Cream always rises
Shit always sinks.
Google's Chrome took the crown as the world's most-used web browser last Sunday, March 18th. But as the world suited up to go back to work on Monday, Internet Explorer re-gained the lead. So says online service StatCounter, although the service also urges us all to take its data with a grain of salt. That's because while it …
Shit always sinks.
Not if you homogenise both like Google does.
Enjoy your faeces-laden cream.
Sadly scum floats too. That's how we ended up with IE in the first place.
It also appears that tedious trolling fanboys float to the top of the comments...
"Enjoy your faeces-laden cream."
You mean, Santorum?
Let's not forget that Chrome isn't perfect. While it has definitely improved the web immensely, it's now the buggiest modern browser I know save the last time I looked at Opera.
Chrome is my main browser, but it's not hard for me to see when I do testing that IE9's graphics performance is far higher, I just prefer Chrome's appearance.
Jagged edges on rotated elements, rendering flaws that have crept in on fixed position stuff when GPU acceleration started and a pile of unfixed web kit bugs I still have to write fixes for means that Chrome may be a lot better than IE8 and it is, but it's no absolute knight in shining armour.
Bring on IE10 Microsoft, the world needs to be kept on it's toes.
"Chrome is my main browser, but it's not hard for me to see when I do testing that IE9's graphics performance is far higher, I just prefer Chrome's appearance"
How do they compare on the ACID test?
"Let's not forget that Chrome isn't perfect. While it has definitely improved the web immensely, it's now the buggiest modern browser I know save the last time I looked at Opera."
With you on this. They tried so hard to replace IE6, and they're replacing it with an all new set of bugs. I build for Gecko, then cross-browser test, and these days Chrome gives me as many issues as IE does (though in fairness I anticipate the IE ones).
But you point that out to people and they just reply "yeah, but it's fast." So friggin what? Chrome renders pages 0.0002 seconds faster? What is that worth if it doesn't render them properly?
I agree with you here. I use IE as my main browser as I work with a lot of MS products like remote web work place & SharePoint and none of the other browsers support them fully. But I do see a big difference between Chrome and IE in terms of graphics and I am using windows 8 at the moment and I have to say IE 10 beast everything out there so far. The pages look amazing on my laptop even better than IE9 and I have yet to find a web page that dose not work with it.
From speaking to people who use Chrome I have asked them why they use it and around 40% of the people I have asked have said what's chrome I use Google for my browser and the reason why they have chrome as there default brewers is because if you use Google as your main search page you get a big banner on the page saying install chrome and most people who use a pc day today just click things because they say click them and this is the reason why they use chrome as there browser and not because they like it over IE.
But I am also a believe one product is not right for everyone. I don't like google as my main search I used Dogpile up until bing came out and I now find Bing better for what I search for and its the same with IE it works with every page I use where the others don't but not everyone needs access to what I need that is why we have choice.
"While it has definitely improved the web immensely, it's now the buggiest modern browser I know save the last time I looked at Opera."
Let me guess: Opera 10.5? That one was definitely a mistake -- the only version of Opera I've had issues with in the last decade.
"I use IE as my main browser as I work with a lot of MS products like remote web work place & SharePoint and MS won't release versions that properly support web standards, so none of the other browsers work."
While realizing the net effect is the same for you and your customer, assigning fault properly is critical to getting it fixed.
What better way to celebrate this than with a major Chrome-exclusive dick move.
"The change will only happen for those using Google Chrome, as that’s the only browser that supports the meta referrer tag, Google told us."
Get ready for the
Don't most androids use chrome-lite?
FF with noscript et al for me on the desktop but I do use chrome for research and if I don't want pdfs opened by adobe.
Try Foxit Reader instead. (It has a FF plug-in)
Foxit reader, who were a great bit of software but then decided to change your homepage and search engine(and possibly install a toolbar) to their preference WITHOUT an option to the user.
Yes, they apologised, but then did it again in the next version.
Did not install it again after that.
Chrome is the only application that users are currently allowed to instal on their desktops. They are using IE for our companies principal application, due to required ActiveX components, and they are using Chrome in unison as the "Search Browser" for Web information.
If the current trend continues (which it probably won't), Chrome will pass 50% market share in two years, and IE will be dead and forgotten in five.
Safari usage shows a similar jaggedness, which suggests a 'use PCs at work but Macs at home' demographic. The Firefox line has become relatively smooth, though; anyone have an interpretation of what that means?
>>The Firefox line has become relatively smooth, though; anyone have an interpretation of what that means?
I only know what it means from my usage, so it would only be an explanation if I'm typical.
I made a Firefox over IE decision years ago and nothing that has happened since has caused me to change it. Firefox is now supported for pretty much everything I do, apart from the odd rogue app at work, so I use it for everything.
Mozilla have done their level best to get rid of me, with intrusive updates and interface changes, and I'm now using 3.6 at work and whatever the latest one is at home. I did look at Chrome briefly, but the time it would take to get it working the way I want just seems too much, compared with the odd tweak every now and then to get round the annoyances in Firefox.
So I guess Firefox has flatlined because of inertia on the part of long term users, but doesn't have what it takes to tempt new converts, so Chrome is growing at the expense of IE.
Firefox users are unemployed, or workaholics?
"Mozilla have done their level best to get rid of me, with intrusive updates and interface changes"
This again? Those "interface changes" are so unbelievably easy to get rid of that I can't even remember what they look like. They came in in v4, I turned them off in about 3 seconds, and my profile has continued without them to the present day. If that stopped you upgrading for another 7 versions, how do you cope when moving between Windows versions?
You're right. It won't.
The flat line for Firefox is presumably explained by the fact that it is nobody's default browser, except for Linux distros with bog-all market share. If you are a FF user, you've probably installed it in bother places. If you stick with the default, you use a different browser in both places. (Opera's line looks flat, too, but it is so low that this might reflect the resolution of the graphic rather than the raw data.)
Chrome's rise is probably also explained by its being a piece of malware that bleeds onto machines whether you wanted it or not. At work, you may have a sys-admin willing to block malware trying to install itself without any administrative blessing (*). This is much less likely at home (hence the dichotomy) but eventually either or both of MS and AV companies will wise up and start blocking "drive-by XCOPY installs from untrusted web sites" and then Chrome's main distribution mechanism will be gone.
Firefox portable may be partly the reason - work users on locked down desktops can still run Firefox rather than IE without admin rights just by using the portable version of Firefox. Installing Chrome requires (I believe) admin rights. This would allow users to have Firefox at work & home more easily.
"Chrome's rise is probably also explained by its being a piece of malware that bleeds onto machines whether you wanted it or not."
Are you really suggesting that Chrome's success (for better or worse) is due to it being so clever it can sneak inside installers all by itself ? Or is it more likely vendors are putting it there themselves and playing the normal irritating games like not telling you what, or having defaulted 'Install Chrome' checkboxes buried away... that's bloody annoying, I agree, but I think the finger of blame might be pointed somewhere other than Chrome itself.
"eventually either or both of MS and AV companies will wise up and start blocking "drive-by XCOPY installs from untrusted web sites" and then Chrome's main distribution mechanism will be gone."
Main distribution mechanism ? Interesting.. I look forward to your stats.
"The flat line for Firefox is presumably explained by the fact that it is nobody's default browser, except for Linux distros with bog-all market share."
Ummmm....its flatlined at 20-odd percent, isn't it? Kinda goes against the "only Linux hippies use it" argument.
And yeah, Chrome's installer is evil. I can't believe they haven't caught more flak for actively bypassing system restrictions in order to install it. I figured out how to block it on my Windows machines and did so immediately. My philosophy is, if you're willing to do that, then I can't trust you, so get the hell off my machines.
"Installing Chrome requires (I believe) admin rights."
Sure as hell doesn't. Last time I let Chrome onto the network, it would install itself into user profiles to bypass Windows Installer lockouts. It's not that its malware because installers come with it checked as default - it's malware because its installation method deliberately bypasses security restrictions through poor coding/software practices.
You misunderstand. I'm on 3.6 at work because that's what's supported. At home I've got used to the new interface and changed the bits I couldn't get on with, so it's ok, but there was a point where I was getting seriously fed up with Firefox.
How do I cope with moving between Windows versions? I don't. I stayed on XP as long as I could. I now have Windows 7 at work and at home, and I don't like it, but that's just my preference.
Just had Firefox badgering me to update to V11.0. With a popup, in front of what I'm doing. I'm busy, go away. (They should rename it Firebadger.)
Not trying to stand up for Google here, but how come Windows will run exe's that are sat in the user profile folders? These are for app data, not apps themselves. If MS had any sense they'd lock this shit down right now and pop up a "restore ie as default" message when Chrome tries to load from the profile and excepts. That would be hillaire!
Why don't you just set up company-wide permissions to not allow execution rights to the APP DATA folder for users?
"Last time I let Chrome onto the network, it would install itself into user profiles to bypass Windows Installer lockouts."
I found that odd, and annoying as hell, but it's not necessarily 100% pure evil. It could be that it's doing that to give people a choice when they otherwise wouldn't have one. Of course by doing that Google is pitting themselves squarely against BOFHs everywhere, which seems like an unwise thing to do.
If you re-read my post, that wasn't my argument. My argument was that the weekend/weekday variations would be seen in users who just accepted the default browser on whatever machine they are using. I said nothing about those who make a conscious choice.
I'm fairly sure I have read recently (perhaps in a Win8 context) that Microsoft are indeed considering exactly this.
It wouldn't be targetted specifically against Chrome (and so wouldn't pop up anything asking about browser defaults) but some future version of their freebie AV package might default to nuking any EXEs that get written to application data folders.
You can whine about stat all you want to, but according to the security folks at my not so small government agency, Chrome is technically malware because it bypasses administrative installation restrictions. Those of us working the help desk aren't authorized to install it, but we can't stop users from installing it either, even when they don't have the proper privileges.
"but according to the security folks at my not so small government agency" ... "we can't stop users from installing it either"
Then your security folks are pretty clueless.
I'm presuming that the browser on Android phones counts as Chrome? If not, I really wonder how Chrome is so popular, I barely know anyone who uses Chrome on the desktop, I know more Opera users than Chrome users and I only know about five Opera users.
Android browser is just Android, no connection to Chrome at all.
Chrome for Android is coming, and is available in beta, as long as your on Android 4.0+. Rumour is that Chrome will take over as the default Android browser once out of beta, but would guess that will be in Android 5.0+ late this year.
But for the moment, most Chrome user stats like these will be desktop users, not mobile.
I find a surprising number of my "home user" clients have Chrome on their PCs, but no idea where it came from. It gets packed into so many other product installers that it should be classed as Malware. I think I even spotted it as part of a Java Update installer which would give it a huge install base.
The average home user always accepts the defaults of any installation package. So gets stuck with Chrome without knowing how to get rid of it. This is the marketing method that Google have chosen. Which is dishonest.
Safari used to be installed as default with iTunes, until Apple stopped the practice due to complaints. Yet Google are getting away with these stealth installs.
You always get asked if you want to install it, like that stupid Bing Bar. Yes its default ticked on when the install for java etc runs but hey... you can always uninstall it.
" It gets packed into so many other product installers that it should be classed as Malware."
I would class the installer as malware myself.
"Safari used to be installed as default with iTunes, until Apple stopped the practice due to complaints. Yet Google are getting away with these stealth installs."
Safari and iTunes are from the same vendor, who decided to install both items. Google, for all their sins, are NOT, in general, the people who distribute the software that is shipping Chrome. I've no particular love of Google, but I find it hard to blame them for every idiot software developer that thinks it's really clever to decide what browser their user should have.
You and I know how to change options in the installers. It is the average home user I am talking about here. The ones who have never heard of El'Reg. Especially those from a older generation. Many of these people will not change any setting "in case they break the computer". This means they assume they have to install these addons. Including the Bing, Ask, Google, Conduit bars. Every default gets left untouched in everything they install.
I suppose you do bring up one positive of Chrome - when that home user has their browser swap from IE they escape the 15 toolbars that have been installed into IE by a similar process.
Would like to welcome our new shiny overloads.
So there we were, writing web apps, and some people upgraded to IE9.
What can you expect when a bunch of "Let's build dependency by putting ludicrous functionality into our product" marketing wankers, all with an IQ under 50 have a say?
Microsoft should become a technology company again, not some government vehicle to employ useless people off the back of a few brilliant techies.
without someone pointing out that Opera is the only good browser, and all others eventually copy its features?
Nothing, that's what. So, here, you can thank me later:
Opera is the only good browser, and all others eventually copy its features.
Funny because it's true.
Only for very large values of "eventually".
Many companies stipulate IE use on corporate systems, despite known, well-documented, pervasive security risks. Until corporate IT catches up with the tech, the weekday IE peaks will probably continue.
Yes, you will find this as no other browser can be managed out of the box by group policy. It's not that the tech is old and us sysadmins dont want to install a new browser cos we're behind the times, it's that we have no central control over the browser security if we install something else.
Unless the Mozilla foundation or Google have written some ADMX's for their browsers, I'm not really interested.
"Yes, you will find this as no other browser can be managed out of the box by group policy"
Also, while Firefox doesn't have anything similar out of the box, but there are number of packaged installs, plugins, and other resources that can accomplish this, e.g. FrontMotion (www.frontmotion.com/FireFox), firefoxADM (see e.g. http://support.kaspersky.com/faq/?qid=208281905) and PolicyPak. It would be understandable if these non-Microsoft solutions were not acceptable, or desirable, especially from an ease-of-use point of view - but it certainly *is* possible to do some group policy work over LDAP (ActiveDirectory).
graph which nicely shows that all 3 major browsers have 20-35% of the market share
Which means everyone has to adhere to web standards(with a bit of luck) rather than someone having 90% share+ and saying 'do it our way or f*** off'
"What's that sound? Faster typing by the developers of the Windows 8/Metro/Internet Explorer 10 conglomerate?"
No, I think you'll find it's the sound of a wildly-biased reporter lurching from story to story with not a care in the world.