Netscape - Back from the dead?

[MarkN]

Nobody wants to pay for a browser when a completely usable one comes with all but the most basic of operating systems.

AOL is giving the Netscape browser away for free.

[MarkN]

Meanwhile, when Netscape 7.0 came out, the full installation was around 30MB, and that included 3rd party optional stuff such as Sun's Java VM, RealPlayer and Winamp.

Good for them, though I find Sun Java very much slower than MS's offering I have to say.

I'm sorry to say this, but not even Microsoft wants you to use the Microsoft Virtual Machine: http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/java/

[Martin]

I'd like to ask a question:

One of the arguments people put up is webmaster's bad programing and code thats only usable by Internet Explorer etc. Why can't these 'superior' browsers support all the code/tags in the first place, that way they can offer the best alternative without the downside of pages not working and it would keep the user happy by gaining access to all sites?

I know I could probably find an answer on one of the numerous websites but I'd rather get quick human (if thats possible ) answer.

[cwathen]

Has anyone ever considered that many of the third party IE only plugins have come about because the open standards just can't deliver the kind of content which modern websites demand? Basic HTML and JavaScript just can't deliver it all any more. Some websites have been forced down the route of using browser specific technology in order to get what they want, because standards compliance just won't deliver it. And if most of the market use IE, then obviously that is where support for bolt on non-standards compliant technology is going to focus.

I've personally got absolutely no problem with IE. I've been using it now for 4 years (I did previously religiously stick to Netscape - until it got to 1999 and I saw how much IE had evolved and how stuck in the back of beyond Netscape was - this was when was in it's version 4 rut which imo is the second biggest reason for it's demise after Microsoft's aggresive bundling of IE) and I'm more than happy with it.

It's fast because most of it's code is loaded at startup, I actually think it is quite small and lean despite what other people say, and it undeniably offers the best compatibility - whether or not that's standards compliant compatibility I couldn't care less, all I care about is using websites as they were designed to be used, and IE unquestionably delivers that moreso than any other browser.

Whilst I'm sure many of the people championing alternative browsers here do so for quite valid reasons, but there is also a huge number of people who stay away from IE for no particular reason.

It used to be that the hallmark of the computer nerd was blind upgrading of his operating system and application software the instant that a new version comes out, or of course that old chestnut of using corporate versions of Windows to make them feel big and 'ard inspite of the fact that the home version is more than adequate for their needs. Today the modern hallmark seems to be using an alternative browser. No geek could possibly be seen dead using IE, the browser of the ordinary people. No, they must use Mozilla, or Firebird, or JHIOEDAF-Browse that's only available in source code so they've compiled their own binary - very often for no other reason than to tell other people that they don't use IE but use <x obscure browser> instead.

[Dr Lobster*]

Netscape is not included with the AOL client software. It's a standalone download from Netscape.com.
And you don't pay a penny for it. It's free. Oh and BTW, the AOL client software actually bundles IE.

What I mean't is that given AOL is having some financial difficulty, the only way they could make developing the browser viable is to sell it in someway. It does not make any sense for AOL to continue developing Netscape. I can't see any way in which it would pay for itself, especially since from what I last heard, AOL don't have any plans to port their protcol suite and client software to non-Windows operating systems.

Netscape is not a bloat ridden browser. It's not just a browser, it's a fully fledged internet application
suite, complete with other components, such as e-mail and chat, just like the Mozilla App-Suite. In
fact, Netscape has been offered as an application suite since the first version of Ns Communicator
was released back in 1997. The only difference between the Mozilla 1.x and Netscape browser
suites, is that Mozilla 1.x doesn't include the AOL Instant Messenger, or integration with
the Netscape Webmail service. And of course, if you select a custom install of either
suite, you can de-select the optional components you don't want to install.

But it takes *ages* to start up. Even firefox which I assume shares much of the same page rendering code cuts startup time significantly. The problem is with Netscape.

Essentially, the only really bloat ridden browser currently available, is Internet Explorer 6.0 SP1.

No it isn't. IE uses components already resident in memory that Windows Explorer uses to render folder views. You will actually find that the number of files that make up a core Internet Explorer installation to total only a few MB. Everything else is already there with Windows.

[MarkN]

Peter suggested I make my next websites in completely standards compliant and valid XHTML. All I can say is that it was a long, difficult slog. Some things just wouldn't work - vertical centering was impossible. Other things only worked in the obscure browsers and needed 'hacks' to fix them for Internet Explorer.

Although the perfect situation is where you use CSS for all formatting and layout, I do have a certain feeling of empathy when people say that some things are more difficult to do using CSS (at present) than HTML.

However, this is not an ideal world, and we have to admit that (at present) some of us just don't have enough time to use CSS techniques (no matter how much we would like to). Firstly, do not confuse "standards compliant" with "no formatting tags in HTML". Although the W3C would prefer it if you used CSS exclusively, they do not make this compulsory in their transitional standards. These standards have been designed for people who want to use some of the older formatting techniques that they know in the interim, but to then transition over to the newer standards when they are ready.

From: http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/

XHTML 1.0 Transitional - Many people writing Web pages for the general public to access might want to use this flavor of XHTML 1.0. The idea is to take advantage of XHTML features including style sheets but nonetheless to make small adjustments to your markup for the benefit of those viewing your pages with older browsers which can't understand style sheets. These include using the body element with bgcolor, text and link attributes.

If you wish to go down the transitional route, use as much CSS as you are comfortable with. For instance, use CSS to set colours, font sizes, widths, heights etc. but use HTML for those things that you find difficult to do at present, for instance "valign". Then, when your CSS skills have improved, you can use the CSS method instead.

e.g.

