Hypothesis put forward: Opera > Firefox
Debate plz
I've used Opera since 3.50. While I think the transition from Opera6 to Opera7 was a huge step down, I still can't stand using other browsers. Every time I sit in front of another browser I have the strangest sensation that I have one arm tied behind my back.
If someone made an Opera6 frontend for gecko, I'd probably be all over it.
DRAMA
u IE and FF guys all suk lol
I used to use Opera... but it did seem to be getting more bloated with each version. Firefox sure wins on that front, a bare-essentials browser and then choose-your-own-features by way of extensions is an excellent way to handle things.
also: LOL ADWARE
Opera's default interface is too cluttered. I happen to like using 800x600 windows so I can see what's going on in other apps as I work. Do you know how little space that leaves for Opera for showing Web pages? zOMG forced horizontal scrolling.
Even after spending time cleaning up the interface and ditching all the bookmarks and toolbars, I'm constantly reminded that there's something I'd like to do that isn't being done.
Why can't the Transfer window automatically delete all completed downloads from its history?
Why can't a view the source code of only a selected part of a page?
Why can't I write my own custom search engine shortcuts for the URL bar?
Why does it not cache images that have been scrolled offscreen but are still on the same page (they're rerendered each time I scroll them back on screen)?
Why can't I do a right-click Show Image on images that failed to download without refreshing the whole page?
Why am I forced to arrange my bookmarks in alphabetical order?
Why can't I use UTF-8 characters in my bookmark titles?
Why can't I use native Qt widgets with "native" skins? Come on, even Firefox, a GTK lookalike, does a better job!
Why can't I select certain font sizes? I want 11px fonts to be consistent with the rest of my apps.
Firefox does it all and does it well. Anything it doesn't do, I can make it do with Extensions. What's not to like?
>>3
I hate the fact it's getting more bloated. I really wish they'd stuck with an older interface instead of LOL SKINNABLE AND LESS RESPONSIVE. What are they thinking? ;_;
However, using Firefox as an example of lack of bloat is a bit odd; it's both larger and slower than Opera.
That said, I think the Qt port of Opera sucks. Which is >>4's problem, I think...
> Why can't the Transfer window automatically delete all completed downloads from its history?
I happen to like them staying there. It's easy then to double-click and open something later on.
> Why can't a view the source code of only a selected part of a page?
What, frames? Or hilighted parts of page? Frames are alt-f3. Hilights would be a nice feature.
> Why does it not cache images that have been scrolled offscreen but are still on the same page (they're rerendered each time I scroll them back on screen)?
Probably a Qt-port problem. I've never seen this in windows.
>Why can't I do a right-click Show Image on images that failed to download without refreshing the whole page?
Have that problem too, on occasion. Damn annoying.
> Why am I forced to arrange my bookmarks in alphabetical order?
F4, right-click>View>Sort by my Order
> Why can't I use UTF-8 characters in my bookmark titles?
How odd. I can.
> Why can't I select certain font sizes? I want 11px fonts to be consistent with the rest of my apps.
Preferences>Fonts
>What, frames? Or hilighted parts of page? Frames are alt-f3. Hilights would be a nice feature.
I meant highlighted parts of a page.
> > Why can't I use UTF-8 characters in my bookmark titles?
>How odd. I can.
Apparently, it's a problem with importing bookmarks (http://paracelsus.hollosite.com/src/1110779157640.png). Bookmarks added with Opera work, mostly. The menu doesn't automatically select a font that can display all characters (http://paracelsus.hollosite.com/src/1110779235593.png).
>Preferences>Fonts
Missing 11px size between 10 and 12. See http://paracelsus.hollosite.com/src/1110779093801.png
> I meant highlighted parts of a page.
Ah. I'd love a feature like that. ;_;
As for the other two points: none of those images is rendering for me, so I'll go with the default answer that neither issue seems to affect the windows version.
The qt port needs a large amount of work. I can completely understand people not wanting to use it.
You aren't being terribly dogmatic about the whole DRAMA thing, you know. ;)
You're probably right about most of my problems being specific to the Qt port. I thought it'd share the same codebase as the Windows version, Qt being cross-platform and all. It seems that I am mistaken, so I'll stop bashing odd UI quirks. The Opera people should still get it fixed some time.
