×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Opera Dominates CNET Survey of "Underdog" Web Browsers

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the html's-great-blessing-is-heterogeneity dept.

Software 173

An anonymous reader writes "Whether you consider Opera an underdog browser or not, it came out on top in a feature on CNet this weekend. It was up against 'underdog Web browsers' Camino, K-Meleon, Shiira and Arora in a piece loosely aimed at determining whether these browsers are yet ready to steal significant numbers of users from Firefox, Safari, IE etc. Interesting most to me, however, is that it transpires that Shiira, the Mac browser from Japan, is one of the fastest browsers on the planet, beating the original Chrome v1.0, Firefox 3.5 and more in its benchmark tests."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

173 comments

Who cares how fast the browser is? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28997299)

Am I the only one who finds that 99%+ of my time is spent waiting on DNS and data transfer and shit? I'm never actually sitting there, data downloaded, waiting for my browser to respond.

Re:Who cares how fast the browser is? (2)

B4light (1144317) | more than 4 years ago | (#28997381)

Just use your favorite browser, and forget all that startup speed crap and "My javascript is faster than yours D:"

Re:Who cares how fast the browser is? (2, Insightful)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 4 years ago | (#28997463)

Just use your favorite browser

Too often, this is the last excuse of IE-fanbois who've lost the security argument. Don't choose your favourite browser; choose a responsible browser. You're on a network with millions of machines. When experts tell you a browser is too vulnerable to use, stop using it.

Re:Who cares how fast the browser is? (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 4 years ago | (#28997487)

That may be relevant when discussing IE but when the comparison is Firefox, Safari, Chrome, Opera, etc there's really no irresponsible option and it comes down to preference.

Re:Who cares how fast the browser is? (0, Flamebait)

mr exploiter (1452969) | more than 4 years ago | (#28997763)

That may be relevant when discussing IE but when the comparison is Firefox, Safari, Chrome, Opera, etc there's really no irresponsible option and it comes down to preference.

LOL @ Safari and no irresponsible option in the same phrase. Damn apple is good at marketing.

Re:Who cares how fast the browser is? (1)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 4 years ago | (#28997801)

And what is irresponsible about choosing safari?

Re:Who cares how fast the browser is? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28998059)

It's produced by Appl$ therefore it's teh evilz.

Re:Who cares how fast the browser is? (2, Informative)

Draek (916851) | more than 4 years ago | (#28998607)

Safari may be a bloated piece of turd that looks out of place at anything that's not OSX and bundled with some of the worst pieces of bloatware ever seen, but the engine itself is good, fast and secure, and you have the KDE devs to thank for that.

Re:Who cares how fast the browser is? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28997783)

Except that Safari really is not in the same league.

Re:Who cares how fast the browser is? (1)

mr exploiter (1452969) | more than 4 years ago | (#28997737)

And witch is this responsible browser you're talking about? I hope you're not talking about firefox, just look at the secunia main page to see why.

Re:Who cares how fast the browser is? (2, Informative)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 4 years ago | (#28997825)

No security is foolproof, but IE is clearly the least responsible choice.

Re:Who cares how fast the browser is? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28997617)

Some of us use Blockbuster online. We need the "my javascript is faser than yours"

Re:Who cares how fast the browser is? (1)

E IS mC(Square) (721736) | more than 4 years ago | (#28997791)

>> ome of us use Blockbuster online.

Then your problem lies elsewhere - not with javascript or browser.

Re:Who cares how fast the browser is? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28998545)

Nobody else offers in-store exchanges. I drop my dvds in the store monday and by wednesday I have three more movies. netflix cant beat that :) If I return on Tue, I can have three new relesases on tuesday itself

Re:Who cares how fast the browser is? (2, Interesting)

internewt (640704) | more than 4 years ago | (#28997447)

Am I the only one who finds that 99%+ of my time is spent waiting on DNS and data transfer and shit? I'm never actually sitting there, data downloaded, waiting for my browser to respond.

Depends on your browsing habits, maybe?

When I am browsing forums I regularly visit, I ctrl-click in FF on all the new post icons, opening a load of tabs in a short period. I also tend to modify my forum preferences so as many posts as possible are on each page, so each page tends to be rather large.

I find this kills FF for a while - it stops and starts responding, and if not responding and I go to a different workspace then FF will jump workspaces on its own when it does decide to respond again! This is rather irritating, to say the least.

