Slashdot Mirror
Browser Wars II: The Saga Continues
adamsmith_uk writes "For the first time in three years something has happened in browser land. In fact, major events have started happening at a breathtaking pace. Time for a long overview that tells the whole story. "
Come on, I know that Mozilla and IE and Netscape are the big dogs relatively speaking.
What about Konqueror, Safari for the Macheads, Galeon, Opera or Firebird?
I have always liked Galeon myself. Still Epiphany is supposed to be good and there are a zillion reasons for using an alt browser. What are yours?
ACK
Funnily enough I was just checking the stats for a client web site and for the first time both Mozilla (about 5%) and Linux (about 2%) got into my report to the client. The web site is for engineers and my prediction is that engineers are going to be the first significant user of linux on the desktop over the next couple of years.
I agree. Mozilla shows great promise, and with a detailed roadmap (which they are following quite well) they will be better than Explorer, and probably soon. Go Mozilla!
When you don't have a leg to stand on, don't even get up.
I agree IE MAC was certainly moree css compliant then the windows version, but only slightly so. IE MAC is slow and slugish on most macs comapred to just about every other browser it also crashes frequently. The macs i use are top end, with lots of ram, lots of hd space and they are constamtly replaced and teh same problems persist with IE MAC. Saffari is not bad, but it's not that hot...i'm not a big mozilla fan, buty the mozilla family is tops in OS X land, it is the fastest most compliant browser i have used on a MAC.
Granted, a lot of web developers have had to deal with IE, but it seems to me with the only mention of Moz as being in trouble is, well, kinda stupid. I keep reading Moz keeps getting better and better and sure enough, with each release it does get better and better. And so do the browsers based on Gecko. If anything, Moz has crossed over that hump that IE is hitting now. And let's not forget all the neat stuff coming out in XUL. Sure, it needs to be faster, but the possibilities are interesting. Especially if you don't wanna be M$'s bitch.
Maybe it's because I mostly focus on enterprise apps and not too much on client side stuff, but frankly, this guy downplays standards too much, which to me is bizarre because the whole non-standards thing is how we got into this whole mess of one browser no innovation crap. Yah sure, standards take long and companies innovate faster. But, look who you signed on the dotted line when all you web creators went strictly IE. Yes, the f-ing devil.
I probably live in the dreamy stratosphere demanding on most of my projects that we find ways around IE only stuff and make the application robust, secure, and stable, which to me and end users is far more important than js, layers and whatnot. Sure, I also know there are plenty of people who need jazzy sites and have to deal with these issues but you only have to be burned so many times to realize that you need to pull your hand away from the flame.
I guess though, I just feel like design on Moz based browsers and tweak for the rest. Because in time, these scales are going to tip out of IE's favor. I know, I'm in the minority, but I also want my stuff to work. I sacrafice a little zing for a better development experience. Cuz in the end, the users don't care.
Hopefully enough eyes will be opened, and will see that the future is Firebird.
I'd actually be more comfortable if atleast 3 browsers other than IE had a sizable share. Mozilla currently depends on AOL for funding, and now that MS has settled, AOL might simply drop Mozilla in favor of Netscape. A few articles on these lines also made the rounds.
Opera and Konqueror seem to have a bit of the pie, and that's good news as well. The best thing to happen to browsers would be a few browsers that implement the W3 specs fully, and force the rest to do likewise.
Next to RS232, HTTP is the most abused standard protocol in computing. Time to rein in the violators.
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
The future is XWEBS.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
As long as the Microsoft IIS server continues to favor IE, (can't find the older /. articles about IIS circumventing the standard HTTP protocol to serve pages faster to IE, and also display crappy pages on Mozilla) rather than serving pages fairly across all browsers, and continues to be as widely as Apache, IE will still remain in the game. Simply because general home users wont understand why some pages crap out with Mozilla/etc (not designed for any browser other than IE or due to discrimination by IIS).
It's a pity Apache doesn't start favoring Mozilla/Opera over IE, but I guess that wouldn't be fair play.
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
I've been a daily Mozilla user for 2 years now. I love it and in my opinion, it's superior to IE6 in a lot of ways.
As good as Moz is, it won't unseat IE anytime soon. IE could degenerate to a festering piece of donkey dung and it will still remain the most widely used browser.
Have a look at that:
http://www.google.com/press/zeitgeist.html
For the majority of those IE6 users, IE is synonymous with "The Internet" Unless there is some radical new browser related technology that MS is unable to embrace and extend befofe the little guy's get their implementation out, IE will be around for a long long time.
Your supplier will find that they will have a much more difficult time requiring IE7 if it requires a costly OS upgrade.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
When I was in college from 95-99, it was easy for me to be anti-Microsoft. I didn't particularly know much about it, but I knew that my Win95 machine crashed and therefore those MS people must be morons.
I knew that there were a lot of others that hated them, so I just sort of figured it was the cool thing to do, hate those bastards.
