Diminished2b

Necrophagist Demilich Sleep Terror

Muhammad Suicmez

It can cause more fragmentation, and when your harddrive is above 85% full most filesystems (NTFS and Fat32 included) significantly slow.

Buy a decent router/firewall box.

Your muting the output of it, not the input.

If your read wiki's guide "Dozens" of times, then you'd know. Consult your motherboard's manual to see if you have hardware RAID, if you don't use Google to find how to get up a software RAID.

Unfortunately I've got a sleep disorder (Insomnia) so I often get little or no sleep. Usually 2-4 hours, or none at all. If I go to sleep I can't sleep for long.. but a lot of the time I just can't go to sleep.

Death - Story to Tell

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID Explains all you want to know.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermat%27s_last_theorem

Totally agree'd. Opera has one or two tabbing features on Firefox by default. Grab a few extensions, and guess what.. So, can I say that Safari and Konqueror are the same webbrowser because they both use the KHTML rendering engine? Firefox, Mozilla, and Netscape are all developed separately and are separate applications. Firebird was the name of Firefox until legal reasons made them change it, but it was always free so I maintain my point. Just because an influence of Firefox may have cost money, doesn't mean it cost money at a time. Considering that there are so many variables that can bias towards other things, aswell as voluntary bias.. I don't trust much experiments at all. That's weird, using the UNIX 'time' utility, Opera starts slower for me. kyle@localhost ~ $ time firefox user 0m0.015s sys 0m0.009s kyle@localhost ~ $ time opera user 0m0.270s sys 0m0.040s I don't use x86 emulation in my operating system, so Opera doesn't work. I'm not enabling x86 emulation for ONE program that doesn't work, while EVERYTHING else in my system works. Opera doesn't work with x86_64 unless you have x86 emulation. Going by this logic, I could say that it's irrelevant that a program be ported to any architecture because there are virtually emulators for every architecture. When I buy a processor, I expect the software I use to be compatible with my architecture. If the code for Opera was portable like Firefox's, all they'd have to do is compile it with the -m64 GCC Cflag on a x86_64 system. How hard can that be? Wait, they're code isn't portable, so I'm sure they'd get hundreds of compilation errors. Opera doesn't even run an open-readable bug tracker, it's so community-based! And let me add this. Opera's "Super fast rendering engine" isn't all of that fast. Firefox has a set time (You can change it of course) before it starts rendering. This is because on slower machines the overall time for the page to show up is decreased, while most other computer there's no viable difference.

Because of ignorant teachers and outdated resources. My teacher had an outdated formula for calculating the number of regions in a circle based on how many sides the polygon inside of it had. I told him that it was outdated, and wasn't completely accurate. He argued with me until I showed him that his formula didn't make 100% correct results for some things, while mine did. R(n) = (n^4 - 6n^3 + 23n^2 - 42n + 24) / 24 + n I've had quite a few ignorant teachers who should never have been hired. They give me too much busy work (For homework). Waste of life.

Nope, you might be thinking of Mozilla, but not Firefox. Firefox complies with every standard that Opera does besides one, in which it's a trivial error that won't actually effect it in real-world use. You should see all of the people testing, and contributing code in Firefox. Firefox is a community-maintained project, unlike Opera. Ohhh, so many more. First of all, I don't think it matters the difference of a few megabytes. Second of all, Firefox has an XUL engine, and a bunch of other 'Less exciting design aspects'. If you include 2-3 good extensions at 100kb each, it's still under the Opera. This is even more highly trivial because it depends on what compression it uses. Anyways, there's no proof as to the code efficiency of Opera. It may be horrible, who knows. Firefox on the other hand you can look at it for your self. I don't trust benchmarks done by people other than me. The Gecko rendering engine is one of the most technically advanced rendering engines. Considering the new builds of Firefox use a quite highly updated version of Gecko (1.8~) they render pages much faster. When Opera is starting, it reads the on-disk cache it has stored, which slows it down a lot, but conserves a bit of RAM. Also, they make up really lame excuses for not porting their application to alternate architectures. I myself use x86_64, and it's a main reason I don't use Opera.. it doesn't support my architecture. A major excuse is In all honesty, they have some pretty silly excuses.

Lol, I don't think it's going to steal your password but it's definitely associated with pooware. Read the reviews. Also..

Meh, forget this post. Too subjective. Anyways, to each his own. Firefox and Opera are both great browsers, never tried IE 7.

It's not out of context unless Opera has compressed data for every website and keeps their compressed data updated. Even if so, if Opera servers are running sluggishly your out of luck. Your still wasting valuable CPU cycles (In which, mobile devices don't need to be wasting).