As for the images not rendering, it looks as though 100webspace is doing unpleasant stuff to HTTP Referer. Try pasting the URLs into a blank tab?
I tried that. No go. Wait, now it works. >.>
Things are happier in windows land:
http://paracelsus.hollosite.com/src/1110783699555.png
http://paracelsus.hollosite.com/src/1110783849362.png
DRAMA:
／￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣ ／￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣
| FIREFOX? | THATS LIKE IE!
＼ ＼ ＿＿＿＿＿＿＿_＿＿
￣∨￣￣￣￣￣￣ ∨ ／
∧＿∧ | YOU SECRETLY LIKE IE DONT U?
∧＿∧ （ ´Д｀） ＼＿ ＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿
（ ´Д｀） ／⌒ ⌒ヽ ∨ ／
／, | ／_／| へ ＼ | BILL GATES BITCH
(ぃ９ | （ぃ９ ./ / ＼ ＼∧＿∧ ＼＿ ＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿
| 丶、 / ./ ヽ （ ´Д｀ ） ∨ ／
| ∧_二つ （ ( ∪ , / | OSS IS FOR COPYCATS
| ／ ＼ .＼＼ (ぃ９ | ∧＿∧ ＼ ＿＿＿＿＿＿ ∩＿＿
/ （ ＼ .＼＼ / / ,、 （ ´Д｀ ） ∨ ∩ / /
/ /~＼＼ > ） ） ./ ∧_二∃ (ぃ９／ ∧＿∧ ＿＿ | |/ /
/ / > ） / ／／ ./ ￣￣ ヽ | |ヽ∩ （ ´Д｀ ）ヾ ＼ | |
/ノ /／ / / / .＿/ /~￣￣/ ／ / __/ヽ/ (ぃ９ / /￣ ） γ ）∧＿∧ WAROTA
/／ . //. / / / )⌒ ＿ ノ /./ / / ヽ ヽ / / ／／／ （ ´Д｀ ）
// （ ヽ､ （ ヽ ヽ | / （ ヽ､ / ///＼＼＼ ／／ ／／／ (ぃ９ | |
（ _) ＼つ ＼つ). し ＼__つ（＿// ＼つつ 巛< (＿二二二へ ∪
...or something. lolocaust is better at amusing ascii...
the shared library version of opera for freebsd was compiled on fbsd4.6 and is thus useless on 5.x unless you compile qt with gcc 2.x ._.
and yeah, those font issues are annoying. some postscript fonts look somewhat strange whereas they look fine in mozilla, but that could be freetype's fault. another thing is that at 1280x1024, i can set fontsizes to either "too small" or "too big for my tastes" inside opera, so i have to adjust dpi values directly in my fonts.conf... same goes for individual fonts, eg. times new roman, which are just too damn small.
Opera hammers servers and doesn't support XSL. That's enough reason for me to like Firefox better.
> Opera hammers servers
How?
Client-side XSL is rather esoteric. Can someone point out a non-toy site that actually uses it (honest question)?
I know this is a chicken-and-egg problem, but if IE and FF/Moz are the largest players, what's the point of Opera being an early adopter?
I used to hate Opera because it used an MDI interface, which is about the most retarded thing you could do with a web browser. It finally stopped doing that, but instead it's just crammed too full of useless feautes and clutter. I want my interfaces streamlined.
Does Opera still choke horribly and slow to a crawl when viewing large images?
>>13
IE and FF maintain about 5-10 connections with one server at a time. Opera about 25-30.
>>16
I haven't seen it happen with Opera 7.54. I haven't visited any sites containing very large images, but I can load a 3989x4857 image from disk without making it freeze for minutes.
>>18
Yes, but I wouldn't have thought of adjusting those settings until >>17 pointed out a problem. Lowering the defaults would correct the problem more effectively.
>>17
Opera's default max connection limit to a server has been 8 for as long as I can remember, the exact same as Firefox (network.http.max-connections-per-server). Until someone can prove otherwise this has to be urban legend.
>>16
I've had 10 ~4000*3000 images open at once before, leeched off some website. No lag, no problems.
> I've had 10 ~4000*3000 images open at once before, leeched off some website. No lag, no problems.
