Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Internet Explorer Microsoft

Microsoft IE Browser Share Dips Below 50% 297

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the stop-supporting-it-already dept.
alphadogg writes "Microsoft's Internet Explorer, which has dominated the Web browser market since blowing by Netscape in the late 1990s, last month fell below the 50% market share level for the first time in years. IE's share of the worldwide market fell to 49.87% in September, down from 51.3% in August and 58.4% a year ago. It is followed by Firefox, which increased its share slightly from 30.09% to 31.5% and Google Chrome, which grabbed 11.54% share, more than triple its September 2009 share, according to market watcher StatCounter."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft IE Browser Share Dips Below 50%

Comments Filter:
  • good riddance (Score:5, Interesting)

    by poetmatt (793785) on Tuesday October 05, 2010 @09:11AM (#33793930) Journal

    while they're doing interesting things in IE9, I'd love to see MS acknowledge that a majority of the people who use IE are either forced or don't even know there are alternatives.

    • Re:good riddance (Score:5, Insightful)

      by click2005 (921437) * on Tuesday October 05, 2010 @09:15AM (#33793968)

      MS will never acknowledge anything except that IE9 is better/faster/safer/blingier than the other browsers.

      The point is that with IE9, all of the major browsers aren't that bad really.
      Thats the way it should be. Your choice in browser shouldn't matter.

      • Re:good riddance (Score:5, Insightful)

        by hedwards (940851) on Tuesday October 05, 2010 @09:18AM (#33794014)
        Indeed, but until IE 6, 7 and 8 are out of the way, it's likely still going to matter. It really should be a matter of personal preference, at least that's what I thought standards compliance was for.
        • by tepples (727027)

          until IE 6, 7 and 8 are out of the way, it's likely still going to matter.

          But what's the fraction of the audience 1. runs IE <= 8 and 2. doesn't have privileges to install Chrome Frame?

          • by pahles (701275) on Tuesday October 05, 2010 @09:46AM (#33794292)
            The fraction is quite large unfortunately. Lots of companies still enforce the use of IE6! All because they heavily rely on 3rd party software (like SAP), which will not be updated.
            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              by tepples (727027)

              Lots of companies still enforce the use of IE6! All because they heavily rely on 3rd party software (like SAP), which will not be updated.

              Chrome Frame works with IE 6, but only for web sites that opt in using HTTP headers or HTML meta elements. So installing IE 6 + Chrome Frame would result in IE 6 for SAP and Chrome for sites that want Chrome.

              • Hilariously enough, my company just upgraded to SAP. We were stuck on IE6 before for an even older timesheet/accounting application.
            • by Amouth (879122)

              the school system where my wife works - this past week just did an ie7 rollout.. and in January they are scheduled to do an office 07 rollout.

              • by demonbug (309515)

                We finally got IE 7 about a month or two ago. Fortunately for my sanity I discovered Firefox Portable, which works great for everything except the one or two apps that require IE.

                Still on Office 2003 (though I don't really have a problem with that - I like the tabbed interface in the newer versions of Office, but 2003 works just fine).

                • by Machtyn (759119)
                  I have to echo the praises of Firefox Portable. I can have my shortcuts and plugins and eat them too! The only thing I can't have is Flash if it's not installed on the computer. But that's not that big of a problem.
          • is pleased that Microsoft Exploder dropped below 50% share. It hasn't been that low since 1998 (when Mozilla Netscape was on top)

            # 2 Mozilla Firefox
            # 3 Google Chrome
            # 4 Apple Safari
            # 5 Opera browser
            # 6 Amiga Origyn

            Okay I made that last one up. ;-) And to answer your question: Lots of people still use IE 6 or 7. Last I heard it's around 60% of all MS Exploder users? Like me unfortunately, because it's the only thing that works with AOL Dialup or my workplace apps.

        • by A12m0v (1315511)

          True, and thanks to many convoluted reasons this wont happen for a long time. I can see IE7 and 8 dropping to single digit before IE6.

          • Re:good riddance (Score:5, Informative)

            by A12m0v (1315511) on Tuesday October 05, 2010 @09:35AM (#33794174) Journal

            I should have posted a link with the stats, sorry. http://marketshare.hitslink.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qprid=2 [hitslink.com]

          • Re:good riddance (Score:5, Informative)

            by Millennium (2451) on Tuesday October 05, 2010 @09:44AM (#33794270) Homepage

            This. IE6 won't die until XP dies; even though IE7 and IE8 run on XP as well, there will always be people who Just Won't Upgrade.

