MozillaZine

Netscape 6 Released

Tuesday November 14th, 2000

Netscape 6 has been released. You can download the installer here.


#1 what is that?

by PhiSch

Tuesday November 14th, 2000 6:07 AM

Reply to this message

I am sorry, but ever Nightly Build is running better than this so called final release.

for me, it looks like AOL wanted to release something before IE6 (beta) is out.

This is not very good. Here in germany, Online magazines already publish very negative articels.

.phisch

(still using the Original Mozilla)

#13 Re: what is that?

by witbrock

Tuesday November 14th, 2000 9:00 AM

Reply to this message

Since Mozilla is released daily, and Netscape less frequently, it's almost a logical necessity that Mozilla should usually work better.

#2 Thought so...

by jonde <joona.nuutinen@pp.inet.fi>

Tuesday November 14th, 2000 6:36 AM

Reply to this message

As I entered MozillaZine, I saw the news headline: Netscape 6 released. I thought "What???" Already, It sure isn't finished yet. I wonder what's behind all this, there must be some kind of "must" here.

#3 NS can't afford to wait forever

by Martyr

Tuesday November 14th, 2000 6:46 AM

Reply to this message

There's always market pressure on companies, and NS faces the unenviable position of choosing between getting nailed now for less-than-perfect compliance, or being irrelevant with perfect compliance. There's a need to build mindshare among the public, and not just us, fans, developers and evangelists. Good writers know there's a time to let the story go, to go ahead and submit, recognizing they could make it better if they waited longer. There is such thing as a window of opportunity, and this release definitely has hit squarely in that window.

#4 COMDEX anyone?

by Martyr

Tuesday November 14th, 2000 6:48 AM

Reply to this message

Thinking another second or so about it, COMDEX is a major factor in the release of NS 6. (Duh).

#22 Re: NS can't afford to wait forever

by norny <norny@geocities.com>

Tuesday November 14th, 2000 10:36 AM

Reply to this message

People aren't up and angry because of compliance problems. It's because Netscape still has bugs... like in the GUI with how it works... little things like rendering little graphics on slashdot. Even the nightly builds have that problem.

#5 NS6

by imarsman <ianm@niagara.com>

Tuesday November 14th, 2000 7:32 AM

Reply to this message

Havn't had the chance to try it on Linux, but on Windows it takes up 2x as much memory as Mozilla. Not a good sign. Not good to ask people to dedicate 40 megs of RAM to one program.

#6 no need for this release

by roffermanns <rolf.offermanns@gmx.net>

Tuesday November 14th, 2000 7:32 AM

Reply to this message

I do not see the need for this release. in the windows world there is ie which is preinstalled, has a lower memory footprint (yes, i know, itīs because it uses the os libs, or vice versa, whatever). Why should one switch to NS6? 80% or more users donīt give a f*ck for standard compliants, they have probably never heard about it. They want to want their favourite websites to works and thats it. On the other side there are the Linux (and probably Mac) users who have no other choice than to wait and hope ( for mozilla, not for NS6, speaking for me). I know there are Konqueror and opera (maybe others, i donīt know) but I donīt really like them (donīt know why, maybe I am waiting and enjoying mozilla for too long ;). The NS6 release is a Bad Thing(TM). I will make people take a look at it and forget about NS forever! Too bad! :( just my 2 cents, Rolf

#232 Re: no need for this release

by HunterA3

Wednesday November 22nd, 2000 12:00 PM

Reply to this message

It may have a larger footprint now, but when MS is forced to offer their browser and email programs seperate from the OS, I'm sure the NS6 footprint size will be conciderably smaller. On a side note, I've noticed many people that have downloaded each prerelease and they don't have as many problems with the final release as those who waited and downloaded it when it came out. Does anyone know if there are files that the final release looks for before installing that PR3 put in that perhaps are better than the final release versions of the same file?

#7 FINALLY!!!!

by arnoudb <arnoudb@dds.nl>

Tuesday November 14th, 2000 7:38 AM

Reply to this message

Come on ppl! Just be happy it\\\'s finally there! Sure, there\\\'s a few bugs that Moz doesn\\\'t have, but there will always be a few bugs, and Netscape just NEEDS to keep it\\\'s market share. If Netscape dies, that would be a very bad thing for Mozilla too. By the time the major public finally figured out NS6 is out, NS6.5 will be here.

#8 My feelings

by MattBehrens <matt@zigg.com>

Tuesday November 14th, 2000 7:46 AM

Reply to this message

I have to put my two cents in. I've been reading Mo'zine forever but have never felt the need to contribute 'till now.

Netscape 6 may indeed not be all that was originally expected. I think lots of people had wholly unrealistic expectations for it. Yes, it needs work. But how many dot-oh "Internet release" products today actually work 100%? Geez, I remember back in my ISP days railing against the decision to include IE 4.0 because it demolished folks' Windows installations. Netscape 6.0 is not a perfect product, but I think it is an excellent starting point. (Insert standard bit about the wealth of code contributed to free software as well here.)

So what if it gets a few negative reviews? It's not going to kill the Mozilla platform. Instead of bickering about this or that marketing decision, which you cannot change, why not work on Mozilla in whatever way you can? Compare the crash-prone Moz builds of just a few months ago to today's nightlies. There have been people doing very good work despite the marketing pressures and negative press, and I believe they will continue to do so.

If you're a technically literate person who wants to see Mozilla succeed, but your objective is to win market share, you're expending energy in the entirely wrong direction. Leave ideas of market share to the marketeers. Concentrate on working to make Mozilla better above all else, and the rest of the world will eventually follow.

#159 Well put Matt n/t

by Kovu <Kovu401@netscape.net>

Thursday November 16th, 2000 7:02 PM

Reply to this message

n/t

#184 Re: My feelings

by danielhill <danielhill@hotmail.com>

Saturday November 18th, 2000 5:39 AM

Reply to this message

"If you're a technically literate person who wants to see Mozilla succeed, but your objective is to win market share, you're expending energy in the entirely wrong direction. Leave ideas of market share to the marketeers. Concentrate on working to make Mozilla better above all else, and the rest of the world will eventually follow."

That paragraph says it all. AOL are good marketers, how else can 24 million people use their crap service? If they put as much energy into Netscape as they do AOL, Moz can at least take half share. WHich is what I'd like. I don't want one dominant browser.

#9 Linux builds

by dave532

Tuesday November 14th, 2000 8:29 AM

Reply to this message

Why does the supposedly release quality Netscape 6.0 still output it's debug info to the console under Linux. Many people in Linux start up their browser by running the command netscape & in an xterm window.

I even seen the following debug message: we don't handle eBorderStyle_close yet... please fix me

Not a very impressive first impression.

#28 Re: Linux builds

by luge

Tuesday November 14th, 2000 11:58 AM

Reply to this message

Yeah. That was a really, really brain-dead move. Oh well...

#71 Re: Linux builds

by grahams

Tuesday November 14th, 2000 8:09 PM

Reply to this message

When you stop whining, you can learn to redirect the output to /dev/null if it bothers you so much.

#72 Re: Re: Linux builds

by dave532

Tuesday November 14th, 2000 8:15 PM

Reply to this message

Erm I know how to redirect to /dev/null but why should I have to? It's meant to be a release quality product - I use the Mozilla nightlies all the time and it doesn't bother me, but Netscape are aiming for the less technical user here.

They could have added the /dev/null redirection to the netscape start up script.

#104 Re: Re: Linux builds

by mce

Wednesday November 15th, 2000 10:37 AM

Reply to this message

Not only should one not be required to redirect these messages, one should also not have to end up wondering what other debugging stuff that the thing is wasting cpu cycles on.

#10 OK so far

by leier911

Tuesday November 14th, 2000 8:42 AM

Reply to this message

I have been using it now, and it is not that bad. Still should not have been released yet, but it is better than before, faster, no crashes yet, and does not hog up that much memory as it did before. Right now, I have IE5.5 running, Outlook Express, and AOL chat, with Netscape, I can have them all in one window, and it takes up less. At least on my system. But as you can see, I am still using IE5.5 until it NS is better

#11 ... and it sucks badly

by jilles

Tuesday November 14th, 2000 8:52 AM

Reply to this message

In the recent discussion on this site I made a plea for netscape to delay NS 6. It turns out they should have followed my advice. I downloaded and intstalled netscape 6. It did not detect I already have java, flash and real audio installed and went on to install its own versions. Then it did not launch because there was a conflict with some remains of a mozilla nightly (I knew how to fix it but quite likely some others don't know this).

After I managed to launch it succesfully (this now consistently takes about 20 seconds). I immediately noted that a bug I reported early august was not fixed (in fact it's not yet fixed in mozilla either). Basically it means that IE favorites are not imported correctly.

So first impressions: - It's slow, repaints are visually slower than native programs. Netscape simply lacks some of the performance optimizations that have already moved into mozilla. - Integration is poor, aside from the obvious, reported bug I mentioned earlier, netscape does a poor job of using what is available. People who will blindly choose the 'full' install will get redundant versions of software they already have. - It is based on M18, while a usefull build, it certainly was not release quality. I still believe they should have waited longer.

In short, use mozilla nightlies. They are already better. Check on this site to find the stable ones. I don't see how netscape 6 can be anything else than disappointing to the average user. I expect a few very bad reviews and a lot of bad press for both mozilla and netscape over the next few days. I hope netscape will move quickly to a netscape 6.1 based on a better mozilla build.

#12 Don't Know how you folks managed to get it . . .

by tny

Tuesday November 14th, 2000 8:57 AM

Reply to this message

I can't get a file list from that directory (in the MSDOS FTP client that comes with Windows; hey, I like dos . . .)

#14 Theme Park doesn't work with Mozilla nightlies...

by marmoset

Tuesday November 14th, 2000 9:23 AM

Reply to this message

The Theme Park theme downloads check explicitly for Netscape 6 and wont work with Mozilla nightlies. Is there a workaround?

#30 Mozilla compatible page

by Ophiuchus

Tuesday November 14th, 2000 12:02 PM

Reply to this message

I made a quick page with some bad snapshots. Enjoy. Click on the BLANK theme link to install.

<http://www.csoft.net/~critic/>

#31 Mozilla compatible page

by Ophiuchus

Tuesday November 14th, 2000 12:03 PM

Reply to this message

I made a quick page with some bad snapshots. Enjoy. Click on the BLANK theme link to install.

<http://www.csoft.net/~critic/>

#49 Re: Theme Park doesn't work with Mozilla nightlies

by caseyperkins <caseyperkins@mindspring.com>

Tuesday November 14th, 2000 4:50 PM

Reply to this message

Doesn't seem to work with Netscape 6 either! Broken Javascript, it seems. Someone's head should roll for that.

#108 Re: Theme Park doesn't work with Mozilla nightlies

by konmaskisin

Wednesday November 15th, 2000 10:59 AM

Reply to this message

I found a few problems with some of the themes (cosmetic stuff) ... see my message below (which submitted itself twice because of the damn "repost form data" feature ARGH!). Generally though they are sweet. The "theme builder" under development will make is quite simple for almost anyone to create a new look for the browser. I'm certainly going to create a "customized" theme for my company.

#15 It is good enough, considering...

by darnell

Tuesday November 14th, 2000 9:29 AM

Reply to this message

They had to get something out the door. It is better than when they went from NS6 Beta 1 to HORRIBLE Beta 2. Mozilla build M18 is good enough.

Keep waiting and the funding for this puppy would have to be pulled! Marketing is a fact of life and something had to hit the maket for PR.

I like it, it works good enough for a ground up rebuild of a browser. Who else has rebuilt a browser from nothing?

AMD took the same chance with the Atlon in the chip sector and it paid off because the company was near death before it.

They will maket this puppy like AOL and the number of NS browser uses will increase.

It was a great move by Netscape-AOL and a must do.

If you have not already installed it, try the Sky Pilot Theme. Definetly the best theme I've seen yet.

#16 Beautiful themes

by generaltao

Tuesday November 14th, 2000 9:29 AM

Reply to this message

N/T

#17 SSL Crashes Linux Version

by unbekannt

Tuesday November 14th, 2000 9:54 AM

Reply to this message

The PSM that gets installed crashes when I go to a re-directed SSL URL. Anyone else have the same problem with SSL under Linux?

#25 Re: SSL Crashes Linux Version

by sleepy

Tuesday November 14th, 2000 11:14 AM

Reply to this message

I installed Netscape6 in a globally accessible directory, and I was able to run the PSM module as root, but not as a regular user.

I also installed Mozilla in my own user directory, and the work-around I found was to run the PSM module from my Mozilla directory, and Netscape6 will happily work with it. Maybe it's some kind of permission problem?

#95 It seems a bug

by vsalvador

Wednesday November 15th, 2000 6:28 AM

Reply to this message

I've the same problem accesing <http://www.idrive.com> on a Windows platform. SSL Redirected URLS doesn't works

#18 Netscape signed it's die.

by ezh <ezh@menelon.ee>

Tuesday November 14th, 2000 9:57 AM

Reply to this message

Read those articles comments:

<http://fileforum.efront.c…detail.php3?fid=942950549> Mostly complaining on mem usage. But nobody in Netscape cares about public opinion - the mem hook was reported since beta 1. :(

PS Yhis was the last chance. Netscape is dead from now.

#26 Re: Netscape signed it's die.

by llurex <llurex@katamail.com>

Tuesday November 14th, 2000 11:19 AM

Reply to this message

How many times have we heard that Netscape "is dead" in the last two years?

And they are still alive...

And obviously they will survive this time too. This release will put them in the spotlight and draw criticism. They will fix the bugs, put out a good 6.5, and everybody will be happy.

#27 I wish to have 6.5 directly, without 6.0... :(

by ezh <ezh@menelon.ee>

Tuesday November 14th, 2000 11:37 AM

Reply to this message

subj

#77 Re: Netscape signed it's die.

by locka <adamlock@eircom.net>

Tuesday November 14th, 2000 9:48 PM

Reply to this message

Betanews readers are a pretty clueless bunch with views barely extending beyond "Product XXXX rulez", "Product XXXX suckz" comments. At least Slashdot readers tend to put some reasoning behind their arguments even if they are just as polarised in their opinions.

#99 Re: Re: Netscape signed it's die.

by brista

Wednesday November 15th, 2000 7:25 AM

Reply to this message

I agree I have gotten so fed up with the "know-nothingness" of betanews commenters that I only read the news now.

#154 Adam I have to diagree with you...

by bjensen <rom@silverlink.net>

Thursday November 16th, 2000 3:04 PM

Reply to this message

The average folks relies much more on what merely \'an article\' states as gospel or not.

Once the user tries/experiments/and uses the product in question... then... an only then... will a solid formidable opinion be formed.

I was just as anxious as probably most to install NS6 on my system. What can I say... it was a bad experience.

Within hours I removed it, albeit with a feeling of disappointment and shock.

I\'ll give her a go again but I\'ll post some questions regarding ideal setup conditions at the end of this thread.

For what it\'s worth, Adam, I\'ve made it a real habit to kep tabs on your progress of mapping the Moz API to that of IE\'s.

Keep up the good work... :)

-Bruce

#19 NS suffers from whining

by Martyr

Tuesday November 14th, 2000 10:00 AM

Reply to this message

I think a lot of people do more disservice to Moz and NS by complaining. This hurts morale, and people's impression of the product. Where's the solidarity? Where's the community? There isn't any, because most people are in it just for how it makes their own life better, a narrow kind of self-interest that prompts a lot of the comments above (i.e, tackily showing up late to the party and then complaining about the food). Why bother with marketing decisions? They're not yours to make -- and THEY NEVER WILL BE. Face it, it's something you can't control and whining does no-one any good. Why can't you be grateful and supportive for once? Or is that just not in your narrowly-defined self-interest? The people who complain the most are often the ones who contribute least.

#24 It happens after 32 months

by darnell

Tuesday November 14th, 2000 11:11 AM

Reply to this message

Not that the complaints make everything better, but some negative feedback was needed. After 32 months and many sliped deadlines it is to be expected.

Bottom line is that a brower is for the users and to help them access information. So all users have a right to their view even if it is negative.

#20 Netscape signed it's die.

by ezh <ezh@menelon.ee>

Tuesday November 14th, 2000 10:06 AM

Reply to this message

Read those articles comments:

<http://fileforum.efront.c…detail.php3?fid=942950549> Mostly complaining on mem usage. But nobody in Netscape cares about public opinion - the mem hook was reported since beta 1. :(

PS Yhis was the last chance. Netscape is dead from now.

#21 Favorite Mozilla Feature missing in N6

by jcurious

Tuesday November 14th, 2000 10:29 AM

Reply to this message

As far as I can tell there is no "Accept images that come from the originating server only".. additionaly right clicking on images doesn't give you the option to reject images in the future... hmmph

#82 Re: Favorite Mozilla Feature missing in N6

by DennisS

Tuesday November 14th, 2000 11:40 PM

Reply to this message

How much revenue does AOL/Netscape get from banner ads? The surprising part is not that this feature has been removed from Netscape, it's that they (apparently) haven't pushed to have it removed from Mozilla!

Not only is the image blocking a great feature on its own merits, it's also something that M$ is going to be very reluctant to follow (for the same reason as AOL/Netscape - too much cash on the line from banner ads).

#135 Re: Re: Favorite Mozilla Feature missing in N6

by sleestack

Thursday November 16th, 2000 1:51 AM

Reply to this message

Lots of this stuff is implemented in content, that means you can either hack the content, or in this case, find the right pref:

user_pref("imageblocker.enabled", true);

-Chris

#23 Not on the Netscape site anymore?

by WandererX <nomad@planetnomad.net>

Tuesday November 14th, 2000 10:57 AM

Reply to this message

I was trying to get back to the Netscape theme park and noticed that the Netscape 6 links now only lead to the PR3. Could NS be headed back to the drawing board? Has anyone else noticed this or is it just me?

#29 Re: Not on the Netscape site anymore?

by Dotan

Tuesday November 14th, 2000 12:01 PM

Reply to this message

It's vanished for me too, replaced with the Preview 3 page, and the old Theme Park pages. And, strangely, just when I was running the fresh download. It's also missing in IE - maybe it *is* down.

#74 Here's hoping!

by afree87 <afree87@netscape.net>

Tuesday November 14th, 2000 9:11 PM

Reply to this message

If Netscape had kept that piece of junk out as final, then it would have been endgame for Netscape.

#32 hehe!

by bjensen <rom@silverlink.net>

Tuesday November 14th, 2000 12:05 PM

Reply to this message

Geez Chris! Don't sound so enthusiastic...

Your day has come and all you have to say is:

'Netscape 6 has been released. You can download the installer here'

Way to go folks... now there's no doubt that I have to accept IE as it.

Damn.

#33 Mac problem

by odd <odd@findus.dhs.org>

Tuesday November 14th, 2000 12:34 PM

Reply to this message

Netscape 6 cannot use a profile located in any other folder than what it suggest by default (on Mac OS). Good work. (this was in Mozilla a week or so ago, but I don\\\'t know if it has been fixed there.)

#34 This is a release??

by bdraco

Tuesday November 14th, 2000 12:44 PM

Reply to this message

SSL doesn't work at all. The installer just plain didn't install java and gave lots of can't find .xpi errors. The mozilla nightly builds are just way better.

#35 Crap Java Support

by jrmski <jrmski@aol.com>

Tuesday November 14th, 2000 12:55 PM

Reply to this message

Netscape still hasnt learned!

I have not been able to run one Java applet in any of the NS 6 preview releases. Why do they even bother. I have been a long time fan of Netscape, but unfortunately I'm going to have to advise my website visitors to download IE instead unless this is fixed immediately.

#36 Re: Crap Java Support

by unbekannt

Tuesday November 14th, 2000 1:00 PM

Reply to this message

I haven't had any problems from any Java applet. I'm using NS6 under Linux with the Sun plugin that the installer downloaded for me.

#38 RE: CRAP JAVA

by jrmski <jrmski@aol.com>

Tuesday November 14th, 2000 1:26 PM

Reply to this message

I am having these problems with the win32 (Under Windows '95) version.

#41 Java Works just fine in NT4 and Win2K (n/t)

by TonyG <tony.gorman@blueyonder.co.Yuk>

Tuesday November 14th, 2000 1:48 PM

Reply to this message

...

#86 worksforme

by ratman

Wednesday November 15th, 2000 12:59 AM

Reply to this message

i haven't seen any java problems, other than it being a little slow to load applets. that's for both win95 and 98, as well.

#79 They probably already have IE

by Tanyel <tanyel@straightblack.com>

Tuesday November 14th, 2000 10:00 PM

Reply to this message

unless you designed your site to fail with Internet Explorer.

#122 Re: Crap Java Support

by locka <adamlock@eircom.net>

Wednesday November 15th, 2000 3:53 PM

Reply to this message

So what about the FINAL release then?

#37 2 glaring failures in NS6

by sremick

Tuesday November 14th, 2000 1:26 PM

Reply to this message

I could almost survive past the nitpicky details of what aspect of what standard isn't supported. At first glance, this is a slick browser, and everybody's been anxious to use something other than 4.x and not IE.

I'm a big proponent for Mozilla nightlies. However, I wanted to try out NS6 for comparitive purposes.

Two major failures were quickly noticed:

1) NS6 is already using 55MB of RAM after a short while of using it. This is just not acceptable for any released product. At least the nightlies hover around 20MB usually (still pretty bad).

2) SSL is hosed and doesn't work.

Sorry, but I can't live with those two, and will not recommend that anyone install NS6 for the time being.

For the record: I hate IE and MS, and don't recommend IE either.

#80 Re: 2 glaring failures in NS6

by Tanyel <tanyel@straightblack.com>

Tuesday November 14th, 2000 10:02 PM

Reply to this message

Which browser do you recommend?

#97 Lynx

by danielhill <danielhill@hotmail.com>

Wednesday November 15th, 2000 6:35 AM

Reply to this message

Lynx

#39 Netscape 6 is a fine product...

by edoggie <ericg@yackinc.com>

Tuesday November 14th, 2000 1:35 PM

Reply to this message

Although Mozilla will be a better product we should all thank Netscape to getting a fairly stable, robust, almost standards compliant browser out the door, I hate using IE 5 (for Mac) it has horrible Javascript problems, Netscape 6 works like a charm. On the PC, although IE is faster I prefer Netscape because IE has too many gee whiz features. Netscape rocks, thanks! And keep up the good work at Mozilla.org.

#40 Not bad...

by SomeGuy

Tuesday November 14th, 2000 1:38 PM

Reply to this message

Kicked NS 6 around a little bit. Menus draw slow on a P200MMX, but the rest of it runs pretty nice in my opinion. (For speed I still use Netscape 3.04!!!!) NTLM Authentication still isn't in there so it wont work on the company WAN (Really something needs to be done about the MS Proxy, but that is another story.) Sure there are problems, but anybody remember Netscape 4.00? (Crashed 1/2 of the time when starting Java).

I guess I want to know what NS is going to do now? I would expect to see Netscape 6.01 in the next few months and I hope Mozilla development stays strong. Also, how are they going to advertise this? I want a Netscape 6/Mozilla bumper sticker!!!!!!

#42 Re: Not bad...

by TonyG <tony.gorman@blueyonder.co.Yuk>

Tuesday November 14th, 2000 1:55 PM

Reply to this message

You will almost certainly never see NTLM support in NS. The reason is that it is a proprietary technology whose API Micro$oft guard jealously.

#43 Re: Re: Not bad...

by WandererX <nomad@planetnomad.net>

Tuesday November 14th, 2000 2:35 PM

Reply to this message

Ummmm... NTLM is a documented authentication method. It can easily be added to NS6 / Mozilla.

#53 NTLM is Bugzilla Bug 23679

by SomeGuy

Tuesday November 14th, 2000 5:11 PM

Reply to this message

<http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=23679>

There is even a patch with a nearly complete implementation of NTLM.

#44 MSNBC is watching..

by Waldo

Tuesday November 14th, 2000 2:41 PM

Reply to this message

Check this out: MSNBC has a story about Netscape 6 that quotes some of the posts here on mozillazine:

<http://www.msnbc.com/news/486993.asp>

#119 Re: MSNBC is watching..

by witbrock

Wednesday November 15th, 2000 2:26 PM

Reply to this message

here's another MSNBC story, with a very positive review of NS 6 <http://www.msnbc.com/news/489869.asp>

#45 Palm Support?

by mstearne <mstearne@eisolutions.com>

Tuesday November 14th, 2000 3:05 PM

Reply to this message

Is there any or any plans of Palm support in NS6 or Mozilla. I've read about it in the specs of Mail at mozilla.org but I am wondering if there is any developing going on?

#48 Re: Palm Support?

by jesse <jruderman@hmc.edu>

Tuesday November 14th, 2000 4:01 PM

Reply to this message

For windows, mail<->palm is <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=36836> . For non-mail palm stuff see <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=36652> and other bugs linked to from that bug.

#46 Disappointing....

by Nemo_NX

Tuesday November 14th, 2000 3:10 PM

Reply to this message

I tried it. It's unistalled already. :( What version did they stop accepting new features? The right click on the link menu bar doesn't exist yet!!!!!! Me waits for M19? M20? Will there ever be a new non-beta release of Mozilla? Any new features planned on being implimented like that speed up mouse scrolling with the icon on the screen? I don't want to sound overly negative about Netscape, but god couldn't they have waited a little bit longer to get some of the more noticable problems fixed. I even saw some text too close to the menu fields when signing up for a Netscape account. That is truely sloppy work!!!!! Guys, if there was ever a time to really get the bugs out of Netscape, now would be the time to do it! Or there wont be a browser to compete with IE at all in a year or two(more like a year). :(........ I am crying about this release but still hopefull that you guys can make a difference. Please work harder.

#47 Links Panel 2.0 (really 2.1)

by hodeleri <drbrain@segment7.net>

Tuesday November 14th, 2000 3:53 PM

Reply to this message

<http://segment7.net/mozilla/links/links.html>

All the basics you need to know about it are there, go check it out and tell me if it works with NS6!

#50 good job Netscape developers!

by caseyperkins <caseyperkins@mindspring.com>

Tuesday November 14th, 2000 4:54 PM

Reply to this message

I'm very happy about Netscape 6's performance and stability. Yes, there are still some outstanding bugs of great annoyance, and a few missing features, but I can be patient until 6.1, or more likely, until when the nightly builds have the fix.

#51 Netscape is a good start, Mozilla rocks

by newmana

Tuesday November 14th, 2000 5:01 PM

Reply to this message

Even though this was a rushed job with lots of things cut out it's going to be a steady upgrade path to future versions. I'm glad they finally released a decent version of Netscape. A proper version of Java in client and most of the standards under the sun. Great! <p> Can someone post a link to the release notes. I've been trying to use different combinations off of the preview release's release notes URL.

#52 when is there going to be a mozilla final?

by jka9

Tuesday November 14th, 2000 5:09 PM

Reply to this message

Mozilla is faster and less bug infested? Anyone know the timetable for a release product??

#54 Netscape is a good start, Mozilla rocks

by newmana

Tuesday November 14th, 2000 5:11 PM

Reply to this message

Even though this was a rushed job with lots of things cut out it's going to be a steady upgrade path to future versions. I'm glad they finally released a decent version of Netscape. A proper version of Java in client and most of the standards under the sun. Great! <p> Can someone post a link to the release notes. I've been trying to use different combinations off of the preview release's release notes URL.

#55 comon people

by googleplex <inexio@netscape.net>

Tuesday November 14th, 2000 5:14 PM

Reply to this message

can we all just realize that this is a company and it isn't mozilla. all the changes in mozilla cant get into the product right away. they need to go through approval and all that shit first. i think that it is a really good product and it has many good features. it will always be behind mozilla because mozilla is updated nightly. and if you have a problem with what they are doing just use mozilla. geez. u guys are so negative.jeff

#56 themes page working again

by caseyperkins <caseyperkins@mindspring.com>

Tuesday November 14th, 2000 5:37 PM

Reply to this message

Those that had problems with the themes page, try again now. The problem appears to be fixed.

#57 ok actually i am pissed

by googleplex <inexio@netscape.net>

Tuesday November 14th, 2000 5:39 PM

Reply to this message

does anybody know why when i install it then launch it the splash screen just pops up and the program never starts?????? that pisses me off. jeff

#202 Re: ok actually i am pissed

by pzach <pzach@mac.com>

Saturday November 18th, 2000 6:53 PM

Reply to this message

I think that has to do with leftover traces of Mozilla. Did you have it installed before? I'm not even sure how to get rid of the rest of the traces of it.

#58 themes page working again

by caseyperkins <caseyperkins@mindspring.com>

Tuesday November 14th, 2000 5:40 PM

Reply to this message

Those that had problems with the themes page, try again now. The problem appears to be fixed.

#59 a pleasant surprise..

by brasten <brasten@creativers.com>

Tuesday November 14th, 2000 6:00 PM

Reply to this message

while I think 6.1-6.5 will be a much better demonstration of what Mozilla's been working so hard on, I don't think N6.0 is that bad at all.. what surprised me was when I minimize N6 and let it be for a couple minutes, memory usage drops to about 4megs. when I maximize it it pops right up, no delays. This is perfectly acceptable, so my question is this. How hard would it be to build a "Startup loader" thingy that loads Mozilla into memory but doesn't show a window until the icon is clicked on. That would eliminate the huge startup wait that seems to be one of the largest useablility complains (see CNet's N6 Article).

#60 Final notes....

by bjensen <rom@silverlink.net>

Tuesday November 14th, 2000 6:05 PM

Reply to this message

Well I went ahead and decided to download NS 6 final and give her a spin myself despite all of the criticisms.

In short... I cannot believe it. After almost 3 years this is the garbage that has been produced?

HOW THE HELL COULD ANYBODY IN THEIR RIGHT MIND RELEASE SUCH A PIECE OF CRAP?????

I'm running from NS6 as I type this... it loads slow, has the flakiest look and feel I've yet seen (except for some third rate Linux app), and just flat out functions like crap.

(Before any XUL fanatics out there spew any gas... I switched to the 'classic' skin right away (still looks and feels like bird crap hanging from a wire)).

Gee folks, forgive my harsh tone but I am rather pissed off at the moment. There was a time when I was quite the NS advocate... and anti-IE/M$ drone. Those days have been over for a while now ever since it was realized that the fate/design of the new Netscape/Mozilla lied in the hands of some college kids and their religious grip on XUL!

There is so much that is *wrong* with this thing that I'm going to end up making a lengthy web page outlining and categorizing every item from initial installation to actually closing the browser window.

Party is over folks... this release has marked an epidimic of laughter across the country... including Europe and Russia.

Adios.

-Bruce

#236 Re: Final notes....

by tny

Sunday November 26th, 2000 3:25 PM

Reply to this message

For someone who said ADIOS all the way up here, you're surprisingly prolix all the way down at the bottom of the page.

By the way, what was the last Linux you used? Red Hat 5.0?

#238 Re: Re: Final notes....

by bjensen <rom@silverlink.net>

Sunday November 26th, 2000 8:41 PM

Reply to this message

I did mean adios as far as every other post up to that point was concerned.

Latest version, technically, RH 6.2, but mainly RH 6.1. Running either GNOME or KDE.

-B

#61 Compare loading speed on NS Standards Challenge

by rdc

Tuesday November 14th, 2000 6:12 PM

Reply to this message

#62 Re: Compare loading speed on NS Standards Challeng

by bjensen <rom@silverlink.net>

Tuesday November 14th, 2000 6:41 PM

Reply to this message

As far as I'm concerned, Netscape can spew out all of the charts it wants comparing this, that, or the other. Same way that M$ or any other company can do the the same. In the end the consumer will decide for themselves by using the product.

The fact is that Netscape 6 is a *huge* disappointment and poses a threat to IE's market share about as much as WinZip. Charts in this case are about as meaningful as the calorie count of a Snickers bar that a little kid is about to consume.

NS 6's poor quality isn't a surprise, really... at least not to me. However, the *magnitude* of it is. I never thought the final release would be *this bad*. No shit.

-Bruce

#63 M18 and beyond

by Lightyear

Tuesday November 14th, 2000 6:51 PM

Reply to this message

Netscape and Mozilla have done a good job for all of us to really change what's happening with the web: stagnation.

Let's be realistic, folks. The web stopped being cool a long time ago for a lot of us; those of us who cut our teeth on Usenet a long time ago and who remember when Cello ran in all its glory on NeXTSTEP cubes in universities remember when the web was something impressively new.

Mozilla and Netscape might just do this again. I'm posting this from ForumZilla, the (hopefully) first of a new generation of web applications that bring intelligence to the client and usability that many have wanted for a long time.

There are some who say that Netscape has failed; having been an employee there, I remember the good things about being there, the good things of what we achieved together. I remember what it was like when it was *right*.

#65 Re: M18 and beyond

by Lightyear

Tuesday November 14th, 2000 7:08 PM

Reply to this message

Er, duh. Okay, so ForumZilla isn't quite ready for prime time. :)

Still, the point is clear: The web, as a client, has been dead for a very long time. Yes, there are wonderful new things that have, for a very long time now, been far from shipped to customers. This market stopped evolving around the time of MSIE 4.0.

And we suffered.

And now? Now things change. We take control of the client again, relying on open source to force creativity out of us where corporate did not.

I remember the arguments about moving Mozilla to open source. I remember how difficult it was to get anyone to listen to that argument. I remember when they gave in and embraced it in the upper echelons of the company. I remember when they found faith, lost it, and found it again.

Mozilla isn't a triumph of design. It's not a triumph of standards. It's not a triumph of open source. It's the triumph of a handful of committed people inside Netscape, at the grassroots technical level, who believed in a vision; a vision that those at the top of the company seemed to have forgotten - it's a triumph of vision.

People who had the vision to see that only a marketplace of ideas could compete with raw and untidy dollars.

We lose battles every day to people who have more money and less sense; I should know, my company's just been bought by one. (Hello, Liberty Surf Group) Doing things the right way isn't always easy, and it takes a great deal of courage to get it right.

ForumZilla. Jabberzilla. And a handful of others. Who built their systems on top of a shifting codebase and haystack of bugs. Who came up with an idea that, for the first time, have been able to build a cross-platform vision the way that Netscape had originally intended so long ago.

Years later, and all of those marketing slides finally have the possibility of coming true. It's good to see. And we get to do it on source we control, source we can decide how to use. On a platform that embraces the reality of the technical people who make the internet happen: standards aren't about limiting us, they're about facilitating.

This isn't "the dawn of a new age" or any such solipsisms of faith - twenty years ago, your parents learned to program computers with punch cards. Ten years ago, there was an active internet to use. And tomorrow, there might be one that is as active as it is today, but with the quality of interaction we had then. Add signal, and add noise; sure there's a lot of signal out there, but we haven't got the tools to make it easy to find without the noise anymore.

With luck, maybe this will all start to change.

Good luck to the developers at the Mozilla project, to the individuals and corporations who have chosen to embed their engine, to the developers who have chosen to embrace their XUL/JS/DOM/RDF/XML vision of the future of portable clients: you determine not only the fate of Mozilla, but the first major creative change in the internet platform since the creation of the Instant Messenger and Napster; a platform on which to build your IMs, your Napsters, your whatever-the-hell-the-next-big-thing-is in a way that prevents everyone from having to reinvent the wheel on every platform other than and including Microsoft's.

And good luck to us; we'll need it to survive the beta testing. :)

:plur, Gregory Lightyear, Long-Winded ex-Mozillan

#83 punch cards?

by socbyset <socbyset@hotmail.com>

Tuesday November 14th, 2000 11:41 PM

Reply to this message

What, 20 years ago my parents learned to program computers using punch cards? 20 years ago the Apple II was out.. And the first IBM PC, or at least it was almost out. Wait, did the original Apple II use punch cards as standard input, and just offer the keyboard as an option? It's possible. Anyway, my parents were no computer programmers. The only punch cards they would ever have learned to use in 1980 were voting ballots. And they probably voted for John Anderson by accident.

#64 non-compliane a major issue

by strauss

Tuesday November 14th, 2000 6:58 PM

Reply to this message

Instability and non-compliance with major areas of the DOM mean that the situation for browser-based software developers has just gotten much worse. The problem is that flaky browsers need to be supported. The list of weird problems one will run into during the test matrix has just gone up -- given the large number of quirks and non-compliances in NS6.0, probably about doubled.

The project was supposed to save us by establishing a solid baseline of reliable behavior has instead become the greatest threat ever released for serious browser-based software. It will remain so for at least a year, and probably two to three years.

It's silly to blame Netscape. Mozilla still has thousands of unresolved bugs. This is a shoddy codebase and popping briefly into #mozilla will quickly reveal the developers themselves describing the browser using terms like "p.o.s.".

So much for "all bugs are shallow given enough eyeballs!" Will the open source movement ever begin to describe itself honestly?

#66 Linux version really really stinks

by Randy <rathbun@spamcop.net>

Tuesday November 14th, 2000 7:11 PM

Reply to this message

The Win version seems okay, even though there is the little issue of standards. But the Linux version is completely bad.

Take my case - SuSE 7.0 - no jpeg support at all. I try the thing in the release notes about SuSE 6.2 and still no jpegs. Mozilla works fine and always has (well, the latter versions have) but c'mon! To paraphrase a line from Monty Python, "JPEGs are the single most popular images in the world!"

The thing is also slow as can be in Linux. From the time I launch it to the time it finally shows up is something like 67 seconds. That is on a Celeron 366 w/160MB of RAM and the thing is in the cache. What's up with that? Mozilla is up and running in under 10 seconds.

Somehow I don't think Netscape is going to learn anything from this fiasco.

#73 Re: Linux version really really stinks

by slm

Tuesday November 14th, 2000 8:49 PM

Reply to this message

<ftp://ftp.suse.com/pub/su…s/src/jpeg-6b-117.src.rpm>

rebuild this one. Rebuild source-rpm? -> SuSE handbook. Can't read? -> Use Windows.

#85 Re: Linux version really really stinks

by ratman

Wednesday November 15th, 2000 12:50 AM

Reply to this message

i don't really know exactly what you're talking about (i'm yet to join the linux world) - but i did find it kinda ironic that there isn't jpeg support.

wasn't jpeg support what separated netscape from ncsa mosaic all those years ago?

just a random comment.

#67 perspective..

by brasten <brasten@creativers.com>

Tuesday November 14th, 2000 7:19 PM

Reply to this message

While I personally don't think N6 is as horrid as some of you people, let's assume for a second that it is. Yes, it took Mozilla almost 3 years.. yes, people were hoping for the "perfect browser"... and yes, N6 has problems... has anyone stopped to think about the fact that Mozilla has built a browser from 0 bytes to N6 (which claims better standards support than any other browser on the market) in the same time it took IE to go from 4.0 to 5.5... what changed in IE in that time? some additional standards maybe.. a "Go" button.. a "Radio Stations" button.. arguably a little stability, maybe...

NS6 is essentially a 1.0 product. The first Netscape product delivered from this code base. And even if it's as horrible as some of you say it is.. imagine 2.0... if they can put the same amount of work into 2.0 as they did in 1.0, we're looking at an amazing product. and if MS puts as little work as they have into IE the last three years, the browser wars (that are supposedly over) will get interesting.

Look at Mozilla's momentum. What they've done in 3 years. NS6 vs IE5.5(or 6 eventually) MAY NOT fair well for Netscape.. but if Mozilla continues at it's current rate of speed, and MS continues at it's current rate of speed, the 7.0 browsers will be a different story.

So, 6.0 wasn't the holy grail of web browsers. stop complaining, submit bugs.. get the word out, 6.1, 6.5, 7.0.. they're coming.. and once again, finally, Netscape will be competitive with IE.

#84 Re: perspective..

by Sparkster

Wednesday November 15th, 2000 12:34 AM

Reply to this message

you are absolutely right! maybe people would have a better image of netscape if they had released simply a NEW product Netscape Mozilla 1.0. I think it would be a good idea to simply release mozilla as a netscape product instead of changing this and that and do some AOL/netscape branding and then releasing it as the Netscape 6.0 browser. i definetly don't see this release as just another version of the netscape communicator... but people think so and will never understand what's really up with this new internet flagship.

#68 I like it.

by brobinson

Tuesday November 14th, 2000 7:28 PM

Reply to this message

I'm switching from IE 5.5/OE 5.5 to Netscape 6.

#69 I like it.

by brobinson

Tuesday November 14th, 2000 7:30 PM

Reply to this message

I'm switching from IE 5.5/OE 5.5 to Netscape 6.

#70 its good

by googleplex <inexio@netscape.net>

Tuesday November 14th, 2000 7:47 PM

Reply to this message

i agree with one of the previous posters this is a big project and they have done way more on it then microsoft has done on IE if they can continue that amount of work this will be an amazing browser. and by the way im switching to using this. the load time and lack of DHTML support is a downside, however. jeff

#76 Lack of DHTML Suupport?

by zontar

Tuesday November 14th, 2000 9:39 PM

Reply to this message

I\'ve been testing NS6\'s DHTML support, quite exhaustively, in fact, and it blows IE5.5\'s out of the water.

If you\'re talking about anything to do with document.layers or document.all, those are yesterday\'s news, not DHTML.

#75 does it matter anymore?

by archen

Tuesday November 14th, 2000 9:18 PM

Reply to this message

You know, as I read these posts I see the same sort of things you see for every N6 preview release, and even every Mozilla milestone. I think the people at Netscape came to realize that many people simply will not support them no matter what, as if they expect some sort of miricle program. I\'m sticking to Mozilla myself but I really can\'t blame Netscape anymore. I mean there are obviously a few people who actually LIKE the browser right now. Why not try to garner some support from the few who might take an interest in it, instead of continually recieving flack for a product not even released yet, and from people who won\'t even help. You might as well make someone out there happy. If you don\'t like it, don\'t use it.

I DO however still have expectations that Mozilla will get better... I should hope anyway.

#78 Call from a friend

by Metrol

Tuesday November 14th, 2000 9:49 PM

Reply to this message

Haven't got to trying NS 6.0 just yet, though I do track the nightly builds of Mozilla quite often. Got a call from a bud of mine who has been a long time NS user, and had just upgraded to 6.0.

It's been years since I've heard him cuss like he did over this. I'm talking honest to gosh anger at what had just converted all his E-Mail and bookmarks over to it. Everything from wheel mouse support to right click menus to all the junk apps like AIM and that phone thing which installed.

This is not someone who has been following the whole Mozilla thing, nor is this someone who even uses IE. Pretty much went from NS 4.7x to 6.0 in one move. For the first time in the history of his using browsers (back to NS 2.0) he is giving IE a whole new look.

Well, I guess AOL and Netscape got their wiz bang to show off at Comdex. Judging from many of the posts here, it sounds like my friend's opinion isn't just some quirk.

As the IT manager at my office, I've already sent an E-Mail out to all my folks explaining that we will not be upgrading to Netscape 6.0, though we utilize NS for both mail and web browsing. Nobody felt it important enough to include LDAP support into the address book, so even if everything were bug free and perfect I still couldn't move my company to it.

If I were a part of Microsoft's internet team I'd be having myself a really good laugh about now.

#92 Right-click menus and mousewheel support

by Silverthorn <shawn.fumo@the-spa.com>

Wednesday November 15th, 2000 5:22 AM

Reply to this message

I haven't put netscape 6 on because I'm happy with Mozilla, but this seems like the second time I've heard this. Is the right click menus actually not showing up on some people's computers?

If so, that has to be some weird bug... I mean support has been in for that for like 6 months at least... I'm pretty sure it was in the last preview release. And someone else mentioned a particular option wasn't in their right-click menu, so it must be working on some of the builds...

And mousewheel support has been in there for a couple of months at least, with more options than the other browsers (like going back and forward and changing font size by holding keys while using the wheel)...

I just wanted to mention since if there are tons of inconsistant bugs running around, these things should be in there, and if they aren't, there is something messed up.

It isn't just that they never got around to implementing these things, because they have...

Shawn

#81 can't even download it

by Terrigena

Tuesday November 14th, 2000 10:19 PM

Reply to this message

I'd like to complain about netscape 6 but "smart" update will not even connect me to the server so that I might download the application.

#87 Remember it is open-source

by hfoucher

Wednesday November 15th, 2000 1:45 AM

Reply to this message

How many open source projects ran good the first time ? How many of them were so stable at 1.0 release ?

To be honnest, I thought NS6 would be worst and finally it is ok and I had no "Click OK to terminate" yet. In addition, it takes 27MBytes of memory. I read (above) 40 ???

The installer is not perfect but at least you can unckeck some parts and win disk space (and perhaps memory ?).

So, to sum-up: - Mozilla will always be better since NS6 will always be released a few days/weeks later. - NS6 will be improved. - NS6 is not so bad and I use it with pleasure since I've been waiting for 3 years its release.

Posted with NS6.0

#88 pre-mature release takes away pressure from mozill

by phuk32

Wednesday November 15th, 2000 2:13 AM

Reply to this message

Netscape seems to have made a very pre-mature and surpising "push-out-of-the-door" to counter the start of IE 6.0 beta testing.

Netscape 6.0 is definitely an unfinished product and therefore will create a lot of unhappy faces. It still goes in the right direction though.

Seeing it in a more positive light - that takes away the tremendous pressure from the Mozilla community to kill showstopper bugs in the least time, what is not always the most effective method; instead it is now possible to concentrate a little bit on doing the job right (100% standards compliance -- and looking at the memory footprint at the same time).

At the end, nobody is forced to use Netscape, as long as we can use the nightlies and Netscape has the opportunity to catch up with 6.1 :-))

#89 Javascript

by moko

Wednesday November 15th, 2000 3:40 AM

Reply to this message

How about javascript implementation ? Do we know how to adapt our code to make them work ? especially for the layers/divs treatement...

#90 Re: Javascript

by hfoucher

Wednesday November 15th, 2000 3:52 AM

Reply to this message

Download a nightly build and look at examples (DHTML if I remember well).

The source code will show you how to do that.

Herve.

#101 I'm impressed!

by eric

Wednesday November 15th, 2000 8:25 AM

Reply to this message

After a bit of hassle trying to download Netscape 6 final with PR3 (the Netscape server timed out several times), and after reading various doom and gloom posts on here, I was expecting the worst. However, I was pleasantly surprised. I will admit that some sites don't work due to their use of MS- or old Netscape-specific JavaScript, but that's the only problem I've found thus far. Java and so forth seem to work just great (on my Windows machine here at work), despite claims otherwise. The mailer works decently (the support for multiple accounts is great!), the composer is far better and seemingly faster than previous versions, and the theming is really cool. I haven't had it crash yet (which is far more than I can say for PR1 or PR2), and it seems very responsive. I will admit that the memory consumption (46M for just a couple of browser windows) is rather over the top, but luckily I've got memory to burn (256M) on this machine so it's not much of an issue. :) I'm still using Outlook for mail, but that's only because it has the shared calendar thingy that is our Corporate Standard[tm]. I'm also keeping IE5 on the ready in case any insurmountable bugs pop up, but so far, so good.

To summarize, my first impressions are quite good, and I will certainly recommend this browser to friends.

- Eric

#185 One cheats way of getting IE DHTML on Moz

by danielhill <danielhill@hotmail.com>

Saturday November 18th, 2000 5:49 AM

Reply to this message

Add the following bit of code near the start of your code: if (document.getElementsByTagName("*")) { document.all = document.getElementsByTagName("*") }

Then you can use document.all.foobar in Netscape as well as IE.

IE5 also supports a lot of the W3C DOM syntax. So if you wanted to do things The Right Way, instead of using document.all.foobar, you can use document.getElementById("foobar") both in IE5 and NS6. Not IE4, though.

#93 W3C DOM

by rdc

Wednesday November 15th, 2000 6:21 AM

Reply to this message

IE and Mozilla/NS support just about the same functionality in Javascript. IE calls it Javascript 1.2 and Mozilla calls it Javascript 1.5.

If you are concerned about the DHTML and that stuff the situation is different. Mozilla is based upon the W3C DOM for the Core and HTML. It supports most of the Level 1 Recommendation and a good deal of the Level 2. You can find the API documentation at <http://www.w3.org.>

IE's support is different however. Their implementation of the DOM Core and HTML is separate. The DOM Core is implemented in a separate ActiveX control MSXML (see msdn online) and is at the most DOM Core Level 1. The DOM HTML is integral to the browser and supports some of the DOM HTML Level 1.

Mozilla does support some IE'isms such as innerHTML and also provides IE-like implementations of XMLHttpRequest, SOAP, etc. See <http://www.mozilla.org/xmlextras/> for more detail.

The major difference in 'DHTML' support is that Mozilla uses the DOM Events Level 2/3 Recommendation for Events rather than the old Communicator stuff. IE doesn't support the DOM Events but it can be handled with a middle level Event interface.

Both browsers support the old style on<event>=handler() stuff.

Hope that helps.

#91 Mozilla with Themes

by Dotan

Wednesday November 15th, 2000 5:02 AM

Reply to this message

I downloaded Netscape 6, downloaded some Themes, then downloaded IBM's build of Mozilla with Bidi features (which is based on yesterday's Mozilla).

Lo and behold, the Netscape 6 Themes are now there in Mozilla!

Pruuty.

#94 be patient

by googleplex <inexio@netscape.net>

Wednesday November 15th, 2000 6:22 AM

Reply to this message

be patient, this is the first release and it is a big step. mozilla is better then netscape, yes but this is a very new browser. this is 1.0 technology. STOP COMPLAINING. if you think its bad then use mozilla. give me a break u guys expected something amazing but its just decent. thats fine with me. most new software products based on a new code base are like this. calm down and realize they have done a good job.

jeff (who is annoyed with all the complainers)

#96 Disappointed

by balram

Wednesday November 15th, 2000 6:34 AM

Reply to this message

I have been waiting for this day for half an year. Netscape has dissapointed me. This release came too early. Netscape 6 is way buggy and slow. Until half an hour ago, before i got the news, i still believed Netscape 6 would be right, a bit slow, but the best browser around and a sure replacement for the aging 4.x. Netscape has let me down and a whole lot of others. Its loaded with bugs-even in the installer, it offered to install in a \\ns6pr3 directory. Besides, i always believed that marketing would be netscape 6\'s key to success, but the final release has made less noise than pr1.

This is the worst thing netscape could have done.

What else can i say....

#98 Interesting

by kvi

Wednesday November 15th, 2000 6:36 AM

Reply to this message

When I first heard that Netscape 6 was release I thought it was just another preview release or something. It\'s running alright, but that message at <http://www.shockwave.com> was interesting.

#100 try Beonex

by geckotil

Wednesday November 15th, 2000 7:38 AM

Reply to this message

Try Beonex, a browser from a mozilla developer. It\'s based on M18 like NS6, but it\'s smaller and faster and takes less memory. And: there is no AOL-shit in it!

--> <http://www.beonex.de>

#188 Re: try Beonex

by benb <mozilla@bucksch.org>

Saturday November 18th, 2000 11:34 AM

Reply to this message

> It's based on M18 like NS6

It is based on moz0.6, the same source that went into N6.0 (which is not the same as M18!)

#102 Well I tried...

by andybee

Wednesday November 15th, 2000 8:48 AM

Reply to this message

Well I really, really wanted to like Netscape 6, but I'm afraid one of the first things I tried to do was access my hotmail account. On sign-in the whole machine ground to a halt. After a time I started getting "low on virtual memory" warnings so I had a look at the process usage. It was over 80Mb and climbing steadily - at around 90Mb netscape died or killed itself or was killed and everything returned to normal.

Doesn't bode well for your average user.

#103 Working

by texasaggie

Wednesday November 15th, 2000 9:41 AM

Reply to this message

OK. I downloaded and installed the complete (~25MB) NS6 setup for Windows on NT 4.0. I have yet to have any major problems after using it for a while. I experienced the memory leaks in the preview releases, but have yet to see any traces of them now. In fact, I have NS 4.76 running right now and it's taking over 3 times the memory that NS6 is. I did, as many suggested, create new profiles and removed all mozilla nightly files before installing.

Two observations:

1. Activation is broken if you install behind a firewall. You have no ability to specify firewall settings before it fires up the first time.

2. The lack of LDAP integration is still a serious annoyance for those who use NS for email as well.

And as for those who are complaining, why don't you come up with a procedure so that we can replace the NS6 engine with the nightly builds instead of trashing the whole effort? Or, better yet, why not document what you need to do to remove the parts you don't like or build a tool to help others.

#105 Runs great - one problem so far

by konmaskisin

Wednesday November 15th, 2000 10:44 AM

Reply to this message

It takes **way*** less memory than NS 4.7 (maybe just because the JVM has fewer leaks?). It's been running 2 days here and is never over 25-27 megs.

Repainting on the UI and pages seems a little lagged (all the fancy themes I guess) and one theme - while it is quite good looking (Orbit) causes the "To:" widget to disappear - there' no way to enter the address of the person you're sending the mail to! I tried to submit a bug report on this but ...

"Orbit theme breaks mail message composition widgets" ... probably won't get high priority ;-) My bet is that there will be *tons* of these little theme buglets that cause lots of headaches. There'll soon have to be "official" QA reviewed themes.

#106 Runs great - one problem so far

by konmaskisin

Wednesday November 15th, 2000 10:49 AM

Reply to this message

It takes **way*** less memory than NS 4.7 (maybe just because the JVM has fewer leaks?). It's been running 2 days here and is never over 25-27 megs.

Repainting on the UI and pages seems a little lagged (all the fancy themes I guess) and one theme - while it is quite good looking (Orbit) causes the "To:" widget to disappear - there' no way to enter the address of the person you're sending the mail to! I tried to submit a bug report on this but ...

"Orbit theme breaks mail message composition widgets" ... probably won't get high priority ;-) My bet is that there will be *tons* of these little theme buglets that cause lots of headaches. There'll soon have to be "official" QA reviewed themes.

#107 shut up with the complaining

by googleplex <inexio@netscape.net>

Wednesday November 15th, 2000 10:53 AM

Reply to this message

im getting annoyed at all u people complaing. its a great browser. i haven't had any problems on it. im running win me, 300mhz pII, 128 ram, and dsl. NS6 is just as fast as IE 5.5 and has way more better features. stop complaining because it is a great product.

AND HOW THE HELL would netscape have all the features that the latest nightly build has. where is the logic there. the nightly build was done...last night. this release of ns6 had to be completed a few weeks ago and checked over so it was ready for release. just be patient. netscape will always be a few weeks behind mozilla.

jeff

#112 I'm getting annoyed with those that support it!

by bjensen <rom@silverlink.net>

Wednesday November 15th, 2000 11:36 AM

Reply to this message

You can you sit there... you and others and say 'It's okay'... 'No problems here'...

You guys are full of it to the max and severely out of touch with reality!!!

Do you read me??? I hope so.

NS 6 is a god damned joke.... the world isn't comparing NS6 to your precious (M(XX) Mozilla builds)... they are comparing it to IE for Christ's sake!

Don't get me started on Mozilla either... even with it's bug improvements and future changes... it's still a style of browser that most won't except, with the exeption of Mozilla spoon fed folks like yourself that's take anything over IE.

Wake up and smell the god damned coffee... the internet community is so large that your mind cannot possibly comprehend it's magnitude.

The loyal followers/defenders of Mozilla amount to a 1/8th of a needle in a *very large* haystack.

Sorry for sounding so insulting (I really don't mean to) but god damnit I can't help but question the perceptional abilities of a few of the guys that have posted in the this thread in defense of NS6!!!

-Bruce

#120 Re: I'm getting annoyed with those that support it

by Jake <jake@bugzilla.org>

Wednesday November 15th, 2000 3:36 PM

Reply to this message

I'm sorry, I really should let this go, but I can't...

> you and others and say 'It's okay'... 'No problems here'...

> You guys are full of it to the max and severely out of touch with reality!!!

So because you happen to like Netscape 6 and it happens to work for you, you're out of touch with reality? Who's really full of it?

> Wake up and smell the ... coffee... the internet community is so large that your mind cannot possibly comprehend it's magnitude.

That's right, it's a large community (the Internet in general)... do you know what that means? It means that just because Bruce says so doesn't mean it's true!

> The loyal followers/defenders of Mozilla amount to a 1/8th of a needle in a *very large* haystack.

Here we go again with the "you guys are miniscule... but my opionions really matters" stuff. Netscape is a corporation... that in and of itself yeilds a love/hate relationship... there are people that will defend Microsoft to the end and there are those who will slam them no matter what... Netscape is no different.

> Don't get me started on Mozilla either...

So you just wanna bitch and complain, eh? I believe it was you who said that you didn't like the "feel" of it. Well, I'm sorry, but you're going to have to stop upgrading software then. I see a lot of look and feel similarities with Mozilla and all the other new software that's being put out (have you seen/used Win2k? It's interface is a step toward webifing the UI (which is all Mozilla's done). The biggest difference is that Mozilla (and by association, Netscape) jumped right in where MS is trying to ease you into it. And just in case you're a Linux person, I've seen a lot of webifying going on there, too.

> Sorry for sounding so insulting

No you're not... right after you get done saying that, you turn around and issue another insult to anybody who could possibly like Netscape 6.

#124 Re: Re: I'm getting annoyed with those that suppor

by bjensen <rom@silverlink.net>

Wednesday November 15th, 2000 4:28 PM

Reply to this message

Jake,

Give it a rest... NS6 is a *joke* release and a major disappointment.

Not much else can be said beyond that.

Just *a few* folks here thing it's find and dandy and I know enough to know that they are:

1. A few cans short of a six pack

and/or

2. Just supporting the Mozilla cause.

No rational human being with the least bit of intelligence with no ties to Mozillazine would consider NS6 anything other than a wasted download.

-Bruce

PS. Win2K's UI is *nothing* like that of Mozilla/NS6 and you should know better. Such a comparison is lame at best.

#138 Dear Flaming Troll,

by superyooser

Thursday November 16th, 2000 3:01 AM

Reply to this message

[and other sad, disappointed, defeatist spirits out there]

The modern Mozilla is a 1.0 product. You can't expect a baby to even walk straight, much less win the decathlon in the Olympics. I agree that this "baby" isn't ready for prime time yet, but any informed person can clearly see that Mozilla has already forged great innovation and may even lead to a revolution of internet use.

To call Netscape 6 a joke reveals your profound ignorance of what has been happening behind the scenes over the last two years (following the one year wasted with the doomed 4.x codebase). The number of technologies that have been implemented/invented/advanced along the way to Netscape 6 is astonishing! Mozilla has become the inspiration and the basis for several other open source projects.

Yes, it's still slow and buggy, but this experience is the cumulative result of numerous, mostly *MINOR* flaws that *will* be fixed. The developers had to get all that boring innovation stuff out of the way before they could get to the bug-fixing.

Criticism *is* welcome, but next time put an ice pack on your forehead first. :-) Instead of flaming out the wazoo, why don't you come see Bugzilla at <http://mozilla.org/bugs/> (yet another Mozilla-inspired creation), and report some of those bugs that piss you off so much?

#142 No need for calling me that.

by bjensen <rom@silverlink.net>

Thursday November 16th, 2000 3:44 AM

Reply to this message

Dear SuperHoser,

Please save me the it's only in a baby stage release.

The fact of the matter is that NS6 was released in such shoddy condition that only a small few, including yourself, can run to it's defense with all sorts of rationalizations as to the contrary.

You *must* understand that NS6 is a joke release. A complete laughing stock.

You can defend NS6 to your hearts content... the fact remains that it's a major joke and complete disappointment for those that had higher expectionations. Even I didn't think the release would be this bad. No Kidding!

I can't bullshit you here... even with some sort of miraculous improvement... and departing from the NS6 path of improvemnt. Mozilla is a style of browser that I doubt I'll accept has my primary browser. The rendering engine itslef is good... but I require more from a browser than just that.

I like the UI of my browser to be extremely fast and responsive, not slow and cumbersome like the current implementation of XUL in *all* of the lates builds.

I do not like skins, nor do I like the initial rendering of the user-interface. I launch a lot of html files locally and going through the redraws of my browser just to see a local file is annoying.

The toolbar/combo button bar is an eye sore. Something I can really do nothing about.

I wasn't happy with the initial install and a god damned activation window popped up concerning some AOL service... that took awhile to get out of but I finally did.

The browser itself open rather slow and sometimes when I exited it would hang in memory... just like 4.72 after I had run a java applet. But in this case I ran no java applet.

This of course is a touch on the iceberg and when I experiemented with WinME it was just as bad. Win2K gave me the least of problems since it was easy to kill a task. Normally I run under a Revenge of Mozilla II modified Win98SE... which appears to be the best platform yet for running applications.

I don't know what to tell ya if I came across harsh. That's me... I tell it how I se it.. of course, I don't intend to get people rubbed the wrong way...

Cheers,

-Bruce

#226 Re: shut up with the complaining

by Martyr

Monday November 20th, 2000 9:40 AM

Reply to this message

Jeff -- I agree. The problem is that many people want a perfect browser and are unforgiving of everyone else's faults but their own. It's hypocrisy. Not only that, but they can't suggest improvements; they just complain. The best thing that we can do is not to shut the first-time users who may have run into problems, but rather, the chronic complainers. Those people are destructive to any community, and in their short-sighted rage, are the ones who bring all good things to a premature end -- because they cannot create, they must destroy. And with the advent of the net, those who don't look before they leap have way more impact than they ever did before.

#109 Auto Update Needed

by mpconnelly

Wednesday November 15th, 2000 11:15 AM

Reply to this message

More than anything, we need an opensource auto-update engine that is separate from but used by Mozilla. For example, look at Symantec's LiveUpdate. Also, look at MS Money, Intuit Quicken, Real Audio and Windows Media.

This autoupdate could be set to only download final, to download beta, or to download nightly builds. The source of those builds would naturally depend on where you got your browser. So, nightly mozilla builds will come from <ftp://ftp.mozilla.org> but golden netscape builds could come from <ftp://ftp.netscape.com.>

The important thing is that changes could be readily introduced to the codebase and thus avoid the version incompatibility that we currently have with html rendering, lack of ldap support, etc.

#115 Re: Auto Update Needed

by mpconnelly

Wednesday November 15th, 2000 12:56 PM

Reply to this message

Additionally, this same opensource update engine could be used to update third party software such as flash, shockwave, etc.

#110 Solaris support

by lcarver

Wednesday November 15th, 2000 11:20 AM

Reply to this message

I can't find any mention yet of a Solaris/SPARC release of Netscape 6. But you would think that they already have it running properly ... is it in the release plans?

Personally, I don't care too much since SeaMonkey is available and is better ... but for production sake, they must maintain Solaris/SPARC as a release platform. It doesn't make much sense that you can get 4.76 on Solaris but 6.0 Solaris is not mentioned.

#111 works great for a new product

by phantom_1138 <phantom_1138@yahoo.com>

Wednesday November 15th, 2000 11:24 AM

Reply to this message

I switched from (netscape 4.x + ie 5.x) to netscape 6. It is more stable than I expected. Remember communicator 4.00. It stops crashing after 4.07. I don't know the 6.x versions but version 7 will definitely be the best browser on the market. And it is a cross-platform browser. IE should find a a way to port its browser without cutting some features.

#113 A web designer's perspective

by i387

Wednesday November 15th, 2000 12:39 PM

Reply to this message

Well, it looks like the tables have turned. It used to be difficult to make CSS-enabled pages compatible with Netscape's browser (4.x). No longer is this the case, IE is the browser with the worst CSS support <http://www.richinstyle.com/> now.

Why this is a blessing: Within the next 6-8 months I'll be gradually caring less and less about Netscape 4.x support and all the headaches that go with it.

Why this is a curse: Because I do most of my testing with the lowest common denominator, I'll be running IE quite a bit. This wouldn't normally bother me, but IE has several "dogfood" bugs that make web development difficult.

Note to other web developers: If your pages look strange AND you are sure that your HTML and CSS are valid, you probably want to enable Netscape 6's "quirks" mode as a temporary fix. More information can be found on the N6 Developer Release Notes <http://developer.netscape…note/gecko/n6release.html> document.

Cheers to everyone involved in the Mozilla <http://www.mozilla.org/> project and to Netscape. I was losing hope, but I'm excited again about the future of the Web.

-- Micah Harwell Industrial Techware <http://www.industrialtechware.com/> Yes, I know I need to turn quirks mode on.

#114 I can't believe this is a release worthy

by Cloetus

Sunday November 19th, 2000 1:42 PM

Reply to this message

The known-issues for N6 are astonishing!

You can't delete the IE Favorites from the bookmarks file?

That's only one of the issues, plus all the ad-crap, yuck!

#116 Agreed

by archen

Wednesday November 15th, 2000 1:41 PM

Reply to this message

Yeah, I noticed this myself. I don't even USE MSIE so all I have is the microsoft crap bookmarks, and now they get imported as well and I can't get rid of them? Even worse is that microsoft doesn't let you get rid of many of them either, so now I get MS adds while using Mozilla. Where is the logic in this.

I did find a work around in that I specified the "favorites" directory as read only, so no new favorites. It also means that I can't store MSIE favorites if I ever chose to do so. Can someone fix this please?

#121 Re: Agreed

by Jake <jake@bugzilla.org>

Wednesday November 15th, 2000 3:42 PM

Reply to this message

FYI: Netscape doesn't truely import the IE Favorites... it has connectivity with the directory. I'd imagine if you were to make the Favorites directory hidden, one of two things would happen... either Netscape would crash or it wouldn't find any bookmarks too import.

Incidently, that's what you have to do to get rid of the "Links" folder in IE. <http://www.regedit.com/detail/550.html>

#117 all in all: it's a good release!

by NikoP

Wednesday November 15th, 2000 1:58 PM

Reply to this message

ok, it's not perfect, but there are many good features, e.g. look at the sidebar with the search-tab and the news tabs available! IMO it was a good decision to release NS 6.0 NOW, because FINALLY we have got a browser with nearly full standard compliance: As a web designer you can use all the css-stuff you couldn't realize in NS4.x - i know ns 4.x isn't out of world at the moment but it'll be very few people using 4.x-releases in a year or so. Ok, it's really bad, that the "position: fixed" isn't fully implemented and that proxy-support isn't implemented good (problems saving mail/news passwords; problems _installing_ with smartupdate, with proxys enabled, too,...) but I think you should see it as a 1.0 release, not a 6.0 release. I hope (and yes, I do believe it) in the 6.1 release "File bookmark as..." will be included and the performance will be better (mem usage is ok for me).

#118 all in all: it's a good release!

by NikoP

Wednesday November 15th, 2000 2:08 PM

Reply to this message

ok, it's not perfect, but there are many good features, e.g. look at the sidebar with the search-tab and the news tabs available! IMO it was a good decision to release NS 6.0 NOW, because FINALLY we have got a browser with nearly full standard compliance: As a web designer you can use all the css-stuff you couldn't realize in NS4.x - i know ns 4.x isn't out of world at the moment but it'll be very few people using 4.x-releases in a year or so. Ok, it's really bad, that the "position: fixed" isn't fully implemented and that proxy-support isn't implemented good (problems saving mail/news passwords; problems _installing_ with smartupdate, with proxys enabled, too,...) but I think you should see it as a 1.0 release, not a 6.0 release. I hope (and yes, I do believe it) in the 6.1 release "File bookmark as..." will be included and the performance will be better (mem usage is ok for me).

#123 This is funny...

by bjensen <rom@silverlink.net>

Wednesday November 15th, 2000 4:03 PM

Reply to this message

...Positive remarks regarding NS6 are typically followed by dual posts... hehe!

For you Mozilla buffs out there... the GP (General Public) isn't comparing NS6 to some pre-beta/pre-alpha build of Mozilla (whatever the hell it's status is now)... they are comparing it to IE... GET IT... INTERNET EXPLORER!!!

Mozilla may be more stable than NS6... but it's still wrapped in a UI that is... well... far left of the bell curve as far as I'm concerned.

You can go on and on about 'standards support', yaddah, yaddah, yaddah...

The point is will users like it? Except for the *very* small few here... the answer is a clear NO!!! NO!!!! NO!!! NO!!!!

Unless the *user* claims significant usage of NS6/Moz... the standards support means virtually nothing. Commercial sites will *not* ignore the *massive* IE market share because NS6/MOZ supports more standards.

Furthermore, the IE team isn't going to just put their feet up on their desks and call it a day as far as future development of IE goes.

Critical mistakes have been made regarding Mozilla right from the get go.

The radical redesign of the UI was a big no-no. Many (now) NS 4.X users simply use the browser because they like the UI... they could care less about it's 'Standards Support'. Departing from a well accepted UI was a big mistake. IE didn't even doing anything that stupid... it worked... and they built on and enhanced it over time. Now a new Netscape user has a whole new UI to work with and become accustomed to... something for many is unacceptable. Yes, I know the computer geeks out there have no problem with such things but the general population does. And the method of UI implmentation chosen as the UI wrapper, XUL, was *not* the answer. Talk about a flaky implementation of rendering a user interface!

The sad thing is that Netscape isn't really even Netscape anymore... most of the top people have left (including the founders) and it has been acquired by AOL. Netscape is just a name now used by AOL for marketing purposes.

I get sick of the *small* few in here... especially with their double posts of the identical that say... 'Works Great', 'I love It', etc..., etc..., etc... Please, Give it a damn rest would ya?

Another thing I hear is just another line of more excuses for Mozilla/NS6: It's really just a 1.0 release build from the ground (byte 0) up'... bologna!!! That's a lame sorry excuse and I hate more than anything when people start making lame excuses for whatever it is that has failed to make the mark.

Enough venting for now...

-Bruce

#125 the UI issue again...

by RvR <mozillazine@mozillazine-fr.org>

Wednesday November 15th, 2000 4:42 PM

Reply to this message

you wrote :

"Departing from a well accepted UI was a big mistake. IE didn't even doing anything that stupid... it worked... and they built on and enhanced it over time."

have heard of the new MSN browser (and maybe IE6 ?) UI ? it seems that MS is going in the same direction as Netscape... quoted from zdnet :

"Version 6.0, according to ActiveWin.com and WinInformant.com, will get a more digital-media facelift. Microsoft will add Explorer toolbars that will allow users to work more easily with digital images, music, and video clips, the sites said. (...) From computer-savvy to consumer-friendly

While Internet Explorer and MSN Explorer both include the same Internet Explorer technologies under the covers, the Version 6.0 release will gain more of the consumer-oriented look and feel that Microsoft debuted last month with MSN Explorer, the Windows enthusiast sites predicted. ActiveWin officials said the new browser will include an integrated MSN Messenger bar as part of the makeover.

Currently, Microsoft markets Internet Explorer as the browser for more sophisticated, computer-savvy users, and MSN Explorer as the interface for newer users. Positioning a more consumer-friendly Internet Explorer, with Version 6.0, may prove tricky, as the WinInformant site said."

<http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn…ws/0,4586,2650506,00.html>

and on the standards issue, i'm sure everyone here is aware that the GP does not feel concerned by the standards compliance, but webmasters do ! don't you know it's a pain to develop a cross-browser website for Nav 4.x and IE now ?

#127 Re: the UI issue again...

by bjensen <rom@silverlink.net>

Wednesday November 15th, 2000 5:56 PM

Reply to this message

Hi RvR,

I do understand the difficulties in creating cross-browser sites for both IE and NS4... and I do understand the need for a universal standards compliance among all web clients so the web developer can concentrate on the work at hand rather dealing with all of the what ifs of the different browser makes and models.

FYI... I'm downloading MSN Explorer as we speak so I can give her a spin, too. I'm curious as to Microsofts approach to UI design and effeciency in the case relative to the NS/Moz XUL implementation.

You may not believe this but I was quite the anti-IE zealot. To the extent that I spent months writing a program that would completely remove IE from Windows 98... it was called, ironically, Revenge of Mozilla and it became quite successfull.

Time went on though and Netscape was lagging big time while IE kept improving... especially with IE 5.01 which is when I finally made the switch. :-o

I visited Mozillazine and saw they they had decided for a XP UI mechanism called XUL... I immediately objected and tried every trick (sometimes devious) in the book to keep them from doing such a thing. The result was a 364 thread in mozillazine that ended up going absolutely nowhere.

I tried the nightly builds from around M12 or so on... and was always disappointed as to what I ended up looking at. In short, the XUL style UI just was not working for me. I\'m used to a fast responsive UI.

This release of NS6 has just confirmed what I have already always new... that XUL is *not* it.

Ideally, NS should have kept the native and unique UI that so many had come to love and merely redone the engine with maybe a few add-on features here and there. The transition from a NS4 to NS6 would have been a snap and people would still have their beloved base UI.

With NS6 is what a what I would call an unbeliveable release. Despite the platform I installed it to (Win98/WinME/Win2K) there were consistent problems ranging all the way from installation, to actually browsing, to even closing the browser window. Not good in my book for a final release... in fact,, that\'s why I\'m so adamant regarding some of my posts regarding the release of NS6.

Anyways, I\'ll let you know about my experience with MSN Explorer. :)

-Bruce

#137 Re: the UI issue again...

by RvR <mozillazine@mozillazine-fr.org>

Thursday November 16th, 2000 2:23 AM

Reply to this message

i agree that XUL is a bit disorienting. i was disappointed too when i saw that native widgets were abandoned (which means no support for Gtk themes...), but i resigned to accept it as it's the only way to continue development for Linux.

you know the story. if NS had to chose which platform to develop for, it would be Windows only, because of the bigger market and to cut down development costs.

#128 Re: This is funny...

by petejc <pete@mozdev.org>

Wednesday November 15th, 2000 6:57 PM

Reply to this message

Bruce i have to agree with you for the first time ever.

This realease dubbed 6.0 is barely beta. They are just now in the dogfood stage of developemnt. Right now public perception of this "Release Quality" software is going to be. "Wow, what a piece of shit".

Quality and stability can not possibly exist on something that is realistically 8 months to a year away from prime time.

If Netscape had just have dubbed this as a beta1 product there would be now problem. Oh well.

Anyway, as far as xul goes. It is great technology. Blows swing away hands down. UI are moving to xml, that can't be avoided. It is simply faster and easier to implement.

You should give Chameleon or Aphrodite a test spin. It may give you a better idea of how close xul can come to performing like a native UI.

Chamelon is quite responsive. However both these projects are acurate w/ their versions.

Aphrodite 0.05. Chameleon. 0.02

Good will come out of this big mess that Netscape has created. But open source moves at it's own pace.

my 2cents

--pete

#130 Hi Petejc! :)

by bjensen <rom@silverlink.net>

Wednesday November 15th, 2000 8:02 PM

Reply to this message

Hi Petejc,

I'll be damned! We have agreed on something!!!

Should we note the exact date of this occassion? November 15th, 2000 @ approx. 6:45pm? hehe! :)

There's something else I agree with you on, too... XUL does *blow away* JFC Swing hands down in every which way, shape, and form!

Good to hear from ya! :)

-Bruce

#126 NewZilla

by gerbilpower <gerbil@ucdavis.edu>

Wednesday November 15th, 2000 5:11 PM

Reply to this message

Since we're all talking about it, it doesn't help to readvertise my Netscape6/Mozilla FAQ, for those who still don't know about it (I generate more and more visitors this way than I ever expected):

<http://www.gerbilbox.com/newzilla/>

I will have Netscape 6 related updates in a few days (I am rather busy)

<:3)~~

#129 Tips for Running Netscape 6

by JaWa

Wednesday November 15th, 2000 7:26 PM

Reply to this message

I made the mistake of installing NS6 on a system that had Moz M18 on it. If you did the same ( or installed to a system with an NS6 PR) try these simple steps to get rid of _most_ of your problems:

1.) Uninstall NS6 2.) Delete or uninstall Mozilla/NS6 PR. 3.) Reboot. 4.) Reinstall NS6. 5.) Fire up NS6 Profile Manager and delete all profiles. 6.) Exit Profile Manager. 7.) Restart NS6 to import NS4.x profile or create new profile.

This won't fix it all, but it does help a lot. For example, I am still having problems with SSL. Using it slows NS6 to a grinding halt. We'll see how things go over the next few days.

Hope this helps a lot of you!

#131 win98se okay, linux broken

by flashfyre

Wednesday November 15th, 2000 8:54 PM

Reply to this message

hello, fellow primates.

i have installed NS6 on a win98se machine and have found it to be fairly stable, albeit a bit slow sometimes, fast others.

the linux installer dies on my debien potato machine. it just stops refreshing after several minutes. i'm guessing it's in file 4 of 11, but not sure.

is it possible to get all the files via ftp and have it try and install locally?

TIA, John

#151 Re: win98se okay, linux broken

by mitabrev

Thursday November 16th, 2000 11:29 AM

Reply to this message

#153 Re: win98se okay, linux broken

by mitabrev

Thursday November 16th, 2000 2:11 PM

Reply to this message

Yes, here is the linux version.

<ftp://ftp.netscape.com/pu…ish/6.0/unix/linux22/sea/>

29mb.

#132 Frustration

by cyfaone

Wednesday November 15th, 2000 9:39 PM

Reply to this message

Im a long time dedicated NS user. I tried NS6 and it freezes at the splash screen. This sucks. I tried uninstalling it and reinstalling it several times to no avail. Im very fustrated at this point. I never had a program freeze on the splash screen. The nightly builds are more consistent. Another thing, the installer sucks. It takes up my entire screen and you cant pick wether to install from the net or your harddrive. SmarDownloader, I call it DumbDownloader. Netscape, time to go back to the board, and release something usable.

#133 Re: To RvR statement via MSN Explorer

by bjensen <rom@silverlink.net>

Wednesday November 15th, 2000 11:03 PM

Reply to this message

Well, after a 30MB or so download I can honestly say that MSN Explorer isn't something I'd really ever use but I will say this... the UI was solid, responsive, and consistent... something the current (and more than likely future NS6/Mozilla's) will ever be.

I wish some folks would pay a little attention to the IE team and know that they are doing something right.

-Bruce

#136 yes, but... MSNE's a native UI, not XP

by RvR <mozillazine@mozillazine-fr.org>

Thursday November 16th, 2000 2:02 AM

Reply to this message

you must make the choice, either develop cross-platform apps or develop for one platform and one only.

MS will always develop for Windows natively. Mozilla has no other choice but develop XP apps.

XP apps will always be slower than native ones because it adds one layer over the native UI layer. that's it.

anyway, i'm sure they can optimize XUL further. let them some time...

#143 Hi RvR- I responed at the the end the forum... :-o

by bjensen <rom@silverlink.net>

Thursday November 16th, 2000 4:09 AM

Reply to this message

Hi RvR,

I mistakenly responed at the end of the forum...

#144 Re: Re: To RvR statement via MSN Explorer

by Ben_Goodger

Thursday November 16th, 2000 4:10 AM

Reply to this message

Hm...

IE uses native widgets inconsistently. They're never used in the content area (due to z-ordering issues, etc... just use Spy++ and you'll see), and they use a mix of native and non-native widgets in their dialogs.

MSN Explorer either owner-draws its native widgets or uses non-native widgets too.

What is it /specifically/ that Netscape isn't doing, Bruce? Is it just that there's no skin that you like? Or that we've made no illusions about the fact that we're not native?

#146 Re: Re: Re: To RvR statement via MSN Explorer

by bjensen <rom@silverlink.net>

Thursday November 16th, 2000 6:15 AM

Reply to this message

Well, Bill... you have basically summeded it up in a nutshell.... skins mean nothing when it comes to to the browser chrome/UI... at least in terms of XUL.

Bill, Netscape has just messed up... in a big way. They had a relativley strong following in there NS 4.X line of user and now they are comletely abondoned from some new AOL idea of how the browser should be. I blame a great deal of this on XUL... BIG MISTAKE. You guys should have kept the tried and true NS4 style UI and enhanced the hell out of it with a better rendering engine. Maybe NS4.5+ was bloatware but NS 4.08 was pretty lean in my book.

You guys have ruined it with XUL... as cool as it sounds the only benefitor is Linux. What a waste... the majority suffers because of small few that use what's really a solid server oriented to browse the web.

In short, the focus should have been on native UI' for Windows and then the Mac... XUL should have been killed at the first suggestion. My apologies to Dave Hyatt(after much debate), but he never did get the point, partly I suppose because it was his creation.

Now we have a release of NS6 that I hardly with think improve. It'll be the same old thing... bug fixes, somemore bug fixes... only to end up with even more bugs.

On top of all that, the inevitable, UI style of UI that just won't go ver well with most.

-Bruce

#171 Re: Re: Re: Re: To RvR statement via MSN Explorer

by Ben_Goodger

Friday November 17th, 2000 4:46 AM

Reply to this message

Did you read anything I wrote?

MSIE does not use "native" widgets.

Bah, I don't know why I waste my time on you.

#191 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To RvR statement via MSN Explo

by bjensen <rom@silverlink.net>

Saturday November 18th, 2000 12:52 PM

Reply to this message

Yes I did Ben... hehe!

IE does use *native* UI components... right there in comctl32.dll... the saame comctl32.dll file that *most* Win32 apps draw from.

In fact, comctl, simply means 'common controls'... and you'll be hard pressed to find *any* Windows application that doesn't utilize it in one form or another.

-Bruce

#134 Running both Netscape and Mozilla

by jedbro

Thursday November 16th, 2000 12:37 AM

Reply to this message

I agree with the common here. NS6 isn't hot.. but it's getting there and has great potential.. I think it is a great first release.

now to my question.. does anyone know how to install both nightly builds and leave NS6 alone?? I'd like to keep it on here.. but still want to test the nightlies??

Thanks (posted on NS6)

#139 ATTN: RVR- your last statement regard MSN Explorer

by bjensen <rom@silverlink.net>

Thursday November 16th, 2000 3:05 AM

Reply to this message

That's not entirely correct... you can develop an application that boasts a native UI for each platform.

It has been done on both the Windows and Mac platform no problemo. The primary target should have been Windows... then Mac... then 'whatever'.

Now we are speaking of linux... big deal. Apps in Linux have for the most part cheesy UI's to begin with so to ignore such a *massive* market because of Linux is ridiculous. Even the 'native' implementation of Netscape on the Linux platform was a complete joke... not to mention a major eyesore.

Sure... the linux crowd will come to the rescue and say 'but wait a minute'. Well, the fact is that there is no minute to wait for.

Focus on the primary markets first... Windows, then Mac... everything else comes next.

This whole whole thing on XP has mainly resolved around Linux/Unix.

To me Linux/Unix is a server-side OS that serves it's function quite well... a client OS it is not... although some may use it as such.

My current, and both of my prior ISP's used Linux as their server oriented OS and they performed quite well. As a client OS? Forget it.

It is a very *sad* shame that the vast majority of Windows/Mac users have had to settle with what's been dished to them resently, so the small faction of Linux users can experience this XUL based UI... which really doesn't have any sort of significant impact over any other major Linux application. In my opinion, tThey all behave/interact in a tacky way.

My experience with RedHat6, for example, is that *all* of the apps that I have tried are, well, cheesy in UI function and interaction. KDE/Gnome is about as close as it gets to setting any sort of professional style standard... and even those are way off.

So basically, Windows Users and Mac Users have had to pay dearly as to what could have could have been because well, oh boy, some linux folks had to read a high end CSS/DOM web page within their half-functioning browser... known as NS6.

A *big* lesson to be learned folks in terms of making a come back in the dominating Windows/Mac markets.

-Bruce

#161 Re: ATTN: RVR- your last statement regard MSN Expl

by jaw79 <jaw79@columbia.edu>

Thursday November 16th, 2000 7:51 PM

Reply to this message

So, I've been reading this thread over the past few days as bjensen's slamming of the mozilla UI continues and all I can think to myself is that there was once a golden age in discussion boards that has since passed. Back in the day, discussion boards were actually used to discuss things. Now, they're just used as grounds for flaming.

So, in an effort to bring about discussion, I'd like to know what bjensen thinks is a good UI and what's so bad about the Mozilla UI. Not just vague "it sucks" comments that have been thrown around, but things like "It's X times slower than Y browser" even though we've heard and know that one already. stuff like what's so "radically" different about the Netscape 6 UI. The only thing I can see is that it's a different color.

To set the example, let me begin by saying what I like about the netscape UI vs. IE.

1) it's simple. All the prefrences can be found in one place where I expect them. I expect to "edit" prefrences and when I go to the edit menu, there it is. I don't think prefrences are "Tools" as IE does.

2) the first option when I right click on a link is "open in new window". THis is great. This is smart. In IE it says "open". I don't like this because if I wanted to open the link, i would have just clicked on it.

3) The first option under "File" is open new window. THat's one less step I have to take than in IE.

4) I can change the ui anyway I want. Make the buttons bigger, smaller. Remove them. change the way they look and everything. That's the advantage of the UI architecture

Well that does it for now. I look forward to discussing these issues.

#167 Re: Not my last statement

by bjensen <rom@silverlink.net>

Friday November 17th, 2000 2:15 AM

Reply to this message

I'll sum it up for uou in a nutshell...

A native UI is *fast* and responsive. A mozilla UI is sluggish at best.

Even NS 4.X sported a native UI... nothing like we have seen in either NS6 or the Mozilla builds.

Sure... there are those that say 'I can't tell a difference'... but I have maintained, and still do, that a few cans of a six pack are missing here.

My wish from years ago that was the 'New Netscape' would break serious ground and make an almighty comeback from IE.

That's not the case anymore... NS6/Moz is destined for a very small population (read me niche).

You can disagree and argue with me until you are blue in the face... but facts are facts. Sadly but true.

I'm not a flamer... nor a spammer... I'm just a dude that was way too late in having a word in edge wise as to the direction and strategy that the the new Netscape/Moz should take.

That's about the sum of it.

-Bruce

#162 Re: ATTN: RVR- your last statement regard MSN Expl

by Ugg

Thursday November 16th, 2000 8:40 PM

Reply to this message

You don't seem to understand, Bruce.

The developers have repeatedly stated that without the XUL and various XP measures, there would probably only be a Windows version and that's it.

For Windows users, this isn't a problem.. but to say that it's okay if a product like this is Windows-only is so painfully arrogant and selfish that I'm not even going to address it.

So, imagine it from my point of view, and pretend that the XP measures hadn't been taken. Guess what happens?

THERE IS NO MOZILLA.

I expect you'll shut up and think about this for a while, if you know what's good for you.

#166 Re: Re: ATTN: RVR- your last statement regard MSN

by bjensen <rom@silverlink.net>

Friday November 17th, 2000 1:49 AM

Reply to this message

Does not a native UI exist in your beloved Linux?

If not... then so be it... Windows/Mac wins. Period!

XP UI's in the Windows world are few and far between. If that's the path you choose to take then so be it.

Game over.

-Bruce

#176 I'm on a Mac, shithead.

by Ugg

Friday November 17th, 2000 12:01 PM

Reply to this message

...so either code me a native Mac version or concede the point.

Ha, I thought so.

Game over, twerp. I win.

#192 No twerp here...

by bjensen <rom@silverlink.net>

Saturday November 18th, 2000 12:57 PM

Reply to this message

It would have been great for MAC users to have a native MAC version... but apparantly that is too late. :(

So yes, the game is over.

-Bruce

#140 The Most Portable and Standard Compliant

by jmarranz <jmarranz@eresmas.com>

Thursday November 16th, 2000 3:05 AM

Reply to this message

We must CELEBRATE the out of the most portable (almost all S.O.) and standard compliant browser of the market: DOM1 and most of 2,CSS1 and most of CSS2, XML, XLink, namespaces, XUL (RDF derivative), last ECMAScript standard etc. And soon : XSLT, SVG, MathML (is already at Mozilla)

It isnīt perfect (100% compliant, 0 bugs) but no program is, IE5 isn't too

Multiple web appliances we'll see in future.

It is a great notice to dismiss the **propietary** MSIE dominance of the web marketplace

#141 The Most Portable and Standard Compliant

by jmarranz <jmarranz@eresmas.com>

Thursday November 16th, 2000 3:06 AM

Reply to this message

We must CELEBRATE the out of the most portable (almost all S.O.) and standard compliant browser of the market: DOM1 and most of 2,CSS1 and most of CSS2, XML, XLink, namespaces, XUL (RDF derivative), last ECMAScript standard etc. And soon : XSLT, SVG, MathML (is already at Mozilla)

It isnīt perfect (100% compliant, 0 bugs) but no program is, IE5 isn't too

Multiple web appliances we'll see in future.

It is a great notice to dismiss the **propietary** MSIE dominance of the web marketplace

#240 Re: The Most Portable and Standard Compliant

by defunc

Wednesday November 29th, 2000 7:57 PM

Reply to this message

dude, give me a break with your most compliant browser nonesense. the darn thing is a memory hog and is even slower than netscape 4.7x. the only good thing is that when you resize the view area the whole page does not reload. how can you even dare compare ie5 with ns6? please. i am pro open source. i like netscape. but when i read biased posts like that, it makes me thinks wether people uses netscape because it's a wonderful browser or uses netscape because they hate microsoft. to have this automatic judgement that everything that is open source is superior to any commercial equivalent is just not logical.

recognize when something is good, but also admit when something needs improvement.

most compliant browser ... tsk

#145 My turn to repeat...

by bjensen <rom@silverlink.net>

Thursday November 16th, 2000 4:22 AM

Reply to this message

Sice so many has felt the need to repost the same thing... ithought it would be rather amusing if I did the same... :}

Well I went ahead and decided to download NS 6 final and give her a spin myself despite all of the criticisms. In short... I cannot believe it. After almost 3 years this is the garbage that has been produced? HOW THE HELL COULD ANYBODY IN THEIR RIGHT MIND RELEASE SUCH A PIECE OF CRAP????? I\'m running from NS6 as I type this... it loads slow, has the flakiest look and feel I\'ve yet seen (except for some third rate Linux app), and just flat out functions like crap. (Before any XUL fanatics out there spew any gas... I switched to the \'classic\' skin right away (still looks and feels like bird crap hanging from a wire)). Gee folks, forgive my harsh tone but I am rather pissed off at the moment. There was a time when I was quite the NS advocate... and anti-IE/M$ drone. Those days have been over for a while now ever since it was realized that the fate/design of the new Netscape/Mozilla lied in the hands of some college kids and their religious grip on XUL! There is so much that is *wrong* with this thing that I\'m going to end up making a lengthy web page outlining and categorizing every item from initial installation to actually closing the browser window. Party is over folks... this release has marked an epidimic of laughter across the country... including Europe and Russia. Adios. -Bruce

#147 ok listen

by googleplex <inexio@netscape.net>

Thursday November 16th, 2000 7:58 AM

Reply to this message

everybody who is complaining about NS6 and Mozilla get off mozillazine. why are you here if you dont like mozilla. get the hell out of here and let us do stuff to make mozilla and NS6 better instead of fending off people who complain about mozilla. jeff

#152 Re: ok listen

by bjensen <rom@silverlink.net>

Thursday November 16th, 2000 12:53 PM

Reply to this message

Okay googleplex,

There's an old saying... if you can't handle the heat... you best get out of the kitchen!

Other people have just as much right to come here and expres what a piece *shit* that NS6 is.

Like it or not... they/we are here to stay.

This isn't some argument about minute ideosyncracies... these are facts. The public is disappointed to the max about such a release.

Defend 'the cause' to your hearts content... but the facts *are* the facts. NS6 is a *joke*!!!

-Bruce

#223 ok

by niner

Monday November 20th, 2000 1:26 AM

Reply to this message

Yeah we all know YOU are the public and YOU are the only one who counts on this world.

If you don\\\'t like Moz or NS6, that simply DON\\\'T USE IT, no one forces you to do, and no one on mozillazine did ever say you have to. Use your IE and get happy, and if you even don\\\'t like this, or any other browser in the world, than WRITE YOUR OWN! You are smart enough to do it, aren\\\'t you? You just sound like you were...

And BTW: You and your fucking Mac are pissing me off! Do you really think your Mac is so important? Face the reality and accept, that it doesn\\\'t have any more users than Linux nowadays and that Apple only lives, cause MS lets it live... Mac is nice, and it has it\\\'s advantages, but it\\\'s not the holy grail you\\\'d like it to be.

#148 Interesting perspective on standards support

by mikey

Thursday November 16th, 2000 8:12 AM

Reply to this message

There is an interesting article here: <http://www.richinstyle.com/bugs/mozilla.html> which seems to have a more balanced view than most of the mud flying.

#149 Umm... yea

by Tanaaln <olympictram@yahoo.com>

Thursday November 16th, 2000 9:03 AM

Reply to this message

Well, it is interesting that one person is making most of the criticisms of netscape 6 while claiming that only a few are having good experiences. I have had a few problems with 6, but not anything more severe than with any other program. (I'm using win98 w/a PP200.) In fact, I've been using it for the past hour or so with several windows open and no problems yet. Also, I haven't had problems with the theme park, and am actually using skypilot right now. (It is my favorite so far) It does take a little bit longer to load than I would like, but then again I'm used to programs taking about 30 seconds to come up (publisher, draw, etc.) Once it is running, opening a new window takes about 1/2 second. Also, I've heard a lot of complaining from one person about the UI. What exactly is wrong with it? People aren't quite as stupid as you think they are. File means File, Edit means Edit, etc. Just because the color is different doesn't mean a person can't make the connection that "hey, that is probably the same type of thing that was in the other browser I was using." Maybe my computer is fast (although I don't think a 3+ year old 200 is all that speedy), but the UI is quick and responsive. If I didn't know how it is done, I would just think it looked cooler than my other programs. Anyway, hope ya'll have a nice morning... it's around 15 degrees here and I'm going skiing tomorrow! Woohoo! :)

Tanaaln

#150 NETSCAPE! WHAT WERE YOU THINKING

by daddydago <fredjudi@mediaone.net>

Thursday November 16th, 2000 11:28 AM

Reply to this message

BIG disapointment. I can't belive you would do this to loyal followers. WHAT A PIECE OF CRAP NS6 IS. So what if it has a smaller footprint then NS4 it still sucks everytime I try to use it it just stops working Thank GOD I didn't delete NS4.76 If I had I'd be fucked. I wish AOL would stick to there own 6.0 and leave Netscape to the pro's

#155 Question regarding N6 install...

by bjensen <rom@silverlink.net>

Thursday November 16th, 2000 3:21 PM

Reply to this message

THe last time I installed NS6 it went (for the *most* part) fine... what I mean is downloading the actually components via the web. I messed with it for a few hours then uninstalled it.

Now I'd like to develop a web page outlining the major problems that exist with the NS6 release but the problemm I'm having is that afteeeer downloading... it won't install!

Is this possibly due to an older version of Netscape now exisiting on the same partition (NS 4.08).

Any help would greatly be appreciated.

Thanks,

-Bruce

#156 Question regarding N6 install...

by bjensen <rom@silverlink.net>

Thursday November 16th, 2000 3:23 PM

Reply to this message

THe last time I installed NS6 it went (for the *most* part) fine... what I mean is downloading the actually components via the web. I messed with it for a few hours then uninstalled it.

Now I'd like to develop a web page outlining the major problems that exist with the NS6 release but the problemm I'm having is that afteeeer downloading... it won't install!

Is this possibly due to an older version of Netscape now exisiting on the same partition (NS 4.08).

Any help would greatly be appreciated.

Thanks,

-Bruce

#157 Never mind...

by bjensen <rom@silverlink.net>

Thursday November 16th, 2000 5:07 PM

Reply to this message

I finally got it....

#158 Good so far!

by kevin719

Thursday November 16th, 2000 6:30 PM

Reply to this message

I downloaded Netscape 6 about two hours ago and so far have had no problems at all with it. I have had no lock ups so far, it seems very fast on some sites, somewhat slow on others. Now before I get accussed of being a Mozilla fanatic or Netscape flunky by someone, let me say I have never posted here before. I consider myself to be one of the so called "average users" , certainly not a computer geek by a long stretch. I think some people underestimate the average person on the internet, I don't think a lot of us fear change in software, in fact a lot us actually welcome change. I honestly have to say that I think Netscape 6 is a very good first step and I hope it continues to improve in the future. So in closing, keep up the good work here folks, some of us out here do appreciate it.

#160 Linux and Java Thoughts

by jck2000

Thursday November 16th, 2000 7:08 PM

Reply to this message

Downloaded NS6 for Linux, but got some sort of xp* (forgot exact name) component error, and (I think) as a consequence thereof had very incomplete menus (blank menu items with no functionality). The crazy thing is that I am rooting so much for Moz that I almost convinced myself that this was acceptable *.0 behavior! I haven't had time to do another download (dial up connection). I only hope the Windows version that the mass market will get is in better shape.

I was, however, able to get Java to work on the 1106 Mozilla (not NS) nightly by copying over the plugins directory from NS6 to my Mozilla directory -- this combination is good enough for full time use. The only thing I am not thrilled about is that Java displays System.out messages to the applet area upon launching an applet.

#163 My thoughts...

by Ugg

Thursday November 16th, 2000 9:20 PM

Reply to this message

First, a disclaimer: I have not downloaded, installed, or run Netscape 6. I probably never will, simply because I prefer to live without all the stuff that AOL tacks onto it. I do occasionally grab the latest Mozilla build, though, and since the two apps are pretty similar, I feel justified in using this, and the comments I've read (good and bad) to form an opinion. So...

There is no doubt that N6 is *not* the El Dorado of browsers. It's slow in pretty much every area but HTML rendering, it's bloaty, it lacks the kind of feature richness and polish that I've come to expect in IE or iCab. I'm using N4.7 to post this, and I intend to continue using N4.7 for as long as I must.. I refuse to switch to IE, for philosophical reasons. (Read: "M1CR0$0F7 5UX D00D!!!!)

*cough*

Furthermore, I don't entirely agree with the people who say that 6.1 will be the ambrosia for which we have all clamored. I expect it to be an improvement, certainly, but I think that Paradise is more than one minor revision away, by a long shot.

And while I appreciate the tremendous effort that the developers put in, I also know that it doesn't mean squat if the result is worthless.

However, I think that the people who are complaining about Netscape 6 (and Mozilla) show a tremendous lack of vision, for two reasons.

First, standards compliance is good. It is very, very good. If you are a web designer, you should know this. If you aren't, or you're blinded by marketshare, let me say: it is the HOLY GRAIL. And it is within our grasp.

Every web designer I know personally is thrilled about N6/Moz. And they're telling everyone they know to get it. They know it sucks right now, but they couldn't care less, because for the first time in more years than most of have even known of the web's existence, they can code to modern specs. For once in their lives, they can RTFM, write what it tells them, and it ACTUALLY WORKS.

I don't care what company uses what browser or what their visitors use. The designers make the web and people will use what we TELL them to use.. maybe not right away, but soon. Because they're screwed if they don't. Corporate policy will follow; it must bow to the people.

The second reason why I think these people have no vision is because there is always change, there will always be change. Mozilla is only going to get better as more compliance is added in, more bugs are fixed, and so forth. Computers are getting faster, with more RAM and hard drive space. Time waits for no monopoly, and the avalanche is building. No one will care a few years from now about the issues which have been raised against Mozilla; they'll be quashed with code or faster silicon. All they'll care about is how it kicks ass.

Everything in that last paragraph applies to Netscape 6+ as well, by association. And I'm not even going to touch on the whole "XUL platform" idea, though I can see it has potential that most people completely miss (making it a third lack of vision).

As far as Netscape releasing too early.. sure, they fucked up. Who cares? If you don't like it, get Mozilla, or use your old browser. This is a tempest in a teacup, people, and most of you won't even remember it a year or two from now, except maybe to laugh fondly about "those days".

Meanwhile, what's done is done now and there's little point bitching about it except to mentally masturbate, so instead of waving a sign around that says "Netscape's End is at Hand!", just get over it.. and look forward to the versions to come.

Sheesh.

#165 Re: My thoughts...

by cyfaone

Friday November 17th, 2000 12:44 AM

Reply to this message

I totally agreed with everything you had to say, line for line.

#179 Nothing will stop Mozilla!

by pzach <pzach@mac.com>

Friday November 17th, 2000 4:06 PM

Reply to this message

What some of you missed is even if Netscape does die, Mozilla WILL live on. It is the open source Browser project that has the MOST going for it. All it is is a matter of time. Netscape did release eary, but it is just doing its job. :D The day is comming for Netscape and Mozill... just not today. I don't see Netscape dieing anytime soon either.

#164 IT'S ALREADY TOO LATE!

by pkamorta <pkamorta@navix.net>

Friday November 17th, 2000 12:29 AM

Reply to this message

STOP LETTING PEOPLE DOWNLOAD THIS PIECE OF CRAP. THIS WON'T BE FORGOTTEN AS SOME SUGGEST.

#168 Netscape 6 - Nice, but just not up to par ...

by jarrek <jarrek@xdesign.net>

Friday November 17th, 2000 2:57 AM

Reply to this message

I must admit, the Netscape 6 browser looks very nice, but looks is as far as it goes. Functionality is on the negative side. Since installing NS6 I have been consistently getting smaller fonts then usual, hence some pages display incorrectly ... funny because previous versions of Netscape did not have this problem ... makes you think that Netscape released the Portable Computing Device version as a PC version. I have used Netscape since version 1.0 ... I\'m really dissapointed with this one ... If you are going to release a product at least make sure the pages display the same was as they did in your previous version. Oh one more thing, the Javascript rollovers are really iffy ... seems like NS is having problems displaying that too, besides the black image boxes that I get on some pages ... well ... until that's fixed ... Netscape is one browser I wont be using...

#169 Netscape 6 - Nice, but just not up to par ...

by jarrek <jarrek@xdesign.net>

Friday November 17th, 2000 2:57 AM

Reply to this message

I must admit, the Netscape 6 browser looks very nice, but looks is as far as it goes. Functionality is on the negative side. Since installing NS6 I have been consistently getting smaller fonts then usual, hence some pages display incorrectly ... funny because previous versions of Netscape did not have this problem ... makes you think that Netscape released the Portable Computing Device version as a PC version. I have used Netscape since version 1.0 ... I\'m really dissapointed with this one ... If you are going to release a product at least make sure the pages display the same was as they did in your previous version. Oh one more thing, the Javascript rollovers are really iffy ... seems like NS is having problems displaying that too, besides the black image boxes that I get on some pages ... well ... until that's fixed ... Netscape is one browser I wont be using...

#170 I'm Pleasantly Surprized

by Mike_Cornall

Friday November 17th, 2000 4:04 AM

Reply to this message

Netscape is a complex product, and this is a 1.0 release following a complete rewrite.

I only downloaded it to evaluate the truth of what people were saying about it, and I didn't expect to start using it on a regular basis until a later release (preferably Mozilla).

Imagine my surprize, then, when I discovered that it works well enough, and offers enough advantages, that I wanted to start using it right away.

I've switched!

I've been running Netscape 6.0 all day, and I intend to stay with it.

Naturally, I'll keep 4.73 around, just in case, and I plan to continue to evaluate, and eventually switch to Mozilla.

Netscape 6.0 isn't perfect, of course. I've run into some bugs, and I have some advice (below).

MY SYSTEM:

PII, 400 MHz, 128 MB (+ 256MB swap) Linux, Debian, 2.2 Kernel IceWM with Gnome and KDE library support

PERFORMANCE:

Loading web pages is comparable to Netscape 4.73. Formatting and resizing complex pages is much faster than 4.73.

Pull-down menues, and other widgets seem snappy enough. As expected, the so-called performance problems due to XUL are not apparent.

Initial load time is slow, and it seems to be related to loading bookmarks:

Netscape 4.73 load time: 5 seconds.

Netscape 6.0 load time: 9 seconds (390 KB bookmarks file)

Netscape 6.0 load time: 27 seconds (1 MB bookmarks file)

FUNCTIONALITY:

Hasn't crashed yet after many hours of browsing, experimenting with preferences, and so on.

(Note: I owe an apology to others who claimed that they hadn't experienced any crashes so far, because I assumed they might be lying in support of Netscape, as I'm sure some astroturfers are lying in an effort to hurt Netscape).

Worked fine on every site I care about (though we know there will be problems on sites with non-standard HTML). Also worked fine on some pages where Netscape 4.73 has problems (e.g. MSNBC articles).

I went looking for sites with 3D interactive Java demos. They worked fine, and didn't crash the browser!

SOME BUGS AND ANNOYANCES

I tried some alternate themes. They look cool, but they also caused the preferences menu to screw up, so I went back to the standard (more debugged) Modern theme.

Certain pull-down menus, or resize operations, leave minor artifacts on the screen.

Composer did a couple of strange things, in one case putting my cursor outside of the text, and in another cutting slightly more text than I had marked, but overall it did the job.

Save-As doesn't start in my home dir, and it doesn't remember my last directory.

Shortcut keys are different than 4.73 (e.g. CTL-N instead of ALT-N), though I assume that's intentional, to make them consistent across platforms.

There were probably others that I've forgotten, and I'm sure I'll find more over time, but I'm pleased that I haven't run into any showstoppers so far.

ADVICE:

1. Don't take my word for it. Download and try Netscape 6.0 for yourself. Your mileage might vary, and a bug that seems minor to me may be a showstopper for you.

2. Don't accept the word of any naysayers either.

3. You should probably avoid Netscape's "Smart Update" download and install procedure for now. I had problems with it, and so did a friend of mine. Even when it appears to have worked, you can still run into problems (e.g. the "missing XPxxx" problem mentioned in another post). As others have suggested, go to the FTP page (<ftp://ftp.netscape.com/pub/netscape6/>), download the whole thing, unzip and untar it, and run the installer as root.

CORRECTING ONE POINT

So far, there are 19 posts in this forum by bjensen (that's one out of every nine posts -- talk about your fanatics, unless of course someone is paying him to FUD Netscape). I'm not going to argue with all his points, but I take particular exception to one of them.

bjensen claims that Netscape 6.0 should be compared to Internet Explorer. I disagree.

It's true that many in the public will make such a comparison. But for those who are technically astute, and not governed by company edict, Internet Explorer isn't even in the running, because it's just too insecure.

Also, those with an eye to the future don't want to help Microsoft pollute the Internet with "decommoditized" protocols.

LOOKING TO THE FUTURE

This is a good start. Having gotten over the hump of the rewrite, Netscape and Mozilla can only get better from here.

With its open-source component architecture, proper Java support, and XUL, Netscape and Mozilla open the door for a new generation of web apps. Applications have already been built based on Mozilla, ISPs will customize it for their users, and gecko is already being incorporated in lightweight browsers, Nautilus, AOL's Webpad, cable boxes, game platforms, and so on.

As the use of Gecko and Mozilla expands, their excellent standards compliance will help ensure the survival of Internet Standards, despite Microsoft's ambitions to the contrary.

Lastly, for those who complain that they will now need to write HTML to support new quirks in Netscape 6.0 -- stop griping. Just code to W3 standards. Netscape and Mozilla are willing to live up to their responsibility for meeting those standards. Is Microsoft?

#172 Re: MIke Cornall

by bjensen <rom@silverlink.net>

Friday November 17th, 2000 6:45 AM

Reply to this message

Dude... if your gonna waste your time quoting/interpreting what I'm saying/said... get it right. My points have been that N6 (or even Moz) will make a small dent in the IE user base, and unless some serious changes are made, this spells catasrophe *regardless* of how W3C compliant the Mozilla browser will be.

THIS IS THE MATTER AT HAND... if you make a browser that's standards compliant to the LETTER. Unless it is *widely* adopted by the GP... it won't mean DIDDLY SQUAT!

I'm not repeating myself like a broken record to the same folks... I'm strongly stressing this point to the approx. 19 folks here... 20 including you.

So chill out.

#173 Re: Re: MIke Cornall

by witbrock

Friday November 17th, 2000 8:51 AM

Reply to this message

The amount of market share that NS6 gets in the short term depends very little on whether the last few page rendering bugs have been removed. It certainly doesn't depend on nonsense such as whether it uses XUL or 20 Meg of memory or scrolls the mail pane 1.5 times faster (although those will contribute, long term, to how its users feel about it). Now that it has reached what is, in my opinion at least, a satisfactory level of stability and functionality for everyday tasks, the market share will depend on how much money AOL spends on marketing it, and how well, and how much Microsoft spends on defending IE, and how well. <p> I'll continue to use Mozilla, because I like to be cutting edge (and bacause I want the portal I work for to work right with future Moz derivatives), but I'm entirely unconvinced that NS6 release wasn't a perfectly reasonable decision. <p> In the end, I think Mozilla has to win, simply because it is inherently more durable than IE, which depends, for its existence, on the ephemeral interests of the employees of an ephemeral enterprise. It may take 100 years, though.

#174 Re: Re: MIke Cornall

by jmarranz <jmarranz@eresmas.com>

Friday November 17th, 2000 9:41 AM

Reply to this message

Please bjensen, read:

<http://www.richinstyle.com/bugs/mozilla.html>

Performance is a issue, but it ISN'T the principal issue!

Beautiful is a issue, but it ISN'T the principal issue!

Easy use is a issue, but it ISN'T the principal issue!

Windows 98 is a bulldozer OS and you use it, because enterprises develop applications more EASY than on UNIX

Wordperfect 5.1 is more quick and less memory consumer, but you probably use MS Word because is more EASY and BEAUTIFUL.

UNIX had features many years ago (multiuser, windows, TCP-IP networking, daemons) that Windows implements today as the last news. Meanwhile you probably used the terrific and buggly Windows 3.1 because it was more EASY to use and configure.

UNIX has a very standard API (programs can be recompiled with minor changes) many years ago, but enterprises developed to Windows because applications are more BEAUTIFUL.

X-Windows is more flexible than MS-Windows,but a S.O. very dependent to the hardware is more quick, more PERFORMANCE.

OK BUT TODAY the MOST PRINCIPAL issue is if the technology is STANDARD AND OPEN

Microsoft has **destroyed** the most part of desktop related enterprises and programs, because to PROPIETARY, MONOPOLISTIC AND CLOSED technology doesn't permit to construct programs better than the propietary of the technology.

Internet related technologies are the almost the only opportunity to establish open, standardized, no propietary technologies to avoid the MSIE brutal dominance of the computer software industry.

By example: Java is a fat and slow technology, recreating the wheel, it hasn't the powerfull templates of C++,many Java features of Java can be developed easily with C++ (Garbagge Collect by ex.), but many enterprises develop server side Java services and applets, because itīs more STANDARD and more OPEN than Microsoft related technologies. And it works.

If Mozilla/NS6 fails, it **must** fail due lack standard support, because it doesn't work (very buggly), but not due aesthetical and performance reasons (chips double its speed in a few years).

If fails, the Web and the computer industry will be a controled farm of Microsoft.

If it works we must stay it OPEN and STANDARD.

#175 STANDARD and OPEN

by jmarranz <jmarranz@eresmas.com>

Friday November 17th, 2000 9:54 AM

Reply to this message

Please bjensen, read this: <http://www.richinstyle.com/bugs/mozilla.html>

Performance is a issue, but it ISN'T the principal issue!

Beautiful is a issue, but it ISN'T the principal issue!

Easy use is a issue, but it ISN'T the principal issue!

Windows 98 is a bulldozer OS and you use it, because enterprises develop applications more EASY than on UNIX

Wordperfect 5.1 is more quick and less memory consumer, but you probably use MS Word because is more EASY and BEAUTIFUL.

UNIX had features many years ago (multiuser, windows, TCP-IP networking, daemons) that Windows implements today as the last news. Meanwhile you probably used the terrific and buggly Windows 3.1 because it was more EASY to use and configure.

UNIX has a very standard API (programs can be recompiled with minor changes) many years ago, but enterprises developed to Windows because applications are more BEAUTIFUL.

X-Windows is more flexible than MS-Windows,but a S.O. very dependent to the hardware is more quick, more PERFORMANCE.

OK BUT TODAY the MOST PRINCIPAL issue is if the technology is STANDARD AND OPEN

Microsoft has **destroyed** the most part of desktop related enterprises and programs, because to PROPIETARY, MONOPOLISTIC AND CLOSED technology doesn't permit to construct programs better than the propietary of the technology.

Internet related technologies are the almost the only opportunity to establish open, standardized, no propietary technologies to avoid the MSIE brutal dominance of the computer software industry.

By example: Java is a fat and slow technology, recreating the wheel, it hasn't the powerfull templates of C++,many Java features of Java can be developed easily with C++ (Garbagge Collect by ex.), but many enterprises develop server side Java services and applets, because itīs more STANDARD and more OPEN than Microsoft related technologies. And it works.

If Mozilla/NS6 fails, it **must** fail due lack standard support, because it doesn't work (very buggly), but not due aesthetical and performance reasons (chips double its speed in a few years).

If fails, the Web and the computer industry will be a controled farm of Microsoft.

If it works we must stay it OPEN and STANDARD.

#177 Netscape and Standards Support

by Mike_Cornall

Friday November 17th, 2000 12:25 PM

Reply to this message

bjensen wrote:

> My points have been that N6 (or even Moz) will make a small dent in the IE user base, and unless some serious changes are made, this spells catasrophe *regardless* of how W3C compliant the Mozilla browser will be.

I don't agree.

Market share does not matter (it may matter to AOL, but not to me).

What matters is that the Internet remains, for the most part, open.

In other words, what matters is that we have a choice of what OS or browser we use to access websites.

What matters is that websites continue to support *open* standards.

By "open, I mean:

- Documented (unlike Microsoft's secret APIs).

- Stable (unlike Microsoft's shifting APIs).

- Conformed To (unlike Microsoft's intentional quirks and extensions).

- Free to Use (unlike Microsoft's patented protocols).

In order for websites to continue to support open standards, it is necessary to maintain a critical mass of users with browsers that support standards.

It doesn't matter if those users are using Mozilla, Netscape, or some other browser, such as Opera, as long as it supports standards (which basically means any browser that doesn't come from Microsoft).

Therefore, Netscape doesn't have to gain share from IE (though it would be nice). Also, AOL doesn't have to switch to Netscape (though it would be nice).

All that matters is that Netscape (or other standards-compliant browsers) maintain a significant market share. And, the current share of over 20% should be sufficient. After all, 20% of 200 million equals 40 millions users, which is too large for businesses to ignore.

If Netscape can maintain a good percentage of its current Windows user base, then, combined with the ongoing growth of desktop Linux, and gecko-based Internet appliances, it should be possible for Netscape to maintain over 20% market share.

It's true that Microsoft has enough money to buy off some businesses into non-compliance, but, every time Microsoft plays that game, its just one more nick in their self-inflicted death of a thousand cuts.

Therefore, I don't buy your doom and gloom scenario. This release is good enough, and will act as a starting point for maintaining, and even growing, Netscape/Mozilla's market share.

Which means that support for Internet standards will continue, and Microsoft has lost their bid to take over the Internet with proprietary protocols.

Mozilla and Netscape developers, and AOL, are to be congratulated.

#178 A tonic

by witbrock

Friday November 17th, 2000 1:44 PM

Reply to this message

A tonic to some of the (absurd) posts holding that abandoning native UI scrollbars in favour of the (beautiful) modern design of Netscape 6 will drive users into some sort of terrified panic.

<http://www.satirewire.com…ws/0011/cubist_site.shtml>

#180 I've seen worse

by shigh <steve@iwatt.com>

Friday November 17th, 2000 8:11 PM

Reply to this message

I've never posted here before, but the extreme nature of the bashing inspired me to say something good about Netscape 6, which I downloaded the day before yesterday.

However, in order to complete the membership form, i had to log on with Internet Explorer--your server could not seem to accept the information when it was submitted via Netscape.

This is a bug I've noticed in older versions of Netscape when I've tried to submit passwords.

Nevertheless, my comments are mostly positive: 1. I think most users will compare Netscape 6 to previous Netscapes and find it vastly superior. 2. Those who compare it to IE 5+ will notice that it loads much slower. Other pros and cons will probably be a matter a personal taste. I found the imported IE favorites a convenience. 3. I don't think it integrates well with my other applications, such as Microsoft Outlook. Companies cannot easily dictate which browsers we use, but they can insist upon an email client. I couldn't find any obvious way to make Netscape stop insisting on my using it for email when I clicked on a "mail to" link on a web site.

By and large, I like it, although I continue to use both N. and IE on my Mac I am very favorably impressed by Netscape's expressed commitment to standards compliance.

The Mac IE browser is very good and will be hard to displace.

-sh

#210 between a rock and a hard place

by pzach <pzach@mac.com>

Sunday November 19th, 2000 9:55 AM

Reply to this message

I really can't say I like IE5 for Mac either though. It messed up viewing on a lot of web sites and crashed my whole computer on some JavaScripts which is disgusting. Netscape 4 is reliable, but sometimes it just doesn't want to load a page. I'm hoping Netscape 6 will be my answer. I have nothing decent to use. (iCab doesn't count either and I'm not paying for a browser)

#227 Re: between a rock and a hard place

by shigh <steve@iwatt.com>

Monday November 20th, 2000 11:34 AM

Reply to this message

I've had two freezes while running Netscape 6 and Internet Explorer 5 simultaneously. Once Netscape was active; once IE was active. I'm not exactly sure who's to blame.

I've had the same experience you mention--IE crashing on javascripts, (with both Macs and PCs),

Netscape at least has a facility for gathering information about the crash. Whether they do anything with it or not, I don't know, but it makes me feel better to fill out the form.

The bottom line, folks, is that Netscape/AOL MUST achieve at least some measure of competitveness. Otherwise we are going to be looking at the equivalent of a Soviet Browser out of the Pacific Northwest. Microsoft is a great company, and to stay that way, it needs competition.

IE is already so incredibly dominant that we could be wasting our breath. But I don't think so. Things change.

A lot depends upon whether emerging standards, esp. XML-related standards, really allow developers to build sites that are good enough to make people want to download a new more capable browser.

steve high

#181 Can't get Netscape or Mozilla to start

by slumbermonke

Friday November 17th, 2000 9:17 PM

Reply to this message

After uninstalling one of the milestones, I haven't been able to get any new installs of Netscape 6 or Mozilla to start on my WindowsME box. I deleted nsreg.dat or whatever it's called from c:\windows, but the thing refuses to even get to the splash screen (though it shows up in the the "Close Program" window.

Please help. I want to be part of the revolution, or at least test my stylesheets.

#183 Re: Can't get Netscape or Mozilla to start

by danielhill <danielhill@hotmail.com>

Saturday November 18th, 2000 5:36 AM

Reply to this message

If you listen to Mike_Cornall, he'll probably tell you it's some evil MS code put in WinME. But it's not. Really.

You need to find and remove all occurrances of your Mozilla profile. Depending on which milestone you used, it can either be in C:\Windows\Users\(username)\Mozilla or under your installation directory. Try a search for mozregistry.dat and blow that away.

Hope that helps. You'll find most stylesheets work fine under Gecko. Finally, the same SS can be used under IE and Netscape :)

#200 Thanks so much

by slumbermonke

Saturday November 18th, 2000 5:05 PM

Reply to this message

That'd worked perfectly.

Is this information in a FAQ somewhere? I couldn't find anything relevant on mozilla.org.

#182 What a fantastic place this has turned out to be .

by danielhill <danielhill@hotmail.com>

Saturday November 18th, 2000 5:32 AM

Reply to this message

We have 2 groups slinging FUD between each other. The "Net$cape is crap, slow and unusable" group (consisting mainly of bjensen), and the "Micro$oft are evil, if you disagree with me you're an MS employee and muat be hung tomorrow morning" group (Mike_Cornall mainly).

Neither of them have spoken a word of truth. bjensen's claims of Netscape being unusable are just bullshite. I'm using NS6 perfectly. A lot of cynical people at my workplace installed NS6 and were pleasently surprised. Maybe Mr Jensen's machine is faulty. Because it works for most other people.

And Mike_Cornall's drivel about Microsoft's secret conspiracy theory is quite simply a joke. HELLO, MCFly!! You know WHY MS is so dominant?? BECAUSE THERE IS SO MUCH SOFTWARE FOR WINDOWS!!! Obviously if MS was as evil as you say, there'd be no third party software. Third party software is one of Windows' advantage over rivals.

And most of the claims about secret API's have been proven to be bollocks in front of a Senate committee.

This bashing achieved diddly squat. Don't like Netscape/Mozilla? Help improve it. Love Mozilla? Don't make yourself look like a tool by spewing lies. Help make it better, and show other people. They may be surprised like my co-workers were.

#186 Re: What a fantastic place this has turned out to

by mnd999 <mark@markdnet.demon.co.uk>

Saturday November 18th, 2000 6:00 AM

Reply to this message

Firstly, I kinda agree. Netscape 6 is useable, but compared to Internet Explorer 5 and Netscape 4 its clunky and unresponsive. The UI is simply not slick enough to make it feel like a good product, no matter how good the rendering engine is. Also, some of the obvious bugs from NS6PR3 are still present. Try opening a link in a new window with the main window maximised under Windows to see what I mean ('default status text' anyone?). As for secret APIs, Windows NT does have a secret native API, which is well known (although not well documented). See the excellent book 'Undocumented Windows NT' for more information. I doubt that sny of it is used in internet explorer, though.

#187 Build 2000111704 Rocks

by TonyG <tony.gorman@blueyonder.co.Yuk>

Saturday November 18th, 2000 6:29 AM

Reply to this message

Sorry. just Downloaded the said build of Mozilla and I am mightily impressed with it.

Netscape reacted to intolerable market pressure to get NS6 out. The reality is that NS6.0 is getting zero press coverage from anyone - including Netscape. By the time 6.01 or whatever its called, comes out, it will be running something equal to or better to mozilla Build 2000111704. OOooooooohhhh!

#189 Here we go again...

by bjensen <rom@silverlink.net>

Saturday November 18th, 2000 12:26 PM

Reply to this message

JMarrannz:

Performance, appearance, *and* ease of use *are* the issues if you expect the GP to switch from IE and use it!!!!!

Danielhill:

I'm insulted! :) I've installed and used NS6 on three different platforms (all separate partitions on the same PC):

1. A ROMIIse modified Win98SE 2. Windows Hellenium, excuse me, Millenium. 3. Windows 2000 Pro SP1.

In short... it does not run well. In fact it doesn't run too well at all.

I'm not bashing here at all... I'm driving home some facts that a few don't seem to get and that is:

"Regardless of how standards compliant a particular web browser may be... it won't mean diddly to web developers unless a significant majority of the web are actually using that browser"

Does anyone *get it* yet???

-Bruce

PS. Does anyone know how to set up the mail so it leaves the messages on the server in NS6? I'm testing around with the mail but I don't want my final mail deleivered there. TIA

#190 Re: Here we go again...

by Ugg

Saturday November 18th, 2000 12:51 PM

Reply to this message

> "Regardless of how standards compliant > a particular web browser may be... it > won't mean diddly to web developers > unless a significant majority of the > web are actually using that browser"

We seem to have differing views on what a web developer cares about. Being one and knowing several personally, I like to think mine is far more accurate.

Modern standards compliance is the Holy Grail, Bruce. Can you say HOLY GRAIL? I knew that you could.

The people that make the web have been bitching about non-compliance for years.. this is virtually an entire era of human history in net-years. What have they been asking for all that time?

Compliance. Compliance. Compliance.

You think no one's going to care now that we have it? You think no one's going to use it if we say "your browser is broken, use this one or else"? Do you think that the entire web is created by soulless drones sucking at some company's teat?

WAKE UP.

> Does anyone *get it* yet???

Indeed.

#230 <sigh>

by soybomb

Monday November 20th, 2000 3:00 PM

Reply to this message

Betamax vs. VHS, folks.

Superior technology doesn't determine the winner.

And elitist, my-way-or-the-highway attitudes don't win you consumer support either.

What's the point of cross-platform support when a platform doesn't want to support you -- because you didn't give them the product they wanted, just the product you wanted?

Oh yeah, but you know better than they do. It's all in their best interest. They don't know what they're talking about.

Apparently the lesson hasn't been learned yet...

#193 Another Microsoft History Lesson

by Mike_Cornall

Saturday November 18th, 2000 12:59 PM

Reply to this message

danielhill wrote:

> And Mike_Cornall's drivel about Microsoft's secret conspiracy theory is quite simply a joke.

Don't be silly. There's no secret conspiracy. The conspiracy is right out in the open, where everyone, except fools and MS astroturfers, can see it.

But, I guess you need to see the evidence again . . .

1. MICROSOFT DOES USE HIDDEN CALLS

From Caldera/DR-DOS vs Microsoft: <http://www.drdos.com/fullstory/factstat.html>

Bill Gates (Sept. 22/98):

> "You never sent me a response on the question of what things an app would do that would make it run with MSDOS and not run with DR-DOS. Is there any version check or api that they fail to have? Is ther feature they have that might get in our way? I am not looking for something they cant get around. I am looking for something that their current binary fails on."

Phil Barrett (reply to Gates):

> "Here follow the three "differences" (between DR and MS DOS) that Aaron has been able to find so far. Except for these differences, the two OSs behave similarly, including undocumented calls."

2. MICROSOFT DOES USE SABOTAGE

From Sun/Java vs Microsoft: <http://java.sun.com/lawsuit/051498.unfair.html>

Microsoft J++ Pricing Proposal:

> The "strategic objective" is to "migrate and lock Java developers to Win32 Java," and to "kill cross-platform Java by grow[ing] the polluted Java market."

Memo re Java:

> "at this point its [sic] not good to create MORE noise around our win32 java classes. Instead we should just quietly grow j++ share and assume that people will take advantage of our classes without ever realizing they are building win32-only java apps."

3. MICROSOFT IS OUT TO ELIMINATE NETSCAPE

And I don't mean through honest competition.

From DOJ vs Microsoft: <http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm>

Microsoft officials did not believe that Internet Explorer could compete with Netscape on its own merit:

Memo from Bill Gates (May 1995):

> "First we need to offer a decent client," but "this alone won't get people to switch away from Netscape."

Brad Chase (Late 1995):

> "We will bind the shell to the Internet Explorer, so that running any other browser is a jolting experience."

James Allchin (December 1996):

> "I don't understand how IE is going to win. The current path is simply to copy everything that Netscape does packaging and product wise. Let's [suppose] IE is as good as Navigator/Communicator. Who wins? The one with 80% market share."

James Allchin (January 1997):

> "Pitting browser against browser is hard since Netscape has 80% marketshare and we have 20%. . . . I am convinced we have to use Windows - this is the one thing they don't have. . . . We have to be competitive with features, but we need something more - Windows integration."

> "If you agree that Windows is a huge asset, then it follows quickly that we are not investing sufficiently in finding ways to tie IE and Windows together. This must come from you. . . . [Windows 98] must be a simple upgrade, but most importantly it must be killer on OEM shipments so that Netscape never gets a chance on these systems."

Christian Wildfeuer (February 1997):

> "The stunning insight is this: To make [users] switch away from Netscape, we need to make them upgrade to [Windows 98]. . . . It seems clear to me that it will be very hard to increase browser market share on the merits of IE 4 alone. It will be more important to leverage the OS asset to make people use IE instead of Navigator."

But Microsoft was still afraid that tying IE to Windows would not be enough to pressure users into giving up Netscape. Thus, Microsoft also started putting pressure on OEMs, ISPs, Apple, and others, to tie their services to Internet Explorer:

Cameron Myhrvold (April 1997) told colleagues that he:

> "had a hard time guiding the ISPs to IE loyalty even when I make them sign explicit terms and conditions in a legal contract."

Executive memo to Bill Gates (October 1995):

> "Content drives browser adoption, and we need to go to the top five sites and ask them, 'What can we do to get you to adopt IE?' We should be prepared to write a check, buy sites, or add features - basically do whatever it takes to drive adoption."

Bill Gates (June 1996):

> "I have 2 key goals in investing in the Apple relationship - 1) Maintain our applications share on the platform and 2) See if we can get them to embrace Internet Explorer in some way."

Ben Waldman (June 1997):

> "The pace of our discussions with Apple as well as their recent unsatisfactory response have certainly frustrated a lot of people at Microsoft. The threat to cancel Mac Office 97 is certainly the strongest bargaining point we have, as doing so will do a great deal of harm to Apple immediately. I also believe that Apple is taking this threat pretty seriously . . . ."

Bill Gates (June 1997):

> "Apple let us down on the browser by making Netscape the standard install." Gates then reported that he had already called Apple's CEO (Gil Amelio) to ask "how we should announce the cancellation of Mac Office . . . ."

Ben Waldman (February 1998):

> "Though the language of the agreement uses the word 'encourage,' I think that the spirit is that Apple should be using [Internet Explorer] everywhere and if they don't do it, then we can use Office as a club."

The purpose of the OEM and other deals was to make it impossible for Netscape to fight back, by cutting off their revenue stream. Or, in the words of Microsoft's Paul Maritz (as testified by Intel VP Steven McGeady):

> "We are going to cut off [Netscape's] air supply. Everything they're selling, we're going to give away for free."

#194 RE: Ugg (Here we go again)

by bjensen <rom@silverlink.net>

Saturday November 18th, 2000 1:43 PM

Reply to this message

Ugg,

Let's take for a example a few sites out there in existence now:

1. ABCNews.com 2. ZDNet 3. CNet 4. SoftSeek 5. CombatSim.com 6. Yahoo! 7. Altavista

Just a small sample off of the top of my head to name a few.

I'm not a 'professional web developer' like everyone else here seems to be but I am aware of the headache in creating cross browser sites and have made quite a few of them myself.

Now... for the above sample list of sites that I mentioned. Do you honestly think that they are going to start developing their sites while strictly adhering to the W3C?

HELL NO!!! Not unless the *vast* majority of users out there are using such a capable browser. This is a fact... maybe hard for some to accept... but it is true.

To make matters worse, this recent release of NS6 has *turned off* a rather large segment of committed NS4.X users who's intention had been to migrate to the the new version of Netscape.

One does not have to be a genius to figure this out....

-Bruce

#196 Re: RE: Ugg (Here we go again)

by Mike_Cornall

Saturday November 18th, 2000 4:15 PM

Reply to this message

> Let's take for a example a few sites out there in existence now:

> 1. ABCNews.com 2. ZDNet 3. CNet 4. SoftSeek 5. CombatSim.com 6. Yahoo! 7. Altavista

Okay. I've just used Netscape 6.0 to visit ABCNews.com, ZDNet, CNet, Yahoo, and Altavista. Except for a minor page layout glitch on ZDNet, they all worked fine. That suggests to me that those sites support W3-standards-compliant browsers now. Why would we expect that to change?

> Do you honestly think that they are going to start developing their sites while strictly adhering to the W3C?

Yes, that's exactly what I think. As the number of browsing options increases (Mozilla, Konqueror, Opera, game platforms, cable boxes, PDAs, etc.), compliance with standards is the only way for web developers to ensure that they can reach all users. Businesses will think twice before choosing to tie themselves to IE, or any other proprietary niche.

> To make matters worse, this recent release of NS6 has *turned off* a rather large segment of committed NS4.X users

I doubt that. In my case, I liked 6.0 so much that I've already upgraded, and I've been using it for the last three days (on Linux). But even if some users are experiencing more problems than I am, the fact that they see it working well for some users should be enough to convince them that it's worth waiting for the 6.1 release.

So tell me, is it your purpose to convince users that they *should* be turned off?

#195 Hey, uhhh, Bruce?

by aegis <aegisk@iastate.edu>

Saturday November 18th, 2000 2:53 PM

Reply to this message

Go out and get a job or something. ;) Seriously, who are you to tell us what sucks? I\\\\\\\'ve been using Beonex for days and I absolutely love it (except for the random allocations of 100% of my RAM). You can have opinions, but please try to be less, ummm, childish about them.

<http://www.beonex.com/>

#197 Hey, Uhhhh... aegis

by bjensen <rom@silverlink.net>

Saturday November 18th, 2000 4:16 PM

Reply to this message

hehe!

Please understand one, no two, things:

The only thing I'm saying that sucks is this new release of NS6. Not just my *opinion*... but mosts. And I don't mean the few here... I mean all over the web. See for yourself.

That, though, is a moot point... what is done is done.

My main beef is contending with those few that somehow think NS6/MOZ is going to influence web developers for major sites to conform strictly with the W3C and enter into a utopia of pure standards compliance.

It won't happen unless the vast majority of users out there are using a strictly W3C compliant browser.

Sad but true... but most understand this no problemo except a small minority here. Sometimes I just have to wonder what their real agenda is, if they even have one other than to quibble with me. :)

-Bruce

#198 Re: RE: Ugg (Here we go again)

by bjensen <rom@silverlink.net>

Saturday November 18th, 2000 4:40 PM

Reply to this message

Hi Mike,

I'm not talking HTML4 and javascript for Christ's sake. I'm talking taking full advantage of W3C's implementation of CSS/DOM/etc...

That is not going to happen until the majority of browsers out there can speak the language... including IE!!!

I don't care about Konquerer, iCab, cable boxes, or PDA's... until IE gets on the ball in terms of W3C compliance the headache shall remain for large scale web developers and the sites they create.

Windows isn't going anywhere and will continue to be the dominant platform for a very long time to come. So long as IE is embedded in it... IE is the evil to be.

I understand, and fully respect, that you like NS6. But that is *not* the case with most. I'm sorry but it is just true.

And, no, it is not my purpose to tell people that they should be turned off to NS6. This keeps coming up and it's not really what I'm evenn talking about anymore.

Sure, I was shocked by the release. I found NS6 to by slow, buggy, lacking in features, yaddah, yaddah, yaddah... I knew it would be a bomb... but not that bad!

Anyways, I don't care to elaborate on what a joke I think NS6 is anymore. I've already said it thrice.

My argument is with those that think, because of NS6 or Moz, that developers now have a free pass to designing sites by strictly following the standards outlined by the W3C.

THAT IS WRONG!!

-Bruce

#199 Three Days and Counting

by Mike_Cornall

Saturday November 18th, 2000 4:47 PM

Reply to this message

I've been using Netscape 6.0 for three days now, and I haven't crashed it yet (on Linux). My son has managed to crash it once (also on Linux).

I've run into a few other annoyances:

- Windows take a couple of seconds to close (I expect it when opening windows, but not when closing them).

- The bookmarks editor needs some work. It's quite slow, and it screws up its display, forcing me to shrink and expand folders to fix it (fortunately, it has never screwed up the bookmarks file, just the display).

My son reports that Netscape 6.0 has more problems on Windows 95 than it does on Linux.

One problem reported by my son is that Netscape 6.0's UI is much slower on Windows 95 than on Linux.

Since most of the code is the same, can anyone explain why the Netscape 6.0 UI is slower on Windows 95 than on Linux (on the same machine)?

#201 Re: RE: Ugg (Here we go again)

by bjensen <rom@silverlink.net>

Saturday November 18th, 2000 5:28 PM

Reply to this message

Hi Mike,

(My apologies with my last relp... I replied to myself) hehe!

First, what we were talking about before:

I'm not talking HTML4 and javascript for Christ's sake. I'm talking taking full advantage of W3C's implementation of CSS/DOM/etc...

That is not going to happen until the majority of browsers out there can speak the language... including IE!!!

I don't care about Konquerer, iCab, cable boxes, or PDA's... until IE gets on the ball in terms of W3C compliance the headache shall remain for large scale web developers and the sites they create.

Windows isn't going anywhere and will continue to be the dominant platform for a very long time to come. So long as IE is embedded in it... IE is the evil to be.

I understand, and fully respect, that you like NS6. But that is *not* the case with most. I'm sorry but it is just true.

And, no, it is not my purpose to tell people that they should be turned off to NS6. This keeps coming up and it's not really what I'm even talking about anymore.

Sure, I was shocked by the release. I found NS6 to by slow, buggy, lacking in features, yaddah, yaddah, yaddah... I knew it would be a bomb... but not that bad!

Anyways, I don't care to elaborate on what a joke I think NS6 is anymore. I've already said it thrice.

My argument is with those that think, because of NS6 or Moz, that developers now have a free pass to designing sites by strictly following the standards outlined by the W3C.

THAT IS WRONG!!

-Bruce

Now, on to your last question:

The performance of NS6 under Windows is mainly due to the XUL (cross-platform) interface.

Your son won't notice little, if any, difference under the Linux OS since Linux apps notoriously have slow rendering UI's to begin with. So relatively speaking, he should see no difference under the Linux platform.

Windows, though, is a horse of another color. Many windows apps are *fast* and responsive in their UI's so NS6 (or even Mozilla for that matter) will appear slow relative to a native Win32 app.

That's about the best explanation I can come up for ya at the current time... I guess it's time I put RedHat 6.2 back on. :)

-Bruce

#203 Netscape 6.0 Performance on Linux and Windows

by Mike_Cornall

Saturday November 18th, 2000 7:40 PM

Reply to this message

>> One problem reported by my son is that Netscape 6.0's UI is much slower on Windows 95 than on Linux. Since most of the code is the same, can anyone explain why the Netscape 6.0 UI is slower on Windows 95 than on Linux (on the same machine)?

> The performance of NS6 under Windows is mainly due to the XUL (cross-platform) interface.

Sorry, but it's not XUL. The Linux version of Netscape 6.0 also uses XUL, and its UI speed is just fine. For example, pull-down menus appear immediately upon clicking.

> Your son won't notice little, if any, difference under the Linux OS since Linux apps notoriously have slow rendering UI's to begin with.

That's nonsense. I was dual-booting between Linux and Windows for a year before I finally replaced my last Windows app, and Linux's UI speed is just as fast as Windows.

> So relatively speaking, he should see no difference under the Linux platform.

> Windows, though, is a horse of another color. Many windows apps are *fast* and responsive in their UI's so NS6 (or even Mozilla for that matter) will appear slow relative to a native Win32 app.

I didn't say he found Netscape 6.0 to be slower than other Windows apps.

I said he found that Netscape 6.0 on Windows is slower than Netscape 6.0 on Linux.

And I was wondering why.

I'm assuming that there is some optimization that still needs to be done to the Windows version.

Unless, of course, you want to argue that there is something inherent in Windows that would make Netscape run slower on Windows than on Linux.

#235 Re: Netscape 6.0 Performance on Linux and Windows

by tny

Sunday November 26th, 2000 3:21 PM

Reply to this message

Probably the reason NS6 is running faster on Linux than on Windows on the same machine is because the Linux machine doesn't have to load a web browser (IE5.x) to run the window manager the way Windows does. Remember, whenever you run Windows 9x or 2000, you're running IE.

#237 Re: Netscape 6.0 Performance on Linux and Windows

by Mike_Cornall

Sunday November 26th, 2000 5:24 PM

Reply to this message

That's a good point. In fact, in order to give IE a speed advantage over Netscape, I'll bet MS even locks parts of IE into *real* memory, rather than virtual memory where it could get paged out to disk.

That would reduce the amount of memory available to Netscape 6.0, and we know that insufficient memory hurts Mozilla's performance, especially since they haven't finished optimizing its memory usage.

