Re: bxy file woes

[spec@vax2.concordia.ca (Mitchell Spector)]

In article supertimer@aol.com (Supertimer) writes...

>spec@vax2.concordia.ca (Mitchell Spector) wrote:
>
>>    Actually Netscape 3.x runs decently on a 486DX2/66 (though
>>I wouldn't say the same of anything slower) and if it isn't to
>>your liking, there are alternative graphical web browsers for
>>the PC that run faster and require less memory than Netscape
>>on older/slower machines. The the name slips my mind at the
>>moment, but I installed such a browser on my 386.
>
>Mosaic?  AOL 2.x built in browser?  These work and yes,
>they do require less memory, but if you choose to load
>graphics, the computer slows down A LOT!  These
>browsers are programmed inefficiently, something that
>Netscape (and to a lesser extent Internet Explorer) has
>overcome through continued development.

    Those ancient old things? Heh, no, not at all. The name of the
program I'm using as an example is called "Opera" and was written
from the ground up (it doesn't use Mosaic or Netscape code, and is
highly optimized to run well on older systems). The version that I
installed on the 386 supports everything Netscape does except Java,
although the latest version may have changed that. It ran quite
nicely with just 4 MB, and runs under Windows 95 with 8 MB now on
that same 386.

>Just try to run Mosaic or AOL 2.x's browser on your
>CURRENT Windows PC and compare them against
>Netscape or Internet Explorer.  Mosaic and AOL 2.x's
>will run far slower, so no they will not help in speed.

    Opera will run faster than all those. You should be able to
locate the homepage for that web browser doing a search through
Yahoo or Dejanews. So, even if an Apple II user is given an old
386 or low-end 486, they can install Opera and get much better
web browsing capabilities than Lynx or SIS currently provide.

>>    Well I managed with a 14.4k modem for Netscape up until
>>very recently, which may not have been blazing fast, but
>>certainly quite servicable.
>
>I tried to do this once but it was so damned slow that
>I really did prefer Lynx.  And that's no lie.  I even
>used Lynx on the Windows PC when I only had a
>14.4k modem.

    It depends on the pages you visit and whether their graphic
images are being cached to speed things up your next visit. In
my case, I'd avoid pages heavily bogged down with graphics and
automatically had Netscape cache things so it was usable. Much
more usable than Lynx at any rate, which I avoid completely now.

    When I upgraded to a 33.6k modem in November it made things
much more bearable (and since getting a 56k modem on indefinite
loan yesterday, I'm finding it even more bearable as I speak)
but given the choice between Lynx and Netscape, I'd choose the
latter in a flash even if it meant using a 9600 baud modem.
Lynx was servicable back when the World Wide Web was a brand
new concept (1993-ish) but things have changed, and that is
no longer so--which is why I recommend Apple II users piece
together an old PC or Mac on the side for web browsing.

>Someone in a retirement home using a donated Apple II,
>software, and a freenet account is not going to be
>upgrading the Apple II unit.  The case I'm talking about
>involves 128k Apple IIe units with 5.25" floppy disk
>disk drives, donated copies of ProTERM, and freenet
>accounts.  You don't need to upgrade those units if
>they are just going to act as VT100 terminals.

    I hate to say it, but an Apple IIe makes a poor terminal
for web browsing with Lynx. There are no true cursor keys so
your forced hold down Solid-Apple when pressing a direction.
If you forget to do this, and I constantly do myself, this
causes a lot of chaos in VT-100 mode (especially in a mail
editor like EDT or PINE).

    Also, there is no bold, blink, underline or color, which
makes nagivating quite difficult for even the most avid and
experienced computer user. Also, the small and squished text
font with scanlines running through is difficult to read; if
you have ANY problems with your eyes you'll never be able to
read the screen.

>>    Huh? I think you have that backwards. If anything, elderly
>>persons (or very young children) would find it easier to use a
>>point and click mouse interface with graphical visual aids on
>>screen.
>
>Huh?  Then why do older folks eventually stop driving?

    I would say because their reflex time is slower and their
eye sight is often poor. Last time I checked, making use of a
mouse doesn't require snap action reflexes (unless your using
it to play a game) but what about eye sight? Ask anyone on
this message forum with poor eye sight what they think of
the built-in text font on the IIe and IIgs. A lot of them
rushed out and bought the Second Sight to spare their eyes
(not a bad idea even for a young person, I find staring at
the screen in ProTERM often causes me eye strain).

>It is because they become less able to cope with "analog"
>tracking tasks.  I've personally helped some of them learn
>to use computers.  The hardest thing they have trouble
>with is tracking the mouse and sometimes double-clicking.
>They have no trouble comprehending and generally find
>text based shells and/or menu based systems easier to use.

    It can take time getting used to a mouse for the first time,
but after a bit of practice (and adjusting the tracking sensiti-
vity and double-click timings to your liking) it makes operating
a computer much easier. If not, why do you think Internet access
was limited to just a limited few in the 80's and early 90's? I
think things like Unix, shell accounts, obscure CLI commands and
keyboards acted as kind of filter to keep the non-computer savvy
individuals off the Internet. (*sigh*, I miss those days, back
when csa2 was a nice place and "SPAM" referred to meat). :)

>Actually, I understand Lynx pretty well.  It is not that
>hard but more to the point, I'd bet older folks would
>have an easier time navigating using Lynx's keyboard
>commands than trying to use a mouse and GUI.
>
>I agree, the GUI is conceptually easier and more intuitive,
>but only if you can work well with a mouse.

    Well, just as there are alternatives to Netscape, there are
alternatives to mice. You can use a trackball/marble where you
rest your hand on the device (never moving it) and use your
thumb to move the pointer. A middle button replaces the need
to perform double-clicks. That is one example, there are others
like touch screens and sensitivity pads.

    In closing I think the Apple IIgs (or IIe/IIc) make very
nice terminals for Internet e-mail, usenet access, IRC chats,
telnet sessions and a couple of other things (and will be
even nicer once TCP/IP becomes mainstream for the IIgs) but
when it comes to browsing web pages, it gets a big thumbs down.
Hmm, at this point I wonder if there is anything we agree on, 
how about that one of Paramount's currently running sci-fi shows 
(now in its fifth season) puts shame to two other shows that 
carry its name and is unintelligible rubbish? No? :)

Mitchell Spector
spec@vax2.concordia.ca