http://biz.yahoo.com/rf/010606/n05260410_2.html

but can this possibly mean that designers no longer would have to design for Netscape?

i hope so; however, the thing is although the support of Netscape Browser is going down... there are always some people that use Netscape just because they are comfortable with them. My school (for some odd reas) still uses Netscape 4.7! and they won't care that Netscape will no longer release new versions of their browser, and probably will be using Netscape 4.7 until they finally realize that its slower (on the already slow computers that the school is allowed to have) hopefully by the end of the next decade.

Also, those who use Macintosh comps, which browser do YOU have on your mac? I have friends who use macs that uses Netscape 4.x...

Although I think I finally learned how to avoid compatibility problems in between the different browsers, Netscape was, is and will be still a pain in the backside.

I don't understand why people who use Windows based OS decides to download Netscpape for the general use (and not design testing purposes) instead of clicking the IE icon on their desktop or taskbar. When you load Netscape, its like loading a nuclear arsenal to a third world country since its loading so friggin slow (exaggerated).

I've been using Mozilla (http://www.mozilla.org) for web design compatibility testing. It's a Netscape 6 stripped down to its barebones (which is all I need). No unnecessary links or unnecessary programs comes with it... just the browser.

But honestly, I thought Netscape has been a pain in the backside for me ever since IE and NS released version 4 of their browser.

I will always design for both browsers because I've gotten quite used to it. So although I will still be designing for both browsers, if Im having a REAL difficult time making compatible with Netscape, then I will give that link to whoever it is I am working for :)

thanks klisis

I agree with you John - hate to do designs for all browsers... now we have opera left and after that life is very easy :)

It looks like the begin of a happy end!!! ;-)

alpha, I'm on a Mac and use Netscape 4.7 for most if not all of my DV work and IE for e-mail and other daily tasks.

looks like fighting the worlds largest company turned out to be a bad idea afterall ??

Originally posted by logus
I agree with you John - hate to do designs for all browsers... now we have opera left and after that life is very easy :)

Opera marketshare is increasing, not decreasing. With IBM's agreement to put Opera in all of IBM's internet appliances, it looks like Opera may be around for a while.

What you really should be hoping for is that Microsoft will provide better, less buggy, support for the html standards.

Originally posted by Mike the newbie
What you really should be hoping for is that Microsoft will provide better, less buggy, support for the html standards.


Problem is, in view of the recent DoJ vs. Microsoft proceedings, where one of the base arguments laid by Microsoft was that Netscape offered 'decent competition' (thus avoiding further 'competition measures'), with Netscape's demise, does this mean Microsoft, with its overwhelming market share, is now able to impose its own standards? And what incentive does it have for providing less buggy support when there is little decent competition in the browser market? (unless Opera or Mozilla suddenly sees a flood of new users in the next few years, but I don't see that happening thanks to Netscape being such a piece of dog's turd). I'm sure Microsoft will at least continue implementing W3C standards (as has been promised in the IE6 beta), but to what extent now?

I have to say that while I'm happy to see Netscape has taken the high road out, I do wonder what the implications for the rest of the browser market is, and how Microsoft will respond to this.

I'm sure Microsoft's IE department is cackling with glee right now ;)



(the above argument was from my economist ego-side :D)

Netscape 4.7 runs considerably faster on my Windoze 98 system than IE.

Originally posted by iBusinessLawyer
Netscape 4.7 runs considerably faster on my Windoze 98 system than IE.

wow, I'm surprised to hear that...
what are your system specs? (CPU, RAM, IE version, NS version)

I've had Win98 running on a Pentium 133Mhz 8MB of RAM - IE5 loads in about 8seconds after you click the icon... and NS loads in about 45seconds after you click the icon.

Same with my current Pentium 3 500MHZ 256MB RAM - IE5 loads within 2 seconds after I click the icon... and NS tend to load after about 15seconds.

:eek:, I don't like this at all. I too believe that IE5 is a much better browser, but was hoping Netscape would hang in there at least for some competition to keep IE in check.

There's something else to consider though - Netscape went open source some time ago. I'm not sure on the details of their open source licence, but I get the feeling it's a slightly toned down form of the open source ideal. It's been the dominant browser on Linux, and I don't think Linux buffs will want to let it go of it that easily. What do you think the chances are that some open source programmers will take a hold of it and continue releasing updates? If the company allows it, Netscape could very well become a major open source project like Linux and Emacs I think.

Just speculating at this stage though, it's not based on much.

