Opera vs Mozilla

Opera vs Mozilla

Why should I use Opera instead of Mozilla? I am talking about browser and email functionality. I know why I should not use IE but why is Opera better than Mozilla?

http://www.opera.com/whyopera/

I've been using Opera since 7.23 but recently I thought I would give Mozilla a try, I have Firefox as an IE alternative when I can't access sites with Opera. I have version 1.8a2 which is beta. Its actually not bad. I know everyone goes on about how bloated it is but my system is well capable of taking it.

The email client is very good especially now as I can have all four of my email accounts delivered to one inbox. Search within email is good too, finds everything I ask it too (Opera has a problem here IMO).

I can access Gmail and it has handy Gmail notification extension & Gmail compose. Calendar extension, mouse gestures, notes, and the speed is pretty good too. To be honest I was surprised & impressed. It probably won't make me change from Opera (I'm not a troll) but I was surprised.

Mozilla is bloated, slow and buggy. The browser is clumsy. The mailer is old-fashioned and searches are dog slow.

Opera is small, fast, stable, has loads of cool features, and the email client works better than any other and searches take less than a second no matter how many emails you have.

I knew you would fall for it binoculous

Next question then ... does anyone have experience in running Opera and MS Outlook on the same machine? I would use Opera both on my private machine at home but also on my company laptop. However on that one I need to use Outlook as that is what the company uses. They might even switch to Lotus Notes, any experience with that?

You won't experience any problems when running Opera and Outlook at the same time as they don't share any files

No experience with Lotus (not for years and years anyway) but here's another article about Opera that might interst you -

30 days to becoming an Opera Lover
http://tntluoma.com/opera/lover/7/

I think it took me about an hour and a half

Moderation: moved thread to General forum

Outlook is the worst email client on earth, but I have done my tests and experienced no problems.

I'm not saying that I like it ... but I have no choice on the company laptop. However, I would like to use Outlook for work related mails and something else for private stuff. Yes, I can read and write private mails at work, noone cares much as long as I do my job and don't download too many viruses.

I have Opera on the same machine as Outlook and Notes at work. No problem with any of them. Outlook is set as the default email client and the one to use from Opera as well. I've not tried Notes as the default though.

Mozilla has almost no buttons... it eats alot more RAM and has a larger installation file. No customization at all and i still haven't figured out how it's tabbed(?) browsing works because it keeps opening new browsers. And the skin is ugly as hell.
it's years behind Opera.

I prefer Opera too, but I wouldn't say Mozilla is years behind it. I use Mozilla and I've not noticed any huge memory usage. Tabbed browsing is, as you say, not as convenient as Opera's and there's no question but that Mozilla is not as customizable as Opera. I guess it's a matter of different strokes for different folks.

This is not any attempt to judge (God forbid!!) whitch of the two are BEST, and as Westernsea said: different strokes for different folks. BUT I'd like to point out that:

It is not true that Mozilla/Firefox can't be customized. Quite reverse. But customization can involve editing .css files by hand, which can be somewhat tedious.

Buttons and their placement can be edited within the program though. Easily and much like in Opera.

Firefox functionality can be further enhanced by installing extensions. There are loads of them.

Search engines can be set up and customized by one click.

Browse speed is about the same - in my experience. Both very fast.

Firefox is nearly double the size of Opera - without emailer. But then again, the difference in program load time is minimal.

Firefox is propably less picky about bad HTML code, and it can run in quirks mode, making it even less picky.

BOTH Firefox and Opera are memory and CPU hungry beasts. On my machine they eat op appr. the same amount of memory and CPU, but both releases it when needed.

Firefox is a pre release. Version is currently 0.9+. Opera is a mature browser. Both have bugs and both can (and will) crash. Just as IExplorer can.

In fact, they are not all that different, except for the FEEL. Again in my opinion, Firefox feels a tiny bit more oldfashioned, Opera more modern - but this is of course a very subjective observation :-)

Originally posted by Metrox
Firefox functionality can be further enhanced by installing extensions. There are loads of them.

