Re: SAM Web Browser
And then theres also http://www.nenie.org/cpcip/ I would go for the Webbrowser though. - Original Message - From: "Wolfgang Haller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To see what can be done show here on MSX pages: > http://uzix.sourceforge.net/uzix1.0/index.php?page=scrsht&lang=us
Re: SAM Web Browser
Well, y'all can feel free to rip whatever routines you need from Termite if they're of any use :) Si - Original Message - From: "Frode Tenneboe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 5:27 AM Subject: Re: SAM Web Browser > On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 12:03:48 + (GMT) DAVID LEDBURY > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > In theory - possible - as a lot of work has been done in the past by > > Cookie and others in pracise? Converting a project like this would > > take a lot of work - and tbh - it would probably need a few Spectrum > > people starting a conversion to help speed things up.. > > I looked somewhat in-depth on this a few moons back and amongst other > things Adam Dunkles' C is very demanding on the compiler and I went > a few rounds with the developer of the Z88dk compiler to iron out > some problems. In the end I got a lot of stuff compilled however > never got anything running. :( > > -Frode > > -- > ^ Frode Tennebø | email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ^ > | Ericsson AS | Isebakkeveien 49 | > | N-1788 Halden | Phone: +47 45 24 99 39| > | -- Anything added below this line is outside my control --| > > This communication is confidential and intended solely for the addressee(s). Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you believe this message has been sent to you in error, please notify the sender by replying to this transmission and delete the message without disclosing it. Thank you. > > E-mail including attachments is susceptible to data corruption, interruption, unauthorized amendment, tampering and viruses, and we only send and receive e-mails on the basis that we are not liable for any such corruption, interception, amendment, tampering or viruses or any consequences thereof. >
Re: SAM Web Browser
On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 12:03:48 + (GMT) DAVID LEDBURY <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In theory - possible - as a lot of work has been done in the past by > Cookie and others in pracise? Converting a project like this would > take a lot of work - and tbh - it would probably need a few Spectrum > people starting a conversion to help speed things up.. I looked somewhat in-depth on this a few moons back and amongst other things Adam Dunkles' C is very demanding on the compiler and I went a few rounds with the developer of the Z88dk compiler to iron out some problems. In the end I got a lot of stuff compilled however never got anything running. :( -Frode -- ^ Frode Tennebø | email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ^ | Ericsson AS | Isebakkeveien 49 | | N-1788 Halden | Phone: +47 45 24 99 39| | -- Anything added below this line is outside my control --| This communication is confidential and intended solely for the addressee(s). Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you believe this message has been sent to you in error, please notify the sender by replying to this transmission and delete the message without disclosing it. Thank you. E-mail including attachments is susceptible to data corruption, interruption, unauthorized amendment, tampering and viruses, and we only send and receive e-mails on the basis that we are not liable for any such corruption, interception, amendment, tampering or viruses or any consequences thereof.
Re: SAM Web Browser
To see what can be done show here on MSX pages: http://uzix.sourceforge.net/uzix1.0/index.php?page=scrsht&lang=us If someone is interested in Spectrum TCP/IP networking routines, I can send what I have for version 1.00 by (c) 1998 Juraj Rehak, Glip, (c) 1998 Lubos Janica, Lubko and (c) 1998 Milan Pikula. (640 KB unzipped). Wolfgang Jorge Meireles wrote: Hello, I found this site http://www.dunkels.com/adam/contiki/ and I'm wonder when a web browser and tcp/ip stack I the old SAM ;) It seems that Commodore 64 already have one :( Regards, Meireles
RE: SAM Web Browser
Jorge Meireles wrote: > I found this site http://www.dunkels.com/adam/contiki/ and > I'm wonder when a web browser and tcp/ip stack I the old SAM ;) A few groups have looked at it for both SAM and Spectrum, but I don't think anyone has got it all working. I did hear that someone got it all to compile for the Spectrum, but I don't think it was enough to run. Compiler deficiencies still seemed to be the main obstable to building it, with the ASM bits not being too difficult to convert from 65xx to Z80. The folks on CSS would probably have a better idea about the current status. If the Spectrum lot have got it running, it shouldn't take much to convert it natively for the SAM. Si
Re: SAM Web Browser
> I found this site http://www.dunkels.com/adam/contiki/ and I'm wonder > when a web browser and tcp/ip stack I the old SAM ;) A port of Contiki was briefly looked at before by Simon Owen and a few others... Colin Quazar : Hardware, Software, Spares and Repairs for the Sam Coupe Website: http://www.quazar.clara.net/sam/ Issue Eight of "Sam Revival" Magazine Out Soon !
Re: SAM Web Browser
In theory - possible - as a lot of work has been done in the past by Cookie and others in pracise? Converting a project like this would take a lot of work - and tbh - it would probably need a few Spectrum people starting a conversion to help speed things up..Jorge Meireles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hello,I found this site http://www.dunkels.com/adam/contiki/ and I'm wonder when aweb browser and tcp/ip stack I the old SAM ;)It seems that Commodore 64 already have one :(Regards,Meireles
SAM Web Browser
Hello, I found this site http://www.dunkels.com/adam/contiki/ and I'm wonder when a web browser and tcp/ip stack I the old SAM ;) It seems that Commodore 64 already have one :( Regards, Meireles
RE: SimCoupe 0.90 beta 10
Geoff Winkless wrote: > the first is likely to work (assuming the version id is > correct) Agreed that checking for something specific can be a Bad Thing, but setting a lower limit on a version number doesn't seem too extreme. In this case the DDRAW.DLL file is guaranteed to be part of any compatible incarnation of DirectX, and Microsoft is very unlikely to break away from their version numbering system (it's part of one of their own samples). > but the second is guaranteed and a) more flexible > and b) much "nicer". and c) not so easily done from the NSIS installer! Perhaps I'd be better to stick with a message box saying "Make sure DX3 is installed or I'll send the lads round" :-) Si
RE: SimCoupe 0.90 beta 10
25 March 2004 00:54, Simon Owen wrote: > You're _way_ over-complicating things! It was simply looking for the > DX version number in a registry key that didn't exist in older > versions of DirectX. Failing to find the version key it assumed > DirectX was not installed. > > Here's the NSIS function I was using for the old check (yes it is > wrong, and no I didn't write it): > http://nsis.sourceforge.net/archive/nsisweb.php?page=407&instances=0,110 It's kind of like the difference between getting the browser id in javascript and testing for the existence of the object you want to use: the first is likely to work (assuming the version id is correct) but the second is guaranteed and a) more flexible and b) much "nicer". If you check for the existence of the object you want, you know that, even if a change is made to directx so that your version check will not work, as long as the object exists then your check will be valid. G __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __
Re: SimCoupe 0.90 beta 10
Of course, when you call DirectDrawCreate(), you get an interface. That's what I wrote, I didn't mean any special interfaces. You just call ...Create() and get the interface. If you get the interface you want to use, DX is surely installed. That's it. No registry/dll version checking is actually required. /- Aley - Original Message - From: "Simon Owen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 1:53 AM Subject: RE: SimCoupe 0.90 beta 10 > Aley Keprt wrote: > > What you actually need is to check that all interfaces you use > > in your program are supported on that machine. So I think your > > installer should rather try to obtain all interfaces used in > > the SimCoupe > > That's the thing - I don't ask for explicit interface versions, calling > DirectDrawCreate() to obtain any suitable interface. I happen to know that > DirectX 3 contains all the base functionality I use, and the casual > installer check for that is just a precaution. > > > > instead of using some undocumented tricks to obtain DirectX version. > > Microsoft's GetDxVer sample uses a DDRAW.DLL file version check for DX3 and > earlier, which is official enough for me. > > > > I think the reason of malfunction on NT 4.0 is that it > > contains a hybrid DirectX version, which is DirectX 2 > > compliant, with some components supporting several features > > of DirectX 3. The version probing code probably inadvertently > > checks some of the DX2 libraries, and complains DX3 is not installed. > > You're _way_ over-complicating things! It was simply looking for the DX > version number in a registry key that didn't exist in older versions of > DirectX. Failing to find the version key it assumed DirectX was not > installed. > > Here's the NSIS function I was using for the old check (yes it is wrong, and > no I didn't write it): > http://nsis.sourceforge.net/archive/nsisweb.php?page=407&instances=0,110 > > Si > > > >
RE: SimCoupe 0.90 beta 10
Aley Keprt wrote: > What you actually need is to check that all interfaces you use > in your program are supported on that machine. So I think your > installer should rather try to obtain all interfaces used in > the SimCoupe That's the thing - I don't ask for explicit interface versions, calling DirectDrawCreate() to obtain any suitable interface. I happen to know that DirectX 3 contains all the base functionality I use, and the casual installer check for that is just a precaution. > instead of using some undocumented tricks to obtain DirectX version. Microsoft's GetDxVer sample uses a DDRAW.DLL file version check for DX3 and earlier, which is official enough for me. > I think the reason of malfunction on NT 4.0 is that it > contains a hybrid DirectX version, which is DirectX 2 > compliant, with some components supporting several features > of DirectX 3. The version probing code probably inadvertently > checks some of the DX2 libraries, and complains DX3 is not installed. You're _way_ over-complicating things! It was simply looking for the DX version number in a registry key that didn't exist in older versions of DirectX. Failing to find the version key it assumed DirectX was not installed. Here's the NSIS function I was using for the old check (yes it is wrong, and no I didn't write it): http://nsis.sourceforge.net/archive/nsisweb.php?page=407&instances=0,110 Si
