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.

Comments

New Startup Sound

[SomeoneGotMyNick]

Welcome!! - You Got Scales!!!

major - though seemingly inevitible - win and grea

[dpilot]

When I saw last week that AOL was moving to Mozilla last week, that was the best news I'd seen in a while. It *almost* made up for Dubya's nuclear policy mess or Holling's tramplings. (But not quite, unfortunately, and definitely couldn't make up for both, in any case.)

Still, I don't see how you perceive an open and standard web as 'inevitable'. Prior to the AOL move, I would have considered a Microsoft proprietary web considerably more 'inevitable' than open standards.

Most of the public doesn't even truly understand what open standards are or mean, much less feel them important. But these are the same people who take it for granted that the half-inch coarse-thread nut fits on the half-inch coarse-thread bolt, no matter who made each part.

lots of users

[peterdaly]

Like it or not, there are lots of AOL users out there. Even if all 30 million people out their don't upgrade anytime soon, there will still be enough to matter. Each day I browser in Mozilla, more and more sites render correctly on it.

Most importantly, sites that say "works best in Internet Explorer" may have to reevaluate their stance on the issue.

Netscape is about to be back in the ring, and just lined up millions of people in their corner. Standards might mean something again soon.

-Pete

Re:lots of users

[roca]

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.)

Re:lots of users

[Darren Winsper]

Netscape prior to version 6 was never very good with standards. Netscape 4, in fact, is awfully broken, especially when using CSS.

Standards only began to mean something when Mozilla became usable.

It not the eyeballs, it's the content....

[Numen]

It's easy to envisage AOL doing this until one considers that content on the Web has adapted to a large degree to IE dominance.

What AOL has to consider is its 34million users turning round and saying "the latest version of AOL is broke", if it's not rendering IE specific content correctly.

Yes I know Mozillas recent [good] record on standards compliance, but as it stands MS is holding the baton.

In short, I think this is a bluff on AOLs part, as there's too much commercial risk here, and there's no way AOL is going to take those risks (with a relatively dumb userbase), with the possibility of large user unhappiness.

Re:It not the eyeballs, it's the content....

[revscat]

What AOL has to consider is its 34million users turning round and saying "the latest version of AOL is broke", if it's not rendering IE specific content correctly.

While this may be true, the number of sites that utilize MS specific technologies is actually fairly small. But regardless of the percentage that do use broken HTML, if AOL is going to move away from IE they have to do it sooner rather than later. *If* MS comes up with some new whiz-bang HTML "extension" and it catches on, AOL will have less room to maneuver.

I don't think AOL wants to be dependant upon MS for the browser. The sooner they break away from MS and start using Gecko the better not only for AOL, but the net as a whole.

- Rev.

Re:It not the eyeballs, it's the content....

[Erik Hensema]

What AOL has to consider is its 34million users turning round and saying "the latest version of AOL is broke", if it's not rendering IE specific content correctly.

While some of them are certainly going to complain to AOL, others will complain to the webmasters. And when enough webmasters make their sites standards-complaint, less users will complain to AOL. Let's hope the number of compliant sites reaches a critical mass before AOL decides to drop Gecko.

Re:It not the eyeballs, it's the content....

[colaboy]

The company that owns the content for a lot of the pages that the 34 million AOL users (and the rest of the net) is AOL. Aside AOLs own pages, there's the entire Netscape portal site, the CNN and related websites, the warner music and film sites, etc.

Furthermore, what website wouldn't adjust it's pages if not doing so lost visibility to that kind of user base?

Re:It not the eyeballs, it's the content....

[Tim Macinta]

What AOL has to consider is its 34million users turning round and saying "the latest version of AOL is broke", if it's not rendering IE specific content correctly.

They did this once before, though. If I remember correctly, when AOL made the switch to IE, Netscape had a strong majority of the browser market and IE was still of the very poor quality that you can expect from early Microsoft releases. Websites were targetted to Netscape at the time, there were pages that didn't render right in IE, and yet AOL made the switch.

The other thing to consider is that Mozilla's rendering is downright excellent these days. I haven't had any problems rendering sites with it for a long time now. Are users really going to be getting a lot of error messages after the switch? And even if they do, why would they blame AOL? Years of Windows use has conditioned people to expect errors all the time which they can't do anything about so they shrug their shoulders and move on.

AOL has been testing Mozilla with their Compuserve users for awhile now and the tests have reportedly gone well. I don't think this is a bluff.

Re:It not the eyeballs, it's the content....

[d-e-w]

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?

Re:It not the eyeballs, it's the content....

[gotan]

It's easy to envisage AOL doing this until one considers that content on the Web has adapted to a large degree to IE dominance

And with that you're suggesting we should leave it at that and better all go the Microsoft way? AOL is in a position to do this, and now is the best time to do it, because "IE only" websites are few and far between.

What AOL has to consider is its 34million users turning round and saying "the latest version of AOL is broke", if it's not rendering IE specific content correctly.

AOL is already getting it's partners to change their websites such, that they render with mozilla/gecko. Also, why do you think they're announcing this move to another browser in advance? If i were a webmaster of some large site i'd already see to it, that it will look fine for AOL-users when the switch happens (well, i'd have made it work with mozilla anyway, but that's another subject). So even AOLs announcement of the switch will clue some webadmins up, that that "IE only" sign on their site might be a bad idea. Also some of the AOL users might love mozilla just for the fact that you can switch off those pesky automatic popup Windows (if AOL leaves that in), since they make surfing the Web a major pain.

Yes I know Mozillas recent [good] record on standards compliance, but as it stands MS is holding the baton.

And unless someone changes that it will be so forever. MS is "holding the baton" because 99% of websurfers out there use IE. And AOL obviously has the ability to change this. Now you're arguing, that AOL must continue to go with IE because of some sites that are "IE only". But those sites only exist because 99% of the websurfers are using IE, effectively closing the circle. But i think once AOL switched to mozilla those sites will change their policy fast or face some major problems (as in 30% less traffic).

In short, I think this is a bluff on AOLs part, as there's too much commercial risk here, and there's no way AOL is going to take those risks (with a relatively dumb userbase), with the possibility of large user unhappiness.

The alternative is for AOL to make their business dependent on Microsofts IE. Past history has shown, that that it is a bad idea to depend too much on Microsoft Products, because when they want to extend their business into your market it gives them an easy way to kick you out of business and win your customers over.

I think the AOL executives prefer to take a little risk (i don't think it all that big) to just waiting until Microsoft stabs them in the back.

Re:It not the eyeballs, it's the content....

[IGnatius T Foobar]

While this may be true, the number of sites that utilize MS specific technologies is actually fairly small. But regardless of the percentage that do use broken HTML, if AOL is going to move away from IE they have to do it sooner rather than later. *If* MS comes up with some new whiz-bang HTML "extension" and it catches on, AOL will have less room to maneuver.

I don't think AOL wants to be dependant upon MS for the browser. The sooner they break away from MS and start using Gecko the better not only for AOL, but the net as a whole.

That's exactly the issue, and it's exactly why AOL is wise to move right now. Any sooner and Gecko would have been "not quite ready," any later and you'd risk the complete MSification of the web.

And what's that "extension?" Personally, I think it'll be a Microsoft-led effort to replace Java applets with .NET applets. It's only a matter of time before Internet Explorer gains the ability to embed .NET applets in web pages. Once that happens, it'll take something the size of AOL's user base being on the 'net to prevent webmasters from using this ultra-proprietary technology and assuming that it'll work for "nearly everyone."

Yes, I already know that browser-embedded Java isn't a great technology either, but at least it's available on every platform. If we ended up with a Web largely dependent on .NET applets, it's essentially game-over for non Microsoft browsers. Thank you, AOL, for making this switch now.

Re:It not the eyeballs, it's the content....

[eddy the lip]

While some of them are certainly going to complain to AOL, others will complain to the webmasters.

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.

Re:things happen faster when there's money around

[JPriest]

Farting around not getting anywhere? You know AOL *did* decide to use it.

MSIE vs Mozilla/Gecko

[cbr372]

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).

Sites

90% 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.

Conclusions

IE 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.

Re:MSIE vs Mozilla/Gecko

[dimator]

Oh, people can come up with statistics to prove anything, Kent. 14% of people know that.

Re:It doesnt matter anyways...

[peteshaw]

Yes! It matters a great deal! Those "AOL Idiots" spend money! And if the customer base jumps from 90% IE 10% other to 70% IE /30% other, it might not make a difference to some homemade page, but it will if you're Sears, or Amazon, (or Capital One). Especially when you are not talking about VHS/Betamax, but rather enforcing a *standard* that will only enlarge your customer base.

BTW, if you want to bug Capital One about their poor support for Mozilla/Netscape, send an email over to media.relations@capitalone.com.

I sent them an email this morning. Cheers to the low interest rate card. Cheers to the Frequent flyer miles and great customer service. Jeers to the lousy browser support.

Re:things happen faster when there's money around

[csbruce]

How long did SpyGlass work on the IE predecessor before being swindled by Microsoft?

This could be a disaster

[Mr_Silver]

(Note: I'm not trolling, I'm being serious and I'd love people to comment and prove me wrong)

I'm a little worried that this could all end in a bit of a mistake. Don't get me wrong, I think that standards are a good thing. They're good for developers because they know what they send out, will be viewable in all clients. They're good for end-users because they can use any client and still get the content. However, there is a problem.

I'm just moved from IE to Opera. For the sole reason that I hate having 15 IE windows open. Thats it. Nothing else and I admit it. However whilst surfing the net doing research I find a good many sites are broken and Opera doesn't show them too well. Hell even my own site doesn't work very well.

In fact, i'm to the point of going back to IE. Why?

Because I want that content and I can't get it. Sure, its not my fault that I can't get the content, after all, they've written bad HTML but from an end-users perspective that isn't the issue. They want that information and their browser won't give it to them. Period.

To the end-user, it doesn't matter if the HTML is badly formed, if people see it not working on browser y and it does on browser x then they will automatically assume that y is broken. ("but x lets me see my page, why can't i on y?", "because the pages are badly written", "well if they're badly written, why can i see them on x?" and so on)

Now of course the standard geek response is "well its their fault they haven't followed standards". Well yes, it is. But it also sucks for the individual who wants the information on that page.

"well then, they should go elsewhere". People don't just go elsewhere. They find a few retailers they consider trustworthy and stick with them. Or what happens if that content isn't available elsewhere? Then you're stuck. It also doesn't help when they see their friends using browser x and having no such problems.

Which means that I've come to the depressing conclusion that AOL might even be forced to return to IE. Or they'll put pressure on Mozilla developers to try and cope with dodgy HTML.

This certainly doesn't help standards, but when there is a large mob of people phoning up the tech support lines complaining that their favourite websites no longer work, AOL may start changing their mind.

Re:This could be a disaster

[mmcshane]

I agree, it is possible that this blows up in AOL's face. From my point of view, who cares? Maybe AOL loses 10 million customers - no skin off my nose. What I like is that I can now say to my boss, "In a year or so there are going to be 30 million AOL users forced into using the Gecko rendering engine. We need to write good front end code." And that statement won't be 100% true but the concept is right and even better, it will work.

For the record, while Opera's layout engine and CSS support is excellent, it's DOM (Javascript) capabilities are very poor.

Re:This could be a disaster

[ethereal]

The answer is: Market Share

No company is going to leave its web site unavailable to 34 million people, not when they can make the site standards-compliant and work in both IE and AOL. Netscape 4.x is a different matter, granted - you almost had to have two copies of your site for a while. But if AOL uses Gecko, then the web's back to only one site for everyone, and all of us using non-IE browsers will benefit from that. AOL's 34 million newbies could be the best thing that's happened to the web in the last couple years (betcha never saw that coming :).

Re:This could be a disaster

[MeNeXT]

I dissagree

It reminds me a few months back I went to site that required FLASH(since it was big co I will not advertise their site). There was no other way to view the site without FLASH. So I sent them a little email asking them if they were promoting flash or their product. The site now supports HTML. I do not think that my email made them change their attitude but sales would have a hard time explaining to management why they lost a client due to flash.

I think that this would apply to any website. Companies are creating websites to make $$$$. If they feel they are loosing sales trust me they will support standards.

Re:This could be a disaster

[revscat]

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.

Re:This could be a disaster

[TheAwfulTruth]

And what makes you think that if AOL 8 becomes the dominant broswer that the coin won't just flip and people start using AOL 8 extensens that AOL is SURE to install? Steve Case doesn't care shit for the internet. AOL IS THE INTERNET as far as he's concerened. He will take mozilla and make it as proprietary as IE and more so. Extend the hell out of it and people will start ading those extensions to their websites. Then those of you using the vanilla Netscape or other browsers will be just as out of luck as the IE users...

It will happen. Anyone not blinded by the OSS glare can see that coming a mile off. Netscape and Mozilla will irreparably fork as soon as AOL 8 is fully in place.

Re:things happen faster when there's money around

[sheldon]

"notice how fast AOL took on this project?"

Hmmm... They started this project in November of 1998 when they announced the acquisition of Netscape.

So it's taken just over 3 years to get to a beta stage. Fast in geological time keeping, but certainly not what we used to call internet time.

UK Natwest Slashdotters - do your bit!

[mccalli]

I have tried out the latest Mozilla browser, and could switch to it full time apart from a few things (poor streaming media being one).

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

One question:

[iceT]

Could this mean a AOL client for LINUX?

Re:One question:

[An Onerous Coward]

Probably not. Linux is still a bit of a niche desktop market, and AOL doesn't see it as cost-effective to support.

It's an economic thing called "marginal cost." To release a client for YipeeOS, they need to write the client, debug the client, test it on a wide variety of hardware/software configurations, and then distribute the new client alongside the AOL client for Windows (increasing burning time and making the install process ever so slightly more complicated). AOL's current policy is to provide free tech support to all customers, so they also have to write a knowledge database for that client, and train at least a few techs in using it.

It was worthwhile for them to release a Macintosh client, and at some point the beancounters will have to admit that it's worthwhile to support Linux. At the moment, I think AOL's best option would be to release an unsupported Linux client (for download rather than CD-based distribution). I know there are people out there who would use it.

Re:One question:

[jilles]

It's not that simple and all application vendors are faced with this problem. Most vendors solve it by simply requiring red hat linux to be installed, reliefing them of the need to test with other distributions. Differences between distributions include version differences in among others kernel, compiler, libraries, x windows, desktop environment. Each of these may have version specific bugs that may or may not influence other packages. It's nearly impossible to test for all possible combinations. In addition, all distributions are updated frequently and typically have a lot of changes between versions. It's nearly impossible to keep up with that.

Support also is difficult since there are so many distribution specific problems that may prevent a program from working as intended. Imagine a user calling and asking "I can't load any site with AOL 7 on linux" or a similarly vague question. A good heuristic to approaching such a client would be to figure out whether the network is configured correctly. On windows that is easy since all versions of windows have a control panel with network settings and there are only minor differences between the different versions. On linux each distribution allows multiple ways of configuring the network and there are likely to be significant differences between each distribution and even among different versions of the same distribution. Almost certainly a proper solution to any problems with the configuration will require editing text files and work on the commandline. Not a problem for advanced users but a nightmare for the average AOL helpdesk staff and AOL user.

This Will Show Who Really Has The Power

[north.coaster]

If AOL really does switch browsers, then some interestings may happen that will show us who really has the power to control the Internet. The key issue is whether or not the owners of the non-conforming web sites will fix their sites. If they do, then that would prove that Microsoft does control the net (yet). On the other hand, if the owners of non-conforming sites do not fix their pages, then that proves Microsoft is already in defacto control.

Now some readers are probably dismissing this as too simplistic:

Can AOL really change the net? You gotta be kidding! It's not that simple!

I'm not kidding. I think that it really does come down to AOL vs. MS. The Internet is driven by content, and if a abrupt change by one company (AOL) can reverse the non-conformance trend that Microsoft has been pushing for several years, then that will illustrate just how influencial AOL (by way of it's web brower) can be.

Of course, if AOL's current test is just a bluff to try to improve their business position with Microsoft, then that will prove that MS is already in control.

And that would mean that the sucess of .NET is almost certain.

/Don

Serious software companies don't ship open source

[Col. Klink (retired)]

I like this story. Jupiter Media Metrix analyst David Card (who?) doesn't believe they'll really ship it, since "serious software companies don't ship open source."

This guy is apparently unaware of that AOL already relies on OSS like AOLserver.

You'll be a Mozilla user by the end of the weekend

[Tony Shepps]

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.

Re:hypocrisy wait for the other shoe...

[TheAwfulTruth]

I predict that when AOL controls the server AND client, they will take off into an AOL proprietary universe over the next few years. There wil then be the internet and there will be AOL. I mean it's practically that way now. But because they didn't own the browser in the past they had to stick with web standards and people could use other browsers to get to their network. As soon as AOL 8 is completely installed (Still a couple years at least for full conversion) there will be no reason to stick soley with standards any more. They will be a embracin' and a extendin' with the best of them...

Load times

[Spy Hunter]

Is anyone else out there having horrible performance with Mozilla on WinXP systems? If I use Mozilla's quick start option, when I load other programs WinXP always swaps Mozilla out to disk. Then when I try to bring Mozilla back up it takes LONGER to swap it all back in than it does to start in the first place! If I leave a mozilla window minimized, then run several other programs, then switch back to Mozilla, it freezes for something like 5-10 seconds while the hard drive crunches. Often WinXP brings up the "this program is not responding" dialog during this process.