Slashdot Mirror
AOL Plans A Standalone Browser
Patik writes "America Online is creating its own standalone browser, aimed at employees who cannot install AOL software at their workstations. The browser will be based on Internet Explorer but will include other features such as tabbed browsing that displays a thumbnail of the page as you pass your cursor over it. The browser will also integrate AOL's media player and will be able to access AOL-only content."
Would somebody please explain how AOL thinks users who can't install the full AOL client on their workstations thanks to sysadmin-imposed policies will be able to get the AOL Browser installed? Whatever policy stands against the AOL client will most likely shoot down this AOL Browser too. PHBs don't want people playing on the Internet during company time, and people are going to be hard pressed to show a business-reason to be accessing the AOL-exclusive entertainment content on company time and resources.
This seems like at face value a project that won't reach its target audience and therefore is doomed to failure.
I wonder if this will be any worse than their previous integrations with IE.
If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
KEWL DUDE
punter anyone?
AOL had a browser. In fact, they had a whole browser company. They chose to run it into the ground, like seemingly everything else they've touched. (Proper respect for at least funding Mozilla development, though)
Now they plan to introduce a bloated IE shell (of which there are already several superior ones) with the intent of allowing their customers access to AOL's premium content. First of all, there is nothing left on AOL that the rest of the world would be particularly interested in. The global, public Internet has already won resoundingly against AOL's private little sanitized domain.
And then they finish off with this bit of idiocy:
Clearly offerring another program to install will solve the "people can't install our software" problem.
Why doesn't AOL at least work on improving their horrible web portal if they're so keen on getting people to access their worthless content? Oh that's right, they did... they made it all flash. How delightfully MODERN!
What a worthless company. I bed Ted Turner still shits his pants daily thinking of the mistake he made merging with them. Everything AOL touches turns to shit.
Does it have an automatic "A/S/L?" post button for forums?
The concept seems to be taking a bad Internet Provider and intergrating it with a bad Internet browser. Will probably be successful.
This is another way of starting a sig with this and ending it with that.
Why don't they just re-brand Firefox
Oh wait, they already did that, Netscape...
So why don't they just use Netscape?
Or if they are dead-set on using IE's rendering engine, they should just re-brand Avant Browser, Maxthon, or one of the multitudes of other IE-based browsers with tabbed browsing and other nice features. Or they could just buy an uber-license from Opera for thousands of licences, I'm sure it would be cheaper than developing their own software.
Seriously, with all the costs of pressing those CDs, doesn't AOL need to save some money somewhere?
Le français vous intéresse?
After reading the article, I still don't understand how this is going to help people install the AOL branded special version of IE onto a companies machine. Instead of the AOL software, they still have to install the browser? I doubt that many of the corporate IT guys are going to be willing to install something with AOL in its title on a company machine.
On sticking with an IE based browser, Pearce-Parkins said, "The company stuck with IE so users won't have to make "a leap of faith." Good idea in concept, but honestly I don't believe the users would ever notice there would be a difference between browsers, so why not go with something that would probably be easier to work with?
Guess I better hold out my judgment until the browser gets on the scene, but AOL's massive content library would do well for its subscribers if it wasn't solely tied to their Client.
Stormy
http://www.stormyshippy.com/
Thumbnail tabs? Hm, sounds a lot like OmniWeb. :)
- oZ
// i am here.
Good move. Make a brower for employees who can install AOL stuff on their computers out of the most vulnerable browser out there. Oh yea, system administrators are going to love this!
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
will include other features such as tabbed browsing
Now even AOL will have a better browser than Microsoft.
Hear recorded Slashdot headlines on your phone! New service beta testing. Just call (248) 434-5508
What I don't get is what exactly their strategy is in making this browser as well as the new Firefox-based Netscape they're working on.
Thinkin' Lincoln - a web comic of presidential proportions
For now.
In mid 2005 look for AOL to sell off CompuServe. The new CIS will launch as a closed off service, with no ties to the Internet, and therefore 99% less SPAM, virii, and spyware. In 4th quarter 2005 CIS will launch a text only service.
In 1st quarter 2006, Time Warner will sell off AOL--to Atari. Atari (formerly Infogrames, formerly Hasbro Interactive, formerly JTS, formerly Warner Brothers Atari, formerly Bushnell Atari) will launch a new direct user interface that coexsists with CompuServe over standard telephone lines via an analog modem. It will be slow as hell. But it will not have SPAM, spyware, governement spying via Echelon, RIAA or MPAA spybots, a GUI, or lawyers.
It'll be sweet.
as AOL and its scatterbrained management still think they are relevant. Christ they can make their own AOL PC and they still are going to lose marketshare cause their "product" is worthless. Heck I'm still trying to figure out why aol costs that extra 5-10$ a month for dialup? Is it all the ads they throw in? How can AOL get paid by advertisers to run ads then have me pay to view them? Wait that IS their product I just figured it out, they provide eyes for advertisements! You aren't paying for internet service, you are paying to become an alternative source of income for AOL!
Way to go AOL, welcome to the party. What exactly did you do with Netscape (acquired in 1998 iirc)
Since this is for people who cannot install the current AOL mumbo-jumbo, they must be taking the ever popular "spyware" approach to install their "new browser" . Heck IE is probably the only browser it would work for.
I think we always hate AOL.
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
Do we really need an AOL browser that allows us to access AOL stuff during company time?
Well I've got an Open Source Browser that lets me view Open Source information on Company Time.
what's the difference?
(sooo posting anonymously)
Somebody's hands at AOL must have been greased!
Otherwise, how can one explain the reason behind this move? AOL already has a browser, can get full access to Firefox code (which has some of the features they are looking for), and surely know(s) the problems associated with the IE engine.
It does not take a person with a PhD to see that someone must have "eaten" really big.
Saying 'now based off of IE!' will give thier marketing something to play around with.
What makes this most interesting is all of the negative press that IE has gotten recently...is this going to help them with all of the grandmas (for lack of a better term) who say 'That's what I use!' or hurt them because of the group of people who avoid IE like the plague?
Personally, I'll go with door #1, because most people that would know enough to use Firefox on purpose would never sign up for AOL.
The question, then, is just how the devil do you expect these lusers to install other AOL software, such as a browser?!!!???????!!!!!!!!!!
The answer, then, is not to create a new standalone browser, as AOL plans to do, but rather to create an Explorer plug-in that will install itself through the security holes that Microsoft has so thoughtfully installed in their software--the very same ones that allow hackers, crackers, cookies, 1337z h4x0rz, spyware, worms, viruses, spam, adware, malware, the RIAA, MPAA, and the anti-Christ himself to do anything with your computer that you cannot do, all while making the user interface so automatic and friendly that you, yourself, cannot access your own files, though these external users, programs, and entities can--to take control of the computer and place AOL software without the Administrator's permission.
Yeah. That's a good idea.
AOL should buy a company that makes browsers. Maybe they could buy Netscape.
why cant they just use existing stuff like mozilla or opera and isntead build something on based on IE. Isnt "Do not use IE: its a security issue" quote spreading fast enough...
"Butters, GOD DAMNIT!"
Why not...Oh, I don't know... Use Internet explorer? Build a plugin for the proprietary content.
Or use Netscape for that matter; they do own the company.
Talk about lack of focus.
Why is it that so many failing companies insist on doing things the hard, expensive way? Or did I answer my own question?
Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes. --E. W. Dijkstra
First they buy netscape, for several billion dollars. Then, they buy nullsoft and stifle it's ability to innovate (destroying WASTE, censoring their work, etc). Then, they create a new low-end ISP for $10/month using netscapes name, while dropping their broadband which have much more potential in the future. Finally they release a new browser and mediaplayer that doesn't use any of their multibillion dollar aquisitions. Is it just me, or does it seem like this is a case where the right hand doesn't know what the left is doing? Or is it just plain old stupidity
cannot install AOL software at their workstations.
AOL software must be pretty hard to install.
How hard can it be? Is it harder to use than apt-get? Is it more fearsome than using the FreeBSD ports collection? Is it more shocking than the longest Gentoo compile?
READY.
PRINT ""+-0
Definitely I for one have hated AOL consistently since at least 1996.
Just then the floating disembodied head of Colonel Sanders started yelling Everything You Know Is Wrong!-Weird Al
This is the best joke that I've heard all week. A company that owned Netscape and who manged to run it into the ground is planning on bringing out an IE variant browser.
Why don't they just burn money - it would cut out the middle man.
Si tacuisses philosophus mansisses. If you had kept quiet, you would have remained a philosopher.
Can I dig out my copy of The MajorBBS at that point? If it ran great on a 286-12, it should *sing* on my 2.4GHz Pentium!
--Rob
That AOL would consider IE instead of Mozilla speaks volumes about AOL's greed. AOL is morphing into another Juniper.
That AOL would consider IE instead of Mozilla speaks volumes about AOL's greed. AOL is morphing into another Juniper.
Could it be that AOL wants to get people used to tabbed browsing to the point where they can't live without it, and then switch them over to an AOL-branded Firefox with the next upgrade? Yeah, yeah, it's not likely, but it's an idea...
We've seen enough new browsers based on Firefox lately, it's about time someone based a browser on IE! /ducks/
Based on IE??? These guys haven't seen the light have they???
Nothing will get me off Firefox!!!
Die IE Die!!!!!!!!!!!!
Keep in mind, I signed onto AOL in like... 1992 maybe? Based on what I've seen on other peoples' computers, it's only gone downhill from there. It's bloated, tends to cause Windows problems in corporate environments, etc. Where do they get off? The last thing IT managers need is AOL encouraging imcompetent users to install software. Someone seriously needs to put them out of their misery. How can we expect to accomodate cross-platform / cross-browser web applications in the future if we continue to muddy the waters with nonsense?
We are one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. Back to you with the weather, Bob!
We already defacto banned IE on the Engineering network at the uni i work at, so i seriously doubt my department would allow this piece of crap to be installed either. Since moving over to mozilla / firefox, our spyware calls have dropped radically (easily 75-80% drop this semster) and allowing anything based on IE, let alone a AOL product, is just stupidity at its best.
Lawyers, MBA's, RIAA? A jedi fears not these things!
....and will be able to access AOL-only content
so let them use it within aol.i dont think its any good to be out.wats the point anyway ?.It is IE based.. hahaha.i dont know when aol would stop making such stupid decisions.Am still wondering if the decision is a Fool's day joke coming at the wrong time.cmon its aol anyway.
fifteen jugglers, five believers
Without the obvious payoffs or other leverage from Microsoft to continue using MSIE and its components for their software tools, what other reasons are possible or likely for AOL's motivation in doing such things? After all, AOL owns Netscape and because of that, it has a perfect tool to enable a secure internet experience for their users. Need ActiveX? There are plug-ins that allow ActiveX to work I've heard... never used them but I've heard they exist and they work.
My assumption is that Microsoft has somehow influenced AOL to continue with MSIE dependancy. But I'd rather be able to consider other possibilities as well -- but I cannot think of any. Can you?
AOL decides to stray farther and farther from the standard norm, taking the 'KISS' suggestion of software for granted.
Not only is this new browser coming, but they've announced a special line of email programs that require their own processor to use. These processors are identical in every way to the Intel Pentium 4, except for they are underclocked to 100MHz, and are missing pins to make it incompatible with current hardware.
AOL is also developing its own language, called AOLinguish, which will sound similar to Enlgish, but will be totally different in every way!
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
This has been discussed two months ago here, no?
As far as my history recalls - AOL once had their own proprietary browser (that was just post Mosaic/Lynx era). Then they bought Compuserve and briefly, had both. Then they had deal with Microsoft to use Internet Explorer technology in their browser (I think this was AOL 4.0). Then they bought Netscape and abandoned IE... They crashed Netscpae to the ground. Now they are going back to IE? One of the references I found read something like - "Those included a seven-year license to use Microsoft's Internet Explorer browser technology without charge on AOL. This 7 year deal with Microsoft will provide the company with a great chance to continue to move forward in the future. But still the 26 billion dollars in debt is something that they desperately need to overcome." This was last year, at http://www.searchengineposition.com/info/Articles/ historyofaol.asp
No accounts for the accuracy of the link above, but it seems to jive.
I think, as many have seemed to concur, that AOL is suffering from an image crisis. Hell, I don't
even know what they do (or really, I don't care either). They have not had a focus, but some generic sense of "providing internet services", for many years, and the quality of their service varied.
All those AOL CDs are being used as great cheap coasters or Christmas ornaments right now.
Happy Holidays.
just a web application developer and instructor in Toronto, ON Canada
America Online is creating its own standalone browser,
:-D.Stop trying to make the shit taste better.There are already stuff available that do that.
Try Avant Browser
Does stand-alone mean that it wouldnt take the OS with it when it crashes ?
Maxthon
Netcaptor
Just STOP re-inventing the wheel !
fifteen jugglers, five believers
What about AOL for broadband? Isn't that pretty much the same thing? You use their browser and shitty software but use your own internet connection.
Can we please have a huge party when Netcraft confirms AOL's death?
Now based on the new security enchanced version of Internet Explorer!
^^
Wait..
Broswer?
Internet Explorer??
Firefox!
Meanwhile … Reason Flees in the Face of Greed At AOL
Common sense is a concept that has never held a lasting foothold in computing. Whether you jump back to the golden days and revisit Commodore's decision to solder over the unused memory traces in its PET computer, scrutinize the technical faults of the "multimedia" PC, attempt to mine the supposed merits of the sub-$1,000 computer, or just contemplate the realties of Steve Ballmer's call for a $100 PC, the idee fixe of computing appears to be the continual reinvention of the asinine.
Case in point: AOL's latest attempt at enticing new subscribers, the $299.99 Internet computer! Naturally, AOL doesn't build its own PCs. The one in question is sourced through Systemax Inc., a company whose products can often be found for sale on the Home Shopping Network and that has an impressive list of subsidiaries and divisions, including SystemaxPC, TigerDirect, Global Computer Supplies, and Infotel Distributing.
AOL's computer is not so impressive. It's a 2-GHz Celeron system with 256MB of memory, a 40GB hard drive, a Lexmark USB printer, and a 17-inch Philips monitor. Personally, Philips monitors have never impressed me. All ink jet printers are throw-aways. The lone Lexmark printer I've owned got the boot a lot quicker than any of the Epsons or HPs. Although Microsoft says Windows will work in 256MB, I've never met a PC with less than 512MB that Windows felt comfortable in. (Did I forget to mention that the graphics system is integrated? Some of that 256MB will be "borrowed" to power the graphics engine.) You'll be amused by how much capacity remains on your 40GB hard drive once Windows XP Home Edition has settled in. And a 2-GHz Celeron? I can't even go there without my fingers beginning to cramp, despite AOL's claim that, "The spectacular Systemax AOL PC runs on a blazing [sic] fast Intel Celeron 2.0-GHz CPU."
AOL's new browser, based on the IE rendering engine, has exposed the world's stupidest users to the security flaws in IE. Thus, everyone now hates Microsoft and Bill Gates has filed for bankruptcy protection.
Perhaps AOL can drive Microsoft into the ground.
What is your penile percentile?
They tried burning money, but found that even pennies wouldn't catch after a few hours in a fire.
That was of course after converting all the cash into coins so they would get more heat from the higher density...
Just goes to show the brilliance of AOL planning.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Not the whole AOL browser thing: as everyone has pointed out, totally lame.
;)
But this: "...features such as tabbed browsing that displays a thumbnail of the page as you pass your cursor over it." I'm sure AOL will make it annoying somehow, but if done right, that could actually be pretty cool.
Of course, I expect an extension that does this for Firefox to show before the end of the year, if one doesn't already exist.
I bet this bloatware-IE-based browser will startup half as fast as IE, and have a 5x-10x speed reduction in loading times for web pages. So, it will be 3x-4x faster that 28.8k dial-up, so long as you have at least DSL-speed.
(hint: it's the second one)
Hint, you're full of crap. From someone that does work at one of the top ISPs, negotiations are actually on a per OEM basis.
Dell and the other large OEMs provide their own customized Windows install/restore disks instead of just popping a stock Windows CD in the box, so M$ has nothing to do with it (even for their own online service).
http://www.spamitback.com/ When I think of AOL, I think of spam...
Why is everyone assuming that they are not going to use mozilla? We have had a half dozen stories about AOL projects over the last couple weeks, and everyone on slashdot is acting like they are all describing completely independent projects (and thus a waste of duplicate effort), when it seems to me the stories are the product a bunch of blind reporters feeling-up the same elephant.
We already know that AOL has worked to integrate the IE engine into Netscape, has reworked the winamp core into a new AMP player using XUL for the interface, and implemented an AIM client in XUL. That appears to me to be a very consistent plan to integrate all their products / acquisitions into a new internet suite, based on Mozilla XUL.
Their decision to use IE makes perfect sense - it is the best way to ensure compatibility with as many sites as possible, and I would argue that most of the security problems that IE has are how the surrounding shell handles files/scripts/plugins - not the core itself. Lastly as firefox becomes more popular and more sites render correct in both IE and Firefox, they can swap engines out without the users noticing as much as they would now.
I won't comment on whether this will help AOL, or whether people will go for it, but it certainly does appear to be part of a well thought out plan, not a bunch of random uncoordinated actions.
I think if AOL was just a tad smarter they would not only offer a "shell" akin to Maxthon for IE 6.0x versions that allows access to AOL-only content, but also offer an extension suite for Firefox 1.0 that more or less does the same thing.
so what you are saying is that they will take that new version of netscape and put an aol logo and skin on it? can anyone really have any doubts whatsoever about that? is this really /. worthy?
We seldom regret saying too little but often regret saying too much.
Hmmm, I wouldn't consider the content of Slashdot, or the information as you refer to it, to be open-source. Slashcode is open-source, but I think you should read the copyright claim at the bottom of the page you're reading.
I'm not complaining about it, just letting you know.
Also, why were you posting AC?...was that a (shudder) dangerous comment?
"Share your knowledge. It's a way to achieve immortality." -- Dalai Lama
If nothing else it would make a great April fools joke - especially if the victim is running Linux...
So AOL owns netscape. They just did a press release about re-releasing netscape. I cant remember exactlly how to phrase this, but Netscape is built off the same technoogy that mozilla and firefox are right?
So Netscape, mozilla and firefox are available, plus 1/2 a dozen other browsers.
So now AOL is creating a new browser, other then the one used in the AOL applicaiton, other then Netscape, and other then the other browsers that use the same technology, and the ones that exist today?
What is this biazzaro world!?!
TruePunk | Games
I simply find it difficult to understand why AOL continue to try and "own" the web by producing their own browser and having "AOL only" content.
In this day and age you would think they would jump on the linux/opensource bandwagon like everyone else is
Strip for 2004/11/10
and
Strip for 2004/11/11
and
Strip for 2004/11/12
it's up to Microsoft to fix it. You're drasically underestimate the value of punting your tough support calls to Microsoft. Remember, people are simple, stupid creatures, and will usually blame the last person/thing in a chain of events. For most users, Microsoft is the final destination, and so they soak up all the hatred/blame.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
we finally have identified which company Dilbert was modeled upon... :-)
Mod me up, mod me down, flame me, praise me -- whatever you do, you help prove I exist...
CNET
The cnet article mentions the seven year IE deal, but it doesn't make it clear that AOL is being forced to use that as its only browser (although it IS pretty late and maybe I'm just too braindead to glean the information). Anybody else have a better link or just a better interpretation of my link? All I came up with was this and a cnn article (which was much less informative than cnet's).
I'd suggest you don't use Slashdot as your only news source, or you will suffer permanent brain damage.
to!=too
First impressions:
- it is a lot more reponsive than straight IE. The interface could best be described as "crisp"
- The thumbnails are extremely useful. Previews for tabs are a godsend when you have 15+ tabs open
- The zoom feature is amazing. Smooth scaling and fine detail.
- AOL seems to have done something to fix the broken caching in IE.
Having said that, there are still some problems- Form elements aren't fully useable when zoomed. Selects are a real bitch: completely unuseable at any zoom.
- It seems to share a namespace with other instances of IE. Named popups on the same site will cross post between the AOL browser and Explorer.
I find it rather funny that everyone here is slamming AOL for what appears to be well designed and implemented piece of software. The choice of the rendering component might be questionable, but for many people, Internet Exporer is a necessary evil. It's possible the interface is designed to be modular enough to swap Gecko in easily. My hope is that the Mozilla/Firefox devel teams take a good look at this browser without thier AOL prejudices getting in the way. There are a lot of good features to "steal" for Firefox 1.2.The Revolution. Now available as a convienent six tape series from PBS.
That is very decent hardware for $300, and it also comes with a year of free internet at AOL. 12 months * $22 a month = $264. Retail, this PC is only costing the user $36. I doubt it's even close to possible to find anything near that PC for $36. So, Mr. Slashbot, can we stop the knee-jerk AOL and MS bashing and say this is a GREAT deal for new people to get onto the web?
Wheel in the sky keeps on turnin'.
With more and more cases of people being asked or directed to move away from IE to an alternative like Firefox, was choosing IE to bolt on new features to such a hot idea?
The very behaviour of the browser you are describing makes me shudder to think that it will be used outside of a lab or beta environment. Granted, the issues are due largely in part to the underlying IE/Windows system and sloppy coding on the part of AOL developers, but that just begs the question of: Why IE when there are so many other choices out there?
Heck, Firefox/Mozilla can both be easily customized to serve ads from a remote server with the XPI modules. *shakes head* Seems like a bad management decision on the part of the AOL heads.
Winged Power Photography
here are a lot of good features to "steal" for Firefox 1.2.
Unless they are patented!
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
This is very old news to be honest, the browser is shite! :(
Its slow and bloated to use and Firefox kills it hands down, it used to have a advert banner removal feature but they got rid of it
"WebTV: bringing the Internet into the shallow end of the gene pool since 1995" - Martin Bishop
I don't get the business plans of AOL. The real interesting part of the Internet is outside AOL. Even when people are first timers in computers, they soon learn that the Internet is a very interesting place outside of AOL. So what is their business plan? people will never stay in the AOL network only, unless the software prohibits them to do so. But it would be illegal to do so, therefore why are they doing a browser? It's like saying "our portal sucks (content-wise), so we have to make special software with features only runnable on our browser". They won't be around for long.
That article is extremely vague. I mean, only a stupid company would be working on two different browsers at the same time. Oh wait...I forgot that Mozilla has about 3...
If I can't install AOL on my workstation at work, what makes you think they'll allow an AOL browser? Not that I would install either of these -- that isn't the point. The point is the days of employees installing whatever they want on their workstations are numbered. The cost risk (licensing violations, virus infections, support) is just too great.
Speak truth to power.
Nope... they are re-releasing Netscape the Service... haven't you seen the commercials where they pit it against NetZero?
They are re-rolling Netcape as an alternative dial up service, basically a barebones AOL without all the AOL-only content.. just straight internet access.
It's got nothing to do with a browser.
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
Steve Case will never own the internet as he had hoped. Thanks to us, us who have day jobs running backbones for union net and the such. See, we aren't stupid enough to switch over this software. So, even if he wins over the gerbils there is still the controlling factors, being us. Us being the more intelligent user who sees the flaws in this software. They have already started the project of AOLPC which is the most horrid creation I have ever seen. I think what they did was rip the guts out of used playstation ones and put them in computer cases. Gave these "computers" custom gui's and terrible internet connection and now sell them for around 300 dollars... They will continue to create horrid and useless things, but we can always prevail by saying.
"No sorry, now on this network..."
That's just great.
After all why browse the internet when you can browse AOL instead ?
Sky subscribers are morons. They pay to be advertised at !
Anyone who can program in C++ can rewrap IE in a container and add a few features.
It's not so much creating a browser as creating a browser interface.
If I were a company like AOL, and I wanted to put out "premium content" that only paying subscribers could access, I'd put it on its own subnet with my modem servers, on "unroutable" addresses; and make my own DNS entries that would not be exported to the root servers.
I also know exactly how that could be defeated.
If AOL now want to create access to "AOL-only" areas of the internet from machines that aren't directly on AOL's own little subnet, then they must be prepared that that content will not be restricted to AOL users only for much longer.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
aimed at employees who cannot install AOL software at their workstations
Many pieces of software do not need installation - they can just be copied to a directory and ran from there without having to touch the registry or any system files. I would suspect that this is what the client will do. It could be run from CD or the user's home directory and call the existing IE dlls instead of installing anything itself.
The browser will be based on Internet Explorer--Thank you, come again!
Firefox was based on the Mozilla Suite.
--
WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
Ok, if your running NT,2k,XP do this:
Fire up reged32 (not the regular reged).
Find the run/rundll etc.. sections on the registry, and then change the access permissions so that they are read-only.
Hopefully that should stop XYZ from getting it's grubby exe in your startup.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Yea I konw they have the Netscape service, but in this Slashdot article Netscape is planned to be re-released based on the firefox browser.
TruePunk | Games
Fools I tell you!!
The whole world is being run by Fools!!!
Run for cover! Blistering barnacles! Fools they are....
I've "fixed" more than one computer by removing AOL.
It seems that AOL asks you during installation if you want it to be the "primary" way of getting to the internet.
Most AOL users don't know what this means, and they think they must answer "YES" to this question.
This creates a problem in most offices since AOL routes all DNS querys through it's DNS servers.
That will break windows 2000 and XP workstations that require DNS resolution to find their local domain controllers and member servers.
Answering "NO" to the "primary internet" connection question prevents the DNS problem - but how many AOL users are expected to know that?
-ted
They did it by laying off 750 employees http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/12/08/00125
"Plans are for fools! Oglethorpe, the plutonian (Aqua Teen Hunger Force)
Why does AOL like Internet Explorer so much? Is it because they love Microsoft? Or the quality of IE's adherance to web standards? Or the lack of modern web-browsing features? Or the fact that it's closed source?
I don't get it. Why add tabbed browsing to an old-and-busted browser when Mozilla, of which they heavily funded and pioneered, has all that and more already? Gecko or KHTML seem like a perfect match for what AOL needs in a browser AND it would land them some good karma. Hmmm, I think I just answered my own question.
Why in the world would AOL base their new browser on IE, a seriously flawed piece of software from a security stand point, instead of Netscape/Mozilla. They paid for Netscape and now Mozilla based browsers are considered far safer than IE. If I were setting policy at a company I would not allow the use of IE or any program based on IE simply because of the security problems.
AOL bought Netscape. Why not take advantage of that and when they bring out the new browser they could have commercials about how they built it on Mozilla because that way it's safer.
-All that is gold does not glitter - Tolkien
www.ra
Now I will have to find something to do with all those extra CDs that I will be getting, wanting me to install their "browser". I wonder how many free hours I will get....
AOL plans a new browser.
You simply type in the page you want to view, and a few days later a cd arrives in the mail with the page on it.
