[JimWall]

Why is it that people will start off with one of those "I know its just a preview ... " then proceed bash something as if it were a finished product anyway. I think that the new Net. 6 is just fine for what it is supposed to be. Here's what I think:

One, it *IS* faster than IE, I don't know what is going on for those who say it isn't.

Two: There are skins for this, so it can look like whatever someone wants, not just windows.

Three: No its not stable, and half what is is supposed to do isn't there. So what? This is a preview, its like seeing a movie trailer and complaining that it's only a few minutes long, duh.

Four, did anyone pay attention to what the News confrence said? The whole point of this is that the *Browser* is the least of what is going on. AOL and Gateway are making Linux powered devices, running Geeko.

Five, Companies can create skins and unique features for Geeko, so Apple could create their own OS X browser, based on Geeko and use that. Giving it what ever look and feel Apple likes.

Six, This is not a Mac -Centric world, so the default will cover the most possiable territory and most GUI's look like windows, even the Linux ones, which does suck.

so there, my .02 cents worth.

James Wall


There are skins for this, so it's windows look is not perminate

------------------
James Wall
[email protected]

but I was shocked to read in another thread just now that Netscape class the Windows version of this release as the REAL one, just goes to show what they think of us Mac users - I will of course wait for the official release, but nowadays the tables have turned... I quite happy with Mac IE5 thank you and I certainly don't need 2 browsers.

I would love to create my own skins however, as a designer, that'd be cool.
www.eddiedesigns.com

[macman]

Where are these skins? My main complaint (given that it is a beta app) is the interface which will probably remain the same for the most part. Where did you hear about them?

[TATungseth]

I am one of the guilty who noted that this was a preview, but then went on to bash it. The reason being that a "preview" typically means that the program works and is a pretty good representation of what the shipping product will be like. Admittedly, there are typically bugs to be ironed out, issues with interface, interoperability, etc.

However, a preview is supposed to "work," and it is irresponsible for a company to release a program that is so ridden with problems that it barely stumbles along, doesn't, in fact, do even what the preview is supposed to do, and may actually cause damage to your data. Yeah, that's always a risk, but if it is truly happening as much as people are saying, then AOL MUST have known about those kind of serious problems and let it out anyway. Kind of like a car company knowing that the brakes on a certain model fail but selling the car anyway.

I think that a more apt analogy for this preview is seeing a movie preview that is in Black and White, has scratches on the film, is edited badly, and the sound cracks and feeds back, and being told that the movie will be a blockbuster. . . .

But my main complaint -- which is outside of this particular preview -- is the growing trend of beta testing on the public, which I think is becoming more and more of a problem, with major software companies releasing (and, unlike here, for a price) software with known bugs, and promising to squash them in the "next" version. . . .

why the hell are there 1,765 files when I unstuff this NS6 'preview realease' - that's just too fat for my liking, however from what I've noticed they all remain inside the folder instead of installing all over the HD, am I right?

I agree with the orriginal poster. It is great for what it is (I've been downloading Mozilla nightlies since M6, NS6 is M14 FYI) and it is much better than it used to be. Maybye I am just biased, but I like Netscape 6. Try some of the new nightlies ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla/nightly/latest if you want to see what progress is being made.
BTW, skins can be had @ http://www.mozillazine.org/chromezone Just follow the instructions on the download page (using ResEdit or simmilar to change the Creator type to MOZZ, then either double click on the new file, or drag on top of the Netscape 6 icon). None of them are done quite yet, but Sullivan for one looks quite promising. It was modled after IE5 for Mac, but I think it is much better.

Improvements will be made before the final release, but it is not bad now. Just my $0.02.

Four, did anyone pay attention to what the News confrence said? The whole point of this is that the *Browser* is the least of what is going on. AOL and Gateway are making Linux powered devices, running Geeko.

So how does Gecko running on Linux appliances help Mac users?

- Scott

[JimWall]

Well, lets see about some replies here, first, how does Linux devices help Mac users? Directly, perhaps it doesn't, but the point here is that to look at this in terms of 'Mac" users is too narrow a view. My point in this isn't to look at how well the Mac is being supported by AOL, but to point out that the whole idea of the effort by AOL is to stretch beyond browsers into different types of devices, cell phones or palm devices. Another point that should be made here is that we Mac users are something of a side show. As far as AOL/Netscape is concerned the real battle is with MS over control of the future of the Net, and anything that that helps fight MS is good. AOL is trying to break the hold of the Windoze centric paradigm. We are a small market, to big to be ignored but not so large that we garner the attention of people when they are fighting MS.

