Skip

Mint chip anyone?
December 1, 2004 11:00 AM   Subscribe

Screenshots from the new Netscape release. (via waxy)
posted by bluno (34 comments total)

 
Firefox with the IE engine sounds pretty much ideal to me, actually. Thanks.

And, um, does this mean AOL are actually finally going to package their OWN BROWSER with their ISP client?
posted by Pretty_Generic at 11:04 AM on December 1, 2004


so... ugly...
posted by timb at 11:09 AM on December 1, 2004


Ah, they've finally managed to package some of IE's security holes into an open-source browser.

And Microsoft says that open-source can't compete.
posted by Dipsomaniac at 11:09 AM on December 1, 2004


I don't even have a clever analogy for how ugly that is. Maybe they could animate all the widgets and throw in some blinking lights along the top.

And the menu bar goes at the upper right of the window since... when, exactly?
posted by Wolfdog at 11:12 AM on December 1, 2004


Jesus wept. Is there a single Windows application that's aesthetically pleasing? I mean, wow.
posted by bonaldi at 11:12 AM on December 1, 2004


Too much computer and not enough typewriter.
posted by Faint of Butt at 11:13 AM on December 1, 2004


Bear in mind that those screenshots are using the horrible Fisher-Price XP default look-and-feel, which anyone sensible turns off immediately.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 11:15 AM on December 1, 2004


To paraphrase Bill Macy in State and Main......it looks like Edith Head puked and that puke designed this browser.
posted by LushMojo at 11:16 AM on December 1, 2004


In Wolfdog's shot, I'd say that getting rid of the fucking background dots and the fucking nuclear green colour (which I assume are options) would do wonders for the aesthetics. And having the menu in the title bar is a good idea. More space for the brower window, and you can always grab slightly to the right of the menu if you want.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 11:18 AM on December 1, 2004


Ze googles do nothing!

Looks like it was designed by a depressed toddler.
posted by selfnoise at 11:21 AM on December 1, 2004


"The Netscape prototype is built upon Mozilla Firefox 0.9.3..."

Why not Firefox 1.0? Weren't there some security issues with the pre-1.0 release?

And yes. Those screenshots are ugly as unloved poo.
posted by tpl1212 at 11:26 AM on December 1, 2004


Nasty. So very, very nasty. I've always hated Netscape and it still bugs me that my parents use it religiously.
posted by BradNelson at 11:40 AM on December 1, 2004


It reminds me of the /. interface for some reason. Go figure.
posted by Sparx at 12:12 PM on December 1, 2004


Bear in mind that those screenshots are using the horrible Fisher-Price XP default look-and-feel, which anyone sensible turns off immediately.

I don't have XP available to test this, but from the screenshots this does not look anything like XP's cartoon default theme. It looks much, much worse. It appears they're using their own custom-made ugly skin.
posted by odinsdream at 12:12 PM on December 1, 2004


It reminds me of the kind of images people make when they first discover Photoshop filters. It looks like the developers just threw in everything they could possibly think of, and wrapped each individual item in a black border, shaded it, and added lense flare for good measure.
posted by odinsdream at 12:13 PM on December 1, 2004


Hmm... doesn't have enough options, buttons, or contextual menu selections. I mean, I'm a fan of restrained, utilitarian interface design... but sheesh!

j/k
posted by Phatbank at 12:24 PM on December 1, 2004


I agree horrid horrid design though I do like the menu in the title bar as well but will I switch? nope :)
posted by squeak at 12:30 PM on December 1, 2004


Wait, wait .... "based on Firefox, but with a twist - it includes support for switching to Microsoft's IE engine." What does that mean? They're going to replace my beautiful, standards-compliant Gecko with Microsoft's antiquated and hideously broken Trident engine? That's so wrong on so many levels. And just when Firefox's headway on the market share was giving me cause for hope, too.

Why must you smash my dreams, bluno, why?
posted by jefgodesky at 12:55 PM on December 1, 2004


ugly as unloved poo

I knew I'd recognize the right simile when I saw it.
posted by Wolfdog at 12:57 PM on December 1, 2004


Wait, there's loved poo?
posted by breath at 1:08 PM on December 1, 2004


/me looks up at a tattered painting of a poo in a bonnet with a single withered flower underneath the frame

/me writes with a quill pen, "Oh, there was loved poo once. Once..."
posted by Sticherbeast at 1:18 PM on December 1, 2004


I'm trying to figure out what the point of Netscape still existing is with Mozilla, Firefox, Camino, Safari, Toledo, Bunghole, etc.
posted by angry modem at 1:26 PM on December 1, 2004


Wait, there's loved poo?

Ever been around an 18-month-old who has figured out how to take off his diaper?
posted by obfusciatrist at 1:42 PM on December 1, 2004


They're going to have to invent some new awards to recognize just how awful that interface is. Ugh. They should be ashamed.
posted by mkultra at 2:00 PM on December 1, 2004


Hrm... It's Firefox with lots of crappy adware and plonky doodads. And you say you get an option for Trident too?

Jesus wept.
posted by Fezboy! at 2:03 PM on December 1, 2004


They're going to have to invent some new awards to recognize just how awful that interface is.



Wooo! Congrats Netscape!
posted by Stan Chin at 2:13 PM on December 1, 2004


On the bright side, at least they didn't give it a retarded name. That's got to count for something.
posted by Space Coyote at 2:31 PM on December 1, 2004


What a usability nightmare. It's fuzzy. The menus are on the right. The location/address box is IN BETWEEN THE BUTTONS!!!

Never mind unloved poo. Hated, reviled, dysenteric poo, more like.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 2:37 PM on December 1, 2004


Firefox with the IE engine sounds pretty much ideal to me, actually. Thanks.

You're being sarcastic, right?
posted by NewBornHippy at 3:19 PM on December 1, 2004


They're going to replace my beautiful, standards-compliant Gecko with Microsoft's antiquated and hideously broken Trident engine?

No no no -- it's just an option. You can switch between them.



I'm a little pissed off for ideological reasons, but they're hardly replacing Gecko.
posted by Tlogmer at 3:45 PM on December 1, 2004


NewBornHippy - no. People are retards, and people retardedly make webpages that only work properly in IE. Frequently. I want to be able to view those webpages as the author intended, even though the authors are retards, because it just makes my life easier. It's pragmatic.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 5:00 PM on December 1, 2004


It has all the beauty of an AMC Pacer but with all the technological advances of a Chevy Vega engine.
posted by TimeFactor at 6:44 PM on December 1, 2004


On the bright side, at least they didn't give it a retarded name.

said Space Coyote.
Not that I disagree with you, but the logo is a flaming space fox. How cool is that?
posted by euphorb at 7:49 PM on December 1, 2004


It's pragmatic.

Point taken. Here's my approach: I'm lobbying my company to drop support for IE and force our customoer to use mozilla. We're in the security business, and alloing configuration of security apparatus with IE is no good practice (even if in practicality, the risks are almost non existent.)
posted by NewBornHippy at 4:23 PM on December 2, 2004


« Older Blog 3:16   |   He's got a pretty mouth. Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post