Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Browser Usage Drops 50% As Chrome Soars (networkworld.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the living-off-the-Edge dept.

An anonymous reader quotes Network World's report about new statistics from analytics vendor Net Applications: From March 2015 to February 2017, the use of Microsoft's IE and Edge on Windows personal computers plummeted. Two years ago, the browsers were run by 62% of Windows PC owners; last month, the figure had fallen by more than half, to just 27%. Simultaneous with the decline of IE has been the rise of Chrome. The user share of Google's browser -- its share of all browsers on all operating systems -- more than doubled in the last two years, jumping from 25% in March 2015 to 59.5% last month. Along the way, Chrome supplanted IE to become the world's most-used browser...

In the last 24 months, Mozilla's Firefox -- the other major browser alternative to Chrome for macOS users -- has barely budged, losing just two-tenths of a percentage point in user share. [And] in March 2015, an estimated 69% of all Mac owners used Safari to go online. But by last month, that number had dropped to 56%, a drop of 13 percentage points -- representing a decline of nearly a fifth of the share of two years prior.

125 of 205 comments (clear)

  1. In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    27% of microsoft users don't know how to install a program. Err sorry I mean app appiity app.

    1. Re:In other news... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      27% of microsoft users don't know how to install a program.

      Yes, it is true that people that use their system's default browser tend to be dumb. These people are statistically poorly performing employees, and some companies avoid hiring them. So even if you use MSIE or Edge as your browser, you should use something else when submitting your resume.

    2. Re:In other news... by justthinkit · · Score: 1

      Some articles don't know how to have tables that represent, in one place, the marketshare for each browser.

      --
      I come here for the love
    3. Re: In other news... by thebullshitpatrol · · Score: 1

      >fringe cases mean that we should completely discard obvious correlations

      This is a really obnoxious train of thought. Any time you say something like "people who use 3rd-party software tend to be more capable computer users" you are guaranteed to have someone come along and say something retarded.

      You realize that your anecdotal evidence is completely irrelevant, right? If I was at a roulette table and wanted to put money on which computer users knew what they were doing, you can be assured that my money is going on arch linux and icecat. I use mac and google chrome, yet somehow I don't feel the compulsion to try to prove numbers wrong.

    4. Re:In other news... by loranger · · Score: 1

      I have always sent out my CV as plain ASCII text. That way anybody can view it on anything, anywhere and it will always look the same. I have had a few clueless HR people contact me asking for a Microsoft Word format file, but I turn them down saying I'm looking for a tech job, not a clerical job.

      I have always sent my CV as plain paper. That way anybody can view it on anything, anywhere and it will always look the same. I have had a few clueless IT people contact me asking for a digital version, but I turn them down saying I'm looking for a real job, not a bullshit job.

    5. Re: In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I send my cv implemented as a SoC

    6. Re:In other news... by Wootery · · Score: 1

      I have had a few clueless IT people contact me asking for a digital version, but I turn them down saying I'm looking for a real job, not a bullshit job.

      That sounds unduly dismissive. You don't want a technically competent boss who favours digital CVs?

      If they ask for a .docx file rather than a PDF, then you should worry.

    7. Re:In other news... by rainmouse · · Score: 1

      Yes, it is true that people that use their system's default browser tend to be dumb. These people are statistically poorly performing employees, and some companies avoid hiring them. So even if you use MSIE or Edge as your browser, you should use something else when submitting your resume.

      Fascinating. Sounds exactly like the kind of positive reinforcement I would love to believe.

      "A study of 20,000 workers showed that more honest people tend to perform better and stay at the job longer. For some reason, however, they make less effective salespeople."

      So where is the study? Who did it? Was it the author with ants?

    8. Re:In other news... by alex67500 · · Score: 1

      27% of microsoft users don't know how to install a program.

      Yes, it is true that people that use their system's default browser tend to be dumb. These people are statistically poorly performing employees, and some companies avoid hiring them. So even if you use MSIE or Edge as your browser, you should use something else when submitting your resume.

      Same goes when a guy's email address is @hotmail.com :)

    9. Re:In other news... by s_p_oneil · · Score: 1

      I suspect most of those already gave up on Windows completely in favor of smart-phones, tablets, or if they really want to be able to type on an actual keyboard, Chromebooks. I suspect most of this 27% are employees whose IT staff won't let them use anything but IE.

    10. Re:In other news... by s_p_oneil · · Score: 1

      "For instance, people who fill out online job applications using browsers that did not come with the computer (such as Microsoft’s Internet Explorer on a Windows PC) but had to be deliberately installed (like Firefox or Google’s Chrome) perform better and change jobs less often."

      That's actually really funny. It makes you wonder what the big data correlations would show for people submitting online applications from iPhone/iPad browsers. On Windows it seems pretty stupid if you don't install a different browser, but on iPhone/iPad it seems pretty stupid if you do. Then again, depending on what angle you're looking at it from, it could be seen as pretty stupid to be using either Microsoft or Apple products (and Android is both better and worse).

    11. Re:In other news... by unixisc · · Score: 2

      27% of microsoft users don't know how to install a program. Err sorry I mean app appiity app.

      Pretty irrelevant as far as this story goes, since both IE and Edge are pre-installed on every Windows that comes, and AFAIK, they are impossible to remove

    12. Re:In other news... by Wootery · · Score: 1

      Non-answer. Scanning a heap of CVs would take some time.

      And no, I don't buy it. Not if it's being filtered by a secretary working to inflexible criteria.

    13. Re: In other news... by senatorpjt · · Score: 1

      I always send them a word file that contains a picture of my resume.

    14. Re:In other news... by Shirley+Marquez · · Score: 1

      At tech companies it is not uncommon to simply not accept paper CVs. They are thrown away unread. It's digital or nothing.

  2. Anti-Trust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Maybe it's time for DOJ to start taking a closer look at Google. They're using their browser quasi-monopoly to push a lot of other products and services.

    1. Re:Anti-Trust by Raenex · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually, they used their quasi-monopoly on search to push their browser. Anytime you visit Google with a non-Chrome browser it tries to push Chrome on you.

    2. Re:Anti-Trust by jellomizer · · Score: 3, Informative

      Perhaps in the future but unlike Microsoft who's goal was to make the web MS only. Google just want to push the standards so they can advertise more. They are not actively trying to stop Firefox users or even I.E. users from using their services. It is just that chime better support the standards and is fast.

      If you are old enough to remember the browser wars. Both Netscape and I.E. were putting in browser specific features. Netscape was using layers while I.E. pushed CSS. Also Active X which risked security over speed because it made the browser a window frame for their own application.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    3. Re:Anti-Trust by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 4, Informative

      You do realise that what you described from the bad old days is almost exactly what Google have been doing with Chrome for some time? The modern Google playbook seems to include custom protocols, supporting perma-beta or "living" standards that are implemented a certain way in Chrome but not actually supported or implemented quite the same way elsewhere, and dropping support for older but widely used functionality. How is this not like Microsoft's playbook from the end of the first big browser war?

      This comment is best viewed in Chrome with a bland, flat design (because there are so may bugs in our rendering that "advanced" CSS like gradients, shadows and rounded corners will break if you look at them the wrong way and they'll break differently in six weeks' time even if you work around the current issues).

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    4. Re:Anti-Trust by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      Anytime you visit Google with a non-Chrome browser it tries to push Chrome on you.

      You prompted me to try it, went to Google's home page (with Firefox 45.7.0). What you claim did not happen. Sorry.

    5. Re:Anti-Trust by Raenex · · Score: 1

      Maybe they stopped, and I got confused with it's annoying prompt to make Google my default search page in IE when I go to google.com. They absolutely used to do push Chrome, a lot, when it first came out.

    6. Re:Anti-Trust by David_Hart · · Score: 1

      Anytime you visit Google with a non-Chrome browser it tries to push Chrome on you.

      You prompted me to try it, went to Google's home page (with Firefox 45.7.0). What you claim did not happen. Sorry.

      I haven't seen this either on Google's homepage in a while. However, you do get prompted to install Chrome as part of many download installers. At least many have switched the bundled installer to using a legitimate program over malware and spyware.

    7. Re:Anti-Trust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No it still happens - I just saw it today (in MS Edge, which I have configured to not remember history or cookies). Not just on Google search but News too. However a browser cookie will remember your dismissal of the prompt. I would suggest trying it again in an Incognito/inPrivate/Whatever-Firefox-calls-it window.

    8. Re: Anti-Trust by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      You're moving the goalposts by insisting on only Chrome and no other browser. That isn't what I said, and I'm not playing that game. But for things that worked in Chrome and not several other major browsers, you need look no further than some of Google's own properties.

      A typical example is that basic page layout in Google Analytics was totally broken on iOS Safari (and therefore any other iOS browser as well) for years, and still was the last time I checked.

      Another is Google Docs. For months, I was attending meetings with a variety of people bringing a variety of laptops, and the clients preferred to track everything in shared documents/spreadsheets that could be displayed on a projector during discussions. We never had a single meeting where it worked for everyone there, not once. Always at least one non-Google browser would be totally broken, it just changed which one from time to time. But Chrome always worked.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    9. Re: Anti-Trust by WarJolt · · Score: 1

      Quasi-Monopoly? Bing and Yahoo would disagree with you, but I get your point.

    10. Re:Anti-Trust by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Actually, they used their quasi-monopoly on search to push their browser. Anytime you visit Google with a non-Chrome browser it tries to push Chrome on you.

      The epitome of fake news - good work.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    11. Re:Anti-Trust by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      How does that analogy make me "incorrect for the most part"?

      True or false:

      (1) Google/Chrome have pushed new protocols as replacements for established standards (e.g., SPDY to replace HTTP).

      (2) Google/Chrome frequently implement bleeding edge "standards" in ways that don't work in many/any other browsers/engines (e.g., numerous posts on sites like Codrops illustrating new effects that actually only work in Chrome because they rely on non-standard features).

      (3) Google/Chrome have dropped support for older functionality, only to replace it with new tools to do the same things (e.g., basically any popular plugin now).

      (4) Google/Chrome produce a browser that in principle supports lots of new CSS features but in practice has numerous rendering bugs if you deviate from the most basic use cases (e.g., radial gradients that are mostly unusable due to banding/pixellation issues).

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    12. Re: Anti-Trust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Having a browser monopoly is how we got into this mess to begin with.

    13. Re:Anti-Trust by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      And I honestly hope they make everyone use chrome, the alternative is so shit as a web developer..

      You could say the same thing as a Macromedia Flash developer.

    14. Re:Anti-Trust by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      If you are old enough to remember the browser wars. Both Netscape and I.E. were putting in browser specific features. Netscape was using layers while I.E. pushed CSS. Also Active X which risked security over speed because it made the browser a window frame for their own application.

      Netscape started out loudly wanting to replace all other platforms with their web technology. They gave away their browser, which contained proprietary tags, and produced proprietary server technology that their browser could take advantage of.

      This doesn't excuse in any form what Microsoft did in response, but Netscape intended to do the same thing that Microsoft did in reaction to their moves.

      Netscape, one must remember, was formed out of the move of driving the Mosaic browser technology, which was publicly funded, to a proprietary platform.

    15. Re: Anti-Trust by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      Quasi means not.

    16. Re:Anti-Trust by Raenex · · Score: 3, Informative

      You prompted me to try it, went to Google's home page (with Firefox 45.7.0). What you claim did not happen. Sorry.

      Ok, I read the other comments, and verified that Google search still pushes Chrome. It just remembers if you say no (or it won't ask if you already have it). My link is to a screenshot of a private IE session (no saved cookies). There's a prompt in the upper-right that says, "Google works better with Chrome. Try it?" And two buttons: "NO THANKS" and "YES, GET CHROME".

    17. Re:Anti-Trust by Raenex · · Score: 1

      Still happens, but it remembers if you decline or it won't prompt if Chrome is already installed, I believe.

    18. Re:Anti-Trust by Raenex · · Score: 1

      The epitome of fake news - good work.

      Just took a screenshot of a private session without cookies. It just remembers if you decline.

    19. Re:Anti-Trust by loranger · · Score: 1

      Actually, they used their quasi-monopoly on search to push their browser. Anytime you visit Google with a non-Chrome browser it tries to push Chrome on you.

      It's a two-way process: they use their search engine to promote their browser, and they use their browser to promote their search engine. Welcome to the wonderful world of monopoly.

    20. Re:Anti-Trust by micheas · · Score: 1

      How does that analogy make me "incorrect for the most part"?

      True or false:

      (1) Google/Chrome have pushed new protocols as replacements for established standards (e.g., SPDY to replace HTTP).

      (2) Google/Chrome frequently implement bleeding edge "standards" in ways that don't work in many/any other browsers/engines (e.g., numerous posts on sites like Codrops illustrating new effects that actually only work in Chrome because they rely on non-standard features).

      (3) Google/Chrome have dropped support for older functionality, only to replace it with new tools to do the same things (e.g., basically any popular plugin now).

      (4) Google/Chrome produce a browser that in principle supports lots of new CSS features but in practice has numerous rendering bugs if you deviate from the most basic use cases (e.g., radial gradients that are mostly unusable due to banding/pixellation issues).

      1. SPDY was implemented in firefox as well and became the basis of HTTP2, which most web browsers support. True, but they pushed a new open standard that didn't lock you in
      2. -ie-, -o-, -webkit-, and -moz- are all not supposed to be used, but because they are there, and because we have css preprocessors, many of them are used. The problem is that not only do people use -webkit- css extensions they sometimes don't bother with anything but the -webkit- extension. (which will be a problem when google drops support of the -webkit- extension they were using because it is officially unsupported beta functionality.True, but it is currently the standard practice of all browsers, and there is a movement to kill this off
      3. Flash and java applets were/are .... Well, let's just say I'm happy that they are dying.True, thankfully
      4. That's more or less true for all modern browsers. It's one of the reasons frontend developers make so much, and are so hard to find.True, But, that is the same for all browsers.
      --
      Work bio at MMWD
    21. Re:Anti-Trust by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Today when using Chrome (I usually use Firefox) Google's search page suggested that I should make Chrome my default browser. I said no. Next time I went to Google's search page it suggested I should make Google my home page. Color me annoyed, and color Google evil.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    22. Re:Anti-Trust by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Maybe it's time for DOJ to start taking a closer look at Google. They're using their browser quasi-monopoly to push a lot of other products and services.

      What's the quasi monopoly? On my laptop, I have Chrome, IE, Edge, Firefox and Pale Moon. And there is Opera as well. And Safari, if one is talking about Macs or iOS. If you're thinking about phones or tablets, there are plenty of other browsers for those as well.

    23. Re:Anti-Trust by Neuroelectronic · · Score: 1

      Give back your six digits.

    24. Re:Anti-Trust by tbannist · · Score: 1

      Is that Internet Explorer or Edge in your screenshot? Because I just did the same thing with a private session without cookies on Firefox and did not see the prompt. Maybe, if you're using Internet Explorer or Edge, it really does work better with Chrome?

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    25. Re:Anti-Trust by norweeg · · Score: 1

      because that's totally not fair when microsoft pushes Edge ads to you if you have chrome installed? http://www.pcworld.com/article...

    26. Re:Anti-Trust by samwichse · · Score: 1

      Just verified in Firefox with a private browsing session.

      It pops up a corner thing asking if I want to make the default search google.com. Nothing about changing my browser.

    27. Re:Anti-Trust by A+Friendly+Troll · · Score: 1

      Ok, I read the other comments, and verified [image.ibb.co] that Google search still pushes Chrome. It just remembers if you say no (or it won't ask if you already have it).

      Unfortunately, it does not remember forever. Just for a short period of time. Then it will spam you again to get Chrome, and it does that SEPARATELY on every Google site. Gmail, Maps, I even saw it on YouTube once.

  3. The Botnet Rises by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    We need a Bane of the browser world. Someone who will crash the web with no survivors!
    I'm sure the GNOME developers are up for the challenge.

  4. Vendors no longer require IE by mprindle · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In years past to use some web based software supplied by vendor you HAD to use IE or it wouldn't work. It's more and more that vendors are not requiring IE and have gone one additional step. They now recommend a different browser like Chrome or FireFox. I have run across a few packages that almost refuse to render correctly in IE.

    1. Re:Vendors no longer require IE by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 5, Interesting

      In years past to use some web based software supplied by vendor you HAD to use IE or it wouldn't work.

      Since Google chose to split their code base off from WebKit, my fear is we'll start seeing this with Chrome if it becomes too ubiquitous.

      I understand that the stated reason for doing this was to drive development of web standards forward... but, back in the day, Microsoft used similar language. It's not like anyone ever says "we're doing everything we can to force you to remain within our control".

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    2. Re:Vendors no longer require IE by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      In years past to use some web based software supplied by vendor you HAD to use IE or it wouldn't work.

      If you use Selenium, you HAVE to use Firefox, or it won't work. So I use Chrome for browsing and Firefox for web-scripting.

    3. Re:Vendors no longer require IE by WinstonWolfIT · · Score: 1

      Um, I've used Selenium on multiple projects across the main three browsers. Yes, FF is built in, but that shouldn't significantly slow you down.

    4. Re:Vendors no longer require IE by nukenerd · · Score: 2

      In years past to use some web based software supplied by vendor you HAD to use IE or it wouldn't work.

      Or the website nagged you to use IE, even though it worked fine in other browsers. Back then, to get the website to STFU, non-IE users arranged spoofing to make the website think they were using IE even though they were not.

    5. Re:Vendors no longer require IE by Octorian · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In years past to use some web based software supplied by vendor you HAD to use IE or it wouldn't work.

      Since Google chose to split their code base off from WebKit, my fear is we'll start seeing this with Chrome if it becomes too ubiquitous.

      I'm pretty sure its already happening. Chrome is basically becoming the new MSIE. I see plenty of "internal" stuff that doesn't work well in Firefox, and there's a common attitude of looking at you funny for not using Chrome when you complain. I also see plenty of "check out our newly refreshed site design!" that's an unusably broken or sluggish POS if you're not using Chrome.

    6. Re:Vendors no longer require IE by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      In years past to use some web based software supplied by vendor you HAD to use IE or it wouldn't work.

      Or the website nagged you to use IE, even though it worked fine in other browsers. Back then, to get the website to STFU, non-IE users arranged spoofing to make the website think they were using IE even though they were not.

      Working in a big corporation I have noticed that there internal websites put up by more or less non technical departments. These are the ones that always come with arbitrary browser incompatibility problem. I can point to the main employee web page (the sort with the 'ra-ra aren't we great' articles and the links to things like the travel and paystub portals) which as of one week ago just returned "[this website] is incompatible with Chrome version 56 please use a different browser. ".

      All the web sites from technical parts of the organization (that's most of them) have no problem whatsoever.

      My best guess is that the natural tendency of a techy person faced with putting up a web site is to go and fetch one of the many cross platform frameworks that let you use one codebase across all browsers. The tendency of a non techy is to go to some vendor, usually Microsoft and look for something to make it easy to create webpages that integrate with the data they have in their Excel spreadsheets. This results in generated code that uses every quirk of the vendor's browser.

      This isn't a good situation.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    7. Re:Vendors no longer require IE by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      Since Google chose to split their code base off from WebKit, my fear is we'll start seeing this with Chrome if it becomes too ubiquitous.

      I understand that the stated reason for doing this was to drive development of web standards forward... but, back in the day, Microsoft used similar language. It's not like anyone ever says "we're doing everything we can to force you to remain within our control".

      Thankfully though, even though Chrome forked WebKit, there's still active development on both and I'm sure neither Google nor Apple will want Blink and Webkit to diverge too much from each other. And while there's no major WebKit browser on desktop anymore (except on Macs, but that's decreasing), WebKit is still huge on mobile.

      The real problem is for Trident and Gecko to keep up.

    8. Re:Vendors no longer require IE by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The problem was that WebKit wanted to keep a lot of old hacks around, and Google wanted to deprecate them. All the vendor prefix stuff, for example. Google ripped out a lot of compatibility code and support for old crap that was preventing them from improving the browser's sandbox.

      It's not so much Blink that is the problem, it's that Chrome and Google Search are so dominant. Blink is still open source (BSD/GPL). What gives Google the power to force issues is that if they change their search algo to downgrade sites using certain tech, and then disable it in Chrome, everyone has to fix their sites or become unviewable to the majority of desktop and mobile users.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  5. Edge is a disgrace by geek · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Since MS replaced IE with Edge and Edge isn't even remotely feature complete, buggy and extremely crash prone, it's no wonder people are rushing to alternatives.

    Firefox has all but given up trying to improve. That leaves Chrome and a plethora of browsers that use the Chrome rendering engine. We're going to see a one browser internet here pretty soon.

    1. Re:Edge is a disgrace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      > Firefox has all but given up trying to improve.

      IDK, Firefox usage share hasn't budged an inch in the last two years and they've been making a lot of big changes. Going to 64 bit, moving to multi-process, consolidating the platforms for add-ons. And those are only a few of the changes they have been working on recently. People complain about how many sweeping changes Firefox is making, so how can you say they've given up?

    2. Re:Edge is a disgrace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I love the "alt facts." Firefox has never caused me a hint of trouble on my computers unlike Chrome that eats up ALL available memory and slows things down to a crawl. Firefox IS improving. Some people just prefer to let ignorance rule their life view.

    3. Re: Edge is a disgrace by corychristison · · Score: 1

      MS Edge at least mostly complies with web standards. That's what matters to me.

      So many less issues with projects rendering or behaving differently and having to include kludge code just to keep the clients/users happy.

      With that said I still nearly exclusively use Firefox and occasionally Chromium for development testing. I also use Linux so many other browsers are not possible to use, and the others I just don't trust.

    4. Re: Edge is a disgrace by BlytheBowman · · Score: 1

      I use the Dragon browser (based on Firefox) on my low end Windows 10 pc as Firefox proper has a nasty habbit of locking that computer tight for upwards of a couple minutes as I am trying to use it. Edge isn't really any better. Using Dragon solved this problem

    5. Re:Edge is a disgrace by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      I stuck with Firefox for a long, long time. But the Mac version of Firefox has all the problems you ascribe to Chrome - if you don't restart it every few hours, it eats up memory and eventually brings the machine to a crawl. Since web development tools are available for all the major browsers nowadays, I eventually switched to Safari. I keep Chrome around for those few sites that still require Flash; and Firefox has been relegated to testing duty (meaning I only use it when an end user reports a problem on Firefox).

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    6. Re:Edge is a disgrace by ArchieBunker · · Score: 2

      I gave up on Firefox when they became Chrome Jr. and added a voice chat feature. Nobody asked for any of that.

      --
      Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    7. Re:Edge is a disgrace by TodPunk · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      I can say that while Firefox people definitely haven't "given up," they keep killing every feature people love, and bringing in features that their core demographic doesn't care about. 64-bit doesn't matter, it has to be installed differently and my mother isn't going to figure out how or which version she's launching. Multi-process? For what? Javascript apps are still going to run in a single thread, and background tabs are still going to be slowed to a crawl. If they don't, nobody will notice anyway.

      The add-on story is far worse. They keep threatening to get rid of extensions and only support X or Y type (is XUL still being pushed? I haven't checked lately). There's so many uncertainties there.

      What I'm saying is, I love Firefox as a piece of tech, but they keep abandoning their community in the pursuit of some ideal that none of their users care about. My favorite example of this? There is a bug in Firefox where if you disable a button in Javascript for whatever reason, and then refresh the page, that button will remain disabled because it's "preserving the form state" even if the HTML clearly defines it should start enabled (like form validation or something, it doesn't matter, really). This is /only/ in Firefox, and the devs won't accept a fix patch or fix it themselves, because "it would be a bad user experience." The user can't disable or enable a button without using Javascript anyway, and that's not a user at that point. Logically, without any opinion on what should be done, none of this behavior should exist, but it was added by design from the core devs.

      That is not the only example, but it is a distilled version of their attitude towards users and devs. Their story is the only reality. It is as this point that any project ultimately loses all but the die-hard fans. Lots of historical precedence on that one.

      https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/s... It's 6 years old, the Bootstrap team started weighing in 3 years ago. This is why people might believe they have "given up." An incorrect wording in my opinion, but the sentiment is accurate and measurable in their written communications.

      --
      This forum Sig is licensed under the LGPL.
    8. Re:Edge is a disgrace by jon3k · · Score: 4, Informative

      Firefox has all but given up trying to improve.

      You really don't know what you're talking about.

    9. Re:Edge is a disgrace by reboot246 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It still does. Right now Firefox is using "only" a half a gigabyte of memory, but if I don't restart it within a few hours, it will go to 1 GB, then 1.5 GB, then 2 GB. The machine starts slowing down and it's time to restart Firefox.

      I actually use several different browsers depending on what I'm doing online. For example, one is secured down tight for doing banking and buying online, another one is for shopping (but not buying) online (because it's faster), another one is for news and weather (without ads), etc.

    10. Re:Edge is a disgrace by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

      Firefox has never caused me a hint of trouble on my computers unlike Chrome that eats up ALL available memory and slows things down to a crawl.

      Just wait a bit and Mozilla will copy it and put it in Firefox. ;)

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    11. Re:Edge is a disgrace by sumdumass · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Firefox's problem is that they do not listen to actual users and their social agenda which many find distrusting (the entire Brendan Eich thing and the SJW rules in rust code of conduct).

      I somewhat stopped evangelizing it a bit earlier when it became bloaty and started straying from the light and fast browser it used to be. Chrome filled the gap nicely and I became use to it from various android devices so I didn't need to relearn or re-familiarize myself with the layout every other release. Right now, I will use either, but if asked, I recommend Chrome over Firefox because of it's default on other devices and I know the agenda with google (you are the product not consumer).

    12. Re:Edge is a disgrace by Rufty · · Score: 2

      I can use Firefox for hours before I have to kill it to free memory. I can use Chrome for weeks before I have to kill it to free memory.

      --
      Red to red, black to black. Switch it on, but stand well back.
    13. Re:Edge is a disgrace by Trogre · · Score: 2

      Don't forget tracking protection. That was a pretty big deal.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    14. Re:Edge is a disgrace by Trongy · · Score: 2

      I wasn't impressed by Mozilla adding the voice chat myself.

      However, they must have got the message, because Firefox removed the voice chat feature a couple of releases ago.

    15. Re:Edge is a disgrace by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      At this moment is does not really matter what FireFox or Chrome or Opera or what anyone else does. What is killing M$, 'Windows Watching You Masturbate', is decimating M$ across all platforms they do not have an application and data lock on. Nothing more than that. People can pretend otherwise but the subconscious is a powerful motivator. So they sit back to enjoy a hormonal adjustment and part way through, that through creeps in, corporate douches are monitoring me and Windows Is Watching and that is a mood killer for many, especially with mounted cameras and microphones which M$ did very publicly hack.

      So next time you are browsing certain websites, just remember power tripping perves at M$ and 'Windows Watching You Masturbate' and just try to have fun. Although it is a routine subject of denial, it is by far the most active sexual practice and M$ is spying on it, storing data about it and collating that data, whether you want to admit it or not and it is an extremely perverted activity to engage in, not the hormonal adjustment but the spying, it is sick and should be actively banned and those who continue to abuse privacy should be subject to custodial sentences.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    16. Re:Edge is a disgrace by MinaInerz · · Score: 1

      Firefox should not continue to grow in memory usage like that, especially the e10s builds. My guess is that you have a bad browser extension; I've never seen that with a clean Firefox profile.

    17. Re:Edge is a disgrace by TodPunk · · Score: 1

      You know they can measure a lot of this stuff, right? Firefox's core demographics are mostly enthusiasts and people that use firefox as a tool to work without caring how it works underneath, they only know it does what they need. Mozilla has even stated this. https://blog.mozilla.org/ux/20...

      Firefox change in attitude as their market share grew has affected their market share, and you can see the trends and map them to feature changes:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Note how about 2010, give or take a bit depending on demographics, they peaked (different trackers attract different users, so slight variance). What changed about then? What was their attitudes in mailing lists and their bug trackers about then? What kind of press were they getting? From whom? These are all the insights we have on them, and their users we only get a subset of opinions on. We can still draw some interesting conclusions about it that are testable against the rest of the dataset.

      You can think whatever you want about me and my ego, cool, I support you in whatever you're going for there. But I'd prefer you pointed out how the data is wrong instead of trying to make it about my character somehow, because the data is all that matters to figuring out what's happening here. If my assessment needs adjusting, I'm happy to hear it. If all you've got is a theory about my projecting or something, we should probably move on. I know my bias. Doesn't change the data.

      --
      This forum Sig is licensed under the LGPL.
    18. Re:Edge is a disgrace by Motherfucking+Shit · · Score: 1

      It's weird how it varies from one system to another. What you describe is how Chrome behaves on my machine, and Firefox doesn't do this at all.

      Firefox will start up two processes, one using around 100MB and one using around 200MB, but it won't grow too much from there. Half a gig (one process at 200MB, one at 300MB) is about where it caps out even after I've been browsing for a few hours and visited hundreds of tabs. I don't keep those tabs open, my workflow sees me with maybe half a dozen tabs open at any time. Earlier today I had a tab open watching the Nascar race, which was streaming HD video for 4 straight hours, that was contained to a "FlashPlayerPlugin.exe" process that used around 100MB itself. So after 5 or 6 hours of browsing plus streaming HD video, Firefox (plus its Flash thread) still weighed less than 1GB.

      Chrome on the other hand will start up 8 different processes using around 60MB each, so it's at half a gig out of the gate, without even viewing a web page. After an hour of routine browsing, it's sucking up several gigs of RAM and I have to restart it. If I try watching video in Chrome, it'll go through the roof (8 GB isn't unheard of), and worse, that RAM doesn't get freed when I close the video. It feels like Chrome has a bad memory leak somewhere; once it allocates some RAM, it's not giving it back until you kill the process.

      --
      "BSD: Free as in speech. Linux: Free as in beer. Windows 10: Free as in herpes." --Man On Pink Corner in #52607549.
    19. Re:Edge is a disgrace by antdude · · Score: 1

      Too bad people don't know that they can still run old IE11. I don't understand why MS can't improve its Edge. :(

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    20. Re: Edge is a disgrace by corychristison · · Score: 1

      Use a sane OS and that shouldn't be a problem.

    21. Re:Edge is a disgrace by Octorian · · Score: 1

      Firefox on Linux seems to get progressively more sluggish the longer its been running, and occasionally has unusably sluggish performance on some recently redesigned forum sites. Yet somehow, I never see any performance problems with Firefox on Windows.

      I don't pay attention to RAM consumption too often, but maybe that's just because I've got a few too many gobs of it these days.

    22. Re:Edge is a disgrace by Waccoon · · Score: 2

      They've given up listening to community feedback, which effectively is the same as giving up on improvement.

      The Australis UI was a change, but not an improvement. Forced extension signing. Breaking multitudes of extensions with the multiprocessing updates, and soon they'll be replacing the existing extension framework entirely in favor of something Chrome-like -- that nobody actually wants and developers are livid about. Plugins are going away but Flash will be built-in, just like with Chrome. Memory usage and cycle-collect freezes haven't been addressed in 10 years. "Brand Experience." Have you heard about Lightspeed, the browser redesign that's not official (supposedly) but likely in the works anyway?

      Yeah, there's sweeping changes happening. What difference does that make if the community doesn't want them and Mozilla tells people to STFU and deal with it?

    23. Re: Edge is a disgrace by zaphirplane · · Score: 1

      Perhaps occam's razor lands on a 600 billion dollar company can out strip a smaller company. Also your correlation isn't valid because
      a) it's self validating -- this happened when they changed their attitude, something unmeasurable
      B) what was google and MS where doing at the time, that could be the cause
      C) their actions could be an attempt to stem or boast their market share, in response to competition, and not the actions caused the lost of market share

      That's just logic, you could be right but I wouldn't call your "proof" a correlation

    24. Re: Edge is a disgrace by zaphirplane · · Score: 1

      Oh how many times does the try without extensions and a new profile be expressed for it to be done. Fine it's bad that your 10/15 years of extension install uninstall, tweets and upgrade degrades your performance, but not that unreasonable either

    25. Re: Edge is a disgrace by zaphirplane · · Score: 1

      And then bought pocket to make sure you are happy

    26. Re:Edge is a disgrace by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Firefox has all but given up trying to improve.

      Disagree. Firefox has gotten noticeably faster recently.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    27. Re:Edge is a disgrace by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Right. Chrome can only handle a fraction of the tabs that Firefox can, and I use lots of tabs so Chrome doesn't work for me. Plus, it likes to reload every tab on start, that is a deal breaker.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    28. Re:Edge is a disgrace by Drethon · · Score: 1

      Not to mention it seems like any Windows app takes forever just to load.

    29. Re:Edge is a disgrace by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Since MS replaced IE with Edge and Edge isn't even remotely feature complete, buggy and extremely crash prone, it's no wonder people are rushing to alternatives.

      Firefox has all but given up trying to improve. That leaves Chrome and a plethora of browsers that use the Chrome rendering engine. We're going to see a one browser internet here pretty soon.

      On Windows, I use PaleMoon. On iOS, Safari. On Android, Chrome. There is Opera as well. How are we getting to a monopoly?

    30. Re:Edge is a disgrace by MatthiasF · · Score: 1

      I have never had this issue. Willing to bet you are leaving script-hungry webpages open that are causing memory issues. Most of them are probably trackers. Install Ublock and Ghostery, and maybe self-destructing cookies too. Then see how the memory works out.

    31. Re:Edge is a disgrace by iampiti · · Score: 1

      Personally, I'm still on Firefox because it's still for me the best browser not because I like their changes of the last few versions.
      I'm glad it hasn't affected their marketshare much because having Firefox is good for diversity and for the web ecosystem (if anything to prevent Chrome from becoming the next IE). But they aren't done with the disruptive changes: Some time this year (I think it was in version 57) the old style add ons/extensions will cease to work and with them it'll dissapear one of the most important reasons for running Firefox. That could really affect the marketshare.