Opera 6.x used to lag badly when it tried to render large images. As long as the entire image fit on one screen, it wasn't a major problem.
It's related to a problem pointed I out in >>4, the one where images that were partially or completely scrolled offscreen had to be re-rendered when they were scrolled back on. Since large images don't lag horribly anymore, it's less of a problem as it used to be.
I've been opera user since 3.x or something. They had some funnies now and then but never so distracting i'd switch to another browser.
Tried ff recently and god was it a bad expirience. I'm used to more snappy interface response.
Oh and there's opera 8 beta available. It's simply amazing ... when you think there's no more that can be done to improve UI, they suprise you with a bunch of really neat features. They're light years ahead of competition with their tabbed browsing (since they invented it, no wonder).
Tell us more about Opera 8's light-years-ahead features
>since they invented it,
NETCAPTOR, FUCKERS.
>>23
I like Opera 8's fit to window width feature a lot. Begone forever, horizontal scrollbars!! :makes banishing gestures:
That alone may get me to switch... Were it not for the fact that the same feature breaks named anchors on sites that use frames, like 4-ch. The links in the table of contents that auto-scroll the page don't work.
firefox and I lead a very dramatic love-hate relationship.
at this moment it's more of a hate-relationship.
The most obvious and pretty amazing little feature is that now every tab has its own [x] button and on the right you have a trash for tabs. It happened many times that I closed a particular tab and came up with a need for it minutes later; so I had to open new tab and repeat all the clicks to end at the page I had open. Now I just pick it up from trash :)
>>27
Firefox with the Tabbrowser Extensions extension can do the same things. Close button on each tab and an Undo Close Tab entry in the Edit menu. It even restores the tab's back history.
I don't think Firefox's Undo Close Tab goes as far back as Opera's trash, though, and you can't pick the specific entry you want without undoing multiple levels...
OPERA SUCKS, YOUR OPINION SUCKS
>>27
Opera7 and (IIRC) Opera6 could do the same thing, but it involved keys.
> when you think there's no more that can be done to improve UI
Do I think that, now? Opera's interface started out horrid - MDI in a web browser, what the hell? - and has slowly progressed to being merely dismal - it's a huge and cluttered mess at this point. Feature-wise, I'm sure there's a lot to like, but the presentation leaves much to be desired still.
Firefox is definitely on the right track with the less is more approach.
I always found MDI a boon, not a bane. Explorer doesn't support virtual shells.
Before we had tabbed browsing, some of us used the Windows taskbar for that purpose. MDI stopped you from doing that.
Being able to group related tabs into different browser windows is a boon. Being able to reorder tabs is a boon. Even keeping all 10+ tabs in the same window to keep the taskbar uncluttered is a boon.
I think you just like saying boon.
I boon don't boon know boon what boon you're boon talking boon about boon.
http://4-ch.net/dqn/kareha.pl/1112314147
／⌒ヽ
⊂二二二（ ＾ω＾）二⊃
| / BU-N
（ ヽノ
ノ>ノ
三 レレ
Firefox > Opera > Safari > IE
Opera faster than anything else.
That's enough for me
Lynx is significantly faster. Maybe you should use that instead.
>>41
links-hacked is also significantly faster than opera, and is a lot nicer to use than lynx (links -g for teh win)
>>42
also, lol @ me fucking up that tripcode
Firefox on my poor 1 GHz box hurts. I rarely see it take less than 3 seconds to load any page, even when clicking Back. Opera can load pages, uh, instantly.
It's a shame that so many sites look better with Firefox. It's a further shame that Firefox obeys fontconfig rules for font substitution where Opera doesn't (AA in Opera is teh suck). It's another shame that Firefox looks consistent with the rest of my apps whereas Opera still can't handle a Qt style like every other Qt-based program does.
So much stuff is broken. I can't even click a Delete link on 4-ch with Opera!
But you know what? I'm sick of waiting for pages to load, so I'm going to play with Opera for a bit.
The Pseud0ch CSS doesn't play well with Opera, althought the others work fine. There's also User mode.
The linux port of Opera sucks though. I use it when I'm in linux, and I've always disliked it. They're trying, but it sorely needs work. Maybe 8 improved that (or maybe not). :/
Firefox on Windows loads much faster than Linux for me. :(
mozilla is slow like godzilla
age
I retract my negative statements about Firefox in >>44. The Firefox nightly builds that will become Firefox 1.1 are impressively fast. Perhaps not quite as fast as Opera, but the difference between them has become negligible on my computer. Way to go!
In my update to 1.0.6. I learned the hard way that it's absolutely neccessary to backup your profile with all of your sensible data before you fuck up your old profile and then delete that one in a fit of rage.... orz
I thought they renamed Firefox 1.1 to Firefox 1.5.
This annoys me a bit because I thought open source was supposed to be above pathetic marketing idiocy. Whatever happened to consistent numbering schemes?
Say what? I don't see a version 1.1/1.5 out yet, so until we see it, it's kinda pointless worrying about it, isn't it?
To tell the truth, I always thought "Firefox 1.1" sounded pretty pathetic for a project that's been in the works for a year or so, and adds as much as it will.
I tend to like the x.y.z scheme, where x are rewrites or major architecture alterations, y are revisions, and z are bugfixes. Even ignoring that, there are plenty of pieces of software in the OSS world that have had major alterations several times yet haven't hit 1.0 yet. Or look at the linux kernel.
It's their choice, but it's still pure marketing. It annoyed me when Lightwave, Microsoft, Opera, Adobe, etc. did it, and it annoys me when the Mozilla Foundation does it. It's pure pandering to the masses, assuming they lack critical thought and are wowed by numbers.
Well, maybe they are, but the implicit assumption is repugnant to me. I'm not going to smile and nod wanely just because they're OSS.
Now, the only really annoying thing would be if they decided to go for version LETTERS, e.g. Firefox FX or Firefox CP
I am using the Deer Park Alpha 2(is this firefox or not? I sure as heck hope they don't rename it to that, Deer Park is not a very good name)and I must say that it is impressive speed wise
But is a version number a tool for the developers to track the progress of their work, or is it a hint to the user where the software stands in relation to its earlier incarnations? If the first, why is it being told to the user? If the second, why would it be wrong to select it to impart the right connotations to the user?
isn't writing a program that you expect other people to use "pandering to the masses" in the first place. I mean you are making something for many people to use. Grow up man squabling over the version number of software is imature and makes you look like a complete looser. A program is a program is a program no matter the name/number
>>56
Bonus points if the letters don't mean, represent, or otherwise stand for anything. Extra bonus if they're also inconsistent and/or contradictory with everything that's been used up to this point.
> imature and makes you look like a complete looser
Oh, no. Someone, please save me! Someone who can't even spell is calling me a looser!
Woe is me!
>>58
Why not just call it Firefox 2009 then?
This is a trivial issue, but it's a stupid pet peeve of mine. Inevitably, when a program hops several versions, I often ask myself where they went, simply because the newest isn't always the greatest.
Take a look at the recent hop XChat did (2.0.10->2.4.0). Given my conservative nature on software, that threw me for a loop.
Forgot the quotes on >>62, BTW. snicker
Using the year for the version number isn't a half-bad idea, overall, but it locks you down into a yearly release schedule, which might be more seldom than you want.
You could always tack the month at the end too.
Or do it car-manufacturer style: 2005i
_The all-new 2007 Firefox from Mozilla Foundation! Sporting a new and improved gecko engine, as well as an advanced interface to help you browse faster! You'll be king of the internets! Get it now (while supplies last)!_
Free Opera giveaway: http://my.opera.com/community/party/reg.dml
I think it's only for a few hours, so if you like opera and want several registration codes, now is the time to get it. The only thing they want is your email address.
>>67
Free registration GET!
The window looks so much cleaner now.
>>67
Thanks! (・∀・)
Say, did Opera stop spoofing IE's User-Agent: string by default yet? I remember reading a story about how it will, but I haven't had a fresh, Opera-less machine to test the latest Opera on to find out.
>>70
Interestingly, it doesn't spoof it entirely. This is a standard one:
"Opera/8.01 (Windows NT 5.1; U; ja)"Very obvious. And this is the "IE Spoofing":
"Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1) Opera 7.51 [en]">>71
Aye, and indeed Opera's been like that for a few versions now. I just remember that an upcoming version was supposed to use the "Identify as Opera" string by default, the one without MSIE in the string at all.
When Opera's configured to identify as Internet Explorer (the default), my UA string is:
Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; X11; Linux i686; en) Opera 8.01Yet when configured to identify as Opera (what Opera the company promised would be the default), my UA string is:
Opera/8.01 (X11; Linux i686; U; en)It's just that they started out the IE way to fool IE-only sites into letting Opera users go where Netscape, Mozilla, and Firefox users can't.
http://opera.com/free/
Opera has removed the banners, found within our browser, and the licensing fee.
http://operawatch.blogspot.com/
What finally made this possible is the increase in revenues from search and service partners. We can now go free and still increase our revenues.
An unexpected move. Will Opera benefit from this, or is this the beginning of the end?
Opera sucks for sjis art, since I can only globally define fonts for Normal/Monospace while Firefox allows a much more detailed set of specification for each language/encoding.
Clarification why Opera sucks of that: Because I cannot select Mona font to only appear on sjis encoded sites and having to browse all sites in Mona simply sucks. But looking at sjis art in the generic Windows font for Japanese sucks just as much.
tools->preferences->advanced->fonts->international fonts
>>76
And what do I select there? I don't see any "Japanese".
>>77
"Hiragana", "Katakana" and "Kanji". These aren't the only glyphs used in SJIS art though, so it won't help much. Someone please prove me wrong.
I forgot to mention that a workaround for this is to create a special SJIS user css file and activate it as needed. Something like:
* {
font-family: mona;
}>>78
There's also CJK Symbols and the Fullwidth Halfwidth forms.
I see the stuff in /ascii/ just fine.
Opera? Firefox? Bleh, neither of those can pass the only test that matters right now, http://www.webstandards.org/act/acid2/
Its all about Konqueror now! (and maybe safari and icab ~_~) But seriously, when will Firefox step up to the plate and deliver us that smiley face!
To think of it, I might start using data urls in some mock websites and play around with it, its fun stuff.
"The only test that matters", more like "the only test my pet browser can shine on", am I rite?
>Opera? Firefox? Bleh, neither of those can pass the only test that matters right now, http://www.webstandards.org/act/acid2/
I thought how they worked in the real world mattered, but maybe that's just me. ; )
Does Opera import adblock lists? I want to try opera but I really really have a very nice adblock list that I want to import to opera without hassles.
No, and it looks like it won't in the foreseeable future. The only decent way to do it with Opera is to use proximotron (or munge in HOSTS). :(
I surf with images off, but it isn't for most people.
>>85
You surf with images off as the admin of several imgboards?
How strange...
>>86
Isn't it?
It takes a single click to turn the images back on for a tab though.
Surfing without images is wonderful. Even when I'm on a fast pipe I turn images off. More people should try it.
>>87
No, I am scared and confused.
>>87
if you do that, you won't see the totally awesome brick background!
>>89
The brickwall thing isn't written in the code of the software, yknow? It can be easily changed to anything.
So back to subject. No adblock=FAIL
Don't say "hosts entries" because there is no regex support, I also run a site from my computer. 127.0.0.1 entries create crap logs full of 404.
Don't say 3rd party proxy/blockers, too troublesome to keep.
This is the only reason why I'm still on firefox and not opera. Right click, adblock this image (with a * at the end for great justice)
There is built in adblock for opera, but very troublesome, not documented and hard to use (needs editing ini files), also requires opera restart every time you make a change.
I'm caught between two views here:
Money may not make the world go 'round, but it sometimes seems that way.
On subject:
I recently had a corrupt harddisk so I had to reinstall everything... it happened to be right around the time of Opera's party so i installed it along with firefox to try it out again. I actually had bought Opera back in the day and used it exclusively except when sites required IE. Just normal browsing was fine in either of them... but I ran into things I wanted to change/addon with both. I knew how to do this with firefox and I knew exactly what I needed. (Small rant: are they EVER going to implement that feature to copy a list of currently installed extensions?!) So I install flashblock, menueditor, web developer, tamperdata, session saver and greasemonkey and I'm able to surf how I surf better in firefox, but it is more apt to crash with the extensions installed! I cannot think of the last time Opera ever crashed on me... but firefox is not apt to crash either without extensions.
So for me... with all of its failing, such as eatting memory like noone's business, I stay on firefox. I really don't care which one is better, I just want one that works like I want that doesn't suck too much.
>>92
Are the people who are going to use adblock likely to click on your ads in the first place? It is easy enough to set adblock to only hide the ads on sites you actually like and remove them from everywhere else... most of the time. I cannot say I have ever gone through my huge adblock list to actually do it though... but I never click on ads anyways and even if I -do- click on an ad just because i'm curious i'm certainly not going to buy anything. Am I doing you a favour by not killing your clickthrough rate just not having them displayed, or should I remove them and not give you impressions?
> are they EVER going to implement that feature to copy a list of currently installed extensions?!
Hell yes, that would make starting from scratch because of corrupted profiles so much easier!
> Am I doing you a favour by not killing your clickthrough rate just not having them displayed, or should I remove them and not give you impressions?
Whether there are ads or not is for the site admin to decide, not you.
Stop trying to rationalize your actions. I don't see ads either, other than google's, but I'm not pretending to be doing the sites I visit a service.
And pretty please, with a cherry on top, use paragraphs in the future.
> Whether there are ads or not is for the site admin to decide, not you.
What a weird conception you have of the internet.
If I don't want to see any ads, I won't.
Obviously not, but that makes you a freeloader.
Bandwidth isn't free. How many subscriptions are you paying this month?
Ysee, I am the same as >>93 in this regard, I wouldn't have clicked those ads or bought anything either way. They are just annoying to me.
Yes, I am a freeloader. So what? I am just a statistic in the ad-revenue anyway. It doesn't matter. Why make things complicated?
I also mute the TV whenever ads come on. Will Rupert Murdoch get on my ass for that?
> Will Rupert Murdoch get on my ass for that?
I'm sure he'd love to. Fortunately he can't (yet).
There's a big difference between TV and the internet though. TV is still a pure push medium. They don't for certain that you're watching, and neither do the people paying for the advertising. They're relying on hammering you with enough ads that familiarity will eventually cause you to buy their product. It's something of a religion in Madison Avenue (aren't the TV/newspaper/traditional media lucky, if only this were true for the intarweb too).
In other words, they pay on impressions, since they have a rough idea of the number of viewers. And they pay a lot.
On the internet, if you don't click an ad, they know. If an ad isn't clicked, the site won't get any revenue no matter what. Being seen isn't enough. As such, it's fundamentally different from TV. Also, sites don't scale as well as TV since the internet isn't a broadcast medium. So while freeloading on TV makes no difference (unless a sizeable number start doing it), freeloading on the internet does.
Blocking ads drops the chance you'll click from 0.01% to 0.00%. Not a large difference, but all those visitors add up. Ad blocking is a total tragedy of the commons in the making.
This is all a bit besides the point, and maybe we should debate it in another thread. I don't really care if you freeload (see >>92), but I find >>93's excuses troubling. If you're going to do something, say it like it is, Joe.
