back to article Chrome spends a week at the top of the browser charts

Google's Chrome browser has overtaken Internet Explorer to become the world's most popular browser. According to StatCounter's Global Stats, which calculates browser popularity on the basis of 15 billion page views a month from people all over the world with tracking code installed on over three million websites, Chrome just …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Silver badge

Untick

There's a few odds and ends of software now that have tick boxes to install Chrome -- I wonder if it's just the standard 'Gimme, gimme, I don't want to read anything' click and go.

7
2
Anonymous Coward

Re: Untick

More than a few.

My impression is that unless you're someone with an opinion, who's decided that you want to stick with your browser of choice, you end up getting Chrome installed and defaulted by accident.

If you're the person with Chrome, you either don't know or care what browser you're using, or you don't know what a browser is.

Alternatively you accepted the installation willingly, assuming that Chrome's going to be better becuse it's 'new' and it recommended itself.

6
21

Re: Untick

I prefer it. I know several ex-FF users who also prefer it. And some who don't - their choice. Having that choice is a good thing.

15
1
Silver badge

Re: Untick

It's usage though, not installations — StatCounter is one of those that collects usage data through web page accesses. So people aren't merely installing Chrome, they're installing it and using it.

However they've done it, I say congratulations to Google. The market is now divided enough to make the standards successful, which aids innovation. Can you imagine the smartphones having done as well if rendering everything like IE6 was still the consumer expectation?

6
2
Bronze badge

Re: Untick

Sounds Plausible. I was astonished recently to find that I couldn't buy tickets online because someone had decided to sell them via Google Checkout which you can't use unless you open a Google account! PayPal and Nochex (for example) don't require you to sign up to pay.

0
0
Mushroom

Re: Untick

yeah and no-one using firefox is blocking statcunter.... noooooooo

4
2
IT Angle

Re: Untick

Chrome is mal-spy-ware bundled as a browser. Good luck with that mate.

6
6
Stop

better than forced to purchase it

Being encouraged to download an applications is so much better than being illegally forced to purchase it. No. IE is not free. Not when you pay for it.

Just because Microsoft does not disclose the price you pay does not mean it is free. At least that is not what Microsoft tells stockholders. They are told the price is part of the unearned income Microsoft collects from customers. And the law says it is not free either. When you buy a bag of stuff, some of the price is allocated to each of the items in the bag.

If you're the person with IE you are a fool and an idiot. And you do not even know it.

And your opinion does not count either. Not on here. Not anywhere. You just do not count.

2
10
Silver badge

Re: It's usage though, not installations

sometimes there's not a lot of difference, especially when the install automatically changes it to the default. My mother would be one of those. Absolutely no idea what she's using, and doesn't care either, as long as it gets her to her games.

Personally, I can't stand the damn thing. FF is my main, but I use Opera and IE depending on what I need.

2
0
FAIL

Re: better than forced to purchase it

Somebody held a gun to your head and made you buy a Windows PC? How terrible. You should probably report them to the police.

Or, you know, stop b*tching about stuff you were perfectly free not to choose.

5
0

Re: Untick

that would be great.

I assume you mean total IE share to have the same market share that windows on arm has of the tablet/phone market. :-)

0
0

Avast!

With my last Avast AV update, Chrome got installed and set as default without asking. Whenever the Avast popup gives me a link, the link opens in Chrome, even though it's not my default browser.

I suspect a lot of the recent boost in popularity of Chrome is down to this one piece of software. The fact that it's particularly popular in poorer countries where people aren't likely to allow inertia to keep them paying for a Norton or MacAfee license is quite telling....

1
2
Linux

Re: Untick

Or, you have a somewhat borked linux install that you have no time to fix or upgrade, on which firefox locks up constantly, and chrome is rock solid. I think I know by now what a browser is (links :)

0
1
FAIL

Chrome saved passwords issue

I'm new to Chrome and prefer it over FF because it's faster. However Chrome doesn't protect saved passwords which can be unmasked at a press of a button!!! Therefore I still use FF daily.

0
2

Re: Untick

We measure browser usage. Downloads of Chrome (where Chrome is never actually used to browse the web) don't affect our stats.

3
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Chrome saved passwords issue

Tools -> Options -> Security -> Saved Passwords -> Show Passwords

0
0
Silver badge
Joke

@The Indomitable Gall

I had not one but two 'opportunities' to install Chrome, once when updating and a second time in a pop-up window after reboot. Rather surprised at Avast doing that.

However it seems that if you've already got Chrome it appears to mess up your install and profile, Maybe this is an initiative funded by Mozilla, Microsoft, and Opera.

0
0
Bronze badge

@El Andy, the browsers case

A similar retort was used by Microsoft when EU sued them, however Microsoft had eventually lost.

1
0

Re: Untick

I always use the fastest browser at any one time because I (like most folks) want the page up immediately. It is therefore a shame that FF12 became the speed champ too late. Google is just too big and powerful a company now in all things. I use FF12 and rarely if ever start up ie.

1
0
FAIL

Re: Chrome saved passwords issue

Sure you can show passwords in FF, BUT they can be protected with a Master Password. Anything equivalent in Chrome, let me know!

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Untick, unethical

It is also pretty underhand how they promote it on the Google homepage (which is most users' start page) with a claim similar to "want your internetz faster? download this thing that you don't understand!!"

So therefore most installations are there simply because the novice users click on this link. There are no other adverts on the page. Who doesn't want their web browsing to be faster? These are of course the same people who don't twig as to an obvious phishing e-mail or fall for the 'tune up your PC' malware scams.

Of course the installation sets itself as the default browser. Most people don't even notice the difference and wouldn't be able to change back it if they wanted to. Google are therefore no better than the organised crims trying to steal identities and bank accounts.

Then there are the 'techies' who use Chrome because they think it is cool. They don't care about the worrying privacy implications of Google.

My office is full of them, and I have to supervise and help them develop web apps . When something they are working on isn't behaving properly, I go over and have a look. Maybe Chrome isn't rendering it properly (Firefox invariably works fine). They don't have suitable developer tools installed. It doesn't have anywhere near the level of openness and extensibility that Firefox has.

It's basically not suitable for the job.

2
0
Bronze badge

Re: Untick

"yeah and no-one using firefox is blocking statcounter.... noooooooo"

I've had a look at the Statcounter code.

You can amend your statement to:

"Yeah and no-one using Firefox is running NoScript... noooooooo"

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Windows 8 will save Microsoft

Windows 8 on ARM will be an IE only shop and that will get Microsoft's Internet Explorer market share back where it belongs

1
13
DJV
FAIL

Re: Windows 8 will save Microsoft

Oink flap!

9
1
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: Windows 8 will save Microsoft

Nah ... everyone knows the even numbers are duffers. You just wait for Win9 SP1. By then, all the beta testing the mugs who used Win8 will have been taken into account, and the even more gullible early adopter sheep who dived into Win9 at launch will have tested that for them too, as is the windows tradition.

3
2
Stop

Re: Windows 8 will save Microsoft

Only Windows 8 is not Windows 8 it's Windows 7 and Windows 7 should have been Windows 6.1. It's the increments that are the good ones.

3.0 - Crap

3.11 - Good

95 - Crap

98 - Good

2000 - Crap

XP - Good

Vista - Crap

7 - Good

In each iteration they make something different then refine it for a cosmetic re release. "8" will be terrible but followed up a couple of years later with a rerelease that will have most of the bugs fixed and a few GUI changes to make it look like a new OS.

3
12
Silver badge
Unhappy

Re: Windows 8 will save Microsoft

Actually 2000 was pretty solid in the business world and 95 was way better than 3.11 (clearly you never spent half you bloody early life creating 3.11 network boot disks for ****ing token ring cards)

10
2

Re: Windows 8 will save Microsoft

Agreed, 2000 was OK.

But token ring was really rubbish, wasn't it?

1
0
Silver badge
Facepalm

Re: Windows 8 will save Microsoft

You forgot Windows ME - crap.

As others have pointed out, W2K was good.

4
0
Silver badge
Windows

Re: Windows 8 will save Microsoft

You missed off ME

It wasn't just crap, it was crapper than a full dog turd bin that had crap smeared on the handle.

4
0
Bronze badge
Boffin

Re: Windows 8 will save Microsoft

I think you have confused Win2000 and WinME... So to recap in the interest of completeness, my personal opinion :

- Windows 1 (LOL DOSShell) - Crap

- Windows 2 - Good (it's new, it's got to be good :) )

- 3.0 - Crap

- 3.1 + 3.11 - Good

- NT 3.11 - Good

- NT 3.51 - Good

- 95 - Crap (but 95SE - Good)

- NT 4 - Good

- 98 - Crap (but 98SE - Good)

- 2000 - Good

- ME - Crap

- XP - Good

- 2003 Server - Crap (Sorry, I found it to be flakey around the edges...)

- Vista - Hardware dependant:

a. "Compatible with Vista" & Homebuilt : Crap

b. "Designed for Vista" : Good

- 2008 Server - Good

- 7 - Good

4
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Windows 8 will save Microsoft

Please can someone explain why Vista gets slated so much?

It came on my 3-year-old samsung lappy and has been perfect.

// I do agree, however, that Windows ME was the absolute worst.

5
0
Bronze badge
Flame

Re: Windows 8 will save Microsoft

I agree with you. On 3 HP laptops, the one "Works with" became an absolute dog performance wise. The same on newish cheap homebuilts who just upgraded from XP and had no problems before and were more than content with the performance. Most people went back.

On the other 2 laptops ("Designed for" and a couple of high end assembled machines with not cheap parts, built several months after the Vista release), Vista runs great and has done for several years, and the progressive upgrades have made things better.

1
0
Bronze badge

Windows 95

The original Windows 95 was great, subject to the following.

1. A clean install. (Not an upgrade to win 3.x)

2. A 386DX or 486 processor with 8M of RAM (Not an early pentium)

3. Stick to DOS and win 32 software.

Ignore any of those and you were asking for pain.

1
1
Bronze badge

XP

XP was the worst thing Microsoft ever released.

Has everyone forgotten the first few years before it was tamed?

SP2 and SP3 work quite well, but I would still prefer 2000 apart from terminal services in XP pro.

2
0
Joke

Re: Windows 8 will save Microsoft

Windoze 8 will created from windoze CE, ME, and NT

It'll probably perform like a lump on concrete as well

1
1
Silver badge

Re: Please can someone explain why Vista gets slated so much?

In many ways Windows Vista was a great step forward but it was hampered, hamstrung to many, in three important ways:

* Windows Presentation Foundation used for the GUI is a memory hog and when it was released only the best specced hardware (>=2 GB RAM, 4 if possible) were suitable. Many people who

upgraded instantly regretted it and companies baulked at the costs and forced XP to live longer. A couple of years later and machines were being released that were beefy enough for it which is probably why you have a good combination that you're happy with. I still know quite a few people with XP based systems still chugging along acceptably with less than 1 GB RAM.

* UAC - technically a much better approach to security but terrible usability so that users often felt obliged to press the "don't ask me about this again" button

* many legacy apps would no longer run. Even though the reason for this were okay - the new system needed new APIs to be safer and more stable - it was still another reason to think twice about spending money on a new OS, the new hardware necessary to run it and new apps to replace those that would no longer work. And, if you did spend the money, your new computer didn't really seem much faster unless you really needed all the 64-bit goodness. Even then, the hard break between 32-bit and 64-bit made getting good drivers a very hit and miss affair.

In addition the sheer variety of flavours of Vista (Ultimate, Spectacular, Home, Trailer Trash, etc.) confused the market in a way eerily reminiscent of OS/2 and in stark contrast to the Church of the One Fruit. This turned out to be even more important because, as companies simply refused to buy Vista, consumers became even more important to sales.

Windows 7 addressed many of the problems well and is a stable and usable system with considerable attention to detail. And I say this as someone who primarily uses a Mac.

