you say "unless you have something to hide", it simply means that you've blindly signed your life over to a moral police and you expect other people to be "ordinary" like you and the other "ordinary people".

[ToneKnee]

This is not the same as clearing your history upon exit, and there is no option to go into incognito mode every time within the browser. You have to actually add some information to the shortcut, which Google knows most people simply won't do.

I don't use email or IRC either. It doesn't even get in my way. I just think it's funny that a Chrome installation is 30 MB while the Opera 11 installation is only 7 MB despite all that extra stuff. :whistle:

... Really? You're just being a Troll.

Firstly my image...

Secondly, a Chrome installation also stores your cache and will grow over time while Opera will grow it's cache in a different location.

This thread is another "Fanboy" thread where someone will pick the stupidest arguments with little evidence to support their claims. Quite clearly you can start Chrome in 'Incognito' mode if someone chooses too, Google don't hide or discourage this feature. It was there before Firefox's implementation.

[thenaes]

I've always wondered: What's the deal with Opera having a different Amazon.com page? Does Amazon think that Opera can't handle the hover over pop-up menus?

[Subject Delta]

Ah, but you see Google is NOT ONLY storing usage data. They data mine my data , my location, my browsing history, my cookies, my bookmarks, etc. with other data that they already have from other people to show me targeted advertisements, in the descending order of probable revenue from ad clicks/impressions for all I know, and search results, without giving me the option to turn it all OFF. Further, when I delete an e-mail, it's still stored on their servers. I would be throwing fits at the ISPs if they were doing the same. What makes it all worse is that the government cannot do anything because they're puppets of these corporate ****tards. (Mind you Bing has not started doing the same with user data so far, but I am pretty sure they'll end up data mining user data just like Google is, because that's the only sure way to show advertisements that are meaningful to the user and gain internet ad market share.)

No, they don't the only cookies that they track are their own. And that other data, bookmarks ETC are only stored if you decide to use the sync options built into Chrome... it's completely optional in case you hadn't realised.

That is simply an utterly wrong way of understanding privacy. Who are you or the government or Google to decide what I have should be hidden or not? Who made Google the moral police? What I do with my data is my choice and nobody else's. If I don't have my choice, then I see that as a threat to my privacy. And that is the end of it.

If you are okay with giving your information to Google, then you should be okay with giving your data to me or anyone else on the Internet. So why don't you? Google and anyone else on the Internet are for all intensive purposes equals, that is "strangers". Why do you trust Google more than anyone else on the Internet, when clearly, by law, the corporation has equal rights as a human does? What is with this religious trust towards Google and nobody else on the Internet? Why don't you open all your ports on your computer, and start serving all your data? Do you have something to hide? If you answer "No", then clearly you've hit a blindspot in your thought process.

When you say "unless you have something to hide", it simply means that you've blindly signed your life over to a moral police and you expect other people to be "ordinary" like you and the other "ordinary people".

I don't just trust Google, I keep data on Facebook as well FYI. The simple point of the matter is that there are data protection laws in place, to protect people and if corporations misappropriate your data, they can be legislated against.

[Fluxii Media]

Google gets to provide its cloud services as they wish through Chrome. They didn't like the performance and standards non-compliance of other browsers, so they started building a browser on their own through which they could provide the best user experience. Chrome is there to get people more reliant on the Web so that people will rely less on desktop based software. Ultimately, the goal is to get people on the Web which will help increase ad revenue several fold.

Ah, but you see Google is NOT ONLY storing usage data. They data mine my data , my location, my browsing history, my cookies, my bookmarks, etc. with other data that they already have from other people to show me targeted advertisements, in the descending order of probable revenue from ad clicks/impressions for all I know, and search results, without giving me the option to turn it all OFF. Further, when I delete an e-mail, it's still stored on their servers. I would be throwing fits at the ISPs if they were doing the same. What makes it all worse is that the government cannot do anything because they're puppets of these corporate ****tards. (Mind you Bing has not started doing the same with user data so far, but I am pretty sure they'll end up data mining user data just like Google is, because that's the only sure way to show advertisements that are meaningful to the user and gain internet ad market share.)

That is simply an utterly wrong way of understanding privacy. Who are you or the government or Google to decide what I have should be hidden or not? Who made Google the moral police? What I do with my data is my choice and nobody else's. If I don't have my choice, then I see that as a threat to my privacy. And that is the end of it.

If you are okay with giving your information to Google, then you should be okay with giving your data to me or anyone else on the Internet. So why don't you? Google and anyone else on the Internet are for all intensive purposes equals, that is "strangers". Why do you trust Google more than anyone else on the Internet, when clearly, by law, the corporation has equal rights as a human does? What is with this religious trust towards Google and nobody else on the Internet? Why don't you open all your ports on your computer, and start serving all your data? Do you have something to hide? If you answer "No", then clearly you've hit a blindspot in your thought process.

When you say "unless you have something to hide", it simply means that you've blindly signed your life over to a moral police and you expect other people to be "ordinary" like you and the other "ordinary people".

