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!

The Original mcom.com Revived

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the slice-of-the-interwebs-past dept.

Mozilla 137

saccade.com writes "For those of you that missed the emergence of the the World Wide Web the first time around, Mozilla co-founder JWZ has recreated it for you. In honor of Mozilla's tenth anniversary, he's recreated the original home.mcom.com sites in all their 1994 glory. He even has vintage browsers to go with them."

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

Rickrolled? (-1, Offtopic)

adpsimpson (956630) | more than 6 years ago | (#22931106)

But does it have Rick Astley? Or Goatse...?/p

Re:Rickrolled? (4, Funny)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 6 years ago | (#22931112)

You're 10 years ahead, trolling 10 years ago was punching monkeys..

Twofo Anal Rapeage (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22931200)

Twofo [twofo.co.uk] is Dying is Dying

It is official; GNAA [www.gnaa.us] confirms: Twofo is Dying is Dying

One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleagured slashdot trolling community when Google confirmed that Twofo troll posts had dropped yet again, now down to less that a fraction of 1 percent of all slashdot posts. Coming hot on the heels of a recent usenet survey which plainly states that Twofo trolling frequency has fallen, this news serves only to reinforce what we've known all along. Twofo troll's are collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in a recent digg.com comprehensive trolling test.

You don't need to be one of the Slashdot moderators to predict Twofo Trolling's future. The writing is on the wall: Twofo trolling faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for Twofo trolls because Twofo trolling is dying. Things are looking very bad for Twofo trolls. As many of us are already aware, Twofo trolling continues to decline in popularity. IP bans flow like a river of feces out of this man's anus [goatse.ch] .

"Twofo is Dying" trolls are the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of their core posters. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time trolls Daz and xyzzy only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: Twofo trolls are dying.

Lets keep to the facts and look and the numbers.

Twofo Trolling leader Echelon states that there are about 7000 "twofo is dying" trolls. How many "Zeus sucks cock" trolls are there? Let's see. The number of "Zeus sucks cock" trolls versus "Twofo is dying" trolls on slashdot is roughly in the ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 "Zeus sucks cock" trolls. "Fuck twofo" posts on slashdot are about half the volume of "Zeus sucks cock" posts. Therefore there are about 700 trolls specialising in "Fuck twofo". A recent article put "destroy twofo" at about 80% of the twofo trolling community. Therefore there are about (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 "destroy twofo" trolls. This is consistent with the number of "destroy twofo" slashdot posts.

Due to the troubles at Twofo, abysmal sharing, ITS, lack of IP addresses and so on, "destroy twofo" trolls stopped posting altogether and were taken over by "Zeus sucks cock" trolls who specialise in another kind of slashdot posting. Now "Zeus sucks cock" trolls are also dead, their corpses turned over to yet another charnel horse.

All major surveys show that Twofo trolls have steadily declined in slashdot posting frequency. Twofo trollers are very sick and their long term survival prospects are very dim. If Twofo trollers are to survive at all it will be among hardcore slashdot posters, hellbent on Twofo's destruction. Twofo trolls continue to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save Twofo trolls from their fate at this point in time. For all practical purposes, Twofo trolls are dead.

Fact: Twofo trolls are dying

Ahh, the days.. (5, Funny)

Hyppy (74366) | more than 6 years ago | (#22931114)

Ahh, the days when changing your browser's "background" color to anything other than (off-)white meant most pages became unreadable.

Oh, and good job, Slashdotters. The page is down already!

Re:Ahh, the days.. (4, Funny)

dougmc (70836) | more than 6 years ago | (#22931130)

Oh, and good job, Slashdotters. The page is down already!
I got the impression that that was part of the `early web experience'.

(Seriously, it looks like the web server is patched to feed data as if you were on a slow dialup ...)

Re:Ahh, the days.. (4, Funny)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 6 years ago | (#22931164)

They're certainly written to be like 1994.. WORST. HTML. EVER.

Re:Ahh, the days.. (4, Insightful)

electrictroy (912290) | more than 6 years ago | (#22931534)

I like to look at the old webpages for psu.edu and scifi.com.

Ahh simpler times. Plain text with just two or three images (resembling a newspaper). Not like today's pages that seem to take forever to load because they are so overburdened with a lot of junk.

Re:Ahh, the days.. (1)

electrictroy (912290) | more than 6 years ago | (#22931572)

P.S.

