Talk:Netscape Navigator

message: Please do not use the JPEG format for screenshots. Thanks. — Timwi 13:32, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The program I use, PhotoStudio, cannot save with a PNG format.  JPEG and PCT are my only options. --Mr. Grinch 15:06, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Then use a different program. I see you're on a Mac - GIMP is available in a Mac version (not very well ported, but it exists, is free and works). See also PNG applications and PNG converters - David Gerard 15:38, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: Go to macupdate.com and download GraphicConverter. It's shareware, but it'll do the conversion for you even if you don't pay. - Brian Kendig 00:08, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: Thank you for your input.  I am glad we could settle this in an adult manner. —Mr. Grinch 17:00, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Screenshot 

message: Your September 12th page lists that date (1994) as the 1.0 release, yet this page says December... which is it? It's frustrating when two pages inside wikipedia have conflicting information. JoeHenzi 10:27, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Release date of 1.0 

message: The article mentioned Netscape for BeOS. While a port of Mozilla to Be is now available, to the best of my knowledge, Netscape classic was never ported. 'twas a bleak, bleak world of Opera 3 and NetPositive...
: I can't find a source for it now, but I'm pretty sure you could get Netscape Navigator 4 for BeOS.  I'm pretty sure I remember running it on BeOS years ago, except at the time I really disliked Netscape and actually <intense shame>was rooting for IE in the browser wars</intense shame>. AlistairMcMillan 00:40, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  BeOS 

message: I just added a new criticism section, as I think the frustration of web masters about Netscape 4's often strangely and incorrectly implemented standards should be mentioned here, along with their own invented standards. Because it's about Microsoft, I'm sure the Internet Explorer has long had such a section, although both parts used these dirty tricks in their browser war to make something the other vendor couldn't and gain an upper hand. :-) Feel free to correct it of course. I don't want to come off as NPOV, but rather try to inform about these opinions that do indeed exist, and I think quite widely too.
As I wrote that section, I also started wondering about the Netscape Communicator article and if/how this criticism should be mentioned there too, but I chose to not do anything for now. It *is* mostly a branding + bundling change though, so the criticism here should apply there as well. -- Jugalator 15:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New criticism section 

message: I understand they're not the same thing, but without Netscape there wouldn't have been mozilla.org. Xiner 01:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of mozilla/Firefox in the intro? 

message: Since Netscape have confirmed that the new release of Netscape (version 9) will be return to being Netscape Navigator 9, when the time comes, what do you think we should do? 
Personally, I think the existing Netscape Navigator article should contain information on the (then) current Netscape 9 release, while perhaps a Netscape Navigator 4 article for the older Netscape 4.x versions (with a see also tag at the top). 
Alternatively, make Netscape Navigator a disambiguation page leading to Netscape Navigator 4 and Netscape Navigator 9.
Any ideas? There seems to be quite a lot of information growing already about Navigator 9 on the main Netscape article, so when it releases it could do with an article of its own like the rest of the versions. /Marbles 21:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Netscape Navigator and Netscape Navigator 9 

message: No references/citations.  Is this section needed? Tmursch 00:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternate Theories on the Fall of Netscape 

message: I am sick of reverting this page. 
*For the moment, the article Netscape Navigator is for the old version 1.0-4.08 only. 
*The page Netscape Navigator 9 is for the new version 9.0 only. 
Please do not add new information to the old article / vice versa until a consensus is brought forward otherwise.
/Marbles 10:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Netscape Navigator (original) and Netscape Navigator 9 are totally different programs, with few similarities between apart from the name. Navigator 9, by AOL, is Firefox-based, whereas Navigator 1-4.5, by Netscape Communications, was on the original Communicator code. Besides the name, there are no other similarities. There have been so many names and differences between each of the Netscape releases over the years, hence why there are (often lengthy) separate articles on each distribution. Some were browsers, others were suites, and others were clones of other programs, so its not really possible to have one page for all 9 releases of Netscape browsers. However, there is a page titled Netscape (web browser) which goes into breif detail about every release. /Marbles 18:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then, this page should be called something else, like "Netscape Navigator (version 1-4)" or so. Because if one is precise, both versions 1-4 and 9 are "Netscape Navigator". A disambiguation page, perhaps? Also, the page for the newer versions should be called "Netscape Navigator (version 9 and above)" or something similar, to avoid the need to create separate articles for each version.
Netscape Navigator (original) and Netscape Navigator 9 are totally different programs...
I realize this perfectly. However, would you expect a program to be the same after 5 versions? The problem with Netscape is that they changed the browser's complete name too often. If they called it "Navigator" all the time, there wouldn't be so many pages here. --Mégara (Мегъра) - D. G. Mavrov 13:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Possibly have Netscape Navigator (original) and Netscape Navigator 9, with the page Netscape Navigator as a disambiguation. Or even have the current NS9 on the Netscape Navigator article, and shift the old one to Netscape Navigator (original). By no means could they ever be merged due to having little in common with each other. I don't actually mind the current organisation at the moment, although perhaps it would be nicer having the new release as the Netscape Navigator article, and kick the old one off to Netscape Navigator (original). Anyway, anyone else got any ideas? /Marbles 14:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Navigator / Navigator 9 disputes

