What and where can i find a OS 9 browser ?
The browsers that come with OS 9 thru 9.2 are really flakey running in OS 9 .
The browsers that come with OS 9 thru 9.2 are really flakey running in OS 9 .
What browser
OK, will try them out
i made it thru cyberspace using classilla
this browser is reminisint ( and were is that spell checker guy )of mozilla
this browser is reminisint ( and were is that spell checker guy )of mozilla
That's because it's based on Mozilla.
No, dang it! It's MINE. ALL MINE. I WROTE IT. ALL ME.
Just ignore me surfing Bugzilla, because that has NOTHING to do with Classilla. At all.
did you even have to write it, I just thought your awesomeness made it plop out on the desktop one day!
Thank you for that wonderful mental image..... (The guys next to me at work have been having potty-humor all day, so I'm sure you can imagine what "plop out" entered my mind as plopping out of....)
No, that was lunch. Sorry about the mess.
Wow. I should check the software forum or something more often. This is the first I've read about Classilla. Thank you AF for pointing it out and a big thanks to Cameron for taking on such a wonderful project.
Jeff Walther
Incidentally, Classilla ( from the world of Mozilla ) works flawlessly but iCAB crasssssshes ( so much for buying it and they want $20. ).
As you can see, Jeff, I just don't know when to quit.
Looking like March for Classilla 9.1. I've got most of the major bugs shaken out of the new compositor. It's slower, but the scrolling and screen updates/repaints are way less glitchy than they were in 9.0.4. I'm trying to tune it up a little more, though.
Has "the bug" been fixed? It affects several forums I visit, where I have to turn off style sheets in order to read longer messages rather than get repeated portions near the bottom.
If you mean the infamous issue 65 that bedeviled me for months, yes. Well, more accurately, it's been kludged around. The problem seems to be that the double buffering code for OS 9 just doesn't work (and the solution for OS X was ... drum roll please ... turn off double buffering and let the OS sort it out, which is why 1.3.1 on OS X doesn't have the issue).
The workaround, if you're interested in the guts of it, came when I discovered that off-screen rects just crap out, so I turn off double buffering for rects that extend off screen and the scroll isn't glass smooth but is now correct.
Issue 28 is the one I think I have beaten into a state of submission today. This is an omnibus bug for a whole bunch of compositor glitches which individually have been hell to stamp out. The solution has been to make it overpaint to smooth these out, but overpainting is expensive, so I've been trying to figure out strategies for smarter overpainting in nsWindow and I think I have it to a useable point. It's still slower, so don't be surprised when scrolling doesn't act the same in 9.1, but visually now most things come out right.
Today I'm doing worst case testing on my tireless PB 1400. If scrolling is acceptable on that, then it should be acceptable most other places. Have to upgrade the hard disk first, tho, poor girl is running out of space!
I am sure you are sick and tired of hearing this, but the fact that you are re-working such a key piece of software for the (real) Macintosh platform is hugely appreciated. Classic really did have class.
Asked in 2004 what Apple should do next, Jef Raskin replied, "Turn out a good interface." Amen, I say. After nearly ten years of using the damn thing daily, I still can't find my way around OSX. The GUI on top is sugar-coating on the gawd-awful mess in the DNA, in the billions of lines of code that have grown merely by accretion, of the UNIX underneath. As Raskin put it, there really isn't any real difference anymore between Apple's OS and that of its competitors. Yes, I am sure that it is all ever-so powerful, and as OSes go, it is seemingly the pick of the litter, but it is Byzantine in its complexity, and only the insider who has lurked for years in its countless inversions and curlicues knows how to navigate it.
This has been recently brought home to me by my trying to work with BibDesk, a relatively simple bibliographic program which no doubt can be modified somehow to do exactly what you want it to do — except that I can't even find the files stashed away in umpteen different Libraries and such that, according to its Spartan wiki, require modification. Hours and hours I have spent on it, and given up. Remember the priesthood of the "computer scientist" of the 1960s and 70s, white-coated and pure so as to handle the "secret code" that the uninitiated must never touch? Well, we still have it today.
And so when I want to enjoy what I am doing on a computer, I go back to the old Macintosh system that was designed around the needs of a non-specialist user. The simpler, the better, and like it, I generally can only do one thing properly at a time when I am there.
I do, however, wish I knew how to program, if for no other reason than that I might then be able to tell the backside from the elbow of BibDesk. Unfortunately, I am old enough to have used early 68k machines in working life when they were brand spanking new, and therefore to have missed all opportunity for education in programming skills as a schoolchild; thus I fear it. I also did not pick programming up later at University, which I began when hole-punched cards were still in vogue, and I am presently too preoccupied with mortgages and such to learn. Filemaker scripts are about as far as I get.
I'd happily buy you a beer, though, let me tell you. Point yourself out in a crowd sometime and we'll find a good pub.
Asked in 2004 what Apple should do next, Jef Raskin replied, "Turn out a good interface." Amen, I say. After nearly ten years of using the damn thing daily, I still can't find my way around OSX. The GUI on top is sugar-coating on the gawd-awful mess in the DNA, in the billions of lines of code that have grown merely by accretion, of the UNIX underneath. As Raskin put it, there really isn't any real difference anymore between Apple's OS and that of its competitors. Yes, I am sure that it is all ever-so powerful, and as OSes go, it is seemingly the pick of the litter, but it is Byzantine in its complexity, and only the insider who has lurked for years in its countless inversions and curlicues knows how to navigate it.
This has been recently brought home to me by my trying to work with BibDesk, a relatively simple bibliographic program which no doubt can be modified somehow to do exactly what you want it to do — except that I can't even find the files stashed away in umpteen different Libraries and such that, according to its Spartan wiki, require modification. Hours and hours I have spent on it, and given up. Remember the priesthood of the "computer scientist" of the 1960s and 70s, white-coated and pure so as to handle the "secret code" that the uninitiated must never touch? Well, we still have it today.
And so when I want to enjoy what I am doing on a computer, I go back to the old Macintosh system that was designed around the needs of a non-specialist user. The simpler, the better, and like it, I generally can only do one thing properly at a time when I am there.
I do, however, wish I knew how to program, if for no other reason than that I might then be able to tell the backside from the elbow of BibDesk. Unfortunately, I am old enough to have used early 68k machines in working life when they were brand spanking new, and therefore to have missed all opportunity for education in programming skills as a schoolchild; thus I fear it. I also did not pick programming up later at University, which I began when hole-punched cards were still in vogue, and I am presently too preoccupied with mortgages and such to learn. Filemaker scripts are about as far as I get.
I'd happily buy you a beer, though, let me tell you. Point yourself out in a crowd sometime and we'll find a good pub.
I get the idea some people here only use Classilla occasionally, when they're using their older Macs. I just wanted to mention that I use my old Mac (8500 upgraded with 400 MHz Sonnet G3, 384 MB RAM) for about 8 hours each day (programming), and use Classilla full-time. I'd use my newer iMac G4 flat panel with OS X 10.3.9, except that I hate everything about it, starting with the 1024x768 display with no option for anything larger, even if plugged in externally. Classilla has been a godsend. Before, I used Internet Explorer 5.x, which has countless problems, and most importantly, lacks tabs. Having tabs has made an enormous improvement to my web experience.
Hay, you're a talking about me.
Albeit these days i use my "legacy" macs more then my iMac: perhaps it's because the latest OS ( snowyleopard ) is flash and dash BUT BUT BUT far more stable then OS 9, 8, 7.6 for the midi/audio programmes i need to run although i have learned ( most of the time ) not to do this or that which will inevitably crash those 7.6 thru 9 programs.
I've actually found Netscape 7.02 pretty darn usable on my Wallstreet. The integrated chat and email still work and I rarely get a crash.
If your iMac G4 happens to be the 1 GHz model, you can use Screen Spanning Doctor to enable extended desktop. Then you can use an external display at higher resolution. (Unfortunately, the only 15" model that has a compatible graphics chip is the 1 GHz, none of the earlier 15" models can do it.)
Amen.
I attribute part of my difficulty to the contrast between my well-worn OS 9.x machines and trying to find my way around the new OSX. The difficulty of the new compared to the comfort of the old, perhaps makes the new seem more difficult than it is. All the effort (fun) I put in reading Mac magazines and the occasional book are lost to memory and I'm left with a facility for Classic which I can't match in X. Perhaps if I spent as much time reading about OSX; a task for which I no longer have the time nor the interest.
