AOL deep-sixes Netscape browser
The Netscape Web browser has long since been eclipsed by its Firefox offshoot, but it's still somewhat noteworthy that AOL is formally pulling the plug on its historic software.
"AOL's focus on transitioning to an ad-supported Web business leaves little room for the size of investment needed to get the Netscape browser to a point many of its fans expect it to be. Given AOL's current business focus and the success the Mozilla Foundation has had in developing critically-acclaimed products, we feel it's the right time to end development of Netscape-branded browsers, hand the reigns fully to Mozilla, and encourage Netscape users to adopt Firefox," said Netscape's Tom Drapeau in a blog posting Friday.
Support for the Netscape Navigator browser will continue through February 1, 2008, he said, but AOL is recommending people move to Firefox. The Netscape.com portal will still be available, though, and nostalgia buffs can reskin Firefox with a Netscape look.
Netscape has a long history by Internet standards. The browser's precursor was a separate project, Mosaic, written by Marc Andreessen and Eric Bina at the National Center of Supercomputing Applications at the University of Illinois, but Andreessen left to found the Netscape start-up with Silicon Graphics founder Jim Clark.
Netscape was key to making the World Wide Web useful and the company's initial public offering is considered the beginning of the dot-com boom. The software also struck fear into the heart of Microsoft, raising the prospect of a computing environment that could rival Windows.
But Microsoft fought back with Internet Explorer, winning away Netscape's dominant market share. Netscape fought back in 1998 with a plan to make its browser open-source software, but that didn't immediately improve the company's prospects, and Netscape ended up an AOL subsidiary even as the Internet service provider continued to ship Microsoft's browser. Sun Microsystems, in a complicated transaction, bought rights to the Netscape server software.
AOL never devoted much effort to Netscape, though the Netscape.com Internet portal still is up and running. But the Mozilla Foundation AOL spun off had more success. The Firefox browser that grew from it now has significant adoption, though still trailing Internet Explorer by a wide margin.
AOL wasn't successful in trying to resurrect the Netscape browser using a Firefox foundation, Drapeau said.
"While internal groups within AOL have invested a great deal of time and energy in attempting to revive Netscape Navigator, these efforts have not been successful in gaining market share from Microsoft's Internet Explorer. Recently, support for the Netscape browser has been limited to a handful of engineers tasked with creating a skinned version of Firefox with a few extensions."
So yes, it's a sad chapter for Netscape Navigator, but at least it lives on as Firefox to give IE a run for its money.
Stephen Shankland writes about a wide range of technology and products, but has a particular focus on browsers and digital photography. He joined CNET News in 1998 and since then also has covered Google, Yahoo, servers, supercomputing, Linux and open-source software, and science. E-mail Stephen, or follow him on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/stshank. 




As the first browser I started using, I learned much about how pages get rendered, JavaScript - as a matter of fact, I still have the electronic versions of their JS guides which were MORE than helpful when I was doing a little experimenting.
I am going to miss the wheel and the big N as they go into the archives of computing history and mentions in Wikipedia.
I think I finally stopped using it as a browser when Konquerer came out and got good enough to obviate any need for it. PAN (and its predecessor, forgot what that one was) replaced the NNTP reader, but I kept it around all the way until Thunderbird came out to replace the email function.
/P
(...for the MSFT fanboy kids: IE was still nothing more than a running joke back then. This was in the pre-monopolistic era).
came out, I used to opt for that, since it seemed faster. Browsers
were so slow, especially on a slow mac. It's good to read about
the history from today's perspective, knowing that even though
Explorer caught on, it created a nightmare for web designers.
That history in itself is interesting, and Firefox has done a lot to
bring back sanity into web design. Thanks, Stephen, for a story
told with your unique style.
The price that Microsoft paid was this:
1. A hefty fine
2. A criminal conviction
3. Bad will among many including prgrammers
4. An insecure OS as IE opened up the Windows kernel to the WWW. IE & Outlook are the main path for viruses into your system.
All of these have taken a big toll at Microsoft and now Firefox and Google are out innovating them.
The moral of the story is to innovate, not to destroy.
Microsoft may still be making a lot of money, but that is just momentum and it winding down.
The future is the Internet and it belongs to innovators like Google.
out. The slowness you describe was not from Netscape, but
from connections on your end, in between, on server end, etc.
Please note that I said "when Netscape first came out."
Now, when IE came out, it was pure crap. It was not better, but
back then bundling did matter. It took forever to download
installations, so people used what was on their PC.
Netscape 4 (I think) was very good. I think when they came out
with a new version, they tried to do what MS did with Outlook -
make it a browser/emailer/news reader/kitchen sink. It sucked.
Maybe that's the version you remember.
I do recall that it was not quality that moved IE ahead of
Netscape. It was that MS illegally (as judged by the courts, not
by me) leveraged their monopoly status and bundled software.
Netscape Navigator is dead, long live Mozilla Firefox :-)
The only good thing they did after their 4.0 browser was get the open source browser that eventually became Firefox going.
How is the average joe going to get a browser if they can't get on the net to download one? I know how, but the average person getting online wouldn't.
Let's face it. The internet would not have exploded open the way it has if it weren't for IE.
Also, for the moron that mentioned that viruses attack IE and Outlook for entrypoints into a system; that is obvious. Those are the points that connect you to the internet and therefore the obvious entry points. Once other applications and OS's become more popular, they too will become targets and their flaws will be ompromised.
I've gone through the Netscapes, early IE's, mid IE's, current IE's, Phoenix/Firebird/Firefoxm, and Opera. I use IE on Windows, it 'mostly' works for me. I use Firefox on Linux since there is no native IE and on my OSX, I also use Firefox.
Microsoft killed a competitor by selling their product below cost (i.e. including in the OS essentially for free). In the 80's and 90's the US government fined Japanese RAM makers very heavily for "dumping" RAM on the American market, ostensibly driving American RAM makers out of business. If our government wasn't filled with corrupt politicians in bed with American corporations, clearly they should have done the same thing to Microsoft - after all, this was a much clearer case of dumping! But the American consumer doesn't pay for a politician's next re-election campaign, so nothing was done - never mind that this was clearly anti-competitive (years later, after NS was essentially out of business, MS _was_ eventually given a slap on the wrist by the US government - but MS got the right message: the US government essentially gives them free reign).
You say "The Internet would not have exploded open the way it has if it ween't for IE". Pardon, but that's just plain stupid and contradicts your argument in the first sentence where you assert that people were free to download alternatives! If MS hadn't bundled IE with the operating system, we'd still have the same adoption we have today - due to greater penetration of high-bandwidth and computer makers' right to bundle software with the OS (one of the small benefits coming from the government's slap on the wrist mentioned earlier). And the Internet would be better than it is today - not filled with the non-standard crap MS foisted on the world with IE/Windows-specific "extensions".
Finally, your statement that whoever made the point regarding IE/Outlook being a better target for viruses being a 'moron'. Sure, you're right that those are the obvious entry points into the operating system and other operating systems, as they become more popular, will have some of the same issues. But you're totally ignoring (or are ignorant) of the extent to which those problems can exist in other operating systems. IE, because of its close integration with the OS, simply has more doors going into the operating system. This is well known and well accepted. Since it has more entry points into the OS, there is more exposure. Period.
It's kind of ironic that IE has these problems. Initially, since it was based on Mosaic code, it wasn't any more vulnerable than Netscape. But because MS wanted to make the "Inter"net a MS-only affair, they began to leverage the operating system's capabilities by opening it up to IE. This way web developers, if they made their web tools MS/IE only, immediately had access to a host of capabilities that Netscape (and other browsers) initially didn't have. This was the lure.....and this is why IE is so much more vulnerable to viruses and malware.
And that is obvious to anyone who isn't a MS fanboy.
"In November, 1994, OS/2 Warp 3.0 was released. It was the first PC operating system to have built-in Internet support. At the time, OS/2 critics said that Internet support was just "more geek crap," but today every major operating system ships with built-in Internet support. The release of OS/2 Warp Connect followed, and included full network support out of the box for all the major protocols, including IPX, TCP/IP, and NetBIOS. At this point, the focus for OS/2 became the "networked computer." When Windows 95 was released in August, 1995, resellers reported record sales on OS/2, as many people saw how Microsoft's hack didn't quite cut it for real-world, mission-critical usage.
OS/2 Warp 4.0 (codename "Merlin") was released in August, 1996. It's new features included a "beautified" GUI; the new graphical icons and "widgets" were designed by an ex-Apple programmer. The beauty was much more than skin deep, however. Also included were OpenGL support, OpenDoc support, and a full Java Development Kit, which included a Java Virtual Machine, which allows Java applications to be run independent of a browser. For high-end systems, the included VoiceType Dictation system allowed users to navigate their computer and dictate text to their computer without ever touching a keyboard or mouse. Microsoft is just now planning to follow in this path..."
http://www.news.com/5200-13580_3-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=33977&messageID=361286&reply=true
Docs, Web 2.0 sites, multiplatform video.
We would be reading about them back in 1998 if MS didn't
conspire Netscape just like they did to everyone who can rival their
junk and threaten them.
But I encourage folks to use what they like, which is why I agree with your comment.
Just an observation. :-)
Netscape was a bloated pig of an application anyway.. It always ran
so ssssslllllooooowwwww... that must be why it is taking so long
for it to ddddddiiiiiieeeeee!!!!
everything possible to undermine your experience.
The viable choice was Netscape which run perfect on Macs,
sometimes better than Windows ones.
Now you use Safari and tell you don't care. Netscape was once the
savior of Mac especially at Business intranets.
along with that, they install so much bloated software to make their app work. they can spy on everything you do on aol. it has to start when your computer starts because it takes up all the computers resources. then when people get smart and try to uninstall aol, they find what a mess it's made of the registry, etc. it's just a terrible software! i've tried several other programs aol has taken over. icq chatrooms were nice, now it's a horrible program. x-drive doesn't work, netscape was an add for aol. everything aol touches turns to junk. i've followed rule #1 of owning a computer, NEVER INSTALL ANYTHING FROM AOL OR SYMANTEC ON YOUR COMPUTER!
my email is lace_murexx@yahoo.com
Killeen Texas Computer Nerds
http://www.clickanerd.com
Their latest AOL software looks more like a web browser with an intergrated email and im client. It doesn't even look like the AOL client of old.
What they really should do is forget the client and let people just use the web services.
Yahoo doesn't try to make web browsers, anti virus packages, or online safety software. They are just a portal and until AOL learns this lesson and dumps all the extra software, they will always just be AOL the isp and not AOL the web portal.
and
I read the browser competition comments and wonder what make one browser better than the other. I use IE and Firefox because I like to have two browsers. I like IE's tabs better and FF seems to handle a few secure website logins better for me. SO I like IE. I also remember Netscape and used to really like it compared to IE at the time. It did hewever take forever to load.
- Yawn- Netscape should have gone open source WAY
- by JCPayne December 31, 2007 11:04 AM PST
- ..... way.... way.... Long ago.... At this point it is useless. All those years of inactivity and having a buggy browser saw the demise of it. Netscape should have been opened up long ago just like that music programme RealPlayer.... Both now today serve no purpose on the 'net.....
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (70 Comments)