🚀 go-pugleaf

Mark van der Molen (elvis@stack.urc.tue.nl) wrote:
> 
> >PROS
> 
> >  - Simple to install and configure. Good documentation.
> 
> Installer does not work on my setup, but still easy to set up

That's curious...
> 
> >  - 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

Indeed... the above paragraph was copied and pasted from the IBrowse
"pros" section.  I thought it worth mentioning even though both
browsers can do it, because it's so useful, and a new feature for
Amiga web browsers. :-)

> >  - 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)

That's not what I've experienced, although to be honest the
difference isn't that great on my setup. What I have noticed is that
resizing windows seems to be slower with MUI. I'm running a 640x512
256 colour screen with AGA BTW.

> >  - 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 ?

The main argument for using one or the other is speed as far as I'm
concerned, although other issues have been raised before such as
consistency. If it turns out that MUI is faster, then so be it, but
it's not central to my comparison between the two web browsers. MUI
has been discussed at length before.

> 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.

I agree both web browsers are easy enough to set up and use for the
average user, but I did find that changing the screen properties for
IBrowse required going through more steps. And yes, it would make it
harder for beginners to get up and running with IBrowse (there are
still plenty of newcomers to the Amiga as well as the 'net).

> >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

I would put that down to its early stage of development... they
haven't got around to finding all the bugs which only show up on
certain setups perhaps.  For me, every version so far has been
unreliable, and I've not been using it as my main web browser.

Still, I *am* very interested in how it's shaping up... as I am with
AWeb (you never know, I might end up buying both!)

Lars.

-- 

                     Lars Janssen --> lars@mistral.co.uk
                     --- Still dreaming about Kelle! ---
  <<Eternal web site>>                                 <<My home page>>
  http://lars.keme.net/eternal/          http://www.mistral.co.uk/lars/