Will Google Chrome have 10% market share by end of 2010?

[acr1965]

Google announced it is seeking a 10% market share by the end of 2010. Do you think they will make their goal? Currently Chrome carries a 3% market share and hope for a 5% share by one year from now.

Chrome Story (http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/09/16/google-eyeing-10-market-share-for-chrome-mac-version-due-by-the-end-of-the-year/)

[renegade08]

Nope.
If they are counting on their Google Chrome OS, then maybe.


-{ Quote: "We designed Google Chrome for people who live on the web — searching for information, checking email, catching up on the news, shopping or just staying in touch with friends. However, the operating systems that browsers run on were designed in an era where there was no web. So today, we're announcing a new project that's a natural extension of Google Chrome — the Google Chrome Operating System. It's our attempt to re-think what operating systems should be." }-

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/introducing-google-chrome-os.html

[Creer]

-{ Quote: "Google announced it is seeking a 10% market share by the end of 2010. Do you think they will make their goal? Currently Chrome carries a 3% market share and hope for a 5% share by one year from now.

Chrome Story (http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/09/16/google-eyeing-10-market-share-for-chrome-mac-version-due-by-the-end-of-the-year/)" }-
I don't think so... the main thing which keeps me away from Google is their policy... Google Chrome, no thanks.

[progress]

-{ Quote: "the main thing which keeps me away from Google is their policy... Google Chrome, no thanks." }-

... and the missing adblocker ::)

[tipstir]

I have to agree with the last members post. These browsers need to be like Firefox with add-on features needed for daily usage. Otherwise what's the real deal in using such a browser that would drive anyone crazy with in your face ads, java ads, flash ads an etc.

[renegade08]

-{ Quote: "I don't think so... the main thing which keeps me away from Google is their policy... Google Chrome, no thanks." }-
Creer,

I think that you are too paranoid. :lurking:
-{ Quote: "
Google developing eavesdropping software
Audio 'fingerprint' for content-relevant ads
3rd September 2006 08:02 GMT

The idea is to use the existing PC microphone to listen to whatever is heard in the background, be it music, your phone going off or the TV turned down. The PC then identifies it, using fingerprinting, and then shows you relevant content, whether that's adverts or search results, or a chat room on the subject." }-

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/03/google_eavesdropping_software/

[firzen771]

-{ Quote: "I don't think so... the main thing which keeps me away from Google is their policy... Google Chrome, no thanks." }-

i feel the same

[Kerodo]

-{ Quote: "Creer,

I think that you are too paranoid. :lurking:
" }-
I think so too, but everyone's entitled to their paranoia.... :)

Truth is, your ISP knows everything you do anyway, so there really isn't anything anyone else can discover that isn't already known.

[Creer]

-{ Quote: "Creer,

I think that you are too paranoid. :lurking:


http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/03/google_eavesdropping_software/" }-
I just don't trust Google Inc.:
http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=1484314&postcount=3
http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=249348

[progress]

-{ Quote: "I just don't trust Google Inc.:
http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=1484314&postcount=3
http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=249348" }-

Thank you for these links :thumbd:

[Creer]

-{ Quote: "Thank you for these links :thumbd:" }-
You are welcome.

[acr1965]

Anyone try Unchrome?

http://www.abelssoft.net/unchrome.php

[firzen771]

-{ Quote: "Anyone try Unchrome?

http://www.abelssoft.net/unchrome.php" }-

sounds like a very interesting program, but how wuld u be able to test it.

[Eice]

Personally, I find it amusing how Mozilla is rushing to reinvent Firefox into a clone of Chrome: tab handling, status bar behavior, new tab page, default theme, multi-process model, etc. Reading the roadmap for Firefox 4.0 almost makes it look like Mozilla is trying to out-Chrome Chrome. Mozilla is running scared, all right.

But as for 10% market share... I'm hopeful, but still skeptical at this point.

[progress]

I hope Mozilla doesn't copy the Google policy ;)

[firzen771]

-{ Quote: "Personally, I find it amusing how Mozilla is rushing to reinvent Firefox into a clone of Chrome: tab handling, status bar behavior, new tab page, default theme, multi-process model, etc. Reading the roadmap for Firefox 4.0 almost makes it look like Mozilla is trying to out-Chrome Chrome. Mozilla is running scared, all right.

But as for 10% market share... I'm hopeful, but still skeptical at this point." }-

if im not mistaken didnt chrome get the new tab page idea from like safari or something? and what do u mean by default theme? cuz firefox has had themes for ages. and o i wuldnt imagine chrome ever trying to do firefox's famous add-ons, now they wuldnt be trying to do that lol ::) every browser steals ideas from each other, chrome isn't the only pioneer.

[renegade08]

-{ Quote: "I just don't trust Google Inc.:
" }-

I know that. I was just kidding. I don't trust them too.

[Eice]

-{ Quote: "if im not mistaken didnt chrome get the new tab page idea from like safari or something?" }-
Safari 4 beta was released February 2009, five months after Chrome first appeared.

-{ Quote: "and what do u mean by default theme? cuz firefox has had themes for ages." }-
Ever seen the Firefox 3.7/4.0 default theme mockups? Tabs on top, integrated address/search bar, menu bar replaced by two icons right of the address bar?

-{ Quote: "and o i wuldnt imagine chrome ever trying to do firefox's famous add-ons, now they wuldnt be trying to do that lol ::) every browser steals ideas from each other, chrome isn't the only pioneer." }-
The fact is that Firefox hasn't been a pioneer for a very, very long time. The illusion that Firefox is innovating anything actually comes from extension authors instead. I suggest you read the design docs and/or try Minefield and see how hard the devs are trying to copy Chrome. The new tab behavior has just recently landed, and they're now debating whether to copy Chrome's status bar behavior as well, not to mention the current Electrolysis builds that even use existing IPC message-passing and setup code from Chrome.

[ambient_88]

-{ Quote: "Safari 4 beta was released February 2009, five months after Chrome first appeared.


Ever seen the Firefox 3.7/4.0 default theme mockups? Tabs on top, integrated address/search bar, menu bar replaced by two icons right of the address bar?


The fact is that Firefox hasn't been a pioneer for a very, very long time. The illusion that Firefox is innovating anything actually comes from extension authors instead. I suggest you read the design docs and/or try Minefield and see how hard the devs are trying to copy Chrome. The new tab behavior has just recently landed, and they're now debating whether to copy Chrome's status bar behavior as well, not to mention the current Electrolysis builds that even use existing IPC message-passing and setup code from Chrome." }-
Yeah, I agree that Firefox hasn't really done anything innovative lately. The extensions system is the only thing that is really keeping Firefox up there.

When the extensions system for Chrome is fully completed, I will switch to it. I just can't take the ads, so I'm sticking to Firefox. I have AdMuncher to cover that area, but it's not working as well in Windows 7.

[firzen771]

-{ Quote: "-Ever seen the Firefox 3.7/4.0 default theme mockups? Tabs on top, integrated address/search bar, menu bar replaced by two icons right of the address bar?


The fact is that Firefox hasn't been a pioneer for a very, very long time. The illusion that Firefox is innovating anything actually comes from extension authors instead. I suggest you read the design docs and/or try Minefield and see how hard the devs are trying to copy Chrome. The new tab behavior has just recently landed, and they're now debating whether to copy Chrome's status bar behavior as well, not to mention the current Electrolysis builds that even use existing IPC message-passing and setup code from Chrome." }-

ye ive seen the mockup, i thought u meant that it didnt have a default theme at all which is why i commeneted and yet again u ignore the BIGGEST feature i can possibly think of which is add-on support and i havent seen a browser do that yet, and firefox has had the ability for how many years while NO browser has done it yet and now chrome wants to join in cuz they can see add-ons are what keep firefox on top, with add-ons firefox can do whatever any other browser can do plus so much more. its an open-source product, u cant consider other authors making add-ons as separate, its part of the product and community.

[Eice]

-{ Quote: "and yet again u ignore the BIGGEST feature i can possibly think of which is add-on support and i havent seen a browser do that yet, and firefox has had the ability for how many years while NO browser has done it yet" }-
You simply adooooore Firefox to bits. That's great. But it doesn't change the fact that they're trying to be Chrome copycats, simple as that.

[firzen771]

-{ Quote: "You simply adooooore Firefox to bits. That's great. But it doesn't change the fact that they're trying to be Chrome copycats, simple as that." }-

i do admit firefox is my favourite browser due to its versatility, it can be used in so many ways beyond a typical browser which makes it unique. other companies are realizing thats basically the main reason people keep using firefox instead of something else and they want in on it as well.

im willing to bet through add-ons, firefox has had all those features of every other browser long ago. or at least most of the features.

[Osaban]

I've used Chrome from the very beginning and I like its simplicity. A lot of people don't like Google because of Gmail, personally I think there is no real privacy on the internet. Why Chrome? Simplicity, security and speed, and it is fast on every machine that I have no matter what hardware.

If they launch their OS early in 2010, I believe they'll probably have even more than 10% share by the end of the year.

[Threedog]

Nah, can't see it.

[1boss1]

I don't see why 1% of people would want to use it, let alone 10%.

[1boss1]

-{ Quote: "I don't personally use Chrome myself, but your perspective is a bit irrelevant here." }-

What question? I didn't ask one.

10% market share, i don't see it happening.

[Mrkvonic]

I don't see why people compare Chrome and FF. The main segment that will suffer from Chrome adoption is IE. As it shows in the last 6 months, both Chrome and FF are on the rise, which means they are both eating from the bigger cake, called IE.

Mrk

[1boss1]

I was implying a no, guessing i should of said it more directly.

If they can convince enough hardware manufacturers to box their hardware with Chrome, they may have a chance but as things are now and going by the adoption rate since launch then no.

I was excited when Chrome was released, i even built one of the most popular Chrome sites on the web but the more i used Chrome and started to write code for it the worse it looked.

[Kerodo]

-{ Quote: "I don't see why 1% of people would want to use it, let alone 10%." }-
It's faster than most, and safe. What more reason do people need?

[progress]

-{ Quote: "It's faster than most, and safe. What more reason do people need?" }-

As I have already said: An adblocker! A browser without an adblocker is unacceptable nowadays :thumbd:

[Eice]

-{ Quote: "As I have already said: An adblocker!" }-
Which is what many of us have been enjoying with Chrome for months. Just because it isn't natively supported in the browser itself, doesn't mean it can't be done.

[Kerodo]

-{ Quote: "As I have already said: An adblocker! A browser without an adblocker is unacceptable nowadays :thumbd:" }-
I've never ever used an ad blocker. No need, your brain just tunes out the non-essential stuff automatically anyhow. Who needs one?

There probably will be one when the plugin/extension system is implemented if you need it.

[Osaban]

-{ Quote: "As I have already said: An adblocker! A browser without an adblocker is unacceptable nowadays :thumbd:" }-
It works very well with Ad Muncher (I know it is not free). I agree with Kerodo its speed is addictive for me. I think they might have a larger share when they launch their own light operating system for netbooks.

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/introducing-google-chrome-os.html

[progress]

-{ Quote: "No need, your brain just tunes out the non-essential stuff automatically anyhow. Who needs one?
" }-

Try it if a big flash layer covers 75 % of the screen :gack:

[zfactor]

i use chrome (dev channel) as my primary browser now. right now actually im using chromeplus. it has everything i could want and can do ad blocking if you choose to add it.

chrome CAN do ad blocking. there are now add ons for it for that. no it doesnt have everything add on wise ff has but for me i found to many add ons just simply slowed down ff to much for my tastes. i like the speed and simplicity of chrome and unless ff makes a HUGE leap i will not be going back. i can honestly say i know a ton of people now converted to using chrome who have uninstalled ff. i do leave it installed but have not touched it in forever. with chromeplus i dont hardly even touch ie anymore either because it has the ietab to use and it works very well. i believe they will gain market share very fast as more add ons are worked out and they are always updating (dev builds) so i dont see this being to far away.

[Noob]

Well, i don't know if it will get 10%
But personally i LIKE Chrome, tested it since it launch date, never changed back :D

After i tried Chrome, will never change back ::)
The good thing about firefox (that i really like) it's the download manager, it RULEEEEEEES ;D

I never used Add ons/Extensions so i don't know what people talk about :P

[firzen771]

once chrome extension support is officially launched, and my most important extensions are ported over or very similar ones are made, then i will DEFINITELY adopt Chrome or to be more specific ill adopt ChromePlus

[Fajo]

I wont move to chrome. FireFox does absolutely everything I need and the Addon's I have are ones I'm used to using. It works for me why change ?

[sded]

Chrome has a very useful feature for mobile users-the one process per tab architecture (AKA sandbox). I do a lot of mobile use of often (distant) poor signal quality wifi sites (from a boat). With something like Opera, if there is a glitch in the data link, the whole program goes into a "not responding" state until things get better. With Chrome, I just lose an individual tab and can go on reading and composing on tabs that are not currently downloading. I do like Chrome in general, but prefer Opera for my home browsing. And mobile users will not get it up to 10%. I think the partnership with Avast! and potentially others will help, though.

[firzen771]

btw quick question, are extensions officially supported yet?

[acr1965]

Today was a good day for Chrome users.

[dw426]

I guess it's time to finally try Chrome, lol. As far as 10% market share, just so I stay on topic here, I have to be honest and say I don't see it happening in 2010 or even 2011. I think 5% is its best bet unless Firefox for some explicable reason begins to drop off the radar or becomes a bloated mess (which of course with add-ons is entirely possible and can already be so).

[firzen771]

whats the web page for chrome extensions, i wanna just take a look at what they have

[dw426]

Seems to be accessible only within Chrome?

[acr1965]

-{ Quote: "whats the web page for chrome extensions, i wanna just take a look at what they have" }-
try this-

https://chrome.google.com/extensions?hl=en-US

[firzen771]

-{ Quote: "try this-

https://chrome.google.com/extensions?hl=en-US" }-

it works, thx, time to take a look if they have any of my must have extensions yet. ;D btw do these extensions work with ChromePlus?

[progress]

-{ Quote: "Google Chrome Extensions are not supported on your browser. Please download the Beta Channel of Google Chrome to install extensions." }-

Do the extensions only work with Google Chrome Beta? ::)

[xxJackxx]

Not if they are waiting for me to use it. Which isn't going to happen any time soon.

[firzen771]

is this site legit, it seems to have many more chrome extensions? http://www.chromeextensions.org/

[Pedro]

Search, mail, DNS, browser, OS, sure.. keep waiting. I use enough services from them, and i'll probably loose a few as time goes by.

But the herd does not think like this, specially when they don't get to read what i read, so for me it's anyone's guess what market share they'll get. I don't believe they can in that time frame, but it's possible.

[acr1965]

They have now topped 7%, 10% by the end of the year is possible. I think even if Chrome does not get to double-digit market share by 1-1-11 they stick with Chrome development. I believe in the past they hinted at dropping the project if they don't reach 10% market share by the due date.

[Woodgiant]

Maby Chrome will reached 10 procent market share , maby they wont. But personally I belive that IE 9( version 8 is already a good browser) and Firefox 4 will steel market shares back again:) when people have had there flirt with Chrome;) .
Best Regards

[Noob]

-{ Quote: "Maby Chrome will reached 10 procent market share , maby they wont. But personally I belive that IE 9( version 8 is already a good browser) and Firefox 4 will steel market shares back again:) when people have had there flirt with Chrome;) .
Best Regards" }-
Hahaha no one knows but :P
Most of my friend that have used Chrome keep using it :D

[John Bull]

I have Chrome, but never use it. My impression is that Chrome is a chassis, engine, steering wheel and 4 road wheels - a skeleton framework.
As opposed to Firefox and IE that are akin to a Porsche by comparison.

Chrome has a LLLLLLLong way to go if it ever gets there - can`t see it. Far too much ground to make up.
Firefox and IE are here to stay with a colossal combined market share.

Chrome will never make 10% and IF it ever does, it will be grabbed back by FF and IE when users find it is too skimped.

John B

[J_L]

-{ Quote: "I have Chrome, but never use it. My impression is that Chrome is a chassis, engine, steering wheel and 4 road wheels - a skeleton framework.
As opposed to Firefox and IE that are akin to a Porsche by comparison.

Chrome has a LLLLLLLong way to go if it ever gets there - can`t see it. Far too much ground to make up.
Firefox and IE are here to stay with a colossal combined market share.

Chrome will never make 10% and IF it ever does, it will be grabbed back by FF and IE when users find it is too skimped.

John B" }-
https://chrome.google.com/extensions/?hl=en

[Noob]

I think Chrome will reach 10% :P

[vasa1]

I've changed to Chrome (with FF and IE for the rarest of rare occasions) after reading this (http://lifehacker.com/5502835/day-two-no-one-even-attempts-hacking-chrome-at-pwn2own-competition) and the comments section.

I like the focus on speed and security. With the availability of extensions, it becomes my prerogative to have the browser minimal or as bloated as I wish. I hope Google continues with this policy and doesn't succumb to calls for it to be an all-singing, all-dancing browser .... But FF does this out-of-the-box! Why doesn't Chrome?

I also like the way updates are handled by using a variation of "diff".

As far as the problems with ads go, I use Privoxy. Since it sits outside the browser, I don't need to have separate "adblockers" for Chrome, FF, and IE.

Chrome portable allows installation on other drives. One of the drawbacks of the original is that it doesn't allow the user the choice.

The demand for privacy may be genuine or fashionable. If Google or the intelligence agencies of the world wish to keep track of me, I'll be honoured.

(Oh, but I still use Chrome within Sandboxie (as I would any other browser) :D)

[John Bull]

Everywhere we go in our conversations, up comes the inevitable Browser argument. Some like it hot, some like it cold and on it goes into a melee of confusion.

Talking Browsers is like talking religion. It is elevated to the status of some sacred cow where the temperature rises by the word. It is a subject that easily throws a thread off topic.

Can we please either raise a new thread to rationally discuss Browser performance and preference as of July 2010 or utilise this thread ?

To kick off with and to throw the ball into the ring, here is a stat table extracted on 11th July 2010. I suppose this in itself will cause a shower of sparks.
219866

John B

[culla]

looks like firefox is winning ;D

[funkydude]

-{ Quote: "looks like firefox is winning ;D" }-

Trust me, it's not.

[culla]

according to those stats its winning easily ;D
i don't trust you ;D

[J_L]

-{ Quote: "according to those stats its winning easily ;D
i don't trust you ;D" }-
-{ Quote: "Statistics Are Often Misleading

You cannot - as a web developer - rely only on statistics. Statistics can often be misleading.

Global averages may not always be relevant to your web site. Different sites attract different audiences. Some web sites attract professional developers using professional hardware, while other sites attract hobbyists using old low spec computers.

Also be aware that many statistics may have an incomplete or faulty browser detection. It is quite common by many web-stats report programs, not to detect the newest browsers.

(The statistics above are extracted from W3Schools' log-files, but we are also monitoring other sources around the Internet to assure the quality of these figures)." }-
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

Here's a whole Wikipedia page if you're really interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browser_stats

[JRViejo]

FYI. Top Browser Share Trend (http://marketshare.hitslink.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qprid=1).

Net Market Share (http://marketshare.hitslink.com/Default.aspx) is an often quoted source of browser statistics in publications.

[funkydude]

-{ Quote: "according to those stats its winning easily ;D
i don't trust you ;D" }-

Maybe if I type "Trust me, it's not" in a table, add a title like hmm "Browser Statistics Month By Month", then you'll trust everything I say..? :argh:

JRViejo has linked a much more reliable source, which I have previously posted: http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=276212

Anyway this thread is about Chrome market share, not total market share.

[culla]

nah i don't trust anyone myself included ;D

[JRViejo]

-{ Quote: "Anyway this thread is about Chrome market share, not total market share." }-
Agreed. Let's keep the discussion on Chrome only, even as we view these statistics tables. Thanks!

[SirPeterPan]

@ browser market share discussion

The best methodology is the one applied by OneStat (http://www.onestat.com/html/press-release-global-browser-market-share-april-2009.html). OneStat has more fidelity to the reality than any other, thanks to its research being based on a sample of 2 million visitors divided into 20,000 visitors of 100 countries each day, on sites that are using one of OneStat.com's services (OneStat is the global leader on the segment of Web Analytics and is a member of the Web Analytics Association).

Unfortunately, OneStat's last report is old (April/2009). Of the most recent reporters, StatOwl (http://www.statowl.com/web_browser_market_share.php) and Net Applications (http://www.netmarketshare.com/browser-market-share.aspx) can be considered somewhat accurate. Net Applications, in special, improved its methodologies considerably in recent times. As for W3Schools, they themselves explain why their statistics definitely don't reflect the global state:

-{ Quote: " W3Schools is a website for people with an interest for web technologies. These people are more interested in using alternative browsers than the average user. The average user tends to use Internet Explorer, since it comes preinstalled with Windows. Most do not seek out other browsers. These facts indicate that the browser figures above are not 100% realistic. Other web sites have statistics showing that Internet Explorer is used by at least 80% of the users." }-

[vasa1]

-{ Quote: "I have Chrome, but never use it. My impression is that Chrome is a chassis, engine, steering wheel and 4 road wheels - a skeleton framework.
As opposed to Firefox and IE that are akin to a Porsche by comparison...." }-

Hmmm... this analogy to cars has appeared in several posts in several threads. Seems to make it more meaningful or what?

[Mr.PC]

No, I don't think so.


I tried to substitute Firefox with Google Chrome.
However, the content of various sites couldn't been properly displayed:
Forum Buttons and Emoticons displayed with a Question Mark (?).


Besides, KeyScrambler Free is only available to Firefox and Internet Explorer.


So, I went back to Firefox.
It is Not the Fastest, but it is certainly the Most Trouble-Free!

[John Bull]

-{ Quote: "No, I don't think so.


I tried to substitute Firefox with Google Chrome.
However, the content of various sites couldn't been properly displayed:
Forum Buttons and Emoticons displayed with a Question Mark (?).


Besides, KeyScrambler Free is only available to Firefox and Internet Explorer.


So, I went back to Firefox.
It is Not the Fastest, but it is certainly the Most Trouble-Free!" }-

So you have discovered the true situation about browsers eh ? There is no browser available that can outstrip Firefox. It is far ahead of everything else. I only wish that others who just wish to try the newest piece of rubbish that comes on the market would be as logical.

John B

[Daveski17]

I'm using Chrome right now & the adblocker works just fine. WOT & other extensions like the Google dictionary work perfectly as well.

A few reasons why I have started to use Chrome:

1/ It doesn't break my My Yahoo! page, unlike Firefox & SeaMonkey.

2/ I can use WOT & an adblocker, unlike Opera & Safari.

3/ It's fast & easy to use on my laptop, unlike IE.

4/ It's relatively stable & doesn't suffer from the back-button bug of SRWare Iron.

5/ I have some control over JavaScripting with the inbuilt whitelist & easily add extensions unlike K-Meleon.

6/ I've always liked WebKit based browsers since Safari 3 for Windows.

7/ The user tracking policy has changed for Chrome since version #4 making it more or less Iron.



I have always liked SeaMonkey/Firefox but SeaMonkey has a few compatibility problems (much as I love it) & Opera is fast & clever & for a long time was my default browser. Unfortunately the big 'O' cannot be used with a proper version of WOT & I like more control over the JS than just toggle on/off these days. K-Meleon is fast & has some great features but much as I loved it as well, it started to break too many pages that I use regularly. SRWare Iron has always seemed to suffer from small bugs but I reckon with time they'll figure them all out.

In conclusion, Chrome just seems to work really well for me & anyway I always have back-up browsers if it can't do anything for some reason. I can understand its popularity & I think it will continue to gradually gain market share.

[vasa1]

-{ Quote: "...
5/ I have some control over JavaScripting with the inbuilt whitelist ..." }-

Daveski,

Is it possible for you to elaborate on this point in a fresh thread away from the "mine is better than yours" clutter? I, for one, would appreciate it a lot.

[Daveski17]

Ermm... I dunno if it needs a separate thread. I just like the fact that with Chrome/Iron Options-Under the Bonnet-Content Settings-JavaScript I can switch off the JS by default & an icon will appear in the URL runbox when I open a page that I haven't whitelisted. I have a choice whether to whitelist it or not with a dropdown menu. It is a bit like a very primitive NoScript.

[vasa1]

-{ Quote: "Ermm... I dunno if it needs a separate thread. I just like the fact that with Chrome/Iron Options-Under the Bonnet-Content Settings-JavaScript I can switch off the JS by default & an icon will appear in the URL runbox when I open a page that I haven't whitelisted. I have a choice whether to whitelist it or not with a dropdown menu. It is a bit like a very primitive NoScript." }-

Wokay!:) Will play with it a bit. Let's see how many of my regular sites break!

[dw426]

It depends on how FF4 is received and, how quickly IE9 goes to at least Beta status. I think there's now one big issue for Chrome, and that is that FF4 will have the separated processes and already has separated plug-ins. Those two things plus Firefox's massive amount of extensions and themes will, I predict, keep Firefox ahead of Chrome for a while longer. Chrome still has rendering issues on quite a few websites I have seen, while Firefox is pretty much as accepted widely as IE is now and works ALMOST everywhere (provided we leave NoScript out of the discussion).

I don't see Chrome "dying off" anytime soon, but I don't see another 3% gain by the end of the year either, unless something major happens like, again, FF4 rocketing upward (which will happen the closer it gets to final and for sure when final arrives), and staying there, IE9 showing up, or Chrome adding some godly feature in. I read a few posts back that Google would supposedly drop Chrome if it didn't reach 10% by the end of the year. That's not going to happen, and it would stupid to make such a move.

[Daveski17]

-{ Quote: "Wokay!:) Will play with it a bit. Let's see how many of my regular sites break!" }-

I haven't had that problem yet & it seems to be working quite well. In fact the only pages that Chrome seems to break for me are things like National Geographic slide shows. Although that seems to only be true if I open the page from my Google Reader. I just can't figure it either. :wacko:

[Noob]

Seems like Chrome started the new browser war ;D

[dw426]

I swear, the more I hear the words "browser war", the more hair I pull out, so please, stop. I don't look good bald. In terms of breaking websites, that's going to depend on where you go, of course. For me, it still breaks a lot of things. Your mileage may vary. As I stated earlier, Chrome has a LONG way to go before it takes anything over. But, its mere existence in its current form means that neither IE nor Firefox can afford to twiddle their thumbs anymore.

[Daveski17]

-{ Quote: "I swear, the more I hear the words "browser war", the more hair I pull out, so please, stop." }-

Any browser 'conflict' can only be good for us, the users of said browsers though. :)

Throughout history warfare or economic competition has stimulated the development of technology. In fact we invented the programmable electronic computer ostensibly to crack the German Enigma code.

I'm just glad that there are ANY alternatives to Internet Explorer out in the wild. Using IE 8 I tend to pull my hair out! :o

-{ Quote: "But, its mere existence in its current form means that neither IE nor Firefox can afford to twiddle their thumbs anymore." }-

I think, to extend the metaphor slightly, IE have been sitting on their thumbs & I'm not sure what exactly Mozilla have been doing with their thumbs but I wish they'd pull their finger out!
:thumb: :thumbd: :thumb: :thumbd: ;)

[ronjor]

-{ Quote: "IE have been sitting on their thumbs" }-The elves are working. (http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/) :)

[Daveski17]

Cool ... Go elves! 8)

Just as long as the elves don't turn to the dark side & become gremlins...;)

[ronjor]

-{ Quote: "I'm not sure what exactly Mozilla have been doing" }-The latest. (https://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/all-beta.html)

[Daveski17]

Let's hope Mozilla can fix that 'Twitter Bug' & I can open my My Yahoo! page with Fx 4!

Bloody gremlins ... :wacko:

[vasa1]

-{ Quote: "The elves are working. (http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/) :)" }-

Will they continue the tradition of not being available for other platforms (operating systems) in the direct sense, meaning not having to resort to Wine, or whatever it is that allows the Win OS to run on a Mac?

Also, I understand that XP won't run IE9.

In edit:
And the link provided by Ronjor has, for example, this justification for IE9 not being made for use across platforms:
-{ Quote: "Because some browsers run on many different operating systems, there can be a tendency to use a “least common denominator” approach to implementing HTML5. By using more of the underlying operating system, and taking advantage of the power of the whole PC, IE9 enables developers to do more with HTML5. Running through Windows, instead of just on Windows, makes a big difference; the web runs more like a native application. This is consistent with our approach of architecting HTML5 support in, from the ground up, rather than just grafting in some HTML5 features." }-

So, all said and done about IE9 being standards-compliant, we may be back to an IE6-type of world in which certain web-sites work best with Internet Explorer!!!

[dw426]

-{ Quote: "Will they continue the tradition of not being available for other platforms (operating systems) in the direct sense, meaning not having to resort to Wine, or whatever it is that allows the Win OS to run on a Mac?

Also, I understand that XP won't run IE9." }-

No, that won't ever change, and there isn't anything wrong with that.

@ Dave: Come now, Dave, I can understand not liking IE8 if it doesn't run well, but the rest of your comments just aren't true. IE8 has come a LONG way from the days when IE truly was a terrible browser and so dangerous to use, and no, I won't listen to or look at speed benchmarks as any "proof" of one browser being the best. If anyone else wants to play that game, have at it.

IE and, especially, Firefox, have not sat on or twiddled any thumbs if you seriously want to discuss it. IE8 made a LOT of progress in security for one thing. It's an overall good, secure browser that doesn't need extensions to be so. Firefox has had the advantage of being almost "build your own browser" with its extensions and themes. Has it always been the safest? No, but add-ons like NoScript covered most of the weak spots. Over the years it has gotten heavier in usage, but so has every browser that has added functionality and so will every browser that continues to do so. That's just the nature of the beast.

There is absolutely nothing about Chrome that makes it "better" than, at least for now, Firefox. And if IE9 has the same effort put into it, Chrome won't be "better" than it either. Chrome, like every other browser besides IE, is an option, and that is all it and every other alternative browser will ever be.

[YanK33]

-{ Quote: "Will they continue the tradition of not being available for other platforms (operating systems) in the direct sense, meaning not having to resort to Wine, or whatever it is that allows the Win OS to run on a Mac?

Also, I understand that XP won't run IE9.

In edit:
And the link provided by Ronjor has, for example, this justification for IE9 not being made for use across platforms:


So, all said and done about IE9 being standards-compliant, we may be back to an IE6-type of world in which certain web-sites work best with Internet Explorer!!!" }-
IE9 will be like nothing seen before as web browser, :o forget Chrome Opera, Firefox and Safari is not even close bro

[dw426]

-{ Quote: "IE9 will be like nothing seen before as web browser, :o forget Chrome Opera, Firefox and Safari is not even close bro" }-


I hope that was sarcastic, lol, this thread really does not need to get a bunch of nonsense started up again.

[Daveski17]

So, at the end of the day, all prejudices & personal experiences aside, the future does seem to look bright for the end-users of most browsers. 8)

Ya can't knock that! :thumb:

I think we are drifting off-topic a bit ... I still think Chrome will gain quite a few more users in the coming months/years. I have no idea if it will hit 10% by the end of this year but it's now my preferred browser of choice. I have used SRWare Iron since the #2 series (over a year ago) & I was converted to Chromium based browsers almost instantly (I always liked WebKit anyway).

The only problem with Iron is that it seems to be bedevilled by small bugs. When Google changed their user tracking policy I downloaded Chrome. I've never regretted this. IE 9 & Fx 4 will have to be really good to convince me to start using them regularly again. I think it was the simplicity & speed that attracted me to Chrome/Iron notwithstanding the extensions & general safety. There are rumours that Ubuntu may switch to Chrome from Fx on its desktop release.

Fx 4 is a bit make or break for the fox I think. It has been steadily losing users for a while now & Chrome has been gaining. I can't see Chrome disappearing any time soon.

[vasa1]

-{ Quote: "No, that won't ever change, and there isn't anything wrong with that.

..." }-

My comment was in perspective of the numbers game, market share. If a browser, any browser, is restricted to a particular OS, I don't think it can be positive for market share.

Whether there's anything wrong or not is a matter of opinion and circumstance. At least two elementary situtations come to mind: an IT-savvy company and one that itsn't. The former may be swayed by arguments to use and constantly upgrade the OS and dependencies of a proprietary IT-provider. This could have an effect on the customer, forcing the customer to use compatible software to access the company website.

If you don't mind, I'll give you three examples. One is quite a popular private bank in India. The second is India's largest (and government-owned telecom giant), BSNL. The third is one of India's largest mutual funds.

If you like you can check out what is written at the bottom of those pages or the "splash" with the third link. To avoid causing problems I've inserted three spaces in each URL which may please be removed before use :).

1. ht tp:// www. axisbank.com/
With this site, after you check out the browser requirement on the welcome page, you can even click on the login button on the left-hand side and see the browser requirement right at the bottom of the login page.

2. ht tp:// selfcare. wdc.bsnl.co.in/irj/portal

3. ht tps:// www. icicipruamc.com/tracker/main.asp

Any comments are welcome.

[vasa1]

-{ Quote: "So, at the end of the day, all prejudices & personal experiences aside, the future does seem to look bright for the end-users of most browsers. 8)

Ya can't knock that! :thumb:

..." }-

I'm not sure. If progress means excluding others or restricting access to those with a particular browser (and, with IE9, a particular OS) I wonder what the notebook and Ipad, and other mobile computing device owners will do.

[Daveski17]

-{ Quote: "I'm not sure. If progress means excluding others or restricting access to those with a particular browser (and, with IE9, a particular OS) I wonder what the notebook and Ipad, and other mobile computing device owners will do." }-

That's a good point. I think the fact that IE 9 can't be run on XP (or earlier) is a problem fundamental to Microsoft & their policies. I was just musing on the fact that there are more choices & ideas about browsers. This can't be bad for the end-user. Plus they are all freeware.

I mean, no one should have to use Internet Explorer (ever) if they have a choice!

[Daveski17]

-{ Quote: " @ Dave: Come now, Dave, I can understand not liking IE8 if it doesn't run well, but the rest of your comments just aren't true." }-

Well, maybe I'm being just a bit sarcastic because IE doesn't perform well in my opinion on any computer.

-{ Quote: " IE and, especially, Firefox, have not sat on or twiddled any thumbs if you seriously want to discuss it. IE8 made a LOT of progress in security for one thing. It's an overall good, secure browser that doesn't need extensions to be so." }-

IE 8 may be safer now & even has extensions available, I just don't like it.

-{ Quote: "Firefox has had the advantage of being almost "build your own browser" with its extensions and themes. Has it always been the safest? No, but add-ons like NoScript covered most of the weak spots. Over the years it has gotten heavier in usage, but so has every browser that has added functionality and so will every browser that continues to do so. That's just the nature of the beast." }-

I really liked Fx #2 but I am not so sure about Firefox now. My Fx is heavily customised, I don't dislike it & it is always useful, I just wish they'd fix that bloody 'Twitter Bug'! >:(

-{ Quote: "There is absolutely nothing about Chrome that makes it "better" than, at least for now, Firefox. And if IE9 has the same effort put into it, Chrome won't be "better" than it either. Chrome, like every other browser besides IE, is an option, and that is all it and every other alternative browser will ever be." }-

I think everyone should just have all three. It's just a pity there isn't ONE browser that does everything well ...

Do you think I'm asking for the impossible?

[dw426]

Honestly, yeah, I think you're asking the impossible if you mean a browser that does everything well. That's simply because every browser developer has a different vision of what a good browser should be, what it does, how it should perform. They also have a difference in opinion on technologies, and, accordingly, decide to support them in their browsers or not support them.

[Daveski17]

All I'm asking for is a quick stable customisable safe browser (with some form of JScript whitelist) that can use some extensions & doesn't break my My Yahoo! page.

The only browser that does this for me is Chrome. Maybe it will hit that 10%!

[dw426]

-{ Quote: "All I'm asking for is a quick stable customisable safe browser (with some form of JScript whitelist) that can use some extensions & doesn't break my My Yahoo! page.

The only browser that does this for me is Chrome. Maybe it will hit that 10%!" }-

For me, that browser is Firefox. I don't know what's going on with your Yahoo issue, but, as far as I can remember, I've not run into issues. NoScript has your whitelist and Firefox is about as customizable as I believe any browser is likely to ever get. I do believe Chrome will eventually hit the 10% mark, just not this year. And, again, it all depends on Firefox 4 and IE 9 if Chrome sees any decent rise past 10%.

[Daveski17]

At the moment my Firefox has one of Frank Lion's Metal Lion 'Safari' themes & I've wasted the second search box SeaMonkey style. Fx is a great all round browser even though I really do prefer SeaMonkey. Unfortunately the monkey can break pages & has some compatibility problems. I think my Yahoo! page is too customised AjaxScript wise as Fx & SM break it on any computer (laptop or desktop) that I've tried. SeaMonkey did this bug about a year ago & they fixed it (I think KaiRo does a great job) but now the throbber won't load again. This bug (http://www.google.com/cse?cx=002443141534113389537%3Aysdmevkkknw&cof=FORID%3A0&q=bug+%23510985&x=15&y=8) is sometimes known as the 'Twitter Bug' allegedly as it affects people on some Twitter pages. I wouldn't mind but it's the first page I open on a morning & every other browser in creation is fine in it. NoScript works well on both Fx & SM. It's a pity it isn't available for Chrome (yet). It will be interesting to see Fx 4 in its release form & how it affects Chrome figures. No doubt I'll have to do a clean install. :o

[dw426]

Yeah, I wasn't thinking about Ajax. But, like I said, no issues here thus far EXCEPT the occasional issue with Yahoo Mail. However, I sometimes have problems loading it in IE 8 as well. *shrug* Who knows?

[Daveski17]

Oddly Fx works fine in Yahoo! Mail for me. I have some problems with IE 8 in Hotmail, so I'm scared to try it in Yahoo!LOL!

If things fail in Chrome thank god there's always Firefox to fall back on. 8)

I can understand why some people running Win 7 uninstall IE 8. Although I honestly can't see the point in that. It's still usable, just a tad sluggish & annoying for me (in Vista).

[dw426]

-{ Quote: "Oddly Fx works fine in Yahoo! Mail for me. I have some problems with IE 8 in Hotmail, so I'm scared to try it in Yahoo!LOL!

If things fail in Chrome thank god there's always Firefox to fall back on. 8)

I can understand why some people running Win 7 uninstall IE 8. Although I honestly can't see the point in that. It's still usable, just a tad sluggish & annoying for me (in Vista)." }-

IE has problems with Hotmail, a Microsoft service, that's interesting, lol. Heck of a machine you have there, Dave. ;D

[Daveski17]

-{ Quote: "IE has problems with Hotmail, a Microsoft service, that's interesting, lol. Heck of a machine you have there, Dave. ;D" }-

I've noticed it on other computers though. I start writing an email & for some reason the page starts to load again. I can see the green ribbon trace filling & sometimes it reloads & wastes everything I have written. This used to happen regularly on another computer I use. So I have no idea what's going on with that.

???

Yahoo! & Gmail work fine in every other browser. Even Firefox. Now you may have an inkling of why I don't have too high an opinion of Microsoft. Considering most people seem to believe Google to be in league with the Devil or something (or at least the Young Conservatives) I find that their stuff not only works very well, it's free. Mind you, so is Mozilla. At least Gmail works perfectly well in Chrome. Well ... it'd have to, right?

[vasa1]

-{ Quote: "...
Besides, KeyScrambler Free is only available to Firefox and Internet Explorer.
..." }-

Looks like Chrome may not need it?
-{ Quote: "We also used an alternate desktop to prevent the renderer from seeing the screen (screen scrapping) or eavesdropping on the keyboard and mouse (key logging)." }-
Source (http://blog.chromium.org/2008/10/new-approach-to-browser-security-google.html)

[Mr.PC]

-{ Quote: "So, you have discovered the true situation about browsers eh ?
There is no browser available that can outstrip Firefox. It is far ahead of everything else.
I only wish that others who just wish to try the newest piece of rubbish that comes on the market would be as logical.John B" }-
Yeap...I've tried to substituted Firefox with another browser (Opera, Chrome etc.), but I always return to Firefox.

[Mr.PC]

-{ Quote: "Looks like Chrome may not need it?Source (http://blog.chromium.org/2008/10/new-approach-to-browser-security-google.html)" }-I don't know if the Anti-Keylogging protection of Chrome is as good as the Key-Scrambler Free add-on for Firefox or IE.

The major issue for not using Chrome still remains open to me:
Google Chrome has been problematic when opening certain sites,
as it couldn't properly display the Icons and Buttons of Forums.
I had the same problem with Safari.
Opera had Not issues like these, but it missed other staff...

[CiX]

-{ Quote: "The major issue for not using Chrome still remains open to me:
Google Chrome has been problematic when opening certain sites,
as it couldn't properly display the Icons and Buttons of Forums." }-
Try IE Tab or ChromePlus (buide in IE mode);)

[Mr.PC]

-{ Quote: "Try IE Tab or ChromePlus (buide in IE mode);)" }-
Why, then, not using IE itself or FF
since Chrome fails to properly display web content?

[progress]

No! (because most of the people install Firefox) :)

[vasa1]

-{ Quote: "Why, then, not using IE itself or FF
since Chrome fails to properly display web content?" }-

Amazing!

[Kerodo]

-{ Quote: "And, again, it all depends on Firefox 4 and IE 9 if Chrome sees any decent rise past 10%." }-
As long as they're hard at work on improving Firefox and IE, I think that will keep Chrome down for a while. But it will still keep growing slowly....

[Noob]

Another friend bites the DUST . . . ;D
She always used Firefox before, after installing Chrome, oh well you know what happens next ::)

I'm talking seriously every single friend that have used Chrome once they KEEEEEEEP it after :D

[dw426]

-{ Quote: "As long as they're hard at work on improving Firefox and IE, I think that will keep Chrome down for a while. But it will still keep growing slowly...." }-

It might grow, but it needs work still. I've tried it again after a long absence, and, they STILL allow ALL domains to use Javascript that are associated with a webpage/site if you try to whitelist websites under Javascript options. No, no no, that is NOT the way to do it. I don't expect a fully functional NoScript for Chrome here, but, at the very least, if you are going to let us control scripting, do it better than IE's only all scripts or no scripts at all approach. Until Chrome gives us more control, especially when security is supposed to be a reason to switch to it, it can't go back on my machine, which is a shame as it is overall a good browser.

[acr1965]

I read that if a person installs Chrome from Google Pack it will install in Program Files. Is this true?

[dw426]

-{ Quote: "I read that if a person installs Chrome from Google Pack it will install in Program Files. Is this true?" }-

That is what I hear from people as well. That and the Portable version. The bad thing is, you get rid of Chrome and all sorts of files and folders get left behind. I'm still trying to determine if I got it all out.

[Daveski17]

-{ Quote: "Try IE Tab or ChromePlus (buide in IE mode);)" }-

I have found IE Tab quite useful on Chrome/Iron. At first I wasn't sure whether I would use it at all as Chrome seems to be OK for me in virtually every page. There are 3 or 4 sites I find it quite useful & I don't have to go through the rigmarole of opening slow-coach IE.

[Daveski17]

-{ Quote: "Until Chrome gives us more control, especially when security is supposed to be a reason to switch to it, it can't go back on my machine, which is a shame as it is overall a good browser." }-

It's a start I suppose. I have heard that Chrome have recently given the go-ahead for more development in this area.

[dw426]

-{ Quote: "It's a start I suppose. I have heard that Chrome have recently given the go-ahead for more development in this area." }-

It's not a start really, Javascript is the most common entry for browser exploits, and almost always it's 3rd party scripts not related to the main website. Without that fine control, you might as well not even bother whitelisting and hope for the best. Chrome did and does a lot of things right, but overlooking such an extensively used attack method is a little silly these days.

[Daveski17]

-{ Quote: "It's not a start really, Javascript is the most common entry for browser exploits, and almost always it's 3rd party scripts not related to the main website. Without that fine control, you might as well not even bother whitelisting and hope for the best. Chrome did and does a lot of things right, but overlooking such an extensively used attack method is a little silly these days." }-

*Doh!* I forgot all about those pesky 3rd party scripts. That's like clickjackers as well right? At least Chrome's whitelist is better for people like me who would turn K-Meleon's JS off with the 'pref bar' & almost always forget to turn it back on when composing an email. :wacko:

Maybe one day Mr Maone will be able to port NoScript for Chrome. I've heard rumours ...

[dw426]

-{ Quote: "*Doh!* I forgot all about those pesky 3rd party scripts. That's like clickjackers as well right? At least Chrome's whitelist is better for people like me who would turn K-Meleon's JS off with the 'pref bar' & almost always forget to turn it back on when composing an email. :wacko:

Maybe one day Mr Maone will be able to port NoScript for Chrome. I've heard rumours ..." }-

Not all 3rd party scripts are malicious, no. But, the problem even with NoScript is that so many websites use several scripts for various functions that it's a guessing game as to what is safe and needed to allow and what shouldn't be touched with a ten foot pole. Rumors or not, it's basically up to Google as to whether they would allow their browser to be interfered with enough to allow NoScript to work. I imagine the same situation would be faced as the ad blocking extensions face, where Google has yet to implement necessary functions in Chrome that would allow the full power of an extension like AdBlockPlus to work.

Being Google, I imagine it's quite possible Google doesn't want these extensions to have so much power, lest Googles ad partners and their own ads be blocked as well. Maybe it's the same with scripts. That's a guess on my part though.

[Daveski17]

-{ Quote: " I imagine the same situation would be faced as the ad blocking extensions face, where Google has yet to implement necessary functions in Chrome that would allow the full power of an extension like AdBlockPlus to work." }-

ABP seems to be working well for me in Chrome at the moment. Well, sort of.

-{ Quote: "Being Google, I imagine it's quite possible Google doesn't want these extensions to have so much power, lest Googles ad partners and their own ads be blocked as well. Maybe it's the same with scripts. That's a guess on my part though." }-

I should imagine you're right. I have been experimenting with Ghostery & I noticed a Microsoft ghost-feed in my Yahoo! Mail the other day that NoScript didn't pick up on. It's not there today, it may have been a false positive (ghost in the machine?). :o

Oh yeah, sorry ... it's nearly 3 am here & I need to sleep but ...

"Without that fine control, you might as well not even bother whitelisting and hope for the best."

I know what you mean but it is some defence against drive-bys as you casually surf.

[dw426]

-{ Quote: "I know what you mean but it is some defence against drive-bys as you casually surf." }-

Actually, not really, Dave. See, if you only have the option of either javascript full on, or whitelisting only one domain, there could be quite a few hidden scripts that are allowed along with that domain, some of which could be malicious. Chrome, as it stands at the moment, doesn't even show the user all of the other scripts that go along with that domain, you know, the various ad servers and such that are on just about all websites. Without seeing ALL scripts, you can't really be protected because you can neither block nor allow them, they are simply on or off, hidden from view, hopefully not causing mischief. I'm not paranoid that there is a malicious script floating around every website on the internet, but script control has become a very important part of security.

[vasa1]

-{ Quote: "That is what I hear from people as well. That and the Portable version. The bad thing is, you get rid of Chrome and all sorts of files and folders get left behind. I'm still trying to determine if I got it all out." }-

The Portable goes where you want it to. The limitations are the length of the path and that it will install best in a directory (wherever) named PortableApps.

Leaving garbage behind is certainly not unique to Chrome. I searched "all files and folders" on all drives for Google.* and deleted the finds since I don't intending having any other Google app on board. Then, I installed Chrome Portable on my E: drive. It (Chrome Portable) also runs in Sandboxie very well without having to weaken Sandboxie in anyway which is why I don't miss NoScript at all.

[Daveski17]

-{ Quote: "Actually, not really, Dave. See, if you only have the option of either javascript full on, or whitelisting only one domain, there could be quite a few hidden scripts that are allowed along with that domain, some of which could be malicious. Chrome, as it stands at the moment, doesn't even show the user all of the other scripts that go along with that domain, you know, the various ad servers and such that are on just about all websites. Without seeing ALL scripts, you can't really be protected because you can neither block nor allow them, they are simply on or off, hidden from view, hopefully not causing mischief. I'm not paranoid that there is a malicious script floating around every website on the internet, but script control has become a very important part of security." }-

Yes, I agree, I just meant that if I happen to drop on a page with an exploit of some sort & the JS is off it gives me at least more security than nothing at all & the JS just running.

[Daveski17]

-{ Quote: " Leaving garbage behind is certainly not unique to Chrome." }-

I'll say! I found a Symantec BHO in IE 18 months after I had removed Norton. :o

[vasa1]

http://www.thechromesource.com/statcounter-chrome-continues-rise-ie-slips-in-market-share/

and

http://www.conceivablytech.com/2089/business/firefox-to-make-history-about-to-surpass-ie-in-europe/

[dw426]

-{ Quote: "It is 7.5% now (http://marketshare.hitslink.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qprid=0).
Gain 2.5% in the next 4 months? I don't think so...

Chrome is fast, but several Web Pages do NOT open properly (even with the use of IE Tab)!
http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/6984/46145758.jpg" }-

Exactly, there's no way it'll hit 10% this year. Especially not when both Firefox 4 AND IE9 are set for arrival this year. And yes, far too many websites still either don't function properly or at all on Chrome, though much of that blame falls on websites and not Chrome.

[Eice]

-{ Quote: "Exactly, there's no way it'll hit 10% this year. Especially not when both Firefox 4 AND IE9 are set for arrival this year." }-
For what it's worth, Chrome has shown an unprecedented rate of nonstop evolution, while Mozilla is known for constantly missing deadlines.

But I guess we'll see.

[dw426]

-{ Quote: "For what it's worth, Chrome has shown an unprecedented rate of nonstop evolution, while Mozilla is known for constantly missing deadlines.

But I guess we'll see." }-

Yeah, Mozilla does indeed do that. Chrome moves fast, you bet, but I still think that Chrome just isn't going to "catch fire" enough for that target date. But you're right, we'll see soon enough. Four months flies by.

[dw426]

-{ Quote: "-Why blame Web-Sites and not Chrome itself?

With Firefox I had No problem when opening Web-Sites
BUT
Chrome and Opera gave me many problems,
as they could Not properly display the Content of many Web-Sites." }-

Because websites on the Internet don't have to follow Google's, Microsoft's or anyone's rules about what browser, functionality or features to support. As I said in a different thread yesterday, IE-only websites were/are either A: directly affiliated with Microsoft or B: created/coded by either a developer who wanted/needed certain features on their website and had to go with what supported it, or were too lazy or uncaring to support other browsers.

Firefox was once in the same position as Chrome is now, support was slowly gained. Google can't force people to use or support Chrome. Does Chrome have issues? Yes. Is the fact that they aren't at that 10% target yet and many websites don't fully support it all their fault? No.

[Daveski17]

-{ Quote: "Firefox was once in the same position as Chrome is now, support was slowly gained. " }-

Oh, I so remember the bad old days of Firefox! LOL

[dw426]

-{ Quote: "The situation is still the same:

Chrome and Opera are Dysfunctional/Problematic
when dealing with certain Web-Sites.

Whether it is the Browser, the Web-Site or Both
to blame on the Dysfunctional/Problematic Rendering
does Not care the Average Home User." }-

True enough, but, as I stated, it won't get better until more websites support these browsers (like Opera has a chance in a million years).

[dw426]

-{ Quote: "Oh, I so remember the bad old days of Firefox! LOL" }-

I remember the GOOD old days of Phoenix/Firebird :thumb:

[Daveski17]

-{ Quote: "I remember the GOOD old days of Phoenix/Firebird :thumb:" }-

I loved Firefox 2 even if it wasn't as compatible as Fx nowadays. I really do prefer SeaMonkey for a variety of reasons.

I had a bit of a problem with Chrome 6.0.472.53 at first, I hope Chrome doesn't start to go down the tubes. Iron is looking really good these days though, I can see me using it more than Chrome again.

I'm even curious about Fx 4.

[YanK33]

i dont have a single trouble opening any web page no one y say ok so i love Chrome a lot so i dumped to the trash can my Firefox sorry lol

[dw426]

-{ Quote: "i dont have a single trouble opening any web page no one y say ok so i love Chrome a lot so i dumped to the trash can my Firefox sorry lol" }-

Hey if it's working good for you, that's great. I gave it enough chances and it failed me every time. I wish them luck with their goal.

[Noob]

I've always used the Dev Builds and never experience a single problem :P
CHROME FTW!!

[Daveski17]

Yeah, Chrome tends to do that. :(

[Mr.PC]

-{ Quote: "Yeah, Chrome tends to do that. :(" }-
Tell me about it...;D

[vasa1]

-{ Quote: "Sorry guys, but I can Not say the same for Chrome.
Many Web-Sites, like the one below, do Not shown properly:" }-

Seems very similar to this one already posted here (http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=1741283&postcount=128). I was hoping for some variety ;D

[dw426]

-{ Quote: "I was hoping that Chrome v.7, which is under Development, would be different, but NO variety, too.;D
Same old problems...;D" }-

Where the heck is that page you guys linked anyway? I sincerely hope that the page was SUPPOSED to be brown. Otherwise, that's a heck of a rendering failure there, lol.

[vasa1]

-{ Quote: "I was hoping that Chrome v.7, which is under Development, would be different, but NO variety, too.;D
Same old problems...;D" }-

Well, we've established beyond doubt that Chrome is a cr@ppy browser, but I was hoping we'd get new examples of just how cr@ppy it is rather than repeated pics of the same site ;D That's what I meant by variety ;)

[vasa1]

-{ Quote: "...
BTW, I have dozens of web-sites that have not shown properly
under Chrome versions 4,5,6, and, now 7.
I guess I have to start posting picture of these sites one-by-one to convince the Fanboys of Chrome...
..." }-

Yay! We could celebrate each incompetent Chrome upgrade with a picture of a new site (and the url, if not XXX-rated ;) or top-secret).

I keep reading about these sites but no one is kind enough to list them. I'm sure you'll oblige :thumb:

(It's not that they don't exist, they do. For three of the sites, I posted my grievance to the webmaster and now those sites are working just fine.)

[Mr.PC]

-{ Quote: "I keep reading about these sites but no one is kind enough to list them." }-
Really? Why don't you check at the Chrome Forum? (I am sure you are familiar with Chrome Forum (http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/Chrome/user?userid=00377044444308401243&hl=en)...)
You will find many users Complaining about site Rendering problems!
I posted just one SnapShot (from a Forum) and look how I am questioned by the Chrome Fanboys (http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/Chrome/user?userid=05146288166709212179&hl=en)!
-{ Quote: "(It's not that they don't exist, they do.
For three of the sites, I posted my grievance to the webmaster and now those sites are working just fine.)" }-
I notified the webmasters of several sites, too. Guess what!
"It is Google Chrome's Rendering. Our site has Nothing to do with it. Use a different Browser" they replied.

[vasa1]

-{ Quote: "Really? Why don't you check at the Chrome Forum? (I am sure you are familiar with Chrome Forum...)
You will find many users Complaining about site Rendering problems!..." }-

Hi Mr. PC

talking about checking at Chrome Forums, here's one example:
"CHROME DOESN'T OPEN THE LINK, BUT MICROSOFT INTERNET EXPLORER DOES (http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/Chrome/thread?tid=008b651ec4d0c644&hl=en)" (the caps aren't mine.)

Again, I'm not denying that X, Y, or Z browser doesn't open this, that, or the other site. But why not give the URL if you're going to all the trouble to post a pic?

[vasa1]

-{ Quote: "Check your PM!" }-
Could you please re-send it?

[Daveski17]

-{ Quote: "Tell me about it...;D" }-

Iron's the same though, worse sometimes with its internal adblocker, I guess that's what SeaMonkey was invented for. LOL

[dw426]

@ Mr PC and Eice: *blows whistle* Back to your corners gentleman, break it up. Lol, guys, has anyone ever mentioned that little saying about arguing on the Internet? Mr PC, I'm awful sorry to have to remind you again, but the truth is that a lot of rendering issues with ANY browser come down to individual website support. Yes, there are indeed issues with browsers sometimes. It is a rarity that rendering issuesare either ONLY a browsers fault or ONLY a websites fault. If it was completely a browser's fault, there wouldn't be IE-only websites.

I agree that there is some Chrome fanaticism here, but there are all kinds of "fanatics" here. It's called fanboy, and it can and should be ignored. These are the people that will find any shred of data they can, whether it is correct or false to prop up their favorite software, and will blame anyone and everything else when their favorite software doesn't work for someone else. Getting into arguments with these types make YOU look just as stupid, so stay away from them. I don't need to defend Eice, he can defend himself. But, he's been trying to tell you the same thing, that both Chrome AND websites can be at fault for problems. He's right, he has very low tolerance, lol. I think we all can be guilty of that at times though.

So, there you are, software problems aren't always simple. There are a LOT of factors involved. By the way, I hate Chrome and I blame websites the most for its issues. Now, lets not derail this little train any further, hmm? We get threads shut down by these mods enough as it is.

[Mr.PC]

-{ Quote: "the truth is that a lot of rendering issues with ANY browser come down to individual website support." }-
Not ANY browser. Largely Opera and Chrome. I cannot say the same for IE and FF though.
-{ Quote: "I agree that there is some Chrome fanaticism here" }-I experienced it first-hand...
-{ Quote: "that both Chrome -AND- websites can be at fault for problems." }-
Users canNot change their favorite websites.
They change Browsers (Opera or Chrome or X browser) when they don't show Web-Content properly.
Is the Web-Site Only to blame on it? Maybe, but the Average Joe does NOT care if
IE/FF shows him what Chrome/Opera fails to.
He ditches Opera or Chrome or X browser and goes back to IE and FF.

[Daveski17]

If only I could figure out the UA spoofer in Iron ... :wacko:

[dw426]

-{ Quote: "Not ANY browser. Largely Opera and Chrome. I cannot say the same for IE and FF though.
I experienced it first-hand...

Users canNot change their favorite websites.
They change Browsers (Opera or Chrome or X browser) when they don't show Web-Content properly.
Is the Web-Site Only to blame on it? Maybe, but the Average Joe does NOT care if
IE/FF shows him what Chrome/Opera fails to.
He ditches Opera or Chrome or X browser and goes back to IE and FF.

I deleted my Posts as a Goodwill Gesture...
Nothing left to be said, here." }-

1. Actually Firefox had its day as an unsupported browser as well.

2. And again, ignore such fanaticism, they are a hopeless cause.

3. Users can't change websites, but they can cause change by not using websites. When a browser "catches on", things change. Firefox caused the old "IE only" ways to largely disappear, save for some corporate and government websites. Once Chrome reaches the 10% mark, you'll start seeing some changes. Opera, well, Opera is its own problem. Opera suffers from not being used widely, but that can't change until the Opera marketing people and developers get off their behinds and start marketing their product. That's a different story for a different thread.

[Eice]

-{ Quote: "Is the Web-Site Only to blame on it? Maybe, but the Average Joe does NOT care if
IE/FF shows him what Chrome/Opera fails to.
He ditches Opera or Chrome or X browser and goes back to IE and FF." }-
I agree that average users don't care. Be that as it may, it doesn't mean that the blame they place on browsers is justified. The whole point of having these discussions is that we strive to be more informed than the average user instead of resorting to the typical knee-jerk emotional responses.

-{ Quote: "Opera, well, Opera is its own problem. Opera suffers from not being used widely, but that can't change until the Opera marketing people and developers get off their behinds and start marketing their product." }-
For some reason I suspect that problem has something to do with Opera's web development tool; Dragonfly is THE slowest, buggiest web debugger I've ever tried. No conditional breakpoints, no HTTP request results, no hover popup to show long variable/expression names, cannot arrange displayed scripts, etc etc etc.

To be fair, I last tried it a while ago, so things may have changed since. But when Opera makes it this hard for developers to debug their pages, it just kills off the already minimal incentive to optimize your pages for a browser with 1% market share.

[Mr.PC]

-{ Quote: "Users can't change websites, but they can cause change by not using websites." }-
Average Users prefer to change Browsers instead of staying away from their Favorite Web-Sites.
-{ Quote: "When Chrome reaches the 10% mark, you'll start seeing some changes." }-
I remembered when Chrome Fanboys were telling me that
'When 'Chrome reaches the 5% mark, you'll start seeing some changes'...;D
-{ Quote: "it doesn't mean that the blame they place on browsers is justified." }-
At the same time, it doesn't mean that the blame on Web-Sites is Always justified,too.
-{ Quote: "For some reason, I suspect that problem has something to do with Opera's web development tool; Dragonfly is THE slowest, buggiest web debugger I've ever tried. No conditional breakpoints, no HTTP request results, no hover popup to show long variable/expression names, cannot arrange displayed scripts, etc." }-A-ha!
So, Opera Development is problematic!
Therefore, it is Not Only the Web-Sites to blame on Opera Rendering problems.
-BUT-
Chrome is Not problematic at All! Never!
Therefore, we should Always blame Only the Web-Sites
when it comes to the Chrome Rendering problems.

At last! The Epitome of the Chrome-Fanboy (http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/Chrome/user?userid=05146288166709212179&hl=en)!

You couldn't have exposed yourself better! ;D ;D ;D

[dw426]

-{ Quote: "A-ha!
So, Opera Development is problematic!
Therefore, it is Not Only the Web-Sites to blame on Opera Rendering problems.
-BUT-
Chrome is Not problematic at All! Never!
Therefore, we should Always blame Only the Web-Sites
when it comes to the Chrome Rendering problems.

At last! The Epitome of the Chrome-Fanboy!

You couldn't have exposed yourself better! ;D ;D ;D" }-

Be careful that you don't end up the one looking stupid with comments like that. He said Opera's problems might have more than the marketing issue I commented on. That's a technical comment, not a fanboy remark. My glasses may need readjusting, but I don't see anywhere that Eice said Chrome was without problems, nor where he blamed JUST the website or JUST the browser. Maybe I'm reading your comments wrong (it happens), but you look like you're putting words in the mouths of others and not really reading what is being said. Forgive me if I'm wrong, these are words on a forum, I can't always judge tone or intent.

[Mr.PC]

-{ Quote: "My glasses may need readjusting..." }-
-{ Quote: "Maybe I'm reading your comments wrong (it happens),
but you look like you're putting words in the mouths of others and not really reading what is being said.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, these are words on a forum, I can't always judge tone or intent." }-
Yes, you got it all wrong. But I won't use against you statements like:-{ Quote: "Be careful that you don't end up the one looking stupid with comments like that." }-
Leave Impoliteness to your Buddy. He is the one who uses Offensive Language and then, taken care by the Mods!

The entire argumentation of your Buddy was based on the issue that Web-Sites are the really ones to blame on Chrome Rendering problems; not Chrome itself! That's why he questioned the ScreenShot (http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/6984/46145758.jpg) I posted!
This is what ALL Chrome Fanboys have done: Blame it on Web-Sites and Never on Chrome Developers!
-{ Quote: "normal users drop browsers that don't suit their needs and move on." }- I dropped Opera and Chrome long ago!
So, you are not a Chrome Fanboy/Fanatic, ah?
No, not at all!
-{ Quote: "Personally, I find it amusing how Mozilla is rushing to reinvent Firefox into a clone of Chrome: tab handling, status bar behavior, new tab page, default theme, multi-process model, etc. Reading the roadmap for Firefox 4.0 almost makes it look like Mozilla is trying to out-Chrome Chrome. Mozilla is running scared, all right." }-
-{ Quote: "Which is what many of us have been enjoying with Chrome for months." }- Chrome releases one version after the other (almost one version every month...).
Chrome Fanboys see that -{ Quote: "Chrome has shown an unprecedented rate of nonstop evolution" }-
Others see that Chrome has a Long way to cover and overcome the problems users are complaining about!

[dw426]

-{ Quote: "Yes, you got it all wrong. But I won't use against you statements like:
Leave Impoliteness to your Buddy. He is the one who uses Offensive Language and then, taken care by the Mods!

The entire argumentation of your Buddy was based on the issue that Web-Sites are the really ones to blame on Chrome Rendering problems; not Chrome itself! That's why he questioned the SceenShot I posted!
This is what ALL Chrome Fanboys have done: Blame it on Web-Sites and Never on Chrome Developers!
I dropped Opera and Chrome long ago!
So, you are not a Chrome Fanboy/Fanatic, ah?
No, not at all!

Chrome releases one version after the other (almost one version every month...).
Chrome Fanboys see that
Others see that Chrome has a Long way to cover and overcome the problems users are complaining about!" }-

Okay, I've got to call you out, I can see just by your last post now that you're one of those types. I didn't intend to take this so far off topic, but the BS has to be pointed out.

1. He's not my buddy, he's a member I agree with in this case.

2. Evidently my glasses DON'T need readjusting, I was right, you can't or refuse to read.

3. Stop taking unrelated quotes from others and using it for your arguments. When you quoted Eice saying "Which is what we Chrome users have been enjoying for months"...it was in regards to another poster complaining about the lack of ad-blocking. Anyone who wants to confirm that can go to the first two pages and then call you out as I am.

4. You STILL somehow are magically coming up with this stuff that people are JUST blaming websites. I swear to God, I HAVE to be blind because I simply don't freaking see anyone saying that. Hell, even YOU said "maybe" about websites being only to blame. Are you doubting your own opinion or are you just looking for a fight now? What is so difficult about blaming websites? Does Active X work on Firefox? No. So websites that use it won't work. Active X is PURELY an IE technology, so who should take the blame here, Firefox for not supporting one of the most insecure things in the history of the web?

I'm done arguing with you. Go ahead, quote parts of my post too and use them for your arguments, I don't care. Anyone with a brain and eyes, which is a good majority of people here, will see through it and know your full of it. Was that impolite? Damn right.

[Eice]

-{ Quote: "Active X is PURELY an IE technology, so who should take the blame here, Firefox for not supporting one of the most insecure things in the history of the web?" }-
Actually, ActiveX is a purely Windows-only (not IE-only) technology. Plenty of other Windows programs have their functionality built-in as ActiveX controls.

There's also nothing inherently insecure about ActiveX, except perhaps where early versions of IE would download and run them without prompting the user. The NPAPI plugins supported by Firefox are equally vulnerable to exploits, e.g. Adobe Flash. ActiveX's security issues made good PR for Mozilla, but IIRC the major reason Firefox didn't support it was because it wasn't cross-platform.

[dw426]

-{ Quote: "Actually, ActiveX is a purely Windows-only (not IE-only) technology. Plenty of other Windows programs have their functionality built-in as ActiveX controls.

There's also nothing inherently insecure about ActiveX, except perhaps where early versions of IE would download and run them without prompting the user. The NPAPI plugins supported by Firefox are equally vulnerable to exploits, e.g. Adobe Flash. ActiveX's security issues made good PR for Mozilla, but IIRC the major reason Firefox didn't support it was because it wasn't cross-platform." }-

Thanks for the correction, I was certain that Active X was an IE thing. In any case, I stand by the rest of my previous post. I hate when people pull that kind of crap. Oh well, moving on :)

[njespo]

its going to be a challenge but it wouldn't surprise me to see google increase market share to at or near 10%

[dw426]

-{ Quote: "its going to be a challenge but it wouldn't surprise me to see google increase market share to at or near 10%" }-

I can easily see 8% by years end. Here's another "newb" question from me, however. How do people who, like many of us here I'm sure, test out another browser and then leave it behind, factor into these numbers? I know there are quite a few ways browser usage numbers can be both under and overestimated, but I wasn't sure how people like I previously mentioned were counted. It seems to me then, that these numbers are "guesstimates". Perhaps I'm wrong.

[Daveski17]

Oh c'mon fellas, you're going to ruin Chrome's second birthday! (http://www.favbrowser.com/google-chrome-is-2-years-old/)

The terrible twos have started! :o

I've found a cure (https://tools.google.com/chrome/intl/en-GB/themes/theme_glossyblue.html) for the new default theme anyway.

[twl845]

Hey! You guys are going to get this thread closed if someone notices this spat. The question is will Google Chrome have 10%.......;D

[JRViejo]

Removed Off Topic Posts. If the feud continues, this thread will close. Its future is in your hands!

[xandros]

one time i use google chrome and i will never use it again, i use firefox & opera

[vasa1]

-{ Quote: "If only I could figure out the UA spoofer in Iron ... :wacko:" }-

I've had some success using

-user-agent="Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0)"
or
-user-agent="Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0)"

as switches to spoof IE6 and IE8 from a WinXP3 machine.

As far as possible, I don't use the switches because I want to be counted as a Chromie :thumb:

[twl845]

-{ Quote: "one time i use google chrome and i will never use it again, i use firefox & opera" }-

I'm a long time FF user, and a year ago I installed Chrome to check it out. At the time it was pitiful but I decided to leave it in place and watch it as it developed. It has become pretty good and has extensions to dress it up just like FF, and a selection of skins too. I have made it my default browser because it has a simple layout while still having what it takes. Note the header with 3 toolbars about 1.25" high. Then notice all the other browsers whose header takes up a quarter of the page as an example. If you use it for a while it grows on you. My FF is still right there in case I want to switch back for a while. 8)

[YanK33]

Google Chrome still making improvements and FF just get stuck lol

[Daveski17]

-{ Quote: "I've had some success using

-user-agent="Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0)"
or
-user-agent="Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0)"

as switches to spoof IE6 and IE8 from a WinXP3 machine.

As far as possible, I don't use the switches because I want to be counted as a Chromie :thumb:" }-

OK, thanks for the info. :thumb:

[vasa1]

Is Google going after the office crowd to get the numbers?

-{ Quote: "Are you one of the poor folks working at a company which uses Internet Explorer as their primary browser, as well as (group) policies to severely limit your freedom? Good news! In the future you might be using Google Chrome with (group) policies which severely limit your freedom! ;D The team seems to be gearing up in order to make their browser more interesting for larger organizations, as can be seen on the Documentation for Administrators page on the Chromium website, including quick-start guides for Windows, Apple and Linux." }-

Source (http://peter.sh/2010/09/last-week-no-more-sarcasm-redesigned-history-ui-and-limiting-freedom/)

[vasa1]

Same data, different headlines!

Internet Explorer 9 market share surges forward, grows faster than Chrome (http://www.downloadsquad.com/2010/11/01/internet-explorer-9-market-share-surges-forward-grows-faster-th/)

The Chrome Assault: IE’s Walls Are Crumbling (http://www.conceivablytech.com/3836/business/the-chrome-assault-ies-walls-are-crumbling/)

[Robin A.]

Last week I changed from FF 4 beta 6 to Chrome 8 beta, which is now my default browser.

I used FF for years, changed to v. 4 since beta 1, but finally got tired of problems and delays.

So far, Chrome has worked very well, I have had only one Flash crash, which recovered quite softly. I have no problems with extensions, and I am using hardware acceleration without having to change the NVIDIA driver configuration to avoid crashes.

Some of my financial sites don´t work with Chrome and I have to use IE 8. But they never worked with FF either.

I will try IE 9 when the final version is out, if it better than Chrome I will use only it.

[twl845]

-{ Quote: "

Some of my financial sites don´t work with Chrome and I have to use IE 8. But they never worked with FF either.

I will try IE 9 when the final version is out, if it better than Chrome I will use only it." }-
Are you using ADBLOCK? if so, you can click on the icon and allow your financial site which will turn the icon green, and your site should work.:)

[acr1965]

Will Google Chrome have 10% market share by end of 2010?

And the correct answer is........????????????? yes or no ???

[J_L]

Yes, according to Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers

[vasa1]

-{ Quote: "Are you using ADBLOCK? if so, you can click on the icon and allow your financial site which will turn the icon green, and your site should work.:)" }-

I just saw this :( hence the late response on my part.

Mostly, "ADBLOCK" has nothing to do with sites, including financial ones, not working with Chrome, IMO.

Sometimes, the fault is in bad coding. Chrome seems to be very finicky.***

Sometimes, there's very elementary browser sniffing in place which can be circumvented by using another user agent string.

Some sites will only work with Internet Explorer, period.

And, of course, sometimes the fault is at Chrome's end or due to an issue with the WebKit engine. If it is the latter, Safari also won't work provided it uses the same WebKit version.

***If you look at this issue (http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=62076), and at comments 28, 37, 47, and 70 in particular, you'll get an idea of how Chrome becomes "problematic" for users by doing "the right thing", at least according to them (the Chrome devs).

[Mr.PC]

-{ Quote: "Some sites will only work with Internet Explorer, period." }-
With IE and FF, I have had No Site Rendering problems.
I cannot say the same with Opera and GC though...;)

[vasa1]

-{ Quote: "With IE and FF, I have had No Site Rendering problems.
I cannot say the same with Opera and GC though...;)" }-

Mr. PC, if you find the time, could you do me a favour and check out these four sites using FF and IE?
Please also mention the versions of the browsers.
http://selfcare.ndc.bsnl.co.in/irj/portal
http://selfcare.sdc.bsnl.co.in/irj/portal
http://selfcare.edc.bsnl.co.in/irj/portal
http://selfcare.wdc.bsnl.co.in/irj/portal

I just want your feedback on the page you see and not after logging in because that's for customers.

One more addition: -https://www.icicipruamc.com/tracker/main.asp-

[Mr.PC]

I use the latest versions of IE 8 and FF 3.6.

I opened with both IE and FF:
https://www.icicipruamc.com/tracker/main.asp
http://selfcare.wdc.bsnl.co.in/irj/portal
http://selfcare.ndc.bsnl.co.in/irj/portal

IE and FF did Not open:
http://selfcare.sdc.bsnl.co.in/irj/portal (404 Not Found)
http://selfcare.edc.bsnl.co.in/irj/portal (404 Not Found)

[vasa1]

-{ Quote: "With IE and FF, I have had No Site Rendering problems.
I cannot say the same with Opera and GC though...;)" }-

So I'm not absolutely wrong in claiming that some requires work only with IE. If you try the edc and sdc sites with IE8 in "compatibility mode", they will open.

[Mr.PC]

-{ Quote: "So I'm not absolutely wrong in claiming that some requires work only with IE.
If you try the edc and sdc sites with IE8 in "compatibility mode", they will open." }-
As you might noticed, IE and FF had the same results...

Recently, Opera failed to properly render a University page (http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=1800040&postcount=57).

Do you believe that IE and FF
have the same Web-Page Rendering problems
with Opera and Chrome?

[funkydude]

I highly doubt that page is anything to do with the browser. A University page of all things not opening on IE8? That would be pretty shoddy work.

[Mr.PC]

-{ Quote: "I highly doubt that page is anything to do with the browser.
A University page of all things not opening on IE8? That would be pretty shoddy work." }-
Opera did Not open it correctly.
IE8 was OK.

[funkydude]

-{ Quote: "
Opera did Not open it correctly.
IE8 was OK." }-

I was talking about the 404's which is also a 404 in IE9.

[Mr.PC]

-{ Quote: "I was talking about the 404's which is also a 404 in IE9." }-
The 404's related to vasa1's pages (http://selfcare...)
had Nothing to do with the page Opera could Not render properly.
I was referring to This (http://maritime-unipi.gr/) page. Check Here (http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=1798573&postcount=10), too.
I hope it is clear now...;)

[ALookingInView]

On-topic, I haven't been paying very close attention to the numbers (or this thread). I do know that if it did not end 2010 with 10% then it came awfully close.
Good call to all who answered yes to the question.

Off-topic, does anyone know if www.neutergooglenow.org is available?
Wait, Google Inc. knew I'd post this before I even did it? Hmm, well, I guess so long as they don't cross that "creepy line" it's all good. :eyesroll:

[JRViejo]

-{ Quote: "Off-topic, does anyone know if www.neutergooglenow.org is available?" }-
FYI. http://whois.domaintools.com/neutergooglenow.org - domain name not registered.

[vasa1]

http://www.netmarketshare.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qprid=2

Chrome ~9.89%

[funkydude]

-{ Quote: "http://www.netmarketshare.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qprid=2

Chrome ~9.89%" }-

All I see is good things, the latest browsers including IE8 are rising whilst older browsers are falling. Chrome may not be 10%, but it virtually is. Good news for the Chrome team, it's popularity is gaining faster than Firefox.

IE9 beta appears to be the most popular beta software browser. This is really good news for developers that are hoping to push as many people as possible to upgrade their old version of IE7/8 to IE9 on launch.

[JRViejo]

-{ Quote: "For the first time ever, Google's Chrome browser busted through the 10 percent global market share threshold in January, according to market research firm Net Applications (http://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=1&qpcustom=Chrome&sample=48)." }-
Google Chrome Cracks 10 Percent Market Share (http://www.maximumpc.com/article/news/google_chrome_cracks_10_percent_market_share) by Paul Lilly.

[Osaban]

-{ Quote: "Google Chrome Cracks 10 Percent Market Share (http://www.maximumpc.com/article/news/google_chrome_cracks_10_percent_market_share) by Paul Lilly." }-

Well, considering that yesterday and today is the Chinese lunar new year change over, Google managed to reach its goal by the end of 2010!

-{ Quote: "Google announced it is seeking a 10% market share by the end of 2010. Do you think they will make their goal? Currently Chrome carries a 3% market share and hope for a 5% share by one year from now." }-Sept.17 2009

[JRViejo]

-{ Quote: "Well, considering that yesterday and today is the Chinese lunar new year change over, Google managed to reach its goal by the end of 2010!" }-
Osaban, nice try. ;) Maybe the thread title should have been: Will Google Chrome have 10% market share by end of 4707? ;D

[Noob]

Hahaha, there are so many statistics from different sources.
If i remember correctly, before 2011 there was one that showed Chrome with a hair bit more than 10% ::)

[vasa1]

Revisiting this thread ... (before it's locked)

Looks like Chrome (and Safari) are going places (http://www.betanews.com/joewilcox/article/Where-is-Internet-Explorer-9-Have-you-seen-it/1304382355) to the detriment of others (Fx and IE).

The link seems to show that Google's much maligned update system "works". If I understand correctly, there are more Fx 3.x users on Win7 than Fx 4.x. That does intrigue! I wonder if Mozilla underestimates the importance of speeding up add-on compatibility (although there are those who claim that add-on users are a minority) and the visual shock of a newish interface.

[Spooony]

What marketshare? Its free