• Updated 2023-07-12: Hello, Guest! Welcome back, and be sure to check out this follow-up post about our outage a week or so ago.

Developing Software

tomlee59

Well-known member
Kallikak -- the link to MacLynx source from archive.org exists, but the download always hangs at about 50%. Frustrating.

The developer, Olivier (often misspelled Oliver) Gutknecht, is still very much around, however, and might be willing to send it to you. I would've contacted him, except that I wouldn't be able to do anything with the source myself.

 

TylerEss

Well-known member
I've been looking into writing some MacTCP apps in C, and for me, the streams interface to MacTCP has been the hardest part. I'm not real keen on learning a new interface that isn't connect().

there are a few libraries that emulate a socket interface to MacTCP. Simple Sockets and GUSI (Grand Unified Socket Interface) both come to mind, but I didn't ever get anywhere with them.

Just learning to use the silly MacTCP streams is probably better than using a socket layer.

 

equant

Well-known member
Someone earlier mentioned supporting system 6. Something I hadn't given much thought to, but am now convinced I should do so.

This is sort of a round-a-bout question, hopefully someone can help me figure out what it is I want to ask, and the answer as well...

I have two versions of Think Pascal. 4.5 and 3.?. 3 doesn't have any TCP libraries and 4.5 has MacTCP.p.

As Kallikak suggested, I looked at some of Peter Lewis's code, which uses some included tcp libraries (TCPStuff.unit, TCPConnections.unit, TCPTypes.unit) but does not use MacTCP.p.

So, if I want to write an internet app that runs on system 6 through system 9, is it even possible? Should I use the pre-MacTCP.p code as a starting point, or should I use MacTCP.p?

If MacTCP.p is what I should be using, does anyone know of any simple sample code? Something along the lines of Peter Lewis's examples?

Thanks,

Nathan

 

TylerEss

Well-known member
I don't know anything about using Pascal, but it's not too hard to support System 6: Just use the raw MacTCP interface (MacTCP.p, if that's what that is) and use calls that are documented in Inside Macintosh Volumes 1-5.

Alternately, don't do any gestalt checking and code your code. See where it crashes on Sys6 to identify calls that require System 7. ;-)

 

Quadraman

Well-known member
If someone here is developing a web browser for System 6, it would be nice to see one with as many modern technologies incorporated as possible. I know a lot of things just won't be possible given the hardware, but it would likely turn out better than anything System 6'ers are currently using.

 

JDW

Well-known member
But is a browser really feasible? Sure, a text only browser might; but I'm talking about a real browser that let's you see graphics and forms too.

iCab once supported older 68k Macs, but they haven't released a version for System 7 in ages. I've even written to them multiple times about this, but my words have fallen on deaf ears. iCab is so buggy though that I can't use it on my SE/30.

After comparing every single browser (including the text only ones) on my SE/30, the best I've found is Netscape 2.0. It doesn't support some features that 3.0 does, but Netscape 2.0 is "wicked fast" on my SE/30.

So if a browser is indeed in the works, it would be nice to see something on order of Netscape 2.0 for System 6, especially in terms of speed. But I think that a browser of that magnitude on System 6 may not be possible. If it was, then why didn't Netscape make it compatible with 6 & 7? And again, there would be hundreds if not thousands of man-hours involved. True, it would be one of a kind and truly "wicked fast" because System 6 is so much faster than 7. But again, the effort required to bring it to the light of day may be overwhelming.

 

equant

Well-known member
Well, I'm not developing a browser.

Sorry.

I *am* looking into writing an m68k mpd client so I can use my Mac SE (since it's such a pretty hip thing) to control my home stereo system. Actually, the genesis for this comes from the timing between a $10 Mac SE I found at a thrift store, and not being to run the Mac OSX mpd client on my wife's laptop because 10.3.9 is "too old". :?:

Bah! I'll show you too old!!

So, back to reality... My Mac programming skills are rusty, and were never that good to begin with, but I think this is a reasonable task for me.

Anyone here running mpd that would be willing to beta test for me (in apx. 900 years)?

Nathan

 

TylerEss

Well-known member
I won't be able to, unfortunately. Please keep up the good work, though. :)

A browser would be very hard to develop indeed. Maybe starting with a port of KHTML, like Safari, but it would be SO SLOW...

I have a 48MHz 68040 in my SE/30, and Netscape 2 is not as fast as Safari on my 1000MHz G4 or FireFox on my P3 500 OpenBSD box. Netscape 2 is also by far the fastest browser I have ever seen on 68k Mac. You do the math...

 

JDW

Well-known member
Another programming suggestion for you...

If you want a real challenge and create a tsunami of interest from System 6 community, how about a 32-bit clean version of MultiFinder? This is perhaps one of the single largest benefits any programmer could offer the world of System 6!

 

II2II

Well-known member
Ah yes, giving us the ability to use all of that RAM that we freed up by using efficient software *and* by obtaining cheap SIMMs in today's market. :)

As for a web browser, I wouldn't bother working from a modern rendering engine like KHTML. CSS, JavaScript, and tables would tax a 68030 -- never mind a 68000. As for parsing the HTML, that in itself wouldn't be too bad (assuming that the HTML is well formed).

