Slashdot Mirror


What Will the Browser Look Like In Five Years?

macslocum writes "Opera's Charles McCathieNevile examines the most significant web browser innovations of the last few years, and he looks ahead to the browser's near-term future."

201 comments

  1. Well by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I hope it will have migrated off the desktop, off the smartphone, and onto some contact lenses.

    *sigh* am I thinking a little too distant?

    1. Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's just your farsightedness.

    2. Re:Well by poetmatt · · Score: 2, Funny

      It still won't run flash well or be cross platform.

    3. Re:Well by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Reading should remain a large part of "browser experience" for a long, long time; I'm not sure overlay displays work well for that unless they are really great.

      Controlling UAVs / robotic arms / tanks OTOH...that should show up quite soon. And for us minions "where's the nearest pub?" (rarely) "damn advertisements everywhere!" (usually)

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    4. Re:Well by rwa2 · · Score: 1

      Ha, given that the smartphone web is about 10 years behind the desktop web, the browser will be what it was on the desktop in 2005... which means flash (or some similar proprietary crap) and most of the user base being entrenched in some old version of non-standards-compliant browser. And myspace-esque music playing on each page. Fun times.

    5. Re:Well by alex-tokar · · Score: 1

      Think bigger. Something like browser inside your brain. But it won't be pleasant if Java or Flash crashes the browser then. Then you'll experience the Black Void of Death!

    6. Re:Well by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      And we will call these lenses an OS...

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    7. Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That puts a scary spin on seizure bots...or Goatse.

    8. Re:Well by n30na · · Score: 1

      bump for hearty agreement. at the very least, can it be on a pair of glasses? please?

    9. Re:Well by dn15 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You joke, but I do think that the real difference will be how and where we use the browser. As smartphones and other mobile devices become more prevalent, the browser will be used less on the desktop and more on the couch, in the car, etc.

      Some people don't like the idea that the iPad (for example) is locked down as much as it is. But that may be a blessing in disguise. If a huge chunk of web clients are locked-down devices that can only run one browser, web developers will find it harder to say that a specific browser is required. They'll have to distribute content in ways that work on all devices, rather than just pop up an alert telling the user to install XYZ Browser instead.*

      * Fine, based on the way things are going they may just be able to say a WebKit-based browser is required.

    10. Re:Well by V!NCENT · · Score: 1

      It will probably be gone at some point... Probably not in five years though...

      You see; back in the day you had a desktop computer and you could also use an app to be able to browse this new thing called the world wide web.

      Today, who doesn't have internet? No e-mail... like WTF.

      So when everything is connected, a web browser is too oldfasioned for all this tech that has become common.

      In Linux I already stopped using the web browser for YouTube and just use Totem. As a KDE user it is still better to browse YouTube in GTK+ than in Flash, realy.

      The same thing will happen for games. In Windows just press Start -> Games -> Browse -> Click To Play.

      Using one app for all of that tech is just not modern anymore. Google Chrome OS is pushing this but in the extreme direction of Web only. This is a bit too much and rather stupid. I'd rather wish it would be just integrated into the desktop environment...

      But that will take some time of course. However the effects are already visible:
      In the Apple realm there is a YouTube app for the iPhone and the Mac OS X Front Row (media centre thing) and TV both have YouTube integration.
      Phones and camera's are doing all kinds off upload directly to Facebook, YouTube, etc.
      Linux has YouTube apps too.
      Both in KDE4 and on a Mac you have webslices as they are called and in Windows this is called the Active Desktop or something where you can just drag a piece of a website onto the desktop as a widget.
      Steam browses the web for you when browsing games and downloads and manages them. It is just stored localy (and it should).

      These things will only increasingly happen. The Web will probably get back to minimalistic HTML(5) and this we can see already going to be killing Flash and all that crap. The rest of the protocols will embed themselves in user-space.

      Just my idea...

      --
      Here be signatures
    11. Re:Well by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 1

      I wasn't joking though.

      Anyways yes, I think the future is to make the web more accessible in all scenarios. Too many times have I had to pull over and use my phone for google maps, or pull it out to look up a word. But there are some cases where its either just to slow or my phone is too bulky or some excuse keeps me from opening the browser and typing stuff in.

      I really think the future is in having an OS off of the LCD and onto projected surfaces, mostly with the goal of being able to access the web.

    12. Re:Well by Jake+Griffin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes, I think that there would be a problem with contacts as moving your eyes would move the contacts along with them, so you really couldn't look at a different parts of the contact. You could only see the part that was currently in front of your pupil (and even then, there would be focusing issues). But glasses would work. I work for a company that creates little monacle screens for the military that work quite well actually. They use a series of lenses to make the screen appear farther than it is, which makes it much easier to read.

      --
      SIG FAULT: Post index out of bounds.
    13. Re:Well by Jake+Griffin · · Score: 1

      In Windows just press Start -> Games -> Browse -> Click To Play.

      Microsoft got rid of the "Start" button in Windows Vista. It is the "Windows" button now. Apparently they realized that it was not intuitive to click the "Start" button when you wanted to "Stop" (i.e. shutdown/sleep/hibernate) your computer.

      --
      SIG FAULT: Post index out of bounds.
    14. Re:Well by Requiem18th · · Score: 1

      Takes a Mac-head to equate browser == iPad.

      Get over your orthographically challenged iPad, sure the media machine will sell it as the end all be all of tablets, and it will beat in sales superior products already miles ahead in functionality.

      But. It will not change the web.

      Google's extensive integration of everything into the browser has more potential to change the web than the iPad, Heck, even Mozilla's Weave and Prism have more potential to change the web. And then there's Flock.

      And of course, none of these will run in the iPad. the iPad has already cemented its non-relevance for the future of the web.

      --
      But... the future refused to change.
    15. Re:Well by Soul-Burn666 · · Score: 1

      By contact lenses do you mean small and soft glass panes, e.g. Micro-soft Windows?

      --
      ^_^
    16. Re:Well by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      If a huge chunk of web clients are locked-down devices that can only run one browser, web developers will find it harder to say that a specific browser is required. They'll have to distribute content in ways that work on all devices, rather than just pop up an alert telling the user to install XYZ Browser instead.

      But this is the opposite of what's actually happening. Services that would have been offered as web apps in the past are now being offered as iPhone/iPad apps, or at the very least client apps are being built for these devices while other platforms are neglected.

      There's some possibility that the trend may reverse itself with HTML5, but I wouldn't put too much faith in the future being *less* dystopian. More realistically I'm hoping that whatever device I'm using in the future will be able to run apps for the locked-down shiny bauble of the moment in a VM. Right now I'm doing fine without this capability, but if the current trend continues it may become a necessity.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    17. Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And it takes a myopic fool to miss the point just because it involves something he decided he hated before it was even conceived.

    18. Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you start an shutdown then?

    19. Re:Well by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      ... unless they include nano-accelerometers in which case you could move your eyes up and down to scroll. Oh, and a widget that detects vertical axis alignment, to keep the image from tipping if your contacts rotate a bit by accident.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    20. Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am hoping about the same, but with a more personal-intuitive-interactive cyber-browsing option.

    21. Re:Well by elh_inny · · Score: 1

      You sir, clearly don't what you're talking about, while I understand that most phones fall a bit behind iPhone OS in that area, iPhone's Safari supports SVG, HTML5 audio, video, canvas...

      That's not 10 years behind the desktop, that's ahead of IE8...

    22. Re:Well by enrgeeman · · Score: 1

      no need for the vertical stuff. They make contacts for astigmatisms that are just slightly weighted to keep them proper. The only time that's a problem is when your head is on its side for an extended period of time.

      --
      sent from my slashdot browser.
    23. Re:Well by treeves · · Score: 1

      Actually, one for OS and one for OD.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    24. Re:Well by Requiem18th · · Score: 1

      No, you miss the point, how can the ipad change the web when it refuses to play nice with *anyone*, let alone the leading browser makers?

      --
      But... the future refused to change.
    25. Re:Well by yendis · · Score: 1

      Whatever makes you believe that browsers will be required in a world where governments censor & control all you see and transmit and receive?

      --
      Freedom: the only end.
    26. Re:Well by gig · · Score: 1

      Google uses the browser engine from the iPad. The idea that Google is going in a different direction than iPad is ridiculous. Apple is as much a part of HTML5 as Google.

    27. Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ya, but it'll be for the greater good.

    28. Re:Well by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I thought the internet actually made you blind.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    29. Re:Well by dn15 · · Score: 1

      I appreciate your comments and you're right that the iPad alone isn't going to totally change the web. But it's an example. It's a sample of the way that many people may end up getting online in the near future. If millions of users are hitting major websites on touch-screen devices running Chrome OS, iPhone OS, and Android (many of them Flash-less and Java-less, and most/all of them running WebKit browsers) then yes, the web will most definitely change.

    30. Re:Well by supssa · · Score: 0

      Either way, we likely shouldn't be taking predictions from a neck-beard at Opera. These guys are pretty much irrelevant in the greater scheme of things on the web.

      --
      Hatin' on products I don't like and getting modded up talking about tech I totally don't understand like it was 2005!
    31. Re:Well by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      I know you hate the idea, but Apple is a leading browser maker. And you missed the OP's point.

    32. Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other news, Jake Griffin could never figure out that he needed to use the ignition to stop his car.

  2. In five years... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It'll be so dumbed down that everything we love about it will be dead and it'll be just another appliance for Joe Sixpack. Don't you love average users?

    1. Re:In five years... by Jeng · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So you are saying that it can be dumbed down more?

      Your comment actually makes no sense. It's only been since Firefox* came out that there has been any innovation in browsers. Before Firefox became popular the web browser was as dumbed down as it gets. Forward, back, home, and a place to enter in a url. Now we have tabs, we have ad blockers, we have good functional add-ons.

      The browser has been getting more complex with new functionality and Joe Sixpack has been loving it.

      * I'm sure someone will point out the innovation came out in other browsers and Firefox was just the first one that got wide appeal**.
      ** As in you would recommend it to even your non-technical friends.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    2. Re:In five years... by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 1

      * I'm sure someone will point out the innovation came out in other browsers and Firefox was just the first one that got wide appeal**.
      ** As in you would recommend it to even your non-technical friends.

      It's a good thing you put that ** in there, I might have forgotten to move over a character or two while reading.

    3. Re:In five years... by Richard_at_work · · Score: 2, Informative

      Ahem, Opera had 'tab' functionality before Firefox, and I think you are either forgetting or are blissfully unaware of the Netscape-IE browser wars of the 1990s, with new tags and functionality left, right and center from both (some of which the other browser adopted and become standard, some of which weren't and some of which we all wish weren't).

      You probably don't even want to know that the whole Ajax thing didn't really even come of age until Microsoft released XMLHttpRequest with IE from version 5, and this was adopted by all browsers eventually (and even MS standardised it as a Javascript object later on).

    4. Re:In five years... by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      It's a good thing you put that ** in there, I might have forgotten to move over a character or two while reading.

      Footnote error: not found

      You just had to do it, didn’t you.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    5. Re:In five years... by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Ahem, Opera had 'tab' functionality before Firefox...

      Oh my god.

      Yes, he even wrote a footnote just for you and you still missed it:

      I'm sure someone will point out the innovation came out in other browsers and Firefox was just the first one that got wide appeal

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    6. Re:In five years... by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      P.S. tabbed windows / tabbed hypertext browsing was around long before Opera.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabbed_document_interface

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    7. Re:In five years... by Richard_at_work · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I didn't miss it, I just chose to ignore it. I was infact going to make a comment about it in my original post, but then I realised that him writing a footnote doesn't preclude a post refuting his claims anyway.

    8. Re:In five years... by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      I never claimed Opera was the first, I simply offered them as an example of the functionality prior to Firefox.

    9. Re:In five years... by clone53421 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yes, his comment probably would have been better stated if he had left off the footnote entirely and simply said:

      It’s only been since Firefox came out that there has been any innovation in browsers that many people actually use.

      That way, you both disqualify Opera and at the same time you state why it was irrelevant. Win-win.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    10. Re:In five years... by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      And I simply offered the Wikipedia article for its examples of the functionality prior to Opera.

      It caught on when Firefox did it.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    11. Re:In five years... by sjames · · Score: 1

      You mean other than his footnote explicitly meaning he never claimed what you refuted?

      You might enlarge on what he said, but that's a different matter.

      I hereby choose to ignore your actual text and assume you claimed Al Gore invented the Internet with the help of a horde of purple monkeys. I will now refute "your" silly claim:

      [very silly paragraph calling you an idiot elided]

      Not quite fair, is it?

    12. Re:In five years... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "a point i want to make has already been covered in the parent post however I'm going to conveniently ignore it and post anyway!"

    13. Re:In five years... by Intron · · Score: 1

      It'll be so dumbed down that everything we love about it will be dead and it'll be just another appliance for Joe Sixpack. Don't you love average users?

      Clearly, you never used Mosaic.

      --
      Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
    14. Re:In five years... by UpnAtom · · Score: 1

      Since 1996, Opera would show both a list of pages and one (or more) page at the same time, which is basically all tabbed browsing does. The tab metaphor, when introduced in version 4, actually limited you to seeing only 1 page at a time. I remember they gave you the option of sticking with MDI - which I did for a while.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Opera_web_browser

  3. IE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It will look like IE 10

  4. The literal answer by VGPowerlord · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm guessing it will look like a window with a tab bar and 1-2 text boxes to enter in urls and search terms, with navigation buttons nearby.

    --
    GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
    1. Re:The literal answer by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 0

      And everything else will be built in ads?

    2. Re:The literal answer by eln · · Score: 3, Funny

      Whatever it looks like, Opera users will whine that their browser looked like that first.

    3. Re:The literal answer by darthflo · · Score: 1

      In that case, we're looking forward to quite a sleek future. Check out (screenshots of) Opera 10.5x, if you haven't yet :)

    4. Re:The literal answer by lastchance_000 · · Score: 1

      There won't be ads in the browser anymore -- they'll be beamed directly into our iBrains.

    5. Re:The literal answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Thanks, but I've already seen screenshots of Chrome.

      With Firefox seemingly heading the same way it seems that every browser will look like Chrome. Hooray for variety and choice!

