Slashdot Mirror


Netscape 7.2 Released

scottfi writes "America Online has just released Netscape 7.2. Based on Mozilla 1.7, this latest version features better popup blocking, vCard support, an improved junk mail algorithm, better standards support, performance enhancements and several hundred other bug fixes. It also includes patches for recent security vulnerabilities. It is a little over a year since AOL shut down the Netscape browser division, laid off or reassigned the remaining engineers and withdrew from the day to day running of mozilla.org. At the time, they said that new versions of Netscape were unlikely. Earlier this year, they changed their minds and announced Netscape 7.2. More details about Netscape 7.2 are available at Netscape Browser Central, together with download links."

57 of 412 comments (clear)

  1. How sad... by winkydink · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is probably the last, dying gasp from the browser & brand that really did change the world.

    --

    "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

    1. Re:How sad... by Kenja · · Score: 4, Funny

      I thought the lasts dying gasp was when the original developers stopped trying to make a better product and decided to just start lawsuits as a means of generating revenue. Granted Microsoft wasn't playing fair, but that was no excuse to go around whining like a little kid.

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    2. Re:How sad... by SYFer · · Score: 5, Funny

      Friends, geeks, slashdotters, lend me your bandwidth;
      I come to bury Netscape, not to praise it;
      The evil that AOL does lives after it,
      The good is oft interréd with their bones,
      So let it be with Netscape....

      --
      "...all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness..." yada yada
    3. Re:How sad... by Sporkinum · · Score: 3, Informative

      Because AOL is trying to hang on to some of their subscriber base that is leaving by offering a low cost ISP. The ISP is called Netscape, and the browser is a nice tie in that they have already paid for.

      --
      "He's lost in a 'floyd hole"
    4. Re:How sad... by hawkbug · · Score: 5, Informative

      Easy - ad revenue. Have you tried using the latest Netscape release? It's horrid - I'd rather use IE. Ofcourse, I use Mozilla which is simply Netscape without all the junk ads and it's more on the cutting edge since Netscape simply rebrands Mozilla, and that obviously takes time to do - so by downloading the latest Mozilla, you're getting a better browser.

    5. Re:How sad... by isorox · · Score: 3, Funny

      Netscape simply rebrands Mozilla, and that obviously takes time to do

      s/Mozilla/Netscape/g

    6. Re:How sad... by janeil · · Score: 3, Informative
      What's sad is that this comment gets modded up so high! What junk ads? Netscape 7.1 has no ads, though the initial installment does allow popup windows from a bunch of servers. You just, uh, delete them. Personally I still like the sidebar. What you see on a web page is what you would have seen with Mozilla 1.4, which was, of course, "cutting edge" for a while anyway.

      And, for what it's worth, I believe one problem Mozilla has with many users is its constant revision. A new point release every few months. Creates a sense for the general user of unfinished product, or of something better in the newer version. Also an annoyance are the changes to themes and with Firefox, extensions, which work with one point release, but not the previous ones, or usually the future releases. Of course this is a flawed viewpoint, but there you are.

      Slashdotter's should also keep in mind that the really general user doesn't even know or care which browser they're using, which of course means IE.

  2. Why though? by Heem · · Score: 3, Insightful

    With the success of the Mozilla project, I fail to see why anyone would bother running Netscape anymore....

    --
    Don't Tread on Me
    1. Re:Why though? by DesScorp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Your definition of sucess and the business world's definition of success are likely two very different things. Mozilla still has a reputation of being a part time hobby for coders, rather than a serious corporate product. The Netscape name is still recognizable in the business world.

      And it doesn't help that the Mozilla project has changed the name of it's products several times now.

      --
      Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    2. Re:Why though? by linuxci · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Branding, your average PHB has heard of Netscape, not Mozilla.

      Well funnily enough when I was looking at the Netscape home page I was redirected here. They're now using the Mozilla brand to push their browser:

      Download the NEW Netscape® 7.2 browser (built with Mozilla) to take advantage of the latest security and popup blocking features and enjoy the best from Netscape.com.

    3. Re:Why though? by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Informative

      At my place of work we have recently flushed Netscape 7.1 for Mozilla 1.7. Users mostly don't notice a change and except for some caveats (like address books disappearing) for the most part the profile from netscape can be used with mozilla. You have to switch themes, too, because the classic themes in mozilla and netscape are not compatible. Also sometimes email disappears but if you grab the last digit of the X-Mozilla-Status: header from the emails, convert it from a string value to a number value, and xor it with 0x8 if it is greater than 0x8 you can undelete mail. I wrote a perl script to this but it's so easy to do that I won't bother to provide it :)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Why though? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      "users mostly don't notice a change." except you have to switch themes. The address book disappears. E-mail disappears. There's some goofy xor trick to delete mail.

