Mozilla 1.0 has a 0.4 Percent Usage Share —

Monday June 24th, 2002

ZDNet is reporting that Mozilla 1.0 has gained a 0.4 percent usage share since its launch on June 5th. Citing research from, the article notes that Internet Explorer 6's market share grew to 46.4 percent during the month ending June 21st, despite the fact that IE's overall share went down slightly. The Mozilla-based Netscape 7.0 Preview Release 1 has a 0.3 percent share.

#1 ie market share

by techn9ne

Monday June 24th, 2002 10:29 PM

I don't think ie should stop being bundeled w/ the operating system or every disapear - because its really easy to use for dumb ppl. But as a web developer I'd like them their market share to drop to 60-70% so people start taking web standards more seriously and force microsoft to fix their browser.

Personally I think ie sucks compared to mozilla... but for the average dummy user mozilla is too complicated.

#3 I don't think mozilla is too complicated...

by bmacfarland

Monday June 24th, 2002 11:37 PM

There are a couple of issues with getting plug-ins. The plug-in doc project on MozDev is a great step in that direction, but it's far from easy for users to be manually copying DLL files from one directory to the next. Other than that, I'd say it's a fairly easy browser to get used to.

I'm so tempted to get into the whole bundling thing. I think it's wrong, but that's as far as I'll go now. It's worth noting that Mozilla is making gains over IE despite the continual shipment of new computers with IE pre-installed.

#4 not so many issues now

by thegoldenear

Tuesday June 25th, 2002 1:14 AM

Mozilla knows about most popular Windows plug-ins now so most of the time (all of the time for those I use) there isn't the need to do anything manually, it links to them automatically - see bug 133282 (Scan for plugins in their installation folders)

and from the plug-in author's perspective:

#7 Re: ie market share

by zreo2

Tuesday June 25th, 2002 2:47 AM

If IE was a bad browser the statistics would look different even if the browser is boundeled with Windows. So you can not blame everything on the integration. IE is not a bad browser... and I think most of the "dumb" people (as you so prefer to call them) would choose (or their company they work at) to use another browser if IE wasn't usefull.

I do prefer Mozilla over IE but I don't think IE is a bad browser or that Mozilla is a IE killer. In my eyes Mozilla is more of a Opera killer but I know alot of people wouldn't like to use that expression because Opera is not Microsoft. Is just another "small" browser.

Use Mozilla if you prefer Mozilla. Use Konquerer if you prefer Konquerer. Use IE if you prefer IE. Use Opera if you prefer Opera.

#10 Browser Bundling

by SubtleRebel

Tuesday June 25th, 2002 5:21 AM

If browser bundling were not a MAJOR factor, then there would not be any IE 4 or Netscape 3 showing up in the stats.

#14 Re: Browser Bundling

by zreo2

Tuesday June 25th, 2002 8:09 AM

IE 4 still works pretty good on the internet... IE 4:s support for CSS is not bad at all when you think of how old the browser actually is.

Netscape 3... well there's a mystery =)

I'm not saying that it's not a major factor because I know it is but It's not the _only_ factor... I mean. If the program is not good enough for the user most of the users will start looking for another program to fulfill his or her needs...

#20 IE 4

by SubtleRebel

Tuesday June 25th, 2002 11:01 AM

Regardless of whatever merits IE 4 may or may not have, the only reason that anyone is currently using it is because it is the web browser that came on their computer.

Since they have never even bothered to download an update to IE, what kind of chance is there that they would ever download a non-IE browser?

Likewise, many of the IE 5, IE 5.5, and IE 6 browser users are using IE because it is the browser that came on their computer. In order for Netscape or Mozilla or any other browser to make a signifigant dent in the IE marketshare, bundling is going to have to be considered.

#25 Not really

by bk_raze

Tuesday June 25th, 2002 2:45 PM

Subtle, you are correct that IE4 has some marketshare. There is a very small percentage of people using IE4. So yes, there is a very small percentage of people that "never even bothered to download an update to IE."

IE4 - 1.2% IE6 - 46.4%

However, IE6 is at 46.4%, indicating that users are willing to download an update to IE.

Windows XP is the only version of windows with IE6 default. XP does not (yet) constitute close to half of all PCs browsing the web.

#26 IE 6 is everywhere...

by jaffar

Tuesday June 25th, 2002 3:25 PM

> However, IE6 is at 46.4%, indicating that users are willing to download an update to IE.

but they find all updates in magazines, demos, ... and install it only (i`ve see it) cause `is newer...`... I ve seen peoples that have purchased Office95 `upgrading` to a cracked O2000 only `cause `is newer` (on a p133/16 you can immagine O2000 :-) )

I see that the 95% of windows people seems to want to upgrade continually the software, regardlessy to their needs and the machine performance (until they buy a new, `cause `has begun slow...`) sorry for bad English :-)

#44 Re: IE 6 is everywhere...

by macpeep

Tuesday June 25th, 2002 11:23 PM

Well, whatever the reason is, it's clear that people do upgrade. The point was never if they download or not. The point was if they stick with what comes with the OS or not. An easy way to check that is to check the correlation between OS's and browsers. AFAIK, all IE, Netscape and Mozilla browsers also identify the OS they are running on.

#52 Re: Re: IE 6 is everywhere...

by tny

Wednesday June 26th, 2002 11:25 AM

Of course, the problem with that is that there's no IE for Linux, and IE is the default browser on Mac (and has been for some time). So I don't think the correlation between browsers and OS will help any.

#28 Win XP is probably a good 25-30% ...

by bmacfarland

Tuesday June 25th, 2002 3:37 PM

... of the IE 6 users. Also I think Microsoft makes it pretty easy to upgrade to IE6 through things like Windows Update (just guessing, I personally don't allow Windows Update to update). This process probably doesn't require users to manually go find a website, click on an appropriate OS (it would know which flavor of Windows you have), save the install to the desktop (or other location), and then go through an install.

#32 Re: Win XP is probably a good 25-30% ...

by asa

Tuesday June 25th, 2002 5:16 PM

It doesn't hurt to have a dozen exploits that need patching every 6 months either. I'd sure upgrade my browser if I knew it meant my hard drive belonged to anyone that wanted to own it.


#37 Re: Re: Win XP is probably a good 25-30% ...

by Tanyel

Tuesday June 25th, 2002 6:55 PM

Nobody has to delete files from the system folder or erase all of their bookmarks and settings to upgrade Internet Explorer.

#38 Re: Re: Re: Win XP is probably a good 25-30% ...

by asa

Tuesday June 25th, 2002 8:59 PM

Your reply had seemingly nothing to do with my post. I assume it was intended as a followup to some other post and not mine. If it was a followup to mine and you're suggesting that being vulnerable to serious exploits which compromise user data only some of which are fixed in any given servicepack updgrade, is an enviable position then I don't know how to respond.


#39 Upgrading IE doesn't require deleting files....

by baffoni

Tuesday June 25th, 2002 9:11 PM

I think what he is referring to is the fact that IE has an upgrade capability that Mozilla has a right to envy. When you update IE, you don't have to trash your old profile, painfully move email and bookmarks, delete fairly arcane files from the system folder or even deeper in the "documents and settings" folder. When you install a new version of IE, it is (for the most part) smart enough to migrate what isn't identical, but right now Mozilla CAN'T. Until that feature is fixed, why would anyone (especially if they want to use this in a corporate environment) want to go to 1.1? Taking that logic a step farther, knowing this is a possibility, why would they (a corporate IT guy) install 1.0 - or a commercial derivative for that matter - knowing that updating to a version that fixes the inevitable bugs that only CEOs/CFOs/Managers find will be painful for a company of more than 5 people?

#40 Yeah, that's exactly what I was getting at...

by bmacfarland

Tuesday June 25th, 2002 10:35 PM

My mom can pretty much upgrade her IE with one or maybe two clicks (although my mom just learned that she doesn't have a touch screen monitor and has to use a mouse) and everything is pretty smoothless. Mozilla upgrading hasn't been the biggest of issues because it's for developers and they should be able to delete a profile, import some bookmarks, etc... I think I've been extremely lucky because every Mozilla I've gotten since .93 has worked with my default profile. And they've been fairly complex mozilla's with Multizilla or multiple themes installed and such.

#41 Re: Yeah, that's exactly what I was getting at...

by michaelg

Tuesday June 25th, 2002 10:45 PM

I've got a script which does the following: - downloads the latest nightly - backups my existing Moz install - installs the new version

I run this anyware from a few times a day to once every few weeks, since around M18 or so, and I've only had to meddle with my profile 4, maybe 5 times. Not too bad for a product that just went 1.0, IMHO.

Sure a graphical installer to do the same would be nice, but there is a lot of room for other nicieties yet, as well.

#48 Re: Re: Yeah, that's exactly what I was getting at

by jsebrech

Wednesday June 26th, 2002 4:29 AM

I pity you. Either you're trolling, in which case you're a fool. Or you're serious, in which case you desperately need to read your own post. You wrote a computer program to install mozilla just for your system. How abnormal is that? And how many people can actually do that?

An installer that upgrades isn't a nicety, it's essential. Without it, mozilla is broken. There's no other way to put it. Regular users can not meddle with profiles, simply because they don't know how to do it. So eventually, one way or another, mozilla breaks, and the user can't fix it. That's what it comes down to. If mozilla wants to be used by regular people, it has to provide a real installer.

Now, myself, I'm a freak too. So I run mozilla. And on top of that, I run debian. But even debian sees the error in mozilla's ways. Their package provides upgrade mechanisms for mozilla, instead of just roughshod dumping the old over the new.

#69 Re: Yeah, that's exactly what I was getting at

by michaelg

Thursday June 27th, 2002 9:28 AM

"You wrote a computer program to install mozilla just for your system. How abnormal is that? And how many people can actually do that?"

Oh, I'm serious. But you are clearly confused here - I didn't write a computer program, I wrote a script. There's a whole world of difference between the two. How many people can write a script? More than can write a computer program, I can assure you.

It's interesting you use Debian, but seem to have no idea about how it's package management system works. I've been using Debian for, oh, a while now, so I'm pretty familiar with it. So, here's how it works: When it upgrades a package, it removes the old files and just dumps the new ones in as replacements! Fancy that!

So, this little script which I wrote does the exact same thing as apt-get and dpkg. "Why don't I use use the Mozilla packages instead?" You ask? Well, it's because I prefer to use nightly builds, and the poor Debian maintainer just can't keep up. If Mozilla produced apt-gettable nightly builds, I can assure you I'd use them instead, but in the meantime, I'll just have to stick with my little script to do the exact same thing.

Just to clarify, the point I was making is that Mozilla's *profiles* handle upgrades relatively well. If you would bother to read the post I was replying to, you would note that the author of said post indicates Mozilla's profiles frequently needed to be cleaned out, or rebuilt after an upgrade. I have found this to vary rarely be the case, and was stating so.

Please, next time, get some context, and understand the discussion which is going on before you post. Perhaps you should get your mommy to proof read your "contributions" before you hit that big, permanent, submit button.

#71 Re: Re: Yeah, that's exactly what I was getting at

by jsebrech

Thursday June 27th, 2002 1:35 PM

Points to you for pointing out that apt-get doesn't upgrade the profile. The rest though ... well ... I think the problem is we're talking about two different things.

I did read the context. I talked about the install instead of the profile, because you did. With your script. It's what sparked me to react, because it hit a nerve. Maybe I should have let my mommy proofread, because in retrospect my post's slashdot-rate was too high. I'll expound on why the very existance of your script made me mad.

As far as I can see there is no difference between a script and a program, apart from compilation. They both have source files written in programming languages, only one requires you to type an extra command before you can execute it. Now, it may be easier to learn the bash shell programming language than it is to learn C (although plenty of my friends learnt C first and bash later, and a lot of them would disagree with this), but in essence it's all in the domain of the programmer.

Now, in your eyes writing a script may be simple, but I can assure you that at least 90 percent of the planet is incapable or unwilling to ever learn this. And why should they? That's why we're here, the programmers. It's our job to do this stuff for them. (And, btw, if your script is so great, why are you the only one who has it? Ever thought about placing it online so other people could use it?)

That's why I bashed you, or rather, your post. The problem I see with a solution like yours is that it's incredibly elitist, but in a technological way. Regular people can never use your approach. They're tied to what mozilla gives them. And that offers them sufficiently less than what you have. You're technologically richer than they are, just because you're a programmer. It shouldn't be that way.

I should talk ofcourse, even I don't use mozilla's installer. But that's because there's a security bug in 1.0 and they don't provide security upgrades and debian does. (In addition to the fact that the debian installer cleans up after itself.)

So, why don't I program for the mozilla project and help out instead of bitching out here on mozillazine? Good question, huh. I've been asking myself that lately. That's why I've recently picked up XUL. Maybe there's hope for me yet ;)

#72 Re: Re: Re: Yeah, that's exactly what I was gettin

by asa

Thursday June 27th, 2002 7:11 PM

"(And, btw, if your script is so great, why are you the only one who has it? Ever thought about placing it online so other people could use it?) "

try GetMoz at


#74 Installing Moz, scripts, etc, etc

by michaelg

Friday June 28th, 2002 4:34 AM

"The problem I see with a solution like yours is that it's incredibly elitist, but in a technological way. Regular people can never use your approach."

I realize that. The reason I mentioned the script is to establish how often I upgrade Mozilla, i.e., very often. I don't expect anyone to write their own, or to use GetMoz (as Asa pointed out), or do anything other than a graphical installer to upgrade Mozilla.

But still, writing a script can be absolutely nothing compared to writing even a simple hello world program. Here's an example of a script which effectively does the same thing as my script, or GetMoz, and will work on most Linux machines:

#!/bin/bash wget <mozilla nightly build URL> rm -r /usr/local/mozilla-backup mv /usr/local/mozilla /usr/local/mozilla-backup cd /usr/local tar xzf /path/to/downloaded/mozilla/build.tar.gz

As you can see, a script can be as simple as a few commands strung together. This is way easier than programming; anyone who can use a command line interface can pick up basic scripting in a few minutes.

But this is getting off topic...


#75 thud!

by michaelg

Friday June 28th, 2002 4:37 AM

Ah, bugger. Moz'zine buggered up my new-lines. It should be fairly obvious where the new lines belong: before the "rm ...", the "mv ...", the "cd ..." and the "tar ...".


#79 Re: thud!

by SubtleRebel

Thursday July 4th, 2002 9:30 AM

Or you could just add semicolons and leave it all on one line :)

#42 Re: Upgrading IE doesn't require deleting files...

by Tanyel

Tuesday June 25th, 2002 10:57 PM

Stop referring to me as "he." No man has my reasoning ability.

#53 "No man has [her] reasoning ability"

by tny

Wednesday June 26th, 2002 11:29 AM

Or at least, no man has your ego (nor woman, for that matter: there's only enough room on this planet for one Tanyel-sized ego).

#64 Neither does Moz.

by jesusX

Wednesday June 26th, 2002 9:25 PM

In my life with Mozilla (almost 3 years now) I have had to trash my old profile exactly once. And that was 20 months ago (not counting the m9 or 10 profile change, maybe it was even as late as M12, there had been a major profile organization change). I've found if you update Moz regularly, profile problems are rare. I went from a pre 0.9.8 straight to 1.0 to 1.1a without a hitch.

#65 I'm a bit confused.

by ipottinger

Thursday June 27th, 2002 12:01 AM

How can you have difficulty upgrading mozilla? The first release version (Moz 1.0) just came out and there are no new releases to upgrade to!

Please, please don't tell me your expecting a painless "upgrade" from some pre-Moz 1.0 to the release or from Moz 1.0 to a nightly/alpha/beta or (*shutter*) from some nightly to nightly. You can't play around with development software (as opposed to release software) and expect anything other than system crashes and data loss. It's the nature of the best!

I'm of the firm belief that Moz is not for end-users and as such even release versions do not need to maintain backward compatibility with installations of previous releases. That concern belongs to Netscape, Beonex, and the other user targeted browsers based on Moz. It is more than reasonable to expect that their client software will incorporate whatever tools are needed to provide an effortlessly upgrade experience.

#70 ding ding ding!!

by joschi

Thursday June 27th, 2002 11:47 AM

you have the correct answer!

#43 Re: Re: Re: Re: Win XP is probably a good 25-30% .

by Tanyel

Tuesday June 25th, 2002 11:13 PM

It is very unlikely that you could misunderstand such clear statements. I think you are pretending to be such a pristine idiot because you know I am right. You suggested that people choose to upgrade Internet Explorer rather than switch to Mozilla because Internet Explorer has more vulnerabilities than Mozilla. I reminded you that there are more practical reasons one would upgrade Internet Explorer rather than switch to Mozilla.

#61 AOL Got to switch

by hosking

Wednesday June 26th, 2002 2:37 PM


#31 Re: Not really

by asa

Tuesday June 25th, 2002 5:14 PM

And Windows Update operating system service packs or MIS, IT or computer departments deploying OS or Office service packs that include browser updates has nothing to do with it?


#34 Re: Re: Not really

by cobar

Tuesday June 25th, 2002 6:07 PM

Windows Update does allow you to just grab patches rather than upgrading wholesale to the newest browser release, which is what I do on our Windows servers to avoid unnecessary problems. Besides getting people up to the new version is a good thing - better standards compliance (be it additional support or eliminating CSS bugs) and is more likely to keep the customer using the browser because it'll presumably work better.

Mozilla does it to with the version detection on the default webpage, but NS branded releases should prompt to upgrade like IE for the reasons stated above.

#51 Re: Re: Re: Not really

by MXN

Wednesday June 26th, 2002 6:14 AM

"Mozilla does it to with the version detection on the default webpage, but NS branded releases should prompt to upgrade like IE for the reasons stated above."

The Netscape 6 PRs did prompt you when it was time to get a new release. I assume that functionality is still in the Netscape 7 PR, but, as Netscape 7 PR2 hasn't come out yet, I guess we'll just have to wait and see.


#66 Re: Re: Re: Not really

by cobar

Thursday June 27th, 2002 2:20 AM

Right, but the point is that you don't want people to stay with the final release versions either, because: 1. They may have security holes. 2. If the user gets a newer, better version he may like it better and not switch to the competition. 3. Speeding standards adoption (i.e. some day CSS3 will be released). If people can be prompted to upgrade their browser then we don't have to wait as long before it is feasible to use the new standard.

#68 Re: Re: Re: Re: Not really

by MXN

Thursday June 27th, 2002 8:08 AM

I agree with you. As long as it's an option to not get these messages, because they might annoy some users. We don't want that. I have the Micro$oft Update Notifier installed on my PC, and it only notifies me of "critical updates" about once a month. It never notifies me of a new release to IE. The thing I like is that there's a "remind later" button. That way, if I'm in the middle of something important, I don't have to download those updates and reboot my PC.


#45 Re: Re: Not really

by bk_raze

Wednesday June 26th, 2002 1:06 AM

Asa, I was responding to Subtle's post titled "IE4" where he says that "the only reason that anyone is currently using it is because it is the web browser that came on their computer." My point really when I brought up the IE6 stat was that what's being used out there is something other than the default Windows/OEM install.

You bring up reasons why IE6 marketshare is so far ahead of XP marketshare. I agree with your reasons. Of course Windows Update plays an important role in this, which is a very easy way for a pre-XP user to install IE6. As far as corporate IT deployments, yes, they do play a role as well. For whatever reason, people seem to be installing IE6 relatively quickly, without getting XP.

Just one correction Asa, Windows and Office service packs do not include IE.

#54 Re: Re: Re: Not really

by tny

Wednesday June 26th, 2002 11:32 AM

"Just one correction Asa, Windows and Office service packs do not include IE."

"Service Packs," no, not that I remember. But certainly Windows Update does include IE patches, quite often, too.

#50 Re: Re: Not really

by Dobbins

Wednesday June 26th, 2002 5:16 AM

Don't forget the ISP install discs that set your PC up to connect to your new ISP. Many of these include IE 6 and some upgrade IE when the ISP software is installed. (It cut's down on calls to the Help desk caused by older versions of IE) Getting these ISP's to include Mozilla on the Install CD's will do a lot increase Mozilla's user base, even more so if they elect to install Mozilla as the default browser. I'm saying Mozilla rather than Netscape for one reason. Many of these ISP's will prefer Mozilla because Netscape is owned by AOL, their biggest competitor.

#46 Not exactly

by ed_welch

Wednesday June 26th, 2002 1:58 AM

I haven't upgraded IE4, because I can't: I'm using Win95 and IE6 doesn't work on that. Besides, I don't have the diskspace nor the time to download a 200mb installation program.

#49 Re: Not exactly

by jsebrech

Wednesday June 26th, 2002 4:34 AM

You can upgrade to IE5.5sp2, it's still a downloadable option from the MS site. Please upgrade. Anything's better than IE4.

Go to and click on the "Internet Explorer 5.5 Service Pack 2" link, or if it's not there when you go there, search for it. (Damn their website for having insanely long direct links to downloads.)

#59 Why upgrade his IE?

by SubtleRebel

Wednesday June 26th, 2002 12:08 PM

I do not understand why you are recommending that someone upgrade IE on their Win95 machine.

Why not just let them upgrade to Mozilla 1.0 or Netscape 7 or some other browser?

Just because someone has not upgraded the version of IE on their computer does not mean that is the browser that is used.

I do not know Ed Welch, but if he is participating in this forum then he obviously is aware of Mozilla and is capable of downloading Mozilla. I see no reason for him to download a newer version of IE just to increase IE 5.5 numbers.

#67 You're right

by jsebrech

Thursday June 27th, 2002 2:51 AM

You're right, ofcourse.

But, not everyone wants to use mozilla. There are valid reasons to stick with IE you know. Look and feel woes, speed, the few remaining site incompatibilities, installation and configuration problems... And those are just the obvious noes. Mozilla is not perfect. For most people mozilla is not even demonstrably better than IE.

I suggested IE because that's what the post was about. I didn't think it through. I'll make sure to point people at mozilla first next time, and only at IE if that fails.

#12 Re: Re: Re: Hard bug? Why?

by TheK

Tuesday June 25th, 2002 6:29 AM

Most people don't know, what a browser is and so can't use something different.

For the little more advanced people, there will be Netscape 7. Mozilla has no Plugins and those users have no idea how to install a Plugin - even 1 click is 1 click to much, esp. as it works without on MSIE!

#21 plug-ins are easy

by thegoldenear

Tuesday June 25th, 2002 11:13 AM

if people have their multimedia players and acrobat readers already installed then Mozilla finds a lot of them automatically. I repeat my posting from above:

'Mozilla knows about most popular Windows plug-ins now so most of the time (all of the time for those I use) there isn't the need to do anything manually, it links to them automatically - see bug 133282 (Scan for plugins in their installation folders)'

#17 Re: ie market share

by flacco

Tuesday June 25th, 2002 9:04 AM

Just what is so god-awful difficult about using mozilla? Just click on the frikkin links, people.

#36 Re: ie market share

by Tanyel

Tuesday June 25th, 2002 6:48 PM

Are you from Kansas City?

#2 Web sites polled

by SubtleRebel

Monday June 24th, 2002 10:42 PM

The OneStat site does not seem to have any details as to which websites use their software. Does anyone have an idea?

#5 Re: Web sites polled

by aganguli

Tuesday June 25th, 2002 1:21 AM

<p>The whole thing seems a little fishy. As near as I can tell, their service doesn't give any information that couldn't be obtained easily (and for free) from Webalizer (and probably a dozen other log analysis tools). Who would subscribe to their service anyway?</p>

#11 Re: Re: Web sites polled

by SubtleRebel

Tuesday June 25th, 2002 5:28 AM

>>Who would subscribe to their service anyway?

Maybe the kind of people who write IE proprietary websites?

BTW, looking at the Browser Specifics Demo of their Premium Services :

I noticed that Mozilla appears on their stats as Netscape 5.0; I do not have Netscape 7.0 installed on this machine, so I can not determine whether or not it shows up properly. If anyone else wants to check, the test site used for their demo is a Ajax football (soccer) website at;f=7;DaysPrune=20

#57 Re: Re: Re: Web sites polled

by SubtleRebel

Wednesday June 26th, 2002 11:59 AM

Interestingly, the Demo now correctly denotes Mozilla 1.0 and Netscape 7.

It did not a couple days ago.

#6 How to lie with statistics

by johann_p

Tuesday June 25th, 2002 2:41 AM

They dont mention exactly what sites were used forthe analysis. Different kinds of sites will have largely different audiences with regard to preferred OS, browser, e.g. will have a different distribution from

Anless you make sure that hidden variables like this (also include country of origin here) are balanced out carefully and unless you say what it is exactly that you count (did you count opera maskerading as IE as opera?), these numbers are close to random.

#8 Re: How to lie with statistics

by davidbalch

Tuesday June 25th, 2002 4:39 AM

Of course, Moz might get another notable increase this month, what with hordes of 'zine readers follwing the link to <> ;-)

#9 What about 1.1 alpha ?

by penang

Tuesday June 25th, 2002 4:57 AM

I need to know how that 1.1 alpha is doing ?

Anyone knows ?

#13 strange Numbers

by TheK

Tuesday June 25th, 2002 6:38 AM

never see so bad numbers, who has counted this? In Germany someone had a vote based on a autopopup to get numbers - of coz more or less no Opera or Mozilla, as their users don't even see it! A "normal" vote ends with 10% Opera and 12% Netscape/Mozilla (of with 1% is NN4) That these numbers differ _very_ much is nothing new, or? I have a page where you can see, what's possible with CSS2 and PNG - of coz nearly no Netscape 4, but around 60% Mozilla. Or a HTML Forum - 16% Mozilla, only MSIE6 has more (28%), Netscape 4 with 4%, even Opera ahead (8%).

#18 Re: Random Sampling

by schapel

Tuesday June 25th, 2002 10:19 AM

Any vote on a site is going to give skewed results, especially because users of less popular browsers are more motivated to vote and make their browser appear more popular. To get an accurate sample, you need a large randomly selected population. Voluntary participation will never give a random sample!

The numbers at look fairly reliable and agree well with OneStat's numbers. IE has 93% usage share, Netscape 4 and prior 4%, Mozilla-based browsers 1.2%, Opera 0.85%, and about 1% other (Lynx, Konqueror, iCab, Amaya, HotJava, MSN-TV, cell phones, etc.).

The irony is that even though Netscape is helping support web standards with Mozilla, the main force preventing web designers from using newer web standards is the old versions of Netscape. I would rather Netscape 4 users switch to IE 5 or 6 than to continue using such an outdated browser. Of course, if they switch to Netscape 6 or 7, Mozilla, or Opera, that's even better!

#15 Not the E

by hosking

Tuesday June 25th, 2002 8:19 AM

Its important to let less computer savey people no that <b> The Internet is not the E on your desktop</b>

#16 Eh?

by morg

Tuesday June 25th, 2002 8:38 AM

From the article: "Mozilla 1.0. . . was used by 0.4 percent of the sample."

This is in accord with the title of the article's HTML page, but it is very different from what Mozillazine says above.

To determine how fast Mozilla usage is increasing, we'd have to compare the data from the "month ending June 21" with data from another month.

#19 Re: Makes sense to me

by schapel

Tuesday June 25th, 2002 10:28 AM

Before Mozilla 1.0 was released, it had 0.0% usage share, correct? If it now has 0.4% usage share, it has gained 0.4% usage share since it was released, because 0.4% - 0.0% = 0.4%. I guess the point you're missing is that the numbers are about Mozilla 1.0 only, not other versions of Mozilla.


by thelem

Tuesday June 25th, 2002 11:39 AM says that Netscape 5.x (which I assume is Mozilla and Netscape 7PR1) and Netscape 6.x together had a 1.19% market share for June 1 - 25 2002.

This is up from 1.12% in May, 1.07% in April and 0.86% in January.

Stats from (insert correct month):

#23 Re:

by Z_God

Tuesday June 25th, 2002 12:41 PM

That site also says there are more Linux users than Windows XP users!


by thelem

Tuesday June 25th, 2002 3:33 PM

I expect it is recording most Windows XP users as Windows 2000 or 98. 56% certainly seems a lot for Win98.

#29 Re:

by Sander

Tuesday June 25th, 2002 3:40 PM

A bit perhaps, but not all that much... Google zeitgeist gives windows 98 a 46% share. I never bothered downgrading beyond it, and a pretty significant part of the people I know feel the same.

#47 Re: Re:

by davidbalch

Wednesday June 26th, 2002 2:04 AM

I personally know two people who've removed XP and got Win98 put in its place.

#55 Re: Re: Re:

by tny

Wednesday June 26th, 2002 11:37 AM

"I personally know two people who've removed XP and got Win98 put in its place."

Then their either 1. paranoid about privacy, 2. running older boxes, 3. have lots of older peripherals/game software (all acceptable excuses), or 4. idiots. XP is much, much, much stabler than Windows 98. If you've paid for the license already, I see no reason to downgrade to the MSDOS codebase.

#56 s/their/they're/

by tny

Wednesday June 26th, 2002 11:38 AM

Ouch. That's what I get for getting rhetorical and using the word "idiots."

#60 Hardware

by Z_God

Wednesday June 26th, 2002 1:16 PM

Windows XP sucks with hardware support. It took very long before 3dfx cards worked (with unofficial drivers). One of my gamepads still isn't supported. (All this hardware works perfectly with Linux and lots of other OS's so it is XPs fault.) Also XP might be stable, but explorer.exe crashes all the time. You don't have to reboot, but it is still stupid. Windows 98 users should always go for dual-boot when installing XP.

#62 Re: Hardware

by arnoudb

Wednesday June 26th, 2002 6:17 PM

You must have some real flaky hardware then. No Microsoft product on my machine has ever crashed since moving to XP (not that it ever did when I still used 2000). That your 3dfx cards don't work and have only unofficial drivers seems only logical. 3dfx went out of business several years ago! Don't expect any kind of official driver... ever.

When hardware on Windows doesn't work well, it's usually largely the manufacturer's fault, and not Microsoft's. Microsoft is of course dependant on the manufacturer of the product to supply them with drivers. Now if the drivers are flaky, which they all too often are (especially with things like gamepads), your machine will crash, and ppl will blame it on Microsoft, even though it's not their fault (it's the driver at fault, not the OS). So Microsoft is right in requiring manufacturers now to deliver good drivers that are able to pass the WHQL test (Hardware Quality Lab stress test), and receive a certificate before shipping them with the OS. Bad luck for you if your drivers aren't supported out of the box... You should have bought your hardware from a more reliable vendor, that cares about driver quality.

#73 Re:

by thelem

Friday June 28th, 2002 3:54 AM

Notice how the 'other' line on the google zeitgeist browsers graph is increasing at nearly the rate that IE6 is increasing. Long may that continue.

#58 Re:

by SubtleRebel

Wednesday June 26th, 2002 12:00 PM

Interestingly, the Demo now correctly denotes Mozilla 1.0 and Netscape 7. It did not a couple days ago.

#24 pipelining in 1.1+

by ph1nn

Tuesday June 25th, 2002 1:35 PM

I know this is off topic but i noticed in Advanced the option to check pipelining for HTTP 1.1

Im sure this has been there and i probably missed it but im wondering if it works well?

I read some fairly technical docs but im curious as to how it works in this implementation of it.

At this point i have it checked...

#35 Re: pipelining in 1.1+

by techn9ne

Tuesday June 25th, 2002 6:40 PM

It doesn't seem to make much difference on a DSL line and some web sites will not work.

This one in paticular:

#30 What does MSN use?

by SubtleRebel

Tuesday June 25th, 2002 4:30 PM

Where does the MSN web browser fit in? I have only used it once, but it was not standard IE. However, I do not see it on the list, so it must be getting counted as IE somewhere.

#33 Re: What does MSN use?

by asa

Tuesday June 25th, 2002 5:20 PM

I believe that it identifies itself as whatever version of IE you have installed on your machine. If I understand it correctly, msn Explorer is just a wrapper on the installed IE rendering library.


#63 Correct

by arnoudb

Wednesday June 26th, 2002 6:19 PM

You understand correctly.

#76 WOW!

by kristen

Friday June 28th, 2002 6:06 PM

"Despite the nearly imperceptible drop in IE's total market share, the pace of adoption for Microsoft's latest version of the browser, Internet Explorer 6.0, rose faster than all of its competitors combined."

Go mozilla, go. hehe!!

#77 Google: 8% "other"

by crow

Monday July 1st, 2002 1:44 PM lists all sorts of statistics on usage of Google. They don't print the numbers for the browser statistics, but by noting the y-coordinates of the pixels at the end of the graph, you can generate the numbers. Doing this, we find that Netscape 4.x is still 6.91%, and "Other" is 8.00%. That leaves 85.09% for various IE flavors.

Granted, Google probably doesn't account for the most clueless of users, but it's as good as you can get for a single site.

#78 One reason why mozilla won't be suscess is IRC

by Ilgaz

Wednesday July 3rd, 2002 3:30 AM *** Banned: clone_flood (2002/06/30 09.23) --- Closing Link: Ilgaz[Ilgaz@] (Banned)

Here is the new happening. This made me _real_ sad. I am a 29 years old guy who has a good reputation on Internet. Besides, I was offered IRCOps over and over but rejected it because of my personal philosophy.

With this "enemy" like attitude, with such amazing reasons (FLOOD???) to k-line a guy which you PERSONALLY don't like and making him blocked with no chance of explaining himself is a fascist attitude. What a ircd that is that, I don't know who did that thing even.

I have my e-mail adress both on database AND database. From now on, I decided something. The only time I joined to for MONTHS is, to congragulate Blake Ross'es birthday and left. My IP, which is fixed is which resolves to . This is Cable Service of turk telecom which has reporting adresses of and .

Anyone can prove I somehow flooded gets $100 via paypal. As Mozillazine owners hang on all the time, I am making this announcement publicly.

This amazing bullshit must end. CLOSE IRC SERVER , OR require e-mail authencation to that IRC server. Getting that message at morning with the lamest ever reason (flood) to get banned from an IRC server makes me sick.

Have a nice day and don't ever,never wonder why Opera is getting more support.