            Even if IE6 eventually does die before XP, IE8 certainly won't, since IE9 can't run on XP. This is why Microsoft really should have added XP support to IE9.

            • Fuck 'em (Score:3, Insightful)

              by SteveFoerster (136027)

              IE6 won't die until XP dies; even though IE7 and IE8 run on XP as well, there will always be people who Just Won't Upgrade.

              Fuck 'em. IE6 is nine years old. If the laggards are going to try to stand in the way of progress they should expect eventually to get run over.

              • by Surt (22457)

                HTML5 is the freight train that is about to run over IE6. I see more and more mainstream websites dabbling in it every week.

            • by vlueboy (1799360)

              Chicken and the egg problem detected here in reverse ("who LEFT first.")

              IE9 will be out some indeterminate number of weeks AFTER the fixed date of end-of-life for XP. Assuming that MS does give out IE9 to all XP users who we reckon "Just Won't Upgrade," that will work against solving the upgrade problem, won't it?

              It's just like further spoiling a spoiled child for later to avoid problems now. Eventually you have a blowout situation and realize the line should have been drawn much earlier.

    • Re:good riddance (Score:5, Interesting)

      by js3 (319268) on Tuesday October 05, 2010 @09:22AM (#33794046)

      How and why should they? Funny story my moms IE had a huge toolbar filled with crap so I tried to remove it but she complained! she whined that she likes the huge toolbar because it had useful stuff on it like auto form filling or some nonsense. different people different things.

      • You should just backup her files, format the drive, and put some variety of Linux on there and say a virus did it.

      • by vlueboy (1799360)

        I clean spyware for my teen-ridden kin group. It's funny when I ask parents, or even the teens I know to use the PC's. They're almost always clueless what the toolbars are for.

        The only justified one is a quick translation bar for IE, added this year in one PC out of half a dozen I've tended to for a nearly 15 years. Everything else is just bundled with MSN, games (ugh, wildtangent)/cursors or their [secret] pr0nsites. I have never found a complaint after killing even non-threatening bars when they are in th

    • by A12m0v (1315511)

      I wish this happened 9 years ago when they released IE6 and not now when theyfinally started to care about standards and performance. IE9 is good that I wont have to go to friends and family and talk them into the merits of switching and I don't mind seeing IE being at top if all IE instances were IE9 and later future releases. Then again Microsoft would have never cared if they didn't bleed market-share on a constant basis.

      • IE9 is good that I wont have to go to friends and family and talk them into the merits of switching

        So now you've replaced talking them into switching to Chrome with talking them into switching to Windows 7. That can involve a substantial investment in hardware and operating system license, especially with multiple PCs in the household.

      • Re:good riddance (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Bert64 (520050) <bert@s[ ]hdot.fi ... m ['las' in gap]> on Tuesday October 05, 2010 @10:11AM (#33794516) Homepage

        IE9 is still a problem tho...
        When IE6 came out it wasn't all that bad compared to its peers, just like IE9 today. However, if everyone moves over to IE9 and other browsers die out then you can kiss goodbye to any updates, IE9 will stagnate and become the new IE6.
        Market share of any browsers other than IE should be as high as possible, otherwise MS will just screw the web like they have done before.

    • IE6 still has 3.47% in the USA and 7.42% worldwide. So maybe 2-3% more before it really will be good riddance. Graphs and raw data are published on http://gs.statcounter.com/ [statcounter.com] home page, very nice.
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by poetmatt (793785)

        once firefox and/or chrome have enterprise tools to make it work with activedirectory, you'll see IE share drop to 0. Until then, it's sadly a bit higher than you think it is.

        • > once firefox and/or chrome have enterprise tools to make it work with activedirectory

          Am not sure why the browser would need 'enterprise tools' for AD (what kind of tools anyway?)...we use AD at work and Firefox is offered pre-packaged for all those, who want it. Tell me what you mean...

          • by poetmatt (793785)

            many companies make this argument, that because they can't use AD for everything under the sun, it can't be approved for corporate.

            I personally don't care, but many corporate offices do. Then comes the argument of "oh we'll be supporting two browsers" as opposed to "it would work in all of them if it wasn't programmed like shit".

            People want to be able to enforce policies via AD on firefox/chrome, to control addons and security settings, etc. This is currently available via a few specific tools designed for

          • by Amouth (879122)

            when using domain clients and sites with integrated windows/ad authentication - IE will happly pass along user creds to the server - where firefox and chrome both prompt for username/password..

            i know it sounds silly but when you are forcing hundreds or thousands of users to use something - you want it to be clean and simple - with the more focus on web/client-server apps in the enterprise - it makes a big difference when you can remove that hurdle - especially when going from one webapp to another.

            also maki

        • Optimistic (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Don_dumb (927108)
          I doubt it.
          My large organisation (100,000+) will not use anything other than the minimum software. I imagine this is true of several similar orgs, the more locked down the software, the better, less holes and less to support (1000s of applications at the current moment) - or so the theory goes.
          My employer is running IE6 and will upgrade to IE7 next year. Considering how critical the browser is to the business, they would never even think of using (and having to support) anything other than what comes out of
          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by Bert64 (520050)

            The problem is that so long as IE comes bundled and is difficult/impossible to remove, the principle of minimum software will always prevent the use of any other browser on windows.

            Now really this is a flaw which acts directly against the principle of minimum software, because you are forced to keep IE wether you like it or not, even on a system which is never intended to do any web browsing duties... However there is often a double standard, if anyone else pulled shit like this it would be declared horrend

          • by poetmatt (793785)

            Well, thats the point - they can't really lock down firefox if they allow it to be installed right now. Also the rest, the "less applications = better" concept.

      • by Don_dumb (927108)
        I would imagine the figure is somewhat higher, as it won't be counting much of the corporate users (who will mainly be on Internal networks, occasionally venturing to the public network)
        I guessing most private users (even average Joe) will have had/been coerced/helped/tricked into an upgrade to IE7 or higher by now (even if just because they have brought something newer).
        So I'm guessing the stat isn't entirely accurate. This would also be true of the article's statistics. My opinion only of course.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      A lot of folks don't care. Many many folks think that, since they have [name brand] Anti-Virus, they're safe.

      Although the new IE isn't the security train wreck that it once was.

    • Raise your hand if you opened this thread, and started searching for "Linux Desktop".

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by HermMunster (972336)

      I don't want to seem facetious, and I'm very happy that the browser market share is shifting. What went through my mind when I started reading this is that if you took the statistics from Microsoft's website hits the share would be strikingly higher for IE.

      What I'm saying is that when you get stats from sites such as English language sites you would expect English to be seen as the predominant language. If you hit Linux sites you would expect to see Linux as dominant there. If you don't seek foreign site

  • Competition FTW (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Ben4jammin (1233084) on Tuesday October 05, 2010 @09:18AM (#33794004)
    FTA: While web browser advances were few and far between a decade ago, competition among IE, Firefox, Chrome, Apple Safari and Opera has fueled new developments, including increasingly faster browsers

    Imagine that...competition FTW.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by The MAZZTer (911996)
      Although I dislike the idea of Internet Explorer actually becoming somewhat usable, (if there's no villains, there can be no heroes!) I suppose it's better for everyone that it happens. Besides, when everyone improves, consumers are the real winners...
  • Hmm..interesting (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Lunix Nutcase (1092239) on Tuesday October 05, 2010 @09:19AM (#33794020)

    I find it rather interesting that the source for this figure is the same StatCounter that the same people cheering this figure about IE will claim is wildly inaccurate due to the fact that it shows Linux with like a 1 or 2% market share. But since in this case it shows something negative about Microsoft (IE market share, Windows XP vs Vista & 7 market share) it is taken as holy gospel truth. Hypocrisy. Isn't it grand?

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by clone53421 (1310749)

      Yeah, if you took a sample with a higher percentage of Linux users the IE browser share would probably be more like 75%.

      Erm... wait what?

    • by falcon5768 (629591) <Falcon5768@@@comcast...net> on Tuesday October 05, 2010 @09:28AM (#33794100) Journal
      because usage like this stat is actually a important statistic, while market share is useless since market share does not equal usage. Its not so much hypocrisy as much as market share is a pointless statistic that is constantly misrepresented to mean something it isnt which most people in the IT field know already to disregard it.
      • And how exactly do you know that this stat is even accurate either? Other than it shows a conclusion that is favorable to people who dislike Microsoft.

        • by timeOday (582209) on Tuesday October 05, 2010 @09:47AM (#33794308)
          I agree counting of this nature is somewhat dubious since it's hard to sample the web uniformly. That said, the milestone matters less than the trend, which is most likely reflected accurately so long as they don't change how they count. In other words, it doesn't really matter whether the absolute percentage is now 50%, 60%, or 40%; what's certain is the web monoculture Microsoft wanted so badly and nearly achieved at the height of their power has failed. And that's a good thing.
          • by daveime (1253762)

            They have more than half of the web using their browser, compared to all other browsers COMBINED, and they failed ???

            Interesting concept of failure you have there.

            Something like a tug of war, with a really fat guy on one end, and ten olympic athletes on the other, and the athletes all shouting "haw haw you fail" because the fat guy moved half an inch.

        • by ArsonSmith (13997)

          How about rewording it: "Despite the pathetic attempts of competitors, the great Microsoft still has nearly 50% of the total browser market. With it's next nearest competitor only a bit over half of that."

          There now it's not a negative Microsoft story.

      • by daveime (1253762)

        So everyone who uses Internet Explorer 6 for accessing their corporate intranet don't count then ... only when they visit some web page that has the statcounter system in place.

        So how is market-share any better OR worse than web usage stats like this ? They are both inaccurate in representing "browser usage".

        Oh, right, because it helps support the myth that browser X is now more popular than browser Y.

    • Same people? I'm happy to accept both figures as reasonable estimates. The Linux figure they show right now is 0.77%. Which sounds reasonable for Linux clients.

    • by gmack (197796)

      It depends on what you are trying to measure. If you want browsers accessing websites this stat is very likely accurate. OS share, On the other hand, is a lot more difficult because most Linux usage is server side and those don't generally browse websites.

      It's slightly more useful if you are trying to measure Desktop OS usage. In that case, I'm more than willing to believe the numbers they have.

    • by Eil (82413)

      Hypocrisy. Isn't it grand?

      You might say it's almost as grand as painting open source advocates and Microsoft bashers with the same brush.

  • by daid303 (843777) on Tuesday October 05, 2010 @09:22AM (#33794044)

    Firefox has been around 30% for the last year, while IE dropped 10% in the same time, and Chrome gained 10%.

    If this trend continues then it might balance out at 30/30/30/10 for IE/Firefox/Chrome/Other. Which should be good for everyone I think. There is no holy browser (except lynx), so a good balance of users should make sites more standard compliant in the end.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      so a good balance of users should make sites more standard compliant in the end.

      Or will the browsers fight to become more robust than their competitors to deal with the non-compliant sites?

    • by Culture20 (968837) on Tuesday October 05, 2010 @09:42AM (#33794254)

      There is no holy browser (except lynx)

      Surely thou meanest blessed telnet to port 80? We have learned to respect the ways of wget and curl, but the heretical lynx shall be spoken of with curses forever!

    • I would expect more of a 25% split across these platforms.

      25% for IE because it is the default browser, and is a known quantity that it will work on most websites. However it will drop further as people realizes they are no longer stuck and most websites doesn't care on your browser.

      25% for Firefox I see it dropping as Chrome rises even further it will chew up some of IE and FireFox But I would expect from seeing FireFox 4 Beta that they will be comparable and used by who ever like one over the other.

      25% G

    • A few browsers you may want to investigate further, if you feel Internet Firechrome Safoperari is a decent but slightly 'meh' browser:

      w3m, links, links2, elinks, w3-mode, w3m-mode, surfraw: command line goodness. Especially the Shell Users' Revolutionary Front Against WWW (SURFRAW), how's that for an acronym.

      Uzbl: a graphical browser (webkit innards) with highly customizable keybindings, designed from the Unix philosophy---a lot of its internal state can be poked at from shell scripts (or whatever works on

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Uzbl: a graphical browser (webkit innards)

        Uzbl! Another catchy product name from the Open Source community!

    • by delinear (991444)

      There is no holy browser...

      Maybe not, but for a long time IE has been the holey [thefreedictionary.com] browser.

  • Hold on (Score:4, Insightful)

    by musicalmicah (1532521) on Tuesday October 05, 2010 @09:28AM (#33794102)
    The methodology question in the FAQ [statcounter.com] leads me to believe that all their stats are from sites that use this tool [statcounter.com] - "the best free web counter in the world." IE may indeed be below 50% market share for this population, but I bet it leans towards recreational rather than business browsing.
    • by socsoc (1116769)
      It's a reliable as when Quantcast provides traffic figures for sites that have never embedded Quantcast code. It's magic!
    • It also has a strong bias for the types of sites that would use "the best free web counter in the world". It's unlikely that very many large commercial sites would use a a free counter, and want to share their stats with someone else. So not only is there a sampling problem, there is also a data collection problem. The numbers probably don't give an accurate value, but may be useful for trends. On the sites that we run, I've never seen IE (all variants) below 70% (and more like 80%). But then again, the

    • If it depends on the browser allowing javascript from statcounter.com, it would not count hits from browsers with NoScript.
      • by delinear (991444)
        Across all of our portfolio of websites, we see the percentage of people without JavaScript as being below 2%, and since a portion of those are probably bots/search engine spiders, it's unlikely to be of much statistical significance (obviously sites with a higher tech following such as /. might have notably more users without JavaScript, but our portfolio tends to reflect a pretty mainstream userbase).
    • Also consider ad blockers, or Firefox add-ons like "Request Policy" which block certain domains.

    • by LoudMusic (199347)

      I believe it is quite the opposite. IE is the defacto browser in corporations using MS products - if the IT group installs an alternative browser that's one more thing to support. Chrome and Firefox are on computers where users actually have control of what gets installed.

  • I liked IE but it is now a clusterfuck of bad design. The icons are tiny, illegible and poorly positioned... I'm sure it can be customized but why bother when there are other browsers that do it better by default.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      I liked IE but it is now a clusterfuck of bad design. The icons are tiny, illegible and poorly positioned... I'm sure it can be customized but why bother when there are other browsers that do it better by default.

      My question is why in IE7 and 8 are there two "Tools" menus with different items? Makes phone instructions interesting. "Click tools. No not that one, the other tools."

  • Can anyone comment on the validity of this statistic? I've never heard of StatCounter. And while, "5 billion page views per month" and "3 million Websites" sounds like a lot, I have no idea how they selected those sites, and how many months they collected data over.
  • by fadir (522518) on Tuesday October 05, 2010 @09:35AM (#33794170)

    I assume that of those people that actually know what a browser is a does the percentage is far lower than the amount of 50%. If you deduct those that are forced to use the IE at work as well you probably reach a one digit area.
    I cannot imagine why anyone that has some basic technical understanding would choose to use the Internet Explorer. You must be either forced or a technical illiterate (well, or maybe stupid) to use IE.

  • Clicked thru to the story and clicked the Avaya Flare banneradd and the page at avaya didn't display properly in Firefox (worked fine in Chrome tho).

  • by asdfington (1877976) on Tuesday October 05, 2010 @09:41AM (#33794246)
    Measuring browser market share is kind of a tricky task since any one site can only tell you who visits *their* site, or the sites whose stats they aggregate.
    Check out the stats here:
    https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers#Summary_table [wikimedia.org] and you'll see that depending on whom you ask, IE has anywhere between 48 and 63% of the market share. Stats from sites that cater to developers (notably w3schools are skewed heavily* towards Firefox and Chrome, mainstream sites towards IE. Then there's the factors that lead to over-estimation, under-estimation... it's a sticky wicket for sure.

    I say look at the aggregate results. Then I mention I have no idea how those aggregates are tabulated and weighted (Do W3Schools' stats have the same weight as WeTrack10mSites.com?). The only thing you can know for sure (more or less), is the traffic statistics on *your* site, which, to the developer, should be pretty much the only ones that matter. Pro tip: explain that last sentence to your clients.

    *I don't really know if something can be "skewed heavily," but what the heck, you only live once, right?
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by maxwell demon (590494)

      The only thing you can know for sure (more or less), is the traffic statistics on *your* site, which, to the developer, should be pretty much the only ones that matter.

      But your own site's statistics may be biased as well: For example, if you have an IE only page, that fact by itself will make IE the dominant browser on your page. However that doesn't tell you about the statistics you would get if your site would not be IE only. You cannot distinguish between hits you don't get because the user isn't interes

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by mooingyak (720677)

      Indeed.

      I work for a high volume very mainstream site. I just checked our numbers for yesterday, and we had:
      IE 58%
      FF 22%
      Chrome 7%

      or roughly 9:3:1 as you move from browser to browser.

      I didn't break it down any further than that. Our demographics favor women generally and moms in particular, and are mostly from North America, or so marketing tells us. Take that however you want.

