Text 3193, 164 rader
Skriven 2005-02-03 07:19:52 av Gerald Miller (1:342/512)
   Kommentar till text 3086 av CHARLES ANGELICH (1:123/140)
Ärende: IEXPLORER problem
=========================
Hello CHARLES,

    Responding to a post in the WIN95 area:
    On Tuesday February 01 2005 at 19:39,
    CHARLES ANGELICH [1:123/140] wrote to GERALD MILLER,
    about: IEXPLORER problem

[snip]

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

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

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

Maybe it should be rewritten for clarity?  Internet Explorer v5.0 being the
space and resource hogging klunker?

I have 128MB of RAM in this box and Wfw311 doesn't see most of it.

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

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

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

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

It was never my intention to use the Wfw311 system for any type of mail
services, and if I _really_ require a 'newer' level of javascripting in the
future, I know who to ask.  ;-))

--8<--cut

 CA>>>>> With my website and AXCEL216 I would say 90% of W31 and DOS are
 CA>>>>> covered. The glaring lack is for networking because I never
 CA>>>>> bothered to network my 16 bit machines. I use Total Commander and
 CA>>>>> a null parallel cable to 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 Windows for
 GM>>>> Workgroup v3.11, because without this resource, it may have taken a
 GM>>>> lot longer for me to get Wfw running. The clarity was phenomenal
 GM>>>> and I was able to do in three days what I hadn't been able to do in
 GM>>>> two years -- Network with Windows for Workgroup v3.11!!! You might
 GM>>>> want to check his site and create some links and he is very
 GM>>>> friendly also. ;-)))

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

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

[snip]

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

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

Yes, I think I may have encountered some of the betas in my attempts to
network the DOS box...  You have to imagine the warm fuzzy feeling I
experienced when I was finally able to ping the XPP box.

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

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

Sure glad I don't have to pay your power bill!  I only have three computers
online -- the other four aren't worth the effort to haul to the recycling
depot.

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

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

The standardization process is an ongoing project.  I Googled "Request For
Comments" and found 27,100,000 possibilities -- the "RFCs" are the bases of
the Internet and the many protocols in use today.  One of the prime sites
would be:

  http://www.rfc-editor.org/

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

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

I needed to copy "most" of my DOS files to one of my Windoooz boxes in
order to perform a backup -- can't get tapes for my Colorado Memory System
tape drive anymore.  DOS box doesn't have a CD burner (although it does
have a couple of USB ports that I've never used because I'm unaware of any
drivers that would work in the DOS/Wfw311 environment), and once a month, I
perform a DOS backup to one of my Windoooz boxes to burn a couple of
rewritable CDs.

I wanted to have a better understanding of networking and the different
protocols involved, so I read "TCP/IP for Dummies" (5th Edition) written by
Candace Leiden and Marshall Wilensky -- Wiley Publishing, Inc., ISBN:
0-7645-1760-0.

It was a very informative, "lighthearted" read that cut through all the
gobble-d'gook and I would recommend the book to anyone with an interest in
the Internet, networking or the various protocols.  The book also included
a CD-ROM disk with lots of freeware / shareware tools and utilities.

           Cheers ... Gerald

... I studied Chinese philosophy...an hour later I was wondering again.
--- GoldED+/DPMI32 v1.1.5-040330 [msg of Thursday February 03 2005]
 * Origin: Aviation Lie: All you have to do is follow the book. (1:342/512)