new browser-firefox, opera or explorer 7beta3 ? need advice!

[Cruiser]

The more efficient the code, the less likely bugs and instability would occur. The more efficient the code the easier it would be for others to read and modify.

 

 

 

Efficiency has nothing to do with stability and readability.

 

 

 

You can have the most efficient code on the planet and still have a horrible product that crashes with the simplest changes to it enviroment (No, I'm not pointing at opera). You can also have extremely efficient code that is the most gumbled up pile of symbols you've ever seen.

 

 

 

Just because it's "efficient" doesn't automatically make it readable and stable for a production enviroment.

 

 

 

I personally use FireFox. I have 4, maybe 5 extentions loaded that I could easily do without. It's more secure than IE, and anything that has had issues has been fixed quickly. You can't really ask for much more in a free product and I still to date havn't seen anything in Opera that would change the way I use the net one bit.

 

 

 

Opera may have "fewer" security problems, but it's also a closed product and not so widely used and abused. Firefox was in the same situation when it wasn't widely used. Few known holes, no market share, life was nothing but smiles.

 

 

 

I also have a question for the Opera users arguing it's greatness. If opera is so much more usefull, efficient, and stable than firefox, why does it still hold 3rd place in the browser wars? Its now free and isn't some niche, unknown browser anymore (Nintendo has plans to use it in their products), so, why isn't it so widely used? I'm not trying to start a flame war, I'm simply asking a question. If someone tells me it's because it isn't as widely known I'm going to slap them.

[Militaris]

Yes it is possible to make the extensions to communicate between each others, but the extension coder does not know what other extensions a potential user is also using. By implementing the features straight into the browser start with it is possible to know what other features/functions they would have to operate beside. It is simply a much more efficient and less complicated way to do things.

 

 

 

 

 

Efficiency has everything to do with stability and readability. If the code is all over the place, it would be inefficient. By having a horrible product that crashes due to a simple change in the environment goes completely against the basic definition of being efficient.

 

 

 

ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅBeing effective without wasting time or effort or expenseÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

[Diminished2b]

Yes it is possible to make the extensions to communicate between each others, but the extension coder does not know what other extensions a potential user is also using. By implementing the features straight into the browser start with it is possible to know what other features/functions they would have to operate beside. It is simply a much more efficient and less complicated way to do things.

 

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?

 

 

 

If I had to install each of these features independently I would probably not bother with them.

 

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.

 

 

In my opinion security is as much about the time it takes to fix a problem once discovered, then the total number of security problems it has. The time it has taken Mozilla to fix same of the issues have not been overly flash for a organization which claims to make fixing exploit a priority.

 

 

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.

 

 

 

overly hyping the products ability and the general spreading of false claims.

 

Such as?

 

 

It was also 100% free before opera.

 

 

It was always 100% free. Once Opera figured out that it was never going to generate revenue they went free.

 

 

 

Firefox is based on Netscape which many web developers knew about.

 

Firefox is based on the Gecko engine. No other relations to Netscape.

 

 

 

meaning it does not need to download a page as often as IE or FF.

 

So, instead of downloading the page once, it downloads it 0.5 times?

 

 

the websites are downloaded onto a Opera server, then 'compressed' before sending them to the device).

 

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.

[____]

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.

Wow, could you take a sentence any more out of context :uhh:

 

Militaris clearly states for MOBILE DEVICES (ie: mobiles and pda's) they'll be compressed before being downloaded to your devices. If you can't see the benifits in that then I don't know what you were thinking.

 

 

 

 

 

@Curiser: The reason Opera still holds 3rd place is because of the huge [wagon] FireFox bandwagon stunt that swpet over the internet :uhh: I thought that would've been obvious.

[Diminished2b]

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).

[____]

Don't understand how the compression works do you? The page is not compressed, sent to your phone, then unpacked. The proxy renders the page, compresses it (not sure on the file compression but it returns the file to be about 1/5 of the original) then sends it to you.

 

 

 

And knowing Opera, I'd say their proxy caching works as well as their browser cache. Which will have it fairly up to date for each site accessed via the mobile network.

[Diminished2b]

Meh, forget this post. Too subjective.

 

 

 

Anyways, to each his own. Firefox and Opera are both great browsers, never tried IE 7.

[Militaris]

 

What features do Opera have that integrate so well with each other?

 

 

 

The best example would have to be the implementaytion of mouse gestures. In opera they can be customised for speceific areas of the UI.... The opera mouse gestures can pretty much do anything. Firefox mouse gestures can not be customized for speciefic areas of the UI.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

You would need dozens of gestures, not just a few. ALso unless you have done it several times before it would take much longer then 5 minutes.

