Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Mozilla The Internet Internet Explorer

IE Dropping, Now Near 70% In Europe 184

Posted by kdawson
from the ascendent-fox dept.
Kevin Spiritus lets us know that XiTi Monitor, a French Web survey institute, has published its browser barometer for July, and Internet Explorer continues to lose ground. "The ascension of Firefox continues... Nearly 28% average use rate in Europe in the beginning of July 2007, with a progression in the totality of the 32 European countries studied. Firefox doesn't loose ground in any of the countries."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

IE Dropping, Now Near 70% In Europe

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 19, 2007 @09:28AM (#19913997)
    Putting the same story in the related stories box does not un-dupe this news.
  • by antifoidulus (807088) on Thursday July 19, 2007 @09:29AM (#19914009) Homepage Journal
    Damn pheonixes, not doing the digging I paid them to do!
  • by garcia (6573) on Thursday July 19, 2007 @09:31AM (#19914035)
    Yeah, we know [slashdot.org]. From that blurb:

    "Mozilla's Firefox web browser has made dramatic gains on Microsoft's Internet Explorer throughout Europe in the past year with a marked upturn in FF use compared to IE over the past four months, according to French web monitoring service XiTiMonitor. A study of nearly 96,000 websites carried out during the week of July 2 to July 8 found that FF had 27.8% market share across Eastern and Western Europe, IE had 66.5%, with other browsers including Safari and Opera making up the remaining 5.7%. In some key European markets FF has already reached parity and is threatening to overtake IE as the market leading browser."

    From the current blurb:

    Kevin Spiritus lets us know that XiTi Monitor, a French Web survey institute, has published its browser barometer for July, and Internet Explorer continues to lose ground. "The ascension of Firefox continues... Nearly 28% average use rate in Europe in the beginning of July 2007, with a progression in the totality of the 32 European countries studied. Firefox doesn't loose ground in any of the countries."

    I realize we have the Firehose now but are people who read Slashdot daily using it properly? We don't need two stories in a short time frame (4 days) about the same topic.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      Here, I fixed your comment for you...

      Dupe!

      j/k :-)
    • We don't need two stories in a short time frame (4 days) about the same topic.

      I guess we do if we lose first story before the second one is loosed upon us.

      I guess ./ editor is just that in the loosest (or would that be losest?) sense of the term.

      Now, where is that link to "annoying internet terms"?
  • Methodology (Score:5, Insightful)

    by EveryNickIsTaken (1054794) on Thursday July 19, 2007 @09:32AM (#19914063)
    From TFA:

    Methodology: Firefox's use rate corresponds to the totality of Firefox visits during the period in relation to the entirety of visits, all browsers taken together.
    They don't explain what "visits" means. Does it mean visits to *their* site? Did they poll a random number of site owners? I'm sorry, but unless they can provide some supporting information, then these statistics are meaningless.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Eightyford (893696)

      They don't explain what "visits" means. Does it mean visits to *their* site? Did they poll a random number of site owners? I'm sorry, but unless they can provide some supporting information, then these statistics are meaningless.


      I don't think they're meaningless. Inaccurate maybe. I can see how users of Firefox would visit certain sites more often than users of other browsers, and that could skew the numbers.
    • by john83 (923470)

      From TFA:

      Methodology: Firefox's use rate corresponds to the totality of Firefox visits during the period in relation to the entirety of visits, all browsers taken together.
      They don't explain what "visits" means. Does it mean visits to *their* site? Did they poll a random number of site owners? I'm sorry, but unless they can provide some supporting information, then these statistics are meaningless.
      From TFA: "Perimeter of 95,827 websites".
  • by asphaltjesus (978804) on Thursday July 19, 2007 @09:33AM (#19914073)
    /. needs to put the grammar nazis to better use.
  • Lose vs Loose (Score:5, Informative)

    by athloi (1075845) on Thursday July 19, 2007 @09:34AM (#19914091) Homepage Journal

    loose ground

    This is a hard one for non-native English speakers, because "lose" is pronounced so bizarrely it sounds like it needs two Os. However, "loose" is how we describe poor security, and "lose" is what happens when I try to play one of these newfangled video games. FYI, FWIW.

    • by lawpoop (604919)
      I just tried pronouncing these myself:

      Lose sounds like 'Luuze' while

      Loose sounds like 'Luce'.

      Weird.
      • Lose sounds like 'Luuze' while

        Loose sounds like 'Luce'.


        It seems to me that "Loose" sounds like "Loose"—if you take most words in English that end with "-oose" as a guide, e.g., "moose", "goose", or "caboose".

        OTOH, "lose" sounds like "Loose"—if you take "choose" as a model of how the "-oose" should sound.

        I think the better statement is that "English spelling is only loosely connected to pronunciation".

      • Well, you can consider other words where S sounds like Z.

        For "hose" which is frequently mispronounced "Ho's" but is apparently pronounced "Who's".

        Hmmm. Or not.

        Hose
        Nose - When at the landfill, no nose is good news.

        Lose

        English makes no sense.

        I'm oppoosed to loose myself but I recall that Mark Twain "I don't give a damn for a man that can only spell a word one way."

        My preference iz that wee wud fix speling to match sound and reemoove al ov the excepshions.
      • by thethibs (882667)

        Lose, choose, chews—loose, spruce, deuce. Except for urban graffiti, English is not a phonetically spelled language.

    • by Nimey (114278)

      This is a hard one for non-native English speakers


      And a lot of native speakers as well.

      Personally I don't understand that, since I read books a lot and am an excellent speller.
    • by mwvdlee (775178)
      Pose
      Nose
      Dose
      Hose
      Rose
      Lose

      Yup... something's off.
      • by GeckoX (259575)
        Gotta love english, dose doesn't fit either fwiw.
        Doze is pronounced the same as pose, nose etc.
        Dose is pronounced like close, but only if you mean close as in near. Close as in 'close up shop' is like doze.

        What a mess ;)

        English isn't so much a set of rules as it is a set of exceptions.

        My biggest english hangup is with archive...having been taught phonetically I always say ar-CHive, like 'chive', when it should be pronounced as arkive. I know this, I always think this when I say it, but it always comes out l
        • by thethibs (882667)

          having been taught phonetically

          Ah. One of the victims of the great liberal experiment with education (I tend to think of it as legalized child abuse).

          I have to apologize on behalf of my generation. I'm not one of those responsible, but I should have seen it happening and done something to stop it.

    • by teh_chrizzle (963897) <kill-9@noSpAm.hobbiton.org> on Thursday July 19, 2007 @10:14AM (#19914629) Homepage

      This is a hard one for non-native English speakers, because "lose" is pronounced so bizarrely it sounds like it needs two Os.

      i think "lose" should be spelled with two O's and a Z just like it sounds... like booze.

      • This is a hard one for non-native English speakers, because "lose" is pronounced so bizarrely it sounds like it needs two Os.
        i think "lose" should be spelled with two O's and a Z just like it sounds... like booze.

        Something that may help you remember how to spell the-verb-that's-the-opposite-of-win, is to look at its past tense spelling: 'lost'. One 'o' in 'lost', therefore one 'o' in 'lose'.

        • you can use "booze" as a verb (i.e. "boozing it up"... a person who boozes is said to be a "boozer") so what is it's past tense? "boozed" or "bost"? i would wager it is "boozed" therefore, the past tense of "looze" would be "loozed".
      • I think "booze" should be spelled "boos"--"boobs" without the second "b".
    • While I am technically a non-native speaker being an Indian (Disclaimer: I did not derkejeeerrbs), english was the first language I learnt. I have noticed that people who speak british english tend to accept anomalies in english more than american english speakers. To be honest, I never thought of how strange the pronunciation of 'lose' was until I tried to find more examples and all I could think of was words like rose,hose,dose,chose etc... It is indeed an odd pronunciation, but it never seemed strange. M
      • by RiffRafff (234408)
        'Aluminum' bothers me too (both the pronunciation and the spelling). The spelling makes me uncomfortable because it seems 'too short'.

        But that's what Davy wanted to call it.

        "Refrigerator-freezer" seems "too long," too, but I don't call it a refrigideezer (although George Carlin does).

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium#Spelling [wikipedia.org]

        • But that's what Davy wanted to call it.
          "Refrigerator-freezer" seems "too long," too, but I don't call it a refrigideezer (although George Carlin does).
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium#Spelling [wikipedia.org]

          'refrigideezer' is not a word while 'Aluminium' is the IUPAC spelling and is widely used in scientific literature outside America. There is a huge difference between the two situations. Moreover, I am not against the use of 'Aluminum'. I have accepted that a lot of people call it that and do not object to its use in any way. I personally prefer the use of 'Aluminium' since I like it better.

          Cheers!

    • ....but to me "loose" is an easy girl!

    • by gstoddart (321705)

      This is a hard one for non-native English speakers

      I've given up on worrying about what non-native speakers do to English. Over the years of knowing many non-native speakers, I've figured out the ways in which English makes no sense to them, and the way in which they make odd-sounding conjugations etc are perfectly reasonable in terms of how their own language works and how they were taught English (mostly). They're usually following a perfectly reasonable rule -- as a friend points out, his English is w

    • by Khelder (34398)
      Oh, and here I was feeling relieved that Firefox did not set free any ground to rampage across the countryside, destroying houses, pillaging, etc. (You know, as ground is wont to do.) I think Firefox's popularity might suffer if it did that.

      Now I'm worried again.
  • Europe (Score:5, Funny)

    by smith6174 (986645) on Thursday July 19, 2007 @09:34AM (#19914101)
    In Europe people are smarter and do things better. Deal with it.
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Jedi Alec (258881)
      Smarter than everyone else or just smarter than Americans? Because if it's the latter it'd be a lot like debating on the internet.
  • Apparently the most important detail was missed in the summary.

    ..and what does "loose ground" mean, anyway? Some kind of freak geological phenomenon?

  • Another poor dupe (Score:4, Informative)

    by CajunArson (465943) on Thursday July 19, 2007 @09:37AM (#19914135) Journal
    1. This story is a dupe
    2. Yay firefox... but honestly is it all that important? How about discussing ways we can actually get firefox to perform better? Now that's a conversation actually worth having, but it might involve thinking instead of rabid fanboyism & MS hatred, so don't expect to see it on Slashdot.
    3. For the last freakin' time: Your mom is loose, you are just a loser can you finally get it right!!??!?!?!!
    • by suv4x4 (956391)
      How about discussing ways we can actually get firefox to perform better?

      The only solution would be some sort magical free CPU cycles over-unity processor. Steorn is working on it.

      For the last freakin' time: Your mom is loose, you are just a loser can you finally get it right!!??!?!?!!

      Your evil :(
    • by init100 (915886)

      How about discussing ways we can actually get firefox to perform better?

      We can make it perform better by using adblocking extensions as well as NoScript and a handful of other addons. They (i.e. Mozilla) are working on making Firefox itself perform better, and they are progressing quite well. I have installed Gran Paradiso (Firefox 3 Alpha) in Windows on my home desktop, and it can give IE7 a run for its money, performance-wise.

  • So then, is Firefox the name of a new roto-tiller? I'm confused.
  • by jollyreaper (513215) on Thursday July 19, 2007 @09:40AM (#19914181)
    Witness the popularity of Jerry Lewis and David Hasselhoff.
    • Witness the popularity of Jerry Lewis and David Hasselhoff.
      Dude, don't hassle the Hoff, okay?
      • Witness the popularity of Jerry Lewis and David Hasselhoff.
        Dude, don't hassle the Hoff, okay?
        Only if he stops singing. And take back the Beckams while you're at it.
    • by simong (32944)
      Dude, Michael Bolton? Carrot Top? You septics don't even know what taste *is*.
  • BBspot (Score:2, Informative)

    by MrMonty (366322)
    What, no link to the pertinent article [bbspot.com] on BBspot?
  • As much as like that firefox's share is increasing (CSS rendering...), we get it! How slow is this news day? Enough! + or - one two percents, who cares.
  • I'm sure I'll get bashed but have you seen the amount of software that also tries to install Firefox with itself from Adobe Acrobat to Divx all have Firefox set to default install themselves. Applications that in no way using a internet browser now have firefox in the installers, why is this? I'm glad we will be getting more browser competition but are firefox's methods any better than Microsofts?
    • by Bert64 (520050)
      Better maybe not, but necessary yes...
      If everyone else plays dirty, you have to aswell, otherwise you lose.
      If we get to a position where browsers are standards compliant, and compete on product quality... It benefits everyone in the end.
  • Missing S (Score:4, Funny)

    by 6Yankee (597075) on Thursday July 19, 2007 @11:57AM (#19916229)
    IE is, indeed, droppings.
  • Stats from a major technical site in Greece, one with the biggest traffic in the country, www.adslgr.com http://img54.imageshack.us/img54/2701/browserandop eratingsystzd0.png [imageshack.us] Firefox 56%, IE6 15.5%, IE7 12.5%, Opera 5%. (Interestingly enough, XP 78%, Vista 8%, Linux 6.5%, Apple 1.5%)
  • The end is near.
  • Enjoy this while it lasts, before you know it Microsoft will come and kick Firefox in the nuts. The stats you see are result of more than 7 years IE abandonment.

    I'm not even commenting on which browser is better, that's not of significance*.

    PS: I'm a Firefox user and web developer.
  • While I prefer Firefox myself, I got into trouble with both IE and Firefox. As a hobby project, I run a website [mensafuchs.de] about my university cafeteria: You can retrieve the menu there in various forms, including a web page, RSS feeds, and a CSV interface. For this interface, I created a firefox extension using XUL. If you want to try it, be warned: XUL documentation is either non existing, or outdated. developing consisted mainly of trial and error (and of course skimming other extension, which probably did the sam

  • by Intron (870560) on Thursday July 19, 2007 @03:22PM (#19919029)

    No. Hits 304's KBytes sent Browser
    1 19280 42.65% 1051 13.35% 322071 Mozilla/5.*
    2 15609 34.53% 4831 61.37% 172549 MSIE 6.*
    3 6316 13.97% 1734 22.03% 61428 MSIE 7.*
    4 930 2.06% 0 0.00% 47572 msnbot/1.*
    5 431 0.95% 117 1.49% 1689 Mozilla/4.*
    6 402 0.89% 0 0.00% 143 Baiduspider
    7 326 0.72% 0 0.00% 2159 libwww-perl/5.*
    8 313 0.69% 70 0.89% 1635 Opera/9.*
    9 226 0.50% 22 0.28% 1581 MSIE 5.*
    10 134 0.30% 0 0.00% 1842 Speedy Spider
    This is bad news. Once MSIE drops below 50%, all of the malware will be targeting Firefox.
  • I am an "IT professional" and every time I visit Microsoft.com for various purposes, I have to use IE, since their ActiveX stuff and other stuff. E.g. downloading from msdn and similar.

    For all other purposes I happily use Firefox. It feels like pain every time I have to start IE.
  • Here's a link to my previous comment [slashdot.org] on this topic. Not much has changed and I still see such large numbers as propaganda.

If a 6600 used paper tape instead of core memory, it would use up tape at about 30 miles/second. -- Grishman, Assembly Language Programming

Working...