homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.196.168.78
register, free tools, login, search, subscribe, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Subscribe to WebmasterWorld

Visit PubCon.com
Home / Forums Index / Code, Content, and Presentation / HTML
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: incrediBILL

HTML Forum

    
IE7 - wildfire or candle flame?
Distribution estimates
pmkpmk




msg:590646
 11:37 am on Feb 1, 2006 (gmt 0)

OK, so the new beta is out and so far it looks promising. They even seem to be interested in mindshare, and it seems they want to get things right this time. So let's step back a moment and have a look at the consequences for web developers. Let's NOT think about ourselves, but about our mothers, fathers, neighbours and the clerk from the shopping mall down the street.

  • What will be a realistic share of the browser market IE7 can get in 2006?
  • Ho long will it take until IE6 usage drops below 10%?

OK, every Windows Vista user will have it as the default. Are there already realistic numbers of how many licences can be expected? What about upgrades? I guess MS will submit IE7 into the Windows Update cycle. Are there valid numbers of how much of a percentage actually uses the Windowsupdate?

What would you think?

 

Hester




msg:590647
 11:53 am on Feb 1, 2006 (gmt 0)

Will IE7 automatically be downloaded as part of a future security patch? Or will users have to download it separately? If the former, then bye bye IE6! At least on XP.

encyclo




msg:590648
 4:39 pm on Feb 1, 2006 (gmt 0)

The following is little more than a wild guess, but:

What will be a realistic share of the browser market IE7 can get in 2006?

If it is released soon, maybe 10% to 15%. I doubt it will ever be a forced update for XP. So significant but not dominant.

How long will it take until IE6 usage drops below 10%?

About five years, with a bit of luck.

pmkpmk




msg:590649
 8:22 am on Feb 3, 2006 (gmt 0)

So it all boils down to wether MS makes it part of the automatic update or not. Why do you think they are NOT going to do it?

Hester




msg:590650
 9:13 am on Feb 3, 2006 (gmt 0)

I read that it will be part of SP3. If so, then all XP users who get that will also get IE7. I see it as the natural way for Microsoft to boost their market share of the new browser. Of course many users are still on machines with older versions of Windows.

CritterNYC




msg:590651
 5:19 pm on Feb 10, 2006 (gmt 0)

It's gonna be a while. IE7 isn't even an option for the 23% of the world not running Windows XP (10%: Windows 2000, 8%: Windows 98, 2%: Mac, 3%: other Windows, Unix, etc) and it never will be. It also isn't an option for those running Windows XP SP1 (there are still a lot of people not on SP2)

And there are lots of us that simply won't use Internet Explorer any more. IE7 will *finally* fix some of the most eggregious issues (after many years) but not all. And it won't have access to all the handy Firefox extensions out there.

drhowarddrfine




msg:590652
 7:39 pm on Feb 10, 2006 (gmt 0)

Hotwired.com posted this:

"Internet Explorer 7 has some inherent shortcomings that will keep it from being the browser of choice for absolutely everyone."

"Microsoft won't be able to one-up Firefox's extensible architecture anytime soon."

"CSS support, while vastly improved since version 6, is still incomplete, with limited support"

[hotwired.com...]

[edited by: encyclo at 7:54 pm (utc) on Feb. 10, 2006]
[edit reason] added link to article [/edit]

pmkpmk




msg:590653
 1:12 pm on Feb 11, 2006 (gmt 0)

Critter: I was not speculating about Mac-Users or Firefox supporters. My question was about those users who already use IE and are not inclined to switch to FF or Opera anytime soon but will stay IE users.

CritterNYC




msg:590654
 2:39 pm on Feb 13, 2006 (gmt 0)

pmkpmk: Right, in which case it's important to keep in mind that at least 20% (or more... who knows how many XP users are still on XP SP1) of Windows users don't even have the option of upgrading to IE7 as it is Windows XP SP2 only.

pmkpmk




msg:590655
 6:57 pm on Feb 13, 2006 (gmt 0)

For the time being...

drhowarddrfine




msg:590656
 11:14 pm on Feb 13, 2006 (gmt 0)

There are no plans to port IE7 to anything but that and Vista.

pmkpmk




msg:590657
 8:15 am on Feb 14, 2006 (gmt 0)

So they say.

drhowarddrfine




msg:590658
 2:37 pm on Feb 14, 2006 (gmt 0)

They can't even get it right on Windows so how would they do it with good operating systems? They've never put IE on any other OS before so why would they now? You're dreaming if you think they would. It would be bad for the web anyway. We don't need this cancer spreading.

pmkpmk




msg:590659
 2:58 pm on Feb 14, 2006 (gmt 0)

Misunderstanding: I thought you referred to XPSP1 and 2000.

I agree that we will probably not see an IE7 for Mac or even Linux :-)

mattglet




msg:590660
 5:36 pm on Feb 14, 2006 (gmt 0)

They've never put IE on any other OS before so why would they now?

What was Mac IE then?

drhowarddrfine




msg:590661
 10:28 pm on Feb 14, 2006 (gmt 0)

Forgot about that one. But that worked out great, didn't it? Camino was introduced today. All Hail Gecko! Down with IE!

andy_boyd




msg:590662
 3:17 pm on Feb 15, 2006 (gmt 0)

If you were a "sandboxed" webmaster getting nowhere in Google but doing well in MSN I'm sure you would be hoping for a fast adoption. Aside from all the standards arguments etc. I am looking forward to a major browser coming out with an engine other than Google as the default for web search.

Personally I'm a Camino man myself, but in terms of marketing ... there couldn't be enough people using it if you know what I mean. ;)

Lorel




msg:590663
 5:09 pm on Feb 15, 2006 (gmt 0)

MS quit supporting Mac with version 5.2.... I miss my IE but now I like Safari just as well.


If you were a "sandboxed" webmaster getting nowhere in Google but doing well in MSN I'm sure you would be hoping for a fast adoption. Aside from all the standards arguments etc. I am looking forward to a major browser coming out with an engine other than Google as the default for web search.

Why settle for less than 10% of traffic when 80% is just over the horizon?

drhowarddrfine




msg:590664
 6:16 pm on Feb 15, 2006 (gmt 0)

I don't understand. Firefox lets you switch search engines easy enough.

andy_boyd




msg:590665
 3:20 pm on Feb 22, 2006 (gmt 0)

Why settle for less than 10% of traffic when 80% is just over the horizon?

Because Google traffic isn't anywhere near as click-happy as MSN / Yahoo traffic ... it's strange but true. I'd take 1,000 MSNers over 1,000 Googlers any day.

Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Code, Content, and Presentation / HTML
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved