Slashdot Mirror


The Original mcom.com Revived

saccade.com writes "For those of you that missed the emergence of the the World Wide Web the first time around, Mozilla co-founder JWZ has recreated it for you. In honor of Mozilla's tenth anniversary, he's recreated the original home.mcom.com sites in all their 1994 glory. He even has vintage browsers to go with them."

137 comments

  1. Re:Rickrolled? by Brian+Gordon · · Score: 4, Funny

    You're 10 years ahead, trolling 10 years ago was punching monkeys..

  2. Ahh, the days.. by Hyppy · · Score: 5, Funny

    Ahh, the days when changing your browser's "background" color to anything other than (off-)white meant most pages became unreadable.

    Oh, and good job, Slashdotters. The page is down already!

    1. Re:Ahh, the days.. by dougmc · · Score: 4, Funny

      Oh, and good job, Slashdotters. The page is down already! I got the impression that that was part of the `early web experience'.

      (Seriously, it looks like the web server is patched to feed data as if you were on a slow dialup ...)

    2. Re:Ahh, the days.. by Hawthorne01 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Oh, and good job, Slashdotters. The page is down already!

      Naah, they're just re-creating the experience of websurfing on a 14.4 modem.

      --
      "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
    3. Re:Ahh, the days.. by Brian+Gordon · · Score: 4, Funny

      They're certainly written to be like 1994.. WORST. HTML. EVER.

    4. Re:Ahh, the days.. by Hyppy · · Score: 1

      Pshaw. In 1994, I got my hands on a shiny new V.FAST 28.8 Sportster!

      I was... still godawful slow.

    5. Re:Ahh, the days.. by smitty97 · · Score: 1

      They're probably using a 1994 NeXT to host them

      --
      mod me funny
    6. Re:Ahh, the days.. by electrictroy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I like to look at the old webpages for psu.edu and scifi.com.

      Ahh simpler times. Plain text with just two or three images (resembling a newspaper). Not like today's pages that seem to take forever to load because they are so overburdened with a lot of junk.

      --
      The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid middle-class neighbors' wallets and give it to you.
    7. Re:Ahh, the days.. by electrictroy · · Score: 1

      P.S.

      Worst example: imdb.com - Why does this site insist upon loading 1000 K of flash movie on every page??? Grrr. Not dialup friendly.

      --
      The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid middle-class neighbors' wallets and give it to you.
    8. Re:Ahh, the days.. by Brian+Gordon · · Score: 1

      Yeah they have a worse-than-Slashdot 1996 look yet insist on being ridiculously media-heavy.

    9. Re:Ahh, the days.. by twistedsymphony · · Score: 4, Funny

      Oh, and good job, Slashdotters. The page is down already!
      That's unpossible, slashdot readers never click to read the article.
    10. Re:Ahh, the days.. by electrictroy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      In 1994 you probably though 28.8kbit was fast.

      In 1995 I was surfing the net with a 2.4 k modem. I had to select "don't load images" but it was still possible to visit my favorite sites like scifi.com even at that slow speed. If I would have had your Sporster modem (~20 times faster) I probably would have been in heaven! :-)

      Today I still use a 56k modem while traveling. With image compression the 56k is almost as fast as my 700k DSL w/o compression.

      --
      The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid middle-class neighbors' wallets and give it to you.
    11. Re:Ahh, the days.. by Carnivore · · Score: 3, Informative

      I don't know why they try, but I don't let them. Use the flashblock extension for firefox and you won't waste those bits anymore.

    12. Re:Ahh, the days.. by Hyppy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, I'm sure the 1.2 billion RSS readers and bots immediately preload every link that makes the front page.

      Don't blame the users, blame the technology!

    13. Re:Ahh, the days.. by harry666t · · Score: 1

      > so overburdened with a lot of junk.

      Srsly, at one moment I thought I did read "java".

    14. Re:Ahh, the days.. by mini+me · · Score: 1

      Oh, and good job, Slashdotters. The page is down already!

      If only our modern browsers supported client-side load balancing like they did in the good old days.
    15. Re:Ahh, the days.. by Skuld-Chan · · Score: 1

      Actually it was about that fast back in 94...

    16. Re:Ahh, the days.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +++ NO CARRIER

    17. Re:Ahh, the days.. by DanielJosphXhan · · Score: 1

      It would appear they're running it on 1994's servers, too.

      Speaking of which, I recently bought a toaster that has a higher processing speed than my first computer. Sort of depressing, actually.

      --
      [ think ]
    18. Re:Ahh, the days.. by KevinKnSC · · Score: 1

      And let me guess, it runs NetBSD, right?

    19. Re:Ahh, the days.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >They're certainly written to be like 1994.. WORST. HTML. EVER.

      Says the guy that links to a Flash page.

    20. Re:Ahh, the days.. by edwdig · · Score: 1

      I remember the Netscape default background color was gray. White of course was the only other reasonable choice.

    21. Re:Ahh, the days.. by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      In 1995 I was surfing the net with a 2.4 k modem.

      Ouch. I had an AT&T 14.4, and that was pretty standard around my scene.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    22. Re:Ahh, the days.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude. Server-side image maps. Good times.

    23. Re:Ahh, the days.. by CrtxReavr · · Score: 1

      I'm doubting that the home.mcom.com page is a vintage 1994 page. I don't believe HTML supported images as links that far back.

      -CR

      --
      "So is the BSD licence even more 'free' (than GPLv2)? Yes. Unquestionably." --Linus Torvalds (TinyURL.com/2vugzl)
    24. Re:Ahh, the days.. by the4thdimension · · Score: 1

      Indeed. It really makes you enjoy what Web 2.0 has brought to the table. I kinda felt old looking at that... I nearly shed a tear.

    25. Re:Ahh, the days.. by CrtxReavr · · Score: 1

      Or the center tag either, for that matter.

      -CR

      --
      "So is the BSD licence even more 'free' (than GPLv2)? Yes. Unquestionably." --Linus Torvalds (TinyURL.com/2vugzl)
    26. Re:Ahh, the days.. by 00_NOP · · Score: 1

      Yes, I had a 14.4k modem back in 1994/95 which was considered ok, but still not fast enough to seriously considering using a browser. I borrowed a 28k one from my work and downloaded "chello" by ftp in later May 1995 and that was that...

    27. Re:Ahh, the days.. by _anomaly_ · · Score: 1
      A friend of mine just stumbled upon the "penguin recipe page":
      http://www.allegromedia.com/sugi/penguin/
      To quote:

      Page last updated: July 4, 1996
      I had to post the link here given the topic and that it has to do with penguins.
      Hilarious site, and has a lot of the same "mosaic feel" as the original home.mcom.com (not to mention frames with nice, fat borders for resizing!).
      --
      "I have no special gift, I am only passionately curious." - Albert Einstein
    28. Re:Ahh, the days.. by msheekhah · · Score: 1

      i remember visiting that website with 256 colors and no font antialiasing and on a 2400 baud modem

      --
      Mark Anthony Collins
    29. Re:Ahh, the days.. by prockcore · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In 1995 I was surfing the net with a 2.4 k modem.


      In 95 my dorm was fitted with ethernet.
    30. Re:Ahh, the days.. by Vegeta99 · · Score: 1

      eLion still looks like its from 1994! :P

      Although, if they went and screwed with anything there and lost some transcripts or student schedules, Old Main would burn.

    31. Re:Ahh, the days.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I found 28.8 to be intolerable for the web. I used slower speeds for terminal apps. In fact, one of the first things I did when I got a real job was run a network through the buildings and T1 to the building

    32. Re:Ahh, the days.. by Culture20 · · Score: 3, Funny

      I was using a 2400baud modem in 1995-1996 too, but I didn't have to select "don't load images" I was using lynx on a unix server I dialed into. My computer was an IBM 8086 with TWO 5.25 floppy drives. I could copy floppies like a mad man!

    33. Re:Ahh, the days.. by Deelkar · · Score: 1

      Oh, and good job, Slashdotters. The page is down already! My bw monitor shows it throttled at 300 Bytes/sec...
      --
      The enemy of my enemy is not my friend.
    34. Re:Ahh, the days.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quit being a dick. Do you even know who jwz is?

    35. Re:Ahh, the days.. by dryeo · · Score: 1

      I tried it with my 1994 version of WebExplorer (shipped with OS/2 ver 3) and the page displayed fine and clicking on the image would take you to the various links. Strange though without any hints from the mouse pointer, just an arrow no matter where pointed.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    36. Re:Ahh, the days.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's unpossible, slashdot readers never click to read the article.

      Slashdot readers do. Slashdot posters don't. Slashdot editors don't even read the summaries.

    37. Re:Ahh, the days.. by bobbozzo · · Score: 1

      Funny how much all the new mobile sites look like these sites from 10 years ago.

      --
      Nothing to see here; Move along.
    38. Re:Ahh, the days.. by electrictroy · · Score: 1

      Also the image would have been smaller, because the current 470x370 image would have filled the WHOLE screen on a vintage 1994 computer (typically 640x480). To compensate for the smaller screen the image would have been smaller too, maybe half that size, so it only used some of the 640x480 screen. I suspect this page is intended to "representational" of the original site, not actual.

      If you want actual sites, visit one of the web archives and take a look at places like www.psu.edu or www.scifi.com - you'll notice the designs were much, much simpler (and also smaller due to 14 kbit/sec modem limitations).

      (checks google)

      Take a look at www.midwinter.com which holds the Lurker's Guide to Babylon 5. That site is (as far as I know) still in its original 1994 configuration. It's still streamlined with minimal graphics and designed for downloading across slow 14 kbit/s modems of that era. Visiting that site is about as close as you can get to the birth of the WWW, and yet still be a "live" functioning site.

      --
      The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid middle-class neighbors' wallets and give it to you.
    39. Re:Ahh, the days.. by electrictroy · · Score: 1

      eLion is relatively new.

      It did not exist when I was a Penn State student (1997). If it's vintage, it's in style only, but in reality it's a 2000-era page.

      --
      The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid middle-class neighbors' wallets and give it to you.
    40. Re:Ahh, the days.. by electrictroy · · Score: 1

      Neat.

      Look at how "narrow" the page is. All of the graphics were designed to fit inside a 640x480 monitor from the early 1990s. Ya know, somebody ought to start an archive to capture and preserve vintage sites from pre-1999. It could be very educational someday to show future programmers how the Web looked when it was still a toddler.

      --
      The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid middle-class neighbors' wallets and give it to you.
    41. Re:Ahh, the days.. by electrictroy · · Score: 1

      I grew-up in the era of 1980s BBSes, and you didn't need a fast modem because a BBS was just plain ASCII or ANSI. In other words, colorful text. In that era, 0.3 or 1.2 kbit/sec was the norm, and 2.4k was "fast", and anything faster was the domain of the "elites" like BBS owners.

      The reason I was still using a 2.4 kbit/s modem in 1994 is because I was a college student and didn't have any money to buy a faster 9.6 or 14.4 model. Plus my parents were not convinced I needed a faster model, so it was obvious I was not going to get any help from them. ["Why do you need a new modem?" "Because it's slow!" "Too bad; I grew up watching tv on a 5 inch screen." "But mom." "I said no." (sigh)]

      As soon as I got my engineering job, I bought a new modem and threw away my old model.

      Still, it was fun surfing the early Web at 2 kbit speeds. No graphics; just pure text with little tags that said [SCIFI logo] or [PSU image]. It was... unique. Just like my computer at the time: Commodore Amiga 500. I always enjoy doing things in an unusual fashion, because it's part of the challenge of computing. ----- Even today there are people surfing the net using classic 8-bit machines like Commodore 64 or Atari 800, just to see if it can be done.

      --
      The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid middle-class neighbors' wallets and give it to you.
    42. Re:Ahh, the days.. by electrictroy · · Score: 1

      Ditto my dorm, but when I came home in Summer 1995 I had to make due with what I had:

      - Commodore Amiga 500
      - phone jack
      - 2 k modem

      It was slow but it worked, and it allowed me to continue using the Web to look-up television schedules and/or chat with people online. Aside: (Googlegroups still has some of my public messages dating back to 1988! Wow. I guess the web's not as ephemeral as I thought.)

      --
      The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid middle-class neighbors' wallets and give it to you.
    43. Re:Ahh, the days.. by electrictroy · · Score: 1

      Lynx is a text-only browser?

      (shakes the magic wikipedia): "All signs point to yes." Okay.

      --
      The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid middle-class neighbors' wallets and give it to you.
    44. Re:Ahh, the days.. by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      My first dialup computer was a Commodore 64 with a 300 baud Vicmodem - the one where you manually dial the phone, unplug your handset's cord, and plug it into the modem. I think I can still dial half those BBSes from muscle memory. :-)

      One of my prized possessions in the early 90s was a Supra 2400 baud modem card for my Amiga 2000. I suspect much of our BBSing experience was pretty similar.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    45. Re:Ahh, the days.. by kv9 · · Score: 1

      And let me guess, it runs NetBSD, right? right
    46. Re:Ahh, the days.. by bjb · · Score: 1

      Supra made some nice products back in the day. Not that anyone cares, but it was a big day for me when I took the $500 or so that I earned from pumping gas to buy a "sysop discount" USRobotics Courier HST 14.4. Damn thing is huge compared to other modems and the power brick was almost the size of a literal standard red clay brick. But man, was I flyyyyin'!

      --
      Never hit your grandmother with a shovel, for it leaves a bad impression on her mind...
  3. where are the ponies? by k3v0 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    this april fools day is lame.

    1. Re:where are the ponies? by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Seriously!

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    2. Re:where are the ponies? by Assembler · · Score: 1

      I was thinking the same thing

    3. Re:where are the ponies? by Tridus · · Score: 1

      Definitely. Its sad that Slashdot didn't even try this year.

      --
      -- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
    4. Re:where are the ponies? by HairyNevus · · Score: 1

      "...April fools!" -CmdrTaco

      --
      You were critically hit for no damage. The bruise will look nice, and maybe the scars will make good party talk.
    5. Re:where are the ponies? by daviddennis · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I'm going to guess that the ponies was so memorable he knew he could not possibly top that. Heck, I still remember that blazing pink.

      But it IS lame to have no funny stories. At all. Nothing. Every story I have read checks out as obviously true.

      As far as I remember, that is unprecedented - there was always something a little crazy on Slashdot for April Fools'.

      Well, hopefuly Cmdr Taco et al will know that aspect of Slashdot is missed.

      I wonder what happened.

      D

  4. HYPE tag. by thesolo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    One of Jamie's trivia questions is the origin of the HYPE tag. I remember the tag well, it was an easter egg that played a sound when it was used (only in certain versions of Mosaic/Netscape), however, I haven't a clue as to when or why it was implemented.

    Does anyone know? Google reveals nothing on the subject.

    1. Re:HYPE tag. by Indefinite,+Ephemera · · Score: 5, Informative

      For what it's worth, http://cyberborean.wordpress.com/2006/03/29/the-ancient-tags-museum/ suggests that it was 'for great fun of developers'.

    2. Re:HYPE tag. by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 4, Funny

      It was removed later 'for great justice'.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    3. Re:HYPE tag. by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      Yeah, someone, I think it was probably JWZ himself, set us up the bomb.

    4. Re:HYPE tag. by montulli · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I guess it's a little unfair that I answer this question, since I was there when it was created.

      The tag played a sound clip of Marca saying "What is Global Hypermedia?"

      I'll stay mum about the why. :)

  5. Bandwidth by Kelson · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The best part is the bandwidth throttling, back to 1994 dial-up speeds. I was looking at this yesterday, and it was weird to watch the interlaced GIFs load line by line. (Remember how Netscape used to have a LOWSRC attribute for images, so you could specify a low-res version that could be loaded quickly and displayed while it tried to download the massive, whopping 50K full image?)

    A flashback to the way I first encountered the web.

    Of course, it's probably even slower today, now that it's linked here.

    1. Re:Bandwidth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's how I actually learned the difference between JPEG and GIF back in 1998 :-)

    2. Re:Bandwidth by dkf · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The best part is the bandwidth throttling, back to 1994 dial-up speeds. I was looking at this yesterday, and it was weird to watch the interlaced GIFs load line by line. (Remember how Netscape used to have a LOWSRC attribute for images, so you could specify a low-res version that could be loaded quickly and displayed while it tried to download the massive, whopping 50K full image?) I remember switching to Netscape very early because it would load images asynchronously, rather than waiting for everything to be loaded before showing me any of it (what NCSA Mosaic used to do at that time). Of course, we now get that sort of annoyance anyway due to the vast gobs of (terrible) javascript inflicted upon us by websites and (especially) advertisers. (Which is one reason why I use NoScript; I don't mind ads too much, but don't slow down my browsing just to show them to me!)

      Of course, I can also remember when getting anything (e.g. the Mosaic manual) over the Atlantic was an exercise in frustration too due to the shortage of bandwidth. Bandwidth boosts were the things that saved the internet, back then in '93.
      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
  6. Enough of this Acid3 nonsense... by brouski · · Score: 1

    Can our modern browsers pass the 1994 test?

    --
    Proud member of the American Non Sequitur Society. We might not make much sense, but boy do we love pizza!
    1. Re:Enough of this Acid3 nonsense... by esocid · · Score: 4, Funny

      What test would that be? If they can load text and jpegs progressively in less than 4 minutes?

      --
      Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
    2. Re:Enough of this Acid3 nonsense... by Greivetimus+Prime · · Score: 1

      Oh, you mean the Totally Rad World Wide Web test?

    3. Re:Enough of this Acid3 nonsense... by deniable · · Score: 1

      I was happy we could download netscape because it supported tables and jpegs. A huge improvement over xmosaic. (No, not frames or scripts support, tables and jpegs.)

  7. That's not bandwidth throttling by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 4, Funny

    Unfortunately, it seems to be running on Netsite.

    --
    Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    1. Re:That's not bandwidth throttling by markjl · · Score: 5, Interesting

      :) Netsite evolved into the Netscape Enterprise Server and I was there at Netscape when the web site cluster served over 100 million hits per day in 1996. Those were amazing times, many server manufacturers would bring in hardware and we would benchmark a portion of www.netscape.com's traffic on them, which usually led to discussions about how to tune or optimize the OS or the IP stack, I know we helped SGI at the time.

      The server and software engineering folks helped develop a dynamic DNS server that would help globally load balance web traffic based upon the inquiring IP address. They also helped hack SSL into rsync back in the day, so that is how we securely published web content updates out to the cluster.

      Sadly, we also pioneering web advertising at Netscape. My colleague Alan spec'd out the dimensions to the ad banners, in case you wondered where those 460x68 dimensions came from: it allowed a minimal amount of horizontal white space on each side of the web page when the web browser had a vertical scroll bar on a 640x480 laptop display running Navigator, IIRC.

      So those ad banners were physically changed on the docroot via a cron script in order to rotate them. The joy of hacks in a funded start up, but it made money! In fact, unlike most corporations today (e.g.: Microsoft), there was a strategic decision *not* to create an advertising server, so we helped create an industry and did not compete in it. Well, didn't complete until TW/AOL acquired Netscape -- but that was the day Netscape really died (it could be argued that bought Netscape solely for our web site traffic and advertising revenue since they didn't know what to do with the browser and server software. Witness the eventual release of the browser software to the mozilla.org project (thanks also to jwz!) and iPlanet/Sun eventually selling the server line to Red Hat, who continues to open source the directory and certificate servers today).

      I wrote the plug-in finder, could it have been the most used CGI on the web at the time in 1996 -- who knows? I went on to become a technology evangelist at Netscape.

      Good days indeed, thanks for the memories!

      --
      My opinions are my own, but you may share them!
  8. Next up by i_ate_god · · Score: 3, Funny

    revive gopher and geocities

    --
    I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
    1. Re:Next up by crispin_bollocks · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I kinda liked the Geocities neighborhoods. The old URLs still work for individual sites, but the index pages for blocks and neighborhoods are gone, so you can't wander around and meet your neighbors. Too bad, I guess it was MySpace 0.1 - before its time, or before critical mass.

    2. Re:Next up by i_ate_god · · Score: 1

      I miss the free POP3 account, and those primitive web based chat rooms that destroyed your browsers with all the refreshing it would do.

      --
      I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
    3. Re:Next up by British · · Score: 1

      Geocities was effectively killed by Yahoo with unrealistic daily bandwidth quoats. You could literally hit refresh a few times on a page, and it would be locked out for the day.

    4. Re:Next up by samsonov · · Score: 1

      revive gopher and geocities and archie and wais. oi. really makes me want to fire up that bbs again. War games reunion tour!
      --
      "You killed my yogurt!" --Fred Fredburger
    5. Re:Next up by Thought1 · · Score: 1

      Ya know, back in 92/93, I never thought the web would take off, because I saw it as a Gopher (which I hated) with slow, useless graphics. Course, by 95 I was writing a web browser and on the HTML-WG, but still... (:

    6. Re:Next up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet couldn't manage a lower uid on slashdot ? :-p

  9. 1994's anti-slashdotting technology by Fast+Thick+Pants · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Be sure to use this link to have the "Resolution Controller" switched to L to "reduce download time" and give the server a little breathing room.

  10. Running about as fast as 28.8k by RandoX · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Welcome back to 1994, for real.

    1. Re:Running about as fast as 28.8k by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 1

      If you had a 28.8 modem in 1994 you were from the future, man. IIRC, 28.8 modems didn't hit the streets until sometime in mid-1995, although the spec was ratified in mid/late-1994.

      --
      This guy's the limit!
  11. Is it just me? by kabocox · · Score: 2, Funny

    That looked like a clean myspace page to me.

  12. When it's not Slashdotted ... by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... the site loads instantly. It's easy to navigate. There's just enough information near the top of each page so you know immediately what the page is for. The text is easily readable with default browser settings, even on a small screen.

    Modern web developers could take a lesson from this.

    --
    The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    1. Re:When it's not Slashdotted ... by Reziac · · Score: 4, Interesting

      mcom, if it exists, seems to be slashdotted, but the livejournal page was quick... I agree, there's just too much sheer JUNK on the average page today. Most modern sites are now so gunked up that they perform on broadband about like the most primitive 1994-era sites did on 14.4 dialup.

      One of the major reasons why on every site that still halfway works with it, I still use (are you sitting down?) Netscape v3, is because it strips most of the sheer JUNK, making web speeds tolerable. The same page can take 10x as long to load in Mozilla (not only because Moz is SLOW to render, but also because of all the JUNK).

      IMO, NS3 is still the best, most stable, fastest, and most bug-free of all browsers. It's too bad source code is not available (I asked JWZ about that a while back, he said he'd tried to get it and no joy) as if user-optionable modern features were implemented atop this fast, lean old browser, we'd really HAVE something.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    2. Re:When it's not Slashdotted ... by yellowstone · · Score: 1

      I asked JWZ about [getting the source code for Netscape 3] a while back, he said he'd tried to get it and no joy

      As I recall, back when Netscape wanted to make their browser open source, the big issue was dealing with various 3rd-party libraries that were used (and not interested in giving away their product).

      That's why they decided to create Mozilla as a ground-up implementation.

      --
      150 Opening BINARY mode data connection for slashdot.sig (129323052 bytes).
    3. Re:When it's not Slashdotted ... by Reziac · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yeah, figured there was a lot of third-party stuff that couldn't be tracked down/licensed/released. Goes to show that if there's any chance you may =ever= open your source, best not use 3rd party closed libraries.

      Of course the trouble with the rebuild from the ground up is that it threw away all the lean functionality of old NS3. ISTM they'd have been better off to strip out the 3rd party code and rebuild just THOSE parts, rather than try to start over entirely (thus losing their formerly dominant marketshare in the confusion that followed).

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    4. Re:When it's not Slashdotted ... by slashkitty · · Score: 1

      I thought the slowness was part of the original feel that they were bringing back.

      --
      -- these are only opinions and they might not be mine.
    5. Re:When it's not Slashdotted ... by sootman · · Score: 1

      I'm (almost) right there with you. I stuck with NS3 when NS4 came out and I stuck with it for years, right up until Phoenix (Firefox) 0.2 came out--it was fast, like NS3, but with TABS, and had a modern JS engine so I could look at pages which more and more demanded javascript. And then FF got chunky around 0.8 and I liked 1.0 even less and 1.5 even less and 2.0 even less. I played with other browsers, like K-Meleon, but they all were missing various features I'd grown used to. Plus the pages changed too, and as much as I liked NS3, it just isn't worth it to switch between it and another browser whenever I want to do something like look at google maps.

      Now I spend most of my time with a slightly out-of-date browser on a slightly out-of-date machine and have a miserable web experience because I'm too busy to read web pages any more, I just click on links and minimize them to read later and never get around to them so I've always got a hojillion pages open and the whole thing runs like ass. Plus things are so damn JS-intensive now. I downloaded eBay's front page once, looked at the source, downloaded all the linked JS files, and the whole things was ONE-THIRD of a MEGABYTE of JS--all code that the machine has to actually execute, not just render. Oh well. :-)

      --
      Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    6. Re:When it's not Slashdotted ... by Rhapsody+Scarlet · · Score: 1

      Modern web developers could take a lesson from this.

      I tried to take the simple route on the design of my own site, with the inspiration mostly coming from a far more famous site. The actual coding behind it (XHTML 1.1, moderately advanced CSS) isn't as simple, but it is valid. It's all written from scratch too, so I understand what everything does.

    7. Re:When it's not Slashdotted ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. jwz pushed Netscape into open sourcing the browser. The source that was released was for Netscape 4, which was a pre-Gecko (i.e., pre rewrite) Netscape. The idea that Netscape would scrap the old codebase specifically so that they could carry out some dream of open sourcing their product is funny.

      It is true that the code was sanitized before release, but that act wasn't of great enough magnitude to cause the decision to rewrite. Just two separate things.

  13. the /. effect, 1994-style by downix · · Score: 4, Funny

    Well boys, we sure killed that connection fast.... feels just like the old days!

    --
    Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
  14. Serously AOL by jtev · · Score: 1

    If you're going to pull an April Fool's joke like this, at least roll out servers that can handle the load. Or maybe it's the pipe, It's not like serving static web pages is hard, even on that era of equipment.

    --
    That which is done from love exists beyond good and evil
    1. Re:Serously AOL by maxume · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's not a joke, it's nostalgia.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    2. Re:Serously AOL by jtev · · Score: 1

      I'll believe that when I can access this page in a few days, when the /.ing is over.

      --
      That which is done from love exists beyond good and evil
    3. Re:Serously AOL by BrianGKUAC · · Score: 1

      You know those ads that pop up as comments on /. now? I just got the funniest one ever as a reply to your post... 404 Not Found The requested URL /iframe/tech.html was not found on this server.

      --
      Menus: Linux=function, Windows=vendor, OS X=as little as possible. Makes a statement, don't you think?
    4. Re:Serously AOL by maxume · · Score: 1

      Stumble your way through a few of jwz's livejounal entries. He's very serious about the things that he doesn't take seriously.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  15. Vintage servers too! by Robber+Baron · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Hmmm...apparently they have it hosted on vintage servers too!

    --

    You're using her as bait, Master!

    1. Re:Vintage servers too! by Robber+Baron · · Score: 1

      Hmmm...apparently they have it hosted on vintage servers too! Fuck you mods! Preferably with a chainsaw!

      --

      You're using her as bait, Master!

  16. TimeWarner, let go of mcom - you're rich enough. by binaryspiral · · Score: 1

    It figures some duschebag media mogul would sell off a historic domain name to the highest bidder than to give it to someone who actually would be willing to maintain the historic content.

  17. Cool... by n9uxu8 · · Score: 1

    Time to fire up Mosaic and OmniWeb on the Next Cube at home!

  18. NCSA Mosaic 1.0.3/Mac chokes on the site by singularity · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The site is obviously pretty Slashdotted at this point, so I was not able to download some of the Mosaic versions he links to.

    Since I already have a copy of NCSA Mosaic copyrighted 1-27-1994, I decided to fire that up and load the page.

    A screenshot of mosaic.mcom.com that I was finally able to load. It had issues with some of the .gif files on the page. I am not sure if that is de to the client or if the transfer timed out from the load.

    This is Mosaic v1.0.3 under System 7.6.1, running in BasiliskII.

    Strange timing. Just last night I started playing around with some gopher servers, so I fired up Basilisk and downloaded TurboGopher. I got my first access to Usenet feeds in about 1992, and was able to get more online in the fall of 1993. Gopher, FTP, and email were huge. I remember downloading Mosaic sometime in early spring of 1994 and playing around with it.

    Ahh, the memories...

    --
    - (c) 2018 Hank Zimmerman
    1. Re:NCSA Mosaic 1.0.3/Mac chokes on the site by raddan · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In the early 90's, my dad used to bring me to work every now and then when he worked at BBN. Since BBN was an early internet pioneer, they had some really big pipes (er, tubes?) to the arpa/internet. I was in high school at the time. I would fill my backpack with blank floppies and spend the day on gopher and FTP (anyone remember Anarchie?) just filling those disks up with freeware/shareware and every other cool thing I came across. Their offices had an interesting mix of phonenet (Appletalk) and BNC ethernet. Lots of Macs around back then, and those networks were fast, but crashed all the time.

      Anyway, one day I came across this image and my brain just about exploded. Keep in mind that I was a high school aged male. Yep, that was the beginning of the end for me... ;^)

      As for the "web", I remember an MIT postdoc excitedly showing me this new "world wide web browser called Mosaic", and he just couldn't get me enthused. "You mean it's read-only?" I remember asking. I just couldn't see the point.

    2. Re:NCSA Mosaic 1.0.3/Mac chokes on the site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The site is obviously pretty Slashdotted at this point, so I was not able to download some of the Mosaic versions he links to.

      Just so we're clear, home.mcom.com was the home of Mosaic Communications Corporation, which later became Netscape Communications Corporation (until recently, home.mcom.com redirected to the current Netscape home page). The early Mosaic releases available are betas of Mosaic Netscape, which later became Netscape Navigator. NCSA Mosaic was developed earlier (many of the original NCSA Mosaic developers became early Netscape employees).

      For the most authentic experience, home.mcom.com should be visited with Mosaic Netscape 0.9. Some changes had to be made to the Web server hosting the site so that it works with Mosaic Netscape 0.9, which didn't support commonplace modern HTTP features like the Host header and the charset parameter of the Content-Type header.

    3. Re:NCSA Mosaic 1.0.3/Mac chokes on the site by wwrmn · · Score: 1

      Wow, Mosaic! I remember running up the NCSA http daemon on my un*x workstation, we didn't have 'desktops' in those days, and starting to create my output in HTML/gif vs. emailing a Lotus Freelance presentation. Heady times. Especially after tables were invented.

      I found an ancient backup of my slackware 1.X floppies and a mosaic executable a few years back and gave VMWare a go. Slack couldn't grok the hardware vmware presented (this was Workstation ~2.X) but I did get a screenshot of Mosaic!

      Flickr - Mosiac

      Whee, heady times, when the interweb was young and AOL had not trashed it. I even put a .exe of Mosaic out on my ftp for our managers.

      --
      until ( $win ) { &cheat }
  19. Finally by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

    We managed to /. the original interwebs. The circle is now complete.

    --
    http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
  20. Don't use Netscape 3. Seriously. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2, Informative

    Try a modern lightweight browser, like Dillo or Links2. I like Links2, myself.

    They are both amazingly fast.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
    1. Re:Don't use Netscape 3. Seriously. by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Aside from that I run mainly Windows and Dillo is *NIX-only... can it disable CSS entirely? can it disable image-loading, yet load single or all images as desired with a single click? (Mozilla does that wrong; it HIDES images rather than preserving position yet merely not LOADING the image. So in Moz it is not possible to load only *desired* images.) Do I have to click twice to Open In New Window? These may seem like small things, but they are critical to my uses, and out of all the dozens of browsers I've tried (and the 15 or so I have installed at any one time) NS3 remains the only one that operates entirely to my everyday needs.

      Links and that general style of browser are too tedious to use... despite being an old DOS-head, I generally dislike textmode incarnations of graphical apps. :(

      BTW every one of my nearly 10,000 /. posts was made with NS3.04. :)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    2. Re:Don't use Netscape 3. Seriously. by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      w3m

      that is all. thanks.

