On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 01:42:45PM -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote: > On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 18:58:18 +0200 > David <[email protected]> wrote: [...] > > and opera, meh, it's opera. > > I completely agree, but at least it isn't IE or *shudder* Chrome. I > had been using Arora instead of Opera for awhile, it showed a lot of > promise, but it's kinda half-finished and a little crashy, and dev on > it seemed to have mostly stopped last I checked.
Sigh... I long for the good ole days of Opera 2, which *used* to be the cleanest, fastest, least crash-prone, least resource-hogging browser back in the day. I still use Opera as my main browser 'cos it still has the best UI for me (I've tweaked it to my heart's content -- it lets you do that -- and the built-in per-domain-suffix JS/cookie/popup settings are a lifesaver for me), but gone are the days of being cleanest, fastest, least crash-prone, and least resource-hogging. :-( Its memory usage is particularly annoying these days, and I frequently find it disk-bound even when I'm not doing anything. I wish the devs would focus more on solidifying the core browser and tune it up like the good ole days, instead of wasting time on peripheral things that I don't even care about, like mobile syncing, email, chatroom, cloud, etc. (why it is that browsers these days are obsessed with feeping creaturism until they become a poorly-reimplemented standalone *OS*, I will never understand). T -- If you compete with slaves, you become a slave. -- Norbert Wiener
