Opera Created 18 years ago2005-09-20 07:16:35 UTC by dajuppi

Opera is now completely free. Enjoy.

http://www.opera.com/

.... awesome.

Firefox is superior nubs~

Opera wasn't free :
Well thats lame

I use Firefox anywayz!

Hell yea - it's free!
Just download it from the site, habboi..

ff ftw opera sokk

firefox pwns

Forefox is so far the best

Firefox is the best, granted, but I'm thinking of switching to opera... Firefox has been buggy lately ... pics not loading, plugins stop working, pages freeze.

Still, I don't think I can manage without firefox's thousands of useful addons

meh, I have trouble running some pages with Opera, which need Active X, or Java.. even though I have them installed and enabled.. Firefox is more better for that, however I like the idea of Opera having the opened internet windows inside the browser, instead of on your windows taskbar like IE or FF does..

so ya, I mostly use Opera as my browser because it keeps the taskbar clean. But firefox for other things.

Firefox has tabbed browsing too you know.

Anyways, its just a matter of personal preference. I dont really think one is better than the other. Ill just stick to Firefox. But now no one has a reason to use IE. IE needs to die along with AOHell.

I have yet to think of a single feature I'd like in my browser which isn't in Opera. The most obscure-but-useful things, like linking two (true MDI) windows (no half-hearted tabs-only) and having hyperlinks clicked in one reflect in the other, opening folders of bookmarks with nicknames, easy addy bar searches ("w monospace", for example, which I used this mornin' for the news post), etc. It's godly.

I have yet to find anything which I particularly like about FF. Most recently I came across a guide to installing Firefox on a flash drive. Opera doesn't need one. You run the installer, you select the drive in question. Et cetera.

As for ActiveX... hah. Screw them. Any site which uses ActiveX is a site which the web would be better without. As for Java... well, do you not have Java installed? Surely you do... wasn't the MS "Java" outlawed?

Still, Firefox and Opera are both decent browsers, really. Just different approaches and very different feels. I far prefer Opera myself. As for IE...

PS: an old Opera/Firebird comparison. Explains the difference between MDI and tabbed, etc. 'Tis old, though.

I prefer Firefox myself, Opera just seems so much heavier, kinda. It also has some features that I find a bit bloaty, like an IRC client.

I suppose it's superior to Firefox but I still like FF more.

I had opera for a month and it was free. I still use netscape cause it doesn't make everything look blury,stupid zoom!

Sorry but this explains all concerns!

Nice resource usage graph, habboi...

// Yeah, what value has a graph without extra info?

I say: Internet explorer.

It does exactly what it needs to do, show me websites.

well, don't count on it. That's how I ended up putting firefox on my parent's computer, when ie wouldn't load some pages.

I think im going to try opera, all the mac users are starting to get to firefox =(

What the hell was that meant to represent, habboi?

Cap'n P? You're an Opera fan?

I could probably get FF mostly how I wanted with some fiddling, but the UI is still so... nasty. Slow. It feels like a Java program on a 133 or something.

Cap'n P? You're an Opera fan?

Nope, I use FireFox and am happy with it. Never really tried Opera.
I was just pointing out that graphs without extra info don't mean anything...
And no, I'm not going to be all fanboy over FireFox. It's just a nice browser, nothing serious in life...

And you're a Java-hater or disliker, Seventh?

I could probably get FF mostly how I wanted with some fiddling, but the UI is still so... nasty. Slow. It feels like a Java program on a 133 or something.

Funny, that's exactly how I feel about Opera.

FF FTW!!!!

Java works fine for me, and as Alex said, any site that uses ActiveX isn't worth bothering with. Its the scurge of the Internet.

Opera and its superior Small Screen Rendering technology ftw!

Opera > FF

What the hell was that meant to represent, habboi?

Cap'n P? You're an Opera fan?

I could probably get FF mostly how I wanted with some fiddling, but the UI is still so... nasty. Slow. It feels like a Java program on a 133 or something.

What kind of CPU are you running it on? Im on a 3.2GHz P4 and Firefox runs faster than IE. It opens as soon as I click the icon.

... everything is faster than IE....

Except AOL...

An Athlon XP 2400+ OCed past a 3200+ (clock speed wise, I think the higher-end ones have bigger caches, to say the least). A gig of RAM. I'm not saying it's slow to open, just that the menus are all slightly too slow to respond for it to feel nice. Plus mouse gestures, etc., as standard.

Cap'n P: I'm pretty neutral with regards to most of Java. You know what I mean though, old Java stuff.

Hrny: probably a Firefox Agent or something? If you can beat IE with that build into the shell... well, shame on IE's dev. team. Maybe they're the monkeys with typewriters of whom we've heard so much.

Cap'n P: I'm pretty neutral with regards to most of Java. You know what I mean though, old Java stuff.

I don't like Java too much. Most applets take a while to load only to find out that they're useless to the site's function.
Of course, that's bad Java usage. But I don't like the language itself either. It gives slower results than a C++ program, and uses classes everywhere and nowhere. Classes are fine but they're a tool for me, not something to be forced to work with.

Maybe I'm just a C/C++ guy...

C and C++ are patently superior generally. I'm talking about Java VM stuff, though, in seperate program sense, not stuff in websites.

Firefox's UI may be slightly sluggish (if your computer sucks hard), but it's much easier to customize. It uses an XML language named XUL, which uses tags for various UI elements, this is then parsed to a C++ component named XULRunner. It makes porting to other OS so much easier, since only a few components are written in C++. Plus, the HTML parser is so much faster, and standards compliant. It is also superior at handling bad markup. Firefox supports many standards which haven't even been introduced for mainstream use, such as CSS3, too. Opera is a bloated piece of closed-source crap. Don't tell me otherwise, I've tried both, and Firefox is much more of a technical innovation as well as a usable browser, than Opera. Opera, for me at least, was slow in the UI, and rendered some W3C valid CSS2 and XHTML Strict blatantly incorrect.

Bloated my arse. I think its safe to say that I run one of the poorer computers on this site and I compared FF to Opera, clean installs. Opera ran loads faster than FireFox did, WITHOUT tweaking.

Just because a browser comes with lots of stuff doesn't mean squat: it means it has the capability to do many things. Personally, I use its Mail Client and its IRC Client because I love the "all-in-one" aspect of it - I can browse and chat at the same time without needing to switch windows all over the place.

I'm not saying that either of these clients are perfect: they aren't. I'd defintely love to see improvements to M2 and the IRC client (both of which are planned) as well as seeing support for BitTorrent in a final release (should be soon afaik) so I don't need to use the resource heavy Azureus.

W00t for open source! Closed source sucks!

Yeah, I like open source generally, but Opera's a better browser. I'm not going to stop using it on "moral grounds", that'd be moronic. I use Apache, Thunderbird, PHP, MySQL, OpenOffice, Ubuntu, etc., and lots of smaller things I use from time to time.

IMO, it really does boil down to personal taste. Even if Opera is technically inferior, it is still usable. But, I prefer Firefox for usability, technical, and moral reasons.