Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

AOL 6.0 Bundled with Windows XP?

michael posted more than 13 years ago | from the chocolate-and-peanut-butter dept.

America Online 247

mizhi writes: "MSNBC reports that AOL6.0 will be bundled with Windows XP and given prominent placement on the desktop in exchange for exclusive Internet Explorer support. They're also talking about making Windows Media Player the exclusive player for AOL. No monopoly here... keep moving along..." What about MSN? Mozilla? If AOL isn't going to switch to a new Netscape or Mozilla browser to base their client upon, what happens to Netscape?

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Re:How about this: (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#198067)

Netscape was killed off by the evil Microsoft empire.

Microsoft gave away for free the products that Netscape was making its biggest revenues on: web browsers and web servers. This left Netscape without the capital and market share needed to properly improve and market its products.

So you're right, Netscape Communicator was really poor quality and the bugs weren't fixed, but this was because Netscape had limited resources to use. If Netscape *had* focused on releasing a stable version of Communicator rather than adding extras, then right now you'd be accusing Netscape of having died because it didn't keep pace with IE.

Re:How long until... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#198068)

It's being worked on..... http://winxplite.cjb.net [cjb.net]

No, you don't have a clue . . . (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#198069)

I just bought Win2k less than a month ago; the Dos/command-line window works fine and is REQUIRED to preform some of the more advanced operating system administration. Actually, if MS will offer Win2002, etc., as an alternative to subscription-based XP, I will certainly stay with MS. Win2k is a very good system, at least for what I want/need to do; the only way I'd even consider a complete move is if Adobe gave me free copies of Photoshop/Illustrator for Linux (getting the Windows copies was too expen$ive to replace).

Also, I am a webdeveloper with a non-tech-savy mother. I've found Mozilla STILL isn't as reliable for CSS/DHTML as I.E. is, and I have a hard enough time getting my mom to run I.E. -- she'd be lost if I told her to check her Mozilla build everynight, let alone if she didn't have the hand-holding features that I.E. excels in providing. The "unwashed" whom you claim WANT/NEED to tinker with the insides of their system will prob get Linux, or stick with Win2k (which is very configurable/get-your-hands-dirty, maybe you should try and USE Win2k BEFORE YOU FUD-lump it into the same category as XP). My point here is that computers are too usefull to be given ONLY to those who fully understand them -- I.E.+AOL VS Mozilla+Plain_Vanilla_ISP is almost like Automatic_Transmission VS Manual_Clutch; sure the clutch offers better preformance and "user" control -- but there are some people who just want to drive/websurf+email, and don't care that they're not using the most breathtakingly engineered way to do it.

You heard a rumor about WinXP? I heard a rumor that, late at night, WinXP will secretly start reading text from "Mein Kampf" to try and brainwash you into a Nazi while you sleep. Oh, let's DO discuss rumors, it's not like the TRUTH about WinXP is daming enough. No, I'm NOT going to put my torch away -- if it's a rumor than bringing it up is wrong, even if you say "it's just a rumor!" -- if it's just a rumor is it worth bringing up? Or do you just like to frett, worry, and namecall with Microsoft BEFORE you know that you have good reason to do so? Maybe WinXP WON'T force you to re-buy it when you upgrade your CPU; MS has been famous for coming out with a HORDE of bad ideas with each new operating system, few of which actually MAKE it to release (or make it past initial release -- channel bar). And your FUD-point makes no sense: if you're having to constantly subscribe to XP, you'll NEVER have to make a singular purchase for the system.

If XP DOES decide it needs to charge you a little more for your latest update because it has to upgrade itself to include suppport for your new processor, is that so bad? Does Win95 support all the new gadgets and things that Win98 does? Win2k? The only real difference would be that the update would happen automatically, as opposed to you flocking down to your puter store . . .

Again, it's POINTLESS to make a criticism about this unless/until we can actually SEE how it works AFTER RELEASE. I, frankly, would be glad to pay MS, say, $10/yr -- Win2k is $120, that's 12 years! Even at $20/yr, I've NEVER kept an OS for longer than 6 years! It's likely your "rumor" is true, except that its facts are a GREATLY distorted version of what, in reality, is a much more acceptable upgrade policy than your description of your rumor paints -- I heard a rumor that my Uncle died but he *really* was only very sick and is better now. See the distinction?!

There are enough problems with the subscription model of XP without having to worry about your FUD over new CPUs/disk-drives. . . Indeed, I wish someone would keep a laundry list as to what parts of XP are bad and are CONFIRMED (like cutting off support, system-wide, for MP3s by giving MS-MediaPlayer priveldged access to system multimedia) -- I have heard a lot of rumors and a few items which I can only assume are truths; I'd sure love a website that keeps track of the sins of XP yet filters out the FUD of "Oh no! It's Microsoft!"

So, what's the problem again? (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#198075)

I don't get it. Is there a problem here? Companies bundle products together all the time. Didn't Windows95 come with AOL, Compuserve and other clients?

Re:How about this: (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#198076)

MS was killed off by the evil Linux empire.

Linux gave away for free the products that MS was making its biggest revenues on: Operating systems and Office software. This left MS without the capital and market share needed to properly improve and market its products.

So you're right, MS Office was really poor quality and the bugs weren't fixed, but this was because MS had limited resources to use. If MS *had* focused on releasing a stable version of Office rather than adding extras, then right now you'd be accusing MS of having died because it didn't keep pace with Linux .

Re:So, what's the problem again? (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#198077)

Yes, AOL, Compuserve and others had to sue to get their clients into Windows _95_. You see way back Microsoft was even going to only have Microsoft Network on its operating system. The DOJ had to step in & Microsoft signed a consent decree - meaning Microsoft agreed under penalty of law - not to use anti-trust, monopolistic, anti-competitive tactics to stifle competition, such as soley bundling your own software (from a different market), placing it in a prominent place (like MSN exclusively on the desktop), and integrating this separate product so that users if Windows have to use it (Windows 98 & Internet Explorer). Of course, Microsoft has done all of these things and continues to do so. This is why there is NOT a free market in software that runs on Windows.

"What happens to Netscape?" (2)

Wakko Warner (324) | more than 13 years ago | (#198079)

Um, guess.

Like it matters anymore, anyway. Netscape is a non-issue now with Mozilla being more useful and stable than Netscape could ever hope to be. Don't believe me? Grab a nightly and see for yourself. It doesn't suck as much as it used to, and it sucks a lot less than Netscape ever did.

Or am I the only one that's had to write a script to killall -9 dead netscape processes and rm ~/.netscape/lock?

-A.P.

--
Forget Napster. Why not really break the law?

Re:Not sure that this is news exactly... (2)

mattdm (1931) | more than 13 years ago | (#198085)

IE has one major feature that Netscape still doesn't even come close to approaching -- an API that can be used to make a custom browser (which is just a shell over the HTML/Script parsing engine that offers most of the functions of a web browser).

Um [mozilla.org] . Perhaps you haven't been paying attention? Mozilla (and therefore Netscape 6+) is easily embedded [mozilla.org] .

Conspiracy Theory (1)

amblin (1997) | more than 13 years ago | (#198087)

MS talking to AOL...

Hey, since the Justice Dept. would never allow us to do it, why don't you go buy up our competition(netscape, winamp, etc..) and we will cut you a sweet deal on the desktop.

maybe it's because AOL wants a decent browser (1)

VAXGeek (3443) | more than 13 years ago | (#198089)

go ahead and moderate this down, and i'm sure there's a million people that will swear to their dying day that mozilla kicks any browser's ass, but the latest version of MSIE does not crash, is stable, stable, stable, does not waste resources with stupid themable interface, does not have major parts of the browser written in java script, does not require 128 megs of ram to run and also does not include stupidity such as AIM clients and IRC clients. if I was AOL, i would have included MSIE too. at some point mozilla may become a better browser, but right now it is not. it is behind. you can either moderate me down and ignore the truth, or you can stop reading slashdot all day, learn some c/c++ and help out the mozilla.org crew. god knows they need it.
------------
a funny comment: 1 karma
an insightful comment: 1 karma
a good old-fashioned flame: priceless

Re:Aol Upgrades (1)

Archfeld (6757) | more than 13 years ago | (#198092)

so remove the ads and turn of auto update..is a very simple process involving 3 dll's and 1 core file. Instructions can be found via a google search on remove adds from ICQ :)

Re:How about this: (2)

FFFish (7567) | more than 13 years ago | (#198094)

Except for those of us who use Opera. Except for a bunch of proprietory MSIE extensions that I wouldn't allow to run in any case, Opera kicks ass.

For one thing, it's got a helluva great UI. Saves a lotta time in browsing. Makes me more efficient.


--

Re:Mozilla's usable now (2)

fishbowl (7759) | more than 13 years ago | (#198095)

SSL Support alone isn't the whole story.

If the site you want to connect to only accepts
keys from certain browsers, it does not matter
what your other browser can do.

Try to connect to the wells fargo online bank
with anything but an "approved browser" and
get back with me about SSL support.

http://www.wellsfargo.com/per/browsertest.jhtml

I've asked for a way to make Konqueror fool this
site into working, but I guess it isn't a
problem for anyone else.

Dear AOL (1)

Ageless (10680) | more than 13 years ago | (#198097)

Dear AOL,

Do me a favor? Buy Netscape / Mozilla. Pretend to develop it. Pretend to care. Let it die after about a year. In exchange for this we will put AOL X.0 on the next version of Windows. Cool?

-Bill

Re:Okay, let's see if I've got this straight... (1)

Mr. Objectivity (12265) | more than 13 years ago | (#198102)

You don't have this straight at all.

WIndows XP does not force you to repurchase the product every so ofter, what utter nonsense. You have to activate the product, via phone or the web, in a 14 day period before you are forced to activate to continue using the OS. Activation means you tell MS you have a product key and the activation software creates another unique identifier based on the hardware in your machine. This does not mean you have to repurchase the product if you change hardware in your machine. It only means that you have to reactivate if you make a "sufficient" number of changes to your hardware. Now of course, since this is an anti-piracy measure, they aren't telling anybody how much hardware needs to change to trigger the re-activation process, but they have said its > 1 piece of hardware.

With the ease with which you can get information on this from beta testers, take a nanosecond to get some facts.

Re:Nutscrape vs exploder the saga continues... (1)

freq (15128) | more than 13 years ago | (#198107)

"They designed an entire fucking cross-platform toolkit instead of focusing on the real point--a good rendering engine and a good browser"

You are so right on this point. I always wondered why the heck they bundled all the other crap with the browser. It was far more annoying than useful, even for the clueless novice user it was useless. Messenger sucked, composer sucked, and I resented the fact that I had to wait for all that crap to download.

I stopped using windows netscape @ version 4.7, and only fire nutscrape up when i'm proofing my web work for "the other browser"

Exploder rocks. plain and simple. I hope people quit using netscape soon so i can quit setting up extra style sheets.

Re:Go on, pull the other one, it's got bells (2)

Teferi (16171) | more than 13 years ago | (#198109)

Well, seeing as Ashcroft, the AG, is firmly in MS's pocket (http://www.opensecrets.org/)...

AOL is no fool... (5)

sterno (16320) | more than 13 years ago | (#198110)

AOL isn't stupid, they are hedging their bets and doing what they can to put themselves in an effective position to compete. The fact of the matter is that right now Microsoft runs the desktop of most consumers and so AOL is willing to make the sacrifice to go with IE in exchange for favorable positioning up front.

Now, at the same time, they fund the Mozilla effort, which as time goes on, should probably be little drain on their resources due to increasing community involvement. So overall investment there is small and it continues to give them a platform to work with on Embedded devices and non-windows desktops. As the market share of Embedded devices vs. Desktops shifts, AOL will have mozilla there to fill that need.

---

Mozilla's usable now (1)

Linux Freak (18608) | more than 13 years ago | (#198114)

Wow, things are NOT looking good for Netscape. Thank goodness Mozilla has started to become usable (I wish SSL would work though).

Shhh... (1)

FatSean (18753) | more than 13 years ago | (#198115)

Not so loud!

Re:Mozilla's usable now (2)

MindStalker (22827) | more than 13 years ago | (#198117)

Where have you been PSM2.0 came out over a month ago, and fixed almost all of Mozilla's SSL problems.

Re:Interesting (2)

AtariDatacenter (31657) | more than 13 years ago | (#198122)

Bingo! Glad I searched for the word "bargaining" before I posted. I think that they were prepared to go with Netscape for the client, but if they were going to get a better deal with Microsoft, they're going to take it. I don't think Sun would be particularly pleased, though.

Re:Interesting (4)

SpinyNorman (33776) | more than 13 years ago | (#198123)

I imagine they were prepared to go either way - to use it as a bargaining chip to keep AOL on the desktop, or to attempt to make AOL/Netscape the desktop for internet appliances.

Since AOL is the money maker, not netscape, it does of course make a lot of sense.

Of course logically they will need to maintain Netscape as a viable threat in order not to get expunged from the Windows desktop at some point in the future.

Mozilla has done it's job.... (5)

ajs (35943) | more than 13 years ago | (#198125)

It may be AOL's view that Mozilla has done it's job by forcing Microsoft's hand. MS wants to keep it's lead in the browser world, and if threatinging them with AOL conversion to Mozilla get AOL placement on the XP desktop, well it was worth the money they paid....

I'm not saying that I would be happy with that attitude, but is there any business reason for them to not think this way?

assimilation (2)

MadAhab (40080) | more than 13 years ago | (#198129)

Looks like Microsoft is getting a little smarter about taking actions to keep future antitrust actions at bay. With some helpful "suggestions" from AOL's lawyers, no doubt.

But the real battle takes place with the "last mile" to consumers. As long as there is a truly open Internet accessible to all, there's a limit to how much damage these kinds of consolidations can do.

Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.

Ever heard of Open Source development? (2)

r_newman (40868) | more than 13 years ago | (#198133)

It (Open Source) has produced some pretty good stuff in it's day... Does Mozilla need AOL? If AOL drop Mozilla, aren't there enough skilled Open Source developers out there with an interest to take it over?

In fact it might be a good thing... I find Mozilla too big and cumbersome, maybe someone with a different focus might decide to split it into its component parts and we could even get a nice lightweight, standards compliant and stable browser out of it.

This doesn't NEED to be a Bad Thing(tm). Open Source has a way of coming up with the goods.

Bloat? (1)

addaon (41825) | more than 13 years ago | (#198135)

Is it true that, as the story implies, AOL now takes up over 80MB? If so, what's in that? Not localization information, since it's just the english version... shouldn't it be getting most of its graphics and such on demand from the 'net? I just don't get it.

Is this so bad? (2)

brianvan (42539) | more than 13 years ago | (#198136)

First of all, if IE is really a superior product to Netscape, and AOL is a fine ISP for most people's need, and if you have an option to use something else in either category if you so choose, then I don't see this as being anti-competitive... it's benefitting normal consumers. This is in the same vein as MS's consumer OS virtual monopoly being a lot more beneficial to consumers than having 10 different popular OSes with lesser features - as long as you can choose to use another operating system at any time. (When motherboard chipsets and hard drives begin to support only Windows and AOL, then I'll worry)

Second, Netscape is not dead, as long as AOL doesn't kill them off. Of course, this is virtually what's happening here, but neither AOL nor Netscape itself (pre-merger) showed any serious committment to providing consumers with something better... they were sitting on top of their own monopoly on the browser scene. Even now, Netscape and Operal are the popular options for non-Microsoft (or Apple) operating systems. They're not eliminating competition, they're simply taking the fight a step further. There's still a market for the other browsers, though.

Third, none of you people use Windows or AOL anyway. This helps all the people that use AOL and Windows. And it doesn't hurt anyone that doesn't. This does not affect the Linux crowd at all.

Finally, this saves me a step in reformatting... now I don't have to go in the junk mail pile for an AOL cd anymore. And it saves trees and plastic.

Then again, I've already been assimilated, so it's too late for me.

What happens to Netscape? (2)

RocketJeff (46275) | more than 13 years ago | (#198138)

If AOL isn't going to switch to a new Netscape or Mozilla browser to base their client upon, what happens to Netscape?
Simple. AOL will continue to use Netscape for what they always have - a bargaining weapon when they negotiate with Microsoft.

If you look at the way AOL positions/uses Netscape, this become obvious. AOL is not a software company (even though they write software), their only real product is their service (exempting the large Time-Warner chunk, of course).

Netscape is Dead Dead Dead (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 13 years ago | (#198140)

Can we officially declare it now? Netscape is dead, long live Mozilla.

Re:Mozilla has done it's job.... (5)

TheTomcat (53158) | more than 13 years ago | (#198142)

I don't mean to sound too much like a compsiracy theorist, but...

MS sets conditions, including IE (which I don't understand since the browser is no charge anyway-- I suppose this helps sell IIS on NT for the server side)

The biggest problem with IE dominance is this:
If the day ever comes that [someone like] MS controls [almost] 100% of the browser market, that puts them effectively also in control of the web server market, the content authoring market, the browser plugin market, etc.

Case in point: [Someone like] Microsoft controls [almost] all browsers. They decide to implement encryption/authentication in their browsers that only accept data from certain servers (ie, [something like] Microsoft IIS), effectively putting server authors who don't pay the [someone like] Microsoft Tax out of business. After all, who wants to run a server that won't talk to most browsers?

But there will always be open source projects that will be able to emulate these "privileged" servers, right? This situation is starting to remind me of the whole DeCSS debacle. The DMCA would protect [someone like] Microsoft's servers from being emulated.

It's only a theory, and not ENTIRELY possible, but definitely food for thought.

Re:AOL is no fool... (1)

jimmyCarter (56088) | more than 13 years ago | (#198145)

Exactly- regardless of whether or not Netscape is an AOL company, they're going to do whatever makes the most sense in keeping their market position.

That XP bundling deal is just too nice of an offer.. can't really blame them at all.

Re:Not sure that this is news exactly... (2)

BorgDrone (64343) | more than 13 years ago | (#198149)

- You can write your own mozila GUI using XUL
- You can embed mozzilla in your C++ application
- there is an Mozilla ActiveX component
- Mozilla can be embedded in Java applications.

---

Re:How about this: (2)

dimator (71399) | more than 13 years ago | (#198151)

A) Netscape, as a whole, never had any interest for AOL. They were not going to include an entire Netscape install in their clients. (Why would they want 2 different email clients to confuse the user?) It was ALL about the layout engine for them to embed in their AOL client, and I agree that there's a lot of smack to be talked about Netscape 6 as a whole, but the layout engine is actually very smooth and very fast. For proof, try a windows mozilla build, and then click on the MFCembed.exe, or whatever it is called. It's just the layout engine embedded in a tiny MFC app. It's faster than hell!! Even without IE's preloaded DLL shinanigans, it loads and renders VERY fast. That's an amazing accomplishment.

B) Do you really think the quality of Netscape had anything to do with this decision? This is pure marketing, people. Microsoft has all the power in the world, and AOL NEEDS to be right there on the desktop when Joe User turns on his new Gateway, or they're history. If Microsoft had said "Sure we'll put it on the desktop, but you have to dance on your head." AOL would have to comply.

I'm Netscape's (well actually, Mozilla's) biggest supporter, and this really sucks, but it's just business. Everyone seems to have the solution for Mozilla, but how about this: Drop the cross-platform bull shit. "Winning the browser war" and "cross-platform browser" are mutually exclusive, because you can NEVER make a cross-platform app as fast as it would be if it was only developed for one platform.

Oh well... I think the AOL linux dumb terminal thing (that I've actually seen and played with) will still work out, and it uses mozilla's layout engine. This deal doesn't say anything about AOL not trying anything else like this, so maybe it will take off.


---

Re:Except... (1)

jhoffoss (73895) | more than 13 years ago | (#198153)

Sorry to tell you, but Konqueror isn't that great either. It's not bad, but it's no better than Netscape (and you say "other open-source browsers"...did you forget Mozilla is open-source and yet it still sucks?)

Don't get me wrong, please. I'm for open-source software fully, but you sound like an irrational radical when you say "well, my program is the best because it's open-source." It adds a certain appeal and quality to a program (the fact that it's open-source) but it does not make it a better program. Open-source is great, but the focus with open-source is not necessarily to put out a bug-free, low-resource, easy-to-use program that writes the books on usability; rather, open-source is about innovation. This isn't bad, but open-source programs tend to lose a bit in the refinement area. A program designed by geeks and programmers will not seem easy to use for a technological neophyte.

That said, IE or other closed-source programs don't fit the bill to a T, either. In those situations, though, this is due to corporations fighting to release a new "feature-filled" program two weeks before the other guy, regardless of whether it's even remotely stable.
---

Re:Winamp? (2)

jhoffoss (73895) | more than 13 years ago | (#198157)

Yes, this is true. Windows Media Player is slow, bloated, and hogs resources. Winamp is still a far superior player than WMP. MusicMatch Jukebox is the only thing that competes with Winamp on my desktop, but that can seem rather bloated at times as well; it does, however, manage my mp3 library much better, and utilizes ID3 tags much more than Winamp. But Winamp will always hold a special place in my heart. *insert dreamy sigh*
---

Re:What about MSN? (2)

Bandman (86149) | more than 13 years ago | (#198160)

It's a verrry bad move for AOL, because in doing so they are exposing themselves to the "I hate XP and therefore I hate AOL" mentality. Childish if you ask me, but then we're talking about the general public.

Really, though, when you think about it...what group of people are most likely to say "I hate XP"? Now, isn't that the group most likely not to use AOL in the first place?

Conversly, arn't the people that are most likely to roll over and take what Microsoft gives them also more likely to just accept that AOL is part of their "computer experience".

I'm not necessarily calling the average computer user stupid, just...inexperienced. Nieve is more like it. They don't know any better, so they get taken advantage of by computer companies. Microsoft and AOL arn't the only ones, but they are the biggest.

So is it a bad move by AOL? Probably not. AOL has proved that it doesn't value customer retention half as much as it values new customers. If it did, we wouldn't use AOL CDs like Legos. By the time these users "graduate" to MSN, there will be a whole new set of nieve users to fill their coffers.

The story is INCORRECT! (5)

_egg (86248) | more than 13 years ago | (#198161)

The FULL quote excerpted in the story is this:

The five-year contract between the two companies that guaranteed AOL prominent placing on Microsoft's Windows operating system in exchange for exclusive support for Internet Explorer on AOL's online service expired in January.

In other words, the story as posted to Slashdot skews the perception AWAY from the actual events. The deal is to put the AOL installer on the XP install disc... Nothing more. AOL can use Komodo/Gecko in their next revision, but it's not ready in time for XP's launch, so they're using their current installer. We should still expect to see Komodo in the future, and the article says absolutely nothing to indicate otherwise.

Winamp? (2)

RussGarrett (90459) | more than 13 years ago | (#198164)

What about that marvellous (Windows) media player Winamp? Nullsoft are owned by AOL!

Less Bitching More Coding (2)

rapett0 (92674) | more than 13 years ago | (#198165)

I can't believe you guys are still concerned about the business dealings of M$. I am not going to sit here and bitch about them, or AOL, etc. Why? Because my bitching does no good. Instead, I customize my system the way I want. Yes I run 98 SE (the best desktop OS in terms of overal, for me that is, games, IE, etc), but I run Linux, Mac OS ancient through OSX, Solaris, etc. Never has it mattered what is packaged with a system, ever. If I want something else, download it, or create your own! If you took the time it takes all the /. crowd to sit and bitch about M$ this and that, you could have saved the world by now! Well not really, but you get my point. And to counter the already coming "Its not the choir, its the non-computer literate users who choice is stifled." Whatever, you think they give a damn whether its Mozilla, Netscape, IE, etc? No, they just want something that gets the job done, period.

And sorry, from a technical standpoint, IE is king of the browswer world right now. I recently go the latest Opera, and I *really* like it, but it does have some issues, but its well on its way. Netscape has sucked the past 3 years. Lynx is great for what it is (but I am hardly on a unix console anymore, so no reason to go text only in the land of Fat Pipes (tm)).

Anyway, less bitching, more coding. If you don't like it, go fix it. Seriously, all huge companies have to start somewhere, go create a software juggernaut that can fight these bad boys. Upstarts win in the end, but like science vs. the Church, it takes hundreds of years. So why fight the system as a hacking punk when you can do it much better as a businessman on their terms?

Except... (1)

DrCode (95839) | more than 13 years ago | (#198166)

Except... for those of us who use Konqueror, or other open-source browsers.

Re:Not sure that this is news exactly... (1)

JJC (96049) | more than 13 years ago | (#198168)

IE has one major feature that Netscape still doesn't even come close to approaching -- an API that can be used to make a custom browser (which is just a shell over the HTML/Script parsing engine that offers most of the functions of a web browser).

WTF is Gecko [mozilla.org] then? Seems to work pretty well in Galeon [sourceforge.net] .

Re:maybe it's because AOL wants a decent browser (1)

Roadmaster (96317) | more than 13 years ago | (#198169)

Man, if you think IE doesn't require 128 megs of ram to run, then you're way, way more patient than me. I wouldn't even go near Windows without at least 128 MB RAM; I have 256 and it crawls compared to Linux.

How long until... (2)

zpengo (99887) | more than 13 years ago | (#198171)

...someone comes out with a patch for XP Lite, a la 98lite [98lite.net] ?

netscape... (2)

Ravagin (100668) | more than 13 years ago | (#198172)

what happens to Netscape?

Netscape 4.x? Hopefully it dies and is no longer packaged with stuff.

Netscape 6... hopefully it becomes much better, tightens up, etc, so that it's good enough that people would rather use it then IE.

This is, of course, all in my own little idealistic world free of monopolies and other bad things. Well, I can dream, can't I?



-J

bloatware (1)

jaxon6 (104115) | more than 13 years ago | (#198173)

is it just me, or is 84 megs an awful lot for aol? it seems an effective way to cut down on bloatware is to include it on the windows cd. imagine if ms did this. or maybe offer certain companies a certain size, say 10 megs, to include what it wanted. it's not gonna happen, but if it did, it would surely produce some interesting ideas on how to combat this. one last though, is aol using the best compression? very simple idea, but i'd like to know.

Re:Interesting (2)

IronClad (114176) | more than 13 years ago | (#198176)

If Microsoft crosses them then voila, the switch browsers in AOL 7.0. If not, they just use the threat of it to get concessions from Microsoft.

Microsoft has negotiated better end of the deal though, because of the exit price. When Microsoft it wants to back out, they simply delete an icon on their desktop. When AOL wants to back out, they have to retest/redo all their content and interoperability with the broswer or platform with which they replace IE. With time, the investment will become so large that AOL will be handcuffed to whatever terms Redmond demands.

But I wouldn't worry AOL, its not like Microsoft to take advantage of another company. "Hello, broker? Sell AOL!"

Two thoughts (2)

andy@petdance.com (114827) | more than 13 years ago | (#198177)

One of the issues currently facing AOL is the fact that the English language bundling of its client on XP requires about 84 MB

Good Lordy, whatever happened to the day when the whole AOL thing fit on one little floppy that was easily removed from the magazine shrink-wrap?

But Steppenwolf will apparently not include Komodo, AOL's new software currently in alpha testing

I trust they're not referring to Activestate's Komodo [activestate.com] IDE, and that Komodo is merely a project name. It would be a shame to have one Microsoft partner sue another.
--

[OT] Ashcroft And MSFT (4)

rjamestaylor (117847) | more than 13 years ago | (#198179)

Well, seeing as Ashcroft, the AG, is firmly in MS's pocket (http://www.opensecrets.org/)...
I followed the link you gave to Ashcroft's page [opensecrets.org] . A $10,000 donation to his campaign hardly indicates he's in Microsoft's pocket, even less, firmly so. In fact that $10k is paltry compared to Microsoft's total contributions [opensecrets.org] in the last election cycle (which did favor Rep's 59% to Dems %41).

Thanks for the link, but hold off on the rhetoric unless you have something a bit more substantial to back it up.
--

Not sure that this is news exactly... (1)

patter (128866) | more than 13 years ago | (#198186)

AOL has been using IE exclusively pretty much for a few versions now, and Microsoft has been bundling their software as part of ICW and ONline services since Win95.

IE has one major feature that Netscape still doesn't even come close to approaching -- an API that can be used to make a custom browser (which is just a shell over the HTML/Script parsing engine that offers most of the functions of a web browser).

Yes, Netscape runs on more than 3 platforms, but Java supports inheritance last I heard.

Still -- this makes one wonder, why did AOL buy Netscape unless simply to scuttle it completely??

Why not cut to the chase? (2)

Jagasian (129329) | more than 13 years ago | (#198188)

AOL/Time Warner should merge with Microsoft. Then have Intel join the bunch, and while they are at it, throw in Standard Oil and all those older guys. This all reminds me of Dune (by Frank Herbert), where one company, CHOAM, runs all legit business, or how about William Gibson's sprawl series (Neuromancer, Count Zero, Mona Lisa Overdrive), where a few extremely large companies absolutely control people's lives. You are born into a company and stay with them until you die. All other business, no matter how small or big has been deemed illegal or black market in William Gibson's world. So, why not just fast foward to what all of the controlling super powers in the world want: a few really really big companies should be formed after behind-closed-doors mergers, and make scary demonizing commie stuff like Linux, the FSF, and GPL style open source - make it all illegal.
Don't mod me down, I am just the messenger of future times.

Re:bloatware (1)

stilwebm (129567) | more than 13 years ago | (#198189)

I don't know about AOL 6.0, but in AOL 4.0 and earlier, there were files (main.idx or something like that) that stored the graphics for buttons, etc. on keyword menus. When you installed from the CD, it came with about 20MB of these graphics for the 3.0 version. But if you downloaded it, you had the option of either downloading a 5MB file that contained many of the popular pages' graphics or just downloading them as you view them the first time. I'd imagine that a big chunk of that size accounts for graphics still. I do agree though that 84MB is a bit large.

Re:Bloat? (1)

mini me (132455) | more than 13 years ago | (#198190)

Maybe the extra bloat is Netscape 6, Winamp, and ICQ (any other AOL owned software I missed?)hidden away just waiting to take over your system after you sign up with AOL.

"AOL has determinded that your software is out of date. Would you like to upgrade to our lastest software? The installation will take only a few minutes and you don't even have to download anything!"
(Yes | No)


Sure it may use IE and WMP by default, but it doesn't have to stay that way!

Re:Winamp? (2)

compupc1 (138208) | more than 13 years ago | (#198195)

Yes, this has me worried. Even if Winamp is not bundled along with AOL or Netscape or anything else, I hope they at least allow it to continue to be developed. It would be a real shame to see it go. For audio-only purposes, it really is a better player that Windows Media Player. I haven't tried WMP 8 yet, but I suspect this is still true.

Re:So, what's the problem again? (4)

startled (144833) | more than 13 years ago | (#198198)

The problem is not this: that AOL6.0 will be bundled with Windows XP.

The problem is this: in exchange for exclusive Internet Explorer support.

Why is that a problem? Because of this: what happens to Netscape?

This is one of those rare times that the summary got all the important stuff. :)

Re:Okay, let's see if I've got this straight... (1)

TVmisGuided (151197) | more than 13 years ago | (#198200)

Here comes the flamish rant...be ready.

I'll admit I'm not the best-informed luser in the online world, and I go a lot on third- and fourth-hand information sometimes (because that's all I get). But how does what you've been so kind to straighten me out on affect the conclusions? Not at all, IMO.

And has Microsoft come out and said how much that "reactivation" is going to cost the average luser? Example: I decide I want to take my home machine, which for some reason is running XP, and build a video editing system into it. Upgrade CPU, larger primary HD, add a SCSI-U2W controller and a RAID array. I'm pretty sure that'll trip the process. Especially since the CPU upgrade will probably mean a mobo replacement too, which means it can't reference the BIOS serial. Oh, my goodness...this guy's pirating XP! He needs to buy a full license! Yes, I can hear that one coming 'round the bend. It's a sickening sound.

Thanks, but no thanks...I'll stick with 98SE for my gaming and mandatory office things, and the Linux distro du jour for online things. If I can possibly avoid it (and trust me, I can), I'll never pay another cent to Microsoft.

'Nuff said.

Re:FUD! (1)

TVmisGuided (151197) | more than 13 years ago | (#198201)

Gee, that's funny, the NT box I use at work has a selection on the Start menu called "Command Prompt" and it has the MSDOS logo next to it. And I can add the same thing to ME by creating a shortcut to COMMAND.COM...fancy that.
And they accuse me of ignorance and not having facts straight...

Okay, let's see if I've got this straight... (3)

TVmisGuided (151197) | more than 13 years ago | (#198202)

I'm not sure, but I think I may be missing something, so I want to list off what I see going on...(these are in no particular order, except as they come to mind)

1. AOL is the most expensive national dialup ISP going.
2. XP, according to rumor, is time-limited, so the user has to pretty much re-purchase it every so often, or their box quits running XP.
3. (this is one of the things I'm not sure of) AOL at one time was in the process of switching to Netscape/Mozilla as their embedded browser; at least, until this "agreement" came along.
4. AOL and Time-Warner currently constitute one of the biggest home-entertainment conglomerates going.
5. Microsoft and AOL are buddying up on software and content provision.
6. Starting with Win2k/ME, Microsoft has been working to isolate the functions of the operating system from the user, the most obvious of these attempts being the removal of the option to boot to a DOS prompt and the loss of a DOS window in the OS as shipped.
7. Another rumor has it that once XP is installed on a machine and registered to it, if the user upgrades either the HD or the CPU they have to buy another copy of XP, because theirs won't work and can't be reinstalled. (Yes, I did say this was a rumor. Put the torches away.)

What does all this add up to? IMO it's a combined attempt to make sure of three things: the general user base doesn't ever get its unwashed fingers inside the workings of either their machine or the fancy, overpriced and oversized OS that Microsoft demands drive it; the user only can use the software and content that Microsoft (with AOL at its side) approves of; and no matter what happens, both Microsoft and AOL are guaranteed their revenue streams pretty much in perpetuity.

Would someone please tell Microsoft and AOL that they're about 17 years too late for this crap? And all the FUD they can spread won't change the fact that some of the "unwashed" they want to protect from such things as working code can, in fact, make their own good decisions? AND this is really the worst time for them to be trying this, with the (admittedly myopic) eyes of the USDOJ, among others, gazing down upon them?

Okay, that's my rant for the day. Thanks for paying attention...I'll be here until Saturday. Don't forget to tip your waiter.

Caveat Emptor (1)

gimple (152864) | more than 13 years ago | (#198204)

What this really boils down to is an educated consumer.

Most non-technologically literate, people have no idea that they have a choice. "If it is installed on my computer, it must be okay. Afterall, Microsoft is the biggest company around."

Although I find it depressing, most people would have no clue that there are superior product to what MS offers in a lot of cases--or that MS has destroyed technology that had been superior.

