Slashdot Mirror
After 100M IE7 Downloads, Firefox Still Gaining
Kelson writes "Internet Explorer 7 hit the 100 million download mark last week. Yet in the three months it's been available, Firefox's market share has continued to grow. InformationWeek reports that nearly all of IE7's growth has been upgrades from IE6. People don't seem to be switching back to IE in significant numbers, prompting analysts to wonder: has Microsoft finally met its match?"
You upgrade IE6 with the assumption that MS will require it for one thing or another. We don't actually use it but we install it just in case.
Based on my experience with corporate networks and home machines, about 85% of those were pushed via Automatic Updates. I expect a maximum of about 20% of those downloads to be intentional or wanted.
Is it fair to compare these stats? Most IE users don't choose to upgrade, it's simply foisted on them by Windows' Auto Update. When I returned home this Christmas both my mum and sister asked me to "fix the internet" because IE7 had been installed and its new layout confused them. They certainly didn't choose in the way that someone chooses to download and install Firefox does, so the victory is even more in FF's favour.
Please note that this isn't a Firefox fanboy post (despite my love for it), merely pointing out the facts.
Internet Explorer 7 hit the 100 million download mark last week.
Gee, perhaps that has something to do with Microsoft marking it a high-priority update, so everyone with automatic updates turned on will unwittingly get it?
Not much of a claim to success to say that 100 million people, running an OS that has automatic updates turned on by default, have wasted bandwidth on a program they didn't even choose to download.
I installed IE7 on my Windows box. I use Firefox exclusively. The only reason that I installed it was because the automatic update manager wanted to, and since IE is a deeply embedded component of Windows, a security update for IE is a security update for Windows. Otherwise, I wouldn't have bothered.
I switched (mostly) to Linux to get away from IE. But I still installed IE7. So no, I don't consider this news to be surprising in the slightest.
So we can assume out of all the windows users out there only 100 million out of all the people who have Windows PCs are actually upgrading their system. Is it just me or is that kida scary.
So lets assume that 2/3 of the people in the US have windows computers that means half of the people in the US has been updating their windows systems and the the other half and the rest of the world hasn't.
I know most companies are waiting for a SP release of IE 7 before upgrading. Even though a person uses firefox it really shouldnt exclude them from using getting IE 7 because of the integration between windows and IE can still be a security problem. I am not saing IE 7 is more Secure then firefox or even IE 6 but IE 7 will be updated longer into the future then IE 6 and IE 7 Problems will be fixed faster then IE 6's
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Or, if you're any type of web designer you use both to check your sites work. Simply quoting download numbers is a completly bogus way of proving popularity. You'd think something like InformationWeek would know better than to report this pointless bit dick waving.
That's poorly worded at best. Firefox has pushed all the innovation in web browsers (unless you count Opera, other FOSS browsers). IE hasn't done anything new in nearly a decade. Open Source is always superior to proprietary (long term), for the simple fact that Open Source gets fixed faster, and by a bigger pool of coding talent.
Plus, last I checked, Mozilla doesn't have a vendor locked in OS X clone that is the hegemonic dominant force in the industry with which to leverage their sub-par browser.
The fact that Firefox even has 2% of the market (and obviously it's much higher) given this environment that so strongly favors IE, speaks volumes to the superiority of the browser, the superiority of the code, and the superiority of the Open Source model of software development.
My prediction is that IE will not have a version 9. If it does, nobody will pay any attention. Version 8 will be nearly as laughable a joke, but still have some market dominance just based on sheer MS monopolism, and the lethargic ignorance of the average Joe computer user.
Version 10 of IE will be Firefox automatically installed in Windows 2012, because otherwise Windows will fall even farther behind Linux and OS X in user adoption and market dominance.
rhY
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
Now I'm not usually one to get all up in arms about the appearance of a program, but IE7 looks well and truly ugly to my eyes, and for the 5 minutes or so that I bothered buggering around with it I couldn't for the life of me figure out how to move the toolbar icons and the addressbar in any useful way. Contrast that with Firefox, which handles the toolbar UI configuration very well and MS looks immediately to be onto a loser.
While people might argue about all manner of things like standards support, security, and rendering speed; the initial ugliness and apparent difficulty/impossibility to configure the UI to my liking is probably going to put more people off IE7 within 5 minutes than anything else.
I presume there is a way to change the UI (hell, even IE6 could do that) and maybe it's actually quite obvious if you take the time to look, but quite frankly why should I when Firefox can do it right off the bat in an intuitive manner? I think that's the way a lot of casual users see it too.
Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and stupid comments are intentional.
That's one download because it's a 'critical update', and another download to get a second copy of the installer to actually complete the installation when you realise the first one is broken.
Seriously, the number of borked IE installations I've seen recently is stupid. Perhaps they should measure satisfied customers instead?
I've actually increased the number of Firefox users thanks to IE7 - it was the quickest way to get the laptop back on the net to get the newer build of IE7.
insignificant sig
Seeing as how IE7 is listed as a Critical Update, many home users "downloaded" IE7 as part of their visit to Windows Update or through Automatic Updates. I doubt many home users downloaded the IE7-blocking tool.. Granted they had to click through a wizard to install the downloaded update, but with it being labeled as "Critical", I'd imagine many just clicked through the wizard to get the update installed to be "secure."
I think it's more like 98M forced downloads of IE7 and 2M deliberately-installed downloads of IE7.
Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, START
Of course, as some other posts have already said, these download figures for IE7 include Windows Update automatic downloads, whether they were then installed or not. For almost all my clients I've then had to uninstall it as they couldn't get their heads around the layout, or it broke sites they needed to access, but I'm guessing they still counted towards this download figure.
At least one of those downloads was by my humble self and now graces my humble Ubuntu desktop, thanks to the excellent IEs 4 Linux package.
(Disclaimer: I do web dev work and need it for testing purposes. And I feel all dirty and sordid with every time I fire it up).
Considering these circumstances, it is amazing to see how well Firefox is doing considering the odds.
I mean I haven't actually *used* the program to browse for anything, but I downloaded it to check it out, and then swapped immediately back to Firefox.
Just because I downloaded IE7 doesn't mean I use it any more than I have to.
14% vs 80%... ya, that's one hella of a match.
Considering one comes pre-installed and is unremovable while the other requires users to make an effort to download and install I'd say yes, it is one "hella" match.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
For some of them it might be the first step. :-)
Once all applications that are important to you run on Linux, the switch is much easier
C - the footgun of programming languages
Use IE on the sites I develop, but that usage is only hitting the internal dev server, and won't appear in any site stats. I certainly don't use IE for going anywhere else, unless the site breaks in Firefox, and even then I use IETab.
Article summary: Here's a vague statistic! Does this mean that we've finally slayed the ancient beast, bringing forth an unprecedented era of free software, good will, unshowered nerds, and 'view source' buttons?
Go team!! Gimme a 0x46! Gimme a 0x49! Gimme a 0x52! Gimme a 0x45! Gimme a cheer[0]! Gimme a 0x4F! Gimme a 0x58! What's that spell? VICTORY! Gooo team! Push the stack, pop the stack, saaaaaame stack!
Don't forget that a lot of companies don't just install Windows upgrades because MS releases them. They undergo rigid inhouse testing and then later are deployed from their own update servers, so they would not be counted as donwloads from Microsoft anyway.
Also, IE7 is (at the moment, fix upcoming in SAPGui release 20 IIRC) incompatible with SAP software, so any admin worth his salt will block this update if the company also uses SAP software (which I bet are quite a lot of desktops). And this problem is AFAIK a blunder by SAP, saying things like "uh, nobody gave us IE7 early enough, how were we supposed to fix our code".
The longer that firefox maintains its current user base, the closer the time comes when a killer extension is released by someone (maybe you!). This killer extension would be something that so dramatically improves the browsing experience that pretty much everyone has to get it to be "really on the internet". By the time Microsoft rips off whatever it is, it will be too late. That is the best reason to support firefox, its extensibility means that at any moment, it could become develop a (albeit temporarily) insurmountable competitive advantage.
stuff |
This is not the right time for comparing IE7 effect on Firefox. The time will be when Vista comes out and new PCs come preloaded with Vista and IE7. At that time, people will get rid of the old PCs and we'll see whether they're sufficiently satisfied with IE7 that they won't bother with downloading Firefox. At the same time we'll also see if people used to IE6, when presented with IE7's new interface, might switch to Firefox. Whichever way the pendulum swings, that's when we should watch it.
"has Microsoft finally met its match?"
Um, no. There will always be some microsoft tool that requires their browser causing some form of lock-in. Heck, using microsoft's action pack subscription web page to purchase software requires IE. What the numbers mean is that web designers are finally paying attention and making their sites support firefox and a few other standards based browsers or risk loosing a good chunk of their customers. And now that everyone's favorite web pages work in firefox, they can start making a piecemeal migration away from vendor lock-in. However, just because they can use firefox for most things, you can be sure that microsoft will ensure there is lock-in someone and default to their browser giving them a 75% chunk of the market for life. The next chunk of the monopoly to fragment will be office with various online tools and openoffice making advances. But, I expect that will be another 2-4 years before we see anything like firefox's progress.
So we can assume out of all the windows users out there only 100 million out of all the people who have Windows PCs are actually upgrading their system. Is it just me or is that kida scary.
Actually, you also have to take into account IE7 requires validation of the license/installation of Windows to be installed and used. So 100mil is a decent figure (counting or not counting people who auto updated). But then you have to figure in the millions of people who can't install IE7 or at least don't due to it needing a legit copy of Windows to do so. I'd love to use IE7 for the few seldom times I need IE (sadly there are still a few sites on the net that only allow IE to be used for their services) but unfortunately I can't install it for *ahem* reasons being.
Aw Frell this
How many of those were imposed by the Automatic Update routine?
I have two WinXP systems (and several non-XP systems). Both of them got IE7 without me deciding to upgrade-- it just happened. (I've GOT to fix that.)
On the other hand, all of my systems, be they Linux, Mac, or Win*, have FireFox. I've even taught my kids to use FF instead of IE.
When politicians are involved, everyone loses.
Sure, I think it's met its match, until firefox dominates the market share and writers of malware, viruses, etc. begin focusing on it instead of IE. The real question is, how well will firefox respond to a barrage of such people if and when that happens?
Quiz: True or False -- On a scale of 1 to 10, what is your middle name?
It's been there in the "Software Update" for weeks. Or better said, I always log in as "Restricted User" (as does my wife) and I then don't get notifications about that particular "Software Update". It's only when I have to login as "Administrator" that I get the notification. Logging in as "Administrator" doesn't happen often, and when I do, it's usually to fix something and I don't have time nor motivation to launch the IE7 update.
So my machines all still have IE6, but nobody uses it... They all use Firefox. The rest of the family all have their machines setup to be used in "Restricted User" configuration and that way IE7 doesn't install. Why, I do not know, because other updates do install. So people doing the "right thing" (running non-admin) don't get it automatically. Funny, isn't it?
When FireFox's market share is the same as IE's, then yes. At all other times, no.
Let's consider the following facts:
- IE7's requirements say it will only run on XP or Windows Server 2003. Hence you'd expect that (most) people who downloaded IE7 are indeed on XP or Win 2003 machines.
- all XP and Windows Server 2003 computers came with IE6
I'm sure you can fill in the blanks there, because it's a simple case of "X => Y, Y => Z". If X="you upgraded to IE7", Y="you're on XP or Win 2003", Z="you had IE6". Did anyone really need a statistic or study to tell them that, surprisingly, unexpectedly, those who upgraded to IE7 had IE6 on their machine before?
Pretty much the only mildly interesting word in there is: "most". Did some people actually go through the trouble of making IE7 install on a system that doesn't run it? E.g., on Win 2000? I can only hope there weren't too many.
So basically this is such a useless revelation, that I can only hope that it was some attempt at manipulation. Because the depressing to think that someone was genuinely stupid enough to think they're onto some brilliant discovery and market trend.
So the one-word wisdom there is: duh.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
i used firefox for years but found the new ie7 tabbed browsing (mainly the tab that launches a new tab) more intuitive and have since fallen in love with it. i tried to replicate it on firefox but after an hour or so of trying to i was unable to.
because i use both an antivirus (trend-micro) and spyware program (spyware doctor) i feel i have canceled out the security threats of using ie.
2) Your admin installed the IE7 Blocker Toolkit for corporate administrators ( http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?linkid=65788&site
We warned our customers' admins about this back in August but they ignored us... until October 18th. Then they started submitting Prio-1 tickets, the fuckwits.
I suspect over 90% of those were from automatic update. I have yet to meet one person that went out and intentionaly got IE7. I have already removed it off of a dozen or so customer boxes and explained about "notify" on auto update. It's a great way to avoid WGA too.
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
Its still new, give it time. Firefox vs IE6 was a no brainer .. there were major security issues with IE6, non-standards compliant, feature poor (ie no tabs, pop-up blocker, etc..) and these outweighed the issues with Firefox (separate download, no official MSI or group policy settings).
As IE7 gets more established and issues with IE6 are determined to no longer be an issue, there is less motivation for both home and corporate users to continue to invest time into Firefox (downloading, making MSIs, maintaining two browsers (IE + Firefox), etc..) when IE7 integrates smoothly into the "Windows experience" (comes with the OS, automatic updates, programs using MSHTML use it by default, etc..)
Hopefully I am wrong and Firefox continues to grow or atleast maintain marketshare. If anything, it should limit browser-specific sites (Which I absolutley hate).
It hasn't happened yet, but someday scientists will rename that planet to end stupid Uranus jokes once and for all. I predict: Urrectum.
Take it to the limit, everybody to the limit, come on, everybody fhqwhgads.
Reduce, reuse, cycle
I'd put the blame on both Microsoft and SAP. Microsoft for making such a shoddy browser with IE6 and SAP for building around it.
The problem is that even if SAP got the fix in place by now, I'd wager it wouldn't be massively deployed if the admins running it value their job. Testing updates in ERP software is (or should be) mandatory regardless of how minor they may be.
I had uninstall Internet Destroyer 7 on several of my companies machines because services stopped working after it was installed. So, the real questions is: How many of those download have been unistalled? How many are really being used of each browser?
here's the real question: how many IE7 t-shirts has microsoft sold?
I've switched to IE7. I was all about firefox and Opera the last couple of years, but IE7 brought the features I wanted and is compatible with more pages (not by any fault of FF/Opera, just due to so many websites being written to IE6's bugs).
I do have Firefox installed on my system -- actually, I'm typing this post in it right now. I like how fast it is compared to IE on some pages. And there are occasionally some sites where it just seems to be having a slow takes-forever-to-load day in IE, so I fire up Firefox and bang, it's right there. But then I also some days find the reverse is true.
More to the point, though, there are things that, as a casual Firefox user, I just can't be bothered figuring out. Example: about 10% of the time, when I click on a hyperlink, Firefox downloads it to my system instead of following the link. What the... okay, that's annoying.
And, by the way, while I'm at it, how about the fact it automatically downloads updates and then forces them to install the next time I open Firefox, without asking me. So, of course, because I'm working on a work laptop and standard user permissions are non-admin, it takes forever to start up because it ultimately fails to install those updates. Doesn't stop it from trying the next time, though...again without asking me.
And back to my original complaint...when I do want to download something, I have no option where to put it; the downloaded file automatically goes on to my desktop. I don't want it there! I want it...well, I want it where ever I want that particular file, which changes depending on the file. Why can't I browse and tell Firefox where to put it instead of being arbitrarily forced to put it in the same inappropriate location?
Those of you who are about to dash off replies telling me I'm stupid, of course I can, it's right under this menu or this is how you do it and what an idiot I am...you're missing the point. I'm sure most if not all of these complaints are addressed somewhere. But these are first impressions and they are negative impressions to me.
End result: I used Firefox for a while and still use it quite a lot...but I use IE just as much because there are some ways it does things which are friendlier to me. By the way, I know the tech in the cube next to me also tried Firefox and eventually discarded it because there were too many niggling little annoyances and she preferred the way IE did things. Anecdotal, I know, but there you are.
I think the strategic advantages of IE6 over Firefox were lost when switching to IE7 and there is no return.
To me, these advantages where:
1. Program loading time: IE6 used to open quicker than firefox and also some pages. Not anymore
2. IE6 used to show pages differently to what firefox did, I think that was changed. Or people is really interested in writing the code for Firefox (or compatible) and It has been a while since a page was incorrectly displayed or told me so.
That no one has mentioned the fact that IE7 is an automatic update in Windows ;)
Snoozer.
That killer extension is tabbed browsing. Sure, IE has it now, but it is way late in the game (even Safari was earlier, and it explicitly is disallowed by Apple's Human Interface Guidelines). And it was the killer extension that drove many to Firefox and mozilla. I still get "oh, cool!" from people who watch me use it and have never used it before. Sure, there was a commercial emacs that had this feature as far back as 1988, but when tabbed browsing first hit mainstream web browsers it was revolutionary, and IE has been taking a back seat to mozilla-based browsers (and to safari) ever since.
it just shows how eager were people to get rid of IE 6 problems they faced not knowing what is in future for them :p
Ps. i dont use either IE or firefox :)
I myself downloaded IE7 because I just missed checkbox in the custom download options while getting security updates. That doesn't mean I'm actually using it.
I can't access my bank online with Firefox 2 with either my slick Linux notebook, or my ancient Windows box. The bank's login page (which I can't get past) helpfully informs me that the site supports Firefox 2, but I can only use IE 5.5 on the Wintel (w/NT 4.0) machine to access my account. The funny (!?) part is that Firefox 1.4 worked fine previously... Has anyone else had these difficulties? (FF 2 are plain vanilla installations w/ Java and Javascript enabled...)
Firefox surpasses 100M downloads (dated October 19th, 2005)
Really? I wasn't aware that IE7 was an auto update? I couldn't have figured it out by the 100 friggin posts above yours that mentioned the same thing... oh and IE does suck but I've heard it was an auto update? Do you have any info on that? or am I the first to post this breaking news?
Snoozer.
EVERY program has to either default or ask the user what to do for every option. If you produce a popup and ask the user how they want to have an option set, they are just going to get confused and annoyed, and select the default (usually by just pressing whatever button appears will get rid of the popup). From what I have noticed, Firefox defaults are pretty intuitive.
If you don't like the defaults, change the options.
Having moved totally to Linux about three years I can only go by what I've read, but my understanding is that Microsoft said that it couldn't be completely removed because it was a core part of the operating system...and if it is not why would they automatically update it to IE7?
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
...in Saddam Hussein's last election, he got 100% of the vote.
Chris
So Buddha walks into a pizza parlor and says: "Hey, make me one with everything."
Now that's a bit of a stretch, don't you think? I use and love Firefox. It's what I'm typing this in right now. But I use both browsers on a daily basis. There are some sites that only look right in IE7 (due to web developers optimizing for IE at the expense of standards), and there are some sites that don't like IE7 yet (and thus work better in IE6 or -- since that isn't available if you have IE7 -- in FF). And then there's sites using ActiveX (such as Microsoft's Outlook Web Access) which only work at full capacity in IE.
Sure, FF is making inroads. It's my browser of choice (almost exclusively because of extensions, though, and not due to any other groundbreaking feature in FF). But to construe that "abandoning" IE is ridiculous. Both are useful.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
You can fix most of these by going into preferences. However, there is one truly annoying things that Firefox does not allow me to do that IE7 does allow is setting the default search engine. You get Google whether you want it or not. If you want to use another search engine you need to click the drop down button, but be careful because you can still hit the Google button and initiate the search using Google. Not only can you set the default search engine in IE7 you can create your own custom search engines on the add search engine page. Web sites can even hook into the search field and become a temporary search provider allowing users to search their site. Search in IE7 definitely blows all other browsers away.
Exactly why Microsoft released a patch that will prevent Windows Update from installing IE7 for corporate users or home users like myself that don't want it just yet. The company I work for has boat loads of in-house intranet applications that all need tested on IE7. Not to mention our customers calling because their application doesn't work when we specifically told them NOT to upgrade due to compatibility concerns.
I don't bother teaching kids that. I just remove IE from the desktop, change the Firefox icon to a globe or something, and label it "Internet." Come to think if it, I do the same thing with adults, too.
I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
Why doesn't anybody complain about Safari, or Voyager or Konqueror being bundled with thier respective OS distributions? (Yes, I know Konqueror belongs to KDE, but think Knoppix and the like)
Because those OS distributions are not occupying 90% of the market, and are not essentially shoved down the throat of everyone who wants to buy a PC.
When you have a product that is a monopoly, you have additional rules to follow. It includes not taking advantage of this monopoly (the OS one) to force an unrelated product (IE) on your customers. What is so hard to understand?
You have to make sure that your intranet application renders properly (in spite of Microsoft's continued non-compliance with many CSS features) on what has always seemed to me to be a buggy, bloated, easy-to-malware infest piece of junk software application masquerading as a browser.
In fact, one of the studies we are doing internally at my company is looking at the cost of deploying Firefox exclusively inside the firewall. Interestingly enough, the main resistance at this point is that if we don't continue to support IE internally, our web developers won't have the skills to deploy and secure web applications OUTSIDE of the firewall.
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
It is fast, stable and uses about 1/3rd of the memory FF does. I know that isn't a popular opinion around here, but FF isn't really all that special for the vast majority of user needs. And I don't really think the security debate work any longer as IE7 has made serious strides in this area. I'll go one furhter, I never had a security problem with IE6 as I don't surf for porn or cracked software; the only two kinds of web sites were my A/V software ever went off.
I outright banned my kids from using IE. I removed it from the Apps folder, then blocked the download site for IE in Safari. I did the same for AIM. I told them if they want to screw up a computer, then get a job and buy their own computer. Until then, there will be no IE and no AIM.
And this problem is AFAIK a blunder by SAP, saying things like "uh, nobody gave us IE7 early enough, how were we supposed to fix our code".
I might suggest that the blunder of SAP is rely on Microsoft for HTML rendering and other IE functions. SAP can deliver its product for Windows WITHOUT requiring or using IE in any way at all. There are smarter ways for a company interested in self-preservation to develop a more independent codebase that works in the Microsoft platform. And, in this case, would have avoided the negative public relation blunder of SAP being "the reason we cannot upgrade to something safer/better" from millions of customers' point of view.
You listening, SAP?
And, by the way, while I'm at it, how about the fact it automatically downloads updates and then forces them to install the next time I open Firefox, without asking me.
Edit - Preferences - Advanced - Update - Uncheck "Installed Add-ons"
Why can't I browse and tell Firefox where to put it instead of being arbitrarily forced to put it in the same inappropriate location?
Edit - Preferences - Main - Select "Always ask me where to save files" under Downloads.
The reason these things are like that by default is because, for most people, they're the Right Choice. If you don't like them, they're extremely simple to change. Being asked where to put a file every bloody time annoys me (and everyone I know) to no end. Similarly, many (if not most) people using Firefox have permissions to update their own extensions, but many don't know how or don't think to check for updates. Should they be kept at old versions because you are too lazy to uncheck a single box in a preference window?
- fader
Many IT personnel, especially outsourced IT personnel, install all Windows Updates carte blanche because it is Microsoft's "recommended configuration." I've installed IE7 on a number of customers PCs, not because I thought it was a better browser, but because it is Microsoft's recommended configuration.
We know that Windows Updates have a higher-than-normal potential to break something, but, it's better to do all updates than not do them. Then, if/when it breaks, at least it is because we performed an action that Microsoft recommended, rather than it breaking because we *neglected* to do something Microsoft recommended. Liability offloaded.
This philosophy has had an interesting side effect. A small, but significant, percentage of my customer-base have been on the receiving end of a few Microsoft Updates gone sour, so they ended up switching to Mac.
This message was posted using recycled electrons.
Your SAP comment is good.
The bigger issue, though, is that most businesses still haven't moved off Win2k. No XP/2003, no IE7.
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
Not only that, people who don't have XP/Vista (and in the corporate world there are a LOT of people still using Win2k+IE6) don't even get a choice in the matter.
Actually... if I were conspiracy-theory-minded, I might think IE purposely made IE7 more standards compliant so when people make their sites work with it, all those company's have to upgrade from IE6 move to XP/IE7... then IE8 will probably bring back the broken standards and proprietary code, forcing people to upgrade again to Vista... and then... Ouch! My tinfoil melted...
put IE7 on the home PC, we have one PC and many Macs at home, tried it out for a bit and then removed it....... like many of the above posters my users (aka "family") would have to hunt around to find IE so they all use firefox or safari, firefox on the PC has dropped malware incidents dramatically
This isn't really funny if you consider how many people design their MySpace page. It's downright frightening, actually.
Now how many MySpacers check their work on both IE and Firefox...... That's probably funny, somehow.
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
Ro me, Rikaichan is the killer extension: Just hover the cursor over a Japanese word, and the translation will pop up. Way faster than any other dictionary approach I have tried.
-- up-modding policy: make a good point, write self-contained.
Why should I bother?
.. certain programs require the rendering engine .. so it stayed but was ... very hard to find)
... but I actually prefer FireFox ..
.. or maybe I'm just scared to see what my websites actually *look like* in IE6.x/IE7.x ..
I didn't like IE6.x and removed all icons to prevent people using it (ok
Not that I want to start a "religious war" or anything
I won't tell you how to change the download location or call you an idiot. What I will say in FF's defence is that this (and many other things) are incredibly easy to do with very little thought or effort required. The problem is that the majority of users are used to the way IE works, and because FF is different they can find it intimidating at first, but with a little exploration it's actually a lot more intuitive to the casual user and massively more useful to the power user.
As for why it downloads everything to the desktop... well, I can take an educated guess that you've never had to work in an IT support role. It can be a nightmare talking people through downloading a patch over the telephone when they have no clue where it went or how to find it - IE might have put it in their documents folder, or the last location that their kid downloaded something to, it's like finding a needle in a haystack. I can only begin to imagine how much stress these users experience when trying to do this without a tech on the other end of the line to help. Most casual users like the fact that they can find their downloads, more experienced users can quickly and easily find the option to change the default location - the majority of (though evidently not all) users are happy.
IE 7 on XP really doesn't offer much to Firefox converts. Aside from perhaps the nifty tab screenshot thingy, and a really good RSS reader, Firefox has all of IE 7's features, plus it has the "comfort" factor.
But IE 7 on XP isn't really the big deal here. IE 7 on Vista is what Mozilla should be worried about.
IE 7's protected mode feature trumps the number one reason why people switched to Firefox (in my opinion): security. That's why I switched to Firefox. I was sick and tired of being at risk while I was surfing. Switching to a browser will very small market share gave me security through obscurity.
But IE 7 in protected mode is mostly likely the safest, full featured browser one can use. While people upgrading to Vista might stick with Firefox, I have a feeling that most people getting a new machine with Vista pre-installed will have little reason to switch to Firefox.
Furthermore, as the market share for IE 7 on Vista increases, I suspect malware writers will start to target Firefox more and more. It would certainly be a strange turn of events if Vista and IE 7 actually made Firefox less safe to use.
That has to be ignoring half a kazillion markets where the leading product is a commercial product which is vastly superior to any OSS equivalent
Ah! I've been waiting for a chance to find the equivalent value of 1 kazillion in any of the known number systems, and lo! Here it is! A chance at Mathematical Fame! Right on Slashdot!
So let me work this out for you all. You can be my jury.
Markets without a significant FOSS presence:
Space exploration— oh wait. NASA is using a lot of linux now
That's it? I think so.
So count those up, and the total is 0.5 kazillion, 'cuz parent post said so. Therefore 1 kazillion is equal to 8.
Funny, I expected it to be more. Maybe 1 kazillion is a very large value of 8...
So, my jury, have I satisfactorily established the equivalence of 1 kazillion in known numeric systems? Will my name now be known for all time as a Major Contributor to Mathematics, like whatzhisname with the triangle thingy?
You be the judge...
BTW,
...OSS thrives in markets that have stagnated and have little or no competition.
I think not. Here's a timely and relevant quote:
I had a guy call me the other day that told me after he did the update certain website stopped working. I told him to download Firefox and everything is fine... One thing we did seem to have a real problem with is Java. In that situation I'm not sure if IE7 broke it or something else but we did have to reinstall java after the IE7 update...
Sure, this is the best face of OSS, but what is the true opportunity cost of developing free browsers, as opposed to an OS? Microsoft makes money through the sale of OSes, not browsers, and if OSS developers wanted to better tackle the beast, more efforts should be spent on an OS that can truly take on Windows. Just a thought...
So we can assume out of all the windows users out there only 100 million out of all the people who have Windows PCs are actually upgrading their system. Is it just me or is that kida scary.
What's kida scary is that people actually think installing a new version of a web browser qualifies as a system upgrade. Yes, I know that due to IE's integration with Windows internals it kind of it, but people still shouldn't be thinking that way.
By the same token, it's kida scary that some people are automatically and unquestioningly applying every system patch to their OS that Microsoft pushes out. I have my system set to manual notification, and don't proceed with any security update until a few days have passed and there hasn't been any Slashdot article titled "Latest Windows Patch Breaks Everything". Do people trust Microsoft patches to be that flawless???
TheCounter gets a very good sample of the Internet userbase, so instead of arguing like retarded kids what "X downloads for IE and Y downloads for Firefox means" we can see what people USE:
s er.php
:P
http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2007/January/brow
19% for IE7, 11% for Firefox. End of story.
"But IE is preinstalled, but Automatic Updates, but, but."
Yea, we know. And? Firefox doesn't need skewed stats, nor it needs lame excuses. All of you, grow up
First we'll toss in one some people will kick and scream about: Graphic Design. Yes, I know all about the Gimp. And naturally the artists know that it's a poor substitute for the industry standard.
Sonar and Cubase have no reasonable alternative - just a bunch of separated projects (usually midi or audio editors, but not both simultaneuously) that sort of work if your drivers run just right, and none of them coming anywhere close to the feature sets of the commercial packages.
Games. Enough said.
This is great news!
I run the VirtuaWin site (http://virtuawin.sourceforge.net/) which, since I began tracking web stats last Sept., shows Firefox visitors (by unique IP) at +60%. It's probably that high because it's a power user type app (virtual desktops for Windows), but it's still encouraging to see.
EP
Well, amongst others:
People who care about web standards support
People who don't use windows
People who care about open source solutions
People who realise competition gets them a better deal
The security conscious
Web developers
Companies (with or commissioning websites)
IT support/Administrators
Microsoft
A large proportion of Slashdot
The list goes on but I think you get the point...
Yep, we had to upgrade the SAPGui to patch 21 to fix this problem. All of the help documentation was turned into blank screens by the IE7 update. It beats me why SAP chose to integrate IE that tightly into their product.
It should really have been a simple call to launch whichever browser was on your system and tell it to display an HTML file instead of the compiled HTML crap that they used.
14% vs 80%... ya, that's one hella of a match.
Try treating IE as a "standard" and you will lose. That was the Mozilla plan all along and it has worked perfectly. Real competition is coming back to both the browser and OS space, which is death for M$ who's only strength was a large captive audience.
The bad news for M$ is that they can't use browser share to force their way into the server market. That 79% is the total IE share. IE 7 only has 25% after three months of mandatory update, which has put it in all sorts of surprising places. Their IE 6, "winner" only has 60%. The 20% non IE share keeps developers from using IE only crap - no business is going to turn away one in five customers, especially when that one in five is the more likely to spend early adapter type.
This really is the spiral of doom for M$. They can't push their stuff, so the rest of us are no longer punished for not having IE. Because non IE browsers are better, the market share will continue to increase making it even harder for them to force IE only on people, and so on and so forth. Their push of IE 7 was a desperate measure that has failed and showed their weakness. They used every ounce of their strength and lost. As the Internet is the main reason to own a computer, their weakness in browser space is also a weakness in OS space. They think the new interface is going to spur Vista sales, but it's going to be just the opposite. User dissatisfaction with the never ending upgrade train is going to drive people to alternatives. Now is the time to give people free software. They just might try it and be happy before they spend a thousand dollars on a low end, soon to be M$ obsolete, Vista machine.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
The real surprise is that IE7 only got 25% of the market, using all of their might. That may be huge, but it's nothing that can be called a "standard" that will always work. I think this has huge implications for the browser and OS markets.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Or if you prefer engineering units, 100E06 units of 10E06 maybe?
Just disable it and run Windows Update (WU) manaually every Tuesdays. Also, tell WU to ignore IE7. No notifications. :)
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Perhaps not for long. With Firefox, IE7 has matched its meat. It's going to really lick IE's ass.
(that demolition man bit is the first thing that came to mind when I read "has Microsoft finally met its match")
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Admittedly, this is a completely unscientific study based on one website, but I did some analysis on my own site's logs. Keep in mind that Firefox 1.5 and 2.0 have auto-update, and so far that auto-update has only been applied within a major revision. So 1.5 users have only been auto-updated to newer 1.5 releases so far.
Of all Firefox hits to my site, the three most popular versions are 2.0.0.1, 1.5.0.9, and 1.0.7. That's the latest in the 2.0 series, the latest in the 1.5 series... and the last in the 1.0 series before 1.5 came out. Virtually everyone on 1.5 or 2.0 has updated to the newest release in that series. Virtually no one updated to 1.0.8.
If this is any indication, when Mozilla puts the 1.5->2.0 update into the automatic channel, the vast majority of Firefox 1.5 users will convert over to 2.0.
I haven't bothered updating to IE7 on my home or work machines (both XPSP1). Is there a risk associated with having IE6 still on my computer? I rarely use it (maybe 3 times in 2006). I guess what I'm really asking is does IE6 have vulnerabilities that can be exploited by it just being installed on my PC? Here's another: It was my understanding that one could not uninstall IE6 from an XP machine. I know that XP used to use IE6 for updates. Now that there is a separate update system in XP do I still need IE? Could I upgrade to IE7 then uninstall it? Wouldn't that be ironic?
-- QED
If everyone had relatively new WinXP machines, that would be an issue. But there are plenty of older machines that are reaching the end of their useful lives. People in that crowd would be looking into getting a new machine soon regardless of whether it came with XP or Vista. I'm sure there are still people buying their first computers, and families with shared computers still buy computers for their kids when they get old enough.
Most people who buy a new computer with Vista aren't going to be upgrading because it's Vista. They're going to be upgrading because this is when they're ready to get a new computer, and Vista's going to be the OS it comes with.
I've unchecked it a few times from Windows Update (And I remember checking the "Don't tell me about this update" a few weeks back and I still got it again last night).
I don't use IE, but I'm just afraid to install it becuase I don't know how my PC will perform afterwards (memory usage). I used it when it was the best option (IE3 and IE5) but sadly, each upgrade came with a significant performance hit at the OS level.
I know Microsoft will manage to make it a pre-requisite for a critical update down the line, but I just hope it's not a memory hog like MSMoney is.
Oh well...
I always use the latest version of Firefox before using IE. I have updated IE, though, just because I tend to update everything on my computer so it will be safer(maybe). I have that extension on Firefox that allows you to open the page or a link in IE if you think it is not going to work correctly in Firefox. There are still certain pages that have some sort of JAVA application or some sort of Quicktime embedded video that work better in IE7 than they do in Firefox 2.0 for some reason. I am sure I could download an extension or make some sort of adjustment on Firefox that would make it work just as good with these applications so that I do not have to open IE7, but I am not that tech-savvy. Still, I use Firefox for everything, and I hope more and more extensions are available(and updated!) for Firefox 2.0. The Firefox browser seems to move quicker and smoother than IE7. When I do bring up IE7 for some rare reason, it takes a long time to load, and I have a very fast computer so I don't know why it does that. Firefox takes a little time to load the first time I bring it up, but then it moves at lightning speed. However, there are times when I have had to close Firefox, and when I try to reopen it, I can't, and I have to go into Task Manager or restart my computer so there are still quite a few bugs that need to be worked out for both browsers. However, I think the mentality behind Firefox will always keep it better than IE.
SAP one of the few Software title that explains who their clients are (a bunch of SAPs). SAP is in the group of software that it is cheaper to make and maintain your own in house, or even with $100 an hour contractors.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Well if you are going to spend the rest of your life determining if a patch is good or bad. Then I would agree with you. But if you just want to get your work done on your home PC then you better off just doing all the updates, then trying to pick an choose and research if it works or not.
I know you probably don't want people to Upgrade their windows systems so at some point a major virus will all all the windows systems in one shot. But in reality keeping everything uptodate is on the average better then just letting it Rot because it could be bad.
It is like the argument for seatbelts or airbags where there are some circumstances where people have died because they have worn their seatbelts where if they didn't they may have survived. But in reality because of seatbelt laws the death toll of people have dropped significantly from car accidedance.
Yes if you just blindly patch your system you could get bitten by a bad patch. If you want to spend hours researching every patch that is released then you will be overall safer. But if it comes to patching all the time or not patching. You are safer if you patch your systems to the full extent.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Here at work we use Firefox, as we're a mostly Linux shop.
However, a few of us have WinXP or Win2K boxen. We only use IE to download Windows updates.
So, the metrics would say we have one-third IE users and 100 percent Firefox users - but in reality, we have 100 percent Firefox users.
Now if they could stop downloading updates to our printer drivers that then stop working with our printers - on our Win machines - we would probably spend even less time using IE to download updates.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
I can't speak for SAP, but where I work (a competitor of theirs) we don't certify for the latest and greatest IE/Service Pack/OS until it has actually been finalized and released. And that certification does take some time.
If the customer decides to roll it out without waiting for our certification and any necessary patches, then that's their choice. If they also do it without even bothering to do internal testing to ensure the product still covers their critical functions, that's their suicide. Considering ERP products of this sort tend to be rather central to the business, it's somewhat depressing how many actually do such things without performing any testing at all.
Wow. Not even sure where to start. Medicine isn't a science, but you talk of AIDS patients prescriptions. Whatever happened to your construct of reality?
http://www.google.com/search?q=google+web+statisti cs
Oh, the irony...
I went over to the in-laws to make sure that they were on the internet after they switched from DSL to Cable. The Road Runner Tech installed IE7 "because it is required to use the internet!" They had firefox installed as the default browser, now IE7 is on their system. I have not had to go over and clean up their system for over six months now that they we're not using IE6. I was kinda Pissed when I found out he did that without asking them. Gruff said.
"So much software gets downloaded all the time, but do people actually use it?" -- Bill Gates, May 2005. Of course, he was talking about a certain other web browser...
"Yet in the three months it's been available, Firefox's market share has continued to grow."
I think I hear a chair bouncing off a wall in Redmond!
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
I've been using Firefox 2.0 since beta and before IE7 came out. Like a diligent /. reader I've been keeping up on the arguments from both sides. The one that stuck out in my mind was that Firefox has a pretty bad memory leak. At the time I read it, I didn't pay much attention to it because I never noticed any slowdown or stability problems when using Firefox. That was until a few weeks ago.
I started playing WoW a while ago and have recently been using Thotbott. I will have WoW open in one window (Full screen) and Thotbott running in Firefox in the background. After a while, WoW started chunking big time. I eventually figured out that if I closed Firefox, the chunk went away. On my system (P4 3.0ghz, 1GB RAM, XP SP2), IE7 doesn't cause WoW to chunk. I can leave Thotbott open in the background all day long.
Although I do use Firefox for most my browsing, it isn't the IE killer that it often gets made out to be.
Now that would be a useful invention!
You are reading a copy of my copyrighted post.
No problem. Then you won't have any issue subtracting a good 20+ downloads from the Firefox counter from my systems for variations on same, too... right?
I totally agree! The extension model of Firefox almost guarantees that it will become a vector for exploits at some point.
Ohhh, that kind of killer extension.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
We recently had a problem with a clients website. In Firefox it displayed as expected, but IE(7/6) it didn't. We traced the problem to a piece of javascript code forgetting to close an open object tag.
Now the question is which browser was right? Firefox simply closed the tag and displayed the broken code as it was (originally) intended to be. IE closed the tag and disregarded the remaining code (closing only tags) showing the problem.
Both browsers have their quirks. IE7 is new and figuring out when its doing something wrong and when its simply showing you that *you're* doing something wrong can be tedious. Firefox certainly has its own quirks (moz- properties in css?) and is maybe (from a web developer POV) a little too forgiving.
Between the two and a little WC3 validation I can generally keep myself pretty happy with the results. Sure, it would be easier to simply worry about one or the other. But thats simply not the playing field.
As a side-note it was funny to note that the client, who is not a small company, seemed to be using FF and didn't notice the problem either. Opps!
Quack, quack.
I think he was talking about browser updates, not extension updates. In which case, he should be unchecking "Firefox", not "Installed Add-ons".
And while we are talking about intelligent defaults, in a sane OS setup, the user running the browser wouldn't have permission to update it. While we know this isn't always the case, it seems to me that the 'smart' default would be to not try and perform the auto-update if the permissions necessary to do so aren't present.
If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
Just like its required to have SP2 for XP, it will be a requirement pretty soon to do Windows Updates with IE7.
I am a stupid douchebag. Win2k is 1337. I will hack your boxen. I do not understand US and European antitrust law.
CrankyOldFart (Just because I don't have a fucking clue will not stop me from posting, you informed asshole.)
If you're on page 1, just skip straight to page 3.
Yeah, Firefox doesn't behave very well, and the programmers there are to blame completely. In Firefox for Debian GNU/Linux (soon to be Iceweasel) they've edited the code to prevent it from looking for updates outside of the APT system.
Like in every packaged version of Firefox in every Linux distro because it would of course conflict while the whole package + central repository idea.
I remember the good old days when Netscape was a much better browser than IE.
I remember how I stuck loyally to Netscape for a few years.
And I remember the day when reviewers finally said, folks, Netscape really isn't as good a browser anymore. And I switched to IE.
Now we've come full circle. Netscape's latest incarnation is better than IE, just as its predecessor was. But it also has access to far, far less money than IE, just as its predecessor did. IE7 is just the tip of the iceberg. Microsoft is going to be the one taking back the Web, with 8 and 9, just as it took it over the first time with earlier versions. It's going to rewrite its browser so that it's faster, more featureful, more innovative, and more standards-compliant than Firefox. And then the cycle will quite possibly repeat.
Am I wrong? Maybe, and indeed, I hope so. But IE is not defeated as long as Microsoft is not defeated, and Microsoft is not defeated as Windows is not defeated. We will not be seeing the death of IE anytime soon unless Microsoft gives up on making its own browser. Giving up isn't something Microsoft is known to do often.
MediaWiki developer, Total War Center sysadmin
How much people, from that 100m that have IE7, have it just upgraded and actually use FireFox? I think a huge percentage.
Minti: What's that huge shuriken in your back?! Kin: It's the instrument of my victory.
FireFox has just erased my 'Bookmarks' for the second time. Any assistance would be appreciated. IE, Opera, Mozilla and FireFox installed; FireFox, most used, contained most extensive library of Bookmarks. Thank you, Roy Stewart, Phoenix AZ irjsiq@gmail.com
I bow before your well presented and thought-provoking argumentation. You proved your point quite nicely, but what that point might be could use some clarification.
Myself, I think that your point is that you are a crazed lol-cow on crack.
responds by silencing the dissenting view with the capabilites given him by being such a slashdot sycophant.
Huh, what? I posted my first reply to you yesterday, and I only checked back today out of boredom and saw there was 10 replies (that I didn't even receive any email notification about), including your crazy ranting over getting banned or something, probably for a totally unrelated reason - but somehow you attribute it to some magical power I would have over slashdot.
I have no idea what the fuck happened here, nor do I care - but I can assure you that I have nothing to do with it. I don't know anybody here.
However, seeing how immature and paranoiac you seem to react about the whole thing, you getting banned for some reason or another doesn't surprise me too much. A lesser being would have tried to figure out what happened by contacting the slashdot team, but you chose to do the right thing and post a boatload of paranoid and immature comments all over the place.
Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if you merely forgot your password and thought I banned you with my mystical black magic powers because you disagreed with me.
Seeing people foaming at the mouth over an internet forum is pretty entertaining. Continue being a good lolcow and reply to this with more insanity if you will.
Oh, so you're projecting on me you're anger of being modded down. How is that my fault, exactly? I don't agree with modding down for difference of opinion, and I never modded down people for defending an opposite viewpoint to mine myself.
You can't hold me responsible for the actions of the majority here, can you?
As for my opinions, I have formed them myself from 7 years of professional experience of development under windows environment mostly with microsoft tools (which means that a large majority of my time is spent working with microsoft products), and before that using microsoft products when I was a student, and generally having doing programming as a hobby on various systems for about 20 years. So my opinions are based in facts aswell.
Oh, and thanks for my new signature.
There is no use debating with someone who just diss your opinions as irrational dogma, therefore I will not try to resume our original discussion from before you threw a tantrum for being modded down.
You think I care about my karma on slashdot? I barely ever read it these days. Karma is pointless anyway except if you like to mod, and I actually don't and rarely do it even when I get modding points.
You are the one who seems to be caring way too much about this stuff, really (you claim not to care in some of your insane posts, yet you post as an Anonymous Coward - hypocrisy much?)
I am glad to have been able to clarify what happened, which is even more stupid and less worth getting worked up over than I thought and won't bother with you anymore. The whole thing might be encyclopedia dramatica material though, but I'm lazy so it will probably not come to pass.
Browsers are like car stereos: some people will always go out-of-the-way to install an aftermarket car stereo; others will only install an aftermarket car stereo when it has a tangible feature that their existing one doesn't have. My parents just wait until they buy a new car!
No, I will not work for your startup