Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 29th Mar 2011 23:09 UTC
OSNews, Generic OSes Ah yes, why not? The last time we did this, it was March 2009, so it's been two years since we offered a little insight into what kind of operating systems and browsers you, dear readers, are using. In those two years, a lot has changed. I will also explain why in the few cases that OSNews does host video, I will host it in WebM.
Order by: Score:
Flash and Flash Blockers
by willm.wade on Tue 29th Mar 2011 23:50 UTC
willm.wade
Member since:
2010-07-13

I use Flash block and this page: http://www.codegeek.net/flash-version.php correctly determines the version with it turned on. So it does correctly send that I have flash, at least with FlashBlock for FF

Reply Score: 2

RE: Flash and Flash Blockers
by umccullough on Wed 30th Mar 2011 00:27 UTC in reply to "Flash and Flash Blockers"
umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

I use Flash block and this page: http://www.codegeek.net/flash-version.php correctly determines the version with it turned on. So it does correctly send that I have flash, at least with FlashBlock for FF


It makes sense that it would report it - since FlashBlock doesn't block flash permanently, it's just a default to not load/show/run the flash - but give the user the option to click in the "space" and do so.

If the browser reported no flash, then the server would optionally prevent sending any HTML including flash widgets that the user *might* want to interact with.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Flash and Flash Blockers
by sorpigal on Wed 30th Mar 2011 10:56 UTC in reply to "Flash and Flash Blockers"
sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

FlashBlock will not prevent sites from recording flash version, but NoScript will.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Flash and Flash Blockers
by Bink on Wed 30th Mar 2011 14:45 UTC in reply to "Flash and Flash Blockers"
Bink Member since:
2006-02-19

FWIW, that URL reports Flash as not being installed when using IE9’s ActiveX Filtering.

Reply Score: 1

Mobile
by big_gie on Tue 29th Mar 2011 23:52 UTC
big_gie
Member since:
2006-01-04

I do visit osnews on my brand new archos 43 internet tablet. There is only one reason why I wouldn't do it though: the mobile version is just plain ugly. It looks like 1996... A plain RSS reader might even be nicer...

Maybe some love to the mobile theme increase its usage count? Just a suggestion ;)

Interesting numbers nonetheless.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Mobile
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 29th Mar 2011 23:59 UTC in reply to "Mobile"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Does that have a decent browser? We only serve the true mobile version to things like feature phones and such. This is probably a detection issue on our end. You can use the link at the bottom of the page to get the full version of OSNews.

iPhone/Android/WP7/etc. get OSNews regular.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Mobile
by Stratoukos on Wed 30th Mar 2011 00:17 UTC in reply to "RE: Mobile"
Stratoukos Member since:
2009-02-11

Opera Mini for iPhone also gets the true mobile version, despite being perfectly capable to render the full version. Not a major annoyance, since there's a link for the full site, but we were promised a fix about a year ago:

I did notice that the OSNews' mobile browser detection thingamabob redirects Opera Mini on the iPhone to our mobile site, which I think classifies as a bug. I'll talk with Adam and Eugenia to see if there's a way to fix that.

http://www.osnews.com/story/23150/Opera_Mini_Admitted_into_App_Stor...

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Mobile
by scoops on Wed 30th Mar 2011 14:07 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Mobile"
scoops Member since:
2008-09-12

but we were promised a fix about a year ago:

"I did notice that the OSNews' mobile browser detection thingamabob redirects Opera Mini on the iPhone to our mobile site, which I think classifies as a bug. I'll talk with Adam and Eugenia to see if there's a way to fix that.

http://www.osnews.com/story/23150/Opera_Mini_Admitted_into_App_Stor...
"

I fail to see a promise anywhere in that quote.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Mobile
by big_gie on Wed 30th Mar 2011 00:26 UTC in reply to "RE: Mobile"
big_gie Member since:
2006-01-04

I don't know how decent it is... I haven't had any problem with it though. I use the either the built in navigator or Dolphin HD. Both report "Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 2.2.1; fr-ca; A43 Build/FROYO) AppleWebKit/533.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/533.1" as their user agent.

I do like the formatting of the mobile version (http://mobile.osnews.com/) as I don't have to zoom in to read anything (it's a 4.3 inch screen). And as oppose to an RSS feed, I can easily see the comments. But I still consider the colors as ugly, sorry ;) They do feel 1990-ish.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Mobile
by siimo on Wed 30th Mar 2011 01:00 UTC in reply to "RE: Mobile"
siimo Member since:
2006-06-22

My Android 2.2 Froyo device actually gets OSNews Mobile. And I actually prefer it to the desktop site cause I don't have to scroll around. But it does look ugly and uses the old OSNews colours.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Mobile
by zlynx on Wed 30th Mar 2011 18:26 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Mobile"
zlynx Member since:
2005-07-20

Plus, it seems impossible to post a comment. At least, I tried it with the default browser on Android and it failed to acknowledge my login.

Fortunately Firefox 4 mobile loads the regular OSNews page and posting does work.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Mobile
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Wed 30th Mar 2011 01:03 UTC in reply to "RE: Mobile"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

No, not true to my experience.

