- Joined
- Apr 14, 2008
- Messages
- 1,777 (0.29/day)
- Location
- South Australia
System Name | QUACK |
---|---|
Processor | Intel i7 2600K (3.4 GHz, 8 threads) |
Motherboard | Asus P67P8-V3 |
Cooling | Xigmatek Balder 120mm (4x120,1x140mm case) |
Memory | Patriot 2 Viper Sector 5, 8GB DDR3 1600 MHz |
Video Card(s) | Gigabyte GeForce GTX 960 G1 4GB |
Storage | 1x Samsung EVO 850 (500GB) SSD, 1x Fujitsu 256GB SSD |
Display(s) | Dell Ultrasharp U2311h 23" (so sexy) |
Case | CoolerMaster Gladiator RC-600 |
Audio Device(s) | Onboard 5.1 |
Power Supply | Antec 850w with yellow racing stripes |
Software | Windows 7 HP 64 bit |
i just dont like all the setting toooooo many of them
its confusing
firefox is established and is easier to use, i never use opera or ie or safari for windows because firefox is easier to use and has all the plugins addons i would need
firefox is a hog for resources but not an issue for me
i looked interesting but not for me just yet
I use Opera, and it is quite easy to use, faster than Firefox, and quite customizable. It has Widgets and mouse guestures and skins and looks cool. It also has a built in bit-torrent, which works very well.
I encourage people to use Opera! I've had nothing but slowness and nuisance from Firefox.
Back on topic, this browser looks interesting only by the fact that it has two rendering engines; does this mean it takes more resources? If there is a Linux version then I'll give it a go, see how well it fares against Opera.
Last edited by a moderator: