Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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

Thank you!

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

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

Firefox Continues Gains against IE

CowboyNeal posted more than 9 years ago | from the second-f-is-lower-case-on-my-version-but-not-cnet's dept.

Mozilla 585

kurtz_tan writes "News.com reports that the popularity of alternative Web browser Firefox continues to rise at the expense of Microsoft's Internet Explorer, according to a new study by WestSideStory. The study measured market share by embedding sensors on major web sites such as those of Walt Disney, Best Buy, Sony and Liz Claiborne. WebSideStory retrieves data from 30 million internet users a day passing through its monitored sites. The company then takes a snapshot of two days and compares the growth. Since beginning its measurements last summer, WebSideStory has been cautious to draw any broad conclusions about Firefox's popularity. This time around, the company said many people are not only downloading Firefox, they're sticking with it and using it."

cancel ×

585 comments

FP (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11441550)

test

IF I EVER MEET YOU I WILL LICK YOUR ASS (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11441565)

It's WEBSideStory , not WestSideStory (5, Funny)

EnronHaliburton2004 (815366) | more than 9 years ago | (#11441553)

according to a new study by WestSideStory.

It's WEBSideStory , not WestSideStory

I feel pretty, oh so pretty...

Re:It's WEBSideStory , not WestSideStory (1)

One of the abnormals (817423) | more than 9 years ago | (#11441651)

Who modderated this as funny? WebSideStory is the real name of the site...

Re:It's WEBSideStory , not WestSideStory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11441677)

Read the fucking submission, they said WEST not WEB

At the risk of revealing a proclivity ... (4, Funny)

reporter (666905) | more than 9 years ago | (#11441725)

At the risk of revealing a proclivity, I too use FireFox almost exclusively now even though FireFox is much slower on my computer than Micro$oft IE. For reasons of speed, I initially hesitated in using FireFox, but eventually I could not tolerate all the viruses and malware targetted at IE. On several occasions, my system was so badly infected with malware that I reinstalled Windows.

Admittedly, I am not a typical user. I visit numerous porn sites and am addicted to looking at gorgeous, naked women who would never spend time with me. Unfortunately, those sites are also boobytrapped with pop ups, viruses, and malware. If you do not believe me, then use IE on Windows and surf 1000 sites over the course of a month. At the end of the month, your computer will be unusable, and you will be forced to reinstall Windows.

With FireFox, I am relatively safe when I visit those sites. So far, none of the boobytraps have infected my computer. The only negative is that downloading the pictures takes a while with FireFox since it is not as tightly integrated into the OS as IE. Nonetheless, I am no longer reinstalling Windows on a monthly basis.

Now, where's that can of vaseline.... Just kidding.

Re:It's WEBSideStory , not WestSideStory (1)

Animats (122034) | more than 9 years ago | (#11441741)

Not to be confused with Webstrands Platform, from the first Spiderman movie.

maybe (0)

OffTheLip (636691) | more than 9 years ago | (#11441554)

it's not so much a increase in Firefox on Windows as a growth spurt of Linux and firefox of course...

Re:maybe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11441603)

Nice try. Did you RTFA?

Previous studies from WebSideStory tested all operating systems, but the company said its Windows-only numbers are more accurate because new configurations in Apple Computer's Safari browser inadvertently skewed results.

Errmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11441655)

>of course...

Did you just pull that 'fact' out of your ass you retard?

-1, Redundant for me, please... (0, Redundant)

halivar (535827) | more than 9 years ago | (#11441556)

Why is the best browser available making strides against IE news anymore? It's better, everyone knows it, including our government intelligence (hah!), and only PHB's give me any reason to use IE anymore.

Cue Opera fans.

Re:-1, Redundant for me, please... (1)

Lisandro (799651) | more than 9 years ago | (#11441566)

I am an Opera fan, you insensitive clod! :)

Re:-1, Redundant for me, please... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11441580)

I guess you're a fan of spyware. Opera's Google text ads aren't harmless, you know.

Re:-1, Redundant for me, please... (1)

Lisandro (799651) | more than 9 years ago | (#11441611)

I guess you're a fan of spyware. Opera's Google text ads aren't harmless, you know.

You might want to pay for it. Not all software has to be free, you know. And Opera is IMHO the best browser available bar none - well worth it's price.

Re:-1, Redundant for me, please... (3, Insightful)

skaffen42 (579313) | more than 9 years ago | (#11441689)

I think this is my problem with Opera.

Price.

Not that I mind paying for software. Hell, I've even bought boxed Linux distros. But, and it is a big but, most people pay for perceived value. For these people, which includes me, Opera does not provide $39 [opera.com] more value than Firefox.

Maybe I'm just cheap...

Re:-1, Redundant for me, please... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11441700)

Why are you such a Jew?

Re:-1, Redundant for me, please... (1)

Lisandro (799651) | more than 9 years ago | (#11441730)

Well, for me it does, mainly because the single user license now covers installations for all the (home) systems you might have, on all supported OSs. Great deal.

Re:-1, Redundant for me, please... (1)

Finuvir (596566) | more than 9 years ago | (#11441753)

You might be able to argue that Opera is slightly better than Firefox (you'd be wrong, but at least I wouldn't laugh at you for it) but you can't claim that it's 40-worth better (or whatever the actual price is).

Re:-1, Redundant for me, please... (1)

Troed (102527) | more than 9 years ago | (#11441620)

Ads? What ads? A few euros gave me the best browser/mail program there is.

Re:-1, Redundant for me, please... (1)

iBod (534920) | more than 9 years ago | (#11441701)

I agree that Firefox is much the better browser.

Some people are, however, locked into IE because of the ActiveX component support (typically intranet business applications).

A bad idea to incorporate in-browser ActiveX objects into your app of course, but I'll bet there are still plenty of in-house apps around that do just that.

So, Firefox (great though it is) is not an option for everyone while the ActiveX legacy continues to bite us.

hmm ... (0, Redundant)

slavik1337 (705019) | more than 9 years ago | (#11441558)

don't we already know this?

Marketing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11441560)

What's all about Marketshare and so on ? We are not on a Marketing competition as if we win something. We only want to use a good great browser written by people who are skilled to offer something to the Open Source world. The ordinary people really don't care enough if Firefox had won another 0,2% Marketshare or not. They use Firefox because it's the best choice there is for Open Source.

Re:Marketing (4, Insightful)

eln (21727) | more than 9 years ago | (#11441597)

The more marketshare Firefox gets, the less likely lazy web designers are to design "IE only" websites.

Of course, it also becomes more and more likely that advertisers will spend more and more resources trying to figure out new and exciting ways to get past Firefox's popup blocker and the Adblock extension, so it's a bit of a double edged sword.

Re:Marketing (1)

KontinMonet (737319) | more than 9 years ago | (#11441639)

Agreed!

And perhaps those lazy Web developers who use simplistic crappy Javascript to determine your browser name/version will be forced to use something more professional that determines your browser's current capabilities (you have: Flash plug-in, Javascript, no Java, ask about cookies, no ActiveX etc.etc.etc.). The site will then work depending on your settings, never mind the name/version.

hah (2, Funny)

2MuchC0ffeeMan (201987) | more than 9 years ago | (#11441561)

granted you see this in every article...

A Microsoft spokesman did not immediately comment for this story

but i love that.

Re:hah (1)

DaHat (247651) | more than 9 years ago | (#11441785)

Why should they? They still retain market dominance and will for the foreseeable future.

No matter what they might say at this stage in the game, you and others would mock them, instead, they stay quiet, biding their time and enhancing their own product for their counter attack with will no doubt come in good time.

Re:hah (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11441788)

The Microsoft spokesman was not available for comment because he was uninstalling spyware from his computer.

Yea... (1)

warderz (839772) | more than 9 years ago | (#11441564)

Nowadays everyone talks about firefox, even people tat I told about mozilla 2-3 years ago and were ignorant at that point of time. I guess everyone manages to spread the word pretty well and, of course, firefox is great. Good Stuff.

Re:Yea... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11441740)

That's because 2-3 years ago, Mozilla swallowed donkey cum. Firefox saved its ass.

Re:Yea... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11441744)

2-3 Years ago Mozilla sucked ass. It's only now that firefox has been able to clone internet explorer that it has become popular.

F*ing developers who build for IE only! (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11441567)

You no talent pricks that develop pages that require ActiveX plugins and Microsoft's perversion of JAVA should be flogged. Seriously you're a bunch of no talent hacks who are inadvertently building a MS dominated web infrastructure that is going to take years to overcome. Nice job assholes!

Re:F*ing developers who build for IE only! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11441686)

When you get near 50% market share, then that will change or firefox gains an CraptiveX Extension. Until then, the suits call the shot, its theyre decision.

Re:F*ing developers who build for IE only! (4, Interesting)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 9 years ago | (#11441703)

Say, that's a nice, clear-headed comment, and sure is insightful! Most people don't appreciate how much more insightful something is when it's also insulting. Also, I like how you've taken into account that some projects were kicked off years ago by VB-oriented programmers using early versions of that framework, and thus ActiveX ... way before other tools were even viable for some development teams. You may not like inertia, but it's there, and calling people who probably had an IT budget of one hour to throw together an interactive form for use on an private portal site that eventually became public, etc., is, well, assholish. I know... how about not using web sites you don't like? Nah... that's just good advice, and doesn't give me a good way to call someone an asshole. I'll have to think of another suggestion.

Re:F*ing developers who build for IE only! (1)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | more than 9 years ago | (#11441748)

Don't use it? What about when it's my freaking bank?

Re:F*ing developers who build for IE only! (1)

stinerman (812158) | more than 9 years ago | (#11441778)

Have you tried using the Firefox ActiveX plugin [www.iol.ie] ?

Re:F*ing developers who build for IE only! (4, Insightful)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 9 years ago | (#11441791)

That's exactly what I'm talking about! Change your freaking bank! That's like when there were some banks that had all-night ATMs, and others didn't (guess how old I am), or later, when only some banks waived fees if you used their own ATMs and others didn't. Or, when some banks had free telephone-based auto-banking, and others didn't. You choose a commidity institution (there are thousands of banks) based on how well they provide you with that commidity. My stupid bank has a great web site for their brokerage area, but the regular banking part sucks. A lot. I've bitched at them, and actually ended up talking to the manager of their web dev team, who was shocked to hear about JVM version problems (what a loser!). They're working on it.

In the meantime, it's just not that big a deal to change banks, or just to fire up IE for minute. Oh... I'm guessing you run on Linux. Alas. Your bank will come around on their own, or they'll get tired of fielding the complaints. Market pressure works - banks are service companies, and believe me, they do listen to compaints - mostly in the cummulative, but they do listen.

Re:F*ing developers who build for IE only! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11441787)

Your arguments doesn't change anything.. the point being made is what these so called developers do is mess with stuff they don't really know.

What they do is like getting out in the city with a car just because you know how to drive it.. you'd better learn the rules too, or you'll be a source of problems for both yourself and others. Asshole sounds pretty fitting I think.

Re:F*ing developers who build for IE only! (4, Insightful)

iBod (534920) | more than 9 years ago | (#11441756)

While the parent comment has some truth in it (the ActiveX legacy) I think it's unfair to a lot of good, professional developers who had no choice other than to use ActiveX because a particular component (a grid, graphing tool, whatever) was actully required in the project specification.

I'm thinking of sites/apps for internal, corporate intranets - not the Internet in general.

What were these guys supposed to do exactly? Resign on a point of principle?

Get real!

.88%? (5, Interesting)

Peyna (14792) | more than 9 years ago | (#11441570)

Not much, could probably be explained away by pure error.

Also, the websites they use probably skew the results as well; Disney, Best Buy, Sony, and Liz Claiborne?

If they want accuracy they should try throwing a few porn sites in, or maybe popular search engines.

I imagine if you had a more accurate sample that Firefox's share might be a little higher.

Re:.88%? (1)

chris09876 (643289) | more than 9 years ago | (#11441623)

Yeah, no kidding. The sites you choose make a HUGE difference when looking at stats like that. I'm sure slashdot has like 80% firefox usage... maybe higher. At the same time, sites like msn probably have a 99% IE usage. It's realy difficult to get an accurate picture of what everyone's using just by monitoring a couple sites.

Re:.88%? (1)

eln (21727) | more than 9 years ago | (#11441666)

Actually, IIRC Slashdot has had a substantial majority of users using IE for quite some time now. The percentages may have shifted recently, but it may still be majority IE.

Re:.88%? (2, Interesting)

chris09876 (643289) | more than 9 years ago | (#11441698)

Really... I'm surprised. It would be nice if slashdot published some apache log analysis.. :) Is that available somewhere and I just don't know about it?

Re:.88%? (1)

swright (202401) | more than 9 years ago | (#11441692)

this is true - and their sites seem to be the firmly in the home-user market; where PCs are more up to date and users more open to trying out alternatives.

business/work PCs aren't moving so quickly.

Too bad my school won't use Ff (1)

bird603568 (808629) | more than 9 years ago | (#11441572)

I told them to switch. They complain about students complaining about popups, and how it slows down their "research". It's kind of ironic why they network guy and 3 out of the 4 computer science teachers use it, but the county considers it as a hazard to the network. (I installed it with out asking, (actually they looked away so they wouldn't get in trouble)). Hopefully this will change their minds.

Re:Too bad my school won't use Ff (4, Interesting)

satoshi1 (794000) | more than 9 years ago | (#11441712)

I don't care what my school uses, I've intalled Portable Firefox to a flash drive that I use as well as to my student directory on the school's network. So now, no matter which computer I'm on I can use Firefox (I have the OSX version on my flash drive as well). It's really the only way, the school administration will never listen.

That's okay, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11441574)

WebSideStory has been cautious to draw any broad conclusions about Firefox's popularity

Slashdot will be more than happy to do so.

Yes, but what is happening to opera? (5, Interesting)

cavetroll (602361) | more than 9 years ago | (#11441586)

Figures I have seen on w3cshools [w3schools.com] show a falling usage rate for opera, from 2.3% to 1.9% - almost a 20% drop. If this is a trend is across the entire userbase, then might firefox end up killing opera rather than (as well as?) IE?

Re:Yes, but what is happening to opera? (1, Troll)

AKnightCowboy (608632) | more than 9 years ago | (#11441691)

Who uses Opera anyway? Trying to sell a web browser is so 1997ish.

Re:Yes, but what is happening to opera? (3, Insightful)

cavetroll (602361) | more than 9 years ago | (#11441747)

I know that, and certainly I no longer use opera (I have been using firefox since it was still called phoenix, and mozilla before that). However opera have had a large number of innovations that mozilla picked up on, things like popup blockers, and tabbed browsing.

It would be a shame to see Opera die, I don't want to use it myself, merely to have its nice features available as extensions to firefox....

Re:Yes, but what is happening to opera? (4, Interesting)

FinestLittleSpace (719663) | more than 9 years ago | (#11441719)

to be honest, opera is totally incredible for some things, but terrible for others. The amazing thing about opera is that you can make it do EVERYTHING... the settings are just huge.... its also unbelieably fast and low-footprint memory wise. However, what it isn't is a simple browser for general public to use day to day. when I use it i feel like im almost in a 'sub OS'... i feel engulfed by it all and it doesnt make me feel comfortable, whereas with firefox, its very much like its almost part of the OS and just subtley adds its own features.

Opera ---is--- a brilliant browser, i just feel it's not suitable for the general public.

Re:Yes, but what is happening to opera? (0)

stinerman (812158) | more than 9 years ago | (#11441801)

Whereas IE is the OS ... which is why it is such a security nightmare.

Re:Yes, but what is happening to opera? (1)

BetterThanCaesar (625636) | more than 9 years ago | (#11441731)

That'd be too bad, it's my preferred browser, and I'm sorry to say I doubt they'd opensource it any sooner than Netscape did. That is, too late to save the company and the browser.

However, Opera has another niche in mobile phones, which they might focus more on in the future. Does anyone know it there is there any progress in porting Gecko to these platforms? Goota love competition.

Re:Yes, but what is happening to opera? (1)

cavetroll (602361) | more than 9 years ago | (#11441768)

Does anyone know it there is there any progress in porting Gecko to these platforms?
minimo [mozilla.org]

Internet Explorer technologies for UNIX (5, Funny)

anandpur (303114) | more than 9 years ago | (#11441589)

Do not know why MS discontinued IE for Unix. I can see thay can expand there.

http://www.microsoft.com/unix/ie/default.asp/ [microsoft.com]

Re:Internet Explorer technologies for UNIX (1)

rpozz (249652) | more than 9 years ago | (#11441663)

Probably because no Linux distribution or UNIX vendor would consider bundling IE.

Re:Internet Explorer technologies for UNIX (1)

IANAAC (692242) | more than 9 years ago | (#11441798)

Back when they actually had it available for Solaris, I tried to use it... horribly broken. Fonts wouldn't render correctly, and when you finally got them to render, it would take forever to read them "from cache".

And what's the margin of error in the polling? (3, Interesting)

macklin01 (760841) | more than 9 years ago | (#11441591)

Without any info given on the margin of error, this 0.88% increase is hard to put in perspective. If the margin of error was 0.7%, then we're not talking about much here. Nonetheless, it's very interesting to see FireFox taking hold, even if very slowly. (I suppose that really shows just how entrenched MSIE is.) -- Paul

Re:And what's the margin of error in the polling? (4, Interesting)

swright (202401) | more than 9 years ago | (#11441676)

the margin of error will be huge!

seriously, we do the same thing in the UK, but mostly with retail sites (B&Q, Comet, H Samuel, etc) and there are soooo many things that cause inaccuracies!

firstly, the monitors are clientside - so depending on where in the host page they live, howmany images there are on the page, how fast the user's connection is and how long they spend on a page you may or may not even register a hit.

then misconfigured caches can hided it before it gets you your logging server (but there are ways around that).

but for tracking unique users (rather than pageviews), you need cookies as well:

- some peopl have cookies turned off

- some people have cookies demoted to session-only

- some people clear their cookies periodically (e.g. they've been looking at pr0n and dont want their missus to know)

- some people use 'security' software that strips cookies and/or rewrites page content on the fly.

its a mess. numbers are never accurate and its impossible to accurately determine how inaccurate they are!

but they're right - there is a consistent and significant move toward Firefox

But having said that - it has just been Christmas, and there does seem to be a big difference between home computers and business PCs (home = more up to date, more Firefix, work = older, no alternative browsers)

we're actually seeing a *decline* in firefox figures post-Xmas, but hoping that will change!

Open letter to Microsoft (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11441600)

Do not underestimate our great strength, yes. We are heavily armed. Our great armies have you surrounded. Prepare to be assimilated.

Meaningful Figure (4, Insightful)

StevenHenderson (806391) | more than 9 years ago | (#11441602)

I feel that this is, for once, a meaningful figure. These are sites that appeal to everyone, not just a figure of browsers on /. or ThinkGeek or something.

If people going on to Liz Claiborne or whatever are using FF, then you can assume that is someone's mom. Either that, or the IT guy trying to look at women's underwear pics through his work's web filtering. :)

Good analysis, though. Let's hope this continues...

Baby steps, right?

Re:Meaningful Figure (1)

Peyna (14792) | more than 9 years ago | (#11441631)

Try a slashdot poll asking how many times in the last month people have visited any of those sites. They don't appeal to "everyone." They appeal to certain groups of people, but a large number of Internet users are left out of that survey. A number that may actually have a higher Firefox usage rate than the people that visit the sites used in the survey.

Re:Meaningful Figure (1)

StevenHenderson (806391) | more than 9 years ago | (#11441644)

They don't appeal to "everyone."

Best Buy doesn't appeal to everyone? I mean sure, Newegg or whatever is a better alternative, but I bet 90% of the people on this site have been to a Best Buy in the last year...

Re:Meaningful Figure (1)

Peyna (14792) | more than 9 years ago | (#11441654)

have been to a Best Buy

But not necessarily their website. It's certainly not a valuable research tool; and with the exception of music, movies, and games, you can get everything else they sell cheaper elsewhere.

Re:Meaningful Figure (1)

Finuvir (596566) | more than 9 years ago | (#11441734)

I bet 90% of the people on this site have been to a Best Buy in the last year...

Been where? Oh, you must be assuming everyone is American. I'd wager more than 10% of Slashdotters aren't American and therefore haven't been anywhere near Best Buy in the last year.

Re:Meaningful Figure (1)

StevenHenderson (806391) | more than 9 years ago | (#11441758)

10%? Really? Fair enough, if that is the case. I would have assumed a lower number, but I guess regardless, I ought to say 90% of Americans. Do you happen to know if BB is in any other countries?

whaa whaaaaat (1)

eSavior (767078) | more than 9 years ago | (#11441604)

Can anyone actualy find the article at WebSideStory? There is a link on the main site about firefox gaining share if you click Read More it takes you to a page with nothing about firefox.

websidestory [websidestory.com]

Yeh but.... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11441609)

...I reckon much of the increase is due to IE users spoofing their user-agent and pretending to be Firefox

Web (4, Insightful)

someguy456 (607900) | more than 9 years ago | (#11441618)

but the company said its Windows-only numbers are more accurate because new configurations in Apple Computer's Safari browser inadvertently skewed results. I'm speechless. We (linux/mac users) don't use Windows, so our traffic doesn't count?

Re:Web (1)

lukewarmfusion (726141) | more than 9 years ago | (#11441763)

Can you install Internet Explorer on Linux?

It might not be wise to measure gains in the browser market by introducing a platform variable... if you just look at platforms where IE is available, you'll more accurately depict the Firefox gains. I think that's what they're trying to do - show gain, not depict actual browser market share. That's ok, because as the number of Linux users inrease, the percentage of IE users will decrease. That's an extra factor to consider here, and might not be something they want to bother with.

Re:Web (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11441767)

That's right, bow down bitch. You better get used to not counting in life, I have a feeling it's going to happen quite often to you.

Re:Web (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11441780)

I have to agree. What percentage of internet traffic is made up of Mac users and Unix users? Especially as the latter especially are much more likely to be online a lot (albeit not visiting Disney, etc) ... 5%? Which basically means you can add 2% onto the Firefox score, and subtract 2% from the IE score. And considering that the report said that 0.88% was significant, ignoring this aspect is very lax.

Sensors? (2, Interesting)

northcat (827059) | more than 9 years ago | (#11441624)

The study measured market share by embedding sensors on major web sites

Embedding sensors? You mean it checked the user agent. Probably logs (I don't run a webserver, so I dont know if all webservers log that). I knew media tended to sensationalize things but .... wow!

Re:Sensors? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11441716)

WebSideStory's "sensors" that are "embedded" in web pages consist of a snippet of JavaScript included on the site to be tested. That JavaScript pulls additional code from WebSideStory's servers, queries a host of statistics from the browser, and submits it back to WSS.

The advantage there is that they can keep all their metrics on their side, and they don't have to mess with parsing someone else's log files.

No surprise. (4, Interesting)

Jace of Fuse! (72042) | more than 9 years ago | (#11441628)

FireFox is actually a good browser.

This would have happened a long time ago if such a good browser had come along sooner.

Firefox is fast, secure, easy to use, skinable, free, and compatible.

For once, IE isn't more popular based on it's merit. It's actually at a technical disadvantage again and it's decline in popularity is a result of that.

I was skeptical about converting most of my less tech savvy associates over to Firefox at first, but when a few actually actively asked me to help them and their feedback was all positive afterwards, I suggested it to a few more and then even more.

Now anyone I don't feel is capable of keeping their system clean while using IE I recommend convert and I've yet to hear one single complaint.

Re:No surprise. (2, Interesting)

Stevyn (691306) | more than 9 years ago | (#11441755)

I felt the same way. I've been putting firefox on peoples' computers for them for the past few months. They aren't techies so I was worried they'd have a problem like a site not working and then quit using it. But that hasn't happened. I do install flash for that might be a little too much to ask. All I have to do is tell them that using "this icon" instead of that "blue icon" will prevent a lot of crap from getting on your computer. And I've asked those people if they've had problems with their computer lately and they've all replied a resounding no. It's no longer an uphill battle to get them to use a different browser. Firefox's security speaks for itself and does the job in keeping them using it.

My point is, they use it because they want to and see it's advantages.

Microsoft might be stubborn (5, Interesting)

DOS-5 (852324) | more than 9 years ago | (#11441632)

I think Firefox will continue to be popular if Microsoft makes new additions to IE mainly because I don't see them removing any of the insecurities (ActiveX) or bloat or integration into the OS that made people switch to Firefox in the first place. Since when was the last time Microsoft removed a so called "useful" and "major" feature despite its obvious downsides?

Re:Microsoft might be stubborn (1)

KingPunk (800195) | more than 9 years ago | (#11441797)

whats internet explorer?
i know of mozilla, opera, firebird/firefox/phoenix..
but no internet explorer. ;)

100% usage of firefox in my home.
windows update ActiveX-embedded IE-only compliancy,
isn't that also, a SERIOUS security risk?
basically saying, if you don't run IE, you'll have vlunarabilites..

but then again, i haven't been running windows for two years either.
so i must be missing out on all of those nice new exploits,
can you sense my disappointment? ;) gee, how nice of the big campus in Redmond.

test of my own (1)

VoiceOfRaisin (554019) | more than 9 years ago | (#11441634)

i recently posted an image on fark.com hosted on my own box. 10,000 hits later i was surprised at the results. 45% firefox, 40% ie.

Re:test of my own (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11441737)

Here are my own results from Fark image hosting:

1 15159 51.99% Mozilla/5.0
2 12052 41.33% MSIE 6.0
3 561 1.92% Opera 7.5
4 283 0.97% MSIE 5.5
5 184 0.63% AvantGo 6.0
6 129 0.44% MSIE 5.0
7 117 0.40% Opera 7.2
8 86 0.29% Mozilla/4.0 (compatible;)
9 75 0.26% Mozilla/3.01 (compatible;)
10 74 0.25% Opera 8.0
11 70 0.24% MSIE 5.2
12 59 0.20% MSIE 5.1
13 34 0.12% Konqueror/3.3
14 28 0.10% FARK.com link verifier (libwww-perl)
15 24 0.08% Opera 7.1

Windows only statistics? (2, Interesting)

cavetroll (602361) | more than 9 years ago | (#11441645)

According to the article,
Previous studies from WebSideStory tested all operating systems, but the company said its Windows-only numbers are more accurate
If You accept that;

1. Some non-zero number of people aren't running windows.

2. More that 5% of these are runnning firefox.

Then these figures are an underestimate for the entire web population.

Of course accepting (1) but not (2) suggests an over-estimate, so in either case be wary of considering these figures as accurate.

As a webdesigner I .. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11441665)

.. am unbeliveably happy! May the day come when we do not have to work our ass off just fuck up code that work on standard following browser to get stuff to work in IE! Oh Happy happy, joy joy!

Liz Claiborne? (2, Funny)

khef (681832) | more than 9 years ago | (#11441670)

Since when is Liz Claiborne a major site?

"Sensors"??? (1)

billybob (18401) | more than 9 years ago | (#11441678)

I think that's a buzzword for "we analyzed the logs" :P

In My Humble Opinion... (1)

astebbin (836820) | more than 9 years ago | (#11441679)

...the best choice that Microsoft could make right now would be to completely take apart IE and redesign it from the ground up as a Firefox/Netscape variant with the Microsoft logo stuck on the cover. Better yet, Microsoft could package Firefox with new versions of Windows right out of the box, thereby eliminating all complaints of IE being too slow or too vulnerable. Of course, this new Microsoft browser would still probably include ActiveX support, Microsoft-only features and all that other proprietary jazz, but it would be a vast improvement on what Microsoft has going for them now.

Internet.com browser stats (2, Interesting)

Saeger (456549) | more than 9 years ago | (#11441682)

Not sure what's going on with January's "3." useragent, but FWIW here's a few months of their browser stats for just Mozilla:

September 2004 - 2% Mozilla [thecounter.com]
October 2004 - 2% Mozilla [thecounter.com]
November 2004 - 3% Mozilla [thecounter.com]
December 2004 - 3% Mozilla [thecounter.com]
January 2005 - 5% Mozilla??? [thecounter.com]

OT: Fermi solutions (2, Informative)

bstadil (7110) | more than 9 years ago | (#11441799)

Way OT but your quote about Fermi solutions is incorrect. Fermi Solutions is the method to Guestimate something using a series of stocastic independent variables.

The amazing thing is that the more you have the better since you are unlikely to guess everyone on the high or low side. The more variables you have the more accurate.

Fermi himself used this to estimate the power of the first Atom bomb via dropping paper confetti from above his head (2 meters) and look where they landed after the blast arrived. He was within 20% if I recall. There is an intersting book called Fermi Solutions that you can find here [amazon.com] I read it like 10 years ago but the publishing date is 2001 on Amazon so maybe it's a different book I read.

Security Flaws? (2, Insightful)

pyr0r0ck3r (702602) | more than 9 years ago | (#11441699)

The recent discovery of a potentially damaging software flaw suggested the potential for FireFox attacks. Did that get fixed? Cuz if not, that'll be a problem in the future for firefox. One of the reasons people like firefox so much is the thought that "OOOH, now I don't have to worry about nasty viruses and hackers and evil things." Once there's a virus written for firefox, that little golden halo is gonna come crashing down.

Re:Security Flaws? (1)

AKnightCowboy (608632) | more than 9 years ago | (#11441783)

Once there's a virus written for firefox, that little golden halo is gonna come crashing down.

Internet Explorer has one giant glaring vulnerability going for it that was designed in from the beginning: ActiveX.

RSS feeds (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11441709)

One feature alone, the ability to easily use RSS feeds off the box, gives a significant reason to go Firefox.

I don't want to sound like an ass or anything (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11441723)

But call me when it hits 50 %

(reading between the lines gave the following results: this is all nice and all, but we really know this allready, so it isn't really news before it really hits a milestone. I mean really)

Poetic Justice (1)

cyberkahn (398201) | more than 9 years ago | (#11441735)



IE kills Netscape.

Firefox kills IE.

0.88% (1)

fisheye1969 (842355) | more than 9 years ago | (#11441736)

0.88% may not sound like a large figure, but this gain is over one and a half months (early Dec to mid Jan), especially when IE declined by 0.7%. IE has lost 4% since June last year.

A little bit more of this, and a considerable amoutn of momentum is going to be generated. And consider the opposition: a browser that is built into the OS it came with. Crikey, the FF team should justifiably be proud of what their work is doing.

we need a getexplorer.com .. or something (4, Funny)

testing124 (772675) | more than 9 years ago | (#11441739)


Help fight these horrible new statistics... Install IE today! [sidenet.ddo.jp]

:-)

Spread Firefox! (2, Interesting)

Pan T. Hose (707794) | more than 9 years ago | (#11441743)

Don't forget to use the www.spreadfirefox.com [spreadfirefox.com] links every time you refrence someone to download Firefox to increase the counter. Also, never let anyone use IE User-Agent when they are using Firefox, because using counterfeited User-Agent unfairly skews the statistics to the side of Microsoft, and we all know that this is a two-handed sword.

Tracked sites (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11441746)

From TFA: "The study measured market share by embedding sensors on major Web sites such as those of the Walt Disney Internet Group, Best Buy, Sony and Liz Claiborne."

Poor choise of sites, IMHO. Personally, I doubt I visited any of them within a year or so.

Liz Claiborne? (1)

virid (34014) | more than 9 years ago | (#11441760)

I wouldn't have guessed that would be a site that would recieve a lot of hits from Firefox users...

Whatever... (1)

bionicyeti (715949) | more than 9 years ago | (#11441761)

I'm a fan of Firefox, but I would like to see the numbers if it wasn't free.

Help increase Firefox percentage (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11441770)

To make sure that Firefox percentage rises, not only you must use it, you must know how they are measuring it.

Make sure your firfox convert visit the follow sites to get "sampled". Your clicks count.

Walt Disney, Best Buy, Sony and Liz Claiborne.

Firefox at 50+% in some places (2, Informative)

SunFan (845761) | more than 9 years ago | (#11441786)


Ace's Hardware recently ran a short article that Firefox passed 50% share at their website in December. They had a nice graph showing IE clearly in the majority, lessening over time, and, finally, passing into the minority.

We'll miss you, IE...not!

What?! (1)

adeydas (837049) | more than 9 years ago | (#11441796)

According to this [w3schools.com] , FF has still got a way to higher share than IE.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...