Home | Blog | Software | Reviews and Features | Forum | Help | Donate | About us
topbanner_forum
  *

avatar image

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
  • December 07, 2016, 06:12:49 PM
  • Proudly celebrating 10 years online.
  • Donate now to become a lifetime supporting member of the site and get a non-expiring license key for all of our programs.
  • donate

Last post Author Topic: Is Firefox 3.0 the "Fat Elvis?"  (Read 9567 times)

Shades

  • Member
  • Joined in 2006
  • **
  • Posts: 2,099
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Is Firefox 3.0 the "Fat Elvis?"
« Reply #25 on: April 15, 2008, 08:29:08 PM »
WMP 11?

In my point of view the person(s) that designed the default interface should be shot on site, immediately, without mercy. The simplicity of Mediaplayer 6.4 is unsurpassed. Even the videoplayer which has my total devotion (VideoLan) interface can still learn from this one!

Some six years ago I saw and heard the perfect hi-fi 5.1 audio amplifier (:-*), while fixing the computer from a customer of mine...it's user interface just consisted of an On/Off button and a big round knob for volume control (and the remote control did not have any more functionality!).

That thing really opened my eyes about the "keep it simple" concept.  :)     

nontroppo

  • Charter Honorary Member
  • Joined in 2005
  • ***
  • Posts: 649
  • spinning top
    • View Profile
    • nontroppo.org
    • Donate to Member
Re: Is Firefox 3.0 the "Fat Elvis?"
« Reply #26 on: April 16, 2008, 12:43:32 AM »
Just to say, Opera is modular, so chat and torrent are not "in" the core product. They are linked, but will be flushed out of memory when not in use IIUC. If Opera didn't compress its DLL they would not even hit memory.
It's windows default to discard unused memory pages, whether they're in DLLs or not... I just don't like features like this being included with a web browser, and would rather see them moved out to separate projects, and have the Opera developers focus on their browser instead.

Opera developers do focus on the browser. There is a seperate team who handle M2 (the mail/chat/rss client). One of the great advantages for me is the fact I've got a solid mail/rss client linked in. Single interface, less resources, more consistency. Opera runs with profiles off a single install, so you can build two profiles, one as a pure fast browser (I call mine Munin), and my full integrated profile. I can run one or both at the same time as needs be (also possible with FF, but to run multiple profiles simultaneously requires a hack).

I couldn't be bothered to read the article, it sounded too much like linkbait to me...
If you're talking about this article, it's not linkbait and definitely worth a read.

No, I've read that and it is excellent, I was refering to the OP Wired article...
FARR Wishes: Performance TweaksTask ControlAdaptive History
[url=http://opera.com/]

nosh

  • Supporting Member
  • Joined in 2007
  • **
  • Posts: 1,426
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Re: Is Firefox 3.0 the "Fat Elvis?"
« Reply #27 on: April 16, 2008, 01:23:08 AM »
WMP 11?

In my point of view the person(s) that designed the default interface should be shot on site, immediately, without mercy.

What? No waterboarding? Politically correct folk suck!
« Last Edit: April 16, 2008, 01:25:18 AM by nosh »