WWW Browser for C64? YES!
K DALE SIDEBOTTOM
the answer is YES it can. Hi, my name is Roger Lawhorn and I and the owner
of the Software Guild. I recently picked up a copy of "The complete
idiot's guide to Creating an HTML web page" from my local library. To my
astonishment, html is child's play. Why someone hasn't written a web
browser as yet for GEOS is beyond me. Why a geoWrite to HTML convertor
hasn't been written is unforgivable. It's too easy. It is not a matter of
CAN the C= do this or that. It is a matter of WHEN will someone write the
software. This of course would be black and white viewing. Sixteen color
mulit-color bitmap mode is available also and could produce astounding
results if you have a SuperCPU.
I run my amiga on the net using an 8 color screen and with dithering the
images appear to have the full 256 color range. Using a SuperCPU and
interrrupt driven enhanced color schemes the C= can produce what appears
to be 256 color images, and yes I have the viewers and pics to prove it.
I demoed them at the LUCKY club last month.
Anyway, I may do the black and white browser in GEOS. HTML is new ground
for me and enjoyable.
I'll need the necessary info on logging onto a PPP account though.
Anyway, I've been programming the C64 since 1985. Would everyone mind not
asking IF the C64 can do something? It is a bit annoying and kind of an
insult to the people who are doing your programming for you. The C=
contains all of the necessary chip-sets and ports to connect it to the
outside world. You can help yourself by getting a SuperCPU and a Turbo232
cartridge and a external modem (14k or faster) to plug into it.
Sincerely, Roger Lawhorn
Owner, The Software Guild
NEVER SAY NEVER
RATHER, SAY HOW LONG WILL IT TAKE.
P.S. For those that think the C64 can't do high end graphics I though you
might like to know that CMD had not that long ago investigated making a
upgrade video chip cartridge for the C64 that would output to a normal
composite monitor. What happened to it? It got dropped because it would
have cost $200-$300 dollars (I would have bought one). and CMD felt that
they were going to make a new machine anyway. Well, they haven't made the
new machine, so maybe they'd like to go ahead and give the C64 what it
really needed all along, a graphical enhancement.
Think of it this way...better graphics means the need for more memory
(ram-links) more speed (SuperCPUs) and lots of storage space (CMD hard
drives). It also means every title ever made for the C64 would be
completely rewritten to take advantage of the new screen. If CMD had of
done the video cartidge first and gotten the horse
out in front of the cart instead of the other way around they would have
sold more equipment they could have ever imagined, and would be right now.
Sincerely, Roger Lawhorn
Owner, The Software Guild
Robin Harbron
> The question has been posed "Can the C64 do graphical web browsing?" and
> the answer is YES it can. Hi, my name is Roger Lawhorn and I and the owner
> of the Software Guild. I recently picked up a copy of "The complete
> idiot's guide to Creating an HTML web page" from my local library. To my
> astonishment, html is child's play. Why someone hasn't written a web
> browser as yet for GEOS is beyond me. Why a geoWrite to HTML convertor
> hasn't been written is unforgivable. It's too easy. It is not a matter of
> CAN the C= do this or that. It is a matter of WHEN will someone write the
> software. This of course would be black and white viewing. Sixteen color
> mulit-color bitmap mode is available also and could produce astounding
> results if you have a SuperCPU.
An HTML viewer <> Web Browser - I realize that a geoWrite document
and an HTML document have many similarities, and I don't dispute
that an HTML viewer would be a relatively easy GEOS app to write.
There is much more to a working, useful web browser than just
an HTML viewer.
> I run my amiga on the net using an 8 color screen and with dithering the
> images appear to have the full 256 color range. Using a SuperCPU and
> interrrupt driven enhanced color schemes the C= can produce what appears
> to be 256 color images, and yes I have the viewers and pics to prove it.
> I demoed them at the LUCKY club last month.
Please make these programs/files available to us :)
> I'll need the necessary info on logging onto a PPP account though.
:)
--
Robin Harbron mac...@tbaytel.net
http://www.tbaytel.net/macbeth
Sorex
> the answer is YES it can. Hi, my name is Roger Lawhorn and I and the owner
> of the Software Guild. I recently picked up a copy of "The complete
> idiot's guide to Creating an HTML web page" from my local library. To my
> astonishment, html is child's play. Why someone hasn't written a web
> browser as yet for GEOS is beyond me. Why a geoWrite to HTML convertor
> hasn't been written is unforgivable. It's too easy. It is not a matter of
> CAN the C= do this or that. It is a matter of WHEN will someone write the
> software. This of course would be black and white viewing. Sixteen color
> mulit-color bitmap mode is available also and could produce astounding
> results if you have a SuperCPU.
sure, but you can't put a multicolor picture next to a hires proportional font.
here you have problem #1
> I run my amiga on the net using an 8 color screen and with dithering the
> images appear to have the full 256 color range. Using a SuperCPU and
> interrrupt driven enhanced color schemes the C= can produce what appears
> to be 256 color images, and yes I have the viewers and pics to prove it.
> I demoed them at the LUCKY club last month.
yeah right, with problem #1 in mind you know (or atleast should) that you can only
use 2 colors in each 8*8 cel.
> Anyway, I may do the black and white browser in GEOS. HTML is new ground
> for me and enjoyable.
if it is all that easy why do you choose the easy way then?
the html basics are easy to implement into a gfxial browser for c64, it's mainly the
scaleble fonts ,huge banners, frames, animated pics, java/*script, .CGI that are
a pain to implement.
just "Think Twice" before you give false hope to some people.
Sorex
Marko Mäkelä
Robin> An HTML viewer <> Web Browser - I realize that a geoWrite
Robin> document and an HTML document have many similarities, and I
Robin> don't dispute that an HTML viewer would be a relatively easy
Robin> GEOS app to write.
Yep. An HTML viewer is effectively a parser with loads of error
productions. There are so many broken HTML documents on the web that
you can't just take an HTML grammar and implement it. The browser
would just say "parse error" to most of the stuff on the net.
Even writing something as easy as the textual browser Lynx is not
trivial, since HTML documents tend to be large; the 30-40 kB of memory
that are available for storing the document would be filled very fast.
You would need to convert the HTML to text in-place, while reading the
HTML. Actually, Lynx converts the document to text line by line, but
it reads the whole HTML document to memory first.
BTW, there is an HTML browser for the C64, FairligHTML, but it doesn't
even support some of the very basic tags, such as <OL> and <DL>, as far
as I remember.
Marko
James Julian Thompson
;). I have here sorta working a c64 grafical web browser that works
using a proxyserver (can be anywhere on the net, of course, so it *is* of
use to c= only ppl ;). it is still very incomplete tho, and prolly wont
get anything done on it now till late november/december. (Also, i
currently only use it on l'emu, 'coz i dont have a rs232 cable ;)
What we do need tho is a working ppp stack.... i'm using slip for it atm,
although hopefully i'll get it working in lunix once i set that up, so
that I can use it's net functions, and hence use it thru whatever ppl
have there (currently they have slip and tcp thru 64net2 i think)
- Jaymz
p.s. No, it wont be as nice as ur scpu one, since i dont have a scpu....
only a stock 64 with a stock 1541 ;)
Robin Harbron (mac...@tbaytel.net) wrote:
: Roger Lawhorn wrote:
: > The question has been posed "Can the C64 do graphical web browsing?" and
: > the answer is YES it can. Hi, my name is Roger Lawhorn and I and the owner
: > of the Software Guild. I recently picked up a copy of "The complete
: > idiot's guide to Creating an HTML web page" from my local library. To my
: > astonishment, html is child's play. Why someone hasn't written a web
: > browser as yet for GEOS is beyond me. Why a geoWrite to HTML convertor
: > hasn't been written is unforgivable. It's too easy. It is not a matter of
: > CAN the C= do this or that. It is a matter of WHEN will someone write the
: > software. This of course would be black and white viewing. Sixteen color
: > mulit-color bitmap mode is available also and could produce astounding
: > results if you have a SuperCPU.
: An HTML viewer <> Web Browser - I realize that a geoWrite document
: and an HTML document have many similarities, and I don't dispute
: that an HTML viewer would be a relatively easy GEOS app to write.
: There is much more to a working, useful web browser than just
: an HTML viewer.
: > I run my amiga on the net using an 8 color screen and with dithering the
: > images appear to have the full 256 color range. Using a SuperCPU and
: > interrrupt driven enhanced color schemes the C= can produce what appears
: > to be 256 color images, and yes I have the viewers and pics to prove it.
: > I demoed them at the LUCKY club last month.
: Please make these programs/files available to us :)
Darren Spiteri
> The question has been posed "Can the C64 do graphical web browsing?" and
> the answer is YES it can. Hi, my name is Roger Lawhorn and I and the owner
The hard part:
> I'll need the necessary info on logging onto a PPP account though.
--
+-\___ ___ ______ __ __/=\=/=\=/=\=/=\=/=\=/=\=/=\=/=\=/=\=/=\=/=\-+
: / __)| _ \||_ _| /__/_/ NOTE: Above email address is fictitious. :
|:__ \: _:: :: : @# '') "Bunch of savages in this town..." - Dante |
`(____/|_|><|_||_|><><\__3- - -*(at)hempseed(dot)com><><><><><><><><><>'
Jason Compton
While we're all discussing this, I just thought I'd point out that...
: I run my amiga on the net using an 8 color screen and with dithering the
: images appear to have the full 256 color range. Using a SuperCPU and
...this is complete and utter nonsense. With dithering, 8 color screen
images look like nasty dithered 8-color screen images, not like 256 color
images. Obviously, we'd all have realistic expectations of what a
hypothetical C64 web browser would be capable of, and getting "full 256
color range" by using dithering is NOT one of them.
: Sincerely, Roger Lawhorn
May I sincerely suggest you get a personal internet account? They're not
that expensive.
--
Jason Compton jcom...@xnet.com
http://www.cucug.org/ar/ http://www.xnet.com/~jcompton/
Brix
> sure, but you can't put a multicolor picture next to a hires proportional font.
> here you have problem #1
Use a multicolored proportional font then. 3 greyscales are enough to draw one that is
well readable.
Another way would be a simple interlace (urgh, my eyes!).
> > I run my amiga on the net using an 8 color screen and with dithering the
> > images appear to have the full 256 color range. Using a SuperCPU and
> > interrrupt driven enhanced color schemes the C= can produce what appears
> > to be 256 color images, and yes I have the viewers and pics to prove it.
> > I demoed them at the LUCKY club last month.
>
> yeah right, with problem #1 in mind you know (or atleast should) that you can only
> use 2 colors in each 8*8 cel.
If it is Hires.. thought about FLI yet?
Remember that the SCPU is fast enough to set $d018,$d011 and $dd00 each rasterline, set a
new rasterline and end the interrupt so the rest of this rasterline is free for anything
else.. not forgetting the upper and lower border.
> > Anyway, I may do the black and white browser in GEOS. HTML is new ground
> > for me and enjoyable.
>
> if it is all that easy why do you choose the easy way then?
>
> the html basics are easy to implement into a gfxial browser for c64, it's mainly the
> scaleble fonts ,huge banners, frames, animated pics, java/*script, .CGI that are
> a pain to implement.
Do you need that high-tech crap to browse? The only thing would be Javascript, which i
guess will be for sure a pain to implement.
-Brix-
K DALE SIDEBOTTOM
: K DALE SIDEBOTTOM <luck...@iglou.com> wrote:
: While we're all discussing this, I just thought I'd point out that...
: : I run my amiga on the net using an 8 color screen and with dithering the
: : images appear to have the full 256 color range. Using a SuperCPU and
: ...this is complete and utter nonsense. With dithering, 8 color screen
: images look like nasty dithered 8-color screen images, not like 256 color
: images. Obviously, we'd all have realistic expectations of what a
: hypothetical C64 web browser would be capable of, and getting "full 256
: color range" by using dithering is NOT one of them.
Do you own an Amiga? You didn't say either way. Do you have the latest
copy of VoaygerNG?
Do you have a graphix card or run OCS,ECS? I am using the latest
shareware release fo VoyagerNG and I am telling the truth about the
quality of images it produces through internal gif and jpeg support. If
you would like to try it out and haven't you can get it from aminet or do
a search for it using any search engine.
: : Sincerely, Roger Lawhorn
: May I sincerely suggest you get a personal internet account? They're not
: that expensive.
Being layed off from my job, divorced, and raising a six year old all at
the same time makes for GREAT difficulty in having ANY money to spare. If
anything I NEED about $50 more a week to keep going, well that was back
when I had a full-time job. Now I NEED a whole bunch more than that.
P.S. In response to another user, I can and have mixed multicolor and
hires graphics on the same screen. I will try to go through my codes and
put some of my best work on my home page as well as the SHI viewer and the
acompanying pics that I just love.
Sincerely, and with no offense intended to anyone, Roger. :-)
Canuss
dithered, 16-color crap.
--
Peace, Apathy, Vixen.....
=====================
Mark Freid
http://wolf.tierranet.com
can...@yiffco.com
Jason Compton <jcom...@xnet.com> wrote in article
<702583$hbd$1...@flood.xnet.com>...
gt7...@gatech.edu
>Jason Compton (jcom...@xnet.com) wrote:
>: K DALE SIDEBOTTOM <luck...@iglou.com> wrote:
>: : I run my amiga on the net using an 8 color screen and with dithering the
>: : images appear to have the full 256 color range. Using a SuperCPU and
>
>: ...this is complete and utter nonsense. With dithering, 8 color screen
>: images look like nasty dithered 8-color screen images, not like 256 color
>: images. Obviously, we'd all have realistic expectations of what a
>: hypothetical C64 web browser would be capable of, and getting "full 256
>: color range" by using dithering is NOT one of them.
>
>copy of VoaygerNG?
Dithering an image with Floyd-Steinberg Error Diffusion will give
excellent results over traditional halftone dithering. The trouble is,
even with a 20 MHz 65816, this would be painful. Add to that the card
restrictions of the VIC-II chip. Even if you pull some snazzy FLI tricks,
you'll lose CPU time and your error diffusion takes longer.
That is, of course, not to say that a WWW browser for the C-64
cannot be done. Fairlight has released an HTML viewer for the C-64.
Daniel Dallman has released a TCP/IP stack with a SLIP driver. (My
unreleased TCP/IP stack can ping my Amiga ;-) All you need to do is
put the two together.
I suspect spare time is a big issue for many of us (the few that
are left). The solution? To those hobbyists out there that just play games
or surf the web: Learn to program ;-). Grab an assembler, read the
Programmer's Reference Guide, play with some code! If you have any
questions, ask us on this newsgroup!
Cheers,
Phil
>: : Sincerely, Roger Lawhorn
>
>Sincerely, and with no offense intended to anyone, Roger. :-)
--
Philip C. Tsao (gt_7...@prism.gatech.edu) <- remove the '_'
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332, USA
uucp: ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!gt7357a
WWW page: http://www.prism.gatech.edu/~gt7357a
Jason Compton
: Do you own an Amiga? You didn't say either way. Do you have the latest
: copy of VoaygerNG?
Yes, yes.
: Do you have a graphix card or run OCS,ECS? I am using the latest
: shareware release fo VoyagerNG and I am telling the truth about the
: quality of images it produces through internal gif and jpeg support. If
: you would like to try it out and haven't you can get it from aminet or do
: a search for it using any search engine.
I have quite an array of Amigas, from OCS to 24-bit graphics cards and
quite a lot of experience with them and I can assure you that 8 color
dithering never, ever generates 256-color quality results. This is a
silly discussion.
Peter G.
> : I run my amiga on the net using an 8 color screen and with dithering the
> : images appear to have the full 256 color range. Using a SuperCPU and
>
> ...this is complete and utter nonsense. With dithering, 8 color screen
> images look like nasty dithered 8-color screen images, not like 256 color
The C64 has 8 colors the c16 has 16 colors has anyone ever taken
advantage of this? I don't have any C16 progs I hop to get some Fri.
have to wait and see but does a 16 color dither seem a better idea? as
far as I know mostly the C64 & the C16 have similar capabilities?
My C16 has a very dark screen anyone have a reason why? The darker
colors show black and the light colors look like their dark counterpart.
This is on a 3-year old GPX 18" Television chained to a Funai 4-head
VCR(Vid-Audio In-ports).
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter G.<syt...@webzone.net.nospam>
Rana's Vintage Computers--http://www.bigdog.tulsa.ok.us/
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorex
> > here you have problem #1
>
Brix::
> Use a multicolored proportional font then. 3 greyscales are enough to draw one that is
> well readable.
> Another way would be a simple interlace (urgh, my eyes!).
>
depends on your view of being readable, the pixels (2x1) are too fat to be goodlooking.
> > > I run my amiga on the net using an 8 color screen and with dithering the
> > > images appear to have the full 256 color range. Using a SuperCPU and
> > > interrrupt driven enhanced color schemes the C= can produce what appears
> > > to be 256 color images, and yes I have the viewers and pics to prove it.
> > > I demoed them at the LUCKY club last month.
> >
> > yeah right, with problem #1 in mind you know (or atleast should) that you can only
> > use 2 colors in each 8*8 cel.
>
> If it is Hires.. thought about FLI yet?
> Remember that the SCPU is fast enough to set $d018,$d011 and $dd00 each rasterline, set a
> new rasterline and end the interrupt so the rest of this rasterline is free for anything
> else.. not forgetting the upper and lower border.
>
sure, but it uses again $1C00 or $2000 of the mem you need to buffer some stuff
> > > Anyway, I may do the black and white browser in GEOS. HTML is new ground
> > > for me and enjoyable.
> >
> > if it is all that easy why do you choose the easy way then?
> >
> > the html basics are easy to implement into a gfxial browser for c64, it's mainly the
> > scaleble fonts ,huge banners, frames, animated pics, java/*script, .CGI that are
> > a pain to implement.
>
> Do you need that high-tech crap to browse? The only thing would be Javascript, which i
> guess will be for sure a pain to implement.
>
not for me, i would be happy if i could see an html page with normal, italic, bold,
underlined text, links and a way to view the gfx on demand only (actually i have all this
already made some time ago)
Sorex
Sorex
> P.S. In response to another user, I can and have mixed multicolor and
> hires graphics on the same screen. I will try to go through my codes and
> put some of my best work on my home page as well as the SHI viewer and the
> acompanying pics that I just love.
>
you mean MCM on top and hires under it?
i'm talking about piccies inbetween the text, you can cheat with sprite tho.
Sorex
Ernst Stavro Blofeld
something or other
I'm ashamed of you guys. Dale has offered to do what we've all been
begging for and complaining about the lack of for months. ...and all
you can do is complain more and debunk his ideas! What a pack of
morons! I thought the C=loyalists were a fine bunch of people; now I
think you are a fine pack of doomsayers.
Dale, I think this is a wonderful idea. Some suggestions for you: the
first version doesn't have to browse online. Save programming time and
memory by downloading separately and then reopening the HTML file in
your viewer. No need to keep everything in memory then and the
requirements are only about 1k for handling text formatting. Implement
graphics, plan ahead. But at first only do 1-bit monochrome. The most
important thing about web browsing in most cases is resolution and
unless you are using monochrome GEOS or have a 64k VDC resolution is a
weak point on the C=.
I have to go to Performance Evaluation now, so you get started Dale.
And good luck. At least one of us is behind you and won't cast doubts.
One thing, could you at least make it usable on a regular C128/C64? If
I wanted to spend as much money on a SCPU I'd buy a used Amiga instead.
-Blofeld
Cameron Kaiser
>The C64 has 8 colors the c16 has 16 colors has anyone ever taken
>advantage of this? I don't have any C16 progs I hop to get some Fri.
>have to wait and see but does a 16 color dither seem a better idea? as
>far as I know mostly the C64 & the C16 have similar capabilities?
No, no, no, the 64 has *16* and the C16 has *128* (but eight shades of
black, so really 121 in practise). So does the Plus/4, since they both use
the TED chip.
However, your idea about using the better colour palette of the 16 is well
taken. It's just that so few people have a 16 or Plus/4.
--
-------------- The Commodore 64 lives: http://computerworkshops.home.ml.org/ --
Cameron Kaiser (posting with a Commodore 128) | "When in doubt, take a pawn."
cdkaiser@concentricMUNGEnet | -- Mission: Impossible
-- personal page: http://calvin.ptloma.edu/~spectre/ ------ CBMSF Unit $EA31 --
Brix
> Brix::
> > Use a multicolored proportional font then. 3 greyscales are enough to draw one that is
> > well readable.
> > Another way would be a simple interlace (urgh, my eyes!).
> >
>
> depends on your view of being readable, the pixels (2x1) are too fat to be goodlooking.
Wasn't meant to be good looking, but working. :)
> > > > I run my amiga on the net using an 8 color screen and with dithering the
> > > > images appear to have the full 256 color range. Using a SuperCPU and
> > > > interrrupt driven enhanced color schemes the C= can produce what appears
> > > > to be 256 color images, and yes I have the viewers and pics to prove it.
> > > > I demoed them at the LUCKY club last month.
> > >
> > > yeah right, with problem #1 in mind you know (or atleast should) that you can only
> > > use 2 colors in each 8*8 cel.
> >
> > If it is Hires.. thought about FLI yet?
> > Remember that the SCPU is fast enough to set $d018,$d011 and $dd00 each rasterline, set a
> > new rasterline and end the interrupt so the rest of this rasterline is free for anything
> > else.. not forgetting the upper and lower border.
> >
>
> sure, but it uses again $1C00 or $2000 of the mem you need to buffer some stuff
I won't mind if a C-64 Browser requires A REU.. and If you're running the SCPU (otherwise
FLI wouldn't make sense as the rest of the program would be too slow) you have up to 16 MB
of RAM... that's nearly too much RAM :) to fill.
> >
> > Do you need that high-tech crap to browse? The only thing would be Javascript, which i
> > guess will be for sure a pain to implement.
> >
>
> not for me, i would be happy if i could see an html page with normal, italic, bold,
> underlined text, links and a way to view the gfx on demand only (actually i have all this
> already made some time ago)
nothing to say against it.
A Browser could also have Boxes instead of pictures to make the layout better readable. So
you could use usual hires.
Downloading the pictures could be made by clicking on the Box then.. then you could
convert the GIF/Jpeg to FLI and display them full screen and save em to disc by pressing
"S".
Perfect enough for C-64 Browsing.
-Brix-
Brix
> Jason Compton (jcom...@xnet.com) wrote:
> : K DALE SIDEBOTTOM <luck...@iglou.com> wrote:
>
> : While we're all discussing this, I just thought I'd point out that...
