Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Mozilla The Internet

Mozilla 1.8b1 Released, Firefox Growth Slowing 425

An anonymous reader writes "Mozilla 1.8 Beta 1 has been released, and in addition to numerous bug fixes now includes ECMAScript for XML (E4X). Mozilla 1.8 will serve as the code basis for Firefox 1.1. In other Mozilla related news, WebSideStory saw Firefox's usage growth slow down to just 15% (Jan-Feb) from 22% (Dec-Jan) making Firefox's 10% marketshare goal for 2005 potentially more challenging. Their stats also saw Internet Explorer usage drop below 90% for the first time in many years."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Mozilla 1.8b1 Released, Firefox Growth Slowing

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 27, 2005 @06:45PM (#11797185)
    They are faster. Firefox 1.1 should have the same changes.
  • Mozilla still good (Score:5, Informative)

    by JaxWeb ( 715417 ) on Sunday February 27, 2005 @06:46PM (#11797188) Homepage Journal
    There is a lot of talk about Firefox, and everyone gets very excited about it, but Mozilla standard is still very good. Personally, under GNU/Linux, I prefer it to Firefox (Under Windows I prefer Firefox, however).

    My sister uses GNU/Linux (Mandrake, with KDE) on her computer (No Windows) and prefers it to her old Windows ME OS. Mozilla was part of the reason - it is easy to use, helpful, securer and just makes sense. I'm not saying Firefox isn't any of these, but on Linux, I think it looks a little "Out of place", and Mozilla does not. My sister also preferred Mozilla to both Konqueror and Firefox.

    Anyway, just wanted to point out that Mozilla itself exists for more than just feeding Firefox.
  • by fname ( 199759 ) on Sunday February 27, 2005 @06:50PM (#11797232) Journal
    It's no surprise that the percentage growth of Firefox in terms of marketshare is slowing down, this is the a natural part of the growth curve for any new poduct. 15% monthly growth is phenonemal, and it is literally an unsustainable growth rate. I'd be more interested to know the growth in raw numbers of new Firefox users; that number is likely almost exactly the same in January than December.

    Here's my math. 0.15*(1.22)=.19, so 19% vs. 22% growth in market share from the December base, but the market is probably 1% larger. The way I see it, the number of new Firefox users is down probably 10% from January to February. Then remember that there were 3 fewer days in February than in January, which would account for the 10% difference. In other words, the number of new Firefox users per day stayed almost exactly the same from January to February. Maybe someone who RTFA can tell us what that number of new uses/day is and how it compares to earlier months.

    The growth is remarkably fast, and may also be remarkably stable. How many more months would Firefox need to reach 10% market share?
  • Not quite accurate (Score:5, Informative)

    by MrWa ( 144753 ) on Sunday February 27, 2005 @06:50PM (#11797233) Homepage
    The summary is not quite accurate regarding Firefox 1.1 being based on Mozilla 1.8; my understanding of the roadmap [mozilla.org] is that Gecko 1.8 - which is used in Mozilla - will form the base of the Firefox 1.1 program. Maybe just a technicality but it is different to say the base on which the programs will built is the same, rather than Firefox will be a stripped down version of Mozilla.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 27, 2005 @06:50PM (#11797238)
    The statistics on the w3schools.com site are just statistics on the people who visited that particular site.

    It isn't really surprising that the people who visit a web developers site tend to use Firefox more than the general population does.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 27, 2005 @07:02PM (#11797360)
    They're both Mozilla related news items.
  • by fname ( 199759 ) on Sunday February 27, 2005 @07:05PM (#11797382) Journal
    I've now RTFA. There were only 35 days between the last 2 surveys, and 42 days between the previous 2 surveys. This works out to a growth in market share of 0.63% (February) or 0.64% (January) for every 30 days. Since Firefox is at 5.69% now and they need another 4.31% to reach 10%, it will take about 6.8 months to achieve that goal. That works out to the end of September. If Firefox simply maintains its (phenomenal) growth rate, it will easily reach 10% by the end of 2005. They can even slow down a little and still reach 10%. Awesome.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 27, 2005 @07:06PM (#11797393)
    (The statistics above are extracted from W3Schools' log-files, but we are also monitoring other sources around the Internet to assure the quality of these figures)

    That's part of it. I doubt W3Schools counts as a random sample of web users overall.
  • by OrangeSpyderMan ( 589635 ) on Sunday February 27, 2005 @07:08PM (#11797411)
    Well - we run a standard build of Win2K over many thousands of desktops. It's not perfect, but we have very few spyware issues. Why?

    - ActiveX is switched off and the security settings are tied down and cannot be adjusted without a) admin rights b) knowledge of regedit

    - All web access is controlled through a webproxy running websense filters. You can't get to pr0n sites from work (I know - I've tried :-) )
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 27, 2005 @07:13PM (#11797464)
    I'm not sure what you mean exactly by #1, but #3 is available via extensions like Session Saver [pikey.me.uk] or Crash Recovery [mozillazine.org] or by bookmarking groups of tabs. #4 is also available as an extension called FlashBlock [mozdev.org].
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 27, 2005 @07:20PM (#11797524)
    It has nothing to do with bloat or the number of people working on the project. Instead the speed difference has everything to do with Mozilla (specifically Gecko, the rendering engine) getting much faster between Mozilla 1.7 (off which Firefox is based) and Mozilla 1.8.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 27, 2005 @07:21PM (#11797531)
    Good point. Additionally from a QA standpoint, Bugzilla is very effective. Many of the benefits of open source are due to the open nature of QAing the product. When the failures of the product are open during development and release, it makes it alot easier to know how to use the product correctly. IE clearly doesn't have this open QA process. Obviously their QA process is fairly decent or they would never get a release out (with something as massive as IE). I would argue that Bugzilla QA is better than Microsoft QA because the QA allows not only QA during development, alpha testing, and beta testing, but also during release by end-users (those of whom will break the program and find the hardest to find bugs).

    Number of times 'QA' used: 9
  • by green pizza ( 159161 ) on Sunday February 27, 2005 @07:22PM (#11797537) Homepage
    Grab "FX-ppc7450-2005.02.27.dmg" for your PowerBook, it'll probably change your mind about Firefox versus Safari! :)

    http://homepage.mac.com/krmathis/
  • by Snad ( 719864 ) <mspaceNO@SPAMbigfoot.com> on Sunday February 27, 2005 @07:23PM (#11797540)

    light weight? is this why it sucks up about 122MB of ram before you even load a web page with it? (and this is with memory cache off)

    122MB? TaskManager reports Firefox is currently using around 40MB, with 9 tabs open and I've been surfing on and off for around 4 hours now.

    Compare to IE's 21MB with one window open and about 20 minutes worth of use.

    I wouldn't call Firefox particularly "light weight" either but it doesn't clock in at anywhere near 122MB...

  • My debian just updated from Mozilla 1.7.3 to 1.7.5, and there was a -huge- increase in responsiveness, before I start loading insane web pages. (And instead of allocating >150MB RAM after IPL, it now seems to use on the order of 3-4MB, at least until pages are loaded. This makes a -really- major difference in operations when you're on a computer with 128MB physical and 512MB in the swap.
  • Here (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 27, 2005 @07:33PM (#11797619)
    IE Theme [prodigy.net].
  • Re:Firefox bugs (Score:3, Informative)

    by kiddailey ( 165202 ) on Sunday February 27, 2005 @07:35PM (#11797644) Homepage

    Right from the Maxthon homepage:
    Maxthon Internet Browser software is a powerful tabbed browser with a highly customizable interface. It is based on the Internet Explorer browser engine (your most likely current web browser)...
    So really, you've given up a good browser AND the security of your computer since in reality, you are now using IE.

    As for your Firefox problems, it seems like it could be an issue with your machine (possible malware), internet connection, or perhaps even your selected DNS servers. I've never experienced any of the issues you mention and use Firefox on two different platforms. Mabye you should submit a bug report [mozilla.org] instead of giving up on it :)
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 27, 2005 @07:37PM (#11797656)
    You figure wrong. Just install it, tell her it's better, but mostly the same to use, and let her ask about anything she doesn't understand. She'll probably get along just fine. I haven't had anyone really notice.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 27, 2005 @07:38PM (#11797666)
    Companies have the simple option of configuring Internet Explorer through group policies. Countless options exist, including the ability to specify an explicit list of ActiveX controls which are permitted while disabling all others. That way you can lock down Internet Explorer across an entire company from a single location.

    If you are running Windows 2000, XP or 2003, try gpedit.msc from the command line. Options exist under both "Administrative Templates\Windows Components\Internet Explorer" for both Computer and User policies. Even outside of a domain you can use these settings to configure the behavior of Internet Explorer on a local workstation.
  • by MighMoS ( 701808 ) on Sunday February 27, 2005 @07:38PM (#11797675) Homepage
    I've got firefox pulling on 19MB. Perhaps you should submit a bug, so that the leak can be found.
  • by skraps ( 650379 ) on Sunday February 27, 2005 @07:49PM (#11797761)
    The "look" and "feel" will become out of sync if you do that. For example, IE's toolbars have little gripper visuals on the left-hand side. You can grab those with your mouse and rearrange the toolbars. You could reproduce the visual on Firefox, but that would be kinda lame considering they wouldn't be functional. That said, good luck and let me know if you find one... I could use it too.
  • by NanoGator ( 522640 ) on Sunday February 27, 2005 @07:50PM (#11797763) Homepage Journal
    "You're assuming that Firefox has the same amount of bugs and vulnerabilities that IE does and it's not the case."

    It cannot be assumed that FireFox doesn't have the same amount of bugs and vulnerabilities, it hasn't had as much attention paid to it. Frankly, the 'as much' number isn't all that important anyway. It needs to have one vulnerability to be a problem. Suppose a FF extension becomes really popular, and somebody finds an exploit in it?

    I'm not defending IE here, rather I'm pointing out that one should be careful in making broad assumptions about the future.
  • by gnuman99 ( 746007 ) on Sunday February 27, 2005 @08:00PM (#11797833)
    For cetnralized Linux distribution, just add `apt-get update; apt-get dist-upgrade` and run it from cron. Then just maintain the central repository of approved apps.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 27, 2005 @08:01PM (#11797839)
    It could be this: the popup blocker doesn't block popups launched from Flash (it's technically a hard thing to do, as Flash is essentially an embedded application running within Firefox and can do whatever it wants).

    Sometime in the last couple of weeks, Fastclick, a major ad network, started exploiting this to get its popups around Firefox's popup blocker. The ad scripts load a small Flash movie which then lauches the popup.

    You can block plugins from launching popups by using a hidden pref but this will block all plugin-launched popups, even ones launched in response to a mouse click. To do this, enter about:config in the Location bar, hit return and then right-click any where in the content area and choose New > Integer. Enter privacy.popups.disable_from_plugins as the name and 2 as the value.
  • Comment removed (Score:2, Informative)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Sunday February 27, 2005 @08:05PM (#11797872)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • I tested it here on my Firefox 1.0 on Linux, and it didn't work.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 27, 2005 @08:15PM (#11797944)
    There was a tabs take way too much memory even when inactive bug fixed a while ag (but after firefox 1.0 was released). If I understood correctly mozilla and firefox would hold on to a lot of cache without eventually releasing it to the OS (or something, I'm no coder so... ). That might help firefox and mozilla use less memory, don't know wether the fix is for 1.1 or 1.01 but here's hoping that mozilla gets faster (it is plenty fast already though).

    Firefox 1.1 will be based on gecko/mozilla 1.8 as far as I know.
  • by starwed ( 735423 ) on Sunday February 27, 2005 @08:38PM (#11798086)
    Flashblock [mozdev.org] is a good extension to get rid of this problem; as long as you don't mind clicking on those flash driven plugins you actually want.
  • by plover ( 150551 ) * on Sunday February 27, 2005 @08:45PM (#11798129) Homepage Journal
    Seconded.

    The one feature I wish Flashblock would add is a whitelist. There are some pieces of flash I'd always like to see, such as navigation bars on some sites. The rest of flash, forget it.

    Flash is one of the worst things ever to happen to the web. "Look folks, here's another non-standard standard we're going to foist off on you, one complete with its own security holes and annoying behaviors that you (as an end user) can't modify."

  • by mic256 ( 702811 ) on Sunday February 27, 2005 @08:59PM (#11798237)
    The numbers seem to apply only to the US. In Poland for example (http://ranking.pl/rank.php?stat=browPL) MSIE has 85.7% and Gecko 9.1%. What about other countries ?
  • by Akaihiryuu ( 786040 ) on Sunday February 27, 2005 @09:05PM (#11798280)
    Flashblock has a whitelist...at least the version I have does. The only sites I whitelist are places that I go just to watch flash movies (like homestarrunner.com and joecartoon.com). Other than places like that, I could care less about flash, so flashblock is a godsend.
  • by nbritton ( 823086 ) on Sunday February 27, 2005 @10:55PM (#11799175)
    This is stupid, it's apples vs. oranges. You cannot directly compare Firefox to Internet Explorer because Firefox is just a frontend to the Gecko engine, the same can be said for IE and the other browsers that hook into it's engine. For an apples to apples comparison you must compare the engine's they use! I cannot stress that enough as I'm in the middle of a battle with a website that purposely blocks all Gecko products except Netscape 6 and up.

    By my own accounts Gecko has an average market share of 17% and 900 million people actively use the Internet(6), you do the math.

    1, 25.4% = (20.4% + 3.9% + 1.1%)
    2, 6.8%
    2, 23%
    2, 8.9%
    2, 6.6%
    2, 34%
    3, 18.37%
    4, 22.8%
    5, 8.16% = (5.69% + 2.47%)

    1 = http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.a sp
    2 = http://www.upsdell.com/BrowserNews/stat.htm
    3 = http://www.webreference.com/stats/browser.html
    4 = http://www.ews.uiuc.edu/bstats/latest-week.html
    5 = http://www.websidestory.com/services-solutions/dat ainsights/spotlight.html
    6 = http://www.clickz.com/stats/sectors/geographics/ar ticle.php/5911_151151
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 27, 2005 @11:00PM (#11799205)

    Are you seriously trying to say that despite most websites being made for IE, they really show up properly on FireFox?

    I suspect what he meant by "IE doesn't render correctly", he meant "IE doesn't render HTML or CSS correctly". You seem to think he meant "IE doesn't render the malformed tag soup that some idiots write in the way those idiots would like it to", which, as you say, is incorrect. Internet Explorer is all too happy to cater to the idiots.

    There are a limited number of things that Firefox doesn't render correctly, for instance, soft hyphens. There are so many things that Internet Explorer doesn't render correctly, I've lost count.

  • by MicroBerto ( 91055 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @12:45AM (#11800006)
    Read this book [amazon.com]. Crossing the Chasm - Marketing and Selling High-Tech Products to Mainstream Consumers.

    Firefox is still growing, but there WILL be a point when we need to "cross the chasm" and get it out to the mainstream.

    As of right now, Soccer Mom, Joe Sixpack, and NASCAR Dad don't yet know about Firefox. I don't think we want them to yet either -- Version 1.0 is great for all of my friends in Academia, but Version 1.1 will be time when I'm more comfortable with EVERYONE using Firefox.

  • by grcumb ( 781340 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @01:20AM (#11800213) Homepage Journal

    "Especially since they're still growing, and incredibly quickly. They picked up about a percentage point a month two months straight. Since it started that at about 4%, they were seeing 25% *monthly* growth. Good god, how long could that have possibly continued?"

    Thank you so much for that. I was waiting to see how long it would take for someone to point out something obvious even to a mathematically challenged Arts major like me:

    A steady rate of increase will result in lower percentage growth every month.

    The story should be, therefore, that after a rocketing rise in popularity, Firefox growth is still going strong, and IE is dropping noticeably.

  • by rainman_bc ( 735332 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @01:29AM (#11800252)
    Thing with FF is that you can just dump the contents of the program files firefox folder from one machine to the other.

    Once run for the first time, it'll add the profile.

    Use a batch file and do it through the login script.

    Then there's only a few steps - change the icons, which you can copy into the profile. This will get you at least part way...
  • Statistics (Score:3, Informative)

    by Tom ( 822 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @02:49AM (#11800619) Homepage Journal
    I've done my share, how's everyone else doing:

    1 120850 55.17% Mozilla/5.0
    2 76857 35.08% MSIE 6.0
    3 5897 2.69% Opera 7.54

    But - ah - different statistics. Same site, mind you, same logfiles, just a different tool doing the stats:

    Firefox No 2287166 39.1 %
    MS Internet Explorer No 2202449 37.6 %
    Mozilla No 556825 9.5 %
    Opera No 515143 8.8 %

    Now that's a major difference, isn't it? Ah well, as long as Firefox is #1 there, I'm happy.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 28, 2005 @03:06AM (#11800671)
    Linux doesn't support drag/drop (to this day, neither gnome nor KDE suppport drag drop menu editing like winXP) very well so not being vulnerable shouldn't be too much of a suprise.
  • by skraps ( 650379 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @03:39AM (#11800778)
    Try hitting refresh once the page is loaded. The key seems to be the first line in the returned HTML, which is a script tag that points to http://www.hostultra.com/root/hostultra.php [hostultra.com].
  • by TiggsPanther ( 611974 ) <[tiggs] [at] [m-void.co.uk]> on Monday February 28, 2005 @05:37AM (#11801070) Journal

    Luckily recent versions of Flashblock include a whitelisting function. So as soon as you realise that you're regularly visiting a site that you do want to see the Flash animstion on, it's a (nearly) simply matter of going into the extension preferences and adding that site to the list.

    Actually I was really glad to find that they had that. Blocking flash ads and useless presentations is good. But having to click-to-allow every single file on a site you visit specifically for the Flash cartoons is somewhat more annoying.

  • by Dave2 Wickham ( 600202 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @06:48AM (#11801216) Journal
    I think that rammstein.com [rammstein.com] looks pretty damn good, and that's almost XHTML 1.0 strict. The only flash used is optional and for audio. Stylesheets are used for layouts, and alternate stylesheets are provided.
  • by Skjellifetti ( 561341 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @11:47AM (#11802756) Journal
    Will Macromedia Flash Player 6 work with all screen readers and other assistive technologies?

    Microsoft Active Accessibility (MSAA) makes it easier for all assistive technologies to incorporate support for Macromedia Flash Player. Once the contents of a Macromedia Flash movie are placed under MSAA, it is up to the individual assistive technology to render that content for the user. Since MSAA support is a new feature of Macromedia Flash Player, many assistive technologies still do not know how to handle the information made available under MSAA. At the release of Macromedia Flash MX, Window-Eyes from GW Micro is the first product to take advantage of the improvements in Macromedia Flash Player.

    Well, since it only works on MS platforms, most assistive technologies don't work with MSAA, and there are better ways [watchfire.com] of accomplishing the desired result, I can only say

    Bzzzt. Thanks for playing.

    P.S. The Macromedia Accessibility FAQ page does not pass all of the Priority 1,2 and 3 accessibility checkpoints of the W3C Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 [w3.org].

"More software projects have gone awry for lack of calendar time than for all other causes combined." -- Fred Brooks, Jr., _The Mythical Man Month_

Working...