Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 21st Oct 2011 23:17 UTC, submitted by jello
Permalink for comment 493742
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-05-18
Not entirely true ... they went under partially because of Microsoft, but Netscape had a big fault too: their flagship product, Netscape 4, sucked. In those times I started my career as a webdeveloper and I remember that stuff mostly worked in IE while in Netscape it was a nightmare to get working. Tables were a mess, frames were a mess and don't get me started on the scripting and early CSS support (was there any?). The browser was slow and a big download for those times when you were lucky to have a 56kbps connection. As for standards, Netscape was also pushing theirs, which by the way were mostly rubbish.
I'm not saying MS was an angel, but Netscape fell to a combination of monopoly abuse from MS and a crappy product.