The Active Network
ActiveWin Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise | VBA in Excel | Users Online: 0  
 

User Controls

New User

Login

Edit/View My Profile

Active Network

ActiveMac

ActiveWin

ActiveXbox

DirectX

Downloads

FAQs

Interviews

MS Games & Hardware

Reviews

Rocky Bytes

Support Center

TopTechTips

Windows 2000

Windows Me

Windows Server 2003

Windows Vista

Windows XP

News Centers

Windows/Microsoft

Apple/Mac

Xbox/Xbox 360

News Search

XML/RSS Newsfeeds

Pocket PC Site

FAQ's

Windows Vista

Windows 98/98 SE

Windows 2000

Windows Me

Windows Server 2003

Windows XP

Windows 7

Windows 8

Internet Explorer 6

Internet Explorer 5

Xbox 360

Xbox

DirectX

DVD's

Latest Reviews

Xbox/Games

Fable 2

Applications

Windows Server 2008 R2

Windows 7

Adobe CS5 Master Collection

Hardware

Microsoft Express Mouse

Latest Interviews

Mike Swanson

Site News/Info

About This Site

Advertise

Affiliates

Contact Us

Default Home Page

Link To Us

neowin.net

Amazon.com

  *  

  Firefox community weighs up IE 7 threat
Time: 12:45 EST/17:45 GMT | News Source: ZDNet | Posted By: Chris Hedlund

One Firefox contributor thinks the browser could grab a 25 percent market share before IE 7 even launches

Firefox supporters are confident that Microsoft's plans for version 7 of Internet Explorer will not hinder the open source browser's rapid growth. David McGuinness, a Mozilla contributor, claimed on Tuesday that by the time the next version of IE is released Firefox may already have taken a large proportion of its market share. "The Firefox download rate shows no signs of slowing down and at the current download rate it's possible that Firefox could reach a 25 percent market share well before the final version of IE 7 is released," said McGuinness, on the day that the Mozilla Foundation announced Firefox had been downloaded 25 million times. Already 4.8 percent of Internet surfers are using Firefox, while 92.7 percent are using IE, according to online measurement company WebSideStory's figures from January.

Read Only Comments
Return to News 		  Displaying Comments 1 through 38 of 38
   This is an archived static copy of ActiveWin.com.
#2 By 12461 (207.118.24.138) at Wednesday, February 16, 2005 02:04:59 PM
And how many of those who download Firefox... switch back to IE soon after?
I downloaded it... never used it. So I am considered one of the 25 million.

This post was edited by mfaccone on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 at 14:05.

#3 By 3 (62.253.128.15) at Wednesday, February 16, 2005 02:05:03 PM
The 25 million doesn't take incount the additional downloads of daily builds.

#4 By 7797 (63.76.44.6) at Wednesday, February 16, 2005 02:17:51 PM
"How many of those 25 million are people downloading the daily builds to try and keep Firefox secure?"

Zero. The counter doesn't count nightly build downloads.

#5 By 7797 (63.76.44.6) at Wednesday, February 16, 2005 02:19:29 PM
"I downloaded it... never used it. So I am considered one of the 25 million."

So why did you download it? Do you like wasting your own bandwidth? Do you often download stuff you never use? I know quite a few people who've installed it without downloading it at all. Installed either from a USB key or network share for example. So that more than makes up for people like you who download stuff they don't use anyway.

This post was edited by tgnb on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 at 14:21.

#6 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at Wednesday, February 16, 2005 02:52:10 PM
I downloaded Firefox... I have two uses for it...

#1. To test websites to see if they display correctly.
#2. Quite honestly, so my girlfriend can use hotmail.com. You see, if we load up hotmail in IE it immediately tries to use my Passport identity, and there is no easy option to say don't. I have to jump through some hoops to logout from passport.net and then get back in with her hotmail account.

But I wouldn't say I'm a majority user of it. Marketshare should count as number of hits on sites... not downloads.

#7 By 7797 (63.76.44.6) at Wednesday, February 16, 2005 02:52:33 PM
"I did it because everybody was doing it"

Are you going to jump off the bridge too if everybody is doing it?

#8 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at Wednesday, February 16, 2005 02:54:23 PM
Ok, that's it...

activewin.com just launched a popup denial of service on me. Damn popup came up and then started replicating itself. That's only encouraging me to not visit here, just so you know.

#9 By 15406 (216.191.227.90) at Wednesday, February 16, 2005 03:06:45 PM
#4,#13,#14: Yeah, sure you did. Give us a break. You'd be too afraid that Gates would find out and cut you from his Christmas card list.

#10 By 7797 (63.76.44.6) at Wednesday, February 16, 2005 03:15:43 PM
"activewin.com just launched a popup denial of service on me. Damn popup came up and then started replicating itself. That's only encouraging me to not visit here, just so you know."

I use Firefox and I never get popups at Activewin or anywhere else.

#11 By 7797 (63.76.44.6) at Wednesday, February 16, 2005 03:20:56 PM
You missed the point completely Mr. Dee. I was trying to point out to you that doing something just because everyone else is doing it doesn't exactly make you an independent thinker, it makes you a follower, a sheep. You'd be better served if you did things for different reasons like whether or not something interests you and dont worry about whether or not everyone else is doing it.

#12 By 3653 (63.162.177.143) at Wednesday, February 16, 2005 03:26:02 PM
tgnb - "I use Firefox"

Congratulations, but don't try to push that bug-ridden browser on the rest of us.

For further conversation... lets assume the 25 million downloads don't count multiple downloads and that all those copies are still in use (I know this is unrealistic). But even given those two impossibilities, how many IE downloads/upgrades have occurred during the same time period? That 25 million number needs some PERSPECTIVE.

#13 By 29664 (38.116.145.116) at Wednesday, February 16, 2005 03:40:24 PM
I love IE users biatching about Firefox being buggy.

Sad. I've been using it for months and there's no reason to go back now. NONE.

No pop-ups, no banner ads. Tabbed browsing.

Security holes my ass. You're so clueless

25 Million downloads? Must be people downloading it twice!!! HAHAHAHAH! -whatever.

Wake up.

#14 By 7797 (63.76.44.6) at Wednesday, February 16, 2005 04:06:32 PM
"Congratulations, but don't try to push that bug-ridden browser on the rest of us."

I have no intentions of pushing anything on anyone. Don't you think its amusing how sodablue lists his only 2 uses of Firefox but fails to see any use in Firefox's ability to block the Activewin popups he is complaining about in his other post? I got a chuckle out of it :)

#15 By 7797 (63.76.44.6) at Wednesday, February 16, 2005 04:26:44 PM
"Does that only go for Firefox users? Do they all go "Baaahhhhh"?"

It goes for anyone who chooses to do things because everyone else does it regardless of their choice of browser.

#16 By 7797 (63.76.44.6) at Wednesday, February 16, 2005 04:32:08 PM
"Or 3 times. Or 4 times."

I'm glad you have fun poking fun at the 25 million download number. :) What program have you written that has been downloaded 25 million times? 0? Ok, thats what i thought.

#17 By 61 (65.32.168.114) at Wednesday, February 16, 2005 04:37:55 PM
^ sasser










haha, I guess that's not really all that funny.

#18 By 7797 (63.76.44.6) at Wednesday, February 16, 2005 04:52:53 PM
"Actually I have been getting pop unders with FF lately."

Mind telling me on what site? I'd like to investigate this.

#19 By 29664 (38.116.145.116) at Wednesday, February 16, 2005 04:54:41 PM
' Actually FF has problems, lots of sites do not render properly, lots of private (read secure)sites will not work with it. IS it a standards fault or bad programming by web designer? Who cares, I will stick with IE for most of my work since it functions properly for it. '

I found that to be true in .8 but no longer. I get into my bank sites and in fact I no longer have any sites I can't get into.

Sorry I missed one: Windows Update.

#20 By 29664 (38.116.145.116) at Wednesday, February 16, 2005 04:57:51 PM
#23 "Does that only go for Firefox users? Do they all go "Baaahhhhh"?"

See post #2 here:
/awin/comments.asp?HeadlineIndex=28258&Group=1

#21 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at Wednesday, February 16, 2005 05:12:06 PM
I use FF quite a bit... while it does block the pop-ups on Activewin.com, it also kind of chokes on the forums (after the page loads, there is a long delay before I can scroll). Maybe not a FF issue, but it is frustrating nonetheless. Also, I had a problem with Umax.com yesterday--the text shows up on top of graphics. I cut and paste the address into IE... no problems. I'm not switching anytime soon!

By the way, to those that suggested the FFDeploy utility... I checked out that site. It certainly does not look like an enterprise-grade upgrade utility... nothing like SUS or SMS. Try again. SMS is beautiful in that it gives you reports of what machines were successfully upgraded, which is essential to a well-run patching process. Re-running the installer I think is a pretty lousy option for a number of reasons... not the least of which is that I did not uninstall previous versions of FF before running the installer for the latest version, and now mine does not render images properly for many sites (ebay.com, for example).

#22 By 7797 (63.76.44.6) at Wednesday, February 16, 2005 05:23:37 PM
bluvg, your right and i dont think anyone denies that there are some sites out there that Firefox has a problem with :) But the MS apologists try make it seem like a bigger issue than it really is.

I suggested that you look at FDDeploy, but i told you at the same time that Mozilla.org is working on enterprise deployment stuff for 1.1 and 1.5.

#23 By 3 (62.253.128.15) at Wednesday, February 16, 2005 05:49:36 PM
I hate to say this but some of you really lose the plot when it comes to anything that isn't Microsoft. The press are the ones to blame for saying Firefox will not have security holes in it, what they should have said is for a version 1 browser its a superb start and an excellent stand alone to IE. It still has bugs, no software will ever not have any. Personally I really like it, it's become the main browser I use, but I still use IE for other stuff. If you believe that MS hasn't started work on IE7 because of Firefox then you really don't understand the worry that the browser has caused them. Overall Firefox is a great first version, remember what IE1 was like? no of course not, nor version 2 either.

#24 By 3 (62.253.128.15) at Wednesday, February 16, 2005 05:50:59 PM
#33 - yeah there are quite a few sites that have problems with Firefox, same happened when IE3 first came out and people actually started to use an MS browser. Some of it is certainly buggy but I think it'll be fixed in upcoming versions and some of it is to do with design problems from web designers.

#25 By 7797 (63.76.44.6) at Wednesday, February 16, 2005 06:06:33 PM
#35 I would say most sites that Firefox has a problem with don't work properly because of design problems or the fact that they use IE specific non-standard stuff. And i believe that your correct when you say that over time there will be less and less of such sites with problems.

#26 By 7797 (63.76.44.6) at Wednesday, February 16, 2005 06:18:24 PM
"Overall Firefox is a great first version"

I can already hear LinuxIsTheft claim that Firefox is really not a first version but is based on old spagetti Netscape code, new buggy Mozilla code and that the only reason its called Firefox was to purposely deceive users into thinking it was new.

#27 By 7797 (63.76.44.6) at Wednesday, February 16, 2005 06:33:50 PM
LinuxIsTheft I didnt admit anything. But since you know so much about this, can you tell us all how much of the old Netscape4 code is still in use in Firefox? Can you give us a percentage? Number of lines of code? Can you point us to that location in Bugzilla you were referring to? No? Ok i didnt think so.

This post was edited by tgnb on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 at 18:34.

#28 By 29664 (38.116.145.116) at Wednesday, February 16, 2005 06:57:22 PM
39, Heck no he can't. He's too busy calling Firefox buggy because it doesn't have 48 patches. Some day when he stops using AOL he'll see the light. In the meantime it's pointless talking to the wall.

#29 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at Wednesday, February 16, 2005 10:43:50 PM
God forbid Mr. Ballmer and company should er, uh, "run" a publicly traded company and make business decisions... They and their software only fuel most of the professional services markets and in case you've been asleep, or have had your bills all paid for by Mom and Dad, we now have largely a services based economy...

I said it from the outset, the kissy press over FF was more about compelling MS to release more "features" in IE themselves [they've already addressed a major security update in XP SP2] than it was anything else. Yes, they'll roll-up a lot more security and likely native anti-spy-ware; however, it is a business decision none the less.

While the devs at FF should be praised, FF ain't no IE and not by a long shot...session_state, apps_state ?? nope, not there [and you all scream about standards <puke>]. Talk to any dev tracking a browser's state and you'll learn exactly what I mean...or how about when FF crashes? Not there either.

Look, MS is a business - a very good one [not just a very successful one]. One would be very wise to weigh the benefit business brings...who hires and pays people? Any one of us is capable of stepping up at any time and doing our best to do the same. Do that, and you'll earn the right to carp at MS...unless of course you can put us all on a Starship and induce some kind of universal utopia where we all just work to do our best...we're just not there, yet... Just be grateful to both groups for continuing to build good products that many of us use nearly every day.

#30 By 29664 (70.57.56.211) at Thursday, February 17, 2005 01:15:21 AM
'The only way to be up to date is to download the daily builds'

dude what the hell are you talking about????? Daily builds? since I downloaded 1.0 FF there have been no less than 8 or 9 IE patches and no "daily builds"

What toilet are you fishing this &*(^ out of?

#31 By 3 (62.253.128.15) at Thursday, February 17, 2005 06:15:11 AM
#55 - No it only counts the final release of Firefox nothing before or after.

#32 By 7797 (68.142.9.161) at Thursday, February 17, 2005 07:55:04 AM
So LinuxIsTheft am I right to assume that you can't tell us how much of the old Netscape4 code is still in use in Firefox. Am i right to assume you can't give us a percentage? Am I right to assume that you can't give us a number of lines of code? Am i right to assume you can't point us to that location in Bugzilla you were referring to? Am I right to assume that you don't know your browser history? Ah ok, I thought so.

#33 By 7797 (68.142.9.161) at Thursday, February 17, 2005 07:59:35 AM
Hey LinuxIsTheft how much of IE1 code is still in Internet Explorer? Oh you don't know? Why? You can't download the source? Oh well aren't you happy to be able to directly compare? When did Netscape open the code? When did netscape decide to rewrite almost everything? Was that in 1998? What date did you say those files you found were from? What? 1999? You mean AFTER the decision to re-write? What? Strange.. Oh so you dont know about the browser's history? Thought so.

#34 By 29664 (38.116.145.116) at Thursday, February 17, 2005 10:22:58 AM
LinuxIsTheft is on crack and can't read. Keeps spewing BS about 'daily builds' and security concerns. Like IE is any better? Give me a break. This site needs an ignore switch.

#54: Why?

I'm bored with people that can't list SPECIFIC reasons why they don't care for a product.

#35 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at Thursday, February 17, 2005 12:54:23 PM
I'm bored with people that can't list SPECIFIC reasons why they don't care for a product.

Well, several have been listed already. I use it a lot personally, but won't be deploying it more broadly, because:

1) Rendering issues. Not a huge number, but enough to warrant keeping IE always at the ready... which suggests just using IE in the first place.

2) Patching issues. Manually patching is not an option, and FFDeploy does not compare to SMS or SUS/WUS. Actually, Parkker <ahem> LinuxIsTheft raises a good point--where are the patches? I see references to nightly builds on their site... um, I'm not rolling out a new browser install every night! And the "check for updates" feature--does that really even work? I downloaded 1.0 I think the day it was released, and "check for updates" never finds anything... yet I see a new build even as of today (2/17).

3) Support issues. "Where are my favorites?" "Where are my bookmarks?" "I made a bookmark yesterday [in FF], but now I don't see it [in IE]... where is it?" "Why does [insert site here] look funny/not work?" Along with that, there are business applications that don't work properly in FF.

4) Security issues. Yes, IE has issues. But FF does as well... and both will have more over time. So, should I effectively double the number of issues that I need to address, or stick with one set?

5) Training issues. Tabbed browsing is great, but the benefit would not be seen by many users unless we took some time to train them on it. Sure, they don't have to use it... but it begs the question of why we're switching browsers in the first place... if the primary reason is security, we can solve that with IE by using SP2 and running accounts as restricted users.

So what reason is there for switching again? I can't see any good ones... nothing that makes it worth it. That may change with 1.5 or 2.0... but it's all speculation at this point. And we'll have to evaluate those against IE 7, and who knows what that will bring.

#36 By 7797 (63.76.44.77) at Thursday, February 17, 2005 03:38:41 PM
LinuxIsTheft your method for figuring out how much of Firefox is netscape4 code is flawed to the bone. Your brief skim method doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Counting the number of Files with a 199 copyright is not an accurate method to determining anything. How about you do some REAL research and come up wiht some REAL facts. Oh i forgot you are unable to do that. Nevermind then i guess. Oh and werent you gonna tell us how much IE / mosaic code is in IE6? No? oh ok. no source code available to do a halfassed evaluation with eh?

This post was edited by tgnb on Thursday, February 17, 2005 at 15:40.

#37 By 7797 (68.142.9.161) at Thursday, February 17, 2005 06:49:03 PM
"I think its pretty accurate. "

Just because you think it is, doesn't make it so.

I don't doubt there is some code in there thats older than 1998. Nobody is denying they used "some" old code or "some portions" of the old code. But to go through the files and search for a copyright 1999 date, then assuming the entire file is netscape 4 based and then comparing the number of files (instead of the number of lines of code) will not give an accurate picture of what percentage of code is netscape4. You know what and EVEN if 25 percent is netscape4 code (which it probably isnt) that doesnt necessarily mean its bad. not ALL code in NS4 was bad. Why re-invent the wheel on the code that was of good quality?
In any case your method is still flawed, its certainly not scientific or accurate.

#38 By 7797 (63.76.44.6) at Friday, February 18, 2005 10:45:33 AM
LinuxIsTheft you have thus far not provided any conclusive evidence that 25% of the Firefox Code comes from Netscape4. You have also not answered some of my other questions. You continue to evade some of the points i make while also continuing to claim your method is accurate. I dont know how much Netscape4 code is in Firefox. It might be 25% and it might not be. But your method of trying to figure it out is flawed. And as I said, even if it IS 25% does that make it necessarily bad? All Netscape4 code was shit? None of it was re-usable?



 

   *  
  *   *
 
replica watches