Netscape Navigator Vs. Microsoft Internet Explorer - Who Will Win the "Browser Wars?"

• Abstract
• Purpose
• Introduction - The History of Web Browsers
• The Dominant Browsers: Netscape Navigator 3.0 and Microsoft Internet Explorer 3.0
• Interface
• Bookmarks
• Mail and News
• HTML Support
• Download Time
• Dynamic Updating
• Multimedia Plug-Ins
• Java Vs. ActiveX
• My Conclusions
• Appendix A - References
• Appendix B - Bibliography

With the Internet becoming increasingly popular as a method of information retrieval and advertising, in addition to being used for advanced functions such as database applications and interactive applications, the question arises as to which browser to use to take full advantage of the Internet. For instance, which browser has more features, and which of these features are of greater importance for effective "web browsing"?

This project will evaluate the two most popular and advanced browsers used today - Internet Explorer 3.0 and Netscape Navigator 3.0. Certain features of each browser will be evaluated, with a look at basic browser functions as well some more advanced functions that will have effect on the future of desktop computing. Results of the evaluation will be comprised from outside evaluation results, as well as results from an independent test I will perform on each browser.

The information presented does not look at every feature of Navigator 3.0 or Internet Explorer 3.0. Some areas may not be explained in detail to some readers' satisfaction. One reason for this is that a detailed explanation of each browser feature would require a book. The primary reason is that the focus is more on the features that have implications for the trends for desktop computing as seen by Netscape and Microsoft. While there are comparisons on "trivial" browser features, not every feature was examined.

The purpose of this project is to describe the differences, attributes, and problems with both Netscape Navigator 3.0 and Internet Explorer 3.0, to assist users in deciding which browser is more suitable for them. While the 4.0 version of both browsers will be available in 1997, both with new features and strong implications for the future of desktop computing, I will not be comparing upcoming features in the next release. The focus here is on the current release of both browsers, and speculation and the rating of attributes and features not yet released is not the purpose here. The implications for the future of desktop computing can be seen in the current release of these browsers, and these implications will be addressed, though the outcome will not really be known until the release and wide implementation of Netscape 4.0 and Internet Explorer 4.0 take place.

Unless otherwise noted, Microsoft's Internet Explorer version 3.0 will be referred to as IE, and Netscape Navigator version 3.0 will be referred to as Navigator (to avoid confusion with the name of the company, Netscape Corporation). If an earlier version of the browser is being referred to, that will be so noted.

History of the "Web Browser"

It was just over two years ago that graphical user interface web browsers were developed, the first one being NCSA Mosaic. Before the advent of browsers, around 1991, the University of Minnesota developed the Internet Gopher, which enabled information to be provided on the Internet in hierarchical lists. About the same time, Tim Berners-Lee and colleges at the CERN European Laboratory for Particle Physics were developing a networked hypertext system called the World Wide Web (WWW) (Nichols, 1996). In contrast to gopher's hierarchical structure, the WWW includes embedded "hot links" to other documents which leads to other documents. This is how the WWW is known today.

In 1993, NCSA announced their plan to release a new client called Mosaic. In fact, many say that Mosaic was the enabling tool for the use of the Web as a networked information distribution mechanism. Up until about 1994 sometime, there were two main Microsoft Windows browsers for the World-Wide Web: Mosaic and Cello. Since these "early browsers", various precedents have been set in the production and distribution that are radically different from any other software product in the software industry (PC Direct, 1996).

One reason for these precedents is due to the fact that browsers were basically free. While individual users were supposed to pay a license fee, numerous organizations qualified for free usage under Mosaic's terms, and the distribution was too hard to monitor. In addition, the production cycle for browsers enabled the free distribution. Since browsers were distributed online, there was no need for packaging, distributing, and reselling (PC Direct, 1996).

With almost no time lag for placing a browser on the market, software developers could easily add new features or bug-patches daily. This continuous upgrade cycle enabled users to download free evaluation copies easily.

The history of Mosaic since then has been "dramatic:" a constant flow of updates; the licensing of the program to a variety of companies, including Microsoft; and the appearance of Netscape (Moody, 1996). It seemed for a while that Navigator would be the dominant browser, as it's features quickly surpasses that of Mosaic. However, Microsoft entered the game this year with version 3.0 of their Internet Explorer - an incredible upgrade from their previous version, which lacked most of Netscape's advanced features.

Both browsers, while having differences, are very similar, and have to have some identical features. This is because the browser is based on supporting Hypertext Markup Language (HTML). The standard for HTML is currently version 3.2, and needs to be supported by all browsers to make the Web open and accessible to all, no matter which browser is used (PC Direct, 1996). Browser companies know that not supporting the standard of HTML would undermine the Internet market, since the simplicity of HTML and the standardization of the WWW are what makes it so attractive to so many people.

While many of the features are very similar in IE and Navigator, certain differences can be seen, some minor and some more major. Many of the differences can be attributed to the way each company sees the future of the Internet and the user's PC. Microsoft will be integrating the next version of IE as a component in the desktop of the PC, while Netscape is aiming for their browser to become a "universal client", where the browser itself will almost replace the desktop (Sun Developer News, 1996). This will be addressed a bit later, in the description of the two browsers' different implementations of Java and ActiveX, as describing this more complex issue before even touching on the more basic features of each browser could be confusing. The future plans for the desktop, though, will be more apparent in release 4.0 of both browsers, and an entire paper could be written on these upcoming plans alone.

Platform support is often confused with operating systems support. An example of a platform would be Windows, Unix, Mac, and OS/2. But there are different variations on each platform, and these variations are operating systems. The Windows platform encompasses Windows '95, Windows 3.1, and Windows NT. Unix has 12 variations. Nowadays, the most well-known platform is Windows, both 3.1 and '95. While Windows '95 would be considered the most popular, many people still use Windows 3.1, especially if they have not upgraded their PC.

At the moment, IE supports four operating systems, - Windows '95, Windows NT, Windows 3.1 and Macintosh. Navigator supports sixteen, including 12 of the more popular Unix operating systems, Windows 3.1, Macintosh, as well as Windows '95 and Windows NT. This is a major advantage for Navigator, since the world, despite how Bill Gates may see it, is not limited to Windows and Mac users.

While it may be argued that Microsoft has promised to support other platforms, nothing concrete has materialized. However, Microsoft back in June of 1996 overstepped the charge of "platform bias" by promising that may Unix operating systems will have "full Explorer 3.0 functionality, including ActiveX" by years end (Ray, July 1996). Well, it's now 1997 and and a Unix version of IE is not yet available. In addition, the specific Unix operating systems that will be supported was not specified. Will Microsoft support all 12 aforementioned variants of UNIX?

Platform support will be addressed again in the discussion of Java and ActiveX, where many issues touched on here will come together. The differences in platform support are also a key issue in the how Microsoft and Netscape see the future of desktop computing.

One should also note that both browsers are lacking full support for IBM's OS/2. Microsoft has no browser whatsoever available for OS/2 and has never stated they would ever support it. Navigator does have version 2.02 available for OS/2, but not version 3.0, as they will supposedly jump right to Navigator 4.0 for OS/2.

Both browsers have a similar type of interface, with a menu and button bar above the browser window. In general, IE's slick new interface is more appealing than Navigator's. IE's raised, frameless menu icons that light up when a mouse is placed over them, customizable address bar and links menu make it look more up-to-date and increase the ease of use. IE also includes a font button right on the menu bar for the user to take advantage of the variable font settings standard in HTML 3.2 (PC Direct, 1996). In addition, the search feature to search the current web document showing, is clearer on IE. While Navigator's button is labeled "search" for searching the document currently showing in the browser, IE goes a step further to label it's option for this (found under "Edit" on the main menu) as "find on this page." (Santalesa, 1996). While this may seem like a negligible difference, it's easy to misunderstand the function or become confused by the "search" button. Many tend to think the button is used to search the Internet, not the current web document. IE clears up this confusion.

However, Navigator's method for presenting information while connecting to a site is a bit better. IE displays the site IP number instead of the name. For instance, Navigator will show http://www.interstat.net while IE will show 206.181.182.2. While not a major difference, numbers are not as "friendly" as the actual URL. In addition, IE doesn't not give an indication of the file sizes while downloading, instead opting for a graph showing what percentage of the file has been received (PC Direct, 1996).

Bookmarks, while not the most important feature in a browser, are certainly a very convenient item. Given the amount of information being placed on the web daily, imagine having to write down every URL you wanted to remember, or trying to find the same URL again! Bookmarks also let the user categorize and sort bookmarks into sections, so their URLS are much easier to find in the bookmark list.

Both browsers support bookmarks, or Favorites, as they are called in IE. Bookmarks in Navigator are easier to manage, and allows the user to insert separators, group bookmarks easily, see details of the last time the bookmark was used, and control the duration of the link (PC Direct, 1996). However, IE also includes a History folder that tracks every page visited for a certain number of days. The number of days is defined by the user, and makes backtracking much easier (Santalesa, 1996). Navigator provides a history, but only for the current session.

However, users may want to consider the differences in the size of Navigator's and IE's bookmark files. That's right - size. The same bookmark file in Navigator will take up A LOT more disk space in IE. For example, a 458-KB bookmark file in Navigator takes up in IE- please sit down - anywhere between 18MB and 38MB, depending on the computer system (Santalesa, 1996). IE's Favorites take up significantly more space than Navigator's bookmarks, because each Favorite (bookmark) in IE becomes a Windows shortcut that, depending on the users disk-block size, actually uses up 16KB to 32 KB per entry. Those low on disk space and using IE should keep their Favorites folder to a minimum!

Both Navigator and IE support sending and receiving HTML, so e-mail can be sent with images, sound, and even Java effects. (Schwartz, 1996). Netscape has gone a step further though and made deals with several Internet content providers to deliver customized e-mail to users' in-boxes regularly with a feature called Inbox Direct (PC Direct, 1996). Navigator also includes the feature to be able to display only unread inbox messages.

IE, however, as items such as Inbox Assistant, which performs mail filtering. Users can set up a folder and specify which messages should automatically be filtered into that particular folder (Santalesa, 1996). IE's Internet news reader is also more intuitive for new users, while Navigator's integrated Usenet client is easier when skimming multiple groups (Santalesa, 1996).

While Navigator 3.0 introduces several new, non-standard table-formatting extensions to HTML 3.2, such as multicolumn layout, spacing and frame-border enhancements, IE 3.0 includes HTML 3.2 specifications that Navigator does not, including level 1 Cascading Style Sheets and floating frames. IE 3.0 is the first browser to support Cascading Style Sheets (CSS), the HTML style sheet standard set by the W3C. Style sheets give users the same flexibility of design and layout that desktop publishing programs do, by enabling them to attach styles (such as fonts, colors, and spacing) to HTML pages. By applying separate style tags to HTML, web page designers ensure that all browsers (that support CSS) can view the basic text and structure of the Web page while more sophisticated designs can be presented. This is a very useful feature lacking in Navigator.

Downloading the Browsers Themselves!

A full version of Navigator is about 5.5 MB while a full version of IE is about 8 MB, so obviously the download time is shorter for Navigator - a big plus for modem users. The extra download time for IE is due to its ActiveX controls. However, adding ActiveX support to Netscape requires a plug-in, which is an additional 3.5 MB (Santalesa, 1996).

Downloading Web Pages and Documents

Both companies stress that their browser downloads files faster. It is sometimes difficult to determine the browser's speed due to the differences in ISP connections, local disk speeds, and host web servers. While both products give substantial speed increases over older browsers, Navigator has a slight edge in downloading most pages, though IE executes Java applets faster.

KeyLabs Inc., an independent network testing organization, released the results of its performance comparison of Navigator and IE in October. Testing was designed to measure performance while transferring actual Internet HTML files. File sets were grouped according to size. Download time was measured on a range of 10-100 Pentium class client computers. For small and medium files, Netscape turned in a more than 200 percent better performance. Microsoft's Internet Explorer narrowed the gap when downloading larger files, although Netscape's Navigator was still about 30 percent faster. The full details of this test are available at http://www.keylabs.com./shootout.htm (no longer available)

In my personal testing of various sites, Navigator always connected and downloaded the page seconds, or even minutes faster than IE. This was done with an empty cache on both browsers, at approximately 11pm EST, using a T-1 connection at my office. While seconds may not seem like a significant difference, it does add up. However, there are many other variables to consider, such as the traffic on the particular site, time of day, etc.

Other tests have claimed that IE "occasionally gave up on pages, which Navigator, running alongside it, retrieved without a hitch" (Green, 1996). In another independent test, IE had a problem with downloading Intel's home page due to a VB Script that Navigator ignored, but produced "near paralysis" for IE (Santalesa, 1996). The problem appears to be fixed, as I visited the site on Dec 5, 1996, and it showed no problems for IE.

One site that did show a problem was the Macromedia Web site. I visited the site on December 5, 1996 and Navigator downloaded the site in seconds, while IE still had not downloaded the site after almost five minutes. A visit a day later though, showed no problem for IE.

However, interestingly enough, IE executes Java applets faster than Navigator. (Java will be touched on shortly). This is something I had noticed independently, and other tests have proven this. Both browsers contain JIT (Just-in-time) Java compilers to significantly speed Java's executions (Santalesa 1996). The Pendragon Software Corp's CaffeineMark Industry standard testing on Java show IE 's execution of Java applets anywhere from 13 percent to 50 percent faster than Navigator 3.0 on almost every test. The complete test result are available at

Other sites that posed a problem for IE included sites using JavaScript. Even though IE claims to support JavaScript, this isn't entirely true. JavaScript is not the same as Java - JavaScript is geared for scripting strictly within a browser environment, while Java applets are separate programs which run in browsers. This confuses many - while IE supports Java (IE 3.0 at first had some problems with Java execution due to some missing class files - IE 3.01 has corrected that. More information can be found at http://www.microsoft.com/java/issue.htm) fully, and even executes applets faster, IE's JavaScript support is severely lacking.

IE's lack of JavaScript support will not always be obvious to the general user, as many times the JavaScript includes code to ignore a browser that does not support most JavaScript functions, usually any browser other than Navigator 3.0. In fact, I discovered this problem not by testing sites, but by my own inclusion of JavaScript in some web pages. I always test web pages with both IE and Navigator, to ensure people using either browser can view the site. IE would produce an error when encountering the JavaScript. IE supports only very basic JavaScript, and causes an error in most of the very useful and widely used JavaScripts. Implementing a browser detection JavaScript is very simple, and many helpful JavaScripts such as this can be found at The JavaScript tip of the week.

However, IE does support a different scripting language - VBScript, which is an offshoot of Microsoft's Visual Basic. This makes scripting in a browser much easier for those who already know Visual Basic. VBScripts can also call ActiveX controls, which are considered a rival for Java applets (Thompson, 1996). Microsoft has also made it possible to control Java applets through ActiveX.

Navigator also now includes LiveConnect, that allows the "live" objects of Java applets, JavaScripts, and plug-ins to interact with one another. In addition, Sun Microsystems, the creator of Java, has developed JavaBeans. JavaBeans allows Java components to be inserted in any other component or architecture, including ActiveX, OpenDoc, LiveConnect, and any Java applet or Application (Sun Developer News, 1996).

If you've ever seen a "live camera" on the Web, where a scene is continually refreshed every few seconds, somewhat like a video, then you've seen an example of dynamic updating. Dynamic updating documents contain information that is updated on a periodic or frequent basis, and does not need any special plug-in or browser add-on to work. This allows web developers to provide almost real-time video feed right on a web site. The user does not have to refresh the page to see the updates - it's done automatically every two or three seconds. An example of this feature can be seen at InterStat, Inc's web site, where an "office cam" let's people view the activities in InterStat's office.

Netscape 1.1 and above supports a couple different mechanisms for these dynamic documents. These mechanisms are called "server push" and "client pull", and are based on existing standards (including the standard MIME multipart mechanism and the HTML 3.0 META tag).

IE, however, does not support this basic and useful server-push function. While IE does have some support for refreshing videos, the user must reload his/her page every time the he/she wants to see an update. The above example will not work in IE.