    6. Re:The literal answer by boristdog · · Score: 1

      No!
      It will have no borders!
      It will BE the desktop!
      No more mouse or keyboard!
      All gesture interface!
      You sneeze and granny porn will pop up!

    7. Re:The literal answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My firefox browser is wood-grain. Just like my monitor and my cpu case. You can keep that fancy metal and plastic look. I want my computer made from something that had to die. If it wasn't for cooling issues, it would be covered in the pelts of baby seals.

    8. Re:The literal answer by VGPowerlord · · Score: 1

      I've looked at Opera 10.5.

      I hate the new look. I especially hate the new Windows 7 "tabs as a task bar button" crap; part of the reason I use tabbed browsing is so that the tabs I'm not currently using are still open, but out of the way, which is no longer the case in Opera.

      Opera is the only browser I know of that, in the past three major versions (9.5, 10.0, 10.5), has taken steps backwards in general usability.

      --
      GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
    9. Re:The literal answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've always thought that the future of the web browser is to become the desktop. Of course, in 2015, Iraq will have nuked us.

    10. Re:The literal answer by Steve+Max · · Score: 1

      IIRC, Chrome and IE8 do the same on Windows 7; I believe it was part of Microsoft's HIG for Win7. Probably the next Firefox will do the same, too.

      BTW, that behaviour could be a good idea if Windows implemented a good program switcher and a window switcher for a given task, like Exposé. Alt-Tab to the program you want, then Ctrl+Alt+Tab to select the window (*not* the tab) you want on that program, Ctrl+Tab to select a tab of that window, with the option of selecting a tab directly from the taskbar. If you have a lot of programs with a lot of windows and a lot of tabs, that would be the simplest way to get to a single tab. However, since Windows's Alt+Tab / Super+Tab switchers aren't that good if you have many open windows, they have taken the only good option to select a given window; I believe they'll improve on that for the next version(s).

    11. Re:The literal answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, you can turn that off, what kind of nerd are you?

      Opera is by far the best of the big browsers out there in terms of usability. Firefox was great as an alternative to IE and when Opera was so buggy you couldn't use it for five minutes without a crash. Since version 9 though I've been pretty much using it exclusively (except for the very useful 'open page with' feature for sites that don't display correctly, which is another great example of the excellent thought put into this browser). Firefox is way too slow once you install all the addons you need to make it as useful as Opera, most of which are not as well implemented anyway. I tried to use Chrome for five minutes but realized it doesn't even have a proper dpi scaling function, which is mandatory as far as I'm concerned. When I realized this I uninstalled it right away, and this bug has been around for more than a year and they still haven't fixed it! This is 2010 with 24 and 30 inch lcds, and this thing can't even scale text and pictures properly. Not to mention the whole dumbing down of the interface. I can't believe how much praise Chrome gets on a site like this where most people actually like to dig into depths of an operating system just to configure it. I see Opera getting dismissed a lot on this site, but anyone who hasn't given it a chance yet really should. It's not open source but if you can put that behind you you'll be much happier using it. Just try the keyboard navigation. In Opera you can set every single keyboard and mouse shortcut. Firefox doesn't even let you change the back and forward keys!

      By the way, for ad blocking, use bfilter (http://bfilter.sourceforge.net/). In Opera, you can just turn the proxy off by pressing F12 and x on any page.

    12. Re:The literal answer by VGPowerlord · · Score: 1

      In case it wasn't obvious from my post, I switched to Opera during version 8.5 (when it became ad-free) after getting frustrated with Firefox 1.5.x (either that or early 2.0.x) memory leaks.

      I switched to Firefox 3 Beta from Opera when Opera hit 9.5 and its hideous UI graphics redesign (the "all-black icons" may be great for colorblind people, but not for me).

      Simply put, Firefox doesn't generally screw with my interface on Every. Single. Minor version change (in major.minor.patch versioning that is). Opera didn't through 9.2 either.

      I don't want to have to configure my browser to turn off every new quirk they introduce in each and every version.

      --
      GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
    13. Re:The literal answer by hkmwbz · · Score: 0

      Opera is the only browser I know of that, in the past three major versions (9.5, 10.0, 10.5), has taken steps backwards in general usability.

      On the contrary. Opera's usability for most people has only increased. You are just pissed off that nerds like you can't dictate the UI to be a clumsy piece of crap, because unusable UIs is what you prefer.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    14. Re:The literal answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      didn't you find "appearance" and "preferences" menus? try them.

      my opera 10.51 looks about the same as version 8. you can download old skin, and you can edit almost whatever you want. hiding "tabs as a task bar button" takes ... about 4 clicks. it is really not that hard

    15. Re:The literal answer by VGPowerlord · · Score: 1

      IIRC, Chrome and IE8 do the same on Windows 7; I believe it was part of Microsoft's HIG for Win7. Probably the next Firefox will do the same, too.

      Pages 753-775 of the Windows 7 Human Interface Guidelines talk about the Taskbar. The problem is, page 759 alone has two conflicting statements:

      "Each program (specifically, each program perceived as a separate program) should have a single taskbar button."

      after which, for one of the examples, they list "Workspace tabs." Workspace is only defined in terms of menus (on page 855) as an area that a menu bar is attached to. Maddeningly vague.

      Here's the thing: I use both Open in New Window and Open in New Tab in my web browser... usually Open in New Tab because I want just one TaskBar icon to reduce clutter. In fact, isn't that one of the reasons tabs were introduced?

      Except when each tab creates a new Task Bar button, they are virtually the same as windows. You might as well just ditch the tab bar at that point and regain the visual space that the now useless tab bar takes. But I'd rather not do that, I'd rather have just a single icon for my browser again, because each browser window (not tab) is "perceived as a separate program."

      I'm targetting Opera specifically, because they seem hell bent on copying whatever new UI crap IE implements... moving the new tab button from the left to the right, hiding menus by default, etc...

      --
      GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
    16. Re:The literal answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I seem to remember the browser becoming the desktop in Windows 98 or something. I remembered I hated it, and turned it off...

    17. Re:The literal answer by VGPowerlord · · Score: 1

      Yes, I'm sorry, I guess having my UI change randomly from version to version is a GOOD thing! (See Also: Microsoft Office 2007 criticism)

      This version, the random changes I ran into were:
      1. The TaskBar icon thing.
      2. Moving tabs up to the title bar. Or maybe I should refer to this one as "breaking the title bar's click and drag behavior."

      But it's like this every version.

      10.0 (or was it 9.5) decided that the new tab button should be moved from its fixed place on the left to move farther to the right as new tabs appeared. It is unclear why exactly Opera did this, presumably so it looked more like IE7. (I'm aware that FireFox did the same thing.)

      9.5 turned all the icons from their colorful versions to black, with the exception of the Go, Stop, and Refresh buttons (iirc).

      --
      GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
    18. Re:The literal answer by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      I hate the new look. I especially hate the new Windows 7 "tabs as a task bar button" crap; part of the reason I use tabbed browsing is so that the tabs I'm not currently using are still open, but out of the way, which is no longer the case in Opera.

      Several things of note here.

      First of all, I assume that you major problem with Win7-style tabs is that you can't quickly get back to the last tab you had opened in Opera. If so, try Ctrl+click - it's precisely what it does (on any application that uses Win7 tabs).

      Second, this behavior can be switched off - "Use Windows 7 Taskbar Thumbnails" in opera:config. It's actually one thing I like about Opera - while they do often come up with new crappy UI choices to replace old crappy UI choices, you can always reconfigure it the way you want. Heck, you can still set up Opera to look like it did back in 5.x days.

      Third, it's not just Opera which comes with this feature - it's just the first one (other than IE) to get it. But Firefox 3.6 will have it, too, and, in general, many applications are rushing to add Win7 taskbar support. Why? Because the users want it.

    19. Re:The literal answer by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2, Informative

      Simply put, Firefox doesn't generally screw with my interface on Every. Single. Minor version change (in major.minor.patch versioning that is). Opera didn't through 9.2 either.

      Heh, it just shows that you haven't been using it for all that long. Opera is notorious for major UI changes every now and then.

      The trick is that, more often than not, it can keep customizations from previous versions. So you set it up once, the way you want it, and don't care about what they do.

      The only catch is that betas usually install side-by-side with stable builds, not replacing them, and also use a separate directory for configs - so you have to copy the latter manually. If you only use stable releases, you don't even have to bother with that.

    20. Re:The literal answer by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Frankly, tab bars are just a stopgap for crappy window managers.
      And buttons? Sorry, but they are just horribly inefficient. because they are a very small area that you have to hit, and are usually non-self-explanatory images.
      Mouse gestures are a much better solution. So much, that my Firefox right now does not have any navigational buttons at all:
      http://navid.radiantempire.com/pub/my-firefox.png
      (The Icons on the right are just state displayers (they highlight, when enabled), and mostly associated to sidebar panels. I can’t remember clicking on them. Too inefficient.)

      P.S.: I also banished the window bar buttons you see on that screenshot. They can’t compete with being able to Win-Click anywhere on the window, to do those actions.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    21. Re:The literal answer by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

      The UI isn't changing randomly. It's improving over time. You are whining because Opera is making the product more usable to more people. Quite pathetic.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
  5. Surprising no mention of security by Orga · · Score: 2, Interesting

    With the shit to more interactions with computer hardware, graphics card acceleration, offloading processing of certain code to the CPU I see this trend continuing but what impact is this going to have on system security. As more hooks go from the web into our computer hardware aren't we exposing ourselves to more and more risk?

    1. Re:Surprising no mention of security by Orga · · Score: 1

      oops sorry about the typo there, shift*

    2. Re:Surprising no mention of security by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      Either way it works, intentional or not.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    3. Re:Surprising no mention of security by vegiVamp · · Score: 1

      It was close enough.

      --
      What a depressingly stupid machine.
    4. Re:Surprising no mention of security by Jeng · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't it be the hooks into the operating system that would expose the rest of your computer to risk.

      I may be missing something, how would hardware hooks expose a computer to more risk?

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
  6. Who? What now? by Rogerborg · · Score: 1, Interesting

    We're taking advice from a company that gives its product away, and (despite amusing claims to the contrary) is still living on the proceeds of a huge IPO that was based on... giving its product away.

    Personally I'd rather ask someone who's in the browser business, not an imminent footnote.

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  7. It will be like BSG predicted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The browser will still appear in the same window, but the corners will be cut off.

  8. Sunglasses by AnonymousClown · · Score: 1
    We will wear glasses and the net will be projected in front of our eyes like a HUD for jet fighters.

    It will be yet another boon to porn. two hands baby! And 3D - woohoo!

    --
    RIP America

    July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001

    1. Re:Sunglasses by sakdoctor · · Score: 5, Funny

      I already wear sunglasses to browse the web, on account of all the flash and poor color choices.

      Although this is an improvement over the 90s. Back then I wore a welding mask.

    2. Re:Sunglasses by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      I remember using HotBot as a search engine back in the 90s. You remember, back when it was lime green and neon yellow. Yeah, those were the days.

      Incidentally, I can no longer see the difference between the green, brown, and red balls on a snooker table!

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    3. Re:Sunglasses by Myopic · · Score: 1

      Uhg. Remember flashing text? Thank god that went away. I almost never see it now.

      I once had to stare down my boss and refuse to put flashing text on our front page. He insisted, and I told him that because my name was on the bottom of the page as webmaster, I could not fulfill the request. He would have to find a new web guy to do it. Luckily for me he settled for bold red text.

    4. Re:Sunglasses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HOLY CRAP HOTBOT! That's the first search engine I ever types "girls" into! :)

  9. HTML5 by Stan+Vassilev · · Score: 3, Informative
    1. Re:HTML5 by EzInKy · · Score: 1

      Firefox warns that "this website (apirocks.com) is asking to store data on your computer for offline use." No thanks, I'll pass on that.

      --
      Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
    2. Re:HTML5 by clone53421 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Did you even read through it?

      JS APIs - Web Storage

      // use localStorage for persistent storage
      // use sessionStorage for per tab storage
      textarea.addEventListener('keyup', function () {
        window.localStorage['value'] = area.value;
        window.localStorage['timestamp'] = (new Date()).getTime();
      }, false);
      textarea.value = window.localStorage['value'];

      Use case: Save email draft on the client side (crash-safe)

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  10. Future perfect. by barfcat · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Three things I see happening now are 1) Displays getting bigger and bigger. 2) 3-D everywhere 3) Application integration with normal TV's. I think the next big thing in browsing will be developed for the TV user, like a widget for a web enabled Sony TV or something. I could see semething in the more distant future integrating the 3-d effect with touch/motion detection.

  11. Too small by dahud · · Score: 0

    You're thinking too small. We already have prototype brain-chips that interface with computers. The browser will be entirely created by optic-nerve stimulation! No interface elements- you just think "save", and it will be deposited in your storage augmentation. Or you try to remember what the url is at the moment, and all of a sudden you know. Hope with me here!

    1. Re:Too small by BotnetZombie · · Score: 1

      What will the browser look like in five years? Not in 30-200 years.

  12. Hopefully it.... by zerospeaks · · Score: 1

    Hopefully it wont look like anything. Eventually I want a browser that I don't even see yet can do everything it does currently and more with an input device that combines everything I need for the new (more interactive) internet. *sigh... I can dream.

    --
    http://wwww.zerospeaks.com
  13. Re:Who? What now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yes, opposed to Firefox, IE, Chrome, and pretty much any other browser out there, which you have to pay for. Oh, wait....

  14. Even more interesting... by drewhk · · Score: 2, Interesting

    When will browsers go away? Will they be replaced by something else?

    1. Re:Even more interesting... by DIplomatic · · Score: 1

      My guess is the browser will be come the desktop for operating systems. The browser will no longer be a separate program you have to launch, but rather just a layer of the operating system. Think about when the last time was you used a computer and didn't open a browser window.

    2. Re:Even more interesting... by drewhk · · Score: 1

      This is what we are tempted to think, but there could be surprises.

    3. Re:Even more interesting... by foldingstock · · Score: 1

      Using primarily a browser is fine for home users, and even business users that have bought in to the "cloud" preachings, but I do not think it is a good idea to push everything on to the internet.

      Privacy is one concern, but availability is my main concern. If you push everything to the web, how productive will you be if there is a network outage?

    4. Re:Even more interesting... by linebackn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      My guess is the browser will be come the desktop for operating systems. The browser will no longer be a separate program you have to launch, but rather just a layer of the operating system. Think about when the last time was you used a computer and didn't open a browser window.

      My Guess is that idiots that don't understand what a browser is or what a computer operating system is, or think there is nothing else you can do with a computer than browse the web, will keep spewing this kind of mumbo jumbo.

      The computing universe does not revolve around web browsing. There is a significant design and implementation benefit by keeping the OS, shell, and browser separate. IE and Windows has proven why merging these a bad idea.

      I often don't have a web browser window open, because I'm working on databases, word processing, graphics, file management, or playing video games - all of which *gasp* don't need a web browser window! And when I am doing those I don't want one!

    5. Re:Even more interesting... by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Welcome to Windows 95. This feature has been discontinued, for good reason. Personally, I don't want anything on my desktop except a solid color that's easy on the eyes.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    6. Re:Even more interesting... by CrashNBrn · · Score: 1

      Loads of times I don't have a (web) browser open. Whereas Total Commander (file) manager/browser is always open: and on a usb-stick for when I have to work on other machines.

    7. Re:Even more interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lemme guess...you didn't even have a browser window open when you posted, right?
      I'll get off your lawn now.

  15. I guess by Krneki · · Score: 3, Interesting

    They will become the next layer, where we use our applications / games.

    Hopefully the current OS-es will become irrelevant and we will fight over who is better: Firefox, Chrome or IE.

    Firefox will be for geeks, who likes to customize their stuff.
    Chrome will be the fastest and secure out of the box.
    IE / Safari the one with the most aggressive marketing.

    --
    Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
    1. Re:I guess by just_another_sean · · Score: 1

      Chrome will be the fastest and secure out of the box.

      Really?

      --
      Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
    2. Re:I guess by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      That doesn’t really specifically affect Chrome.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    3. Re:I guess by just_another_sean · · Score: 2, Insightful

      True, and I was being a bit facetious. But that said I am concerned that the problems they had in house are indicative of a particular attitude on security. I'm not writing them off just yet. :-) But I will watch them now for while as I have been doing to MS for, um, well it feels like forever with MS.

      --
      Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
    4. Re:I guess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't that how it is already? Chrome just needs another couple years to take hold of the pseudo-geeks (the ones who know what "browser" means) and the rising generation (also part of the privileged group of ones who know what "browser" means).

    5. Re:I guess by BZ · · Score: 1

      Chrome's marketing is a lot more aggressive than that of any other browser. I haven't seen any of the others taking out huge billboard ads all over the London subway, for example.

  16. The way things are going by just_another_sean · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm worried that it will simply display the MOTD about being a good citizen, reminding us not to violate copyright and then pointing us to our assigned task for the day. Oh and it will have ads for entertainment content, mountain dew and viagra. Mandatory ads that is (as in no need to click here, we will simply deduct it from your account, thanks).

    --
    Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
    1. Re:The way things are going by value_added · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm worried that it will simply display the MOTD about being a good citizen, reminding us not to violate copyright and then pointing us to our assigned task for the day.

      I'm afraid it's too late to worry. I'm just waiting for the day when the MOTD you're worried about is preceeded by scrolling dmesg output and a login prompt. ;-)

  17. What will the desktop look like in five years? by webbiedave · · Score: 2, Funny

    Let's ask the makers of OS/2!

  18. What will the OS look like in five years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's ask the HURD team!

    1. Re:What will the OS look like in five years? by rrhal · · Score: 1

      I always thought the browser was trying to emulate X Windows. I suspect it will keep going in that direction.

      --
      All generalizations are false, including this one. Mark Twain
  19. browser as os by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    people will boot netbook-iphone hybrids directly into the browser

    javascript will be the new c++. yes, that's a somewhat horrifying thought: the future of UI development will be javascript, gulp

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:browser as os by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you saying that currently C++ is mainly for UI development? Gulp...

    2. Re:browser as os by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Given that stuff like Google Web Toolkit, which allows you to write your application in Java, and then programmatically crunches it down to javascript for execution in the web browser, already exists; I'm not sure that javascript will really matter, even as it becomes the foundation of more and more stuff.

      I strongly suspect that, if you'd taken some computer scientists, sat them down, and told them to design a language that was easy to programmatically convert code in other languages to, and also easy(or at least doable) to execute at high speed, you wouldn't get javascript. However, javascript is what we have, and it seems reasonable to expect that it will gradually evolve(through a mixture of the creation of tools like Web Toolkit, and the parts of javascript that browsers focus on optimizing the execution of) to be a more or less adequate cross-platform-intermediate language.

      This isn't to say that you'll be prevented from writing javascript manually if you feel like it, nothing will stop you, and some people actually argue that the language isn't nearly as bad as its reputation would suggest; but, for situations involving extremely complex web-apps, I suspect that $LANGUAGE_OF_CHOICE-to-javascript "compilers" will be the rule.

      It'll be somewhat analogous to x86 virtualization. From a theoretical perspective, x86 was a shitty architecture to virtualize, which is why pricey IBM stuff has been doing it since shortly before they stopped using dinosaurs to carry packets between sites, and it has only fairly recently become viable on x86s. Nevertheless, through a combination of the evolution of virtualization software, and the gradual addition of useful virtualization features to x86 CPUs and chipsets, x86 virtualization has become highly viable, and fairly efficient.

  20. This is offtopic, by gzipped_tar · · Score: 2, Funny

    but that guy's family name looks like a CamelCasedClassName ;)

    --
    Colorless green Cthulhu waits dreaming furiously.
  21. There will be no by PhongUK · · Score: 1

    browsers because there will be no internet.

  22. Virtual! by Thanshin · · Score: 4, Funny

    It will look like flying through buildings made of data.

    YES, YES IT WILL!

    NaNanananananana I can't hear you nanananananaana

    1. Re:Virtual! by barzok · · Score: 1

      No, that's what UNIX looks like.

    2. Re:Virtual! by vbraga · · Score: 1

      Linux too!

      I'll port that to Qt someday.

      --
      English is not my first language. Corrections and suggestions are welcome.
  23. It will be exactly the same as now... by Nadaka · · Score: 1

    Except slower, filtered, monitored, pay-walled and with a different set of security flaws.

    IE will never conform to web standards, not that it matters as the standards will be utterly broken anyway.

    HTML will never be perfected with separation of concerns, instead every new standard will be a rush to pollute the language with a new wiz-bang feature and shoe-horned into the wrong markup paradigm. If a major browser is utterly broken, its method of being broken will be incorporated into the standard and developers will have to work around its bullshit failure.

  24. Everything will be based around the broswer? by dmunz · · Score: 1

    Isn't this browser-based nonsense what got MS in so much trouble? I wonder if they'll get a refund from the anti-trust folks... FWIW DLM

    1. Re:Everything will be based around the broswer? by webbiedave · · Score: 1

      No. It was using the technique to prevent emerging companies from gaining in the marketplace that got them in trouble.

  25. My prediction by Silvercloud · · Score: 1

    For some of us, based on our needs this prediction is not too difficult to make Google Chrome inside of Google OS seriously, don't laugh.

  26. Simplicity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, if certain media groups get there way, and the government decides the Internet needs regulating cause it's serious business, 'links' will probably look just as good as it does now.

    Do we really need punch the monkey, facebook match-up, and viagra reminders in 5 years?

  27. Re:Who? What now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ah, ad hominem. Why bother trying to actually find fault in the argument when you can find fault in the man making the argument?

    And moderators seem to agree! Oy.

  28. Future Apple browser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    It will have no buttons or any other form of input, it'll be a window to Steve Jobs browsing the internet. This is Apple's quality control in action, you'll never see any crap sites anymore.

    1. Re:Future Apple browser by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      you'll never see any crap sites anymore.

      Gonna miss you, slashdot

    2. Re:Future Apple browser by martin-boundary · · Score: 1

      I hope they won't also put cameras in his shower and kitchen, for the 24h Big Browsing experience.

  29. Re:Even more pressing by VGPowerlord · · Score: 1

    I still don't know what he looks like this year! Super Mario Galaxy 2 isn't out until the end of next month... :(

    --
    GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
  30. Exactly the same? by will.perdikakis · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I have a feeling that the browser of the future is going to look like the browser of the present, just without the IE logo. Third-party browsers like FF and Chrome are rapidly gaining market-share and, for the most part, provide a superior browsing experience.

    --
    -Will P.
  31. I imagine by PenisLands · · Score: 0

    that it will have a lot more shiny gradient colour/'marble' effects and require three times as much RAM to do the same things that we do at the moment.

  32. Which browser? by matunos · · Score: 1

    The one on your computer, your tablet, your phone, or your tv?

    1. Re:Which browser? by Jake+Griffin · · Score: 1

      Or your toaster or your bed's headboard?

      --
      SIG FAULT: Post index out of bounds.
  33. Come on moderators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    +5 insightful for that? Are you kidding me? This is supposed to be a technical discussion board, not 3rd grade recess.

    Just goes to show how far the average age of the slashdot reader has dropped over the past 10 years. I mean, as soon as I read that comment, the first thing that crossed my mind was "15-year-old".

    1. Re:Come on moderators by eln · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, I'm old enough to be a 15 year old's father, but I always appreciate it when people underestimate my age. Also, if you don't think Slashdot has anything in common with 3rd grade recess (especially the politics section), you're either new here or you were never in 3rd grade.

  34. Firefox from 2015... by Rhaban · · Score: 1

    Firefox from 2015, with the most common add-ons installed, will look like opera from 2014.

    1. Re:Firefox from 2015... by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 4, Funny

      And the 75 Opera users will be sure to point that out ad nauseum.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    2. Re:Firefox from 2015... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the 75 Opera users will be sure to point that out ad nauseum.

      And at least one person who took high school Latin will be sure to point out the correct spelling of ad nauseam.

    3. Re:Firefox from 2015... by darthservo · · Score: 0

      Whoa! We're up to 75 now?!?!? This calls for a celebration! Pretty soon I won't be able to shop through the birthday section of party supply stores to get my number decorations.

      --

      Prove it.

    4. Re:Firefox from 2015... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      This is 2015 we're talking about. Latin will be a dead language by then.

    5. Re:Firefox from 2015... by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

      Opera has more than 100 million users. Firefox had 300 million or so last I heard.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    6. Re:Firefox from 2015... by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

      Opera actually announced that they had more than 100 million users a few weeks ago.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    7. Re:Firefox from 2015... by darthservo · · Score: 1

      Sorry. Forgot to post my disclaimer: I am an Opera user.

      --

      Prove it.

    8. Re:Firefox from 2015... by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      There may have been that many download or installations, but if you look at the usage statistics here the numbers tell a much different story.

      For March 2010-
      46.2 % Firefox
      34.9 % IE
      12.3 % Chrome
      3.7 % Safari
      2.2 % Opera

      So while a lot of people may have used Opera at one time or another, there are not nearly as many regular users as your 100 million number may suggest.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    9. Re:Firefox from 2015... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Latin is and has been a dead language for quite some time now.

    10. Re:Firefox from 2015... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Whooshus maximus!

  35. please by Kc_spot · · Score: 1

    it will all be in your TV. as will ordering pizzas... were already almost there... isn't there a television with youtube?

    --
    This needs more cowbell!!!
    1. Re:please by Jake+Griffin · · Score: 1

      Connect a computer (I use a Mac Mini) to the TV and use Boxee. That will give you YouTube and Hulu as well as shows on nbc.com, cbs.com, abc.com, etc. In addition, if you don't use Boxee, you get a full computer with a (potentially) massive monitor. Alternatively, you do not need a computer and you can get a dedicated Boxee box.

      --
      SIG FAULT: Post index out of bounds.
    2. Re:please by Jake+Griffin · · Score: 1

      BTW, Boxee is not only for Mac. It's for Linux (and I use that one on my laptop) and Windows (my office desktop) as well.

      --
      SIG FAULT: Post index out of bounds.
  36. what you said is spot on by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    and your unwritten analogy is that javascript is the machine language of the internet

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:what you said is spot on by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      In a sense. It is (analogically speaking) somewhere between being a "machine language of the internet" and being one of the "intermediate formats" that things like LLVM and .net use for architecture independence(since, unlike machine language, there is no hardware that actually runs it, and rather more javascript is probably still handwritten than machine language). Because of the ease of handwriting(at least for smaller stuff) it still isn't quite like machine language or one of the intermediate formats.

      Had it been designed from the ground up for that purpose, it would probably look a lot more like one of the intermediate architecture-independent code formats; but it was, of course, originally designed to be a writable language for basic interactivity, not a webapp runtime...

  37. like a smartphone app? by peter303 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    At one time browsers were supposed to the universal interface for most data-delivery internet applications. Yet they are being bypassed for custom applications written for mobile devices. I guess mainly because they dont utilize screen real-estate very well, a precious resource on mobile devices. They have too much decoration on the edges, unpredictable screen placement, lack of touch-interface gui's etc.

    My prediction is they will be scripted, browser environment for the mobile device, which would provide a app-like feel.

    1. Re:like a smartphone app? by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 1

      I think it's also partly because web authors "standardized" on a minimum 800x600 resolution layout. In vanilla HTML, text is infinitely reflowable, but it's apparently easier to make assumptions about screen sizes. Sites that put all their content into a fixed-width page regardless of your window size really bug me, and I'm hoping the proliferation of small-resolution browsers will help encourage the quick death of these sorts of sites.

      For the moment, though, you're correct that browsing in a low-resolution devices is currently a very poor experience. I hope web designers will be looking harder at these sorts of choices now that people are browsing in a wide range of resolutions.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
  38. What Will the Browser Look Like In Five Years? by jiteo · · Score: 1

    Given that more and more functionality is moving to the browser, my answer is: Emacs.

  39. Chrome by Enderandrew · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Firefox and Safari and Chrome seem to be meeting in the middle in a basic design with one entry field and very few buttons. Whether tabs are on the bottom or top, people want a streamlined experience.

    As for the rest, well I remember in 1996 when people were suggested VRML and 3D web was the next big thing. I imagine the web is largely going to look the same in 5 years except for ads. Pop-ups, pop-unders, peel-away ads and such will be joined by even more annoying ads of the future. Thankfully I block all of them.

    --
    http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    1. Re:Chrome by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      in 5 years except for ads. Pop-ups, pop-unders, peel-away ads and such will be joined by even more annoying ads of the future. Thankfully I block all of them.

      And vendors will work around it. For example, they may make content delivery use the very same mechanism as the ad (pop-up content anyone?). Thus, any technology that blocks the ad will also block the content. The only way to automate around it will be AI that studies the content....and get it wrong 10% of the time.

    2. Re:Chrome by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      ...people were suggested VRML and 3D web

      If you think Goatse is bad now...
         

    3. Re:Chrome by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      Instead of trying to block the delivery mechanism, I find a filter list and HOSTS file to block the ad serving domains is the best approach.

      The problem is that ads pay for content. I like content. We just need more companies using less intrustive ads (such as Google's text ads) and I wouldn't feel the need to block them.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    4. Re:Chrome by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Instead of trying to block the delivery mechanism, I find a filter list and HOSTS file to block the ad serving domains is the best approach.

      If many did that, then they'd simply move the ads to the same servers as the content. Thus, it doesn't scale.

      And when I block the domain of the pop-ups, I still get a pop-up, but with a blank page. Hardly an improvement. Often the pop-up window is launched from the content site and only the ad image is at the spam host.

      We just need more companies using less intrusive ads

      Amen! Legitimate ad companies should work together to ban intrusive ads, otherwise they will be affected by the war because regular ads could be blocked by the same technology.

  40. I have seen the horror in visions! by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1
    1. Re:I have seen the horror in visions! by Jake+Griffin · · Score: 1

      Nice choice of links! I especially like "popup"... I don't have mod points, so I'll just give you this: \m/ >. \m/

      --
      SIG FAULT: Post index out of bounds.
    2. Re:I have seen the horror in visions! by Jake+Griffin · · Score: 1

      Dang... this work? \m/ >.< \m/

      --
      SIG FAULT: Post index out of bounds.
  41. Re:Who? What now? by sznupi · · Score: 1

    Well, Opera historically has been quite revealing in regards to what will become of most browsers few years down the line... ;p

    Also, their financials are open / those are not any tricks; it's not that hard to find countries where Opera has great or even dominating position (interestingly, it's mostly ex Soviet Block); and...depending on how you count they are #1 mobile web browser. #2 if you throw all Webkit-based together.

    --
    One that hath name thou can not otter
  42. With Net Neutrality being in a jeopardy, by Ruvim · · Score: 1

    I expect browsers to become ISP-sanctioned locked and DRM'd software with the set limit of advertisement-free browsing time.

  43. I predict same old same old. by linebackn · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Oh, let me see, I predict that 5 years from now, browsers are going to be about the freaking same. Perhaps, as usual, with a few more useless bells and whistles nobody really needs but some PHB though would be cool.

    Why? Well, a browser is an application that retrieves web documents, renders them on your screen, and enables you to navigate through them using hyper links. Nothing more, nothing less. It won't make your toast and it won't replace your operating system. People may try things like that but then it's not just a browser any more, and it is usually a bad idea.

    The basic functionality of a browser really hasn't changed much since Tim Berners-Lee released his "World Wide Web" browser in 1991. Feel free to try and come up with something new that meets the needs of the world better. I dare say there is room for improvement, but I just don't that kind of innovation happening much any more - people just keep trying to shoehorn "applications" in to something that is only meant to render documents and keep scratching their head as to why that doesn't work very well.

    1. Re:I predict same old same old. by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

      Why? Well, a browser is an application that retrieves web documents, renders them on your screen, and enables you to navigate through them using hyper links. Nothing more, nothing less.

      A browser is not only a document viewer. It's an application platform.

      people just keep trying to shoehorn "applications" in to something that is only meant to render documents and keep scratching their head as to why that doesn't work very well

      Considering that the browser is probably the most important application on any computer, it seems to work very well indeed. And unlike what your whining indicates, browsers are actually improving to make it even better as an application platform.

      But hey, keep whining.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    2. Re:I predict same old same old. by Myopic · · Score: 1

      Feel free to try and come up with something new that meets the needs of the world better.

      You mean, like, pictures? The original web browsers had text and hyperlinks. Everything else you see is an innovation.

      You might disagree but I think my web experience is enhanced by pictures, movies, forms, scripts, ad blockers, the direct search field, tabs, and pretty much every other feature. And this Slashdot Application I use in my browser is a little bit more capable than the similar desktop applications I was using 15 years ago. The web is a fine place to develop applications.

      Please don't be angry. It's fine if those things aren't important to you, but they are to many of us -- I venture to say perhaps most of us.

  44. Needs more bling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More shine.

    More useless features that the browser makers will make you THINK that you need by forcing it on you.

    More memory load.

    More security holes.

    A button that makes your browser window bounce up and down.

    Noises on all actions to the beat of some rap / fifth-teeny pop twat song.

    Am i close yet?

  45. Where are the by Yhippa · · Score: 1

    hover browsers I was promised?

  46. What will it look like? IE10. Simply, really... by Tomsk70 · · Score: 1

    Unless you're of the opinion that M$ are suddenly going to stop stealing all the best features and ideas (in exactly the same way as they always have for the past twenty years), or that all the Corps are suddenly going to invest in devs to port their apps off of IE...

  47. in 5 years? by Tumbleweed · · Score: 1

    In 5 years, we will finally see the death of mainstream support for IE6 in the corporate environments. Sadly, IE 7 and 8 will still be around dragging us back into the past. And, web developers who thought IE 9 and 10 would actually correctly support standards will look back and shake their heads at their naiveté.

    Opera will still be goofy enough to not be mainstream for most people.

    Firefox will finally have sandboxed tabs, not just sandboxed plugins (though it will only be in beta in 5 years).

    Chrome will have gained sentience.

    Safari won't be anywhere anymore, as Satan got impatient waiting for Jobs to join him in Hell, and simply reached out and dragged him and the entire company down into the fiery pit for one giant, everlasting technological lock-in orgy of evil.

    Oh, and the HURD will finally be released - as an extension to Emacs.

    1. Re:in 5 years? by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

      Opera goofy? Considering that it has more than 100 million users by now it looks like it's just getting more and more mainstream.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    2. Re:in 5 years? by Jake+Griffin · · Score: 1

      Why include the ' é ' but not the ' ï ' in the word ' naïveté '? You might as well just say naivety...

      --
      SIG FAULT: Post index out of bounds.
  48. Naw, just that Opera is FASTER & MORE SECURE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Whatever it looks like, Opera users will whine that their browser looked like that first." - by eln (21727) writes: on Tuesday April 20, @10:48AM (#31910144) Homepage

    See subject-line above: That's about all Opera users really "whine" about, but those are the facts, so... "read 'em & weep".

  49. might as well bring it up again - Real GUI's by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Hopefully they'll have better desktop-like-GUI/CRUD support:

    http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1622780&cid=31890610

  50. Obviously by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

    In 5 years, it will be integrated into my flying car. Whose taillights will be lasers, mounted on sharks of course.

    --
    Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    1. Re:Obviously by Jake+Griffin · · Score: 1
      --
      SIG FAULT: Post index out of bounds.
  51. Re:I'm more worried... by Jake+Griffin · · Score: 1

    I'm more worried that your cock has a hinge, because that means that robots are posting on slashdot and for all I know I am the ONLY real person doing so which would mean that I am living in a fake world created for me by robots. I must be Keanu Reeves.

    --
    SIG FAULT: Post index out of bounds.
  52. I hope for an Internet Reading Application by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Todays browser sucks when it comes to reading compared to the Mosaic clone I used 15 years ago.

    I hope that the browser will split into two application, one made for reading and one for all that fancy web-application stuff that makes the browsers of today useless for reading purposes.

    My wish-list

    • Better font rendering
       
    • Better line breaking algorithms and microtypography.
    • Simple markup of text a la HTML 2, it's the reader who should decide how he/she wants the text he/she reads to look. Simple markup makes pages download faster. And no, web feeds like RSS and Atom is not the answer, they exist because the web and web browsers sucks and people need something simpler and less sucky to cope with all the crap.
    • Index pages á la Gopher, makes it possible for the visitor to decide how he/she wants the pages presented. And again, web feeds like RSS and Atom is not the answer, they exist because the web and web browsers sucks and people need something simpler and less sucky to cope with all the crap.
    • The return of useful site mapping tools within the browser. My browser in 1995 had a mindmap-like presentations of web sites, that made finding whatever I wanted simple. The home pages today are to complicated for such tools, see the two points above.
    • Computer screens made for reading and viewing still images, not for gaming or playing videos. Why is it that computer screens have become so much worse when it comes to reading during the last two decades.
    • Lots of people using browser that don't support CSS and JavaScript (and Flash and Silverlight and ...), so that webpage creators have to make pages that work without all that crap. 99 sites out of 100 that sucks, sucks because they spend more resources on creating (usually sucky) web-interfaces than actual content. 1 out of 100 sucks because they destroyed perfectly good content with a crappy web interface.

    Text is the best bearer for most kinds of information, why are we making internet useless for text.

  53. The nightmare scenario by Animats · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Here's the worst case.

    Web browsers are still around, but they're used only to look at junk sites. All commercial content is locked into "applications" for phones, tablets, and TVs. The content provider has complete control - the user can't skip ads, can't prevent the content owner from knowing what they're looking at, and can't save the content.

    Bots run by the MPAA, the RIAA, News Corp., Apple, and Google constantly troll the remnants of the free web, searching for commercial content and sending out goon squads to take it down.

  54. Re:Who? What now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So Internet Explorer is the way of the future, because you have to pay for Windows to get it?

  55. I'm crissing my fingers for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a 3D array of tabs. That, and a feature that switches tabs a split second before another person is within view of your screen.

  56. It will look like by hduff · · Score: 2, Funny

    what it already looks like: shitty web pages.

    --
    "I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
  57. Sorry, what? by Compaqt · · Score: 1

    If we already know what the browser's going to look like in five years, why not just release it next year? Do we have to wait 5 years to make the futurists' predictions accurate?

    --
    I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
  58. Re:probably a penis by Em+Emalb · · Score: 1

    Eh, hit a little too close to home there for someone? Sheesh, it was a joke, moderator.

    See, everyone on here assumes that porn is the driving force behind most technology changes. it's a frigging slashdot tradition.

    Ah well, maybe I'd have gotten a better mod if I'd have said goatse or a vagina or something.

    --
    Sent from your iPad.
  59. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't know what the browser will look like in 5 years, but I do know that in 5 years when you press an arrow key to scroll it will definitely do something unexpected--it will NOT scroll.

  60. Nathan Explosion is smiling by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 2, Funny

    Metal!

  61. cyber-browsing option, sounds good by OldHawk777 · · Score: 1

    Anon: "I am hoping about the same, but with a more personal-intuitive-interactive cyber-browsing option."

    --
    Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
  62. Re:Naw, just that Opera is FASTER & MORE SECUR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey apk! Tell us about your crack legal team.

  63. blaah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm coing to take a pee now

  64. As different as they look now from 5 years ago by Latinhypercube · · Score: 0

    As different as they look now from 5 years ago (ie. not much)

  65. Re:Naw, just that Opera is FASTER & MORE SECUR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe he’ll tell you about his Kings Joker sock-puppet that he uses to toot his own horn at ThePlanet’s forums. He’s always referring to “Kings Joker, user of my guide @ THE PLANET”... apparently it’s some impressive feat to have one person to quote, who is actually yourself, anytime you need to boast about how useful your tech advice is.

  66. Re:probably a penis by clone53421 · · Score: 1

    Why don’t you explain to me what you mean via a nice car analogy?

    --
    Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  67. Re:Naw, just that Opera is FASTER & MORE SECUR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Haha, I have never heard of ThePlanet, but it's good to know that he's still out there posting total craziness. Any links to relevant threads would be most welcome.

  68. Future of Firefox by The_mad_linguist · · Score: 1

    Firefox will have offloaded about 75% of its features into plugins, extensions, et cetera. The remaining 25% will be a gigantic giga^H^H^H^Hgibibar, which stores the entire html of every website you've ever visited, and searches through all of them whenever you type anything into it. Loading up google will take two or three minutes due to the extensive use of flash.

  69. Touch and HTML5 and ISO media by gig · · Score: 1

    Touch was made for the Web. You actually press the buttons, you easily flick to scroll, and pinch to zoom. It is so natural and easy. There's no going back to the mouse once you use touch. This also translates to virtual touch, like Minority Report, to surf on a TV. Direct interaction.

    Also, HTML5 (standards-based Web) is more important than ever. More devices, more platforms, more vendors. It is the only way forward. Most devices do not have native apps, they need Web apps. And Web publishing has to get cheaper and easier and more universal as print goes even further away. People need to use basic tools and make universally-accessible Web content.

    Finally, ISO MPEG media. Most of the world's published network audio video is in ISO formats. These are the consumer audio video formats. The PC formats are comparitively irrelevant. Cameras and recorders make it, editors edit it, all the consumer devices play it in hardware. All the pro gear is based around the QuickTime container. There's no substitute. The Web will play audio video's formats, not its own format. That's the legacy of the Web doing XHTML instead of audio and video tags in 1999. Audio video came to the Internet via MPEG, not W3C. The royalty-free non-commercial use of ISO media will continue indefinitely. Apple filibustered the original license and got the royalty-free use, and Apple has made it clear it has to continue. Both Apple and Google ave ways to make things bad for MPEG-LA if they try to change that through the last few years of the patent terms, which are not that far away. The thing to understand is the Web will be less text+graphics and much more audio video. TV is going to have its revenge on the Web.

    So mouse+IE+Flash is turning into touch+HTML5+MPEG. Much easier, much cheaper, many more platforms, richer media, lots of audio video.

  70. Re:I'm more worried... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Matrix was a metaphor. What you're actually living in is a fake world created for us by leftists. Where teapartiers are racists and you can spend your way out of debt and Bush caused hurricane Katrina and tourism is a human right. Just forget that none of it makes sense and go along, it'll be a much easier existence (not to be confused with a life).