Netscape 6.01 ?
- Thread starter Hotpuppy
- Start date
Your not missing anything - Netscape just shouldn't update a good thing! I can't find it either. Here's their browser archive to put back the old one:http://sillydog.org/narchive/
and here's a plug-in archive - maybe they have a patch for that feature:
http://home.netscape.com/plugins/?cp=odpntcr
Sorry I couldn't be more helpful HP
and here's a plug-in archive - maybe they have a patch for that feature:
http://home.netscape.com/plugins/?cp=odpntcr
Sorry I couldn't be more helpful HP
4 words....Gates is a Pirate
He probably rigged Netscape 6.0 so it looks awful and works worse then ever. When I first downloaded their first browser, my Microsoft operating system went nuts and crashed...."Danger, danger....a competitor has infilitrated...." That appeals court should have thrown the book at Gates...but of course he's going to get away with destroying Netscape and everyone else who has a (once) better product....as if he doesn't have enough money already! I loved it when Oracle's CEO hired a detective to go through Gates' garbage
[Edited by Candide on 07-20-2001 at 07:34 PM]
He probably rigged Netscape 6.0 so it looks awful and works worse then ever. When I first downloaded their first browser, my Microsoft operating system went nuts and crashed...."Danger, danger....a competitor has infilitrated...." That appeals court should have thrown the book at Gates...but of course he's going to get away with destroying Netscape and everyone else who has a (once) better product....as if he doesn't have enough money already! I loved it when Oracle's CEO hired a detective to go through Gates' garbage
[Edited by Candide on 07-20-2001 at 07:34 PM]
But Netscape built the browser before anyone...berfore Internet Explorer was a little "Darth Vader" in Gates' eye. If IE is better - it's because Gates hobbled that company. Who knows how many programmer/developer suicides went down in Silicone Valley because of that evil slime...sorry I get carried away. Gates gets his power because people never associate him with the grasping, scheming, sabatoging crap that he is good at - he took everything he's ever done from other lesser known developers and basically stole it.
He certainly didn't improve it... bulky piece of shit code, endless add ons to the already overburdened HTML standard.
Still none of that stops NS 6 from sucking bad. FWIW, the exact same code is considered 'beta' by the Mozilla crowd (the open source devlopers of NS 6). I've had nothing but problems since I installed the Mozilla browser on my laptop. I wonder if it's more stable under Linux.
(I remember a time when people insulted Netscape users for being corporate sell-outs. Afterall, even if Mosaic was slow and primitive it was devloped by the people who invented the web. shouldn't be the best?)
(I miss Mosaic)
(Heh, and I won't even talk about the Lynx crowd)
Still none of that stops NS 6 from sucking bad. FWIW, the exact same code is considered 'beta' by the Mozilla crowd (the open source devlopers of NS 6). I've had nothing but problems since I installed the Mozilla browser on my laptop. I wonder if it's more stable under Linux.
(I remember a time when people insulted Netscape users for being corporate sell-outs. Afterall, even if Mosaic was slow and primitive it was devloped by the people who invented the web. shouldn't be the best?)
(I miss Mosaic)
(Heh, and I won't even talk about the Lynx crowd)
Netscape vs. IE, -- Unix vs. Windows
I'm getting pretty tired of hearing technical debates about various computer products. The reason why Microsoft dominates a large portion of the space isn't due to any superior technology. In fact, Msft's products are not technically frontier state-of-the-art stuff and never have been. They don't need to be. Riding the frontier is far too risky!
In the days of mainframes, IBM was never the technology leader. They just delivered adequate products; but with superior marketing and support. Microsoft has done much the same.
UNIX was in the marketplace for at least 15 years before Microsoft was even a twinkle in Bill's eye. Why didn't they dominate the market? Possibly because there wasn't then, and still isn't, a single common version of Unix for which software writers can target their code; Bell Labs, Berkeley, HP, Sun, Linux - they're all different in significant ways. No software vendor knew for which one they should target their code or they incurred extra costs to support several versions.
Along comes Microsoft providing a common (albeit defacto) platform for all those little machines (PC's) at which everyone was laughing. The fact that virtually all PC's had DOS (and later Windows) meant that hundreds of software vendors had a common base for which they could target their programs. More 3rd party programs = more fuel for selling more PC's and DOS/Windows with it. The synergy has generated a massive market and made PC's (together with their operating software) quite ubiquitous. It made business sense. A fragmented UNIX market didn't.
Almost never has Microsoft been the first into the market. They let the other guys make the technical mistakes, and hopefully learned from them. Then they built products that embraced an adequate level of functionality and masterfully marketed the hell out of it. Yes, Microsoft has occasionally run amok - but on the whole I believe that users are getting what they want - lots and lots of application programs, that are adequate for their needs, available on a common platform and priced competetively. Technical excellence simply isn't necessary and it is more risky both to build and to use.
Finally, I believe that the computer industry necessarily trends towards common standards. Sometimes those standards are proprietary (e.g. Windows) and at other times they are public (e.g. W3G and HTML). I'm not sure which way is best - but I am sure that without common (monopolistic?) standards we'd have a fragmented, unconnected, non-interoperating marketplace. Computers probably wouldn't be nearly as ubiqutous and would probably be much more costly..
I know what I've said won't convince those of you who remain technology bigots from one camp or the other. I just wanted to express my, possibly different, point of view.
BTW - I use both Linux and Windows for servers; and I test everything I write on multiple versions of all the popular browsers
I'm getting pretty tired of hearing technical debates about various computer products. The reason why Microsoft dominates a large portion of the space isn't due to any superior technology. In fact, Msft's products are not technically frontier state-of-the-art stuff and never have been. They don't need to be. Riding the frontier is far too risky!
In the days of mainframes, IBM was never the technology leader. They just delivered adequate products; but with superior marketing and support. Microsoft has done much the same.
UNIX was in the marketplace for at least 15 years before Microsoft was even a twinkle in Bill's eye. Why didn't they dominate the market? Possibly because there wasn't then, and still isn't, a single common version of Unix for which software writers can target their code; Bell Labs, Berkeley, HP, Sun, Linux - they're all different in significant ways. No software vendor knew for which one they should target their code or they incurred extra costs to support several versions.
Along comes Microsoft providing a common (albeit defacto) platform for all those little machines (PC's) at which everyone was laughing. The fact that virtually all PC's had DOS (and later Windows) meant that hundreds of software vendors had a common base for which they could target their programs. More 3rd party programs = more fuel for selling more PC's and DOS/Windows with it. The synergy has generated a massive market and made PC's (together with their operating software) quite ubiquitous. It made business sense. A fragmented UNIX market didn't.
Almost never has Microsoft been the first into the market. They let the other guys make the technical mistakes, and hopefully learned from them. Then they built products that embraced an adequate level of functionality and masterfully marketed the hell out of it. Yes, Microsoft has occasionally run amok - but on the whole I believe that users are getting what they want - lots and lots of application programs, that are adequate for their needs, available on a common platform and priced competetively. Technical excellence simply isn't necessary and it is more risky both to build and to use.
Finally, I believe that the computer industry necessarily trends towards common standards. Sometimes those standards are proprietary (e.g. Windows) and at other times they are public (e.g. W3G and HTML). I'm not sure which way is best - but I am sure that without common (monopolistic?) standards we'd have a fragmented, unconnected, non-interoperating marketplace. Computers probably wouldn't be nearly as ubiqutous and would probably be much more costly..
I know what I've said won't convince those of you who remain technology bigots from one camp or the other. I just wanted to express my, possibly different, point of view.
BTW - I use both Linux and Windows for servers; and I test everything I write on multiple versions of all the popular browsers
But how lucky for Microsoft that they ARE the monopoly. They ARE the common platform because they won't let any other exist. They strong arm every other player in the field. IBM, Apple, Oracle, Netscape, Sun...they have tried to bully and blackmail and hog tie and shove themselves into the receiving end of every deal and every new release. When they can't they whine and play dirty pool. I have been watching Microsoft carefully for ages and therefore I wouldn't try to convince anyone based on just a board debate. But my own opinion is and always will be that there is blood on Gates' hands and it isn't just about technology - it's about doing business and getting the credit for talented innovations without some greedy creep controlling the waters; no excuse for the brutal sneaky thievery and backstabbing market practices Gates unleashed in the tech industry. The world would be a better, more intelligent place without his company in my opinion. And btw, Microsoft is most compatible with most platforms because for a long time no platform was allowed to be developed without Gates hands in the cash register. If you go your own way like Apache, Linux, Apple, etc - you better be as nasty and greedy as he is or he will steal your show. Some brilliant, innovative and courageous companies have gone their own way, managing to stay competitive because they have talent, something Gates' people do not have. And I support those companies which defy him and his "evil empire". Did anyone ever see the ex-files episode about the power hungry maniac/tech genius who was ruining the world with his greed - destroying the world from his lap top? - That was based on Gates' personality, his history, his life's work - written by someone who knows him well.
<Pardon my intense tone - but I feel strongly about all the unknown talent Microsoft ruined - it's a shame and it makes me sad>
[Edited by Candide on 07-21-2001 at 08:12 AM]
<Pardon my intense tone - but I feel strongly about all the unknown talent Microsoft ruined - it's a shame and it makes me sad>
[Edited by Candide on 07-21-2001 at 08:12 AM]
I can't get into the debate here because my hatred for MS gets me nuts. My one comment is that anyone who can hear the statement ( by MS executive Paul Maritz, re: netscape, which of course he denied ): "We'll cut off their air supply. How will they be able to sell what we are giving away for free ?" and not imediately recognize the monopolistic practice of Predatory Pricing is beyond me.
Slinky...right on! You said what I wanted to say in a short space without going "nuts" - do you give lessons? 
Just me - the fight for justice against MS is worthier than you think. That company controls the economy and government in this country more than people realize. I bet Gates and George W would have brunch together via web cam if George W could figure out how to turn on a computer.
Hotpuppy, if the photo is on a disk then I would suggest using your control panel display to set the photo as wallpaper rather than the browser. (If you don't have a Mac) Once you upgrade to a higher release it is hard to get rid of it without going into your system and searching for files and deleting them. Do you have windows or a Mac?
Just me - the fight for justice against MS is worthier than you think. That company controls the economy and government in this country more than people realize. I bet Gates and George W would have brunch together via web cam if George W could figure out how to turn on a computer.
Hotpuppy, if the photo is on a disk then I would suggest using your control panel display to set the photo as wallpaper rather than the browser. (If you don't have a Mac) Once you upgrade to a higher release it is hard to get rid of it without going into your system and searching for files and deleting them. Do you have windows or a Mac?