3 ms·
Use it only for desktop and mobile (of course). The desktop version is somewhat "heavy" so I tend to use Chrome on lapotops etc. But in a way I feel that Opera
by TobbenTM 15y ago
Use it only for desktop and mobile (of course). The desktop version is somewhat "heavy" so I tend to use Chrome on lapotops etc. But in a way I feel that Opera is a more complete browser. The speedial is genius, and with the ability to make extensions for it, it has alot more potensial.
The other thing I really like, which I have been unable to find in other browser (that is equally good) is mousegestures. After just a bit of use, it gets in your muscles and creating and closing tabs, moving back and forth between pages has never been easier. My 5 cents.
- jamesgeck0 15y agoI've found Opera to be fairly lightweight. It handles large numbers of tabs with (a bit) less memory usage than Chrome. Admittedly, this is because it's not a multi-process browser. It does mean that it functions well on machines with limited resources.
- pornel 15y agoOpera may have rich functionality, but it's done with very little code footprint: Opera's Mac executable is 22MB, Chrome's is 57MB! (in their private frameworks, both i386-only) Opera adjusts RAM usage proportionally to amount of RAM in the machine, so if you have several GB of RAM it might look large, but it scales down to 512MB machines. RAM usage is mostly DOM cache for fast Back button. Functionality like Mail and RSS used to be in a 200KB DLL on Windows.