And how much money did you blow with all that tin foil on your head? ;)

Google can have data; like others said, it's mainly to give us relevant ads designed for you personally. It's perfectly alright in my books... we all trust Facebook still, even with all their privacy flaws (the ones that are still going on, yet Google fixes theirs if people start to whine.)... so what is the big deal? So the browser knows your location? Who cares. So it knows that you watch porn cause you have no life... Who cares?! If it's not Google, it's going to be someone else. Deal with it, remove the tin foil hat, the Y2K scare is over, and we're not going to all die on 12/21/2012. KthnxBAI.

[buckboii]

I like Opera but it takes up a lot of space. Still using it as the default browser.

[polyarchist]

Same can be said of Opera.

LOL are you kidding me? Opera is not an advertising company. Opera gets most of its money from providing mobile browsers for big companies like Nintendo, Adobe, etc and it used to charge for Opera desktop browser.

... Really? You're just being a Troll.

Firstly my image...

Secondly, a Chrome installation also stores your cache and will grow over time while Opera will grow it's cache in a different location.

This thread is another "Fanboy" thread where someone will pick the stupidest arguments with little evidence to support their claims. Quite clearly you can start Chrome in 'Incognito' mode if someone chooses too, Google don't hide or discourage this feature. It was there before Firefox's implementation.

I'm looking at your image, and you know what they have in common? They both involve Chrome being started up already. Chrome does NOT give the user the same control as Firefox does. It always involves the user having to start up a regular session before they can start an incognito session...

Firefox does not do this. Firefox will give you the option to either:

1) Never store data no matter what across infinite sessions.

2) Delete data as soon as the browser is closed.

Now go find me an image for Chrome that does the same. :rolleyes:

[soonerproud]

Unless IE9 gets extension support, I don't see anybody here except you and a few others using it as a primary browser. Speed is worthless to the power user unless you have the extensibility to go with it. Google knew that and added extensions in record time. Opera is doing it before they lose their marketshare completely to Chrome, which is sapping away Firefox's marketshare.

IE has had extention support for years, in fact before Firefox was ever around.

[polyarchist]

IE has had extention support for years, in fact before Firefox was ever around.

This is such a troll.

[soonerproud]

The point is that it's nice to be able to add whatever you want to the browser while keeping the installation lean. Opera does this while still including an email/IRC client and it has 4X less to install than with Chrome, and now with full extension support, Opera can be more popular since extensions are pretty much what drives the browser market for what I'd say a healthy 1/3 of web users.

Actually, extentions support is not a must have feature for most people. Only power users care about extention support, most people don't even use adblocking software.

[polyarchist]

Actually, extentions support is not a must have feature for most people. Only power users care about extention support, most people don't even use adblocking software.

Did I say most?

[Subject Delta]

This is such a troll.

Technically he's correct, IE has had a plugin system since before Firefox even existed, through ActiveX.

[polyarchist]

Technically he's correct, IE has had a plugin system since before Firefox even existed, through ActiveX.

Plugins =/= Extensions

[soonerproud]

Did I say most?

No, but your post implies it is a must have feature which is not true when the most extensible and used browser on the market (IE) has failed to develop a extention developer community despite having this feature before IE6. Extension support is not going to make Opera popular on the desktop.

Plugins =/= Extensions

On IE they are the same thing and Microsoft allows third party extention devlopment. The fact it is not used much is testament that extention support is not a must have feature for a browser to be popular.

[polyarchist]

No, but your post implies it is a must have feature which is not true when the most extensible and used browser on the market (IE) has failed to develop a extention developer community despite having this feature before IE6. Extension support is not going to make Opera popular on the desktop.

IE comes with Windows, and Windows is the most widely used OS in the world. We all know most people are ignorant and use whatever comes with their computer because they lack the intelligence to venture on their own and find something that suits them instead of using what is given to them. The power user segment is who I'm talking about, and they alone can make the difference between a browser being #3 or #2.

[+virtorio MVC]

Plugins =/= Extensions

Plugin = Flash, Shockwave, Java

Extension = additional toolbar, content menu helper, additional sidebar, runtime interception of incoming content

IE 4 had "extensions". It was a flawed (and complex) implementation, but it had them.

[polyarchist]

Plugin = Flash, Shockwave, Java

Extension = additional toolbar, content menu helper, additional sidebar

IE 4 had "extensions". It was a flawed implementation, but it had them.

If you have to put quotes around the word "extensions" then they aren't really extensions. They are nothing more than separate installs that run with the browser, not become a part of the browser. If you have to uninstall them with control panel add/remove, they are simply not extensions.

[Malisk]

Hello everybody, I've been reading this forum for a long time and decided to finally post something I felt was lacking in this subforum.

I've been using Firefox since before it was called Firefox, and I've switched to Chrome last year but recently I've been using Opera 11 and its become my default browser.

Why Firefox is lacking: The interface is terribly slow compared to the other 2 browsers, Gecko is notorious for being very slow due to the sheer amount of code, and even the Minefield nightlies continue to lag behind even Chrome and Opera stable versions in terms of compliance and speed. While it may have the biggest amount of extensions, it is only this fact that is keeping people in the Firefox world. Once extensions development approaches the comprehensiveness of Firefox's ecosystem, I see many users going to Chrome instead of Firefox. In other words, unless Mozilla can rewrite Firefox from scratch, I don't see how it can possibly compete with the Webkit browsers alone and I can see Chrome being the #2 browser for Windows by 2014 or so.

Why Chrome is lacking: Despite its massive gains over Firefox in terms of speed, compliance and UI responsiveness, it still has a lot of basic issues to deal with that continue to be ignored by Google: Why can't I manage the cache? Why can't I delete my history upon exiting the browser. I would say that that has a lot of to do with the spying that Chrome does with your browsing sessions. It can't create a profile of your browsing habits efficiently if you keep clearing out your history, as many people would choose to do. Also, the download manager is terrible and copy and paste functions continue to be extremely buggy on many website. Why does it have to save every torrent file I open? Why does it have to open the download bar when I right click save an image? All these things should have been fixed by now, but they aren't, because Google is too busy on only 2 things: 1) Performance 2) Finding new ways to mine your data, such as their sync, cloud print, and DNS options. While Chrome is faster than Firefox in many ways, it is not as good a browser in terms of features and privacy options, simply because Google is an advertising company, and the more control you have over your browser, the less of your data it can keep. There's a reason why there's an 11 page thread on this forum called "Things you hate about Chrome", you know!

Why Opera is best: Recent benchmarks show that Opera is similar to Chrome in terms of speed, and the interface is just as responsive while still using less memory than Chrome (but still more memory than Firefox) Best of all, Opera 11 now has extensions that are very similar to Chrome and every Chrome extension can be easily ported to Opera. Through these open standards, it is easier than ever to write an extension for a browser. With Opera, you get all the strengths of both Firefox and Chrome: You get Chrome's speed and Firefox's featureset, with even more built-in, like native content blocking, email, IRC, etc. You even get built-in Greasemonkey script support! There is really no reason to use either Chrome or Firefox when Opera simply combines the two in a lightweight installation.

Try Opera 11 when it becomes stable this month, guys, and get all the benefits of Chrome while not sacrificing even the basic browser that Firefox provides, and start from scratch with its new extension support.

You can adjust both the cache size and location in Chrome. It's just that the devs don't consider these of common interest, so they're just provided as command-line switches.

See also: http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/Chrome/thread?tid=098d42a41aacdc6d&hl=en

Browsing with Chrome in Incognito mode will delete your history on exit. That's among others things what Incognito mode is there for. Chrome doesn't spy on your sessions; or at least they don't know it's YOUR sessions, since the data provided to Google is anonymous. Your IP is not submitted, and neither is your Google account. Chrome isn't mining any data other than how you use the browser. No address information is submitted, unless you enable suggestions in the Omnibar of course, but that happens also in Firefox and other browsers which support search suggestions. It has to happen.

I only answer a few of your questions since this was a long post. I notice that you haven't done thorough research on your competitors though. I can only suggest you do this before you make your choice, so that you'll make a more informed choice. :) Opera 11 is a very good browser though. Personally, the major showstopper there for me is that it doesn't integrate well enough with OS X.

[+virtorio MVC]

If you have to put quotes around the word "extensions" then they aren't really extensions. They are nothing more than separate installs that run with the browser, not become a part of the browser. If you have to uninstall them with control panel add/remove, they are simply not extensions.

I put it in quotes because the implementation wasn't especially good. Flaws don't make what it was any less valid.

[Subject Delta]

If you have to put quotes around the word "extensions" then they aren't really extensions. They are nothing more than separate installs that run with the browser, not become a part of the browser. If you have to uninstall them with control panel add/remove, they are simply not extensions.

Rubbish, Garbage, they perform the same function, to add extra functionality to the browser.

[ToneKnee]

LOL are you kidding me? Opera is not an advertising company. Opera gets most of its money from providing mobile browsers for big companies like Nintendo, Adobe, etc and it used to charge for Opera desktop browser.

I'm looking at your image, and you know what they have in common? They both involve Chrome being started up already. Chrome does NOT give the user the same control as Firefox does. It always involves the user having to start up a regular session before they can start an incognito session...

Firefox does not do this. Firefox will give you the option to either:

1) Never store data no matter what across infinite sessions.

2) Delete data as soon as the browser is closed.

Now go find me an image for Chrome that does the same. :rolleyes:

Again with the crap. Chrome doesn't have to be started up to access it's private session browsing, it's in the jump menu list regardless i Chrome is closed or open. So again, stop spewing crap.

[polyarchist]

Rubbish, Garbage, they perform the same function, to add extra functionality to the browser.

As do plugins. There has to be a delineation. Extensions function within the browser, not separately.