• Please review our updated Terms and Rules here

Posting from a Vintage Computer?

Well yes since then you'd just use RDP to drive whatever you like.

Maybe the forum admins could help on this... to provide access in a text-only sub-domain, maybe vintage.vintage-computer.com/vcforum or whatever, then we should be able to get through with an XT :)
 
My hat's off to Erik and friends for providing the forum and I understand that Javascript is an essential part of what makes this forum run.

But yes, it is a bit disconcerting to find that IE 5 is the minimum browser that will work effectively with this forum, pretty much mandating a non-vintage (486 or better) PC.

Remember when the guidelines for web page design were "keep it under 50K"? :)
 
Here's documentation of the posting to another vintage computing forum from an original Macintosh (manufactured 1983.)
http://68kmla.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=12820

Also, IE5 runs just fine on Windows 3.1. (I have used the 16-bit Windows 3.1 version of IE5 on my PowerPC ThinkPad, since it's a "newer" browser than the PPC-native IE3 that ships with Windows NT 4.0 - and NT/PPC will run 16-bit x86 apps via an emulation layer.)
 
Yeah, but you're fed by a Linux box. How about a "barefoot" demo? i.e. either modem or ethernet with no intelligence upstream?

My recollection is that IE5 isn't a 16-bit application under the hood--doesn't it need a Win32S DLL to run? Or will it run on a 286 with Windows 3.0?
 
A circa 1979 Apple ][+ (with standard language card/64k) running Contiki is a worthy contender. No terminal tricks needed.
 
Chuck(G) said:
Yeah, but you're fed by a Linux box. How about a "barefoot" demo? i.e. either modem or ethernet with no intelligence upstream?

My recollection is that IE5 isn't a 16-bit application under the hood--doesn't it need a Win32S DLL to run? Or will it run on a 286 with Windows 3.0?
Click to expand...

IE5 requires Windows 3.1, but it does NOT require Win32S. Haven't tried on a 286, but it should be just fine, since Windows NT/PPC only emulates a 16-bit x86 CPU. (In addition to native 32-bit PPC app support, of course.)

For 'barefoot', it can't be done with a Macintosh 128 (no TCP/IP stack exists that will run on a Mac 128,) but with an Uthernet card (DAMMIT! I just missed out on the latest order!) it is possible browse on a system as old as a circa-1979 Apple II+ natively via Contiki.
 
gubbish said:
Would it be cheating to use some sort of proxy to strip out the complicated stuff and view/post to the forum with your VinComp in a text-only interface? Kind of like hitching your donkey to the USS Enterprise, but I like when you can actually do real tasks with the donkey..
Click to expand...

Of course that's cheating. Using a computers as a terminal is not the same as using it to browse the net. However, I think it would be OK to use a router/gateway. I do that using a PPP connection to a Linux box so I can connect to the net with any old kit that has a serial port. It's only about 80K worth of software to do that.
 
Chuck(G) said:
My hat's off to Erik and friends for providing the forum and I understand that Javascript is an essential part of what makes this forum run.
Click to expand...

I'm with you on appreciating the forum regardless of what it runs. I wonder though, does it really need javascript to work? The test I did with Lynx wasn't the most pleasant experience because of the plethora of unrelated clutter of socialnetworkingcrapandstuff, but it was doable. If it was all I had, I'd get used to it. However, does Lynx do javascript? I don't think so.

But yes, it is a bit disconcerting to find that IE 5 is the minimum browser that will work effectively with this forum, pretty much mandating a non-vintage (486 or better) PC.
Click to expand...

I'm really curious what is, and is not, practical or do-able and really wish some of the members would rise to the occasion and get off their asses. Why not fire up one of their machines and see what they can do? It only takes a couple of minutes. Are they really that lazy/busy or do they just not care about this aspect of vintage computing? I guess that would be fair enough. I'm not interested in gaming so it would make sense that a gamer wouldn't be interested in networking. Still ... where is everybody?

Remember when the guidelines for web page design were "keep it under 50K"? :)
Click to expand...

Well there's a lot of difference between a web page and a php application. This is a forum after all, and needs to be connected to a data base. As an aside, I still believer in the 50K (or smallish) web page. In my opinion, a page that takes noticeable time to load is an embarrassment to the owners.
 
Ole Juul said:
I'm with you on appreciating the forum regardless of what it runs. I wonder though, does it really need javascript to work? The test I did with Lynx wasn't the most pleasant experience because of the plethora of unrelated clutter of socialnetworkingcrapandstuff, but it was doable. If it was all I had, I'd get used to it. However, does Lynx do javascript? I don't think so.
Click to expand...

I wanted to see how well the QNX one-floppy demo would work, but Voyager just kept getting more and more JS errors. Eventually, when the home page did load, I couldn't enter my user name or password. I figure it must be a JS thing, but that's only a guess.

Well there's a lot of difference between a web page and a php application. This is a forum after all, and needs to be connected to a data base. As an aside, I still believer in the 50K (or smallish) web page. In my opinion, a page that takes noticeable time to load is an embarrassment to the owners.
Click to expand...

Well, the guideline was for the information sent to the client. Entirely reasonable since most users at the time were using modems. As far as server-side, I don't care if it uses gigabytes for a web page, as long as the content downloaded is small.

I used to keep image loading turned off to make the most of browsing and then only load the images I needed to see. I like Opera turbo mode that downloads the barest of detail for images.

If you think about it, there's a lot on every web page that we ignore--much of browsing content is pure noise.
 
I fully agree re: minimalist web design. Unfortunately people lost sight of the fact that people visit web sites for content years ago (I don't know exactly when, but it was endemic by 2006 at the latest.) Nowadays finding a site that keeps a simple, unobtrusive visual style and uses Flash and Javascript only where HTML/CSS simply won't suffice is a rare pleasure indeed...
 
I have been able to use the forum and post with my Android Smartphone. Due to the limitations of the device, I would not post at length or use more advanced functions like quoting, changing font or uploading pictures. It seems that I might obtain something like an analogous experience with a DOS-based browser. I will try posting once I get my 486 put together.

I meant to post this topic in General Vintage Computer Discussions, but nobody has complained yet.
 
Great topic Hierophant!

While you were posting I've been trying to post with Dillo and it's been a dismal failure. Dillo for DOS is over 4Megs on the disk, so it's not very vintage anyway. I just thought I'd try it. One painful aspect is that a page like this one where I'm editing my post, has 74 images which have to be loaded and displayed individually. The regular vBulletin log-in bugs are easy to deal with, but the lack of proper navigation in the design make it tedious to test browsers on a slow machine. It is entirely possible that Dillo can post here, but it would take a lot of testing to find out. Turning off images is probably possible and would speed things up a little, but it helps to have a modern computer to look at so one can more quickly figure out the best path to a specific thread.

Does anybody else on this forum have some old software or even a vintage computer they can plug in? That'd be cool!
 
commodorejohn said:
I fully agree re: minimalist web design. Unfortunately people lost sight of the fact that people visit web sites for content years ago (I don't know exactly when, but it was endemic by 2006 at the latest.) Nowadays finding a site that keeps a simple, unobtrusive visual style and uses Flash and Javascript only where HTML/CSS simply won't suffice is a rare pleasure indeed...
Click to expand...

Have you noticed how the world seems to have gone crazy about the delivery mechanism and seems to be ignoring content? Sort of like getting 3D HD with Dolby sound and watching "The Biggest Loser" as the only choice.

More and more I seem to be looking at archive.org to find valuable content that's plain vanished.
 
Chuck(G) said:
There are some very old versions of Mosaic here. Goes back to version 0.7 for Windows--that's 1993 or so.
Click to expand...
And I've got an old version of Cello. I think somebody gave a link to the old browser collection earlier too. I don't have any machines with Windows 3.0 and an archived one with 3.1 is not readily available. That's why I'm wondering why all these Windows fans here aren't rising to the occasion. I'd love to see some results, but I'm guessing this is of no interest to them. :(

I guess I really should dig out a Windows box for these occasions. I was just hoping that some of the people who like Window would step up. If I was to go on a rant here, it would be about how every time there is talk of games there's a whole bunch of posts, and when there's talk of the internet, there's very little interest. However I won't go on a rant. ... or will I? ;)
 
Ran NS 2.something on one of my 486s using OS/2 v3 a few years ago. It wasn't pretty, NS would hang. IE 3 on Windows 3.1 wasn't much better. IE 5 was just plain painfull. Linux and NS 4 wasn't any better either. Personally I don't see the point of putting oneself through that pain on a regular basis.
 

Attachments

  • OS2NET01.jpg
    OS2NET01.jpg
    59.2 KB · Views: 1
  • OS2NET00.jpg
    OS2NET00.jpg
    93.7 KB · Views: 1
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top