W00T!!! Just one more reason showing Opera > *
- Thread starter state 08
- Start date
Schadenfroh
Elite Member
- Mar 8, 2003
- 38,416
- 4
- 0
I used to have that mindset, but then I realized that Azureus eats RAM and CPU cycles like no other, while Firefox has a nasty habit of crashing on any webpage that has embedded .wmvs. So, I'm currently using the official BT client (which works surprisingly well in the latest release). I still use Firefox for the PC, but there are much better alternatives on the Mac (my other main platform).
:thumbsup:
Definitely looking forward to downloading it when they release the non-beta version.
Azureus is good, but it's using 130MB with just two torrents. :thumbsdown:
Definitely looking forward to downloading it when they release the non-beta version.
Azureus is good, but it's using 130MB with just two torrents. :thumbsdown:
i hate opera...its big, bloats your computer, isnt as fast as firefox, and its not free.
bittorent sucks anyways. its so freakin slow.
bittorent sucks anyways. its so freakin slow.
I don't have anything against Opera, so I won't speak badly of it. But exactly what advantage is there to having a BitTorrent client embedded? This isn't something like embedded spell checking or embedded SVG, where it makes sense to make such a component a part of the app.
I liked Opera when I tried it, but there was a problem with it that I can't remember. It wasn't just me experiencing it, it was a known Opera issue. Whether they have fixed it since then I don't know, but I'm quite happy with Firefox so I'll stick with it.
As for BT, my university blocks it. Usenet > *
As for BT, my university blocks it. Usenet > *
I run Azureus with 20+ active torrents (seeding or downloading) 24/7 and it never uses above 80MB of memory. I don't notice much CPU usage either - 3~5% CPU load on a Venice 3200 OC'd to 270x10. It's CPU/memory effect is unnoticeable even while gaming or encoding.
And about Opera - is it bloatware? I've been thinking about trying it, since Firefox seems to have only rudimentary preference selections (no scripting controls, wildcards in 'trusted sites' URLs don't seem to register, lacks many of IE's options). The only thing that pushed me off of IE was the inability to disable the 'You have disabled ActiveX controls, so this page may not display correctly' popup. Firefox just doesn't seem like a solid browser at all to me. Oh, and I'm aware of the javascript controls plugin for Firefox, but user accounts report numerous crashing while changing permissions and whatnot, so it's not exactly an optimal solution.
And about Opera - is it bloatware? I've been thinking about trying it, since Firefox seems to have only rudimentary preference selections (no scripting controls, wildcards in 'trusted sites' URLs don't seem to register, lacks many of IE's options). The only thing that pushed me off of IE was the inability to disable the 'You have disabled ActiveX controls, so this page may not display correctly' popup. Firefox just doesn't seem like a solid browser at all to me. Oh, and I'm aware of the javascript controls plugin for Firefox, but user accounts report numerous crashing while changing permissions and whatnot, so it's not exactly an optimal solution.
kamper
Diamond Member
- Mar 18, 2003
- 5,513
- 0
- 0
Does opera have any development going on in the svg department? I know they're starting in firefox and I recently read that it's being done in KHTML (Konqueror) too and that that code is being imported into Safari. Svg as easily useable as html would be kick@ss and if Opera does it then IE would the last major browser falling way behind yet again
I also don't see the point of integrating bt into a browser, they're seperate ideas altogether. Integration in the form of a registered protocol would be cool so that you could one-click from your browser to your bt client of choice:
bt:http://foo.com/bit.torrent
Originally posted by: JustAnAverageGuy
One could argue AdBlock is bloat too.
It's not bloat if you use it
A lot of the features in major browsers are bloat. Have it as an extention/module/plug-in, so I can choose what to use.
It's bloat.
I'd rather just have all the stuff I'm going to use without having to install the browser and spend the next half hour getting stuff to make it work properly.
If that means I have to put up with the browser using an extra 1% of my RAM of my otherwise UNUSED memory, then so be it.
I don't intend for this thread to fall into a Opera vs FF thread. There are plenty of those already. :thumbsup: to Opera for including BT support though.
If that means I have to put up with the browser using an extra 1% of my RAM of my otherwise UNUSED memory, then so be it.
I don't intend for this thread to fall into a Opera vs FF thread. There are plenty of those already. :thumbsup: to Opera for including BT support though.
Originally posted by: JustAnAverageGuy
I'd rather just have all the stuff I'm going to use without having to install the browser and spend the next half hour getting stuff to make it work properly.
If that means I have to put up with the browser using an extra 1% of my RAM of my otherwise UNUSED memory, then so be it.
I don't intend for this thread to fall into a Opera vs FF thread. There are plenty of those already. :thumbsup: to Opera for including BT support though.
I'm not excluding FF from the bloated category.
BT isn't a browser issue though, it's a BT one. I'd rather get a bunch of smaller clients that do their own little things better than the all-in-one package. It's one of the same reasons I prefer Unix-like systems to Windows.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter