Mac 128K, BBS & The Internet?

[Mac128]

It seems to me that since the original 128K and 512K can run BBS software to share e-mail and files via those old networks, and later, services like FidoNet allowed those dial-up networks direct access to the internet, there must be a way to send and receive e-mail via the internet on a 64K ROM Mac.

Shouldn't there be a way to run a localized version of a FidoNet-type software to convert a serial null-modem connection to an IP-based one? The goal would be to allow a Mac 128K to send an receive e-mail over the internet, using nothing more than a serial connection to a modern OS X Mac (via the handy-dandy Keysapn USB serial adapter).

 

[porter]

Just use a terminal emulator!

Alternatively you could do a cut-down IP stack with PPP and minimized POP3 client.

 

[Gorgonops]

Just use a terminal emulator!

Seconded.

Here's a vt100 terminal emulator that supposedly runs on a 128k Mac. There are many recipes out there to enable a tty on a serial port in OS X, and a vt100 terminal is feature-ful enough to run "alpine"/"mutt" for email and "links"/"lynx" for web. (And with "screen" you can even run both at once.) All this software is easily installed on the OS X host with Fink or MacPorts. If you need to transfer files to the Mac you can even run xmodem (assuming your terminal program supports it) from the UNIX command line.

The end result will basically be the same as if you'd logged into a BBS account. If you really want the full experience there are plenty of text-menuing shells out there for UNIX that you could set up to offer direct single-key access to the various programs you want to use after logging in.

 

[Mac128]

Here's a vt100 terminal emulator that supposedly runs on a 128k Mac.

And this is where my eyes glaze over. There is no shortage of vintage Terminal and e-mail software that runs on a Mac 128K and especially 512K. In fact I'm not even sure why someone would write such an application unless they were just screwing around and wanted to. I already use MacTerminal (which emulates vt100) to transfer files in and out of OS X using SheepShaver and napbar has confirmed ZTerm directly in OS X works with MacTerminal.

For me the idea is not necessarily getting the BBS experience ... I think Luddite even actually maintains an old dialup system. For me, it's about expanding the functionality of a 128K (and bragging rights). Obviously the technology exists to convert terminal-based mail-apps input/output to SMTP/Pop3 to be sent and received over the modern internet. Putting it together in a simple package that just works under OS X is another matter. What I don't want to do is actually dial-up anything. I simply want to be able to log onto my Mac and start sending and receiving e-mail.

For many non-UNIX users on this forum, these kinds of projects usually die a quick death since it involves some advanced configuration of tools which are not familiar to most Mac users, not because they can't be done. I guess what I'm looking for is a step-by-step which I understand. Anyway, it's a fun idea that's beyond my skill set.

 

[porter]

For me, it's about expanding the functionality of a 128K (and bragging rights)......it's a fun idea that's beyond my skill set.

To do any expanding of the funcationalilty of the 128k like you describe you are going to have to do real programming ( Pascal, C or assembler ).

 

[Gorgonops]

For many non-UNIX users on this forum, these kinds of projects usually die a quick death since it involves some advanced configuration of tools which are not familiar to most Mac users, not because they can't be done. I guess what I'm looking for is a step-by-step which I understand. Anyway, it's a fun idea that's beyond my skill set.

Don't take this the wrong way or anything, but it seems a little unusual to me for someone interested in "retrocomputing" to be frightened of learning gruesome technical details about how computers "in general" work. If you look at the fanbase of other old-tyme-y computers you'll find that almost every individual in those communities is "frighteningly technical" and not afraid to get their hands dirty in anything that enables them to get more out of their old machines. (Even if that means putting aside the Atari 800 or Commodore 64 long enough to hack something together to interface said machine to their Linux/DOS/Windows box to have it emulate an impossible to find peripheral, say.)

Really, this is an easy one. One could type the recipe up to do it in about twenty minutes. But if what you really want is for someone else to put together a .dmg with a drag-and-drop package that prevents you from having to type *anything* at a terminal prompt, well... that seems a little greedy. It probably wouldn't make you happy anyway because going the "terminal" route you'd still have to learn how to use those terminal-window programs. (Which are easy enough to use by 1980 Wordstar-esque context-sensitive-letter-key-menu standards, but they're not Mac-ish.)

I remember ages ago there was a clever little program someone who had a dial-up shell account with command-line Internet access could install that could "fake" a limited SLIP connection by reformatting http requests into keypunches for "lynx", thus allowing someone to run a graphical web browser. (I forget the name of it.) In theory you could set up a serial-line-appropriate email client on the OS X end (even plain-old "mail" might do) and then write a "simple" GUI shell program to run on the Mac that would act as a specialized terminal program. Said program would interpreting the menuing system of the UNIX program, screen-scrape the output, adjust its pulldown menus appropriately, and reformat the message reading/composition text into a windowed GUI editor. That might fit in 128k better then a full-fledged email program since all the message buffering and the actual network communication would stay on the UNIX end.

But, yeah, that means programming. Pretty easy programming by most standards (That terminal program I linked to above even has source you could start with for the communication portion), but programming.

 

[luddite]

Don't take this the wrong way or anything, but it seems a little unusual to me for someone interested in "retrocomputing" to be frightened of learning gruesome technical details about how computers "in general" work. If you look at the fanbase of other old-tyme-y computers you'll find that almost every individual in those communities is "frighteningly technical" and not afraid to get their hands dirty in anything that enables them to get more out of their old machines.

Such is the difference of the Macintosh experience... don't forget that tinkering was strictly discouraged in the early days!

But getting back to the original topic... it most surely is possible, but as others have said it will require a journey into the unknown. Contiki OS would seem the logical place to start, since it already has a proof-of-concept email client that sort-of works on a 64K Apple II. The first hurdle would be that, as far as I know, no one's yet ported Contiki to 68K.

Edit: never mind, I just reread the original post and realized we're talking about using an OS X machine to do the heavy work.

 

[Mac128]

but it seems a little unusual to me for someone interested in "retrocomputing" to be frightened of learning gruesome technical details about how computers "in general" work....Really, this is an easy one. One could type the recipe up to do it in about twenty minutes. But if what you really want is for someone else to put together a .dmg with a drag-and-drop package that prevents you from having to type *anything* at a terminal prompt, well... that seems a little greedy. It probably wouldn't make you happy anyway because going the "terminal" route you'd still have to learn how to use those terminal-window programs.

Since when does being interested in vintage Macs require a degree in computer programming? I'm not frightened, just have no interest in it. There are many folks on these forums who maintain their vintage equipment, but have no interest in learning to program for them, but rather using them. To that end, I can take apart and re-assemble and maintain the hard ware with the best of them. We all have our strengths and that's where the beauty of a community comes together. Also, I'm not demanding anyone write a program for me. I'm looking for solutions. There's nothing "greedy" about it. Don't take this the wrong way, but what seems easy to you, is rocket science for some. I suspect there are things you would not be able to do in 20 minutes that others could as well. There's some arrogance behind that statement which fails to acknowledge the limits of others. And for the record, I don't need a self installing program. That's a condescending assumption. What I am hoping for is "try this application and that application and install them in such & such way", something helpful for the novice. Also, the whole point of using a Mac was to never touch a command line interface. So yeah, I'm a Mac user and care not for UNIX. But OS X has turned the Mac into a UNIX box and now we must learn to live with it. But you keep saying I have to learn to use terminal-window programs ... why? I already told you I use MacTerminal. It is 100% a Mac GUI program. While it is essentially an interface like OS X Terminal, the two could not be more different to use. Also, there were plenty of e-mail-type programs written for the 128/512K which mask the terminal interface for the user. All the user did was start the program, type the message and it got sent through the BBS system and likewise received relies. The Mac made computers friendly. Unix makes them dirty again. Good for the Apple II guys and expanding the Mac platform, bad for those of us who grew up with it and never had to learn that stuff. Seriously why?

To do any expanding of the funcationalilty of the 128k like you describe you are going to have to do real programming ( Pascal, C or assembler ).

You couldn't be more wrong. I've done plenty with the 128K and modern computers using only what was written for it and finding clever ways to interact with OS X. I have absolutely no interest in programming for the 128K. Also, as Gorgonops deduced this is a OS X-side Unix solution not a 128K-side machine language, though it every well could be done that way ... why?

 

[porter]

To do any expanding of the funcationalilty of the 128k like you describe you are going to have to do real programming ( Pascal, C or assembler ).

You couldn't be more wrong.

The way I read it you wanted the 128k to do SLIP or PPP. Both can be done, but you have to basically duplicate the functionality of MacTCP in a small memory space. You don't have Communications Toolbox or MacTCP so somebody, somewhere is going to have to crank up MPW.

Also, as Gorgonops deduced this is a OS X-side Unix solution not a 128K-side machine language, though it every well could be done that way ... why?

So install MacTerminal and you are done. Finished, end of project. Refering to a 128k is really just a huge red herring.

 

[Mac128]

The way I read it you wanted the 128k to do SLIP or PPP. Both can be done, but you have to basically duplicate the functionality of MacTCP in a small memory space.

Actually, that isn't what I wanted at all. Charlieman has already done a lot of testing down this route. And it would be very difficult. Also, I seriously doubt it is possible on a 128K. Based on information included in Inside Macintosh, the way the 128K manages memory would require some herculean efforts to maintain a network connection of any kind, which is likely the reason AppleShare was never implemented for it. Obviously it managed a 1200k dial-up connection, so presumably one could look there for a solution. But I suspect running a TCP/IP stack of any size and trying to manage, the System, Finder, a GUI terminal or other communications package would be well beyond the abilities of a 128K. The whole idea sprang out of the notion that many of the BBS/Internet bridge technologies were UNIX based to begin with and the Mac OS is now too. Even if the software doesn't exist to set this up in OS X, the speed, RAM, and standardization of programming technologies would make it a more appropriate platform than trying to re-engineer the software for a 128/512K Mac.

So install MacTerminal and you are done. Finished, end of project.

How is this a solution for the project? I still have no way to bridge the output from MacTerminal to the Internet and vice/versa. Which was the whole point.

 

[Charlieman]

I'd love it if there was a KIP/MacIP based package that you could use on a Mac 512K (no, a 128K will never cut it) to access a Unix box. I've tried it, and I have exchanged mail with the developers who tried in the 1980s, but nobody can locate the source code for those efforts. From a basic IP stack, you could create apps that are more Mac-like than Contiki by driving command line Unix apps on a server.

It might also be possible to cobble together a UUCP for Mac OS X internal gateway and a vintage Mac front end. The problem would locating external UUCP exchanges that connect to the modern internet.

It's like running a 1910 Stanley Steamer on the road today: the machine may work and it may run at a reasonable pace, but the modern world doesn't provide regular coal and water refuelling points.

 

[porter]

I still have no way to bridge the output from MacTerminal to the Internet and vice/versa. Which was the whole point.

I thought you had a Mac OS X box in between?

User -> Mac Terminal -> Serial Port -> cable -> RS232toUSB -> USB port -> getty -> login -> bash -> mail -> SMTP -> TCP/IP -> ethernet -> ADSL -> cable -> provider -> internet

 

[Mac128]

USB port -> getty -> login -> bash -> mail

Again, this is where I'm either really stupid when it comes to basic computer knowledge, or you guys know stuff the rest of us don't. I don't follow what is converting the MacTerminal commands into Mail, how it works, or what I should do to make it happen. Perhaps this is UNIX 101, but I need more than that to go on. Thanks.

 

[Osgeld]

http://www.helpdesk.umd.edu/documents/4/4804/

http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=20081217161612647

 

[Gorgonops]

Since when does being interested in vintage Macs require a degree in computer programming? I'm not frightened, just have no interest in it. There are many folks on these forums who maintain their vintage equipment, but have no interest in learning to program for them, but rather using them. To that end, I can take apart and re-assemble and maintain the hard ware with the best of them. We all have our strengths and that's where the beauty of a community comes together. Also, I'm not demanding anyone write a program for me. I'm looking for solutions.

All I'm saying is when someone suggests a solution you tend to go straight to shooting it straight down with the objection that it's "too hard", which sort of turns anyone who *could* give you step-by-step instructions off from doing so. If you'd like to pay someone $100 an hour in consulting fees I'm sure you'll find plenty of people happy to craft a custom solution, install it, and provide custom documentation and training for you. Short of that, well... I guess it just it seems to me that if you want to participate in a "DIY" hobby it behooves you to take on some of the responsibility for tackling the "Doing" parts.

(I'm sorry if that sounds condescending. If your skill set doesn't include "programming" or "UNIX" that's fine, be the idea man, but I guess the thing that bugs me that when you're discussing things in those categories all you can say is either how little interest you have in them or how much you hate them. Why should someone *with* UNIX skills help you when all you have is contempt for what they do?)

But you keep saying I have to learn to use terminal-window programs ... why? I already told you I use MacTerminal. It is 100% a Mac GUI program. While it is essentially an interface like OS X Terminal, the two could not be more different to use.

Uhm, what do you use it *for*? At its heart, all a "Terminal" does (file transfer and other secondary functions aside) is display characters from "a program" and feed keyboard input back to "a program". What's important is what you *run* using a terminal. MacTerminal and OS X's Terminal are similar to the extent that both supply an interface for running text-based software. MacTerminal is for running that software on a remote computer while OS X's terminal is for running programs on the local machine, but in either instance what's important is *what you're running*. A text-mode program can be a friendly menu-operated fullscreen application or a horribly obscure and unfriendly command-line utility. It seems to me like you lump *all* text-mode software into the same "unusable" bucket.

Of course, just for fun, look at MacTerminal side-by-side with a terminal emulator on a PC from the original 1984 Macintosh Newsweek spread. Oh, wow, the Mac *totally* looks more user-friendly. Not.

If you're going for "what I can do with existing software that runs on a 128k Macintosh", there it is. If you had a Mac in 1984 and wanted to send an email you'd log into Compuserve with MacTerminal and use the same text-based interface as anyone else. By installing a few programs on an OS X box and setting up your Mac as a serial terminal you'd basically replicate that experience.

Of course, again, it seems like you've preemptively said you hate running text-based software, period, so clearly any "MacTerminal" based solution is going to be completely unacceptable. Thus it's certainly not worth the effort spelling out how to do it.

Also, there were plenty of e-mail-type programs written for the 128/512K which mask the terminal interface for the user. All the user did was start the program, type the message and it got sent through the BBS system and likewise received relies.

Do you have an example of such a program? Presumably they worked with some specific BBS backend. You could always write a UNIX program which replicates the same menuing system for various functions and could drive one of those programs. But, wait, that's programming again.

To do any expanding of the funcationalilty of the 128k like you describe you are going to have to do real programming ( Pascal, C or assembler ).

You couldn't be more wrong. I've done plenty with the 128K and modern computers using only what was written for it and finding clever ways to interact with OS X. I have absolutely no interest in programming for the 128K. Also, as Gorgonops deduced this is a OS X-side Unix solution not a 128K-side machine language, though it every well could be done that way ... why?

Here's where you're sounding schizophrenic. Do you want someone to tell you how to put existing tinkertoys together into a text-mode way of accessing the internet (and thus putting up with the limitations inherent in such an approach), or do you want someone to bake a special "Mac-y" way of emailing from your old doorstop? Anything from the second category means some programming gets done *somewhere*, whether it's bending the UNIX machine to the will of some existing antique GUI BBS software or writing a Mac-side GUI presentation layer for existing UNIX text-mode software. There's no avoiding it.

(Although I guess I'll allow for the vanishingly slight possibility that some BBS software which was both compatible with some existing "GUI-BBS" client for 128k Macs and included internet gateway capability is still available and will still compile on something approaching a modern platform.)

Or do you want a genuine TCP/IP stack for a 128k Mac? (It's so difficult to tell what it is you're actually asking for.) If it's TCP/IP it's probably doable in some limited way, despite your flat statement to the contrary. Here's a micro-sized TCP-IP stack that can work in a few K on an 8 bit microcontroller and supports SLIP. It would probably be possible to incorporate it into a *really limited* Net-Tamer-ish network client that could fit, just barely, in 128k. But, again, someone would have to program it.

 

[Mac128]

Here's where you're sounding schizophrenic.

I think we've totally gotten off on the wrong foot. I just re-read this thread and I can't even figure out what's being discussed. I don't even know where to start with all the assumptions made in the last post. Overall what I do see are a number of suggestions about how easy it would be to do this in my sleep, a number of assumptions about what the 128K can do and needs and what vintage Mac enthusiasts should be able to do to call themselves that. I'm now going to presume I inferred it all. This is the point where I might otherwise say "never mind". But what the hell, I'll give it one more stab.

I am always looking for new things to do with a 128K. I have been told by everyone and their dog that a 128K cannot run AppleShare, nor can a 128/512K run a TCP/IP stack and therefore cannot gain access to the internet. I have also been told that new programming for the 128/512K would be the least likely route to expand its usefulness, if for no other reason than most no longer have the skills.

I read an article about FidoNet allowing dial-up BBSs to communicate over the internet. I know that the 128/512K could participate in a BBS. I know that there were software e-maiil applications in 1985 for the 128/512K like MacLine, MacMail, MailBox, MicroPhone, Mouse Exchange BBS, Telescape, TouchStone software, inTouch, Blast, and others for interfacing with them. Others on this list may know of, and have experience with some or, more So here's what I thought:

How hard would it be to take an existing application used on the 128/512K intended to interface with an online BBS-type system, but instead point it at some modern-day equivalent on a local desktop and interface that with a similar equivalent to FidoNet for interfacing with the internet. In this way, one could use a 128/512K as an e-mail terminal. What software exists that could do this, or would something have to be written, and if so how hard would it be to do? If relatively easy to do, what steps would be required, is this something I could do myself or would it require special skills?

In the end, I imagined something residing on an OS X Mac that could be set-up once, like SheepShaver or Basilisk II, and then run hidden from the user. Whether using MacTerminal or a dedicated e-mail client on the 128K, it would still retain all the conventional Mac GUI interface that Mac users are accustomed to. In reality it is likely much simpler than that. I have no interest in doing any actual programming, if that's what it takes. Configuring existing software, sure. But more importantly, can it be done? If so, I'd be interested in how it could be done. More than likely, I have completely misunderstood what I read and simply need to be set straight.

 

[Osgeld]

the down low is back when you used a terminal emulator to access unix (type) servers, and the whole experience was text based, altho that could be mouse and menu driven, anything beyond that was most likley using propitiatory technology

as far as a menu shell so its a convent and easy thing to do would require programming, as such a program is not on my radar

 

[porter]

If so, I'd be interested in how it could be done. More than likely, I have completely misunderstood what I read and simply need to be set straight.

Choose a client application you want to run on the 128k. Determine the protocols it uses over the serial link. Plug the serial link cable into both your MacOSX and 128k box. Respond to those requests from the MacOSX box.

Now, what is the client app that talks over a serial port?

For example if it's "WibbleClient", find out what "WibbleProtocol" looks like and create a "WibbleServer" on the MacOSX box.

Don't bother with SheepShaver/Basilisk, they are not actually helping here.

 

[H3NRY]

FidoNet worked as follows: User runs terminal software and dials his local FidoNet BBS system. Reads his messages, types new messages to other FidoNet subscribers and logs out. Late at night when long distance rates are low, FidoNet BBS PC dials via modem a neighboring FidoNet system or 2 or 4, passes on saved messages going that way, and receives and stores incoming messages and messages in transit passing thru on their way elsewhere. Someplace in the system is a FidoNet BBS with a terminal account on a Unix system attached to the internet. That system dials the Unix host, opens a telnet session on the Unix host, and sends mail intended for internet addresses, fetches mail addressed to FidoNet, and logs off. FidoNet mail is passed along to other BBSes as they dial in.

Since I doubt any FidoNet BBS systems are still running in your fair city, you'll have to skip that part. If you can hook your Mac to a serial adapter on your OS X Mac and learn to use Unix terminal commands, you can log onto your Unix Mac via telnet and send / receive mail etc. from your 128K. You'll have to use terminal software on the 128K. You can do anything you give yourself permission to do on your OS X Mac within that terminal, just like opening a terminal on the OS X Mac itself. None of this has any GUI interface - everything is text and command line based just like this Wiki. (Well this does allow smilies, and they are graphics.)