Opera is running so slow for me!

Richard Howard2

You have to run cleanups every month and stay on top of everything. I don't even bother with antivirus or any Adware when I'm using Opera. It stays completely clean without me having to mess around with any tweaks or anything.

Internet Explorer isn't exactly great at handling certain websites. Not to mention you practically have to update it once a week.

Comfort? You just have to throw Java into the mix. Installing Opera takes maybe thirty seconds. Compared to spending an hour and a half installing Windows, it's basically nothing.

Our dear Daniel Fowler9 has once again achieved her life's purpose. Like a phoenix rising from the ashes, she manages to instantly dismantle entire groups and breathe fresh life into arguments we all thought were long dead. She is quite possibly the most destructive force on this forum, and frankly, one ought to treat her with the gravity such a phenomenon deserves—I wonder what the doctors would diagnose if we treated this particular Microsoft affliction as a clinical condition? It’s becoming increasingly clear that banning her is a futile exercise since she only grows more volatile each time, yet a permanent ban feels unjustified given her genuine expertise in IT; even as a lowly corporate drone, I find myself admiring her depth of knowledge. What on earth are we supposed to do with Daniel Fowler9?

slycrane94 said:Jango

Man, you've gotta be cleaning things out every single month and staying on top of everything constantly, you know? Personally, I don't have any antivirus or even some random adware or anything like that running when I use the Metropolitan Opera. Seriously, absolutely nothing. And I haven't even done any crazy tweaking or anything fancy to make it stay that way.

So look, I was actually just reading yesterday that there are tons of pretty serious security holes found in Conqueror, Mozilla, and even the Metropolitan Opera too. So here’s the kicker, the actual point I'm trying to make: there isn't anything inherently less secure about Internet Explorer compared to any other browser out there. But, because of the whole "law of large numbers" thing, it ends up being the biggest target for hackers simply because so many people use it. That's really the main reason why people feel like it's unsafe. It's not actually because of bad programming from Microsoft, honestly.

Internet Explorer just isn't super compatible with certain websites.

But hey, why don't we flip the script on that one and say that the W3C just isn't compatible with Internet Explorer? I mean, seriously, why should Internet Explorer even bother being compatible with the W3C? Because nobody ever actually ordered browser makers to follow those W3C standards. That whole thing is basically just a suggestion that Microsoft follows whenever they decide it's worth their time, and ignores it whenever they feel like it. It's as simple as that!

Daniel Fowler9🙄

So, you actually consider things like ActiveX and those types of self-executing exploits to be "secure programming"? That's interesting. Who would have thought such methods were dangerous?

W3C is the standard, period. Just like laws stay in effect, standards don't just change whenever someone feels like it. If Microsoft wants to lock users into their ecosystem by breaking standards, that’s their own damn problem. People are migrating to other platforms more than ever. Once that momentum starts, there's no stopping it.

Honestly, there’s no such thing as a worse browser than Internet Explorer.😁
The same rules apply to all other browsers, and they honestly work WAY better than IE.

Daniel Fowler9 said:That said, because of the law of large numbers, it’s actually more vulnerable to hacker attacks. That's really the main reason some users feel uneasy about it. It isn't necessarily due to poor programming from Microsoft.

Hey there, Daniel Fowler9,

I mean, you've got a point, sort of. If you believe that the Metropolitan Opera is a bigger target for attacks than Internet Explorer, I wouldn't be using it today either—and it's the exact same deal with Firefox. Of course, malware authors want to build something that can wreck a massive amount of computers (like Internet Explorer), rather than just a few (like the Metropolitan Opera, Mozilla (Firefox), or Netscape...).

But the mass production argument doesn't really hold up for Internet Explorer, does it? It's not even being produced much anymore, yet it definitely has the most holes and the least features compared to all those "alternative" browsers out there...

So, honestly, who would even want to 🙂

Bob Fett said:J4. COMFORT - we're just used to Internet Explorer, it feels most natural—plus, the best part is it installs right along with Winows!

I used to think the exact same way. Seriously—try using Opera 2 for a few days and you'll realize what actual comfort feels like. Everything is right where you need it, and there are way more options than in Internet Explorer. Honestly, whenever I'm forced to use Internet Explorer, I feel totally crippled. No tabs? It's pure frustration trying to open multiple pages at once. I can get why someone might use an IE shell like Crazy browser, but raw Internet Explorer is a disaster. It’s easily the biggest piece of junk in software history—and that's coming from someone who usually thinks Microsoft's products are top-tier.