I use my captivate to view the site daily with the stock froyo browser and opera mini. I always get shunted to the mobile site and have to click the link at the bottom of the page.

I am really close to installing dolphin as it allows you to change your browser string to get around such problems.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Mobile
by ebasconp on Wed 30th Mar 2011 01:27 UTC in reply to "RE: Mobile"
ebasconp Member since:
2006-05-09

Opera Mobile in my N900 also renders the mobile version of OSnews but MaemoB browser renders the decent version ;)

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Mobile - N900/FF
by jabbotts on Wed 30th Mar 2011 03:04 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Mobile"
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

FF 1.1 on N900 returns the full site also

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Mobile
by pandronic on Wed 30th Mar 2011 06:18 UTC in reply to "RE: Mobile"
pandronic Member since:
2006-05-18

My useragent on a Samsung Galaxy S:

Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 2.2; en-us; GT-I9000 Build/FROYO) AppleWebKit/533.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/533.1

I also get the mobile version, although I wish I didn't. The comments are not threaded and thus useless on that version, and the looks are kind of dated.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Mobile
by lemur2 on Wed 30th Mar 2011 12:29 UTC in reply to "RE: Mobile"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Does that have a decent browser? We only serve the true mobile version to things like feature phones and such. This is probably a detection issue on our end. You can use the link at the bottom of the page to get the full version of OSNews.

iPhone/Android/WP7/etc. get OSNews regular.


Possibly relevant:
Mozilla releases Firefox 4 for Mobile
http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Mozilla-releases-Firefox-4-f...
After more than a year of development, the Mozilla mobile project has announced the release of the final version of Firefox 4 for Mobile, also known as "Fennec", for the Maemo-powered Nokia N900 and various Android devices. According to the developers, the mobile version of Firefox "delivers an intuitive interface, unparalleled customization and support for modern Web technologies".

The mobile versions of Firefox are built on the same browser engine as the recently released Firefox 4.0 for desktop, version 2.0 of the Gecko rendering platform, and include several elements from their desktop counterpart, such as built-in support for Firefox Sync, add-ons and the "Awesome Bar" smart URL bar. The mobile browser features support for IPv6 on Android, tabbed browsing, and for copy and paste in all form fields on web pages, as well as modern HTML5 technologies.

The Android version of Firefox 4 for Mobile, which is said to be up to three times faster than the built-in browser, requires version 2.0 of the Android OS or later, A list of supported devices is available on the Mozilla Wiki – users running Android 2.2 can move the Firefox 4 for Mobile app to their SD card to save space on their device.


Edited 2011-03-30 12:31 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Mobile
by Carewolf on Thu 31st Mar 2011 11:11 UTC in reply to "RE: Mobile"
Carewolf Member since:
2005-09-08

AFAIK Archos devices are either Windows or Android, if he runs android it sounds like you send the wrong version.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Mobile
by adinas on Fri 1st Apr 2011 19:51 UTC in reply to "RE: Mobile"
adinas Member since:
2005-08-17

Just my fyi: on my archos 101 (android/chrome), the full version comes up

Edited 2011-04-01 19:53 UTC

Reply Score: 1

I would say those 2% i Amiga
by Amix on Fri 1st Apr 2011 20:12 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Mobile"
Amix Member since:
2006-10-18

Amiga is bigger than you think. Remember, its AmigaOS 4, MorphOS and AROS. Also using OWB on osnews.com doesnt show always its MorphOS, because you can spoof as Chrome or other browsers. Really. Amiga is ahead of all of you which think its dead. Its alive and stop bitching with saying that Amiga isn't alive. It is! Just look at Aminet, worlds biggest archive. Gets daily updates, amigaworld.net, amiga.org, morphzone.org etc is updated too. The community is very alive. More than you ever think. PC marked have always wanted to ditch Amiga, even when Amiga was superior between 1985 and 1994, PC marked fooled people in that PC marked was the best, most serious and most powerfull.. Reality is that Amiga was and will always be. Every system have its own good and bad points. AmigaOS too, but please STOP thinking that Amiga is dead, because its not. Its very alive, and the Amiga Community is a proof of that. It is! Really!

Reply Score: 1

Windows Mobile
by Cody Evans on Wed 30th Mar 2011 00:18 UTC
Cody Evans
Member since:
2009-08-14

Do us poor souls using windows mobile register in either the OS or Browser statistics?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Windows Mobile
by broken_symlink on Wed 30th Mar 2011 01:27 UTC in reply to "Windows Mobile"
broken_symlink Member since:
2005-07-06

Maybe you registered as the one person using IE999.1.

;-p

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Windows Mobile
by Cody Evans on Wed 30th Mar 2011 01:37 UTC in reply to "RE: Windows Mobile"
Cody Evans Member since:
2009-08-14

Impossible, I only browse using Opera Mobile 10.0. IE 6 mobile is horrible and seems even more broken than IE 6 for desktop...

It scored a 1 on the acid 3 test I just ran, compared to a 97 I achieved by opera mobile...

Edited 2011-03-30 01:42 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Windows Mobile
by vodoomoth on Wed 30th Mar 2011 07:39 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Windows Mobile"
vodoomoth Member since:
2010-03-30

It scored a 1 on the acid 3 test I just ran, compared to a 97 I achieved by opera mobile...

Oh Lord, that's so laughable!

But to be fair, are both versions from the same generation? I doubt it, IE6 sounds pretty old. So testing it against a more recent test wouldn't be really fair.

Reply Score: 2

v I will also explain why...
by mrhasbean on Wed 30th Mar 2011 00:23 UTC
RE: I will also explain why...
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 30th Mar 2011 00:38 UTC in reply to "I will also explain why..."
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Sure, it's all about Apple. A perfectly reasonable explanation is given, but your obsession gets the better of you once again.

Sad.

/typed on my MacBook Air.

Edited 2011-03-30 00:39 UTC

Reply Score: 5

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

No explanation needed, you're pushing your own barrow, and it helps bolster your push to force Apple's hand...

Yes, Thom's evil plan to bring Apple to its knees is entering its final phase. Oh! How the dominoes have fallen so predictably from the intricate pattern outlaid with such subtle genius.

Well either that or he's just a cheap bastard that doesn't want to pay to breed an army of accounting lawyer hybrids to calculate licencing fees.

Reply Score: 11

RE: I will also explain why...
by WereCatf on Wed 30th Mar 2011 02:23 UTC in reply to "I will also explain why..."
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

No explanation needed, you're pushing your own barrow, and it helps bolster your push to force Apple's hand...


Right. OSNews is SUCH an important news outlet on the Internets that Apple is forced to take them into account and OSNews can thus force Apple to things they don't want. I mean, OSNews generates huges amounts of traffic daily, they have enormous income from all the subscription fees and schemes, and their gigantic staff spanning the whole globe provide insight into every little thing imaginable so it's verily obvious why Apple would want to stay on their good side.

...or not.

Reply Score: 10

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

...or not.


Your lack of faith in my power is both unsettling and comforting.

Reply Score: 4

WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

"...or not.


Your lack of faith in my power is both unsettling and comforting.
"

Oh, I do sincerely acknowledge your dark powers which you surely have inherited from your father, Cthulhu himself. But alas, everyone knows your powers don't work in the vortex of the Reality Distortion Field(TM).

Reply Score: 5

grantpalin Member since:
2011-02-11

Don't you mean, "I find your lack of faith disturbing"?

Reply Score: 2

RE: I will also explain why...
by Sauron on Wed 30th Mar 2011 10:06 UTC in reply to "I will also explain why..."
Sauron Member since:
2005-08-02

Who the f..k is this guy? Not once in 5 years have I seen a reasonable and justifiable comment from him. He's probably too busy masturbating in a sweaty sock while looking at a Steve Jobs picture to think about what he's commenting on! ;) ;)

Reply Score: 8

RE: I will also explain why...
by bert64 on Wed 30th Mar 2011 12:22 UTC in reply to "I will also explain why..."
bert64 Member since:
2007-04-23

The two biggest browsers accessing the site are Firefox and Chrome, both of which support WebM out of the box and neither of which support h.264 (chrome is due to remove support for it soon)...

Also since this site caters to users of alternative OS's, while commercial applications like flash will only ever cater to the big well known systems that's not a good choice either.

Everyone *can* support WebM, and the majority of osnews viewers already use a browser which supports it by default... It's a no brainer.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: I will also explain why...
by Erunno on Wed 30th Mar 2011 12:56 UTC in reply to "RE: I will also explain why..."
Erunno Member since:
2007-06-22

(chrome is due to remove support for it soon)...


Chrome already removed native H.264 support in the latest stable release.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: I will also explain why...
by steve_s on Thu 31st Mar 2011 11:17 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I will also explain why..."
steve_s Member since:
2006-01-16

Are you sure about this?

I'm not running stable release - I'm on dev channel so I'm running Chrome 12.0.712.0 dev. That version definitely still plays h.264 videos.

I find it pretty hard to believe that they'd removed h.264 from stable whilst leaving it in-place in dev.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: I will also explain why...
by Erunno on Thu 31st Mar 2011 20:32 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: I will also explain why..."
Erunno Member since:
2007-06-22

Mea culpa. I just checked whether Vimeo's HTML5 player still works in Chrome 10 and it does. An article on The Register also confirms that Chrome 10 still has the H.264 codec. Bah, that's a lesson not to take everything face value on the Internet. ;)

Reply Score: 2

twitterfire Member since:
2008-09-11

The two biggest browsers accessing the site are Firefox and Chrome, both of which support WebM out of the box and neither of which support h.264 (chrome is due to remove support for it soon)...


And both support flash and ie suppurts flash, too. And flash is hardware accelerated on windows and os x, while webm is not.

Reply Score: 3

Country stats
by visconde_de_sabugosa on Wed 30th Mar 2011 00:56 UTC
visconde_de_sabugosa
Member since:
2005-11-14

Can you give stats by country/continents ?

It would be interesting see how OSNews users are distributed in the world and what they use to browse OS News.

In my country (Brazil), for example, linux is more popular than mean as desktop and macs are less popular.

I use Google Analytics

http://www.google.com/analytics/

in my sites and it is free (as beer) and give powerfull stats.

Reply Score: 7

RE: Country stats
by sorpigal on Wed 30th Mar 2011 11:00 UTC in reply to "Country stats"
sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

Yes, it would be nice to see OS share broken down by country. It would also be nice to get Linux share broken down by full user agent string from which it will be possible to make some educated guesses about distro.

Reply Score: 2

Two Years Ago
by joekiser on Wed 30th Mar 2011 02:02 UTC
joekiser
Member since:
2005-06-30

Since I keep screenshots of my desktop over the years, I looked up what I was running March 2009. Debian Lenny running KDE 3.5 with Opera 9.5x @ 1200x800 as the default browser on my laptop, and Windows XP with Firefox 3.x @ 1024x768 on the desktop. KDE 3.5 was fantastic.

Today I'm running Windows 7 with Opera 11 on my laptop @ 1024x768, and Windows Vista Business with Opera 11 @ 1440x900 on the desktop. Oh yeah, forgot to add: I have a Nokia phone that has Opera Mini on it that's used over Wifi sometimes.

Edited 2011-03-30 02:04 UTC

Reply Score: 2

firefox 4.2
by spatev on Wed 30th Mar 2011 04:15 UTC
spatev
Member since:
2011-03-30

THATS ME!

its minefield, the nightly build pre-release of whatever firefox is working on currently =]

actually i contributed all over this graph... I'm on a mac currently, and i use chrome, minefield (firefox4.2), and safari interchangeably... and even Lynxlet when i'm bored!

I also log on via opera on my linux box, or sometimes chrome, or sometimes from my Haiku partition!

oh boy!

Reply Score: 4

RE: firefox 4.2
by HappyGod on Wed 30th Mar 2011 04:58 UTC in reply to "firefox 4.2"
HappyGod Member since:
2005-10-19

Had to mod you up for enthusiasm!

Reply Score: 3

RE: firefox 4.2
by Lennie on Wed 30th Mar 2011 09:57 UTC in reply to "firefox 4.2"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

And me. :-) I also run the nightly builds.

I heared in a presentation, their are about 60.000+ people regularly running nightly builds.

And when Firefox 4.0 was in beta, people running beta are obviously a lot more than people running nightly builds.

Actually, more people used the Firefox 4.0 beta than people currently running IE9 (judging by the statcounter stats).

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: firefox 4.2
by spatev on Wed 30th Mar 2011 16:40 UTC in reply to "RE: firefox 4.2"
spatev Member since:
2011-03-30

Thats pretty awesome, i love the nightly builds. They are still the fastest thing i've ever encountered, and everytime a friend uses my computer i get the same questions "whats this minefield thing? its awesome!"


also the crash reports and stuff just male me feel more productive

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: firefox 4.2
by zlynx on Wed 30th Mar 2011 18:33 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: firefox 4.2"
zlynx Member since:
2005-07-20

Minefield is great!

Except for those - admittedly not common - days when text field resizing is broken, or CSS font face results in corrupt garbage text, etc.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: firefox 4.2
by Lennie on Wed 30th Mar 2011 21:41 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: firefox 4.2"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

Mozilla is awesome anyway. ;-)

When I do notice a problem, I make a bugreport and within a few hours it is debugged and fixed. And when I get the next daily build it is fixed already.

They even send me a free t-shirt because I reported a few bugs. :-)

Please when you notice a problem, report them. Some are hard te reproduce, so if you know how. Please do report them.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: firefox 4.2
by Lennie on Wed 30th Mar 2011 22:06 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: firefox 4.2"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

Ohh and I haven't decided which I'm gonna follow:

Nightly, experimental or beta

http://downloadsquad.switched.com/2011/03/17/mozilla-details-new-ch...

Reply Score: 2

Interesting results...
by UltraZelda64 on Wed 30th Mar 2011 04:51 UTC
UltraZelda64
Member since:
2006-12-05

I'm one of the visitors who have, at least since 2006, been using Firefox with Linux (Currently 3.5.16 in Debian Squeeze). Blocking both scripts and ads, too (though I do allow scripts on OSNews.com domain for convenience of certain script-based features). Before then... if I came here then... it was probably Firefox on Windows XP. With or without AdBlock, can't remember, but I certainly didn’t use NoScript back then (did it even exist?).

I would like to use Firefox 3.6.x, but Debian doesn't support it... but I do not like the forced twice-yearly upgrades of many mainstream distros and their tendency to use Firefox 4 (I just don't like the changes made in that version). So I'm kind of stuck right now. I might still switch distros for something more supporting of the nVidia drivers, but it'll still be a Linux distro with Firefox... unless I'm forced to go with Firefox 4.0 and choose to look into alternatives.

Similarly, I revolted against the changes in Firefox 3, and although I still don't really like them... here I am, typing this in Firefox 3.6. I'm getting sick of Firefox these days, been driving me nuts with instability in the 2.x days, and pissing me off with their changes with basically every version since 3.0 for the most part... but the problem is, all of their competition seems to be doing similar things since the introduction of Chrome. Trying to rip off the Chrome interface, and IMO, that's a bad thing... I just don't like it, and if I wanted to use Chrome, I would just use chrome.

Am I the only one having browser woes here? I will admit, the competition's good... but what good is the competition if it means that everyone tries to rip off the newcomer's interface and not much more?

Edited 2011-03-30 04:57 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Interesting results...
by marblesbot on Wed 30th Mar 2011 05:46 UTC in reply to "Interesting results..."
marblesbot Member since:
2009-12-25

I totally agree with you about Chrome. I do like Firefox 4, though. I became a fan of the Midori browser about two years ago. Also, I really like Arora. I've been using Midori a lot lately, but the problem is that certain websites recognize it (and Arora) as a mobile browser and I get redirected to their mobile website version. It's very easy to switch the user agent, though.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Interesting results...
by vodoomoth on Wed 30th Mar 2011 08:02 UTC in reply to "Interesting results..."
vodoomoth Member since:
2010-03-30

I say hallelujah to your gospel.


Am I the only one having browser woes here? I will admit, the competition's good... but what good is the competition if it means that everyone tries to rip off the newcomer's interface and not much more?

You're not alone! Seems like they haven't learnt the lessons despite all features they've copied from Opera... and look where it is as far as market share goes...

I've been using Opera for the last 10 years and found myself unable to use anything else; the last version (11.0) infuriated me because of what they did to locked tabs: shrinking it to just the favicon (best dumb idea of the web 2.0 era) and shifting it to the left side of the tab bar. And we have no way of reverting to the previous behavior and no configuration at all. Don't like it, too bad! The website has no favicon at all, too bad! You have several locked tabs on the same website, too bad! So until that changes, I'm on 10.6x

I've seen in the FF 4.0 video in the news item that it exhibits the same behavior, which, apparently, originated in Chrome (correct me if I'm wrong).

FF 4.0 has exactly the same look, with that Firefox menu and the new tab theme, as Opera 10 with it's "O-menu".

At some point, all browsers will look alike, and I don't mean it in a positive way.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Interesting results...
by Lennie on Wed 30th Mar 2011 11:12 UTC in reply to "RE: Interesting results..."
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

I do know Firefox 4 can be transformed back to Firefox 3.x with 3 options, one customization and if you want to have a status-bar an extra add-on...

The options are:
- "Tabs on top" (right click on the bar where the address-bar and so on lives)
- choose show menubar and show add-on bar from the Firefox-menu preferences-item.

The customization is:
- choose customize from the same menu as 'tabs on Top', move the reload and stop button a little to the right, away from the address bar and they won't combine again with the addressbar.

There is a add-on called the: status-4-evar which restores the statusbar (my guess is it combines with the add-on bar).

Reply Score: 2

RE: Interesting results...
by sorpigal on Wed 30th Mar 2011 11:09 UTC in reply to "Interesting results..."
sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

You are not alone. My favorite Firefox UI was the second release of Pheonix. Everything really went down hill after Firefox 1.5. The 3.0 UI changes are just annoying, and 4.0 more so.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Interesting results...
by Peter Besenbruch on Wed 30th Mar 2011 18:38 UTC in reply to "Interesting results..."
Peter Besenbruch Member since:
2006-03-13

I would like to use Firefox 3.6.x, but Debian doesn't support it... but I do not like the forced twice-yearly upgrades of many mainstream distros and their tendency to use Firefox 4 (I just don't like the changes made in that version). So I'm kind of stuck right now. I might still switch distros for something more supporting of the nVidia drivers, but it'll still be a Linux distro with Firefox... unless I'm forced to go with Firefox 4.0 and choose to look into alternatives.

...

Am I the only one having browser woes here? I will admit, the competition's good... but what good is the competition if it means that everyone tries to rip off the newcomer's interface and not much more?


Linux Mint Isadora comes with Firefox 3.6 configured to look and act more like Firefox 2. It's a long-term release. You have another two years of desktop support on it.

I have never used Iceweasel on Debian. It's a pretty simple task to install Firefox in whatever version directly. Use the Mozilla.org FTP site to grab a copy.

Reply Score: 1

Vimeo
by kristoph on Wed 30th Mar 2011 05:23 UTC
kristoph
Member since:
2006-01-01

If you want to be efficient about hosting you can use Vimeo (or similar) which will provide HD video for less that $100 a year and automagically format it to meet the requirements of the user agent so rather than supporting 59% of your users you would support 100%.

An additional bonus would be the global CDN's for faster delivery and lower res video for your mobile users.

But lets be honest it's not about time and cost Thom, it's all about tilting at those ideological windmills.

]{

Reply Score: 1

RE: Vimeo
by lemur2 on Wed 30th Mar 2011 05:41 UTC in reply to "Vimeo"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

If you want to be efficient about hosting you can use Vimeo (or similar) which will provide HD video for less that $100 a year and automagically format it to meet the requirements of the user agent so rather than supporting 59% of your users you would support 100%.


Actually, given that the majority of Firefox users and Chrome users update to the latest stable versions, WebM will be natively supported by 47%(FF4)+26%(Chrome)+6%(Opera) = 79% of users.

Given the WebM Media Foundation codec written by Google for Windows Vista and Windows 7
http://blog.webmproject.org/2011/03/introducing-webm-in-internet-ex...
perhaps a third or more of IE users might eventually be able to render WebM.

So 82% of users, not 59%.

I believe Google will eventually also release a WebM codec for OSX that will help out the Safari users (10%) also. That would leave only those IE users staying with XP, and iOS users. This would surely be a tiny subset of OSNews users.

Reply Score: 8

RE: Vimeo
by Beta on Wed 30th Mar 2011 09:28 UTC in reply to "Vimeo"
Beta Member since:
2005-07-06

If you want to be efficient about hosting you can use Vimeo (or similar) which will provide HD video for less that $100 a year and automagically format it to meet the requirements of the user agent so rather than supporting 59% of your users you would support 100%.

Since when did Vimeo do WebM? Sod them and their 'You need a HTML5 browser' message in my Firefox 4.

Reply Score: 3

vid.ly and archive.org
by Lennie on Wed 30th Mar 2011 10:35 UTC in reply to "Vimeo"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

I heared their is also some people that offer services for conversions ?:

http://hacks.mozilla.org/2011/01/simple-html5-video-encoding-with-v...

Reply Score: 2

RE: vid.ly and archive.org
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 30th Mar 2011 10:37 UTC in reply to "vid.ly and archive.org"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Using JavaScript to play video is a definite no-no. Can you imagine running a JS for every image file?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: vid.ly and archive.org
by Lennie on Wed 30th Mar 2011 12:20 UTC in reply to "RE: vid.ly and archive.org"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

To be honest, I haven't had a very detailed look, but if I understand correctly the javascript is only needed when the outer-video-tag is not supported. I was kind of hoping it would work a bit like:

http://camendesign.com/code/video_for_everybody

Reply Score: 2

RE: Vimeo
by lemur2 on Wed 30th Mar 2011 10:40 UTC in reply to "Vimeo"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

If you want to be efficient about hosting you can use Vimeo (or similar) which will provide HD video for less that $100 a year and automagically format it to meet the requirements of the user agent so rather than supporting 59% of your users you would support 100%.

An additional bonus would be the global CDN's for faster delivery and lower res video for your mobile users.

But lets be honest it's not about time and cost Thom, it's all about tilting at those ideological windmills.

]{


Vimeo doesn't provide WebM, and WebM is required to support Opera, Chrome and Firefox 4 - that amounts to 79% of OSNews readers!

Reply Score: 2

RE: Vimeo
by oomingmak on Wed 30th Mar 2011 12:59 UTC in reply to "Vimeo"
oomingmak Member since:
2006-09-22

Assuming that it works.

http://support.mozilla.com/en-US/questions/796279

Vimeo is notorious for breaking video playback on Firefox.

Reply Score: 2

Maybe/Maybe not
by marblesbot on Wed 30th Mar 2011 05:49 UTC
marblesbot
Member since:
2009-12-25

Maybe it's not "cool" to switch the user agent to IE999.1, but I sure did laugh like a nerd! I'm a little surprised by the amount of IE usage. Although, I do switch my user agent to use certain websites. I wonder what it's set to right now. I forgot Safari existed!

Reply Score: 2

osnews.app?
by clasqm on Wed 30th Mar 2011 05:54 UTC
clasqm
Member since:
2010-09-23

OSNews actually has a pretty decent mobile site that reads easily on mobile Safari, and putting a link on the home screen is a matter of two clicks.

But it doesn't really matter. The default way of accessing material in iOS is through the dedicated app, not through the browser. You may like this or you may not, but that just is the way it is.

Reply Score: 0

RE: osnews.app?
by vodoomoth on Wed 30th Mar 2011 08:10 UTC in reply to "osnews.app?"
vodoomoth Member since:
2010-03-30

But it doesn't really matter. The default way of accessing material in iOS is through the dedicated app, not through the browser. You may like this or you may not, but that just is the way it is.


Wasn't that true in the beginning of the iphone era because virtually no site had a dedicated mobile-friendly version? Things have changed and evolved since then and the usage patterns have probably changed as well. With the current trend of moving things to the web and the shift to mobile browsing, it would be weird to drop an app now for a (number of current) platform(s) when one can tailor a mobile version that would work on any (old, current, and possibly future) portable/mobile device. Just saying...

Reply Score: 5

Linux army here
by kvarbanov on Wed 30th Mar 2011 07:01 UTC
kvarbanov
Member since:
2008-06-16

I've contributed to the graph with my Linux visits, Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:2.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/4.0 (used to be 3.6.LATEST), on OpenSuse 11.2, KDE 3.5.10. No intentions to change that awesome working setup. Good to see such diversification.

Reply Score: 1

Flash Blocker
by tuzor on Wed 30th Mar 2011 07:13 UTC
tuzor
Member since:
2007-08-07

The flash plugin is detected even if you have it blocked.

The solution is to uninstall it completely and when you need to use it once a week just load it up with Chrome.

Reply Score: 1

re: narrow majority
by Tuishimi on Wed 30th Mar 2011 08:21 UTC
Tuishimi
Member since:
2005-07-06

"The majority of our readers use Windows, but it's a very narrow majority."

Perhaps overall, but it is nearly twice linux and more than twice the number of OS X users. Not that that really matters.

Reply Score: 2

RE: re: narrow majority
by Lennie on Wed 30th Mar 2011 10:40 UTC in reply to "re: narrow majority"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

I use Linux at home, but at work I 'have' to use Windows to access the site.

Which I do regularly.

So I account for 1 user windows, 1 user linux.

I'm certain it is the same for many, many people which visit the site.

How many ? maybe 50% of the people who use Windows ?

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: re: narrow majority
by sorpigal on Wed 30th Mar 2011 11:12 UTC in reply to "RE: re: narrow majority"
sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

I'm another user in that boat. I mostly read osnews from work where Windows is my only option, because I prefer to be paid while I waste time on the internet. But, I also read from home where there's no Windows to be found anywhere and from my n900 on some occasions (where the browser is correctly fed the non-mobile versions of the site).

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: re: narrow majority
by Tuishimi on Wed 30th Mar 2011 14:40 UTC in reply to "RE: re: narrow majority"
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

Good point! Yeah we don't want to pretend there are more people who view OSnews than there really are! (just kidding! ;) ) I use Mac OS X sometimes, and now my WP7 on occasion. I don't have a linux box running at the moment (gave it to a friend). I do have my OLD G4 mac mini I could use with linux or morphos. ;)

Reply Score: 2

OSNews
by OSGuy on Wed 30th Mar 2011 08:29 UTC
OSGuy
Member since:
2006-01-01

Sometimes I access the site with Android's default browser.

Reply Score: 2

Oddest Browser
by nickelbackro on Wed 30th Mar 2011 09:04 UTC
nickelbackro
Member since:
2009-04-12

Probably the oddest browser I've been here with was the Opera browser that comes with my Wii (First time I encountered the site's mobile version). I was actually shocked the first time I tried it back in '08 that I could watch flash content on YouTube (Bravo Opera).

Last time I used it though (a couple months back) I could tell that even though they have done software updates to the browser that it was hitting the performance ceiling of the hardware and was giving me lots of low memory warnings. PPC cores at 729Mhz with 88MB of RAM just ain't what it used to be.

Edited 2011-03-30 09:08 UTC

Reply Score: 2

We know the 2% "other"...
by phoudoin on Wed 30th Mar 2011 09:51 UTC
phoudoin
Member since:
2006-06-09

... are all Amiga users?
:-)

I'm not an amiga user but I do know I'm in this 2% club.

Reply Score: 4

RE: We know the 2% "other"...
by cobbaut on Wed 30th Mar 2011 11:05 UTC in reply to "We know the 2% "other"..."
cobbaut Member since:
2005-10-23

Imho the top 10 of those 2% "other" would be very interesting to know. Is Amiga really in there ? Or Solaris or reactos ?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: We know the 2% "other"...
by umccullough on Wed 30th Mar 2011 14:50 UTC in reply to "RE: We know the 2% "other"..."
umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

Imho the top 10 of those 2% "other" would be very interesting to know. Is Amiga really in there ? Or Solaris or reactos ?


OP was likely referring to Haiku (since he's a Haiku dev) ;)

Reply Score: 3

RE: We know the 2% "other"...
by sorpigal on Wed 30th Mar 2011 11:21 UTC in reply to "We know the 2% "other"..."
sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

Nah, I'm betting it's mostly BeOS/Haiku.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: We know the 2% "other"...
by daedalus on Wed 30th Mar 2011 11:28 UTC in reply to "RE: We know the 2% "other"..."
daedalus Member since:
2011-01-14

Hmmm... Not sure if I hit that specific 72 hour window, but I'm often on here with my Amiga ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE: We know the 2% "other"...
by frajo on Fri 1st Apr 2011 13:42 UTC in reply to "We know the 2% "other"..."
frajo Member since:
2007-06-29

... are all Amiga users?
:-)

I'm not an amiga user but I do know I'm in this 2% club.


Me, too. Have a guess what I'm using.

Reply Score: 1

Eh...
by Lava_Croft on Wed 30th Mar 2011 10:18 UTC
Lava_Croft
Member since:
2006-12-24
RE: Eh...
by abstraction on Wed 30th Mar 2011 11:18 UTC in reply to "Eh..."
abstraction Member since:
2008-11-27

I don't follow. Explain?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Eh...
by nej_simon on Wed 30th Mar 2011 13:13 UTC in reply to "Eh..."
nej_simon Member since:
2011-02-11

Troll attempt?

