Slashdot Mirror


Firefox 3.5 Now the Most Popular Browser Worldwide

gQuigs notes a graph up at StatCounter Global Statistics, which shows that in the last few days Firefox 3.5 became the most used browser version worldwide, edging ahead of IE7. IE8 is rising fast (along with Windows 7), but over the last few months the slope of Firefox's worldwide curve has been steeper. (In the US, IE8 has always been ahead of Firefox 3.5; in Europe Firefox has led since late summer.) The submitter suggests using the time when Firefox rules the roost, globally speaking, to put the final nail in the coffin of IE6, which still has a 14% global share (5%-7% in the US and EU; China and Korea are holding up IE6's numbers).

422 comments

  1. Browser down. by binarylarry · · Score: 5, Funny

    OS next.

    --
    Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    1. Re:Browser down. by TheSunborn · · Score: 5, Funny

      People already complain that firefox is to bloatet. Adding an os might really cause people to complain, but they can always do it as a plugin

    2. Re:Browser down. by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 3, Funny

      only if I could get Emacs as a Firefox plugin...

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    3. Re:Browser down. by Neil+Hodges · · Score: 2, Funny

      Why would you want to create a Linux plugin for Firefox when you can run Firefox on Linux instead?

    4. Re:Browser down. by rrohbeck · · Score: 2, Funny

      There's an x86 emulator in Java. Maybe it'll boot Linux.
      Then you could even run vim :P

    5. Re:Browser down. by gzipped_tar · · Score: 1

      There's Firemacs, but that's just a key combo addon, not a fully functional EMACS implementation.

      --
      Colorless green Cthulhu waits dreaming furiously.
    6. Re:Browser down. by ihuntrocks · · Score: 5, Funny

      Given how bloated Emacs is, you're more likely to be able to get Firefox for Emacs.

      Emacs is a wonderful operating system. All it lacks is a decent text editor.

      --
      Randimal: AT-CG-CG-AT-CG-AT-AT-CG-CG-AT-AT-CG-AT-CG-CG-AT-CG-AT-AT-CG-AT-CG-CG-AT-AT-CG-CG-AT-CG-AT-AT-CG
    7. Re:Browser down. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Emacs is a wonderful operating system. All it lacks is a decent text editor.

      What do you mean by that? You can run Vi in Emacs.

    8. Re:Browser down. by binarylarry · · Score: 4, Funny

      You know.

      Yo dawg, we heard yall use Linux....

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    9. Re:Browser down. by ihuntrocks · · Score: 5, Funny

      I concede defeat to you, sir. Well, played. Well played indeed.

      --
      Randimal: AT-CG-CG-AT-CG-AT-AT-CG-CG-AT-AT-CG-AT-CG-CG-AT-CG-AT-AT-CG-AT-CG-CG-AT-AT-CG-CG-AT-CG-AT-AT-CG
    10. Re:Browser down. by slashchuck · · Score: 3, Funny

      You young whippersnappers and your emacs or vim. In my day it was edlin or nothing.

      --
      $sig not found
    11. Re:Browser down. by Atzanteol · · Score: 1

      Holy shit really!?!?!?!

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    12. Re:Browser down. by Idiomatick · · Score: 5, Funny

      I had punch cards... and we hadn't invented the hole punch yet so we had to do it with our fingers. You people worry about carpel tunnel from typing... try ramming your pinky through a sheet of card several hundred thousand times a night. Back then, code monkeys were actual monkeys we trained to poke holes for us to spare our own fingers.

    13. Re:Browser down. by RazzleDazzle · · Score: 4, Funny

      You and your advanced "hole punching technology" have no idea what I go thru

      --
      ZERO ZERO ONE ZERO ONE ZERO ONE ONE! Just brushing up for my next big invention: Ethernet over Voice (EoV)
    14. Re:Browser down. by DarkAxi0m · · Score: 2, Funny

      monkeys? luxury!

      we had to make our holes with damp twine,
      and on top of that, we had to reuse the old cards by filling in the holes with skin from our blisters.

    15. Re:Browser down. by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Informative

      There's Firemacs, but that's just a key combo addon, not a fully functional EMACS implementation.

      I can confirm. It will not wash your dishes, vacuum your rug or become your Evil EMACS Robotic Overlord.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    16. Re:Browser down. by Darkness404 · · Score: 1

      But can you run Pico in it?

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    17. Re:Browser down. by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Funny

      You had it EASY! We had to punch the holes in ourselves using jagged pieces of rock 25 hours a day, until the IT Manager came along, cut us all to ribbons, ingested us in a carnivorous cannibalistic rage, only have to start again, this time in EBDIC!

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    18. Re:Browser down. by calidoscope · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Hole punching??? How about flipping the front panel switches! OTOH, the old plugboards were even more archaic.

      --
      A Shadeless room is a brighter room.
    19. Re:Browser down. by tepples · · Score: 1

      Though Emacs has a vi-simulation mode called Viper, I'm not aware of any mode to simulate the key bindings of Nano. But of course, Emacs can shell out to Nano, the GNU clone of Pico. ObTopic: And yes, there's a browser module for Emacs.

    20. Re:Browser down. by nawcom · · Score: 0, Troll

      But can you run Pico in it?

      No one cares about pico. You might as well compare a log of feces to a work of art. Features outweigh simplicity. vi rules.

    21. Re:Browser down. by bronney · · Score: 4, Funny

      Last time I punched a ho I got owned.

    22. Re:Browser down. by Thinboy00 · · Score: 1

      How about s/pico/nano/g ?

      --
      $ make available
    23. Re:Browser down. by hairyfeet · · Score: 5, Funny

      LUCKY BASTARD! All we had was flat rocks...the big rocks were the ones, the little rocks were the zeros and Deity help you if an earthquake came along and messed up your program. And where do you think stoning came from? It was just us trying to text message! Receiving a single txt with more than "come here" in it could KILL YOU!!!

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    24. Re:Browser down. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Hang about, surely Emacs and Vi both predate edlin? If DOS was your first experience then you're nothing but a whippersnapper yerself, a fraud!

    25. Re:Browser down. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no, but you can get Firefox as an Emacs extension....

    26. Re:Browser down. by WinterSolstice · · Score: 1

      Just add emacs :D

      I kid I kid...

      --
      An operating system should be like a light switch... simple, effective, easy to use, and designed for everyone.
    27. Re:Browser down. by WormholeFiend · · Score: 1

      You should check out the latest slashstone tablog... there is new wireless smoke communication technology that some tribes have started using.

    28. Re:Browser down. by socceroos · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure I like the layout of that particular keyboard. I would have gone 01

    29. Re:Browser down. by icannotthinkofaname · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Oh, man, you guys had something special there.

      We didn't even have computers to do all this fancy-pants work for us.

      You guys were blessed with such incredible technology as the computer. Can you even fathom how you'd fare without it?

      --
      Let q be a radix > 1. I am in ur base-q, killing 10 d00ds.
    30. Re:Browser down. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ShamWow guy!?!?! I knew you read /.

    31. Re:Browser down. by Idiomatick · · Score: 1

      What the hell man here we are all having fun and you have to say something like that. That's not funny, that's just sick.

    32. Re:Browser down. by yanyan · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you mean a Firefox plugin for Emacs?

    33. Re:Browser down. by dushkin · · Score: 1

      You kids, back in my day we only had stone tablets.

      --
      o hai
    34. Re:Browser down. by siloko · · Score: 1

      fingers? showpony!

    35. Re:Browser down. by celle · · Score: 1

      You can run vim(plugin-imperator?..) in firefox, so what?

    36. Re:Browser down. by adamchou · · Score: 1

      Why use Emacs when you can use VIM in Firefox?

    37. Re:Browser down. by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Hah, too easy.
      REAL programmers hold the drive up in the air and wait until they fork into that universe where cosmic rays hit the platters just right to produce a code that does what is needed. All you need is chaos theory, quantum mechanics and a near infinite deadline.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    38. Re:Browser down. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You tell that to kids today and they'll never believe you.

    39. Re:Browser down. by SenseiLeNoir · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You spoke tooo soon, it already does!

      http://www-jpc.physics.ox.ac.uk/home_home.html

      boot DSL linux in a browser using a java based x86 emulator.

      Note some of the images take a while to start, but tty linux at:
      http://www-jpc.physics.ox.ac.uk/tty.html

      works.

      --
      Have a nice day!
    40. Re:Browser down. by multi+io · · Score: 1

      You should do away with that ENTER key first. Hitting it is equivalent to typing 1010 anyway. Maybe there is a keyboard macro for that.

    41. Re:Browser down. by jc79 · · Score: 1

      Stone tablets? All I had in my youth was a bunch of rocks.

    42. Re:Browser down. by nahdude812 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but the 1-0 layout (or "ten" as some like to call it) is the established standard even if it's not the most efficient. In fact, rumor has it that the ten layout was specifically designed in order to reduce overall typing speed so that the bits wouldn't collide and get stuck.

      I've thought about switching to a more modern layout such as oh-one, but I'm a pretty fast typist on the ten layout (60 nibbles per minute), and I'm not sure how long it would take me to get back up to this speed, or whether I'd be able to switch back easily if I changed my mind later (or if I had to use someone else's keyboard to troubleshoot, etc).

      I've only recently gotten to the point I can wholly touch type without cheating (by blacking out both keys on my keyboard). I'd hate to lose that progress.

    43. Re:Browser down. by Gandalf_Greyhame · · Score: 1
      --
      I am not stubborn. I am right!
    44. Re:Browser down. by dheltzel · · Score: 1
      You young whippersnappers and your emacs or vim. In my day it was edlin or nothing.

      LOL, edlin was made for newbies who couldn't handle "cat > a.out"

    45. Re:Browser down. by Sleepy · · Score: 1

      >Browser down.
      >OS next.

      Whaddya mean... the browser's NOT part of the OS? That's unpossible!

    46. Re:Browser down. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Has anyone taken a look at the bar chart? Shows a bit different perspective.

    47. Re:Browser down. by ITJC68 · · Score: 1

      The reason I think Firefox is taking off is the fact that in IE8 the stop back and forward buttons most of us internet old timers are used to have gone away. People find that confusing. Firefox is getting bloated. They need to come out with a lite version. The plugins are nice but load a few and it takes forever for the browser to open except on fast machines. For the OS Windows 7 is a nice improvement. 7 is what Vista should have been. Also Mandrake's latest version is pretty nice as well.

    48. Re:Browser down. by kyz · · Score: 1

      It's on the way - Ymacs is an in-browser editor that's designed to look a lot like like Emacs, which inspired elisp.js: elisp interpreter for Javascript - so hopefully we can run Emacs in the browser, at some point in the future.

      --
      Does my bum look big in this?
    49. Re:Browser down. by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      How is the Duke Nukem Forever project?

    50. Re:Browser down. by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      We're confident we'll fork into the right universe any day now ! :P

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    51. Re:Browser down. by Capt.DrumkenBum · · Score: 1

      You had little rocks!?!???!?!? Luxury. We had to make do with big rocks, and bigger rocks. A "Hello World" program could weigh several tons.

      --
      If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
    52. Re:Browser down. by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      Stone tablets? All I had in my youth was a bunch of rocks.

      And we nearly got killed by pop-ups.

    53. Re:Browser down. by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      ingested us in a carnivorous cannibalistic rage

      Is there a kind of cannibalistic rage that isn't carnivorous? I guess if you're a venus venustrap...

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    54. Re:Browser down. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Excellent...

    55. Re:Browser down. by Lennie · · Score: 1

      Actually with coLinux that might work (if you would want to create a Linux-plugin for Firefox on Windows)

      --
      New things are always on the horizon
    56. Re:Browser down. by gwait · · Score: 1

      Of course, you had it easy.. We had to wait for the rocks to form from the cold burning ashes of a local supernova, and there wasn't any air to breath. Try holding your breath for 100 million years while comets slowly seed the atmosphere, while trying to remember those VI key commands!

      --
      Bavarian Purity Law of Rice Krispie Squares: Rice Krispies, Marshmallows, Butter, Vanilla.
    57. Re:Browser down. by Skrynkelberg · · Score: 1

      I actually laughed out loud. Oh, if I had mod points...

  2. Given the instant speed difference alone by FunkyRider · · Score: 0

    This is bond to happen. Even our manager can manage to feel the speed difference between IE7 and FF3, let alone FF3.5's tracemonkey and stuff. Even if people are not interested in Open Standard, vast amount of plug-ins and things, this alone would make people switch.

    --
    just wonder why there are so many anonymous cowards in this world....
    1. Re:Given the instant speed difference alone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bond to happen?

      007: Fire in the Foxy

    2. Re:Given the instant speed difference alone by Runaway1956 · · Score: 5, Informative

      I fail to see all good news for Firefox on that page. Or, should I say that I don't see all good news for consumers.

      Together, IE6, IE7 and IE8 still dominate the market. I'm afraid that will remain true for a couple more years, no matter how much pressure the rest of the world puts on the market. Separating the versions of the various browsers just clutters the picture.

      If I may, I'll point out that I'm partly color blind. It's tough to see that chart. It's hard to see the "real picture". What is literally true for me, is figuratively true for those who are working so hard to track browser usage.

      Is there a page that tracks usage, which lumps IE (all versions), Firefox (all versions) Opera (all versions) etc?

      Ahhhhh, here we go: http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser-ww-weekly-200827-200951

      Yes indeed. Global domination by Firefox is indeed getting closer - but not this year, and probably not next year. Let's give it between 3 and 5 years, alright?

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    3. Re:Given the instant speed difference alone by dakameleon · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up, please: it's ridiculous to say that "Firefox 3.5 is the most popular browser!" when the IEs combined make up 55% of the market and the FFs combined make up 32%. Individual browser versions do not make a web designer's life easier, unfortunately.

      --
      Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
    4. Re:Given the instant speed difference alone by WuphonsReach · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I fail to see all good news for Firefox on that page. Or, should I say that I don't see all good news for consumers.

      Together, IE6, IE7 and IE8 still dominate the market. I'm afraid that will remain true for a couple more years, no matter how much pressure the rest of the world puts on the market. Separating the versions of the various browsers just clutters the picture.


      While I don't agree with the rosy picture being painted, I think it's fair to say that web developers should (can?) no longer code solely for Internet Explorer. Seeing IE's market share anywhere south of 90% makes it very easy to sell to managers that poor web design will tick off a significant share of their user base.

      Back when it was only 5%, very few managers cared. Even at 10%, most would sniff and say "1 in 10" isn't worth the effort to make the site cross-browser. Now we're getting into the 20% range where business types get really uncomfortable with ticking off users.

      It's like asking them, "Imagine if you told every 5th customer to walk through that door to shove off?"

      Is it good new for Firefox? I think it's more good news for all alternate browsers as a whole. We're almost back to where we were around 2000 where there were many different browsers in use before IE sewed up the market for half a decade.

      --
      Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
    5. Re:Given the instant speed difference alone by A12m0v · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Baby steps.
      It wasn't so long ago when IE had +90% of the worldwide browser usage share. I would have had nothing against IE, if it weren't for its incompatible implementation of web standards and being Windows-only. I believe it is a crime to limit a web site access to users of a certain browser and a certain OS. Probably this is what Microsoft wanted all along, to make the WWW an extension of Windows. I experienced this first hand when some sites, like my bank, were IE-only. Luckily, for me, Wine helped a lot in breaking that barrier. This is less of an issue now, IE8 is better with standards, and the usage share of alternative browsers grew to a point that they can't be ignored.
      Also the EU's latest legislation should help level the playing field. I especially like the interoperability bit, and I hope it extends to ensuring IE complies with standards and doesn't introduce proprietary extensions.

      --
      GENERATION 25: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
    6. Re:Given the instant speed difference alone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      That also means, FF remote code execution vulnerabilities are now getting exploited to install malware on PCs.

      Office computers - the major bulk of IE(6) users have a low probability of being infected by malware, assuming semi-competent sysadmins who keep their systems patched. IE7/8, etc has even lower chance of getting infected through 'drive by' downloads due to the protected mode isolation which guarantees that IE will run in an extremely low privilege context, so even if the browser security is defeated, the exploits' damage is minimized. Shame to see Firefox lagging behind IE8 and Chrome in this regard.

      Though all in all I'm glad FF & Chrome happened and managed to revive the browser space.

    7. Re:Given the instant speed difference alone by Runaway1956 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Alright - let's be fair, please.

      I've been Rickrolled with Firefox on Linux, and I've also been hijacked by those sites that tell me about infections on C:/ and ask me to click "yes" to install an antivirus to clean up my infections. Firefox on Linux, no less.

      But, in each case, it is the extension which enabled malicious script to redirect me. I don't think that Firefox was at fault, but I was. Mozilla never asked me to install a bunch of crap on top of their browser. If we are going to point fingers, I think we need to point fingers at Macromedia, at javascript, and some of those lesser known extensions and scripts.

