[arachne] Re: User-friendliness or lack thereof in Arachne
- From: "Udo Kuhnt" <048321887-0001@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: arachne@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 17:41:50 +0000
Arachne at FreeLists---The Arachne Fan Club!
> Udo ...
> Tell me something, please, because you have me very curious.
> Why did you switch from a Windows browser to a DOS one?
> It would seem that there must have been *some* special reason, since you
> obviously prefer what Netscape will do for you.
One of the reasons was that Netscape used to shut down every now and
then while downloading a file. This was even more annoying because its
download speed was unusually slow with my 56 Kbit modem. Of course, that
is something that is only related to the browser, not to Windows.
Now, Arachne is definetely slower, but that was not the only reason for
my decision - see below.
> Arachne is designed for people who know, and/or are willing to learn, DOS and
> taking responsibility for what one does on a computer.
No problem for me, since I have many years of DOS experience. However,
that should not be confused with the necessity to do everything from the
command prompt. I like GUIs if they are well-designed, and prefer the
interface of Arachne to the one of Lynx, for example.
> I was unaware that Arachne would overwrite an existing file of the same name;
> I thought that the DOS requirement to answer "Overwrite Existing File y/n?"
> either made overwriting impossible because the message wasn't passed through
> Arachne, or that the message *was* passed through. I know that this was a long
> topic of discussion a few years back, so to see you suddenly complain about
> that was a surprise.
Actually, the create_file function in DOS does not care about an
existing file of the same same unless it is marked as read-only. You
want a new file, you get a new file.
> As to where you want to save a file, or what you want to call it, that's
> hardly difficult. In fact, it is easier to type in than to play the click
> click click mouse game to get to where you want to go. But then, of course,
> that is strictly IMNSHO.
That depends. If I have to download many files that should go into
different sub directories, I prefer to just click them with the mouse.
> Please don't forget to tell us, please: Why did you drop windows and opt for
> DOS?
Well, to make a long story short: At first, I did not use Windows at
all, only DOS. Later, I used it for things like watching AVI videos,
etc. I did not really depend on Windows until I got Internet access.
After about five years of Windows usage, numerous crashes and countless
hours of wasted time spent on Windows maintenance, I was thoroughly
annoyed and fed up with Windows, so I started to look for DOS software
that could serve to replace the Windows programs I was using. The only
thing I sticked with was the Netscape Navigator. I read about web
browsers for DOS, and gave DR-WebSpyder a try, but did not manage to
make it work.
Then, in 1998, I decided to upgrade my PC again. I bought a new
motherboard, and also a new graphics card. Everything was working fine,
until I tried to connect to the Internet and realised that I did not
have a suitable graphics driver. No problem, since it was available on
the 'net, but I needed Windows to get Netscape working, and the driver
for Windows.
So even though my PC was working perfectly, I was cut off from the
Internet because my browser relied on Windows, and Windows would not
work because it did not understand VESA.
The Setup.exe file for DOS was not working, either, because it required
more free memory then I had, so I edited system.ini manually and figured
out how to change the driver. I managed to make Windows work in 640x480
and 16 colours, barely enough to be able to run NN and get the damned
driver.
However, this incident had shown to me that Windows was the Achilles
heel of my system, so I started to look for alternatives to NN in
earnest. I stumbled upon Arachne, and after the painstaking process of
setting it up, I was able to connect to the Internet for the first time
without Windows.
Of course, I missed many features of the NN, the first and not least of
which was the file requester.
However, after three months of Arachne usage, I decided that it was
acceptable, particularly because of the faster download speed and no
more crashes. Of course, now that I have a DSL line, Arachne has become
relatively slow, and I have seen lots of Arachne crashes, too.
Now that my Windows 3.11 no longer works with my graphics card except in
standard VGA resolution, and newer Windows versions no longer work in my
OS, I do not have much of a chance to still use Netscape, either. Not
that I still wanted to run Windows, that is - I think that putting all
the functionality that belongs in the OS into an application is a bad
idea, anyway.
I bet now would someone ask why I do not use Linux instead. Well, I also
have six years of Linux experience, and I do not like it either, partly
for the same and partly for different reasons.
So I do not use Arachne because I think that it is better than Mozilla
or IE but because I think that DOS is better than Windows or Linux.
Having said this, I think I would continue to use Arachne for some
purposes even if Mozilla was ported to DOS. However, I hope that we will
not have to wait for Arachne to support most features of Mozilla as long
as for someone to port Mozilla to DOS. ;-)
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 Web Browser/Suite for DOS and Linux --
Other related posts:
