Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
America Online The Internet Internet Explorer

AOL Plans A Standalone Browser 292

Posted by timothy from the tabulation-nation dept.
Patik writes "America Online is creating its own standalone browser, aimed at employees who cannot install AOL software at their workstations. The browser will be based on Internet Explorer but will include other features such as tabbed browsing that displays a thumbnail of the page as you pass your cursor over it. The browser will also integrate AOL's media player and will be able to access AOL-only content."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

AOL Plans A Standalone Browser More

AOL Plans A Standalone Browser

Comments Filter:

  • I don't get it... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by LostCluster ( 625375 ) * on Monday December 13, 2004 @02:20AM (#11070424)
    Would somebody please explain how AOL thinks users who can't install the full AOL client on their workstations thanks to sysadmin-imposed policies will be able to get the AOL Browser installed? Whatever policy stands against the AOL client will most likely shoot down this AOL Browser too. PHBs don't want people playing on the Internet during company time, and people are going to be hard pressed to show a business-reason to be accessing the AOL-exclusive entertainment content on company time and resources.

    This seems like at face value a project that won't reach its target audience and therefore is doomed to failure.

    • Re:I don't get it... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Atrax ( 249401 ) on Monday December 13, 2004 @02:23AM (#11070435) Homepage Journal
      Well, that's not the only reason cited. there's another

      > And because broadband users get their Internet connection through a company other than AOL, they no longer need a software package that includes access tools.

      and as for the policies one, I guess they think that a 'thinner' client is more likely to pass due dilligence in order to be included in policies. after all, the standard client isn't engineered for that sort of environment, is it?

    • Re:I don't get it... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Bastian ( 66383 ) on Monday December 13, 2004 @02:31AM (#11070477)
      One popular reason for banning AOL on company computers is because (at least a few years ago), the AOL client could seriously hose a computer. At the very least, it would toy with your network settings, and I've heard rumors that it could even damage Windows's bootup/shutdown sequences.

      This was the stated reason for the AOL ban at the last place I was that had one, and if that really is the only reason, then this browser might be able to fly if it can escape the AOL client stigma.

    • Re:I don't get it... (Score:5, Informative)

      by tepples ( 727027 ) <tepplesNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Monday December 13, 2004 @02:35AM (#11070500) Homepage Journal

      Would somebody please explain how AOL thinks users who can't install the full AOL client on their workstations thanks to sysadmin-imposed policies will be able to get the AOL Browser installed?

      Unzip and run, like the Firefox zip builds, unless policies prohibit running executables not signed by IT.

      • Re:I don't get it... (Score:2, Insightful)

        by kfg ( 145172 )
        . . .unless policies prohibit running executables not signed by IT.

        I rather thought that's what "sysadmin-imposed policies" was refering to, as per this quote from the article:

        . . .corporations generally prohibit their employees from installing software.

        KFG

        • Re:I don't get it... (Score:4, Informative)

          by AKnightCowboy ( 608632 ) on Monday December 13, 2004 @08:36AM (#11071340)
          I rather thought that's what "sysadmin-imposed policies" was refering to, as per this quote from the article:

          Nope, they prohibit users from *installing* software. i.e. letting users install stuff into the system libraries directories and the registry, etc. Nothing would stop them from using something if it only needed user privileges to install and run, say from a CD or their home directory.

    • Re:I don't get it... (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 13, 2004 @02:41AM (#11070514)
      Would somebody please explain how AOL thinks users who can't install the full AOL client on their workstations thanks to sysadmin-imposed policies will be able to get the AOL Browser installed?

      That's easy. The reason they picked IE as the base is obviously so they can exploit the IFRAME vulnerability [techweb.com] to install their software. Brilliant!

    • Re:I don't get it... (Score:2, Informative)

      by aichpvee ( 631243 )
      More importantly, could someone explain to me why anyone would want to install any AOL client in the first place?

    • Re:I don't get it... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Wansu ( 846 ) on Monday December 13, 2004 @04:19AM (#11070741)

      Whatever policy stands against the AOL client will most likely shoot down this AOL Browser too.

      Not only that but many companies don't want employees accessing pop email or web mail because they're afraid of viral payloads getting past their filters. Besides security, many companies don't want employees using streaming radio because it chews up bandwidth. AOL doesn't understand the problem.

    • Re:I don't get it... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by c0p0n ( 770852 )
      Would somebody please explain how AOL thinks users who can't install the full AOL client on their workstations thanks to sysadmin-imposed policies will be able to get the AOL Browser installed?