      As your own post points out, configuration means everything. If I sit down at a computer at work, I can't download ANYTHING with the default browser, which is IE7. I have to log in as admin, or use a browser installed on a USB to download ANYTHING.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    8. Re:Given the instant speed difference alone by nyctopterus · · Score: 1

      Is it good new for Firefox? I think it's more good news for all alternate browsers as a whole. We're almost back to where we were around 2000 where there were many different browsers in use before IE sewed up the market for half a decade.

      Anecdotally, I've found this to be true. Back in 2006-7, I was still coming across sites that were buggy or didn't really work at all in anything but IE. I haven't hit anything like that in a couple of years. Every site appears to be tested for Firefox, and therefore will work in all the standards-based browsers (small quirks aside).

      This might also be attributable to the rise in Mac usage--if you're on a Mac, you can't just launch IE because a page doesn't work in your browser of choice (VMs excepted, but I'm not launching a VM just to look at some stupid website). Shutting out Mac users used to mean shutting out a tiny percentage of weirdos, now it's more akin to shutting out the richest tenth of your potential customers.

    9. Re:Given the instant speed difference alone by C0vardeAn0nim0 · · Score: 1

      hint: its the most used browser version not the most used browser family.

      go back to TFA. below the graphic, there are 2 drop down boxes where you can chose diferent stats. browser family, browser version, OS, etc. and break it down by region down to country level.

      good news is, IE family is in a downward trend, while firefox and chrome are going up. it wont be long (a year, maybe ?) for the sum of all IE version to fall below 50%.

      --
      What ? Me, worry ?
    10. Re:Given the instant speed difference alone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As has been said before, the versions of browsers people use does make a huge difference—mainly for front-end designers trying to take advantage of advanced AJAX, JavaScript and CSS functionality that IE6 is not capable of supporting. Our only hope is to get more people to upgrade to browsers, like Firefox, that do support, (and actually want to support) said code. It isn't really an IE vs. Firefox match, it is a "does this browser support what I need it too" question, and IE6 definitely does not.

    11. Re:Given the instant speed difference alone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahhhhh, here we go: http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser-ww-weekly-200827-200951

      Yes indeed. Global domination by Firefox is indeed getting closer - but not this year, and probably not next year. Let's give it between 3 and 5 years, alright?

      Take that graph and extrapolate, and you'll see that if the current trend continues, IE will drop below 50% next summer and below Firefox next fall or winter. Unless of course there's a 60% rock bottom of users worldwide who cannot or dare not install a new browser on their Windows computer.

      Other interesting trends are the rise of Chrome (shamefully omitted from the "Browser version" graph, but now as popular as Safari and Opera combined) and the steady decline of Opera. Where's Opera 10 btw?

    12. Re:Given the instant speed difference alone by uyguremre · · Score: 1

      Let's give it between 3 and 5 years, alright?

      When we add a liner trendline, it shows mid 2011 for firefox catching up with IE

    13. Re:Given the instant speed difference alone by Billkamm · · Score: 1

      IE still dominates the world. I think separating every possible version of each browser and calling it a different browse is a little bit of funny math. A lot of politicking going on here in favor of Firefox.

      Call me when the Firefox (all versions) surpasses IE (all versions). If you put me in a Firefox 3.0 browser and a Firefox 3.5 browser I couldn't tell you which one I was using without going to Help --> About. I can barely tell the difference between IE7 and IE8 without going to Help --> About. The average end user doesn't distinguish to themself "I'm using IE8" or "I'm using Firefox 3.5" They just say I'm using IE or I'm using Firefox.

    14. Re:Given the instant speed difference alone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      careful, they'll start trying to play the "what's that colour" game! Grrrr @ non-colourblind people :P

    15. Re:Given the instant speed difference alone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Separating the versions of the various browsers just clutters the picture.

      IE6, IE7, and IE8 are completely different browsers though.

    16. Re:Given the instant speed difference alone by Kotten · · Score: 1

      Grouping three different browsers together never made sense to me. There is more differences between IE6 and IE8 than between Firefox and Opera. Grouping All firefox together might make sense but not grouping IE.

      Car analogy: Toyota Corolla is the most sold car in the world but there is not much if at all that is reused from the 1966 version in todays car. It is only the name that is the same

      So rejoice that web-developers can tell their PHB's that they are now developing for both the w3c-standard AND the de-facto standard.

      --
      Note to self: Make a sig
  3. From The Book of Mozilla, 11:9 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Mammon slept. And the beast reborn spread over the earth and its numbers grew legion. And they proclaimed the times and sacrificed crops unto the fire, with the cunning of foxes. And they built a new world in their own image as promised by the sacred words, and spoke of the beast with their children. Mammon awoke, and lo! it was naught but a follower.

    1. Re:From The Book of Mozilla, 11:9 by flydpnkrtn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Mammon slept. And the beast reborn spread over the earth and its numbers grew legion. And they proclaimed the times and sacrificed crops unto the fire, with the cunning of foxes. And they built a new world in their own image as promised by the sacred words , and spoke of the beast with their children. Mammon awoke, and lo! it was naught but a follower.

      from The Book of Mozilla, 11:9
      (10th Edition)

    2. Re:From The Book of Mozilla, 11:9 by Hurricane78 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What’s omitted is what happens next.

      If Mammon awakes, it (MS) will try to catch up, if it means anything to it.
      And this will be the actual ugly fight, where one of them never comes out again.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    3. Re:From The Book of Mozilla, 11:9 by Thinboy00 · · Score: 1

      Sacrificed crops refers to the firefox crop circle.

      --
      $ make available
    4. Re:From The Book of Mozilla, 11:9 by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      Currently, nobody buys its dirty tricks of the times past.
      The only way it can win now, is by being better.
      And that means we all profit.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    5. Re:From The Book of Mozilla, 11:9 by flydpnkrtn · · Score: 1

      This is quite true... more insightful than my post (which was a blatant ripoff of the first post in the thread, I just took the HTML source directly from the "real" about:mozilla in Firefox).

      Forced competition breeds better quality, which leads to the "users" winning

  4. Why MS failed. by w0mprat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    IE has been diluted by three different versions. IE6 is only really held on to by organisations that developed everything for IE6, and subsequently had everything break when testing IE7. This despite IE6 barely working on half the internet now. Ironically Mircosoft's attempt at lock-in in the past has backfired, few outfits have updated to IE7, less to IE8.

    --
    After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
    1. Re:Why MS failed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      The other source of IE6 is non tech-saavy people still using it on their Windows XP PCs that have never considered or don't know how to upgrade. Working for an ISP helpdesk, I can say this is a common scenario.

    2. Re:Why MS failed. by pipatron · · Score: 1

      I think this is a little bit odd. I've had to work hard not to install a newer version of IE in my windows machine (yes, I like to play GTA occasionally, no, it doesn't work in wine with my ATI card). You have to explicitly show the custom upgrade options and disable it there, IIRC.

      --
      c++; /* this makes c bigger but returns the old value */
    3. Re:Why MS failed. by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      ...non tech-saavy people still using it on their Windows XP PCs that have never considered or don't know how to upgrade.

      I think that must be a sort of psychological road-block where people imagine that the shiny CDROM that came with their computer represents some form of unsullied purity in their system that all those hundreds of megabytes of updates from Microsoft can only corrupt.

      Or something.

      I still occasionally find individuals using Netscape 4.0...

    4. Re:Why MS failed. by Peredur · · Score: 1

      Have you tried http://www.playonlinux.com? I believe I saw a predefined setting for GTA.

    5. Re:Why MS failed. by initdeep · · Score: 2, Informative

      how is this odd.

      let's take a look at some FACTS.

      1. Windows XP, as originally shipped, does not have automatic updates turned on as a default, and most people would not turn it on in the original setup screen.

      2. MOST computer users are idiots when it comes to security and maintenance of their systems. Thus they would NEVER go to the windows update site unless explicitly instructed to do so by someone.

      3. Combine 1 and 2 and you can easily see how their are many people that would fail to understand that there is a NEW version of Internet Explorer let alone security updates.

      I have spent more hours than i care to think about simply updating machines when they are brought to me for reasons of "non-operation".

      hell, i had a friend come over last night whose laptop was running XP SP1, as shipped to him by the manufacturer.

      When i pointed out that he should update this using the Windows Update site, his response was "how often should i do that?"

      he was awestruck when i answered "monthly would be a good idea".

    6. Re:Why MS failed. by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Interesting thing about Firefox though, I can bet that it will never remain the most popular browser but don't expect any real threat from IE what ever version. The biggest threat to Firefox will be other Mozilla browsers, some of which might even be produced by Firefox.com.

      As the underlying open source code for Firefox becomes more popular expect more parallel development, specialised versions for particular uses, branded versions and of course tweaked versions to suit specific online strategies, but all of the basically being compatible in terms of web content connect ability, hmm, the wonderful world of open standards (real competition, greater innovation and better end user relations).

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    7. Re:Why MS failed. by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure what you mean, if 'few' have upgraded, then considering the OS statistics, why is IE 7 and 8 doing well, and 6 not?

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    8. Re:Why MS failed. by MemoryDragon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually IE8 might be soon the king of IEs even corporations now have a serious upgrade look.
      I expect that IE7 wont really have the impact IE6 had and frankly spoken IE8 while not being really that good is good enough for now.
      Still I applaud the rise of firefox, this will open enough pressure on M$ to finally support SVG and raise their ACID compliancy from 20% up to decent levels without lying that ACID tested unfinished standards (which it does not)

    9. Re:Why MS failed. by SMOKEING · · Score: 1

      Don't expect a particular version of FF to get entrenched and pose an obstruction in the way of newer versions that will follow. The notorious lock-in around IE6 is a microsoft-only disease.

      Because FF is so emphatically standard-conforming, whatever works in version X is bound to work in version X+1. Yes, extensions need to be kept up-to-date with every new release, but no site (well, except quakelive.com :) relies on a particular extension installed.

      Wrt plugins, Mozilla plugin API is fairly stable and well-rounded. The same Flash plugin works with FF 1.5 all through 3.5.

      Note how (relatively) abrupt was the decline of FF2.0 neatly matched by the increase in version 3.0 share, and, later, 3.0 promptly giving way to 3.5. That's just people upgrading, and most of the time, automatically either through built-in Firefox updater or via general distro upgrade.

    10. Re:Why MS failed. by buddyglass · · Score: 1

      Yep. Win7 will boost IE8 adoption, especially as corporations who declined to migrate from XP to Vista decide that migrating to Win7 is "worth it".

    11. Re:Why MS failed. by rraylion · · Score: 1

      lets be honest the reason firefox has taken off in the last six months has nothing to do with IE or the problems IE has. THREE WORDS: MAFIA WARS AUTOPLAYER the reason 500k people have downloaded and installed firefox is because the script MWAP can run in greasemonkey and play a video game for you. sad but true. Firefox/icedove -- thank ZYNGA for your market share

    12. Re:Why MS failed. by BenoitRen · · Score: 1

      CSS 2.1 and CSS 3 are finished standards? Since when?

    13. Re:Why MS failed. by MemoryDragon · · Score: 1

      CSS 2.1 is finished and fully supported. CSS 3 is not tested by the latest ACID test, if you read the tests thoroughly IE8 fails utterly on SVG support, proper dom support and on the Ecmascript parts!
      It does definitely not fail on the CSS side of things (thats where the 20% come from)

      That Microsoft tried to spin this into another direction is pretty much standard by them, here is another example:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5oGaZIKYvo

    14. Re:Why MS failed. by bipbop · · Score: 1

      500k is a drop in the browser bucket.

    15. Re:Why MS failed. by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Did something happen to your comma key?

      --
      Why is this even on SlashDot?... Why is this even on Slashdot?...Why is this even on Slashdot?
    16. Re:Why MS failed. by BenoitRen · · Score: 1

      Err, the CSS 2.1 spec is not a proper recommendation yet. It's a candidate, though.

      CSS 3 is tested by the Acid3 test [reference 1], [reference 2].

  5. IE6? Really? by bguiz · · Score: 1

    I'm finding it hard to believe that IE6 is stilling around at all... The only situation where I would use that junk is if I had a software lock-down at work....

    and even then I'd re-consider working there for being too archaic.

    Congratulations Firefox: It was just a matter of time before quality gets reflected in market shares!

    1. Re:IE6? Really? by Darkness404 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Its not really that surprising. You have some users who saw what "upgrading" to Vista did to XP, and won't upgrade any software, especially if it switches to a totally different look. You have lots of corporate users, you also have people on pre-XP systems which IE 6 is the latest version of IE for them. Even Windows 2000 only has IE 6 as the most recent version of IE.

      And while IE 6 may be archaic, if you have an intranet based on people using IE 6 that IE 7+, Firefox or another browser breaks, you either have to upgrade the entire intranet or keep IE 6 around.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    2. Re:IE6? Really? by mikael_j · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, checking Google Analytics for one of our websites at work has consistently shown IE6 at "just cranks and a handful of corporate users" levels for a long time now (less than 10%, down to about 5% last month or so). You'll never get rid of it completely, there are still a few nutjobs running Mac OS 9 + IE5 out there, unfortunately a lot of these people will complain loudly when things don't work for them (even though there is no chance whatsoever of most websites supporting their ancient setup).

      /Mikael

      --
      Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
    3. Re:IE6? Really? by rrohbeck · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I see "This site requires Internet Explorer 6" on our Intranet all the time. Peoplesoft for example, urgh.
      Of course, the site will run perfectly with Firefox if I change the user agent string.

      Corporate Intranets with lazy admins or dumb policies are what keeps IE6 alive.

    4. Re:IE6? Really? by BZ · · Score: 1

      > The only situation where I would use that junk is if I had a software lock-down at work

      That's a nontrivial part of IE6 usage, yes. An interesting plot of IE usage vs time from June 2008 to June 2009, with both moving averages and day-by-day numbers plotted shows that a third of IE6 usage is precisely work-day usage: http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/asa/archives/2009/06/one_year_of_int.html

    5. Re:IE6? Really? by idiot900 · · Score: 1

      With any luck major websites will simply stop supporting IE6, no matter how loudly its users complain. Especially when the site does not derive revenue directly from its visitors, why cater to a few who are ruining the experience for the vast majority?

    6. Re:IE6? Really? by maxume · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or you could use 'technology' to serve different browsers different versions of the site.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    7. Re:IE6? Really? by Firehed · · Score: 3, Informative

      Except that IE8 is perfectly capable of emulating both IE6's and IE7's standards-noncompliance modes, in addition to rendering in a proper (albeit lacking some newer features) standards-compliant mode.

      There's no excuse. There's less than 250 hours left in this DECADE, so Win2k isn't a valid argument in my books.

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
    8. Re:IE6? Really? by elashish14 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Corporate Intranets with lazy admins or dumb policies are Microsoft's best friend.

      Fixed

      --
      I have left slashdot and am now on Soylent News. FUCK YOU DICE.
    9. Re:IE6? Really? by Anpheus · · Score: 1

      Add ADP's online timeclock solution to the list of idiotic web applications. It's just a dumb site with a button that you click on to click in and clock out, and they only support Firefox + IE and filter everything else by user agent. Google Chrome works fine, as does every other browser in the past decade, I'm sure.

    10. Re:IE6? Really? by The+Snowman · · Score: 2, Informative

      There's no excuse. There's less than 250 hours left in this DECADE, so Win2k isn't a valid argument in my books.

      FYI the last day of this decade is December 31, 2010, which is a few more than 250 hours. Remember, our calendar uses 1-based math, not 0-based.

      That being said, Win2k is still ancient history, as is IE6.

      --
      24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
    11. Re:IE6? Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are running a very old peoplesoft then - PS supports mozilla natively now = and has for sometime !

    12. Re:IE6? Really? by IntlHarvester · · Score: 4, Informative

      Except that IE8 is perfectly capable of emulating both IE6's and IE7's standards-noncompliance modes.

      Nope, IE8 does not emulate IE6, which is the chief problem here. (It does emulate IE5, however.)

      In fact, CSS2 that "works" in IE6 is almost guaranteed to break in IE8 or any other modern browser.

      --
      Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
    13. Re:IE6? Really? by initdeep · · Score: 1

      HERETIC!!!!!

    14. Re:IE6? Really? by keeperofdakeys · · Score: 1

      But this still leaves the problem of developing that alternative content for alternative browsers.
      This is why we need HTML 5, which doesn't just define HTML, but also how it should be rendered. This will mean there will be no inconsistencies.

    15. Re:IE6? Really? by williamhb · · Score: 3, Funny

      And while IE 6 may be archaic, if you have an intranet based on people using IE 6 that IE 7+, Firefox or another browser breaks, you either have to upgrade the entire intranet or keep IE 6 around

      More to the point, the following scenario tends to happen in large corporate IT...

      Users: "IE6 is old, slow, and renders pages incorrectly. We'd like to install a more recent browser. As per IT policy, we are raising a support request to install non-standard software or upgrade the corporate standard image."
      IT: (thinks) "Bugger, they're asking me to do some work again... hmm..." (types email)

      Dear users,
      In regard of your requests for Firefox or IE8. As this is a user-requested upgrade, we require you to provide a full cost-benefit analysis of the upgrade, taking into account the impact on our corporate agreements with third party hardware and software suppliers (which we will not reveal to you as they are commercial in confidence), a detailed technical analysis of the impact on all internal software infrastructure (including those under development that we won't tell you about), and the cost of manpower to perform the upgrade using specific IT staff's accurate salaries and overheads (which again we will not reveal to you). The analysis must contain a full twenty-page analysis of the benefits including time-in-motion studies. For brevity, however, the entire document must be no longer than half a page. Please deliver in person, in triplicate, printed on unicorn hide rather than paper (the IT analyst is allergic to most paper bleaches). We will then schedule the upgrade in our next user-requested improvement slot, currently scheduled for the year 5000. No there is not a timecode for your work preparing this analysis.
      best regards,
      Your helpful IT support team.

    16. Re:IE6? Really? by TBoon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      FYI the last day of this decade is December 31, 2010

      Just like there is a difference between the 20th century (which ended 2000-12-31) and the 1900s (ended 1999-12-31), when talking about decades most people seem to refer to the decade of the 80s as 1980-89, rather than the 199th decade 1981-1990.

    17. Re:IE6? Really? by Smauler · · Score: 1

      Well said. I personally had a nice celebration of the end of last millenium at home, laughing at the morons whe celebrated it a year too early too. Didn't they look the fools!

      I do still have a win2k boot drive though.... best .... windows ... ever ...

    18. Re:IE6? Really? by Leebert · · Score: 1

      Remember, our calendar uses 1-based math, not 0-based.

      Any set of 10 years can be a decade, and common usage refers to decades of the same first digit (e.g. the 80's or the 90's).

    19. Re:IE6? Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just go to StatCounter and look at the day-to-day graphs. IE usage is high on weekdays, drops abruptly on weekends. This trend happens in many, many countries, even in the ones where Fx or Opera are dominant.

    20. Re:IE6? Really? by rainmaestro · · Score: 1

      You'd be surprised at how slowly some companies change.

      I recently had to deal with a support issue involving a certain Fortune 500 company that some of our employees collaborate with. They were having trouble chatting with the other company's employees. Do they use Office Communicator? Live Meeting? GoToMeeting? Any of a thousand other modern meeting clients? No, the Fortune 500 company still uses NETMEETING.

      Hell, our old website (currently being redesigned) included scripting to bypass a bug in NN 4.X. That browser was dead 6 years ago, and the site was only 4 years old.

    21. Re:IE6? Really? by Lord+Ender · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Corporate Intranets with no budget for upgrades are what keeps IE6 alive.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    22. Re:IE6? Really? by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      Maybe you should upgrade people soft to something from this decade then?

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    23. Re:IE6? Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the Y2K was the last year of the XXth century, Id' say that the first year of the current decade was 2001, and the last will be 2010.

    24. Re:IE6? Really? by nebulus4 · · Score: 1

      Policies might be dumb, admins might be lazy, but all this is not what is keeping IE6 alive. The reason is quite simple: Upgrades cost money.

      --
      "It would be wrong to refuse to face the fact that everything is fundamentally sick and sad."
    25. Re:IE6? Really? by ross.w · · Score: 1

      Hence the need for a flash drive with Portable firefox on it.

      Unless you work in a place that has disabled USB ports.

      --
      If my call is important, why am I talking to a recording?
    26. Re:IE6? Really? by david.given · · Score: 3, Funny

      Except that IE8 is perfectly capable of emulating both IE6's and IE7's standards-noncompliance modes, in addition to rendering in a proper (albeit lacking some newer features) standards-compliant mode.

      I recently spent some time in Korea, working on-site for a customer who you will have heard of.

      We had to set up our machine with their ghastly intranet security software. After realising that their intranet portal only works with IE due to stupid stuff like missing Javascript onClick handlers, we started the installation procedure and the requisite four reboots. It failed weirdly after reboot #3.

      After some time trying to make it work, we discovered that their security software is not compatible with IE8.

      Unfortunately our sysadmin is quite efficient, which means that the Windows installation had IE8 slipstreamed into it. This meant it couldn't be removed. And you can't install IE7 on a machine with IE8 on it. Which meant that the only way to progress was to reinstall Windows, from scratch, using an XP CD that the customer lent us.

      ...which turned out to have a virus on it.

      </pissed off>

    27. Re:IE6? Really? by Zonnald · · Score: 1

      So the first year of a babies life he/she is 1? Right? Years Decades Centuries Milliniums all start at 0 or am I missing somthing?

    28. Re:IE6? Really? by Zonnald · · Score: 1

      Yep, just like the flash drives that carry Virus on them. Hence disabling running non-whitelisted Exes.

    29. Re:IE6? Really? by IrquiM · · Score: 1

      So 2000 belongs to the 90s? And 1990 to the 80s?

      Cheers! I'm no officially born in the 70s!

      --
      This is blinging
    30. Re:IE6? Really? by dangitman · · Score: 1

      Cheers! I'm no officially born in the 70s!

      You're now officially born in the 70s, or you're not officially born in the 70s? Or are you just incoherent?

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    31. Re:IE6? Really? by remmelt · · Score: 1

      Or my client could pay me 'money' to create these alternate versions you speak of.

    32. Re:IE6? Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Upgrading to Firefox 3.5 or IE8 does not require any "budget". Who modded this retard +4 Insightful?

    33. Re:IE6? Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah right... ActiveX :/

    34. Re:IE6? Really? by shaka · · Score: 1

      It really doesn't matter whether you make your site follow the lowest common denominator or, as you suggest, maintain multiple versions for different browsers. What it comes down to is spending time on creating new features or spending time catering to the bugs of IE6.

      Yes, not supporting IE6 may cost you some part of your visitors, but how many visitors are you losing because of lack of development and modern features? That's not as easily measured and obviously depending on the type of site we're discussing, but in many cases I bet it's a lot more than 5-10%.

      --
      :wq!
    35. Re:IE6? Really? by cenc · · Score: 1

      Yea, I realized a while back that for a travel site anyone using IE6 was either too technologically backwards to do online businesses or too cheap to have any money to do it. The remaining people are on corporate networks, and just wasting company time wishing they were somewhere else (big spikes around 4-5 PM from each time zone) or wishing they had a real browser.

    36. Re:IE6? Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed - obviously your market will determine whether there is sufficient ROI in doing so, 5-10% of the user base of a website with 2 million users per month is a substantial demographic and probably justifies the additional expense of developing/testing across various browsers,while 5-10% of a site with only a few thousand users may not (although this may still not be so black and white for e-commerce sites with large ticket value items where a few additional sales more than cover the costs).

      To make this a little easier on developers, MS offer a dev version of XP/IE6 with a timed license which can be run in their Virtual PC software.

      I'll still be glad when it's finally dead though!

    37. Re:IE6? Really? by javilon · · Score: 1

      If IE wasn't glued to the operating system, in order to help Microsoft use it's monopoly on operating systems to kill a little company called Netscape, then IE would be a regular application and you would be able to have two versions of it installed. You would run IE6 for your intranet apps, and then something else, (maybe IE8) for the rest of the stuff. The way things are, you have to stick to IE6 and install firefox. It really has backfired.

      --


      When his defense asked, "Which computer has Jon Johansen trespassed upon?" the answer was: "His own."
    38. Re:IE6? Really? by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Yup, and for the cost of doing a PeopleSoft upgrade most companies could probably write an entirely new web browser on the scale of firefox... Or least, most companies that could actually pull off the upgrade without major problems could do it...

      Ok, I might exaggerate a bit, but I don't think that most people around here appreciate how messy these kinds of systems can be...

    39. Re:IE6? Really? by halcyon1234 · · Score: 1

      That's hardly a fair comparison. To be completely fair and balanced, the browser usage stats should come from a different page outside of your control. I think http://runonce.msn.com/runonce2.aspx would present the sort of unbiased sample base we'd expect from a browser-war data set.

    40. Re:IE6? Really? by houghi · · Score: 1

      Corporate Intranets with no budget for upgrades are what keeps IE6 alive.

      It is the lack of budget that forced us to think of an intranet that was accesible for all browsers now and in the forseeable future. It also is the reason we go 100% open source.
      This because we learned that it will cost in the end more if we don't.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    41. Re:IE6? Really? by drinking12many · · Score: 1

      More fixed Corporate Intranets with old applications that are no longer being updated and no money to replace keep IE6 alive

    42. Re:IE6? Really? by flibuste · · Score: 1

      The answer here is : "the marketing departement conducted a study showing that most users use IE 6.0"

      No one was able to tell when this "study" was performed. I suspect it was during the previous century..

    43. Re:IE6? Really? by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      I have just days ago upgraded from XP to Windows 7.

      At first I was completely lost. In half a hour I stripped most of features that confused me the most and got it to behave mostly like XP. I'm still trying to get used to the whole "libraries" thing, which I think is what XP sorely lacked (I had an extension to do something similar), but is hopelessly confusing at times, esp. when "directory up" leads completely elsewhere than directory structure would suggest.

      Also, bugs I'd expect a year of public beta would strip. Obvious bugs early adopters were bound to spot and report.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    44. Re:IE6? Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Move your sig to the sig field, dipshit. Let us filter it out. What's wrong with you?

    45. Re:IE6? Really? by mikael_j · · Score: 1

      Still at it, eh? Also, how do you set your preferences as an AC? Because it couldn't be that you're just clicking "post anonymously" could it?

      /Mikael

      --
      Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
    46. Re:IE6? Really? by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      Needs +1 insightful.

    47. Re:IE6? Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, if he was born in the 70s, his hippy parents might have been on something that left him drain-bamaged.

    48. Re:IE6? Really? by daveime · · Score: 1

      This will mean there will be no inconsistencies

      Come on now, there's optimism, and then there's batshit crazy.

    49. Re:IE6? Really? by Lennie · · Score: 1

      Atleast the standard defines more about it, which is can only be a good thing.

      --
      New things are always on the horizon
    50. Re:IE6? Really? by toddestan · · Score: 1

      The problem was is there was no year zero. So the first century started on January 1st of year 1. So the first century, or after 100 years had passed, ended on December 31st of year 100. So it follows that 2000 years did not pass until January 1st of year 2001.

      Of course, a decade is just a span of ten years, so it's just as correct to call 2000-2009 a decade just as much as 2001-2010. However, if you wanted to refer to the 201st decade, that would have to be 2001-2010 because once again, there was no year zero.

    51. Re:IE6? Really? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Argggg!!!!! I thought we weren't going to have to have this crap again untill 2999!

      --
      Why is this even on SlashDot?... Why is this even on Slashdot?...Why is this even on Slashdot?
  6. Only reason for any IE6 market share by Old+Flatulent+1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Seems to me IE6 having any market share at all is because of the huge number of XP non registered copies floating around in places like China and even the US. Besides how would bot nets survive without Windows warez! Hopefully as HTML5 becomes more developed it will kill it once and for all.

    1. Re:Only reason for any IE6 market share by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      That's true, but in Korea there's also an issue with secure banking web sites; apparently they all standardized on some proprietary encryption technology that only worked in IE6, before the rest of the world had really standardized on anything, so they're locked in - they've mostly updated for IE7/8 now, but the percentage of IE users there is MUCH higher than in other countries - and since everybody uses IE, you might as well keep designing sites that only work in IE, right?

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    2. Re:Only reason for any IE6 market share by tokul · · Score: 1

      Seems to me IE6 having any market share at all is because of the huge number of XP non registered copies floating around in places like China and even the US.

      Some people might run unsigned business applications from unc shares. If OS is updated by IE7-8 browser, it starts complaining about unsigned apps every time app is started. We don't need that stinking warning box and these IE OS updates and WGA addons are kept away from user machines.

    3. Re:Only reason for any IE6 market share by Old+Flatulent+1 · · Score: 1

      Seems to me IE6 having any market share at all is because of the huge number of XP non registered copies floating around in places like China and even the US.

      Some people might run unsigned business applications from unc shares. If OS is updated by IE7-8 browser, it starts complaining about unsigned apps every time app is started. We don't need that stinking warning box and these IE OS updates and WGA addons are kept away from user machines.

      I see your point.. the WGA is the main reason why Vista bombed out in business. Trouble is that many moron devs still regard the registry as a play ground for hiding settings. The only clients that I have seen that work really well with Vista are from Citrix fortunately they work without having to do anything other than save settings in a user profile...the way apps should work in the first place. Unfortunately having to develop business web apps that work with IE6 has become like shoeing a horse with three legs compared to what is possible with standards compliant browsers! It would make more sense if Microsoft just allowed pirates and slow to update businesses update from open released updates so that better internet security could become a reality. This would be much better than trying to stop piracy by making us all pay with the WGA crap.

    4. Re:Only reason for any IE6 market share by BikeHelmet · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Insightful? Ignorant.

      Go look up XP torrents. Most come slipstreamed with IE7.

      Much more likely to be corporate users, or people that ignore the little yellow shield.

    5. Re:Only reason for any IE6 market share by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the article says the majority is Korea and China. In those countries, IE6 is Needed to do every day things, online banking for example. They don't work with any other browser.

    6. Re:Only reason for any IE6 market share by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Not true - I know from personal experience that a lot of big businesses (in the UK at least) use IE6 because of at least one of
      a) Internal IT not allowing use of anything else
      b) Requiring to use systems that don't work on anything else

      The NHS, for example, use some systems that were developed specifically for them and that do not work on anything that is not IE6. That causes us problems because it means our product must work on IE6 as well as the other browsers.

    7. Re:Only reason for any IE6 market share by ClarifyAmbiguity · · Score: 1

      I'd say that a lot of installations are for corporate environments which use legacy applications (both Intranet and web-based) which rely on IE6, or which are not updated due to the fear of incompatibility. I use only Opera and Firefox at home (and on work computers when permitted by system policy), but I've had IE6 on various work laptops (both for my firm and for clients) due to these kinds of issues. Web-based clients with issues included a time and expense system (critical in a professional services firm), an older iteration of Salesforce.com, and all kinds of home-grown applications.

    8. Re:Only reason for any IE6 market share by pebs · · Score: 1

      Go look up XP torrents. Most come slipstreamed with IE7.

      That may be true now, but a lot of the existing installations are pirate copies of XP with IE6, and they never do software updates. Last time I went to India (IE7 had been out for a year) it was exactly this scenario. All the internet cafes were running XP with IE6 and software updates were turned off, or Win2k (w/ IE6 or even IE5!). Same thing with machines sold to consumers (all my relatives who had bought machines had pirated XP installed).

      The people running the internet cafes hadn't even heard of Firefox (or Linux for that matter).

      --
      #!/
    9. Re:Only reason for any IE6 market share by arose · · Score: 1

      [..] apparently they all standardized on some proprietary encryption technology that only worked in IE6, before the rest of the world had really standardized on anything [..]

      IE6, initial release: August 27, 2001.

      Latest version of HTTPS, formally specified: May 2000.

      Whatever reason they might have for choosing a proprietary system, probably using ActiveX, it wasn't the fact that the rest of the world was in a state of chaotic lack of encryption. Now if this is system significantly older then even IE6, then you might have a point, but HTTPS has been around for a bit as well.

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    10. Re:Only reason for any IE6 market share by toddestan · · Score: 1

      I'd say you're rather ignorant yourself. Not everyone installed their warezed copies of Windows yesterday. I even know of at least one computer out there still running the infamous FCKGW key, which is blacklisted from even installing XP SP1. And lots of people still running V2C47 which no longer update (for fear of the dreaded WGA) and are thus stuck somewhere in SP2.

    11. Re:Only reason for any IE6 market share by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it doesn't make much sense to me either. Perhaps it was wasn't really IE6 they had originally standardized on, but an older version of IE, and perhaps it was before the US relaxed their export restrictions (there used to be a 40-bit international version of all the major browsers) so they had to roll their own. I don't know. In any case, for whatever reason, the Koreans started using some sort of ActiveX thing and locked themselves into IE.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    12. Re:Only reason for any IE6 market share by BikeHelmet · · Score: 1

      I must confess - I'm new to the scene. I only looked into it when WGA started complaining on my legit copy.

  7. StatCounter? by gzipped_tar · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Considering most Firefox users are more tech savvy than average and many of them are likely to have already blocked StatCounter altogether, this is impressive.

    --
    Colorless green Cthulhu waits dreaming furiously.
    1. Re:StatCounter? by Trepidity · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm not sure "many" of them are. It's hard to estimate, but most estimates for the proportion of users using some form of ad-blocking software are only in the 3-5% range. Even if every one of those is a Firefox 3.5 user, that would only nudge up the 21% market share to the mid-20%s, not totally rearrange the curve or anything.

    2. Re:StatCounter? by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Are you saying that over half of the web browser users are more tech savvy than average? You might want to rethink that statement in the future.

    3. Re:StatCounter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      As opposed to him rethinking the statement in the past?

    4. Re:StatCounter? by Machtyn · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I wouldn't say most FF users are more tech savvy. I would say that most FF users know at least one tech savvy person. Also, I don't think I've blocked StatCounter. I don't know why I should.

    5. Re:StatCounter? by dakameleon · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Considering most Firefox users are more tech savvy than average and many of them are likely to have already blocked StatCounter altogether, this is impressive.

      Statcounter uses an image as a fallback for getting stats where the cookie is blocked or Javascript cannot be run, so unless you've blocked all third party images (how's the text web going for you, tinfoil hat man?) it still shows up.

      --
      Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
    6. Re:StatCounter? by Tordek · · Score: 0

      More than half of a sample can be above or below average. Exactly half will be above and below the median.

      If you have [13, 13, 13, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20], the average is 15 and the median is 14. Only 3 numbers are above average, while 5 are below. OTOH, exactly 4 numbers are above median, and 4 numbers are below median.

      You might want to rethink that statement in the future.

      --
      Tordek, Dwarven Warrior - Juegos de Rol en Argentina
    7. Re:StatCounter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It will slow your browsing down a bit if you don't. Now you too know at least one tech savvy person. ;)

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webbug (dunno if this article on the subject is any good)

    8. Re:StatCounter? by gzipped_tar · · Score: 1

      I browse through a Squid proxy server running on the localhost with my own blocking rules, you insensitive clod!

      --
      Colorless green Cthulhu waits dreaming furiously.
    9. Re:StatCounter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't say most FF users are more tech savvy. I would say that most FF users know at least one tech savvy person. Also, I don't think I've blocked StatCounter. I don't know why I should.

      Do you use NoScript in white list mode. Then you have StatCounter blocked. Do you use NoScript in black list mode with the default XSS settings. Then you have StatCounter blocked. Do you use NoScript in black list mode and use a ready-made black list. Then you propably have StatCounter blocked. Do you use any web filtering software with a ready-made black list. Then you propably have StatCounter blocked.

      Only stupid people use Firefox without NoScript or something similar, without it you could as well use Internet Explorer (if you use Windows as your OS). My guess is that most Firefox users use NoScript or something similar that blocks things like StatCounter.

    10. Re:StatCounter? by aftk2 · · Score: 1

      The vast majority of Firefox users browse the web with no extensions whatsoever. The summary states that Firefox is at a certain percentage (a high percentage) according to StatCounter. Yet you seem to believe that StatCounter's numbers are worthless (and low) -so what, you think that Firefox actually has a much, much higher percentage of the browser market than what is quoted here? You say that "most" FF users use NoScript, and, hence, aren't including in this survey? I don't think you've quite thought this through.

      --
      concrete5: a cms made for marketing, but strong enough for geeks.
    11. Re:StatCounter? by knarf · · Score: 1

      You don't need to block all external images to get rid of this type of tracking. Blocking 1x1 web bugs is sufficient. Another way of getting rid of this type of tracking is by pointing statcounter (et al) to 0.0.0.0 on your DNS proxy or in the hosts file. No tin foil hat needed at all.

      --
      --frank[at]unternet.org
    12. Re:StatCounter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blocking *statcounter* in Adblock is real hard.

    13. Re:StatCounter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's called AdBlockPlus. Let's you block specific stuff from specific domains. For instance, that's how you can use the Google Analytics see how other ppl have been using a website, but not be tracked by Google when you yourself visit other sites. All from the same browser. Look mom, no tin hat!

      FF rocks.

    14. Re:StatCounter? by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      so unless you've blocked all third party images
      If you block only images (and frames) originating from different second-level domain than webpages displaying them, the web looks pretty much the same, with less ads though.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    15. Re:StatCounter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's going great! Reminds me of 1996. ;)

    16. Re:StatCounter? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      More than half of a sample can be above or below average. Exactly half will be above and below the median.

      Since you've started the nit-picking already ... 'average' can refer to the mean, median or mode.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    17. Re:StatCounter? by komap · · Score: 1

      What's wrong with the statement? Note, e.g., that much more than half of people have more than average number of legs. Or just read about Simpson's paradox on wikipedia.

    18. Re:StatCounter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You may not realize this, but extensions like Adblock aren't actually limited to ads...

      There's also other extensions like RequestPolicy (look it up on AMO).

  8. An interesting way to summarize the data ... by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I have another way -- Firefox (all versions) at 32%, Internet Explorer (all versions) at 55%. The fact that the IE market is split between 6.X, 7.X and 8.X doesn't not detract from the (regrettable) fact that Internet Explorer is the most popular browser, worldwide. Different versions do not a different browser make.

    In hindsight, this distribution is rather predictable -- FF nags you to update (rightly so) whereas IE can't even update itself, let along notify you about it.

    Here's a plot (thankfully, they give out the raw CSV data) with the "all versions" included. Firefox has a ways to go. http://yfrog.com/j5temptlp

    1. Re:An interesting way to summarize the data ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Different versions do not a different browser make.

      Clearly you have never been involved with web development. "aieee" has wildly different bugs and proprietary features between major versions.

    2. Re:An interesting way to summarize the data ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Lalalalala, I can't here you. Firefox has taken major marketshare. Lalalalala

    3. Re:An interesting way to summarize the data ... by Trepidity · · Score: 4, Informative

      Here's a plot (thankfully, they give out the raw CSV data) with the "all versions" included. Firefox has a ways to go. http://yfrog.com/j5temptlp

      Statcounter also plots that, fwiw. (Click on the dropdown box after "Statistic:" at the bottom-left of the graph to get other views and data sets as well.)

    4. Re:An interesting way to summarize the data ... by welcher · · Score: 2, Funny

      that is the ugliest plot i have seen in a long, long time.

    5. Re:An interesting way to summarize the data ... by dido · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The real story here is in the trends of each version. IE7 and IE6 are in decline. For Internet Explorer, only IE8 is still growing, but its rate of growth is significantly slower than Firefox's. The headline may be misleading, but the the summary is right on the money. If these trends keep up, the headline may well become true a lot sooner than you seem to think.

      --
      Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.
    6. Re:An interesting way to summarize the data ... by shird · · Score: 1

      And once Firefox 3.6 is out, that line for Firefox 3.5 will drop by half and IE 7 will become more popular than Firefox 3.5 overnight (according to the submitter's logic).

      --
      I.O.U One Sig.
    7. Re:An interesting way to summarize the data ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you believe that IE6, IE7 and IE8 are somehow the same browser then you should immediately start learning how to use a computer. You are talking about the brand, not the software. And obviously the brand doesn't mean jack shit if your branded browser can't open regular web pages without artifacts.

    8. Re:An interesting way to summarize the data ... by quickOnTheUptake · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Total marketshare isn't the most interesting metric, the rate of change is. Right now FF 3.5 is gaining users faster than IE8. The question (which the graph doesn't readily answer) is whether the net FF adoption rate is faster than the net IE adoption rate. I.e, is the total number of FF users going up faster than the total number of IE users? Is FF3.5 going up fast just because FF3 users are upgrading more quickly than IE7 users?

      --
      Mod points: Guaranteed to remove your sense of humor.
      Side effects may include gullibility and temporary retardation
    9. Re:An interesting way to summarize the data ... by Zerth · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Not to mention that IE8's growth seems to be exclusively at the expense of 6/7 so IE as a whole has declined greatly, or the market has grown while IE use has remained constant.

    10. Re:An interesting way to summarize the data ... by quickOnTheUptake · · Score: 2, Informative

      The question (which the graph doesn't readily answer) is whether the net FF adoption rate is faster than the net IE adoption rate.

      Well, that chart didn't but this one does.
      And yes, IE (all versions) is in a rapid decline, while FF is slowly climbing.

      --
      Mod points: Guaranteed to remove your sense of humor.
      Side effects may include gullibility and temporary retardation
    11. Re:An interesting way to summarize the data ... by realityimpaired · · Score: 1

      if you look at the graph, you can answer that question quite easily...

      Both IE6 and IE7 are in decline. While there's still nutters using IE5 and earlier, those browsers are all listed under "other" which is also in decline. IE8 is the only IE browser with an increasing market share at this time. And judging from the slopes, most of the new IE8 users are old IE6 and IE7 users... IE7's decline has been very sharp, easily the same slope as IE8's rise.

      So yes, FF3.5 is gaining users and FF's proportional market share is increasing while IE's is decreasing.

    12. Re:An interesting way to summarize the data ... by belthize · · Score: 1

      Something is horribly wrong in Antarctica. I think they're strapping browsers to the penguins.

      http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser-an-weekly-200827-200952

          Oddly it looks like you could see the one computer with a browser booting. For a while they used firefox on it except for that one time they gave Opera a try, then in July all hell broke loose.

    13. Re:An interesting way to summarize the data ... by styrotech · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The fact that the IE market is split between 6.X, 7.X and 8.X doesn't not detract from the (regrettable) fact that Internet Explorer is the most popular browser, worldwide. Different versions do not a different browser make.

      Sure, if you are just a spectator cheering for your team from the sidelines.

      But not if you are a web developer/designer, the different versions are very different browsers. In terms of making a modern website work there is much more difference between IE8 and IE6 than there is between IE8 and FF/Safari/Chrome/Opera etc.

    14. Re:An interesting way to summarize the data ... by canajin56 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, if the trends keep up, soon over 200% of people will be using Firefox, and IE will be well into the negatives.

      --
      ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
    15. Re:An interesting way to summarize the data ... by evanbd · · Score: 1

      "The headline may well become true" might be a reason to publish the headline in the future, but it isn't a reason to publish it now. If you want to publish something now, fine, this is an interesting story -- but it needs a different headline.

    16. Re:An interesting way to summarize the data ... by dido · · Score: 1

      I agree with the general sentiment, but then I ask you, as someone criticizing this aspect of the article, how would you write the headline in such a way as to satisfy the length limits and at the same time make the story under it attract attention? I've actually seen major broadsheet newspapers make similar concessions to absolutely full factual accuracy in the main headline for these exact same considerations.

      --
      Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.
    17. Re:An interesting way to summarize the data ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Firefox has a ways to go. http://yfrog.com/j5temptlp

      I see. This is quite a find. We are now certain that Crayon DOES look bad on graphs.

    18. Re:An interesting way to summarize the data ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That statement is mostly false.
      Having done web development professionally for quite a while(HTML / JavaScript) it's not that hard to make a website look the same in FF 2+ and IE 6+. Even with CSS.
      Sorry.

    19. Re:An interesting way to summarize the data ... by dakameleon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, that chart didn't but this one does.

      And yes, IE (all versions) is in a rapid decline, while FF is slowly climbing.

      if by "slowly climbing" you mean "flatlining", sure... Chrome's the only one with a reasonable uptick recently.

      --
      Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
    20. Re:An interesting way to summarize the data ... by antdude · · Score: 1

      MS can update IE through its Automatic Updates and MS Updates, assuming they are enabled and used.

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    21. Re:An interesting way to summarize the data ... by schnablebg · · Score: 1

      He was going to use sparklines, but he was afraid of getting sued for a patent violation.

    22. Re:An interesting way to summarize the data ... by icepick72 · · Score: 1

      Can you imagine if ./ displayed all the titles now that might be correct in the future... we'd need a special topic dedicated to trends, forecasts and future-telling.

    23. Re:An interesting way to summarize the data ... by Solandri · · Score: 1

      For Internet Explorer, only IE8 is still growing, but its rate of growth is significantly slower than Firefox's. The headline may be misleading, but the the summary is right on the money. If these trends keep up, the headline may well become true a lot sooner than you seem to think.

      I disagree. The plots for IE7 and IE8 are nearly inverses of each other, indicating it's mostly IE7 users switching to IE8. Same goes for FF3.0 and FF3.5 - most FF3.5 users are coming from FF3.0. But the two lines for FF3.0 and FF3.5 have already crossed (most FF3.0 users have already switched to 3.5). On the other hand, the two lines for IE have not crossed yet (most IE7 users have yet to switch). So while FF3.5 may have a faster rate of adoption right now, it should taper off sooner than IE8 adoption does. And IE8 will pass it again.

      Of course really long term I'm hoping to see IE8 users switching to FF3.5.

    24. Re:An interesting way to summarize the data ... by Idiomatick · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Recent months it looks like FF is holding its own while chrome steals users from IE. But likely it is mostly FF users trying chrome and FF gaining more recruits from IE.

      When chrome looses it's shiny appeal unless chrome seriously holds it's own in the browser battle they will lose users quick, and almost all to FF. So the real test is to come there over the next year.

      IE however will likely gain users as people get windows 7 (taking from the rest). Many people will be upgrading from xp having been longtime FF/opera users. Much of the boost to FF was due to IE 6, people having not yet tried 8. But I imagine trying IE8 on win7 will at least not feel extreme hatred like with 6. And I imagine they will gain some users that way (hold steady for a bit as win7 comes into full swing).

      The nice thing about the chart is this. The browsers going up are: FF, chrome, Other. Ones dropping are: IE, Opera, Safari. This PERFECTLY coincides with which programs are OSS and which are closed. OSS taking about 39% currently, compared to a mere 25~26% 1 year ago. By this time next year OSS will have won the browser war and by the nature of OSS growth I find it unlikely that closed source will ever be able to take it back.

      With OSS being in common use on many computers the oss fear will be most dispelled. What other sectors could oss take next I wonder? I don't think openoffice is ready yet. Nor are music players (winamp is too smooth). Gimp seems to be losing interest and can't top photoshop, paint.net no longer oss. Foxit seems to be doing well. VLC, MPC seem to be taking a pretty big chunk of the market as well.

    25. Re:An interesting way to summarize the data ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's probably because you still use a table for your layout, which is the wrong tool for the job. Or you don't have anything complex for the layout or the graphics. Try making a CSS-layout website with layered DIVs and PNGs with alpha, then come back to us about how it's not that hard to make a website with IE6.

    26. Re:An interesting way to summarize the data ... by mgblst · · Score: 1

      You are wrong. There are only four different browsers for web developers.

      IE6, IE7, IE8 and all other standard compliant browswers.

      I code for all other browsers, then check them out in ie6,7,8 and make adjustments.

      Damn I hate ie.

    27. Re:An interesting way to summarize the data ... by Waccoon · · Score: 1

      I guess it depends on your user base. My web site is geared towards artists and utilizes Java applets to let people draw pictures. My stats are:

      • 66% Firefox (PC/Linux/Mac)
      • 24% IE (all versions)
      • 6% Opera
      • 3% Safari
      • 1% Other

      Biggest surprise is that Opera outnumbers Safari, and always has.

    28. Re:An interesting way to summarize the data ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with the general sentiment, but then I ask you, as someone criticizing this aspect of the article, how would you write the headline in such a way as to satisfy the length limits and at the same time make the story under it attract attention?

      If the story is not going to attract attention unless they lie about it, maybe they shouldn't bother publishing the story.

      I've actually seen major broadsheet newspapers make similar concessions to absolutely full factual accuracy in the main headline for these exact same considerations.

      Most major newspapers aren't exactly paragons of journalistic integrity.

    29. Re:An interesting way to summarize the data ... by dido · · Score: 1

      Then why does this related graph show a steady decline in all versions of Internet Explorer? If IE8 is really just cannibalizing IE7 and IE6, hence their decline and IE8's growth, then shouldn't the IE plot be flat or increasing? However, the graph shows IE's market share in steady decline since at least the fourth quarter of 2008, while Firefox has shown a slow increase throughout that same time period. It is obvious that the high uptake of Firefox 3.5 in this period is largely due to people updating from 3.0, but from the other graph it is just clear that IE as a whole is steadily losing users, probably to either Firefox or Chrome.

      --
      Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.
    30. Re:An interesting way to summarize the data ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting way to visualize this with historical perspective:

      http://www.axiis.org/examples/BrowserMarketShare.html

    31. Re:An interesting way to summarize the data ... by MemoryDragon · · Score: 1

      From an implementors side of view, supporting IE6 and IE7 and IE8 is like supporting three entirely different browsers.
      While IE8 is mostly just as Fox to support, keep the standards up and it should run with minimal fixes, IE6 and 7 are entirely different beasts, IE6 is a bugridden hellhole, IE7 fixes some of those bugs and introduces others while pulling away certain hacks which made IE6 somewhat compliant.

      So supporting Firefox Safari IE8 Opera etc... is mostly just doing one browser with a few lines of fixing, doing the rest of the bunch is like doing something completely different.

      I would not put IE marketsharewise into one pot, because you basically blur the real actual development costs I would say the support of IE6 raises the actual development cost of the guy doing the frontend depending on the complexity of the site from 10-20% (with numbers rising depending on how much dynamic stuff you want in), IE7 is around 5-15% raise in development cost.
      While you can push Opera Safari, Firefox (3.x that is 2, is by now neglectable) and IE8 into one pot if you code after CSS 2.1 and do not to too much nasty tricks, into a 1-3% pot!

      So you see the question arises outside of the stupidity of putting all IEs together, which is just branding but not the actual situation, does the marketshare of a single IE version (namel 6) justify 10% more development time for the frontend. IE6 and 7 combined maybe but IE6 alone, the customer has to pay for that extra, period!

    32. Re:An interesting way to summarize the data ... by koiransuklaa · · Score: 1

      If by "flatlining" you mean a 20% increase during the chart period, sure. The percentages were 26.86 in the beginning and 32.12 in the end.

      What was your point? That Firefox market share needs to double every 18 months to be considered to be slowly climbing?

    33. Re:An interesting way to summarize the data ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes indeed, I think FF is now "king for a day".
      Your graph is more realistic, thanks.

    34. Re:An interesting way to summarize the data ... by nyctopterus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And that fine too. I don't see why any browser should have more than 20-25% share. Looks like we're heading somewhere even better than replacing IE with Firefox.

    35. Re:An interesting way to summarize the data ... by nyctopterus · · Score: 1

      Horseshit. IE 6 works in a very different way. The box model is that most obvious, but there are many, many other little things that bite you in the arse if you're doing anything remotely complex with CSS. And don't get me started on javascript...

    36. Re:An interesting way to summarize the data ... by aftk2 · · Score: 1

      But, to be fair to the article, IE 6 and IE 8 are two wildly different beasts. IE 8 is MUCH closer to Firefox 3.5 (and Safari 3, Chrome, etc...) than IE 6. From a web developer's perspective, I'd much rather this article break the browser's down on their capabilities than their names/families.

      --
      concrete5: a cms made for marketing, but strong enough for geeks.
    37. Re:An interesting way to summarize the data ... by aftk2 · · Score: 1

      Damn straight.

      --
      concrete5: a cms made for marketing, but strong enough for geeks.
    38. Re:An interesting way to summarize the data ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention that IE8's growth is at the expense of mandatory upgrades forced by windows update, which disguises IE8 updates as fundamental windows updates. The freaking user only acknowledges that he is upgrading to IE8 if he opts to do personalized upgrades instead of clicking next.

    39. Re:An interesting way to summarize the data ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I look at the graph I see the combined total IE7 & IE8 hovering at a steady ~40%. IE6 is shows a slow, but steady decline, and it's usage is being picked up by firefox.

    40. Re:An interesting way to summarize the data ... by dakameleon · · Score: 1

      If by "flatlining" you mean a 20% increase during the chart period, sure. The percentages were 26.86 in the beginning and 32.12 in the end.

      What was your point? That Firefox market share needs to double every 18 months to be considered to be slowly climbing?

      TFS focuses on Firefox 3.5 overtaking IE; growth in the total Firefox market since Firefox 3.5 came out is merely 30.39% to 32.12%, 5% growth over 6 months - yes, slow growth, but not as impressive as Chrome. Chrome in the same period has gone from 2.83% to 5.47% - a 93% increase, and that's just looking at it linearly. It looks far more like exponential than linear to me, although that is of course unsustainable even in the short-term.

      Without having the stats on hand, I'm guessing it's like Firefox's early growth - a strong rise in the more technical community that likes to live on the bleeding edge. Not that I'm complaining or siding with either - I couldn't have imagined 5 years ago that total IE share would have been down to 55% and the alternatives being robust and fast browsers that render websites beautifully.

      --
      Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
    41. Re:An interesting way to summarize the data ... by koiransuklaa · · Score: 1

      I agree that the important thing to take home is the awesomeness of finally having a non-monoculture web and actual progress in web technologies.

      But, I also think your expectations are insanely high: ~10% yearly growth is phenomenal, especially when we are already talking about significant market share and not minuscule figures. I'm fine with calling that a "slow climb" instead of phenomenal because that's what it is when you draw it in a specific way (10% of 30% doesn't look that dramatic). I'm not fine with calling it "flatlining" because that's just not based on reality -- a steady and reliable rise through the recent years.

    42. Re:An interesting way to summarize the data ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "IE (all versions) is in a rapid decline, while FF is slowly climbing."

      That means another browser is on the rise then. Whatever the disparity is between "rapid" and "slow[ly]" is the variable. Granted not all IE folks are jumping to FF, but I bet the majority are, therefore "slowly" may be understated. No?

    43. Re:An interesting way to summarize the data ... by pacinpm · · Score: 1

      Well, that chart didn't but this one does.

      And yes, IE (all versions) is in a rapid decline, while FF is slowly climbing.

      And if you want to look at interesting picture check this chart for Europe or Poland.

    44. Re:An interesting way to summarize the data ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Total marketshare isn't the most interesting metric, the rate of change is.

      If I write a very basic browser today, it will have gone form zero users to one user.

      That's infinite growth! It's obviously the best!

    45. Re:An interesting way to summarize the data ... by evanbd · · Score: 1

      How about "Firefox 3.5 passes IE 7 in popularity"?

    46. Re:An interesting way to summarize the data ... by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      Post that with your real name.
      If you are a professional developer and that statemet is true, you have no reason to hide behind AC.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    47. Re:An interesting way to summarize the data ... by Mutant321 · · Score: 1

      Given what those stats looked like at the beginning of the decade, it's still a staggering achievement. An OSS project has taken a huge chunk of MS's market share in an important strategic marketplace. And that's with the huge advantage MS gets with bundling.

    48. Re:An interesting way to summarize the data ... by SolitaryMan · · Score: 1

      But this is more important! When you develop a web site and then you test it, you are no longer testing it in "Internet Explorer", which used to be the case. You are testing it in every specific version of it. So, from this data you can conclude, that the most important thing is get it to work in FF3.5, *then* IE7, then IE6 and so on. The same applies to the severity of bugs in your app.

      But when it comes to marketing dept, yes, you are right, FF is still behind.

      --
      May Peace Prevail On Earth
    49. Re:An interesting way to summarize the data ... by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      Versions do matter, especially for IE because significant differences exist between the versions that make it difficult to target all versions at once..
      Other browsers tend to add support for new standards in an incremental fashion so merely not using anything not supported by an older version typically ensures support for older versions.
      IE on the other hand has significant differences between versions such that you need to be careful, designing specifically for 6 will often create sites that don't work correctly in 7 or 8 (or any other browser for that matter)...

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    50. Re:An interesting way to summarize the data ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IE (all versions) is in a rapid decline, while FF is slowly climbing.

      Everyone seems to be missing the big point here. If FF as a whole is only slowly climbing (which it is), what is eating into IE share so fast? Look at the bottom of the chart, Chrome is growing fastest of all. It looks to me like the lion's share of IE loss is being taken by Chrome.

      This story really isn't about FF 3.5, it's about Chrome pulling IE down to FF 3.5 level.

  9. Ah, I.E. single handedly holding back the web by Mr+Thinly+Sliced · · Score: 0

    Thanks Microsoft, and some congratulations should also go to America for supporting them!

    (Look at the browser share stats for example).

    Personally, I blame it all on the Marketing people.

    Ah, say the marketing people, he's going for that "anti-microsoft" dollar. Big dollar, big market, very smart of him to go for that.

    (Props to Bill Hicks. How we miss thee, Bill)

  10. IE6 comes with XP, IE8 with Win7 by AbRASiON · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You're going to see IE8 be absolutely huge over the next 5 years - even if firefox is preferred by geeks and the somewhat tech savvy.
    As the huge 32/64bit transition begins (next 12 to 36 months my guess) business's finally can roll out 64bit Windows 7, avoiding Vista entirely and finally retiring Windows XP.
    This is going to continue to increase IE8 marketshare much like IE6's was boosted from XP, so what we can only hope is that IE8 isn't garbage (me, I don't know? I use Firefox also)

    For what it's worth, I work for one of the state govt's of Australia and one of our departments has just switched from Win2k to XP :/ so I'm guessing we won't be moving to Windows 7 for at least 2 years.

    1. Re:IE6 comes with XP, IE8 with Win7 by dazlari · · Score: 1

      Now now, don't go skipping generations!! As a State Govt, you must endure the throes of Vista also. Only then can proper anti-MS policy bias be formed. You should make that 4 years.

    2. Re:IE6 comes with XP, IE8 with Win7 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ugh this is so true. Thank god for my recent resignation letter.

    3. Re:IE6 comes with XP, IE8 with Win7 by tsalmark · · Score: 1

      +1 Evil for you.

    4. Re:IE6 comes with XP, IE8 with Win7 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IE8 [comes] with Win7 ... You're going to see IE8 be absolutely huge over the next 5 years

      Hopefully not in Europe

    5. Re:IE6 comes with XP, IE8 with Win7 by jonwil · · Score: 1

      IE8 is much better than IE6 and the sooner we can kill off IE6 in favor of IE7 and IE8, the better.
      Now, I am not saying that IE8 is better than alternatives like Firefox (I use SeaMonkey myself) but its better than IE6 (in fact, the only browsers I know of that were worse than IE6 were IE5.x and Netscape 4.x)

    6. Re:IE6 comes with XP, IE8 with Win7 by AbRASiON · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah, I forgot about that complete, idiot ruling.
      Not often I side with Microsoft - I do on this one- silly.

    7. Re:IE6 comes with XP, IE8 with Win7 by Mad+Merlin · · Score: 1

      IE8 is much better than IE6...

      Not saying much. Getting punched in the face with brass knuckles is better than IE6.

    8. Re:IE6 comes with XP, IE8 with Win7 by Max+Littlemore · · Score: 1

      For what it's worth, I work for one of the state govt's of Australia and one of our departments has just switched from Win2k to XP :/ so I'm guessing we won't be moving to Windows 7 for at least 2 years.

      Care to name the state and department? If it's the state I live in, I'd like to write a letter about this to my member. In fact that's so outrageous I might even get around to writing a letter to someone from Parliament.

      --
      I don't therefore I'm not.
    9. Re:IE6 comes with XP, IE8 with Win7 by AbRASiON · · Score: 1

      I certainly care not to, I like having a job.

    10. Re:IE6 comes with XP, IE8 with Win7 by Americium · · Score: 1

      so what we can only hope is that IE8 isn't garbage

      When I installed Win7 RC (I need windows for my excel programs, ms basic for apps..... and for left4dead2), nothing has ever crashed, EXCEPT IE8. I only opened it twice. First, to attempt to download Firefox, but it crashed. Second, to download Firefox, and it worked, then I immediately closed it and deleted all icons for it.

    11. Re:IE6 comes with XP, IE8 with Win7 by sheriff_p · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As someone has said elsewhere, the more important issue here is here:

      http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser-ww-weekly-200827-200951

      The previous graph shows something we already know: that people happily flit between versions of the same browser, especially home users. This graph shows browser-family usage. And it shows a steady decline of IE against FF and Chrome.

      But again, actually, that's not the important issue here. Here's what matters: the browser war was won when IE's monopoly was broken. Developing for just IE used to be a legitimate business practice - you were only alienating 10% of your customers, and most of them had IE on their system anyway. I remember when all my online banking required IE, as did a bunch of other sites I wanted to use.

      I couldn't care less if Chrome eats FF's market-share. If Safari trumps them both. What matters, what's important, is the forced interoperability that comes from not having one browser with 90% coverage. And when that happens, everyone wins: as is rapidly becoming that case. Each new version of IE becomes more and more standards compliant, because they can no longer abuse their monopoly.

      -P

      --
      Score:-1, Funny
    12. Re:IE6 comes with XP, IE8 with Win7 by Idiomatick · · Score: 1

      Win7 comes with a 64bit and a 32 bit IE8. And flash doesn't really work in the 64bit version. So your 12 month prediction is probably optimistic (the low end of your guess I know). There are still a large number of significant problems with software while running a 64 bit OS. I'm sure most of them you can overcome but for people like Dell and HP? ... They will be releasing things in 32bit until they run into physical limitations. (Which wont be for a bit still on office type machines). And without the big boys switching over we'll continue to see many problems in the software.

      Think IPv6... Its been ... 20years? And there still isn't huge adoption.

    13. Re:IE6 comes with XP, IE8 with Win7 by AbRASiON · · Score: 1

      Actually what I'm primarily implying is that as business's and end users are forced to switch to 64bit (ideally beginning in 12 months, as long as 3 years from now) they will almost certainly not bother with 64bit XP and just go for 64bit Win7 instead.
      Therefore, IE8 and Microsoft effectively get free sales, not just because people want the new Windows but because their hand is forced.
      Good riddance 32bit O/S's

    14. Re:IE6 comes with XP, IE8 with Win7 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you are talking 36 months in the future then IE9 or even IE10 will be running by that time. IE8 is a huge improvement on IE6 but it's only the second step.

    15. Re:IE6 comes with XP, IE8 with Win7 by houghi · · Score: 1

      So you say that with Vista, IE8 will be the one that will be used. Don't forget that in Europe there will be a choice and we will have to see if this will have an influence or not. Could be that many companies are going for Firefox or even something else as installation will be just as easy and security can be different.
      Obviously some will still be forced to work with IE as their aplications otherwise won't work.

      Where I work we use both IE and Firefox as some things we need to do won't work in IE and others won't work in FF. Unfortunatly none of them are things we can deal with directly.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    16. Re:IE6 comes with XP, IE8 with Win7 by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      MS seem to have handled the 64bit thing very badly...

      Run a 64bit browser but lose 99% of third party plugins = noone will run the 64bit version...
      OSX snow leopard has a 64bit safari build, and it runs with flash just fine, linux has native 64bit flash and a plugin wrapper..

      OSX/Linux will let you use up to 64gb ram on a 32bit os, ms artificially restrict you unless you buy the expensive "enterprise server" version...

      OSX will let you run a 32bit kernel with a 64bit userland incase your drivers aren't ported to 64bit yet...
      Linux will let you use a 64bit kernel with a 32bit userland, or a mixed userland...

      MS force you to use a 64bit kernel if you want a 64bit userland or support for more than 4gb of address space, but the 64bit kernel is often totally unusable if you don't have the drivers you need.. MS would have benefitted from doing what Apple did, Apple/Linux have less of an issue with drivers anyway because most come with source code enabling a 64bit recompile, or in the case of apple most of the hardware is supplied by them anyway.

      64bit linux has made sense for years, 64bit osx is a pretty seamless transition for most osx users i know, and yet most windows users i know are actively avoiding 64bit or complaining about it if they're forced to use it (eg lots of memory)

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    17. Re:IE6 comes with XP, IE8 with Win7 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah I misread at first thinking you meant it'd be over in 3 years. I figured it out later.... but I already was invested in my post so I said ah w/e I'll post it anyways ^^;; So think of it as 'in addition' or... 'totally true' w/e

    18. Re:IE6 comes with XP, IE8 with Win7 by Zerimar · · Score: 1

      IE8 isn't garbage - it's Javascript performance is pretty awful, but it does bring a few decent features to the table. Accelerators are simple, but effective; web slices might be glorified RSS feeds, but they work and Yahoo mail supports them; and the best part is that each tab gets its own thread. IE8 and Chrome are the only browsers that do this (to my knowledge) and it's really handy - broken websites don't hork up your entire browsing session like they do in Firefox and Opera. FWIW, I use Opera as my primary, and IE8 as my backup in Vista/7 and FF3.5 as my backup in XP. For whatever reason, IE8 feels faster than FF in Vista/7, whereas FF3.5 feels faster in XP.

    19. Re:IE6 comes with XP, IE8 with Win7 by Simetrical · · Score: 1

      OSX/Linux will let you use up to 64gb ram on a 32bit os, ms artificially restrict you unless you buy the expensive "enterprise server" version...

      Which will break all your drivers anyway, so you may as well use 64-bit. 32-bit with PAE means drivers don't necessarily work, because the structure of the page tables is totally different, some data structures are different to accommodate effectively longer pointers, etc.

      OSX will let you run a 32bit kernel with a 64bit userland incase your drivers aren't ported to 64bit yet...

      I don't know why Windows doesn't do this, admittedly. It's a clever idea. (For Linux it's largely pointless because the drivers are almost all open-source.)

      Linux will let you use a 64bit kernel with a 32bit userland, or a mixed userland...

      So will all 64-bit OSes. You can run 32-bit programs fine on 64-bit Windows.

      MS force you to use a 64bit kernel if you want a 64bit userland or support for more than 4gb of address space, but the 64bit kernel is often totally unusable if you don't have the drivers you need.. MS would have benefitted from doing what Apple did, Apple/Linux have less of an issue with drivers anyway because most come with source code enabling a 64bit recompile, or in the case of apple most of the hardware is supplied by them anyway.

      Right, this is the key. Apple and Linux control their essential drivers very directly, Microsoft does not. Legacy 32-bit apps work fine on a 64-bit OS, legacy drivers do not, because they're not insulated from the hardware. So MS has to pressure an immense number of third-party driver developers to update all their drivers to work on 64-bit, Apple and Linux don't.

      --
      MediaWiki developer, Total War Center sysadmin
    20. Re:IE6 comes with XP, IE8 with Win7 by Simetrical · · Score: 1

      the best part is that each tab gets its own thread. IE8 and Chrome are the only browsers that do this (to my knowledge) and it's really handy - broken websites don't hork up your entire browsing session like they do in Firefox and Opera.

      Process, not thread. And Firefox is working on this and should have it done in the next year or two, with any luck (I don't see a timetable).

      --
      MediaWiki developer, Total War Center sysadmin
    21. Re:IE6 comes with XP, IE8 with Win7 by Simetrical · · Score: 1

      As the huge 32/64bit transition begins (next 12 to 36 months my guess)

      Uh-huh. Is that like the year of the Linux desktop?

      --
      MediaWiki developer, Total War Center sysadmin
    22. Re:IE6 comes with XP, IE8 with Win7 by AbRASiON · · Score: 1

      Are you seriously questioning if machines will ship with 4 or more gb of memory within 36 months? I'll take that bet!

    23. Re:IE6 comes with XP, IE8 with Win7 by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      Right, this is the key. Apple and Linux control their essential drivers very directly, Microsoft does not. Legacy 32-bit apps work fine on a 64-bit OS, legacy drivers do not, because they're not insulated from the hardware. So MS has to pressure an immense number of third-party driver developers to update all their drivers to work on 64-bit, Apple and Linux don't.

      Yes, and this is the main reason why MS should have followed Apple's route, they would benefit from this route more than Apple does...

      Incidentally, windows xp has always used PAE, PAE is required in order to enable NX support, it's just that xp is not "licensed" for use with more than 4gb of ram.. I couldn't find the original article, but there is one describing how to enable vista and windows 7 32bit to support more than 4gb:
      http://www.raymond.cc/blog/archives/2009/08/19/make-windows-7-and-vista-32-bit-x86-support-more-than-4gb-memory/

      What i said about 64bit kernel 32bit userland is just that, i can take a completely 32bit linux distribution and use a 64bit kernel to boot it... So it won't support 64bit applications, but will benefit from larger memory support without requiring PAE... I'm not sure if this is possible with windows at all.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
  11. This is silly... by SwashbucklingCowboy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Separating out versions of different browsers is just plain silly.

    1. Re:This is silly... by gzipped_tar · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You know it's not once you've tried to write (and maintain!) different CSS fuckups for different IE versions.

      --
      Colorless green Cthulhu waits dreaming furiously.
    2. Re:This is silly... by maxume · · Score: 1

      Not entirely, there is something interesting about the much faster adoption of new versions of Firefox (well, the apparent adoption of newer versions among users of older versions...).

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    3. Re:This is silly... by blai · · Score: 1

      hmm? no matter the percentage, it's still your job to maintain IE versions.

      You can think ideally all you want about dropping support until you sense your boss' heavy breathing behind you.

      --
      In soviet Russia, God creates you!
    4. Re:This is silly... by nyctopterus · · Score: 1

      No, it's not "no matter what the percentage". Do people code website for IE 5 for Mac? No? Why? Or even IE 5 for Windows?

      At some point, everyone will give up on IE 6 because it's a pain to code for, and not enough people are using it.

  12. so....? by twotailakitsune · · Score: 2, Informative

    If you put all the firefox's (1-3.5) vs. the IE's (5-8) what do you get? The winner for now is still IE. Now, Firefox is getting more blot, and IE getting better. What will Firefox do to fight back? Add even more blot? I have moved to using IE, Firefox, and chrome for now. If firefox keeps down this path, I will stop using it.

    1. Re:so....? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Firefox is still the fastest rising browser whereas IE is in constant decline, IE8 is better but a shit in a bag is still a shit in a bag.
      a the current rate firefox will take over worldwide in November 2011 (assuming linear which i doubt is true, it's more likely to take less time) and in europe it will take over in march.

    2. Re:so....? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If by "winner" you mean "has largest % of users", then no, according to the first link Firefox 3.5 has the largest % of users. They do break each version out of each product (IE 6, 7, 8 and FF 2, 3, and 3.5) so it is an apples to apples comparison (none of this "all FF" vs. a version of IE).

      Of course where they're getting these numbers from will make a huge difference. There are lies, damn lies, and web statistics.

    3. Re:so....? by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Is it possible that WGA is finally and well and truly fucking Microsoft over? I wonder what percentage of all those FireFox installs are on pirated copies of XP, and the only way to get a decent browser is to download FF.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    4. Re:so....? by darthflo · · Score: 1

      Neither Chrome nor Opera require any WGA to be run.

    5. Re:so....? by Thinboy00 · · Score: 1

      There is a significant fraction of the market that has heard of Firefox but which has never heard of Chrome, Opera, etc. (it have heard of Safari though, thanks to Apple).

      --
      $ make available
    6. Re:so....? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      he said *decent* browser.

    7. Re:so....? by darthflo · · Score: 1

      Around version 3 or 3.5, Firefox has become reasonably close to decent. It's still lacking any semblance of innovation, but it might get there, given enough time.

    8. Re:so....? by reub2000 · · Score: 1

      I've mostly switched to Konqueror for most of my browsing. I only use Firefox for gmail and google docs. I've used firefox since firebird 0.7.

    9. Re:so....? by Randle_Revar · · Score: 1

      Ink blot?

      Anyway FF is improving faster than IE. And anyway IE started so far behind that it would be v10 or 11 at a minimum before it equaled even current FF.

    10. Re:so....? by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      Funny you should mention that, i speak to several people online in various eastern european or asian countries who are almost all running pirated versions of windows...
      Their attitude to WGA is usually to think that they got a bad copy, and that they need to acquire a new pirated copy from somewhere else - which is what they've all done, usually going out and paying someone to reinstall their machine with a new pirated copy that includes appropriate cracks for wga.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
  13. Pretty deceiving by idontusenumbers · · Score: 0

    If any of the IE versions had automatic updating to the latest version like Firefox has, IE would easily win.

    1. Re:Pretty deceiving by TimSSG · · Score: 1

      So you saying if IE was better it would win. Tim S.

    2. Re:Pretty deceiving by idontusenumbers · · Score: 0

      Just stating a fact. If IE6 auto installed or made it super easy to install IE7, or IE7 to IE8, no single version of Firefox would be at the top. If you count the last two version of either, or all versions of either, IE would be at the top hands down. I think auto updating is nice, but some people wouldn't like it. If IE had it, IE7 would be at the top. It still wouldn't be a better browser. IE sucks =/

    3. Re:Pretty deceiving by grolschie · · Score: 1

      Windows already has "Automatic Updates". The latest version of IE is offered. You don't even need to use the browser to check for updates.

    4. Re:Pretty deceiving by idontusenumbers · · Score: 0

      They aren't as easy or as quick as FireFox.

    5. Re:Pretty deceiving by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      One could argue that they are easier, since the FireFox user will be grabbing stuff with Microsoft Update anyways...

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    6. Re:Pretty deceiving by wampus · · Score: 1

      Firefox updates suck ass. They aren't even offered if you don't run as an admin on Windows.

    7. Re:Pretty deceiving by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plus the really annoying feature when you click on a url in an email and there are pending updates. You get a nice window saying the firefox executable can't be found, which you have to hit cancel and then firefox opens up.

    8. Re:Pretty deceiving by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Windows Update is enabled by default, and by default will attempt to update I.E. for you.

    9. Re:Pretty deceiving by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Windows. Fucking. Update.

    10. Re:Pretty deceiving by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      Only if the admin installed it, and then because you simply aren't able to update system installed software as an unprivileged user.
      If you install your own copy as an unprivileged user then you can still update it...

      Linux behaves in exactly the same way, except that on linux boxes there is typically a system wide method for updating everything (windows update wont update firefox for you).

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    11. Re:Pretty deceiving by wampus · · Score: 1

      Every other app I can think of downloads it's updates and elevates when the installer is ready. One prompt and its updated.

  14. One word: adblock by seifried · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Everyone I know whom I have shown Firefox with Adblock Plus switches and stays with it. The Internet with ads is just horrid (sorry Slashdot!).

    1. Re:One word: adblock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How's that different from IE7/8 with IE7Pro? It also blocks ads, I have found no difference between adblock plus and ie7pro in terms of functionality.

    2. Re:One word: adblock by techno-vampire · · Score: 4, Informative
      (sorry Slashdot!)

      When I first saw the option on Slashdot's main page to turn off ads I was a tad croggled. I'd been using Firefox with AdBlock + for so long I'd forgotten that there were ads on Slashdot.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    3. Re:One word: adblock by krelian · · Score: 1

      Everyone I know whom I have shown Firefox with Adblock Plus switches and stays with it. The Internet with ads is just horrid (sorry Slashdot!).

      What would happen if you succeed and convert all internet users to firefox + adblock?

    4. Re:One word: adblock by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

      I switched back from adblock (not from firefox). I felt too guilty. It seemed that the least I could do while using someone's page is allow their ads on screen (even if I don't look at them).

      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    5. Re:One word: adblock by seifried · · Score: 1

      Advertisers might modify their business models? The world economy might crash and we revert to the stone age? If a site doesn't like me not looking at their ads they can easily block me, charge for content, etc. It's not my job to figure this out for them. You may want to apply some critical thinking to your questions before you ask them.

    6. Re:One word: adblock by WuphonsReach · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What would happen if you succeed and convert all internet users to firefox + adblock?

      That's sorta why I go for NoScript + FlashBlock over AdBlock. Ads still display - unless they are powered by Javascript or Flash. So if your ad is a simple image or block of text, I'll still see it. But it won't annoy the heck out of me.

      (The bigger reason I run NoScript/FlashBlock is to avoid malware being installed via Javascript / Flash.)

      --
      Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
    7. Re:One word: adblock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't feel bad, I'd forgotten there were articles on Slashdot!

    8. Re:One word: adblock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually Adblock, Noscript and Flasblock are a great way show the benefits of Firefox

    9. Re:One word: adblock by Randle_Revar · · Score: 1

      I allow ads on sites I frequent... except Slashdot. Slashdot has some of the worst behaved ads I have seen on a respectable site (well, aside from those bizarre double underlined link ads/searches/definitions, but noscript gets them). Even now /. ads are blocked, just in case the "turn off ads" option goes away.

    10. Re:One word: adblock by WGFCrafty · · Score: 1

      I disabled AdBlock on slashdot.org and clicked the 'disable ads' button just so that thing would go away.

    11. Re:One word: adblock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was never even aware there were ads on slashdot O_o

    12. Re:One word: adblock by krelian · · Score: 1

      You may want to apply some critical thinking to your questions before you ask them

      The one who doesn't apply critical thinking here is you. I don't see how free content can continue to exist without advertising. The reason I asked was that I thought that perhaps you had dedicated sometime to think about consequences but I see that the only conclusion you reached is akin to "fuck it, I'll just do what's best for me at moment", a truly reliable time tested strategy.

    13. Re:One word: adblock by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Do you also avoid bathroom breaks or switching to a different channel when ads are shown while watching TV?

      I mean, really...

    14. Re:One word: adblock by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

      No, but I would avoid any device that would silently and automatically block TV ads as well.

      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
  15. A new topic logo, perhaps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Now that Firefox is the dominant browser, perhaps the topic graphic should default to Firefox instead of IE? It is more recognizable.

    1. Re:A new topic logo, perhaps? by Thinboy00 · · Score: 1

      The topic graphic is for the topic "msie". Thus it gets an IE icon.

      --
      $ make available
  16. My plan worked by palmerj3 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Reenactment - relative has problem with computer

    1. Remove shortcuts to Internet Explorer
    2. Rename Firefox shortcuts to "Internet"

    Firefox 3.5 - My Idea

    1. Re:My plan worked by SoonerSkeene · · Score: 1

      You'd be surprised how often those 2 steps comprise my final housecall to any of my technology-challenged friends and family. Problem solved every time.

    2. Re:My plan worked by bertoelcon · · Score: 3, Informative

      If you can change the icons and the theme they will really never know the difference.

      --
      Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
    3. Re:My plan worked by russlar · · Score: 1

      Hey! He stole my idea!

      --
      Anybody want my mod points?
    4. Re:My plan worked by EricX2 · · Score: 1

      Works great. My family also get adblock and flashblock... they have no idea that the internet still has ads and have never been annoyed by a flash animation fly over their screens. :)

    5. Re:My plan worked by jocabergs · · Score: 1

      I wish it were that easy, my mom still swears by AOL 8.0. I feel violated whenever I have to fix her computer and despite the fact I've got a degree in IT and 10 years of work experience, I still can't convince her to upgrade... sigh... I need to upgrade to mom 2.0

    6. Re:My plan worked by yuri+benjamin · · Score: 1

      I did just exactly this a few weeks ago. Non-technical friend was pleased with result. He was even more pleased a few days ago when I replaced his entire Vista desktop with KDE (kubuntu 9.10).

      --
      You make the mistake of thinking you can educate the fundamental stupidity out of people. You can't.
    7. Re:My plan worked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For the most resistant-to-change relatives: keep the IE shortcuts, but point them to Firefox; plus use the IE theme for Firefox. Then ??? Then profit.

    8. Re:My plan worked by ydrol · · Score: 1

      And make the browser launch as a limited user. Install PSexec and change all browser shorcuts to

      psexec -d -l c:\Path\To\Browser.exe

      Should really make the user a limited user, but then they moan they can't use crappy software like Kodak Easyshare etc and more ACL fun ensues.....

    9. Re:My plan worked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Day -1: Vista stalls, complaining of some "memory problem" when friend has 9000 instances of photoshop open, friend complains to linux fanboi. Linux fanboi tells friend that Microsoft is for losers and linux will make your penis grow larger.
      Day 0: Linux fanboi convinces friend to replace Vista with something from South Africa called "Ubuntu" that comes from a company that farts rainbows and pisses love and fluffy bunnies. Hours later, friend is convinced that it must be superior because of the cool new icons and the selection of snazzy new backgrounds, friend is constantly checking his crotch to determine rate of growth.
      Day 1: friend needs to update one of the 9000 photos that was opened when Vista crashed. He clicks around looking for photoshop, after not finding it calls fanboi. Fanboi tells him to download something called "GIMP". Six hours later, friend calls again that he doesn't understand, nor should he have to, which of the 10000 source packages to download, which repository to use, what "Subversion" is, he just wants to get his fucking photo edited. Fanboi tells him it's simple, even Terri Shiavo could do it.
      Day 3: friend, after being awake for 36 hours, calls fanboi at 4 AM panicking because the photo still isn't edited, it's due at 8AM, and he still can't figure out how to install "GIMP". At this point, friend has followed various instructions posted by other RTFMers on various web sites, but not realizing that the commands happen to be for kernel version 2.6.4.3.433.3.43.43 instead of his kernel version 2.6.4.3.433.3.43.42, which was built 17 seconds before the more recent version. Friend has managed to do nothing more than toggle the firewall on and off and change the order of launchers on the desktop.
      Day 4: friend, having clients, shows up at fanboi's door with a boombox blasting "eye of the tiger", a bottle of amphetamines, and a 18" length of solid, rusty pipe. Fanboi screams like an eight-year-old girl as once-friend begins beating fanboi over the head

    10. Re:My plan worked by fluffy99 · · Score: 1

      So when did you go back and install Windows so he could play his favorite games again?

    11. Re:My plan worked by ProfessionalCookie · · Score: 1
      I usually title it thusly:

      Firefox
      (Internet)

    12. Re:My plan worked by cenc · · Score: 1

      I have actually on more than one occasion changed the entire underlying OS to Linux, copied the IE icons, email, and word icons on to the desktop, and simply told them it is was fixed. Some of those computers are still running just fine 4-5 years later without a problem. The users (mostly grandmothers) rave about the way I fixed their computers to their friends and refuse to buy a new one. So, Linux is ready for the desktop and grandma, with the right icons.

    13. Re:My plan worked by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Actually, given that Gecko is relatively easy to reuse, I'm surprised no-one had yet made a perfect IE6/7/8 UI clone with Gecko engine.

    14. Re:My plan worked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've tried that (I did it with Chrome however).

      They did notice. They said, "Why is the Internet so much faster now?".

    15. Re:My plan worked by frsmith · · Score: 1

      That exactly what I do for the less techies. Works a charm.
      I never get asked where is IE!

      Cheers
      Bob

      --
      It Seems I've developed an aversion to proprietary software
  17. Misleading Title. by bjorniac · · Score: 1

    A more accurate graph for the "Most Popular Browser Worldwide" would be given by:
    http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser-ww-weekly-200827-200951
    Here you see a more representative picture - IE's decline and Firefox's rise, but still IE's total share is 55% to Firefox's 32%

    Just because we're in the midst of an IE upgrade from 7-8 doesn't make Firefox now the most popular browser. Sure, this version is currently a little ahead of each of IE7 and IE8, but to me what this really indicates is that Firefox users upgrade faster.

    1. Re:Misleading Title. by MtViewGuy · · Score: 1, Troll

      However, with the success of Windows 7, expect a major spike in IE usage, especially with IE 8.0 being part of Windows 7 itself in most versions.

      I myself would like to go to Chrome 4.0 full-time, since Chrome does a masterful job of handling tabs and Chromes uses the ultra-fast WebKit page layout engine.

    2. Re:Misleading Title. by quickOnTheUptake · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I'm not sure whether this is blatant astorturfing, parody astoturfing, fanboyism, or something else.
      Please MtViewGuy, gimme a hint.

      --
      Mod points: Guaranteed to remove your sense of humor.
      Side effects may include gullibility and temporary retardation
    3. Re:Misleading Title. by zill · · Score: 1
      That really depends on how you define "browser". Most slashdotter differentiate browsers by their codebase because we're software oriented and are more concerned about the standard compliance of each browser as opposed to whatever arbitrary string the marketing departments assigns.

