Netscape 8.0 Released

Mr. Christmas Lights writes "CNet is reporting that Netscape Navigator Version 8 has been released. The 8.0 Beta debuted back in March, with the final version being based on Firefox 1.03, and includes Trust Rating, a feature which identifies sites as safe or unsafe. Netscape 8.0 also includes a toggle which allows switching between Mozilla and Microsoft's rendering engines as needed. The Main Netscape 8 page has more info, and the 'Download Now' page is already serving up the new browser."

Comments

No thanks...

[halivar]

I'll stick with the Real Thing (tm). Now in version 1.04, and corporate ad-ware free!

Re:No thanks...

[Hank Chinaski]

in fact firefox's search box contains links to ebay, amazon, google etc that are sponsored and help to sustain the mofo (mozilla foundation)

Re:No thanks...

[Anonymous Coward]

...help to sustain the mofo (mozilla foundation)

Is that what the Mozilla Foundation calls themselves? If so, that's hilarious! : p

Re:No thanks...

[Hank Chinaski]

yes it is. both hilarious and true.

Re:No thanks...

[Gopal.V]

At least they based Netscape 8.0 on Gecko (with an IE rendering option). Earlier rumours said that 8.0 was going to be based on Internet Explorer. It would have been the ultimate irony.

Browser is the The Platform - expect new IE versions to have a .NET controls integration built into. (integrating that in Mozilla - either mono or dotgnu would be inviting a patent lawsuit).

Re:No thanks...

[Matrix9180]

the flash tour says that "trusted sites" will be rendered using the IE method "for better compatability". so the rumors were right :-\

Re:No thanks...

[hey!]

Yah, me too.

But pesonally, I don't have a problem with somebody trying to build a value added browser.

You and I may be into to the level of control we have over Firefox, but the average person without a geek support team is going to pretty much use the browser out of the box and isn't going to have the goodies we searched out and installed. It's the difference between painting the pinstripes on your car yourself or getting them as part of a standard trim package from the manufacturer.

Heck, I'm a happy user of several Linux distros,even if Linux From Scratch would give me a Linux installation perfectly suited to my needs. The thing is, the difference between what I can get in Mandrake and what would be perfect for me isn't worth the amount of trouble it would be for me. That's the way most people are going to feel about browsers.

Re:No thanks...

[Bedouin X]

For me, the best feature is the per-site controls of various technologies like Java, Javascript, and Active X. That and the engine switcher are two very compelling features.

Now if I could only use the Web Developer extension...

Re:No thanks...

[leonbev]

Believe me, this is a GOOD idea. I've tried converting tons of non-technical people to Firefox, but many of them end up switching back when they can't use a few sites that was designed to only work with IE. Yahoo's LaunchCast and Messenger avatar customization sites come to mind quickly, as do a few online banking and eBay auction tool sites.

Re:No thanks...

[hawaiian717]

Earlier rumours said that 8.0 was going to be based on Internet Explorer.

It sounds like you're thinking of the AOL Browser, which is based on IE.

Based off of firefox

[thundercatslair]

So do we actually need a netscape now? I used too use it untill they released 7. It was probably the worst browser I have ever used.

Re:Based off of firefox

[Timesprout]

I love comemnts like these. One of the values of Open Source is choice but as soon as a decent Open Source version of something comes along suddenly theres no need for anything else. Choice is still good which is why I want to to see Firefox, Netscape, Opera, Konq, Safari and even IE compete to build something better.

Re:Based off of firefox

[ThePromenader]

It will be nice being able to test your web pages with just one browser.

Re:Based off of firefox

[Emetophobe]

Just download the IEView extension for Firefox if you really must use that other browser..

Re:Based off of firefox

[Bert64]

And those pages should be boycotted and their authors contacted. The web was meant to be accessible to all, not only to those who pay the microsoft tax. And before you say it, i'm not anti microsoft, i'm pro freedom/choice. I want to be able to view websites using any program i wish on any device that i wish, the web was designed to be accessible to all and this goes totally against that principle. I was equally frustrated when netscape 1.x came around and implemented all kinds of propriatory extensions which weren't in the proper html specs, i thus avoided netscape on principle and definately won't stop doing so now.

Re:Based off of firefox

[Orgazmus]

You are SO anti-american
Freedom of choice is just a hippy concept

Re:Based off of firefox

[leonbev]

That's good for you, but 99% of the population doesn't think like that. Joe Sixpack doesn't even know what html standards are, let alone care if they are implimented properly in the browser or the web site that he's using. All he wants is to be able to do things like upload and print his digital photos on Walmart's picture site, pay his bills with Wachovia's BillPay application, and listen to some streaming music on LaunchCast.

I chose those three sites for a reason, because ALL THREE of them have problems with when used with Firefox. Having a "render in IE" option will come in handy for sites like these, because good ol' Joe is going to be pissed at you if you tell him that he can't use those sites anymore with his new web browser.

Re:Based off of firefox

[FuzzyBad-Mofo]

Build a site correctly and it won't be necessary to have code forks or multiple versions -- even to support mobile devices, screen readers, text browsers, etc. This has been true for years, it's unfortunate there are still those stuck in a 1997 world of nested tables, image slices, and browser-specific code.

Re:Based off of firefox

[fastfinge]

First off, bolting onto other browsers is *always* a good thing for accessibility. If I am bolted on to firefox or Internet Explorer, when a security fix comes out, I get it as soon as the devs of the mainstream product release the patch. The fact that it is a mainstream product means this will be relatively soon. If an exploit is found for Joe's Accessible Web Browser 2.3.9, I am at risk until Joe gets around to fixing his code. This will probably be a lot longer than when firefox does so.

Second off, if a website deviates from a standard, it means the standard doesn't work. In the current market, companies can't afford a standard. Just think how long any improvement would have taken in the early years of the internet if Microsoft and Netscape had had to agree on every new feature and how it would work before it got added? We'd still be in political meetings today. How do you think a website like launchcast should code the website in order to both satisfy the drm, have all the features they have now, and work as quickly? I don't think it can be done while strictly following the w3. If a user doesn't follow standards for his website (IE nested tables or something), it means either that the standard is flawed in being overly complicated, or in not providing an obvious way for the user to do what he or she wants. I'm blind, as you guessed, and acutely aware of standards. However, I have found that for every spare time hobby website I do, I have to disregard the standards entirely. Why? It takes me something like eighty times as long to create a standards compliant page, some in understanding, but mostly in *typing*! I find it outragious that a user is expected to memorize, think about, and specify doctype at the top of every single html file he or she creates. Once that's done, then you get the fun of meta-tags. If you want to create an rss link, then you get the fun of a bunch of other xml thingies for autodiscovery. We're not even going to get into how non-intuitive the slashes in tags like br are for the standard user. Ever tried to explain this to someone you were teaching html? You eventually end up giving them a bunch of things in a text file to copy-paste (like meta tags and doctype), and answering "because that's the way someone or other decided to do it." to almost all other questions. It seems to me that recent versions of html add nothing in usability and much in complexity.

I have discovered that what the open source community means by "it isn't standard" is usually one of the following:
1. It's not done *my way*, and I don't like the other way.
2. They didn't do it the way I decided to do it.
3. It uses DRM or is otherwise proprietary, and they won't let me play.
4. It does something I didn't allow for because I never thought of it or didn't feel like it. I'm not going to fix it now because not doing that is part of the standard.
5. It has trivial errors that could be easily and transparently worked around by my software, but I'm not going to because I like punishing users in hopes that they'll learn.

I realize minimal standards are required to ensure a lack of anarchy and allow for universal access, but most "standards" seem utterly arbitrary. Is it true that we can't nest tables (I've spent enough time on this, I refuse to go look it up)? Why on earth not? Was that slash in the br tag really required for anything, or is it just that programmers like xml better? Could a renderer really not hack it without knowing the doctype, or is it that that would take some extra coding smarts that nobody really wants to create? Will the world come to an end if people don't bother with meta tags? Maybe I'm just a dumb shit for having to ask, but I'm reading and posting on slashdot, and I've honestly spent time thinking about this stuff. How far does that put me above most average users? If I can't get it, how can we expect everyone else writing websites for minimum wage to figure it all out?

Trusting trust

[KiloByte]

includes Trust Rating
Well... and why exactly should I trust AOL Time Warner?

Re:Trusting trust

[jonadab]

> Well... and why exactly should I trust AOL Time Warner?

Depends what you're trusting them to do. The question you want to ask is not "Do I trust them to always to the right thing in every circumstance?" but rather "Do I trust them to objectively evaluate whether any given website is dangerous (from an IT security perspective) or benign?" Maybe you do and maybe you don't (I'm not convinced I do), but it's a simpler question than the overbroad "Do I trust them?" and, on the whole, more likely to be answered in the affirmative.

There's still a market, believe it or not

[MarkEst1973]

My wife works at the EPA where they have an IMB/LotusNotes/Netscape solution on all desktops. She's running Netscape 7, I believe.

I, personally, question the time and money required to put out a new version of Netscape when there's a perfectly kickass Firefox to use, but my opinion is moot. There's still a market for Netscape, albeit a small one.

Corporate Crapware(tm)

[c0ldfusi0n]

..."AOL INSTANT MESSENGER ("AIM") AND AN AOL MEDIA PLAYER ENGINE ("MEDIA PLAYER") ARE INCLUDED WITHIN THE NETSCAPE 8 BROWSER. THE EXECUTABLE VERSIONS OF THE NETSCAPE 8 BROWSER, AIM, AND THE MEDIA PLAYER ARE REFERRED TO COLLECTIVELY HEREIN AS THE "BROWSER."

Thanks, but no thanks.

Recent security vulnerabilities

[bmw]

The linked article and the official Netscape 8 page are pretty light on technical details but the submitter mentions it is based on firefox 1.0.3. What I'm wondering is whether or not this includes the recent security fixes that brought about the release of 1.0.4. Would be pretty foolish of AOL to not include these since they are considered critical.

I also found the following line from the CNET review pretty amusing.

Netscape 8 is based on Mozilla.org's successful and mostly secure Firefox browser

Certainly not a false statement or anything but I thought the use of the phrase "mostly secure" was pretty funny. :-)

Anyone else get a 404 on the Trust Rating page?

Re:Recent security vulnerabilities

[Khyber]

Ahh, yes.. "Mostly Secure"

I've sent a report to Mozilla concerning what may be yet another exploit. As mentioned before in previous comments (Recently in the FF vs Opera story) I am now 100% sure that there is still a security hole in Firefox that is allowing pop-ups, pop-unders, and SOMEHOW is allowing Spyware to get in on one's machine. It's been narrowed down to either Flash, or an exploit in how FF renders HTML. I've been getting calls recently from people whose computers I've repaired, or reinstalled everything on, they're still getting spyware, as well. Hopefully Mozilla will figure this out, by testing FF with the same sites and settings I've been using/set on other computers. Once I get a reply, I'll give further details.

Re:Recent security vulnerabilities

[fr2asbury]

Certainly not a false statement or anything but I thought the use of the phrase "mostly secure" was pretty funny. :-)

It's safe against those "mostly harmless" attacks. ;-)

rating system?

[Hell O'World]

From article: site rating system called "Trust Ratings" which is driven by lists of sites provided by our trusted security partners.
Who are these "trusted security partners" and why should I trust them?

Re:rating system?

[jesser]

Verisign, truste, paretologic, and maybe more (the page isn't clear).