Worst example: imdb.com - Why does this site insist upon loading 1000 K of flash movie on every page??? Grrr. Not dialup friendly.

Re:Ahh, the days.. (1)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 6 years ago | (#22931604)

Yeah they have a worse-than-Slashdot 1996 look yet insist on being ridiculously media-heavy.

Re:Ahh, the days.. (3, Informative)

Carnivore (103106) | more than 6 years ago | (#22931790)

I don't know why they try, but I don't let them. Use the flashblock extension for firefox and you won't waste those bits anymore.

Re:Ahh, the days.. (1)

harry666t (1062422) | more than 6 years ago | (#22931962)

> so overburdened with a lot of junk.

Srsly, at one moment I thought I did read "java".

Re:Ahh, the days.. (1)

CrtxReavr (62039) | more than 6 years ago | (#22933188)

I'm doubting that the home.mcom.com page is a vintage 1994 page. I don't believe HTML supported images as links that far back.

-CR

Re:Ahh, the days.. (1)

CrtxReavr (62039) | more than 6 years ago | (#22933222)

Or the center tag either, for that matter.

-CR

Re:Ahh, the days.. (1)

Vegeta99 (219501) | more than 6 years ago | (#22934382)

eLion [psu.edu] still looks like its from 1994! :P

Although, if they went and screwed with anything there and lost some transcripts or student schedules, Old Main would burn.

Re:Ahh, the days.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22932224)

>They're certainly written to be like 1994.. WORST. HTML. EVER.

Says the guy that links to a Flash page.

Re:Ahh, the days.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22933174)

Dude. Server-side image maps. Good times.

Re:Ahh, the days.. (1)

_anomaly_ (127254) | more than 6 years ago | (#22933834)

A friend of mine just stumbled upon the "penguin recipe page":
http://www.allegromedia.com/sugi/penguin/ [allegromedia.com]
To quote:

Page last updated: July 4, 1996
I had to post the link here given the topic and that it has to do with penguins.
Hilarious site, and has a lot of the same "mosaic feel" as the original home.mcom.com (not to mention frames with nice, fat borders for resizing!).

Re:Ahh, the days.. (1)

the4thdimension (1151939) | more than 6 years ago | (#22933220)

Indeed. It really makes you enjoy what Web 2.0 has brought to the table. I kinda felt old looking at that... I nearly shed a tear.

Re:Ahh, the days.. (5, Funny)

Hawthorne01 (575586) | more than 6 years ago | (#22931160)

Oh, and good job, Slashdotters. The page is down already!

Naah, they're just re-creating the experience of websurfing on a 14.4 modem.

Re:Ahh, the days.. (1)

Hyppy (74366) | more than 6 years ago | (#22931234)

Pshaw. In 1994, I got my hands on a shiny new V.FAST 28.8 Sportster!

I was... still godawful slow.

Re:Ahh, the days.. (4, Interesting)

electrictroy (912290) | more than 6 years ago | (#22931708)

In 1994 you probably though 28.8kbit was fast.

In 1995 I was surfing the net with a 2.4 k modem. I had to select "don't load images" but it was still possible to visit my favorite sites like scifi.com even at that slow speed. If I would have had your Sporster modem (~20 times faster) I probably would have been in heaven! :-)

Today I still use a 56k modem while traveling. With image compression the 56k is almost as fast as my 700k DSL w/o compression.

Re:Ahh, the days.. (1)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 6 years ago | (#22933094)

In 1995 I was surfing the net with a 2.4 k modem.

Ouch. I had an AT&T 14.4, and that was pretty standard around my scene.

Re:Ahh, the days.. (1)

00_NOP (559413) | more than 6 years ago | (#22933628)

Yes, I had a 14.4k modem back in 1994/95 which was considered ok, but still not fast enough to seriously considering using a browser. I borrowed a 28k one from my work and downloaded "chello" by ftp in later May 1995 and that was that...

Re:Ahh, the days.. (2, Insightful)

prockcore (543967) | more than 6 years ago | (#22934178)

In 1995 I was surfing the net with a 2.4 k modem.


In 95 my dorm was fitted with ethernet.

Re:Ahh, the days.. (1)

smitty97 (995791) | more than 6 years ago | (#22931388)

They're probably using a 1994 NeXT to host them

Re:Ahh, the days.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22932084)

+++ NO CARRIER

Finally (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 6 years ago | (#22931498)

We managed to /. the original interwebs. The circle is now complete.

Re:Ahh, the days.. (4, Funny)

twistedsymphony (956982) | more than 6 years ago | (#22931640)

Oh, and good job, Slashdotters. The page is down already!
That's unpossible, slashdot readers never click to read the article.

Re:Ahh, the days.. (2, Interesting)

Hyppy (74366) | more than 6 years ago | (#22931912)

Well, I'm sure the 1.2 billion RSS readers and bots immediately preload every link that makes the front page.

Don't blame the users, blame the technology!

Re:Ahh, the days.. (1)

mini me (132455) | more than 6 years ago | (#22932018)

Oh, and good job, Slashdotters. The page is down already!

If only our modern browsers supported client-side load balancing like they did in the good old days.

Re:Ahh, the days.. (1)

Skuld-Chan (302449) | more than 6 years ago | (#22932050)

Actually it was about that fast back in 94...

Re:Ahh, the days.. (1)

DanielJosphXhan (779185) | more than 6 years ago | (#22932116)

It would appear they're running it on 1994's servers, too.

Speaking of which, I recently bought a toaster that has a higher processing speed than my first computer. Sort of depressing, actually.

Re:Ahh, the days.. (1)

KevinKnSC (744603) | more than 6 years ago | (#22932194)

And let me guess, it runs NetBSD, right?

Re:Ahh, the days.. (1)

edwdig (47888) | more than 6 years ago | (#22932756)

I remember the Netscape default background color was gray. White of course was the only other reasonable choice.

Re:Ahh, the days.. (1)

msheekhah (903443) | more than 6 years ago | (#22934008)

i remember visiting that website with 256 colors and no font antialiasing and on a 2400 baud modem

Good think I still have ... (1)

Nakito (702386) | more than 6 years ago | (#22934370)

... a copy of mozock.dll. So I can review a local copy -- in my browser!

where are the ponies? (0, Offtopic)

k3v0 (592611) | more than 6 years ago | (#22931118)

this april fools day is lame.

Re:where are the ponies? (3, Interesting)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 6 years ago | (#22931170)

Seriously!

Re:where are the ponies? (1)

Assembler (151753) | more than 6 years ago | (#22931354)

I was thinking the same thing

Re:where are the ponies? (1)

Tridus (79566) | more than 6 years ago | (#22931646)

Definitely. Its sad that Slashdot didn't even try this year.

Re:where are the ponies? (1)

HairyNevus (992803) | more than 6 years ago | (#22931940)

"...April fools!" -CmdrTaco

HYPE tag. (5, Interesting)

thesolo (131008) | more than 6 years ago | (#22931140)

One of Jamie's trivia questions is the origin of the HYPE tag. I remember the tag well, it was an easter egg that played a sound when it was used (only in certain versions of Mosaic/Netscape), however, I haven't a clue as to when or why it was implemented.

Does anyone know? Google reveals nothing on the subject.

Re:HYPE tag. (5, Informative)

Indefinite, Ephemera (970817) | more than 6 years ago | (#22931508)

For what it's worth, http://cyberborean.wordpress.com/2006/03/29/the-ancient-tags-museum/ [wordpress.com] suggests that it was 'for great fun of developers'.

Re:HYPE tag. (4, Funny)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 6 years ago | (#22931746)

It was removed later 'for great justice'.

Re:HYPE tag. (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#22932476)

Yeah, someone, I think it was probably JWZ himself, set us up the bomb.

Re:HYPE tag. (5, Interesting)

montulli (658308) | more than 6 years ago | (#22933110)

I guess it's a little unfair that I answer this question, since I was there when it was created.

The tag played a sound clip of Marca saying "What is Global Hypermedia?"

I'll stay mum about the why. :)

Bandwidth (4, Interesting)

Kelson (129150) | more than 6 years ago | (#22931142)

The best part is the bandwidth throttling, back to 1994 dial-up speeds. I was looking at this yesterday, and it was weird to watch the interlaced GIFs load line by line. (Remember how Netscape used to have a LOWSRC attribute for images, so you could specify a low-res version that could be loaded quickly and displayed while it tried to download the massive, whopping 50K full image?)

A flashback to the way I first encountered the web.

Of course, it's probably even slower today, now that it's linked here.

Re:Bandwidth (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22931716)

That's how I actually learned the difference between JPEG and GIF back in 1998 :-)

Enough of this Acid3 nonsense... (1)

brouski (827510) | more than 6 years ago | (#22931156)

Can our modern browsers pass the 1994 test?

Re:Enough of this Acid3 nonsense... (4, Funny)

esocid (946821) | more than 6 years ago | (#22931218)

What test would that be? If they can load text and jpegs progressively in less than 4 minutes?

Re:Enough of this Acid3 nonsense... (1)

Greivetimus Prime (1265114) | more than 6 years ago | (#22931322)

Oh, you mean the Totally Rad World Wide Web test?

Re:Enough of this Acid3 nonsense... (1)

deniable (76198) | more than 6 years ago | (#22932080)

I was happy we could download netscape because it supported tables and jpegs. A huge improvement over xmosaic. (No, not frames or scripts support, tables and jpegs.)

That's not bandwidth throttling (4, Funny)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 6 years ago | (#22931158)

Unfortunately, it seems to be running on Netsite.

Next up (3, Funny)

i_ate_god (899684) | more than 6 years ago | (#22931166)

revive gopher and geocities

Re:Next up (2, Interesting)

crispin_bollocks (1144567) | more than 6 years ago | (#22931656)

I kinda liked the Geocities neighborhoods. The old URLs still work for individual sites, but the index pages for blocks and neighborhoods are gone, so you can't wander around and meet your neighbors. Too bad, I guess it was MySpace 0.1 - before its time, or before critical mass.

Re:Next up (1)

i_ate_god (899684) | more than 6 years ago | (#22931700)

I miss the free POP3 account, and those primitive web based chat rooms that destroyed your browsers with all the refreshing it would do.

Re:Next up (1)

British (51765) | more than 6 years ago | (#22932086)

Geocities was effectively killed by Yahoo with unrealistic daily bandwidth quoats. You could literally hit refresh a few times on a page, and it would be locked out for the day.

Re:Next up (1)

samsonov (581161) | more than 6 years ago | (#22932512)

revive gopher and geocities
and archie and wais. oi. really makes me want to fire up that bbs again. War games reunion tour!

Re:Next up (1)

Thought1 (1132989) | more than 6 years ago | (#22933626)

Ya know, back in 92/93, I never thought the web would take off, because I saw it as a Gopher (which I hated) with slow, useless graphics. Course, by 95 I was writing a web browser and on the HTML-WG, but still... (:

Re:Next up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22934558)

And yet couldn't manage a lower uid on slashdot ? :-p

1994's anti-slashdotting technology (2, Interesting)

Fast Thick Pants (1081517) | more than 6 years ago | (#22931168)

Be sure to use this link [mcom.com] to have the "Resolution Controller" switched to L to "reduce download time" and give the server a little breathing room.

Running about as fast as 28.8k (1, Redundant)

RandoX (828285) | more than 6 years ago | (#22931172)

Welcome back to 1994, for real.

Re:Running about as fast as 28.8k (1)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 6 years ago | (#22931346)

If you had a 28.8 modem in 1994 you were from the future, man. IIRC, 28.8 modems didn't hit the streets until sometime in mid-1995, although the spec was ratified in mid/late-1994.

Is it just me? (2, Funny)

kabocox (199019) | more than 6 years ago | (#22931186)

That looked like a clean myspace page to me.

When it's not Slashdotted ... (4, Insightful)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 6 years ago | (#22931190)

... the site loads instantly. It's easy to navigate. There's just enough information near the top of each page so you know immediately what the page is for. The text is easily readable with default browser settings, even on a small screen.

Modern web developers could take a lesson from this.

Re:When it's not Slashdotted ... (4, Interesting)

Reziac (43301) | more than 6 years ago | (#22931276)

mcom, if it exists, seems to be slashdotted, but the livejournal page was quick... I agree, there's just too much sheer JUNK on the average page today. Most modern sites are now so gunked up that they perform on broadband about like the most primitive 1994-era sites did on 14.4 dialup.

One of the major reasons why on every site that still halfway works with it, I still use (are you sitting down?) Netscape v3, is because it strips most of the sheer JUNK, making web speeds tolerable. The same page can take 10x as long to load in Mozilla (not only because Moz is SLOW to render, but also because of all the JUNK).

IMO, NS3 is still the best, most stable, fastest, and most bug-free of all browsers. It's too bad source code is not available (I asked JWZ about that a while back, he said he'd tried to get it and no joy) as if user-optionable modern features were implemented atop this fast, lean old browser, we'd really HAVE something.

Don't use Netscape 3. Seriously. (2, Informative)

serviscope_minor (664417) | more than 6 years ago | (#22931908)

Try a modern lightweight browser, like Dillo or Links2. I like Links2, myself.

They are both amazingly fast.

Re:Don't use Netscape 3. Seriously. (1)

Reziac (43301) | more than 6 years ago | (#22932406)

Aside from that I run mainly Windows and Dillo is *NIX-only... can it disable CSS entirely? can it disable image-loading, yet load single or all images as desired with a single click? (Mozilla does that wrong; it HIDES images rather than preserving position yet merely not LOADING the image. So in Moz it is not possible to load only *desired* images.) Do I have to click twice to Open In New Window? These may seem like small things, but they are critical to my uses, and out of all the dozens of browsers I've tried (and the 15 or so I have installed at any one time) NS3 remains the only one that operates entirely to my everyday needs.

Links and that general style of browser are too tedious to use... despite being an old DOS-head, I generally dislike textmode incarnations of graphical apps. :(

BTW every one of my nearly 10,000 /. posts was made with NS3.04. :)

Re:Don't use Netscape 3. Seriously. (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#22932564)

w3m

that is all. thanks.

Re:When it's not Slashdotted ... (1)

yellowstone (62484) | more than 6 years ago | (#22932088)

I asked JWZ about [getting the source code for Netscape 3] a while back, he said he'd tried to get it and no joy

As I recall, back when Netscape wanted to make their browser open source, the big issue was dealing with various 3rd-party libraries that were used (and not interested in giving away their product).

That's why they decided to create Mozilla as a ground-up implementation.

Re:When it's not Slashdotted ... (2, Interesting)

Reziac (43301) | more than 6 years ago | (#22932462)

Yeah, figured there was a lot of third-party stuff that couldn't be tracked down/licensed/released. Goes to show that if there's any chance you may =ever= open your source, best not use 3rd party closed libraries.

Of course the trouble with the rebuild from the ground up is that it threw away all the lean functionality of old NS3. ISTM they'd have been better off to strip out the 3rd party code and rebuild just THOSE parts, rather than try to start over entirely (thus losing their formerly dominant marketshare in the confusion that followed).

Re:When it's not Slashdotted ... (1)

sootman (158191) | more than 6 years ago | (#22934238)

I'm (almost) right there with you. I stuck with NS3 when NS4 came out and I stuck with it for years, right up until Phoenix (Firefox) 0.2 came out--it was fast, like NS3, but with TABS, and had a modern JS engine so I could look at pages which more and more demanded javascript. And then FF got chunky around 0.8 and I liked 1.0 even less and 1.5 even less and 2.0 even less. I played with other browsers, like K-Meleon, but they all were missing various features I'd grown used to. Plus the pages changed too, and as much as I liked NS3, it just isn't worth it to switch between it and another browser whenever I want to do something like look at google maps.

Now I spend most of my time with a slightly out-of-date browser on a slightly out-of-date machine and have a miserable web experience because I'm too busy to read web pages any more, I just click on links and minimize them to read later and never get around to them so I've always got a hojillion pages open and the whole thing runs like ass. Plus things are so damn JS-intensive now. I downloaded eBay's front page once, looked at the source, downloaded all the linked JS files, and the whole things was ONE-THIRD of a MEGABYTE of JS--all code that the machine has to actually execute, not just render. Oh well. :-)

Slashdotted, indeed (1)

sconeu (64226) | more than 6 years ago | (#22932102)

Apparently it's running on 1994 hardware, too....

Re:When it's not Slashdotted ... (1)

slashkitty (21637) | more than 6 years ago | (#22932724)

I thought the slowness was part of the original feel that they were bringing back.

Wow! (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22931216)

The attention to detail is amazing! They even have it loading at 1994 speed!

(funny, unless it's on vintage servers you'd think it'd be pretty easy to handle the load with a site like that)

the /. effect, 1994-style (4, Funny)

downix (84795) | more than 6 years ago | (#22931228)

Well boys, we sure killed that connection fast.... feels just like the old days!

Serously AOL (1)

jtev (133871) | more than 6 years ago | (#22931294)

If you're going to pull an April Fool's joke like this, at least roll out servers that can handle the load. Or maybe it's the pipe, It's not like serving static web pages is hard, even on that era of equipment.

Re:Serously AOL (2, Informative)

maxume (22995) | more than 6 years ago | (#22931598)

It's not a joke, it's nostalgia.

Re:Serously AOL (1)

jtev (133871) | more than 6 years ago | (#22931648)

I'll believe that when I can access this page in a few days, when the /.ing is over.

Re:Serously AOL (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 6 years ago | (#22931904)

Stumble your way through a few of jwz's livejounal entries [livejournal.com] . He's very serious about the things that he doesn't take seriously.

Re:Serously AOL (1)

BrianGKUAC (919321) | more than 6 years ago | (#22931806)

You know those ads that pop up as comments on /. now? I just got the funniest one ever as a reply to your post... 404 Not Found The requested URL /iframe/tech.html was not found on this server.

Vintage servers too! (0, Redundant)

Robber Baron (112304) | more than 6 years ago | (#22931300)

Hmmm...apparently they have it hosted on vintage servers too!

TimeWarner, let go of mcom - you're rich enough. (1)

binaryspiral (784263) | more than 6 years ago | (#22931374)

It figures some duschebag media mogul would sell off a historic domain name to the highest bidder than to give it to someone who actually would be willing to maintain the historic content.

Re:TimeWarner, let go of mcom - you're rich enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22932112)

> duschebag

Try to refrain from spelling words you've only ever heard? It tends to indicate you don't even know what they mean.

Cool... (1)

n9uxu8 (729360) | more than 6 years ago | (#22931416)

Time to fire up Mosaic and OmniWeb on the Next Cube at home!

NCSA Mosaic 1.0.3/Mac chokes on the site (3, Interesting)

singularity (2031) | more than 6 years ago | (#22931464)

The site is obviously pretty Slashdotted at this point, so I was not able to download some of the Mosaic versions he links to.

Since I already have a copy of NCSA Mosaic copyrighted 1-27-1994, I decided to fire that up and load the page.

A screenshot [flickr.com] of mosaic.mcom.com that I was finally able to load. It had issues with some of the .gif files on the page. I am not sure if that is de to the client or if the transfer timed out from the load.

This is Mosaic v1.0.3 under System 7.6.1, running in BasiliskII.

Strange timing. Just last night I started playing around with some gopher servers, so I fired up Basilisk and downloaded TurboGopher. I got my first access to Usenet feeds in about 1992, and was able to get more online in the fall of 1993. Gopher, FTP, and email were huge. I remember downloading Mosaic sometime in early spring of 1994 and playing around with it.

Ahh, the memories...

Re:NCSA Mosaic 1.0.3/Mac chokes on the site (3, Interesting)

raddan (519638) | more than 6 years ago | (#22931760)

In the early 90's, my dad used to bring me to work every now and then when he worked at BBN. Since BBN was an early internet pioneer, they had some really big pipes (er, tubes?) to the arpa/internet. I was in high school at the time. I would fill my backpack with blank floppies and spend the day on gopher and FTP (anyone remember Anarchie?) just filling those disks up with freeware/shareware and every other cool thing I came across. Their offices had an interesting mix of phonenet (Appletalk) and BNC ethernet. Lots of Macs around back then, and those networks were fast, but crashed all the time.

Anyway, one day I came across this image [wikipedia.org] and my brain just about exploded. Keep in mind that I was a high school aged male. Yep, that was the beginning of the end for me... ;^)

As for the "web", I remember an MIT postdoc excitedly showing me this new "world wide web browser called Mosaic", and he just couldn't get me enthused. "You mean it's read-only?" I remember asking. I just couldn't see the point.

Re:NCSA Mosaic 1.0.3/Mac chokes on the site (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22931986)

The site is obviously pretty Slashdotted at this point, so I was not able to download some of the Mosaic versions he links to.

Just so we're clear, home.mcom.com was the home of Mosaic Communications Corporation, which later became Netscape Communications Corporation (until recently, home.mcom.com redirected to the current Netscape home page). The early Mosaic releases available are betas of Mosaic Netscape, which later became Netscape Navigator. NCSA Mosaic was developed earlier (many of the original NCSA Mosaic developers became early Netscape employees).

For the most authentic experience, home.mcom.com should be visited with Mosaic Netscape 0.9. Some changes had to be made to the Web server hosting the site so that it works with Mosaic Netscape 0.9, which didn't support commonplace modern HTTP features like the Host header and the charset parameter of the Content-Type header.

