Linked by Howard Fosdick on Fri 16th Dec 2011 07:36 UTC
Google Only weeks ago StatCounter reported that Chrome pushed past Firefox to become the second most popular web browser after IE. A new StatCounter report says Chrome 15 has jumped into the number one spot, replacing IE8. This is the first time a non-Microsoft browser has led the list in StatCounter's tracking.
Order by: Score:
WAT.
by Wodenhelm on Fri 16th Dec 2011 07:47 UTC
Wodenhelm
Member since:
2010-07-16

WAT.

Reply Score: 1

RE: WAT.
by somebody on Sat 17th Dec 2011 15:39 UTC in reply to "WAT."
somebody Member since:
2005-07-07

why are you wondering? it has 7 versions advantage. wait that IE gets so mature

/* just in case, it was sarcasm */

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Kroc
by Kroc on Fri 16th Dec 2011 07:58 UTC
Kroc
Member since:
2005-11-10

Old monopoly's browser surpassed by new Monopoly's browser. News at 11.

Reply Score: 12

v Comment by lucas_maximus
by lucas_maximus on Fri 16th Dec 2011 08:18 UTC
RE: Comment by lucas_maximus
by earksiinni on Fri 16th Dec 2011 08:28 UTC in reply to "Comment by lucas_maximus"
earksiinni Member since:
2009-03-27

Er, how?

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by lucas_maximus
by lucas_maximus on Fri 16th Dec 2011 11:20 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by lucas_maximus"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

-webkit extension ... it is being used a lot especially on mobile phones.

Expect a lot of site not to look right in anything other than webkit based browsers.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by lucas_maximus
by No it isnt on Fri 16th Dec 2011 13:17 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by lucas_maximus"
No it isnt Member since:
2005-11-14

Yeah, except they do and Chrome (and WebKit) is pretty damn standards compliant, as opposed to IE6. So basically, you're just making stuff up to get some sort of "point" on an internet messageboard.

Reply Score: 4

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Yeah, except they do and Chrome (and WebKit) is pretty damn standards compliant, as opposed to IE6. So basically, you're just making stuff up to get some sort of "point" on an internet messageboard.


Way to go and miss the point of what I actually said.

I am not trying to make a point ...

Look in firebug or chrome inspector yourself.

I a web dev and I regularly talk to mobile devs that say they use the webkit properties because it works on older mobile browsers as well as newer ones.

I am not the only one that has thought this

http://www.webdesignerdepot.com/2009/02/is-google-chrome-the-new-ie...

Quirks mode blog.

http://www.quirksmode.org/blog/archives/2010/02/the_iphone_obse.htm...

cult of mac

http://www.cultofmac.com/29481/developer-mobile-safari-is-todays-ie...

But hey I am just trying to contrary according to you.

EDIT: Also almost forgot

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2397158,00.asp

The strategy takes a page out of Microsoft's playbook for IE6 and magnifies it on a massive scale. Microsoft's Outlook Web Client (the first major example of an Ajax, app-like site) let you use the search feature in your inbox only if you ran Internet Explorer. That's exactly what Google has started doing: offer a Web service that almost works in all browsers, but requires the vendor's own browser to fully function.


And

In a recent discussion I had with Hakum Lie, CTO of browser maker Opera Software, the Nordic exec expressed concern about Google's approach.
"It's often that [Google] launch[es] services without testing in all browsers. We sometimes wake up in the morning and see a new Google service with things we could have fixed if they'd worked with us during the development phase," Lie said. "Now that they have their own browser, they think less of making sure it works across the board, which is a concern, because Google wouldn't have existed if it hadn't been for open standards. We'd probably all live in Microsoft land."


This is Opera saying this!

Edited 2011-12-16 13:53 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: Comment by lucas_maximus
by No it isnt on Fri 16th Dec 2011 14:14 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by lucas_maximus"
No it isnt Member since:
2005-11-14

Thank you. That's better.

Reply Score: 2

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

It was just an expansion of what I originally said. You could have done the googling yourself.

The first time I heard it, is when me and a friend was talking about how -webkit extensions are problem .. and my mate said "webkit is going to become IE6".

Edited 2011-12-16 15:13 UTC

Reply Score: 2

wannabe geek Member since:
2006-09-27

But webkit is open source, unlike IE6. If webkit become the de facto standard, so be it. There's no vendor lock-in.

Reply Score: 7

RE[5]: Comment by lucas_maximus
by shmerl on Fri 16th Dec 2011 18:53 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by lucas_maximus"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

You are right, and projects like jQuery Mobile try to address it.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by lucas_maximus
by Adam S on Fri 16th Dec 2011 20:21 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by lucas_maximus"
Adam S Member since:
2005-04-01

The thing is, the -webkit extension is the PROPER way to target a browser and for a browser to add CSS extensions.

So, why is this Chrome or Google's fault? Because everyone else was so damned slow to implement that people started adopting the only reasonable way to get the extensions to work?

Reply Score: 2

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

The thing is, the -webkit extension is the PROPER way to target a browser and for a browser to add CSS extensions.

So, why is this Chrome or Google's fault? Because everyone else was so damned slow to implement that people started adopting the only reasonable way to get the extensions to work?


I am well aware of this.

Which is exactly what happened with IE6 ... There wasn't any competitor that was as good at the time. So people just wrote for IE6. Which was my point all along

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by lucas_maximus
by Beta on Mon 19th Dec 2011 14:18 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by lucas_maximus"
Beta Member since:
2005-07-06

The thing is, the -webkit extension is the PROPER way to target a browser and for a browser to add CSS extensions.

To target experimental and in‐development standards, yes. They aren’t considered PROPER for production use. It’s kinda obvious that they aren’t standardised because they have the vendor prefix.

So, why is this Chrome or Google's fault?

If they were just implementing HTML5 without quirks then I would agree.
Yet WebKit has awkward behaviours just like IE6 did, and just like Microsoft, Apple&Google have been creating, implementing and then publishing standards. That’s not how you make a good Web standard, it needs many eyes.

Because everyone else was so damned slow to implement that people started adopting the only reasonable way to get the extensions to work?

To implement… webkit originated standards? no.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by lucas_maximus
by 0brad0 on Fri 16th Dec 2011 11:37 UTC in reply to "Comment by lucas_maximus"
0brad0 Member since:
2007-05-05

Chrome is the new IE6


This comment makes zero sense. IE6 was painful because of its HTML compliancy issues with the HTML rendering engine and IE specific extensions which are not an issue with Chrome. Web devs the world over are glad Chrome is gaining market share. Also the recent announcement from MS of them pushing newer IE revs to XP users will help to further eliminate IE6 users which is very good.

Edited 2011-12-16 11:39 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by lucas_maximus
by zima on Fri 16th Dec 2011 13:01 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by lucas_maximus"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

IE6 was also more sane, more standards compliant than what it displaced. Web devs the world over, back then, were (IIRC) rather glad how IE6 gained market share from the old Netscape.

Google does push into Chrome things fairly unique, bound to remain so at least for some time (SPDY, NaCl - with the latter, Mozilla and Opera seem to not want to implement it; I doubt MS will do it; and even if Apple would, Safari just hovers at few %)

At least with Webkit, it might at worst settle on roughly "~one OSS engine shared and developed by everybody" which would still be a marked improvement.


Also the recent announcement from MS of them pushing newer IE revs to XP users will help to further eliminate IE6 users which is very good.

One glance at the stats in question ( http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser_version-ww-monthly-200807-201112 ) shows IE6 at 1.79% - it has been fairly irrelevant for quite some time.
And automatic updates shouldn't change much with its (probably) main remaining stronghold, ~company PCs (but they also don't matter that much with "outside world" websites)

Edited 2011-12-16 13:11 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by lucas_maximus
by Elv13 on Sat 17th Dec 2011 07:11 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by lucas_maximus"
Elv13 Member since:
2006-06-12

Nightly build of FF support SPDY, Opera plan to, but who care about Opera

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by lucas_maximus
by zima on Sat 17th Dec 2011 12:50 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by lucas_maximus"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Yeah that's what "bound to remain so at least for some time" would mean... (alphas / plan to)

As for who cares about Opera - oh, I don't know, perhaps just the majority of mobile browser users? ( http://gs.statcounter.com/#mobile_browser-ww-monthly-200807-201112 )
And with desktop Opera, perhaps Ukraine ( http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser-UA-monthly-200807-201112 ); similarly Belarus, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan ...most of CIS, basically; or Georgia. Also, to a lesser degree, few Central European and Baltic EU countries.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by lucas_maximus
by lucas_maximus on Fri 16th Dec 2011 13:46 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by lucas_maximus"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

It not about standard's compliance ... it is about how people tend to abuse it.

http://www.osnews.com/thread?500302

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by lucas_maximus
by Soulbender on Fri 16th Dec 2011 13:05 UTC in reply to "Comment by lucas_maximus"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Except it isn't total shite.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by lucas_maximus
by lucas_maximus on Fri 16th Dec 2011 13:26 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by lucas_maximus"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

IE6 was pretty good back in 2001 ... today it is. But then again you hate anything made my Microsoft regardless of quality.

http://www.quirksmode.org/blog/archives/2010/02/the_iphone_obse.htm...

IE6 is today’s most advanced browser. (Note: this was actually true back in 2000. Please bear with me.)


I'll take the Author of Quirks mode blog opinion in higher regard than yours.

Edited 2011-12-16 13:35 UTC

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Comment by lucas_maximus
by arpan on Sat 17th Dec 2011 07:18 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by lucas_maximus"
arpan Member since:
2006-07-30

Difference: Microsoft stopped developing IE after v6 was released. Google and a number of other companies are continuing to develop webkit continuously to add support for new standards, improve performance & security and speed. So, there is no chance for Chrome to become stagnant and hold back standards the way IE did.

In fact, this article is about Chrome 15, and Chrome 16 has already been released. Because of Chrome's auto-update system, almost all installs of Chrome v15 would already have been upgraded.

IE6 & 7, on the other hand, are still common on the web several years after their successors have been released.

Reply Score: 2

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

It is not about the "how good it is" ... it is the fact that people will develop for WebKit and more specifically Chrome and not other browsers which will put Everything else at a disadvantage.

Reply Score: 2

v Yeah but
by earksiinni on Fri 16th Dec 2011 08:27 UTC
RE: Yeah but
by stealthghost on Fri 16th Dec 2011 08:41 UTC in reply to "Yeah but"
stealthghost Member since:
2011-12-16

IE doesn't do automatic updates like Chrome, so overall IE is still way ahead.

BECAUSE IE IS A SUPERIOR PRODUCT BECAUSE IT IS NOT OPEN SOURCE. IF CHROME WAS SO GOOD THEN WHY DIDN'T TORBALDS SELL IT??? IE IS COMMERCIAL QUALITY PRODUCT.


As a web dev, from the bottom of my heart i wanna say "FUCK YOU SIR!"

Reply Score: 3

v RE[2]: Yeah but
by earksiinni on Fri 16th Dec 2011 08:44 UTC in reply to "RE: Yeah but"
RE[2]: Yeah but
by werpu on Fri 16th Dec 2011 12:06 UTC in reply to "RE: Yeah but"
werpu Member since:
2006-01-18

I second your opionion

Reply Score: 2

RE: Yeah but
by earksiinni on Fri 16th Dec 2011 11:47 UTC in reply to "Yeah but"
earksiinni Member since:
2009-03-27

Lol, wow. People seriously lack a sense of humor. I think it was patently obvious that I was joking.

EDIT: Joking about the second part, that is. I stand by the point that I made in the first line.

Edited 2011-12-16 12:01 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Yeah but
by jgagnon on Fri 16th Dec 2011 12:15 UTC in reply to "RE: Yeah but"
jgagnon Member since:
2008-06-24

As you probably know by now, IE will start doing automatic updates very soon.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Yeah but
by earksiinni on Fri 16th Dec 2011 13:40 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Yeah but"
earksiinni Member since:
2009-03-27

True, and then we might see IE9/IE8 take the top spot again. There will still be a split, however, because XP is only going up to IE8.

Also, I don't know how many people still use IE6 or below, but they are going to be left out completely.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Yeah but
by zima on Fri 16th Dec 2011 12:42 UTC in reply to "RE: Yeah but"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Lol, wow. People seriously lack a sense of humor. I think it was patently obvious that I was joking.
...

No, you're confusing "lack a sense of humour" with "have a good sense of humour and that's why they're not particularly amused, not laughing" with you.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Yeah but
by earksiinni on Fri 16th Dec 2011 13:43 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Yeah but"
earksiinni Member since:
2009-03-27

Yeah, I'm kind of a sucker for sarcasm/lampooning. Not everyone's taste, I'll admit.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Yeah but
by zima on Sat 17th Dec 2011 12:00 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Yeah but"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

See, that's still not the same as good sarcasm/lampooning...

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Yeah but
by turrini on Fri 16th Dec 2011 17:15 UTC in reply to "RE: Yeah but"
turrini Member since:
2006-10-31

We hate patents

Reply Score: 1

Probably why MS will push automatic update?
by acobar on Fri 16th Dec 2011 13:21 UTC
acobar
Member since:
2005-11-15

I guess, that is probably the main reason MS is thinking about make upgrade mandatory, i.e., it may make IE9 jump ahead of Chrome.

Anyway, with all problems IE6 have, I would not say that this is a bad thing. Home users don't have a good reason to not upgrade. Corporate users that may need to keep IE6 on lingering systems because of very old applications may block it on WSUS.

Reply Score: 3

Version 15
by djrikki on Fri 16th Dec 2011 15:03 UTC
djrikki
Member since:
2011-09-02

Version 15 uh? In less than 2 years uh? Chrome's versioning really does suck from a programmer's POV. How long did it take FF to get from 0 to 4.0? How long did it take the same for any other browser? How many version numbers does it take before a product has a name change? Version 15.... it really is kinda silly now.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Version 15
by arpan on Sat 17th Dec 2011 07:21 UTC in reply to "Version 15"
arpan Member since:
2006-07-30

On the web, instead of checking the version number, you should verify if a particular feature is implemented and then use it.

Tools like Modernizr make this easy. Use that instead of tracking version numbers.

Also, for a browser like Google that upgrades installs almost invisibly, it's makes sense to just test in the current version (and if necessary, one version back). If someone's using Chrome, they are most likely using the latest version.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Version 15
by aacs on Sat 17th Dec 2011 09:28 UTC in reply to "Version 15"
aacs Member since:
2008-12-13

From a programmer's point of view who also knows that this type of version numbering is a natural consequence of "multi-channel" development, this is easy and you don't have to continously decide on what feature or fix would justify a .1 or .5, etc. or major version bump.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Version 15
by gfolkert on Sat 17th Dec 2011 15:59 UTC in reply to "Version 15"
gfolkert Member since:
2008-12-15

OMG... I've got the following things installed, version control be damned!

"less" version "444" a pager program similar to more

"libflickrnet2.1.5-cil" version "25277" Flickr.Net API Library

"libgudev-1.0-0" version "175" GObject-based wrapper library for libudev

"libudev0" version "175" libudev shared library

"xterm" version "276" X terminal emulator

So, these are all crap... because of the high version number. Ahh... ok, going to remove them now.

P.S. no not really going to remove them. You are a Dolt.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Version 15
by tanishaj on Sun 18th Dec 2011 18:35 UTC in reply to "RE: Version 15"
tanishaj Member since:
2010-12-22

OMG... I've got the following things installed, version control be damned!

"less" version "444" a pager program similar to more


Thank you sir. I had never noticed that before. It is a great response to people who get all excited about escalating version numbers.

On my system, a fully up-to-date RHEL 6.1 system, I have "less" version "436". So, that just shows how quickly this version number is escalating. I will remove it immediately. :-)

Reply Score: 1

RE: Version 15
by djrikki on Sat 17th Dec 2011 19:19 UTC in reply to "Version 15"
djrikki Member since:
2011-09-02

I wasn't referring to having to check the version number in anyway - I was merely referring to the version numbering they have in place is simply ridiculous given FF has been around for considerably longer than Chrome.

Increment updates usually go .1, .2, .3 etc... not in whole numbers.

A larger number doesn't automatically mean something is better than something else - are job public that dense to fall for this dirty trick? Wait, don't answer that - the answer is probably yes.

Reply Score: 1

Chrome
by historyb on Fri 16th Dec 2011 19:44 UTC
historyb
Member since:
2005-07-06

I am happy for them. I would use Chrome but they don't have an extension to open tabs automatically from clicking links or the address bar. Wish Tab Mix Plus could work on Chrome ;)

Reply Score: 2

... and again, BULLCOOKIES
by deathshadow on Fri 16th Dec 2011 23:44 UTC
deathshadow
Member since:
2005-07-12

Since once again people are talking share, which is one of the best ways to lie by omission! CARD STACKING. Oy Gavalt...

1) Compare against IE8 while omitting IE9... since IE9 is the latests on Win7... Yeah... That's makes sense.

2) Their charts are claiming a "decline" in IE use based in DAYS, which is NOT a sufficient time period to be making such claims...

3) Doesn't state the size of the pool for those percentages... Meaning they could have just had a downswing in IE users over the weekend... Is that a normal trend? can't tell the sample period is too small!

4) Only based on specific websites that use statcounter; I pull the values from Webalizer on my own server and I've got as many Opera users as I do FF or chrome, while still holding 80%+ IE -- I don't trust those numbers as a true indicator, why should I trust theirs either? It would be like trusting the stats from a web developer site like W3Schools, where the fact they even have IE visitors is shocking.

5) Once again if we look at the "decline" of IE on statscounter, they claim that from Jan 2011 to Nov 2011 IE (all versions) dropped from 46.00% to 40.68% -- but what if we figure the actual numbner of people using the Internet in to the figure?

Back in January there were according to most stats around 1.9 billion people online -- back in Feb there was a big deal made about it breaking 2 billion...

We don't really have hard numbers for right now for penetration as that's done infrequently, but assuming the 3% penetration growth per year trend continues (no reason for it not to at 31% last march), and given the current estimated world population of 7 billion, we come up with a ballpark guesstimate of around 2.32 billion people online. (and that's a lowball number, realistically it's probably closer to 2.4 billion)

46% of 1.9 is 874 million while 40% of 2.32 is 928 million, meaing that while IE dropped in share IT GAINED USERS!!! It saw more than 1% growth despite "losing" share; gaining 54 million users means they haven't lost a blasted thing.

The numbers are BS when you get to Firefox too... According to statscounter from Jan 2011 to nov 2011 FF's market share has dropped from 30.68% to 25.25% -- 30.68% of 1.9 billion is 582.9 million, 25.25% of 2.32 billion is 585.8 million -- Another GAIN in userbase!

DON'T LET PEOPLE USE PERCENTAGES TO LIE TO YOU!!!

If they omit "percentage of what" in hard numbers, automatically question ANY conclusions drawn as it means they most likely are using the old propaganda standby of card stacking to promote their own agenda. You change the size of the pool percentage becomes meaningless.

NOT to take away from Chrome's thunderous market growth... going from 301 million users to 591 million users in less than a year is a damned impressive accomplishment... especially if nobody else has lost significant numbers of actual users!

Edited 2011-12-16 23:45 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE: ... and again, BULLCOOKIES
by earksiinni on Sun 18th Dec 2011 02:23 UTC in reply to "... and again, BULLCOOKIES"
earksiinni Member since:
2009-03-27

You're pointing out that the overall user base for each browser has grown. The article was pointing out that Chrome's market share has grown at the cost of IE's market share.

These do not contradict.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Stephen!
by Stephen! on Sat 17th Dec 2011 21:54 UTC
Stephen!
Member since:
2007-11-24

How come Internet Explorer 10 works with Windows Seven, but not Vista? Aren't they fundamentally the same operating system almost?

Reply Score: 2

Of course
by spiderman on Mon 19th Dec 2011 07:37 UTC
spiderman
Member since:
2008-10-23

Google is the biggest marketing machine that has ever existed. Of course their browser's user base grows faster.
Still, Chrome is still not on par with Firefox and Webkit is still far from matching Gecko's features.
For instance, here is Webkit's status on accessibility:
http://www.webkit.org/projects/accessibility/index.html
Everybody talks about web standards these days, but when will they start implementing desktop standards like AT-SPI?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Of course
by zima on Wed 21st Dec 2011 00:39 UTC in reply to "Of course"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Google is the biggest marketing machine that has ever existed

I'm not sure if that's strictly the case... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_religious_groups#Largest_religio... ;)

Of course, those do use ads in Gmail, Google Adsense in general, nowadays - and, curiously, there's also http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/ ;)

Reply Score: 2