Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > aus.computers > #55801 > unrolled thread
| Started by | felix <me@nothere.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-10-27 16:13 +1100 |
| Last post | 2016-10-30 09:09 +0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 62 — 9 participants |
Back to article view | Back to aus.computers
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: OT Thunderbird felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-10-27 16:13 +1100
Re: OT Thunderbird Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2016-10-27 17:24 +1100
Re: OT Thunderbird Clocky <notgonn@happen.com> - 2016-10-27 16:14 +0800
Re: OT Thunderbird Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 07:57 +1100
Re: OT Thunderbird Clocky <notgonn@happen.com> - 2016-10-28 13:23 +0800
Re: OT Thunderbird not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2016-10-29 01:25 +0000
Re: OT Thunderbird Noddy <me@wardengineering.com> - 2016-10-29 12:43 +1100
Re: OT Thunderbird Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2016-10-29 13:58 +1100
Re: OT Thunderbird Clocky <notgonn@happen.com> - 2016-10-30 07:31 +0800
Re: OT Thunderbird not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2016-10-30 00:01 +0000
Re: OT Thunderbird Clocky <notgonn@happen.com> - 2016-10-30 09:07 +0800
Re: OT Thunderbird not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2016-10-30 21:53 +0000
Re: OT Thunderbird Clocky <notgonn@happen.com> - 2016-10-31 08:51 +0800
Re: OT Thunderbird Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2016-10-31 15:38 +1100
Re: OT Thunderbird Clocky <notgonn@happen.com> - 2016-10-31 19:32 +0800
Re: OT Thunderbird Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2016-11-01 14:07 +1100
Re: OT Thunderbird Clocky <notgonn@happen.com> - 2016-11-01 13:54 +0800
Re: OT Thunderbird keithr0 <user@account.invalid> - 2016-11-01 17:52 +1000
Re: OT Thunderbird Clocky <notgonn@happen.com> - 2016-11-01 19:30 +0800
Re: OT Thunderbird keithr0 <user@account.invalid> - 2016-11-01 22:26 +1000
Re: OT Thunderbird Clocky <notgonn@happen.com> - 2016-11-02 06:57 +0800
Re: OT Thunderbird keithr0 <user@account.invalid> - 2016-11-02 15:38 +1000
Re: OT Thunderbird Clocky <notgonn@happen.com> - 2016-11-02 20:03 +0800
Re: OT Thunderbird Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2016-11-02 00:39 +1100
Re: OT Thunderbird Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2016-11-02 00:33 +1100
Re: OT Thunderbird not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2016-11-03 21:25 +0000
Re: OT Thunderbird Clocky <notgonn@happen.com> - 2016-11-04 13:52 +0800
Re: OT Thunderbird Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> - 2016-11-04 07:46 +0000
Re: OT Thunderbird keithr0 <user@account.invalid> - 2016-10-31 16:27 +1000
Re: OT Thunderbird not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2016-11-03 21:11 +0000
Re: OT Thunderbird keithr0 <user@account.invalid> - 2016-11-04 13:31 +1000
Re: OT Thunderbird Clocky <notgonn@happen.com> - 2016-11-04 13:56 +0800
Re: OT Thunderbird keithr0 <user@account.invalid> - 2016-11-04 19:28 +1000
Re: OT Thunderbird not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2016-11-04 22:59 +0000
Re: OT Thunderbird keithr0 <user@account.invalid> - 2016-11-06 20:24 +1000
Re: OT Thunderbird not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2016-11-06 21:51 +0000
Re: OT Thunderbird keithr0 <user@account.invalid> - 2016-11-07 19:33 +1000
Re: OT Thunderbird not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2016-11-07 21:28 +0000
Re: OT Thunderbird Clocky <notgonn@happen.com> - 2016-11-06 22:27 +0800
Re: OT Thunderbird keithr0 <user@account.invalid> - 2016-11-07 19:29 +1000
Re: OT Thunderbird felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-10-29 14:09 +1100
Re: OT Thunderbird Noddy <me@wardengineering.com> - 2016-10-29 16:33 +1100
Re: OT Thunderbird Jeßus <j@j.net> - 2016-10-29 17:15 +1100
Re: OT Thunderbird Noddy <me@wardengineering.com> - 2016-10-29 18:19 +1100
Re: OT Thunderbird Jeßus <j@j.net> - 2016-10-29 18:55 +1100
Re: OT Thunderbird Noddy <me@wardengineering.com> - 2016-10-29 23:52 +1100
Re: OT Thunderbird Jeßus <j@j.net> - 2016-10-30 09:07 +1100
Re: OT Thunderbird Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2016-10-30 07:19 +1100
Re: OT Thunderbird Jeßus <j@j.net> - 2016-10-30 07:44 +1100
Re: OT Thunderbird Clocky <notgonn@happen.com> - 2016-10-30 07:36 +0800
Re: OT Thunderbird Jeßus <j@j.net> - 2016-10-30 11:29 +1100
Re: OT Thunderbird Clocky <notgonn@happen.com> - 2016-10-30 13:21 +0800
Re: OT Thunderbird Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2016-10-30 07:18 +1100
Re: OT Thunderbird Jeßus <j@j.net> - 2016-10-30 07:45 +1100
Re: OT Thunderbird not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2016-10-29 23:37 +0000
Re: OT Thunderbird Jeßus <j@j.net> - 2016-10-30 11:32 +1100
Re: OT Thunderbird Clocky <notgonn@happen.com> - 2016-11-01 10:18 +0800
Re: OT Thunderbird Clocky <notgonn@happen.com> - 2016-10-30 07:47 +0800
Re: OT Thunderbird felix <me@nothere.invalid> - 2016-10-30 10:56 +1100
Re: OT Thunderbird Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2016-10-30 11:32 +1100
Re: OT Thunderbird Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> - 2016-10-30 11:40 +1100
Re: OT Thunderbird Clocky <notgonn@happen.com> - 2016-10-30 09:09 +0800
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
| From | Clocky <notgonn@happen.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-02 06:57 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <58191dd9$0$1531$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #55861 |
On 1/11/2016 8:26 PM, keithr0 wrote: > On 11/1/2016 9:30 PM, Clocky wrote: >> On 1/11/2016 3:52 PM, keithr0 wrote: >>> On 11/1/2016 3:54 PM, Clocky wrote: >>>> On 1/11/2016 11:07 AM, Xeno wrote: >>>>> On 31/10/2016 10:32 PM, Clocky wrote: >>>>>> On 31/10/2016 12:38 PM, Xeno wrote: >>>>>>> On 31/10/2016 11:51 AM, Clocky wrote: >>>>>>>> On 31/10/2016 5:53 AM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >>>>>>>>> In aus.computers Clocky <notgonn@happen.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 30/10/2016 8:01 AM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> In aus.cars Clocky <notgonn@happen.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I was turned off Firefox after repeated updates didn't fix >>>>>>>>>>>> stability and >>>>>>>>>>>> speed issues. I tried Chrome and was blown away by the >>>>>>>>>>>> speed, in >>>>>>>>>>>> comparison so have used it since, occasionally trying latest >>>>>>>>>>>> versions of >>>>>>>>>>>> Firefox and Opera but still not liking them. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I use Dillo a lot, but I don't expect many people to join me in >>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>> camp >>>>>>>>>>> (Windows versions can be a little buggy too). It's pretty much a >>>>>>>>>>> protest >>>>>>>>>>> vote against the web that simply doesn't support scripts in the >>>>>>>>>>> first >>>>>>>>>>> place. It runs well on the Pentium I I'm on now. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I'll have a look at Dillo, I was unaware of it. Pentium 1 btw... >>>>>>>>>> that's >>>>>>>>>> keeping it real ;-) >>>>>>>>>> Once upon a long ago I set up an A500 hacked with a 40Mhz MC68000 >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> 8mb RAM running Voyager and IBrowse over an SLIP connection... >>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>> sure >>>>>>>>>> I would have the willpower and stamina to do that today ;-) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Nice. I've had a 33MHz 486 laptop with 8MB RAM browsing the web >>>>>>>>> over >>>>>>>>> WiFi >>>>>>>>> (text only though). The determination of sites to force HTTPS >>>>>>>>> meant >>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>> it wasn't completely usable last time I tried it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hah, beat me by 33Mhz! Yeah, it was hopeless. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Did you mean 13MHz? ;-) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I can envisage a 0MHz computer as being hopeless however. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> One of these days I >>>>>>>>> want to program a newsreader for the Commodore 64. :) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Let me know when you are done :-) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Even better, if you really want the *thrill* of running a C64, you >>>>>>> can >>>>>>> get emulators that will run on your PC or most of the mainstream OSs >>>>>>> out >>>>>>> there. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> (Win)Vice is the one to look for and not just for the C64 but quite a >>>>>> number of C= systems. >>>>>> >>>>>>> You might have more success using this C64 OS >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://www.c64-wiki.com/index.php/Contiki >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Old news to both of us I should imagine ;-) >>>>>> >>>>> (Relatively) new to me. Never been a C64 fan, you see. A few mates had >>>>> them back in the days and I had one very briefly too. It didn't fit >>>>> the >>>>> task required of it so I was forced, because of educational needs, to >>>>> get an Apple II, IIc actually, and that did the job but I didn't go >>>>> much >>>>> on that either. Didn't go much on Apples at all until the iMac in the >>>>> early 2,000s. I knew of the emulators and other alternatives because a >>>>> mate was really into them. But then, he was a real geeky >>>>> programmer, to >>>>> be expected really. >>>>>> >>>>>>> You might even be able to access usenet using a command line >>>>>>> alternative, same as when I first accessed Usenet though, for the >>>>>>> life >>>>>>> of me, I cannot see why anyone would bother. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, through a shell account and I think there is a BBS that offers a >>>>>> access to Usenet and IRC using a C64. >>>>>> >>>>>> Why would you want to? Because you can! >>>>> >>>>> It's not what I would consider a 'challenge'. >>>> >>>> Using an iPhone isn't a challenge and neither is copying and pasting >>>> some code and programming it into an Arduino. >>>> >>>> Working with vintage hardware is often much more of a challenge exactly >>>> because of the limitations of the hardware. >>> >>> More likely limitations of the software, compilers and assemblers in >>> those days knew nothing about networking, >> >> That has been addresses using modern tools and using development >> platforms that don't run on the actual hardware. Back in the day you >> were often limited to what you could run on the actual hardware. >> >> adding the hardware isn't >>> exactly challenging. >>> >> >> It's more challenging than plugging in a module and copying and pasting >> a bit of code. > > Its as challenging as you make it. Only amateurs value challenges in > themselves though, professionals will take whatever will make the job > better and easier even if that means plugging in ready made modules, > time is money. > I have only considered Arduino and vintage equipment development at a hobbyist level. Sure, professional development would look for the what's fastest and easiest. >> >>> As hardware goes, using small low powered computers such as the Arduino >>> or the ESP8266 are more limited in terms of hardware, especially memory. >> >> OTOH the programming environments and compilers are much easier to work >> with and the processors are much faster and incorporate much more >> functionality into a single chip. > > It all depends what you use, some of the newer IDEs and languages enable > you to make products previously impossible, but languages like C and C++ > haven't changes at the basic level. > There were no C or C++ compilers for some of the vintage stuff and you had to bang the hardware directly using ASM for the most part (given the limitations of BASIC in terms of speed) though there are now emulators, compilers and cross-compilers (like z88dk) that can run on relatively modern hardware and make things easier to port. > I've been programming for the last 47 years, in all sorts of languages > and all sorts of environments, things are more convenient now than when > I had to work from paper tape, but the challenges remain the same > especially if you aspire to make something more than trivial tasks. > From a programmers perspective I guess writing the TV-out library for the Arduino was the challenge. I wouldn't know where to start. I'm looking at it from the perspective of how easy it was connecting couple of resistors, a Dallas 18B20 and cobbling together a bit of code to display temperature along with a rotating box on a TV screen and comparing it to the challenge of building a working Z80 homebrew computer with video output out of junk box components which is something I did for fun a couple of years ago. Hobbyist level stuff.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | keithr0 <user@account.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-02 15:38 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <e7tcetFk1opU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #55864 |
On 11/2/2016 8:57 AM, Clocky wrote: > On 1/11/2016 8:26 PM, keithr0 wrote: >> On 11/1/2016 9:30 PM, Clocky wrote: >>> On 1/11/2016 3:52 PM, keithr0 wrote: >>>> On 11/1/2016 3:54 PM, Clocky wrote: >>>>> On 1/11/2016 11:07 AM, Xeno wrote: >>>>>> On 31/10/2016 10:32 PM, Clocky wrote: >>>>>>> On 31/10/2016 12:38 PM, Xeno wrote: >>>>>>>> On 31/10/2016 11:51 AM, Clocky wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 31/10/2016 5:53 AM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >>>>>>>>>> In aus.computers Clocky <notgonn@happen.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 30/10/2016 8:01 AM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> In aus.cars Clocky <notgonn@happen.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I was turned off Firefox after repeated updates didn't fix >>>>>>>>>>>>> stability and >>>>>>>>>>>>> speed issues. I tried Chrome and was blown away by the >>>>>>>>>>>>> speed, in >>>>>>>>>>>>> comparison so have used it since, occasionally trying latest >>>>>>>>>>>>> versions of >>>>>>>>>>>>> Firefox and Opera but still not liking them. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I use Dillo a lot, but I don't expect many people to join me in >>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>> camp >>>>>>>>>>>> (Windows versions can be a little buggy too). It's pretty >>>>>>>>>>>> much a >>>>>>>>>>>> protest >>>>>>>>>>>> vote against the web that simply doesn't support scripts in the >>>>>>>>>>>> first >>>>>>>>>>>> place. It runs well on the Pentium I I'm on now. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I'll have a look at Dillo, I was unaware of it. Pentium 1 btw... >>>>>>>>>>> that's >>>>>>>>>>> keeping it real ;-) >>>>>>>>>>> Once upon a long ago I set up an A500 hacked with a 40Mhz >>>>>>>>>>> MC68000 >>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>> 8mb RAM running Voyager and IBrowse over an SLIP connection... >>>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>>> sure >>>>>>>>>>> I would have the willpower and stamina to do that today ;-) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Nice. I've had a 33MHz 486 laptop with 8MB RAM browsing the web >>>>>>>>>> over >>>>>>>>>> WiFi >>>>>>>>>> (text only though). The determination of sites to force HTTPS >>>>>>>>>> meant >>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>> it wasn't completely usable last time I tried it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hah, beat me by 33Mhz! Yeah, it was hopeless. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Did you mean 13MHz? ;-) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I can envisage a 0MHz computer as being hopeless however. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> One of these days I >>>>>>>>>> want to program a newsreader for the Commodore 64. :) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Let me know when you are done :-) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Even better, if you really want the *thrill* of running a C64, you >>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>> get emulators that will run on your PC or most of the mainstream >>>>>>>> OSs >>>>>>>> out >>>>>>>> there. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (Win)Vice is the one to look for and not just for the C64 but >>>>>>> quite a >>>>>>> number of C= systems. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You might have more success using this C64 OS >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://www.c64-wiki.com/index.php/Contiki >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Old news to both of us I should imagine ;-) >>>>>>> >>>>>> (Relatively) new to me. Never been a C64 fan, you see. A few mates >>>>>> had >>>>>> them back in the days and I had one very briefly too. It didn't fit >>>>>> the >>>>>> task required of it so I was forced, because of educational needs, to >>>>>> get an Apple II, IIc actually, and that did the job but I didn't go >>>>>> much >>>>>> on that either. Didn't go much on Apples at all until the iMac in the >>>>>> early 2,000s. I knew of the emulators and other alternatives >>>>>> because a >>>>>> mate was really into them. But then, he was a real geeky >>>>>> programmer, to >>>>>> be expected really. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You might even be able to access usenet using a command line >>>>>>>> alternative, same as when I first accessed Usenet though, for the >>>>>>>> life >>>>>>>> of me, I cannot see why anyone would bother. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes, through a shell account and I think there is a BBS that >>>>>>> offers a >>>>>>> access to Usenet and IRC using a C64. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why would you want to? Because you can! >>>>>> >>>>>> It's not what I would consider a 'challenge'. >>>>> >>>>> Using an iPhone isn't a challenge and neither is copying and pasting >>>>> some code and programming it into an Arduino. >>>>> >>>>> Working with vintage hardware is often much more of a challenge >>>>> exactly >>>>> because of the limitations of the hardware. >>>> >>>> More likely limitations of the software, compilers and assemblers in >>>> those days knew nothing about networking, >>> >>> That has been addresses using modern tools and using development >>> platforms that don't run on the actual hardware. Back in the day you >>> were often limited to what you could run on the actual hardware. >>> >>> adding the hardware isn't >>>> exactly challenging. >>>> >>> >>> It's more challenging than plugging in a module and copying and pasting >>> a bit of code. >> >> Its as challenging as you make it. Only amateurs value challenges in >> themselves though, professionals will take whatever will make the job >> better and easier even if that means plugging in ready made modules, >> time is money. >> > > I have only considered Arduino and vintage equipment development at a > hobbyist level. Sure, professional development would look for the what's > fastest and easiest. > >>> >>>> As hardware goes, using small low powered computers such as the Arduino >>>> or the ESP8266 are more limited in terms of hardware, especially >>>> memory. >>> >>> OTOH the programming environments and compilers are much easier to work >>> with and the processors are much faster and incorporate much more >>> functionality into a single chip. >> >> It all depends what you use, some of the newer IDEs and languages enable >> you to make products previously impossible, but languages like C and C++ >> haven't changes at the basic level. >> > > There were no C or C++ compilers for some of the vintage stuff and you > had to bang the hardware directly using ASM for the most part (given the > limitations of BASIC in terms of speed) though there are now emulators, > compilers and cross-compilers (like z88dk) that can run on relatively > modern hardware and make things easier to port. I once wrote a simple database in machine language for a 1950s computer that lacked even an assembler. I wrote some stuff in assembler for my Atari machine, my 1984 Fujitsu Micro 8 had assemblers in native mode, and a c compiler in cp/m mode, I taught myself C on that machine. the biggest problem was that all the information about it was in Japanese. >> I've been programming for the last 47 years, in all sorts of languages >> and all sorts of environments, things are more convenient now than when >> I had to work from paper tape, but the challenges remain the same >> especially if you aspire to make something more than trivial tasks. >> > > > From a programmers perspective I guess writing the TV-out library for > the Arduino was the challenge. I wouldn't know where to start. > > I'm looking at it from the perspective of how easy it was connecting > couple of resistors, a Dallas 18B20 and cobbling together a bit of code > to display temperature along with a rotating box on a TV screen and > comparing it to the challenge of building a working Z80 homebrew > computer with video output out of junk box components which is something > I did for fun a couple of years ago. Not much different, reading 18B20s is easy, putting stuff on a TV screen is hard especially if your TV doesn't have direct video input. I've done it the practical way, I've got 3 18B20s attached to my solar hot water feeding an ESP8266 which serves up a simple web page via Wifi that can be accessed by any computer in the house. That adds up to about 120 lines of LUA code. Eventually one of my Raspberry Pis will log the data every 5 minutes and serve up a nice web page with graphs and historical data. The Pi also has a cellular modem which it will use to text me if the tank temperature drops to the point that I need to turn the booster on. Thats a practical project. I don't see the point of going over the past, the challenge is to learn the new stuff and use it do do things that you couldn't do before. > Hobbyist level stuff. Exactly, its a hobby for me now that I'm retired.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Clocky <notgonn@happen.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-02 20:03 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <5819d61b$0$1508$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #55865 |
On 2/11/2016 1:38 PM, keithr0 wrote: > On 11/2/2016 8:57 AM, Clocky wrote: >> On 1/11/2016 8:26 PM, keithr0 wrote: >>> On 11/1/2016 9:30 PM, Clocky wrote: >>>> On 1/11/2016 3:52 PM, keithr0 wrote: >>>>> On 11/1/2016 3:54 PM, Clocky wrote: >>>>>> On 1/11/2016 11:07 AM, Xeno wrote: >>>>>>> On 31/10/2016 10:32 PM, Clocky wrote: >>>>>>>> On 31/10/2016 12:38 PM, Xeno wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 31/10/2016 11:51 AM, Clocky wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 31/10/2016 5:53 AM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> In aus.computers Clocky <notgonn@happen.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 30/10/2016 8:01 AM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> In aus.cars Clocky <notgonn@happen.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I was turned off Firefox after repeated updates didn't fix >>>>>>>>>>>>>> stability and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> speed issues. I tried Chrome and was blown away by the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> speed, in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> comparison so have used it since, occasionally trying latest >>>>>>>>>>>>>> versions of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Firefox and Opera but still not liking them. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I use Dillo a lot, but I don't expect many people to join >>>>>>>>>>>>> me in >>>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>>> camp >>>>>>>>>>>>> (Windows versions can be a little buggy too). It's pretty >>>>>>>>>>>>> much a >>>>>>>>>>>>> protest >>>>>>>>>>>>> vote against the web that simply doesn't support scripts in >>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>> first >>>>>>>>>>>>> place. It runs well on the Pentium I I'm on now. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I'll have a look at Dillo, I was unaware of it. Pentium 1 >>>>>>>>>>>> btw... >>>>>>>>>>>> that's >>>>>>>>>>>> keeping it real ;-) >>>>>>>>>>>> Once upon a long ago I set up an A500 hacked with a 40Mhz >>>>>>>>>>>> MC68000 >>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>> 8mb RAM running Voyager and IBrowse over an SLIP connection... >>>>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>>>> sure >>>>>>>>>>>> I would have the willpower and stamina to do that today ;-) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Nice. I've had a 33MHz 486 laptop with 8MB RAM browsing the web >>>>>>>>>>> over >>>>>>>>>>> WiFi >>>>>>>>>>> (text only though). The determination of sites to force HTTPS >>>>>>>>>>> meant >>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>> it wasn't completely usable last time I tried it. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hah, beat me by 33Mhz! Yeah, it was hopeless. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Did you mean 13MHz? ;-) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I can envisage a 0MHz computer as being hopeless however. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> One of these days I >>>>>>>>>>> want to program a newsreader for the Commodore 64. :) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Let me know when you are done :-) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Even better, if you really want the *thrill* of running a C64, you >>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>> get emulators that will run on your PC or most of the mainstream >>>>>>>>> OSs >>>>>>>>> out >>>>>>>>> there. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (Win)Vice is the one to look for and not just for the C64 but >>>>>>>> quite a >>>>>>>> number of C= systems. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You might have more success using this C64 OS >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://www.c64-wiki.com/index.php/Contiki >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Old news to both of us I should imagine ;-) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> (Relatively) new to me. Never been a C64 fan, you see. A few mates >>>>>>> had >>>>>>> them back in the days and I had one very briefly too. It didn't fit >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> task required of it so I was forced, because of educational >>>>>>> needs, to >>>>>>> get an Apple II, IIc actually, and that did the job but I didn't go >>>>>>> much >>>>>>> on that either. Didn't go much on Apples at all until the iMac in >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> early 2,000s. I knew of the emulators and other alternatives >>>>>>> because a >>>>>>> mate was really into them. But then, he was a real geeky >>>>>>> programmer, to >>>>>>> be expected really. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You might even be able to access usenet using a command line >>>>>>>>> alternative, same as when I first accessed Usenet though, for the >>>>>>>>> life >>>>>>>>> of me, I cannot see why anyone would bother. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes, through a shell account and I think there is a BBS that >>>>>>>> offers a >>>>>>>> access to Usenet and IRC using a C64. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why would you want to? Because you can! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It's not what I would consider a 'challenge'. >>>>>> >>>>>> Using an iPhone isn't a challenge and neither is copying and pasting >>>>>> some code and programming it into an Arduino. >>>>>> >>>>>> Working with vintage hardware is often much more of a challenge >>>>>> exactly >>>>>> because of the limitations of the hardware. >>>>> >>>>> More likely limitations of the software, compilers and assemblers in >>>>> those days knew nothing about networking, >>>> >>>> That has been addresses using modern tools and using development >>>> platforms that don't run on the actual hardware. Back in the day you >>>> were often limited to what you could run on the actual hardware. >>>> >>>> adding the hardware isn't >>>>> exactly challenging. >>>>> >>>> >>>> It's more challenging than plugging in a module and copying and pasting >>>> a bit of code. >>> >>> Its as challenging as you make it. Only amateurs value challenges in >>> themselves though, professionals will take whatever will make the job >>> better and easier even if that means plugging in ready made modules, >>> time is money. >>> >> >> I have only considered Arduino and vintage equipment development at a >> hobbyist level. Sure, professional development would look for the what's >> fastest and easiest. >> >>>> >>>>> As hardware goes, using small low powered computers such as the >>>>> Arduino >>>>> or the ESP8266 are more limited in terms of hardware, especially >>>>> memory. >>>> >>>> OTOH the programming environments and compilers are much easier to work >>>> with and the processors are much faster and incorporate much more >>>> functionality into a single chip. >>> >>> It all depends what you use, some of the newer IDEs and languages enable >>> you to make products previously impossible, but languages like C and C++ >>> haven't changes at the basic level. >>> >> >> There were no C or C++ compilers for some of the vintage stuff and you >> had to bang the hardware directly using ASM for the most part (given the >> limitations of BASIC in terms of speed) though there are now emulators, >> compilers and cross-compilers (like z88dk) that can run on relatively >> modern hardware and make things easier to port. > > I once wrote a simple database in machine language for a 1950s computer > that lacked even an assembler. I wrote some stuff in assembler for my > Atari machine, my 1984 Fujitsu Micro 8 had assemblers in native mode, > and a c compiler in cp/m mode, I taught myself C on that machine. the > biggest problem was that all the information about it was in Japanese. > Impressive stuff. >>> I've been programming for the last 47 years, in all sorts of languages >>> and all sorts of environments, things are more convenient now than when >>> I had to work from paper tape, but the challenges remain the same >>> especially if you aspire to make something more than trivial tasks. >>> >> >> >> From a programmers perspective I guess writing the TV-out library for >> the Arduino was the challenge. I wouldn't know where to start. >> >> I'm looking at it from the perspective of how easy it was connecting >> couple of resistors, a Dallas 18B20 and cobbling together a bit of code >> to display temperature along with a rotating box on a TV screen and >> comparing it to the challenge of building a working Z80 homebrew >> computer with video output out of junk box components which is something >> I did for fun a couple of years ago. > > Not much different, reading 18B20s is easy, putting stuff on a TV screen > is hard especially if your TV doesn't have direct video input. I've done > it the practical way, I've got 3 18B20s attached to my solar hot water > feeding an ESP8266 which serves up a simple web page via Wifi that can > be accessed by any computer in the house. That adds up to about 120 > lines of LUA code. Eventually one of my Raspberry Pis will log the data > every 5 minutes and serve up a nice web page with graphs and historical > data. The Pi also has a cellular modem which it will use to text me if > the tank temperature drops to the point that I need to turn the booster > on. Thats a practical project. > That's a very cool practical project. > I don't see the point of going over the past, the challenge is to learn > the new stuff and use it do do things that you couldn't do before. > That's why I have a Nano and Arduino, but I still enjoy messing with vintage gear. It tends to fall over if you look at it the wrong way too, so keeping them all running is a challenge in itself. Whatever floats your boat I guess. >> Hobbyist level stuff. > > Exactly, its a hobby for me now that I'm retired. I'm semi-retired but with two younger kids... you know how it goes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-02 00:39 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nva5ti$nm$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #55860 |
On 1/11/2016 10:30 PM, Clocky wrote: > On 1/11/2016 3:52 PM, keithr0 wrote: >> On 11/1/2016 3:54 PM, Clocky wrote: >>> On 1/11/2016 11:07 AM, Xeno wrote: >>>> On 31/10/2016 10:32 PM, Clocky wrote: >>>>> On 31/10/2016 12:38 PM, Xeno wrote: >>>>>> On 31/10/2016 11:51 AM, Clocky wrote: >>>>>>> On 31/10/2016 5:53 AM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >>>>>>>> In aus.computers Clocky <notgonn@happen.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 30/10/2016 8:01 AM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >>>>>>>>>> In aus.cars Clocky <notgonn@happen.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I was turned off Firefox after repeated updates didn't fix >>>>>>>>>>> stability and >>>>>>>>>>> speed issues. I tried Chrome and was blown away by the speed, in >>>>>>>>>>> comparison so have used it since, occasionally trying latest >>>>>>>>>>> versions of >>>>>>>>>>> Firefox and Opera but still not liking them. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I use Dillo a lot, but I don't expect many people to join me in >>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>> camp >>>>>>>>>> (Windows versions can be a little buggy too). It's pretty much a >>>>>>>>>> protest >>>>>>>>>> vote against the web that simply doesn't support scripts in the >>>>>>>>>> first >>>>>>>>>> place. It runs well on the Pentium I I'm on now. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I'll have a look at Dillo, I was unaware of it. Pentium 1 btw... >>>>>>>>> that's >>>>>>>>> keeping it real ;-) >>>>>>>>> Once upon a long ago I set up an A500 hacked with a 40Mhz MC68000 >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> 8mb RAM running Voyager and IBrowse over an SLIP connection... not >>>>>>>>> sure >>>>>>>>> I would have the willpower and stamina to do that today ;-) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Nice. I've had a 33MHz 486 laptop with 8MB RAM browsing the web >>>>>>>> over >>>>>>>> WiFi >>>>>>>> (text only though). The determination of sites to force HTTPS meant >>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>> it wasn't completely usable last time I tried it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hah, beat me by 33Mhz! Yeah, it was hopeless. >>>>>> >>>>>> Did you mean 13MHz? ;-) >>>>>> >>>>>> I can envisage a 0MHz computer as being hopeless however. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> One of these days I >>>>>>>> want to program a newsreader for the Commodore 64. :) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Let me know when you are done :-) >>>>>> >>>>>> Even better, if you really want the *thrill* of running a C64, you >>>>>> can >>>>>> get emulators that will run on your PC or most of the mainstream OSs >>>>>> out >>>>>> there. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> (Win)Vice is the one to look for and not just for the C64 but quite a >>>>> number of C= systems. >>>>> >>>>>> You might have more success using this C64 OS >>>>>> >>>>>> https://www.c64-wiki.com/index.php/Contiki >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Old news to both of us I should imagine ;-) >>>>> >>>> (Relatively) new to me. Never been a C64 fan, you see. A few mates had >>>> them back in the days and I had one very briefly too. It didn't fit the >>>> task required of it so I was forced, because of educational needs, to >>>> get an Apple II, IIc actually, and that did the job but I didn't go >>>> much >>>> on that either. Didn't go much on Apples at all until the iMac in the >>>> early 2,000s. I knew of the emulators and other alternatives because a >>>> mate was really into them. But then, he was a real geeky programmer, to >>>> be expected really. >>>>> >>>>>> You might even be able to access usenet using a command line >>>>>> alternative, same as when I first accessed Usenet though, for the >>>>>> life >>>>>> of me, I cannot see why anyone would bother. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Yes, through a shell account and I think there is a BBS that offers a >>>>> access to Usenet and IRC using a C64. >>>>> >>>>> Why would you want to? Because you can! >>>> >>>> It's not what I would consider a 'challenge'. >>> >>> Using an iPhone isn't a challenge and neither is copying and pasting >>> some code and programming it into an Arduino. >>> >>> Working with vintage hardware is often much more of a challenge exactly >>> because of the limitations of the hardware. >> >> More likely limitations of the software, compilers and assemblers in >> those days knew nothing about networking, > > That has been addresses using modern tools and using development > platforms that don't run on the actual hardware. Back in the day you > were often limited to what you could run on the actual hardware. > > adding the hardware isn't >> exactly challenging. >> > > It's more challenging than plugging in a module and copying and pasting > a bit of code. With the Arduino, there is no rule that says you must use someone elses' code. Besides, for some people, the challenge is to get the Arduino to interface with the real world and coding, however it is done, merely a means to that end. The coding itself may not be the 'challenge'. > >> As hardware goes, using small low powered computers such as the Arduino >> or the ESP8266 are more limited in terms of hardware, especially memory. > > OTOH the programming environments and compilers are much easier to work > with and the processors are much faster and incorporate much more > functionality into a single chip. And you can still program down the the chip level. -- Xeno First they ignore you, Then they ridicule you, Then they fight you, Then you win. Mahatma Ghandi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-02 00:33 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nva5jf$vdc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #55858 |
On 1/11/2016 4:54 PM, Clocky wrote: > On 1/11/2016 11:07 AM, Xeno wrote: >> On 31/10/2016 10:32 PM, Clocky wrote: >>> On 31/10/2016 12:38 PM, Xeno wrote: >>>> On 31/10/2016 11:51 AM, Clocky wrote: >>>>> On 31/10/2016 5:53 AM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >>>>>> In aus.computers Clocky <notgonn@happen.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 30/10/2016 8:01 AM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >>>>>>>> In aus.cars Clocky <notgonn@happen.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I was turned off Firefox after repeated updates didn't fix >>>>>>>>> stability and >>>>>>>>> speed issues. I tried Chrome and was blown away by the speed, in >>>>>>>>> comparison so have used it since, occasionally trying latest >>>>>>>>> versions of >>>>>>>>> Firefox and Opera but still not liking them. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I use Dillo a lot, but I don't expect many people to join me in >>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>> camp >>>>>>>> (Windows versions can be a little buggy too). It's pretty much a >>>>>>>> protest >>>>>>>> vote against the web that simply doesn't support scripts in the >>>>>>>> first >>>>>>>> place. It runs well on the Pentium I I'm on now. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'll have a look at Dillo, I was unaware of it. Pentium 1 btw... >>>>>>> that's >>>>>>> keeping it real ;-) >>>>>>> Once upon a long ago I set up an A500 hacked with a 40Mhz MC68000 >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> 8mb RAM running Voyager and IBrowse over an SLIP connection... not >>>>>>> sure >>>>>>> I would have the willpower and stamina to do that today ;-) >>>>>> >>>>>> Nice. I've had a 33MHz 486 laptop with 8MB RAM browsing the web over >>>>>> WiFi >>>>>> (text only though). The determination of sites to force HTTPS meant >>>>>> that >>>>>> it wasn't completely usable last time I tried it. >>>>> >>>>> Hah, beat me by 33Mhz! Yeah, it was hopeless. >>>> >>>> Did you mean 13MHz? ;-) >>>> >>>> I can envisage a 0MHz computer as being hopeless however. >>>>> >>>>> One of these days I >>>>>> want to program a newsreader for the Commodore 64. :) >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Let me know when you are done :-) >>>> >>>> Even better, if you really want the *thrill* of running a C64, you can >>>> get emulators that will run on your PC or most of the mainstream OSs >>>> out >>>> there. >>>> >>> >>> (Win)Vice is the one to look for and not just for the C64 but quite a >>> number of C= systems. >>> >>>> You might have more success using this C64 OS >>>> >>>> https://www.c64-wiki.com/index.php/Contiki >>>> >>> >>> Old news to both of us I should imagine ;-) >>> >> (Relatively) new to me. Never been a C64 fan, you see. A few mates had >> them back in the days and I had one very briefly too. It didn't fit the >> task required of it so I was forced, because of educational needs, to >> get an Apple II, IIc actually, and that did the job but I didn't go much >> on that either. Didn't go much on Apples at all until the iMac in the >> early 2,000s. I knew of the emulators and other alternatives because a >> mate was really into them. But then, he was a real geeky programmer, to >> be expected really. >>> >>>> You might even be able to access usenet using a command line >>>> alternative, same as when I first accessed Usenet though, for the life >>>> of me, I cannot see why anyone would bother. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Yes, through a shell account and I think there is a BBS that offers a >>> access to Usenet and IRC using a C64. >>> >>> Why would you want to? Because you can! >> >> It's not what I would consider a 'challenge'. > > Using an iPhone isn't a challenge I never said it was. I use my phone as a tool, not a toy. For me, it's only a learning experience until I know what I want from it. After that, I let discovery learning take place naturally. > and neither is copying and pasting > some code and programming it into an Arduino. Copying and pasting code is the learning process. Once the processes of programming have been learnt, then you can move on from there and create your own code to make your arduino do what you want from it with whatever bits you have attached to it. > > Working with vintage hardware is often much more of a challenge exactly > because of the limitations of the hardware. That's all very well but I was working with that very same vintage hardware, and its limitation, when it was very new. I was challenged and met those challenges at the appropriate time, when it was new and all of us were in discovery learning mode. That meant forays into hardware, programming, even networking. They were good times and I made lots of long term friends with whom I still communicate but the world moved on and I with it. I have now well and truly moved onto the WIMP interfaces and subsequently the tablet interfaces and still find sufficient challenges to keep me enthused. Every now and then I get hit with a wave of nostalgia. If I wait long enough, it will pass. ;-) I sold or otherwise disposed of all my old hardware, not a great attachment to it. It served its purpose and needed to be moved aside for new developments - and there have been considerable. My geeky friend still has every computer he has ever owned, plus quite a few of my homebuilds. He never revisits his old computers, they lay in his spare room gathering dust and cobwebs (literally). He obviously feels some attachment to them but they never get disturbed, even to clean under them. I did mention he was a geek, didn't I? The closest he gets to his old computers is through the use of their software on various emulators on whatever his current machine happens to be. But then, he's a programmer so that sates his nostalgia needs. -- Xeno First they ignore you, Then they ridicule you, Then they fight you, Then you win. Mahatma Ghandi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-03 21:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nvg9vf$b6i$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #55852 |
Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > On 31/10/2016 11:51 AM, Clocky wrote: >> On 31/10/2016 5:53 AM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >>> >>> Nice. I've had a 33MHz 486 laptop with 8MB RAM browsing the web over WiFi >>> (text only though). The determination of sites to force HTTPS meant that >>> it wasn't completely usable last time I tried it. >> >> Hah, beat me by 33Mhz! Yeah, it was hopeless. > > Did you mean 13MHz? ;-) > > I can envisage a 0MHz computer as being hopeless however. Analogue computers have done good work. I'm on-off working on a combined analogue-digital clock design that ticks randomly but always keeps perfect time. That's been done with a microcontroller before too (though with a pseudo-random sequence, definately cheating), but building it from the bottom up using logic chips and op-amps is much more fun and makes you think outside the box. >> One of these days I >>> want to program a newsreader for the Commodore 64. :) >>> >> >> Let me know when you are done :-) > > Even better, if you really want the *thrill* of running a C64, you can > get emulators that will run on your PC or most of the mainstream OSs out > there. > > You might have more success using this C64 OS > > https://www.c64-wiki.com/index.php/Contiki > > You might even be able to access usenet using a command line > alternative, same as when I first accessed Usenet though, for the life > of me, I cannot see why anyone would bother. I've run Contiki and accessed the web using one of my many real C64s. My hope with the newsreader will be to make it a bit more useable than browsing the web is with the Contiki browser, but I'm yet to sit down and work out exactly what's possible yet (it will probably be a few years until I do, if I do). Emulators will no-doubt come in handy. -- __ __ #_ < |\| |< _#
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Clocky <notgonn@happen.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-04 13:52 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <581c222c$0$2762$c3e8da3$76491128@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #55876 |
On 4/11/2016 5:25 AM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: > Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote: >> On 31/10/2016 11:51 AM, Clocky wrote: >>> On 31/10/2016 5:53 AM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >>>> >>>> Nice. I've had a 33MHz 486 laptop with 8MB RAM browsing the web over WiFi >>>> (text only though). The determination of sites to force HTTPS meant that >>>> it wasn't completely usable last time I tried it. >>> >>> Hah, beat me by 33Mhz! Yeah, it was hopeless. >> >> Did you mean 13MHz? ;-) >> >> I can envisage a 0MHz computer as being hopeless however. > > Analogue computers have done good work. I'm on-off working > on a combined analogue-digital clock design that ticks > randomly but always keeps perfect time. That's been done > with a microcontroller before too (though with a pseudo-random > sequence, definately cheating), but building it from the > bottom up using logic chips and op-amps is much more fun > and makes you think outside the box. > >>> One of these days I >>>> want to program a newsreader for the Commodore 64. :) >>>> >>> >>> Let me know when you are done :-) >> >> Even better, if you really want the *thrill* of running a C64, you can >> get emulators that will run on your PC or most of the mainstream OSs out >> there. >> >> You might have more success using this C64 OS >> >> https://www.c64-wiki.com/index.php/Contiki >> >> You might even be able to access usenet using a command line >> alternative, same as when I first accessed Usenet though, for the life >> of me, I cannot see why anyone would bother. > > I've run Contiki and accessed the web using one of my many real > C64s. My hope with the newsreader will be to make it a bit more > useable than browsing the web is with the Contiki > browser, but I'm yet to sit down and work out exactly what's > possible yet (it will probably be a few years until I do, if I > do). Emulators will no-doubt come in handy. > There was (is) a C64 graphical browser called "the Wave". Never tried it and probably not updated in years. I think it was Cameron Kaisers project. Have you tried it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-04 07:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nvhecq$1mmm$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #55880 |
Clocky <notgonn@happen.com> wrote: > On 4/11/2016 5:25 AM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >> Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote: >>> >>> You might have more success using this C64 OS >>> >>> https://www.c64-wiki.com/index.php/Contiki >>> >>> You might even be able to access usenet using a command line >>> alternative, same as when I first accessed Usenet though, for the life >>> of me, I cannot see why anyone would bother. >> >> I've run Contiki and accessed the web using one of my many real >> C64s. My hope with the newsreader will be to make it a bit more >> useable than browsing the web is with the Contiki >> browser, but I'm yet to sit down and work out exactly what's >> possible yet (it will probably be a few years until I do, if I >> do). Emulators will no-doubt come in handy. >> > There was (is) a C64 graphical browser called "the Wave". Never tried it > and probably not updated in years. I think it was Cameron Kaisers project. This seems to be what your thinking of: http://www.armory.com/~spectre/cwi/hl/ "HyperLink" is the name there. It seems it can do images to an extent. > Have you tried it? I've got one of the C64NIC cartridges from Jim Brain / Retro Innovations: http://store.go4retro.com/nic/ (Ironically, Firefox just crashed loading the web page for it (this is FireFox V.2, so don't judge it on that, and yes I have my reasons for using that old version)). HyperLink isn't designed for them so I never gave it a go, but sometime I might have a try at setting it up with the Unix null modem set-up described, now that you've reminded me of it. Actually, looking at the documentation, it seems that it uses a Unix program to preprocess the HTML and images for the C64. There's also Singular Browser (which I don't think I got working, but I can't remember now: http://home.sch.bme.hu/~soci64/browser/ It doesn't do images, as far as I know. -- __ __ #_ < |\| |< _#
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | keithr0 <user@account.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-31 16:27 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <e7o6ifFck4oU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #55848 |
On 10/31/2016 7:53 AM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: > In aus.computers Clocky <notgonn@happen.com> wrote: >> On 30/10/2016 8:01 AM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >>> In aus.cars Clocky <notgonn@happen.com> wrote: >> >>>> I was turned off Firefox after repeated updates didn't fix stability and >>>> speed issues. I tried Chrome and was blown away by the speed, in >>>> comparison so have used it since, occasionally trying latest versions of >>>> Firefox and Opera but still not liking them. >>> >>> I use Dillo a lot, but I don't expect many people to join me in that camp >>> (Windows versions can be a little buggy too). It's pretty much a protest >>> vote against the web that simply doesn't support scripts in the first >>> place. It runs well on the Pentium I I'm on now. >>> >> >> I'll have a look at Dillo, I was unaware of it. Pentium 1 btw... that's >> keeping it real ;-) >> Once upon a long ago I set up an A500 hacked with a 40Mhz MC68000 and >> 8mb RAM running Voyager and IBrowse over an SLIP connection... not sure >> I would have the willpower and stamina to do that today ;-) > > Nice. I've had a 33MHz 486 laptop with 8MB RAM browsing the web over WiFi > (text only though). The determination of sites to force HTTPS meant that > it wasn't completely usable last time I tried it. One of these days I > want to program a newsreader for the Commodore 64. :) > I think that it has been done before, God knows why though.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-03 21:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nvg95t$9op$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #55853 |
In aus.computers keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote: > On 10/31/2016 7:53 AM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >> >> Nice. I've had a 33MHz 486 laptop with 8MB RAM browsing the web over WiFi >> (text only though). The determination of sites to force HTTPS meant that >> it wasn't completely usable last time I tried it. One of these days I >> want to program a newsreader for the Commodore 64. :) >> > I think that it has been done before, Closest I know about is some Email software that sort-of supported Usenet. There's the option of simply connecting to a PC as a terminal, but that doesn't count in my book. > God knows why though. The challenge! Besides some of us like disappearing down a rabbit hole to live in the past. The present keeps annoying me too much anyway. Plus if I put the software on a cartridge I'll get near instant booting, so that's better than any PC and its associated OS. The complex use of a floppy disk to temporarily store the groups header files will probably slow it down terribly after that, but my power-on to groups list time will be the best on the block. That I can guarantee. -- __ __ #_ < |\| |< _#
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | keithr0 <user@account.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-04 13:31 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <e82doaFqh8pU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #55875 |
On 11/4/2016 7:11 AM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: > In aus.computers keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote: >> On 10/31/2016 7:53 AM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >>> >>> Nice. I've had a 33MHz 486 laptop with 8MB RAM browsing the web over WiFi >>> (text only though). The determination of sites to force HTTPS meant that >>> it wasn't completely usable last time I tried it. One of these days I >>> want to program a newsreader for the Commodore 64. :) >>> >> I think that it has been done before, > > Closest I know about is some Email software that sort-of supported > Usenet. There's the option of simply connecting to a PC as a terminal, > but that doesn't count in my book. > >> God knows why though. > > The challenge! Besides some of us like disappearing down a rabbit > hole to live in the past. The present keeps annoying me too much > anyway. > > Plus if I put the software on a cartridge I'll get near instant > booting, so that's better than any PC and its associated OS. The > complex use of a floppy disk to temporarily store the groups > header files will probably slow it down terribly after that, > but my power-on to groups list time will be the best on the > block. That I can guarantee. > There are plenty of challenges to be had with modern systems that actually advance things rather than just raking over the past. I've seen the huge advances over the 47 years that I've been involved with computers, I've had fun with them all but its always time to move on to the next one.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Clocky <notgonn@happen.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-04 13:56 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <581c231b$0$1499$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #55879 |
On 4/11/2016 11:31 AM, keithr0 wrote: > On 11/4/2016 7:11 AM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >> In aus.computers keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote: >>> On 10/31/2016 7:53 AM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >>>> >>>> Nice. I've had a 33MHz 486 laptop with 8MB RAM browsing the web over >>>> WiFi >>>> (text only though). The determination of sites to force HTTPS meant >>>> that >>>> it wasn't completely usable last time I tried it. One of these days I >>>> want to program a newsreader for the Commodore 64. :) >>>> >>> I think that it has been done before, >> >> Closest I know about is some Email software that sort-of supported >> Usenet. There's the option of simply connecting to a PC as a terminal, >> but that doesn't count in my book. >> >>> God knows why though. >> >> The challenge! Besides some of us like disappearing down a rabbit >> hole to live in the past. The present keeps annoying me too much >> anyway. >> >> Plus if I put the software on a cartridge I'll get near instant >> booting, so that's better than any PC and its associated OS. The >> complex use of a floppy disk to temporarily store the groups >> header files will probably slow it down terribly after that, >> but my power-on to groups list time will be the best on the >> block. That I can guarantee. >> > There are plenty of challenges to be had with modern systems that > actually advance things rather than just raking over the past. I've seen > the huge advances over the 47 years that I've been involved with > computers, I've had fun with them all but its always time to move on to > the next one. It's whatever floats your boat though. I personally like vintage and new hardware alike, they need not be mutually exclusive interests.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | keithr0 <user@account.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-04 19:28 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <e832mjFgtgU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #55881 |
On 11/4/2016 3:56 PM, Clocky wrote: > On 4/11/2016 11:31 AM, keithr0 wrote: >> On 11/4/2016 7:11 AM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >>> In aus.computers keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote: >>>> On 10/31/2016 7:53 AM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Nice. I've had a 33MHz 486 laptop with 8MB RAM browsing the web over >>>>> WiFi >>>>> (text only though). The determination of sites to force HTTPS meant >>>>> that >>>>> it wasn't completely usable last time I tried it. One of these days I >>>>> want to program a newsreader for the Commodore 64. :) >>>>> >>>> I think that it has been done before, >>> >>> Closest I know about is some Email software that sort-of supported >>> Usenet. There's the option of simply connecting to a PC as a terminal, >>> but that doesn't count in my book. >>> >>>> God knows why though. >>> >>> The challenge! Besides some of us like disappearing down a rabbit >>> hole to live in the past. The present keeps annoying me too much >>> anyway. >>> >>> Plus if I put the software on a cartridge I'll get near instant >>> booting, so that's better than any PC and its associated OS. The >>> complex use of a floppy disk to temporarily store the groups >>> header files will probably slow it down terribly after that, >>> but my power-on to groups list time will be the best on the >>> block. That I can guarantee. >>> >> There are plenty of challenges to be had with modern systems that >> actually advance things rather than just raking over the past. I've seen >> the huge advances over the 47 years that I've been involved with >> computers, I've had fun with them all but its always time to move on to >> the next one. > > > It's whatever floats your boat though. I personally like vintage and new > hardware alike, they need not be mutually exclusive interests. > I like vintage machinery, thats why I play with old aircraft, but old computers seem rather pointless to me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-04 22:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nvj3t5$165q$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #55883 |
In aus.computers keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote: > On 11/4/2016 3:56 PM, Clocky wrote: >> On 4/11/2016 11:31 AM, keithr0 wrote: >>> On 11/4/2016 7:11 AM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >>>> In aus.computers keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote: >>>>> On 10/31/2016 7:53 AM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Nice. I've had a 33MHz 486 laptop with 8MB RAM browsing the web over >>>>>> WiFi >>>>>> (text only though). The determination of sites to force HTTPS meant >>>>>> that >>>>>> it wasn't completely usable last time I tried it. One of these days I >>>>>> want to program a newsreader for the Commodore 64. :) >>>>>> >>>>> I think that it has been done before, >>>> >>>> Closest I know about is some Email software that sort-of supported >>>> Usenet. There's the option of simply connecting to a PC as a terminal, >>>> but that doesn't count in my book. >>>> >>>>> God knows why though. >>>> >>>> The challenge! Besides some of us like disappearing down a rabbit >>>> hole to live in the past. The present keeps annoying me too much >>>> anyway. >>>> >>>> Plus if I put the software on a cartridge I'll get near instant >>>> booting, so that's better than any PC and its associated OS. The >>>> complex use of a floppy disk to temporarily store the groups >>>> header files will probably slow it down terribly after that, >>>> but my power-on to groups list time will be the best on the >>>> block. That I can guarantee. >>>> >>> There are plenty of challenges to be had with modern systems that >>> actually advance things rather than just raking over the past. I've seen >>> the huge advances over the 47 years that I've been involved with >>> computers, I've had fun with them all but its always time to move on to >>> the next one. >> >> It's whatever floats your boat though. I personally like vintage and new >> hardware alike, they need not be mutually exclusive interests. >> > I like vintage machinery, thats why I play with old aircraft, but old > computers seem rather pointless to me. But I could say that you should stop messing with old aircraft and spend your valuable time working out improvements to new designs, to further the good of all humanity. (actually I've got things to look into in that department myself too, but not with great expectations) The point is that sometimes people like myself enjoy working on projects that don't have the pressures introduced by trying to design something that serves the masses and competes with the latest existing solutions (which in computing today will often have been developed by numerous individuals, often with financial support or incentive). There are examples of people trying to do that with software, and few use their works anyway because they simply can't independently develop them to the standards of the "competition". At least my newsreader (which in reality will probably never be made) would be used by some people, who would enjoy the expenience, and Perhaps, unlike if I'd tried to work with all the technicalities of developing cutting-edge modern software, I would have enjoyed myself too. -- __ __ #_ < |\| |< _#
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | keithr0 <user@account.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-06 20:24 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <e88embF93clU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #55884 |
On 11/5/2016 8:59 AM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: > In aus.computers keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote: >> On 11/4/2016 3:56 PM, Clocky wrote: >>> On 4/11/2016 11:31 AM, keithr0 wrote: >>>> On 11/4/2016 7:11 AM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >>>>> In aus.computers keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote: >>>>>> On 10/31/2016 7:53 AM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nice. I've had a 33MHz 486 laptop with 8MB RAM browsing the web over >>>>>>> WiFi >>>>>>> (text only though). The determination of sites to force HTTPS meant >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> it wasn't completely usable last time I tried it. One of these days I >>>>>>> want to program a newsreader for the Commodore 64. :) >>>>>>> >>>>>> I think that it has been done before, >>>>> >>>>> Closest I know about is some Email software that sort-of supported >>>>> Usenet. There's the option of simply connecting to a PC as a terminal, >>>>> but that doesn't count in my book. >>>>> >>>>>> God knows why though. >>>>> >>>>> The challenge! Besides some of us like disappearing down a rabbit >>>>> hole to live in the past. The present keeps annoying me too much >>>>> anyway. >>>>> >>>>> Plus if I put the software on a cartridge I'll get near instant >>>>> booting, so that's better than any PC and its associated OS. The >>>>> complex use of a floppy disk to temporarily store the groups >>>>> header files will probably slow it down terribly after that, >>>>> but my power-on to groups list time will be the best on the >>>>> block. That I can guarantee. >>>>> >>>> There are plenty of challenges to be had with modern systems that >>>> actually advance things rather than just raking over the past. I've seen >>>> the huge advances over the 47 years that I've been involved with >>>> computers, I've had fun with them all but its always time to move on to >>>> the next one. >>> >>> It's whatever floats your boat though. I personally like vintage and new >>> hardware alike, they need not be mutually exclusive interests. >>> >> I like vintage machinery, thats why I play with old aircraft, but old >> computers seem rather pointless to me. > > But I could say that you should stop messing with old aircraft and > spend your valuable time working out improvements to new designs, > to further the good of all humanity. (actually I've got things > to look into in that department myself too, but not with great > expectations) Were I qualified to do so and had the resources, I would do so. Since I I am not so qualified, and am deficient on the resource side I do the next best thing. > The point is that sometimes people like myself enjoy working on > projects that don't have the pressures introduced by trying to > design something that serves the masses and competes with the > latest existing solutions (which in computing today will often > have been developed by numerous individuals, often with > financial support or incentive). There are examples of people > trying to do that with software, and few use their works anyway > because they simply can't independently develop them to the > standards of the "competition". I used to write software in the commercial field, now I do it for my own pleasure, and utility, I may make it available for others if that seems appropriate. > At least my newsreader (which in reality will probably never > be made) would be used by some people, who would enjoy the > expenience, and Perhaps, unlike if I'd tried to work with > all the technicalities of developing cutting-edge modern > software, I would have enjoyed myself too. No more technicalities these days than in the past, in fact, in some ways, it is easier than it was, modern software has capabilities that the old stuff didn't.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-06 21:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nvo8kn$10cb$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #55887 |
In aus.computers keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote: > On 11/5/2016 8:59 AM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >> In aus.computers keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>> I like vintage machinery, thats why I play with old aircraft, but old >>> computers seem rather pointless to me. >> >> But I could say that you should stop messing with old aircraft and >> spend your valuable time working out improvements to new designs, >> to further the good of all humanity. (actually I've got things >> to look into in that department myself too, but not with great >> expectations) > > Were I qualified to do so and had the resources, I would do so. Since I > I am not so qualified, and am deficient on the resource side I do the > next best thing. > >> The point is that sometimes people like myself enjoy working on >> projects that don't have the pressures introduced by trying to >> design something that serves the masses and competes with the >> latest existing solutions (which in computing today will often >> have been developed by numerous individuals, often with >> financial support or incentive). There are examples of people >> trying to do that with software, and few use their works anyway >> because they simply can't independently develop them to the >> standards of the "competition". > > I used to write software in the commercial field, now I do it for my own > pleasure, and utility, I may make it available for others if that seems > appropriate. So you're not writing it for the good of the general population in the first place, you're writing it for your own purposes. You might as well be developing it for a Commodore 64 if that was what would give you most pleasure. >> At least my newsreader (which in reality will probably never >> be made) would be used by some people, who would enjoy the >> expenience, and Perhaps, unlike if I'd tried to work with >> all the technicalities of developing cutting-edge modern >> software, I would have enjoyed myself too. > > No more technicalities these days than in the past, in fact, in some > ways, it is easier than it was, modern software has capabilities that > the old stuff didn't. But the level of overall complexity in commonly used software (which one would be aiming to replace if one actually wanted to "advance things") has also vastly increased. What I'm saying is that if you actually wanted to make software that truely contributed to the noticeable advancement of computing, or society, (I'm assuming something like a new video compression system, new web browser, new operating system) it would be outside the bounds of a normal personal hobby project. You could try - but you wouldn't get it up to the existing standards. If you want to write software that's just useful, or enjoyable, for you then no problem, and sure it's easier than it was. But you might just as well be doing it for a Commodore 64, for all the good it might do overall. -- __ __ #_ < |\| |< _#
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | keithr0 <user@account.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-07 19:33 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <e8b042FrojaU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #55889 |
On 11/7/2016 7:51 AM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: > In aus.computers keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote: >> On 11/5/2016 8:59 AM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >>> In aus.computers keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote: >>>>> >>>> I like vintage machinery, thats why I play with old aircraft, but old >>>> computers seem rather pointless to me. >>> >>> But I could say that you should stop messing with old aircraft and >>> spend your valuable time working out improvements to new designs, >>> to further the good of all humanity. (actually I've got things >>> to look into in that department myself too, but not with great >>> expectations) >> >> Were I qualified to do so and had the resources, I would do so. Since I >> I am not so qualified, and am deficient on the resource side I do the >> next best thing. >> >>> The point is that sometimes people like myself enjoy working on >>> projects that don't have the pressures introduced by trying to >>> design something that serves the masses and competes with the >>> latest existing solutions (which in computing today will often >>> have been developed by numerous individuals, often with >>> financial support or incentive). There are examples of people >>> trying to do that with software, and few use their works anyway >>> because they simply can't independently develop them to the >>> standards of the "competition". >> >> I used to write software in the commercial field, now I do it for my own >> pleasure, and utility, I may make it available for others if that seems >> appropriate. > > So you're not writing it for the good of the general population > in the first place, you're writing it for your own purposes. You > might as well be developing it for a Commodore 64 if that was what > would give you most pleasure. > >>> At least my newsreader (which in reality will probably never >>> be made) would be used by some people, who would enjoy the >>> expenience, and Perhaps, unlike if I'd tried to work with >>> all the technicalities of developing cutting-edge modern >>> software, I would have enjoyed myself too. >> >> No more technicalities these days than in the past, in fact, in some >> ways, it is easier than it was, modern software has capabilities that >> the old stuff didn't. > > But the level of overall complexity in commonly used software (which > one would be aiming to replace if one actually wanted to "advance > things") has also vastly increased. What I'm saying is that if you > actually wanted to make software that truely contributed to the > noticeable advancement of computing, or society, (I'm assuming > something like a new video compression system, new web browser, > new operating system) it would be outside the bounds of a normal > personal hobby project. You could try - but you wouldn't get it > up to the existing standards. > > If you want to write software that's just useful, or enjoyable, for > you then no problem, and sure it's easier than it was. But you might > just as well be doing it for a Commodore 64, for all the good it might > do overall. The Commodore 64 is a dead system, writing software for it is like writing a novel in latin.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-07 21:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nvqrla$1u9m$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #55892 |
In aus.computers keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote: > On 11/7/2016 7:51 AM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >> In aus.computers keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote: >>> On 11/5/2016 8:59 AM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >>>> In aus.computers keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote: >>> >>> No more technicalities these days than in the past, in fact, in some >>> ways, it is easier than it was, modern software has capabilities that >>> the old stuff didn't. >> >> But the level of overall complexity in commonly used software (which >> one would be aiming to replace if one actually wanted to "advance >> things") has also vastly increased. What I'm saying is that if you >> actually wanted to make software that truely contributed to the >> noticeable advancement of computing, or society, (I'm assuming >> something like a new video compression system, new web browser, >> new operating system) it would be outside the bounds of a normal >> personal hobby project. You could try - but you wouldn't get it >> up to the existing standards. >> >> If you want to write software that's just useful, or enjoyable, for >> you then no problem, and sure it's easier than it was. But you might >> just as well be doing it for a Commodore 64, for all the good it might >> do overall. > > The Commodore 64 is a dead system, writing software for it is like > writing a novel in latin. Yep, and nothing wrong with that if it's just a hobby project. -- __ __ #_ < |\| |< _#
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Clocky <notgonn@happen.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-06 22:27 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <581f3dd5$0$1599$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #55883 |
On 4/11/2016 5:28 PM, keithr0 wrote: > On 11/4/2016 3:56 PM, Clocky wrote: >> On 4/11/2016 11:31 AM, keithr0 wrote: >>> On 11/4/2016 7:11 AM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >>>> In aus.computers keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote: >>>>> On 10/31/2016 7:53 AM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Nice. I've had a 33MHz 486 laptop with 8MB RAM browsing the web over >>>>>> WiFi >>>>>> (text only though). The determination of sites to force HTTPS meant >>>>>> that >>>>>> it wasn't completely usable last time I tried it. One of these days I >>>>>> want to program a newsreader for the Commodore 64. :) >>>>>> >>>>> I think that it has been done before, >>>> >>>> Closest I know about is some Email software that sort-of supported >>>> Usenet. There's the option of simply connecting to a PC as a terminal, >>>> but that doesn't count in my book. >>>> >>>>> God knows why though. >>>> >>>> The challenge! Besides some of us like disappearing down a rabbit >>>> hole to live in the past. The present keeps annoying me too much >>>> anyway. >>>> >>>> Plus if I put the software on a cartridge I'll get near instant >>>> booting, so that's better than any PC and its associated OS. The >>>> complex use of a floppy disk to temporarily store the groups >>>> header files will probably slow it down terribly after that, >>>> but my power-on to groups list time will be the best on the >>>> block. That I can guarantee. >>>> >>> There are plenty of challenges to be had with modern systems that >>> actually advance things rather than just raking over the past. I've seen >>> the huge advances over the 47 years that I've been involved with >>> computers, I've had fun with them all but its always time to move on to >>> the next one. >> >> >> It's whatever floats your boat though. I personally like vintage and new >> hardware alike, they need not be mutually exclusive interests. >> > I like vintage machinery, thats why I play with old aircraft, but old > computers seem rather pointless to me. > I could ask what the point is in playing with old aircraft and vintage machinery but I already know the answer, it's whatever blows your trumpet.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | keithr0 <user@account.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-07 19:29 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <e8avsnFrmnpU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #55888 |
On 11/7/2016 12:27 AM, Clocky wrote: > On 4/11/2016 5:28 PM, keithr0 wrote: >> On 11/4/2016 3:56 PM, Clocky wrote: >>> On 4/11/2016 11:31 AM, keithr0 wrote: >>>> On 11/4/2016 7:11 AM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >>>>> In aus.computers keithr0 <user@account.invalid> wrote: >>>>>> On 10/31/2016 7:53 AM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nice. I've had a 33MHz 486 laptop with 8MB RAM browsing the web over >>>>>>> WiFi >>>>>>> (text only though). The determination of sites to force HTTPS meant >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> it wasn't completely usable last time I tried it. One of these >>>>>>> days I >>>>>>> want to program a newsreader for the Commodore 64. :) >>>>>>> >>>>>> I think that it has been done before, >>>>> >>>>> Closest I know about is some Email software that sort-of supported >>>>> Usenet. There's the option of simply connecting to a PC as a terminal, >>>>> but that doesn't count in my book. >>>>> >>>>>> God knows why though. >>>>> >>>>> The challenge! Besides some of us like disappearing down a rabbit >>>>> hole to live in the past. The present keeps annoying me too much >>>>> anyway. >>>>> >>>>> Plus if I put the software on a cartridge I'll get near instant >>>>> booting, so that's better than any PC and its associated OS. The >>>>> complex use of a floppy disk to temporarily store the groups >>>>> header files will probably slow it down terribly after that, >>>>> but my power-on to groups list time will be the best on the >>>>> block. That I can guarantee. >>>>> >>>> There are plenty of challenges to be had with modern systems that >>>> actually advance things rather than just raking over the past. I've >>>> seen >>>> the huge advances over the 47 years that I've been involved with >>>> computers, I've had fun with them all but its always time to move on to >>>> the next one. >>> >>> >>> It's whatever floats your boat though. I personally like vintage and new >>> hardware alike, they need not be mutually exclusive interests. >>> >> I like vintage machinery, thats why I play with old aircraft, but old >> computers seem rather pointless to me. >> > > > I could ask what the point is in playing with old aircraft and vintage > machinery but I already know the answer, it's whatever blows your trumpet. A well reserved old aircraft, or piece of machinery will bring pleasure to a lot more people than a Commodore 64 program no matter how clever.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | aus.computers
csiph-web