IE9 reaches 22%, Chrome overtakes Firefox on win7

Discussion in 'other software & services' started by funkydude, Oct 1, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. funkydude

    funkydude Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Posts:
    6,855
    4762_image_thumb_0AABA314.png

    5556_image_thumb_7F628ED6.png

    http://windowsteamblog.com/ie/b/ie/...9-on-windows-7-passes-30-share-in-the-us.aspx
     
  2. fsr

    fsr Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2010
    Posts:
    190
    It would be interesting to see results regionaly but i am not surprised w Chrome taking 2nd place - you really need specific reason to use firefox these days. Not only that, one thing that bothers me with Firefox is development adding or removing features abruptly, like all the changes they did on url bar, that crippled it, not to mention systematic broken addons, no process isolation, etc. But I have faith current Firefox current development cycle, in my JS benchs I am getting better performance than Chromium 16.x and FF milestones sure look promising :thumb:
     
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2011
  3. The Seeker

    The Seeker Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2005
    Posts:
    1,100
    Location:
    Adelaide
    Not surprising really; Chrome really is a fantastic, secure browser. And with its app store growing by the day, the reasons for sticking with Firefox are becoming less and less.
     
  4. dw426

    dw426 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2007
    Posts:
    5,543
    I'm not really attacking you, but, once again, something is used against Firefox that Chrome itself does. Folks hated the switch to rapid release, but nobody minds Chrome doing that. The Firefox UI gets switched around a lot, people hate that, yet no one says a word about Chrome doing the same thing just about every release.

    Firefox needs to stop being Chrome, that's what is really wrong. The best way to beat your competition is by being better than it, not copying everything you possibly can off of it. On the flip side of that, I personally don't think Chrome would have reached the popularity it has now without extensions.

    I support both browsers, but I get a little tired of Chrome being used so much as a lab project, and a little tired of seeing Firefox being changed into a less secure Chrome clone. That basically leaves IE, which, for all the other progress it has made in security, for some odd reason still insists on Active X, and for a problem plagued plugin like Flash to boot. And it leaves Opera, who, honestly, I'm not even certain they know what they should be doing, let alone their users.
     
  5. Kerodo

    Kerodo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Posts:
    7,786
    That really was/is their biggest mistake recently.... They were fine till they started doing that. Kinda sad to see it happen. However, I do use by FF and Chrome myself, about equally nowadays.
     
  6. dw426

    dw426 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2007
    Posts:
    5,543
    None of the offerings are innocent of it, really. Even IE got into it a bit by taking the "less is more" route.
     
  7. Kerodo

    Kerodo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Posts:
    7,786
    Yep, too true. Everyone sorta jumped in on the Chrome bandwagon...
     
  8. funkydude

    funkydude Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Posts:
    6,855
    I'll try not spin this into yet another ActiveX debate but... what? ActiveX has changed over the years (default security settings increased), you do realize it is currently no worse than Firefox's NPAPI right?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPAPI

    edit: Anyway when the "pluginless browser" time arrives you can worry less.
     
  9. dw426

    dw426 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2007
    Posts:
    5,543
    My intention wasn't to start up an Active X argument either. I admittedly have not kept up with all of these kinds of changes (mostly because my non-techie brain doesn't get it :D ). I just know how Active X has been a source of problems in the past. I remember all the horror stories, I wasn't aware things had changed drastically.
     
  10. fsr

    fsr Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2010
    Posts:
    190
    First i'd like to say I'm not a native english speaker so sorry in advance for any typo, etc. Not sure you know what problem I'm specifically refering to since this wasn't much publicized but it has to do with running JS from urlbar. I have always considered Firefox urlbar much more powerful and fully featured than Chrome. Yet, after all these years, Mozilla decided that 'average joe' has no use it, so it doens't need it hence they no longer support it - that's ridiculous! I have a huge collection of bookmarklets that nowadays is just to cumbersome to run! Plz fix this back Mozilla!
    I'm just speaking of my own private and ego-centric interests, not really sure what problems enterprises face nowadays, but I imagine it's a big deal
    Chrome UI is quite stable, I haven't experienced the trouble you refer to except for some startup switches. But are you comparing Firefox stable release with Chrome Dev?
     
  11. Daveski17

    Daveski17 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2008
    Posts:
    8,029
    Location:
    Lloegyr

    I reckon this would make a great bumper sticker! Hopefully the guys at Mozilla will notice it then. ;)
     
  12. dw426

    dw426 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2007
    Posts:
    5,543
    Your English is fine :) I wasn't aware of that specific URL bar issue, no. I have, however, noticed many complaints about the UI in general and the tweaking going on. That's why I mentioned Chrome not receiving the same complaints, although they too did these same things. Enterprises are going to have trouble no matter what any vendor does, simply because they refuse to switch to applications that don't require a certain browser or any other very specific, non-negotiable requirement. Their bottom line often comes before security these days as well, which, while sometimes understandable, just can't happen these days.

    As far as Chrome, I've always taken issue with it being treated like it was still in Google Labs. It is always being experimented on, little UI tweaks are being made here and there with almost every release. In my own opinion, Google is just unnecessarily messing with it, though, we're talking about a company with the attention span of a small child, so I guess it's expected :D
     
  13. dw426

    dw426 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2007
    Posts:
    5,543
    Doubtful. Mozilla seems to have decided on the road it will take.
     
  14. Hungry Man

    Hungry Man Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Posts:
    9,148
    Enterprises have trouble with constant updates because it's impossible to administrate. You start having half your staff on one update and half the staff ont he other and that's just if you're lucky. More like 1/3rd on 3.x, 1/3rd on 5, and 1/3rd on 6.

    It would be one thing if they forced updates but they don't. As a system admin that's a huge pain to deal with.
     
  15. siberianwolf

    siberianwolf Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2009
    Posts:
    516
    that's a fact. :thumb:
     
  16. Daveski17

    Daveski17 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2008
    Posts:
    8,029
    Location:
    Lloegyr
    Yeah, this road & it's driving me crazy. o_O
     
  17. Hungry Man

    Hungry Man Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Posts:
    9,148
    Slightly OT but the pepflash in Chrome is PPAPI and more secure than NPAPI, right?
     
  18. dw426

    dw426 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2007
    Posts:
    5,543
    Per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPAPI#PPAPI, Chromium (I assume Chrome as well) can use PPAPI.

    Edit: This option is supposedly in about:flags
     
  19. Hungry Man

    Hungry Man Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Posts:
    9,148
    These are the default settings. It seems that the top one is both a higher version and it's "papflashplayer.dll" instead of "gcswf32.dll"
     

    Attached Files:

  20. funkydude

    funkydude Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Posts:
    6,855
    Not really. The goal of PPAPI as stated by Wikipedia is "This extension is designed specifically to ease the implementation of out-of-process plugin execution".

    Basically you can make it more secure by isolating the separate process, but the main intention of PPAPI is running plugins in separate processes.
     
  21. Hungry Man

    Hungry Man Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Posts:
    9,148
    I see. But in Chrome's case this does come with security benefits.

    I think the difference between the two (in above picture) is just version.
     
  22. funkydude

    funkydude Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Posts:
    6,855
    ppapi.png

    Sounds more like they are doing it for crash protection than anything else, unless the flash process is placed into that specific process's sandbox.
     
  23. Hungry Man

    Hungry Man Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Posts:
    9,148
    I saw that about:flags. I don't really "get" it. Why would you want to run it in the renderer process? I guess if there are crashes or something.

    But it should still be more secure if it's sandboxed by itself rather than in the renderer... I would think.
     
  24. funkydude

    funkydude Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Posts:
    6,855
    If you had multiple instances of flash open, they could in theory access each other if they are all in 1 plugin process. Though I have no idea why that would matter if the process itself is sandboxed, which brings me back to crash protection.
     
  25. Hungry Man

    Hungry Man Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Posts:
    9,148
    I guess I'm unclear as to what the "renderer process" entails.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.