Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Netscape Software The Internet

Peeking at Netscape 8 244

Posted by Hemos 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This discussion has been archived.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.

Peeking at Netscape 8 More

Peeking at Netscape 8

Comments Filter:

  • Too young? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 07, 2005 @09:14AM (#11864872)
    Ah, remember when the release of a Netscape mattered?

    No, cant say I do.

    • Re:Too young? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by erlenic ( 95003 )
      I am old enough to remember when they were the top dog, but I still don't remember when they mattered.

    • Re:Too young? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by MetaPhyzx ( 212830 )
      I'm not too young, but the last time I've used a Netscape browser on a regular basis, it was 4.7.I've used several Mozilla implementations, and thank the Gods for Firefox, in which I do most of my browsing (Safari on my Macs) on the office PC and my linux boxen at home.

      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)

      by nojomofo ( 123944 ) on Monday March 07, 2005 @09:51AM (#11865262) Homepage
      Back in my day, we used Mosaic, and we liked it!

  • Still too bloated.. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Zate ( 687440 )
    I prefer Firefox because of its speed and relatively small foot print.

    Also having an IE rendering mode is to me a con, not a pro.

    • Firefox has a small footprint? (Score:5, Informative)

      by fons ( 190526 ) on Monday March 07, 2005 @09:30AM (#11865051) Homepage

      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.
      • Myself, I'd use Opera on that. After all, with all the spyware, that PMMX@233 will CRAWL...

        Besides, I've used as recent Opera releases as 7.60P1 (haven't booted the box since then) on my PMMX@233 with 96MB of RAM and Mandrake 10.0 Community. It's certainly slower than Opera on a modern box, but last I checked, it kicked Firefox's ass (except for the memory leaks, but those have almost disappeared in the later 7.6 previews and 8.0 betas).
      • 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.

        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.
        • Really? I started using Mozilla 1.0 on my old K6 300 with 48mb RAM and it ran as fast or faster than IE 4. Beat the heck out of Netscape 4.7, which is what I was using before the Rockwalrus [slashdot.org] turned me on to Mozilla. That's faster than your machine, but it was a Compaq, which pretty much negates the speed difference.

      • 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)

        by Ayaress ( 662020 ) on Monday March 07, 2005 @10:35AM (#11865771) Journal
        Just to test things out, I dug my P200 out. It has 16 megs of RAM and runs windows 95. Firefox was a bit slow to load up on it, but works fine once loaded. My laptop is a P166 with 90-some-odd megs of RAM, and it runs Firefox without a hitch.
      • It runs fine on my toshiba libretto (P233, 64MB ram).
      • Actually, I have Firefox running happily on an old Pentium 133 Thinkpad. It doesn't load very fast, but once it's up, pages load quickly enough
      • which version of ie would that be? some for some windows version that's usable at 32mb? from an era when 32mb was standard.. hmm?

        from 1996 or something?

    • Also, IE rendering is not needed on windows machines if you install the "view in IE" extension for Firefox. Although i do see its uses if you were developing web sites on another OS where IE is not available.

      We must remember that IE still hase 90% (ish, not checked netcraft) and untill firefox spreads, sites HAVE to render correctly in it... apart from /. obviously
    • You could always return to Netscape 1.1N. [evolt.org] Best .. browser .. evar.

  • Misread it... (Score:5, Funny)

    by zecg ( 521666 ) on Monday March 07, 2005 @09:15AM (#11864878)
    ...as "Peeing at Netscape 8" and thought how, finally, here's an article that a geek could appreciate.

  • Great Look (Score:3, Interesting)

    by michelcultivo ( 524114 ) on Monday March 07, 2005 @09:15AM (#11864889) Journal
    I expect the great look turns into great functionality, but what they done to increase the size from 4MB to 12MB?!?!?!

  • Interface. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by u16084 ( 832406 ) on Monday March 07, 2005 @09:15AM (#11864895)
    I installed it, First thing i noticed is the weather on my browser interface... And then something called weather bug... To ME, The interface is overwhelming. I don want messenger icons, shopping links,and what ever else they sqeezed in to fill the empty spots. Back - Forward - Print is all I need on my browser.

    • Re:Interface. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by orasio ( 188021 ) on Monday March 07, 2005 @09:22AM (#11864962) Homepage
      Address bar, Google bar, Statur bar is all I need.
      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.
    • Interesting point. Personally, there is a veritable plethora of buttons that I'd like to see on my browser.

      Of course, the usual buttons must be there: back, forward, reload, stop, home, but that's not really enough, is it?

      I think a resize button would be good. You know, to change the size of my monitor. Some pages would be a lot better if the monitor was bigger.

      Also, I'd like a "more interesting" button to fix those unappealing pages. If this is unfeasable, I would settle for a "summon magic dancing
    • "I don want messenger icons, shopping links,and what ever else they sqeezed in to fill the empty spots. Back - Forward - Print is all I need on my browser."

      Ah, so you're the one who's been asking for that print-icon which wastes so much space on a default FireFox install?

      Perhaps in future, software will be intelligent enough to remove the print button, the print menu, the print keyboard-shortcut, and the print context menu when it detects that you don't have a printer installed...
    • From the Firefox Manifesto [blakeross.com]:

      The personal toolbar is the personal toolbar, not the whorebar.

      It seems all the good Netscape people ended up with Mozilla (or at least not in Netscape anymore)

  • To all webmasters (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 07, 2005 @09:16AM (#11864899)
    Remember that you can use IE conditional comments

    <!--[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)

      by Anonymous Coward
      and then look at
      http://minghong.dyndns.org:8080/OpenWiki/?NoIEInfo rmationBar [dyndns.org]
      which has great IE InfoBar spoofing, including lots of localizations!

    • Re:To all webmasters (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      To any one who creates web pages, don't waste your time, or make a mess of your page with such stupid messages. You want people to switch to Firefox or another standards compliant browser? then provide useful features that are only available in those browsers, while still making your page usable with IE.
      • You want people to switch to Firefox or another standards compliant browser? then provide useful features that are only available in those browsers, while still making your page usable with IE.

        Useful features? Like, say standards compliance?

  • Gag, (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MindStalker ( 22827 ) <mindstalker AT gmail DOT com> on Monday March 07, 2005 @09:16AM (#11864900) Journal
    Review talks about how pleasing the new toolbar interface is. GAG. Its absolutly horrendus.

  • It can't be all bad (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mr_RR ( 803470 ) on Monday March 07, 2005 @09:17AM (#11864910)
    Another third-party browser will ultimately help the browser scene, regardless of how widespread its adoption is. At any rate, the release of this browser, especially with the publicity surrounding it, might help bring the need to reform the Mozilla development process (from an article a few hours ago).

    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)

      by Laurentiu ( 830504 ) on Monday March 07, 2005 @09:32AM (#11865063)
      If you want third party browsers, you should look at Opera or Konqueror. This is NOT a third party browser. Contrary to popular belief, if you take two songs and mix them up, the result is NOT a brand new song. It's a (re)mix.

      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?

  • What's the point? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by BlightShadow ( 678579 ) on Monday March 07, 2005 @09:17AM (#11864916) Homepage Journal
    If I have windows I have IE(no choices here), if I want netscape rendering I have Firefox/Mozilla. Getting a bloated version of mozilla to replace essentially mozilla seems a little silly.

    Having a dual rendering based browser just doesn't make any sence.
    • May be a little OT, but you might need the "dual rendering" in order to properly view the netscape.com site (or is it just me that it's rendering _sucks_ in Firefox 1.0.1 ...)

  • Blogspot (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    with generally positive review at blogspot.com

    Blogspot is not a blog. It is a blog hosting service. Please be more specific next time.

  • Multi-Bar (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ballsanya ( 596519 ) on Monday March 07, 2005 @09:20AM (#11864941)
    I really like the idea of multi bar. On firefox I have several toolbars that I love and really can't do without, but do not use them all at the same time. Is there a firefox multi bar extension out there somewhere?

  • But this release DOES matter (Score:5, Insightful)

    by doublem ( 118724 ) on Monday March 07, 2005 @09:21AM (#11864955) Homepage Journal
    Ah, remember when the release of a Netscape mattered?

