This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Firefox or Opera? Maybe IE?

edited April 2006 in Flamewars

...I think. I got talked into downloading opera tonight. I'll see how well it works comparatively. I use IE sometimes when I need to check something really quick. Firefox is definitely not the fastest browser out there, especially with its 40 meg of ram usage (average).


  • IE is only fast because it's ALWAYS loaded into RAM in Windows, regardless of whether you use it.

    Firefox can be made to load/render much more quickly with a number of tricks that I'll detail another time. (It's late, and I'm about to retire for the evening).
  • Firefox only takes up 40 megs of RAM for you?

    I used to be a bigtime Firefox fan, but got very frustrated with it crashing, dying, breaking, etc.
    As a result, I am now using opera which is good, however it takes a long time and a lot of poking around with settings to get it working in a way thats not annoying. I have no real preference, I just use what doesn't Die horribly whenever I try and use it. They both have pro's, they both have con's.
  • If Firefox's ram usage is killing you, get more RAM. I have 512MB, and yes Firefox grows to take up a significan portion of that. But I never have it crash or anything like that. Sometimes mplayerplug-in will crash, but that's not Firefox's fault. Also, make sure you don't have any of the extensions that like to kill Firefox. There was a website with a list of evil extensions, but I forget. I also just put Opera on my computers the other day. But that was only to see how the theme looks in that browser. I don't actually use it.
  • "It's a feature, not a bug!"

    Right now Firefox is taking up almost 60,000 K of ram. I use Opera once in a while, because of the speed. Does anybody know of a Firefox extension that replicates Opera's Fast-Forward feature?

    Ok now let's start up a list of Firefox extensions!

    User Agent Switcher
    Searchbar Autosizer
    IE Tab
    Adblock Filterset.G Updater
    Restart Firefox
    Download Statusbar
    Tab Mix Plus
    Google Web Accelerator
    Add N Edit Cookies
    Google Toolbar
    Html Valiidator
  • Yeah, some of those extensions are definitely causing your large memory usage. I recommend getting rid of the ones you don't use so much.
  • Like... which ones? Which ones cause most memory usage?

    Found it!

    Seems like the worst one you've got is because of a combination of Filterset G updater and FlashGot. There are more though. Read the article.
  • Heh, the first two Are the only extensions I used (Session Saver and IE tab). I have 752 MBs RAM, and Opera has one of them built in.
    In saying that however, Opera is still taking 90 MB, which is less than what firefox was, but still Stupid High
  • The existing problem is that IE is completely integrated with windows. You can't run the OS without it. Wouldn't it be nice if some crazy kick ass firefox browser came out that could replace that. That'll never happen.
  • edited April 2006
    Someone could theoretically write a new integrated browser. All they would have to do is create replacements for explorer.exe, iexplore.exe and some .dll files. It's rather difficult to do, but it's not impossible. After we teach you how computers work you will understand this better.
    Post edited by Apreche on
  • Firefox saves a number of previously viewed pagse in the ram, that's why its so large. And I have enough ram, 1280 megs to be exact. Opera was also taking up much of my ram but not as much as firefox, and it still ran much faster.
  • I have a question on the whole I.E. problem. Is the reason why I.E. is bad due to the fact that Microsoft doesn't patch it and it's the most common browser that n00bs use? Now that I think of it that way, I really don't think I.E. is all that bad. I think the only two problems are that there are rarely any patches and most n00bs who wouldn't be able to deal with a virus use it.
  • The problem with IE is that is has security vulnerabilities that no matter how non-n00b you are will still screw you. IF you use IE and you visit a website that website can gain root on your computer and install whatever viruses and whatever it wants. All you have to do is visit a site. Search on Google with IE and click the wrong link, game over. It is unsafe for anyone to use, n00bs and experts alike. It's not that rare patches are the problem. It's that there are ginormous gaping security holes which are still unpatched and widely exploited. There is also no way to protect yourself except for avoiding use of IE.
  • I must admit, after the original browser wars, I turned to IE for a couple of years. I had no substantial problems with it. It was even a relief after the bloated, crash-prone monster Navigator had become.

    But now that Firefox has been around for a while, there are many serious reasons why you should switch to it (which I won't list here). Maybe things will change after the next version of IE, but I doubt it. For now, Firefox is the only real choice out there.
  • edited April 2006
    There was a time when IE was king. I used IE 4 just like everyone else. It was faster and more reliable than any other free browser. Mozilla was the only possible alternative, and it was slow as crap. As soon as Phoenix (original Firefox) came out, IE died.
    Post edited by Apreche on
  • The direction I was going with the n00b thing is that if I were going to make a virus, then I'll probably make it set to attack the largest population of people, or in this case, I.E. Now the only people who use I.E. on thier own PCs are n00bs and there are a lot more n00bs who visit websites than there are non-n00bs.
  • One of the chief problems with I.E. is that it's tightly coupled with the Windows operating system. This makes it much easier for viruses or carefully crafted buffer overflows to change operating-system level code.

    The fact that so many Windows users use the Administrator account for daily tasks aggravates this further.
  • It doesn't help that there is no real way to selectively delegate authority in Windows, and thus users are forced to be "Administrator" in order to actually do anything. It's amazing just how many applications require that level of access just to -run-, let alone install.

    Windows somewhat recently added the "Run As" feature, which theoretically allows you to be logged in as a non-admin and only run certain applications or services with elevated privilages, much like sudo.

    In practice, however, it simply doesn't work for a multitude of reasons...
  • Remember that big deal about shipping Windows with or without Windows Media Player? What if they do the same with IE, except that without IE, they'd use an alternative browser like mozilla or firefox to integrate with windows.
  • Shipping with the operating system and integrating with the operating system are two different things. The average Linux distribution ships with hundreds, if not thousands, of different programs included. These programs all communicate with each other, and the kernel, in many ways. But because of proper programming, you can not gain root access to the system through say, a security hole in Firefox. Internet Explorer, however, is Windows explorer. And Windows explorer is essentially Windows. A security hole in Internet Explorer means you can pwn a Windows box. Linux is inherently more secure because of its design, not because of any other reason someone will have you believe. Windows is inherently insecure for the same reason.
Sign In or Register to comment.