On the other hand, the bloody DVD burning utility in OSX is the most confusing, obtuse, bass-ackwards, non-intuitive piece of interface that I have encountered, second only to backup utilities written for Windows back in the '90s.
I think in some ways it's harder to learn to program now than it was back then. Back when, one could write a (relatively speaking) useful program in a simple to understand language like Basic. Basic was a great place to learn the basics. From there the door was open to Fortran or Pascal and those were great gateways to some assembler or C.
Now days they seem to teach Javascript or some such as a beginning language which is probably more applicable to today's life, but I doubt that it is an easier introduction than Basic was.
Actually, back in the day (late 70s) most of my friends learned their first programming on programmable calculators, where inventing that nifty algorithm that would save three programming steps really was a valuable innovation.
The programmable calculator was a gateway to Basic on the school's TTY terminal (connected to a DEC10 at the local university).
lua, in this day and age its going to be hard to find a simpler system, now it can get really complex for things like window widgets or games, but the basic scripting of it all is pretty dead simple
Trag, I would also include the backup system AMANDA for Linux in your statement. Even though there are tutorials and how-tos to get this system up and running claimed in 15 mins.. I've yet to get that beast of a backup system working properly ever.
I yearn for the days of Retrospect or NovaStor They just worked! Retrospect even still seems my Avid DLT 40Gig drive and even the 5 cart DLT jukebox properly after all these years.
I yearn for the days of Retrospect or NovaStor They just worked! Retrospect even still seems my Avid DLT 40Gig drive and even the 5 cart DLT jukebox properly after all these years.
Imagine how much more complicated it would be if Apple didn't drop support for older hardware from time to time. This is the problem with Windows. They support so much legacy hardware that it makes everything unnecessarily complicated. Even Windows 7 goes back too far with the legacy support. Who still uses 1ghz Pentium III/Athlon Thunderbird class machines as their primary computer anymore?
I primarily use a dual 1.8GHz box, and Apple's already dropped support for that.
I've never been forced to upgrade because a box was too slow for me. Both times now (this is my third Mac) it was because my "old machine" was no longer supported by the current crop of software. First time, it was the sad state of Java on 68k. Second time, it was that I couldn't shoehorn OS X onto my G3. The next time, it will be when I can't get updates for PPC or 10.5, whichever starts happening first.I'm not bitter, though. I keep my old machines alive using NetBSD or Linux. Since they're not primary desktops any more, this option is perfectly acceptable to me.
I pretty much intend to get as much mileage out of my 10.4 quad G5 as possible. That'll probably mean starting another browser project in a year or two (I'd probably fork Camino, since Camino is my preferred browser when I'm using OS X). And my MDD isn't going anywhere - in fact, I just ordered the Sonnet dual 1.8 for it.I primarily use a dual 1.8GHz box, and Apple's already dropped support for that.
I'm not bitter, though. I keep my old machines alive using NetBSD or Linux. Since they're not primary desktops any more, this option is perfectly acceptable to me.
I don't think Steve-O dropping PPC in 10.6 was ill-conceived, but it was low. A three-year-old Mac (the quad is just barely four years old) is, in terms of typical Mac longevity, hardly an ancient box. There are plenty of people out there on early G4s still, but not for a lot longer. I know this gets them back in the Apple Store to pick up another shiny one, but it's making me think of getting an IBM power Express as a workstation when this G5 gets funky. Now there is a company that supports damn near everything they've ever made.
I'm only using it until I can get my IIvx working <_<
That legacy business is in a sense the issue. OSX is built, ultimately, on the same foundations as the OS that ran those room-sized, tape-turning computers controlled by the white-coated computer priesthood of the 1970s. UNIX has mainframe in its DNA, and that is what makes it such an unfriendly beast. (Granted, it is the best of a bad lot.)
To take a concrete example: Who for goodness' sake needs a machine sitting on their lap that 200 users worldwide can be logged into in order to run separate shells? But that is what I've actually got here as I write this post - an OS designed to be the sort of system you book time on for remote login in order to run some UNIX program in the terminal.