>
> : : I run my amiga on the net using an 8 color screen and with dithering the
> : : images appear to have the full 256 color range. Using a SuperCPU and
>
> : images look like nasty dithered 8-color screen images, not like 256 color
> : hypothetical C64 web browser would be capable of, and getting "full 256
> : color range" by using dithering is NOT one of them.
>
> copy of VoaygerNG?
> shareware release fo VoyagerNG and I am telling the truth about the
> quality of images it produces through internal gif and jpeg support. If
> you would like to try it out and haven't you can get it from aminet or do
> a search for it using any search engine.
Hm, but i doubt that the C-64's resolution would be enough to allow a proper dithereing..
anyway. Wishing you best success.
> P.S. In response to another user, I can and have mixed multicolor and
> hires graphics on the same screen. I will try to go through my codes and
> put some of my best work on my home page as well as the SHI viewer and the
> acompanying pics that I just love.
Would be great.
-Brix-
Brix
> Jason Compton wrote:
> > : I run my amiga on the net using an 8 color screen and with dithering the
> > : images appear to have the full 256 color range. Using a SuperCPU and
> >
> > ...this is complete and utter nonsense. With dithering, 8 color screen
> > images look like nasty dithered 8-color screen images, not like 256 color
>
> advantage of this?
EEEEHHHHHH.. the C64 has 16 Colors.
Just try:
Poke 53280,0
Poke 53280,1
Poke 53280,2
...
Poke 53280,15
All colors are pretty different :)
Exept using the CTRL-Key together with 1-8 you can also use the C= Key together with the
Keys 1-8
-Brix-
Brix
> K DALE SIDEBOTTOM wrote:
> something or other
>
> I'm ashamed of you guys. Dale has offered to do what we've all been
> begging for and complaining about the lack of for months. ...and all
> you can do is complain more and debunk his ideas! What a pack of
> morons! I thought the C=loyalists were a fine bunch of people; now I
> think you are a fine pack of doomsayers.
>
> Dale, I think this is a wonderful idea. Some suggestions for you: the
> first version doesn't have to browse online. Save programming time and
> memory by downloading separately and then reopening the HTML file in
> your viewer. No need to keep everything in memory then and the
> requirements are only about 1k for handling text formatting. Implement
> graphics, plan ahead. But at first only do 1-bit monochrome. The most
> important thing about web browsing in most cases is resolution and
> unless you are using monochrome GEOS or have a 64k VDC resolution is a
> weak point on the C=.
>
Yes, a wonderful Idea and we're offering quite more than just respect:
I also posted Go64!magazines offer of 3000,-DM (about $1800) for an Internet Suite, but I
suppose it got catched by spam-filters.
PLEASE SPREAD THIS MESSAGE AS GOOD AS YOU CAN!!!
Here's the whole stuff again (rewritten and more clearly).
We offer 3000,-DM (about $1800 - depends on the dollar) for an INTERNET-SUITE for the C64.
Deadline is 31 of march 1999.
It must be able to PPP-Dial, Browse, Email, Newsreading and FTP.
Also Parts like a single Browser will be rewarded (of course you'll get less money for
it).
The program may require a Swiftlink or Turbo232 or Datablast.
It may require a REU.
It must be compatible with:
SCPU, 1541/71/81, CMD-HD/FD, C-128(in C-64 mode).
Dialer:
Must be able to connect via PPP, must support dynamic IP and DNS.
May support scripting.
Browsing:
GFX may be replaced by boxes, and should be at least downloadable.
Tables and Forms must be supported.
Frames may be replaced by switching the display from frames to frame, but the program
doesn't need to support frames.
FTP Client:
Must be able to up and download.
Newsreader:
All you have to be able to do with is:
Open a newsgroup, receive headers, read article, post article, post follow-up (reply).
It may also support Binaries (UUencode), but doesn't need to.
Email Client:
Receiving mail via POP.
Sending mail via SMTP.
Attachments may be supported, but doesn't need to be. Anyway, if the Email-client supports
Attachments, it may limit them in Size.
THIS IS A COMPETITION for 3000,- DM (about $1800).
This is NO hoax.
Go64!magazine, Tanja Reiser (PD-Software,etc), and Mysoft will spend the money for the
best solution.
Also waiting: Several smaller Prices (things like hardware, discs, etc).
ALSO Parts of an Internet suite (single browser, dialer, email-, news- or ftp-client)
are welcome, but ofcourse will be rewarded with parts of the money only.
The Go64-Staff will decide whom and how the prices will be given.
Btw (I MUST say this): If someone is not satisfied with the jurys choice, calling a lawyer
is useless.
As said above: Deadline is 31 of march 1999.
And I see at least one guy who is quite close to get some money in '99.
W.Gayk/Go64-magazine
aka
-Brix/Plush-
Go64!-Magazine
CSW-Verlag
Goethestr.22
71364 Winnenden
Germany
http://www.go64.c64.org
Mail questions to: go...@c64.NOSPAMorg (remove NOSPAM from adress)
Christopher Locke
reasonably usable fashion?". In my opinion, a graphical web browser/ppp
stack CAN be developed for the C64. However, will it be usable? A few
things to consider:
-Most graphical web pages are designed for a minimum 640x400x8bit display.
We've got 160x200x2bit or 320x200x1bit or hacks and variations on those
two basic modes. So, we're talking some SERIOUS dithering here. Things
are liable to look real messy.
-JPEG decompression is another issue we should be looking at. How
fast/effectively is a C64 going to do this? Will GIF/BMP/... ... be
supported?
-Backround images could be somewhat painful to implement.
-We're not even gonna bother with talk of supporting MIDI's or anything
here ;)
-Don't forget the biggest deal of all - a FULLY FUNCTIONING PPP stack.
If I were doing this, I use a hires bitmap as the text area for the nice
proportional fonts and frame borders etc. A floating, dynamically
changing grid of 8*10 multicolour (3 shades of grey) mobs would be set up
for displaying graphics. X positions could change as needed so that you
can position the pic where it is supposed to be, Y positions would remain
constant. Now, this is not a perfect solution - we can only have
96x200x2bit for graphics (But it actually covers 192x200 of the hires
screen) and 320x200x1bit for text. It sure beats plotting everything to a
MC bitmap IMO.
You'll probably want to stay away from developing a GEOS based browser/ppp
stack in order to avoid the clumsy interface, memory management issues and
other "OS" overhead.
By the time you're finished here, you'll be needing a SCPU equipped C64
with REU >= 256k, a modem >= 9600 w/Swiftlink and a hell of a good
monitor. I think that if developed, a graphical C64 web browser with
PPP stack will turn out to be a novelty or curiosity to the diehard C64
user who prefers dialing in to a shell anyway.
Chris / Natas ..
---------------------------------------------------------------------
: Internet Direct. Have you heard about our :
: (416)233-2999, 1000 lines Do-It-Yourself Webserver? :
: T3 bandwidth, 9600-33,600bps+ISDN http://web.idirect.com :
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Robin Harbron
Cool to see you around Chris.
> By the time you're finished here, you'll be needing a SCPU equipped C64
> with REU >= 256k, a modem >= 9600 w/Swiftlink and a hell of a good
> monitor. I think that if developed, a graphical C64 web browser with
> PPP stack will turn out to be a novelty or curiosity to the diehard C64
> user who prefers dialing in to a shell anyway.
I think we should realistically be looking at shell
type functionality - why bother then? Because for
many folks, shell accounts are really hard to come
by, while folks offering PPP accounts are common.
There will be a few other advantages -
FTP downloads directly into your machine...
Read/Write your email/newsgroups offline...
Specialized C64-only Inet apps/games.
Sorex
> If I were doing this, I use a hires bitmap as the text area for the nice
> proportional fonts and frame borders etc. A floating, dynamically
> changing grid of 8*10 multicolour (3 shades of grey) mobs would be set up
> for displaying graphics. X positions could change as needed so that you
> can position the pic where it is supposed to be, Y positions would remain
> constant. Now, this is not a perfect solution - we can only have
> 96x200x2bit for graphics (But it actually covers 192x200 of the hires
> screen) and 320x200x1bit for text. It sure beats plotting everything to a
> MC bitmap IMO.
>
you're going for Super Hires (96*200) or Extended Super Hires (192*176) ?
you can try but you got several limits like having a stable routine to display new
sprites every ??th line, and no way you could use a pointer to click on the link
etc.
2nd: you need to mess with bitmap and sprite (depending on the color) data
which is slower then doing it 100% bitmap.
Christopher Locke
Sorex (so...@skynet.be) wrote:
: you're going for Super Hires (96*200) or Extended Super Hires (192*176) ?
Dunno, I'm not very up to date on different "video modes" being churned
out by the euros every couple months or so. My idea was to have a 320x200
bitmap as the text area, and a 96x200 MC Mob Matrix for grafx (But
actually covering 192x200 of the hires screen as 1 mc pixel = 1 hires
pixel).
: you can try but you got several limits like having a stable routine to display new
: sprites every ??th line, and no way you could use a pointer to click on the link
: etc.
No, the IRQ code would actually be a constant. Hard code a screen to
display 10 sets of 8 mobs, and then plot to your mobmatrix. However,
yeah, the link thing would be a bit of a pain using my idea, but it is
doable none the less.
: 2nd: you need to mess with bitmap and sprite (depending on the color) data
: which is slower then doing it 100% bitmap.
You're right - however, like I said at the beginning of my last post, the
goal here should be to make it as usable as possible - that involves
comprimises, and I think giving up a bit of speed to make things look
better is a fair trade off.
If anyone out there is going to successfully pull this off, I suspect it
is going to be a democoder. App coders, used to dealing with well
structured, documented code and fearing the VIC-II like the plague aren't
going to cut it.
Best regards,
Chris / Natas ..
---------------------------------------------------------------------
: Internet Direct (416)233-2999 1000 lines SLIP, 9600 - 33,600 bps :
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Morrow
resolution of 320 horizontal pixels by 200 vertical pixels so displaying a multicolor
image next to a hi-res proportional font should be a peice of cake after that (and
actually not neccessary (just use hi-res with both the font and the graphic), by using
the method I talked about previously here. Also - the 2 color per 8*8 cell limitation
should be nonexistent with that method. BTW - I do appreciate the fact that you're
writting a browser (if that is actually what you're doing) for the 64 - :).
Daniel Morrow
someone else's who wrote that program in a magazine) that I previously
discussed here. IT appears to be the way to go at least for supercpu users.
Jason Compton wrote:
> K DALE SIDEBOTTOM <luck...@iglou.com> wrote:
>
> While we're all discussing this, I just thought I'd point out that...
>
> : I run my amiga on the net using an 8 color screen and with dithering the
> : images appear to have the full 256 color range. Using a SuperCPU and
>
> ...this is complete and utter nonsense. With dithering, 8 color screen
> images look like nasty dithered 8-color screen images, not like 256 color
> images. Obviously, we'd all have realistic expectations of what a
> hypothetical C64 web browser would be capable of, and getting "full 256
> color range" by using dithering is NOT one of them.
>
> : Sincerely, Roger Lawhorn
>
> May I sincerely suggest you get a personal internet account? They're not
> that expensive.
>
Daniel Morrow
Jason Compton wrote:
> K DALE SIDEBOTTOM <luck...@iglou.com> wrote:
>
> : Do you own an Amiga? You didn't say either way. Do you have the latest
> : copy of VoaygerNG?
>
> Yes, yes.
>
> : Do you have a graphix card or run OCS,ECS? I am using the latest
> : shareware release fo VoyagerNG and I am telling the truth about the
> : quality of images it produces through internal gif and jpeg support. If
> : you would like to try it out and haven't you can get it from aminet or do
> : a search for it using any search engine.
>
> I have quite an array of Amigas, from OCS to 24-bit graphics cards and
> quite a lot of experience with them and I can assure you that 8 color
> dithering never, ever generates 256-color quality results. This is a
> silly discussion.
>
Daniel Morrow
Peter G. wrote:
> Jason Compton wrote:
> > : I run my amiga on the net using an 8 color screen and with dithering the
> > : images appear to have the full 256 color range. Using a SuperCPU and
> >
> > ...this is complete and utter nonsense. With dithering, 8 color screen
> > images look like nasty dithered 8-color screen images, not like 256 color
>
> The C64 has 8 colors the c16 has 16 colors has anyone ever taken
> advantage of this? I don't have any C16 progs I hop to get some Fri.
> have to wait and see but does a 16 color dither seem a better idea? as
> far as I know mostly the C64 & the C16 have similar capabilities?
>
Magnus
> The Go64-Staff will decide whom and how the prices will be given.
> Btw (I MUST say this): If someone is not satisfied with the jurys choice, calling a lawyer
> is useless.
> As said above: Deadline is 31 of march 1999.
>
> And I see at least one guy who is quite close to get some money in '99.
>
You obviously have some inside information.... So let the world know
what this guy has accomplished so far...
//Magnus
Kai Lewinski
I was just wondering if a browser for the C64 would work within one of the
emulators?
Kai
-----------------------------------------
Kai Lewinski <lewi...@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
Martijn van Buul
> Hi !
>
> I was just wondering if a browser for the C64 would work within one of the
> emulators?
C64, I guess it would be possible.
Question is: would you _want_ something like that ? If you use an emulator,
that means that you've got access to a (fairly) powerfull PC. No use using
a C64 for internet access then..
--
Fight Spam! Join CAUCE! == http://www.cauce.org/
Martijn van Buul, mart...@mud.stack.nl, tij...@outerspace.imaginary.com
Pienjo on #c-64 and #dohd (when I'm in the mood)
Tijntje@OuterSpace - 131.155.141.166 3333
Donald Richter
The World Wide Web on an humongougly obsolete and underpowered computer.
Downloading a web page with megabytes of data is bad enough at 56K on a Pentium 233. Imagine
trying to load it into 39k of usable memory on a 1 mhz machine at 1200 baud.
Sorex
seems that you surf through a lot of porn sites then :D
usefull pages don't need fancy gfx and a lot of banners and other crap, it's the contents
of the text that is important not what's around it.
leeching a page and display it on a c64 even in gfxmode would take that long i guess.
the gfx (huge pics, banners etc) are optional and maybe selectable for later download'n converting.
MagerValp
Donald> Let's see... The World Wide Web on an humongougly obsolete and
Donald> underpowered computer.
Hey, you looking for a fight, pal? :)
Donald> Downloading a web page with megabytes of data is bad enough at
Donald> 56K on a Pentium 233.
Not everyone watches porn, you know ;)
Donald> Imagine trying to load it into 39k of usable memory on a 1 mhz
Donald> machine at 1200 baud.
Think 20 MHz and 230400 baud and you're closer to the truth. And you
can use the full 64K as long as you don't write the browser in basic,
like I did :)
--
___ . . . . . + . . o
_|___|_ + . + . + . . + + Per Olofsson
o-o . . . o + Mage...@Goth.Org
- + + . http://www.cling.gu.se/~cl3polof/
Phillip S Zibilich
Unless you wanted C64 software(that ISN'T in an emulator format) put
directly into a .d64 instead of using Star Commander or whatever. No
conversions needed.
--
psz
ps...@gnofn.org
Martijn van Buul
> > As long as that particular WWW browser would be developed for a stock
> > C64, I guess it would be possible.
>
> > Question is: would you _want_ something like that ? If you use an emulator,
> > that means that you've got access to a (fairly) powerfull PC. No use using
> > a C64 for internet access then..
> directly into a .d64 instead of using Star Commander or whatever. No
> conversions needed.
Hadn't thought of that, actually.
John/Lori
a 33.6 modem runs at around 4k baud (IIRC)
(and my 6526 seems to run around 340K, do I need a heatsink?)
Donald Richter
>>>>>> "Donald" == Donald Richter <cycl...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>
>Donald> Let's see... The World Wide Web on an humongougly obsolete and
>Donald> underpowered computer.
>
>Hey, you looking for a fight, pal? :)
I have nothing against the Commodore 64. It was a good machine in its
day, but that day is loooooong over. I still think Rescue on
Fractalus is one of the best games ever made.
>
>Donald> Downloading a web page with megabytes of data is bad enough at
>Donald> 56K on a Pentium 233.
>
>Not everyone watches porn, you know ;)
>
>Donald> Imagine trying to load it into 39k of usable memory on a 1 mhz
>Donald> machine at 1200 baud.
>
>Think 20 MHz and 230400 baud and you're closer to the truth. And you
>can use the full 64K as long as you don't write the browser in basic,
>like I did :)
>
Modem speeds four times the fastest (non-ISDN) ones we use today?
Not bloody likely.
Jason Compton
:>Think 20 MHz and 230400 baud and you're closer to the truth. And you
:>can use the full 64K as long as you don't write the browser in basic,
:>like I did :)
:>
: Modem speeds four times the fastest (non-ISDN) ones we use today?
: Not bloody likely.
An add-on serial port, using a standard PC component, can be driven that
fast, on a PC or on a 64.
Kai Lewinski
> It occurred to me that Kai Lewinski wrote in comp.emulators.cbm:
> > Hi !
> >
> > I was just wondering if a browser for the C64 would work within one of the
> > emulators?
> As long as that particular WWW browser would be developed for a stock
> C64, I guess it would be possible.
>
> Question is: would you _want_ something like that ? If you use an emulator,
> that means that you've got access to a (fairly) powerfull PC. No use using
> a C64 for internet access then..
>
Hi !
You are right as far as this has no practical use. And it is true that
having a C64-browser has no sentimental value because nobody had an access
to the internet in those days.
But: It would be fun !!!! And that's what the emulators are all about.
Ernst Stavro Blofeld
>
> > Think 20 MHz and 230400 baud and you're closer to the truth.
>
>
> (and my 6526 seems to run around 340K, do I need a heatsink?)
Actually a 33.6k modem operates at 9600 baud. Baud is a measure of wave
propagation. The additional bits/per second are obtained by complex
phase rotations in an imaginary 3D "space". So even a 56k modem is only
9600 baud, where the phone systems peaked out. But the tricks of
modulation and phase rotation have reached their peaks and 56k is it
until a new trick is devised. Some companies market 112k modems, but if
you read the documentation it is merely two 56k modems on a single board
with a synchronizer between them. It even requires two separate phone
lines to run.
-Blofeld
PS: wow, all those years of signals and communications as an
undergraduate EE paid off!
John/Lori
> So even a 56k modem is only
> 9600 baud, where the phone systems peaked out.
Well, I hesitate to contradict you, I've no doubt you've
studied on it more than I have, but that don't quite jibe
with my (admittedly limited) understanding.
I suspect we're using the terms differently.
> Baud is a measure of wave
> propagation.
This sounds like a way of determining practical limits on baud,
but the baud rate could be set arbitrarily.
That is it would be set by the standard, informed by such measures.
> The additional bits/per second are obtained by complex
> phase rotations in an imaginary 3D "space".
I think they actually use a 4D space, (for the higher speeds)
if your talking about the trellis coding.
> But the tricks of
> modulation and phase rotation have reached their peaks
I'd consider the phase rotation as part of the modulation
(so I assume you mean amplitude modulation when you use the
term 'modulation') ie QAM
I didn't think they used less than 180 deg. per baud, and
(I thought) the limit on reliable band pass is around 4khz
(actually the figures I've seen most often are 3.3-3.5 khz)
(including sidebands) which suggests a limit of <4khz
on baud rate.
I come at this strictly from a laymans perspective, I'm cerainly
not an EE
Have I got it wrong?
Ernst Stavro Blofeld
>
> > The additional bits/per second are obtained by complex
> > phase rotations in an imaginary 3D "space".
>
> I think they actually use a 4D space, (for the higher speeds)
> if your talking about the trellis coding.
are somewhat limited by the dimensions of the paper they were drawn
on...) and trellis was what I was trying to remember the name of.
> I'd consider the phase rotation as part of the modulation
> (so I assume you mean amplitude modulation when you use the
> term 'modulation') ie QAM
Actually, I'm not sure what I'm talking about when I say modulation. I
despised Signals and Systems--I focused on computer hardware, not
communications. :-)
> I didn't think they used less than 180 deg. per baud, and
> (I thought) the limit on reliable band pass is around 4khz
> (actually the figures I've seen most often are 3.3-3.5 khz)
> (including sidebands) which suggests a limit of <4khz
> on baud rate.
Oh, I know that isn't right. Well, the bandpass part seems familiar,
but the basic rotation was only 180deg on 9600 and 14400 modems. After
that the margin got smaller and smaller. I think I heard they were down
around 12.5deg with the 56k modems and further tuning would be
impossible without constructive and destructive interference that
couldn't be worked out in real time.
> I come at this strictly from a laymans perspective, I'm cerainly
> not an EE
hahaha, sure you aren't. We had a pretty serious conversation about
VLSI not long ago. If you know this and that, what are you..."well
read?" I've got another project idea you might like. Keep an eye out
for another post....
-Blofeld
Donald Richter
>>>>>> "Donald" == Donald Richter <cycl...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>
>Donald> Let's see... The World Wide Web on an humongougly obsolete and
>Donald> underpowered computer.
>
>Hey, you looking for a fight, pal? :)
>
I have nothing against the Commodore 64. It was a good machine in its
day, but that day is loooooooong over.
>Donald> Downloading a web page with megabytes of data is bad enough at
>Donald> 56K on a Pentium 233.
>
>Not everyone watches porn, you know ;)
>
Not every graphicly intensive web site is adult oriented, you know >:D
>Donald> Imagine trying to load it into 39k of usable memory on a 1 mhz
>Donald> machine at 1200 baud.
>
>Think 20 MHz
Still too slow, even if that was true.
>and 230400 baud and you're closer to the truth.
The fastest moden you can use over conventional phone lines is 56k. A
230k modem on a Commodore 64? Not bloody likely!
>And you can use the full 64K as long as you don't write the browser in basic,
>like I did :)
>
And you'll be using every sigle binary digit of it trying to do a
fraction of what you want it to do.
MagerValp
MV> Think 20 MHz
Donald> Still too slow, even if that was true.
What do you mean? It *is* true. And it's certainly not too slow to
browse the web.
MV> and 230400 baud and you're closer to the truth.
Donald> The fastest moden you can use over conventional phone lines is
Donald> 56k. A 230k modem on a Commodore 64? Not bloody likely!
The baud rate is not the modem speed. A 56K modem runs at 9600 baud --
the extra data is packed in by modulating the signal. Serial ports
however has the same baud rate as their bit rate. The C64 can be
equippped with a 230400 baud serial port to which you can connect a
56K modem (though they usually don't do more than 115200 baud).
