Hypothesis put forward: Opera > Firefox
Debate plz
Does Opera import adblock lists? I want to try opera but I really really have a very nice adblock list that I want to import to opera without hassles.
No, and it looks like it won't in the foreseeable future. The only decent way to do it with Opera is to use proximotron (or munge in HOSTS). :(
I surf with images off, but it isn't for most people.
>>85
You surf with images off as the admin of several imgboards?
How strange...
>>86
Isn't it?
It takes a single click to turn the images back on for a tab though.
Surfing without images is wonderful. Even when I'm on a fast pipe I turn images off. More people should try it.
>>87
No, I am scared and confused.
>>87
if you do that, you won't see the totally awesome brick background!
>>89
The brickwall thing isn't written in the code of the software, yknow? It can be easily changed to anything.
So back to subject. No adblock=FAIL
Don't say "hosts entries" because there is no regex support, I also run a site from my computer. 127.0.0.1 entries create crap logs full of 404.
Don't say 3rd party proxy/blockers, too troublesome to keep.
This is the only reason why I'm still on firefox and not opera. Right click, adblock this image (with a * at the end for great justice)
There is built in adblock for opera, but very troublesome, not documented and hard to use (needs editing ini files), also requires opera restart every time you make a change.
I'm caught between two views here:
Money may not make the world go 'round, but it sometimes seems that way.
On subject:
I recently had a corrupt harddisk so I had to reinstall everything... it happened to be right around the time of Opera's party so i installed it along with firefox to try it out again. I actually had bought Opera back in the day and used it exclusively except when sites required IE. Just normal browsing was fine in either of them... but I ran into things I wanted to change/addon with both. I knew how to do this with firefox and I knew exactly what I needed. (Small rant: are they EVER going to implement that feature to copy a list of currently installed extensions?!) So I install flashblock, menueditor, web developer, tamperdata, session saver and greasemonkey and I'm able to surf how I surf better in firefox, but it is more apt to crash with the extensions installed! I cannot think of the last time Opera ever crashed on me... but firefox is not apt to crash either without extensions.
So for me... with all of its failing, such as eatting memory like noone's business, I stay on firefox. I really don't care which one is better, I just want one that works like I want that doesn't suck too much.
>>92
Are the people who are going to use adblock likely to click on your ads in the first place? It is easy enough to set adblock to only hide the ads on sites you actually like and remove them from everywhere else... most of the time. I cannot say I have ever gone through my huge adblock list to actually do it though... but I never click on ads anyways and even if I -do- click on an ad just because i'm curious i'm certainly not going to buy anything. Am I doing you a favour by not killing your clickthrough rate just not having them displayed, or should I remove them and not give you impressions?
> are they EVER going to implement that feature to copy a list of currently installed extensions?!
Hell yes, that would make starting from scratch because of corrupted profiles so much easier!
> Am I doing you a favour by not killing your clickthrough rate just not having them displayed, or should I remove them and not give you impressions?
Whether there are ads or not is for the site admin to decide, not you.
Stop trying to rationalize your actions. I don't see ads either, other than google's, but I'm not pretending to be doing the sites I visit a service.
And pretty please, with a cherry on top, use paragraphs in the future.
> Whether there are ads or not is for the site admin to decide, not you.
What a weird conception you have of the internet.
If I don't want to see any ads, I won't.
Obviously not, but that makes you a freeloader.
Bandwidth isn't free. How many subscriptions are you paying this month?
Ysee, I am the same as >>93 in this regard, I wouldn't have clicked those ads or bought anything either way. They are just annoying to me.
Yes, I am a freeloader. So what? I am just a statistic in the ad-revenue anyway. It doesn't matter. Why make things complicated?
I also mute the TV whenever ads come on. Will Rupert Murdoch get on my ass for that?
> Will Rupert Murdoch get on my ass for that?
I'm sure he'd love to. Fortunately he can't (yet).
There's a big difference between TV and the internet though. TV is still a pure push medium. They don't for certain that you're watching, and neither do the people paying for the advertising. They're relying on hammering you with enough ads that familiarity will eventually cause you to buy their product. It's something of a religion in Madison Avenue (aren't the TV/newspaper/traditional media lucky, if only this were true for the intarweb too).
In other words, they pay on impressions, since they have a rough idea of the number of viewers. And they pay a lot.
On the internet, if you don't click an ad, they know. If an ad isn't clicked, the site won't get any revenue no matter what. Being seen isn't enough. As such, it's fundamentally different from TV. Also, sites don't scale as well as TV since the internet isn't a broadcast medium. So while freeloading on TV makes no difference (unless a sizeable number start doing it), freeloading on the internet does.
Blocking ads drops the chance you'll click from 0.01% to 0.00%. Not a large difference, but all those visitors add up. Ad blocking is a total tragedy of the commons in the making.
