This IS NOT Flame-baiting about Opera vs. FF...

[moore.bryan]

i've scoured the net and searched these forums. few, if any, people claim ff is "faster" than opera, but many opera users claim it IS faster AND uses less memory. interested, i installed both on three machines chosen at random... okay, so they weren't really random, but they are three different machines. one is running linux, the other two windows (one xp, one 2000). on all three, opera used TWICE as much memory and was HALF as slow rendering pages.

i'm not looking at an "FF rox" or "die you piece of ****" response... what i AM looking for are some possible explanations as to why this could happen on three "randomly" chosen machines, but be different for, what seems to be, 90% of users...

[bailout]

I use Opera for features rather than speed. I doubt whether there is really much difference btw any of them if you have a decent connection tbh. From the complaints about ff I have seen it seems that the mem use builds up and it slows down with long usage. Also I think once lots of extensions are added then the mem may increase but as I donb't use I can't say for sure.

I imagine it is a bit like those people who claim that gnome is much faster than kde or vice versa ;)

[moore.bryan]

which features? i see a lot of folk use the mouse gestures, but i never saw the use in them...

gnome is faster...
;-)

[wolfen69]

a much more scientific comparison: http://youtube.com/watch?v=1Z5U6rTcwZ8 the only time opera wasnt faster was on a mac(safari is optomized for mac? what a surprise!)

next time, do a real comparison, like the guy in the video did. or close your piehole.

[starcraft.man]

which features? i see a lot of folk use the mouse gestures, but i never saw the use in them...

gnome is faster...
;-)


Honestly, I think this whole "opera is faster" business is just like GNOME v KDE (like bailout said). I haven't seen any appreciable difference in load times for Firefox to opera on my ol p4, or even with my clean Firefox to when I loaded 20 extensions including a theme change (which apparently just changing theme slows down FF???). I haven't seen any slow down, maybe I am blind...

I use Firefox cuz its FLOSS (Free and open source), got my favourite theme (NoiaX ftw) and has the best extensions/support/functions I've seen. Not to mention, I don't really want to support something thats closed source and proprietary even if its free... thats why I'm using Linux.

You know something I find odd is I see a lot of people say they are willing to use Opera on Linux/Ubuntu because it "just works well/has better features and is faster" even though its closed source and yet I can't help but wonder because this is the same argument Mac (especially them with "just works") and Windows users use... just a puzzling thought. I don't wanna start an argument just something I've observed.

Edit: LOL @ Wolfen, now youtube vids are considered scientific proof. :p

Oh and before this thread goes anywhere else... *exits, stage left*

[Adamant1988]

i've scoured the net and searched these forums. few, if any, people claim ff is "faster" than opera, but many opera users claim it IS faster AND uses less memory. interested, i installed both on three machines chosen at random... okay, so they weren't really random, but they are three different machines. one is running linux, the other two windows (one xp, one 2000). on all three, opera used TWICE as much memory and was HALF as slow rendering pages.

i'm not looking at an "FF rox" or "die you piece of ****" response... what i AM looking for are some possible explanations as to why this could happen on three "randomly" chosen machines, but be different for, what seems to be, 90% of users...


On my system opera is a significantly smaller footprint and memory usage. The ONLY reason I'm still using FireFox is that opera doesn't take advantage of many sites that I visit in a friendly manner (flash-video and such), it also improperly rendered pages while it was loading (bug).

What really slows down Opera and your system is when you start running a lot of widgets through it.

[moore.bryan]

unfortunately, the video won't play for me... it's probably my work machine/proxy, but i'll check it at home.

my "real" comparison was by stopwatch and cpu-monitor on linux, task manager on windows. afaik, that's fairly "scientific." however, because of your response, i can encourage you to reread the title for the thread.

[moore.bryan]

On my system opera is a significantly smaller footprint and memory usage. The ONLY reason I'm still using FireFox is that opera doesn't take advantage of many sites that I visit in a friendly manner (flash-video and such), it also improperly rendered pages while it was loading (bug).

What really slows down Opera and your system is when you start running a lot of widgets through it.
do you have any insight as to why the smaller "footprint" would be the case?

[moore.bryan]

Honestly, I think this whole "opera is faster" business is just like GNOME v KDE
i completely agree... that's why i wasn't looking for a "one is better than the other," just for some input as to why it is/is not the case.

