Who is browsing this site with Netscape 4.7?

[Markus Klaffke]

I am asking this from germany, so mabe this question is a bit curious or stupid to people who live in a high tec country like the USA.

But who must browse the i-net with Netscape 4.7 browser because this is your standard browser?

Thanks. Markus

[hartlandcat]

Can I just clarify one thing? Why have you specifically chosen Netscape 4.7? What about Netscape 4.0, 4.5, 4.6 and 4.8?

[percentages]

My audience is 99.7% US as the widget is primarily only of interest to US residents.....even so according to my logs:

Netscape 4: 2.52%
Netscape 3: 1.49%
IE4: 1.26%

and the very occasional Netscape 2, IE 2 and IE 3 visitor.

Thankfully IE 5&6 have the lions share with 93%, but those old puppies are still out there!

2.5% of people still have a 640x480 screen res (probably the same group that are using NS4;))

A massive 3.8% are still browing with 256 colors!

At least 47% now have 1024x768 or better resolutions :)

Even in the US a decent percentage of folks are still using 5+ year old technology.

[txbakers]

not enough to bother coding for.

[BaseVinyl]

I use it all the time! But then again I also cook on a wood stove! :) Oh well...I guess it's like an old comfortable pair of jeans. :)

[dnimrodx]

percentages wrote:

Netscape 4: 2.52%
Netscape 3: 1.49%
IE4: 1.26%

and the very occasional Netscape 2, IE 2 and IE 3 visitor.

Thankfully IE 5&6 have the lions share with 93%, but those old puppies are still out there!

2.5% of people still have a 640x480 screen res (probably the same group that are using NS4)

txbakers then wrote:

not enough to bother coding for.

txbakers,

I am new to web development. I was used to program in C/C++/Assembler/... and kind of made a career move when I decide to enter the WW development World.

I would like to ask you why you think users of old technology are not worth to bother coding for. If IE is being used by 93% of the public and having your statement in mind, I could then say 'what the heck, I am not going to bother with Mozilla's, safari's and whatever's users! Because after all, they (still) represent a small minority.'

Would love to hear from you,

d#nimrod

[PCInk]

And think txbakers was referring to 5 year old and older technology and not alternative browsers.

You should always allow your site to be used with all the main browsers and not just the main one.

[txbakers]

I would like to ask you why you think users of old technology are not worth to bother coding for. If IE is being used by 93% of the public and having your statement in mind, I could then say 'what the heck, I am not going to bother with Mozilla's, safari's and whatever's users! Because after all, they (still) represent a small minority.'

I'd really not open that up again. The forums are full of that discussion already.

Suffice to say, upgrades are free for all the browsers. If the user,school,military, whatever, etc. doesn't want to take the time to keep up with change that's their problem not mine.

I provide a service for a fee. I don't have hobby websites. If someone wants to pay me to downgrade my product so it works on their archaic technology I would be happy to take their money. But since I'm responsible for my own income I'd rather spend time developing the product forward and be content with the 93% market share.

If it doesn't work with Mozilla, Opera or whatever, again, I won't worry myself sick over it. I code to standards, test in Mozilla but the final arbiter is IE.

[dnimrodx]

If it doesn't work with Mozilla, Opera or whatever, again, I won't worry myself sick over it. I code to standards, test in Mozilla but the final arbiter is IE.

So there's no point on getting concerned about compatibility issues between browsers? I mean, you'll be happy with whatever you develop as long as it complies with the W3C norms.

Please don't take me wrong, I was not trying to be offensive in anyway. Like I mentioned before, I am new to web development and want to know every possible thing about it.

Always like reading your posts, ;)

d#Nimrod

BTW: I've always enjoyed learning with those who have 'the knowledge'. This is the reason why I posted.

[hartlandcat]

If it doesn't work with Mozilla, Opera or whatever, again, I won't worry myself sick over it.

So, if the application didn't work in non-IE browsers, would you simply tell them to use IE? There is an obvious problem with this. 9 times out of 10, a user of a non-IE browser (apart from perhaps Netscape 4) will not only become offended by having IE recommended to them, but will automatically hate you and your application. Maybe you can live with losing 10% of your business, but I know I certainly wouldn't be able to. Say I was making £20,000 a year out of a collection of web-based applications that I had written. £2,000 would be a lot of money each year to lose. Of course, I have no idea how much you make from your application(s). That was just an analogy.

Why will non-IE users not lightly accept your suggestion to use IE? Counting Mac users out of this, computers only come pre-installed with IE. These days, you don't just wind up using Netscape, Opera or Mozilla. You have to make the explicit choice to ditch IE and download something else. They won't be happy about being told to return to an outdated program which they obviously decided that they didn't like.

[txbakers]

not only become offended by having IE recommended to them, but will automatically hate you and your application.

so far, to those that I've recommended using IE instead of whatever else they were using, I've had no one "hate" me or "my application" .

Quite the opposite in fact. Once I showed them my program worked flawlessly and easier in IE they were happy to make the switch.