MV> And you can use the full 64K as long as you don't write the browser
MV> in basic, like I did :)
Donald> And you'll be using every sigle binary digit of it trying to
Donald> do a fraction of what you want it to do.
Yes, you'll be using every single bit for something like this on the
C64. Something like Mosaic or Netscape 1.0 is perfectly possible on
the C64. Take a look at geoWrite f ex and you'll see.
John/Lori
time I took a look at these matters V.32bis was the coming thing)
I went surfing. Found a pretty good over view at Rockwell,
http://www.nb.rockwell.com/v90/whitepapers/k56whitepaper.html#top_page
in case you're interested.
following are some excerpts (pertinent to the discussion or maybe
just interesting to me)
"QAM operates by modulating a carrier sine wave signal in both
amplitude and phase. Each unique combination of amplitude and
phase is known as a "symbol". In the general case, a symbol is
defined as an information carrying token which is sent from the
transmitter to the receiver."
"Recently, however, the term baud has become corrupted in common
usage, with people using baud to mean bits per second."
"For modem designers, hearing someone describe a modem as a
"9600 baud" or a "28.8 baud" modem is like fingernails on a
blackboard. To avoid this, the modem cognoscenti began using
the term "symbol"."
"The V.32 modulation, for example, uses a carrier of 1800 hz and
a symbol rate of 2400 symbols per second."
"The highest V.34 rate, for example, uses a carrier of 1959 hz,
and a symbol rate of 3429 symbols per second, giving a bandwidth
from about 244 hz to 3674 hz."
"Now, all that stuff I told you about QAM modulation and amplitude
and phase – forget it. 56Kbps modems operate using pulse amplitude
modulation (PAM) and not QAM."
"The modem at the Internet Service Provider sends eight bit values to
the line card, which generates a specific voltage for 125
microseconds, in response to each eight bit value."
"When PAM is used, however, the eight bit values sent by the ISP
modem no longer represent the samples of an analog signal – they
are values used as symbols. The codec in the network has the ability
to generate 255 different voltage levels. Since the network sampling
rate is 8,000 samples per second, 8,000 of these voltage levels will
be generated each second."
"Therefore, only 128 of the 255 quantization levels (approximately
half) have to be used to transmit 56,000 bps."
"Rockwell established data rate steps of 2,000 bits for it’s V.90
technology, compared to the 2,400 bit steps established in traditional
modems."
"Since the sampling rate is 8,000 times per second, the maximum
frequency
of the resulting signal on the analog line is 4,000 hz. PAM, therefore,
is quite bandwidth efficient, providing a minimum of two symbols per
hz of bandwidth."
Peter G.
K56flex the Rockwell/Lucent technology, it may be different for a X2
modem by USR?
-Peter G.
--
Daniel Morrow
Donald Richter wrote:
> MagerValp <cl3p...@cling.gu.se> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> "Donald" == Donald Richter <cycl...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> >
> >Donald> Let's see... The World Wide Web on an humongougly obsolete and
> >Donald> underpowered computer.
> >
> >Hey, you looking for a fight, pal? :)
>
> I have nothing against the Commodore 64. It was a good machine in its
> day, but that day is loooooong over. I still think Rescue on
> Fractalus is one of the best games ever made.
>
> >
> >Donald> Downloading a web page with megabytes of data is bad enough at
> >Donald> 56K on a Pentium 233.
> >
> >Not everyone watches porn, you know ;)
> >
> >Donald> Imagine trying to load it into 39k of usable memory on a 1 mhz
> >Donald> machine at 1200 baud.
> >
> >Think 20 MHz and 230400 baud and you're closer to the truth. And you
> >can use the full 64K as long as you don't write the browser in basic,
> >like I did :)
> >
>
Daniel Morrow
Donald Richter wrote:
> Let's see...
>
> The World Wide Web on an humongougly obsolete and underpowered computer.
>
> Downloading a web page with megabytes of data is bad enough at 56K on a Pentium 233. Imagine
> trying to load it into 39k of usable memory on a 1 mhz machine at 1200 baud.
Daniel Morrow
JJ
especially for WWW browsing... jeez... don't you just HATE anoracks
(of ANY kind) - get a life man!
JJ
Cameron Kaiser
>Anyone who seriously uses C64's these days need their heads testing.....
>especially for WWW browsing... jeez... don't you just HATE anoracks
>(of ANY kind) - get a life man!
If it bugs you so much, then why are you reading a Commodore group?
--
Cameron Kaiser * cdkaiser.cris@com * powered by eight bits * operating on faith
-- supporting the Commodore 64/128: http://computerworkshops.home.ml.org/ --
head moderator comp.binaries.cbm * cbm special forces unit $ea31 (tincsf)
personal page http://calvin.ptloma.edu/~spectre/ * "when in doubt, take a pawn"
shadows
>If it bugs you so much, then why are you reading a Commodore group?
Because some of us use emulators and have fun, we do enjoy the
games, but are constantly surprised by people's inability to
understand the basic laws that govern technology -- that is -- that
everything eventually go obselete.
Now, would you care to explain who died and made you the divine
judge of who may or may not read this NG?
For peats sake, just because someone happens to disagree with your
view does not give you the right to tell him not to read this NG. Oh
but I forgot -- you're the guy who runs around posting a hundred one
liners with "the C64 does not have ROMZ."
You must be bored.
--
Thamer Al-Herbish <URL http://www.whitefang.com/>
[ The Raw IP Networking FAQ <URL http://www.whitefang.com/rin/ > ]
Cameron Kaiser
>Cameron Kaiser cdka...@delete.these.four.words.concentric.net wrote:
>>If it bugs you so much, then why are you reading a Commodore group?
>Because some of us use emulators and have fun, we do enjoy the
>games, but are constantly surprised by people's inability to
>understand the basic laws that govern technology -- that is -- that
>everything eventually go obselete.
>Now, would you care to explain who died and made you the divine
>judge of who may or may not read this NG?
I don't see where that was implied. The original poster (you?) said basically
that Commodore users were stupid for wanting to surf the web with their
units. He didn't disagree, he was out and out derisive. Fostering discussion
is one thing -- insults ("get a life!") are another.
Crosspost left intact.
gippah
Cameron Kaiser wrote in message <73rsv0$d...@journal.concentric.net>...
>I don't see where that was implied. The original poster (you?) said
basically
>that Commodore users were stupid for wanting to surf the web with their
>units. He didn't disagree, he was out and out derisive. Fostering
discussion
>is one thing -- insults ("get a life!") are another.
Get a life!
Oh, wait......
Brix
<"joj"@globalnet.co.uk (JJ)> ) says...
> Anyone who seriously uses C64's these days need their heads testing.....
> especially for WWW browsing... jeez... don't you just HATE anoracks
> (of ANY kind) - get a life man!
C\:>headcheck.exe
Running Headcheck.. please wait a few minutes
Head check complete.
Result:
-Main CPU damaged.
-RAM Values static
C\:>_
Sorry, but I think you misunderstood that C-64 is about being a bit crazy and
enthusiastic.
To archive things possible with a 300Mhz PC on a 1Mhz Machine (in lower quality of course)
is a hit into the PC users face. Just Imagine a Standard PC (without 3d cards) slowed down
to 1 Mhz... you won't probably get a smooth textscoller on the screen, while C-64 coders
do smooth Gouraud-shaded vectorgraphics.
Bummer.
-Brix-
--
Listening to your car radio doesn't make you an amatuer radio operator.
Driving said car doesn't make you an automotive engineer. Hell, even
speaking doesn't make you a linguist. Yet, somehow, playing "Doom" seems to make one
a bona fide computer hobbyist, qualified to scorn me and my lowly C64.
Personal HP: http://www.plush.de/brix
GO64!magazine
CSW-Verlag
Goethestr.22
71364 Winnenden
Deutschland
Tel:/Fax: +49(0)7195/61120
GO64!magazine: http://www.go64.c64.org
pro...@hotmail.com
A recent posting on this topic accused c64 users of being anoraks. In my
other life as a Doctor Who fan, I have seen the same reference. I think it
must be a British term meaning a fan who is so obsessive about his
enthusiasm that he is pathetic and can't get girls/boys/goats or whatever.
"Resistance is Useless" was a Who documentary that used as a link agent a
manuequin in a parka- an inanimate anorak as an animator.
Is a stereotypical anorak a teenage boy who wears a parka? Is a parka
called an anorak in the UK?
Where did the word come from- generic for parka based onthe original
manufacturer?
John Elliott
shadows
>I don't see where that was implied. The original poster (you?) said basically
Wasn't me. You may want to keep track of who you are flaming :-)
>that Commodore users were stupid for wanting to surf the web with their
>units. He didn't disagree, he was out and out derisive. Fostering discussion
>is one thing -- insults ("get a life!") are another.
AFAIK the poster pointed out that the C64 was obselete. He may have
done so in an otherwise abbraisive manner, but your response took it
to a completely new level.
You have done this in the past. You have told people not to read the
NG because they happen to think the C64 was not worth using in a
modern environment. My response was to deter you from doing it
again, because you simply don't have the right.
Greg Nacu
>I don't see where that was implied. The original poster
>(you?) said basically
s> Wasn't me. You may want to keep track of who you are flaming :-)
I believe the only flaming was the one who said Modern commodore users
"need their heads Checked". Kaiser was asking him a question. And let me
ask it aswell. This is for anyone who doesn't like the Commodore Line
of computers. If You don't have anything positive to add, Why do you
bother to post here? By the way, this isn't a flame. :)
>that Commodore users were stupid for wanting to surf the web with their
>units. He didn't disagree, he was out and out derisive.
> Fostering discussion
>is one thing -- insults ("get a life!") are another.
s> AFAIK the poster pointed out that the C64 was obselete. He may have
s> done so in an otherwise abbraisive manner, but your response took it
s> to a completely new level.
Obselete: Being so outdated as to having no further use or purpose.
Lets see. I'm writing and posting this letter to you from My C128
right now. It serves a purpose for me. And it serves enough purpose to a
lot of other people too. Hence the machine is no more obsolete than
any PC or Mac.
s> You have done this in the past. You have told people not to read the
s> NG because they happen to think the C64 was not worth using in a
s> modern environment. My response was to deter you from doing it
s> again, because you simply don't have the right.
First off, He can 'say' what ever he pleases. And I'll back up everything
he has to say, If it is to prevent Brainwashed PC users from coming into our
pleasent community and making a ruckus. I don't like Pentiums, And When I
can help it, I don't use them. I also never go into the PC Newsgroup and
tell them Their machines are a waste of time. Kaiser has EVERY right to
defend his Position.
Greg Nacu.
Cameron Kaiser
>>that Commodore users were stupid for wanting to surf the web with their
>>units. He didn't disagree, he was out and out derisive. Fostering discussion
>>is one thing -- insults ("get a life!") are another.
>AFAIK the poster pointed out that the C64 was obselete. He may have
>done so in an otherwise abbraisive manner, but your response took it
>to a completely new level.
How? Granted, a response in kind may not have been called for, but this
kind of post gets tiresome.
>You have done this in the past. You have told people not to read the
>NG because they happen to think the C64 was not worth using in a
>modern environment. My response was to deter you from doing it
>again, because you simply don't have the right.
