×

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 Market Share Falls To Historic Low

kdawson posted more than 3 years ago | from the going-going dept.

Internet Explorer 472

An anonymous reader writes "Predicting that Microsoft will lose market share from month to month isn't especially difficult. Yet it is amazing to see the downfall of what was once a bastion for Microsoft. It appears that Microsoft can't defend IE against Firefox and, as it seems, Google's Chrome. Net Applications now believes that IE has a share of less than 60%, which is about the range that IE had in early 1999, when IE5 was launched. IE is now officially back in the 1990s. Chrome, by the way, is the fastest growing browser, both in absolute numbers and percentages. It is well ahead of Safari and more than tripled its share within 12 months."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

472 comments

good (1, Insightful)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 3 years ago | (#32071284)

It's insecure and awful. Bye bye!

Re:good (0)

zero.kalvin (1231372) | more than 3 years ago | (#32071322)

I been faithful supporter of Firefox for the last few years. But I do think that Microsoft did some major advancement with IE(after IE6). I do agree that they still have much to do. But saying in an absolute manner that it's insecure, that's something I don't agree with.

Re:good (3, Insightful)

coniferous (1058330) | more than 3 years ago | (#32071564)

I agree that IE is the worst of the trio (Imho of course), It's not the unholy creation of satan that it once was. It's still the only browser the responds to the DPI setting in windows. Its security is closer to the other other browsers now, and you can manage it with group policy... I think its about time we reccomended the right tool for the right job, as opposed to just avoiding it outright.

Re:good (2, Interesting)

trum4n (982031) | more than 3 years ago | (#32071706)

If someone calls me to fix their PC, i will, and i will install firefox. I also put a trigger on IE to save a text file with the number of times it has been opened. If they call me back, it they use IE regularly, i wont fix their PC. its their problem if they WANT it broken.

Re:good (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32071794)

You're a complete asshole.

Re:good (1)

boneclinkz (1284458) | more than 3 years ago | (#32071486)

My biggest problem with IE is the resource utilization. It seems pretty absurd to me. I have 4 tabs open right now, nothing terribly intensive, and it's eating up 168MB.

Re:good (5, Interesting)

LordThyGod (1465887) | more than 3 years ago | (#32071644)

My biggest problem is that MS has deliberately broken standards to hold backup online development because it is a threat to their desktop based monopolies. Its not like they don't know what the standards are, or they can't afford to adopt them. Its a deliberate torpedoing of the market to protect their cash cow monopolies. Screw 'em. They can't be trusted to do the right thing. Them saying they will at some point in the future does not cut it. They have a long history of essentially lying through their teeth.

Re:good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32071598)

Sure, IE6 needs to be nuked from orbit, but things have improved. On Vista and 7, IE runs in a sandbox; it's arguably more secure than other browsers.

Anonymous Coward (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32071288)

m2k2 o ya

Why is this surprising? (3, Insightful)

King InuYasha (1159129) | more than 3 years ago | (#32071292)

Most people are not complete morons. If they get burned once with IE, they'll tell their friends to use a different browser. And of course, they themselves will use a different browser. As the number of people recommending alternative browsers increases, more people will switch away from IE voluntarily...

Re:Why is this surprising? (5, Insightful)

man_of_mr_e (217855) | more than 3 years ago | (#32071612)

I'm not so sure about that. I have to wonder if the explosion of iPhone and Android based phones has not contributed significantly to this. Since IE is not available on those devices, one has to wonder, especially considerging that chrome and safari account for more than 5% of the drop in IE's share. (according to the charts, firfox is less than 5%, and opera stayed the same).

What that means to me is that a significant number of people aren't switching on the desktop. The market is just growing, and those people using phone based browsers are probably still using IE on the desktop.

Mine Nipples Explode With Joy! (5, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 3 years ago | (#32071296)

As a human being I'm normally predisposed to abstain from unconditional hate.

As a web developer who has "done the dance" with former versions of IE late into the night too many times I hate hate hate and welcome this news. Nothing can undo those atrocities. IE6. Never forget!

Re:Mine Nipples Explode With Joy! (5, Funny)

poena.dare (306891) | more than 3 years ago | (#32071340)

I *almost* agree wit cha. I've been there to. However! I do remember a time (maybe a brief time) when I could pass the buck and say, It looks good on IE, who cares if it craps out on Netscape/Firefox!" Good times. Good times.

Re:Mine Nipples Explode With Joy! (4, Interesting)

DJRumpy (1345787) | more than 3 years ago | (#32071534)

Yes, but had MS stuck to standards to begin with, you would have been able to just design your pages per the standard, and never had to worry about any browser. Even now, my company is just getting around to piloting IE8, and only because the inevitable rollout to Windows 7. I suspect a lot are in the same boat, where they skipped Vista, and made no effort to stay current with the browser that came packaged with XP. I don't know why my company chose to just stay on IE6 but I suspect it worked at the time, it was updated from MS so they got their security fixes in a standard way along with the other OS patches, and it was simply conveniant.

My company is usually very keen on get current stay current, but they failed miserably on IE. I can only assume that they design apps specifically for IE6 and simply couldn't break away, or didn't see any need to move on. Now that the move to Windows 7 comes bundled with IE8, they simply have no choice.

Re:Mine Nipples Explode With Joy! (3, Informative)

bhtooefr (649901) | more than 3 years ago | (#32071604)

Netscape wasn't sticking to standards, either, though.

Re:Mine Nipples Explode With Joy! (2, Insightful)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#32071634)

Well, and standards didn't exactly help those browsers which did try to stick to them back then...

Re:Mine Nipples Explode With Joy! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32071768)

THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS ^ !!!!!

I put in a brief stint coding up a web page or two for clubs in college. Had a partner that helped me out with a lot of the art design, but knew nothing about web coding. Getting his stuff to look right in Firefox was fairly simple. Hacking around the finished site to make the site also look good in IE6 took 3 times longer than making the site itself.

soooo? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32071300)

why is this news that people should care about?

Re:soooo? (5, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 3 years ago | (#32071374)

why is this news that people should care about?

*rolls down his turtleneck to reveal the permanent bruise from trying to hang himself after spending an endless night trying to figure out what was causing IE6 to crash but not Firefox*

*rolls up his coworker's sleeve to show the scars of slash marks on his wrist after trying to get alpha transparency working in PNG images inside IE6*

*holds up a memorial plaque of yet another coworker who jumped to his death from the top of the building after trying to code Javascript that would abstract many functionalities so that they would work both in IE6 and Firefox*

Trust me, as a developer who has tried to understand the madness that is IE6, we care and we are not alone [bringdownie6.com]. The damage continues to this day [slashdot.org].

Re:soooo? (2, Interesting)

Gr8Apes (679165) | more than 3 years ago | (#32071498)

Trust me, as a developer who has tried to understand the madness that is IE6, we care and we are not alone [bringdownie6.com]. The damage continues to this day [slashdot.org].

Guess I'm lucky, my last 2 jobs got to drop IE6 as a supported browser, and my current one doesn't even directly support IE7! It's standards only, and if it works on Firefox, Chrome, Safari and Opera, we really don't give a rats ass about IE other than that IE8 doesn't make a complete mess of the pages. In truth, IE8 does a much much better job of displaying standards so this has been almost a non-issue. Amazingly enough, almost everything works in IE7 as well.

Re:soooo? (4, Interesting)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#32071672)

In truth, IE8 does a much much better job of displaying standards so this has been almost a non-issue.

True, IE 8 is a huge improvement over IE 6, but it still doesn't support W3C event model. For example, in IE 8, what's the recommended way to specify that a script shall run once the DOM content is ready? Or how do you attach multiple event handlers to an object, such as multiple things to run on load? IE is the only browser to support attachEvent and the only modern browser not to support addEventListener.

And may it keep dropping (4, Funny)

Gr8Apes (679165) | more than 3 years ago | (#32071312)

This is the best news since... the last news that IE market share was dropping...

Re:And may it keep dropping (4, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | more than 3 years ago | (#32071468)

I honestly don't feel that much difference anymore. A year ago it was something like 30% non-IE browsers, now it's 40% non-IE. Both are too big to ignore and many replacements of old IE-only systems from when they had 90% market share probably would have happened anyway. From here to about 80-90% non-IE where you can consider dropping IE support you are supporting the same anyway.

Re:And may it keep dropping (1)

Gr8Apes (679165) | more than 3 years ago | (#32071574)

It allows people to drop IE6 and possibly IE7 support. IE8 is much better about supporting standards, thus the entire development process becomes much easier. Writing to straight standards will get you what you're looking for much more often with those two version of IE gone.

Standards (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32071318)

The main reason it is good, is because it will force people to develop against standards, rather than what IE accepts. Once IE's share drops enough, MS will be forced to adhere to open standards, or watch IE die.

Sure, if you go back far enough... (3, Interesting)

erroneus (253617) | more than 3 years ago | (#32071326)

There was a moment in time when MSIE had effectively 0% market share right? So this 60% is still a huge triumph if you choose to spin it that way.

But seriously, any drop in market share is a historic low for Microsoft. And here's what I love about it -- Microsoft will be hard pressed to explain why it would choose to not completely support competing browsers with its web based applications such as Outlook Web Access and the like. It has been a while since I looked at it, but OWA did not offer full functionality to browsers other than MSIE. I don't know if that is still the case, but I suspect it is.

In any case, it is in large part due to Microsoft's behavior that our next enterprise email server at the office will be anything but MS Exchange.

Re:Sure, if you go back far enough... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32071378)

Mainly until very recently, the other browsers sucked. And browsers sucked in general. Viva notepad with a network connection!!!

Seriously - this is free software. Who gives a rats arse...It's just a freaking html viewer.

Re:Sure, if you go back far enough... (1)

Clueless Nick (883532) | more than 3 years ago | (#32071638)

IIRC, this was about who controls the internet. Anyway, you are trying to troll / flamebait and I am trying to help by biting.

Re:Sure, if you go back far enough... (1)

ctrahey (1474065) | more than 3 years ago | (#32071774)

It's just a freaking html viewer.

And your javascript compiler & runtime. And your layout engine.

Re:Sure, if you go back far enough... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32071430)

Microsoft will be hard pressed to explain why it would choose to not completely support competing browsers with its web based applications such as Outlook Web Access and the like. It has been a while since I looked at it, but OWA did not offer full functionality to browsers other than MSIE. I don't know if that is still the case, but I suspect it is.

You'll be shocked to hear, MS has begun to support 3rd browsers with OWA (which has been renamed to Outlook Web App). I'm not sure of the complete list, but Safari & Firefox can run the Full-Fat mode. Interestingly, IE6 has been relegated to Lite mode only.

Re:Sure, if you go back far enough... (3, Interesting)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 3 years ago | (#32071500)

In any case, it is in large part due to Microsoft's behavior that our next enterprise email server at the office will be anything but MS Exchange.

Sadly, somehow our department has gotten it into their heads that "Microsoft is the way to go.". They had a few years when they tried to get OSS (mostly FreeBSD, but some Linux) systems working for most of the servers, and a lot of the tasks were delegated out to people who had no Unix experience at all. End result is that they became frustrated and rather than try to educate themselves, they blamed the system.

Fast forward to today. Our CentOS/Apache web server has been replaced with IIS (and that was one thing that had always worked great - they basically just replaced it because they wanted to go all Microsoft). Our PHP code on our site has been replaced with ASP.NET. Our Samba setup is being replaced by Windows + Active Directory. Our Lotus Domino server is being retired and there are plans to replace it with MS Exchange. And I just heard recently that Firefox is "just becoming a headache because there are still things it doesn't work right with. Maybe it's time to look at IE again?". Even simple stuff that it makes no difference on - for instance, just something to run VMWare server on. You never even touch the interface, but they want to waste a Windows license (and more system resources) on that because they feel that Windows is "just the way to go".

Sometimes I just want to scream.

Re:Sure, if you go back far enough... (1)

Clueless Nick (883532) | more than 3 years ago | (#32071684)

Microsoft will be hard pressed to explain why it would choose to not completely support competing mail clients with its frontline applications such as Microsoft Exchange Server 2007. That is, if somebody has a stick big enough to get them to explain.

All this despite no forced unbundling... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32071330)

Interesting, isn't it?