      Firefox already does this, at least when using the Linux installer. It simply installs to the users's home dir.

      However, if the access policies include verifying the running apps in the system, and only allow certified ones, the system is useless.

  • Hmm (Score:2, Interesting)

    by spike hay ( 534165 )
    I wonder if this will be any worse than their previous integrations with IE.

  • In further news (Score:5, Funny)

    by blowdart ( 31458 ) on Monday December 13, 2004 @02:21AM (#11070429) Homepage
    The browser will disabled the caps lock key.

    KEWL DUDE

  • HAW AOL LMFAOSDF (Score:5, Insightful)

    by __aavhli5779 ( 690619 ) * on Monday December 13, 2004 @02:22AM (#11070433) Journal
    Some day I'm going to find the person responsible for making decisions at AOL and bludgen him with a blunt stick.

    AOL had a browser. In fact, they had a whole browser company. They chose to run it into the ground, like seemingly everything else they've touched. (Proper respect for at least funding Mozilla development, though)

    Now they plan to introduce a bloated IE shell (of which there are already several superior ones) with the intent of allowing their customers access to AOL's premium content. First of all, there is nothing left on AOL that the rest of the world would be particularly interested in. The global, public Internet has already won resoundingly against AOL's private little sanitized domain.

    And then they finish off with this bit of idiocy:


    That approach no longer makes sense, said Kerry Pearce-Parkins, director of AOL Product Management. For one, corporations generally prohibit their employees from installing software. That means many subscribers can't access AOL programming during the day.


    Clearly offerring another program to install will solve the "people can't install our software" problem.

    Why doesn't AOL at least work on improving their horrible web portal if they're so keen on getting people to access their worthless content? Oh that's right, they did... they made it all flash. How delightfully MODERN!

    What a worthless company. I bed Ted Turner still shits his pants daily thinking of the mistake he made merging with them. Everything AOL touches turns to shit.

    • Re:HAW AOL LMFAOSDF (Score:3, Insightful)

      by jacora00 ( 782996 )
      Amen,
      I think me and most Slashdot readers canceled their AOL accounts over a decade ago, if they will even admit they had one.
      We could have a lot of fun bashing AOL in these posts but let's just be real for a second and get on with our lives.
      Although I have to admit there is some comic relief in this latest move.
      AOL is done "just stick a fork in it"
    • Don't you get it? AOL is deeply depressed and decided to carry out a murder (Time Warner) - suicide.

      You shouldn't mock those who are suicidal. We should all band together and find a good psychaitrist for AOL.

    • Makes sense to me. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by pavon ( 30274 ) on Monday December 13, 2004 @04:08AM (#11070723)
      Why is everyone assuming that they are not going to use mozilla? We have had a half dozen stories about AOL projects over the last couple weeks, and everyone on slashdot is acting like they are all describing completely independent projects (and thus a waste of duplicate effort), when it seems to me the stories are the product a bunch of blind reporters feeling-up the same elephant.

      We already know that AOL has worked to integrate the IE engine into Netscape, has reworked the winamp core into a new AMP player using XUL for the interface, and implemented an AIM client in XUL. That appears to me to be a very consistent plan to integrate all their products / acquisitions into a new internet suite, based on Mozilla XUL.

      Their decision to use IE makes perfect sense - it is the best way to ensure compatibility with as many sites as possible, and I would argue that most of the security problems that IE has are how the surrounding shell handles files/scripts/plugins - not the core itself. Lastly as firefox becomes more popular and more sites render correct in both IE and Firefox, they can swap engines out without the users noticing as much as they would now.

      I won't comment on whether this will help AOL, or whether people will go for it, but it certainly does appear to be part of a well thought out plan, not a bunch of random uncoordinated actions.

      • Re:Makes sense to me. (Score:2, Informative)

        by nazh ( 604234 )

        We already know that AOL has worked to integrate the IE engine into Netscape, has reworked the winamp core into a new AMP player using XUL for the interface, and implemented an AIM client in XUL. That appears to me to be a very consistent plan to integrate all their products / acquisitions into a new internet suite, based on Mozilla XUL.

        No, the AMP is using wxWindows [wxwindows.org], not xul.
        from Henrik Gemal's blog [gemal.dk]

  • handy dandy features (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 13, 2004 @02:22AM (#11070434)
    Does it have an automatic "A/S/L?" post button for forums?

  • Redundant (Score:5, Funny)

    by Kipsaysso ( 828105 ) on Monday December 13, 2004 @02:23AM (#11070436) Homepage Journal
    The concept seems to be taking a bad Internet Provider and intergrating it with a bad Internet browser. Will probably be successful.
  • Why don't they just re-brand Firefox
    Oh wait, they already did that, Netscape...
    So why don't they just use Netscape?
    Or if they are dead-set on using IE's rendering engine, they should just re-brand Avant Browser, Maxthon, or one of the multitudes of other IE-based browsers with tabbed browsing and other nice features. Or they could just buy an uber-license from Opera for thousands of licences, I'm sure it would be cheaper than developing their own software.

    Seriously, with all the costs of pressing those CDs
    • Why don't they just re-brand Firefox Oh wait, they already did that, Netscape...

      As I recall browser history, Netscape pre-dates Firefox... and MSIE for that matter. The only browsers I recall using before Netscape were Mosiac and Lynx.

    • Because to stay on Microsoft's non-enemy list, they have to suck up. When you buy a OEM pc, you get an AOL desktop icon. That is a deal with Microsoft, now, if AOL wanted to end that deal(break the contract, possibly), then sure, Firefox would be the default AOL browser and the core of the AOL standalone-browser.

      HOWEVER, it would just be plain dumb to give Earthlink or MSN those potential clients without fighting for them. AOL is hurting already, they can't turn their back on new users.

      What AOL SHOULD do,
    • Frank Zappa had a song called "cocaine decisons". It was aimed at hollywood and was basically about how all the decisions in hollywood are made under the influence of cocaine.

      One wonders how the decisions are being made in corporate america. Apparently there is some kind of powerful drug making the CEO scene these days.

      My bet is crystal meth. It gives you the rush and you get to stay up all night with a wicked woody.
    • I think if AOL was just a tad smarter they would not only offer a "shell" akin to Maxthon for IE 6.0x versions that allows access to AOL-only content, but also offer an extension suite for Firefox 1.0 that more or less does the same thing.
    • it's up to Microsoft to fix it. You're drasically underestimate the value of punting your tough support calls to Microsoft. Remember, people are simple, stupid creatures, and will usually blame the last person/thing in a chain of events. For most users, Microsoft is the final destination, and so they soak up all the hatred/blame.

  • Some observations. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ISEENOEVIL ( 206770 ) * on Monday December 13, 2004 @02:25AM (#11070449) Homepage
    After reading the article, I still don't understand how this is going to help people install the AOL branded special version of IE onto a companies machine. Instead of the AOL software, they still have to install the browser? I doubt that many of the corporate IT guys are going to be willing to install something with AOL in its title on a company machine.

    On sticking with an IE based browser, Pearce-Parkins said, "The company stuck with IE so users won't have to make "a leap of faith." Good idea in concept, but honestly I don't believe the users would ever notice there would be a difference between browsers, so why not go with something that would probably be easier to work with?

    Guess I better hold out my judgment until the browser gets on the scene, but AOL's massive content library would do well for its subscribers if it wasn't solely tied to their Client.

    Stormy
    http://www.stormyshippy.com/ [stormyshippy.com]
    • Unless your computer won't allow you to run ANY non sysadmin-approved executables, then you can still run it, by just downloading it to your home directory.

      IE just happens to already be installed on the computers, and will cut download time.

  • Thumbnails? (Score:4, Informative)

    by outZider ( 165286 ) on Monday December 13, 2004 @02:29AM (#11070469) Homepage
    Thumbnail tabs? Hm, sounds a lot like OmniWeb [omnigroup.com]. :)
    • I'm glad somebody is noticing! I love OmniWeb, but sometimes it's a bit broken (see bungie.net, Flickr). Thumbnail tabs should have been worked on by the Mozilla guys as soon as they saw them in OW: from a usability point of view they speed up comprehension of the tab contents a lot. It's one of the things that's keeping me from going back to Camino (which works with all the sites I've ever used it with, but no funky tabs :( ).

      Hopefully the fact that AOL(!) is doing things that the Mozilla Foundation isn't

  • The browser will be based on Internet Explorer (Score:5, Funny)

    by frovingslosh ( 582462 ) on Monday December 13, 2004 @02:30AM (#11070474)
    aimed at employees who cannot install AOL software at their workstations. The browser will be based on Internet Explorer

    Good move. Make a brower for employees who can install AOL stuff on their computers out of the most vulnerable browser out there. Oh yea, system administrators are going to love this!

  • Black eye for Microsoft (Score:5, Funny)

    by britneys 9th husband ( 741556 ) on Monday December 13, 2004 @02:31AM (#11070479) Homepage Journal
    will include other features such as tabbed browsing

    Now even AOL will have a better browser than Microsoft.

  • LOL (Score:3, Funny)

    by bigberk ( 547360 ) <bigberk@users.pc9.org> on Monday December 13, 2004 @02:32AM (#11070485)
    Way to go AOL, welcome to the party. What exactly did you do with Netscape (acquired in 1998 iirc)

  • Speculation (Score:3, Interesting)

    by bogaboga ( 793279 ) on Monday December 13, 2004 @02:39AM (#11070511)
    Now, this is speculation. I have no hard facts:

    Somebody's hands at AOL must have been greased!

    Otherwise, how can one explain the reason behind this move? AOL already has a browser, can get full access to Firefox code (which has some of the features they are looking for), and surely know(s) the problems associated with the IE engine.

    It does not take a person with a PhD to see that someone must have "eaten" really big.

    • Re:Speculation (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Atrax ( 249401 )
      As I say every time this subject comes up

      when you get a new PC, it's probably going to have a little icon on the desktop saying 'sign up to AOL'. How do you think that icon gets there? Does AOL have a separate deal with every OEM, with all the attendant crap that implies, or does it get this sweet bit of marketing straight from MS? (hint: it's the second one)

      hence the reluctance to dump IE, lest AOL be dumped from the OEM desktop.
      • Question:

        Why is it that a fresh windows install has no "Sign up for AOL" icons, while the Dells and Gateways do?

        Is it because you're wrong?

        Probably.
        • He's half right.

          When Microsoft were polishing^H^H^H^H finishing^H^H^H^H^H getting ready to release Windows 95, they were thinking to themselves that everything at MS should be centered around the Internet. To this end they were also thinking how do we get our browser to be the dominant standard? The obvious answer: strike a deal with one of the dominant (at that time) online services (no, not Internet Service Providers - Online Service (there's a difference)) to use our browser as their default, and then
      • I suppose you could be right, but haven't you ever heard of a little thing called MSN? AOL is kind of competing with Microsoft.

      • Re:Speculation (Score:3, Interesting)

        by zurab ( 188064 )

        when you get a new PC, it's probably going to have a little icon on the desktop saying 'sign up to AOL'. How do you think that icon gets there? Does AOL have a separate deal with every OEM

        Yes. They have deals with some of the biggest ones like Dell.

        or does it get this sweet bit of marketing straight from MS? (hint: it's the second one)

        It's both. But the "deal" with Microsoft is not for the icon, but that MS will leave OEMs alone if AOL makes a deal with them. They have a separate deal with Microsoft tha

  • AOL should do this instead. (Score:3, Funny)

    by rice_burners_suck ( 243660 ) on Monday December 13, 2004 @02:40AM (#11070513)
    This is an excellent idea! Especially because employees who cannot install AOL software at their work are challenged to do so by BOFHs who give them mere user accounts, as opposed to the hallowed Administrator accounts that they, the BOFHs, use. Thus, the aforementioned employees against whom the BOFHs discriminate cannot install software.

    The question, then, is just how the devil do you expect these lusers to install other AOL software, such as a browser?!!!???????!!!!!!!!!!

    The answer, then, is not to create a new standalone browser, as AOL plans to do, but rather to create an Explorer plug-in that will install itself through the security holes that Microsoft has so thoughtfully installed in their software--the very same ones that allow hackers, crackers, cookies, 1337z h4x0rz, spyware, worms, viruses, spam, adware, malware, the RIAA, MPAA, and the anti-Christ himself to do anything with your computer that you cannot do, all while making the user interface so automatic and friendly that you, yourself, cannot access your own files, though these external users, programs, and entities can--to take control of the computer and place AOL software without the Administrator's permission.

    Yeah. That's a good idea.

  • [...] aimed at employees who cannot install AOL software at their workstations[...]

    "Butters, GOD DAMNIT!"

  • Difficult solution (Score:4, Funny)

    by Sivar ( 316343 ) <charlesnburns[@]gmail...com> on Monday December 13, 2004 @02:42AM (#11070522)
    Why not...Oh, I don't know... Use Internet explorer? Build a plugin for the proprietary content.

    Or use Netscape for that matter; they do own the company.

    Talk about lack of focus.

    Why is it that so many failing companies insist on doing things the hard, expensive way? Or did I answer my own question?
    • Ok, I think I will bite this...

      See, coorporation is very big institution and sometimes, there are many people who are here not to just to job they have paid for, but get something more...illegal or not, it is not my way to say. I guess AOL ties with Microsoft hides in some of AOL CEO's greed and that's all that matters then. So AOL can do some such absurd moves, and not whole coorporation will take any notice - hey, it's IT, high technologies and let's be honest, not all shareholders are that insightful to
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Why don't they just burn money? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Magickcat ( 768797 ) on Monday December 13, 2004 @02:49AM (#11070543)
    This is the best joke that I've heard all week. A company that owned Netscape and who manged to run it into the ground is planning on bringing out an IE variant browser.

    Why don't they just burn money - it would cut out the middle man.

  • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • i hate AOL so much (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dj42 ( 765300 ) * on Monday December 13, 2004 @03:04AM (#11070583) Journal
    Keep in mind, I signed onto AOL in like... 1992 maybe? Based on what I've seen on other peoples' computers, it's only gone downhill from there. It's bloated, tends to cause Windows problems in corporate environments, etc. Where do they get off? The last thing IT managers need is AOL encouraging imcompetent users to install software. Someone seriously needs to put them out of their misery. How can we expect to accomodate cross-platform / cross-browser web applications in the future if we continue to muddy the waters with nonsense?

  • based on IE? Why for god sakes? (Score:3, Informative)

    by Indy1 ( 99447 ) on Monday December 13, 2004 @03:09AM (#11070591)
    We already defacto banned IE on the Engineering network at the uni i work at, so i seriously doubt my department would allow this piece of crap to be installed either. Since moving over to mozilla / firefox, our spyware calls have dropped radically (easily 75-80% drop this semster) and allowing anything based on IE, let alone a AOL product, is just stupidity at its best.

  • What are the business reasons behind this? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by erroneus ( 253617 ) on Monday December 13, 2004 @03:14AM (#11070603) Homepage
    Without the obvious payoffs or other leverage from Microsoft to continue using MSIE and its components for their software tools, what other reasons are possible or likely for AOL's motivation in doing such things? After all, AOL owns Netscape and because of that, it has a perfect tool to enable a secure internet experience for their users. Need ActiveX? There are plug-ins that allow ActiveX to work I've heard... never used them but I've heard they exist and they work.

    My assumption is that Microsoft has somehow influenced AOL to continue with MSIE dependancy. But I'd rather be able to consider other possibilities as well -- but I cannot think of any. Can you?
    • I'm sorry I don't have links to quote my sources, but here's the gist and in a nutshell, so I am missing lots of info, and may be wrong:

      AOL and MS signed a 7-year deal where AOL would use IE exclusively and MS would include AOL links and software in Windows. AOL is contracted to use IE at all costs, MS shows links to AOL with its software.
      • CNET [com.com]

        The cnet article mentions the seven year IE deal, but it doesn't make it clear that AOL is being forced to use that as its only browser (although it IS pretty late and maybe I'm just too braindead to glean the information). Anybody else have a better link or just a better interpretation of my link? All I came up with was this and a cnn article (which was much less informative than cnet's).

  • In other news. (Score:4, Funny)

    by Renraku ( 518261 ) on Monday December 13, 2004 @03:17AM (#11070611) Homepage
    AOL decides to stray farther and farther from the standard norm, taking the 'KISS' suggestion of software for granted.

    Not only is this new browser coming, but they've announced a special line of email programs that require their own processor to use. These processors are identical in every way to the Intel Pentium 4, except for they are underclocked to 100MHz, and are missing pins to make it incompatible with current hardware.

    AOL is also developing its own language, called AOLinguish, which will sound similar to Enlgish, but will be totally different in every way!

  • Discussed before (Score:2, Insightful)

    by sick_soul ( 794596 )
    This has been discussed two months ago here [slashdot.org], no?

  • IE based apps ! (Score:3, Informative)

    by phreakv6 ( 760152 ) <phreakv6@gmCOLAail.com minus caffeine> on Monday December 13, 2004 @03:22AM (#11070620) Homepage
    America Online is creating its own standalone browser,

    Does stand-alone mean that it wouldnt take the OS with it when it crashes ? :-D.Stop trying to make the shit taste better.There are already stuff available that do that. Try Avant Browser [avantbrowser.com]
    Maxthon [maxthon.com]
    Netcaptor [netcaptor.com]

    Just STOP re-inventing the wheel !

  • AOL's new browser, based on the IE rendering engine, has exposed the world's stupidest users to the security flaws in IE. Thus, everyone now hates Microsoft and Bill Gates has filed for bankruptcy protection.

    Perhaps AOL can drive Microsoft into the ground.

  • Not the whole AOL browser thing: as everyone has pointed out, totally lame.

    But this: "...features such as tabbed browsing that displays a thumbnail of the page as you pass your cursor over it." I'm sure AOL will make it annoying somehow, but if done right, that could actually be pretty cool.

    Of course, I expect an extension that does this for Firefox to show before the end of the year, if one doesn't already exist. ;)
  • I bet this bloatware-IE-based browser will startup half as fast as IE, and have a 5x-10x speed reduction in loading times for web pages. So, it will be 3x-4x faster that 28.8k dial-up, so long as you have at least DSL-speed.

  • AOL standalone browser? Uhh Netscape? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by blanks ( 108019 ) on Monday December 13, 2004 @05:00AM (#11070818) Homepage Journal
    So AOL owns netscape. They just did a press release about re-releasing netscape. I cant remember exactlly how to phrase this, but Netscape is built off the same technoogy that mozilla and firefox are right?

    So Netscape, mozilla and firefox are available, plus 1/2 a dozen other browsers.

    So now AOL is creating a new browser, other then the one used in the AOL applicaiton, other then Netscape, and other then the other browsers that use the same technology, and the ones that exist today?

    What is this biazzaro world!?!

  • After all these years... (Score:5, Funny)

    by kataflok ( 836910 ) on Monday December 13, 2004 @05:33AM (#11070903)
    we finally have identified which company Dilbert was modeled upon... :-)

  • It's actuallly pretty damn cool (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mollusk ( 195851 ) on Monday December 13, 2004 @06:08AM (#11071014) Homepage
    Ok, so I admit I didn't read the article, but I have an excuse; I've actually seen the browser. We've had copies at work for several months through AOL's beta program. We've been comparing it IE and Firefox for the sites we develop.

    First impressions:
    • it is a lot more reponsive than straight IE. The interface could best be described as "crisp"
    • The thumbnails are extremely useful. Previews for tabs are a godsend when you have 15+ tabs open
    • The zoom feature is amazing. Smooth scaling and fine detail.
    • AOL seems to have done something to fix the broken caching in IE.
    Having said that, there are still some problems
    • Form elements aren't fully useable when zoomed. Selects are a real bitch: completely unuseable at any zoom.
    • It seems to share a namespace with other instances of IE. Named popups on the same site will cross post between the AOL browser and Explorer.
    I find it rather funny that everyone here is slamming AOL for what appears to be well designed and implemented piece of software. The choice of the rendering component might be questionable, but for many people, Internet Exporer is a necessary evil. It's possible the interface is designed to be modular enough to swap Gecko in easily. My hope is that the Mozilla/Firefox devel teams take a good look at this browser without thier AOL prejudices getting in the way. There are a lot of good features to "steal" for Firefox 1.2.

    • With more and more cases of people being asked or directed to move away from IE to an alternative like Firefox, was choosing IE to bolt on new features to such a hot idea?

      The very behaviour of the browser you are describing makes me shudder to think that it will be used outside of a lab or beta environment. Granted, the issues are due largely in part to the underlying IE/Windows system and sloppy coding on the part of AOL developers, but that just begs the question of: Why IE when there are so many other c

    • here are a lot of good features to "steal" for Firefox 1.2.

      Unless they are patented!

  • Why base it on IE? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by rben ( 542324 ) on Monday December 13, 2004 @11:01AM (#11072187) Homepage

    Why in the world would AOL base their new browser on IE, a seriously flawed piece of software from a security stand point, instead of Netscape/Mozilla. They paid for Netscape and now Mozilla based browsers are considered far safer than IE. If I were setting policy at a company I would not allow the use of IE or any program based on IE simply because of the security problems.

    AOL bought Netscape. Why not take advantage of that and when they bring out the new browser they could have commercials about how they built it on Mozilla because that way it's safer.

Slashdot Top Deals

Get hold of portable property. -- Charles Dickens, "Great Expectations"

Close