and, the Milestones and nightly releases of Mozilla5 people have commented on are not even yet alpha.

apart from the ridiculous level of confusion over the difference between NN and Mozilla, I am dissapointed to see that this is extended by many to a bizzare notion that AOL is also synonymous with Mozilla.

from the Mozilla website (front page of it)
Mozilla is an open-source web browser, designed for standards compliance, performance and portability.

what's that, open-source. Now, I know AOL deserve some criticism but they would really have rocks in their head to change anything about the layout engine of Mozilla. After all, AOL have stated the yare supporting the open-source nature of Mozilla and the autonomy of Mozilla.org.

AOL spent some $4 Billion on Netscape. Call me crazy but I don't think they did it without intending to use Mozilla.

They aren't changeing the layout engine, just the look of the borders, buttons, etc.

Sheesh, informed comments show intelligence...all else...

Actually, I found that IE was much faster than Netscape... I run IE on a P90, P133, P233, and PIII450.

I have active desktop disabled.

At least IE launches in 2 seconds as opposed to 30 for Netscape.

Netscape loads in under 5 seconds here. Mozilla takes a little longer the first time you load it, but is faster after that.

so.....Netscape renders pages MUCH faster, the startup time is irrelevant

is the skin hotbar.com for ie dead? i cant reach the homepage
at http://wwww.hotbar.com since days.
thx

of course at http://www.hotbar.com

Who are these ie lovers???Not too long ago everybody was swearing that netscape was the best browser ever and ie is a buggy crap.The 90% of websites recommended netscape over ie,sometimes with tiny ie banners with a red cross on them saying:"i hate internet explorer".Now everybody loves ie and hates netscape.Again,who are these people?Turncoats?I guess just a bunch of newbies.I'll bet when netscape will come out with v.5.0 all of tese guys will "hate" ie!

I can tell you who these people are. They are the ones who have seen Netscape gobbled up by the worst internet provider on the web. Namely AOL. Ever since, there has been no movement towards a major upgrade of Netscape as the release dates keep getting pushed back. AOL is turning Netscape into an advertiser heaven just like their main site. At least with IE it is tucked away and IE has continued to improve. No, when Netscape 5.0 is finally released no one will go rushing to it or be turncoats because in reality it will really be an AOL 5.0 update.

http://mozillazine.org
please try the browser (nightly build) before you start b****ing about it - why argue if you dont even know what are you arguing about? Its 5 mb download....

You're exactly right. Netscape will be AOL's golden goose for those who don't know a good browser from a bad one, namely 90% of AOL users. Have you ever seen how AOL people use email? By the time you get it, it has 50,000 CC's on it and 25,000 attachments. They can't embed images in their email to the attach all sorts of garbage. I don't give a damn how good/bad Mozilla 5 is; AOL hasn't got their grubby hands on the public beta yet. But, you can bet when they do they'll turn it into a money sewer like everything else they touch. I can't wait til the free access providers get a foothold and MSN becomes a free access provider (as it's rumored)too. What will AOL do then? Then we had the guy that was touting his program to "remove Internet Explorer from Windows 98" remember? geesh!

you are obviously stupid so let me enlight you: since its open source, anybody can compile its own code and customize it - and thats what AOL will do with Netscape Communicator 5.x - and that also means that there will be plenty of other versions as well w/o shop button (I mean extra button is soo anooying, noooo I think its gonna steal my cc info...its getting bigger, oh now its gonna kill me..)..lamer...

Hi ALL,

I figured this browser war was over and done. Now Netscape is
releasing 5.0 . In my opinion, even if Netscape 5.0 is better then
IE 5.1 . They still lose, because alot of the corporate IT Groups
have dropped Netscape and went on to IE browser. The reason is alot
of the new APPs for the corporate world have been designed around
IEs web browser. Basically all the hot new APPs need IE installed
before it even loads the APP. So Netscape gets the boot right their.

Bottom line, Netscape is going to lose no matter what they do
with their browser. Microsofts browser is being used in alot of new
APPs in the Corporate world.

Thats my 2 cents on the subject.......

Well i'd say everyone has good points here and there so far. But truth is IE has most of the market share right now. Sure, embedding it into windows 98 helped, a lot, but IE's NCSA Mosaic based core has been worked on quite generously. IE handles newer features' code much smoother also. Mozilla 5 has been taking MUCH too long to release and finish, i doubt it will have much sucess. I stopped using Nutscrape.. er Netscape because of the awfully long time it took to load and how it didnt handle DHTML or XML very well. About Active Desktop, I DONT USE IT, turn it off, its just slowin your whole system down, not browsing abilities. Also i would not go back to Netscape because its FULL OF SPAM now. Shop@Netscape button, the homepage is riddled with that pop up ad every single time you go there. Looks like Netscape and AOL will be good together, both are lousy, both have plenty spam, and both are having problems with Microsoft. Also, the FEW remaining Netscape users are almost all just people who are terribly Anti-Microsoft and want the least to do with Microsoft in any sense. Find me at least ONE good reason why Netscape is better than IE and i will switch immediately, till then, long live Internet Explorer, and Microsoft.

You wanted a reason to use Netscape??? I'll give you one...
I work in a multi-platform environment (mostly Unix: Solaris, AIX, HP-UX, Linux but also Mac and Windows). I've tried IE for Solaris; it's a joke but what do you expect from a company that can't even produce a stable application on its own OS.
I can run Netscape on all of those platforms (and allways have the same configuration thanks to roaming user profiles).
In my eyes, THAT is a very good reason to choose Netscape. I don't care about all that fancy stuff like CSS, DHTML, XML, etc.... All I want is a good, plain, informative page like we used to have when it all started (remember NCSA Mosaic???)

I remember Mosiac. It's what IE is based on. :)

so was netscape.

Yeh right and we should all go back to LYNX too..and forget all the "fancy" pictures. And we should all go back to 9600bps connections..ah yes..and we should all go back to coal furnaces..and we..

He, I never said I didn't like pages with images. I don't like pages that take ages to download because they are filled with banners, animated gifs, flash and all that other crap I don't care about. I've installed a ad-blocker on my system, just to get rid of them.
I like pages with a plain white background (not a 500kb gif)... (like the betanews page: plain white background, some images, very informative).
Maybe it's not the browsers we need to change but the webpage-developers. A lot of them just want their page to be the flashiest but don't care about the content.
And for your information, I love lynx.

You think we should change the way web pages are designed!! It is called technology, and it is moving forward. Say microsoft made their web page that was really good compared to standards of say 3 years ago! that would be death! They would be laughed off the net! anyway the technology is moving towards users with faster connections, graphical interfaces, and more user interaction. With out that stuff you just have a text document formated nicely on a page. That is not a web page of today.

.....

You want a reason to use netscape? How about competition. If ms is allowed to monopolize the browser market they could standardize mshtml or something stupid like that and then make you pay for their browser which supports it. They could also fill IE with 10x the amount of ads in netscape, and what could you do about it? Nothing because then you would be incompatible with the standards. Monopolies are bad for everyone. If intel was allowed a monopoly they would still be at 700mhz and could charge what ever they wanted, but since they have competition they have slashed prices and made great strides in speed.

BTW mozilla is an open sourced browser that aol does not and will not have their hands on. If you dont want the netscape branded version fine, but dont put down mozilla because of aol.

The reason Intel has competition is AMD got better. They finally are up to Intel's level of power by steadily improving. Netscape must do the same instead of crying to the DOJ about it. Its the free market and the best player wins.

Maybe I didn't express myself clear. I don't mind the webpages of today; I even think the webpage of Microsoft is very well designed. What I don't like is all the stuff webdesigners put in their page to make it flashy but doesn't really add any value to that page. This is mostly done with plugins that are only available on the M$ platform or by NN or IE specific tags. Since I mainly work on Unix (Solaris, HP-UX, Linux, AIX), I can't watch these pages, hence, I don't like it when designers try to make them flashy (even more since you can't read the information on the page because of all the 'noise' (visual and audio) they make).
Use DHTML, java, javascript, HTML4, I don't care, just be sure it's platform independant so everyone can watch the page using a standard-compliant, multiplatform browser (i.e. Mozilla). People have to stop thinking M$ Windows is the only platform on the internet.....

As far as I'm concerned, Netscape has been loosing the battle ever since IE4 came out. As a developer, I instantly made use of the Technical advantages IE4 had to offer such as CSS, DHTML and XML. Netscape still doesn't support any of these properly. They have minimal support for CSS (IE was at CSS 2.0 last I checked). The funny part for me was that CSS Styles are STOPPED by tables. Maybe they fixed this I dunno. As for skins, this is just another example of why we may never see "Mozilla 5" released. This is absurd. I wouldn't mind the feature.... But I'm sure there are better things to focus on. I said it before and I'll say it again... With all the focus being put on the the "Mozilla" browser, Netscape has been put back 2 years (at LEAST) in technology. DHTML with Netscape? It's a joke. CSS with netscape? Can't even make links light up (onmouseover). XML? PLEASE. IE 4.0 made great use of XML with CDF (Channel definition format).

Long live Microsoft and IE!

Um, Mozilla IS netscape. once mozilla is done, it'll be released as netscape 5.0.

Say it sister! Besides it being slow, ugly, unstable, riddled with ads and AOL-ish.. the #1 thing I hate about Netscape is their crappy CSS support! What is the point of even using it if I have to add all the tags manually anyways! I can write a beautifull page for IE with CSS easily, but then add all thoes tage and double the size before it looks half presentable on Netscape. Hell, 2 swedish guys in somebody's basement (slight exageration) put better CSS into Opera than big ol' Netscape/AOl and it's army of open-source retards! But when it comes to alomst and standard (HTML, DHTML, XML, CSS, the #2 spot and being a bit faster :)

...and to that guy who likes Netscape for being multi-platform... Netscape is just as bad, if not worse, on unix (linux). Christ! I stoped using linux cause I couldn't stand to look at the net on stupid Netscape. And for a company that sells a competing OS! I think Microsoft's done on outstanding job on Ie for other platforms. Instaed of russing s***ty ports like Netscape (well, maybe the Sun IE was pretty crappy) they took the time and made sure they offered the best browser best matched to that platform. Look at IE on the Mac, it blows away netscape and in a lot of ways is better than their win32 effort!

Everytime I see a posting about Netscape/IE, it never fails, somebody HAS to argue about how good IE/Netscape is! Does this article have ANYTHING to do with Browser Wars? Hell No. Grow up people, it's a program, not a way of life.

I have to agree. I have IE5 and it is much slower than Navigator on my machine (P200). The only reason I have it is because of Windows Update and I also happen to like OE. But for browsing, I much prefer Navigator.

outlook is a very nice newsreader. i use pine for email, but outlook express for news. I only have IE (5.5) for windows update and I lvoe netscape. it's much faster and it actually tells me what it's doing. when you click a link, the cursor changes and you can't click anywhere. the status bar changes and gives you a progress report. IE just says "Downloading website..." or some other "friendly" crap, and barely changes the cursor at all.

I think it's a good move from Netscape to make Communicator 5 skinnable. Another strategically great move would be renaming Communicator 5 to Communicator 2000 or something...

no actually renaming it to a year number is a backwards process. Netscape5.0 is a correctly numbered version. It tells the user information about the development of the program. Something like windows2000 only tells you what year it came out and in some cases that isnt even correct.

Considering that version 5 of the Internet Explorer has been around for some time now, and that 5.5 will soon come, in my opinion it would make Netscape look a little "outdated" if they now released version 5 as version 5.. :) Even if it is technically similiar to Explorer 5. Besides, Netscape Communicator 2000 sounds cooler..

To consumer the version numbering makes no difference, but there is the "psychological" effect..

Netscape doesn't make any progress as everyone can see. They have recently released NS 4.71 (which I never installed) to fix some bugs (and Netscape has a lot more bugs than IE). While IE6.0 is in development, Netscape "thinks" about their 5.0 browser. I tested the newest Mozilla Milestone and I only can say: it's a waste of time. Like Comodore Netscape made too many big mistakes and now they are dying (or already dead). And skins... do you really think that NS would think about such unimportant features if they were interested in the 5.0 release? And btw, there is a browser using the IE5.0 engine w/ skinsupport (forgotten the name, those skins only make the browsers slower). Goodbye Netscape!

Read below. Skins have been in for *2 years*.

