Netscape's Branded Browser Name: 2001?

Tuesday February 8th, 2000

Henrik Gemal writes, "According to a bug that I reported the name of the next generation browser from Netscape is gonna be... hold on...

Netscape 2001

The bug report per mail. Check out the last line!!!!:

------- Additional Comments From 2000-02-07 17:49 ------- The component names and their descriptions should be as follows (in this order):

Navigator -- 'Web browser software'
Mail & News -- 'Email and Newsgroup software'
Netscape Instant Messenger -- 'For use with the AOL Instant Messenger service'
Quality Feedback Agent -- 'Tool for reporting software crashes to Netscape'
Spell Checker -- 'For use with Mail & News and Composer'
Sun Java 2 -- 'Enables Java in Netscape 2001'"

First, does anyone know for sure that this is the real name? Or is this just another 'placeholder' name?

I've gotta say that I don't think that the name of the app necessarily informs when it will be released. That said, I think it's a great name. It takes Communicator completely out of the game of version number one-upsmanship. It could also tie in really well with the whole mystique around '2001: A Space Odyssey'. They could be playful with it, and have their green Moz standing before a giant monolith...

There's also some other news of interest: there's going to be a Netscape-branded Instant Messenger, as well (which, I believe, will be built around XUL). It'd be nice to get some clarification on this.

#1 AIM

by Pyro

Tuesday February 8th, 2000 7:05 AM

Reply to this message

Netscape branded IM? That would be pointless and confusing if it was not part of AOL's AIM, and I don't think AOL wants to bring their API into the open source domain. It'll probably be just the normal AIM bundled with Netscape, except the signon logo will have a Netscape in there too (much like the first bundled AIM). As for Netscape 2001, I think that may be the only way to not sound "old" 5.0 when IE has 5.5/6.0.

#5 Re: AIM

by Tekhir

Tuesday February 8th, 2000 8:38 AM

Reply to this message

Well, the AIM that comes with Netscape now calls itsef "Netscape AOL Instant Messenger". Anyway there not releasing the source to it just it. I saw a picture of it not too long ago and it matches the browser pretty well.

#19 It's all about Jabber...

by Waldo

Tuesday February 8th, 2000 2:52 PM

Reply to this message

there's going to be a jabber client in the sidebar right? That'll pretty much clear up all this AIM/ICQ/Yahoo bs..

that and the IRC client :)

<> - to those who don't know what I'm talking about.


#39 Jabber sidebar

by url <>

Thursday February 10th, 2000 9:44 PM

Reply to this message

Waldo, I've been keeping track of the Jabber Moz sidebar project you and the others are working on - Really looking forward to it... How far along are you folks with the project? Will we see a preview release/pics of it soon?

As you can see, the curiousity is killing me. =P


#24 Re: Re: AIM

by gwalla <>

Tuesday February 8th, 2000 6:46 PM

Reply to this message

How well will it match the browser if the browser is skinned?

#26 Re: Re: Re: AIM

by Tanyel <>

Tuesday February 8th, 2000 9:26 PM

Reply to this message

I think they said it would be built with that XUL whatever, and I suppose that means changing the "skin" will change the look of the Instant messenger too.

#2 Oh no!

by irve

Tuesday February 8th, 2000 7:19 AM

Reply to this message

I hope it's a joke, I really do. although 2001 is far better than 2000, we don't need such promotion. face it: version numbers like X000 only seem to compensate the lack of quality. why not to go with the friendly 5. the 5 is even now far better than M$'s IE when it comes to spec. confidence is also a selling point!

#29 Re: Oh no! Stupid users...

by dhickey <>

Wednesday February 9th, 2000 8:06 AM

Reply to this message

..will think IE 5.5 and 6 will be more uptodate beacuse of the version numbering.

My 2c: "Communicator 6" or how about a completely new name. Netscape has too bad a name if the web developer community

#30 Re: Oh no! Stupid users... sorry

by dhickey <>

Wednesday February 9th, 2000 8:07 AM

Reply to this message

I ment to say , " 'in' the web developer.."

