Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Firefox 3 Already Rules the Roost

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the good-press-will-do-that-for-you dept.

Mozilla 591

Barence writes in with a data point on Firefox 3 adoption: it's been available for 10 days, and already one site is seeing 55% of its Firefox-using visitors on version 3. "Microsoft still has three out of ten people running an old version of its browser more than 18 months after Internet Explorer 7 launched, while Firefox has converted more than half of its users to the latest version in just over a week. That should set a few alarm bells ringing in Redmond."

cancel ×

591 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

And the one site is (5, Funny)

fyrie (604735) | more than 6 years ago | (#23968735)

mozilla.org

Why alarm bells? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23968855)

IE survives on inertia, not quality. If anything, this is exactly what you should expect to see. The people willing to change browsers are the same people who want the latest upgrade with the best support for the latest standards.

Re:Why alarm bells? (1, Interesting)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 6 years ago | (#23969215)

IE survives on inertia, not quality.

So does Firefox. IE7 and Firefox are basically equal in terms of features, unless you care about add-ons (and personally, I have yet to see one FF addon that excites me). Firefox used to be better than IE, mostly because it had tabs. Now IE has tabs, and the playing field is level again.

Re:Why alarm bells? (5, Insightful)

smitty_one_each (243267) | more than 6 years ago | (#23969275)

Now IE has tabs, and the playing field is level again.

Note the implicit constraint on operating system.

Re:Why alarm bells? (4, Informative)

sam_paris (919837) | more than 6 years ago | (#23969305)

You clearly never used tamperdata, firebug, adblock, flashblock etc..

Re:Why alarm bells? (-1, Troll)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 6 years ago | (#23969355)

True... because not one of those provides me with useful functionality. If they did, I'd be using them.

Re:Why alarm bells? (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23969385)

Really? LOL.

Re:Why alarm bells? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23969307)

It still doesn't have find as you type, thats a critical feature for most people that I know, including myself.

Re:Why alarm bells? (1)

yoghurt (2090) | more than 6 years ago | (#23969349)

>> IE survives on inertia, not quality.

> So does Firefox. IE7 and Firefox are basically equal in terms of features,...

I was not aware that Firefox was pre-installed with every Windows machine. *That* is the "feature" which matters here.

The difference is that you have to actively download firefox. Someone who downloaded it before is not going to be very afraid of downloading the new one. Someone who just uses whatever is there, will keep using what is there.

Re:Why alarm bells? (5, Funny)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 6 years ago | (#23969359)

IE7 and Firefox are basically equal in terms of features, unless you care about add-ons (and personally, I have yet to see one FF addon that excites me). Firefox used to be better than IE, mostly because it had tabs. Now IE has tabs, and the playing field is level again.

WOW. Clearly, you're a Slider. What colour is the Golden Gate Bridge in your reality? Did Bush get reelected there? And are they still coming out with new Firefly episodes there?

Re:And the one site is (5, Informative)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 6 years ago | (#23968943)

Actually, it's www.pcpro.co.uk (TFA's site)

Re:And the one site is (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23969267)

Site actually has some pretty interesting content, like this [youtube.com] vid.

Re:And the one site is (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23969077)

Data from one site really isn't meaningful, especially from a computer enthusiast site. My company's site (a coffee company) is up to 6.49% FF users with Firefox 3.0, and a whopping 83.12% of FF users with Firefox 2.0.0.14.
Oh well.

You forgot.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23969251)

mozilla.org

Suck it MS.

Oops! I thought this was Fark. My bad.

Fuck MS!

Oops! It's not Digg either.

Ah fuck it!

Great (-1, Offtopic)

mplsdeveloperdude (1315561) | more than 6 years ago | (#23968775)

But I just downgraded to FF2. Firebug beta add on is killing the memory usage, and yslow interferes with WebDevelopers toolbar... Sorry, Mozilla, but you upset one of your most loyal users.

Re:Great (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23968833)

You're mad at Mozilla because a bunch of third-party extensions don't work correctly? Maybe you should complain to the right people next time.

Re:Great (-1, Flamebait)

mplsdeveloperdude (1315561) | more than 6 years ago | (#23968901)

You're mad at Mozilla because a bunch of third-party extensions don't work correctly? Maybe you should complain to the right people next time.

Been there, done that. Was given a lousy excuse. Rather go back to stability.

Re:Great (4, Insightful)

punkass (70637) | more than 6 years ago | (#23968967)

So, Mozilla didn't upset their most loyal customer, the add-on developers did...

Re:Great (4, Insightful)

nine-times (778537) | more than 6 years ago | (#23969365)

I'm not sure I see the problem. You want something that extremely stable and well-supported, then it's usually not a good idea to jump to the newest version of software directly after its release. That just seems to me to be a standard rule, across the board, no matter which developer you're talking about. When you're using the cutting-edge stuff, it tends to have a couple hiccups and break 3rd-party interactions.

So sure, go back and use FF2 for another 6 months. And then give FF3 another shot, see if it's up to speed for the things you need.

Re:Great (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23969141)

Maybe you should complain to the right people next time.

You mean like the people who broke backwards compatibility and made needless API changes?

Re:Great (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23969179)

Wasn't that the reason people were whining about Vista? That the third-party drivers didn't work correctly? If it's a crap excuse when Microsoft does it, why does it suddenly gain legitimacy when Mozilla does it?

Re:Great (1)

D Ninja (825055) | more than 6 years ago | (#23968867)

But an addon is not Mozilla's fault. Complain to the guys coding Firebug. (Unless of course there's some architecture thing in FF3 that is messing up Firebug. Then, I stand corrected.)

Re:Great (1)

D'Sphitz (699604) | more than 6 years ago | (#23968937)

Yep I think i'm going to downgrade today. FF3 has completely borked the iGoogle layout for me, and spankwire videos suddenly don't work at all.

Also there's some other strange behavior with the saved passwords I can't exactly put my finger on. I think maybe http authentication and form logins are no longer saved separately, so when you have more than one login for a site it doesn't auto-fill the fields and you have to remember the username, which defeats the point.

Not to rag on firefox, I love it and my biggest pet peave (the FF3 memory usage) seems to be hugely improved, but it needs some time to be tweaked.

Re:Great (2, Insightful)

snl2587 (1177409) | more than 6 years ago | (#23969049)

Do a clean install instead. You probably have some odd settings remaining from FF2 that are giving you problems, and the problem with other sites could be poor browser detection...which is not Mozilla's fault at all.

Re:Great (2, Insightful)

D'Sphitz (699604) | more than 6 years ago | (#23969131)

It may or may not be Mozilla's fault, but from a user's prospective that is irrelevant, all a user knows is what used to work fine doesn't any longer.

I'll try a fresh install, thanks for the suggestion.

Re:Great (1)

heelrod (124784) | more than 6 years ago | (#23969229)

I cant run the latest bugzilla with the latest mozilla

Re:Great (1)

jeevesbond (1066726) | more than 6 years ago | (#23969083)

Firebug beta add on is killing the memory usage, and yslow interferes with WebDevelopers toolbar... Sorry, Mozilla

What part of your problems have been caused my Mozilla? Those are all issues with add-ons, you should hop over and report them to the authors. :)

On my own Web sites Firefox 3 usage is at ~12%. Our reporting software (AWStats) doesn't do a breakdown by day, so that's 12% for the whole month. That's out of the 50% of visitors who're using Firefox. Pretty good in my opinion, although we are aiming at a technical audience.

What interests me is the breakdown of IE versions. 13% using IE7 Vs. 17% IE6 (total IE usage is ~33%), even though we have a big notice for IE6 users telling them the site won't display properly and that they should upgrade. Seems IE6 users are either very stubborn, or in a corporate environment, where they're not able to upgrade. I expect it's a mixture of both.

Re:Great (1)

Cecil (37810) | more than 6 years ago | (#23969371)

You have a funny definition of "loyal".

I'm sure I'm not the only one (1)

slackoon (997078) | more than 6 years ago | (#23968777)

I haven't bothered to upgrade IE since my last format. Why would I, I use FF3 and it's amanzing! It's not a matter of not wanting the newer Microsoft browser, it a matter nf not wanting a Microsoft browser at all!!

Re:I'm sure I'm not the only one (5, Interesting)

MBCook (132727) | more than 6 years ago | (#23968865)

I can't upgrade IE.

Since large bits of my job involve web interfaces to various systems, I have to make sure things still render right on IE 6. Since you can't run 6 and 7 on the same machine, I stay on 6. When I need to check 7 I ask a coworker who has upgraded to check it out.

Of course, I use FF for everything because IE 6 was so far behind. Seven has improvements, but I still find annoyances, and I'm happily used to FF.

Then again, I can't go to FF3 quite yet either. Needs to be a little bigger than 50% (at a tech heavy site). I'd like to see the numbers for Yahoo or Google.

Re:I'm sure I'm not the only one (4, Informative)

Dojikami (980251) | more than 6 years ago | (#23969003)

Why don't you use something like this http://tredosoft.com/Multiple_IE [tredosoft.com] ?

Re:I'm sure I'm not the only one (1)

markgohara (1210640) | more than 6 years ago | (#23969017)

Do a search on multiple IE's I run 3.01 to 7 on my machine.

Re:I'm sure I'm not the only one (1)

cduffy (652) | more than 6 years ago | (#23969031)

Why not upgrade to FF3 for your primary browser, and use a portable version [portableapps.com] of FF2 for testing?

Re:I'm sure I'm not the only one (1)

Aggrajag (716041) | more than 6 years ago | (#23969137)

You really should consider using virtual machines for your work (for testing with IE). With Firefox portable versions are easy way to go. Virtual PC by Microsoft is free and very compatible with different Windows versions. If your company has lots of money to spare, consider buying ThinApp (formerly Thinstall) license from Vmware Inc.

Re:I'm sure I'm not the only one (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23969161)

Install vmware server on your machine, or if your feeling saucy, ies4linux on your linux box.

Re:I'm sure I'm not the only one (1)

simey (472398) | more than 6 years ago | (#23969337)

We have a CentOS Linux box running VMWare servers of Windows XP - one with IE6 and one with IE7. That way we can run automated test scrips (Selenium) against both browsers.

Re:I'm sure I'm not the only one (1)

bunratty (545641) | more than 6 years ago | (#23969069)

Because IE's layout engine [wikipedia.org] is used by Windows programs other than IE. You should always grab the security updates for IE, even if you think you never use it.

File under "So what?" (5, Insightful)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 6 years ago | (#23968791)

Microsoft still has three out of ten people running an old version of its browser more than 18 months after Internet Explorer 7 launched, while Firefox has converted more than half of its users to the latest version in just over a week. That should set a few alarm bells ringing in Redmond.

Huh? This means absolutely nothing. If you want to give us data that's meaningful, tell us how many converts to IE7 there were in the first week, or wait 1.5 years and see how many people are using FF3 versus old versions. Then we'd have some comparable data. A rapid expansion right off the bat, for example, does not necessarily indicate that the final tally will be in FF's favor.

Furthermore, a decent chunk of IE users are the "computer = magic black box" type, who use IE because it's what came on the computer. If those people aren't doing Windows Updates (likely enough, imo), they won't get IE7. By contrast, the vast majority of Firefox users use it by choice, not because it was there. Those people are far more likely to manually upgrade.

This whole "data point" is utterly worthless for determining what's actually going on.

Re:File under "So what?" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23968925)

There's also users, like me, who are forced into using IE on the computers at work. For that matter, I'm usine IE6, since my company hasn't decided to install IE7 yet. I get the feeling this rings true for a LOT of end users getting on the internet at work/library/other public terminal.

(I run FF on my home comps, and convert anybody I see running IE on their home machine).

Re:File under "So what?" (1, Informative)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 6 years ago | (#23969015)

That's also true. I'm a very happy IE7 user at home, but at work, I'm stuck with IE6, since our apps aren't tested with IE7, and thus IE7 is not kosher.

Re:File under "So what?" (0, Redundant)

moore.dustin (942289) | more than 6 years ago | (#23969037)

Furthermore, a decent chunk of IE users are the "computer = magic black box" type, who use IE because it's what came on the computer. If those people aren't doing Windows Updates (likely enough, imo), they won't get IE7. By contrast, the vast majority of Firefox users use it by choice, not because it was there. Those people are far more likely to manually upgrade.

Ding Ding Ding!!! We have a winner. You hit the nail on the head. Really, your whole reply was spot on, but this part in particular cannot be overlooked.

Re:File under "So what?" (1)

rocketman768 (838734) | more than 6 years ago | (#23969245)

Yes, and the site that has measured these percentages is a pc site... It is not a site with a typical profile of users (this one is full of computer nerds like us), so it is no use for generalizing these statistics to the rest of the web. Maybe statistics class should be moved down to high school.

IE - It's not for savvy users anymore (5, Interesting)

Illbay (700081) | more than 6 years ago | (#23968793)

"Microsoft still has three out of ten people running an old version of its browser more than 18 months after Internet Explorer 7 launched..."


Look, my father-in-law knows NOTHING about computing, but a LOT about using the Internet. We bought him a computer several years ago. His browser?

IE5, of course. Why? Because that's what was installed on the machine when we bought it.

The majority of people who THINK about what browser they use, use something other than IE. Firefox 3 is obviously a great leap forward for the Mozilla brand, and...well, there you go.

Re:IE - It's not for savvy users anymore (0, Troll)

xtracto (837672) | more than 6 years ago | (#23968917)

The majority of people who THINK about what browser they use, use something other than IE. Firefox 3 is obviously a great leap forward for the Mozilla brand, and...well, there you go.

Yup, and you can see that when people who bought the Eee PC ask you how to go to the Internet... of course Xandros has an icon properly named "The Internet" which is Firefox.

Everything is fine until they want to copy some text from the web page and paste it to a document (simliarly to what you can do with IE6 and Word) without losing the format... Eso no se puede my dear. And the deal is broken :P

Re:IE - It's not for savvy users anymore (0, Redundant)

MilesAttacca (1016569) | more than 6 years ago | (#23969165)

But it's not the Internet! If anything it's the World Wide Web! D:

Re:IE - It's not for savvy users anymore (3, Informative)

the_womble (580291) | more than 6 years ago | (#23969243)

Everything is fine until they want to copy some text from the web page and paste it to a document (simliarly to what you can do with IE6 and Word) without losing the format...

I just copied your comment from FF2 to Open Office and I can see the formatting. Is this a problem specific to Xandros? Incidentally, copying from Konqueror to Open Office preserves formatting as well.

Re:IE - It's not for savvy users anymore (5, Funny)

mattkime (8466) | more than 6 years ago | (#23969329)

>>IE5, of course. Why? Because that's what was installed on the machine when we bought it.

Please have a talk with your father-in-law.

Its for the good of the internet.

Re:IE - It's not for savvy users anymore (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23969351)

Your father-in-law will be spewing out spam every time he connects to the Internet then. Internet Explorer 5.0 and 5.5 were abandoned by Microsoft years ago, even for security updates. Internet Explorer 6 is being abandoned at the moment. Do the whole Internet a favour and upgrade him.

As far as "several years ago" is concerned, Internet Explorer 5.5 was released in 2000, so it must have been at least 8 years ago. Almost a decade with no maintenance? I bet most of the appliances in his home undergo maintenance more often than that.

Lame story. (4, Funny)

phasm42 (588479) | more than 6 years ago | (#23968807)

Watch out Microsoft. The Fox is gaining fast.

Booga-booga!

Which one works? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23968809)

In our business environment, we will not upgrade to IE7 because it breaks business applications. No such limitations on FF3 (of course the apps don't work in FF2/3).

Maybe if MS didn't break the non-standardized technologies that they release and companies build apps on, the community might upgrade faster.

Who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23968813)

I don't understand what the big fuss is - Microsoft doesn't really make money off of IE. They never should have entered the browser business in the first place.

Re:Who cares? (3, Insightful)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 6 years ago | (#23969237)

There is the ever-present threat of Operating Systems being marginalized to a role of providing a portal to a web-based OS. Whomever controls the browser will get a good chunk of ad revenue.

WindowsUpdate (1)

dafradu (868234) | more than 6 years ago | (#23968815)

To me this just proves that most people ignore WindowsUpdate, thus making their systems outdated and vulnerable to attacks.

Re:WindowsUpdate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23969095)

Ding!!! We have a winner. Mozilla built in a great update agent into Firefox. IE's upgrade is built into Windows Update which a majority of people ignore.

Been a Windows Firefox user since late 1.x betas (1)

fprintf (82740) | more than 6 years ago | (#23968825)

I have been a Windows Firefox user since the late 1.x beta versions. I have never had any problems at all installing alpha or beta versions, they have all been extraordinarily stable.

This is the first release where I have noticed a performance problem. I cannot tell if it is my add-ons that have been hastily updgraded to the 3.x spec, or it is the browser itself. But this is the first time in using Firefox that I have been less than happy with the experience.

I am not a programmer, but a PHB, but tonight I will go home and disable all my addons in the hope that it is one of them driving the instability (e.g. loading my iGoogle page takes 30 seconds or more each time I go to that tab).

Re:Been a Windows Firefox user since late 1.x beta (1)

BarryJacobsen (526926) | more than 6 years ago | (#23969151)

If you've only been upgrading, I'd highly suggest deleting your user profile and starting with a new one before deleting your addons.

Re:Been a Windows Firefox user since late 1.x beta (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23969211)

Something is wrong with your Firefox profile if that's the only program behaving erratically.

It could be your settings, extensions, plugins (e.g. Flash) or something else in your profile.

Either way, I use 33+ extensions and Firefox 3 is significantly faster and from the data that's been put out that seems to be the case for users who don't have a profile problem.

Alarm bells? (1)

Born2bwire (977760) | more than 6 years ago | (#23968827)

I'm sure Microsoft is going to drop bricks when they find out that users of other browsers bother to upgrade to new versions of other browsers.

What is 55% of 20 users? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23968829)

That would be 11 lusers. That would be almost half of your open-sores lusers out there.

I've switched on day one and only one crash so far (2, Informative)

KPexEA (1030982) | more than 6 years ago | (#23968831)

I've only had 1 crash and that happend yesterday, after it crashed, a nice popup window asked if I wanted to tell Microsoft about it. I declined.
It got me thinking though, why don't they have their own "tell firefox" about the crash box what sends them the stack trace and page etc so they can debug these problems quicker.

Re:I've switched on day one and only one crash so (1)

vbraga (228124) | more than 6 years ago | (#23968979)

It has. You probably got a really hard crash that Firefox couldn't catch and the error found it's way to Windows default exception handler.

Anyway, you can get the crash information from Microsoft. Binaries must be signed and you must get through some steps, but it's an easy process.

Mine crashes all the time (1)

InvisblePinkUnicorn (1126837) | more than 6 years ago | (#23969185)

In fact, it crashes any time I use LogMeIn [wikipedia.org] - which, at work, is always. So I'm going back to FF2.

70% 55% (3, Funny)

nuzak (959558) | more than 6 years ago | (#23968841)

So in two more weeks, 165% of firefox users will be at version 3. Let's see the numbers after 18 months.

Anyway, my work machine still has IE6, because they're not bothering to upgrade it on the corporate servers and I use nothing but Firefox on it anyway.

Is this really surprising? (1)

pushing-robot (1037830) | more than 6 years ago | (#23968843)

Using Firefox implies that you probably care about what web browser you're using. People who don't care just stick with what came on their system.

Sucked (1, Insightful)

xtracto (837672) | more than 6 years ago | (#23968847)

"Microsoft still has three out of ten people running an old version of its browser more than 18 months after Internet Explorer 7 launched, while Firefox has converted more than half of its users to the latest version in just over a week. That should set a few alarm bells ringing in Redmond."

Nah.. it is just that the previous versions of Firefox sucked a lot [of memory].

I've got karma to burn, sooooo bring it girls!

Re:Sucked (1)

Maniacal (12626) | more than 6 years ago | (#23969019)

I don't think you need to worry about your Karma because I think you are very right. It's exactly what I thought when I read the story and it's why I upgraded so quickly. In fact, it's why I always update Firefox as soon as an update is available - To get to the next "less sucky" version.

You can call this a flame as well but I'm a dedicated Firefox user. I just can't stand it :)

Explanation: IE 7 requires Windows XP SP2 (5, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | more than 6 years ago | (#23968853)

Microsoft still has three out of ten people running an old version of its browser more than 18 months after Internet Explorer 7 launched

IE 7 was never backported to anything before Windows XP Service Pack 2. How many Windows users are stuck on operating systems prior to Windows XP, such as Windows 2000 or Windows 9x? Like IE 7, Firefox 3 doesn't work on Windows 9x, but unlike IE 7, Firefox works on Windows 2000.

Re:Explanation: IE 7 requires Windows XP SP2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23969379)

Also: cracked versions of XP can't upgrade to ie7. I'm surprised it's as low as 30%

This just means that IE users are more mainstream (1)

acidrain (35064) | more than 6 years ago | (#23968857)

Just because your users don't care so much about upgrading all their software as soon as possible doesn't mean you have a problem. I'd say it was a measure of success, that you we able to reach the non-technical crowd, a much more important accomplishment. That said, I'm sure most IE users just use whatever is on their computer and don't give a damn' making them an unimportant demographic in terms of measuring success.

alarm bells ringing in Redmond (1)

Anomalyst (742352) | more than 6 years ago | (#23968859)

LA LA LA ... we're not listening.

GMail Issues with FF3? (1, Offtopic)

JavaSavant (579820) | more than 6 years ago | (#23968871)

I've had some significant issues on both my PC and Mac with FF3. They all seem to revolve around JavaScript. When in GMail, navigating away from GMail via a new site in the address bar in the same tab hangs FF3 entirely. This is on my Windows machine. When in Facebook on my Mac at home, clicking any of the various links that execute javascript popups for DHTML hangs the site. I can navigate through links that are more classic hrefs that instantiate other requests through the browser, but clicking on things like the Name of someone in their status just fails. Anyone else experience this?

Re:GMail Issues with FF3? (3, Informative)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 6 years ago | (#23969117)

Seems like you're not alone [macfixit.com] . I'm holding off upgrading until it's sorted out a bit more. FF2 works just fine for me, thankyouverymuch.

Re:GMail Issues with FF3? (1)

lptport1 (640159) | more than 6 years ago | (#23969289)

I had the Gmail freeze problem in conjunction with the Skype extension. I've had no further difficulty since disabling it.

Re:GMail Issues with FF3? (2)

agent00013 (45445) | more than 6 years ago | (#23969361)

I've been having the same issue (FF3 on WinXP SP3). Firefox crashes on me several times a day, especially when using Gmail. It fullout crashes and kills the browser for me.

On my work machine, it was crashing so often I had to downgrade to FF2 because stability is more important than the new features.

I hope Mozilla addresses the issues and provides a fix soon. As much as people love FF3, it's gonna run into walls with adoption if something as commonly used as Gmail crashes.

Or, Firefox 2 sucked. (3, Insightful)

outZider (165286) | more than 6 years ago | (#23968889)

Or, maybe Firefox 2 sucked that much. I was running the Firefox 3 alphas long ago, only because the RAM situation in 2.x was so atrocious. I had to upgrade my wife as well, because I got sick of hearing from the living room, "I thought you said Firefox was better?" as her system ground to a halt.

Re:Or, Firefox 2 sucked. (5, Funny)

chriseyre2000 (603088) | more than 6 years ago | (#23969001)

Isn't upgrading your wife a little expensive?

Re:Or, Firefox 2 sucked. (5, Funny)

Hal_Porter (817932) | more than 6 years ago | (#23969135)

Isn't upgrading your wife a little expensive?

You can run Wife 2.0 and Wife 3.0 beta at the same time if you're careful.

There WAS suckage (1)

Illbay (700081) | more than 6 years ago | (#23969025)

I seem to recall that the Fedora project [redhat.com] decided not to distribute FF2 with any of their spins, opting to wait for FF3 instead, precisely because of the perception of suckage.

Re:There WAS suckage (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23969147)

Any of their Fedora 9 spins, that is. Fedora 8 did use FF2. CentOS, however, jumped directly from FF1.5 to FF3.

Re:There WAS suckage (1)

ArcticFlood (863255) | more than 6 years ago | (#23969313)

Fedora 9 (released May 2008) shipped with a Firefox 3 beta, presumably so they wouldn't have to support Firefox 2 another year after Firefox 3's release. RHEL6 is likely to be based off of Fedora 9, so it makes sense that they would also want Firefox 3 instead of Firefox 2.

Re:Or, Firefox 2 sucked. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23969203)

I had to upgrade my wife as well, because I got sick of hearing from the living room, "I thought you said Firefox was better?" as her system ground to a halt.

You cheated on your wife? :O

Not too surprising... (4, Insightful)

Mongoose Disciple (722373) | more than 6 years ago | (#23968895)

"Microsoft still has three out of ten people running an old version of its browser more than 18 months after Internet Explorer 7 launched, while Firefox has converted more than half of its users to the latest version in just over a week. That should set a few alarm bells ringing in Redmond."

Whatever is the choice of most businesses is always going to lag behind in adoption.

Case in point, my current client is a Fortune 100 company that mandates IE6 as the browser of choice and is planning to move to IE7 sometime next year. There's thousands and thousands of people right there still using IE6 essentially through no choice of their own.

Big, non-software business is always about the last to adopt any technology.

The reason why (3, Insightful)

KaizerttheBjorn (1039348) | more than 6 years ago | (#23968899)

Think about it, most IE users aren't the kind to pay attention to what version of software they have. Many people I've spoken to don't even understand that there's an actual application that you launch when you browse the internet. They just see it as "the internet". They aren't aware that their browser needs an upgrade, and they certainly wouldn't know how to actually install it.


Firefox users, on the other hand, tend to be more computer savvy. They are the kind who pay attention to tech news, and most likely they've known about Firefox 3 since before it came out.

That's one clever fox! (3, Funny)

tcgroat (666085) | more than 6 years ago | (#23968903)

I just ran the Firefox 3 installer, then loaded the Slashdot front page for its test-drive. This article was in the #1 slot. How did mozilla.org arrange for that to happen?

Basic rule of maths (1)

mce (509) | more than 6 years ago | (#23968907)

It's easier to convert 50% of 10 than 50% of 10000000000000000000.

Please note that I know there are more then 10 Firefox users out there and all that yadayada. And that I'm a big fan of Open Source, using a Mozilla based browser myself. All I'm doing is pointing out the low quality of the anti-MS FUD that is being spread here. We don't need this kind of sensationalist reasoning/reporting to beat MicroSoft, we should (and can) do that on value and merit!

Not apples to apples comparison (4, Insightful)

clodney (778910) | more than 6 years ago | (#23968913)

While I am a happy FF3 user myself, comparing the adoption rates of Firefox and IE is misleading. IE is installed when the computer arrives, and the people still using it either:
1. Don't care what they use
2. Have no choice since it is locked down by work
3. Prefer it over the alternatives.

People in buckets 1 and 2 (which I would argue is the vast majority of IE users) are unlikely to upgrade IE beyond whatever version is on their machine now. People in group 3 are the only voluntary upgraders to IE7.

In contrast, Firefox has the same three buckets, but since it is not preinstalled very few are going to fall into buckets 1 and 2. Almost everyone using it is using it because they want it, and that means that they are far more likely to upgrade to the latest and greatest.

IE8 Download Day (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23968921)

What? Are you expecting Microsoft to hold a download-IE8-break-the-world-record event?

Maybe This Will Change Things (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23968931)

There are still too many sites that won't render properly in anything but Internet Explorer. I haven't used IE in a long time, so I hope that Firefox (or Firefox plus Opera plus Safari, etc.) will at least reach parity with IE, so that web developers will be forced to code sites that are at least standards compliant.

My own site stats (4, Interesting)

BigBadBus (653823) | more than 6 years ago | (#23968969)

My own website, admittedly very modest, shows that Firefox 3 has only a 3% share, but it has grown more rapidly than any other browser I have seen since I started collating statistics (February 2007): the numbers are here: http://www.paullee.com/computers/index.html [paullee.com] and were only updated 2 days ago. Funnily enough, my logs show that there are people still using MSIE 4, MSIE 5 ... as well as Windows 95, and Win3.1 ! Upgrade, guys, upgrade!

PS Sorry for the small sizes of the graphs. Gnumeric was having a bad day :(

Typical user (2, Informative)

lazyDog86 (1191443) | more than 6 years ago | (#23968985)

I think that I may have more of a typical user experience. I'm not a gamer so I have allowed my home computer to get hopelessly old (pardon me if I skip the embarrassing specs). At some point I actually did upgrade to IE7 and the monster was so fat I could grow old waiting for it to load on my ancient relic of a computer and quickly went back again.

No such issue with FF3. In fact I was excited about better memory management for the same reasons.

So Firefox makes you want to upgrade on old hardware where IE bloat strongly discourages it.

Yawn... (2, Insightful)

christopherjrider (936985) | more than 6 years ago | (#23969005)

Not to diminish the impact of Firefox, but this is not surprising. Firefox users are almost by definition more proactive. They've already taken the step of replacing their default browser. Why should it be any surprise that they're also quicker to update?

add-ons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23969057)

I'll convert once my add-ons are updated (CopyToPlaintext and TabBrowserPreferences).

Firefox has more fans (1)

NMBLNG (1289254) | more than 6 years ago | (#23969075)

I think in general, people that use Firefox are a bit more in touch with what goes on in the computer world, making them aware when an upgrade like this happens. My non-computer-people friends usually don't know the difference between Firefox and IE...

IE needs to die, as in NOW. (1, Interesting)

r1v3t3d (1266554) | more than 6 years ago | (#23969085)

As a part-time web developer, I am less than surprised. Making sites compatible for multiple browsers is always a chore, but IE makes it damn near impossible to play nice. After all, it is the only browser left that doesn't conform to W3C standards, and cannot interpret CSS correctly to save its own life. I usually have multiple browsers installed on any of my machines, but there's only one that I refuse...

Another stat (4, Informative)

Stalus (646102) | more than 6 years ago | (#23969113)

Just another statistic: if I have my dates right, it took IE7 2.5 months to reach 100 million users [msdn.com] . Firefox is currently at 23 million [mozilla.com] and given the current rate (1080/min), FF3 on pace to beat that - even without being distributed as part of an OS (granted, IE7 was only part of volume licensing at that date, and not retail sales).

stats from a site for a non-technical audience (4, Interesting)

hal9000(jr) (316943) | more than 6 years ago | (#23969169)

I manage a blog where most of the users are authors and they are not technical folks that might visit a site like pcpro on a regular basis. You might say they are average folk.

In the last few months, I have been seeing an increase in firefox from maybe 10% in January to close to 45% today. Of that 45% of FF users, 23% are already using FF3. I think that is pretty impressive. By comparison, 52% use IE and the majority of them, 67% use IE7.

I'm Shocked! (1, Insightful)

tompaulco (629533) | more than 6 years ago | (#23969213)

How shocking! People who went out of their way to install a non-default browser also tend to upgrade said browser? While people who accept the default browser that came with their system tend to not upgrade their browser? Completely amazing. Or not.

Spin and counterspin (5, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | more than 6 years ago | (#23969249)

"Microsoft still has three out of ten people running an old version of its browser more than 18 months after Internet Explorer 7 launched, while Firefox has converted more than half of its users to the latest version in just over a week. That should set a few alarm bells ringing in Redmond."

"Microsoft still has over seven out of ten people satisfied with running a previous version of its browser more than 18 months after Internet Explorer 7 launched, while users have abandoned Firefox 2 in droves with over half converting to the bleeding edge version in just over a week. That should set a few alarm bells ringing at Mozilla.org."

Personally, when I see a very fast migration I tend to think the last version must really have sucked. If it did what people wanted already, they'd not be in any big hurry to upgrade. Sure, there's been some exceptions where the new version is the best thing since sliced bread, but they're few and far between by comparison.

I don't think so (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23969377)

Uh, I don't think so.

I'm looking at today's logs for a general purpose web site that I host and it's not that way at all.

For 2,564 unique visitors, with 84,000 requests, there were 2,803 requests from Firefox 2.x, and 714 requests from FireFox 3.0.

In contrast, IE 7.0 had 26,370 requests and IE 6.0 had 19,982.

Granted this is a relatively "small" sample, but it's all from today's traffic, and the site is not targeted at any particular demographic (power users, etc).

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>