Alpha,

I run a 533mhz AMD-k2, just upgraded to a whopping 310mb of RAM. Netscape loads in about 10 seconds, IE 6 takes closer to 20 (IE5.5 was the same). Netscape also loads webpages faster for me.

BTW, changing the topic slightly (or a lot, really) even though I've now got oodles of RAM, my system still crashes when I run browser plus two or more system-hogs, e.g., Dreamweaver and Fireworks, or ACT! and Word. Any opinions as to whether this is a structural problem in Win 98, or whether a faster processor would likely help?

All the best.

-- Jon

BTW -- and back on topic -- the news release doesn't say Netscape is getting out of the browser business, only that AOL/Time Warner is repositioning the Netscape brand. It is not clear from the release whether Netscape will continue to supply browsers as a "small" part of the new venture.

Originally posted by xtstrike
looks like fighting the worlds largest company turned out to be a bad idea afterall ??
It is if you're turning out a crummy product. Is Microsoft really the world's largest company? It's certainly the largest computer software company.

Originally posted by iBusinessLawyer
Netscape 4.7 runs considerably faster on my Windoze 98 system than IE.
The same is true for me as well. I have a P II 400, 128 mb RAM and NN 4.7 beats IE 5.5. Furthermore, after being open awhile, IE slows to a crawl and I have to close it and open a new window.

It's unfortunate there will be no competition left for IE. NN is the only cross platform browser, and will likely remain the choice for Linux users. However, it doesn't really surprise me. Netscape has been declining in several markets for some time, and even their all volunteer ODP (aka dmoz) stinks in many ways.

They are reaping their just rewards.

Originally posted by Lawrence


There's something else to consider though - Netscape went open source some time ago. I'm not sure on the details of their open source licence, but I get the feeling it's a slightly toned down form of the open source ideal. It's been the dominant browser on Linux, and I don't think Linux buffs will want to let it go of it that easily. What do you think the chances are that some open source programmers will take a hold of it and continue releasing updates? If the company allows it, Netscape could very well become a major open source project like Linux and Emacs I think.


I think Mozilla ( http://www.mozilla.org ) will continue to be worked on. Mozilla has been the basis for the Netscape 6 series. And yes, Mozilla is open source. (While I don't think NS 6 is).

Originally posted by Planet Z
I think Mozilla ( http://www.mozilla.org ) will continue to be worked on. Mozilla has been the basis for the Netscape 6 series. And yes, Mozilla is open source. (While I don't think NS 6 is).

I did a little bit of research, because as I said, I was just speculating off a hunch. Details of the licences for Mozilla and Netscape are at http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/ for anyone interested. Looks like only Netscape 5.0 code was open source, so yes, Josh, you're right, NS 6 isn't open source.

And that probably means that open source communities will stick with Mozilla rather than take on Netscape.

There's still competition out there for IE. Opera is probably the leader, though their market share is very very small. I think someone should create a new browser and use the Mozilla engine -- it would be fast as heck. Yeah, I know, Netscape used the Mozilla engine, but they never kept up with the latest version. Mozilla 0.9 is rockin'!

IE has always had a lot more (sometimes serious) security problems in comparison with Netscape. I've been using Netscape since the beginning and never really liked IE -- especially since IE was the poor version that came with Win95 by default and most people didn't bother or know to upgrade -- and I just didn't care to. Netscape has always been faster than IE for me, no matter what system I'm running (Win 3.1(x) Win9x, WinNT, etc.) and no matter what hardware. Both browsers have their problems, of course and i personally think they are both poor -- but I do prefer Netscape over IE.

Luckily, I've been out of the web design business pretty much for the last few years and have been mainly doing other things, which I'm very happy to say means I haven't had to deal with the browser incompatibility issues very often at all. On that note, IE does have some problems accepting too much, when Netscape at least gives errors about the RFC's and whatnot and IE accepts them anyway. Perhaps not a big deal, but it is sometimes. I'm just glad to not be a designer.. that is the most frustrating job on the WWW, if you ask me -- and due to so many variables -- but at least it is sort of good news that there's not going to be two major browsers out there (Unless the netscape people do release something else -- but I doubt it, seeing that MS wouldn't have done the deal otherwise if they were going to still compete). A bad move in software, if you ask me, but AOL/TW made a lot of money from it, I bet -- and there are some advantages, even if I'm not an MS fan.

If you think that this is a good thing because you believe that Bill Gates now gets to tell us what a web browser is and what it does, you are out of your friggin minds.

The best thing that ever happened to IE was that Netscape was kicking it's butt in the browser war. Doesn't anyone remember that incredibly poor hack that IE was when it was a cheap-trick port of Mosaic? Man are you guys all that young?

