Message-ID: <01FD6EC775C6D4119CDF0090273F74A4021F05@emwatent02.meters.com.au>
From: "Da Silva, Joe" <Joe DOT DaSilva AT emailmetering DOT com>
To: "'opendos AT delorie DOT com'" <opendos AT delorie DOT com>
Subject: RE: 32 bit Arachne (was DOS and WIN/98)
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 10:09:06 +1100
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0)
Content-Type: text/plain
Reply-To: opendos AT delorie DOT com

(Hi, I'm back ;-)

WRT, the "cousin" reference - I was thinking "cousin", "sibling",
"parent", "mother" or "aunt". None seemed to fit exactly - sorry
if I chose wrongly. <g>

WRT, 32 bit Arachne, it is clear to me that Michael wants to
continue supporting 8088, 8086, 80186 and 80286 CPU's, for
hand-held and embedded applications. He even has thoughts
of porting Arachne to 8-bit platforms, such as the RISC Z80
derivatives, that have been released fairly recently. This is the
real reason, I believe, that Michael has not ported Arachne
to "32 bit" (except, I guess, the Linux versions) ...

Joe.

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Bernie [SMTP:bernie AT mbox302 DOT swipnet DOT se]
> Sent:	Tuesday, 30 January 2001 4:15
> To:	opendos AT delorie DOT com
> Subject:	Re: DOS and WIN/98
> 
> Matthias wrote:
> >FWIW, for sure Arachne is the mother, but the relation between
> >DR-WebSpyder 2.x and Arachne 1.xx is more complex than just
> >a question of customizing and "pretty-coating".
> 
> True. But calling it a cousin would IMHO suggest that they both derivate
> from a common source (such as Mosaic). I do understand that they needed to
> do quite a lot of work (making a front-end between Allegro and the Arachne
> source for instance, and watt-32 wasn't out then AFAIK etc.)
> 
> >Ironically, 32-bit DPMI DR-WebSpyder 2.1 was not able to display 
> >.HTML pages larger than ca. 250 Kb, while 16-bit Real-Mode
> >Arachne took a long time to process, but after having a coffee, 
> >it would display such pages more or less correctly... ;-) 
> 
> Which is why I think porting Arachne to 32-bit would make it better (than
> Webspyder). I think WebSpyder was the reason Michael haven't done it yet.
> Ah well, perhaps I'll get some time over and make the port sometime this
> year and let Michael focus on SSL, CSS and JavaScript (he has promised
> beta
> JS a long time now, atleast the version one I made over a weekend could
> handle some basic pages - but it was a too static sollution unfortunatly).
> //Bernie