5
0
Silver badge

Re: Windows 8 will save Microsoft

Safari is No. 1 in that market with Android browser a distant second. I think Microsoft will continue to make more money in ActiveSync royalties from those two than they make from their own offering.

0
1
Bronze badge

To summerize,

The mean and median: Microsoft Windows is a "good crap"

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Please can someone explain why Vista gets slated so much?

@Charlie Clark,

Thanks, that answered my question perfectly.

0
0
Silver badge

Re: Windows list

If you're gonna do a list, do it right.

Windows 1.0 - Such a complete piece of crap it made Windows Bob look good.

Windows 2.0 - Passable, but still mostly crap. Only use it if there isn't a DOS alternative.

Windows 3.0 - Decent. Handled most DOS programs without trouble.

Windows 3.10 - ??? I've hear of it, never seen it.

Windows 3.11 for Workgroups - What's with the name? Basically 3.0, but with added bits to support Novell.

Windows 95A - Utter crap. More install disks OS/2 when it came out, so there was no way to finish an install. And if by some miracle you do manage to make it through all the disks, god help you with the IRQ and address issues.

Windows NT 3.5 - Sorry you moved to slow and missed it.

Windows 95B - On CD, what a lifesaver. Reasonably solid until Intel broke it with the new chipset. Fortunately the internets eventually dispersed information about how to work around that snafu.

Windows NT 4.0 - Yo, gamer, move away from the OS. Rock solid stable. Unless you want to install Lotus Notes. God help you if you want to install Lotus Notes. Really, rat poison would be quicker and far less painful.

Windows 95C - Stable, but most folks don't recall it. I think it was the IE 4 release.

Windows 95D - Stable.

Windows 98 - Stable. Not actually a lot different the 95D except... Hmm, is somebody suing MS about that IE add on that came tacked on the end of the 95 B-D installs?

Windows 98SE - Amazingly still stable. Added a bit for larger HD support.

Windows 98ME - Puke, Vomit, Hurl! Who tried to rework this shit from the 1.0 disks?

Windows 2000 - Stable, but god help you if you are trying to upgrade and existing system. Backup your data and do a clean install. Merges Gamers into the NT fold. And you best make sure your drivers are certified. God help you if they aren't.

Windows XP - Stable, plus the drivers work. Finally.

Windows XP SP2 - What's a firewall? Otherwise just like XP.

Windows Vista - Puke, Vomit, Hurl! Cough! Gak! Who tried to rework this shit from the NT 2.0 code?

Windows 7 - Okay, so you finally got the drivers working. How come 64-bit is still for shit? Haven't you guys been working on that code fork since XP?

So as you can see, there isn't any infallible pattern to what releases are good.

0
0
Silver badge

Re: why Vista gets slated so much

bpfh nailed it in the post above yours - if the hardware was specific for the first release of Vista you were okay. If you were trying to upgrade existing hardware, including some top of the line kit, you were likely to be fscked.

0
0
Silver badge

Article layout looks mangled in chrome.

Anyone else see that?

3
1

Re: Article layout looks mangled in chrome.

Yup. Chart all over the text.

1
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: Article layout looks mangled in chrome.

Yep, for me too. Do you recommend I switch to IE now?

0
0
FAIL

Re: Article layout looks mangled in chrome.

Actually, its mangled in IE too.

0
0
Silver badge

Re: Article layout looks mangled in chrome.

More than that, it's an article on web browser progress that requires Flash (specifically to draw the charts). I can almost taste the controversy.

5
0
Bronze badge

Re: Article layout looks mangled in chrome.

"requires Flash (specifically to draw the charts). I can almost taste the controversy."

Ah, that's why I just see a blank space.

Is it perchance getting blocked by AdBlock Plus?

1
0
Silver badge

Re: Article layout looks mangled in chrome.

And FF. So I think it's safe to say it's the article that is fscked and not your browser. Or mine. Or the first guy who mentioned it.

0
0
Silver badge

Chrome or Chromium?

I run Iron, but it still get identified as Chrome by a lot of sites.

0
1

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Forums