Re: Re: Russia's Endgame
By: Moondog to MRO on Wed Oct 12 2022 05:57 pm

My understanding is the earliest version of Win95 shipped without any form of browser, and Netscape's browser was the clear successor. By shipping IE with the OS, it gave IE a clear advanrage because most basic users would use what the OS shipped with. Same applied with taking business away from the media player software manufacturers. The most software publishers, it

Not only did later versions of Windows include Internet Explorer, Microsoft claimed it was integrated into Windows in such a way that it would be difficult to remove it. That was back when (I think) Microsoft was using sneaky tactics to try to corner the market. Microsoft also made IE behave a bit differently (in a non-standard way) than other web browsers, so by the time IE gained a lot of marketshare, some web sites pretty much worked only with IE.

Nightfox

---
þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com

On 10/12/22 21:56, Nightfox wrote:

Not only did later versions of Windows include Internet Explorer,
Microsoft claimed it was integrated into Windows in such a way that
it would be difficult to remove it. That was back when (I think)
Microsoft was using sneaky tactics to try to corner the market.
Microsoft also made IE behave a bit differently (in a non-standard
way) than other web browsers, so by the time IE gained a lot of
marketshare, some web sites pretty much worked only with IE.

To be fair, the "browser standards" were pretty much crap at the time,
IE and NN were both pushing their own solutions. Netscape's ILayers
models sucked hardcore, IE's api was better, then the W3C came up with
yet another standard that was different than both, but closer to IE's implementation. IE5 had theirs mostly implemented at launch and NN took
the better part of a year to catch up, and broke in a lot of ways... IE
broke the older API for manipulating select lists in 5.0.0 (burned on
Windows 2000, Office 2000 and Windows ME discs), man was that a
clusterf*ck to deal with.

When IE6 came out, it was just that far ahead in terms of standards and advanced features... was a couple years before Firefox/NN had
XmlHttpRequest to catch up. IIRC it was close to 2006 before it was in significant use... It was around IE8 (2010?) that IE became much more of
a joke, and not long after Chrome passed them both.

I was working with a company at the time (1999-2001), where I had to
support back to NN 4.04 for one of our biggest clients/users as well as
new browsers (IE5/6)... that was a total mess... Creating in-browser
charts and stack diagrams that worked across 3 different browser implementations. I'm more than happy to deal with the handful of quirks
these days. NN 4.x was such hot garbage to work with.
--
Michael J. Ryan - tracker1@roughneckbbs.com
---
þ Synchronet þ Roughneck BBS - roughneckbbs.com

Tracker1 wrote to Nightfox <=-

quirks these days. NN 4.x was such hot garbage to work with.

I'm running SeaMonkey on the BBS now, feels akin to Netscape Communicator
4.x bit with a modern rendering engine.


... Have you ever seen anything like this place?
--- MultiMail/DOS v0.52
þ Synchronet þ .: realitycheckbbs.org :: scientia potentia est :.

Re: Re: Microsoft
By: poindexter FORTRAN to Tracker1 on Sat Oct 22 2022 08:57:00

Tracker1 wrote to Nightfox <=-

quirks these days. NN 4.x was such hot garbage to work with.

I'm running SeaMonkey on the BBS now, feels akin to Netscape Communicator 4.x bit with a modern rendering engine.

Yeah, it was the rendering that was the biggest issue... was writing web-ui charting and literally had to cover the entire screen when doing so, or it would send someone into a seizure with the flickering. IIRC NN4.07 was required support for the company I was at around 1999 or so, as Novel was a major client and it was their "standard" browser internally.


--
Michael J. Ryan
+o roughneckbbs.com
tracker1@roughneckbbs.com

---
þ Synchronet þ Roughneck BBS - roughneckbbs.com

quirks these days. NN 4.x was such hot garbage to work with.

I'm running SeaMonkey on the BBS now, feels akin to Netscape Communic 4.x bit with a modern rendering engine.

Yeah, it was the rendering that was the biggest issue... was writing web-ui charting and literally had to cover the entire screen when doing so, or it would send someone into a seizure with the flickering. IIRC NN4.07 was required support for the company I was at around 1999 or so,
as Novel was a major client and it was their "standard" browser internally.

I think the moment when Netscape was rewritten into Java killed the adoption completely. It was NN6 if I recall. Looked fancy from UI/UX perspective as we call it today, but slow as hell and unbearable for daily use comparing to sleek IE integrated with the OS.

That was also one of the reasons for fanboyism and complaints against MSFT that there is no way browser can be so fast unless put into lower levels of the OS, which was unfair. But I believe NN fucked up implementation and choosing Java as front-end was way premature by the end of 90s.

-h1

... Xerox Alto was the thing. Anything after we use is just a copy.

Re: Re: Microsoft
By: hollowone to MRO on Thu Mar 23 2023 12:53 pm

i used netscape and i don't even remember that happening. i looked
it up and it said it was using the gecko engine.

THen perhaps memory plays tricks with me. it somehow resonates with me that six (that with aqua blue ui and big six in the background layer of the welcome web page it was starting with, I think animated as well) was implemented in java or strongly integrated with java.

I used Netscape for a long time as well, and I don't remember hearing about it being ported to Java. And with that version of Netscape, I don't recall needing to install the Java runtime to use it.

Nightfox

---
þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com

I used Netscape for a long time as well, and I don't remember hearing about it being ported to Java. And with that version of Netscape, I
don't recall needing to install the Java runtime to use it.

Yeah.. I keep searching for some reference, but it seems that my mind's boggled. Apologies for confusion. But still I remember it was slow like hell, that sticks.

-h1

... Xerox Alto was the thing. Anything after we use is just a copy.

hollowone wrote to Nightfox <=-

I used Netscape for a long time as well, and I don't remember hearing about it being ported to Java. And with that version of Netscape, I
don't recall needing to install the Java runtime to use it.

Yeah.. I keep searching for some reference, but it seems that my mind's boggled. Apologies for confusion. But still I remember it was slow like hell, that sticks.

I don't think it was ported to Java, but Netscape devceloped Javascript
(no relation) to extend what was mostly static web sites way back when.



... IN CASE OF EMERGENCY DIAL 0118 999 881 999 119 725 3
--- MultiMail/Win v0.52
þ Synchronet þ .: realitycheckbbs.org :: scientia potentia est :.

Re: Re: Microsoft
By: hollowone to Tracker1 on Tue Mar 21 2023 03:52:00

But I believe NN fucked up implementation and choosing Java as
front-end was way premature by the end of 90s.

To be clear, Java isn't JavaScript. The JS UI was started with NN6 using an XML UI templating language called XUL. Riff on Ghostbusters, "There is no data. There is only XUL!"

XUL itself had a lot of really cool features, and by 2002 most PCs were more than fast enough. There was a standalone Application toolkit called XULRunner and quite few third party apps used it... Mozilla kind of left it to die though, and eventually nuked XUL support and left it to die. It was pretty much Electron a decade and a half before Electron existed.

They also added JS support for E4X (ecmascript for xml), the only other implementation was in ActionScript 3 for Flash/Flex.


--
Michael J. Ryan
+o roughneckbbs.com
tracker1@roughneckbbs.com

---
þ Synchronet þ Roughneck BBS - roughneckbbs.com

Tracker1 wrote to hollowone <=-

To be clear, Java isn't JavaScript. The JS UI was started with NN6
using an XML UI templating language called XUL. Riff on Ghostbusters, "There is no data. There is only XUL!"

XUL itself had a lot of really cool features, and by 2002 most PCs were more than fast enough. There was a standalone Application toolkit
called XULRunner and quite few third party apps used it... Mozilla kind
of left it to die though, and eventually nuked XUL support and left it
to die. It was pretty much Electron a decade and a half before
Electron existed.

They also added JS support for E4X (ecmascript for xml), the only other implementation was in ActionScript 3 for Flash/Flex.

This is bringing up bad memories of HotJava, the java browser for
Solaris.




... What does this mean?
--- MultiMail/Win v0.52
þ Synchronet þ .: realitycheckbbs.org :: scientia potentia est :.

But I believe NN fucked up implementation and choosing Java as front-end was way premature by the end of 90s.

To be clear, Java isn't JavaScript. The JS UI was started with NN6
using an XML UI templating language called XUL. Riff on Ghostbusters, "There is no data. There is only XUL!"

I knew the bell wasn't ringing far from truth. Thanks for pointing me to the right waters. I'd not mistake java with javascript, perhaps my memory resonated with the wrong echo from the beginning.

I know XUL, it was pitched by Mozilla years after NN collapsed as something that may help Javascript conquer desktop app development. It never resonated though.

But that makes sense to me, if XUL predecessor as Wikipedia claims developed initially by Netscape Communications in around 1997 was responsible for NN6 rendering and I experienced it around 1999/2000 with my Celeron 300Mhz, no brainer it was slow as hell.

Now I even found right reference regarding this XUL thing to impact performance on slower machine at the time of NN6 release.

Mystery solved.

-h1

... Xerox Alto was the thing. Anything after we use is just a copy.

Re: Re: Microsoft
By: hollowone to Tracker1 on Sun Apr 02 2023 01:11 pm

I know XUL, it was pitched by Mozilla years after NN collapsed as something that may help Javascript conquer desktop app development. It never resonated though.

But that makes sense to me, if XUL predecessor as Wikipedia claims developed initially by Netscape Communications in around 1997 was responsible for NN6 rendering and I experienced it around 1999/2000 with my Celeron 300Mhz, no brainer it was slow as hell.

Turns out, XUL was kind of just ahead of its time. Nowadays, there's a booming business in desktop apps based on Electron, which is essentially just HTML/JS/CSS web apps with some enhanced APIs and backend resources.

It's also kind of why Apple's Webkit took off rather than Mozilla's Gecko: Where Webkit was made to be easily embeddable into other apps, Gecko & XUL kind of assumed you'd build your apps *inside* it as a framework.

So, when it turned out that the world really wanted an embedded web view component rather than to buy into a whole app framework, Mozilla kind of lost the contest there.

---
þ Synchronet þ 0xDECAFBAD - bbs.decafbad.com

Re: Re: Microsoft
By: hollowone to Tracker1 on Sun Apr 02 2023 13:11:00

To be clear, Java isn't JavaScript. The JS UI was started with NN6
using an XML UI templating language called XUL. Riff on
Ghostbusters, "There is no data. There is only XUL!"

I knew the bell wasn't ringing far from truth. Thanks for pointing me to the right waters. I'd not mistake java with javascript, perhaps my memory resonated with the wrong echo from the beginning.

Yeah... I worked with it a bit, and enjoyed it for what it offered at the time.

Timely blog post..
https:/crisal.io/words/2023/03/30/xul-layout-is-gone.html

I know XUL, it was pitched by Mozilla years after NN collapsed as something that may help Javascript conquer desktop app development. It never resonated though.

Yeah, it was ahead of its' time, considering how popular electron is today.

But that makes sense to me, if XUL predecessor as Wikipedia claims developed initially by Netscape Communications in around 1997 was responsible for NN6 rendering and I experienced it around 1999/2000 with my Celeron 300Mhz, no brainer it was slow as hell.

Now I even found right reference regarding this XUL thing to impact performance on slower machine at the time of NN6 release

Yeah, it was very bad before 2000 or so, but on anything over 1ghz was pretty decent. On today's hardware you wouldn't even notice.


--
Michael J. Ryan
+o roughneckbbs.com
tracker1@roughneckbbs.com

---
þ Synchronet þ Roughneck BBS - roughneckbbs.com