Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Peeking at Netscape 8

Hemos posted more than 9 years ago | from the under-da-hood dept.

Netscape 244

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?

cancel ×

244 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Well (1)

oiper (575250) | more than 9 years ago | (#11864862)

Who uses Netscape anymore anyways? *duck

Re:Well (1)

MoonFog (586818) | more than 9 years ago | (#11864891)

It still has its name, people seem to have heard about Netscape.

Re:Well (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11864958)

I used netsape as my primary browser until 4.76.
6.0 came out and I switched away.

I started this new job (non IT) and found that my work computer has netscape 6.2 installed. I used it to post this.

Re:Well (1)

Junta (36770) | more than 9 years ago | (#11864961)

Nowadays, Firefox has made a name for itself, more so than netscape I would dare say.

Re:Well (4, Funny)

AKnightCowboy (608632) | more than 9 years ago | (#11865056)

It still has its name, people seem to have heard about Netscape.

Netscape is that dialup service that competes with Netzero right?

Re:Well (2, Funny)

generic-man (33649) | more than 9 years ago | (#11865236)

That's right, it competes with NetZero, which provides Internet access for only $9.95 a month.

Welcome to bizarro-net.

No point trying (0, Troll)

welbz (834148) | more than 9 years ago | (#11864898)

Micro$oft anti-spyware will probably stop me installing it.

Re:Well (1)

MtViewGuy (197597) | more than 9 years ago | (#11864914)

Who uses Netscape anymore anyways?

Certainly not me. I run either Firefox 1.0.1 or the Maxthon 1.2.00 shell program for Internet Explorer instead.

Re:Well (2, Insightful)

mirko (198274) | more than 9 years ago | (#11864924)

Yes indeed: Until Netscape 3, it was the reference, then it got equaled by MSIE. It remained used as the non-MS alternative but since Mozilla, Phoenix/Firebird/Firefox and Opera, there's no place for it anymore, also because it's not even supposed to be anything else than a re-branded OpenSource product.
I guess Firefox was the best we could obtain and also the last positive thing Netscape could have done.

W00T (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11864863)

Fr1st Pr05t Suck3r5

Too young? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11864872)

Ah, remember when the release of a Netscape mattered?

No, cant say I do.

Re:Too young? (2, Insightful)

erlenic (95003) | more than 9 years ago | (#11864933)

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

Re:Too young? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11865021)

I remember when they were top dog as well, which is why this quote amused me:-

They (Microsoft) like to make the web a "better experience" by adding little quirks which only IE understands.

Especially as Netscape were the worst at trying to force their standards as web standards. It seems only natural that a Netscape browser would continue this trend by including the IE viewing engine.

Re:Too young? (1)

Reignking (832642) | more than 9 years ago | (#11865157)

Aren't you contradicting yourself? Being the "top dog" would imply that they mattered, I would think...

Re:Too young? (2, Interesting)

MetaPhyzx (212830) | more than 9 years ago | (#11864959)

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 (3, Funny)

nojomofo (123944) | more than 9 years ago | (#11865262)

Back in my day, we used Mosaic, and we liked it!

Still too bloated.. (3, Interesting)

Zate (687440) | more than 9 years ago | (#11864873)

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? (4, Informative)

fons (190526) | more than 9 years ago | (#11865051)


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.

Re:Firefox has a small footprint? (0)

necromcr (836137) | more than 9 years ago | (#11865198)

Yeah.. It installs spyware perfectly!

Re:Firefox has a small footprint? (1)

bhtooefr (649901) | more than 9 years ago | (#11865228)

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).

Re:Firefox has a small footprint? (0)

fons (190526) | more than 9 years ago | (#11865337)

That's actually a very good idea! Thanks.

Re:Firefox has a small footprint? (2, Interesting)

slim (1652) | more than 9 years ago | (#11865293)

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.

IE only (0)

Vulture101 (728858) | more than 9 years ago | (#11864877)


if they are old and are IE only, are they worth to read anyway ?

Misread it... (5, Funny)

zecg (521666) | more than 9 years ago | (#11864878)

...as "Peeing at Netscape 8" and thought how, finally, here's an article that a geek could appreciate.

Re:Misread it... (0)

Otter (3800) | more than 9 years ago | (#11865003)

Perhaps it's a tie-in with the recent interview of "MC Pee Pants"...

Netscape lost (1)

demon_2k (586844) | more than 9 years ago | (#11864883)

Netscape: Can't beat them, join them.

Sick of that IE look anyway (1)

schestowitz (843559) | more than 9 years ago | (#11864887)

What is the matter with IE layouts? What Web sites are we supposed to navigate to? MSN? As long as you visit the right places, Netscape will do.

Netscrap? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11864888)

I for one welcome our AOL loving Microsoft Rendering Butt Licking Netscrap overlords

Re:Netscrap? (1)

haydies (865607) | more than 9 years ago | (#11865053)

Halliluya, who cares who renders the page what way, just as long as they all render it the same way....

I honestly don't get why things are not just IE compatible, as most people use IE, and most sites are designed for IE... it seems that not rendering a page properly (that works in IE) is a good reason for people not to use a differant browser....

Re:Netscrap? (2, Informative)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 9 years ago | (#11865199)

Because the way IE renders things is not documented, changes with each version (even the mac versions render things very differently to the windows version) and has not seen any new features since 2001.
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 this could be considered illegal and nodoubt microsoft would stamp down on it.
Aside from the fact that ie is NOT designed to be a decent browser, it's NOT designed to advance the web or to benefit the users. It's sole purpose in existance was to bankrupt netscape and increase dependance on microsoft products.

Great Look (3, Interesting)

michelcultivo (524114) | more than 9 years ago | (#11864889)

I expect the great look turns into great functionality, but what they done to increase the size from 4MB to 12MB?!?!?!

Re:Great Look (1)

flumps (240328) | more than 9 years ago | (#11864911)

I reckon thats the reverse engineered Microsoft IE rendering DLL matey - 8MB of broken DOM and spaghetti crap ;)

Re:Great Look (1)

FuzzzyLogik (592766) | more than 9 years ago | (#11865035)

that's all compressed. so if by that you mean 8mb of compressed IE rendering dll.. blah blah blah, you'd still be wrong, but at least it might be a bit funny.

IE is built into windows.. which would mean that the IE end of things wouldn't even have to be added to the overall size, other than a bit of code to load the engine, tell it to render pages, etc.. it's trivial to use the IE rendering engine, same as you would with webkit (safari's rendering engine based on khtml). Really is just a few lines of code.

Re:Great Look (2, Funny)

eric_brissette (778634) | more than 9 years ago | (#11865140)

Green is a very large color.

Interface. (3, Insightful)

u16084 (832406) | more than 9 years ago | (#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. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11864939)

Bah!

Back in my day we would've killed for a print button. But instead we had to sit there with our dull pencils and try to copy the screen onto blank paper.

Re:Interface. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11865004)

Thats nothing! We had to make do with nothing but charcoal and bogroll, and produce rubbings with our bare hands from the bare circuit boards. We were lucky our dad didn't kill us.

Re:Interface. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11865009)

Bah, back in my day we didn't need a print button, or a pencil. the computers then only gave hard copy printout. It's true that you had to translate from punch card . . .

Re:Interface. (3, Insightful)

orasio (188021) | more than 9 years ago | (#11864962)

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.

Re:Interface. (-1, Troll)

xiando (770382) | more than 9 years ago | (#11865013)

Print? Evil bastard. Trees are currently being felled ten times the rate they are being reproduced. If we humans do not change our behavior then there will be no trees left by the end of the century, if not sooner. The web is there to allow you to retrieve information and read it on your screen. Do not pollute, do not be evil, DO NOT PRINT. Print should not be a priority, it should not be among the only three buttons you claim you need .. in fact, in my humble opinion, it should not be there at all.

Re:Interface. (0, Offtopic)

u16084 (832406) | more than 9 years ago | (#11865088)

Oh, I'm Sorry, I didnt know *I* was at a tree huggers convention. Thought this was /. I assume you think books are evil also? But the sound of "Evil Bastard", I could get used to that. Thanks.

Re:Interface. (1)

operagost (62405) | more than 9 years ago | (#11865123)

Welcome to the zoo. Don't feed the trolls. Now move along, please.

Re:Interface. (1)

Angafirith (825501) | more than 9 years ago | (#11865187)

The interface is definately ugly, but I guess it fits in with the old versions of Netscape. People who don't want all of the crap will just keep using Firefox or Internet Explorer. Only the people who liked the old Netscapes (like my parents) will be interested in this, I bet. Another problem is that you can't use Firefox themes with it, even though it points you at the Firefox themes page.

Re:Interface. (0)

martingunnarsson (590268) | more than 9 years ago | (#11865307)

I think the interface has some nice advantages over Firefox, but it desperately needs a more minimalistic theme.

To all webmasters (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#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 (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11865086)

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

Gag, (4, Insightful)

MindStalker (22827) | more than 9 years ago | (#11864900)

Review talks about how pleasing the new toolbar interface is. GAG. Its absolutly horrendus.

Re:Gag, (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11864985)

GAG, I hate tabbed browsing, I hate slow rendering, I hate poor configuration via about:config, I hate foo.

GAG, don't use it as it's probably not meant for you.

Re:Gag, (0, Flamebait)

FooBarWidget (556006) | more than 9 years ago | (#11865078)

This just proofs that Slashdotters know nothing about usability or what average users want.

Re:Gag, (0, Offtopic)

MindStalker (22827) | more than 9 years ago | (#11865116)

I was just being silly honestly, didn't expect it to get modded up. Geez what are moderators drinking nowadays. Anyways I use firefox as my main browser and it is great. The new interface just has too much. Yes I can customize it, but untill I can get rid of the multibar, chance the colors, and have just one centralized tab close button. I'm sticking with firefox.

Re:Gag (1)

Tavor (845700) | more than 9 years ago | (#11865117)

/me peers closely at the teeny tiny image the linked site has.
Ugh. Looks like a cross between AOL-(mis)design tactics, and Windows Media Player 7 for Windows ME.

http://pcweb.mycom.co.jp/special/2000/WinMe/images /M-08.jpg [mycom.co.jp]
WMP7 Example

http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/int/aol8/scrn.gif [com.com]
AOL Ugliness.

It can't be all bad (4, Insightful)

mr_RR (803470) | more than 9 years ago | (#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 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11865059)

Uhhh, if Netscape is now a "third-party browser", who the hell is the second...?

Re:It can't be all bad (1)

mr_RR (803470) | more than 9 years ago | (#11865094)

Firefox, of course [w3schools.com]

Re:It can't be all bad (5, Interesting)

Laurentiu (830504) | more than 9 years ago | (#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? (5, Interesting)

BlightShadow (678579) | more than 9 years ago | (#11864916)

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.

Blogspot (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11864917)

with generally positive review at blogspot.com

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

Re:Blogspot (-1, Redundant)

FZer0 (585622) | more than 9 years ago | (#11865064)

Mod parent up.

Dude, whats wrong with Netscape? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11864936)

Even though the latest Netscape 8 is a mix between Firefox and IE, I don't see what's wrong with Netscape. It may not be as popular as Firefox or IE, but it is still a full-fledged, fully capable alternate browser. Is it really that bad?

Re:Dude, whats wrong with Netscape? (3, Informative)

iacyclone (180583) | more than 9 years ago | (#11864986)

I agree. More competition, in most cases, fosters better products. After all who would have imagined that Firefox would have become the challenger to IE that is has today? It has been helped because of Netscape, Opera and countless others who are still trying to innovate.

Multi-Bar (5, Interesting)

ballsanya (596519) | more than 9 years ago | (#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 (4, Insightful)

doublem (118724) | more than 9 years ago | (#11864955)

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.

Re:But this release DOES matter (1)

mr_RR (803470) | more than 9 years ago | (#11864999)

I don't see how an IE rendering mode will have a significant negative impact on Firefox. Sure, it will bring pressure on the Mozilla Foundation to fix those glitches in Gecko that would make a user want to use an IE render mode, but lets face it, IE rendering screws up just as many, if not more, sites than Gecko, especially those using newer CSS standards.

Re:But this release DOES matter (2, Interesting)

icebrrrg (123867) | more than 9 years ago | (#11865028)

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 thrilled when IE first came out. i was more thrilled when firefox first came out. i'm less than thrilled this time around.

Since when? (4, Insightful)

DesScorp (410532) | more than 9 years ago | (#11865061)

"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?

Re:Since when? (0)

doublem (118724) | more than 9 years ago | (#11865200)

Oh there you go ruining a perfectly good troll bait rant with logic. I'd hoped to get a few more zealots foaming at the mouth before someone introduced LOGIC.

It really would have been something of an FU if Netscape's user base was still larger, because then it might actually discourage Firefox and Mozilla migrations. At my company, we recommend Firefox or Mozilla as alternative browsers, not Netscape, and a lot of our customers aren't upgrading to the next Netscape. They're either using Safari or Firefox.

At this stage, Netscape is basically around as a brand name for AOL use, and a bargaining chip in any discussions between AOL and Microsoft. It's also around to serve as an upgrade path for all the Netscape users who don't know about Mozilla, and believe me, they're out there, and they're probably a sizeable percentage of the current Netscape users.

In the end, this is actually a good thing for Mozilla / Firefox adoption. You see, Netscape just added all the IE vulnerabilities to it's product. Everyone switching away from IE because of bugs and security can now be told to avoid Netscape, as at this point it really is nothing more than an IE add on.

huh, netscape still exists? (1, Informative)

xiando (770382) | more than 9 years ago | (#11864957)

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..)

Re:huh, netscape still exists? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11865046)

I still have a copy of the 4.x.

series just cause I like the MAPI intercept with NT4 (on my PII 233) ...hey it works and is FW'd off.

Re:huh, netscape still exists? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11865182)

whats a netscape?

I do remember! (5, Funny)

Faust7 (314817) | more than 9 years ago | (#11864964)

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! (1)

StarWreck (695075) | more than 9 years ago | (#11865090)

It took you until 7.0 to switch to IE? Netscape started being based on Mozilla after 4.0

Ugly Firefow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11864968)

Firefox with an ugly theme? What's the point? Netscape who?

Its a imitator! (5, Informative)

solafide (845228) | more than 9 years ago | (#11864970)

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!

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

Karpe (1147) | more than 9 years ago | (#11864997)

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.

Re:If it doesn't matter... (1)

ghoti (60903) | more than 9 years ago | (#11865054)

And let that witty comment go to waste? Never ...

Re:If it doesn't matter... (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11865251)

It matters that it doesn't matters.

Rendering Engine (4, Interesting)

StarWreck (695075) | more than 9 years ago | (#11865000)

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.

Re:Rendering Engine (1)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 9 years ago | (#11865352)

Netscape 2.0 gold supports automatically installing spyware too? How?

Re:Rendering Engine (1)

StarWreck (695075) | more than 9 years ago | (#11865377)

Yes! But only very very old spyware. Its hard to find websites that still try to load you with such ancient spyware using um... Javascript?

Re:Rendering Engine (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11865375)

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 known as Gecko).

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.

Here's the code: http://lxr.mozilla.org/classic/source/ [mozilla.org] . Knock yourself out. You'll find some docs at http://www.mozilla.org/classic/layout-classic/ [mozilla.org] . Oh, and AOL funded the development of Gecko for five years, so you may wish to reconsider your statement.

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!!

No, they're not. Not largely anyway. Most of the people that work on the Firefox frontend (which is practically the only thing that's different from the new Netscape Browser 8.0 Beta) are not Gecko developers. And anyway, the version of Gecko you'll find in Netscape 8.0 Beta is practically identical to the one in Firefox 1.0. And Mozilla 1.7.5. And some version of Camino. And...

I still keep a copy of Netscape 2.0 Gold - does everything Internet Explorer can do.

Really? CSS? Advanced JavaScript? PNG images? Thought not.

Remember? Huh? (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11865014)

Ah, remember when the release of a Netscape mattered?

No. And thank God for these magic little pills that let me forget.

Are netscape still relevant? (5, Insightful)

ABCC (861543) | more than 9 years ago | (#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.

Re:Are netscape still relevant? (1)

TuringTest (533084) | more than 9 years ago | (#11865118)

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".

Re:Are netscape still relevant? (1)

BackInIraq (862952) | more than 9 years ago | (#11865132)

"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."

Anybody who has been around long enough to really remember Netscape more than likely has a negative image of them. At best they can hope to capture some users who vaguely remember having heard the name but never actually used it...because if they used any of the later versions of Netscape they will likely avoid this one like the plague.

The two computers at the entrance of my university library for some reason had Netscape installed on them for accessing the online catalog. I would walk right past them and go out of my way to get onto one of the sit-down computers, and instead access the catalog with IE (and now most of those have Firefox on them). Because while IE might be evil, Netscape was just plain bad.

Re:Are netscape still relevant? (2, Interesting)

v01d (122215) | more than 9 years ago | (#11865174)

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.

Re:Are netscape still relevant? (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 9 years ago | (#11865333)

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 is press and attention you definately wouldn't have gotten with "$foo new online music store".

Likewise with Netscape. Even though Netscape 1-4 and 6-8 are completely different browsers, the name remains and news sites do post articles about "Netscape". Of course, if you can't deliver it'll ultimately die down, but I think the Moz/FF quality will come to Netscape before that.

As we've seen, you can keep a name around in people's mindshare for years. The press is always a sucker for "comebacks". It is kinda like reporting on Maradona's n'th "comeback", long after most sane people have figured out it's not going to happen. Still makes good press.

Kjella

IE Rendering (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11865076)

Netscape may not be the most popular browser, going back to its heavyweight, slow and bulky days. However, it can slow Firefox adoption in Linux down tremendously because it is the alternative Linux browser that can actually render all web pages as they were intended.

I don't really care for that, since IE rendering violates standards. However, the websites with the most problems tend to be the more important ones... from my experience, banks, government, and other forms sites tend to have more problems rendering in Firefox than the majority of simple information pages.

I just wonder how fast the IE rendering engine is, compared to the Firefox rendering engine.

Cross platform (3, Interesting)

erebus24 (632942) | more than 9 years ago | (#11865091)

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.

funny you mention it not mattering (2, Interesting)

minus_273 (174041) | more than 9 years ago | (#11865103)

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.

IE Rendering Mode (1)

kevb (816796) | more than 9 years ago | (#11865107)

I wonder if this will only work in Windows (and possibly Mac). Will be interesting to see if it could be done on other operating systems.

Not on Mac. (1)

UncleRage (515550) | more than 9 years ago | (#11865284)

MS hasn't released an update for the Mac in years. If memory serves correctly*, I believe the last Mac release was IE 5.2.

* I don't have many Mac clients anymore (maybe 5 or 6 out of 60ish), and those I do all use Safari/Firefox/Camino.

Of course... real geeks use lynx/links. ;)

It still matters (1)

johansalk (818687) | more than 9 years ago | (#11865135)

The release of a Netscape still matters; only now we call it a mozilla (Firefox/Thunderbird etc).

What FireFox needs to do is (1)

the_2nd_coming (444906) | more than 9 years ago | (#11865138)

when ever a page is rendering bad IE code a box needs to be placed at the top of the page saying "This page is not coded properly in HTML and may appear odd"

Re:What FireFox needs to do is (1)

entrager (567758) | more than 9 years ago | (#11865224)

Then people will complain that the page works fine in IE but doesn't work in Firefox. The average web user doesn't understand that the problem lies with the creator of the web site. I don't think the average user even understands that the creator of the web site and the creator of the browser are different. Or that the web site and browser itself are different.

Unfortunately (5, Interesting)

fuentes (711192) | more than 9 years ago | (#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 (2, Interesting)

rsidd (6328) | more than 9 years ago | (#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.)

What exactly are they smoking? (4, Insightful)

argent (18001) | more than 9 years ago | (#11865202)

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.

Does not compute... (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11865235)

"Slashdot ... News for nerds, stuff that matters"

"Ah, remember when the release of a Netscape mattered?"

Do the math...

Non-windows version? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11865256)

Does anyone know if this beast is going to be available for non-Windows platform? Netscape usually releases its products for non-Windows. Will this keep up the trend? It would be nice for people on non-Windows platform to finally enter their favourite IE-only websites with Netscape, I suppose.

Review by Blogspot? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11865296)

When I read this (without looking at the link) I thought the review was by blogspot itself (not likely). But obviously, it's just "some guy's" opinion. Why don't we link to the thousands of other opinions posted in blogs all over the net? I guess this one has screen shots, so it won.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>