You know something I find odd is I see a lot of people say they are willing to use Opera on Linux/Ubuntu because it "just works well/has better features and is faster" even though its closed source and yet I can't help but wonder because this is the same argument Mac (especially them with "just works") and Windows users use... just a puzzling thought. I don't wanna start an argument just something I've observed.
i've also found that odd. when i opened a thread about it, the most convincing argument dealt with how few ubuntu-ers are actually completely foss, with the whole nvidia-thing and all...

[Adamant1988]

do you have any insight as to why the smaller "footprint" would be the case?

Admittedly not, I don't study my browsers for speed, I compare features and then determine if the speed is at a usable level or not. Benchmarks for browsers don't effect me and I don't consider them to be relevant. On a feature level Opera is stronger than FireFox, I can say that.

[Adamant1988]

i completely agree... that's why i wasn't looking for a "one is better than the other," just for some input as to why it is/is not the case.

i've also found that odd. when i opened a thread about it, the most convincing argument dealt with how few ubuntu-ers are actually completely foss, with the whole nvidia-thing and all...

Which is a completely relevant argument actually. I absolutely would use Opera if it functioned the way I wanted it to, but with flash it's known to be kind of buggy. to be honest I find that Safari is a better browser, and I enjoy it thoroughly.

[moore.bryan]

Admittedly not, I don't study my browsers for speed, I compare features and then determine if the speed is at a usable level or not. Benchmarks for browsers don't effect me and I don't consider them to be relevant. On a feature level Opera is stronger than FireFox, I can say that.
as i asked someone before, what features draw you to opera? opera users are always saying just what you said, but i've never been able to get a straight answer...
:-0

[wolfen69]

Admittedly not, I don't study my browsers for speed, I compare features and then determine if the speed is at a usable level or not. Benchmarks for browsers don't effect me and I don't consider them to be relevant. On a feature level Opera is stronger than FireFox, I can say that.

you mean FF isnt better with its 18 million add-ons? lol

[starcraft.man]

i've also found that odd. when i opened a thread about it, the most convincing argument dealt with how few ubuntu-ers are actually completely foss, with the whole nvidia-thing and all...

LOL! That's a weak argument to use in favour of Opera. Just cuz I can't be completely FLOSS (I prefer adding the L btw, for Libre, is more precise than free) means I shouldn't try my hardest with the best/functional alternatives that are FLOSS. That's a quitters attitude it sounds like, at least it sounds like to me.

In addition, it seems hardly the same. Graphics drivers offer many "essential" (to some) features (gaming, direct rendering, etc...) that you simply can't get with an open alternative (nouveau isn't there yet unfortunately). I don't think Opera has invented a feature that is essential to browsing and exclusive, that Firefox hasn't coded/made an extension for.

Anyway, I'll just go back to helping people this thread isn't likely to go anywhere :p.

Oh and what feature does Opera have that Firefox is missing (like others asked)? Please don't say the torrent client... I use Ktorrent.

[WalmartSniperLX]

Opera will use as much memory as it can to speed up the browser. Whenever the system needs more resources, it will release resources. Much like how Linux uses as up much RAM for cache but releases enough of it when programs need it.

As far as the speed in my real time experience, Opera has always been MUCH faster than FF.

[Adamant1988]

you mean FF isnt better with its 18 million add-ons? lol

Yeah, but then you get into a cost v benefit argument, which isn't the reason behind this thread.

Firefox can be made nearly impossible to switch from, all it takes it one extension that re-shapes the way you look at the Web and it no longer matters how fast it is.

[Sunflower1970]

On my old PII Opera *is* faster. Faster at everything. Starting up, loading pages, transferring files.

I've timed it. Takes Firefox 26 seconds to open, and Opera 17. On my two faster computers I don't notice any difference between the programs.

[Adamant1988]

as i asked someone before, what features draw you to opera? opera users are always saying just what you said, but i've never been able to get a straight answer...
:-0


Opera has included some of the features that I actually use extensions, or other applications for:
BitTorrent support.
Pausing transfers (and having it actually work)
Built in IRC and email client.
Built in functional (and good) RSS reader
Extremely customizable.
Mouse-Gestures, etc.

[WalmartSniperLX]

Opera has included some of the features that I actually use extensions, or other applications for:
BitTorrent support.
Pausing transfers (and having it actually work)
Built in IRC and email client.
Built in functional (and good) RSS reader
Extremely customizable.
Mouse-Gestures, etc.