In regards to Netscape "thinking" about their new browser, obviously you didn't do much more than just download the milestone and start it up once. What you saw was basically alpha-level software. IE NEVER releases alphas (that their beta releases run like alphas is their own fault). The new Mozilla browser is under heavy (daily) development, and has been for close to a year and a half. What exactly was a "waste of time", as you put it?

last i heard MS was working on IE5.5. A lot of people knock on that point but I still dont like how internet explorer 5.01 handles a few things. I really dont like how they work their favorites. The customizability doesnt stick, instead it reloads every time i open a new window which slows the load time down. It handles lag very poorly, and I dont like how it requires so many diffrint folders in the c:\windows dir.

Like Shakespeare said: What's in a name? I'd like to say: What's in a number.
Micro$oft is working on IE 6.0 (or 5.5). So what, it's just a number. You just can't compare numbers.... certainly not if one of the 'comparees' is Micro$oft, the master in augmenting numbers. (Word 2.0.... euh, Word 6.0)
At this moment, Netscape has gotten behind M$ in the development of their browser (and should, IMHO, focus on the new browser, i.e. mozilla based code, in stead the old one) but let's just all wait until they release their final version of Netscape 5.0 and then compare them.
For all they want, they could call it Netscape NG 1.0 (NG= Next Generation for those who didn't know), IT'S JUST A NUMBER.

BTW The name of the IE Based browser with skins is called NeoPlanet
(www.neoplanet.com) its free and really cool.

Microsoft is famous for playing number games. For instance, MS Word went from version 2 to version 6 because WordPerfect was at 6. Need I say more?

Netscape hasn't released a browser for years and they are trying to do skins? Test and push out Netscape 5 while Netscape is still alive. I mean its a nice thing and all, skins, but their ONLY priority should be to get Netscape 5.0 out.

Congratulations Microsoft, I think you've won the browser war. Netscape is getting more and more unfocused and more and more incompetent as every day goes by. There used to be a day when I swore by Netscape, and wouldn't touch IE. Then the stage came where I switched to IE, but still had Netscape installed and used it a bit.

Now, I SOLELY use IE, and don't bother to install Netscape, because (excuse my language) their bloatware isn't worth a rats ass.

Focus is sorely lacking at Netscape, and even though every seems to be telling them this, the (what would seem to be) idiots behind the show are so thick they don't take notice.

Yeah its nice to build the perfect browser, but it shouldn't take 3 years to get there. I could go on ranting for hours more, but Netscape's just not worth it anymore...

Mozilla's supported skins (or more accurately, chromes, because the entire user interface is written in an XML-based User-interface Language [XUL]) for 2 years, as Ben_Goodger said below.

If you never use Mozilla because Netscape 4.x was bloatware, you're the one missing out.... It's wickedly fast, and it's smaller than IE standalone in its suite version.

Okay - I must admit, it's great to have all the great skinnable software. I like the ability to be able to customize my otherwise drab Win9X desktop. I really don't think that skinning Netscape is going to make a difference because, in my opinion, Netscape is just bloatware to begin with. I stopped using Netscape when IE4 hit the streets. Granted, it was a buggy damned brower, but now that IE5.01 is out, I'll never go back to Netscape. But, for the few of you that are looking for Microsoft to start skinning their browser, don't get your hopes up too high - I doubt they'll do it. But, if you are looking to have IE5 skinned, look no further than Neoplanet. Neoplanet is based off of the IE5 core and it uses some of it's files actually, so you need to have it installed. But, it looks and plays just like IE5, but with a skin on it! It's great, and it is also fast. And, if you are looking to skin your bars that sit at the top of the IE window, check out http://www.hotbar.com. They have little backgrounds that'll skin just that'll just skin the bars and now the whole browser. These are just some suggestions for you guys that wanna try and customize everything under the sun. :) Enjoy!

- Taz757

Netscape is just bloatware to begin with.

Netscape, yes. Mozilla, no. Mozilla is all fresh code, loosely based on Netscape but without the bloat. The entire browser, mail/news, and composing suite, with a bunch of debug tools in there that won't be in for final release, is actually smaller than IE 5.5 beta's standalone.

How did I forget this! You've all probably heard of Neoplanet (totlaly rocks! A bit slow, but renders just liek IE and looks wicked, there's no way Netscape could ever skin like Neolanet, it just looks too cool! "Everything" is 100% skinned!) and Hotbar (POS) but Microsoft has been skinning IE for years! I forget where I saw it, I think it was in one of thoes Power Tools things microsoft used to do (have they done another lately?) but one of them offered an option to skin IE exactly as Hotbar does! You could also get this thing at the IE site too, same place they listed other addons like Alexa and stuff... ...anybody seen/remember this thing?

...and windowblinds will skin all yur apps, includng IE! (though I think it crashes on Netscape, figures :) It will slow your system down like a b**** though and is buggy as hell.

Actually, the entire user interface in Mozilla is made in HTML/XML/CSS/Javascript through the XML-based User-interface Language. It's MORE skinnable than Neoplanet, because you can literally remake the interface any way you choose whatsoever. Want 40 back buttons and no stop button? You can do it (God knows why, but...). Want an interface with only the four main buttons (Back, Forward, Stop, Reload) and an URL bar? You can do that. Basically, you can do anything with Netscape because the entire interface IS a Web page.

you're right it will never skin as good; it will do it better. With xul you can add/delete elements like buttons and whatnot and do things other than just changing the graphics.

In my experience, IE is much faster and way more stable than Netscape ever was.

Netscape is slow and old...

With a bit of luck, Mozilla won't be buggy and unstable like Netscape either.

Who cares about skinning? Are they going to fix the problems with tables and frames, maybe get around to implementing HTML 1.0 specs? How about getting rid of that damn "shop@netscape" button while they're at it?

I think they have their priorities misplaced. Maybe that's why it's been a couple years since they released a browser.

Actually, they DID fix the problems with tables and frames.

Close to a year ago.

The Gecko rendering engine is wickedly fast and supports more standards (HTML 4.0, CSS 1.0 and a good deal of 2.0 and even some of 3.0, Javascript 1.5 [ECMAScript 3], XML 1.0, DOM Levels 0, 1, and 2, and so on.... Efforts are underway to integrate a good XSLT parser and support for MathML 1.0 [and probably 2.0 in a few months]) than IE probably ever will. What's ironic is that Microsoft rewrote their parsing engine for Mac (it's supposed to be pretty fast and standards-compliant, but I'm withholding judgment until I see the real article) and probably will end up producing a browser that's better on Mac than on Windows.

They never fixed these problems....Netscrap is still horrible with nested table, slower-the-hell with the small amount of DHTML and CSS it supports and takes forver to initialize on EVERY machine I have seen it on..and that is a lot of machines from 486's to PIII's it takes much longer than I.E. to intialize. So where you get your information that they "fixed these problems" is incorrect...I could give you page after page of examples where nested tables, CSS, and DHTML combined on one page cause Netscrap to crash..but you wouldn't look anyway...

Did I say Netscape?

No.

I said Mozilla.

Mozilla fixed the table and frame problems over a year ago. I could tell you to go to www.mozilla.org and read for yourself, but you'd probably do what you figured I'd do.

Meanwhile, I'll continue finding and reporting bugs for Mozilla and developing Jazilla, while using both Netscape and IE for my everyday browsing and Opera for Webpage testing.

Skins?? Why are people making such a fuss over them in the first place. Ok so its nice to have a grovy looking browser but surely this is leading to even more bloatware and such?? oh well

Compare, for a second, the size of Netscape Navigator w/ the size of Netscape Communicator. Preferably on Linux, where you can compare the RPM/deb sizes. Navigator is half the size of Communicator, and loads faster too! Based on this, if AOL =='d Netscape, here's what they could do:

Custom AOL computer: BIOS is a custom-made kernel based on NetBSD or similar, but without most of the drivers. They integrate directly owoulne driver for RCA-out, one for SVIDEO-out, one for the standard cable connector-type-wire-out, one for their custom ethernet, etc. and remove the other drivers. They do, however, design a custom GUI with AOL software built in, integrate it with the kernel, and remove any command-line interfaces. You would get a pretty small system, boots directly into AOL. The AOL software itself would be pretty invisible; you could make most of the interface in a remote-control type device (one button for each main function, including one for www browsing). There would be no need for keyboard input most of the time; when there was, you could have a alphanumeric keyboard (VERY small) on a covered-up section of the remote. There would be nothing the AOL software would need to show on the screen except an occasional address bar. There would be nothing to skin.

