Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 20th Mar 2009 19:37 UTC
OSNews, Generic OSes Recently we've had a couple of articles and discussions on OSNews about browser statistics. Every now and then someone in the comments will ask what OSNews statitstics are like, and what browsers and operating systems our readers are running. Well, recently we installed a fancy new web site analytics program, Mint. I figured I might as well put it to good use by showing some of the browser and platform statistics we've gathered over the past month.
Order by: Score:
"Others"
by gnemmi on Fri 20th Mar 2009 19:58 UTC
gnemmi
Member since:
2006-08-17

Just for the record, in my case, "others" means FreeBSD and Konqueror.

See ya

Edited 2009-03-20 19:58 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: "Others"
by satan666 on Fri 20th Mar 2009 20:03 UTC in reply to ""Others""
satan666 Member since:
2008-04-18

Or maybe those 2% are OpenSolaris users?
And yes, Konqueror could be the most important part of Others.

Anyway, wouldn't it be nice if those stats applied to the entire world?

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: "Others"
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 20th Mar 2009 20:10 UTC in reply to "RE: "Others""
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Konquerer has a share of 1% according to Mint.

Reply Score: 2

RE: "Others"
by sakeniwefu on Sat 21st Mar 2009 02:29 UTC in reply to ""Others""
sakeniwefu Member since:
2008-02-26

Or Lynx and Firefox 3 in OpenBSD. :p

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: "Others"
by Agent69 on Mon 23rd Mar 2009 16:25 UTC in reply to "RE: "Others""
Agent69 Member since:
2005-07-07

That would be me at home, where I currently use FF3 on OpenBSD 4.4.

Reply Score: 1

RE: "Others"
by TaterSalad on Sat 21st Mar 2009 16:59 UTC in reply to ""Others""
TaterSalad Member since:
2005-07-06

In my case its from when I browse OSnews on my phone. Speaking of which, what happened to the ability to reply to comments from a mobile device?

Edited 2009-03-21 17:04 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: "Others"
by Vanders on Sat 21st Mar 2009 18:28 UTC in reply to ""Others""
Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

I use OSNews as one of my test sites for Webster on Syllable.

Reply Score: 3

S60 Symbian OS
by Schendstok on Fri 20th Mar 2009 20:21 UTC
Schendstok
Member since:
2009-01-20

I regularly browse on my Nokia N95 to OSnews, so I assume that I would fall under the "other" group.

Reply Score: 1

Cool!
by ciplogic on Fri 20th Mar 2009 20:22 UTC
ciplogic
Member since:
2006-12-22

Great statistics from this site.

My girlfriend uses Firefox after a long lobby... so I think the world is starting to change. I will ask her to read OS News to make clear the statistics!

At least seems balanced for technical persons that do testing stuff or work one. About IE, I think is the case that someone told here: at work most we cannot upgrade our browser, as we are in a corporate institution. At least to be sure that are patches around...

Reply Score: 2

Epiphany
by sbergman27 on Fri 20th Mar 2009 20:26 UTC
sbergman27
Member since:
2005-07-24

Thom, thanks for compiling this information. I would be curious as to the numbers for Gnome's Epiphany browser, using either gecko or webkit backends.

Edited 2009-03-20 20:26 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Epiphany
by pinky on Sat 21st Mar 2009 15:17 UTC in reply to "Epiphany"
pinky Member since:
2005-07-15

I'm also an Epiphany users. I have just seen that Epiphany identifies itself as "Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en; rv:1.9.0.6) Gecko/20080528 Epiphany/2.22" so i think most of the mozilla-users are in reality "gecko-based-browser"-users.

BTW: I'm surprised tha Chrome has already almost catched up with Opera.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Epiphany
by Thom_Holwerda on Sat 21st Mar 2009 15:20 UTC in reply to "RE: Epiphany"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

BTW: I'm surprised tha Chrome has already almost catched up with Opera.


Mind though that I'm a Chrome user and it wouldn't surprise me if those 5% are from me ;) .

Reply Score: 2

Others
by reflect on Fri 20th Mar 2009 20:34 UTC
reflect
Member since:
2007-07-10

If you could compile a list of the "others", I'm sure people here could fill in the blanks so you could update your script/software you use to generate your statistics.

AWeb, IBrowse and OWB are Amiga browsers.. OWB, which stands for Origyn Web Browser has become one of the most popular one in a short time.

I'm sure there's tons of others.. if you supply the unknown, perhaps we can make it known?

Reply Score: 3

Odd
by tweakedenigma on Fri 20th Mar 2009 20:45 UTC
tweakedenigma
Member since:
2006-12-27

These stats actually make me feel like a fairly normal computer user.

Reply Score: 8

Breakdown of Flash users
by Denver Gingerich on Fri 20th Mar 2009 20:47 UTC
Denver Gingerich
Member since:
2008-12-05

From the article:

"As it turns out, most of our readers have Flash installed, with only 8% not having Flash ready on their systems. Unsurprisingly, Flash 9 and 10 are the most popular, with respectively 24% and 67%."

Your stats don't mention Swfdec or Gnash at all, which I would expect to be in use by at least 1% of your visitors. I'm guessing that Swfdec and Gnash users are lumped into the 8% that don't have Flash (which would make sense if you had specifically said "Adobe Flash Player", but is a bit ambiguous without). Is that correct? Do you have any stats for Swfdec and Gnash?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Breakdown of Flash users
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 20th Mar 2009 20:50 UTC in reply to "Breakdown of Flash users"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Your stats don't mention Swfdec or Gnash at all, which I would expect to be in use by at least 1% of your visitors.


Well, we have less than 1% "Flash 12". That could be the open source flash replacements.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Breakdown of Flash users
by darknexus on Fri 20th Mar 2009 21:16 UTC in reply to "RE: Breakdown of Flash users"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Hmm, doesn't Gnash show up as Flash 9? Not sure about swfdec.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Breakdown of Flash users
by averycfay on Fri 20th Mar 2009 22:03 UTC in reply to "Breakdown of Flash users"
averycfay Member since:
2005-08-29

I have no idea how mint counts the open source flash variants, but google analytics counts them as flash supported. They just show up as a different version of flash. For example, "9.0 (Gnash)" vs. "9.0 r124".

Reply Score: 2

Windows
by moochris on Fri 20th Mar 2009 20:47 UTC
moochris
Member since:
2009-03-20

Linux/Haiku user here, but of course I check the site from work every day - Windows desktops unsurprisingly.

I'm sure a lot of others do the same and it's not representative of their OS of choice ;)

Edited 2009-03-20 20:53 UTC

Reply Score: 8

For windows, check daytime views!
by Velmont on Mon 23rd Mar 2009 08:13 UTC in reply to "Windows"
Velmont Member since:
2005-07-07

I'm quite sure that many of those IE- and Windows-people actually arent. Just on their work.

It would be cool to check how the stats differ from work-time to non-worktime. Of course, you have to check through users own timezone, as we're in different places. ;-)

Reply Score: 1

Breakdown by architecture
by Denver Gingerich on Fri 20th Mar 2009 20:48 UTC
Denver Gingerich
Member since:
2008-12-05

Do you have statistics for which architectures are used to visit the site (x86, x86-64, PPC, SPARC, etc.)? This information tends to be present in the user agent string (or is implied by the OS, ie. for desktop Windows users).

Reply Score: 1

Work
by sirhalos on Fri 20th Mar 2009 20:53 UTC
sirhalos
Member since:
2007-04-04

You are forgetting and not factoring in that a lot of us read OSNews at work. Normal people read Fox News, CNN, etc at the beginning of their day at work where as 'we' read OSNews instead.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Work
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 20th Mar 2009 21:01 UTC in reply to "Work"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

You are forgetting and not factoring in that a lot of us read OSNews at work. Normal people read Fox News, CNN, etc at the beginning of their day at work where as 'we' read OSNews instead.


And...?

Whether you use it at work or at home, you're still using it. whether you use it by choice or not, you're still using it. Every hit is as valid as another ;) .

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Work
by Kroc on Fri 20th Mar 2009 21:08 UTC in reply to "RE: Work"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

I think he’s just trying to hint that maybe IE6/Windows usage would be noticably lower if it were not for the “work” factor ;)

Reply Score: 7

RE[2]: Work
by Ben Jao Ming on Fri 20th Mar 2009 21:10 UTC in reply to "RE: Work"
Ben Jao Ming Member since:
2005-07-26

I think a good point to make, would be that many people don't use their preferred OS or browser at work. I think the stats would be way different, if you could exclude that part.

For instance: Exclude hits from the US in working hours and the hits from Europe in working hours. Can you do that? ;)

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Work
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 20th Mar 2009 21:45 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Work"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I think a good point to make, would be that many people don't use their preferred OS or browser at work. I think the stats would be way different, if you could exclude that part.


Yes, and car sales statistics would probably also be a lot different everyone could just pick the car they wanted, instead of the car they can afford.

Wat I mean to say is is that it makes no sense to remove the work hits form the stats. Hits are hits are hits. These statistics have nothing to do with what people want to use; they show what people are using.

Edited 2009-03-20 21:46 UTC

Reply Score: 7

RE[4]: Work
by Ben Jao Ming on Sat 21st Mar 2009 01:53 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Work"
Ben Jao Ming Member since:
2005-07-26

Finefinefine.. your statistic has a value. Wasn't trying to reject that; just saying that a statistic showing what the users prefer to use might be of more interest.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Work
by Velmont on Mon 23rd Mar 2009 08:17 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Work"
Velmont Member since:
2005-07-07

Ehhhh.

You're very wrong Thom. Filtering out stats is telling you something about the users of this site. So cutting out daytime to check how many of those hits are work-related actually IS interesting.

No matter how many stupid far fetched analogies you come up with.

What a cheap and very low-brow reply from you, I wouldn't expect that!

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Work
by note_verbale on Fri 20th Mar 2009 21:34 UTC in reply to "RE: Work"
note_verbale Member since:
2009-03-20

When I am at work, I am compelled to use Microsoft and Internet Exploder. At home, I am free to use Linux. I will check the osnews site from work on break using Microsoft, but in my heart I am using Linux. So, even though when I get home and I check in using Linux, I still have the stain of having used Microsoft for probably half of my visits to your site.

Would it be possible to factor *my* Microsoft/IE hits to be Linux/Firefox ones? Let's say I average 1 per day - that's 200 per year. After all, if I had a choice, I would have used Linux over Microsoft.

Would that make a difference in the stats? If more of the so-called Microsoft users were like me - using it because we are obliged to at work - would that make a difference?

After all, you are presenting your results to advertisers. I don't want them getting the wrong idea about my computing choices and interests and then making marketing decisions based on that. Just because I use Microsoft half of the time I surf to osnews does not mean I am interested in anything that would pertain to voluntary Microsoft users. I would still be much, much more interested in and likely respond to OSS/Linux related items than in Microsoft ones. However, the stats to not reflect this. Both Microsoft and FLOSS providers may incorrectly choose to either target or avoid me as a result.

To prove the point, this is typed on a laptop that I bought from a Linux-only vendor, in Linux of course. I specifically looked for a provider who offered Linux as a choice, and discounted ones who did not offer Linux or made it difficult to select Linux. Had those latter advertisers thought that my Microsoft-based hits on osnews indicated that I was a potential customer, they were misled. I even researched my choice at lunch times from work, using Microsoft. Taken at face value, that would have seemed to be a contradictory scenario. In the context of my work usage, however, it does make sense.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Work
by Beta on Sat 21st Mar 2009 10:37 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Work"
Beta Member since:
2005-07-06

Would it be possible to factor *my* Microsoft/IE hits to be Linux/Firefox ones? Let's say I average 1 per day - that's 200 per year. After all, if I had a choice, I would have used Linux over Microsoft.


You can do that, change your useragent to Firefox on Linux ;)
(interesting twist huh?)

Reply Score: 3

RE: Work
by Sabon on Sun 22nd Mar 2009 16:37 UTC in reply to "Work"
Sabon Member since:
2005-07-06

I'm not allowed to hook up my Macs at work but found a work around. I work in Tech Support as a Systems Analyst and we have DSL line in our department so we can test VPN accounts which has a wireless router connected to it. The tech that manages this router was sympathetic and gave me the key so I can wireless connect to it. So my stats are based on my G4 PowerBook which runs Tiger.

I notice that it didn't say anything about Safari 4 beta. I use that but before that I used the nightly builds for Webkit. I don't see that listed either. I guess it counts as Safari.

One thought, how about showing us the stats for domains for our e-mail addresses that we use to register here at OS News. That might give us more of an idea where our loyalties lie. Yes I realize that some people will have comcast or some other cable/dsl company as their e-mail address. Those like me those have an @mac.com (@me.com - I HATE me.com, it is so stupid. "me me me me me". I really not that into "me".

Reply Score: 2

"other" browsers
by txGreg on Fri 20th Mar 2009 21:27 UTC
txGreg
Member since:
2005-07-15

I wonder how many of those might be RSS readers? I use RSSOwl, but I don't know what user agent it uses to present itself to the server.

Reply Score: 3

IE6
by google_ninja on Fri 20th Mar 2009 21:29 UTC
google_ninja
Member since:
2006-02-05

IE6 is probably from work users who aren't allowed to upgrade (VERY common)

What I find interesting is 4-5% chrome seems to be fairly common. When it launched, it was around 8-10%, went down to around 1% (or less), and has been slowly climbing ever since.

Reply Score: 4

Good stuff
by ebasconp on Fri 20th Mar 2009 21:34 UTC
ebasconp
Member since:
2006-05-09

Good statistics info;

please, show us such statistics regularlly and, I do not know, maybe trend graphs would be really interesting too.

Or, I do not, maybe a "widget" showing such info in the main OSNews page ;)

Reply Score: 7

IE6 use should be a crime?
by UltraZelda64 on Fri 20th Mar 2009 21:41 UTC
UltraZelda64
Member since:
2006-12-05

Where it gets a tad bit worrying are the stats for Internet Explorer. Apparently, we still have 5% of our readers visiting OSNews with Internet Explorer 6.0, which should be a crime.

Why not make this crime punishable by not displaying the page unless another (any other) browser/IE version is reported? ;)

A simple browser upgrade is long overdue, and seriously, people who still use IE6 *should* be punished... it's been eight years since that atrocity has been released.

Also, Firefox has no exclusive control over the browser market, nor do they lack competitiors, so "big bad evil monopoly" sounds overkill. They're not even a monopoly, as their 54% and the presence of several other browsers on the pie chart show.

My stats tend to be (currently):
-Linux (Ubuntu 8.10)
-Firefox 3.0.7
-Flash installed, but almost always blocked through the use of Adblock Plus and NoScript
-Screen resolution of 1680x1050 (browser almost never maximized)

I have pretty much all the major browsers (and some minor) installed, but for a while now I've been using Firefox exclusively. I actually have Chromium, Dillo, Epiphany*, Firefox*, Konqueror, Midori, Netsurf, Opera*, SeaMonkey*, lynx, w3m, and links (ones market with * are the ones I use most). By the way, the SeaMonkey 2.0 alphas are looking really nice...

Reply Score: 3

mobile.osnews.com stats?
by wossman on Fri 20th Mar 2009 21:42 UTC
wossman
Member since:
2009-03-20

Thom, what about stats from mobile devices?

A side note: I installed IE8 yesterday on Win XP and every time I visit osnews.com using it I get redirected to mobile.osnews.com.

Reply Score: 1

Totally inaccurate
by raver31 on Fri 20th Mar 2009 22:01 UTC
raver31
Member since:
2005-07-06

Stats can always be manipulated to say whatever you want, we all know this.

This example is pretty useless, I browse the site on my main machine, and my secondary laptop, and my work machine.

My main machine dual boots between Ubuntu and PC-BSD, my laptop between Ubuntu and WinXP and my work machine between XP and Vista.

So I will be showing up with a few skewed results.

What would be better, is, if Thom can come up with a poll that asks what our preferences for a Primary OS and Primary browser are.

After all, in work, I WISH I was using something else.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Totally inaccurate
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 20th Mar 2009 22:16 UTC in reply to "Totally inaccurate "
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

What would be better, is, if Thom can come up with a poll that asks what our preferences for a Primary OS and Primary browser are.

After all, in work, I WISH I was using something else.


Uhm, this isn't about what you WANT to use. These statistics are not meant to look into the minds of people and find out what they WANT to use.

The statistics show with what platforms and browsers people access OSNews. That's all they do. Nothing more, nothing less. They are not useless. You find them useless because you expect these statistics to give you information on something they cannot give you information about.

Similarly, a poll, as you suggest, does not provide us with the data that the statistics provide us with. They measure two completely different things.

Is the difference really that hard to understand? I'm intrigued.

Reply Score: 12

RE[2]: Totally inaccurate
by raver31 on Fri 20th Mar 2009 22:43 UTC in reply to "RE: Totally inaccurate "
raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

No, they are indeed two different things. You are right, the figures are exactly what they are supposed to be. It was just me wanting something definitive as to what everyone around here likes to use.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Totally inaccurate
by Agent69 on Mon 23rd Mar 2009 16:28 UTC in reply to "RE: Totally inaccurate "
Agent69 Member since:
2005-07-07

Thom,

Have you considered doing a serious, really detailed, poll of OSNews readers regarding Computer/OS/Browser usage? A OSNews Census, if you will?

I could see that being real interesting, especially if it were done annually to track usage changes over time.

Reply Score: 1

Mozilla
by StuffMaster on Fri 20th Mar 2009 22:11 UTC
StuffMaster
Member since:
2006-12-26

Long time Mozilla (now Seamonkey) user here. It's still the best (in my opinion). Total shame that very few people even know it exists.

Reply Score: 6

Served!
by eantoranz on Fri 20th Mar 2009 22:11 UTC
eantoranz
Member since:
2005-12-18

Thanks for listening, Thom!

Now, three things.

1 is for you, Thom: What timespan do those statistics represent? And did you specify an address we could go to see them when we wanted to (updated, of course)? Don't remember if you did. I'll reread the article later.

2 I fall into "others" as I read OSNews mostly from akregator (konqueror based) though I use firefox as my browser of choice in my box (like anybody cares, right?).

3 Well, I think this is a little more "empiric" data confirming my thesis that IE has really lost the hearts of IT people. http://maratux.blogspot.com/2009/02/has-ie-lost-hearts-of-it-people... I guess we'll have to wait and see how IE8 does during the following weeks/months.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Served!
by StuffMaster on Fri 20th Mar 2009 22:30 UTC in reply to "Served!"
StuffMaster Member since:
2006-12-26

I never thought that IE had gained the hearts of IT people. I knew a few that used it, but the majority used Mozilla or Opera. I never used IE myself.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Served!
by David on Sun 22nd Mar 2009 01:22 UTC in reply to "Served!"
David Member since:
1997-10-01

We installed mint less than a month ago, so these statistics represent 3-4 weeks' worth of traffic

Reply Score: 1

Firefox 2.x
by mrAmiga500 on Fri 20th Mar 2009 22:14 UTC
mrAmiga500
Member since:
2009-03-20

The "interesting" statistic about the number of people still using Firefox 2.x can probably be explained by BeOS/Haiku users. Firefox 2 is the last available version for BeOS/Haiku. I'm using Firefox 2.0.0.18 on BeOS.

(I've also visited here using IBrowse on an Amiga 500.)

Reply Score: 2

RE: Firefox 2.x
by KrustyVader on Sat 21st Mar 2009 18:56 UTC in reply to "Firefox 2.x"
KrustyVader Member since:
2006-10-28

Damn partially right. Most of BeOS user use the precompiled non official release of Firefox, and it's called "Bon Echo". But it a Firefox with different label.

Mozilla/5.0 (BeOS; U; BeOS BePC; en-US; rv:1.8.1.18) Gecko/20081114 BonEcho/2.0.0.18

Reply Score: 2

RE: Firefox 2.x
by jokkel on Mon 23rd Mar 2009 16:46 UTC in reply to "Firefox 2.x"
jokkel Member since:
2008-07-07

It's also the last version for Mac OS 10.3 Panther and there are a lot of people that don't like the new address bar.

Edited 2009-03-23 16:47 UTC

Reply Score: 1

break down the Linux figure
by testerus on Fri 20th Mar 2009 22:29 UTC
testerus
Member since:
2005-07-06

Why is this not possible?
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.0.7) Gecko/2009031118 Mandriva/1.9.0.7-1mdv2009.1 (2009.1) Firefox/3.0.7
What UA do other linux distributions use?

Reply Score: 1

RE: break down the Linux figure
by Velmont on Mon 23rd Mar 2009 08:23 UTC in reply to "break down the Linux figure"
Velmont Member since:
2005-07-07

It is possible. Just Mint that sucks.

Can't remember if free open source analytics-like tool I use (piwik), do it. But they probably do, if else, better get a patch in there ;-)

Reply Score: 1

Sheesh!
by charlieb on Fri 20th Mar 2009 22:33 UTC
charlieb
Member since:
2008-12-16

Calm down people it's just stats! Thom's not claiming to have found the cure for cancer or elixir of life!

Stats are stats; interesting and descriptive. Leave it at that!

Reply Score: 2

RE: Internet Explorer
by Where did liberty go on Fri 20th Mar 2009 22:55 UTC
Where did liberty go
Member since:
2009-03-20

Anyone running a non-standards compliant browser (I.E., IE) should be ashamed of themselves.

I've been running Opera steadily since '96 and none of the others measure up. Overall, it is the most non-geek user friendly browser out there.

BTW, All you Open Source, Free software geeks, keep on rockin'. It amazes me that people whom have a passion for coding and freedom; pose the biggest long term threat to Monoplosoft

Sincerely,

non geek.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Internet Explorer
by Doc Pain on Sat 21st Mar 2009 00:53 UTC in reply to "RE: Internet Explorer"
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

Anyone running a non-standards compliant browser (I.E., IE) should be ashamed of themselves.


No, because those (non-geeks, "average users") who usually use IE don't notice it. They're not using a particular web browser, they're "using the Internet". For them, it is "Windows" and there's nothing else.

I've been running Opera steadily since '96 and none of the others measure up. Overall, it is the most non-geek user friendly browser out there.


I whish I could agree with that. When we would talk about Opera versions of the past, v5 or v6, I would surely say yes, it's fanfastic. But today's Opera, while still being a very powerful, standard compliant browser, rich at features, and a joy to use, has a growing taste of slowliness, complexity overhead regarding configuration and... I know it's a bit complicated to say, but Opera got slower and more complicated to use. While some changes really appeal to me, others get on my nerves, so I'm observing myself more and more often to be running Firefox - the browser that's always been accused of being "too slow", but in fact, it's sometimes much faster than Opera and displays pages that Opera don't seem to be able to display. But when I use other browsers, I always know why I miss my Opera. At this point I would not want to change, allthough I'm always be told that Firefox can be set to use mouse gestures as well...

Don't get me wrong: If a page is standard compliant, Opera has no problems, so I'm happily using it for OSNews. I even don't change the user agent identification string.

(Erm, Thom, do the statistics take into account that a Linux / UNIX browser can change it's identification string to an "Internet Explorer" pattern?)

Another nice effect of using Opera with OSNews and the pages it links to: When "Flash" is used, you just see an empty box. No dialog window annoying you to download some strange plugin, very relaxing... :-)

Ah, by the way, non-geek FreeBSD + Opera (web) user here. =^_^=

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Internet Explorer
by Auxx on Sun 22nd Mar 2009 10:15 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Internet Explorer"
Auxx Member since:
2007-04-05

I would like to note, that after many years being advanced Opera user You simply can not migrate to anything else. As a web developer I have all the browsers installed (some of them in virtual machines to avoid conflicts) and I use them frequently. But experience is always awful, because their interface is like a brick: you can grab it and throw somewhere, no rubber handling, coffee-making etc.

So if you are addicted to Opera UI and its features (proper mouse gestures, proper keyboard-only interface, proper tab handling, proper shortcuts and many other things properly made) there is no escape. I do not want use a brick instead of a browser even if brick will kill my enemies with ease.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Internet Explorer
by Hiev on Sat 21st Mar 2009 01:22 UTC in reply to "RE: Internet Explorer"
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

Anyone running a non-standards compliant browser (I.E., IE) should be ashamed of themselves.

Well, anyone taking to serious something as trivial as a web browser should think in getting a life.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Internet Explorer
by dagw on Sat 21st Mar 2009 13:12 UTC in reply to "RE: Internet Explorer"
dagw Member since:
2005-07-06

Anyone running a non-standards compliant browser (I.E., IE) should be ashamed of themselves.

I think we can safely assume that no one visiting this site with IE 6 is doing so out of their own free will. Many of us have jobs and many companies still have IE 6 as their default browser. The company I work for only approved IE 7 as optional upgrade for those who want it a few of weeks ago. Any browser other than IE 6 or IE 7 is not allowed unless you are working on a web related project and you need other browsers for testing.

Reply Score: 3

Epiphany
by bloodandsoil on Sat 21st Mar 2009 02:12 UTC
bloodandsoil
Member since:
2007-08-24

Does your method of detecting browser distinguish between firefox and epiphany?

I'd be curious to know how many epiphany users there were.

Reply Score: 1

IE 7 and Vista here
by twm_bucket on Sat 21st Mar 2009 02:23 UTC
twm_bucket
Member since:
2008-10-09

I use IE7 and Vista. I like Vista and I dont spend a lot of time surfing (Usually I am too busy writing) so IE 7 does just fine. I used to be in IT so I know how to take of my system and avoid malware.

Reply Score: 1

Other
by Kancept on Sat 21st Mar 2009 02:25 UTC
Kancept
Member since:
2006-01-09

I helped in that Other category with a few visits from BeOS with Net+

:-D Glad to help!!!!!

Reply Score: 1

Comment by BSDfan
by BSDfan on Sat 21st Mar 2009 05:33 UTC
BSDfan
Member since:
2007-03-14

The 90% of people visiting this site with Flash installed should burn in the hottest fires of hell.

I'm a part of that "Other" 2% (*BSD surely has a larger percentage..)
I'm a part of that 56% (Firefox 3.. sigh)
I'm a part of that 8% (No more f--king flash!)

I use 1024x768.. f--k people with high resolution LCD screens.

Edited 2009-03-21 05:34 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Working hours
by unoengborg on Sat 21st Mar 2009 07:10 UTC
unoengborg
Member since:
2005-07-06

It would have been interesting to see any differences in statistics for working hours and non working hours. This is of course a bit more difficult to do, because you need to take different time zones into account, but non the less interesting.

My guess is that the high figures for ie6 reflects people browsing from work where they often have no choise in what browser to use.

Reply Score: 3

Thanks
by Buck on Sat 21st Mar 2009 08:08 UTC
Buck
Member since:
2005-06-29

Thanks for the stats, Thom. It was really interesting to see that.

Reply Score: 2

Windows share
by l3v1 on Sat 21st Mar 2009 09:08 UTC
l3v1
Member since:
2005-07-06

I had not expected that Windows' share would be over 50%


Well, I wouldn't say it's surprising either. E.g. I'm reading the site from Linux at home, but at work I mostly have to use Windows, thus I read OSNews more from Windows than from Linux since I - unfortunately - spend more time at work than at home on workdays. And in Europe Macs are much lower in number than in the US, just an example, we have around 300 people where I work, and there are no more than 2-3 Macs, desktops and netbooks included.

Reply Score: 3

Fun - NUMBERS!!!
by deathshadow on Sat 21st Mar 2009 09:20 UTC
deathshadow
Member since:
2005-07-12

I know I've been a bit harsh on the site since the redesign in terms of things like fixed metric fonts, fixed width layout and accessability failings, but there is one important thing that makes these numbers more relevant than a LOT of statistics presented out there...

Unlike most stats, these are based on a website that actually WORKS in all browsers. As a web developer I recently got into a spat with another developer over a site we were working together on, where he was saying we didn't need to worry about Opera and Safari compatability because the existing site didn't see more than 1% total traffic from either... When (duh!) the existing site didn't WORK RIGHT in either. If the site doesn't work right in part of your demographic, guess what? You're statistics are going to be skewed. It's like doing approval rating stats for Obama at a KKK meeting, or Bush approval ratings from members of PETA - your numbers are going to be a little off ;)

A great example of this is likely the browser statistics for gmail or Microsoft's websites. "under the hood" Opera defaults to "mask as firefox" on those sites, so their developers never get to even see how many Opera users they have, lumping them together with FF users in their stats. (neither site working properly in Opera without the user javascript effectively rewriting the page!)

I'm actually suprised to see your most common resolution so high - the most common of the sites I maintain still ends up 1024x768 right now... though I'm probably one of the few listing as 1920x1200... Given the fonts being fixed size and the average user being lazy, the fixed metric fonts likely limit the resolutions you get of common visitors, most blowing right past the site instead of doing I do, and zooming everything in 40% and hitting 'fit to width' every time I visit the site.