    32. Re:Edge is a disgrace by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      so how can you say they've given up?

      He didn't say they gave up working. He said they gave up trying to improve.

      You said it yourself, people are complaining about the sweeping changes. They aren't improvements. In many ways very little of the work Mozilla has done in the past 2 years has been things the users have wanted.

  6. Safari sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Mac users need to stop using that deficient POS. It doesn't render modern styles properly. But what's worse is that there is no way to perform any compatibility tests because Apple has long stopped making a version of Safari available to users of competing operating systems. Don't use Safari.

    1. Re:Safari sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Don't use Safari.

      No. I will exclusively use safari.

    2. Re:Safari sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So? You don't think that's a problem? Apple Safari is the only major browser which can't be tested without buying something from Apple.

      WHAAAAA!!!!!!! WHAAAA!!!!!!! I'm an incompetent web developer cry baby.

  7. Edge for battery power by adjustinthings · · Score: 1

    I fire up Edge when I'm on battery power on my laptop. It definitely gets better battery life. I wouldnt use it for day to day though.

    1. Re:Edge for battery power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      /rolls eyes

      Yea, okay, because websites are *totally* what's using all your battery and not the display brightness and flash/video plugins.

    2. Re:Edge for battery power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This is pretty common knowledge. Chrome absolutely sucks on laptops. Display brightness is almost always auto managed, and flash is rarely used these days.

      So, keep rolling your eyes.

  8. Re:What's clear from this is by ledow · · Score: 1

    Then use Chromium.

    Honestly, does Chrome do anything particularly different (when not signed into a Google account)? It would take about ten minutes to discover, I imagine, with a copy of Wireshark.

    But there are plenty of Chrome-based browsers that have had their code looked at, even things like Vivaldi. I can't imagine they're doing anything any worse than Microsoft are with IE / Edge.

  9. Firefox is going to lose another point by AndyKron · · Score: 1

    Firefox is going to lose another point if it doesn't stop fucking up on me.

  10. I don't think they replaced it by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    IE is still there and as far as I can tell still the default in Win10. If I go to start in my Win10 install and type 'browser' it gives me IE.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:I don't think they replaced it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The default on a clean Windows 10 install is Edge unless you change or (or your IT department changes it).

    2. Re:I don't think they replaced it by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1

      And switching to Chrome gets rid of Bing

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    3. Re:I don't think they replaced it by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Unless you have Windows 10 Bing Edition, where any browser will be reset w/ Bing as the search engine

  11. Interesting side note by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I decided to RTFA. The article is actually about the 13% decline in Safari's user share on Mac - the IE/Edge plummet is just mentioned as a small side note. But the submitter spun it to be about MS's browser.

    Interestingly, the article says we can't know for certain what the users who've abandoned Safari have switched to... which seems odd. Sure, some Slashdotters may switch user agent strings... but it's hard to argue that average users do. So it should be a simple matter to determine if Chrome's Mac user base has increased commensurately.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:Interesting side note by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      "So it should be a simple matter to determine if Chrome's Mac user base has increased commensurately."

      This wouldn't tell you that the Safari users moved to Chrome, just that about the same number of users moved from somewhere to Chromes as moved from Safari to somewhere.

      E.g. If two users moves from A to B and two users move from B to C, A has lost as many users as C has gained two users but that doesn't mean that any moved directly from A to C.

      This mistake is particularly noticeable in parliamentary elections where there are multiple parties in the running. Socialists lose 10 seats and nationalists gain 10 seats and people start wondering why the far left started voting for the far right when the reality is that the bulk just stepped to the right a bit.

    2. Re:Interesting side note by Kergan · · Score: 1

      Safari on Mac usage dropping is no surprise. I'm still resisting, but an ever increasing number of SaaS products only work properly in or offer browser plugins for Chrome. Starting with Google's own products (docs, third party gmail plugins plugins, etc.).

  12. Re:What's clear from this is by ArchieBunker · · Score: 1

    I ask this question all the time. Nobody can ever post packet logs of Chrome "spying".

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
  13. I have Excellent karma so I just want to say... by Quakeulf · · Score: 5, Funny

    F U C K C H R O M E

    1. Re:I have Excellent karma so I just want to say... by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 3, Funny

      F U C K C H R O M E

      Fuckch Rome? Why are you bringing Rome into this discussion... are they heavy Chrome users? #Ambiguity

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    2. Re:I have Excellent karma so I just want to say... by Quakeulf · · Score: 1

      What do you get in return for defending Chrome?

  14. And why not? by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Firefox became a bloated monster (built in weird chat client, seriously?). Microsoft ... well, yeah. Opera became ... skinned Chrome. What's left? Chrome.

    1. Re:And why not? by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What's left? Chrome.

      I recently switched to Pale Moon and I gotta say, I like it a lot. No memory leaks and the few key add-ons I need are there (NoScipt and Adblock).

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  15. 50%? by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

    What's 50% of 1%??

    The only thing I ever used Internet Exploder for was to download Firefox. You mean it can browse the web too?

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  16. Few Extensions Makes Edge Unattractive by Mandrel · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Although Edge supports extensions, and Chrome extensions can be easily ported, Microsoft still hasn't fully opened submissions to their extension gallery. At the moment you have to be invited to submit, and there are currently only 23 listed.

  17. IE/Edge at 27% by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

    That means 27% users are not computer aware enough to install and use another browser.

    --
    Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    1. Re:IE/Edge at 27% by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Or they may have so little storage that they don't wanna waste any space w/ redundant apps, like browsers

  18. macOS browsers by R.Mo_Robert · · Score: 1

    In the last 24 months, Mozilla's Firefox -- the other major browser alternative to Chrome for macOS users...

