Slashdot Mirror
AOL Beta Testing Gecko-Based Browser
Bedouin X writes: "MozillaZine is reporting that AOL has released a Gecko client for Windows! Scuttlebutt says that it's based on Gecko .94.2. While I think that the common assumption that AOL including Gecko equals 34 million new OSS users is fallacious (most AOL hits on my site are 5.0), there is no denying that it would be a major - though seemingly inevitible - win and great for a more standard web. Maybe Capital One would quit being the lone holdout of my creditors that don't support Mozilla." Reader SEE also adds a link to a story on CNET.
AOL is making a good move by basing its next generation browser on Gecko/Mozilla.
Mozilla is currently the most standards-compliant browser. In its 0.9.9 reincarnation, I have found it to be fast, reliable and easy to use. I tried the GNU/Linux and Win32 versions.My Win32 test included a end-to-end test against the hyped IE 6 browser.
The test was performed on a standard 700Mhz Duron with 256MB of RAM running Windows 2000 Professional. My conclusive results are as follows:Loading
Mozilla 0.9.9 loaded 17% faster than IE 6 and 21% faster using the -turbo option (C:\mozilla\mozilla - turbo)IE 6 loaded 5% faster than Mozilla 0.9.3 when Mozilla was loaded without the -turbo option. This is not a good measure of true performance though - IE loads itself into memory. A better test would be to use Mozilla -turbo vs IE (see above).
Sites90% of sites viewed with Mozilla loaded 100% correctly the first time they were loaded. 5% of the sites test with Mozilla loaded 80% or better when loaded for the first time with Mozilla. 96.2% of sites loaded 100% correctly when refreshed multiple times under Mozilla.
96% of sites viewed with IE 6 loaded correctly the first time. 98% of the sites loaded correctly after multiple refreshes.Reliability
IE 6 crashed a total of 1 time, claiming: "Illegal operation: Iexplore.exe". The system stayed up and IE 5.5 was able to restart.Mozilla did not crash during this test.
ConclusionsIE seems slightly more compatible with most sites, but Mozilla seems faster and more stable at most tasks. Undoubtedly future versions of IE and Mozilla will improve and re-testing will be neccessary.
Cedric Balthazar Rotherwood
Sun Certified Programmer for the Java Platform +
System Admin. for Solaris
However, the major hold up is that my bank refuses to allow me to use it - the site became inaccessible to modern Netscape/Mozilla browsers curiously enough at about the same time the whole thing went .asp-based.
UK Natwest-using Slashdotters - do your bit! I have, I've mailed their feedback section asking when a Netscape greater than 4.x will be supported, pointing out the new AOL announcement. I added Mozilla in too, but this is a mainstream place and hammering on at their Netscape support is likely to get you further.
Query form is here and then select "Feedback" from the drop-down.
Cheers,
Ian
> Could this mean a AOL client for LINUX?
No. As they have stated many times, there are far too many possible configurations of Linux for them to try and support.
There are a couple of things to take into consideration here:
For the most part, web designers crave standards. The absolute number one bitch of web designers is having to code for the quirks in different browsers. By having one of the major players in the market switch over to standards compliance, a *huge* load is taken off of the development time. Developers have been clamoring for more compliance for years. (And face it: IE is a very standards compliant browser; making the switch will all not be that drastic.) While it might take some time to make the switch, it will be well, WELL worth it to do so because you can just code to the standard.
AOL is in the business of delivering content over the internet. Currently the tool used by their customers to view this content is controlled by a competitor: Microsoft. It just doesn't make business sense for AOL to be dependant upon MS for such a core element of their business model.
AOL is a huge entity with enough clout to pressure commercial sites to change their ways. If a significant percentage of your customer base are AOL users, and AOL has changed a few things, you will either change your site or lose the customer. Most businesses will change their site.
In short, I think this is absolutely a win-win situation for the industry and the consumer. AOL is less dependant upon MS, developers are (more) happy because they don't have to code for Nutscrape specific quirks, and the end user will get a more consistent browsing experience.
http://mozilla.org/xpapps/MachVPlan/MachV_NavPlan. html
Thank god they are fixing the lame-ass bookmark organizer.
Have a NICE day.
AOL users tend to complain to the webmasters. Because AOL is perfect, 'ya know ...
My website has been blamed for crashing AOL user's computers (simple html + text, no JS), for being full of broken links (due to a site update combined with the AOL cache) and many other odd things that were pretty obviously the fault of AOL.
We've currently got an AOL cache server out there that apparently hasn't managed to pick up the new version of a page updated on Feb 13th (now that's nuts; usually if a cache server is completely screwed, we can tell the users to wait 24 hours and it should clear up.) The users that hit that server think that we've got mislabeled/mislinked content on our page. And they complain about it. And we blame AOL. And they don't believe us, because AOL is perfect, 'ya know?
They could conceivably do whatever they want in their closed-source Netscape branch. But anything that deliberately breaks standards compliance will never be accepted into the Mozilla core. Mozilla has a strong policy of standards support and there are non-AOL people in groups like drivers@mozilla.org who have the power to enforce that policy, by vetoing checkins or even backing out checkins that have already been made. (I'm one of them.)
If you find a page that doesn't work well with Mozilla, you can file a Tech Evangelism bug report. The Intel site does have bug 113099 reported against it. If this is the bug you're experiencing you can vote for it, or you can go report your bug.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
I do web development, and I'm inclined to agree. Users (especially the less sophisticated ones) are more likely to blame what they're trying to view than what's allowing them to view it. It's the page that looks wrong, not the browser. Hence, it's the page that's broken.
This has been a damned nuisance on occasion because AOL, with the default client settings, will serve up mangled graphics from their cache, rather than the originals that go with the page. The call that we get isn't "AOL broke your page", it's "your page is broken".
This illustrates another point, that AOL will provide a sub-standard user experience if they feel it's in their best interest to do so. In this case, I really think it is. One wannabe monopoly won't benefit by being beholden to another.
This is the voice of World Control. I bring you Peace.
It take approximately 2 YEARS for 80% of users to upgrade to a new browser. So in March of 2004, there will still probably be 6.8 million AOL users with IE based clients.
I'm just moved from IE to Opera. For the sole reason that I hate having 15 IE windows open.
OBOY do I know what you mean, and that's exactly how I used to browse. I'm about to make your life a WHOLE lot easier.
Go download Mozilla and install it. Go to Edit->Preferences. Double-click on Navigator. Click on Tabbed Browsing. Select "Load links in the background" and "Middle-click or control-click of links in a Web page". Also select any of the other boxes that you think you might be interesting. Click OK.
Now go to any site you browse frequently. Use control-click or middle click to open new tabs in the background whilst your main site window does not change.
After two minutes with this feature, you will not be able to live without it. Guaranteed.
Not alot of people know about this web site, but it's damn handy for a bunch of reasons. I like to check it periodically to see the march toward newer browser versions, it gives you a really good window into how fast people at large are upgrading.
Link
It used to have AOL versions percentages as well, but they've reformatted the page to focus it purely on web browser versions. My recollection is that it takes about 12-18 months for a new AOL version to become the dominate version of AOL software used with about 10-15% of people who never upgrade.
After reading the posts on this topic I decided A little history lesson was needed to understand why AOL is doing this. WAY back in 1995 AOL approached Netscape and offered to design and support the Netscape portal netscape.com and in return AOL would use the Netscape browser in it's client software. Netscape laughed at them and said running a portal was easy and anybody could do it. Netscape WAS interested in getting their browser into the AOL client so they began negotiations. Meanwhile AOL decided to begin secretly negotiating with Microsoft to use IE. At the time IE was doing poorly and wasn't making much headway against Netscape so Microsoft rolled out the red carpet for AOL. They supplied API's tools and whatever else AOL wanted to make IE work with their client. Netscape finally came to an agreement with AOL to include AOL IM with the Netscape browser. The same day AOL announced their partnership with Microsoft to use IE in their client. This did not sit well with either MS nor Netscape. The inclusion of IE in the AOL client tipped the scales for IE and topled Netscapes browser dominance almost overnight. Netscape folds and gets bought by AOL. MS has a 5 year deal to have IE included in the AOL client (1995-2000). After the contract expires MS and AOL negotiate as to whether AOL will continue to use IE. MS, however, now has a new toy called MSN network and AOL doesn't like it at all. MS doesn't want to let AOL get installed automatically with every new copy of XP. They fight and argue and both go home angry. AOL decides that it is time to get a return on investment of Netscape. Netscape is almost ready and has been steadily improving the last year. BAM! AOL switches and now IE's share of the browser market drops over 30% BTW, AOL/Time Warner owns some of the biggest properties on or off the net. You don't think they will make sure those sites are compliant?
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K