Netscape 6 Debuts Tomorrow

Tuesday April 4th, 2000

Steve Case of AOL will be at InternetWorld tomorrow launching the latest version of Netscape's browser suite, Netscape 6. This might seem an anticlimactic followup to the leaked version that appeared a few days ago, but it will be one more thing to celebrate at the anniversary party on the 6th.

UPDATE: You can watch the webcast tomorrow at the AOL corporate site.

#1 First post!

by Belzebutt

Tuesday April 4th, 2000 1:42 PM

From what I heard the leaked beta wasn't that great, the feedback from people who aren't familiar with Mozilla didn't seem all that positive. I really hope Netscape polished it, and especially that they polished the user interface... The UI is what will make the difference between positive and negative reviews IMO.

#7 Re: First post!

by sdm

Tuesday April 4th, 2000 2:17 PM

Though nothing there now will work with the beta. Hopefully that will change soon.

#8 UI is critical to success

by Quelish

Tuesday April 4th, 2000 2:23 PM

I agree, the UI is a critical element to the success of the program. If it doesn't look cool or pretty on first impression then people won't give a flip about how standards-compliant the browser is.

I'm actually kind of worried about how Moz looks now. It's got this down and depressing color tone to it. I know there are different chromes for it, but the media isn't going to take the time to look at the other chromes if the default package sucks.

#11 I must agree!

by wolfseyn

Tuesday April 4th, 2000 3:01 PM

This is exactally the reason I don't like IE. There are a few other reasons, but this is the major reason I use Netscape. I wouldn't want to use Nav 4.7 over 6.0 ... that would not be good!

But here's a good question: Does anyone use the default skin for Winamp? Not me... hmmmmm and Mozilla skins are much more powerful than Winamp skins... hopefully *someone* will make a extreamly awesome chrome for Mozilla/Netscape... it's too bad that it might not be Netscape themselves... :(

#16 Re: UI is critical to success

by sdm

Tuesday April 4th, 2000 4:45 PM

The UI has nothing to do with success. What matters is how many users will have access to it. How effective will AOL's marketing power be?

#26 Re: UI is critical to success

by WillyWonka

Tuesday April 4th, 2000 7:43 PM

Think about it like this. If they start off with a skin which people don't like, they will get people designing their own.

When people design skins, it means they most likely use the program. They send their skin to a friend and their friend starts using mozilla just to check it out. Its just a way of getting users ;)

#28 Re: Re: UI is critical to success

by Quelish

Tuesday April 4th, 2000 8:03 PM

Think about THIS: How hard and long has the Mozilla/Netscape team worked on the default skin so far? How much is left to do?

Do you really think that people are going to invest that much time into making a skin for it themselves? Sure, some will...but for the most part people don't have the time nor the know-how to do it. And the average Joe cares not about what's under the hood - He/She cares what if it looks cool.

I'm not saying that Mozilla is going to completely fail because the default skin sucks. Just that it won't catch on as quickly otherwise.

#63 Re: Re: Re: UI is critical to success

by Dargmoth

Friday April 7th, 2000 2:37 PM

Has Netscape published how to make and set up the skins? I would think that they would enevtually set up a site where people can download and even submit new skins.

#12 Webcast

by acrump

Tuesday April 4th, 2000 4:02 PM

#13 Webcast

by acrump

Tuesday April 4th, 2000 4:02 PM

#2 6 kicks

by Kovu

Tuesday April 4th, 2000 1:44 PM

I hope it's a little more stable than the leaked version, but I've heard nothing but great reviews of that one on this end.

What I'm really interested in is the Netscape 6 press conference AFTER Steve Case's speech, including Barry Schuler, etc. I think this is when AOL is finally going to clue us into its plans for the Netscape brand/products (can you say Netscape Online the REAL ISP?)

#47 Re: 6 kicks

by rkl

Wednesday April 5th, 2000 3:14 AM

Just in case you didn't know, Netscpape Online has been running in the UK as a "real ISP" for quite a while now (since August 1999) at

I picked up one of their CD-ROMs from a UK Woolworth store and was shocked to actually see an ISP CD with Netscape bundled with it :-)

More info at:,10199,0-1002,00.html

#3 Is this a preview/beta/final?

by riddley

Tuesday April 4th, 2000 1:48 PM

What's the deal?

#14 Preview Release 1, which equals beta 1 n/t

by Kovu

Tuesday April 4th, 2000 4:09 PM


#4 Awesome

by jedbro

Tuesday April 4th, 2000 1:49 PM

Awesome.. but does this mean it's a public beta/alpha/ realease, or just for demonstration purposes.


#5 Awesome

by jedbro

Tuesday April 4th, 2000 1:54 PM

Awesome.. but does this mean it's a public beta/alpha/ realease, or just for demonstration purposes.


#6 beta. n/t

by sdm

Tuesday April 4th, 2000 2:15 PM

#9 UI Clarification

by Ben_Goodger

Tuesday April 4th, 2000 2:45 PM

A lot of people say "The UI sucks" or equivalent. Please be specific. Its not so much the UI that sucks (well it does in some, but definitly not all areas) - it is the skin that people dislike.

A few points to note about the current skin:

- it is XP. It works 'properly' on Windows, Mac and unix - it runs in 256 colours on Windows at least (not tried Mac or unix) but I am told that it was designed using the web safety colour palette.

Some people want to use system colours, but system colours only work properly on windows (look at the CSS2 spec, and you'll see why).

Some people want a nicer looking 'conservative' look, or a nicer looking 'cool' look, regardless of colour choice: note that the colours required to do this would probably be outside the web safe colour palette. A great deal of thought has been put into colour choice in this skin to ensure the best possible appearance given the limitations. The best you could do would be to shift the colour choice to something else.. like reds, or yellows, or greens, and choose a different design for the buttons etc, which are, IMO as good as any.

Given the limitations, I think the current skin does pretty well. I still want my system colour 'classic' look on Windows, but I understand that it is not the best XP, XDepth solution.

#15 Re: UI Clarification

by Quelish

Tuesday April 4th, 2000 4:37 PM

Sure, you may understand that as a developer or as a power user or whatever you are. But you've obviously got a lot more knowledge than the basic user.

Do you really expect the basic user to understand when you tell them that you can't make Mozilla do something because of a technical specification's limitations? No! They could care less. The average Joe who uses windows is going to expect thousands of colors, if not millions.

I'm not saying that the whole thing has to be recoded. I'm just saying don't be surprised if UI critiques bite Netscape 6 is the rear end.

#48 Re: Re: UI Clarification

by Ben_Goodger

Wednesday April 5th, 2000 3:38 AM


what about jim user who got his system set to 8 bit colours by default, and never thought (or knew how) to change it? do we give him a sucky looking browser? (put aside arguments as to the standard aesthetics of the current skin for a moment ;)

also, there are some people around here that run their notebooks in 8 bit so they can get a higher resolution on the display monitor they attach to. the role of a browser attempting to reach the maximum possible audience is to try and accomodate the lowest common denominator.

#17 Re: UI Clarification

by johnlar

Tuesday April 4th, 2000 4:57 PM

Yes, but there is absolutly no reason they couldn't package several different skins with the install, maby even make windows automatically use the non-standard skin, but leave all skins as an option, its just a skin after all, no reason skins have to be completly cross platform.

#19 Re: Re: UI Clarification

by sdm

Tuesday April 4th, 2000 5:48 PM

The only "reason" is the lack of alernative skins (complete ones).

#49 Re: Re: UI Clarification

by Ben_Goodger

Wednesday April 5th, 2000 3:39 AM

who says they wont?

#20 Re: UI Clarification

by xkalibur

Tuesday April 4th, 2000 6:07 PM

The main part of the UI that I think is very tacky (at least from what I saw of "unofficial" beta screenshots) was that no one has yet fixed the back/forward/reload buttons sitting past the dark blue region onto the lower grey region (just the bottom of the buttons hangs over the edge). I can't see how this is intentional, and if it is, well, at least IMO it's very very ugly. The ironic part is that this obvious quirk has been part of the UI/skin for some time now, and like I said appears to remain in the at least "unofficial" beta. Please, please, someone fix that.

#27 Re: Re: UI Clarification

by centove

Tuesday April 4th, 2000 8:02 PM

Actually its rather trivial to fix so I don't understand this. But its there. There are some other quirks that could be fixed also but I'm more intrested in the functioning of it before I'll worry about the look of it.

#31 Re: Re: UI Clarification

by lalo

Tuesday April 4th, 2000 8:34 PM

It _is_ intentional. The UI would look extremely dull withou this overlap.

#35 Re:UI Clarification

by furypoint

Tuesday April 4th, 2000 10:26 PM

I think it would look more intentional if the address bar and the search button were dropped down.

#39 Re: Re: Re: UI Clarification

by gerbilpower

Tuesday April 4th, 2000 11:52 PM

Yeah, but unfortunately the color choice for the overlap makes it less appealing.


#37 Re: UI Clarification

by mpt

Tuesday April 4th, 2000 11:02 PM

Ben wrote:

"A few points to note about the current skin: - it is XP."

Who cares? The average user certainly doesn't, because the average user will only use Mozilla on one platform.

"Some people want to use system colours, but system colours only work properly on windows (look at the CSS2 spec, and you'll see why)."

Well, you'd better start implementing moz-css hacks for the things (such as scrollbar thumb color) which are missing for Mac -- otherwise no ordinary Mac user is going to take Mozilla seriously.

"Some people want a nicer looking 'conservative' look, or a nicer looking 'cool' look, regardless of colour choice: note that the colours required to do this would probably be outside the web safe colour palette."

Given that you'd be using CSS system colors, the CSS system colors would be extracted from the OS setttings, and the OS settings are already be being used by every other app on the system ... why would it be at all relevant that those colors weren't in the Web-safe color palette?

-- mpt

#50 Re: Re: UI Clarification

by Ben_Goodger

Wednesday April 5th, 2000 3:41 AM

(XP) - we care. we care because we want to get something out there soon. we'll tidy this up later. I plan on making a system colour skin for windows, and a mac variant that uses mac colours, etc.

(MAC USER) - given our current mac performance in recent builds, I dont think it'll be the /ui/ that drives mac users to IE ;)

(SYSTEM COLOURS) - [someone correct me if I'm wrong] - system colours are grabbed from the system and then displayed as the literal RGB value. hence the colour then gets the same brutalizing treatment webpage content gets.

#42 Re: UI Clarification

by socbyset

Wednesday April 5th, 2000 12:10 AM

Hang on. There are two important things to consider here. #1 is that just because they are deciding to make the UI colors web-safe, does not mean that it has to be butt-ugly. You say that either a good "cool" or "conservative" look are not possible with the websafe palette- I beg to differ.. I mean, granted, the 216 colors can be a bit limiting but there is still plenty there to work with. I mean, people are coding some really nice websites with these colors, are they not?

The second point is, why even make it a priority to have a generic XP skin? This is something that programmers tend to think is a great thing but really isn't. Saying, "and the Mac, Unix, and Windows versions all look and feel exactly the same!" will not score big points with the general public. Can't Netscape hire a graphic designer to spend a couple of weeks creating custom skins for Mac, Linux, Be, PC, etc. ? Heck, they could probably find an intern to do it for free.

And finally the Windows UI grey corresponds exactly with websafe color #CCCCCC. I think Apple Platinum may also use this grey, not sure.

#51 Re: Re: UI Clarification

by Ben_Goodger

Wednesday April 5th, 2000 3:43 AM

No bones about it, this is a Netscape skin. It should not be the only skin in the mozilla tree. That said (so people don't yell at me for no damn good reason):

A goal in making this skin was probably (since it is a Netscape one) to appeal to as many people as possible since Netscape is a corporate entity, and to them its important to cater to everyone who wants to use its products.

