| 5:36 pm on Feb 28, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Maybe it's because Firefox is getting positive comparison against IE or people are eager to experience something new.
I would, given the money, go out and buy Firefox and replace it with my current browser IE6. It doesn't display FTP which I HATE because the hosting services I can use are now limited.
| 9:26 pm on Feb 28, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Only one bad thing about Firefox, It has big trouble with Active-X controls. You need a plug-in to fix it. It wouldn't be so bad if they would prompt the running instead of just nulling them.
| 9:33 pm on Feb 28, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Only one bad thing about Firefox, It has big trouble with Active-X controls |
That's the best thing about it. No active-x, no drive-by downloads, no secret installs of scumware, no sleazy webmasters hijacking your computer... it's a wonderful thing.
| 10:26 pm on Feb 28, 2005 (gmt 0)|
As Stefan just said, how is not supporting Microsoft's proprietary ActiveX components really a "bad thing"? Especially when you are coming from the premise that anything proprietary is largely a "bad thing" in and of itself.
| 2:48 am on Mar 1, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Agreed with everything in the above post. It's just more M$ proprietary crap, trying to force you into their marketing plan. Capitalism at its worst.
I know it's possible to disable Active-X in IE, so one could say, "so what, big deal", but Bill makes it very difficult to do so. The average user of IE never digs that deep into the configuration, (buried a half a dozen vague clicks into the program). For the average IE user, Active-X is the gateway for scumware. For those who use real browsers like Firefox, who the hell wants Active-X anyway? The only thing it's good for is Windows updates, for those such as myself that are still suffering with Bill's crap OS. If I want to download a program, I'll save it to disk first, (then poke it with a stick and see if it bites before it's installed).
| 5:20 am on Mar 1, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I am a developer. Total exclusion of Active-X is annoying. you should be able to turn it on if you want to without plug-ins.
I guess it boils down to personal preference.
by the by that is what certifcates are for.
| 5:49 am on Mar 1, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|I am a developer. Total exclusion of Active-X is annoying. you should be able to turn it on if you want to without plug-ins. |
It may be annoying, but it is something you'll have to live with. Perhaps you should re-tool and create web applications that are more standards compliant, as opposed to Active X which only works with Internet Explorer on Windows.
|I guess it boils down to personal preference. |
by the by that is what certifcates are for.
Bit of a reality check... most spyware has a certificate. Check out XXXToolbar, Search Assistant or Gator (aka Claria). Certificates buy you nothing.
| 8:17 am on Mar 1, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I don't personally know of anyone who has ever even heard of FF never mind uses it.
Also the only time it shows in any of my stats is the odd time I use it to check they work OK with FF.
I cannot see IE being toppled in the real world
| 9:22 am on Mar 1, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>> It's official.
>> The full details can be found on WebSideStory's site:
Excuse me for being blunt, but it's not and they can't ;) In stead, for a number-cruncher like me, it's something like this:
|The firm WebSideStory has released numbers that describe their perception of browser usage in the US during the past five weeks. They do not state how and where these figures are obtained, their exact sample size, or any other relevant methodological information. |
I suspect personally that they miss data from some/most, or all of these:
1) The Google network
2) The Microsoft network (including MSN, Hotmail)
3) The Yahoo network (including email)
4) AOL/Time Warner network + Disney + Primedia + Viacom + Vivendi Universal
5) eBay + Amazon + ticketmaster + monster.com
6) US Government sites + top weather sites
7) About.com + InfoSpace + Excite + Lycos + Ask networks
I have no way of checking this, as they give out absolutely no facts about how they derive their figures.
I'd say the Firefox figure for the general US internet population was somewhere around or just above 3 percent by now. Perhaps 4% at most. This means that some sites will see double digit figures and some sites will see close to zero. (I do know one site with around 40% FF but i know that this isn't the general picture)
I should add that this is a significant number, and that it means that you have to take this browser seriously in development work, and even more so than Safari, Opera, or Netscape.
Take this as pure speculation although i reveal my reasons for believing this just as much as WebSideStory does ;)
| 5:15 pm on Mar 1, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|...even more so than Safari, Opera, or Netscape |
Right on claus - that is the main point, I think. If you care about how your pages look on any other browser except IE Windows, then Firefox is the browser that is today's number one "contender".
Tip: If you monitor for display in Firefox as you create VALID pages, then tweaks for IE and other browsers are relatively easy. If you approach development the other way around (pre-viewing in IE during the process) then cross-browser tweaks may be more challenging.
| 9:52 pm on Mar 1, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I think their numbers seem pretty on to me. My venture capital client site sees about 10+% Gecko usage (geared more towards VCs, law firms, accounting firms, etc... rather than big corporate sites). My financial events client sees around 7.5%. My beauty products ecommerce client sees 8.5% Gecko usage.
My own site sees about 55% Gecko usage... but, of course, I'm a developer of specialized Mozilla application packages... so many of the 250k visitors a month can reasonably be expected to already be running Firefox or Mozilla Suite :)
As for compiled stats, we have to take what we can get...
WebSideStory: Gecko at 8.16%, Firefox at 5.69%
OneStat: Gecko & Firefox at 8.45%
TheCounter: Gecko/Firefox at 6.65+%
None of these may accurately reflect what you see on your own site... or any given segment of the web browsing population... but it's all we've got.
The tech sites (W3 Schools, heise.de, CNET, etc) that release their stats are all overly geek-heavy and not indicative of the general browsing population. They are, however, indicative of early adopters and geeks... who tend to do tech support for family and friends (and since getting my family and friends on Firefox... I've had to do about 1/3 the tech support I used to).
One thing to keep in mind as well... does your stats package accurately count Firefox, Opera and Safari users? Nearly every package I've seen screws it up out of the box.
| 7:03 am on Mar 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
>> their numbers seem pretty on to me
I didn't say that they were totally wrong, but i did say that they weren't totally right either ;)
The "mass-media sites" i mentioned above have such a large general audience that including or excluding these from the stats will make a significant difference. Even a sample size of a million sites won't cut it if these giants aren't part of the equation.
Anyway, it's just numbers, and most people couldn't care less [webmasterworld.com] about a percentage point more or less. I have a special relationship to numbers and surveys, so i can get really annoying in that respect and tear even the best studies totally apart. Nothing personal, it's just what i've been doing for so long that it's almost an inherent part of my personality *lol*
I'm glad i added to my post that the important part is that this browser should be taken seriously by webdevelopers by now. It's share is larger than Netscape, Opera, and so forth. And it's the only browser with a steadily growing share. I think this is the key element here.
>> does your stats package accurately count Firefox, Opera and Safari users?
Good point [webmasterworld.com] :) Always be a bit sceptic about the figures and do check exactly how they're derived.
| 7:35 pm on Mar 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|I didn't say that they were totally wrong, but i did say that they weren't totally right either ;) |
Heh, quite true...
|The "mass-media sites" i mentioned above have such a large general audience that including or excluding these from the stats will make a significant difference. Even a sample size of a million sites won't cut it if these giants aren't part of the equation. |
Also true. I'm pretty sure WebSideStory includes data from Disney, actually. From their site... "Select customers include Best Buy, Walt Disney Internet group, Nokia, Cisco Systems, Sony, Daimler-Chrysler, AT&T and many more." It appears that they use the data from all their clients to compile the StatMarket data. Unfortunately, I can find no official mention of this.
|I'm glad i added to my post that the important part is that this browser should be taken seriously by webdevelopers by now. It's share is larger than Netscape, Opera, and so forth. And it's the only browser with a steadily growing share. I think this is the key element here. |
Yes, it does need to be taken seriously. One thing people often forget is that if you have a Firefox-hostile site... and claim you won't update it because you have no Firefox visitors... perhaps much of that is that the Firefox visitors never return, due to the way the site is coded. ("Wow, this site doesn't work at all... I'll find another that does") Chicken and the egg. I've seen sites that have updated to support Firefox experience a boost in Firefox visitors.
| 8:08 pm on Mar 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Commercial site, average user age usually more than 50 years old, decent traffic. Subject matter totally non-geek and unhip. Almost no young users will visit this site.
