MozillaZine

Netscape Releases 6.1

Wednesday August 8th, 2001

Netscape today released Netscape 6.1, which comes off the 0.9.2 branch. Visit the download page at Netscape for the build. Mozilla builds matching 6.1 are available in the July 27 0.9.2 nightly directories.


#1 Finally.... some action...

by elexander <christian@datordesign.com>

Wednesday August 8th, 2001 11:56 AM

Reply to this message

Is it any different compared to the release some of us got yesterday from Netscapes FTP?

#2 toy factory

by ratman

Wednesday August 8th, 2001 11:59 AM

Reply to this message

in case you haven't noticed, netscape's released a new theme for 6.1 as well.

take a peek. it's, um, bright.

#8 Re: toy factory

by macpeep

Wednesday August 8th, 2001 2:37 PM

Reply to this message

Umm, what theme would that be? The new Modern that has been in Mozilla for several weeks now? Or some new theme on theme park? Please elaborate..

#10 It's a new theme.

by mbrubeck

Wednesday August 8th, 2001 2:44 PM

Reply to this message

"Toy Story" theme at the theme park: <http://home.netscape.com/themes/6_1/index.html>

#16 Toy Factory

by bandido

Wednesday August 8th, 2001 3:52 PM

Reply to this message

In my opinion Toy Factory theme is VERY cool. I am sure a lot of "kids" will use mozilla/netscape just because of the the themes. Have you seen some of the Media Player/winamp themes. i might not like them, but younger generations love them.

What problems are you having with your scrollbars? They work perfect in my case (using TNT2 video card. Sky pilot looks ok, to put it mildly, more amateurish (like the old Koffice buttons)

#15 Fruitier than WinXP

by BryanH <BryanZx@excite.com>

Wednesday August 8th, 2001 3:42 PM

Reply to this message

Netscape has created a theme that puts Microsoft to shame in the "flashy graphics for a web browser department." Now if the scrollbar would work on the Nightlies... Toy Box theme's scrollbar is royally screwed on 2001 08 07 03. Otherwise, pretty nice theme. Nothing beats SkyPilot though.

#19 Foobar Title (please fix mozillazine!)

by Sparkster

Wednesday August 8th, 2001 5:07 PM

Reply to this message

Too bad that SkyPilot doesn't work very well with Netscape 6.1. :) However, the modern theme has also evolved very nicely. I start to like it. :)

#30 Re: Foobar Title (please fix mozillazine!)

by gssq <gabrielseah@hotmail.com>

Wednesday August 8th, 2001 7:54 PM

Reply to this message

An updated version is available off x.themes.org

#22 Re: toy factory

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

Wednesday August 8th, 2001 6:32 PM

Reply to this message

That theme is so nice its mesmerising. I spent the last hour just flicking through all the different menus, apps etc, just to see the icons etc. Haven't done that with software in years.

My wife is now using Netscape 6 instead of IE cos she thinks its sweet.

Win the war anyway you can, thats what I say :-)

#111 Ye gods! (was Re: toy factory)

by calroth

Friday August 10th, 2001 9:09 PM

Reply to this message

You can grab Toy Factory from the Theme Park... and I strongly suggest that you do so. Not because it's a nice subtle theme (it's not, and I think I'm getting a headache already) but because it's a very nice example of what's possible with Mozilla. And it's like a shot of guarana to the brain.

Bring sunglasses, too.

#3 My Netscape Feature - Netscape 6.1 Only?

by zevious

Wednesday August 8th, 2001 12:19 PM

Reply to this message

I jsut noticed something new (at least to Netscape/Mozilla), when you go to My Netscape, you can drag and drop the various boxes to new locations. I checked today's Mozilla build and it doesn't have that option. Someone in the past mentioned that it works with IE this way? I wonder if this is Netscape specific since Mozilla isn't working that way?

#24 Re: My Netscape Feature - Netscape 6.1 Only?

by cyfaone

Wednesday August 8th, 2001 7:12 PM

Reply to this message

I think netscape needs more cool functions like that. If you go to microsoft.com with IE, you get cool functionality on there webpage that only works with IE. With netscape.com, nada. Netscape needs to exploit the cool tricks that only the Netscape brower can do. Many web site visitors dont care about standards, they care about having a fun experience at a web site. Seeing cool things happen with there browser will attract them to netscape.

#27 Let's show off the standards, instead.

by sacolcor

Wednesday August 8th, 2001 7:50 PM

Reply to this message

I think what we need is a place to show off all the things that can be done while adhering to the W3C standards, since that's really Mozilla's primary message. A high-profile site that's really good looking and fully standards compliant would do a lot to nudge people in that direction...especially if the content and code was all free for the taking. Perhaps some of the folks at webstandards.org could be persuaded to lend a hand, too.

#33 Agreed.

by garfieldbond

Wednesday August 8th, 2001 8:44 PM

Reply to this message

Netscape does need to show "standards can do this, and it works on any standards-compliant browser! Now get working!" :)

#26 Re: My Netscape Feature - Netscape 6.1 Only?

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Wednesday August 8th, 2001 7:39 PM

Reply to this message

I spoke with one of the Netscape tech evangelism team who helped make that drag and drop work. He said it's just a bad browser sniffer redirecting only Netscape 6.1 to the new page and that he'll talk to the site developers about fixing it so that it will work with Mozilla.

--Asa

#4 Great!

by ERICmurphy <murphye@gmail.com>

Wednesday August 8th, 2001 1:51 PM

Reply to this message

This is the one that should have been 6.0. Very nice, and very Mozilla-like.

Oh well, life goes on...

#5 to early, again

by jilles

Wednesday August 8th, 2001 1:52 PM

Reply to this message

Mozilla has improved since 0.6, it is now 0.9.3. A very nice version but also a version with known issues and not considered worthy of 1.0 release by its own developers. The version netscape has used for their browser is much older and has even more well known issues (many of which have been fixed in recent mozilla bugs).

I thought 6.0 was a big mistake (and I wasn't alone). 6.1 seems to be repeating the mistake. Lots of users (less than for 6.0 though) will download and try it and come to the conclusion they are using an unpolished beta rather than a well tested 1.0.

I am very sorry for all the mozilla developers who are working hard to make mozilla a cool browser. It must be tough working for a boss who keeps giving you bad publicity by throwing the unfinished results of your hard work in front of unsuspecting users.

Just out of curiousity, do any of you mozilla developers agree with AOL/Netscape's release schedules?

I am a rather cynical guy so I have to wonder if AOL is going to use the predictably bad publicity that is going to follow this release as an excuse to layof some Netscape staff.

#11 Re: to early, again

by sab39

Wednesday August 8th, 2001 3:05 PM

Reply to this message

Yes, I agree with Netscape's release schedule in this case, although I didn't agree with 6.0. I get the impression from newsgroups that this is far from a minority position, although I can't be sure because needless to say, many newsgroup posters are Netscape employees (although many Netscape employees freely admit to disagreeing with the 6.0 release too).

Considering that 6.0 is such a piece of crap, I've considered a 6.1 or 6.something release a high priority to show people that mozilla *isn't* a piece of crap, and that 6.0 was just immature.

0.9.2 and .3 are, IMO, worthy competitors in the "browser war" and the only reason they don't merit a 1.0 label is because people have set *extremely* high goals for 1.0 (100% standards compliance, performance close to NS4/IE on all operations, almost-feature-parity with NS4, almost-zero known crash/hang/dataloss bugs, etc). Netscape 4.7 didn't even come close to Mozilla's 1.0 criteria. Heck, IE5.5 doesn't meet them!

So there's nothing wrong with releasing a pre-1.0 build as 6.1, or 6.2 or 3 for that matter, if Mozilla is still not quite at that near-perfect state it needs to be for 1.0.

If they *didn't* release 6.1 now, people would think for another year or more that Netscape 6, and by implication Mozilla, must suck. With the 6.1 release Netscape have shown that Mozilla is capable of producing a solid and powerful application. Even if it's not perfect, it's finally *good*. It's finally *worth recommending* to friends. It's finally something not to be ashamed of being associated with.

So yes, I'm very grateful to Netscape for making me able to be *proud* of my association with their browser, instead of having to disclaim everything I do with "yes, it used to suck but it's got much better since 6.0".

#12 Re: Re: to early, again

by garfieldbond

Wednesday August 8th, 2001 3:22 PM

Reply to this message

0.9.2 is a fine product to use as a competitor in this market. Netscape's goal for 6.00 was marketing based, this time it's cleaning up the mess and making it usable. Netscape needed to release a browser BEFORE IE6/XP came out. This is a release that is much better than 6.0x by comparison (at least Netscape can say "progress"), and although memory/performance is still a bit of an issue, it is bearable for the majority of the market. There aren't many glaring issues (can't remember maximized state long gone!). It is good enough to put in an end-user's hands and say "This is better. Try it, you might like it. It only gets better from here on."

#139 Re: Re: Re: to early, again

by Kovu <Kovu401@netscape.net>

Monday August 13th, 2001 1:54 AM

Reply to this message

"This is better. Try it, you might like it. It only gets better from here on."

Well said. Now that we've got a good solid product behind us, it gets harder for people to sneer at Mozilla. I can hardly wait for 1.0 and the Netscape version released from it (6.5? That'd be my guess).

JR

#137 Re: Re: to early, again

by Kovu <Kovu401@netscape.net>

Monday August 13th, 2001 1:49 AM

Reply to this message

"It's finally something not to be ashamed of being associated with." I must say you've hit the nail on the head. I don't really disagree with 6.0 though. It was actually in line with 4.0; 4.0 was awful. It wasn't until 4.08 that Netscape was happy with that branch. When a new version of Windows comes out, do people upgrade right away? No, they wait until the first service pack. I think Netscape put out 6 first as a marketing tool (it'd been like 2-3 years since 4.5?), but also to prepare Web designers for 6.1. And notice that AOL didn't push 6.0x EVER. They just put it out. As soon as 6.1 came out, advertising went up across all AOL software and online properties - including AOL.com, ICQ, and even at CNET.

I also wanted to note that this could have been 6.5, I think some Moz bugs showed 6.5 for awhile. 6.5 has got to be GOOD. .5 releases are the very finely-tuned releases of a given code base, at least that's what Communicator was to Nav 4.08. Anyway, it's better that 6.5 be released alongside 1.0, which is what it seems they're doing.

6.1 was a much better moniker: it admitted to people that Netscape was not happy with 6.01 as the termination of the pre .5 releases. They've got some time now that their .1 releases ahead of IE, so they can chill for awhile. They'll still be way ahead of IE with a .5 release, I'm sure.