#55 Re: Re: UI Clarification

by jglaser

Wednesday April 5th, 2000 4:56 AM

Sorry, but I think you missed the point completely. The original intention was not having to fix multiple platform versions of the browser (read: multiple skins) when something like a menu item changes. This can only be achived by a XP skin.

#60 Re: Re: Re: UI Clarification

by socbyset

Wednesday April 5th, 2000 7:28 PM

No, I didn't miss the point. What I was saying was that the cost in resources to fix multiple versions of the skin when a change is made is minimal compared to the benefit of having a customized skin for a particular ui. The question is whether Netscape is willing to suffer this minor headache in order to make more users happy.

#52 Re: UI Clarification

by astrosmash

Wednesday April 5th, 2000 3:48 AM

A few points about the current Mozilla and Navigator 4.7 interfaces:

1. Edit boxes: Edit boxes are not edit boxes until they are activated. This drives me nuts! Especially on the Location Bar. It can make the UI seem really unresponsive at times.

2. One Click pop-up menus: I really like how in 4.x, pop-up menus activate on the mouse-down event, rather that the mouse-up event(ms-windows standard). It makes for some really quick mouse work. This is currently missing in Mozilla. The Menu appears on the mouse-down event, but it does not respond to the mouse until the button is raised. (It always takes two clicks to do anything with a pop-up menu)

3. Keyboard shortcuts / Tab selection: (The only thing that MS has contributed to the GUI world). Keyboard short cuts and tab selection *must* be fully functional or people will never stop bitching, especially WRT standard dialogs and wizards.

3.5 Using the keyboard to select and 'click' a button on a web page should provide some indication that the button was actually clicked. (The button should look like it was clicked)

4. One of the main reasons why I use Navigator is for the excellent feedback that is returned when it's in the middle of doing something: - Busy cursor in the gfx window. Standard cursor on the UI. - Status bar always displays meaningful information.

IE4 did not come close to accomplishing this, and IE5 still doesn't have it right.

I think that Mozilla must do this better than Nav4.x, considering the apparent sluggishness of the UI (Especially on X)

All to often you are sitting and waiting for Mozilla, but you're not quite sure what it's doing. In other words, sometimes you aren't sure that anything happed as a result of clicking that button, or hitting that 'enter' key; and after a while you begin to lose faith in it.

It is still way to easy to get into a situation where throbber is throbbing, status bar is spinning, yet the status bar text reads "Done" ( Specifically when using the back/fwd buttons, and also when mousing over a link during page load)

UI lag is also present on operations that create new windows. (The UI appears dead for the time it takes to construct a new window, which is a long time) Extensive use of the busy cursor is required.

4.1 Window destruction takes an incredibly long time, preventing the browser window underneath from repainting itself. This isn't a UI design issue, but it is very ackward none-the-less, especially when you like to browse with multiple windows.

5. Bookmarks: I love everything there is about Navigator 4.x bookmarks. I have my bookmark root set to the personal toolbar, with a number of sub-folders stemming off of the toolbar. This is incredibly handy for both getting, and setting the bookmarks.

When bookmarking a page, it's very easy to keep things organized by simply dragging the link onto the personal toolbar, and into the appropriate sub-folder.

As well, I usually keep the bookmark manager stuck to the left hand side of my screen (ala sidebar) behind everything, so that complete bookmark management is always very easy and convenient to get to.

The current UI bookmark implementation fails on two accounts: - You can not drag items on to the personal toolbar. It worked on earlier builds (~M7 ?) but it has since been removed. (Is this simply a skin issue, or is there more behind it?) - The bookmark sidebar is non-functional when compared to the bookmark manager. These two should be functionality identical (give or take a couple of columns), otherwise, what's the point.

(I may sound bitter about these things, only because I think I read in the UI newsgroups earlier that the current implementations of the personal toolbar and bookmark side bar were essentially finished, and are not going to change. That would suck.)

5.1 It would be really rad if the sidebar could be dragged out of the browser window, and into it's own window. (Bonus points for allowing it "dock" to a side of the screen) I never browse at full screen, and I always have a number of browser windows open, so it seems silly to have 2 or 3 visible sidebars and menus on my desktop.

5.2 The personal toolbar is way to small. It looks way cooler when it's small, but it's also far less functional.

6.0 Skin Specific Issues: The skin isn't 3D, which is a refreshing change, however, when most controls are clicked or selected, the only visual 'clicking' indication they give is to move down and to the right by a pixel. Considering that this is a non-standard UI, and that most novice users won't know which controls can and cannot be clicked, it should be made painfully obvious that: a) the control can be clicked (perhaps pop up on hover, maybe just change color); b) The control is being clicked (inverse the control color during the click)

This may seem like a small point, but it's the little things that count, especially when a user is forced to use and learn a completely new and unique UI.

6.1 It would also be nice if the menu items blinked to indicate that they have been selected, again, because of UI sluggishness.

7. Some minor points:

Scrolling: Another thing I like about Navigator 4.x (win32) is the window scrolling when dragging/selecting past the browser window boundary. It's very smooth and very easy to control. Mozilla does this (or did this) to a certain extent, however, it seems that this has always been treated as somewhat of a side-effect (current builds do not scroll at all) It would be really nice if there was a small button (perhaps on each scroll bar) that, when dragged, would scroll the window in a similar way that 4.x currently does, without selecting any text.

Selection: Text selection inverts the text, yet it also inverts the background. The 4.x implementation is better, as it can aid in reading poorly designed web sites when the background color/texture clashes with the text. (This seems to have been fixed in later builds)

Status Bar: Status bar should display button and menu help text (and bookmark urls) on mouse hover like in 4.x

Final Note: I think a lot of people really liked the first Mozilla skin. It would be crazy to not bundle both of these skins (or more) with Netscape 6.0, so that users can at least choose to use either a more traditional interface, or the radically new interface.

Whoa! That ended up being way longer than I had intended. If you got this far, thanks for reading!

-- Darren

#10 Will there be a version for BeOS after final?

by brobinson

Tuesday April 4th, 2000 2:54 PM

Anybody know if the BeOS port is still being worked on? I'd like to have a decent browser for BeOS :)

#21 Re: Will there be a version for BeOS after final?

by ERICmurphy

Tuesday April 4th, 2000 6:08 PM

I know that a month ago it was stalled out because Be was getting ready to release 5.0. I bet they get the code base up to date too.

I doubt there will be a Netscape version, just a Mozilla version, which is fine by me.

#18 US allways behind ;->

by Lynggaard

Tuesday April 4th, 2000 5:02 PM

It is allready tomorow here (time is 01.01), so where is the friggen thing ? ;->

Boy do I hate that US is 8 hours in the timezones

Cheers from Denmark Henrik

#22 full HTML4?

by basic

Tuesday April 4th, 2000 6:11 PM

Someone on the web-standards list is having doubts that Moz (and later NS6) can reach full HTML 4 compliancy (no bugs included). His claim is based on one little tag <optgroup> that is currently not working.

That got me thinking, could a list of all HTML 4 bugs be made? Kind of like a count down to 0 bugs? I can't seem to find a way to list them in bugzilla. There are keywords for CSS but not HTML 4.

Can't wait for Moz to be HTML 4 complete ( and XUL/XBL & CSS1/2 complete too!)


#24 Re: full HTML4?

by stephan

Tuesday April 4th, 2000 7:08 PM

Have a look at bug 7954 ("outstanding HTML 4.0 compliance issues")

#30 Re: Re: full HTML4?

by sacolcor

Tuesday April 4th, 2000 8:33 PM

I also filed bug 32419 a while ago to request an html4 keyword. No response on it yet, though.

#33 Re: Re: full HTML4?

by basic

Tuesday April 4th, 2000 9:08 PM

Thanks! That helps abit. But that does not give the right picture though. Like for example bug 994 (optgroup not implemented) may be fixed but 33421 (optgroup breaks scrolling drop down list) is not, and it is not in the list. How can one know when Moz is really 100% HTML 4 compliant (free of known bugs and all)? If there is no way of knowing by tracking bugzilla, I think there should be.

