Re: TOS platform

[Tamminen Eero <t150315@students.cc.tut.fi>]

>   ---re: various types of users; old ST should be dropped; focus on 030---

As a STfm/4MB + BW-monitor owner (and STonX can't do any better either)
I'd like to recommend that as a the bottom system (when it doesn't mean
going through hoops).:))) Anybody's free to do whatever s/he wishes
though...

>   ---re: convince PC users with problems to get KGMD + N.AES on 030---
> Speaking of which - where can I get N.AES? I hear a lot about it
> but have never seen it locally (souther california).

Have they got a WWW-page?


>   with a strong preference for 030 processor.
> Yeah, it would make a lot of things easier if we could ignore 68000.
> I've kind of gotten tired of writing stuff for 68000 just to prove
> it can be done - yes, it *can* be done, but why go thru all that pain?

What's the most annoying thing?  Just curious...


>   my provider's previous tech-support head was really impressed with my
>   TT and said "Finally! Something that has Unix but real GUI and hasn't
>   the name Micro$oft written all over it! I want one!".

Err...  I could make here a comment about a thing or two that the
standard VDI lacks (like off-screen bitmaps).


>   About a better browser:
>   the sources to Netscape will soon be public. I think porting the Linux
>   68k version for MiNTnet should be feasible and would give users who have
>   no clue what a TT/Falcon is capable of an opportunity to consider Atari
>   if a "standard" Browser/Mailer/etc. product also exists on Atari.
> People already complain that Netscape is clunky on PC. A port would
> probably suffer even worse performance. But I'm certainly looking into
> it, nonetheless.

Hmm... porting megabytes of X code to GEM.  Seems, ahem, masochistic :).

As netscape is available for quite a lot of platforms I'd guess it's
X stuff is at least fairly well isolated (unlike for example Gimp's
Glib/Gtk).


	- Eero