      And somebody mods this as informative, rather than funny?

    5. Re:Why though? by GoofyBoy · · Score: 5, Funny

      >I wrote a perl script to this but it's so easy to do that I won't bother to provide it :)

      Could you just scribble it in the margins of this page? Thanks, that would save alot of us about 300 years worth of pain.

      --
      The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
    6. Re:Why though? by iantri · · Score: 4, Informative
      Mozilla Firefox != Netscape.

      Mozilla = Netscape.

      The latest versions of Mozilla and Netscape are virtually identical, except Netscape has extra crap (like AOL IM).

      You are using a beta version of Firefox. Not the same.

    7. Re:Why though? by skt · · Score: 4, Informative

      The parent is a little misleading in that the address book does not normally disappear. One thing that mozilla can not do for licensing reasons is import the netscape 4 address book. Netscape 7.1, however, can automatically import the address book during initial profile migration.

      A migration from NS7.1 to mozilla does not cause data loss in the address book since they both use the same, new mozilla address book format. If I am migrating from Netscape 4 to mozilla, I usually export to LDIF from NS4 and then import it back into mozilla using the LDIF converter.

    8. Re:Why though? by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Oh ok ok, here is my script. Please be warned that I am not a programmer (I am one who programs, but not as a vocation) and this is probably the absolute worst way to do this. It's just something I tossed together.

      #!/usr/bin/perl
      #
      # nsundelete.pl - undelete messages not yet purged from netscape folders
      #
      while (<>) {
      print STDERR $_ if ( $_ =~ "^Subject:.*" );
      if ( $_ =~ "^X-Mozilla-Status:.*" ) {
      chomp;
      ( $trash, $status ) = split(/\ /,$_);
      print STDERR "Status: $status\n";
      @chars = split(/ */, $status);
      $chars[3] = $chars[3] - 8 if ( $chars[3] >= 8 );
      print STDOUT "X-Mozilla-Status: " . join('', @chars) . "\n";
      print STDERR "X-Mozilla-Status: " . join('', @chars) . "\n";
      } else {
      print STDOUT $_;
      }
      }

      Note also that Slashdot may have inserted whitespace. I tried to replace all my greater than and less than symbols with the appropriate HTML entities but I might have missed something, so don't try this on your only copy of something and delete the source file before examining the output.

      And finally, I LOVE PERL, MWAH!

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    9. Re:Why though? by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Funny

      Oh and I forgot to mention, your* tax dollars paid for this, so I hereby release it into the public domain. I hope that's not exceeding my authority but I doubt anyone will care because it's not patentable.

      * If you live in the US, especially California.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    10. Re:Why though? by huchida · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm a non-technical type, and I use IE 6 exclusively. I find it laughable that people would use that Mozilla 1.7 thing when IE is clearly 4.3 better.

      Though I do plan to switch to Netscape because it is, of course, 1.2 better than IE.

    11. Re:Why though? by FooBarWidget · · Score: 3, Insightful
      "The Netscape name is still recognizable in the business world."


      Why do people say this? At every computer-related forum I know, almost everybody complains (or used to complain) about how slow and bloated and unstable Netscape 4.x and 6.0 was. When 6.5 and 7.x were out, people didn't even bother to try it. Netscape kept it's repuation of being slow, bloated and unstable.
      And these days, almost nobody knows Netscape anymore. Most people who do fall in the "I-hate-Netscape" category.
    12. Re:Why though? by nandix · · Score: 5, Funny

      > Mozilla = Netscape

      A message from the slashdot compiler:

      Thanks a lot, you've just overwritten all the fixes in mozilla since the last AOL fork.

      Next time please pay more attention and write the proper Mozilla == Netscape statement

  3. Um... by Millennium · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If AOL laid off all the Netscape engineers, then who made this release?

    1. Re:Um... by triffidsting · · Score: 5, Funny

      Probably the marketing department.

      --
      Non, je ne veux pas coucher avec toi ce soir.
    2. Re:Um... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      The Underpants Gnomes, it has something to do with step 2.

  4. Netscape is like Tupac... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Releasing new versions from beyond the grave!

  5. However by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    this latest version features better popup blocking, vCard support, an improved junk mail algorithm, better standards support, performance enhancements and several hundred other bug fixes.

    But alas, all of the other AOL "bonuses" counteracted the new features.

  6. ....and I'm posting from it. by michael+path · · Score: 4, Informative

    I jumped the gun when I saw the article display. It installed quickly, renders pages quickly, but - just like Mozilla or Firefox - runs into all the same problems for sites designed with IE in mind (missing menu bars, etc)

    However, it's VERY lightweight (11.5MB installer for Windows), and the memory footprint is about 35% smaller than IE for the same page.

    Nice.

    1. Re:....and I'm posting from it. by mobby_6kl · · Score: 5, Interesting

      >VERY lightweight (11.5MB installer for Windows)

      compared to what? The latest Opera is 3.4 MB ;)

    2. Re:....and I'm posting from it. by Rock · · Score: 5, Informative

      A lot of "Internet Explorer only" sites are going to break as people download XP Service Pack 2. With ActiveX disabled by default, sites that depend on substandard proprietary techniques might finally die.

      One hopes that Microsoft follows through and removes ActiveX and other idiocies from their web-page building tools.

      -- Rich

      --
      - - -
      "The sixth sick shiek's sixth sheep's sick."
    3. Re:....and I'm posting from it. by Ianoo · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yeah, and 3MB of that is Google adverts!

  7. Why use NS instead of Mozilla? by wackysootroom · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Aside from being a propreitary product, what does netscape bring to the table that Mozilla does not?

    1. Re:Why use NS instead of Mozilla? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      That AOL charm we have all come to know and love.

    2. Re:Why use NS instead of Mozilla? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      alot of old baggage and memories of a ship's-wheel icon.

    3. Re:Why use NS instead of Mozilla? by athakur999 · · Score: 5, Informative

      I believe it has AOL Instant Messenger intregration and the Mail component can check your AOL mailbox directly.

      --
      "People that quote themselves in their signatures bother me" - athakur999
    4. Re:Why use NS instead of Mozilla? by trevdak · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There are people out there who don't trust Mozilla.
      Why?
      Because it isn't run by a major corporation that they will be able to sue should there be any problems.
      AOL puts a face (granted, a big, ugly one that makes most Slashdotter's teeth itch) on Mozilla that is recognized by technophobes as user-friendly. Additionally, AOL gets free advertisement out of it through name placement, and gets to take credit for a high-quality product. Netscape draws the previously mentioned crowd away from the Evil Corporation Which Must Not Be Named.

    5. Re:Why use NS instead of Mozilla? by ticktockticktock · · Score: 4, Informative
      and the Mail component can check your AOL mailbox directly.
      and so can ANY IMAP capable client.
    6. Re:Why use NS instead of Mozilla? by SeaFox · · Score: 3, Informative

      There are people out there who don't trust Mozilla.
      Why?
      Because it isn't run by a major corporation that they will be able to sue should there be any problems.


      That makes sense. And certainly is part of the reason FOSS is not more widely accepted in business. But it's an unwarranted idea. EULA's usually say that the software is used at your own risk and the vendor cannot be held responsible for coincidental, accidental, anecdotal, and total disasters.

      So even if there software is being written by a megasupacorporation, there's few legitaimate reasons you could sue.

    7. Re:Why use NS instead of Mozilla? by Guppy06 · · Score: 3, Informative

      I used NS 7.1 before I switched to Firefox last month (long story), and if 7.2 is anything like 7.1 was, it's more or less a suite of Microsoft alternatives.

      The core software is essentially Mozilla (less ChatZilla). The only big differences are the introduction of profiles for storing multiple configuration settings (for all those home users that have several people using the same user account, I s'pose), an "activation" process (yadda) that sets you up with a netscape.net webmail account (which I imagine is the same domain used by customers of that new Netscape-branded ISP, if such customers exist) accessable through Mail. Netscape Mail can also do a few things that Mozilla Mail can't do because of licensing issues, such as access AOL e-mail accounts and import mail from Netscape Communicator 4.7 directly.

      In lieu of ChatZilla it comes with an integrated AIM and ICQ client. Among other bells and whistles the client can be in a stand-alone window or in a sidebar. The only real downside is that you can't be in both AIM and ICQ at the same time (or has that been fixed in 7.2?). Note also that during the "activation" process that they'll use your pre-existing AIM handle as your user account name for your netscape.net webmail address.

      On top of that there are some other bundled apps, mostly other things that AOL also now owns. There's a Radio@Netscape ("Plus") client (think "Radio@AOL") that's still based on the old Spinner software as opposed to the Real stuff that you get as the stand-alone product (unforunately I could never get it to work). WinAmp 2.8 is included, along with a default "netscape" skin that tries to match the "Modern" theme in Mozilla (but fails, IMO) along with changing the title bar to read "Netscape Winamp."

