We hope you enjoy your visit.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Locked Topic
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • …
  • 5
  • …
  • 14
Avant Browser
Topic Started: Jun 2 2005, 01:49 AM (5,425 Views)
Sirin Jun 4 2005, 12:48 PM Post #61
Member
[ * * * * ]
Rory
June 4, 2005 11:43 AM
Sirin, your argument is totally flawed. Avant requires the user to have Internet Explorer to be installed, thus the file size is larger than what the actual download is. Avant is merely a shell for Internet Explorer.

But as we speak, Avant Force is thinking on a new way to make it so you won't need to install IE (a 55Mb download) just to use this. They're also thinking on bringing the engine to KHTML to make it a stand-alone. ;)
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Aaron Jun 4 2005, 12:49 PM Post #62
Member Avatar
A blast from the past.
Sirin
June 4, 2005 11:42 AM
FearKiller
June 4, 2005 11:17 AM
As for the file sizes for these browsers, lets look at it at a different point of view. IPB is a slightly larger file size than phpBB. Does that mean you'll chose phpBB over IPB? Extra features and capabilities will obviously increase these file sizes. Less does not always equal the better browser. Speed isn't everything.

If you even try Avant, you'll see that it has even more features than Firefox at a lower size. It has tabbed browsing, related pages toolbar, XML feeds, completely draggable toolbars, faster loading, higher compatibility with software, displays pages correctly (I haven't seen one page that doesn't work even slightly correctly with Avant), higher compatibility with sites ( for example, http://zone.msn.com/ ), less ram use, built-in ad&popup blocker, and since Avant is led by people other than Microsoft, Avant Force themselves may be able to patch up security holes to Avant that exist with IE to be even safer than IE. Don't say it isn't possible, but Avant is safer than IE. ;)

1)Read above
Quote:
 
displays pages correctly (I haven't seen one page that doesn't work even slightly correctly with Avant)
Neather have I with Firefox nor Opera besides I dont go to the sites that the coders are too lazy not to valate there codes.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Rory Jun 4 2005, 12:50 PM Post #63
i;m a mess
[ * * * * * * * ]
Sirin
June 4, 2005 05:48 PM
Rory
June 4, 2005 11:43 AM
Sirin, your argument is totally flawed. Avant requires the user to have Internet Explorer to be installed, thus the file size is larger than what the actual download is. Avant is merely a shell for Internet Explorer.

But as we speak, Avant Force is thinking on a new way to make it so you won't need to install IE (a 55Mb download) just to use this. They're also thinking on bringing the engine to KHTML to make it a stand-alone. ;)

which will increase the file size beyond the current 1+mb :rolleyes:
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Arcadia Jun 4 2005, 12:51 PM Post #64
Member Avatar
wat foo
[ * * * * * * ]
Quote:
 
Neather have I with Firefox nor Opera

Are you saying that FireFox and Opera don't display pages correctly? :o
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Gornakle Jun 4 2005, 12:51 PM Post #65
Member
[ * * * * * ]
Sirin
June 4, 2005 04:19 PM
Gornakle
June 2, 2005 10:44 AM
IE also allows you to turn off ActiveX. I don't see how an easy to find option on the menu would make a browser more secure. 

Thank you for your point. ;)
Yes, I also don't see how having ActiveX disabled could make Firefox safer at any point.
So, why do people use Firefox then? :/

You don't see how having ActiveX disabled improves security? ActiveX is one of the easiest and most used exploit for IE/IE based browsers. Now, both IE and Firefox can run ActiveX (you can install it for Firefox). The big difference is that in IE, ActiveX is turned on by default. Firefox gives you the option, but only for those that really need it for testing purposes or something.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Seth Jun 4 2005, 12:54 PM Post #66
Member Avatar
I has a pony
[ * * * * * * * * * ]
Sirin
June 4, 2005 11:48 AM
Rory
June 4, 2005 11:43 AM
Sirin, your argument is totally flawed. Avant requires the user to have Internet Explorer to be installed, thus the file size is larger than what the actual download is. Avant is merely a shell for Internet Explorer.

But as we speak, Avant Force is thinking on a new way to make it so you won't need to install IE (a 55Mb download) just to use this. They're also thinking on bringing the engine to KHTML to make it a stand-alone. ;)

If they do, then I'll happily support Avant. But I am against any product that uses the Triton engine. It's too crappy.