And they are usually buggy and it takes ages to find one that works.

Firefox is propably less picky about bad HTML code,

I am not convinced of that. Firefox barfs on a number of sites.

and it can run in quirks mode, making it even less picky.

Opera has a quirks mode too.

BOTH Firefox and Opera are memory and CPU hungry beasts. On my machine they eat op appr. the same amount of memory and CPU, but both releases it when needed.

Not compared to IE. IE's memory use is hidden because it's a Windows component.

In fact, they are not all that different, except for the FEEL.

Of course they are different. Opera is not just a browser and the philosophy is completely different.

Opera is good out-of-the-box. Firefox requires a little work to get it up to scratch. The first time I installed Firefox, I had to download 3-4 extensions in order to get it on the same level as Opera was (Reload Every, tabbed browsing Work Offline, IRC). In Opera I was all set and ready to go when I first installed it.

Oh yeah, isn't this RELIGIOUS attitude horrible? What is all this defensivity about? Binocoulos, if youre in love with Opera, it is OKAY! I will not take her away from you!

I'm just a user. I USE programs, I do not fall in love with them. I'm not offending your "precious"!

I use both Opera and Firefox AND in some rare cases IExplorer. I use them for what they do best.

Sometimes I eat tomatoes, sometimes cucumbers.

When Opera can't log on to Atomfilms I use Firefox, when Firefox can't log on to Panda Online virus scan, I use Explorer.

And I just wanted to share my SUBJECTIVE opinion, based on my experience with both programs. That was what originally was asked about, remember?

I did not want to start this hopeless discussion on which browser is best. I started my post by stating this!!

Attitudes like yours, are just scaring people away.

PS:

Please explain to me about browser "philosopy"!!!

Originally posted by Metrox
PS:

Please explain to me about browser "philosopy"!!!

Firefox is supposed to be crippled by default. Opera is supposed to work well by default. Different approaches. Also Opera includes an email client and more, unlike Firefox.

I give up!!! I think you should change name from Binoculous to Monoculous!

Originally posted by Metrox
Firefox is a pre release. Version is currently 0.9+. Opera is a mature browser.

Oh PLEASE! FireFox is in "pre release" stage for about 2 years! And the FF code is from Mozilla, which is in development much longer. And the Mozilla code is from NN code, which is one of the oldest browsers.
The FF developers simply hide behind 0.x numbers, it's just a poor excuse for EVERY bug in FF.

Im gonna be frank. Mozilla and Fx are nice browsers really. Fast too.

Hi Frank! (sorry, couldn't resist a bad pun) Mozilla based browsers are fine. Opera's the best of the bunch though!

I have to say that I think Opera certainly is faster and lighter on the system than Mozilla. FF I haven't used as I do not use beta software. However, many do use beta software and swear by it, so that's a choice (and often risk) you have to make yourself.

I am very adverse to change, so now that Opera's got me, it will have to really work to lose me - see Netscape/IE, both lost me because they went without updates for YEARS. I like to feel my software is being improved occasionally.

Firefox certainly sounds like a browser that can compete with Opera for me once it hits gold. However, I've never really gotten into extensions on browsers, I don't like the idea myself. It sounds like the size/speed may very well depend on the type and number of extensions you download, not to mention possibly finding them and installing them.

I have heard that some extensions conflict... not something I want to deal with. I hope they can get that worked out by v1, though I wonder how it would work when anyone can write an extension.

I am somewhat enticed by the FF claim of just the browser, though I feel it lacks(from what I've heard here) many features of browsing I now take for granted, like the mouse gestures. I don't know why the tabbrowser and such aren't integrated, they seem like they ought to be part of the browser.

OTOH, I only use Opera for browsing, so if they removed M2, IRC, and such tomorrow I wouldn't miss it. I however don't feel like they take up much room so I do see it as a selling point.

Back in the day of Netscape 4.x I did use one suite for all my net stuff, so it is possible I will do so again. Not soon though as I feel the Opera mail,newsgroups, downloader, and IRC client are very sparse compared to Eudora, 40TudeDialog, Getright, and mIRC. Not to mention no WYSIWYG html editor, though that never really seemed to be necessarily part of a browser to me.

Right now switching or even trying out FF is more of a hassle than using Opera is. Untill Opera drops the ball I won't bother with the rest.

Of course, I'm an opera fan, but here's the difference between mozilla and opera for me...


1. The design philosophy. This makes a big difference in usage. Mozilla is tailored to be a fool-proof solution while not making any advancements in effeciency of use. For example, turning off images in Mozilla is a 5-step process but it's fool-proof which makes the option easier to find and use. Opera, on the other hand, has a 1-step process but it's not full-proof because it's not immediately noticable to the user (pressing the 'g' key will turn on/off images). Mozilla goes the fool-proof route while Opera goes the productivity route, one seems simpler and one IS simpler. I'm not a fool, and I'd rather be more productive.

2. Speed. Opera IS the fastest browser available, despite what many may claim. Internet Explorer (I know it's needless to say, but some people still insist on it being faster) has problems trying to cache compressed pages, it will never pull them from cache and instead tries to redownload the file again, and again, and again. Mozilla is close to the speed of Opera, but it takes ages to come that close. Mozilla didn't enable pipelining by default on my installation and I had to install an extension to organize their invisible options list (you have to type in a commend in the address bar to access it, no documentation provided with the browser to tell you this either) full of non-working options (yep, a lot of the options are from older versions which no longer work). After changing 10 network settings you can achieve the same page-transfer speeds as Opera's default configuration. But, even then, Opera is faster because it can utilize memory cache so going back in history doesn't try to reload pages and instantly shows it to you, where Mozilla doesn't. No browser available, that I know of, comes close to Opera's speed.

3. Customization. Both have advantages and disadvantages. Mozilla has some very promising capabilities with it's extensions support, but they're currently not reaching their potential. Mozilla has the power to embed full applications inside of it's interface (good or bad? you decide) but the power of the system is heavily weighed down by the lack of communication between the extension developers. For example, 80% of the extensions for Mozilla/Firefox are to imitate Opera features and individual extensions do good at it, but the plugins do not interact together like Opera's implementation, which limits their usefulness. The other 10% of extensions are full applications like Calendars and the Minesweeper game, but what's the point? They can easily be downloaded to the computer and installed as a system-wide component. 8% of Mozilla's extensions can usually be achieved by a simple bookmarklet (it's a bookmark which points to javascript code instead of a page, both Opera and Mozilla support this), so there's no reason to have these extensions. %1 of Mozilla's extensions are to combat the downfalls of Mozilla itself, such as it's invisible list of options which are not organized at all, there's an extension available to organize it (that's pathetic). The remaining 1% are actually useful. Do I care for mozilla's extensions support? I could, but not at this point in time with their lack of communication between developers. Opera's customization on the other hand, is limited by the commands that the developers give to you (for example, you can create a button which enters fullscreen and enables the menu bar in fullscreen mode, but you cannot an embeddable application). However, I don't think it's a major downfall because Opera doesn't need any of the extensions that Mozilla users need because most of the functionality is built-in and integrated elegantly. Not to mention that Opera's customizations can be ported to other PCs simply by putting a few INI files on a floppy, where Mozilla's extensions are bulky and will require being burned to a CD and put on the other computer to install each extension individually. Personally, I prefer Opera for this reason, I have 3 PCs in my house and easy porting is essential, and I don't need extensions to install games in a web browser made for productivity.


I could keep going, but I'm tired of repeating myself lol.

Excellent post, megamanXplosion. Very well thought out and informative, not unlike most of your posts.

Mozilla is decent and has a good feature set but there is no innovation in it and it doesn't integrate its features well. It has a mail client built in but it's tied into the browser about as tightly as thunderbird is to firefox (once they are both installed). Opera on the other hand everything is closely tied together. Every feature (mail, chat, etc) can be viewed in a panel, page, or window just like a web page.

Mozilla is stable though, and overall has better rendering than opera.

megamanXplosion

I agree with mimic. Your insightful post has given me much to think about. Thanks for taking the time and effort to educate some of us.

Better rendering than Opera? That is very much a questionable statement at best:

Try these on for size:

1) Any Yahoo Chat room (Java chat rooms crash Firefox)
2) http://www.overcomerministry.org/ (picture does not display in Firefox)
3) many ESPN articles (titles of articles are truncated in Firefox)
4) http://www.cleveland.com/ (menu at top does not open up/fan out in Firefox)

These are just off the top of my head with respect to some recent browsing I've done. Of course, there are some sites that seem to work better in Firefox, too. But, your statement is not a clear statement of fact. (I had Opera ID'd as IE for these examples).

Overall, I'd say Firefox and Opera are roughly equally capable at rendering pages as intended by web authors.

I will give Firefox and Mozilla, this, though. They seem to render pages in a more aesthetically pleasant manner than Opera most often.

EDIT: #2 was fixed by the web-author today. I'll replace #2 with www.usatoday.com (Flash plugin is not recognized in Firefox by default).

An interesting article about Firefox here: http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/ie_no_more.asp

Note the last line of this article, too, Opera lovers: "To be continued. Coming tomorrow... Opera!

--Paul Thurrott
July 22, 2004"

Ok, here we go again...

I am a Firefox/Thunderbird fan, but I do use Opera from time to time. My preference is obvious. But I will say that it depends a lot on what you want, need, and are willing to put up with. It is true that Firefox (and Mozilla, to a lesser extent) does not come with all the bells and whisles Opera does. However, that in itself is argumentative as to whether it's good to get all the features packed into one thing or get a slim and lean browsing machine and adding the bells and whistles yourself. I prefer the Mozilla/Firefox way because I don't have to go through the Options/Preferences panel trying to customize everything. Some prefer the Opera approach because they dislike the idea of having to find extentions and install them.

Here's Opera's main advantage: If you have a page full of a lot of pictures (and mainly pictures and thumbnails) - like a photo gallery (I am not simply talking about "graphic-rich" pages here) - Opera loads it super fast. In my experience, Firefox is faster at rendering all other types of pages. Also, Opera's small download size deserves a lot of respect.

However, Opera also costs $40 or you have to put up with ads. So, the way I see it, in order for me to buy or put up with ads, it has to be w-a-y better than Mozilla - not "as good" or in my experience "not quite as good" as it. For others who think Opera really is that superior to merit the $40 pay for it - or put up with the ads. Just because it's not worth the money to me, doesn't mean it's not going to be worth it to you. I have been using Mozilla and Firefox a long time, and have grown very accustomed to them, so my opinion may be biased. However, keep in mind that the same (in the other direction) is true for most of those who advocate Opera over Mozilla. I find the extention system, find-as-you-type, opening tabs in the background, and the customizability in the UI a great asset.

mimic and westernsea, glad you liked my post



Does mozilla have a better rendering engine (Gecko vs Presto)?

It's almost impossible to tell because there are over 10,000 factors to judging the rendering engines and each person has an opinion on how something can be done. For example, I've created over 20 CSS experiments and Opera (Presto) was the only one to display them properly, while Mozilla (Gecko) came close but not close enough. Mozilla may or may not support more CSS properties, but sometimes they do not integrate (for example, gecko supports hovering and generated content, but you can't hover the generated content) when they should. Rendering comparisons that you see on websites are innacurate because they go by a boolean test (true or false) rather than a rating system (1 out of 3 on support). Take my example from earlier in this post, both Opera and Mozilla would get 2 points for supporting 2 properties, but Opera should really have 3 and Mozilla have 2 because they can be used together. It's impossible to practically compare rendering engines based on standards, there's way too many factors for a mere mortal to test, rate, and publish. So, we can't say that either one is better than the other according to standards.

