Green Bar Web Site » Site Info » Green Bar Redesign » You Can't Stop Change!

Green Bar Redesign

You Can't Stop Change!

The Browser War

If you're a frequent visitor to this site, you've probably noticed the little changes to the design over the last couple months. If you're new to the site, you haven't noticed these changes, but in reading about the redesign, you probably noticed that some of the screen shots of the "new" design do not match the design you see. The main reason for that is that I keep learning new things, or I get tired of how something looks, or I discover a problem that needs to be fixed. More often than not, I end up making a change because I discovered something weird with the site when it's viewed in a browser other than MSIE 6.

Each of us has our preferred browser, and we tend to rabidly defend that choice. When I first got connected to the Internet, I used Cello. Cello was in no way my preferred browser, but it was free and it came with the Internet access software my ISP gave me. Of course, along with that software, I was told I would probably want to download and install Netscape as soon as possible. Netscape was new at the time, and light years ahead of Cello. I used Netscape for years before Microsoft came out with Internet Explorer. There were other browsers at the time, like Mosaic, but none of them managed to beat Netscape - not even the first Internet Explorer (IE).

With Microsoft, as usual, came controversy. By the time Netscape and Microsoft had released their version 2 browsers, the Browser War was really starting to heat up. In newsgroups and mail lists, any discussion of web site design quickly degenerated into a heated argument over what was the best browser. As if to keep the war going, Microsoft and Netscape entered into a period of one-upsmanship that further intensified the arguments.

Before the war, though, the W3C developed standards for the Web and HTML. The idea of standards was a part of the initial idea of the Web and the coding language used on it. The web was to be a place where information could flow freely, regardless of the type of computer being used, the operating system on that computer, the software used to "view" the information, or even the method of interpretation used by the viewer. The standards were developed in an effort to make all of those things irrelevant to the free exchange of information and ideas. They simply described the language of HTML, the rules for its use, and suggested ways to render each element.

As the Web's popularity grew, though, the people who created web sites started getting creative with the language, spurred on by the browser developers who were not above extending the language for their own purposes. So, Netscape introduced a new HTML element called <BLINK>, which made text, well, blink. The tag worked only in Netscape browsers, though, and other developers preferred to come up with their own extensions to the language before adding support for "Netscapisms." So, Microsoft added its <MARQUEE> tag, which made text, well, scroll across the page.

These minor extensions didn't pose much of a problem for most people because the standards required browsers to ignore anything it didn't understand. The extensions did pose a problem to the W3C, however, because the comptetion between the various browser developers was outpacing the W3C's ability to update the standards. So, while the W3C debated the usefulness of <BLINK> and <MARQUEE>, Netscape and Microsoft continued to up the ante, adding support for tables, frames, client-side scripts, server-side programming, plug-ins, and embedded objects.

The W3C was not completely behind the curve, however. As the browser developers battled, the W3C continued to make plans for standardizing the new extensions, and researching ways to improve the standards. So, while Netscape and Microsoft played with <FONT> and <BGSOUND>, the W3C was developing style sheets and thinking of ways to make HTML user-extendable. In short, while the browser developers continued to battle each other with new technology that only worked in their browser, the W3C was working to develop a standard that would make the Browser War obsolete.

As I've described elsewhere, the Browser War made it impossible for web site designers to do what the standards said should be possible. Microsoft and Netscape had become so embroiled in the war that they had basically thrown the standards out the window (no pun intended) and vowed never to look back. Web site designers were forced to take sides in the war instead of trying to reach as large an audience as possible. Gone were the days when everything on the Web was accessible to everyone. We had reached the turning point in the war where even the average Web user was forced to take sides, finding sites fortified against users of one browser or the others with warnings that "This site built exclusively for [insert specific browser here]."

When web designers discovered that it was now necessary to declare that their site was designed for a specific version of a browser because it was inaccessible to users with older versions, it was clear we had reached the dark days of the war. Still, news filtered through from the W3C of a potentially bright future, an we soldiered on with just a glimmer of hope.

All was not completely dark, though. We had at least reached a point where one browser appeared to be on the threshhold of winning the war. There was even evidence to support the W3C's hopeful messages with the release of the Opera browser. Unlike the war-torn Microsoft and Netscape browsers, Opera was built to compete and support the standards. It was small, quick, and somehow managed to bridge the gap between Navigator/Communicator and Internet Explorer. Opera was a web site designer's dream come true. It made it possible once again to design a site that would work in any browser, but there were problems.

For one thing, Opera didn't support a lot of the new technology we had come to rely on. The things Opera did support, it didn't support completely, or had the annoying habit of deferring to the standards. The best part about the Opera browser was that it could compete with the Big Two, but it didn't even try. While Microsoft continued developing the coup-de-gras, and Netscape continued to make spend more time fixing its 4th generation browser than it spent developing it's 5th generation, Opera quietly worked to show it was possible to have all the bells and whistles and still support the W3C standards.

Netscaped All Over Again

While some contend that the Browser War is over, and the bright days of peace are at hand, I cannot be so optimistic. There may be a clear winner, but there are still battles to be fought. As much as Microsoft may be hated, it has come through the war with a good piece of software, flawed though it sill may be. Netscape, for its part, seems unwilling to end the war. I've grown to dislike Netscape for two major reasons. First, Netscape 6 shows that the company that developed it is more concerned about add-ons, bells, and whistles than actually improving their product. It certainly had promise in the beginning, but remains a buggy, overblown, slow, and annoying browser. Second, the packaging of the browser shows the company has grown arrogant in its hatred of "the enemy".

Before you Netscape users get your feathers ruffled into a bunch, let me explain. My chief annoyance with Netscape is that it makes choices for me. Now, most software, when you install it, makes choices without consulting the user, but there's a big difference between "most software" and Netscape 6 (and you can include the preview of Netscape 7 and all versions of Mozilla as well). Microsoft programs may make assuptions when they are installed, or may choose to install several useless "helper applications", but I know I have a chance to tell the program not to install them. The program will almost always give me a chance to answer its questions before it actually does anything.

In the last several days, I've installed Netscape 6 four times, Mozilla 1 twice, and the preview of Netscape 7 once on several computers. With each install, I chose the "custom install" option, which allowed me to install only what I wanted to install. With each install, I found my desktop cluttered with icons, my start menu filled with icons, and my quickstart bar filled with icons. Aside from the fact that I don't want those icons everywhere, I found it particularly annoying that I wasn't even asked if I wanted them. Chief among the icons I did not need on my desktop, or in two different places in my start menu, are the AOL icons. Been there, done that, burned the t-shirt. I spent considerable time dumping these excess icons just so everything would make sense to me again. That's what I call annoying.

As annoying as the icons may be, and as aggrivating as Netscape 7's install was in assuming I didn't want to use Netscape 6 anymore (a problem I have with Microsoft Internet Explorer by the way), the thing that really turned the screws was the fact that you apparently cannot stop Netscape 6 from asking you to "activate" it. There is no way to tell Netscape 6 that you don't want to sign up for a Netscape account. Now, I happen to have a Netscape account, which one would think would be enough, but it isn't. To this day I am presented with an "activation" screen every time I start Netscape 6 despite the fact that I've entered my Netscape user name and password almost every time.

I haven't had much use for Netscape browsers since Internet Explorer 4 was released, and even less use for Netscape since Opera 4 was released. Now, having used the 6th generation browsers from each of those companies, I can safely say that Netscape has become the Microsoft FrontPage of browsers. That is, it's basically garbage. Apparently, the developers of Netscape's highly touted "Gecko" engine (the thing that makes it a browser) spent more time developing the bells and whistles than they did developing the engine. However "cool" skin-technology may be, it is at best a fad item. Most people may play around with skins in the beginning, but sooner or later the novelty wears off and the user goes back to the "classic" skin permanently. Including the technology in the browser basically means the piles of code written to allow users to change the look of their browser still needs to be loaded into memory every time the application is started, whether the user wants the technology or not.

My message to Netscape is this: "People who use web browsers care more about what they see in the window, than what the window looks like!" And, this: "Either stop adding 9 million icons to my computer, or give me the opportunity to tell you where to put them!" The Browser War may end some day (hopefully soon), but I'm afraid Netscape isn't going to be among the winners.

A Night At The Opera

I realize few people who read this will actually be interested in my opinion of which browser is the best browser. Regardless, since this is my web site, I can put my opinion here without much problem. The choice is yours as to whether you read it, agree with it, or disagree with it, and that's pretty much what the Internet has come to mean.

As I've explained, I came into this Internet thing when it was still pretty young, and I've been there to see it grow up into what it is today. As a result I, like many other "old-timers", have gotten used to the war and sometimes have a hard time not starting a battle.

We start with the 2nd Generation browsers. Netscape, at the time, was the well established leader of the pack, and a couple contenders were clearly on their way out:

	Netscape 2	One giant leap forward, except for <BLINK>
	Mosaic	No comparison with Netscape, but much better than Cello.
	Cello	It was an early browser that was never improved.
	Internet Explorer 2	Basically a copy of Mosaic with some improvements.

The 3rd Generation browsers mark the real escalation of the war. Microsoft had introduced support for style sheets, added frames, and actively promoted the "This site built specifically for Microsoft Internet Explorer" tag line. Netscape had made some improvements too, but hadn't really been facing much competition. Netscape countered Microsoft with the introduction of "Get Netscape Now" buttons, and allowing developers to include the actual link to download the file.

	Netscape 3	Still ahead of the competition, and very popular.
	Mosaic	Not actually a new browser.
	Cello	Wouldn't even run on Win95.
	Internet Explorer 3	It doen't look like it, but this was a giant leap.

Where the 3rd Generation browsers had significantly escalated the war, the 4th Generation browsers quadrupled it. Both Netscape and Microsoft introduced the "package" browser, that is a browser that does "everything in one package." There was some truth to that on both sides. Netscape Communicator not only included a email reader and newsgroup reader, but a WYSIWYG HTML editor as well. Microsoft also bundled its browser with an email reader and newsgroup reader, but skipped the HTML editor and went straight for integrating the browser into the operating system. Netscape cried foul, but mostly because they had no way of competing with that.

	Netscape 4	Seemed rushed, and buggy. Have a couple thousand icons too.
	Mosaic 4	First new Mosaic in years. Too little, too late.
	Internet Explorer 4	Microsoft in the lead? Browser as part of OS.
	Opera 4	Fast, stable, reliable. Just not very well known.

The 5th Generation of browsers is a bit tricky to explain. Microsoft had successfully made their browser an integral part of the Windows operating system. Few other browsers could compete with that. Microsoft had been able to give IE away for years because the cost of development came from profits earned by selling copies of Windows, Office, and everything else Microsoft produced. Netscape initially let users use their software without paying for it as long as they weren't using it for commercial purposes. It was the difference between absolutely free, and virtually free. Opera was shareware, but you could use it free for your personal use, or educational use. Netscape and Opera went in two different directions while attempting to compete with Microsoft. Netscape decided to add more features, and later completely redesign their software, while Opera moved toward "adware" and portability.

	Netscape 5	Never managed to get released.
	Mosaic 4	There were still a few diehards.
	Internet Explorer 5	Not a homerun, but at least a triple or a long double.
	Opera 5	Free if you didn't mind ads, and available for almost any OS.

Now, we reach the 6th Generation browsers. Frankly, before these browsers hit the market, it looked like we were in for a big competition. Netscape had dropped development on version 5, and went full hog into developing version 6. They claimed they were recreating Navigator from the ground up. Those of us who remembered Netscape as a great browser thought we were about to see the final battle between Microsoft and Netscape. Of course, part of that was from Netscape's involvement in the Microsoft anti-trust suit. The previous generation browsers had actually taken a step closer to fully implementing the standards, and each developer proclaimed their next browser would do just that. Little did we know...

	Netscape 6	Slow, overblown, and annoying.
	Mozilla 1	What Netscape 5 and 6 could have been!
	Internet Explorer 6	Security problems, not Netscape, the problem now.
	Opera 6	As feature rich as any other browser, and 10 times faster.

Mozilla is sort of an anomoly in that it represents the half of Netscape that continued to work on Netscape 5. The relatively low rating it gets here is only due to the fact that it's too much like Netscape 6. It's certainly faster, and less annoying, but has basically the same install routine and excessive icon placing as the Netscape browser (It's all AOL's fault - AJ). I hope Mozilla grows up to be what Netscape could have been. Having gotten a look at the preview release of Netscape 7, I'm convinced the company now has the same philosophy toward its customers as AOL - customers are sheep to be lead to the slaughter.