Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

IE Drops To Single-Digit Market Share

timothy posted about 8 months ago | from the but-high-in-the-single-digits dept.

Internet Explorer 390

New submitter fplatten writes "I think this is all you need to see to know what legacy Steve Ballmer has left at Microsoft, where its IE browser market share has collapsed from a high of 86% in 2002 to just 9% now. I guess this is just another in a long list of tech companies that failed to maintain its dominant market share. Also, IE may be the one product that never really deserved it, but just piggybacked on Windows, and users left in droves once decent (more secure) alternatives and standards became popular." Microsoft stockholders probably don't feel too badly about the Ballmer legacy overall, though -- browser choice is a pretty small arm of the octopus.

cancel ×

390 comments

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

More reprsentative stats please (5, Informative)

Richard_at_work (517087) | about 8 months ago | (#46112965)

W3Schools has a very skewed demographic, I wouldn't take their figures to be a true representative across the board.

My companies websites (Insurance) have an IE share of about 40%.

Re:More reprsentative stats please (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46113003)

it's because insurance companies prey on idiots.

Re:More reprsentative stats please (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46113103)

I will hazard a guess that you own neither a car nor a home, and that you don't have to worry about anyone being supported until they're 18 in the event that you get hit by a bus before then.

Re:More reprsentative stats please (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46113117)

So does w3schools, go figure.

Re:More reprsentative stats please (0)

ackthpt (218170) | about 8 months ago | (#46113031)

W3Schools has a very skewed demographic, I wouldn't take their figures to be a true representative across the board.

My companies websites (Insurance) have an IE share of about 40%.

At work I only have 1 website which requires IE, though if I had a Mac I could use Safari. IE is a cow. I dislike using it because it takes too long to do things, even loading it seems to take visible time. It has a pretty bad track record of displaying pages as designed, as well, now there's so much being done in Webkit, CSS3 and so on. At work we encountered a problem with a critical software package which does not run under IE 10, so all users (those who had IE 10) had to revert to IE 9.

On the plus side for IE, they don't come out with bloody stupid things as often as Google Chrome team seem bent on now, but that's largely because IE versions are widely separated by time, unlike Chrome which seems to be a release every month.

Re:More reprsentative stats please (1, Interesting)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | about 8 months ago | (#46113091)

I really like IE10 on my Win 7 and use it as my default browser. The layout is more streamlined that firefox, which seems to take over half your screen with menus. speed is fast. have you tried this version? I don't use chrome because it gives google a direct view into everything I do, and no thank you. at home

I use safari as my default on mac, but I don't use the windows version of safari because for whatever reason they decided to make the win version resemble the mac version as closely as possible and it looks weird.

Re:More reprsentative stats please (4, Interesting)

kesuki (321456) | about 8 months ago | (#46113171)

keep in mind windows 8 live tiles are all front ended with internet explorer. so they are anticipating higher ie traffic to sites that windows preloads so they can sound like they are doing something to compete with open source browsers...

Re:More reprsentative stats please (1)

ackthpt (218170) | about 8 months ago | (#46113377)

keep in mind windows 8 live tiles are all front ended with internet explorer. so they are anticipating higher ie traffic to sites that windows preloads so they can sound like they are doing something to compete with open source browsers...

Considering the acceptance and use of Windows 8 (or 8.1) it's not something I'd call "reassuring", though Windows 9 will likely fare better.

Re:More reprsentative stats please (5, Informative)

jones_supa (887896) | about 8 months ago | (#46113033)

StatCounter's 12/2013 data [statcounter.com] shows IE being at 24.91%.

Re:More reprsentative stats please (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46113057)

Who cares? It portrays M$ in a bad light and that's all that matters!

/. is the Fox News of technology.

I find slashdot (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46113371)

Despite all the shilling for bitcoin and AGW denial INFINITELY more truthful than faux news, and only a contard would think anything else.

Re:More reprsentative stats please (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46113107)

StatCounter gives about 24% for IE worldwide. That is based on total page views rather than unique visitors though.

Re:More reprsentative stats please (5, Funny)

skids (119237) | about 8 months ago | (#46113317)

...and all those reloads web developers do when trying to figure out "why the hell does this not work under IE" do add up.

Re:More reprsentative stats please (1)

grub (11606) | about 8 months ago | (#46113433)


That is based on total page views rather than unique visitors though.

So even a few 4Chan users F5ing can boost the numbers significantly.

Re:More reprsentative stats please (2)

Kkloe (2751395) | about 8 months ago | (#46113125)

this numbers are probably because w3 is visited by developers who know better
I would also think that a insurance companies site is better representative of the average user

Re:More reprsentative stats please (1)

lgw (121541) | about 8 months ago | (#46113243)

is numbers are probably because w3 is visited by developers who know better

One more /.er mired in the past. Remember when Win95 had a max uptime of 14 days due to millisecond clock overflow? Good times; good times.

IE has been fine since 9 or so. Chrome is the one now saying "we're too big to need to follow standards". Same as the old boss, and their beards have all grown longer overnight.

Re:More reprsentative stats please (3, Interesting)

rts008 (812749) | about 8 months ago | (#46113333)

I don't know that an insurance co.'s site would be a good example here.

I have several sites I have to access that I cannot use anything but IE to visit them and do my business.

I think it would depend on the ins. co. correctly implementing standards to be a valid source of data for this discussion.

IMHO, all of the browser stats are biased in some way.
Too many of the stats come from niche or specialized websites.
I would think somewhere like google search to be a better place to gather stats for this.

But, I'm not a web developer, so what do I know?

Re:More reprsentative stats please (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46113183)

Yes, but remember "Developers, Developers, Developers!". If the developers start abandoning IE, then your platform will no longer have the best experience and further encouage users to move to others, like Firefox/Chrome.

Re:More reprsentative stats please (1)

achbed (97139) | about 8 months ago | (#46113289)

Yes, but remember "Developers, Developers, Developers!". If the developers start abandoning IE, then your platform will no longer have the best experience and further encouage users to move to others, like Firefox/Chrome.

This is simply saying that most developers use something besides IE for their day-to-day browsing activities (and/or help lookup). This does not say anything about the browser mix that they have to (a) design for, or (b) test with. This is like looking at the White House and saying that the Congress must not have any Republicans.

Re:More reprsentative stats please (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46113193)

I don't put much stock into any of these kinds of stories until Netcraft confirms it.

Re:More reprsentative stats please (5, Informative)

Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) | about 8 months ago | (#46113203)

I keep the stats on 12 state government websites. As sad as it may be, the lowest I've ever seen IE (taken as a whole) dip was 55%. And, for the record every site is tested and compliant on a multitude of browsers and not a single one recommends IE. We're getting there, but we're not at single digits yet.

Re:More reprsentative stats please (5, Insightful)

magic maverick (2615475) | about 8 months ago | (#46113255)

Yes. Don't trust one website's stats. Always look at your own stats before deciding you can afford to not support a particular browser. Of course, you should always use progressive enhancement, so that even if people do insist on using ancient browsers, they should still be able to get the basic content. (It's a pity more people don't take the view, but considering the web was intended to be a universal, regardless of machine or software, medium, it's the view that is more inline with the intention of the web.)

Re:More reprsentative stats please (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46113265)

W3Schools has a very skewed demographic

"Very skewed" may be an understatement. I run a general interest site that has the following for the last year: Safari (32.2%; 89.0% of which is iOS), IE (25.8), Chrome (15.4), Android Browser (13.4), Firefox (9.0)

Re:More reprsentative stats please (4, Insightful)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 8 months ago | (#46113277)

My first job out of school was in the insurance industry.

There is no better example of clueless IT. The whole industry is run by and for the benefit of the commissioned salespeople.

Because of that (and the simple computer problems faced by insurance) they get the bottom of the barrel of techs, programmers and engineers.

Your users are so dumb (insurance salespeople) that whatever came on the machine is going to be what they use.

Get out. The grass is greener, just about anywhere. Even banking.

Re:More reprsentative stats please (2)

UnderCoverPenguin (1001627) | about 8 months ago | (#46113387)

Many company have internal applications that require IE. Fro example, my employer and a lot of other companies I know of rely on a web-based "project time and resource reporting" system that only supports IE (ver 6 or newer) and uses several methods to get around user agent header spoofing. It is the only reason I still use IE.

Probably very few people are visiting W3Schools from their corporate PCs, so their statistics won't include those installations. On the other hand, if people who use EI at work are using other browsers on their own time, that might show a real preference for not using IE. (Of course, there are people like my parents who are completely oblivious to the fact they are using Windows/IE at work and Linux/FF at home. (I set up their home PCs for them. Unfortunately, they keep telling their friends who great I am at keeping their home PCs running smoothly.)

And Slashdot goes to zero (4, Insightful)

recoiledsnake (879048) | about 8 months ago | (#46113391)

W3Schools is a site for web developers and does not represent the web despite the three W's in the name.

Net Applications(which measures visitors instead of page views like Statcounter) has it at ~50%.

Story brought to you by the same geniuses that brought you the following stories:

"Draconian DRM Revealed in Windows 7"
http://tech.slashdot.org/story... [slashdot.org]

"Microsoft to abandon Windows Phone"
http://mobile.slashdot.org/sto... [slashdot.org]
(As an aside, the above story was submitted by the zealot megalomaniac symbolset).

Milking views by trolling only works for so long.

Thanks to zealot posters like bmo, symbolset, Zero__Kelvin, LordLimeCat, Jeremiah Cornelius, UnknowingFool, rtfa-troll, binarylarry, MightyMartian, drinkypoo, pieroxy for karmawhoring the groupthink and slowly ruining the site by spewing lame shill accusations. Oh and thanks to moderators for marking them insightful and modding down any posts that go against the groupthink.

When the beta lands and is the default without a way to go back to the old layout is the day I remove Slashdot from my bookmarks and unfollow on twitter.

Last one out turn off the lights.

Re:And Slashdot goes to zero (0)

mystikkman (1487801) | about 8 months ago | (#46113473)

"Microsoft to abandon Windows Phone"
http://mobile.slashdot.org/sto... [slashdot.org]
(As an aside, the above story was submitted by the zealot megalomaniac symbolset).

Isn't that the same guy that credited himself for planting the lie about Kin selling only 500 devices and posted that he was better than the Microsoft marketing department? Makes sense that he would make up and submit a story about MS discontinuing Windows Phone. And he's around in this story too, with anti-MS spiel again. Sigh Slashdot. It's time to lay it to rest.

Re:More reprsentative stats please (4, Insightful)

WPIDalamar (122110) | about 8 months ago | (#46113411)

Looking at logs I have access to, I see

Between 50% and 65% for a series of education related sites.

6% for a highly technical site.

Clearly what the site caters to has a big impact.

I bet apple.com is even lower ;)

Re:More reprsentative stats please (4, Informative)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about 8 months ago | (#46113427)

My hobby (veggie gardening) website shows the following, out of 7034 visits this month (per Google Analytics):

Safari (appears to be iOS for the most part): 1,828 / 25.99%
Internet Explorer (must be all the Surface users eh?): 1,564 / 22.23%
Chrome: 1,511 / 21.48%
Firefox: 1,368 / 19.45%

Fifth place, at 5%, is "Android browser" which I'm guessing is that gosh-awful thing from Android 2.2 / 2.3...

Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46112973)

The stupidity of this is just breathtaking.

Re:Really? (1)

ackthpt (218170) | about 8 months ago | (#46113051)

The stupidity of this is just breathtaking.

You confuse stupidity with ubiquitous awareness.

No doubt IE is losing share but.. (5, Insightful)

manquer (1950350) | about 8 months ago | (#46112981)

w3schools.com really? That's best data set OP could come up with??

Re:No doubt IE is losing share but.. (4, Insightful)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about 8 months ago | (#46113225)

It is the best data set to make Microsoft look bad- which is the point here.

Re:No doubt IE is losing share but.. (2)

symbolset (646467) | about 8 months ago | (#46113347)

Yeah, right? Who cares what share IE has with... Web developers.

Thank the Lord (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46112985)

May his noodly appendages bless thy browsing!

Moot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46112987)

Chrome is quickly becoming the next IE anyway

Great summary, guys. (2)

operagost (62405) | about 8 months ago | (#46112989)

9%... out of the user agents connecting to w3schools. I guarantee you that Chrome is not the majority browser among the public (yet), either.

The only surprise was the 82% in 2002... those IE 6-only sites back then didn't seem to designed with any open standards in mind.

Re:Great summary, guys. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46113129)

What like those chrome-only sites that shit on standards today?

Does this take into account smartphones? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46113005)

Seriously, we've had an explosion of mobile devices over the last few years (hundreds of millions) and none of those are running IE. That would explain a lot of the drop.

Re:Does this take into account smartphones? (5, Funny)

lagomorpha2 (1376475) | about 8 months ago | (#46113063)

"mobile devices over the last few years (hundreds of millions) and none of those are running IE."

Well IE is the default browser that comes with Windows Phone so that's like... the 5 people that bought a Windows Phone.

Re:Does this take into account smartphones? (2)

Capt.DrumkenBum (1173011) | about 8 months ago | (#46113135)

5 people that bought a Windows Phone.

They sold 5!?!? That is one for Ballmer, and one for Gates. Who bought the other 3? :)

Re:Does this take into account smartphones? (2)

SJHillman (1966756) | about 8 months ago | (#46113199)

Ballmer bought one to use and three to throw. Everybody else just bought one to throw.

Re:Does this take into account smartphones? (1)

Capt.DrumkenBum (1173011) | about 8 months ago | (#46113337)

Is he throwing them at "Developers, developers, DEVELOPERS!!"?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... [youtube.com]

Re:Does this take into account smartphones? (-1, Troll)

Billly Gates (198444) | about 8 months ago | (#46113189)

I own a Windows Phone. Marketshare has doubled in North America late last year. In Italy and other countries it represents over 10% of the market!

With that said IE 10 mobile is a great standards compliant browser. It is the ancient IE's like 8 and 6 that have serious issues.

Re:Does this take into account smartphones? (2, Funny)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 8 months ago | (#46113303)

Doubled last year? So it's you and Ballmer now.

My opinion (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46113007)

Microsoft stockholders can slowly and carefully suck my dick. I care about browser market share.

Re:My opinion (1)

DickBreath (207180) | about 8 months ago | (#46113173)

Yes, browser market share does matter. And some of us do care about it.

What does a browser bring to MSFT though? (1)

rolfwind (528248) | about 8 months ago | (#46113345)

But does it really matter to Microsoft anymore?

They sunk costs into IE as a way to maintain their monopoly in the 1990s. They were really scared shitless that a browser could become the OS for all intents and purposes and then people would move away from a microsofty world.

The problem is that for small businesses that already occurred. I know people that use quickbooks online and other such services and their OSes don't matter for shit.

And almost nobody in the west will dare to make IE only websites anymore, just nothing to gain. And pushing possible IE only standards (like Silverlight might have become) is also out the window.

So what is in it for Microsoft anymore? They could dump their browser team into other projects and save the money imo.

W3Schools: Ubiquitous Internet Hub (5, Funny)

gr4nf (1348501) | about 8 months ago | (#46113013)

It's a good thing there are websites out there like W3Schools that just about everybody visits on a daily basis. How would we get these statistics otherwise?

the funny bit (1)

lagomorpha2 (1376475) | about 8 months ago | (#46113021)

What's funny is that IE11 on Win8.1 is finally fast, at least as fast as Firefox/IceCat and Chromium. And it is stable and actually compliant with standards.

Not that I'd use it voluntarily, but it's the least horrible it's ever been at the same time it has the lowest market share.

Re:the funny bit (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | about 8 months ago | (#46113095)

The current IE version isn't really relevant, because lots of people don't use that. For instance, here on my work computer, I'm using IE8 on Win7. It's not like I have any choice in the matter. Luckily, for browsing non-intranet sites, the company lets me install Firefox (version 26 currently). There's still lots of companies chugging along with IE6. And there's pretty much zero companies that have moved to Win8, so if the latest IE version only works on that (I don't know if it's available on Win7 or not), then it's even more irrelevant how good it is.

Re:the funny bit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46113287)

IE11 is available on Win7. Now you know.

Re:the funny bit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46113401)

People make that IE6 claim all the time, pointing to companies in sectors like finance where they traditionally have slow turnover to support legacy applications for extended periods of time.

I create/support apps for this very market, and much to our surprise when we started collecting statistics, IE use is actually in the minority and a surprising number of end users use Chrome (probably because it does not require administrative rights to install)

It took awhile, but, your hyperbole about IE6 is finally false in the real world

Re:the funny bit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46113157)

Why wouldn't you use it voluntarily, then?

Re:the funny bit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46113297)

I use IE11 in Win7 fairly frequently, since they added an anime mascot, Inori Aizawa, for IE11, and that was enough to get me to upgrade from IE10 to IE11 on my home machine. Yes, I am that shallow... plus I have to use IE9 at work so I'm using IE half the time anyway. AdBlock works on IE11, which is what I mostly need.

As FireFox seems to make wrong choice after another, I'm using IE11 at home more and more. If it weren't for Pale Moon (Mozilla variant with the cruft ripped out and bad FireFox choices reversed), I'd have uninstalled Mozilla completely already.

Re:the funny bit (1)

Laxori666 (748529) | about 8 months ago | (#46113321)

Yea I was surprised to see a canvas-heavy app I'm writing is actually running faster in IE11 than in Chrome. My worldview was shattered and I was left despondent, my only choice - to sadly pick up the pieces and cut myself with them. These are my last words, my dying hope - that others will see my plight and be warned.

Re:the funny bit (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | about 8 months ago | (#46113441)

Yea I was surprised to see a canvas-heavy app I'm writing is actually running faster in IE11 than in Chrome. My worldview was shattered and I was left despondent, my only choice - to sadly pick up the pieces and cut myself with them. These are my last words, my dying hope - that others will see my plight and be warned.

Be cheerful even if you hate IE. The more we can get corps to upgrade the more we can just write to standards. Starting with IE 9 MS really did try to say we are sorry and make up for it. IE 9 compared to Firefox 4 was a better browser but lacked a few things. A different world than IE 8 - 6.

IE 10 can crash but made it modern. IE 11 finally uses edge javascript but unfortunately it breaks many intranet corporate sites which rely on ancient non standard behavior and even public ones like Monster.com which uses jscript for its flash creation in which IE 11 is too standards complaint for it to work properly :-)

Less work for all of us if people at least ran a recent IE.

doesn't add up to 100 (3, Informative)

schneidafunk (795759) | about 8 months ago | (#46113041)

9.0 + 26.8 + 55.8 + 3.8 + 1.9 = 97.3

Re:doesn't add up to 100 (5, Funny)

ackthpt (218170) | about 8 months ago | (#46113069)

9.0 + 26.8 + 55.8 + 3.8 + 1.9 = 97.3

0.7 = Lynx :)

Re:doesn't add up to 100 (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46113217)

wget, curl, bots, spyglass, seamonkey, ...

Re:doesn't add up to 100 (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | about 8 months ago | (#46113247)

Could be because they only included the major browsers. There are more things on the Net, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Too late to stop the expected comments (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46113049)

(collected from W3Schools' log-files over a period of ten years)

So, a site that hosts HTML advice and tutorials is getting fewer hits from IE, and in December, less than 10% of those page requests came from IE.

An interesting data point, but not enough to warrant the title or summary.

55% from Chrome, I wonder how much has to do with Crome's "wonderful" default value to preemptively download every page linked to any page you intentionally visit?

Like my momma said ... read the fine print (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46113055)

Following the link referenced we get: "From the statistics below (collected from W3Schools' log-files over a period of ten years), you can read the long term trends of browser usage."

So this data set really shows only the behavior of access to the w3schools.com site. Don't make inferences across the general population.

Re:Like my momma said ... read the fine print (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | about 8 months ago | (#46113281)

I could make a site that doesn't work on Browser X. People will visit it once with Browser X, see it doesn't work and try it with Browser Y. The net result is that this site's logs will show Browser Y becoming insanely popular over time when the reality could be that people only use Browser Y for my site and Browser X for every other site. Probably not the case here, but there's stranger ways to unintentionally skew data.

Re:Like my momma said ... read the fine print (1)

achbed (97139) | about 8 months ago | (#46113359)

Following the link referenced we get: "From the statistics below (collected from W3Schools' log-files over a period of ten years), you can read the long term trends of browser usage."

So this data set really shows only the behavior of access to the w3schools.com site. Don't make inferences across the general population.

I also note that they don't say WHAT drives that percentage? Is it based on IP addresses or raw page views? Could it be that Chrome users have to look up how to do basic web crap more often? Maybe IE dropped because those on Windows platforms are using Visual Stdio with its own built-in help. There is no way you can make any educated inferences from this data. This is another stunt to get Slashdot pageviews.

Stock price (5, Funny)

Dilaudid (574715) | about 8 months ago | (#46113079)

Microsoft stockholders probably don't feel too badly about the Ballmer legacy overall, though

He joined in January 2000 when according to that link, the stock was at 48.94. Today the stock is at 36.50. Managing a -25% return over 14 years is not a good thing.

Re:Stock price (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46113139)

Congratulations. You have demonstrated the skill needed to be a Slashdot editor! Move over timothy!

Re:Stock price (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46113155)

You're assuming no dilution, splits, and dividends. Perhaps you should learn a bit about stocks before commenting.

Re:Stock price (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46113325)

100 shares purchased on January 3, 2000 would have cost $11,656.00.

With stock splits and dividends, current value is $9,941.88 for a minus 14.71% return.

http://www.microsoft.com/investor/Stock/StockSplit/stockcalc.aspx

Re:Stock price (4, Informative)

nedlohs (1335013) | about 8 months ago | (#46113397)

No he isn't. Microsoft's own calculator ( http://www.microsoft.com/inves... [microsoft.com] ) says that if you invested in MS stock on 1/1/2000 and reinvested all dividends back into them then you've managed a -14.71% return (ignoring inflation).

If you had waited until 1/1/2001 on the other hand you would have managed a 129.18% return (again ignoring inflation).

Of course I'm sure that has nothing to with the dot.com boom and bust or anything...

Re:Stock price (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | about 8 months ago | (#46113419)

Even after accounting for that, it looks like you'd have a net gain of about 1.75% (avg 0.12% per year) if you bought MSFT stock on Jan 30, 2000 and sold it today. Only slightly better than a loss.

Re:Stock price (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46113211)

Microsoft stockholders probably don't feel too badly about the Ballmer legacy overall, though

He joined in January 2000 when according to that link, the stock was at 48.94. Today the stock is at 36.50. Managing a -25% return over 14 years is not a good thing.

Except that they split 2:1 in 2003 so the adjusted pre-split price is actually $73, so about a 49% increase. And I'm sure they really are worrying about his legacy since he became CEO. So yeah.

Re:Stock price (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46113267)

Not to argue that his was a good legacy or not, but your calculation is fundamentally flawed. There was a 2-1 stock split in 2003. So 36.50 compares to 73 in 2000. Slightly better rate of return. Even better if you include the fact that they pay out dividends, which you would have been collecting, regardless of stock price.

http://www.ehow.com/about_5077008_microsoft-stock-split-history.html

Re:Stock price (2)

Karl Cocknozzle (514413) | about 8 months ago | (#46113493)

Microsoft stockholders probably don't feel too badly about the Ballmer legacy overall, though

He joined in January 2000 when according to that link, the stock was at 48.94. Today the stock is at 36.50. Managing a -25% return over 14 years is not a good thing.

Did the stock split between 1/2000 and today? Did it pay dividends between those dates? Did you count either of those against your figures our just figure out that 36.50 was around 25% less than 48.94?

Serious sample bias (4, Informative)

linuxwrangler (582055) | about 8 months ago | (#46113105)

The statistics are "collected from W3Schools' log-files..." So an English-language site for people interested in web development is now considered an accurate proxy for browser usage? I think not. Predictably, the results are way out of line with, well, pretty much everyone:

http://www.netmarketshare.com/... [netmarketshare.com]
http://gs.statcounter.com/ [statcounter.com]
http://www.w3counter.com/globa... [w3counter.com]
http://browsermarketshare.com/ [browsermarketshare.com]
http://clicky.com/marketshare/... [clicky.com]

Re:Serious sample bias (1)

Havokmon (89874) | about 8 months ago | (#46113403)

The statistics are "collected from W3Schools' log-files..." So an English-language site for people interested in standards compliant web development is now considered an accurate proxy for browser usage? I think not. Predictably, the results are way out of line with, well, pretty much everyone:

FTFY- We all know anyone who does dev in IE isn't concerned with standards compliance.

statcounter numbers (4, Informative)

Cyko_01 (1092499) | about 8 months ago | (#46113119)

IE at 22.82% and falling
chrome at 43.67% and rising
firefox at 18.88% and falling slightly
safari at 9.75% and rising slightly

there is a strong correlation between chrome and IE in both gains and losses

Re:statcounter numbers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46113385)

does Opera these days get counted as Chrome, since it's using that engine? .. or did it pretty much finally drop off the map?

15% of my customers are IE7 or below (2)

netsavior (627338) | about 8 months ago | (#46113131)

15% of my customer base uses IE6 or IE7.
not just IE but superbad IE... of course we are business oriented software, which for some reason explains it all... corporate organizations are insanely, dangerously slow at upgrading.
Sometimes our site is run on cash registers and other ancient POS systems... but our "cloud" solution is accessed by IE more than any other browser, and IE6/7 more often than you could possibly imagine.... and it is no simple matter of forcing the customer to upgrade... what are they going to do, re-flash Windows CE and somehow get a decent browser to run on 256 meg of memory?

It is actually less shocking (though still really annoying) that people still use IE6 when you realize how much "modern" stuff you can still do on it. Almost everything in jQuery works, so even fancy active ajax pages are fine, as long as you account for the lack of JSON.stringify and JSON.parse and don't try to use a decent CSS layoyt.

a bajillion mobile devices and home computers that don't make anybody any real money run the latest stuff, but a tiny and extremely profitable segment of the userbase are Microsoft for life, and often, some old and horribly dangerous incarnation of Microsoft...

Re:15% of my customers are IE7 or below (4, Insightful)

Todd Knarr (15451) | about 8 months ago | (#46113253)

It's a vicious circle. At my former employer we were on IE6 because several of our critical Web applications only worked correctly with it. And since we were locked into IE6, any new Web applications had to work with it as well which removed any pressure to update. The only way we'd've gotten resources allocated to update those few ancient Web apps would have been if some other business-critical Web app had abandoned IE6 support entirely and said "IE 8 or later or we don't work". Which they won't do because they don't want to risk losing their IE6 user base. And round and round it goes, like a pair of orbiting black holes.

Re:15% of my customers are IE7 or below (2)

Billly Gates (198444) | about 8 months ago | (#46113343)

Worse if these customers are vendors, suppliers, or retailers, then they also demand each B2B company to also use IE 6.

So now the trucking company has IE 6, supplier has IE 6, retailer has IE 6, and trucking company has IE 6. Now they have their other customers but ooops now these 4 or 5 companies that use IE 6 tell the others to use IE 6 etc.

The damn thing is a virus! Like herpes is spreads and even when they upgrade and appear to have the dinosuar behind it is still there if you peel deep within the skin as departments and individual workstations use it for that one app only 12 at the company use etc.

Windows 7 would have killed XP back in 2011 if it were not for this browser ... you know the browser that was used and picked so to avoid vendor and platform lockin?! Turns out it created more lockin than XP itself.

Re:15% of my customers are IE7 or below (1)

i.r.id10t (595143) | about 8 months ago | (#46113261)

Probably because

1) Those corporate org customers/clients of yours probably have intranet apps that were designed around IE6 and break horribly in any other browser, and it is "too expensive" to re-do them for either a neutral platform, updated version of IE, etc.

2) Those same corporate org customers/clients of yours probably have an IT department that won't allow them to install other browsers to use when not using the aforementioned IE6 based apps

Re:15% of my customers are IE7 or below (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | about 8 months ago | (#46113263)

Now is the time to put the javascript from IE6countdown to remind users to upgrade. Modify it so IE 7 displays the same message. Since XP is going EOL it is something their IT departments should be working on anyway.

Here is a link to show your boss about a website that finds it cheaper to pay users to upgrade [neowin.net] rather than support IE 7. :-)

I know it is about money and reaching out, but it is time to move on. You should be phasing out IE 8 as well as it is keeping HTML 5 out. Google docs no longer even works with that anymore and many other websites are leaving it out. Corps are being lazy because you enable them.

IE 9, 10, and 11 can run in IE 8 mode too FYI easily with a GPO push for particular site zones. Their IT departments are lazy.l

Re:15% of my customers are IE7 or below (3, Interesting)

BUL2294 (1081735) | about 8 months ago | (#46113361)

Let's see... Microsoft has only themselves to blame for this problem. They stopped supporting their non-standard features in newer versions, and made the stupid decision to not make newer versions of IE to try to "nudge their OS choices". In mixed OS environments, even if only temporary, the version of IE used ends up being the least common denominator. So, in a shop that ran a mix of XP, W2K, and 98, you standardized on IE6. Currently, if you're running a mix of XP and Win7, you're likely using IE8...

Obviously, this plan backfired on Microsoft. What other browser vendor supports 6 major versions of their browser? Oh, and if you thought that IE6 would fall off with the demise of WinXP, think again--it came with Windows Server 2003, so IE6 is already supported until 7/2015, just shy of 14 years after it was introduced!!! (And that's not assuming that XP doesn't continue to get support fixes beyond 4/2014 or even 7/2015...)

from the linked page (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46113141)

Statistics Can Be Misleading

You cannot - as a web developer - rely ONLY on statistics. Statistics can be misleading.

Note: W3Schools is a website for people with an interest for web technologies. These people are more interested in using alternative browsers than the average user. The average user tends to use the browser that comes preinstalled with their computer, and do not seek out other browser alternatives.

Tip: Global averages may not be relevant to your web site. Different sites attract different audiences. Some web sites attract professional developers using professional hardware, while other sites attract hobbyists using old computers.

Anyway, our data, collected from W3Schools' log-files, over many years, clearly shows the long term trends.

I do not mind IE (5, Insightful)

Billly Gates (198444) | about 8 months ago | (#46113159)

What I do mind is old IE and wanting that to go down to single digit marketshare.

Why can't we all have nice websites that look as good as your apps on your phone? IE the fact that users never ever upgrade!

Shit IE 8 is 5 years old now and we can't have HTML 5 outside our crappy tiny phones. Inexecusable. Let this dinosaur die and I hope the intranet developers die a horrible death who still do not know what ECMA script is and think Jscript is javascript. ... and that statistic is BS. If IE 9 and early hits single digit it is time we stop making business sites that work in HTML 4 and CSS 2. They wont upgrade until websites stop working and websites wont stop working until users upgrade. Now it is 2014 and we are living 10 years in the past due to the same old BS.

 

Re:I do not mind IE (1)

asmkm22 (1902712) | about 8 months ago | (#46113293)

Speaking of this, is there a site that breaks down IE usage by versions?

Re:I do not mind IE (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | about 8 months ago | (#46113393)

g.statcounter.com make sure you select North America as China is such a HUUGGEE outliner with IE 6 compared to every other country. However it produces results that conflict with everyone else such as Chrome #1 browser, while IE 8 is the worlds most popular browser according to netmarketshare and others.

Re: Difference between JScript and ECMA Script (3, Informative)

JcMorin (930466) | about 8 months ago | (#46113351)

Humm, as a developer I feel a bit idiot because I never really ask myself the question... and always think it was the same thing. After a quick look it seems I'm right, both compile and run the same way... it's different name for specific version of ECMA Script. http://stackoverflow.com/quest... [stackoverflow.com]

Re:I do not mind IE (1)

HideyoshiJP (1392619) | about 8 months ago | (#46113431)

IT guy here. I'm with you. I hate old IE. I wish it would die a horrible death. Having said that, I think new IE is quite nice, to the point that the only thing preventing me from switching is a few Firefox behaviors that are technically deprecated.
However, I must pipe up regarding old IE usage on corporate networks. In my experience, the thing preventing upgrading IE is legacy enterprise software, as you accurately pointed out. Sadly, these programs often were only purchased because they were the cheapest of the bunch. When you get products so cheap, you can imagine that someone isn't getting paid well, and you can surely bet it's not coming from the pockets of management. Thus, the development staff consists of people who are willing to work for $40K a year, and you can rest assured that they are not experienced developers. Sadly, they often aren't even the fresh-faced college kids with something to prove. To illustrate how bad this software is, I have seen an application that only works in IE9.. like IE9 specifically, not *up to IE9. It makes me cringe.

Nothing new (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46113227)

Same thing happened when Netscape made it's debut long ago.

IE survived and I suspect it will again..

Dont trust any statistics you didnt fake yourself (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46113235)

(As Winston Churchill once said.)

Numbers look ridiculous. I pretty much rule out those are from random sampling.

its (1)

Thrill Science (2845693) | about 8 months ago | (#46113279)

its

w3cshools isn't the Internet as a whole (2)

kperrier (115199) | about 8 months ago | (#46113283)

For this one site. Not the most honest headline. I don't think w3schools is a representative sample of all of the sites on the Internet.

Looks like a case of... (3, Insightful)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | about 8 months ago | (#46113307)

A biased submitter found a statistic to support their claim that IE is no longer relevant. I agree IE may be losing relevance but the w3school log files only show that people who want to learn how to write a webpage from w3school are likely to use Chrome. I suspect if I looked at the log at Microsoft's developer network I would come to the conclusion of IE being preferred by developers, and if I went to Apple's developer site it would show that Safari being preferred by developers.

The other red flag being that the statistics are presented as percentages with no absolute numbers given. This could be a site serving a very small demographic with very low volume. In fact the site discloses some of these caveats in the "Statistics can be misleading" section of that page.

/. should change their tagline (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46113357)

"News for chumps --shit that never happened".

Skew Time (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46113379)

Time for everyone to dust off and fire up their copies of IE. Then visit the site - let's see what they say next month.

IE is not an arm on a octopus... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46113407)

...it's a canary in a coal mine. And it's almost dead.

I should be happy about this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46113447)

I was hoping Linux would take over the desktop, or Haiku, or something. IInstead, this is happening because everyone is switching to Chrome on their PCs and everyone has a goddamn locked down we-are-borg fucking appliance in their pocket that tracks their every move, and a slightly bigger version that they call their PC replacement that can't even boot anything but android. This is not progress. This is skynet.

See, the thing about progress, is that it's supposed to be an improvement. And I still miss netbooks! Fucking iPad. People bought it because it looked cool. People are stupid.

Potato(chrome) Potatoe(IE) (1)

Tsolias (2813011) | about 8 months ago | (#46113483)

People just switched from one spying browser to another. Nothing changed.
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>