Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Microsoft IE Browser Share Dips Below 50%

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the stop-supporting-it-already dept.

Internet Explorer 297

alphadogg writes "Microsoft's Internet Explorer, which has dominated the Web browser market since blowing by Netscape in the late 1990s, last month fell below the 50% market share level for the first time in years. IE's share of the worldwide market fell to 49.87% in September, down from 51.3% in August and 58.4% a year ago. It is followed by Firefox, which increased its share slightly from 30.09% to 31.5% and Google Chrome, which grabbed 11.54% share, more than triple its September 2009 share, according to market watcher StatCounter."

cancel ×

297 comments

good riddance (5, Interesting)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 3 years ago | (#33793930)

while they're doing interesting things in IE9, I'd love to see MS acknowledge that a majority of the people who use IE are either forced or don't even know there are alternatives.

Re:good riddance (4, Insightful)

click2005 (921437) | more than 3 years ago | (#33793968)

MS will never acknowledge anything except that IE9 is better/faster/safer/blingier than the other browsers.

The point is that with IE9, all of the major browsers aren't that bad really.
Thats the way it should be. Your choice in browser shouldn't matter.

Re:good riddance (4, Insightful)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#33794014)

Indeed, but until IE 6, 7 and 8 are out of the way, it's likely still going to matter. It really should be a matter of personal preference, at least that's what I thought standards compliance was for.

Google Chrome Frame (2, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#33794114)

until IE 6, 7 and 8 are out of the way, it's likely still going to matter.

But what's the fraction of the audience 1. runs IE <= 8 and 2. doesn't have privileges to install Chrome Frame?

Re:Google Chrome Frame (5, Informative)

pahles (701275) | more than 3 years ago | (#33794292)

The fraction is quite large unfortunately. Lots of companies still enforce the use of IE6! All because they heavily rely on 3rd party software (like SAP), which will not be updated.

Re:Google Chrome Frame (2, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#33794440)

Lots of companies still enforce the use of IE6! All because they heavily rely on 3rd party software (like SAP), which will not be updated.

Chrome Frame works with IE 6, but only for web sites that opt in using HTTP headers or HTML meta elements. So installing IE 6 + Chrome Frame would result in IE 6 for SAP and Chrome for sites that want Chrome.

Re:Google Chrome Frame (1)

Amouth (879122) | more than 3 years ago | (#33794752)

the school system where my wife works - this past week just did an ie7 rollout.. and in January they are scheduled to do an office 07 rollout.

Re:Google Chrome Frame (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#33794632)

is pleased that Microsoft Exploder dropped below 50% share. It hasn't been that low since 1998 (when Mozilla Netscape was on top)

# 2 Mozilla Firefox
# 3 Google Chrome
# 4 Apple Safari
# 5 Opera browser
# 6 Amiga Origyn

Okay I made that last one up. ;-) And to answer your question: Lots of people still use IE 6 or 7. Last I heard it's around 60% of all MS Exploder users? Like me unfortunately, because it's the only thing that works with AOL Dialup or my workplace apps.

Re:good riddance (1)

A12m0v (1315511) | more than 3 years ago | (#33794156)

True, and thanks to many convoluted reasons this wont happen for a long time. I can see IE7 and 8 dropping to single digit before IE6.

Re:good riddance (4, Informative)

A12m0v (1315511) | more than 3 years ago | (#33794174)

I should have posted a link with the stats, sorry. http://marketshare.hitslink.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qprid=2 [hitslink.com]

Re:good riddance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33794718)

According to these stats, IE still has 59.45% market share across all the versions listed and compatibility mode. 55% with just counting IE6-8.

Re:good riddance (4, Informative)

Millennium (2451) | more than 3 years ago | (#33794270)

This. IE6 won't die until XP dies; even though IE7 and IE8 run on XP as well, there will always be people who Just Won't Upgrade.

Even if IE6 eventually does die before XP, IE8 certainly won't, since IE9 can't run on XP. This is why Microsoft really should have added XP support to IE9.

Fuck 'em (2, Insightful)

SteveFoerster (136027) | more than 3 years ago | (#33794682)

IE6 won't die until XP dies; even though IE7 and IE8 run on XP as well, there will always be people who Just Won't Upgrade.

Fuck 'em. IE6 is nine years old. If the laggards are going to try to stand in the way of progress they should expect eventually to get run over.

