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."
Release Cycle (Score:2, Interesting)
Why? (Score:3, Interesting)
Why bother? (Score:4, Interesting)
Sorry AOL, you lose. For four years you had the chance to make Netscape into a valued alternative to MSIE. You failed. Now, roll over, get lost, or die.
Will real browser gain market? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Will real browser gain market? (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't think it's really fair to put people down for not knowing stuff they shouldn't have to know.
Computers have become a consumer product, but unlike other consumer devices (TVs, VCRs, Microwaves) they can actually fuck things up if they do something wrong, or something different...
I think the idea of using a browser that didn't come with their computer probably scares a lot of people, much in the same way my friend's father wouldn't let him use 3rd party joysticks on his Atari VCS -- truely believed that anything different from the norm would break the unit; and he'd have to explain personally to Mr Atari why he DARED to break their lovely console.
Maybe what we need is someone to write a piece of spyware for IE, that installs Firefox and Thunderbird, removes IE and Outlook Express and changes the Moz icons to keep everything familiar.
Call me crazy... (Score:5, Interesting)
...but why do I get the feeling that MS might be letting IE development slide deliberately in this manner.
They might be letting Mozilla and others gain a bit more ground so that in a couple of years, if the playing field became a little more level... then MS can play the "we've not got a monopoly on browsers" as extra leverage on governments/organisations who view them with more suspicion on this very issue (as well as other matters). It could be a more long term plan with them.
Again just my 0.02 british pounds.
Why replace the default browser? (Score:5, Interesting)
But honestly if I'm running windows, what real motiviation is there to download a replacement browser when IE is already installed, and works?
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?
If you sell an operating system, you practically just have the ultimate power to drive any other software out of business by bundeling and installing it by default.
The Great divide. (Score:5, Interesting)
Next we have the webdevelopers that only care about IE compatibility. Some may care about other browsers, but usually as an afterthought.
Ofcourse this can be a right pain in the rear to fight this. The recent stream of exploits against various IE versions have started to create an anti- IE stance. What needs to be done is create the awareness that IE is unsafe, and now even abandoned by MS themselves until after their duke-nukem forever OS comes out. We(The people "in the know") must bring this our superiors attention that IE just isn't gonna cut it next year (or the year afterwards). It's not gonna be easy, but i'm sure we can have an impact.
Market forced change? (Score:4, Interesting)
I use tab browsing a lot (the firefox style where the new tabs are opened in backround), and after a search on google or a /. header, I will launch tabs on all relevant links and then browse sideways accross them. Links that do not work (including IE only sites) get passed over.
From the comments one hears around, it seems that a lot of people use mozilla type browsers in this way, and so will often pass over IE only sites even thougth they are included in the "93.7%". Webmasters will need to wake up to this.
Less IE specific content (which is allready rare....I just checked and I have not launched IE for over a week) means more browser choice. And let's face it, why on earth should everbody like the same browser!
Re:Why replace the default browser? (Score:5, Interesting)
I laugh when I see a cheesy newbie ISP commercial that promotes "We have pop-up blocker technology!!!" Shit no kidding, so does my free Mozilla browser.
Netscape is dead - deal with it (Score:3, Interesting)
There's no reason why we should be bothered though - Mozilla is a worthy replacement, much more reliable and functional, and the lines of evolution are clear. You could go from NS 4.7 to Mozilla 1.6 and feel right at home. Even the much-derided Mail and News (which I always preferred to the OE mess) is almost the same. When IE gets pop-up blocking I'm still not going back to it.
AOL blew it (Score:4, Interesting)
I wasn't using linux back then and so I, like many others, began using IE. It was far better than Netscape then and I stayed with it for awhile. I gave Netscape another chance when version 6 came out but it too was very buggy. The only plus I found with it was that it had excellent CSS support and I believe that was the first version to have tabbed browsing...which I've become addicted too.
That was when I discovered linux and switched to Mozilla, and Firebird (now Firefox). I've never turned back since. When Netscape 7.0 came out it didn't appear to have any new features that I remember but it did seem to clean up a lot of the bugs from version 6. At that point I realized that Netscape was a viable browser again but it was too late to win me back.
AOL should have really began pushing version 7 to the masses. For IE users not yet exposed to the greatness of Mozilla (or even Opera) Netscape should have started gaining a lot of ground back from IE. With tabbed browsing, pop up blocking, integrated email client, better CSS support, and arguably faster rendering speed it blows IE out of the water. 25% market share against Microsoft is nothing to sneeze at either and they had the pontential to gain more.
Now I don't know anyone at all that uses Netscape and whenever I'm asked to recommend a decent browser I suggest Firefox. AOL would do better to give up on Netscape and throw their support behind Mozilla instead.
It's too bad really, because Netscape played a huge part in bringing the www to the masses. I'd like to see it do well again but since AOL messed everything up with it I don't hold a lot of stock in its future.
-Pat
Re:Will real browser gain market? (Score:2, Interesting)
Computers are NOT consumer products no matter how much the industry would like to pretend they are. They are complex programmable machines. If people want a consumer product then they would've bought any of the various web terminals that tried to come to market in the late 1990's like WebTV. They all failed because people want a computer, yet they also want to bitch when their complex programmable machine's complex operating system is difficult to use. It's a lose-lose situation for everyone involved. If someone is uncomfortable using a computer without being handheld through it then they should go find another line of work or hobby. The absolute minimum requirements of a computer user should be capabilities to build a system from scratch, install an operating system, and do at least some fundamental systems programming... even friggin batch scripting. SOMETHING. Ignorant people should not be using computers!
Browser stats (Score:5, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Will real browser gain market? (Score:5, Interesting)
Computers *are* consumer devices now, or at least can be. Not all of them are, but then not all VCRs are too.
Computers can be easy to use, people should certainly never need to build a computer from scratch, or reinstall their OS beyond putting a CD in the drive and turning the machine on, and as for systems programming - you're out of your mind. Perhaps you wish computers were some elitist, holier-than-thou priesthood, but I'm afraid you're wrong, wrong, wrong. WebTV failed because people want to do more than surf the web. They might have kids who want to do homework, or they may study themselves, or they might just enjoy exploring what a computer can do for them. So what if it breaks now and then? It should be easy enough for a user to restore.. perhaps we need machines with a read-only file system and all files to be store on a USB pendrive or something to assist this.
You come across as arrogant, but not stupid, so forgive me; but when you say ignorant people shouldn't be using computers, you're right. Sadly, you're the ignorant one.
Re:Browser stats (Score:3, Interesting)
MS Internet Explorer 56.4 %
Mozilla 25.6 %
Opera 5.4 %
Netscape 4 %
Safari 3.4 %
Konqueror 1.7 %
Personally, given that the site is an open-source software site, I find the greater than 50% share of IE depressing.
I call you crazy (Score:5, Interesting)
Continue developing Internet Explorer would be BAD for Microsoft
You know why?
Because any change is a threat to the status quo.
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.
The same goes for CSS2/3, SVG, etc.
Developing IE is not in the interest of Microsoft, they would be stupid if they would do it at this time.
But there are a couple of reasons why IE will lose its domination in the next couple of years: Linux is making inroads, Mac-users are switching to Safari, Playstation3 will probably run Mozilla and cellphones run Opera.
Re:Browser stats (Score:4, Interesting)
I wish people wouldn't spoof their browser ID - things will never change if IE still appears to be the most common. I've written several emails to sites complaining about lack of access to non-IE browsers, with some success. www.argos.co.uk, for example, used to not allow non-IE browsers in, until they received enough complaints from people like me that they changed their site.
Re:Call me crazy... (Score:5, Interesting)
The browser was never the issue, and I am surprised there are any people who still after all these years don't get it. The materials were freely available at the DOJ website for all to read.
Microsoft were against anyone intruding on their territory. Both Netscape and Sun threatened to do so with their technologies. Microsoft deliberately sabotaged the Sun Java standard (no other company signing the agreement ever did) and they did all they could to prevent Netscape from entering the PC marketplace.
The danger with both technologies is cross-platform compatibility. Applications written for Netscape or with Java could easily be ported to other platforms. This would destroy Microsoft's dominance in the PC market.
Gates tried to reason with Netscape, but they weren't interested. Gates' message to them was simple. He invited them to Redmond, and then told them point blank they should not enter the PC market. Netscape chose to disregard Bill Gates.
The entire thing with Internet Explorer was only to destroy Netscape, but not to destroy the product - to destroy the company. They used pressure on OEMs, pressure on ISPs, pressure on everyone to not only get people to opt for the free Internet Explorer, but to make it increasingly difficult for people to even find download links for the Netscape browser. OEMs who showed too many downloads of Netscape - including IBM - risked losing their benefits contra Microsoft and had to make the download links to Netscape more obscure so as to not incur the wrath of WHG.
Microsoft lost the trial but they won the battle. Netscape is no more, and Microsoft have already paid for Sun's funeral. The Internet Explorer browser is not interesting anymore, and it doesn't matter Mozilla is out there with a good product. Microsoft invested an estimated US$5 billion in its development without a thought ever of getting any of it back - it was for defensive purposes only.
Today it's all DRM - browsers and the threats to the MS marketplace are in the rear view mirror. The browser is not essential.
Some of you ought to go back to school before you begin speculating about what's going on.
Re:AOL blew it (Score:1, Interesting)
After all, if you have a brand new standards compliant engine of your own, what could make better business sense than to use the stagnant browser engine produced by your main competitor? I'm sure MS has Top People working on functionality for AOL's benefit even as we speak.
They had the opportunity to flip the market on its head by turning 30 million users (in the US alone) away from IE but apparantly that makes no business sense either.
Of course Netscape made strident efforts to convince AOL to use the Gecko engine, but they were usually rebuffed. And not for technical reasons but because marketing and management got wind that it wouldn't be 100% compatible with some of the crap that users put on their homepages. Gecko fell outside the comfort zone, even if it did render content faster than IE and everything else.
Even so, there were some small successes. For example the Compuserve client runs an ancient Gecko (circa Mozilla 0.7) and the AOL Mac OS X client too. It is even used in AOL Communicator (a mail client), but despite its similarity to Thunderbird, AOL Communicator is actually written in C++ and wxWindows and Gecko just does the HTML mail preview pane.
That goes some way to tell you the mentality of AOL. Netscape had a working Thunderbird-like mail client, written in 100% chrome, and had already deployed it for use in AOL Japan (or China I forget). So logically the best solution for a standalone AOL mail client was to write yet another one from scratch in C++, wxWindows and hardcode the L&F. Is that smart or what?
What us geeks should do to help promote Mozilla. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Of course (Score:2, Interesting)
No fault of the mozilla project, but Netscape seems to be a stigma and there's not much you can do about a stubborn individual who's unwilling to give it a shot....
Re:Why replace the default browser? (Score:1, Interesting)
All the non-technical people I know (family, friends, etc) who spend at least a couple hours a day online frequently complain about pop-ups and advertising and I know for a fact that many of them have many windows open at all times.
I checked out the machine I let my teenage brother use whenever he visits and noticed that there were a dozen browser windows open when he left. Even though he was using Mozilla, he had no clue what "tabbed browsing" was.
People who use auction sites or any forums while they use their computer frequently have multiple windows open. I hear people on my forums (possibly the least technical group of users anywhere as they're all 15 to 50 year old fashion concious women) comment about having several websites open 24x7 at the same time so I know this is a common practice.
When I show people what tabbed browsing is (not to mention the pop-up blocking and the adblock extension which kicks ass) they are amazed. The idea of having multiple pages open in the same browser window never occured to them and they love it from that point on.
And by the way - there is a big difference between a non-technical internet user and someone who just happens to use a computer at work.
Re:Why? (Score:3, Interesting)
Take my household for example, I have banned the use of Internet Explorer on all computers. Myself and my sister use Mozilla (Myself Firefox on my computer, my sister uses the suite on her computer).
But my parents do not "understand" mozilla yet. They dont know it. But they still remember Netscape.
I installed Netscape 7.1 on their computer, and set sensible default preferneces, and to be honest, they love it. Its my way of getting them to run mozilla whilst they are "safe" in the knowledge of running a big well known browser.
Whats in a name? a lot in the case of my parents.
It's a matter of how you talk to them and listen (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Well, they don't know that it exists, or that it is even possible. They're not going to say "I want tabbed browsing", they're going to say (maybe, and only if you ask them or watch them surf) "I hate how I always lose my place, or accidentaly close my window. I hate how I can't easily check out search results without getting lost".
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.
You're mother is pretty unusual, then. Take most people on a tour of their favorite sites with popups blocked, and with the mozilla Adblock and Flashblock plugins, and watch their jaws drop.
Netscape 8 (Score:3, Interesting)
What would be of interest is to base a new version of Netscape on the upcoming Firefox 1.0, which would give Netscape a serious contender for Internet Explorer's crown, if they were to give their full backing behind it.
Re:Will real browser gain market? (Score:2, Interesting)
While I was there I also installed a spyware scanner on her sisters computer and recommended to her that she start using Firefox also. To which I got a "Mozilla? Thats Netscape right. I hate Netscape. It's always soo slow". I explained that this was likely to be "a better mozilla" then her past experiences and that for security reasons maybe it was a good idea to give to a try. She refused.
About a month later my girlfriend mentioned that she was virtually spyware free, but that her sister was still getting hits on her spyware scanner every day. She informed me that her sister had said "Maybe I should try that fire thingie". She set her sister up with Firefox. Her sister now says "it's not really that different from IE".
People will change when there is an overwhelming reason to. Viruses and spyware were enough of a reason for these two. The big problems is literacy, once they knew they had a problem with their web browser they did what was necessary to fix it.
Re:Why replace the default browser? (Score:1, Interesting)
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.
Tabs are ideal for total novices. Here's how I deploy them -- pay attention, this gets tricky! :)
Now, when a novice fires up a browser, they see a web desktop. All "my stuff" is there.
Tabs -- preconfigured like this -- are the ONE thing that moved tabbed browsing from "what?" to "I want THAT" for regular users. They can't do without it anymore.
Microsoft will add this to IE even if it's a few years from now; they don't have any choice.
Re:Why? (Score:1, Interesting)
No problems so far. Only complaint is my mom want's me to turn off eudora's preview pane so it's more like Outlook at work where she double clicks on the message list to see the mail. No biggie.
Also I think I dislike eudora 6.1, and I want to set them back to 5.2 gahh. The stupid spam filter doesn't seem to have an off button, and it defaults to junking any confirmation e-mails from companies.
Re:I call you crazy (Score:3, Interesting)
Remember: many people get their understanding of how computers work from what Microsoft says. By no longer offering the web-browser as a separate component, they start to chip away at the mentality that the browser CAN be one. By offering IE6 separately, they were kind of saying, "Yes, there's this thing called the 'operating system', but then there's a thing you can add on separately called a 'web browser' for viewing the 'internet'". Now they can change that to, "There IS no 'web browser', there is the 'operating system' only, and you don't mess with its deep secret parts." This would discourage people from even considering that IE could be replaced to begin with.
Word is a separate application that Microsoft can profit off from too. So no need to bundle it w/ Windows. But MS can't charge for IE anymore... they used that to kill of Netscape. But they still face technological competition which can undermine their goal of owning the internet. So why maintain the idea of it as a separate application? How many users today would consider the possibility that there could be any printing system other than the one built into Windows? Would you even think about swapping it out with one from a third-party, with its own drivers and everything, even if it was better? Probably not. That's what MS wants IE to become: a part that users don't dare touch, don't even think about touching. They want people to hear about alternate browsers and be like, "huh?". They're already making progress.
As a ruthless bunch of evil bastards, it's a move that makes a lot of sense. Hopefully we can counter it, though.
Re:Browser stats (Score:2, Interesting)
Not as overwhelming as claimed and from the chart declining.
Re:Browser stats (Score:2, Interesting)
It's not like pointing to the top five business and deducing how all other businesses are from that small group. You're looking at the customers, not the businesses.
It's more like having, for example, a supermarket chain that appeals to all parts of society and becomes the standard supermarket everyone goes to and analyzing what kind of car people drive to get there.
Re:I call you crazy (Score:3, Interesting)
Ah, but Microsoft has already fooled you. Microsoft is pushing IE as a development component, and believe it or not, it is actually being used by developers the same way VB is used; It's a quick-and-dirty way to get an interface on software - with built-in ability to understand some common "Internet" protocols. Here's a short list of software that requires IE6 to run: Intuit Tax software, H&R Block TaxCut, Quickbooks Pro.
It's not about general web browsing anymore, Microsoft is successfully getting software makers to use all of IE's non-standard extensions as, well, almost like an API. IE is not going away any time soon. As long as Microsoft can deliver it's own software through OEM channels (pretty much uncontested), or through its own update mechanisms, they will continue to dominate.
It's not about who supports what standards, it's about the network effects of being first to deliver, i.e. being the first option the user has. It doesn't matter if a user can remove IE, because the next run of WU is going to add IE as a "critical" update, complete with a shiny new desktop icon. Now it isn't in the user's best interest to remove IE, because that would break some popular third-party software.