AOL is partly doing that, with the AOLTV deal, but I'd bet anything they're leaving most of the AOL widget-based interface. AOL can't design user interfaces. Period. And they're trying to cover up their bad taste with skins. I know this is for Netscape, but AOL will definitely follow suit.

IE does have more features at the present like many people are pointing out. Skins are a great feature to and it would be cool if Microsoft followed suit and implemented them in future versions of IE. Who knows? Skins might just be one of the features that brings Netscape back to the forefront after so many years...

I would agree with ya man! Netscape know's there behind and they are working on things that will please their public audiences. Most people out there don't even know what HTML is, or they are like that's the web page thingy right? but having skin's is something everyone can injoy. Very smart move I think by netscape! All you internet junkies out there will always say IE is better and faster and all that (I partly agree) but netscape is due for a come back!

http://www.microsoft.com...E/WebAccess/default.asp

IE5 is and has been skinnable for a quite a while. It is called Toolbar Wallpaper and it was evident pretty early in the beta and has been available ever since.

As the creator for the first skin for NGL/Apprunner, and of the second one for MozClassic, It seems kinda odd how you all know so much about Mozilla, yet are just finding this out now, ALMOST 2 YEARS LATE! Go BetaNews...

We reported on this feature long before for Mozilla, discussing how the skins work and offered some for download, however there was never word before on whether or not Netscape would decide to make use the skins. Besides, not many people understand that Mozilla and Navigator are almost one in the same, so it's good news for people who do not follow Mozilla development. If you knew all along that Netscape would support the feature, great. Although, it is still news to some of us.

Nate Mook
nmook@efront.com

I think it's good for remembering people that 5.0 will go out some time. When I see http://www.upsdell.com/BrowserNews/stat.htm I cry... :(

NN loosing and loosing it's position...

Why Mozilla do not make it's own windows shell based on Mozilla project with Netscape as preinstalled browser?

I second that dis'!! I did a quick write-up in April 8th discussing this! Damn BetaNews needs to catch up!
http://www.mrtech.com/news/messages/230.html

Lots of people don't use Netscape because it doesn't support half of the stuff IE does, and it is so picky at how it is coded... Netscape makes a shell for Windows? Ha, will probably find some way to disable half of the 32bit subsystem and kill screensavers and desktop wallpapers because they are not standards in Netscape's view :P

true dude... with click of a link anybody can easily change a crome...or skin... and yes they might bit a bit hard to make, if you are used to skin icq plus :)... and then again, mozilla is in great stage of its development, and its becoming more and more usable, fast & reliable. Now obviously most of these people posting here dont know too much about it... well let them use IE, and then in 3-4 months everybody will swear how mozilla is cool, and its best thing ever... lamers... no offense nate ;-P

Check this out!

http://www.lighttek.com/

Talisman 1.4

...that we've all known about since like.. last year...

and, indeed, the year before. Before Seamonkey, Classic supported a degree of skinnability as well.

We have a saying in Spanish. La mona, aunque se vista de seda, mona se queda.
This basically is translated into: The [female] monkey, though she may be dressed in silk, is still a monkey.
What this means is the following: Even if they add skins, even if they make it pretty, the real importance is in what it can do, and so far, it seems very much behind Internet Explorer... in other words, if it can't deliver, skins are not a reason to change back.

It realy depends on what code base Netscape 5.0 is on. If it's on the all new mozzilla code form teh gecko project it will be a great App. I'm useing milstone 11 right now and it is a very very powerfull layout engine. Skin interface and Gecko layout engine and IE compatable plug ins.. I don't see it getting much better except if AOL would switch to Gecko code from IE. After all they own the thing, why not use it?

"the real importance is in what it can do, and so far, it seems very much behind Internet Explorer..."

You mean Mozilla or 4.x?

I don't see it getting much better except if AOL would switch to Gecko code from IE. After all they own the thing, why not use it?

The big reason so far is that AOL made a deal with Microsoft a few years back to keep AOL's software on the Windows CD's. The deal was AOL stayed on if IE became the browser for AOL. At the time they had been toying with using Netscape. After the deal, AOL bought Netscape and their hands were tied. But with the new version coming out, AOL 6 could switch over, and it might be the only thing that can bring Netscape back.

