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 Releases Client for Mac OS X with Gecko Browser

pudge posted more than 12 years ago | from the and-here-i-am-using-a-plain-old-isp dept.

America Online 286

DietFluffy writes "America Online released an update to their Mac OS X client. The built-in browser is powered by Gecko! However, America Online plans to stick with Internet Explorer for their Windows client. Will this make web designers think twice about tailoring their web pages to Internet Explorer? Or will they ignore this, given that the Windows client will still have Internet Explorer as the default browser?" And if this goes well, will the Windows version eventually use a Gecko-based browser, too?

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

arg !? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4060666)

Heil Hitroll !!!!

Gecko (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4060668)

One blow for open source!

AOL + Apple market share is small (2, Troll)

NotAnotherReboot (262125) | more than 12 years ago | (#4060669)

Considering that Apple market share is fairly small and then add in those using AOL on it it's even smaller this won't make much of an impact. Most sites already work completely in Mozilla, the only ones being the ones who don't care about working on every browser, and never have.

Do we hate AOL today? (5, Funny)

joshua404 (590829) | more than 12 years ago | (#4060671)

I can't remember - Is AOL the evil corporate empire today or are they the champions fighting against M$? Let me check my calendar..

Re:Do we hate AOL today? (4, Insightful)

Atzanteol (99067) | more than 12 years ago | (#4060716)

I don't think companies are evil, per se. It's their actions that are good or bad. Here, slashdot is pointing out a favorable change in AOL. Many will think it is a Good Thing(TM). If they then mandate 20 pop-up ads when people load their software, it will be a Bad Thing(TM).

Re:Do we hate AOL today? (2, Informative)

CynicTheHedgehog (261139) | more than 12 years ago | (#4060831)

Isn't AOL reducing the number of popups [slashdot.org] as a result of some customer survey?

Re:Do we hate AOL today? (1)

Atzanteol (99067) | more than 12 years ago | (#4060890)

Hopefully that is true, and it would indeed be a Good Thing(TM). As a former (way back when) AOL user, those pop-ups were the worst. It wouldn't be soo bad, if they didn't come up and need to be clicked on BEFORE one could use AOL! They were forced down your throat at start. My parents still use AOL, and claim it had gotten MUCH worse lately.

Then they dis-connect you after 4 seconds of inactivity (downloading doesn't count, only mouse movement), and you get to see more ads when you re-connect! A real racket...

Re:Do we hate AOL today? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4060738)

I think this [slashdot.org] says it best..

Not karma whoring.

Re:Do we hate AOL today? (2)

edgrale (216858) | more than 12 years ago | (#4060841)

It's Tuesday, so today we love AOL. On Mondays, Wednesday and Fridays we hate AOL. But on Tuesday and Thursday we love AOL.

On weekends we are neutral! Hope this clears things up ;)

Re:Do we hate AOL today? (3, Interesting)

psicE (126646) | more than 12 years ago | (#4060957)

Well, do we hate Apple?

I have good reason for predicting that, within a year, Apple will buy AOL from AOLTW.

Right now, "convergence" is out. Convergence-based companies, like Vivendi, Time Warner, Disney, Viacom, and more are looking extremely bad. Many of them are on the verge of breaking up.

So let's say Time Warner breaks up. They put publishing and print-based materials in one company (Time), and multimedia/interactive materials in another company (Warner). That leaves America Online; the service that Apple went to special lengths to enable on Mac; the service that powers Apple's new iChat; and the service that now offers the Gecko browser by default on Mac.

Why wouldn't Apple jump to buy America Online, integrating it with OS X, and morphing the Mac AOL client into both a new, fully standards-compliant Galeon-style browser, and a new, fully standards-compliant MSN Explorer-style browser? They've got the money, after all, being one of two profitable computer companies. I think it'll happen.

Mozilla. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4060672)

Will it be faster than Mozilla?

Re:Mozilla. (2, Interesting)

sjgman9 (456705) | more than 12 years ago | (#4060725)

It is a great deal faster than Mozilla on OSX. I tried it on a G3 iMac yesterday. AOL doesnt use the chrome interface, so that helps. Lets hope this can be done for Windows as well.

The browser wars would still be going on if this happened 3 or so years ago. Now better than never

Re:Mozilla. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4060732)

I was joking, actually. Mozilla is slow and clunky. Gecko, the renderer, is fast and accurate. I would almost rather use AOL with Gecko than use Mozilla with Gecko. :)

aol users are unimportant to web development (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4060673)

most web developers would happily ban aol from their sites as most of the users from that particular service dont have a clue.

Thusly so they're not worth the tech support needed to sell to them and in the end no one cares what they do.

Aol could switch to opera for all i'd care. Im still not going to write software for their insignificant and ignorant group

Re:aol users are unimportant to web development (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4060736)

And then most web developers would be out of a job, since AOL users account for a large portion of online sales.

Re:aol users are unimportant to web development (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4060745)

A lot of sites actually do ban AOL users, since the integrated browser, despite being somewhat built upon IE is very inaccurate. It uses weird compression methods and has problems displaying graphics.

This is why you frequently see sites that say "AOL users... If you have problems displaying these graphics, click this link instead".

Re:aol users are unimportant to web development (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4060749)

>> most web developers would happily ban aol from their sites as most of the users from that particular service dont have a clue.

Yes, but their managers won't let them do it... but "hey, the managers just don't get it ... web design is like art man, it's gotta flow --that's why we should do the whole thing in flash!"

MacOs and Win (3, Insightful)

joe_fish (6037) | more than 12 years ago | (#4060676)

Mozilla has always had a greater percentage market share on MacOS compared with Windows, so it makes sense to start there when moving browser components.

But it's about protecting your userbase. No point in alienating your users too soon. It'll come but not in a rush.

Re:MacOs and Win (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4060788)

No point in alienating your users too soon.

Are you kidding? I don't think that forcing webdesigner to use standards is all that bad of an idea. The w3c has done a good job so far dictating what should and shouldn't be used on the web (with the exception of VRML).

With AOL supporting a standards complient browser, we could finally see a web that works the way we geeks intended it to.

recompile.org [recompile.org]

8.0 Uses Gecko (3, Informative)

spring (116537) | more than 12 years ago | (#4060679)

The Win32 / 8.0 version of the AOL client does use Gecko as the rendering engine.

Re:8.0 Uses Gecko (4, Interesting)

jmu1 (183541) | more than 12 years ago | (#4060735)

Based on what information? Do you have a URL? As I've heard it on NPR several times that they won't be switching.

Re:8.0 Uses Gecko (1)

prwood (7060) | more than 12 years ago | (#4060816)

I can't dig it out of my logfiles right now, but I am pretty sure I have seen some web surfers come to my site using Compuserve's 7.0 browser, and the agent reported includes "Gecko". Compuserve of course is just another flavor of AOL, so one might infer that AOL 7.0 is also using something similar.

If I can find that agent in my logs, I'll let you know.

Re:8.0 Uses Gecko (2, Interesting)

prwood (7060) | more than 12 years ago | (#4060834)

http://webmaster.info.aol.com/index.cfm?article=6& expand=0&sitenum=2

This is in AOL's webmaster info area.

Look in the fourth row of the table, marked "CompuServe Versions Possible" - and in the last column. You can see that in CompuServe 7.0, they are using Netscape 6.x, which is Mozilla, which is Gecko.

Still can't find my agent url, but that table is proof from AOL's mouth that at least one of their products incorporates Gecko.

Re:8.0 Uses Gecko (1)

prwood (7060) | more than 12 years ago | (#4060859)

http://webmaster.info.aol.com/index.cfm?article=50 0000000000043&expand=0&sitenum=2&menuid=56

This article, also hosted in the Webmaster area of AOL's site, talks about Netscape/Mozilla/Gecko. Though it does not specifically mention that they are using Netscape in their products, why else would they include this in their webmaster section? The webmaster section is written for people who are designing websites for compatability with AOL's software, and this information is designed to help such people. So, if AOL feels that webmasters need to know about the technology behind Netscape 6 to make their sites compatible with AOL, it stands to reason that some part of Netscape 6 is integrated with AOL's software.

Re:8.0 Uses Gecko (3, Informative)

jmu1 (183541) | more than 12 years ago | (#4060898)

Compuserve, as it is, is not AOL. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of AOL/TimeWarner. The latest release of the AOL "browser" was reverted to IE. Why? Who knows. I'd love it if they used Gecko, but it doesn't seem that it was working as they had planned. As for Compuserve, they really wouldn't care if it tanked or not, so they just threw that client together in a haphazard manner. Not meaning to argue, but it's just the facts.

Re:8.0 Uses Gecko (3, Informative)

Captain Large Face (559804) | more than 12 years ago | (#4060918)

AOL is indirectly using Gecko under Compuserve 7.0 [compuserve.com] on Win32 already.

Since Compuserve is part of AOL, it would seem logical that AOL will follow where Compuserve has been. Whilst there is no evidence per se, it seems that this announcement [aoltimewarner.com] would pave the way for such a move.

Re:8.0 Uses Gecko (1)

Hitch (1361) | more than 12 years ago | (#4060958)

I don't know about the first guy, but based on the fact that internal beta is on my PC right now to my left. and it's using Gecko. ....I've been using it since I started here...

Re:8.0 Uses Gecko (3, Funny)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 12 years ago | (#4060743)

Whoa... Time to sign... Heey, you almost tricked me into becoming an AOL user!

Re:8.0 Uses Gecko (4, Informative)

Ami Ganguli (921) | more than 12 years ago | (#4060754)

We don't know that yet, and in fact the latest beta reverted to IE.

AOL has been really coy about their plans in this regard. Nobody knows what they're up to. Latest evidence suggests that Gecko will go to smaller platforms first (Compuserve, Mac) and larger platforms later on. This makes some sense for AOL, since it reduces the risk of alienating their mainstream customers.

Re:8.0 Uses Gecko (3, Insightful)

kalidasa (577403) | more than 12 years ago | (#4060759)

There are both Gecko and IE betas. It looks like (to an outside observer) they're going to stick with IE for 8.0, but I'd guess that 9.0 will be Gecko.

Re:8.0 Uses Gecko (3, Interesting)

chrisbolt (11273) | more than 12 years ago | (#4060766)

Or, 8.0 could allow the user to choose...

Re:8.0 Uses Gecko (1)

C0LDFusion (541865) | more than 12 years ago | (#4060776)

I don't want to be a serious hard-ass, but dude, if you're beta testing, that might be info covered by a NDA (Non-Disclosure Agreement). Most beta testers are required to agree to one in order to be added to the Beta, unless it's an open beta.

You might want to be careful about what you release. With AOL stock in a slump like it is, they may want to hit you with a lawsuit, just for kicks and to see how much cash they can pump out of you. I'm sure we all know how hard companies can be about proprietary information.

Re:8.0 Uses Gecko (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4060861)

I'm on the Windows VG beta team and even it uses Gecko!

Re:8.0 Uses Gecko (2, Funny)

spring (116537) | more than 12 years ago | (#4060973)

Yes, you are correct. I should be careful what I say. I may lose my AOL privileges. That would be a disaster.

Re:8.0 Uses Gecko (0)

RussHart (70708) | more than 12 years ago | (#4060936)

No, this isn't confirmed. The situation is that AOL Windows will still be running IE for the forseeable future, but there have been many rumours stating that there is an internal only build with Mozilla/Gecko, but no-one can really confirm these.

Gecko? Don't make me laugh. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4060681)

I pity the poor Mac AOL-user, because he will have to cope with one of the biggest sacks of shit ever produced in software history: mozilla.

What a piece of crap. MSIE walks all over it.

Re:Gecko? Don't make me laugh. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4060803)

No, Gecko. Not Mozilla. If you have trouble understanding the difference, may I suggest a Computer Science course?

Re:Gecko? Don't make me laugh. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4060815)

Actually I expect to receive by M.Sc in computer science within a year. Believe me: computer science doesn't have a lot to do with the name of a browsing engine. But then again, you wouldn't know anything about that, would you?

Re:Gecko? Don't make me laugh. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4060843)

What, you have trouble understanding the difference between Gecko, a rendering engine, and Mozilla, a browser built around that rendering engine, and you're trying to tell me you'll be getting an M.Sc in a year? Holy shit, what do they teach you these days?

You're right though, I wouldn't know anything about that. I'm quite happy to have been working and earning decent money for the past 5 years.

That's one (1)

RobertNotBob (597987) | more than 12 years ago | (#4060682)

That's one small step for Gecko ( actually 3 tiny little quadruped steps). One Giant Leap for browser kind!

I wonder if they will disable 'disable popups'.

Curious, this choice... (1, Interesting)

ites (600337) | more than 12 years ago | (#4060686)

Trying something new for a niche platform
makes sense when looking at the market.
AOL does not need browser wars...
but it needs to regain control of its user base.
If AOL is smart it will test the waters
before jumping in.
Consider Gecko on Mac to be a prototype for
a new AOL version for Windows.

AOL Gecko browser for windows (0, Offtopic)

explosionhead (574066) | more than 12 years ago | (#4060687)

Dunno if that will happen... Didn't you read the amended EULA for Windows? Any browsers that aren't IE, are expressly outlawed, and you won't get any Service Packs if you install them... :)

Re:AOL Gecko browser for windows (2)

mabinogi (74033) | more than 12 years ago | (#4060800)

Is that why SP3 for W2k adds the option to set another browser as default, and to hide the fact that IE is even there?

admittedly, it's intended to be used the other way round, but the functionality is still there...

AOL is in for the money... watch out.... (0, Troll)

Rooked_One (591287) | more than 12 years ago | (#4060688)

Now that linux is becoming mainstream, it wouldn't suprise me one bit if they are in the process of making an AOL OS.

HEAD MY WARNING! =)

(im serious)

Re:AOL is in for the money... watch out.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4060707)

ummmm.... that sounds kinda gross. Heed, perhaps?

Re:AOL is in for the money... watch out.... (2)

13Echo (209846) | more than 12 years ago | (#4060722)

That's not totally far out. AOL and its child companies are starting to embrace Linux as an alternative. There was a bit of speculation for some time about them being interested in Red Hat, but I am not sure how far that went. Nullsoft, the company that makes Winamp, really likes the whole open source thing. They have developed a cros-platform coding library called Wasabi, in which Winamp 3 is built upon. They aim to have Winamp available for Windows, Linux, and Mac- thanks to Wasabi. I am not sure if this is just because they are geeks, or if there was some corporate influence behind it, to muscle AOL's software (Winamp) onto multiple platforms. Of course, Gecko (and Mozilla) is available on almost all major platforms, and is constantly improving.

Is this a sign of AOL's interest in this sort of community, or a way of cirumventing MS's power? Who knows?

Re:AOL is in for the money... How is THAT bad? (1)

RobertNotBob (597987) | more than 12 years ago | (#4060746)

OK, so.....

As long as _I_ don't have to support their user base, what's so bad about AOLOS?

Why fight M$ when you can let AOL fight M$?

I suspect that a lot of the supporters of Linux started out like I did by being disillusioned by the alternatives. Now, more than ever, with the positive press for Linux out there, the more people see that there ARE alternatives to M$, the better for all of us.

Right?

AOLOS? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4060833)



If AOL makes an operating system (which I doubt they will) it will probably just be a Linux [recompile.org] distribution with that stupid gold triangle stamped on everything...

Welcome! -- You've got hosed!

or would that be a good thing?

Re:AOL is in for the money... watch out.... (1)

Trichrome (599604) | more than 12 years ago | (#4060884)

No need for all of that

http://www.aol.com/anywhere/iaol/

hey look its aol for the completely clueless.

pop-ups (2, Interesting)

NASAKnight (588155) | more than 12 years ago | (#4060693)

Does this mean AOLers can finally get rid of those stupid pop-up adds that AOL spews out at startup?

Been aol free for 3 years, and I'd never go back

Re:pop-ups (2)

Ravagin (100668) | more than 12 years ago | (#4060730)

Do you really think AOL would keep the no-unrequested-windows option? NS6/7 didn't. :)

In windows, you could registry hack it in, though... presumably the same is possible in Mac OS X somehow.

Re:pop-ups (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4060827)

Actually I remember from my AOL days a few years ago that you can goto AOL's marketing keyword or something and turn them off there. You'va always had the ability, you just choose not to read. I only had a problem with AOL pop-ups for a week or two.

- Null Space

Re:pop-ups (2)

galaga79 (307346) | more than 12 years ago | (#4060951)

Does this mean AOLers can finally get rid of those stupid pop-up adds that AOL spews out at startup?

I doubt it, as I understand it the popup killing code is part of Netscape/Mozilla not Gecko the rendering engine.

Obligatory... (2)

Ravagin (100668) | more than 12 years ago | (#4060696)

...Web Standards Project [webstandards.org] link.

I'm very glad to see this kind of progress actually taking place. Since I started not worrying about NS4 support (that is, giving NS4 dumbed-down or no styling at all), IE/win has become my arch-nemesis of web design. The broken box model alone is enough to keep a man (or woman) up nights.

I hope the introduction of AOL gecko clients, especially for windows, will put a damper on the attitude of many web authors that "IE is all that matters," and "mozilla sucks because it doesn't support industry standards."

Re:Obligatory... (2)

tanveer1979 (530624) | more than 12 years ago | (#4060946)

"I hope the introduction of AOL gecko clients, especially for windows, will put a damper on the attitude of many web authors that "IE is all that matters," and "mozilla sucks because it doesn't support industry standards.""

Unfortunately not. Remember it boils down to end profits. Suppose 99% of your customer base is win+IE. And you have to spend a lot to redesign your web site, would you do it.. well no.
The owner would be considering the end results. Is the ire of a minority community making a dent in his/her sales. If no then there is no reason for migration
Of course, if the mozilla user base is significantly large only then people will migrate.
And there are many such sites which have the attitude that win + Ie is all that matters. They dont simply care and they wont because they will get a steady stream of visitors on Ie_Win
But Neverthless, this is a step in the right direction and one can olnly hope that common sense prevails
Meanwhile you could check out Any Browser.org [anybrowser.org] , another site dedicated to browser independent WWW

Well... (1)

Lobo (10944) | more than 12 years ago | (#4060702)

It's good to see AOL use something other than IE. I think they are doing this for one main reason... Beta Test! It would be good to see AOL switch to Gecko on the Windows platform for no other reason than to give Microsoft what they deserve most... Competition.

Not a chance... (1)

swaic (541592) | more than 12 years ago | (#4060706)


AOL is still scared to death of Gates and will not try to piss him off by taking IE out of AOL. At least I don't think so.

Why should AOL be scared? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4060854)

Micro$oft stopped distributing AOL with windows a long time ago. AOL has nothing to loose by replacing IE.

recompile.org [recompile.org]

Decent Web Designers shouldn't worry... (0, Flamebait)

bushboy (112290) | more than 12 years ago | (#4060711)

If your worth your weight as a Web Designer, you designs should work with all the latest browsers on all platforms and at least be viewable on older browsers. (with the exception of Netscape 4x, which we all know sucks so badly it should be relegated to the 'worst software ever released/do not support this crap' category)

Oh yeah - all web designs should also work with Lynx, because we really love those geeky people who feel the need to surf in text and cry foul whenever they see something approaching a decent graphical interface...

Re:Decent Web Designers shouldn't worry... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4060753)

>your worth your

How about decent spellers?

Re:Decent Web Designers shouldn't worry... (5, Insightful)

mccalli (323026) | more than 12 years ago | (#4060785)

Oh yeah - all web designs should also work with Lynx, because we really love those geeky people who feel the need to surf in text

Well...there are also blind web surfers. Both CSS and HTML explicitly support markup and styling for non-graphical browsers.

Cheers,
Ian

drunken college lesbians kissing! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4060714)

hmm MS supports Mozilla? (1, Funny)

linuxislandsucks (461335) | more than 12 years ago | (#4060719)

Have you noticde that MS sites display correctly in Mozilla..I can even get winodws udpates..

Its a consipracy to support Mozilla!

Oh no! Mozilla is coming after AOL next!

Re:hmm MS supports Mozilla? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4060741)

Thank you for your interest in Windows Update

Windows Update is the online extension of Windows that helps you get the most out of your computer.

You need to be running a version of Internet Explorer 5 or higher in order to use Windows Update.

Download the latest version of Internet Explorer

Once Internet Explorer is installed, you can go to the Windows Update site by typing http://windowsupdate.microsoft.com into the address bar of Internet Explorer.

beautiful (-1)

neal n bob (531011) | more than 12 years ago | (#4060720)

the perfect marriage of gay queerness, lack of computer knowledge, and jejune sass from those whose biggest concern about their computer is if the shade of teal on the plastic will match their drapes.

And if this goes well, will the Windows version ev (1)

qurob (543434) | more than 12 years ago | (#4060731)

And if this goes well, will the Windows version eventually use a Gecko-based browser, too?

I almost said "No, not unless it's 100% compatible with sites that want to see IE"

But then I thought about how screwy the AOL browsers have been in the past.

I'd just fire up AOL and run IE, but 99% of AOL users don't know you can do that. The only twisted view of the world wide web they have is from inside of the AOL Browser.

Remember all the porn sites that used to say, "AOL-friendly?"

Re:And if this goes well, will the Windows version (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4060782)

Err... no... I guess I didn't frequent Big Gay Al's Warehouse of Hot Man on Pig action.. but shit, if they're AOL friendly how could a person like yourself not sign up?

Re:And if this goes well, will the Windows version (2)

Art Tatum (6890) | more than 12 years ago | (#4060858)

Remember all the porn sites that used to say, "AOL-friendly?"

Actually, no. But then, I don't give my patronage to that kind of sleaze...you know, the kind of sleaze who have anything to do with AOL?

Market trick (1, Flamebait)

jukal (523582) | more than 12 years ago | (#4060734)

Selecting Gecko for MacOSX is just a good market trick. It's market share is minimal, and I have understood the users (exactly one that I know) of MacOSX are already used to not being able to view everything similarly as the majority. Therefore, no-one looses, and AOL gets credit.

No Big Deal (2, Informative)

InKonu (462829) | more than 12 years ago | (#4060739)

Gecko or IE, it doesn't matter since any AOL users can still use whatever darn browser they please.

InKonu

Re:No Big Deal (0)

bobbyt (260013) | more than 12 years ago | (#4060802)

Try to get someone on AOL to understand that

AOL Should ask Apple to make an OSX kit for them (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4060761)

Sure!

How many people out there use their home computers only for web browsing, e-mail and basic text editing? Lots! Of course it may hurt Apple's sales, but it will hurt Microsoft a lot more :)

Maybe it could be release as an GameCUBE add-on kit, an OSX Kit, so it would fuck with the XBox sales too ;)

Imagine, Linux in the PS2 and OSX in the GameCube!

if AOL knows what's good for it (2, Interesting)

Ender Ryan (79406) | more than 12 years ago | (#4060765)

If AOL wants to remain in existence, AOL needs to help topple the MS monopoly, first in browsers and then the desktop OS would help.

The DOJ isn't going to do anything to MS, MS will be allowed to continue doing business how they please. Pretty soon, MS is going to start pushing MSN even harder. People will buy their PC and it will come with an MSN subscription and will come preconfigured to connect to the Internet via MSN. It will most likely use completely proprietary windows only connection and communication protocols. All software that people need will come on their PC, and they'll pay per use or rent monthly, and pay via their MSN bill.

Whether that really happens that way or not is yet to be seen, but the danger to AOL from MS/MSN is very obvious, and if AOL wants to stay in business they had better start pushing to bring MS down off it's pedestal.

AOL could start by spending less money giving me coasters, and use standard connection protocols, etc.

Most people who use AOL continue to use AOL because that's what they've been using for a long time... AOL needs to start worrying about it's future.

Re:if AOL knows what's good for it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4060837)

So this would be the end of the world as we know it. I don't feel fine.

Re:if AOL knows what's good for it (1)

Trichrome (599604) | more than 12 years ago | (#4060844)

AOL Time Warner Inc. is a fully integrated, Internet-powered media and communications company. The Company was formed in connection with the merger of America Online, Inc. (America Online) and Time Warner Inc. (Time Warner), which was consummated on January 11, 2001. America Online and Time Warner are wholly owned subsidiaries of AOL Time Warner. AOL Time Warner's business includes AmericaOnline, consisting principally of interactive services, Web properties, Internet technologies and electronic commerce services; Cable, consisting principally of interests in cable television systems; Filmed Entertainment, consisting principally of interests in filmed entertainment and television production; Networks, consisting principally of interests in cable television and broadcast network programming; Music, consisting principally of interests in recorded music and music publishing, and Publishing, consisting principally of interests in magazine publishing, book publishing and direct marketing. I dont think even the mighty Micro$oft can topple AOL... they are simply too diversified.

slow change helps MS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4060771)

If AOL goes slow, then ppl have a chance to change to MSN. AOL would be better off making a fast cutover.
At the same time, they should find the biggest used sites that are MS and encourage their neutrality. Believe me, a large number of sites will switch to open stanards if they watch their numbers drop.

BTW, it should be easy for AOL to write a quick batch test that can examine all the big web sites. Then send out e-mails to webmaster notifying them that they are losing millions in business.

Re:slow change helps MS (1)

thasmudyan (460603) | more than 12 years ago | (#4060835)

BTW, it should be easy for AOL to write a quick batch test that can examine all the big web sites. Then send out e-mails to webmaster notifying them that they are losing millions in business.

I'm not so sure about that. Most incompatible pages have difficulties at even being _displayed_ at all on Mozilla, and the rest just looks like Things From The Dungeon Dimensions scrambled your network connection and done something horrible with it. How is a simple script going to discover those problems, when it has no eye to look at the mess on the screen?