Of course, there are also the personal opinions about how a browser should render things. Some believe that browsers should imitate Internet Explorer's rendering even though Internet Explorer is the worst (you don't even need a comparison page for this, just a day in web development will prove this) according to standards. Gecko seems to be more obedient to pages designed for Internet Explorer, but this doesn't necessarily make it a better rendering engine either because when the next version of Internet Explorer comes out and changes something, those IE-rendering-behaviours will appear differently in the Gecko browsers, they are going to be playing catch-up, which is never a good thing. However, Microsoft's Monopoly makes the progressing towards PROPER rendering a real pain in the butt for end users and webmasters. So, we can't really judge on this factor either.

There's also the factor of development time. Opera 7's rendering engine was completely rewritten, so it's only been available for use for a little amount of time, where Gecko has been in development for many years now. Both are very close to standards compliance, but I think that Opera will take the cake now that it's got an easier-to-enhance rendering engine (this was the reason it was rewritten, it was too hard to extend the last rendering engine).

In my personal experience of developing sites, Mozilla typically gives me more problems than Opera (both give me problems, but Mozilla tops the cake). For example, a few months ago I was working on a message board theme where you could collapse categories. When you clicked on the collapse-category button, JavaScript would hide the table below (the non-title parts of a category) and remove the button margin on the category container (so the second category gets brought up and snaps together with the first category's title bar). Opera and Internet Explorer done this perfectly, but Mozilla's behaviour was weird, to say the least. Mozilla would hide the category table like it should, but it only removed the margin half of the time, which made the span-together effect wacky. Not only that, but Mozilla didn't notice that the length of the page had gotten shorter and the bottom of the page would show a big black spot of where the content used to be (it never redraw that part of the page), upon scrolling it would redraw that section of the page but the user was automatically snapped back to the bottom of the page, then they could scroll properly. That was, quite possibly, the MOST IRRITATING PROBLEM I'VE EVER FACED! I lost a handful of hair that day lol. And before anyone says anything, the problem wasn't with the javascript, css, or xhtml, everything was completely valid. I had to completely rewrite the structure of the site to fix the problem. Of course, I've had my own problems with Opera as well but none that took 4 days to fix, I'll probably never forget that Mozilla problem, it will burn in the back of my brain for another 20 years, I'm sure of it.

Which one has a better rendering engine? Neither. It's impossible to tell and back up by factual proof, the only thing that we have to go by is personal experience and opinions, nothing conclusive. Overall, I think it's stupid to state that one is better than the other without stating your personal reasons, the most that you can do is explain why you think so, you can't just say that one is better than the other because no matter what, you're wrong.

Just my opinion on the subject.

Originally posted by megamanXplosion
the MOST IRRITATING PROBLEM I'VE EVER FACED! I lost a handful of hair that day lol.

:]

Well, I see that the days of generated content heavy usage are still before you. Then you would stick pins in the voodoo doll of the Mozilla Driver Who Shall Not Be Named who purposefully blocked developements in this area, and rolled back an update, which we will not see before 2011.

mozilla[driver] {display: none !important;)

M.

I didn't really lose a handful of hair that day (or 4 days, for that matter), just an expression of frustration

I did want a voodoo doll though, it would have made that problem laughable. Or, I could have gone to the city zoo with straws and napkins to launch spit-balls at the red pandas lol. That would have made my day


/* wishes this would work */
mozilla[problems] {clear: all}

Originally posted by yfan
However, that in itself is argumentative as to whether it's good to get all the features packed into one thing or get a slim and lean browsing machine and adding the bells and whistles yourself.

Or to put it bluntly: Whether you just want something that works and get on with it, or if you want to wade through loads and loads of crap to find some semi usable extensions that are pale impersonations of features in Opera.

I prefer the Mozilla/Firefox way because I don't have to go through the Options/Preferences panel trying to customize everything.

