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!

Google Chrome Displaces Safari As Third In Survey

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the tight-race-for-3d dept.

Google 235

Azureflare writes "According to a Net Applications survey, Google Chrome has replaced Apple's Safari as the number-three browser. This may be partially explained by the release of the Chrome beta on Mac and Linux, but may also be due to users jumping ship from IE. More analysis on this topic can be found at ComputerWorld. As anecdotal evidence of Google Chrome usage gaining steam, Bank of America has apparently recently added Google Chrome to their list of officially supported browsers."

cancel ×

235 comments

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

Getting off the train to crazytown (5, Insightful)

symbolset (646467) | more than 4 years ago | (#30625144)

The persistence of IE6 is due to organizations standardizing on the MS suite from the server to the browser and building their business intellingence into that web platform. They embraced and were trapped by the consequences of that decision, after which getting themselves out of that trap involved huge expense and much opportunity cost as well as much lost face. Bearing the scars of that experience, its not surprising that they are wary of re-entering the same trap twice. They appear to be deciding that "standards are good". See? Are childrens can has learnings.

Re:Getting off the train to crazytown (2, Insightful)

negRo_slim (636783) | more than 4 years ago | (#30625296)

The rise of Google's Chrome browser is all about add ons being introduced and the fact it doesn't look like total ass in a default install on Vista or 7.

Re:Getting off the train to crazytown (3, Informative)

xaxa (988988) | more than 4 years ago | (#30625382)

Since the beginning of December I've seen loads of adverts in London (mostly on trains and in stations) for Google Chrome... have Google been advertising anywhere else?

Re:Getting off the train to crazytown (2, Informative)

BrentH (1154987) | more than 4 years ago | (#30625418)

I saw a huge billboard here along the highway in Amsterdam East.

Re:Getting off the train to crazytown (2, Informative)

Grimnir512 (1449641) | more than 4 years ago | (#30625494)

I've seen an advert here in Glasgow. Oddly it was in a place where it wouldn't get much viewership.

Re:Getting off the train to crazytown (2, Insightful)

stevey (64018) | more than 4 years ago | (#30625750)

you saw it - and remembered it!

Re:Getting off the train to crazytown (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30625556)

i saw a billboard but some thug wannabe coon spraypainted his gang sign all over it

Re:Getting off the train to crazytown (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30625568)

they've been advertising all over the web, including Pandora internet radio

Re:Getting off the train to crazytown (2, Interesting)

Zocalo (252965) | more than 4 years ago | (#30625624)

It's on the homepage of Amazon's UK site, and I've seen a few of the billboard ads outside of London as well, but the core focus in the UK definitely seems to have been on London over the last few weeks. The level of advertising on the London Underground is pretty much at saturation level, I'd say.

Re:Getting off the train to crazytown (4, Funny)

Blue Stone (582566) | more than 4 years ago | (#30626476)

>The level of advertising on the London Underground is pretty much at saturation level, I'd say.

I refuse to use the London Underground until it gets a decent adblocker.

Re:Getting off the train to crazytown (2, Funny)

Hes Nikke (237581) | more than 4 years ago | (#30626576)

here's a decent adblocker, insert each of these into your eyes:

*you found a pair of chopsticks*

Re:Getting off the train to crazytown (1)

jonbryce (703250) | more than 4 years ago | (#30625642)

I've seen lots of them around the South of England, around Manchester and in Cardiff, so I would imagine they are all over the UK.

Re:Getting off the train to crazytown (1)

malkir (1031750) | more than 4 years ago | (#30625960)

Yup, 25 second youtube ads

Re:Getting off the train to crazytown (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30626410)

It has been the most common Hulu ad for me lately.

Re:Getting off the train to crazytown (2, Insightful)

mattventura (1408229) | more than 4 years ago | (#30625328)

getting themselves out of that trap

People are still IN the trap. It's vendor lock-in at its finest. They start with MS from client to server, and everything is dependent on other MS products. Then they seal it when they have to start making MS-based web apps and such. And on top of that, they see no reason to get out. There aren't any 'consequences' for some people. So they just stay in the MS-hole.

Stuck in y2k (1)

symbolset (646467) | more than 4 years ago | (#30625902)

These are the same people who would have put Vista over the hump to acceptance, and who are diligently trying to get W7 to work. They just can't.

MS really euchred themselves here.

Re:Getting off the train to crazytown (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30625406)

See? Are childrens can has learnings.

Cheezeburger, too.

Re:Getting off the train to crazytown (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30625570)

Yeah, no kidding. Back in '03 I was writing a new corporate web app. This was at a time before Firefox ( still Phoenix /firebird) when IE had 98% of the market. I begged my boss to make web standards a requirement. That was denied. I still coded my part to standards, but my coworkers thought I was nuts predicting other browsers to arise. Yeah, now its still ie 6 only. I think I retroactively win that argument.

Re:Getting off the train to crazytown (1)

tgd (2822) | more than 4 years ago | (#30625592)

Having been on both sides of that -- at a company ignorantly producing software that required IE, and at companies that had to support systems still running IE because of that precide problem, its not organizations standardizing on the MS suite, the problem stemmed from the shortage of qualified web application developers at the tail end of the dot-com boom. There were vast numbers of "developers" getting into the space that had absolutely no idea what they were doing, and the non-technical companies who were hiring engineers into corporate IT departments *really* got the short stick when it came to hiring. When real software companies were snapping up anyone who could muddle through code, you can imagine the sort of engineers that were ending up at insurance companies and hospitals and companies like that.

The organizations were stuck with piles of crap because of their engineers, not because of some grand corporate policy or strategy. Find some old-timers at those companies and buy them a beer and they'll tell you all about it.

Re:Getting off the train to crazytown (4, Informative)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 4 years ago | (#30626028)

My experience has been the opposite. I've worked with some very smart engineers in the financial industry. Any time we tried to diverge from the MS path we were told to stay on it by management. These companies had signed very large contracts with Microsoft (for licenses and support), and so management felt they needed to commit completely to get the full value from their contracts, even when other solutions would save them money in the long term. This was most definitely corporate policy, straight from the CTOs / CIOs.

Re:Getting off the train to crazytown (0)

tgd (2822) | more than 4 years ago | (#30626236)

Using Microsoft and using IE6 are two very different things. The discussion in question was about IE6.

These days people stay on IE6 because of apps they've got that won't work on anything else.

Chrome (4, Informative)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#30625146)

Has passed? StatCounter shows [statcounter.com] they already passed in August 2008, far before Chrome beta for Mac or Linux was available. However Internet Explorer still seem to have majority of marketshare with 63% (interestingly the Net Applications site seems to use IIS..)

Interestingly other countries seem to have a totally different market shares (wiser users?):
Opera is leading with 32% in Russia [statcounter.com] , with 35% in Ukraine [statcounter.com] , and 44% in Belarus [statcounter.com] .
China saw a huge 7% decrease from 95% [statcounter.com] in just recent two months, with Maxthon picking up the same percent and Firefox as 3rd with only 3%. (Maxthon uses IE engine tho)

Google has huge ways to market Chrome; they can do tv/billboard ads, internet ads, include a notice on their sites (like they're doing with YouTube) and enable option to install it along with their other apps, and pay manufacturers to include Chrome with their pc's.

Re:Chrome (2, Interesting)

dangitman (862676) | more than 4 years ago | (#30625436)

From the StatCounter website:

"Stats are based on aggregate data collected by StatCounter on a sample exceeding 5 billion pageviews per month collected from across the StatCounter network of more than 3 million websites. "

Doesn't sound like a particularly reliable source of data to me.

Re:Chrome (2, Interesting)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#30625532)

It does sound a bit more reliable than Net Applications tho, "which the company says encompasses data from some 160 million users per month.". Thats 31x larger source for data.

Re:Chrome (1)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#30625584)

Well that was a bit different metric, but the point still stands.

Re:Chrome (1)

dangitman (862676) | more than 4 years ago | (#30625600)

No, StatCounter talks about pageviews, while Net Applications talks about users. I'm guessing most users tend to load more than 31 pages per month.

Either way, there are lies, damn lies, and web statistics.

Re:Chrome (1)

Trepidity (597) | more than 4 years ago | (#30625780)

Possibly true--- the real question though, which I don't think either data source has made a convincing effort to account for, is how representative each sample is of the total population of internet users. An unbiased sample doesn't even need to be particularly large; a few thousand users would suffice for a very low margin of error. But millions of users in a skewed sample is still a skewed sample...

Re:Chrome (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#30625788)

Not really much wiser users; influence of people setting up OS on home machines (which are also much older on average)

See, in those post-soviet countries legal Windows is almost unheard of (shift towards laptops changes things of course, but only a bit; not only they are smaller part of market, notable number of them comes essentially without OS (FreeDOS? Some Linux booting into textmode? LiveCD? Without drivers for the hardware...). So somebody vaguely fluent in "computers" will set up pirated copy, usually. Putting there a better browser among other alternatives (like better ICQ client). Opera is preferred because it works very good on slow and RAM starved (by todays standards) machines.

Re:Chrome (1)

juicyfruit (843286) | more than 4 years ago | (#30626208)

Has passed? StatCounter shows they already passed in August 2008, far before Chrome beta for Mac or Linux was available.

That's a pretty neat trick, given that Google Chrome was only released in September 2008.

As you can see, Firefox RULES in Antarctica! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30626238)

And if you check out this link, you will see Firefox' near absolute dominance in Antarctica. [statcounter.com] Go Firefox go! I actually use Firefox, just thought this graph was pretty funny. At best it may reveal the browser preferences of the remote research scientific community.

Was waiting for Chrome on OSX until... (1, Interesting)

juuri (7678) | more than 4 years ago | (#30625198)

... the AD deluge started. Seriously, google, do I need to see on every one
of your sites your insipid little ADs pushing me to use your browser on OSX
now?

Congrats on having the same sort of doughbagery advertising we've come
to expect from Microsoft and Apple, do you feel like you really belong now?
That we really, really like you now?
 

Re:Was waiting for Chrome on OSX until... (2, Insightful)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#30625282)

Congrats on having the same sort of doughbagery advertising we've come
to expect from Microsoft and Apple, do you feel like you really belong now?
That we really, really like you now?

This is exactly why I don't understand Google fanboys. They think it's some hippy, "don't be evil", and cool group of "indie" people, while in fact it's just like every other huge corporation doing the best they can to make more and more money. They just have good PR people, which really isn't a surprise since they're basically an advertising company with a technology side to enable their main business.

Re:Was waiting for Chrome on OSX until... (5, Insightful)

QuoteMstr (55051) | more than 4 years ago | (#30625294)

They just have good PR people

That's the lesson Microsoft taught the world: being perceived as evil is bad for business. Apple, Google, and so on all invest heavily in public relations in order to avoid the fate of Microsoft. That doesn't mean that the substance of their business methods is any different.

Re:Was waiting for Chrome on OSX until... (1)

commodoresloat (172735) | more than 4 years ago | (#30625812)

Apple, Google, and so on all invest heavily in public relations in order to avoid the fate of Microsoft. That doesn't mean that the substance of their business methods is any different.

If it were any different, we'd see changes in leadership. CEOs remain CEOs because they continue to pursue profit above all. That's part of the system that's not likely to change, whether you like it or not. The challenge is to articulate a business model that makes "do no evil" (or, at least, "be perceived as doing no evil") into a profitable action, and Google and Apple have successfully convinced many people that they have done that.

Re:Was waiting for Chrome on OSX until... (1)

E IS mC(Square) (721736) | more than 4 years ago | (#30625306)

It makes much more sense if you replace Google with Apple in your comment ( - except for "don't be evil" part).

Re:Was waiting for Chrome on OSX until... (2, Insightful)

dangitman (862676) | more than 4 years ago | (#30625468)

It makes much more sense if you replace Google with Apple in your comment ( - except for "don't be evil" part).

That doesn't make a lot of sense, as Apple isn't an advertising company, and very few people believe Apple isn't a big company out to make money.

Re:Was waiting for Chrome on OSX until... (0, Offtopic)

plover (150551) | more than 4 years ago | (#30626280)

It makes much more sense if you replace Google with Apple in your comment ( - except for "don't be evil" part).

That doesn't make a lot of sense, as Apple isn't an advertising company, and very few people believe Apple isn't a big company out to make money.

Really? I see Apple as an image company first, and a technology company second. "Oooh, look, we make cool stuff and put it in hip boxes and sell it only to the coolest of people. We play indie music on our commercials. Our CEO wears black turtlenecks and jeans. We make big scary computers nice and friendly so even the dumbest among you can still feel smart when you own one."

Re:Was waiting for Chrome on OSX until... (2, Interesting)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 4 years ago | (#30625748)

Sure, they're a big mega-evil corporation. Their mission is to get inside our heads and sell ads. But their success could be attributed to much more than savvy PR guys with headphones and rollerblades.

Unlike the others, Google actually innovates. Takes risks. Some ideas flop, others are hugely successful. Microsoft and Yahoo just keep turning out the same old shit because they are inert and unwilling to innovate. Sure, they add a feature to widget X or rebrand widget Y, but they have not created any new services. Microsoft in particular is puzzlingly suicidal -- the Zune, and that horrible ad campaign (thanks for wiggling your ass in my face, Bill, we know you have gazillions of dollars).

Most importantly, Google don't get greedy. For example, the ads in the middle of youtube videos. You can see when an ad will pop up and you can even skip past it if you want -- try doing that with pre-clip commercials on CNN.com. Google don't force you to do anything like the other companies do. They don't shove banner ads in your face when using MSN messenger. Google are huge, but they don't project greed. Google succeeds because it does not project control and does not try to strong-arm the user. Google lets the user come to it and use it on the user's own terms, and that happens with clever and seamless integration of its ads into other services. What Google does not try to do is strong-arm the user into using its shit by honking a clown horn in his/her face. That said, I'll never use Chrome. FF, Opera, and derivatives all the way.

Re:Was waiting for Chrome on OSX until... (5, Informative)

Natural Join (1711970) | more than 4 years ago | (#30625866)

I worked at Google as a developer for many years. I have also worked at other huge corporations, like Adobe and Xerox. Google is nothing like every other huge corporation. They are exactly like some hippie, "don't be evil" group of socially conscious software developers. That's because that's what they are, both in the engineering department and all the way up to top management, including Larry, Sergei, and Eric. Not saying this is true of the sales department, but they're not in charge; the developers are. If Google were an advertising company, the sales department would be in charge.

They search engine came first. Of course something's gotta pay the bills, and the search engine by itself is an expense, not a source of income. If Google were an advertising company, the ad system would have come first, like it did with Overture.

Re:Was waiting for Chrome on OSX until... (1)

Abreu (173023) | more than 4 years ago | (#30625394)

Google is (and has always been) an advertisement company.

You are expected to live with it, or circumvent it (it's not that hard)

Re:Was waiting for Chrome on OSX until... (2, Insightful)

Azureflare (645778) | more than 4 years ago | (#30625404)

Ha, you know that's actually really funny because I've seen those ads too. And I use Google Chrome on a Mac! I'm thinking "Jeez, that's annoying, but even more so because I'm actually using the browser to view the ad!"

IE 5.5 forever (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30625246)

I don't know about everyone else, but Internet Explorer 5.5 is working pretty well here on my Windows NT 4 machines. IE5.5 has the fastest ECMAscript execution, is reasonably easy to program for, and works on all of our 2000 and NT 4 desktops. Until the other browsers start supporting legacy Windows systems, IE5.5/6 will always have a place.

Time to go back to coding the web-based CSM in C with a COBOL backend on Fujitsu Cobol .NET...

Anonymous Sig 2.0:
MADONNA IS AMAZING! I LOVE MADONNA - EROTICA.MP16! [madonna.com]

Re:IE 5.5 forever (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 4 years ago | (#30625606)

I know you are kidding, but that post still gave me nausea. :P

Re:IE 5.5 forever (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30625768)

I am not kidding; I am serious!

Anonymous Sig 2.0:
MADONNA IS AMAZING! I LOVE MADONNA - Justify My Sex.MP16! [madonna.com]

Re:IE 5.5 forever (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30625918)

Don't be ridiculous. Ie 5.5 sucks. Its rendering isn't consistant across nt 4.0, win 2000, win 95, win 98, win 98 se. If you want compatibility, stick with IE 5. No need to be stuck on the upgrade treadmill.

Worthless (4, Informative)

pudge (3605) | more than 4 years ago | (#30625310)

Such metrics are almost always worthless. And such is the case here. Their methodology is fundamentally flawed, and you can't fix flawed methodology by just getting more of it.

Ars Technica notes [arstechnica.com] , 'The company tracks OS and browser use among "member sites" that use Net Applications' tracking services, which the company says encompasses data from some 160 million users per month. This means that the only OS and browser numbers being tracked are those from users who specifically visit those member sites, which include the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, and InformationWeek. If specific demographics of users—like, say, Linux users—don't tend to read those types of sites, they are going to be underrepresented, and similarly, other demographics may be overrepresented.

It obviously could be the case that Chrome is used by people more likely to use those "member sites" than people who use Safari.

Unfortunately, Ars Technica then writes, 'That being said, browser metrics such as these aren't worthless. Even though they may be an inaccurate way to make comparisons between operating systems, they provide a good picture when it comes to trends within a specific OS. For example, Net Applications tracked the Mac OS at 7.3 percent at the end of 2007 and 9.63 percent at the end of 2008, showing more than a 2.6 percentage point jump in only a year for the Mac. In this sense, it doesn't matter if Mac users tend to visit the Wall Street Journal's website more than Linux users. The trend is clearly showing that Mac users, with all their unique browsing habits, are growing steadily.'

That's obviously false, because it doesn't take into account the fact that demographics can trend from year to year (perhaps the WSJ introduced a new, and popular, Mac-specific section on their web site).

Re:Worthless (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30625562)

Do they track by cookie, or by IP Address? I have 4 users in my apartment, each using a different OS and probably a different browser. We're all behind the same NAT. If they only give each IP Address one vote per day, then we four are being underrepresented. If they track by cookies, then I'm being overrepresented, because every time I visit I get a new cookie that I delete 5 minutes later.

Also, their numbers don't tell what browsers are popular on the Internet, they tell what browsers are popular on those websites. So, that 2.6 percentage point increase probably just means that Mac OS users started reading more Wall Street Journal, not that there are more Mac OS users.

Maybe they should write something like:

This whole thing is wildly inaccurate. Rounding errors, ballot stuffers, dynamic IPs, firewalls. If you're using these numbers to do anything important, you're insane.

Bye, I'm off to set my User-Agent to elinks, and access the target websites over every tor exit node.

Re:Worthless (1)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#30625654)

Bye, I'm off to set my User-Agent to elinks, and access the target websites over every tor exit node.

Talk about completely wasting your time while thinking you're being clever. While true it doesn't represent the usage 100%, the sample size is a little bit larger than that.

Re:Worthless (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#30625622)

Of course, it isn't particularly likely that all 160 million sites introduced popular new mac specific sections.

Re:Worthless (1)

Matheus (586080) | more than 4 years ago | (#30625966)

They didn't say 160M "sites" they said 160M "users".

If say Google.com or Facebook.com alone were to throw in their numbers to this mix their entire data set would appear as a statistical anomaly.

Re:Worthless (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#30626128)

Oops.

Still, I doubt that the sites visited by the 160 million people had a persistent skew in content changes.

Re:Worthless (5, Insightful)

IntlHarvester (11985) | more than 4 years ago | (#30625648)

Eh, maybe the stats are "worthless" to sad OS/Browser fanboys who are arguing over every last 0.1%.

But the general trend of the web browser is useful and interesting. These kinds of browser stats are how we tracked the rise-and-fall of Netscape, the rise and stagnation of IE, and the rise of Firefox. People do use this sort of information for development and testing priority, flawed methodology and all.

And you will never have a non-"flawed" methodology for capturing this information, even for the users on your own site. (How do you identify a unique user? how do you know they aren't faking their user agent string? Who is a person and who is a bot? etc) If you can't deal with fuzzy information, don't leave the basement.

Re:Worthless (-1, Redundant)

pudge (3605) | more than 4 years ago | (#30626100)

Eh, maybe the stats are "worthless" to sad OS/Browser fanboys who are arguing over every last 0.1%.

Also, to people who understand statistics.

But the general trend of the web browser is useful

False.

... and interesting.

To people who do not understand statistics.

These kinds of browser stats are how we tracked the rise-and-fall of Netscape, the rise and stagnation of IE, and the rise of Firefox.

Just because it turns out to be correct doesn't mean the methodolgy is reasonable.

People do use this sort of information for development and testing priority, flawed methodology and all.

To their discredit.

And you will never have a non-"flawed" methodology for capturing this information, even for the users on your own site.

False, of course. It has a degree of error, but it is not flawed methodolgy. There's a difference: we have a good sample, they do not.

Re:Worthless (1)

gazbo (517111) | more than 4 years ago | (#30626376)

Would you care to enlighten us as to what you mean by "we have a good sample"?

Re:Worthless (4, Informative)

westlake (615356) | more than 4 years ago | (#30625680)

This means that the only OS and browser numbers being tracked are those from users who specifically visit those member sites, which include the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, and InformationWeek. If specific demographics of users--like, say, Linux users--don't tend to read those types of sites, they are going to be underrepresented,

The Moz Foundation is a Net Applications client.

Opera. Nokia. Adobe. Apple. Microsoft. RIM. D&B. CNN. Roche. Amazon.

The geek who hasn't ventured out of his grandma's basement in the last decade might be overlooked.

But the odds seem very good that you will be counted.

Re:Worthless (3, Informative)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 4 years ago | (#30625850)

...of that list, very few of those sites are actually "general interest". They are strictly vendor sites that someone might visit when they need a driver or a plugin update. The rest of the time they should be pretty invisible.

CNN and Amazon are somewhat interesting. The rest represent clearly skewed user sets.

Re:Worthless (1)

pudge (3605) | more than 4 years ago | (#30626142)

the odds seem very good that you will be counted.

When you play the odds, you are admitting your sampling methodolgy is flawed.

This is similar to the Neilsen ratings. Sure, it might work for many people, but there will be significant demographics that will be left out, making the data not just generally worthless, but damaging.

Re:Worthless (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30626262)

Chrome is doing better all over the place, even regular non-tech office users are picking it for their own reasons. Safari is complete crap on windows, it isn't available on Linux/BSD, just on Apple. Guess what? Even they choose alternatives to what is pre-installed. Whether Chrome joins the big four remains to be seen, but judging from what I've seen in the beta releases, all browsers will be looking over their shoulders, Chrome is a welcome addition to the HTTP client list, anyone saying otherwise is a zealot scared of competition to whatever they're using.

Chrome is on the Droid, too... (1)

jddj (1085169) | more than 4 years ago | (#30625356)

That probably gave the figures a big bump. Using it right now.

Re:Chrome is on the Droid, too... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30625428)

As a Chromium developer I can tell you with absolute certainty that neither the Droid nor any other Android phone has Google Chrome or similar. The Android browser is a completely different piece of software, developed by a different team, over a different timescale.

Re:Chrome is on the Droid, too... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30625512)

As a google employee who works on Android and Chrome, I can tell you with absolute certainty that you're wrong.

Re:Chrome is on the Droid, too... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30625564)

As the Prince of Space, I can tell you that you're both wrong.

Re:Chrome is on the Droid, too... (1)

MathiasRav (1210872) | more than 4 years ago | (#30625766)

The built-in browser on my HTC Magic sends the following user agent string:

Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 1.5; en-ie; HTC Magic Build/CUPCAKE) AppleWebKit/528.5+ (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.1.2 Mobile Safari/525.20.1

Other phones (from analyzing my access logs [lolwh.at] from my site which attracts mobile users [lolwh.at] ) send either Mobile Safari/525.20.1 or Mobile Safari/530.17.

For the sake of comparison, my Chromium sends the following user agent:

Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US) AppleWebKit/532.8 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/4.0.283.0 Safari/532.8

It seems Chrome/Chromium as well as the Android built-in web browser both run WebKit, and they both base their UAs on Safari's.

It sounds crazy to me to assume that Google would have two different teams to work on two different browsers, and also to assume that they don't share any codebase.

Android Chrome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30625464)

Android (including the Droid) has a WebKit-based browser, but it's not Chrome, and it's got its own distinct user-agent string.

Jumping ship from IE? (1, Interesting)

tgd (2822) | more than 4 years ago | (#30625500)

I'm not sure I know anyone who uses IE who even knows that Chrome exists.

I'd be willing to bet its almost entirely loss of Firefox users (like myself), as Firefox has become a bloated, buggy, slow pile of crap that would make IE6 proud.

Re:Jumping ship from IE? (1)

Shikaku (1129753) | more than 4 years ago | (#30625572)

I love when people say X is bloated, but never mention what the bloat is.

Please, name something you can remove from the default install of Firefox.

Re:Jumping ship from IE? (1)

selven (1556643) | more than 4 years ago | (#30625638)

Please, name something you can remove from the default install of Firefox.

Integrated bloat is the worst kind.

Re:Jumping ship from IE? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30625716)

Not actually remove, just would remove. For example, tabbed browsing could not be removed, but is a feature that a person could imagine being removed. I imagine the grandparent meant "name something you would like to see removed from the default install of Firefox."

Re:Jumping ship from IE? (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 4 years ago | (#30625834)

Agree with parent, youll need to define bloat. Session recovery? Guess what, every browser ive checked out there supports it, including Chrome. Tab close undo? Ditto. Same for a database backend (chrome has one), extensions (chrome, opera, IE all have them).

So what exactly is the bloat being referred to? I use chrome because I find it to be faster, but from recent experience Firefox 3.5 is faster than 3.0, which was much faster than 2.0, which was faster / better than 1.5, etc.

Re:Jumping ship from IE? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30625772)

XUL or whatever their stupid javascript UI is called.

Use Chrome for a while and come back and tell us you can't see the hefty obesity of Firefox.

Re:Jumping ship from IE? (0, Troll)

gbutler69 (910166) | more than 4 years ago | (#30626202)

You are a moron.

Re:Jumping ship from IE? (2)

tgd (2822) | more than 4 years ago | (#30626256)

Whatever it is that's using 450MB of RAM and chewing up 5x the amount of time loading pages.

That's a good place to start.

Re:Jumping ship from IE? (1)

adarn (582480) | more than 4 years ago | (#30626658)

I think the parent is referring to resource bloat, not feature bloat.

I've never run FF out of the box with no extensions for very long so I can't say if the browser itself is the trouble or poorly coded extensions but we all know that FF has become slower and more resource intensive with age. 3.5 is some improvement but it still is not the same as it used to be.

Re:Jumping ship from IE? (3, Insightful)

idiotnot (302133) | more than 4 years ago | (#30625598)

I'm not sure I know anyone who uses IE who even knows that Chrome exists.

I use IE sometimes; there's stuff I try to use that doesn't work in FF or Chrome, especially at work, where government sites still don't work well with either (CAC-enabled DoD sites, especially).

I'd be willing to bet its almost entirely loss of Firefox users (like myself), as Firefox has become a bloated, buggy, slow pile of crap that would make IE6 proud.

I've switched to Chrome most of the time on my Windows box at work, and another here at home. Am currently using FF on this box, because I don't use it all that much. On my macs, I use Safari.

But the bigger sisue is that WebKit/KHTML is now a better core than Gecko, and will probably surpass Gecko-based browsers at some point in the not-too-distant future. This is especially true when you consider that a large portion of the mobile browser market is now WebKit-based (Safari on iPhone, Chrome on Android), and the Gecko/FF port to Win32 was damn near unusable when I used it last (this past summer, before I bought my iPhone).

Re:Jumping ship from IE? (4, Informative)

BZ (40346) | more than 4 years ago | (#30625818)

> But the bigger sisue is that WebKit/KHTML is now a better core than Gecko

Based on what metric? It uses more memory, is faster in some cases and slower in others, is easier to hack in some ways. It also just provides a renderer, as opposed to an entire browser. So which is better depends on what you're trying to do and how much effort you want to expend on the non-renderer parts of your app (e.g. to use webkit you have to provide your own http stack and so forth).

If you just want to embed a non-browser HTML renderer that you're going to feed data into, then webkit is better, sure. That's what it's designed for; it's not what Gecko is designed for.

Re:Jumping ship from IE? (5, Informative)

BZ (40346) | more than 4 years ago | (#30626094)

One other note... Webkit and Gecko have different priorities in other ways too: for example, correct behavior of CSS selectors in the face of DOM mutations is a top priority for Gecko (and hence behavior is correctin all the cases I know of) and is not for Webkit (and hence the behavior is not correct in various cases; "for now we will just worry about the common case, since it's a lot trickier to get the second case right" as the Webkit code comments say). There are various other areas in which Webkit is behind Gecko in terms of standards support, and vice versa. They seem to have different future development priorities (e.g. in terms of things like SMIL vs CSS Animations).

It's also not clear which is developing faster, and that aspect is subject to rapid change. I think at this point there are more full-time engineers employed to work on Webkit than on the equivalent parts of Gecko. That may or may not continue to be the case.

Another interesting question, of course, is IE. IE9 has a bigger development team than either Webkit or Gecko, from what I can tell, and they're rapidly working on closing the existing gaps. IE's support for CSS2.1 is better than either Webkit's _or_ Gecko's in my testing (easier to do in some ways because the spec has kept changing so in some cases Webkit/Gecko implement earlier versions). Of course IE has a lot of catching up to do in other areas.

It'll be an interesting next few years all around.

Re:Jumping ship from IE? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30625694)

As I read this comment, Firefox crashed.

Re:Jumping ship from IE? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30625720)

I don't understand you. Is there some kind of doctrine that says "everything is crap except for what I use"? Can you not decide to use something that fits your purposes without smearing the alternatives?

Chrome's address bar and bookmarks manager is at least as feature-rich as Firefox's, and they're both pretty awesome. I'm using them in tandem for different things, since FF's Flash support is a bit hit-and-miss in Linux.

Performance-wise, they're both blazing fast even on a modest single-core/1GB system. My ancient notebook stutters a bit, but then it stutters while running a freaking text editor. Maybe you need a new computer, or use lynx.

Re:Jumping ship from IE? (1)

Zaiff Urgulbunger (591514) | more than 4 years ago | (#30626292)

Performance-wise, they're both blazing fast even on a modest single-core/1GB system.

Just to pick up on this point... it might be something funny with Ubuntu 9.10, or maybe I've been using Chromium a bit too much, but Firefox just seems very sluggish these days. I've recently upgraded my main computer from a 2.8GHz Celeron (2GB RAM) to a 2.6Ghz Core i5 (4GB RAM), and Firefox still takes a few seconds to start up! It's true I do run a number of extensions, and I do have a fairly rediculous number of bookmarks in FF, but even on a fresh OS install with vanilla FF, it's still not fast.

I'm not knocking Firefox btw -- I love it to bits for all it's extensions -- but the sluggishness (both startup, but also generally UI-laggyness) make it harder to love these days. So FF is kind of my web-dev/testing browser whilst Chromium is my day to day jumping around websites browser.

Chrome on Ubuntu (4, Informative)

Dreadneck (982170) | more than 4 years ago | (#30625538)

I'm giving Chrome a whirl on Ubuntu. The install was simple using GDebi, the performance is great and flash, java, divx, wmp, quicktime, and realplayer plugins are working, I've got AdBlock, LastPass, and SmoothScroll extensions installed. What's not to like (other than a current lack of an official ubuntu theme)?

Re:Chrome on Ubuntu (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30625828)

What's not to like?

I've not forgotten about GoogleEULALauncher.exe that just had to be running the whole time, and didn't even get uninstalled after removing all other Google software that came pre-installed.

After all, what could possibly be more important than shoving a revised EULA in your face at any moment?

Re:Chrome on Ubuntu (1)

Dreadneck (982170) | more than 4 years ago | (#30626164)

I think you're confusing Chrome running under Windows for Chrome running under Linux.

Re:Chrome on Ubuntu (0, Flamebait)

garcia (6573) | more than 4 years ago | (#30625878)

What's not to like (other than a current lack of an official ubuntu theme)?

The lack of AdBlock Plus? How about the annoying and frequently repeated ads on Hulu that make you click on stuff? How about your viewing, usage habits, history, plugins, etc all being tracked by Google? I mean I could go on.

It's a fucking browser. Just like any other piece of software there are plenty of things to like and not like.

Re:Chrome on Ubuntu (1)

Dreadneck (982170) | more than 4 years ago | (#30626104)

Apparently you missed the part where I said I had the AdBlock extension installed. What ads on Hulu? Not seeing them here. As for my "viewing, usage habits, history, plugins, etc. all being tracked by Google" - what evidence do you have that Chrome is sending any of that back to Google? Unless you're talking about the option to "Help make Google Chrome better by automatically sending usage statistics and crash reports to Google" in Options | Under the Hood, in which case Google isn't doing anything other than what the user allows. So, unless you have any actual evidence that Chrome is 'phoning home' behind the user's back, what's not to like?

Re:Chrome on Ubuntu (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30626668)

Apparently you missed the part where he mentioned Adblock Plus. The Chrome adblock extensions hides the ad, yet still downloads them (with all the "evil cookies(tm)" that come with them).

this is 6oatsex (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30625540)

Net Applications (2, Insightful)

bonch (38532) | more than 4 years ago | (#30625578)

Ah, Net Applications, the place whose surveys Slashdotters pick and choose to believe in depending on whose doing well in the survey.

Re:Net Applications (1)

caluml (551744) | more than 4 years ago | (#30626248)

depending on whose doing

depending on who's doing (who is).

That'll be £5 please.

What matters in fact? (5, Insightful)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 4 years ago | (#30625610)

Chrome displaces Safari that displaced Konqueror. But in the end, what matters is what runs behind. Webkit is gaining ground, and more important, web standards are too, Javascript is gaining speed. Unsafe/slow/nonstandard/closed browsers are losing ground, so all win.

And yet... (2, Interesting)

AnswerIs42 (622520) | more than 4 years ago | (#30625706)

I still have to start up Opera or FireFox because I have too many sites I visit that just do not work in chrome.

But yet, for a netbook, Chrome is the best choice because it uses the smallest amount of real estate for non-browser window information.

Re:And yet... (2, Informative)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 4 years ago | (#30626042)

Opera is highly configurable. It shouldn't be too hard to minimize the amount of space taken by the toolbar and so forth. Right click the tab bar and select Customize -> Appearance. Toy around a bit.

Re:And yet... (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#30626356)

Apart from customization mentioned already by other poster, I'm surprised that Opera Turbo, very low resource usage, definitely felt on slow hardware and built-in syncing weren't enough to keep you with Opera on a netbook.

Nothing to do with the OS X version (4, Insightful)

gyrogeerloose (849181) | more than 4 years ago | (#30625844)

From the summary:

This may be partially explained by the release of the Chrome beta on Mac

As an Mac user who's tried out the OS X version of Chrome, I can assure you that no one is abandoning Safari for it. While it's a decent enough browser for a beta, there are enough annoying things about it to make me wait until the next version to decide whether or not it will replace Safari (or Firefox; I switch between the two) as my primary browser.

If anything, it's more likely that the relative few Windows users who have been trying Safari for Windows have switched over to Chrome, at least temporarily.

I remember (0, Redundant)

HangingChad (677530) | more than 4 years ago | (#30625944)

According to a Net Applications survey, Google Chrome has replaced Apple's Safari as the number-three browser.

I remember when Chrome first came out it got panned, much like Google's phone is today and I'm sure will happen to their netbook when it arrives. And yet, here's Chrome, moving into the number 3 spot.

Maybe the initial release isn't so earth shattering, but over time they get more and more useful. It's like Google makes technology blank slates and lets users shape the functionality.

Personally, I think that's a brilliant business model. If one or two don't work out, no big deal as long as they didn't put too much money into it. Refreshingly different from how Microsoft operates.

Re:I remember (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30626132)

How long did it take for Mr. Schmidt to orgasm when you were blowing him just now?

3rd place (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30626380)

It's because Apple owns Safari...

and Google is a PC. :)

*jingle*

I've seen an amazing rise in traffic from Chrome (1)

QuatermassX (808146) | more than 4 years ago | (#30626384)

I've seen the number of visitors to my web site using Chrome double in November and December with most of the visitors using 3.0.195.33 and split between Windows and Linux (with Windows having a slight edge). I'm really rather surprised at the surge, but thankful that standards-based web browsing will be the norm in the near future (at least amongst people fond of fine-art photography).

I won't be using Chrome until ... (1)

niks42 (768188) | more than 4 years ago | (#30626562)

they ship a Mac version that runs on PowerPC ..

Incompetence will lose you market share... (0, Flamebait)

MacGyver2210 (1053110) | more than 4 years ago | (#30626620)

Surprise surprise, Apple invests all its time and money in marketing and promotion for it's barely-improved plastic crap. I'm so sure they give a shit about browser performance or security. I'll stick with a functional browser like FireFox, thanks.
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>