Hang on. Just as much they have the right to insult the platform and the
users, have I the right to tell them where to stick it (as you have the
right to express your opinions on that). I have done so in the past, and I'll
do so again, and if you don't like it then you have all the right in the
world to say so. But don't tell me I have no right to call people on the
carpet about it, especially brought up in the manner the original poster
did so, and you even admit that he could have used a couple lessons in
etiquette.
Michael Bugaj
: Anyone who seriously uses C64's these days need their heads testing.....
: especially for WWW browsing... jeez... don't you just HATE anoracks
: (of ANY kind) - get a life man!
: JJ
: Daniel Morrow wrote:
: > With a supercpu, ram expansion, turbo232 and 56k modem you can overcome all of that.
: >
: > Donald Richter wrote:
: >
: > > Let's see...
: > >
: > > The World Wide Web on an humongougly obsolete and underpowered computer.
: > >
: > > Downloading a web page with megabytes of data is bad enough at 56K on a Pentium 233. Imagine
: > > trying to load it into 39k of usable memory on a 1 mhz machine at 1200 baud.
--
Mike Bugaj - Enfield, CT
-------------------------
*WTFDA* *IRCNET* *C=*
-------------------------
Michael Bugaj
: Anyone who seriously uses C64's these days need their heads testing.....
: especially for WWW browsing... jeez... don't you just HATE anoracks
: (of ANY kind) - get a life man!
OK...first post fizzled. Let's try this again :)
OK, I need my head tested. I'm doing the mail for a club of 250 people
spread all over the US, Canada, Mexico, Europe and Japan. I keep a
database of all 250 people as well as a database of their email
addresses. I answer mail. All on my C128 (and previously, my 64).
The Commodore works great, or I wouldn't be using it.
I handle the club's email...on my 128. Works good..or I wouldn't be
using it. Fast, too.
For browsing...well, I just bought a 330mhz thing for that. No
question, graphics look better...but text is faster. And Lynx works
good for text.
I bought the pee cee yesterday. Now that it's home, I guess it's
obsolete. Aren't there 450mhz things out there now? So now I got two
obsolete computers.
I think everyone who spends their time sitting in front of a monitor
should get a life. That means you, it means me, my brother, in fact
probably everyone here who is addicted to the internet or computers.
My two cents...from somebody who has no life and doesn't care in spite
of the fact that his wife wants him to have one. :) -Mike
Robin Harbron
> You have done this in the past. You have told people not to read the
> NG because they happen to think the C64 was not worth using in a
> modern environment. My response was to deter you from doing it
> again, because you simply don't have the right.
JJ has the right to tell us that our heads need checking
and to order us to "get a life"?
Cameron does not have the right to *ask why* JJ reads a
particular newsgroup?
And you, shadows, are the one who "took it to a completely
new level" with comments like "Now, would you care to
explain who died and made you the divine judge of who
may or may not read this NG?"
Cameron did not tell anyone that they couldn't read the
newsgroup - he asked why they read it - again:
"If it bugs you so much, then why are you reading a Commodore
group?"
--
Robin Harbron mac...@tbaytel.net
http://www.tbaytel.net/macbeth
Sorex
> AFAIK the poster pointed out that the C64 was obselete. He may have
> to a completely new level.
but you agreed with his (the original posters) statement didn't you?
now tell me what's different between playing games on a l'emu or a real c64?
it's both obsolete in some way as you hang around in the same (emulated)os
shadows
>Shadows:
>> AFAIK the poster pointed out that the C64 was obselete. He may have
>> done so in an otherwise abbraisive manner, but your response took it
>> to a completely new level.
>
>but you agreed with his (the original posters) statement didn't you?
Yes to a certain degree I would agree that writing contemporary
software for the C64 is a waste of time. Why would you use legacy
hardware? Why bother with hardware that is slow, buggy, and hard to
find?
>now tell me what's different between playing games on a l'emu or a real c64?
None really, but that wasn't my point. Well actually, the emulator
does have some perks, saving memory images etc.
>it's both obsolete in some way as you hang around in the same (emulated)os
I'm not writing software for the C64, I'm playing an old game I happened
to like. I believe that was the contention of the original poster.
Bruce McFarling
>Cameron Kaiser cdka...@delete.these.four.words.concentric.net wrote:
>
>>If it bugs you so much, then why are you reading a Commodore group?
>Because some of us use emulators and have fun, we do enjoy the
>games, but are constantly surprised by people's inability to
>understand the basic laws that govern technology -- that is -- that
>everything eventually go obselete.
That's the whole damn point of it for some people. Breaking
the laws of technology that says stuff is obsolete.
And jst maybe this is tickled along by the suspicion that the
``laws of technology'' which say that perfectly good tools are
obsolete just because something with more cycles/second has come along
are more like ``laws of how to squeeze money out of people''.
Of course, its not likely that anyone is limited to just a
suspicion about people who cross-post to comp.sys.cbm and
comp.emulators.cbm to say that people shouldn't have a go at a browser
for a commie. Because an emulator that could run that program would
probably be a fairly good emulator: graphics, expansion hardware, the
works.
(
----------
Virtually,
Bruce McFarling, Newcastle,
ec...@cc.newcastle.edu.au
)
John/Lori
Your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of elderberries!
Don Judy
Declaring the C64 obsolete in comp.sys.cbm is flame-baiting, nothing
more. The topic is general and does not invite discussion. It is not
appropriate in this ng. It does not touch on a subject appropriate for
discourse in a comp.sys ng. It is as appropriate as going over to
sci.archaeology and telling them "Archaeology sucks!" On the surface it
almost looks like the subject pertains to archaeology, but it doesn't.
The subject addresses the poster's emotional state of being with regard
to his opinion about the subject matter of the ng. And his emotional
state is not germane to any discussion of archaeology, just as someone's
inability to cope with C= 8bit use by others is not an appropriate
discussion topic in comp.sys.cbm, even though the subject mentions the
C64. You're free to defend flame-baiting all you want. Consider though;
what kind of responses could possibly be forthcoming to a post
addressing the alleged obsoleteness of the C64, and what kind of
responses would the poster be expecting? How can this help someone use
their C= 8bit better?
--
DJ <hsalleroveratepix.net>
And don't even think about ragging on the Plus/4.
Regarding the above, change overat into the little a with the circle
round it thingy that everyone uses.
And for all you bloodsucking potted meat product guys out there, here
are some cool places to email :
Fraud Watch: frau...@psinet.com Federal Trade Commission:
ACCC: swee...@accc.gov.au u...@ftc.gov
Oh, and while you're at it, here's some more cool ways to earn more $!
admin@loopback $LOGIN@localhost $LOGNAME@localhost $USER@localhost
$USER@$HOST -h1024@localhost ro...@mailloop.com
Don Judy
>
> I fart in your general direction!
>
> Your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of elderberries!
Oh, sure, take the high road! #8^)
--
DJ <hsalleroveratepix.net>
Cameron Kaiser
shadows
>Declaring the C64 obsolete in comp.sys.cbm is flame-baiting, nothing
>more. The topic is general and does not invite discussion. It is not
>appropriate in this ng. It does not touch on a subject appropriate for
>discourse in a comp.sys ng. It is as appropriate as going over to
>sci.archaeology and telling them "Archaeology sucks!" On the surface it
When did *anyone* say the C64 sucks? I don't seem to understand your
logic, please explain. My contention, as was the original so-called
"flame-baiter", is that the C64 is obselete and writing a web
browser for it makes no sense.
I wouldn't have minded if someone pointed out an ongoing project to
do so, and possibly a few good reasons why such an exercise is
worthwhile.
Instead Cameron posted back with "don't play with my toys if you
don't play my way." He has done it before, and I'm just sick of
seeing such arrogant behaviour.
>C64. You're free to defend flame-baiting all you want. Consider though;
>what kind of responses could possibly be forthcoming to a post
>addressing the alleged obsoleteness of the C64, and what kind of
>responses would the poster be expecting? How can this help someone use
>their C= 8bit better?
Simple, person X responds with "by doing X Y Z we can write a web
browser for the C64." This will cause me to learn a little about the
possibilities of using legacy hardware, and possibly enlighten me.
But I've yet to see a coherent post about it. All I ever see is
people flaiming each other.
Here's the current run down on the postulates that have been
presented:
1) The C64 is god.
2) If anyone commits sacrilege he is not allowed to read the NG.
3) Saying the C64 (god) can't perform a specific function is sacrilege.
Now we're arguing over the first postulate. If that goes down so do
the others. AFAIK the c64 is not god.
Cameron Kaiser
>>Declaring the C64 obsolete in comp.sys.cbm is flame-baiting, nothing
>>more. The topic is general and does not invite discussion. It is not
>>appropriate in this ng. It does not touch on a subject appropriate for
>>discourse in a comp.sys ng. It is as appropriate as going over to
>>sci.archaeology and telling them "Archaeology sucks!" On the surface it
>When did *anyone* say the C64 sucks? I don't seem to understand your
>logic, please explain. My contention, as was the original so-called
>"flame-baiter", is that the C64 is obselete and writing a web
>browser for it makes no sense.
If you mean those words literally, no, he didn't. He said "get a life!"
So, instead of insulting the 64 (or perhaps in addition to), he was also
insulting the users and those who are working on such a project ...
>I wouldn't have minded if someone pointed out an ongoing project to
>do so, and possibly a few good reasons why such an exercise is
>worthwhile.
... and there are several. Read comp.sys.cbm.
>Instead Cameron posted back with "don't play with my toys if you
>don't play my way." He has done it before, and I'm just sick of
>seeing such arrogant behaviour.
You're welcome to your opinion, which in this case is flawed. The original
posting was contentious (to others, not just myself), and I saw no scrap of
interest in fostering a reasonable discussion on the subject at all. And I
said so. If you classify my post, which was
"If it bugs you so much, why are you reading a Commodore newsgroup?"
, as "arrogant" or "abusive", well, again, you're welcome to your opinion.
In my book, however, trolls are not protected species.
>>C64. You're free to defend flame-baiting all you want. Consider though;
>>what kind of responses could possibly be forthcoming to a post
>>addressing the alleged obsoleteness of the C64, and what kind of
>>responses would the poster be expecting? How can this help someone use
>>their C= 8bit better?
>Simple, person X responds with "by doing X Y Z we can write a web
>browser for the C64." This will cause me to learn a little about the
>possibilities of using legacy hardware, and possibly enlighten me.
>But I've yet to see a coherent post about it. All I ever see is
>people flaiming each other.
Again, have you not been reading comp.sys.cbm at all over the last month or
so?
Rev. Jihad Frenzy
Because it'd be a very cool hack!
From the hacker point of view, that's a perfectly acceptable reason to do
anything.
--
Rev. Jihad Frenzy
"Gadzooks!", quoth I, "But here's a saucy bawd!"
I, Libertine
by Fredrick R. Ewing
<A HREF="http://www.gis.net/~cht"/A>
John/Lori
> don't play my way." He has done it before, and I'm just sick of
> seeing such arrogant behaviour.
>
If Cameron exhibited any lapse, it was in dealing charitably
with an obvious troll (usually a mistake)
And speaking of arrogant behavior, where do you come off asserting,
defining, INVENTING "basic laws"?
> the basic laws that govern technology -- that is -- that
> everything eventually go obselete.
Is that so!? How 'bout my bicycle? If you and the yuppies are
are all buying sport utility vehicles must I do so also?
If next year, everyone's buying super sonic air craft to do
their grocery shopping does that mean I have to abandon my
bicycle and jet every time I want to go down to the corner
for a pack of smokes?