This is all a bit besides the point, and maybe we should debate it in another thread. I don't really care if you freeload (see >>92), but I find >>93's excuses troubling. If you're going to do something, say it like it is, Joe.
Well then, 100GET
And, in praise of mindless repetition of messages, let us all chant the heart sutra now:
MAKA HANNYA HARAMITA SHIN GYO
KAN JI ZAI BO SA GYO JIN HAN NYA HA RA MI TA JI SHO KEN GO UN KAI KU DO IS- SAI KU YAKU SHA RI SHI SHIKI FU I KU KU FU I SHIKI SHIKI SOKU ZE KU KU SOKU ZE SHIKI JU SO GYO SHIKI YAKU BU NYO ZE SHA RI SHI ZE SHO HO KU SO FU SHO FU METSU FU KU FU JO FU ZO FU GEN ZE KO KU CHU MU SHIKI MU JU SO GYO SHIKI MU GEN NI BI ZETS SHIN NI MU SHIKI SHO KO MI SOKU HO MU GEN KAI NAI SHI MU I SHIKI KAI MU MU MYO YAKU MU MU MYO JIN NAI SHI MU RO SHI YAKU MO RO SHI JIN MU KU SHU METSU DO MU CHI YAKU MU TOKU I MU SHO TOK- KO BO DAI SAT- TA E HAN- NYA HA RA MI TA KO SHIN MU KE GE MU KE GE KO MU U KU FU ON RI IS SAI TEN DO MU SO KU GYO NE HAN SAN ZE SHO BUTSU E HAN- NYA HA RA MI TA KO TOKU A NOKU TA RA SAN MYAKU SAN BO DAI KO CHI HAN- NYA HA RA MI TA ZE DAI SHIN SHU ZE DAI MYO SHU ZE MU JO SHU ZE MU TO DO SHU NO JO IS- SAI KU SHIN JITSU FU KO KO SETSU HAN- NYA HA RA MI TA SHU SOKU SETSU SHU WATSU GYA TE GYA TE HA RA GYA TE HARA SO GYA TE BO DHI SOWA KA HAN- NYA SHIN GYO
>>85
There are also these methods: http://nontroppo.org/wiki/BlockAdvertisements
On the internet, there needs to be a certain level of trust going both ways, I think. I understand both dmp2k's and anonymous's positions. I don't block normal web ads, as I rarely find them all that annoying or offensive. Sometimes one catches my eye and I click. I've never bought anything, but who knows? Maybe I will someday.
However, I want to ask you, dmp2k, if you have popup windows blocked. Most of the time, popup windows contain advertisements, so blocking them is just as "bad" as blocking normal in-page ads, no? But odds are you have them blocked because they are so damn annoying, as do I; they betray the trust I talked about above by making my web browser open a window without my permission. So I can't say I'm fully against the client being able to define the terms on which they will surf the web to a certain extent, and I doubt you could either.
Flash ads that play sound are a crime as well, but fortunately they're rare enough that I don't worry about 'em.
>>95
Asking questions is making excuses? Brilliant!
I suppose we should compel every person to click on every ad on every site they visit and purchase something! I also find it hilarious for you to ridicule me for doing something you yourself do.
If advertisements were not so invasive on some sites, did not use popups, did not appear on intersitial pages made only to serve adverts, were not made in flash to make lots of noise while completely slowing your browser to a halt, were not made floating so you cannot actually see the content without messing with the ads, and if I could trust all ad companies to not be DoubleClick I would be less inclined to block them.
> Asking questions is making excuses?
You must be new to the world. Leading questions and all that.
It certainly seems to me you're trying to explain away your actions. If the last paragraph of >>93 isn't rationalization, nothing is. >>105 is also full of more excuses (don't you ever get tired?).
You seem, my problem isn't with ad blocking, per se. As I stated in >>92, I see both sides of the issue. On the one hand, I don't like ads either. >>104 is quite right. I do block popups, and image ads never reach me. On the other hand, I spent a lot of time working on old IIchan, a site that lived and died by ad revenue. Literally.
What bothers me is the drivel in >>93. You make it sound like you're doing the site a service. No, you're not.
So anyway, I am using a build (1.0.6) from here (http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=80069) and it seems much faster than the normal build on my Pentium M.
Time to bump the drama thread!
I just tried out the beta of Opera 9 on OS X, and while the new interface is a definite improvement, it's still pretty blatant that the Opera team has no real interface designers.
The whole thing is skinned, and the default look is supposed to be "Macintosh native", but of course it isn't. Everything is subtly different. I keep getting these flashes of the "that's not right" feeling, which totally kills the smoothness of the interface. Icons look wrong, dialogs use the wrong kinds of windows, things are laid out differently than all other programs...
