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!

Netscape 7.1 Released

simoniker posted more than 11 years ago | from the brand-new-browserscape dept.

Netscape 468

Phil writes "Netscape has just released the eagerly-awaited Netscape 7.1 (previously known by its codename, 'Buffy') for Windows, Mac OS and Linux. The new version is based on Mozilla 1.4, which is due out later today. Netscape 7.1 features many improvements over 7.02 including even better CSS support, spam filters, find-as-you-type, automatic image resizing, more customization via about:config, Web development tools, Palm synchronization and more. Plus, for the first time, ChatZilla (Mozilla's IRC client) is included in the full install. More information can be found at Netscape Browser Central and in this MozillaZine article. The release is available from Netscape's download page, via FTP or on CD."

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

Netscape? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6332264)

More like Niggerscape am i rite?

Re:Netscape? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6332529)

lolololololol

How does mozilla handle old caches? (4, Interesting)

Thinkit3 (671998) | more than 11 years ago | (#6332275)

I hate getting old data because the browser is caching. Is it easy to totally turn caching off? Under certain circumstances, in mac IE, you can even hit reload and get an old copy.

Re:How does mozilla handle old caches? (5, Informative)

Acidangl (86850) | more than 11 years ago | (#6332292)

shift click reload, pulls a new version the page

Re:How does mozilla handle old caches? (5, Interesting)

bgarcia (33222) | more than 11 years ago | (#6332325)

This is one of my pet peeves about Mozilla/Netscape.

If you really, really want to reload a page, you have to hold down the shift key while clicking on the reload button.

I have no idea why the developers think it is useful to have a reload button that does something less than a full reload, nor do I know why they believe that a "shift-reload" (which is completely undocumented BTW) is an appropriate user interface for doing a real reload.

Re: load (4, Informative)

arth1 (260657) | more than 11 years ago | (#6332405)

A reload that doesn't reload everything is very useful if you don't want to spend time reloading all the graphics on a page too. On a page like the /. front page, the difference on a slow line can be 3 seconds versus 30 seconds.
It's also useful if a page is incomplete.

More of interest with the Netscape release is

a) What has changed from the previous version of Netscape, and
b) What has changed from the corresponding version of Mozilla that it's built on.

If it's just adding the same AOL add-ons (or should I say ad-ons?) to a newer version of Mozilla than before, I'd say move on, there's nothing to see here.

Regards,
--
*Art

Re:How does mozilla handle old caches? (1)

Patik (584959) | more than 11 years ago | (#6332410)

If you really, really want to reload a page, you have to hold down the shift key while clicking on the reload button.
I've heard this before, but my experience tells me otherwise. When I tap F5 on a frequently updated page such as Slashdot or Fark.com [fark.com] , new stories appear without having to hold down shift.

Re:How does mozilla handle old caches? (3, Interesting)

Politburo (640618) | more than 11 years ago | (#6332456)

Without using shift, the browser will still used cached images. Therein lies the difference.

Also, there's a slight chance that hitting F5 is the equivalent of shift+clicking reload.

Re:How does mozilla handle old caches? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6332513)

Most CGI systems have a "Cache-Control: no-cache" header in the web pages, so the Web Browser does not cache them.

This is true of any system that has dynamic content.

Re:How does mozilla handle old caches? (2, Informative)

unapersson (38207) | more than 11 years ago | (#6332430)

Reload does really do a reload, but I think it may just compare the timestamps and only get a fresh copy if the page has actually changed. Shift-reload, reloads everything, including images, stylesheets etc. whether they are cached at proxies or not.

because (5, Insightful)

SweetAndSourJesus (555410) | more than 11 years ago | (#6332434)

A full reload is pointless on most sites. Why bother reloading title.gif when you want to see if there are any new slashdot stories? It's a waste of bandwidth.

It sucks that the shift-reload trick is undocumented, but you could easily fix that [mozilla.org] .

This is my 700th post. Hooray for me!

Re:How does mozilla handle old caches? (2, Interesting)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | more than 11 years ago | (#6332437)

I have the opposite problem. IE loads every page, regardless of whether it has the page on hand already or not. Especially irritating on those 360k-per-page web-based discussion boards, going back and forth on threads. And you can forget keeping any text you type in a text box if you go forward or backward in history.

Re:How does mozilla handle old caches? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6332538)

This isn't a problem with IE. Most Dynamic Content sites, like Slashdot, or Discussion Boards have a Header that turns off cache for the page.

"Cache-Control: no-cache"

Have fun...

Nutscrape Second Post? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6332281)

Without a doubt.

Netscape? (-1, Troll)

Cyno01 (573917) | more than 11 years ago | (#6332287)

Not to troll, but does anyone really care about netscape anymore?

Re:Netscape? (4, Insightful)

agentZ (210674) | more than 11 years ago | (#6332308)

Yes, because they (hopefully) will be feeding AOL with a new browser to wean users away from IE.

That being said, however, what advantages does the Netscape version of Mozilla have?

Re:Netscape? (5, Informative)

myawn (562028) | more than 11 years ago | (#6332337)

The 'advantage' of the Netscape version is that it hides some of Mozillas pop-up blocking features, because otherwise it would interfere with AOLs preferred method of annoying their users.

There may be other features that are hidden or disabled as well, but that's enough for me to go with the Mozilla flavor.

Re:Netscape? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6332385)

Proprietary AOL/Netscape.net mail access. Netscape logos, spell checker (spell checker can be added on to mozilla)

Re:Netscape? (1)

resignator (670173) | more than 11 years ago | (#6332517)

and who really cares what browser an AOL user is using? I bet if you asked them they wouldnt even be able to tell you what a browser was let alone the name of the one they are using.

Re:Netscape? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6332327)

A bunch of us use Mozilla and are interested to know that 1.4 should be out some time today.

Re:Netscape? (-1, Troll)

rovingeyes (575063) | more than 11 years ago | (#6332332)

Well definitely in Linux world. I'd say of all the browsers out there for linux world, I find netscape (or mozilla) much better. When it comes to windows obviously there is no need to look beyond IE.

Re:Netscape? (5, Interesting)

Delphiki (646425) | more than 11 years ago | (#6332420)

"obviously there is no need to look beyond IE"?

Have you ever used a browser other than IE? Every other browser I've used in the last year has offered a better browsing experience than IE. Mozilla has tabbed browsing and more recently pop up blocking. Phoenix has had both for a while. Plus IE doesn't render especially fast, and lacks a number of other features contained in most Gecko browsers. There are some reasons to use IE of course, like for plugins that only work in IE.

There is obviously good reason to look beyond IE though.

Re:Netscape? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6332523)

What the fuck is the point in tabbed browsing? That's something the window manager should be doing, not the application. You could replicate it anyway with gnomepanel or whatever.

Re:Netscape? (2, Insightful)

Ishin (671694) | more than 11 years ago | (#6332338)

If you care about standards and alternatives to IE, then you should care about just about any good news for the opposition to M$. Of course, if you don't care about webpages being viewable through OSX, Unix, Linux, or anything but windowsXP and it's successors, then by all means, continue to care nothing about alternative browser choices.

Re:Netscape? (1)

Deusy (455433) | more than 11 years ago | (#6332341)

Mozilla.org probably do since I imagine Netscape (or their parent AOL Time Warner) pays for several full time coders for the project.

Re:Netscape? (4, Insightful)

Jack Comics (631233) | more than 11 years ago | (#6332346)

Yes, I do care about Netscape. Not necessarily because I think Netscape is the raddest, most elite browser out there, but because without Netscape, there would be no Mozilla. Let's face it, Mozilla relies on Netscape, and as a result, AOL, for life support.

If AOL should decide that Netscape isn't worth developing anymore, and decides to pull the plug on the few full-time Netscape/Mozilla developers remaining, as well as the resources dedicated to Netscape/Mozilla (such as the web servers), Mozilla would be in some serious doo-doo.

To show my support and to show AOL that indeed at least someone is interested in Netscape, I have already pre-ordered a Netscape 7.1 CD with Guide book. I may not ever use it, but at least AOL and Netscape knows that someone out there appreciates their efforts and may continue developing the core for one of the finest browsers out there, Firebird.

Re:Netscape? (2, Insightful)

reiggin (646111) | more than 11 years ago | (#6332354)

I have the same curiousity. Wouldn't it be more cost-effective and sensible for AOL/Netscape to just distribute Firebird instead of putting so much into Netscape? Or why even bother on their end? I would love to see statistics on how many people download this in the next few weeks. Then compare that to Safari, Firebird, or even Opera.

Re:Netscape? (2, Insightful)

WegianWarrior (649800) | more than 11 years ago | (#6332359)

Not me anyway - happy Opera-user

Re:Netscape? (1)

DrXym (126579) | more than 11 years ago | (#6332418)

You should do. Netscape / AOL throws a lot of money into developing Mozilla.org. If no one uses the Netscape branded release, where is the incentive for AOL to continue to do this? The answer is there is very little incentive at all. Now this wouldn't be a mortal blow but it would be extremely serious and would see a lot of talented developers reassigned to other stuff.


Even if you personally are happier about using Mozilla, or even Firebird you should consider recommending the branded version to friends and family. After all, throw a bit of money back at AOL in terms of page hits, market share etc. and they'll be less inclined to pull the plug.

Goatse Receiver, ass contortionist, dead at 55 (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6332293)

Goatse Receiver, ass contortionist, dead at 55


I just heard some sad news on talk radio - ass strectching exhibitionist Goatse Receiver was found dead in CmdrTaco's bed this morning. There weren't any more details. I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community will miss him - even if you didn't enjoy his work, there's no denying his contributions to making the intarweb a great place for millions of users. Truly an American icon.
*_g_o_a_t_s_e_x_*_g_o_a_t_s_e_x_*_g_o_a_t_s_e_x_*
g_______________________________________________g
o_/_____\_____________\____________/____\_______o
a|_______|_____________\__________|______|______a
t|_______`._____________|_________|_______:_____t
s`________|_____________|________\|_______|_____s
e_\_______|_/_______/__\\\___--___\\_______:____e
x__\______\/____--~~__________~--__|_\_____|____x
*___\______\_-~____________________~-_\____|____*
g____\______\_________.--------.______\|___|____g
o______\_____\______//_________(_(__>_\___|_____o
a_______\___.__C____)_________(_(____>_|__/_____a
t_______/\_|___C_____)/______\_(_____>_|_/______t
s______/_/\|___C_____)_R.I.P. |__(___>_/__\_____s
e_____|___(____C_____)\______/__//__/_/_____\___e
x_____|____\__|_____\\_________//_(__/_______|__x
*____|_\____\____)___`----___--'_____________|__*
g____|__\______________\_______/____________/_|_g
o___|______________/____|_____|__\____________|_o
a___|_____________|____/_______\__\___________|_a
t___|__________/_/____|_________|__\___________|t
s___|_________/_/______\__/\___/____|__________|s
e__|_________/_/________|____|_______|_________|e
x__|__________|_________|____|_______|_________|x
*_g_o_a_t_s_e_x_*_g_o_a_t_s_e_x_*_g_o_a_t_s_e_x_*
mportant Stuff: Please try to keep posts on topic. Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads. Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about. Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything

To bad.... (-1, Troll)

hdc (665183) | more than 11 years ago | (#6332297)

...no one is going to notice. Netscape has sucked so bad for so long that I know I've been totally burned by it. I know I'm not alone.

Re:To bad.... (2, Interesting)

g_arumilli (324501) | more than 11 years ago | (#6332365)

This is the reason why Netscape lost out to IE on the Windows platform, not because Microsoft somehow unfairly leveraged its position as the developer of Windows...Netscape used to be the king of browsers, but their laziness/refusal to innovate eventually led them to fall behind Internet Explorer...By the time Communicator rolled around, Netscape was bloated and inefficient, while Internet Explorer loaded quickly (even on Macs, not just on Windows) and ran far more smoothly while incorporating support for more HTML standards...

Netscape can whine all it wants about how Microsoft competed with it unfairly, but the fact remains that Netscape is the only party responsible for its own doom...And now that its parent company AOL has signed an agreement with Microsoft, there's no way in hell that they're ever going to recover...At least some of their efforts will live on in Mozilla...

Reason why Netscape failed (2, Interesting)

AtariAmarok (451306) | more than 11 years ago | (#6332399)

" This is the reason why Netscape lost out to IE on the Windows platform, not because Microsoft somehow unfairly leveraged its position as the developer of Windows..."

It is a combination of both factors. Netscape made their browser worse and worse, while M$ improved IE...which they bundled for free and promoted aggressively. The two factors combined nicely to turn Netscape into a footnote.

eagerly-awaited ? (0, Troll)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 11 years ago | (#6332298)

Not by everyone, some of us are eagerly awaiting Konq 3.2 instead...

I'll continue to use Mozilla (5, Interesting)

sstory (538486) | more than 11 years ago | (#6332311)

I'll continue to use Mozilla firebird and thunderbird, thank you very much. Why? Same code, basically, but Mozilla doesn't litter every spot on my computer with AOL icons, in my favorites, start menu, programs menu, etc.

Re:I'll continue to use Mozilla (0)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 11 years ago | (#6332340)

Thunderbird's not at v0.1 yet, so I've been sticking with Mozilla's current mail client. How is thunderbird at the moment? Is it stable enough to switch?

Re:I'll continue to use Mozilla (4, Interesting)

OmniVector (569062) | more than 11 years ago | (#6332347)

this is one of the things that has always bothered me when i see netscape installed on someone's machine. To the average user netscape and IE are the only two browsers in existance.

mozilla has very little exposure outside the geek world. i know it's catching on, but 99% of the people at work have never heard of it.

Re:I'll continue to use Mozilla (4, Insightful)

garcia (6573) | more than 11 years ago | (#6332374)

I am VERY annoyed with AIM doing the same thing on Install.

Click here to DE-SELECT Netscape.com as your homepage.

Do you want AIM icons on your desktop and start menu (check here for no (each)).

Yet the fucking installer STILL puts AIM icons (AOL for Broadband) on my Desktop and an AIM icon in the quick launch tray...

Maybe if they stop this horseshit for AOL I will think about it. Until then I will stick with IE on my Windows machine.

Re:I'll continue to use Mozilla (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6332412)

How long did it take to delete those? Oh about 3 seconds... I forgot about them already.

Try Mozilla, same thing minus aol stuff.

Re:I'll continue to use Mozilla (2, Informative)

DrXym (126579) | more than 11 years ago | (#6332499)

But neither does the Netscape branded version. There are a few extra buttons here or there, but for the most part they can be disabled from the pref dialog. I don't know what icons you mean either since it didn't put any there when I installed it.


The principle difference these days between the two is that the NS branded version has a spell checker, radio (Spinner) and AIM client built in and offers to installs stuff like Shockwave, JRE, WinAmp etc. It also is supported in the sense that security issues see new point releases whereas you must wait for the next Mozilla release to pick up the change. Otherwise they are almost identical. I notice you can even install the JS debugger and DOM inspector via a 'developer pack' option.

CSS (5, Funny)

cloudkj (685320) | more than 11 years ago | (#6332314)

improved CSS support... finally. now if only everyone will stop using netscape4 browsers..

Right press (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6332380)

I'll stop using 4.x when you pry the keyboard out from under my cold, dead, fingers . . . or Netscape makes context menu on right mouse press down an option again.

Why? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6332316)

I'm probably not the first to ask, but why? Why don't they just let Netscape die in peace and tell people to go use Mozilla? It doesn't add anything of value.

Re:Why? (1)

bathmatt (638217) | more than 11 years ago | (#6332343)

That is where you are wrong. You are forgetting all the popup ads that come with netscape. You don't get those with mozilla. I now finish my web surfing and have to do work instead of spending my day closing all those windows.

Re:Why? (1)

XSforMe (446716) | more than 11 years ago | (#6332400)

You are forgetting all the popup ads that come with netscape.
Since 7.0 Netscape offers a popup killer, which you can set depending on the domain you are visiting.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6332361)

Because with netscape AOL can stuff all its stupid advertisements into it.

Of course since AOL is/was paying for pretty much all the development work I guess they can do that if they want...

Actually now that AOL pulled the plug on this I expect Mozilla dev to really slow to a crawl.

I mean how many people that weren't on AOL's payroll actually contributed regularly to Mozilla? Like 2! Woah ya that's gonna be some blazing development there...

I'm just gonna switch to Konq anyways.

Re:Why? (3, Informative)

Patik (584959) | more than 11 years ago | (#6332370)

Why don't they just let Netscape die in peace and tell people to go use Mozilla?
Because of name recognition. A lot of people have heard of Netscape and know that it's a web browser, but hardly anyone has heard of Mozilla.

Then again, those same people probably remember Netscape as that crappy old browser that didn't display tables (and more) properly, and was eventually beaten by Internet Explorer.

Re:Why? (5, Informative)

edwdig (47888) | more than 11 years ago | (#6332521)

1) Executives might be willing to try Netscape, but not Mozilla, due to name recognition.

2) Mail client can check AOL accounts & Netscape webmail accounts

3) Integrated AIM. There's integrated ICQ too, but it's worthless as it uses the same UI as AIM (i.e. no single message mode).

4) Spellcheck (yes it's available as an addon to Mozilla)

5) Java and the most popular plugins are included. So it's easier for the average person to set up.

6) Probably not the case on this release due to simultaneous releases, but in the past, Netscape took stable Mozilla branches and did futher bugfixes before releasing, resulting in a better product.

I'd use Netscape over Mozilla if they'd just leave in the "Block Images from Server" option in Netscape.

Mozilla 1.4 (5, Informative)

jasondlee (70657) | more than 11 years ago | (#6332329)

Mozilla [mozilla.org] 1.4 is out too. jason

Wow ! (5, Funny)

Vanieter (613996) | more than 11 years ago | (#6332331)

Netscape could resist naming it Netscape 8 ? The apocalypse is near !

IRC client? (4, Funny)

rocco2nr (632976) | more than 11 years ago | (#6332333)

Winamp 3's IRC client is better than Mozilla's

But does it work on Red Hat 6.0? (1, Interesting)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | more than 11 years ago | (#6332335)

The recent mozilla and netscape browsers have been consistent in not working on a vanilla Red Hat 6.0 install, due to a Java runtime library install bug.

Did that get fixed in this release? Or are they still abandoning anyone who hasn't upgraded?

eagerly awaited by whom? (4, Funny)

sulli (195030) | more than 11 years ago | (#6332348)

AOL ad sales reps?

Re:eagerly awaited by whom? (0)

Surak (18578) | more than 11 years ago | (#6332533)

them, and X10.com, too. :)

They still exist? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6332349)

They still make Nutscrape? Oh, AOL must have found a way to pollute my desktop with another dozen or so "Get AOL free!" icons. Oh joy!

Good - competition (!) (4, Insightful)

krray (605395) | more than 11 years ago | (#6332350)

I've been personally hooked on OS.X since its beta days. Originally the only games in town were OmniWeb (preferred), IE (ack), and Netscape (good 2nd choice).

Back in my Windows days IE never really got my attention -- it was always Netscape (up to 4.79 was decent).

The releases of Netscape that followed (Windows or OS.X) were pretty much not installed/forgotten. On the Windows end it was Mozilla/Opera and on OS.X 99% Safari.

This Netscape will get installed and hit the distribution cycle. It is very fast on OS.X and worth taking a look at (!)

Re: Should be +3 Funny (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6332483)

> Back in my Windows days IE never really got my attention -- it was always Netscape (up to 4.79 was decent).

Hah! Anyone who says the 4.x version of Netscape were decent never tried to develop for them and still maintain compatibility with IE (yes, it might be Microsoft's fault, but IE became the defacto standard due to its heavy adoption). At least modern versions of Netscape renders pages and Javascript correctly now.

I worked at a University, and we COULDN'T WAIT to get rid of Netscape because people would bitch about some pages not working (mostly DHTML problems). Pretty much all those pages work in IE and Moz/NS6+.

Netscape 4.x was a pile of shit. I challenge you to install it [netscape.com] and use it for awhile. You'll be begging for the advanced rendering features of Lynx in no time.

Great. (3, Insightful)

Dark Lord Seth (584963) | more than 11 years ago | (#6332352)

Netscape 7.1 features many improvements over 7.02 including even better CSS support, spam filters, find-as-you-type, automatic image resizing, more customization via about:config, Web development tools, Palm synchronization and more.

Just what I needed! Develop my website which doesn't exist or sync a palmtop which I don't have! Could someone hand me a dictionary and point out what the word "bloat [reference.com] " means?

Re:Great. (2, Insightful)

trout_fish (470058) | more than 11 years ago | (#6332464)

Well I don't need CSS support or spam filters, so maybe they should be removed too.

The continuation of monopolistic OSS/FS practices (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6332356)

Although I understand the reasoning behind the addition of an IRC client to a web-browsing suite, why this trend, which is noticably shared between FS/OSS software, more or less reminds MS policies? Regardless if I am an MS fan or not, you should always remember that settlements regarding the MS 'monopolistic practices' can backfire at any time. I have considered that seriously as the small guy that produces commercial closed-source software is likely to be affected by the OSS/FS monopolistic plans. Again, this is not to state quality of OSS/FS versus CS, the freedom or whatever they stabd for, but simply a fair treatment they should receive from justice at som point. Cheers.

*wipe brow* (3, Funny)

jmays (450770) | more than 11 years ago | (#6332360)

I was sweating while I was attempting to download it before the article (on slashdot) went live ... just made it under the wire.

It just may make me switch back from IE (0)

alen (225700) | more than 11 years ago | (#6332362)

I love the autocomplete feature in IE that has been there for years. Maybe I'll switch back again. Now only if Netscape had a full screen feature like IE does.

Re:It just may make me switch back from IE (2, Informative)

universalis (612590) | more than 11 years ago | (#6332401)

Now only if Netscape had a full screen feature like IE does. It has (as has Mozilla - been there for ages). Just press F11 and you get the same deal as with IE.

Re:It just may make me switch back from IE (1)

Politburo (640618) | more than 11 years ago | (#6332475)

Assuming it works on your system. I have dual monitors and using F11 only gets me a ~50x25 rectangle in the top left corner of my primary monitor.

You mean kiosk mode (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6332408)

...opera, believe it or not, supports this odd little feature as well.

Re:It just may make me switch back from IE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6332416)

It does - try F11

Re:It just may make me switch back from IE (5, Informative)

Planesdragon (210349) | more than 11 years ago | (#6332470)

Press F11 in Mozilla 1.4, and you get a full screen, just like IEs.

Better, actually, as the address bar is still there. :)

Moz's (and NS's) form function is great. Different from IE's, but still great.

Article in the Sun Newspaper Online (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6332366)

FYI, the Sun Newspaper Online has a very informative article [thesun.co.uk] about this release in its Sci/Tech section. It compares Netscape/Mozilla with IE and Safari and makes some good points about web standard compliance.

Re:Article in the Sun Newspaper Online (-1, Offtopic)

rocco2nr (632976) | more than 11 years ago | (#6332384)

Awesome goatse!!

Better java support (2, Interesting)

mao che minh (611166) | more than 11 years ago | (#6332369)

Although I prefer Mozilla overall, I keep an install of Netscape around because of it's more efficient use of Java under Linux (for the rare occasions when I really need to access some Java program). I can get Java going decently in Mozilla, but I get tired of having to make fresh symlinks and other small changes each time I overhaul Mozilla.

Also released recently (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6332372)

Is Epiphany 0.73, the popular gnome browser [mozdev.org] . The fonts don't suck either thanks to gtk2/xft/vera/fontconfig. Screenshot [csvs.co.uk]

middle-wheel click to scroll (1)

Herr_Nightingale (556106) | more than 11 years ago | (#6332375)

Is there any way to enable IE-like wheel-button click-to-scroll behaviour?? Mozilla would be OK if I could simply click my wheel button and zoom down a page. I've searched for an extension [mozdev.org] but no joy so far.

Re:middle-wheel click to scroll (1)

JW Troll (607432) | more than 11 years ago | (#6332426)

it's called Autoscroll. Find it here [mozdev.org] . Most Mozilla extensions have incomprehensible names that aren't suggestive of what they do ;)
Caveat: it might disable middle-click-on-link functionality. That would suck.

Dude it already does that (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6332427)

In Windows, anyway.

I use my scroll-wheel to scroll in Mozilla for at least 12 months.

Re:Dude (1)

Herr_Nightingale (556106) | more than 11 years ago | (#6332482)

dude you can scroll with the wheel, but you can't CLICK on the wheel and then move the mouse down or up to scroll nicely. That's totally different.

NB: Autoscroll is for Firebird.

Re:middle-wheel click to scroll (1)

lizrd (69275) | more than 11 years ago | (#6332445)

It's the 6th one down. Autoscroll [mozdev.org] works fine in Firebird, I assume that it'll work fine in the other Mozilla variants as well.

Re:middle-wheel click to scroll (1)

rheimbuch (674723) | more than 11 years ago | (#6332468)

Mozilla Firebird has a nice Autoscroll Extension [texturizer.net] that adds the middle-click-to-scroll feature.

Re:middle-wheel click to scroll (2, Informative)

glitch_ (48803) | more than 11 years ago | (#6332472)

Does this [mozdev.org] not do what you want???

Re:middle-wheel click to scroll (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6332512)

Mozilla doesn't, but Firebird (the browser-only version of Mozilla) does. It's called "Autoscroll 0.3.3" and it's on the page that you linked to. Try Firebird, it's smaller and faster than Mozilla.

Is it ready yet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6332376)

Every time I have installed Netscape beyond the old (ancient, now) 4.xx versions, I was disappointed with bugs and usability problems. Question: Is Netscape 7.1 finally ready for prime time?

1.4 is already out, just not on the web pages yet (4, Informative)

SeanTobin (138474) | more than 11 years ago | (#6332379)

The new version is based on Mozilla 1.4, which is due out later today
If you are a savy ftp digger, know a savy ftp digger, or can follow this link [mozilla.org] you can get it right now... before its slashdotted :)

Re:1.4 is already out, just not on the web pages y (5, Funny)

bathmatt (638217) | more than 11 years ago | (#6332520)

before its slashdotted Well, that is a good way to keep it from being /.'ed Post the link on /.

mac problem (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6332392)

I don't want to start a holy war here, but what is the deal with you Mac fanatics? I've been sitting here at my freelance gig in front of a Mac (a 8600/300 w/64 Megs of RAM) for about 20 minutes now while it attempts to copy a 17 Meg file from one folder on the hard drive to another folder. 20 minutes. At home, on my Pentium Pro 200 running NT 4, which by all standards should be a lot slower than this Mac, the same operation would take about 2 minutes. If that.

In addition, during this file transfer, Netscape will not work. And everything else has ground to a halt. Even BBEdit Lite is straining to keep up as I type this.

I won't bore you with the laundry list of other problems that I've encountered while working on various Macs, but suffice it to say there have been many, not the least of which is I've never seen a Mac that has run faster than its Wintel counterpart, despite the Macs' faster chip architecture. My 486/66 with 8 megs of ram runs faster than this 300 mhz machine at times. From a productivity standpoint, I don't get how people can claim that the Macintosh is a superior machine.

Mac addicts, flame me if you'd like, but I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use a Mac over other faster, cheaper, more stable systems.

Re:mac problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6332442)

You just don't understand how to measure things. See, by all reckonings, macs are actually *cheaper* than comparable PCs, as well as being faster. I think by 'faster', however, most mac people are basing in having to learn a completely different UI as well as accomplishing the task under Windows, while just timing the task itself under a Mac. But, no, really, Macs are faster *and* cheaper than PCs. You just need to adjust your attitude.

Re:mac problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6332497)

The thing with Macs is that the OS is now refined to the point that they are finally becoming good machines. OS9 is pretty decent, OSX is really good. Everything before that is just utter shit. Sorry to say it, but it is.

Judging by the specs of your machine, you aren't running OS9 or OSX so I'd say that's the problem.

"eagerly-awaited" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6332395)

Uh... I assume he was joking when he said "eagerly-awaited". I eagerly await getting stabbed in the face by an ex-con than installing Netscape.

Netscape is dead - long live Netscape! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6332396)

Netscape is dead - long live Netscape!