      (I find it interesting that the versions of Spinner and Winamp included with 7.1 were both older versions that happened to be the last versions where they didn't suck, at least in the opinions of most people I've seen.)

      They also try to bundle a RealPlayer client, but I'll be damned if I'll install that. I'd assume that it's also been massaged to look like Netscape.

      And, because they're AOL, "Free AOL for (pi)e7 hours!" links will magically appear on your desktop and start menu, but they go away upon deletion.

      At any rate, it's probably not worth the download for you, but it might be worth sending your parents/grandparents/other people that get free tech support from you. Now when is AOL going to make Netscape its default browser? They saw the light in their CompuServe acquisition, so why not for their core customers?

  8. Article Text Stolen! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
  9. That's good. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is good. There is still a lot of brand recognition left with Netscape (suprisingly). Sometimes people feel happier using a newer version of a product they know (Netscape), as opposed to a product they _think_ they don't know (Mozilla / Firefox).

    The release of Netscape helps in moving these people to a decent, secure browser. I think that Netscape no longer justifies the Nutscrape moniker it aquired in the later 4.x days.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  10. Nostalgia by AviLazar · · Score: 4, Interesting

    While Netscape is in my heart (well prior to AOL corrupting my teenage fav program) unfortunately netscape 4.7 was the last decent netscape. IE was so integrated that it flew past netscape :(
    But in all honesty -why would I use netscape over firefox? Is there an advantage?

    --

    I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    1. Re:Nostalgia by CarrionBird · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Netscape 4.x? Decent? In same sentance??

      Does.... not.. compute...

      NS 4 was the reason I landed on Mozilla back in those rough pre 1.0 days. Anything * was better than having a crash on every other page. If I had to pick a favorite version of NS, it would have to be pre 4. *(Other than IE, I never trusted activeX, seems I was right.)
      --
      Free Mac Mini Yeah, it's
  11. In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    If a tree falls in the forest, and there's nobody around to hear it...

  12. which begs the question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    If a browser is available for download, and nobody downloads it, it is really released?

    Netscape family is like the Griffeys of baseball, the offspring is infinitely better then the parent.

  13. Shame by cubicledrone · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Probably some of the smartest and most capable engineers and designers in the industry, who produced probably the most famous and symbolic product of the early Internet, and all that's left is a web page of farewell messages.

    It isn't hard to notice the first priority was that everyone should be fired. THEN and ONLY then was the next version of the browser considered, after all the logos were taken off the buildings and the desks moved out, of course.

    I find it very interesting how the early Internet is always referred to as "dot com", as if business and the media are straining to make it a pejorative. All that creativity and CAPITALISM generated great wealth for dozens of economies. Ebay, Amazon, etc. are all publically traded, profitable companies that wouldn't exist without the Internet.

    But it seems that now since the checks have all been cashed, there's no room left for the people who built it, and that's a shame.

    --
    Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
    1. Re:Shame by oconnorcjo · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I find it very interesting how the early Internet is always referred to as "dot com", as if business and the media are straining to make it a pejorative. All that creativity and CAPITALISM generated great wealth for dozens of economies. Ebay, Amazon, etc. are all publically traded, profitable companies that wouldn't exist without the Internet.

      Actually the dot com's were directly related to the 2001-2002 recession and 2003 slow growth. Although 9/11 had some small impact, the fact that billions of billions of billions "disappeared" due to dot coms being overhyped and over valued and going bust destroyed huge ammounts of investment capital. That capital that was infused into the "dot coms" was capital that was not invested into more "worthy" bussiness ventures. Sure many dot coms did/are successfull but not nearly in comparison to the over all failure.

      --
      I miss the Karma Whores.
  14. Name Game by ackthpt · · Score: 5, Funny
    And it doesn't help that the Mozilla project has changed the name of it's products several times now.

    I'm still using Firebird, because I've been too preoccupied to keep up. Wasn't there some issue with one of the names conflicting with the database system? Is it Phoenix, or has that been confused a BIOS of the same name and they're moving on to another?

    Here's a thought! They just found a a previously undiscovered bird species in the Philippines, they could name it after that and beat every other software product!

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:Name Game by EvanED · · Score: 3, Funny

      It went Phoenix, Firebird, Firefox.

      And may a recommend the firesomething plugin?

  15. All right! by Yeechang+Lee · · Score: 5, Funny

    Finally, a browser that can defeat reigning champs NCSA Mosaic, Arena, and Cello! *Anything* that breaks their monopoly-like dominance of the Web browser market will be welcomed!

  16. Better than perfect? by Kenrod · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...features better popup blocking

    How'd they do that? My Mozilla 1.7 blocks 100% of pop-ups. You can't get much better than that.

