2 ms·

web browser 2.0? There has easily been more than 2 major revisions in browser technology (I'm not talking just version changes, I'm talking fundamental changes

by froo 18y ago

web browser 2.0? There has easily been more than 2 major revisions in browser technology (I'm not talking just version changes, I'm talking fundamental changes in ideas) If I had to quickly disassemble it, it would have been something like. - Pre-mosaic times (the internet was a dark and lonely place) = browser 1.0 - Mosaic, the browser that "popularised" the web = browser 2.0 - The introduction of Netscape and Microsoft IE and the "browser wars" that followed in which microsoft "won" = browser 3.0 - Introduction of a major competitor to IE that championed open source movement (Firefox) would have been 4.0 So if my rough timeline is correct, that would make Chrome browser generation 5.0 and to be honest, while it is a great browser so far - it is just too early to call. Remember Active Desktop for IE4 and how revolutionary that was for it's time? It introduced the idea that the web is more than just your browser, It's not even around anymore that's how revolutionary it is. One could even argue that Safari for iphone should be 5.0 because it took the true web (not the mobile web, and I dont want to argue about flash) into the palm of your hands. At the end of the day, the market will decide; so while Google does have a strong brand and lots of successes, it also has it's fair share of "failures". This isn't Google hate, I love their stuff, it's just reality. (EDIT - put in a few additional things)

smanek 18y ago
Of course active desktop is still around. It lives on in mac widgets, the vista sidebar, and so on.
- froo 18y ago
  Ya, but the point is that it got actively taken out of MS's base browser product (I'm guessing because of their antitrust issues at the time, but I really dont know to be honest). The core idea however had so much potential, even if the implementation wasn't the best. It was among the first true implementations of taking the web outside the browser, it was certainly the first I'd ever experienced.
johns 18y ago
Browser 1.0 = designed to render web pages Browser 2.0 = designed to run web applications
- froo 18y ago
  Well then by that definition, Google chrome is still not the first "Browser 2.0" because other development teams have included technologies like Javascript and especially ActiveX controls into their browsers, effectively making them application platforms. I just would like to reiterate that I'm not a Google hater, nor do I think Google Chrome will fail. I think it's a great addition to the web. I just don't like all this inane hype that's going around and believe me, tech enthusiasts are about as bad as teenage girls when it comes to gossiping and echo chambers. Remember when Plurk was the Twitter killer because of Twitter always being down? I think we're still waiting on that one. EDIT - (fixing 5am grammar errors, I'm sure I missed some)
  - johns 18y ago
    I used the word "designed" intentionally. The 1.0s were not designed for web apps. They work, but that wasn't their intent. This is the first browser conceived for the purpose of running apps. It just happens to be backwards compatible.
    - deleted 18y ago
      [deleted]
    - froo 18y ago
      I'm sorry but I can't drink the kool aid on that one, because it sounds like your implying that other software implementations by other developers before Google didn't "design" their software - which would be a complete fallacy. Don't get me wrong, the multiple processing is fantastic, faster javascript is great, along with all the other toys that Google have in their browser. However, all this means is Google does it better than anyone else hands down and that it's going to do fantastic things to further the web. It will push other developers to be better, kind of like how iphone pushed other phone manufacturers to be better... but in both cases that is more or less an advantage of being late to market. Anyway, the point is that I think you might have swallowed the hype a little bit too much in believing that Google is the first generation of browsers that was "designed" for web apps because it was designed to run them better than the many generations before it. That would be like saying Chuck Yeager was the first man to do powered flight because he broke the sound barrier first. The Wright brothers would not be amused.

by froo 18y ago

smanek 18y ago

Of course active desktop is still around. It lives on in mac widgets, the vista sidebar, and so on.

froo 18y ago
Ya, but the point is that it got actively taken out of MS's base browser product (I'm guessing because of their antitrust issues at the time, but I really dont know to be honest). The core idea however had so much potential, even if the implementation wasn't the best. It was among the first true implementations of taking the web outside the browser, it was certainly the first I'd ever experienced.

johns 18y ago

Browser 1.0 = designed to render web pages Browser 2.0 = designed to run web applications

froo 18y ago
Well then by that definition, Google chrome is still not the first "Browser 2.0" because other development teams have included technologies like Javascript and especially ActiveX controls into their browsers, effectively making them application platforms. I just would like to reiterate that I'm not a Google hater, nor do I think Google Chrome will fail. I think it's a great addition to the web. I just don't like all this inane hype that's going around and believe me, tech enthusiasts are about as bad as teenage girls when it comes to gossiping and echo chambers. Remember when Plurk was the Twitter killer because of Twitter always being down? I think we're still waiting on that one. EDIT - (fixing 5am grammar errors, I'm sure I missed some)
- johns 18y ago
  I used the word "designed" intentionally. The 1.0s were not designed for web apps. They work, but that wasn't their intent. This is the first browser conceived for the purpose of running apps. It just happens to be backwards compatible.
  - deleted 18y ago
    [deleted]
  - froo 18y ago
    I'm sorry but I can't drink the kool aid on that one, because it sounds like your implying that other software implementations by other developers before Google didn't "design" their software - which would be a complete fallacy. Don't get me wrong, the multiple processing is fantastic, faster javascript is great, along with all the other toys that Google have in their browser. However, all this means is Google does it better than anyone else hands down and that it's going to do fantastic things to further the web. It will push other developers to be better, kind of like how iphone pushed other phone manufacturers to be better... but in both cases that is more or less an advantage of being late to market. Anyway, the point is that I think you might have swallowed the hype a little bit too much in believing that Google is the first generation of browsers that was "designed" for web apps because it was designed to run them better than the many generations before it. That would be like saying Chuck Yeager was the first man to do powered flight because he broke the sound barrier first. The Wright brothers would not be amused.