------------
Knoppix.ru - Linux in five minutes!

Can't a browser just be a browser (2, Insightful)

pytheron (443963) | more than 11 years ago | (#6332397)

Looking at the new set of features this release offers (palm synchronisation, IRC client), it strikes me as though the project is trying to cover as many areas as possible that come loosely under the umbrella of "information exchange". Good things for this release are improved CSS support, image resizing on the fly etc. - advancements that improve the surfing experience. I wish they'd concentrate more on this area insted of bolting on the kitchen sink too..

It's all my fault (1, Funny)

HunterZ (20035) | more than 11 years ago | (#6332406)

You can blame it on me for breaking down and deciding to update to Mozilla 1.4RC3 via my dialup just the other day... Of course they would release 1.4 so I have to download it again :/

Why are version numbers so uneven (2, Interesting)

superpulpsicle (533373) | more than 11 years ago | (#6332411)

Netscape 7.1 for windows, linux, mac

Netscape 4.x for solaris, sgi and many other oses. Why is the numbering so whacked?

Re:Why are version numbers so uneven (1)

Yort (555166) | more than 11 years ago | (#6332525)

Why is the numbering so whacked?

Probably because they haven't bothered to release 7.x browsers for Solaris, SGI, etc. And rightly so, as they've really nothing to gain from that.

Most of those companies do release their own version, tho. I know SGI has Mozilla available from their freeware [sgi.com] site.

nsnotify (1)

compwizrd (166184) | more than 11 years ago | (#6332431)

if only they'd bring back the mail notification program that 4.x had.

That's the sole thing holding me back from switching people at the office over to 7.x

Mozilla 1.4 released (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6332439)

[mozilla.org]
http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla/releases/mozill a1.4/

solaris version??? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6332455)

Does anyone know when the solaris version will be available?

asdf (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6332462)

What is Netscape?

Code name: too appropriate! (2, Interesting)

fm6 (162816) | more than 11 years ago | (#6332487)

The whole Mozilla/Netscape effort is, alas, a prime example of the Buffy Syndrome [csis.org] . As Anthony Cordesman summarizes:
...each series of crises only becomes predictable when it is over and is followed by a new and unfamiliar one.

While uncertainty is the dominating motif, the "Buffy paradigm" has the following additional characteristics:

  • What expertise there is consists largely of bad or uncertain advice and old, flawed, and confusing technical data.
  • The importance of any given threat changes constantly, past threat behavior does not predict future behavior, and methods of delivery keep changing.
  • Arcane knowledge is always inadequate and fails to predict, detect, and properly characterize the threat.
  • The more certain and deterministic an expert is at the start, the more wrong they turn out to be in practice.
  • The scenarios are unpredictable and have very unclear motivation. Any effort to predict threat motivation and behavior in detail before the event does at least as much
  • Risk taking is not rationale or subject to predictable constraints and the motivation behind escalation is erratic at best.
  • It is never clear whether the threat is internal, from an individual, or from an outside organisation.
  • The attackers have no firm or predictable alliances, cooperate in nearly random ways, and can suddenly change method of attack and willingness to take risks.
  • All efforts at planning a coherent strategy collapse in the face of tactical necessity and the need to deal with unexpected facts on the ground.
  • The balance between external defense, homeland defense, and response changes constantly.
  • No success, not matter how important at the time, ever eliminates the risk of future problems.
Of course, Cordesman is talking about terrorism, not software. Still...

The Fonts Are Ugly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6332489)

Compared to the xft-enabled Moz, Netscape fonts are ugly. Is there any way to use better-looking fonts?

Let me understand... (0)

tilleyrw (56427) | more than 11 years ago | (#6332493)

Netscape is based on the Mozilla code base.
Mozilla CVS is advanced beyond anything that Netscape can offer.

Therefore, Mozilla R007z. QED.

who cares (-1)

ReLik (599554) | more than 11 years ago | (#6332494)

netscape is teh sux

Great features, but... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6332515)

entering a domain name in the address bar, then hitting CTRL + ENTER does NOT add the "http://www."
for you. That's gay! Instead it takes you to some search page. That's also gay!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?