But simple browsing, one page at a time kind of thing, is OK. But then I use NoScript, adblock etc. which get rid of many things that add delays to pages loading/rendering. I guess the regexp that adblock does on pages does actually have a penalty, but it's that or the cost of blocking ads. I'll take the adblock delay, ta very much.

Re:Who cares how fast the browser is? (2, Insightful)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 4 years ago | (#28997503)

I'm an Opera user and I don't have a problem with too many tabs loading the system down, I do get some times of no response but that's usually when I've done something else and the browser got paged out by the OS and needs to reload itself.

Re:Who cares how fast the browser is? (1)

Mozk (844858) | more than 4 years ago | (#28997835)

Ctrl-click? Does your mouse not have a middle button?

Re:Who cares how fast the browser is? (1)

internewt (640704) | more than 4 years ago | (#28998597)

I use a laptop most of the time, it only has 2, though both at once acts as a 3rd under Linux. Ctrl-click is just easier to press, cos trying to press both at once ain't too easy.

Re:Who cares how fast the browser is? (4, Informative)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#28998659)

You would really like the responsiveness of Opera in many-tabs scenario.

If you do check it out, remember to turn on "Window" menu in options (lists all tabs in current window, and is actually usable - you don't have to scroll through it like in FF, no matter how many tabs), "hold down right mouse button and move scroll" (hard to explain...but its great), and list of all tabs (in all windows) in sidebar (with search)

And yes, Opera has Adblock built-in, you just have to provide it with a list... http://www.fanboy.co.nz/adblock/opera/ [fanboy.co.nz]

UI speed is important (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#28998409)

And Opera has no equals in this regard (yeah, it's not that much visible on pimped-up latest PC, or if not opening more than few tabs...but this is /., we don't deal with normal usage patterns here)

Re:Who cares how fast the browser is? (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | more than 4 years ago | (#28998705)

It's more about Javascript performance which is used in "Web 2.0" apps. Basically it's about making pages work more like desktop programs do with things like drag-and-drop, re-ordering of lists with a single click, advanced editing functions etc.

Shiira (3, Interesting)

xrayspx (13127) | more than 4 years ago | (#28997349)

I looked at that like a year ago, and it looked as if it hadn't been updated in years then. Are they back to work on it? It was quick, but it was also very crashy when I tested it out. Now that KDE4 is in Ports, Konqueror works nice and fast on OSX also, however it crashes way too often too.

...checks site... Yeah, looks like Shiira has seen some activity since February of this year. Prior to that the previous news item on their site was Jan '08, and before that, July '07. Could be nice.

Re:Shiira (1)

Korin43 (881732) | more than 4 years ago | (#28997665)

Yeah I feel the same way about Midori. I read that it's significantly faster than Chrome, but I installed it and it crashes constantly. I'm sure it's easier to make a fast browser if you don't bother to make sure it works..

Re:Shiira (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28998013)

Same here, but in my case, the super cool browser I am using is another obscure browser nobody has updated for *checks the site* about 10 years. But when I talk about it with other geeks, they just envy me for knowing and using that obscure thing that they almost !@#$%^ NO CARRIER.

Re:Shiira (2, Informative)

dhovis (303725) | more than 4 years ago | (#28997903)

Shiira is WebKit based, which means it is the same basis as Safari and Chrome. If Shiira is faster than Safari, it is probably using a more recent WebKit build than the currently shipping Safari. You can also get Safari with leading-edge daily builds of WebKit from http://webkit.org/ [webkit.org]. When WebKit introduced the Squirrelfish and then Squirrelfish Extreme Javascript engines, they were available in the WebKit daily builds first.

If nothing else, WebKit has really pushed standards compliance and speed.

Of course (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28997361)

But K-Meleon is completely broken to begin with.

And what's all this stuff about the fastest browser? *cough*lynxoffbyonedillo*cough*.

