[arachne] Re: The future of Arachne

Arachne at FreeLists---The Arachne Fan Club!

To Bastiaan:

> But, I have to use IE for some web uses since Arachne can not handle the
> communications with my bank (security and java script) and other web
> sites.

> Running DOS on new machines is limited: eg. no RS232 port but only USB
> available, no driver for PCMCIA cards, problems with soundcard, etc.
> Especialy note books suffer from this.

Well, my Pentium4/3066 does have serial ports. It also has three ISA
slots, so I do not have problems with soundcards, either. :-)

And I can do homebanking in DOS, too, since my bank does not require me
to use Javascript. :-)

To Sam:

> So at this point in time what's a legacy machine? It's only recently
> that the Arachne development mob threw the 286 overboard and went to
> the 386 and up version.

> So what's a modern machine today? Where would you guys draw the
> line between modern and legacy?

Well, only one who is having problems with meeting the requirements for
the "modern" version could really tell, but if you ask me, I would say
that available memory is what is the biggest difference, since without
sufficient memory, Arachne will bog down even with speed optimisations.

For example, IMO the biggest difference between 386 and pre-386 machines
was the amount of free conventional mem. Aside from special memory
expansion cards and drivers, most 8088/86/286 machines did not have any
upper memory to speak of, so drivers would have to go into conventional
mem, whereas 386 and higher CPUs could run EMM386, QEMM386, etc.

However, on current high-end machines, this trend has somewhat reversed.
Modern PCs often have large video and system BIOS ROMs, add-on disk
controllers with their own BIOS, and use high-end networking cards that
often need 50 to 60 KB of conventional mem.

So "modern" machines tend to have lots of XMS memory, but are short on
conventional memory, whereas "legacy" machines have more conventional
mem but little XMS memory.

So I think that instead of deciding on a hard limit, we should rather
regard the "modern" version of Arachne as one that will be using more
XMS and perhaps less conventional memory than the "legacy" one. In
particular, XMS usage should no longer be limited by available
conventional mem, like in the current xSwap system. If I am not
mistaken, xSwap was something designed to improve the speed on low-end
machines, so perhaps the "legacy" version would benefit more from it.

> There are so many fully featured browsers and OS's available for new
> computers today that there is little room for Arachne and DOS,

Yes, but a fully featured DOS would also need a fully featured web
browser, wouldn't it? :-)

> especially in light of the fact that there is a lack of development
> talent available and willing to help with the needed improvements
> and adjustments.

> Yes, it could be done--but it's not happening.

> There are only a few people working on Arachne now, less than a dozen
> at best--all part time, all volunteer. Many more are needed to bring
> Arachne and DOS into the modern world.

I think that many developers are only interested in software for modern
machines. Making Arachne work better on modern machines could actually
help to attract more developers. On the other hand, if they feel that
Arachne is only "the web browser for the poor", they probably would not
feel inclined to join the development team.

To everyone:

Well, if I have counted correctly, there are currently five persons,
including me, for my proposal and one against it. But there are several
people whose names I have seen regularly on this list who have not
stated their opinion, yet. So what are you waiting for, we are talking
about "The future of Arachne"! :-)

Regards,

Udo

-- The DR-DOS/OpenDOS Enhancement Project - http://www.drdosprojects.de

-- This mail was written by a user of The Arachne Browser - http://arachne.cz/
                  Arachne at FreeLists                  
-- Arachne, The Premier GPL Web Browser/Suite for DOS --

Other related posts: