While Google's new Chrome web browser has been met with a lot of praise and positive responses (well, mostly, at least), there has been one nagging issue that arose quite quickly after people got their hands on Chrome: the End User License Agreement accompanying the browser. It more or less granted Google the rights to everything seen or transmitted through the browser. Google now changed the EULA, saying it was a big case of woopsiedoopsie.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2008-09-04
Member since:2007-08-20
Member since:2007-02-05
Opera certainly isn't bloated program-wise. If I remember correctly Opera take up less space than vanilla Firefox.
Anyway, the interface is bloated. There's too much options, too much choices, too many menu items.
Opera is the Photoshop of browsers. You can do a thousand things, and all those things you can do in a number of ways.
Now this isn't all bad, and has a lot to do with philosophy. Opera has a philosohpy to provide everyone, *including* powerusers with whatever capability they want.. right out of the box.
And they're very good at it!
Personally I've come to not like this philosophy, but I can't deny that Opera kicks ass at implementing it.
Firefox on the other hand has the philosophy that things should be simple and not overwhelm. That the "base" should only satisify normal users. (And let's face it, most uf here at OSnews are not normal users. We're geeks!) And then provide capability to extend instead.
That being said: I know a number of novices that use Opera. (And no: they don't use ANY of the power-user features, or are aware that they actually have a mail-client, IRC-client and a bitorren client.)
Member since:2005-07-06
There is a _big_ difference between the addons support in Firefox and Opera: the addon support doesn't make the browser itself bloated, the base is fairly clean and easy, and you only add functionality you want, and you can disable or uninstall them anytime. Basically any user can add their favourite addons and make the browser to their liking. I can't do that with Opera, and that's why I left it a long time ago.
Now with Chrome, granted, it takes ideas from all over the place. But the result is good, if not nice, and hopefully it will only get better, and stay open. Now, if only they'd add real plugin/addon support so people can start porting their addons over, but I don't see any adblocker or noscpriter plugin in Chrome anytime soon, which - besides some other half dozen addons - makes it a no-go for me, at least for the time being.
But, until then, I use it happily for Google's mail and calendar, since they just fly (!) with Chrome.
I'd say they are on the right way, overall.
Member since:2006-03-08
Member since:
2006-01-03
That argument would make sense, if it weren't for the fact that evidence suggests the majority of users want more than a browser. Consider the number of, and popularity of Firefox add-ons and how many people would argue that this is what gives it the edge. As for Opera being more bloated, it is a smaller download, and occupies a smaller footprint once installed, so please tell me what makes it bloated? I'm not saying Opera is perfect, there are issues I would like to see resolved, but I do think that claiming its trouble with being generally adopted is due to its feature-set, or interface is oversimplified and inaccurate.
**As a side point, every customer I've ever introduced to Opera I've also introduced to Firefox, to get them away from IE, and every single one uses Opera as their preferred browser.**