To TATungseth, I think that a point that we're not hooking up on is that is this a Beta or something else. I agree that I don't like the idea of public beta'ing the way it is done, if your not going to do it right don't do it. I think this is more of a public release of what their product will work and look like, in as much as it wouldn't be up to even beta standards. As for being dangerous, it has crashed on me, well, a lot, I can't quit, when ever I try I find myself staring at a MacsBug screen, but I haven't seen any sign of it corrupting any of my files anywhere else. As a couple of others have noted I got down some of the Mozilla releases, and they were awful. I mean they were comically bad at times. What they did to some web sites looked like one of those screen savers that "melt" the screen. Remember, one of the big pieces of hype surrounding this is that it is, at least in part, open source, and in an open source method of development there are always a lot of releases that are really only to test bed something. The trick is that there are versions that are concidered stable, and are for use and others that aren't. In that point of view there isn't that much unusual in this release of Netscape, this just isn't one of the stable ones. I realize that I am making all sorts of assumptions here bringing in ideas from another way of developing software, and AOL is being less than clear in this, if they were really followoing the methold this release would require an odd ending version number, like, 6.1.1, this would show that this is an unstable development version, that is new. There should be no question that this is not ready for any sort of serious use.

What do you think?

James Wall
[email protected]

NN6 is certainly much faster than the last Mozilla I saw recently. And the skins (I'm using "sullivan") really make up for the awful default look. Speed doesn't quite match IE5 on my machine, but it's close (g4/350).

My main problems:

? absolutely no drag-n-drop (links or images)! (HUGE disadvantage that will prevent me from using it full time if not dealt with)

?�try change the url up top. selecting somewhere in the middle and pulling the mouse down to select to the right doesn't work (as with Mozilla).

?�adds extra underlined space at the end of urls which have spaces before "< /a>" in the html code.

? doesn't seem to be able to resort bookmarks in alphabetical order (even Mosaic could do that!).

Good points:

? Happy that it finally supports html 4.0 transitional.

? better source code coloring than IE5.

? like the skins.

-jeff

spoke too soon. the url-selection problem doesn't exist.

[TATungseth]

Jim-
It's nice to get a well-reasoned and thought-out reply rather than a flame, which seems much more popular sometimes.

I actually agree with your rebuttal. Yes, what you say is true, and I understand your point.

What I was trying to get across -- and perhaps I succeeded, and perhaps I didn't -- is that this "preview" release is accompanied by a whole lot of hype and "aspirational" language. There is page after page of explanations, FAQs, reports, etc., that tout it as the next best thing after sliced bread. Only when you read the click-on license and perhaps a few lines of small print do you really get an honest indication that the version available for download is really not ready for prime time nor use by most users.

I have absolutely no problem with a preview release being made available, and I understand the valuable feedback that can be obtained via that route.

However, in this case, it is being advanced as the next "version" of Netscape, and encourages everyone to "upgrade." Only then does one find (unless they read the small print, or read between the lines) that this version is really not usable and definitely a finished product.

In reading many of the comments, my opinion is that many of them are from the point of view of an expectation that a finished product is being made available. My comment was geared more towards saying that this version is definitely in the baby stages, and perhaps that should be made much more clear, especially in the way that everyone is being encouraged to test drive it.

But, bottom line, when you go through all of the features advertised, it sounds like an exciting product. But when many of those features simply don't work, and obviously don't work for the vast majority of everyone trying NS 6, perhaps an asterix next to the feature and a note that "this feature is not yet working" would be appropriate.

Well, I guess we've beaten this dead horse! I have hope for this product, and I truly hope that a more usable version is on the horizon.

[JimWall]

TATungseth:
Thanks for you kind comments, it is disturbing when flames are used in the place of facts and reason, we do seem to be on the same wavelength. There is way to much hype for this particular release to carry, Well if this horse is dead a related nag (is that a pun? ) is the mismatch between how a "conventional" software company handles the introduction of a product and how an open source project proceeds technologically. In a conventional company you release a few final builds of your software, trying your best to be sure it is perfect, in an O.S. project there can be dozens of different builds with different goals, some for use, some for testing features, some just new and a little shaky on their legs. The marketing and everything is around a "product" to be used, while the reality is what they have is a process that is generating a lot of versions of a program. That seems to give this a strange surreal quality, all this talk, and very little of it seems to have anything to do with what is being made, Mozilla seems to be going along doing its own thing while all this ballyhoos goes on around it. The mixing of Open Source with a traditional corporate culture will make some interesting watching, especially now that Apple has released Darwin.

James Wall
[email protected]



------------------
James Wall
[email protected]

[AAPl Shareholder]

Usually I would not care about this topic, however what really pisses me off is that 90% of the people here are ranting about pr1and yet they know little to nothing about how the mozilla project works.

First of all, Re: EddieDesigns. Mozilla is going through a cross platform development. The feature sets of Mozilla pr1 on its 20 someodd platforms are practically identical aside from platform dependant bugs. The windows version of Netscape 6 is just a buggie as the mac version.

And as for those people that thing a "preview" should work like a charm. Well, your wrong. The word "preview" is usually for apps that don't work right and don't have there fulll feature set yet. Moreover, AOL was forced to release this preview in order to give mozilla more press. The early engine set backs held this browser back months... AOL needs to show the public that this guy is still alive and kicking.

I personally will probally use Netscape 6 / Mozilla when it is done. It is faster, more coustomizable, easier to update, and it supports many web standards that IE 5 still has yet to impliment.

