Slashdot Log In
Peeking at Netscape 8
Posted by
Hemos
on Mon Mar 07, 2005 09:11 AM
from the under-da-hood dept.
from the under-da-hood dept.
Andrew Sayers writes "It seems like Netscape 8 has hit blogland, with generally positive review at blogspot.com - although it makes the point that the IE rendering mode could hurt Firefox in the long-run, because it gives sites an excuse to stick with their old IE-only designs." Ah, remember when the release of a Netscape mattered?
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Too young? (Score:5, Funny)
No, cant say I do.
Re:Too young? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Too young? (Score:2, Interesting)
Pretty ironic though, that Netscape's offering probably won't make any headway, while Firefox has. Maybe they should rename it "Firefox by Netscape" (obvious nod to those marketing geniuses at HP *heh*).
Young whippersnapper (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Still too bloated.. (Score:2, Interesting)
Also having an IE rendering mode is to me a con, not a pro.
Firefox has a small footprint? (Score:5, Informative)
Don't get me wrong, I love and use firefox, but you won't get it installed on an old PI-233 with 32MB RAM.
Internet Explorer DOES install and work on that configuration.
Parent
Re:Firefox has a small footprint? (Score:3, Interesting)
I have a Pentium 233 on my desktop. It runs Debian unstable, and Firefox runs OK. It feels a little sluggish on image-heavy pages, but that's life.
Is the Windows version so much different?
Now, Mozilla on the other hand is unuasably slow on this machine.
Re:Firefox has a small footprint? (Score:3, Interesting)
My experiences has been different. Firefox runs well on my 266MHz Pentium II with 64 MB RAM running Windows 98 (which I'm typing on now), and even runs well on an ancient 120MHz Pentium I with 64 MB RAM, running Windows 95. (My main machine, a 475MHz K6-2 with 64 MB RAM running FreeBSD runs Firefox even better).
It might be the RAM, though, but I'd rather wait a extra seconds to load a secure, standards compliant browser than to use IE.
Re:Firefox has a small footprint? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Misread it... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Misread it... (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Great Look (Score:3, Interesting)
Interface. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Interface. (Score:4, Insightful)
Alt-Left, Alt-Right, Ctrl-P handle the other things perfectly, and they don't force me to use that "mouse" thing I have lying around my desktop.
Parent
To all webmasters (Score:4, Interesting)
<!--[if IE 5]>
You are using Internet Exploder. Please switch to Firefox
<![endif]-->
to Spread Firefox.
Minimal extra work means you can spoof the gold UI bar, which has the advantage of scaring people. Use Internet Exploder's proprietary features against itself. Standards forever!
MOD PARENT UP (Score:3, Informative)
http://minghong.dyndns.org:8080/OpenWiki/?NoIEInf
which has great IE InfoBar spoofing, including lots of localizations!
Gag, (Score:5, Insightful)
It can't be all bad (Score:3, Insightful)
Competition never hurt, and whether the new Netscape is a success or failure, its another alternative for users tired of the current selection of browsers for whatever reason.
Ultimately, a wider selection of browsers will benefit the internet as a whole, by encouraging open standards, rather than allowing any one manufacturer to dictate practice with their usage majority.
Re:It can't be all bad (Score:5, Interesting)
The "new" Netscape just takes either the IE or the FF engine and slaps an interface on top of it. AOL thus tries to ride on Netscape's reputation and make it look like it still has something to say in browser world. It doesn't. This is just marketing.
Your insights are valid, but not applicable for this release of Netscape. Maybe next time?
Parent
What's the point? (Score:5, Interesting)
Having a dual rendering based browser just doesn't make any sence.
Blogspot (Score:2, Informative)
Blogspot is not a blog. It is a blog hosting service. Please be more specific next time.
Multi-Bar (Score:5, Interesting)
But this release DOES matter (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, this one matters quite a bit. For example:
the IE rendering mode could hurt Firefox in the long-run, because it gives sites an excuse to stick with their old IE-only designs."
This release isn't a good thing. It's a blow to the progress that Firefox and Mozilla have made, and more to the point, it's a significant FU to the developers, as it reduces all of their hard work to a painfully ugly IE add on.
Since when? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is it a blow to Mozilla and Firefox? Are Moz and FF copying what Netscape is doing? No? Are Moz and FF still available in configurations you prefer? Then what's the problem?
", and more to the point, it's a significant FU to the developers, as it reduces all of their hard work to a painfully ugly IE add on."
How is this a Fuck You to the developers at Mozilla? I seem to recall that Mozilla wouldn't exist without Netscape, and there's that small issue of Netscape basically paying Mozilla's way when it went independant. If anyone has a right to base a browser on Mozilla, it's Netscape.
Oh, and some businesses NEED a browser that can view IE code, because some business apps require it. You don't have to like that, by way shoot Netscape for providing an alternative to IE that fills a need?
Parent
huh, netscape still exists? (Score:2, Informative)
Secondly, Netscape or any other browser really does not matter for idiotic web masters. Those who are untalented, unskilled web masters (i.e. idiots) will continue to make garbage markup code and call it web sites, those with skill will continue to make real web pages in html / xhtml (A real web page validates, everything is just trash..)
I do remember! (Score:5, Funny)
For me, it went something like this:
Netscape 1.0: Hey, cool! This World Wide Web thing is awesome!
Netscape 2.0: Backgrounds! Word!
Netscape 3.0: Different fonts, better frames, more plug-ins... keep it coming!
Netscape 4.0: Why won't these links work? *click click click click* Grrrr...
Netscape 6.0: Oh God.
Netscape 7.0: Whatever, I'm using IE now.
Netscape 8.0: Whatever, I'm using Firefox now.
Re:I do remember! (Score:4, Funny)
IE 1.0: Let's get on this intarweb bandwagon! We'll start by taking code from Spyglass' NCSA Mosaic, since we still haven't figured out how to use the "New Project" feature in Visual Studio.
IE 1.5 [wikimedia.org]: Introducing HTML TABLE support! Innovating faster than ever before! What, W3C was before us? Well, fuck that competitor to us!
IE 2.0: Let's all welcome MARQUEEs and BGSOUNDs for an improved user experience on beautiful rich media web pages [corson.tv]!
IE 3.0: We now support frames! And we reverse-engineered your JavaScript, Netscape... to innovate JScript! We also innovated the new ActiveX technology for an almost unimaginable number of uses -- good or bad. How about that!? Starting to lay the foundation of a web browser the world will come to love.
IE 4.0: Mass proprietary feature implementation! [microsoft.com] Also, DHTML and lots of CSS improvements! Ooh, a HTML link... *clicky* !L=#$Xz**A@@#__ LOST CARRIER. Ahh well, stability can come later, it's only a good reason for us to make people switch to IE 5 now that we have a decent marketshare.
IE 5.0: We changed how the proprietary features in IE 4, linked to above, should be used to confuse you a bit. Hah! ANYWAY... More stable than ever before, and now supporting so many features that it's having a shitload of security issues so users will have a reason to download IE 6!
IE 5.5: Introducing a great new... bump in the version number!
IE 6.0: More stability improvements, and better standards compliant! At least we'll tell them so since that's becoming common complaints. Oh and fuck PNG! Heck, it's not even a proprietary format, and we refuse to give top notch support for communist technology. And are those W3C guys still competing with us, with their technologies they call "standards"? Damn, they never give up, do they. Security fixes? Hmm, later.
IE 6.0 Ultra Windows XP SP2 Edition Turbo: OK, we'll add the security fixes then... for one specific service pack for a specific operating system.
IE 7.0: This should crush Firefox by maybe innovating tabs... they're still confusing the hell out of us, but whatever. IE fans have asked for it, and we'll deliver by making this one a new version rich in innovations.
Parent
Its a imitator! (Score:5, Informative)
Even 6.2 is nicer than 7.0, and any new release is a step further on the road to a horrendious browser that might be orange, black, and royal blue for its theme colors!
If it doesn't matter... (Score:5, Insightful)
Rendering Engine (Score:4, Interesting)
Netscape was more relevent when it based on the old Mosaic engine because that made Netscape unique. I'm sure they could revamp the old Netscape engine if they wanted to, they would just have to put some money into it... and we all know AOL will never do that. Why use Netscape to browse with the Gecko engine, when you can use a more streamlined and optimized Firefox browser. Firefox was designed by people who know the secret tricks to really get the best out of Gecko, because they are the same programmers who actually made Gecko!!
I still keep a copy of Netscape 2.0 Gold - does everything Internet Explorer can do.
Re:Rendering Engine (Score:3, Informative)
Put that another way: is there much point to using Mozilla and Firefox and Camino since they use the same engine as Netscape?
Netscape never used the Mosaic engine. It used the, er, Netscape engine, which just doesn't cut it today. It didn't cut it in 1997, which is why they started NGLayout (now kn
Are netscape still relevant? (Score:5, Insightful)
FTA: "Considering the recent popularity of Firefox, and the brand name Netscape holds, I can foresee this being a very popular browser. It could not only be a threat to Internet Explorer, as Firefox has been, but also Firefox itself."
Netscape? Strong brandname? Yes people who have been on the net for awhile know of them, but the way I see it the Netscape PR department have their work cut out for them to match the media buzz that surrounded FF 1.0 release, let alone convince people they should switch from IE/FF (back) to Netscape.
Re:Are netscape still relevant? (Score:3, Interesting)
Media buzz? I must have missed it, however I did catch the TV commercials for Netscape. No offense, but you must have a pretty sheltered view of the world if you think Firefox has anything like the brand recognition of Netscape.
Re:Are netscape still relevant? (Score:3, Interesting)
Google News hits for Netscape: 1550
Google News hits for Firefox: 2500
I admit it's a not reliable metric, but maybe it is data point saying that the Firefox brand is at least comparable to Netscape. Maybe you have other data sources?
Cross platform (Score:3, Interesting)
Unfortunately (Score:5, Interesting)
It still does, especially if you're a fed. Many gov't agencies still use Netscape, and will make use of this new release simply because they're all still stuck in the 90's. I don't know firsthand, but I'd be willing to bet Firefox didn't get much attention from the government. Most feds only know "IE" and "Netscape."
IE-onlyness (Score:3, Interesting)
What exactly are they smoking? (Score:5, Insightful)
More than Firefox. The Microsoft HTML control (the IE rendering engine) is inherently insecure by design. It's not possible to use it in a way that doesn't open up cross-zone attacks because "security zones" are such a deep part of its design. The IE rendering mode has the potential of hurting anyone who uses it but think they're somehow safer because they're not using IE.
"positive review at blogspot.com"? (Score:4, Informative)
blogspot.com is a free hosting site for blogger.com weblogs. Saying "a review at blogspot.com" is like saying "a review at geocities.com" - it's meaningless, as anyone could have written it. If Slashdot is going to link to random bloggers, at least make it clear that the author is a random blogger as opposed to part of some semi-legitimate sounding site.
At any rate, the reviews by Danial Glazman [glazman.org] (author of Nvu and Mozilla Composer) and Blake Ross [blakeross.com] (of the Firefox team) are far more enlightening.
Blogspot? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Well (Score:2)
Re:Well (Score:2)
Re:Well (Score:4, Funny)
Netscape is that dialup service that competes with Netzero right?
Parent
Re:Well (Score:5, Interesting)
It helps to establish familiarity I guess.
Parent
Re:Well (Score:2)
Certainly not me. I run either Firefox 1.0.1 or the Maxthon 1.2.00 shell program for Internet Explorer instead.
Re:Well (Score:2, Insightful)
I guess Firefox was the best we could obtain and also the last positive thing Netscape could have done.
Actually . . . (Score:3, Informative)
. . .where I work (tech support for a major ISP), I am allowed to support netscape, but not firefox, so I recommend it as an alternative to IE.
I figure that less than 5% of the people I speak to (people who are having problems with their internet connection) are using something other than Windows + IE. Most of that 5% are Mac users (and mostly OS 8-9).
I know people use linux/mac/bsd/etc, and firefox/netscape/opera/lynx/etc, but those that do either don't use my ISP, don't have problems, don't call whe
Re:Dude, whats wrong with Netscape? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Netscrap? (Score:3, Informative)
Rendering in an ie-compatible way would mean taking out support for modern standards like png and css2, and replacing them with broken half-assed implementations. Also the only way to do this would be to reverse engineer ie, since there are no published standards to implement against. Reverse engineering like
Re:IE Rendering (Score:4, Informative)
Err, no. This new Netscape browser is Windows-only, so it probably isn't going to affect Firefox adoption in Linux
Besides, just about every desktop Linux user uses Firefox, Mozilla, Konqueror, Opera, Epiphany, Galeon, or some other top-notch, secure, standards-compliant browser. Firefox adoption in Linux (or any other *nix) doesn't really matter, because just about everybody is using a really nice browser. There is almost no gain for the Mozilla organization to switch every Konqueror, Epiphany, and Galeon user to Mozilla or Firefox (Epiphany and Galeon are already Gecko-based), kind of like how Debian isn't trying to convince Gentoo or Fedora users to switch.
Things are different on the Windows side of the fence, however. Currently, IE still has a stronghold on Windows desktops. IE is literally falling apart from the seams, yet most users don't know (and don't care), even though their spyware and adware problems have multiplied over the years. However, Mozilla and Firefox are finally available for them, and the reception from users is mostly great.
As for the IE rendering inside of the new Netscape browser, I don't like the idea at all. Every single IE exploit now becomes a Netscape exploit, and we all know how buggy and insecure IE's rendering engine is. Plus, I've never had a problem opening up web pages at all with Firefox/Mozilla. If I needed to enter a site which required ActiveX, and it was important, I can always download a Firefox extension (on a Windows computer) to view the site.
Besides, we should be promoting standards. If we can switch people to Firefox, we can switch people to XHTML, CSS, Java/Perl/Python, and other standards. Developers need to learn the dangers of sticking to MS-only code (insecurity and Windows-lockin; what about the Mac and *nix users?) and learn how to change. Is it that difficult to learn XHTML, CSS, and some programming language that can do everything that ActiveX can do, without the insecurities?
Parent