Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Chrome Hits 20% Share As IE Continues Slide

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the teeter-tottering-away dept.

Chrome 308

jbrodkin writes "Google Chrome's rise in popularity has been remarkably fast and it's just hit a new milestone: more than 20% of all browser usage, according to StatCounter. Chrome rose from only 2.8% in June 2009 to 20.7% worldwide in June 2011, while Microsoft's Internet Explorer fell from 59% to 44% in the same time frame. Firefox dropped only slightly in the past two years, from 30% to 28%. While other browser trackers show Chrome with a lower percentage, there's a reason: StatCounter tracks total surfing, not the number of users. It's the Web's power users who are pushing Chrome to new heights."

cancel ×

308 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

PC manufacturers and affiliate marketers (3, Insightful)

cgeys (2240696) | more than 3 years ago | (#36640090)

Google pays affiliate commissions for every install of their toolbar and chrome. It's perfect bundle for those PC manufacturers who put all kind of stuff on new pc's (like Norton trials etc) and get paid for commissions. IE doesn't give them anything, so they throw in Chrome and make a little extra every PC sold. Chrome and the toolbar also pushed by affiliate marketers who try to get people to install it along their (sometimes shitty) software. So it's no wonder it spreads.

Re:PC manufacturers and affiliate marketers (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36640116)

IE gets installed with every windows, and they get commission from installing windows.

Re:PC manufacturers and affiliate marketers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36640126)

Someone's going to pay me to install Windows now?

Re:PC manufacturers and affiliate marketers (1)

cgeys (2240696) | more than 3 years ago | (#36640136)

IE gets installed with every windows, and they get commission from installing windows.

What now? They pay MS to install Windows...

Re:PC manufacturers and affiliate marketers (4, Insightful)

jpapon (1877296) | more than 3 years ago | (#36640198)

No, the consumer pays to install Windows. The PC manufacturer gets a commission on that.

Re:PC manufacturers and affiliate marketers (2)

node 3 (115640) | more than 2 years ago | (#36640564)

No, the consumer pays to install Windows. The PC manufacturer gets a commission on that.

Now *that's* some tortured logic! The PC maker pays to get Windows on their PCs. Other software makers (like Norton) pay the PC makers to include their software. I don't know if Google pays to have Chrome bundled or not, but if they do, this is very different from how it works with Windows.

MS does (presumably) pay to have the Office trial bundled, not that this has any bearing on browsers. But at least it's logically sound.

Re:PC manufacturers and affiliate marketers (5, Interesting)

phonewebcam (446772) | more than 3 years ago | (#36640212)

Incidentally, I Installed Windows 7 recently and was asked to choose between Google, Yahoo and Bing as a search engine. No wonder Google wins everything when it gets listed twice like that [blogspot.com] .

Re:PC manufacturers and affiliate marketers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36640412)

LOL! That was awesome (but too subtle for this mob).

Re:PC manufacturers and affiliate marketers (4, Interesting)

igreaterthanu (1942456) | more than 2 years ago | (#36640500)

Don't you mean thrice [techreport.com] ? ;)

Re:PC manufacturers and affiliate marketers (3, Funny)

jejones (115979) | more than 3 years ago | (#36640362)

Isn't it more accurate to say they get screwed over if they don't install Windows on every computer they sell?

Re:PC manufacturers and affiliate marketers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36640162)

It is one thing to not read the article, this is /. after all; but, did you not even bother reading the summary?
FTFS:"StatCounter tracks total surfing, not the number of users. It's the Web's power users who are pushing Chrome to new heights."

Re:PC manufacturers and affiliate marketers (4, Insightful)

cgeys (2240696) | more than 3 years ago | (#36640308)

Web power users? What does that even mean? Some soccer mom on facebook probably spends many more hours online and browsers more than the actual so called power users, who are doing something productive with their computor.

And since they track usage instead of users, that means Chrome's userbase is not 20%, like is usually calculated and what most people reading the headline will think.

Soccer moms and clueless uses are perfectly targeted by Google too. Like someone below in the comments mention, not only is Chrome pushed by manufacturers etc, but Google packs it with every download from them. Picasa, Google Earth and so on.. The real power users would always untick the unwanted software and think why is Google trying to push them y while you only wanted x. Google also pushes it on YouTube, Google homepage (if you browse in with IE) and their other sites. They're using all the evil marketing tricks in the book, like using soft language "oh that's ok" or similar instead of "yes" when asking if you want to install Chrome etc..

Re:PC manufacturers and affiliate marketers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36640422)

Web power users? What does that even mean?

It means someone wanted a marketing term and thats what they pulled out of their [insert euphemism here]

- Same AC as GP

Re:PC manufacturers and affiliate marketers (1)

WillKemp (1338605) | more than 2 years ago | (#36640430)

And since they track usage instead of users, that means Chrome's userbase is not 20%, like is usually calculated and what most people reading the headline will think.

That's pretty spurious logic. Do you think Chrome users browse the web more frequently than IE or Firefox users do? And, if you do, why do you think that?

Re:PC manufacturers and affiliate marketers (1)

MimeticLie (1866406) | more than 2 years ago | (#36640570)

If you read the summary, you'd note that it says "While other browser trackers show Chrome with a lower percentage, there's a reason: StatCounter tracks total surfing, not the number of users".

That tracks with this table, [wikipedia.org] where StatCounter shows Chrome as having a higher marketshare than it does in other sources. So if those sources base their numbers on unique users rather than pageviews as the summary implies, then yes it seems reasonable to state that Chrome users browse more than other users.

Better than IE (3, Informative)

Jaro (4361) | more than 3 years ago | (#36640110)

Better to see some Chrome installs out there because: it runs on multiple platforms, does a hell of a job in supporting web standards and is fast. Although it does crash on occasion, especially with web content. It also dies when you have 60+ Google Maps tabs open.

For me as a web developer I prefer to see more Chrome installs than IE, just it makes life easier. The only positive thing about IE is that they have gotten better at supporting web standards. Even though stuff that worked in IE 8 doesn't work in IE 9. and stuff made for IE6 and special modifications in IE7 still break IE8 and IE9. But I'm getting off-topic here.

Re:Better than IE (2)

jira (451936) | more than 3 years ago | (#36640142)

> The __only__ positive thing about IE is that they have gotten better at supporting web standards.

But is is a pretty important one, no?

Re:Better than IE (0)

kronosopher (1531873) | more than 3 years ago | (#36640256)

Y'know, over a decade and 4 versions - you'd think M$ would have straightened up their implementation of the DOM, especially with increasing and high profile competition from Google. As a web developer, it never ceases to amaze me when I design a web-site that works in nearly every browser *except* IE(any version). I typically have to budget as much(or more) time fixing a site for IE as I spent designing it in the first place. Sometimes I wonder if they're just fucking with us or legitimately writing a browser. If IE doesn't shape up, I'm going to order an army of monkeys to un-install it from every computer of the face of the planet.

Re:Better than IE (4, Informative)

yuhong (1378501) | more than 3 years ago | (#36640274)

IE9 finally implemented DOM level 2 and otherwise change it to match other browsers. Previously the DOM has seen little change since IE5, which was good in 1999 but not so good now.

Re:Better than IE (1)

WillKemp (1338605) | more than 2 years ago | (#36640446)

As a web developer, it never ceases to amaze me when I design a web-site that works in nearly every browser *except* IE(any version). I typically have to budget as much(or more) time fixing a site for IE as I spent designing it in the first place.

In that case, you're doing it wrong! If you need to make the site work with IE, then you should design it to work with IE from the start. There's no shortage of information about what works with which browser.

Re:Better than IE (1)

ajo_arctus (1215290) | more than 2 years ago | (#36640582)

Agreed. I occasionally get caught out by an odd margin where I've not set the position attribute, or certain attributes that don't like percentages or have sane defaults, but I write a lot of stuff that needs to be standards + IE compatible, and it's not that difficult. You just need to learn the tricks of the trade, and that means practice/experience.

Re:Better than IE (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36640466)

I view your comment as the key failing of the "everyone gets a trophy" generation.
When the only positive thing about something is that it "isn't as bad as it usedto be", it also clearly indicates "but isn't good enough to be used".
So no, it's not at all important that IE is better than IE usedto be until IE is equal to or better than the competition.

"Hire me!"
"But... you're not as good as my current employee"
"But I'm better than I was last year when I applied here!"
"Yes... but... you're still not as good as my current employee. Feel free to come back next year. We'll call you if current employee becomes somehow less good than you"

Can we at least just stick a big "Participation!!!" with some gold stars around it on IE and then have it go away until it's as good as ffox/chrome at... well SOMETHING?

Re:Better than IE (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36640218)

Color me curious; why so 60+ google maps tabs?

It's the Web's power users who are pushing Chrome (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36640130)

Seriously? It's Google who just pushes their software. On our network, several users 'suddenly' had Chrome installed. If I remember correctly, it was bundled with Google Earth. None of them of course paying attention to the fact they got more than they bargained for. The very few "power" users - or in our case the people who just want to pretend they know anything about it, could install Google Chrome on their PC's without admin rights... Yes, Google's very sneaky with their setups. The only way to prevent it, is to already make certain directories on each PC and set it up so that no one but adminsn can write to these folders.

Google Evil (beta) (4, Interesting)

ShakaUVM (157947) | more than 3 years ago | (#36640210)

>>It's Google who just pushes their software. On our network, several users 'suddenly' had Chrome installed.

Yeah. I wanted to put the Google photo screensaver on my mom's computer. So a quick Google search, and here it is - http://pack.google.com/screensaver.html [google.com]

So you click on "get google photos screensaver" and it takes you, not to a link to the download, but to a page for "The Google Pack" which has a bunch of checkboxes for various software options.

None of which are the screensaver. But Chrome is checked by default, as is Google Desktop. So a non-technical user might think that Google Desktop = hey, free screensaver. So they might download that. And get Chrome. (And all the other bloatware like Avast! antivirus found here:http://pack.google.com/pack_installer.html). I knew that it was probably part of Picasa, so I unchecked all of the bloatware options, and just downloaded Picasa, which indeed had the screensaver my mom wanted, and there you go.

But the point is:
1) Google is acting evil (if my mom had tried to do this herself, she'd be stuck with a horrible antivirus product - or two, there's two in the Pack)
2) Chrome installs are up because of their evil.

Giving free advertising to Chrome on Google.com is borderline evil, too. Leverage of monopolistic powers and all.

Re:Google Evil (beta) (1)

Spad (470073) | more than 3 years ago | (#36640270)

Leverage of monopolistic powers is not evil, *abuse* of a monopolistic position is evil.

Do you really expect the Chrome team to be paying the Search team to put adverts for Chrome on Google.com? Do you really think that any other company wouldn't (doesn't) do the same thing? Now, if they refused to advertise other browsers, or tacked on a "But Chrome is better" tagline under each one, then I'd agree that they're being evil.

That said, I do agree that they shouldn't things as products that are only available as a subset of functionality of another product.

Re:Google Evil (beta) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36640456)

Do you really expect the Chrome team to be paying the Search team to put adverts for Chrome on Google.com?

I worked for a huge corporation running airports. That's how it worked there, e.g. working in software development we had to rent servers from IT; other departments that wanted software developed had to pay software development for it. Then again the airline industry is regulated to hell and back to "enable competition".

Re:Google Evil (beta) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36640578)

Yeah, in larger companies there has to be some kind of accounting for services "sold" to other departments/divisions. It's not a bad thing, as when I need something built I have to be very specific when speccing it out and quantifying the returns. Helps me deflect a lot if brainfart development requests when I can go back to the requestor with a cost estimate.

At the VP level there's a nasty habit of canning departments that can't quantify their work - even if they are the "fixit" team that quietly keeps a lot of departments running smoothly.

Re:Google Evil (beta) (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36640540)

Do you really think that any other company wouldn't (doesn't) do the same thing?

That's not a good enough standard. Just because everyone's doing it doesn't make it the right thing.

Re:Google Evil (beta) (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36640314)

Firefox used to be in the Google Pack. Was that evil?

Re:Google Evil (beta) (1)

CapuchinSeven (2266542) | more than 2 years ago | (#36640528)

Firefox used to be in the Google Pack. Was that evil?

I just checked with the evil computer, and no, Firefox is not evil.

Re:Google Evil (beta) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36640508)

1) Google is acting evil (if my mom had tried to do this herself, she'd be stuck with a horrible antivirus product - or two, there's two in the Pack)
2) Chrome installs are up because of their evil.

Unfortunately this is the norm and Google is no more evil than most others. I recently installed something from Microsoft (DirectX IIRC) and they tried to sneak the Bing browser bar in there.

Come to think of it ... I didn't get any brower ballot when I installed Windows 7 on my EU-released netbook; IE was installed by default.

Re:It's the Web's power users who are pushing Chro (1)

Grave (8234) | more than 2 years ago | (#36640572)

Yeah, damn Google for being so evil to create a browser that can be installed by non-admins! Damn them for making a browser sufficiently secure that it doesn't need elevated privileges! I expect my web browser to require lower-level access to my system. How else can I get infected by the latest malware? By clicking links in email? My company's servers scrub that too well now!

I wonder... (2)

masterwit (1800118) | more than 3 years ago | (#36640134)

I wonder if this rise in popularity can be attributed to the Chrome ads on Google's homepage we've seen in the past...

The article did not provide much analysis but rather a "news report" style...oh well.

Re:I wonder... (1)

JAlexoi (1085785) | more than 3 years ago | (#36640186)

The power of marketing - do not underestimate it.

Re:I wonder... (1)

whiteboy86 (1930018) | more than 3 years ago | (#36640260)

Indeed, quality determines whether a product will be successful (Firefox), advertising determine who successful will be (Chrome).

Re:I wonder... (1)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 2 years ago | (#36640524)

Dude, there's a Chrome billboard at my local train station. They're aiming for the casual browsing populace.

google targets AGGRESSIVELY ie users. (3, Interesting)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 3 years ago | (#36640150)

if you go with fresh ie to google.com it's like going to spam city. it has an advert bar at the top to change your homepage to google(a big one, 2x the size of ie's program bar), what's worse the "yes" choice isn't yes, in finnish it's "sopiihan se" which translates roughtly to "oh that's okay" - softening the menu, but it's straight out of spam advertiser course to do that, yes/no would be sufficient, but it woudl be better that they wouldn't do that at all, it's using their monopoly in search to try to push their browser. and it does a "would you like to install a faster way to browse" pop-over on the google logo for installing google chrome. it's an atrocity, really - and it's like if ms and google have traded places.

also the stats are a bit suspect. (I roll with firefox normally)

Re:google targets AGGRESSIVELY ie users. (2)

coolmadsi (823103) | more than 3 years ago | (#36640194)

I have heard stories of people having Yahoo or Bing as their default homepage and when they want to search for something, they type "google" into the search bar, go to Google from the results, and then search from there. In that case the "oh that's okay" could imply that it is targeted to users who do that who didn't know they could change their homepage to google.com so they don't have to search from it from their current homepage before actually searching on google.

The summary says "StatCounter tracks total surfing, not the number of users", which could explain why the stats are different, is that what you meant by suspect? (I use both Chromium and Firefox)

Re:google targets AGGRESSIVELY ie users. (3, Informative)

excelsior_gr (969383) | more than 3 years ago | (#36640276)

You said it, as well as someone else above, and it goes like this: "Google is using its search monopoly to push Chrome"

Google does not have a monopoly in search. You can go e.g. to Bing with no consequences. Doing so will not prevent you from using any other programs, features of your hardware etc. The stuff that is online is just there. They do not need a specific search engine in order for them to be found or (nowadays) a specific browser to be viewed. You can type the address in the bar and navigate to your target directly (I know that is starting to change, but this is another story).

My point is, what Google is doing is different than, e.g. what MS was doing with Windows and IE6 and Windows Media Player. Not having Windows in the 90's meant you could not use your hardware properly (driver issues), you could not play most of the audio and video formats and you could not view a lot of websites appropriately.

Google is just exercising aggressive marketing strategies, that's all (and I don't like that either). But in this case, unlike 10 years ago, you have other options. Use them!

Re:google targets AGGRESSIVELY ie users. (1)

Certhas (2310124) | more than 2 years ago | (#36640490)

It doesn't have lock in, but it has a dominant market position in one area and is using it to push in a different market. The point to note is that MS is still dominant in OS software, and is pushing IE out with it (though now we at least get the browser ballot to balance things somewhat). So in this case all it is iss doing is restoring some balance.

Re:google targets AGGRESSIVELY ie users. (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 2 years ago | (#36640584)

I tried it now using a fresh install of IE9 (since I don't ever use it for anything) and first time I went to google I got a top bar asking if I'd like to change my home page to google, same size as their menu line with "Web Images Videos etc." and a small box in the upper right corner below the menu line "for faster video browsing, install Google Chrome". I answered no to the homepage question, X'd out the Chrome box, closed down IE. Opened up IE again, and now it looks exactly like Google in Chrome. So yes it bugs you, but it only bugs you once. If you're seeing it all the time, it's probably due to some non-default settings so Google doesn't realize you've already said no.

Recent convert from Firefox (1, Informative)

rasmusbr (2186518) | more than 3 years ago | (#36640154)

Something about Firefox is ridiculously slow since FF4. It takes several seconds to start, webpages load slowly, scrolling is choppy. Maybe something is wrong with one of my add-ons, but I don't want to turn them off and then turn each on one by one to find out if that's the case. Nah, it was easier to just switch to Chrome. It's fast as hell and has almost all the features I need as someone who does not do any web development.

My only major gripe is that Chrome lacks the feature where it does an in-page search as soon as you begin typing. There is an extension that does it, sort of, but it's not quite as polished as in Firefox. The Chrome team has come out and said that they will not make it a built-in feature, which is sad. Once you get used to browsing text-intensive web pages by in-page search you'll never go back. It saves your eyes and your mouse hand a lot of work. Especially your eyes. I hardly read stuff anymore, I just type what I'm looking for. But I digress...

If Firefox fixes the speed problem they will get me back, whatever that means. It's not like I'm paying for anything.

Re:Recent convert from Firefox (1)

zennyboy (1002544) | more than 3 years ago | (#36640182)

[Ctrl]+[F] -

Or am I missing something?

Re:Recent convert from Firefox (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36640206)

No you aren't. The inline search in Chrome is the best I've seen in any browser so far. It's just awesome it displays the location/frequency of hits in the scrollbar (I wish every browser/text editor would do that).

Re:Recent convert from Firefox (1)

rasmusbr (2186518) | more than 3 years ago | (#36640222)

Well, yeah, but I don't want to have to hit a key combo just to search. If I begin hitting letter keys when I'm browsing a page I'm probably searching for something. Why else would I hit letter keys? So why not start searching right away? (I suppose the feature could be confusing for new users, so it's probably something that should be disabled by default, as it is in Firefox. It's the first thing I enable on a fresh FF install.)

As I said there is an extension that adds the functionality to Chrome so it's bearable, but I would prefer if it was built-in.

Re:Recent convert from Firefox (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#36640316)

Well, yeah, but I don't want to have to hit a key combo just to search

Do you even consciously hit the keys? That shortcut is the same in every other application.

If I begin hitting letter keys when I'm browsing a page I'm probably searching for something. Why else would I hit letter keys?

Well, on sites like Slashdot or DuckDuckGo, you might be using the key bindings to navigate the page, or you might be using some text widget written in JavaScript (e.g. one of the many rich text editor tools), or you might have thought that you had a text field selected but missed.

Re:Recent convert from Firefox (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36640414)

Yes, Slashdot does that and I find it very annoying. I start typing to search for a word and /. starts doing things I don't care about.
Search-as-you-type is extremely convenient but I understand that sometimes you have to surrender your keystrokes to a site (usually games). It would be nice if FF had a single key to press to switch search-as-you-type on and off.

Re:Recent convert from Firefox (1)

silanea (1241518) | more than 2 years ago | (#36640432)

I do not know about site key bindings, but Firefox automatically disables search-as-you-type whenever something that looks like a text input box is active.

Re:Recent convert from Firefox (1)

jira (451936) | more than 3 years ago | (#36640196)

Taking the opportunity to whine about Firefox.

Does anybody else have a problem with FF5 displaying pages in upsized font randomly? And sometimes it displays pages as without css styles applied. Also seemingly randomly.

Re:Recent convert from Firefox (0)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 2 years ago | (#36640538)

Upsized font - are you using a trackpad (e.g. on a laptop) and you happen to be holding the control key when the font blows up? Then you hit the scroll wheel zone of the trackpad. Go to about:config and change mousewheel.withcontrolkey.action from 3 to 0.

Re:Recent convert from Firefox (1)

rusl (1255318) | more than 3 years ago | (#36640200)

Well I'm not switching then. I've been considering it for a while as my Dad uses it and it seems to have a few neat different functions. But basic stuff like searching in a page... I couldn't tolerate that for very long.

Re:Recent convert from Firefox (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36640534)

Seriously.... Same question as to the guy above: Ctrl+F isn't an unconscious gesture when you want to search for something?
Every single application I use that deals with text has a crtl+f search.
We've always used crtl+f to search.

Ctrl+F is one of the key combinations that has become as automatic to me as shifting gears in a car, I only even notice it if I'm specifically paying attention for it.

(Bonus for anyone who read this post and drives a stick: You will be aware of your shifting ALL THE WAY HOME today)

Re:Recent convert from Firefox (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36640204)

I'll consider giving chrome a try again when and if the extensions I use in firefox have an equivalent in chrome-land: about:me, adblock plus + element hinding helper for adblock, all-in-one-gestures, anonymizer nevercookie, beef taco, better privacy, bugmenot, context search, exif viewer, febe, firefox sync, forecastfox weather, gmail watcher, https everywhere, nuke anything enhanced, remove it permanently, stylish, taboo, url fixer.