Smoke and Mirrors (3, Interesting)

Redfeather (1033680) | more than 4 years ago | (#28997389)

The Acid3 test sort of bugs me. Yes, it's nice that browsers are fast, but even the most complex pages have lower kilobyte counts than most internet connections allow for, which means servers are the lag points, not your browser. I'd love to see a usability test sometime, rather than a flat-out speed rating. Webkit's neat, but with so many people using their browsers as a primary operating base - and we see proof of this approach in Google's development of the Chrome OS - usability is being sorely ignored in many technological benchmarks. I can't tell you how annoying it is to have Firebox' Live Bookmarks fail to load every ten minutes, it breaks the RSS experience. And while IE has its flaws and benefits, it's emulated, not inovating and old hat. Chrome is nice, I like how my computer treats it, but it's still in the works. Who's going to decide to pick up a new browser based on a speed test? Yes, CNet included some key features and noticed bugs, but Shiira and Arora both get termed works-in-progress, which does not make them underdogs now, it makes them next year's underdogs. And by the time they're ready for mass adoption, all of their good points will likely have been emulated as thoroughly as anyone cares for. Acid3 is like telling people your browser has 700 horse power, instead of the 300 horsepower their browsers have. No one cares if you top out at 200mph, the speed limit's still 60, folks.

Re:Smoke and Mirrors (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28997425)

But Shiira is from Japan !! You can't just emulate that !! Japan is the greatest country ever !! Anime and stuff and super godly bandwidth connections !! Shiira best browser ever !! ...

Re:Smoke and Mirrors (1)

BenoitRen (998927) | more than 4 years ago | (#28998881)

"super godly bandwidth connections"? You must not know Japan. Compared to other industrialised countries, they switched to broadband quite late.

Re:Smoke and Mirrors (1)

mxh83 (1607017) | more than 4 years ago | (#28997429)

Chrome is nice, I like how my computer treats it, but it's still in the works.

No it's not. Chrome is not a beta product any more.

Re:Smoke and Mirrors (2, Interesting)

Redfeather (1033680) | more than 4 years ago | (#28997563)

Yeah, Google removed the beta tag from a lot of their products, but given their visible patterns, Chrome has a high chance of getting really fun when ChromeOS comes out - I'd bet dollars to donuts that the version released soon before or soon after the ChromeOS release will have made a few milestone improvements that really move it from just being adoptable to really being desirable for a larger audience of people.

Re:Smoke and Mirrors (2, Interesting)

rolfc (842110) | more than 4 years ago | (#28997523)

I have 100 Mbit , two ways, and I'm not alone. Speed in browser is a factor. Remember, "640 Kb ought to be enough for everyone"?

Re:Smoke and Mirrors (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 4 years ago | (#28997823)

I wish that meme would die a horrible death. It was never suggested that 640kb would be enough in perpetuity, anybody that was knowledgeable enough to know what a kb was, knew that it wasn't that long before that people were happy to have a whopping 48kb to work with.

The ACID3 isn't really a standards test, and passing it is about as useful as having the biggest dick in the room. Sure there's probably some utility to it possibly, but realistically it's not really going to make any meaningful difference. In fact the test itself purposely violates the standards in a way that a standards compatible browser shouldn't really be expected to deal with. Remember kids, friends don't let friends write poorly formatted HTML.

Re:Smoke and Mirrors (1)

Blakey Rat (99501) | more than 4 years ago | (#28997995)

What does the word "emulated" mean in your little screed?

For example, in what way is IE "emulated?" Do you say that because it runs in a security sandbox?

Re:Smoke and Mirrors (1)

Redfeather (1033680) | more than 4 years ago | (#28998387)

Right, maybe emulated is the wrong word. What I meant by that was IE is the ultimate fallback - it does just about everything every other browser does, but doesn't seem to do any of it very well - it's inclusion for the sake of "me too" at this point.

Re:Smoke and Mirrors (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#28998433)

Well, if you say that you should love Opera - it really shines when it comes to UI responsiveness; lean & fast (where it counts; who here doesn't open pages primarily in background tabs?)

Re:Smoke and Mirrors (1)

Redfeather (1033680) | more than 4 years ago | (#28998661)

To be fair, I haven't used Opera on my main computer for about two years, so I should try the new release. I used it on my BlackBerry Bold for about two days, but after crashing my phone eighteen times in 48 hours, I figured I'd give up the ghost.

Re:Smoke and Mirrors (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#28998683)

Seems Opera for Blackberry isn't very representative...hard to blame them given virtual non-existence of Blackberries outside North America (at the least - it definatelly worked great, also ~2 years ago, on my mobiles...both Opera Mini on "classic" S40 Nokia and Opera Mobile on Symbian S60)

Tested this Weekend... (1)

Dr Egg (1451323) | more than 4 years ago | (#28997409)

5 browsers than render Slashdot with just as much broken CSS as every other browser! Download today and see what you can('t) see!

