A System 6 Browser

[CaryMG]

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:

 

[MacMan]

MacHTTP isn't a System 6 browser, it is a web hosting application. Very popular amongst those with 68K web servers!

 

[tomlee59]

And the only system 6 browser -- Samba -- is so buggy and lacking in features that it is only of historical interest.

 

[luddite]

And I guess the fact that the site has devolved into an anonymous directory listing is a good sign that development has ceased.

 

[Quadraman]

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?

 

[tomlee59]

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.

 

[luddite]

Of course, you could use a terminal program under system 6 and run Lynx remotely, but that's cheating.

I would have said "sensible"

 

[luddite]

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.

 

[ChristTrekker]

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.

 

[paws]

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.

 

[luddite]

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.

 

[tomlee59]

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!

 

[tomlee59]

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...

 

[luddite]

Sadly my rudimentary knowledge of BASIC won't help here, but I am totally willing to provide moral support to the project!

 

[equant]

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?

 

[equant]

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?

 

[luddite]

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).

 

[luddite]

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.

 

[Unknown_K]

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).