Netscape 4.77 *after* Netscape 6.01 ?!

Netscape 4.77 *after* Netscape 6.01 ?!

Post by Arctic Stor » Fri, 20 Apr 2001 02:52:38



Netscape 6.01 has been out for quite some time now, but Netscape 4.77 was
just released.  Netscape 4.77 following 6.01?!  What?!
Is 6.0x a descendant of 4.7x, or is 6.0x a divergent of 4.7x line?
 
 
 

Netscape 4.77 *after* Netscape 6.01 ?!

Post by Bob Hau » Fri, 20 Apr 2001 03:46:02


On Wed, 18 Apr 2001 17:52:38 GMT, Arctic Storm


> Is 6.0x a descendant of 4.7x, or is 6.0x a divergent of 4.7x line?

6.x is based on Mozilla <http://www.mozilla.org/>, and is an entirely
different codebase from the 4.7x series.

--
 -| Bob Hauck
 -| Codem Systems, Inc.
 -| http://www.codem.com/

 
 
 

Netscape 4.77 *after* Netscape 6.01 ?!

Post by Wayne Polloc » Fri, 20 Apr 2001 12:16:57


This is a security upgrade to the 4.x series.  Netscape 6
source code is not relatedin any way to the code for Netscape 4.
I imagine you will see other security updates for 4.x if needed,
for a year or so before the product is completely unsupported.

Note too that a upgrade to 4.x does not imply you will see a
corresponding upgrade to 6.x. The two are just not related.

-Wayne Pollock


> Netscape 6.01 has been out for quite some time now, but Netscape 4.77 was
> just released.  Netscape 4.77 following 6.01?!  What?!
> Is 6.0x a descendant of 4.7x, or is 6.0x a divergent of 4.7x line?

 
 
 

Netscape 4.77 *after* Netscape 6.01 ?!

Post by paranormalize » Fri, 20 Apr 2001 16:15:39



>On Wed, 18 Apr 2001 17:52:38 GMT, Arctic Storm

>> Is 6.0x a descendant of 4.7x, or is 6.0x a divergent of 4.7x line?

>6.x is based on Mozilla <http://www.mozilla.org/>, and is an entirely
>different codebase from the 4.7x series.

So... why does the rendering still suck on large .jpg's?  I mean, 4.x
had that problem, whereas IE didn't, and lo and behold, we get a
totally new codebase and.... it still sucks?  Huh?  Are they just
repeating mistakes in totally new code or what here?

Or is the Mozilla codebase not used for the Windows version of 6.x?
Yeah, I know, I shouldn't be using windows, but I need some way of
keeping a net connection, and I don't want to get a new modem until I
can afford a Lucent chipset PCI modem... the advantages of PCI, keeps
a serial port free, and it's usable under Linux.

Jonathan Fisher
who uses windows because of his *^%$%y winmodem, but has a linux
partition...
------
Paranormalized man, Supernaturalized citizen, and Sub-normalized otaku....

To email, change proprietary to free, org to com.

 
 
 

Netscape 4.77 *after* Netscape 6.01 ?!

Post by Bob Hau » Sat, 21 Apr 2001 01:17:56


On Thu, 19 Apr 2001 07:15:39 GMT, paranormalized



> >6.x is based on Mozilla <http://www.mozilla.org/>, and is an entirely
> >different codebase from the 4.7x series.

> So... why does the rendering still suck on large .jpg's?  

I don't notice that it does.  What "sucks" about it?   I use Opera and
Konqueror a lot more though, because they don't take all day to start
up.  So maybe I just haven't noticed.

Anyway, I suppose they could have used some of the old code for things
like that.

Quote:> Or is the Mozilla codebase not used for the Windows version of 6.x?

I'm using it on Linux, but it is the same codebase.  Of course, there
is lots of it that is only used on one platform.

Quote:> Yeah, I know, I shouldn't be using windows, but I need some way of

Doesn't bother me.  Just don't ask me for help with it <g>.

Quote:> keeping a net connection, and I don't want to get a new modem until I
> can afford a Lucent chipset PCI modem... the advantages of PCI, keeps
> a serial port free, and it's usable under Linux.

They're pretty cheap, which is the whole point.  But the "advantages of
PCI" as applied to a modem really only boil down to two things...it is
easier to manage interrupts, and the buss is fast enough to allow the
CPU to do some or all of the signal processing and thereby allow the
vendor to eliminate parts on the board.  Which is a bad idea, even if
you have lots of CPU power to spare, because you quickly run into
problems with drivers whenever you upgrade your OS.

I strongly disrecommend Winmodems, even ones that do work under Linux.

--
 -| Bob Hauck
 -| Codem Systems, Inc.
 -| http://www.codem.com/

 
 
 

Netscape 4.77 *after* Netscape 6.01 ?!

Post by John Thompso » Fri, 20 Apr 2001 20:51:37



> Netscape 6.01 has been out for quite some time now, but Netscape 4.77 was
> just released.  Netscape 4.77 following 6.01?!  What?!
> Is 6.0x a descendant of 4.7x, or is 6.0x a divergent of 4.7x line?

Netscape 4.77 addresses a JavaScript security issue in the v4.x
series.  Netscape 6.01 is a dramatic rewrite of the whole browser
based on the Mozilla project.

--


 
 
 

Netscape 4.77 *after* Netscape 6.01 ?!

Post by paranormalize » Sat, 21 Apr 2001 08:53:35



>On Thu, 19 Apr 2001 07:15:39 GMT, paranormalized


>> >6.x is based on Mozilla <http://www.mozilla.org/>, and is an entirely
>> >different codebase from the 4.7x series.

>> So... why does the rendering still suck on large .jpg's?  

>I don't notice that it does.  What "sucks" about it?   I use Opera and
>Konqueror a lot more though, because they don't take all day to start
>up.  So maybe I just haven't noticed.

>Anyway, I suppose they could have used some of the old code for things
>like that.

On really large .jpgs, if you scroll up and down sometimes it'll make
the parts that you scrolled off-screen turn into this mess of black
and white static.  It needs to be  a Large .jpg to do this though...
large enough that it can't fit into a maximized window.  And as I
said, it happens on my windows version.  I'm willing to accept the
idea that it doesn't happen on Unix versions though... yet another
reason to switch to Linux, I guess.

*snip snip

Quote:>> keeping a net connection, and I don't want to get a new modem until I
>> can afford a Lucent chipset PCI modem... the advantages of PCI, keeps
>> a serial port free, and it's usable under Linux.

>They're pretty cheap, which is the whole point.  But the "advantages of
>PCI" as applied to a modem really only boil down to two things...it is
>easier to manage interrupts, and the buss is fast enough to allow the
>CPU to do some or all of the signal processing and thereby allow the
>vendor to eliminate parts on the board.  Which is a bad idea, even if
>you have lots of CPU power to spare, because you quickly run into
>problems with drivers whenever you upgrade your OS.

Well, I was under the impression that the *expensive* Lucent PCI
modems cost more was 'cause they did it right, and put the processing
circuitry on the modem itself.  And that that was the reason it was
among the first Linmodems... thus, the Lucent chipset has all the
advantages of a PCI modem (theoretically better ping times on
latency-dependent games possible) and none of the disadvantages...

Well, if I'm really lucky I'll go Broadband in the next couple months,
and skip the whole need for a modem of any kind... that'd be really
nifty, but I don't know if the place I'm moving to has Broadband
available yet...

Quote:>I strongly disrecommend Winmodems, even ones that do work under Linux.

Well, I'll probably switch to Linux when I buy the Loki version of
SMAC/SMAX- I can figure out how to schedule a hardware shutdown on
Linux, preventing me from spending "one more turn" until it's three in
the morning... doh! ~_~

If and when that happens, I'll have to get a Linux modem of some type.
But if I have to keep my connection at only modem speeds, I want to Do
It Right (tm) and get the best modem I can... even if it makes SMAC
for linux effectively cost upwards of 100$- 50 bucks for the game, 60
to change my net connection to a *good* PCI modem on Linux.  But I
plan on switching back to Linux sometime in the next year, so it's not
really that much of an extra cost anyways... And a new modem is
cheaper than buying a copy of MS Visual Studio to test code for class
assignments.

And if I'm not spending money on maintaining a broadband connection
(and having to buy CD-R's to store all the stuff I get off of Usenet)
then it won't be as cost-prohibitive to buy said modem.  OTOH, if I
find hard figures on modem costs that show that I *can* get a non-PCI
modem for only 20 bucks, and that ping times aren't lowered with a
good PCI modem w/ on-board processing significantly, I may go the
cheap route.. we'll see!

Jonathan Fisher
who writes massively big usenet posts because he's housesiitting now
w/ not much else to do..
------
Paranormalized man, Supernaturalized citizen, and Sub-normalized otaku....

To email, change proprietary to free, org to com.

 
 
 

Netscape 4.77 *after* Netscape 6.01 ?!

Post by Bob Hau » Sat, 21 Apr 2001 10:43:40


On Thu, 19 Apr 2001 23:53:35 GMT, paranormalized



> On really large .jpgs, if you scroll up and down sometimes it'll make
> the parts that you scrolled off-screen turn into this mess of black
> and white static.

I'll have to try that.  Got an example URL?  You might want to enter a
bug report in any case.

Quote:> Well, I was under the impression that the *expensive* Lucent PCI
> modems cost more was 'cause they did it right, and put the processing
> circuitry on the modem itself.

Some PCI modems are "real" modems, yes.  That's what you want.  If you
are into *, you want the modem to do the modem work, not your CPU.

Quote:> And that that was the reason it was among the first Linmodems...

Those modems have a DSP, but still use the host to do the compression
and other functions.  They are better than some, performance is less
dependent on cpu load than with modems that make the host do all the
DSP functions, but they still have the driver issues with upgrades and
still take some CPU power.

Quote:> thus, the Lucent chipset has all the advantages of a PCI modem
> (theoretically better ping times on latency-dependent games possible)
> and none of the disadvantages...

PCI doesn't necessarily help ping times.  The modem is so much slower
than the computer bus, even an IDE one, that making the bus faster does
not have a significant impact.  Of course, lots of newer computers
don't have ISA slots any more.

What does make a difference is moving processing into the modem so that
the host can devote more time to processing IP packets and running your
game and less to modem housekeeping.  Basically, a properly set up
external modem connected to a buffered serial port is going to give you
the best performance you can get.  A real full-function internal modem
will be equivalent, of course.

In fact, the so-called "* modems" are often a real modem, just
like we had in the days before Winmodems.  They'll generally work fine
under Linux without a special driver.  Funny how what used to be
standard has become the special high-performance version.

There are also some things you can do to any modem to reduce latency at
the expense of throughput.  For instance, you can turn off compression
and use a smaller block size for error correction.

Quote:> Well, if I'm really lucky I'll go Broadband in the next couple months,
> and skip the whole need for a modem of any kind...

That'd be cool.  One of these days they might get to me...

--
 -| Bob Hauck
 -| To Whom You Are Speaking
 -| http://www.veryComputer.com/

 
 
 

Netscape 4.77 *after* Netscape 6.01 ?!

Post by paranormalize » Sat, 21 Apr 2001 15:36:07




>On Thu, 19 Apr 2001 23:53:35 GMT, paranormalized


>> On really large .jpgs, if you scroll up and down sometimes it'll make
>> the parts that you scrolled off-screen turn into this mess of black
>> and white static.

>I'll have to try that.  Got an example URL?  You might want to enter a
>bug report in any case.

Umm, for which version?  6.0, I assume, since we're talking Mozilla
codebase, right?  And windows is the platform in question, no?  I have
a few images onhand that cause the problem, but don't websurf enough
to have a URL... wait, lemme check a place...

Well, I don't know of anyplace that carries big enough .jpg files
right offhand, as Mark Neidengard's image archives (anime stuff) are
currently down, and that's the only site I have bookmarked that has
large .jpg's.  Yeah, yeah, I know.  I oughta look at more *, I
know... but I just don't have the time!  ;)

OTOH, it has a similar problem when loading backgrounds for *some*
sites.  As in, the background gets these weird black stripes on it,
then it goes away once enough of the site has loaded or something.  I
just experienced that problem now when trying to look at the list of
series image galleries at www.anipike.com  

*snip more modem info*

Quote:>In fact, the so-called "* modems" are often a real modem, just
>like we had in the days before Winmodems.  They'll generally work fine
>under Linux without a special driver.  Funny how what used to be
>standard has become the special high-performance version.

>There are also some things you can do to any modem to reduce latency at
>the expense of throughput.  For instance, you can turn off compression
>and use a smaller block size for error correction.

Thanks for the info!  I'll keep those points in mind if I have to get
a modem, as I said below, and get a regular external modem now,
probably.

Quote:

>> Well, if I'm really lucky I'll go Broadband in the next couple months,
>> and skip the whole need for a modem of any kind...

>That'd be cool.  One of these days they might get to me...

And broadband the only way that you can keep up w/ some of the
binaries groups, like alt.binaries.anime and such...  I'm hoping to
become the Usenet anime aquisitioner for an anime club in the area I'm
moving too, but as I said, you *need* broadband to keep up with those
sites...

Jonathan Fisher
------
Paranormalized man, Supernaturalized citizen, and Sub-normalized otaku....

To email, change proprietary to free, org to com.

 
 
 

Netscape 4.77 *after* Netscape 6.01 ?!

Post by yt.. » Tue, 24 Apr 2001 04:24:27




>> Netscape 6.01 has been out for quite some time now, but Netscape 4.77 was
>> just released.  Netscape 4.77 following 6.01?!  What?!
>> Is 6.0x a descendant of 4.7x, or is 6.0x a divergent of 4.7x line?
> Netscape 4.77 addresses a JavaScript security issue in the v4.x
> series.  Netscape 6.01 is a dramatic rewrite of the whole browser
> based on the Mozilla project.

"based"?

It IS the mozilla project, entirely unchanged.

It even leaves *ing on by default; and they didnt even have the decency
to change debug messages by ONE character.

-----.

--
"Great babylon has fallen, fallen, fallen;
Jerusalem has fallen, fallen, fallen!
The great, Great Beast is DEAD! DEAD! DEAD! DEAD!"

 
 
 

Netscape 4.77 *after* Netscape 6.01 ?!

Post by John Thompso » Tue, 24 Apr 2001 10:29:19





> >> Netscape 6.01 has been out for quite some time now, but Netscape 4.77 was
> >> just released.  Netscape 4.77 following 6.01?!  What?!
> >> Is 6.0x a descendant of 4.7x, or is 6.0x a divergent of 4.7x line?

> > Netscape 4.77 addresses a JavaScript security issue in the v4.x
> > series.  Netscape 6.01 is a dramatic rewrite of the whole browser
> > based on the Mozilla project.
> "based"?

> It IS the mozilla project, entirely unchanged.

No, it's not.  NS v6.x includes AIM, lots of commercial links,
etc.  They started with the Mozilla code base but extended it
somewhat.  I have found it less stable than Mozilla v0.81 but
perhaps NS is based on an earlier version of the Mozilla code.

--


 
 
 

1. mozilla 0.9.5 conflicts with netscape 4.77

Previously when I upgraded Mozilla 0.9.5 I could not use Netscape 4 any
more.

Did anybody else expierence that problem? I would prefer to do the
upgrade to mozilla 0.9.5 as I have really enjoyed the new features in
galeon. Still, Netscape 4 would be required in order to access some sites
(with buggy html + javascript code).

Christian

2. SCO JDK?

3. redhat linux 7.1 Netscape 4.77 error - hosts are unknown

4. 1gig file limit with slakware 3.6

5. Does FreeBSD support copy-on-write pages?

6. Netscape 4.77

7. Semaphores

8. Netscape 4.77 sub folders- can't use File

9. Use wheel with Netscape 4.77.

10. Netscape Communicator 4.77 disappeared on install

11. netscape 6.01 fails after installing the port

12. Install Netscape 6.01 A on Solaris (Sun OS 5.6)