Firefox? Opera? (anything but IE) - Page 4 - HTML Forums

Josh · 09-07-2004, 03:11 PM

And my personal opinion is I can't stand opera's.

Here's a very good link:
http://www.switch2firefox.com/

HIQ · 09-07-2004, 03:27 PM

I read the top ten reasons to use Firefox and Opera can do all of that and much more. while I think Firefox is a great browser, I think Opera is even better. But as I said, it's best to try both and make the decision on your own.

here are some good opera links.
http://my.opera.com/community/ - My Opera Community, everything about Opera
http://operalover.tntluoma.com/8/ - 30 days to becoming an opera 8 lover added 2005-04-23
http://nontroppo.org/wiki/Opera7 - NonTroppo's Opera7Wiki, a huge collection of tips and tricks for Opera. Make sure to check at least Opera7Tips for general tips, Opera7Performance for performance enhancement tips, and CustomButtons for "extensions"
http://www.schrode.net/opera/ - some random Opera stuff (search.ini configuration, Opera for Linux, etc.)

bendman · 09-14-2004, 01:00 AM

I was checking out this website and I think he must be talking about a very old version of Mozilla, because a lot of the things he says are wrong. He uses things like easily turning on and off popups, addable integrated search extensions, tabbed browsing, privacy controls, etc to prove that Opera is better than mozilla, and Mozilla can do all of these things. I almost switched to Opera a while back, but when I found out the free version is ad funded, and saw a screenshot with huge-to-the-point-of-annoying tabs, I decided to stay with Firefox.

nilsmo · 09-14-2004, 03:21 PM

Opera is much more advanced and small if it was free it would be the best, but the ad makes it so opera doesn't cut it versus firefox.

afterburn · 09-14-2004, 05:42 PM

why does that person compare on that link the size of the intall files? more so what does that matter? Diskspace is cheap, can buy a 200GB drive for 200.... lot better than it was in 486 and 8086 days.

nilsmo · 09-14-2004, 06:38 PM

The thing is, afterburn, is that larger filesize takes long to download; when the file is uncompressing it takes longer; the filesize becomes bigger after it is uncompressed, then all those heavy megabytes have to load on the RAM, and 50MB of RAM used by Internet Explorer can become very bad and even make the computer go into the pagefile. 25MB may not be so important but if you cut EVERYthing in half, you just got twice the amount of RAM, and a speedier, soundless computer running many applications at once.

afterburn · 09-14-2004, 06:45 PM

I have been programming for over 6 years professionally. I have more knowledge about programming than you do. Including C++,C,C# and about 8 other languages. I know what memory is. I know about compression. It just doesn';t make since to compare the file size. including memory size unless everything your doing in on the heap instead of the stack.

also note that I have never seen IE take more than 35 MB unless someone is doing something stupid with a webserver.

bendman · 09-14-2004, 09:13 PM

lol, unless you have a terrible computer or are doing ridiculus things to test RAM, you shouldn't have any problems with RAM. A few megs less isn't going to be a big seller IMO. I (with 256) can run America's Army (on UltraHigh detail - I'm not sure if that makes a difference), Firefox, PSP, and a voice chat server with no problems with RAM at all. Infact I have a skin with a resources meter, and it rarely goes over 60% for more than a second. Lately the hardware generally outpaces the software, unlike a year or so back, so software generally doesn't hinder speed at all.

and for the record, firfox is taking up barely 4 megs of ram right now. I really don't consider system resources something of a problem unless your doing multiple CAD projects or something similar at once on an older computer.

afterburn · 09-14-2004, 09:42 PM

America's Army : no it is contained to Video memory.

and to be honest 50% of americans use DSL or Cable. So file size really doesn't matter. The arguement of size for it makes a difference on download is just a dumb and dumber argument. Memory also bogus, most computers now come with 512 or better... anyone who knows anything about computers and will be using that browser will mostlikely have that ..

HIQ · 09-15-2004, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by bendman
I was checking out this website and I think he must be talking about a very old version of Mozilla, because a lot of the things he says are wrong. He uses things like easily turning on and off popups, addable integrated search extensions, tabbed browsing, privacy controls, etc to prove that Opera is better than mozilla, and Mozilla can do all of these things. I almost switched to Opera a while back, but when I found out the free version is ad funded, and saw a screenshot with huge-to-the-point-of-annoying tabs, I decided to stay with Firefox.

that document is rather outdated, he is comparing opera version 7.20 to mozilla firebird. both browsers are old, the newest version of opera is 7.54 (there is an alpha version of 7.60 too). Lots of things have changed since that... well, at least in opera. And he is proving that Opera can do those things, and it can do them better than firebird/fox.

