Microsoft IE Browser Share Dips Below 50% 297
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."
good riddance (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
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)
Google Chrome Frame (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Re:Google Chrome Frame (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
HTML5 is the freight train that is about to run over IE6. I see more and more mainstream websites dabbling in it every week.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
You should just backup her files, format the drive, and put some variety of Linux on there and say a virus did it.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
No IE 9 for Windows XP. Promote switch to 7. (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
> 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...
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Although the new IE isn't the security train wreck that it once was.
Re: (Score:2)
Thats because the AV products marketing is specifically saying that...
Year of the Linux Desktop (Score:2)
Raise your hand if you opened this thread, and started searching for "Linux Desktop".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2)
firefox with just adblock + noscript is pretty darn secure, in fact substantially more than IE, overall. Question is how much work to set it up properly.
Re:good riddance (Score:5, Informative)
The CEO of Google said "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to be afraid of".
No he didn't. He said "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place." That seems more like a warning to me: if you do something stupid and it gets on the internet, you've already lost. You can't complain about people reposting it, or indexing it, or emailing it; the genie is out of the bottle and it is impossible to delete something from the internet (at least if the collective internet finds it entertaining in some way).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
He said "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."
And you think that's better? I'm sure people like Alan Turing and Oscar Wilde would have appreciated that advice, when they were alive.
Re:quoted out of context (Score:4, Informative)
Alan Turing and Oscar Wilde had more to fear from their society than from knowledge and facts getting out. You might as well have said that the Salem women accused of witchcraft would have appreciated the advice.
The context of the question, at least as far as I can see, was people treating Google as a friend, telling it secrets and trusting it. He backed up a little and said the famous quote "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place." He went on to clarify that if you do need this privacy, you need to know that the information will be retained, and is subject to governmnet sniffing.
His statement in context, and the whole answer to the question instead of a soundbite, can be interpreted as "If you need more privacy than Google can provide, don't use Google." I see his comment in an holistic sense as a simple rephrasing of "Don't do the crime if you don't want the time." Or, if you don't want to get caught, don't do it. Taken in context, he was talking more about the kind of things that end up on Failbook than anything else.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6e7wfDHzew [youtube.com]
Still, I think he's right. *Maybe* you shouldn't be doing it in the first place, and *maybe* you should try to change society's attitudes towards what you're doing so you're accepted, and *maybe* you should do it as civil disobedience.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
But by gets on the internet, of course you must mean 'Google sells your tracking data to interested parties'.
Use a strict cookie policy, use noscript, use adblock, take some control over what you expose online.
I interviewed at google recently, one of the things they mentioned impressed them was how little I had exposed online. People over there joke all the time about how much people are exposing, and looking up friends and acquaintances searches and browsing history seems to be a popular pass-time.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No he didn't. He said "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."
And how is that better/more reasonable than the GP's interpretation?
I don't think it's anybody's business how my girlfriend likes to have sex. I guess we should practice abstinence only, huh?
I don't think it's anybody's business that I have leukemia -- at least, it certainly shouldn't affect my employment, my access to health care, the outcome of my divorce, etc. Guess I should stop growing those cells, huh?
I don't think it's anybody's business what route my kid takes to walk to school. Guess I should home-
Competition FTW (Score:3, Insightful)
Imagine that...competition FTW.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmm..interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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?
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Hmm..interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
You might say it's almost as grand as painting open source advocates and Microsoft bashers with the same brush.
Re: (Score:2)
Companies can be right about some stats and wrong about others. Idiocy, isn't it grand?
Sure they could. Now outline your evidence that this stat is right but the ones about Linux are wrong.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
they are biased towards sites that are willing to include a privacy-violating stat counter.
So "Horse Owner Forum" yes, "My PC Helpsite" maybe, "Linux Weekly News" no.
This affects both the browser usage counts and the OS pref stats, making them invalid in the same sense that an amateur phone survey (call 100 numbers, extrapolate to the whole population without adjusting for demographics) is invalid. But that may not mean they're useless for your purpose, depending on what that purpose is.
Very importantly, th
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I have to disagree about privacy violation - if the data is broken up (by which I mean, not keeping Browser/OS/plugins/etc linked in a single "profile") and not tied to any personal info, I don't see what privacy are they violating.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure they could. Now outline your evidence that this stat is right but the ones about Linux are wrong.
Why should HE? Didn't you talk about 'some users' or 'them'? You know, the vague other that is always used when trying to prove your point. Where were THEY when that guy was doing this, why are THEY so angry now that it's this guy.
Of course, you could be the lone gem in the world of the internet where people can just toss out accusations against tangentially related non-present people and thus tarnish th
No real increase for firefox... (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:No real increase for firefox... (Score:5, Funny)
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!
Re: (Score:2)
the heretical lynx shall be spoken of with curses
Were you going for a "+1 Ironic"?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
p="google.com";d="d"&&if [ -e $d ];then rm $d;fi&&wget -rO $d $p&&chromium-browser $d
Re: (Score:2)
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
Browser wars: the underappreciated candidates (Score:2)
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)
Uzbl: a graphical browser (webkit innards)
Uzbl! Another catchy product name from the Open Source community!
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Site bias... (Score:2)
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
Blocked? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also consider ad blockers, or Firefox add-ons like "Request Policy" which block certain domains.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
The IE interface has become awful (Score:2)
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."
not sure if I believe (Score:2, Interesting)
% of People consciously using IE is way lower (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm pretty sure that a reasonable amount of those people have someone at hand to "fix" the computer for them, which often includes the installation of an alternative browser. I agree that the majority of the Windows users are clueless. But I wouldn't go so far to say that this is >90%.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Funny (Score:2)
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).
Re: (Score:2)
Just went to check, and you appear to be right... I can’t find the banner ad anywhere.
Depends on whom you ask (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
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)
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)
In Germany, IE dropped below 25%. [statcounter.com]
All this dispite IE always being pre-installed (Score:5, Informative)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
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
One thing all stat counters seem to agree on: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Better worry about the next step (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
11% for Chrome seems absurdly high (Score:3, Interesting)
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 IE (Score:2)
Poor IE (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well yeah, I wrote a bunch of FF extensions. I am amused how my comments are rated off-topic or troll.