Thomas wrote:
>Was Arachne ever really going strong?
In it's market it is still the number 1 option. The market in this case is
CLI-mode graphical browser.
> Is its death stroll anything new?
Since I don't think Arachne is dying neither yes nor no is a correct answer
(for me anyway) on that question.
>But
>now, RAM is so cheap, there is no sense buying a new computer with less than
>256 MB, computer users move on to bigger things. Why put up with Arachne's
>clumsy scrolling and other comical flaws?
Clumsy scrolling? It has never been clumsy for me. Internet Explorer on the
other hand is awful in this regard. It isn't any better on this Duron
750MHz (incidently with 256MB) than my old machine.
I use Arachne for these reasons:
1. For my OS of choice (DOS, CLI Linux is also an option for me)
2. Fast when starting up
3. "Banner-resistent", instead of adding *more* banners (Opera), you get
less with Arachne (if you have a registered version).
>How many people are working on
>Arachne?
Hmm... Michael, me and Glenn, or something like that.
> Lynx is useful on those super-image-laden Web sites that are just too
>slow in a graphic browser.
Arachne is also fast on these, since I assume you don't load the images.
>Didn't we hear some time last year that Arachne was going to be developed for
>portable, handheld devices like palmtops and cell phones?
I dunno. I still don't understand the idea behind having a browser in a
phone, but having a normal browser would be better than having a WAP
browser. However I've been meaning to look into the possibility to use WAP
pages in Arachne since this would offer another advantage (Opera can view
them IIRC).
BTW: Did you notice that QV has come out in a new version, and it's also
being ported to Linux (CLI of course, no X needed).
//Bernie
