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!

Chrome Is the Third Double-Digit Browser

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the every-day-it-seems-more-normal dept.

Chrome 299

An anonymous reader writes "Google's Chrome has taken the 10% market share hurdle, according to Net Applications and is past 15%, according to StatCounter. It is interesting to see that IE is declining at an accelerating pace and IE9 Beta cannot, despite the massive marketing campaign, dent Chrome's growth, while Firefox is holding on to what it has. It almost seems as if IE9 will not be able to turn around the decline of IE."

cancel ×

299 comments

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

IE9 (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35075448)

Is tied to Vista and Windows 7. Its marketshare in terms of Windows users is limited to the users of those operating systems. Sometimes integration is a bitch.

Re:IE9 (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35075482)

I'm still running IE 5 for unix, what's your problem...

Re:IE9 (1)

ravenspear (756059) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075596)

oh yeah, well my website degrades gracefully to Netscape Navigator 2.0. Beat that!

Re:IE9 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35075822)

lynx bitch!

Re:IE9 (3, Funny)

Mitchell314 (1576581) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075834)

wget mothafuckas

Re:IE9 (2)

Khyber (864651) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075932)

01010010 01000001 01010111 00100000 01000010 01001001 01001110 01000001 01010010 01011001

Re:IE9 (1)

AmyRose1024 (1160863) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075986)

Telnet. :)

Re:IE9 (1)

Gerzel (240421) | more than 3 years ago | (#35076092)

Insecure. Try SSL if you can.

Re:IE9 (1)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | more than 3 years ago | (#35076102)

Please tell us how to SSH to port 80 and issue GET commands.

Re:IE9 (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075990)

netcat

Re:IE9 (3, Funny)

zach_the_lizard (1317619) | more than 3 years ago | (#35076146)

Pfft, I lick my Ethernet cable to get raw frames, bitches!

Re:IE9 (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075832)

"degrades gracefully"? Mmm. You must be acquainted with a lot of elderly women . . .

Re:IE9 (5, Funny)

icannotthinkofaname (1480543) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075534)

Sometimes integration is a bitch.

Integration is always a bitch. I find derivatives far easier to calculate.

Re:IE9 (0)

HairyNevus (992803) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075812)

ba-dum *tss*

Re:IE9 (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075654)

Not to mention there is more than just Chrome which shows up AS Chrome so that will skew the results if you strictly go by net stats as well. For example just off the top of my head there is Chromium and Comodo Dragon and IIRC both of those show up as Chrome under UA, and I'm sure there are probably other Chromium based that also show up as Chrome under UA. Does Flock show up as Chrome as well?

Me personally I am just damned glad we have plenty of choices now, screw the whole "who has the biggest" ePeen BS. I remember when you had the "choices" of Internet Exploiter on one hand and Nutscrape on the other, which was kinda like saying "Would you rather be punched or kicked in the balls?" as having choices in the matter. Now we have Gecko based- Firefox, Seamonkey, Kmeleon, you have webkit based Chrome/Chromium, SWIron, Comodo Dragon, Flock, Safari, and you even have trident based like Maxthon and Avant, and of course Opera all by itself running Presto.

So I am just glad we have a wealth of choices, so that when one company screws the pooch when it comes to the browser we are not stuck with a choice of that or IE. As far as IE goes I think this picture [amazonaws.com] sums it up best.

Re:IE9 (2)

norpy (1277318) | more than 3 years ago | (#35076158)

All of the browsers you mention likely have user bases that equate to rounding errors in these stats.

Re:IE9 (1)

The Hatchet (1766306) | more than 3 years ago | (#35076306)

First thing I do when I am done installing win7 ult. x64: Download chrome. IE is a fucking virus. I have uninstalled it 30 times now from this computer, even erased every last file involving it from my box, and stopped all updates containing it, then BAM there it is again. It may exist on my computer, but I am sure as hell not a user.

