One good solution is uBlock origin, it cuts most of the JS bloat from webpages without breaking them.Įven browsing on my high-bandwidth connection from my high-resource desktop, today's sites are just awful.įorm controls don't look or work like OS controls because every web designer knows they can do better. In some cases, you'll only get a background.Īs I 've said before, I consider the idea behind ActionScript (Flash), aka the idea of containing the interactive bits inside a single HTML node, to be better than JavaScript, but the implementation of ActionScript sucked and everyone seems to want more "immersive" experiences anyway (not realising this also includes ads and other annoyances), so we are stuck with JS. The vast majority of webpages today are either one big JavaScript application or load a ton of JavaScript applications.Īn eye-opening experience is to disable JavaScript and see what happens to most pages. That function had a clear benefit to the end user, but so much of the crap on sites today (excluding all the tracking garbage) does not. It allowed the Google devs to load email messages without refreshing the entire page like all other webmail apps at the time. The last truly useful JavaScript function I can recall seeing was when Gmail first rolled out and made use of that AJAX function which had been part of browsers for years but never really used. Something that was always one of the best parts of the web. These days, most people seem to use it primarily so they can use absolute positioning of elements on pages, breaking the browser's ability to reflow the design based on the window resolution. Create one file with the desired layout and hooks for where to insert content, then just merge in the content from other files. I get that it was intended to try and make it easier for web developers to make a consistent look and feel across multiple pages, but you could just use a template program for that.
It might not look quite as pretty, but it wouldn't exactly be ugly either.ĬSS in particular seems like an idea that slipped its creators leash long ago and has since just packed on more and more garbage that isn't really necessary and is totally ancillary to its core function. If you wanted to, you could easily create something that functioned just as well, maybe better, using significantly fewer resources. I do, though I am annoyed with it more because there's no real benefit to the end user for all the garbage CSS and JavaScript bloating pages. Why should they require four or eight or more gigabytes of RAM just to display? I haven't tried it myself, but I think it would be a good fit for PPC Macs running OS X, either using TenFourFox or even browsers that were contemporary to the old OS X versions.ĭoes anyone else feel sad that "trying to load a bloated modern website on a machine with just a gigabyte or two of RAM is an exercise in frustration"?Īpart from web applications, the vast majority of web pages today are basically just images and text. There's also browservice, which has the same idea as WRP but targets browsers that have a non-trivial Javascript implementation. I got my SE/30 running System 7.1 on the web using a Raspberry Pi running an old version of Netatalk (to act as an AppleTalk server) and WRP.
#OLD APPS TENFOURFOX CODE#
Netscape 3.x) with a Linux machine between the Mac and the Internet running Web Rendering Proxy, which essentially converts modern HTML5/CSS code to an ImageMap that can be used by the ancient 68k browsers, or Legacy Proxy, which downgrades web technologies to older ones (PNG to GIF, for instance).
One common thing people do in the 68k Mac community is use the built-in browsers (e.g. That said, this isn't quite the death kiss for web browsing on a PPC Mac.
#OLD APPS TENFOURFOX SOFTWARE#
I'm somewhat active in the vintage Mac community, and some people out there are still writing software for System 0 CPUs! (a few months ago, someone released a program called MacFlim, which lets you watch videos on a black and white compact Mac).
0 kommentar(er)