If I did would that make my bicycle obsolete?
Even if I accepted your "basic laws", why should I accept
JJ' silly notions of what's obsolete? (or yours)
> Here's the current run down on the postulates that have been
> presented:
>
> 1) The C64 is god.
> 2) If anyone commits sacrilege he is not allowed to read the NG.
> 3) Saying the C64 (god) can't perform a specific function is sacrilege.
You're deluded pal, and your problem is obvious.
shadows
>And speaking of arrogant behavior, where do you come off asserting,
>defining, INVENTING "basic laws"?
Who invented what? It is rather obvious that the world carries on
with newer technology.
>Is that so!? How 'bout my bicycle? If you and the yuppies are
>are all buying sport utility vehicles must I do so also?
Your bicycle has improved technologically. The only contraption we
use (at least in the west) which has not improven technologically
speaking (to a measureable extent) is the toilet.
No I'm not making it up. If you really want emperical evidence, mail
me and I'll refer you to the research paper making this claim.
>If next year, everyone's buying super sonic air craft to do
>their grocery shopping does that mean I have to abandon my
>bicycle and jet every time I want to go down to the corner
>for a pack of smokes?
I never said don't use the C64. Again putting words in my mouth.
Just a note -- if you keep reading more than you should into
someone's message I suggest a counciling session with a therapist.
>Even if I accepted your "basic laws", why should I accept
>JJ' silly notions of what's obsolete? (or yours)
No one is asking you to accept anything. You are supposed to think
and draw your own conclusions.
>You're deluded pal, and your problem is obvious.
I'm not the one running around trying to defend an otherwise lost
cause.
Speaking of lost causes, this flame fest must end. I'll withdraw my
attention from this thread.
Brix
c...@NOSPAMgis.net ) says...
> Why write a web browser for the C64?
>
> Because it'd be a very cool hack!
>
> From the hacker point of view, that's a perfectly acceptable reason to do
> anything.
Damn right, and that's what it is all about.
-Brix-
Mika Yrjola
> Yes to a certain degree I would agree that writing contemporary
> software for the C64 is a waste of time. Why would you use legacy
> hardware? Why bother with hardware that is slow, buggy, and hard to
> find?
Why not? There's plenty of more harmful things that are considered
acceptable widely, like smoking, so what's so bad in writing
cont. software for oldish hardware?
Mika
--
/-------------------------------------------------------------------------\
I Fantasy, Sci-fi, Computers, Marillion, Oldfield, Vangelis, Clannad, Irc I
I Odd Experiences, Worms, Tuna, Synths. See http://www.lut.fi/~myrjola/ I
\-------------------------------------------------------------------------/
Mike Uhl
wafted these smoke signals into the breeze:
> Anyone who seriously uses C64's these days need their heads
> testing.....
> especially for WWW browsing... jeez... don't you just HATE anoracks
> (of ANY kind) - get a life man!
Those of us who use older computers are just a wee bit weary of others
who would try to force us to unnecessarily upgrade just because it's
the "in thing to do". Perhaps the newer computers are more capable
than the venerable C64, but, my God, man, look how long it took the
"PC"'s to catch up to it. For the longest time, if you wanted music
and graphics, you had to get special add-on cards for those functions.
A stock C64 out of the box already had it -- and *no* add-ons were
needed.
Every time I think the C64 has reached it's limit, someone pushes it a
little further. When it first came out, no one thought it was
conceivable that it would do the things that wizards pushed it to do
in the late 80's. Some magazine said that it could never get on the
'Net. Now I see it is on the 'Net.
Someone probably will design a PPP proggie for the C64. It's quite
possible that it just may work on a *stock* model, too. I have seen
too many "impossible" things happen.
--
[,,^..^,,]<<< ShoeLeath...@RadioLink.net >>>[,,^..^,,]
http://www.vim.org - the ancient VIM 3.0 is *MY* OffLineNewsReader :-)
"(Pentium + Windows 95) = (speedboat bogged in mud)"
shadows
>Those of us who use older computers are just a wee bit weary of others
>who would try to force us to unnecessarily upgrade just because it's
>the "in thing to do". Perhaps the newer computers are more capable
>than the venerable C64, but, my God, man, look how long it took the
>"PC"'s to catch up to it. For the longest time, if you wanted music
>and graphics, you had to get special add-on cards for those functions.
>A stock C64 out of the box already had it -- and *no* add-ons were
>needed.
Actually the whole "add-on" paradigm allows "older users" to upgrade
their machines relatively painlessly. Need new features? Slide a new
card in.
Your argument has no basis here.
>Every time I think the C64 has reached it's limit, someone pushes it a
>little further. When it first came out, no one thought it was
>conceivable that it would do the things that wizards pushed it to do
>in the late 80's. Some magazine said that it could never get on the
>'Net. Now I see it is on the 'Net.
Where? Oh you mean the modem link! That doesn't qualify, since it
has no TCP/IP stack.
>Someone probably will design a PPP proggie for the C64. It's quite
>possible that it just may work on a *stock* model, too. I have seen
>too many "impossible" things happen.
Not impossible. The largest possible IP packet is 65535 bytes,
that's 64K. Granted that most MTUs are smaller, you still won't be
able to fit a TCP/IP stack let alone a PPP driver in a C64.
But please, feel free to pose a reasonable/technicaly sound argument.
John/Lori
> that's 64K.
But the only mandatory value is 576.
> Granted that most MTUs are smaller, you still won't be
> able to fit a TCP/IP stack let alone a PPP driver in a C64.
>
So what's a TCP/IP stack?
I think of (the minimum) as TCP, IP, PPP and maybe UDP.
shadows
>> Not impossible. The largest possible IP packet is 65535 bytes,
>> that's 64K.
>
>But the only mandatory value is 576.
That's fine, but you will fare badly with operating systems that
won't give you small packets. Some OSs will ignore the initial IP
options dictating size.
>So what's a TCP/IP stack?
Oh it's hundreds of lines of code. Look at BSD source.
>I think of (the minimum) as TCP, IP, PPP and maybe UDP.
In 64K? Simply not possible. Contemporary drivers, even when written
with effeciency in mind are much larger. I just did a wc -c count on
the BSD TCP/IP stack sources (this includes things like IGMP and the
TCB maintanence code) -- 440K. That's the source code though, but it
should give you a good idea of how big a TCP/IP stack is in source
alone.
Ok, has anyone written a TCP/IP stack for the c64? I constantly see
and hear about it, but it's always "in the works."
I will agree that it would be a hack, a very neat hack indeed.
Jason Compton
: Ok, has anyone written a TCP/IP stack for the c64? I constantly see
: and hear about it, but it's always "in the works."
Yes, Andre Fachat has written a TCP/IP stack along with an httpd, I
believe.
--
Jason Compton jcom...@xnet.com
www.xnet.com/~jcompton
John/Lori
>
> That's fine, but you will fare badly with operating systems that
> won't give you small packets. Some OSs will ignore the initial IP
> options dictating size.
If they don't support 576 then there not TCP/IP (as I read the STD)
(I believe the 576 is for IP packets)
> >So what's a TCP/IP stack?
>
> Oh it's hundreds of lines of code. Look at BSD source.
>
What I meant of course was what things/protocols must be
include for you to consider it a TCP/IP "stack"
> >I think of (the minimum) as TCP, IP, PPP and maybe UDP.
>
> In 64K? Simply not possible. Contemporary drivers, even when written
> with effeciency in mind are much larger. I just did a wc -c count on
> the BSD TCP/IP stack sources (this includes things like IGMP and the
> TCB maintanence code) -- 440K. That's the source code though, but it
> should give you a good idea of how big a TCP/IP stack is in source
> alone.
>
That so? I know there's at least one commercial versions that claims
around 25K (for a 6811 IIRC).
shadows
>In comp.sys.cbm shadows <sha...@whitefang.com> wrote:
>
>: Ok, has anyone written a TCP/IP stack for the c64? I constantly see
>: and hear about it, but it's always "in the works."
>
>Yes, Andre Fachat has written a TCP/IP stack along with an httpd, I
>believe.
Um read up on the docs:
http://www.tu-chemnitz.de/~fachat/8bit/osa/v2.0/README.slip
It requires a server to run on a connected UNIX system. In Andre's case
a Linux box. Thus it is not a C64 TCP/IP stack as much as it is a
TCP/IP proxy on a unix machine relaying the information to a C64 box.
It's a neat hack I'll admit to that.
Cameron Kaiser
>but it's always in the works.
Two implementations exist and function.
http://www.tu-chemnitz.de/~fachat/
Follow the links for OS/A65. Andre even had an httpd running on it.
LUnix does it too with a CIA upgrade, but I don't know what URL it's under
shadows
>sha...@whitefang.com (shadows) writes:
>
>>but it's always in the works.
>
>Two implementations exist and function.
See my other post regarding Andre's TCP/IP stack. The docs state
that a UNIX machine must act as a proxy. But feel free to correct me
if I'm wrong.
Ok here's a definition of a "TCP/IP stack", since there has been
some ambiguity in the recent posts:
A driver that allows an operating system to receive and respond to
information sent by other "hosts" using the TCP/IP protocol. Whereby
a host is just another network entity or node.
Due to the memory constraints I'd be more than impressed if someone
wrote one for the C64 as opposed to writing a SLIP driver that
interacts with a TCP/IP tunneler.
Currently there is no TCP/IP stack that works natively on the C64
without external help.
Greg Nacu
>than the venerable C64, but, my God, man, look how long it took the
>"PC"'s to catch up to it. For the longest time, if you wanted music
>and graphics, you had to get special add-on cards for those functions.
>A stock C64 out of the box already had it -- and *no* add-ons were
>needed.
s> Actually the whole "add-on" paradigm allows "older users" to upgrade
s> their machines relatively painlessly. Need new features? Slide a new
s> card in.
s> Your argument has no basis here.
Indeed his argument has a lot of basis here. PC's have taken the
addon thing allittle to heavy. My friend just went from a 486 to a
Pentium. Do you think he just added something on? NOPE! He just through
the old mother board in the garbage because it can't handle a **PENTIUM**
chip. As for the 30 pin ram simms, he gave to me, because the new
board Requires 72 pin. (This is what the average common Pee See user
does. Do they know any better? not really. why bother to inform them?)
This Motherboard exchange sped up his processor 10X. I PLUGGED a Scpu in
the back of my commodore, Got rid up NOTHING, added the ability to use
72 pin simms if I so Choose, and the result was that I sped up my
Processor by 20X.
>Every time I think the C64 has reached it's limit, someone pushes it a
>little further. When it first came out, no one thought it was
>conceivable that it would do the things that wizards pushed it to do
>in the late 80's. Some magazine said that it could never get on the
>'Net. Now I see it is on the 'Net.
s> Where? Oh you mean the modem link! That doesn't qualify, since it
s> has no TCP/IP stack.
SLIPdemo by Dalman. You dial up a true SLIP account and it doesn't
know the difference between you and a PC or Mac. Get yourself informed
before you post messages displaying your ignorance. (just a suggestion.)
>Someone probably will design a PPP proggie for the C64. It's quite
>possible that it just may work on a *stock* model, too. I have seen
>too many "impossible" things happen.
s> Not impossible. The largest possible IP packet is 65535 bytes,
s> that's 64K. Granted that most MTUs are smaller, you still won't be
s> able to fit a TCP/IP stack let alone a PPP driver in a C64.
I hope to see you proved wrong very soon. By the way, If we are made
to try to make a WWW browser on a Stock 64, lets see your WEBBROWSER on an
XT. You want to use a PENTIUM? Ok. Then we will use a SCPU, and an REU.
Greg.
Cameron Kaiser
>It requires a server to run on a connected UNIX system. In Andre's case
>a Linux box. Thus it is not a C64 TCP/IP stack as much as it is a
>TCP/IP proxy on a unix machine relaying the information to a C64 box.
As I see it, it doesn't look any different than any other SLIP setup.
John/Lori
> an 'advice' and a 'rethoric question', don't you?
>
I'm curious what evidence you think you have of that?
Nate / DAC
> Where? Oh you mean the modem link! That doesn't qualify, since it
Obviously you haven't played around with Daniel Dallman's LUnix (Little
Unix), nor his SLIP demo.
Both have a standard TCP/IP stack in them. SLIpdemo supports up to 8
"sockets" (whatever they are), and has IRC and telnet built in, as well as
telnetd.
I don't know offhand what LUnix supports, but the TCI/IP stack is built into
the OS itself if I recall correctly.
Both use SLIP, and both place your C64 as an ACTIVE node on the Internet.
Someone could telnet to my Commodore, using the standard 32-bit IP address
assigned to the computer when the SLIP connection is activated (whether it
be a static Ip or dynamic).
I've done it before, and have used the IRC client.
Neither program requires any kinf of shell access. Just a simple, ordinary
SLIP capable Internet service provider.
> >Someone probably will design a PPP proggie for the C64. It's quite
> >possible that it just may work on a *stock* model, too. I have seen
> >too many "impossible" things happen.
>
> Not impossible. The largest possible IP packet is 65535 bytes,
> that's 64K. Granted that most MTUs are smaller, you still won't be
> able to fit a TCP/IP stack let alone a PPP driver in a C64.
Too late, it's already been done. Not to mention that your code is allowed
to specify the maximum size of a packet. Even if it can't, so what?
64KB can easily be stored into an REU, or swapped to disk, or any number of
other places.
> But please, feel free to pose a reasonable/technicaly sound argument.
If the simple fact that software exists and that I have used it (not to
mention talked to the author countless times) is not proof enough for you, I
suggest you pick up a decent C64 assembler, find the program on the net, and
disassemble it yourself.
The Swiftlink version of the SLIP demo is about 28 blocks. That's about 7KB
of code, part of which is written in BASIC. There are a couple of minor
bugs (just logic errors) but the program works just fine.
LUnix is also quite small, but I don't know it's exact size, as I only have
an old version at hand.
LUnix is not to be confused with Unix or Linux. LUnix is an entirely custom
operating system, which multitasks quite nicely even on a stock C64. LUnix
requires NO expansions at all (except a Swiftlink or Turbo232 for high
speed modem access), and has the TCP/IP stuff built into the OS.
I don't use this myself. I prefer the simple method of using a dialup shell
account. I use a Commodore 128-D in C64 mode, with a Super CPU for added
speed (it isn't even neccessary, but it is faster this way). My modem is a
Cardinal V.43/V.FC 33600 Bps external RS232 modem, connected via a Turbo232
(similar to Swiftlink).
Maximum download speeds I've achieved was with a custom transfer protocol,
over a 33600 bps carrier (115200 bps port speed), at about 5 KB per second,
receiving into an REU-based RAM disk.
Faster speeds would be possible with software that is designed specifically
to store the data to RAM in the C64 or inside an REU.
--
___________________________________________________________________
| . . | * http://www2.southwind.net/~natedac/ * |
| _ _ _|_ _ _| _ _ |-----------------------------------------|
| |/ \`_| | /_)/ |`_|/ ` | GCS d- s++:++ a-- C++ UB>++ P+ L>++ !E |
| | |(_| \_ \_ \_|(_|\__ | W++ N++ K- w--- M- V? PS PE Y+ PGP- t++ |
| at southwind dot net | 5 X+ R tv@ b+ DI(++) D+ G++ e+ h+ r- y- |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nate / DAC
> Currently there is no TCP/IP stack that works natively on the C64
> without external help.
Currently there are two, as I stated in a previous post, which have existed
for a few years at least.
1) Daniel Dallman's SLIP demo.
2) Daniel Dallman's LUnix.
The SLIP demo comes in two flavors - one that uses the User Port, and one
that uses the Swiftlink or the Turbo232.
Swiftlink and Turbo232 are simply serial interface cartridges that contain a
single 6551 ACIA chip and some support logic. The 6551 is nothing but an
interface chip to allow a 64 to talk to a modem at much higher speeds than
the user port normally is capable of.
LUnix uses the User Port as well, but I think I heard something about a
Swiftlink driver for it.
The C64 handles the connection entirely within it's own 'limitations', with
only the help of standard RS232 interfaces that everyone is familiar with.
These interfaces do nothing to help the SLIP protocol IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR
FORM. They simply speed up communication between the C64 and the modem.
Once again, THE ISP DOES NOT, IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER, HELP THE C64 WITH THE
SLIP PROTOCOL, OR ANY PART OF IT.
There are no proxies, nor any other conversion/server type things going on.
Just the C64 and the SLIP-capable ISP.
The exact same thing goes on between a C64 and the ISP as between any PC and
the ISP, when running SLIP. The ISP doesn't know if the computer is a C64,
C128, Mac, Amiga, PC, SunSparc, Unix/Linux box, etc etc etc. It just knows
there's a standard SLIP connection in progress and does with the data what
the C64 tells it to via the SLIP and TCP/IP protocols.
These are absolute, concrete facts, not vaporware or 'in the works'
projects. There is no 'theory' involved here, only proven, reliable
information.
I've used SLIpdemo before and can attest to the fact that it works. It may
have some logic bugs, but the code work and does the job it's supposed to do
- enable a standard SLIP connection and provide a C64-based IRC client and
Telnet client.
As with the SLIP connection itself, the IRC client exists entirely on the
C64. There are no proxies or servers running anywhere, except for whatever
IRC server the user chooses to connect to of course. Of course the ISP must
do something with the data it receives from the TCP/IP and SLIP protocol to
rout it thru the IRC system, but it's exactly the same as would happen with
a PC running SLIP.
The Telnet clients are the same way. No proxies or conversion servers.
Just the C64, the ISP, and the telnet site (a MUD or telnettable BBS
perhaps) you choose to connect to. Everything about the telnet is being
controlled by the C64 just as a PC controls what goes on in it's SLIP
session.
Now, stop telling us it's impossible or that software doesn't exist. It is,
and it does, and I've used them myself.
Next thing you'll be telling me it's impossible to play an Amiga *.MOD file
or connect a Connectix Quickcam, using only my C64 (don't even try to argue,
because I have written software that does both).
Robert Parratt
>Yes to a certain degree I would agree that writing contemporary
>software for the C64 is a waste of time. Why would you use legacy
>hardware? Why bother with hardware that is slow, buggy, and hard to
>find?
Right. So you are trying to tell me that a platform developed in the early
eighties (the C64), and that was created solely by Commodore has buggy
hardware, and that a platform developed in the late seventies (the PC) and
that has been hacked in numerous incompatible ways by millions of
manufacturers (explaing why the standard sound card and the second printer
port conflict with each other as default) does not. I am right in thinking
you are saying this?
--
*Happy* with the quoting?
rob...@parratt.freeserve.NOSPAMEVER.co.uk
Remove NOSPAMEVER to use
Robert Parratt
>3) Saying the C64 (god) can't perform a specific function is sacrilege.
No it isn't sacrilege. It does however go against Turing's laws of classical
computation....
Robert Parratt
--
*Happy* with the quoting?
rob...@parratt.freeserve.NOSPAMEVER.co.uk
Remove NOSPAMEVER to use
pro...@hotmail.com wrote in message <73sjdl$kdl$1...@News.Dal.Ca>...
>
>
>
>A recent posting on this topic accused c64 users of being anoraks. In my
>other life as a Doctor Who fan, I have seen the same reference. I think it
>must be a British term meaning a fan who is so obsessive about his
>enthusiasm that he is pathetic and can't get girls/boys/goats or whatever.
>"Resistance is Useless" was a Who documentary that used as a link agent a
>manuequin in a parka- an inanimate anorak as an animator.
>
>Is a stereotypical anorak a teenage boy who wears a parka? Is a parka
>called an anorak in the UK?
>
>Where did the word come from- generic for parka based onthe original
>manufacturer?
>John Elliott
>
>
Robin Harbron
>
> John/Lori he...@spamsuxdoitnow.com wrote:
> >But the only mandatory value is 576.
>
> That's fine, but you will fare badly with operating systems that
> won't give you small packets. Some OSs will ignore the initial IP
> options dictating size.
If we're talking about PPP here, the mandatory minimum size
is 1500 - you can attempt to negotiate higher or lower, but
1500 is the accepted standard.
"The default value is 1500 octets. If smaller packets are
requested, an implementation MUST still be able to receive the
full 1500 octet information field in case link synchronization is
lost." - RFC 1661, page 40.
--
Robin Harbron mac...@tbaytel.net
http://www.tbaytel.net/macbeth
Robin Harbron
> Currently there is no TCP/IP stack that works natively on the C64
> without external help.
You are wrong.
http://rpool1.rus.uni-stuttgart.de/~etk10217/slipdemo.html
I've used this program to telnet and irc via a dial-up SLIP
account. It's not perfect, but it works.
I see big problems getting a usable web browser with a PPP
connection going in only 64k - but - no problem with email,
telnet and irc clients running on PPP in 64k.
shadows
contented on whether or not the C64 has a TCP/IP stack or
if it is even possible. X-No-Archive is not set because I'll place
a pointer here for those viewing this from an archive (see below).
Although arguably this is not an on-topic post. ]
Cameron Kaiser cdka...@delete.these.four.words.concentric.net wrote:
>sha...@whitefang.com (shadows) writes:
>
>>It requires a server to run on a connected UNIX system. In Andre's case
>>a Linux box. Thus it is not a C64 TCP/IP stack as much as it is a
>>TCP/IP proxy on a unix machine relaying the information to a C64 box.
>
>As I see it, it doesn't look any different than any other SLIP setup.
I can't really respond to that in an informative manner, and would
rather not just talk trash. But I am interested enough to get back
to this in a week's time (past commitments catching up).
Basically right now it looks like Andre's project did not give the
C64 a TCP/IP stack as much as it did tunnel it via a UNIX box. I'm
going to look at the UNIX server's code and make my comments in
another thread.
As for it being a proper SLIP setup, well that depends on your
definition. If it works, that's fine, but it's a hack if the TCP/IP
stack is running else where. Clever nonetheless.
I'll post back with a subject line of "Andre's C64 TCP/IP stack",
and place my comments there on my findings. Expect it after the
weekend (being after sunday the 6th of december).
Please know that I'm not a 'conceited bitch', I'm just looking into
this for some technical basis. Hopefully some people will find my
analysis of it interesting.
Thanks for pointing out the previous effort!
John/Lori
I'm getting these numbers fuddled up.
(the 1500 comes from ethernet?)
Mark J.P. Vergeer
possibly be done with an 8 bit 6510 powered computer
is challenging. Just like the exploration of the side and top/down
borders on PAL c64's. They said it couldn't be done, well
1001 proved it could be done. Maybe the same will go for
the c64 and the world wide web!