SillyDog701 • Netscape 9 beta Impressions

by **James** » Thu 21 Jun, 2007 8:57 am

You're correct. Sea Monkey is essentially an updated NS 7.2 without the addition of proprietary AOL add-ons. Really, I should make more use of it but I tend to forget about it for some reason.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.4) Gecko/20070515 Firefox/2.0.0.4

by **Fulvio** » Thu 21 Jun, 2007 11:22 am

As far as I understand, NS7.2 is repackaged Mozilla1.7.2 suite, just as NS7.1 was repackaged Mozilla1.4. The Mozilla suite ended with 1.7.13, eleven updates over NS7.2. Some individuals decided to continue the suite tradition with Seamonkey. Many of the updates were just security fixes. This is what is listed in Wikipedia about Seamonkey.:

SeaMonkey is a free, open source, and cross-platform Internet suite that is the continuation of the former Mozilla Application Suite. SeaMonkey is community-driven, in contrast to the Mozilla Application Suite, whose stable 1.7 branch remains governed by the Mozilla Foundation.

. Notice that it is a continuation, not repackaging of the Mozilla suite.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9a5) Gecko/20070606 GranParadiso/3.0a5

by **n301** » Sun 24 Jun, 2007 5:40 pm

There's far too much here about Netscape Navigator 9 being a Firefox clone.

You have to remember that for Windows users the only acceptable methods to render websites are the Internet explorer engine or the Mozilla/Firefox engine. The latter originated from Netscape so I don't see why Netscape shouldn't use it.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.5pre) Gecko/20070604 Firefox/2.0.0.4 Navigator/9.0b1

by **James** » Sun 24 Jun, 2007 6:05 pm

As far as I can see, no one is disagreeing with you regarding Netscape using the same rendering "engine". The point that some of us have been making is: "what is the point?" What is AOL's point in producing essentially another Firefox with a few add-ons (most of which no one wants) and essentially doing nothing more than what Firefox has been doing for the past few years now? It's redundancy. It's not innovative. It's riding on Firefox's coat tails. A dozen developers cannot possibly hope to keep abreast of let alone ahead of a world developing community of an open source app like Firefox.

Furthermore, why do you say "there is far too much here about Netscape being....?" Are we not entitled to give our opinions on this product? Most of us have been members here for years... some of us going back to the old SillyDog forum. We know one another quite well and we're all essentially "old" Netscapers from way back.. some as far as version 2. I certainly don't want Netscape to fail but if it has any hope of succeeding on a large scale, it is going to have to come up with something far more imaginative than simply a "me too" product. And adding an e-mail client (aka: Thunderbird clone) while wanted by most of the community, does not set is apart from Firefox/Thunderbird. It's simply an additional... me too. What's the point? We already have all of this with Firefox and Thunderbird. Try something "new" and different. Then there might be far more interest. As it is, there's very little talk throughout the various internet forums on Navigator 9. It's just not that interesting.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.4) Gecko/20070515 Firefox/2.0.0.4

by **n301** » Mon 25 Jun, 2007 7:03 am

I'm not against the voicing of opinions and my comments aren't an attempt to stir arguments here

All the time I have been using Netscape I choose to compare it to Internet Explorer. Other browsers like Mozilla, Firefox, Opera and anything else that's out there for the Windows platform are there as an alternative to Internet Explorer.

I'm anti-Internet Explorer lets say, and in that sense, any browser that is released in order to attract users away from Internet Explorer is a move in the positive direction. I think there's little doubt that Mozilla/Seamonkey, Firefox, Opera and Netscape are all superior to the current Internet explorer. Similarly, I believe the purpose of Netscape 9 and all the previous versions isn't an attempt to win popularity over Firefox or Opera. It's only there to give people yet another browser with a well-known name in the hope of reducing the use of Internet explorer further.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.5pre) Gecko/20070604 Firefox/2.0.0.4 Navigator/9.0b1

by **James** » Mon 25 Jun, 2007 9:17 am

I understand what you're saying and I partially agree. I'm not really against Internet Explorer (after all, my wife's son is fairly high up at Microsoft) but I'm not an Internet Explorer user... never have been and can't see myself switching now. I've always loved Netscape, in my case since version 3.0 Gold. As you can see, I also use Opera, SeaMonkey, Navigator and of course, Firefox. I think where we differ is in my jadedness. I'm suspicious of AOL. AOL never did anything out of the goodness of their collective hearts (as far as I can see... could be wrong, mind you). When it purchased Netscape, it essentially gutted it by laying off its development team and letting the suite die through neglect. Now it comes out with this offering. Let's just say, I'm suspicious of their motivation. Hey... I'm using it periodically. It's not that I've given up on it. But I don't really see it as anything new.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.4) Gecko/20070515 Firefox/2.0.0.4

by **Fulvio** » Mon 25 Jun, 2007 9:45 am

Isn't AOL a business? I am no more suspicious of AOL than Apple or Microsoft.
But, anyone is free to be suspicious. Having been an AOL subscriber for several years, I can flatly say that they are klutzy. Self-serving? Of course. If the latter is a problem, don't use this new thing.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.4) Gecko/20070515 Firefox/2.0.0.4

by **MJR** » Mon 25 Jun, 2007 10:24 am

James wrote:As far as I can see, no one is disagreeing with you regarding Netscape using the same rendering "engine". The point that some of us have been making is: "what is the point?" What is AOL's point in producing essentially another Firefox with a few add-ons (most of which no one wants) and essentially doing nothing more than what Firefox has been doing for the past few years now? It's redundancy. It's not innovative. It's riding on Firefox's coat tails. A dozen developers cannot possibly hope to keep abreast of let alone ahead of a world developing community of an open source app like Firefox.

What's the point? If you go to my earlier post here, I am of the opinion that Navigator 9 was released to complement the Netscape social news portal. To impute any other motive would be delusional and can only lead to accusations of Navigator 9 being "redundant", "not innovative" and just "riding on Firefox's coat tails".

Firstly, why all this aversion on Netscape being built over the Firefox code? Haven't anyone heard of Firefox co-branding? Google and Firefox are doing it. Mozilla Foundation CEO Mitchell Baker shared her insights on this after her keynote speech at CeBIT Sydney.

Navigator 9 is simply an adaptation of Firefox 2 for Netscape's audience. That audience is not necessarily Firefox' audience. Navigator 9 was "implemented" with Netscape.com users in mind. That's why it has social integration features like the news tracker and in-browser voting.

It is very surprising that this fact has not yet sunk into most minds. Why do we get comments like:

James wrote:I certainly don't want Netscape to fail but if it has any hope of succeeding on a large scale, it is going to have to come up with something far more imaginative than simply a "me too" product.

I mean, the "browser wars" are long over man. Netscape, even with its name/brand recall earned throughout the years, did not set themselves out for global domination with the release of Navigator 9. That's completely missing the point. Netscape is now a social news portal with about 268,000 members.

A browser succeeding on the large scale is more likely to be Firefox but I'm beginning to doubt that now. Firefox does have the potential but not the balls for that.

According to this article, Mozilla has 15 per cent of the global browser market, but Mozilla Foundation CEO Mitchell Baker Baker admits the company would not be comfortable if it ever came close to the type of market success that Microsoft enjoys.

When asked the question:

So you are focussed on providing an alternative, but if there was a chance to overtake your competitors, would you be happy if Mozilla was to become all-consuming?

CEO Mitchell answers:

Actually this conversation occurs among both the employees of Mozilla Corp and the larger community, so I guess the answer is, no, we don't particularly want to dominate, and our system now is pretty effective because we have checks and balances.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.5pre) Gecko/20070604 Firefox/2.0.0.4 Navigator/9.0b1

by **Somedude** » Mon 25 Jun, 2007 3:47 pm

Just because a company doesn't want to dominate everything doesn't make it a dysfunctional company. I don't think that Mozilla could overtake Microsoft in the browser division, simply because IE's dominated since the late 90's.

I do not believe that NS9 was truly necessary because Netscape themselves already released addons for Firefox that integrate with Netscape.com. Add that to the theme that was released and you can turn Firefox into NS9.

~SD

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.4) Gecko/20070515 Firefox/2.0.0.4

by **James** » Tue 26 Jun, 2007 10:51 am

Well... at least this discussion is interesting. :wink:

I'm surprised that Baker would be uncomfortable with taking the lead in the browser wars. As you've mentioned that they "don't have the balls" it strikes me as a mystery. What's the problem?

