Jump to content

Developing Software


Recommended Posts

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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...

Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

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).

Link to post
Share on other sites
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!

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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).

Link to post
Share on other sites

The hypercard ones are just 1-5. There are also electronic versions of voume 6 (System 7 additions) and all the New Inside Macintosh volumes (the ones organised by topic). My recommendation (and indeed my approach) is to use Inside Macintosh as books and THINK Reference online.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Well, just to follow up, I've actually got my first release...

 

http://www.retards.org/projects/m68kmpc/index.php

 

... It's pretty basic, and only useful to those of us with older networked macs *and* mpd running on a server. Runs on 6.0.5.

 

Thanks to whoever said I should support system 6. You were right.

 

Thanks for everyone's help.

 

Nathan

Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, and if anyone can tell me why my custom icon isn't showing up, I'll be in your debt. I can't figure it out, and have spent way too much time on it. If you have ResEdit and know what you're doing, would you DL the app and take a look?

 

http://www.retards.org/projects/m68kmpc/downloads/m68kmpc-0.0.6.sit

 

Thanks again.

 

The creator of the app is ???? instead of XMPC, that's why the icon doesn't show.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have an old copy of FutureBASIC v1.03.

 

The whole program is only 168K and it is copyrighted 1994.

 

I'm not sure how much you could do with it. It will compile programs that run on a Mac Plus with 1 MB. The language is more BASIC like but you can still call the toolbox and do all that stuff so you can build full programs with it. It might be easier than using C or Pascal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I have an old copy of FutureBASIC v1.03.

 

The whole program is only 168K and it is copyrighted 1994.

 

I'm not sure how much you could do with it. It will compile programs that run on a Mac Plus with 1 MB. The language is more BASIC like but you can still call the toolbox and do all that stuff so you can build full programs with it. It might be easier than using C or Pascal.

 

Mike, assuming Future Basic can do TCP, I'm sure it would have been much easier. At this point though, I'm have a lot of fun learning the Mac toolbox and pascal. Re-learning really. Hopefully the code will be faster for it, but with my skills, I can't guarantee it :)

 

Thanks for the offer. I still wouldn't mind a copy for S's&G's if it's painless.

 

Nathan

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Hi,

 

I'd like to write an app for my Mac 512k / System 6 as a learning exercise. While it would be the most fun to use the 512k or a Plus, I also have systems running OS 7.5, 8.6, and 10.3.9. I've never coded for a Mac before.

 

From what I understand of this thread, I would need "Inside Macintosh" volumes 1-4... as well as a programming environment.

 

Where might I obtain hardcopies of IM like Nathan is using?

 

What would you recommend as a simple programming environment? Future Basic, Think Pascal / C, and MPW were mentioned.

 

Thank you very much,

~ J

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you already know C, get THINK C. If you already know Pascal, get THINK Pascal. If you don't know either, the Mac is quite a difficult environment to learn on. I'd recommend THINK Pascal in that case and writing simple apps that use it's console window and drawing window rather than Mac applications.

 

Also, don't worry about Inside Macintosh - use THINK Reference instead. Basically, learn to walk before you try to run. Inside Macintosh is much more complicated.

 

I'd suggest finding a second hand copy of the books by Dave Mark and Cartwright Reed.

 

Ken

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your reply, Kallikak.

 

To clarify, I'm mainly looking to learn how to create an early Mac app... as I already am versed in C, Pascal, Basic, Assembly, others.

 

So you suggest Think C and Think Reference? Do you know of any sources where I can obtain this stuff?

 

Thanks much!

~ J

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...