Slashdot Mirror
AOL to Release Netscape 7.2 Based on Mozilla 1.7
securitas writes "ZDNet's Evan Hansen reports that AOL will release Netscape Navigator 7.2 based on Mozilla 1.7 code this summer. The update comes a year after version 7.1 and after Microsoft stopped standalone development in Internet Explorer. eWEEK's Matt Hicks offers analysis of the new Netscape release, citing studies that say while Microsoft has a 93.9% browser market share and 87% of business users use IE, 25% still use Netscape and 11% use Opera -- the math works because people use multiple browsers. Hicks asks the question 'Is the Netscape Browser Being Reborn or Just Stabilized?' Hicks interviews several people in the know including a former Netscape engineer, an industry analyst, and Opera Software CEO Jon von Tetzchner."
I'd rather see a year between releases than a buggy browser.
The Technonaut
Competition is always good. My main issue with Netscape is simply that it's not promoted like it should be... it's the same issue I have with people buying fast cars, driving in the fast lane, and going 55.
Not that Netscape's necessarily a Ferrari, but it's no Yugo, either.
Sincerely, anybody knows what's the advantage of Netscape over Mozilla?? I'm confused...
Why? What will Netscape 7.2 be that Mozilla 1.7 is not?
I'm glad AOL is doing this, but why bother? The Foundation (IMHO) is doing a great job in making Seamonkey, the Fox and the Bird, and Camino into products an end-user can appreciate and use.
Sorry AOL, you lose. For four years you had the chance to make Netscape into a valued alternative to MSIE. You failed. Now, roll over, get lost, or die.
Support the Chagossians
I have an irritating suspicion that the dummies (read unknowing spam proxy, worm infected, has a hotmail account and uses a 1GB RAM machine for emails and surfing - in short the majority of lusers) will continue to use IE until they get whatever they get in Longhorn O$, even if all new websites display funny.(They just resist change. I know people who would switch to Linux if the different window decorations didn't scare them.)
# cat
Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
...but why do I get the feeling that MS might be letting IE development slide deliberately in this manner.
They might be letting Mozilla and others gain a bit more ground so that in a couple of years, if the playing field became a little more level... then MS can play the "we've not got a monopoly on browsers" as extra leverage on governments/organisations who view them with more suspicion on this very issue (as well as other matters). It could be a more long term plan with them.
Again just my 0.02 british pounds.
Are you local? There's nothing for you here!
Don't take me wrong I'm a mozilla fan and linux user.
But honestly if I'm running windows, what real motiviation is there to download a replacement browser when IE is already installed, and works?
I can't be mad at any secretary 'cause she uses IE instead of Mozilla/Netscape. Of course of political reasons she shouldn't, but practically?
If you sell an operating system, you practically just have the ultimate power to drive any other software out of business by bundeling and installing it by default.
--
Karma 50, and all I got was this lousy T-Shirt.
Next we have the webdevelopers that only care about IE compatibility. Some may care about other browsers, but usually as an afterthought.
Ofcourse this can be a right pain in the rear to fight this. The recent stream of exploits against various IE versions have started to create an anti- IE stance. What needs to be done is create the awareness that IE is unsafe, and now even abandoned by MS themselves until after their duke-nukem forever OS comes out. We(The people "in the know") must bring this our superiors attention that IE just isn't gonna cut it next year (or the year afterwards). It's not gonna be easy, but i'm sure we can have an impact.
Will wank off Linus Torvalds for fame.
I use tab browsing a lot (the firefox style where the new tabs are opened in backround), and after a search on google or a /. header, I will launch tabs on all relevant links and then browse sideways accross them. Links that do not work (including IE only sites) get passed over.
From the comments one hears around, it seems that a lot of people use mozilla type browsers in this way, and so will often pass over IE only sites even thougth they are included in the "93.7%". Webmasters will need to wake up to this.
Less IE specific content (which is allready rare....I just checked and I have not launched IE for over a week) means more browser choice. And let's face it, why on earth should everbody like the same browser!
And if you thought that was boring you obviously havn't read my Journal ;-)
Shouldn't it be 7.2/1.7=4.24 times better? See, we're already closing the gap! Go Mozilla!
Firefox is the popular Mozilla Browser, because it follows windows and IE conventions (e.g. shortcuts) and is fast (not bloatware). It does not try to be anything except a browser. It is the best at what it does. I'd want to suggest that if Mozilla has a real future, it's with Firefox!
___________
seun osewa
There's no reason why we should be bothered though - Mozilla is a worthy replacement, much more reliable and functional, and the lines of evolution are clear. You could go from NS 4.7 to Mozilla 1.6 and feel right at home. Even the much-derided Mail and News (which I always preferred to the OE mess) is almost the same. When IE gets pop-up blocking I'm still not going back to it.
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
Netscape was my default browser until version 4.7 when things went horribly wrong. That version was very buggy and seemed like it was rushed out the door way too early, and I wonder if that was around the time AOL took over.
I wasn't using linux back then and so I, like many others, began using IE. It was far better than Netscape then and I stayed with it for awhile. I gave Netscape another chance when version 6 came out but it too was very buggy. The only plus I found with it was that it had excellent CSS support and I believe that was the first version to have tabbed browsing...which I've become addicted too.
That was when I discovered linux and switched to Mozilla, and Firebird (now Firefox). I've never turned back since. When Netscape 7.0 came out it didn't appear to have any new features that I remember but it did seem to clean up a lot of the bugs from version 6. At that point I realized that Netscape was a viable browser again but it was too late to win me back.
AOL should have really began pushing version 7 to the masses. For IE users not yet exposed to the greatness of Mozilla (or even Opera) Netscape should have started gaining a lot of ground back from IE. With tabbed browsing, pop up blocking, integrated email client, better CSS support, and arguably faster rendering speed it blows IE out of the water. 25% market share against Microsoft is nothing to sneeze at either and they had the pontential to gain more.
Now I don't know anyone at all that uses Netscape and whenever I'm asked to recommend a decent browser I suggest Firefox. AOL would do better to give up on Netscape and throw their support behind Mozilla instead.
It's too bad really, because Netscape played a huge part in bringing the www to the masses. I'd like to see it do well again but since AOL messed everything up with it I don't hold a lot of stock in its future.
-Pat
The only problem i've ever had with mozilla is when ie sites load a ton of useless javascript and it freezes mozilla for a minute. i'm not too sure if this is common with other users though
Too little, too late.
I don't suffer from insanity. I enjoy every minute of it!
Make your computer ten thousand times larger--try Frink
Continue developing Internet Explorer would be BAD for Microsoft
You know why?
Because any change is a threat to the status quo.
Because if IE7 can handle transparent PNGs and lots of sites start to use it, millions of IE6 users will upgrade. And when they upgrade there is the danger that they might upgrade to Mozilla and not IE7.
The same goes for CSS2/3, SVG, etc.
Developing IE is not in the interest of Microsoft, they would be stupid if they would do it at this time.
But there are a couple of reasons why IE will lose its domination in the next couple of years: Linux is making inroads, Mac-users are switching to Safari, Playstation3 will probably run Mozilla and cellphones run Opera.
If you have one of those USB Key Chains put a copy of the latest stable version of Mozilla on it. Then when you go threw your daily travels with other people and you see a person who is having problems with Popups or Spyware on the system offer to install them Mozilla that should fix the problems. After you install it you ask them to use it by default, because if they don't then they will be getting those popup again. Show them a couple of the features such as the tabbed browsing and such so they feel like they have a better product not just a cheapo one that just block popups.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Nope. The MPL only requires source to be released if you're modifying the browser core. Chrome changes don't require source.
The NPL allowed Netscape to do whatever they wanted with the code, but hackers didn't like it. The MPL allows them to "add value" in the form of enhancements like an AOL messenger sidebar as long as these don't interfere with core functionality.
- Chris
Opera is default set to Identify as IE, so those stats are probably bigger in reality!
I love opera, and most of those nice features mentioned in Mozilla, was available in Opera first!
Simpsons 11:11: Lisa: They must have programmed it to eliminate the competition - Bart: You mean like microsoft?
Mozilla and it's tabbed browsing, mouse gestures, pop up blockers, type ahead find and the raft of other nifty features is great for the "power surfer" but I swear that based on the people in my office, it's not something they particulary need or feel the need to have enough to even go out and try.
Well, they don't know that it exists, or that it is even possible. They're not going to say "I want tabbed browsing", they're going to say (maybe, and only if you ask them or watch them surf) "I hate how I always lose my place, or accidentaly close my window. I hate how I can't easily check out search results without getting lost".
I asked my mother about pop up adverts last month and she'd only ever come across one in the two years she'd been surfing the web. Granted, she wasn't surfing a very large number of sites - but it was difficult to sell a feature to her when she didn't really know why she needed it.
You're mother is pretty unusual, then. Take most people on a tour of their favorite sites with popups blocked, and with the mozilla Adblock and Flashblock plugins, and watch their jaws drop.
A paranoid IE user? And I thought Linux had the monoply in the "it can do that....really" stakes.
If you had read carefully the message I posted you would see that I was pointing out that the use of tabbed browsing means I tend to skip over sites that do not get rendered properly (usually IE only sites).
"IE can be hosted as a control inside any other application."
I know all about that, in fact we do embedd it into our applications, and they are not free gimicks they are applications we sell to our customers. As such I know a lot about the shortcomings and problems of embedding IE. I use mozilla for my browsing and I am impressed by the whole platform, and I am planning to use in our apps in the future.
Fact is that Mozilla'a underlying platform, in particular the dev platform, is way ahead of IE which has not been significantly developed for years. True, MS probably have big plans for it's integration into Longhorn and .NET, but we will worry about that problem when it arrives! Right now one of our competitors is allready deploying Mozilla based solutions, and they rock. It is a bit embarresing for me, a Mozilla user myself but IE deployer when it comes to customer apps!
Frankly, saying that we should all use IE because it comes with the OS is like saying we should use 'Write' for all or documents. I am finding that being integrated into the OS is a negative feature, not a positive one.
And if you thought that was boring you obviously havn't read my Journal ;-)
While Netscape 7.2 is a welcome update, I think its unlikely to have any impact in the long run, nor would a future release of Netscape 8 based on Mozilla 2.0.
What would be of interest is to base a new version of Netscape on the upcoming Firefox 1.0, which would give Netscape a serious contender for Internet Explorer's crown, if they were to give their full backing behind it.
Yes I admit it. I one of those people who has always just used IE because it was there. Not even tabbed browsing got my attention. So what made me change?
I just got a new laptop with one of those wide screens. With the resolution set to 1920x1200 (recommended) IE just does not render correctly. Websites with graphics just look like hell in IE at this resolution. I installed Firefox and the sites look great.
Do I have something set wrong in IE or is this just one of the many short comings?
The browser is still important. I do not think that the war is over. We have simply been set back by a few years (or even decades). BTW I did read pretty much all the DoJ documents. They are important.
Here are the points that one fails to appreciate:
1) IE recently stopped supporting Netscape-style plugins, presumably because they felt that they were now the dominant power and that this was an added defensive measure.
2) I still develop complex web apps using Javascript and HTML on the front-end and PHP or Python on the middleware in order to provide cross-platform functionality. Many other people do as well. This is still a very real threat to MS on the desktop, and something that I don';t think they really appreciate at the moment.
3) Microsoft's dominating influence on the desktop also comes from their rapid application development tools. Python and Mozilla/XUL are incredibly useful here.
You have to understand that this is a very assymetric war. What matters to MS is not what matters to us. They have to pursue new lock-in technologies because they will otherwise lose. This is why they are pushing for DRM, IMO.
The fact of the matter is, though, that DRM is NOT the lock-in factor that, say IE was. It is something which companies may choose to use internally, but that would likely be a few years off, and I would find it unlikely that they would use it in correspondences with customers, etc.
I think they have the browser in the rear-view mirror because they figure that they cannot win this one.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
It may be slow and buggy (actually, 7.1 isn't that bad, IMO), but it's hard to push open source to businesses because they want someone to hold accountable.
Market forces, on the other hand, have their own way of forcing good software in, regardless of origin. When you risk losing millions in contracts because you don't support Mozilla or Linux, the corporate penny pinchers start to take notice.