  21. Slashdotted, indeed by sconeu · · Score: 1

    Apparently it's running on 1994 hardware, too....

    --
    General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
  22. Re:TimeWarner, let go of mcom - you're rich enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > duschebag

    Try to refrain from spelling words you've only ever heard? It tends to indicate you don't even know what they mean.

  23. Code rot by ceroklis · · Score: 1
    It is always interesting to play with old software to see how brittle it really is.

    I tried the earliest windows version (mosaic04.exe). It runs on wine without problem. Unfortunately it is impossible to load any page. I tried a variety of sites (google, yahoo, slashdot, ...), none of them load. Here is a sample of the errors I got:
    • infinite chains of 302
    • no viewer for text/html
    • bad request
    Next I tried the earliest linux version (netscape.i486-unknown-linux.B093). You cannot even run it on a modern distro: ./netscape: can't load dynamic linker '/lib/ld.so'.

    A current linux distro has thus more chance to run a windows app from 1994 than a linux app from the same period. As a side note, my copy of Blockout (1989) runs on Windows XP (2001) without a glitch. We also see that the web of 2008 is completely unusable by a browser of 1994. It is a shame that linux distributors and the W3C do not have the same focus on backward compatibility than Microsoft and Intel.
    1. Re:Code rot by vidarh · · Score: 1

      Read JWZ's livejournal page, it addresses both your problems.

    2. Re:Code rot by ceroklis · · Score: 1

      You want me to RTFA ? Are you crazy ?

      On a more serious note, blockout (1989) works out of the box on a current windows machine. No patch, no special config, no nothing. These browsers do not. That is all that really matters. Of course you can tweak the web server,grab old libraries and what not to coerce them into working. My point is that you shouldn't need to.

    3. Re:Code rot by anss123 · · Score: 1

      Linux has never cared much for binary compatibility. Back in '94 Linux was pretty much a grass root effort, not quite comparable to Windows in dev resources. Breaking binary compatibility saves time and it's not like they had large test labs to insure they uphold binary compatibility anyway.

      W3C has done a good job upholding compatibility despite the feature push of the browser wars. Try out browsers that are a little newer and you'll still be able to surf the web. You may have to look into the html code from time to time but hey, back in '96 I had to do that as well.

    4. Re:Code rot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Excellent idea. Let's stifle progress for the benefit of one-off missions of nostalgia.

  24. Good ol' Mozilla 0.9 by vrmlguy · · Score: 1

    Way back when, SGI sent out a CD-ROM that contained a product catalog as a collection of HTML files. The CD also included all of the binaries for Mozilla 0.9 listed at http://www.mcom.com/archives/. For several years thereafter (until browsers became a standard part of software distributions) I kept that CD close at hand; whenever I had to work on a particular workstation or PC, I used it to install a browser (and usually then bootstrap a more recent version).

    --
    Nothing for 6-digit uids?
  25. mosaic.com stolen by Netscape lawyers by dananderson · · Score: 1
    Here's a minor chapter for the history books. The address for Mosaic Communications (later Netscape) was mcom.com, not mosaic.com. Mosaic.com was owned by a pre-existing company working on document scanning. Mosaic Communications lawyers threatened to sue them out of existence, so the original Mosaic was given to Mosaic Communications.

    The funny thing is the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (UIUC) NCSA lawyers made Mosaic Communications change their name (eventually Netscape), because Mosaic was a trademark of the UIUC.

  26. !slashdotted by Eudial · · Score: 1

    It isn't slashdotted, it is merely providing you with the classic, 9600 baud experience.

    --
    GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
  27. IE5 for Unix by ChristTrekker · · Score: 1

    The "ancient browser" I want to try giving a whirl is IE5 on Solaris. (Pathetic, I know, but this has to be one of the strangest MS creations after Bob.) Unfortunately, the archived installer binaries don't run on Solaris 10, so it looks like I'm stuck. If only it had been packaged as a simple tarball...

  28. Anyone else shocked? by CdBee · · Score: 1

    I know the pace of change only ever increases, but looking back at those 1993/4 pages is just weird. I remember 1994. I was 15 years old, Jurassic Park was the hot VHS cassette release at Blockbuster, Sheryl Crow and Madonna were topping the pop charts.. I tasted the internet for the first time in my school computer lab.. I used the brand new Yahoo search engine to search for "three valleys water" for a school project and it got 3 results (yes, really, three.. and none of them were the one I wanted) ....... and I never thought I'd feel old until now I'm forced to remember that.

    Oh poo. I've become middle-aged

    --
    I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
  29. Flashback by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Amazing how much nicer and easier it is to read then many current webpages.

  30. JWZ did not co-found Mosaic Communications Corp by sloth+jr · · Score: 1

    Jim Clark and Marc Andreessen did.

    1. Re:JWZ did not co-found Mosaic Communications Corp by linuxci · · Score: 1

      That's why they said Mozilla in the article. jwz was one of the main drivers in the Mozilla project. He left after the AOL takeover

    2. Re:JWZ did not co-found Mosaic Communications Corp by Swampash · · Score: 1

      One word, "reading comprehension"

    3. Re:JWZ did not co-found Mosaic Communications Corp by sloth+jr · · Score: 1

      Yup, you're right. Must've blurred my eyes and just inserted MCC where I read Mozilla. My apologies.

  31. The Search Page doesn't work by incripshin · · Score: 1
  32. Good think I still have ... by Nakito · · Score: 1

    ... a copy of mozock.dll. So I can review a local copy -- in my browser!