    Umm, Safari, anyone? I guess that's probably true if we ignore Safari, but that would be like ignoring IE on Windows. (This makes a bit more sense in the context of TFA, from which the editor and/or submitter carelessly plagiarized this paragraph, as the article as a whole is talking about Safari's recent 13% decline on macOS...but you think someone might have read this before posting.)

    --
    R.Mo
    1. Re:macOS browsers by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Are they talking only about laptops, or tablets/phones as well? Microsoft liked to conflate the 2 when reporting Windows 10 numbers. If we do the same here, then Safari grows bigly thanks to iPhones alone, as well as iPads

  19. Browser Wars by shel10 · · Score: 1

    I use Firefox because it does not try to take over my computer and direct me to stuff I never use. Hate the new MS Edge. Every time I get a Win10 update, I need to re-do my program settings. If I really wanted Edge to open my PDF files, I would not pay for Adobe.

  20. Want by puddingebola · · Score: 1

    Want to use a free and open browser, but don't want to be subjected to security vulnerabilities like openSSL (Firefox). Want to use a fast browser with good js performance, but don't want to be spied on (Chrome). Want to use a browser adding innovative features and supporting open web standards, but don't want to use proprietary software owned by the Chinese (Opera). Want a web browser, but not one from a company with a history of trying to break and subvert open standards (IE). Advice?

  21. Re:What's clear from this is by ArchieBunker · · Score: 1

    Again, you offer no proof. More likely its the 10,000 advertising metrics and cookies that track you.

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
  22. Chrome == IE6 by Frankie70 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Chrome is at a position which IE6 used to be. They don't care.

    They first killed NPAPI plugs so that Java Applets don't work. So we moved to JNLP. Then they have a bug by which JNLP cannot be autolaunched in Chrome like it can in IE & Firefox. So if it's a weblaunched JNLP, users have to save the JNLP file & then run it which is troublesome for a lot of lay users. This bug exists for 4-5 years & there are multiple bug ids for it. But it never get fixed. Then there is another bug by which when you save the JNLP files after 99 JNLP files - no more can be saved & or run.

    Chrome doesn't care to fix these bugs because what do they lose if they don't fix it.

    1. Re:Chrome == IE6 by TechnoJoe · · Score: 1

      It's not a bug. It's a feature! (security)

      Mod funny or insightful. I don't care.

  23. I'd give them a chance... by XSportSeeker · · Score: 1

    I'd give Microsoft a chance with new versions of IE or Edge, but they never f*cking learn.
    https://tech.slashdot.org/stor...
    No pitty. Better luck on the next time Microsoft renames the browser yet again to try to erase it's bad fame.

  24. Re:What's clear from this is by tgv · · Score: 1

    I posted it only yesterday.

    > I run LittleSnitch on my mac, and when I open Chrome, it calls to several of Google's addresses: appspot-preview, gstatic, www, and fonts.. It also does that when opening an empty tab. It gets images and fonts and whathaveyou from those sites, (all unnecessary, BTW: the page functions just as well when all traffic is blocked), and it of course reports URLs for "malware" detection. That should give Google a nice bunch of data to work on.

  25. Browser Usage by b783719 · · Score: 1

    It might be due to the following.

    -Microsoft Announced that IE v11 is the last release on Windows. This for a reason led a number of IT now installs new Windows with Chrome (maybe for security reason?).

    -New Android phone default browsers are Google Chrome. We all know the sheer number of in Android market.

  26. No mention of nagging ads in Outlook? by shanen · · Score: 2

    At least none of my searches on those key terms found anything, though that's the main exposure to "Edge" that I've seen. Actually seems to be increasing lately. Not that I actually use Outlook. No compelling reason, and the negative feelings towards the google are not significantly different from my sentiments towards Microsoft.

    My feelings towards Edge are much worse, and the nagging isn't helping. However it seems that no one on Slashdot has noticed. Or maybe none of them are using Outlook.com or seeing any Edge plugs anywhere else?

    No funny posts either, but the target wasn't rich this time. Microsoft has become too boring to be funny.

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
  27. MS using their quasi-monopoly as well by Immerial · · Score: 1

    Actually, they used their quasi-monopoly on search to push their browser. Anytime you visit Google with a non-Chrome browser it tries to push Chrome on you.

    Funny you mentioned that... because every time I fire up Chrome in Windows 10 it gives me some Ad pop-up saying how much faster Edge is than Chrome or how much safer it is. I think things are getting pretty bad for the Edge browser stats... if they have to get the OS folks push their browser.

  28. Throwaway money for throwaway processes. by Neuroelectronic · · Score: 1

    Demographics are for businesses, not developers. It's certainly not data that I would normally consider part of a technical solution. But yes, if Mozilla was so inclined to throw away large sums of money on an advertisement campaign, this data would be useful. Even then, entertaining your position, you don't make conclusions from statistics, afaik, you make an *induction*.

    It's not like Browsers are a solution in search of an audience. They're a fuzzy language parser and presentation layer. The problem Firefox and other browsers face isn't first, a technical one. It's not a marketing issue either.

    The issue is with the standards bodies and how web standards are developed and how they're implemented. They have become a weapon that tech firms use to leverage complexity as a weapon against competing firms. The standards in use today are there because of economic momentum, not because they're a good solution. I'm sure outside of the commercial web, HTML1/2 is the number one language used by a majority of web content. If someone releases a good tool chain that can undercut the current zeitgeist of web dev, the game is all theirs. Nobody but these large multinationals are going to have the resources to make sure such a toolchain can gather enough mindshare. So here we are with competing toolchains, languages and "living standards" that are mostly built by the big 3, and updated whenever they can get together and agree to put their collective boot in the face of the little guys.

  29. Changing the search engine by PeterJFraser · · Score: 1

    Microsoft made it hard to change the default search engine. I believe most users put chrome in by accident, but start using it because google is much better than bing.