Lies, damn lies and browser statistics

There's no doubt that Firefox was the developer's favourite and that anyone using IE by choice can hardly be considered sane enough to be called a web developer. But there's no getting away from the fact that Chrome's an excellent development tool. Now with add-ons, Chrome's only missing the excellent Firebug and developer tool maturity of Firefox.

IE's still around and even IE6 won't go away all the time that stupid IT departments keep seeing the browser as, well, just a browser and not the delivery mechanism for all applications. Who needs thick clients when you only really need a browser? And when browsers do all the HTML5 coolness - local storage, persistent state, fast JavaScript compilers, etc., they'll only be more questions about the need for thick clients and thick-headed IT managers who buy this crap.

Microsoft only have Ballmer to blame for this. It was he who disbanded the IE development team leaving IE to stagnate -- screwing millions of web developers in the process.

It's such fun to watch Microsoft finally take a thoroughly deserved beating.

>Who needs thick clients whn you only need a browser

Because out in the real world of supporting users who care little about computers and even less about platforms many web implementations replace thick clients that you can manage, can configure and can understand with hideous amounts of downloaded plugins and java applets you can't manage, can't configure, and can't understand. Well written web applications that deliver legal non-proprietary html and do everything on the server aren't a problem of course, but as the sales droids ratchet onto "web delivered must be best" it feels as if I'm seeing less and less of them... Junk apps are junk apps, whether by browser, thick client or what, but at least if they are on a thick client you have a better chance of keeping them under control and integrating them with the other things the user needs...

I agree

"Junk apps are junk apps, whether by browser, thick client..."

Where I work, we have and in house app built on Progress that, every time they update it, we end up having to uninstall it and then reload it on a bunch of PC's. Doing that requires us to either remote the PC or physically touch it to perform the exorcism. And there is a mandatory reboot between the uninstall and re-install.

On the flip side of that, they have a web based app that steals the focus of the other windows so if you get a pop up from one of the other apps you can't click on it until you close the web app. What this then does in the web app is you can't use the tab key to navigate the many fields that need some form of input. And we can't do aything about it as it is handled by a third party and they won't let us talk to them about it.

FF team has reverted to copying the stupidities from IE, that's bad.

"I'm not saying that there aren't good reasons for using Firefox, but for many people it was "Not IE" that they wanted."

Well put.

Nowadays FF seems not to know that they are not IE version "next", but an alternative and developers are trying to make it as IE-like as IE itself, essentially driving every alternative seeker to other browsers, ie. Chrome.

That's plain stupidity and arrogance: _People are not using FF because it's like IE, but because it's not like IE_.

It should be totally different, because frankly there aren't any good ideas in IE and copying it is plain stupidity. You couldn't invent anything worse even if you tried, so _do not copy IE_.

How hard is that to comprehend, tell me, FF developer team?

(Latest stupidity: Mandatory grouping of history by date, no way to see a flat list, anywhere. A stupidity staight from IE. Why?)

Yes it does

Being able to display web pages properly is something that is expected these days. IE's crapness was in the most part hidden from the general public because web devs knew how to get round the problems. (This is why most web dev's now really don't like Microsoft, their inability to do anything about it cost a lot of people a lot of money in wasted time.)

This generations browsers will all be standards compliant, so it's become a non issue. The thing that will set them apart is speed. In this, Chrome wins hands down. It loads in milliseconds, installs without fuss, lets you install extensions without reloading, lightning quick rendering. Its also by far the most efficient in terms of screen real estate.

I use all 3 browsers on a daily basis for development, Chrome I use for browsing.

FF is not much better keeping your privacy

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Chrome#Usage_tracking states:

"Chrome sends details about its usage to Google through both optional and non-optional user tracking mechanisms.""

That's why Chrome is not an option. But also the Firefox has married with Google and does the same, not telling to user, of course. Even worse in a sense than Chrome, active betrayal.

IE is on par with Chrome, everything you do, is reported to Redmont.

Reply

I agree that most of the B team is switching only because it is cool. Most of them don't read anything worthwhile and only go on hearsay (and follow to be 'cool'). A better approach would be to view proper statistics about the various browsers such as:

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/opera-10.60-internet-explorer-9-safari-5,review-31945.html

Chrome is bad

agree, this or Google hypnotized our developers.

FF is slow, a pain to startup, looks like made in JAVA, also has more holes than IE, I use Opera since 2007 and the only FF extension I miss is downloadthemall (eg. can download all .jpgs in one page).

you can't even block ads with Google chrome, so it's perfect for THEIR business, I'm not anti-google, just can't stand their privacy politics.

People missed Opera, and looking for an alternative to aged FF jumped all into fabricated Chrome-fad.

Browser Benchmarks

Or, if I could dip by oar in, I did some benchmarking 2 weeks ago, Various Operas (9.6, 10.5, 10.6, two flavours of IE (7 and 8) safari, and firefox, and of course, chrome.SCripting, CSS, other fun things.

http://ktetch.wordpress.com/2010/07/05/benchmarking-browsers-how-does-opera-10-60-stack-up/

heh

Greetings Andrew Norton,

I just began using Firefox because of security concerns years ago.

How many? It is so many I can't remember.

It has satisfied my needs and I have no urge to be "cool" .

security concerns?

Would this be the same firefox that has had more exploits over 08, than IE, opera AND safari combined? (115 to 31+30+32)

The one that patches all the exploits so fast there's still some exploits for firefox 2 unpatched from before 3 came out.

That 'you can look at the source code' also doesn't mean much, unless you actually DO. Else you're just making the same assumption that it's ok. It's the PERCEPTION of security, than real security.

Does everything..

..and surprisingly quickly, but has such a clunky interface that it slows you down- so a slower but more confortable browser is actually faster in use, sadly.

Brands- Like Firefox

That makes Clint a Ruski,- flying an (imaginary) Russian Fighter

Surely not, tell me it's not true.

@ Giles Jones

I'm laughing here, because the names do affect my attitude to the three browsers you mention:

Chrome - really cheap stuff covered with "ooh, shiny" that will fail to do what it is supposed to do soon unless I keep polishing it.

Firefox - yep, the fighter thing!

Opera - bland, boring stuff that will take hours to get to the end of, at least partly because a major part of it will go off and do something incomprehensibly monotonous somewhere in the middle.

Clint (Mitchell Gant) was US

Actually if you read the book / seen the film - he was sent to Russia to steal it.

Need a black aircraft icon!