![]() |
|
|
|
|
#1 |
|
look at that hat
Posts: 4,520
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I don't know what you guys are basing your opinions on but I have yet to find a benchmark yet that says that Opera 9.5 uses less resources/memory than Firefox 3.
I love Opera, and if it were as lightweight and as quick as Firefox 3 is, I'd use that. But let's not kid ourselves here. |
|
|
|
|
#2 | |
|
Ron Paul 4 EVA
Posts: 152,467
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Quote:
But yeah, I've read a lot about Mozilla's speed in 3, and that it and Safari are comparable (And both tops), but I wasn't sure about resource intensive. |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
He's Here
Posts: 60,735
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Except I use FF2, mostly because of a few key addons.
I find FF2 on my system slow as fuck and find Opera more responsive, though I've only messed with it a little bit so longer sessions may give worse results. Just going by what I've heard. Also haven't tried FF3 since the second or so beta but it was the same problem as 2. Sure, FF is more responsive and less of a resource hog than IE, but that doesn't make it efficient. If it weren't for the addons I'd dump Mozilla in a heartbeat. They pretty much fucked it up somewhere after 2.0. |
|
|
|
|
#4 | |
|
Ron Paul 4 EVA
Posts: 152,467
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
BAY BAY
Posts: 36,524
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
FF3 still uses more memory for me. Viewing this page in FF3 RC2 compared to Opera it's using up 50 more megs of RAM and processing power goes up higher when rendering as well. This is a Firefox with no add-ons as well.
Not that it bothers me. I love Firefox and will never use anything else, but it still steals your RAM. |
|
|