Until then there is no way in hell I'd change to something that doesn't offer me the same level of functionality. These speed wars are utterly meaningless to end users, it's not like the 0.019s firefox takes extra to show my friends garish facebook is perceptible, anyway.

Re:Recent convert from Firefox (2)

SmilingBoy (686281) | more than 3 years ago | (#36640386)

I don't know all the extensions you list, but for those that I used on Firefox, there are replacements on Chrome:

Adblock Plus: Use the Adblock extension. It is very good now; don't see any difference to the FF ABP anymore. (In the beginning, it would only hide elements, now it doesn't download them)

All-in-one Gestures: Use the SmoothGestures extension. It does everything I need.

Better Privacy: I think not needed anymore on Chrome - LSOs ("Flash Cookies") now get deleted when you delete other cookies from the menu now. This is quite new though and I think can't be automated. Not sure there is an extension for this.

Gmail Watcher: Google Mail-Checker works for me.

Firefox Sync: Chrome Sync is built into the browser. For cross-platform synching, use Xmarks

HTTPS everywhere: Called "Use HTTPS" on Chrome

I am sure there are weather extensions as well. Bugmenot also seems to exist for Chrome. So does Stylish. Etc.

Re:Recent convert from Firefox (1)

gilesjuk (604902) | more than 3 years ago | (#36640224)

i had to kill my profile folder and start again with FF4 as it was running so bad. However FF5 seems to have improved performance, which is probably why they released it so fast.

Re:Recent convert from Firefox (1)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 2 years ago | (#36640542)

Yes, FF5 is noticeably better than FF4 on my anaemic little Mini 9 netbook (running Ubuntu 11.04).

Re:Recent convert from Firefox (1)

Zugok (17194) | more than 3 years ago | (#36640288)

I am actually finding webkit browsers on my linux rendering slashdot.org poorly and really slow especially with the scrolling. I tried a number of them, Chromium, Chrome, Epiphany, Arora (which I really liked) and Midori. I go fed up so I switched back to the gecko engine, Icecat 5 in fact and its great.

Re:Recent convert from Firefox (4, Insightful)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 3 years ago | (#36640384)

I wouldn't ever take behaviour on Slashdot as an indication of anything for a browser, Slashdots Javascript is just shit, its layout is just shit, and in general its just shit - there are so many shitty bugs in the code that have been complained about for ages and yet the team constantly roll out new candy rather than fix fairly major bugs.

My two pet ones are the "load another comment further up the chain when you click in the comment box, and remove the focus from the comment box. Yeah, that means the next click will load another comment..." and the random lack of karma scores on comments.

And yet they recently changed the page layout slightly, which fixed none of the bugs commonly reported. Eye candy over functionality.

Utterly pathetic. The only reason I come here any more is for the entertainment from the discussion, which actually I haven't found elsewhere. But as an example of a front end, Slashdot is just shit.

Re:Recent convert from Firefox (3, Informative)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#36640514)

The Classic Discussion System works fine, though.

Re:Recent convert from Firefox (1)

nssy (1530925) | more than 3 years ago | (#36640332)

"an in-page search as soon as you begin typing." Control+H works for me in chrome.

Re:Recent convert from Firefox (1)

stewartjm (608296) | more than 3 years ago | (#36640350)

Another annoyance with chrome search, as soon as you navigate off of the current page, the search panel closes. Both FF and IE leave the panel open, which is much more convenient when you want to repeat the same search on a group of linked pages.

"Surfing" (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36640160)

Can we please stop saying 'surfing' and use 'browsing' instead? 'Surfing' just sounds silly.

Re:"Surfing" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36640546)

I'm surfing the information super highway man.

WebGL (0)

advance-software (1770510) | more than 3 years ago | (#36640164)

IE is dead if MS don't implement WebGL.

Whine all you like about security flaws. It's fine - all you need is a shader validator to ensure it can't lock up.

If there are holes in drivers they should be fixed. That's not the fault of the architecture.

Re:WebGL (2)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#36640324)

If there are holes in drivers they should be fixed

Good luck with that. Oh, and if you're using Linux with the current nVidia drivers, be careful where you navigate with WebGL enabled...

Re:WebGL (-1)

advance-software (1770510) | more than 3 years ago | (#36640338)

> Good luck with that. Oh, and if you're using Linux with the current nVidia drivers, be careful where you navigate with WebGL enabled...

You have of course reported any known bugs to nvidia.

Smart arse responses don't help. Addressing security holes by ensuring those who need to know about problems can fix them helps.

Re:WebGL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36640518)

I agree actually. 2D images have existed on webpages for ages. An extension of 2D to 3D should not have anything to do with security.

It's the ADS (1, Insightful)

AftanGustur (7715) | more than 3 years ago | (#36640190)

StatCounter tracks total surfing, not the number of users.

Meaning that it's counting the ads and other stuff Firefox users are blocking.

Let's face it, Google thrives on advertising, it is the bread and butter of it's revenue stream and Google Chrome will never get even half of the ad-blocking capabilities Firefox users have.

Re:It's the ADS (3, Interesting)

kronosopher (1531873) | more than 3 years ago | (#36640232)

I'm confused, if Chrome doesn't do ad-blocking then what's this? [google.com] Are you saying that AdBlock for chrome is different in some significant way? If yes, please provide a citation.

Re:It's the ADS (1)

AftanGustur (7715) | more than 3 years ago | (#36640262)

I stand corrected, it looks like they have accepted ABP, they didn't for quite a long time.

Re:It's the ADS (1)

coolmadsi (823103) | more than 3 years ago | (#36640306)

It's been available for quite a long time now. There was one when Chrome was first getting popular, but it still downloaded ads and only hid them due to a limitation in the add-on API, so it wasn't as good as the Firefox one (but bearable to use). Now with some updates to the API, I think they do stop them from downloading as well.

In a slightly related topic, I had been browsing without Flashblock on Chromium for a while because I had issues using the add-on, but there is a new one now that is quite decent (I sometimes had issues using the older Flashblock on both Firefox and Chrome, but the new one for Chrome works really well so far, I think it's mainly the option to easily enable and disable on a whole page which I like)

Long live... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36640202)

IE6!

I hope I'm not the only one. But as more sites block IE6, change the user agent and vector version. That will sure skew statistics.

Expect IE to rise (2)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 3 years ago | (#36640216)

Many and I mean many businesses are coming up with plans to dump Firefox and use IE again thanks to Asa's big mouth. I read about them on slashdot all the time, and while some of you say it is an opportunity for Chrome, all I have to say is it is proof why you should only stick to Microsoft standards at work. No one ever gets fired for choosing them. ... end gripe

Either way IE 9.01 is now included by default with a Windows Update without a prompt so it's marketshare will increase. It may piss off a lot of users like Firefox 5 did though.

But still, Chrome is popular for many generation Y and home users. I am trying to get my family to dump Firefox and switch to Chrome because things like plugins and updates are automatic. No worries of old flash exploits eithers which is one of Chrome's strength. Still I find the hardware acceleration in Chrome lacking. IE 9 is smooth when I hit arrow up or down and pictures and text flicker like mad with Chrome as they are not fully accelerated.

Re:Expect IE to rise (3, Insightful)

yuhong (1378501) | more than 3 years ago | (#36640264)

The main cause is the new release cycle. Asa's big mouth only helped it a bit.

Re:Expect IE to rise (-1, Flamebait)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 3 years ago | (#36640318)

Still I find the hardware acceleration in Chrome lacking. IE 9 is smooth when I hit arrow up or down and pictures and text flicker like mad with Chrome as they are not fully accelerated.

Yup - thanks to IE's use of hardware graphics rendering, you hardly notice your computer slowing down at all while those rootkits are being installed!

Re:Expect IE to rise (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36640346)

Excuse me, mate. I feel you are trying to make some point, but I can't quite seem to grasp what it is. Could you please explain it a bit more clearly?

You say:

Many and I mean many businesses are coming up with plans to dump Firefox and use IE again thanks to Asa's big mouth.

[citation needed]

What, specifically, has Asa said that is causing businesses to want to go back to using IE? Is it the 5.0 release and the EOLing of 4.x?

while some of you say it is an opportunity for Chrome, all I have to say is it is proof why you should only stick to Microsoft standards at work

You are entitled to your opinion, of course. But "Microsoft standards"? The only thing I've seen Microsoft do with standards, lately, is say that they will properly support the standards in the next release. They said that for IE7. For IE8. For IE9. And for the newer releases of MS Office, too. Well, I am happy to report that their support for standards has indeed been getting better, but it falls short of actually enabling full interoperability. Every project that involves dynamic web pages still ends up implementing extra fixes and workarounds for Internet Explorer. And I don't know if you've ever tried to open a moderately complex document created in MS Office in another suite, or the other way around, but I can tell you that the results tend to be horrible. We support standards, indeed.

Or maybe you just want to get back to the days when Microsoft were resting on their laurels and not working on anything beyond IE6.

No one ever gets fired for choosing them

That may or may not be true, but let's not pretend Microsoft's products are the greatest out there for every possible purpose. In my opinion, people who burden companies with costly BizTalk or SharePoint installations and associated licensing fees and consulting fees and interoperability problems _should_ be fired. Preferably _before_ the damage is done.

Either way IE 9.01 is now included by default with a Windows Update without a prompt so it's marketshare will increase.

Right! And how are we supposed to make our software work for organizations who are stuck with some older version of IE for whatever reason? The guts of these companies, changing the software behind our backs without asking!

I am trying to get my family to dump Firefox and switch to Chrome because things like plugins and updates are automatic.

So you are saying this is a good thing? Mozilla are wrong for EOLing some product when the new version arrives, but automatic, non-consensual updates from Microsoft and Google are good? What's wrong, then, with Mozilla doing the same thing?

Still I find the hardware acceleration in Chrome lacking. IE 9 is smooth when I hit arrow up or down and pictures and text flicker like mad with Chrome as they are not fully accelerated.

Hahahaha, ok. Now I get it. I thought your username was a joke, but you really _are_ a Microsoft shill. Nice throwing Chrome in there as a distraction. But seriously. What kind of lame-ass setup do you have that one of the FASTEST browsers on earth can't even scroll smoothly? And they say X.org is bad ...

not accurate. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36640220)

for me at least.
Statcounter is blocked on all my systems.
I have about 60 sites like this that are blocked in the browsers I use.
Add pretty well everyone I know who uses Firefox/Opera etc. With add blocking and NoScript addons any stats based upon this sort of premise is faltally flawed IMHO.

Firefox dropped the ball (5, Insightful)

RoLi (141856) | more than 3 years ago | (#36640234)

Firefox could have become the rock solid browser that "just works".

The only reason we have standards like those set by W3C is stability.

There is no need for rapid releases any more because the major problems have been solved years ago. I am still using Firefox 3.0 as my default browser and while I had to install Chrome because Google-Translator mysteriously stopped working, otherwise I had no problems with it.

Because of the good extension-system, Firefox could be a rock-solid browser while all the experimental stuff and new functionality is done in extensions.

But no. Mozilla decided that Firefox has to be like Chrome. Of course not really like Chrome because to get the advantages of Chrome would require a complete rewrite of Firefox, so Mozilla settled for a completely nonsensical release-policy completely with automatic non-wanted upgrades ("What is my computer doing now? Oh, my browser changed again!").

Mozilla should understand that the 90s are over and people are no longer buying a new computer every 2 years and upgrade their software even more often. The new features (ALL of them) are not needed in the default install. They could be tested using extensions but there is absolutely no reason any more to change ANYTHING just for change's sake.

What we need is at least one browser-alternative that aims at creating a bug-free browser instead of a perpetual usability experiment.

Re:Firefox dropped the ball (1)

excelsior_gr (969383) | more than 3 years ago | (#36640286)

Mod parent up!

Re:Firefox dropped the ball (1)

inglorion_on_the_net (1965514) | more than 3 years ago | (#36640370)

Because of the good extension-system, Firefox could be a rock-solid browser while all the experimental stuff and new functionality is done in extensions.

Exactly. It's like they finally managed to trim out a lot of bloat, and then immediately started adding new bloat again.

This is also the objection I have against HTML 5. With XHTML, we were moving towards a small, extensible core of HTML, which would have allowed us to mix and match and have proposed extensions compete against one another. Meanwhile, we had browser plugins working just fine to get non-HTML things like video and interactive applications on the web. But now they want to move all that into HTML 5. Do we really want that in the core of our web browsers, and carry it around for years to come? I know I don't.

Re:Firefox dropped the ball (3, Insightful)

silanea (1241518) | more than 2 years ago | (#36640504)

Meanwhile, we had browser plugins working just fine to get non-HTML things like video and interactive applications on the web.

Right, like Shockwave, which only exists on Windows. Or Flash, whose 64-bit versions still are in beta and which still suffers all kinds of quirks and issues around hardware accelerated video decoding. Or Java applets, which are...well, it's Java.

There was a time when HTML did not support the use of images within a document. You had to use an external application to view them. Up until today we have to install (and update; my Windows machine at work nags me on every other boot with updaters for three different plugins) several different browser plugins to watch video, play audio and use interactive content. Now this is merging into the browser itself, which means: No more plugins to install, no more context breaking (focus grabbing etc.), and consolidated security and privacy management. There still is much work to be done. And there still are considerable security concerns. But at least in my opinion we are on the right path.

Re:Firefox dropped the ball (3, Informative)

theweatherelectric (2007596) | more than 3 years ago | (#36640382)

Mozilla should understand that the 90s are over and people are no longer buying a new computer every 2 years and upgrade their software even more often. The new features (ALL of them) are not needed in the default install. They could be tested using extensions but there is absolutely no reason any more to change ANYTHING just for change's sake.

Compared to Firefox 3.0, Firefox 5 has significant performance improvements in its JavaScript and render engines. You can't reasonably implement those changes as an add-on because it will be too slow. You really are missing out if you're still using Firefox 3.0. Firefox 5 is faster and more capable.

Sticking with FF3 instead of going to FF5 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36640436)

Is definitely not something to brag about.

Re:Firefox dropped the ball (1)

pmontra (738736) | more than 2 years ago | (#36640470)

I'm using the same computer since the end of 2006 (an Intel T7200 CPU) and it's getting faster and faster.

The browsers I use are faster (FF4 is faster than FF3, FF5 looks as fast as FF4), the operating system is faster (I'm on Linux since 2009 coming from XP, I used to have a boot-to-Firefox time of 5 minutes, I get there in 1 minute now), the filesystem is noticeably faster (the ext3 to ext4 switch). Even the software I use to work is faster than it used to be (Java, OpenOffice, Ruby, PostgreSQL among the others).

So, it's the constant upgrading of the software that spares us from having to buy a new computer every 2 years. On the other side, I see my friends that only need Word and Excel buing new Core i5 or i7 Windows PCs because they say their old machines (newer than mine) are getting too slow. Maybe it's a matter of picking up the right software stack but, trust me, FF4 beats FF3 in every single feature.

By the way, I also hate perpetual and mandatory usability experiments. I didn't appreciate some of Mozilla's UI decisions but luckily I managed to make it look almost as its predecessor. I'm going to have a harder time with Ubuntu's mandatory experiments. I'll probably switch to another desktop (xfce?).

I think I speak for everyone (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36640238)

Is Noscript here yet ? Google said they were working on it. (Nope, for your information the basic built-in functions of Opera and Chrome are nowhere near what Noscript can do)
And I understand that you've got to use RAM when you have RAM, but doesn't a browser that consumes about 1GB of RAM sound ridiculous to anyone ? Is that supposed to be a feature (increasing responsiveness ?) or a bug ?

Re:I think I speak for everyone (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 3 years ago | (#36640294)

Chrome 14 has more advanced scripting protection. Chrome 12 already blocks many bad javascripts that come in adds from other domains. IE and Firefox already have this and you do not need noscript anymore for these exploits.

Re:I think I speak for everyone (1)

Sinthet (2081954) | more than 2 years ago | (#36640526)

Using up free RAM was probably meant as a feature to increase snappiness, but something tells me the huge amount that actually ends up getting used is due to memory leaks somewhere in the code.