      As to your footnote, I've heard the phrase "heavily skewed" many times. If you're in the 'usage defines language' camp, then your

  • Even better (Score:2, Interesting)

    by maxwell demon (590494)

    In Germany, IE dropped below 25%. [statcounter.com]

  • by linebackn (131821) on Tuesday October 05, 2010 @09:50AM (#33794326)

    What I find most interesting about the drop in IE usage is that this is happening in spite of IE still pre-installed on every single Windows computer and not being truly uninstallable (Even if the icon and tiny iexplore.exe are removed, which is all the Win7 add/remove feature does, 99% of it is sill there and can be fully embedded by applications)

    This means a huge number of people are going to the trouble of obtaining and installing a third party browser, and ignoring that a browser is already installed. It would be interesting to see some statistics on where and how people are getting them.

    I also have a feeling that for at least the short term, IE 9's inability to run on Windows XP might bite into IEs usage share. Firefox 4 will still run under 2000 and XP (and unofficially apparently even Windows 98 using a special piece of kernel extending software)

    • by takowl (905807)

      Awareness of other browsers, particularly Firefox and Chrome, is certainly much better. It's no great surprise now to find non-geeks using them.

      I'll have to take you up on the comment "IE still pre-installed on every single Windows computer", though. In the EU, while it may technically be pre-installed, users now have to specify which browser they want on first run (although I think OEMs can override that; I don't know how many do). It was even pushed out to existing systems, and people had to confirm that

  • by blind biker (1066130) on Tuesday October 05, 2010 @10:31AM (#33794766) Journal

    Firefox has been stagnating for longer than a year, now. Chrome is slowly but very steadfastly growing, and eating IE's lunch - but I wonder if we'll soon see the day that it'll eat into Firefox's usage share as well. I don't want to speculate about it, but if and when it does, all hell will break out in the Linux community, because Linux users have been extremely (no, really) loyal Firefox users.

  • by vlueboy (1799360) on Tuesday October 05, 2010 @10:45AM (#33794968)

    Let's think about what matters, and not percentages. We have a rollout of HTML5 for which the other browsers are readier.

    And I'd dare say my post isn't even about that. It's about the [apparent] lack of support for ipv6. I tested IE8, Opera 10.62, Safari 4.04 and Firefox 3.6.6 through a 6to4 tunnel to find that they will fail miserably parsing IP's in v6 notation.

    The standard unicast 2002:c058:6301::0 was flagged bad because all sources list it using the shortcut 2002:c058:6301::. I have found even shells to fail to ping because the damn v6 abreviations aren't expanded internally. Since our mainstream XP supported v6 at its release, two OS's ago, router makers, browser devs and shell tool makers can't be excused after a decade just because the standard isn't finalized: think of wireless N having support everywhere WAY before there was a "standard."

    The next 5 to 10 years IT pros worldwide must test bare ipv6 addresses like I did, confirming correctness in their DNS and DHCPv6 while eventually pushing ipv6 to their enterprise. Even if my tunnel were found misconfigured or something, I know others will find the same timesinks. Finding you'll have a hard time implementing v4-less environments for their pro infrastructure isn't a good thing. The browsers give clueless errors ranging from "internal communications issue" (opera) to "unknown webkit error" when I feed google's ip, even if I format it with brackets as suggested http://20014860800f00000093/ [20014860800f00000093]

    The bracket notation is NOT something I've read officially, and you cannot expect anyone to know that all sites need that --instead the browser should just stop assuming that colons in your address bars stand for port numbers. Safari said it can't find the port "2001:4860" before I was forced to find out about the brackets while researching. If laymen can't be expected currently to immediately board an ipv6 site in an ipv6-ready environment, then it's all for naught.

  • by yuna49 (905461) on Tuesday October 05, 2010 @11:02AM (#33795234)

    What browser do Android phones use by default? It's listed as "Google Browser" at Wiki [wikipedia.org], but does it identify itself as Chrome?

    Given how long it's taken Firefox to reach its current market share, it seems either remarkable or implausible that Chrome could reach 11% in about two years just on the basis of word-of-mouth. This figure only makes sense if it's a reflection of other trends in the industry like the rise of mobiles.

  • I LOVE internet exploder. It's CSS 3 implementation is unmatched for it's craptasticness. Microsoft should finish 8 before starting a new one. Better yet, they should just use WebKit and stop reinventing a second rate wheel.
  • by iceaxe (18903)

    I felt sorry for the IE team, what with all their recent hard work and losing market share anyway, so I wanted to install their shiny new browser and give it a whirl.

    But all my searches in Synaptic turned up nothing, despite having a number of non-standard repositories enabled. Does anyone know what repository I could find that in? Or will I have to get a tarball from somewhere and compile it myself?

You're already carrying the sphere!

Working...