Well then, 100GET
And, in praise of mindless repetition of messages, let us all chant the heart sutra now:
MAKA HANNYA HARAMITA SHIN GYO
KAN JI ZAI BO SA GYO JIN HAN NYA HA RA MI TA JI SHO KEN GO UN KAI KU DO IS- SAI KU YAKU SHA RI SHI SHIKI FU I KU KU FU I SHIKI SHIKI SOKU ZE KU KU SOKU ZE SHIKI JU SO GYO SHIKI YAKU BU NYO ZE SHA RI SHI ZE SHO HO KU SO FU SHO FU METSU FU KU FU JO FU ZO FU GEN ZE KO KU CHU MU SHIKI MU JU SO GYO SHIKI MU GEN NI BI ZETS SHIN NI MU SHIKI SHO KO MI SOKU HO MU GEN KAI NAI SHI MU I SHIKI KAI MU MU MYO YAKU MU MU MYO JIN NAI SHI MU RO SHI YAKU MO RO SHI JIN MU KU SHU METSU DO MU CHI YAKU MU TOKU I MU SHO TOK- KO BO DAI SAT- TA E HAN- NYA HA RA MI TA KO SHIN MU KE GE MU KE GE KO MU U KU FU ON RI IS SAI TEN DO MU SO KU GYO NE HAN SAN ZE SHO BUTSU E HAN- NYA HA RA MI TA KO TOKU A NOKU TA RA SAN MYAKU SAN BO DAI KO CHI HAN- NYA HA RA MI TA ZE DAI SHIN SHU ZE DAI MYO SHU ZE MU JO SHU ZE MU TO DO SHU NO JO IS- SAI KU SHIN JITSU FU KO KO SETSU HAN- NYA HA RA MI TA SHU SOKU SETSU SHU WATSU GYA TE GYA TE HA RA GYA TE HARA SO GYA TE BO DHI SOWA KA HAN- NYA SHIN GYO
>>85
There are also these methods: http://nontroppo.org/wiki/BlockAdvertisements
On the internet, there needs to be a certain level of trust going both ways, I think. I understand both dmp2k's and anonymous's positions. I don't block normal web ads, as I rarely find them all that annoying or offensive. Sometimes one catches my eye and I click. I've never bought anything, but who knows? Maybe I will someday.
However, I want to ask you, dmp2k, if you have popup windows blocked. Most of the time, popup windows contain advertisements, so blocking them is just as "bad" as blocking normal in-page ads, no? But odds are you have them blocked because they are so damn annoying, as do I; they betray the trust I talked about above by making my web browser open a window without my permission. So I can't say I'm fully against the client being able to define the terms on which they will surf the web to a certain extent, and I doubt you could either.
Flash ads that play sound are a crime as well, but fortunately they're rare enough that I don't worry about 'em.
>>95
Asking questions is making excuses? Brilliant!
I suppose we should compel every person to click on every ad on every site they visit and purchase something! I also find it hilarious for you to ridicule me for doing something you yourself do.
If advertisements were not so invasive on some sites, did not use popups, did not appear on intersitial pages made only to serve adverts, were not made in flash to make lots of noise while completely slowing your browser to a halt, were not made floating so you cannot actually see the content without messing with the ads, and if I could trust all ad companies to not be DoubleClick I would be less inclined to block them.
> Asking questions is making excuses?
You must be new to the world. Leading questions and all that.
It certainly seems to me you're trying to explain away your actions. If the last paragraph of >>93 isn't rationalization, nothing is. >>105 is also full of more excuses (don't you ever get tired?).
You seem, my problem isn't with ad blocking, per se. As I stated in >>92, I see both sides of the issue. On the one hand, I don't like ads either. >>104 is quite right. I do block popups, and image ads never reach me. On the other hand, I spent a lot of time working on old IIchan, a site that lived and died by ad revenue. Literally.
What bothers me is the drivel in >>93. You make it sound like you're doing the site a service. No, you're not.
So anyway, I am using a build (1.0.6) from here (http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=80069) and it seems much faster than the normal build on my Pentium M.
Time to bump the drama thread!
I just tried out the beta of Opera 9 on OS X, and while the new interface is a definite improvement, it's still pretty blatant that the Opera team has no real interface designers.
The whole thing is skinned, and the default look is supposed to be "Macintosh native", but of course it isn't. Everything is subtly different. I keep getting these flashes of the "that's not right" feeling, which totally kills the smoothness of the interface. Icons look wrong, dialogs use the wrong kinds of windows, things are laid out differently than all other programs...
Furthermore, there are tons of these little things that just don't work well - for instance, there's a little tooltip-like popup that appears when you hover over a tab, which has a thumbnail of the page. This might be useful, except you have to hold your mouse pointer still over the tab for a second before it opens. In the same time, you could have clicked it, seen the contenst, and clicked elsewhere. The popup acts like it was supposed to stay open once it's appeared, so you could just run the mouse pointer over the tabs and see the contest of each, but this seems to only work in practice one time out of ten. So you end up hovering for a second over EACH tab you want to look at. This is clearly utterly useless.
User interface design is hard because it is so subtle. And I've not seen any version of Opera that gets the subtleties right. They get the big and easy features right, but not the details. Like the widgets they added (The first question here is "why?", but lets ignore that for now) - widgets in OS X work because they sit on a separate, hidden page that can be shown on command. Opera adds widget that just float around on the desktop, getting mixed up with regular windows, and looking generally out of place.