#23 Is there anything uglier than the UI?

by shoey

Tuesday April 4th, 2000 6:35 PM

What's the deal with the UI?

I've been looking at the builds of Mozilla and it's getting faster and more stable with each release. The only problem is I can't stand the UI.

I downloaded and looked at the leaked beta and noticed the same UI. What's with the UI, it's got to be the ugliest thing I've ever used!

Someone please tell me that this is just beta until they design a proper UI.

I'd rather use IE than be subject to that UI :)

#38 Re: Is there anything uglier than the UI?

by groovestar

Tuesday April 4th, 2000 11:04 PM

Why does everyone hate the default skin so very much? It's sleek, simple, and easy to use. The purpose of each of the buttons is obvious and there are not so many as to become confusing. The whole thing is nicely non-cluttered. And the throbber simply looks good. Even the sidebar is useful, though it's continual misbehaviour is a pain. Contrast this to IE where all of the buttons fade to grey and thus become less than easy to distinguish between, while lending the whole thing a rather bland look. It is annoyingly cluttered, with several rather useless buttons adding to the confusion.

The only complaints I can bring to bear on the current skin is the lack of a nice big bookmarks button next to the navigation controls, and the kind of tacked-on look of the Windows bar and menus at the top.

Will somebody please explain to me WHY they believe that "the Mozilla UI sux!"

#40 Radical

by gerbilpower

Tuesday April 4th, 2000 11:56 PM

A lot of people tend caught off guard with something radical. I personally like the radicalness.

I did like the Mozilla UI originally but it lost it's shine very fast. I find it rather dull and in desire need of improvement, but I can still easily live with it for now. The choice of colors for the UI have certainly been bad.


#43 Re: Re: Is there anything uglier than the UI?

by sleepy

Wednesday April 5th, 2000 12:13 AM

I think I'm not alone when I say the choice of color is dark, cold, and unfriendly. The rest of the world uses the less obtrusive light gray as the default (Windows apps, GTK, QT, etc). Something like the Aphrodite chrome would look better IMO. Plus, the buttons extends beyond the blue area, which looks downright weird. Also from the chromes that I have seen so far, none of them have the drop-down list on the forward and back button, like the 4.x browsers have. I hope this would be added eventually.

#44 Re: Re: Is there anything uglier than the UI?

by pepper

Wednesday April 5th, 2000 1:08 AM

I am with you groovestar. The Mozilla UI rocks. I just wish it was (much) faster on Linux.

Death to the light grey hegemony and the ugly MS UI slavery. ;)

#61 Re: Re: Is there anything uglier than the UI?

by aengblom

Wednesday April 5th, 2000 7:54 PM

Some of my critisms

1. As of now, there is no multiple back/forward 2. The white "File Edit View Search" bar (it's sooo white! :) ) 3. Sorry IMO the sidebar should not be loaded as default! 4. What is with the gray that sorounds the throbber etc. Then there is a space between the gray and the sidebar (eww!) 5. The sidebar got the "What's related" etc. tabs, but if I hit them all, they go to the bottom/top. It means that buttons i want to press must be found (ie. can't trust your instincts. 6. Yeah you like clean interface, but I like my print button. 7. The "bookmarks home" etc. bar is placed oddly below another bar with just text (too much reading!) 8. I *liked* being able to put my favorite bookmarks in easy reach in 4.x, (but don't <i>really</i> care) 9. the mswheel doesn't work exactly as it does in IE .. .. hey i use the feature all the time. 10. "history" simply does not as slick as IE's 11. Maybe a less radical color scheme for the default? If you LIKE the way an interface looks a lot, there will be people who HATE it just as much. This is why a nice bland thing is good for default! :) 12. No Microsoft Word button! I mean come on folks! Get with the program ;-)

Ok seriosly the Moz UI has some flaws, but I'm happy and getting much happier. But i tout Moz as a christ figure so i want it fullfill the role :) !

**If you "advertise" the ability to skin etc, you should include atleast 3 with the product (like already! :) )

#62 Re: Re: Re: Is there anything uglier than the UI?

by Tanyel

Wednesday April 5th, 2000 8:51 PM

If Mozilla does not fulfill the role as a "christ figure", are you going to change religions?

#25 Is there anything uglier than the UI?

by shoey

Tuesday April 4th, 2000 7:35 PM

What's the deal with the UI?

I've been looking at the builds of Mozilla and it's getting faster and more stable with each release. The only problem is I can't stand the UI.

I downloaded and looked at the leaked beta and noticed the same UI. What's with the UI, it's got to be the ugliest thing I've ever used!

Someone please tell me that this is just beta until they design a proper UI.

I'd rather use IE than be subject to that UI :)

#46 You'll be able to change it

by leafdigital

Wednesday April 5th, 2000 3:11 AM

At present none of the alternative chrome thingies are any use (one of them looks nice, but it isn't finished and most features do not work).

But, they will be. So at that point you can switch.

Personally, I like the Mozilla UI, although the colour-clash with the throbber is really, really annoying - but this will change for the Netscape-branded beta, thankfully :)


#29 Where and what time can I download Netscape 6.0?

by tangduc

Tuesday April 4th, 2000 8:13 PM


#32 Re: Where and what time can I download Netscape 6.

by wtmcgee

Tuesday April 4th, 2000 8:38 PM

also, is this going to be the same build that was *leaked* about a week ago, or an updated version?

#53 updated, obviously... (n/t)

by RvR

Wednesday April 5th, 2000 4:00 AM


#34 Find it here

by badben

Tuesday April 4th, 2000 9:22 PM

It's available since 1947 at f-t-p://

#36 performance

by punkrider

Tuesday April 4th, 2000 10:31 PM

Were all of the debug options enabled when the leaked release was leaked? I just hope that it will be as fast, if not faster than the latest milestone. From what I d/l'd last week, the leaked build was not fast at all...

what gives?


#41 Re: performance

by gerbilpower

Wednesday April 5th, 2000 12:00 AM

Remember Mozilla is still under heavey development, things can shift up and down constantly (including performance). I don't know what's been the specific issue(s) but I won't be surprised if "Preview Release 1" isn't as fast as M14, as long as the general trend in future release is towards improvement.


#45 Re: performance

by RvR

Wednesday April 5th, 2000 1:27 AM

Mozilla binaries are compiled everyday (these are called the "nightlies", think of them as "daily snapshot"), and some are better than others. Sometimes, they can become unstable or slow for a few days along and then it improves as bugs are corrected or new features are optimised. I've not grabbed this "leaked version" but from what i've read it was not a good snapshot and nightlies like the 2000-03-28's one are much better.

#54 UI and Speed

by tssr

Wednesday April 5th, 2000 4:49 AM

the leaked one i have is quite fast, and VERY stable! so i am quite happy with it... but the UI should be platform specific. currently, it looks like a cross between mac dialog and scroll bars, and win 3.1/2000 menubar, and linux sidebar, etc!!

#56 For Early Birds

by KlausM

Wednesday April 5th, 2000 6:52 AM

the directory

is readable. I just downloaded the windows version from the directory 6_PR1/windows/win32. The build is 2000033112.

#57 For Early Birds -- SORRY WRONG LINK

by KlausM

Wednesday April 5th, 2000 6:54 AM

it is

(I forgot the 'pub')

#58 Huh?

by Hard_Code

Wednesday April 5th, 2000 7:10 AM

I just downloaded and installed the preview. It appears to be nothing but a nightly build with a Netscape icon. woo

#59 Re: Huh?

by luge

Wednesday April 5th, 2000 7:25 AM

What did you expect? I mean, there is only so much extra Netscape can add to an already solid product. Lets see... it's got the security stuff compiled in... it's clearly faster than any nightly I've ever used (and I've used them daily for nearly 5 months)... and, oh yeah, let's not forget that dailies have been nearly unusable for 5 or 6 days now, and this is not (I missed my right clicks.) If this is what the future of browsing is (particularly in terms of speed!) I'm very excited.