IE overall usage slips, but IE 8 gains
From August (top) to September (below), Internet Explorer lost a bit of usage share compared with rival browsers.
(Credit: Net Applications)All four of Internet Explorer's main rivals gained a larger share of users worldwide from August to September, new statistics show.
According to Net Applications, which tracks browser usage globally through a network of 40,000 Web sites and some statistical processing, IE slipped from 67 percent to 65.7 percent of users.
Firefox has steadily won over more users since version 1.0 arrived nearly five years ago, and it continued the trend with an increase from 23 percent to 23.8 percent. Apple's Safari rose from 4.1 percent to 4.2 percent, Google Chrome from 2.8 percent to 3.2 percent, and Opera from 2 to 2.2 percent. Although a few tenths of a percent may sound small, multiplied by the millions of browser users over the Internet, it can mean a large absolute number of people.
Firefox passed an important milestone over the month-long period, with the newer Firefox 3.5 replacing version 3.0 as the leading version. The newer version furthers Mozilla's ambitions to upgrade Web technologies with new features such as faster JavaScript and built-in video.
Microsoft has restarted what had been a somewhat dormant browser developer program, releasing IE 8 earlier this year. But IE 6 still is the leading version of Microsoft's browser, followed by IE 7 in second place.
In a bright spot for Microsoft, though, IE 8 usage increased from 15.1 percent to 16.8 percent, as IE 6 and IE 7 dropped.
Stephen Shankland writes about a wide range of technology and products, but has a particular focus on browsers and digital photography. He joined CNET News in 1998 and since then also has covered Google, Yahoo, servers, supercomputing, Linux and open-source software, and science. E-mail Stephen, or follow him on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/stshank. 
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9138798/Vista_peaks_starts_decline_in_share_as_Windows_7_surges
...in other news, Vista marketshare is dropping now too:
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9138798/Vista_peaks_starts_decline_in_share_as_Windows_7"
@Random_Walk--And what does that have to do with this article?? I just get so tired of the MS and Apple nuts posting comments that have nothing to do with the article. It's just plain old pointless.
At that point, popular websites should discontinue support for IE browsers, that lack the plug-in, & display a message prompting users to install the plug-in or change browsers.
This action would significantly reduce global, IE-related, website development & maintenance costs.
Once developers realize that they can reduce/eliminate the extra work necessary to support IE, I'm sure they'll add the chrome directive. Prefixing the URL with "cf:" should work, for those sites that haven't yet implemented it.
Here are a few HTML5 sites & demos I discovered. They work with Chrome 3 & should also work with Chrome Frame (with the "cf:" prefix):
http://www.youtube.com/html5
http://demo.sproutcore.com/video/
http://www.rgraph.net/
http://html5gallery.com/
http://tinyvid.tv/
There's also a Javascript NES emulator here (you definitely need Chrome/Chrome Frame, to play the games):
http://benfirshman.com/projects/jsnes/
Professional developers are going to support IE because that's what the client PAYS them to do.
We shall see...
I think, if major websites realize that they can:
1. significantly reduce IE-related website development & maintenance costs.
2. deliver richer web services to users who are using modern browsers (or the CF plug-in).
they may seriously consider making such a move.
It would be better, if there was an agreed upon date for many/most of the major websites to turn the IE lights off. Then, they would all share the risk AND benefits together.
Companies could still, of course, continue to use IE behind their own firewalls. They would just have to use a different solution, to access external websites.
Oh, plugins. Those things that folks have happily installed over time, like, oh...
* flash (and to a far lesser extent, Silverlight)
* shockwave
* realplayer
* adobe reader
* IM clients of various description
* various toolbars of nearly every description
* codecs aplenty (video, audio, etc).
* that huge pile of Firefox add-ons @ Mozilla's site that folks use today (notably NoScript and AdBlock)
You mean plugins like those, right?
Clicking the "Install" button, when prompted by a website, is considered effort?
How much easier do you want it? Via telepathy?
If you develop FOR IE, you end up with even more kludgy, non-standard code that only runs in one browser.
The web community needs to stick with open web standards & gradually isolate IE behind corporate firewalls with the companies that were unfortunate enough to get locked in to it.
It takes too much effort for the developers. Developers aren't going to "wake up" and say "hurray we can finally solve all of the compatibility problems by just adding this little code!!!" It also assumes that people will install the add-on. When they've already got a working site why bother? I know a lot of the zealots here would like to believe in the panacea where there is one standard for everything but that's just not every going to happen no matter how much FUD people put out.
Man it just really "grinds my gears" when people comment about how useless an article was. Unless it was Don R. writing it, they usually appeal to someone.
Actually his point is valid. It's not 'news' that IE8 gained, since every month more and more users will receive the update pushed to them automatically through windows updates, and it is the default browser in windows 7, so it goes without saying that IE8 will continue to gain every single month, it would be impossible for it to go in any other direction but up, as it's unlikely that there will be any significant number of new installs of any other version of IE other than 8.
The rest of the statistics are relevant though. What I find particularly interesting is that IE's market share as a whole slipped, which would seem to indicate that despite several new features and a fairly big marketing push IE8 has done nothing at all to convert users of other browsers back to IE, although whether it's enough to slow down the migration to other browsers is still yet to be seen.
What I find even more curious is that IE's market share decline seems to have actually accelerated since the release of IE8.
http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=1&qpcustom=Microsoft+Internet+Explorer
It would be nice to hear what reasons may be behind this, as one would think that Microsoft would see at least a temporary surge of new users after the launch of any new browser, good or bad.
what I find curious in a self satified way, is that Macs are STILL only 4 percent of the market - such as small porportion that it is not worth wasting time devloping for them. Unless you are selling doilies top cover Mac keyboards, then carry on."
@gggg sssss--What I find curious is that you think that all Mac users use Safari. It is normally a fairly even split between Firefox and Safari (with FF being slightly ahead I believe). Of course, if you choose, just believe what you want to believe. It's easy when you have blinders on.
While I'll concede your point that it's usage, not installation, you also have to keep in mind the target audience these statistics are being gleaned from. The majority of PC users, at least in America, are people that click a link and let the default browser work.
Considering the default browser is IE6, or IE7, or more recently IE8, my statement still stands as does what CraigC2000 stated. Pointing out that IE8 is gaining market share is like telling your grandmother to learn how to knit. It's redundant. The overall article was a good one as ever, but my point and satirical comment stand. :)
Firefox 1.0 was Released on 21 Dec 2004
HTH,
That's not an entirely accurate record.
Firefox and Thunderbird were never a part of the Mozilla Suite. Rather, they were a breakaway project. Basically Mozilla had gotten extremely bloated over time. This kid (Ben Goodger) stripped Mozilla of all it's gunk, until he was left with just the rendering engine (Gecko) and very basic chrome (the browser frame and UI), and he called it Phoenix. Eventually Phoenix was renamed Firefox (because of trademark issues). As it's market share expanded, the Mozilla foundation decided it made sense to abandon the Mozilla Suite and put it's weight behind Firefox.
If you hate windows -- don't use it. It's that simple. Use whatever you please. Nobody can tell you otherwise. You have excellent options available to you -- buy Macs, or buy PCs with Linux installed, or install Linux on all your current machines. Whatever you choose to do, nobody can tell you otherwise.
But if your happiness depends on you convincing the rest of the world that what works for you should work for them, then you'll never be happy. Make your choices, be happy with them, and leave it at that. Leave the crusade behind.
but with windows 7 and the great effort by microsoft , and the public test for the beta and RC .. i'd gladly pay for this piece of art OS .
on the other hand i w'd never pay for a MAC knowing that i'll have to pay whenever there's a new update even if the update is just to fix a problem for their OS that was released a week ago .. many w'd say its only $29 and completly ignoring the fact that so many software isnt working on the new OS "SL" for instance , i have PS CS3 and as you know adobe has stopped supporting cs3 for SL
so add $400 to the $29 for the OS and $30 for the upgrade ..this is just so retard.
Clearly we need new IT staff. From managers on down. Unfortunately I'm in no position to do anything about it!
i dont think its going to be a long time be4 ie6 is dead ..
with the release of windows 7 and the urgent need for a safer ,more secure OS , companies w'll have to ignore IE6 and the IT staffs that can do nothing but to code for ie6 .. add to that the microsoft policy of not supporting OS older than 10 years ..then i belive it'd not take more than 2 years to finally witness the death of IE6 and hopefully every browser that doesnt followweb- standards .
Since you are apparently not a senior IT staffer, the odds are good that you are new to business and ideas like ROI. Any change to a web-based app made solely to keep hitting the moving target of standards developed by an external entity is fiscally irresponsible. This is why companies continue to use XP on the desktop and many still have a few NT4 servers running. They do it because it makes financial sense, not because the IT department has any particular interest in supporting software that was horrible when it was new.
If the numbers reported in the article, which I really doubt(but that is another matter) when looking at the breakdown here: http://marketshare.hitslink.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qprid=2, are correct, then nearly a quarter of all browsers in use are IE6. One cannot ignore that, whatever one may think of the browser itself.
Does the app work? If yes, then it is fine. Repeatedly reinventing the wheel wastes not only cash, it wastes developer's time. They are better utilized adding value to the company than doing what some n00b thinks they should be doing.
- by szilagyic October 28, 2009 8:50 PM PDT
- IE has always been a piece of garbage. Firefox has it beat because it's much simpler in design. For instance, simply copying your Firefox profile from one PC to another, you can back up all of your settings, passwords, etc. IE stores your settings and information in cryptic registry keys spread out all over the place, so it cannot be easily backed up. Firefox also has way more plugins available. And now IE has compatibility problems, while Firefox just works. Let's face it, nobody would miss IE if it went away.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(52 Comments)http://members.apex-internet.com/sa/windowslinux