    --
    Good heavens Miss Sakamoto - you're beautiful!
    1. Re:Better than perfect? by aggiejy · · Score: 3, Funny

      Uhoh... my Netscape 7.2 seems to be broken. It's blocking all popups except those on Netscape.com!!! HELP!!!

  17. That must be the Navigator-only version by sczimme · · Score: 5, Informative

    However, it's VERY lightweight (11.5MB installer for Windows)

    I just grabbed the full version (what NS calls the 'offline installer'):

    The Win32 installation .exe weighs in at ~24MB

    The Linux/686 installation tar.gz is ~16MB.

    --
    I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
  18. I think you're being a little over-dramatic by Trepidity · · Score: 5, Informative

    Most of the people who built Netscape, who were there from the old Mosaic days, left a long time ago, and many of them are fabulously wealthy. Neither Marc Andreessen nor Jim Clarke particularly need to work in the future to support themselves, and jwz took his money and is doing a semi-business/semi-hobby sort of thing by running the DNA Lounge nightclub in San Francisco (just to pick three examples).

    And even to the people there at the end, AOL was quite helpful. First of all, they vastly overpaid for Netscape, since they were sold it on the basis partly that they could use it as an embedded browser for he AOL client, while technically Mozilla was always too bloated and un-modular to do that well (maybe just now it's starting to get to the point where that'd be possible, but it wasn't when they bought it, or even a year or two after they bought it). Once they realized it wasn't much use to them, they didn't even just say "well, fuck you guys": they transitioned it to a new Mozilla.org foundation, and became the single largest donor (by far) to that non-profit foundation, giving them all the equipment they had previously been using (webservers, test build machines, file servers, etc.) and $2m cash.

    All in all I don't think AOL are really the evil ones here. You don't see any other major companies donating $2m cash to mozilla.org.

  19. This just in. by nortcele · · Score: 4, Informative

    Mosaic 9.0 has been released. The browser that really changed the world. Thank you Mr. Andreason.

  20. First post ... by ehiris · · Score: 4, Informative

    ... With netscape. This browser is either a lot faster then IE or it just gives you that feeling. I'm very pleased so far.

  21. Umm... based on Moz 1.7 or 1.7.2? by Bloody+Peasant · · Score: 3, Insightful

    One would hope the latter...

    There is at least one nasty bug that got fixed between 1.7 and 1.7.2.

    --
    -- This .sig intentionally left meaningless.
  22. Windows Annoyances by gfxguy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I listen to Neal Boortz. Before you start booing, let me finish. He recently had a problem with his computer and spyware bringing it to it's knees.

    He actually said that computer nerds can hold their calls with advice and "told-you-sos", he bought the computer into the shop where he purchased it (and hawks continuously on the air).

    A couple of days later he was back on the air talking about what a great job they did cleaning off all the junk - and installing Firefox to keep it from happening again. He went on to talk about how great Firefox was, and that it was free, and why would anyone want to keep using IE, etc., etc.

    AFAIR, he even included a link on his web pages to the Mozilla site.

    Pretty good publicity from a famous talk show host, even if you don't like him...

    --
    Stupid sexy Flanders.
  23. Re:Hey Microsoft... by gfxguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So I find sites all the time that still do not work with Mozilla. Usually I go somewhere else. I haven't really encountered one where I had to switch to IE. In fact, the HDD on my Windows box crashed, and even though it's been replaced I've just been using my Linux box exclusively (and enjoying it greatly).

    So here's the problem: I work for AOL/TW, and in order to access our paystubs (which they no longer send to us in paper form), we need to access an internal website. It doesn't work with Mozilla.

    So I complained (email to site admin).

    I got the generic response that the site only works with IE. So I wrote back asking why the browser WE release doesn't work on OUR own internal site... (sound of crickets... took two days for the first reponse, been waiting over a week for a second one).

    It's not the first internal site that doesn't work with Mozilla, but it's the most frustrating... I've found work arounds for the ones I care about, except the one I mentioned above.

    So why, after all the posturing about Netscape and Mozilla, after all the testifying we did against MS during the antitrust hearings, after realizing we are in direct competition with MS in many areas, WHY WHY WHY did we make the IE deal with them?

    What's funny (or sad, depending on how you look at it), while people in my company are entitled to FREE AOL, hardly anybody uses it - it's that bad, we'd rather pay someone else. The only people I know that use it have another ISP and only let their kids use AOL for the content filtering.

    Oh yeah, my bother uses it, too, but he was never the sharpest tool in the shed anyway.

    --
    Stupid sexy Flanders.