JR

#138 Re: Re: Re: to early, again

by Kovu <Kovu401@netscape.net>

Monday August 13th, 2001 1:52 AM

Reply to this message

Argh:

"They've got some time now that their .1 releases ahead of IE,"

Should be "they're". Sorry, I'm an editor, so I've got a rep to watch out for. ;)

#13 Re: to early, again

by Sparkster

Wednesday August 8th, 2001 3:28 PM

Reply to this message

You are wrong. Did you try Netscape 6.1 yet? Most people that try it actually like it! In the last coupt of weeks I noticed the same for Mozilla. In the past, if there was a new Mozilla release, the servers were floodet with "well, this sucks!" postings. But lately the common voice was "well done, I like it!". Sure, there will be some people that still don't like it of course or which stumble across nasty bugs... but I don't think it will give negative reputation (this word sounds good, I don't know it's translation ;)). Most people will find, that Netscape has increased A LOT since 6.0 and that's quite impressive for a minor version jump. :) I'm sure most people will be much more interested in Mozilla from now on.

#41 Re: Re: to early, again

by jilles

Thursday August 9th, 2001 12:32 AM

Reply to this message

I tried 0.9.2 (= netscape 6.1) and I recognize an unfinished product when I see one. Most people that try it these days desperately want to like it, no matter what its qualities. To convince the other 85% of the browser market you need something excellent, not a prerelease mozzilla with known issues.

#128 Mozilla 0.9.2 != Netscape 6.1

by basic <_basic@yahoo.com>

Sunday August 12th, 2001 7:49 AM

Reply to this message

try it first!

#31 Re: to early, again

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Wednesday August 8th, 2001 8:01 PM

Reply to this message

Netscape 6.1 is Good Enough. It's got a few bugs and some features aren't quite properly finished yet but it's a fine browser all the same.

Even if it's not quite there, it's still infinitly better than 6.0/6.01. Netscape needed to release an improved version of Netscape 6 and they needed to do it before IE6 is launched (next Wednesday, I believe). This browser admirably fills the role.

The feedback I've seen has been pretty good. Comments along the line of "This is the browser 6.0 should have been." Anyway, 0.9.2.1 is pretty close to 1.0 and I'm sure we'll see further releases in the future.

Alex

#61 Netscape is not Mozilla.

by JBassford <jasonb@dante.com>

Thursday August 9th, 2001 10:03 AM

Reply to this message

I keep reading about Netscape making Mozilla "look bad". How is this possible? People who know what's going on know that Mozilla is still beta and has nothing to do with Netscape "final" releases. People who DON'T know the difference have never even heard of Mozilla anyway.

Netscape makes Netscape look bad - not Mozilla.

Jason.

#6 6.1 is fairly solid

by jeffrs

Wednesday August 8th, 2001 2:25 PM

Reply to this message

I find 6.1 to be very usable, i am also pondering recommending it to my friends, something that would have been unthinkable with 6... while it still has some issues I think it will provide a positive experience. On a side note, will Mozilla 1.0 become Netscape 6.5?

#7 It was looking good until...

by stu42j

Wednesday August 8th, 2001 2:33 PM

Reply to this message

Javascript is by default ENABLED for Mail and News! This is not good.

#9 Not good but...

by hodeleri <drbrain@segment7.net>

Wednesday August 8th, 2001 2:38 PM

Reply to this message

Security holes should be rapidly plugged on the Mozilla end. Provided they don't gain access to XPCOM Netscape should be fairly virus-resistant

#14 6.1 download problems

by pbreit

Wednesday August 8th, 2001 3:31 PM

Reply to this message

for whatever reason, i can't access netscape's FTP server. are there other FTP or, better, HTTP locations from which to download?

#149 Re: 6.1 download problems

by Zpottr

Tuesday August 14th, 2001 6:48 AM

Reply to this message

Yeah, the rogue server check thingie? Just replacing ftp:// with http:// did the trick for me...

#17 C-Net review

by thelem

Wednesday August 8th, 2001 4:23 PM

Reply to this message

software.cnet.com has given Netscape 6.1 7/10 <http://home.cnet.com/soft…-3227883-8-6804817-1.html>

They have also done some benchmarking, and on windows 98, IE has about twice the speed of Netscape 6.1, however, on Windows 2000 their speed is very similar with Netscape 6.1 slightly ahead. <http://home.cnet.com/soft…1.dir.3227883-8-6804817-4>

#18 Re: C-Net review

by Sparkster

Wednesday August 8th, 2001 5:03 PM

Reply to this message

Looks like a quite poor review. They seem to say that Netscape is almost as good as IE now. And the bad side? No revolutionary new features! lol WTF... I thought creating a browser that can even compete with the biggest, most expensive and most important app by the biggest, most expensive and most important software community in the world would be quite impressive. And all the review says is "well, it's great, but no real reason to switch". My god. :) I would say well done Netscape. And who cares for market share? As long as Netscape isn't handicapped by IE's marketshare (I have the feeling that Mozilla is strongly decreasing those "optimized for IE" web bullshit) everything is fine. I really don't care if the browser I use has 20 or 80 percent marketshare. I just care for it's quality and that I can use it. I can't use IE cause it's much too expensive for me (check the prices for Windows if you don't believe me) and it takes a hell of a lot of RAM with all the crappy OS it loads at start time. It also is pretty damn inconsistent to my usual desktop and it only runs in a VMWARE windows, which is also quite expensive. After all, it would take about 500$ to run IE. That's a good reason to try Netscape. ;) KHTML is also evolving pretty damn fast, I don't know any (halfway competent) website that KHTML is not able to render perfectly. Things are looking bad for Microsoft this day. Free software has catched up. :) Thanks to all Netscape/Mozilla Hackers.

#47 Re: C-Net review

by thelem

Thursday August 9th, 2001 3:16 AM

Reply to this message

What is the matter with you? This is a positive review, it says that Netscape 6 is finally a decent piece of software which it wasn't before. It doesn't yet have enough advantages over IE to make people who know all the little IE tricks switch to it.

As for the no new features bit, that is a minor negative point, which means they didn't find any more significant negative points, which is a good thing.

#63 Re: Re: C-Net review

by rgelb <nospam@nospam.com>

Thursday August 9th, 2001 11:03 AM

Reply to this message

>> I don't know any (halfway competent) website that KHTML is not able to render perfectly <<

There are plenty of web sites they don't support, mainly because they do not have support for object.style.display

Check out <http://www.vbrad.com> - you can't expand the collapsible menu. Or news.devx.com - same thing.

Maybe in KDE 2.2 which should be out next week.

>>Free software has catched up ^^^^^^^ caught is what you meant to say

#36 Re: C-Net review

by garfieldbond

Wednesday August 8th, 2001 8:50 PM

Reply to this message

Biases are showing through in this review. Netscape 6.1 is clearly a step forward and getting close to IE, and yet they've obviously overlooked many of the features (form manager is better, pw manager better, cookie manager better, theming, INSTANT MESSAGING!!). They can't even say "Kudos for getting it fixed/right!" While it may be true a lot of people won't switch without a gentle push, there was nothing in here showing the true positives of Netscape thus far. CNET/ZDNET has shown their allegiances to Microsoft long before, now they are confirming it further.

#57 Re: Re: C-Net review

by ksheka

Thursday August 9th, 2001 8:31 AM

Reply to this message

I when to the CNET review, and was planning to write to the editor on how he was heavily pro-MSFT in his review. When I read the review, though, I thought it was pretty fair.

For those that didn't read it, here is the last line (Copied without permission):

Too little too late? While we're impressed by Netscape 6.1's performance improvements, Netscape 6 should have run this well nine months ago. In the interim, Internet Explorer has only increased its share of the Internet surfing populace--according to BrowserWatch , more than 87 percent. If you're completely satisfied with IE, we see no compelling reason for you to switch browsers, but if you're even a little curious about finding a full-featured alternative to IE, Netscape 6.1 is finally worth a try.

#74 Re: re: cnet review

by garfieldbond

Thursday August 9th, 2001 5:15 PM

Reply to this message

I agree that last paragraph is partly true, although I still think there's an MS bias in there. Many of the Moz/NS features are superior to IE, and at least are worth a look to see if they are better or to someone's liking. Not describing the features or overviewing them certainly won't show if they are better. It seems as if CNET did this review to say "Look we have a review first!" and not like he spent a whole lot of time trying it in general usage.

#37 Amass and Complain!

by garfieldbond

Wednesday August 8th, 2001 8:58 PM

Reply to this message

Oops, forgot to mention you can complain through their tiny "Tell us" link at the bottom of the summary page.

#145 Re: C-Net review

by basic <_basic@yahoo.com>

Monday August 13th, 2001 11:38 PM

Reply to this message

Well there will be more performance improvement coming from the mozilla side. If they make it into the next NS6.xx iteration, it would probably closer to IE's performance (I dream that it would be better than IE in their win98 test, but that's just a dream ;p )

overall, I'd say that this is not bad. Funny that browserwatch hasn't mentioned this yet.

Festa is doing his thing again at <http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn…ws/0,4586,5095306,00.html>

This has probably the cutest headline (though I disagree with the headline) <http://www.computeruser.c…news/01/08/10/news12.html>

The comments here are even cuter ;p <http://slashdot.org/artic…8/2254226&mode=thread>

" But at least this version of the browser is quicker to load than its predecessor, which clocked around 20 seconds before a working browser replaced the splash screen. Now you'll only have to wait for around five seconds." <http://www.computerbuyer.…/newsarticle.php3?id=2675>

"Netscape likes to keeps its browser's version number ahead of Microsoft's." <http://www.pcplus.co.uk/article.asp?id=30503>

Where does this guy get his info?

"It appears to be based on Mozilla 0.93, the open-source Web browser, and uses the new Gecko display engine." <http://www.wininformant.c…Index.cfm?ArticleID=22090>

enough rant from me.

#20 App icons

by dave532

Wednesday August 8th, 2001 5:38 PM

Reply to this message

I want my app icons!

I was told the final release would have individual icons for each application so you could see whether the window was a navigator, mail or composer window.

In Linux every icon is still the Netscape 'N' so there's no easy way to find out which icon is which application.

#21 Re: App icons

by joschi

Wednesday August 8th, 2001 6:04 PM

Reply to this message

that sucks... in windwos it has separate icons... pretty slcik ones at that...

#23 Re: Re: App icons

by dave532

Wednesday August 8th, 2001 6:49 PM

Reply to this message

Yeah, I noticed the app icons on a few screenshots that Netscape employees had posted up, shame the Linux version doesn't have them yet.

#29 Re: Re: App icons

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Wednesday August 8th, 2001 7:54 PM

Reply to this message

But the app icons only appear in the title bar. Only the 'N' icon is encoded into the .exe file. This is a shame because I want to put shortcuts to Navigator and Mail on my Quick Launch toolbar, but I've only got one icon so I can't differentiate between them.

Alex

#34 Re: Re: Re: App icons

by dave532

Wednesday August 8th, 2001 8:44 PM

Reply to this message

So this means that all the applications associated with NS6 also share the same icon? :(

It looks awful when you fire up the windows file manager and all the jpegs, gif's and html files all have the same icon if you choose to associate them, the fact that this icon is the same as the one used for the application's .exe is really bad.