Re:Tested this Weekend... (1)

Kreigaffe (765218) | more than 4 years ago | (#28998537)

I don't think I'd rag on browsers for displaying a shlob of code as it's given to them, I'd rather rag on the shlob of code for being a complete mess.

Netsurf (1)

rhyder128k (1051042) | more than 4 years ago | (#28997413)

Netsurf [netsurf-browser.org] is a little known, low resource browser that's worth watching. It started life as a RISC OS (Acorn) browser but it's now cross platform. The show stopper is that it doesn't yet support javascript, but they're working on it.

Re:Netsurf (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28997473)

It is a thin wrapper over WebKit. What else in that category? Midori, Arora, Tear (on maemo devices), uzbl, Rekonq...

Opera (2, Interesting)

mxh83 (1607017) | more than 4 years ago | (#28997441)

Personally, I hope Opera doesn't gain any further market share, because it is not open source. It is becoming less and less relevant.

Re:Opera (3, Insightful)

ale_ryu (1102077) | more than 4 years ago | (#28997497)

What? It's a private company, if they don't want to release their code you cannot force them, and there's nothing wrong with that, it's not like you don't have any alternatives.
I personally don't care if a software package is open source or not as long as it does the job properly, and I don't think it's less relevant for not opening up the source

Re:Opera (5, Insightful)

SteelRealm (1363385) | more than 4 years ago | (#28997517)

Right, closed source and still more secure and less vulnerable then Firefox and dedicated to privacy and quality. Open Source is good as a concept and should obviously be furthered, and maybe Opera will eventually go Open source, but to want a company to burn and their quality product to die off simply because they want to remain closed source is probably the most childish thing I can think of.

Re:Opera (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28997539)

Just because other browsers have caught up with Opera's features, doesn't make Opera "less and less relevant."

Despite not being open source, be thankful for their innovative ideas.

Re:Opera (5, Insightful)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 4 years ago | (#28997579)

Probably most of what you enjoy today from your browsers have some origin in Opera. Not remember if was my main browser ever, but had been using it since 1996. Small, fast, secure, multiplataform, usually the most innovative in its own time (tabs, gestures, fast javascript, starting page with captures of your preferred sites, i think i saw all of that in opera years before than in any other browser, open source or not).

Would be great that it become open source (originally was commercial, then ads sponsored, then free, the evolution looks like going in that way), but anyway they did and keep doing a great work as they are, and you owe a lot to them even if never used their browser.

Re:Opera (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28997785)

Open source seems unlikely as Opera's main business is browsers for mobile devices and other devices that do not run normal OSes (like the Wii). I assume their various browsers share a good amount of source code with their desktop browser.

Re:Opera (2, Interesting)

mxh83 (1607017) | more than 4 years ago | (#28998799)

My post was misunderstood probably because it was incomplete. Due to Opera not opening up their browser, people can't make addins like Firefox. Useful things like Roboform don't work either. If they made it open source, it could have grown faster. Now even Chrome has overtaken Opera, because it's open and people are developing cool stuff for it.

Re:Opera (1)

BenoitRen (998927) | more than 4 years ago | (#28998937)

I'm sure most of those ideas had already been done elsewhere. For one thing, tabs in a web browser was done by MyIE2, a browser shell for IE, first. Opera did not invent it.

Re:Opera (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#28998491)

Uhm, it is steadily gaining market share in some areas, even on desktop

http://www.ranking.com.ua/en/rankings/web-browsers-groups.html [ranking.com.ua] - over 30% in Ukraine, similarly in Russia, and not bad at all in few other countries in central Europe

But what's more, it dominates mobile browsing in developing markets with its Opera Mini. You might of course think that only smartphones in style of iPhone are relevant, but a billion people, or two, might disagree...

Arora's reason for existence (4, Informative)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 4 years ago | (#28997443)

Woulda been nice to add the reasons these browsers exist - e.g. Arora was created specifically as a test wrapper for the Qt WebKit component. In fact, right now I'm compiling the current git of Qt so I can compile the current git of Arora because Ubuntu 9.04 only includes Arora 0.5, which is rather old and rickety ...

Camino exists because AOL made an abortive move to make a lightweight Mac Gecko browser and it's still around from that. K-Meleon exists because there was no lightweight Gecko browser at the time, i.e. it's before the mozilla/browser internal fork that became Firefox.

So what's the story behind Shiira?

Re:Arora's reason for existence (1)

Magic5Ball (188725) | more than 4 years ago | (#28997575)

K-Meleon was pretty awesome on the (dated) 32MB Lappy 486 when IE3 and Opera were choking hard on DHTML.

Re:Arora's reason for existence (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#28997809)

But isn't Konqueror THE Qt WebKit browser?
By the way: Why wasn't it in the list, while Opera was?

Re:Arora's reason for existence (1)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 4 years ago | (#28997931)

As a KDE user I can say that Konqueror sucks hard for modern webbrowsing and uses the KHTML engine instead of Webkit. I strongly advocate anyone using KDE use Arora, the difference in propering rendering alone is worth it.

As to why Opera was listed and Konqueror wasn't I can't say. I'd guess though it has something to do with the authors probably deciding there was a good reason Konqueror wasn't popular ;)

Re:Arora's reason for existence (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28998129)

Uh there's a WebKit KPart that you can use dude.

Re:Arora's reason for existence (1)

medlefsen (995255) | more than 4 years ago | (#28997953)

Konqueror is KHTML, not WebKit. Though I think they are working on the ability to choose or something. I agree though, it should have been on the list.

Re:Arora's reason for existence (1)

Zarel (900479) | more than 4 years ago | (#28998019)

No, Konqueror still uses KHTML, which WebKit was based on, but is inferior in many ways. There was some talk about switching it over to WebKit a while ago, but they eventually decided it was infeasible.

I was surprised Konq and iCab weren't in the list, though; they're pretty important browsers. And I didn't really understand why they published things like Acid3 scores, considering the majority of the browsers on the list used rendering engines from the four major browsers (two Gecko and two WebKit browsers).

By the way, I wouldn't recommend using Konqueror. As a Web developer, I consider KHTML one of the worst major rendering engines to support (yes, even worse than Trident from IE7+).

Fast, but with a catch (4, Insightful)

chill (34294) | more than 4 years ago | (#28997455)

Sadly, it's riddled with bugs. The current full release wouldn't run on our Mac, and although the latest developmental build would, it suffered frequent crashes, making it hard to recommend.

I think that qualifies as a showstopper. It is, after all, a browser for a computer touted as "it just works".

Re:Fast, but with a catch (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28998363)

Parent is referring to Shiira, not Opera, for those who didn't RTFA. I think Opera's currently the best browser available on the Mac.

We use Opera on a daily basis (4, Insightful)

ducomputergeek (595742) | more than 4 years ago | (#28997465)

It has a few interesting features, like being able to have the browser refresh a page every x seconds instead of having to code that in. Useful for the web-based admin panel that lets users request 3 hours of internet time at the coffee shop. We use it with Google Docs and Gmail as well as Pandora. Seems to use less memory than FireFox and it's not IE. It also seems to be stable enough to last days before having to be restarted. It even has a bittorrent client built in.

Re:We use Opera on a daily basis (3, Interesting)

TheModelEskimo (968202) | more than 4 years ago | (#28997511)

I used to use Opera for Windows a lot. It was really stable and generally just an awesome browser. Very fast. Then I found out it had an EMAIL client built in, of all things. Started to use it instead of Outlook, and it handled tons of mail via IMAP without a hitch. Wow! Then I found out it had IRC chat support. Another (though less polished) awesome feature.

Then I moved to Linux. I've used it on 5 separate Linux machines, and I still can't use Opera for the length of a single day's web browsing without a crash. It hates Flash. It also seems to hate GMail, so I'm surprised you like it. Slashdot and Opera don't seem to get along now, either. Overall, it's a great browser, but for whatever reason, the Linux version just sucks. My wife still loves it on her Windows laptop, though she despises its weird interactions with GMail.

Re:We use Opera on a daily basis (1)

SteelRealm (1363385) | more than 4 years ago | (#28997565)

I've actually had Opera crash on me very, very rarely on Linux and used flash just as much as on Windows. Not a Gmail user though so I don't know how it reacts with it. Also very few problems with it and Slashdot, or, well, "few". Only as many as other browsers.

