Metropol

According to reports from various sources, AOL has decided to do a complete U-turn on last
summer's discontinuation of the Netscape browser suite, by releasing an updated version
of Netscape, to be based upon the upcoming Mozilla Application Suite v1.7 . . .

More at the following links . . .

TheInquirer - AOL: New Mozilla-based Netscape 7.x coming shocker!

MozillaZine - AOL to Release New Netscape Update in Early Summer.

ISPReview.co.uk - AOL To Release Updated Netscape.

SillyDog701 Message Centre Discussion Thread

MozillaZine Forums Discusion Thread

Given AOL's falling subscriber numbers, this wouldn't be a great idea. As far as a business model goes, it's flawed.

Nobody wants to pay for a browser when a completely usable one comes with all but the most basic of operating systems.

Let the damn bloat ridden browser die quietly. It will never be adopted en masse. Ever.

Nobody is going to adopt any browser en-masse when it displays so many websites incorrectly. Check out http://www.fatattitude.com in a Trident and a Gecko browser and see the difference!

If it was any good AOL would use it in their software - depsite owning AOL they continue to use Internet Explorer which they have been doing since 1997.

Does anyone remember the old pre-1997 built-in browser AOL used in their software? Especially the 16-bit version of 3.0? HOW SHITE WAS THAT?!!! I hated it. Infact I remember in mid-1997 they released a patch so 16-bit AOL could use IE too.

Flava wrote: Nobody is going to adopt any browser en-masse when it displays
so many websites incorrectly. Check out http://www.fatattitude.com
in a Trident and a Gecko browser and see the difference!

The Gecko browser engine is the most accurate and compliant browser engine of all current browsers.
If a website is badly coded, then a Gecko based browser generally won't always display it correctly.

And as we all should know by now, IE is the most forgiving towards sloppy web design, and therefore,
it promotes a sense of pure laziness in certain web developers. That "FatAttitude" website is a prime
example of poorly coded web design. If the developer were to design to standards, then it would
display correctly in ALL current browsers, and that includes Internet Explorer.

Dr Sigmund Mohammed wrote: Given AOL's falling subscriber numbers, this wouldn't be a
great idea. As far as a business model goes, it's flawed.

Nobody wants to pay for a browser when a completely usable
one comes with all but the most basic of operating systems.

Netscape is not included with the AOL client software. It's a standalone download from Netscape.com.
And you don't pay a penny for it. It's free. Oh and BTW, the AOL client software actually bundles IE.

Dr Sigmund Mohammed wrote: Let the damn bloat ridden browser die quietly.
It will never be adopted en masse. Ever.

Netscape is not a bloat ridden browser. It's not just a browser, it's a fully fledged internet application
suite, complete with other components, such as e-mail and chat, just like the Mozilla App-Suite. In
fact, Netscape has been offered as an application suite since the first version of Ns Communicator
was released back in 1997. The only difference between the Mozilla 1.x and Netscape browser
suites, is that Mozilla 1.x doesn't include the AOL Instant Messenger, or integration with
the Netscape Webmail service. And of course, if you select a custom install of either
suite, you can de-select the optional components you don't want to install.

Essentially, the only really bloat ridden browser currently available, is Internet Explorer 6.0 SP1.

Personally I never undersand techies "IE is crap but all these other obscure browsers are great" attitude.

I'd much rather use one made and developed by the worlds leading technology software company which I know will work fine every time...

Essentially, the only really bloat ridden browser currently available, is Internet Explorer 6.0 SP1.

And how is it bloat ridden?

Am I totally missing the point or was Flava talking about the AOL software rather than Netscape?

Chris wrote:

Essentially, the only really bloat ridden browser currently available, is Internet Explorer 6.0 SP1.

And how is it bloat ridden?

You really wanna know do ya? Okey dokey then . . .



And that's before you include the various foreign language packs! Not to mention the
amount of junk the installler places in your /WINDOWS/ folder during the installation!
Once you've added the language packs (for viewing foreign websites) it all blossoms
out to a digitally obese total of 94.5MB! If that ain't bloat, I don't know what it is!

Meanwhile, when Netscape 7.0 came out, the full installation was around 30MB, and
that included 3rd party optional stuff such as Sun's Java VM, RealPlayer and Winamp.

And FWIW a custom install of Netscape 7.x, can be whittled down to just Navigator
and Composer, and that is at the expense of around 10-12MB of HDD real estate!

Of course, if all you want is the browser, there's always Firefox, K-Meleon, or Opera.

DJGM wrote:

Chris wrote:

Essentially, the only really bloat ridden browser currently available, is Internet Explorer 6.0 SP1.

And how is it bloat ridden?

You really wanna know do ya? Okey dokey then . . .



And that's before you include the various foreign language packs! Not to mention the amount of junk the installler places in your /WINDOWS/ folder during the installation! Once you've added the language packs (for viewing foreign websites) it all blossoms out to a digitally obese total of 94.5MB! If that ain't bloat, I don't know what it is!

So don't install the language packs then, plus of most of all of that is pretty much optional apart from the browser, obviously. You don't need the connection wizard for a start if you know what you're doing, or the help file, or most of the language packs if you don't intend on using them.

Plus of course that installation can also install other things that you'll probably end up needing anyway, such as the flash player (albeit updatable from macromedia.com) and, in previous flavours, the java machine, media player, a few codecs and something else as well.

Meanwhile, when Netscape 7.0 came out, the full installation was around 30MB, and that included 3rd party optional stuff such as Sun's Java VM, RealPlayer and Winamp.

Good for them, though I find Sun Java very much slower than MS's offering I have to say.

And FWIW a custom install of Netscape 7.x, can be whittled down to just Navigator and Composer, and that is at the expense of around 10-12MB of HDD real estate!

In days of old, this would be a major issue so far as disk usage is concerned. In these days of HDs capable of holding 40Gb+, to save just 40mb is neither here nor there, really.

Of course, if all you want is the browser, there's always Firefox, K-Meleon, or Opera.

Opera is nice, I like Opera. IE is much preferred in my case though

Martin wrote:Am I totally missing the point or was Flava talking about the AOL software rather than Netscape?

I want to know this: if Netscape is the best thing since sliced bread, why is AOL's Client Software bundled with Microsoft Internet Explorer, rather than Netscape, considering AOL own Netscape? Just suprised that they would bundle a so-called "crappy" browser that they don't own, rather than a supposedly "amazing" one that they do.

Flava wrote:Nobody is going to adopt any browser en-masse when it displays so many websites incorrectly. Check out http://www.fatattitude.com in a Trident and a Gecko browser and see the difference!

Sigh... here I go again!

Everyone has the right to choose their own web browser software. You (and the majority of Windows users) have decided to use Internet Explorer. That's fine by me, for I do not have to use it. Likewise, I have decided to use a Gecko based browser, and am happy with what it does. I don't worry about what you think about my choice of web brower, just like you don't care about what I think about your choice of web browser.

However, I do care when the design choices made by webmasters mean that certain groups of people are not able to "experience" the website to what they believe to be an acceptable level; for most people this is the ability to read the content of the website without impediment.

Nevertheless, many web designers (usually not purposely) have made it very difficult for certain groups to use their website to their acceptable level. I despise the terms "Suitable for Internet Explorer" or "Built for Netscape", because they imply that the use of any other web browser on their site is unwelcome, especially if they block these people from viewing the site altogether. What if some people did not use Internet Explorer because they are unable to use it? Say, if they browse the web using a Braille display? They can't use Internet Explorer - but not because they believe their web browser to be "amazing", but because it is all they can use. Oh dear... they can't use the site - if the site is a shop, then they have just lost another customer.

The intention of the World Wide Web was to be an open information platform for anyone to use. However, the needless and thoughtless design decisions by some web designers are making the web move away from this ideal.

Finally, a quote:

"Anyone who slaps a 'this page is best viewed with Browser X' label on a Web page appears to be yearning for the bad old days, before the Web, when you had very little chance of reading a document written on another computer, another word processor, or another network."

-Tim Berners-Lee in Technology Review, July 1996

http://www.anybrowser.org/campaign/