Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Netscape The Internet America Online

Netscape 7.2 Released 412

Posted by michael from the mozilla-inside dept.
scottfi writes "America Online has just released Netscape 7.2. Based on Mozilla 1.7, this latest version features better popup blocking, vCard support, an improved junk mail algorithm, better standards support, performance enhancements and several hundred other bug fixes. It also includes patches for recent security vulnerabilities. It is a little over a year since AOL shut down the Netscape browser division, laid off or reassigned the remaining engineers and withdrew from the day to day running of mozilla.org. At the time, they said that new versions of Netscape were unlikely. Earlier this year, they changed their minds and announced Netscape 7.2. More details about Netscape 7.2 are available at Netscape Browser Central, together with download links."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Netscape 7.2 Released More

Netscape 7.2 Released

Comments Filter:

  • How sad... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by winkydink ( 650484 ) * <sv.dude@gmail.com> on Tuesday August 17, 2004 @12:51PM (#9992525) Homepage Journal
    This is probably the last, dying gasp from the browser & brand that really did change the world.

    • Re:How sad... (Score:5, Funny)

      by Kenja ( 541830 ) on Tuesday August 17, 2004 @01:02PM (#9992680)
      I thought the lasts dying gasp was when the original developers stopped trying to make a better product and decided to just start lawsuits as a means of generating revenue. Granted Microsoft wasn't playing fair, but that was no excuse to go around whining like a little kid.

    • Re:How sad... (Score:5, Funny)

      by SYFer ( 617415 ) <syfer@syf e r . n et> on Tuesday August 17, 2004 @01:04PM (#9992699) Homepage
      Friends, geeks, slashdotters, lend me your bandwidth;
      I come to bury Netscape, not to praise it;
      The evil that AOL does lives after it,
      The good is oft interréd with their bones,
      So let it be with Netscape....

    • I don't get why AOL is bothering. Why release a new version of a product you've all but buried as dead? What do they possibly have to gain as a company by doing that? *scratches his head and thinks back to all of AOL's expensive company-buying of the 90s*

      • Re:How sad... (Score:4, Informative)

        by Sporkinum ( 655143 ) on Tuesday August 17, 2004 @01:22PM (#9992886)
        Because AOL is trying to hang on to some of their subscriber base that is leaving by offering a low cost ISP. The ISP is called Netscape, and the browser is a nice tie in that they have already paid for.

      • Re:How sad... (Score:5, Informative)

        by hawkbug ( 94280 ) <psxNO@SPAMfimble.com> on Tuesday August 17, 2004 @01:32PM (#9993001) Homepage
        Easy - ad revenue. Have you tried using the latest Netscape release? It's horrid - I'd rather use IE. Ofcourse, I use Mozilla which is simply Netscape without all the junk ads and it's more on the cutting edge since Netscape simply rebrands Mozilla, and that obviously takes time to do - so by downloading the latest Mozilla, you're getting a better browser.

        • Re:How sad... (Score:4, Funny)

          by isorox ( 205688 ) on Tuesday August 17, 2004 @03:12PM (#9994136) Homepage Journal
          Netscape simply rebrands Mozilla, and that obviously takes time to do

          s/Mozilla/Netscape/g

        • Re:How sad... (Score:3, Insightful)

          by prandal ( 87280 )
          It's a rebranded Mozilla 1.7.2, as the version string makes clear, so it's hardly the aeons behind that you imply.

        • Re:How sad... (Score:3, Informative)

          by janeil ( 548335 )
          What's sad is that this comment gets modded up so high! What junk ads? Netscape 7.1 has no ads, though the initial installment does allow popup windows from a bunch of servers. You just, uh, delete them. Personally I still like the sidebar. What you see on a web page is what you would have seen with Mozilla 1.4, which was, of course, "cutting edge" for a while anyway.

          And, for what it's worth, I believe one problem Mozilla has with many users is its constant revision. A new point release every few months.

    • This just in. (Score:5, Informative)

      by nortcele ( 186941 ) on Tuesday August 17, 2004 @01:46PM (#9993174) Homepage
      Mosaic 9.0 has been released. The browser that really changed the world. Thank you Mr. Andreason.

  • Why though? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Heem ( 448667 ) on Tuesday August 17, 2004 @12:52PM (#9992529) Homepage Journal
    With the success of the Mozilla project, I fail to see why anyone would bother running Netscape anymore....

    • Re:Why though? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by DesScorp ( 410532 ) on Tuesday August 17, 2004 @12:57PM (#9992610) Journal
      Your definition of sucess and the business world's definition of success are likely two very different things. Mozilla still has a reputation of being a part time hobby for coders, rather than a serious corporate product. The Netscape name is still recognizable in the business world.

      And it doesn't help that the Mozilla project has changed the name of it's products several times now.

      • Name Game (Score:5, Funny)

        by ackthpt ( 218170 ) * on Tuesday August 17, 2004 @01:07PM (#9992728) Homepage Journal
        And it doesn't help that the Mozilla project has changed the name of it's products several times now.

        I'm still using Firebird, because I've been too preoccupied to keep up. Wasn't there some issue with one of the names conflicting with the database system? [sourceforge.net] Is it Phoenix, or has that been confused a BIOS of the same name and they're moving on to another?

        Here's a thought! They just found a a previously undiscovered [usatoday.com] bird species in the Philippines, they could name it after that and beat every other software product!

      • Re:Why though? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by 4of12 ( 97621 )

        Mozilla still has a reputation of being a part time hobby for coders, rather than a serious corporate product.

        That sentiment is not universal.

        Also, I think it was more applicable several years ago than now.

        After all the exploits and stagnation in development associated with Internet Explorer, my corporation's IT department is definitely past the stage of getting over the stagnation from Netscape 4 and looking quite favorably on Mozilla and its advantages.

      • Windows Annoyances (Score:5, Interesting)

        by gfxguy ( 98788 ) on Tuesday August 17, 2004 @02:49PM (#9993890)
        I listen to Neal Boortz. Before you start booing, let me finish. He recently had a problem with his computer and spyware bringing it to it's knees.

        He actually said that computer nerds can hold their calls with advice and "told-you-sos", he bought the computer into the shop where he purchased it (and hawks continuously on the air).

        A couple of days later he was back on the air talking about what a great job they did cleaning off all the junk - and installing Firefox to keep it from happening again. He went on to talk about how great Firefox was, and that it was free, and why would anyone want to keep using IE, etc., etc.

        AFAIR, he even included a link on his web pages to the Mozilla site.

        Pretty good publicity from a famous talk show host, even if you don't like him...

      • Re:Why though? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by FooBarWidget ( 556006 ) on Tuesday August 17, 2004 @02:53PM (#9993931)
        "The Netscape name is still recognizable in the business world."


        Why do people say this? At every computer-related forum I know, almost everybody complains (or used to complain) about how slow and bloated and unstable Netscape 4.x and 6.0 was. When 6.5 and 7.x were out, people didn't even bother to try it. Netscape kept it's repuation of being slow, bloated and unstable.
        And these days, almost nobody knows Netscape anymore. Most people who do fall in the "I-hate-Netscape" category.
    • Its all in the name. However crappy the software might be its name could have a push. If a non-techie was given a choice between mozilla and Netscape(which basically are the same) which one do you think they would choose? Sure mozilla has been heard in the news and articles, still Netscape was there for a loooooooooooong time.
      having said that netscape is a bloatware. It used to be gold so to speak.

    • Re:Why though? (Score:3, Informative)

      by drinkypoo ( 153816 )

      At my place of work we have recently flushed Netscape 7.1 for Mozilla 1.7. Users mostly don't notice a change and except for some caveats (like address books disappearing) for the most part the profile from netscape can be used with mozilla. You have to switch themes, too, because the classic themes in mozilla and netscape are not compatible. Also sometimes email disappears but if you grab the last digit of the X-Mozilla-Status: header from the emails, convert it from a string value to a number value, and

      • Re:Why though? (Score:5, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 17, 2004 @01:15PM (#9992808)
        "users mostly don't notice a change." except you have to switch themes. The address book disappears. E-mail disappears. There's some goofy xor trick to delete mail.

        And somebody mods this as informative, rather than funny?

      • Re:Why though? (Score:5, Funny)

        by GoofyBoy ( 44399 ) on Tuesday August 17, 2004 @01:18PM (#9992843) Journal
        >I wrote a perl script to this but it's so easy to do that I won't bother to provide it :)

        Could you just scribble it in the margins of this page? Thanks, that would save alot of us about 300 years worth of pain.

        • Re:Why though? (Score:5, Interesting)

          by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Tuesday August 17, 2004 @01:55PM (#9993256) Homepage Journal

          Oh ok ok, here is my script. Please be warned that I am not a programmer (I am one who programs, but not as a vocation) and this is probably the absolute worst way to do this. It's just something I tossed together.

          #!/usr/bin/perl
          #
          # nsundelete.pl - undelete messages not yet purged from netscape folders
          #
          while (<>) {
          print STDERR $_ if ( $_ =~ "^Subject:.*" );
          if ( $_ =~ "^X-Mozilla-Status:.*" ) {
          chomp;
          ( $trash, $status ) = split(/\ /,$_);
          print STDERR "Status: $status\n";
          @chars = split(/ */, $status);
          $chars[3] = $chars[3] - 8 if ( $chars[3] >= 8 );
          print STDOUT "X-Mozilla-Status: " . join('', @chars) . "\n";
          print STDERR "X-Mozilla-Status: " . join('', @chars) . "\n";
          } else {
          print STDOUT $_;
          }
          }

          Note also that Slashdot may have inserted whitespace. I tried to replace all my greater than and less than symbols with the appropriate HTML entities but I might have missed something, so don't try this on your only copy of something and delete the source file before examining the output.

          And finally, I LOVE PERL, MWAH!

  • Um... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Millennium ( 2451 ) on Tuesday August 17, 2004 @12:52PM (#9992533)
    If AOL laid off all the Netscape engineers, then who made this release?

  • Netscape is like Tupac... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 17, 2004 @12:52PM (#9992536)
    Releasing new versions from beyond the grave!

  • However (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 17, 2004 @12:53PM (#9992552)
    this latest version features better popup blocking, vCard support, an improved junk mail algorithm, better standards support, performance enhancements and several hundred other bug fixes.

    But alas, all of the other AOL "bonuses" counteracted the new features.

  • ....and I'm posting from it. (Score:5, Informative)

    by michael path ( 94586 ) * on Tuesday August 17, 2004 @12:53PM (#9992557) Homepage Journal
    I jumped the gun when I saw the article display. It installed quickly, renders pages quickly, but - just like Mozilla or Firefox - runs into all the same problems for sites designed with IE in mind (missing menu bars, etc)

    However, it's VERY lightweight (11.5MB installer for Windows), and the memory footprint is about 35% smaller than IE for the same page.

    Nice.

  • Why use NS instead of Mozilla? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by wackysootroom ( 243310 ) on Tuesday August 17, 2004 @12:54PM (#9992558) Homepage
    Aside from being a propreitary product, what does netscape bring to the table that Mozilla does not?

    • Re:Why use NS instead of Mozilla? (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 17, 2004 @12:55PM (#9992585)
      That AOL charm we have all come to know and love.

    • Re:Why use NS instead of Mozilla? (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 17, 2004 @12:55PM (#9992587)
      alot of old baggage and memories of a ship's-wheel icon.
      • Please see "C:\Program Files\mozilla.org\Mozilla\chrome\icons\default\mai n-window.ico" on windows. Dunno if the other versions come with a ship's wheel icon but the windows version sure does. The small icon is much better than the big one.

    • Re:Why use NS instead of Mozilla? (Score:5, Informative)

      by athakur999 ( 44340 ) on Tuesday August 17, 2004 @01:01PM (#9992654) Journal
      I believe it has AOL Instant Messenger intregration and the Mail component can check your AOL mailbox directly.

    • Re:Why use NS instead of Mozilla? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by trevdak ( 797540 ) on Tuesday August 17, 2004 @01:03PM (#9992693) Homepage
      There are people out there who don't trust Mozilla.
      Why?
      Because it isn't run by a major corporation that they will be able to sue should there be any problems.
      AOL puts a face (granted, a big, ugly one that makes most Slashdotter's teeth itch) on Mozilla that is recognized by technophobes as user-friendly. Additionally, AOL gets free advertisement out of it through name placement, and gets to take credit for a high-quality product. Netscape draws the previously mentioned crowd away from the Evil Corporation Which Must Not Be Named.
      • There are people out there who don't trust Mozilla.
        Why?
        Because it isn't run by a major corporation that they will be able to sue should there be any problems.

        That makes sense. And certainly is part of the reason FOSS is not more widely accepted in business. But it's an unwarranted idea. EULA's usually say that the software is used at your own risk and the vendor cannot be held responsible for coincidental, accidental, anecdotal, and total disasters.

        So even if there software is being written by a megasup
    • Well I use Firefox/tbird now, on Linux exclusively, but I used to use NS6 to get my AOL mail in the same app as my POP accounts. I'm not your typical AOL luser, but most of my clients use AOL and it's worth $15/month for me to be able to have an *@aol.com email address.

      It would be really nice if AOL would release AOL mail code to the Mozilla team, that's a nice feature that lets me maintain an AOL mail account without maintaining a Windows or OSX box.
    • what does netscape bring to the table....

      A familiar/recognizable name. Many people still know who Netscape are. Ask them about Mozilla/FireFox, etc and they'll be like, "Who?"

    • Re:Why use NS instead of Mozilla? (Score:4, Informative)

      by Guppy06 ( 410832 ) on Tuesday August 17, 2004 @05:51PM (#9995713)
      I used NS 7.1 before I switched to Firefox last month (long story), and if 7.2 is anything like 7.1 was, it's more or less a suite of Microsoft alternatives.

      The core software is essentially Mozilla (less ChatZilla). The only big differences are the introduction of profiles for storing multiple configuration settings (for all those home users that have several people using the same user account, I s'pose), an "activation" process (yadda) that sets you up with a netscape.net webmail account (which I imagine is the same domain used by customers of that new Netscape-branded ISP, if such customers exist) accessable through Mail. Netscape Mail can also do a few things that Mozilla Mail can't do because of licensing issues, such as access AOL e-mail accounts and import mail from Netscape Communicator 4.7 directly.

      In lieu of ChatZilla it comes with an integrated AIM and ICQ client. Among other bells and whistles the client can be in a stand-alone window or in a sidebar. The only real downside is that you can't be in both AIM and ICQ at the same time (or has that been fixed in 7.2?). Note also that during the "activation" process that they'll use your pre-existing AIM handle as your user account name for your netscape.net webmail address.

      On top of that there are some other bundled apps, mostly other things that AOL also now owns. There's a Radio@Netscape ("Plus") client (think "Radio@AOL") that's still based on the old Spinner software as opposed to the Real stuff that you get as the stand-alone product (unforunately I could never get it to work). WinAmp 2.8 is included, along with a default "netscape" skin that tries to match the "Modern" theme in Mozilla (but fails, IMO) along with changing the title bar to read "Netscape Winamp."

      (I find it interesting that the versions of Spinner and Winamp included with 7.1 were both older versions that happened to be the last versions where they didn't suck, at least in the opinions of most people I've seen.)

      They also try to bundle a RealPlayer client, but I'll be damned if I'll install that. I'd assume that it's also been massaged to look like Netscape.

      And, because they're AOL, "Free AOL for (pi)e7 hours!" links will magically appear on your desktop and start menu, but they go away upon deletion.

      At any rate, it's probably not worth the download for you, but it might be worth sending your parents/grandparents/other people that get free tech support from you. Now when is AOL going to make Netscape its default browser? They saw the light in their CompuServe acquisition, so why not for their core customers?

  • Article Text Stolen! (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 17, 2004 @12:54PM (#9992562)
    I say, jones, this article sounds kind of familiar... [mozillazine.org]
    • Up up up! Article text is a rip off! See parent link! Up up up!
      • who cares? at least it's accurate.

        a lot of the blurbs/'article texts' in slashdot are just the same thign rewritten from other sites for the sake of rewriting it - and end up being confugins, inaccurate and sensationalistic.

        "New Netscape release, straight out of nowhere aol resurrects the netscape line, in a shameless rebranding of the mozilla browser and dumbing it down for the common people, why don't they just submit patches to the original mozilla rather than make their own?" - now, that's an example
        • "a lot of the blurbs/'article texts' in slashdot are just the same thign rewritten from other sites for the sake of rewriting it - and end up being confugins, inaccurate and sensationalistic."

          Poor writing skills do not justify plagiarism. If you can't digest an article's point and accurately summarize it in your own words, you probably shouldn't be subitting stories.

          I wish the editors would better police these posts... one of these days something like this is going to get them in big trouble.

    • I think the words your are looking for are
      'coppied by a potentially unauthorized source'

      Could be that the mozzine post and the /. post came from the same person.

      You should also note that if you remove the words 'better' and 'improved' is becomes a statement of fact, and so can't be copyrighted.
      • I think the word you are looking for is "copied", you fool.

        "...a statement of fact, and so can't be copyrighted."

        What rubbish! Are you saying that newscasts, newspaper and magazine articles, and any other publication with factual information can't be copyrighted? You need to go back to pretend law school, mate.

  • That's good. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by serviscope_minor ( 664417 ) on Tuesday August 17, 2004 @12:54PM (#9992569) Journal
    This is good. There is still a lot of brand recognition left with Netscape (suprisingly). Sometimes people feel happier using a newer version of a product they know (Netscape), as opposed to a product they _think_ they don't know (Mozilla / Firefox).

    The release of Netscape helps in moving these people to a decent, secure browser. I think that Netscape no longer justifies the Nutscrape moniker it aquired in the later 4.x days.

  • Kicking a dead horse... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by chrispyman ( 710460 ) on Tuesday August 17, 2004 @12:55PM (#9992580)
    While I suppose it is kinda nice that they let the Netscape name live on, as a brower atleast, there really isn't a whole lot of reason for them to do so. I'm pretty sure that Mozilla/Firefox usage far exceeds the usage of Netscape 6/7. On ther other hand I suppose it's nice for anyone who actually needs that AOL garbage or who can't convince that PHB to go with a brower that destroyed Tokyo...

  • AOL's token finger still in the pie... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Saeed al-Sahaf ( 665390 ) on Tuesday August 17, 2004 @12:57PM (#9992612) Homepage
    I think that like many multi-nationals, AOL thought that OSS / Linux / Microsoft alternatives would never take off, that Microsoft would vanquish the evil free-software-movement. I think that they have decided that might not be the way things go, and they want to be still in the game.

  • Nostalgia (Score:5, Interesting)

    by AviLazar ( 741826 ) on Tuesday August 17, 2004 @12:57PM (#9992613) Journal
    While Netscape is in my heart (well prior to AOL corrupting my teenage fav program) unfortunately netscape 4.7 was the last decent netscape. IE was so integrated that it flew past netscape :(
    But in all honesty -why would I use netscape over firefox? Is there an advantage?

    • Re:Nostalgia (Score:5, Insightful)

      by CarrionBird ( 589738 ) on Tuesday August 17, 2004 @01:06PM (#9992723) Journal
      Netscape 4.x? Decent? In same sentance??

      Does.... not.. compute...

      NS 4 was the reason I landed on Mozilla back in those rough pre 1.0 days. Anything * was better than having a crash on every other page. If I had to pick a favorite version of NS, it would have to be pre 4. *(Other than IE, I never trusted activeX, seems I was right.)
      • I never had a problem with 4.7. Loaded up quickly, viewed all the websites that I wanted went to (at this point in time i am pretty sure it was almost exclusively pr0n, but hey).
        I did use Mozilla prior to Netscape (i remember being given the mozilla book with the disks to install) :)
        Then came I.E. shudder...now I am back to Mozilla (except at work, which I use IE for work reasons BLAH).
    • I can't believe that you call 4.7 the last decent Netscape. 4.7 was the piece of shit that finally buried the company, and everyone I know hated it

  • In other news... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 17, 2004 @01:00PM (#9992652)
    If a tree falls in the forest, and there's nobody around to hear it...
  • Anybody know how to get the "Search" sidebar tab to use Google?

    Apperently 7.2 only knows about Netscape's engine.

    DG

  • which begs the question (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 17, 2004 @01:01PM (#9992663)
    If a browser is available for download, and nobody downloads it, it is really released?

    Netscape family is like the Griffeys of baseball, the offspring is infinitely better then the parent.

  • Shame (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cubicledrone ( 681598 ) on Tuesday August 17, 2004 @01:02PM (#9992673)
    Probably some of the smartest and most capable engineers and designers in the industry, who produced probably the most famous and symbolic product of the early Internet, and all that's left is a web page of farewell messages.

    It isn't hard to notice the first priority was that everyone should be fired. THEN and ONLY then was the next version of the browser considered, after all the logos were taken off the buildings and the desks moved out, of course.

    I find it very interesting how the early Internet is always referred to as "dot com", as if business and the media are straining to make it a pejorative. All that creativity and CAPITALISM generated great wealth for dozens of economies. Ebay, Amazon, etc. are all publically traded, profitable companies that wouldn't exist without the Internet.

    But it seems that now since the checks have all been cashed, there's no room left for the people who built it, and that's a shame.

    • Re:Shame (Score:4, Insightful)

      by oconnorcjo ( 242077 ) on Tuesday August 17, 2004 @01:23PM (#9992906) Journal
      I find it very interesting how the early Internet is always referred to as "dot com", as if business and the media are straining to make it a pejorative. All that creativity and CAPITALISM generated great wealth for dozens of economies. Ebay, Amazon, etc. are all publically traded, profitable companies that wouldn't exist without the Internet.

      Actually the dot com's were directly related to the 2001-2002 recession and 2003 slow growth. Although 9/11 had some small impact, the fact that billions of billions of billions "disappeared" due to dot coms being overhyped and over valued and going bust destroyed huge ammounts of investment capital. That capital that was infused into the "dot coms" was capital that was not invested into more "worthy" bussiness ventures. Sure many dot coms did/are successfull but not nearly in comparison to the over all failure.

    • But it seems that now since the checks have all been cashed, there's no room left for the people who built it, and that's a shame.

      Welcome to how the world functions. The key is to remain competitive and not dwell on the lack of rewards of past efforts.

      I think these things as I guide this broken body through an imperfect world. ... And where are my 40 acres and a mule?!

    • I think you're being a little over-dramatic (Score:5, Informative)

      by Trepidity ( 597 ) <delirium-slashdot@@@hackish...org> on Tuesday August 17, 2004 @01:30PM (#9992981)
      Most of the people who built Netscape, who were there from the old Mosaic days, left a long time ago, and many of them are fabulously wealthy. Neither Marc Andreessen nor Jim Clarke particularly need to work in the future to support themselves, and jwz took his money and is doing a semi-business/semi-hobby sort of thing by running the DNA Lounge nightclub in San Francisco (just to pick three examples).

      And even to the people there at the end, AOL was quite helpful. First of all, they vastly overpaid for Netscape, since they were sold it on the basis partly that they could use it as an embedded browser for he AOL client, while technically Mozilla was always too bloated and un-modular to do that well (maybe just now it's starting to get to the point where that'd be possible, but it wasn't when they bought it, or even a year or two after they bought it). Once they realized it wasn't much use to them, they didn't even just say "well, fuck you guys": they transitioned it to a new Mozilla.org foundation, and became the single largest donor (by far) to that non-profit foundation, giving them all the equipment they had previously been using (webservers, test build machines, file servers, etc.) and $2m cash.

      All in all I don't think AOL are really the evil ones here. You don't see any other major companies donating $2m cash to mozilla.org.
      • they transitioned it to a new Mozilla.org foundation

        handed them their hats

        became the single largest donor (by far) to that non-profit foundation, giving them all the equipment they had previously been using (webservers, test build machines, file servers, etc.) and $2m cash.

        writeoff

        other major companies donating $2m cash to mozilla.org

        Nobody's offering them jobs either.

  • All right! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Yeechang Lee ( 3429 ) on Tuesday August 17, 2004 @01:08PM (#9992736)
    Finally, a browser that can defeat reigning champs NCSA Mosaic, Arena, and Cello! *Anything* that breaks their monopoly-like dominance of the Web browser market will be welcomed!

  • Better than perfect? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Kenrod ( 188428 ) on Tuesday August 17, 2004 @01:14PM (#9992805)
    ...features better popup blocking

    How'd they do that? My Mozilla 1.7 blocks 100% of pop-ups. You can't get much better than that.

  • What I want to know... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    is why my university insists on still using NS 4.0 in all of its computers ... even the new ones!

  • Some sites outdated (Score:3, Informative)

    by linuxci ( 3530 ) on Tuesday August 17, 2004 @01:18PM (#9992851)
    Netscape need to update some of their international sites or pull them down. UK Site [netscape.co.uk] still says that version 7.0 is the latest! 7.0 was released about 2 years ago, and 7.1 is just over a year old.


    Also I've noticed English is the only language 7.2 is available for, will others be added?

  • First post ... (Score:5, Informative)

    by ehiris ( 214677 ) on Tuesday August 17, 2004 @01:56PM (#9993273) Homepage
    ... With netscape. This browser is either a lot faster then IE or it just gives you that feeling. I'm very pleased so far.

  • no OS9 version (Score:3, Interesting)

    by MyDixieWrecked ( 548719 ) on Tuesday August 17, 2004 @02:10PM (#9993429) Homepage Journal
    not that I use OS9... well, this one last machine at work, here is running 9.

    Although IE is the best browser for 9, it is lacking some more modern features (tabbed browsing, etc).

    oh well...

  • Umm... based on Moz 1.7 or 1.7.2? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Bloody Peasant ( 12708 ) on Tuesday August 17, 2004 @02:25PM (#9993604) Homepage

    One would hope the latter...

    There is at least one nasty bug [mozilla.org] that got fixed between 1.7 and 1.7.2 [mozilla.org].

Slashdot Top Deals

E = MC ** 2 +- 3db

Close