Remember, it's just the geek community that even knows there are alternatives. Everyone who I've worked with who had Netscape, and had problems with my programs, were very happy to switch.

People who use alternate technology, such as Macs and Opera need to understand that the world will not bow to their needs. If they chose to use these alternates, for whatever reason, they need to understand that some things won't be the same.

If you buy a Corvette, be prepared to pay for higher maintenance and premium gas. Goes with the territory. I'm sick of people whining that it doesn't work with this browser or this computer. Too bad.

I'm in business to make money, not to please the geek community. Yes, I'm willing to lose 3% of the alternate community. Every business accepts the fact that they won't sell or be applicable to 100% of the market. There are high end cars, restaruants, department stores, etc. You can't please everyone every time.

[edited by: korkus2000 at 12:40 am (utc) on Feb. 9, 2004]

[tombola]

I'm in business to make money, not to please the geek community. Yes, I'm willing to lose 3% of the alternate community. Every business accepts the fact that they won't sell or be applicable to 100% of the market.

Exactly!

[SethCall]

To clarify to everyone

not enough to bother coding for.

Could have been said like,

[myWords]I dont receive enough traffic from NS 4.7[/myWords]

to bother coding for.

For some reason, I think its been taken out of context, and hes saying "NS 4.7 is simply not worth coding for"

I feel confident in saying that if 93% of the market was using NS 4.7, then he would have said the same for IE.

[txbakers]

I feel confident in saying that if 93% of the market was using NS 4.7, then he would have said the same for IE.

Seth, you're hired as my full-time spokesperson!

Now, can you come over and translate what I'm trying to say to my wife and kids!

THANKS.!

[tedster]

I noticed that txbakers is speaking about online APPLICATIONS, and not just web PAGES.

I'd say there are many good reasons for choosing to limit browser support with applications -- whereas basic web pages are much more easily created in a wide cross-browser fashion.

[tedster]

Back to the original question, I sometimes browse WebmasterWorld with NN4. I have one computer set up to use the Netscape 4 email client, and I am very comfortable with it. So sometimes instead of doing a copy/paste to take an email link to another browser, I just click.

[sidyadav]

The older versions of some browsers are great!

they're not filled with the 'new features' crap these 'mordern' versions have introduced.

they are so light-weighted that they almost never crash in my 99% occupied computer! The later versions have too many crappy features (those features might be useful for some; but a complete waste for me.)

they make surfing the web a lot easier, no toolbars, no extra-link buttons, just a complete page! (and yes - I know that those can be turned off)

however, they do have some dis-advantages:

a lot of bugs might exist, that are fixed in the later version.

100% style/html/javascript codes may not be supported.

ActiveX plug-ins, such as PDF viewer, Macromedia Shockware/Flash viewer and that kind of extra plug-ins may not be compatible.

Sid

[Krapulator]

>>People who use alternate technology, such as Macs and Opera need to understand that the world will not bow to their needs.

Amen Brother :)

[PCInk]

heartlandcat > Say I was making £20,000 a year out of a collection of web-based applications that I had written. £2,000 would be a lot of money each year to lose.

It's not a simple equation like that. You will find that many people who use an alternative browser will also back out of your COMPETITORS sites and eventually find yours. So if 93% use IE and your site works with Netscape, AOL's browser, Opera, Safari etc... your sales should increase by 7% from customers you come to you, plus another increase from those you have tried competitors and come to you. In my experience, you should be looking at double to triple that amount (14%-21%). So if you were making £20,000 per year, you can probably expect an extra £4000 by supporting other browsers.

I know I have done this before. Bought from a competitor because the first site doesn't work in NS7 - I find one that will. It seems to give me that element of trust. They have had web designers that have thought about everyone. It makes them look more professional.

The same for other things. If you are different from your competitors (your unique selling point), the customers will come to you.

[sidyadav]

So you guys mean to say, that if I programmed a web site and tested it on IE, it will work on IE only and not work on non-ie browsers?

Its not like that. I once made a site, testing it only on IE (debugging errors etc using IE only) and 3 months later a thought came to my mind
"oops, I forgot to check if the site works in Opera"

so I did. And guess what? It couldn't work better.

I guess what you guys were really meaning was that it will work on all the web browsers, but may have rendering difficulties on some alternatives that don't use the IE ActiveX control (eg. they use Gecko)

Sid

[tedster]

sidyadav, not exactly. If you only test in IE, you may be depending on a non-standard rendering that IE executes (there are more than a few - especially if you write in quirks mode.) When you view the page in another browser, it may not have that peculiarity.

PCInk, thanks for putting that insight into words. I have also seen the phenomenon, but never exactly zeroed in on it. None of my sites are as high as 93% IE, and you've just explained why very well. It's not the market niche each one is in, because these sites are all over the map. It's that people with non-IE browsers will go where they are being served.

I know that I hate doing research on MS products because it often means I need to open up IE to use the Microsoft website.

Mac users are very familiar with the need to keep a couple browsers at hand out of self defense, although Safari may soon change that. But the average IE/pc user is often in "what's a browser?" land.