Furthermore, there are tons of these little things that just don't work well - for instance, there's a little tooltip-like popup that appears when you hover over a tab, which has a thumbnail of the page. This might be useful, except you have to hold your mouse pointer still over the tab for a second before it opens. In the same time, you could have clicked it, seen the contenst, and clicked elsewhere. The popup acts like it was supposed to stay open once it's appeared, so you could just run the mouse pointer over the tabs and see the contest of each, but this seems to only work in practice one time out of ten. So you end up hovering for a second over EACH tab you want to look at. This is clearly utterly useless.
User interface design is hard because it is so subtle. And I've not seen any version of Opera that gets the subtleties right. They get the big and easy features right, but not the details. Like the widgets they added (The first question here is "why?", but lets ignore that for now) - widgets in OS X work because they sit on a separate, hidden page that can be shown on command. Opera adds widget that just float around on the desktop, getting mixed up with regular windows, and looking generally out of place.
So I'm still not going to use it. It's just too ugly and unpleasant to use.
http://www.spreadinternetexplorer.com
The number of Firefox freaks taking this seriously is totally elloell.
Firefox already went 1.5.0.1 but the memory leaks haven't changed. Closing tabs still doesn't help. :(
>>109
LOL
Firefox really doesn't leak much memory. There is a problem with AdBlock and 1.5, use AdBlock plus
Also, people don't really understand what a memory leak is. Just because memory usage doesn't go down does not mean there is a memory leak. Memory fragmentation is a much bigger problem than memory leaks for a webbrowser that you never close.
Hell, just understanding what memory usage is is highly non-trivial these days. Most figures given are wildly inaccurate in various ways.
> The whole thing is skinned
This was one of my bigger annoyances in the transition from Opera6 -> Opera7. Instead of a light interface, they replaced it with some image-processing monster.
Some people claim they still test Opera on a 486. I don't believe it. Opera7's interface was sufficiently slow on my old 400MHz computer that I remained with Opera6 till the end.
Hell, I can run Firefox with 30 tabs open on a PII 266MHz/192MB PC100 RAM box with only about 8% CPU usage. Mem usage is a bit more iffy: it says only 12MB is available, but the graph only shows around 40% usage.
And that's WITH foobar2000, miranda-im, IRC, Kerio Firewall, and who knows what else open.
Safari > *
>>114
Take your CPU meter and watch what what happens if you run your mouse over the menus quickly. Firefox isn't a picture; you interact with it.
On my old machine Firefox's UI was a lot slower than even Opera7. The menus were usually quite a distance behind the cursor. The wonders of using javascript in a UI...
Sure, I could use Opera7 on a 486, but I don't think I'd like it at all. Do you enjoy playing an FPS at 3 frames per second?
I use Firefox but I have never tried Opera. At least, don't ever choose Internet Explorer! It's bad for your health (and your PC's health, of course)!
Imho, Opera is history. The fact that so many FF adopters are creating plugins for it just shows how configurable/adaptable/functional FF is.
I hope I address a question posed by >>17, FF can increase # of connections. I've set mine to 30. go to about:config and change network.http.pipelining.maxrequests to however many you want. There are plugins that do this for you.
With enough patience, (and learning) you can configure practically everything you want.
Using FF in Zenwalk Linux 2.4
network.http.max-persistent-connections-per-server
value set to 35.
If you think that FF is too slow then try Kazehakase. It is based on the same engine and has some neat and useful features, but it is more nice to resources.
No Adblock, opera dies.
>>122
you should check out opera 9... adblock, xslt, passes acid2 test...
the only bad thing about it that i've noticed so far: "widgets"
You can use Opera Ad Filter for 8.*.
the founder of Opera is openly a furry. I read it on slashdot.
Acid2 doesn't matter much to users. Acid2 matters immensely to developers.
Blocking ads drops the chance of clicking an add from 0.00% to 0.00%, the people that block ads are the ones that don't want them, and you know what? Your return quota wont be disturbed at all.
Funny thing, the demographic that clicks on ads is a perfect subset of the demographic that can't blocks ads, or tell their foot from their mouth for that matter.
The site admin can decide what to publish but he can't decide what people are going to see, he can't take decisions for them. If you believe so then I decide you should pay me 1,000,000,000Yen, don't want to? Then goto freeloader hell!
I find myself clicking on google ads when i surf a certain website and i feel like the author deserves it for his efforts.
>>121
Kazehakase = weeabrowser.
>>121
Its GUI is unfortunately so ugly that I can't use it. If I were to move away from the fox, I'd go for Epiphany.
The site admin can decide what to publish but he can't decide what people are going to see, he can't take decisions for them. If you believe so then I decide you should pay me 1,000,000,000Yen, don't want to? Then goto freeloader hell!
The site admin can decide what to publish but he can't decide what people are going to see, he can't take decisions for them. If you believe so then I decide you should pay me 1,000,000,000Yen, don't want to? Then goto freeloader hell!