message: The criticisms section ends with a paragraph saying that even though NN ignored most web standards, it pioneered a whole lot of ideas that later went on to become standards in their own right. This is especially important nowadays in relation to Chrome OS, as the NPAPI provided the first (as far as I know) implementation of an application running in a plugin via the browser, and is still implemented in every major modern browser except IE to handle all flash, video, etc. content. I think that a list of innovations and "firsts" would add a lot to this article.
KHAAAAAAAAAAN (talk) 13:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed new section: "Innovations" 

message: Mabdul, in your edit, you removed a link to http://web.archive.org/web/19990423023723/browserwatch.internet.com/news/story/bw-news1.html  saying there was a .9x version. I believe there was, and you can still download .9b, .93b, .94b2, .96b .
Theres also an official link at Netscape Archived Client Products and another more complete one at  Netscape Browser Archive. I'd rather cleanup the netscape browser articles after we finish with the more obscure ones...Netscape will be a massive project =/.Smallman12q (talk) 01:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: hehe, look closely: I add the link! that was a fast edit to not forget the link and give ofters the possibility to add it before me. Yeah you're right: there are articles that need more cleanup than netscape... mabdul 07:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

text: oh and there were the os/2 version totally missing! mabdul 07:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: http://sillydog.org/narchive/full123.php links and downloads to very old versions (like 0.4!) mabdul 15:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pre 1.0 versions 

message: Did someone check the veracity of this statement (rise of netscape p2)
"An important innovation that Netscape introduced in 1994 was the on-the-fly display of web pages, where text and graphics appeared on the screen as the web page downloaded. Earlier web browsers would not display a page until all graphics on it had been loaded over the network connection; this often made a user stare at a blank page for as long as several minutes. With Netscape, people using dial-up connections could begin reading the text of a web page within seconds of entering a web address, even before the rest of the text and graphics had finished downloading. This made the web much more tolerable to the average user."
This is a little hazy for me but the way I remember it this is the feature that actually first drew me away from NN because it didn't do this whist IE 3 or 4 did.  I did find a reference to this feature here but have found precious little other info.  Maybe some version of IE displayed loaded text even before the entire page loaded?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.232.248.15 (talk) 16:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  On the fly web page display 

message: even 2.0 is still used interesting Ottawa4ever (talk) 20:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: still used

message: The article correctly mentions that Netscape Communicator 4.x was crash-prone when attempting to load webpages containing Cascading Style Sheets. What should be mentioned is that Netscape had submitted a competing alternative to CSS called JavaScript Style Sheets that was implemented in Communicator 4.x. CSS implementation was carried out as a poor, hurried hack that attempted to convert CSS into JSSS. No competing browser implemented JSSS focusing instead on CSS which the W3C adopted as a web standard. Fortguy (talk) 21:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a reliable source to verify that this is what happened?  -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style sheet implementation 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Netscape Navigator. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://hplyot.obspm.fr/~dl/netscapesec/nyt2.txt
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:46, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I was doing clean up in Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/December 15. It seems that the article can't go to the OTD of the main page since the date for "1994 – Netscape Navigator 1.0, the leading web browser in the 1990s, was first released" is not cited in the article. You can fix it and have it on the main page. Regards. --Mhhossein talk 19:00, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing the date 

message: I have made this edit  - see the reason described in the edit summary.
Some people use "all but" instead of "almost", though the latter is much more common and logical. Maybe they think that "all but" is a stronger version of "almost". And indeed, the Longman dictionary defines it as "almost completely", but the rest of the most prestigious dictionaries define it as "almost". So, probably the Longman is wrong. If last year I saw 100 pigeons in the park, and now I see only 5, then I can say "They almost disappeared", but what if if their number reduced to 2? Should I say: "They all but disappeared"? 85.193.215.210 (talk) 02:49, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "all but" as "almost"?