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!

IE 8 Is Top Browser, Google Chrome Is Rising Fast

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the trend-is-your-friend dept.

The Internet 319

An anonymous reader points out that the latest Net Applications numbers show that MSIE 8 has become the world's most-used browser, taking over from IE6, which has been hit by the decline in the use of Windows XP. PCMag.com emphasizes another angle on the numbers, which is that Chrome is the fastest-growing browser. Firefox's market share has stalled just below 25%. Chrome is now in third place, ahead of Safari. The Guardian's article reminds: "There's no guarantee that NetApps' numbers are accurate, and they are very unlikely to be correct to two decimal places. However, they do appear to be a good indicator of market trends."

cancel ×

319 comments

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

i would have beern first but i'm using crappy crom (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30990124)

This first post is not likely to be accurate to two decimal places, but Don't Be Evil Matra is Bullsh*t!

the more prevalent it remains, the bigger the risk (5, Interesting)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 4 years ago | (#30990128)

With so many people still using IE, whatever holes there are in firefox and chrome just won't get the same attention from the hackers. That alone makes me not want to use it. Obscurity may not be obscurity but it's also not jumping up and down with a target painted on your chest.

Re:the more prevalent it remains, the bigger the r (1)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 4 years ago | (#30990146)

obscurity not security rather

Re:the more prevalent it remains, the bigger the r (2, Funny)

Again (1351325) | more than 4 years ago | (#30990154)

[...] Obscurity may not be obscurity but it's also not jumping up and down with a target painted on your chest.

;) I see what you did there.

Re:the more prevalent it remains, the bigger the r (4, Insightful)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 4 years ago | (#30990238)

The fact that IE has most of the business market also makes it a much more profitable target.

Can someone please answer this? (5, Interesting)

mystikkman (1487801) | more than 4 years ago | (#30990336)

Something that bugged me throughout the whole China-Google-IE6 fiasco... Why were Google etc. using IE6 internally and got hacked? MS released IE7 with sandboxing in Vista and Windows 7... and Google's internal IT saved lots of money by sticking with IE6, but then turn around and blame MS for IE6 when MS itself recommends upgrading. Did I miss something or did Google PR and astroturfing successfully prevented this point from being made in any of the articles or Slashdot comments?

Re:Can someone please answer this? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30990412)

It was their plan to be hacked.

Re:Can someone please answer this? (4, Insightful)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 4 years ago | (#30990450)

Did I miss something or did Google PR and astroturfing successfully prevented this point from being made in any of the articles or Slashdot comments?

Or the far simpler explanation that no one simply happened to think of it. No conspiracy theory required.

Furthermore, I can think of at least one good reason for Google to still use IE6 internally, and that is testing. Granted, one would hope they were taking precautions to make sure they didn't get attacked because of it, but the fact remains that it was pretty reasonable for them to keep a couple of IE6 machines around for testing their services.

Re:Can someone please answer this? (0, Troll)

mystikkman (1487801) | more than 4 years ago | (#30990508)

Incredible to think that only I thought of it. I guess everyone just raged in their blind MS hatred. And I find it hard to believe that testers were surfing with IE6 on external websites given by the Chinese fakers on Facebook. Either way, Google deserves equal blame as MS, if not more.

Re:Can someone please answer this? (2, Informative)

TrancePhreak (576593) | more than 4 years ago | (#30990976)

I believe MS has a free virtual machine available for testing IE6. There's absolutely no reason to need to keep a machine with valuable info so far behind any more.

Re:Can someone please answer this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30990872)

The best that I can figure is that GOOGLE itself was NOT HACKED. Just the accounts of people using Google services were hacked. Those people were external. But because newspeople are clueless about technology they equate "wah, my google account got hacked" with "Google got hacked". You are right; outside of some simple virtual machines for testing their code changes against IE6 nobody at Google uses IE6.

Re:Can someone please answer this? (2, Interesting)

mystikkman (1487801) | more than 4 years ago | (#30990896)

The best that I can figure is that GOOGLE itself was NOT HACKED. Just the accounts of people using Google services were hacked. Those people were external. But because newspeople are clueless about technology they equate "wah, my google account got hacked" with "Google got hacked". You are right; outside of some simple virtual machines for testing their code changes against IE6 nobody at Google uses IE6.

Wrong. If that's the best you can figure out, you're either a Google shill or really lack reading comprehension. http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/01/operation-aurora/ [wired.com]

Re:Can someone please answer this? (2, Informative)

WraithCube (1391567) | more than 4 years ago | (#30990920)

If I remember the articles what you said is correct. There were accounts that were hacked through phishing and bugs in IE6. Actual attacks on google did not succeed and had nothing to do with IE6.

Re:Can someone please answer this? (-1, Troll)

mystikkman (1487801) | more than 4 years ago | (#30990990)

If I remember the articles what you said is correct. There were accounts that were hacked through phishing and bugs in IE6. Actual attacks on google did not succeed and had nothing to do with IE6.

Seriously, people are so blinded by MS hatred here that they fail to even see the possibility that Google can be at fault.

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/01/23/schneier.google.hacking/index.html [cnn.com]

It was on fucking CNN for Chrissake.

Re:the more prevalent it remains, the bigger the r (1)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 4 years ago | (#30990256)

There's no real difference with respect to security. A porn addict could easily still get a Win 7 PC loaded up with crapware, even with Avast and Ad-Aware running.

Who's laughing now, Alfonso? Want me to put Ubuntu back on? All because you wanted to run the latest version of Nero, crybaby.

Re:the more prevalent it remains, the bigger the r (4, Insightful)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 4 years ago | (#30990502)

So what? If porn sites bothered to have malware targeting Ubuntu, a porn addict could easily get an Ubuntu PC loaded up with it. No amount of OS security is a defense against the user being stupid enough to fall for "you need this program to get $thing_you_want!"

Re:the more prevalent it remains, the bigger the r (3, Insightful)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 4 years ago | (#30990788)

Well, Chrome OS doesn't let you install or run any programs at all. It might be sufficient, but you never know.

Re:the more prevalent it remains, the bigger the r (5, Funny)

mystikkman (1487801) | more than 4 years ago | (#30990914)

It's already happening. Take a look at Firefox. http://i.imgur.com/qD2OV.png [imgur.com]

Re:the more prevalent it remains, the bigger the r (0, Redundant)

GF678 (1453005) | more than 4 years ago | (#30990500)

Obscurity may not be obscurity

Are you sure about that?

Re:the more prevalent it remains, the bigger the r (2, Informative)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 4 years ago | (#30990608)

IE8 sucks. It particularly sucks on XP, but in general, in a slow, bloated pile of garbage. I've given up any hope that Microsoft has any capacity to build a browser that isn't pure unadulterated shit.

Re:the more prevalent it remains, the bigger the r (1, Insightful)

barzok (26681) | more than 4 years ago | (#30990698)

They probably could build a good, lean, fast browser if they didn't have to support legacy bullshit.

Re:the more prevalent it remains, the bigger the r (4, Interesting)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 4 years ago | (#30990834)

"Legacy bullshit" is Microsoft's stock in trade. That's what they are. Windows is the win32 API; IE is IE6-style HTML. That's the core of their business, why it's so hard to get rid of them. Lots of people would like to be rid of Windows and move onto a platform that's less of an attack vector, but nearly everyone has some shitty old application somewhere that they can't do without and Windows provides a good upgrade path, or at least better than anyone else. IE may be a shitty browser but it works on a lot of shitty intranet sites that were designed for IE6 and that nobody can afford to fix now, and probably won't be fixed for a decade at least.

If they decided to pull an Apple and just say "screw you, everyone who built stuff for the old API, you're dead to us," they'd be torn apart by the market as a thousand little competitors jumped in and tried to get in on everyone who'd been left behind. (Apple only gets away with it because they're small enough, and cater mostly to home users with shallow pockets, that nobody really caters to the people who get screwed by the Steve Jobs Upgrade Treadmill.)

It's Microsoft's blessing and the key to their success, but it's also their curse and will probably be their eventual downfall. They can toss billions of dollars around and try to get the greatest programmers in the world, but they're always going to be hampered by the thing they can't (or are unwilling) to change -- the legacy cruft that gives them real vendor lock-in, or at least a huge advantage over all comers.

Going by rendering engines... (5, Interesting)

argent (18001) | more than 4 years ago | (#30990156)

MS HTML control 62%
Gecko 24.5%
Webkit 9.7%%
Opera 3.0%
Miscellania 0.7%

Re:Going by rendering engines... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30990172)

some of us still use telnet host:80!!!

Re:Going by rendering engines... (1)

argent (18001) | more than 4 years ago | (#30990374)

GET /robots.txt HTTP/1.0

Re:Going by rendering engines... (1)

Kvasio (127200) | more than 4 years ago | (#30990576)

... and read results in bits not bytes

Re:Going by rendering engines... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30990622)

some of us still use telnet host:80!!!

Ohmygosh! Richard Stallman reads Slashdot!

Re:Going by rendering engines... (5, Informative)

Eskarel (565631) | more than 4 years ago | (#30990270)

To be pedantic since you're talking about Gecko and Webkit, the layout engine for Internet Explorer is called trident, and Opera's is Presto.

Re:Going by rendering engines... (3, Funny)

argent (18001) | more than 4 years ago | (#30990356)

Thank you for an informative response! I must be in the wrong room, I thought this was slashdot. :)

Re:Going by rendering engines... (4, Informative)

keeboo (724305) | more than 4 years ago | (#30990662)

The be even more pedantic, "Internet Explorer" not necessarily means a Trident engine, it could be Tasman [wikipedia.org] instead.

Re:Going by rendering engines... (0)

VulpesFoxnik (1493687) | more than 4 years ago | (#30990686)

Yes, but trident whiten your teeth while you chew?

Re:Going by rendering engines... (1)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 4 years ago | (#30990938)

Bah, who wants Trident?

Most of that Miscellania will be Webkit (2, Informative)

Rix (54095) | more than 4 years ago | (#30990510)

Since it will largely be mobile browsers from iPhones, Android, and Palm, which are all Webkit based.

Re:Going by rendering engines... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30990556)

how many people use wget -O - ?

Re:Going by rendering engines... (1)

fermion (181285) | more than 4 years ago | (#30990710)

To reinterpret, the proprietary, nonstandard, internet breaking MS engine may soon be a minority operator leaving developers to concentrate on the majority of browsers that do comply with the civilized standards. This may be very bad news for MS, if, combined with HTML 5, it allows application front ends (read google docs, games, tax software) that is independent of an OS. Google is embracing this OS independence. Apple is embracing this OS independence(OS X for iPhone, OS X for Mac). What is MS going to do, who knows.

That O browser... (-1, Troll)

jim_v2000 (818799) | more than 4 years ago | (#30990168)

I forget the name, but it appears not to be on the list.

Re:That O browser... (2, Funny)

Mad Merlin (837387) | more than 4 years ago | (#30990426)

Konqueror?

Re:That O browser... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30990472)

This childish shit is ridiculous.

Why would so-called adults battle each other over web browsers?

The fanboyism involved is utterly lame.

Alright, I can almost understand the 'Internet Explorer versus All The Rest' wars, what with all the shilling and astroturfing so prevalent and common these days.

But why almighty fuck would the fangirlies of one non-IE browser devote so much time and effort to bashing any other non-IE browser?

"Z0MG TEH OPERAS IS TEH GAY AND R33L GEEKS USE TEH FIREFOX Z0MGLOL!!!!1111ELEVENTYONE"

Re:That O browser... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30990734)

Lonx? [ndoodesign.com]

It will be through the roof once Chrome OS is out. (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30990174)

If you think Chrome is becoming popular now, just wait until Chrome OS is finally available on netbooks. Chrome's usage will literally shoot through the roof. It will rise from its current 8% up towards 45% to 50%.

Everybody is underestimating the market penetration of netbooks right now. They're going to go critical within the next two years, and Chrome OS will be there to bring Chrome to the masses.

Re:It will be through the roof once Chrome OS is o (1)

Patik (584959) | more than 4 years ago | (#30990744)

Your seriousness and conviction astounded me, but your post's moderation of "Funny" has returned balance to the world.

Re:It will be through the roof once Chrome OS is o (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30990884)

So why is this modded funny? Unrealistic maybe but funny?

Re:It will be through the roof once Chrome OS is o (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30990926)

"(...) Google Chrome Is Rising Fast"

Everybody is underestimating the market penetration of netbooks right now. They're going to go critical within the next two years, and Chrome OS will be there to bring Chrome to the masses.

Wow... Nasty! The market likes it rough yeah.

Re:It will be through the roof once Chrome OS is o (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30990934)

And I predict that we will see the Year of Linux on the Desktop within the next two years as well. Just wait and see...

I'm using Chrome (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30990178)

I use it at work, and at home on my Mac and PC.

I have used it for months, but I am quickly becoming agitated with its bugs. I have had multiple occasions where the entire browser becomes unresponsive (which was supposed to be extremely uncommon with each tab as a process).

Flash absolutely destroys the browser after a few hours of listening to last.fm, and if I leave the browser on overnight, I regularly return to a browser that I can watch as it refreshes the screen line by line (literally, I could count the lines as it repaints the screen).

With Firefox's latest improvements, I am very eager to see what they can dish out in 3.7, and I am slowly working my way back to using their browser.

I also hate how Google "helps" by hiding a large portion of modestly large URLs when I highlight the link.

Google won me with speed, but, as usual with everything except search and GMail, they are losing me with bugs and a lack of features (Print Preview, the ability to remove typos from my search history (like "sl," which gets very annoying now when I type sl and it googles it instead of selecting Slashdot, and internal settings, like automatically signing into corporate intranets, while on the intranet--Firefox and IE support this).

Re:I'm using Chrome (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30990352)

...and with the lack of features, the memory footprint isn't that much better than FF or Opera. Chrome is tricky though, every time you open a tab, Chrome creates a new process, so if you're not paying attention, it looks like Chrome has a smaller footprint than the other two.

Chrome isn't impressive at all. FF is still my champ.

Re:I'm using Chrome (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30990378)

Same. We have JIRA on our intranet. When I type 'jira' into the search bar in Chrome, the first thing that pops up is my bookmark to the internal JIRA, which is also my home page. Great! Then about half a second later before I have time to down+enter, it pops in four fucking search results above it, leaving JIRA fifth. No I don't want to Google it, I have NEVER fucking googled Jira, IT'S MY HOME PAGE AND IT'S IN MY FAVORITES FOR FUCK'S SAKE I DONT WANT TO GODDAMN FUCKING SEARCH

captcha: chairing. *shudder*

Re:I'm using Chrome (4, Interesting)

goldaryn (834427) | more than 4 years ago | (#30990408)

Google won me with speed, but, as usual with everything except search and GMail, they are losing me with bugs and a lack of features (Print Preview, the ability to remove typos from my search history

I agree with you. I switched to Chrome as my main browser for similar reasons. I used to use Firefox, but I became weary of how slow Firefox is relative to Chrome, even without extension. With extensions it's a joke. (Side note: I like the userscript extension method in the Chrome Beta - which is very stable for a Beta).

But why, as you say, can't they have a half intelligent search history, like Firefox? Why does the browser constantly chatter to 1e100.net? image [tinypic.com] If this is a Google server, why doesn't it LOOK like a Google server? Why doesn't a Google search for "Chrome plugins" have as a result the proper Extensions page? https://chrome.google.com/extensions [google.com] . In fact, why is that page the SECOND result for "Chrome extensions"?

Mystifying.

Re:I'm using Chrome (5, Interesting)

Duct Tape Pro (318982) | more than 4 years ago | (#30990820)

Why does the browser constantly chatter to 1e100.net? image [tinypic.com] If this is a Google server, why doesn't it LOOK like a Google server?

I suspect they were going for 1x10^100, which is by definition a googol [wikipedia.org]

Re:I'm using Chrome (1)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 4 years ago | (#30990506)

With Firefox's latest improvements, I am very eager to see what they can dish out in 3.7

You're going to have a long wait for 3.7, since it's been cancelled. :)

I'm looking for their 'out of process plugin' update to 3.6; that should take care of most of the Flash problem.

Re:I'm using Chrome (2, Funny)

mister_playboy (1474163) | more than 4 years ago | (#30990658)

(like "sl," which gets very annoying now when I type sl and it googles it instead of selecting Slashdot).

That annoys me as well... It's happened enough times that I can say I remember Second Life is the first Google result from a search for "sl".

At some level this is may be a good thing (5, Interesting)

JoshuaZ (1134087) | more than 4 years ago | (#30990182)

The results show that we've got pretty heavy diversity of browsers. We now have four browsers with ranges in the 12% to 24% of market share (although why they made the graph with those as the numbers easy to track isn't clear to me). This means that any single exploit that is browser specific isn't going to harm more than a fraction of all users. Just as genetic diversity helps prevent epidemics from sweeping through and wiping out a species, browser diversity does the same thing. The real upshot is not the rise of IE 8 but that we have more than 2 serious browser choices that are being chosen by people who aren't just the types who read Slashdot. That also means that a lot of people are making real choices about their browser types, possibly indicating that the general public is more aware about browswer issues than they were about a decade ago. On the other hand, another way of looking at this data is that around 40% of people are still using some form of IE. So all of those people have what is essentially their default browser. It might be interesting to compare this over longer term, but the data in the article only goes back a year.

Re:At some level this is may be a good thing (1)

bschorr (1316501) | more than 4 years ago | (#30990678)

Competition is a good thing, no doubt about it. I'm a solid Firefox user but I'm happy to see Chrome or even Opera (or even IE for that matter) make significant advances in browser technology because I want to see that push Mozilla to further improve Firefox too.

I think having browser diversity helps to keep web designers honest as well - hopefully gone (or at least numbered) are the days when sites would only work with one particular browser. I'm pleased to see that I rarely have to use IE Tab anymore in Firefox as a lot of sites that used to be IE-only are now starting to work in Firefox as well.

Re:At some level this is may be a good thing (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 4 years ago | (#30990888)

Just as genetic diversity helps prevent epidemics from sweeping through and wiping out a species, browser diversity does the same thing.

The same thing being preventing extinction of species?

Whoa.

Re:At some level this is may be a good thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30990994)

>The results show that we've got pretty heavy diversity of browsers.

Bugger diversity. I want one browser to stomp all the others into the ground so that I only have to develop for one.

Looking at the bigger picture... (5, Insightful)

geekmux (1040042) | more than 4 years ago | (#30990208)

...I could really care less who fights for what place. The bigger impact being made by the browser wars is we finally see more than one damn browser on the list, forcing many websites to adopt to user choice rather than the IE "my way or the highway" web hole we dealt with for many years.

Re:Looking at the bigger picture... (2, Funny)

BenoitRen (998927) | more than 4 years ago | (#30990368)

The bigger impact being made by the browser wars is we finally see more than one damn browser on the list, forcing many websites to adopt to user choice rather than the IE "my way or the highway" web hole we dealt with for many years.

Unfortunately, this has turned into the IE & Firefox "my way or the highway".

--a SeaMonkey user

Re:Looking at the bigger picture... (1)

Dracker (1323355) | more than 4 years ago | (#30990696)

Exactly. I'm an Opera user, and there are several sites (that work perfectly fine) that require click-through "Unsupported Browser" warnings, or worse, user agent spoofing.
My bank's website was incompatible with Opera 9, works without any errors or warnings with Opera 10.
My mom works in real estate. I bought her a mac. One of the real estate tools her company uses requires IE. I had to set up a windows VM for her, because it completely failed to work with safari, opera, firefox, even IE in wine (as it also needs Java). Absolutely ridiculous.

Re:Looking at the bigger picture... (4, Funny)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 4 years ago | (#30990386)

I could really care less who fights for what place - you could care less, but can you try not to?

Re:Looking at the bigger picture... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30990644)

"...I could really care less..."

In other words, you DO care more than a little...

I immediately thought... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30990276)

NetApps? The guys who make the storage filers/toasters/whatever?

Net Application != NetApp (nee Network Appliance)

It took a long time to parse that summary, because I was trying to figure out what the storage guys had to do with browser share.

Who are these people? (2, Interesting)

LoudMusic (199347) | more than 4 years ago | (#30990298)

Literally NO ONE that I know uses Internet Explorer. If it's a computer that I set up for someone else I install Firefox AND Chrome and explain to them the values of IE, FF, and Ch, and months later I'm still seeing them using Firefox.

Ok I take that back. Some of my coworkers (and myself I suppose) use IE for some Cisco and HP devices that have clunky web interfaces. But those browsing sessions don't get registered on these kinds of reports and certainly don't add up to 40%.

I'd like to see a list of what sites are being browsed with what browsers. I bet that would be a very telling set of statistics as well.

Re:Who are these people? (2, Informative)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#30990418)

Everybody where I work outside engineering uses IE. At the most firefox might be kind of a perversion they might dabble with one day if they want IT to know they are a rebel. I am sure that most big workplaces with big, professional IT departments will only use IE.

Re:Who are these people? (1, Informative)

JeremyGNJ (1102465) | more than 4 years ago | (#30990432)

Many corporations insist on IE only. Why? Becuase so many 3rd party applications use the IE engine, that you have to keep it patched and maintained anyway. Allowing additional browsers, that create little-to-no value for the company, is just and added expense and bad practice. (remember, software is supposed to fullfil a NEED, not a preference) The "IE is vulnerable" arguement holds no water, because if the IT Security team is doing their job, such exploits can usually be blocked through various security tools as soon as such and exploit is known.

Re:Who are these people? (1)

GIL_Dude (850471) | more than 4 years ago | (#30991048)

Exactly right. Add in to that the fact that neither Chrome nor Firefox are very friendly to corporate software distribution and patching systems and that neither works with established systems like Group Policy and folks at major corporations using Windows don't want to touch it. I use FF at work and Chrome and FF at home, but I have admin rights on my work machine since I build images and write code. Most folks in the company don't have admin and just have IE with the corporate policies applied for security settings. I understand that Chrome doesn't even support pass through authentication (some other poster in another topic said this; I have not verified as we've found that Chrome just beats the shit out of our proxy servers so I won't install at work to verify that it can't do auto-sign in). Until these browsers "grow up" and support corporate customizations and policy they won't be the most used browsers in a corporate setting. I'm a fan of both (using FF to post this), but even I couldn't seriously propose to replace IE with either of them today.

Re:Who are these people? (5, Insightful)

parallel_prankster (1455313) | more than 4 years ago | (#30990460)

Old people, non-geeks, spouses of slashdotters maybe. Seriously, a lot of people still use IE. There are reason though. I was able to "convert" my wife from IE to FF a few months ago, however, her company's payroll system only works on IE. Once she switches it on, she continues using it. That to me is a big problem with FF. We as geeks just don't go to crazy ass sites as other regular people sometimes and we think FF is the best whereas, there are still a number of sites that don't work well with IE. I remember flashblock extension screwed up videos on a number of sites for me for a long time. Also, FF has its own issues. I typically have to restart my browser every other day because it makes my system slow and I am already using Adblock and Flashblock to cut off the junk and the memory leak from flash. The biggest advantage of Chrome is its popularity due to Google and perceived speed. It feels like Chrome loads pages wayyy faster FF. However, in many instances, it succeeds in loading only half the page fast, there are elements of the page that load slowly and if you note down the start to end loading time, it is comparable to FF. However, since it loads a visible portion quickly, people believe it is wayy faster than FF.

Re:Who are these people? (2, Insightful)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 4 years ago | (#30990764)

However, since it loads a visible portion quickly, people believe it is wayy faster than FF.

Since one can see the text and other features of the page faster with Chrome, for all intents and purposes it is faster.

Re:Who are these people? (4, Insightful)

RoFLKOPTr (1294290) | more than 4 years ago | (#30990482)

Literally NO ONE that I know uses Internet Explorer.

I believe the majority of that statistic is the result of corporate computer deployments where IE is pretty much the norm, and employees are unable to install their own browsers. That's why IE6 was at the top for so very long, even through the entirety of IE7's lifetime, because corporations hadn't taken the time to install new software like that en masse.

I'm glad to see that IE8 is on top now, though(*). Shows that corporations are perhaps finally realizing how utterly bad IE6 is and they're moving forward.

(*): this is not an endorsement of IE... I honestly can't stand it... just anything is better than IE6.

Re:Who are these people? (2, Interesting)

GF678 (1453005) | more than 4 years ago | (#30990566)

Literally NO ONE that I know uses Internet Explorer.

I do a lot of IT support for school. EVERYONE uses Internet Explorer. Students don't know any better, teachers don't know any better, admin don't know any better. I don't know if it's mandated as such, but it's what people go for straight away when they need to use the Internet. Doesn't matter that I put a Mozilla Firefox icon on the desktop of all machines either (which is nice for me and anyone else who knows what it is).

Having said that, pulling down updates via WSUS for IE makes it a lot easier to update than static versions of Firefox which are fixed until the next build of the system image. I know there's a 3rd-party created MSI for Firefox, but they're no-where near as automatic as what Microsoft punches out. Maybe if the school was running Linux I'd employ repositories to fix that (like that's ever gonna happen with the inertia Windows has).

Re:Who are these people? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30990590)

Literally NO ONE that I know uses Internet Explorer.

So don't really know any one, then? Welcome to slashdot, home of socially inept nerds and wannabes.

If it's a computer that I set up for someone else I install Firefox AND Chrome and explain to them the values of IE, FF, and Ch

Ah, that explains the lack of friends. I prefer to associate with people who don't get hung up on browser preferences and just want one that works. Shit, if you bored me to tears like that I'd avoid you too.

Some of my coworkers (and myself I suppose) use IE for some Cisco and HP devices

I take it back, you can't be a real nerd. Real nerds (like me I guess) use telnet to manage Cisco equipment. The gui's don't let you get to most of the features. If you're just using the web gui, then you're a poser.

Re:Who are these people? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30990750)

When I got my girlfriend a Mac she had a hard time switching because she thought I was "taking her Internet away"... yes, she's hot.

Re:Who are these people? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30990864)

Literally NO ONE that I know uses Internet Explorer.

You've checked the web browser of everyone you know? Is this the new version of "Hey baby, what's your sign?"

Look, of the people I do intensive or casual support for, nobody uses IE. That's a fair number of people, but of all the people I know, jeepers, I have no idea what they browse with. The web isn't a novelty any more -- hardware/software is not a topic of casual conversation. To know that would be like knowing what kind of shampoo everyone uses. It'd be pretty damn weird to know.

Re:Who are these people? (2, Interesting)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 4 years ago | (#30991012)

Literally NO ONE that I know uses Internet Explorer... Ok I take that back. Some of my coworkers (and myself I suppose) use IE for some Cisco and HP devices that have clunky web interfaces.

You sound like a professional, so the pool of people you know is probably a bit skewed. I'm a biologist, literally no one I know is a creationist. Sadly they are many out there lurking in dark places, conspiring to ban evolution from the classroom and replace it with a bible.

Force-fed browser (-1, Flamebait)

Radi-0-head (261712) | more than 4 years ago | (#30990304)

I think the only reason Google Chrome is gaining ground is due to the fact that it's forced along with any other Google application, and in many cases sets itself to be the default browser. Most people are too stupid/apathetic to notice or care, so it stays.

It's very different in some parts of the world (5, Interesting)

Enleth (947766) | more than 4 years ago | (#30990376)

I remember posting about this about a year ago or so on /., and now I see the trend continue.

I run a website about the Heroes of Might and Magic game series (very little "geek bias"), in Poland and for Polish-speaking audience. It's relatively popular, about 1500 unique visitors a day, first hit for "Heroes of Might and Magic" in a localized Google search, thrid for "heroes" only after a Wikipedia disambiguation page for the term and the page on that goddamned TV series. The statistics are so completely different that it looks almost as if it were a parallel universe or something:

January 2008:
53.58% - Firefox
31.19% - IE
13.83% - Opera

January 2009:
60.99% - Firefox
23.99% - IE
12.32% - Opera
2.10% - Chrome

January 2010:
60.33% - Firefox
16.12% - Opera
15.29% - IE
6.24% - Chrome

Data gathered by Google Analytics, active on just about every non-static page on the server. It gets even more interesting in a month-by-month comparison on a graph, some of the fluctuations clearly correlate with new releases of FF, Opera, Chrome, *and* IE, but I'm afraid that I don't have the time right now to prepare something you could see and decide yourself.

Any other admins out there with similar statistics to share?

Re:It's very different in some parts of the world (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 4 years ago | (#30990458)

Any idea what OSs are typical? It'd be interesting to see the difference between Poland and "global" with respect to OS's (e.g., is Mac as popular in Poland?)

Re:It's very different in some parts of the world (1)

Enleth (947766) | more than 4 years ago | (#30990974)

98.27% Windows. 70.82 of that is XP, 17.25% is Vista, 10.77% Win 7, then 2000, Server 2003 and 98, all three in sub-percentages.

1.21% Linux
0.24% "not set"
0.21% Mac

In addition: 9 people (sub-promile amount) on an iPhone, 8 on Symbian, 5 on an iPod (WTF?...), 2 on an Android, 2 on some WebTVs or something.

Might be gaming bias, non-Windows gamers are rare in general. HoMM games mostly work on Wine, and there was a native Linux port of HoMM3 (without add-ons and incomatible with Windows versions in online play, quite useless today), but still, that's not mainstream by any measure.

Re:It's very different in some parts of the world (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30990580)

"very little geek bias"??? you have got to be kidding, who the hell do you think your audience for a game like heroes of might and magic is if it isn't geeks?

Re:It's very different in some parts of the world (3, Funny)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 4 years ago | (#30990612)

> I run a website about the Heroes of Might and Magic game series

Okay...

> (very little "geek bias")

Ah. I think a "nerd bias" still impacts browser usage, though.

Re:It's very different in some parts of the world (1)

Enleth (947766) | more than 4 years ago | (#30990890)

I wouldn't be so sure about this. A majority of my users are really "casuals", not HoMM nerds. There's a group of about 60 of those, with 20-30 visiting on any given day, and the rest are mostly kids who just bought HoMM5 at an electronics store because the box was shiny enough, or adults with jobs and families who fire up the good, ol' HoMM I, II or III once a month or so for an hour to bring back the memories of college all-nighters.

A news site would probably be better for a non-biased sample, but I consider my statistics good enough, especially with such a huge difference.

Re:It's very different in some parts of the world (1)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 4 years ago | (#30991046)

I wouldn't be so sure about this. A majority of my users are really "casuals", not HoMM nerds.

A 'casual' HoMM nerd is ... still a nerd, no matter how you slice it. An adult nerd who played HoMM as a college student is still a nerd. That's just the way it goes. It's not an insult, just an observation. Embrace the nerdiness!

Re:It's very different in some parts of the world (1)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 4 years ago | (#30990632)

I am a huge fan of HoMM. Could you please tell me which is your HoMM website?

Re:It's very different in some parts of the world (1)

Enleth (947766) | more than 4 years ago | (#30990794)

If you don't speak Polish, it won't be of much use to you. If you do, you probably know it already, and if not, you should be able to find it using Google in no time.

Besides, I'm not taking my chances by putting a link up on /., I'm not *that* confident in my database optimization skills.

Re:It's very different in some parts of the world (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30991030)

(very little "geek bias")

My ass. Every wanna-be geek I've ever seen thinks he's kick ass because he runs something other than IE. I'm sure FF will fall victim to it too now that grandma runs it. That can be the only reason for the high Opera percentage.

I downloaded Chromium a few days ago (4, Interesting)

Omnifarious (11933) | more than 4 years ago | (#30990452)

And I have a bunch of random observations. Nothing so coherent that I'd call it a review, but still relevant here.

So far, I've been really pleased. It's very fast compared to Firefox.

Unfortunately, almost all of my Firefox plugins are geared towards privacy and security. I can't run any of them on Chrome, so I am only willing to use Chrome to browse a small subset of the websites I'm willing to browse with Firefox. Slashdot happens to be among those.

Strangely, now that I no longer browse Slashdot with Firefox, Firefox behaves significantly better than it has been. Apparently, one of the absolute worst sites for the overall performance of Firefox is this one.

I routinely keep at least 30 or 40 tabs of state in Firefox.

Incognito in Chrome also looks like a much more convenient (and in some ways better) privacy feature than anything I currently use on Firefox. Though I still really wish I had Ghostery and NoScript.

Chrome does have some features that are almost as nice as Firebug built into it.

I really wish Firefox would just go multi-threaded, get a much better Javascript rendering engine and lose the horrible memory leaks. Last time I had to shut down Firefox it had a VSS of nearly 4G!

Re:I downloaded Chromium a few days ago (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30990572)

Firefox is multi-threaded, perhaps what you're after is multi-process?

Re:I downloaded Chromium a few days ago (1)

Omnifarious (11933) | more than 4 years ago | (#30990806)

If it's multi-threaded how come it never ever uses more than 100% of a CPU on my 4-core machine?

Re:I downloaded Chromium a few days ago (5, Informative)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 4 years ago | (#30990640)

Strangely, now that I no longer browse Slashdot with Firefox, Firefox behaves significantly better than it has been. Apparently, one of the absolute worst sites for the overall performance of Firefox is this one.

Do a validation test on this page. I just got: 104 Errors, 2 warning(s)

*whew*

I'd get fucking FIRED if I put out that kind of crap at work.

Re:I downloaded Chromium a few days ago (2, Informative)

mister_playboy (1474163) | more than 4 years ago | (#30990708)

I agree, Chromium is way, way faster than Firefox on /., and Opera is significantly slower than Firefox on /..

The ads/popups/etc on some sites make me want to shut down Chromium, whereas trying to browse Slashdot makes me want to shut down Opera.

Re:I downloaded Chromium a few days ago (2, Informative)

goldaryn (834427) | more than 4 years ago | (#30990786)

Though I still really wish I had Ghostery and NoScript.

IMO there is no need for them with a good HTTP proxy like Privoxy [privoxy.org] . Add a bit of Incognito use and a good user.action file, and all is great. I made my own user.action file ages ago from the MVPs.org hosts file [mvps.org] , and ever since the world has been good. It's here [rapidshare.de] if you are interested.

Chrome (2, Interesting)

PietjeJantje (917584) | more than 4 years ago | (#30990456)

Chrome the fastest growing? Looking at the numbers, it seems growth is also flattening out. Perhaps a headline: "Chrome will not make it if they continue this way" is more accurate of their situation.

Is it possible? (1)

koan (80826) | more than 4 years ago | (#30990494)

To spoof this information? Could you have a bank of servers trolling the net giving unique browser identification information on each unique page hit, there by giving the impression that a browser is more popular than it really is.

I could see Microsoft doing exactly that.

Re:Is it possible? (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 4 years ago | (#30990904)

They have. The name of the bot is Windows.

Wrong. (0)

dandart (1274360) | more than 4 years ago | (#30990548)

You couldn't be more wrong.

From W3Schools, Dec 09:
IE8: 13.5%, IE7: 12.8%, IE6:10.9%, Firefox: 46.4%, Chrome: 9.8%

As you can see, Firefox is far higher. And this has been confirmed by multiple sources.

So the title should be: Firefox Is Top Browser And Has Been For A Long Time, Chrome Overtakes Safari

Re:Wrong. (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#30991002)

Those are W3Schools stats. The kind of person who visits W3Schools.com isn't your average web user.

This confirms what I said earlier ... (1, Informative)

MadMaverick9 (1470565) | more than 4 years ago | (#30990602)

From TFA:

It appears that the most effective strategy for those who want to be rid of IE6 would be to encourage Windows XP users to upgrade to Windows 7.

IE8 works just fine on Windows XP. There's no need to upgrade to Windows 7, which requires you to buy new hardware as well. It's all a big scam to boost sales.

This just confirms what I wrote in an earlier post:
-----
It's not up to Microsoft how Windows is installed on a computer delivered to an end-user. It's companies like Dell, HP and computer shops who actually install Windows.

They (Dell, HP and computer shops) need to learn to install Windows properly: ntfs, no automatic login to admin user, least-privileged account, install latest version of a web browser (whether it be IE8, or something else), etc, etc, etc.

And power-users don't use pre-installed OSes anyway, correct? So the main problem is with users who use computers with a pre-installed OS.
-----

I am so sick and tired of it that end-users are tricked into believing they need to buy a new computer with a new OS, just so they get a more secure internet experience.

Wake Up, people! Your current OS, if properly setup, maintained and used, will work just fine.

And here's some more food for thought: we should all be logged with a least-privileged account when using our computers. But the automatic update feature of most software requires you to be logged in as admin. If you're logged with a least-privileged account, the automatic update feature does not work and is disabled. Example: Firefox.
Which brings me to the conclusion that the automatic update feature is contradicting basic security recommendations and therefor sorta useless and that it's really up to the user to properly maintain and use their computer.

Well - I could just go on and on about this ... y'all get the point, I hope.

Re:This confirms what I said earlier ... (1)

jafiwam (310805) | more than 4 years ago | (#30990798)

The point of suggesting an upgrade is that IE 6 won't be included in it. That's pretty much the ONLY way to be certain the user doesn't do something like... well... NOT upgrade.

And since suggesting going to Vista would be foolish, 7 it is.

Of the "power users" as you say that I know, more than half use a pre-installed OS. You must not know ANY Mac users. Even as a "power user" that built my own machine the last four iterations, I have a laptop (which came with an OS preinstalled) and several work computers (all on the original OS, pre-installed).

Way to COMPLETELY MISS the point dude. And, GO FUCK YOURSELF if you think keeping people on old OS's is good. Security methods for Windows have grown by leaps and bounds in the last three OSs. Keeping Windows2000 or XP even secure is an long line of endless patches, and half-way implemented security methods, or worse simply not possible. You get the fact that a not-so-old CD rom with your "custom installed" OS on it is likely to require a whole day of downloading and 15 or more reboots right?

Yes, it is up to the user to maintain the OS, however most of them are completely clueless as to doing that, so the most effective way to get them in the ballpark is to upgrade the fucking OS.

As someone that has to spend a lot of time supporting older stuff that is simply too fucking broke to be on the modern internet, I find your attitude enraging, I hope you get busted for some felony and your best tech job you can get is doing front line support for AT&T. Dick.

Re:This confirms what I said earlier ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30990832)

It's the people who are running pirated copies of XP and aren't computer savvy that are likely ruining your statistics. Not to mention the many who just don't bother running any updates on their machines. It would be interesting to see stats based on country of origin, given the widespread use of pirated software throughout Asia.

Re:This confirms what I said earlier ... (2, Interesting)

twidarkling (1537077) | more than 4 years ago | (#30990910)

Personally, I think auto-update needs to go die in a fire. I don't want a program dialing home, downloading a file, and then bitching at me to install it (or even going ahead an installing it on its own). FFS, even Windows Update doesn't do that if you tell it not to.

However, what *does* need to happen is someone should make a small program that can check what version of a program you're running, and what the latest version is, and let you know if you can update. Ideally, the program would allow you to list and delist programs on your own initiative (in case you don't want something updated, say for compatibility reasons). I've heard that one massive problem with security on computers is running out-of-date software, so making something like this for Windows would be a massive boon. Especially if it could also track things like Flash.

Time till IE6's death (1)

ALeader71 (687693) | more than 4 years ago | (#30991052)

If 2010 is "The Year of IE6's Demise," will 2012 be "The Year of IE6's Death?"

From what I'm reading, users aren't upgrading browsers till they upgrade machines (or Operating Systems). With Vista on the outs and Win 7 on the rise, will IE8 come to dominate the average and corporate user base?

BTW, I swtiched Mom to Firefox two years ago. Now I have far fewer problems with her Vista laptop.

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>