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Nope, bugs can spend months, even years floating around in bugzillia. They even claimed that one security threat was a feature. A securtiy threat is only fixed once it is avaiable in the main release of a product.

 

 

 

 

 

It was always 100% free. Once Opera figured out that it was never going to generate revenue they went free.

 

 

 

Nope, it use to cost prior to 1998, at that poiunt its development was shifted to the Mozzila community. Although the vast majoirty of programmers were still paid by netscape.

 

 

 

Also Opera was generating revenue before it went free.

 

 

 

 

 

Firefox is based on the Gecko engine. No other relations to Netscape.

 

 

 

The engine is the core of any browser. So that is a direct relationship.

[Greatsilverwyrm]

I'd like to point out another reason Opera is still on the low-end of the user list.

 

 

 

As much as I hate to admit it, it's not as user friendly. I don't see that as a flaw, however. To increase user-friendliness they would have to severley decrease functionality. What you call "clean" and "simple" I call "flat", "boring", and generally not as useful.

 

 

 

If all of the people who tried Opera took the 10-20 minutes it takes to do a little research, learn some things, and customize it even a little bit, I'd place money on at least 50% staying with it. Especially the 50% who aren't idiots.

 

 

 

 

 

Firefox users always say they like modularity, they like being able to customize things. What they don't realize is that Opera is, in some ways, far more customizable. Opera is built on a core of very strong, mostly useful features. Then it allows you to take those features, and access them any way you want. You can change the feel of Opera in more ways than there are permutations of a Rubix Cube; in my book, that's better than being able to add a bunch of plugins that should be on a browser in the first place. If you're going to be using a peice of software for hours on end, every single day, it should feel and work exactly like you think it should, and that's what Opera lets you do.

 

 

 

 

 

• Random Notings:
   
  [*:l6hp6bk8]Opera's rendering engine is incredible. This is why Opera is the browser of choice on 90+% of mobile devices, including now the DS.
   
  [*:l6hp6bk8]Opera, until recently, had a smaller download and program file(s) than firefox. It at the moment is only ~1mb larger. However it has so many more features. What does this tell you?
   
  [*:l6hp6bk8]Please, for the love of god, stop saying Opera has tabbed browsing. Opera is above tabbed browsing. Opera has a fully-featured Multi-Document-Interface. Basically, it's tabbed-browsing's daddy. It's also something nobody else seems to have caught on to.
   
  [*:l6hp6bk8]All of the benchmarks I've seen on the last version of Opera (8), showed Opera to be the fastest browser on windows machines. I would assume the new version is similar.
   
  [*:l6hp6bk8]Opera has a huge community too. You should see their beta testing forum. Hundreds of people testing and re-testing the weekly builds.
   
  [*:l6hp6bk8]Opera is currently the most standards-compliant browser.

[Diminished2b]

Nope, it use to cost prior to 1998, at that poiunt its development was shifted to the Mozzila community. Although the vast majoirty of programmers were still paid by netscape.

 

Nope, you might be thinking of Mozilla, but not Firefox.

 

 

 

Opera is currently the most standards-compliant browser.

 

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.

 

 

 

Opera has a huge community too. You should see their beta testing forum. Hundreds of people testing and re-testing the weekly builds.

 

You should see all of the people testing, and contributing code in Firefox. Firefox is a community-maintained project, unlike Opera.

 

 

 

Opera, until recently, had a smaller download and program file(s) than firefox. It at the moment is only ~1mb larger. However it has so many more features. What does this tell you?

 

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

But, Flashplayer doesn't work in these architectures

In all honesty, they have some pretty silly excuses.

[Cruiser]

• Random Notings:
   
  [*:2o1ftgda]Please, for the love of god, stop saying Opera has tabbed browsing. Opera is above tabbed browsing. Opera has a fully-featured Multi-Document-Interface. Basically, it's tabbed-browsing's daddy. It's also something nobody else seems to have caught on to.

 

 

 

I said this on IRC, and I'm gonna post it here, just cuz I'm bored.

 

 

 

Calling tabs a "a fully-featured Multi-Document-Interface" is like calling an airplane a "Futuristic, Multi-Dimensional, Levitation Device". No need to add a jumble of words to make something sound "better".

 

 

 

Its a tab with more "features" slapped on top, get over it.

[Militaris]

Nope, you might be thinking of Mozilla, but not Firefox.

 

 

 

I am correct. Firefox, Firebird, Mozzila or Netscape, Does not matter which name it goes under it is still the same product. Just by changing the name does not change the history of a product.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

They also support many non-standards..... which makes them less standard compliant.

 

 

 

You should see all of the people testing, and contributing code in Firefox. Firefox is a community-maintained project, unlike Opera.

 

 

 

Opera is 100% community maintained. If the community does not use it, then it would not generate any revenues, without revenue they can not pay expenses for the continual development.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

A few megabytes can equal 20-30 minutes for people on a slow connection. It is a large difference.

 

 

 

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.

 

If it was horrible then it would not be so small, operate so smoothly.... the end results speaks for the efficiency of the coding.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Using that logic you would not trust any tests/trials curried out which are not done by yourself. So you pretty much don,t trust any scientific experiments because you so not carry them out. Or is tests of computer software/hardware somehow different.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Pretty much irrelevant, and anyway opera still starts faster.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

Opera would still work on a system using x86_64, although it can not take advantage of the extra performance. But that extra performance is not required in 99.9% of occasions. So again another fairly baseless argument. You pretty much provided nothing but spin, half truths and irrelevant points. It just proves how good a product Opera really is when that is the best you can came up with.

 

 

 

Calling tabs a "a fully-featured Multi-Document-Interface" is like calling an airplane a "Futuristic, Multi-Dimensional, Levitation Device". No need to add a jumble of words to make something sound "better".

 

Opera had these features before firefox, and they have the rights to call it what they want, and it is much more then a few extra features. Each Tab in opera is actually a references to full windows that can benefit from the power of full window management.

[Cruiser]

 

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.

 

They also support many non-standards..... which makes them less standard compliant.

 

 

 

If they already support 100% of the set standards, supporting things on top of that 100% doesn't degrade it in any way. You can't degrade compliance by implementing something that isn't in the standards specs in the first place.

 

 

 

Neither browser is 100% compliant anyway (yet). FireFox is a given, and Opera's own website lists CSS elements they don't yet support.

 

 

 

Opera is 100% community maintained. If the community does not use it, then it would not generate any revenues, without revenue they can not pay expenses for the continual development.

 

 

 

Opera is maintained by the company, not the community. The community only supports it by using it and pitching all its features like you guys are currently doing. The company could very easily survive with out it's community, go back to charging for it's browser and still stay alive with things like the Nintendo deal.

 

 

 

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.

 

Pretty much irrelevant, and anyway opera still starts faster.

 

 

 

Yes, those few extra seconds are ooooh so important to everyone. Arguing startup times is just another one of those "OMG MINE IS BIGGER THAN YOUR'S" contests that means zero to the rest of the real world.

 

 

 

What would you knowingly do with those few extra seconds in life, other than taking another breath to fill the void?

 

 

 

Opera had these features before firefox, and they have the rights to call it what they want, and it is much more then a few extra features. Each Tab in opera is actually a references to full windows that can benefit from the power of full window management.

 

 

 

Who had a feature first doesn't really matter. Neither does the fact each tab has the support a full featured window does. Most people out there just want the page to render, work correctly, and do what they expect. "Full window management" isn't something on Joe Users mind. Its just another feature that most won't use, pitched with an "oooh shiny" name to make it look cool.

 

 

 

Call it a tab for gods sake and add the time saved typing and saying it to your accumulated startup seconds. You might build up enough time to buy back a few minutes of life I apparently waste waiting for FireFox to start. :?

[Diminished2b]

Calling tabs a "a fully-featured Multi-Document-Interface" is like calling an airplane a "Futuristic, Multi-Dimensional, Levitation Device". No need to add a jumble of words to make something sound "better".

 

Totally agree'd. Opera has one or two tabbing features on Firefox by default. Grab a few extensions, and guess what..

 

I am correct. Firefox, Mozzila, Firebird or Netscape, Does not matter which name it goes under it is still the same product. Just by changing the name does not change the history of a product.

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

Using that logic you would not trust any tests/trials curried out which are not done by yourself. So you pretty much don,t trust any scientific experiments because you so not carry them out. Or is tests of computer software/hardware somehow different.

 

 

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.

 

 

Pretty much irrelevant, and anyway opera still starts faster.

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

Opera would still work on a system using x86_64, although it can not take advantage of the extra performance. But that extra performance is not required in 99.9% of occasions. So again another fairly baseless argument. You pretty much provided nothing but spin, half truths and irrelevant points. It just proves how good a product Opera really is when that is the best you can came up with.

 

 

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.