Bad for competition (1)

divec (48748) | more than 3 years ago | (#36640272)

Firefox is an open-source platform which is independent of any significant content provider. Chrome, like IE, is a project controlled by one company with a vested interest in directing users to particular content. I think we should find it concerning if Chrome is succeeding at the expense of Firefox.

Now I understand that many people really, really like Google, for important reasons such as their track record of being pro-standards and pro-freedom. But we should always support or oppose individual actions on their own grounds -- wherever possible, we should avoid depending on long-term trust of particular individuals or organisations, because there is no guarantee that we will still support their actions at some point in the future. We believe in political systems which have checks and balances. The same principle should apply here. A situation where the dominant search provider is also the dominant browser provider is one where we miss out on important checks and balances.

The situation is different from the phone market, where Android is squeezing a variety of closed platforms, thereby giving manufacturers and individuals more choice. In this case, there was already a viable and independent open platform, Firefox, and Google's offering is preventing it from becoming dominant.

The funny thing is... (1)

drolli (522659) | more than 3 years ago | (#36640278)

that one of the areas where if found chrome most useful is to read local (offline) documents. Starts faster than anything else for this purpose.

Redefining terms? (2)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 3 years ago | (#36640296)

It's the Web's power users who are pushing Chrome to new heights.

So.. "power users" now equates to "people who have the most free time on their hands"? Because I really don't see how surfing a bunch of web page makes one a "power user". If anything, I'd think people who have no idea what they're doing, or who are just killing time, are far more likely to visit more web pages.

Re:Redefining terms? (1)

silanea (1241518) | more than 2 years ago | (#36640516)

A bunch of web pages which participate in those tracking programmes, mind you. That excludes lots of websites with a narrower focus or a smaller but more highly specialised user base. And anyone even remotely interested in privacy.

Re:Redefining terms? (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 2 years ago | (#36640574)

And of course, people interested in privacy are less likely to choose Chrome anyway ...

Tis great news! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36640320)

Recently I've been wondering why the F i'm using Windows... unfortunately am gonna buy a new laptop soon and for games like Starcraft 2, I will yet again have to buy a Windows laptop (am no Apple fanboi, so stuff u if u think i'll switch to Apple).

Power users (2)

soodoo (2004582) | more than 3 years ago | (#36640352)

"It's the Web's power users who are pushing Chrome to new heights."

I think that depends on the definition of power users. Because judging by customization and advanced features, Firefox or Opera would be better choices for power users.

Most Chrome users I know are the exact opposite of power users, they like Chrome because it's simple, it "just opens pages".
Nothing wrong with that if it works for you. But the point of tweaking and customizing a browser is not to make life more complicated, but to eventually save time when browsing by doing something faster. For example, a regular user will first open a new tab and then navigate to Youtube.com to search for a video of 'something', while a power user will highlight the word 'something' and "search with Youtube" from the context menu, saving quite some time in the process.

I know Chrome probably has that functionality as well, and don't get me wrong it's a good browser in many aspects. But the point is that the average (!) Chrome user doesn't use those features. I'd say the average Chrome user is barely any more of a power user than the average IE user.
So I wouldn't say Chrome adaptation is being pushed by power users, but much more by power marketing.

Switched away from Chrome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36640368)

I switched away from Chrome back to Safari.

I don't trust Google any more.

While Apple is trying to sell me product Google is trying to sell me to advertisers. I don't trust Google to keep my metrics or specifics "safe".

Firefox needs to compete better. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36640420)

Firefox 3.6 is becoming the new IE6 due to people sticking with it because they don't like the new rapid release foxes.

Every 10 "rapid releases" (60 weeks) they should make a stable versions for businesses with their apps, schools who can only update after terms/semesters, power users and provide official add ons for classic features such as status bar, non awesome bar, menu bar, http:// display.

Also they need to become 100% html5/css3/js compliant and aggressively cull ram leakages. I became victim of Firefox 4 suddenly binge eating over a gigabyte of ram on a 3GB laptop, and Firefox feels slow on my main PC with i7-950/12GB RAM even with newer versions.

Netscape died a horrible death due to IE being better, and Firefox will be the same unless it can compete with Chrome/IE10.

And from a non-commercial source (5, Interesting)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 2 years ago | (#36640482)

Wikimedia browser share [wikimedia.org] gives Chrome at 15.6%.

(This is just one site, of course. But (a) Wikimedia has no interest in pushing the numbers (analysts' business model is selling out) (b) it's a top-10 general interest site used by normal people, not just geeks (c) this is worldwide.)

Closer to 16% than 20% (2)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 2 years ago | (#36640554)

I think the median of several browser stat websites, as calculated by the Wikipedia entry for browser usage share makes much more sense, than taking one particular site's data - besides, StatCounter has always been biased in favor of Chrome. Not any political kind of bias, mind you, just the way they collect their stats seems to favor Chrome.

Chrome Haters (1)

Nominei (1998390) | more than 2 years ago | (#36640586)

Why are only the firefox-faithful getting their comments modded up? I use Chrome over FireFox because it has, since day 1, been faster and more stable than any build of FireFox I can recall (anecdotally, of course).

And everyone seems up in arms because a company is promoting their software. *ooo big shock* That doesn't make them evil. Google still has one of the most privacy-friendly, user-friendly mentalities, because they recognize that it's hard to sell advertising to their customers if they drive away their users with "evil" practices ala Microsoft or Facebook.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?