Slashdot Mirror


Firefox Share Slipped in July for the First Time

prostoalex writes "Between June and July of this year, Firefox lost 0.64% of the users, while Microsoft IE gained the same amount, leaving other browsers at their usual zero point something share. Could recent security problems and lack of stability, reported by some users, lead to the decline of the browser that just passed 80 million downloads?" I think the other thing to remember is that while ~8% seems a lot, there's a still a huge amount of ground to cover -- and a number change like this is statistical noise. I should point out that my issue with noise isn't the absolute numbers; it's the somewhat inadequate measurements tools for this.

557 comments

  1. Marketshare Stabilized by Thanatopsis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It looks to me as though Firefox's natural marketshare has stabilized. It's just not a large as we hoped.

    1. Re:Marketshare Stabilized by ugmoe · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Why should I care what browser other people are using?

    2. Re:Marketshare Stabilized by yfkar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You shouldn't.
      Unless you're a web designer. In that case you'd want them to use anything but IE.

    3. Re:Marketshare Stabilized by AvitarX · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because you like designers to use not activex applications.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    4. Re:Marketshare Stabilized by druske · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You might care because if most people are using a different browser, web developers may target it specifically and leave you with a less satisfying experience. Standards are great, but in the real world developers often choose to follow the masses rather than standards.

      In short, the browser other people choose does affect you.

    5. Re:Marketshare Stabilized by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Since when does "stabilize" mean "shrink"? And who modded this insightful instead of funny?

      Anyway, since I'm using Mozilla Suite and Firefox exclusively, I can fully understand anyone who abandons it - stability has been awful for me in the last half year or so, with 2-3 crashes each day. As an extra annoyance, keyboard focus handling is pretty much broken by design and sometimes parts of pages get drawn at random 1 pixel left/right/up/down positions of where they should really be, turning a whole page into a stricken out, partially expanded/contracted mess, and that's on multiple platforms (linux, irix, windows). Hopefully, those things will be fixed in 1.5 (and Seamonkey), so that the marketshare can rise again (and my frustration decline).

    6. Re:Marketshare Stabilized by Bullfish · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is a bit like wailing over a one game losing streak. If the trend continues for six to eight months,then maybe there might be a cause for concern. In the meantime, it's interesting, but not a trend.

    7. Re:Marketshare Stabilized by thegamerformelyknown · · Score: 0

      Also to help get rid of that bloody monopoly M$ has over the rest of the world.....

    8. Re:Marketshare Stabilized by Pxtl · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes, I've been running into stability issues myself as I get more used to it. Under win32, highlighting text is outright dangerous, acrobat files are still risky, and occaisionally it seems to page itself out of existence - that is, I switch to another program, then go back to firefox, and wait several minutes before I see a page again... I think it doesn't handle having too many tabs well.

    9. Re:Marketshare Stabilized by Firehawke · · Score: 1

      Highlighting text? I've seen Acrobat stability issues and a good chunk of that is Acrobat itself, but I've never seen anything to make highlighting text seem "dangerous".

      What exactly are you experiencing? I rarely get Firefox crashes, so this is a little surprising to me.

    10. Re:Marketshare Stabilized by SquadBoy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Copy and pasted from a thing I wrote several months ago, can't be arsed to edit for /. but you'll get the idea.

      Browsers matter for a number of reasons. I'll start off with feature sets, then security, and end with why what browser you use or don't use matters to the future of the net.

      Microsoft has basically decided that they won the browser wars years ago and have since then pretty much paid no attention at all to adding real features to IE. Here is a short list of some of the things you are missing if you still running a legacy browser.

      Popup blocking. Everybody hates popups but they are everywhere and are going to be with us for as far as we can see into the future. Now you could run IE and a popup blocker, that is just one more app taking up resources on your machine. Both Firefox and Mozilla provide popup blockers as part of the browser. This can make your surfing faster and provide for a better overall experience.

      Tabbed browsing. Almost every modern browser offers some version of tabbed browsing. This is a feature that lets you view more than one site in a tab within the browser. Besides the obvious advantage of conserving screen space it also uses fewer system resources.

      Cookie management. Proper management of cookies is critical critical to maintiang your privacy and security online. With IE it is *very* hard to do. But just about any modern browser gives you the ability to see who has placed a cookie on your machine, who has accessed the cookie and to manage who can access it and to easily delete them.

      There are so many security holes and ways for crackers to use IE to exploit your system and steal your data that I'm not going to take the time or place to list them here. In addition the the sheer numbers they change so often that any attempt to list them here would be outdated almost before I can publish it. So I'll just point you at the list maintained by Browsehappy . It contains links to the latest holes and also to a number of very good articles on on why IE is not safe.

      The argument I often here at this point is "I don't have anything worth stealing on my compter, why should I care.". The answer is that the analogy to an unsecured computer is not you leaving your front door open and someone stealing your TV. The more correct analogy is you leaving your front door open and a machinegun just inside of the door which is then stolen and used to commit crimes against others. An unsecured computer on the net is a weapon. This is why you should care. I will go further into this in a later post.

      It matters what browser you choose to care. Have you ever stopped to ask yourself why Microsoft has spent so much time and money on a product that they give away? Certainly not because they are good hearted people. Due to the fact that a huge number of people on the net use IE many websites and applications that use a browser are written to only work with IE. This helps to tighten the grip that Microsoft has both on the desktop and on the server. This leads to a lack of choice, a drop in quality, and increased insecurity for everyone. By simply using a different browser you can help fight this and help bring increased choice and quality to the net.

      --

      Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
    11. Re:Marketshare Stabilized by skahshah · · Score: 1
    12. Re:Marketshare Stabilized by Pxtl · · Score: 2, Informative

      2 problems.

      1: superlong page, I highlight some text, accidentally scroll down to bottom of page. System slows to a crawl while it highlights all that.

      2: sometimes, inexplicably, highlighted text doesn't unhighlight. It just gets suck that way. If I highlight it again, then part of the stuck highlighting goes away.

    13. Re:Marketshare Stabilized by Winkhorst · · Score: 1

      It may not even be real. The sample may simply be skewed for some reason. One data point is never indicative of anything.

      --
      "Is this Winkhorst a nova criminal?" "No just a technical sergeant wanted for interrogation."
    14. Re:Marketshare Stabilized by Shulai · · Score: 1

      You can think about it as statistically stabilized.
      Market share is often modeled as a Markov chain, where some people stick with a brand with probability p1 and some people switch to competitor brand with probability p2. So month after month numbers can vary, but averages in the long run don't.

    15. Re:Marketshare Stabilized by baadger · · Score: 1

      Unless you're a web designer who happen to have designed pages for IE (not too unreasonable just a year or so ago) and can't be arsed to remodel for the standards.

    16. Re:Marketshare Stabilized by baadger · · Score: 1

      Yeah i've noticed #2 aswell.

    17. Re:Marketshare Stabilized by whoever57 · · Score: 1
      stability has been awful for me in the last half year or so
      I've seen problems with Sun's JVM on Windows 98 (and not NT/2k/XP). But it really is a problem with Sun's code. Configure IE on the same platform to use Sun's JVM instead of MS' and IE becomes unstable.
      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    18. Re:Marketshare Stabilized by Lagged2Death · · Score: 2, Informative

      ...since I'm using Mozilla Suite and Firefox exclusively, I can fully understand anyone who abandons it - stability has been awful for me in the last half year or so...

      Hmm. I've had the opposite experience. I've been using Mozilla since v1.2 or thereabouts, on both Win2K and XP, and it very rarely crashes - perhaps once a month. Less often than IE did when I was using IE. When it does crash, it's almost always related to a media plugin like WMP losing its mind. I haven't noticed the rendering problems you mention, either.

      Not that I disbelieve you. I'm just pointing out that one person's experience may not correlate well with the average experience.

    19. Re:Marketshare Stabilized by jthayden · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      In the meantime, it's interesting, but not a trend.

      Wow, we have different definitions of interesting.

    20. Re:Marketshare Stabilized by jpickett · · Score: 3, Informative

      I haven't had the issues he has, but here are some of the ones I DO have:

      - Copy/paste is flaky and very frustrating. Especially when trying to paste into other applications (seems to be better pasting to itself). Particularly when trying to copy/paste URLs in the address bar. It seems I have to click the address, then click again to get a blinking cursor. Then highlight the entire string, THEN I can successfully copy it.

      - Sometimes it just kinda disappears. Meaning the taskbar icon. I've had it just disappear. The first time it happened I thought I must've inadvertantly closed the program. When Alt-Tabbing a little later I noticed I had three FF icons when I only thought I had two open (as indicated in the taskbar). I switched to the mystery one and lo and behold it was the window that disappeared. And the taskbar icon even came back. This has happened several times.

      - I don't like how it behaves sometimes when launching from other applications. When launching a URL (I tell FF to not reuse windows) from another app, it ALWAYS restores or brings to the front one of the existing FF windows and then loads a new one. This is just annoying and sloppy, especially for someone that relies heavily on Alt-Tab to move between applications very quickly (it really screws up your mental view of what order your windows are in).

      - More of just a UI preference, I really like the Ctrl-O that IE has for opening WHATEVER. It's stupid to have two commands to open files. It shouldn't matter if they're on your local system or online. One box to put in a URI!

      I can understand why people wouldn't want to use IE and choose FF. I do think it's amusing how some people ignore (forgive?) some of the real shortcomings just because it's "not IE". I guess I can't talk too much. I tried loading IE7 beta on my machine and now IE won't load (the full UI anyway, any app that uses the IE controls works fine) so I'm stuck using FF. It's growing on me, but still has a long way to go before I'd consider using it as my main browser.

    21. Re:Marketshare Stabilized by nixkuroi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sure, unless you're trying to make XSLT work in javascript or get Ajax to work easily without having to write your own cross browser implementation. Then you want to use IE because their implementation of XSLT works a lot better. I like firefox, but it's not making my job any easier when I want to do hard core cross browser XSLT/Ajax. As a designer/developer, you pretty much have to create your own toolset to make things work the same way with both.

      Firefox is a nice alternative unless you have to develop rich thin client apps for it...and then its ideosyncracies become a little grating. (Anyone else LOVE the #text nodes?)

    22. Re:Marketshare Stabilized by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 1

      Because you like designers to use not activex applications.

      Wait... do we LIKE XMLHttpRequest today, or do we HATE it? I can't keep track anymore.

    23. Re:Marketshare Stabilized by Bullfish · · Score: 1

      Okay, so maybe not that interesting. In any event, I don't think anyone show be bothered at all by any of this, even the fanboi types

    24. Re:Marketshare Stabilized by AviLazar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, a web designer wants to design his website to hit the majority of his audience. A web designer may not care what Internet program people use,(even if he prefers one over the other), he just wants to know how he can affect the majority of his audiance.

      While *I* prefer FireFox, I realize the majority of my audience is IE. Now I make my websites IE and FireFox compatible, but if I had to choose it would be IE. If FireFox wants to become my dominate choice - then it better be the dominate OS. This is business, and my concern is to maximize the hits on my website - and I really don't want to get 50 e-mails a day saying "your website doesn't work in my Internet Explorer".

      You may disagree, maybe you are biased against MS. That is not my concern, as a businessman, my concern is to keep my doors open.

      There are websites I access that are IE only (because they use things such as Active-X). I always e-mail these guys and complain that they are not FireFox compatible, and that Active-X is not really a tool of choice - especially since the cons outweigh the pros.

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    25. Re:Marketshare Stabilized by General+Wesc · · Score: 1

      Because zombies sned you spam, flood your servers, and eat your brains.

      People may use any web browser they'd like, for all I care, on one condition: they mustn't connect to the Internet. If you're online, you have a responsibility not to attack other computers.

    26. Re:Marketshare Stabilized by chronicon · · Score: 1
      If FireFox wants to become my dominate choice - then it better be the dominate OS.

      I'm not being facetious, I'm really curious--what did you intend this to mean? FireFox is a browser that runs on various operating systems. It is not an OS (of course). Should we infer that you meant "...then it better [become] the dominate [browser]..." or is there something else that I am missing here?

    27. Re:Marketshare Stabilized by robertjw · · Score: 1

      You may disagree, maybe you are biased against MS. That is not my concern, as a businessman, my concern is to keep my doors open.

      As a businessman, my concern is to reach as many people as possible. IE has 87.2% of the market share according to the article. That means 12.8% of potential patrons are NOT using IE. I'm not willing to have a website that's not functional in multiple browsers and immediately alienate 12.8% of viewers.

    28. Re:Marketshare Stabilized by clontzman · · Score: 1

      That depends... is it a Google app?

    29. Re:Marketshare Stabilized by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because I don't need more machines that got zombied due to some vulnerability in IE attempting to spread their virus onto me.

    30. Re:Marketshare Stabilized by legirons · · Score: 1

      "Why should I care what browser other people are using?"

      So you can laugh when they run screaming around the office "Help, help, our computers are being eaten by a virus!"

    31. Re:Marketshare Stabilized by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      As a businessman, my concern is to reach as many people as possible. IE has 87.2% of the market share according to the article. That means 12.8% of potential patrons are NOT using IE. I'm not willing to have a website that's not functional in multiple browsers and immediately alienate 12.8% of viewers.

      Yea 87.2% according to this article, some stats say other things. 87% is a LOT, and if making my website in IE would serve that 87% more then it would serve that 12%, then guess who loses out?

      You may not be willing to do it, but your boss who has market research probably doesn't care. The only thing he will want ask you is "Can you offer everything IE does, that our 87% customers WANT, in other browsers?" The moment you cannot include features such as ActiveX (which 87% might want) then your ideas are hosed.

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    32. Re:Marketshare Stabilized by infinityxi · · Score: 0

      For the sake of improvement, have any of you bothered to file bug reports with firefox. I'm not saying you haven't but it would definitely help if the developers were on the same page with firefox's shortcomings. You're posting on /. and giving technical details of what the problem seems to be so I don't expect to hear any of the usual "well joe user wouldn't be bothered." because you guys don't seem like the average joe user.

      --
      Turn based strategy game that runs over XMPP. Phalanx
    33. Re:Marketshare Stabilized by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      I'm not being facetious, I'm really curious--what did you intend this to mean? FireFox is a browser that runs on various operating systems. It is not an OS (of course). Should we infer that you meant "...then it better [become] the dominate [browser]..." or is there something else that I am missing here?

      Sorry for not being clear. I meant it better be the browser that most of my market will utilize. I had a slip of the tongue :)

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    34. Re:Marketshare Stabilized by Millennium · · Score: 1

      Wait... do we LIKE XMLHttpRequest today, or do we HATE it? I can't keep track anymore.

      "We" took it out of ActiveX so that it would be useful without the excess proprietary baggage. Now there are no legitimate reasons left to use it.

    35. Re:Marketshare Stabilized by andymullins · · Score: 1

      I abhor IE, but all the professional web designers I know prefer people to use it rather than Firefox, because the bugs remain constant across version numbers. This means they can develop permanent work-arounds.

    36. Re:Marketshare Stabilized by benna · · Score: 1

      or it may be that last months figures were too high, and this is a correction.

      --
      "It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
    37. Re:Marketshare Stabilized by Mr.+No+Skills · · Score: 1
      Yea 87.2% according to this article, some stats say other things. 87% is a LOT, and if making my website in IE would serve that 87% more then it would serve that 12%, then guess who loses out?

      I just try to keep things browser independent, then I get 100% with no extra work. Targeting IE is a way of saying you don't want non-IE browsers on your site. Depending on the purpose of the site, it might be at least rude and at most wrong to block the others.

      --
      Sleep is for the Weak
    38. Re:Marketshare Stabilized by robertjw · · Score: 1

      ...and if making my website in IE would serve that 87% more then it would serve that 12%, then guess who loses out?

      IMHO there is no way making a website exclusive to IE would server anyone more than a platform independent website would. From an end user perspective any functionality that a website can provide can be served up in a cross-platform manner. End users don't care what technology a site uses if the experience is similar. ActiveX is generally regarded as insecure and using it will drop your 87% number considerably by itself. Why use inherently insecure technology when a properly designed site can be built to be cross-platform, fast and efficient.

      As far as my boss or my clients, they may not care about the additional 12% directly, but they do value my experience and knowledge. Plus, I don't develop in ActiveX, ASP, .Net or using SQL Server and will not use these technologies until or unless the market demand forces me to.

    39. Re:Marketshare Stabilized by robertjw · · Score: 1

      Targeting IE is a way of saying you don't want non-IE browsers on your site.

      Or are just too lazy to learn the proper way to create a site.

    40. Re:Marketshare Stabilized by bigman2003 · · Score: 1

      As another experienced web developer:

      I can attest that I didn't understand half of this post.

      But in plain English, I can say that there is a still a ton of junk that Internet Explorer does, that is really hard to do in a multi-browser environment.

      And if I can support 85% of the users out there with my effort, it is difficult for me to double my effort to only get 8% more of the users.

      --
      No reason to lie.
    41. Re:Marketshare Stabilized by yoyhed · · Score: 1

      And if your website is designed in such a way that it's that difficult to get working in a standards-compliant browser, it's probably not worth visiting anyway, so don't worry about us Firefox users.

      --
      WHO NEEDS SHIFT WHEN YOU HAVE CAPSLOCK/ DAMN1
    42. Re:Marketshare Stabilized by bigman2003 · · Score: 1

      From your response, it seems like you view websites as some static, one-way, communications tool. But many of us do things that require a lot more from a browser than displaying boxes correctly.

      A lot of websites are set up to DO things. For instance, look at a site like smugmug.com

      Smugmug is VERY concerned about being multi-platform. In fact, they have written parts of their site to work BEST on OS X. One of the big things on the site is uploading pictures.

      Works great on a Mac
      Works great on IE on Windows

      Whoops...can't use Active X in Firefox. So basically, you are screwed.

      Same thing on a lot of other photo-upload sites I've been to.

      So if you really enjoy uploading files one by one, by all means- fight the good fight and refuse to use 'non standards compliant browsers.'

      But, if you are actually concerned about getting work done...and offering your visitors the means to get their work done efficiently...well, then you just gotta use what works.

      So no, I won't worry about Firefox ONLY users...because they are too busy uploading their 250th file...while everyone else is doing something else.

      --
      No reason to lie.
    43. Re:Marketshare Stabilized by 51mon · · Score: 1

      "No, a web designer wants to design his website to hit the majority of his audience."

      I'm sure he does. I assumed the original poster was referring to the fact that IE rendering is very buggy, so it is very hard to tell if your web page will render correctly in IE without testing every little change, where as almost any other browser will do what it says in the standards.

      Indeed almost every page I write, I write to the standards, and then spend ages wondering why it messes up in IE. Realistically this is the only way to get 100% coverage. Standard + minimal IE workarounds (assuming you can find a standard compliant IE workaround).

    44. Re:Marketshare Stabilized by It'sYerMam · · Score: 1

      With Firefox, you can at least hope that it will be fixed in a short amount of time, and just code to the standard. FF users are likely to update more often than IE users, too, and are more likely to be willing to, unless their technically orientated friend/relative installed it for them.

      --
      im in ur .sig, writin ur memes.
    45. Re:Marketshare Stabilized by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      M$

      lol

    46. Re:Marketshare Stabilized by zsau · · Score: 1

      The GP said a webdesigner would prefer their users to use anything but IE, not that a webdesigner would want to write their websites for anyone but IE users.

      Probably he realises that the majority of any audience is IE users, but that doesn't make writing webpages which use advanced CSS, XHTML and other features easier in IE. You still have to write non-standard code, or not do things you otherwise could've.

      It's like Netscape 4, back in the day. Many people used it, but damn we were all happy when they stopped.

      --
      Look out!
    47. Re:Marketshare Stabilized by jp10558 · · Score: 1

      You know, that's rather crap. I use a file storage site called streamload which Implements batch uploads in a way that works in IE, FF, Opera and other browsers. You know how? They used Java.

      See, if you look at supporting most or all browsers from the start rather than one, you can create something that will work in all of them (like a java applet) rather than having to double your work.

      --
      Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3
    48. Re:Marketshare Stabilized by jp10558 · · Score: 1

      Except going forward, ActiveX isn't a given in IE either. As I understand it, XPSP2 turns it off. So unless you want to have to deal with telling your users how to turn it back on (not exactly simple IIRC) that's gone.

      So, the question I also have is, where does it make sense to have things work in most/all browsers? When IE is at 80%? 70%? 50%? Never?

      I am actually suprised that many business are ready to flat out drop 12.8% of their market. I could understand it when it was 2%, but 12.8%?

      --
      Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3
    49. Re:Marketshare Stabilized by Trejkaz · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure I care if they use IE. It's not me who suffers if they don't see the page rendered correctly.

      --
      Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
    50. Re:Marketshare Stabilized by jp10558 · · Score: 1

      Also, have you tried any of the other alternatives like the Mozilla Suite, Opera, or that other gecko wrapper?

      --
      Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3
    51. Re:Marketshare Stabilized by bigman2003 · · Score: 1

      And your thin client just got a whole lot fatter...

      The number of people who won't run Java is greater than the number of people who won't run Internet Explorer...

      --
      No reason to lie.
    52. Re:Marketshare Stabilized by jp10558 · · Score: 1

      Hmmm, well - I certainly wasn't aware of that. I've never met anyone who doesn't have Java installed on their PC, and most people have some sort of J2ME on their internet ready phones.

      --
      Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3
    53. Re:Marketshare Stabilized by dcam · · Score: 1

      No. I want them to use anything other than Safari/KHTML. The javascript support is worse in Safari/KHTML than any other browser modernish except IE5 on Mac.

      --
      meh
    54. Re:Marketshare Stabilized by dcam · · Score: 1

      I get a lot of crashes (10-20/day) using firefox. I suspect that the issue is the extensions I have installed. I haven't tested different configurations enough to find out whether this is the case though.

      --
      meh
    55. Re:Marketshare Stabilized by yoyhed · · Score: 1
      Ever sold on eBay? You can upload up to 12 pictures of your item, all at once.

      Works in Firefox, and I don't have Java installed, I'm guessing it's Javascript.

      The only time I've seen ActiveX used where it was really needed was for Trend Micro's Housecall free online scan. I'd use IE for something like that.

      Well, I would if I was stupid enough to run that 24kb Halo-2-FULL.exe from Kazaa. Or stupid enough to install Kazaa at all, I suppose.

      --
      WHO NEEDS SHIFT WHEN YOU HAVE CAPSLOCK/ DAMN1
    56. Re:Marketshare Stabilized by shellbeach · · Score: 1

      It may not even be real. The sample may simply be skewed for some reason.

      Well, it probably is skewed: there'll be a lot less academic usage this time of year, and if academics are adopting firefox faster than normal users (which you'd probably expect) then you'll see a dip over the Northern Hemisphere summer break.

    57. Re:Marketshare Stabilized by njchick · · Score: 1
      You might care because if most people are using a different browser, web developers may target it specifically and leave you with a less satisfying experience.
      It works the other way too. Sometimes you would get a better experience if your browser is not specifically targeted. It all comes to the intentions of the web developers, who may be looking for better ways to annoy their users rather than to placate them. That's why I have konqueror installed, although I cannot stand it for regular browsing.
    58. Re:Marketshare Stabilized by LordoftheWoods · · Score: 1

      Firefox seems more idiosyncratic if you are used to IE's idiocies. Seriously--most knowledgeable people agree that Firefox is more 'correct' than IE. So if IE seems more correct, doesn't that make your way of thinking incorrect? I suppose the issues with CSS and HTML in general may be irrelevant to your problem domain. Could you provide some examples of how IE's XSLT processor works better than Firefox's? I am always curious about real-world experience relevant the IE v. Firefox war.

    59. Re:Marketshare Stabilized by bigman2003 · · Score: 1

      Unless your eBay is different than mine...

      12 'browse' buttons is not even CLOSE to dragging and dropping and entire folder of files.

      Not even close.

      --
      No reason to lie.
    60. Re:Marketshare Stabilized by Kjella · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, a web designer wants to design his website to hit the majority of his audience. A web designer may not care what Internet program people use,(even if he prefers one over the other), he just wants to know how he can affect the majority of his audiance.

      Actually, a web designer wants to keep his sanity. As someone who just finished a portal website for 2000 users, let me tell you this: The absolutely worst thing about IE is doing a code change, and never having any idea if it'll work or not without clicking reload.

      Opera, Firefox and the W3C validator all seem to agree on what is valid code and not. You can read tutorials, standards and things will actually work as expected. With IE, it will randomly trash the layout.

      Example: I'm doing a CSS layout, and I have a background image. Now someone wants the top part to be clickable.

      Opera, Firefox, W3C: Place image over background with a link tag, done.

      IE: Try the same. Layout FUBAR. Find out it doesn't like the right edge, and will throw the entire div below the other content, even though the image is inside the div's area. Cut image so it'll have 12 pixels margin to the edge. Reload. Not enough. Try it again, cut with 60 pixels margin. Reload. The div is now right, image wrong. Count pixels: IE will move the image 5 pixels to the right for no particular reason. Cut image (again), add IE-specific code since the image is no longer the same as the original, place a crippled image in the center of the background. Works. Now by trial and error find that an image size 20 pixels less than the original works (but since it's moved 5 pixels to the right, you have effectively 5 pixels margin on the left, and 15 on the right). Done (and sorta works unless someone wants to click on the edges).

      That is why I design to standards, and provide workarounds for IE, not the other way around. I simply have no clue what the fsck IE is doing half the time, and the other half I wish I didn't.

      Kjella

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    61. Re:Marketshare Stabilized by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      ActiveX will not work on a mac, activex objects are basically native windows/x86 binaries..
      There is a program called gallery (gallery.sourceforge.net) which has a java applet for file uploads, which is cross platform (works well on my mac and my linux machines)..
      And finally, file upload forms can take multiple files anyway, you just select multiple files in the file open dialog, or type in a list of names seperated by spaces..

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    62. Re:Marketshare Stabilized by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      A thin client shouldn't be running the browser anyway, the browser should be exported from the server to which the thin client connects.. Thin clients are just dumb I/O devices..
      As for java causing bloat, a lot of mobile phones run java, it's not impossible to use java in a cut down environment.
      Aside from that, the number of people who CANT run java is much smaller than the number of people who CANT run internet explorer.. People may not want to run java, but they could almost always do so for free, it may cost people a lot of money (buying hardware, buying windows) to run internet explorer..

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    63. Re:Marketshare Stabilized by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      Or the person you are developing the site wants IE. Maybe he wants to use Active X or some other IE only functionality. Maybe he is using programs in his company (I believe Soloman is one) that requires IE. Or maybe he is using MS web Outlook which doesn't correctly in FireFox.
      There are plenty of reasons, and to just say flat out "I *only* make browser-independent websites" shows that 1)You are a boastful liar, 2)an idiot who will not succeed in a service business, or 3)not really a web developer and the only thing you create is your family website - which in all honesty, probably 80% of your family doesnt't care about let alone the 99.99999999% of the world that doesn't care about it.

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    64. Re:Marketshare Stabilized by Winkhorst · · Score: 1

      Also keep in mind that Asian connectivity is in the toilet right now as a result of a couple of ships sinking in the monsoon off of Bombay that took out TWO undersea cables. Who knows what that is doing to all kinds of statistics.

      --
      "Is this Winkhorst a nova criminal?" "No just a technical sergeant wanted for interrogation."
    65. Re:Marketshare Stabilized by robertjw · · Score: 1

      to just say flat out "I *only* make browser-independent websites" shows that
      1)You are a boastful liar,


      Umm.. no. Wasn't even really boasting, just a fact. I work in a Linux environment and have to build browser-independent sites or they won't work in IE when I'm done.

      2)an idiot who will not succeed in a service business

      Possibly. Currently one of my jobs where I work is to maintain our websites. I also do some independent contracting and I'm running about 10 small sites outside work. I don't have the skills to create anything using ActiveX or any other IE specific websites. I've been running under Linux for about 5 years now and I'm not willing to make the investment to learn how to operate in Microsoft's proprietary world. So far I have not run across a situation where it's been worth my while to learn these skills or develop a site using IE specific technology. Every customer I have could care less about the technology behind the site as long as it works. This may change, I may be an idiot and I may fail, so you may be correct. 3)not really a web developer and the only thing you create is your family website - which in all honesty, probably 80% of your family doesnt't care about let alone the 99.99999999% of the world that doesn't care about it.

      See above.

    66. Re:Marketshare Stabilized by chronicon · · Score: 1

      Ever since the browser wars began back in the day, it has always been my hope that the locked up extensions would just 'go away' in favor of the standards issued by W3C. I really don't get it either. Isn't MS an active participant in W3C. Really it is in everyone's best interest to comply. A browser is only a means to an end and as hardly anyone sells them as a product the key is content and content presentation. It would benefit all if content presented itself properly no matter what browser it was being viewed through. It's not an unrealistic goal at all, IMO. One can always hope, eh?

    67. Re: Marketshare Stabilized by gidds · · Score: 1
      Now I make my websites IE and FireFox compatible, but if I had to choose it would be IE

      But that's not the choice! The choice isn't between browser A and browser B; if that were so, then you've be right to go with marketshare.

      The choice is between browser A and standards -- between browser A and practically every other flippin' browser out there!

      Between forcing people to use one browser, one computer, and one OS, or letting them choose from the wide range of each.

      That's the choice before you. And that's why making it on marketshare alone seems rather shortsighted to some of us.

      --

      Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.

    68. Re:Marketshare Stabilized by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      I believe MS is part of W3C, but then the US is part of the UN and we don't always do what the UN wants do we?

      While browsers are not really sold anymore, with regards to MS there is a couple things to note: MS has programs that will ONLY work on IE (or at least work correctly). As such for them to make it open standards, or to switch these programs to open standards is a disadvantage.
      They don't want you to be able to run Soloman on FireFox. Why? Not because they charge you for IE, but because they want you to utilize as many MS programs as possible and become as dependent on MS stuff as possible. Not to mention, in theory, the programs should work better together because they are from the same company.

      This is not an uncommon tactic, and it's used in other industries. In banking you are taught that the best customers, those who are least likely to leave you, are those that have at least three products with you. So a checking account, savings account and mortgage. The more they have with you, the more likely they will not leave you. Convenience is the key. When I log into my banking account I see all of my accounts. If I had multiple banks, I would have to log into multiple accounts. If I want to make an extra payment into my Home Equity Loan, I just log into my banking account, and transfer the cash from checking to H.E. Loan. It is much simpler then writing a check (which I loathe to do) and it is extremely fast (almost instant).

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    69. Re:Marketshare Stabilized by mini+me · · Score: 1

      Don't forget about the new Longhorn betas that came out. With everyone (who were likely Firefox users) trying out IE7, the stats will be skewed for a while until the Longhorn dust settles.

    70. Re:Marketshare Stabilized by rtb61 · · Score: 1
      The silly thoughts of the day; all users are equal in terms of who you want to see your message on the web - 100 minus 85 equals 8 - it takes twice the effort to use standards - companies get to choose the software that their customers will use - web developers tell companies which browsers will be allowed to visit their sites (of course only idiot unemployed web developers).

      The number of web sites that I visit and make use of that are incompatable with the browser of my choice is 1 (IE for windows patches because I just could not be bothered to make the additional effort for a once a month excercise).

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    71. Re:Marketshare Stabilized by jpickett · · Score: 1

      To be honest, I primarily use IE. It just really broke BAD after I tried IE7 beta ;-) I've used Opera before though and I'd have to say it's probably my second choice in browser. I had just already put FF on my system and so have been using it.

    72. Re:Marketshare Stabilized by jpickett · · Score: 1

      I haven't. I've only been using Firefox (at work) for about 3 weeks and noticed all but one of those issues within at most an hour. I guess I assumed this would be pretty basic stuff they should already know about. Beyond that, I don't have much preference on the success or failure of Firefox as a project so it hasn't felt very pressing to file a report.

    73. Re:Marketshare Stabilized by infinityxi · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I understand that. I'm not explictly defending the developers but sometimes the best feedback on problems are from people who use the product rather than develop it. It can be related to writing something and going over it and not noticing the simple things. Still, I think bringing it to their attention can't hurt.

      --
      Turn based strategy game that runs over XMPP. Phalanx
  2. The reason for the downturn. by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 4, Insightful


    Could recent security problems and lack of stability, reported by some users, lead to the decline of the browser that just passed 80 million downloads?"

    Actually, the decline is probably because everyone who wants it has it by now. ^_^

    --
    ____

    ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    1. Re:The reason for the downturn. by Evro · · Score: 5, Interesting

      That would account for a decline in the rate of downloads, but not a decline in use. Maybe millions of web developers testing IE7 is lowering Firefox's share, or maybe people tried Firefox, didn't like it, and went back to whatever they'd been using.

      --
      rooooar
    2. Re:The reason for the downturn. by mrchaotica · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The question then is, why aren't more and more people wanting it?

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    3. Re:The reason for the downturn. by superpulpsicle · · Score: 5, Insightful

      These statistics came from the summer time technically. Wait till september when people go back to school etc.

    4. Re:The reason for the downturn. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Retard:

      The decline is in INSTALLED BASE, not DOWNLOADS.

      I understand getting your posts at the top gives you a woodie, even though they seldom have any real substance. But you are so fixated on doing so that you end up babbling and vomiting forth the first obvious thing you can.

      Just calm down a bit, and take your ritalin. All the regulars know you by now, and you don't have to keep going 'LOOK AT ME! LOOK AT ME!'

    5. Re:The reason for the downturn. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because a lot of people are scared to try something new. Because it doesn'tcome with the system. There are a lot of reasons

    6. Re:The reason for the downturn. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would it be anything to do with the fact that FF now has an updater that updates firefox without having to download the installer? Or is that factored into the count?

    7. Re:The reason for the downturn. by caluml · · Score: 1
      maybe people tried Firefox, didn't like it, and went back to whatever they'd been using.

      From faiza.co.uk/ : "What is up with Mozilla Firefox these days? Nearly every day it crashes on me. It does not seem to be able to cope showing a webpage which has erroneous scripts running on it. I have resorted to using Internet Explorer. At least that is reliable and is capable of allowing me to visit a website."

    8. Re:The reason for the downturn. by DaHat · · Score: 1

      Do you really think that there were that many students going back to school who will be using Firefox who were just offline all summer?

    9. Re:The reason for the downturn. by arth1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The first time your average users hit a site that doesn't work with Browser X (be it Mozilla, Firefox, Safari, Amaya or whatever), they will try the first other browser available, which is likely to be IE. And then they'll never look back until they encounter pages that won't work in IE.

      It's unfortunate, and arguably isn't the best thing the users can do, but as long as there's enough sites out there that require IE, users will switch to IE, even from "better" browsers.

      Regards,
      --
      *Art

    10. Re:The reason for the downturn. by alnjmshntr · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I like firefox, but I don't like the browser, I like the plugins.

      --
      If I had created the world I wouldn't have messed about with butterflies and daffodils. I would have started with lasers
    11. Re:The reason for the downturn. by LDoggg_ · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're probably right and it is unfortunate.

      This may have been proposed before, but what if there was a standard way to deal with non standards compliant websites?
      What if there was a simple feedback form as part of firefox? These would send error reports to a database at mozilla or somewhere. The reports can be gone over and a standard polite email can be sent to the webmaster informing them of the problems with their websites.

      There would be quite a bit work involved I imagine. Who collects webmaster email info? What would be a non-intrusive UI to handle this? Who would go over the database and remove troll submissions? What kind of system is used to validate submissions?

      The thing is, there are tons of people that would like to help out an open source project like firefox but do not have much in the way of programming skill. Something like this maybe be a place where their volunteer ours could come in handy.

      --

      "If they have both, tell them we use Linux. And if they have that, tell them the computers are down." -Dave Chapelle
    12. Re:The reason for the downturn. by LDoggg_ · · Score: 1

      oops, hit the preview button next time:

      Something like this may be be a place where their volunteer hours could come in handy.

      --

      "If they have both, tell them we use Linux. And if they have that, tell them the computers are down." -Dave Chapelle
    13. Re:The reason for the downturn. by iomanip · · Score: 1

      Actually, take a student who doesn't use firefox but is transfering or begining as a freshman at UC Berkeley. The first thing they do in the dorms before you get your internet connection is have you install a CD that turns on automatic updates, installs a firewall and antivirus software, and installs firefox. *POOF* New firefox users at school time.

      It would seem logical that similar systems are setup at other institutions.

    14. Re:The reason for the downturn. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I do exactly the opposite: if a web site requires me to use IE, my answer is scew you and I look somewhere else.
      I give an example: some time ago I was looking for an anti-virus for a new PC. The McAfee site required IE, so I went to Norton an got their product. McAfee has lost a customer because of their IE requirement (actually, there's another reason: how can you trust an anti-virus company that tries to force you to use IE?).

      By the way, I just checked the McAfee site and it now works with firefox. What can I say... too late for me.

    15. Re:The reason for the downturn. by lynx_user_abroad · · Score: 1
      What if there was a simple feedback form as part of firefox? These would send error reports to a database at mozilla or somewhere. The reports can be gone over and a standard polite email can be sent to the webmaster informing them of the problems with their websites.

      I don't think that would scale very well. I suspect the number of broken web page views that occur on the internet per day, even by Firefox users alone, would put the amount of spam received by an unfiltered account to shame.

      Perhaps a better solution would be to encourage a web standard wherby the return code from a web browser rendering a web page could be sent back to the web server as part of an OPTIONS method call including the information about the URL being rendered.

      Still full of holes (need to include state information, and possibly not only the browser info but information about plug-in versions as well) but at least it sends the necessary information to someone in a position to effect a change, rather than to some Mozilla foundation volunteer who really couldn't care less.

      --

      The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.

    16. Re:The reason for the downturn. by martyn+s · · Score: 1

      Yes I agree. There is nothing particularly special about the Firefox browser. On my computer it seems to have a hard time with a lot of media files like quicktime or whatnot. What makes Firefox so awesome is the extensions:

      mouse gestures + tabs makes me a webbrowsing kung fu ninja. Even tabs alone is nothing special, imo, but with mouse gestures it becomes really really useful. I love greasemonkey+platypus (which lets you edit any webpage in anyway you want), adblock, bugmenot extension (which automatically fills in newspaper login forms with a simple right click), plus all the little things, like a "Go Up" button (looks like the back and forward buttons, but points upward and brings you up a directory. Google toolbar has a similar feature), "resizable text area" which lets you resize any text input box by dragging on the corner, and tons of other little things that make firefox infinitely more usable.

      If I try going to IE with my webbrowsing habits and the extensions I use in Firefox, it is an incredibly painful experience.

    17. Re:The reason for the downturn. by l0b0 · · Score: 1

      Just wait till v1.5. It'll probably blow off a few hats.

      With this development speed, it should be #1 by ... Longhorn A.D.?

    18. Re:The reason for the downturn. by LDoggg_ · · Score: 1

      I don't think that would scale very well. I suspect the number of broken web page views that occur on the internet per day, even by Firefox users alone, would put the amount of spam received by an unfiltered account to shame.

      This is where the human element comes in. Nothing should go through unfiltered. No resposnes should be sent out automatically.
      If you come across a broken site, you hit the feedback button and put in a short description. It could also send a small amount of data to the database including things like url(which would be filled in automatically) ,warped image text verification(to weed out bots),page title(automatic, possibly overrideable),browser version info.

      Perhaps a better solution would be to encourage a web standard wherby the return code from a web browser rendering a web page could be sent back to the web server as part of an OPTIONS method call including the information about the URL being rendered.

      That could be helpful, but it wouldn't sovle the entire problem. Someone with a broken website may be ignoring logs and need their feet held to the fire. Be it a friendly email or their website showing up as a high rated broken site on a hopefully popular statistics page.

      Still full of holes (need to include state information, and possibly not only the browser info but information about plug-in versions as well) but at least it sends the necessary information to someone in a position to effect a change, rather than to some Mozilla foundation volunteer who really couldn't care less.

      It doesn't necessarily need to be a current mozilla volunteer. It doesn't even need to be a mozilla project if it was just a popular plug-in. If it was something that provided just enough data to be useful and fix some websites that were IE only, it could be something that some people do in fact care about.

      --

      "If they have both, tell them we use Linux. And if they have that, tell them the computers are down." -Dave Chapelle
    19. Re:The reason for the downturn. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For my hobby webpage, I suggest that users use firefox if they're using IE (www.lifesabirch.org) Perhaps more people should do this.

    20. Re:The reason for the downturn. by southpolesammy · · Score: 1

      Dear Mozilla.org developers,

      I'm sorry I went on vacation in early July. I was only gone a week, but I can see now that even that's too much. I'll try to make up the lost browsing this month and promise to take fewer or shorter vacations in the future.

      Sincerely,
      southpolesammy

      --
      Rule #1 -- Politics always trumps technology.
    21. Re:The reason for the downturn. by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      as long as there's enough sites out there that require IE, users will switch to IE, even from "better" browsers.

      How many sites ARE there that require IE and/or fail miserably in Firefox, though? I keep seeing people cite this as a major factor in IE's retention of so much browser market share, and yet outside of a few shameful intranet pages at work, I don't think I've encountered an IE-only page in the wild since I made the switch to Mozilla Phoenix, over two years ago.

      Has anyone compiled a list of public web sites that truly are IE-only? I'd like to know how big a problem this really is.

    22. Re:The reason for the downturn. by AngryNick · · Score: 1
      What about all the people who work at places where their browser is chosen for them?

      Supposedly, the economy is strong and more people are finding jobs. If a company like the one I work for hires 5,000 new people over the next year, then there will be 5,000 more people forced to use IE. On the same thought, if my company were to adopt Firefox as the standard, then there would suddenly be 100,000 new Firefox users and 100,000 fewer IE users. Multiply that by the Fortune 500 and you've got a real dent in the IE numbers.

      The decision to switch browsers in a standardized environment isn't left to individual users. The people making the decision are afraid (and rightfully so) they'd lose their job if they screw up. Call it peer pressure or fear, but you'll find very few people in these environments that are willing to make a decision that goes against what everyone else is doing. No one will get fired for sticking with IE (or they'd be gone by now), but heads will roll if your name is on a FFox deployment and a nasty worm hits your company.

      The Emperor has holes in his clothes (and his browser, PnP, and OS) but no one will say anything.

    23. Re:The reason for the downturn. by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      Maybe millions of web developers

      While I don't have the numbers in front of me, I am pretty sure there aren't "Millions of web developers" not even a million and not even 100,000.

      Even then, what percentage of web developers are actively testing IE7? I doubt anywhere near 100%, and probably nothing near 25%. Most people will not care until the product is finished. Why would I want to spend hours, days, weeks studying a product and learning its features when it might very well (and reasonably) change in a week? It is still too early for web developers (in general) to care about learning IE7's new nuances.

      You may be different, and I am sure someone here will say how they and their 50,000 personal web developing friends are different, but lets talk realistically.

      But it is very possible people tried FireFox, didn't like the feel (maybe they didn't give it a chance) and went back. It took me about 2-3 weeks before I became comfortable enough to say "I really like this program." Even at first I didn't like tabbed browsing, now I do...though I could easily live without it.

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    24. Re:The reason for the downturn. by Myuu · · Score: 1

      Oddly enough I think it is a lot to do with the market share not using the internet over the summer.

      College students are much more apt to use Firefox, but there are also less likely to be on the net during the summer.

      I would predict that goes back to normal in September.

      --

      forget it.
    25. Re:The reason for the downturn. by dajak · · Score: 1

      In my experience people stop using Firefox when incompatible extension updates have made a mess of their user profile, and they get random Firefox crashes.

      They will try reinstalling the browser, which doesn't work, and then go back to IE.

      Removing their user profile folder (while salvaging bookmarks) usually solves the problem.

    26. Re:The reason for the downturn. by SimplexO · · Score: 1

      I just bought a Sion. They have this new system where, like building a computer online, you build your car piece by piece on the Internet and just pay that price. No haggling required (or allowed).

      It's a nice flash-based site geared towards my demographic. But the "build your scion" part of the site doesn't quite work for building my car. You are supposed to check features, and they are graphically added to your car. (This is very helpful, as the car isn't available at many dealerships -- it sells fast.)

      That whole part, the graphical response to adding features to my car, did not work in Firefox. It asks you to "click here" to get the required program to make the purchase interactive. But that link doesn't do anything.

      It turns out that the pop-up was blocked for the "click here" window. And even if I did get it open, it's an ActiveX control that's doing the work.

      This is a brand new car brand too. It's not an old and outdated website.

      Yahoo! Music is also notorious for not working in Firefox.

    27. Re:The reason for the downturn. by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      I'd say it would be likely that the public sites are not going to be the decision makers. Not only will 99.9% of them be fine but if they don't work people are not counting on them for anything. It's those 2-3 shamefull internal company web pages that make someone switch. Those are going to be the ones that somebody "has" to access. And if they require IE then IE it will be.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    28. Re:The reason for the downturn. by killjoe · · Score: 1

      Most of microsoft.com suffers under IE. Certainly the windows update won't work so right there you have a web site which lots of windows users go to that won't work in IE.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    29. Re:The reason for the downturn. by lynx_user_abroad · · Score: 1
      Nothing should go through unfiltered.

      Are you volunteering to do this filtering, or just pay others to filter? ;-)

      No resposnes should be sent out automatically.

      If it isn't automatic, it won't happen. Most people never even change the default security setting of their brower.

      If you come across a broken site...

      How do I know if a site is broken, or if the webmaster is just being creative? Sometimes a site can be broken without leaving obviously visible artifacts. Other times the unreadable rendering results from incorrect client-side settings.

      ..you hit the feedback button...

      I suspect you'd see a lot of false positives or incorrect usage comments such as "that color looks ugly" or "how do I get to your competitor's homepage".

      ...and put in a short description.

      I think most people would leave the description field blank, or worse, be unable to provide a useful comment. How would the average person describe buttons which didn't render, if their browser gave no hint that there were supposed to be buttons in the first place?

      Someone with a broken website may be ignoring logs and need their feet held to the fire.

      If the sitemaster is ignoring logs, you've got no chance of changing their behavior with anything short of a lawsuit. You likely couldn't even get their attention by driving their traffic to zero, because they're ignoring their logs. If they're getting any sort of click-through revenus, though, they won't be ingoring their logs.

      Be it a friendly email...

      There is no reliable way to associate an email address with a site. You could 'guess' something like "webmaster@domain" but anything that obvious is either already blackholed against spam, or would be as soon as you started sending 'friendly' complaints to that address. What about hosting companise? Who gets the report if http://sourceforge/myproject is broke?

      ...or their website showing up as a high rated broken site on a hopefully popular statistics page.

      Broken site or broken page? Would one page broken on a site make the whole site 'broken'? And who is running this highly rated site of pages you wouldn't bother visiting? More to the point, who is their lawyer, because if they say something negative like that about one of my pages, and it reduces my site traffic or revenue, I'm going to sue. After all, broken html is not a crime.

      And if Microsoft were to adopt this, would it also list sites broken to IE? If they did, most of the reports would be from IE users, considering their market share. I pity the poor Mozilla foundation employee spending all his time politely asking IIS webmins to fix their site so that IE users have a more pleasant web surfing experience...

      It doesn't necessarily need to be a current mozilla volunteer. It doesn't even need to be a mozilla project if it was just a popular plug-in. If it was something that provided just enough data to be useful and fix some websites that were IE only, it could be something that some people do in fact care about.

      Interesting thought experiment, but I think the discussion has run it's course.

      Let me know when you get the beta written, I'd love to see the result.

      --

      The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.

    30. Re:The reason for the downturn. by teknomage1 · · Score: 1

      I suspect it's do to an upsurge in new pcs, pcs having widows reinstalled fresh with SP2, or just because all the kids are back in school and their parents are slipping back into old habits.

      --
      Stop intellectual property from infringing on me
    31. Re:The reason for the downturn. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is 0.64% a statisically significant variation? Come on, political polls are usually plus or minus 3 or 4 percent.

    32. Re:The reason for the downturn. by LDoggg_ · · Score: 1

      Are you volunteering to do this filtering, or just pay others to filter? ;-)

      As I said before it would rely on many volunteers. I wouldn't mind volunteering, its not like its hard work, and it has the potential to help spread the use of firefox.

      If it isn't automatic, it won't happen. Most people never even change the default security setting of their brower.

      Why are wiki sites successfull?
      Peoeple seem willing enough to donate information if they like the cause. I for one would gladly click a button on my browser when I came accross something that didn't work in firefox.

      How do I know if a site is broken, or if the webmaster is just being creative? Sometimes a site can be broken without leaving obviously visible artifacts. Other times the unreadable rendering results from incorrect client-side settings.

      Is the website functional in IE, but not in firefox or vise versa?
      Does the website have a piece of javascript that barks at you to use a specific browser? None of this is rocket science.

      I suspect you'd see a lot of false positives or incorrect usage comments such as "that color looks ugly" or "how do I get to your competitor's homepage".

      Are you going to just ignore the fact that I already stated this project would require volunteers to do something with the data?

      I think most people would leave the description field blank, or worse, be unable to provide a useful comment. How would the average person describe buttons which didn't render, if their browser gave no hint that there were supposed to be buttons in the first place?

      I suppose you could make description a required field. I assume some comments would be of the variety: "firefox isn't showing the navigation menu on the site, but i shows up fine in IE"

      If the sitemaster is ignoring logs, you've got no chance of changing their behavior with anything short of a lawsuit. You likely couldn't even get their attention by driving their traffic to zero, because they're ignoring their logs. If they're getting any sort of click-through revenus, though, they won't be ingoring their logs.

      Possibly, but your proposal of changing the HTTP standard to allow for a browser to give a response header of whether or not it successfully rendered is at best an optimisitic outlook of changes several years from now.
      I'm proposing a system to try to help the situation as webservers and clients operate today.

      There is no reliable way to associate an email address with a site. You could 'guess' something like "webmaster@domain" but anything that obvious is either already blackholed against spam, or would be as soon as you started sending 'friendly' complaints to that address. What about hosting companise? Who gets the report if http://sourceforge/myproject is broke?

      Again, some human data mining will be necessary. WHOIS databases typically contain technical and administrative contact info. Not nearly 100% accurate, but a start on top of any links that may exist on the websites themselves.

      Broken site or broken page? Would one page broken on a site make the whole site 'broken'? And who is running this highly rated site of pages you wouldn't bother visiting? More to the point, who is their lawyer, because if they say something negative like that about one of my pages, and it reduces my site traffic or revenue, I'm going to sue. After all, broken html is not a crime.

      Gimme a break. A public database of cases of websites not working with certain browsers is hardly libel.

      And if Microsoft were to adopt this, would it also list sites broken to IE? If they did, most of the reports would be from IE users, considering their market share. I pity the poor Mozilla foundation employee spending all his time politely asking IIS webmins to fix their site so that IE users have a more pleasant web surfing experience...

      Sounds li

      --

      "If they have both, tell them we use Linux. And if they have that, tell them the computers are down." -Dave Chapelle
    33. Re:The reason for the downturn. by lynx_user_abroad · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't mind volunteering...

      Well, then, thre's the start. Post your email address here, and a URL for the "These sites are broken under IE" web site you're planning to create (if you're still planning to do that) and I'll encourage all my friends to email you every time they come across a site they think is broken.

      Why are wiki sites successfull?

      A job gets done when it's placed in the hands of someone who is clued, motivated and authorized. Wiki's authorize everyone, use a community feedback mechanism to sort out the clued, and don't depend on the actions of anyone who is not self-motivated. The plan you are proposing depands on cooperation between (self-motivated and possibly clued, but not authorized) spotters, (self motivated and possibly clued, but not authorized) screeners, and (weakly motivated, clearly unclued, but fully authorized) web maintainers. No single party posseses all three components, so the job will likely never get done.

      Peoeple seem willing enough to donate information if they like the cause.

      For some web administrators, having the information (that a page is broken) will be enough, since they are self-motivated to fix their pages. For them, they just need to know the circumstances (page, browser, state, plugin, etc.) under which a page is broken. Anything else is unnecessary, and degrages the process.

      I for one would gladly click a button on my browser when I came accross something that didn't work in firefox.

      How would you know something doesn't work in Firefox? How useful is it to find sites that "require IE" and tell the webmin "Hey dude, did you know your site requires IE"? There are sites where text or graphics clobber each other, but many of these will fail to render properly even under IE under many circumstances.

      Are you going to just ignore the fact that I already stated this project would require volunteers to do something with the data?

      No, but you haven't thought this through. You've specified at least two layers of volunteers (spotters and screeners) who must collect the data, but cannot do anything with the data. The only ones who can do anything with the data are not volunteers.

      I suppose you could make description a required field.

      So let's walk this through. I'm browsing the web. I hit a site which doesn't render properly, and in order to get done what I need to get done I need it to render properly. I click my "report it" button and say "it doesn't render properly" and off goes the report. If everything works properly, a volunteer somewhere will screen the report and send a polite letter to the web administrator for the broken page asking him to fix the problem. But guess what? Any update to the page is weeks away and I still need to get done what I need to get done. After a few cycles of "click the button, fill-in the mandatory description, fail to see results" I'm going to start hesitating to click that button, because clicking that button means I need to fill-in the mandatory description, and I'm not browsing the web in order to fill-in a mandatory description, I'm browsing the web to get done what I need to get done. Soon after, the mandatory description will start getting nonsense values like "asdfjkl;" just so I can hit "submit" rather than "cancel" (which just wastes the screener's time) and at that point the plug-in might just as well uninstall itself.

      I assume some comments would be of the variety: "firefox isn't showing the navigation menu on the site, but it shows up fine in IE"

      So, part of this Firefox plugin will launch IE in the background, so that people can compare

      --

      The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.

    34. Re:The reason for the downturn. by bobzieruncle · · Score: 1

      Those users who haven't got hit by CoolWebSearch or Lop, you mean. Or who haven't gotten addicted to tabs, yet.

      I use IEView whenever I hit a page that absolutely requires IE, like my company's web site. I'm not going back to IE permanently. No way.

    35. Re:The reason for the downturn. by LDoggg_ · · Score: 1

      Well, then, thre's the start. Post your email address here, and a URL for the "These sites are broken under IE" web site you're planning to create (if you're still planning to do that) and I'll encourage all my friends to email you every time they come across a site they think is broken.

      Ok, now your just being silly. There is no system in place. Merely a discussion so far. Go ahead and shoot me emails beforehand I'll get right on them.

      A job gets done when it's placed in the hands of someone who is clued, motivated and authorized. Wiki's authorize everyone, use a community feedback mechanism to sort out the clued, and don't depend on the actions of anyone who is not self-motivated. The plan you are proposing depands on cooperation between (self-motivated and possibly clued, but not authorized) spotters, (self motivated and possibly clued, but not authorized) screeners, and (weakly motivated, clearly unclued, but fully authorized) web maintainers. No single party posseses all three components, so the job will likely never get done.

      Authorization at any access level doesn't inherently limit a user to any particular group. ie. an admin could submit a report.

      No, but you haven't thought this through. You've specified at least two layers of volunteers (spotters and screeners) who must collect the data, but cannot do anything with the data. The only ones who can do anything with the data are not volunteers.

      I acutally specified at least 3 layers, don't forget collecting of email info :) There will also be the task of changing reports to fixed should a site be made to work correctly.

      So let's walk this through. I'm browsing the web. I hit a site which doesn't render properly, and in order to get done what I need to get done I need it to render properly. I click my "report it" button and say "it doesn't render properly" and off goes the report. If everything works properly, a volunteer somewhere will screen the report and send a polite letter to the web administrator for the broken page asking him to fix the problem. But guess what? Any update to the page is weeks away and I still need to get done what I need to get done. After a few cycles of "click the button, fill-in the mandatory description, fail to see results" I'm going to start hesitating to click that button, because clicking that button means I need to fill-in the mandatory description, and I'm not browsing the web in order to fill-in a mandatory description, I'm browsing the web to get done what I need to get done. Soon after, the mandatory description will start getting nonsense values like "asdfjkl;" just so I can hit "submit" rather than "cancel" (which just wastes the screener's time) and at that point the plug-in might just as well uninstall itself.

      Good point (the constructive parts of the criticism are indeed welcome). I guess it makes the statistics page all that much more inportant as immediate feedback to the submitter.

      So, part of this Firefox plugin will launch IE in the background, so that people can compare the pages, or are you saying that people who stumble across a page which they suspect isn't rendering properly in Firefox must then launch IE manually to view the page, make the comparison, and file the report?

      Ok, you're being silly again. Automatically launching IE is overkill and a bad idea to do from firefox anyway. No sense in spawning a child process when a user can verify something is IE only simply by launching IE and checking for themselves.

      If a web page on my site is broken in that it contains a broken link, I'll see the report in /var/log/httpd/error_log as soon as someone clicks on it. I do review that log and fix anything reported through this process. A simple extention of this requiring no software development at all would have people discovering http://example.net/broken_page.html doesn't render properly in their browser to

      --

      "If they have both, tell them we use Linux. And if they have that, tell them the computers are down." -Dave Chapelle
    36. Re:The reason for the downturn. by bhiestand · · Score: 1

      A decline in the rate of downloads DOES account for a decline in use, considering people are getting new computers everyday with the default browser of IE. IE will have new users daily for as long as microsoft pimps it. My guess is that what this really means are a FEW people are going back to IE, it's summer and a lot of younger (more likely to use mozilla/firefox) people are out doing other things, and grandmas are still getting computers with IE on them.

      Give it a few months when school is back in session, 1.5 comes out, etc. This is a small bump in the road, and likely will repeat itself a few times. I wouldn't be too surprised if it turns out this happens EVERY summer.

      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
  3. New computer purchases? by darylb · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Could be that it's the time of year for lots of people to buy new computers (back to school, lots of deals to be had), none of which SHIP with Firefox. And it may just take a bit of IE use to remind them why they need to get to mozilla.org after all.

    1. Re:New computer purchases? by garcia · · Score: 4, Insightful

      40,000 sites - 0.64% drop/gain. The results are neglible and worthless.

      When it goes down/up 8+% over 100k sites then there's cause for news.

    2. Re:New computer purchases? by wrp103 · · Score: 1

      Good point. The article doesn't give any numbers, just percentages. The fact that IE gained and FF lost percentages could simply be the result of new users that had IE preloaded.

    3. Re:New computer purchases? by Council · · Score: 1
      And it may just take a bit of IE use to remind them why they need to get to mozilla.org after all.


      What?

      None of the target market here have tried Firefox. Are we honestly going after people who are frustrated with IE (but need to be reminded of it by using it), aware of Firefox, but just forgot to get it?

      Are you saying "More people using IE is good because they'll get frustrated with it and turn to Firefox?"

      That's awfully silly.
      --
      xkcd.com - a webcomic of mathematics, love, and language.
    4. Re:New computer purchases? by swb · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think new PCs is a major reason. There are a lot of people (in fact a client I just worked at) who had Mozilla/Firefox on their old PCs but when they got new ones wanted to use IE.

      They switched to Moz/FF because their old PCs were encrusted with spyware and IE became unusable. The "fix" for this problem by many is to buy a new PC (can't argue if consultant-paid OS install plus apps equals the cost of a new box).

      The new PC has IE, IE works because there's no spyware, voila, FF "loses" marketshare.

    5. Re:New computer purchases? by swillden · · Score: 1

      None of the target market here have tried Firefox. Are we honestly going after people who are frustrated with IE (but need to be reminded of it by using it), aware of Firefox, but just forgot to get it?

      The OP was postulating a group of people who switched to Firefox, but recently bought new computers which came with IE as the default, effectively switching them back. So they're aware of Firefox, but perhaps haven't yet been bothered enough by IE to download Firefox again.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    6. Re:New computer purchases? by diegocgteleline.es · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Why all this fud about "if it comes installed, everyone will use it"? Why is that everyone uses winzip and winamp, then?

      Netscape didn't lost the browser war because of not being installed by default. It helped, but that was not the main reason: Ars Technica sits down with Scott Collins from Mozilla.org:

      "Ars: You mention mistakes made by Microsoft. What do you feel are mistakes that Mozilla has made in the past?"

      One: There was a fundamental mistake made by Netscape management, twice, which cost us a release at the most inopportune time. I think we can attribute a great deal of our market share loss to this mistake that was pretty much based completely on lies from one executive, who has since left the company (and left very rich) and who was an impediment to everything that we did. He was an awful person, and it is completely on him that we missed a release. We had a "Netscape 5" that was within weeks of being ready to go, and this person said that we needed to ship something based on Gecko within 6 months instead. Every single engineer in the company told management "No, it will be two years at least before we ship something based on Gecko." Management agreed with the engineers in order to get 5.0 out.a

      Three months later they came back and said "We've changed our mind, this other executive has convinced us, except now instead of six months, you need to do it in three months." Well, you can't put 50 pounds of [crap] in a ten pound bag, it took two years. And we didn't get out a 5.0, and that cost of us everything, it was the biggest mistake ever, and I put it all on the feet of this one individual, whom I will not name.

    7. Re:New computer purchases? by Blkdeath · · Score: 1
      They switched to Moz/FF because their old PCs were encrusted with spyware and IE became unusable. The "fix" for this problem by many is to buy a new PC (can't argue if consultant-paid OS install plus apps equals the cost of a new box).

      Did you explain to them that IE was the gateway for most of that spyware and that if they continue to use it, through no fault of their own, it will happen again? Or that the ads and popups are only the surface problems; that the spyware apps will harvest their information and browsing habits and forward them to the highest bidder of the month?

      Did they specifically state that they wanted to use IE, or that they didn't want to go through the trouble of installing FireFox? (Hint: an extra 2 minutes per PC can add up to an extra 1-2 billable hours for a small-medium company!)

      Moreover, if you are supplying the hardware to your users - why not pre-load FireFox and make it the default? Many people will use it for a long period of time without even recognizing that it's not IE. "It goes to web pages when I tell it to" is enough for most people.

      --
      BD Phone Home!

      Shameless plug. Like you weren't expecting it.

    8. Re:New computer purchases? by ZiakII · · Score: 1

      I think new PCs is a major reason.

      I couldn't agree with you anymore, I have seen this before many times that they will continue using IE over and over again even dealing with pop ups and spyware until the browser becomes unusable and doesn't even go to the correct url that it is being told to go to, and that is when they will take my advice and finally switch over to Firefox after its way to late and there machine is already so infested with spyware.

      Now with college season coming up, there rich parents will have bought them a new laptop they will go on using IE until there machine runs slow or stops working correctly due to spyware and that is when I get them as a customer and wind up making some cash reloading there computer and putting Firefox on there machine :) so I'm willing to bet that Firefox gets this number back again in about October/December.

    9. Re:New computer purchases? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look, I don't usually care about this kind of thing, and I've always despised those autistic geniuses with a dictionary and OCD, but for God sakes, man, learn the difference between "there" and "their." The repeated stumbles actually made your post difficult to read.

      You could also just go the safe route and use "they're" everywhere.

    10. Re:New computer purchases? by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      They still make winamp? I thought that went bust years ago.

      I still use winzip because it handles tar.gz files and the builtin one doesn't.. I can understand why a lot of people aren't using it any more.

    11. Re:New computer purchases? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must live in a different world than I do if "everybody uses winzip". The vast majority of computer users don't even know what IE or Firefox is. All they know is "I click this for the internet". My Mother-in-law refers to IE as "the internet". That's just the way it is.

    12. Re:New computer purchases? by thesp · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Everyone doesn't use winzip and winamp. Most people here in the University with shiny new laptops do use the default software loadout. On the rare occasion they need a zip - mostly anything they need is a self-extracting installer or uncompressed - they use XP native zip folders. For media, they DO use Media Player or itunes if they own an iPod or are into playlist sharing. The only major winamp users are the mp3 early adopeters (read old-timers), and even many of these were pushed off the Winamp platform due to the problems with Winamp3.

      People see the computer as a tool, and don't often distinguish the software from the operating system. No other consumer device, and few other professional devices, maintain this distinction. Hence, the New P.C. factor very definitely is a factor, and this is why MS is keen to push Media Center and the like, and not keen on supporting older hardware because it derives New P.C. sales. Most people won't migrate old applications, only old data. The exception is migration of old devices, because poeple WILL install software bundled with their digital camera or scanner or whatnot, becuase they feel they need it to make it work. And even sometimes not this, because XP has quite a bit of native support for consumer peripherals. Hence, I now see people who used to use Canon's photo management software ZoomBrowser copying their Photo Albums folder into My Photos, and using XP's thumbnails, slideshows, print wizard and the like to manage their images.

      The distinction between hardware, O.S. and application is not strong at the consumer level, and hence we DO see upgrade-displacement (which is why bundle agreements are attractive for software providers and I.S.P.s).

      Ever since the user could action files directly with the mouse, rather than invoking a piece of software by mouse or C.L.I., the boundaries have blurred to the degree that the file is the data, and everything else is the single, albeit complex, tool that manipulates it.

    13. Re:New computer purchases? by wh00dini · · Score: 0

      'The "fix" for this problem by many is to buy a new PC'
      If they were to simply pay a consultant to create a image (w/FF) rather than trying to "fix" what spyware has broken, why not simply re-image the computer? I can't see that costing as much as new PCs for everyone. Especially if there are more than 10 employees.

      P.s. That has to be the most confusing sentence I have ever written.

    14. Re:New computer purchases? by Council · · Score: 1

      Fair enough.

      --
      xkcd.com - a webcomic of mathematics, love, and language.
    15. Re:New computer purchases? by swb · · Score: 1

      Sure I explain that IE is the source of much of their problems, but so was the fact that they're browsing with IE on Win 2K SP1 or XP w/o any service packs.

      I have to be halfway honest when they ask me if IE is better on Win XP SP2 + hotfixes than it was on their old computer. It is, and I don't think that's debatable (yes, it is far from perfect but better than XP plain or 2k SP1).

      I could add Firefox to the machines, but a lot of customers get pissed if they think you're "padding" by adding stuff they don't want, and I'm also working against totally lowball bids my boss has put together. I'm gonna run the job 10% over the bid no matter what just cutting corners getting the work done. I'd rather deal with the overage problem for must-have work rather than give them ammunition to short us for "padding."

      We don't screwdriver our machines, they're drop ships from Dell. We just boot, update and personalize them. See the thing above about lowball bids.

    16. Re:New computer purchases? by Blkdeath · · Score: 1
      I have to be halfway honest when they ask me if IE is better on Win XP SP2 + hotfixes than it was on their old computer. It is, and I don't think that's debatable (yes, it is far from perfect but better than XP plain or 2k SP1).

      Sure, a current patchlevel is better than a vanilla install but it's still far, far from perfect and they'll still run into problems. If running FireFox can and will prevent them from seeing the spyware in the first place they're reducing their overall dependance on you. Even if you explain it that way (in that they'll still require your clean-up services down the road for the same problems) you'll look like a hero for trying to save them long-term money, and it'll be easier to bill them later when you have to remove the same cruft from their network.

      It's not so much "I told you so" as "I warned you in a professional mannar" :)

      --
      BD Phone Home!

      Shameless plug. Like you weren't expecting it.

    17. Re:New computer purchases? by swb · · Score: 1

      Re-imaging a small business client's PC is a major hassle.

      For one, there isn't an image of their machine. If you're super lucky they have the system reinstall disk that came with it, and CDs for all the apps they had installed. Typically they're missing half of them and won't pay for new ones and may not even have the OS install disk.

      Then there's the time involved in trying to find and backup all their documents, which invariably means that the clown you're working for has saved everything with a .MINE extension in C:\windows\system32\temp\spool\

      Even when you do it and it works out, they blanch at the bill.

    18. Re:New computer purchases? by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      I don't use either of those. I used to use both, but I quit using winzip around the time windows integrated zip "compressed folders" into explorer (I mean, you had to PAY for winzip or put up with the splash screen designed to make you feel guilty for using it beyond the trial period. Also, the gui had a "shareware" feel to it*). I stopped using winamp around the time of winamp-radio i believe, Media player was relatively unbloated at the time and was able to bridge the gap until iTMS came along. Winamp too has had a "shareware" feel to it with it's "ragin', kickin' or {whatever}in'" skins and whatnot. At that point it had really stopped kicking the proverbial llama's arse. (and why a llama would need a pack animal is a mystery to me.)

      Surely my experience is not atypical.

      *Not that there aren't other much more expensive programs with sharewarish designs. I used to play with a FEM suite that I believe was over $5k per license that had awful graphic buttons and modal dialogs with dozens of input boxes... (also it mysteriously killed itself almost as often as shareware would)

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    19. Re:New computer purchases? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is that everyone uses winzip and winamp, then?

      Short answer: they don't.

      The old-schoolers certainly do, but there's a (horrible) new generation of XP-only users, who actually use media player and the built in ZIP wizard. I installed Winzip for my brother-in-law, and he actually asked me to REMOVE it so he could use the shitty wizard/explorer combo! Apparently convenience was too much hassle for him, but he's not the only one.

  4. OMG M$ LOL by aznxk3vi17 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    One must remember that IE has just added tabbed browsing, among other "features." The average Joe, who is not hugely concerned with security, probably downloaded Firefox for the tabs and MAYBE extensions. With a browser that will come equipped with tabs, a significant number of people will lose their interest in a browser like Firefox.

    1. Re:OMG M$ LOL by bedroll · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The average joe that you mention doesn't know how to get the beta of IE7. Longhorn doesn't ship for quite some time, too early to attribute it to a slip in FireFox usage.

    2. Re:OMG M$ LOL by P3NIS_CLEAVER · · Score: 0

      the average joe doesn't even know what tabbed browsing is; I am a geek and I don't even know what the new extensions are. I don't think new IE has anything to do with it.

      --
      Please sign petition to restore sanity to our banking system!!!

      http://financialpetition.org/
    3. Re:OMG M$ LOL by Sierpinski · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Don't be surprised when Microsoft applies for a patent on 'Tabbed Browsing'. I would bet that its at least been discussed at some point somewhere at some large round conference table.

    4. Re:OMG M$ LOL by bedroll · · Score: 1
      to reply to my own post..

      This got me thinking about IE7 and it's possibilities to sway the stats. Perhaps that margin of usage is people testing IE7 for compatibility and bugs. If early adopters and web developers are using IE7 then that would take away from FireFox's user base. It was the "average joe" part of the grandparent's post that threw me from this initially.

      With that said, the description of the statistics is too vague to know if this is true. IE7 could even be at 1% during this month which would probably wane in future months. It could just be a blip. We can't know because we don't have details, like margin of error.

    5. Re:OMG M$ LOL by telecsan · · Score: 1

      That's too obscure. Just patent 'Browsing' it covers more area.

    6. Re:OMG M$ LOL by interiot · · Score: 1

      The 6% of MSIE users who switched over to Firefox for a while probably aren't "average joes" either. Anybody who's willing to download, install, and learn a new set of keystrokes and behaviors (to try Firefox), is willing to do the same thing over again, except this time with the same keystrokes and behaviors they're used to.

    7. Re:OMG M$ LOL by bedroll · · Score: 1
      I disagree.

      Probably 1/3rd of those users (2% of IE userbase) weren't average joes. The other 2/3rds probably consist of those who switched during the height of hype over phishing and those who were switched by the first 3rd when they had spyware cleaned.

      I don't think anyone in their right mind would switch an average joe to IE7 beta, where as geeks switch average joes to FireFox every day.

    8. Re:OMG M$ LOL by Curate · · Score: 1

      Longhorn won't ship for some time, but that doesn't have much relevance. IE 7 will ship by year's end.

    9. Re:OMG M$ LOL by bedroll · · Score: 1

      Doh! Good call.

  5. Pseudopod by Stanistani · · Score: 5, Interesting

    A few of the folks I set up with Firefox have gone back to IE because their default browser settings changed with a Windows Update, and they were not interested enough to change them back.

    Then the spyware came back...

    1. Re:Pseudopod by sriram_2001 · · Score: 1, Informative

      Mod parent down Is there any proof of this? Windows Update doesn't touch your browser settings usually. And if this had happened, there would have been more than a few reports of this. Please substantiate rather than spewing FUD.

    2. Re:Pseudopod by Stanistani · · Score: 3, Informative

      One was a Win2k user - the security updates to IE6 changed his default settings. When he had to launch IE6 to access a bank site, IE6 became his default browser again, without prompting, and his shortcuts all changed to the little E.

      I reproduced this effect on a test system.

    3. Re:Pseudopod by ianmh · · Score: 1

      I've had IE ask me many times (when I use it for testing only!) if I want it to be the default browser. All one has to do is click okay and you are back to a default IE.

      --
      www.ianhoar.com My blog about geeking out.
    4. Re:Pseudopod by sriram_2001 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I have a WinXP machine with Firefox set as the default browser - and I didn't see any such effect. I have friends who use Firefox on Win2k and no one has reported such a problem to me yet.

    5. Re:Pseudopod by Iriel · · Score: 3, Interesting

      After a while, on my Win2K machine, I started to have problems similar to the ones described by the parent post actually. Besides, I could conceive that it could have been a bug consisting of a series of software conflicts after a Windows Update screwed up one small detail.

      I have had that happen several times. Not enough to consider it the norm, but I think the originating post serves a purpose to explain that there are plenty of users that hit one small point that requires effort to change something, and so they give up. Not everyone is like this and I've heard all too many tales of people teaching someone in their 80's to use Linux for everyday tasks, but that isn't the normal situation. The majority of users want something that works the way they are used to (the way it's been/IE) and when they have to think to change something, they just give up. Why bother when you can just ask your friend to clean out your spyware each month or so? I don't mean to Troll, but this is a growing trend that I see in many places.

      --
      Perfecting Discordia
      www.stevenvansickle.com
    6. Re:Pseudopod by Gunny101 · · Score: 1

      That is a very good reason. I've had to disabled the ability for IE to launch when I configured my girlfriends post spyware infected computer to run only Firefox. She loves it, and has migrated nicely. Others I've migrated without forcing IE not to open, managed to get into IE even though they didn't ask for it. This is because it seems products like MSN auto execute IE for things like hotmail. Microsoft makes it very difficult to switch browsers without effort. My advice. Everyone has friends that ask to save their PC when it is riddled with spyware. Tell them it's mostly because of the browser (and clicking accept to box's), and they'll have no issue with you forcing a switch.

    7. Re:Pseudopod by diegocgteleline.es · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The biggest offender in this case is MSN Messenger. That messenger thing ALWAYS use IE as browser, no matter what system defaults you have. Ej: If someone sends you a link and you click it, it will be IE who opens it even if you configured your system to use Firefox.

      And this will prompt the user: "Do you want to make IE your default browser?"

      When I install firefox in someone's machine, the first thing I do is setting it as the default browser, then running IE to get that window prompt to me, and press "no" while checking the "don't ask this again". So, even if Messenger uses IE, at least it won't change your system's settings. I also delete the IE icon from the desktop and start menu and quick bar, BTW.

    8. Re:Pseudopod by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "I have a WinXP machine with Firefox set as the default browser - and I didn't see any such effect. I have friends who use Firefox on Win2k and no one has reported such a problem to me yet."

      Seconded. I dumped IE years ago. Downloading SP2 didn't cause me to have to re-assign Opera as my default browser. I'd be the first one to bitch about this, I can't stand digging around for that feature.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    9. Re:Pseudopod by Stanistani · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      >Please substantiate rather than spewing FUD.

      I notice that the moderators who are modding my comments down are using the immune-from-metamod overrated mod. Nice.

      FUD stands for fear, uncertainty, and doubt.
      I don't fear Microsoft, I am certain they are a monopoly, and I don't doubt my results. If (as I suspect from your posting history) you work for Microsoft, please work within your company to promote adherence to standards and interoperability with open source applications.
      Any civil response is appreciated. If you reply with "Mod down!" again, I will filter you out.

    10. Re:Pseudopod by Microlith · · Score: 1

      Why bother when you can just ask your friend to clean out your spyware each month or so?

      Well if you're like me, eventually you give your friend (or family) an ultimatum:

      I will not maintain your PC if you continue to use Internet Explorer.

      Which basically means to them that their computer will get slower and stay slow, since you won't fix it. And usually they're pretty amicable, my sister has no spyware problems on her laptop as a result :)

    11. Re:Pseudopod by ZakuSage · · Score: 1

      I've heard a similar yet more radical thing. My friend (who tends to be a real jerk sometimes) didn't get why I use Linux after about 50 times of explaining it, and somehow he let slip that he doesn't care if there's a little spyware/adware/whatever on his computer because it's a P4 3.2 GHz with 512MB of RAM. I've used his computer before, and it was piss slow, and after hearing this I told him his box is probably a Zombie, and that even though he uses FireFox for most things his dad and mom using IE and Outlook Express could easilly have caused it. Yet, he still didn't care, insisting that despite this he said as long as he can still do what he needs to on his box, whether or not it's a Zombie, he doesn't care. It is really quite ridiculous how set in their ways some people are, as he was to lazy to even run a few malware checks!

      It could all be one big scheme. MS makes insecure systems, which most people are used to, but finds that when peoples box becomes infested with crap they'll BUY more software from MS to fix it. When this does a bad job, or they're too lazy to run it (as these things tend to take a while), perhaps even because the registry is really gunked up and has nothing to do with malware at all, they'll go out and buy new boxes, benefiting Microsoft since the vast majority have a Windows tax. These computers will face a similar fate, and be discarded long before they're obsolete for tasks like web browsing and word processing. Sad really... I've got to find a way to get these discarded computers... :\

    12. Re:Pseudopod by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      Does he know that zombies can slow his Internet connection and they are used to spread spam? It is pretty funny that people aren't interested in keeping their computers running in peak condition. I am curious what kind of person that refuses to take five minutes to do a check that improves computer performance for free. Even if you don't need all the performance the computer can give you, why make it worse than you have to?

      I wonder if these are people that are too lazy to take their car in for a routine oil change? Computers require regular maintainance too.

    13. Re:Pseudopod by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I always use FF but I leave IE as my default browser. I set my personal firewall to ask before letting IE access the internet. 90% of the time I prompted to let IE access the internet, it was because of another application and not me clicking on something. I use this as a second method of blocking spyware and phone home applications as quite a few of these types of apps will call the IE rendering engine directly or use the system default browser.

    14. Re:Pseudopod by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      I think it is slightly different than that. While there may have been a time when the default was changed without permission, it might not be true now.

      Still, every time there is an IE update, it places a new IE icon on the desktop and on the quick launch bar and people just revert to their old bad habits and click on the blue E.

    15. Re:Pseudopod by EvilMonkeySlayer · · Score: 1

      This is a sad truth, a lot of MS programs ignore the "Program Access and defaults" and simply launch IE instead of the default browser.

      Some companies also sadly do the same too, such as Valves (godawful) Steam.

    16. Re:Pseudopod by gcauthon · · Score: 1

      Please provide more details and the steps to reproduce. Several people are interested, apparently. Most helpful would be if you could give the hotfix # that produced this behavior. You can look through the windows folder and see which hotfixes were installed on which dates.

    17. Re:Pseudopod by Stanistani · · Score: 1

      I'll get the info from the first box that showed this behavior. It's a customer's system, so I'll have to get his permission first.

      Look here this time tomorrow.

    18. Re:Pseudopod by Zarel · · Score: 1

      That's very strange.

      Using MSN Messenger 7.0 Beta with Firefox 1.06 as the default browser, links from friends will open in a new tab in Firefox (which is what it's set to do).

      --
      Want a high quality FOSS RTS game? Try Warzone 2100!
    19. Re:Pseudopod by systemic+chaos · · Score: 1

      I think a main reason why people who aren't "into" cars get their oil changed at all is because the Jiffy Lube Man on TV tells them that they have to.

      Also, PCs that do the internet thing and the email thing and the IM thing are getting ridiculously cheap. All of a sudden it is more favorable to buy a new one than to invite over that scrawny neighbor kid with the poor hygene.

    20. Re:Pseudopod by PureCreditor · · Score: 1

      maybe on WinXP, but that doesn't happen on Mac.

      My Mac official Microsoft MSN Messenger client sends to OS-default browser, which is Safari, for web link clicks.

    21. Re:Pseudopod by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      As do many other applications - and IE, like any other not completely obnoxious app, has a checkbox you can use to tell it not to ask you again. Firefox behaves in exactly the same way.

    22. Re:Pseudopod by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      I wonder if these are people that are too lazy to take their car in for a routine oil change? Computers require regular maintainance too.

      Yes, they do, but you can bet that in the first decade or two of their introduction to the general public they didn't.

      The problem is that people like me (and I assume you) have grown up with computers, and are technically minded. The vast majority of PC users did not and are not.

      In my case, let's talk about cars. I know that they need to be serviced, but only distantly, and if my gf didn't take our car in to be serviced I dare say that it wouldn't get done. With the PCs, however, it's the reverse - if it weren't for me they'd never get updated, virus and malware scanned, etc. She can use a PC well enough, but the more techy/maintenance stuff, forget it.

    23. Re:Pseudopod by srcosmo · · Score: 1

      Yeah, he had the right idea, but was off a bit.
      Links from friends open in the default browser, but links to MSN Spaces (ie. the stuff on people's "contact cards") always open in IE.

      --
      free speach
      Did you mean: free speech
    24. Re:Pseudopod by Stanistani · · Score: 1

      My customer doesn't want me to research this on his system and I honor that.
      I will set up a test system.

  6. How? by wlan0 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm sure one can measure ~8% roughly, but how can you know if a browser loses .60%?

    1. Re:How? by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      They must be running at that good old 99.5% confidence interval...

            What, you expected statistics on slashdot to actually MEAN something? It's just numbers, man, chill. This site is about politics, not truth. So what do YOU think about this latest outrage?

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    2. Re:How? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fucking idiot, the 0.64% is with respect to ALL BROWSERS -- "8.07% market share, down from 8.71%". The 8% is Firefox's relative loss. Read TFA next time Dip shit.

    3. Re:How? by Golias · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I question these numbers in general.

      Apple has something like a 2% to 4% share of the sales market (depending on who you ask) and something like a 5% to 8% share of active personal computers in use (depending on who you ask).

      Given that nearly all current Apple systems are running OS X, and well over half of them are running Safari, how do they arrive at "Less than 0%" of users for all browsers other than IE and Firefox?

      Even using the most anti-Apple zealotry numbers available, Safari use has gotta be at least 1%.

      I also think Firefox use has got to be a bit higher than the 8% claimed here. Sure, IE is "what's there" on a new Windows installation, but I've yet to meet anybody who actually prefers IE. Sure, I could see some people jumping ship to it when the new version ships (if it even comes close to delivering current promises), but the current state of IE is that it is inferior in almost every way that matters to Firefox.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    4. Re:How? by lukewarmfusion · · Score: 1

      I run/host a wide range of sites with varying traffic, audiences, and owners.

      In our stats (using AWStats), Firefox accounts for anywhere from 2% to 50% of the traffic. Likewise, Windows accounts for somewhere between 70% and 99%.

      I believe that some of the stats come from networks of sites that take hundreds or thousands of sites into account. So they eliminate many of these problems.

      Still, you're automatically limiting your OS stats to a sample of Internet users (excludes servers, non-Internet users). I'm guessing that the folks coming up with these stats (like myself) are not statistics folks.

    5. Re:How? by telecsan · · Score: 2, Interesting

      but the current state of IE is that it is inferior in almost every way that matters to Firefox.


      Except one. Compliance with existing base of websites. I ran into problems with enough websites that were coded badly as to not like Firefox that I just plain switched back. When it was between one browser and 2, I chose a single browser. Put IE together with safe browsing habits, and some skill with Alt-Tab, and it is sufficient for my (admittedly non-taxing) browsing requirements.

      I've grown out of the phase where I considered the web to be an exploratory medium. It's just not safe for that anymore (both in terms of virii and in terms of content, most of what's out there I don't WANT to see). I now use the web as a productivity tool (Amazon/Ebay/Banking/News). It's no longer geeky to find some obscure web-site as it was 8-10 years ago.

    6. Re:How? by kaellinn18 · · Score: 1

      how can you know if a browser loses .60%?

      1) Bend over
      2) Insert hand into ass
      3) Pull out number

      --

      --------
      This isn't the sig you're looking for. Move along.
    7. Re:How? by PhYrE2k2 · · Score: 1

      Ususally browsing logs of big sites.

        But that makes no sense? Large companies running FireFox but behind proxies will count as one firefox user (same with IE though). Users who are 'less active' or do not go to the sites they are testing. Maybe Mac users don't like Yahoo, CNet, etc. Maybe that person has 4 IP addresses and browses through all of them.

      Who knows- it's all a guess- take it all with a grain of salt, but it's the best guess we can come up with.

      -M

      --

      when you see the word 'Linux', drink!
    8. Re:How? by aspx · · Score: 1

      I think proxies skew the numbers towards Firefox. Firefox is primarily an "after 5:00" browser, but all those IE visits are counting as one person.

    9. Re:How? by PhYrE2k2 · · Score: 1

      A lot of corporate deployments of Firefox and more acurately Netscape 7 exist.

      In particular look at any university- I've been on four campuses in the past few years and every one of them has Netscape7 or Firefox as their default browser instead of IE.

      Netscape is really a corporate supported version of the Mozilla Suite with extras.

      -M

      --

      when you see the word 'Linux', drink!
    10. Re:How? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From the original article: The Mac browser Safari showed modest growth to 2.13 percent, while most other browsers experienced little change.

    11. Re:How? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I honestly prefer IE.

      Chide us IE users all you want, chiding won't gain marketshare for FF. Aside from "it's already there", here's why I use IE:

      1) I run dual monitors each at 1600x1200 - so I honestly couldn't care less about tabs, which IE is getting anyway; I'm quite content to have 5 IE windows open, and I prefer that they're each in their own window anyway.

      2) Speed. IE is still the fastest browser around, be it rendering/scrolling/navigating as well as the all-important-if-you-don't-use-tabs time it takes to open a new instance. I realize MS "cheats" to make it open fast by keeping it in memory. I don't care. I use a browser a lot and keeping it partially in memory in order to load fast makes perfect sense.

      3) Yes, there's the all my sites work on it factor.

      4) Patched up, IE is reasonably secure if you don't use activex. I'll admit that I occasionally will use Firefox when I venture to the ultra-seedy side of the internet, namely, when searching for cracks. But we also know that FF isn't completely secure either, or stable.

      5) Admittedly, simple familiarity. The hotkeys Im accustomed to work. The days of dialup have been over for many, many years for me; a download manager isn't really a feature I need, the IE downloader works just fine for me.

      The one thing that would be cool for Firefox (and maybe/probably already exists) is an onboard Torrent client, but given the relative complexity of a torrent system and its rapidly evolving nature, I'm content to have my torrent downloads in a separate, dedicated app for now. But that might eventually be a feature to make me consider abandoning IE again, if FF had a nice setup for that in its download manager.

    12. Re:How? by jp10558 · · Score: 1

      Then there are people like me who will just not use that website. I've gotten along without using IE since 2001, and got along with out using it till 1999.

      Amazon, Ebay and news sites all work fine in any browser I've tried. Banking is the only stickler, I'm just lucky that HSBC accepts any browser.

      Seriously, as a prodoctivity tool, I haven't ever run into a site that doesn't work with multiple browsers.

      It's the waste time things like videos or that cute flash animation or that online game that have problems. But if I'm using the net to get stuff done, those aren't real high on my list. And with very little effort, I can usually get those to work too. Maybe 75% of the time, which again, is more than enough.

      And more and more niche sites are working with other browsers. GMail now works with most browsers, Streamload (file management) updated their DHTML a year ago to work in all browsers - with java for bulk uploading, so you don't even lose out on that. Heck, my college even updated their site from a broken IE menu system to a cross browser implementation last year.

      --
      Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3
    13. Re:How? by fbjon · · Score: 1

      Maybe they're simply not counting Safari. Also, I'm wondering about Opera's always-low statistic. Though some sourfes claim 1,2% but still.

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
  7. "New kid in town"syndrome by scsirob · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Most likely users are trying the IE7 beta to find out what's new.

    --
    To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
    1. Re:"New kid in town"syndrome by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 1

      Doubtful. Any users who would be testing out the IE7 beta (a statistically insignificant number to begin with), would in all probability be testing it out next to Firefox, rather than declining to download Firefox in favor of the IE7 beta.

      --
      ____

      ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    2. Re:"New kid in town"syndrome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I doubt it's the IE7 beta. The numbers in question are for July. IE7 Beta wasn't released until August, so has no impact on the numbers

    3. Re:"New kid in town"syndrome by PygmySurfer · · Score: 2, Informative

      Indeed. Except, the article isn't about what broswer users have or have not downloaded/installed, but what browsers are accessing some 40,000 sites monitored by NetApplications.

  8. Distribution Model by truckaxle · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As long as the distribute of IE comes on virtually all new machines IE will remain around 90%. People will not go thru the trouble to downloading a different component of software for what is now a commoditity.

    1. Re:Distribution Model by DoubleDangerClub · · Score: 1

      For developers, I don't see a switch any day soon. Firefox screams about standards, yet they still have not implemented the cursor attribute in CSS (it's been there since version 2). They also can't handle .focus() or any arrow keys being used dynamically in pages. FireFailure for developers of dynamic content.

      --
      Ubuntu, the way linux should be.
      Try Ubuntu FREE! --
    2. Re:Distribution Model by the_mighty_$ · · Score: 1

      Not quite true. Think of Microsoft's ISP: MSN. Microsoft used to put the MSN icon right there on the desktop along with IE. Their plan was to take over the ISP markey the way they were taking over the browser market. It didnt work.

      --
      VI VI VI - the editor of the beast!
  9. I'll still take Firefox over IE... by Iphtashu+Fitz · · Score: 0

    What's worse? A browser that may occasionally crash or a browser that's full of security holes?

    I don't think I've ever had Firefox crash on me, although I do still occasionally come across websites that only work in IE. I avoid those unless absolutely necessary....

    1. Re:I'll still take Firefox over IE... by Overzeetop · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Me too, but its annoying as hell to install. The extensions are wonderful, but the last time I had to do a clean install, I lost all the extensions, and there doesn't seem to be any way to store the extensions locally - it's all "active" content. Pisses me off, 'cause I don't have mouse gestures, and don't want to go wading through mozzilla.org to find the one I'm already using.

      The extensions are one of the biggest advantages for folks with no life or no job, and one of the biggest frustrations for busy people. Firefox is like building a car from scratch everytime you intall it - You have to re-find all the extensions you liked by navagating through mounds and mounds of extensions. It's one of the things I miss about Opera...everything installs at once. Yes, I know you're stuck with the single tab-model they offer, but since I dont' really have time to "try out" a dozen different styles, I'm happier to learn to use a good one than search for hours for a really great one.

      (I have a sligtly unusual setup - two logins on a single xp install - one for work, one for play. I've set up firefox to use the same profile in the past, but it just takes to freakin long to look up the instructions and re-do all the installs. Sue me, I'm impatient. I want a "use this profile" button.)

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    2. Re:I'll still take Firefox over IE... by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      What's worse? A browser that may occasionally crash or a browser that's full of security holes?

      Given that a crash is a security hole there's no difference.
      A crash will always loose information, i.e.. a malicious web site or plugin could crash Firefox causin loss of data.

      A crash can potentially be exploited to execute arbitrary code and take over the machine, I believe the way many exploits are found is by trying to exploit crashes in applications.

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    3. Re:I'll still take Firefox over IE... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go to yahoo games and try to play Diamond Mine. Firefox just ends. No error at all. This is an old problem that was fixed and has come back. If I wasn't so against IE I would just uninstall Firefox. Stuff like that won't keep users long.

    4. Re:I'll still take Firefox over IE... by bersl2 · · Score: 1

      I lost all the extensions, and there doesn't seem to be any way to store the extensions locally - it's all "active" content.

      Not true. Everything is stored locally. The only problem is that the profiles internally are very complex and are rather prone to corruption. Profile corruption is the intermediary cause in $BIG_NUMBER% of all Firefox breakage. Extensions make this worse.

      (I have a sligtly unusual setup - two logins on a single xp install - one for work, one for play. I've set up firefox to use the same profile in the past, but it just takes to freakin long to look up the instructions and re-do all the installs. Sue me, I'm impatient. I want a "use this profile" button.)

      This is where playing around with scripting is to your advantage. That, and start saving XPI files (extension installers) locally. This can be done through right click->Save Link As, or by saving through another browser or a file retrieval utility.

    5. Re:I'll still take Firefox over IE... by *SECADM · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I assume you run firefox on Windows. In my experience (YMMV) firefox crashes so often on my linux box it's not even funny. It's either some conflict with esd, some nasty flash thing that leaves such a nice dump of cores in my $HOME, or just slow degradation of performance (aka leaks).

      Who would've thought to make firefox on linux (the platform it actually dominate the market on) stable? At least in my experience IE rarely crashes on a windose box.

      --
      sure I'll have a sig.
    6. Re:I'll still take Firefox over IE... by uberdave · · Score: 1

      There is a difference. A security hole can be exploited over and over again without alerting the user to a problem. A crash, although it may open one up to attack, cannot be exploited without alerting the user to a problem.

    7. Re:I'll still take Firefox over IE... by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      That, and start saving XPI files (extension installers) locally. This can be done through right click->Save Link As, or by saving through another browser or a file retrieval utility

      Yeah, I tried that (saving xpi files) to an "install" directory on my server - where I keep all my non-retail-box software (shareware/freeware/drivers/updates). They didn't work on a clean install. Or perhaps I should say that thay didn't work the way I expented them to, and the install would not start properly based on my limited experimentation. That is what prompted me to believe the content was not actually local, and the xpi was simply a pointer.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    8. Re:I'll still take Firefox over IE... by joeljkp · · Score: 1

      Well if it makes you feel any better, I use Firefox 1.0.6 all the time on Ubuntu, and I haven't had a crash yet. I tend to turn off esd, but I do have Flash.

      Anything URL-specific?

      --
      WeRelate.org - wiki-based genealogy
    9. Re:I'll still take Firefox over IE... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >There is a difference. A security hole can be exploited over and over again without alerting the user to a problem. A crash, although it may open one up to attack, cannot be exploited without alerting the user to a problem

      You're not a programmer, are you?

    10. Re:I'll still take Firefox over IE... by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      A crash, although it may open one up to attack, cannot be exploited without alerting the user to a problem.

      Crashes usually happen because of one of two things, an attempt to read a block of memory out of range, or an attempt to execute code in a block of memory out of range.

      They are commonly caused by either, uninitilised pointers or buffer over or underruns modifying the data in the pointers.

      in the first case it's very hard to exploit the crash, but it's certainly possible that it could be exploited, the expolit would relly on the uninitlised pointer pointing to an old block of ram that hasn't been cleared.

      in the second case it's still difficult but a little easier since you can directly manipulate the memory that the appication has access to.

      Both types of exploit would cause the the firefox process to seemlessly execute code inserted by a probably malicious party. A crash will not occure because the old random pointers and data now point to the inserted code.

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    11. Re:I'll still take Firefox over IE... by gothfox · · Score: 1

      XPIs are completely local and I have just what you described - directory on my own webserver with all extensions I need. Works perfectly, on clean installs and whatnot.

      If you are serving XPIs via http, don't forget to add proper content type for the files, otherwise they won't install. I didn't try to install extensions from local files, but that should also work.

    12. Re:I'll still take Firefox over IE... by uberdave · · Score: 1

      I was thinking "crash" in the looser "application stops working, or is perpetually busy, or suddenly disappears, or the mouse and keyboard stop responding, or the machine locks up, or the machine bluescreens (or panics), or exhibits blatant non-expected behaviour" definition.

    13. Re:I'll still take Firefox over IE... by jp10558 · · Score: 1

      This is one reason I use Opera over FireFox. I do have lots of time, but I prefer to spend it on what I want to do rather than tinkering with my browser. That said, I still have to do some work because of the IE only sites, bad browser sniffing, and my enjoyment of blocking ads using proxomitron.

      --
      Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3
    14. Re:I'll still take Firefox over IE... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, I have to be the bearer of bad news, but there IS a "use this profile" button, you supply it a command switch in the shortcut and you'll have it available.

  10. This is normal by BlackCobra43 · · Score: 1

    After any surge of interest for a new product comes a period where disinterested users not entirely satisfied go back to the old product.
    I mean, it's not like they can return their browser to Mozilla and ask for a different model or their cash back..

    --
    I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
  11. I tried by thc69 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Don't blame me. I recently got a die-hard IE/OE user to switch to FF/TB. He was tired of paying me my standard rates to come and clean spyware...

    --
    Procrastination -- because good things come to those who wait.
    1. Re:I tried by thegamerformelyknown · · Score: 0

      To encourage this, raise your rates if they use IE, but lower them a bit if they use firefox....

  12. Stability problems? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Granted, it is a computer program and I have had it crash once or twice on me, Firefox is one of the most stable programs that run on my machine.

  13. Fascism by imstanny · · Score: 1

    That's only because some of us are forced to use IE at work. At least I am, it's absurd. I balance myself out, visiting the same sites with both IE & Firefox

    1. Re:Fascism by sriram_2001 · · Score: 1

      Umm..that doesn't explain the *drop* in market share

    2. Re:Fascism by DenDave · · Score: 1
      I balance myself out, visiting the same sites with both IE & Firefox


      You mean you actually go back and re-browse to negate your IE'ness? Sheesh what a waste of bandwith! That's like saying you will go on your bicycle to the supermarket to make up for the polution your car left behind after you did your shopping!

      I hope you didn't do what I think you did.. that would really be silly.

      --
      -if at first you don't succeed, stay the heck away from paragliding.
    3. Re:Fascism by ZakuSage · · Score: 1

      Try installing FireFox to a CD-RW, or a USB flashdrive and using it off that. If it still won't work, rename firefox.exe to something like word.exe and it'll work. It's what I always end up doing.

    4. Re:Fascism by Blkdeath · · Score: 1
      You mean you actually go back and re-browse to negate your IE'ness? Sheesh what a waste of bandwith! That's like saying you will go on your bicycle to the supermarket to make up for the polution your car left behind after you did your shopping!

      Perhaps OP means they use FireFox at home and maintain similar surfing habits?

      --
      BD Phone Home!

      Shameless plug. Like you weren't expecting it.

  14. Re:Noise my ass by B'Trey · · Score: 3, Informative

    Sheesh, you don't even have to RTFA, just read the /. summary correctly. Firefox didn't lose 8%. It lost 0.64%. It went from 8.71% to 8.07%.

    --

    "The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.

  15. firefox has gotten buggier, for me. by gruntvald · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I have started going back to IE, to my surprise because firefox regularly locks up and has to be restarted, and also starts eating the pagefile like it's going out of style.

    I assumed it was just my machine, but then saw the same behavior on two other machines.

    1. Re:firefox has gotten buggier, for me. by Film11 · · Score: 1

      I too have experienced more bugs and crashes with each new 'update' released. Although I'm no where near going back to IE yet, if crashes are happening now, surely security holes appearing are round the corner?

      --
      ):
    2. Re:firefox has gotten buggier, for me. by Mathetes · · Score: 1

      It must be something odd with all those machines or some particular site you are going to has some issue w/Firefox. I rarely have trouble with Firefox locking up on both Windows XP/2K and Linux on a number of different machines. When I do, its usually something funky with an extension I installed, or something like flash or media player causing the issue.

    3. Re:firefox has gotten buggier, for me. by Talrinys · · Score: 0

      Excact same thing happening here. I have had an insane amount of crashes with firefox compared to IE so far, although now it has slowed down to maybe 2-3 crashes a day. However having a secure browser that saves me the time needed for spyware scans, and tabs(damn they are nice, and a hell lot nicer than IE's new ones, if what i have heard is correct) The thing is, i charge for my computer services, that is, spyware cleaning, antivirus, and all the other errors non-nerds make. Even after telling them they could save that money by using firefox, they still want to use IE. It's the force of habit i think, and unless microsoft stops shipping it as standard and integrates it into windows with a nice way to pick it when you install(will NEVER happen), i can't see casual users using it, no matter how much i want them to.

    4. Re:firefox has gotten buggier, for me. by Surr3al · · Score: 1

      Never had a lock up, and never a page file problem. I guess it helps though that I put the pagefile on a seperate drive.

    5. Re:firefox has gotten buggier, for me. by DigitalWar · · Score: 1

      Aye, I've not actually had a problem with firefox in a long time, but recently I've been noticing that Flash is becoming a real problem. Seems that some of the flash ads that are so popular these days like to use 100% cpu. It doesn't happen with all flash, so whether it's a problem with the plugin or the ads I don't know. I'm just glad there's good old Adblock to rely on.

    6. Re:firefox has gotten buggier, for me. by 51mon · · Score: 1

      I've seen Firefox misbehaving on Windows, but it does seem to be specific machines. Unfortunately due to the "per file" revision manangement in Windows, the best answer is "get a better OS", or reinstall and figure out what breaks it.

      I've seen crashes on an old Redhat box, but I assume that is due to using the Firefox Linux distro rather than proper Redhat packages.

      Where it is properly packaged, in a properly controlled environment it seems pretty solid.

  16. Firefox down? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Could this open some eyes and increase interest in alternative (Linux, Mac) offerings?

  17. Stability Issues For Me by craznar · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I don't use Firefox because of stability issues on Windows.

    Then again - it might not be Firefox, but the end result is the same.

    --
    EMail: 0110001101100010010000000110001101110010 0110000101111010011011100110000101110010 0010111001100011011011110110
    1. Re:Stability Issues For Me by vertinox · · Score: 1

      I don't use Firefox because of stability issues on Windows.

      Well if Windows has stability issues, I could see why you use Safari instead, but I don't see why you couldn't download the OS X version of FireFox. ;)

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    2. Re:Stability Issues For Me by Nasarius · · Score: 1

      What kind of stability issues? I've been using the Deer Park Alpha for the past few weeks, and even that is pretty damn solid. I never had any problems with Firefox crashing that weren't caused by Flash or Windows Media Player.

      --
      LOAD "SIG",8,1
    3. Re:Stability Issues For Me by Silent_Fire · · Score: 1

      I'm running the latest release of firefox with a couple extensions, and there's definitely a memory leak somewhere. After about 4 hours of use, it's up to 97 MB of memory, which leads to really crummy performance, especially when I suspend and restart my laptop. This is running XP Pro with the latest set of patches. If IE had tabs, I might just switch back, because waiting for 3 minutes to get firefox to respond really, really sucks.

    4. Re:Stability Issues For Me by Nasarius · · Score: 1
      --
      LOAD "SIG",8,1
    5. Re:Stability Issues For Me by nxtw · · Score: 1
      I highly suspect it's one of the extensions. I have had Firefox extensions do bad things in the past, and in general watched Firefox get slower and slower as I added certain extensions.

      I still have problems with Firefox from time to time, but they happen rarely enough that they don't bother me.

      You may want to try one of the browsers that provide tabs for Internet Explorer, such as Maxthon, if you find Firefox unsuitable.

    6. Re:Stability Issues For Me by pomo+monster · · Score: 1

      Because Firefox on Mac, as the name suggests, is a flaming pile of shit.

    7. Re:Stability Issues For Me by craznar · · Score: 1

      I get the old 100% CPU usage issue, sometimes even with no plugins.

      With PDF plugin - it frequently freezes windows beyond recover (red button time).

      Like I said, it probably isn't Firefox at fault, but end result is same.

      On my Linux box at least all it does is crash, and now that Thunderbird is a separate (and stable) product that isn't a problem any more (I didn't use Mozilla because I kept losing half prepared e-mails cause the browser kept taking down the whole thing).

      --
      EMail: 0110001101100010010000000110001101110010 0110000101111010011011100110000101110010 0010111001100011011011110110
  18. Share fluctuation by Winterblink · · Score: 2, Informative

    You can't gain all the time. Market share is a concept that is more akin to a rollercoaster than a straight upward or downward sloping line.

    --
    "I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar."
    -Hoban Washburn
    1. Re:Share fluctuation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless you're Apache.

  19. Firefox stability varies by RandoX · · Score: 1

    I use FF exclusively, whenever possible. At home I don't have a problem with it (on 3 PCs) but the install I have at work crashes randomly every hour or so. I suspect that it's a Flash issue (I run flashblock across all installs). My point is this: If my first experience with FF had been the same as my PC at work I would have uninstalled and left FF behind long ago, regardless of how good it really is for others.

  20. Insightful my ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Understand the fucking blurb at least before you comment. It's 0.64% loss, at 8% total.

    1. Re:Insightful my ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      an 8% loss is not good news for firefox.

    2. Re:Insightful my ass by ph4te · · Score: 0

      Actually it is an 8% loss jackass.
      .64 ~= 8% of 8
      Anyway, the only times I've ever had FF crash is when it's loading massive PDF files... then again I cringle every time I hear someone even mention "PDF" so I don't really mind. It just adds more fuel to the fire.

      --
      OMG SOEMOEN SI H4X0RING MAI B0X3N!1!
    3. Re:Insightful my ass by LocoMan · · Score: 2, Informative

      I had that same problem. One way to fix it is to go to plugins in the options and disable the PDF support, then anytime a website tries to load a PDF firefox will download it and open it on the external PDF reader instead.

    4. Re:Insightful my ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Next headline: FIREFOX ZEALOTS FAIL 4TH GRADE MATH

    5. Re:Insightful my ass by ajs318 · · Score: 1

      Never had a problem with PDFs myself. In fact, the gpdf viewer launched by Firefox is even a wee bit nicer than kghostview {or is it kpdf?} which is Konqueror's default PDF viewer, since it supports hyperlinks properly.

      Although, I do still use Konqueror a lot. I find it's a very capable browser. But I always test everything I write in Firefox, since it will run in more places than Konq.

      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
    6. Re:Insightful my ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yuo must be new here.

  21. Is it statistical noise? by Yahweh+Doesn't+Exist · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I don't know because the numbers you give are meaningless.

    This is why you should always give error bars for values obtained in a supposedly scientific way, then it would be obvious if it's noise or not.

    You also shouldn't give values to inappropriate levels of precision. if you're going to say share went down by 0.64% and not give an error bar, then it's reasonable to assume your error was +/- 0.005%, in which case it is NOT statistical noise.

    (I know I'm asking a lot for /. to be accurate with scientific analysis when it can't even get the basics of the English language right.)

    1. Re:Is it statistical noise? by Nasarius · · Score: 1

      Oh, thank you so very much. People with no training in science and statistics should stop trying to perform "studies". They're meaningless.

      --
      LOAD "SIG",8,1
    2. Re:Is it statistical noise? by 51mon · · Score: 1

      "They're meaningless."

      I certainly wish people would stop publishing in medical journals without a proper statistician analysing the figures. I'm not so worried about Slashdot ;)

      Interesting question is should we count hits, or unique clients. Most people seem to want to know the "unique client" figure, but when designing a webpage raw hits is probably the thing to use. In which case for every 1 Gecko rendering hit, I see 6.4 Internet MSIE hits. The numbers are based on the last 1 million hits to our servers, so I'd expect confidence intervals to be quite small, but I haven't calculated them.

      I dare say that may be 8% firefox per unique client as per the article, but it is 12% of ALL hits. Our figures have been pretty stable for a while, which seems "odd" because I know a lot of people who have switched to Firefox (not enough to warp our figures, but the stats don't agree with what people are telling me.

  22. SysAdmins to the Rescue! by Xeleema · · Score: 1

    You know what this means? Dutiful SysAdmins like myself will make sure that every system on campus has a copy of Mozilla running by the week's end.

    --
    "When I am king, you will be first against the wall..."
    1. Re:SysAdmins to the Rescue! by erroneus · · Score: 1

      My site is already 99.9% Firefox with MSIE "Removed" (as much as it can be).

      I've done my part.

    2. Re:SysAdmins to the Rescue! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you heartless piece of shit. firefox is about choice. you're taking away their choice. you should seriously burn in hell.

    3. Re:SysAdmins to the Rescue! by DaHat · · Score: 1

      Dare I say it, I agree with the other poster. Removing IE as much as you can and outright attempting to replace it with Firefox may sound nice, but also removes the easy ability to use IE for those things that they may need to, those things which Firefox cannot do.

    4. Re:SysAdmins to the Rescue! by erroneus · · Score: 1

      When I left MSIE active, I had a spyware/pop-up problem that was out of control. Since I have moved to Firefox, there has been NO problems (except with ADP... they require MSIE but it's only for one user...) with spyware or other malware except where people actually installed it themselves out of ignorance.

      I did it for the stability of the network, the peer stations and my own sanity.

      It worked perfectly and as advertised.

    5. Re:SysAdmins to the Rescue! by gothfox · · Score: 1
      Same here. I switched our entire company (not really big, but we have several hundred workstations) to Firefox and Thunderbird (+OpenLDAP for addresbooks, etc). The number of spyware/virus calls plummeted to zero almost instantly.

      The only thing that irks me is lack of proper Active Directory integration. I know there are third party installers which somewhat enable support for GPOs, etc, but vanilla Firefox doesn't have this functionality. WSUS integration for centralized machine updating would be terrific too.

    6. Re:SysAdmins to the Rescue! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So your users can surf the web on company time like they're not supposed to and raise FF's rank?

    7. Re:SysAdmins to the Rescue! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah but if you're gonna use firefox and not be able to surf a good portion of the web, why not just leave IE on and patch the systems properly? That's a whole lot better. Plus you can firewall off a lot of questionable material.

      IE on a patched windows box is much much better than Firefox on the same box. So I think instead of installing 20 patches and 30 extensions from a third party vendor that may or may not exist tomorrow and is facing more and more security issues as the browser becomes more popular, I'd rather just set the system to auto-update and run as power-user instead of Admin and just sit back and watch the FUD flying between fans of different software.

      That is my opinion form on my experience. I don't think any less of anyone for agreeing OR disagreeing with it. :) No offense intended.

  23. cool numerical madness by capicu · · Score: 0

    If firefox, at 8% of the total users, loses 0.64% of the total, that makes a total loss of 8% of all firefox users.

    It's just like looking into infinity, except without the headaches!

  24. Or it means that... by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

    8% of PC users know what they are doing.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  25. Anyone surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Anyone? Bueller? Anyone?

    Firefox is a decent browser but it is NOT as good as the hype would have you believe. Someone who understands tech might be able to not only see but appreciate the benefits, but the AVERAGE user doesn't give a rats damn about it. What the average user gives a crap about is how long it takes to load, how much slower their machine is when it's running, and how often it crashes. Yeah yeah I know that the next 14 replies will be "HEY it runs fine on my pc!" and please don't bother, just because it works great on your pc doesn't have shit to do with how well it works on my grandma-jo's pc, or anyone elses for that matter. You can't talk about 80 mil downloads and 10 million users and also think that your one example means dick.

    Geeks keep forgetting that it's regular average non-tech people who determine the failure or success of a product, not fellow geeks, and those regular average non-tech people don't really see much special about firefox.

    1. Re:Anyone surprised? by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      And, more imporantly for the non-tech enduser, the base FF install isn't all that great. To make FF a great browser you need extensions. Have you ever imagined what the extensions pages at mozilla must look like to a non-techy user? Good Lord, there's no way to make heads or tails of it.

      I'd like to see a "Firefox for Dummies edition" (apologies given) as well as the base version. Something that has the best and brightest extensions already installed and preconfigured. Adblock, gestures, tab tools, etc..., plus a nice demo on getting the most out of FF with the tools.

      Maybe there is one, but I just haven't seen it. If it weren't for comments on /. extoling the virtues of FF and posts claiming that it could do most everything Opera did, but with better .asp compatibility, I'd probably still be using Opera today.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    2. Re:Anyone surprised? by ZakuSage · · Score: 1

      As a geek, I would have to say that FireFox is merely the best browser that renders pages properly. It's not great, as on my P3 866MHz with a pitiful 128MB of RAM running Linux and GNOME, it takes a long time to open, and to render pages. I find myself more and more using Dillo (which makes most pages look like some kind of horrible shit, and doesn't have support for java, flash, tables..), and text based browsers like Links.

      In all honesty, the current state of browsers is horrible. What I'd like is a browser that can render at least 75 - 80% of pages properly, quickly, with support for standards as well as flash and java, and also having tabs on my machine (and before you go there, my connection is 1.5MB/s, so that's not holding me back).

    3. Re:Anyone surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If my "one example", or rather many examples but few in comparison to 10 million users, of Firefox success means dick, then guess what? Your "one example" of Firefox failure does too. Or do you have some proof to back up all of those sweeping claims?

    4. Re:Anyone surprised? by PhreakOfTime · · Score: 1

      Actually, geeks determine the sucess or failure of a product LONG before you even hear about it.

      Lets see, my first MP3 is from 1997. Id bet that was years before you even HEARD of music files on a computer, although I could be wrong.

      My friends and I were running server boxes with all our compressed movies back in 1999 with hundreds of movies all on one central system. Your 'average' people are just now getting a select few things with such services as 'on-demand' through the cable company. But thats still nowhere near the end result it is going to be in 5 years.

      The unfortunate fact for you is that by the time you get to think your on the bleeding edge because you BOUGHT some product, the people that actually built the things they wanted have already been immersed in that world for many many years.

      non-tech people keep forgetting that they are just equivalant to 'soccer-moms' who know about as much about as their SUV as you think you know about tech. Face it, until it gets to a critical mass, average people dont really care about it unless someone else is going to step up and package it in pretty colors for you to buy.

      And thats why you arent rich, and someone else is. You keep buying the stuff that everyone else is stepping up to create, its just that simple.

      Technological Darwinism = lots of money to be made :)

    5. Re:Anyone surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      omg you noob go read the firefox forums and see how many people have problems then stfu and go read your harry potter book

    6. Re:Anyone surprised? by jp10558 · · Score: 1

      Well, maybe this is a troll, maybe not, but have you tried Opera?

      I will personally vouch for it working for 75-80% of webpages. Of course, those 20% might end up being the 20% you use most, I don't know. However, in v8, they've really gone a long way towards doing what proxomitron users could do all along - without the complexity.

      I'm talking about UA.ini + browser.js. They are automatically updated once a week with fixes for sites that are broken. That's right, Opera will push fixes for broken websites to your browser.

      And then there's user.js and userjs.org which is a central place to get user fixes for sites that Opera hasn't heard about or gotten around to fixing yet.

      OTOH, I still also push proxomitron for any browser. Use a nice filterset like grypens, and update it occasionally and it fixes many pages without you knowing it. Rightclick on icon, bypass and reload if it messes up a page (not often).

      --
      Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3
  26. Hemos has it right by Otter · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is statistical noise, pure and simple. There is no story here.

    1. Re:Hemos has it right by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      Its statistical noise when it goes down by 0.64%, but its a great achievement when it goes up by a similiar amount.

    2. Re:Hemos has it right by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 1


      Hemos has it right
      There is no story here.

      Then why exactly did Hemos post the alleged non-story in the first place?

      --
      ____

      ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    3. Re:Hemos has it right by geeber · · Score: 1

      This is statistical noise, pure and simple. There is no story here.

      Who says this is statistical noise? Where is the analysis? Considering that the slip in market share of Firefox (.64% according to the article) is larger than the share of Mozilla suite (0.52%) and Opera (0.49%) it seems significant to me.

      It may well be in the noise, but from the minimal amount of data in the article it doesn't look like it to. I need more proof than Hemos' off the cuff editorializing.

    4. Re:Hemos has it right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ask for more data and ye shall recieve:
      http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.a sp

    5. Re:Hemos has it right by swillden · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is statistical noise, pure and simple. There is no story here.

      I don't know about that. To really know if it's noise or not, you would have to understand the details of the sampling process, but even without that, it's noteworthy simply because it isn't an *increase*. Firefox has been increasing every month by an amount of roughly the same magnitude, which means that if Firefox usage is continuing to grow as it has been, and if this is merely a measurement error, then it's a really large measurement error (or else many measurements in the past have been very wrong -- I'm assuming that the measurements in July and in previous months were made the same way, BTW).

      IMO, this is a pretty solid indicator that last month Firefox growth at least stagnated, and probably actually did decline. There may be reasons for it that don't reflect badly on Firefox, but it is news.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    6. Re:Hemos has it right by Yallis · · Score: 0

      Because it's about Firefox and/or Google and/or MacOS on x86. Duh...

    7. Re:Hemos has it right by MustardMan · · Score: 1

      heh... I'm starting to think the /. catch phrase should be changed to "News for Google. Stuff that Appleinsider covered yesterday."

      And this coming from a mac user.

    8. Re:Hemos has it right by geeber · · Score: 1

      Ask for more data and ye shall recieve:
      http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.a sp


      I looked, but did not see, any analysis of the noise in the data and methodology. Furthermore, if you look at the data for a single browser whose market share is relatively stable, the month to month fluctuations do not change by more than 0.1 or 0.2%.

      So the original question stands : how do we know that 0.64% is "in the noise" as claimed by Hemos?

    9. Re:Hemos has it right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When it's an increase of 0.8% is "Yay, Firefox is teh r0xers!" and when it's an 0.8% loss is statistical noise.

    10. Re:Hemos has it right by Hafren · · Score: 0

      I have 3 goats here who would like to have a word with you about permission to cross your bridge.

    11. Re:Hemos has it right by spid · · Score: 1

      Although if FF usage grew by 0.64% last month, there would undoubtedly be all sorts of crowing about how FF continues to grow at the expense of IE. But a decline? That's statitical noise. Right.

      It's also worth noting that for a product whose share of the market is ~8%, a 0.64% drop in overall share represents an 8% drop in its share. If you're a public company and reported an 8% drop in revenues, do you think the market would just write that off as "statitical noise"?

    12. Re:Hemos has it right by I'm+Don+Giovanni · · Score: 0
      Then why exactly did Hemos post the alleged non-story in the first place?


      Pre-emptive damage control.
      --
      -- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
    13. Re:Hemos has it right by hritcu · · Score: 1

      The statistics are provided by NetApplications.com. Their numbers come from aggregating browser stats from all sites using their service -- hardly a statistically-valid sample of the web audience. Read more about it here.

      --
      If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough. (Alan Kay)
    14. Re:Hemos has it right by hritcu · · Score: 1

      Yes, you are right. It is statistical noise when Firefox goes down by 0.64% according to a single source (NetApplications.com), and it is a great achievement when Firefox steadily increases its market share over a very long period of time and according to many different sources.

      --
      If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough. (Alan Kay)
  27. Same with me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't even use Windows on Windows due to stability and security problems.

    Yet again, it might be Windows, but the end result is the same.

  28. Re:Noise my ass by domipheus · · Score: 1

    The thing I am most worried about is the post being supposedly insightful...

  29. Hype! by soloport · · Score: 1

    Too bad someone doesn't pick this up. Imagine the PC ads, "Now with the latest Firefox [echo, echo, echo] Internet explorer!" "Surf the web at incredible speeds, with Firefox [echo, echo, echo]"

    1. Re:Hype! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what what what?

  30. Re:Noise my ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What the grandparent says is correct. It lost 8% of its installed base which is around 0.64%

  31. Firefox Frustration by ctwxman · · Score: 1

    I would like to use Firefox as much and as often as is possible, but I find more and more multimedia pages are written exclusively for Internet Explorer. Certainly MSNBC is an example, but there are others. More surprising is the fact that WebCT, used to administer 'distance learning' programs doesn't support Firefox. When I'm taking a timed test, the last thing I want to deal with is a browser incompatibility. So, for me, my use of IE has gone up recently... but not because I want it to.

    1. Re:Firefox Frustration by droptone · · Score: 1

      While the body of your message seems fine, the title does not seem to make much sense. You are not frustrated at Firefox, or you ought not be. You ought to be frustrated at the designers of the multimedia pages you are visiting. I have problems logging into my school's blackboard site with Firefox (although it works with the Mozilla browser), but I do not necessarily blame the Firefox programmers.

      Rather than waste more space with my personal problems with Firefox, the one big beef I have with the thing is it troublesome update/reinstall/extensions process. I know I ought to uninstall the old version before I reinstall, but I really don't feel like spending my time installing all the extensions I use after installation. Fix that and Firefox would be A+ in my book.

      --
      Every post I make begins with the assumption P=~P.
    2. Re:Firefox Frustration by Dan+Ost · · Score: 1

      Have you bothered to send email to the webmasters explaining your difficulties
      viewing their sites?

      Give it a shot. I've been surprised at how often I get a positive response.

      --

      *sigh* back to work...
    3. Re:Firefox Frustration by ctwxman · · Score: 1

      I have. WebCT readily admits they do not support Firefox (they even have a browser compatibility tester on their site). MSNBC... well, that's "MS"NBC. Does anyone really think they'd help Firefox or Firefox users?

  32. OT: Block Flash Popups in Firefox! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Firefox doesn't seem so gret anymore now that many sites are using flash to display popups. However this can be fixed easily.

    1. Re:OT: Block Flash Popups in Firefox! by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 1


      Thanks for the link, offtopic though it may be.
      Very informative and useful.

      --
      ____

      ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    2. Re:OT: Block Flash Popups in Firefox! by dtfinch · · Score: 1

      Flashblock is a must-have. You can still play flash, but instead of it loading immediately you see a "play" button in its place.

    3. Re:OT: Block Flash Popups in Firefox! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i know what you did last summer

  33. Firefox and POPups by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can any browser or pop-up blocker stop the popups on drudge? It seems some websites have managed to work around popup blockers.

    I use Firefox at work and at home. But I sure would like to once and for all remove pop-ups.

  34. Bad Day by burtdub · · Score: 0
    Between Firefox losing ground and Google losing its case, this is a bad day for the typical /. reader.

    Next we'll probably hear Microsoft won the Nobel Peace Prize.

  35. the-sky-is-falling-the-sky-is-falling by Evro · · Score: 1

    from the the-sky-is-falling-the-sky-is-falling dept.

    I take this is a sarcastic jibe meaning that you don't think it's such a huge deal... so why bother publishing it? Debating tenths of a percent of market share seems pointless regardless of whether it's up or down. By publishing the story it would just seem you're just contributing to the hype.

    --
    rooooar
    1. Re:the-sky-is-falling-the-sky-is-falling by Blkdeath · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I take this is a sarcastic jibe meaning that you don't think it's such a huge deal... so why bother publishing it? Debating tenths of a percent of market share seems pointless regardless of whether it's up or down. By publishing the story it would just seem you're just contributing to the hype.

      Editorial fairness, perhaps? When the market share goes up by 0.64% everyone decries the editors for not publishing the other side of the coin. When they publish the bad news about our beloved products we should ask ourselves (and our development communities) "Why?" rather than "Who cares?"

      --
      BD Phone Home!

      Shameless plug. Like you weren't expecting it.

  36. you asshole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    learn the difference between a point and a percentage, you useless douchebag. 8.71% market share/ 8.07% market share = 1.079=108% ;in other words, the old market share was 108% of the new market share. Put another way, the new market share is 93% of the old market share.

      Sure looks like approximately an 8% market share loss to me.

  37. Downloads do NOT equal users by zoomba · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I have to admit, it's an amusing bit of misrepresentation the community uses when citing download figures for Firefox as if they really truely mean something. One user may account for dozens of downloads alone if they have multiple PCs, or upgrade versions, or if they reinstall their OS and have to reget their apps. Then there's the user who gets Firefox but for whatever reason goes back to IE. I'm tired of the download number being heralded as some great victory when it means very little in terms of real market penetration.

    Should we start counting every copy of windows sold or bundled with a PC as a "new IE user"? I bought a cheap dell recently to use as a quick and dirty Linux box. It came with WinXP Home and IE, but I don't use it. But by the reasoning usually given for Firefox, because I have it, I should be counted as a user, as a part of the marketshare.

    Please stop using download counts to prove your argument that Firefox is toppling IE. It's not yet... While it's doing better than any competitor since Netscape, it's not the killing blow to IE just yet.

    1. Re:Downloads do NOT equal users by seinman · · Score: 0

      While it's clearly not a 100% accurate figure, I don't see why 80 million can't be considered a decent estimate of how many users Firefox has. Look at it this way: i've downloaded Firefox five or six times. But i'm not a Firefox "user." I only open it in the rare event that a page doesn't work right in Opera, so I use it maybe once a month.
       
      On the other hand, a friend of mine downloaded it once and put it on his USB memory card, and installs it on many friends' computers, several of whom became full-time FF users. People like me balance out people like my friend, in general.
       
      So to review... 80 million = a guess, but there's no reason why we can't consider it a good enough guess to just accept it.

    2. Re:Downloads do NOT equal users by staeiou · · Score: 1

      Please stop using download counts to prove your argument that Firefox is toppling IE. It's not yet...

      This isn't what they are citing. If you read the TFA (yeah, I'm new here), you would know that the data is taken from NetApplications, a company that analyzes traffic from 40,000 websites. The download number was just a "whoo-hoo" remark.

      As with any product, the only way to measure market penetration are surveys, and that is what NetApplications is doing, just without you noticing.

    3. Re:Downloads do NOT equal users by zoomba · · Score: 1

      My comment was more pointed at the reference to the 80millionth download bit and the attitude that Firefox is the great toppler of IE. People don't like to look at that 8% marketshare statistic, it makes them feel small. Instead they look at the big numbers, and try to point to them as the "real" indicator of success, when it isn't.

      I understand the issue of net surveys and how to really generate accurate marketshare data, and I think the article at the start of the post does a lot to set things straight on the whole Firefox Will Destroy IE concept. It's a bit of reality that even the article submitter is quick to cast into doubt with the reference to download volume.

    4. Re:Downloads do NOT equal users by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You realize, don't you, that Linux uses, (in my experence), Konsole and Firefox for web access, and while these have to be installed, (very few OEMed) they should also be counted. :)

      I like my [bagels] hot

    5. Re:Downloads do NOT equal users by SolidGround · · Score: 1

      Even so they could produce much more accurate "statistics" if they wanted to.

      If they were to track the number of update downloads in the first two weeks following a new release then you'd have a very good idea of how many legitimate FireFox users there are.

      Regardless, the numbers game only tends to hurt whoever is playing it in the long run. Quick adoption (which was predictable given the huge 'geek' appeal of FireFox) led to the "FireFox will take over the world in 12 months!" myth which in turn led to a huge amount of good publicity.
      But now that the numbers seem to be settling down it comes back to haunt since after all the hype "FireFox usage down!!!!!!!" makes for a very good sensationalist headline.
      And while most people here will simply dismiss those, the masses will take it as an (unjust) evaluation of FireFox.

      (It's also midly ironic that my CAPTA word for this post is 'increase')

    6. Re:Downloads do NOT equal users by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Should we start counting every copy of windows sold or bundled with a PC as a "new IE user"?

      "We" dont have to do this, microsoft already does this.

    7. Re:Downloads do NOT equal users by Cally · · Score: 1
      I have to admit, it's an amusing bit of misrepresentation the community uses when citing download figures for Firefox as if they really truly mean something.
      What a silly thing to say. Has it occured to you that although the relationship is very unlikely to be 1:1 (downloads to users), that if you could actually calculate that factor with a sample size of, say, 100,000 samples, that the rate be stay stable over the larger number? The fact that it's not practical to actually research the value of that factor certainly doesn't change the fact of it's existence.

      Should we start counting every copy of windows sold or bundled with a PC as a "new IE user"?

      No, of course not, because as you point out some of the people who buy a machine with Windows and IE will nuke it. But as with Firefox, it will no doubt amaze you to learn that this number, too, can be reliably scaled with a large enough sample size. The ratio of IE/Windows "purchases" to actual end-users is also proportional to the sales figures. Firefox downloads are initiated by a user; Windows and IE are a default. If you know different, not only will many accountants and sales directors beat a path to your door, there's a Nobel Prize for Economics with your name on it.

      I shall refrain from drawing attention to the fact that this schoolboy misunderstanding of basic statistics was modded +5... Ah, dang!

      --
      "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
    8. Re:Downloads do NOT equal users by Hadur · · Score: 1

      Agreed.

      Download counts != users

      However, the difference between Firefox and the Windows XP that you received is that one has to manually go out and downlaod Firefox. This means that the download counts, while not measuring users, DO serve a purpose in approximating interest for software.

    9. Re:Downloads do NOT equal users by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't downloads of a new version ALSO count into that 80 million download figure? There could only be 10 million users who've just been redownloading it every upgrade.

    10. Re:Downloads do NOT equal users by zoomba · · Score: 1

      The problem is though that ultimately you can't draw any significant information from such a weak piece of data like download numbers. There's no way to account for what those downloads actually mean. There are too many other factors that are just unknown.

      The only way to truely measure use is by website logs and statistics. 80 million downloads, while an impressive number, can be quite misleading, and a lot of people here want to use that number as the "proof" that Firefox is going to topple IE. It sounds more impressive than an 8% market share.

      I'm not bashing the progress of Firefox, I think it's a great program that I use over IE on every machine I come across, but I'm diluded into thinking that it's somehow sweeping the marketplace like an unstoppable force.

      You can only get an accurate picture through ACTUAL statistics regarding use by polling websites for data. Saying it was downloaded a billion times doesn't mean it's used by a billion customers. It's like saying 80 million paper plates were sold, so therefore there are 80 million people using a paper plate, you're missing data to make that statement.

      I'm not a stat genius, but I do know that you can't reasonably make any claims about a program based purely on download counts.

    11. Re:Downloads do NOT equal users by Cally · · Score: 1
      Look, I'm too knackered to get into a long explanation of what you're mistaken about. It seems like really what you're taking issue with what you perceive as Firefox zealots claiming that Firefox is taking over the web, and basing that claim on the download figures. Well, those zealots don't exist (and I should know, I've been using the danm thing since the first naked gecko.exe control was released (we're talking 1998 or 99 I think :)

      We're also probably arging semantics about the meaning of 'significant' in your first sentence. I agree you can't claim a 1:1 ratio of downloads to users, but whether that ratio is greater or lesser than one is up for debate, let alone what the numbers are. But the download numbers do give some sense of relative moment of Firefox - relative to *itself* anyway - and if, say, 10 million downloads were achieved when the Firefox market share as measured on teh server side (and aggregated across mass market sites) was, say, 3%, [I've no idea what the actual figures are] then I think you can draw *some* tenuous conclusions about end user market share.

      BTW human intuition about statistics and probability is a good guide to reality. Whatever seems obvious or common sense is usually wrong,usually for a very subtle yet dramatic reason. (For a given value of 'usually' ;)

      --
      "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
  38. Missing the point. by Iriel · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think a lot of analysis over this loss of market share forgets where a good amount of internet browsers (the people part) are.

    Security and stability? B'ah! Honestly, nearly any issue that Firefox could run into seems rather paltry compared to what domintes the market share of web browsers (IE). What issues that do arise are usually fixed in relatively short order as well. If nothing else, Mozilla developers move at light speed when compared to Microsoft in the browser world.

    I really honestly don't want to sound like a Troll, but I think bringing up topics like security and stability bugs to explain a loss of market share seems like a way out of pointing out the obvious: The majority of internet users are too lazy to install something when there's an alternative that's 'good enough' already.

    Heck, I think it's pretty antiquated that most of the laymen internet users still use the term 'surf' when describing actions performed on the internet ;)

    --
    Perfecting Discordia
    www.stevenvansickle.com
  39. Switching back to IE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am using IE much more now due to lock-ups and chrashes of FF - but not XP. I haven't had a problem with viruses or spyware using XP-SP2 with IE6.

    There were several webpages I have to go to that don't display or print correctly in FF as well.

  40. Possibly due to win2k updates? by domipheus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There were a few major win2k updates last month, and as Windows update is IE only, surely most will have had to get it from there. may account for a *tiny* amount of deviation. But hell, there is deviation in every statistic. We will jsut have to wait till next month - if it was a blip, hey, it may shoot up to 10% for August ;)

    1. Re:Possibly due to win2k updates? by a16 · · Score: 2, Informative

      The statistics come from a large amount of web sites, I'm presuming Windows Update isn't one of the sites that provide their visitor details to this survey. They'd be fairly useless anyway, 100% IE.

      The only way this could have made a difference is if people use IE to download the updates and then keep using IE and forget about Firefox afterwards, but I don't think that can account for any real numbers. As somebody has suggested earlier people using IE to access IE only sites and then never bothering to go back to Firefox may be more of a factor, or maybe the statistics just mean nothing :)

  41. Saw this at one of the ars.technica blogs: by wild_berry · · Score: 2, Informative

    http://arstechnica.com/journals/microsoft.ars/2005 /8/13/957, which points to the statistics from http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/08/12/HNfirefo xloses_1.html
    Their view was that sampling errors were not discussed, and this affects the reliability of the numbers.

    I must admit it's all my fault: I've been viewing Flash pages in IE because I haven't installed a Flash player to MoFo's Deer Park Alpha 2.

    1. Re:Saw this at one of the ars.technica blogs: by Bogtha · · Score: 1

      Their view was that sampling errors were not discussed, and this affects the reliability of the numbers.

      Yeah, but you know what? There aren't thousands of fanboys pointing this out whenever these statistics are used to show an increase in Firefox use, are there? These statistics aren't ridiculed by the Web Standards Project then, are they?

      I'm a Firefox user and I'm fairly happy with it, honestly. But it really gets on my nerves when such a double-standard is applied just because Firefox is the current media darling. Web statistics are nonsense, pure and simple. You can get just as accurate numbers by guessing.

      If you want to know what the browser market share is, you can't do it by measuring traffic. Phone people up, conduct surveys, whatever you'd normally do to determine what offline software people use. Don't bother with web statistics as they are inherently unreliable.

      --
      Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
    2. Re:Saw this at one of the ars.technica blogs: by wild_berry · · Score: 1

      Good points, well made. I feel I should defend myself: I'm sorry I didn't make it clear that the M-dollar blog didn't trust the numbers as recorded, or that I wouldn't use web-request statistics as anything other than an indicator. I'm sorry that my post came across as fanboy-ish, but I'm not a fanboy.

  42. I don't see this as a logical conclusion by mrRay720 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Now I'm no Firefox fanboi (I use it but don't evangelise it, and also still use IE), but didn't they consider the possibility that the change is instead in the readership of their monitored websites?
    Of course, that would bring doubt into their business model so of course not - "the figures show it so it MUST be true."

    Anyway, I think it's more than Firefox users have a better memory - so have less reason to revisit pages. :-D

  43. Re:Noise my ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, those numbers mean that FF lost ~9.2% of *it's* existing market share.

  44. Re:Noise my ass by Doomstalk · · Score: 1

    Sheesh, you don't even have to RTFA, just read the /. summary correctly. Firefox didn't lose 8%. It lost 0.64%. It went from 8.71% to 8.07%.

    Do the math. It's a .64% drop in total users, but a 7.8% drop in FireFox's share.

  45. World-wide techsupport on line 2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    > no one has reported such a problem to me yet.

    Oh yah. That's it. It must not be true, since you haven't seen it yet.

    1. Re:World-wide techsupport on line 2 by sriram_2001 · · Score: 1

      Also because no one on the web has reported it yet. No news organization, no blog, nothing. And this is not the sort of things ZDNet or CNET would keep silent about especially since Microsoft and browsers are involved.

  46. Re:Noise my ass by timster · · Score: 1

    0.64% is 8% of 8%. Though it's actually only 7.3% of 8.71%. Hope that clears things up.

    --
    I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
  47. IE features by Mr_Silver · · Score: 1
    I've got Windows XP SP2 with IE and the MSN toolbar here and I have pop-up blocking and tabs.

    Yes, neither are particulary fantastic, but good enough to make it difficult to persuade people to move from something they already know.

    We've discussed malware to dead and whilst it's a threat, the people I know don't go to sites which would try and do this sort of thing to. Which naturally means that they also have no need for the many (fantastic) extensions out there.

    With IE now and the release of version 7, I suspect a lot of users won't consider jumping ship because what they have is just good enough. I mean you've got the tabbed browsing and the pop-up blocking that your geek friend harps on about, so why bother with a whole new application?

    --
    Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
    1. Re:IE features by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1
      SP2 IE failed to deliver for me. I have popups blocking set to max level, and I get more popups than before SP2. I've tried every setting possible, but they won't go away.

      There's also the IE wonder-fun of, when I turn off crap like java and flash, displaying endless "helpful" dialogs (and they are *MODAL* dialogs) that the page I'm viewing needs that piffle turned on, and it won't give me the "never bother me with this useless bullshit again, you evil pile of pig excrement OS" checkbox.

    2. Re:IE features by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mouse gestures. Once tried, you tend to expect to find them everywhere. Alas not.

  48. Re:Noise my ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From 8.71 points to 8.07 point is approximately 8 percent.

  49. This Isn't a Blip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    As I included in the version of this I submitted, this isn't the only study reporting a downturn.

    http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.a sp

    That study shows not only a one-month loss, but a 3-month downtrend for the first time ever. For the first time going all the way back to 2002 even. And the actual Mozilla browser is showing the same downtrend as well.

    It may be backlash for the security promises Firefox couldn't meet. It may be that its shinyness has worn off. It may be people are just sick of the thing.

    It's curious though and should probably concern the Firefox/Mozilla camp. When you're losing market share to a competitor that hasn't updated in recent memory, there's a definite problem...

    1. Re:This Isn't a Blip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of the people that I personally know that have switched back to IE from Firefox, the complaints were:

      1) outstanding memory leak issue
      2) instability in general (unexplained crashes when accessing certain sites)
      3) instability with java applications (yahoo games)

      The problem is that IE never crashes on them and so in this case they have the choice between two browsers that are more or less funtionally equivalent (in their eyes) where one is less stable than the other for the sites they visit.

    2. Re:This Isn't a Blip by NotoriousQ · · Score: 1

      Yup. I am guessing that a lot of it is due to college students. You will also notice that Mozilla market share slowed down during the summer a year ago as well.

      All this means is that firefox usage has hit a plateu. The increase in use is not that great to offset seasonal / whatever variations.

      So until businesses start adopting it, I think these are the numbers we will see for a while.

      --
      badness 10000
    3. Re:This Isn't a Blip by setmajer · · Score: 1

      Actually, it probably is a blip. TheCounter.com for June and July.

      They show a 2-point increase in share for FF, passing IE 5.x for the first time, while IE6 continues its very slow decline.

      Web site stats services are (probably) indicative of broad trends in the overall web audience, but little more. All we can tell from this is that Mozilla-based browsers are probably close to 10% of the 'general' audience and growing slowly, IE 5 is probably less than that and shrinking somewhat, and IE 6 usage is roughly static.

      W3Schools is (if anything) a worse indicator of general-audience share than the stats services since it is a smaller sample and is heavily skewed towards the tech-savvy.

      --

    4. Re:This Isn't a Blip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      W3Schools is (if anything) a worse indicator of general-audience share than the stats services since it is a smaller sample and is heavily skewed towards the tech-savvy.

      Then shouldn't the skewing be more *in favor* of Firefox and Moz, not against them? That doesn't make any sense either. You're stating that because their site is more tech-savvy, more of those people are choosing IE over FF or Moz? To me that's an increased cause of curiosity, not further reason to dismiss it.

    5. Re:This Isn't a Blip by setmajer · · Score: 1

      I never said that a more tech-savvy audience would be more likely to choose IE over FF. I said the more tech-savvy audience was less representative of the web audience in general than the 'free counter' stats, which are themselves suspect at best.

      The point is that without more information about the W3Schools audience, we don't have any idea what their stats mean.

      For example, elsewhere in the thread someone noted that the downturn coincides with summer break at schools. Perhaps in the summer the W3Schools audience has relatively more professional developers as the students are off at summer jobs, the beach, etc. Those professionals may work predominantly at large organisations where they have no choice in which browser they use as the organisations they work for have largely standardised on IE. So it might be that Firefox dropped because students who have a choice in which browser they use visit W3Schools less in the summer, where professionals who are forced to use IE visit year-round.

      Or it might mean nothing of the sort. Without more information, we don't know.

      Besides, there's still TheCounter's data, which appears to come from a larger (though still quite possibly unrepresentative) sample.

      Bottom line: this is a non-story getting play during a slow news week, nothing more.

      --

  50. Re:a dodgy idea, but... by amliebsch · · Score: 1
    I know it would be sneaky, but I think the ends would justify the means.

    Be sure to factor in a stay in a federal "pound-you-in-the-ass" prison for whoever writes the worm as one of the "means."

    --
    If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
  51. Memory usage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I recently switched from Firefox back to Safari because the former is such a memory pig. I've heard there's a memory leak in Firefox when you open tabs... in any case, I typically operate with about a dozen windows each with a few tabs, and it brings Firefox to its knees. Paging, paging, paging Firefox. Safari seems to handle it pretty well, though.

  52. No crashes, but... by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1
    Firefox seems snappy at forst, but it seems to get slower as time goes on. It even takes an increasingly long time just to start when running it for the first time after a reboot. Uninstalling and reinstalling fixes this, but then it just gets slow again.

    Which sort of makes it the ultimate WIndows application, I guess.

    I still won't go back to IE, though. With IE these days I have to force quit hung browser windows on every fifth site.

    1. Re:No crashes, but... by Colendus · · Score: 1

      I think it has less to do with Firefox problems, and more to do with IE's attempts at catching up, like their tabbed browsing and that sort of thing. If they make themselves "look" like Firefox, the average users wont know the difference. I personally dont care about popularity, I'm gonna use what I think is worthwhile, which certainly still is Firefox.

      --
      Computer Technician SensorCAT Research Foundation
  53. Re:Noise my ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I RTFA correctly. Maybe you should try to RTFP correctly before you open your yap....

  54. Re:a dodgy idea, but... by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 1

    Why don't someone create a worm that installs FireFox, while making it seem, to the average non-tech savvy Internet Explorer, that s/he is still using IE?

    You're obviously an above-average tech savvy guy; why don't you create it?

  55. Re:Noise my ass by notasheep · · Score: 2, Informative

    RTFA yourself, Firefox did lose 8% of its market share. If, for example, it had a 50% market share in July and then it had a 25% share in August it would have lost 50% of it's market share while still holding a 25% share overall.

    --
    Your mind looks a little cramped. Why don't you stretch it a little?
  56. Or, it could be bullshit by stinky+wizzleteats · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I get a fair amount of traffic on my personal web site (4gigs monthly traffic, 27,000 hits/month). As with all things, data I directly personally measure trumps any media report. It seems the more direct information I have about anything reported in the media, the more aware I am of what they get wrong, distort, or just plain lie about. While last month was certainly statistically interesting for my site, it was for another reason. For the first time ever, IE was NOT the most popular web browser used to reach my site. Firefox came in at 45%, and IE scored 43%. Firefox has been steadily gaining each month, with the gains being more and more dramatic as each month goes by.

    Is my personal web traffic representative of the Internet as a whole? Certainly not. Does it rebut the cited article? No. Is it the only information in which I have any confidence at all? Yes. My advice to you? Look at your own web logs and react accordingly, in so much as it matters to do so.

    1. Re:Or, it could be bullshit by aengblom · · Score: 1

      So your logic is that you have faith in your numbers because they are not representative of the Internet as a whole?

      --


      So close and yet so far from the world's perfect ID number
    2. Re:Or, it could be bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, I think what he is saying is this:

      Different website will attract different users, depending on the topic of the site. So if his site draws in more mozilla users, it is likely because his site interests more mozilla users than IE users.

    3. Re:Or, it could be bullshit by stinky+wizzleteats · · Score: 1

      So your logic is that you have faith in your numbers because they are not representative of the Internet as a whole?

      Wow. You invoked logic in that statement. I will now pause and let the ironic humor of this situation join with the universe.
      ...

  57. Re:Noise my ass by Doomstalk · · Score: 1

    Err, typo on my part. 7.4% is more like it.

  58. Re:Noise my ass by ThosLives · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I think people are forgetting that a change in market share does not mean a loss in installed base. For instance, if the current total market is 1000 and IE has 900 users and FF has 100, IE has 90% and FF has 10%. Now, let's say the market grows to 2000 and IE has 1850 and FF has 150. The new market shares are 92.5% and 7.5%; FF's market share dropped 2.5%, but their installed base went up 50%.

    Simply looking at market share doesn't tell you anything except for relative adoption with respect to the overall market, and that may or may not even be a useful measurement. It depends on if you care about relative share or absolute adoption, really.

    --
    "There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
  59. Re:Noise my ass by MyTwoCentsWorth · · Score: 1

    Dear Sir,

    It is YOU who must read the PARENT POST correctly. A loss of 0.64% total user base from an initial 8% total user base is an 8% loss of the previous Firefox user base. (8% of 8 is 0.64).
    Have fun posting.

  60. Lets not forget the important thing here by Crimsane · · Score: 1

    the mozilla store has re-opened, and they Now have a backpack .

    Now that I am 100% sure never to get a girlfriend sporting my newly ordered backpack, they may as well start offering thunderbird underwear.
    In case people start trying to spam my crotch, I will have protection :D

  61. Great to know. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's good to know that the Firefox server farm I created just to constantly hit your site has actually impacted the numbers.

  62. That's it! by ninja_assault_kitten · · Score: 1

    I better add 20 new threads to my Firefox download script!

  63. testing by retzwerx · · Score: 1

    they might be tryin out the ie7.

  64. Interesting to study further by Reemi · · Score: 1

    I've always been wondering what the influence of holidays are on OSS development. E.g. do we see an increased number of commitments into CVS / releases during Christmas Holidays? Is there a difference how e.g. US OSS programmers spend independance day and Europeans spend their national Holidays?

    The data available in the article does not provide any information other then "drop in share for July". Those data should be split up into: personal use, buisiness use and if possible by geographical area (continents). Show me as well the total internet usage (I'd expect a drop there as well, don't forget that in some European countries people are on Holiday for at least 4 weeks during July. Sweden and Finland comes to mind) and maybe I can say something about the significance of this drop.

  65. Summer sales, kids at home? by Cyphertube · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A small percentage shift for the visitors, etc. doesn't really mean much. No one really explains how these visitor numbers are calculated.

    I know how it is at my mom's house. First off, during the school year, she's the primary user, but in the summer, there are kids visiting sites all day. So their usage and number of sites visited goes up, likely resulting in more hits on those sites tracked.

    Second, my mom uses Firefox all year round, but she dumps the kids into AOL's browser, which, in her version, is really IE with AOL surfing blocking. So, yeah, there's more IE stuff.

    Third, a bunch of people are buying computers for their kids over the summer and graduation and going to college presents (or required items). And gee, I bet those machines have IE preinstalled. Ding! Increase in numbers again.

    Lastly, since I bet that those sites are using cookies to track users, a number of people who use spybot and/or ad-aware will be wiping out those cookies and getting counted multiple times. During the year, my mom runs it once every two weeks, but in the summer, with all the crap those kids try to download, she runs it about every two or three days, meaning that she's wiping the cookie 10 times a month.

    Multiply that to many, many households, and you start to wonder how much the IE figure could actually be inflated.

    It's not that there can't be a drop in Firefox and a rise in IE. But without stats, reports, real academic information with methodology, well, it means diddly.

    --
    Linux - because it doesn't leave that Steve Ballmer aftertaste.
  66. saw it coming by COMON$ · · Score: 1
    Im sure this has been stated many times before. But I would like to point it out once again.

    You have a great open source program that everyone raves about.

    Said program gets out of the dark corners of the geek world and gains a significant market share.

    People jump ship because now that it has been tested by several million people and has suffered the attention of the masses.

    Original geek crowd start attacking it because it is no longer an obscure "cool" piece of software.

    Not a troll here but I just want to know if this has been the trend of all open source software.

    --
    CS: It is all sink or swim...oh and did I mention there are sharks in that water?
  67. Dont editors RTFA? by Morbid_Angel666 · · Score: 1

    I noticed this at the very top of the linked article about the lack of stability ...

    Things have really been going downhill since I upgraded to Mac OS X Tiger (10.4) a few weeks back.

    Doesn't sound very fair to blame the app for a potentially botched OS upgrade ...

  68. Re:Noise my ass by shaitand · · Score: 1

    Not to mention IE wins the market share by default because it is installed on every new pc by default.

  69. Funny by nozzo · · Score: 1

    LOL! quick find excuses and reasons while Bill's browser is a poorer choice and couldn't possibly be gaining any kind of market share over our beloved FireFox. Oh No! someone dared to post an article which contains a FF negative - scream - help - call the police

  70. Simple answer.... by PortHaven · · Score: 1

    I betcha what we're seeing is the "new computer sales" preparing for the upcoming school year.

    So, seeing as most computers sold ship with IE the school "sale" boom during the summer months preceeding the fall semester would account for a percentage increase.

    *shrug*

    Just a thought...

  71. I foresaw this "share slip." by game+kid · · Score: 1

    W3Schools' statistics (April-August 2005) seemed to forecast this slight IE rise/Firefox decline. Maybe not representative of the whole Web, but it's worth seeing.

    I wonder how much MS' "Honeymonkeys" and cross-browser "security issues" can further help IE...

    --
    You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
    1. Re:I foresaw this "share slip." by Dan+Ost · · Score: 1

      W3Schools changed the way that they make their calculations. That's why it
      appears that FF's share dropped in July. They used to have a note explaining
      that, but removed it when they added numbers for August.

      --

      *sigh* back to work...
  72. Re:Noise my ass by Retric · · Score: 2, Interesting

    With your parent post's numbers:

    It started at 8.71%

    0.64/8.71 = A loss of ~7.3%

    So it looks like nobody knows what they are talking about.

    PS: Did not RTFA.

  73. You have to be a complete idiot to believe ... by Herschel+Cohen · · Score: 1

    the measurements have that degree of significant of digits to support such claims of accuracy!

    Prima facie, these numbers are bogus. Why bother to add credence to a "study" that demonstrates a one-to-correlation at such "precision" missed by many other publized sets of numbers.

    1. Re:You have to be a complete idiot to believe ... by pl1ght · · Score: 0

      They are about as Bogus and Firefox flaunting 80 million downloads. I have probably accounted for 1000 of those myself.

    2. Re:You have to be a complete idiot to believe ... by Herschel+Cohen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      RE "... as Bogus and Firefox flaunting 80 million downloads"

      No, the count is correct: they downloaded 80M copies, what is made of the figure is in dispute.

      Next I was just hearing via my son that there is supposed to be one count per IP address, though we updated and downloaded multiple times for several machines we represent only one download. If that is correct then we have been under counted. Previously I had heard that a Window's machine that updates was not counted as a download, but a fresh install was.

      Now if you really have a critical mind, you might recognize the ambiguity of the download count. If you had ANY scientific experience you would recognize that even precise, physical measurements have surprising few significant figures (a measure accuracy). Assuming you have such knowledge you would address my point about the overblown claim of precise measurement from a very imprecise data set.

      Address that issue if you can.

    3. Re:You have to be a complete idiot to believe ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      these numbers are bogus. Why bother to add credence to a "study" that demonstrates a one-to-correlation at such "precision" missed by many other publized sets of numbers.

      Because they're numbers pulled from the exact same source and report/study in June that was posted here on this same site when all the Firefox fanboys were gloating about increases in share. Funy how the numbers were flawless then and important, but now suddeny are horribly inaccurate and unimportant now that you don't like what they show?

      Or simply put, you're a clown and need to read more before commenting on such issues.

    4. Re:You have to be a complete idiot to believe ... by Herschel+Cohen · · Score: 1

      Hey Coward, just hope you keep your first name.

      Did you find my name or even my registration number associated with a praise filled comment regarding the June study? I happen to know how difficult it is to interpret raw usage data, since I have more questions on how to attempt it properly than certainty the numbers I generate are really correct. What have you ever done in this regard?

      I suspect too that when it comes to clownery you greatly surpass me in my tepid attempt to match the crowning glory of your spineless posturing.

    5. Re:You have to be a complete idiot to believe ... by Herschel+Cohen · · Score: 1

      Not sure anyone will notice, but it belongs here.

      Look at this short note: http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-5833861.html

      It is here where real money and effort is being spent on the perceived usage statistics of Firefox. That is, "... Though its market share slipped slightly last month, researchers estimate that between 8 and 9 percent of the Internet population use the open-source browser". Though they accept the supposed drop in Firefox usage, they quote the usage rate at the full percentage point level. Most likely that is the best we can do, however, I suspect the error level is more than a full percentage point (plus or minus).

      But what do I know? Since I routinely throw away so much that is patently bogus, having spoofed or non-existent data, etc. before even attempting a simple count!

  74. Firefox on OS X by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On my PowerBook, Firefox gets really unresponsive after 10 to 15 minutes of use -- I once watched it pinwheel for 5 minutes while I waited for it to close. (so. frustrating.)

    I guess I don't know anything. But on OS X, Safari seems like a much better browser. Is there something I'm missing?

    Was I supposed to mess around with Firefox's preferences to get it to run smoothly? How come Safari runs smoothly and I don't have to do jack to get it that way? Like, why would any Mac user choose Firefox over Safari?

    (Or maybe I'm the only one for whom Firefox moves in absolute slow-motion....)

    1. Re:Firefox on OS X by pbailey · · Score: 1

      I run Firefox regularity on OS X, and I never have seen the problems you descibe. Have used it on OS X 10.3 and 10.4. Just did a normal install, nothing special to set up or anything. Guess that doesn't solve your problem, but it seems like it might be sonething specific to your powerbook, not the FF/OS X combo

      Cheers

    2. Re:Firefox on OS X by pomo+monster · · Score: 1

      No, you're not missing anything. Firefox gobbles up insane amounts of memory and the process hangs much more often than Safari (as measured by Apple's developer tools), not to mention the ghastly interface and dork-centric design. If you like all these things, Firefox is for you; otherwise, you'll probably be happier with Safari.

    3. Re:Firefox on OS X by AliasN · · Score: 1

      Firefox DOES use more memory and I consider that a problem, however let's not get on firefox's case about this. Other OS X apps use just as much memory (Proteus) and hang just as much (Finder, just try searching for files with the Kind > Other entry). Also, Firefox is THEMEABLE. You know what that means? It means you can change how it looks, and I have seen a few good aqua-based themes for it. As for the interface design issues, could you be a bit more specific? The latest release fixes many Aqua inconsistencies and the main browsing window functions a lot like Safari's (less the brushed metal appearance and square buttons). In effect, I can think of other great apps that hang, use a lot of memory and have a "ghastly interface and dork-centric design": Unreal Tournament 2004. However it is a great game, and the Unreal engine is one of the best out there (in MY opinion, I don't want to start a flame war or big discussion on this). People don't shun it for high memory usage, hanging, or the ghastly interface.They love it for its rendering and physics engines. For the same reason why people love Firefox over IE.. It supports PNG transparencies! Woah! So, next time, think for a while before you post something like that about a great app. Also, you are sure it is like that, you may want to try installing a version higher then 0.9.0.

    4. Re:Firefox on OS X by pomo+monster · · Score: 1

      Yeah, actually, I've tried the latest version of Firefox and the interface still sucks. All the Cocoa elements are still faked, and badly at that. Buttons don't pulse, fonts are subtly different, translucency is wrong, contextual menus don't blink, and there's a million other little look-and-feel details that serve to make Firefox feel like nothing more than a reanimated corpse of a real Cocoa app. Text boxes are a pain in the ass to work with (no spell checking, perverse linewrapping). The preferences dialog is a fucking sheet, of all things, and it's badly organized. Passwords aren't stored in Keychain and proxy settings aren't inherited from System Preferences. Want me to go on?

      As for themes, that's a poor substitute for designing the fucking thing right to begin with. I don't want to have to apply a skin in Firefox in order to make it less ugly, especially considering that no skin I've ever seen can cover up its battered pizzaface of flaws.

      Ooh, sorry, I just get worked up about this for some reason.

    5. Re:Firefox on OS X by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah. Not that anyone cares, but Firefox on OS X kind of blows. It hangs, it's ugly, and it doesn't work like a Cocoa app.

      Safari on the other hand runs smoothly, provides Cocoa services, and looks and behaves exactly like the rest of the OS.

      I guess I just don't see the point of Firefox on OS X.

  75. So...Mission Accomplished by PenguinBoyDave · · Score: 1

    Firefox has gotten the attention it deserves, and people will continue to talk about it and more will continue to convert from Internet Exploder. If nothing else the world now knows without a shadow of a doubt that Open Source is good, reliable technology, and superior in many cases. I'd say that Firefox has done what others have not been able to do so well...get people's eyes of MS and on to something else.

    --
    I'm not a troll, but I play one on Slashdot.
  76. don't worry by acdc_rules · · Score: 1

    i just bought as t-shirt from the mozilla store. i will wear often and in busy areas of my city. market share will begin to improve shortly.

  77. statistical noise by John+Meacham · · Score: 1

    If you seem to know that it is within the range of statistical noise and even state so in the summary, then why post it as news?

    --
    http://notanumber.net/
  78. Non-Information Information by EXTomar · · Score: 1

    This is the kind of stuff that appears to be information and informative but really has no information. After all MS Office 2003 products have had a slip in usage (this has been mentioned on /.) but I doubt anyone will believe Office is anywhere but #1 for office productivity software. The truth about where FireFox is doesn't lie with usage statistics alone.

    As for FireFox itself, I am pleasantly happy with it. I don't see the problems many others see. In any applicaiton framework the problems usually come up in the modules not the framework. I suspect most of the problems users see lie either in the plugins many use or the way plugins interact with everything else.

    If I had any suggestion for the developers steering FireFox (and Thunderbird) it would be further isolating plugins. The developers should strive to have a framework that survives not only a catastrophic plugin failure (ie. a plugin crashes) but a plugin that is errant (ie. a plugin that malfunctions never handling memory correctly) without screwing up the core browser.

  79. Instability by Digital+Vomit · · Score: 1
    Both IE and FireFox crash occasionally for me. However, one BIG feature sets FireFox apart for me and has helped cement its position as my browser of choice: the SessionSaver extension. I normally keep half a dozen or more links open while browsing, and browser or system crashes used to be devastating. Now I can even shut down my browser and continue the next day exactly where I left off.

    The extensions are the greatest thing about Firefox, IMHO.

    --
    Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
  80. But if... by timtwobuck · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If you say this variation is statistical noise, which is very probably is, why are you still reporting it as news???

  81. It's all about plugins by Tx · · Score: 1

    It's the plugins that make Firefox for me, unfortunately there are problems here. There's no guarantee that plugins won't cause problems with Firefox or with each other, or that they'll continue to work after an update. Firefox breakage by this method has turned several non-technical types I know back to IE.

    Plugins are so important to Firefox that I'd like to see a bunch of the most popular ones made "official", i.e. they will be tested to make sure that they work together, they will auto-update from the official site, and they will work after an update.

    --
    Oh no... it's the future.
  82. Wanna get people to use firefox? by DroopyStonx · · Score: 1

    To get people to use firefox who otherwise could give a rats ass about IE vs. Mozilla... just take a lesson from our government - use a bit of fear mongering!

    Seriously, it works.

    You know how you're the "computer guy" in your family or group of friends, the one that fixes EVERYONE'S computers whenever they get infested? You know how you've fixed those same machines multiple times?

    Yeah well, since you "know it all" and they don't, explain to them, "You know why you get these viruses? Internet Explorer. Here, use this other browser."

    I've done this on every one of my non-computer literate friends/family members and it works like a charm.

    Now... if everyone were to follow suit...

    --
    We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
  83. Good God... by Run4yourlives · · Score: 1

    You guys don't watch your investments this way do you?

    0.64%? Seriously, call me when something happens.

  84. I'm thinking of changing back by mrjimorg · · Score: 1

    Websites have figured out how to defeat the popup blocker withing Firefox - try drudgereport.com or unitedmedia.com and you'll see. Not sure where to go now for popup-free browsing. May have to create my own damn proxy

  85. Amusing by manavendra · · Score: 1

    Few hours ago there was a post about Firefox downloads topping 80 million mark
    Even in this article, The enquirer mentions that "Net measurement is a tricky business and whenever we quote Net application figures, someone always quotes figures to make it look all gloom and doom.."
    So effectively, they say the share *might* have been dropped, but that may not necessarily be true!

    --
    http://efil.blogspot.com/
  86. Doubt it by diegocgteleline.es · · Score: 1

    IE7 is only available to official betatesters, Beta 2 will be a public beta but beta 1 isn't

  87. Improve the developer experience. by CyricZ · · Score: 2, Insightful

    While this doesn't necessary concern the widespread adoption of Firefox, I would like to comment on embedding Gecko. For the past week or so I have been attempting to embed Gecko into a proprietary C++ graphical user interface toolkit. So far I have found it quite difficult.

    The existing documentation is either extremely out of date (ie. 2002 or earlier), or partially complete. Some of the documentation contains old names for various XPCOM interfaces. While the various embedding examples are a start, they are very poorly commented and as such are quite useless.

    Now, I realize that Gecko is a very complex piece of software, but in order for it to become widely accepted there needs to be many pieces of software which use it. But as of this time it is quite difficult for a developer to quickly embed Gecko within an existing application. That may very well be because there is a complete lack of documentation describing how to do so.

    The path to more users is more products. The path to more products is easier development. And easier development is often due to accessible, correct and descriptive documentation. So please, if there is someone reading this who has the knowledge, write us developers a decent guide on embedding Gecko.

    --
    Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
  88. If so I have less faith in people.... by rolfwind · · Score: 1

    Could recent security problems and lack of stability, reported by some users, lead to the decline of the browser that just passed 80 million downloads?"

    If so, I have less faith in people than before. Years and years of pop-ups and other annoyances to downright garbage with IE and a news report would scare you off of Firefox?

    I honestly don't know how people still use that browser unless things have improved in the meantime.

  89. Untrue by jvance · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If nobody had reported this on the web yet, we wouldn't have a thread to discuss this in, would we? As it is, two separate individuals in this thread have reported this problem in Win2K.

    Maybe instead of calling them liars (which is exactly what you're doing, and it's very rude), you could ask for details so you could reproduce the problem yourself.

  90. WebCT? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most firms that have demanded I prove my knowledge with these timed test accept my explanation, "You're hiring me for a UNIX programmer position. The reason you're interested is because of my documented experience. The test site you are using rtuuns only in Internet Explorer, as I run a completely Microsoft-free house, we will either have to find an alternate testing method or you'll have to accept the truth of my resume." I've not lost a contract yet, even in this day of plentiful employees and rare employment.

    Point being, the more that every employer knows that the technology they are using is outmoded; the more they will insist on web standards and least common denominator support from their service providers. It starts with you, the commodity, saying, "No", and not acquiescing.

  91. Measurement methodology by scoove · · Score: 1

    I think new PCs is a major reason.

    I'd be curious if there was any corrolation between IE usage and publically announced "major security patches." Many folks still check updates manually and I'd expect IE frequency to increase when the publicity of major vulnerability patches increases.

    *scoove*

    1. Re:Measurement methodology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  92. It was me, sorry by digitalgiblet · · Score: 5, Funny

    Geeze, guys I'm really sorry. It was me. I bought a new computer with XP (long-time critic, first time user) and actually liked the way IE rendered text. I SWEAR I'm planning to go back to using Firefox ANY DAY NOW. The numbers should be back up then...

    1. Re:It was me, sorry by porneL · · Score: 1

      Actually IE does render text nicely. It supports hyphenation (soft hyphen) and dynamic spacing of letters (text-justify:newspaper) that allows pretty rendering of justified text. Gecko hasn't improved in this area since old Netscape.

  93. How can these stats be real? by kpainter · · Score: 0

    Every single computer I own has IE on it. Not because I want to have it, but because I have to. I use Firefox 99.999999% of the time.

  94. Re:Statistical Noise and Statistical Bias by podmf · · Score: 1

    The report could be dismissed as statistical noise if the slight decline weren't also reflected at sites like w3schools.

    As we all know, surveys are no more reliable than their sampling procedures and reliable surveys are not necessarily valid.

    For the time being, I'm inclined to accept the argument for noise, but there are also many anti-firefox biases in standard browser counting methods.

    Most are relatively consistent over time, but there is one obvious one which increases with firefox use.

    With experience, Firefox users increasingly find and deploy extensions which block the images and scripts that research companies use to count user behaviour.

    I try to avoid blocking the more obvious ones, but it's far from easy to distinguish them from spam-minded market research.

  95. Perhaps not... by Knaldgas · · Score: 1
    This is statistical noise, pure and simple. There is no story here.

    With 0.64% it could easily be so, but there might be another explanation:
    Usual Firefox-users had their holidays, walking into internetcafés using their IE for surfing.
    Thats what I did...

    But same conclusion: There is no story here.

    ~Knaldgas

    1. Re:Perhaps not... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First prize for lamest attempt at rationalizing bias ever.

  96. Re:Noise my ass by B'Trey · · Score: 1

    If you read it that way, Firefox lost 7.3%, meaning either the GP can't do math or is just trying to cover his ass and make it sound like he knew what he was talking about.

    --

    "The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.

  97. Honeymoon ended. by mediocubano · · Score: 1

    After a while of trying to like Firefox I just got tired and gave up. It was just too much of a memory hog on an older laptop. It just left me waiting, waiting, waiting for pages to render. And the plugins (Flashblock) were of marginal use and quality. The honeymoon was over, so I uninstalled it and got back my disk space. I don't think that I'll bother trying it again.

    1. Re:Honeymoon ended. by jp10558 · · Score: 1

      I'm repeating myself, but have you tried any of the other browsers? There are more than IE and FireFox, though according to most you wouldn't know it.

      There's Mozilla's SeaMonky, K-Melon, Opera, Dillo and more. Assuming the reason you tried FF was you didn't like IE that much.

      --
      Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3
  98. noise by cahiha · · Score: 1

    Well, if you see years of persistent growth and then you see a dip, that's not just statistical noise. While it doesn't necessarily mean marketshare has gone down, it means that growth rate has slowed enough that it is now possible to see a dip (at high growth rates, that just won't happen).

    In any case, while sampling error is a problem with these kinds of surveys, that's probably far from the biggest problem; non-representative samples and observer bias are probably far more serious.

  99. A non-event by Freggy · · Score: 1

    This is just plain FUD, or some kind of commercial service provider has found a cheap and easy way too get a lot of publicity. Not only is the number so low that it is within the error margin of their results, furthermore, there are other sources which even say that Firefox' market share has risen 2% in the same period.

    See also http://www.webstandards.org/buzz/archive/2005_08.h tml#a000545

    Nothing to see here people, move along!

  100. unlikley by polyp2000 · · Score: 1

    Could recent security problems and lack of stability, reported by some users, lead to the decline of the browser that just passed 80 million downloads?"

    Unlikely no-one would switch to IE on the basis of security given its long standing reputation.

    --
    Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
  101. OMG what to do now by Pecisk · · Score: 1

    Gosh....

    I just tired from these doomsayers. Firefox is GAINING and various stats shows that. I just tired also from such "reporting" which easily can be called "I justify my point of view that FF won't gain more than this". Like we have to prove something to each other at any cost.

    Get this - Firefox will be here as most popular alternative browser. There will be Opera. And there will be more and more people which will use them. Yes, IE will be still most popular, but not monopoly. So that is ALL what matters to ME and I think to most FF/Opera/Another Alternative Browser users.

    Why we just can't avoid articles which causes religious vs. wars, touches sensitive topics without any kind of proof.

    Just don't do this.

    --
    user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
  102. Not on my site. by heffel · · Score: 1

    Approximately 70% of the visitors to my site use Firefox. The site attracts mainly a techy crowd, though.

  103. I don'T get it by fuck_this_shit · · Score: 1
    and a number change like this is statistical noise

    then why the hell did you post it if you in your limitless wisdom deem it to not be news at all?

  104. Firefox: All Windows and Tabs CRASH. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 0


    I've been having very serious stability problems here, too.

    When Firefox crashes, all windows and tabs crash together. That means that if you were researching LCD monitors, and you had several tabs open for each manufacturer, when Firefox crashes, you lose ALL your work.

    It's easy to understand why. The head of the Mozilla team was interviewed on the Charlie Rose show. She admitted she is a lawyer with NO technical experience. Her social skills are so limited, in comparison she makes the average computer professional look like a movie star.

    Apparently because of bugs or inconsistencies in Window handling, Firefox does not work well with UltraVNC. Sometimes menus go way when they should, sometimes they don't. The page drawing problems mentioned in the parent post cause even worse problems with remote programs like UltraVNC.

    Two other reasons why there are problems: 1) When you report crashes on Bugzilla, you often get unpleasant, unhelpful replies. This discourages reporting. 2) Often when Firefox crashes, TalkBack crashes, too, meaning that the Firefox team doesn't get a report of the crash. A crash reporting tool that itself crashes? Awesome mismanagement.

    --
    If you support dishonesty and violence, don't say you are Christian.

    1. Re:Firefox: All Windows and Tabs CRASH. by Zarel · · Score: 1

      Strange.

      I've never seen Talkback crash, and, with SessionSaver, Firefox crashes don't mean I lose all my work.

      --
      Want a high quality FOSS RTS game? Try Warzone 2100!
  105. Massive surge coming, just look by 0xABADC0DA · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If you look that the traffic for mozilla.org you see a slight downward trend during summer and a massive spike just recently in august, coinciding with the kids going back to school.

    So basically the kids using firefox at school stopped for the summer because some of them were using their parents computers that had IE. Now that the kids have gone back to school the ones that weren't using firefox are downloading it in huge numbers (probably mostly to be cool). Next set of statistics will probably show a 2% rise for firefox, imho due to this.

    1. Re:Massive surge coming, just look by shawn(at)fsu · · Score: 2

      Why didn't they install it on their rents machines. I did when I went home?

      --
      500 dollar reward for tip(s) leading to the arrest of the person(s) who stole my sig.
    2. Re:Massive surge coming, just look by jasonmantey · · Score: 1

      Though I would like your post to be true, this doensn't entirely hold. Every college I know (I am in Detroit region) doesn't start for several weeks. The massive spike was from something else.

      --
      JM
    3. Re:Massive surge coming, just look by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      most k-12 schools start sometime in August, usually in the first week or two. And kids have a lot of time and energy to look into something to get rid of annoying pop-ups, and mess around with plug-ins and junk. So I wouldn't discount it.

  106. You MUST be new here by joshsnow · · Score: 1

    ..seriously.

  107. Actually by spamfiltre · · Score: 1

    It's all of those people dumping Fiefox for IE so that they can get in on the prepub at the copyright officehttp://slashdot.org/articles/05/08/15/115022 9.shtml?tid=103&tid=1.

  108. Firefox on amd64 by mi · · Score: 1
    In a word: stinks... The new Deer Park release (currently in alpha) may be better, but the old 1.0.x, although building barely works on amd64.

    The trunk of the cvs tree has plenty of 64-bit specific fixes over the last year, but -- being unrelated to security -- they don't make their way into the 1.0.x branch, which is the only one released.

    Having to maintain compatibility with the backwards OS/compiler combinations (like Win98/MSVC6) impedes development -- especially porting to the "obscure" new platforms like FreeBSD/amd64.

    And if you happen to be lucky enough to have a working 64-bit firefox, try installing the Forecastfox extension and restarting... (Careful -- backup your ~/.mozilla first.)

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  109. Installed base far trickier Q than percentage by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 1

    I think people are forgetting that a change in market share does not mean a loss in installed base ... Simply looking at market share doesn't tell you anything except for relative adoption with respect to the overall market, and that may or may not even be a useful measurement. It depends on if you care about relative share or absolute adoption, really.

    The installed base / absolute adoption question is a bit trickier than market share. Downloads do not equal users, counting the absolute number of firefox users is questionable like the absolute number of Linux users. A lot of guesswork is required. I've downloaded Firefox for several personal computers. I've downloaded complete installers to update to a new revision. So that's 9 download for me personally. Unlike Linux I don't cart a CD to friends and family who want to give it a try. I download it, it's icons sit's there on the desktop next to Internet Explorer. Some members of the household that share the computer continue using IE. Things are terribly complicated. Regrettably marketshare is probably the best measurement available.

  110. Re:Noise my ass by pete6677 · · Score: 1

    There are still people who are just getting their first computer. Most of those will at least start out with IE, since it's already there, and might later use something else such as Firefox. It's too early to say that Firefox has lost ground with people like this, since it will take a while for them to become aware of alternative browsers, much less feel comfortable switching.

  111. Firefox bugs cause CPU hogging. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 2, Informative


    Another difficulty with Firefox is CPU usage. When Firefox bugs occur, sometimes Firefox CPU use climbs to 10% and even to 98%, even with no pages loading. Then ALL operations on that computer are slow, verrrrrry slow.

  112. I can see why by cahiha · · Score: 2, Informative

    I should say that I use Firefox on Linux, Macintosh, and Windows and, despite its problems, it's my preferred browser, mostly because of the plug-ins and because it works the same on all platforms.

    But I have to say, while it's better than the other browsers, it's not that good of a browser either. It's still far more bloated and slow than a browser should be. I find its GUI toolkit doesn't integrate well with the desktop and its redraw logic sucks, in particular under X11. I have a hard time finding my way through its mess of configuration files, many of them in inconsistent formats. And occasionally it crashes, and I have lost my bookmarks a few times.

    Overall, I still recommend switching to Firefox, despite its problems. But I certainly can see why IE or Safari users wouldn't want to bother switching, in particular if they aren't aware of all the great plugins. And unless the Firefox team improves their quality, I think Firefox will increasingly face serious problems.

    1. Re:I can see why by pomo+monster · · Score: 1

      "in particular if they aren't aware of all the great plugins"

      There's plugins for Safari, too, you know. Yeah, you won't get the one that changes the browser's name every time you start it up, but Safari's name doesn't suck enough to need that capability.

    2. Re:I can see why by RoLi · · Score: 1
      [..] I use Firefox on Linux [..] its GUI toolkit doesn't integrate well with the desktop

      Have you tried Konqueror?

    3. Re:I can see why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find its GUI toolkit doesn't integrate well with the desktop

      Well, if IE's integration is anything to go by, then I am so glad it doesn't. It's embarassing to show people your webbased application, and then have a DIV that floats under an "integrated" form element, with infinite Z-order, and trying to explain to potential customers that it's not our fault that IE sucks.

    4. Re:I can see why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Firefox's problems are much more basic: things like keybindings, drag-and-drop, single-instance code, and look-and-feel.

  113. Tabbed Browsing by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

    This comment is just a general FYI on the supposedly god-like feature that FF has that IE doesn't.

    I used a browser with tabbed browsing on Windows 3.1. It was stable, fast, compatible with then-current standards, and it was written by a company owned by AOL. To date, it was the best browser I have ever used.

    Those who think FF/Mozilla was original in this area are just ignorant, stupid or both.

  114. Noise? by Unsus · · Score: 1

    Anyone who took a stats class would know that this is not 'noise'. It's just bad math to call it that. It doesn't, however, mean that FF is losing in popularity. Even Google's profits weren't as high as expected, but they explained that it was due to it being summer and more people going out. I would imagine it would be the same thing here. Less techy people browsing at home, while about the same amount of people browse at work with whatever IT forces upon them.

  115. This only proves... by theufo · · Score: 1

    ...that people wise enough not to use IE are also wise enough to spend less time browsing the web and more time having a good time outside during summer!

  116. Losing market due to User Agent by kyoko21 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Perhaps the drop is due to users customizing their User Agent to report to be something other than Mozilla/Firefox.

    I myself modified my Firefox so that it browser info returns ... well you can read about it (need some cleaning up).

    user_pref("general.useragent.override", "NSACarnivore/13.7(X11;Multix;Multix;US;1776;HLS)" );
    user_pref("general.useragent.oscpu.override", "OpenVAX/VMS");
    user_pref("general.useragent.vendor", "Carnivore");
    user_pref("general.useragent.vendorSub", "13.7");
    user_pref("general.useragent.vendorComment", "Carnivore 13.7");
    user_pref("general.useragent.product", "Carnivore");
    user_pref("general.useragent.productSub", "13.7");
    user_pref("general.useragent.ProductComment", "Carnivore 13.7");
    user_pref("general.platform.override", "OpenVAX/VMS");
    user_pref("general.appcodename.override", "Carnivore");
    user_pref("general.appCodeName.override", "Carnivore");
    user_pref("general.appversion.override", "13.7 (Multex;en-US)");
    user_pref("general.appname.override", "Carnivore");
    user_pref("general.oscpu.override", "PPC128");
    user_pref("general.vendor.override", "Carnivore");
    user_pref("general.vendorSub.override", "Carnivore");
    user_pref("general.product.override", "Carnivore");
    user_pref("general.useragent.vendor.override", "Carnivore");
    user_pref("window.navigator.appName.override", "Carnivore");
    user_pref("window.navigator.product.override", "Carnivore");
    user_pref("window.navigator.productSub.override", "13.7");
    user_pref("window.navigator.vendor.override", "Carnivore");
    user_pref("window.navigator.vendorSub.override", "13.7");

  117. standards by astrashe · · Score: 2, Insightful

    To me, the issue isn't whether more or fewer people use firefox. The issue is whether or not all of the big browsers follow standards.

    As long as that's the case, I can run my browser on linux, and I'll have access to the web.

    I think that people tend to downplay the value that open source products have as disciplining forces for prorprietary companies.

    Firefox is forcing IE to improve on features and security, and by all accounts the next version is going to be much better on standards. That's the victory.

  118. The Real Problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I belive that it will take a lot of effort for FireFox to make inroads in the industry. It is necessary to look at, and be realistic about, some of the problems which FF has encountered so far.

    First of all, the amount of udpates which have been released over the last little while, are trying - even to die-hard users of the product. I believe that better QA is necessary. More effort has to be put into the software update process as well. I know that "a better installer" is coming. But, so far, you have to uninstall, and re-install the entire thing. That's just not very slick. Remember: users see something like Windows Update - and I have to admit - it's slick, painless, and automatic. Gates & Co. have put a lot of effort and thought into that one. FF auto-update is not. In fact, simply telliing me that there are updates available does not really solve any problems.

    I am glad that FF is the knight in shining armour, which has decided to support all of the W3C standards to the tee. Unfortunately, IE has not. The reasons for this lack of support, are beyond the scope of this comment - you can read about the speculation all over the web. The net effect is that browsing those sites with FF, yields unpredictable results. Instead of griping about it, we should just learn to imitate what IE does (badly), but at the same time, definitely do it more securely.

    The rally which has caused FF to become so popular is great - we just need to ensure that it's for the right people. Your average person does not really care what browser they use, or whether the browser was built by the Open Source Movement or not. They just want to see the information they requested.

    I think that in order to make a difference, we'll have to think outside of the box - we'll have to truly ask some people out there what it would take to make the switch. The crux of the matter is, we could find out (quite harshly), that there is no interest in a second (or alternative) browser for the rest of the world. Perhaps (as was indicated in other posts), this is something of a niche market, and it may just remain as such. We also have to remember that, for the average person change is hard, the path of least resistance prevails. We, somehow, have to get on that path.

  119. Misleading by dtfinch · · Score: 4, Informative

    This says that Gecko browsers overall have been growing in popularity every month. In fact, all major browser engines, including IE6, have been gaining share at the expense of IE5.

  120. Stat's are accurate decription.. IF by MrCopilot · · Score: 1
    If You switch the numbers for IE & Firefox, It perfectly describes my surfing behaviour.

    87% of the time I am using Firefox on Windows & on Linux.

    8% of time I HAVE to use IE. (Media/Updates)

    .5% of time some Linux app opens Mozilla Browser by default. Cedega/Point2Play I'm looking at you.

    Occasionally for compat testing I use KonQueror, Glinks and links (or if I am stuck in a console).

    Sorry Opera, Don't feel the need.

    All of these numbers are meaningless to anyone but me. Same goes for their numbers. Write your sites to the standards and who cares what accesses it, just be happy anyone did.

    --
    OSGGFG - Open Source Gamers Guide to Free Games
  121. The main problem as I see it by kilodelta · · Score: 4, Informative

    I have both IE and Firefox on my machine. Why? Because I can't access certain sites that are very MS specific with Firefox.

    That being said, 95% of the time I use Firefox.

    I'd like to see IE go away but it just isn't going to happen anytime soon. But remember, IE was once a marginal and buggy browser too.

    1. Re:The main problem as I see it by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      I have both IE and Firefox on my machine. Why? Because I can't access certain sites that are very MS specific with Firefox.

      That being said, 95% of the time I use Firefox.


      Same here. Although I have Firefox, Opera, and IE at home, using Opera for email and most IE sites, and occassionally if even Opera balks, or for MSFT downloads, I use IE.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    2. Re:The main problem as I see it by isorox · · Score: 1

      I have both IE and Firefox on my machine. Why? Because I can't access certain sites that are very MS specific with Firefox.

      Yo, you run windows (like most slashdotters), you can't not have IE on your machine.

      FWIW I use Linux, some of my friends use macs. We also can't access some sites - odeon.co.uk for example. I haven't been to the odeon for years because of this.

      Sadly I can't boycott my government, which continue to have IE-only sites like jobcentreplus.gov.uk and companieshouse.gov.uk. I've made my feelings known to my MP (not that it will do much good)

      I note with disappointment that I can't use several government websites, includi
      ng jobcentreplus.gov.uk. As I'm sure you are aware, many people, including Mac u
      sers, cannot and will not use Microsoft's Internet Explorer web browser. In fact
      , due to security issues, the U.S. Government advise people to use anything but
      Internet Explorer - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A674 6-2004Jun2
      5.html.

      While this government is quite rightly spending money ensuring access to their f
      acilities for people that don't speak English, or have disabilities, they seem t
      o ignore the 10% - and growing - of the country that use "alternative" browsers
      or computers.

      I'm sure this situation will improve over the next few months, as the media pick
        up on this issue - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4115806.stm . I can -
      and do - boycott companies like The Odeon that choose to ignore so many of their
        customers, however the government still take a large percentage of my income. I
        feel it is unfair to have taxation for services I cannot access due to the lazi
      ness or shortsightedness of certain departments.

    3. Re:The main problem as I see it by kmmatthews · · Score: 2, Funny
      I have both IE and Firefox on my machine. Why?

      Because you can't remove IE?

      --
      feh. stuff.
    4. Re:The main problem as I see it by esky · · Score: 1

      I'd like to see IE go away Why? The large IE userbase keeps exploits and such targeted at IE, taking attention away from Firefox and others.

    5. Re:The main problem as I see it by Snaller · · Score: 1

      Hm.. Firefox freak?

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    6. Re:The main problem as I see it by hritcu · · Score: 1

      When I get a "this website works only in IE version X", I will try to change the user agent string in Firefox (User Agent Switcher). If it still doesn't work I usually write an email to the webmaster complaining about the problem with his site, and ask him for notification when he will have it fixed. If that notification never arrives, bad for the site, it just lost a visitor.

      --
      If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough. (Alan Kay)
  122. WORD! by Saeed+al-Sahaf · · Score: 1
    It does not seem to be able to cope showing a webpage which has erroneous scripts running on it.

    The standard Slashdot response will be that it isn't FF's problem that web sites don't have valid code or "follow standards". However, that's not the point. The quality of web site code is not something that will ever be perfect, and a browser should fail them gracefully as (yes) IE does. Mozilla Org cannot demand that every web site be perfect, it's just not reasonable.

    --
    "Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
    1. Re:WORD! by larkost · · Score: 1

      The problem is not that Firefox does not as gracefully handle incorrect html, it is that it does not handle broken html in exactly the same way as Internet Explorer. Some people don't really know what they are doing and just hack away until it looks like they want it to in their version of their browser (often IE). But if you look at it in another version of the same browser, or another browser altogether it fails in a different manner. The problem is that people then blame the browser for failing, when the real problem is with the page.

      Note that this can be as much of a problem between different versions of Internet Explorer as between IE and Firefox

      And there is no real way of exactly reproducing the failure modes of another piece of software without duplicating that software exactly... and we all know how illegal that would be (not to mention directly opposed to the point).

      The real solution is the one that good web developers use: try to stick to the standards as closely as is possible (within the constraints of the browsers at hand), and always test in as many browsers and platforms as you can. It tends to mitigate the problems that you will encounter when newer browsers come out.

    2. Re:WORD! by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      It doesn't have to handle broken html in the same way as internet explorer (although it really should try to).. crashing is not acceptable 'handling' of anything.

  123. Nothing really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Like someone said, it's probably due to more people buying windows PCs. Because since windows comes with IE, the only way for IE to gain users is either Mac users download it, which I would highly doubt, or more people buy windows.

  124. Viva Opera! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The greatest browser nobody knows about. Version 6 works just as a well as the newest. Fast, secure, and never crashes.
    --
    Uh, well, sir, I ain't a fa real cowboy. But I am one helluva stud! -- Joe Buck

  125. Inaccurate findings due to.... by 3seas · · Score: 1

    Internet Explorer is default set to download a page, even if its in the cache. This of course causes internet explorer to appear to be doing more than a browser that uses the cache, when both are doing the same user speed...

    Also if you are downloading firefox via wget then you may find you downloaded a windows version regardless if you were wanting a linux version. They may have fixed this "default" oversite by now, but it went on for several versions of Firefox.

    In short, Internet explorer isn't as popular as MS marketing has caused to appear and Firefox downloads are not as high if you were counting intentional downloads....

  126. Also missing from a legacy browser by Simonetta · · Score: 1

    Also missing from a legacy browser is a spelling checker. There is a good one available for FireFox as a downloadable add-on extension.
      Now I don't look like an illiterate idiot because of misspelled words in my messages. With a legacy browser, I would have to write the message, load MS Word, cut-and-paste the message text to Word, do a spelling check, and cut-and-paste the corrected text back to the message box on the legacy browser.

        No more. I hope to never have to go back to the legacy browser.

    1. Re:Also missing from a legacy browser by berzerke · · Score: 3, Informative

      ...is a spelling checker. There is a good one available for FireFox as a downloadable add-on extension...

      For those that need a pointer in the right direction, it's call spellbound. Don't forget to add the dictionary(s) like it instructs or spellbound will silently fail to catch any mistakes.

    2. Re:Also missing from a legacy browser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Oh you mean like this downloadable add-on extension... for IE.
      http://www.iespell.com/

    3. Re:Also missing from a legacy browser by ikkonoishi · · Score: 1

      Its also called the google toolbar which has a built in spell checker that actually works out of the box.

      (I never could get that dictionary installed for spellbound.)

    4. Re:Also missing from a legacy browser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's also called OS X, which has a spell-checker built in that any program can make use of.

    5. Re:Also missing from a legacy browser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too bad OS X is a piece of shit.

    6. Re:Also missing from a legacy browser by ikkonoishi · · Score: 1

      Yes but it is hard to install OS X as a firefox extension.

  127. Bug Report by rowama · · Score: 1

    Cliff: Hello, this is Mozilla tech spt, how can I help you? Biff: Yeah, this is Biff over in marketing. We've just gotten word of a market shift due to a bug call the ..., um,... wait a minute, it's here somewhere...oh yeah, it's the "User Agent Switcher" bug. You guys can fix that quick, can't ya.

  128. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  129. Re: firefox usage by continent by spinel · · Score: 1

    Your figures seem low compared to other monitoring sites. And what do they say about browser use in Europe, Australia and Asia? Here are some figures from XTI check the link for details. I expect to see use in Asia and South America climb very soon. Australia 14.4 % Europe 14.1% North America 11.8% Asia 5.8% South America 5.2% Africa 4.3% some of the national figures in Europe are very high Finland 31% Germany 24.5% Tcheque Rep 22.4% http://www.xitimonitor.com/etudes/equipement10.asp

  130. zero point something share by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who is claiming other browsers all just have a zero point something share? I see zero point something shares for Opera, Konqueror, Lynx, Camino, and a few others, but the percentages for Safari, Netscape, and Mozilla (the suite) are all well above one percent each.

  131. The honeymoon is over... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess people realize that firefox is not the bastion of security it is made out to be. A month hasn't gone by since 6-04 without a firefox vulnerability. I expect IE7 will gain back users who expected a safer browser and are now disappointed

  132. Just a summer slump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I'm keeping close track on the browser usage for our government website, and here's the stats for IE and Firefox for the June, July and the first fourteen days in August:
    Browser - June, July, August 1-14
    IE - 81.89%, 81.72%, 81.46%
    FF - 8.73%, 8.47%, 8.88%
    Before the slump in July, Firefox had been growing steadily.

    And as you can see by looking at the number of "unique" visitors per browser for the same period, it's a summer slump:
    June, July, August 1-14
    175,471 (~5,849/day), 161,556 (~5,211/day), 81,062 (~5,790/day)


  133. Why I Stopped Using Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    One BIG reason. Intranet.

    Yes our intranet uses windows authentication. But if I open up my browser and point it to an internal site and have to type in my damn password ten times a day, then there is no way I am going to use it. (And yes, I can store the password, but that is against company policy).

    The moment that firefox comes out and it just works, you bet IE is getting deprecated.

  134. "WE" ? by WreckingCru · · Score: 2

    Who is this "we" that everyone keeps talking about?

    What did "we" do, and what did "we" get in the whole firefox process?

    These firefox-linux-i-hate-m$ nuts talk like every single one of them helped create firefox!

    on my country's independance day, i use a phrase to make a point:
    "Just because you wear khadi - that doesn't make you an Indian"

    "Just because you use firefox, doesn't make you any smarter than me"

    Let's put the whole Firefox thing in perspective. A solid, alternative browser, with some great ideas (user-created plugins) - but they've also had the advantage to study IEs shortcomings over the years. Let's look forward to a good browser competition (not a fucking "war") where, hopefully, the winner is the end-user.

    --
    If I have seen farther than others, it is because I was standing on the shoulders of giants.
  135. Re:Noise my ass by Alef · · Score: 1
    Incidentally, 0.64% / 8% is 8%, which means Firefox actually lost 8% (of its share).

    It can probably still be regarded as noise though.

  136. Stats May Be Misleading.... by RDJEnter · · Score: 1

    If these statistics are compiled from the User Agent string in the browser these numbers probably aren't accurate. If my browser is polled many times it will show I am running IE6 on Windows XP. I haven't used a Windows OS since 1995! I use a "User Agent" switcher program so several critical non-compliant web sites (banking for one) will operate properly. I don't see any slow down in the adoption of Mozilla/Firefox browsers in my travels.

  137. Just two offtopic nits by heinousjay · · Score: 1

    It seems more to be anti-(Apple-zealotry) rather than (anti-Apple) zealotry. For instance, here on Slashdot most anti Apple sentiment is expressed through jokes about sexuality. That's more like button pushing than serious arguments against the platform.

    Also, your personal experience regarding browser preference has almost nothing to do with the usage of the browser. For example, I work in a software firm with about 70 employees, and only 6 of us use firefox regularly. In my experience, people just don't care about what browser they use, as long as it works. In the wide world, however, my experience means nothing.

    I do agree with your contention, however. Safari seems to be vastsly underrepresented, unless the Apple market share is a lie.

    --
    Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
    1. Re:Just two offtopic nits by Golias · · Score: 1

      I do agree with your contention, however. Safari seems to be vastsly underrepresented, unless the Apple market share is a lie.

      Which is entirely possible. I've never seen a market-share statistic I've ever had any reason to trust. For all I really know, it's me and eleven other guys using Macs in all of North America, and four of them are Steve Jobs, Avi Tevanian, Larry Ellison, and Bill Gates.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    2. Re:Just two offtopic nits by heinousjay · · Score: 1

      Well shit, I know 7 myself. We may have figured out the whole damn shebang...

      --
      Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
    3. Re:Just two offtopic nits by Golias · · Score: 1

      Take it easy, there. I'm not 100% sure about Ellison. Sure, there's an Oracle for OS X, and the guys this really fruity dude who acts like he's God and keeps Japanese gardens & exotic fish in his back yard, but that's really only circumstantial evidence.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

  138. pfffft by rbochan · · Score: 2, Interesting

    No, it looks to me like slashdot is once again getting it's "news" about OSS projects from a ^&#$^&%#^& zdnet blog.

    --
    ...Rob
    The American Dream isn't an SUV and a house in the suburbs; it's Don't Tread On Me.
  139. growth rates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Could it be that the amout of new windows machines sold in the period was more than firefox installations... so people haven't switched on those boxen yet?

    Just because there was a dip doesn't mean people are switching back to IE. It could just mean the rate of new firefox installs didn't keep pace with the rate of new windows boxes going online... with IE being their default out of box. We may see other dips like this if there's a latency between first boot and switch to firefox.

  140. WRONG! The story is that FF share did not grow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Firefox's share did not grow, and this is not statistical noise. It seems as though FF has hit a static 8% market share which is much smaller than people had hoped. This is the real story, not the -0.64%

  141. This makes me sad! by godsland · · Score: 1

    Firefox's market share falling has really made me sad. It was only last month that it was reported that its market share was growing month on month. I can only think of three possible explanations, the first is the most obvious, that the browser market for tech savvy users has been saturated. Or, that a lot of these tech savvy users are trying out the beta version of Internet Explorer 7 which as we all know contains legendry tabbed browsing (could this be their solution to bringing back users won over by Firefox?). Or it is of course possible that with growing sales of new Windows PCs the market is being diluted with 'run of the mill' uneducated browser users!

    Let's just hope this doesn't turn into a lasting trend....

  142. Adblock by Benanov · · Score: 1

    I bet I'm adblocking NetApplications' servers. It would surprise me if that's a non-trivial variable in the mix, though.

  143. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  144. My machines by UlfGabe · · Score: 1

    My Machines have not slipped up on their firefox share, they are 100% fox today, just like they were many moons ago.

    --
    Check journal for info on Anti-TextBook, an idea by me.
  145. Summer time, summer tunes, summer stats by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    It's summer time and even though I usually use Firefox and Opera (for email), the only way to use (fully) the music.yahoo.com and radio.yahoo.com sites is to use IE, since Firefox won't properly render them (at least since version 1.00 according to bugtraq).

    So, in the summer I turn on the radio and let my son watch videos cause he's not in school - which means a lot more IE usage than usual.

    Fix the bug and numbers will skyrocket.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  146. Not really. by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    At work, they did a mass purge of all firefox on all systems. The head IT guy had heard that firefox has openings. So he wanted everybody to run MSIE as the more secure browser. He should have been fired for being a total idiot.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  147. Firefox's cut and paste by hkb · · Score: 1

    Why does Firefox's copy and paste always break on Windows? I often can't copy and paste stuff from Firefox and vice versa.

    Same with GAIM, what's the deal?

    --
    /* Moderating all non-anonymous trolls up since 2004 */
  148. Re:The reason for the downturn. or why we switch by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    The first time your average users hit a site that doesn't work with Browser X (be it Mozilla, Firefox, Safari, Amaya or whatever), they will try the first other browser available, which is likely to be IE. And then they'll never look back until they encounter pages that won't work in IE.

    It's unfortunate, and arguably isn't the best thing the users can do, but as long as there's enough sites out there that require IE, users will switch to IE, even from "better" browsers.


    Exactly. My son wants to watch streaming music and video on yahoo.com - it's summer - the music.yahoo.com and radio.yahoo.com sites don't work in Firefox - but they work in IE.

    So in the summer he uses that.

    Fix the bug and maybe you'll get the users. Whine about Noone Loves Me and people will ignore your excuses and switch anyway.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  149. It's my sisters fault!!!! by WhiteWolf666 · · Score: 1

    I went to my parents house one day, and saw my sister using my parent's Linux desktop.

    She had opened up Crossover Office, installed IE in Linux, and was using that to explore the web.

    I was flabbergasted. Shes not terribly computer literate.

    She knew how to find Crossover Office?
    She installed IE?????
    She skipped over Firefox for IE.... On Linux?????

    I didn't know whether to be angry or happy.

    Showing the power and flexibility of Linux by using a piece of software I abhor. Oh....the conflicting zealotry.

    --
    WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
  150. I'm sorry, but ... by shicaca · · Score: 0

    I spend kind of a lot of time browsing sites like slashdot, fark, etc. If I can't view these sites adequately without Firefox crashing, I'm going to switch hands down. I just made the switch back to Maxthon. While the reason I switched to Firefox wasn't b/c I wanted something different, the switch away from it definitely was. I loved the fact that it was open source, but in all seriousness I can't stand a browser that just crashes when you're sitting there reading an article. Yes, it's probably that site that has bad code in the page somewhere, but *any* other browser would just ignore that formatting portion of the HTML, or at worst not load the page entirely. Firfox, on the other hand, (mind you with 10 tabs open) crashes leaving you back to your desktop crying b/c you just spent 20 minutes filtering through 100 articles for the 10 you might want to read. Eff Firefox for right now. When they get the stability fixed, I'll be back, but as of right now they're going in the wrong direction.

  151. Mod parent up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As an experienced web developer, I can attest that this is an excellent post.

  152. Several corrections... by sheldon · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Both Firefox and Mozilla provide popup blockers as part of the browser.


    IE6 has a popup blocker as part of the browser, has for like a year now. So I don't know how old this cut and paste is, but it's seriously misinformed.

    Cookie management. Proper management of cookies is critical critical to maintiang your privacy and security online. With IE it is *very* hard to do.


    Really? It's in the View Objects list. Sort by cookie.

    I'm not sure what you're trying to do, but this seems more of a case of inexperience than a feature. Mozilla's is a little bit easier to find, but it also provides less information and doesn't appear to let me easily view the contents of the cookie.

    There are so many security holes and ways for crackers to use IE to exploit your system and steal your data that I'm not going to take the time or place to list them here.


    And of course there are none for Mozilla, because it's really super secure and you don't need to worry about patching or anything.

    *snark*

    Have you ever stopped to ask yourself why Microsoft has spent so much time and money on a product that they give away?


    Yep. Because they also sell a lot of server and development tools which make use of the internet. As such, they develop the browser to promote new technologies made available to developers...

    But out of curiousity. Have you ever stopped to wonder why Mozilla has spent so much time and money on a product that they give away for free?

    Is it to fight Microsoft, or is it to introduce new technology which makes the user and developer experience better? Frankly, I think it's the latter... Netscape tried the Former and failed.

    What browser you use doesn't matter. Just like it doesn't matter what car you drive, or what golf club you want to use.
    1. Re:Several corrections... by SquadBoy · · Score: 1

      Version: 6.0.2800.1106.xpsp22.030422-1633CO
      Update Versions: SP1; Q330994; Q831167; q837009; Q832894

      "IE6 has a popup blocker as part of the browser, has for like a year now. So I don't know how old this cut and paste is, but it's seriously misinformed."

      It was written nearly 18 months ago. But looking at a current copy of IE6 I can't find such a thing. Point it out, please.

      Where is View Objects? Can't find it. OTOH in FF it is obvious where to do it. In Konq it is just a dream to be able to reject or accept on the fly. IE still seems to be behind in all these areas.

      Never said it was perfect. Just better than IE which, granted, isn't hard to do. But still.

      Yeah. For the same reason eveyboby else in the OSS community gives code away. Yes and all of those "new technolgies" are going to require Windows on the desktop and more and more in the server room. This was my point.

      Yes it does matter but you'll never grok why.

      --

      Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
    2. Re:Several corrections... by DA-MAN · · Score: 1

      IE6 has a popup blocker as part of the browser, has for like a year now. So I don't know how old this cut and paste is, but it's seriously misinformed.

      IE6 does not have a popup blocker built in. Windows XP SP2 does. There is a difference in that most corps are still using Windows 2000, and that is still a valid supported OS. In fact Windows 98, which does run IE6, is also still a supported OS according to Microsoft. My unsupported IE6 on Wine doesn't have a popup blocker either.

      Until this is uniform on all IE6 installations, I wouldn't go so far as to say that IE6 has a popup browser.

      Really? It's in the View Objects list. Sort by cookie.

      I'm not sure what you're trying to do, but this seems more of a case of inexperience than a feature. Mozilla's is a little bit easier to find, but it also provides less information and doesn't appear to let me easily view the contents of the cookie.


      So you yourself state that you have to fuck around with the filesystem to manage cookies in IE and then state that it has a cookie manager? Come on, IE has no cookie management. Just because you can manage your cookies does not mean it does.

      For example, Apple has spotlight to locate files easily, just because you can organize your files easily in Windows does not mean you have spotlight.

      And of course there are none for Mozilla, because it's really super secure and you don't need to worry about patching or anything.

      Patches are a part of any software that gives a rats ass about security. The problem parent poster was talking about revolves around the fact that IE is one of two major ways in which massive spyware and virus infections have been happening. Once again, not everyone is running XPSP2 and not everyone should have to give MS a hundred bucks in order to get a pop-up blocker and a browser that "by default" doesn't let spywaremeisters have their way with a users computer.

      --
      Can I get an eye poke?
      Dog House Forum
    3. Re:Several corrections... by jerw134 · · Score: 1

      The problem is that your copy of IE is not current.

    4. Re:Several corrections... by jerw134 · · Score: 1

      IE6 does not have a popup blocker built in. Windows XP SP2 does.

      No, SP2 does not have a built-in popup blocker. The version of IE6 that comes with Windows XP SP2, which happens to be the latest version, has a popup blocker. The other versions of IE are out-of-date, and therefore will never have a popup blocker. You are incorrect in saying that Windows 98 and Windows 2000 are still supported, because they are not.

    5. Re:Several corrections... by yoyhed · · Score: 1

      IE6 SP2.

      --
      WHO NEEDS SHIFT WHEN YOU HAVE CAPSLOCK/ DAMN1
    6. Re:Several corrections... by DA-MAN · · Score: 1

      You are incorrect in saying that Windows 98 and Windows 2000 are still supported, because they are not.

      http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/support/lifec ycle/

      Looks like Microsoft disagrees with you. Windows 2000 is supported until June 30, 2010. Mainstream support ended June 30, 2005, which is almost a year after XP SP2 was released with a popup blocker.

      Seems to me like a lot of the changes that Microsoft made to XPSP2's IE were security fixes, which contradicts this blurb from the bottom of linked page:

      Security hotfixes Free to all customers through March 31, 2010

      I'm pretty sure you were right about Windows 98 though.

      --
      Can I get an eye poke?
      Dog House Forum
    7. Re:Several corrections... by ilyaaohell · · Score: 1

      SP1? Welcome to five years ago!

      Try running Windows Update once in a while, pal. As much as IE might be targetted by malicious websites, it would be less of a problem if Windows illiterates like yourself would actually patch their system on a regular basis.

      --
      UNIX: A computer user is defined as a programmer. WINDOWS: A computer user is defined as a consumer.
    8. Re:Several corrections... by MuckSavage · · Score: 1

      Just like it doesn't matter what car you drive, or what golf club you want to use.

      Yes it does. It changes how many chicks I get and how far I whack my balls.

    9. Re:Several corrections... by sheldon · · Score: 1
      IE6 does not have a popup blocker built in. Windows XP SP2 does. There is a difference in that most corps are still using Windows 2000, and that is still a valid supported OS


      So? Mozilla 0.0.0.1 didn't have a popup blocker in it either. If you're still using it because you fear change, that is not my fault.

      Until this is uniform on all IE6 installations, I wouldn't go so far as to say that IE6 has a popup browser.


      What matters is what the latest version has, not what old versions did not have. At least when doing a product comparison.

      So you yourself state that you have to fuck around with the filesystem to manage cookies in IE and then state that it has a cookie manager?


      It opens up a folder, and everything is there. I wouldn't call that fucking around... everybody familiar with Windows knows how to use a filesystem. In fact I think it's pretty cool that IE uses the filesystem in the way it does... how favorites are nothing more than file links, etc. This is rather orthogonal, similar things work in a similar way... don't need a custom UI for each.

      Favorites are in %USERPROFILE%\Favorites and Cookies are in %USERPROFILE\Cookies.

      This is entirely dependent on what you are used to... I frankly don't like the way Mozilla works in this regard.

      The problem parent poster was talking about revolves around the fact that IE is one of two major ways in which massive spyware and virus infections have been happening.


      But as we've already seen, the same thing can happen with Mozilla as well, since it allows you to create add-ons and plugins which then can manipulate what the browser does.

      The capability is there, so you can't claim it's secure by design. Just because it hasn't been exploited in a wide scale manner doesn't mean it won't.

      Mozilla is a compelling utility which has a number of nice features, but don't be so naive as to believe it was written by immortal gods.
    10. Re:Several corrections... by sheldon · · Score: 1

      "But looking at a current copy of IE6 I can't find such a thing. Point it out, please."

      It's under menu... Tools - > Pop-Up Blocker

      "Where is View Objects? "

      Tools - > Options... Temporar File Settings, click on Advanced and there's a button called View Objects.

      You're right, it's not obvious, but then the need to delete individual cookies is a pretty obscure need anyway.

      More important is the ability to create security zones, where you can enable/disable javascript, java, etc. depending on whether you are browsing internet, or your local intranet, etc. This is something I don't see in Mozilla, but it's pretty obvious in IE.

      "Yes and all of those "new technolgies" are going to require Windows on the desktop and more and more in the server room. This was my point."

      As compared to all those "new technologies" which require Linux on the desktop and more and more in the server room?

      I guess the point is... your point was not a particularly good one.

      "Yes it does matter but you'll never grok why."

      Oh yeah... I'm too stupid to know anything about technology. Why is it that OSS zealots always resort to this line whenever they are questioned on their choices?

    11. Re:Several corrections... by Xenographic · · Score: 1

      > IE6 has a popup blocker as part of the browser, has for like a year now. So I don't know how old this cut and paste is, but it's seriously misinformed.

      Worthless. I see a few mainstream news sites that get past it. I've seen -1- oddball hackerish site slip one past Mozilla, and I use it unless I have little or no choice.

      > Really? It's in the View Objects list. Sort by cookie.

      > I'm not sure what you're trying to do, but this seems more of a case of inexperience than a feature. Mozilla's is a little bit easier to find, but it also provides less information and doesn't appear to let me easily view the contents of the cookie.

      Then you shouldn't have spoken up. Sort by cookie is worthless. I can choose in Mozilla to have all cookies expire when I close the browser. I can also reject cookies by site. I can choose the maximum lifespan of a cookie. I can independently block 3rd party cookies. Etc. Yes, IE can do a little of this in some convoluted ways (security zones and whatnot), but it's simply not as powerful as this.

      > And of course there are none for Mozilla, because it's really super secure and you don't need to worry about patching or anything.

      I've *never* had something install spyware on me in Mozilla, and more than a few pages have tried. There have been a handfull of critical holes that they could've exploited in Mozilla. There have been many for IE. And I read Bugtraq, etc., so it's not like I don't keep up with the currently exploitable holes.

      > Yep. Because they also sell a lot of server and development tools which make use of the internet. As such, they develop the browser to promote new technologies made available to developers...

      The courts all seemed to think that Microsoft was acting anti-competitively in "cutting off their air supply" and whatnot. But they're fighting tooth and nail right now to avoid any form of collateral estoppel using the findings of fact from that case, which would open them to a world of hurt. You may remember that those findings were never overturned. But you probably don't.

      > But out of curiousity. Have you ever stopped to wonder why Mozilla has spent so much time and money on a product that they give away for free?

      Doesn't matter. It's free as in freedom now, and you can do whatever you damn well please with it.

      But yeah, the right tool for the right job. Problem is, ActiveX and IE-only sites are about the only things it's the right tool for, and both things are a nightmare for so many reasons (accessibility issues, security issues, etc.) I don't really think IE is right for anything.

    12. Re:Several corrections... by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      The difference between mozilla 0.0.1 and IE, are that you can upgrade to the latest mozilla for no cost, upgrading IE may require you to buy a new OS, which may require you to buy new hardware.. Mozilla on the other hand, will still install on the same os's that version 0.0.1 did and even some newer platforms which have recieved support since.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    13. Re:Several corrections... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0



      ---My Browser is bigger than your browser, and everyone knows that size matters. ---

      Honest... they told me via E-mail

    14. Re:Several corrections... by SquadBoy · · Score: 1

      Granted my IE knowledge is outdated. Before I pulled up the copy on my work desktop to look yesterday it had been *months* since I had last looked at it.

      So you think that Microsoft using their near-monopoly on the desktop to force more people to buy more MS servers and to increasingly use only their browser is a good thing?

      Name a "new techology" that MS has come up with that is cross-platform. Now name one that has come out of the OSS world that isn't. That would be my point.

      Has nothing to do with technology. Has to do with the fact that you can't seem to see that this is a power-grab and all about vendor lock in. So how is that a good thing?

      --

      Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
    15. Re:Several corrections... by sheldon · · Score: 1

      "So you think that Microsoft using their near-monopoly on the desktop to force more people to buy more MS servers and to increasingly use only their browser is a good thing?"

      When you put it that way, no.

      But fortunately that's not the way it is in reality. I think it's a good thing for technology to improve and I appreciate having options available to me to improve my development efficiency and enduser experience. This is what Microsoft does by way of their product integration.

      "Name a "new techology" that MS has come up with that is cross-platform. "

      Most of the cool stuff you use today in your browser was pushed by MS. While Netscape was trying to hook you in with their proprietary crap, Microsoft was pushing web standards like DHTML and CSS. Why do you think the IE browser declares itself as a version of Mozilla? It was to fool the Netscape servers so that they'd allow it to process forms and other proprietary tags that Netscape added on to the old Mosaic browser.

      "Has nothing to do with technology. Has to do with the fact that you can't seem to see that this is a power-grab and all about vendor lock in. So how is that a good thing?"

      Doesn't matter, as long as it works.

      Microsoft cares enough to promote innovation and encourage new business opportunities. The Linux loving hippies just try to undercut you, get everything for free, and destroy the market.

      Why would I want to support people who are trying to hurt our industry?

  153. What it REALLY means... by DrScotsman · · Score: 1

    Is 0.64% of users switched to Opera.

  154. FF Forum Support by Meglomaniac · · Score: 1

    Forrum support may also be a reason for many to have IE. I personally use firefox and i love it for its features, but when Im browsing forums Posted dates are all wrong. It seems to add 1 day to the date posted. Now is that a feature or what? FF Tells me what will be posted tomorrow! The sad thing is that the fix for this problem is to leave IE open in the background and FF will show the correct dates. :|

  155. "Stabilized" is bad by jfengel · · Score: 1

    If the situation has stabilized with an 85% market share for Microsoft, that's very bad, because it means that Firefox will continue to be a niche. Developers will continue to test their apps against IE and then tell you it's your own stupid fault for running a "nonstandard" browser.

    This is supposed to be Firefox's easy time, when IE hasn't been updated in a while and is still obviously full of bugs. If IE 7 comes out and is less buggy and less dangerous, it'll get even harder to convince users to switch to Firefox.

    This should be an inflection point, where we see if people are willing to do the minimal but nonzero effort to get a browser other than IE on their computers. If that number turns out to be 10%, that's too bad. I'd really hoped for something closer to 40%, given how terrible IE is.

    The only good news is that I don't trust these studies very far, so I'll hold out until at least next month before getting depressed.

    1. Re:"Stabilized" is bad by Bullfish · · Score: 1

      Bad news. The market stabilized quite a while ago and it stabilized around the IE platform. That's what brought us to this position.

      In any industry, to knock off the market leader you have to be much better, not just a bit better and you have to market, market, market. Firefox has to be easier, in terms of use, updating, and compatibility. Tabbed browsing is all nice and fine, but it was never earth shattering. Firefox can get even greater market share, but there is a long way to go.

      Not impossible though, remember Netscape once had 80 per cent of the market too. The key here is not to get weirded out over a percentage point of market share here or there, and to continue doing the good work that allowed firefox to get the share it has achieved.

    2. Re:"Stabilized" is bad by I'm+Don+Giovanni · · Score: 0

      "This should be an inflection point, where we see if people are willing to do the minimal but nonzero effort to get a browser other than IE on their computers. If that number turns out to be 10%, that's too bad. I'd really hoped for something closer to 40%, given how terrible IE is."

      Then again, maybe IE's not as "terrible" as you think (or, wish, hope, pray, whatever...).

      --
      -- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
  156. if u think this little slip is disturbing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    wait until IE7 is released and many of IE's loyalists switch back from Firefox...

  157. A Bit off topic by SomeOtherGuy · · Score: 1

    However....Has any computer company thought (as a value added feature) of including Firefox on all machines shipped out the door. Or is this a EULA violation that whould cost them their OEM privs with Micro$oft?

    --
    (+1 Funny) only if I laugh out loud.
  158. MOE by mothlos · · Score: 1

    What is the accuracy and reliability of any of these market share tests? Perhaps a previous poll gave a result in the high end of the margin of error and this one gave on the low end. You can't follow these polls as if they were actually accurate. Any one poll is unreliable, it is a series of polls which can show a trend.

  159. "everyone" doesn't use winzip and winamp by Curmudgeonlyoldbloke · · Score: 1

    You do, sure, and I do (actually on Windows it's Foobar rather than Winamp), but most people really don't see the need to use anything other than the defaults that come with their computer.

    If it ain't broke, why fix it - and even if it is, people still need to know that there is an alternative and how to install it.

    Both among friends and family and at work, the majority are still IE users. Hardly anyone on XP has disabled XP's attempts to process zip files (which it seems to do really badly), and most still use "default" installs of WMP or Real (with whichever was installed last grabbing all the extensions).

    As long as it works "well enough", they're willing to put up with it. Maybe they've tried to install software that "looked attractive" before but it turned out to be riddled with spyware - so they're resistant to change.

  160. 80 M is a really big thing... by TarryTops · · Score: 1

    For a web browser that could die in the alley, get rejected before even been looked at. It's 5% but that is a lot. It's a matter of seeing the glass 5% full and filling up...

    --
    Java Oracle Linux Enthusiast
  161. propoganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if firefox had jumped up 0.64% in share this would have been big news, but now that it went the other way slashdot is making excuses. bias much?

  162. It's time for /. to interview the W3C. by PCMeister · · Score: 1

    Perhaps a Slashdot Interview with Tim Berners-Lee (Director of the W3C) would be in order?

    After all, "One of W3C's primary goals is to make these benefits available to all people, whatever their hardware, software, network infrastructure, native language, culture, geographical location, or physical or mental ability." Quote came from this page.

    To that end, a web designer (especially that of a company) should be encouraged to comply with standards put forth by an organization like the W3C. A compliance program (logo based?) should be initiated which would recognize sites that are accessible and fully functional from any modern platform. A check and balance approach, by way of complaint forms (or something along those lines), would be ideal to keep sites from straying after being awarded the logo. A major campaign to distribute open-source/W3C compliant web design tools would be encouraged. An online workshop could be put forth to help web admins during the transition.

    Wishful thinking? Perhaps. But I think interviewing the director of the W3C and having the response widely publicized on the 'net would definitely garner some attention.

  163. Firefox not all good by dsgrntlxmply · · Score: 1
    1) the memory leak problem is irritating and has remained unfixed for ages. The claimed workaround of editing a cache size setting, simply does not work.

    2) pop-ups have started to appear which somehow bypass Firefox popup blocking.

    3) many Web pages do not work correctly on Firefox, or specifically require IE, or have browser checks which recognise some Netscapes but not Firefox.

    I am not advocating for IE; I use Firefox for about 90% of my browsing.

    1. Re:Firefox not all good by Phil+John · · Score: 1

      1) the memory leak problem is irritating and has remained unfixed for ages. The claimed workaround of editing a cache size setting, simply does not work.

      As has been stated before, it's not a mermory leak, firefox by default was designed to use as many resources as are available, increasing responsiveness when the computer is not bogged down. When other applications require memory firefox gives it up without much of a fight.

      2) pop-ups have started to appear which somehow bypass Firefox popup blocking.

      Most of the time these will be dynamic divs set to float above the main body of text, in cases like this adblock comes to the rescue.

      3) many Web pages do not work correctly on Firefox, or specifically require IE, or have browser checks which recognise some Netscapes but not Firefox.

      Granted, some site admins are still brain dead, however, the number of sites I've visited with problems has steadily decreased. Those that steadfastly refuse to cater to a growing market segment, f**k em, that's one of the reasons I stopped going to the odeon cinema chain (that and the fact that they suck).

      It's been years since any decent bank has had a problem with alternative browsers, 99.9% of the large sites support firefox to some extent, pretty much all of the more "esoteric" popular sites are also compatible. Care to list some of the ones you find a problem?

      --
      I am NaN
    2. Re:Firefox not all good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.odeon.co.uk/ works with KHTML pretty well
      but why not Firefox? Are they that Stooopid?

      They probably got loads of complaints and bundled up a quick Text Display of opening times under the Guise of "We are now Accessible"

      They are pig-rich it wouldn't cost them more than £1000 to get their pages to be compatible with Firefox, and probably could be done in a weekend.

      To protest just email them info@odeonuk.com

      I won't boycott Odeon though, boycotting buying music CDs (after a 12 yr old girl was sued) is as far as I go towards entertainment-strike. RIAA - you lost already +£200 with me! :)

      (always purchased CD after sampling them before on PnP)

    3. Re:Firefox not all good by vidarh · · Score: 1
      As has been stated before, it's not a mermory leak, firefox by default was designed to use as many resources as are available, increasing responsiveness when the computer is not bogged down. When other applications require memory firefox gives it up without much of a fight.

      That's pure bullshit. Firefox on my systems (Linux desktop, work laptop on Windows 2000, other laptop on Windows XP until I can get the time to install Linux) all keep eating more and more memory, until the systems slow to a crawl and trash constantly.

      There is a consistently slow increase in memory usage over time, regardless of what else I do on any of these machines. It's most noticeable on my Linux box as it runs constantly, and Firefox is usually running until I have to kill it to prevent my system from becoming unusable (by then Firefox is generally starting to get so sluggish anyway, that sometimes I have to kill it from a terminal because the windows doesn't respond) - I regularly have it eating half a GB of memory.

      Trying to pretend the memory leak isn't there does noone any good, when it is so obvious and such a huge pain for those it affects.

      I'll never switch to IE, but the memory leaks in Firefox is a constant annoyance.

  164. How should market share be measured by lunchman · · Score: 1

    How do you measure market share: based on pages downloaded? pages downloaded excluding 'bots? Bytes downloaded? Analog gives me numbers that vary by a couple of percent depending what I am counting.

  165. IE 7 Will Make FireFox Obsolete by gmb61 · · Score: 1

    The only reason I use FireFox at all is for tabbed browsing. Since IE 7 will have tabbed browsing and whole lot more, there will be no reason for me to use FireFox anymore. I expect a lot of people (not the Microsoft haters, of course) will feel the same way. I have no spyware problems with IE because I keep my system well protected using a combination of Microsoft's Antispyware and a couple of others for backup. Plus IE gives me 100% compatibility with all the sites I visit (there are still some sites that don't work with FireFox).

    1. Re:IE 7 Will Make FireFox Obsolete by wolverine1999 · · Score: 1

      Microsoft's Antispyware is by no means a perfect anti-spyware solution.

      There are practically no sites that do not work with Firefox - the few that do not are badly coded sites so it's their fault.
      IE has many vulnerabilities and will always have more than Firefox... so you won't be safe.

  166. Statistics Lie!!!!! by geekwithsoul · · Score: 1

    This is not a significant drop by any means. And with only the difference between one month and another, there is not enough data here to have any meaning.

    Hell this may just be as a result of school letting out and more kiddies who don't know any better doing more browsing with IE during the summer months.

    For what it's worth, my company's website, which receives about 3 million hits a month and has a steady stream of business and consumer visitors (almost always adults), saw an increase in Firefox use from 17.3% to 17.7%. This is also about the 18th month in a row we've seen a drop in IE traffic.

  167. What is the error of margin of the survey? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm betting it's +/- 5% range. So a monthly variation of about a half percent is to be expected.

  168. Let's use the carrot. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know if Firefox really wants to take off (ahem), we just need to get the porn sites to band together and support FF while crippling access through IE. I predict a 78% shift in marketshare in about a day and a half.

  169. What about Opera? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I feel like this is starting to become something like kicking a dead horse--but I have to ask: Where does this leave the *other* little guys? I'm an avid Opera 8 fan and getting support from web designers is a huge pain--I've recently asked Gamespot / Cnet networks why their pages all render so poorly in Opera only to get the responce "Because it has the smallest market share". I hardly see how this should matter though--shouldn't all web designers atleast TEST their work in all browsers? How much trouble is it really to download a free copy of the browser and atleast test your HTML in it? Seriously, if you go to gamespot.com and reload their front page 100 times you'll get a good handful of different results...why in the hell is this a common practice and why is it ok.

    Webdesigners, do your damn jobs.

    1. Re:What about Opera? by The+MESMERIC · · Score: 1

      Some of us care :)

      I try my best to get my stuff working on:

      * Firefox
      * Opera 7/8
      * KHTML
      * IE 5/6
      * Text
      * WebTV / PDA
      * 800/600 resolution.
      * Linux / Windows XP / 98

      What many people don't realize is that the "minority" are usually pretty faithful and grateful customers.
      I only can't do more cos of my own limitation and budget (wished I could test on IE for Mac and Safari also - no Mac-minis for me yet).

  170. On Vacation by razmaspaz · · Score: 1

    Firefox lost 0.64% of the users, while Microsoft IE gained the same amount

    OK...I admit it...I was on vacation, and they only had IE at the resort I was at. ;-)

    0.64% of the web browser market? WTF?

    --
    I tried for 5 years to come up with a clever sig...only to realize that I am not clever.
  171. No, it's just a flawed article by brianiac · · Score: 1
  172. .064%? Please.

    That's really scraping for some reason not to use Firefox over IE.

    Not to mention that Bill probably gave away 100,000 copies of IE to some kids in Africa or something as part of his "charity" work just to boost the numbers...

    It's ridiculous the way the tech press seizes on every little change in a situation to prognosticate on how the entire industry has been changed.

    Somebody drops a percentage point, they're doomed forever in the minds of the IT press. Somebody goes up a percentage point, they're going to dominate IT forever and we all have to change our ways to implement whatever it is yesterday.

    Wannabe journalists who would like to be covering Iraq but you could get killed there so instead they cover Intel vrs. AMD.

    Reminds me of "since 9/11, the world has changed". Bullshit. Nothing has changed except people's fantasies about reality - and they fluctuate with the wind.

    --
    Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
  173. 0.64% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    are you fucking kidding me?! this is a non-story.

  174. Agreed - divide downloads by 7 (1.00-1.06) by syrynxx · · Score: 1

    There's a shocking dark secret to the FF-IE battle, in which IE (through experience) wins. Every time IE has a bug, you only have to patch the offending file(s). Every time FF has a bug, you have to download the entire browser and reinstall.

    FF's stats should quote the total number of downloads divided by the number of bugfix releases. 1.0? Download. 1.01? Download. 1.02? Download. Etc. A loyal FF user would count as seven downloads for production versions. Can you imagine IE's user stats if it counted every patch download as a new 'install'? It would be several times the population of the earth.

    1. Re:Agreed - divide downloads by 7 (1.00-1.06) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which IMHO is a better way to do things rather than integrating everything into the operating system and making it increadibly difficult to repair the program if it is corrupted. Not really related to TFA but just a thought.

      Also the artical states percentages not actual numbers, Mozilla themselves state numbers and quite frankly as a business (of sorts) what sounds better 80Mil or 8% if you said 8% I suggest you go find professional help.

  175. No need for alarm... by sootman · · Score: 1

    ...everyone's just testing their newly downloaded copy of IE7 this month. Look for the climb to resume in September. :-)

    --
    Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
  176. Did they or did they not actually loose users? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

    That, or 0.64% of it's users discovered the browser ID tag extentions and how to make websites stop targetting them for refusal of services or other stupid crap. You realize that people keep track of what browser is being used by looking at this very tag as users visit sites? Then again, uhm, last I checked, 0.64% isn't exactly a large number.

    Opera has a similar problem, except that since it gets an even worse end of the deal, it just DEFAULTS to identifying as IE straight out of the box (well download) so it's less experienced users won't have to find out the hard way how many sites out there will refuse to work because the programmer decided to glob all unrecognized IDs in the "crappy page" pile without actually bothering to recognize anything but IE.

  177. RSS readers could be the cause by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Firefox users are likely to also use newer technologies such as RSS readers. If you have a separate program to view feeds, you'll open less sites with your browser. Firefox users are more likely than IE users to use such a program, so as rss/atom readers grow more popular browser percentages may be thrown off.

  178. Re:Noise my ass by dotgain · · Score: 1
    LOL, only on Slashdot. The userbase of an application slips by some miniscule amount that actually can be attributed to much more than just "statistical noise" (User agent plugin, anyone?), and we get fifty posts by folks splitting hairs over whether it's 7.4, 7.5, 8.0 or 9.1 percent of their total usership.

    Set your comment threshold to 5, and all you see is the token "I for one welcome," post, and some goatse link purporting to be an article mirror.

    Oh slashdot, how do I love thee...

  179. Vista.. by StikyPad · · Score: 1

    I suspect at least some of these numbers can be attributed to people playing with IE7 in MS Vista Beta 1. Although it wasn't released until late in the month, so that certainly couldn't be the sole reason for the switch.

  180. Its a printing problem that does it by mholt108 · · Score: 1

    The only reason to flip to IE is because it handles printing better than Firefox. Add a right mouse button, selected text printing option that works and there will be no looking back.

  181. Honeymonkey by Bob9113 · · Score: 1

    Hmm, Firefox downloads continue to climb exponentially, and yet Firefox's browser share dropped this month. About a month ago, the Honeymonkey project, which is a few thousand MSIE browsers hammering the internet as fast as possible, went online. Gee, any connection?

  182. Soooeee! Memory Hog. by triso · · Score: 1

    I think it has to be the exorbitant amount of memory that Firefox uses.

  183. For the "Web Developers" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For all the "web developers" who state that they only code for IE because of the market share: You're going to need to find a new job because this one isnt cut out for you. If you make a page for a business, or anyone else for that matter, you don't make it inaccessable/non-functional to 8% of their customers. (see: period) There are plenty of ways to make a secure/fully functional website that will work across all platforms. Imagine if I published a website using tons of features of CSS because I use Opera and FF obviously everyone else does so IE isnt important.

    I publish for FF/IE/Opera/Kon/NS and make sure that my pages work on all five perfectally, sure its a bit more work (not much if you walk in with compatability in mind before you start) but we are talking about near 1 in 10 users who are going to hate your site because it dosn't work/look right with their preferred browser.

    Cheers,
    -X

  184. A lot of people avoid Java by tjstork · · Score: 1

    The coffee cup logo on a PC has a really bad rap in some circles.

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:A lot of people avoid Java by spectre_240sx · · Score: 1

      It's really unfortunate. Java is very useful for certain things, like the afore mentioned uploader applet. I've been learning Java for a while now and I must say that everything just seems to make sense. It feels very clean to me. It's too bad that so many java games and other applets had to be written poorly to make everyone think that java runs like a tortoise.

  185. Thanks for the reminder! by bergeron76 · · Score: 1

    After reading this, I realized that I didn't finish converting all of my users over to FF. I spent some time today making sure that the non-exec's can't use IE on their workstations. I'm sure I'll have one or two sales guys that can't access their favorite poker sites tomorrow, but it won't take much to convince them that "the internet is up" and that "that site is down because it doesn't work on anyone else's computer either".

    If they complain, I'll casually mention the Cyberguard logs and how I need to go review them for non-work-related activity.

    --
    Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has.
  186. What're the reasons? by unclocked · · Score: 1

    Is there a measured study about why Firefox slipped? If none, there is no point is speculating, be it bugs discovered in FF or IE becomming stronger.

  187. All I know is... by Murasaki+Skies · · Score: 1

    ...that since installing 1.0.6 I can no longer open new browser windows, use Adblock, passwords sometimes fail to enter, and sometimes other extensions don't work when I start Firefox. Also, I never have been able to remove the extension (of no known purpose, which I don't remember installing) called DOM Inspector. I may as well say all of this here, since I'd have better luck becoming immortal by immolating myself than trying to get fixes specific to me from Mozilla. And, no, my computer is not infested with [known] viruses. Still better than IE though!!!

    --
    Waiiii!!!!!! I have bad karma!
  188. Browsers... by unlabeledchick · · Score: 1

    Firefox is good I admit, far better than IE. I'm an Opera user, but Firefox is second in line. I used to use Mozilla (before Firefox), but I found it too unstable. MS could probably increase the amount of IE users a lot if they included tabbed browsing, though a lot of us wouldn't care. Anyway, I think it's great that average users are trying other software. Now if only we could make Lynx mainstream....

    1. Re:Browsers... by LordTigger2k · · Score: 1

      I think u meant to type "linux" instead of Lynx... anyhoo, by the sounds of it, it sounds like u've never tried Firefox? Believe me, i've tried Mozilla AND also tried Mozilla Firefox... There is quite a difference! Firefox is better IMHO.. poo!

    2. Re:Browsers... by unlabeledchick · · Score: 1

      No. Lynx is a text-based browser. There IS quite a difference between Mozilla and Firefox. Believe me, I know.

    3. Re:Browsers... by LordTigger2k · · Score: 1

      fine! be that way! lol.......... j\k

    4. Re:Browsers... by unlabeledchick · · Score: 1

      Fine i will! :p hehe this is childish...

    5. Re:Browsers... by LordTigger2k · · Score: 1

      yup

  189. Re:Noise my ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Europe is on vacations. Therefore, a large user base of Firefox is simply not using the browser except for a quick look at the webmail on a Intrernet Cafe or hotel browser, which normally use IE. Remember europeans benefit from 20 to 25 ork days of vacations per year.



    Let's wait for October.

  190. The proper way to create a site? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I suggest you take a look at your own site before telling people they are too lazy to learn the 'proper' way to create a site

    Not sure what the point of your site is but it sure as hell won't validate and is littered with cruddy table markeup, extraneous/missing elements and invalid attributes!

    Way to go buddy! I see you sure now the 'proper' way to create a site!

    1. Re:The proper way to create a site? by robertjw · · Score: 1

      Not sure what the point of your site is but it sure as hell won't validate and is littered with cruddy table markeup, extraneous/missing elements and invalid attributes!

      Perhaps, but it renders correctly in IE, Opera, Firefox and lynx, which is what I meant by 'proper' way to create a site. Most of my sites aren't perfect, few people have the time or inclination to create sites that are, and I don't have a problem with that. The issues I have

  191. Tabbed Browsing by catprog · · Score: 1

    Would the realse of tabbed browsing for IE have any thing to do with this?

    --
    My Transformation Website
    Kindle Books http://www.catprog.org/rev
    Interactive CYOA http://www.catprog.org/st
  192. Decline in Word-of-Mouth Advertising? by macserv · · Score: 1

    I, for one, know that I've been lax in introducing the Firefox browser to my IE-using brethren of late. That could be, however, due to the fact that everyone's sick of hearing about how great Firefox is, from me and others in my group.

    I wonder how many others are in the same boat. We're in the browser business where I work, and our product managers have expressed a certain weariness with the hardcore Firefox crowd, simply referring to them as "the Jihad".

  193. Adblock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The data was generated by NetApplications's site hitslink.com.

    Could 0.64% of internet users have that site on their Adblock filter?

  194. winzip and winzmp by Per+Abrahamsen · · Score: 1

    I don't use winzip and winamp.

    For winzip, I find the build in funcitonality in XP way superior. It doesn what I need, and nothing else.

    For winamp, I loathe Media Player. It has a totally bloated and confusing interface. I just never have gotten around to exploring the market for alternatives.

    I do use FireFox though.