Re:good riddance (0, Offtopic)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#33793978)

Not going to happen, sort of like how it would be nice for Google to acknowledge that people don't want to be spied upon whenever they're online.

Re:good riddance (0, Offtopic)

jefe7777 (411081) | more than 3 years ago | (#33794344)

I don't know why parent was modded down.

Google has acknowledged working with the intelligence agencies. The CEO of Google said "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to be afraid of". They track and record everything they can.

Let's be honest shall we?

Re:good riddance (4, Informative)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 3 years ago | (#33794662)

The CEO of Google said "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to be afraid of".

No he didn't. He said "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place." That seems more like a warning to me: if you do something stupid and it gets on the internet, you've already lost. You can't complain about people reposting it, or indexing it, or emailing it; the genie is out of the bottle and it is impossible to delete something from the internet (at least if the collective internet finds it entertaining in some way).

Re:good riddance (4, Interesting)

js3 (319268) | more than 3 years ago | (#33794046)

How and why should they? Funny story my moms IE had a huge toolbar filled with crap so I tried to remove it but she complained! she whined that she likes the huge toolbar because it had useful stuff on it like auto form filling or some nonsense. different people different things.

Re:good riddance (1)

A12m0v (1315511) | more than 3 years ago | (#33794078)

I wish this happened 9 years ago when they released IE6 and not now when theyfinally started to care about standards and performance. IE9 is good that I wont have to go to friends and family and talk them into the merits of switching and I don't mind seeing IE being at top if all IE instances were IE9 and later future releases. Then again Microsoft would have never cared if they didn't bleed market-share on a constant basis.

No IE 9 for Windows XP. Promote switch to 7. (2, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#33794250)

IE9 is good that I wont have to go to friends and family and talk them into the merits of switching

So now you've replaced talking them into switching to Chrome with talking them into switching to Windows 7. That can involve a substantial investment in hardware and operating system license, especially with multiple PCs in the household.

Re:good riddance (4, Insightful)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 3 years ago | (#33794516)

IE9 is still a problem tho...
When IE6 came out it wasn't all that bad compared to its peers, just like IE9 today. However, if everyone moves over to IE9 and other browsers die out then you can kiss goodbye to any updates, IE9 will stagnate and become the new IE6.
Market share of any browsers other than IE should be as high as possible, otherwise MS will just screw the web like they have done before.

Re:good riddance (2)

NonUniqueNickname (1459477) | more than 3 years ago | (#33794086)

IE6 still has 3.47% in the USA and 7.42% worldwide. So maybe 2-3% more before it really will be good riddance. Graphs and raw data are published on http://gs.statcounter.com/ [statcounter.com] home page, very nice.

Re:good riddance (1, Insightful)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 3 years ago | (#33794204)

once firefox and/or chrome have enterprise tools to make it work with activedirectory, you'll see IE share drop to 0. Until then, it's sadly a bit higher than you think it is.

Re:good riddance (1)

muckracer (1204794) | more than 3 years ago | (#33794348)

> once firefox and/or chrome have enterprise tools to make it work with activedirectory

Am not sure why the browser would need 'enterprise tools' for AD (what kind of tools anyway?)...we use AD at work and Firefox is offered pre-packaged for all those, who want it. Tell me what you mean...

Re:good riddance (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 3 years ago | (#33794594)

many companies make this argument, that because they can't use AD for everything under the sun, it can't be approved for corporate.

I personally don't care, but many corporate offices do. Then comes the argument of "oh we'll be supporting two browsers" as opposed to "it would work in all of them if it wasn't programmed like shit".

People want to be able to enforce policies via AD on firefox/chrome, to control addons and security settings, etc. This is currently available via a few specific tools designed for it, but it's not "formal via Mozilla/Google".

Me? I don't care. Adblock + noscript + greasemonkey + sync + enterprise office = I'm usin firefox.

Optimistic (2, Interesting)

Don_dumb (927108) | more than 3 years ago | (#33794434)

I doubt it.
My large organisation (100,000+) will not use anything other than the minimum software. I imagine this is true of several similar orgs, the more locked down the software, the better, less holes and less to support (1000s of applications at the current moment) - or so the theory goes.
My employer is running IE6 and will upgrade to IE7 next year. Considering how critical the browser is to the business, they would never even think of using (and having to support) anything other than what comes out of the box, which is MS, regardless of the functionality of Firefox or anything else.

I can't say I agree with the principle but it certainly isn't in my power to influence.

Re:Optimistic (2, Informative)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 3 years ago | (#33794588)

The problem is that so long as IE comes bundled and is difficult/impossible to remove, the principle of minimum software will always prevent the use of any other browser on windows.

Now really this is a flaw which acts directly against the principle of minimum software, because you are forced to keep IE wether you like it or not, even on a system which is never intended to do any web browsing duties... However there is often a double standard, if anyone else pulled shit like this it would be declared horrendously insecure and avoided and yet MS can get away with gaping holes.

Look at any OS hardening guides, unix based guides will tell you to remove whatever browser (if any) comes installed and even to remove X11 if you can, whereas windows guides skirt around the fact that a gui and installation of ie are mandatory. And yet the results of both sets of hardening are considered on the same level by various government agencies and industry bodies (eg PCI regulations).

Re:Optimistic (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 3 years ago | (#33794624)

Well, thats the point - they can't really lock down firefox if they allow it to be installed right now. Also the rest, the "less applications = better" concept.

Re:good riddance (1)

Don_dumb (927108) | more than 3 years ago | (#33794504)

I would imagine the figure is somewhat higher, as it won't be counting much of the corporate users (who will mainly be on Internal networks, occasionally venturing to the public network)
I guessing most private users (even average Joe) will have had/been coerced/helped/tricked into an upgrade to IE7 or higher by now (even if just because they have brought something newer).
So I'm guessing the stat isn't entirely accurate. This would also be true of the article's statistics. My opinion only of course.

Re:good riddance (2, Insightful)

AnonymousClown (1788472) | more than 3 years ago | (#33794328)

A lot of folks don't care. Many many folks think that, since they have [name brand] Anti-Virus, they're safe.

Although the new IE isn't the security train wreck that it once was.

Re:good riddance (1)

patjhal (1423249) | more than 3 years ago | (#33794510)

I use firefox for my real browser, but am forced to use ie for a variety of state government and business sites that have dire warning about using anything but Internet explorer. Of course these apps have too big a consequence to me individually if they do not function so I fire it up for that. Add to that I keep IE, chrome, and safari as one off browsers for quick searches. So while I am working in firefox with the tv on and I decide I want to search something that came up in the news real quick I go load IE or whatever since it is not important. Also my wife would likely still be using IE, but I introduced her to firefox and she never turned back. Neither one of us care about browser ranks or tests or whatnot. We just care that it does what we want it to and no more.

Re:good riddance (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 3 years ago | (#33794640)

firefox with just adblock + noscript is pretty darn secure, in fact substantially more than IE, overall. Question is how much work to set it up properly.

And... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33793936)

Nothing changed...

Opera (-1, Offtopic)

srussia (884021) | more than 3 years ago | (#33793940)

Fastest browser.

Re:Opera (0, Offtopic)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 3 years ago | (#33793966)

You sure? I posted this so fast in Chrome my head is still spinning.

Damn the latency! (0, Redundant)

srussia (884021) | more than 3 years ago | (#33794074)

Slashdot's timestamp should be offset by the average latency between their servers and the poster's IP.

Re:Opera (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33793974)

Fastest browser.

obviously not fast enough for a first post.

Re:Opera (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33794018)

It's hard to be fast when you only speak troll.

Competition is good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33793984)

Now we have quite some mature standards compliant browsers to choose from and evil/lazy web designers have no more excuses to support only their (or their bosses) favourite browser.

this all bullshit... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33793996)

IE has 100% marketshare... and Windows7 has 100% marketshare too... and WindowsXP has 100% marketshare too... just ask Microsoft and get your numbers from the source!

Re:this all bullshit... (1)

not flu (1169973) | more than 3 years ago | (#33794096)

IE has 100% of the Internet Explorer marketshare. Windows 7 has 100% market share of Windows operating systems released since October 2009. Windows XP has 100% marketshare of Windows operating systems bundled with netbooks that can't run Win 7.

Competition FTW (3, Insightful)

Ben4jammin (1233084) | more than 3 years ago | (#33794004)

FTA: While web browser advances were few and far between a decade ago, competition among IE, Firefox, Chrome, Apple Safari and Opera has fueled new developments, including increasingly faster browsers

Imagine that...competition FTW.

Re:Competition FTW (2, Insightful)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 3 years ago | (#33794056)

Although I dislike the idea of Internet Explorer actually becoming somewhat usable, (if there's no villains, there can be no heroes!) I suppose it's better for everyone that it happens. Besides, when everyone improves, consumers are the real winners...

Hmm..interesting (5, Insightful)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 3 years ago | (#33794020)

I find it rather interesting that the source for this figure is the same StatCounter that the same people cheering this figure about IE will claim is wildly inaccurate due to the fact that it shows Linux with like a 1 or 2% market share. But since in this case it shows something negative about Microsoft (IE market share, Windows XP vs Vista & 7 market share) it is taken as holy gospel truth. Hypocrisy. Isn't it grand?

Re:Hmm..interesting (2, Funny)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 3 years ago | (#33794088)

Yeah, if you took a sample with a higher percentage of Linux users the IE browser share would probably be more like 75%.

Erm... wait what?

Re:Hmm..interesting (3, Insightful)

falcon5768 (629591) | more than 3 years ago | (#33794100)

because usage like this stat is actually a important statistic, while market share is useless since market share does not equal usage. Its not so much hypocrisy as much as market share is a pointless statistic that is constantly misrepresented to mean something it isnt which most people in the IT field know already to disregard it.

Re:Hmm..interesting (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 3 years ago | (#33794184)

And how exactly do you know that this stat is even accurate either? Other than it shows a conclusion that is favorable to people who dislike Microsoft.

Re:Hmm..interesting (4, Insightful)

timeOday (582209) | more than 3 years ago | (#33794308)

I agree counting of this nature is somewhat dubious since it's hard to sample the web uniformly. That said, the milestone matters less than the trend, which is most likely reflected accurately so long as they don't change how they count. In other words, it doesn't really matter whether the absolute percentage is now 50%, 60%, or 40%; what's certain is the web monoculture Microsoft wanted so badly and nearly achieved at the height of their power has failed. And that's a good thing.

Re:Hmm..interesting (1)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 3 years ago | (#33794648)

How about rewording it: "Despite the pathetic attempts of competitors, the great Microsoft still has nearly 50% of the total browser market. With it's next nearest competitor only a bit over half of that."

There now it's not a negative Microsoft story.

Re:Hmm..interesting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33794118)

Companies can be right about some stats and wrong about others. Idiocy, isn't it grand?

Re:Hmm..interesting (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 3 years ago | (#33794164)

Companies can be right about some stats and wrong about others. Idiocy, isn't it grand?

Sure they could. Now outline your evidence that this stat is right but the ones about Linux are wrong.

Re:Hmm..interesting (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33794260)

they are biased towards sites that are willing to include a privacy-violating stat counter.

So "Horse Owner Forum" yes, "My PC Helpsite" maybe, "Linux Weekly News" no.

This affects both the browser usage counts and the OS pref stats, making them invalid in the same sense that an amateur phone survey (call 100 numbers, extrapolate to the whole population without adjusting for demographics) is invalid. But that may not mean they're useless for your purpose, depending on what that purpose is.

Very importantly, these people are a fairly good source for making the decision "Which browsers should I test my generic mass audience site on?" but not for "Which operating systems do I need to support in my next scanner/printer combo device?". Because what they're measuring is only tangentially related in the latter case.

Re:Hmm..interesting (1)

IndustrialComplex (975015) | more than 3 years ago | (#33794370)

Sure they could. Now outline your evidence that this stat is right but the ones about Linux are wrong.

Why should HE? Didn't you talk about 'some users' or 'them'? You know, the vague other that is always used when trying to prove your point. Where were THEY when that guy was doing this, why are THEY so angry now that it's this guy.

Of course, you could be the lone gem in the world of the internet where people can just toss out accusations against tangentially related non-present people and thus tarnish the person you wish to debate.

Oh wait, I just did it too, didn't I?

Sorry, it's a pet peeve of mine when people attempt to debate a leaderless crowd.

Re:Hmm..interesting (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 3 years ago | (#33794242)

Same people? I'm happy to accept both figures as reasonable estimates. The Linux figure they show right now is 0.77%. Which sounds reasonable for Linux clients.

Re:Hmm..interesting (1)

gmack (197796) | more than 3 years ago | (#33794366)

It depends on what you are trying to measure. If you want browsers accessing websites this stat is very likely accurate. OS share, On the other hand, is a lot more difficult because most Linux usage is server side and those don't generally browse websites.

It's slightly more useful if you are trying to measure Desktop OS usage. In that case, I'm more than willing to believe the numbers they have.

Re:Hmm..interesting (1)

pckl300 (1525891) | more than 3 years ago | (#33794548)

I find it rather interesting that the source for this figure is the same StatCounter that the same people cheering this figure about IE will claim is wildly inaccurate due to the fact that it shows Linux with like a 1 or 2% market share.

Why would that seem inaccurate? Way less people have Linux than Mac, and Apple is usually cited around 5-10% market share. 1 or 2% for Linux sounds about right to me.

No real increase for firefox... (5, Insightful)

daid303 (843777) | more than 3 years ago | (#33794044)

Firefox has been around 30% for the last year, while IE dropped 10% in the same time, and Chrome gained 10%.

If this trend continues then it might balance out at 30/30/30/10 for IE/Firefox/Chrome/Other. Which should be good for everyone I think. There is no holy browser (except lynx), so a good balance of users should make sites more standard compliant in the end.

Re:No real increase for firefox... (2, Insightful)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 3 years ago | (#33794176)

so a good balance of users should make sites more standard compliant in the end.

Or will the browsers fight to become more robust than their competitors to deal with the non-compliant sites?

Re:No real increase for firefox... (1)

magpie (3270) | more than 3 years ago | (#33794198)

Lyux?!?!...come on telnet to port 80.

Re:No real increase for firefox... (5, Funny)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 3 years ago | (#33794254)

There is no holy browser (except lynx)

Surely thou meanest blessed telnet to port 80? We have learned to respect the ways of wget and curl, but the heretical lynx shall be spoken of with curses forever!

Re:No real increase for firefox... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33794518)

Surely thou meanest blessed telnet to port 80? We have learned to respect the ways of wget and curl, but the heretical lynx shall be spoken of with ncurses forever!

FTFY.

Re:No real increase for firefox... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33794534)

There is no holy browser (except lynx)

Surely thou meanest blessed telnet to port 80? We have learned to respect the ways of wget and curl, but the heretical lynx shall be spoken of with curses forever!

Telnet? Telnet??? Hedonist! The disciples of the only true web use netcat!

Re:No real increase for firefox... (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 3 years ago | (#33794256)

I would expect more of a 25% split across these platforms.

25% for IE because it is the default browser, and is a known quantity that it will work on most websites. However it will drop further as people realizes they are no longer stuck and most websites doesn't care on your browser.

25% for Firefox I see it dropping as Chrome rises even further it will chew up some of IE and FireFox But I would expect from seeing FireFox 4 Beta that they will be comparable and used by who ever like one over the other.

25% Google, it will grow then at a point its privacy concerns that Google brings up will stop it from breaking 25% for a long time.

25% other. Well we have a lot of Mac Users with most using Safari So I could see Safari getting 15% of the desktop With the Mac Users and people who use Safari for Windows. 5% for others... Sorry Opera you are a good browser but as of right now I don't see any reinsurance's.

Browser wars: the underappreciated candidates (1)

jonaskoelker (922170) | more than 3 years ago | (#33794272)

A few browsers you may want to investigate further, if you feel Internet Firechrome Safoperari is a decent but slightly 'meh' browser:

w3m, links, links2, elinks, w3-mode, w3m-mode, surfraw: command line goodness. Especially the Shell Users' Revolutionary Front Against WWW (SURFRAW), how's that for an acronym.

Uzbl: a graphical browser (webkit innards) with highly customizable keybindings, designed from the Unix philosophy---a lot of its internal state can be poked at from shell scripts (or whatever works on stdin, stdout and files) and this is highly encouraged by the design of the thing.

Been using it ever since I heard about it and I'm only begrudgingly going back to firechrome whenever I need to.

Re:Browser wars: the underappreciated candidates (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33794426)

Uzbl: a graphical browser (webkit innards)

Uzbl! Another catchy product name from the Open Source community!

Re:No real increase for firefox... (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#33794360)

Sorry, but I was born a Cello man. And I will die a Cello man.

Hold on (3, Insightful)

musicalmicah (1532521) | more than 3 years ago | (#33794102)

The methodology question in the FAQ [statcounter.com] leads me to believe that all their stats are from sites that use this tool [statcounter.com] - "the best free web counter in the world." IE may indeed be below 50% market share for this population, but I bet it leans towards recreational rather than business browsing.

Re:Hold on (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33794158)

I'd also trust Ars Technica over Network World, any day of the week. http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2010/10/ie9-beta-not-enough-to-keep-ie-market-share-over-60-mark.ars
Notice the 60 instead of 50.

Re:Hold on (1)

kgcurrie (21794) | more than 3 years ago | (#33794234)

Possible sampling problem noted; however, all it implies is that over half of people who have a choice, choose not to use IE. That's just as damning toward IE as the statement, "business users have no choice."

Re:Hold on (1)

socsoc (1116769) | more than 3 years ago | (#33794248)

It's a reliable as when Quantcast provides traffic figures for sites that have never embedded Quantcast code. It's magic!

Re:Site bias... (1)

klubar (591384) | more than 3 years ago | (#33794294)

It also has a strong bias for the types of sites that would use "the best free web counter in the world". It's unlikely that very many large commercial sites would use a a free counter, and want to share their stats with someone else. So not only is there a sampling problem, there is also a data collection problem. The numbers probably don't give an accurate value, but may be useful for trends. On the sites that we run, I've never seen IE (all variants) below 70% (and more like 80%). But then again, these sites are mostly targeting business users. (And the email client is almost always outlook, or a Blackberry.)
 

Blocked? (1)

pedestrian crossing (802349) | more than 3 years ago | (#33794340)

If it depends on the browser allowing javascript from statcounter.com, it would not count hits from browsers with NoScript.

Re:Hold on (1)

pinkushun (1467193) | more than 3 years ago | (#33794356)

Also consider ad blockers, or Firefox add-ons like "Request Policy" which block certain domains.

Re:Hold on (1)

LoudMusic (199347) | more than 3 years ago | (#33794386)

I believe it is quite the opposite. IE is the defacto browser in corporations using MS products - if the IT group installs an alternative browser that's one more thing to support. Chrome and Firefox are on computers where users actually have control of what gets installed.

Probable outcome... (1)

oranGoo (961287) | more than 3 years ago | (#33794124)

...of this might be that MS will get its act together and fix the standards compliance and user experience. MS rarely goes away. When (and if!) they indeed fix it one might think - nice, the environment corrected itself; all is good.

However, if we stop to think of vast amounts of resources (money, time) that could have been saved and used for better purposes that was blown away in the industry on making internet work on IE, just because of MS attitude (would not go as far to call it strategy) and quality of its products. It would be great if business environment could fix that, too.

The IE interface has become awful (1)

Average_Joe_Sixpack (534373) | more than 3 years ago | (#33794142)

I liked IE but it is now a clusterfuck of bad design. The icons are tiny, illegible and poorly positioned... I'm sure it can be customized but why bother when there are other browsers that do it better by default.

Re:The IE interface has become awful (2, Insightful)

LinuxIsGarbage (1658307) | more than 3 years ago | (#33794238)

I liked IE but it is now a clusterfuck of bad design. The icons are tiny, illegible and poorly positioned... I'm sure it can be customized but why bother when there are other browsers that do it better by default.

My question is why in IE7 and 8 are there two "Tools" menus with different items? Makes phone instructions interesting. "Click tools. No not that one, the other tools."

not sure if I believe (2, Interesting)

bishopBelloc (1751712) | more than 3 years ago | (#33794152)

Can anyone comment on the validity of this statistic? I've never heard of StatCounter. And while, "5 billion page views per month" and "3 million Websites" sounds like a lot, I have no idea how they selected those sites, and how many months they collected data over.

Re:not sure if I believe (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33794302)

it depends on the site.
I look after quite a few sites and some had IE drop below 50% last year - the more creative business orientated sites - currently 30%!!!!
the last 30 days show (in analytics)
a large format printer - 52%
a dentist and a health and beauty are 63%
2 artists sites are is 53% and 50%
2 engineering sites is 63%

the trend is down and if the creatives site is anything to go by it could easily end up at 30%

Their information is outdated... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33794168)

Where have these people been? It's been below 50% since 2008 according to:

http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

% of People consciously using IE is way lower (2, Interesting)

fadir (522518) | more than 3 years ago | (#33794170)

I assume that of those people that actually know what a browser is a does the percentage is far lower than the amount of 50%. If you deduct those that are forced to use the IE at work as well you probably reach a one digit area.
I cannot imagine why anyone that has some basic technical understanding would choose to use the Internet Explorer. You must be either forced or a technical illiterate (well, or maybe stupid) to use IE.

