What Ever Happened to Netscape Navigator?

STbob

Posts: 44   +16
I was there live during those days. I lived it. IE was never really superior, I hated it in its early forms. Always used netscape. Back then US Robtics Modems were king and cable was just a pipe dream. Also Hard Drive space was gold same with RAM (megabytes then not Gigs)

Microsoft did a hostile takeover by pre-installing IE on windows, back then they took up expensive hard drive space and you could not UNINSTALL IE.

They went to court over it. They said it was part of the OS and had to be included . This forced everyone (With limited hard drive space) to have TWO large apps on their systems. It seems funny now but back then I picked and choose what bloatware was on my system. New users or computer owners would get IE built in so many never bothered to look for netscape or even know it even existed. MS left not easy way to remove IE (to free up HD space) for Netscape in court they claimed you could not do it (They were proven wrong but it was too late by then)


This tactic is one of the big factors that broke Netscape. I really did not care for Gates tactics back then or now.
 

lazer

Posts: 430   +128
Yep, I remember using Netscape, it was a good browser in its time. I never liked IE although I did use it. But once FF came on the market, it was too good to use any other browser.

Now I am starting to use an interesting browser, UR. Has anyone any experience with it?
 

m3tavision

Posts: 731   +526
I was there live during those days. I lived it. IE was never really superior, I hated it in its early forms. Always used netscape. Back then US Robtics Modems were king and cable was just a pipe dream. Also Hard Drive space was gold same with RAM (megabytes then not Gigs)

Microsoft did a hostile takeover by pre-installing IE on windows, back then they took up expensive hard drive space and you could not UNINSTALL IE.

They went to court over it. They said it was part of the OS and had to be included . This forced everyone (With limited hard drive space) to have TWO large apps on their systems. It seems funny now but back then I picked and choose what bloatware was on my system. New users or computer owners would get IE built in so many never bothered to look for netscape or even know it even existed. MS left not easy way to remove IE (to free up HD space) for Netscape in court they claimed you could not do it (They were proven wrong but it was too late by then)


This tactic is one of the big factors that broke Netscape. I really did not care for Gates tactics back then or now.

You lived in hard times, if you were worried about Hard drive space for IE/netscape..!

Dont think I was ever limited by HD space.. except during the napster era... when I needed space for 1k albums.
 

Tom Sunday

Posts: 74   +10
Andressen per Forbes has a real time networth of $1.5B as of 8/28/20. It was Netscape that greased the tracks for him and giving him access to playing with the big boys. Yes Microsoft screwed him in the end with all of their $$$ resources, but I would have loved to be screwed like this!
 

Avro Arrow

Posts: 2,352   +2,869
TechSpot Elite
It's called survival of the fittest. I know it's almost universally accepted to hate Microsoft but, thank god for MS, without whom browsers wouldn't have been free or progressively and exponentially improving the way they are today. (This was written in a Firefox browser).
Huh??? Maybe you didn't actually read the article because it SPECIFICALLY STATED the following:
"As true visionaries, Netscape founders understood that the web browser would become a revolutionary tool and set a crucial precedent. Navigator was made available for free to individual, academic and research users."

How about THANK GOD for the Mosaic Project and Netscape? All Microsoft did was hamstring us with those stupid ActiveX Controls (and let's not forget frames) that it wouldn't stop using even years after it was obvious that the Plugin-type browser was far better.

The Mosaic Project set that precedent, not Microsoft so why are you trying to credit Microsoft in direct contradiction of what actually happened?
 
I think I misunderstood some context in this article.

"As true visionaries, Netscape founders understood that the web browser would become a revolutionary tool and set a crucial precedent. Navigator was made available for free to individual, academic and research users."

Is netscape free?

then in this paragraph "Commercial users were supposed to purchase licenses of the browser at $99 per user, which included warranty and customer support, but that didn't last long. Likewise, you could find boxed versions of Netscape in retail stores at some point selling for $40 per copy."

Can someone explain is netscape free or not?
 

m3tavision

Posts: 731   +526
I think I misunderstood some context in this article.

"As true visionaries, Netscape founders understood that the web browser would become a revolutionary tool and set a crucial precedent. Navigator was made available for free to individual, academic and research users."

Is netscape free?

then in this paragraph "Commercial users were supposed to purchase licenses of the browser at $99 per user, which included warranty and customer support, but that didn't last long. Likewise, you could find boxed versions of Netscape in retail stores at some point selling for $40 per copy."

Can someone explain is netscape free or not?

When it came out of beta stage it was a stand alone Program that you could buy at the store, just like Microsoft Word, or CD recording software, all games, everything was sold in person.

Understand, early on... the internet use to be PER minute charge... ie: $0.50/per minute... kinda like the early Cell Phones were. That is how old Netscape is...


So, early on Netscape Navigator had a cost.

But when the Internet became faster and you could download Netscape instead of install of floppy/disc, it became free. Coincidentally, back then without buying NN, how would you get on the internet..? Use a terminal within a shell..?

Netscape also came bundled with many upstart ISPs service for free. Or pre-built systems like DELL, Gateway, HP, etc..
 
Last edited:

hk2000

Posts: 176   +101
Huh??? Maybe you didn't actually read the article because it SPECIFICALLY STATED the following:
"As true visionaries, Netscape founders understood that the web browser would become a revolutionary tool and set a crucial precedent. Navigator was made available for free to individual, academic and research users."

How about THANK GOD for the Mosaic Project and Netscape? All Microsoft did was hamstring us with those stupid ActiveX Controls (and let's not forget frames) that it wouldn't stop using even years after it was obvious that the Plugin-type browser was far better.

The Mosaic Project set that precedent, not Microsoft so why are you trying to credit Microsoft in direct contradiction of what actually happened?
Really? I read the article, it also said: "Commercial users were supposed to purchase licenses of the browser at $99 per user, which included warranty and customer support, but that didn't last long. Likewise, you could find boxed versions of Netscape in retail stores at some point selling for $40 per copy." had MS never developed IE and bundled it for free, who knows how things would've turned out.
 

Endymio

Posts: 1,504   +1,445
had MS never developed IE and bundled it for free, who knows how things would've turned out.
Exactly. There was a time when you had to separately purchase and install an IP stack for your computer -- this was in addition to the network card & driver you also had to purchase and install. If you wanted a graphical shell for your command line interface-- purchase and install that, too. Utilities to backup data, view system usage, repair/defrag a drive? Purchase and install. Ability to print files? Purchase and install.

Thank god Microsoft decided to bundle all that together. Certainly it changed the definition of what we call an "OS" today. It forced many firms to adapt or die (and many did indeed die), but then the light bulb put a lot of whale-oil distributors out of business as well.
 

Avro Arrow

Posts: 2,352   +2,869
TechSpot Elite
Really? I read the article, it also said: "Commercial users were supposed to purchase licenses of the browser at $99 per user, which included warranty and customer support, but that didn't last long. Likewise, you could find boxed versions of Netscape in retail stores at some point selling for $40 per copy." had MS never developed IE and bundled it for free, who knows how things would've turned out.
I don't see what giving it to the commercial sector for free did that would make us say "Thank God for Microsoft" because the commercial sector has always paid for programs that individuals use for free. These corporations are richer than Midas and whether they had to pay or got it for free probably had zero impact on anything. Do you think that $99 per user was a lot to corporations at the time? Corporations that had enough users to even incur $20,000 per year routinely squandered more than that on useless pet projects.

When a program is making you money, the cost of it is irrelevant. If you run a corporation and your profitability is so low that $100 per year, per employee isn't feasible, your company is already on it's way to the boneyard. What was important was allowing individuals, schools and scientists free access. If IE was as bad then as it was in its last days, that $99 per-user fee would have been happily paid by corporations. Internet Exploder defeated Netscape because Microsoft had more money to invest in IE than the Mosaic project had to invest in Netscape.

Microsoft has never given a rat's *** about people and has never demonstrated otherwise. The bundling of IE with Windows wasn't altruistic, it was to prevent the rise of another major software company through the use of a popular browser. The EU actually fined MS a pantload of money because they considered the inclusion of IE with Windows to be a monopolistic practice. In Europe, when you got a new Windows suite, it would ask you which browser you wanted to use and would install the browser that you select. This is because the EU is serious about a properly-working market economy while North America isn't.

In 1992, Microsoft used misleading marketing (and paid off a bunch of shills in the tech press) to ensure that Windows v3.1 defeated IBM OS/2 v2.0, something that, to this day, I can't understand. OS/2 was a REAL operating system and the first with seamless multitasking on a single-core CPU. Windows v3.1 was just a mask for DOS and its idea of multitasking was two programs running at less than half the speed that they would run in DOS individually. Yet, just like people choosing the Pentium-4 over the Athlon-64, the BS marketing and paid shills in the tech press won over the vastly superior technology. It wasn't until years later that Windows 95 managed what OS/2 had been doing from the start and it wasn't until Windows XP that Microsoft managed to reach the same level of stability that OS/2 had in 1992. I was quite aware of what was going on because I had built my first PC four years prior. I had tried them both and while Windows v3.1 was good, OS/2 was incredible.

There are many who deserve to be thanked for Microsoft, but "god" has never been one of them. Thank Bill Gates, human stupidity and a tech press that, for the most part, cared more about what MS was paying them than about what the better tech was. Thank "god" indeed!
 

Endymio

Posts: 1,504   +1,445
Microsoft has never given a rat's *** about people and has never demonstrated otherwise. The bundling of IE with Windows wasn't altruistic...
Microsoft cares about its customers to the point that a satisfied customer is good for business. Which is as it should be. If you feel companies should put altruism first and foremost, I suggest you visit the booming economics of Cuba or Venezuela, say, and see how that worked out for them. I would also ask where you place altruism on your own personal scale of importance, but given the tenor of your remarks, I am sure you already give 100% of your salary and possessions to needy children, and are thus posting from a loaner laptop at your local Goodwill center.
 

Endymio

Posts: 1,504   +1,445
In 1992, Microsoft used misleading marketing (and paid off a bunch of shills in the tech press) to ensure that Windows v3.1 defeated IBM OS/2 v2.0, something that, to this day, I can't understand.
Since you don't understand, I'll explain it. It had nothing to do with "misleading marketing", but rather IBM's incredibly money-grasping, short-sighted business practices. I'll explain with a hypothetical, but very accurate description of the difference between the two firms:

(IBM Calling IT Dept. of Corp X): "Hey, I know you just paid us $75,000 for your 10-seat copy of OS/2 Development Tools. But we are releasing a new version, and you have to pony up again. Oh, and if you want our help figuring out how to write software for this beast, that's another $50K.

(Microsoft Calling IT Dept. of Corp X): You need developer tools? Here they are! Free! Need help with source code? We'll write most of it for you! And we'll send a guy over to your site to assist!


And thus, in just a few short years, there were thousands of applications for Windows, and very few for OS/2 -- and those that did exist, were very pricey, as those firms tried to recover their high development costs.

Further undermining your argument is the fact that OS/2 wasn't purely an IBM development, it was a joint venture between IBM and Microsoft. But IBM controlled the sales and marketing-- and that killed the kitten.

OS/2 was a REAL operating system and the first with seamless multitasking on a single-core CPU. Windows v3.1 was just a mask for DOS
All true, and all utterly irrelevant.
 

jelabarre59

Posts: 38   +18
Have been using Seamonkey forever, but usually when I get a new PC I install Firefox and Outlook instead.

If you need a browser and email client it‘s imho pretty nice though.


Why would you use Outlook when Thunderbird would be a good pairing/matchup with Firefox?
 

jelabarre59

Posts: 38   +18
Since you don't understand, I'll explain it. It had nothing to do with "misleading marketing", but rather IBM's incredibly money-grasping, short-sighted business practices. I'll explain with a hypothetical, but very accurate description of the difference between the two firms:

That was less the case with OS/2 as it was with the Microchannel Architecture. Microchannel had addressed a lot of the serious shortcomings with the old ISA bus (understandable, as it was already old before the first IBM-PC was released). IBM tried to use it to regain a stranglehold on the PC industry, with expensive and restrictive licensing.

Now, had IBM been clever, they would have reduced the licensing costs WAY down, or even eliminated them (not likely to have eliminated them in the climate of the time, but reducing might have been). Get other companies interested, and make their money by providing technical resources and expertise, and even by selling the chipsets for OEMs to build Microchannel systems. Rather than chasing the customer base away, they could have been a part of a major chunk of the industry. Their name wouldn't have been on the case, but their components could have been inside.

IBM eventually came around to that concept, but by then OS/2 and Microchannel had been left well behind.
 

Irata

Posts: 2,108   +3,636
Why would you use Outlook when Thunderbird would be a good pairing/matchup with Firefox?
If I install the MS Office Suite anyhow, I might as well use Outlook.
Does TB have a calendar ? It‘s been ages since I used it.
 

hk2000

Posts: 176   +101
I don't see what giving it to the commercial sector for free did that would make us say "Thank God for Microsoft" because the commercial sector has always paid for programs that individuals use for free. These corporations are richer than Midas and whether they had to pay or got it for free probably had zero impact on anything. Do you think that $99 per user was a lot to corporations at the time? Corporations that had enough users to even incur $20,000 per year routinely squandered more than that on useless pet projects.

When a program is making you money, the cost of it is irrelevant. If you run a corporation and your profitability is so low that $100 per year, per employee isn't feasible, your company is already on it's way to the boneyard. What was important was allowing individuals, schools and scientists free access. If IE was as bad then as it was in its last days, that $99 per-user fee would have been happily paid by corporations. Internet Exploder defeated Netscape because Microsoft had more money to invest in IE than the Mosaic project had to invest in Netscape.

Microsoft has never given a rat's *** about people and has never demonstrated otherwise. The bundling of IE with Windows wasn't altruistic, it was to prevent the rise of another major software company through the use of a popular browser. The EU actually fined MS a pantload of money because they considered the inclusion of IE with Windows to be a monopolistic practice. In Europe, when you got a new Windows suite, it would ask you which browser you wanted to use and would install the browser that you select. This is because the EU is serious about a properly-working market economy while North America isn't.

In 1992, Microsoft used misleading marketing (and paid off a bunch of shills in the tech press) to ensure that Windows v3.1 defeated IBM OS/2 v2.0, something that, to this day, I can't understand. OS/2 was a REAL operating system and the first with seamless multitasking on a single-core CPU. Windows v3.1 was just a mask for DOS and its idea of multitasking was two programs running at less than half the speed that they would run in DOS individually. Yet, just like people choosing the Pentium-4 over the Athlon-64, the BS marketing and paid shills in the tech press won over the vastly superior technology. It wasn't until years later that Windows 95 managed what OS/2 had been doing from the start and it wasn't until Windows XP that Microsoft managed to reach the same level of stability that OS/2 had in 1992. I was quite aware of what was going on because I had built my first PC four years prior. I had tried them both and while Windows v3.1 was good, OS/2 was incredible.

There are many who deserve to be thanked for Microsoft, but "god" has never been one of them. Thank Bill Gates, human stupidity and a tech press that, for the most part, cared more about what MS was paying them than about what the better tech was. Thank "god" indeed!
Dude get a life!!
 
Good article, but it overlooks the effect of Microsoft's development tools. Microsoft could, and did invest a lot more in it's web development tools than Netscape did(or could), had a lot more experience in building development tools and it showed. During that time period, Microsoft's development tools were by far the fastest and easiest way to create a polished and professional web site.

The hook was that if you used Microsoft's tools, help files, coding examples and recommended best practices, the result was a web site that MIGHT work--sort of-- on Netscape but only looked right and worked right on Internet Explorer. To get a truly browser agnostic web site using Microsoft's tools, you had to do it twice, once for IE, and then a second pass requiring nearly as much time and effort digging out all the IE specific code.

Many developers came under tremendous pressure from management to get a web site out there ASAP, meaning IE specific, and then slap a "Works best with Internet Explorer" logon on it rather than invest the time to properly handle the "other than IE" scenario. This resulted in an explosion of web sites that might be made to work with Mozilla, Safari or something, but only "just worked" first time, every time, if you used IE.
 

Hotlynx16

Posts: 43   +6
Got my first computer in 1998, learned on Netscape but when it went away I went to Firefox because it was the most similar at the time. My wife went to SeaMonkey because it was more like Netscape and had its own mail program. Still have her mail on the old computer from 2011, still running Gigabyte GA-P43T-ES3G, Core2Quad Q9650 3Ghz,A-Data 960GB SSD,Win10Pro Hyper 212 EVO ,Ballistix Sport 16GB Kit (4 x 4GB) DDR3-1600!
 

pmshah

Posts: 179   +43
It deservedly went down the drain simply because of Andreesen's idiocy.

When it was the king and MS's Internet Explorer was barely on the horizon the ***** expected each and every prospective end user to download the installer over dead slow dialup internet connections. There was not even a possibility of "resumed" broken downloads or saving the file for multiple use on multiple PCs. MS on the other hand freely allowed each and every computer magazine publisher to add its full installer for free on the included CDs and later DVDs which was the trend.

Regardless of one's sense of loyalty there is also something called .....

"last frustrating moment broke the tech's resistance".
 

Fox God Records

Posts: 99   +90
I was there, man. I was there for the whole thing. Internet Explorer was the bane of the world's existence. The pinnacle of early Netscape was Communicator 4. Nothing to come out of Mozilla was that good until Firefox dropped. Those were crazy times, babe. Crazy times.
 

Latest posts