People were screaming at the courts because there was NO WAY that Microsoft's browser could be dethrowned without legal action. And, with a little help from Firefox, Chrome, and Safari (mainly on the Mac), We see a steady decline of IE share.. All without legal intervention.

Same thing with Windows Media Player, right? EU forced Microsoft to stop bundling Windows Media Player, because there's NO WAY it could be dethrowned without government intervention. And so, MS offered a version of Windows that didn't have WMP installed (did anyone buy it?) Along comes Apple and a little invention known as the iPod, and within a few years, iTunes is used FAR MORE than WMP ever will be.

Will people ever learn that it's through innovation and marketing that people can unseat software monopolies, and NOT through legal action?

Re:All this despite no forced unbundling... (-1, Troll)

kyrio (1091003) | more than 3 years ago | (#32071394)

I know of no one who uses iTunes for anything other than using their homosexual i-devices.

Anyone using Windows is using WMP (because they don't know any better) or a much better replacement of MPC (or VLC or other).

Re:All this despite no forced unbundling... (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 3 years ago | (#32071488)

Hardware bundling lock-in defeated by even more hardware bundling lock-in?

Wow.

Re:All this despite no forced unbundling... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32071402)

Wasn't there a news explaining that a big part of that market share drop was due to the new "choose a browser" screen the EU forced Microsoft to include in the latest Windows versions?

Re:All this despite no forced unbundling... (2, Insightful)

man_of_mr_e (217855) | more than 3 years ago | (#32071700)

If that were true, one would expect Firefox's share to have risen significantly, but in reality, it's stayed pretty much the same, in fact it's at the exact same level as in November of last year. Further, the Browser selection screen has only been out there for 3 months and the trend of chrome and safari goes back a lot further than that.

Frankly, I'm more inclined to believe the rise is due to the rise of iPhone and Android based browsers rather than much change on the desktop.

Re:No forced unbundling? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32071554)

Look at the graph, you'll see that the IE share has been dropping steadily from august. While the selection screen is from last few months. In the same time chrome grew from almost smallest to 3th player. Maybe the advertising google has been doing has something more to do with it?

Re:No forced unbundling? (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 3 years ago | (#32071594)

I agree that IE’s woes are due to much more than only the forced unbundling. Saying that there has been none is not correct, however.

Re:No forced unbundling? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32071628)

Look at the graph, you'll see that the IE share has been dropping steadily from august. While the selection screen is from last few months. In the same time chrome grew from almost smallest to 3th player. Maybe the advertising google has been doing has something more to do with it?

3rd

Re:No forced unbundling? (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#32071730)

Wasn't last summer also the date when decision regarding browser choice screen started really circulating in mainstream media?

Nobody here is saying it's the decisive factor; but it might have easily contributed a bit even before the update went live, just because a lot of people heard about the decision and "other browsers"

+Chrome "bundling", sort of (in a way..not really) (3, Informative)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#32071620)

Yes, the deals Google supposedly cut with some PC manufacturers are probably insignificant. But Google promotes Chrome...everywhere, I believe. Not only on almost all their websites, also for example on largest social networking sites. OK, not exactly bundling; but at the least a marketing campaign which jumps at you several times per day, it seems.

Re:All this despite no forced unbundling... (1)

jonwil (467024) | more than 3 years ago | (#32071676)

Unbundling wont work because of all the parts of Windows and of Windows Apps that use the IE rendering engine.

All of the various Help technologies Microsoft has used and supported in the last decade (including HTML Help and its replacements) use IE to render. Game related programs like GameSpy and Steam use (or have used) IE to render. All kinds of custom written software (written for specific companies or markets) use IE to render HTML.

Even more apps use various parts of IE to do things like HTTP up/downloading, SSL and other things.

Re:All this despite no forced unbundling... (2, Interesting)

Clueless Nick (883532) | more than 3 years ago | (#32071734)

All around me, I see the otherwise-paranoid IT administrators allowing people to install VLC, because that is the easiest way to allow DVDs to play on a Win XP laptop.

I used to think I was a snarky anarchist installing free software to people's computers, and now they have gone and taken away my joy.

Tired of IE's BS (1)

kyrio (1091003) | more than 3 years ago | (#32071334)

I recently forced my sister and her husband on to Opera because they kept getting new spyware every month. I used to prefer IE to the others back when it was simple and fast, I can't stand it anymore.

It's become even more of a hassle now that everyone has a computer and is using it incompetently.

re: tired of IE's BS (1)

ed.han (444783) | more than 3 years ago | (#32071366)

thank you, kyrio, for the opera love. i use opera in preference to everything else b/c it opens faster than everything else.

ed

Re: tired of IE's BS (1)

kyrio (1091003) | more than 3 years ago | (#32071426)

It's an excellent browser indeed. It's fat with features yet it runs like a Kenyan and never feels bloated.

Re:Tired of IE's BS (3, Insightful)

PNutts (199112) | more than 3 years ago | (#32071518)

I recently forced my sister and her husband on to Opera because they kept getting new spyware every month.

Methinks the problem is not their browser.

Re:Tired of IE's BS (4, Insightful)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 3 years ago | (#32071666)

If the tool can't be handled safely by novices, yet is rammed down the throats of novices, then it's the tool and not the end user that is at fault.

Re:Tired of IE's BS (2, Insightful)

dc29A (636871) | more than 3 years ago | (#32071580)

because they kept getting new spyware every month.

They shouldn't run their PCs as administrators. So changing browser didn't really solve anything, the moment Opera is targeted by hackers, you are back to square one. Remove the ability of your family to run Windows as administrators and they can use whatever browser they want and they'll be much safer.

Re:Tired of IE's BS (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#32071674)

Spyware doesn't need admin privileges to be an hassle. They can still load at user's session login, read every user file and connect to the interwebs. Besides, there are such things called "privilege escalation exploits".

Re:Tired of IE's BS (1)

dc29A (636871) | more than 3 years ago | (#32071790)

An infected account is magnitudes easier to deal with than an infected PC. Just nuke the account, create a new one and voilà! Problem solved. Plus the majority of malware is still written by the assumption that user has administrator rights. Not saying it won't change in the future ... I am guessing once the easy admin access is gone, maybe malware writers will focus on privilege escalation.

Chrome is a keylogger, and scrambling won't help (0)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#32071354)

And Google is spying on you, along with Facebook, Microsoft, your service provider, the government, etc.

You know, just in case you care about that kind of thing

Re:Chrome is a keylogger, and scrambling won't hel (1)

DumbparameciuM (772788) | more than 3 years ago | (#32071382)

Tinfoil much?

I'm happy to hear that Chrome is on the up and up.

I'm not sure that anybody could really be shocked by this news. Internet Explorer has been grabbing at straws since IE5. They continue to implement other companies ideas in a very poor way. The current IE is a complete farce, I don't understand how anybody could use it, unless you were forced to by restrictions at work.

I know it would be impossible to glean, but the amount of people using various versions of IE while at work would be interesting.

Re:Chrome is a keylogger, and scrambling won't hel (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#32071462)

Yeah, after reading what these people do, I am a bit paranoid..

IE works fine for me. And on business machines, I do restrict third party installations. Maybe it's because I'm lazy, but it makes my job much easier.

Re:Chrome is a keylogger, and scrambling won't hel (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#32071732)

Do you restrict *any* kind of alien exe file? 'cause I'd use Portable Firefox anyway.

Re:Chrome is a keylogger, and scrambling won't hel (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32071754)

It logs every key press? Every single one? Do you know what a keylogger really is?

The great thing about this: MS doesn't know why (5, Insightful)

dingen (958134) | more than 3 years ago | (#32071356)

Microsoft is desperately updating their browser to meet the same modern standards as the competition. IE9 is supposidly going to be a revolution for them, supporting all sorts of long standing stuff like SVG, CSS3, HTML5 and supporting a fast Javascript engine, which is exactly the direction in which Firefox, Chrome, Safari and Opera have been developing lately.

Obviously Microsoft is doing this in an attempt to gain some market share again. It's great for web developers, because they can finally start really deploying some of that shiney new tech. But in reality, most people aren't aware of these webstandards at all and aren't switching to Firefox or Chrome because MSIE doesn't support them. They're switching because other browsers are faster, more secure, less obnoxious, more cool and support more plugins and other goodies.