If two extension are meant to communicate they can. You CAN have checks as to whether or not a extension is installed in your extension. What features do Opera have that integrate so well with each other? Too lazy to kill 5-minutes to hand-select a few extensions? I'd rather have modularity then have something coming with hundreds of features I'll never use. When a bug is submitted on Firefox's bugzilla it usually includes a fix. You can either compile your own copy of Firefox or you can wait until the next release. If it's a major bug then a new version is released A.S.A.P. This is impossible with Opera because it's closed-source.. It's on their turf and it's their decision. Such as? It was always 100% free. Once Opera figured out that it was never going to generate revenue they went free. Firefox is based on the Gecko engine. No other relations to Netscape. So, instead of downloading the page once, it downloads it 0.5 times? Wow. This sounds stupid. I have to wait until it gets to the Opera server. I have to wait until the Opera server compresses it. I get the compressed data and now every time I load it I have to use CPU cycles to decompress it.

To confirm they all work wonderfully. :)

That's why I said if the code had good quality. If you have the ability to code the feature most likely you have the ability to implement it cleanly. If it wasn't implemented cleanly then it's filtered out by developers and note added. As simple as that. Code is recipe. The chef is the compiler. If the chef follows the recipe then it outputs the finished product (The omelet). He can also add some 'spices' such as optimization flags. Extensions can communicate easily. It's the extension-makers decision to do this. Portability and modularity are the future. I don't even understand what your saying with your 'lack of integration between the various features and the core engine itself.' Themes, plugins, and extensions can actively communicate with the core engine, and do. It's the theme/plugin/extension maker's decision to do this and it's your decision to choose their creation. Firefox is still a GREAT browser without any themes/extensions/plugins.

It is also a major flaw, because many people do contribute which are not part of the main development team. In projects like Opera everyone has a clear goal in mind, and they work together to achieve that. In firefox it is a bunch of individuals who supply bits and pieces and the main development team have to make it work and fit together flawlessly. Plus in firefox the developers trend to concentrate on the more exciting and rewarding aspects of design, leaving other key but less interesting aspects underdeveloped. A community based product would never be as good as a bunch of specialists working together. Would you rather eat a omelette made by a team of train chiefs, or by a few hundred volunteer? Opera uses many libraries that are community-based. Atleast 1/4th of it's code is developed by a community (The libraries it uses). Code is code. If it accomplishes what it should with a good level of quality then it's fine. When someone submits code to the project, unless it is submitted by a developer then it is looked over by developers to make sure it's worthy of the project. Most components of my desktop are community-based projects and each and every one of them -- I believe, is very developed and good software. That analogy is also pretty weak. A better analogy is "Would you rather eat an omelet in which the recipe was made by a team of train chefs or by a few hundred volunteers." Anyways, what "key and less interesting design aspects" are Firefox lacking?

You should try Tremulous. Like Natural Selection it's based on Gloom and it's one of my favorite games. It's also free and works on Windows, Mac, and UNIX.

I like Firefox. The extensions, themes, and plugins make it very modular. Anyone can make extensions, plugins, themes. Anyone can extend to the main Firefox code unlike Opera or IE. Many people do contribute who aren't part of the main development team and that's one of the major factors to why it's so great. It's a community project. With a few configuration enhancements it can render webpages like a beast. Without it's still pretty dang good at doing it. The code is very clean and the newest releases have no memory leaks (That I have come across). It's a great webbrowser, and after trying 2.0.0b1 it seems like it's going places. It works natively on x86_64 systems aswell as most other architectures. Can't say that about Opera. On the other hand, Internet Explorer intigrates within the Windows kernel, which as said above can cause larger security exploits then normal. This also makes it very hard to port it to other platforms, and was ported ONCE to a few UNIX platforms but was discontinued at version 5.0sp1. It works on Solaris and HP/UX. Firefox is almost fully compatible with all standards. There are a few which it fails due to a silly bug (Which, in real usage doesn't matter, and will be fixed by 2.0.0). Opera is fully compatible with all of these standards.. Whilst Internet Explorer fails at quite a bit of them. *EDIT* Firefox 2.0.0 beta 2 was just released recently. I'll try it out soon. Looks promising as the beta 1 was quite good. Here's a page on improvements from 2.0.0 beta 1. http://www.mozilla.org/projects/bonecho ... 2.0b2.html

Meh, just use Zdaemon to play Doom1/2 online. Other than that, Quake 1/2/3, Tremulous.

I'd go with AMD. It's still better than Intel at many things than Intel (Like memory bandwidth). It's got much more developed and fine-tuned (Cheaper) motherboards. It basically comes down to bragging rights. Do you want to buy a processor for $140 that gets 300fps or a processor for $300 that gets 320fps? Also, you'll be saving yourself some money in the future. AM3 processors will be compatible with AM2 motherboards.

Meh, the whole marketing point of vista and all of the new things it's getting (IE 7) are just poorly implemented features with the ideas taken from the Free & Open Source Software people. UNIX/MAC/Firefox.