| Click here to select a new forum. |
| A System 6 Browser |
Posted by: luddite on 2008-07-30 00:48:57
Depends... I don't think aimlessly browsing pr0n would be all that much fun, but if you need to search for and download a specific file (for example) it might be darned handy.
There's a lot more to this internet thing than just wasting time you know ;-)
|
Posted by: Bunsen on 2008-07-30 00:50:02
Although, considering what can be done with the Contiki browser on a 1MHz 8 bit 6502 or Z80 with 64kb of RAM, porting it to an 8MHz 32 bit 68000 with 128k doesn't sound like a bad idea at all.
Can anyone here even give a feasibility estimate for such a project? Porting to System 6 would be ideal; perhaps the whole Contiki OS could be ported to run as a Mac process. It is designed to be highly portable.
|
Posted by: Bunsen on 2008-07-30 00:57:43
Speaking of amazing OS efforts on 8 bit machines:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SymbOS
Although admittedly, it does make use of dedicated support ICs in the host for video &c
|
Posted by: Bunsen on 2008-07-30 01:06:16
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contiki#Ports
- Atari ST
- x86-based Unix-like systems, on top of GTK+ as well as directly using the X Window System
I guess that answers the feasibility question. If they can get it up and running on an ST, it's a relative hop, skip and a jump from there to a Mac.
|
Posted by: ChristTrekker on 2008-07-30 06:28:07
Contiki OS itself would be crap compared to System 6, but the web browser beats anything that's currently available (ie: it actually works). I dunno...preemptive multithreading (Contiki) vs cooperative multitasking (Sys 6)...depending on what you're trying to do, Contiki might be the better performer. Now the browser, unless it's evolved past the point where scrolling required a page reload, I don't think I'd want to be using it extensively. It would be amusing to port it to check it out and test with, but nothing I'd use as a regular browser, unlike Links/Lynx which are quite functional in that sense.
|
Posted by: II2II on 2008-07-30 07:11:48
One of the things that has always bothered me about the Mac world is that programming is actively discouraged. I don't think I've ever seen anyone put down for wanting to program in BASIC on an Apple II, so games like Silvern Castle were well received. I've never seen people complain about HyperCard games on the IIgs, which is why we have Shipwrecked (or Myst on the Mac for that matter).
For that matter, I've never seen people claim that Apple IIe programs have to be written for ProDOS. Yet I have seen people told NOT to program for System 6, because the System 7 API is so much better.
If you want people to make neat software, stop discouraging them with your linguistic and OS ideological wars. If you can, help them.
I know that people are being pretty supportive in this thread, but two threads over are people telling a guy not to program in BASIC on Mac OS X because languages that noone has ever even heard of are superior.
|
Posted by: paws on 2008-07-30 07:38:24
I know that people are being pretty supportive in this thread, but two threads over are people telling a guy not to program in BASIC on Mac OS X because languages that noone has ever even heard of are superior. I suggested four languages as alternatives for Mac OS X programming in one of those threads, two of which are actually included with OS X and supported by Apple as ways to build Cocoa apps; one that is used as a scripting language in little-used applications by unknown software developers such World of Warcraft and Adobe Lightroom and the last (Common Lisp) is taught in a lot of computer science courses.
(shortened)
|
Posted by: tomlee59 on 2008-07-30 14:50:38
Contiki OS itself would be crap compared to System 6, but the web browser beats anything that's currently available (ie: it actually works). I dunno...preemptive multithreading (Contiki) vs cooperative multitasking (Sys 6)...depending on what you're trying to do, Contiki might be the better performer. Now the browser, unless it's evolved past the point where scrolling required a page reload, I don't think I'd want to be using it extensively. It would be amusing to port it to check it out and test with, but nothing I'd use as a regular browser, unlike Links/Lynx which are quite functional in that sense.
Because no System 6 browser exists (I'm treating Samba as more of a stunt), the issue isn't really whether the putative NewBrowser would be worth using regularly. Rather than comparing it to modern browsers that operate on much more capable machines, we're comparing it to...nothing. And compared to nothing, something is pretty damn nice. It would be helpful to be able to download System 6 software on a System 6 Mac. Among others, it would permit us to bypass the "How do I get software onto an 800K floppy?" problem that often crops up when using a more modern computer.
And there's also the "we want to do it because we think we can" geektosterone spirit that ultimately motivates many of us here. 🙂
|
Posted by: paws on 2008-07-30 15:07:42
Even a plain HTML browser is extremely useful on any platform, no doubt.
|
Posted by: ChristTrekker on 2008-07-31 06:40:57
And there's also the "we want to do it because we think we can" geektosterone spirit that ultimately motivates many of us here. 🙂 :lol: 😀 :lol: ;D :lol: 😀 :lol:
|
Posted by: Unknown_K on 2008-07-31 20:32:01
Old macs tend to have SCSI, so you can connect a zip drive up and transfer drivers and apps as needed (unless you are a ludite who only has a SE for their main computer).
Probably faster to connect serial ports between macs and transfer files the old fashioned way via chooser. Or try the phonenet.
|
Posted by: luddite on 2008-07-31 21:30:50
Well, I am a luddite... but you make several good points. However, I think if we look at this in terms of pure practicality then we might as well just not bother with old Macs at all.
tomlee59 hit the nail right on the head... it's a challenge... dare I say a RetroChallenge.
|
Posted by: equant on 2008-08-05 00:52:51
Does anyone know what Samba's development was based on? From the descriptions I've found on the web, the specifics of when it crashes, it sounds like some of the troubles I've had with Peter Lewis's Think Pascal TCP code example.
|
Posted by: porter on 2008-08-05 00:58:32
Does anyone know what Samba's development was based on? Samba? You mean the UNIX SMB Server Message Blocks implementation?
|
Posted by: ChristTrekker on 2008-08-05 06:16:38
Samba? You mean the UNIX SMB Server Message Blocks implementation? Samba/MacWWW, the web browser for Sys 6.
|
Posted by: tomlee59 on 2008-08-05 13:05:48
Does anyone know what Samba's development was based on? From the descriptions I've found on the web, the specifics of when it crashes, it sounds like some of the troubles I've had with Peter Lewis's Think Pascal TCP code example. I have no idea, but I can probably get you in contact with the author. I just need to rummage through a mountain of bytes to find his email address. He used to work at CERN (where he wrote Samba). He was unable to unearth a copy of the source code, and doubts that it even exists anywhere at CERN (although that assertion did surprise me; I thought these folks backed up everything three ways).
|
Posted by: equant on 2008-08-05 13:49:01
Well, I'd like his email if you can find it. After reading the descriptions about its shortcomings, it makes me nervous about System 6/7 TCP development path I've taken for some of my projects.
|
Posted by: porter on 2008-08-05 14:20:07
What are the alleged problems with MacTCP?
I've used it with no major problems.
|
Posted by: equant on 2008-08-05 14:36:48
The problems aren't with MacTCP, the problems are with Samba. For example, from http://home24.inet.tele.dk/ccadams/se/samba.html ...
"Do not close any windows as this crashes the Mac; also quitting MacWWW seems to cause a crash. Note that with System 6, MacTCP may crash when saving prefs for the first time, so check that the prefs are actually saved".
|
Posted by: porter on 2008-08-05 14:41:47
You have to treat MacTCP as an asychronous driver, when you invoke a control command you do need to confirm it has been completed before you continue. As it may use memory in your heap (System 6 being very different to 7 in this regard) you need to ensure all streams are correctly closed.
The MacTCP that sits on top of OpenTransport has quite a different behaviour, so when developing MacTCP code you need to test in both environments (eg with and without OT).
|
| < 2 |