Yeah and that's one reason, other than speed, that I like opera more. It has a lot of useful features built in. :D

[FyreBrand]

Yeah, but then you get into a cost v benefit argument, which isn't the reason behind this thread.

Firefox can be made nearly impossible to switch from, all it takes it one extension that re-shapes the way you look at the Web and it no longer matters how fast it is.That is exactly what's relevant for me. I like Opera and it does a fine job, but I'm a Google user and the integration with Firefox keeps me using it. Google Browser Sync and Notebook are core to me.

[moore.bryan]

now we're getting somewhere! like i said initially, i'm wondering if any of you can speculate as to WHY opera runs faster on "all" of your systems, but not the three chosen at random by me. i'm not suggesting opera ISN'T faster; rather, i'm more interested in why my experience seems the aberrant one.

[Adamant1988]

now we're getting somewhere! like i said initially, i'm wondering if any of you can speculate as to WHY opera runs faster on "all" of your systems, but not the three chosen at random by me. i'm not suggesting opera ISN'T faster; rather, i'm more interested in why my experience seems the aberrant one.

I think the way that opera makes itself faster is all in the details, things that you and I will never be able to see. Therefor any speculation is pointless.

[moore.bryan]

the speculation i'm looking for is to the reasons why it runs faster on seemingly every other computer except for the three i chose. i may try a fourth, but he may get angry...
:-)

[runningwithscissors]

Firefox on Linux is crap.

But on Windows:
Firefox: 1) free-of-cost 2) open source
Opera: 1) free-of-cost

Hence, Firefox > Opera

[Adamant1988]

Firefox on Linux is crap.

But on Windows:
Firefox: 1) free-of-cost 2) open source
Opera: 1) free-of-cost

Hence, Firefox > Opera

Being open source is truly only a benefit if you're a person who wants to get involved on it and hack on it.

[moore.bryan]

Firefox on Linux is crap.
any rationale or just wanted to share with the class?

[hummingbird59]

Just my two cents - but like Sunflower1970, Opera is faster on my six year old computer but only running XP. WIth Linux, it is super slow even with no widgets. There is even a blip on Operas forum about "some" (not all mind you) people having this problem running Linux. So, someone explain that please...(Please leave out the comments about ignorance of user bc some very bright people I know are having this problem not just me).:lolflag:

[Adamant1988]

any rationale or just wanted to share with the class?

Well, I know that when you get on Linux your options for browsers open up wide. Personally, I prefer Konquerer as a browser to firefox OR opera, but it can't load up any site that uses javascript properly.

[runningwithscissors]

Being open source is truly only a benefit if you're a person who wants to get involved on it and hack on it.
Not really. Considering open source as a positive trait of any software is just a way of providing encouragement to the developer who chose to share his code, and a way of showing support for his decision to do so. If not me, someone else may benefit from it.
I've modified free software for use at work, and learnt lots from it. More free software is always a good thing.


any rationale or just wanted to share with the class?Better options exist(Konqueror) on Linux. I heard even Epiphany is coming along nicely and is way lighter than Firefox.

[Dynaflow]

I have found Opera to be much faster than Firefox in Windows (and much less evil than IE, proprietary or not), and since I've had to go back and forth between Windows and Linux quite a bit in the past, I have preferred to use Opera in Linux too, just to have a consistent, friendly interface.

Now that my computers are full-time Linux'ed out, I suppose that the only thing that keeps me from using Firefox is habit and a few core features I like that are already built into Opera and don't require me to go looking for add-ons. Speed dial is one feature I really like, as are some of the wigets that I find myself using from time to time. Flash video in Opera is awful, and occasionally fonts will render strangely, but I've only seen these problems on the Linux version of Opera. If necessary, I'll just open a Firefox window to go to Youtube and such.

As for the ideological implications of using closed source software, I'm by no means a purist. I'll use open-source software if it meets my needs as well as -- or better than -- its more expensive proprietary counterparts. That is why I use Linux in the first place. Opera is free-as-in-beer, it works better for me personally in most of the web browsing I do than the competition, and using it is still supporting the "little guys," even if they won't go open source. Using Opera and other "uncommon" proprietary browsers is still encouraging diversity in the marketplace, and so is a good thing for web browsers overall in the long run. As long as Opera stays free and nothing magnificently better comes along, I'll continue to use my trusty Norweigan web browser into the indefinite future.

[starcraft.man]

Firefox can be made nearly impossible to switch from, all it takes it one extension that re-shapes the way you look at the Web and it no longer matters how fast it is.

Very true. It does have some excellent extensions that I haven't found anywhere else and thus I don't feel any desire to switch, I equally didn't really care how fast pages load before I used firefox long as it was reasonable. Funny thing is the biggest limit on how fast pages load for me is probably my ISP... I don't have the best connection...


Opera has included some of the features that I actually use extensions, or other applications for:
BitTorrent support. - I use Ktorrent, never liked built in torrents of any kind. IMO the client should always be separate.
Pausing transfers (and having it actually work) - Downthemall, excellent download manager (with resume support) with good integration and it hasn't caused me any slow down.
Built in IRC and email client. - Firefox definitely has that one click away, chatzilla is decent and there are other options. I personally like torrents like a separate chat client.
Built in functional (and good) RSS reader - Won't even bother, Firefox has enough of those to meet anyones needs. The built in one works fine enough for me.
Extremely customizable. - I don't think anything has more skins/extensions than Firefox, its not much of a point IMO, at worst they are equal with customization.
Mouse-Gestures, etc. - I never liked that, I've used it in firefox and quickly removed it. We have multiple very good extensions for that though.

I answered in red. I guess Opera really doesn't have a reason to use it other than the (minor/negligible on my comp) speed advantage and the fact that its all in the package for those who don't want to go and try different extensions. Oh well, I guess its settled for me then, I guess there really isn't any argument for using it over Firefox.


Firefox on Linux is crap.

But on Windows:
Firefox: 1) free-of-cost 2) open source
Opera: 1) free-of-cost

Hence, Firefox > Opera

I agree with your last statement but Firefox is certainly not crap on Linux, I and many other users use it constantly... I don't see any difference with it from the years (since early 1.5 beta) I've used it on Windows. Use what best suits ya though.

Anyway, bottom line I guess I was right when I shot down the NVidia arguement two pages ago, there really isn't anything that makes Opera on Linux that much better than Firefox or essential to Linux users (as for speed difference on older machines, I guess thats valid, but that would have to be one seriously old machine I guess, firefox runs flawlessly on my 5-6 year old p4). Oh well, out of this thread I go.

[Adamant1988]

Very true. It does have some excellent extensions that I haven't found anywhere else and thus I don't feel any desire to switch, I equally didn't really care how fast pages load before I used firefox long as it was reasonable. Funny thing is the biggest limit on how fast pages load for me is probably my ISP... I don't have the best connection...



I answered in red. I guess Opera really doesn't have a reason to use it other than the (minor/negligible on my comp) speed advantage and the fact that its all in the package for those who don't want to go and try different extensions. Oh well, I guess its settled for me then, I guess there really isn't any argument for using it over Firefox.



I agree with your last statement but Firefox is certainly not crap on Linux, I and many other users use it constantly... I don't see any difference with it from the years (since early 1.5 beta) I've used it on Windows. Use what best suits ya though.

Anyway, bottom line I guess I was right when I shot down the NVidia arguement two pages ago, there really isn't anything that makes Opera on Linux that much better than Firefox (as for speed difference on older machines, I guess thats valid, but that would have to be one seriously old machine I guess). Oh well, out of this thread I go.

Did you bother to read what I posted? I said very clearly that that was functionality I used extensions or other programs to get that opera gave me OOTB.

[starcraft.man]

Did you bother to read what I posted? I said very clearly that that was functionality I used extensions or other programs to get that opera gave me OOTB.

Ya. I just wanted to actually give examples of those extensions/apps that I use. I'm not blind yet, I was just trying to say that for me there is simply no reason I can't use my extensions and apps for that and thus no reason for me to support/use a proprietary product :).

Anyway, thats it for this thread really this time... Back to helping new folks and then supper.

[Extreme Coder]

The reason I will NEVER use Firefox on Linux for a long time(prolly until ff3, see if it improves or not), is the fact that the FF team treats Linux like a second-class citizen.
I tried FF on a friend's Windows machine the other day, and even though his PC was slower than mine, his Firefox was twice as fast as mine. While I don't have the evidence to prove this, I know what I felt.
Plus, I want you to have a guess at what the buttons in Firefox(in web pages, for example "Post Quick Reply" button) are taken from. Here's a hint: Vista is very similar to it.

[starcraft.man]

The reason I will NEVER use Firefox on Linux for a long time(prolly until ff3, see if it improves or not), is the fact that the FF team treats Linux like a second-class citizen.
I tried FF on a friend's Windows machine the other day, and even though his PC was slower than mine, his Firefox was twice as fast as mine. While I don't have the evidence to prove this, I know what I felt.


LOL! Well, if you want second class treatment go see how ATI treats its customers, and they have a huge base THAT PAYS, Mozilla is a billion times better than that. There is much worse support than what Mozilla gives Linux, IMO its acceptable they code a fully functional version. The simple fact is WIndows is 90% of the market share and Mac is 5% and Linux (all of em) are the other 5%, they prioritize like any other software firm out there. Oh and I've never seen this magical slowdown.


Plus, I want you to have a guess at what the buttons in Firefox(in web pages, for example "Post Quick Reply" button) are taken from. Here's a hint: Vista is very similar to it.

You seriously don't know what your talking about.
Vista Desktop. (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/55/Windows_Vista_Desktop.png)
Here is the default Theme of Firefox 2. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mozilla_Firefox_2.0.0.2.png)
Here is my theme. (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/72)
Neither look anything like Vista IMO.

Buttons coded in websites look like whatever the person who coded them/made them wanted them to look like. Thats not Firefox.

I have to get to cooking now, adios folks till after supper.

[Extreme Coder]

I was hinting at ME(since Vista is called ME2) but apparently you didn't get it ;)
And yeah, ATI is even worse, I know that.

For example, look at the post quick reply button at the end of the page. In KDE's Konqueror for example, the button is drawn to the KDE theme, just like all buttons all over KDE are. In Opera, the way the button looks, changes with the theme. Bu In Firefox, the button is still that Windows 9x style :/

[Alpha_toxic]

In windows opera is way faster than anything else and it shows. Just load Digg.com. Many people complain that the site "loads slow" but this is not the case if you are using opera. I'm talking about less than 5 seconds to COMPLETELlY load a digg page with more than 200 comments on it. After this the back/forward buttons work INSTANTLY.

In linux there are many more variables to take into acount. There are 3 different linux builds, each one compiled in a different way. 2 of those use shared libraries, one uses static. Those builds will perform in a completely different way on different setups. Also significant - Opera uses QT while most ubuntu users as we know use Gnome and in gnome opera takes way more ram off_the_bat than in KDE and will also start slower due to the libraries it needs to load.

As for not being OS... I don't care actually. I don't use Linux because it is OS, but because IT WORKS. This is just a tool that is supposed to get a job done. Linux does it for me, so I use it, same for Opera. Being OS is a plus, but not that much of a plus to make me use software that does not get the job done for me...

[screaminj3sus]

I love using opera in windows, but in linux I can't stand it, the fonts and the Menu's look absolutely horrible, and the tab scrolling with the nouse whell has been messed up in every distro I've used it with.

[moore.bryan]

once again, i return to my reason for the thread and point-out almost everyone here claims opera is "faster" and yet it IS slower AND more resource-intensive on all three of my "random" machines. does ANYONE have any idea why that could be?
:-)
awesome comments, by the way... i'm a little intrigued by some nods to konquerer...

[Alpha_toxic]

Perhaps I have missed it, but I did not see the exact specs of the machines you use, nor the exact versions of Opera and FF nor any other info about the method you used for testing. Any response will be just a shot in the air...

here is how it is done properly
http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/browserSpeed.html
unfortunatelly not update for some time now :(

btw, you should also try using Opera and FF in KDE and see how FF realy lags behind

btw2. why are you writing with italic?

[argie]

I use konqueror, but for back-forward navigation Opera is the best. You can notice the difference on a slow connection, the other browsers seem to 'load' the page again. Opera doesn't do that (on my computer, atleast) . That's real useful stuff right there.

Strangely, for me, Opera in GNOME takes ages to start and when it does I can see the window and its contents 'being made'. It's weird. I have 256 MB RAM. On a slower computer, it seems better, but I can't exactly notice what it is, just 'feels smoother'. And switching between tabs is much easier too.

