|
|||||||
![]() |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
#1 |
|
Premium Member
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 9,231
|
Hey folks:
For the past few releases of Nutscape, I have renounced my favouritism to Nutscape for Windoze, but man does Netscape 6PR3 whip IE's behind! The clones at Nutscape finally were able to crip-off from Mozilla properly. Over the past few weeks, I have been using it with absolutely NO problems, even on M$ sites like Hotmail, where I sometimes had crashes when switching over the rich text! It is so smooth and pleasing to the eye. And talk about the Gecko showing its true colors, the speed is PHENOMENAL! And the fact that it runs JAVA2 as its engine should leave IE's MVM far behind in its dust. For example, the ISOCOR group mail admin, that I have for my domain loads up at 1/3rd the time that IE takes. I am finally back to being a Netscape user... it doesnt matter if they are just ripping off from the Mozilla project, the latter is too bleeding edge for my sanity .The only apparent con to N6PR3 is that it seems a bit large on the memory .. but I still think that it is because the amt takes the memory cache allocated too. [IE will show up as lighter but you can be sure that it has a run of the entire virtual memory]. Besides once the final version comes out, it should typically reduce the size of code to abt a fourth or so. If you havent used it, check it out... |
|
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Member (13 bit)
|
Same here Ex, I like it. Glc and fredwest said they had trouble with it on NT machines, but I've got it on 95B on my work machine and 98FE on my Windoze partition at home, and it rocks.
BTW, somehow (I don't know how really) I managed to COMPLETELY corrupt IE 4 at home, and since then everything has been much faster. I tried to open it the other day to double check some HTML, and blah, crashes with kernel32 error every time. Anyone wanna ghost of this? Speeds up explorer and the desktop environment in general quite a bit .Xayd |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Premium Member
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 9,231
|
Works fine on the following machines .. Win 98SE, Win2K, NT4 .. as i said NOT A SINGLE CRASH which amazes me... nothing AOhelL has touched has survived.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
The Preacher Man
Premium Member
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Dallas
Posts: 4,828
|
Mama prefers NS over IE. However, I have to give her 4.05 as the newer versions had problems. If I download this "latest" from NS tonight, I better not get yelled at tomorrow about "what did you do to the computer?".
__________________
"Don't be so open-minded that your brains fall out." |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Member (13 bit)
|
Download from the FTP, custom install without the feedback agent and what not, and change the skin to the classic Netscape under preferences, you'll be off scot free Sarge.
Xayd |
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Forum Administrator
Staff
Premium Member
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Joplin MO
Posts: 37,771
|
I honestly don't think my NS 6 problems are NT related - I'm pretty sure they are strictly related to my slow old machine. A 200 MMX with 96 megs ram is a dog by today's standards. Heck - IE 5.5 runs like crap here too in comparison to NS 4.75.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Member (13 bit)
|
Christ man, I didn't know you had it that bad
.Yeah, I guess it would be slow on an older machine. But trust me, at a gigahertz with CAS2 PC133 RAM, this browser screams. Xayd |
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Forum Administrator
Staff
Premium Member
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Joplin MO
Posts: 37,771
|
Hey! It *works* and it's paid for!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
The Preacher Man
Premium Member
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Dallas
Posts: 4,828
|
Xayd, what makes it a "screamer" vs. IE? And, speaking of custom install, which items should I forbid, and why?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Member (13 bit)
|
Well, for one avoid the extra AOL crap like Net2Phone and Instant messanger. You want to avoid the feedback agent like the plague. The damn bug reporting function is the buggiest part of the browser, it caused more crashes for me than anything else.
It also tries to sign you up for netscape.net webmail when it first launches, so cancel through that. And yes, the browser itself on a machine with a 500mhz plus processor and 128 megs of RAM is faster or as fast as IE 5, and still has all the configurability of older Netscapes. Check out the advanced preferences when you get it installed, you'll probably like what you see .Xayd |
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
The Preacher Man
Premium Member
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Dallas
Posts: 4,828
|
Muchas gracias.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Eggs anyone?
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 1,560
|
Have to admit NS 6 is very speedy and stable. I've started using PR2 when it came out. Upgrade to PR3 now. It's nice to see them back on track. My main browser is still IE 5.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Member (10 bit)
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 775
|
I've had it on my Red Hat box for a few weeks, and it's been OK. At least they got the font rendering working better. I also like the fact that you can create multiple identities with mail. There's still a few broken things, but that's to be expected on a beta release. (ie: default plugin not there... can't find it on Netscape's site!)
My only true beef is that it is slightly slower than 4.75, but maybe that'll be straightened out in the final release. I think I'll go back and kill the Feedback Agent. That may be the cause of some of the weird stuff happening with it. Overall, it's pretty slick. |
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Member (13 bit)
|
I haven't tried it under Linux yet, still gotta get around to reinstalling Red Hat and patching my kernel for the Duron CPUID thing. I never had any trouble with Netscape browsers under Linux, so I guess 6 would just hog more memory under an OS un-polluted by IE.
But yes, definitely ditch the feedback agent, it never worked that well to my knowledge. Xayd |
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Member (10 bit)
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 775
|
Reinstalled without IM and Feedback agent - we'll see how it goes. Unfortunately, it seems that Java isn't working at all.
Looks like I'll have to play more. |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|