Actually, I was elaborating on the comments made by Martin H in reference to the Opera interface. It is more customizable than IE7 and Firefox, and my posted images was meant to demonstrate that flexibility for personal preferences.

With most recent builds now averaging 2GB of RAM, applications memory usage should hardly be a concern.
I'd be more concerned about CPU cycles and unnecessary processes.

Many are also not aware that like Firefox, Opera has "not so obvious" customizable features.

Still, IE7 is my staple.

Hehe, I just mentioned the RAM more as a curiosity more than anything. I have 2GB in this machine and FF runs fine

Might try Opera again at some point (used to use it back in 2001 or so), but it took me long enough to be persuaded to try FF

I have 5 gig or something like that (in 4 computers), so 2 gig would be quite doable, though I like to run matched sticks to run dual channel/T1 (I don't have bigger than 1 gig matched pairs). I'll probably upgrade to more down the road when I go with ddr2 in a system (still running all ddr1, even on my conroe).

I haven't posted here in a long time, and this is slightly off-topic.
This is a "comparison" between two much older versions of Firefox and Opera.
This may be like comparing "apples to oranges"
I have two Sharp Zaurus linux moble devices.
The SL-C3100 is running linux kernel 2.4.20 and Qtopia 1.5.4 (interface)
This device has Opera 7.25
Launching Opera on this device takes 9 seconds to display "opera/about"
Opera 7.55 is the last version released for this device/OS.

My other Zaurus is a SL-C3200 with pdaxrom (an X11 linux OS) kernel 2.4.20
Since Opera is not open source, later versions cannot be compiled for this operating system, or "ROM" as it is called by Zaurus users.
This Zaurus has Firefox 1.5.0.2 compiled for pdaxrom. Many people have tried to compile Firefox 2.0, and have failed.
There seem to be some major stumbling blocks getting Firefox 2.0 to compile for "Arm" architecture.
Anyway after installing and launching Firefox for the first time, subsequent launches take about 30 to 45 seconds to open a blank page, and the interface is very slow.

These machines run an "Arm" processor at 416 MHZ and have 64 MB of RAM.
Both machines have a hard drive, and Firefox won't even run without a swap partition or swap file.
Opera seems to have a small memory footprint and never seems to use swap at all.
Opera 7.25/7.55 is limited as to the number of modern websites it can access, and file downloading is sort of arcane to use.
Opera's response is much faster than Firefox. page loading is faster, scrolling is much faster.
Several people at oesf/forum have said "making Firefox available for this device is like stuffing an elephant into a Volkswagon."
Installation wise, Opera takes about 4-5 MB space on the Zaurus. This is installed to Flash
Firefox takes 25 MB or more. This is installed to the hard drive.
You may install either to flash or hard drive on a Zaurus.
The "Flash" area is 128 MB, but with OS and necessary utils, there is about 40-50 MB remaining.

I just got a nag for FF 2.0.0.8

As much as I have loved the extensibility (add-ons) and configurability of FireFox, I have to say that compared to some browsers (Opera), Firefox contributes more to global warming.

We never think about software applications in terms of being economical to run or environmentally friendly, but we should. Aside from the fact that Opera loads in a fraction of the time as Firefox, we forget to consider other unintended consequences that flow from this. Consider my own example:

All the power from my computer flows thru a device called "Kill-A-Watt", which measures watts consumed, line voltage and so on. I consider my current machine to be very fast (4G, Areca RAID, 2x265 Opteron, etc.), and Opera only takes a second to load to a blank page. For a fraction of a second, the power consumption spikes briefly 20-25 watts. Firefox, by comparison takes four to five times that long, and the spike is 45-60 watts.

This difference is HUGE, and even more important when you consider how this same problem of inefficient coding has spread across the entire industry.

Since much of our electrical production comes from burning fossil fuels, the implications for greenhouse gasses and "traditional" pollutants, like sulfer dioxide and other "traditional" pollutants in the US alone are enormous. We consume untold megawatts as a result.

We also never stop to consider the additional multipliers arising from this consumption. Computers running in office environments generate heat and more electricity consumed = more heat. And that heat has to be REMOVED from the conditioned environment by (you guessed it!) sucking even more electricity to run an AC unit.

Food for thought!

^ that isn't relevant to the discussion. We aren't talking about global warming. We are talking about, which one we like better.