From: mcgatney[at]access.digex.net (Dawn McGatney)
Newsgroups: alt.aol-sucks
Subject: Re: Dawn's wrong again
Date: 14 May 1995 08:07:40 GMT
Organization: AOL Sucks, Inc.
In article <3p060r$16c[at]its.hooked.net>, njkahn[at]hooked.net says-->
>
>Hey,there -- *my* hard drive was twice trashed by that early [AOL]
>beta-browser. ... I had never had a moment's trouble with my
>computer until downloading and using the early beta-browser.
>
>What bothered me the most was AOL's attitude, also expressed here by some
>AOL apologists: If it didn't happen to ME, it didn't happen.
+
+ mycroft[at]news.dorsai.org (Keith Kushner) had written-->
>>Let's be fair: it was released as a Beta version. Minor bugs
>>were to be expected....
+
+ [Mimi-->]
>Sorry, but I don't consider a disk full of something like 1,600
>cross-linked files the result of a "minor bug."
DAwn Replies----->>>
The time has come to set the record straight.
We're NOT talking about a BETA Version.
A Beta Version WAS released in APRIL to AOL's BETA TESTERS. Beta testers don't like having their hard drives trashed, but it happens.
BUT AOL had made a promise that it would have its browser ready BY MAY 1. And it WASN'T. So for marketing reasons (spelled "dollars"), AOL released a browser that had been tested by its Beta Volunteers (about 1,500 members) for just TWO WEEKS.
AOL originated a NEW software category--> PREVIEW. In fact, in so doing, AOL annoyed its Beta Testers and was forced to publish an explanation in the Beta Area of why NON-BETA TESTERS were testing the browser.
The difference? PREVIEW is available to, and is being used by, a large number of unsophisticated users. Mimi is a knowlegeable and experienced Beta Tester. But the halls of AOL's "Members Helping Members" now are clogged with average AOL members who don't know what's hit them.
AOL never warned potential users who downloaded PREVIEW BROWSER that it had been known to trash hard drives. AND WORSE--> AOL has not admitted that this potential exists, or even that this problem has occurred.
To understate, AOL's conduct with its browser has been thoroughly shameful. And the "good guys" at AOL (you know who you are) are surely ashamed. AOL's credibility and reputation have taken major hits.
And to all the spin doctors who respond and try to put Humpty-Dumpty back together again--> Better try Norton Utilities.
-----DAwn McGatney
From: chess[at]widomaker.com (Haydie)
Newsgroups: alt.online-service.america-online,alt.aol-sucks
Subject: Re: BEWARE: AOL deceptive phone practices!
Date: 19 Aug 1995 19:02:38 -0400
Organization: Widomaker Public Access Unix, (804) 221-8070In article <DDKu5q.CJ9[at]ritz.mordor.com>,
David Brenner <davidb[at]mordor.com> wrote:
>...Let me ask you: why is it okay for other
>software to have bugs and be released as beta, but AOL gets
>attacked when something of theirs needs tweaking?AOL didn't make it wonderfully clear (even to remote staffers) that the initial release of their browser was indeed a beta version. AOL, meanwhile, was charging its users the going rate for "previewing" (and helping AOL by locating the bugs) said Browser. AOL was also irresponsible about the bugs in its browser: when informed of bugs in the browser, they denied that they existed. When people came into their chat rooms to discuss the PROBLEMS of the browser, the guides and CJs told other members to use the 'ignore' function against those with negative comments and concerns.
>No, the worst part of it is that no one would ever do this in
>real life. They wouldn't have the balls to.I don't know what kind of fantasy world you're in when you post, but Usenet is a part of real life... HTH.
-- * -- * -- * -- * -- * -- * -- * -- * -- * -- * -- * -- * -- * -- * -- BOYCOTT AMERICA ONLINE Censorship * Excessive Pricing Schemes * Unfair Employment Practices * Inadequate Features * Poor Customer Service * False Advertising * Net Leach Philosophy * Frivolous Legal Threats to Critics http://www.cloud9.net/~jegelhof
From: destiny[at]crl.com (David Cassel)
Newsgroups: alt.aol-sucks,alt.online-service,alt.online-service.america-online
Subject: Another journalist pans AOL's browser
Date: 25 Jun 1995 13:03:00 -0700
Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access (415) 705-6060 [Login: guest]
From "In, Around and Online"--A Weekly Summary of Consumer Online ServicesIt's a tough decision to make. Several months previous you've paid mega-millions for a software company that's making a web browser. It is your plan to integrate this browser into your online service application and blow the world away. But something goes wrong. It's more difficult than you thought it would be.Source:Meanwhile, the online service you most love to hate has beaten everyone out of the box with a fairly stable Web browser and the grand-daddy of online services has just launched its own Internet access and Web browser. The Web browser you've got is still in beta, and while there are many plusses, there are still too many minuses. Everyone's got a browser but you, and your customers are crying out for a World Wide Web browser. What do you do?
Surely this was what America Online was faced with when well over a month ago they publicly previewed their Web browser. They knew it wasn't ready, so they put up a public beta for their customers using their Windows client. To the brass at America Online, it probably seemed like a good compromise. Initially, it did to me too. But I'm beginning to wonder.
It's not so bad, you know--to put out a buggy beta browser. Heck, Netscape put out a buggy release browser! But it's not quite as buggy as the browser currently available via keyword: AOL PREVIEW for subscribers using the Windows client. It is unfortunate that someone's first experience with the World Wide Web should be a bad one and with the AOL beta Windows browser, that could happen.
When you're an early adopter type like I am, bugs don't mean much to you. You're conditioned to report them and ignore them. If you can't ignore them, there's another version for you to fall back on. There are a lot of early adopter types out and about the Internet. Some would argue that it's all still so new that even those signing up for Internet access today are early adopters.
Give Steve Case credit where credit is due--his whole plan, even going back 10 years to the launch of Q-Link was to build a service that was so easy to use ANYONE could use it. That's still the basic premise of America Online today, and that's one of the major reasons why they're the largest service in the United States. But as AOL nears its three millionth customer, one thing has to be absolutely clear-a whole heckuvalot of the AOL subscriber base does not fit the mode of "early adopter".
Those not in the stereotypical "early adopter" class might not know what to make of the bug riddled America Online Web browser. My fear is conclusion they'll come to is: "It doesn't work." And they might not associate the problem as an America Online problem. That's the problem.
It's human nature that first impressions are important. Something as harmless as a cucumber makes me sick to my stomach. It is one of only a few foods that I absolutely will not eat. This baffled my mom for years. "But Robert, it hardly has any taste at all," she would say. Didn't matter. I wouldn't eat them. I still won't. Chalk it up to a bad cucumber experience somewhere early in my life. Hopefully, AOL members who have had bad Web experiences won't avoid the Web like I avoid cucumbers.
I recently tested a newer version of the AOL beta Windows client, but as of this writing it isn't available via the AOLPREVIEW area. The good news is that it is better! The problem with the browser choking while pulling in a page disappeared during my testing. But the browser still chokes on certain "image maps" and that's a problem as many of the best sites have gone the "image map" route. I'm sure they'll get it right one of these days. Probably even relatively soon. But I wonder if any damage has been done.
There are a lot of people and businesses banking on the success of the Web. Ironically, AOL also plans to cash in on the success of the Web. is a safe bet that sooner or later they'll get it right. When they do we know they'll market the hell out of it. We can only hope that they'll make a special effort to target those who may have been turned off during the preview by saying, "No, really, THIS TIME IT WORKS!"
Until then, I'll go on wondering why it is that the benign cucumber makes me queasy, but the dangerous jalapeno pepper doesn't!
"In, Around and Online"-A Weekly Summary of Consumer Online Services Robert Seidman http://www.clark.net:80/pub/robert/home.html robert[at]clark.net Anon FTP: ftp.clark.net pub/robert
From: ecartoun[at]teleport.com (Emilie)
Newsgroups: alt.aol-sucks
Subject: Re: Columnist says AOL's browser STINKS
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 95 19:11:39 GMT
Organization: Teleport - Portland's Public Access (503) 220-1016
In article <3rj6m4$mu0[at]maureen.teleport.com>,
pilgrim[at]teleport.com (Vinny Hrovat) wrote:
>In our last episode, BJR <brupert[at]mci.net> spoke thusly:
>
><newsclip clipped>
>
>>It kind of makes you wonder if AOL didn't do this on purpose to turn off
>>their users to the WWW.
>
>The same developmental philosophy that went into their newsreader and their
>email to other domains.
In AOL's "Chat About the Web" chatroom, a common theme is for people to come in and announce: "The web sucks," (or in AOlese: "THE wEB SUcKS!!!111", or simply "web sucks"). It never occurs to them that it's their browser that sucks.
Emilie
ecartoun[at]teleport.com
http://www.teleport.com/~ecartoun/
HW 0.75b Wave->254.377.0.30:massage.virt
From: destiny[at]crl.com (David Cassel)
Newsgroups: alt.aol-sucks,alt.online-service
Subject: Columnist says AOL's browser STINKS
Date: 9 Jun 1995 22:40:52 -0700
Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access (415) 705-6060 [Login: guest]
The Louisville Courier-Journal:
AOL Gets Browser Blues (Column by Ric Manning) America Online last month released its long-awaited upgrade that lets subscribers connect to the Web. In a word, it's a stinker. The Web interface is painfully slow and often unable to connect with the sites you want. People who got their first view of the Web from AOL's browser are going to wonder what all the fuss is about.Prodigy, which has had Web access since January, is preparing a slick new feature that will let subscribers create a personal home page. Using Prodigy's templates, users can make a page with links to their favorite sites and notes about themselves, their families or their business. Future upgrades will let them add logos and photos.
destiny[at]crl.com /\ alt.aol-sucks FTP site / \ ftp://ftp.crl.com/users/ro/destiny/aol/ ============================================================================== /__________\ Now featuring 400K year-end review!!!
From: pilgrim[at]teleport.com (Vinny Hrovat)
Newsgroups: alt.aol-sucks
Subject: Re: Columnist says AOL's browser STINKS
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 1995 05:08:40 GMT
Organization: The Foot of Grix Foundation
In our last episode, BJR <brupert[at]mci.net> spoke thusly:
<newsclip clipped>
>It kind of makes you wonder if AOL didn't do this on purpose to turn off
>their users to the WWW.
The same developmental philosophy that went into their newsreader and their email to other domains.
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ "Gone are the days _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ we stopped to decide _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/_/ where we should go - _/ we just ride." Vinny Hrovat/pilgrim[at]teleport.com _/_/ --R. Hunter-- (Opinions expressed herein are mine, etc.)
From: destiny[at]crl.com (David Cassel)
Newsgroups: alt.aol-sucks,alt.conspiracy.netcom,alt.netcom.sucks,alt.online-
service,alt.online-service.america-online
Subject: AOL's browser sucks, says ANOTHER reporter
Date: 2 Jul 1995 19:39:27 -0700
Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access (415) 705-6060 [Login: guest]
The latest issue of Boardwatch reviews AOL browser:The shortcomings are legion! On a regular Sprint or Tymnet connection at 9600 or 14.4K, it is slow as molasses in winter. Many of the web sites are unavailable online because they are still under construction (more than one preview user has noted in message strings that the AOL browser was unable to access Web pages up to 80% of the time). There are no functional status bars to keep you informed of download progress. The only indicator of progress is the revolving AOL symbol, which sometimes just stops. It is difficult if not impossible to know where you want to go, and then to get there is another adventure altogether. Most times the service contends that the host is not responding, but attempts to reach the same site via NETCOM are met with success...and much quicker.The headline was "Finally, a Web browser. But don't get your hopes too high yet."
....running the browser is at times nothing short of excruciating. The caching on my desktop at home slowed me down to such a crawl that most files took three to eight minutes to access; one file took 23 minutes to raise and then another four minutes just to sign off the service. Message after message in the comment strings complain of the slowness of the browser...
destiny[at]crl.com /\ alt.aol-sucks FTP site / \ ftp://ftp.crl.com/users/ro/destiny/aol/ ============================================================================== /__________\ Now featuring 400K year-end review!!!
From: destiny[at]crl.com (David Cassel)
Newsgroups: alt.aol-sucks,alt.online-service,alt.online-service.america-online
Subject: Wall Street Journal calls AOL's browser "lame"
Date: 29 Jul 1995 18:48:39 -0700
Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access (415) 705-6060 [Login: guest]
Some select quotes from Thursday's Wall Street Journal column about getting onto the Web.
First, on commercial services:They charge more than some independent access providers, their browsers lack all the features of some stand-alone products, and they require you to plow through their own proprietary content to get to the Web.Later, the issue of Web access for Apple Macintosh users:Apple's own eWorld on-line service and the Mac version of AOL both offer the same built-in browser, but it's pretty lame.AOL sucks.
destiny[at]crl.com /\ alt.aol-sucks FTP site / \ ftp://ftp.crl.com/users/de/destiny/aol/ ============================================================================== /__________\ Now featuring 400K year-end review!!!
