<p>"I used to like Opera, but its newest release doesn't work well on my computer."</p>
<p>Yeah, same here. I've only installed it on one of my computers, and I'll wait for the fix to install it on the rest.</p>
<p>Opera: 1
IE: 2
Firefox: 10</p>
<p>opera: 2
IE: 2
Firefox: 10</p>
<p>I don't like using ff extensions when everything I need is already there in opera.</p>
<p>opera: 2
IE: 2
Firefox: 11</p>
<p>I used Opera for a while, but it seemed like every time I went to a site that I REALLY needed something from, it was all, "This page is not supported by your browser". Annoying.</p>
<p>Firefox for sure.
I have the other browsers IE, Opera, Safari, and Flock on my various computers but none of them really match Firefox for me.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Btw, why does everyone here hate IE? I think it's fine (except for the fact that it crashes three times a day, which is why I use Opera)
[/quote]
*Doesn't conform to web standards
*Exploits are left unpatched for long periods of time
*High resource usage
*No extensions</p>
<p>what if I use both. normally firefox but sometimes IE if I need to open some media player website. I like flexibility ;)</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
what if I use both. normally firefox but sometimes IE if I need to open some media player website. I like flexibility
[/QUOTE]
If you are going to do that, why don't you just install the IE Tab add on? It allows you to open an Internet Explorer tab in Firefox should you need it.</p>
<p>Opera: 1.5
IE: 2
Firefox 3: 4</p>
<p>(Used Opera once for page-refreshing; pretty unknowledgeable of its components)</p>
<p>"*High resource usage"</p>
<p>Don't even try to use this argument. I've seen Firefox windows taking up 300 MB of RAM.</p>
<p>
[quote]
"*High resource usage"</p>
<p>Don't even try to use this argument. I've seen Firefox windows taking up 300 MB of RAM.
[/quote]
You didn't happen to notice that a new version of Firefox was just released, which fixed a lot of memory leaks, did you?</p>
<p>Firefox</a> 3 goes on a diet, eats less memory than IE and Opera
Firefox</a> 3 Memory Benchmarks and Comparison</p>
<p>And I like how you ignored my other reasons for why IE sucks ;)</p>
<p>IE6 still uses less. :)</p>
<p>Uhh, yeah, have fun with no tabs.</p>
<p>Thanks. I hate tabs.</p>
<p>My taskbar is often lonely, so I fill it with IE windows. 1680x1050 resolution is very roomy.</p>
<p>You hate tabs? LOL
Learn how to multitask and you will love tabs</p>
<p>FireFox btw. extensions ftw?</p>
<p>I guess the art of alt-tabbing is a lost one. New age computing? LOL!</p>
<p>WSXGA+ is indeed roomy, it's the same resolution that I have. That doesn't mean I waste it though...</p>
<p>The only bad thing about tabs is visiting Wikipedia. Or TvTropes <_<</p>
<p>You don't have to use tabs with Firefox; you can open new windows for everything but many people find it hard to keep track of things as well. You can also mix and match. You can create two or three windows with firefox, and have tabs within the windows. And you can just drag and drop tabs from one window to another.</p>
<p>IE picked up a speed boost with IE7 due to their use of Profile-Guided Optimization which was a feature added to Visual Studio 2005. Mozilla started using PGO with their builds in 3.0 and it provided about an 8% performance improvement and that is just with starting up and shutting down. The number of performance improvements in Firefox 3.0 is pretty
impressive and the success of Firefox is pulling in more developers
interested in tweaking this or that to improve the performance of their
own applications, to beef up their resumes, or just for the plain fun of
it. I think that Mozilla is struggling a little in dealing with the code-level
interest in working on Firefox.</p>
<p>Firefox and Internet Explorer both have 64-bit versions available. And I typically use the 64-bit version of Firefox when I'm on Windows x64. There's better performance (due to the architectural benefits of x64) and all of the flash and shockwave ads are gone.</p>
<p>Firefox ftw</p>