And PS... I would seriously advise downloading a nightly build of Mozilla from mozilla.org. Sometimes they have more bugs, sometimes they have less. However they run and I found tonights to be more stable then pr1.

[Misha]

Four, did anyone pay attention to what the News confrence said? The whole point of this is that the *Browser* is the least of what is going on. AOL and Gateway are making Linux powered devices, running Geeko.

Which pretty much says outloud that AOL/Netscape accept the fact that they have lost the browser war and are instead focusing on winning the portable-internet-devices war. Pity.

[This message has been edited by Misha (edited 04-06-2000).]

[TheJoshu]

I have but one complaint with N6, keeping in mind that it is a beta. (which is why I don't complain about the slowness, or the unfinished look) It still doesn't support alpha-channels for PNG graphics! Bah! What good is it then?

[mike3k]

My major objection is that NS6 is NOT a native Mac application. It looks & feels like it's written in Java or something and the UI doesn't use native Mac controls.

I'm sticking with IE 5. It's fast & reliable and is a real native Mac application.

[orlgummo]

I'm certain I'm flogging a dead horse here, but I must pose this question: What's everyone's point with the "Preview Release" comments? I wanted so badly to love this product, but I hate it, like most others who have posted here.

Quick points: I saw IE5 before it was released (a "preview") and it blew this and NS4.x out of the water. And isn't icab a preview release???? Have you compared the two? I challenge all of you to find the first version of icab that was available to the public and put it up against the NS6 "preview" release. Forget the javascript implementation and the interface issues. Just focus on the performance. Haven't these two products been in development for about the same amount of time?

And this has been brought up already, but what about the fact that the minds who made Netscape's product so nimble and well-designed? Where are they now? If you're wondering, they aren't developing NS6.

It's hard to be a Mac users and truly love a M$ product, but it's equally difficult to settle for second-rate. Even if it's a second-rate preview.

Finally, the Linux talk really means nothing to most of us on this list. I'm on a couple of Linux lists as well, and I would be happy to discuss Gnome, as well as the merits of AOL's work on that platform on THOSE lists. Remember: like the title bar says, it's a MACNN forum, and this section is for Netscape 6.

Chris

[wlonh]

macfixit on n6:
"The vast majority of users describe it as very slow, prone to crash and with an unattractive interface. Assuming these comments are truly representative (and you always have to wonder whether people are more likely to post negative information), we are more than a bit surprised. After all of the Mozilla alpha releases that preceded this release, we were hoping for something better from the Preview version."

time to make the donuts!


[This message has been edited by wlonh (edited 04-06-2000).]

It is faster, more coustomizable, easier to update, and it supports many web standards that IE 5 still has yet to impliment.

What are the standards it supports that IE5 does not? IE5 supports HTML4, DOM1, CSS1, and XML1. If anything, browsing the web with Netscape 6 seems to indicate that it is the one with the standards support problem.

- Scott

I'm fairly impressed with NS6. It's fast at rendering pages, not too unstable on my g3/400, and the skinnable thing is neat.

I also particularly like Sullivan (apart from the fact that Sullivan introduces many menu bugs - such as the inability to see submenus in bookmarks, and the inabilty to arrange those same bookmarks - nothing happens when you select "arrange bookmarks").

I wish all the programmers who've sweated blood to get this browser released the Best of British Luck!

And as for the browser situation on the Mac, my feeling is this: the more the merrier! As long as they are standards compliant, the user can choose what he/she is looking for - feature-laden (IE/NS with their inbuilt mail & msging services) or feature-stripped (iCab, Opera, Webthing, OmniWeb etc) for simple fast browsing. Bottom line: any given web page should look identical on ALL browsers on any platform. End of story. THERE's the main criterion for me... after that I reserve the right to choose/play with as many browsers as I like. The arrival of NS is a positive thing, for the Web, and for the Mac.

Originally posted by EddieDesigns:
why the hell are there 1,765 files when I unstuff this NS6 'preview realease' - that's just too fat for my liking, however from what I've noticed they all remain inside the folder instead of installing all over the HD, am I right?

you are right

[jo5_h]

Originally posted by EddieDesigns:
but I was shocked to read in another thread just now that Netscape class the Windows version of this release as the REAL one, just goes to show what they think of us Mac users

When I launch Netscape 6 on my PC the splash screen graphic clearly reads, "Preview Release 1". In fact, it's the same splash screen as the one I see on my Mac. I don't think anyone at Netscape is ignorant enough to ignore the Mac community.

Originally posted by TheJoshu:
I have but one complaint with N6, keeping in mind that it is a beta. (which is why I don't complain about the slowness, or the unfinished look) It still doesn't support alpha-channels for PNG graphics! Bah! What good is it then?

In current Preview Release, full-transparency in PNG is actually working. If the mask is set to black (256) in the alpha channel, this area will display completely transparent in NS6. The goal is to support semi-transparent PNG in the next preview release .