Re:We use Opera on a daily basis (2, Informative)

richlv (778496) | more than 4 years ago | (#28997591)

i'm an opera user on linux for many years now.
1. flash on linux is broken in any browser. that's why i don't even have it installed in opera - if i really want to see some flash stuff, i fire up firefox (haha). additional benefit - less ads.
2. i didn't use gmail much, but i used it some more recently - seemed to work perfectly;
3. slashdot, hehe. slashdot randomly breaks and them gets fixed again, although i'm not completely sure it has ever worked completely without problems ever since they javascripted it like shit. while it can be used, some problems annoy a lot "_

Re:We use Opera on a daily basis (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28998155)

I'm using opera 10 beta 2 on windows, and all of my slashdot problems disappeared with 10 beta 1. Maybe you should just switch to 10? I don't know. I had a lot of problems with 9.5 and onward until the 10 alpha. 10 beta 1 had some problems with random stuff, and 10 beta 2 has been very solid for me (though they tweaked the UI, which is a little annoying. hopefully they fix that in beta 3/ regular release).

Re:We use Opera on a daily basis (1)

BikeHelmet (1437881) | more than 4 years ago | (#28998837)

And I despise Slashdot's weird interactions with Firefox. Did you know that in this text edit box, I can only enter text in approximately 80% of it? The final 20% is obscured by what appears to be a fully transparent layer, which intercepts clicks, meaning I can't select/replace/delete that text without using the keyboard to get over to it.

Re:We use Opera on a daily basis (1)

burni (930725) | more than 4 years ago | (#28997533)

I concur,

+ Sidebar, fast Bookmark organization with on-the-fly buzzword search, StickyNotes
+ Opera also has a nice eMail-Client(pop3/imap) built in, good adressbook features
+ quick settings like disabling/enabling plugins, java, javascript, cookies
+ very good cookie management

++/-- community feature my.opera.com bookmark synchronisation, not forced nor mentioned, has to be found File -> sync...

(-) They should leave out the bittorrent client

++ I think it's more userfriendly than FF

Re:We use Opera on a daily basis (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28997909)

AAAAAAAAAAA++++++++++++++++

Package arrived safe, in one piece, and the 'it was still pulsating when opened....

WILL BUY AGAIN!

Re:We use Opera on a daily basis (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 4 years ago | (#28997889)

I don't think that Opera does use less memory than Firefox. Perhaps if you're going really nuts with the extensions Firefox will use more, but all the figures I've seen indicate that the current browser has a really low footprint.

http://dotnetperls.com/browser-memory [dotnetperls.com]

Re:We use Opera on a daily basis (1)

kamatsu (969795) | more than 4 years ago | (#28998133)

Opera might not use less memory than Firefox at first, but give Firefox a day to start consuming your RAM and then we'll see.

Re:We use Opera on a daily basis (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#28998611)

Some weird people value the results of actual real life usage more than benchmarks.

Try to run both browsers for a week or two, with 100+ tabs in several windows, and then you'll know which one's GUI remains responsive, which one treats your RAM gracefully.

Re:We use Opera on a daily basis (1)

partyguerrilla (1597357) | more than 4 years ago | (#28998755)

The thing this benchmark forgot to take into account is Opera's memory cache feature. If you don't disable or configure it and leave it on automatic, Opera will use a determined amount of RAM, depending on how much you have installed. This benchmark seems to not have disabled this feature, making the opera results useless.

Browser wars = Moot (5, Funny)

clinko (232501) | more than 4 years ago | (#28997471)

Do I get a Firefox prize in the mail if they hit 72%?

This is the nerd equivalent of celebrity gossip.

Oprah... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28997535)

I thought she had her own browser now. Luckily I just misread it.

Underdog? (3, Informative)

SirJorgelOfBorgel (897488) | more than 4 years ago | (#28997545)

I'm not sure if a browser like Opera, which is available on many many [many many] platforms - from set-top boxes to game consoles to mobile phones to actual PCs - can responsibly be called an underdog browser by anyone - regardless of the opinion of the submitter. And it runs pretty well on all those platforms too. The only thing I've seen Firefox, Chrome or IE run decently on is a PC (Fennic? Mobile IE? Surely you jest!). (Disclaimer: I never use Opera on my PC's, but I do use it on all my mobiles)

Re:Underdog? (1)

TwinkieStix (571736) | more than 4 years ago | (#28997843)

Isn't it the case that Opera Mini is to Opera as the Android browser is to Chrome?

Re:Underdog? (1)

kamatsu (969795) | more than 4 years ago | (#28998139)

Yes, in other words, they share much of the same underlying code, but the interface is different.

Re:Underdog? (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#28998563)

Yes and no.

Opera Mini has some relation to Opera Desktop, but is much further from it than Android is from Chrome; it is a JavaME app that requests Opera servers (running full Opera engine) to render/redraw/transmit pages to mobile phone in compressed & streamlined form.

Android browser equivalent would be Opera Mobile - as the other poster says: same engine, different UI.

Re:Underdog? (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 4 years ago | (#28997961)

It is an underdog mainly because it makes up such a tiny portion of the browser market and because it failed to gain any meaningful traction against IE. Include Firefox on a list of underdogs right now seems to be completely innapropriate, it is in most places the number 2 browser and in some areas it's even the top dog. With the exception of South Korea, I can't think of anywhere that it couldn't conceivably overtake IE.

Honestly... (2, Interesting)

Zixaphir (845917) | more than 4 years ago | (#28997561)

None of this speed thing matters to anyone but this small enthusiast crowd who actually care about a few nanoseconds of difference. I mean, seriously, have you ever switched to a browser because of it's javascript performance before... y'know, Chrome?

But, in my opinion, if you switched to Chrome, your reasons probably included that Google was backing it, and therefore it stood a chance in a "market" (I use this term as loosely as possible) dominated by Internet Explorer and Firefox? Oh, and Safari if you just HAPPEN to use a Mac.

Re:Honestly... (1)

kamatsu (969795) | more than 4 years ago | (#28998153)

As a person that uses google docs, gmail, facebook and slashdot often, I love the fast JS in Chrome.

TraceMonkey isn't nearly as good - it has a strange habit of slowing FF down to a crawl at random intervals.

Tags are fun (1)

VocationalZero (1306233) | more than 4 years ago | (#28997587)

internet skelator operasucks browsersonplanets tech software story

Wait, what? Also

in a piece loosely aimed at determining whether these browsers are yet ready to steal significant numbers of users from Firefox, Safari, IE etc.

When I aim loosely, I usually miss.

Opera not an underdog (1)

strstr (539330) | more than 4 years ago | (#28997691)

It's full featured and well established browser and quality is unsurpassed, and it's in widespread use on other devices like cellphones, PDAs, gaming systems (Nintendo DSi), etc. The only problem Opera has is that no body is using it on the PC platform even though it's probably the best browser available. But still, compared to all the other browsers mentioned, it has a huge lead in market share and use, I think it's like the 4th or 5th most popular browser on the Internet.

FF (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28997705)

When it comes to browser I'm like that:
ommmm Firefox ommmm Firefox ommmm Firefox ommmm Fiiirefooox Fiiirefooox ommm

Arora (1)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 4 years ago | (#28997875)

It's good to see Arora getting some more attention now. I've been using it now for more than half a year and I must say it's the first webbrowser I have actually liked in several. I would definetly consider it the best OSS webbrowser on linux right now, particularly if you're running KDE (although Arora is desktop agnostic, it is Qt). I've been fed up with Firefox's bloat (ever try comparing Firefox and Seamonkey these days? Guess which is heavier...) for some time and Arora is a nice change from that.

Re:Arora (1)

kamatsu (969795) | more than 4 years ago | (#28998171)

(ever try comparing Firefox and Seamonkey these days? Guess which is heavier...) .

Oooh, i know! I know! It's Firefox, right?

Do I win something?

Re:Arora (1)

TeknoHog (164938) | more than 4 years ago | (#28998873)

I've also been using Arora on and off for some time, and I can't help feeling it's just like Phoenix again. You know, the light and fast browser that was built out of Mozilla's codebase, that was supposed to be just a browser, nothing more.

Opera is 3rd biggets browser outside USA (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28998397)

Opera's desktop has almost 4% market share and is bigger than both Chrome and Safari. Check the latest numbers at www.statcounter.com. Even Net Applications, which is more skewed towards US and western Europe, show Opera's global market share at 2%. CNET's visitors does obviously not represent the Internet population so it's a bit weird to compare Opera, the world's 3rd biggest browser, to small unknown providers.

Besided this, Opera's mobile browser is the biggest in the world, still bigger than iphone. Worth mentioning is Opera as the only browser available on Nintendo Wii or DSi.

Opera is dominate compared to the irrelevant? (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 4 years ago | (#28998737)

Opera, Firefox, Safari/Chrome ... these are the underdog browsers. Everything else is irrelevant, sorry if your random fork of something else browser isn't a major browser, but if you're a fork or use the rendering engine of one of the 4 main browsers then you are irrelevant at this point.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...