Message-Id: <199804200145.VAA12521@u2.farm.idt.net>
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1998 21:42:11 -0400
To: OpenDOS AT delorie DOT com
From: A Kumar <Kassoc-2 AT idt DOT net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Precedence: bulk

Recentaly there was talk in the OpenDos mailing list about porting Nescape
to DOS (now that the source code has been released).  I unfortunetly am not
proficent enough in C/C++ to be of any help programing wise, I was
wondering if anyone here knows enough to help.  Here is a message from the
mozzila general newsgroup/mailing list.  

Adam wrote:
>Glynn Clements wrote:
>
>> A Kumar wrote:
>>
> >> The wish for a version of Netscape capable of running on DOS(not on win
> > 3.11 or 95 on pure DOS), has been voiced on the OpenDos mailing list,
> > >anyone willing to take up the challenge (will it be a challenge!).
> >>
> >> > > Yes, you CAN run Netscape without WIN95.  There is still a Windows
> >> > > 3.11 version.  But, if Netscape has any sense at all, they would
make a
> >> > > full plain DOS version.  Then see how many people really need
Windows.
> >> > > -Dean Dancey   And, yes, I would gladly PAY for a DOS only version.
> >> > > DO YOU HEAR THAT, NETSCAPE????? <BG>
>>
>> I wonder whether the poster would be willing to pay the very
>> substantial price that a DOS version would warrant, given that:
>>
>> a) Many of the facilites that are provided by the OS for the Win/Mac/X
>> versions (i.e. GUI toolkit, font management, virtual memory, DNS, ...)
>> would have to be written.
>
>There are a number of XP GUI class libraries that support DOS, a number of
32-bit
>DOS Extenders (some containing VM), and a number of DOS network software
products
>that implement TCP/IP. So though it would be a difficult port, it wouldn't be
>totally infeasible to do, seeing as all the basics are available.
>
>It's interesting to note that SunSoft's JavaPC also runs in DOS and has
overcome
>a number of the same problems.
>
>> b) DOS's user base is a fraction of that of either Windows, Mac or
>> Unix/X (The myriad Unix/X platforms share most of their code, so
>> supporting a minority Unix platform doesn't require a totally separate
>> version).
>
>The DOS user base is still large and in fact, Caldera still sell OpenDOS
(a DRDOS
>derived clone) so there must still be a market out there for it albeit a
>shrinking one.
>As for code sharing, the DOS port could reuse most of the XP stuff so it
would be
>the front-end and the very low-level support libraries that would have to be
>rewritten or ported.
>
>> The net result of a) and b) is that a DOS version would cost more to
>> develop than for any other platform, and the costs would have be split
>> between far fewer users.
>
>The cost is nothing to the user since the browser is free (potentially).
The cost
>to the volunteers who develop the port is their time and energy.
>
>Adam

There are some signs that people would be willing to help port it and I
know it is a worthy port.  As a computer consultant I have seen some of my
clients switch to Win95, just because of the ease of using the WWW with it.
 A DOS version of Navigator would bring may people back to DOS.  I was
wondering if anyone would be willing to help make Navigator for DOS a reality.

A Kumar <Kassoc-2 AT idt DOT net>