(Hat tip to the late Bill Strauss and The Capitol Steps' Lirty Dies.) take my Palm OS Fossil Wrist PDA smartwatch mobile. It has no on-board networking libraries but can be coerced into doing PPP over its serial port (via USB) by using the libraries from my Palm m505. Of course, that then requires it be constantly connected to a USB port, which is rather inconvenient for a wristwatch. But what if the USB connection could be made wirelessly? For a few years, real honest-to-goodness wireless USB devices were actually a thing. Competing standards led to market fracture and the technologies fizzled out relatively quickly in the marketplace, but like the parallel universe of FireWire hubs there was another parallel world of wireless USB devices, at least for a few years. As it happens, we now have a couple of them here, so it's worth exploring what wireless USB was and what happened to it, how the competing standards worked (and how well), and if it would have helped. for the iBook G3 in 1999 people really started to believe a completely wireless future was possible — for any device. This was nevertheless another type of network, just one involving only one computer and one user over a short range, which was grandiosely dubbed the "personal area network," or PAN, or WPAN, depending on executive and blood alcohol level. Although initial forms of Bluetooth were the first to arrive in this space, Bluetooth was never intended to handle the very high data rates that some wireless peripherals might require, and even modern high-speed Bluetooth isn't specced beyond 50 megabits/sec (though hold that thought for a later digression). The key basis technology instead was the concept of ultra wide-band, or UWB, which in modern parlance collectively refers to technologies allowing very weak, very wide-spectrum (in excess of 500MHz) signals to become a short range yet high bandwidth communications channel. Wideband, in this case, is contrasted against the more typical narrowband. In general radio transmission works by modulating a carrier wave of a specified frequency, changing its amplitude (AM), phase, and/or the frequency itself (FM), to encode a signal to be communicated. For terrestrial analogue broadcasting, a good example of narrowband radio, this might be an audio signal carrying some specified frequency range; for FM radio in the United States this audio signal ranges from 30Hz to 15kHz, enough to capture much of the human-audible range, plus various higher frequencies not intended for listening. This collective signal effectively becomes encoded into sidebands on one or both sides of the carrier frequency (even with AM), and per Carson's rule the higher the maximum modulated frequency of the encoded signal then the larger the sidebands (ergo, its bandwidth) must be. As a result, commercial radio stations in particular are often heavily filtered for coexistence to allow many stations to share the band: in the United States, within ITU Region 2, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) divides the FM band from 88.0MHz to 108.0MHz into 100 "channels" of 200kHz each, putting the nominal carrier frequency in the middle of the channel to provide sufficient sideband width for modulation, and strictly regulates any spillover outside those channel boundaries. In practice, most adjacent U.S. FM stations are no closer than 400kHz, a balance between spectrum capacity and signal strength. This typically permits a maximum FM stereo modulated frequency of about 53kHz; frequencies in the aggregate range being transmitted that are unused or unnecessary can be repurposed as subcarriers to emit additional information, such as FM stereo's 19kHz pilot tone subcarrier used to signal receivers, or Microsoft's brief flirtation with one-way transmissions to SPOT smartwatches. Doing so is "free" because the subcarrier frequency is already part of the frequency range. By contrast, signals like 802.11 Wi-Fi are wideband radio, or at least comparatively wid-er band, because they pass much higher bandwidths. Although 802.11 frequencies (except for the very highest 45/60GHz band) are generally divided into 5MHz channels, people typically only use channels 1, 6 and 11 with 2.4GHz Wi-Fi, for example (or, in later standards, 1, 5, 9 and maybe 13), which spaces them by 20MHz or more. Compare this with medium-wave AM radio, where channel spacing in the United States is just 10kHz and even 9kHz in some countries like Australia, or shortwave radio with only 5kHz spacing. impulse radar, which is a form of the more familiar pulsed radar (such as the traffic cop at the corner) using much briefer radio pulses. Radar also works on a carrier wave model, but instead of FM or AM, the radar carrier wave is merely pulsed on and off. This is necessary so that the detector during the "off" phase can pick up echoes of the radio pulse transmitted during the "on" phase, and for most applications of radar, the pulse-repetition frequency (PRF) is much less than the frequency of the carrier wave being pulsed. Shorter, more frequent pulses would have theoretically yielded greater precision at close range, but such capability was beyond the electronics available to early radar researchers who were more concerned with long-range detection anyway, where the off phase had to be of sufficient length to detect a distant reflection. By the 1970s, however, the technology had sufficiently advanced that the radar's PRF could approach its carrier frequency, making things like ground-penetrating radar possible. While higher frequencies couldn't travel through ground for great distances, they did yield much better resolution and therefore meaningful data. To a basic approximation UWB uses the same principle as impulse radar: a series of pulses, potentially as short as picoseconds long, of a particular carrier wave. As the carrier wave itself isn't changing, all of the information is necessarily being encoded in the pulses' timing. Being discontinuous waves, Carson's rule doesn't directly apply to most forms of UWB, but the analogous Shannon capacity limit indicates that rapid modulation from a high PRF would also require significant bandwidth — hence, ultra wide-band. To mitigate UWB transmissions from interfering with narrower-band transmissions on the same frequencies, the pulsed transmissions can be made at very low power, often below the typical noise floor for other transmissions. Naturally this also necessarily limits its range to perhaps a hundred or so metres at most but also makes battery-powered operation highly practical. Its utility in location-finding is because time-of-flight can be measured very quickly and exactly due to the short pulse lengths; when fully active, an Apple AirTag typically transmits a pulse about every other nanosecond. subsequent amendments. A standards group quickly emerged at the IEEE called the IEEE 802.15 Working Group for WPANs, addressing not only UWB but other WPAN-enabling technologies generally. The 802.15 WG had two arms, 802.15.4 for low bandwidth applications which we will not discuss further in this article (Zigbee is probably the most well-known in this category), and 802.15.3 for high bandwidth applications. Subsequently, the WiMedia Alliance was established that summer to capitalize on the new high-bandwidth technology, counting among other early members Eastman Kodak, Motorola, Hewlett-Packard, Intel, Philips, Samsung, Sharp and STMicroelectronics. 802.15.3 had obvious utility in determining precise location, but an extension called 802.15.3a in December 2002 sought to further enhance the standard for high-speed transmission of image and multimedia data. This team started with 23 proposals and whittled them down to two, DS-UWB (alternatively DS-CDMA) and MB-OFDM. DS-UWB stands for direct sequence ultra wide-band, where the data is simply sent as pulses (as in binary pulse AM) over the entire frequency range in use. However, although the low power of UWB prevents it from interfering with higher-power narrowband signals, an additional layer is needed to prevent UWB transmissions from interfering with each other (i.e., multiple access). DS-UWB uses a system similar to cellular CDMA (code-division multiple access) where each transmitter modulates the data signal with an even higher frequency pseudorandom code known to the receiver, hence its alternative name of DS-CDMA. An interfering transmitter without the same code will have its signals attenuated during the decoding (despreading) process and be ignored. Additionally, by making the transmitted signal require more bandwidth than the original one, the composite signal becomes spread over an even larger frequency range and thus more resistant to narrow-band interference (i.e., direct sequence spread spectrum). On the other hand, MB-OFDM (multiband orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing) instead employs a massive number of subcarriers to send its data. The basic principle of OFDM, which dates back to Bell Labs in 1966, is to divide up the desired digital signal into multiple bits transmitted in parallel on multiple simultaneous subcarriers. OFDM has many current applications, among others various standards for Wi-Fi and digital TV such as DVB-T and 802.11a/g/n/ac/ah. To avoid interference between the subcarriers yet maximize the channel's capacity, each subcarrier is separated by a minimum frequency distance usually computed as the reciprocal of the useful symbol duration, making each subcarrier orthogonal to the others surrounding it and easily discriminated. MB-OFDM as used here divides the approved range into fourteen 528MHz subbands of 128 subcarriers each, 100 of which are used for data transmission and the remainder for zeroes, guard tones and pilot signals. It solves the multiple access problem by hopping between transmission subfrequencies in a defined pattern (time-frequency coding), meaning each user ideally is on a different one at any given time while also avoiding narrowband intrusion on any one particular frequency. In practice the spec doesn't use all of the subbands simultaneously, bundling them into four bandgroups of three (with a fifth group of two, and a sixth group overlapping two others) and selecting a group as required by local regulation or to compensate for existing sources of interference. MultiBand OFDM Alliance in June 2003, founded by Texas Instruments and crucially joined by Intel, while the DS-UWB camp was largely led by Motorola and subsequently Freescale, its inheritor, who had significant investment in CDMA. Although MB-OFDM demanded obviously greater technical complexity, it also presented the prospect of much faster data rates, and as a result the MBOA continued to accrete members despite Motorola's protests. Motorola attempted to develop a compromise lower-speed Common Signaling Mode ("UWB CSM") so DS-UWB and MB-OFDM devices could coexist, but the process descended into squabble, and Motorola pulled out of the WiMedia Alliance to establish the competing UWB Forum in 2004 exclusively focused on DS-UWB with CSM. As the standards argument raged in the background, OEMs meanwhile started evaluating potential market applications. After all, just about any potential short-range interconnect could be built on it; proposals to replace or reimplement Bluetooth with UWB were considered, as well as transports for IPv4 networking and FireWire (IEEE 1394). The original wireless USB concept in particular came from Motorola's new spinoff Freescale, who was determined to win the war anyway by getting their chipset to retail first, but also from Intel, who through its heavy influence on the USB Implementers Forum (USB-IF) persuaded the organization to adopt WiMedia's version of MB-OFDM as their officially blessed USB solution for high-speed wireless devices. In February 2004 Intel announced the formation of the Wireless USB (W-USB) Promoter Group, composed of themselves, Agere (now part of Broadcom via the former LSI Logic), Hewlett-Packard, Microsoft, NEC, Philips and Samsung, with an aim for products within the next year. Because the W-USB name clashed with Freescale's initial branding, Intel and the USB-IF eventually settled on CW-USB ("Certified Wireless USB") and the MBOA was merged into the WiMedia Alliance in 2005. Now that the attempt to make an IEEE standard had clearly stalled for good, WiMedia submitted its own specification to Ecma instead, published as ECMA-368, and the 802.15.3a Task Group subsequently disbanded in January 2006. Both Freescale W-USB (later changed to Cord-Free USB and then Cable-Free USB, both of which we'll call CF-USB for short) and Intel CW-USB conceptually replicate the host-centric nature of USB 2.0, hewing more or less to the same basic topology but obviously without wires. Both systems supported up to 127 devices and necessarily the over-the-air connection was encrypted, both with AES-128. There were of course no compliant devices yet, nor compliant computers, so both competing standards required a dongle on the PC side and offered wireless USB hubs to connect existing peripherals. The main user-facing difference between Cable-Free and Certified Wireless USB was that CF-USB was intentionally, and in this case ironically, much closer to the wired USB spec. In particular, although CF-USB connections could only go point-to-point — just like a single cord — all USB features and transfer types were supported, even isochronous transfers for real-time data. CF-USB also had the compatibility edge in that the other end would look just like a regular USB hub to the computer, so no software update was necessary. CW-USB, on the other hand, although its virtual bus was much more flexible and devices could be hosts to other devices, wasn't fully backwards-compatible with all USB devices and needed new drivers and operating system support. non-UWB wireless USB system that I'll come back to later on. Freescale's team eventually suffered management departures and failed to release any future CF-USB hardware, after which the UWB Forum itself imploded in 2007. Using a USB PC dongle made by Taiwanese OEM Gemtek, exhibitors were shown a PC and a digital camera associating with each other and the PC downloading images from the camera to its desktop, which Intel claimed could run at up to USB 2.0's full 480Mb/s at three metres (110Mb/sec up to 10). One heavily anticipated application was as a docking station you could just walk up to: if you had been previously associated, then boom, you were connected. The bandwidth, Intel promised, would be real and it would be spectacular. A few months later, Belkin's reworked dongle-hub kit — initially still called "Cable-Free" until Freescale objected — finally emerged for retail sale in 2007. Unfortunately, the chipset switch eliminated Belkin's Mac compatibility and it only came with Windows drivers. Worse, Belkin's hub took it on the chin in various reviews, citing an eighty percent reduction in throughput if the devices were just a foot away, and another 30% on top of that at four feet, with a maximum range of somewhere around six (or one big wall). This probably made it more secure, but definitely not more convenient, and far short of the claimed 10 metre maximum range. It doesn't look like Belkin sold very many. Another vendor was D-Link, who produced both dongles and hubs along with a starter kit containing one of each. This NOS example, utterly unused in a sealed box, had an original MSRP of about $170 ($225 in 2025 dollars) but showed up on eBay for $12. I couldn't resist picking it up and a couple other cheap CW-USB products to play with, all of which carried the proud and official Certified Wireless USB logo. I made sure one of them was a docking station since that was intended to be the killer app. all of them come with an HWA, even though only one of them actually (or at least officially) has a DWA hub: the D-Link starter kit (model DUB-9240), consisting of a DUB-2240 4-port DWA USB 2.0 hub and a DUB-1210 HWA. The TRULink #29596 Wireless USB to VGA and Audio Kit has two downstream devices with on-board DWAs, one for a VGA monitor (up to 1600x1200 or 1680x1050) and one for analogue audio, plus its own HWA; the Atlona AT-PCLink Wireless USB DisplayDock offers DVI video, 3.5mm (1/8") audio and two USB ports, advertised for your mouse and keyboard (but really a lurking hub also). The dock base, interestingly enough, is not a CW-USB device itself: you have to plug a DWA into it (included) which can go in one of two ports depending on physical configuration. In the package Atlona also includes another HWA. However, since they're all allegedly CW-USB 1.0 compliant, you should be able to use any HWA you want. (Theoretically. That's called "foreshadowing.") The D-Link and TRULink HWAs only support Windows XP SP3 and Vista — there was a short-lived Linux implementation that Intel themselves wrote, but it was very incomplete and eventually removed — and the Atlona HWA does too, but it also claims support for Windows 7 and even Mac OS X (Leopard and Snow Leopard). So our test system will be ... Virus Alert by Weird Al. Get out your Intel if you want to try this.) That covers the HWA and the HWA-DWA link, but being "USB" (after a fashion) you also need a driver for the device it's connecting to. Fortunately the TRULink and Atlona video systems are both DisplayLink-based, supporting screen mirroring and spanning, for which (Intel) Mac drivers also exist. does later on.) association process, which is necessary because obviously you don't want malicious USB devices trying to talk to you, and you don't want your next-door neighbour possibly being able to use your printer or read tax returns on your thumb drive. (I didn't know that was deductable!) The process of association generates a new AES-128 session key and records both 128-bit host and device IDs for future recognition. This shared 384-bit association context remains in effect until explicitly disabled: the associated device now won't interact with HWAs it doesn't know, other than to potentially associate with them also, and the HWA will only talk to devices with which it has been associated. It is possible, and absolutely supported, for a device to be associated with multiple HWAs. Association in CW-USB can be done one of three ways, either by factory pre-association (the TRULink and Atlona devices come pre-associated with their HWAs, for example), numeric association where the device provides an on-screen code (like Bluetooth pairing) or the PIN on the underside of the device can be manually entered (an alpha-numeric code like D0NTH4CKM3), or, uniquely, by cable association. physically connect the CW-USB device to your PC or Mac via USB cable, let it be recognized by the HWA's driver, and then disconnect it. It then continues to act connected, just via the HWA. The D-Link DWA-hub is cable-associated as part of the installation process, or can be associated by PIN; it is the only one of these three that is not pre-associated. All devices support pre-association and some sort of numeric association, but a physical USB port is naturally required for cable association. It is nevertheless the most secure of the three methods, first because you have to have physical custody of both the device and the computer, second because it's a new and unique key, and third because key creation and distribution occurs entirely via the cable and never over the air. Unfortunately it's not possible to blacklist the other association methods, so you'd better not let your neighbour get your PIN. (You pay how much in mortgage interest??) Some devices like the TRUlinks mercifully do support changing it, but that ability didn't seem universal in the devices I looked at. In this case, all three devices support cable-association. The D-Link hub and the TRULink devices do so via their USB ports, but the Atlona dock does it by plugging the DWA into the computer instead of the docking base itself. The reverse process is also obviously possible to de-associate a device, and you can outright block devices as well, though this may require some fiddling if they were pre-associated. Similarly, most devices, including this one, have a reset button which will clear the association context(s) stored in them, removing any undesired linkages. Let's get the D-Link kit installed in the Vista VM. not big the wireless USB market ultimately got. A few pieces of WiQuest and their IP are now part of modern Staccato Communications. not to plug in either the dongle or the hub until installation is complete and the hub has been cable-associated. can see it. Although I found it initially surprising that VMware didn't ask me about the device when I connected it, upon reflection it's perfectly logical that wireless USB devices wouldn't be seen at all by the Mac because we've effectively constructed a new and separate USB bus completely outside of it. For all the devices I connected to the hub-DWA, VMware was absolutely unaware of all of them, including the hub itself; the only device the MacBook and therefore VMware saw was the HWA. This is probably good from a performance view though possibly bad from a device control view. COM3: we just installed (the others are provided by VMware). emulate a serial port but only appear on the USB bus when there is activity, such as kicking off a HotSync. Notice the only thing connected to the MacBook is the HWA (all ports are on the left side of this model), but with the watch connected to the hub-DWA the Vista VM sees the new USB device appear. does appear to work suggests this should work on, say, Windows XP. Let's see if the Atlona AT-PCLink natively in Snow Leopard can do any better. It's time to bring on the docking station. .dmg double the size it needed to be. A help alias points to a small HTML-based manual, but the Windows version has a full PDF available on the disc. and had a Universal payload, even though Atlona said explicitly it wasn't compatible with PowerPC. I grabbed my great big A1139 17" DLSD PowerBook G4 1.67GHz, the last and mightiest PowerBook which I use as a portable DVD player and Leopard 10.5.8 test system, to see if it would work. this way? pilot-xfer, but that doesn't give you the rest of the PIM, and Mark/Space's Missing Sync does not run on Mavericks or later.) Fortunately, this is Snow Leopard, so we have O.G. Rosetta. associate or pair a new device. (Remember what I said about foreshadowing?) This restriction appears to be entirely due to the software and isn't