Now! On The Web! Heavyweights Go Toe To Toe -- Microsoft Internet Explorer Vs. Netscape Navigator

The competition between Netscape Navigator and Microsoft Internet Explorer has escalated into what is being called "browser wars." In truth it is more like a noisy barroom brawl punctuated by exaggerated claims, swaggering insults, oh-yeahs and did-nots.

Will either side land a blow? A close look at the latest offerings, versions 3.0 released in the past two weeks, leaves the question decidedly open. If the proof is in the pudding, users will have to scrape it off the wall to decide.

The browser is, after all, a fairly straightforward piece of software. Bill Gates even called it "trivial" at his Pearl Harbor Day address last December to Wall Street analysts here. That was before Internet Explorer ballooned to what InfoWorld magazine testers say requires 60 megabytes of free disk space to install and 8 to 10 megabytes of storage space to run.

In its early incarnations, the browser brought to the World Wide Web the ease of use that the Macintosh, and later Microsoft Windows, brought to the personal computer. Browsers were so simple to put together there were dozens of them, including several iterations of the original Mosaic written at the University of Illinois' National Center for Supercomputing Applications.

Gradually they are falling by the wayside, however, and we are left with the two giants slugging it out. A brief rundown on how we got to this point:

1994: Young turk Netscape (nee Mosiac Communications Corp.) comes up with a better way to surf the World Wide Web and within months is turned into a billion-dollar darling by venture capitalists and Wall Street. Aging tiger Microsoft, hard at work on the be-all and end-all of operating systems, Windows 95, pays scant attention.

1995: Young turk starts adding features to its browser, making it faster, better looking and more convenient to use. Microsoft, immersed in the biggest, most expensive, most hyped software rollout of all time, notices something out of the corner of its eye. It even makes overtures of a buyout to Young Turk, who says it would rather scrap things out in the marketplace. People start whispering things about aging tiger: Win 95 is not what it was cracked up to be, and the Internet is passing Microsoft by.

1996: Young turk announces add-ons that bring sound, video, animation, telephony, enhanced display and other whizzy features to its once-humble browser. Whoa! That sounds like operating-system talk to aging tiger. Fighting words! Microsoft starts throwing hundreds of programmers and millions of dollars into Explorer development and vows to trounce any young pretender to the throne.

Two weeks ago: Microsoft issues Explorer 3.0 amid great fanfare. Claims are made that it has "caught up" with young turk. A contemporary sculpture sits in a display area of a building on Microsoft campus. It has a seat and many arms and legs, sticking out at strange angles, upside down. Someone has hung a sign on it reading: "Netscape Chair."

Last Monday: Netscape swings back, citing more advanced features than ever for Navigator 3.0 and claiming Microsoft is using anticompetitive measures to keep computer makers and Internet providers from offering Netscape's browser to their customers. Things are getting tense out there in browserville. At Netscape headquarters in Mountain View, Calif., a Bill Gates shrine hosts more than the normal share of supplicants. Asked what "homages" have been left, a Netscape spokeswoman said she could tell me but then would have to shoot me.

Whether its venue is legal skirmish, market hype or soap opera, the browser battle has brought back delicious gossip fodder and high drama to the PC arena, something it has lacked since the more strategically subtle IBM-Microsoft (remember when it was the young turk?) shadowboxings of the mid-to-late '80s.

But enough about them. What about you, the computer user? In a way, browser wars resemble the Aesop's fable of the sun and wind, fighting it out while the poor guy in the middle - the humble computerist - gets battered by either side.

Here is a brief, early but impartial and hype-fumigated take on the 3.0 situation.

Code bloat. Both browsers have fattened up, increasing download times. Explorer is at nearly 8 to 10 megabytes. I tried downloading it half a dozen times, each from a different server, and each time it went into limbo. Finally I left a high-speed PC at the office on during download, and after a 10-minute pause it kicked back in and finished. Friends have reported a similar "hang." But judging from Internet chat, some lucky dogs are actually getting the thing onto their computers.

The pattern was a bit intriguing. The first five minutes or so, the download proceeded normally. Then it would just stop. The status bar gave absolutely no feedback on what was happening; ultimately I had to abort.

To view Explorer 3.0, I had to go to the Speakeasy, an Internet cafe in Seattle. It had installed the program on Windows 95 and on machines running on a Windows NT 4.0 prerelease.

Netscape's download size is just under 5 megabytes. Slimmer than Explorer, but nearly double that of Navigator 2.x. I downloaded Navigator five times on my own computers, including two Macintoshes and three Windows PCs. Each took place without incident (I chose servers in Europe during daylight hours here.)

Netscape is leaner but both need to watch their waistlines.

Platform compatibility. Explorer 3.0 is available only on Windows 95. It also will work with Windows NT, but only version 4.0, which is due in September. Microsoft is working to create or update versions for other platforms, including Windows 3.1 and Macintosh, but timing, as always, is uncertain.

Netscape 3.0 works on all platforms (the company says 16, but that includes a lot of flavors of Unix). Netscape wins on this one.

Look and feel. Microsoft has spruced up Explorer considerably. The icon bar colorizes as you select with the mouse, the page moves with the scrollbar, and overall the browser has a clean, sharp look. Yellow balloons pop up to describe icons and buttons (Netscape has a similar box feature.) The nod goes to Microsoft.

Faster performance. On the plus side, all that extra code does not seem to be slowing down the browsers. Microsoft gets the nod for speeding up Explorer, which was clunky in earlier versions. But Netscape appears to have the speed advantage. PC Week's lab tests found Netscape was three times faster loading a large test page (six seconds to Explorer's 18 seconds). Netscape's press materials include a speed comparison in which its browser is on average 42 percent faster than Explorer.

Whizziness. Microsoft has made great strides with Explorer in the what's-cool department. It is adding Web-site building tools, notably cascading style sheets, borderless frames, table cell colors and design capability that will bring desktop-publishing power to builders of home pages, intranets and other Web applications. Web sites will gain a uniform look and be much easier to administer.

Two caveats: None of the sites I visited, including Microsoft's own and a Nature Conservancy site built by Microsoft to show off Explorer, made full use of these features. It's unclear how much of this is available and actually works; software developers are skeptical. There also is resistance to ActiveX, Microsoft's own technology aimed at providing Java-like features in Explorer, out of fear it will "lock" developers into the Windows/Explorer platform. (Microsoft heatedly denies this but many developers are reserving judgment.)

Both programs boast of voice, streaming video and other wowsahs. The best test is to visit the home page of each. Microsoft's offered no evidence of video or voice on its home page under Explorer 3.0. Netscape, however, had video and voice clips in its "Tour" feature and a rotating 3-D menu feature. Bandwidth keeps these from being practical applications for you and me, but on a fast T-1 connection they were impressive.

Netscape wins on features here, today. Microsoft's promised NetMeeting, a videoconferencing feature where users can share applications, chat and mark up white boards in real time sounds great, but will require some speed gains in the telecommunications infrastructure.

Ultimately both browsers will boast similar features, raising the question of whether we aren't getting right back into the Word/Excel mess, where too many menus spoil the broth. Netscape wins for e-mail integration. Its reader is not the most sophisticated but actually works. Netscape's mail reader even handles html format so entire Web pages can be viewed in mail, along with voice, video, Java applets and electronic forms. (Like the Explorer features, though, it will be awhile before these show up in actual practice.)

I have yet to talk to an Explorer user happy with Microsoft's mail program, Exchange. Major work needs to be done here.

Security. Both sides claim victory here, but it's too early to tell. Microsoft acknowledged a bothersome bug forcing users to re-enter passwords at each page of a protected site.

Truth in advertising. Both combatants are guilty of hyperbole. Microsoft earns a major dis for claiming in its 3.0 literature that users can "run Internet Explorer on cross platforms." Not for a while they can't. It also claims "the most advanced multimedia support of any browser." The truth is, Netscape is faster and more reliable in multimedia support.

Although version numbering is an unregulated discipline, the fact is that Explorer is really in its second major incarnation. Calling this 3.0 is the moral equivalent of age-boosting to get into the bar.

Netscape fudged with its highly ballyhooed Inbox Direct feature, a deal with some two dozen news and content providers to automatically transfer information to a Navigator 3.0 user's mailbox, a sort of customized digital newspaper via e-mail. There was no evidence of it in Navigator 3.0, and Netscape said it will not be available for at least a "couple" of weeks.

These are both smart companies trying to out-market each other. They deserve equal congratulations for competitive aggressiveness but shame for misleading consumers.

Do you need either of these 3.0 browsers? Out of curiosity I called up Netscape 1.1, just to see if I could stand the pain. Although missing some conveniences such as mail and bookmark organization, it did the job just fine.

It will be some time before the TV-like features bandied about the past two weeks will mean anything on a browser. Bandwidth limitations and production demands will keep real-time and virtual-reality applications from making a dent before the turn of the century. For now, 3.0 in either incarnation is fun to have simply for conversation fodder. Changing your life will have to wait.

Published Correction Date: 08/28/96 - In This Review Of New Versions Of Netscape Navigator And Microsoft Internet Explorer, A Sentence About Explorer's Features Should Have Read: ''None Of The Sites I Visited, Except Microsoft's Own And A Nature Conservancy Site Built By Microsoft To Show Off Explorer, Made Full Use Of These Features.''