|
Home > Archive > Mozilla Browser > March 2005 > Netscape v8 beta
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
| William W. Plummer 2005-03-19, 5:45 pm |
| Kim Komando's newsletter gave a favorable reference to the new Netscape.
It can be used instead of Internet Explorer to perform Windows Updates.
The ties to AOL are not bad.
http://browser.netscape.com/nsb/download/default.jsp
| |
|
| William W. Plummer wrote:
> Kim Komando's newsletter gave a favorable reference to the new Netscape.
> It can be used instead of Internet Explorer to perform Windows Updates.
> The ties to AOL are not bad.
> http://browser.netscape.com/nsb/download/default.jsp
Yeah if you don't mind looking at a ugly piece of software...I'm not
going to go into all the reasons why I don't like it unless you really
want me to.
| |
|
| fety wrote:
> William W. Plummer wrote:
>
>
>
> Yeah if you don't mind looking at a ugly piece of software...I'm not
> going to go into all the reasons why I don't like it unless you really
> want me to.
Actually, yeah, go right ahead. It's based on Firefox, so what are your
complaints?
| |
| ..brian.. 2005-03-20, 2:45 am |
|
Wijja wrote:
> fety wrote:
>
[vbcol=seagreen]
not[vbcol=seagreen]
really[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Actually, yeah, go right ahead. It's based on Firefox, so what are
your
> complaints?
He said it's ugly... how hard is that to understand? Being based on FX
has nothing to do with the way it looks. Have you even used it?
--
Brian
| |
|
| ...brian.. wrote:
> Wijja wrote:
>
>
>
>
> not
>
>
> really
>
>
> your
>
>
>
> He said it's ugly... how hard is that to understand? Being based on FX
> has nothing to do with the way it looks. Have you even used it?
Actually I have, and quite liked it. They have a little work to do, but
the overall improvements they've made over FF are worth noting.
Boy...........you're a real prick, huh?
| |
| ..brian.. 2005-03-20, 2:45 am |
|
Wijja wrote:
> ..brian.. wrote:
perform[vbcol=seagreen]
on FX[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Actually I have, and quite liked it. They have a little work to do,
but
> the overall improvements they've made over FF are worth noting.
>
> Boy...........you're a real prick, huh?
Well if that's how you read into a sentence, then that is your opinion.
However, responding to my simple post in the manner in which you did,
it's you that seem like the prick to me. But we all know what
assholes, err, I mean opinions are like.
So, prick opinions aside, which particular Firefox *browser*
improvements do you enjoy, and feel are most noteworthy?
Cheers.
| |
|
| ...brian.. wrote:
> Wijja wrote:
>
>
> perform
>
>
> on FX
>
>
> but
>
>
>
> Well if that's how you read into a sentence, then that is your opinion.
> However, responding to my simple post in the manner in which you did,
> it's you that seem like the prick to me. But we all know what
> assholes, err, I mean opinions are like.
>
> So, prick opinions aside, which particular Firefox *browser*
> improvements do you enjoy, and feel are most noteworthy?
>
> Cheers.
>
Simple is about right.
I like the multi-bar idea. The idea, not the implementation. Hopefully
a skin can make it less invasive. I love the online mail function, and
the fact that they seperate system mail from online. You can check one,
the other, or both. The trust ratings built into each tab are a
significant improvement over firefox. Firefox barely has the options
available, let alone on a site by site basis in such an easy to access
form.
The most obvious one is the ability to switch engines on the fly. Most
firefoxers see this a sacrilege........not like i'm caring much. I see
it as making the best of a bad situation.
| |
| Splibbilla 2005-03-20, 5:45 pm |
| Wijja <wijjawill@gmail.com> in news:4J7%d.74349$i6.57368@edtnps90:
> The trust ratings built into each tab are a
> significant improvement over firefox. Firefox barely has the options
> available, let alone on a site by site basis in such an easy to access
> form.
i haven't tried ns8 (yet?)
i like the idea of some "zones", and more than just 3 (4?) as in ie. user could addd. all settings cookies, etc associate to each
zone. maybe a drag and drop (ctrl or sfift key) UI for settings. so if setting works in one zone, user drags to other zomes if
desired.
> The most obvious one is the ability to switch engines on the fly.
isn't that just pulling down the SRC icon in searchbar? (in ff)
--
1 WinXp,Ff1.0.1GoogleBar, Sage
2 WinMe, Moz1.7.5Gecko/20041217, all profiles: GoogleBar/XPI-rimental,PrefBar,bugmenot,,, and???CopyURL, IEView.
Usually Java off, js on. Could GoogleBar "merge" with (added) SrcChooser in PrefBar? (v. 3.1, build date 20050208)
| |
| ..brian.. 2005-03-20, 8:45 pm |
|
Splibbilla wrote:
> Wijja <wijjawill@gmail.com> in news:4J7%d.74349$i6.57368@edtnps90:
>
options[vbcol=seagreen]
access[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> i haven't tried ns8 (yet?)
>
> i like the idea of some "zones", and more than just 3 (4?) as in ie.
user could addd. all settings cookies, etc associate to each
> zone. maybe a drag and drop (ctrl or sfift key) UI for settings. so
if setting works in one zone, user drags to other zomes if
> desired.
>
>
> isn't that just pulling down the SRC icon in searchbar? (in ff)
That's a different "engine" ;-) netscape 8 allows you to switch and
view a page with either the Gecko (Mozilla) or IE page rendering
engine.
--
Brian
| |
|
| Splibbilla wrote:
> Wijja <wijjawill@gmail.com> in news:4J7%d.74349$i6.57368@edtnps90:
>
>
>
>
> i haven't tried ns8 (yet?)
>
> i like the idea of some "zones", and more than just 3 (4?) as in ie. user could addd. all settings cookies, etc associate to each
> zone. maybe a drag and drop (ctrl or sfift key) UI for settings. so if setting works in one zone, user drags to other zomes if
> desired.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> isn't that just pulling down the SRC icon in searchbar? (in ff)
>
>
Not search engines. It can use Gecko or use the IE engine for pages
that don't render or, say, if plugins don't work for media, etc.
| |
|
| Wijja wrote:
> ..brian.. wrote:
>
>
> Simple is about right.
>
> I like the multi-bar idea. The idea, not the implementation. Hopefully
> a skin can make it less invasive. I love the online mail function, and
> the fact that they seperate system mail from online. You can check one,
> the other, or both. The trust ratings built into each tab are a
> significant improvement over firefox. Firefox barely has the options
> available, let alone on a site by site basis in such an easy to access
> form.
>
> The most obvious one is the ability to switch engines on the fly. Most
> firefoxers see this a sacrilege........not like i'm caring much. I see
> it as making the best of a bad situation.
I have been trying to figure out what was going through the developers
head as they made this program. "Hey have you guys heard how there is
this new browser called Firefox that advertises simplicity, security,
and stability among a few of its traits and best of all everyone loves
it. That gives me a wonderful idea! Lets take this very streamlined
browser that everyone loves, make it 10 times larger, uglier, AND give
it the ability to render pages using the IE engine so that now they are
plagued by IE vulnerabilities! We'll make millions!"
| |
| Moz Champion 2005-03-22, 5:45 pm |
| fety wrote:
> Wijja wrote:
>
>
>
> I have been trying to figure out what was going through the developers
> head as they made this program. "Hey have you guys heard how there is
> this new browser called Firefox that advertises simplicity, security,
> and stability among a few of its traits and best of all everyone loves
> it. That gives me a wonderful idea! Lets take this very streamlined
> browser that everyone loves, make it 10 times larger, uglier, AND give
> it the ability to render pages using the IE engine so that now they are
> plagued by IE vulnerabilities! We'll make millions!"
No, the idea is
Lets take this Firefox browser and build on it to create a AOL access
program comparable to the one we now have with the IE based one.
Netscape 8, as extant, is NOT a browser for the masses, but rather the
AOL program to replace the IE based one currently used. Its target
audience is NOT the millions of Internet users per se, but the millions
of AOL users.
As such, the developers had to build in everything that IE could do
because the AOL system has grown to support such. AOL had to add many
non standard features to be able to support its own network, even if
they opened gaping security holes, and then find a means of switching
back and forth, and have it all appear seamless to the user.
Netscape 8 was never intended as a replacement for Firefox, but rather
the AOL (only) version of it.
| |
| John Thompson 2005-03-23, 2:45 am |
| On 2005-03-20, Wijja <wijjawill@gmail.com> wrote:
> Actually, yeah, go right ahead. It's based on Firefox, so what are your
> complaints?