unique to the Mac version; the Atlona manual indicates that the Windows version can't associate new devices either, other than possibly another Atlona dock. Officially it can be re-paired with its original DWA and that's it. /System/Library/WUSB/CBA.app/Contents/Resources/DB.plist, which lists associated devices. (The very location of this .plist again suggests it wasn't intended for user modification.) Here is the relevant portion, with keys suppressed: You can identify the WiMedia bandgroup (1, 3.1GHz to 4.8GHz), the 128-bit host and device IDs, and the 384-bit association context (which includes both IDs) in the key-value pairs. Yes, I could insert another device entry easily enough, but I wouldn't know the AES key the other end is using, so I couldn't compute a valid context. Since this driver is running natively and we're not paying a VM tax, let's see how well video streaming worked since oodles of cableless bandwidth was just about the entire use case for wireless USB. Snow Leopard welcome video and prove it wrong. (The Snow Leopard welcome video has audio in a separate file, so this comparison movie has no sound.) 2.0 Extender, used a much more familiar wireless transport: 802.11g. Yup — it's USB over Wi-Fi. bulk transfers, and I tend to believe Icron because it's their hardware — but both are clear that high-bandwidth devices like UVC webcams are going to have a bad time: "Icron Technologies Corporation does not guarantee that all USB devices are compatible with the WiRanger and only recommends the product be used with keyboard, mouse, and some flash drives." some of my devices use. bus like CW-USB. I wanted to do some performance tests with it, but strangely macOS Sequoia will not recognize the sender when connected to my M1 MacBook Air, even though it worked fine connected to the Raptor POWER9 in Fedora 41 and was seen as a hub there too. So we'll do the tests on the MacBook as well, which also had no problem seeing and using the pair. Again, we'll just copy that same 1.09GB combo installer and see how long it takes. pilot-xfer from the command line instead of Palm Desktop. Slirp or usb2ppp. as before. It actually doesn't feel much different in terms of speed from a direct connect and I didn't find it particularly unstable. Of what we've explored here, the Gefen box seems the least complicated solution, though the receiver pulled a bit more battery power and of course you'd need a host around to connect through. As such I'm still using the "Raspberry Pi in a camera bag" notion for the time being, but it's nice to see it can work other ways. My experience with the Gefen/Icron extender was generally consistent with other reviews that found it adequate for undemanding tasks like printing. However, it doesn't look like either Icron or Gefen sold many of them, likely due to their unattractive price tag. Icron did announce plans for a much faster wireless USB solution on the 60GHz band using 802.11ad, which with its 7 Gbit/s capacity would easily handle USB 2.0 and even 5 Gbit/s 3.0, but it doesn't seem like the device was ever offered for sale. (A couple people have mentioned to me that there were other ≥802.11ad wireless USB products out there, including WiGig. Their bandwidth was reportedly more than sufficient for video but I don't have any of those devices here, and they are better understood as Wi-Fi routers that also do USB device sharing.) Although Icron still sells extenders, now as a division of Analog Devices, all of their current products are wired-only. As for CW-USB, by 2008 few laptops on the market offered the feature, and even for those that did like the Lenovo ThinkPad X200, it was always an extra option. That meant most computers that wanted to connect to a CW-USB device still needed a HWA-dongle, so they still took up a port, and HWAs never got produced in enough numbers to be cheap. On top of that, it further didn't help matters that anything close to the promised maximum bandwidth was hardly ever observed in real-world situations. Device makers, meanwhile, mostly chose to wait out greater availability of CW-USB capable computers, and since that never happened, neither a large number of computers with built-in CW-USB nor CW-USB devices were ever made before the standard was abandoned. The last stand of UWB as a device interconnect was ironically as a proposal for Bluetooth 3.0+HS, the 2009 optional high-data-rate specification. 3.0+HS introduced AMP (Alternative MAC/PHY) as a bolt-on method, in which low-speed Bluetooth would be used to set up a link and then the high-speed data exchange would occur over the second transport, originally MB-OFDM. With CW-USB fading from the market, however, the WiMedia Alliance closed its doors in 2009 and shed its existing work to the USB-IF, the W-USB Promoter Group and the Bluetooth SIG. This move was controversial with some WiMedia members, who consequently refused to grant access to their intellectual property to the new successor groups, and instead AMP ended up being based on 802.11 as well. The AMP extension was little used and eventually removed in Bluetooth 5.3. Is there a moral to this story? I'm not quite certain. As so often happens, the best technology didn't win; in my eyes CF-USB had the potential for being more widely adopted because of its simplicity and compatibility, but was ruined when Freescale got greedy and it never recovered. That said, the real question is whether wireless USB itself, with all of its broken promises, was the right approach for the WPAN concept. It's certainly not an indictment of ultra wideband, which is used today more than ever before: many chips are still produced that implement it, the best known undoubtedly being Apple's U1 and U2 chips in iOS and iOS-adjacent devices like the AirTag, and such chips continue to be widely used for things such as precise location fixing and local interactions. UWB has also been used for diverse tasks like tracking NFL players during games or parts during factory assembly, and for autonomous vehicles in particular it's extremely useful. without wireless USB — and we just never noticed. Maybe that's the moral.

