22 Sep
2008
22 Sep
'08
12:14 p.m.
I've been told using the compact Macs are an exercise in futility. But what about the
Mac II's? (original II, IIx, IIfx, IIcx).
I was just curious.
23 Sep
23 Sep
12:04 a.m.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris M" <chrism3667 at yahoo.com>
To: "talk" <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 3:14 PM
Subject: anyone utilizing early Macs to access the internet?
I've been told using the compact Macs are an
exercise in futility. But
what about the Mac II's? (original II, IIx, IIfx, IIcx).
I was just curious.
Depends on your definition of getting online. The issues most early 68K macs
have is the web browsers are old, CPU are slow, the WWW has too many
features not supported by the old system+hardware combo, you generally need
some extra RAM installed, and you really want to have a network card
installed.
I used to do some light browsing on my IIfx machines (68030/40 with 32MB RAM
system 7.1, 1024x768 @24 bit video). I do not browse on my Compact SE's
because a 68000 would choke, the SE/30's with 68030/16 are faster but the
resolution is still mono and small. The 68040 Quadra's are better but you
are limited to IE 4 which is real old (you need a PPC for IE 5 which is the
end of the line for Mac). IRC should be ok on most of them.
You can still do email on just about any of them as long as your ISP
interfaces with old software. I find youtube or other video online to be too
much for anything pre G4.
3:28 p.m.
there were PPC and even G3 G4 cards for the Nubus Macs, no?
--- On Tue, 9/23/08, Teo Zenios <teoz at neo.rr.com> wrote:
From: Teo Zenios <teoz at neo.rr.com>
Subject: Re: anyone utilizing early Macs to access the internet?
To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" <cctalk at
classiccmp.org>
Date: Tuesday, September 23, 2008, 3:04 AM
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris M" <chrism3667 at yahoo.com>
To: "talk" <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 3:14 PM
Subject: anyone utilizing early Macs to access the
internet?
I've been told using the compact Macs are an
exercise in futility. But
what about the Mac II's? (original II, IIx,
IIfx,
IIcx).
I was just curious.
Depends on your definition of getting online. The issues
most early 68K macs
have is the web browsers are old, CPU are slow, the WWW has
too many
features not supported by the old system+hardware combo,
you generally need
some extra RAM installed, and you really want to have a
network card
installed.
I used to do some light browsing on my IIfx machines
(68030/40 with 32MB RAM
system 7.1, 1024x768 @24 bit video). I do not browse on my
Compact SE's
because a 68000 would choke, the SE/30's with 68030/16
are faster but the
resolution is still mono and small. The 68040 Quadra's
are better but you
are limited to IE 4 which is real old (you need a PPC for
IE 5 which is the
end of the line for Mac). IRC should be ok on most of them.
You can still do email on just about any of them as long as
your ISP
interfaces with old software. I find youtube or other video
online to be too
much for anything pre G4. 
24 Sep
24 Sep
5:48 a.m.
there were PPC and even G3 G4 cards for the Nubus
Macs, no?
Yes, you could get PPC cards for the PDS slots of certain models. I don't
think any of these were G3s though; I'm pretty sure they were all 601s.
However, for PPC NuBus Machines, yes, you could get G3s for their respective
PDSes. My "SR-7100" has such a card. Paired with a fast NuBus video card,
it's a rather sprightly system.
--
------------------------------------ personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ --
Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckaiser at floodgap.com
-- Only death cures stupidity! -- "Cowboy Bebop: The Movie" -------------------
12:55 p.m.
G3 upgrades were made for PPC native systems, and 601 upgrades were made
for 68K native systems.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cameron Kaiser" <spectre at floodgap.com>
To: <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 8:48 AM
Subject: Re: anyone utilizing early Macs to access the internet?
there were PPC
and even G3 G4 cards for the Nubus Macs, no?
Yes, you could get PPC cards for the PDS slots of certain models. I don't
think any of these were G3s though; I'm pretty sure they were all 601s.
However, for PPC NuBus Machines, yes, you could get G3s for their
respective
PDSes. My "SR-7100" has such a card. Paired with a fast NuBus video card,
it's a rather sprightly system.
--
------------------------------------ personal:
http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ --
Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com *
ckaiser at floodgap.com
-- Only death cures stupidity! -- "Cowboy Bebop: The
Movie" ------------------- 
23 Sep
23 Sep
4:10 p.m.
On 9/23/08 3:04 AM, "Teo Zenios" <teoz at neo.rr.com> wrote:
Depends on your definition of getting online. The
issues most early 68K macs
have is the web browsers are old, CPU are slow, the WWW has too many
features not supported by the old system+hardware combo, you generally need
some extra RAM installed, and you really want to have a network card
installed.
This is so true. I have both IE 2.8 and Netscape something on my IIci and
540c portable. It works but many mainstream sites don't render properly with
the old engine it uses. I wonder if it would be possible to recompile one of
the publicly-available browsers for a 68k target?
Rich
--
Rich Cini
Collector of Classic Computers
Build Master and lead engineer, Altair32 Emulator
http://www.altair32.com
http://www.classiccmp.org/cini
8:53 p.m.
The VMS Hobbyist distribution has a very early version of Netscape, and I've run that
on my VAX 4000-300 (under DECwindows, of course). As you would expect it's dog slow,
and many sites just don't render since they're so dependent on JS, Flash, etc.
But it's fun to be able to said I've surfed the Web on my VAX. -- Ian
________________________________________
From: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org [cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Teo
Zenios [teoz at neo.rr.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 12:04 AM
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: Re: anyone utilizing early Macs to access the internet?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris M" <chrism3667 at yahoo.com>
To: "talk" <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 3:14 PM
Subject: anyone utilizing early Macs to access the internet?
I've been told using the compact Macs are an
exercise in futility. But
what about the Mac II's? (original II, IIx, IIfx, IIcx).
I was just curious.
Depends on your definition of getting online. The issues most early 68K macs
have is the web browsers are old, CPU are slow, the WWW has too many
features not supported by the old system+hardware combo, you generally need
some extra RAM installed, and you really want to have a network card
installed.
I used to do some light browsing on my IIfx machines (68030/40 with 32MB RAM
system 7.1, 1024x768 @24 bit video). I do not browse on my Compact SE's
because a 68000 would choke, the SE/30's with 68030/16 are faster but the
resolution is still mono and small. The 68040 Quadra's are better but you
are limited to IE 4 which is real old (you need a PPC for IE 5 which is the
end of the line for Mac). IRC should be ok on most of them.
You can still do email on just about any of them as long as your ISP
interfaces with old software. I find youtube or other video online to be too
much for anything pre G4.
12:06 a.m.
On Mon, 22 Sep 2008, Chris M wrote:
I've been told using the compact Macs are an
exercise in futility. But
what about the Mac II's? (original II, IIx, IIfx, IIcx).
I was just curious.
An SE or SE/30 can accept an ethernet board. They're kinda rare, but
they're out there.
--
David Griffith
dgriffi at cs.csubak.edu
A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
1:34 a.m.
David Griffith wrote:
On Mon, 22 Sep 2008, Chris M wrote:
I have a couple of SE ethernet boards that I don't have a use for, just
in case anyone's interested... no idea if they work but I see no reason
why not.
I currently have a IIfx w/24mb RAM and a 1280x1024 display connected to
my network. It runs Netscape Navigator 3.0 pretty decently, but 4.0x is
quite slow (and very crash-prone). I don't do a lot of surfing using
it, honestly and since 3.0 doesn't know much about modern HTML it
doesn't render sites too well anymore. Still, it's cool to do it just
because it's there. One of these days I'll get my MacIvory running
CL-HTTPD (never did manage to get that to work right) and I'll have the
IIfx/Lispm serve up web pages :).
(I also have an SE/30 on the network and the same basic rules apply,
except that the screen resolution and 1bpp depth is pretty limiting for
web browsing and the CPU's slower so more patience is required...)
Josh
I've been told using the compact Macs are an
exercise in futility. But
what about the Mac II's? (original II, IIx, IIfx, IIcx).
I was just curious.
An SE or SE/30 can accept an ethernet board. They're kinda rare, but
they're out there.
2:07 a.m.
On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 12:06:43AM -0700, David Griffith wrote:
On Mon, 22 Sep 2008, Chris M wrote:
Or something I've used with an old 68030-based mono Mac laptop - a
SCSI<->Ethernet box. It's been 10+ years since I used one, but I
think mine was made by either Dayna or Asante.
-ethan
--
Ethan Dicks, A-333-S Current South Pole Weather at 23-Sep-2008 at 09:00 Z
South Pole Station
PSC 468 Box 400 Temp -72.8 F (-58.2 C) Windchill -114.5 F (-81.4 C)
APO AP 96598 Wind 14.6 kts Grid 25 Barometer 678.1 mb (10700 ft)
Ethan.Dicks at usap.gov http://penguincentral.com/penguincentral.html
I've been told using the compact Macs are an
exercise in futility. But
what about the Mac II's? (original II, IIx, IIfx, IIcx).
I was just curious.
An SE or SE/30 can accept an ethernet board. They're kinda rare, but
they're out there. 
5:36 a.m.
Ethan Dicks wrote:
On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 12:06:43AM -0700, David
Griffith wrote:
I have an Asante model - I use it on an LC475. I have LC-slot
ethernet boards, but that one's occupied by a IIe. :)
That's actually a capable little system. With a "real" 68040, 36MB,
2 VRAMs, a 3.5" and a 5.25" external drive, and a moderately fast disk,
it does FTP, telnet, anything I really need for network stuff quite easily.
With an ADB-PS/2 adapter, it speaks to my Raritan and hides on a
shelf pretty nicely too. :)
<rant>
I might point out that an SE/30 with an ethernet card and 16 or 32MB
of RAM would be just as capable on the internet. The real sticking
point here is that even we have come to define "internet access" by
browser availability and performance.
</rant>
Doc
On Mon, 22 Sep 2008, Chris M wrote:
> I've been told using the compact Macs are an exercise in futility. But
> what about the Mac II's? (original II, IIx, IIfx, IIcx).
>
Or something I've used with an old 68030-based mono Mac laptop - a
SCSI<->Ethernet box. It's been 10+ years since I used one, but I
think mine was made by either Dayna or Asante. 
5:47 a.m.
2008/9/23 Doc Shipley <doc at mdrconsult.com>:
<rant>
I might point out that an SE/30 with an ethernet card and 16 or 32MB of RAM
would be just as capable on the internet. The real sticking point here is
that even we have come to define "internet access" by browser availability
and performance.
</rant>
I have an SE/30 with 128 MB RAM and an Ethernet card running NetBSD.
Just needs a new disk because there's something about Quantum SCSI
drives and NetBSD that eventually leads to disk errors.
Lovely little machine, one of the finest Macs ever built. I'd love to
score an internal greyscale card for it.
.tsooJ
5:43 a.m.
I've been told using the compact Macs are an
exercise in futility. But
what about the Mac II's? (original II, IIx, IIfx, IIcx).
I was just curious.
An SE or SE/30 can accept an ethernet board. They're kinda rare, but
they're out there. 
31 Oct
31 Oct
5:17 a.m.
2008/9/22 Chris M <chrism3667 at yahoo.com>:
I've been told using the compact Macs are an
exercise in futility. But what about the Mac II's? (original II, IIx, IIfx, IIcx).
I was just curious.
I have tried 2 classic Macs on the Web in the last few years.
A maxed-out Classic II: 68030 @ 16MHz on a 16-bit bus, 10MB RAM, MacOS
7.6.1, Netscape 3 and 4, Dayna Ethernet-SCSI adaptor on 8Mb/s ADSL.
It worked in the theoretical sense: 25 *min* to render the top-left
corner of Slashdot.
Later, I set up a Quadra 630 as a "media centre". 25MHz 68040EC, 40MB
RAM, comms slot 10base-T Ethernet, MacOS 8.1, IE 4, Netscape Navigator
4.04 and Netscape Communicator 4.6, with Quicktime, Flash, Acrobat
Reader 3, stuff like that.
Again, it "worked". On the 630, OS 8.1 gave me Netscape 3 and IE 3.
Both pretty useless today; they can't render the Google homepage. I
put Netscape 4 and IE 4 onto a Zip disk from an OS X Mac, installed
'em and at least I could get online. Both really struggle with the C21
Web and rendering is dog-slow but if you exercise Buddha-like patience
you can use it. It's not unakin to being on dial-up.
--
Liam Proven ? Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/liamproven
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/GoogleTalk/Orkut: lproven at gmail.com
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 ? Cell: +44 7939-087884 ? Fax: + 44 870-9151419
AOL/AIM/iChat: liamproven at aol.com ? MSN/Messenger: lproven at hotmail.com
Yahoo: liamproven at yahoo.co.uk ? Skype: liamproven ? ICQ: 73187508
5:29 a.m.
2008/10/31 Liam Proven <lproven at gmail.com>:
2008/9/22 Chris M <chrism3667 at yahoo.com>:
That's preposterous. I would blame the web master more than the
browser and machine.
I've been told using the compact Macs are an
exercise in futility. But what about the Mac II's? (original II, IIx, IIfx, IIcx).
I have tried 2 classic Macs on the Web in the last few years.
A maxed-out Classic II: 68030 @ 16MHz on a 16-bit bus, 10MB RAM, MacOS
7.6.1, Netscape 3 and 4, Dayna Ethernet-SCSI adaptor on 8Mb/s ADSL.
It worked in the theoretical sense: 25 *min* to render the top-left
corner of Slashdot. Later, I set up a Quadra 630 as a "media
centre". 25MHz 68040EC, 40MB
RAM, comms slot 10base-T Ethernet, MacOS 8.1, IE 4, Netscape Navigator
4.04 and Netscape Communicator 4.6, with Quicktime, Flash, Acrobat
Reader 3, stuff like that.
Again, it "worked". On the 630, OS 8.1 gave me Netscape 3 and IE 3.
Both pretty useless today; they can't render the Google homepage. I
put Netscape 4 and IE 4 onto a Zip disk from an OS X Mac, installed
'em and at least I could get online. Both really struggle with the C21
Web and rendering is dog-slow but if you exercise Buddha-like patience
you can use it. It's not unakin to being on dial-up.
I would use a browser like iCab (www.icab.de) on such systems. They
offer more modern features and adhere to newer standards. To speed
things up a bit, just override sites' CSS and always refer to a local,
bare-bones CSS. Properly built sites will then display pretty well
(Lynx-like, but usable).
.tsooJ
6 Nov
6 Nov
9:47 a.m.
2008/10/31 Joost van de Griek <jvdg at sparcpark.net>:
I've used iCab, yes. It's all right, but a bit basic and does have a
habit of randomly quitting. I don't think any current or recent
version will run on System 7 on a 68030, though.
It's very impressive for a one-man effort, but I think he's shot
himself in the foot by dropping support for Classic MacOS - it was the
only current MacOS 9 browser for years, but now, as an OS X-only
product, he's in competition with Firefox, Safari and many others.
He's chosen to go from being a big fish in a small (and shrinking)
pond to a tiny one in a large lake. Risky move.
--
Liam Proven ? Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/liamproven
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/GoogleTalk/Orkut: lproven at gmail.com
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 ? Cell: +44 7939-087884 ? Fax: + 44 870-9151419
AOL/AIM/iChat: liamproven at aol.com ? MSN/Messenger: lproven at hotmail.com
Yahoo: liamproven at yahoo.co.uk ? Skype: liamproven ? ICQ: 73187508
2008/10/31 Liam Proven <lproven at gmail.com>:
Simpler sites were faster, but stuff like JavaScript really screws up
old browsers on Macs. If you use the latest thing it will run, they
work, but v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y.
2008/9/22 Chris M <chrism3667 at
yahoo.com>:
That's preposterous. I would blame the web master more than the
browser and machine. I've been told using the compact Macs are an
exercise in futility. But what about the Mac II's? (original II, IIx, IIfx, IIcx).
I have tried 2 classic Macs on the Web in the last few years.
A maxed-out Classic II: 68030 @ 16MHz on a 16-bit bus, 10MB RAM, MacOS
7.6.1, Netscape 3 and 4, Dayna Ethernet-SCSI adaptor on 8Mb/s ADSL.
It worked in the theoretical sense: 25 *min* to render the top-left
corner of Slashdot. Later, I set
up a Quadra 630 as a "media centre". 25MHz 68040EC, 40MB
RAM, comms slot 10base-T Ethernet, MacOS 8.1, IE 4, Netscape Navigator
4.04 and Netscape Communicator 4.6, with Quicktime, Flash, Acrobat
Reader 3, stuff like that.
Again, it "worked". On the 630, OS 8.1 gave me Netscape 3 and IE 3.
Both pretty useless today; they can't render the Google homepage. I
put Netscape 4 and IE 4 onto a Zip disk from an OS X Mac, installed
'em and at least I could get online. Both really struggle with the C21
Web and rendering is dog-slow but if you exercise Buddha-like patience
you can use it. It's not unakin to being on dial-up.
I would use a browser like iCab (www.icab.de) on such systems. They
offer more modern features and adhere to newer standards. To speed
things up a bit, just override sites' CSS and always refer to a local,
bare-bones CSS. Properly built sites will then display pretty well
(Lynx-like, but usable).
8:41 p.m.
It's very impressive for a one-man effort, but I
think he's shot
himself in the foot by dropping support for Classic MacOS
To be fair (and this comes from him directly), he isn't completely dropping
iCab 3; he will continue to issue bugfixes and presumably security-related
updates, but no improvements to the core engine or to InScript.
I think if he released iCab 3 to the community, people would probably pick
it up and maintain it.
On my OS 9 machines, I use a combination of WaMCoM 1.3.1 and iCab 3.
--
------------------------------------ personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ --
Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckaiser at floodgap.com
-- Yes, but when I try to see things your way it gives me a headache. ---------
31 Oct
31 Oct
9:23 a.m.
At 12:14 PM -0700 9/22/08, Chris M wrote:
I've been told using the compact Macs are an
exercise in futility.
But what about the Mac II's? (original II, IIx, IIfx, IIcx).
I was just curious.
Can any pre-Mac OS X system run a browser that supports modern
websites? This was the problem that caused my Mom to upgrade a
couple years ago. Besides now that they've been selling Intel-based
Mac's for a few years, doesn't the G5 2x2 I'm using count as an
"early" Mac? :-)
Zane
--
| Zane H. Healy | UNIX Systems Administrator |
| healyzh at aracnet.com (primary) | OpenVMS Enthusiast |
| MONK::HEALYZH (DECnet) | Classic Computer Collector |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Empire of the Petal Throne and Traveller Role Playing, |
| PDP-10 Emulation and Zane's Computer Museum. |
| http://www.aracnet.com/~healyzh/ |
10:07 a.m.
I've been
told using the compact Macs are an exercise in futility.
But what about the Mac II's? (original II, IIx, IIfx, IIcx).
I was just curious.
Can any pre-Mac OS X system run a browser that supports modern
websites? This was the problem that caused my Mom to upgrade a
couple years ago. Besides now that they've been selling Intel-based
Mac's for a few years, doesn't the G5 2x2 I'm using count as an
"early" Mac? :-)
10:25 a.m.
Zane H. Healy wrote:
At 12:14 PM -0700 9/22/08, Chris M wrote:
Any system that supports 8GB of RAM and 2TB of internal storage
counts as "current enough" in my book. :)
Doc
I've been told using the compact Macs are an
exercise in futility. But
what about the Mac II's? (original II, IIx, IIfx, IIcx).
I was just curious.
Can any pre-Mac OS X system run a browser that supports modern
websites? This was the problem that caused my Mom to upgrade a couple
years ago. Besides now that they've been selling Intel-based Mac's for
a few years, doesn't the G5 2x2 I'm using count as an "early" Mac? :-)
12:24 p.m.
At 12:25 PM -0500 10/31/08, Doc Shipley wrote:
Zane H. Healy wrote:
Fair enough since most of the current Mac's only support 4GB RAM, and
that isn't enough for me. I'm trying to decide if I should rip out
1GB RAM to take mine up to the full 8GB. Moving from 5.5GB to 7GB a
couple weeks ago really helped performance wise. I've not maxed out
the disk space, I have a 750GB and a 1TB drive, not two 1TB drives
(will the G5 take 1.5TB drives?).
I really want an 8-core Mac Pro with 16GB RAM, and to start adding
1.5TB drives to it! :-) Though if it wasn't for my digital
photography, I wouldn't even feel a need to upgrade my G5! To me
that speaks well of a 5 year old computer.
Realistically I think this says more about how the top of the line
Mac's are so far ahead of the curve, than anything. The sad thing is
system won't even be supported in 10.6 from what everyone is hearing
(I'm still at 10.4.11).
Zane
--
| Zane H. Healy | UNIX Systems Administrator |
| healyzh at aracnet.com (primary) | OpenVMS Enthusiast |
| MONK::HEALYZH (DECnet) | Classic Computer Collector |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Empire of the Petal Throne and Traveller Role Playing, |
| PDP-10 Emulation and Zane's Computer Museum. |
| http://www.aracnet.com/~healyzh/ |
Can any pre-Mac OS X system run a browser that
supports modern
websites? This was the problem that caused my Mom to upgrade a
couple years ago. Besides now that they've been selling
Intel-based Mac's for a few years, doesn't the G5 2x2 I'm using
count as an "early" Mac? :-)
Any system that supports 8GB of RAM and 2TB of internal storage
counts as "current enough" in my book. :)
1:05 p.m.
Realistically I think this says more about how the top
of the line
Mac's are so far ahead of the curve, than anything. The sad thing is
system won't even be supported in 10.6 from what everyone is hearing
(I'm still at 10.4.11).
I need 10.4.11 to still run Classic apps (which, happily, brings this
thread back almost on topic ;-).
I'm probably going to use X11 and run apps from my AIX server rather than
upgrade. I'm starting to get a little exasperated with Apple these days.
--
------------------------------------ personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ --
Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckaiser at floodgap.com
-- If elected, I will win. -- Pat Paulsen for President -----------------------
5840
days inactive
5886
days old
21 comments
12 participants
participants (12)
-
chrism3667＠yahoo.com -
derschjo＠msu.edu -
dgriffi＠cs.csubak.edu -
doc＠mdrconsult.com -
ethan.dicks＠usap.gov -
healyzh＠aracnet.com -
IanK＠vulcan.com -
jvdg＠sparcpark.net -
lproven＠gmail.com -
rcini＠optonline.net -
spectre＠floodgap.com -
teoz＠neo.rr.com