Code rot (1)

ceroklis (1083863) | more than 6 years ago | (#22932594)

It is always interesting to play with old software to see how brittle it really is.

I tried the earliest windows version (mosaic04.exe). It runs on wine without problem. Unfortunately it is impossible to load any page. I tried a variety of sites (google, yahoo, slashdot, ...), none of them load. Here is a sample of the errors I got:
  • infinite chains of 302
  • no viewer for text/html
  • bad request
Next I tried the earliest linux version (netscape.i486-unknown-linux.B093). You cannot even run it on a modern distro: ./netscape: can't load dynamic linker '/lib/ld.so'.

A current linux distro has thus more chance to run a windows app from 1994 than a linux app from the same period. As a side note, my copy of Blockout [wikipedia.org] (1989) runs on Windows XP (2001) without a glitch. We also see that the web of 2008 is completely unusable by a browser of 1994. It is a shame that linux distributors and the W3C do not have the same focus on backward compatibility than Microsoft and Intel.

Re:Code rot (1)

vidarh (309115) | more than 6 years ago | (#22932952)

Read JWZ's livejournal page, it addresses both your problems.

Re:Code rot (1)

ceroklis (1083863) | more than 6 years ago | (#22933388)

You want me to RTFA ? Are you crazy ?

On a more serious note, blockout (1989) works out of the box on a current windows machine. No patch, no special config, no nothing. These browsers do not. That is all that really matters. Of course you can tweak the web server,grab old libraries and what not to coerce them into working. My point is that you shouldn't need to.

Good ol' Mozilla 0.9 (1)

vrmlguy (120854) | more than 6 years ago | (#22932700)

Way back when, SGI sent out a CD-ROM that contained a product catalog as a collection of HTML files. The CD also included all of the binaries for Mozilla 0.9 listed at http://www.mcom.com/archives/ [mcom.com] . For several years thereafter (until browsers became a standard part of software distributions) I kept that CD close at hand; whenever I had to work on a particular workstation or PC, I used it to install a browser (and usually then bootstrap a more recent version).

mosaic.com stolen by Netscape lawyers (1)

dananderson (1880) | more than 6 years ago | (#22932900)

Here's a minor chapter for the history books. The address for Mosaic Communications (later Netscape) was mcom.com, not mosaic.com. Mosaic.com was owned by a pre-existing company working on document scanning. Mosaic Communications lawyers threatened to sue them out of existence, so the original Mosaic was given to Mosaic Communications.

The funny thing is the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (UIUC) NCSA lawyers made Mosaic Communications change their name (eventually Netscape), because Mosaic was a trademark of the UIUC.

!slashdotted (1)

Eudial (590661) | more than 6 years ago | (#22933194)

It isn't slashdotted, it is merely providing you with the classic, 9600 baud experience.

IE5 for Unix (1)

ChristTrekker (91442) | more than 6 years ago | (#22933610)

The "ancient browser" I want to try giving a whirl is IE5 on Solaris. (Pathetic, I know, but this has to be one of the strangest MS creations after Bob.) Unfortunately, the archived installer binaries don't run on Solaris 10, so it looks like I'm stuck. If only it had been packaged as a simple tarball...

Anyone else shocked? (1)

CdBee (742846) | more than 6 years ago | (#22933888)

I know the pace of change only ever increases, but looking back at those 1993/4 pages is just weird. I remember 1994. I was 15 years old, Jurassic Park was the hot VHS cassette release at Blockbuster, Sheryl Crow and Madonna were topping the pop charts.. I tasted the internet for the first time in my school computer lab.. I used the brand new Yahoo search engine to search for "three valleys water" for a school project and it got 3 results (yes, really, three.. and none of them were the one I wanted) ....... and I never thought I'd feel old until now I'm forced to remember that.

Oh poo. I've become middle-aged

Flashback (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22933942)

Amazing how much nicer and easier it is to read then many current webpages.

JWZ did not co-found Mosaic Communications Corp (1)

sloth jr (88200) | more than 6 years ago | (#22934112)

Jim Clark and Marc Andreessen did.

Re:JWZ did not co-found Mosaic Communications Corp (1)

linuxci (3530) | more than 6 years ago | (#22934750)

That's why they said Mozilla in the article. jwz was one of the main drivers in the Mozilla project. He left after the AOL takeover
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?