But whyyy would they ban?

I am disappointed. Oh well the images probably would have taken hours to load anyway.

Other urls found in this thread:

support.xbox.com/en-US/xbox-360/apps/internet-explorer-setup
msfn.org/board/topic/174987-retrozilla-an-updated-version-of-mozilla-for-windows-95-and-nt4-21-released/?page=13&tab=comments#comment-1147019
github.com/roytam1/fx36oldwin
jacobitemag.com/2017/08/12/how-message-board-culture-remade-the-left/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

I'm guessing all browsers with unknown id are banned. Maybe to prevent certain bots.

Looks like a Cloudflare error message

reminds me of when Lowtax on SA banned the one guy using WebTV just because he was using WebTV

no, i spoof my browser information on a regular basis. Sup Forums will hit me with a captcha immediately before i can load any pages but works fine after that

Are you sure it isn't some sort of SSL issue?

That's ok, you can't solve or load the captchas on a Mac SE anyway.

You cant post on the xbox 360 browser anymore either.
>tfw shitposting on Sup Forums from a game console will never be fun again

...

>xbox 360 browser
wat

I can still shitpost from windows 98 with opera but Xbox 360 browser is a no no

It has internet explorer.
support.xbox.com/en-US/xbox-360/apps/internet-explorer-setup

(You)

Recheck your configuration.
NetScape works fine for me.

No 2400baud lamers allowed.

>look Sup Forumsuys I pretend to use obsolete technology and bitch when it doesn't work how about some of them (You)s

Works pretty well I see
Dumbest thing is however that it actually works fine when you aren't a brainlet

When is le wacky internet man going to do the world a favour and kill himself

Netscape fucking mangles Sup Forums anyway and if you don't have a lot of RAM you can't really view any threads, a decently crowded discussion totally K/O'd my Quadra 700 with 20 MB.

OS 8/9 era systems are pretty good shitposting machines though.

fucking soon i hope. i've been there way too long. stopped posting a bit ago, because one of the last boards on that place that wasn't infested with social justice leftists finally went under. then i came back to Sup Forums, at least here i can speak my mind without getting banned for having "wrongthink"

Mines netscape2. Im waiting on a ram upgrade before the machine can handle netscape 3. Anyway the user agent just says "mozilla/2 (Macintosh 68k)". No reason to ban that. Jebus. Of course even if the page loaded there would be a zillion javascript errors.

I bought this for $75 in 2006. I was nostalgic because I used to play on them as a young kid at my moms office. I don't see whats wrong with playing with retro tech.

This is now a retro tech thread.

I'm just sad they killed off the Apple IIgs for the Mac line.

I remember seeing a picture of Windows NT 3.5 running Firefox 3 but the UI was all fucked up.

I don’t get it either man, lot of the young guys on this bird have a hateboner for old tech for some reason

The IIgs wasn't really that great though, it was just cheap and compatible.

The IIgs as a platform itself without Apple II compatibility really wasn't, I agree.
It was at a wall, first of it's kind and last, there was no future for it, unlike the Macintosh.
Even when it was basically better than the Macintosh at that exact time when they coexisted.

please no, what would the world be without the king of comedy?

They now have a mozarella fork for 95/NT called RetroZilla

You reminded me.
msfn.org/board/topic/174987-retrozilla-an-updated-version-of-mozilla-for-windows-95-and-nt4-21-released/?page=13&tab=comments#comment-1147019

Does anyone know the resource name for that background image? I want it.
github.com/roytam1/fx36oldwin

It crushed the Mac in terms of graphics/sound capabilities and expandability. They had to cripple the CPU (65C816 @ 2.8Mhz, when said chip didn't even bin below 6Mhz from WDC) to keep it from cannibalizing their Mac sales.

He's actually working on this again? Last I saw of this the only thing he'd done is s/mozilla/retrozilla/g and it did absolutely nothing different from stock moz2.

They would have had to change the CPU architecture of the IIgs line again in the near future (at the time) and then just have another machine with dedicated IIgs compatibility like the IIgs had II compatibility.

We basically had that already with Macintosh extensions that allowed exactly that.
The Macintosh at least had a solid future.

>It was at a wall, first of it's kind and last, there was no future for it, unlike the Macintosh.
Weird, I kind of thought of the same thing after I said that. It's a great way to look at it when you think about it.
When the IIgs was released in 1986, it was going up against the Plus and the 512k, over which it had color support, sound, more modular design, expandability, a higher memory ceiling, and the Apple II software base behind it. The 65C816 doesn't really seem formidable, but it was probably good enough who it was marketed to. The Macintosh had its own advantages, but depending on your use case the IIgs had a clear superiority over the Macintosh platform.
But then the Macintosh II came out a few months later, and with it came high-resolution 8-bit color, sound, support for just as much memory as the IIgs, a fully 32-bit 68020 with an FPU, all wrapped up in a package that was just as modular and expandable. By the time the IIgs was shitcanned in '92 it was facing off against 68040 systems. That isn't entirely fair, since Apple had put the II on the backburner, but going back to what you said, how much further really would it have gotten?
I've got examples of both platforms and I don't really dislike either one of them. But I can't say I regret the choice they made. The Macintosh carved out a niche that kept Apple alive while I just don't think the II family would have survived that much longer against the PC onslaught.
Those are the reasons I would definitely recommend the IIgs over a Mac if you were a home user, but I don't really feel graphics and sound alone make a platform utterly superior in every respect.

>They would have had to change the CPU architecture of the IIgs line again in the near future
You mean like they did anyway with macs?

Expandability was a compelling feature. The Mac was Jobs' walled garden and rather characteristic of modern Apple.

well i don't think he can load a captcha so

>You mean like they did anyway with macs?
Exactly. But much sooner.

I'm not downplaying the significance of expandability at all, it was a significant advantage the IIgs had and the lack of it on the Macintosh as well as Jobs' general obsession with trying to market it as a mainstream product when it was far better treated as a high-end/niche system were some of the biggest shortcomings of it in my eyes. The Plus was a nice, no-bullshit system that was easy to set up and decently equipped, but if you needed anything more than what it already had onboard I'd fucking forget it.

That's assuming you could have predicted the future. Hindsight is 20/20 and Woz is a pretty sharp cookie.

That's it, it would have been a risky bet and Woz was no marketing man.

I can't really imagine an Apple under Woz surviving past the '80s. He might have built some solid (but to me pretty unremarkable) systems but in the end I doubt he would have been able to deliver a compelling argument for the Apple II's continued existence to the broader market and PC-mania would have eaten him and Apple alive.

>PC-mania would have eaten him and Apple alive.

It did anyway. Microsoft had to bail them out lel

That bullshit was their own incompetence in engineering and marketing, not just PC competition. And they sure as hell wouldn't have had a safety net in this case.

Yet it was inferior in every way to the Amiga, which was released a year before.

Then the IIgs? That's true. Even if the CPU was no better, the custom chipset took it far beyond it.

Didn't really have the same degree of expandability or the software base the IIgs had, and Commodore did a terrible job of convincing the US market that it was something other than a glorified gaming console.

If they weren't trying to push their little B&W boxes and charging an arm and a leg for them, and then the other arm and leg for peripherals, then perhaps they would not have been in so much trouble.

>Didn't really have the same degree of expandability or the software base the IIgs had
What are you even talking about?

They do that successfully nowadays but they had to nurture a consumer cult mentality first.

You do realize we are talking about the Amiga 1000 not Amiga 500?
You do realize what a huge software base the Amiga has?

The "glorified gaming console" and "muh expandability" shit came latter with the Amiga 500.

...the Amiga 1000? The 2000 wasn't due for another couple months.
Do you realize we're talking about the Amiga as it was in 1986 and not as was in 1992?

B&W Macs were dead and buried for years by the time that bailout happened.

Yeah and by that point they cost both arms, both legs and your left nut.

The 500 was in 1987, the 1000 in '84/5.

>Do you realize we're talking about the Amiga as it was in 1986 and not as was in 1992?
So your "software base" means Apple II software that's backwards compatible with the IIgs?
I tought we are talking about the IIgs as a platform and not it's Apple II on a chip.

here's a pretty good history of how SA became infested with Marxists and acted as a springboard for the current fad of internet communists
jacobitemag.com/2017/08/12/how-message-board-culture-remade-the-left/

Yes. The IIgs was released in September 1986.
Why would we talk about an Apple II family system and completely disregard its Apple II compatibility? It doesn't matter what specific component was doing it, the IIgs still did it.

In terms of graphics and audio, the thing it did better over the Macintosh, the Amiga did exactly over the IIgs

That version of netscapre probably doesnt support sending http 1.1

That's great. They weren't the only advantages I mentioned nor even that important to some buyers.

I don't think you can really make an objective argument for the IIgs being better than the Amiga in any way, especially not by 1987.

I'm not talking about 1987, and where I did mention 1987 I already said basically the same thing you're pushing but about it but compared to the Mac II, and yes, certainly Amiga systems by extension. A good 500 or 2000 would have blown a IIgs the fuck out of the water for a good many tasks unless you really needed the extra expansion or compatibility, I don't think there is any debate about that.

Expansion to what and compatibility with what? That's very specific, and it's not like any Amiga except the 500 was wanting for expansion or software.

can i run ReactOS on this trashcan?

would be comfy af

What aren't you getting here? The IIgs had seven internal expansion slots that could take a whole host of interface cards, co-processors, modems, you name it. The 1000 had a single external expansion slot. The IIgs out of the box as a brand new product had compatibility with 7 years' worth of software and the continued support of those developers, the 1000 was the first of a nascent platform barely over a year old, with a still growing and different developer base. Depending on your use case, those are important factors that you can't just write off because one platform was better for media than the other.

I'm saying that the expansion the IIgs needed was not necessary with the Amiga, as the Amiga could do far more without expansion. The older software isn't as good an argument as you think. It's not like either machine was designed for business use, so the old software compatibility doesn't make it much more usable.
The Amiga was just better for everything.

It doesn't matter if you could "do far more" when "far more" still wasn't what you needed. Acting like not having expansion was some kind of advantage or non-issue just because of generous onboard common I/O is fucking ludicrous and the same idiocy that almost killed the Macintosh and thousands of other systems like it that assumed their users would only ever want what they themselves felt was adequate. What happens when the interfaces offered on the system are superseded by newer, better standards I could easily just pop in a card to have? What if I'm purchasing a system for something niche like instrument control that used interfaces like GP-IB that something like the Amiga wouldn't offer on-board? What if I'm using a piece of software or working on a project that benefits from a special co-processor board? Fuck, what if I just want to not be surrounded by shitloads of peripherals I could just as easily have neatly contained in my system if it offered proper external expansion? These aren't questions people appreciate "you don't need it" as an answer to.
>The older software isn't as good an argument as you think.
I don't think you remember just how expensive software could get or the convenience and familiarity a well-supported platform could offer someone. It doesn't matter if they weren't "designed" for business, it's a consideration all the same.

I'm speaking in the context of IIgs vs Amiga 1000, saying that the expansions were necessary on the IIgs, but, at the time, not on the 1000. This would be remedied by 1987 and even further in 1990, anyway.
In Europe piracy was much more common, I guess. I don't see why you'd use a Commodore or Apple computer for business at all.

I don't really disagree that an Amiga 1000 was more adequate out of the box than a IIgs, I guess where I disagree is that that completely excuses its less optimal expandability. There's still a lot of cases where either system could use an upgrade, and Commodore even admitted that themselves with the 2000 featuring "real" expansion.

I don't disagree with 1987 being a pretty drastic improvement for the platform either, after that point I don't feel there was really a significant reason to buy a IIgs as a home user in the American market unless you were a school or home user with a lot of Apple II software you had no interest in replacing, since it didn't really outshine the Macintosh line as a whole anymore and a good PC for a little more probably took you a lot further.

I don't think there's a point in arguing further though, it seems like the considerations, wants and needs of the European market differed a lot from the American market. It feels to me like European buyers emphasized more on getting as much performance and as many features as they could out of a more limited budget while Americans didn't give a shit and just wanted something compatible and of reputable manufacture. Apple and IBM hardware fit that bill a little more snugly.

>I don't see why you'd use a Commodore or Apple computer for business at all.
I don't think a lot of people disagreed with you, which is probably why the former suffered so much in the American market that was definitely dominated by deep-pocketed business customers.

>literally every line of this post starts with "I don't"
I don't think I want to live anymore.

The Amiga 1000 was far ahead of others at the time, but it felt more like a "prototype" than a real consumer computer.

duraga1 pls make more videos

Quite sure it is. You need to disable lots of old SSL and TLS version to get really protected against attacks.

Maybe it has lynx installed, should work with it

They can actually run a UNIX / POSIX subsystem that would let you run Lynx.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of IIgs sales were to schools rather than private customers. The stock IIgs was a slug and it required loads of expensive ricing to become a usable computer.

The Amiga had a lot of problems that prevented it from being taken seriously as a work computer, among other things it had no decent application software to compare with what was available on the Mac, which quickly established a niche for desktop publishing. Of course there was also the issue of Commodore's negative image among corporate America, while Apple were seen as a more "serious" company.

Apple in the 90s were way overstretched and had far too many different Mac models which were hard to distinguish from one another. Steve Jobs, after his comeback, pruned the number of Macs being produced way down and he pulled out of the gaming, workstation, and server markets, none of which Apple had had any significant success in. He also standardized the peripheral interfaces around USB and dropped Apple's silly, outdated, and proprietary keyboards, mice, and printers.

Apple did always have a tendency to overcharge for computers made out of off-the-shelf components and lacking any proprietary ASICs as Commodore and whatnot used. It blows one's mind to think that the Amiga had 8-voice sound and VGA-level graphics for $1500 less than Apple's monochrome shitboxes with bleeper sound.

Probably not the Dreamcast browser either.

There's a lot of wrong in that post, user.
You basically compressing 10 years of Amiga like it all happened at once.

The fact that Commodore weren't taken seriously by the business world in the US is a pretty well-known fact. Though ironically enough, their full name was Commodore Business Machines, they became so thoroughly associated with the VIC-20 and C64 that it became impossible to get away from it.

IIgs had VGA graphics and 32-voice sound. Unfortunately, all that audio might came at the expense of performance in other areas.

>i spoof my browser information on a regular basis
if you were doing it right Sup Forums wouldn't notice anything.

>IIgs
>320x200
>16 colors
>640x200
>16 colors

>VGA
>320x200
>256 colors
>640x480
>16 colors

>IIgs had VGA graphics
statement a false
also the HAM like video mode of each scanline having it's own palette is extremely limited and nowhere "vga graphics"

>32-voice sound
32 voice synth chip
no PCM

VGA is a bit of an ad-hoc term term, it can be used to refer to any analog RGB signal (as opposed to the TTL RGB used on CGA displays).

RGB is just RGB, it's inherently an analog signal designed to drive a CRT's electron guns. Those CGA TTL monitors just use fixed-level signals and a VGA-capable display can take the signal just fine if the scan frequency is correct for the monitor.

Almost. Most TTL RGB uses an extra pin for the intensity signal. You would need additional circuitry to handle that if you were trying to feed the signal into a VGA displah.

If we are talking about graphics, VGA means at least 640x480 at 16 colors.
If we are talking about the signal, it's 31KHz Hsync Vsync RGB.

>any analog RGB signal
false
RGB SoG is not VGA
RGB+H is not VGA

This.
Just because a VGA monitor could accept it and display it because it has extra support for it, does not make it VGA.
VGA is pretty specific, not just "any analog RGB".

The Amiga is generally considered to have a VGA-type video signal, aside from the 15Khz scan frequency. Other than that, it's identical to the IBM standard and any VGA monitor can be used on an Amiga with a line doubler.

Apple used to use a different VGA signal with a 35Khz scan frequency and composite sync, this will require a sync separator to work with a standard VGA display (the slightly higher scan frequency won't bother most monitors).

Workbench does have a 31kHz mode that a standard VGA monitor can display.
Yet we don't really call Amiga's RGB port VGA.

>Another retro thread that has become an Amiga fanboy shitfest
No wonder all those elitist shitfucks became macfags.

@63468601
>everything (I don't like), even valid civilized arguments, is fanboy shitfest
go to sleep

...

seems like a pretty good read so far. it was a slow burn, dude. before it was that the marxists stayed in their shit forums, and the subforums i visited would laugh them out. specifically the gun forum and vet/military forum. then the vet forum went downhill once the faggot air force bitch became mod, he started trying to curtail "wrongthink". he was a literal faggot, and had this dumb sob story about how he was kicked out of the air force because of "discrimination", but it was fucking obvious that they kicked him out because he was a fucking bitch who didn't want to do his job. then all the fucking non-combat arms bitches who never saw as much as a bullet fired at them started drowning out "wrongthink" on the vet forum, with a pedophile brony and a puerto rican weeb virgin coast guard dude extholing the virtues of some faggot hipster marxist who does "journalism" in syria. god i fucking hate that place, and it pisses me off that they took over the vet forum too. that was my place and a good forum. now it's full of fucking marxist faggots. to put it into perspective, i've been on SA and Sup Forums since 2003. that's a lot of fucking time invested in these places, so even though i could see the ship was sinking, it was hard to let go.

>inb4 Amiga is a furry computer spam
It was one guy doing that.

>implying furries are bad
Sup Forums is a pretty furry board to begin with
so it fits well

Amigafags ruined /vr/ anyway and made it impossible to have retro PC threads.