Quote:

Originally posted by afterburn
why does that person compare on that link the size of the intall files? more so what does that matter? Diskspace is cheap, can buy a 200GB drive for 200.... lot better than it was in 486 and 8086 days.

It is mainly the download sizes that matter.

Besides, Firefox users often complain that Opera is bloated, because it has a lot of everything. Yet the Opera installer, as well as the size when installed, is smaller than Firefox without any extensions?

Quote:

Originally posted by afterburn
and to be honest 50% of americans use DSL or Cable. So file size really doesn't matter. The arguement of size for it makes a difference on download is just a dumb and dumber argument. Memory also bogus, most computers now come with 512 or better... anyone who knows anything about computers and will be using that browser will mostlikely have that ..

Well, that is only the half. And it is the half of the *Americans* - So file size doesn't matter. Only because so many *Americans* use high speed connections, it doesn't matter!? And sure, most Americans have new computers with lots of RAM. Do you think all the world cares about are Americans? Opera isn't even developed by Americans; it is developed in Norway (mainly) and Sweden. Although many people in the Nordic countries have high speed connections also, cross platform compatibility is very important for Opera. For example, a poor guy from Bulgaria with an intel-386 and 32 MB of RAM, with OS/2 or whatever installed, and a 16.6 kbps connection, can use Opera, very smoothly. Even in his own language.

afterburn · 09-15-2004, 02:38 PM

I guess everyone lives in a 3rd world country.

I have waited for a 150MB NT 4 SP4 on dial up. They can wait for the 20 MB.

THe better browser arguement is dead. AOL/Netscape know this. Mozilla and Opera need to find this out also.
The world shouldn't be supporting 8086 machines. I would like to see Apple put OSX on a G2. If they can't keep up, they should die out.

I can care less about file size or memory footprint that gecko and opera engines are touting. I have 786 MB of ram on a Geforce4 TI 4600 with 128Mb with 1.53 Ghz AMD XP Processor. I am sure that if the world worked to promote backwards compatiablity then we should still be using an abcacus, its anolog you know?

HIQ · 09-15-2004, 02:49 PM

Great, YOU have lots of RAM and a speedy processor, so that's why it doesn't matter if the browser is a lard ass, you have enough system resources anyway? But everyone doesn't! Do you realize how expensive a brand new computer is? And I'm not (only) talking about the third world countries (although Opera has recently put a lot of effort to bidirectional languages support), I'm talking about a majority of Europe also.

And how come speed and RAM usage doesn't seem to matter in comparison to Opera, but all IE users are always told how much faster and yada yada Firefox is?

DA Master · 09-15-2004, 02:50 PM

I like Opera, simple to use and loads quick. I like it's clean interface.

However I like the fact that you can skin Firefox.

HIQ · 09-15-2004, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DA Master
I like Opera, simple to use and loads quick. I like it's clean interface.

However I like the fact that you can skin Firefox.

Oh, you can skin Opera too - View -> Skin -> Get skins. Download a skin that you like and apply it. You can also, unlike in Firefox, apply a color scheme to the skin (i.e. change its coloring): View -> Color Scheme -> [choose a color]. You can add own colors (in #hex) by editing an Opera INI file.

nilsmo · 09-15-2004, 03:46 PM

Internet Explorer is bloated.
Bloated software takes up system resources.
An ME system with 64MB of RAM will not fare well with 10MB extra taken of the RAM.
An XP system with 256MB of RAM will run much slower with Internet Explorer in the background. If you disable explorer in Windows, for example, system performance increases by about 80%. That is helpful.
We have concluded that bloated software is bad.
Internet Explorer is not secure.
Firefox is secure.
Opera is very secure.
Agree?
Internet Explorer costs $100 (windows OS cost), Firefox is free and open source

, and Opera is $39 i think.
Internet Explorer is very sluggish (pages take x2 slower loading than in firefox, by visiting the same website).
Firefox is speedy.
Opera is speedy.
Internet Explorer is pretty innovationless.
Firefox uses good innovation.
Opera is the leader in the category.
Internet Explorer interface is not sooo clean.
Firefox interface is clean.
Opera's interface is slightly cluttered. It can be uncluttered but then less features are available at the click of a mouse.
Internet Explorer uses messed up handling of code.
Firefox uses standards based decoding, and knows more advanced codes than IE.
Opera is obviously the leader in this category.
In conclusion:
Internet Explorer is bad, costly.
Firefox is good, free, easy.
Opera is very good, cost involved.
However, I use Firefox becuase I do not want to spend $39 or have an ad. Firefox is also Open source and not handled by a company so I think it will have a better future: I vote firefox.