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."
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.
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?
Wait wait wait, superior and ie shell in the same sentence. I think not...
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/
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
Man am I glad I left that job.
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.
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.
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
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