Windows only...
--
John (john@os2.dhs.org)
| |
| Moz Champion 2005-03-23, 2:45 am |
| John Thompson wrote:
> On 2005-03-20, Wijja <wijjawill@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Windows only...
>
AOL caters to windows users and shortchanges most other operating
systems. Netscsape 8 is intended as a alternative (or replacement if
successful) to the IE based AOL program. Its target market is not the
internet as a whole, but rather the propiety AOL system and its users.
Netscape 8 is intended to compete with AOL 9x for windows (7x) OS X mac
and 5x Mac (non OS X).
Note how Mac interface lags behind the Windows by at least 2 versions,
and the total lack of Linux versions
If you dont use the current AOL (IE based) program, then why you would
consider netscape 8 is beyond me
| |
| John Thompson 2005-03-25, 2:45 am |
| On 2005-03-23, Moz Champion <moz.champion@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> John Thompson wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> AOL caters to windows users and shortchanges most other operating
> systems. Netscsape 8 is intended as a alternative (or replacement if
> successful) to the IE based AOL program.
Previous versions of netscape have also been available for linux at
least, and back in the Old Days it was also available for other OSes like
Irix, Solaris and OS/2.
--
John (john@os2.dhs.org)
| |
| Moz Champion 2005-03-25, 7:45 am |
| In-Reply-To: <slrnd474fj.3jo.john@vector.os2.dhs.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 76
Message-ID: <xjS0e.6718$cg1.5735@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: becdc902662fe6c844ad773d0f38817f
X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net
X-Trace: bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 1111748957 becdc902662fe6c844ad773d0f38817f (Fri, 25 Mar 2005 11:09:17 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 11:09:17 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 11:09:17 GMT
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.fan.mozilla:18068
John Thompson wrote:
> On 2005-03-23, Moz Champion <moz.champion@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Previous versions of netscape have also been available for linux at
> least, and back in the Old Days it was also available for other OSes like
> Irix, Solaris and OS/2.
>
You dont seem to understand the situation.
In the beginning, there was netscape (Corporation) which created
Netscape Navigator and then netscape Communicator. They offered these
products over multiple platforms, and at one time was the dominant
Internet product.
Microsoft came out with Internet Explorer, but it was at best a second
fiddle to Netscape, that is, until Microsoft bundled IE with the system
and effectively 'gave' it away with each and every system. To compete,
Netscape had to give its product away as well.
How much can a Corporation afford to spend on a product when it is going
to give it away? That was the dilemma facing Netscape, they couldnt
afford to sink millions into rewriting netscape Communicator, when they
were going to get nothing in return. Microsoft simply added some cost
to its system, so they were getting income from IE.
So, netscape begat Mozilla, to rewrite the product using open source.
Meanwhile, AOL and Sun purchased Netscape
Netscape continued, but was gradually being reduced by AOL. Mozilla was
still going well, and produced versions that ran on multiple platforms.
What was left of netscape simply re-branded Mozilla, and you had
Netscape 6 and netscape 7. Then AOL killed netscape completely, firing
what was left of the staff. They later relented (somewhat) and hired a
special team (mostly of people they had fired in the last year) to
produce netscape 7.2.
Since netscape 7.2 was simply the latest Mozilla, rebranded and with
some AOL tibits added (AIM, netscape webmail), it of course came on
multiple platforms, there simply wasnt that much 'work' to do to convert it.
AOL then decided to create an AOL product, based on Mozilla's Firefox.
But they didnt want to spend millions developing it, so they opted for
windows versions only. After all, the product they were aiming to
compete with (AOL 9) was only available on windows.
Since AOL owns the netscape 'brand' as it were, it called the product
Netscape 8, they could have just as well called it AOL 10. Its not
intended to compete with Firefox, or IE, or any other browser, its
simply an alternative to the current IE based AOL 9.
Currently, AOL produces its 9x version for windows only, there is a
limited Macintosh OS X version, based loosely on AOL 7, and a much older
Macintosh (non OS X) version based on AOL 5. There is no Linux version
of AOL software.
Will AOL produce other versions? Who knows? Perhaps if the product is
successful and acceptted by its customers, then mayhaps AOL will turn
out a Mac version at some time in the future, but probably wont produce
a Linux version.
|
|
|
|
|