On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 09:36:34PM +0100, frantisek holop wrote:
> hmm, on Sun, Dec 07, 2008 at 09:26:24PM +0100, Hannah Schroeter said that
> > For me it feels a little bit less slow and not more memory hungry than
> > ff2 always was (ff2 was/is a beast and on my a bit slower home box I
> > began moving over to konqueror again, which is fast even though I don't
> > use kde otherwise - even faster than ff3 on my faster work box).
>
> but get this. if you have a slow (like the eee) machine, why not
> give opera a try? yes, even in linux emulation it beats ff{2,3}
> hands down absolutely. it takes a bit of using to, but actually
> it is much better than ff in many respects. i often hear the plugin
> argument against, but if one doesn't want really esoteric stuff, it's
> a breeze: e.g. i copied the adblock list into .opera/urlfilter.ini
> and it's the same. (but i did a fair amount of web development so
> firebug is the only thing i keep firefox for still around.)
>
> and get this: opera in openbsd's linux emulation is more stable than
> the linux version i used on the eeepc. i never needed to kill it
> on openbsd, on linux the pluginwrapper chokes all the time. it's crazy.
>
> opera is just miles away from firefox. at least now it is.
>
> -f
> --
> madam i'm adam.
>
>
I am trying opera and I am amazed by the performance, it's considerably faster
than ff3, and I have no more those tremendous lags disturbing me.
I was stucked with ff3 for the `vimperator' but I found a little plugin called
`vimperopera' that helps a lot with the opera navigation.
Thanks.