Then I started learning more econ and started thinking less as a college student and more rationally in terms of how MS got there, and I stopped hating MS.
That said, I did hate IE. It sucked nuts. Mosaic was total ass, and at the time Netscape was the bees knees.
I continued to use Netscape throughout college and was annoyed whenever I had to use IE.
Then I graduated and began to actually program - my particular projects were nearly all DHTML web applications that were large scale ports of existing legacy apps, moving to the web to allow easier use and upkeep... so they said.
DHTML on Netscape sucked the hugest and hairy nuts, so we told our clients that they would have to use IE (these were private applications, used in house at many large universities, we weren't designing storefronts that needed to be cross-browser).
I hadn't seen IE in a long time and was really enjoying working with it compared to the clunky and awkward Netscape.
As a result, up until about a week ago, I was all for IE. It was fast, worked well with DHTML, and most importantly in the past year or two - it has the Google Toolbar.
I have been trying out Mozilla for the past few years, but haven't been all that impressed by it - in fact I was really put off by it at first.
But I just installed 1.4 last week and was really impressed with it - and once I saw that I could get the same Google Toolbar functionality that I used all the time, I realized that I really had a reason to switch now.
I personally am still sticking with IE at work, b/c I do a lot of IT admin stuff on an MS network, and using IE makes it easier to do some of the MS updates.
At home I will likely make the switch over to Mozilla to keep track of many e-mail accounts, as well as for my personal web surfing.
I'm at the point now where I am starting up my own web venture, so I am actually going to have to test for cross browser look and feel, as well as functionality.
My first test at it showed that Mozilla 1.4 is better at dealing with png graphics than IE 6.something. Mozilla also renders a page faster.
I haven't used Opera in over two years, I suppose I will need to test that as well on the site. I don't have a Mac, so I can't test any of their browsers.
I think those should totally cover my target market (I actually think in terms of the business, it will be nearly 99% IE users).
What does this have to do with anything? Not a whole lot I guess.
There are some odd things afoot now, in the Villa Straylight.
I've been using Opera (in "free with banner-ad" mode) for maybe a couple hundred years now -- don't know how long for real, because I cringe at the thought of using Explorer. I used to have to switch to IE for some work-required sites, but the new version (7.11, aka the "Slurpee" version) has whittled my IE requirements down to just one boneheaded site.
But the best test came when my mother sat down to do a job search using IE. She was immediately assailed by popups, so I helpfully pointed out that you don't get popups with Opera unless you want them. I showed her where to click... and she's hooked. Score one more for the Norwegians!
On the other hand, my wife and 12-year-old daughter don't like Opera. In both cases, I think it's because Opera doesn't have enough security holes, and it interferes with their game downloads. I shudder to think what I might find if I were to install ZoneAlarm...
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
With the arrival of IE 4.0 I became a serious supporter of the MS browser because they seemed to just get things right. The rendering speed was great, and they supported a richer base of standards for web technology particularly CSS. But here it is 2 major versions later and I am an avid supported of Phoenix, which some may understand to be the version re-named to firebird that will replace the older mozilla packages.
I use Phoenix because they care enough to innovate in an area that MS has all but ignored. It is almost unbearable for me to surf without tabbed browsing now, pop up blocking, and enhanced configuration for what attributes of the browser scripts are allowed to modify, as well as their built in download history add up to create a browser that I feel allows me to determine my own destiny while surfing.
Furthermore as a web developer, the community oriented plugins that allow me to dynamically alter the DOM to enhance things like page layout, validation tests, etc. add fuel to the fire.
I hope that MS will stop working so hard at getting media player integrated into the browser and go back and add the features like tabbed browsing, enhanced privacy, etc. But for now, the best browser out there IMO is Phoenix.
I mean, does anyone really need a new version of a .pdf viewer, or notepad, or any other user-level application that has reached a stable, relatively bug free condition that effectively does it's job?
In fact, this ties nicely with Microsoft's Liscensing V. 6 program, where they have a nice, stable revenue stream while not actually requiring any actual programming (I'll refrain from using the term 'innovation') on thier part.
This does also raise an interesting paradigm shift for the Gnu/Linux community. In essence, the programmers, in creating a sable, user friendly computing environment should be working themselves out of a job, since once they're done, there should be little to do, but periodic refinements (we may already be there in certain places.) Those programmers can then go out and focus on really improving (and innovating) the way we interact with our computers.
OK...
I can do this. I am, after all,
a superhero!
I installed Mozilla an made it the default browser. I put the icon on the desktop for him, right next to the IE Icon. I even clicked through it once for him and told him it would keep those nasty pop-ups from bugging him (for which he constantly had a new combination of swear words).
Still, every time I see him browsing, it's with IE. Time to give up? Old habits die hard.
Seriously, Don't take anything I say seriously.
I agree with you ... BUT, they aren't incapable of making the change. They just need a good reason...
.6 seriously kicks ass! Its the browser I've been wanting for a long time. Gecko is good, but the standard Mozilla implemention is bloated and it sucks too much. That's why firebird is nice... light, fast, and only the features I want. Nothing more.
... POP-UPS! Christ... all we need is an anchor on CNN (they're AOLTIMEWARNER, RIGHT? They *could* easily push firebird/mozilla) to do a 1 minute piece about how IE sucks and Firebird is better.
I'll say this to start: Firebird
The good reason we can give for the IE tards out there that don't want to switch
The EASILY demonstrated value in Firebird/mozilla is the pop-up blocking feature. I bet that if Joe and Sally Q. Computeruser knew that there's an easier to use web browser that doesn't bombard them with POP-UPS, they'd download and install in an instant.
Installing firebird is a piece of cake by the way... download, click the icon, the browser starts to run. Can't really get much easier than that.
Skiers and Riders -- http://www.snowjournal.com
This whole browser thing has been going on for so many years, and yet I don't think the question has ever been answered; if a company/group wins the browser wars, what does it get them? Microsoft, Apple, etc. pour how much money into development of software they give away - where's the reward/compensation for the investment?
The only thing I can think of is an assumption that people would choose an OS based on its proprietary browser (Explorer7 or Safari) but I think everyone would agree that the decision would probably work the other way around (OS first, browser selection consequential).
If that's not it, what's the answer (the answer to a shareholder's question, perhaps) for pumping money into browser development? Is there a day of reckoning fast approaching when we'll all start paying for browsers and this long-running war is just for future market credibility and establishing a price point?
RTFM; please, I beg you.
But they are much bigger than us, and due to the nature of our relationship, it would be more costly for us to switch suppliers (I won't bore you with the detail unless you really want me to). So, while we can put some pressure on them, if we are their only customer doing so we are, as they say, up shit's creek.
i don't like my old sig.
I think that the pretense of the article is wrong. When I reached the point of the article where it said "end users do not care about browsers" I felt like I should stop reading. You are the end user even if you are a developer. If no-one cares about it then why write about it? If no-one understands or cares about CSS then why mention it again and again?
Not only is the article poorly worded but it states all it's theories and conjectures as if they were facts! Where is the proof?
If you outlaw the law, only criminals will have laws
People don't start their browser - they start the Internet. They'll tell you so - they click on the icon marked "Internet" and off they go. They don't use a document editor, they use Word, and if they use Wordperfect they'll usually say "Wordperfect", though in the back of their head they'll say "that thing I use for editing typed stuff".
The interesting thing is that in some ways, this is pointing to the fufillment of a long term dream of computer usage patterns. You're not concerned about your tools, you're just doing your tasks. In its ubiquity, the brand is getting more and more transparent.
I'm not saying it's good that this path of carefree electronic life is looking so propietary, but it could be worse.
SO YOU'RE GOING TO DIE: The Comic for Dealing with Death
... I'm working my holiday away at a computer store. You know what? 90% of those who bring in their computers complain that their PCs are lagging.
I ask, "Do you use IE?" They all reply, "Yes!"
I install Ad-aware and 198 items removed later: "Wow! Thats fast!"
Using IE is like walking into a battlefield with a big bullseye painted on you.
Sometimes I wish I was a plumber, then I'd know how to deal with other people's shit.
This guy interprets Microsoft's "improving IE any more will require changes to the operating system" as meaning that the IE codebase is so bloated and stuffed that they can't fix bugs anymore without a major rewrite.
Here's a different theory for you: Microsoft isn't fixing the IE6 css bugs because they don't care, and the "operating system" comment means that IE7 is going to try to move away from HTML and into web-based embedded windows ".Net" (or whatever) applications. Microsoft has from their perspective won the browser wars, and they are finally ready for their long-awaited "Make The Web = Microsoft" step that that whole "open standard" thing has prevented them from for so long.
Just a thought. But probably not all that paranoid.
What really interests me is, what happens now that IE has dumped the whole cross-platform-y ness thing? IE's big strength right now is that everyone targets it. IE HTML is standard HTML. What really interests me is the idea that at some point in the future, the idea of targeting Konqueror will begin to begin to look increasingly attractive. After all, there are a nontrivial amount of web designers who use the mac. I'm sure Microsoft is hoping that these web designers will be willing to switch to Windows just so that they can see what their web pages look like for 90% of the customers.
However, unless things reach the point where (say) Banks can afford to totally ignore all Macintosh and Linux customers (instead of just giving them substandard service), we may start to see the ubiquity of "optimized for IE only" disappear. Big sites like targeting only one browser. If someone comes up with a windows version of Konqueror in the near future (and preferably finds a way to make it muscle into the file browser in IE's place), that browser may well become Konqueror. Konqueror already has a pretty decent amount of mindshare in both Linux and Mac (I don't know any mac users at this point that don't use Safari over IE) and the potentiality that Konqueror could become the one browser that's actually *the same* across *all* platforms might start to look very attractive to web developers at some point-- the sort of thing that Mozilla/Gecko might have at some point fufilled if it had ever become, you know, not painful to use. (Galeon/Phoenix and similar projects may still someday allow Gecko to take on that role.)
At the least, which sounds more attractive; tell your windows base, some of which have a KHTML-based browser, "you have to have KHTML to view my site", or tell EVERYONE except those with the brand new IE8.NET2WINDOWS2007WEB "you can't use my site at all".
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
If you can even *imagine* something groundbreaking and useful then I'll give you a cookie.
As a developer (including some web development), I can understand his obsession. Knowing which CSS properties are supported are essential to designing a good web site. If you use styles to highlight certain parts of your web page tehy won't be highlighted if the browser does not support the CSS properties you are using.
Personally, I will either a) develop a web page based on the standard PC configuraton at my client's business, or if there is no standard, B) I will write for mozilla and install mozilla on all the computers that need it.
BTW: I did not like the article either. I thought that his topics wandered and that there was not a clear structure to his article.
Looking for a job?
Want your resume written professionally?
DON'T USE TUNAREZ!!!
most people don't care
Exactly. That is why it's important for those of us that do care to make them care even less. Make browsers a commodity. Make browsers that are customizable but also standardizable. We need to develop a standard UI that every browser can morph itself into (OT, but I would suggest doing the same for desktops/window managers as well). That way, people that don't nit-pick about css support and html engine implementation won't know that you've switched their browser to the latest and greatest implementation. Meanwhile, those that do care can customize their browser how ever the hell they want. If someone comes up and needs to use your browser, just hit the button for generic mode and they're set.
That's part of it, but IE is also the better browser... IE passed NN/Mozilla/etc in quality around IE 3 which was...1997?
/. for not testing my pages) so I'm more familiar with them.
I'm a front-end web developer, so I usually have a range of browsers on my kit, and use them all on a regular basis.
Personally, my browser of choice is Opera, but I'm finding more and more that my second choice is becoming Netscape - and this from someone who remembers well the nightmare that was NS4.x (it still makes me shudder). Mozilla's pretty good too, I like it, I just have to use NS6 and 7 as part of my job (and cos I'll get bitch-slapped by
I'd agree that IE3 was probably better than NS3, and that IE4 kicked the crap out of NS4, but lately, I'm finding IE to be slow and buggy, and it's literally the last browser I start when nothing else will do (hotmail, anyone?).
Just my 2p, but imho the only reason IE's still the most commonly used browser is that it's what comes on most people's kits. It used to be the best browser out there - it's not any more. Gimme cookie controls, popup blocking, tabbed browsing every time...
Warning: May contain nuts
Kind of impressed with it. I'm a big fan of Mozilla (I kinda *like* the swiss-army-knife approach). However, when setting up my son's account on my home computer, I found that Playhouse Disney works better on Konquerer. I've also used Opera and I like it, but Java apps seem to crash it a lot in my experience. Were it not for that, I think I'd prefer it to Mozilla.
BTW - my son is 2 1/2 years old. He calls my Debian installation "Penguin and Dragon" after the boot Logo and KDE splash screen. I actually installed Debian because I'd heard good things about the childrens program "gcompris". It has definately lived up to what I've heard about it.
A goal is a dream with a deadline
- Can the browser show me all the websites I go to like they're supposed to be seen ?
- How nice is it to use ?
- Will it run on my computer ?
I think you can see how the features you mentioned map onto these three points (except for XUL, that's just pointless), but one should always keep in mind that the users think in general terms, not specifics.This means that they won't be saying "I switched to Mozilla because it halves ping times !", they will be saying "Hey, my friend Bob showed me this trick I can use to stop popups from shwoing up... it's probably illegal but what the heck". Later on, they might say, "hey, Bob's trick works pretty well, but now I can't see movies in my browser for some reason... I guess I'll put up with the popups". (Note: that's just an example, Mozilla probably handles Flash anf WMV just fine).
In other words, only the user-visible features are important, and the margins are razor-thin. One missing feature, such as correct CSS support, DHTML implementation, or that "deny unrequested popups" button, can mean the difference between victory and oblivion.
This is why I believe that Mozilla is ultimately doomed. The people who make it think in terms of XML, XUL, ZYZ, not in terms of "how can we make the users like us". Opera has a shot, because they are actually trying to make money with their browser (as opposed to a political statement). However, paying money for browsers is a new idea that probably won't catch on. This leaves the Mac crowd (which will always be there), and IE as far as the eye can see (because it comes with the OS, and it's the path of least resistance). Sad, but that's the way things currently stand.
>|<*:=
Have you tried the new Google toolbar with pop-up blocker? I've tried about a half a dozen pop-up blockers and they all failed in some respect (either blocked legitimate scripting or didn't block all pop-ups).
No pop-up has gotten through in 2 weeks of using the new Google toolbar and every site that relies on Javascript for navigation still works.
The Red Pill
You mean in favour of Internet Explorer, right?
The only widespread violation of HTTP I can think of off the top of my head is when Internet Explorer ignores the MIME-type provided by a server. The big problems on the web are the bad HTML and CSS implementations.
True. When I was working at Schlumberger, Netscape was the standard. When I was working for an energy company, Reliant Energy, IE was the standard. I've had years doing cross-platform development and I was loyal to Netscape. After digging more into IE I was screaming and pulling my hair out when I found differences in Netscape compared to IE. IE just worked. I know IE wasn't following all the standards, but the formating was just better looking in IE. Also, one of the most usefull tags for IE was the IFRAME, it made our pages more dynamic without having to reloads complete pages. After that project I was and IE advocate, and for the first time I turned my back on Netscape. About a year later I wanted to take a look at this thing called "Mozilla". I found myself back at Schlumberger and had to do another web application and make sure it was cross-platform. Again, I stressed that Netscape 6.x or 7 be the minimum requirement and dump Netscape 4 as the minimum standard. My code worked great in IE 5 and 6, and for the first time I took Mozilla into consideration when coding. Today I use Mozilla, even though it has a few kinks compared to IE, and am an advocate of Mozilla. Tab browsing and killer popups won me over. My co-workers are amazed to see that I use Mozilla instead of IE, but I like it.
One major bug or downside to using Mozilla is that sometimes I have to reload my pages or call them twice because it just doesn't make that successfull connection, whereas IE retrieves the pages the first time (I know why, I read the technical articles how IE cheats with HTTP handshakes). I've seen this issue on every PC I use Mozilla. Also, on pages that use IE, Mozilla just doesn't have the DOM to act exactly as IE, but I tried to point out to the developer that Mozilla had an issue, and the idiot didn't even take Mozilla into effect when developing the site.
The article author is correct - there is an opportunity now for lots of people to take on a new browser. Pop-up blocking alone is worthwhile.
How do do it? Firebird release, AOL style! You build a custom CD image with firebird set up in the most friendly way, perhaps with a quick tutorial explaining what tabs are and how popups are blocked. Then anyone can download the image, burn some CD's and make use of AOL kiosks in stores to distribute the browser images. Put a snazzy cover on the front explaining "Free browser! Blocks popups dead!! Tab support!! Better online bank support!!" and at least a few people would take them, and tell others about the browser as well.
Key is to make sure the windows login integration code is in place so the things will work at work, also the distro should have mozilla mimic IE ID strings close enough that detection sites will not block the browser.
Make sure the CD works OK on the Mac too, even though the Mac has Safari there are times when it's nice to have Mozilla around.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
One fairly important point that the article didn't mention: There are now *two* open-source browsers/HTML libraries being backed by major industry players.
Sure kids are being brought up with computers and the internet, but thats not saying that A+ certification will be a prerequisite for highschool graduation, or that C++ will be a required math credit.
Right now I see three camps. The "/. kids" who download and compile GAIM. The kids who do the Yahoo IM web install or run AIM95setup.exe off the web chatting endlessly with friends using l33t acronyms like wtf and stfu, and the kids who just dont care. Computers in our kids classrooms and bedrooms are only going to make the first two camps bigger. The number of kids on the net will increase while the percentage of "/. kids" will stay the same. The YahooIM Webinstallers will increase slightly, while the users who could care less decreases a bit and things will level off for a couple generations.
Just because they're got computers in the classroom doesnt make them technicalogical
Im dreaming ofa big bndwdth, That can resist the
I've heard that suggestion made a few times before on slashdot, but I've never thought AOL would be brave (or stupid) enough to try a browser swap on their customers. I think AOL's reasons for not making an all out switch boils down to one simple question:
Will we alienate/confuse/loose customers by making a change from IE to another browser?
It's a bet-the-company decision not to be taken lightly. Yes, I love Mozilla/Gecko. Yes, I'd love to see Mozilla get distributed to the masses. Yes, not being tied to IE would seem to ultimately benefit AOL. But, if I were in their shoes, I'd have to admit I'd be wary of making a sweeping change like that too - even given the major investment they already have in Mozilla. There are just too many unknowns in terms of customer satisfaction. And I'd be worried that since a browser is such a huge part of the overall internet experience, a browser swap would be a drastic change that could send customers elsewhere.
One of my close friends related to me his situation with his mother. She's on AOL 3.0. three-point-oh. She's afraid upgrading will lose her bookmarks or settings or something. Wow.
So sure, 30 Million AOL subscribers. How many of those will be running AOL 8+? How many will revolt at the change and open IE instead?
In other news
Did anyone else feel this article was more like a really long blog entry or something? One big vomit of poorly contrived opinions?
Though what is said about IE7 is interesting. It looks like Microsoft will be doing a Mozilla with its browser. (Rewriting it from the ground up and taking an assload of time to do it.)
Which implies to me that right now is the hump-time for alternate browsers. In the gap between now and "MS Windows 2006" kicks off the newest "hey now we've integrated all the OSS features we found on the net!" version of IE that puts everyone back to the drawing board as far as "why we should continue" / "how can we improve" etc., browsers like Mozilla/Netscape and Opera will have a very good window for promoting their wares.
Anyway, wtf was up with all the *seriously* tedious browser "roles"? Can anyone that read that crap tell me which one was referred to as "Innocent Victim of Brutal Murder"? "Sympathetic Outsider"? or even "Tragically Misunderstood Prophet"?! Though "Senile Evil Dinosaur Usurper", while convoluted and missing appropriate hyphenation, fits. But damn that got old quick.
The reason IE is getting the overhaul that it's receiving is so that it can be fully integrated into Microsofts DRM efforts. Microsoft is moving towards making it so that every single bit of data that moves across your PC has a digital signature. IIS is a part of this effort as well. The next major iteration of IIS will include server verified signatures with all of the files. Signatures that only IE will be able to process. This will go one step beyond the Key signatures that you know today in the web world... Then Microsoft will toute their platform as the only true one-to-one path of content control for publishers. ("Look, we can track every single file anywhere, and you can even put an 'end of life' on your file to make sure people don't retain a copy or mirror of the data! Isn't that great!")
...two years isn't all that much time people, and unless something radical happens in the OSS world **right now**, it will come and go and MS will be even deeper entrenched.
Don't believe me? Read your EULA with Media Player 9. This program is the priming piece of their technology on the user end, and fundamentally changes all of your Microsoft software rights the moment you install it... and they've already trained a whole new generation of users to call MS everytime they want to activate their OS.
You'll also start to see this implemented in the next year or so when they start to offer limited productivy aps to next generation X-Box Live subscribers (eg, Longhorn web services).
The article says nothing about the cell phone browser war soon that's brewing. As we throw out WAP for full website functionality on a mobile this war will increase.
IMHO Opera is the mobile browser king right now. They make an excellent product for both Symbian OS and Nokia.
Very true, but I think in reality AOL will simply drop Netscape. There is just no resurrecting it, no matter how hard they (AOL) try. Mozilla will live on, of course, but after signing a seven year deal for IE in AOL, AOL all but signed Netscape's death warrant. They're probably currently deciding how much of it to use as a tax write off.
On the other hand, perhaps AOL is waiting for Firebird before deciding whether to completely do away with Netscape... They could give Firebird some fancy Netscape branding and call the whole affair Netscape 8 for its last shot, but really, the fact that they won't even bundle it with AOL should be telling of just how high they rate its chances of survival.
I think Firebird will probably emerge as the best contender. Packaging it with Netscape branding will at least take advantage of a familiar brand name for people! That might be its best hope. Of course, the one small problem still remains... though the author of the article squarely calls IE 6 Dead, it is still (and you better believe will continue to be until a court order pries it out of MS's hand) the default, pre-installed web browser on Windows.
Any browser that comes out without that kind of pull will, no matter how much better than IE 6, be just a contender (unless the courts allow competition...).
-Joe
If we're all god's children, what's so special about Jesus? - Jimmy Carr
Exactly. People need to realize this. I started with Slashdot (learning some interesting tech stuff), read about Mozilla (at home - here at work, I am stuck with IE) and so I tried that, then figured that I would give OpenOffice a try (when it reach 1.0.1), and finally I have now have given Redhat a shot (in a duel boot setting). While I always thought Linux would be interesting to try out, it wasn't until most of what I did already (Internet and Office Apps) migrated from MS to OSS in Windows that I was ready to try Linux.
I think this may be the way that Linux can convince more people to move over. Show them they do not need MS and in fact can get better options from other sources. Then boom switch their desktop.
Now I just need to learn MySQL and then I will have no need for MS again.
Right, but that's part of the problem. Because they use the same guts, let's say my mail portion is chugging - I bring up the browser and it doesn't refresh. Integrating things that tightly makes for some significant bulk. Admittedly, they seem to realize this, but it means that Mozilla, as of 1.4, is bulky as heck.
Point is, if you don't use Mozilla's mail and such, then it's effectively a browser to you. And you still get the bulk and such.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
I installed Firebird on one of the 4 computers at my house. The rest of my family is not very technical minded, but within a week I was getting requests to install it on all the computers. Which I happily did.
More seriously, the article completely misses the reasons why the browser wars were so important in the mid 90s and so irrelevant now. At the time, the impact of the web was still unclear (and open to influence), and Netscape proclaimed from the rooftops that by controlling the browser they effectively controlled a new operating system capable of challenging the Windows monopoly on the desktop. What's more, they were right. Microsoft took this hubris seriously enough to throw major-league resource behind the IE development effort. This, coupled with Netscape's inability to handle its hypergrowth, led to the status quo, where IE is the only browser that matters for 95% of all PC users.
If someone were to exploit the nefarious CSS bugs that lurk in the bowels of IE and somehow achieve dominance in the PC browser market, it still wouldn't matter. The browser no longer represents a threat to Windows' hegemony. HTML rendering is now a commodity, a feature in an array of widgets that people are accustomed to using on their PC desktop. In other words, MS was right: the browser is part of the operating system.
As a software developer I can affirm that it is a joy and pleasure to have widgets like CHtmlView and CHtmlEditView (sorry, I am a - gasp! - MFC developer) available for easy integration into apps. Personally I don't give a hoot whether IE or something else is powering that widget, and nor do my users. Value is now being added by building sophisticated structures around the HTML renderer: support for XML web services and RSS feeds, drag and drop with other apps, external navigators (like tree views) that customize the browsing experience to a particular use case. This is today's competitive landscape, and the good news is that there's still plenty of scope to complement and compete with Microsoft.
Peer Pressure
I know how you feel - I paid for Omniweb because I value it's features above other browsers I've used. I can't even remember what it cost, but I think it was around the price of a music CD...
it's hard to explain the concept to people these days, but I DID manage to get my girlfriend to register and pay for her copy of Bejeweled (I mean, she only plays it about 2 hours a day...) and she still thinks it's a bit much to have to PAY for stuff - I did explain to her that the people who wrote the software have to eat and everything but... I sometimes wonder if there will come a time when commercial software will simply die outside of the corporate sphere because no-one can grasp the idea of paying for software at all.
That was classic intercourse!
Opera, while a nice, lean, fast browser, has a couple of major flaws in it that would ever keep it from being the king of the heap:
1) It isn't free. People haven't been paying for browsers since the web first started. IE was always free, and Netscape had that 'evaluation' clause that didn't have any boundry. People aren't going to want PAY for a browser, and then download 6 meg, and have nothing tangible to show for it. Unless Opera finds a business model where it's free, it will always be 'niche'.
2) I know I'm going to get a lot of flack for this, but, opera doesn't have a mail client.
IE has Outlook Express. Mozilla has Mail&News. If Joe Homepc doesn't want to buy a browser, you can BET they don't want to go out after that and buy a mail client. Email, after all these years, is STILL the killer app for the Internet. Mom's and Dad's aren't getting internet access because they like CSS. Email is the first reason, and then, MAYBE, the web after that.
Opera is a great browser for those who have very specific requirements for a web browser, but it is not the 'browser for the common man'.
-- You can't idiot-proof anything, because they're always coming out with better idiots.
I have not measured (time to do that, I think) but I suspect now that around three percent of web sites I visit are now flash only and probably about three times that have a signficant flash component.
Designers like flash - it gives them lots of power and lots of ways to restrict the user into seeing a web site the way the designer (or the marketroid who owns the designer) wants. Then too, its a standard. And finally it is certainly browser neutral (modulo the usual problems where it doesn't run on this machine or that - which is, of course, the users fault for choosing such non-standard platforms).
So, I think the article has it wrong. None of the current browsers will survive long. Someone will build a flash/shockwave platform that manages to display html and take over the world.
I have seen the future and it is unstoppable flash popups!
Nothing seems to happen? Hello, what of all these features:
Tabbed browsing
Why in the hell is everyone so big on tabbed browsing? I tried it, and frankly it pissed me off. Why? Because it did the same thing that multiple window browsing does, but it did it while adding an extra line for the tabs at the top of my page, further reducing my screen real estate that can use for the actual web page I'm trying to read.
I multi window surf all the time. I frequently have 10+ browser windows open. But I detested tabbed browsing when I tried it, and removed Mozilla yet again (since it's still slow and bloated and the only reason I installed it again was to see what the tabbed fuss was all about).
I mean, how, exactly, is giving me a clickable list of browser pages at the top of the screen any better than giving me a clickable list of browser pages at the bottom of the screen (in the toolbar, where my windows are listed)? Be detailed, mind you. It's still one process either way, I'm not loading multiple copies of the browser into memory (check the task manager). It's just as fast to switch windows as it is to switch tabs. And the window bar takes up space on the screen already, giving it that slight edge over tabbed browsing, in my view.
I just fail to see the benefits, but there's a very good downside. I use my browser maximized, with most menus and toolbars off. Why? So I can see what I'm reading. Anything that reduces my screen space is an instant loser.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
The total number of world users of the internet was 605.60 million in 2002. (source: Nua Internet: How many users online)
Of course, not all will be using Windows and not all will be interested in purchasing goods but lets just take the figures for Europe, Asia/Pacific and America which is 560.82 million.
Assume that 90% of people use Windows and IE (which probably isn't too far off).
Therefore in total, the 30 million users that will be using AOL's Mozilla browser will be the ones standing out from a pool of 504.738 million. Put another way, for every 1 complaining AOL'er there will be 16 content people.
Whether this a big enough dent is up to the reader to decide.
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
"If we really get down to it, who killed Explorer Mac? Safari did."
NO! WRONG!!
Microsoft killed IE for Mac. They were planning all along to add all kinds of exclusive proprietary functionality in the next Internet Explorer that will be integrated into the Windows Longhorn OS. This is part of their strategy for forcing you to buy their next OS. They want everyone running IE7 so as to marginalise Safari, Mozilla, Konqueror, Opera, et al. They by doing this, the also marginalise Linux and Mac OS X which is something they very much want to do.
So instead of admitting that this was their plan, Microsoft just made up the line that they couldn't compete with Safari because dropping it fit with their business plan to begin with. It's just the same old monopolistic behaviour all over again, except this time they are using the browser to marginalise the OS market instead of the OS to marginalise the browser market.
This article by PPK is a piece of trash. If I didn't know a little about the evolution of browsers, I might have believed it was informative and based on facts. But it is mostly a viewpoint of the writer, who presents his own beliefs as facts, kind of like Jon Katz.
End-users, there is no single group known as end-users. Today there are several groups of end-users, has been for years. Some care about what browser they use, and some are just excited by the fact they can turn a computer on and open a browser, any browser. There are the mac-users, geeks, developers, newbies, daytime/nightime surfers, business users and many more. Having seen the browsers stats of two similar sites, aimed at different demographics, I know that different people use different browsers, for different reasons.
Explorer was succesful, because it was always there, on windows. Even developers use it for that very reason sometimes. Other browsers have failed or succeeded mostly because of this. Developers, no matter what their preference is, must develop for the majority. The preference of developers is relevant only when they become end-users.
Their are no more browser wars, there are just distribution wars and returns on investment. The browser with the best distribution will dominate the market. And companies paying for website development will only support browsers that have a significant percentage of hits to their site.
I am the "tech guy" for many of my friends, and their families as well. I have had now 3 mothers come to me and say "could you please make these damned pop-ups go away". I install Mozilla, set their homepage to hotmail again, and set it to the default browser. Sure they didn't do it themselves, but put on the "modern" look and feel to it (vs. the netscape default one) and they don't find it that intimidating.
The key is not to introduce them to any of the features. They are scared enough using this new thing let alone trying to say "oh and look at all this whizbang" (tabs, the advanced popup blocking, search features, etc). Thats now 3 computers which have passed the mom test. Not to mention the friends and the girlfriend test, all of them have passed, and have passed since 1.1. If this browser isn't ready for mainstream I don't know what is, or ever will be. Bugs are a part of life, it's why we all have jobs, if this stuff all worked out of the box geeks would be out of a job.
Certainly this guy, Peter, has some very good points about the "so-called" Browser Wars II, such as:
- Users do not know (or even want to know) about browsers.
- Do not talk about stardards at all
- Microsoft will leave a "4 to 6" years gap, so there is a good chance to get some considerable piece of the maket share.
But he forgot about the new Mozilla roadmap and Firebird, the lightweigth stand-alone browser. This is our "hero" against the Senile Monter (IE)
By the way, Those fairtale analogy sucks.
It's all under the presumption that in the next 2/3 years windoze will still rule the desktop.
Kids have been growing up with computers for a long time already. We have a generation through school that has been exposed to computers throughout their school life. This has encouraged some of them to think and feel confident enough to challenge the status quo.
This has encouraged the vast majority to simply use what is placed in front of them. Just as we have had a number of generations immersed in a life with cars, the vast majority of these people are not able to tinker with their cars, to modify them, or even to properly understand them.
There are a small number of people who think critically, explore and challenge. There are a vast majority who go with the flow.
I've converted one of my co-workers.
.NET app.
:p
;)
He's been programming since the DOS age. He knows every MS stuff you can think of. Internet Explorer was his "browser" of choice.
Until he needed to find, if I remember correctly, something about skinning a VB
He fired up IE and pointed to google. Ctrl+Clicked a result, new window. After 3 or 4 windows opened, he had to close the less irrelevant ones and alt+tab to Google again.
Man, I almost cried... I was so sad by the enormous work he put on this. So I said to him:
"You shall hear the fine music"
And proposed a race. I, a Linux developer, would find what he needed faster than him. He agreed, poor bastard
He opened IE and did the usual stuff.
Meanwhile, I opened Opera, tab to the Google box, typed my search, and frenetically started to right-click+up+down (mouse gesture to open the link as a background tab, you know the drill), then after skinning the page, right-click+down+right to close the tab, 1 and 2 to switch between them, and suddenly I had visited more than 20 sites, while he was still on his 5th or 6th result.
And so I found what we were looking for, and now he uses Opera.
But I am still faster on the mouse-gestures, tough