• 0

Why I won't use Netscape


Question

Yeah yeah, only a couple posts, I know; I never read the boards. Anyway, back in the n00b days, I remember seeing that Netscape 6 was released. I d/led it to see if it was any good, and (not surprisingly) it wasn't: pictures were all over the place, text was misaligned, and all HTML was basically screwed up. When I noticed 6.1 or 6.01 or whatever, I thought that I might give that a try. The bugs were still there. Now that they've skipped versions to 7.0 (which all companies do) with basically a Mozilla 1.0 with Netscape's name on it, I'm not interested in trying it out. IE works fine for me. Plus, I don't really want to spend all that 56k bandwidth on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Recommended Posts

  • 0

Well it just is untrue.

I have a PII 400Mhz with 128 meg of ram, and it takes like 25-30 seconds to open netscape 6.

Yeah, IE loads with the OS.

Aint' it cool? So i don't have to wait for it to browse the net..

Why wait for IE to load with the OS and then wait for Netscape to load ?

IE kicks @ss,end of the story

IMO, of course:P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
Originally posted by StOnD

Nutscrape and Hozilla always have and always will SUCK THE BIG ONE.

thanks for your oh-so-informative opinion. :right:

Why wait for IE to load with the OS and then wait for Netscape to load ?

then use mozilla with the tray manager. it will probably speed up it's loading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
Originally posted by StOnD

Nutscrape and Hozilla always have and always will SUCK THE BIG ONE.

i like the clever names that people use when they don't like a product but have no real basis as to why. there's nothing wrong with having an opinion, but the lame namecalling is just silly to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Netscape used to be ok back in the day when i couldn't figure out why IE wouldnt work then i realized i had a 16 bit connection trying to use a 32 bit browser and the netscape i dl'd was 16 bit so it worked

but once i figured that out BYE BYE NETSCAPE!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

theres no reason to DL netscape or any other browser (my opinion) when you already have a perfectly capable one already given to you

unless you really want/need the features that IE doesnt have, what is the point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

IE 6 is ok. I use is mainly in Windows Xp, but sometimes Mozilla 1.0

in linux though, mozilla rocks, besides mozilla = less popups :)

both are good browsers

Netscape though, they have gotten worse since 4.08

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
unless you really want/need the features that IE doesnt have, what is the point?

personally, i can't understand how people live without tabs and popup blocking, but that's just me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
Originally posted by Hawk999

It tell's you more about the name caller than the product he/she does not like :p

So, I'm a ho who scrapes nuts.

that sounds about right :evil:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

I hope that people that are reading this tread are able to see a common theme apear. Those who say that they don't like Netscape/Mozilla have can give no arguments that are based on experience. Namecalling seems to be the only way out.

Apart from alendi I have seen no reasoned answers about this. And I notice a strange form of conservatism here. I find this very weird.

Most of the people on this board are quite happy to try out new desktop's, skins and other changes to their interface. But when it comes to trying out new software programs, like mozilla [that is skinnable!!!!] and QCD, [a freeform skinable high quality media player] conservatism seems the way to go. Very strange.

I am willing to take the gamble at a hypothesis: I bet that it is the younger crowd that is conservative in trying out the newer non-standard programs, while the what older crowd is more relaxt about it. It's just a gut feeling I have, I might be wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Well I'll stand up for Mozilla, it rocks. I like the net gesture's, tabbed browsing, and pop up killing features. I like IE's more compatible with some pages (i.e. Active X), and the favorites are easier to click on, and also the fav's don't automatically alphabetize.

Now I don't like Mozilla's lack of ability to have it NEVER open a new window, a slight bug i get once in a while with the preferences screen sometimes crashing mozilla, it's favorites, and lack of more robust email client. Now for IE I don't like the constant exploits, the fact it's number one (I like competition), it's general security and IE's zones equaling to OE's zones (I want seperate zones for each), and the fact that I must use it for windows update.

Both are excellent browsers and when I'm done configuring Mozilla it will be my primary browser. Just my opinion guys. Support the opposition and give MS a fight

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
Originally posted by Hatter

credibility--;

idiocy++;

How bout this:

Netscape and Mozilla are damn near as bloated as Nautilus in GNONE 1.4, perhaps more.

Netscape 6 having AIM built into the sidebar is just plain ridiculous.

Mozilla is netscape with even crappier skins.

In linux I do use Galeon, which I understand is based on Mozilla but it isn't so damn bloated. It loads in about 1/10 the time and hogs WAY less memory with all the features that are of ANY use at all.

Galeon and IE are also both THEME AWARE. Better than any damn extra-bloated, crappy looking skins. I've looked at skins for Mozilla and Netscape (or the lack thereof) and was utterly disappointed.

BTW IE 5.5 for Win2k was 8 megs.

Chew on that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

I don't think Mozilla is that bloated at all, small nimble and fast. Now yeah it's more bloated than old Mosiac was and it won't fit on a floppy but hey, what does now a days? And look at this 9.8MB for Mozilla, IE is WAY bigger than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
Originally posted by freeza

theres no reason to DL netscape or any other browser (my opinion) when you already have a perfectly capable one already given to you

unless you really want/need the features that IE doesnt have, what is the point?

And *that* is the conservatism I mean. How will you know that you don't "need" those features is you are not willing to try them first?? As stated before Mozilla has *loads* of features that IE has not got.

Very effective popup killer, skins, it will prevent link jumping [opening almost every link in a new window], it has tabs, direct search, HTTP pipelinening, Almost everything is configurable via the user.js, modifyied icon's, modifyied splash screens, you can give colors to quoted txt in mail even give different colors to different reply's in mail or usenet messages, :) and ;) will turn into smiley icons, you can get bold and underlined txt in plain txt messages and there are some more I have not even mentioned.

But hey, if you want to stay in 1995, fine. But don't pretent that Mozilla or Netscape RC 7.0 does not have inovative features.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Hey Hawk999 what exactly is http pipelining? It's one of the thing's I'm not sure if I should enable, and no help existed for it in the help menu.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Well it's really called http pipelining, so I'm thrown off. Not sure if it increases the amount of max connections like opera and IE(with reg hack).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
Originally posted by mAcOdIn

Hey Hawk999 what exactly is http pipelining? It's one of the thing's I'm not sure if I should enable, and no help existed for it in the help menu.

Just enable it and watch Mozilla start to fly when it comes to loading webpages :p

Here's how you do it"

under preferences|HTTP Networking| enable:

"Use HTTP 1.1"

"Enable Keep-Alive"

"Enable Pipelining"

Close mozilla start it up and notice the change in loading pages.

As for your other problem:

"Now I don't like Mozilla's lack of ability to have it NEVER open a

new window"

right click on a link and choose "open in new window" it's the second option from above.

Feel free to ask me anything you want about configuring Mozilla :D. Just PM me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

About the tabs feature... I don't think that tabs are too far off for IE mainly because, if you take a look at VS.NET, the entire interface is tabbed. Internet explorer, when used within VS.NET, is also tabbed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
Originally posted by StOnD

How bout this:

Netscape and Mozilla are damn near as bloated as Nautilus in GNONE 1.4, perhaps more.

Netscape 6 having AIM built into the sidebar is just plain ridiculous.

Mozilla is netscape with even crappier skins.

In linux I do use Galeon, which I understand is based on Mozilla but it isn't so damn bloated. It loads in about 1/10 the time and hogs WAY less memory with all the features that are of ANY use at all.

Galeon and IE are also both THEME AWARE. Better than any damn extra-bloated, crappy looking skins. I've looked at skins for Mozilla and Netscape (or the lack thereof) and was utterly disappointed.

BTW IE 5.5 for Win2k was 8 megs.

Chew on that.

Galeon is based on Gecko, the Mozilla engine. It is MEANT to be light-weight. It doesn't have an e-mail client, source editor, IRC chat client, or a news-group browser. It is just a browser. It has a crappy way of handling tabs too.

Nautilus for Gnome 1.4 IS bloated, but not in the way you think. The code is bloated. Nautilus 1.1 (with GNOME 2.0) is very fast. Faster than konqueror.

The lack of native theming in mozilla is a pain sometimes, but there is not a lack of good themes. Modern is nice, but I like Orbit.

And galeon isn't themed the same way as mozilla. Galeon has no native way of skinning it. It uses GTK and thus has theming abilities from that. I would refuse to use Mozilla is it use the old crapp GTK 1.2 though with those widgets though. GTK2 is nice, but internal theming has the advantage there.

IE on Win2k takes more than 8MB of RAM. It's processes are embedded in the operating system (as microsoft argues) so it takes memory from the OS. Nice try though.

Anything else, druggy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

good stuff hatter and hawk. i love reading well written posts.

as for the question about never opening in a new window, i think he meant that sometimes it still happens, even when you don't want it to. i've had the same problem a few times. do you know anything about that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
Originally posted by Hatter

Galeon is based on Gecko, the Mozilla engine. It is MEANT to be light-weight. It doesn't have an e-mail client, source editor, IRC chat client, or a news-group browser. It is just a browser. It has a crappy way of handling tabs too.

Nautilus for Gnome 1.4 IS bloated, but not in the way you think. The code is bloated. Nautilus 1.1 (with GNOME 2.0) is very fast. Faster than konqueror.

The lack of native theming in mozilla is a pain sometimes, but there is not a lack of good themes. Modern is nice, but I like Orbit.

And galeon isn't themed the same way as mozilla. Galeon has no native way of skinning it. It uses GTK and thus has theming abilities from that. I would refuse to use Mozilla is it use the old crapp GTK 1.2 though with those widgets though. GTK2 is nice, but internal theming has the advantage there.

IE on Win2k takes more than 8MB of RAM. It's processes are embedded in the operating system (as microsoft argues) so it takes memory from the OS. Nice try though.

Anything else, druggy?

Light weight happens to be what I like. No BS, just the browser.

I use GTK themes. It's what I like, If you don't, dont use em. GTK 2.0 is pretty nice and I hope it's implemented in Galeon soon. That is what I meant by theme-aware, it uses the same themes as your other progs, Netscape/mozilla do not, that means more code to load=MORE BLOAT.

I was using Nautilus in GNOME 1.4 as an analogy because it's SLOW AS HELL. Nautilus in 2.0 isn't even an issue here so forget about it.

As for the 8 MB it is the file download size, not the program size. It was in responce to mAcOdIn's statement that Mozilla is 9.8 MB. (download size)

Despite the fact that the explorer code is loaded with the OS, the browser actually uses about 12 MB of ram(as reported by TASK MANAGER) when running. Good luck convincing anyone that Mozilla uses less.

Suck it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Even though I have DSL, I still didn't think that NS was worth my time. Not only does it load slow as hell, but I can't go to my favorite sites. Hate to tell you, NS fans, but I think that IE is here to stay... :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.