When I use Mozilla across all the platforms I use I tend not to bother with desktop integration, but many people who use Netscape will just click yes when it asks to associate with all their filetypes and they're gonna have an ugly experience.

But I have to say, lack of app icons is my biggest complaint of this release, which means it's pretty good overall.

#49 No

by arnoudb <arnoudb@dds.nl>

Thursday August 9th, 2001 4:42 AM

Reply to this message

No this doesn't mean all the apps associated with NS6 will share the same icon, it only means that you can't differentiate between NS Mail/News and the NS browser just by the icon.

#65 Actually, yes

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Thursday August 9th, 2001 2:07 PM

Reply to this message

Netscape 6.1 has only one icon. So any shortcuts to any of the components and any files associated with Netscape 6 have the same icon by default. Of course you can change the icons for shortcuts and file types, but it's still annoying.

Alex

#174 Location of Icons in Windows

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Tuesday August 14th, 2001 3:50 PM

Reply to this message

I'm a moron. Although the icons aren't encoded into the .exe file, they are still there. They're in C:\Program Files\Netscape\Netscape 6\chrome\icons\default. Someone just mentioned it in the Netscape 6 Windows newsgroup. I can't believe I hadn't found them!

Alex

#25 Slashdot annoys the tits off me!

by svassall <stefan.vassall@gmail.com>

Wednesday August 8th, 2001 7:24 PM

Reply to this message

I've been reading some of the comments at Slashdot and they really make me mad! How come the OSS/FSF is being so polluted by such people!

I would like to say a big thank you to all who work on the mozilla code base! It's been my main browser for about 1 year now and it just keeps getting better and better!

#180 Re: Slashdot annoys the tits off me!

by zaw <zaw@netscape.net>

Tuesday August 14th, 2001 10:42 PM

Reply to this message

I stop reading slashdot long time ago buecuse they're all morons now.

#28 Marketshare

by SubtleRebel <mark@ky.net>

Wednesday August 8th, 2001 7:51 PM

Reply to this message

Is there any word yet on when AOL might utilize the new Netscape browser in place of their current IE implementation?

This change alone would make a huge difference in the marketshare numbers.

#46 Re: Marketshare

by solhell

Thursday August 9th, 2001 2:24 AM

Reply to this message

If you look at "my netscape" with 6.1 you will notice that drag n drop for the content boxes works fine. That is actually how "my AOL" has been with IE for a long time. Actually it looks like they are slowly migrating netscape.com to AOL.com's technology and partially to its content. As you might remember from a recent article, AOL was targetting corporate users with netscape.So basically Netscape 6 on netscape.com is a test bed for AOL before they move their ISP client to Mozilla. Once Netscape.com and AOL.com gets more and more closer in the underlying technology and html code (probably not in content), it will be safe for them to replace IE. AOL also made it obvious that they target more platforms than windows. They want AOL to run on your toaster. They eventually have to migrate to netscape browser to achieve that goal.

#52 Re: Re: Marketshare

by Sparkster

Thursday August 9th, 2001 5:34 AM

Reply to this message

I think there is already something like a "webpad" by AOL. This thing is based on Linux and... you guess... Mozilla. AOL needs free software for everything that is not windows, so they have no other choice than using Mozilla. :) Which makes perfect sence, since they own it. ;) It would be very weird if AOL would use Mozilla for everything but Windows. I'm sure others will follow and that's the real strength of Mozilla. Independence.

#66 Re: Re: Marketshare

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Thursday August 9th, 2001 2:11 PM

Reply to this message

"They want AOL to run on your toaster."

You've got toast!

Alex

#75 Marketshare

by SubtleRebel <mark@ky.net>

Thursday August 9th, 2001 5:45 PM

Reply to this message

Isn't Netscape already available for more platforms than AOL/IE ??

#81 Re: Marketshare

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Thursday August 9th, 2001 8:55 PM

Reply to this message

"Isn't Netscape already available for more platforms than AOL/IE ??"

I think AOL 6 is available for windows and mac. I think IE 5.x is available for windows and mac and maybe solaris (not sure if you can get a current build for any unix though). Recent Mozilla milestones are available for Mac, Windows, Linux, OpenVMS, HPUX, OSX, AIX, OS/2, True64Unix, OpenBSD, FreeBSD, Solaris, Irix, DGUX, BeOS and maybe one or two more that I forgot.

--Asa

#91 Re: Re: Marketshare

by gssq <gabrielseah@hotmail.com>

Friday August 10th, 2001 6:56 AM

Reply to this message

The NUMBER of platforms supported is one thing, but the market share of the platforms supported is another :(

On paper we look like we support more platforms, but in practice, the number of users we 'support' (so to speak) is not really that much more.

#99 Re: MarketShare

by johnlar <johnlar@tfn.net>

Friday August 10th, 2001 10:02 AM

Reply to this message

*wink*wink*nudge*nudge* say no more

#112 Re: Re: Re: Marketshare

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Friday August 10th, 2001 10:48 PM

Reply to this message

A question was asked and I (sort of) answered it. Read into that what you want but I didn't sat a word about marketshare.

--Asa

#32 Rex Baldazo, MSFT whore

by os2guru <Mozilla-Fan@os2guru.com>

Wednesday August 8th, 2001 8:36 PM

Reply to this message

What a lousy job for a review. (CNet's)

Did you see the screenshot? Seems like a joke. He resized the browser to about 200x200 pixels so the sidebar takes about half of the app's real state.

Then the text reads: "new organization leaves more room to display the web page" (while on his distorted screenshot the web page can barely be seen).

Rex Baldazo, you're a MSFT SLUT!!

#59 relax

by MOPyvis

Thursday August 9th, 2001 8:50 AM

Reply to this message

It's the same thing with for example IE6b2 <http://home.cnet.com/soft…-1.SP.3227883-8-5196333-4> , so please relax a little...

#35 Why don't they include spellcheck in Mozilla...

by gssq <gabrielseah@hotmail.com>

Wednesday August 8th, 2001 8:49 PM

Reply to this message

and Chatzilla in Netscape?

#38 Re: Why don't they include spellcheck in Mozilla..

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Wednesday August 8th, 2001 10:01 PM

Reply to this message

The spellchecker's not in Mozilla because it's not open source (Netscape license it from Lernout & Hauspie).

I'm not sure why Chatzilla isn't in Netscape 6. Isn't it supposed to be less stable than the rest of the suite? On the other hand, the cynical could say that AOL want people to use their proprietary AIM system for chat rather than the open IRC.

Alex

#45 Re:Why don't they include chatzilla in Mozilla..

by masi

Thursday August 9th, 2001 2:17 AM

Reply to this message

I don't think it is cynical to say that AOL want people to use their proprietary AIM system for chat. I guess it is more a kind of fact.

#39 Re: Why don't they include spellcheck in Mozilla..

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Wednesday August 8th, 2001 11:07 PM

Reply to this message

#42 Hehe, good idea :) Is it in the release notes? (nt

by gssq <gabrielseah@hotmail.com>

Thursday August 9th, 2001 12:33 AM

Reply to this message

nt

#58 Spell checker from Netscape won't work in Mozilla

by bim

Thursday August 9th, 2001 8:44 AM

Reply to this message

It looks like this is something that has worked in 0.9.2, but isn't working in recent nightly builds and in 0.9.3. Has anyone got a clue about a solution?

#40 Excellent job!. Netscape!

by BKovacs

Wednesday August 8th, 2001 11:29 PM

Reply to this message

I just downloaded Netscape 6.1 today. And all I can say is THANKYOU!. Mozilla and Netscape!!. Netscape is once again my primary browser. Will get Mozilla 1.0 as well when it comes out!. Read the C-net review and sent them some critical feedback. They need to re-do their review. I was very happy with the speed that I can now open webpages. Alot faster!. And so far very stable, no crashes unlike IE 5.5. And the user interface is the MacOSX of web browsers. Great Job!. Will definately recommend this browser. It has the potential to top IE 6.0.

#43 Re: Excellent job!. Netscape!

by Riscky

Thursday August 9th, 2001 12:44 AM

Reply to this message

"the user interface is the MacOSX of web browsers"

Kinda funny since most mac users HATE Mozilla/Netscape UI. I got use to the modern theme but I must say I am anything but a fan of the funny looking widgets on a webpage. Something needs to be done about that post 1.0.

#44 Re: Funny Looking Widgets?

by stu42j

Thursday August 9th, 2001 1:24 AM

Reply to this message

Sorry, which funny looking widgets do you mean?

#68 Re: Funny Looking Widgets?

by mpercy

Thursday August 9th, 2001 2:35 PM

Reply to this message

He means the non-native GUI widgets like scrollbars, dropdowns, and all that stuff.

XUL makes life beautiful on a *NIX box and Windows but I can understand the MacOSX users' point of view since Aqua has such a sexy native look.

#76 These Widgets

by Riscky

Thursday August 9th, 2001 6:03 PM

Reply to this message

The widgets - Buttons (very box like) - Check boxes - radio buttons - text box(s) the right side blends right into the page until a scrollbar exist.

These are all minor "issue" that I have learned to live with. However I know many of my fellow OS X users hate this (and even the UI) as a result refuse to use netscape or mozilla.

#87 Mac OS X-like theme ?

by RvR <mozillazine@mozillazine-fr.org>

Friday August 10th, 2001 2:20 AM

Reply to this message

it is possible to build an Aqua/MacOSX-like theme in XUL, but... Apple would certainly sue the developpers for copyright infringment.

the only way to have an Aqua-friendly Mozilla is to replace XUL widgets with native widgets. huge work !

i bet Mac OS X users are more interested in OmniWeb (and IE) than in Mozilla, anyway...

#92 Re: Mac OS X-like theme ?

by gssq <gabrielseah@hotmail.com>

Friday August 10th, 2001 6:57 AM

Reply to this message

As a matter of fact, there is a Mac OS-X like theme available on x.themes.org

#113 Re: Re: Mac OS X-like theme ?

by Riscky

Saturday August 11th, 2001 12:34 AM

Reply to this message

Yes an 'aqua' theme does exist and in my mind it just sucks. mondern looks much better. It tries to copy the look of OmniWeb. Not to mention it takes up way to much space.. it is also broken in places (like most themes are).

#106 Huh?

by SubtleRebel <mark@ky.net>

Friday August 10th, 2001 12:20 PM

Reply to this message

Why would OS X users be more interested in OmniWeb and IE than Mozilla?

At this point Fizzilla is still being stabalized, but it has just as much potential to kick butt on OS X as it does on any other OS platform.

#114 Re: Huh?

by Riscky

Saturday August 11th, 2001 12:40 AM

Reply to this message

I use fizzilla daily... and download the latest trunk builds...

Major problems exist, that exist in netscape 6.1. Mozilla crashes on dual processor systems. Mozilla uses ove 70% of the cpu... menu bars for pref windows are hidden behind the man menu and they can't be moved. I think the better build of the fizzilla build isn;t the current working port... but the bsd/carbon (mach-o) port could be the kick but browser.

Why do mac users like ie... it works on 9.x something netscape 4.x dosn;t do that well... why omniweb it looks nice and its cocoa...

#123 Re: Huh?

by SubtleRebel <mark@ky.net>

Saturday August 11th, 2001 3:00 PM

Reply to this message

Why do you mention IE running under MacOS 9.x when we were talking about OS X?

Regardless of 9.x performance, the carbonized IE for OS X is quite bad. The best thing that it does is demonstrate how one unstable app can not crash the OS. OmniWeb has its good points, but it is still lacking somewhat.

Although Mozilla/Fizzilla still has several outstanding issues to be dealt with, I believe it is definitely a browser that OS X users are very interested in (contrary to RvR's post that I previously responded to).

#126 why 9.x IE?

by Riscky

Sunday August 12th, 2001 1:26 AM

Reply to this message

Well for one java support. Apples Java API to browsers just don't work right now.

#141 Re: Huh?

by RvR <mozillazine@mozillazine-fr.org>

Monday August 13th, 2001 3:23 AM

Reply to this message

SubtleRebel, you wrote : "Why would OS X users be more interested in OmniWeb and IE than Mozilla?"

because OmniWeb and IE (somewhat) both have the Aqua look... while «Mozilla has a PC look». that's what Mac users i know have told me. I'm just reporting what they told me ! I know IE's not as good as Mozilla wrt standards and OmniWeb is lacking real Javascript (or rather ECMAscript) support but... you know, many computer users make their choice on UI design rather than functionality... and Mac users are even pickier about their UI. that's because they really *love* Aqua, i suppose (ok, it seems strange to be in love with computer graphics but that's reality...)

however, as a potential future OSX user, i hope, as much as you, that a native OSX/Aqua port will kick both IE and Omniweb's asses soon ;-)

#115 Re: Mac OS X-like theme ?

by Riscky

Saturday August 11th, 2001 12:54 AM

Reply to this message

As of late something called the theme protocol has been tossed around the macosx news group... and a few people have seem interested in developing an aqua appearance for it. From the posting it appears that the theme protocol delivers an image with correct alpha calues and the image are created on the fly!

This is supposed to be an test of the theme protocol <http://lxr.mozilla.org/se…l/theme/tests/button.html>

#189 Re: Mac OS X-like theme ?

by tny

Wednesday August 15th, 2001 2:58 PM

Reply to this message

> i bet Mac OS X users are more > interested in OmniWeb (and IE) > than in Mozilla, anyway..

You lost that bet. OmniWeb isn't bad, but it is missing several features I need; and IE 5.1 for OSX is a dog.

#48 This sucks

by johann_p

Thursday August 9th, 2001 4:05 AM

Reply to this message

I am really tired of this mozilla is not a product, netscape 6 is thing: there is no solaris 2.6 port from netscape, i dont want all that crap netscape adds.Frnakly, I dont even want the netscape logo on the browser, because netscape started to suck bigtime lately: why do they force me to register, just to give me the URL for some plugin?

Why cant anybody just distribute mozilla as a product? Why cant developers of mozilla identify themselves as developing a product? Why isnt Mozilla bundled with every linux distirubtion CDROM out there? Why isnt Win32-Mozilla on every other gimmick CDROM that comes with all these computer magazines?

Why cant people who obviously pay for the mozilla-development spent some cash on PR? Maybe thats the wrong forum to ask all these questions, but where is the right one?

The bottom line is that with things being how they are, I dont really believe that Mozilla/Netscape will grow to be an accepted alternative to IE5/Opera: not for technical reasons, because Mozilla is done very well, technically, but for reasons that have to do with PR, "feeling" of the product, philosophy behind it etc.

#50 Re: This sucks

by Sparkster

Thursday August 9th, 2001 5:29 AM

Reply to this message

Err... I don't think that most people have your problems. But you could try Beonex. AFAIK they are developing a finished browser product based on Mozilla and those are Mozilla developers. And if you like Mozilla, use it. Mozilla is great, but don't expact everyone in the world to like a development browser. Finished products like Netscape or Beonex are much better suited for the enduser. You will see much more based on Mozilla in the future. And don't be so harsh to Netscape, they are still the driving force behind Mozilla. We should be thankfull, that they had the balls to try the Open Source game.

#51 Re: This sucks

by Martyr

Thursday August 9th, 2001 5:29 AM

Reply to this message

Mozilla is not a product because the company behind it wants to release a product! D'oh! They won't push Moz to the detriment of NS. That throwaway question aside, you have some excellent points. Why isn't 6.1 on every Windows gimmick CD-ROM? I don't know. Why isn't it on every Linux distro? There's politics as to why that hasn't happened, but AFAIK it hasn't been because Netscape hasn't tried. Poke around for the term "evangelism" in the general Moz newsgroups and try the web site. There was a posting about Moz European evangelism a few weeks back. I'd suggest getting in touch with that guy or whomever you find. The other avenue is going out there and DIY contacting the linux distros yourself...

#56 Re: This sucks

by tialaramex

Thursday August 9th, 2001 8:24 AM

Reply to this message

Mozilla is bundled with every Linux distro that I regularly come into contact with.

It isn't always the default browser because customer feedback says that "Oh, Mozilla doesn't have that feature yet" is a poor response to "Why doesn't my PAC work?" or "Where is my Secure Mail?"

#62 It was a product last time I looked.

by JBassford <jasonb@dante.com>

Thursday August 9th, 2001 10:23 AM

Reply to this message

First of all, Mozilla is still in development. Once it hits 1.0 (an actual release version) then it can be marketed to the public as other browsers. (Whether it will be or not is another question.)

Also, I'm not sure where you're looking but I've found default installs of Mozilla on most all of the recent Linux distributions.

These seem to me to indicate it's a product.

Jason.

#82 Re: It was a product last time I looked.

by macpeep

Friday August 10th, 2001 12:38 AM

Reply to this message

"First of all, Mozilla is still in development."

That's not a reason not to promote it. It's before it's released that you SHOULD promote it! It's a valid question to ask why Mozilla is NOT "marketed" as a product because clearly, the only thing Netscape adds is more bloat. There's no polish of the skins or anything like that. The only thing that makes the Netscape release more of a product than Mozilla is that it's actually marketed to some extent.

#86 Re: Re: It was a product last time I looked.

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Friday August 10th, 2001 2:06 AM

Reply to this message

you'd rather that the handful of people that work to organize the development effort stop that and start doing press tours? not gonna happen. mozilla.org is about making the technology better. netscape and beonex and others have marketing departments with marketing professionals who know how to do those things. to ask the people organizing the development of the open source project to stop doing that and try to do the job that vendors like netscape and beonex should be doing seems a bit silly to me. we don't need a handful of <staff@mozilla.org> folks pretending to be a marketing department. we need more companied like netscape pushing distributions. (I don't see a big linux kernal marketing push, they leave that up to RedHat and other distributors).

--Asa

#96 Re: Re: Re: It was a product last time I looked.

by stfh

Friday August 10th, 2001 8:47 AM

Reply to this message

I don't think anyone's suggesting that the developers or drivers drop their duties to do marketing. But remember that as an open-source project, there are many more resources out there than just developers! I'm sure there are plenty of people out there in the community who don't have the expertise to do actual development work but would be more than willing to participate in or lead an organized marketing effort.

#101 Good point, but open-source is not well-known

by kb7iuj <ajvincent@hotmail.com>

Friday August 10th, 2001 10:07 AM

Reply to this message

How many people outside of the technology industry have heard of the term "open-source"? The closest analogue in non-technical terms is the word "volunteer".

You'd have to recruit some marketers who actually understand a little of the technology. Not a lot, but a little. (And I'm not talking about the type you see in Dilbert cartoons.) Myself, I've done marketing before, but I was never a success at it.

Besides, I do think it's a little early to do massive massive marketing of Mozilla. Mozilla milestones (and especially nightly builds) are to be used for testing purposes only until we hit 1.0. That doesn't mean I as a developer won't use it as my primary browser. (I consider that long-term testing...)

I just think the Mozilla.org project's commitment to producing a quality product which in theory will beat the stuffing out of anybody else out there is fantastic. There's just no need to advertise this product until it's done with beta-testing to the public at large, which always always expects a finished product.

The general public really do hate "gamma-testing"...

#103 Re: Re: Re: It was a product last time I looked.

by macpeep

Friday August 10th, 2001 10:36 AM

Reply to this message

"you'd rather that the handful of people that work to organize the development effort stop that and start doing press tours?"

Of course not.

My first point was that the fact that the product hasn't been released yet is not an excuse not to market it. Before it's released is exactly when you SHOULD market it!

Your point about WHO should market Mozilla or Mozilla-derivatives is true tho. If Mozilla (the app) is really ONLY for developers then of course it shouldn't be marketed for end users. The only thing that can be questioned is WHY it's not meant for end users too? The quality of Mozilla 0.9.3 is very close to (or better than) the quality of Netscape 6.1!

#104 Marketing

by sacolcor

Friday August 10th, 2001 11:14 AM

Reply to this message

Even if Mozilla is of sufficient quality for use by the general public, marketing a product (other than by word-of-mouth) costs money, both for market studies and for advertisements. Mozilla is a volunteer organization, and doesn't have the cash. Nor, I suspect, do we have many people with much real marketing experience.

The most effective 'marketing' we can do is to get in contact with the people at the companies with the most to gain from using Mozilla's technology, and get them to use it. Then /they/ can fund marketing efforts for their own products, and Mozilla benefits from their success, albeit indirectly.

#97 Promotion would be counter-productive.

by JBassford <jasonb@dante.com>

Friday August 10th, 2001 9:56 AM

Reply to this message

But this isn't JUST a beta product. It's the FIRST beta product. If Mozilla 1.x had been around for a while and the company were working on 2.0beta then you'd certainly be right - no point in not marketing it.

But look at the response Netscape got to 6.0. Everybody hated it, and it generated BAD publicity for the company.

If Mozilla had marketed 0.6 (just as Netscape did under their own name) much the same would have happened to them.

No, Mozilla is far smarter to keep pre 1.0 out of the media. Once it's hit 1.0 and is "ready for prime time" THEN market it since there won't be any certain negative reaction to it.

Any computer user is already familiar enough (and impressed enough) with Mozilla's efforts and improving product. The general public doesn't need to know yet.

Jason.

#72 Re: This sucks

by garfieldbond

Thursday August 9th, 2001 5:09 PM

Reply to this message

I don't think mozilla consistently comes out with solaris ports on day 1. It'll come, they claim within 30 days additional OS and language packs will come out. Solaris is probably first on the block, what with SUN being a partner and all. And you don't have to register all the time, I always cancel past the activation screens.

#53 something still lacking about images

by shin

Thursday August 9th, 2001 5:37 AM

Reply to this message

That's something that bugged me for months: Sometimes the page loads fine but not all the images do. Why isn't there a placeholder for images just like in Netscape 4 ? And a little "show the image" option in the rightclick menu ?

#60 Re: something still lacking about images

by hodeleri <drbrain@segment7.net>

Thursday August 9th, 2001 9:49 AM

Reply to this message

See the HTML4 spec <http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/> and you'll see the reason. Putting in placeholders for images is just plain wrong. You can also look at the evil HTML tests in the demos section of Mozillazine

#79 Re: Re: something still lacking about images

by Tanyel <tanyel@straightblack.com>

Thursday August 9th, 2001 7:13 PM

Reply to this message

Maybe the W3 specification is "just plain wrong."

#84 maybe as an option

by shin

Friday August 10th, 2001 1:59 AM

Reply to this message

But I could be set as an option at least. It is really annoying to reload a whole page just because some of the 50+ little bits of images are missing.

#85 maybe as an option

by shin

Friday August 10th, 2001 2:00 AM

Reply to this message

Oops, I meant "it" can be set as an option, not "I" :)

#54 Netscape 6 faster than Mozilla

by zreo2 <aa@globecom.se>

Thursday August 9th, 2001 6:28 AM

Reply to this message

I have just reallised that Netscape 6 seem to be a little bit faster than Mozilla in the start up process.

When I meassured the time Mozilla (0.93) took aroun 11 seconds to start and Netscape (6.1) around 8 secs without any preloading installed on Windows. Thats strange. Or ?

And one more thing. Smartdownload is useless (should be called slowdownload) and Netscape should have links to their sea versions on their FTP site easier to us, the users, to find. And when you have installed Netscape and all that activation crap comes up their should be a button saying "No I dont want to become a member" or something like that. Now you have to enter cancel for no etc and I think Netscape will loose alot of users on that. Especially for us that are not living in the US and are not fans of AOL. I think what AOL is throwing at your face with all their products they think you should install when all you want is a browser is making them just as bad as Microsoft...

#144 Re: Netscape 6 faster than Mozilla

by jkelloggs

Monday August 13th, 2001 11:55 AM

Reply to this message

Well, the solution is quite simple: Just use Mozilla. It is practically the same as Netscape - just without all the bloat. I download the latest Mozilla version from <ftp://ftp.mozilla.org> on almost a daily basis, and I never experienced slow download times or failing responses.

#147 Re: Netscape 6 faster than Mozilla

by zreo2 <aa@globecom.se>

Tuesday August 14th, 2001 1:18 AM

Reply to this message

And that I do. But my point is that if Netscape wants to continue having a good browser they should make those things better and more user friendly. A fact is and will still be for along time that most users will download the Netscape version more than the Mozilla build because most people think that the Mozilla version is more for testing (for testing purposes only!) and Netscape is more of a release.

Like I said before. I do use Mozilla and so does most of the people that are visiting this forum. But most of the users of Netscape 4.x do upgrade to Netscape 6 instead of Mozilla.

#55 Where else can you download 6.1?

by saberunit02

Thursday August 9th, 2001 7:27 AM

Reply to this message

Anybody know another site that has a copy of 6.1? I can never seem to download anything from netscape's ftp server's on my network. I always get some type of error message.

#151 Re: Where else can you download 6.1?

by Zpottr

Tuesday August 14th, 2001 7:32 AM

Reply to this message

Prolly too late, but try changing ftp:// to http://

#64 Well done again!

by tl47

Thursday August 9th, 2001 12:56 PM

Reply to this message

First off, I'm still on NS 6.1PR1. It has been very good and I have used it for two months now as my primary browser. I have been recommending it to friends and colleagues (unfortunately not many listens :( ). I expect 6.1 to be better. I will probably start to be more agressive at "marketing" for NS now that 6.1 is officially out. Unfortunately I am not able to get into their FTP server! Hope that means there are a lot of people trying to download! :)

Gotta say this again: Thanks and congrats to the mozilla team. Keep up the good work! Thanks and congrats to the Netscape team as well for giving this little browser the QA support and exposure it would otherwise not get.

#67 Still shipping OLD Java Plug-in 1.3.0_01 !!!

by bcortez <bcortez98@hotmail.com>

Thursday August 9th, 2001 2:33 PM

Reply to this message

Can anyone tell me, why the heck wasn't the new 1.3.1 version of the Java Plug-in packaged with this latest release of Netscape 6.1 ?? I know that it works, I've been involved in this area with the Mozilla effort for the past few months.

C'mon Netscape, re-do the package or at least supply the 1.3.1 version as an upgrade path. The current installer gets the 1.3.0_01 version from mcom.com (which is now toasted, can't even traceroute to it now).

#73 Re: Still shipping OLD Java Plug-in 1.3.0_01 !!!

by garfieldbond

Thursday August 9th, 2001 5:11 PM

Reply to this message

Who wants to bet there's some lawyering involved? Anyone?

Seriously, that's probably the reason. Netscape probably just needs to get an "OK" from Sun before they can start doing that.

#95 Re: Re: Still shipping OLD Java Plug-in 1.3.0_01 !!!

by bcortez <bcortez98@hotmail.com>

Friday August 10th, 2001 8:06 AM

Reply to this message

What legal issues? The Sun Java Plug-in (JRE), regardless of the version, can legally be FREELY DISTRIBUTED according to Sun's own licence agreement.

So what's the problem????

#102 It could be more than that...

by kb7iuj <ajvincent@hotmail.com>

Friday August 10th, 2001 10:17 AM

Reply to this message

Software under the GNU GPL can be freely redistributed, as can Mozilla.org source code under the Mozilla Public License (MPL). But you won't find GPL'd code in Mozilla, I think, because the MPL and the GPL are incompatible.

That's why I'm using the Lesser GPL, or LGPL, for my open-source project. I want to leave the door open for Mozilla.org (or Microsoft, for that matter) to use my code as well. The LGPL is compatible with the Netscape Public License and the MPL.

My point is there could be similar issues with the Sun License versus MPL and NPL.

#107 It's not...

by bcortez <bcortez98@hotmail.com>

Friday August 10th, 2001 1:58 PM

Reply to this message

The Sun Licence expressly states that the binary (the JRE binary installer) can be freely distributed....period. I could d/l it to my own website and serve it from there. I could package it with my own product and install it from there (which my company does right now).

The plugin supplied by Netscape is the full JRE installer binary, albeit the OLD one. All they would need to do (and it would be perfectly legal to do so) is to package their full installer file with the new 1.3.1 plugin (replace the current jre13i.exe with the new one, they could even use the same filename without needing to change any code whatsoever).

I think it is just laziness on theor part (whoever built this package). I've repackaged the Netscape 6.01 version with the new plugin and wrapped it in its own installshield, all perfectly legal according to our legal dept.

Get on the ball Netscape....!!!! PLEASE!!!

#152 Re: It's not...

by basic <_basic@yahoo.com>

Tuesday August 14th, 2001 7:38 AM

Reply to this message

If I'm not mistaken, it is not due to whoever package the stuff, but due to management not allowing it for some stupid reason or other. At least that is what I heard.

#154 Probably testing

by theuiguy

Tuesday August 14th, 2001 9:03 AM

Reply to this message

I have no direct information, but from working for a large software development company I suspect that this is due to testing. More than likely they did all their testing with the earlier version and decided they didn't have time to test completely with a newer one. They likely decided that the risk was too great of something breaking, so they shipped the old version.

Is the newer version included with Mozilla? It's time to get it there if it isn't.

#164 Re: Probably testing

by bcortez <bcortez98@hotmail.com>

Tuesday August 14th, 2001 2:05 PM

Reply to this message

Not according to their Release Notes which explicitly state that Netscape 6.1 has also been tested using JRE 1.3.1. It also states clearly that LiveConnect only works using JRE 1.3.1, so it's not for lack of testing.....If so, then they should remove the statement supporting it...right???

#69 It's crashing

by Valker <ottoh@nic.fi>

Thursday August 9th, 2001 2:54 PM

Reply to this message

I really don't why but NS6.1 is crashing every time I try to load it. I was wondreing if there's something betwean it and Mozilla, so I even tried to uninstal Mozilla and then instal NS6.1 but even it didn't help... I really would like to test it but hey, what can I do? Anyone has the same broblem?

I'm using Win2k

#70 Re: It's crashing

by SmileyBen

Thursday August 9th, 2001 3:23 PM

Reply to this message

Are you using a theme other than modern or classic? If so, that's probably the problem, and the solution is either to nuke your profile, or use the commandline chrome option (though I'm not sure if that works with netscape).

#83 Re: It's crashing

by stu42j

Friday August 10th, 2001 1:28 AM

Reply to this message

I had a problem yesterday where netscape crashed (probably from closing two windows in a row) I ran it again but the browser would not load. At first it would just load TalkBack which was unable to send the queued report. Finally, I disabled TalkBack but it would just get to the QFA line and hang. I made sure there were no dead processes. Finally, I tried running my Mozilla nightly from a few days ago and it worked! I used Mozilla for a while, shutdown my computer for the night and the next day, Netscape worked just fine.

BTW, Netscape was installed in a seperate directory with no previous Netscape installation and the profile was freshly created by 6.1. Also, this is Mandrake Linux 8.0.

Odd, no?

#117 Re: Re: It's crashing

by stu42j

Saturday August 11th, 2001 1:42 AM

Reply to this message

Well, it did it again. Maybe I won't be using 6.1 after all. I don't want to have to restart my computer every time my browser crashes!

#118 Or not...

by stu42j

Saturday August 11th, 2001 1:47 AM

Reply to this message

After a few minutes browsing with Mozilla, 6.1 suddenly popped up!

#90 Re: Re: It's crashing

by Valker <ottoh@nic.fi>

Friday August 10th, 2001 6:22 AM

Reply to this message

I tried both. Classic and Modern but same thing with boath.

#94 Re: Re: Re: It's crashing

by arnoudb <arnoudb@dds.nl>

Friday August 10th, 2001 7:39 AM

Reply to this message

Try removing mozver.dat and mozregistry.dat (if it's even there) from your C:\WINNT directory, and deleting all profiles from your Documents and Settings. Then delete and reinstall Netscape. If it still doesn't work after that, something's really wrong...

#100 Yep. That helpet

by Valker <ottoh@nic.fi>

Friday August 10th, 2001 10:04 AM

Reply to this message

Deleting mozver.dat and mozregistry.dat was the solution.

#71 Re: It's crashing

by kberk <kberk@bigfoot.com>

Thursday August 9th, 2001 4:15 PM

Reply to this message

If you had PR1 or an earlier Mozilla or Netscape version, I would create a new profile and import your mail and bookmarks. For some reason it seems more stable if the profile is created by 6.1.

#89 Re: Re: It's crashing

by Valker <ottoh@nic.fi>

Friday August 10th, 2001 6:21 AM

Reply to this message

I can't create a new profile with NS6.1 because it crashes also when I try to load profile manager.

#77 Re: It's crashing

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Thursday August 9th, 2001 6:06 PM

Reply to this message

Are you sure all previous versions of Mozilla and Netscape 6 have been completely uninstalled? See these NewZilla pages for more help:

How do I uninstall Netscape 6? <http://www.gerbilbox.com/…/netscape6/usingns605.php>

How do I uninstall Mozilla? <http://www.gerbilbox.com/…la/mozilla/usingmoz04.php>

Alex (not the NewZilla guy)

#98 oooops

by Valker <ottoh@nic.fi>

Friday August 10th, 2001 10:01 AM

Reply to this message

I tried to delete mozregistry.dat and mozver.dat and install NS6.1. And now it works fine.

#78 Set As WallPaper

by Cynite

Thursday August 9th, 2001 6:43 PM

Reply to this message

sometimes when im browsing the web to see pictures of cars and celebs and when i like some pic I usually like to keep it as a wallpaper so to do that (when im using IE) I right click the pic and select set as wallpaper option and I have a wallpaper of that pic . Why doesnt netscape 6.1 have such a feature it shouldnt be difficult or am i missing something?

#88 Great response on download.com

by SmileyBen

Friday August 10th, 2001 4:32 AM

Reply to this message

Just wondering if everyone has seen the response to 6.1 on download.com - <http://download.cnet.com/…%2E1&cn=&ca=10000> - some problems as expected, but mostly a fantastic response - many 'better that IE's... And since there are so many people eager to thank moz and netscape developers, they really should go and have a look!

I can't wait to see what their response to the moz 1.0 based version will be!

#93 Re: Great response on download.com

by gssq <gabrielseah@hotmail.com>

Friday August 10th, 2001 7:02 AM

Reply to this message

It seems that all the Linux people like it :)

We should look at what they DON'T like also.

A lot of people complain to me about the footprint.

#124 "mozilla is using java !"

by shin

Saturday August 11th, 2001 5:18 PM

Reply to this message

Funny pro-MSIE users over there. :)

#134 Re: "mozilla is using java !"

by MXN

Sunday August 12th, 2001 5:34 PM

Reply to this message

That's what really annoys me. Just because Mozilla has a wonderful user interface which is different doesn't mean that it's made of Java.

#105 Download Manager

by Cynite

Friday August 10th, 2001 11:44 AM

Reply to this message

Is there any download manager compatible with netscape 6.1 cuz download accelerator keeps crashing with netscape 6.1 or is it just with my system?

#116 Re: Download Manager

by prometeo

Saturday August 11th, 2001 1:20 AM

Reply to this message

DAP 5.0beta (Download accelerator plus) is supposed to be compatible with NS6, but i never tried. Try <http://www.speedbit.com/> .

#122 Re: Download Manager

by JCaris <joel_caris@iname.com>

Saturday August 11th, 2001 1:28 PM

Reply to this message

I've been using Download Accelerator 5.0 with 6.1 without any problems. Sounds like it's either your system, or maybe you're using an older version?

#129 Re: Download Manager

by thelem

Sunday August 12th, 2001 11:00 AM

Reply to this message

Why do you need a download manager? Netscape 6 can already pause and resume downloads. If you think that by queueing downloads they are faster, thats a myth - the fastest way to download several files is all at the same time.

#133 Re: Re: Download Manager

by niner

Sunday August 12th, 2001 2:33 PM

Reply to this message

but sometimes it is possible that you're not alone on a connection and that other users don't like it when you block the line... and even if you're alone, if you need the connection for work performance of some downloads may not be the most important.

Also resuming later after Mozilla was closed and opened many times since starting is really nice.

#140 Re: Re: Download Manager

by gssq <gabrielseah@hotmail.com>

Monday August 13th, 2001 2:15 AM

Reply to this message

Download managers are good.

Splitted downloading, download logs, a download list, shutting off the computer when you're done etc

Too bad Getright is not click-compatible with Mozilla (clicking on files won't add them to the download list) :(

#146 Download Mage works with mozilla or Netscape 6

by andrewb

Tuesday August 14th, 2001 12:56 AM

Reply to this message

You can use Download Mage to download files with Netscape 6. You need to setup the Download Mage program then download a plugin file and place it in the browser's plugins folder. The home page for Download Mage is <http://www.dlmage.com.> It isn't free, but you can use it for a while before it starts to nag you for payment.

#108 VirusScan does not work with Mozilla or Netscape

by Tong

Friday August 10th, 2001 4:09 PM

Reply to this message

My McAfee VirusScan 4.0.3 only work with IE and Netscape Communicator 4.7. Does anyone know a trick to enable another browsers support such as Mozilla 0.9.3, Netscape 6.1 and Opera 5 in VirusScan 4.

Further, does Norton Antivirus 2001 or VirusScan 5 natively support this 'new breed' browser?

#109 Re: VirusScan does not work with Mozilla or Netsca

by MikeYoung <youngfam@nni.com>

Friday August 10th, 2001 5:22 PM

Reply to this message

After just upgrading my entire company today, I can say that Yes Norton 2001 does support Netscape 6 and 6.1. In Fact, Norton can be made to accept any mail client by setting "manual configuration" to On.

Don't know about MacAffe, but doesn't it have some sort of Manual Configuration?

#110 Re: Re: VirusScan does not work with Mozilla or Ne

by Tong

Friday August 10th, 2001 5:58 PM

Reply to this message

Thank you very much, MikeYoung. However, my current e-mail client software is still the old Netscape Communicator 4.78 which almost supported by every anti-virus software.

Does Norton Anti-virus 2001 have a way to config the so-called "internet scan" or "web scan" in addition to e-mail scan setting?

I will try to use Mozilla as my primary browser but the most important thing that keep me to do that is the lack of virus protection. :-)

#130 Re: VirusScan does not work with Mozilla o

by thelem

Sunday August 12th, 2001 11:08 AM

Reply to this message

What sort of viruses are you worried about?

Viruses in files downloaded can be detected with a normal virus scanner once they have been downloaded (but before they are opened)

Other than that, (and lots of popup windows opening when you leave a site, which can be prevented by temporarily turning off javascript or not visiting porn sites) I don't know what a virus scanner would protect against.

It sounds to me like another case of McAfee creating a product where there is no need (they have a PDF virus scanner believe it or not, dispite the fact that no one has ever created a PDF virus).

#132 Re: Re: VirusScan does not work with Mozilla o

by tny

Sunday August 12th, 2001 1:32 PM

Reply to this message

Oh, no one has ever created a PDF virus? ;-) How do you explain <vbs.peachypdf@mm.html> ?

<//www.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data/vbs.peachypdf@mm.html>" rel="nofollow"><http://www.symantec.com/a…<ata/vbs.peachypdf@mm.html>>

#119 http://mozillaquestquest.com/

by gssq <gabrielseah@hotmail.com>

Saturday August 11th, 2001 2:06 AM

Reply to this message

Who's responsible for this? (I see a name Patrick Casseau there but, well. Kudos to him!) It's damn funny!

#120 Re: http://mozillaquestquest.com/

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Saturday August 11th, 2001 5:31 AM

Reply to this message

No! Wrong! It should feature fixed-pixel tables so I get a horizontal scrollbar on my 800x600 resolution display.

Alex

#121 Re: Re: http://mozillaquestquest.com/

by SmileyBen

Saturday August 11th, 2001 8:41 AM

Reply to this message

Don't be unfair! There are somethings that anyone with HALF a clue about web-design just can't bring themselves to do, even for the sake of parody! ;-)

#125 Re: http://mozillaquestquest.com/

by cobar

Saturday August 11th, 2001 8:54 PM

Reply to this message

I'll give you a hint. Whois the domain to find out who's it's registered to.

#135 Re: Re: http://mozillaquestquest.com/

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Sunday August 12th, 2001 5:36 PM

Reply to this message

It appears to be an Ian Hickson of Sunnyvale, California.

We would expect such genius from the guy behind Da Mow Mow. <http://www.damowmow.com/>

Alex

#142 Re: Re: Re: http://mozillaquestquest.com/

by cobar

Monday August 13th, 2001 3:32 AM

Reply to this message

Yes, that's right. I believe he's one of the developers.

#162 Re: Re: Re: Re: http://mozillaquestquest.com/

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Tuesday August 14th, 2001 1:03 PM

Reply to this message

Yes, he seems to be involved with the standards-compliance stuff. He's got a personal page too. <http://www.hixie.ch/>

Alex

#127 Re: http://mozillaquestquest.com/

by Ilgaz

Sunday August 12th, 2001 3:02 AM

Reply to this message

<http://www.pcworld.com/ne…rticle/0,aid,57366,00.asp>

Someone has to buy pcworldworld.com now I see :-)

#143 Re: http://mozillaquestquest.com/

by ezh <ezh@menelon.ee>

Monday August 13th, 2001 11:48 AM

Reply to this message

Try out Kaspersky AV!

Everyday AV updates only 5-40Kb in size!

<http://www.kaspersky.com>

#131 Mozilla 0.9.2.1 == Netscape 6.1

by Kallista

Sunday August 12th, 2001 12:25 PM

Reply to this message

I believe that the Mozilla build that corresponds to Netscape 6.1 has been tagged as 0.9.2.1. It appears to be available here:

<ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub…/releases/mozilla0.9.2.1/>

Selene

#136 How long for Netscape 4.7x?

by DavidGerard <fun@thingy.apana.org.au>

Sunday August 12th, 2001 11:19 PM

Reply to this message

Can anyone reveal any informed speculation on how long 4.7x will be maintained as a current browser, rather than being relegated to the archives?

(I know it's been maintenance-only; will they wait for moz 1.0 or full-enough 4.x parity to abandon it?)

#148 Re: How long for Netscape 4.7x?

by Tanyel <tanyel@straightblack.com>

Tuesday August 14th, 2001 6:27 AM

Reply to this message

I think they stopped working on that several months ago. I am not sure though because I stopped using it more than several months ago. Maybe you should try the SmartUpdate thing and see what it tells you.

#150 Re: Re: How long for Netscape 4.7x?

by tny

Tuesday August 14th, 2001 6:54 AM

Reply to this message

A 4.78 has come out.

#167 Re: How long for Netscape 4.7x?

by bmason <data@data1701d.com>

Tuesday August 14th, 2001 2:25 PM

Reply to this message

According to documentation on the Netscape site, a release will be supported for one year from the release date, or until two subsequent major/minor releases, whichever is shortest.

<http://help.netscape.com/products/eol/eol.html>

#153 netscape setup installer is a piece of crap

by saberunit02

Tuesday August 14th, 2001 8:31 AM

Reply to this message

After finally getting it to even start downloading on http setting, I get constant network errors asking me to resume the download. To top it off, it never finishes downloading. At last count it's downloaded 29megs/130% and still counting out my customized download of 22 megs (yes, I do mean 130%. though it shouldn't be possible.) I don't understand why netscape doesn't just provide people with a link to the entire setup file instead this stupid smart download or whatever they call it. guess I'll stick with mozilla. At least i can download that.

#159 Re: netscape setup installer is a piece of crap

by johnlar <johnlar@tfn.net>

Tuesday August 14th, 2001 12:13 PM

Reply to this message

Thats strange? are you sure your downloading 6.1 and not 6.1RC1. Anyways goto <ftp://ftp.netscape.com/pu…sh/6.1/windows/win32/sea/> and download N6SetupB.exe its the complete install.

#171 Re: Re: netscape setup installer is a piece of cra

by saberunit02

Tuesday August 14th, 2001 3:16 PM

Reply to this message

Thanx for the link. I got it up and running now.

#155 Stability - 0.9.2.1 vs 0.9.3

by saidiadude

Tuesday August 14th, 2001 11:03 AM

Reply to this message

Any pages that show Mean time between crashes for 0.9.2.1 vs 0.9.3 ? Have to upgrade NS 4.7.X and am trying to decide between the two. 2 machines to be upgraded: - 350MHz PII, 192MB, 4GB - 200MHz PPro, 64MB, 2.1 GB

Anyone run into any issues on 200MHz machines? Concerned mainly about memory footprint. Will upgrade RAM on the PPro in a few months, 3v 168 pin EDO DIMMS are expensive (am on a tight budget).

Thx for any input (no email pls - post here instead).

#156 Re: Stability - 0.9.2.1 vs 0.9.3

by saidiadude

Tuesday August 14th, 2001 11:28 AM

Reply to this message

Oops, forgot to mention:

Both systems running Win98SE. Will use Moz mainly for browsing (90%) and newsgroups (10%).

#158 Re: Re: Stability - 0.9.2.1 vs 0.9.3

by johnlar <johnlar@tfn.net>

Tuesday August 14th, 2001 12:10 PM

Reply to this message

Well 0.9.3 is definatly faster than 0.9.2.1, but if your looking to use it as a primary browser I'd definatly recommend trying out 6.1 also, as it has many components mozilla is lacking, if you wish to use it as your primary browser.

#173 Re: Stability - 0.9.2.1 vs 0.9.3

by saidiadude

Tuesday August 14th, 2001 3:50 PM

Reply to this message

Such as? I just need to browse, will use plugins for Acrobat and Flash (and JVM). I dont think I need most of the NS stuff - Net2Phone, Chat, etc.

#181 Re: Stability - 0.9.2.1 vs 0.9.3

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Wednesday August 15th, 2001 12:02 AM

Reply to this message

It's still too early for any useful data comparing 0.9.2.1 and 0.9.3 mtbf numbers. My gut feeling is that the two are very close. We quite a few crasher fixes in the 0.9.3 cycle and endgame that were not landed on the 0.9.2 branch leading up to 6.1/0.9.2.1 but we also took hundreds of other fixes, some of which might have been destabilizing. In the end I'd say that if you want a browser for regular use get Netscape 6.1 (that's what it's there for). If you are interested in helping out with Mozilla testing get a recent nightly build, 0.9.3 or wait for 0.9.4 which isn't too far off.

--Asa

#188 Re: Stability - 0.9.2.1 vs 0.9.3

by saidiadude

Wednesday August 15th, 2001 1:14 PM

Reply to this message

Asa, thx for your reply. Any idea what the memory footprint (on avg) is for 0.9.2.1 vs 0.9.3 ? I'm not too interested in NS 6.1 (Don't need all the "extras").

#157 questions, observations, erections, bukowski

by stylo

Tuesday August 14th, 2001 11:55 AM

Reply to this message

As a site developer I have followed moz quietly and hopefully for some time. This may not be the best place to post this, but, then again, this isn't the best forum layout, and these are just random questions and points after having used your latest (not Netscape's) for a while. I haven't posted anything below to bugzilla, so feel free if you know how it's done, if they should be, etc..

1) thank you, thank you, thank you for supporting css2 as you do. You absolutely blow away ie6 on css. See my post on ala, to which the program manager for ie6 responsible for rendering, Chris Wilson, replied: <http://www.alistapart.com…p;id=5954&thread=1460>

2) cursor:hand doesn't work. Why not? This is STRONGLY needed. (Though I just accidentally stumbled upon the fact that, for some bizarre reason, cursor:pointer brings up the hand. Huh???)

3) Was going to complain about webding support, but see it is now in 0.93. (Maybe was before and I made a mistake when I checked.) Martlett font is not supported, though. Support all dingbat fonts so as to avoid the need for silly little image downloads.

4) Redraw horizontally is a problem. I have a button to enlarge the center content (change margins) and remove the side menu from display. When going back, remnants are left until scrolled past. I have to flash the body display to remove them.

5) clicking on a position:fixed element with an onclick change of innerHTML (both 1 character webding) made it jump about 5 pixels to the right.

6) I (think I) hate how the scrollbars bounce in and out depending on the length of the page, e.g., with dynamic sections. The content jumps around. (I think I) Much prefer the ie way of dedicated scrollbar space. Still considering...

7) I strongly encourage you, as with innerHTML, to pluck the best additions MS has made to IE, even if they are not w3c standards (yet). It doesn't hurt the standards that exist to add them. (would love to see more filter effects than opacity. And why call it moz-opacity???)

8) Menu: a) if you won't allow customization of the menu, then please at least change the position of the home button. Please put it on the main menu so I can get rid of the little bar it's on. Annoying waste of screen space. b) allow small icons/text for the main menu bar so it can be smaller. c) how do I get moz without debug/qa menus, etc?

9) can't I specify my search engine?

10) the graphic on start up looks like the bottom centimeter is cut off. I know he's on a cliff or something, but it looks bad.

11) any way to use Composer components on a web page as one can use the mshtml editor on editable sections, etc?

Thanks for any answers and once again for a great browser that is getting better all the time.

stylo~

#161 Re: questions, observations, erections, bukowski

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Tuesday August 14th, 2001 12:52 PM

Reply to this message

"2) cursor:hand doesn't work. Why not? This is STRONGLY needed. (Though I just accidentally stumbled upon the fact that, for some bizarre reason, cursor:pointer brings up the hand. Huh???)"

cursor: pointer is the official W3C thingy. cursor: hand is IE's proprietary method. Some people have suggested that both could be supported but this would just encourage bad CSS. I believe IE6 finally gets it right, so it won't be an issue for long.

"8) Menu: a) if you won't allow customization of the menu, then please at least change the position of the home button. Please put it on the main menu so I can get rid of the little bar it's on. Annoying waste of screen space. b) allow small icons/text for the main menu bar so it can be smaller. c) how do I get moz without debug/qa menus, etc?"

I believe these are all filed as RFEs (Requests for Enhancements) in Bugzilla. I'm sure someone else will supply the bug numbers (me if I get bored enough to search for them).

"9) can't I specify my search engine?"

Edit > Preferences > Navigator > Internet Search. Mozilla doesn't have too many (Netscape Search, ODP, Google and some Moz-specific ones) but Netscape 6 has more (Lycos etc.) but there seem to be less in 6.1 than there were in 6.0 and 6.01 (though it depends on the content packs you've got installed). You can download new search engines from the Sherlock project at Mozdev (though I've noticed some seem to break the Search Sidebar tab). <http://sherlock.mozdev.org/>

"10) the graphic on start up looks like the bottom centimeter is cut off. I know he's on a cliff or something, but it looks bad."

The gap is there so that loading status can be shown in it (a la Netscape Navigator 3.x and Netscape Communicator 4.x). This wasn't implemented when the graphic was designed but a space was placed there for in preparation. We're still waiting.

Alex

#163 Re: Re: questions, observations, erections, bukows

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

Tuesday August 14th, 2001 1:32 PM

Reply to this message

"10) the graphic on start up looks like the bottom centimeter is cut off. I know he's on a cliff or something, but it looks bad."

See <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35866> for the main bugzilla entry

#165 cursor:hand; cursor:pointer

by theuiguy

Tuesday August 14th, 2001 2:09 PM

Reply to this message

""2) cursor:hand doesn't work. Why not? This is STRONGLY needed. (Though I just accidentally stumbled upon the fact that, for some bizarre reason, cursor:pointer brings up the hand. Huh???)"

cursor: pointer is the official W3C thingy. cursor: hand is IE's proprietary method."

A workaround is to include both of them. Do something like:

.cur { cursor: hand; cursor: pointer }

IE uses hand and Mozilla ignores it and uses pointer.

cursor: hand has been logged as a bug many times and marked Invalid because it's not part of the W3C standard. See bug 40298 <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=40298>

#166 Re: cursor:hand; cursor:pointer

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

Tuesday August 14th, 2001 2:20 PM

Reply to this message

Small point:

cursor:hand;cursor:pointer; works OK in Moz but seems to fail in IE5.5 (Win2K pro).

cursor:pointer;cursor:hand does work though.

#169 Re: cursor:hand; cursor:pointer

by WillyWonka

Tuesday August 14th, 2001 3:05 PM

Reply to this message

I ran into this problem with one of my www pages. In JavaScript saying

button.style.cursor = "pointer";

In IE pops up a javascript error box. Damn browser sniffers.

#179 cursor, webdings, -moz

by stylo

Tuesday August 14th, 2001 10:04 PM

Reply to this message

-cursor:pointer- serves me right for not checking the spec. Missed it because my stylesheets prog doesn't even list pointer! (but strange that the pointer is a hand.) Thanks. BTW, Good xbrowser way around is to use item: expression('ie-extension') for ie stuff.

-webdings - that's not my understanding. ie supports it on mac, and I assume moz does as well.

Font Windows Mac Webdings IE IE NS Marlett IE

Linux I doubt (?), but others will get a functional 1 and 2 character in Verdana. Or I'll do something tricky.

-filters - Of course I know the filters are ie-specific, but wondered if any filter-like effects such as opacity were in the pipeline. Thanks for the answer.

-moz-prefix - the problem is if adopted as a standard, and you drop the prefix, there is no forward compatibility. Contrast innerHTML, which has no prefix.(?) It will continue to work in old browsers. Is there a list anywhere of all the moz extensions???

Thanks for the answers so far.

stylo~

#190 Re: -moz

by stfh

Friday August 17th, 2001 10:17 PM

Reply to this message

>-moz-prefix - the problem is if adopted as a standard, and you drop the prefix, there is no forward compatibility.

Actually, no. The real threat to forward-compatibility is to prematurely implement a property but implement it differently than the standard ends up defining it (MSIE does this all over the place.) Then in future versions you have to either ignore the standard or change your implementation and break old code.

I would imagine that when these properties are adopted as standards, the -moz- prefix wouldn't be dropped, it would just get two names so that old code would still work. But this is pure speculation on my part.

And, of course, as Asa said in a previous post, these -moz- properties are implemented with the sole purpose of filling a need for the display of the XUL chrome. They really aren't intended for use in public web pages; that's what the standards are for. ;-) (On that note, I would say that there aren't any plans for implementing other proprietary properties; they may be cool-looking but they're really not good for a standards-based web.)

>Is there a list anywhere of all the moz extensions???

<http://www.xulplanet.com/…/ref_StyleProperties.html> has a pretty thorough list with descriptions.

<http://lxr.mozilla.org/se…ed/public/nsCSSPropList.h> is the complete up-to-date list of all CSS properties supported.

#191 arg. doesn't make sense to me

by stylo

Saturday August 18th, 2001 12:20 PM

Reply to this message

minor point, but imagine a -moz prefixed item becomes a standard. I assume the -moz gets dropped, right? (e.g., mox-opaciy becomes the w3c opacity) Then to write code that works in good old moz 0.93, we need to still use the -moz prefix, not the new non-prefixed item. We can't simply use the standard term (e.g., opacity) because then it only works in new browsers.

By rights, innerHTML should be -moz-innerHTML, but thank god its not.

It's a trade-off, but we'll need to branch our future code either way you go.

#192 and thanks for the links :-) (n/m)

by stylo

Saturday August 18th, 2001 12:30 PM

Reply to this message

x

#193 Re: arg. doesn't make sense to me

by stfh

Saturday August 18th, 2001 3:16 PM

Reply to this message

The -moz- MAY get dropped when the property is standardized, or it may remain supported, I don't know (probably dropped now that i think about it more). Either way, code-branching won't be necessary. Here's why:

At such time, authors can specify BOTH properties if backward-compatibility is an issue. An example:

#translucent { -moz-opacity:50%; opacity:50%; }

Old versions will recognize the first property but ignore the second. New versions will ignore the first and honor the second. This is how the CSS forward-compatibility rules are built, so that unrecognized properties are ignored so they don't throw things off.

If Moz didn't use the -moz- prefix, then we would potentially run into more serious problems in that future situation: both versions would recognize the opacity property, but chances are very likely that the premature implementation would be different than the final implementation, so there would be differences in behavior that could not be avoided without messy scripting.

It's a subtle point, I realize, but an important one.

I agree with your point about innerHTML... I think that was probably a judgement call by the Moz programmers because (1) IE had already had this property for many previous versions, and (2) if a standard ever comes about for this functionality, it certainly won't be called innerHTML (because the DOM is generalized for XML.)

Thanks for the discussion. --J

#168 Re: questions, observations, erections, bukowski

by Netvigator

Tuesday August 14th, 2001 3:05 PM

Reply to this message

9.Specify engine...

there was a problem and a bug for selecting the search engine you wanted (can't find the bud number). Haven't been able to use a recent version of mozilla, so it might be working now.

Also have a look at the sherlock project <http://sherlock.mozdev.org/> which allows you to add extra search engines.

#170 Re: questions, observations, erections, bukowski

by bzbarsky

Tuesday August 14th, 2001 3:07 PM

Reply to this message

>> 3) Was going to complain about webding support, but see it is now in 0.93. (Maybe was before and I made a mistake when I checked.) Martlett font is not supported, though. Support all dingbat fonts so as to avoid the need for silly little image downloads.

You do realize that those fonts are unreadable on non-Windows systems? :)

#172 Re: questions, observations, erections, bukowski

by stfh

Tuesday August 14th, 2001 3:48 PM

Reply to this message

>would love to see more filter effects than opacity.

filter is not a part of the W3C CSS recommendation, and is not even part of the CSS3 preliminary drafts. The Mozilla team has many better things to work on than implementing non-standard CSS "features", especially ones this complex.

>And why call it moz-opacity???

Mozilla has the (IMO brilliant) policy of prefixing CSS properties and values which are not yet a formal part of the standard with -moz- making it clear that the property is implemented as a Mozilla extension to the standard. Imagine what a wonderful place the web would be if IE did the same thing-- you wouldn't have asked the question about the cursor if they named it cursor:-ie-hand; or mentioned filter if it were called -ie-filter:opacity(...); would you? The Mozilla team is doing web standards a great service by taking this approach.

#183 Re: Re: questions, observations, erections, bukows

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Wednesday August 15th, 2001 12:15 AM

Reply to this message

my understanding is that these were not implemented as extensions to the CSS standard for web developers but were necessary since our UI is build out of XUL and styled in CSS.

--Asa

#182 Re: questions, observations, erections, bukowski

by Netvigator

Wednesday August 15th, 2001 12:10 AM

Reply to this message

9.Specify engine...

there was a problem and a bug for selecting the search engine you wanted (can't find the bud number). Haven't been able to use a recent version of mozilla, so it might be working now.

Also have a look at the sherlock project <http://sherlock.mozdev.org/> which allows you to add extra search engines.

#184 Re: questions, observations, erections, bukowski

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Wednesday August 15th, 2001 12:21 AM

Reply to this message

c) how do I get moz without debug/qa menus, etc?

You can build yourself and turn these options off in your build or you can download Netscape 6.1, Beonex or some other distribution. Mozilla provides binaries for testing and development purposes so you probably won't see Mozilla builds without these menus any time soon.

--Asa

#160 Re: questions, observations, erections, bukowski

by jcf76 <jfleshman@hotmail.com>

Tuesday August 14th, 2001 12:40 PM

Reply to this message

<<< 2) cursor:hand doesn't work. Why not? This is STRONGLY needed. (Though I just accidentally stumbled upon the fact that, for some bizarre reason, cursor:pointer brings up the hand. Huh???) >>>

I can answer this one: the W3C spec is pointer; MSIE created hand (I think) before the spec was finalized. You can add both to a style sheet, each browser will just ignore what it doesn't understand. The CSS just won't validate is all.

#175 MozillaQuest reaches new journalistic lows

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Tuesday August 14th, 2001 5:22 PM

Reply to this message

Sorry to keep on going on about MozillaQuest but I can't believe what it's saying now.

A new article has been added (it looks like two articles on the front page but it's only one) that claims that Netscape were going to release a 6.1 PR2 but decided to skip it because 0.9.2 was "very buggy". Netscape never announced a second Preview Release. Mike Angelo goes to great lengths to convince us that 6.1 is based on 0.9.2.1, as if it wasn't common knowledge. He also repeats stuff from their earlier articles (bugs, bugs, bugs).

But the most outrageous comments he makes are in reference to his contact with Catherine Corre, the unfortunate PR person who had to talk to MozillaQuest. MozillaQuest say that they "asked Netscape Spokesperson Catherine Corre if the material in this section and the next section [of the article] is correct." They then quote her as saying "Not only is this not correct, it's pure speculation! We released Netscape 6.1 on target as we had announced we would, and never announced plans for NS6.1 PR2."

Apparently, this isn't good enough for MozillaQuest who claim that she avoided the question. Am I missing something here? She was asked if the information was correct and said that it wasn't, it was just speculation. How is that avoiding the question? In addition they say that whether or not Netscape ever announced a 6.1 PR2 is irrelevant. That'll be why it's not mentioned in the article then. Oh, except it is.

The report goes on to say that "Corre´s false claim that these two sections are 'pure speculation'..." Hang on, even the article itself says to consider their "explanation to be as much hypothetical as it is factual." How is that not speculation? Then it gets worse. The full quote is "Corre´s false claim that these two sections are 'pure speculation' is tantamount to her denying that Netscape 6.1 is based upon Mozilla code!" Sorry, did I miss something? This appears to be a complete non sequitur. She never said that. In fact, I'd say that MozillaQuest accussing her of making a "false claim" is tantamount to calling her a liar. Isn't that libel?

The rest of the article largely manages to stick to MozillaQuest's usual level of inaccuracies.

You can read it for yourself here: <http://www.mozillaquest.c…-2-1_source_story-01.html>

Alex

#176 just ignore him.

by joschi

Tuesday August 14th, 2001 5:41 PM

Reply to this message

By ranting about that stupid site here, you sends hits his way, giving him banner add views, paying his bills, encouraging him to continue "writing" these "articles" ... I think we could all do better to just ignore him.

#177 Re: just ignore him.

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Tuesday August 14th, 2001 6:08 PM

Reply to this message

Yeah, I know. But was I actually ranting? I didn't mean to. I only went to the site accidentally myself (selected wrong autocomplete option). I suppose if no-one visited maybe he'd stop. And if we all visited at once, maybe we'd bring down his servers ;-)

Alex

#178 AAGH! MY EYES! MY EYES!

by DavidGerard <fun@thingy.apana.org.au>

Tuesday August 14th, 2001 7:13 PM

Reply to this message

JEEZUS that thing's bright!

Ah. Just installed NS 6.1 on a test box (NT4sp6a, PIII-800, 256 meg memory). Installed Toy Factory ...

I think I'll thrash it repeatedly until it breaks. Then, if I'm happy, I'll start installing it by default ...

#185 Consistent crash exiting HistoryIQ game

by wholmeswa

Wednesday August 15th, 2001 9:23 AM

Reply to this message

My wife likes to play the "History IQ" game at <http://www.historychannel.com.> She consistently gets a "plugin performed an illegal operation" message when exiting the game.

I removed NS 6.1 PR1 before installing NS 6.1 final. When she plays the game on the NS 4.X installation on the same machine, the error does not occur.

I've sent in a problem report to Netscape, as well as several Talkback dumps. Is this a known issue in 6.1, or is there something wrong with my plugin installation. (If the latter, any suggestions would be appreciated.)

Thanks in advance

Wayne

#186 Re: Consistent crash exiting HistoryIQ game

by saberunit02

Wednesday August 15th, 2001 9:46 AM

Reply to this message

The shockwave plugin doesn't properly yet with NS 6. Here's the message I got from macromedia's site when I clicked the get plugin icon.

ATTENTION NETSCAPE 6 USERS: Shockwave Player does not currently function satisfactorily in Netscape 6.Macromedia and Netscape are actively working to resolve the outstandingissues. As an alternative, Macromedia recommends use of an earlierversion of the Netscape browser.

#187 Re: Consistent crash exiting HistoryIQ game

by wholmeswa

Wednesday August 15th, 2001 12:52 PM

Reply to this message

Thanks! I will periodically check the Macromedia site for an updated plugin.

Wayne

#194 Pop Up Windows In Netscape 6.1

by jorgenson

Wednesday August 22nd, 2001 1:51 PM

Reply to this message

Mozilla 0.9.2 release notes give a line of text to be placed in the "prefs.js" file to stop pop up windows from appearing.

It does not seem to work in Netscape 6.1 which I understand is using 0.9.2 as the code base.

Any help?

#195 Pop Up Windows In Netscape 6.1

by jorgenson

Wednesday August 22nd, 2001 1:51 PM

Reply to this message

Mozilla 0.9.2 release notes give a line of text to be placed in the "prefs.js" file to stop pop up windows from appearing.

It does not seem to work in Netscape 6.1 which I understand is using 0.9.2 as the code base.

Any help?