#3 NS AIM is already out

by Kovu <>

Tuesday February 8th, 2000 7:34 AM

Reply to this message

They've already named the version of AIM that comes with Netscape Netscape IM, actually mostly. If you go to Netcenter and click on the CHAT button, the page you go to doesn't say AOL on it anywhere, I believe. The product does say Netscape but it also says AOL, too.

I'd say Netscape 2001 would be cool. It shows how many light years this product is beyond 4.7. 5.0 is just not a leap from 4.7. Plus, anyone remember the phantom 5.0 pre-release in 1998? It was another 4.x I believe but there was a signpost button. Anyway, this would alleviate confusion with that, too, not that many people saw it.

BTW, does anyone know what happened to 4.71? If you actually got it, Netscape had changed the desktop icon to an N similar to the throb button. I kept it and switched my 4.7 icon with it because it looks way better than trying to cram that lighthouse into a tiny little icon. I'm thinking that'll be the new desktop icon (or hoping so).

#4 Netscape AIM & ICQ in one.

by jelwell

Tuesday February 8th, 2000 8:25 AM

Reply to this message

People? What about ICQ? My guess is the New Instant Messenger client will be a dual client that works with AIM and ICQ. Seeing how AOL owns all of these acronyms now.

By the way, Bring back the UI! Viva la Revolucion!

#17 I hope ICQ is remembered

by url <>

Tuesday February 8th, 2000 2:34 PM

Reply to this message

I have to admit that i've been anxious to know what sort of role an ICQ client would play in the upcoming browser too - IM is great, but I hope that ICQ support is being considered (and probably so) as beta approaches.

If a dual IM/ICQ client isn't in the works, then I know a version of the Jabber client designed to work in Mozilla's sidebar is being developed & that's on the way too. I think that Jabber's multi-chat platform support will give the browser a big boost as well.


#6 geez ...

by gerbilpower <>

Tuesday February 8th, 2000 9:58 AM

Reply to this message

Why do everyone want to name things using years? I think it's over done. I don't like Netscape 2000 or Netscape 2001.

Although it's not a perfect system and vulnerable to some of the same flaws that the year-based versioning system has, going with Netscape 5 is better.

Then again I it's whatever Netscape marketing decides :(


#7 Re: geez ...

by beastie

Tuesday February 8th, 2000 10:48 AM

Reply to this message

I used to think this, too. I referred to Word 95 as Word 7, Word 97 as Word 8, etc. But now I used 2000, etc., to identify them. I don't think it's too bad. And as someone who's struggling with version numbering at his current job, 1,2,3,4,5,... just plain doesn't work a lot of the time.

#8 Naming problem?

by SomeGuy

Tuesday February 8th, 2000 11:05 AM

Reply to this message

Netscape 2000 or 2001 sounds like a great name and would help get the attention of average users, especially if IE continues the x.x names. But what would they call future releases? 2001.5? 2002? 2003? Those names are not very impressive IMO. If Netscape did adopt the 2001 name perhaps it could just be temporary. I imagine a splash screen that reads in large letters "Netscape 2001" and then in small letters "version 5.00". Then when 2001 is over and they decide against "Netscape 2002", then Netscape 6.0 could still be the next version.

BTW, since this relates to marketing, how about Netscape/Mozilla bumper stickers? I would buy one... make that several dozen. :)

#10 Re: Naming problem?

by thelem

Tuesday February 8th, 2000 11:18 AM

Reply to this message

Why they would just call it Netscape 2001 5.5 (ala Lotus Smartsuite Millennium 9.5)


#9 Let 'em call it what they want

by asa <>

Tuesday February 8th, 2000 11:13 AM

Reply to this message

I say let Netscape call it whatever the hell they want to. Let their marketing machine (and hopefully AOL's too) do whatever they think is necessary to get it in the hands of as many users as possible.

Now, as far as Mozilla is concerned, a real version system is necessary. I would love to see Mozilla referred to as Mozilla 1.x or something like that.

Then Netscape could say something like "Get the All New Netscape Communicator 2010 based on the latest and greatest Mozilla 3.7 codebase"

Asa (posted with mozilla)

#12 Re: Let 'em call it what they want

by johnlar <>

Tuesday February 8th, 2000 11:32 AM

Reply to this message

Well, this is pretty much what is going to happen. Except that are starting the mozilla at 5.0 while the netscape branded version will start at probably 2001. The reason mozilla is not starting out at 1.0, is because if you look closly, the current netscape versions are branded as mozilla 4.x in many places (expecially email x-headers.) And it would cause great trouble once we got to the 4.x versions of the mozilla in a few years.

#15 right n/t

by asa <>

Tuesday February 8th, 2000 12:46 PM

Reply to this message

posted with mozilla :)

#11 Messenger

by thelem

Tuesday February 8th, 2000 11:24 AM

Reply to this message

What ever happened to Netscape Messenger, I personally prefer having names for the differant componants, rather than just Mail & News. And you can't get much more obvious then Messenger.

And when did everything from Quality Feedback Agent down become componants. To me they are parts of the main componants (Navigator, Messenger, Composer and AIM/NIM/MIM) that are sometimes used in other componants. Should the forms be componants too.

Not sure exactly what the context of the email was, so that may be way off target.


#22 Re: Messenger

by Tanyel <>

Tuesday February 8th, 2000 5:51 PM

Reply to this message

I think "Mail and News" is more informative than "Messenger".

"Messenger" implies something like an Instant Messaging system.

#31 I like Messenger, darn it

by Kovu <>

Wednesday February 9th, 2000 9:25 AM

Reply to this message

Netscape "Mail & News" just doesn't have that ring to it.

#35 Re: I like Messenger, darn it

by Tanyel <>

Wednesday February 9th, 2000 12:32 PM

Reply to this message

Well that changes everything. they should just call it "Messenger". But can we change the name of the browser from "Mozilla" to "Tanyel's Toy"? I like that.

#13 2001... oh.. no...

by billbledsoe <>

Tuesday February 8th, 2000 12:14 PM

Reply to this message

My goodness... I hope that we're talking about 2001 as a possible name and not a release date for either NS Branded Mozilla, or Mozilla... if either of these browsers doesn't make it to market within the first 6 months of this year... I think that realistically... you can count them out in terms of ever attaining adoption by the general user population. NS needs to step in, and productize Mozilla now. Not take over, but take what is there, debug it, finish the critical path feature set (full compile, install/setup application, SSL support) and get it out the door.

#16 Re: 2001... oh.. no...

by MattyT <>

Tuesday February 8th, 2000 2:31 PM

Reply to this message

Err, that's what they're doing, and have been for the past year.

#32 I believe Shaver said 2001 for 6.0

by Kovu <>

Wednesday February 9th, 2000 9:28 AM

Reply to this message

It was in the Shaver chat anyway. They said Final was likely summer, and that once Final was done it would be a much, much shorter process to 6.0, hopefully by year's end if I remember properly

#38 The floodgates open.

by FrodoB

Wednesday February 9th, 2000 4:37 PM

Reply to this message

Once Mozilla gets something out the door with a firm backend, then the REAL fun begins. Sure, all of us advocates have been touting Mozilla for years. But once more outside developers start tinkering with it, and once the developers currently working on it have a rock-solid backend to work with, then we have the deluge of wonderous new features (within reason, of course). 5.0 will be an ice breaker; 6.0 will make your day seem tropical (to keep with the ice analogy ;) ).

#28 First six months? Hrm... doubt it.

by leafdigital

Wednesday February 9th, 2000 4:32 AM

Reply to this message

I doubt the final release of Netscape 5 (or 2001, or whatever) will be out by end June. Does anybody believe it will?

I certainly hope the *beta* will be done by then, though!

Personally I was guessing August as a final release date...


#41 Re: First six months? Hrm... doubt it.

by jesusX <>

Monday March 6th, 2000 2:15 AM

Reply to this message

I do. I think the beta will be out before or at the end of the month, and you'll see a final by or in May. Am I nuts? Am I really pushing things or out of touch? No. M14 is realy freakin' stable. A Beta will be equal to any of MS's final products, so it will be a short trip to final stage. Remember, we're not talking early betas and developmental betas, we had that with the M13 Alpha release. This beta is looking like a Release Candidate more than anything else, with just some monir bugs to polish.

#14 Odyssey

by Hard_Code

Tuesday February 8th, 2000 12:40 PM

Reply to this message

"Odyssey" would be a pretty cool product name. Netscape Odyssey. Sort of follows in their "navigator" theme. Odysseus travelled around the world visiting cool sites.

#18 Right on!

by fresh <>

Tuesday February 8th, 2000 2:43 PM

Reply to this message

Nice idea.

#21 Re: Odyssey

by spaetz <>

Tuesday February 8th, 2000 5:15 PM

Reply to this message

Yeah NS 2001, reminds me to "2001 A Space Odyssey" as well. But it's not only that Odysseus went around vissiting cool sites. He got lost as the Gods were angry at him and tried to get home for more than ten years without finding back. So an Odyssey is a not too positively expression.

2001!!! What a stupid idea. Call it Netscape 5 and show enough self confidence in you to stay consequent.

#34 Or ...

by gerbilpower <>

Wednesday February 9th, 2000 9:39 AM

Reply to this message

Or it will remind people of HAL, the smart-ass computer that killed off most of the humans he was suppose to serve 8P


#36 Re: Or ...

by Tanyel <>

Wednesday February 9th, 2000 12:35 PM

Reply to this message

I still think the browser should be named after me.

#37 Re: Re: Or ...

by brobinson

Wednesday February 9th, 2000 4:12 PM

Reply to this message

Mozilla Classic was 5.0, but it died. It should be Netscape 6.0.

#20 Ok, so let's see if I have this straight...

by Waldo

Tuesday February 8th, 2000 2:56 PM

Reply to this message

Ok, so using typical open-sourc conventions...

2001 is a development year. 2002 is a release year...


;) W

#23 Horrible Name

by Tanyel <>

Tuesday February 8th, 2000 5:58 PM

Reply to this message

Using 2001 for a name would only work for a short time before it became a problem.

This seems like a good time for a Netscape naming contest. People could vote for their favorite names. Obviously the people at Netscape and America Online would not have to take that name but maybe they would.

#27 Re: Horrible Name

by Ben_Goodger

Tuesday February 8th, 2000 11:02 PM

Reply to this message

absolutely. What's our current browser? Communicator '97?


#25 Netscape 2000?

by gwalla <>

Tuesday February 8th, 2000 6:50 PM

Reply to this message

"I'm sorry, Dave, I can't contact that server"

#33 ROFLMAO!!!!! <:3)~~ (n/t)

by gerbilpower <>

Wednesday February 9th, 2000 9:37 AM

Reply to this message



#40 Netscape 6?

by mikeque <>

Sunday February 13th, 2000 4:45 PM

Reply to this message

An article in cnet says it's goinhg to be called "Netscape 6". Was the reporter that sloppy or is this so? <…200-1548169.html?dtn.head>

#42 Check the Netscape 6 Support site!

by tssr

Sunday April 2nd, 2000 7:14 AM

Reply to this message

Go here: <…s/6/feedback/problem.html> and click on "How Serious Is The Problem" and you will find something called

"Crashes Netscape 2000"


#43 Re: Check the Netscape 6 Support site!

by semicharm

Monday April 10th, 2000 9:14 AM

Reply to this message

Well, it says Netscape 6 now so I guess it's final