[moore.bryan]

Perhaps I have missed it, but I did not see the exact specs of the machines you use, nor the exact versions of Opera and FF nor any other info about the method you used for testing. Any response will be just a shot in the air...
the specs should be irrelevant if the "issue" is reproducible on three different machines running three different os's... one is a dell dimension desktop, with a 1.8ghz processor and 1gb ram, running ubuntu feisty; one is a gateway solo 1450 laptop, with a 1.7ghz processor and 128mb ram, running xp; and the other is a gateway small-form desktop, with a 2.0ghz processor and 512mb ram, running 2000.

btw, you should also try using Opera and FF in KDE and see how FF realy lags behind
kde's always run slow for me, so i don't use it... sorry...

btw2. why are you writing with italic?
always have... i think i started doing it so it'd be easier for me to read.

[moore.bryan]

here is how it is done properly
http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/browserSpeed.html
unfortunatelly not update for some time now :(
yeah, i've seen this... it's what initially made me try-out opera...

[moore.bryan]

a lot of our talk here inspired me to do some baseline testing, again... this time i found a better browser speed tester (http://network.msu.edu/public/speedtest.html) and came-up with some interesting answers which could lead to something cool.

as you can see in the picks, k-meleon (http://kmeleon.sourceforge.net/) was the fastest, at an average of 3.27 seconds to download a 2mb chunk, minefield (aka firefox 3.0, http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/latest-trunk/) was second at ~4.85 seconds, and opera (http://www.opera.com/download/get.pl) was last with an average of ~12.57 seconds.

what i found interesting was not that opera came in last, but that it was slower on the network; both k-meleon and minefield averaged around 4.3mbps, but opera clocked-in at a whopping 1.3mbps.

does anyone have an idea what could have caused this? before you begin writing rants about the "scientific"-ness of my tests, i performed it on the gateway laptop previously mentioned and flushed the cache and all temp files prior to the tests.

[moore.bryan]

k-meleon test pics...

[moore.bryan]

minefield test pics...

[moore.bryan]

opera test pics...

[Alpha_toxic]

Those are your results?!?! O_o

Don't get me wrong, but I realy thought we are measuring how fast your browser RENDERS and not how fast your connection is!! All that test does is to download a single file and measure the speed of your internet connection. Why Opera seems to be slower when downloading? I have no idea at all. Perhaps the other browsers try to use multiple simultaneous connections or sth like that or Opera just takes a bit longer to report that the file has been downloaded but this has NOTHING to do with actual browser speed.

For proper tests you need a bunch of pre-made HUGE pages. Some with extensive use of javascrip, some with CSS some with tables, some with lots of images. They need to be ON YOUR COMPUTER, or you will be testing your internet connection. The files need to be big enough so it takes at least 5-6 seccond for the fastest tested browser to render them, so you can measure with a stop watch. Then you try several different scenarios of browser usage and cache handling and only after that you can have some actual results about browsers' speeds.

This is why I initially said that digg.com loads fast - cause this page is very heavy on javascript and to some extent can be used for such tests (well, it is in fact much better test than yours...). And this is why I wanted to know what methods of testing you are using.

[Warpnow]

Heh. Yeah...he spent a lot of time on a useless test. Take that test over and over. Most net connections vary alot and will be different each time.

This is why I use opera:

It looks simple until you access features. The Streamline UI is nice.
I've never, not once, experience a bug with it. Been using it 3 years.
Widgets are neat.
Transfers is very nice.
I like the way bookmarks are done.
I can leave myself notes.
Mouse guestures save lots of time.
Built in torrent, IRC and RSS as good as any external ones I've found.
Tells me when a site has fraudulent content.
I can block ads in forums.
Spell Check is built in for forums/blogs/email/whatever
I love the original skin, but the others on the site are cool, too.
Voice control is fun, haha. :D
Lots of toolbars to activate/deactivate
It seems faster
Its W3C compliant with very strict CSS compliance

[moore.bryan]

i did this test in conjunction with my stopwatch test previously mentioned. in NONE of the cases did opera either download OR render quicker. i like opera and that's why i want to figure-out why it seems to SUCK on all three machines to which i have access.
:-)

[moore.bryan]

i'm also wondering why opera is using my network less efficiently than anything else... why would that be?

[Warpnow]

This from the guy who thinks that speed tests indicate browser speed.

Rendering tests must be done locally or onn a wired remote server in a controlled enviroment...

[moore.bryan]

my rendering tests were done locally, with 12 saved 1.2gb pages, on a closed computer. the browser download tests were completed to see how browsers worked on using networks to their full potential. don't assume.
;-)