Bundy a dit : > Pascal Chevrel authored the following: > >> >> >> Bundy a dit : >> >>> grayrest authored the following: >>> >>>> Colin Blake wrote: >>>> >>>>> Can someone on a fast machine count up how many lines of C, C++, XUL, >>>>> JavaScript, etc Mozilla is now? >>>>> >>>> >>>> a lot :] >>>> >>>> grayrest >>>> >>> >>> Around 10meg+ WITHOUT JAVA or Plugins >>> >>> Opera 3.5meg and 11meg with JAVA!! >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Kyle >>> >>> >> >> Kyle, you are really pathetic. Although Opera 6 is a fine browser, it >> cannot be compare size-wise with mozilla until it includes a mail&news >> module, an IRC client, a javascript profiler and a webpage editor. >> >> Pascal >> >> > > BLOATWARE ALERT!!!! > > IRC Client = bloatware and will never make it to a NS build. It's a > horrible IRC client to boot, anyone that uses IRC uses MIRC. BTW-It's an > option to download in Mozilla and adds on top of the 10meg+ download.
Many mozilla users use it, if people use it, it is by definition useful. > > Webpage Editor = bloatware - should be the users choice to download in > the first place. everybody knows, it's a piece of shit. Same comment as the one for the IRC client. furthermore, your opinion are purely based on prejudices and not on facts. If you want to be taken for a reasonnable person and not an idiot, you should really base your opinions on facts. Didn't they tell you at school that "this is a piece of shit" is not > > Javascript profiler - bloatware, only geeks will ever use that. I use it, I guess I am a geek then. > > > Opera does include a mail/news client. > It's email client is pretty good. > It's news client is horrible. I guess that it is pure provocation from your part, Opera mail client totally lacks of ergonomy and features. You can't even create sub-folders or create HTML messages. The only feature really worth of interest in opera mail is manual filtering. > > Opera is a superior web browser to Mozilla. (just compare the > back/forward speed vs Mozilla)and unlike MOzilla, it is an end user > product. And it does this using far less memory than Mozilla. Opera does not support the DOM and its javascript capabilities are limited. Its CSS support, although very good, isn't as complete as mozilla's. back/forward speed is indeed better in Opera but when you use tabs you almost never use back/forward. Being and "end-user" browser to justificate "superiority" is simply a dumb argument : with this logic, windows 98 being an end user OS is superior to Windows NT ? > > Easier to change settings on the fly with Opera Yeah, it's like 2 clicks for Opera and 3 clicks for Mozilla. If you really change your usual settings that often, you can add an optional mozilla preference toolbar to get a one click access to the most common settings and "beat" Opera. Not a big deal. http://www.xulplanet.com/downloads/view.cgi?category=applications&view=prefbar > Faster loading pages Wrong > WAY faster using the back/forward buttons You already said it > Uses far, far less memory True and this is why I advise it for older machines. But with every new Opera release, the program gets bigger and memory-hungry. When opera has all of Mozilla features it will use at least as much memory. > Can be run on slow computers like a 486 Opera 6 is NOT usable on a 486. Opera4/5 was but that's history. > Tons more skins/themes (if you care about such petty things) XUL is far more powerful than the BMP skinning Opera uses. Ever heard of cross-platform UI ? > A much better and leaner support staff who doesn't have the hate MS at > all cost attitude. thus a browser is technically better than others because the support staff share your opinion about Microsoft ? Thank you for this gem :-))) > > and on and on and on and on........ Could you be more specific and list some major features Opera enjoys and Mozilla not ? Pascal