That brings up an interesting situation. In the past, when a Microsoft app ran faster than a competitor's app (e.g. Word vs WordPerfect), many suspected that Microsoft used their control of the OS to cheat. The most common method of cheating suggested was secret APIs, but here we see another method, by preloading the MS app into memory.

The problem for Microsoft is that now Linux provides the opportunity for side-by-side comparisons on the same hardware. So as more apps get ported to Linux, if they tend to run slower on Windows than on Linux, it will make Windows look bad, while blowing the lid off Microsoft's game.

#239 Re: Re: Netscape 6.0 Performance on Linux and Windows

by bjensen <rom@silverlink.net>

Sunday November 26th, 2000 8:49 PM

Reply to this message

Mike,

Would you just give it up with these paranoid delusions.

NS6 running like shit in Windows has *nothing* to do with Internet Explorer. And anyone else out there that thinks it does needs their head checked.

NS6 runs like shit because it is *shit*. It's buggy, unoptimized, feature broken code that is, to make things worse, wrapped in XUL.

Point of interest that you should know about: I installed NS6 on a ROMIIse partition... that's Windows98se with *no* IE & Co. anywhere. IE is *completely* gone.

<http://members.xoom.com/ROM_II/>

The point is that NS6 was just as slow, just as buggy, ad infinitum... whether I ran it from ROMIIse, Win98se, WinME, or Win2K... never tried it on NT4.

Cheers,

-Bruce

#204 That is *precisely* the problem...

by bjensen <rom@silverlink.net>

Saturday November 18th, 2000 7:59 PM

Reply to this message

Many Linux apps run under GTK or TCL/TK... both implementations of which are relatively slow.

The fact that your son notices NS6 running seemingly sluggish under Windows IS BECAUSE OF XUL!!!

Have your son run NS 4.08... or IE for that matter... and compare the difference.

Those UI's are *native* to the OS and perform well... NS6 can *NEVER* do the same regardless of how many developers attempt to optimize it.

You (or whoever) wanted an XP UI... now you got it... and unfortunatley many will pay the price for it.

Wish I had better new for ya, Mike. :(

#212 GTK slow ??? are you kidding ?

by RvR <mozillazine@mozillazine-fr.org>

Sunday November 19th, 2000 10:37 AM

Reply to this message

GTK is fast. i wonder why you say it\'s slow. did you run some tests ? have you used a few different GTK apps ?

#205 Just a side note...

by bjensen <rom@silverlink.net>

Saturday November 18th, 2000 8:39 PM

Reply to this message

Ya know... I've been spending the past three hours trying to find a decent review of NS6 and have come up completely empty handed.

All I have so far is a vast array of form posts from various parts of CyberSpace that say nothing but bad things about it.

Where the hell is the news? It's almost like NS6's release is a non-event. Those few articles I did manage to finally come across had nothing very nice to say about NS6 either.

Folks, in my most humble opinion... I would take this as a *serious* hint!

I'm not done looking though... something is bound to come up! hehe!

-Bruce

#208 Re: Just a side note...

by newmana

Sunday November 19th, 2000 5:27 AM

Reply to this message

#206 Re: That is *precisely* the problem...

by Mike_Cornall

Saturday November 18th, 2000 11:40 PM

Reply to this message

> The fact that your son notices NS6 running seemingly sluggish under Windows IS BECAUSE OF XUL!!!

WRONG!!!

> Have your son run NS 4.08... or IE for that matter... and compare the difference.

Let me try to make this simple enough that even you can understand.

I used Windows (3.1, 95, and NT) for years.

I have run NS 4.0x (and Word, and other native apps) on Windows 95, on my current machine.

Then I ran NS 4.5, on my current machine, on both Windows 95 and Linux. The UI performance was nearly identical (if you don't count when Windows pauses due to poor multitasking).

Now I'm running Netscape 6.0 on Linux, on my current machine. The UI performance is basically the same.

Therefore, Netscape 6.0, using XUL, on Linux, has basically the same UI performance as a native app on Windows.

Therefore, XUL is not a problem.

So you can pretend to misunderstand the logic, and continue to spread FUD all you want, but if Netscape 6.0 is slower on Windows, it's not because of XUL.

Assuming Microsoft hasn't done something stupid, it should be possible for Netscape 6.0 to perform just as well on Windows as it does on Linux.

#207 XUL is *precisely* the problem

by bjensen <rom@silverlink.net>

Sunday November 19th, 2000 1:31 AM

Reply to this message

> The fact that your son notices NS6 running seemingly sluggish under Windows IS BECAUSE OF XUL!!!

****THAT IS 100% CORRECT****

Mike... Mike... Mike... the sluggish nature of NS6 in Win32 is due to the infamous cross-platform (XP) user-interface... known to those few as XUL!

I could care less about how NS6 performs on Linux... an OS who's UI scheme is cheesy at best.

We are talking *Windows* here...

Now you can believe that the earth is flat all you want... but it has *no* bearing on the fact that it is round!

The only logic here that is misplaced is your own, I'm afraid. I don't pretend to misunderstand any logic... I understand it perfectly and have given you the answer. One that you simply choose not to accept.

The answer is not FUD... but fact.

NS6 will *never* perform as well as other native Win32 apps... period. The End!!!

Sooner or later you will come to accept that... unfortunately, maybe not until NS 6.73/7.0 is released. :)

-Bruce

#213 Listen up, troll...

by Ugg

Sunday November 19th, 2000 10:38 AM

Reply to this message

Did you even READ the post?

He showed, with simple logic that even a fucking semiliterate labmonkey like yourself should be able to understand, that XUL was *not* the problem, and that Windows, or something exclusive to the Windows version of Mozilla, was responsible for the slowdown.

You've had enough crack for today, Bobo. Stop pressing the button. Seriously.

#209 Re: Just a side note...

by bjensen <rom@silverlink.net>

Sunday November 19th, 2000 5:49 AM

Reply to this message

hehe!

Are you sure that IE 5.5 doesn't actually have 218 bugs? :)

BTW... Does anyone know how to view what plug-ins are currently installed in NS6?

I ran NS6 throught the 'BrowserTune' at WinMag and I have to say that I was rather impressed.

There were a few tests, though, (multimedia related) that required having one or more plug-ins installed.

I ended up copying *most* of the ones from Opera 4.02 into the NS6 plug-ins folder but I haven't figured out how to see via NS6 which ones are registered properly.

Any ideas?

TIA

-Bruce

#219 Re: Re: Just a side note...

by jaw79 <jaw79@columbia.edu>

Sunday November 19th, 2000 7:17 PM

Reply to this message

about:plugins

other cool feature:

about:cache

#211 Netscape 6 Speed on Windows

by mnd999 <mark@markdnet.demon.co.uk>

Sunday November 19th, 2000 10:08 AM

Reply to this message

A lot of people seem to think NS6 is chuggy on Windows, and I agree with them. However saying that its chuggy is not really helpfuly. What is required if for people to tie down why and, more importantly, where its chuggy.

It seems to me (Windows 2000, Geforce DDR) that the browser is okay, but mail and news is nasty, not to the point of being unusable, but to the point that I'd rather use Outlook Excess.

Basically, the problem is snapyness. Everthing works, but some work needs to be done on making stuff respond to the user quicker. It son't matter if communicating with the IMAP server is chuggy, IMAP servers don't notice these things, but users do.

Mark

#214 Mozilla speed on Mac: pretty good

by RvR <mozillazine@mozillazine-fr.org>

Sunday November 19th, 2000 10:47 AM

Reply to this message

i'm using build 2000-11-16-08 on Mac OS 9 (450 Mhz G4) and it's pretty close to Nav 4.x speed. i'm really impressed, as it's a lot faster than what i'm accustomed to on Linux... and it has no refresh/redraw problem. XUL is fast. opening windows is fast. really, it works better than on Linux. i'm surprised... and a bit disappointed by the Linux version, now :\

#215 Would you clowns give me a break...

by bjensen <rom@silverlink.net>

Sunday November 19th, 2000 10:58 AM

Reply to this message

I said what I said and I meant it...

Ugg... whatever the hell your name is...

Face the facts... what I said is absolutely true.

Bitch, whine, moan, and otherwise cry all you want...

NS6 performs sluggishly under Win32 because of it's XP UI ala XUL. Period. This is the cost of XP.... run everywhere... but do it relativley slow.

If you don't *get* that then don't bother wasting my time with your childish remarks.

And to the other poster regarding GTK... I'm a windows man... linux appeals to me as a GUI platform about as much as Windows 3.0 running in 4 bit color!

You want to get into insults, etc... then fine but your lack of common sense is nothing less than utterly amusing.

Now... let's be civil for a moment here.... does anyone know (even you) how I can see what plug-ins are registered in NS6?

I've been using the damn thing all night now to give it at least half a chance despite my initial impressions.

I ran it through BrowserTune over at WinMag and was rather impressed with the results. The problem is that NS6 didn't fare so well in the multimedia area, i.e., embedded audio, avi's, mpeg's, etc...

I've been trying to find the proper a/v plug-ins for NS6 and so far I haven't had much luck.

Anybody have any suggestions regarding that?

Thanks in advance for any tips (except any smart ass ones that may come my way)

-Bruce

#218 Re: Would you clowns give me a break...

by mitabrev

Sunday November 19th, 2000 4:01 PM

Reply to this message

You could try

about:plugins

which has worked for me under windows.

#216 re: Netscape 6.0 Performance on Linux and Windows

by pixelfreak <pixel@pixelfreak.net>

Sunday November 19th, 2000 2:36 PM

Reply to this message

bruce, i think you have totaly missed mike's question.

the windows and linux version of netscape 6 *both* use XUL to generate it's user interface. this means that each platform should see an equal performance hit vs the previous native UI in netscape 4.x for that platform. mike is asking why this performance hit seems to be more dramatic in windows than linux. perhaps this is a video card driver issue, or that some of gecko/xul code optimizes better using the current linux build environment?

on a totaly diffrent topic, yes, xul does come at a cost, but i feel the advantages overshadow the additional rendering time.

internet explorer for windows is based on a completely diffrent code base that ie for each platform. this means that, as a web developer, i have to not only detect which browser and version my page is being displayed on, but what operating system as well. in fact, the mac and windows version differ so much in features, bugs and standards support - you might as well think of them as diffrent browsers all together.

example: try opening a new window of 788x459 using javascript on ie versions 4-5.5 on the mac and pc. the windows version will open to exactly that size, but each mac version [4, 5 and 5.5] will return a *diffrent sized window*. there are other issues, such as plugin detection, standards support and propriatary vb script functionality that require diffrent code and html tags for each platform...even when displayd with the same version [5.0 mac vs 5.0 win, etc] of internet explorer! and let's not forget, ie doesn't even exist for linux. again, this is because the code base of ie on each platform is completely diffrent.

technologies such as XPCOM and XUL were designed to make mozilla as platform independent as possible. this means that the browser functions almost identicaly between each platform and is also easier to port. what does this mean to you? a better user experience since web developers don't have to create spagetti code [or even worse, to stick to the 'lowest common denominator'] when developing contet. these are 'ground breaking' technologies. netscape started from scratch. comparing netscape 6 [which is really mozilla 0.9] to internet explorer 5.5 is like comparing windows 3.0 to windows 2000, except ns6 is just a 'bit more sluggish' than ie in comparison. gee, that's quite an accomplishment in my book. if a almost pre-relase version of a browser compairs that well to a 5th generation browser that only has to run on one platform, and has microsoft's vast engineering and financial resources, imagine what version 6.5 will be like?

#221 Re: hang on a second

by socbyset <socbyset@hotmail.com>

Sunday November 19th, 2000 11:52 PM

Reply to this message

I think that xul has less to do with the issues you bring up than you're making it out to. As far as standards support, and other such features that are important to web developers, I think that xul is irrelevant. They could have used Gecko as a platform independent rendering engine but wrapped native front ends around it for each platform. I think that the fact that IE is so different on Mac and PC is more of a political issue at MS than a technical issue; for some reason they were willing to let their Mac IE team create a browser that was more standards based and didn't support some of the proprietary stuff in PC IE.

Just look at NS 4, not a great browser, of course, but it has a high level of consistency across platforms, and also native front ends for each platform.

Anyway I don't see NS 6 as so much of a quantum leap forward. XUL itself seems less like it is such a boon to end users and web developers than a way for Netscape to save money porting to new platforms. Standards compliance and standardization across platforms is welcome, of course, but this is possible by simply using Gecko for rendering, and without the huge performance and footprint hit that you get with XUL.

Besides, what you're saying seems to be that the value of Mozilla is that it has the exact same code running on all the platforms. Since when is that such a huge benefit? I thought the whole point of open standards was that you could write to them, and they would work with any standards compliant browser.

#225 Re: hang on a second

by socbyset <socbyset@hotmail.com>

Monday November 20th, 2000 8:37 AM

Reply to this message

I think that xul has less to do with the issues you bring up than you're making it out to. As far as standards support, and other such features that are important to web developers, I think that xul is irrelevant. They could have used Gecko as a platform independent rendering engine but wrapped native front ends around it for each platform. I think that the fact that IE is so different on Mac and PC is more of a political issue at MS than a technical issue; for some reason they were willing to let their Mac IE team create a browser that was more standards based and didn't support some of the proprietary stuff in PC IE.

Just look at NS 4, not a great browser, of course, but it has a high level of consistency across platforms, and also native front ends for each platform.

Anyway I don't see NS 6 as so much of a quantum leap forward. XUL itself seems less like it is such a boon to end users and web developers than a way for Netscape to save money porting to new platforms. Standards compliance and standardization across platforms is welcome, of course, but this is possible by simply using Gecko for rendering, and without the huge performance and footprint hit that you get with XUL.

Besides, what you're saying seems to be that the value of Mozilla is that it has the exact same code running on all the platforms. Since when is that such a huge benefit? I thought the whole point of open standards was that you could write to them, and they would work with any standards compliant browser.

#217 Fair enough....

by bjensen <rom@silverlink.net>

Sunday November 19th, 2000 2:54 PM

Reply to this message

Can you provide a clue/insight as to what audio/video plug-ins I should use with Netscape 6?

I'm already done (and burned out) talking about XUL, UI Performance, etc... to the point that I have a big headache! hehe! :)

Right now I'm just trying to figure what sort of A/V plug-in setup I should be using with NS 6.

Going through the 'BrowserTune' tests at winmag.com I can't get a lot of the embedded video tests to work... most notably the AVI and MPEG.

I ran it through the mill with IE 5.5 and all went well...

Any suggestions? I've installed QuickTime 4 and RealPlayer 8 but things aren't quite working in the 'multimedia' area.

When I get to the MPEG test... NS pops up suggesting some plug-ins... the main one being QuickTime!!! Arghhh!!!!

Oh well... back to the drawing board! :)

-Bruce

#220 For the record: bjensen != JasonCEager

by Byter <jason.eager@trimble.co.nz>

Sunday November 19th, 2000 10:07 PM

Reply to this message

Some people were thinking otherwise.

#222 Re: hang on a second

by bjensen <rom@silverlink.net>

Monday November 20th, 2000 12:22 AM

Reply to this message

Well, I always have and always will maintain my position as far as NS6, Moz, and XUL is concerned.

I momentarily 'ceast & desisted' from the whole thing because I was getting a headache repeating myself.

That's neither here nor there, however. I just recently uninstalled NS6 and am pretty much done with both it and, more than likely, Mozilla for a wide variety of reasons. Reasons that are important to me at least.

I wish all the future NS6/Moz users out there the best of luck in their endeavor for the ultimate web browsing client.

Until something more attractive comes along I guess the ol' Bruceter will be sticking with IE 5.5 SP1... ad infinitum....

Cheers,

-Bruce

#224 Excuse me?

by bjensen <rom@silverlink.net>

Monday November 20th, 2000 1:46 AM

Reply to this message

Niner... I don't own a Mac... nor do I use a Mac. In fact, I wouldn't touch a Mac with a ten foot pole. At work Macs are a voodoo... if ya even mention to the boss that ya like a Mac... he'll say... you're fired! :)

I think you may have me confused with someone else.

-Bruce

#228 Re: Excuse me?

by niner

Monday November 20th, 2000 1:28 PM

Reply to this message

sorry....just sounded like you'd do... I just read stuff like "forgen linux users" "win and _mac_ counts" this often I assumed the wrong...

Win is most important, but I think no one has the right to refuse all the others a good browser couse he doesn't like the progress of the project.

And no one here needs just flames about NS or Moz. maybe the wall is more interestet in these...

#229 re: Hang on a second

by bjensen <rom@silverlink.net>

Monday November 20th, 2000 1:31 PM

Reply to this message

Repeat in oder here...

Well, I always have and always will maintain my position as far as NS6, Moz, and XUL is concerned and the impact an XP UI will have on performance. I momentarily 'ceast & desisted' from the whole thing because I was getting a headache repeating myself. Sure, I could argue this point in a lot of other forums where people simply agree with me but what's the point in that? I like to take the argument home and hear the *best* of what others have to say.

That's neither here nor there, however. I just recently uninstalled NS6 and am pretty much done with both it and, more than likely, Mozilla for a wide variety of reasons. Reasons that are important to me at least. I'll elaborate a bit more on it... the multimedia support, in addition to a variety of other issues, absolutely stinks!

I wish all the future NS6/Moz users out there the best of luck in their endeavor for the ultimate web browsing client.

Until something more attractive comes along I guess the ol' Bruceter will be sticking with IE 5.5 SP1... ad infinitum....

Cheers (again),

-Bruce

#231 Thanks Netscape!

by rgw

Wednesday November 22nd, 2000 11:01 AM

Reply to this message

I'd like to thank the Netscape Corporation.

I never thought I'd see anything as buggy as NS4 on Linux, but they've achieved it!

It's certainly progress though; instead of killing one process when it goes mad, now I have to kill five. Thanks. No, seriously, thanks.

#233 NS6/Linux aint's so bad after all

by maynard <maynard@jmg.com>

Wednesday November 22nd, 2000 8:32 PM

Reply to this message

OK, so I've used M18 and several previous Mozilla versions, which were good but not quite ready. Lately I've been running NS6/Linux as my primary browser and I have to admit that I like it well enough. It's slow as hell on my Dual PPRO-200 box, in comparison to NS-4.76, and the bookmark editor is a terrible mess, but it displays web pages beautifully. It's readability over NS-4.76 is *dramatic*. So, all in all, I'd say that I have mixed feelings... bit too slow, a few obnoxious bugs, but definately worth dealing with the warts for the readability improvements.

JMHO, --Maynard

#234 Warning: Major Bug -- Showstopper for Some

by Mike_Cornall

Wednesday November 22nd, 2000 11:05 PM

Reply to this message

I've run into a bug that everyone should know about, and that will force some people to wait for the next point release before upgrading.

Netscape 6.0 has a problem with the bookmarks, in that it loses the information in the bookmark description field when you stop and restart the program. The other bookmark fields (name, url, keywords) are fine.

For people who don't currently use the bookmark description field in Netscape 4.7x, this is not serious (as long as you're aware of it), but for people who have entered information in the description field, this is a showstopper.

I can't say if this happens for every user on every platform.

Apparently this was a Mozilla bug that they didn't think affected the Netscape development stream, but it does.

I have exchanged emails with the Mozilla developers, who expressed their concern, and assured me that a fix will be in the next release.

Update on the rest:

I've been using Netscape 6.0 on Linux for seven days now.

I've had one lock-up (not a crash, but just as bad) that forced me to switch consoles in order to kill the process. The good news is that it occurred under somewhat unusual conditions (a non-responding webpage timed out while I was in the middle of a bookmark drag-n-drop operation).

Netscape 6.0 still uses a lot of memory, so I still can't recommend it for users with less than 64 MB. The memory also grows over time, so the browser should be stopped and restarted at least once per day. I'm sure future releases will fix the memory growth, and hopefully also reduce the overall requirements.

I thought I would be ignoring the sidebar tools, but I've found that I really like them. The bookmarks sidebar, especially, tends to save me a lot of time. I've already started thinking of new sidebar tools I want.

Overall, except for that one major bug, I'm still satisfied, and I'm still using Netscape 6.0 as my main browser.