Web Developers will stick with IE (3, Interesting)

squaretorus (459130) | more than 12 years ago | (#4060773)

The reason being that its easy. Most clients of web companies use PCs with the latest version of XP and IE installed - why?

Because its easy. IE has its flaws, but its pretty much universal and good enough. With .NET you can actually SMELL the IE bias as soon as you start building a page. This keep development costs down and delivery schedules easy to estimate.

By building for IE and offering to 'do a mac version if you get complaints / lose customers' most web houses cover their arse while keeping it simple. And the carrot? 'Its cheap as chips to do in IE, but a bitch to do cross browser - so it'll costs lots more - it'll be cheaper in the long run to do two versions, and you probably wont need the second version anyway!'

IE is here to stay.

Re:Web Developers will stick with IE (1)

thasmudyan (460603) | more than 12 years ago | (#4060804)

Well in my experience (our company does web development) it makes sense to build sites for Mozilla as a reference, because chances are they will look good in IE, too. Sadly the same cannot be said the other way around. At least we don't have to "optimize" for Netscape 4.x anymore, that one was pure evil! But you can actually develop most cross-browser things quite painless if you start off with that good old Mozilla! (Well, if you know how to avoid the common pitfalls, anyway)

Re:Web Developers will stick with IE (1)

Art Tatum (6890) | more than 12 years ago | (#4060832)

I don't because a great number of our target audience (that's paying customers to you dot-bomb folks) are still using Netscape 4.x. A few are still using (shudder) Netscape 2.x or 3.x. We have no choice. And it works; but it ain't easy or fun.

Re:Web Developers will stick with IE (1)

Squareball (523165) | more than 12 years ago | (#4060840)

If you develop using standards and good coding, you can develop for Mozilla AND IE and it will look the same! Stop using FrontPage and Dreamweaver et al, and there aren't any problems. Use XHTML/CSS and you can make great pages that look 99% the same in Mozilla and IE. :)

Re:Web Developers will stick with IE (1)

ejaw5 (570071) | more than 12 years ago | (#4060956)

sure it's easier to develop for IE....if you use M$ products like FrontPage and .NET.

"a bitch to do cross-browser"?..

Fire up vi/emacs/kate/pico and hand code your webpage like a REAL web developer who know's what each line of code does. Check it in mozilla, galeon, konqueror and most likey it'll look the way you want it to. Get a friend to view it in IE, 95% of the time, it works the same way!! Quoting Nick Burns from SNL , "NOW, was that so hard???"

There's a good reason for making cross-browser compatable sites. It gains more explosure to potential clients/business. If I'm shopping around for a service and their website only works in ONE browser and not the ones I chose to use, I'm going to their competitor.

I use and support the following (5, Insightful)

DeadBugs (546475) | more than 12 years ago | (#4060774)

AOL is not all bad. I use the following

Gnutella

WinAmp

IM

Mozilla

Re:I use and support the following (1)

Fweeky (41046) | more than 12 years ago | (#4060947)

WinAmp

Which has turned into the audio player equivilent of Mozilla, for which it competes with in the category of Biggest Resource Hog.

At version 3, it actually uses about twice as much memory as WMP 8 (which I count at about 12MB). Don't really blame AOL though.

You want GEICO, not... (1)

C0LDFusion (541865) | more than 12 years ago | (#4060786)

...need I say more?

::is modded down::

"That was uncalled for!"

Mac IE != Windows IE (5, Informative)

salimma (115327) | more than 12 years ago | (#4060808)

Mac IE is a totally separate product from its Windows counterpart. I'm not too sure about whether it exposes itself as a DCOM component like WinIE, and thus is easily embeddable into other programs, but its rendering engine is definitely different - MacIE passes Mozilla's rendering tests [mozilla.org] , whereas WinIE does not.

On the other hand, MacIE has incomplete support for certificates - try going to a site with a certificate from an unknown (to IE) provider in MacIE and it would not let you in (in version 5.1 and under at least).

Besides, they already have a browser product that uses Gecko - the one used by their subsidiary, Compuserve. It makes sense to migrate AOL on Windows last, since there is no pressing need.

Re:Mac IE != Windows IE (2)

dmaxwell (43234) | more than 12 years ago | (#4060845)

The newest version doesn't support arbitrary ssl certs either. I use Apache-SSL as a backend to our troubleticket system with a self generated cert. Mac IE is useless for accessing this system. Macs have to use either Mozilla or NS4 to access it.

Re:Mac IE != Windows IE (2, Funny)

thatguywhoiam (524290) | more than 12 years ago | (#4060902)

Mac IE is a totally separate product from its Windows counterpart. I'm not too sure about whether it exposes itself as a DCOM component like WinIE...

A what now? Not sure about that. Don't see anything sticking out that says DCOM.

Mine's purple.

LINUX LINUX OPEN SOURCE BLAH BLAH BLAH (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4060814)

VA and IBM are taking different directions. VA, whose roots lie in the open-source world of Linux, is trying to move more toward proprietary software in an effort to boost its revenue. Meanwhile, IBM, which earns considerable revenue from licensing its patents and from selling proprietary software such as DB2 and WebSphere, is embracing open-source projects such as Linux and Apache.

FUCK open source it's a dream world

off of www.cnet.com

Why is this so great? (1, Troll)

shftleft (261411) | more than 12 years ago | (#4060818)

IMHO, IE is by far the best browser out there. I'll admit, this may be so because sites taylor to the IE crowd, but I've found for speed, user friendliness, and ease of use, IE takes the cake. I use galeon on my Linux workstations, but I feel its more unstable and less reliable than IE. I know competition is healthy, but when I is the best then they need to come up with something to compete.

Re:Why is this so great? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4060945)

toss in the obligatory, "but i use linux" so it wont sound like a troll

Browse compatibility (1)

chrisseaton (573490) | more than 12 years ago | (#4060822)

I don't understand everyone talking about how it will make web designers make their sites compatible for all browsers. I use Mozilla and have never come accross a site that renders with serious errors. Most pages look the same in all browsers.

live free or die?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4060825)

http://news.com.com/2100-1001-949505.html?tag=fd_t op

VA released the source code underlying the SourceForge site as an open-source project others help improve it or use it on their own for free. But when the tougher economic times struck VA, it decided to sell enhancements that it wouldn't share as part of a product called SourceForge Enterprise Edition.

Such proprietary moves don't always sit well with the community of open-source programmers, which has a philosophical, political, economic and cultural attachment to the collaborative sharing that characterizes open-source programming. Indeed, the Free Software Foundation--whose work starting in the 1980s led to the open-source movement--has begun its own version of the SourceForge site called Savannah.

Makes a lot of sense (2)

aengblom (123492) | more than 12 years ago | (#4060855)

IMO, Mozilla blows away IE 5 on the Mac (as opposed to being about even with IE5/6 on the PC). It's faster and neither are preloaded. Very smart move.

Not that big of a difference (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#4060869)

MacOSX has like 9% total marketshare, so even if two thirds of those people used AOL thats only 6%. The shrewd web designer will just continue testing on netscape 4 and assume that Gecko will do better.

Does it even matter? (1)

Drunken_Jackass (325938) | more than 12 years ago | (#4060886)

I mean at the end of the day, we're still talking about AOL.

IE rendering vs. Gecko (1)

jmatlock (232136) | more than 12 years ago | (#4060907)

Does it really matter who you 'target' for anymore? Gecko and IE seem to render almost everything identically these days.

Web Designers Won't Change (1)

mackertm (515083) | more than 12 years ago | (#4060911)

Will this make web designers think twice about tailoring their web pages to Internet Explorer? Or will they ignore this, given that the Windows client will still have Internet Explorer as the default browser?

I run a good-sized website in my spare time, and I do my best to account for all browser types and such - at least within reason. Some moron complaining about some browser I've never heard of on his Commodore 64 not working well doesn't affect me much... ;)

Anyway, what percentage of users are using AOL on Mac OS X? I would wager it's a rather insignificant percentage compared to all the AOL users on Windows. This will have no impact on designers who prefer to go IE-only on their sites.

Arrrg - one more Netscape to KILL (2)

gelfling (6534) | more than 12 years ago | (#4060952)

This is just one more AOL groupthink idiocy from the same people who bought NS because it was not IE. Now this "We're better than good, wer're different !!!"

C'mon - the company is in deep shit financially and however they can provide a C+ average function for free is what they will do. This has nothing to do with you.

Only in the US (0)

RussHart (70708) | more than 12 years ago | (#4060978)

Unforunatley for us guys in the UK, there is still no OSX AOL client.

AOL UK keep on saying that they have no plans, but will monitor the US and other markets. The link to the story is http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/39/22952.html
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?