Text 3086, 159 rader
Skriven 2005-02-01 19:39:00 av CHARLES ANGELICH (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av GERALD MILLER
Ärende: IEXPLORER problem
=========================

123c4d1eadb8
win95



Hello Gerald - 

GM> [snip] 

CA>>>>>> Try this:
CA>>>>>> http://www.devedia.com/dosghost/dos/inet_w31.htm#ne 

CA>>>>> > tscape 

GM>>>>> Thanks, Charles. I'll take a look at it. 

GM>>> I had a chance to "grab" v4.08 of W31 Netscape from your
GM>>> FTP server link in Poland. Then I read: "Otherwise pass
GM>>> on this space and resource hogging klunker." 

CA>> The full description is: 

CA>> ============ 

I am using v4.08 of W31 Netscape (last 16 bit W31 Navigator
version) now that I have enough memory (16 meg) because I
needed the updated javascripting. I need the javascripting to
access all of the functions of my web based email accounts
(hotmail being g one of them). W31 Netscape v4.x is slower than
W31 Opera with less control and ease of use. In short it's a
klunker of a browser but does more javascripting than early 16
bit W31 Opera can do. You will find 16 bit W31 Netscape v4.08
at the FTP server r in Poland. If you have 16meg or more of
memory and need the javascripting this is your best first
choice (Internet Explorer v5.0 being the other option but a
much larger install). Otherwise pass on this space and resource
hogging klunker. 

CA>> ============ 

GM> Yes, I read the entire section, but only quoted the
GM> relevant portion. I was thinking it was more important to
GM> conserve bandwidth. 

No, it's not that important. That quote from my webpage when
taken out of context would seem to have a meaning never
intended when I wrote it. :-) 

GM>>> I think I'll stick with Opera, for now. 

CA>> I think you overlooked the reference to javascripting
CA>> requirements but yes, Opera v3.62 is faster and sufficient
CA>> for most purposes. 

GM> I don't anticipate a need for javascripting. Just want a
GM> lean web browser and if a site is trying to be "fancy",
GM> then I move on to some place that offers something more
GM> universal. 

Hotmail and other Microsoft webpages may not display properly
without a 'newer' level of javascripting. 

CA>> --8<--cut 

GM>>>>> Keep it up Charles, you're probably one of my best
GM>>>>> resources for working with the 'legacy' software... 

GM>>>> > ;-))) 

CA>>>> With my website and AXCEL216 I would say 90% of W31 and
CA>>>> DOS are covered. The glaring lack is for networking
CA>>>> because I never bothered to network my 16 bit machines.
CA>>>> I use Total Commander and a null parallel cable to
CA>>>> transfer files from one to the other. 

GM>>> Yes, and I would also add 

GM>>> http://www.garethjmsaunders.co.uk/pc/index.html 

GM>>> as an excellent site for details about networking and
GM>>> Windows for Workgroup v3.11, because without this
GM>>> resource, it may have taken a lot longer for me to get
GM>>> Wfw running. The clarity was phenomenal and I was able to
GM>>> do in three days what I hadn't been able to do in two
GM>>> years -- Network with Windows for Workgroup v3.11!!! You
GM>>> might want to check his site and create some links and he
GM>>> is very friendly also. ;-))) 

GM>>> I am also using the 16-bit version of Total Commander,
GM>>> but using the network link to W98 and Win XPP (much
GM>>> faster). <grin> 

CA>> I honestly don't care for networking software. It seems it
CA>> is overly complex and could've been done much better than
CA>> it has been. Maybe I'm wrong? 

GM> It's not my place to say whether you're wrong or not. You
GM> have been a valuable resource to me as I continue my
GM> experience with DOS and Windows. 

GM> You are correct about the complexity aspects and anything
GM> you care to talk about could be done much better, but I'm
GM> not going to rub sticks together to start a fire, when I
GM> can use a lighter. 

GM> When I had decided to network my "pure" DOS box, so I could
GM> transfer files between it and my Windows XP Pro, everyone
GM> that I talked to said they would rather experience the
GM> pangs of childbirth than to attempt a network on a DOS box
GM> -- this is why it took me two years. While Windows for
GM> Workgroup v3.11 is not the best solution for a 16-bit OS,
GM> it was a better option for me than 'contaminating' the DOS
GM> box with something (Win9.x) that would alter (long file
GM> names) the DOS structure... 

WFWG ranks near the top for 16 bit OS from those that I have
had the opportunity to test. It is _complete_ where others are
'beta' and were never finished. 

GM> You have a website and you obviously have a browser (or
GM> two) and you indicate that you have more than one
GM> computer.... 

I have five computers. This W2K has Opera, Mozilla (full),
FireFox, IEx v6, and LINKS browsers. I have LYNX, Arachne,
Minuet, NetTamer, and other DOS browsers on my other computers. 

GM> It took me considerable time to get my head around Network
GM> Interface Cards and configuring them correctly, and while I
GM> do not profess to be a network guru, 

Other software such as NetManager and Total-Commander simulate
network connections without all the gobble-d'gook. Networking
should have been standardized and simplified - it never has
been. 

GM> I would never go back to using null modem cables and such.
GM> Virtually every version of Windows (okay, you have to add
GM> the TCP software for Wfw3.11) has the TCP/IP stack and it
GM> is all seamless in its operation. 

I use a null-parallel for Total Commander but I do understand
your point. I never collected many large files and only became
interested in music files when I discovered I could modify
existing MIDI to suit my tastes. I am not a collector of other
people's music which means I have minimal requirements for
file-sharing between computers. 

>
>        ,                          ,
>      o/      Charles.Angelich      \o       ,
>     <|                              |>  __o/
>     / >          USA, MI           < \   __\__
 

--- * ATP/16bit 2.31 * 
... DOS the Ghost in the Machine! http://www.devedia.com/dosghost/
 * Origin: Try Our Web Based QWK: DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:123/140)