So I'm still not going to use it. It's just too ugly and unpleasant to use.
http://www.spreadinternetexplorer.com
The number of Firefox freaks taking this seriously is totally elloell.
Firefox already went 1.5.0.1 but the memory leaks haven't changed. Closing tabs still doesn't help. :(
>>109
LOL
Firefox really doesn't leak much memory. There is a problem with AdBlock and 1.5, use AdBlock plus
Also, people don't really understand what a memory leak is. Just because memory usage doesn't go down does not mean there is a memory leak. Memory fragmentation is a much bigger problem than memory leaks for a webbrowser that you never close.
Hell, just understanding what memory usage is is highly non-trivial these days. Most figures given are wildly inaccurate in various ways.
> The whole thing is skinned
This was one of my bigger annoyances in the transition from Opera6 -> Opera7. Instead of a light interface, they replaced it with some image-processing monster.
Some people claim they still test Opera on a 486. I don't believe it. Opera7's interface was sufficiently slow on my old 400MHz computer that I remained with Opera6 till the end.
Hell, I can run Firefox with 30 tabs open on a PII 266MHz/192MB PC100 RAM box with only about 8% CPU usage. Mem usage is a bit more iffy: it says only 12MB is available, but the graph only shows around 40% usage.
And that's WITH foobar2000, miranda-im, IRC, Kerio Firewall, and who knows what else open.
Safari > *
>>114
Take your CPU meter and watch what what happens if you run your mouse over the menus quickly. Firefox isn't a picture; you interact with it.
On my old machine Firefox's UI was a lot slower than even Opera7. The menus were usually quite a distance behind the cursor. The wonders of using javascript in a UI...
Sure, I could use Opera7 on a 486, but I don't think I'd like it at all. Do you enjoy playing an FPS at 3 frames per second?
I use Firefox but I have never tried Opera. At least, don't ever choose Internet Explorer! It's bad for your health (and your PC's health, of course)!
Imho, Opera is history. The fact that so many FF adopters are creating plugins for it just shows how configurable/adaptable/functional FF is.
I hope I address a question posed by >>17, FF can increase # of connections. I've set mine to 30. go to about:config and change network.http.pipelining.maxrequests to however many you want. There are plugins that do this for you.
With enough patience, (and learning) you can configure practically everything you want.
Using FF in Zenwalk Linux 2.4
network.http.max-persistent-connections-per-server
value set to 35.
If you think that FF is too slow then try Kazehakase. It is based on the same engine and has some neat and useful features, but it is more nice to resources.
No Adblock, opera dies.
>>122
you should check out opera 9... adblock, xslt, passes acid2 test...
the only bad thing about it that i've noticed so far: "widgets"
You can use Opera Ad Filter for 8.*.
the founder of Opera is openly a furry. I read it on slashdot.
Acid2 doesn't matter much to users. Acid2 matters immensely to developers.
Blocking ads drops the chance of clicking an add from 0.00% to 0.00%, the people that block ads are the ones that don't want them, and you know what? Your return quota wont be disturbed at all.
Funny thing, the demographic that clicks on ads is a perfect subset of the demographic that can't blocks ads, or tell their foot from their mouth for that matter.
The site admin can decide what to publish but he can't decide what people are going to see, he can't take decisions for them. If you believe so then I decide you should pay me 1,000,000,000Yen, don't want to? Then goto freeloader hell!
I find myself clicking on google ads when i surf a certain website and i feel like the author deserves it for his efforts.
>>121
Kazehakase = weeabrowser.
>>121
Its GUI is unfortunately so ugly that I can't use it. If I were to move away from the fox, I'd go for Epiphany.
The site admin can decide what to publish but he can't decide what people are going to see, he can't take decisions for them. If you believe so then I decide you should pay me 1,000,000,000Yen, don't want to? Then goto freeloader hell!
The site admin can decide what to publish but he can't decide what people are going to see, he can't take decisions for them. If you believe so then I decide you should pay me 1,000,000,000Yen, don't want to? Then goto freeloader hell!