Why do people still use AOL's browser?

R

RegEdit

New Member
Reaction score
3
Location
Pacific Palisades, CA
It seems like the only people who still use AOL's BLOATED, slow browser are people who are completely computer illiterate, they've become "familiar" with AOL and so it's become just a force of habit, and they are afraid to venture out and try Firefox or IE, setting AOL as their home page if they wish.
 
Why did people ever use AOL... that is the real question.

The Answers...

They thought AOL was the "Internets"
They thought they had to subscribe to AOL to get AOL Instanat Messenger
AOL made it easy for people to sign up for the Internet
They novice computer users dependant on their software and people don't like to learn new things... hence the hatred for XP when it came out and also Vista when it was released and so on.
 
My grandmother uses AOL's web browser, but only because she loves the toolbars on top that brings her to her favorite things on the web. (P.S. They're called bookmarks grandma)

She's just stuck in the '90s and there is no changing her. Believe me, I've tried. She uses Windows XP, AOL Browser, and Microsoft Works and that's it. Oh, and she also has "Encarta Encyclopedia" installed on her computer as well as Netscape!

On the lighter side, my Great Grandmother (God I love her so much!) loves her custom built quad core computer with Windows 7 and only uses Google Chrome because she knows it's faster and newer. Did I also mention she loves, played and beat every Legend of Zelda game since the NES up until the N64. (She hates the Wii)...I love my nerdy great-grandmother.
 
JosephLeo said:
On the lighter side, my Great Grandmother (God I love her so much!) loves her custom built quad core computer with Windows 7 and only uses Google Chrome because she knows it's faster and newer. Did I also mention she loves, played and beat every Legend of Zelda game since the NES up until the N64. (She hates the Wii)...I love my nerdy great-grandmother.
Click to expand...
None of my relatives are like that, good for her!
:)
 
I got a customer whose grip on AOL I cannot release -- like a crack addict who can't quit. He already has Cable internet service and he was ALSO paying for AOL. I'd tell him that AOL email and AOL browser is free, and that he doesn't need to pay. He says "I don't mind". :rolleyes:
I don't think there's anyone under 60 using AOL.
 
Thedog said:
Why do people still use IE?
Click to expand...

Ok I am going to duck and dodge but I still use IE. I have never been a fan of FireFox. I hate how it handles file downloads and plugins. I really am not a fan of how it renders graphics differently than IE which can make web sites appear different and so on...

I am also not a fan of (although not Firefoxe's fault) unknowledgable "techs" that aare barely a susperuser charging people to fix their connectivity problems by installling Firefox becasue it is better and not actually removing the browser hijacker that was the root of the problem.

But all rants aside... this is not a bash on those that know what they are doing and choose Firefox or an another browser for their own valid reasons.
 
Does AOL work off on a VPN or does it install one? I saw AOL listed under IE's VPN list. AOL's home page (on IE) is really slow to load too (compared to Google and Yahoo).
 
Mushin said:
Ok I am going to duck and dodge but I still use IE. I have never been a fan of FireFox. I hate how it handles file downloads and plugins. I really am not a fan of how it renders graphics differently than IE which can make web sites appear different and so on...

I am also not a fan of (although not Firefoxe's fault) unknowledgable "techs" that aare barely a susperuser charging people to fix their connectivity problems by installling Firefox becasue it is better and not actually removing the browser hijacker that was the root of the problem.

But all rants aside... this is not a bash on those that know what they are doing and choose Firefox or an another browser for their own valid reasons.
Click to expand...

Well as an ex-web designer I have to say that it's not that Firefox renders websites differently than IE, it's that IE renders websites different from the rest of the worlds web browsers.

The W3C is the organization repsonsible for standardizing web rendering technology, such as how a div should be rendered, or what css tags do what and how they should work. Microsoft decides to make their own standards in order to fit their OS, rather than the standards of the rest of the world.

Not to mention that IE is INCREDIBLY unstable and insecure to the point that just visiting certain websites (not downloading, clicking or doing anything) can easily make your computer as vulnerable as a baby sheep in a wolf's cave and that is not an opinion but an actual fact.
 
JosephLeo said:
Well as an ex-web designer I have to say that it's not that Firefox renders websites differently than IE, it's that IE renders websites different from the rest of the worlds web browsers.

The W3C is the organization repsonsible for standardizing web rendering technology, such as how a div should be rendered, or what css tags do what and how they should work. Microsoft decides to make their own standards in order to fit their OS, rather than the standards of the rest of the world.

Not to mention that IE is INCREDIBLY unstable and insecure to the point that just visiting certain websites (not downloading, clicking or doing anything) can easily make your computer as vulnerable as a baby sheep in a wolf's cave and that is not an opinion but an actual fact.
Click to expand...

Yea.. I get that and thank goodness for standards but... those standards carried little weight when MS held 90% of the browser market. Granted that has changed quite a bit but... when you corner the market you have the luxory of taking liberty with standards.

I recall in 1994 and 1995 there was a massive browser war between Internet Explorer and Netscape. The problem Netscape had to be purchased and Internet Explorer was inclduded. So... Microsoft... who is know for making their own standards held all the cards. Sure the W3C comprised of the founders and visionaries of the "web" as we know it.. but it was Microsoft that provided the "access" and if you wanted peopel to visit your site you designed for IE and if there was time left over you then thought about the others.

That is actually where I am coming from when say that IE renders differently. It is a little like which came first the chicken or the egg. I recognize IE as the "adopted standard" because of the sheer number of users.

If we look back we see:
August 2007: IE 66.7% FireFox 25.5%
August 2008: IE 58.7% FireFox 31.4%
August 2009: IE 52.4% FireFox 32.1% With the biggest gain being in Safari
July 2010 (Last Full Month): IE 44.4% FireFox 31.4% and Chrome at 9.8%

Now the question is becoming... How much liberty do the others take with the W3C standards?

or possbibly.. Do the W3C standards even dictate how images should be rendered and displayed or is that defined by the standards for that particular image format. (Image rendering is where I have had the most frustration with IE, Firefox, Chrome and others.)

Sorry.. a little off topic but a the potential to learn a lot in discussion.
 
Mushin said:
Now the question is becoming... How much liberty do the others take with the W3C standards?

or possbibly.. Do the W3C standards even dictate how images should be rendered and displayed or is that defined by the standards for that particular image format. (Image rendering is where I have had the most frustration with IE, Firefox, Chrome and others.)

Sorry.. a little off topic but a the potential to learn a lot in discussion.
Click to expand...

The W3C does infact dictate how images should be rendered. It also now dictates how videos should be rendered thanks to HTML5 (the latest version of HTML which is an upgrade from HTML4/xHTML) However, some images (I believe .bmp and certain .png) can have their own color palletes which don't play well with Webkit based browsers (Safari and Chrome I believe) not to mention IE6 can't even render PNG's with opaque backgrounds properly (unless you use directx & css hacks)

When it comes to standards Internet Explorer comes in last. There is a test out there called the Acid test which determines how well your web browser supports standards. 0 means it supports zero standards, 100 meaning it supports all standards.

In order from Worst to Best here is the results for the second iteration of the test, The Acid3 Test
  • Google Chrome: 100/100
  • Opera: 100/100
  • Safari: 100/100
  • Mozilla Firefox: 94/100
  • Internet Explorer 8: 20/100
  • Internet Explorer 7: 14/100
  • Internet Explorer 6: 12/100

Let that be an example of how far behind IE is, HOWEVER. there is some light at the end of the tunnel. Beta versions of Internet Explorer 9 are scoring 92/100. Of course this is a beta version and Microsoft can always remove and add features.

Second, we will have to look at HTML5 and CSS3 support. This is the future of the web and some websites are already deploying these technologies. IE6, 7 and 8 support almost NOTHING of the kind. Whereas all the other browsers (Safari, Opera, Firefox and Chrome) support around 80~95% of all the new features in CSS3 and HTML5.
 
JosephLeo said:
The W3C does infact dictate how images should be rendered. It also now dictates how videos should be rendered thanks to HTML5 (the latest version of HTML which is an upgrade from HTML4/xHTML) However, some images (I believe .bmp and certain .png) can have their own color palletes which don't play well with Webkit based browsers (Safari and Chrome I believe) not to mention IE6 can't even render PNG's with opaque backgrounds properly (unless you use directx & css hacks)

When it comes to standards Internet Explorer comes in last. There is a test out there called the Acid test which determines how well your web browser supports standards. 0 means it supports zero standards, 100 meaning it supports all standards.

In order from Worst to Best here is the results for the second iteration of the test, The Acid3 Test
  • Google Chrome: 100/100
  • Opera: 100/100
  • Safari: 100/100
  • Mozilla Firefox: 94/100
  • Internet Explorer 8: 20/100
  • Internet Explorer 7: 14/100
  • Internet Explorer 6: 12/100

Let that be an example of how far behind IE is, HOWEVER. there is some light at the end of the tunnel. Beta versions of Internet Explorer 9 are scoring 92/100. Of course this is a beta version and Microsoft can always remove and add features.

Second, we will have to look at HTML5 and CSS3 support. This is the future of the web and some websites are already deploying these technologies. IE6, 7 and 8 support almost NOTHING of the kind. Whereas all the other browsers (Safari, Opera, Firefox and Chrome) support around 80~95% of all the new features in CSS3 and HTML5.
Click to expand...

You know what... this is very interesting stuff. As their browser share goes down their adoption of standards goes up. Interestingly Chrome comes along and jumps past FireFox and IE in the percentage gained in a year while also being desinged from the ground up to be standards compliant.

Do you think that it is the browsers or the developers that are actually driving the change. In the early days it was not uncommon for people to develope frist for IE and secondary to all others.

If developers are designing to W3C standards and pushing back in masses on IE then Microsoft has no choice but to conform. Or.. are developers more confortable designing to the standards because collectively over 50% of the browsers are more compliant than IE?
 
I am DONE providing any support for anything AOL. Just worked on a computer. Everything worked fine. Then the customer launches his AOL... it's slow... a bunch of windows freeze up for 2 minutes... all of a sudden I'm getting blamed for this monstrosity of a bloated browser. So we upgrade from 9.0 to 9.5 and it took like 20 minutes to get to 10% complete. Final Cut Studio AND Adobe Master Suite Collection install faster than this AOL crap!!! I decided to leave and come back tomorrow.

Lesson learned: From now on I provide ZERO support for anything AOL.
 
There are many factors involved. We have the developers wanting a more "uniform" way to create their websites, the rising popularity of the internet and the fact that more users want more features. Primarily though it's the developers.

You see, in the old days a website was either "Best viewed in Internet Explorer" or "Best viewed on Netscape Navigator in 800x600". But now, we have the following that developers have to develop for.
  • Internet Explorer 6
  • Internet Explorer 7
  • Internet Explorer 8
  • Mozilla Firefox 3
  • Google Chrome
  • Opera 10
  • Apple Safari
That's 7 browsers. However, keep in mind that Internet Explorer 9 and Mozilla Firefox 4 is coming out soon which will bring the tally to 9 web browsers.

Also, there is a reason developers are using these standards and that's because without standards developers have to design not 1, but 7 (soon to be 9) website templates to conform to the 7 or 9 web browsers out there. This in turn will cost the client more money which will lead to less clients due to the high cost of creating a website. It will also cause people without knowledge of website development to create their own website thus leading to an ugly internet.
 
I just started playing with Google Chrome the other day. I mostly use Firefox so far. But I must say that I'm extremely impressed with Chrome, to the point where I'm not sure I want to continue using Firefox as my default browser...

-Don
 
RegEdit said:
I am DONE providing any support for anything AOL. Just worked on a computer. Everything worked fine. Then the customer launches his AOL... it's slow... a bunch of windows freeze up for 2 minutes... all of a sudden I'm getting blamed for this monstrosity of a bloated browser. So we upgrade from 9.0 to 9.5 and it took like 20 minutes to get to 10% complete. Final Cut Studio AND Adobe Master Suite Collection install faster than this AOL crap!!! I decided to leave and come back tomorrow.

Lesson learned: From now on I provide ZERO support for anything AOL.
Click to expand...

Defeated by AOL. That's embarassing.
 
dnt810 said:
I just started playing with Google Chrome the other day. I mostly use Firefox so far. But I must say that I'm extremely impressed with Chrome, to the point where I'm not sure I want to continue using Firefox as my default browser...

-Don
Click to expand...

I stopped using Firefox when Google Chrome first came out of beta. Never. Looked. Back. Although, I'm eyeballing Opera now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

NETWizz
Why do they still make laptops with 8 GB Memory
2
Replies
39
Views
2K
brandonkick
B
britechguy
The myriad M365s - How can you quickly and easily tell them apart?
2
Replies
21
Views
2K
Sky-Knight
Sky-Knight
B
Microsoft Business 365 Question (Sharepoint / Onedrive / Teams)
Replies
17
Views
1K
brandonkick
B
Mike McCall
Amplifi HD Dropouts
Replies
7
Views
1K
Mike McCall
Mike McCall
HCHTech
Comcast does it again
Replies
8
Views
1K
brandonkick
B
Back
Top