Washington Post suggests using Opera 9, if Firefox runs too slow on your computer
Published November 20th, 2006 2:48 PM EST By Daniel Goldman
In his Washington Post column today, Rob Pegoraro suggested using the Opera browser, if Firefox runs too slow on your computer, telling users to “go with this faster, smaller browser instead.”
In recent months I’ve spoken to many former Firefox users, who’ve since switched to using the Opera browser. I’m usually curious to know what made them stop using Firefox, since it is a good browser after all.
I almost always get the same two responses.
Mostly they complain about the excessive memory usage in Firefox. Also, since Firefox’s extensions can be created by anyone, it is likely that some of them aren’t developed properly, which cause Firefox to use a lot of memory and run slower.
The other issue, which is more of a complement to Opera, is that once they switch to using Opera as their primary browser, they notice how fast the Opera browser really is. I don’t use Firefox often enough to notice the speed difference with Opera, but I hear this all the time.
The Opera browser needs to be small enough to be able to run on the memory-limited Nintendo DS Lite, and since all Opera browsers (Desktop, mobile, Nintendo Wii, and other devices) run on the same browser core code, it will always run fast and use very little memory.
In fact one of the requirements we have before adding new features and functionality to the browser is that it isn’t allowed to increase the memory usage or decrease Opera’s speed. The Opera browser has to be fast and run on devices with low memory capabilities.
So, if you’re fed up with Firefox’s excessive memory usage, download and try the Opera browser. 
Edit: I removed the part where I talked about Firefox’s supposed memory leaks. I shouldn’t have said what I said; I think Firefox is an excellent browser and is a huge upgrade from Internet Explorer. Plus, I believe Opera owes a lot of credit to Firefox for bringing more awareness to alternative browsers. My intent was never to trash Firefox, just highlight some of the differences between it and Opera – but I failed in how I presented it. I apologize to the Firefox community.
If you enjoyed this post, then make sure you subscribe to my RSS Feed.
using
*sigh* Not the “it’s a feature!” thing again. That post you linked to isn’t claiming that memory leaks are a feature. It’s talking about a feature that uses lots of memory, and how people get that mixed up with memory leaks.
They don’t claim that memory leaks are a feature, or deny that they exist. If you click on the link to he following post, you’ll see this:
Mozilla has been fixing memory leaks with nearly every release of Firefox since 1.5. They’re in the release notes.
Unfortunately, the way that post was written it ends up getting used mainly as ammo for fanboys. Firefox fanboys who claim that there isn’t a memory leak, and… umm, Firefox antifans who want to portray Mozilla as some clueless and/or deceptive entity that’s either unaware of the leaks or trying to cover up their existence.
using
sorry, but opera watch becomes more and more a propaganda organ - thanks but no thanks. daniel, make your own blog, would you?
using
In my experience, Firefox 1 and 1.5 used to build up memory use over long periods of use, but Firefox 2 doesn’t. The worst memory leaks seem to be fixed.
using
pat, how so?
using
I agree with Pat. Seems like more advertisement of Opera over everything else. Before, that was mixed with criticisms of Opera and your personal thoughts about certain features, rumors and such. Now your posts read more like funky press releases. And the bold letters really don’t help to counter that impression. Well… I still enjoy reading OperaWatch anyway. (c;=
using
WildEnte, your point is well taken about rumors. Obviously, there won’t be any rumors posted here, I’m an insider now.
With regard to the other “promotional” stuff, now that Opera Watch is part of my full-time job, I have more time to write and post about things I didn’t have time before. Opera is still a small company, and compared with Firefox and IE it doesn’t get much recognition in the press. So when Opera finally gets a nice mention in the press, I’ll take note of that and write about it.
I hope my posts don’t seem like press releases, first off, I hate the jargon in press releases myself, and always try to talk in plain ‘english’. Second, this blog is still my personal one, Opera’s PR department (which writes Opera’s press releases) doesn’t tell me what to write about.
P.S. I always welcome constructive critism.
using
Well…I’m not Pat, but here’s how:
Prior to you becoming an Opera employee, the site contained mostly well-written opinions of a loyal and caring user. Those included praise when things worked well, and criticism when they did not. Since you’ve become an “Opera evangelist”, we get lots more inside information (which is good and I thank you or that). Evangelism, however, does not leave any room for criticism, so it seems we get to read the “party line” rather than your opinions.
This post, however, went a little further. The article about “memory leak feature”, as others have pointed out, describes Firefox’s ability to cache pages in memory - something Opera Mini does, too, for example. Nowhere does it claim that the feature causes or justifies memory leaks.
Opera makes great browsers. There is no need to stretch the truth to prove it.
using
I was going to write something similar to Pat after reading the entry, but he said it well.
The Washington Post article this entry supposed to be about recommends Firefox, with Opera as a secondary recommendation. You’ve somehow turned this into: Firefox is slow and leaks memory. Opera is small and fast.
Sorry, but I’ve been following this blog for about a year now, and the signal-to-noise ratio has been the lowest I’ve seen in the past week or two.
PS. selective and extensive bolding of text is highly distractive and annoying
using
Unfortunately, the way that post was written it ends up getting used mainly as ammo for fanboys.
The post is/was unacceptable, especially this line What I think many people are talking about however with Firefox 1.5 is not really a memory leak at all. It is in fact a feature.
The author made the assumption that most problems where not really problems but a trade-off (the back/forward cache and all). I guess this pissed people off (myself included as an ocasionally FF user) and thus the (in)famous “It’s not a bug, it’s a feature”. FF had/has serious memory leaks, using 80% of the available memory for no aparent reason is simply not acceptable (this was the major complaint from users, not the use of a few MB more in order to cache pages; using 850 MB of 1G has nothing to do with cached pages and if it does it’s obviously a memory leak not a “trade-off”).
That was a very poor argument and almost offensive to the users who were reporting the leaks - implicitly admitted by the author himself, thus the next post trying to calm people down and fix the mess he created: http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/ben/archives/009774.html
As a general note, I wouldn’t blame Daniel for posting the “It’s not a bug, it’s a feature” line because that’s exactly what the developer claimed, wrongly assuming that most of the reports were related to an increase of the MB used by the new feature. His attitude was the reason why most online discussions regarding memory-leaks started, therefore the “It’s a feature” line was an ironic response (by those who were actually expariencing the same problems) to those who were reporting the leaks.
using
Pat, WildEnte and the rest, Thanks for bringing up those valid points. I corrected my post above. I appreciate your constructive critism. Thanks.
using
Thumbs up, Daniel.
using
Opera flies on older machines. We’re talking night and day difference in speed/ responsiveness compared to Firefox/Seamonkey/Mozilla Suite.
If can certainly tell a speed difference on brand new machines, but it’s the old ones that are often the only ones that can accept Opera. This really is news that’s many years old. Opera has always been very good with speed/ memory.
Thunberbird, Mozilla’s mail client, is just as bad. Awfully long load times and responsiveness on old 98 machines (even those with 256MB+ memory).
If Opera made a *separate* mail client with Thunderbird’s features, I’d be all over it.
using
bzacw lgvespdhc qwupzgxy dsktc uhqbn vuosknh wobcti