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 Beats Internet Explorer On Any Given Sunday

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the don't-let-lumberg-find-out dept.

Chrome 212

tsamsoniw writes "Over the past three weeks, Chrome has beaten out Internet Explorer as the No. 1 browser in the world — but only on Sundays. In fact, according to data from StatCounter, Chrome usage is higher on weekends than it is during the work week, whereas IE usage drops on Saturdays and Sundays. Evidently, end-users prefer Chrome at home, which might be helping the browser get a foothold at work." (So apparently it's not just a freak occurrence.)

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

Chrome vs IE (3, Insightful)

Johnny Mister (2610721) | more than 2 years ago | (#39583423)

There's a simple reason for this. Google has been heavily pushing Chrome to end-users via advertisements, their search engine, YouTube, and by making deals with computer manufacturers and software authors (adware) by paying them to spread Chrome. On workplaces this tactic doesn't really work as individual workers are often unable to install adware and other malware on their computers as IT knows what they are doing and have restricted that. It is quite similar to why most spam is sent from home computers - users don't know how to secure and maintain their systems.

Re:Chrome vs IE (5, Insightful)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 2 years ago | (#39583431)

Not bad considering Microsoft pushes IE to end-users via it being pre-installed on their operating system...

Re:Chrome vs IE (5, Interesting)

Flammon (4726) | more than 2 years ago | (#39583579)

Which makes Firefox's share quite impressive considering that it was acquired on merit.

Re:Chrome vs IE (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39583763)

Yep acquired on merit and lost on bloat and bugs. I quit using firefox when pages with flash videos would lock it up for 5 seconds at a time but it was my favorite browser for a good 3 years. Now I much prefer chrome...granted's BS adds and delayed pop ups play havoc with chrome from time to time so nothing's perfect.

Re:Chrome vs IE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39583613)

So Chrome beats IE (and other browsers) by acting just like IE?

I'm not sure if that's a compliment

Re:Chrome vs IE (1)

crazyjj (2598719) | more than 2 years ago | (#39583685)

And some of us use Firefox, which doesn't push anything and has the best add-ons of any browser.

Re:Chrome vs IE (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39583741)

What version are they up to now? 38?

Those add-ons don't count for shit when version creep keeps breaking them every 3 days.

Re:Chrome vs IE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39584141)

Well, FF is up to 11, Chrome, on the other hand, has been under development for far less time than FF and is up to 18 or something. So, I find it really bizarre that anyone would use FF version numbering scheme as a downside vis-a-vis Chrome.

Also, I've been using the same add-ons on FF since pretty much 3.5 or so. Here's a list of the add-ons I have installed right now:

- about:me
- adblock plus
- all-in-one gestures
- anonymizer nevercookie
- beef taco
- better privacy
- bug me not
- context search
- download manager tweak
- element hiding helper for adblock plus
- exif viewer
- fasterfox lite
- forecastfox
- gmail watcher
- greasemonkey
- https everywhere
- nuke anything enhanced
- organize statusbar
- remove it permanently
- righttoclick
- smoothwheel
- stylish
- toggle private browsing (this one needed a bit of tweaking, but even though i know next to nothing of JS, i fixed it in 3 minutes)
- url fixer
- vacuum places improved

I'm not a fundamentalist, I'll switch browsers when or if there's a better alternative for me. Right now, FF with these add-ons is superior to the alternatives, and that's why I use it.

Re:Chrome vs IE (1)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 2 years ago | (#39584643)

Well, FF is up to 11, Chrome, on the other hand, has been under development for far less time than FF and is up to 18 or something. So, I find it really bizarre that anyone would use FF version numbering scheme as a downside vis-a-vis Chrome.

Firefox gets in your face every time it updates, and only recently stopped constantly telling you that some of your plugins wouldn't work with the latest version.

Chrome doesn't have, and never has had, either of these problems.

Re:Chrome vs IE (2)

Bad Ad (729117) | more than 2 years ago | (#39583451)

I dont think adware means what you think it means.

Re:Chrome vs IE (2, Informative)

ElmoGonzo (627753) | more than 2 years ago | (#39583469)

Not to mention that there are STILL workplaces where the I.T. control freaks won't permit anything except Internet Exploder on their systems. One place I worked did a periodic scour and removed things like other browsers or email clients.

Re:Chrome vs IE (4, Interesting)

SJHillman (1966756) | more than 2 years ago | (#39583537)

I work at one of those places and I'm one of those IT control freaks. There's a good reason for it - we don't have the time or the people to troubleshoot five different browsers. Just because a user prefers Chrome over IE doesn't mean they know how to use it. Even the simple stuff, like displaying a PDF in a browser. I wasted a half hour trying to teach a user how to print a PDF from Chrome because the buttons were slightly different than they were in IE (which she was already familiar with). It'd be great to standardize on Chrome or Opera, but then there would be more retraining involved and IE has a lot of (admittedly artificial) advantages, such as vendor support, AD control, etc. Then there's the fact that even if we did standardize on Chrome, some people would want Firefox. If we did Firefox, some people would want Safari. So in the end, IE is by far the easiest, cheapest and least time consuming option whether or not it's your favorite browser.

Re:Chrome vs IE (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39583589)

IE may be "cheapest" until you realize that Chrome makes the computer seem so much faster that you can skip an upgrade cycle. IE is dog slow, so are Firefox and Safari.

Re:Chrome vs IE (2)

Johnny Mister (2610721) | more than 2 years ago | (#39583645)

Have you tested IE9? It actually is a great standards compliant and fast browser. Completely different than before.

Re:Chrome vs IE (1)

Alioth (221270) | more than 2 years ago | (#39584321)

The problem with IE9 and IE10 - well, IE10 is not even released yet, and it's far far behind Firefox or Chrome in HTML5 support - which is becoming more important as time goes on.

Re:Chrome vs IE (1)

ThatOtherGuy435 (1773144) | more than 2 years ago | (#39583675)

Except you can't actually skip an upgrade cycle, because as the systems age, they start having more hardware failures, and requiring more maintenance from IT, and needed extended warranties, and require more re-format/re-imaging - something that can be really annoying to handle once you've grown past the number of machines you can keep track of in spreadsheets.

A business that 'bills' out it's employee at a couple hundred bucks an hour really only needs a couple hours of machine failure before the opportunity cost of replacing the machine is recouped.

Re:Chrome vs IE (1)

IdolizingStewie (878683) | more than 2 years ago | (#39584493)

If you've grown past the number of machines that you can keep in a spreadsheet, why does replacement of a machine mean upgrading the operating system? Seems far easier to me to keep using the same image.

Spare PCs (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#39584665)

Then keep a couple spare machines set to connect to the domain and the NAS in case of a machine failure. Why would you have to replace all of them at once?

Re:Chrome vs IE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39583781)

Besides the obvious "makes the computer seem" issue (perception is not necessarily reality)... in a work environment, the main issue isn't speed. The main issue is compatibility and training.

Where I work, we only support IE. Late last year we finally moved from IE6 to IE8. Why? Web based portals are built for IE. Like it, love it, take it or leave it - IE is what works. Chrome, Safari, FF, etc don't work with these products. Point. Blank. Simple.

With IE you know what your programming against. Again, good bad or indifferent, it's a solid target. Chrome and FF update so often, that what works today might not work tomorrow. In an environment that demands products work (lived or profits depend on it), you can't program against a moving target.

Training is touched by others. People don't like change, and simple things like buttons in different locations make support more difficult. Other issues like a web page looking different on different browsers is another issue. One browser - one set of issues... 2+... more issues that don't need to be.

IE8 (XP) and IE9 (V/7) are more than capable browsers, even if Chrome is faster. I use chrome (synced browsers are awesome, imo), but the users i work for wouldn't know where to begin with stuff like that... they want to get work done with the least amount of hassle

Re:Chrome vs IE (1)

hackula (2596247) | more than 2 years ago | (#39583683)

You don't have to support every browser or email client. Tell your users that Outlook is the supported email client and ie is the supported browser. If they want something else, go for it, but they better know how to use it. If they run into a problem, you reserve the right to say "Here is how it works in X, would you like me to switch you back". I would be willing to bet that the people who go out of the way to install their favorite alternative, are unlikely to be the same people who "cant find the dang garn printin pdf buttin".

Re:Chrome vs IE (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | more than 2 years ago | (#39583895)

Switching them back to IE is still a waste of time for an IT staff that's already overburdened. It's much easier just to now allow it anyway. We haven't actually restricted it technologically, so users that can support it themselves slip by under the radar and we don't say anything if we notice it. However, anyone that calls for support for any non-approved software has it removed and is warned not to reinstall it.

Re:Chrome vs IE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39583905)

That works great, in theory. The problem with a "use at your own risk" type policy is that upper management will ignore it, point out that your job is to help with IT issues, and force you to support the unsupported application anyway. After repeated instances of this happening and real work getting put on hold, it isn't a huge leap to understand why the "evil IT people" force standardized applications on end users and try to prevent non-approved software from being used.

Come to think of it, I guess management is to blame for this issue.

Re:Chrome vs IE (1)

pz (113803) | more than 2 years ago | (#39583979)

I'm a perfect example of this supposition. I work in a highly standardized environment that services a large number of employees (well over 10,000) where although not all have their own computer, nearly all are computer users at some point during the day. My office group has elected not to use the standard-issue systems and software, and roll our own instead. The IT people are reasonably undertanding folk, especially when I tell them we're using Linux and willing to self-support on *all* issues, except those involving network connectivity (which we, like everyone else at our institution, pay for on a per-call basis).

Re:Chrome vs IE (1)

gutnor (872759) | more than 2 years ago | (#39584483)

Politically speaking, that does not work in most places. People will complain, Management will hear about the complain and you will have to waste time justifying that those complain were not justified. You will have at best waste meeting time that could be use to address your real issues. At worse, you will anger some PHB, or some other PHB will understand that the fact that you allow people to use another browser is not a feature but a sign of incompetence, ...

Really, if the company is a tiny bit dysfunctional and is not making money directly from IT, the safest solution is to simply prevent people to use stuff you don't fully support. Otherwise the opportunities for trouble are almost unlimited. That is the same thing with supporting smartphones and tablets, there is no way you can even think about letting the user get away with that without the CTO publicly asking for it.

Re:Chrome vs IE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39583737)

You should get a slap as admin.
Install whatever they want(reasonable stuff, like firefox, etc), and tell em: 'wanna get some support lovin? use explorer. uses firefox opera or whatever - and no support lovin available.'
Problem sovled, NEXT!

I am sick of support people like you. i worked for industry leaders, fortune 100 companies, EVERYWHERE same retarded rules. I work almoust always in multelingual environment. install for support reasons 2-3 applications, multiply em by 2-3, substract original 2-3 applications - the will be ammount of programs i wil need to install myself, and i wont be able to and i have to go through hell of approvals to get SOME of em done.

Admins, just to let you know, you suck!

Re:Chrome vs IE (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | more than 2 years ago | (#39583917)

If management wants to up my salary to account for an extra 10 hours a week fielding calls about non-supported software, then by all means let them install it. But until then, I'm controlling the environment so I only have to work 9 hours most days. Face it, 95% of end users fuck up installing and supporting their own software, which costs the company and the employees a lot of lost time. Next time I have to reinstall Windows because a user decided to install software that happened to have a rootkit or two, I'll bill you for the time.

Re:Chrome vs IE (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39583787)

I wasted a half hour trying to teach a user how to print a PDF from Chrome because the buttons were slightly different than they were in IE

At which point you write up your findings create a procedure. Share with your brethren... Then put it in a document repository so when it changes (and it will) you can just grab the latest version and give the end user a copy. Best part is you can get your doc guys to help you with it.

OR you can continue to hand hold everyone and bitch that they dont know what they are doing. You let them bully you into hand holding and they will do it.

Your choice.

Re:Chrome vs IE (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | more than 2 years ago | (#39583929)

If I had the extra time to write up my findings and create an unneeded procedure then I would.
If we had doc guys, then they would.
Unfortunately, there's these things called budgets that require us to try to get the most done in the least time with the fewest people.

Unless you're willing to pay for it?

Didn't I work with you? (1)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | more than 2 years ago | (#39584381)

The IT guy who never documented. Or filed anything. We thought it was about job preservation. The senior manager asked "Is he dyslexic?".

Re:Chrome vs IE (1)

Ice Tiger (10883) | more than 2 years ago | (#39583789)

I'm also one of those IT control freaks and we're changing from using IE as the company browser and going to Chrome, the biggest drivers for this are commercial and IE lets itself down by being single platform and also locked into the OS upgrade cycle.

Why we require IE (4, Interesting)

crazyjj (2598719) | more than 2 years ago | (#39583827)

My workplace requires IE for one specific (but very important) reason. Everyone here uses Powerpoint (way too much, IMHO, but that's another issue), and Powerpoint has a built-in tool for converting presentations to webpages (meaning they can be posted on our intranet with forms and other pages). But those webpages only look right in IE. Pretty sneaky on MS's part. The alternative would be trying to convert tens-of-thousands-of-slides worth of presentations into html by hand. So it's a lot easier to just force people to use IE rather than having to deal with either the conversion costs or 2,000 phone calls with conversations like this:

Caller: "These slides don't look right"

Tech: "What browser are you using?"

Caller: "I'm using the internet"

Tech: "What is the picture you click on to get to the internet look like?"

Caller: "I don't know, JUST FIX IT!!!"

Re:Chrome vs IE (1)

DrgnDancer (137700) | more than 2 years ago | (#39584049)

"You can install what you want, but we only support IE".

Problem solved. That's how we do it. Users get approval for all kinds of crazy stuff, on the understanding that IT doesn't support it; and if anything breaks, weird stuff gets uninstalled/turned off for troubleshooting. I'm the Unix/Linux support guy so it's not really anything I worry about, but it seems to work fine for our desktop support guys. Hell, my "Corporate workstation" is a Mac with Parallels running Windows in a VM. The Mac is not a supported platform, and is basically a standalone device. My Windows VM is a member of the Domain, and I use it for all my Outlook/Office Messenger/IE needs. Obviously this is not a "supported" configuration, and I'm on my own for support, but Desktop support joined it to the domain for me and provides basic account support. I find having a Unix based machine makes my job a lot easier (Cygwin works, but always feels clunky to me), so this was the compromise I made with IT. They knew I could handle all of my own support needs, so no one cares.

Re:Chrome vs IE (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | more than 2 years ago | (#39584111)

That's the policy we had at my last job. When it comes to non-technical users, that's a great recipe for spending your time removing malware and reinstalling Windows.

Re:Chrome vs IE (5, Interesting)

DrgnDancer (137700) | more than 2 years ago | (#39584531)

There's ways around that too. At Boeing we had an interesting setup. No one had admin access to their own computers, but we had a piece of software on that allowed installation of a wide and varied library of vetted software with sudo like privileges. You opened this tool, and it took you to a library of software: pretty much most of the popular web browsers, a large number of useful free (or Free) tools, and a few licensed tools that we had site licenses for. You clicked on the software you wanted to install, and a privileged installer process started up and installed it. it was pretty cool. You couldn't exactly stay bleeding edge up to date with it (not exactly a bad thing), but you could get a lot of useful tools and software without IT having to worry about infection vectors (obviously they vetted anything that went into the library).

Lots of software (like Firefox, maybe Chrome?) can be installed in a non-privileged mode anyway. It puts all the files in the user's directory and doesn't write anything to the registry. Hell Firefox has a portable mode that you can just install on a Thumb drive and run without even installing it.

Re:Chrome vs IE (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 2 years ago | (#39584099)

Personally, I wouldn't want the IT department to waste their time on it either. If you permit other browsers, my support routine would be:

1. Start over from scratch using "Internet Explorer", the one with the blue "e" icon.
2. Try whatever you were doing again.
3. If it works, keep doing it from IE. If it doesn't, only then contact us for help.

We have intranet systems that only work in IE, when I run into them I switch to IE. IE is the only supported browser. If it works in IE, then per definition there is no problem. Now I hope someone in intranet acquisitions or development has requirements for new development, but until further notice that is how it is. Doesn't stop me from browsing the web in Chrome or Firefox though, just don't expect any support on it.

Re:Chrome vs IE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39584285)

Pile on. Everything is coded to work with IE, nothing else is supported, Chrome has no place in work environment at this time.

Re:Chrome vs IE (1)

hercubus (755805) | more than 2 years ago | (#39584369)

... I'm one of those IT control freaks. There's a good reason for it ...

No there isn't a good reason for it. You have good reasons for not supporting Chrome, but not a good reason for scouring it off.

The freaks in control of my work machine turned Java off in IE, pushed that little rule to -every- workstation. I have a deadline that requires me to connect to a work-mandated site that uses Java applets. See the disconnect there?

I suppose you might imagine that you are way too smart to allow your restrictions to hinder job performance or even make tasks impossible. You're not that smart. No one can keep on top of every detail. That's why allowing a little freedom can increase productivity, especially for the employees who are actually smart enough to print a PDF. Not all of us "users" are that stupid and your bias that we are all that stupid is just that, bias.

Re:Chrome vs IE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39584617)

In my workplace some apps only work with IE. Others require Firefox (one is an older version of Remedy that used to only work with IE but after upgrading to a newer IE, stopped working). Another app only displays properly in Chrome or Safari. In IE the fonts are shifted up from the buttons. In Firefox the menu text gets drawn to the right of the menu.

There's another site that provides a PDF report. Out of the box, the Chrome browser generates a ton of help desk calls because it tries to use its embedded PDF reader which fails to retrieve the document correctly.

One other app works in all browsers, however, it also generates a lot of help desk calls because it launches a Java app. In IE, a dialog prompts "Block unsafe content from appearing" and most users automatically hit "Yes" which causes the page to fail.

Then there's the CA Spectrum page.. It will only work with certain versions of Java ( a very outdated version at that), but the admin won't configure it to use newer Java versions (it's a one line change) because the newer versions have not been certified with the app and the admin thinks it would invalidate support (though the client java itself has nothing to do with the server support).

My point is that we need to support multiple browsers. Ideally the 40 or so different groups would write portable code or at least use web standards. You can imagine that with the influx of consumer grade devices (tablets, ip[oa]ds, it's a nightmare because nothing really works right across all devices.

Re:Chrome vs IE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39583569)

As a software testing engineer I'm glad my company restricts acceptable browsers IE, it would be a nightmare to test every inhouse web application on 6 different browsers. Transitioning from IE6 to IE8 was already enough of a headache, especially when there is a period where the two versions coexist and your application needs to support both. Plus many automated testing software & modules target IE.

Re:Chrome vs IE (1)

ciderbrew (1860166) | more than 2 years ago | (#39583663)

Yet websites are made to run and expected to run on loads of browser version and types. It's not hard (it is) but it's doable even with a small team.

Re:Chrome vs IE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39583707)

There is still no denying that it adds more work.

Re:Chrome vs IE (1)

Ice Tiger (10883) | more than 2 years ago | (#39583803)

So you don't build web sites for your prospects and customers to look at?

Re:Chrome vs IE (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39583833)

I maintain several internal websites for a parent company and it's 9 child companies, and somehow I seem to manage to test for at least IE7,IE8,IE9, Chrome, Safari, Firefox. I just consider that good practice for the industry that I am in, and as a web application developer. 99.9% of the fixes I have to do are for IE not the other browsers. Our company is pretty standardized on IE, but I still take pride in my code working in all browsers, it might take some upfront work, but every site I have kept that standard with has been easier to migrate forward. Example, back when IE6 was the standard that's what most in out company coded for, I coded mine for IE6, and Firefox, and as IE7 came out I started testing against that (even though the company wasn't looking to move to IE7) when the company changed to IE8 as the standard all the other web devs were scrambling and banging their heads on desks, and I have maybe 20 minutes worth of changes across many sites. some of the other IE6 sites still won't work properly. so in the end I saved myself time and headache, and saved the company money by not just coding for IE... I suggest all web devs do the same if they have any pride in their work.

Re:Chrome vs IE (1)

steveb3210 (962811) | more than 2 years ago | (#39584261)

IE6/8 -> IE8 is a headache because in IE8 they finally fixed the box model.... IE8, IE9, Firefox, Chrome, Safari all pretty much render everything the same with only a few differences....

I'm a software engineer for a medium sized internet site and I routinely ensure that the application works in and looks correct in all browser, and it doesn't take that much extra time if you know what you're doing in the first place....

Re:Chrome vs IE (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#39584029)

What people don't realize what is an easy no, risk solution for your home PC, is a complicated high risk solution for the enterprise, the bigger the organization, the tougher the job.

1. You have those non-IT supported apps that IT now has to support. Apps installed before IT had enough corporate strength to push down an edict. Each departments would have installed their own software with little if any consideration on if it will be scale or cross compatibility. Approved and purchased and installed without IT because IT would either say no to them to take too long. These apps get there... Then when an IT sponsored upgrade these apps show up, on the IT Radar as a roadblock that no one expect because it was installed behind IT backs. But now IT needs to figure out how to keep it running. They are already in a migration process they don't have the resources to start an other one to fix/upgrade/replace that legacy system that they didn't know about.

2. The old legacy system. Its old, it has a crummy interface, it costs a lot to support... However it does what it needs to do and has been tweeked for decades to do what it needs to do very well. Yes we can make fun of the developers who thought that Active X/Java Applet/Flash/Silverlight (All technologies we know now we should avoid like the plague) would be the next big thing so they added their GUI front ends with such tools, or make their Web Apps work with only IE, as that is the browser used by 95% of the population at the time, but that doesn't solve the problem that it is now there. We can't just toss it out the window and put in a new replacement over night, and it would cost millions to replace it not counting the problems that will reappear that has been fixed with decades of tweaks.

3. IE is pretty crappy as a browser. However it comes with a lot of features that make administrators happy. You can have different policies based on Intranet Sites and Internet Sites, allow some features to user and not. It allows a degree of control on what they can and cannot do. And that can happen remotely as part of the policy admin.

4. Other browsers compatibility issues. How often when something doesn't work they will call help desk. Help desk will try their best only to realize that they are using an unapproved browser. If the company was uniformed then they should be more likely be able to reproduce the problem.

For your home PC there isn't much risk. If you are IT for thousands of people you have a diverse set and most people know different pieces of the puzzle but often not the full thing. So by adding more complexity it doesn't help anyone.

Re:Chrome vs IE (1)

softwareGuy1024 (2564569) | more than 2 years ago | (#39584095)

That's what Firefox Portable is for.

Re:Chrome vs IE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39583493)

Looks like SharkLaser and his gang of Microsoft shills are making a comeback. Has your marketing contract been renewed recently?

Re:Chrome vs IE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39583699)

Sounds like u fear 'em. Got proof of ur claim they're marketing plants?

Re:Chrome vs IE (5, Interesting)

tomhath (637240) | more than 2 years ago | (#39583495)

It's obvious this is home versus work usage. What's interesting is the Firefox doesn't show the same peaks and valleys as Chrome, IE and Safari. Maybe it's already used more in corporate computers? That's certainly the case where I work.

Re:Chrome vs IE (1)

tibit (1762298) | more than 2 years ago | (#39583547)

I push Firefox ESR on all desktops at work, using lovely Ninite, but I've been having a debate with myself as to switching to Chrome. The latter has a built-in PDF viewer that seems to be more responsive on lower-end machines (P4, Atom) than Acrobat viewer.

Re:Chrome vs IE (3, Interesting)

Appolonius of Perge (961983) | more than 2 years ago | (#39583865)

Firefox nightly has a very fast pdf reader built in, so if you wait long enough it will make it to the ESR.

Re:Chrome vs IE (1)

tibit (1762298) | more than 2 years ago | (#39584015)

Good to know. Thanks!

Re:Chrome vs IE (1)

JoeRobe (207552) | more than 2 years ago | (#39583599)

I found that interesting as well. Even safari has small bumps up on the weekend. I do know that Firefox has become a lot more accepted in work environments probably because it's been around so long that IT trusts it by now. I wonder if the fact that Chrome usage increases more on Sundays is because enough people are still working on Saturdays that IE wins.

Re:Chrome vs IE (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#39584101)

Firefox does have a stronger corporate support. Mostly because it is usually the default browser for Linux Systems (Software developers and Systems Admins often have Linux workstations) and the users will use similar stuff at home. Also Firefox was one of early popular replacements for IE when IE6 started to get much too old. So a lot of grandma's and companies when plagued with IE6 problems went to Firefox.

Chrome is a new player in the game. It takes companies a long time to change.

Re:Chrome vs IE (1)

IdolizingStewie (878683) | more than 2 years ago | (#39584629)

My company is the exact opposite. Firefox is not allowed (although I know quite a few folks with the portable version), but Chrome has just become available if requested. Apparently it's something to do with the automatic updates in Firefox vs being able to specifically push updates in Chrome - I don't know exactly since I'm not IT.

Re:Chrome vs IE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39583531)

Yet another fast typer posting comment with anti-Google FUD ("adware and other malware", really?) in the same minute as the article gets published despite not having subscription.

And here I thought DCTech/SharkLaser/InterestingFella and the company have dropped out.

Re:Chrome vs IE (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39583681)

Yet another fast typer posting comment with anti-Google FUD ("adware and other malware", really?) in the same minute as the article gets published despite not having subscription.

And here I thought DCTech/SharkLaser/InterestingFella and the company have dropped out.

Yet another fanboi swallowing Google Kool-Aid.

As bad as Microsoft has been and still is, they never sent out vans "accidentally" snooping wireless networks.

As cutthroat as Oracle is, their business model doesn't involve monetizing details about your private life.

Re:Chrome vs IE (1)

hackula (2596247) | more than 2 years ago | (#39583619)

The corporate IT world often does not allow users to install whatever they want. At an old company I worked for, we realized that one of our clients was still running ie6. ie6 lacked a lot of functionality required to run our latest products. When we asked them to upgrade, their IT department simply refused. We had to simply walk away from the contract.

This is outside the norm for sure, but clearly the 9-5 world can lag a bit behind what people are using at home.

Re:Chrome vs IE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39583623)

Unless chrome renames itself to internet explorer, there is a LARGE difference between being installed and being used. Unintended software, especially something like a browser, would not be used and hence won't show up in the statistics. But I agree, the heavy advertisement and ease of getting the software definite helped to push the software.

Re:Chrome vs IE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39583751)

Perhaps the salient question here is does ACTUAL Chrome usage spike or does IE usage simply fall off? The chart and associated description all talk in percentages, which is fine. The submission though implies users use IE at work and Chrome at home. What if the answer is that for a significant portion of people they use IE at work and... nothing at home? My mother is one of those people, and I can't imagine she's the only one.

Have you considered Chrome is just 'better'? (5, Insightful)

goldcd (587052) | more than 2 years ago | (#39583867)

I know why I originally switched from FF/IE (work) - Chrome was noticeably faster. Not in some "I've checked the benchmarks" kind of way, in the "I've installed it and this is clearly faster and more pleasurable to use."
After the initial speed thing, it was the UI that's kept me. Dragging tabs to windows, pinning tabs, scrolling tabs, bookmark sync, add-on/app sync, background update etc etc. Also simply installing Chrome on a new machine, simply giving it my google login and the Chrome that appears on the new desktop immediately resembling the version on my home machine.
Reading through the above, it's probably the background update that was the killer bit. I genuinely have no idea what version of Chrome I'm currently running. I installed it years ago and it's just been there ever since. My entirely subjective opinion is that the features and improvements silently appear before I ever even realized I need them - so I remain 'happy' and 'content' (and would have to see some utterly novel, ground-breaking feature advertised on another browser to even bother to download it)
By auto-update I don't mean like thunderbird or itunes, where an attempt to launch it suddenly triggers update popups, delays and release notes. I mean I don't even know it's happened. If this approach could just be extended to OS, drivers as well as apps, I'd be happy as Larry.

"Better" for what is the question... apk (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39584217)

Better for WHAT though? Home usage?? Yes, there??? Absolutely - you MAY have a point that Chrome's 'quick' because there's no question it is!

(It's "up there" with Opera imo for speed - Which was the 'speed king' for years-to-decades typically & often called "the world's fastest browser" in fact in that timeframe).

HOWEVER - by way of comparison/for a 'compare & contrast' - In Business intranet environs though?

Hey, IE's a big sell there because of the wealth of ActiveX &/or .NET integration with IE + ease of use for development on that account (especially when talking to databases). There's loads of legacy code done that way as .NET 'stand-alone' runtime driven apps, AND, ASP.NET development (as well as oldschool ASP). work.

Plus, here is a "mgt. standpoint" I heard over time that I could not argue with (when I showed Delphi was outperforming BOTH MSVC++ &/or VB6 circa 1997-1998 on the job):

E.G.-> Everything come from 1 place that has TONS OF CA$H in MS, which makes for long-term support & stability of said companies' technology from a mgt. standpoint (or reputable 3rd party devs hopefully) as to .NET addons (or even .OCX ActiveX stuff too, also widely used for decades in business coding) that's used and the OS + browser, and is RAD style development (quick builds, high success rate of completed working projects).

In the end - Between what you've stated (and I am not an IE fan @ home, far from it in fact (Opera 12 64-bit + WaterFox 11 64-bit & Palemoon 11.01 64-bit user 99% of the time in fact)), and what I have on where it's often used (business)?

It may even help explain the "trend" this article noted:

IE during the workweek & Chrome on the weekends/free time after work... just speculation, but...

* Think about it!


Re:Chrome vs IE (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 2 years ago | (#39584565)

Flamebait? Redmond has lots of mod points, it seems. However, I certainly wouldn't have modded you up and might have modded you "overrated" because you're missing it completely.

IE is king of the browsers in the enterprise workplace for many reasons (none of which have to do with quality or useability). I'd say this story is from the "well DUH" dept. Nearly everybody uses IE at work, relatively few do at home.

Most workplaces have policies specifially forbidding anyone but IT from installing anything on work PCs, and I agree with those policies, even though I'll be glad when I retire in 2 years and will no longer have to put up with Microsoft products.

Don't worry (1)

A Friendly Troll (1017492) | more than 2 years ago | (#39583457)

Asa Dotzler will design a Firefox for five billion users!

Chrome and Citrix (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39583467)

The main reason that chrome is not widely used in my workplace, is because Citrix has mild glitches when ran inside of chrome. The glitch is that user logon information isn't passed to the applications properly. Is this fixed? Probably, but you know IT guys, change is bad. And the elderly gentleman in charge of citrix refuses to update to the newest version.

Re:Chrome and Citrix (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39583597)

If by "minor glitches" you mean "doesn't really work at all", then yes, there are some minor glitches using chrome with citrix. Also, fyi, upgrading citrix is not quite the same as upgrading chrome, it is a massive project with significant risk, and possible a very large cost depending on how up to date your maintenance contract is. And even the latest version of Citrix still doesn't work right with chrome.

Or (5, Informative)

Rik Sweeney (471717) | more than 2 years ago | (#39583471)

Evidently, end-users prefer Chrome at home, which might be helping the browser get a foothold at work.

Or, my employer won't let me install any software on my work machine so I'm stuck with IE(6).

Re:Or (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39583591)

Or, my employer won't let me install any software on my work machine so I'm stuck with IE(6).

Ha, ha...that's so idiotic!

Oh wait, IE(6) is still also our corporate standard as well.

In the old days... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39583479)

In the old days, rather than use garbage languages such as C, C++, assembly, and other such nonsense, we used Gamemaker.

It's time to return to Gamemakerdom! I command you!

I have this great little browser here: (1)

rullywowr (1831632) | more than 2 years ago | (#39583509)

I have this great little browser here, low internet superhighway miles. It was only driven to church by a little old lady on Sundays...

Holy Vs. Heathens (0)

Cazekiel (1417893) | more than 2 years ago | (#39583515)

The church crowds WOULD go for IE, wouldn't they?

Re:Holy Vs. Heathens (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39584615)

Usually churchgoing people try to avoid Hell.

I'm forced to use it at work. :( (3, Informative)

ciderbrew (1860166) | more than 2 years ago | (#39583527)

They could do this with LotusNotes too. Lots of people use shite that's not fit for purpose at work.

* * * FANTASTIC NEWS * * * (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39583593)

This means that I can completely forget about IE since most people using it are at work while using it.

Since my sites are not meant to be looked at from work I can completely focus on Chrome and FF who, both,.are standards compliant.

This makes my life and the Internet better.

Re:* * * FANTASTIC NEWS * * * (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39583809)

Only if by "not meant to be looked at from work" you mean the stuff the net was made for [] .

I helped to manage a couple of entertainment sites and total traffic there dropped during the weekends (and the Chrome/Safari/Opera share rose, just like the article says). During weekdays it was constant with peaks during lunch hours.

IOW, you'd better care about office workers if you want more pageviews - luckily, it mostly means "write for Chrome and FF, and care somewhat about IE8" today and IE8 is quite a bit less trouble than IE6/7.

Søgemaskineoptimering (-1, Offtopic)

Toshi26 (2611287) | more than 2 years ago | (#39583605)

Specialist i søgemaskineoptimering - er vi eksperter i organisk søgemaskineoptimering (SEO). Bliv fundet på Google, kontakt os nu. []

One Reason - IE ActiveX Scripts (1, Interesting)

na1led (1030470) | more than 2 years ago | (#39583615)

The only reason IE is so popular at work is because of Active X Scripts. Many of the work related websites require it, especially financial sites, and schools. Until other browsers can fully support ActiveX, IE will always dominate. Microsoft's way of monopolizing the browsers.

Re:One Reason - IE ActiveX Scripts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39583719)

Until? That's never going to happen. these specialist websites need to upgrade to modern times and start using well supported standards. But that's too expensive for most organisations. So until everything breaks down, those organisations are going to use old and outdated Internet Explorer versions.
Most of those "work related websites" don't even work on IE8 or higher

Re:One Reason - IE ActiveX Scripts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39583791)

If Chrome supported ActiveX I probably wouldn't be using it on the weekends.

.NET's another... apk (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39583883)

Consider .NET also: Programming IE to do ASP.NET is cake, has a treasure-trove of addons from 3rd party tool developers that work great, & it works server-side too (I call it a BETTER FORM OF ISAPI, minus the memory leaks that often came with it).

* Toss in automatic 'garbage cleanup' like JAVA has, & you start to see WHY it does well, especially in business "intranet" environs...

(Now - do I "like" or "prefer" .NET apps? No. I prefer single 'stand-alone' non-runtime driven programs that statically link addons they may use (think VCL) & avoidance of linking to "too many moving parts" such as external libs (this can't be avoided with the underlying OS API though - this means 3rd party ones) or, ActiveX/OCX controls. I like that better to use, personally, when/if have a choice - a "top-performance fan" out of executable here is why!)


P.S.=> Additionally - I'm no "huge fan" of IE here (Opera 12 64-bit & Palemoon 11.01 64-bit or Waterfox 11 64-bit here usually/by choice), but, imo & professional experience @ least (doing MIS/IS/IT programming for nearly 18 yrs. now)?

I feel it's a reason why IE does well in the "business world @ work"!

I.E. (pun intended) - it does the job pretty well & makes for "RAD" type development too, w/out a "huge turnaround time" for people that had VB coding experience (myself being one such person, amongst more than a few other tools/languages too in that timeframe professionally)!

From what I have heard tell of over that time, & in the business world, VB typically has had fewer failed projects + faster development times (makes sense, it's easier to learn I feel @ least) than say, MSVC++, which is a more capable but tougher language to master, imo @ least ...

... apk

Re:One Reason - IE ActiveX Scripts (1)

SexyHamster (174881) | more than 2 years ago | (#39584273)

The only reason IE is so popular at work is because of Active X Scripts.

That and the fact it's on all the windows workstations by default and easy to update and control through network policies. I work as outsourced IT for several companies and when you're short on time browser diversity is pretty low on your list of "TODO"s.

  • It's already there
  • It's going to get updates when the rest of the system gets updates
  • It works with the web portals that require IE
  • It works fairly well for most peoples' needs

Downloading third party software to build MSIs so I can deploy Firefox sounds great in theory and if I worked for one company and had downtime I might look further into it. We've deployed Chrome by MSI at a couple of places and a few users seem to prefer it. I'll be surprised if it takes off in a big way.

Personally I almost exclusively use Chromium these days except where the odd management software requires a FF plugin. I switched over when there was a large speed difference and I haven't had a compelling reason to switch back yet.

Re:One Reason - IE ActiveX Scripts (5, Informative)

steveb3210 (962811) | more than 2 years ago | (#39584313)

You're out of touch with reality - ActiveX is a dead technology and people will migrate away from it, not the other way around.

Re:One Reason - IE ActiveX Scripts (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39584683)

Check Korea on the note of ActiveX... still a 'big hit' there.

IE and the Work Place (1)

tesdalld (2428496) | more than 2 years ago | (#39583709)

Most of the enterprise tools that we use here are only supported by IE. We never have any problems with IE and IE is an O. K. browser to use. I am typing this message using Opera, but i see no issue with using IE. IE never crashes for us and always seems to pull through when the other browsers cant. It may take 2ms longer to load but i don't care about that. We are on IE 8 at my current location and have no issues. I think IE dominates the work place because all the enterprise tools only support IE for the most part.

Re:IE and the Work Place (1)

Murdoch5 (1563847) | more than 2 years ago | (#39583775)

The tools don't work on any other browser because who ever is programming them isn't taking the time to make sure there cross browser compatible. Not to cut up your workplace but single browser use apps are a sign of poor programming and poor programmers.

Re:IE and the Work Place (1)

tesdalld (2428496) | more than 2 years ago | (#39584155)

Sure, I'll just call up McAfee and have them change their EPO server web interface. Then I'll call oracle and have them change JDE for me. Then i get Microsoft to change there office 365 web portal. seems easy enough, why didn't i call them earlier?!

Re:IE and the Work Place (1)

tesdalld (2428496) | more than 2 years ago | (#39584201)

I forgot how to spell. Forgive me.

Not surprising (0)

Murdoch5 (1563847) | more than 2 years ago | (#39583757)

IE is the browser you use when you haven't tried another browser, however once you try Firefox or Chrome then IE gets put away. I'm not going to break down any of the browsers technically but I still say this, in terms of interface design Chrome wins 10 out of 10 times. In terms of ease of use Chrome wins 10 out of 10 times and in terms cross system compatibility Firefox wins 10 out of 10 times. I feel comfortable saying that is IE wasn't bundled with Windows it would be finished as a browser. It's only held on because people don't want to change to a better user experience.

IE 9 also spikes... slightly (2)

efudddd (312615) | more than 2 years ago | (#39583773)

The Infoworld article is pretty funny, and confirms what many have long assumed. However, while I'm just as anxious as anyone else to see earlier iterations of IE get their deserved due, a wider breakout shows something else: []

In linked three-month period by browser version, notice that IE9 also has the same corresponding spikes (albeit smaller) on weekends. Possibly that reflects no active choice on part of home users who just use the default install (while corporate continues to play catch-up). But it might also represent a segment that simply continues to prefer IE (the "web-compliant" kind).

Inflated Chrome stats because of page prerendering (5, Insightful)

Giorgio Maone (913745) | more than 2 years ago | (#39583813)

Does StatCounter take in account Chrome's page views inflation [] caused by its Instant Pages [] prerendering feature?

I'd be surprised, since even Google Analytics itself is affected...

Anyway, please be careful before announcing "Chrome usage surpassed this or that" :P

Re:Inflated Chrome stats because of page prerender (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39584007)

I doubt they measure number of pages when measuring market share here -- they're more likely measuring number of users, so prerendering makes no difference.

Poor astroturfing MS shills... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39583959)

You know, all these recent /. IDs constantly praising how only MS makes sense in the enterprise world, how "this time this Windows version is really the best OS out there" and how "this time Internet Explorer is really the best browser".

It's getting hard to fight Chrome + Safari + Firefox + Opera uh?!

It's getting hard too to fight hundreds of millions of yearly sales of non-Widonws smartphones and tablets uh?!

I'm so happy... I remember a mediocre world where MS ruled king, where Apple's market cap was worth nothing, where IE had 95%+ market share and where there seemed to be no way out of mediocrity.

Now Un*x (including Linux and OS X) are giving Windows a run for its money and the future doesn't look so dark anymore.

Re:Poor astroturfing MS shills... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39584297)

Says the trolling by Anonymous Coward replies penguin *NIX shill.

Chrome crashes on youtube all the time (0)

walterbyrd (182728) | more than 2 years ago | (#39583967)

Happens to me anyway, and I know I'm not alone.

As is so often the case, Google products do a miserable job of working together. I constantly get that "Aw, snap" error when trying to use chrome on youtube.

I am using Lubuntu, that might have something to do with it.

Re:Chrome crashes on youtube all the time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39584337)

Chrome for Linux (and Mac) is beta software. Crashing is to be expected.

MS already resorting to TV commercials for IE! (1)

Unsichtbarer_Mensch (710092) | more than 2 years ago | (#39584125)

I was taken aback yesterday to switch on my TV to a major German broadcaster (ProSieben) and stumble upon a commercial for 'Internet Explorer, the most fun and secure way to access the internet" seems that microsoft has realized that in certain markets (especially in Europe), it just cannot rely on IE being preinstalled... That's (one of the) commercials in question: []

Duh. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39584223)

All the redneck retards who don't know how to use a computer are off in church, therefore not using IE.

Simple... (1)

TheCarp (96830) | more than 2 years ago | (#39584361)

I am not aware of a SINGLE application, used in business, that is "Chrome Only".

However, for years at previous jobs (where linux desktops where uncommon) I have struggled with needing to maintain a windows machine for NO OTHER PURPOSE than to run outlook for mail, and ie for a few apps that will not work with anything else.

They are all over the place. Of course, not everyone can choose, many are locked in at work, and those who are locked in tend to be locked in to IE, for the same reason... a few apps. Those who can choose, well.... even if they use firefox or chrome, probably can't fully ditch ie even if they wanted to.

"Any given Sunday" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39584651)

As long as your timeframe only includes the last three weeks

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?