Let's face it, Windows is easy to use; AOL is easy to use. They may not be great, but they are easy. Most consumers are looking for less complexity out of their computers, not more. And having to look for better tools would add complexity not reduce it.

This is just foreshadowing... (2)

AntiNorm (155641) | more than 13 years ago | (#198205)

Of a merger between AOLTW and MS.
*shudder*

---
Check in...(OK!) Check out...(OK!)

Netscape is dead. Long live Mozilla! (1)

bigpat (158134) | more than 13 years ago | (#198207)

If you want a free world, then use mozilla not netscape. The only company worse than Microsoft is AOL. My only concern is why nobody is using mozilla to brand their own browsers? It seems that if mozilla were using the linux model we would see various distributions with their own features that are outside of AOL control. Is this what is happening

Re:Not sure that this is news exactly... (2)

monkeyfamily (161555) | more than 13 years ago | (#198209)

IE has one major feature that Netscape still doesn't even come close to approaching -- an API that can be used to make a custom browser (which is just a shell over the HTML/Script parsing engine that offers most of the functions of a web browser).

Actually, one of the coolest things about Mozilla is it's Gecko rendering subsystem, which CAN be used just like the IE API to create, say a custom browser. NeoPlanet, one of the custom browsers designed around IE's API actually had available a "Tech Preview" that used the gecko renderer instead of the IE one.

Re:Mozilla's usable now (2)

monkeyfamily (161555) | more than 13 years ago | (#198210)

SSL's been working in Mozilla for a damn long time now. Make sure you're downloading the right build (some don't come with the PSM(==Personal Security Manager) installed -- but even then you can do it seperately by just grabbing psm.xpi from netscape's or mozilla's ftp sites. I generally grab the build labeled mozilla-i686-pc-linux-gnu-sea.tar.gz [mozilla.org]

!!Damn I can't believe I just typed that url from memory, and I think it's right too.

Who the Illuminati *really* are... (2)

FortKnox (169099) | more than 13 years ago | (#198213)

After all my comments about the Illuminati, its about time I tell everyone who they really are...BTW - this will be my last post, for I'm sure they'll come after me for releasing the truth...

The illuminati is.... Disney, AOLTW, and M$. They've been working together for a long, long time, but are slowly becoming a force that the world will see, but by the time everyone realizes it, it will be too late. They will control everything (they already control everything, but when they are one company, you won't be able to live without their products and support).

Interesting (5)

sjbe (173966) | more than 13 years ago | (#198215)

Could it be that AOL never really intended to actually use Netscape/Mozilla? Perhaps they simply are developing it as a big stick to prod Microsoft into giving them a better deal. After all, 20+ million users switching browsers takes a huge chunk of the browser marketshare away from Microsoft. If Microsoft crosses them then voila, the switch browsers in AOL 7.0. If not, they just use the threat of it to get concessions from Microsoft.

It makes a certain amount of sense. (to me at least) It even makes sense that AOL will keep funding development it to keep Microsoft honest.

Of course this does make it a little tough to figure out who the good guy is here...

Re:How long until... (1)

j-pimp (177072) | more than 13 years ago | (#198216)

Ok and do you expect this product to strip IE or AOL out of XP? Honestly If your gonna run XP on a machine its probally fast enough that you should just live with IE being on the system and run your browser on the system. Machines are better stronger faster now so the memory the IE library takes up sitting dormant is insignificant. The aol Icon is probally going to be the install AOL now icon so find where the instaall files are delete those and then the icon. I'm personally waiting for AOL to release AOL for linux and come out with the boot you comp with this CD and log onto AOL. Of course thats going to require either aol through TCP/IP and broad band access or more winmodem drivers. 3 years from now most people without cable modems or DSL will not have them because they are dependent on AOL.

Aol Upgrades (2)

Alien54 (180860) | more than 13 years ago | (#198218)

I can see this

They get Aol 6 incorporated into XP.

Then the AOL 6.1 upgrade option has "Do you want to upgrade to browser to the superior performance of the Latest Browser?" with the options:

"yes I want to upgrade"
"No thanks, I'm happy with inferior performance"

In other words, borrow a page from the MS upgrade language handbook.

Check out the Vinny the Vampire [eplugz.com] comic strip

Re:Mozilla has done it's job.... (1)

carlosjordao (187667) | more than 13 years ago | (#198220)

All this stuff is a business decision although
it will bring more incompatibility with all the
other softwares and stantands in the world.
Yes, I like when companys decide to do some cool
and easy-to-use software.

But I don't like when they decide to force you
to use one software that you don't want just
because it is incompatible with other kind
of stuffs (or everything else) in your
computer and this software was made to be incompatible with everything else.

We must change information! We want to choose
Mozilla or Internet Explorer! I want send my
favorites videos to my friend, who uses a Mac, and
hope he can see it!


freedom is something you cannot explain, but
everyone understands.

Re:Nutscrape vs exploder the saga continues... (4)

garett_spencley (193892) | more than 13 years ago | (#198221)

Exploder rocks. plain and simple. I hope people quit using netscape soon so i can quit setting up extra style sheets.

I understand and appreciate that point of view. I've done my fair share of web development with netscape and have been just as fed up as others with all of it's crap.

However, I can't agree with that point of view simply because I don't use windows. I have used IE on friends and familly's windows machines and I agree that it rocks. But the more I see web pages come up with messages that say "Get with it! Netscape is dead! Switch to IE like the rest of the world!" the more angry I get.

You see, I can't switch to IE because I choose to not use a system on which IE is available. I agree that this is my choice and I have to live with the consequences. But please realize that not everyone can "get with it" because not everyone uses winblows. Maybe 95% do, but I am in that 5% that actually likes to get some work done. If you don't want to support me that's your choice, just realize that I can't "get with it" like you suggest I do.

And I realize that you personally have probably not done something like what I have mentioned. I just felt that this was an appropriate opportunity to express how I feel on that issue :O)

However, the desire for an IE for Linux has encouraged me to start the Cheetah Web Browser [sourceforge.net] project.

--
Garett

Re:Mozilla has done it's job.... (2)

ichimunki (194887) | more than 13 years ago | (#198222)

I'd think Netscape 6 is more likely to have an impact. What this really seems to be about is the fact that AOL needs to make sure they are on the desktops as shipped-- easiest way to do that is to make a deal with MS, as most desktops ship with MS Windows. MS sets conditions, including IE (which I don't understand since the browser is no charge anyway-- I suppose this helps sell IIS on NT for the server side) and media player, for such inclusion.

It may be that in this case there is nothing tipping MS's hand and that AOL recognizes that they need to be on the desktop from first boot and that their CD-mania is not a primary driver in sales. I can't imagine that OEM's are telling MS that they won't ship Windows if they don't have AOL-- especially since the OEMs could add it. So this is all about AOL making concessions-- probably they noticed that sales of Netscape server software was pathetic compared to AOL subscription fees.

No conspiracy - Maybe it just isn't good enough (2)

jchristopher (198929) | more than 13 years ago | (#198229)

Perhaps AOL isn't switching to Netscape/Mozilla because it simply isn't good enough, and they realize it?