I don't think IE will ever be as big again as they once were, but because MS doesn't get what the root of the problem is, they're helping the web forward in the process of trying to get some users back. Which is actually great for everyone.

Re:The great thing about this: MS doesn't know why (4, Insightful)

tibit (1762298) | more than 3 years ago | (#32071522)

Not too little, but definitely too late. SVG should have been supported since IE7. Same goes for quirk-less CSS2.1 support.

historic? (5, Funny)

beh (4759) | more than 3 years ago | (#32071362)

"Falls To Historic Low"
[...]
"which is about the range that IE had in early 1999"

?

So, it's historic, because it's the second time it's around that range?

Re:historic? (4, Insightful)

CensorshipDonkey (1108755) | more than 3 years ago | (#32071418)

Yes. You have to look into history to find the last time it was at these levels. 11 years is a very long time ago in the relative timescale of software.

Re:historic? (4, Funny)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 3 years ago | (#32071502)

Yes.

The first time something happens, it’s unprecedented.

The second time, it’s merely historic.

Re:historic? (1)

V for Vendetta (1204898) | more than 3 years ago | (#32071532)

Look at it that way: in 1999 it was probably a high (NN out of business, Firebird in beta, Opera was not free at that time). This time its a low.

Re:historic? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32071550)

It is historic because it is a FALL and not a rise like it was the first time around. The range isn't what is historic.

Re:historic? (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 3 years ago | (#32071698)

When's the last time any other product took over the market due to monopolistic tying and then got beaten back?

This is historic because it shows Microsoft being handed a reversal.

What bugs me... (4, Insightful)

Ranma-sensei (800217) | more than 3 years ago | (#32071364)

...is that most people now either use Firefox or Chrome - which heightens these browsers' endangerment concerning malware specific to them.

It's not as if it really affects me as an Opera user, but having to put up with Firefox at work, I'm not too excited about this, since the company I work at usually takes its time to update (FF 2.0.0.7, here).

Oh well, at least MS's share is dropping...

Re:What bugs me... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32071688)

Do you understand how a percentage of market share works? If IE is still at 60% market share, then most people are still using IE.

Re:What bugs me... (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#32071770)

...is that most people now either use Firefox or Chrome - which heightens these browsers' endangerment concerning malware specific to them.

Most malware is related to plugins, far second is Javascript. Get NoScript and you'll be very well protected.

IE might become safer :) (1)

youn (1516637) | more than 3 years ago | (#32071368)

Ironically, if the market share for IE keeps droping; the number of hackers targetting IE will drop and the people trying to hack firefox's security will rise... and maybe IE will become safer then... nahhhh, even then I'll be worried.

That's why the 10 users of Opera and the user of lynx for all practical purposes are considered safely browsing the web :)

It is impossible to get rid of MSIE on Windows (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32071388)

The reporting is also flawed because even if you change your default browser from MSIE to firefox, programs will still use the MSIE branded http dll to download things. To wit, make your proxy reject all requests that contain MSIE in the user agent string, and try to install the next version of lets say skype. Or browse in Outlook internet content. Or try to access any link through http from an Office 2007 document: http://blogs.msdn.com/vsofficedeveloper/pages/Office-Existence-Discovery-Protocol.aspx
http://superuser.com/questions/41935/clicking-hyperlinks-in-email-messages-becomes-painfully-slow/42237#42237. I wonder if any of the legislators in Europe who settled with Microsoft over the Browser wars were aware of these issues. Bottom line: you cannot get rid of MSIE because Microsoft designed it that way!

i develop for the web (4, Interesting)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#32071390)

so i have ie8, firefox, chrome, safari, and opera installed on my desktop

i often find myself in this common usage scenario: 4 browsers open at the same time. ie8 opened with code being tested, opera running pandora, chrome with nytimes.com and other reading media on it, and firefox open with some online code documentation

i use those 4 browsers all the time, i don't use safari at all really unless testing code (but since its webkit like chrome, that's often redundant)

honestly, i lately have found myself prefering chrome over firefox. i love firefox, but chrome has a sleek ui and seems faster (opera's latest ui is pretty hot too, but opera has some compatibility issues, such as google map's api)

chrome just has more... chrome. consider this small bird adequately bedazzled by the shiny bells and whistles

currently i rank the browsers according to this personal preference:

1. chrome
2. firefox and opera tied for second best
3. ie8 and safari not at all

if firefox wants to win my heart back, it has to be super fast and bedazzle me with a hot ui. opera is doing a good job of that, but opera has issues

Re:i develop for the web (3, Interesting)

Fnkmaster (89084) | more than 3 years ago | (#32071702)

I love Chrome's speed. But I miss Firefox's rich library of extensions whenever I try Chrome (or a Chromium-derived browser). Most critically, I miss Adblock Plus and Flashblock. To a lesser extent, some of the other extensions I use.

When I last tried Chrome, I believe I found that there was an ad-blocking extension for it (Ad-Sweep) but it required switching to the "developer channel" rather than the standard "channel". Rather than just downloading a beta version of the browser, there was an arcane process to switch channels that simply didn't work at the time. As in I jumped through the hoops, but Chrome never properly entered into the developer channel mode. The Channel Changer was simply broken at the time. Don't try to be too clever Google, just make a separate beta or nightly build and let me install it.

Sure, there are proxy-based solutions and the like, but I can't use a browser that I can't add ad-blocking rules to easily and customize easily.

I'll give Chrome a try again in 6 months, but it looks like for now, AdSweep still requires using Channel Changer, and unless that's been fixed I ain't screwing around with it again.

Sure, Firefox can't compete with Safari and Chrome on speed, but on a modern Core 2 Duo or Core i5/i7 machine the difference is only perceptible on the most Javascript-intensive of sites.

For Chrome, the following wouldn't hurt... (1)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 3 years ago | (#32071398)

Here's what I mean: -

1: Better aesthetics. I mean, the current theme and all available ones are not that appealing to
      the eyes.

2: Print Preview: Heck how can a today's desktop application fail to have this important
      resource? An application from Google should have "everything" necessary to be productive,
      and print preview is one of those things I believe.

3: The over minimalistic paradigm Google has followed has gone too far. Heck, what ends up
      happening is that extensions have no where to live at the bottom of the browser, crowding uup
      space elsewhere.

If these are implemented, it will surely not hurt...or will it? I stand to be corrected.

Re:For Chrome, the following wouldn't hurt... (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 3 years ago | (#32071490)

I do agree with Google minimalist approach. Fair enough most space should go to the page but it doesn't take that much to eat up space with add-ons. If they haven't changed it yet, I'd also like control of how many websites display on my homepage. Perhaps it would look ugly to them but I want to display more than 8.

Re:For Chrome, the following wouldn't hurt... (1)

Stevecrox (962208) | more than 3 years ago | (#32071496)

I use chrome because of the minimalist UI, I don't want a web browser to take up screen real estate. Before that I used IE because it used the least screen real estate.

I own a netbook, like most netbooks it has a 1024*768 resolution. Firefox and Opera can take up to a third of the screen just to show my File dialogs, etc.., 99% of browsing doesn't involve these dialogs so why should they continously take up space?

WHAT?! (2, Interesting)

aussersterne (212916) | more than 3 years ago | (#32071508)

Chrome has the best UI amongst all browsers, hands down. I adopted Chromium months ago and then went to Chrome, and despite minor incompatibilities now and then (mostly rendering issues), I can't leave it. I tried to switch back to Firefox for a while, but after a week or so I came back to Chrome, primarily on the strength of the UI.

Nobody else seems able to come up with a UI that is:

- Businesslike and no-nonsense
- Small and out of the way
- Free of rendering artifacts and glitches

The default Firefox theme is just huge. Any replacement themes are buggy, loud, amateurish, and often glitchy. The "personalities" or whatever they are (you know, my web browser is now my wallpaper) are just ridiculous. There is a chrome UI for firefox, but it's not as fast and doesn't actually have all of the great behaviors of the Chrome UI, just a basic appearance.

Everybody else ought to take a page from Chrome!

Re:WHAT?! (3, Insightful)

Ash-Fox (726320) | more than 3 years ago | (#32071616)

Chrome has the best UI amongst all browsers, hands down.

I don't particularly like the UI personally. I hate it when applications don't follow the OS GUI scheme - This includes colors to interaction of editbars.

Free of rendering artifacts and glitches

I have experienced these on Chrome, particularly with font rendering.

The default Firefox theme is just huge.

Well, I loaded up Firefox and Chrome here - I'm not really seeing this "huge" thing at all? I mean, yes, there is two extra bars by default in Firefox, but huge? No idea.

Re:WHAT?! (1)

gmack (197796) | more than 3 years ago | (#32071752)

I agree.. The only thing stopping me from using Chrome right now is the throw back to the 90s cookie controls.

Why would you ever need to print? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#32071514)

Print? Why would you ever need to print? If you need to send a copy of a document to someone else, that's what Gmail is for. If you need to read documents away from a PC, that's what an Android phone with a $60/mo plan is for.

</sarcasm>

Re:Why would you ever need to print? (1)

Low Ranked Craig (1327799) | more than 3 years ago | (#32071788)

The only time I print is when someone sends me an e-mail with the "please consider the environment before printing this e-mail" signature, then I print it and shred it. Seriously, knock it off with the holier-than-thou messages in your e-mail. I'm an adult and I can decide if I need to print something or not.

Stastics & polls.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32071422)

Personally I have 6 computers & 2 laptops. 2 of the computers are mac, 1 of the laptops is macbook pro, 2 other computers are Win7, 1 Xp32 & 1 debian. Each computer has 3-4 browser installed (at minimum) with browsers segmented by usage/persona set. How in the world does that factor into the polls where there should be only "1 wiNAR!!!!"??

Re:Stastics & polls.... (1)

dingen (958134) | more than 3 years ago | (#32071624)

Net Applications doesn't say anything about users and what they have installed or use. They look at website and which browsers people use to access them. So apparently, out of every 100 hits on the websites they monitor, less than 60 of them use IE.

So whenever you surf with Firefox, you'll be counted as a Firefox user. And when you surf with something else, they'll count your hits too and put them under some other browser.

These % estimates are stupid (1)

Slash.Poop (1088395) | more than 3 years ago | (#32071428)

I have Internet Explorer, Fire Fox and Chrome. I regularly use all 3.
So in what group do I fall into?

Re:These % estimates are stupid (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 3 years ago | (#32071510)

Most people won't do that and unless you're into pain, you probably do use one more than the others. I have all the main browsers installed mainly for testing but I use FF by far more than the others though I occasionally feel like using Chrome for awhile. Chrome is, imo, better in performance, but their minimal design and need to treat everyone like a bit of a stupid baby gets old after awhile so I only use it in small chunks.

Re:These % estimates are stupid (1)

bunratty (545641) | more than 3 years ago | (#32071572)

You fall into the IE usage group when you use IE, the Firefox usage group when you use Firefox, and the Chrome usage group when you use Chrome. These stats give the percentage of visitors that use a particular browser.

Re:These % estimates are stupid (1)

arndawg (1468629) | more than 3 years ago | (#32071614)

If you use all equally you would fall in to the group of 1/3 explorer, 1/3 Fire.............FOX news, and 1/3 Chrome. If you where the only web-browser user in the world, this would be their market share.

Now Officially Back In The Nineties (1, Funny)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 3 years ago | (#32071476)

Internet Explorer has always been stuck in the nineties. That was the problem, really.

I use chrome on my home computer (1)

Conspiracy_Of_Doves (236787) | more than 3 years ago | (#32071558)

Firefox just starts up way too slowly. I still keep it around in case I need to use FireFTP or ChatZilla.

Or if I need to download an attachment in my Yahoo email.

Every month, this is posted (2, Insightful)

kaizendojo (956951) | more than 3 years ago | (#32071562)

and every month I say the same two things:
  • Net Applications numbers only include their customers as a dataset
  • Since they do not reveal ANY of their methodology, their entire study is suspect.

Yet I know I will see this posted again next month...so would someone please explain the agenda to me?

Firefox's usage share is stagnating (3, Informative)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 3 years ago | (#32071606)

I noticed a couple of months ago already, that Firefox's usage share is flat by all indicators. [wikipedia.org] It's been stagnating since July-August last year.
Maybe that's fine compared to IE, which is shrinking, but pretty sad compared to, say Chrome.

Which I really like and would use also at work, if there was a portable version (so I can run it without installing it).

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...