🚀 go-pugleaf

On 25-Mar-96 02:44:35  Lars Janssen (lars@mistral.co.uk) wrote :

>AWEB
>----
>(first public release, version 1.0)
>Available from Aminet sites in the comm/tcp directory.
>Look out for the replacement icon "aweblogo.iff" uploaded separately.

>PROS

>  - Simple to install and configure. Good documentation.

Installer does not work on my setup, but still easy to set up

>  - Opens multiple network connections, to help make the most of your
>    available bandwidth, especially with slower sites. Displays pages
>    as they download.

Ibrowse does this too

>  - Renders HTML 2 pefectly (as far as I've been able to tell so
>    far), making it ideal for testing your pages for suitability on a
>    range of platforms. Proper handling of white space makes the
>    layout of pages far more attractive. (This means a lot to me
>    because I work in publishing...)

>  - Fast - redrawing, scrolling etc. is noticably quicker than
>    IBrowse. Downloading a page with several inline images is at
>    least as fast as IBrowse.

Scrolling is as slow, and sometimes even slower than ibrowse(both running on a
64 color screen)

>  - Menus - while IBrowse has a good set of options, AWeb's are
>    more comprehensive and intuitive, and there seem to be more
>    options availble. To paraphrase the documentation, it *was* much
>    easier to get AWeb to run on my preferred screen type (not to
>    mention remember the window position!) than with IBrowse.

The aweb gui uses BOOPSI, because MUI would be too slow.Using both Ibrowse and
Aweb I find Aweb's screen redraw is much slower than Ibrowse's.So what's the
advantage of BOOPSI ?
On the other hand in mui you can select to use BOOPSI images too.Getting
Ibrowse to run on it's own screen is dead simple if you know how to use mui.
But i think it would be more difficult if you have just started using MUI,
then ppl have to learn using Ibrowse as well as MUI.


>  - It's easier to get hold of as it's been released on Aminet. Plus
>    you don't need MUI, so if you don't have that you'll find getting
>    AWeb much less painfull than getting IBrowse.

>CONS

>  - Doesn't allow CycleToMenu to work (turns cycle gadgets into
>    pop-up menus, a bit like on the Mac). The author doesn't like
>    these, which is fair enough. But I do, so it would be nice to
>    keep 'em for anyone who's installed CycleToMenu if possible. :-)

Hmmm...i think cycletomenu works with Aweb here, i'll check that later.


>Phew, I guess that's enough! I'm sure I've missed something
>important but what the hell...

>IBrowse has more good features, but also (understandably) more bugs.
>For a version which admits to being far from finished it's very good.
>If I'm not mistaken, the people behind IBrowse used to work on
>AMosaic.  Amosaic went through several versions before it was
>truly reliable...  let's hope the finished IBrowse is stable too.

Ibrowse has been very stable here, only the veryfirst release version crashed
all the time

>WHICH IS BEST FOR ME?

>If you like a good-looking program with the latest HTML features,
>you'll like the current version of IBrowse. If reliability is more
>important, you'll probably prefer to stick with AWeb for now.

>Me? I still use my trusty ALynx 90% of the time. :-)

>Lars.

Mark


<tsb>Brought to you by Elvis@stack.urc.tue.nl....Amiga 1200/020 28 mhz, 4 meg
<sb> fast, 2 meg chip memory,two 250 meg harddrives, Epson stylus printer,
<sb> 2x Cdrom drive, 1942 monitor, dynalink modem ElvisP on #amiga, THOR 2.22
<tsb>Random tag line coming up...

      Top 25 programmers excuses #17
      It's just some unlucky coincidense.