Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Comparing Firefox 3 With Opera 9.5 On Linux

Posted by Soulskill on Fri Jun 20, 2008 11:11 PM
from the and-in-this-corner dept.
Joe Barr writes "Mayank Sharma has two recent stories on Linux.com; one evaluating the performance of Firefox 3, and the second comparing it to Opera 9.5. Which is better? For most people, it's probably more a matter of familiarity or personal preference, but these stories provide hard performance data to consider as well. Sharma notes, 'In terms of rendering JavaScript, Firefox 3 had the edge over Opera 9.5 in the SunSpider JavaScript Benchmark, which has an error range between +/-0.8% to +/-11.3% depending on the type of test. In the JavScript Engine speed test, Opera 9.5 scores over its peers when it comes to error handling, DOM, and AJAX.'" Slashdot shares a corporate overlord with Linux.com.
+ -
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 20 2008, @11:14PM (#23882227)

    I was using Lynx!

      • Re:First post... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Dragonslicer (991472) on Saturday June 21 2008, @07:35AM (#23884035)

        Maybe the developers should had concentrated more on fixing bugs and less on "awesome"bar
        Maybe you should concentrate more on reporting bugs and less on complaining about the address bar?

        I don't know what middle-click menu you're talking about, and the find functionality works fine for me, so it may be a bug specific to your system. How are the developers supposed know there's a problem if you don't tell them about it?
  • by ricegf (1059658) on Friday June 20 2008, @11:17PM (#23882241) Journal
    With four (count'em, four) good browsers competing for user attention, the evil days of monopoly and stagnation are ending at last. The light of the standards-based Internet is dawning, and "works best with Internet Explorer" is becoming the odd anachronism it deserves to be.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      To the best of my knowledge there's never been a monopoly on Linux/UNIX web browsers. I think at one point Mozilla dominated, but it's never been like Windows.

      Also: KHTML, Opera, and Firefox/Gecko are only three. Unless you're including ones based on those and/or text only browsers?

      • by ricegf (1059658) on Friday June 20 2008, @11:34PM (#23882331) Journal

        The fourth is an underpowered and little used browser called Internet Explorer [spacesurfer.com]. I'm not really surprised you haven't heard of it; it's rarely used on Linux at all, for good reasons.

        • by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 20 2008, @11:38PM (#23882339)

          You said "four GOOD browsers".

          (Slow down, cowboy! It's been twelve hours since you last posted a comment.)

          • by zippthorne (748122) on Friday June 20 2008, @11:47PM (#23882377) Journal

            The four GOOD browsers:

            Links, Lynx, wget, curl.

            • by amdpox (1308283) on Friday June 20 2008, @11:59PM (#23882433)
              lynx is bloated. ;)
              • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

                Sadly it actually is. Due to using so much memory it couldn't be directly ported to linux on the Nintendo DS so "retawq" is used instead. With a bit of extra memory you can already use Opera there so lynx is stuck in the limbo between.
            • by Quattro Vezina (714892) on Saturday June 21 2008, @12:03AM (#23882463) Journal

              What, no w3m?

              In all seriousness, I've been stuck without X a few times (for several weeks at a time), and w3m blows all other text-based browsers out of the water. I used to like links, but w3m has spoiled me too much...

            • by mcrbids (148650) on Saturday June 21 2008, @03:05AM (#23883065) Journal

              You forgot the best one of all: telnet.

              It's one thing to have it all INTERPRETED for you. It's another thing to see things in native code.

              There's way too much information to decode the Internet. You get used to it, though. Your brain does the translating. I don't even see the code. All I see is blonde, brunette, redhead.

              Wait till you actually view your Porn Flash video as an ASCII-presented binary!

              GET /midgetswithwidgets.flv HTTP/1.0\n\n

              Baby! You aren't a natural red-head, are you?

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              No, no, no. You got it all wrong.

              Elinks, elinks, elinks, and...

              python -c "print __import__('urllib2').urlopen('$URL').read()"
      • by kestasjk (933987) on Friday June 20 2008, @11:52PM (#23882405) Homepage
        There's also dillo, for use on underpowered old machines which can barely run X. Kinda carved itself a rapidly dying niche though, but as a completely separate rendering engine it's worth a mention at least.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          There's also dillo, for use on underpowered old machines which can barely run X. Kinda carved itself a rapidly dying niche though, but as a completely separate rendering engine it's worth a mention at least.
          Well, underpowered doesn't always go hand-in-hand with old -- considering the raft of articles we've seen here on slashdot about small, energy-saving PCs.
  • by themushroom (197365) on Friday June 20 2008, @11:23PM (#23882271) Homepage

    The real challenge/merit is whether Opera 9.5 is accepted by webpages as being able to display all the content correctly, rather than insisting a component isn't there and demanding its download only to be told it's still not there.

    That's my complaint about the last version or two of Opera (and I've been using it since 3.5), that I wind up having to break out IE or FF for some pages because just being adherent to the HTML 4 standard isn't enough of a claim anymore.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      Set Browser ID to: Identify as Opera
      RightClick, Edit Site Preferences
      [Network] Tab:
      Browser Identification:
      MASK as FireFox | MASK as Internet Explorer

      Which is different than just "Identify as..."
      • by Vectronic (1221470) on Saturday June 21 2008, @12:52AM (#23882677)

        Just remember to switch it back when you don't need the option anymore, otherwise you are contributing to the various Browser Market Share/User Share statistics with wrong info.

        I try to avoid using that, because then when some web admin looks at the logs, he'll see a slanted perspective of how many users are using which web browser, and just continuing the problem - "meh, not enough Opera users to really bother fixing it"

        • by Fjandr (66656) on Saturday June 21 2008, @01:22AM (#23882775) Homepage Journal

          You can enable it on a per-site basis.

          Honestly, if a site is designed to tell you that it won't allow use of a browser that can render it perfectly, it is one developed by people who obviously didn't even bother to test the functionality of the site under those other browsers. Developers who are that lazy aren't going to look at weblogs and give a damn about removing meaningless browser restrictions.

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            Everyone needs to complain to the corp that runs the site when they find silly pages like that. Something like...

            "My browser is fully capable of displaying your content, but I am unable to do so due to your restricted access. Please tell your overlords to consider using web standards, and checking compatibility at www.w3.org, so that users of all browsers and OSes will have access."

            Except replace "overloards" with whatever term best fits depending on your mood and the site, like monkeys, poopfaces, or
          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            Developers who are that lazy aren't going to look at weblogs and give a damn about removing meaningless browser restrictions.

            No, I have honestly seen people argue that it's not worth supporting anything but Internet Explorer because all of their users use Internet Explorer, when the reason all of their users use Internet Explorer is because the site in question is Internet Explorer-only by design or has massive bugs in other browsers. It's less about a lazy attitude and more about a stupid, head-in-t

  • by kestasjk (933987) on Friday June 20 2008, @11:57PM (#23882427) Homepage

    The first thing you notice when you launch Opera 9.5 is that it occupies less desktop real estate than Firefox 3, with less toolbar space and smaller borders, giving you more room to view pages.
    The thing I like about Firefox is how changeable it is: Screenshot [imagevenue.com]

    I've been organizing the bars like that since I started using FF, and I find it makes for much better use of that space than just a gray, blank area.
    • by Airw0lf (795770) on Saturday June 21 2008, @12:07AM (#23882475)

      The thing I like about Firefox is how changeable it is: Screenshot I've been organizing the bars like that since I started using FF, and I find it makes for much better use of that space than just a gray, blank area.
      Opera's interface is every bit as customisable if not more so. Right click on any toolbar and click "Customize." The "Toolbars" tab will let you play with which toolbars you want to show, and where you want them. The "Buttons" tab will allow you to place just about any button anywhere you want. Finally, you can even make your own buttons. See the Opera wiki for more information: http://operawiki.info/CustomButtons [operawiki.info]
        • by SilentChasm (998689) on Saturday June 21 2008, @02:53AM (#23883023)

          Opera's interface is every bit as customisable if not more so.
          False. I challenge you to put a "back" button next to the Help menu on the menu bar, then. You can do it in IE. You can do it in Firefox. Opera forces that space after Help to be waste.
          Here it is:Screenshot [imagevenue.com] :P

          There's a back button, forward button and an addressbar next to help. Not technically what you said but close enough that it shouldn't matter. Probably technically cheating aswell as it's not the 'real' menu bar.

          You're right that you can't put stuff in the menu bar in Opera though, and you should be able to. It is a waste of screen space. In order to make that screenshot (without manipulation), I used the custom buttons page on http://operawiki.info/CustomButtons [operawiki.info] to add each of those menu items to the "Main Bar" (after clearing it), then I added the back button and decided to go a step further and add the address bar and forward. I had already used the toggle menu bar custom button to hide the actual "Menu Bar" (I normally don't have a menu bar even, the panel is enough).

          If you look closely I have the entire main menu as a button in the tab bar (labeled "Menu" with a black arrow next to it). If I click that I'll get a menu with all the main menu bar items in it. Over on the right I have a view button which will display the "view bar" where I've hidden the menu toggle button.

          I could have combined everything on the menu into the tab bar instead but it wouldn't have looked like the main menu colorwise. I could have everything in one bar like the great-grandparent has in their firefox screenshot. Less than their screenshot even if I put everything in the tab bar instead of a seperate one.

          Also there is a panel toggle on the left of the screen. I typically don't use the main menu except for the File-> Import/Export menu options so hiding the entire thing makes sense since all bookmarks, history, widgets, mail and newsfeeds are available in the side panel and most settings are accessible via keyboard the shortcuts F12+none, ctrl, shift.

          If you really want to get bitchy about wasted space you could put all the menu options, the addressbar and everything normally in a toolbar into a custom panel and get rid of every bar (even the tab bar if you want) and just have the panel toggle at the edge of the screen. Hide it when you don't need it. You can't get much less wasted space unless you changed the theme for your desktop to use less space for the window decorations (I think that would be going a little far). The entire window would be space for the page except for the small scrollbar on one side and the panel toggle on the other (not necessary with keyboard shortcuts).
    • by Vectronic (1221470) on Saturday June 21 2008, @12:10AM (#23882511)

      Excluding the Menu Bar (Opera uses the standard/forced top one) Opera can do that aswell, you can drag/drop any button/checkbox/dropdown/etc to any other bar (excluding the main side panel buttons)

      You can also quicky drag a webpage, or an image onto a toolbar, to create a temporary "favorite" of sorts... its not particularily useful, but ive used it, mainly so i dont accidentally close the tab.

    • You should look into Personalize Menu, or if someone has updated it for FF3, "Tiny Menu".

      Both of these collapse that large list of menu entries into one icon that then has File Edit View etc as submenus.

      Personalize Menu even lets you configure the menu so you can put the things you actually use where you'll get to them easily.

  • Pretty good (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Eil (82413) on Saturday June 21 2008, @12:36AM (#23882607) Homepage Journal

    I gave Opera 9.5 a whirl last week and was highly impressed. It's packed with nice features (Where do you think Firefox and IE get most of their ideas?) but still pretty fast and light. Other versions of Opera never did much for me, but this is the first proprietary application that I've run across in a long time that I would seriously consider using on a daily basis. The only areas where it's really lacking are modularity (extensions, instead of everything being built-in to the browser) and of course the fact that it's not free software.

  • by bogaboga (793279) on Saturday June 21 2008, @12:45AM (#23882649)
    In Firefox, my priority is not speed. I am happy with the status quo. While I love the new product, I was dismayed and disappointed to say the least when I was locked out of my favorite sites which support the Firefox 2.0 series, but do not support Firefox 3.0! I had to re-install the earlier version, which I had to "dig" out of the Mozilla site.

    The fact that most of my extensions are un-installable in the latest version did not help matters.

    This made me wonder...Why haven't the coders ported these extensions to Firefox 3.0 if it has been in development for a long time?

    I also thought I would be in position to play live CNN streams but I was wrong! Firefox plays the commercial OK but will display a balck screen with sound when it comes to the actual content! Not good enough.

    • by Bogtha (906264) on Saturday June 21 2008, @05:01AM (#23883489)

      Why haven't the coders ported these extensions to Firefox 3.0 if it has been in development for a long time?

      That's an elephant in the room that nobody seems to want to talk about. If you are praising extensions, then apparently it's a huge advantage Firefox has over other browsers, but if you are complaining about extensions, then they are all third-party developers that have nothing to do with Firefox. It's a win-win for Mozilla - all of the credit, none of the blame.

      This is never more apparent than when a new major version of Firefox is released. Mozilla break compatibility and wash their hands of the mess, and if the extensions you use aren't maintained any more, then, well, tough.

  • mis-match (Score:5, Interesting)

    by luckymutt (996573) on Saturday June 21 2008, @01:18AM (#23882759)
    From TFA:

    But Opera 9.5 is no less revolutionary than Firefox, matching its open source rival feature for feature,

    That should be:

    But Firefox is no less revolutionary than Opera, matching its proprietary rival feature for feature

    Do we really need to break out the list of things that Opera developed that are now taken for granted by other browsers?
  • Ibook 500 mHz, 320 ram so it was quite a nice machine SEVEN years ago.

    Yet Opera 6.5 runs GOOD, whether Firefox 3 won't run or just takes ages to start. Only/main advantage of FF is that it's customisable, with all the addons to 'improve the browsing-experience'.

    I really appreciate OSS but at the moment Opera is the best browser for my older machines. My 2 cents.

  • by actionbastard (1206160) on Saturday June 21 2008, @01:54AM (#23882859)
    about this release is the huge bug with the network home folders not working [mozilla.org]. I mean, come on guys, is it really that hard to test something like this in a Lin/Mac/Win environment that exists in virtually all of the corporate/academic world to see if this works. Granted the javascript performance is two to three times faster than v2, but if you release it in a state where I can't deploy it because you missed a bug in some library, it's a really hard sell to the PHB if the new whiz-bang version is fuxored.
    • Re:Easy. (Score:5, Informative)

      by Koiu Lpoi (632570) <koiulpoi AT gmail DOT com> on Friday June 20 2008, @11:50PM (#23882395)

      Frankly, with as many features Firefox has copied from Opera, it'd better be good. Don't get me wrong here, I love FF, but there's no denying that some of their "latest greatest" features are ripped straight from Opera.

      If Opera was FOSS, the Firefox team wouldn't have had to write nearly as much code. (insert smiley for people who will inevitably think this is completely serious)

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      They're similarly capable, but Firefox is FOSS

      So? Opera has been free (as in beer) for a long time now, and the guys developing it actually made an excellent work of porting it to several OSs/architectures; it works as good and snappy on Windows, Linux and MacOS. It's small, very fast, rock stable and packed with a lot of useful features (a.k.a, not bloat). FF3 is very nice on its own too, yes, but the more competition the merrier. What's not to like?

      People dissing Opera because it's not FOSS are missing on

        • Re:Easy. (Score:5, Informative)

          by at_slashdot (674436) on Saturday June 21 2008, @12:53AM (#23882681)

          Opera can disable scripts per page or globally, and you don't need a plugin to do that.

              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                That's nowhere near the functionality of NoScript. On this page there are 3 JavaScripts that want to run, but I'm only running 1 of them (the slashdot one).

                Also wasn't the awesome bar suppose to be stolen from Opera as well? If so, where is it?

    • Am I the only one who thinks of this picture [jj.am] every time I hear "Awesome Bar"? It just seems like one of those things that was a placeholder name that never got changed.

      Dev 1: Man, what should we call the new multifunction search-address bar?
      Dev 2: I dunno, I've been calling it the "awesome bar" in the code.
      Dev 1: Damn that's stupid.
      Dev 2: Yeah I know, but I can't think of anything better.
      Dev 1: Me either, just leave it for now.

      And then, over time, everyone just got used to calling it that, and it ended up released that way.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        Am I the only one who thinks of this picture every time I hear "Awesome Bar"? It just seems like one of those things that was a placeholder name that never got changed.

        Reminds me of 'OS/2 Warp'. Ugh. I'm not sure which company was more stupid - IBM not knowing what to do with OS/2, or Commodore not knowing what to do with the Amiga. *sigh*

      • by Koiu Lpoi (632570) <koiulpoi AT gmail DOT com> on Friday June 20 2008, @11:52PM (#23882407)
        Cue mountains of posts pointing out, yet again that oldbar doesn't make it exactly like it used to be, just close.
        • by Dhalka226 (559740) on Saturday June 21 2008, @12:34AM (#23882595)

          The fact that you have to download a third-party add-on to even resemble the original functionality shows how little respect the Mozilla Corporation has for its users.

          Replacing old features with new ones has nothing to do with lacking respect for users, it's about trying to improve the user experience. Not everybody is going to like them, sure; that's true of just about any change you make. The fact that it's possible to download an extension and get pretty close to the behavior people complain they no longer have isn't a strike against Firefox, it's a sign of the robustness of the extensions and community. Apparently extensions aren't permitted to drill so deeply into the core browser that they can change how things are looked up--at least I assume that's why the extension isn't quite the old behavior. That may be good or bad depending on your perspective, but it's certainly safer.

          More to the point, most of the posts seem to be: "I just downloaded Firefox and I fucking hate this new address bar!@" I thought we were supposed to be reasonable people here? What happened to giving something a chance before you spit on it and declare Mozilla to be disrespectful of its users for ever having implemented it? For that matter, if these people ever bother to actually give details about what they don't like about it it seems to be basically the order it's returning the results. For example, lots of people complain that typing "en" is no longer bringing up "en.wikipedia.org" as their first result. For one thing, this behavior can be mirror even more closely with a configuration option. It's not in the GUI; bitch about that if you want, but it's there. Beyond that, it's simply more proof that they haven't bothered to give it a chance. The search results are adaptive. The more you type "en" and select "en.wikipedia.org," the more it learns that's what you want. Sounds like a feature to me. All it takes is patience, but clearly most people have none and would prefer to rant about it on forums like this one.

          Firefox without extensions is ridiculously barebones.

          Or bloated, depending on who around here you ask. That alone should clue you in that it's nothing more than a matter of perspective. But let's play along and say you're right. All that goes to show is that there are two camps with regard to things like this: One who believes the best stuff should be merged in or included by default with the browser, and one that believes the browser core should stay as lean as possible and let this functionality be done with add-ons. Opera tends to the former, and Firefox is a bit of a hybrid but tends to the latter. So what? If you really can't be bothered to customize things to your liking, that's fine--use Opera or whatever else you find that suits you. That's really what it's all about in the end. That doesn't mean that the alternate perspective is wrong, though.

          I'm glad I'm an Opera user.

          Well, you're certainly free to use whichever browser you prefer for whatever reasons you prefer it--I just hope you have better reasons than "default Firefox is barebones," which seems to be all you said here. That smells a bit too much of zealotry to me. At the end of the day I guess it doesn't even matter what it is. *shrugs*

          • knows they'll cry bloody murder with ANY change (and the loudest are the easiest to hear!). It can be ridiculous, stifling real development and useful enhancements.

            That said, if you throw in too many of these you can simply kiss your user base good-bye..

            I'll keeps on trying to get used to the awesome (??!) bar but I'm sure as I type this SOMEONE is creating a brand new shiny add-on to *truly* revert the behavior for those who feel the need it (oss, beauty eh?)..

            I applaud the developers for the innovat
        • by aussie_a (778472) on Saturday June 21 2008, @12:45AM (#23882647) Journal

          Here's the best example I can think of for this awesome feature.

          1) Go to this page in a new tab [myth-weavers.com]
          2) Now close that tab.
          3) In a new tab start typing "Warlord Tiefling" in the location bar.
          4) Notice how a link is coming up and how it is highlighting the word as you type it. But if you select it and hit enter, you'll see that the words "Tiefling Warlord" do not appear in the URL.

          This is the awesomeness of the awesome bar. It doesn't just search the URL of your history and bookmarks, it searches the page title as well! So while trying to remember the URL for the Warlord Tiefling page would be impossible, the awesome bar means you don't have to.

          • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 21 2008, @03:18AM (#23883107)

            Opera's awesome bar goes a step further, not only does it search the URLs and the titles of your history, but also the content. If I type Warlord Tiefling in Opera 9.5's address bar, I get this page as one of the results, because you motioned it, aussie_a.

    • Re:Easy Install (Score:4, Informative)

      by IBBoard (1128019) on Saturday June 21 2008, @04:18AM (#23883309) Homepage

      Not easy? Okay, so it has "extract" in there, but it's basically the same as a Mac:

      Mac: dump application file in location, run application.
      Firefox/Linux (since they mention tarball): extract application in location, run application.

      Okay, so they used a couple of techie words, but it's not exactly rocket-science (or even make scripts) to use it.