  33. JavaScript woes with Firefox? by StupidKatz · · Score: 1

    http://noscript.net

    No more! :)

  34. Gopher link still works by nbritton · · Score: 1

    Found this on the mcom links page: gopher://sipb.mit.edu/

  35. More old browsers by OakDragon · · Score: 1

    A LOT more, and for systems like the Amiga, DOS, etc. Unfortunately, it looks as though the site is obsolete, at least for current content.

  36. Better than myspace by kylehase · · Score: 1

    Even these primitive webpages look better than most on myspace.

    --
    You want fun, go home and buy a monkey!
  37. Nice :) by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

    Readable. Restrained graphics. Actual information amongst the sales talk. Decent navigation.

    Oh Internet, I weep for thee! What happened?

    1. Re:Nice :) by RevWaldo · · Score: 1

      The funny thing is that with this MCOM web page HTML mission creep is already well under way, the page's author trying to lay out hypertext in ways Tim Berners-Lee probably never intended. "You're chopping the word up in the hyperlink into two different fonts just to make the first letter bigger?! How's a webcrawler gonna understand that?! Whattsamattawityou?!" (smackety-smackety-smackety...)

  38. For the real 1994 internet experience.. by RevWaldo · · Score: 1

    Try downloading from FTP, read and post to newsgroups, and surf the web using just your text-only e-mail account. Back in the day some universities set up e-mail bots that would let you do just that. You e-mail them the properly formatted e-mail, they shoot you back a whole mess of text - uu-encoded in the case of files (life before MIME). For free!! If all you had was e-mail this was a veritable boon.

    To surf the web, you e-mail them a URL, they'd shoot back a LYNX-style copy of the page, with numbers next the links. Send back the number, they send back that page. And so on. Another service sent you back the entire web page - graphics and all! But by fax.

    True story - I wanted to use the FTP e-mail servers but of course everything was coming back uu-encoded. Where to get a uu-decoder? I posted my dilemma to a newsgroup (using e-mail!) and a very kind person snail-mailed me a floppy, along with a bunch of other EXEs and manuals he was able to fit. Nice.

  39. You are like me. You'd LOVE the OffByOne browser. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think I first ran into The OffByOne browser from a /. post or perhaps from TinyApps.org. I, like you, used Netscape almost exclusively, starting with version 1.22 or so. I agree that the 3.x series was among the best, with its quick ability to disable images and other things. Version 4 added the nice ability to disable cookies (although I was already learning to set cookies.txt to read-only in the 3.x era.)

    Anyway, back to the point, OffByOne is self-executable, does not require an installer, and fits on a floppy. Most importantly, it does not rely on any other browser, so it will work just fine out of the box, even if you want to run it on old versions of Windows that did not bundle a browser, like NT 3.51 or 95a. OffByOne maintains that simplified, no-frills approach, so you do not have to worry about Java / Javascript / shockwave flash / etc. getting in your way. It's perfect for forums like this, when you're mostly interested in just reading.

    Oh, and it has tabbed browsing too. It's even faster than Opera 6.

    I know it won't completely replace Netscape 3, as there are some things it lacks (I'm picky too), but I think you'll find it to be a very nice supplement for your browsing needs. Caching everything to RAM not only keeps your disk from fragmenting, but it also cleans up all traces of your history when you're done with it. :)

  40. Re:You are like me. You'd LOVE the OffByOne browse by Reziac · · Score: 1

    An AC recommends the "Off By One" browser (http://offbyone.com/offbyone/)

    Yes, it has its virtues, among them that it operates entirely in RAM, leaving no traces behind when you close it, and it will run from a floppy. Nice to carry in your pocket.

    But I use it very seldom, as the interface fails me in numerous ways, not least of which is the inability to parse anything but fully qualified URLs. Way too many little irritations like that to be usable except as a last resort. Tho it does sometimes handle ugly HTML/JS better than the namebrand browsers!

    --
    ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  41. Re:You are like me. You'd LOVE the OffByOne browse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But I use it very seldom, as the interface fails me in numerous ways, not least of which is the inability to parse anything but fully qualified URLs.

    I'll grant you that the interface is somewhat reminiscent of NCSA Mosaic and IE 2.0, but can you give an example where this URL parsing fails? I'm curious about this. I know the http:// part is optional, and has been for several versions. Perhaps you were using an old version, like 3.2? With 3.5d, they fixed / enhanced / added several things, like some newer keyboard shortcuts and other options. If you mean that it doesn't do ftp:// URLs, then yeah, that is one of its drawbacks. Now if you were referring to the default Netscape 3 behavior of just typing google to go to www.google.com, then yeah I understand, as Off By One lacks this, although Lynx does it right.

    I know some quirks can be annoying, but fortunately, some of them can be circumvented. The scrolling is rather rigid, but I often get around that by highlighting text to scroll when I just want to move the page in tiny increments. Thankfully they added scroll wheel support too, which Navigator 3 unfortunately lacks. I like how the first form field is automatically selected (very handy for sites like google.) Many mainstream browsers require Javascript just to do this. I can see how it gets in the way at times though, especially if you like navigating partially with the keyboard (e.g. I like OB1's z/x shortcuts for Back/Forward, borrowed from Opera.) A quick Control-W then Escape will unselect the field if I don't feel like reaching the mouse.

    It's too bad we can't get a browser that puts together all the best features of Off By One, Lynx, Netscape 3.x/4.x, Opera, Dillo, and Firefox, while taking out the annoying and/or bloated parts. *sigh*