Code: Select all

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN">
...snip...
<p><font face="Arial">Text</font></p>
...snip...

Code: Select all

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN">
...snip...
<style type="text/css">
   p { font-family: Arial, sans-serif }
</style>
...snip...
<p>Text</p>
...snip...

If you ran both (complete!) sets of code through the W3C Validator, they will both validate! (This example may use formatting, but really that should be job of CSS. This example was the first thing I could think of!)

However, you must just remember that this is a transitional standard, and you should eventually move over to pure CSS. This is because the old HTML formatting tags are deprecated, and will eventually not be supported by the W3C. As I have already said, use as much CSS as possible now, then switch over fully once the time is right.

Hope this helps!

[MarkN]

Today the modern hallmark seems to be using an alternative browser. No geek could possibly be seen dead using IE, the browser of the ordinary people. No, they must use Mozilla, or Firebird, or JHIOEDAF-Browse that's only available in source code so they've compiled their own binary - very often for no other reason than to tell other people that they don't use IE but use <x obscure browser> instead.

Usually for one (or more) of the following reasons:

1. They don't use Windows.
2. They are web standards mad.
3. They don't like the idea of using proprietary software.
4. They don't like the idea of using Microsoft products/don't like Microsoft.
5. They have been stung by a bug/security hole/feature in Internet Explorer.
6. They don't like the fact that some people have been stung by a bug/security hole/feature in Internet Explorer.
7. They don't like Internet Explorer.
8. They like the features available in alternative browsers.
9. They believe, that by using an alternative browser, they will help stop the movement towards a proprietary World Wide Web.
10. They saw a good review on ZDNet, Infoweek, PC World etc.
11. They were recommended by someone to use it.
12. They like compiling source code.
13. They have contributed/are contributing to the project.
14. They started the project.
15. They like to be different.
16. They want to visit http://www.ihatemicrosoft.com.
17. They like to tell other people that they don't use IE but use <browser> instead.

[James Martin]

I'm not sure quite what Microsoft have done wrong though.

[MarkN]

I'm not sure quite what Microsoft have done wrong though.

Disclaimer: The content contained within these links does not necessarily reflect my own opinion. They have been provided purely to show the opinion of other people.

A WebRing: http://e.webring.com/hub?ring=antims
Newsgroup postings: http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Why%2 ... 0Microsoft

http://webclass.lakeland.cc.il.us/micro ... rosoft.htm
http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/IhateMS.html
http://www.amazing.com/microsoft/windows-haters.html
http://www.microsuck.com/content/whatsbad.shtml
http://www.ka9q.net/worm/
http://www.twoengineers.com/Richard/microsoft.html
http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2003/09/27
http://www.wcc.net/~rickeyd/ihatems/ihatems.html
http://ojr.org/ojr/technology/1017969479.php
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/TopTen.shtml
http://www.linuxforum.com/forums/index. ... topic=4106
http://www.seanet.com/~jonpugh/WhyHateMS.html
http://www.slaughters.com/harry/archives/000083.html
http://www.brcom.com.br/~robson/antimsen.html
http://members.tripod.com/~hatems/

There are more... just do a search on your favourite search engine to find them.

[Gavin Scott]

Today the modern hallmark seems to be using an alternative browser. No geek could possibly be seen dead using IE, the browser of the ordinary people. No, they must use Mozilla, or Firebird, or JHIOEDAF-Browse that's only available in source code so they've compiled their own binary - very often for no other reason than to tell other people that they don't use IE but use <x obscure browser> instead.

Usually for one (or more) of the following reasons:

1-17...

Interesting. I currently use Opera for an 18th reason: my IE seems to have corrupted and I've not been able to repair it.

That said, I'm vain enough to beleive that I *do* like to be different, and I would be fibbing if I said that Pete's references to alternate browsers (over a couple of years) hasn't had an effect. Based on that alone I used Mozilla Firebird for a while, but it didn't react well to some sites I visit.

I'm one of these people who is happy to take counsel from experts. Those who talk of web standards compliance should surely know what they are talking about, no? If they say (and they do) that IE is un-secure and sloppy then I'm quite sure it is.

As I say though, its fascinating that the perceived negative aspects of IE as a piece of software, Microsoft as a corporation and Bill Gates as an individual have a combined effect of increasing the use of alternates.

[Pete]

I'm not sure quite what Microsoft have done wrong though.

Well basically my main reasons are thus.
1 - until SP2 it was impossible to remove the barnicles such as Norton's toolbar from IE, I like tidyness, I'm fussy. Firefox doesn't have an uninstall button for extensions yet and I quite happily uninstall the entire thing and reset just to clean the single line of text from the list.
2 - popups - yet again solved in SP2 although if I'm not mistaken windows can still reorder themselves
3 - stability, IE used to go down on my ME machine all the time, it's probably stabler on XP but by that time I hadn't used it in ages.
4 - rendering, for some reason many sites look "flat" to me in IE now. Mozillazine.org is a particular example of this.
5 - tabs and little things like "Find as you type" in Firefox, can't live without them anymore.


CSS is far from perfect, I threw a hissy fit the other week when trying to get something to vertically and ended up trying the most ridiculous hack, which them totally buggered up in IE5.

Plus on the subject of the "dreadful standards". If IE supported PNG properly there would be a lot less need for so many annoying filters. I was going to give the link to a lovely CSS based design I saw the other day but I've lost the liink to it, I'll find it later and put it up.