Comments for Netscape Communicator

14 Feb 2001 16:23 linux4tea

Re: Size, stability, and market share
I sadly agree that Netscape is heading in completely
the wrong direction in almost all respects. Its more
bloated , its more buggy , although it does appear to
crash a bit less granted !, the unfriendliest interface
and at the moment probably has the WORST
rendering engine going . Any Web administrator will
vouch for the fact that NS is almost completely
disappeared from the Site Logs. In the Win32 World
its completely gone in favour or IE . The paradox is
that the Win32 version of netscape is actually quite
good ! The Linux version for sure is almost completely
unuseable (v6.01) and quite frankly an insult to the
linux community. v6 was a pretty poor effort but you
kinda let that by as an beta release ( even though it
wasn;t !) . Having the next release go even further in
the mire is quite unacceptable. Its maybe a sign of the
maturing Linux market that software of this quality is
no longer acceptable to us , many of us now require
good product for our day to day business. However
the death of Netscape as a force in the browser
market is maybe a good thing. Time for some new
blood and I personally find Konqueror to be already a
far superior product , even in it current "beta"
state.(1.9.8) It renders better pages, Has better core
features and useability. I dont need portal stuff and t
he likes forced down my throat. I want a browser and I
want it lean and mean and good at just that .
Konqueror wins hands down across the board. I
think that it is already better than IE in terms of
approach and speed and ease of use. Obviously IE is
more mature in many respects but I remember IE2 ,
even 3 .. utter pants !!!! We needn't be concerned
there . OK its maybe my personal preference (as a
user and an network administrator ) but I dont like
IE's (and indeed NS) desire to want us to use the
same big product for ALL net services . I just dont
see it . How many use Netscape for Email ?? exactly !
How many wish they didn't use Outlook .. plenty ! The
only thing I miss at the moment is the loss of some of
the all pervasive plug-in technology requirements e.g
Flash,Real etc. ( but even then its only because of the
annoying download page !!) But as we vote with our
feet that situation cannot last I am sure. Then you
look at how these products impliment features we
need on a regular basis . Take Print dialogues .. The
Netscape one is a poor unfriendly effort with no select
ability . IMO its a thrown together port of the windows
version where no effort has been made to make it
work in a native friendly way As a network
administrator i would NEVER give this to "users" . The
level of helpdesk support this would need would be
horrific !! Konqueror on the other hand is able to read
all the available printers .. including Network printers .
names . comments to lot. User friendly and ready for
the "user" desktop. If we want to see Linux move onto
the corporate desktop we have to reject NS and
embrace proper ported software. The King is dead ,
long live the King.

10 Feb 2001 05:09 brat

Re: Netscape v6.0

> Don't forget my friends:
>
> it's spelled N-e-t-s-c-a-p-e, but it's
> pronounced "Mozilla."
>


Hmm- Don't you mean N-e-t-s-c-a-p-e, but its pronounced "Slow-as-crap-overblown-bloatware-that-crashes-all-the-damn-time-for-no-apparent-reason"???

When will there be a worthwhile alternative???

09 Feb 2001 14:20 wesmo

Re: Mozilla/Netscape is crap.
Admittedly, I have to agree. Netscape 6.0, so far, has been a mistake. It blatantly used the user base as alpha/beta testers for a product that was not production-ready. Massively huge and unstable in comparison to Netscape 4.76, it only succeeded in turning OFF people.

Sure, the interface looks nice and all, but, geeze, if it craps out half the time, and the other half of the time it has trouble rendering GOOD pages properly, then what use is it?

I do however, disagree with the ordering of SPEED and then STABILITY. It should be the other way around: Stability, then speed. An application that crashes faster doesn't do much for ya. :)

09 Feb 2001 13:46 phanlord

Re: Size, stability, and market share

>
> Nah, they've done some good work, it's
> just not been
> packaged very well. Look up Skipstone
> or Galeon
> here on Freshmeat, two GTK-based web
> browserrs
> which use Mozilla's HTML renderer and
> nothing else.
> Very responsive, less bloat, more
> fun.
>


well maybe GUI part is responsive but the HTML rendere is too slow. Netscape 4.7 its at least 50 times faster then famous gecko engine which then does not even support standards.I dont like M$ and IE but I would like to see IE on my Linux box then bother with slow 20 MB HTML rendere.

09 Feb 2001 13:28 salsadoom

Mozilla/Netscape is crap.

This was hyped as much as any microsoft product, perhaps even more. And, it is probably one of the worst pieces of crap OSS ever made. I wanted this as much as the next guy, but its slow as hell, unstable, and bloated.

