The Shrine

I've been trying it out because i took a new job at AOL (tax department, started today) and am having fun messing around with their products.

Anyways, i do think that it is way faster and easier than IE, probably because it is using Mozilla technology, but the ONE issue i have is that when i come here, it hardly ever keeps me logged in... It does auto fill in my username and password, but i then have to mash on the log-in button 4 or 5 times for it to eventually actually log me in.

It keeps me logged in for Yahoo, Facebook, my motorcycle forum, Newgrounds, and everything else... but not tows. Maybe its an issue with our board?

Why would anyone? Netscape is just a re-skinned Firefox.

Honestly, since I've never had an issue with the board with IE on Windows or Firefox on both Windows and Mac, I suspect the Netscape team broke something.

I actually have the exact same issue...only with IE (and Netscape doesn't have that problem). It randomly clears itself up, I have no idea why...but some days I simply can't log onto the Shrine.

I guess the issue either lies with the board or our PCs (XP, whatever).

Check for any cookie problems. Try clearing your tows.cc cookies before logging back in.

Netscape is just an empty shell, husked out by AOL. Just like ICQ, except AOL uses the Netscape brand as a way to pretend that they aren't AOL (like the Netscape service they have to keep from hemorrhaging from the raping that NetZero was giving them). WinAMP surprisingly hasn't really felt the effects of AOL...yet.

Sorry, I know you just started working there, but I don't have good things to say about their company, even though I use a few of their products.

I really have had no reason to switch from Firefox. I used to use Netscape exclusively back in the days when they actually had their own product.

AOL isnt such a bad company. They are in the process of completely changing gears... away from a subsciption based company and into generating advertising revenue. A move that, sadly, forced the need to lay off 2,000 people from their 10,000 person employee pool last month, but also gained the interest of web giant Google, who bought 5% of AOL's stock from Time Warner (who owns the other 95%) last year for a billion dollars.

The AOL goal is to become another Yahoo, MSN, or Google... a portal site supported by ads. They are late into the game, but have bought some of the webs best sites and applications in the last 5 or 6 years. Sine mentioned ICQ and Winamp, i mentioned Netscape, but they also own MapQuest, Moviefone, X-Drive, Gamedaily, CompuServe, TotalTalk, Weblogs, TMZ.com, and even demo specific Blackvoices.com. With the hits that these sites receive daily, plus the already installed user base of 12 million dial-up subscribers and with the help of good partnerships, like one with Napster, AOL is an advertisers dream come true.

They also purchsed some of the webs most sophisticated behavioral and web search advertising companies like Advertising.com, TACODA, Third Screen Media, and Lightningcast. By owning the webs most visited sites, most used programs, and best advertising companies... they are in a great position to sell ad space to the big retailers and manufacturers.

Its a bold move, but i think it will work.

Oh, and UNlike Yahoo or Google, who rebrand everything, AOL hardly touches the companies and products they buy, i'm not sure what Sine is talking about. They all operate under their own name still, which i like, and basically run the same way. A lot of the changes you see are due to the original ICQ execs, for example, because now they have access to a lot of money to make changes they have been wanting to do for a while. AOL, now, just markets their site to advertisers, they hardly ever take control.

From a semi-nerd point of view, I just don't care about AOL. To me, they basically don't exist. They were yesterday's news and the bad rap they have for their ridiculous subscription service (essentially, it's for people who know nothing and are willing to overpay) is well earned.

Right now, they have to prove to me they're not another Microsoft (I've actually submitted a proposal to the APA to have the DSM-IV altered so that anyone who likes Microsoft Word or considers it a "good" program should legally be considered "Insane") or Rogers who simply has sub-par products and uses marketing to prey on those who just don't know any better.

Like you said, they may be changing quite a bit, but they have A LOT of bad blood to get rid of.

Speaking of Google, their stock just hit 707 USD with a market value of 220 billion dollars. Google stock still is fairly apetizing though.

Zeus wrote:From a semi-nerd point of view, I just don't care about AOL. To me, they basically don't exist. They were yesterday's news and the bad rap they have for their ridiculous subscription service (essentially, it's for people who know nothing and are willing to overpay) is well earned.

I agree with you and i know a lot of people who have the same attitude. But, whatever AOL did back in the day, it worked. Even today (when they lose 1 or 2 million dial-up subscribers a year) they are the largest Internet provider. Getting those fucking disks in the mail every week was annoying, but i never had a problem with their service.

Right now, they have to prove to me they're not another Microsoft (I've actually submitted a proposal to the APA to have the DSM-IV altered so that anyone who likes Microsoft Word or considers it a "good" program should legally be considered "Insane") or Rogers who simply has sub-par products and uses marketing to prey on those who just don't know any better.

Their products are not sub par and that is because they choose wisely on who to purchase. AIM is still the most solid IM program, Netscape is far from a husk... it has just as many extensions available for it as there is for Firefox, they both blow IE out of the water, their e-mail client is just as good as everyone else, and who doesn't use Mapquest?

Like you said, they may be changing quite a bit, but they have A LOT of bad blood to get rid of.

You can hate the company as a whole, but you probably use one their products or visit one of their sites everyday. AOL is a big part of the Internet and they are getting better and better.

I still use Yahoo! for most things, though, ha.

Flip wrote:I agree with you and i know a lot of people who have the same attitude. But, whatever AOL did back in the day, it worked. Even today (when they lose 1 or 2 million dial-up subscribers a year) they are the largest Internet provider. Getting those fucking disks in the mail every week was annoying, but i never had a problem with their service.

Just to explain my earlier point, if you weren't familiar with the AOL/NetZero ad wars, AOL was going happily along with its $30/mo service (insane!). Then the NetZero ads came along, parodying AOLs ads and talking about a $8/mo service. AOL's stock went down, customers left in droves, and NetZero kept putting on ads. AOL didn't know what to do because the ads were true and AOL was this sham that holds on to customers that don't know jack about internet service and overcharges them with this insane $30/mo.

So, out of nowhere, these ads for Netscape Internet Service come out to attack NetZero. Of course, nobody had even heard of Netscape as an Internet service. Hell, the last time I heard about Netscape was when it lost the browser war and the MS lawsuit. There was only one explaination: Netscape was created to keep from hemorrhaging from other cheaper services, like NetZero. Yet, they don't call this AOL; they call this Netscape, to pretend like it's a different company. But, it's not. It's basically a competing service to AOL.

Notice that they don't do any more Netscape ads? If they did, they would constantly lose money to themselves. Oh, and all of the features that they claimed in the ads that were free? It's not, at least not any more. Anti-virus protection is $3/mo; spam blocker is $1/mo; and email AV is also $1/mo.

So, this whole thing about competing with Google now? Ha! That's funny. You don't compete with Google; you just hope like hell that you are in its shadow. AltaVista came first, but Google trumps all web searching. MapQuest came first, but Google Maps trumps all map searching. AOL came first, but iGoogle trumps all web portals. DoubleClick came first, but Google Ads trumps all ad generators. Hotmail came first, but Google Mail trumps all webmail providers.

For every avenue that Google goes into, they are the masters of that platform. Why? Because Google is made up of fucking geniuses! Do you know what the first 10-digit prime number is in the consecutive digits of e? No? Well then, you can't even get your foot in the door, because that's just the first puzzle to getting a job there!

OMG Sine, that is one of the most basic strategies in business. Comapnies do this all the time, Procter & Gamble own Tide, Bounty, Cheer, Bounce, Era, and Gain... It doesnt surprise me in the slightest that Netscape was used for this purpose, it is a smart move. Why does it make you angry? You probably choose between two brands that are owned by the same company everyday and you dont even know it, are you going to go on a crusade against them too? Get a clue.

I mentioned Google in the list of competitors because they do similar things, but if you read what i typed earlier, Google bought a 5% interest in AOL for a billion dollars last year. It wouldnt bother me at all if that number was 100% in the next five years, but again, Google wants it to look like there is competition when in fact THEY MAKE MONEY OFF AOL! See, even your precious Google makes this move that you so despise. The search engine on AOL.com is powered by Google and we are strategic partners. Besides, Google does suck for a lot of things... Their GChat is crap, it has no music service, and their ad generator is NOT the best... ad.com's is, who AOL bought: http://www.advertising.com/our_network.php but it doesnt surprise me that you have misinformation and try to feed it off as fact.

Flip wrote:Their products are not sub par and that is because they choose wisely on who to purchase. AIM is still the most solid IM program, Netscape is far from a husk... it has just as many extensions available for it as there is for Firefox, they both blow IE out of the water, their e-mail client is just as good as everyone else, and who doesn't use Mapquest?

You can hate the company as a whole, but you probably use one their products or visit one of their sites everyday. AOL is a big part of the Internet and they are getting better and better.

Of all the products mention, the ones that I use with any regularity are ICQ, Winamp, and Mapquest. But:

1) I don't use the new ICQ, I use Trillian. I tried a new ICQ years ago after AOL bought them (I assume it's the same time AIM and ICQ became the same thing) and couldn't stand it. I've been using Trillian for at least 5 or 6 years now

2) I had purposely kept a very old version of Winamp (not sure which one, I think it was the first one that had the "new" interface; I use classic view only) 'cause I couldn't stand the new one. All I want the thing to do is play an mp3 and have a playlist...that's it. I don't need all the other crap. That's why I don't use WMP and only use an older version of Winamp. Didn't know Winamp was a part of the AOL umbrella but it all makes sense now.

3) I used to be Mapquest exclusive, but I find myself using Mapblast or Google Maps a lot more often nowadays 'cause a) Mapquest just can't find some addresses I'm looking for and b) sometimes it's routes are just whack. Again, didn't know it was a part of the AOL umbrella, but the decreasing quality makes sense now.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is, even though I use AOL products, I actually use pre-AOL versions or am forced to use non-AOL products 'cause of the fact that AOL not only hasn't brought any value-added to the products but because the products that I use have lost their lead in quality over its competitors, often falling behind. This isn't a "let's rip into Flip's new company" rant, it's just the way it's gone with me and these products.

Not exactly a way to get consumers on board, losing pre-existing customers due to decreasing quality and/or getting left behind....

Sine, whatever became of the Netscape-MS lawsuit? Last I heard, it was supposed to be MS breaking up into three separate companies 'cause they were caught in clear anti-competition violations.

Haven't Wiki-ed it, but I have looked online for articles. Just don't think I'm lookin' in the right places....

To me, most of your complaints are awful...

1) I've tried Trillian and it was so basic, with terrible costumization and options that i now sinply launch all of my chat programs individually.

2) You use an OLD version of winamp? Every media player out there has now has beefed up with all sorts of options and advanced features, but all you want is a playlist...

Sorry if new technology and programs are too high-tech for you, sheesh!

Not exactly a way to get consumers on board, losing pre-existing customers due to decreasing quality and/or getting left behind....

Sorry Zues, its you who is being left behind because you cant stand new and more advanced programs. AOL's programs are cutting edge and the same if not better than what the competition has to offer. Yes, they are different than the older version... Stop being an old man.

I.E. Lets integrate video on this board. "NOOOOO!!!!! I like my old board, blah blah, i'm old."

Sort of off topic but: I find MSN Messenger (or whatever they call it now) to be the best messenger service, it's also like ICQ was years ago, everyone uses it. I did use AIM years ago, along with Yahoo Messenger, but hardly anyone uses either of these anymore.

I use Internet Explorer, I found Firefox to be terribly overrated, I find it has too many glitches, freezes, and crash issues, whereas IE has none of these problems. I haven't had any speed issues with any browsers since Windows 98 (with the exception of Firefox which seems to get buggered every now and then, coincidently, right around update time). I used to use Netscape like 10 years ago, didn't even know the brand was still around.

I also use Windows Media Player, I have Winamp as well, but I like utilizing the plugins with WMP which interact with other MS programs. I also experienced a lot of problems with Winamp a few years ago which caused me to stop using it, though it doesn't seem to have these problems now after updates (I actually forget what they were).

As for Google, I always wondered why Sine praised them when they are guilty (sometimes significantly more so) for a lot of the stuff he critisizes other companies about

Flip wrote:To me, most of your complaints are awful...

1) I've tried Trillian and it was so basic, with terrible costumization and options that i now sinply launch all of my chat programs individually.

2) You use an OLD version of winamp? Every media player out there has now has beefed up with all sorts of options and advanced features, but all you want is a playlist...

Sorry if new technology and programs are too high-tech for you, sheesh!

Not exactly a way to get consumers on board, losing pre-existing customers due to decreasing quality and/or getting left behind....

Sorry Zues, its you who is being left behind because you cant stand new and more advanced programs. AOL's programs are cutting edge and the same if not better than what the competition has to offer. Yes, they are different than the older version... Stop being an old man.

I.E. Lets integrate video on this board. "NOOOOO!!!!! I like my old board, blah blah, i'm old."

Your "new technology" argument sounds strangely like Sony's with the PS3 vs Wii.....

And I think you missed the reason I use the old Winamp. I only NEED a playlist. I use the program to play my mp3s. What the fuck more do I need than a playlist? I have a skin of Laetitia Casta on it just to make it look better, that's about all I need.

I love more advanced programs....if they enhance the features rather than adding in a bunch of new useless shit. Do I give a fuck if it connects to my non-existent cellphone? Nope. Am I vain enough to care about a webcam? Nope (the people I want to see I visit in real life). Do I want instant updates and shitty scrolling ads all over the fucking place? Nope. But at the same time, I like having the Google search bar embedded in my browser. Why? It makes it easier for me to search, enhancing the application's usefulness for me. I love having my pop-up blocker 'cause it doesn't for shit on me that I don't want.

Like with anything, I like technology that gives me options and enhances what I want to do rather than telling me how I should do things and giving me a bunch of crap I don't either want or need right in my face all the time. This is why I have such a deep-rooted hatred of Word, it forces you to do things certain ways (or at least tries to). This is also why I don't want embedded video on this board, you're forcing me to have to go around it if I don't want to look at it. Links work perfectly fine for those who care and don't take up much room for those who don't.

This new board's setup is what I disliked the most. It takes me much longer than I used to to read through all of the threads now 'cause you have to fucking scroll through each damned post which takes up like half the screen at a minimum even for my 1280x800 resolution on a 21" CRT. I used to be able to read three or four threads without even touching my mouse before. Sure I like the emoticons and easy quote button (which wouldn't even really be necessary in the old board) but those don't make up for it. So, has this enhanced my use of the board? No, not really. I'm still doing the same thing on this board I used to do it's just taking me longer to do it with very little benefit for that extra time. I'm in the minority (most would say an island) here so I just have to live with it.

Just because something is new and has all these new features that brings in 10 million new things you can do doesn't make it better. I'm a minimalist by nature and if it don't need to be there, why should it? Basically, change should be for the better not for the sake of change particularly when there's nothing broke to begin with.

Flip wrote:I.E. Lets integrate video on this board. "NOOOOO!!!!! I like my old board, blah blah, i'm old."

You'll break their 56k modems by imbedding a Youtube video. Also, please make sure your sig pics are under 100kb.

Flip wrote:1) I've tried Trillian and it was so basic, with terrible costumization and options that i now sinply launch all of my chat programs individually.

I hate both. I use Pidgin (formerly GAIM). It works great! Oh, btw, you can thank your lovely company for being dicks about the name "GAIM" for stalling development on it for several years, while lawyers talked about whether to sue or not. We were on GAIM 1.50 for a while, because the future of the client was still uneasy.

Flip wrote:2) You use an OLD version of winamp? Every media player out there has now has beefed up with all sorts of options and advanced features, but all you want is a playlist...

I use the old version, too. I like WinAMP as a music player. I don't like it as a video player. I use VLC Video Player because it's flexible and it can play everything. Why do I have to submit to both a music/video player if I don't like it? Do what it's fucking good at!

Zeus wrote:Sine, whatever became of the Netscape-MS lawsuit? Last I heard, it was supposed to be MS breaking up into three separate companies 'cause they were caught in clear anti-competition violations.

Slap on the wrist, of course. The initial order was that, but then the appeals court said that the judge was biased or some bullshit like that. The new decree didn't do much, and it already expired.

So, no, it didn't change anything, but MS did calm down a bit about OEMs, though. You can at least get a Linux-only Dell nowadays. (Thank god, because we buy tons of servers either barebones or with Linux.)

Dutch wrote:I use Internet Explorer, I found Firefox to be terribly overrated, I find it has too many glitches, freezes, and crash issues, whereas IE has none of these problems. I haven't had any speed issues with any browsers since Windows 98 (with the exception of Firefox which seems to get buggered every now and then, coincidently, right around update time). I used to use Netscape like 10 years ago, didn't even know the brand was still around.

Glitches? It works fine by me. It's been solid as a rock for the past several months. I've seen the new IE 7, but it's more like IE is just trying to copy off of Firefox to get their glory back. Tabbed browsing? Where were you 5 years ago?

The one thing that Microsoft can't steal is plug-in support. Sure, they can have their own plug-in support, but the plug-in community for Firefox is already huge. Adblock Plus, BugMeNot, these are all requirements to a browser. Especially Adblock. Every time I go to IE, I'm reminded of the ads that exist on the web. Then I retreat to Firefox, and the ads are gone. It's beautiful.

Dutch wrote:As for Google, I always wondered why Sine praised them when they are guilty (sometimes significantly more so) for a lot of the stuff he critisizes other companies about

Because even the stuff that I don't like them doing, they still do intelligently, like advertising. Their ads are both targetted and TEXT. This is important because text is harder to block. Most of the ad companies fail to understand that a good portion of the Internet population a) hate flashy picture ads, and b) use Adblock (or others) to block said flashy picture ads.

Black Lotus wrote:You'll break their 56k modems by imbedding a Youtube video. Also, please make sure your sig pics are under 100kb.

Don't joke. The 56K dialups are AOL's biggest customer.

Ha, AOL is a 4.5 billion dollar revenue generating company... of which only about a fourth comes from subs, the focus has been off subs for years.

But, AOL still is the largest ISP in the world.

Flip wrote:Ha, AOL is a 4.5 billion dollar revenue generating company... of which only about a fourth comes from subs, the focus has been off subs for years.

But, AOL still is the largest ISP in the world.

Like with video games, over 80% of the market (or potential market) is made up of people who know nothing about the technology or industry. AOL has catered very well to the ill-informed, it's been their bread and butter for over a decade. There's a reason anyone who knows anything doesn't have AOL.

I can agree to that. I've never in this post touted their ISP, i've only mentioned that it is the biggest. I've never used AOL dial-up in the past and never will.

I do, however, like their new focus and programs. All you all living in the stone age need to get with the times. A lot of the new options in new programs are useful. I like seding maps to my cell, rating songs to get suggestions, and creating cartoon character me's to chat... and the rest of the world agrees.

Flip wrote:I can agree to that. I've never in this post touted their ISP, i've only mentioned that it is the biggest. I've never used AOL dial-up in the past and never will.

I do, however, like their new focus and programs. All you all living in the stone age need to get with the times. A lot of the new options in new programs are useful. I like seding maps to my cell, rating songs to get suggestions, and creating cartoon character me's to chat... and the rest of the world agrees.

Just because the "rest of the world" agrees, don't make it useful to me. It's almost like saying "AOL is the best IP because it's used by the most people" or touting game sales stats to determine quality (*cough*Seek*cough*). You could make an outside argument for it (I've made the argument that sales could be seen as the ultimate measure of quality although I disagree with it) but it don't mean it's sound.

At the end of the day, a lot of these useless features that are forced upon me forces me to continue to use the older versions of programs. Mind you, at the same time, I always grab the newest Nero or System Mechanic or Trillian whenever they come out. I find their updates to be quite useful and non-intrusive. But Winamp? No chance, it was freakin' irritating to use after a while.

Lest I forget: "AOL: So good, no wonder it's #1."

And who could forget: "AOL -is- the Internet." My dad actually asked if that line would be good grounds for a lawsuit. I wish somebody bothered to file one.

My point? Well, I'm just agreeing with Zeus' rant that just because the "rest of the world" uses it doesn't mean it's the best.

Alright, fine, popularity is a weak point and one i tend to not use, but stop over looking Googles $1 billion dollar investment into AOL. If Google is the geniuses you seem to think they are, then shouldnt that make you take a second look at AOL? They must see SOMETHING they like well enough to dump that much money into... right?

Flip wrote:Alright, fine, popularity is a weak point and one i tend to not use, but stop over looking Googles $1 billion dollar investment into AOL. If Google is the geniuses you seem to think they are, then shouldnt that make you take a second look at AOL? They must see SOMETHING they like well enough to dump that much money into... right?

Just because AOL makes money and is a good investment don't mean their products are any good. Business decisions are very rarely tied to quality (oddly, the same goes for the general public's preferences....). That's like saying M$'s products are good because they make money and it's tough to argue that one.

Zeus wrote:

Flip wrote:Alright, fine, popularity is a weak point and one i tend to not use, but stop over looking Googles $1 billion dollar investment into AOL. If Google is the geniuses you seem to think they are, then shouldnt that make you take a second look at AOL? They must see SOMETHING they like well enough to dump that much money into... right?

Just because AOL makes money and is a good investment don't mean their products are any good. Business decisions are very rarely tied to quality (oddly, the same goes for the general public's preferences....). That's like saying M$'s products are good because they make money and it's tough to argue that one.

That is true in Microsofts world, but in an industry with many many many options, you got to walk the walk in addition to talking the talk. AOL has too many competitors to have crappy products and yet still be ahead of the game. You should know this. I think its clear that your bias on their dial-up is motivating your opinion towards everything AOL, which i wouldnt expect out of you, zeus.

Flip wrote:

Zeus wrote:

Flip wrote:Alright, fine, popularity is a weak point and one i tend to not use, but stop over looking Googles $1 billion dollar investment into AOL. If Google is the geniuses you seem to think they are, then shouldnt that make you take a second look at AOL? They must see SOMETHING they like well enough to dump that much money into... right?

Just because AOL makes money and is a good investment don't mean their products are any good. Business decisions are very rarely tied to quality (oddly, the same goes for the general public's preferences....). That's like saying M$'s products are good because they make money and it's tough to argue that one.

That is true in Microsofts world, but in an industry with many many many options, you got to walk the walk in addition to talking the talk. AOL has too many competitors to have crappy products and yet still be ahead of the game. You should know this. I think its clear that your bias on their dial-up is motivating your opinion towards everything AOL, which i wouldnt expect out of you, zeus.

I never used their dial-up, I'm basing the majority of my opinion on the other products you mentioned. I had actually been ignoring the company for a long time and didn't realize that they owned all of those products which I had grown tired of.