This week's stats:
Firefox/Mozilla/Netscape about 9.5%
This site has consistenly had fairly close to the commonly reported browser percentages, which, given its demographic, makes me think that those numbers aren't that far off.
| 2:03 am on Mar 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Hooray! Mayme more mozilla users!
| 6:13 pm on Mar 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
You never heard of Firefox? All I keep hearing about on the news is how people need to stop using IE and start using Firefox. Word is getting around. I wish Yahoo would buy Firefox. Then both they and Microsoft would have a browser and a search engine. hmmmm
| 7:54 pm on Mar 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|I'd say the Firefox figure for the general US internet population was somewhere around or just above 3 percent by now. Perhaps 4% at most. |
I've got a very general audience and FireFox usage on my site is around 12%. IE is clear down at 82% or thereabouts. I'm really enjoying watching as it's slice of the pie graph shrinks! ;)
| 4:21 pm on Mar 4, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Seeing it here as well on the 4,981,677 hits this month so far.
81.2 % - MSI
10.3 % - Firefox
3.4 % - Safari
1.8 % - Netscape
1.4 % - Mozilla
| 4:40 am on Mar 5, 2005 (gmt 0)|
For one of my websites... I believe that it has a fairly good sample of 'normal' users. Meaning it's not an IT site and not a help site for beginners but a hobby site which people of all genres would view. Has around 7.2% going to Firefox over the past week and the past month is around 7% and then the past 6 month average is around 6.8%.
Now maybe it truly isn't the actual values because it gets most visitors from US,UK,CA,DE and AU... so it can't be the whole world population. But still, I'm sure it's far above 3 or 4% as a past poster stated. I'm sure WebSideStory is at least close to what it actually is.
| 6:08 pm on Mar 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Finally! Let's get this piece of $#1t browser down of the throne!
It's a well known fact M$'s not doing on anything to improve it since v6! Oh no I wont forget, they implemented pop blocker with SP2, so what!? Google Toolbar handles the pop-ups better!
They are waiting for Longhorn to come out to come out with new version of IE, and knowing M$ crew it could take awhile...till then I hope it goes below 50%, the only thing is, M$ jumps in late no matter which game you're playing and for how long, and manages to get their way to the peak.
FF is good, but it's not good enough for me yet, I love Opera, I love everything about it, and without it my surfin experience is equal to sitting on the toilet with latest issue of O magazine.
Here are my site statistics (webhosting provider)
MS Internet Explorer 55.6 %
Firefox 20.2 %
Opera 20 %
Mozilla 2.5 %
Konqueror 0.3 %
Netscape 0.2 %
Unknown 0.1 %
Firebird (Old Firefox) 0.1 %
SafariNo 0.1 %
| 6:35 pm on Mar 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|They are waiting for Longhorn to come out to come out with new version of IE, and knowing M$ crew it could take awhile...till then I hope it goes below 50%, the only thing is, M$ jumps in late no matter which game you're playing and for how long, and manages to get their way to the peak. |
While I agree with much of the sentiment on the abysmal state of IE, Microsoft has announced that a new version of Internet Explorer will be released before Longhorn. IE7 will be released as a beta sometime this year. It will, however, only be made available for users of Windows XP SP2 (standard and 64 bit) and Windows Server 2003. It will not be available for Windows 95 (which is now unsupported, anyway), 98, Me, NT or 2000.
I still recommend Firefox for most users as I feel its ease of use is a notch above Opera, though Opera is improving and moving towards a simpler interface.
| 7:00 am on Mar 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I cannot say much, seriously. I dont have the nerve. Except I hope M$ burns in hell. They ditch their products after a year or two. It's same as waiting for Longhorn. Upgrade for better this upgrade for better that, back of already!
They keep selling the same thing, just the different package. And Longhorn is just another proof of their transparency (7 versions) If they are creating this much confusion with SP2, then what's going to happend with 7 versions of Longhorn and their SP's? I wonder.
What for people who cant install SP2 or XP on their boxes? You can install linux on a 133MHz box and never encounter any problems you would have with Win, or waste your money every 2 months on new hardware.
I wish you people could hear yourself talking.
I have only one suggestion for all of you. Save yourself from this and migrate to anything but MS products. Of course except the "CrazyBroswer" stuff and etc.. ;)
For all those who are waiting for IE7, your IE is going to freeze within few seconds, and until it unfreezes IE7 will be out :D