Wasn't on purpose (5, Funny)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075452)

Studies also show that due to the icon, most Chrome users thought they were downloading a Pokemon application.

Suck me cock. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35075478)

Yup.

Re:Wasn't on purpose (1)

Anubis_Ascended (937960) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075516)

Studies also show that due to the icon, most Chrome users thought they were downloading a Pokemon application.

Or a Metroid app (it sure looks like Samus's Morph Ball to me)

Re:Wasn't on purpose (1)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075544)

They just wanted to see what Simon said.

Re:Wasn't on purpose (2)

Afforess (1310263) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075758)

I know you're joking but..

Net Applications measures web site hits, not installation base, so your logic doesn't work.

Re:Wasn't on purpose (1)

marcello_dl (667940) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075972)

or SAL 9000 [neatorama.com]

Not surprising (1)

siddesu (698447) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075458)

Seeing, as it is, that I am using Chrome on the mobile appliance I carry around, both Chrome and FFox (ffox being the main) on my notebooks and I have no IE as default browser on the two Windows devices that i still have for business reasons.

Re:Not surprising (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35075752)

Seeing, as it is, that I am using Chrome on the mobile appliance I carry around, both Chrome and FFox (ffox being the main) on my notebooks and I have no IE as default browser on the two Windows devices that i still have for business reasons.

Your representative sample of 1 is most impressive. I am glad you took the time to write that.

Re:Not surprising (1, Funny)

siddesu (698447) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075790)

yes, i measure the world by my standards. i am sorry you're not up to that.

Re:Not surprising (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35076108)

yes, i measure the world by my standards. i am sorry you're not up to that.

Your inferiority complex is your problem, you smug bastard.

Re:Not surprising (1)

zach_the_lizard (1317619) | more than 3 years ago | (#35076190)

Your representative sample of 1 is most impressive.

Obi-wan has taught you well.

It's about time! (1)

Aerorae (1941752) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075472)

It deserves so much better than 10%!!!

Here's a constructive comment (-1, Flamebait)

Jorl17 (1716772) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075474)

Microsoft Fanboy: "Lies, /. is for Lusers, I am only here because I must show u th4t."
Anti-Microsoft: "YAY!"
Balanced people: "So....why should I care? Oh yeah, Microsoft's evil."

But I'd just stick with "YAY!"

Re:Here's a constructive comment (1, Insightful)

east coast (590680) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075508)

Balanced people certainly don't think MS is any more evil than Google or Facebook.

As a side note, I left FF months ago for Chrome and haven't looked back. I think most of the FF fanbase are those who still remember the glory days of old, not taking note that if you're praising FF and scoffing at IE you're just making yourself look like an ass to anyone who really shops around for software.

Re:Here's a constructive comment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35075602)

As a side note, I left FF months ago for Chrome and haven't looked back. I think most of the FF fanbase are those who still remember the glory days of old, not taking note that if you're praising FF and scoffing at IE you're just making yourself look like an ass to anyone who really shops around for software.

Agreed. I switched to Chrome from FF after trying the disastrous FF 4 betas. Hadn't looked at Chrome recently until there was a good ad blocker. Now that there is, Chrome is by far my preferred browser.

Re:Here's a constructive comment (2)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075678)

Chrome's ad-blocker isnt as fast as the firefox version of ad-block. Chrome is still a bit wonky in that area.

Re:Here's a constructive comment (0)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075648)

Balanced people certainly don't think MS is any more evil than Google or Facebook.

Of MS, Google & Facebook, which is a convicted monopolist?

Re:Here's a constructive comment (0)

msauve (701917) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075910)

You're confusing law with ethics. They're barely related.

Re:Here's a constructive comment (0)

Draek (916851) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075688)

Balanced people certainly don't think MS is any more evil than Google or Facebook.

Actually, those fall under "Microsoft fanboy" due to the significant parts of history they'd have to dismiss in order to maintain that ideology.

Re:Here's a constructive comment (1)

Zelgadiss (213127) | more than 3 years ago | (#35076098)

All companies are evil to a degree, although IMHO MS is higher on the scale than Facebook and definitely Google.

Again my opinion.

But I don't see MS as intrinsically evil, just their leadership.
I'm waiting for the day MS turns over a new leaf, but it looks like that day is a long way off as it seems the likes of Balmer aren't going anywhere.

Re:Here's a constructive comment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35076232)

But I don't see MS as intrinsically evil, just their leadership.

What's the difference?

The rank-and-file employees are either indifferent to, or supportive of, any evil coming from the leadership. That's why I don't work there. Instead, I work for a different software company.

I'm comfortable enough, I'm not living paycheck to paycheck. I could make a little more money working for Microsoft but having a clear conscience and knowing I am not supporting an organization I really believe to be exploitative and Machiavellian is more than worth the difference in cash. I like knowing that my employer does not have a long history of abusive behavior. For the mercenaries who don't mind dealing with the Devil as long as his checks clear the bank there is employment at Microsoft.

Don't make excuses and pretend like only the leadership is the problem at Microsoft. You can't be a leader unless people are willing to follow you and they make a choice to do that. They have no ethics/morals or their ethics/morals are for sale (effectively the same thing). I refuse to pretend like this is normal and acceptable and you should too.

Re:Here's a constructive comment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35075700)

When Chromium has NoScript, Mouse gestures that work even on blank pages, and a user interface that looks like the rest of my system, maybe I'll consider switching.

Re:Here's a constructive comment (3, Interesting)

characterZer0 (138196) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075742)

Balanced people certainly don't think MS is any more evil than Google or Facebook.

Have Google or Facebook corrupted standards organizations? Threatened OEMs? Illegally abused monopolies to gain market share in other markets and lock out competitors? Massacred standards to create lock-in?

Re:Here's a constructive comment (1)

msauve (701917) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075776)

"Balanced people certainly don't think MS is any more evil than Google or Facebook."

Huh?

MS is the new IBM (established, but staid and losing relevancy). Apple is the new MS (proprietary market share). Google is the new Apple (innovative, with a somewhat fanatic following). Facebook is the new Google (up and coming, but no concept of reality). It's just the wheel.

Oh, you're right, in that they're all degrees of evil. IMO, Google slightly less than the others (hard to argue with free and transparent).

Re:Here's a constructive comment (3, Insightful)

Atriqus (826899) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075724)

This isn't about X being less evil than Y. The more web browser options that are out there and the more evenly distributed their populations become on the internet, the safer we are from closed, non-free, or just browser-exclusive extensions rotting the platform.

I think it's great that Chrome has surpassed the psychological (but purely arbitrary) milestone of rendering web pages for a double-digit percentage of the internet's population. But the moment they have too much of the percentage is when my approval becomes concern.

Experimenting users (1)

Musically_ut (1054312) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075492)

Most people converting to Chrome might be willing to experiment a little bit more [blogspot.com] as the survey data of Firefox 4 Test Pilot users indicates.

Also, there is some weak indication in the data that those sticking with IE probably are die-hard and will sink as the OS-ship sinks, no sooner.

Re:Experimenting users (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075734)

Also, there is strong indication in the data that those sticking with IE probably are too damn stupid.

Fixed that for you!

Browser support by sites (1)

a.koepke (688359) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075500)

I use Chrome and still come across some sites which have really stupid browser support. The site will support Firefox and Internet Explorer but somehow manages to not support Chrome and doesn't function at all (eg. Microsoft Online Services Admin Centre). It is also annoying when sites use Browser detection and say they only support IE, Firefox or Safari. Stupid!

Re:Browser support by sites (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35075726)

Generally speaking, any site that uses browser detection and refuses to support an unknown browser (or specifically refuses Chrome) will not be visited by me. I can understand using browser detection to refuse to support IE6, or perhaps even IE7. Afterall, those two browsers often require work-arounds to display standards-compliant content. But the default assumption should be the a browser is compliant unless it is otherwise known not to be. If you've coded your site in such a way that it can only work on IE6/IE7, then shame on you. If you've coded your site to presume unknown browsers are non-compliant, double shame on you.

Double Digit (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35075502)

so it has 10 users total now? congrats!

Re:Double Digit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35076104)

By that logic, only 100 people are on the internet.

Well number 6, we meet again.

And with it goes Bing (2)

high_rolla (1068540) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075552)

And no doubt MS is getting worried about this. I wonder what part of Bing's success is due to it being the default search in IE. If IE loses share then their ability to push Bing also slides.

It's interesting to note that according to Net Applications stats IE may drop to under 50% market share sometime in the middle of this year.

Re:And with it goes Bing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35075728)

Chrome prompts you for which search engine to use. After 10 years of Google, I (temporarily) switched to Bing on my latest system.

IE9 beta? (5, Interesting)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075588)

Why would a beta of the browser stop the transition? It's clearly aimed at web developers and designers for testing, not at general populace. That's also where all the marketing is at. Actual users only see IE8 (if that!), and Chrome, of course, soundly beats it.

The only way to see if IE9 can turn the tide is to wait until it gets released (and rolled out to Windows Update, at least as optional update).

If you really want to compare the numbers, how about Chrome beta/dev installs vs IE9 installs?

Re:IE9 beta? (1)

LordThyGod (1465887) | more than 3 years ago | (#35076006)

Because that would be stoopid. The Chrome life cycle is much shorter, so less reason to even consider a beta.

Re:IE9 beta? (2)

tuppe666 (904118) | more than 3 years ago | (#35076240)

IE9 will only work on 40% of Computers

Webkit browsers (1)

gstrickler (920733) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075612)

Chrome (10.7%) + Safari (6.3%) = 17% with approx 7%/mo growth (yes, I know there are others, but the percentages are very small). In about 6 months, Webkit based browsers should surpass Mozilla derived browsers to become the 2nd most popular. Since both Mozilla and Webkit derived browsers will then be near 25%, add in Opera to push the total over 50% and finally IE will be less than half the web traffic.

Re:Webkit browsers (4, Funny)

amentajo (1199437) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075732)

If I follow your math correctly, then in just one year, 101% of internet users (17% + (7% * 12)) will be using WebKit browsers, leaving just -1% left to split between Mozilla-derived, Opera, and Internet Explorer!

Re:Webkit browsers (1)

gstrickler (920733) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075818)

You don't follow the math correctly.

Re:Webkit browsers (2)

amentajo (1199437) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075872)

OK, then, I shall try again.

If I follow your math correctly, then in just 27 months, over 105% of internet users (17% * (107% ^ 27)) will be using WebKit browsers!

Re:Webkit browsers (1)

gstrickler (920733) | more than 3 years ago | (#35076296)

And again you fail. Math is correct this time, but the statistical extrapolation is flawed.

Re:Webkit browsers (1)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | more than 3 years ago | (#35076304)

He is doing it correctly, you're the one assuming that a growth trend [xkcd.com] will remain fixed, sorry, but the real world doesn't work that way, no matter how hard environmentalists try to pretend it does.

Re:Webkit browsers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35075880)

I think it is 7% of the base percent so in a month 10.7% becomes 11.449% not 17.7%(just to show). Instead of linear extrapolation he is using a first order polynomial. I have no idea if it is valid to extrapolate like that. It could quite easily level off as current growth could be from some inconsistent change like smart phones or EU. Or as likely accelerate.

As a web developer, (4, Insightful)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075622)

im thanking my lucky stars, heavens, whatever god/deities that are present out there, for this day.

even as of this VERY moment, i am having to battle with standard incompliance of various ie versions (including next ones) and the different 'interpretations' they have of the same fucking pages than other browsers.

really ... gimme a break ...

Re:As a web developer, (2)

KingMotley (944240) | more than 3 years ago | (#35076126)

I would be thankful *IF* chrome actually fixed THEIR noncompliance bugs that they have been sitting on for years.

Re:As a web developer, (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#35076166)

professionally, and business-wise, a noncompliant bug that does not appear on client side, is a bug that client does not worry about, even if s/he knows about it.

I switched back to Firefox from Chrome. (4, Interesting)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075652)

I switched back to Firefox from Chrome.

Chrome is nice, a bit under featured, poor ad blocking (although it has gotten better its still slower and not as good as firefox.

In general, Firefox is faster than chrome all around. Even on older hardware, Firefox scrolls better than Chrome.

Firefox's bookmark manager is much nicer. I loved how chrome syncs your bookmarks but now that FireFox has it built in as well, I'm plenty happy.

Firefox has better color management. Chrome nice but... It still has that slight sluggish feeling about how it renders pages.

The new Firefox betas are looking and performing very well, so well that I switched back from chrome.

Re:I switched back to Firefox from Chrome. (1)

bwayne314 (1854406) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075712)

I find myself forced to use both - I would prefer Chrome, but it doesn't support the web-based components of my schools classes very well, for example even though it can display embedded PDFs, I have yet to figure out how the hell to print them in the way I want (think multiple handouts or powerpoint slides per page and so on), whereas firefox shows me a nice in-set toolbar that is specifically for the document and everything works swimmingly.

Re:I switched back to Firefox from Chrome. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35075926)

"In general, Firefox is faster than chrome all around. Even on older hardware, Firefox scrolls better than Chrome. "

You must be living in magical christmas land. Chrome is way faster than firefox. Probably because it has less features as you suggest but in either case I find the hour wait times for firefox and IE to load pretty bad.

Re:I switched back to Firefox from Chrome. (1)

tuppe666 (904118) | more than 3 years ago | (#35076334)

He is running the beta...and it is smooth as silk. I suspect and benchmarks tend to agree the difference in speeds are negligible. I use Firefox and IMO its the best browser. Chromes strength the thing that tugging me more and more towards me making it my main browser is it being able to consistently release.

Re:I switched back to Firefox from Chrome. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35075934)

Saying chrome is slower than Firefox makes me laugh my ass off. What version of Firefox do you have? Fauxfox 5?

Re:I switched back to Firefox from Chrome. (1)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | more than 3 years ago | (#35076124)

I've compared the two on new and older hardware, firefox scrolls smoother, loads faster. Compare heavy sites like Huffingtonpost.com. Try it with both adblock plus on and off in each browser.

Scroll... It becomes quite obvious that firefox scrolls better, and loads faster, but if you really want proof try it on older hardware. It becomes very obvious.

Re:I switched back to Firefox from Chrome. (1)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | more than 3 years ago | (#35076186)

Also, chrome takes more cpu usage while scrolling than firefox. Chrome takes about 35% to 40% on a quadcore to scroll this page.

FireFox, takes 18%-24%

Re:I switched back to Firefox from Chrome. (5, Interesting)

mTor (18585) | more than 3 years ago | (#35076028)

I too prefer Firefox because I don't trust Google. Chrome sends so much data to Google (every keystroke that you type into OmniBar) and I prefer not to give Google any of my data. Firefox has no such issues.

Issue with Chrome's ad blocking is that ad blocking in Chrome works by DOM modification and all the ads are downloaded before they're hidden. That also means that all the ad companies have your IP and browser fingerprint as well and that also means that you waste bandwidth downloading ads. Firefox, again, has no such issues because it filters actual requests.

Re:I switched back to Firefox from Chrome. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35076148)

...the "omnibar" is just a google search. when you actually use google search, it keeps that information too.

Re:I switched back to Firefox from Chrome. (2)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | more than 3 years ago | (#35076152)

To be fair though, Chrome's ad-block extensions do actually block ads from downloading now. For a while they just hid the ads from the viewer. However I still tend to find ad-block faster in firefox. I find that ad-block shows down chrome.

There is just something about webkit that doesnt scroll very well either. I cant tell what that is, but safari is guilty of the same problem. Firefox has a very nice scroll/render, where as chrome seems more choppy... although not horrible, just not as nice as firefox.

Re:I switched back to Firefox from Chrome. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35076338)

You can turn off the omnibar.

Re:I switched back to Firefox from Chrome. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35076226)

Dude, I don't know what you're smoking, but there isn't a computer I've used where Chrome doesn't still blow Firefox away in shear speed.

Re:I switched back to Firefox from Chrome. (1)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | more than 3 years ago | (#35076256)

Whats your cpu usage while scrolling? compare chrome to firefox 4 beta using this page.

Re:I switched back to Firefox from Chrome. (1)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 3 years ago | (#35076250)

I switched back to Chrome from Firefox after trying Chrome a while ago. I really like the security features of Chrome, built-in secure pdf reader, sandboxed flash, etc. Flash ships with the browser and auto-updates itself. Its nice when things just work. The inspect elements feature is great for working with CSS. The extensions market for Chrome has exploded lately and IETab just works. I'm not even sure which IETab to use in Firefox, the last time I tried it it became nagware. Chrome is crazy fast too. Maybe FF4 will compete with it, but FF feels like yesterdays news. Now I just run Chrome and IE/IETab for testing.

Re:I switched back to Firefox from Chrome. (1)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | more than 3 years ago | (#35076302)

Chrome is a very nice browser with plenty to offer design wise. I'm a fan, but I do find Firefox to be faster on new and old hardware. It scrolls and renders pages a lot smoother than Chrome has ever done.

Chrome loads pages fast, but in terms of cpu performance, Firefox seems to perform better.

It's interesting, I'm comparing them right now, so that I'm pretty accurate in my statements, and I find chrome likes to chug a bit when scrolling back and forth fast... Firefox is smooth as smooth gets. For example Chrome's scroll bar gets choppy and cant keep up with my mouse movements if I scroll very fast from top to bottom (repeat). In firefox, theres no lag at all.

Re:I switched back to Firefox from Chrome. (1)

seifried (12921) | more than 3 years ago | (#35076330)

Uhhh... I find that hard to believe. For anything with large tables, Chrome clobbers Firefox. For anything with JavaScript Chrome really clobbers Firefox. and so on. I run them side by side (quad core, 8 gigs ram, 120 gig SSD) and chrome starts faster, loads pages faster, and is a heck of a lot more stable (one bad app/PDF/etc. and firefox grinds to a halt, all tabs, with chrome you lose only a single tab since they are each a separate process). The only reason I haven't switched to Chrome 100% is because of firebug.

Marketing campaign?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35075702)

What marketing campaign? I haven't even seen a single commercial for BING! in the last few days, let alone for IE.

I'm not complaining.

New Slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35075750)

Totally off topic but why is every article tagged "slashdot"? Used to be "story".

Re:New Slashdot (1)

Khyber (864651) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075994)

Page Rank boosting in Google.

I've tried Chrome, FF, and IE... (2, Insightful)

unitron (5733) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075782)

...and this new version of Slashdot looks horrible in all of them, and doesn't work as well as the previous version in any of them.

Err? (1)

cartman (18204) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075836)

IMO this version of slashdot is vastly better than the last one. I'm surprised that you liked slash 2.0 which (IMO) was far worse than any other version.

Re:Err? (1)

zoom-ping (905112) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075892)

Mod parent up.

Realistic analysis of he daa (1)

fermion (181285) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075876)

According to the charts, IE declined 10 points in 2009. has been stable in 2010, and is showing a blip which may or may not be a trend.

Firefox has been suck a 20-something percent for 2 years.

Chrome has been growing for until spring of 2010, when it took a nosedive to low even negative growth. This correlates to IE market loss, so it is reasonable to suggest that chrome users are abandoning IE. The numbers also suggest that users are unsatisfied with Chrome.

The growth numbers also suggest that Safari has a steady growth indicating a satisfied user base that continues to use Safari. In fact the negative growth numbers of Chrome, and positive growth numbers of Safari means that the recent growth numbers for both are about the same, and Safari growth could exceed Chrome. This while other browsers growth is averaging 0.

From this is seems likely that MS can kill Chrome simply by delivering a competitive browser, without the tricks and subterfuge used to kill Navigator. Safari, Firefox, and Opera, OTOH, have clearly held their own and show sustained genuine growth over the long term, and therefore will likely continue o do so into the future.

Re:Realistic analysis of he daa (4, Interesting)

tecker (793737) | more than 3 years ago | (#35076106)

This correlates to IE market loss, so it is reasonable to suggest that chrome users are abandoning IE.

The simple fact could be that Chrome does not require administrator privileges to install. Users at offices where we are not given admin rights can install Chrome over IE and use it without slogging through a helpdesk ticket for something IT deems unnecessary. This may account for the growth we see as users are looking for more freedom and the bells and whistles a more modern browser with the ability to install extensions without needing better permissions.

Perhaps we are seeing a leveling out as those who want a different browser are finally being exhausted and entering a "long tail phase".

Internet Explorer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35075886)

"has encountered something which probably isn't unsafe. Would you like an explanation of how to recognise the yellow bar at the top of your screen?"

About the only browser I could argue is actually less enjoyable to use is Lynx.

Chrome is heavily advertised. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35075906)

It appeared in newspapers, on billboards and on top of the Google homepage. I know Firefox did a newspaper advert a while back but it is still mostly a word of mouth product. But as everyone said before, fix the bugs in 4.0 or i'll be a Chrome zealot.

According to w3c.. (1)

Ziekheid (1427027) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075942)

chrome nearly hit the Double-Digit mark by the end of 2009.. http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp/ [w3schools.com]

Re:According to w3c.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35076218)

w3schools is NOT affiliated with the w3c [w3fools.com] , please stop spreading this misinformation

One day we'll celebrate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35075944)

When IE drops to a cumulative 49%, we should all party with the Ewoks like at the end of Return of the Jedi.

True fact (0)

Jaktar (975138) | more than 3 years ago | (#35076004)

Nobody uses multiple browsers.
Also, once you switch you can't change your mind.

I use FF and IE on my main monitor and chrome on the 2nd. IMO Firefox got worse in the last release and IE9beta is better than it was. I am indifferent about Chrome. I'm not going to lie and say I use IE a whole lot, I don't. I wouldn't be a geek if I didn't at least look at it and form my own opinion though.

I'm only one more failure from dropping Firefox again though. Go ahead Mozilla, lose all my bookmarks during a crash again. I dare you.

New slashdot and Chrome password (1)

EreIamJH (180023) | more than 3 years ago | (#35076086)

Anyone unable to get Chrome to autofill the new Slashdot password dialog? Not working for me.

Re:New slashdot and Chrome password (1)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 3 years ago | (#35076336)

I don't think that's Chrome specific. I use FF, and the slashdot login process is rather hit and miss lately.

What about Netscape? (2)

krizoitz (1856864) | more than 3 years ago | (#35076094)

Netscape Navigator had to have had double digit market share. Not to mention NCSA Mosaic. Probably a couple of the early text only browsers had doubt digit share too. At best Chrome is the fifth probably less than that even to reach double digit share. And yes I realize the headline was probably meant to apply only to current browsers. It's fun to be literal :D

The Article (1)

stms (1132653) | more than 3 years ago | (#35076268)

Notice how the last graph in the article has colors for unreleased versions of chrome (9 & 10). I guess the guy who was making the graph assumed that by the time he finished it versions 9 and 10 would be out.
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>