Here are some suggestions for those looking for alternatives to Opera 12 (and use Opera Mail)
-
salahuddin1 last edited by
Wow, that is a great list. Those certainly are a lot of extensions. Did you run them all on Firefox? What is the memory usage like with so many extensions?
Also, is anyone using the Simple Mail extension? I was thinking of testing it out with Firefox, but according to the reviews, it seems like every so often the extension gets broken with a Firefox update and then the extension developer has to catch up with a new version.
I used to use unMHT a while back when I used Firefox (before Opera) and I found that some files didn't work/save properly. Perhaps these issues have been ironed out now, but just in case, I have been saving websites to PDF instead MHT. I personally use Foxit Reader as my primary PDF reader (faster, more functional and lighter than Adobe) and it installs a PDF printer, so you can just print a website to a PDF file. There is also PDFmyURL, which you can drag to your Bookmarks Toolbar.
-
laurenbacall last edited by
Originally posted by Salahuddin1:
Wow, that is a great list. Those certainly are a lot of extensions. Did you run them all on Firefox? What is the memory usage like with so many extensions?
I used to use unMHT a while back when I used Firefox (before Opera) and I found that some files didn't work/save properly. Perhaps these issues have been ironed out now, but just in case, I have been saving websites to PDF instead MHT. I personally use Foxit Reader as my primary PDF reader (faster, more functional and lighter than Adobe) and it installs a PDF printer, so you can just print a website to a PDF file. There is also PDFmyURL[/URL" target="_blank">http://PDFmyURL.com]PDFmyURL[/URL], which you can drag to your Bookmarks Toolbar.
Yes, all in Firefox v25. The memory usage is about the same as Opera, even a little less sometimes. As for PDFs Mozilla introduced a custom Javascript renderer in Firefox, so atm I think I'll stick to that for one less addon ;). They really are pushing ahead in that area, recently releasing Shumway, a SWF Flash file renderer in Javascript, too.
-
Deleted User last edited by
Originally posted by laurenbacall:
Yes, all in Firefox v25. The memory usage is about the same as Opera, even a little less sometimes.
Which version of Opera?
-
laurenbacall last edited by
Originally posted by ersi:
Which version of Opera?
Opera 12.15. Looking at the Activity Monitor Opera is currently using about 100MB less virtual and physical memory, but it depends. When I replied initially loading a bunch of the same tabs resulted in the slight edge to Firefox.
A few months ago Opera didn't handle Flash very well and would swell up memory-wise so I enabled the plugins on demand feature which helped greatly. After extended use Opera for me can end up using quite a lot of memory until restarted.
I'll keep an eye on usage over the next week.
-
Deleted User last edited by
Weird how programs behave differently in different systems. Sometimes a matter of configuration, sometimes a complete mystery.
-
findkfn last edited by
Originally posted by laurenbacall:
Strangely Tab Utilities seems to add an irremovable toolbar full of buttons to links of 'Total Commander', 'UltraCompare', 'FreeGate', etc. Bizarre. Can't say I'd want to continue using it based on this experience.
And you are sure thats because of tab utilities ?
I have no such toolbar here. -
laurenbacall last edited by
Originally posted by findkfn:
And you are sure thats because of tab utilities ?
I have no such toolbar here.It only appears with that addon enabled, so yes, I'm pretty sure.
New addons
A few more I'm trying out.
Keyconfig (no, not the original one
)
Found a much better keyboard customization addon. It's not available through the regular Addon library, you can find it in this thread.It's very nice, and allows for any custom keyboard shortcut (well, combos that is). Uses code for each shortcut, so for more documentation see the thread page, and here and here. It also changes the actual menu shortcut hints, unlike the previous addon I was trying. Not to be confused with the addon in the regular addon library by the same name.
I have replaced the Customizable Shortcuts, Single Key Tab Switch, and Image Block addons with keyconfig. See this thread for the code for Next/Previous tab switching, and this thread for the toggle Images on/off code.
