Re: LYNX-DEV DOS, DOS and Windows

[Filip M Gieszczykiewicz]

You (David Combs) wrote:
> Please -- no one is really SERIOUS about trying to make lynx
> work on an XT?  Or on anything less than a 386?
> I don't hack the code; I don't even use C as my main
> language (I use "Mainsail") -- but what of the code
> I have looked at is complicated enough as is.
> Worrying about 64K limits simply turns lynx into one
> huge can of WORMS.  I cannot think of anything more
> awful than trying to do that; lynx will never work
> again on ANY computer!
> Seems to me it would probably be cheaper for someone
> with an XT to toss it out the window and get something
> newer -- they'd save money on the maintainence expense
> alone.  If they want to use lynx on an XT, then
> dial into a shell-account (ie, timesharing) somewhere,
> and use it there.
> Life is just plain too short to have to worry about
> 64k limits!

Greetings. I'd KILL for lynx that ran on an XT. Do you even
realize how many of those machines are STILL in use in schools,
homes, third-world? Good lord... millions. All our "trash"
ends up somewhere.

BTW, Linux is being ported to the 8086 (or was it the 8088? ;-)
for use as an embedded-multi-tasking-kernel-which-happens-to-
be-free... no, not binary compatible with 386+ but still. If
it has VM... ****WHOA**** (I hate writing VM, did it on my
apple way back when ... in assembly + a custom 1MB card...
ahhh... I miss doing that...) ANYways... I think lynx should
be ported to the XT. Even if with a slow VM that use use a
swap file (after sucking in all the expanded, extended, hacked-on
RAM -- remember the AST SicPack? ;-)

Take care.
;
; To UNSUBSCRIBE:  Send a mail message to address@hidden
;                  with "unsubscribe lynx-dev" (without the
;                  quotation marks) on a line by itself.
;