Netscape 9?

[Antony]

You know... I'm actually getting a bit excited. Go figure.

Hehe, me too. I pretty much gave up on Netscape but old habits die hard I guess. I just hope they will be able to differentiate Netscape from Firefox and Internet Explorer. The integration with Netscape.com is a good idea, even though I don't use it, it adds an interesting angle. Maybe if they integrated Xdrive into the browser it would be a killer app?

Something I don't think the current "digg-like" Netscape.com will attract those long time Netscape users. There's nothing wrong with integration, but not the current Netscape.com in my opinion.

Anyway, Antony, will you post some screenshots so we can see what it looks like on a Mac when it is released?

I will.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X; en-US; rv:1.8.1.1) Gecko/20061204 Firefox/2.0.0.1

[Mandrake]

Any thoughts as to whether Netscape 9 might have an e-mail client built-in (a la SeaMonkey and Netscape Communicator)?

Netscape 9 will be based on Firefox.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.1) Gecko/20061204 Firefox/2.0.0.1

[JPhoenixDK]

I agree with you Antony, I doubt the Netsape.com integration will do much in terms of attracting new users although Jason Calacanis claims that tfraffic numbers are increasing. However, I think integration with some kind of web 2.0 service like Flickr or Xdrive might provide the Netscape browser some leverage.

/Jesper

UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.30)

[vipergg]

Since they turned off netscape.net e-mail, I am curious as to what site that Netscape Mail icon takes the user to...

That is just part of AOL mail now , I
still have a netscape.net address but I logg into AIM to get the mail now , hopefully version 9 is a lotttttttttttttttt less of a pig than 8 was , 8 was worthless . Unless it is a lot faster than 8 was I will be staying with 7.2 or Seamonkey though I still have a hard time getting around that name . Think they could have come up with something better or just left it as Mozilla .

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win 9x 4.90; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax)

[James]

I agree on most counts: the name sort of sucks (Mozilla was not an option for them so they had to rename it) and NS 8 is a pig, no question about that. I will say, however, that SM 1.1 is considerably safer than NS 7.2 (which you are currently using). You might want to consider upgrading until (or "if") Netscape decides to patch 7.2.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.2pre) Gecko/20070111 SeaMonkey/1.1

[Fulvio]

You can call Seamonkey any name you want. Right click|rename. You will get over the name in a hurry, while you can't get over the performance of the program.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.0.9) Gecko/20061206 Firefox/1.5.0.9

[James]

Honestly, Fulvio, I don't appear to have any problems with Seamonkey. It's performing like a trooper for me and I couldn't be happier. Well... I take that back. I would be happier if:

- Netscape 9 made an appearance today and was everything that it's supposed to be
- Netscape 9 included an e-mail program
- Netscape 7.2 was fully patched (and even updated! Yeah... why not go for broke?)

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.2pre) Gecko/20070111 SeaMonkey/1.1

[Fulvio]

James,
my last post was obscure, even to myself. I have no clue what I meant by performance. Maybe, I was referring to Seamonkey1.1, or may be to NS8.x. But, i wanted to tell that the name Seamonkey is not obligatory. But, I, still, find SM1.1 much slower in getting started than 1.0.7. Everything else being equal SM1.1 takes me more than twice as long to start. After that it is fine,

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.0.9) Gecko/20061206 Firefox/1.5.0.9