Reply Score: 1

I'm going to ...
by nej_simon on Wed 30th Mar 2011 13:11 UTC
nej_simon
Member since:
2011-02-11

... change my user agent to something weird just to see if I get a special mention in the next round of stats. ;)

Reply Score: 2

I don't agree with video format
by twitterfire on Wed 30th Mar 2011 14:00 UTC
twitterfire
Member since:
2008-09-11

I try not to use Flash, because it is simply not the best choice performance-wise for 49% (non-Windows) of our readers (I'm not exactly thrilled about our Flash ads either, in case you're wondering).

First, there are many more people which have flash capable browsers than those who have webm capable browsers. webm is hardware accelerated on what popular platform?

Second, flash is hardware accelerated on both Windows and Mac Os X, that is your majority of users.

If I understand correctly, you chose to support a minority over a large majority?

Reply Score: 3

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Second, flash is hardware accelerated on both Windows and Mac Os X, that is your majority of users.


- Flash performance and stability on Linux and Mac OS X is not good. Hardware acceleration on those platforms exists, but is limited and very rudimentary, and is by no means anywhere close to the kind of performance delivered on Windows.
- Flash is a security nightmare.
- Flash is proprietary and cannot be freely implemented.
- Flash is a silo. It is not part of HTML. It cannot be made accessible.

If I understand correctly, you chose to support a minority over a large majority?


Taking the above reasons into account, Flash is not an option. This leaves HTML5 with either H264 or WebM, and, well, you can read the article as to why choosing WebM makes a lot more sense for us than H264.

Reply Score: 6

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

I try not to use Flash, because it is simply not the best choice performance-wise for 49% (non-Windows) of our readers (I'm not exactly thrilled about our Flash ads either, in case you're wondering). First, there are many more people which have flash capable browsers than those who have webm capable browsers. webm is hardware accelerated on what popular platform?


WebM decoding is less computationally expensive than h264, so most popular platforms do not require hardware acceleration to decode it and play it acceptable rates at moderate resolutions.

Having said that, there is a Google Summer of Code project this year:

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=OTI2OA

which if successful would bring hardware accelerated WebM decoding capability to all platforms with a GPU. This would mean that as long as a given platform had a GPU, it could play WebM at acceptable rates even for very high resolutions.

Second, flash is hardware accelerated on both Windows and Mac Os X, that is your majority of users. If I understand correctly, you chose to support a minority over a large majority?


Flash is not natively supported by browsers. Flash uses h264 at this time, but it is not a requirement, and Adobe are supposed to be working on Flash with WebM. Flash is not a standard, and everybody is far better served if the standard becomes HTML5/WebM.

Currently, Opera, Firefox 4 and Chrome can play HTML5/WebM, and only that, out of the box. IE9 and Safari can play it also if the user installs a suitable codec under the OS, and Google have already released a preview version of a Media Foundation codec for Windows 7 and Vista.

It won't be long before browsers which can play HTML5/WebM are NOT a minority.

Reply Score: 4

What about total traffic since 2009??
by pooo on Wed 30th Mar 2011 14:49 UTC
pooo
Member since:
2006-04-22

These trends are only meaningful in the context of overall traffic trends. Are more or less people coming to OSNews overall? By how much?

What we might be seeing, instead of an evolving demographic, is one segment (windows users for example) just spending less time on OSNews.

Reply Score: 0

Really all Amiga?
by IndigoJo on Wed 30th Mar 2011 16:12 UTC
IndigoJo
Member since:
2005-07-06

It's clear that Windows is in decline, and both Linux and Mac OS X profit from that. I'm very happy we have such a diverse audience here, especially since we know that the 2% "other" are all Amiga users.

Surely they're not *all* Amiga? What about other variants of Unix - the BSDs and Solaris - and things like Syllable which often get a lot of promotion here (or at least used to).

I must admit, despite having an Android unit and using the Browser app on there often, I've never read this site with it; I mostly read websites that are linked off my Twitter timeline. Does OSNews have a Twitter account? You might get more people reading on mobiles that way. (Then again, Android units would just register as Linux.)

Reply Score: 1

RE: Really all Amiga?
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 30th Mar 2011 16:13 UTC in reply to "Really all Amiga?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

The Amiga thing is a joke.

As for Twitter - yes, someone set up a Twitter account posting our stories. He or she is not affiliated with us, as far as I know.

http://twitter.com/osnews

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Really all Amiga?
by WereCatf on Wed 30th Mar 2011 16:29 UTC in reply to "RE: Really all Amiga?"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

As for Twitter - yes, someone set up a Twitter account posting our stories. He or she is not affiliated with us, as far as I know.

http://twitter.com/osnews


That's odd. It looks like it's an automated system since it just posts the full header, doesn't even try to leave extra comments out or anything.

Oh well, atleast it's yet another acknowledgement that OSnews is somewhat popular among geeks! ;) (I know I would be seriously depressed if OSnews ever went away, it's the one site I check all the time and I actually enjoy discussing things here.)

Reply Score: 3

Reading statistics
by bogomipz on Thu 31st Mar 2011 21:21 UTC
bogomipz
Member since:
2005-07-11

Reading statistics is fun. This one clearly shows that Linux is more popular than Windows 7, and OS X ships with a better default browser than Windows.

Reply Score: 2