Do more on the web, with a fast and secure browser!

Download Opera browser with:

  • built-in ad blocker
  • battery saver
  • free VPN
Download Opera
  • Back in 2008, I liked Chrome, somewhat, as it would open instantly. Opera took 8 seconds, Firefox took 45 seconds at that time.

    I did notice 45 chrome.exe's in the process viewer, and usually one would crash every 5 minutes, making me close and reload at least one tab. Certainly, the speed on a single core machine was not what Opera of that day was.

    Update, after forced update, soon Chrome would take all of my memory, when Opera would take under 400megs.

    Then, I noticed it was pretty darn near impossible to control the cache location and size. This could only be set with a command line launch. But who only launches an application from on shortcut. Then all shortcuts constantly wipe out (in linux too), forcing me to spend days reconstructing each year a simple setting. Then, there is the Chrome extension HHHHELLLLLLL where some update is stuffed down our throat, complete with all the code typos and new bugs they introduce, then half the extensions/plugins are broken. You must re research them, and download a new compatible extension. Hey, if they knew how to make a functional browser that was not gelded out of the box, I would have no need for these extensions. Then, add the extensions, and the browser crashes often, because they aren't tested by the originating company.

    Now, in last year, Chrome/chromium, not only crashes, but is causing read behind errors. I must reboot, scandisk, the entire machine (quad core xp with 4+ gigs ram) to regain the machine. If I don't use chrome, I NEVER get this error, so I know this is NOT a hard drive issue.

    Then, yes, chrome in last 4 years, starts instantly. But, it can no longer pull any webpage for a minimum of 45 seconds.

    All these complaints are true with both xp machines!!

    So, excessive memory, constant chrome.exe crashes, too many parallel instances causing bottlenecks, impossibly slow startup time (beyond the scarecrow gui that does nothing), slower than Presto page rendering on old machines, lack of out of the box functionality, interminable extension research and readding, .... I am terrified of upgrading to newest Opera 20 +.

    So, did they at least go single exe, or flounder in all the Chrome mistakes?

  • Opera Blink uses multiple processes like all Chromium based browsers.

    However I guess there's a command line to enable single process.

  • Frequent crashes and read behind errors point usually to hardware problems - or faulty/overaggressive antivirus. On my XP I have not had any unexpected crashes (excluding some Opera developer version quirks, ironed out by next version or so) - but I had to adjust RAM parameters after building my PC some years ago. Check your RAM (memtest86+) and system overall stability (prime95); check your HDD health (SpeedFan) and use your system few days without AV software active (be careful of course :)). Getting errors only in chrome unfortunatley does not exclude hardware problems - chrome is probably only software, able to stress your system fully.

    Other problems - yes, you will have myriad of opera.exe processes with nuOpera, this is inherent to chrome based browsers. I do not like that very much either - but it should give you a bit better security; every tab is seprate process, doesn't hang entire browser if something bad happens (flash hangs for example) and should avoid most cross-tab vulnerabilities.
    And yes, old Opera was much more snappier - or at least could be configured to be snappier. That's why I'm using old and new Operas in parallel - for some sites old one, for few ones new one (for compatibility or html5/javascript speed).

  • The "--process-per-site" switch, btw, only consolidates processes for tabs of the same site. So if you commonly have numerous pages open of the same site, great, but I think most people have a variety of sites open, making any savings realized with this switch minimal to non-existent.

    I'm also not a fan of needing to use switches for cache location and size. What decade is this? The least they could do is stow it away in about:flags if it's too lowly for Settings.