On Thu, 7 Jun 2001 05:15:33 -0400 (EDT), Thomas Mueller wrote:
> Was Arachne ever really going strong? Is its death stroll anything new?
Probably no to both, but strength is relative and there are lots of delays
on death row. ;-)
>But now, RAM is so cheap, there is no sense buying a new computer with
> less than 256 MB,
Why would any reasonable person fill their computer with stuff they don't
need just because it's cheap ? I'm setting up a new business requiring
four new computers for the engineering department. Are we buying 1.2 Ghz
boxes with 256Mb ram ? No way. 600-800Mhz PIIIs with 128M and that's both
more speed and more memory than we will ever need.
It's not the cost, it's the value.
> users move on to bigger things.
No doubt the majority are moving on to BIGGER things, but WE are moving
on to BETTER things, I hope. <g>
>Why put up with Arachne's clumsy scrolling and other comical flaws?
Mostly because we like Arachne. <G> And for me, it gets the job done in
a more pleasant manner than anything I have ever seen anywhere.
> Lynx has the advantage of being open-source, ported to many Unixes and some
> non-Unixes too. Newer versions show all images, including inline, as links,
> downloadable or viewable on separate screen. How many people are working on
> Arachne? Lynx is useful on those super-image-laden Web sites that are just
> too slow in a graphic browser.
I like Lynx a lot and if I never wanted to see a picture I would certainly
use it. But that's not what most of us want or need. I'm not familiar with
the new Lynxes you speak of.
Perhaps the PERFECT software would be Lynx-like speed and Kevlar coating
with Arachne's graphic capability.
- Clarence Verge
- Back to using Arachne V1.62 ....
