Netscape is TOAST!!

[Scarpozzi]

IE is going to be shipping with AOL in future releases!

Link

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

There was a thread about this already. Just search for AOL.

And Netscape has been dead for ages already.

 

[Analog]

yay.

 

[ndee]

mozilla r0x0rs netscape any day.

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: ndee
mozilla r0x0rs netscape any day.

What's the difference?

 

[ndee]

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: ndee
mozilla r0x0rs netscape any day.

What's the difference?

Netscape is based on Mozilla IIRC but not always using the newest releases.

 

[FeathersMcGraw]

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: ndee
mozilla r0x0rs netscape any day.

What's the difference?

At least a couple of minor versions. I haven't bothered to use Netscape since the early 6.0 versions, but Mozilla is moving towards its 1.4 release. I'm pretty sure that Netscape branched from Mozilla around version 1.0.2 (I can't remember if they ever updated from the 1.2 release).

Also, I seem to recall that Netscape disabled some of the ad-unfriendly features of Mozilla out of the box, like popup disables and image blocking. Plus, they added some Netscape spam (such as Netscape bookmarks and AOL links/icons).

 

[Eli]

Ahh...

I've been using IE for quite a while now.. I just find it to be faster and more friendly than Netscape. Last time I used Netscape was in the 4.x's.. and I switched to IE because it didn't crash nearly as much as Netscape.

 

[FeathersMcGraw]

Originally posted by: Eli
Last time I used Netscape was in the 4.x's.. and I switched to IE because it didn't crash nearly as much as Netscape.

You and everyone else. Netscape 6.x is an entirely different code base than the 4.x Communicator one, though. The only sites that I have issues with are ones where the web developers specifically targeted IE.

 

[ndee]

Netscape 3.x was for it's time the best browser. It all went downhill with Netscape 4.x. Mozilla 1.3.1 is really stable although I'm using Mozilla 1.4a and since today 1.4rc1. I wanna support a good cause

 

[LiQiCE]

I've been using Mozilla v1.31 for the past week or two (I was a 100% IE user since v3.x even when it was SLOW), and I really like Mozilla v1.31, its almost as good as IE in rendering pages (in terms of what it should look like), and its rendering speed is FAST, plus I like the tabbed browsing. The newer versions are very stable too which is nice

Oh, I just tried it, it works in Mozilla too hahaha

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: LiQiCE
I've been using Mozilla v1.31 for the past week or two (I was a 100% IE user since v3.x even when it was SLOW), and I really like Mozilla v1.31, its almost as good as IE in rendering pages (in terms of what it should look like), and its rendering speed is FAST, plus I like the tabbed browsing. The newer versions are very stable too which is nice

Ahh.. Tabbed browsing..

I don't know if I could get used to that. I like having 40+ IE windows open....

I'm fast with alt-tab. And after a while, you know exactly where each window is, and what it is..

 

[Chess]

Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1
There was a thread about this already. Just search for AOL.

And Netscape has been dead for ages already.

Netscape, who even uses that. if anything besides IE i use Opera !

 

[LiQiCE]

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: LiQiCE
I've been using Mozilla v1.31 for the past week or two (I was a 100% IE user since v3.x even when it was SLOW), and I really like Mozilla v1.31, its almost as good as IE in rendering pages (in terms of what it should look like), and its rendering speed is FAST, plus I like the tabbed browsing. The newer versions are very stable too which is nice

Ahh.. Tabbed browsing..

I don't know if I could get used to that. I like having 40+ IE windows open....

I'm fast with alt-tab. And after a while, you know exactly where each window is, and what it is..

Yeah I never liked it at first, but now when I open 20 sites, and have other stuff open my taskbar becomes a mess!!! I'm trying out a few "IE alternatives" like SlimBrowser. It has tabbed browsing as well, but utilizes the IE engine, and it uses CTRL-TAB to move between the tabs. I know what you mean about the ALT-Tab switching, that definitely helps switch web pages quick, but my taskbar can't hold anymore!

 

[UNCjigga]

Just what the hell kinda "settlement" was this? Basically they just agreed that AOL would be 'allowed' to license IE up to 7 years, and 'allowed' to replace RealNetworks with Windows Media (what does this mean for their planned use of Dolby AAC audio in Radio@AOL?) MSFT has some damn good lawyers...

 

[manly]

Originally posted by: uncJIGGA
Just what the hell kinda "settlement" was this? Basically they just agreed that AOL would be 'allowed' to license IE up to 7 years, and 'allowed' to replace RealNetworks with Windows Media (what does this mean for their planned use of Dolby AAC audio in Radio@AOL?) MSFT has some damn good lawyers...

If you judge their legal team by their performance in the landmark antitrust trial, they were owned by the DoJ. Judge Jackson's Findings of Fact not only detailed their history of abuses, but also showed how inept their trial defense was.

However, in the end, apparently their stature and political clout from donations in recent years was able to win out once the Bush administration rolled in.

Not to say they don't hire the best lawyers money can buy, but they were no doubt bailed out by Bush's disputed election.

Contrast this to how cleanly and quietly Intel settled an unrelated antitrust complaint with the FTC in 1999 (I believe it was).

As far as the kind of settlement it is, it's simply a cheap buy-off for MS. $750 million sounds like a hell of a lot of money, but it's chump change for MS. I assume it'll be an accounting write-off with minimal impact on their earnings.

 

[aswedc]

Just hope AOL doesn't fire their paid Mozilla developers.

 

Originally posted by: aswedc
Just hope AOL doesn't fire their paid Mozilla developers.

Yeah Mozilla/Firebird/Camino are all wayyyyy better than IE. I can never go back.

 

[KokomoGST]

Originally posted by: aswedc
Just hope AOL doesn't fire their paid Mozilla developers.

They better not!! :|
Mozilla rocks... I know some people here are in love with Crazy browser but I like the fact that Mozilla has so much support and constant work behind it.

 

[Mallow]

I haven't used netscape in so looong!

 

[Supahfreak]

Netscape, who even uses that. if anything besides IE i use Opera !

FreAk

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: manly

Originally posted by: uncJIGGA
Just what the hell kinda "settlement" was this? Basically they just agreed that AOL would be 'allowed' to license IE up to 7 years, and 'allowed' to replace RealNetworks with Windows Media (what does this mean for their planned use of Dolby AAC audio in Radio@AOL?) MSFT has some damn good lawyers...

If you judge their legal team by their performance in the landmark antitrust trial, they were owned by the DoJ. Judge Jackson's Findings of Fact not only detailed their history of abuses, but also showed how inept their trial defense was.

However, in the end, apparently their stature and political clout from donations in recent years was able to win out once the Bush administration rolled in.

Not to say they don't hire the best lawyers money can buy, but they were no doubt bailed out by Bush's disputed election.

Contrast this to how cleanly and quietly Intel settled an unrelated antitrust complaint with the FTC in 1999 (I believe it was).

As far as the kind of settlement it is, it's simply a cheap buy-off for MS. $750 million sounds like a hell of a lot of money, but it's chump change for MS. I assume it'll be an accounting write-off with minimal impact on their earnings.

I hate it when people refer to Jackson :| He is by far the worst judge ever and should have been dismissed early on. He actually slept through Microsoft's side of the case (literally). I'm not saying that his decision was wrong, but he didn't even give MS a chance to defend themselves. He would cut them off early, make snide remarks, sleep during the trial, etc... Next, what evidence do you have that Bush bailed them out? As I recall, Bush said that he was not going to get involved in the case at all, and he didn't. He didn't change any judges that had to do with the case, or lawyers. Just because the case started under Clinton and ended under Bush doesn't automatically mean that Bush bailed them out. In these years since, I've heard many people claim that Bush bailed them out, but I have never heard a shred of proof. I would appreciate it if you could back up your claim and prove me wrong.

 

[manly]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: manly

Originally posted by: uncJIGGA
Just what the hell kinda "settlement" was this? Basically they just agreed that AOL would be 'allowed' to license IE up to 7 years, and 'allowed' to replace RealNetworks with Windows Media (what does this mean for their planned use of Dolby AAC audio in Radio@AOL?) MSFT has some damn good lawyers...

If you judge their legal team by their performance in the landmark antitrust trial, they were owned by the DoJ. Judge Jackson's Findings of Fact not only detailed their history of abuses, but also showed how inept their trial defense was.

However, in the end, apparently their stature and political clout from donations in recent years was able to win out once the Bush administration rolled in.

Not to say they don't hire the best lawyers money can buy, but they were no doubt bailed out by Bush's disputed election.

Contrast this to how cleanly and quietly Intel settled an unrelated antitrust complaint with the FTC in 1999 (I believe it was).

As far as the kind of settlement it is, it's simply a cheap buy-off for MS. $750 million sounds like a hell of a lot of money, but it's chump change for MS. I assume it'll be an accounting write-off with minimal impact on their earnings.

I hate it when people refer to Jackson :| He is by far the worst judge ever and should have been dismissed early on. He actually slept through Microsoft's side of the case (literally). I'm not saying that his decision was wrong, but he didn't even give MS a chance to defend themselves. He would cut them off early, make snide remarks, sleep during the trial, etc... Next, what evidence do you have that Bush bailed them out? As I recall, Bush said that he was not going to get involved in the case at all, and he didn't. He didn't change any judges that had to do with the case, or lawyers. Just because the case started under Clinton and ended under Bush doesn't automatically mean that Bush bailed them out. In these years since, I've heard many people claim that Bush bailed them out, but I have never heard a shred of proof. I would appreciate it if you could back up your claim and prove me wrong.

We both have our biases, but in my opinion, yours cloud your judgment on this matter to an extreme level (not that I don't have a strong opinion as well). Now I don't know what Jackson's personal behavior was like on the bench, but I will concede he was likely biased against MS from the very beginning. However, what's important from a legal standpoint is that the federal appeals court upheld his Findings of Fact virtually in its entirety (while overturning the remedy). So although you call him the worst judge ever, a judgment of his peers (on what is considered a staunchly pro-business federal appellate court) upheld his findings of law. Essentially, they were convicted of antitrust violations.

As to the eventual settlement, you'd have to be naive to believe politics had no bearing on the outcome. Unfortunately, irrefutable proof is in the eye of the beholder. I'm not sure it's possible for me to overwhelm your biased opinions to prove my argument; likewise, you probably feel the same way about my opinions.

However, refer to this balanced document for a good timeline and analysis of the antitrust trial and eventual proposed settlement between Bush/Ashcroft's DoJ and MS:
http://users.rcn.com/sjandersondc/stories/2002/10/22/theDojProposedFinalSettlem.html

Just to be clear, I assert that it was the Bush administration that backed the final "slap on the wrist" settlement. Whether that order came from the top isn't something I'm privy to (it would require some additional research to determine what exactly candidate G.W. Bush said prior to the election).

But disagree with my opinions all you want; I would still assert a strong majority of people with a sufficient technical and legal awareness of the case would agree with my analysis that their trial defense was mediocre at best. And that their legal strategy was extremely risky in contrast to Intel's dealings w/ the FTC. That was the main point of my reply, and if necessary I could probably expound on that some more if it's truly necessary. Better yet, just ask DaveSimmons. He always manages to get to the point quicker than I do, and more succinctly.

 

[TallBill]

anything roxors netscape.

 

[Ime]

What's netscape? *ducks*