Compare Mozilla against IE, the current browser AOL supplies. Their customers would revolt if forced to switch.

The fact is, Mozilla is bloated, slow, and unstable, and even though I'm rooting for them, even an AOLer can see that IE is better. Maybe AOL just doesn't want to deal with a bunch of support calls...

Re:Nutscrape vs exploder the saga continues... (2)

pezpunk (205653) | more than 13 years ago | (#198233)

anyone even casually invloved in web design (who's tried to code cross-platform sites) knows more then they'd ever want to about Netscape bugs and annoyances.

Re:No conspiracy - Maybe it just isn't good enough (1)

owenPS (215051) | more than 13 years ago | (#198234)

AOL would use the small, fast, and stable Gecko rendering engine, not the bloated, slow, and unstable mozilla application. And, comparing Gecko to IE's rendering engine, we find that they are just about the same in terms of display and speed...Gecko even supports more standards. The fact is that most users would not know the difference if AOL switched because the interface would stay the same.

Re:Twice the Evil! (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 13 years ago | (#198238)

Does this mean that if you refuse an AOL CD that Microsoft will be notified by the postman for prize points? [theregister.co.uk]

Ruin my mood, and just after good news like this:

EBN Online article [ebnonline.com]

Next on the block:

Infineon in Mannheim, Germany

Oct 29, 2001, Wilmington, DE, Federal Court, Micron will ask that Rambus' patents be invalidated.

--
All your .sig are belong to us!

Re:Mozilla has done it's job.... (4)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 13 years ago | (#198239)

There was some article I read a while back, I think on The Register [theregister.co.uk] that AOL was looking to actually marginalize Windows & Microsoft. Their reasoning was that many home users didn't really need anything more than a smart terminal and an application server. Perhaps recent softness in the Appserver business would seem to counter that, yet Microsoft does have big plans for Office XP to be licensed (by larger customers initially). Leave Microsoft to that market and they'd AOL could quietly slip into the home market and replace Microsoft. Seems a bit farfetched, but this smells as strong as the conspiracy theory of the Big 3 automakers and Big oil.

Last I looked it was the system builders who bundled the online goodies on the desktop (just before it put them all in the recycle bin.)

--
All your .sig are belong to us!

Does this mean no Linux based terminals? (2)

namespan (225296) | more than 13 years ago | (#198244)

There was some noise a while back about AOL having Linux based (or other OS based) devices that were terminals for accessing AOL services.

Seems to me this announcement would pretty much shoot that all to SBN (some burning netherworld), what with IE for UNIX being a complete myth (other than an early bad version for Solaris and the Carbonized Mac OS X port which won't run anywhere else).


--

Bargaining chips (1)

Frantactical Fruke (226841) | more than 13 years ago | (#198245)

Of course AOL will keep supporting Mozilla and WinAmp at some level. They make for lovely bargaining chips in negotiating with the Empire. This way AOL doesn't come as a begging pauper to the negotiations. Just making it onto the Win XP desktop must have cost enough as it is. We'll never know, of course.

Makes no Sense (1)

jesseraf (230545) | more than 13 years ago | (#198251)

Why would AOL spend so much money developing a product they have no intention of marketting to their own customers?
I see a AOL-TimeWarner-MS merger in the works.

Re:Mozilla and AOL (1)

bdlinux13 (232862) | more than 13 years ago | (#198253)

Sorry, type... I have 768.. one 512 and 2 128s.. I only have 3 DIMMS.... and I have not seen the min requirements for XP as I am not too interested in them, but I would guess the ram required is around 40 megs and cpu is about 233.... not sure.... but my point is, it does not matter how fast your computer is... Mozilla, as much as I want it to be good, is just too damn slow.. I can live with a crash here or there.. but damnit I want something fast!

Mozilla and AOL (3)

bdlinux13 (232862) | more than 13 years ago | (#198254)

AOL knows their customers pretty well. The average AOL user is stuck with a sub 200 MHZ machine with about 32 megs of ram. Can you imagine running Mozilla on that? I have a 800 with 756 megs of ram and it clunks along when I try to use Mozilla. Also, AOL knows that their most avid and populous users are not computer literate. They would not want a drastic change in browser or functionality. KISS has made AOL billions and IE as much as I hate to say so is the best browser around.

AOL - Upgrades versus Pre-Installs (1)

WillSeattle (239206) | more than 13 years ago | (#198256)

You're confusing marketing behaviours. My latest corporate stuff from AOL/TW (which I have some shares I bought cheap after meltdown), indicates that AOL/TW intends to leverage Mozilla on the "free disk" path, not on the pre-installs.

By agreeing to be IE on pre-install, they get good icon placement. This doesn't prevent them from offering a "free upgrade" to Mozilla, nor does it prevent them from shipping tons of AOL disks with Mozilla to offer "superior performance and ease of use".

It's not an either/or kind of thing - it's marketing. Have at thee, marketeer!

Re:Mozilla and AOL (2)

the_rev_matt (239420) | more than 13 years ago | (#198257)

KISS has made AOL billions? Y'know I've never been a big fan of their music, but Gene Simmons is such a cool guy I can't believe he'd be involved with AOL. ;)

What about MSN? (3)

chris_mahan (256577) | more than 13 years ago | (#198261)

Sounds like Microsoft is going to tie AOL into their system to suck them in. Then as people "graduate" to the real internet, it'll be an easy transition to MSN.

It's a good move for Microsoft, because AOL users would more likely get XP, since there would be no need for them to install the AOL client.

It's a verrry bad move for AOL, because in doing so they are exposing themselves to the "I hate XP and therefore I hate AOL" mentality. Childish if you ask me, but then we're talking about the general public.

As far as the other stuff AOL owns (Winamp and the like), I don't see AOL pulling the plug. AOL will feel it needs to remain more than a virtual subdivision of MS on the XP desktop.

For Netscape, couldn't care less, since Netscape no longer exists as an independant company.

As far as Mozilla is concerned, they need to ink a deal with SONY to be on the playstation.

That'll mean that every (nearly) 10-14 years old will get the Mozilla browser along with their game box (and isn't that what most home PCs are for these days?

Theory... (1)

pixel_bc (265009) | more than 13 years ago | (#198263)

Conspiracy theory here... but I'm willing to bet that AOL agreed to this in return for MS backing off on the IM stuff.

Just a theory though. Time will tell.

Monopoly, schmonopoly. (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 13 years ago | (#198265)

> AND this is really the worst time for them to be trying this, with the (admittedly myopic) eyes of the USDOJ, among others, gazing down upon them?

The DOJ now gets its marching orders from John "What Swastika?" Ashcroft and George "What Caribou?" Bush.

Bill Gates and Steve Case could deed themselves your indenturement, and these fixers would rubber-stamp it.

--Blair

Re:Winamp? (1)

Ayende Rahien (309542) | more than 13 years ago | (#198266)

WMP8 is much better than WMP7, I wouldn't say it's as good as WinAMP, but it's certainly a contenster.

