>iBrowse is a web browser for the Amiga >it runs on a machine

>>57043869
>Where did we go so wrong?
Literally advertisement and analytics. When you have to resolve like 25 hosts per page and have scripts running for no real reason, you start needing a lot of resources for a seemingly simple task.

flash. the single most deadly cancer unleashed on the internet

>>57043885
>>57043887
these
add the fact that people already have computers, and if they dont feel old, people wont upgrade

this is why linux is good, butcause you can have a lightweight OS that needs next to no processing

>>57043885

this too. use ublock origin.

Javascript and chrome happened

>>57043869
high level programming

>>57043904
I have a T60 as a daily driver and it's great with Mint MATE.

I think the blame can be laid at the feet of a reduction in text-based computing and a move to image-based computing.

In a fucked up psychotic way I miss the old days of ugly HTML-only sites.

But what really saddens me is how it used to be that someone on a shitty Soviet toaster could reliably dial out to a BBS with Fidonet and receive no change in output than a westerner with the "latest and greatest," for the time.

In a modern context we have developing countries who are priced and spec'd out of a lot of the modern computing world. Is it any wonder than BBS is still a thing in SEA?

If you don't have a modern computer running on all cylinders then the web can sometimes be unusable, and some sites just wont load at all if you disable the scripts that are causing such a slowdown.

It's sad that something so good for humanity ended up only applying to the privileged nations.

>>57043869
to be fair, when using iBrowse with the modern internet, you have to manually flush your ram every 1-2 pages. It has no flash, limited scripting support, and basically other than using google is sorta pointless.

overreliance on javascript killed the web. looks like modern web devs can't do anything without using tons of javascript that grind your browser to a halt.

>>57043885
this too

>>57044349
But isn't that the point?

I don't people on this board consider a lack of flash and javascript to be downsides. In fact they both pose rather large security risks in comparison to other ubiquitous technologies.

What I think it all comes down to is that it forces people to either upgrade or be left behind. BBS was before my time, but I like using it as an example because it highlights my line of thinking. You can have a 300Bd modem, or a 2,400Bd modem and the only change is your speed. The media your consuming is the same, despite a 30 year space in between them.

This is not the case with the modern web. And that is sad because, as I have said, it puts a wall up against developing countries.

>>57044452
i dunno, I used an a4000t until 2009 as my desktop. Thing was great for what i used it for. IT however was basically just for IRC and typing/email its last 10 years.

It had long outlived its usefulness at that point.

a lot of "developing" countries have pretty robust cellular data networks that are as fast or faster than where I live in a supposed "1st world" country. According to the old SpeedTest.com, 88% of the world had faster internet connectivity than I did. I get by pretty well with it. If i need to DL anything major i just go to a university for a few hours and work remotely or read a book.

>>57043869
Devs went overboard with 4k images, 100m line javascript libraries, mp4/webm videos, and 20+ external javascript tracking plugins which duplicate everything on top of that.

Also everything people used to use flash for has spilled out into the browser.

A change in how networking (and computers in general) were operated. Back then it was either hobbyist in which it was all based on what people already had, because it's what THEY had (or was in colleges and universities, in which case they did all the hard work and you just piggy-backed off of it).

Then there was a shift where it was instead based on what the ones who had control of the systems WANTED you to have. This was enforced by the change from having many different OSs and architectures, to a single OS that used a single architecture, meaning it was in a small cabal's self-interest to get you to upgrade, and if they had to do it by beating you with a stick, so be it.

Typical fucking Luddite

Go try IRC or BBS they haven't changed over the last 3 decades and are perfect sperg containment for you.

>>57045128
This.

I just gave someone money I didn't need to give them. They need to catch up and give rich people more money.

>>57043869
>>Where did we go so wrong?
Active content in general. Javascript especially.

>>57045128
Go back to your consumerist threads.

>1024*768
>2GB of RAM
>1.4Ghz 2core CPU
>HDD with 18k hours uptime

I'll upgrade when it breaks.

>>57045128
I think you're missing the point being made by such complaints. It uses 10x (at a minimum, it's likely more) more resources, but would you say that it's 10x as capable? Or that the "features" that come with the usage are welcome?

>>57043869
>Where did we go so wrong?
Developers.

These days optimised to squeeze out new products as fast as possible.

In the olden days it was to forge fast products as well as possible.

>>57044208
>image-based computing
You mean meme-based computing.

File: mail1.jpg (62KB, 640x512px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 640x512px

>>57047105
I think they meant more that a GUI is now made up of images rather than just telling the computer to put a box there and write "menu" on it.

>>57047059
It's actually kind of sad: Once we had BLAZING FAST!!!!1!1 Computers, which did the job (Only technical limitation was floppy/tape speed, but for he latter we had fastloaders), but now everything is bloated.

>>57047145
OK, so I am showing some age here...

Back in the day the first spreadsheet was Visicalc. It was THE killer application on Apple II, a machine with up to 64 KB RAM and powered by a 1 MHz 6502, a 8-bit processor.

And it worked well.

I used to work in the embedded industry where you were paid to keep resource uses down to a minimum. Adding more RAM would mean a total redesign of the hardware platform and a new qualification round which would be prohibitively expensive.

And with a bit of thinking you could do really a lot. I once did a real time moving map application for ship navigation powered by 6502.

Today hardware is cheap for desktop and embedded market is rather invisible. It still is out there and I hear 6502 powers pace makers. Now that is some serious software where you want absolutely zero glitches, no restarts and continuous operations for decades.

>>57045184
Is that sarcasm?

Pajeet developers.

>>57044452
Developing countries just use cheap Android phones with Facebook-provided free "Internet".
It gets them to the modern consumption-oriented Internet while locking them out of desktop development.

>>57045471

How broke are you? Why would someone punish themselves and gimp their computing experience like this?

>>57047309
What makes you think it's "gimped"?

It does what I want it to, so why ask for more?

>>57043869

I've got an Amiga500 with a 40Mhz Motorolla 680030 CPU, 128Meg of RAM and 8Gig HD. All the internal addressing on the Amiga was 32 bit.

>>57047309
Not him but that's basically the specs of my X61s, which does what I need a laptop to do well enough. I'd only use more power for gaymen, which I do on my desktop.

It's even getting to the point where it's sometimes more cost effective to keep your shitty old machine around and just VPN into an Amazon S3 instance for Steam streaming, especially if you live in an area with high electricity costs or a country with exorbitant import tariffs on computer hardware.

>>57047309
You can browse the web with a Pentium III with no noticeable slowness, except on ridiculous websites like OP is talking about (they can surprise you, sometimes the plainest websites have the most bullshit).

If we stopped with the bullshit we could probably have laptops and smartphones that last days, if not weeks on their batteries.

>>57048123
The environmental aspect can't be overlooked either. Imagine if it was a realistic option to swap a multi-hundred wattage computer with something like the ~3watt Raspberry Pi.

>>57048261
Absolutely. Not to mention people not upgrading computers as frequently.

>>57048611
Yes, but that doesn't make any one any money.

I mean, it COULD if the culture changed, where a computer about the power draw of a Pi came with an OS (probably (E)PROM) and cost a small amount.

There's no reason that these devices couldn't sanic along with the proper software. I mean, RISC-OS boots quicker than my SSD on my modern PC. That's pretty great, even if the OS is shit to use. BUT others could do their own thing as well. People love to keep bringing up Amiga, so what about the ARMiga?

I was sure that these machines would be the next big thing in the computing world and was really excited to see what would happen with them.

File: davidwiseman-tapes.jpg (193KB, 1280x1024px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 1280x1024px

>>57048261
And the preservation.

I really can't see someone going "It turns out I have 10 years of Facebook" the way they had done for things like Usenet.

I mean, the UTZOO tapes are compressed down to 2GB, and Geocities are 1TB. Large, but conceivable to be preserved by people at the time.

Youtube? Facebook? Tumblr? Not quite so much.

>>57049466
Most of those websites are straight garbage, though.

>>57049637
That's not really the point though, is it?

>>57043869
yeah, because the web is totally exactly the same as it was in the amiga days

what went wrong is content anon, but nothing is stopping you from browsing bbs boards

>>57049737
>2 lines of content
>15 scripts
>40 hosts
>100 ads
>moving 15MP pictures of hipsters drinking coffee
Nah, there is less content.

>>57049897
There's more content, but less of it is worth consuming.

>>57044387
What, you propose we build complex web 2.0 sites that can have dynamically generated content and database interactions in pure HTML and CSS?

>>57050043
I propose web 2.0 going and jumping off a low cliff on to jagged rocks.

>>57050043
I'd be perfectly OK with statically generated content.
Except no one gives it.

>>57050043
most websites don't need dynamically generated content or database interactions though. they just display text and images. There's no reason that task needs JS.

>>57043869
>Browsers use hundreds of MB of RAM and punish processors not even 5 years old regularly
4chanX catalog takes 5 seconds to render in FF49 on my 1.8 Ghz Core Duo running Ubuntu Mate
However, I can decode h264 hi10p 1080p at 40 FPS, or hi10p 720p at over 100 FPS
Actually shit webpages can take up to 10 minutes to render, more if they somehow punish my 2 GB of ram, which worldwide.vote somehow does
>>57043887
Flash is dead senpai, they somehow cobbled worse things out of HTML5, CSS and JS
>>57047281
Pajeet doesn't do web dev, we can however thank him for shit like Stagefright

>>57051179
I know several news and journalistic sites that don't even load if you don't enable several foreign scripts.

I can't remember which ones they are specifically, but I remember being really disappointed and angry.

It's just pure assholery to pull that.
>no you can't download a few KB of text, you need to download several MB of scripts first

File: IMG_20160712_041016.jpg (558KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

558KB, 1280x960px

>>57043869
Back in the day, user time was worth more than developer time.

Now it's vice versa, developer time is worth more, users can suck dick.
We have systems that can afford to be bloated, then why even bother to try?

>>57053027
>4chanX catalog takes 5 seconds to render in FF49 on my 1.8 Ghz Core Duo running Ubuntu Mate
It takes about two seconds on my 68k mac with iCab, with javascript (catalog only works with javascript)

>>57047357
if you actually did, it would be a ugly monstrosity and still be a useless ocs machine

File: Sabrina_3.png (54KB, 704x480px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 704x480px

>>57044503
Sabrina?

>>57054188
>Sabrina Online has finished

Actually made me a little sad.

>>57054196
For now.

>>57054177
>if you actually did...

I do.

The expansion port on te side allows for CPU and RAM upgrades. Google: ACA500 and ACA1233.

>>57054947
I know, but nobody actually uses that, because it's a stupid idea

>>57054947

Fuck that. For a good accel, look into the Vampire (majsta.com)

>>57043869
There's hope. Look into Minix3, Genode, seL4.

>>57043869
> Where did we go so wrong?
Javascript.

>>57055158
Why the fuck would you want a A500 with those specs anyways? You could get a 1200 for the price of a ACA500 and use the ACA1233 with a real A1200 instead with a limited 500 that has a tumor on the side.

Also, Vampire is not shipping yet for A500 or A1200.
Some people also don't like the Vampire, does way too much in the FPGA.

>>57043869
I've been fantasizing recently about a modern take on pure HTML.

I'd really love just to get rid of all the shit. I hope to run a barebones forum some day off a little embedded system.

In fact, I hope to find some way of breaking into stranger's internet connection and hosting a website off of a hidden little computer. Then you can have true pirate-net.

>>57055053

No one uses "that"?

What is "that"?

There is only one prot available on the A500 for CPU upgrades. RAM upgrades can also use the trapdoor port underneath.

>>57055252

I have an original A500 1.2 ROM that was bought for me in 1987. I'd rather have this machine than an A1200.

If I wanted a "better" Amiga I'd buy a MIST FPGA.

>>57043869
A good thread on /g/, don't see this everyday

>>57043869
>Where'd we go wrong
It's not a problem with browsers. It's a problem with Web 2.0. The vast majority of the internet requires a lot of resources.

>>57054169
>It takes about two seconds on my 68k mac with iCab, with javascript (catalog only works with javascript)
Proof.

File: Rockmelt-logo.png (80KB, 342x327px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 342x327px

The fastest web browser I can remember using is Rockmelt. Worked on everything from my shitty laptop to my okayish (early 2000's at the time) desktop. Anyone know if its still possible to download it? All installers stopped working because they require internet.

>>57055692
>If I wanted a "better" Amiga I'd buy a MIST FPGA.
There are better real hardware alternatives.

>>57054188
No. I am a fox for the sake of online fun, not a skunk.

I hate bloated JS pages as much as the next guy, but to say that some Amiga browser is enough today is just retarded unless you want to view static plain html pages with a few images here and there

>>57058335
>Flash forward to the modern day
Are you retarded? Nobody said that.

>>57049637
Geocities was straight garbage too

File: wew.png (287KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

287KB, 1920x1080px

You could just use dillo if you miss hardly functional ultra fast browsers.

File: 1233255977804.jpg (23KB, 414x425px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 414x425px

>>57058556
>tripfags advocating dildos
Why am I not surprised?

You probably fell for the comp sci meme, too.

>>57058554
Yea, and?

>>57043869
Oneword: Javascript

>>57058556
>hardly functional

It's a web browser that browses the web, how is it hardly functional?

>>57060327
It doesn't have an RSS reader so he can keep up with his pimp's blog.

>>57047339
Why not ask for more? Don't be a jew.

>>57043869
It's almost as if technology has evolved and there's a lot more going on behind the scenes in your browser than there as before. What a shock.

>>57058236

But I get an Atari ST, too. And, a Spectrum and many other 8bit and 16bit machines.

>>57060658
Yes, and it's almost all entirely bullshit.

File: gtk-netsurf.png (245KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

245KB, 1024x768px

There's also NetSurf. It supports HTML 4.1 (with html 5 as WIP) and CSS 2.1. And the front page says it runs on a 30MHz ARM 6 computer with 16MB of RAM.

BTW. Artist name? Is that okada's hand?

>>57058556
I read this as dildo too

>>57061130
JS is also WIP, but they are using a small and eficient JS engine called Ducktape.
http://www.netsurf-browser.org
http://duktape.org/

>>57043869
>Where did we go so wrong?
Blame JavaScript, even Firefox is... not lightweigh, but very responsive if JS is disabled.
I decided to just disable JavaScript globally, you can browse most of the web and it makes web pages load fast as shit

>>57058556
It supports HTML 4.1 only some CSS, not even full support for CSS 2.1 like NetSurf. But at least it allows to download images in-browser to disk.

>>57061130
The only downside for me is not being able to download images from a web page. It does render images in-browser, but can't donwload them to disk. If it wasn't for that I would use NetSurf as my main browser as is very responsive and uses only 35MB of ram, while Firefox uses 350 of RAM and it feels heavy at times

File: CX4lTLvUMAEWZbN.png:large.png (844KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

844KB, 1000x1000px

>>57061130
>BTW. Artist name? Is that okada's hand?
wokada
http://twicsy.com/i/WZC24h

>>57061130
Is this available on Win98 or 2k?

>>57062607
>Is this available on Win98 or 2k?
NetSurf is not really avaliable for windows at all at this moment, there's a windows port but is WIP. The developers are working mostly on getting HTML 5 support. So your best bet is probably an old version of firefox.

>>57062834
Fair enough, thanks.

>>57043869
>tfw when 2016 and still can't browse the internet from my toaster.

>>57043887
It's funny because my i7 works harder to render a 2D flash game than a 3D unity engine game

>>57043869
We need a good, fast, lightweight, bloat-less, botnet-less, stable, with as few lines of code as possible (for less bugs and easy to mantain) web broser.
All the mayor web browsers suck

The difference is that today browsers actively cache content, so that websites draw faster, for example when changing tabs.
You could write all that shit to disk, which would free up your ram, but wear down your hdd/ssd.
So why not use that ram?

>>57064341
cache persists so you're going to have to write it to disk anyway, otherwise you're just wasting bandwidth

File: 1475360983190.jpg (69KB, 500x598px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 500x598px

>Browsers use hundreds of MB of RAM
I'm sorry what browser are you running?

>>57064381
what the fuck are you talking about?
You don't have to write shit to disk if you don't want to.

>>57064385
>Firefox
>open google.com
>135 MB of RAM
>open 4chan
>253 MB of RAM
>leave it open for a while
>700 MB of RAM

>Chrome
>open anything
>160 MB of RAM in 4 neatly-separated processes

>>57064419
it's called write-through caching

File: mb.png (31KB, 646x593px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 646x593px

>>57064437
>tfw IE

File: 1474052757389.jpg (21KB, 206x206px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 206x206px

>>57064437
Sitting here at 50mb of ram being used with 7 tabs open on Chrome. Guess Firefox is just shit now. :^)

File: AmigaOne X1000 running AmigaOS 4.1.jpg (3MB, 3471x2504px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3471x2504px

>>57043869
>>57054134
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AmigaOS
http://www.amigaos.net/
>4.1 Final Edition / December 18, 2014
Might check it out on the old computer equipment I got.

>>57064463
Yes, and?
What does that have to do with anything?
Even if you would apply write-through in a browser, that has nothing to do with the responsiveness of the system.
Users want to see their web-pages fast when switching their tabs,
and even more importantly, some webpages have to function even when you are looking at something else, so you need to store that shit in ram.
If it's persistent or not does not change that.

File: b4bbs.jpg (257KB, 1000x747px) Image search: [Google]

257KB, 1000x747px

>>57044208
>Is it any wonder than BBS is still a thing in SEA?
Please enlighten me

>>57064385
>impliying mayor web browsers don't use hundreds of MB RAM
I'm sorry what browser are you running?

>>57064536
That's why browsers actively cache content.

>>57064341
It's okay if you use ram for cache. but Firefox uses 300+ MB at start. Why?
Also. why not also make rendering super fast so you don't need a lot of cache?

>>57064623
>SEA
Anyone? What is SEA?

>>57064649
>but Firefox uses 300+ MB at start. Why?
How should I know? Maybe those massive binaries and related libraries get loaded.
>Also. why not also make rendering super fast so you don't need a lot of cache?
Those are two different things.
Fast rendering means that the time it takes to render a frame is short.
This is orthogonal to the time it takes for a webpage and its state to load.
Think of it like in a video game, where loading time between levels and fps are two different things.
Switching tabs is like loading a different area.
If things aren't stored inside the ram, then the loading time will be long.
Furthermore, nowadays websites have to work in the background, so you can't store everything on the disk anyway.

>>57064799
South east asia?

>>57064856
Oh, thanks. lol

>>57043869
browsers get more complex everytime because of more features needed, (incomplete) standards to comply to, security implemented, but the worst of all are motherfucing awful web devs that think they are doing a kewl job putting every slide effect, menu, analitical script, ad network script, UI widget and social network button available to man, or their site is not web 2.0 enough

Really, some sites are just insanely bloated, you have to download a 1-2 mb page with contain some kb of actual data

>>but Firefox uses 300+ MB at start. Why?
>How should I know? Maybe those massive binaries and related libraries get loaded.
Yes, how you, or me, or any non-paid developer know? I mean, Firefox is a beast with millions of lines of code. But that's just because the whole thing is bloatware.

File: CiFjWp2U4AA5s_r.jpg (52KB, 600x729px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 600x729px

>>57065513
>because of more features needed
Not so true, some times they implement features just for the sake of implementing.

But I agree with you with web ""developers"" having most of the fault.

>>57047281
This

>>57056876
http://www.afterdawn.com/software/network/browsers/rockmelt.cfm

>>57066972
miku is sad at all that JS bullshit that only slows down his web experience

File: image.jpg (432KB, 1200x1000px) Image search: [Google]

432KB, 1200x1000px

Who knows.

>>57060475
Not spending money on things you don't ACTUALLY need != being a jew.

>>57064478
Don't lie, you faggot. Chrome uses at the very least, on a single tab of 4chan 100MB.

>>57044452
>JavaScript
>large security risk
Righto m80, pop your tin foil hat back on

>>57068878
No software is perfect, and personally i don't see executing any script of any web page wants to run as very secure

not to mention it allows more complex methods of tracking

File: 2016-10-14-142553_1920x1200_scrot.png (72KB, 832x536px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 832x536px

>>57064649
>but Firefox uses 300+ MB at start. Why?
about:memory

>>57064290
Try Lynx.