From: ldaly[at]bu.edu (Industrial Strength)
Newsgroups: alt.aol-sucks
Subject: Re: AOL Webbing Into Old Pages?!?!
Date: 28 Jul 1995 18:17:37 GMT
Organization: Seizures and Spittle
Roger Rowlett (dipper[at]metric.inch.com) enlightened us with:
> Ive been getting complaints from people using AOLs web browser that when
> they go into my root file, they will launch into old versions (at least
> three months old) of my web pages.
This post is dedicated to everyone who thought that caching was a good idea.
-- "I have a black belt in haiku, and a black vest in the cleaners." ldaly[at]bu.edu http://metro.turnpike.net/G/gecko
From: twood[at]albany.net ()
Newsgroups: alt.aol-sucks
Subject: Blocking people from your site
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 1995 11:17:12 GMT
Organization: AlbanyNet! E-mail info[at]albany.net
Ok, that darn AOL browser is really ticking me off. If I get one more complaint from XYZ@aol.com about how my site doesn't look just perfect in the AOL browser I'm gonna puke. I'm discovering that that browser supports just about nothing but basic text. Even setting up download links is a hit or miss situation. So, in the spirit of having enough of it I'd like to know what commands/script I need to put in place to block aol.com out of my web site. Is this script something that goes in my page, or a cgi type script that would go into a cgi-bin. I can't alter the main server, but I'd sure like to block out my pages.
Any ideas?
Twood[at]albany.net
From: destiny[at]crl.com (David Cassel)
Newsgroups: alt.online-service.america-online,alt.aol-sucks
Subject: Re: NetGuide's Big Three Browser Shoot Out! AOL wins hands down!
Date: 14 Jul 1995 23:36:40 -0700
Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access (415) 705-6060 [Login: guest]
amish[at]onramp.net wrote:
: I tried the AOL browser & it seems a bit slower than netscape. I think
: AOL claims it is ten times faster than netscape.
They're lying. They mean the technology would be--I think they actually said 3 times faster--if it weren't being used on AOL's network. But it is. Web page requests have to pass through Vienna, Virginia because, unlike Prodigy, AOL chose not to use a "distributed" network, so the *actual* performance is horribly slow. Even then, whatever speed increase there is is achieved by reducing the quality of the graphics.
dlitten[at]aol.com wrote:
: Just finished reading NetGuide's review of the Big Three's web browsers.
: AOL's browser got rave reviews for many of its unique features including
: tight integration with the service's content, multitasking and speed.
: AOL's bookmark system got rave reviews as well, including a remark that it
: is far better than Netscape's bookmark feature. Just goes to show AOL
: saved the best for last (as the last of the Big Three to introduce a
: browser). Oh yes, AOL is the only service of the Big Three to offer a
: browser for the Mac as well.
An "invisible", non-identified AOL employee. Doug Litten is AOL's Internet Support Planner.
Let's get some other opinions:
The Louisville-CourierAmerica Online last month released its long-awaited upgrade that lets subscribers connect to the Web. In a word, it's a stinker. The Web interface is painfully slow and often unable to connect with the sites you want. People who got their first view of the Web from AOL's browser are going to wonder what all the fuss is about.Mike Ward of "On Computers with Gina Smith," even posted that he considered the preview browser "the slowest browser I've used."
Finally, Boardwatch MagazineThe shortcomings are legion! On a regular Sprint or Tymnet connection at 9600 or 14.4K, it is slow as molasses in winter. Many of the web sites are unavailable online because they are still under construction (more than one preview user has noted in message strings that the AOL browser was unable to access Web pages up to 80% of the time). There are no functional status bars to keep you informed of download progress. The only indicator of progress is the revolving AOL symbol, which sometimes just stops. It is difficult if not impossible to know where you want to go, and then to get there is another adventure altogether. Most times the service contends that the host is not responding, but attempts to reach the same site via NETCOM are met with success...and much quicker.The headline was "Finally, a Web browser. But don't get your hopes too high yet."....running the browser is at times nothing short of excruciating. The caching on my desktop at home slowed me down to such a crawl that most files took three to eight minutes to access; one file took 23 minutes to raise and then another four minutes just to sign off the service. Message after message in the comment strings complain of the slowness of the browser...
destiny[at]crl.com /\ alt.aol-sucks FTP site / \ ftp://ftp.crl.com/users/de/destiny/aol/ ============================================================================== /__________\ Now featuring 400K year-end review!!!