You don't use the "options/preferences panel" to customize things. You right-click to remove buttons, or hold down shift to drag them around. And you enable or disable toolbars from the view menu.

Here's Opera's main advantage: If you have a page full of a lot of pictures (and mainly pictures and thumbnails) - like a photo gallery (I am not simply talking about "graphic-rich" pages here) - Opera loads it super fast. In my experience, Firefox is faster at rendering all other types of pages.

I don't know what you are on about, but Opera is always faster here.

However, Opera also costs $40 or you have to put up with ads. So, the way I see it, in order for me to buy or put up with ads, it has to be w-a-y better than Mozilla - not "as good" or in my experience "not quite as good" as it.

Opera simply outclasses Mozilla/Firefox. There's no competition.

I find the extention system, find-as-you-type, opening tabs in the background, and the customizability in the UI a great asset.

My God. Here he comes to speak the virtues of Firefox, when the fact is that Opera had "find as you type", or "inline find" as it's called in Opera, AGES before Firefox. The same goes for opening pages in the background.

Just proves my point that Firefox is a rather unsuccessful attempt at imitating Opera. Opera innovates, Mozilla copies.

megamanXplosion, thanks for your thruly enlightening posts!

Binoculous, wonder if you're on the Mozilla payroll. Over-the-top-attitudes like yours has allways had the opposite effect on me. Reading your Opera fanaticism here makes a real good arguments of using Firefox.

If my "fanaticism" makes you want to use Firefox, then you must already love Firefox, because you apparently support these Firefox trolls who come here to spread FUD about Opera.

Here's Opera's main advantage: If you have a page full of a lot of pictures (and mainly pictures and thumbnails) - like a photo gallery (I am not simply talking about "graphic-rich" pages here) - Opera loads it super fast. In my experience, Firefox is faster at rendering all other types of pages.

This is a placebo effect. The rendering on both Opera and Mozilla have delays built-in, the delay is what triggers the placebo effect of rendering faster. When your browser requests a page, it will delay the rendering for a set amount of time so that the browser has an attempt to grab more of the files (style sheets, images, javascript, etc.) needed. Because the delay allows the browser to grab more files before rendering, it makes pages seem to load very quickly. Mozilla's rendering isn't faster or more effecient than Opera's (if it is, it's a millisecond difference), it's the delay which causes the user to think that it's rendering faster.

In Opera, you can go to Tools->Preferences->Windows and be able to change the delay. I have my delay set to 2 seconds since I'm on dialup and need a little bit of time to download external files, the rendering is very smooth. I would have a 1 second delay for broadband since it's heck of a lot faster, you could use 0 for broadband too since it's so quick, but the rendering isn't as smooth and uses a bit more CPU resources. You can set it to not delay the rendering if you're fanatical about getting the document-text as soon as possible but, in my opinion, it's wasted CPU resources. As for Mozilla, I couldn't tell you how to change it. I can't be bothered to wade through the giant list of options that they've conveniently hidden from me.

Originally posted by Binoculous
If my "fanaticism" makes you want to use Firefox, then you must already love Firefox, because you apparently support these Firefox trolls who come here to spread FUD about Opera.

Far out!!

Opera and Firefox are both very nice browsers, but for the vast majority of the time I use Opera.

What I like most about Opera (aside from it's rich set of features) is that every menu, toolbar, keyboard shortcut, and mouse gesture, can be set to do pretty much anything that the program is capable of, with relative ease. I also particularly like the full page zoom, "refresh page", and the fast cache speed.

As far as Opera vs. Firefox goes I see it like this. Firefox has an opt-in approach to features, "if you don't see a feature you want, go find an extension." Opera has an opt-out approach (with a few exceptions), "If you see a feature you don't want, you can hide or remove it, or ignore it." I prefer Opera's way better because everything is integrated very smoothly and I don't have to worry about confliction extenstion or go searching for an extension when there's something I want to do. Others may like Mozilla/Firefox's approach to things better and I have no problem with that.