And now AOL is coming out with their set-top box, and soon they might integrate AOL into the Netscape windows shell. AOL is doing all it can to allow their products to work without Microsoft products, and when that's complete, they'll switch to Gecko and IE will be back down to 20%, aol at 60+% (with all the new forms of connecting to it). It's good for the linux crowd too, because we get to use the xDSL providers that no one else is using because they're all using AOL now.

reason that AOL is using IE is primary that it guarantees them placement in shipping win98 version - and thats how they get a lot of their users... if they switch to mozilla, then it might lose that, which then again means lower revenues...blah, blah... only in case that goverment interveenes and makes MS put AOL/Netscape in, we might see mozilla as layout engine for AOL X...

Evidently you haven't used an M13 build. The final version of Communicator will be under 5 MB -- IE is still up at 27MB, and its standards compliance is for s***. I don't feel at all overly optimistic saying that IE is over once Netscape 5 comes out. IE sucks for embedded appliances, IE is ridiculously hard to customize, and is trying to push MS proprietary tags and make the Internet a MS property. No one in their right mind wants that.

We'll see what happens. I've heard that AOL already has a "switch-out" CD in the works. Obviously they have no reason to use Netscape right now -- the code is as bad if not worse than IE for 4.x. Once Moz is done, it's another story entirely.

Fat chance of "Communicator" being under 5MB. The browser might be under 5MB, but then AOL.Netscape puts the Winamp, and Realplayer, and misc. useless tools into the package that make it huge. I've tried the M9-11 builds, but I stopped using them after they "crashed" much more that IE (about the same amount as 4.7 for me). As many other people have said, skins would be a nice addition, but if Netscape ever hopes to gain marketshare back, they need to work on getting their browser out the door.

I realize that the mozilla bulds are "alpha", but I downloaded the netscape "gecko" preview way back in fall of 1998. It's been almost a year and a half since then, and the browser isn't even in beta. People complain about MS being slow developers, I mean really... Windows Millennium will be released before Communicator 5.

I think open source is generally a good thing, but I doubt the development would be taking this long is Netscape (not AOL) was doing the development. I'll keep my Communicator 4.7 to make sure most of my webpages look decent in it, but I'm a full time IE user now.

Oh, and speaking of bugs, I have been having the same bug in Netscape since V4 was released. The browser just seems to hang up for 30-40 seconds at a time. All of the netscape windows will be non-functional, but windows will work. Then magically, netscape comes back, just to do the same thing a minute later. I keep filling out bug reports, but nobody seems to fix it, probably because they've got so much crap in Communicator, that they have no idea what is causing the problem.

Considering you can get Communicator's base install without that crap, 5 MB isn't aiming high. That encompasses all three major components (Editor, Mail/News, and Browser). And, right now, a meg and a half worth of debug software that won't be in the final.

And considering most of the development is being done by Netscape developers, it would be no faster if Netscape was doing it themselves. It would certainly suck more, though. And even the Netscape engineers don't like what AOL does; they intend to make it very easy to remove lousy buttons like Shop@Netscape.

dont mention to him that mozilla m13 nightly builds are radicaly improved over m9-m11...keep it quit, ssshhh..
:)
its actually funny how people are soo lazy to download 5 mb, so instead the talk about things they never experinced..yes there will be version of mozilla that is less than 5 MB big and that has all features browser-mail-html editor-newsgroups (even now its 5 MB with tons of reusable code & even more debug code)

dont mention to him that mozilla m13 nightly builds are radicaly improved over m9-m11...keep it quit, ssshhh..
:)
its actually funny how people are soo lazy to download 5 mb, so instead the talk about things they never experinced..yes there will be version of mozilla that is less than 5 MB big and that has all features browser-mail-html editor-newsgroups (even now its 5 MB with tons of reusable code & even more debug code)

Microsoft may be slow developing...but at least the Mozilla team isn't releasing a half done job, when it's finished, it will be finished. No half-assed, "oh wait a sec, now download our 20MB update" crap! Mozilla nightly builds are rocking my world, beating IE hands down in RENDERING speed (not LOADING speed, which is a stupid thing to compare)!
Aol has every intention of moving their whole program to the gecko engine, because then the aol program will most likely be written in XUL;) look it up, it's going to ROCK!!:D