Mozilla Archive Format
An alternative MHT saving addon which is far simpler to install than unMHT and actually integrates into the regular Save As dialog (unlike unMHT). Still prefer Opera 12's MHT output though, as well as the fact that with general file downloading Opera seems to save from cache while Firefox redownloads files (:irked: ).NextPlease
A fast-forward/rewind addon that can be triggered by keyboard shortcuts, buttons or menu items. By default it's very good at choosing the next page of paginated sites, but it can be further enhanced by adding image URLs of buttons from sites to target them specifically, as well as Regexp, etc. -
findkfn last edited by
Originally posted by laurenbacall:
Originally posted by findkfn:
And you are sure thats because of tab utilities ?
I have no such toolbar here.It only appears with that addon enabled, so yes, I'm pretty sure.
Yes, you are right, i found this on the developers page:
Edit: I noticed tabutils has added 5 buttons to my toolbar to launch programs.
One is for notepad and 4 for tools like ultra compare and ultra edit.
You can disable these in about:config by searching for tabutils.button.button_
I just hope Tab Utilities does not become bloatware / adware ...by ithinc (Developer) on October 11, 2013 · permalink
Don't be worry. The shortcut buttons are my personal dev tools. I forgot to remove my personal config file before I release the update.
-
Deleted User last edited by
FWIW,
Seamonkey has been one of my main browsers for years, just as Opera has been since version 5.04, when it was still ad supported, and good! -
Deleted User last edited by
I've used SM and it's a decent browser but... it's pretty clunky in comparison to Opera. I doubt more than 1% of users bother with SM. Why it is kept afloat by this little band of devoted fans is beyond me. The browser reminds me of the old Netscape suite back in the 90's. It was fine then but technology has moved on in the past fifteen years.
-
blackbird71 last edited byOriginally posted by leushino:
... Why it is kept afloat by this little band of devoted fans is beyond me. The browser reminds me of the old Netscape suite back in the 90's...
Because they are committed to some basic concepts they've embodied in Seamonkey and feel are not adequately embodied elsewhere, and upon which that 1% or so of users you mention depend. I think a number of folks do things, sometimes with little thanks or tangible feedback, simply because they perceive those things to be good in and of themselves - just as some of those same kinds of folks have helped out constructively in the Opera user forums. Would only that there were more of that attitude around in this increasingly jaded world...
It's something to keep in mind in these troubled times when there's a lot of verbal rancor about Opera versions and such. I value and thank all those "regular" Opera users who have poured themselves out helping other users solve technical problems in these forums over the years, regardless of which side of the browser version debates we may currently find ourselves.
-
-
salahuddin1 last edited by
I don't find SeaMonkey to be "clunky." Not quite sure what you mean by that exactly. I'll agree that it is not as visibly appealing as Opera 12 or some of the other common browsers, (it basically looks like the old Firefox). However, it is snappy, quicker than Opera in loading pages, is highly customizable and has many built in features. Personally, a browser's appearance only involves less than 1/10th of the screen, so I don't put too much value on how it looks as long as its functional. That being said, there are many themes you can download to change the appearance of SeaMonkey if that is important to you.
-
Deleted User last edited by
Did you say "quicker than Opera in loading pages"??? Not according to Peacekeeper. I challenge you to go over to http://peacekeeper.futuremark.com and test it for yourself. SM is one of the slowest browsers according to their bench tests. It's clunky all right and that is why it has such a small acceptance among users. It is definitely not a viable alternative to Opera unless you want a browser that looks like the old Netscape browser from 1998.
-
highstream last edited by
As an email client, for those who can live without true HTM, I'd suggest Sylpheed. Available for people using a number of platforms.
-
salahuddin1 last edited by
Originally posted by leushino:
Did you say "quicker than Opera in loading pages"??? Not according to Peacekeeper. I challenge you to go over to http://peacekeeper.futuremark.com and test it for yourself. SM is one of the slowest browsers according to their bench tests. It's clunky all right and that is why it has such a small acceptance among users. It is definitely not a viable alternative to Opera unless you want a browser that looks like the old Netscape browser from 1998.
Peacekeeper is an overall benchmark of many different tests and only one of many benchmarking tools. It certainly is not a measure of which browser loads web pages faster. Firefox, for example, has almost always trailed Opera and Chrome in Peacekeeper. Go use Numion Stopwatch and test any page in Opera against SeaMonkey. Its a straight forward stopwatch of how fast it takes to load a web page. I couldn't even find ONE page that Opera loaded faster than SeaMonkey.
Also, I tested Firefox, Chrome, SeaMonkey, Opera and Opera Next in many different benchmarks, not just Peacekeeper. Some browsers do well in some, and less so in others. SeaMonkey performs pretty much on par with Firefox. And as you can see in this review by Tom's Hardware, Firefox is overall much faster than Opera (which comes in last).
So yes, I did say "quicker than Opera in loading pages."
BTW, where do you see Peacekeeper showing SeaMonkey as one of the slowest browsers? I couldn't even find where it ranks the different browsers. A link proving your claim would be welcome. On the same system, SeaMonkey should score only about 500 points less than Opera in Peacekeeper, which would really put both browsers in a similar performance category for this benchmark.
-
salahuddin1 last edited by
Oh and btw, Opera 12 only supports 4/7 HTML5 capabilities in Peacekeeper. SeaMonkey supports all 7.
Also, try playing this next generation browser launched game from Crytek: Warface. Opera 12 can't support it. SeaMonkey can.
So clearly your comment on SeaMonkey not being a "viable alternative to Opera" holds little weight.
-
Deleted User last edited by
I tested SM, FF, IE 10 and Opera Next and SM came in dead last on the Peacekeeper site. That is where I got the comparison. If SM were such an awesome suite, it would have far more supporters than it currently does. BUT... if it floats your boat, then more power to you.
Aside: the Tom's Hardware tests are a half year old and therefore reasonably inaccurate.
-
salahuddin1 last edited by
Originally posted by leushino:
I tested SM, FF, IE 10 and Opera Next and SM came in dead last on the Peacekeeper site. That is where I got the comparison. If SM were such an awesome suite, it would have far more supporters than it currently does. BUT... if it floats your boat, then more power to you.
Aside: the Tom's Hardware tests are a half year old and therefore reasonably inaccurate.
I wonder if you ever reread your posts to realize how devoid of logic some of your statements are. I've already demonstrated that Peacekeeper isn't the holy grail of browser performance. Why don't you run Dromeo on all those browsers and post your scores? Or use Numion to see which browser loads pages the quickest? I just ran Peacekeeper and got 2069 in SeaMonkey 2.22 and 2628 in Opera 12.16, where SeaMonkey supported 7/7 HTML capabilities and Opera only 4/7 (click details on the results to see).
And just to take your own sentence to show you how absurd it is: "If "Opera" were such an awesome suite, it would have far more supporters than it currently does." Obviously the number of "supporters" a browser has is not directly related to how good it is. It is related to how well known it is. Opera has had a <1.5% desktop usage share for years. I guess that means Opera is a bad browser? Internet Explorer 10's browsers share is second to Chrome, well that must mean IE is the second best browser! SeaMonkey is relatively unknown and is not advertised, of course it will have low usage. I would think an Opera user of all people would understand this.
Your "Aside" statement also makes no sense. Browsers haven't changed so much in 5 months that any of those tests would be significantly different. Peacekeeper scores have remained pretty similar between browsers for years with Chrome>Opera>FF>IE. Opera Next can't even get bookmarks in 5 months, but that whole Tom's Hardware review is "reasonably inaccurate" because you said so... right.
-
Deleted User last edited by
Look. Let's try this another way. You have found SeaMonkey and think it will meet your needs. Good for you. I've used SeaMonkey since its inception and frankly, I find it old-style and clunky... period. You think that all of the tests prove your position that it is a viable alternative. Bully for you. Go use it and be happy. What makes no sense (since we're dealing with logic now) is why you continue to hang about here since Opera no longer meets your needs. Oh yeah.... you're trying to lead others to the Promised Land. I get it. Okay...
SeaMonkey is the best thing since sliced bread (even though less than 1% of users worldwide even bother with it). Everyone migrate to SeaMonkey.
How's that? Uttered from the lips of an Opera fanboy! :lol:
