[Brian Frank]

That might've sounded a bit sarcastic, but so far, it's pretty good. I got Netscape 7.0 downloaded to try out for the heck of it, as I've been having trouble on another message board---and it turned out to be IE6 for some reason. Not NS7 isn't flawless yet, as I do have trouble with one site currently, but it's more of a continual popping up with some message than anything terribly serious.
I do miss the use of the programmable buttons on my mouse---but then again, I haven't installed the drivers for it yet (didn't need to using IE6), so that's probably fixable.

[Admiral LSD]

Do yourselves both a favour and ditch Netscape 6.0+ in favour of Mozilla. Same rendering engine (Gecko), less gh3y Netscape crap (Moz is only a 10Mb d/l, last time I checked NS6 was still a 25+Mb d/l).

Of course, personally I wouldn't use either of them (I prefer Opera) but if you're going to use Gecko, at least use the best available Windows version.

[clutch]

I like the new Nutscrape in Linux, but I really like Mozilla a lot better. Unfortunately, I was having a hard time getting Java setup with Mozilla in Linux, and with the little time I wanted to devote to figuring it out it was easier to get NS7 with Java all in one.

[Admiral LSD]

You kind of have it backwards. Mozilla is the base upon which browsers like Netscape 6.x+ and Galeon are built on. It's open source, so you're free to take the code and pretty much do what you like with it (I think it's also GPL'd too so you must allow others to do the same to your work as well).

[Christianb]

-Improve their debugging to give proper errors. It's okay not to have Microsoft's HTML code leniency. In fact in some ways it's be better not to, because it'll ensure that things are rendered as the artist intended more often, because IE makes assumptions when the code isn't perfect. It would be okay to error out when something isn't perfect, you just have to tell users why. Netscape just says code error and barfs.

[Toby]

Clutch,

I had some problems with the java plugins i Mozilla too, but fixed it when I visited this page http://nampjal.sourceforge.net/ (as root, won't install under regular user).

Just follow the promt for installing the plugin. This worked for me with the latest build of Mozilla (1.1 ??)

/Toby

[Admiral LSD]

Quote:

-Improve their debugging to give proper errors. It's okay not to have Microsoft's HTML code leniency. In fact in some ways it's be better not to, because it'll ensure that things are rendered as the artist intended more often, because IE makes assumptions when the code isn't perfect.

More to the point, it'll make sure web designers code pages properly instead of taking a laid back "she'll be right, it looks good in IE" attitude. Every webmaster like that should be taken out and shot.

[CUViper]

What bugs me is that the HTML "standard" doesn't seem that way. Even when you do everything properly, a site that looks great in IE can look like shit in Netscape/Mozilla/Opera because of unsupported features or different rendering styles. Maybe I'm just lazy, but I hate having to rewrite a website just to make netscape, etc. cooperate...

[Christianb]

I agree browser compatiblity is a total pain. I think one of the problem is the lack of rigidity in the standards. For example nothing says the browser default font must be such and such and must be of the following size. I addition to specifiying the default font and size, H1, H2, etc should all be in the same pt. (font size). Sure a lot of companies own the rights to a particular font, but that shouldn't be a problem just make and or select a good open source font and move on. Or how about the text boxes a 20 character text box in Netscape is a totally different size than one in IE. The boex need to be the same size x pixels wide, by Y pixels tall, with the same font. If they'd start getting rigid in the specifications designers could spend more time doing content creation, because they'd be wasting less time on content creation.

[bottleneck]

[Xiven]

Quote:

I am no fan of Java created programs, but I figured years ago by the 3ghz CPU range, Java will see its day too! We're close now... nearing 3ghz Intel speeds.

Mozilla (=Netscape 7 before bloat added) is not written in Java. It is written in C++ to the best of my knowledge. Except for the user interface which is written in Javascript (which if you may recall is an entirely different thing to Java (except for the name similarity and similar syntax).

[Four and Twenty]

so is the whole java thing why that sh1t is dog slow even on fast computers?

(that sh1t meaning NS)

[Christianb]

Java is big, very big. It'll replace C++ as the #1 programming language within the next decade. Think about it. You only have to write a program once and it'll work on a zillion platforms. Hmmm....Yeah that's better than porting, recompiling, and testing all day long. Granted it ain't perfect, but it's the best thing we got by a lot.

[CUViper]

Java's main advantage: portability
Java's main disadvantage: speed

Every language has its advantages and disadvantages, and Java is no exception. If portability is your ONLY concern, then yes, you should seriously look at Java.

[clutch]

Java is a pig that can't deliver on many of its promises, and the company (Sun) that claims it's so "portable" wants to have absolute control over how it's handled at everybody else's expense. Hell, the pig is even having issues with handhelds and wireless web browsers. It's a great concept, but it's execution is still lacking. It will need all of those 10 years to be a decent language to begin with, let alone reign over all...

[Four and Twenty]

yea i really don't see java being "THE" progaming language
cause even if the computers get real fast and java runs ok then there will still be stuff that runs a hell of a lot faster on the same hardware. Also it helps to have MS behind you these days but sun and MS are less than friendly

[Xiven]

Okay, here's some plain and simple answers for you since you seem to be utterly confused.

Netscape 4.xx sucks because it just gets web pages totally and utterly wrong unless said web pages are constructed using tables (which is very bad practice - tables are meant for tabulating data, not laying out your website) and even then it's pretty hit-and-miss. Netscape 4's support for CSS is absolutely pitiful, there is no doubt about it. Now, quite why Netscape continues to release 4.xx versions (4.8 was released last week) is beyond me.

Netscape 4.75+ sucks even more because it is packaged with:
- AOL icons galore
- Winamp (I already have it thank-you-very-much)
- AOL instant messenger (no thank you)
all in one hulking great download. And there's no option to not instant AOL IM either IIRC.

Mozilla is not in any way based on Netscape 4. Mozilla is a completely new product, which has been many years in development. It uses the Gecko rendering engine which is the most standards-compliant renderer out there (although not quite the speediest -- yet)

Netscape 6.x is based on various builds of Mozilla. In fact Netscape 6 is Mozilla, but with:
- About 4 useless AOL icons installed on your desktop
- No ability to block pop-ups (removed on request by AOL)
- Java run-time environment included

Netscape 7 is based on Mozilla 1.1 and as such is pretty much the same as Netscape 6 except for bug fixes, couple of nice new features etc. Didn't really warrant a new version number but what the heck.

Quote:

(Sheesh! lol... had to clarify it again. I do REALIZE that Mozilla USED to be based on 4.7x C/C++ code, but was wondering if its latest still is really & not like Netscape 6.x-7.x Java based interpreted stuff)

No, like I said earlier in this post, Mozilla was never based on anything, certainly not Netscape 4.

Quote:

The reason I won't use the Netscape 6x & above IS because it is written in Java, & I had bad experiences with it also in its initial 6.0 release being very poorly done initially & I turned away from the Java based builds & stuck by the 4.7x series instead, the C/C++ built ones..

Are you even listening to me? Netscape 6/7 is NOT written in Java. Never has been. Neither is Mozilla. I thought I was pretty clear on this in my previous post but obviously not. For that I apologise. But please get your information straight before spreading "facts" about something that are, in actual fact, complete and utter tripe.


Now, on a lighter note, here's my opinions on the most popular browsers...

Browser roundup
Mozilla 1.1 is a very nice browser. It's still not quite as solid as IE, but it's still very nice.
Netscape 7, being based on Mozilla 1.1, the same comments apply, though I'd go with Mozilla over NS7 myself.
Netscape 4 deserves to be buried as deep as is possible. Many web designers have finally given up on catering to NS4 users and I really can't blame them.
IE6 is solid (can't remember the last time it crashed) and its standards support is pretty damned good (still needs work though).
Opera is nice and fast and has the tabbed browsing and pop-up blocking features that eventually made their way into Mozilla. Very poor support for Document Object Model, though the new one in development will hopefully address this. Pretty good support for CSS and HTML standards.

[clutch]

Mozilla (and consequently NS6/7) both have very nice support for CSS 1/2, whereas IE still can't seem to get custom bullet icons and backgrounds right without screwing with tables. I have a couple of pages that have background images that will not come up properly on the first pass with IE, but if you minimize with window and then bring it back they'll show up. Also, Opera is pretty nice too. In general, I just stay with IE since it does most of what I want (sans the better CSS image support) and I don't have to run a separate browser.

[clutch]

On the table comment, I use tables in place of frames (which are pure evil) whenever I do a layout with navbars. I like their flexibility, and they can follow parent-child relationships with CSS. Plus, pages that I use tables in look the same (or very similar) across multiple platforms.

[Admiral LSD]

Quote:

Opera is nice and fast and has the tabbed browsing and pop-up blocking features that eventually made their way into Mozilla. Very poor support for Document Object Model, though the new one in development will hopefully address this. Pretty good support for CSS and HTML standards.

I hope they include some proper multi user features into Opera 7 for Windows (I think the Linux version already puts its config files into Users home directories). Global config files are great for single-user Windows 9x but now that XP is here and the multi user Windows revolution has well and truly begun they just don't make the cut. Of course, its not a feature that'll make be go to IE but it would be a nice addition.