I think the rendering engines are for the most part close enough with regards to accuracy and speed. The UI and feature sets are where the real significant differences are.

(I also like the email, RSS, and IRC implementations in Opera, but they are just a bonus compared to the to the browser)

I like that opt-in, opt-out comparison. I hadn't thought of it that way at all but now I realise that it is why I use Opera mostly and my wife won't. I like to have lots of things there to use if I want them, where as she wants as few things as possible that she has to learn.

I use Opera FF, when i can't view pages with Opera. But i can't use FF exclusively because i don't really like its extensions. I want zen,.. thanks. But some people like to pick and choose their own extensions... but that's not me. i just want briliant functionality in a small package. No extensions.

With Opera, i just download once, and be done with it. That's what i like... (until something better comes along lol!)

No clear winner, Opera does some things good and bad and Mozilla does its share of things good and bad.
Think it all depends on what you need from the net and how much time you want to spend to get it.

Browser choice.

Well,I`m just bloody happy I don`t have to use IE-there being three alternatives worth considering.Personally I use both Opera and Mozilla,and really appreciate Opera its small footprint,nimbleness and myriad features-but find Mozilla a usefull option and sometimes even necessary,as my bank will now accept it instead of IE. Is not all this arguing much the same as on cars? My Merc is much better than your BMW,and all that stuff!I`d be happy with either!What I think of my browser(or car) is what matters to me,not other folks opinions,with the only caveat,again like cars,being safety and security.End of mild rant!

Originally posted by Jakub81
Oh PLEASE! FireFox is in "pre release" stage for about 2 years! And the FF code is from Mozilla, which is in development much longer. And the Mozilla code is from NN code, which is one of the oldest browsers.
The FF developers simply hide behind 0.x numbers, it's just a poor excuse for EVERY bug in FF.

Hoorah!

That's the same thing I think every time someone says its "pre-release". Took it long enough to fork into a decent browser.

Originally posted by sixofone
Hoorah!

That's the same thing I think every time someone says its "pre-release". Took it long enough to fork into a decent browser.

Well, the developers think it is pre-release. You're certainly free to disagree if you feel like it, but I think common sense would dictate who knows better about the state of Firefox's code at the moment.

If you ask me, some people are just sore because they didn't heed the warning, had Firefox crash on them, and simply need some justification to bitch about it...

Originally posted by TreeGo
An interesting article about Firefox here: http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/ie_no_more.asp

Note the last line of this article, too, Opera lovers: "To be continued. Coming tomorrow... Opera!

--Paul Thurrott
July 22, 2004"

Opera review it up, he complains about the default ui a lot. http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/ie_no_more2.asp

On popup blocker, I agree with him on this...

Stupidly, it's not on by default. Even more stupidly, the default home page in Opera displays two pop-up windows (Figure 3)!

Originally posted by Squirt
Opera review it up, he complains about the default ui a lot. http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/ie_no_more2.asp

On popup blocker, I agree with him on this...

TRUE! This is the worst advertisment for the newly installed browser you could get. Unchecked blocker, and popups on good morning. Couldn't be worse!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

M.

Teknosaber: very true. so very true. FF really is a prototype browser. It's a clean slate to work with and build upon; ideal for those who wish for more "extreme" extensions such as XULConsole.

Recently, I've completely obliterated any remenants of FF on my box, due to a series of "wtf" moments: the "looping" startup, XBL Binding errors, unsucessful importing of bookmarks from Opera (both manual and "automatic" on install), and finally, somehow messing up my Moz ActiveX control for TopStyle. This was a fresh install of .91. Needless to say, there is still work to be done, but it's getting there very quickly!

Originally posted by Moose
TRUE! This is the worst advertisment for the newly installed browser you could get. Unchecked blocker, and popups on good morning. Couldn't be worse!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

M.

Opera's software developers are far ahead of the marketing department and related decision makers, it seems.