As for Opera providing an alternative, that's a hoot. Micro$oft effectively squashed Netscape - and there is no other alternative that will be more than 1 or 2 percent of the user market with Netscape dead.

The day that Micro$oft controls the way the web looks, is the beginning of the end for the web.

Wanna create something innovative and new like Flash or Streaming Audio or Video? Gotta ask Billy. Wanna support a new MIME type? Gotta ask Billy. Wanna support alternative encryption techologies or a new PLI infrastructure? Gotta ask Billy.

The end of the web as we know it will come from a monopolistic control of the tools the end user's have to use. There were some smart enough to see this once. They appear to have all been mowed over by the megalith at this point.

A sad day indeed.

-t

Originally posted by thewitt
If you think that this is a good thing because you believe that Bill Gates now gets to tell us what a web browser is and what it does, you are out of your friggin minds.

The best thing that ever happened to IE was that Netscape was kicking it's butt in the browser war. Doesn't anyone remember that incredibly poor hack that IE was when it was a cheap-trick port of Mosaic? Man are you guys all that young?

As for Opera providing an alternative, that's a hoot. Micro$oft effectively squashed Netscape - and there is no other alternative that will be more than 1 or 2 percent of the user market with Netscape dead.

The day that Micro$oft controls the way the web looks, is the beginning of the end for the web.

Wanna create something innovative and new like Flash or Streaming Audio or Video? Gotta ask Billy. Wanna support a new MIME type? Gotta ask Billy. Wanna support alternative encryption techologies or a new PLI infrastructure? Gotta ask Billy.

The end of the web as we know it will come from a monopolistic control of the tools the end user's have to use. There were some smart enough to see this once. They appear to have all been mowed over by the megalith at this point.

A sad day indeed.

-t


That's what my line of thought is tending towards. With Microsoft effectively acting as a monopolist or main oligopolist it's happy to do what it wants, unless Opera or Mozilla can get a user base in a hurry.

Originally posted by thewitt
...
The day that Micro$oft controls the way the web looks, is the beginning of the end for the web.
...

A sad day indeed.

-t


"Smart Tags" in the XP stuff is a long way towards MS controlling the look and operation of the web.

Originally posted by Mike the newbie



"Smart Tags" in the XP stuff is a long way towards MS controlling the look and operation of the web.

Yeah, I heard of Smart tags. What are those junks in MS thinking?

I'm certainly with TheWitt on this one. I'd really like to see Netscape hang in there. The biggest competitor to IE now is probably Mozilla - and such a small competitor it is! It's like saying that Linux is competing with Windows on the Desktop - it has "potential" in this area but little more at this stage.

I hope that news story was nicely exaggerated. As much as I prefer IE over Netscape, this was the one thing I didn't want to see happen.

Originally posted by iBusinessLawyer
BTW, changing the topic slightly (or a lot, really) even though I've now got oodles of RAM, my system still crashes when I run browser plus two or more system-hogs, e.g., Dreamweaver and Fireworks, or ACT! and Word. Any opinions as to whether this is a structural problem in Win 98, or whether a faster processor would likely help?



That is strange. I have a custome built 400 celeron with 128 mb or ram. My typical computer session consists of having one of each of the the three major browsers open (Opera, IE, Netscape) along with apache, MySQL, Dreamweaver, Fireworks, EditPlus 2, ICQ, and of course the software that manages my DSL connection. With all this open, I seldom crash. I running Windows ME.

I for one don't see it as the begining of the end, MS will be brought down by their own arrogance in the end, the mighty always fall down in the end.

I'm not a huge huge fan of MS, but they do get a bad rep, and what for? for being succesful, I'm sure if you were all in Bill Gates' position you would do all the things he has done to make MS a very succesful company and anyone who says they wouldn't is not being wholy truthful with themselves.

As for which I find faster, IE always loads way faster than Netscape does on every PC I have ever used.

Duster: MS are the worlds largest company, early this year or late last year Cisco did overtake them but not for long.

iBusinessLawyer: Sounds like you could need to re-install your system. I usually have:

HomeSite 4.5.2
Outlook 2000
2 x SSH Sessions
4-8 copies of IE open
ICQ + AIM + Yahoo! + MSN Messengers
Plus Apache, MySQL, Oracle, ColdFusion servers

all running on my PC and it gets by fine with 256mb ram on dual celeron 415mhz.

Originally posted by KDAWebServices
I'm not a huge huge fan of MS, but they do get a bad rep, and what for?
For being heavy handed and dominating. Bill Gates and, as an extension, Microsoft, are poor winners. Things like requiring vendors to pay a license fee for every pc they sold, whether it had Window on it or not, and requiring that they install IE, even if NN was preferred by the customer (or company) are just some examples of that

I'm sure if you were all in Bill Gates' position you would do all the things he has done to make MS a very succesful company and anyone who says they wouldn't is not being wholy truthful with themselves.Don't be so sure as you are completely wrong. There are business people who believe in competing by turning out better products and /or providing greater value and support rather than by using strong arm tactics.

People resent being forced to do something, and long remember it, That's why MS has so many opponents in the industry and partly why so many companies are jumping on the Linux bandwagon. Some of us are smart enough that we would have avoided that. It; snot that we ar enot being honest with ourselves, It's that you are being unduly cynical and do not understand people. We are not all the same, nor are we cut from the same cloth.


NN 4.7 is faster than IE on my system and those of a few clients and friends. NN 6, however, is much slower, painfully so.

KDAWebServices - that is true, they do get a bad rap, but they are very aggressive and very forceful in their marketing.

Many computer scientists actually believe that software engineering has gone backwards in the last decade, due in part to companies such as Microsoft and Oracle who have created a perception that bugs in software are normal and to be expected. In many ways, I agree.

I also remember going into Gateway earlier this year to look at some PC prices. When asking about Linux, I was told that by a contract with Microsoft, all computers came with Windows on them, and they couldn't install Linux for me. Fair enough, I thought, so I said I'd just install Linux myself. I was then told that if I did, I would void my warranty. It's that sort of "obligation to Microsoft" that can become very annoying.

There are numerous other examples, the conflict between LILO and Windows NT I find rather frustrating and almost deliberate on the part of Microsoft. Then there are the attitudes in the Halloween Papers (http://www.opensource.org, go to the site map). Although I think these papers are actually rather neutral, making arguments for both open source and proprietary software, the "unofficial" stance of Microsoft presented in them seems almost sinister.

Yes, Microsoft have been very successful, and I congratulate them on opening computers to everyone - novices included, which is more than many previous companies could claim. But their monopoly is getting a little overwhelming, and escape routes seem to be getting in shorter and shorter supply. If Netscape truly is on the way out, it's just another escape route that's been cut off.

Originally posted by KDAWebServices
I for one don't see it as the begining of the end, MS will be brought down by their own arrogance in the end, the mighty always fall down in the end.

I'm not a huge huge fan of MS, but they do get a bad rep, and what for? for being succesful, I'm sure if you were all in Bill Gates' position you would do all the things he has done to make MS a very succesful company and anyone who says they wouldn't is not being wholy truthful with themselves.

As for which I find faster, IE always loads way faster than Netscape does on every PC I have ever used.

[SNIP]



Basically, I just wanted to respond with pretty much the same thing Duster said (twice in one day!). No one's not being true to themselves or other's by not agreeing it's the best way to run a company. MS has definitely gotten a lot of flack for being so successful and often unfairly due solely to that and probably jealously. However, there's a lot of developers out there (myself being one of them), that would draw the line and not have released or continue to release poorly coded software.

A very high majority of their software contains bugs and poor coding routines that make them unstable, slow and offer little more than incompatibilities. This is why OpenSource is so popular, because it's needed for a better product. Some company's are creating superior software for a price too, yes, and some are getting more popular and some will never be a threat to the MS empire, but I'd never have gotten where MS is if I ran that company, because of simple integrity. I couldn't and wouldn't sell a product with so many problems. Most any decent developer will stand firmly behind the claim that MS programs are coded sloppy, inefficient and carelessly.

This isn't something that only MS is guilty of, but had they not released some of the horribly coded programs they have, they'd not have anywhere near the money they have now. On another note, Bill Gates is just a man, MS is a company. It's not all him, there's many, many people that are responsible for these poor programs. I don't hold anything against a company for being successful and not in whole for problems and poorly done programs, but the fact is, due to so many of these programs that are inferior in many ways, is what made MS so much of this money. Being I'd not do that, I'd have nowhere near that money and I'd have a different business strategy. MS has enough money to develop great software and has had said funds for quite a while. Still, they develop and release complete crap. This bothers me and it has nothing to do with how much money they make or that Mr. Gates is still involved.

Cisco was NOT larger then Microsoft, and Microsoft was and is NOT the largest company in the US or the world.

GM has been the largest company for a long time, and still is on the Global 500. Microsoft "Revenues ($ millions)" is 22,956.0

That puts them more like down ith the 70th to 80th.

Want to know the largest companies now in the US?

1 Exxon Mobil 210,392.0
2 Wal-Mart Stores 193,295.0
3 General Motors 184,632.0
4 Ford Motor 180,598.0
5 General Electric 129,853.0


You guys should have known a Gas company that is nickle and diming us to death shapes the world, and that Wal-Mart is KING! I mean, what can you NOT buy at a Wal-Mart :) They are into Everything from food to gas to electronics. Sam would be proud. Texaco and Chevron are also in the top 20.


Also surprisingly, IBM is larger:

8th, Intl. Business Machines 88,396.0

Dow Chemical and Sprint are closer to MS at about 23,000.0. How about that company every state likes to sue, and they would like you to think they will go broke if the states win/get the awarded amounts

11 Philip Morris 63,276.0

The new formed Mob. Tell. giant is also HUGE at: spot #10, Verizon Communications 64,707.0

So there you have, Microsofy does not rule the world. Sam Walton and the Exxon tiger do ;)

Originally posted by CWIhosting
Cisco was NOT larger then Microsoft, and Microsoft was and is NOT the largest company in the US or the world.

GM has been the largest company for a long time, and still is on the Global 500. Microsoft "Revenues ($ millions)" is 22,956.0

That puts them more like down ith the 70th to 80th.


Errrrrr..... You're completely missing the boat here. We're talking about the browser software wars, not necessarily how Microsoft dominates the world (though in a sense they've already dominated the browser wars with a 92% market share).

Last time I heard I don't believe GM made anything for the internet :D

I also don't see anything mentioned previously in the thread which would indicate someone was arguing that Microsoft was the largest company in the world.....

Thank you CWI. I didn't think it was true. I just wasn't prepared to challenge the statement until I had current information, such as you provided.

BC, xstrike said, in relation to MS "looks like fighting the worlds largest company turned out to be a bad idea afterall ??" He didn't say the world's largest computer software company (a distinction I later made). It may have been implied, thought that wasn't clear.

Originally posted by Duster
BC, xstrike said, in relation to MS "looks like fighting the worlds largest company turned out to be a bad idea afterall ??" He didn't say the world's largest computer software company (a distinction I later made). It may have been implied, thought that wasn't clear.

Thanks Duster. I stand (partially) corrected...

Don't stand on my account. Sit down, take a load off.

No problem Duster. Your welcome.

BC, I posted the above info because KDA said they were the largest. Then Duster said yes, in sofware, but the largest company? Then KDA responded:

"Duster: MS are the worlds largest company, early this year or late last year Cisco did overtake them but not for long. "

I just wanted to clear the record. Many people beleive what KDAwebservices thought. Though in fact, they are in the top one hundred and no where near the top 20.


As far as browsers, netscape has been shooting its own foot for a long time. If Netscape does give up, which the article that started all this does not indicate, I'm sure someone else will quickly pick up market share. IE being the only major choice whould infact be very bad in the long run. Those that don't think so are just glade they don't have to program for more then one thing anymore.

Sorry people, i forgot about this thread, i just re-noticed it :-)

To clear things up, Yes i did think M$ was the largest company in the world, although in hindsight it seems it would be a major oversight on my part, since i actually work for GM i should have known better!, lol

Admittedly, Motor/Oil and Food companies seem to be the larger of the companies in the world, it seems in terms of company net worth that maybe other companies are larger than M$, maybe this should be something to look out ofr, how quickly they can jump up to this ladder to the largest, it could be frighteningly quickly at the rate they are still growing.

Back to the original thread, ive never used netscape much, except where Mac/*Nix is involved and in the case where AOL takes over all proxying of internet traffic when installed, and the only way around it is to use netscape !!

Originally posted by CWIhosting
If Netscape does give up, which the article that started all this does not indicate, In fact, it implies the opposite; that Netscape will continue to produce browser software. The article states that Netscape's goal is to reposition itself to be seen primarily as a media services corporation, not as a software company. But it doesn't say that they'll stop producing the browser, which Netscape President Jim Bankoff is quoted as calling the company's "crown jewel."

This poorly-formed sentence: "Netscape is by no means a rejection of its software legacy, as components of its browser technology will continue to power new features of Netscape's media services," also implies a continuation of browser development.

Not that this invalidates the discussion in this thread, but there seems to be on the part of some a misperception that the article says that Netscape is getting out of the browser business.

The headline, "Netscape: We're in media, not browser business now" might imply that to be the case, but that sort of thing is not uncommon in publishing, where an editor -- not the author of the article -- writes headlines, often with an eye towards attracting attention rather than accurately hinting at what the article says.