Browser Wars II: CompuServe Strikes Back

securitas writes "Today CompuServe (an AOL subsidiary) launched CompuServe 7.0 with Netscape as the underlying browser. CompuServe started testing Komodo, a Gecko-based client, last year, and is now experimenting with Gecko-based AOL clients. CompuServe's 3 million-member user base is seen as a testbed before turning AOL's 34 million members into Netscape users later this year." Update: 04/16 20:54 GMT by T : Also an interesting story at CNN on the upcoming Mozilla 1.0. RC1 is very nice, as have been most recent builds.

Comments

Goodbye, ActiveX! Don't let the door hit you in...

[1010011010]

I hope this spells the end of ActiveX website "enhancements." Having a large segments of people using a standards-based, non-Windows-specific browser will definitely improve the usability of the Web

Re:Now if....

[turbine216]

Why does anyone think that the key to escaping the so-called "microsoft deathgrip" lies in an alternate web browser? It makes A LOT more sense to say "maybe if Apple would port their OS to X86 architecture, there would be some progress away from MS," or even something like "maybe if the Open Source community could come up with a decent office suite that is actually WORTH the $0 price tag, there would be some progress away from MS." But how in the hell does a browser have anything to do with it? I (and many others that I know) use various Mozilla builds on various Windows versions, and we're still hooked on MS because we like the REAL products, Windows and Office.

I think this whole "browser war" gets way too much emphasis these days. It made sense 7 years ago when Netscape wasn't free and was trying to compete. Today, who gives a shit what browser comes out on top?? Shouldn't you be more concerned about competing with Microsoft's OTHER software?

Forced Download?

[Bonker]

Not likely. A staggering number of AOL'ers are still using versions 3.0 and 4.0 of the AOL client, so I can only assume that similar percentages of compuserve users are doing the same thing. I don't think we can count on all of Compuserve, let alone 34 million AOL accounts, to suddenly be running on Gecko code any time in the near future.

Forcing an update download on customers is possible, however. Certain online games are now in the practice of forcing a patch on users on a weekly basis. This same model could work for the big ISP's to keep their customers updated with the latest technology.

It could also play into the hands of pushers of spyware and adware. What better way for LEO's to spy on someone suspected of a crime than to 'push' an update to his AOL or Compuserve account?

browser marketshare parity is a good thing

[Infonaut]

While Netscape/Mozilla hasn't been thrilling me of late, I think the only really important thing about the resurgence of the Browser Wars is that with a multitude of truly viable browser options available to users, perhaps we'll start to finally see some adaptation of standards that *work*.

No, I'm not talking about W3 standards. While those are a good thing in theory, they're only good in practice when BOTH of the major players in the market embrace them in the same fashion.

For example, while CSS is great for type control (in the main), it sucks for element placement because by the time you go through all of the necessary browser workarounds and browser detects and different versions of the same content, you may as well have just built the damned thing using tables.

All this talk about how Mozilla rocks and IE blows, or vice-versa, is completely beside the point. We can't have a better Web until the two dominant forces in the Browser Universe start applying standards in the same fashion.

Of course, O'Reilly would be bummed, because they'd no longer have to publish books like the CSS Pocket Guide (which delineates in great detail the myriad ways in which different tags are supported by different browsers).

I'm still pessimistic, but overall if Netscape finds a way to regain enough marketshare to become viable again, it may encourage Netscape and IE to compete solely on the basis of features not tied to the rendering engine.

Hey, a guy can dream, right?

Re:browser marketshare parity is a good thing

[brogdon]

A pleasant thought, but the two browsers began on their divergent compatability paths back when the browsers *were* competing with each other. Netscape lobbied like Hell to get layers included in the W3C standard and then, after they weren't approved by the consortium, left them in the browser anyway, making all of us DHTML coders write two sets of scripts to handle them and IE's DIV tags.

MS had been playing catch up to all of Netscape's quirks up until that point, but when IE 4 came out they knew they were going to take the lead, so they didn't bother worrying about layers. They were too busy planning all the IE-only extensions *they* would make once they held the lead in the race (stuff like those crappy XML behaviors). Now that the browser war has been won (by the bad guys, of course), Microsoft actually does a pretty decent job of sticking with the W3C and maintaining the standards, since they don't have to worry about the competition getting an even playing field so much any more.

One could make the case that neither company had the time to wait for the W3C to release new, "official" standards when they busy innovating like Hell in order to get a leg up on the competition. In either case the disparity, I feel, is a direct result of having two browsers in direct, heated competition. I'm afraid this would come back if the browser wars were to start back up again. I really don't want to start writing two sets of code again.

Re:Now if....

[Anonymous Coward]

> Today, who gives a shit what browser comes out on top?? Shouldn't you be more concerned about competing with Microsoft's OTHER software?

No.

Today browsing is absolutely vital for anyone with a computer. If we drop the ball, then the internet will be a proprietary windows-only thing in a matter of years (like dropping html in favor of word format, or that kind of thing).

No OS will ever be able to take off, as _everything_ that people will use will be totally proprietary.

Mozilla is the _most_ important application today.

Re:From the office of the president

[elphkotm]

As much as a troll as this is, you exemplify the wrong attitude that has become dominant in the open source world. Beyond the hype, the purpose of open source is to improve software, period. Open source isn't about defeating the evils in the world or getting things for free, it's about moving technology forward. You don't spend a Saturday in a soup kitchen because you get something tangible from it. If Microsoft decides to take the high-quality TCP/IP stack code written by FreeBSD and integrating it into Windows 2000, then let them. By hundreds of people contributing their effort into that TCP/IP stack, they have made Windows 2000 more stable. That, my friend, is the goal in the end, better software. Not because someone paid for it, but because someone decided it needed to be done the right way.

Re:Now if....

[TheTomcat]

Today, who gives a shit what browser comes out on top??

I do.

If one company controls 99% of web browsing, they could eventually move to controlling 99% of webservers by implementing "features" that only work with their server/browser implementation. I believe that's why MS came up with IE in the first place.

Sounds conspiracy theorist, right?
Read this, then.

They're known for this sort of thing. I used to be a huge MS hater, and I've grown to tolerate them over the past 2-or-so years (since Win2000, really), but it's crap like this that puts me back on the skeptic team.

S

Comical.

[Zico]

Yeah, I'm sure that all those paying subscribers can't wait to have their services disrupted so that they can be guinea pigs for AOL. I'm sure they have nothing better to do than send Compuserve "zounds of customer feedback" saying that the things they want to do are now broken.