Netscape/Mozilla people might release an update that fixes a few bugs and adds more useless features (IRC client anyone? Wtf!) but why don't they learn from past mistakes and release a new version with what Netscape REALLY needs: SPEED and then, STABILITY.

09 Feb 2001 12:23 justrob

Re: Size, stability, and market share


>
> I find it terribly disturbing that
> Mozilla requires more disk space and RAM
> to build than X11R5 did. How is that
> even possible? I thought a primary
> objective of the Mozilla team was to
> clean up the code? Well, I'm waiting.
>


Optimization is done at the end of a project. Look at the roadmap. They aren't there yet. Keep waiting.

> Is there a solution? Yes. The
> Mozilla folks should start over. In the
> time they've used to work on the
> existing Mozilla code, they could have
> written a fully functional browser from
> scratch. I say get the browser working,
> THEN focus on
> mail/editor/IRC/backscratcher/oil
> changer portions. Of course, I'm not a
> master developer or project leader, just
> a guy with some common sense. I'm
> getting the feeling that common sense
> has no place in this project, though.
>


From the Projects section on mozilla.org:

"The primary mission of mozilla.org is to coordinate and integrate the work of others."


Don't worry, the guys doing the rendering engine aren't taking time off to work on the backscratcher. The backscratcher department isn't even in the same building.


>
> Reagen


09 Feb 2001 10:59 mattbee

Re: Size, stability, and market share

Nah, they've done some good work, it's just not been
packaged very well. Look up Skipstone or Galeon
here on Freshmeat, two GTK-based web browserrs
which use Mozilla's HTML renderer and nothing else.
Very responsive, less bloat, more fun.

18 Aug 2000 08:57 stesch

Version for glibc 2.0?
And where can I find the version for glibc 2.0?

08 Aug 2000 13:23 ward

Size, stability, and market share
Netscape/Mozilla is one of the most critical applications to most of us right now. There isn't another option for most UNIX users just yet, no matter how much I love lynx. That means we're in trouble.

I find it terribly disturbing that Mozilla requires more disk space and RAM to build than X11R5 did. How is that even possible? I thought a primary objective of the Mozilla team was to clean up the code? Well, I'm waiting.

Not only is mozilla less stable than netscape4 (which is a feat in and of itself), the new PR2 release installer dies before installing anything. Lotsa QA went into this product, let me tell you! When your team spends more time working on an instant messager and a super-duper-ultra-deluxe html editor instead of producing a stable browser, you get Mozilla, the product that never was. Still waiting for a real release, folks! When developers produce WindowMaker dock applets to kill netscape due to its tendency to freeze everything, that should be an indicator that the product needs HELP. When I have to kill a runaway netscape process AFTER I've exited, just to get back a full 96MB of RAM from a useless process, that's bad.

Market share for Netscape has slipped drastically lately, and it's not just because IE is more stable than NS. Folks don't see a future in NS. The 4.7x line is quite long in the tooth, and it wasn't very stable or standards-based to begin with. The preview releases of 6 are worse than Mozilla milestones in most ways, and that's a severe disappointment to folks who really don't want to use a bad product.

Is there a solution? Yes. The Mozilla folks should start over. In the time they've used to work on the existing Mozilla code, they could have written a fully functional browser from scratch. I say get the browser working, THEN focus on mail/editor/IRC/backscratcher/oil changer portions. Of course, I'm not a master developer or project leader, just a guy with some common sense. I'm getting the feeling that common sense has no place in this project, though.

What's the alternative? It's called assimilation. IE5 for the Mac is a joy to use. It's so much better than the IE releases for Win32 or UNIX, and it's almost completely compliant with modern web standards. MS is fully capable of producing a quality product, even if they don't want to do so most of the time. Without a working and stable browser for UNIX, we'll be stuck with Mac and Windows products for a while, so that's good to know. Opera is excellent, but isn't ready for Linux yet, and it's not available on as many UNIX platforms as Netscape. It's not free, but it's worth the cost. Konqueror is on its way, but it's not done yet either. More importantly, many banking sites and the like REQUIRE IE or NS to get in. Period. Browser spoofing is not the answer.

It's time to pull the plug and start over. We're in big trouble.

Reagen

08 Aug 2000 12:25 bart1803

Netscape v6.0
Don't forget my friends:

it's spelled N-e-t-s-c-a-p-e, but it's pronounced "Mozilla."

Screenshot

Project Spotlight

ReciJournal

An open, cross-platform journaling program.

Screenshot

Project Spotlight

Veusz

A scientific plotting package.