Hypothesis put forward: Opera > Firefox
Debate plz
>>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!