One thing that REALLY suprises me is that the IE6 slice of the pie is so low - with so many people forced to stay on it by their workplace, and the majority of users visiting this site not being DUMB ENOUGH to use IE by choice, IE6 should be more prevalent than 7 given the number of IT departments that STILL won't touch newer versions with a 20 foot cattle prod or cannot upgrade to it because of some rubbish decade old in-house crapplet built around Trident and ActiveX.

The IE 5.x demographic probably is NOT coming from win95/98 as much as you'd think, since IE6 will run on those platforms quite well... I'd be interested in knowing how many of those IE users are actually using IE 5.2 on the Mac, since a LOT of mac users still use that outdated version since many banks and financial websites ONLY work in IE, and that's the most recent available to them. I also know people using MacOS 9 on G3's or less in which case IE 5.2 is the best browser available to them since iCab is a joke, and the last gecko based browser was mozilla suite 1.2.

Older copies of Windows CE or Mobile also likely count towards the IE 5.x demographic since it's often impractical to upgrade those types of devices to run newer versions of the browser.

But that's the fun of statistics, the numbers are concrete, but you can make them say almost anything via differing interpretations or ommissions.

Still, DAMNED good to see a website where IE (curse it to hell) is the minority even if the large slice of firefox likely being more from lemming factor than intelligence.

Edited 2009-03-21 09:24 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE: Fun - NUMBERS!!!
by AmigaRobbo on Sat 21st Mar 2009 11:09 UTC in reply to "Fun - NUMBERS!!!"
AmigaRobbo Member since:
2005-11-15

Actually this site looks a bit rubbish on the Amiga OS (3.1/4.1/MorphOS) web Browser iBrowse, the old one was fine. Still works but looks 'orrible.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Fun - NUMBERS!!!
by Thom_Holwerda on Sat 21st Mar 2009 13:55 UTC in reply to "RE: Fun - NUMBERS!!!"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Actually this site looks a bit rubbish on the Amiga OS (3.1/4.1/MorphOS) web Browser iBrowse, the old one was fine. Still works but looks 'orrible.


Well, why didn't you send us an email with screenshots and information? We can't fix something if we don't know about it! We are not rich enough to buy Amigas or MorphOS machines, so we have to rely on information from others.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Fun - NUMBERS!!!
by AmigaRobbo on Sat 21st Mar 2009 14:24 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Fun - NUMBERS!!!"
AmigaRobbo Member since:
2005-11-15

Ibrowse does not support CSS, would you change your web site so it doesn't use CSS?

If the answer to that is yes, that I'll send you a screen grab. But that's not the answer I'm expecting to be honest.

Anyway, I though that at least one of you had a Peg II? Morphos is free (as in beer, for 30 minutes anyway), iBrowse is also available for 68k classic Amigas.

BTW I'm writting this in Opera on PPC Debian Lenny

Edited 2009-03-21 14:27 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Fun - NUMBERS!!!
by Thom_Holwerda on Sat 21st Mar 2009 14:26 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Fun - NUMBERS!!!"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Adam might still be able to figure something out. Bug reports are always welcome, so feel free to send an email to osnews-crew @ osnews . com and adam @ osnews . com

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Fun - NUMBERS!!!
by deathshadow on Sun 22nd Mar 2009 05:37 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Fun - NUMBERS!!!"
deathshadow Member since:
2005-07-12

While it's not a be-all end-all solution, this is where semantic markup comes into play - really non-css browsers are being told to **** off at this point, with the majority of developers moving to CSS only layouts since one of the big approaches (and one I heartily endorse) is called separation of presentation from content. Anything in the HMTL should say WHAT elements are, not how they appear - appearance is what CSS is for.

BUT, hand in hand with this separation is another technique called semantic markup - something that (as I mentioned in the past) is missing from this incarnation of OS News. One of the advantages to semantic markup is that when you don't have CSS available you usually at least get meaningful formatting on the page. You have a heading to a section, use a HEADING tag NOT a DIV. You have a paragraph, put it in a PARAGRAPH tag, etc, etc. Quite often using meaningful tags in this role also means a hell of a lot less classes and ID's, meaning less markup... and remember one of the goals of modern markup techniques is to get as much as possible OUT of the markup to save bandwidth.

Take the main page at OSNews, where right now (on top of the buggy confusing formatting - and don't give me that "it's in a CMS" excuse) You have an outerdiv with the so descripting class "item2", followed by a .newstitle1 and .newssubheader1 div, that star thing that I've never been able to figure out what it actually does, but should probably JUST need the anchor to function and not an anchor + span + image with a image replacement technique, an obvious paragraph, etc, etc.

Since we can't post code in here, I'll just slap together a quick example on my server.

http://www.cutcodedown.com/for_others/osnews/template.html

Which shows exactly why slapping div's willy-nilly around everything is often no better, and in many cases worse than using a table - when BOTH are in fact the wrong approach.

Reply Score: 2

Linux x MacOS X
by shiva on Sat 21st Mar 2009 15:05 UTC
shiva
Member since:
2007-01-24

We always see here and in other websites news about US-based statistics of OS market share and in almost all linux percentage is much lower than MacOS X. But you can observe that OS News has more linux readers than MacOS X readers, even using the english language and therefore be accessed more by americans.

But I always suspected this is not true for the entire world ans specially outside USA, where Macs are popular.

I think that linux has now more market share than MacOS X globally and this difference is very big in developing and european countries.

I'm a proud desktop linux user and I never understood how an operating system which runs only on a proprietary hardware can be more popular than a free (as beer and as freedom) operating system running on the same PC hardware used by windows. Even considering that linux is wrongly known as a geek/nerd OS, Apple has not suficient presence nor competitive prices to has more market shar than linux.

Edited 2009-03-21 15:07 UTC

Reply Score: 3

Other category
by TaterSalad on Sat 21st Mar 2009 15:25 UTC
TaterSalad
Member since:
2005-07-06

Some of us browse the site from our mobile phones that are not Windows based or use firefox ;)

Browser: Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Teleca Q7; Brew 3.1.5; U; en) 240X400 LGE VX9700

Reply Score: 2

How about RSS readers?
by theosib on Sat 21st Mar 2009 19:58 UTC
theosib
Member since:
2006-03-02

I'm actually using NetNewsWire to read this. I wonder what it reports itself as.

Reply Score: 1

deathshadow Member since:
2005-07-12

1) I believe they fully recognize that the numbers are skewed. OSNews users tend to be a bit sharper than Joe Sixpack.

2) A "spiritualist" website is going to have numbers just as skewed - just the opposite direction since the majority of technical minded people tend to not put much stock in that sort of thing. (trying to put that as politely as I can and not go all MC Hawking on you)

3) You know that with 201 validation errors on your page you do not even have HTML, you have complete gibberish, right?

4) Tables around single TD? Empty heading tags? Nonsensical heading orders? Hitslink markup inside your HEAD instead of the body? Inlined CSS? Presentational Markup? Marquee??? 30k of HTML for 4K of content? No wonder the layout is broken in Opera (though that could be large fonts compatability) and you are probably driving away business with the 832 megabyte website in some 33 files - at least 30 seconds on firstload here and I'm on a 22mbps downstream.

5) Three separate stats? here's a tip, pick one - or even better, use the ones built into yer damned server and save end users the hassle of loading three separate javascripts from three separate servers increasing the page load time exponentially. Reminds me of a buddy of mine who had a slow as molassas page, so he kept ADDING more statistical tracking to it trying to figure out why it was so slow when his own server had little or no load...

6) Let's just say, I wouldn't go bragging about that site.

Edited 2009-03-22 05:59 UTC

Reply Score: 7

AmigaRobbo Member since:
2005-11-15

It's also based in the USA, If I as a non-American running on a non-Windows OS, wanted a salt lamp, I'd take one look see the dollars and go off and find a UK based one.

So you're going to have a Northern American bias there. Which could, and I only say could explain the high Mac/low Linux ratio.

But I think your results are a lot closer to the average than the stats for this site.

Reply Score: 2

Eh...
by Auxx on Sun 22nd Mar 2009 10:06 UTC
Auxx
Member since:
2007-04-05

I'm Opera Mini...

Reply Score: 1

Flash enabled != used
by renox on Sun 22nd Mar 2009 10:43 UTC
renox
Member since:
2005-07-06

I have Firefox with Flash enabled but with a pluging which disable Flash by default unless I click on it.

And I'm quite picky on which Flash content I click on!

Reply Score: 4

Why IE?
by microFawad on Mon 23rd Mar 2009 05:37 UTC
microFawad
Member since:
2005-12-09

I can't believe osnews readers are still using IE ;)
I mean come on there are lots of great browsers other than IE then why are you folks still using it?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Why IE?
by helf on Mon 23rd Mar 2009 21:24 UTC in reply to "Why IE?"
helf Member since:
2005-07-06

It's been explained 9 million times already.

A lot of people check out OSN at work. A lot of work environments limit what users can do with their machines with regards to the software they can run. SO a lot of people are locked to IE at work!

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Why IE?
by microFawad on Tue 24th Mar 2009 05:41 UTC in reply to "RE: Why IE?"
microFawad Member since:
2005-12-09

hmm this is really bad ;)

Reply Score: 1

CPU architecture stats, anywhere?
by douglasm on Mon 23rd Mar 2009 08:20 UTC
douglasm
Member since:
2009-03-23

It would be very interesting to look at CPU architecture statistics. user-agent strings contain this data (for example, mine is "Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux ppc; en-US; rv:1.9.0.7) Gecko/2009032022 Iceweasel/3.0.6 (Debian-3.0.6-1)"), but I haven't found such kind of stats anywhere, there are only OSes and browsers.

Reply Score: 1