Just a brief programming note. Before this blog there was Floodgap Retrobits, and I still maintain those pages. One of the earliest was my Tomy Tutor-specific page devoted to my very first computer which we got in 1983. Relatives of the Texas Instruments home computers and closely patterned after the unreleased TI 99/8, the history of the Japanese models is relatively well-known and there are a number of Japanese enthusiasts that specialize in the Pyuuta, the Tutor's ancestor system. On the other hand, hardly anybody knows anything about the British version. That system is the Grandstand Tutor: Your Computer October 1983, at that time one of the major home computer magazines in the UK. The original form of this machine was very similar to the Pyuuta, which emphasized its TMS9918A-based built-in paint program and due to its specialization on graphics only implements a very simplified animation-oriented dialect of BASIC called GBASIC. Adam Imports rebadged many Asian and some American toys and games for the UK (and, for some period of time, New Zealand) and had a particularly close relationship with Tomy. In fact, the relationship was close enough that Adam in fact rejected this initial version as uncompetitive with other home computers and sent it back to Tomy for a more upgraded BASIC. Tomy provided this by modifying TI Extended BASIC, calling it Tomy BASIC and implementing it as a second mode accessible from the system's menu-based interface. The absence of Tomy BASIC places the earliest Grandstand Tutor prior to the American Tomy Tutor, which also has the upgraded Tomy BASIC. Tomy subsequently sold this upgrade in at least two forms as an option for the Japanese machines as well. The interesting part is that while PAL Tutors have been documented to exist (the American Tutor is obviously NTSC), no one yet has reported finding a Grandstand. It wouldn't be hard to distinguish one — the photograph has obvious Grandstand branding on its silver badge. It's possible they were never released at all because even accounting for publishing delays, the second Grandstand would have emerged late in 1983, hitting in the wake of the video game crash and against heavier hitters like the Commodore VIC-20 and Commodore 64 as well as (in the UK) the ZX Spectrum. Adam may have simply concluded it wasn't a strong enough competitor even with the upgraded BASIC to sell. including SunView. Later their IDT workstations, though uniprocessor, competed directly with and even could squeak by contemporary SPARCstations, at least in the beginning. Solbourne eventually ran out of money when they hit engineering limits with their own CPU and could never reclaim the throughput crown, abandoning the computer hardware market in 1994. We might be adding more remembrances as other Solbourne engineers are contacted. You can see these updates at The Little Orphan Tomy Tutor as well as past Old VCR Tomy articles, and The Solbourne Solace as well as past Old VCR Solbourne-specific articles. Naturally, if you have anything to add, feel free to post in the comments or drop me E-mail at ckaiser at floodgap dawt com.

COMPUTE!'s Gazette was for many years the leading Commodore-specific managzine. I liked Ahoy! and RUN, and I subscribed to Loadstar too, but Gazette had the most interesting type-ins and the most extensive coverage. They were also the last of COMPUTE!'s machine-specific magazines and one of the longest lived Commodore publications, period: yours truly had some articles published in COMPUTE (no exclamation point by then) Gazette as a youthful freelancer in the 1990s until General Media eventually made Gazette disk-only and then halted entirely in 1995. I remember pitching Tom Netzel on a column idea and getting a cryptic E-mail back from him saying that "things were afoot." What was afoot was General Media divesting the entire publication to Ziff-Davis, who was only interested in the mailing list, and I got a wholly inadequate subscription to PC Magazine in exchange which I mostly didn't read and eventually didn't renew. This week I saw an announcement about a rebooted Gazette — even with a print edition, and restoring the classic ABC/Cap Cities trade dress — slated for release in July. I'm guessing that "president and founder [sic]" Edwin Nagle either bought or licensed the name from Ziff-Davis when forming the new COMPUTE! Media; the announcement also doesn't say if he only has rights to the name, or if he actually has access to the back catalogue, which I think could be more lucrative: since there appears to be print capacity, seems like there could be some money in low-run back issue reprints or even reissuing some of their disk products, assuming any residual or royalty arrangements could be dealt with. I should say for the record that I don't have anything to do with the company myself and I don't know Nagle personally. By and large I naturally think this is a good thing, and I'll probably try to get a copy, though the stated aim of the magazine is more COMPUTE! and less Gazette since it intends to cover the entire retro community. Doing so may be the only way to ensure an adequate amount of content at a monthly cadence, so I get the reasoning, but it necessarily won't be the Gazette you remember. Also, since most retro enthusiasts have some means to push downloaded data to their machines, the type-in features which were the predominant number of pages in the 1980s will almost certainly be diminished or absent. I suspect you'll see something more like the General Media incarnation, which was a few type-ins slotted between various regular columns, reviews and feature articles. The print rate strikes me as very reasonable at $9.95/mo for a low-volume rag and I hope they can keep that up, though they would need to be finishing the content for layout fairly soon and the only proferred sample articles seem to be on their blog. I'm at most cautiously optimistic right now, but the fact they're starting up at all is nice to see, and I hope it goes somewhere.

prior articles for more of the history, but MacLynx is a throwback port of the venerable Lynx 2.7.1 to the classic Mac OS last updated in 1997 which I picked up again in 2020. Rather than try to replicate its patches against a more current Lynx which may not even build, I've been improving its interface and Mac integration along with the browser core, incorporating later code and patching the old stuff. However, beta 6 is not a fat binary — the two builds are intentionally separate. One reason is so I can use a later CodeWarrior for better code that didn't have to support 68K, but the main one is to consider different code on Power Macs which may be expensive or infeasible on 68K Macs. The primary use case for this — which may occur as soon as the next beta — is adding a built-in vendored copy of Crypto Ancienne for onboard TLS without a proxy. On all but upper-tier 68040s, setting up the TLS connection takes longer than many servers will wait, but even the lowliest Performa 6100 with a barrel-bottom 60MHz 601 can do so reasonably quickly. The port did not go altogether smoothly. While Olivier Gutknecht's original fat binary worked fine on Power Macs, it took quite a while to get all the pieces reassembled on a later CodeWarrior with a later version of GUSI, the Mac POSIX glue layer which is a critical component (the Power Mac version uses 2.2.3, the 68K version uses 1.8.0). Some functions had changed and others were missing and had to be rewritten with later alternatives. One particularly obnoxious glitch was due to a conflict between the later GUSI's time.h and Apple Universal Interfaces' Time.h (remember, HFS+ is case-insensitive) which could not be solved by changing the search order in the project due to other conflicting headers. The simplest solution was to copy Time.h into the project and name it something else! Even after that, though, basic Mac GUI operations like popping open the URL dialogue would cause it to crash. Can you figure out why? Here's a hint: application: your application itself was almost certainly fully native. However, a certain amount of the Toolbox and the Mac OS retained 68K code, even in the days of Classic under Mac OS X, and your PowerPC application would invariably hit one of these routines eventually. The component responsible for switching between ISAs is the Mixed Mode Manager, which is tightly integrated with the 68K emulator and bridges the two architectures' different calling conventions, marshalling their parameters (PowerPC in registers, 68K on the stack) and managing return addresses. I'm serious when I say the normal state is to run 68K code: 68K code is necessarily the first-class citizen in Mac OS, even in PowerPC-only versions, because to run 68K apps seamlessly they must be able to call any 68K routine directly. All the traps that 68K apps use must also look like 68K code to them — and PowerPC apps often use those traps, too, because they're fundamental to the operating system. 68K apps can and do call code fragments in either ISA using the Code Fragment Manager (and PowerPC apps are obliged to), but the system must still be able to run non-CFM apps that are unaware of its existence. To jump to native execution thus requires an additional step. Say a 68K app running in emulation calls a function in the Toolbox which used to be 68K, but is now PowerPC. On a 68K MacOS, this is just 68K code. In later versions, this is replaced by a routine descriptor with a special trap meaningful only to the 68K emulator. This descriptor contains the destination calling convention and a pointer to the PowerPC function's transition vector, which has both the starting address of the code fragment and the initial value for the TOC environment register. The MMM converts the parameters to a PowerOpen ABI call according to the specified convention and moves the return address into the PowerPC link register, and upon conclusion converts the result back and unwinds the stack. The same basic idea works for 68K code calling a PowerPC routine. Unfortunately, we forgot to make a descriptor for this and other routines the Toolbox modal dialogue routine expected to call, so the nanokernel remains in 68K mode trying to execute them and makes a big mess. (It's really hard to debug it when this happens, too; the backtrace is usually totally thrashed.) the last time that my idea with MacLynx is to surround the text core with the Mac interface. Lynx keys should still work and it should still act like Lynx, but once you move to a GUI task you should stay in the GUI until that task is completed. In beta 5, I added support for the Standard File package so you get a requester instead of entering a filename, but once you do this you still need to manually select "Save to disk" inside Lynx. That changes in beta 6: :: which in MacOS is treated as the parent folder. Resizing, scrolling and repainting are also improved. The position of the thumb in MacLynx's scrollbar is now implemented using a more complex but yet more dynamic algorithm which should also more properly respond to resize events. A similar change fixes scroll wheels with USB Overdrive. When MacLynx's default window opens, a scrollbar control is artificially added to it. USB Overdrive implements its scrollwheel support by finding the current window's scrollbar, if any, and emulating clicks on its up and down (or left and right) buttons as the wheel is moved. This works fine in MacLynx, at least initially. When the window is resized, however, USB Overdrive seems to lose track of the scrollbar, which causes its scrollwheel functionality to stop working. The solution was to destroy and rebuild the scrollbar after the window takes its new dimensions, like what happens on start up when the window first opens. This little song and dance may also fix other scrollwheel extensions. Always keep in mind that the scrollbar is actually used as a means to send commands to Lynx to change its window on the document; it isn't scrolling, say, a pre-rendered GWorld. This causes the screen to be redrawn quite frequently, and big window sizes tend to chug. You can also outright crash the browser with large window widths: this is difficult to do on a 68K Mac with on-board video where the maximum screen size isn't that large, but on my 1920x1080 G4 I can do so reliably. lynx.cfg a no-op. However, if you are intentionally using another character set and this will break you, please feel free to plead your use case to me and I will consider it. Another bug fixed was an infinite loop that could trigger during UTF-8 conversion of certain text strings. These sorts of bugs are also a big pain to puzzle out because all you can do from CodeWarrior is force a trap with an NMI, leaving the debugger's view of the program counter likely near but probably not at the scene of the foul. Eventually I single-stepped from a point near the actual bug and was able to see what was happening, and it turned out to be a very stupid bug on my part, and that's all I'm going to say about that. SameSite and HttpOnly (irrelevant on Lynx but supported for completeness) attributes are, the next problem was that any cookie with an expiration value — which nowadays is nearly any login cookie — wouldn't stick. The problem turned out to be the difference in how the classic MacOS handles time values. In 32-bit Un*xy things, including Mac OS X, time_t is a signed 32-bit integer with an epoch starting on Thursday, January 1, 1970. In the classic MacOS, time_t is an unsigned 32-bit integer with an epoch starting on Friday, January 1, 1904. (This is also true for timestamps in HFS+ filesystems, even in Mac OS X and modern macOS, but not APFS.) Lynx has a utility function that can convert a ASCII date string into a seconds-past-the-epoch count, but in case you haven't guessed, this function defaults to the Unix epoch. In fact, the version previously in MacLynx only supports the Unix epoch. That means when converted into seconds after the epoch, the cookie expiration value would always appear to be in the past compared to the MacOS time value which, being based on a much earlier epoch, will always be much larger — and thus MacLynx would conclude the cookie was actually expired and politely clear it. I reimplemented this function based on the MacOS epoch, and now login cookies actually let you log in! Unfortunately other cookies like trackers can be set too, and this is why we can't have nice things. Sorry. At least they don't persist between runs of the browser. Even then, though, there's still some additional time fudging because time(NULL) on my Quadra 800 running 8.1 and time(NULL) on my G4 MDD running 9.2.2, despite their clocks being synchronized to the same NTP source down to the second, yielded substantially different values. Both of these calls should go to the operating system and use the standard Mac epoch, and not through GUSI, so GUSI can't be why. For the time being I use a second fudge factor if we get an outlandish result before giving up. I'm still trying to figure out why this is necessary. ogle). This didn't work for PNG images before because it was using the wrong internal MIME type, which is now fixed. (Ignore the MIME types in the debug window because that's actually a problem I noticed with my Internet Config settings, not MacLynx. Fortunately Picture Viewer will content-sniff, so it figures it out.) Finally, there is also miscellaneous better status code and redirect handling (again not a problem with mainline Lynx, just our older fork here), which makes login and browsing sites more streamlined, and you can finally press Shift-Tab to cycle backwards through forms and links. If you want to build MacLynx from source, building beta 6 is largely the same on 68K with the same compiler and prerequisites except that builds are now segregated to their own folders and you will need to put a copy of lynx.cfg in with them (the StuffIt source archive does not have aliases predone for you). For the PowerPC version, you'll need the same set up but substituting CodeWarrior Pro 7.1, and, like CWGUSI, GUSI 2.2.3 should be in the same folder or volume that contains the MacLynx source tree. There are debug and optimized builds for each architecture. Pre-built binaries and source are available from the main MacLynx page. MacLynx, like Lynx, is released under the GNU General Public License v2.