Re:% of People consciously using IE is way lower (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33794306)

Considering probably over 90% of windows users don't know what a browser is, it's highly unlikely they have chrome or firefox or opera installed. I think the stats are wrong. IE browser market share on computers running windows is definitely over 99%.

Re:% of People consciously using IE is way lower (2, Insightful)

fadir (522518) | more than 3 years ago | (#33794528)

I'm pretty sure that a reasonable amount of those people have someone at hand to "fix" the computer for them, which often includes the installation of an alternative browser. I agree that the majority of the Windows users are clueless. But I wouldn't go so far to say that this is >90%.

Funny (1)

Deternal (239896) | more than 3 years ago | (#33794212)

Clicked thru to the story and clicked the Avaya Flare banneradd and the page at avaya didn't display properly in Firefox (worked fine in Chrome tho).

Re:Funny (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 3 years ago | (#33794416)

Just went to check, and you appear to be right... I can’t find the banner ad anywhere.

One step closer... (1)

chemicaldave (1776600) | more than 3 years ago | (#33794220)

...to victory for web developers everywhere. Now if we can just get more people to use Chrome...

Depends on whom you ask (4, Insightful)

asdfington (1877976) | more than 3 years ago | (#33794246)

Measuring browser market share is kind of a tricky task since any one site can only tell you who visits *their* site, or the sites whose stats they aggregate.
Check out the stats here:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers#Summary_table [wikimedia.org] and you'll see that depending on whom you ask, IE has anywhere between 48 and 63% of the market share. Stats from sites that cater to developers (notably w3schools are skewed heavily* towards Firefox and Chrome, mainstream sites towards IE. Then there's the factors that lead to over-estimation, under-estimation... it's a sticky wicket for sure.

I say look at the aggregate results. Then I mention I have no idea how those aggregates are tabulated and weighted (Do W3Schools' stats have the same weight as WeTrack10mSites.com?). The only thing you can know for sure (more or less), is the traffic statistics on *your* site, which, to the developer, should be pretty much the only ones that matter. Pro tip: explain that last sentence to your clients.

*I don't really know if something can be "skewed heavily," but what the heck, you only live once, right?

Re:Depends on whom you ask (2, Insightful)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 3 years ago | (#33794512)

The only thing you can know for sure (more or less), is the traffic statistics on *your* site, which, to the developer, should be pretty much the only ones that matter.

But your own site's statistics may be biased as well: For example, if you have an IE only page, that fact by itself will make IE the dominant browser on your page. However that doesn't tell you about the statistics you would get if your site would not be IE only. You cannot distinguish between hits you don't get because the user isn't interested in your site, and hits you don't get because the user can't access your site (or because your site looks ugly in his browser).

Re:Depends on whom you ask (2, Interesting)

mooingyak (720677) | more than 3 years ago | (#33794610)

Indeed.

I work for a high volume very mainstream site. I just checked our numbers for yesterday, and we had:
IE 58%
FF 22%
Chrome 7%

or roughly 9:3:1 as you move from browser to browser.

I didn't break it down any further than that. Our demographics favor women generally and moms in particular, and are mostly from North America, or so marketing tells us. Take that however you want.

As to your footnote, I've heard the phrase "heavily skewed" many times. If you're in the 'usage defines language' camp, then your phrase is just fine.

I've been using less FF and more Opera (-1, Offtopic)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 3 years ago | (#33794262)

With all the latest and greatest changes from FF team I've found myself using more and more Opera and less and less FF because on the same hardware that I used to have and still am using FF has become less and less usable. Plugin container is constantly crashing, FF windows are opening in a nice shade of gray and void of functionality, I have to kill them and open new ones, eventually I have to kill the processes and plugin container separately, the browser is less responsive than it used to be. I find Opera to be much more responsive. Of-course there are no near as many extensions for Opera as for FF and I am not even using the ones that exist, but really, at this point I am just having trouble using the basic browser functionality in FF, forget the extensions.

Re:I've been using less FF and more Opera (-1, Offtopic)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 3 years ago | (#33794354)

You can call it whatever you want, again, I am using Opera more than FF these days because FF has become pretty much unusable on one of my laptops and less usable on another.

Re:I've been using less FF and more Opera (-1, Troll)

djh2400 (1362925) | more than 3 years ago | (#33794660)

I refuse to use Opera until it obeys operating system themes.

Re:I've been using less FF and more Opera (1)

greyline (1052440) | more than 3 years ago | (#33794754)

I like how you have a plug for a Firefox extension in your sig.

They All Suck (0, Troll)

Lawrence_Bird (67278) | more than 3 years ago | (#33794278)

Is the conclusion I have come to of late. Firefox is a pig with random slowdowns (even as I type this) and high memory usage. Increasingly it also locks up other tabs while waiting on ads or other links to load. Chrome unfortunately seems to still make use of parts of IE or windows - found to my displeasure when setting up a proxy and I got the Internet Settings box (note: changing here seems to change for all apps...b rilliant). Opera while generally quite good still fails to draw some pages properly and still has some UI quirks which will take a long while to adjust to.

I may finally make the move to Opera and use one of the others when a page does not look right. But I've grown entirely sick of firefox, and yes I've tried 4.0 as well. Seeing that I started with something like mozilla 0.92 I've given them a fair shake I think!

Re:They All Suck (1)

WhitePanther5000 (766529) | more than 3 years ago | (#33794642)

If "they all suck", then it's probably more like "non-compliant websites suck". Flashblock [mozilla.org] helps a lot, but I still run into sites that jack up my CPU utilization with javascript. For instance, the ticker on an eetimes.com article [eetimes.com] pushes my core 2 duo to 70%. A little absurd for a 2 page article.

Unfortunately, everyone wants a flashy website these days, and the people paying the web developers don't really care about how it effects the end user... as long as it's pretty and it attracts page hits.

Obviously that's not always the case... but still, blame the websites. At this point you basically wind up with the the decision to (SLOWLY) see everything as intended, or live with some quirks for a faster browsing experience.

Even better (2, Interesting)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 3 years ago | (#33794298)

In Germany, IE dropped below 25%. [statcounter.com]

All this dispite IE always being pre-installed (5, Informative)

linebackn (131821) | more than 3 years ago | (#33794326)

What I find most interesting about the drop in IE usage is that this is happening in spite of IE still pre-installed on every single Windows computer and not being truly uninstallable (Even if the icon and tiny iexplore.exe are removed, which is all the Win7 add/remove feature does, 99% of it is sill there and can be fully embedded by applications)

This means a huge number of people are going to the trouble of obtaining and installing a third party browser, and ignoring that a browser is already installed. It would be interesting to see some statistics on where and how people are getting them.

I also have a feeling that for at least the short term, IE 9's inability to run on Windows XP might bite into IEs usage share. Firefox 4 will still run under 2000 and XP (and unofficially apparently even Windows 98 using a special piece of kernel extending software)

I like Opera (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33794334)

enough said. :)

IE6 share (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33794410)

I wonder how much of IE6's tiny remaining share is taken up by the millions of web developers who still insist on testing their site in IE6 -- it has to be a hefty chunk.

Let it die developers - it's in your hands. No IE6 user working for a corporation with a archaic IT policy is going to buy products from your website -- it'll be blocked by their unpatched, insecure content filter anyway!!

Similar stats (1)

tokul (682258) | more than 3 years ago | (#33794546)

98% windows users, not IT related audience
January 2010:
IE - 64%
Firefox - 21%
Opera - 10%
Safari - 4%

September 2010:
IE - 55%
Firefox - 27%
Opera - 8%
Safari - 8%

Jan 2008 - IE = 85%
Jan 2009 - IE = 78%

Statistics show steady decline of IE share.

One thing all stat counters seem to agree on: (2, Interesting)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 3 years ago | (#33794766)

Firefox has been stagnating for longer than a year, now. Chrome is slowly but very steadfastly growing, and eating IE's lunch - but I wonder if we'll soon see the day that it'll eat into Firefox's usage share as well. I don't want to speculate about it, but if and when it does, all hell will break out in the Linux community, because Linux users have been extremely (no, really) loyal Firefox users.

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...