I'm going to hazard a few guesses here: On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 10:42:22AM -0600, George X. Stacey wrote: > 1. Would this be your regular GUI PPP-based browser, capable of > reproducing all the graphics on the Web?
Well, a regular TCP/IP browser. PPP forms a tunnel between two TCP/IP networks (one of those "networks" is typically a standalone computer, and the other is typically the internet). As such, the point of PPP is to be invisible to TCP/IP applications and very few applications are written for PPP. Those applications which are specific to PPP tend to be written for a particular implementation. I somehow doubt it will be a regular GUI browser, since no System 6 capable machine is fast enough for that. I suspect that Java, JavaScript, and CSS would not be implemented. I would suggest that tables and frames not be implemented (tables seem to be the big CPU hog these days). Graphics would be feasible. While the 68000/68020/68030 may be a tad underpowered to decompress the multitude of graphics found on a modern web page, many models have graphics cards which are comparable to modern (end user) models. Performance issues also tie into why I think an SSH client isn't feasible. Granted, if you don't mind waiting a while for the connection, it should be fine once you are connected. (A 68030 would probably be the minimum for an SSH client.) > 2. If so, how is it going to work on the early compacts -- most of them > non-colour-capable, only about 8 Mhz power capacity and operating within > the constraint of 4 MB or less? The colour bit isn't a huge issue. I've set more modern Macs (System 7.1) to B&W and observed the results, and the dithering was quite good. The 9" monitors will be an issue. Most websites use tables for formatting, and specify a width greater than 512 pixel. Another reason not to implement tables in web browsers (the main reason not to use tables is speed). My understanding is that image decompression is a bit of an issue on slower processors. If there were one or two images per page, it wouldn't be an issue. Unfortunately, many pages are made up of many smaller images. One way to handle the image decompression problem, the screen space problem, and the memory problem may be to intelligently reject images. That is to say, images meant for design or advertising purposes get dumped. Image size and position (eg. in a particular table cell) may be clues. > once aptly described the Internet experience of these machines as > <quotes>like trying to catch Niagara Falls in a teacup <close quotes>. Then design a bigger tea-cup, and one which collects the tea and rejects the milk and sugar (what sort of insane person puts milk and sugar in tea anyhow). > Those of us using Plusses, Classics, and so on have had our hopes raised > before and usually have been disappointed. So, just to clarify things, we > are really talking about a System 6 browser for Mac IIs and above, right? I cannot remember a product announcement or review which didn't leave me disappointed when I saw the goods. That doesn't mean we cannot dream. So please pack your Western cynicism in a bag. ;-) Byron. -- System6 is sponsored by <http://lowendmac.com/> and... 123Inkjets.com <http://lowendmac.com/ad/123inkjets.html> Support Low End Mac <http://lowendmac.com/lists/support.html> System 6 Heaven <http://www.euronet.nl/users/mvdk/system_6_heaven.html> System6 info: <http://lowendmac.com/lists/system6.html> --> AOL users, remove "mailto:"; Send list messages to: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To unsubscribe, email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For digest mode, email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subscription questions: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Archive: <http://www.mail-archive.com/system6%40mail.maclaunch.com/> Using a Mac? Free email & more at Applelinks! http://www.applelinks.com