 

JDW

Well-known member
Ah yes, giving us the ability to use all of that RAM that we freed up by using efficient software *and* by obtaining cheap SIMMs in today's market. :)
While there is some merit to what you say, there are still benefits to a 32-bit clean MultiFinder. MultiFinder itself allows you to run multiple apps simultaneously and switch between them. More RAM allows you to run more of those apps. And some of those apps can eat a lot of RAM, such as Deneba Canvas 3.5.x.

So even though my SE/30 is loaded with RAM, I could still make use of more of that RAM while in System 6 if MultiFinder was 32-bit clean. But again, it would be a real programming challenge, I'm sure!

 

tomlee59

Well-known member
But is a browser really feasible? Sure, a text only browser might; but I'm talking about a real browser that let's you see graphics and forms too.
Given what a large undertaking it would be for someone to write a full-featured browser, my wishes are much more modest. I'd be perfectly happy just to have a port of wannabe to system 6 (or a tweak to allow 68000s to run it -- I mean true 68000-based macs, not "68k family"). Or to mod MacLynx to run under 6. Why? A couple of reasons:

1) There is only one browser of any kind that runs under 6. Samba is historically interesting, but unusable. It can't get to most modern sites (because they are virtually hosted). And even for the ones it can access, you can't download files! Can't use this browser to get to our favorite classic mac software sites, can't use it to download s/w.

2) MacLynx is a bit slow under 7. Maybe it could be sped up some at the same time it's made to run under 6. MacLynx does support the HOSTS extension, allowing access to all those virtually hosted sites. So if it could be made to run in 6, it would at least solve the problem of connecting to sites that have software we're interested in downloading.

Finally, the more you want the browser to do, the less likely it is that someone will undertake and complete the project. :)

 

equant

Well-known member
Ok, one more question. Anyone have a link to the electronic versions of Apple's Inside Macintosh Series? I can't find them anywhere on Apple's site.

Thanks,

Nathan

 

II2II

Well-known member
If I may comment, MacLynx should be regarded as a dead end.

First and foremost, Lynx is already accessible to vintage computing enthusiasts via Unix shell accounts. This was also how Lynx was originally intended to run. Running it locally is a bit of a quirk that became common because Unix systems became common.

It is also worth noting that remote access also gives you access to other web browsers, like elinks.

The second reason is that Lynx does not exploit many of the features of the Macintosh. Even though Lynx is, in many ways, a much more powerful web browser, I consider Wannabe to be a much better browser. That is because Wannabe has the capabilities to emphasize things like headers and links, thus making documents easier to read.

 

tomlee59

Well-known member
Well, I have a different view. "It should be considered a dead end" is an opinion from the perspective of "what software should do." Mine comes from an acknowledgment of limiitations imposed by "what is available." These are quite different things (I wish it were not so!).

For 68000 machines like the Plus, there really are very few options. I contacted the author of wannabe a couple of years ago. Suffice it to say that it seems unlikely that we will be given sufficient access to the source to turn it into what we'd like. Maybe he would reconsider now, but that was his polite turndown then (and he is most polite).

I managed to track down the author of Samba (not an easy task), who was surprised and delighted that there remains interest in what he did so long ago. Alas, he's changed jobs and machines enough that he no longer has the source code, and has no idea where it might be.

That really leaves only MacLynx, whose source was once available freely. And not everyone has access to shell accounts (and having to run a terminal program adds a further level of remoteness and unfamiliarity).

But given that no one wants to undertake this project anyway, this is all for naught. Just adding to global warming to irritate Al Gore...

 

JDW

Well-known member
Anyone have a link to the electronic versions of Apple's Inside Macintosh Series?
You will need to use HyperCard to view them. And the archive I have is about 20MB in size, compressed.

 

equant

Well-known member
Anyone have a link to the electronic versions of Apple's Inside Macintosh Series?
You will need to use HyperCard to view them. And the archive I have is about 20MB in size, compressed.
Hmmm. I guess I assumed they were out there as pdfs. Well, I've ordered the hard copies, so I'll just be patient and wait for the mail. Thanks for the offer.

Nathan

 

JDW

Well-known member
The benefit of having them in book form is that you can curl up in bed or on the couch to read them, at your ease. Even if you had a laptop, it wouldn't be the same as with the book. However, the Hypercard stacks can be searched, which is something you cannot do quickly with a book.

I suppose it would have been nice to have them in PDF form. But Apple put them in HyperCard format long before PDF became popular.

 

bigD

Well-known member
Are these Hypercard versions for the early volumes of Inside Mac?

I ask because I have a CD for the versions released for System 7 and later.

 

JDW

Well-known member
The Hypercard edition includes the early versions of Inside Macintosh, including Volume I, yes. But I don't know how many of the volumes are included (which would tell you if it includes System 7 era information or not).

 
Top