| 8:00 pm on Oct 12, 2006 (gmt 0)|
It will change soon, when IE7 is released.
Microsoft will make IE7 a critical update, so anyone with a legal windows instalation will have it installed automaticly.
IE7 is 10 times better the Firefox with all it's stupid bugs (viewed as developper, not user) and I am sure Microsoft will gain market share with it. Since it's really really good, far better and more stable then Firefox.
It's more easy, looks nicer in my opinion (a bit more clear and simple) and super fast!
| 8:12 pm on Oct 12, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Even if IE7 is set as the Default Web Browser as part of this critical update, Firefox users will simply switch back.
Whilst the appearance, etc. of IE7 may be better than IE6, it's certainly not significantly better than Firefox.
Most people who use Firefox do so for security reasons as well as features, etc. It's very hard to see users switching back to IE on blind faith that it is has magically become secure.
| 8:27 pm on Oct 12, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I've been testing Windows Vista lately, and the browser there is so similar to Firefox it's sick. Even the look and feel of Vista is like Fedora. I think Windows is slowly trying to move their current fans (as few as they may be) to a platform that will be more attractive to Linux and Mozilla fans. I think they're trying to elliminate the reasons for buying a Mac.
| 8:46 pm on Oct 12, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Well, there are lots of reasons!
Firefox is FAR less secure then IE is, just, IE has so many more users that it's more attractive for hackers to hack IE!
IE7 is 10 times more secure then Firefox.
IE7 is much faster then Firefox.
IE7 is much more stable then Firefox.
IE7 is much more compatible then Firefox.
And there are many more reasons for users to switch back to IE. Ofcourse there are user who want "something else", but users who want the best will go with IE7.
| 9:22 pm on Oct 12, 2006 (gmt 0)|
IE7 is eight years behind web standards and so frought with bugs and vulnerabilities that Microsoft's own developers are apologizing for it.
As far as usage is concerned, when IE7 goes up, IE6 will go down, so it will be a wash. And as IE users find their sites breaking in IE7, they will find they may switch to Firefox or Opera instead.
EDIT: To continue, Secunia advises there are 106 IE vulnerabilities but only 35 for Firefox. IE may be faster to load because it's part of the OS but, once loaded, Firefox is faster. IE is more compatable to what? Web standards?! IE7 can't run CSS1 properly much less CSS2.1. IE7 can't run DOM standards from 1998! IE7 can't run xhtml served as xhtml! IE7 can't run SVG! And the wheel goes on and on...
[edited by: tedster at 4:56 am (utc) on Oct. 13, 2006]
| 9:34 pm on Oct 12, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Do you have any proof of what you say?
| 9:35 pm on Oct 12, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Btw, I might need to add: information on respected sites
| 10:19 pm on Oct 12, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|Do you have any proof of what you say? |
No need to get personal here. I thought this section of the post was a pretty solid list of "proof"
|Secunia advises there are 106 IE vulnerabilities but only 35 for Firefox. |
IE may be faster to load because it's part of the OS but, once loaded, Firefox is faster.
IE is more compatable to what? Web standards?! IE7 can't run CSS1 properly much less CSS2.1.
IE7 can't run DOM standards from 1998!
IE7 can't run xhtml served as xhtml!
IE7 can't run SVG!
People obviously have preferences, and they can be for many reasons. That's fine -- but when it comes to proof, the list of IE praise that started this disagreement is not yet backed up by any proof.
And by the way, I use Opera except for testing and research -- I have no horse in this race.
| 10:58 pm on Oct 12, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|It will change soon, when IE7 is released. |
but which way will it go?
kaled has a point that FF (or Opera, or Safari) users won't change on a whim, so lets say it we compare the picture as at the % it's at today, what will happen when ardent IE users (not developers) finally realise how different a browser can be (tabs will be enough for some) and get a little bit more curious?
interesting times ahead, I'm not sure "The downhill trend could change soon, though." is such a statement of fact as it appears in that article?
Auto Updates means, for the most part, replacement - IE7 will replace IE6 for those that update via the "critical" update - it will likely not affect user share take up rates. FF. Opera, Safari et al are an acquired taste - IE7's so called take up rate could only be unprecendented in that in the past we've has to wait for users to upgrade their entire OS or buy a new PC..
| 11:15 pm on Oct 12, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I'm 99% Opera myself, so like tedster, no dawg in this hunt, and barely one under the porch. :)
However, a thought expressed above strikes me as fairly sound.
If IE7 will have a look/feel of Firefox, then why, would any thinking person use something that looks like FF but remains tied directly into the OS?
Why at that point wouldn't folks sit up, take notice and decide if the browsers look nearly the same, maybe they oughta use the one that is NOT TIED directly into their OS.
That just seems real no-brainer territory to me, and if anyone knows no-brainer, it's a empty noggin knucklehead like me.
| 11:59 pm on Oct 12, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Just to be topical...
I wonder what would happen if Google used YouTube to promote Firefox. If successful, that would really upset B.G. & Co.
| 12:44 am on Oct 13, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I'm watching the playoffs but Opera is in this mix. It's as good or better a browser than FF which puts it light years ahead of IE7.
Want some proof? Go to webdevout.com for a list of IE frailties. Don't know if that will get deleted or not.