NetSurf 3.2 68k released

[Blizz1220]

@Mike

Thanks for trying on real hardware , it works (kinda) in WinUAE
with JIT set to max overdrive and is a little slow even then :roflmao:

All other versions crash for me.I'm sure there is somebody out there
running stable version ...

[OlafS3]

@Mike

Thanks for trying on real hardware , it works (kinda) in WinUAE
with JIT set to max overdrive and is a little slow even then :roflmao:

All other versions crash for me.I'm sure there is somebody out there
running stable version ...

I cannot comment other platforms but if you mean the newest (no-ixemul) version from here:
http://ami-soft.blogspot.de/

"NetSurf 3.3 no-ixemul v5

it runs both stable and fast on Aros Vision (most pages are loaded and shown in 5 seconds prior on same hardware it were 20-30 seconds). Of course I have not tested it on "real hardware". In any case you will need "modern resources" when using "modern software". Some ask for newest OWB (that might be ported to Aros 68k) in comparation Netsurf is lean.

[Oldsmobile_Mike]

This is probably a dumb question, but how did this software wind up with so many different versions?  Is it re-compiled every night by a different team with different hardware, or something?

Obviously somebody didn't follow Joel's laws.  :lol:

[OlafS3]

This is probably a dumb question, but how did this software wind up with so many different versions?  Is it re-compiled every night by a different team with different hardware, or something?

Obviously somebody didn't follow Joel's laws.  :lol:

For me relevant is: http://ami-soft.blogspot.de/

the other port was done to get a Reaction GUI and does not work on Aros Vision anyway.

There is of course always newer versions like Netsurf too is in development. There is only the difference between AGA and normal version, new is that it does not need ixemul anymore and is much faster. So as far as I am concerned when using RTG use the normal version without ixemul, without RTG use the AGA version.

[wawrzon]

the sdl netsurf is being developed by artur. different versions are the result of transition to noixemul port as well as targeting differen hardware settings, such as aga vs rtg, fast (uae) systems with true type font or without for "lowend" amigas.

ideally, what i would opt for, was one for all version with switchable features, but this depends all on artur. or anyone who would like to join and help him. i from my side can assure the last versio was very promissing, only few problems dragged it down again.

[utri007]

For me relevant is: http://ami-soft.blogspot.de/

the other port was done to get a Reaction GUI and does not work on Aros Vision anyway.

There is of course always newer versions like Netsurf too is in development. There is only the difference between AGA and normal version, new is that it does not need ixemul anymore and is much faster. So as far as I am concerned when using RTG use the normal version without ixemul, without RTG use the AGA version.

Chris' version of Netsurf 68k is only native version of NEtsurf for 68k Amigas. It uses official sources meant to be used with desktop systems and it has a proper gui. Problem is that Chris is not "very interested" to support 68k Amigas, it is more like a proof of consept than a actual browser.

All other versions use Framebuffer frontend wich is meant to be used with "no gui" sytems and debugging also they are build to top of SDL.  Thats why Arthur version from Amiga Netsurf is NOT here http://www.netsurf-browser.org/downloads/ and never will. Frambuffer is not meant to be used like that.

[Oldsmobile_Mike]

the sdl netsurf is being developed by artur. different versions are the result of transition to noixemul port as well as targeting differen hardware settings, such as aga vs rtg, fast (uae) systems with true type font or without for "lowend" amigas.

ideally, what i would opt for, was one for all version with switchable features, but this depends all on artur. or anyone who would like to join and help him. i from my side can assure the last versio was very promissing, only few problems dragged it down again.

Thanks!  That does clear it up a bit.  And agreed.  Would be nice to see a single package, that when installed does a couple basic hardware checks on the system and installs the appropriate version.  Right now it seems much too difficult for a layman to use.  Hopefully it'll all get squared away one day, before even more fragmentation of the codebase occurs.  It looks promising though!  

[Oldsmobile_Mike]

All other versions use Framebuffer frontend wich is meant to be used with "no gui" sytems and debugging also they are build to top of SDL.  Thats why Arthur version from Amiga Netsurf is NOT here http://www.netsurf-browser.org/downloads/ and never will. Frambuffer is not meant to be used like that.

I looked at that page a few days ago and got even more confused, since even the version on Aminet is newer than those  (and those are clearly not 68k).  Okay.  Huh.  I do not understand this concept of "building a web browser with no GUI".  How are you supposed to interact with it?  Command line? :lol:

Yeah, I think I'll play around a little more with the six or so versions I already have downloaded, and just watch and see.  

[OlafS3]

Chris' version of Netsurf 68k is only native version of NEtsurf for 68k Amigas. It uses official sources meant to be used with desktop systems and it has a proper gui. Problem is that Chris is not "very interested" to support 68k Amigas, it is more like a proof of consept than a actual browser.

All other versions use Framebuffer frontend wich is meant to be used with "no gui" sytems and debugging also they are build to top of SDL.  Thats why Arthur version from Amiga Netsurf is NOT here http://www.netsurf-browser.org/downloads/ and never will. Frambuffer is not meant to be used like that.

I do not care about what is "native version" because it simply not works for me. Arturs version (noixemul) runs pretty fast now, the GUI looks good too.

[chris]

I do not care about what is "native version" because it simply not works for me.

A bug report which just states "it does not work" is not very helpful.

[polyp2000]

Anyone care to comment on how this performs on a a1200 with blizzard 030 + FPU (64mb) ?

[utri007]

I looked at that page a few days ago and got even more confused, since even the version on Aminet is newer than those  (and those are clearly not 68k).  Okay.  Huh.  I do not understand this concept of "building a web browser with no GUI".  How are you supposed to interact with it?  Command line? :lol:

Yeah, I think I'll play around a little more with the six or so versions I already have downloaded, and just watch and see.  

NetSurf-gcc-json-2787.lha 02-Jun-2015 13:43  5.5M

[Oldsmobile_Mike]

Anyone care to comment on how this performs on a a1200 with blizzard 030 + FPU (64mb) ?

Look at the specs for my main A2000 (in my sig).  When I was able to get it to run, it ran very poorly. (and that's putting it politely).  Obviously I've got some configuration issues still to sort out, but I wouldn't hold a lot of hope for good performance with the system specs you've quoted.

[utri007]

Netsurf requirements for RiscOS is 16mb ram and 030 equvalent ARM6 CPU. SDL/Framebuffer requires 060 and 64mb ram, so if someone decides continue/help Chris  with native version, it would be possible to use it with 030 hopefully.

[Oldsmobile_Mike]

SDL/Framebuffer

Every time I hear that word "Framebuffer" I think of Amiga video cards like the Firecracker.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framebuffer

Learning about NetSurf is like learning a whole new incomprehensible language, haha.  :lol:

[utri007]

Chris: Could you explain what framebuffer means in this case? I would also like to know what means "no gui systems"?