![]() ![]() WS_FTP Pro 7.0* (client is very good, will do 40bit data and control = OK) WS_FTP Pro 7.5* (client is good, will do 168bit data and control = EXCELLENT) ![]() FlashFXP can do more than 168bit SSL today):įlashFXP 1.4.4 build 849 (best client, will do 168bit data, control and allow FXP = PERFECT)ĬuteFTP Pro 2.0 (client is quite ok, will do 168bit data and control = EXCELLENT) Here's a sniplet of my past-time HOWTO (it's already some years old so the data is no longer correct, e.g. I'm not affiliated to IniCom in any way, so I dare saying: FlashFXP has always been and probably will always be more advanced, with a better interface and a better support. Since that day, I have never been using WS_FTP again, and I never regretted it. WS_FTP Pro (7.0) completely lost during my tests because at that time, they only offered 40bit data and control connections, and no FXP (SSL or not) at all. One day, I wrote a HOWTO on secure FTP transfers and I tested all currently available FTP clients that claim SSL functionality. Things like FXP (very useful for both professional and kiddie use), SSL Encryption, Queueing and much more has been a part within FlashFXP much longer than in WS_FTP (if they implemented it at all). Once I really tested FlashFXP, things were clear to me.įlashFXP had tons of more options completely unknown to WS_FTP. I've been a longtime (registered) user of WS_FTP Pro for a couple of years. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |