3 ms·

I have a quadra that I haven't booted in several years, running A/UX. I also used to own some other old world ppcs. I remember a decade ago or more, ssh was ver

I have a quadra that I haven't booted in several years, running A/UX. I also used to own some other old world ppcs. I remember a decade ago or more, ssh was very slow on them. Hope your client has figured out how to make that not suck. I also think it'd be kinda cool to see an X window manager that takes some hints from classic Mac.

Palomides 6y ago
I don't really expect the 68k macs will be fast enough to even set up a connection without timeouts, but it's hard to say until I do some more work
kitsunesoba 6y ago
>I also think it'd be kinda cool to see an X window manager that takes some hints from classic Mac. A full, lightweight Classic Mac OS clone DE would be amazing, though I suspect that it might have to cut out X11/Wayland in favor of something more direct to get the same feeling of snappiness and "one piece construction" that original Mac OS had.
- asveikau 6y ago
  I disagree with this. Hardware is so crazy good now relative to then, that you could put layers upon layers of abstraction (including say a 68K mac emulator compiled to javascript and running inside Firefox on x11) and the old-school gui tasks of the 90s still purr. If apple could do it at 25mhz or whatever, a modern amd64 machine should be able to handle it no matter the overhead of the windowing system.
  - mistrial9 6y ago
    great thought, but (!) I have to say from personal experience, you can bring practically any system, of any horsepower, to a crawl, with overweight layering and dispatching..
    - asveikau 6y ago
      That's true. So, I would say there is an unspoken emphasis in my comment that you also need to do it "right". Personally my X setup looks a lot like the 90s, and when people say X performs so terribly, I really don't see it. The hardware runs circles around what I used to run X on 20 years ago, and the software setup isn't really very different. But most people when they use X or think of X are thinking of a really heavy desktop environment.

Palomides 6y ago

I don't really expect the 68k macs will be fast enough to even set up a connection without timeouts, but it's hard to say until I do some more work

kitsunesoba 6y ago

>I also think it'd be kinda cool to see an X window manager that takes some hints from classic Mac. A full, lightweight Classic Mac OS clone DE would be amazing, though I suspect that it might have to cut out X11/Wayland in favor of something more direct to get the same feeling of snappiness and "one piece construction" that original Mac OS had.

asveikau 6y ago
I disagree with this. Hardware is so crazy good now relative to then, that you could put layers upon layers of abstraction (including say a 68K mac emulator compiled to javascript and running inside Firefox on x11) and the old-school gui tasks of the 90s still purr. If apple could do it at 25mhz or whatever, a modern amd64 machine should be able to handle it no matter the overhead of the windowing system.
- mistrial9 6y ago
  great thought, but (!) I have to say from personal experience, you can bring practically any system, of any horsepower, to a crawl, with overweight layering and dispatching..
  - asveikau 6y ago
    That's true. So, I would say there is an unspoken emphasis in my comment that you also need to do it "right". Personally my X setup looks a lot like the 90s, and when people say X performs so terribly, I really don't see it. The hardware runs circles around what I used to run X on 20 years ago, and the software setup isn't really very different. But most people when they use X or think of X are thinking of a really heavy desktop environment.