AOL to Release Netscape 7.2 Based on Mozilla 1.7 447
securitas writes "ZDNet's Evan Hansen reports that AOL will release Netscape Navigator 7.2 based on Mozilla 1.7 code this summer. The update comes a year after version 7.1 and after Microsoft stopped standalone development in Internet Explorer. eWEEK's Matt Hicks offers analysis of the new Netscape release, citing studies that say while Microsoft has a 93.9% browser market share and 87% of business users use IE, 25% still use Netscape and 11% use Opera -- the math works because people use multiple browsers. Hicks asks the question 'Is the Netscape Browser Being Reborn or Just Stabilized?' Hicks interviews several people in the know including a former Netscape engineer, an industry analyst, and Opera Software CEO Jon von Tetzchner."
Of course (Score:5, Insightful)
Not that Netscape's necessarily a Ferrari, but it's no Yugo, either.
I have to ask (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you ask some clueless decision maker if it's okay to deploy Mozilla, you'll probably get turned down on the basis of "I've not heard of that" whereas people who've used the web for a while, will have heard of Netscape.
My mother's heard of Netscape, she thinks she uses it every day, even though she actually uses Firefox.
(Sorry mum!)
Re:I have to ask (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Will real browser gain market? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Will real browser gain market? (Score:1, Insightful)
Viruses can cause massive damage. They have shut down vital emergency services (like Britain's coastguard) and were even implicated in bringing Sydney's rail network to its knees a few weeks ago. Using the Internet incorrectly can cause massive damage. However, unlike public road use, there is no accountability and very little education about how to use the Internet - even though it is quickly becoming a vital public resource.
Those of us who began using the Internet ten or fifteen years ago had to learn about correct 'Net behaviour out of necessity. However, the number of clueless users these days is truly frightening.
Re:Why replace the default browser? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why replace the default browser? (Score:3, Insightful)
Firefow,Not Mozilla 1.7 (Score:4, Insightful)
___________
seun osewa [seunosewa.com]
Re:Call me crazy... (Score:5, Insightful)
I doubt it. I think they've just stopped work on IE because they will have a completely new version in Longhorn. This new IE will include lots of new MS "standards", and they will really promote that heavily. They'll of course be competing with themselves again, trying to get people to move from the current IE to the new version, and so the more incentive people have to do that the better. In other words, it's actually in their interest to let the current version of IE slide so people will have more incentive to upgrade to the all new version in Longhorn.
Re:Of course (Score:3, Insightful)
Firefox is good for this reason to keep the "brands" disabiguated.
And hell, all we need is firefox, thunderbird, a standalone html editor (wasn't lindows working on one derrived from mozilla?.. got it http://www.nvu.com/ [nvu.com]) and xchat and you have a set of programs WAY more powerful than the mozilla suite. Put all the bookmark and settings "flat" files in the one place and have the binaries for windows and linux up front and you could run everything off a USB thumb drive.
I used to use my thumb drive for carrying firefox around, it was quite nice.
Source Code (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Why replace the default browser? (Score:5, Insightful)
Security. I use Windows but I don't use IE or Outlook, because doing so considerably reduces my chances of security compromises.
Re:Why replace the default browser? (Score:4, Insightful)
Basically, Microsoft might have control over the machine after it ships from the factory, but only up to the point where it ends up in the local tech's hands. There, when you start customizing it for the end user, you can easily de-Microsoftize at the same time.
I can't be mad at any secretary 'cause she uses IE instead of Mozilla/Netscape. Of course of political reasons she shouldn't, but practically?
Well, if you use Firefox, you can be much more productive after customizing the browser interface, and tabs alone are a good reason to switch. There are some really nifty extensions for Firefox, like session save, where even if you have to quit the browser, upon relaunch it will re-open all of the browser windows that were up the last time you were running Firefox. Another great extension is Live HTTP Headers - I use that one quite a bit when debugging code from webservers that I administer.
Re:Of course (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Why replace the default browser? (Score:5, Insightful)
A fairly computer-savvy acquaintance of mine recently called me to his computer because his homepage was constantly reset to easybiz.net. Ad-aware couldn't do anything. He started rummaging in his registry and managed to make his IE completely unusable.
So, how to solve this problem? Standard-Microsoft solution: uninstall IE? Ah, but there is the catch: you can not uninstall IE, it comes with the package. So, there is a choice: wiping the machine and start all over again, or, what I did: install Mozilla.
I was a bit relieved to see that while the IE penetration is > 90%, alternate browsers have about half the market. Now I finally know that I, too, am considered to be an IE user. There is one website I need to visit which requires IE, so I use IE solely for that purpose. I think that for all those people that use an alternate browser, that alternate browser is actually their primary browser. So IE's influence is dimishing. No wonder if you realise what a piece of %$#@ it is.
Re:Of course (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why replace the default browser? (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that when you buy windows and you get all that stuff bundled with it, all that stuff is made by microsoft. When you get a set of linux distro install CDs, it comes with 10 browsers, 20 mail clients, a few media players, 5 instant messaging clients, and a million other things. The problem isn't that nothing is bundled with linux, the problem is that EVERYTHING is bundled with linux. But that bundling isn't bad, because each program that gets bundled has it's own independant development community that is just a loose group of individuals, and isn't even commercial to begin with.
When you install linux, the hassle isn't because you have to go find stuff yourself, the hassle is because everything is given to you and you have to choose what you want to use.
The idea here is that when MS bundles MS's own media player into windows, you have no incentive to buy any other media players, so the media player market collapses because nobody ever uses anything but WMP anyway. When Mandrake bundles xine, that doesn't illegitimately control the market because a) you can easily remove xine, b) Mandrake doesn't get any benefit from you using xine or a competitor, and c) competing media players come with the system too, so nobody is being locked out.
Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
The older over 30+ remember them but its like talking about WordPerfect to MS-Office users. They will just give you strange looks.
Sadly its viewed as dead which is correct. MS beat them via the distribution game. Netscape could not compete with something for free so they folded, got bought out and laid off their programmers while MS added feature after feature to IE.
Sad really.
Re:Why replace the default browser? (Score:2, Insightful)
Those that do stick with IE don't seem to do it because it's better (largely, there are exceptions) but because they think it's the internet. When I can be bothered I'll go and delete my father's IE and Outlook icons completely...
"What's a web browser?"??? God help me!!
Re:Why replace the default browser? (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't think that you can get away from having to download the IE6 security patches.. because you really do!
I don't run linux personally.. but the lack of choice is annoying. I paid for XP pro and I should be able to remove components completely.
I love Firefox, for example, but I ended up uninstalling it because IE annoyingly gets in the way.
I don't feel as if I have much choice and that's annoying.
Cheers,
Simon.
Re:Browser stats (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Browser stats (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Browser stats (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll hazard a guess... you're not running a mainstream website that atracts Joe Avrage *smiles*.
It's also worth noting that, as the write up states, quite a few users has more than one browser installed - myself, I got four; IE (seldom used), Netscape 6.somethng (seldom used), Opera (my prefered choice) and Lynx (just for the fun of doing the web as pure text now and then). So yes, it's possible that 93% of the users has IE installed... which isn't the same as to say that each and everyone prefers it to the other options avilable.
Re:Why replace the default browser? (Score:5, Insightful)
My office is full of non-techincal people. Looking around most people only have 1 (yes, one) IE window open. When I mention tabbed browsing, most people confirm my observations - that is, they only have one (and occasionally two) windows open. With cases like this, tabbed browsing could be seen as overkill to a problem that doesn't really exist (for them).
With regards to pop-up windows, the next service pack will contain a pop-up blocker for windows, but most of the clueful people have google toolbar already installed which does that for you.
Mozilla and it's tabbed browsing, mouse gestures, pop up blockers, type ahead find and the raft of other nifty features is great for the "power surfer" but I swear that based on the people in my office, it's not something they particulary need or feel the need to have enough to even go out and try.
Note that i'm not saying these features are bad, they're very good, but the problem with adoption here is that a lot of people don't realise that the average Joe doesn't surf the web in a way that Mozilla would benifit him. If he only goes to a few websites then there is a chance he'll never see unwanted pop up adverts.
I asked my mother about pop up adverts last month and she'd only ever come across one in the two years she'd been surfing the web. Granted, she wasn't surfing a very large number of sites - but it was difficult to sell a feature to her when she didn't really know why she needed it.
Re:Source Code (Score:3, Insightful)
The NPL allowed Netscape to do whatever they wanted with the code, but hackers didn't like it. The MPL allows them to "add value" in the form of enhancements like an AOL messenger sidebar as long as these don't interfere with core functionality.
- Chris
Re:11% use Opera... (Score:2, Insightful)
Opera is default set to Identify as IE, so those stats are probably bigger in reality!
I love opera, and most of those nice features mentioned in Mozilla, was available in Opera first!
Re:I call you crazy (Score:3, Insightful)
Because if IE7 can handle transparent PNGs and lots of sites start to use it, millions of IE6 users will upgrade. And when they upgrade there is the danger that they might upgrade to Mozilla and not IE7.
You're kidding right? If IE7 were to be released it would be downloaded because the little popup thingy in the systray says so...and I'm pretty confident it won't inform the user of the alternative.Re:Tabbed browsing with IE (Score:3, Insightful)
A paranoid IE user? And I thought Linux had the monoply in the "it can do that....really" stakes.
If you had read carefully the message I posted you would see that I was pointing out that the use of tabbed browsing means I tend to skip over sites that do not get rendered properly (usually IE only sites).
"IE can be hosted as a control inside any other application."
I know all about that, in fact we do embedd it into our applications, and they are not free gimicks they are applications we sell to our customers. As such I know a lot about the shortcomings and problems of embedding IE. I use mozilla for my browsing and I am impressed by the whole platform, and I am planning to use in our apps in the future.
Fact is that Mozilla'a underlying platform, in particular the dev platform, is way ahead of IE which has not been significantly developed for years. True, MS probably have big plans for it's integration into Longhorn and .NET, but we will worry about that problem when it arrives! Right now one of our competitors is allready deploying Mozilla based solutions, and they rock. It is a bit embarresing for me, a Mozilla user myself but IE deployer when it comes to customer apps!
Frankly, saying that we should all use IE because it comes with the OS is like saying we should use 'Write' for all or documents. I am finding that being integrated into the OS is a negative feature, not a positive one.
Re:Why bother? (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh, maybe because AOL owns ~25% of US home internet users? AOL is still a big gatekeeper for the internet. They have the power to force broad software changes, regardless of the relative quality of the particular software in question.
Few users are sufficiently motivated or knowledgable to install Firefox on their own, but they'll have no choice but to sit through a 15 minute "Updating your AOL software" progress-bar.
When AOL flips a switch to change their default browser from IE to something else, they'll suck down IE's dominance by 10% on the very first day. It won't kill IE, but it'll increase the pressure for website authors to write to W3C standards instead of Microsoft conventions. That can only be a good thing.
Re:Browser stats (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm a diehard FireFox user and always use it where possible.
I am, however, in work for 8 hours a day where IE is the only browser we can use - and it's the same in a lot of offices.
Re:Browser stats (Score:2, Insightful)
Interesting.
Those aware of and using other choices are biased, but those who tend toward one particular browser are not.
I don't disagree with the point you were trying to make, but the semantics are fascinating. Microsoft is so pervasive that it has even turned rational thought upside down.
Re:Call me crazy... (Score:1, Insightful)
"Look how bright is this Bill Gates, these improvements are a great and original idea!"
Really sad
Re:Why bother? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why replace the default browser? (Score:1, Insightful)
(*) okay so you can manage to download hot fixes if you can dig through MS's website, but in all honesty I've never seen anyone actually do it.
Re:Why replace the default browser? (Score:3, Insightful)
windowsupdate.microsoft.com
Steven v.
Re:Will real browser gain market? (Score:4, Insightful)
You miss the point. For a PC to be a consumer device, the user should NEVER have to reinstall their OS, PERIOD. In fact, the concept of installing is completely foreign to the idea of a consumer device.
For a PC to be a consumable device, they would have to build it like a game console:
1) Have a cartridge/DVD system
2) When a cartridge/DVD is not in the drive, it runs a small file manager which can't do much
3) When you put your cartridge in the drive, that program takes over the whole computer.
"So what if it breaks now and then?"
Again, we're talking about a consumer device. Breaking is not something a consumer device should do. How many times have you had to re-install the operating system in your DVD player?
I think the issue you're having with the parent poster is that you don't understand what classifies something as being a consumer device. Computers certainly aren't consumer devices.
Re:Firefow,Not Mozilla 1.7 (Score:2, Insightful)
While Netscape doesn't mean much to use, users and developers who trust Open source, it means a lot to my father and many other users who still see open source as more developement-ware or beta-ware. Those users see Netscape as a browser that has a technical support team they can call and feel a little safer with since it is backed by a coorporation, and not just a bunch of geeks.
More-over, don't forget that AOL still pays for Mozilla developement and Ex-Netscape employes develope for the Mozilla project with AOL pay checks. I prefer Firefox (more so when you fix [osdir.com] it) but AOL and Netscape still mean a lot. (At least until more people find out it's really just Mozilla with limited ActiveX)
Re:Browser stats (Score:4, Insightful)
Just because titans like Google are visited primarily by IE does not mean the rest of the web is the same. If 20,000 sites getting 2,000 unique hits per day show that IE has 60% browsershare, that seems pretty meaningful to me, even though these are "niche" sites in your estimation.
Re:Why bother? (Score:1, Insightful)
As a matter of fact I wouldn't.
If Microsoft were not a monopoly, that would imply that there was competition in the x86 computer operating system market. Absent a monopoly, I would expect companies to try to differentiate themselves by adding value to their product (operating systems in this case) by adding features.
Consider Linux. No Linux distro has a monopoly on the market. RedHat, SuSE, Mandrake, etc. all try to differentiate themselves in different ways; easiest installation, easiest update, most included software, best support, etc. This is a sign of a healthy market.
A monopoly in any market is easily subject to abuse (*cough* Microsoft *cough*) and deserves special scrutiny. Absent a monopoly, standard market forces work 99% of the time.
And on the flip side, if AOL had a monopoly on Internet access and mandated their brand of browser, I'd be just as concerned with them as I am with Microsoft today.
Re:I call you crazy (Score:2, Insightful)
It might not be that simple, but people tend to do what Windows Update tells them.
Re:Why replace the default browser? (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure you can hack up your copy of XP Pro to try to remove IE entirely. Some people do. But you mentioned yourself, IE is not just a web browser. It provides critical services to almost every application you'd want to run under Windows. Despite all the Slashbot sneering and jeering about the issue, it really is an integral part of Windows, and removing it makes the system about as useful as removing the network stack from Linux.
If your idealism is strong enough that you can't stand IE being used as a library for internet access, or as a layout engine for applications (both uses, I might add, that Mozilla can't just be plugged in as a replacement to fill due to it not being IE-compatible), then your only real solution is to throw the baby out with the bathwater and not use Windows.
Agreed but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Here are the points that one fails to appreciate:
1) IE recently stopped supporting Netscape-style plugins, presumably because they felt that they were now the dominant power and that this was an added defensive measure.
2) I still develop complex web apps using Javascript and HTML on the front-end and PHP or Python on the middleware in order to provide cross-platform functionality. Many other people do as well. This is still a very real threat to MS on the desktop, and something that I don';t think they really appreciate at the moment.
3) Microsoft's dominating influence on the desktop also comes from their rapid application development tools. Python and Mozilla/XUL are incredibly useful here.
You have to understand that this is a very assymetric war. What matters to MS is not what matters to us. They have to pursue new lock-in technologies because they will otherwise lose. This is why they are pushing for DRM, IMO.
The fact of the matter is, though, that DRM is NOT the lock-in factor that, say IE was. It is something which companies may choose to use internally, but that would likely be a few years off, and I would find it unlikely that they would use it in correspondences with customers, etc.
I think they have the browser in the rear-view mirror because they figure that they cannot win this one.
and AOL backs it (Score:3, Insightful)
Market forces, on the other hand, have their own way of forcing good software in, regardless of origin. When you risk losing millions in contracts because you don't support Mozilla or Linux, the corporate penny pinchers start to take notice.