Forum Moderators: open
We are working hard to create features and services you want in Netscape 7.0. Netscape 7.0 PR1 is a pre-release version for users to test and provide feedback.
All these people that have been saying "Netscape is dead" etc etc.. NOW LOOK !!!!
AOL are going to use Netscape !!
so I am happy that I don't have to re-code all my sites !
Just my opinion :)
PLEASE Google make the toolbar for Netscape or opera :( then I can just use IE when I make a new site :)
dazz
p.s I am using Netscape 7.0 now and it seems fast and renders OK
And if we want sites accepted by Yahoo. :)
On one web design email list I'm on one of the people does sites for large corporations. One in particular was mentioned, pointing out the importance of still designing for NS4+ One client has several hundred on their network, and the intranet is accessible through NS4+ It would involve too much expense, they feel no need to upgrade all those browsers, it works just fine for them.
If we design ecommerce sites that sell stuff, we have to remember that people at work, whether at companies or universities, or even high schools and grade schools, do shop on their breaks and lunch hours and spend money. And some people still use it who always liked it and continue to use the mail program. In the days of NS4 and IE4, NS was considered the better browser.
On one site I work with alone, over 20% of the traffic is Netscape, and it's got a lot of AOL traffic, so that tells me a lot.
I'm in the process of re-doing all my small sites that I maintain, converting to CSS and HTML4 (loose) and make it a practice of using NS4.7 with CSS and JS turned turned off as the default browser with Dreamweaver. And yes, the pages validate 100% and look just as good, except that without CSS it's just default Times New Roman font.
The first is a non-profit church site that is being submitted to ODP and Yahoo (free), it's got to validate and look good in NS4+ - and it does.
I figure that progress is great but I've got to gear what I do to the potential audience, and if it ain't broke I ain't gonna fix it. I will continue to make sure everything works in NS4.7; the customer is always right and I can never know who that will be. I also test in Opera (no JS) because it's light and lovely and it's great how it ticks off the load time on sites.
I've never had the need or desire to upgrade, since I primarily use IE because I like how the bookmarks are done. But Outlook 2000 is a slow-loading clod, and for some reason this new Netscape sounds exciting; this one I'll do, even if it'll take 4 hours to download.
I don't want new features, I just want the old ones fixed.
Oh yes! My constant lament. For lots of software, I would consider it a victory of the old features that don't work were simply removed.
Tom
On one site I work with alone, over 20% of the traffic is Netscape, and it's got a lot of AOL traffic, so that tells me a lot.
Marcia - I just checked the logs on three client sites so I could point out how different my stats are :)
Whoops! Two get about 12% Netscape, but the busiest (by far) of the three I checked gets over 20% Netscape! Throw in the multiple IP AOL users skewing the numbers for MSIE, and the actual Netscape percentage may be higher...wow...gotta do a better job of checking in Netscape :) Thanks for reminding me.
As for NS 4.7 - while I wish my NS customers would convert to IE (I have about 8% NS right now), they haven't done so yet. And since I can't stand to turn away a paying customer, I always make the sites 4.7 compatible.
My biggest 4.7 gripe is that we do a lot of HTML-based ads (even, occasionally, a targeted yet hated pop-up), and I can't do some of the cool stuff I'd like to do because of the 4.7 limitations.
But if that's my biggest headache, I suppose I'll take an aspirin and learn to deal.
Traffic does not care about the cool stuff web developpers would like to do.
Clients hiring web developpers expect results too.
I wish 97 % of web developpers kept 'cool stuff they would like to do' on personal pages instead of abusing their clients and audience with web sites incompatible with the media.
less is more.
lets wait for the GM version of Netscape 7. =)
(Although, having said that I use Mozilla 1.0RC2 as my work browser, keeping an instance open on average for about two days, and it has never actually crashed.)
The only feature I'd like it Opera's ability to remember which sites were last looked at and open those. Helps when the browser get closed...
You have the option of loading links in new windows or loading them into a tab like inerface - sorta like opera.
Havent used it much but so far so good.
It is fast aswell, faster than IE and hopefully without the security holes associated with IE.
I will stick with it and see how it goes.
Dazz
I use I.E. 5.5 NS 4.78 NS 6.2 but the my favorite is opera.
I was a big fan of Netscape, but i would have to say that so many things happened that my years of aligence, went down the tube.
Truly useful and I love the fact that you can diable pop-ups (havn't tried it yet though)
late night surfers everywhere will rejoice
....er
and used Opera to edit this message
What was that about not getting listed in Yahoo? I have multiple sites listed there at which I paid little to no attention to the existence of NS 4. Is there something I'm missing?
Ok, yes, a few people still NS 4... When they do, there is a huge chunk of what the internet has become that is unavailable to them. That chunk is getting progressively larger and larger.
It's not as if there's going to be a NS 4.9!
And, for real, at the majority of sites out there the percentage of NS 4 users is very very low. There are only a few demographics where you have to worry about it.
Did I mention that there's no NS 4.9 release planned? Hehe. What year was it again?
There are people in this forum who are still going to be designing for NS 4.x two years from now, aren't there. Go ahead, admit it. Ya'll are gonna be building NS compatible cranial implants ;-)
This generally means using lots of tables nested within tables. The pages often render nicely in IE, but fonts would be incorrect in NS. I'd have to include all sorts of SPANs to correct things. I'm hoping that NS7 will fix this.
The absolute LAST thing that I want from my browser is more features. Call me old-fashioned, but I'd just like a browser to render HTML correctly. Faster is nice. Smaller would be even nicer. Some of my clients own multi-million dollar businesses, but are still working on Pentium 166 machines. The pages that 99% of us are writing don't need a 30-meg browser. They just need one that understands HTML and CSS.
It's handling of css around <legend> tags is dismal, they appear to have little regard for width.
and although it isn't dropping the stylseet of any site you are not active on for a while anymore, it's having a little trouble picking up a local file I'm working on at all from time to time...
Oh Netscape, Netscape, do I really have to come over their and give you a slap?
Nick
Anything Java is really bad on Macs. The rendering engine available stinks. Take hours to load and do walf the job (when it doesn't crash the whole thing). Almost feels like using IE on Windows.
Blame Apple on this Java thing.
From what it sounds like so far, they are pretty much one and the same "under the hood."
If so, I'll stick with Moz...
So...which one will *I* be using?
My PC is a 1.5Mhz cpu with 512M ram. My connection to the net is lightning fast. I can't imagine how long NS7 would take to render that page over a modem.
I used to be such a loyal Netscape fan. But now I'm convinced that Gates has totally won this war.
[mozilla.org...]
It's the W3C CSS 1 spec with Mozilla bug annotations.
