| Click here to select a new forum. |
| A System 6 Browser |
Posted by: CaryMG on 2008-07-28 11:00:35
I hadn't heard of this one so here it is just in case there are others who haven't heard of it, either > "MacHTTP"
:b&w:
|
Posted by: MacMan on 2008-07-28 11:56:13
MacHTTP isn't a System 6 browser, it is a web hosting application. Very popular amongst those with 68K web servers!
|
Posted by: tomlee59 on 2008-07-28 12:10:52
And the only system 6 browser -- Samba -- is so buggy and lacking in features that it is only of historical interest.
|
Posted by: luddite on 2008-07-28 12:14:11
And I guess the fact that the site has devolved into an anonymous directory listing is a good sign that development has ceased.
🙁
|
Posted by: Quadraman on 2008-07-28 14:18:51
And the only system 6 browser -- Samba -- is so buggy and lacking in features that it is only of historical interest. Was there never a version of Lynx for System 6?
|
Posted by: tomlee59 on 2008-07-28 17:41:42
In a word, no. The only port that I am familiar with, MacLynx, requires system 7.
Of course, you could use a terminal program under system 6 and run Lynx remotely, but that's cheating. 🙂
|
Posted by: luddite on 2008-07-28 20:32:26
Of course, you could use a terminal program under system 6 and run Lynx remotely, but that's cheating. 🙂 I would have said "sensible" 😉
|
Posted by: luddite on 2008-07-28 20:36:05
At this point I should make my usual comment that uIP/Contiki has been ported to every retro platform on earth except 68k Mac. Given that it runs just fine on a 64K Apple II, I'm quite sure it could be made to work on even the lowliest of Macs.
|
Posted by: ChristTrekker on 2008-07-29 06:02:23
At this point I should make my usual comment that uIP/Contiki has been ported to every retro platform on earth except 68k Mac. Given that it runs just fine on a 64K Apple II, I'm quite sure it could be made to work on even the lowliest of Macs. I've sometimes wondered how hard it would be to get that browser to work on a Unix.
|
Posted by: paws on 2008-07-29 06:21:43
In a word, no. The only port that I am familiar with, MacLynx, requires system 7.
Of course, you could use a terminal program under system 6 and run Lynx remotely, but that's cheating. 🙂 Nah, as long as the remote computer is old as well, it's fine.
|
Posted by: luddite on 2008-07-29 07:26:30
I've sometimes wondered how hard it would be to get that browser to work on a Unix. I'm pretty sure there's already a Unix version.
|
Posted by: tomlee59 on 2008-07-29 11:39:35
In a word, no. The only port that I am familiar with, MacLynx, requires system 7.
Of course, you could use a terminal program under system 6 and run Lynx remotely, but that's cheating. 🙂 Nah, as long as the remote computer is old as well, it's fine.
Agreed! 🙂
|
Posted by: tomlee59 on 2008-07-29 11:42:24
At this point I should make my usual comment that uIP/Contiki has been ported to every retro platform on earth except 68k Mac. Given that it runs just fine on a 64K Apple II, I'm quite sure it could be made to work on even the lowliest of Macs. I've been waiting for someone (meaning, someone else) to do just that. Any volunteers? It's been ported to the C64, and there were sporadic reports of getting it to (sort of) work on a VIC-20.
As I've mentioned before, I'm legally prohibited from writing code, so I can't do it... 😉
|
Posted by: luddite on 2008-07-29 12:25:31
Sadly my rudimentary knowledge of BASIC won't help here, but I am totally willing to provide moral support to the project!
|
Posted by: equant on 2008-07-29 14:56:06
I thought Contiki was a 6502 thing, using cc65. Maybe I was wrong in assuming that. What would be a couple of the pros to porting Contiki to the 68000 mac?
I'm not saying that porting for the sake of porting isn't great, but how would it be better than system 6?
|
Posted by: equant on 2008-07-29 15:00:06
And I guess the fact that the site has devolved into an anonymous directory listing is a good sign that development has ceased. 🙁 Yes, but the source is available on sourceforge. It appears to be CodeWarrior 11, which I don't have, so I've not been able to build it.
Although, I can't imagine there's much left to do is there?
|
Posted by: luddite on 2008-07-29 21:24:57
I thought Contiki was a 6502 thing, using cc65. Maybe I was wrong in assuming that. What would be a couple of the pros to porting Contiki to the 68000 mac?
I'm not saying that porting for the sake of porting isn't great, but how would it be better than system 6? Contiki OS itself would be crap compared to System 6, but the web browser beats anything that's currently available (ie: it actually works).
|
Posted by: luddite on 2008-07-29 21:33:09
Although, I can't imagine there's much left to do is there? I can think of one or two features I wouldn't mind seeing, though by and large it's pretty complete and quite stable.
|
Posted by: Unknown_K on 2008-07-29 22:03:05
Thinking of trying to browse the WWW on an SE with 4MB of RAM and a 68000 does not sound like a great idea to me. Not exactly fun on the top end 68K's either (but more doable).
|
| 1 > |