IE: Below 60%

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-20004031-56.html?tag=newsEditorsPicksArea.0

What can i say?  i use frontpage...

Although i remember having some ideas about ie.. i think... like bringing back coolbars and being able to dis-assemble it... total customization.

must have been a dream  

edit: *dont get me started on whats wrong with expression web....  IE thread... not FP 

 
edit 2: ...just a thought:

perhaps people that...dont ...really .... want you to make your own websites (anymore)... shouldnt be building web authoring programs

oh ya.... IE   .... 

SINKING!!!!   

 ?????????

Dunno, there are several reasons why IE is sinking, one is that it isn't "cool" to use. IE is actually a very good browser imho... but!... in terms of user friendliness for techie people, I think FF, Opera fits better. I also think that since many "kids" been growing up with PCs, they too are somewhat of techies, so they use FF more. I could ofcourse be totally off. hehhe...

I personally use Opera and just can not touch anything else because once you go Opera, there is no coming back and I feel very locked in it mind you. It's too good. :/

I think Microsoft is indeed worried about IE drop, not because of IE but since many stuff run inside the browser now for average users, once they go off IE, they in theory can go off Windows too as long as their browser of choice follows. If Microsoft is not worried, then they should be.

turrican said:

Dunno, there are several reasons why IE is sinking, one is that it isn't "cool" to use. IE is actually a very good browser imho... but!... in terms of user friendliness for techie people, I think FF, Opera fits better. I also think that since many "kids" been growing up with PCs, they too are somewhat of techies, so they use FF more. I could ofcourse be totally off. hehhe...

 

I personally use Opera and just can not touch anything else because once you go Opera, there is no coming back and I feel very locked in it mind you. It's too good. :/

 

I think Microsoft is indeed worried about IE drop, not because of IE but since many stuff run inside the browser now for average users, once they go off IE, they in theory can go off Windows too as long as their browser of choice follows. If Microsoft is not worried, then they should be.

IE is still my default - but id go chrome - rather than FF for "friendlyness factor

?

NO OFFENSE but ff is long in the tooth these days! ... plus ff RAMS updates down your throat every other day

( * - Please load FF 50.003.5.  We know you just loaded 49.002.1-4 - a day ago....  but we will bug you MORE THAN MS to uprade (over and over...)

IE vs chrome.... not ff?

edit:  i used to make fun of ALL other browsers - saying "wake me when IE falls below 60%"

well... im AWAKE!!!!!

edit 2 - if quakelive ran under chrome....  hmmm  i dunno what id use these days

jamie said:

turrican said:

*snip*

IE is still my default - but id go chrome - rather than FF for "friendlyness factor

 

?

 

NO OFFENSE but ff is long in the tooth these days! ... plus ff RAMS updates down your throat every other day

 

( * - Please load FF 50.003.5.  We know you just loaded 49.002.1-4 - a day ago....  but we will bug you MORE THAN MS to uprade (over and over...)

 

IE vs chrome.... not ff?

 

 

 

edit:  i used to make fun of ALL other browsers - saying "wake me when IE falls below 60%"

 

well... im AWAKE!!!!!

 

 

edit 2 - if quakelive ran under chrome....  hmmm  i dunno what id use these days

I agree about FF for sure. What I meant was, the regular users who "THINK" they are techies, use FF. I dislike FF hardly... as you said, I HATE its updates, every 15 minutes "FF needs to update, restarting" *LOL* and many "on that camp" complain on how often Windows gets rebooted ( usually at most, once a month ).

Chrome is indeed copying simplicity of IE but it has a creepy big brother inside it so I personally won't touch it but I can understand that people use it. The same way most people lost their freedom in real world "Let me drink my beer and watch football and I care not.", the same applies in the cyber world. "I just want to surf, I care not about my privacy or big brother"... but that's a whole 'nother rabbit hole.

Let that also be said that I know people who left IE for years to use for example Opera or FF but they came back to IE since let's face it, at the end of the day, "IE just works." and has less hassle than most of the other browsers.

I'm unsure about the IE-situation though, I mean, if Microsoft cares about it or not anymore. Maybe there is a shift coming we can't see yet.

May you live in interesting times.

I have nothing against IE, but PLEASE kill IE6 once and for all!

jamie said:

turrican said:

*snip*

IE is still my default - but id go chrome - rather than FF for "friendlyness factor

 

?

 

NO OFFENSE but ff is long in the tooth these days! ... plus ff RAMS updates down your throat every other day

 

( * - Please load FF 50.003.5.  We know you just loaded 49.002.1-4 - a day ago....  but we will bug you MORE THAN MS to uprade (over and over...)

 

IE vs chrome.... not ff?

 

 

 

edit:  i used to make fun of ALL other browsers - saying "wake me when IE falls below 60%"

 

well... im AWAKE!!!!!

 

 

edit 2 - if quakelive ran under chrome....  hmmm  i dunno what id use these days

Ok, so IE fell (barely) below 60%. It might be a psychological barrier, but considering that IE has been losing market share for years and that it's unlikely that something changes until IE9 comes out, I think it might be safe to go back to sleep.

Equally unsurprising: it has been two months now, and the ballot screen hasn't produced any effect. Not for Opera and Firefox, at least, that are marginally below their respective peaks in November and December. Doesn't mean much, except that it's even more likely than ever that the EU pulled yet another Windows N and wasted time and resources that could have been spent more productively.

OK i will not talk about the thing you are thalking about.... you said it not me..... 

Blue Ink said:

jamie said:

*snip*

Ok, so IE fell (barely) below 60%. It might be a psychological barrier, but considering that IE has been losing market share for years and that it's unlikely that something changes until IE9 comes out, I think it might be safe to go back to sleep.

 

Equally unsurprising: it has been two months now, and the ballot screen hasn't produced any effect. Not for Opera and Firefox, at least, that are marginally below their respective peaks in November and December. Doesn't mean much, except that it's even more likely than ever that the EU pulled yet another Windows N and wasted time and resources that could have been spent more productively.

I think that it is unlikely that IE will stop losing marketshare. Microsoft's embrace, extend and extinguish strategy is coming back to haunt it and now users are going elsewhere and as far as I can tell, nothing Microsoft does will make them want to come back. It is not like Microsoft is willing to implement adblocking in IE.

Shining Arcanine said:

Blue Ink said:

*snip*

I think that it is unlikely that IE will stop losing marketshare. Microsoft's embrace, extend and extinguish strategy is coming back to haunt it and now users are going elsewhere and as far as I can tell, nothing Microsoft does will make them want to come back. It is not like Microsoft is willing to implement adblocking in IE.

I have mixed feelings about adblock.  If I'm hosting a community site with my own money and relying on ad revenue to help with the costs and someone visits with ad-block enabled I don't think that's right.

PerfectPhase said:

Shining Arcanine said:

*snip*

I have mixed feelings about adblock.  If I'm hosting a community site with my own money and relying on ad revenue to help with the costs and someone visits with ad-block enabled I don't think that's right.

I fully agree with you. If a user blocks an add, it's fine as long as they don't "use up" your bandwidth, which in this case they do. So in my opinion they are leeching off and kind'a stealing your content in a sense that they produce and force a loss on you.

On the other side, I know that adblocking behaviour were started by completely foolish and moronic advertisements, their placements and popups and what not. That still does not justify bandwidth leeching though.

I'm a free market guy, the people who use adblock are not imho. If you dislike a site's content, don't visit it and that is free market at work. But if you dislike a website's content and you alter it to fit you in your own private PC it's still OK... but... if you alter it in a way that produces a loss on the site for example bandwidth, then it's absolutely not OK.

Sadly people do like to leech whenever and whereever they can. It's tricky. It's hard to make mony on the web generally due to that, for some reason the "Internet generation" seems to want everything for free. Kind'a socialist mentality where all you have and want is rights and no obligations.

jamie said:

turrican said:

*snip*

IE is still my default - but id go chrome - rather than FF for "friendlyness factor

 

?

 

NO OFFENSE but ff is long in the tooth these days! ... plus ff RAMS updates down your throat every other day

 

( * - Please load FF 50.003.5.  We know you just loaded 49.002.1-4 - a day ago....  but we will bug you MORE THAN MS to uprade (over and over...)

 

IE vs chrome.... not ff?

 

 

 

edit:  i used to make fun of ALL other browsers - saying "wake me when IE falls below 60%"

 

well... im AWAKE!!!!!

 

 

edit 2 - if quakelive ran under chrome....  hmmm  i dunno what id use these days

I just switched to FF as my main browser at home. It always used to be (from since Ie6 days) until I installed Vista, but I finally got fed up with IE8. They made the address bar dropdown useless (as previously discussed at length), but the main problem was the unreliability - IE8 does have that amazing feature that if a tab's process crashes it can be restarted without bringing anything else down. It's fantastic, but I've only seen that happen a few times in nearly 3 years use. What I've seen happen hundreds of times is the 'shell' process lock up and killing that kills all the tab processes (unnecessarilly I'd say). Some motivation was also that I wanted more customisation than IE offers.

However, having slagged off IE8, to be fair, FF has a serious problem also which is that although it's generally faster (Facebook and Twitter are so much smoother in FF it's amazing), it does seem that any kind of activity in any tab can block the UI thread for the whole application, which makes watching video a less than smooth experience. Hopefully FF4 will move to a multi-process model like Chrome and IE. In the meantime I'll fire up IE still to watch BBC iPlayer or anything longer than a few minutes.

Shining Arcanine said:

Blue Ink said:

*snip*

I think that it is unlikely that IE will stop losing marketshare. Microsoft's embrace, extend and extinguish strategy is coming back to haunt it and now users are going elsewhere and as far as I can tell, nothing Microsoft does will make them want to come back. It is not like Microsoft is willing to implement adblocking in IE.

I don't know about strategy, karma and whatever. You may be right in that IE9, even if done right, is unlikely to make people forget all the bad press that IE accumulated, so I don't foresee IE9 gaining users back. But I wouldn't be surprised if it plugged the leak, to some extent. End users are (usually) lazy and only switch if they have a compelling reason to, and from what I see IE9 doesn't plan to give them many.

Security problems are scary, a huge speed difference can be shown and understood, but philosophical debates about the open web and H.264 won't stick with the large public... maybe I'm biased, but most end users I know couldn't tell H.264 from their big toe (and usually don't even care enough to try). So, maybe we are heading for interesting times indeed.

turrican said:

PerfectPhase said:

*snip*

I fully agree with you. If a user blocks an add, it's fine as long as they don't "use up" your bandwidth, which in this case they do. So in my opinion they are leeching off and kind'a stealing your content in a sense that they produce and force a loss on you.

 

On the other side, I know that adblocking behaviour were started by completely foolish and moronic advertisements, their placements and popups and what not. That still does not justify bandwidth leeching though.

 

I'm a free market guy, the people who use adblock are not imho. If you dislike a site's content, don't visit it and that is free market at work. But if you dislike a website's content and you alter it to fit you in your own private PC it's still OK... but... if you alter it in a way that produces a loss on the site for example bandwidth, then it's absolutely not OK.

 

Sadly people do like to leech whenever and whereever they can. It's tricky. It's hard to make mony on the web generally due to that, for some reason the "Internet generation" seems to want everything for free. Kind'a socialist mentality where all you have and want is rights and no obligations.

turrican: i understand what you mean but what you posted is not right...

if i block "adds" but visit the site i do not think that is the same as leeching.

I think that yes if the adds are really anoying i should and will stop going there.

but

"If you dislike a site's content, don't visit it and that is free market at work. But if you dislike a website's content and you alter it to fit you in your own private PC it's still OK... but... if you alter it in a way that produces a loss on the site for example bandwidth, then it's absolutely not OK."

well i think the sites "Content" is not the adds.

if the adds are the content then it's nor much of a site!

rhm said:

jamie said:

*snip*

I just switched to FF as my main browser at home. It always used to be (from since Ie6 days) until I installed Vista, but I finally got fed up with IE8. They made the address bar dropdown useless (as previously discussed at length), but the main problem was the unreliability - IE8 does have that amazing feature that if a tab's process crashes it can be restarted without bringing anything else down. It's fantastic, but I've only seen that happen a few times in nearly 3 years use. What I've seen happen hundreds of times is the 'shell' process lock up and killing that kills all the tab processes (unnecessarilly I'd say). Some motivation was also that I wanted more customisation than IE offers.

 

However, having slagged off IE8, to be fair, FF has a serious problem also which is that although it's generally faster (Facebook and Twitter are so much smoother in FF it's amazing), it does seem that any kind of activity in any tab can block the UI thread for the whole application, which makes watching video a less than smooth experience. Hopefully FF4 will move to a multi-process model like Chrome and IE. In the meantime I'll fire up IE still to watch BBC iPlayer or anything longer than a few minutes.

 

What's wrong with Chrome?  Seriously, Firefox is garbage. Security sucks, there's no process sandboxing, and as you said, tabs and addins can block each other.  Standards support lags way behind Chrome.  The interface is terrible.  The developers are incompetent and unprofessional.  Like that stupid debacle where they started scanning every file in your temp folder on startup to generate a random seed.  And the terrible prioritization of dev work, obsessing over meaningless Acid3 scores instead of supporting standard features people will actually use.  No H.246.

turrican said:

PerfectPhase said:

*snip*

I fully agree with you. If a user blocks an add, it's fine as long as they don't "use up" your bandwidth, which in this case they do. So in my opinion they are leeching off and kind'a stealing your content in a sense that they produce and force a loss on you.

 

On the other side, I know that adblocking behaviour were started by completely foolish and moronic advertisements, their placements and popups and what not. That still does not justify bandwidth leeching though.

 

I'm a free market guy, the people who use adblock are not imho. If you dislike a site's content, don't visit it and that is free market at work. But if you dislike a website's content and you alter it to fit you in your own private PC it's still OK... but... if you alter it in a way that produces a loss on the site for example bandwidth, then it's absolutely not OK.

 

Sadly people do like to leech whenever and whereever they can. It's tricky. It's hard to make mony on the web generally due to that, for some reason the "Internet generation" seems to want everything for free. Kind'a socialist mentality where all you have and want is rights and no obligations.

People want to put ads on your site to get the attention of viewers who will click on them and buy their products. Visitors who use ad block have no interest in the ads, so they aren't helping the advertisers, and you have nothing to complain about.

Basically, you want to get money from advertisers whether they're helped by the advertisements or not. How is that your right?

figuerres said:

turrican said:

*snip*

turrican: i understand what you mean but what you posted is not right...

if i block "adds" but visit the site i do not think that is the same as leeching.

I think that yes if the adds are really anoying i should and will stop going there.

 

but

"If you dislike a site's content, don't visit it and that is free market at work. But if you dislike a website's content and you alter it to fit you in your own private PC it's still OK... but... if you alter it in a way that produces a loss on the site for example bandwidth, then it's absolutely not OK."

 

well i think the sites "Content" is not the adds.

if the adds are the content then it's nor much of a site!

 

 

But when you use the site content, you do download it to you hence you do use their bandwidth, are you not? and when you block ads, it prevents them from the income which those ads would bring in order to pay for bandwidth and profit. The more adblocking, the less ads get served, the less money the site makes.

I don't see exactly how I'm wrong? The ads on the site which you watch are your payment to the site owner, instead of directly giving him money.

brian.shapiro said:

turrican said:

*snip*

People want to put ads on your site to get the attention of viewers who will click on them and buy their products. Visitors who use ad block have no interest in the ads, so they aren't helping the advertisers, and you have nothing to complain about.

 

Basically, you want to get money from advertisers whether they're helped by the advertisements or not. How is that your right?

Yes, but there is a follow up on your note... when the advertisers see that the ads are not served ( they do know when you block an ad ), they don't care about the site owner, they just see that not enough people see the ads on that specific site, hence they withdraw the ads compaign, hence the owner gets no money.

turrican said:

brian.shapiro said:

*snip*

Yes, but there is a follow up on your note... when the advertisers see that the ads are not served ( they do know when you block an ad ), they don't care about the site owner, they just see that not enough people see the ads on that specific site, hence they withdraw the ads compaign, hence the owner gets no money.

Yea, but I think the bottom line is that site owner doesn't deserve money just because people are viewing the site. Ad block might make things more difficult, but people who use it aren't doing anything wrong.