My sig is an example. Notice IE puts a mask around the transparent PNG. Blegh.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Aaron Jun 4 2005, 12:55 PM Post #67
Member Avatar
A blast from the past.
Arcadia
June 4, 2005 11:51 AM
Quote:
 
Neather have I with Firefox nor Opera

Are you saying that FireFox and Opera don't display pages correctly? :o

olny pages that were made with things like MS front page or if its not vailed W3C standers.
The Hipacrits at MS want every one to conform to there standers but they dont want to confore to The Standers that are out.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Sirin Jun 4 2005, 12:57 PM Post #68
Member
[ * * * * ]
Gornakle
June 4, 2005 11:51 AM
You don't see how having ActiveX disabled improves security? ActiveX is one of the easiest and most used exploit for IE/IE based browsers. Now, both IE and Firefox can run ActiveX (you can install it for Firefox). The big difference is that in IE, ActiveX is turned on by default. Firefox gives you the option, but only for those that really need it for testing purposes or something.

Hmm... I thought you said in a previous post that you didn't see how disabling ActiveX would inprove a browser's security. :/

Screenshot

That easy to disable ActiveX. ;)


Seth
June 4, 2005 11:54 AM

If they do, then I'll happily support Avant. But I am against any product that uses the Triton engine. It's too crappy.

My sig is an example. Notice IE puts a mask around the transparent PNG. Blegh.

I've gotten countless reports that the KHTML Engine is even crappier than IE. Do you think Avant should switch to KHTML or are they screwed no matter what? Your opinion. :)
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Gornakle Jun 4 2005, 01:02 PM Post #69
Member
[ * * * * * ]
Sirin
June 4, 2005 05:57 PM
Hmm... I thought you said in a previous post that you didn't see how disabling ActiveX would inprove a browser's security. :/

No. But you claimed Avant was safer than IE because ActiveX was easy to disable. I just pointed out that an easy to find option doesn't make a browser safer, seeing as IE also allows you to disable ActiveX.

About the rendering engine, what's it going to be? Are they going to build their own (which I doubt, making a good rendering from scratch isn't exactly the easiest thing to do) as you mentioned earlier, or are they going to base it off of an existing engine?
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Sirin Jun 4 2005, 01:21 PM Post #70
Member
[ * * * * ]
Gornakle
June 4, 2005 12:02 PM
About the rendering engine, what's it going to be? Are they going to build their own (which I doubt, making a good rendering from scratch isn't exactly the easiest thing to do) as you mentioned earlier, or are they going to base it off of an existing engine?

That is being debated HERE.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Gornakle Jun 4 2005, 01:39 PM Post #71
Member
[ * * * * * ]
Sirin
June 4, 2005 06:21 PM
That is being debated HERE.

That thread was started over a year ago and since then there has been no offcial word on Avant using a different engine (at least not mentioned in that topic), just speculations. :huh:
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Sirin Jun 4 2005, 01:40 PM Post #72
Member
[ * * * * ]
Seth
June 4, 2005 11:54 AM
If they do, then I'll happily support Avant. But I am against any product that uses the Triton engine. It's too crappy.

My sig is an example. Notice IE puts a mask around the transparent PNG. Blegh.

As said on the Avant forums:

Quote:
 
If Avant uses the Gecko engine, users will think of Avant as "Just a double to Firefox" and ditch it for Firefox. Avant will have VERY LITTLE users then. ;)
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Sipefree Jun 4 2005, 01:43 PM Post #73
Moved to paid hosting.
[ * * * ]
 I can name one reason why Firefox is better than this browser.

Firefox is open-source. If I have a problem with something in FF, I can get the source and fix it myself. It is truly free software.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
FearKiller Jun 4 2005, 01:47 PM Post #74
Member Avatar
www.drewscripts.com
[ * * * * * ]
Sirin
June 4, 2005 11:42 AM
displays pages correctly

I dare you to get this page to display as it should in Avant.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Seth Jun 4 2005, 01:48 PM Post #75
Member Avatar
I has a pony
[ * * * * * * * * * ]
Sirin
June 4, 2005 11:57 AM
I've gotten countless reports that the KHTML Engine is even crappier than IE. Do you think Avant should switch to KHTML or are they screwed no matter what? Your opinion. :)

Yes, I believe that the KHTML engine, while not as polished as the Gecko engine, still provides heaps better standards support than anything Microsoft has ever created.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Community Chat · Next Topic »
Locked Topic
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • …
  • 5
  • …
  • 14