      If you choose to use the marketing name to differentiate browsers, then please consider the following senario:

      Microsoft buys out Opera with $500 million (37% premium) and renames Opera to IE8 SP0.

    4. Re:Misleading Title. by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Yeah it's fanboyism, but here it varies in moderation from +1 to -1. Even as a Linux user I recognize that Win7 is not bad. Many, many XP users will upgrade to it as the path of least resistance. I suspect a lot of corporations have IE6/7 installed because it works with their old software and Firefox for everything else. Once you go Win7 and IE8, is there a compelling need to install a second browser or will plain laziness win? I mean, I know people here on slashdot love to brag about all the plugins and ways you can tune your browser but I don't think most people care. If IE8 works decently enough and with few high-profile security issues, some people may convert-by-upgrade. Not saying I completely buy that, but the whole "I think the tide will turn" = troll moderation is unwarranted.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    5. Re:Misleading Title. by bjorniac · · Score: 1

      True, and you do have a point with the codebase defining browsers for people here, though I think if you asked most people "What browser do you use?" those who understand the words would say "IE" or "Firefox".

      However, I think a more useful statistical insight comes from examining the trends in the "Browser" list on the article at the same time as the versions. Here you see what looks more or less like a linear decline in IE and a rise in FF - which seems to be oblivious to the versions changing; the steep dip in FF3.0 is almost exactly compensated by the sharp rise in FF3.5, and the slower decline of IE7 seems to be complemented by the rise in IE8.

      My point is that the overall trend seems not to care about new versions of the browsers themselves, and in reference to your scenario, I think what you'd see is a fast rise of Opera in the "Browser Versions" chart, a decline in the IE7 and IE8 but little effect at all on IE in the "Browser" chart - the overall IE numbers (now including IE8 SP0) would probably be about 55%. There seem to be two mechanisms at work here - a slow but steady movement from IE->Firefox in the "Browser" market (I suspect that this has to do with name recognition) and upgrade paths within those two "Browsers" between "Versions".

  18. A shame, 3.6 is very quick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Firefox 3.5 is a very slow piece of shit, reminds me of old Internet Explorer versions. I am using Firefox 3.6 Beta6 and it is so much faster! I hope most of these Firefox 3.5 people upgrade to 3.6 ASAP when it is released.

  19. I added another FF user today by WebmasterNeal · · Score: 3, Informative

    I helped a family friend setup their new computer (which had Windows 7 on it) and the first thing I did was download Firefox 3.5, installed the IE Aero theme and removed any references to IE I could find. The nice thing with this theme is very few non-technical users notice a difference other than their browser seems to load pages faster.

    --
    "During My Service In The United States Congress, I Took The Initiative In Creating The Internet." -Al Gore
    1. Re:I added another FF user today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is so much bullshit passed along by the typical FF fanboy! In side by side tests of IE with FF, from desktop click to full page showing, FF takes about 35% longer.

    2. Re:I added another FF user today by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      This.

      Just about the only browser that loads slower than FireFox 3.x these days is Safari on Windows (don't know about on Mac)

      ..add in all those plugins and its much worse.

      Take my advice boys.. Chrome or Opera.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    3. Re:I added another FF user today by some_guy_88 · · Score: 1

      WebmasterNeal is talking about page rendering, not loading the browser in the first place.

    4. Re:I added another FF user today by speculatrix · · Score: 1
      I do the same; except I also install thunderbird and remove all the links to outlook express (OE) or windows mail. To stop programs trying to invoke OE, I change the privileges on the file to remove the execute bit!

      In TBird I change to only send plain text email, as that removes the temptation to pollute the internet with humongous ugly emails.

      In FireFox I install flashblock so they aren't hit by drive-by infections, I also usually remove all the Microsoft originated shortcuts/favourites too, and set their home page to google.

    5. Re:I added another FF user today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? No shit. You reckon that has something to do with the fact that as soon as you boot up Windows 7, most of IE is being loaded up into memory and just sitting there waiting for you to click on the icon? Fucking dumbass. Of course it's going to load faster. If I started Firefox then just minimized it to the taskbar, could I just click the taskbar icon and say, "Lookie! Firefox loaded in 1 second!" Because that's not too far from what you are saying here. Dumbass.

  20. Obligatory xkcd post by zill · · Score: 5, Funny

    http://xkcd.com/198/

    Unless you're a web browser developer, keeping track of global browser market-shares is just plain nerdy. But then again, this is /..

    1. Re:Obligatory xkcd post by ThrowAwaySociety · · Score: 1

      Unless you're a web browser developer, keeping track of global browser market-shares is just plain nerdy.

      Being a web browser developer is not nerdy?

  21. IE6 isn't being held up by choice by SoonerSkeene · · Score: 1

    I don't know a single home user on any OS that is using IE6. My incredibly behind-the-times relatives on Windows 2000 are using Firefox, and any of my XP or newer friends and colleagues are using Firefox or a newer flavor of IE (or even Chrome). No, the thing holding up IE6 is corporate America. My company has 70 large locations in America, and probably twice that around the glob, together running about 60,000 computers. Only one (very tiny) division of our company is allowed to run anything other than IE6, and that's because they are a Windows Vista technical support group. The rest of us are forced to use IE6 because most of our applications have been replaced by browser-based 'solutions' like Siebel CRM and the like, using ActiveX and most of which aren't officially supported on newer browsers. It's painful.

    1. Re:IE6 isn't being held up by choice by d4nowar · · Score: 1

      My father uses it still, and I believe he's part of a populous subset of people that think "It's different. It's broken!"

      Whenever windows update comes up he thinks it's spam. Whenever a security warning comes up he thinks he has a virus. Whenever any update window comes up he thinks it's spam.

      His work machine was running XP service pack 1 until yesterday.

      Train those people and you'll get rid of IE6.

    2. Re:IE6 isn't being held up by choice by lamapper · · Score: 1

      I don't know a single home user on any OS that is using IE6. My incredibly behind-the-times relatives on Windows 2000 are using Firefox, and any of my XP or newer friends and colleagues are using Firefox or a newer flavor of IE (or even Chrome). No, the thing holding up IE6 is corporate America. My company has 70 large locations in America, and probably twice that around the glob, together running about 60,000 computers. Only one (very tiny) division of our company is allowed to run anything other than IE6, and that's because they are a Windows Vista technical support group. The rest of us are forced to use IE6 because most of our applications have been replaced by browser-based 'solutions' like Siebel CRM and the like, using ActiveX and most of which aren't officially supported on newer browsers. It's painful.

      So the problem is some dev head developed in Active X and now you are stuck with IE. 6. I hate IE 6, but you need to blame the development weenies that stupidly used Active X. There is a reason that many people did not use what was "easiest" and start using Active X. Same is true for Adobe Flash....hello! Its easier, not better.

      --
      Is your Internet Throttled? Install DD-Wrt, OpenWRT or Tomato to learn the truth! Google: 1Gbps/1Gbps: 5 Communities
    3. Re:IE6 isn't being held up by choice by SoonerSkeene · · Score: 1

      I guess it's cool to have applications that run in the browser, but I'd rather it be standards compliant, responsive, and not crash. And be forward compatible.

      Remember back when every interactive browser control in IE had to be clicked-to-activate because of that EOLAS or whatever company was yelling about patents? Every. Single. Control. Button. and. Text. Box. in Sieblel required clicking, then clicking again. Oracle, or whoever owns Seiblel right now, never fixed it... we were just lucky that Microsoft finally pushed out an update that did away with that nonsense.

  22. Statcounter is bullshit! by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

    They are blocked in all ad blockers and some firewall software (those with built-in malware filters).
    This is because of their web beacons that they integrate into sites, and that invade your privacy by tracking you across sites.

    I had to turn off my ad blocker, to be able to open their site.

    So you can guess in what direction the statistics are biased.

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    1. Re:Statcounter is bullshit! by Techman83 · · Score: 1

      Out of curiosity, What ad blocker do you use? I'm using ad-block plus, and didn't have to do a thing. I sometimes forget it's there. I set it up long ago so the sites that aren't obnoxious with their advertising and I also frequent, are white listed.

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i cat
      Damn, my RAM is full of cats. MEOW!!
  23. Ding! Dong! The Witch is Dead! by yuda · · Score: 1

    Just had a look at the stats for New Zealand (where I come from) IE 6 accounts for now only around 9% of the browser market. Now if I could get a certain clients head around that fact and that he should upgrade his browser to something that isn't quite so shit, then maybe both of us could get some sleep

    1. Re:Ding! Dong! The Witch is Dead! by styrotech · · Score: 1

      Look closer, I think you meant 5% :)

      Unfortunately IE6 is still at 27% on our site (enterprisy web apps). And the percentage used by our customers on their desktops is significantly higher still (over 50%).

      We can only forlornly hope that 2010 will be the year of "Anything except XP" on the desktop...

  24. No it isn't (according to that site)! by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

    If you look at the browsers, independent of the version:
    http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser-ww-weekly-200827-200951
    you see that IE is clearly far on top.

    BUT, as I previously said, Statcounter does not count anyone with an ad blocker, in browser, in the firewall, etc.
    Because they are blocked for tracking users across sites with their web beacon.

    So not only are the numbers strongly biased in one direction. No TFS biases them back in the other direction.

    That is, all in all, a truly epic fail. And I’m not even a statistics guy. I bet those would first die from the horrors, and then spin in their graves fast enough to power a small city. ;)

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  25. What happened to Netcraft confirming it? by indigoid · · Score: 1

    :-(

    --
    P-plate adventurer
    1. Re:What happened to Netcraft confirming it? by sayfawa · · Score: 2, Funny

      Haven't you heard? Netcraft is dead.

      Umm... Netcraft confirms it?

      --
      Free the Quark 3 from asymptotic confinement! Bring your charm! Don't get down! All colours and flavours welcome!
    2. Re:What happened to Netcraft confirming it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Netcraft only deals with real data. Statistics that can be obtained reliably, you know. Web analytics, especially as in this case, are as far from that as you can get.

  26. Dammit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now I have to find a new browser. I can't use popular software or else my nerd cred goes down!

  27. because of 'delete recent history' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I bet it is because it has 'delete recent history' for certain periods of time, so it makes it easier to look at pr0n.

  28. IE8 displacing older versions! by dowlingw · · Score: 1

    You need to look at the trends for IE7 and IE8, it looks like the market share is trending towards upgrades from IE7 to IE8, just like how Firefox 3 lost share at around the same rate as Firefox 3.5 gained share. Going by this, you'll see that IE8 is going to head straight back up to around the 40% mark. Which, all things considered is GREAT news - IE8 is a much better browser as far as standards-compliancy is concerned and it means the web is on it's way to being a much more stable platform, rah rah rah. Also interesting, check the decline in IE6 also - I wonder if IE6 users are flocking to IE8 also - maybe IE8 will end up with ~60% market share? No matter what happens, less IE7 and IE6 = WIN.

    1. Re:IE8 displacing older versions! by Thinboy00 · · Score: 1
      --
      $ make available
    2. Re:IE8 displacing older versions! by lamapper · · Score: 1

      You need to look at the trends for IE7 and IE8, it looks like the market share is trending towards upgrades from IE7 to IE8, just like how Firefox 3 lost share at around the same rate as Firefox 3.5 gained share. Going by this, you'll see that IE8 is going to head straight back up to around the 40% mark. Which, all things considered is GREAT news - IE8 is a much better browser as far as standards-compliancy is concerned and it means the web is on it's way to being a much more stable platform, rah rah rah. Also interesting, check the decline in IE6 also - I wonder if IE6 users are flocking to IE8 also - maybe IE8 will end up with ~60% market share? No matter what happens, less IE7 and IE6 = WIN.

      This is GREAT news. And I do not even have to mention European, Asia or Africa stats.

      40% to 60% usage is way below what it use to be. Didn't IE usage hit either 80% or 90% at one time? Regardless IE usage is trending the right way, down.

      --
      Is your Internet Throttled? Install DD-Wrt, OpenWRT or Tomato to learn the truth! Google: 1Gbps/1Gbps: 5 Communities
  29. That or web site developers by tepples · · Score: 1

    Unless you're a web browser developer, keeping track of global browser market-shares is just plain nerdy.

    That or a web site developer like myself. Tracking the fall of IE 6 is important because the engine powering IE 6 supports far less of the coming HTML5 standard than the other possibilities (Mozilla Gecko, Apple WebKit, and Opera Presto).

    1. Re:That or web site developers by mini+me · · Score: 1

      The thing to remember about IE6 is that anyone who is still using it has no desire to use quality software. What that means for you is that IE6 users will not notice or care if your website breaks of looks funny. To spend time making your site perfect for these users is a waste of time.

    2. Re:That or web site developers by lamapper · · Score: 1

      The thing to remember about IE6 is that anyone who is still using it has no desire to use quality software. What that means for you is that IE6 users will not notice or care if your website breaks of looks funny. To spend time making your site perfect for these users is a waste of time.

      Somebody mod him up.

      Of course the smartest thing to do would have been to never engage in Internet Explorer specific time wasting hacks to begin with. Many of us recognized this truth at the beginning and did not bother going there. Every minute another designer, coder spent doing browser specific hacks is a complete waste of time and money.

      Same is true for Active X BS. Another Microsoft specific blunder like .NET. When will they ever learn.

      The real story with the stats is not IE or FF, but Chrome, steadily climbing. I currently do not use Chrome and I WILL NEVER go to an IE browser, ever. It just is NOT an option. I will consider moving from FF to Chrome, Opera or one of the other 100 browser options out there. Yes there are over a hundred others...

      IE is not an option any more. Firefox might find itself blacklisted as well if they can not get a handle on taking over a Linux desktop's processor. I use to think the Microsoft memory creep was bad, wow. I am sticking with Firefox for now, love it, but All the Microsoft BS bleeding into the Linux platform via Flash, .NET, Wine, Java, Active X and now Moonlight, is getting really, really old.

      As far as making Web not war, open source never fired the first shot. Give me 7 years of changed behavior, based on your ACTIONS, not marketing BS FUD, and perhaps then I will consider a Microsoft product again.

      Microsoft, Adobe You have lost my TRUST, time to earn it back. First you must try....just not seeing it.

      --
      Is your Internet Throttled? Install DD-Wrt, OpenWRT or Tomato to learn the truth! Google: 1Gbps/1Gbps: 5 Communities
  30. Oscillation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Antarctica graph is intersting...

  31. Who is using IE6: by 7-Vodka · · Score: 2, Informative

    I work for a large company with 130k employees and EVERYBODY uses IE6 because it's what the IT department mandates. To get an exception to this you have to go through so much hassle and have a business provable reason for the request.

    I wish I could use a better browser, IE6 really sucks in many many ways. It's slooww, has memory leaks like you wouldn't believe and doesn't even render slashdot correctly.

    --

    Liberty.

    1. Re:Who is using IE6: by IrquiM · · Score: 1

      Same here - but I run firefox portable from an USB stick - works great as I now can get around the proxy as well

      --
      This is blinging
    2. Re:Who is using IE6: by thue · · Score: 2, Funny

      Perhaps you could try requesting an exception by saying that you need Firefox to read Slashdot?

    3. Re:Who is using IE6: by HotBBQ · · Score: 1

      That sounds suspiciously like the place I work. You ought to give www.portableapps.com a look. I've been (mostly) IE6 free at work for a couple of years now.

    4. Re:Who is using IE6: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just run Firefox Portable from your home directory or usb stick...

  32. Maybe you can by gearloos · · Score: 1

    After all these years hearing the BS about I.E. being so popular.... This is proof, maybe you can fix stupid. People have come around.

    --
    "Computers are a lot like Air Conditioners" "They both work great until you start opening Windows"
  33. Yeah, but... by Slur · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...just imagine a Beowulf cluster of Firefox plugins!

    Don't laugh, some joker will probably do it just to prove it can be done.

    --
    -- thinkyhead software and media
  34. Over three quarters of web spam attacks by Xeriar · · Score: 1

    ...on my servers come from hijacked IE6 machines or bots claiming to be IE6.

    Nail cannot come too soon.

    1. Re:Over three quarters of web spam attacks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I'm sure a lot of IE6 machines get hijacked, but anyone doing that is perfectly capable of lying about the user agent.

    2. Re:Over three quarters of web spam attacks by cenc · · Score: 1

      yea, but why would anyone lie about being that user agent?

  35. Non uniform adoption across countries? by zlel · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I live in Japan and adoption seems really conservative. Let's first take version numbers away to get a better view.
    Japan
    Firefox has been having a 21-23% share for the 2 years, with IE still leading though dropping from 70 to 65%
    Growth in conservative. UK seems to have a similar trend.

    Singapore
    About 30% share and growth is conservative.

    Malaysia
    Growth from 30% up to 40%, with an equal drop in IE share.
    This looks like a market where Firefox can overtake IE?

    France
    very interesting trend. W38 2008 and W26 2009 had a short period where IE use was displaced by Firefox, but IE use was resumed in a few weeks.
    Does that mean users in France are open to the idea, but still don't deem Firefox a good replacement yet?
    Interestingly Vietnam seems to have a similar trend.

    China
    IE has 95% share all the way, with a drop recently, giving way not to Firefox, but to Maxthon.

    Poland / Finland
    Firefox is the most popular browser!

    North Korea
    Nobody really wins. Only IE, once in a while.

    Antartica
    Go figure. But firefox seems to be winning?

    It would be nice if we could have a world map of the most popular browsers in each country
    so we can adjust our expectations when talking to overseas partners...

    1. Re:Non uniform adoption across countries? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look at Philippines, Indonesia, Myanmar, Mongolia, Germany, Russia, Ukraine...

      Also notice that Chrome is rising fast almost everywhere, faster than Fx in some countries.

  36. Precise Title. by arose · · Score: 1

    If you completely miss the '3.5', then it's a reading comprehension problem, not a title problem. The wording isn't misleading at all, in fact it's very precise. And it's quite an important stat too, IE is so fragmented that even the laziest developers will find it hard to target it exclusively (as noted IE versions are quite different).

    --
    Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    1. Re:Precise Title. by bjorniac · · Score: 1

      If, however, you RTFA and see that there are statistics for "Browser" and "Browser Version", and one of these shows a clearly dominant "Browser" and the other that a certain version of a given browser is leading in that subcategory you'd see that the title is misleading. The point is that if you look at the "Browser" stats it becomes apparent that what's actually happening is that you're in the midst of a slow transition from IE6-IE7-IE8 and at this point in time they're split roughly 40-40-20. So of the 55% of people using some form of IE, many still use older versions, whereas the Firefox users are upgrading faster. After all, someone could come along and split Firefox 3.5 into 3.5, 3.5.1, 3.5.2 etc and then put each lower than IE 8 say.

    2. Re:Precise Title. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Man there's a "Browser" page and a "Browser Version" page thats misleading to try and make it look like FF is suddenly the biggest browser out there. Its in the article itself.

    3. Re:Precise Title. by arose · · Score: 1

      That doesn't make the title misleading, it's not saying that 'Firefox' is the most popular browser worldwide, it's making the claim that 'Firefox 3.5'. More than that the actual summary clearly references the different versions. This is all about the dynamic of upgrades, I see no indications that the submitter tried to mislead.

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    4. Re:Precise Title. by bjorniac · · Score: 1

      Oh, I'm in no way saying that the submitter _intended_ to mislead people - just that really my first reaction was "Wow, that was fast, I thought it would take another couple of years to catch up to IE" before looking at the article and realizing that it's still got a long way to go and most people still use some form of the blue e. I apologize if anyone thinks I'm saying that the misleading was deliberate.

      The summary says "but over the last few months the slope of Firefox's worldwide curve has been steeper" which doesn't appear to be actually true for Firefox as a whole just 3.5, and again, looking at the graphs together this just seems to be a faster changeover of 3.0 -> 3.5 in Firefox, rather than the impression that at least was made upon me that Firefox was ahead an accelerating. Likewise "The submitter suggests using the time when Firefox rules the roost, globally speaking," which further reinforces this impression.

  37. Corporate problem by microbox · · Score: 1

    With any luck major websites will simply stop supporting IE6, no matter how loudly its users complain.

    Not if they are corporate users paying your bills. IE6 will be around so long as middle management don't have the balls to actually modernise their infrastructure.

    All those annoying nerds trying to get them to make more standards compliant websites 5 years ago have already moved on to better jobs. They just dumped the tangled mess of IE6 dependent html-karapware and vacuous developers that worked on it.

    In such a situation, it is easier for a big corporation to say "we use IE6, so your systems must support IE6". I know, because I was there, and then I fled.

    --

    Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
    1. Re:Corporate problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I picture nuclear war and two things surviving: IE6 and cockroaches!

  38. You laugh... by chrono325 · · Score: 1

    Given how bloated Emacs is, you're more likely to be able to get Firefox for Emacs.

    You jest, good sir, but I have been toiling on just such a foul creation. They said I was crazy, but could a crazy person really embed the Uzbl web browser into Emacs? NO! Those cowards were merely afraid of the infinite power I would wield by putting a browser in Emacs. Think, then, of their horror when they learn that someone put an Emacs clone in the browser.

    Behold, the fruit of my demonic labors: Ymacs in Uzbl in Emacs. IT'S ALIVE!!!

    Look upon my works, ye Mighty, and despair!

  39. Firefox will never be adopted in Korea by incognito84 · · Score: 1

    Most Korean websites are designed to only work in IE and since XP is still the OS of choice, most people use IE6.

    Many people have this misconception of Korea as being some kind of computer mecca. It is and it isn't. Internet penetration and PC ownership here are much higher, as is the countries investment in all things technology related but I'd venture to say that, like back home, most people here don't really know how to get the most out of their PCs or the internet.

    At my job here in Korea I was running Windows 7 and Firefox. The IT guy got wind of this as I use a work laptop that is not my own (though I do take it home) and had me reinstall XP and instructed me not to use Firefox "because it has a lot of viruses." As for Windows 7, he just had no idea what it was and insisted I switch to XP.

    Given this attitude in most places, even in the notorious "PC Bangs", I doubt Firefox will be taken up here any time soon. Especially since most Korean websites would need to be redone.

  40. Punched cards by Trip6 · · Score: 1

    You jest, but I remember the day when the punch card machine came that let you type end edit the 80 column image BEFORE punching the card, instead of punching it as you typed. THAT was a huge leap forward. Many forests were saved.

    --
    I hate being bipolar; it's awesome!
  41. IE7 is the default because FF sucks at printing by schwit1 · · Score: 1

    In our corp environment we need to print lots of stuff that has frames. IE works, FF does not. So senior management requires IE be the default browser. It is also a pain to update FF if you are not a local admin.

  42. FF is the best by kokoko1 · · Score: 2

    Recently after Google released Chrome browser for Linux I switched to Chrome and you know after using it for one day I switched back to FF. In my opinion FF is ages ahead from Chrome duno about M$ IE coz didn't used in years since moving my butt to Linux :)

    --
    http://askaralikhan.blogspot.com/
  43. Seriously.. non event by powerspike · · Score: 5, Informative

    The only reason this has happened, is because people are migrating from IE7 to IE8, if you look at the graph, firefox is a little over half the combined marketshare of ie 7 & 8, this will change in a month or two as more and more people migrate to ie8.

    Using the same method as the poster, you can say that ie6 has more market share then Firefox 3 ....

    1. Re:Seriously.. non event by Lost+Race · · Score: 1

      Looking over my web server logs from the last few months I see Firefox (all versions) way out in front of MSIE (all versions). Recently Safari has been catching up with IE (about 20% vs 10% and closing) and Opera is growing too.

      My web sites are definitely not biased against MS or IE in any way, except maybe by using actual W3C standards for the HTML instead of whatever-works-in-IE tag soup.

  44. You know what corporate excusers by bitcastle · · Score: 1

    We don't care anymore. You can't forever keep using the excuse that users are tied to their corporate internet and must use IE6. I'll say it again WE DON'T CARE.

  45. "Other" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder how much of that other is Chrome.

  46. Ads ? What ads ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I never understand these comments - up on the right hand corner of slashdot, there's a colored box with nothing interesting, when I look today, yes, it's an advert. But it's beside TFA, which I never read either, cause I've already scanned that from the front page. I just come down here in the comments for the real goodness. Or am I missing something cause I use Opera?

  47. Nice way to warp the statistics by BitZtream · · Score: 3, Informative

    IE still has over 50% of the market, so firefox isn't exactly the most popular browser. Firefox is at 30% and Chrome is already at 5% and its still an infant.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm glad IE's share is getting smaller and smaller, but Firefox still isn't the most popular browser out there, lets actually accomplish it before we tell everyone we've accomplished it by messaging the data.

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    1. Re:Nice way to warp the statistics by cryptoluddite · · Score: 1

      Firefox is at 30% and Chrome is already at 5% and its still an infant

      Firefox started with a complex codebase with tons of baggage and over time improved this. Firefox was spread by word of mouth and had to earn every percent. It got popular the hard way, by earning it.

      Meanwhile Google Chrome is being pimped by the internet's biggest advertising company. Google Chrome started with the major pieces already completed: WebKit for rendering, V8 for JavaScript (I don't call rewriting the VM from Self doing something new). All they had to do was write a simple shell around this.

      The real test for Google Chrome will be how well the project is managed now that they actually have to maintain the browser over time. Once they fill in the remaining 20% that Firefox does that Google Chrome does not, what will the result be like?

    2. Re:Nice way to warp the statistics by east+coast · · Score: 1

      Chrome is already at 5% and its still an infant.

      Perhaps it's an infant as far as age but it's really not as far as popularity.

      With Firefox it had to build it's base slowly over time as more and more people started to use it. Chrome was thrust on users and not many seem to adopt it. I know tons of people who know what Chrome is and have tried it but I don't know of one who has stuck with it.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    3. Re:Nice way to warp the statistics by StormReaver · · Score: 1

      ...but Firefox still isn't the most popular browser out there...

      Neither the article nor the graph say Firefox is the most popular browser. If you actually read the summary and the graph, you'll see that. Both say that Firefox 3.5 is the most popular version of any browser at the end of the period covered by the graph.

  48. And pirate internet cafés by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I have some web clients in Morocco - they still insist on IE4 !!! compatibility, along with IE5 and IE6, because some of the net cafés are running clients so old that couldn't run FF even if they wanted to. They refuse to update their machines in the cafés, and that's where my clients get a load of their hits from. It's not just corporations are dinosaurs.
    Second anecdote: As my mother-in-law has demonstrated for years, running an "obsolete" OS (Win/ME) and browser actually reduces her virus susceptibility. Security through naive, ignorant cheapness - who would've thunk?

  49. Since Firefox is going to be the new target.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess its time I switch to Opera.

  50. more of the same lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok did anyone follow the link? Clearly IE7 is still the most used browser world wide! Stop spreading lies. I use Firefox 100% but I am into spreading lies about it.

  51. Non-conformist by ikono · · Score: 1

    Whelp, now to find a new browser now that firefox is the most popular! Can't have me using what's popular, now can I?

    --
    Karma is for whores
    1. Re:Non-conformist by furball · · Score: 1

      May I suggest Safari?

  52. What if we narrow the search region? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Look at the stats for Antarctica

    Firefox 3.0 clearly in the lead and just a complete mash of the other contenters...

  53. re by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Great now another 10 years to get people on the much faster Chrome and drop ye slow and a bit bloated FF.

  54. Korea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I noticed that of the many PC cafes I've been to (probably at least 50 by now) in Korea, a majority of them are using IE6. Most personal computers I've used, along with office computers I've used within the past year were running IE7.

    Firefox/any other browser has no chance in Korea since pretty much all websites require ActiveX. I can't online bank, make online payments, or sometimes even login to a site without using IE.

    Just pointing out the first part because a PC cafe would account for around 30-60 PCs running IE6. Now multiply that by having one on every other block.

    1. Re:Korea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It's not Firefox's fault that Korea can't code standards compliant/non-Microsoft "standards" technology websites.

  55. Yeah great. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    Do you look also at OSes independent of their version?

    Do you have a job actually?

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  56. IE Franchise still most popular by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

    FireFox is only most popular if you break each browser down to it's version number.

    If you conduct an intellectually honest comparison, it's clear that the IE Franchise is still dominant.

  57. emacsify firefox better by SMOKEING · · Score: 1

    FYI, there's a better, fuller Firefox emacsification available with KeySnail.

  58. Firefox not quite there yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Firefox has made some great gains on IE and is virtually neck to neck with IE, but it hasn't quite passed it yet. The article should have read for the month of December 2009.

    http://techie-buzz.com/firefox/firefox35-not-the-most-used-browser-yet.html

  59. The title is misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All IE versions are still used more than the double than all Firefox versions. The news is only to that Firefox version... and I'm not sure where is the news here.

  60. Firefox / Windows 7 by C_Kode · · Score: 1

    I've had more than a few desktops with issues of Firefox 3.5.x causing blue screens of death on Windows 7 64bit. Not sure about other flavors of Windows 7.

    Some Googling suggests it's a recent update with Firefox others suggest it's a Firefox / Flash issue. Either way, I was forced to stop allowing the use of Firefox while this issue continues.

    1. Re:Firefox / Windows 7 by viralMeme · · Score: 1

      "I've had more than a few desktops with issues of Firefox 3.5.x causing blue screens of death on Windows 7 64bit. Not sure about other flavors of Windows 7"

      When will Microsoft ever learn to design a Memory Manager that actually works .. :)

      But tell me, you are in a business (?) and are already on 64bit Windows 7, generally it's safest to wait for the third iteration of what-ever. That way most of the bugs will have been ironed out ...

    2. Re:Firefox / Windows 7 by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 3, Informative

      Some Googling suggests it's a recent update with Firefox others suggest it's a Firefox / Flash issue.

      A userspace application cannot cause a BSOD (kernel panic). This is strictly a driver issue, video most likely. Of course it can be triggered by Firefox/Flash/whatever combo, but the bug is still in the driver.

  61. Not seeing the same stats by Bobberly · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    IE still makes up 86% of the traffic to sites I control. Firefox just now hit the 10% mark, Safari ranks 3rd at 2.6%. This time last year IE was 89%. Chrome barely makes our charts at 0.5%. Dominant browser? Hardly. I still have 20% of my users running W2k Pro with IE6. I've had to fudge user agents on our proxy because of the warnings so many sites give them. They can't control what machines we give them, and we can't upgrade their hardware because of goverment mandated tax and budget cuts (we are a govermnent office). Running Firefox is impossible due to lack of enterprise support. Call me a m$ fanboi, I still see no benefits of running an alternative browser. Adblock you say? The proxy does the same thing only better.

  62. IE6 will still be around by MistrBlank · · Score: 1

    So long as (stupidly) company internal apps require the browser for "compatibility". It's that way where I work, and it's stupid.

  63. Yeah... by Schnoogs · · Score: 0

    but IE as a whole is still more popular. IT would seem that IE users are simply more splintered on what version they use where as FireFox users (god have mercy on them) are more concentrated within one version.

  64. Cello is still cool, right? by elrous0 · · Score: 1

    As the world's last Cello user, I'd just like to point out that at least my browser isn't bloated.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  65. Beg to differ... by PinkyDead · · Score: 1

    First, why does market share make any difference at all? I'm not going to use IE ever and no amount of statistics is going to change that.

    However, when companies and governments provide products and services they will always target the most popular browsers and they will most definitely include the version number, and that will go on the side of the box.

    These figures now mean that I, with my firefox 3.5, will be given the best and earliest consideration when services are provided, followed by those using IE8 - so for instance when I go to buy some thing off a website, my experience will work, while those using IE6 (bless!) will have to suffer (Mwahahahahahaha!!!)

    The total figures are just for fanboys who want to claim Microsoft is better than Linux or vice versa or whatever. Good luck to them, I'd rather have stuff that works.

    --
    Genesis 1:32 And God typed :wq!
  66. search browser, !browser version by archshade · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure changed the statistics box from browser version to browser and IE is still top
    IE8 and IE7 have 20% each according to TFA
    scarier still IE6 has 16%.

    All I think this shows is that Firefox users (which make up 32% of the market are more likely to upgrade to the latest version than IE users (who make up 56% of the market)

    Sorry but it seems to early to be celebrating victory yet.

    PS: How do the compilers of this data cope with people using User Agent Switching.

    --
    Most Damage is done by people who are AWAKE
  67. IE Leads by sc0p3 · · Score: 1

    Realistically IE is still leading - when you add up all the IE and FF versions Microsoft is still at 50% dominance, FF trailing with 32%. Plus once Chrome gets a foothold it will sweep up the ranks (eating up the FF share), it loads in half the time of FF. You can't claim victory until the fat lady sings.

  68. Browser World Map by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://digg.com/software/World_map_of_most_popular_browsers_by_country_Infographic

    Recently I had created this world map showing the most popular browsers by country using the same date.

  69. Tiger Eats Kitty Balls by Mana+Mana · · Score: 1

    So you're saying this is a web bug, and we have a FF plugin for those: Ghostery.

  70. Compare the numbers by Jim+Hall · · Score: 1

    Compare the numbers from North America against Europe. See the difference in Europe? That is what you get when you don't have total monopoly. This is why user choice is good.

    Of course, if you compare the numbers with Asia, you'll also see the effects of piracy. Another reason software piracy is bad for the rest of us, if they're propping up IE. :-)

  71. Mot in my neighborhood. by sglines · · Score: 1

    I took a quick look at the last 500 records in a weblog I manage. Firefox was way down on the list. At the top was MSIE 7.0 with 130 hits followed by MSIE 8 with 88. Firefox 3.01 had 71 hits, Chrom .02 had 54, Safari 4.03 had 39 hits followed, finally by Firefox 3.5.5 with 36 hits. Sorry I look at real data not someones wish-list.

    SG