Repant. Thy end is sheer.
About the only comment I have on this subject is:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
eTrade SUCKS
So why did they use IE instead of Mozilla?
Pop-up and banner ads. They are AOHell's modus operandi to pushing product. Mozilla includes tools to block them; IE has no ad blocking tools. It was a business decision to use a browser that does not block their revenue resource.
Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
The namespace sharing seems to be related to the IE rendering engine. I use "Maxtheon" (MyIE?) and it crossrenders as well.
Receptionist: There are some customers here with suggestions on how to improve the service. ... both of them.
Boss: Oh boy! Customers! Which customers?
Receptionist: Looks like
I thank god and the lonely smart guys at AOL that left Mozilla free. Otherwise we had now a ruined Firefox under AOL logo with a lot of AOL spyware ...
From an other point, I can only say this: Does their management have no plan at all. They had bought Netscape before years and out of this was build the finest browser in the world now. And than right before it is really able to strike back they pushed it away.
After this they build first an monster with IE and Firefox engines together as NetscapeX and now second they come up with this joke AOL browser with MSIE engine.
Are they really knowing what they are doing?
What the hell? They own Netscape, and they want to build ANOTHER browser? Why do they feel they need THREE different browsers?
"he drew his sword Ringil that glittered like ice... and he wounded Morgoth with seven wounds..."
thats like, wicked gay and stuff.
Didn't they just release a browser based on Mozilla the other week?
Didn't Slashdot cover it?
Something tells me this info is a little out of whack.
Why would mozilla/firefox dev teams have to steal it? Anybody can just go in and make an extension to do these things, which is the correct thing to do so they don't bloat the browser with even more shit.
and they will continue to suck untill such time as they stop using the Internet Explorer rendering engine and switch to the gecko rendering engine (a very large chunk of which was written by people paid by AOL to work on it)
Although I suspect that (in addition to any "some sites dont work" arguments), there is also an argument (a potentially valid one too) that the gecko rendering engine uses more system resources (disk, CPU, RAM etc) than the IE rendering engine does (remember, IE has large parts of itself loaded into RAM on startup thanks to its integration with Explorer)
The implication of "stealing" was blatantly copying the features into FireFox. Who cares if it goes in as an extension or into the core? They are good features and should be put in FF was the point. Too much for your little geek head to handle, apparently.
My guess would be that all techies or anyone else with a clue has been forced out of the company (or run screaming, more likely). The only people left are PHBs and drones who aren't don't care enough or aren't in a position to point out the stupidity of the decisions being made.
Missed that... how stupid. The only advantage to using IE is it's remote security rule system... being able to centrally manage IE's access rights to various zones... who cares about the rendering engine.. if it works it works
Well, my comment stands but thanks for the info.
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
where can I find the RPM ?
As if installing anything from AOL isn't a leap of faith already...
People who think it's simply about letting business users install an AOL-IE browser are missing the point.
Posting anonymously 'cause I work for them
AOL is an 800-pound-gorilla when it comes to web site support. They have so many users, they can probably just tell them "If you can't go to a web site, click this button to tell the people who run it that you're having problems." This would force all web developers to support w3c standards or lose all AOL surfers, and force them to take note of this fact.
But yes, sadly, right now the best way to ensure compatibility with all web sites is to simply have so many fucking computers that you can run every single version of Windows with every single version of IE. But aren't we forgetting something? Compatibility is the job of the webmasters, not the browser authors.
Saying otherwise is like saying it's Transgaming's fault that there is no Half-Life 2 on Linux. Actually, it's the fault of whatever fucktard at Valve decided to use DirectX exclusively and to embed Internet Explorer in Steam.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
On the other hand, if this new AOL browser is really good, it to some extent undermines Firefox, which suposedly AOL wants to suceed. Either way, I dont see the logic behind this decision.
Perhaps AOL is creating a livecd similar to knoppix or maybe it is knoppix. It could be booted anywhere and all file storage done by them..