    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.
    • absolutely. this quote

      Netscape have attempted to overcome the problem of Gecko not rendering 100% of pages correctly by adding native support for Internet Explorer.

      disturbs me. so basically, netscape says, we will now validate the sloppy shortcuts and non-standard code produced by MS-favoring developers. sigh. there's nothing you can do in IE that you can't do in generic code (saving activex integration, but hey, there are ways to achieve the functionality without using proprietary technology.

      i was thr

    • Since when? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by DesScorp ( 410532 ) on Monday March 07, 2005 @09:32AM (#11865061) Journal
      "It's a blow to the progress that Firefox and Mozilla have made..."

      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?

      • "Oh, and some businesses NEED a browser that can view IE code, because some business apps require it. "

        Holy crap, that's a good point. I was seriously ready to dismiss Netscape since it's little more than a rebranded Firefox. On the other hand, I have been unable to deploy Firefox in my shop because 99% of packaged intranet solutions seem to be written for IE. Netscape 8 (with a less vomitous theme) could break the IE stranglehold in businesses. Hell, my bosses all recognize the name and I can presumably s
        • It still doesn't matter.

          You will still need IE in these cases.

          Any ActiveX controls used on a webpage, typically found mostly in intranet sites, will still only run in IE.
          • No, the new Netscape can render in IE and use ActiveX. It makes some slightly tighter security choices about it, but they can be loosed on a site by site basis.
      • since when did having broken, nonstandard HTML, Javascript and CSS rendering become a requirement?!
        • Since most of the pages out there use Broken, Nonstandard HTML, Javascript and CSS. Duh. You can't convince web developers to follow the standards you can only convince the people who pay the developers to follow the standards. Because if the developers don't care to follow the standards they won't care that you are complaing about it. But for the people who pay these guys and give them a good buisness reason (10% of potential customers revenue vs. 2% extra development time costs) It comes down to money
  • First of all, I am amazed they still bother to make Netscape. They have what, a half, perhaps one percent market share?

    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)

    by Faust7 ( 314817 ) on Monday March 07, 2005 @09:22AM (#11864964) Homepage
    Ah, remember when the release of a Netscape mattered?

    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)

      by Jugalator ( 259273 ) on Monday March 07, 2005 @11:20AM (#11865922) Journal
      ... and for Microsoft it went like this ...

      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.

  • Its a imitator! (Score:5, Informative)

    by solafide ( 845228 ) on Monday March 07, 2005 @09:23AM (#11864970) Homepage
    It is *based* on Firefox 1.0, yet it *imitates* IE, and it has its own new toolbar that is _ugly_. So why is it different from Opera which can imitate any browser, yet looks reasonable?

    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!

    • So why is it different from Opera which can imitate any browser

      Opera can't "imitate any browser". It can provide arbitrary user-agent strings, but that's nothing like using the Internet Explorer rendering engine.

  • If it doesn't matter... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Karpe ( 1147 ) on Monday March 07, 2005 @09:25AM (#11864997) Homepage
    why post it? I thought it was "News for nerds, stuff that matters." There is so many things that matter that are not accepted for post, I think the editors should be ashamed of saying something like "Ah, remember when the release of a Netscape mattered?" and then just posting it.

  • Rendering Engine (Score:4, Interesting)

    by StarWreck ( 695075 ) on Monday March 07, 2005 @09:25AM (#11865000) Homepage Journal
    Is there much point to using Netscape since it uses the same engine as Mozilla and Firefox and Camino?

    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.
    • Netscape 2.0 gold supports automatically installing spyware too? How?

    • Re:Rendering Engine (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Is there much point to using Netscape since it uses the same engine as Mozilla and Firefox and Camino?

      Put that another way: is there much point to using Mozilla and Firefox and Camino since they use the same engine as Netscape?

      Netscape was more relevent when it based on the old Mosaic engine because that made Netscape unique.

      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)

    by ABCC ( 861543 ) on Monday March 07, 2005 @09:26AM (#11865018)

    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.

    • The Netscape brandname will still be relevant at the server side. Many websites will be content as long as they support Explorer & Netscape.

      Unfortunately, this means that they can program for the IE engine only and still be confident that they "support the web standard".
    • match the media buzz that surrounded FF 1.0 release

      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.
      • Yeah, you must have.
        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?

        • The Netscape brand is advertised on television and in magazines. How many TV commercials have there been for the Firefox/Mozilla brand? How about magazine ads?

          Of course people interested in computers are well aware of Firefox. The vast majority of the planet, however, is not interested. If you want an example, ask your dentist to list the web browsers they know of.

    • 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,

      Strangely enough, brandname works even though it has completely lost its meaning or content. Look at Napster. Granted I'm not sure the "new napster" is a success, but I seem to see a damn lot of stories going "Napster revived", "The new Napster", "Napster gone legal" etc. etc., which

  • Cross platform (Score:3, Interesting)

    by erebus24 ( 632942 ) on Monday March 07, 2005 @09:34AM (#11865091) Homepage
    So where does this leave Netscape on Mac or Linux? Will the Netscape 8 become available for Mac using IE5? Dear god anything but that.
  • imagine if they had not become and open source product and instead mozilla came out later as netscape 6 and only netscape 6, would you use it on linux (given no alternative) and would you say it mattered? this might be an interesting test case for companies that are thinking of open sourcing.
  • The release of a Netscape still matters; only now we call it a mozilla (Firefox/Thunderbird etc).

  • Unfortunately (Score:5, Interesting)

    by fuentes ( 711192 ) on Monday March 07, 2005 @09:40AM (#11865150)
    Ah, remember when the release of a Netscape mattered?

    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)

    by rsidd ( 6328 ) on Monday March 07, 2005 @09:41AM (#11865156)
    A financial website [icicidirect.com] I use did not work with anything except IE: none of the buttons did anything when clicked on. I complained, twice, and actually got a reply both times saying "thanks for the feedback, we're passing it on to our web team." And now it does work in Firefox, and Konq too. Perhaps others complained too, but it looks like change is possible. (There are a couple other bugs with firefox that I'll tell them about.)
  • it makes the point that the IE rendering mode could hurt Firefox

    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.
  • Yes.

    Milk was a nickle, and cars were called "trolley boxes" And I seem to remember walking five miles in the snow to school. Each way. Even during the summer.

    Man, that sucked. I sure am glad we have Firefox now.

  • "positive review at blogspot.com"? (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 07, 2005 @10:05AM (#11865409)

    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)

    by Lshmael ( 603746 ) on Monday March 07, 2005 @10:16AM (#11865502) Homepage
    "It seems like Netscape 8 has hit blogland, with generally positive review at blogspot.com...
    Technically, the review is at the blog "Smiler's Scribbles [blogspot.com]," which is hosted on Blogspot. The post makes it sounds as if the Blogspot staff got together and reviewed the browser themselves, which they did not.
  • What I don't get is why did AOL buy Netscape (other than for it's user's, since netscape.com was one of the busiest sites online at the time), and why is Netscape still around (besides their cheaper alternative to AOL's online service)?

    America OffLine bought Netscape, Netscape started Mozilla to be the next version of Netscape, AOL got rid of Mozilla, and the Mozilla Foundation was formed, and AOL was using IE as their main browser.

    Now, AOL has made their own browser which is based on IE, Netscape still r
  • I use NS7.2 at home and there is nothing at all about it that's bad. The only site I commonly use that doesn't work well with NS is eMachine's product support pages. It handles profiles better than FF/TB and it installs clean and well. I actually like WeatherBug but remove AIM toolbar and the other gewgaws, Wildtangent, etc. It doesn't crash on XP as much as FF. And in terms of bloat, FF on a low powered Linux machine is painfully slow. Use Dillo if you can, so clearly FF is not all about speed, it's about
  • I don't believe the Netscape project is open source (which is their right under MPL) and so I couldn't find out how they embedded IE into Firefox.

    Are there any other open source projects that will let you embed the IE rendering engine into Firefox? I've seen the Mozilla ActiveX project, but was unable to get that working. It also lacks the simplicity of a toggle to switch rendering modes.

    I hate to say it, but like it or not there are a lot of legacy applications out there that require IE, and that we ar

  • 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.

    So why not have a small popupbar (just like when FF blocks a pop-up) on NS 8 that says something like...

    The web page you are browsing does not comply with

    W3C [w3.org] standards! Do you wish to email the page author to inform them of this problem?

    It should be unobtrusive enough not to annoy the browser users, but get enough users to hit the page au

Slashdot Top Deals

In the long run, every program becomes rococco, and then rubble. -- Alan Perlis

Close