260,000+ members is a very small group of users in the greater scheme of things so by those numbers the social aspect (money-making?) of Netscape is not really very successful.

Fulvio, I understand what you are saying... that AOL is in the business of making money. What I don't particularly like is its methods of going about money-making. You write that it is klutzy and I couldn't agree more.

I will say this. Had Netscape come up with a full-fledged suite on the order of an updated NS 7... a suite with some innovation (i.e. kept the dual rendering engine and GOT IT RIGHT, fully integrated the mail with the browser)... I would probably have paid for it. After all... I've paid several times in the past for just such a thing.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.4) Gecko/20070515 Firefox/2.0.0.4

by **Fulvio** » Tue 26 Jun, 2007 11:35 am

James,
it is a matter of preference. I can see that diehard Netscape users want a suite, but others, including yours truly, prefer standalone Browser and Mail. I don't know why the Mozilla Corp. made the decision to go that route, but I know that many users unfamiliar with the Netscape,etc. Suites, and familiar with the standalone IE and OE (or whatever is in Vista) understand it better.
Innovation does not go very well with the vast majority of people, having witnessed many complaints about minor changes.
But no matter what nostalgia says, AOL bought Netscape, hoping to shake the Microsoft stranglehold. It did not work, in part because most users could not understand the Netscape way, and changes were being incorporated in the AOL suite.
No, AOL did not kill Netscape. It was as dead as a doornail, not being to handle a lot (v.4.x).
v.6 was klutzy. v.7.x were good at the time.
In case you don't know AOL has been considering updating 7.2, but the standalones are the way to go.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9a5) Gecko/20070606 GranParadiso/3.0a5

by **richard mitnick** » Tue 26 Jun, 2007 12:15 pm

James and Fulvio-

I am sort of staying away from this topic, as I just think that the whole thing is moot.

But, I must ask, what else is SeaMonkey but the latest iteration of the whole real Netscape thing? I mean, you know, it is already here. James, nothing to pay for. Fulvio, it puts away any need for AOL to do anything with 7.2, which, after all is just Mozilla anyway.

Love you guys, hope all is well and that your having good weather. We should all go out and play. I just got back from hiking.

>>RSM

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.8.1.4) Gecko/20070515 Firefox/2.0.0.4

by **James** » Tue 26 Jun, 2007 1:00 pm

Go out and play. OH how I wish! The weather here is glorious right now... but in an hour and a half I must be at work. I will get the weekend off and I can guarantee that the weather will be rainy and cold! Grrrrr :shock:

ps: I hear you, Richard, on the SeaMonkey issue. You're correct is stating that it really is the Netscape suite of the past with updates and without the AOL stuff. What I had hoped for was the innovation of NS 8 embedded in the latest browser. But then... NS 8 really was quite buggy so at least 9 is stable.

Now I need to get my lunch ready or I'll be hungry at work.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.4) Gecko/20070515 Firefox/2.0.0.4

by **richard mitnick** » Tue 26 Jun, 2007 1:44 pm

James-

Oh how I loved Netscape 8. At first. It ran. Slowly, but it ran. But I loved the on-the-fly site-by-site security, the engine switching (made moot by IETab), the user id and password capabilities, all of that stuff.

I mean, you know, I would tolerate the slow start-up, start it and go make coffee, and just keep it open all day. Once open, it was fine.

It was good from the beta through about 8.0.X (X= I don't remember the digit)O. But once 8.1 came along. things fell apart.

So, I am with you all the way, although my I/T buddy says that all of the stuff I loved made my computer very insecure.

And after 8.1 came out, I banged away in the Netscape message boards. I know thqat Jay garcia reads SeaMonkey- Hey Jay!!- he knew everything that was going wrong.

Too Bad, too bad.

And, now, no one is bothering with that stuff, not Mozilla Corp for FF, nor Microsoft for IE.

>>RSM

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.8.1.4) Gecko/20070515 Firefox/2.0.0.4

by **James** » Tue 26 Jun, 2007 2:07 pm

Richard

Gotta run. But I've noticed that you (along with myself) seem to use FF almost exclusively. Have you given up on SeaMonkey or is it just confined to a back burner? And speaking of suites, have you ever tried Opera? I use it occasionally although the mail program takes some getting use to.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.4) Gecko/20070515 Firefox/2.0.0.4

Netscape 9 beta Impressions

Who is online