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!

After 100M IE7 Downloads, Firefox Still Gaining

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the denting-the-monopoly dept.

Internet Explorer 425

Kelson writes "Internet Explorer 7 hit the 100 million download mark last week. Yet in the three months it's been available, Firefox's market share has continued to grow. InformationWeek reports that nearly all of IE7's growth has been upgrades from IE6. People don't seem to be switching back to IE in significant numbers, prompting analysts to wonder: has Microsoft finally met its match?"

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

If you're like me (4, Insightful)

gelfling (6534) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644428)

You upgrade IE6 with the assumption that MS will require it for one thing or another. We don't actually use it but we install it just in case.

Re:If you're like me (4, Informative)

omeg (907329) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644448)

True. Or you just want to check to see for yourself whether it really fixes some of those nasty CSS problems. There are plenty of reasons for installing IE7, but none of them imply that you will also be actually using it. Site statistics will have to assess whether IE7 is really being used a lot, not the amount of downloads.

For me.... (5, Interesting)

Corporate Troll (537873) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644678)

It's been there in the "Software Update" for weeks. Or better said, I always log in as "Restricted User" (as does my wife) and I then don't get notifications about that particular "Software Update". It's only when I have to login as "Administrator" that I get the notification. Logging in as "Administrator" doesn't happen often, and when I do, it's usually to fix something and I don't have time nor motivation to launch the IE7 update.

So my machines all still have IE6, but nobody uses it... They all use Firefox. The rest of the family all have their machines setup to be used in "Restricted User" configuration and that way IE7 doesn't install. Why, I do not know, because other updates do install. So people doing the "right thing" (running non-admin) don't get it automatically. Funny, isn't it?

Re:If you're like me (1)

Calinous (985536) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644908)

Hmmm, I wonder if one would need to force IE7 to present itself as IE6, so it will work on some sites "optimized" for IE6.
After all these years of Netscape Navigator, Opera, Firefox, Mozilla masquerading as IE6.
      Ohhh, the irony...

Bad Metrics (4, Insightful)

blowdart (31458) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644484)

Or, if you're any type of web designer you use both to check your sites work. Simply quoting download numbers is a completly bogus way of proving popularity. You'd think something like InformationWeek would know better than to report this pointless bit dick waving.

Indeed I do (2, Informative)

rpjs (126615) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644568)

Use IE on the sites I develop, but that usage is only hitting the internal dev server, and won't appear in any site stats. I certainly don't use IE for going anywhere else, unless the site breaks in Firefox, and even then I use IETab.

Re:Bad Metrics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17644906)

And what percentage of internet users are web designers? Enough to affect the statistics in any significant manner?

Re:If you're like me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17644520)

Same here. IE7 is just an automatic update, nothing more. There is no bookmark in that browser and the firewall doesn't let it talk to the internet. That's my account of 1/100000000 of the IE7 downloads.

Re:If you're like me (1)

mastershake_phd (1050150) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644656)

I assumed you had to pay for it. Since when does Microsoft give things away?

Stupid meaningless statistics (4, Insightful)

Moraelin (679338) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644698)

Let's consider the following facts:

- IE7's requirements say it will only run on XP or Windows Server 2003. Hence you'd expect that (most) people who downloaded IE7 are indeed on XP or Win 2003 machines.

- all XP and Windows Server 2003 computers came with IE6

I'm sure you can fill in the blanks there, because it's a simple case of "X => Y, Y => Z". If X="you upgraded to IE7", Y="you're on XP or Win 2003", Z="you had IE6". Did anyone really need a statistic or study to tell them that, surprisingly, unexpectedly, those who upgraded to IE7 had IE6 on their machine before?

Pretty much the only mildly interesting word in there is: "most". Did some people actually go through the trouble of making IE7 install on a system that doesn't run it? E.g., on Win 2000? I can only hope there weren't too many.

So basically this is such a useless revelation, that I can only hope that it was some attempt at manipulation. Because the depressing to think that someone was genuinely stupid enough to think they're onto some brilliant discovery and market trend.

So the one-word wisdom there is: duh.

Re:If you're like me (0, Redundant)

tritonman (998572) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644778)

Sorry, this is a stupid statistic. Don't you always upgrade when you install IE7? It's not like you didn't have IE on your computer at all and then decided to download it. It comes with windows!

Re:If you're like me (1)

Dobeln (853794) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644796)

Correct - I just upgraded after being prompted by Windows update. I mean, why not do it - it's better.

Re:If you're like me (1)

Calinous (985536) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644880)

Or you install it, and find out that for some reason or another, it won't work with one of your sites (Sharepoint Portal, configuration site for Virtual Server, just to put two examples from Microsoft).
      Also, take into account that IE7 is automatic update (from Automatic updates in Windows XP)

Fppp motherssssz (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17644430)

Fp 4 my niggah brotha shtef

Re:Fppp motherssssz (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17644578)

Eppick Phael!

primeiro (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17644432)

primeiro

100M IE7 downloads (5, Insightful)

ReallyEvilCanine (991886) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644438)

Based on my experience with corporate networks and home machines, about 85% of those were pushed via Automatic Updates. I expect a maximum of about 20% of those downloads to be intentional or wanted.

Re:100M IE7 downloads (1)

mastershake_phd (1050150) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644676)

Ive got automatic updates on. Still says 6.0, but who cares, Im using Firefox.

Re:100M IE7 downloads (1)

Corporate Troll (537873) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644756)

Logged in as restriced user? I have automatic updates on, and it only says that the update is ready when I log in as an Administrator. Just wondering if it's the same effect...

Re:100M IE7 downloads (1)

mastershake_phd (1050150) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644864)

Im logged in as Admin. Whos logs in as user?

Re:100M IE7 downloads (1)

Corporate Troll (537873) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644920)

Everyone in my family, including me... (I eat my own dog food, and I am more likely to catch problems before my users complain) It's not even that hard to setup, if you know what you are doing.

Admin is for maintenance only. A bit like "root" on a Unix machine.

Re:100M IE7 downloads (1)

Kierthos (225954) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644768)

I believe I was able to remove the IE7 upgrade from the list of automatic updates.... either that or my memory is slipping and I didn't do it, already upgraded, and forgot about it, as well... I too use Firefox.

I can't see IE7 being so much of an improvement over Firefox that it would make me want to switch back.

Two reasons (3, Informative)

ReallyEvilCanine (991886) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644812)

1) You're logged in as a restricted user and only the Admin can give the update installation the go-ahead
2) Your admin installed the IE7 Blocker Toolkit for corporate administrators ( http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?linkid=65788&siteI d=3&oId=2100-7350-6098500&ontId=1009&lop=nl.ex [microsoft.com] )

We warned our customers' admins about this back in August but they ignored us... until October 18th. Then they started submitting Prio-1 tickets, the fuckwits.

Re:Two reasons (1)

mastershake_phd (1050150) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644928)

I do have that Microsoft Genuine Advantage thing telling me my Windows isnt legal. But I do get the updates are ready to be installed click here to reboot thing time to time. I thought Microsoft had decided to still give updates due to all the false positives.

Re:100M IE7 downloads (2, Interesting)

gx5000 (863863) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644754)

It was a high priority update that bollucked more than a handful of my home clients...
I remove it before I do anything else (search for spywares, update AV and so on...)
As far as work is concerned, I work for the Canadian gov, and we're still using WIN2000/IE6 Corp with no near plans to upgrade to either IE7 or Vista. I wouldn't mind XP on the workstations, but Vista/IE7 if definitely not in the cards...I figure sometime soon we'll need it for functionality, but hopefully that will be a long time in coming...There's no way we'll be getting anything to replace IE though, Firefox/Opera would be nice but the red tape would plunge me into a warp breach.

Re:100M IE7 downloads (1)

clonmult (586283) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644824)

We're holding off the auto updates here (thankfully), as the guys on that side of the IS team haven't had a chance to evaluate IE7.

I installed IE7 just to "see what all the fuss was about", and alternate between IE7 and FF2 depending on how the mood takes me. Admit that I really do like the scaling of the screens on IE7 - hold ctrl and the mouse scroll wheel to rescale, does work a lot nicer than the FF2 implementation.

And at home I can't actually use IE7 - it just plain dies on my old Vaio way too regularly to make it viable. FF2, whilst being a resource hog, is at least stable.

Re:100M IE7 downloads (1)

extern_void (1041264) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644838)

IE7 should be outcast due dopping by WindowsUpdate robot.

Simple Answer: (-1, Redundant)

paniq (833972) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644442)

no.

A fair test? (5, Insightful)

mattpointblank (936343) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644444)

Is it fair to compare these stats? Most IE users don't choose to upgrade, it's simply foisted on them by Windows' Auto Update. When I returned home this Christmas both my mum and sister asked me to "fix the internet" because IE7 had been installed and its new layout confused them. They certainly didn't choose in the way that someone chooses to download and install Firefox does, so the victory is even more in FF's favour.

Please note that this isn't a Firefox fanboy post (despite my love for it), merely pointing out the facts.

Re:A fair test? (1)

thebdj (768618) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644644)

This is true. I had this same problem while I was home X-Mas. I just installed FireFox. Of course, I am hoping to transition my mom to Linux, so the best way to do this is for me to get her on Open Source apps now (like FF, OOo, and Gaim), so the transition will be a lot smoother when the time comes to rid her machine of XP.

Re:A fair test? (2, Informative)

blowdart (31458) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644662)

Actually WU downloads an installer which then says "There's an update available to Internet Explorer. Do you wish to install it?" It's not a silent, in the background install like you seem to suggest, the user must choose to let it update. Of course users do blindly click yes...

Re:A fair test? (2, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644762)

Well, if you ask me if there's an upgrade, it could be a feature patch, security fix and whatnot. "Major upgrade with significant UI changeS" should probably be flagged a little more like what it is?

Re:A fair test? (0, Troll)

alx5000 (896642) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644710)

Why on Earth wouldn't they call a plumber to fix the internet??

Re:A fair test? (3, Insightful)

jettawu (1030820) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644716)

Until a different OS has market dominance, I highly doubt any browser other than IE will gain market dominance.

Yes, IE has met its match (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17644450)

14% vs 80%... ya, that's one hella of a match.

Considering... (5, Insightful)

Bananatree3 (872975) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644516)

that the 14% is coming from a huge group of volunteers and only a small number of dedicated, paid developers while that 80% is from the largest software monopoly in the world. Not to mention that Internet Explorer is shipped with practically every OEM machine in the United States.

Considering these circumstances, it is amazing to see how well Firefox is doing considering the odds.

Re:Considering... (1)

OriginalArlen (726444) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644994)

Internet Explorer is shipped with practically every OEM machine in the United States.
Correction -- MSIE is shipped with every Windows computer in the world.

Re:Yes, IE has met its match (1)

EzInKy (115248) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644546)


14% vs 80%... ya, that's one hella of a match.


Considering one comes pre-installed and is unremovable while the other requires users to make an effort to download and install I'd say yes, it is one "hella" match.

If Only.. (0, Offtopic)

true_hacker (969330) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644452)

Now, wouldnt it be something if all the firefox converts switched to Linux :-)

Re:If Only.. (1)

Lonewolf666 (259450) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644560)

For some of them it might be the first step.
Once all applications that are important to you run on Linux, the switch is much easier :-)

How well would FF do if *it* forced itself out? (5, Insightful)

pla (258480) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644458)

Internet Explorer 7 hit the 100 million download mark last week.

Gee, perhaps that has something to do with Microsoft marking it a high-priority update, so everyone with automatic updates turned on will unwittingly get it?

Not much of a claim to success to say that 100 million people, running an OS that has automatic updates turned on by default, have wasted bandwidth on a program they didn't even choose to download.

Re:How well would FF do if *it* forced itself out? (1)

just_another_sean (919159) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644750)

Indeed. I would be more interested if they could collect the numbers on people like myself and the small company I work for. We run about 35 Windows XP boxes. They have all been configured to hide the IE 7 upgrade when running Windows update. We specifically avoided it by turning off auto updates just before we knew it would be released. We then updated manually for a few days on one machine until it appeared. So we went to each workstation, ran WU manually, hid IE 7 and then turned back on auto updates.

So back tot the topic at hand; how many people chose specifically not to download IE7?

Re:How well would FF do if *it* forced itself out? (2, Informative)

lukas84 (912874) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644820)

That's a really complicated way to manage this for 35 machines.

I would suggest you to use WSUS [microsoft.com] to manage your Windows Updates. If that's too much for you, you can also use the IE 7 Blocker Toolkit [microsoft.com] .

Administrating a windows network requires just as much technical competency as does administrating a linux, solaris, mac or whatever network.

Re:How well would FF do if *it* forced itself out? (1)

prelelat (201821) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644760)

I wonder how many of these people removed it because it caused problems. I've seen it happen on a few machines.

I for one ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17644464)

I for one welcome our new Firefox overlords.

Okay, I'm really just after the karma points.

backwards compatibility (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17644476)

One things I found from upgrading to IE7 is that certain applications that require IE (My telephone system software, Certain Dell RAC controllers, etc.) do not work with IE7. Why can't they make it backwards compatible?

Upgrades (3, Insightful)

Grey Ninja (739021) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644478)

I installed IE7 on my Windows box. I use Firefox exclusively. The only reason that I installed it was because the automatic update manager wanted to, and since IE is a deeply embedded component of Windows, a security update for IE is a security update for Windows. Otherwise, I wouldn't have bothered.

I switched (mostly) to Linux to get away from IE. But I still installed IE7. So no, I don't consider this news to be surprising in the slightest.

Well being that it is part of windows upgrade.... (4, Interesting)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644480)

So we can assume out of all the windows users out there only 100 million out of all the people who have Windows PCs are actually upgrading their system. Is it just me or is that kida scary.

So lets assume that 2/3 of the people in the US have windows computers that means half of the people in the US has been updating their windows systems and the the other half and the rest of the world hasn't.

I know most companies are waiting for a SP release of IE 7 before upgrading. Even though a person uses firefox it really shouldnt exclude them from using getting IE 7 because of the integration between windows and IE can still be a security problem. I am not saing IE 7 is more Secure then firefox or even IE 6 but IE 7 will be updated longer into the future then IE 6 and IE 7 Problems will be fixed faster then IE 6's

Re:Well being that it is part of windows upgrade.. (3, Informative)

cyxxon (773198) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644592)

Don't forget that a lot of companies don't just install Windows upgrades because MS releases them. They undergo rigid inhouse testing and then later are deployed from their own update servers, so they would not be counted as donwloads from Microsoft anyway.

Also, IE7 is (at the moment, fix upcoming in SAPGui release 20 IIRC) incompatible with SAP software, so any admin worth his salt will block this update if the company also uses SAP software (which I bet are quite a lot of desktops). And this problem is AFAIK a blunder by SAP, saying things like "uh, nobody gave us IE7 early enough, how were we supposed to fix our code".

Re:Well being that it is part of windows upgrade.. (1)

div_2n (525075) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644966)

I'd put the blame on both Microsoft and SAP. Microsoft for making such a shoddy browser with IE6 and SAP for building around it.

The problem is that even if SAP got the fix in place by now, I'd wager it wouldn't be massively deployed if the admins running it value their job. Testing updates in ERP software is (or should be) mandatory regardless of how minor they may be.

Re:Well being that it is part of windows upgrade.. (1)

Ka D'Argo (857749) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644630)

So we can assume out of all the windows users out there only 100 million out of all the people who have Windows PCs are actually upgrading their system. Is it just me or is that kida scary.

Actually, you also have to take into account IE7 requires validation of the license/installation of Windows to be installed and used. So 100mil is a decent figure (counting or not counting people who auto updated). But then you have to figure in the millions of people who can't install IE7 or at least don't due to it needing a legit copy of Windows to do so. I'd love to use IE7 for the few seldom times I need IE (sadly there are still a few sites on the net that only allow IE to be used for their services) but unfortunately I can't install it for *ahem* reasons being.

Mozilla is NOT Microsoft's match... (2, Funny)

crhylove (205956) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644486)

That's poorly worded at best. Firefox has pushed all the innovation in web browsers (unless you count Opera, other FOSS browsers). IE hasn't done anything new in nearly a decade. Open Source is always superior to proprietary (long term), for the simple fact that Open Source gets fixed faster, and by a bigger pool of coding talent.

Plus, last I checked, Mozilla doesn't have a vendor locked in OS X clone that is the hegemonic dominant force in the industry with which to leverage their sub-par browser.

The fact that Firefox even has 2% of the market (and obviously it's much higher) given this environment that so strongly favors IE, speaks volumes to the superiority of the browser, the superiority of the code, and the superiority of the Open Source model of software development.

My prediction is that IE will not have a version 9. If it does, nobody will pay any attention. Version 8 will be nearly as laughable a joke, but still have some market dominance just based on sheer MS monopolism, and the lethargic ignorance of the average Joe computer user.

Version 10 of IE will be Firefox automatically installed in Windows 2012, because otherwise Windows will fall even farther behind Linux and OS X in user adoption and market dominance.

rhY

Re:Mozilla is NOT Microsoft's match... (1)

Elektroschock (659467) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644696)

I am very dissatisfied with Sunbird. It is a pity the project does not take up although Mozilla has all the cash to broaden its product portfolio. With KDE ported to Windows we will have Amarok for Windows soon. That project will kill iTunes. And if Amarok won't Songbird will.

Re:Mozilla is NOT Microsoft's match... (2, Insightful)

thebsdguy (1050952) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644766)

Ofcourse. Tabbed browsing is the innovation the world has been waiting for so long. You claim IE has not done anything new in a decade. Well, what new can be done in a web browser? Oh yes, if your talking about some mindless widgets or something similar which only 14 year olds have time to play around with, then yes, firefox takes the lead. Don't waste your time giving a lecture on the security aspects of both browsers. Firefox had its share of security issues and even though IE might have had more, its not much to jump around about. Firefox 2 was a pretty crappy upgrade. Heavier on the machine, stupid color themes, etc. Seems like someone is trying to compete with IE. Also remember there are people like me (probably few, although in ratio) who install firefox just to see what the hype is about but obviously use IE (on windows, Opera on FreeBSD)

Re:Mozilla is NOT Microsoft's match... (1)

Giometrix (932993) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644800)

"Open Source is always superior to proprietary (long term), for the simple fact that Open Source gets fixed faster, and by a bigger pool of coding talent."

While I agree that Fire Fox is superior to IE (at least right now, IE7 was a rush job; I'm sure that IE8 will be more carefully laid out), I'd be careful about saying that OSS is always superior than closed source. Long term, this MAY be true for the popular packages (i.e. Linux, Fire Fox, eclipse), though for less popular packages I often find the quality of OSS to be lacking. I'm guessing that the developers move on to something else and nobody really takes over the project, while in a proprietary package the vendor has an incentive to keep the product fresh so that people keep buying it.

Anyway, that's just my observation.

Re:Mozilla is NOT Microsoft's match... (1)

vhogemann (797994) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644806)

Actualy,

I think Microsoft should drop IE today. They're just wasting resources... IE makes no money for them, and nowdays every site out there works on almost every browser. If Microsoft wants to dominate the internet, they should focus at the server side, where FOSS is a real menace to them.

Also, I think Microsoft is loosing money by being this giantic monolith. They should split the company into an OS company (Windows), an Enterprise Solution provider (SQL Server, Office, .NET), a Hardware company (XBox, Zune) and a Content provider (MSN).

How many opportunities has Microsoft lost in the name of their stablished monopoly? SQL Server for Linux, BSD and Solaris? MS Office for Linux desktops? .NET on Big Iron? There's lots of money to be made, but Microsoft can't do it, because it won't compete with itself (Windows).

Re:Mozilla is NOT Microsoft's match... (1)

I'm Don Giovanni (598558) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644948)

"I think Microsoft should drop IE today. They're just wasting resources... IE makes no money for them, and nowdays every site out there works on almost every browser."

I think they should dump IE and bundle Firefox. The only problem is that if they did that, Firefox instantly becomes the number 1 target for malware, and given that Firefox already has constant security updates, I don't have much faith in them handling the resulting attacks as well as MS has (which isn't that well to begin with). Same goes for Opera. Opera has had amost zero security updates in its lifetime. Are we to believe that it's perfect, then? The fact is that Opera has only 0.2 percent share and we have no idea how secure it is. I bet that it's much less secure than IE or FF, as those browsers have had security updates to fix holes while Opera's holes just live on and on, undiscovered (pure speculation, of course).

"Also, I think Microsoft is loosing money by being this giantic monolith. They should split the company into an OS company (Windows), an Enterprise Solution provider (SQL Server, Office, .NET), a Hardware company (XBox, Zune) and a Content provider (MSN).

How many opportunities has Microsoft lost in the name of their stablished monopoly? SQL Server for Linux, BSD and Solaris? MS Office for Linux desktops? .NET on Big Iron? There's lots of money to be made, but Microsoft can't do it, because it won't compete with itself (Windows)."


They should split, but not along the lines you describe. And Office for Linux? Give me a break. The resulting revenue wouldn't come close to the cost of development. Linux marketshare is too small, and most Linux users don't believe in paying for software. Is there ANY commercial software that makes real money on Linux? Nope. And that includes companies that don't have an OS "monopoly" interest. And Microsoft already makes Office for Mac, so Office isn't being used to protect Windows marketshare even today. But Mac users actually buy software, which is why you do see commercial software for Mac that you don't see on Linux (and Mac has an order of magnitude larger userbase according to web activity stats).

Re:Mozilla is NOT Microsoft's match... (3, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644904)

Open Source is always superior to proprietary (long term), for the simple fact that Open Source gets fixed faster, and by a bigger pool of coding talent.

That has to be ignoring half a kazillion markeds where the leading product is a commercial product which is vastly superior to any OSS equivalent (but usually with a price tag to match). If I wanted to point out where OSS has usually succeeded, I would say that OSS thrives in markets that have stagnated and have little or no competition. Linux, Firefox and OpenOffice are all good examples of that. It seems that in these markets OSS products can improve and live where commercial products would fail to sell and die.

Met its match? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17644488)

I don't know about that....A Giant Blue E (that looks like Uranus) vs. A Frickin' Carnivorous Dinosaur head.

Tough call.

Re:Met its match? (0, Offtopic)

Flibz (716178) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644596)

I'll thank you to leave my anus out of this!

Re:Met its match? (2, Funny)

VorpalRodent (964940) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644892)

It hasn't happened yet, but someday scientists will rename that planet to end stupid Uranus jokes once and for all. I predict: Urrectum.

It's fugly for one thing. (3, Insightful)

LighterShadeOfBlack (1011407) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644500)

Now I'm not usually one to get all up in arms about the appearance of a program, but IE7 looks well and truly ugly to my eyes, and for the 5 minutes or so that I bothered buggering around with it I couldn't for the life of me figure out how to move the toolbar icons and the addressbar in any useful way. Contrast that with Firefox, which handles the toolbar UI configuration very well and MS looks immediately to be onto a loser.

While people might argue about all manner of things like standards support, security, and rendering speed; the initial ugliness and apparent difficulty/impossibility to configure the UI to my liking is probably going to put more people off IE7 within 5 minutes than anything else.

I presume there is a way to change the UI (hell, even IE6 could do that) and maybe it's actually quite obvious if you take the time to look, but quite frankly why should I when Firefox can do it right off the bat in an intuitive manner? I think that's the way a lot of casual users see it too.

Re:It's fugly for one thing. (1)

Slashdot Junky (265039) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644958)

I have the same gripe as you. Although I'm not running IE7, my mother got it via the forced install by auto-update. I don't like it, because the address and seach bar can't be changed and/or moved. IE7 should have an available IE6 theme and allow the same control over the UI elements as IE6. I still have no interest in using the browser UI to search, so I should be able to hide the search field. Google's webpage works just fine, and with it, "searching" functions the same way from computer to computer, regardless of what browser is used and how the browser is configured/extended(3rd party search toolbars/Firefox extensions).

Later,
-Slashdot Junky

100 million IE downloads = 50 million IE users (4, Funny)

MartyJG (41978) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644502)

That's one download because it's a 'critical update', and another download to get a second copy of the installer to actually complete the installation when you realise the first one is broken.

Seriously, the number of borked IE installations I've seen recently is stupid. Perhaps they should measure satisfied customers instead?

I've actually increased the number of Firefox users thanks to IE7 - it was the quickest way to get the laptop back on the net to get the newer build of IE7.

98M forced downloads to IE7 (1)

Vandil X (636030) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644508)

Seeing as how IE7 is listed as a Critical Update, many home users "downloaded" IE7 as part of their visit to Windows Update or through Automatic Updates. I doubt many home users downloaded the IE7-blocking tool.. Granted they had to click through a wizard to install the downloaded update, but with it being labeled as "Critical", I'd imagine many just clicked through the wizard to get the update installed to be "secure."

I think it's more like 98M forced downloads of IE7 and 2M deliberately-installed downloads of IE7.

Re:98M forced downloads to IE7 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17644636)

>I think it's more like 98M forced downloads of IE7

      You forgot the duplicate downloads due to people un-installing IE7 and finding out the next day that automatic updates re-installed the bugger. I then found the registry hack to prevent it installing the third time.

    A complete pain in the arse when you have setup someones PC with firefox when they start complaining that all their links have gone and they keep being asked for their passwords as IE7 decided that it was going to be the default browser instead of what you set it to be.

Inaccurate count (1)

Firefalcon (7323) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644510)

Of course, as some other posts have already said, these download figures for IE7 include Windows Update automatic downloads, whether they were then installed or not. For almost all my clients I've then had to uninstall it as they couldn't get their heads around the layout, or it broke sites they needed to access, but I'm guessing they still counted towards this download figure.

IE7 on Linux: get it while it's hot (4, Informative)

adnonsense (826530) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644512)

At least one of those downloads was by my humble self and now graces my humble Ubuntu desktop, thanks to the excellent IEs 4 Linux [tatanka.com.br] package.

(Disclaimer: I do web dev work and need it for testing purposes. And I feel all dirty and sordid with every time I fire it up).

Yay, I'm one of those 100 million (1)

strider44 (650833) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644518)

I mean I haven't actually *used* the program to browse for anything, but I downloaded it to check it out, and then swapped immediately back to Firefox.

Re:Yay, I'm one of those 100 million (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17644650)

The same can be said for many people that downloaded Firefox. They tried it out, didn't like it, and switched back to IE.

gn4a (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17644524)

1. Therefore it's dicks produced Huubard and Mike

linux fag = firefox user (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17644528)

IE7 ownage crush linux geeks.

Download != Use (2, Insightful)

Morky (577776) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644540)

Just because I downloaded IE7 doesn't mean I use it any more than I have to.

Re:Download != Use (1)

Rachel Lucid (964267) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644798)

Seconded and Thirded.

I unwittingly nabbed it as part of the autoupdates, but only keep it around for Windows updates and MAYBE Maple Story (which refuses to display on anything else).

My Dad picked it up, and finally switched TO FireFox because it sucked so badly. As a bonus I also got him to switch to Thunderbird.

You have no idea what kind of minor miracle those accomplishments are.

Prompting normal people to wonder: (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17644554)

Who the heck CARES whether Firefox is gaining on IE or not?

tagged 'cheerleading' (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17644570)

Article summary: Here's a vague statistic! Does this mean that we've finally slayed the ancient beast, bringing forth an unprecedented era of free software, good will, unshowered nerds, and 'view source' buttons?

Go team!! Gimme a 0x46! Gimme a 0x49! Gimme a 0x52! Gimme a 0x45! Gimme a cheer[0]! Gimme a 0x4F! Gimme a 0x58! What's that spell? VICTORY! Gooo team! Push the stack, pop the stack, saaaaaame stack!

Re:tagged 'cheerleading' (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17644634)

Sorry, I meant to mod this funny, not overrated. An nice, old-fashioned 'submit' button would be nice when moderating.

Re: Microsoft finally met its match? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17644588)

Maybe when it comes to browsers...

But they still can buy the most "correct" statistics.

Netcraft Confirms it: FF is dying (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17644600)

IE reaches 100M downloads, a amount firefox will never reach.

the killer extension (4, Interesting)

192939495969798999 (58312) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644608)

The longer that firefox maintains its current user base, the closer the time comes when a killer extension is released by someone (maybe you!). This killer extension would be something that so dramatically improves the browsing experience that pretty much everyone has to get it to be "really on the internet". By the time Microsoft rips off whatever it is, it will be too late. That is the best reason to support firefox, its extensibility means that at any moment, it could become develop a (albeit temporarily) insurmountable competitive advantage.

Not the right time for comparisons (5, Insightful)

teslatug (543527) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644610)

This is not the right time for comparing IE7 effect on Firefox. The time will be when Vista comes out and new PCs come preloaded with Vista and IE7. At that time, people will get rid of the old PCs and we'll see whether they're sufficiently satisfied with IE7 that they won't bother with downloading Firefox. At the same time we'll also see if people used to IE6, when presented with IE7's new interface, might switch to Firefox. Whichever way the pendulum swings, that's when we should watch it.

Re:Not the right time for comparisons (1)

mobby_6kl (668092) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644706)

That's exactly what I thought, too. I use Opera, but the same applies here. I'm not going to switch back to IE immediately, even if it's better than Opera (snow, hell, etc). It's a matter of bookmarks, settings and customizations which I just wouldn't bother to move to IE unless I had to reinstall everything from scratch.

Met its match? (4, Insightful)

bhmit1 (2270) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644622)

"has Microsoft finally met its match?"

Um, no. There will always be some microsoft tool that requires their browser causing some form of lock-in. Heck, using microsoft's action pack subscription web page to purchase software requires IE. What the numbers mean is that web designers are finally paying attention and making their sites support firefox and a few other standards based browsers or risk loosing a good chunk of their customers. And now that everyone's favorite web pages work in firefox, they can start making a piecemeal migration away from vendor lock-in. However, just because they can use firefox for most things, you can be sure that microsoft will ensure there is lock-in someone and default to their browser giving them a 75% chunk of the market for life. The next chunk of the monopoly to fragment will be office with various online tools and openoffice making advances. But, I expect that will be another 2-4 years before we see anything like firefox's progress.

100M dowloads? Seriously? (2, Interesting)

Timex (11710) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644640)

How many of those were imposed by the Automatic Update routine?

I have two WinXP systems (and several non-XP systems). Both of them got IE7 without me deciding to upgrade-- it just happened. (I've GOT to fix that.)

On the other hand, all of my systems, be they Linux, Mac, or Win*, have FireFox. I've even taught my kids to use FF instead of IE.

Re:100M dowloads? Seriously? (1)

BCW2 (168187) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644834)

I suspect over 90% of those were from automatic update. I have yet to meet one person that went out and intentionaly got IE7. I have already removed it off of a dozen or so customer boxes and explained about "notify" on auto update. It's a great way to avoid WGA too.

Popularity (1)

EaglemanBSA (950534) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644654)

Sure, I think it's met its match, until firefox dominates the market share and writers of malware, viruses, etc. begin focusing on it instead of IE. The real question is, how well will firefox respond to a barrage of such people if and when that happens?

Has IE "met its match"? (1)

dave420 (699308) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644680)

When FireFox's market share is the same as IE's, then yes. At all other times, no.

Re:Has IE "met its match"? (1)

true_hacker (969330) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644718)

I think you are forgetting one case : when FF's share is greater than IE's. Boy, that will be the day..

Re:Has IE "met its match"? (1)

dave420 (699308) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644828)

No - "all other times" covers that :)

IE7 made my girlfriend switch (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17644712)

It's even better than IE just gaining users through the update.

My girlfriend complained that her favorites were gone "after an update". Well, finally I had another chance to tell her "you know you could just use another browser". Well, she didn't like the idea, but yesterday I saw her actually use that Firefox thingy :-)

Seems like that bookmark bar & menu aren't that bad, after all.

Thanks MS!

And don't forget the formats (1)

Psicopatico (1005433) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644734)

Say one user's computer gets IE7 as an update.
Then, for any reason, the system gets crazy and the user re-formats the harddrive and reinstalls the OS.
Hence IE7 download counter gets a free +1.
And so on...

ie tabbed browsing (2, Funny)

cmoguy (993529) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644758)

i used firefox for years but found the new ie7 tabbed browsing (mainly the tab that launches a new tab) more intuitive and have since fallen in love with it. i tried to replicate it on firefox but after an hour or so of trying to i was unable to.

because i use both an antivirus (trend-micro) and spyware program (spyware doctor) i feel i have canceled out the security threats of using ie.

Re:ie tabbed browsing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17644926)

Hello Sir,

I find your ideas Intriguing and would like to SubScribe to your Newsletter.

Thank You!

Anonymous Coward

not using .. yet. (1)

naelurec (552384) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644860)

Its still new, give it time. Firefox vs IE6 was a no brainer .. there were major security issues with IE6, non-standards compliant, feature poor (ie no tabs, pop-up blocker, etc..) and these outweighed the issues with Firefox (separate download, no official MSI or group policy settings).

As IE7 gets more established and issues with IE6 are determined to no longer be an issue, there is less motivation for both home and corporate users to continue to invest time into Firefox (downloading, making MSIs, maintaining two browsers (IE + Firefox), etc..) when IE7 integrates smoothly into the "Windows experience" (comes with the OS, automatic updates, programs using MSHTML use it by default, etc..)

Hopefully I am wrong and Firefox continues to grow or atleast maintain marketshare. If anything, it should limit browser-specific sites (Which I absolutley hate).

YES (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17644930)

Yes it has. Now let's move on to the news.

Both IE *AND* Firefox upgrade automatically (3, Insightful)

giafly (926567) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644946)

Most IE users don't choose to upgrade, it's simply foisted on them by Windows' Auto Update
To the 50% of posters who said things like the above. True, but Firefox does the same thing whenever a new version comes out. So what's your point?

It doesn't play well with others (1)

lazlow (94602) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644972)

I had uninstall Internet Destroyer 7 on several of my companies machines because services stopped working after it was installed. So, the real questions is: How many of those download have been unistalled? How many are really being used of each browser?

downloads mean shit (1)

Marin3 (988561) | more than 7 years ago | (#17644974)

at work i exclusively Firefox and i only found out that i had ie7 when i had to login with the admin account to install some software. Never ran it or anything. So 100M downloads mean nothing. If I could remove IE entirely from my Computer i would have done it by now.

here's the real question (1)

joenewbreed (1030190) | more than 7 years ago | (#17645000)

here's the real question: how many IE7 t-shirts has microsoft sold?

Okay Genius (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17645020)

What percentage of Firefox downloads are just voluntary and legitimate upgrades rather than new users?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?