Useful feature...

[tgd]

I have the View in IE plugin installed in Firefox, but toggling the renderer would be a very useful feature for them to add to the base product. I know its sort of blasphemy to say it, but fact is there are still useful sites (bank sites, in particular) that just puke under the Gecko renderer. Oh bank sites, and of course the Slashdot homepage ;)

Re:Useful feature...

[kristopher]

Am I the only one who has no problems with Slashdot under Firefox?

Full Circle

[Anonymous Coward]

So we have come full circle again looking at the source code on which the various browsers are based:

(Mosaic->)Netscape->Mozilla->Firefox->Netscape

had enough of Netscape

[jgionet]

Now that FF is out and kicking ass I don't see any reason why anybody would want to run Netcape. It was slow loading in the past and it'll be slow forever. It's too bad really.. but I think Netscape is dead.

Re:The same netscape ?

[Khyber]

Nope, no click tracking here.. no spyware.. I'm monitoring the data packets sent out, none of them go to Netscape once you set your homepage to google.com.

it has it's uses

[justforaday]

I checked out the beta back when it was released. Once most of the "extra" interface features were turned off, it really wasn't too bad. Of course, since I was trying it at home, I quickly uninstalled it and went back to Firefox. However, since there are a few sites that I need to use at work that don't work all that well with Firefox (reduced feature-sets, slight wonkiness, etc), I may check this out to see if it does what I need. Being able to have one browser do it all can be quite handy...

Re:it has it's uses

[justforaday]

Status update: After spending my Thursday morning fiddling with Netscape and deactivating shit left and right and getting things set up in a semi-usable way, I'm going to give it a pass. It doesn't seem to want to load the Acrobat plugin, the multibar is horrendous (how the fuck do you remove some of those things from the default toolbar?), it keeps asking me to save passwords after I've told it not to ask in 3 or 4 different places in the prefs (KISS!), and on and on. Nice idea in theory, horrible execution. Not that I would expect anything different from AOL...

IE or Moz

[LordSnooty]

The choice of rendering engines sounds interesting, will that be a boon for web developers tired of having to flit between browsers?

I don't understand

[Thyamine]

Instead of spending all this time on re-making their own browser based off of the excellent Firefox browser, why not spend that time building extensions that add in these features?

How much time was spent duplicating efforts just so they could call it 'Netscape' instead of using that time to improve Firefox by putting out some great extensions?

Re:I don't understand

[bmw]

nstead of spending all this time on re-making their own browser based off of the excellent Firefox browser, why not spend that time building extensions that add in these features?

Unfortunately a large percentage of Americans (probably the world) make their decision of what product to use based solely on brand name instead technical merit or overall quality. This is why advertising is such an important aspect of selling a product. While Firefox has had a lot of media coverage lately I think your average user still has no idea what it is, or if they do, are probably still a bit wary to switch from what they already know. This is why the Netscape brand is so important; many people know it and trust it and won't use anything else.

Re:I don't understand

[stienman]

I don't understand

What you don't understand is called branding.

What Netscape doesn't understand is that by putting the IE engine as an option, web sites will start making IE only websites, and say "Netscape or IE". They will then instruct the user to configure their browser to use the IE rendering engine by default, and the web will become a little less standards friendly.

-Adam

Why the hell...

[jevring]

...does netscape automatically render pages known to e "safe" with MSIE?
I thought the whole point of not using MSIE was to NOT use it.
I mean, when I use netscape, I want netscape, not some other substandard browser running things in the background.
This will cause a shitstorm for developers running netscape.

Re:Why do you need a switch for Render Engine?

[c0ldfusi0n]

Or better yet, just use IE View & Firefox View. Context menus in both IE and FF to view current page in the other browser.

Re:Why do you need a switch for Render Engine?

[tgd]

1) single set of bookmarks
2) tabs
3) better UI
4) plugins like adblock (presuming IE's renderer sees the final version of the DOM... that'd be an interesting test)
5) less clutter
6) one set of proxy information for IE, one for Firefox (again, presuming the IE renderer gets the data from Firefox, not its own HTTP stack)

Trust Rating

[lheal]

Too Microsofty. Yuck. TFA says they have a database of sites that are either good or bad. I hope the phishers don't learn how to use disposable domains! (What's that you say? That's what they do now?)

But this may appeal to someone. Let's see: they have to be clueful enough to want something other than IE, and clueless enough not to want Firefox or Opera. Pretty slim pickings.

I guess there's still something left to the Netscape name as a brand, but they're quickly killing it.

Am I Alone in Appreciating New Release?

[syntap]

I personally appreciate the release because the BHB's I work for all happen to like Netscape, but balk at having me install something called "FireFox" that they have never heard of. Now I can say "New Netscape version is here" and all of the sudden they are off either 4.x or the bulkier Mozilla and can now be basically on the browser I wanted them on in the first place.

Re:Why do you need a switch for Render Engine?

[c0ldfusi0n]

Oh and while at it, use Comparator.

I feel like i'm repeating myself over and over.

A million web developers just cried out in horror

[Matrix9180]

From the flash tour:
"If a site is considered trustworthy, Netscape automatically renders it using the Internet Explorer method, for maximum compatability."

WHY?!

It WAS good...

[Khyber]

Then I rendered a site known for unwanted installation of spyware using the IE engine. Guess what, ladies and gentlemen? If you use the IE rendering engine on a non-trusted site known for installing spyware w/o permission, it gets in. And the pop-up/pop-under blocking is still ineffectual.

*sighs and wipes Nutscrape off the computer*

Re:No Mac or Linux?

[genommen]

Yes it would be nice to have a linux version available. They have trust rating but only support an untrustworthy OS go figure.

Outdated

[CastrTroy]

When visiting Netscape.com, I got a nice message saying that my current browser, Firefox 1.04, is out of date. They said I should download Netscape 8. Which is based on Firefox 1.03. Does anybody else see a problem with this?

too slow

[brontus3927]

The problem with a corporate environment competing in a fast paced arena like browsers is they can't keep up. Netscape 8 is based on Firefox 1.0.3 but 1.0.4 is out and has fixed some well-discussed vulnerabilities. By the time Netscape could update their engine to FF 1.0.4, 1.1 will be out, possibly 1.1.2 or even later. By the time Netscape used 1.1, 1.5 is sure to be out.

I think that's one of the biggest things Firefox has going for it. Security, extentions, stability, tabs, are all very important reasons, but Firefox is successful, because it is small. Being small, they are flexible and fast moving, able to change to meet evolving needs. Firefox will be the guerilla fighters in the upcoming browser war

Re:OK to install alongside Firefox?

[Arctic Dragon]

You can install two Mozilla browsers on the same computer (even two versions of Firefox), as long as they use separate profiles.

I have yet to try the final build of NS8, but I did try the beta and it co-existed peacefully with Firefox. If I remember correctly, NS8 stores its profile in \Application Data\Netscape\, and Firefox stores its profile in \Application Data\Mozilla.

/. Editor tweeked the submittal a bit ...

[xmas2003]

People sometimes wonder if the /. editors even look at the submitted articles ... and I can say in this case that is definitely true. What I originally submitted late last night was "The Main Netscape 8 page has more info, although the "Download Now" page currently says "Netscape Browser 8.0 is Coming Soon!" so kudo's to Zonk who actually checked the link and modified the posting appropriately.

BTW, the first sentance was originally "The Wall Street Journal is reporting that AOL will release Netscape 8.0 - also being reported at BetaNews and a growing number of sites." ... but he changed that to CNet which has the 5 page review ... the Firefox 1.03 reference is from BetaNews.

Finally, I had added this closing statement/question "While Netscape was the dominant browser years ago, it has faded dramatically ... does this release have significant enough features such that end-users will give it another try? Time will tell." ... and I personally think it's a bit too little too late - Firefox works darn well for me, and with the iview extension, I have one-click access to IE if need be. But the browser wars are far from over as IE7 appears to be copying many of Firefox's features, plus Opera and Safari continue to get good press ... so time will tell!

*shakes head*

[rathehun]

Until it stops breaking every interface rule in the book, uses something other than orange and green as it's default look, I'm not going to download a 12 mb file for fun.

While I understand that this is not targeted at the same demographic that downloads Firefox, couldn't they have included something to add some value for us?

If they had packaged in some FF extensions, at least a choice of themes...then maybe.

View using the IE rendering engine? Thanks a lot.

R.

Re:Enhanced Tabs and Toolbars

[PeteDotNu]

"For example, you can set "Home" to open multiple websites in a single click."

Just like in Firefox, you mean?

Installer not proxy friendly

[Sporkinum]

Tried slapping it on the computer at work . Only uses a stub installer and no option for a full installer. When you try to run it, it pops a dialog saying Internet connectivity trouble and prompts you for your proxy information. No problem with that. I enter the info, and then I get a dialog saying Configuration Error, Your installer has an invalid configuration.

(lack of) Privacy

[Kainaw]

I'm sure someone already saw this and posted it, but I just noticed it...

4. PRIVACY.

(a) AUTOMATIC FEEDBACK. You agree that the Browser may periodically check your computer system for, and report back, without additional notice to you, information relating to your use of the Browser, including, for example, information relating to the frequency of your use of the Browser, your Browser configuration settings, and information on computer errors, malfunctions or other abnormalities occurring during your use of the Browser. The Netscape Browser team may use the information for such purposes as diagnosing performance issues with the Browser, improving the reliability of the download and install process, and improving its products and services to users generally. This information will not be tied to any information that would identify you personally.

(b) BROWSER ID. The Browser contains a specific identification number for the purpose of tracking the number of unique instances of the Browser in use. This number is not associated with any information about you, or that would personally identify you.

Re:(lack of) Privacy

[vena]

FWIW, they make it pretty clear in the installer that they're doing this and give you the option to turn it off with a single check box.

Re:No Mac or Linux?

[mad_ian]

That's because M$ ended production of IE for the Mac, also here.

And if you weere designing pages on the Mac, and testing them in IE Mac and expecting them to look the same on a Windows box, I have some prime realestate under Manhattan for you.

Re:Why do you need a switch for Render Engine?

[idonthack]

Now my only question is, can I run Windows Update through this browser? So if someone else who decided to get it, let me know.
Yes, yes it does.

Re:A million web developers just cried out in horr

[Zildy]

They certainly aren't instilling a lot of confidence in their own code base. Netscape 8 switches to IE rendering when visiting www.netscape.com.

Re:A million web developers just cried out in horr

[Pascal Sartoretti]

If a site is considered trustworthy, Netscape automatically renders it using the Internet Explorer method, for maximum compatability.

This in fact logical: only trusted sites should be visited with a browser as unsafe as IE.

Re:A million web developers just cried out in horr

[BiggyP]

But it shouldn't be assumed that the user will want to browse a site they trust with a broken rendering engine, are trustworthy sites not about to make use of CSS?

NS8 looks like a really bad idea to me.

Re:The download is just 350kB. Is it a bootstrap?

[FrankNFurter]

Full installer:

http://ftp.netscape.com/pub/netscape8/english/8.0/ windows/win32/nsb-install-8-0.exe

Re:No Mac or Linux?

[pohl]

We just have no way of knowing if you're merely pretending to believe that "we" means only 2 people,

Um, the problem is even worse when n > 2. Hypocrisy is a charge that only makes sense when n=1. In other words, when the same person utters the incompatible statements. Why is that so difficult to comprehend?