Slashdot Mirror
Chrome Overtakes Internet Explorer For Most Popular Desktop Browser (thurrott.com)
Google Chrome is now the most widely used desktop browser. According to the latest figures from marketing and research firm Net Applications (which looked into data from over 40,000 websites), in April, Chrome captured 41.66 percent of the market, surpassing Internet Explorer which now sits at 41.35 percent. Brad Sams writes:This growth by Chrome should not be too surprising as Microsoft has left Internet Explorer behind for Edge but unfortunately, the Edge browser available to the vast majority of Windows 10 users is a sub-par experience as it lacks basic features like extensions. This is a big milestone for Google as their browser faced and uphill battle against Internet Explorer when it was introduced back in 2008.Also read: Windows Desktop Market Share Drops Below 90%
Internet Explorer is STILL the most popular browser used to download Chrome so that you can install it! (But Edge is gaining...)
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Firefox is dead.
Seriously, it seems like half of them just exist to do the same thing, and the rest are security holes.
For the few sites that prefer IE, IE Tab completes the deal for me. Occasionally use Firefox but it seems slow in comparison to Chrome. Win7 OS as basis for my observations.
I have enjoyed Chrome since I switched to it. The only time I use IE on a new box is to install Chrome. The sheer difference in speed over IE alone sold me. Pair that with some handy extensions, and I am a happy customer.
I used to be a Netscape user, always had a flare for using non Microsoft Browsers. It's a shame Netscape died the slow, agonizing death it did. RIP Netscape - you failed to keep up with the times and were killed by both a decline in speed and a Microsoft Monopoly.
As for privacy, I figure my data is already going to someone, I may as well enjoy the ride. However I am looking closely at Vilvaldi...
99% of people out there don't understand what they are and they are for, so, unlikely.
The two most important reasons are: firstly, Google loves to peddle its browser whenever possible (they own the largest ad network for that), and, secondly, IE has a reputation of being slow and unreliable.
As for the Edge browser - it is really fast but its fonts rendering on low DPI screens is beyond awful (just like all other UWP apps). Also its UI is way too cumbersome for a lot of people.
At the same time with the advent of Windows 10 Microsoft has stopped caring which browser you actually use - they own your PC and your data.
IE Gots its majority, because it booted and ran faster than Netscape (By cheating by integrating it in the OS)
Firefox got some traction in the mid 00's Due to a bunch of security issues in IE. However Firefox goals of a Small Lightweight quickly become bloated, so IE once again reasserted it dominance.
Google Chrome, Had a bunch of things going for it.
1. It nagged users who used IE to switch.
2. It installed without Admin access
3. It was fast
4. It supported the web standards well.
5. No major security issues.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
This worries me a lot. Google is growing too powerful. They more or less defined the new HTTP/2 protocol. They own the search market. In other words, they determine what can and what cannot be found on the internet. Now, they're on their way to own the browser market. With that, it's easy for them to make changes in how the web works. That, and Googles reason for existence: information. Personal information. If the really want, nothing can be kept secret for them.
It doesn't have to be like this. All we need to do is make sure we keep talking.
the willingness to spend huge amounts on global advertising campaigns,
the sleeziness to pay for installs just like spyware,
plus the ads^H^H^Hnags on google's pages (placements and pageviews that nobody could buy if they wanted to, and google's chrome folks paid nothing), including discontinuing support for browsers (some of which are not or were not actually eol at the time) with an 'install chrome instead' message.
I've generally liked Chrome and have been using it pretty much since it dropped. That being said I use all 3 major browsers and lately have been experiencing more and more sites that just don't work properly in that browser. Given these could all be situations where a particular site is doing something non-standard and Chrome is just dealing with it appropriately but when massive major site after massive major site don't work quite right there I'm guessing the fault lie more on Google than the web devs. I'm also still fairly peeved that the mobile version of the browser is still so heavy weight. Chrome on Android is a resource hog. You would think they could be better citizens on their own OS..
I am still surprised when I connect to some website with Chrome, Firefox, or Safari and basic things do not work. I can't print their document or fill out their form or get some basic thing to work. It spits out some obscure error message or just does nothing. Then I go to the same site with IE and it works fine. This drives me insane.
How about putting non-intrusive ads on the right-half of error pages, such as "page not found" or "network connection not available" pages? (Thanks the unreliability of typical telecoms, the 2nd is quite common.)
I have no problem with that as long as they don't interfere with regular operation, don't hog bandwidth, and it's clear they are ads.
I would suggest they manage any graphical ads through organization servers instead of link to a sponsor's own server, to reduce riff-raff. They'd probably have to cache some ads for the case the network connection is down.
Table-ized A.I.
it's constantly phoning home to the mothership logged in or out. Of course your data tastes better to Google with cookies, so I use Chrome for just Google-related things, logged in or out. I never leave the Googlesphere logged into my Google account.
A friend recently purchased a Google OnHub device and raves about it. Problem is you must have a Google account to connect, giving Google a veritable firehose of your personal data. This bothers me on a number of levels. How long before the correlation starts between companies? How long before Domino's lets Google know how many pizzas you order? How long before Google informs your insurance company about your "discreet" inquiries into odd medical scenarios and perhaps purchases related to these? How long before "off-putting" book titles are fed to government because they appear to be subversive, politically incorrect, whatever?
in April, Chrome captured 41.66 percent of the market, surpassing Internet Explorer which now sits at 41.35 percent.
Net Applications posts disclaimers that its publicly accessible stats lack the QA expected by its paying customers. In other words, they can be a little rough around the edges and the horse race shouldn't be taken too seriously.
I think that listening to its users was the main problem. It ended up including way too many features.
is that they still do not allow adblock on their mobile version.
The absence os Chrome/Chromium in this area is a deal breaker for me, and keeps me on Mozilla's :P
"...it lacks basic features like extensions"
Unlike Chrome, which supports NPAPI?
Just curious on how the vast majority of users (the parents type or the not so savvy type) would care about extensions let alone use them? "sub-par experience as it lacks basic features like extensions" Don't think for them it's a sub-par experience.
Tired of my customary (Score:1)
Windows 10 has promised full support for ssh, not just a client but a server as well. I am sure there is going to be support for ftp might even support wget. Even if there is not, Google will find a way to use ssh to install chrome painlessly without going through IE or Edge.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
The biggest flaw of both IE and Edge is that they are slow as fuck once you have a few tabs.
Extensions .. would likely just make them even slower (well - except for ads maybe.)
I run one pretty typical website (i.e. not named chromeuserslove.com). Where I don't see a whole lot of IE.
Personally I see IE as the new AOL. It kind of tells you that you are dealing with a rank amateur.
I have no idea why you're praising "Aurora" as somehow better than "Firefox", when it is simply a rolling alpha test version of what will BE Firefox in 2 releases (12 weeks). Firefox Developer Edition, which is what the Aurora channel of Firefox is called for Windows, Mac, Linux, has the same dumbed-down UI, the same Pocket and Hello RTC, as Firefox. You still need Classic Theme Restorer and/or Status-4-Evar to make it a sensible and full-featured UI. I normally install both extensions.
If you are a developer, some of the dev tools are nice. The responsive view simulator is great. But otherwise it's the same damn thing, or what will be the same damn thing in a couple or so months.
The only real benefit otherwise is that you can still install unsigned extensions, if you set the proper about:config flag.
Yes, the manual or automatic updates are nice, but basically the same as Firefox release and beta, except daily. For Firefox Mobile Aurora, it is convenient that it's a non-appstore direct install and update. I had one old tablet that never supported Chrome decently and official Google Play Firefox Release and Beta refused to show as compatible. Installing Aurora manually both worked fine and kept it getting browser updates. But that's an edge case.
I do have Firefox Developer Edition installed and in use as my browser default on both of all my Windows and Linux systems. But that's because I do use some of the dev tools and a couple of unsigned extensions. Not because it's somehow better.
Posted from Mobile Firefox Aurora.
... that this happened a couple of years back. Someone want to straighten me out? :)
I'll bet there are still people using AOL too!