Free Windows? (1)

freeweed (309734) | more than 13 years ago | (#198269)

Does this mean that AOL will have to bundle a WindowsXP install with all the free cd's they send out? :)

Re:Mozilla and AOL (1)

AX.25 (310140) | more than 13 years ago | (#198270)

Your logic doesn't make sense. If the average AOL user is stuck with a sub 200 MHz system and are not computer literate how does this have anything to do with what browser AOL uses for its software those users aren't going to be using Windows XP anytime soon.

BTW, if you can't get Mozilla to work on your 800 MHz 756 MB (And how did you get this much ram? Did you really mean 768? Given that you probably have maybe 4 DIMM slots on your machine you would have to have at least 2 256 MB DIMMS which would leave 2 available. If you used a 128 and 64 MB DIMM that would get you 704 MB if you used 2x128's that would get you 768. You aren't one of those AOL users of which you speak are you?) then maybe you better get the latest build and quit using M13 or whatever.

How about this: (5)

Burgundy Advocate (313960) | more than 13 years ago | (#198274)

Netscape is dead. Get over it. And not only that, they weren't killed off by some evil Microsoft empire--they were killed off because they released a shitty product and then let it stagnate. Netscape 4 was decent, years ago when it came out. It hasn't really improved, while Internet Explorer has made leaps and bounds, coming from behind, overtaking, and leaving the Netscape crowd in the dust.

If Netscape had actually put some effort and planning into Mozilla, then you wouldn't have to ask 'What about Netscape'. They designed an entire fucking cross-platform toolkit instead of focusing on the real point--a good rendering engine and a good browser FIRST, then all the extras like mail, news and AOL/NSCP Instant Messenger.

--

I agree tha Netscape is DEAD (1)

famazza (398147) | more than 13 years ago | (#198288)

As many has said here today, and as I have said before. Netscape IS DEAD. Reaffirming what I've said, Netscape has no morale, for me it is, and until they prove me the opposite, will alway be a horrible browser.

I have a wmDockApp that kills netscape and does nothing more than this. I'd really like to use Internet Explorer, but I can't.

Whatever... I hope Mozilla doesn't get hurt with all this confusion. I really belive in Mozilla, and also believe that NETSCAPE IS DEAD!

Yes, you're all rigth. Netscape was extinct in the evolution selection.


Don't worry, I'm too busy [to|every]day

Wow (1)

r41nm4n (413957) | more than 13 years ago | (#198290)

One of the issues currently facing AOL is the fact that the English language bundling of its client on XP requires about 84 MB, with another 42 MB if the Compuserve online service is added. Microsoft has apparently informed AOL that there is only 70 MB left on the XP CD.

Anyone else surprised by the size of the AOL install? I have never used AOL, so maybe it has a lot of nifty features, but that seems incredibly large. I still remember when AOL was distributed on floppy disks.

Re:AOL is no fool... (2)

redcup (441955) | more than 13 years ago | (#198293)

Microsoft is king of the home user desktop, while AOL is king of home user internet. With each subsequent version, AOL is becoming less service-like and more like a OS. And now that Microsoft is making their OS more like a service in XP, M$ and AOL and virtually merging their products.

Microsoft and AOL/Time Warner have equivalent products on many fronts:

  • Internet Explorer vs. Netscape
  • MSN vs. AOL dialup
  • AIM vs. MSN Messenger
  • Media Player vs. Winamp
  • and in XP - Outlook vs. AOL's e-mail and calendar(?)

It would seem to be only a matter of time before we have a Micro$oft AOL/Time Warner merger. Or some sketchy deal that essentially does the same thing. Embedding AOL 6 into XP is only the first step.

I believe this is what M$ calls innovation????

RC

How many Slashdotters use AOL? (1)

cnelzie (451984) | more than 13 years ago | (#198301)


I am just curious to know how this is relevant to Slashdot posters. Personally, I have not used AOL as an ISP since I actually learned how to use my PC and the internet.

Maybe it was just me, I was plagued with disconnects, unbearably slow connections for gaming and the memory hogging client that I used to minimize in order to surf the net.

Of course, I do understand that this is interesting to note on Slashdot because Microsoft and AOL seem to be in a "Cold War" over market share. Then there was the constant battle over Instant Messaging.

It is just interesting to note that AOL needs to give up on Netscape to be preinstalled on Microsoft's latest OS.

Re:How about this: (1)

Genoaschild (452944) | more than 13 years ago | (#198302)

Internet Explorer has made leaps and bounds but it still sucks. Netscape was great back when but it also sucks now. Netscape is dead and IE is a thriving grunt. Opera will never be, without sums of money, that of either. in the end, no one has won and we all have a shitty browser that won't do exactly what you want it to do.
----

A little surprising (1)

SilentChris (452960) | more than 13 years ago | (#198306)

I agree that it's a little surprising, but when you think about it, AOL could stand to lose a little coverage in the browser war over continuing to be on the desktop with the new version. I truly believe this helped them reach the user base they have today, and they were probably weighing the browsers (IE: dominant, Netscape: ours, but slightly buggy) against having that icon on the desktop.

I just hope that the "Professional" version of Windows XP ships without the icon. One less thing I'll have to delete if I buy it (I don't intend to buy the "personal" version).

You should try winamp3 then (1)

iamr00t (453048) | more than 13 years ago | (#198307)

It's alpha only, but has nice library (that didn't work for me yet) and even displays shoutcast.com list of mp3stations (a MUST!)

Well, I'll Be (1)

PhreakinPenguin (454482) | more than 13 years ago | (#198310)

Does someone else see the conspiracy theory in this? AOL buys Netscape...runs it farther into the ground....and then announces they are supporting MS with Internet Explorer....a direct competitor of Netscape?

Steve and Billy sitting in a tree...K-I-S-S-I-N-G.....first comes Windows, then XP...the comes Netscape for bankruptcy

--------------------------------------------------

AOLTW & MS (1)

66v (455032) | more than 13 years ago | (#198311)

You guys have it all wrong. In the last couple of years, MS has learned how to play nice with the other children. The REAL EVIL EMPIRE is the AOL Time Warner/Netscape/Sun cabal. Who's ambition is it to control both the media and the pipes? Who does not write code to standards? I run a network with WIN2K Advanced Server with 9x, NT, OS/2, MAC and a variety of Linux Distributions. The problem is never interoperability between OS's, except of course, older Mac's with all of their proprietary crap. The problems are always poorly written apps (including Netsacpe) and badly written drivers (including a plethora for 9x & Linux).

Re:Not sure that this is news exactly... (3)

dick980 (455036) | more than 13 years ago | (#198312)

>why did AOL buy Netscape unless simply to scuttle it completely??

There's actually an interesting strategic reason that they purchased Netscape--so that AOL could couple advertising with its browser:

AOL shelled out 4.2 billion for Netscape (in a common stock transactaion). At the time of the acquisition, Netscape had an installed user base of 28 million users worldwide. Divide that and you come out with $150 per person. They couple the browser with AIM--whose user base had exploded to 35 million users, and was rising fast--in order to attract more users to AIM. Stick the ads for AOL on those and in Netscape, and you have one very large way of putting eyeballs on your advertisements, at a very low dollar per capita rate.

Interesting that it all comes down to marketing your product.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?