| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Netscape getting squeezed out by IE | |
|
||
| Time: 13:01 EST/18:01 GMT | News Source: News.com | Posted By: Byron Hinson | ||
|
Despite new technology, Netscape continues to lose ground to Internet Explorer, which now has well over 90 percent of the market. A twice-yearly study from StatMarket, a division of WebSideStory, showed that despite recent technological advances, AOL Time Warner's Netscape browsers, which use technology from the open-source Mozilla project, have ceded more ground to Microsoft's Internet Explorer. According to the study, Netscape browsers are losing market share at a steady clip, falling to a new low of 3.4 percent as of this week. A year ago, Netscape Communications' market share stood at 13 percent, but fell steeply to 7 percent by March as IE 6 gained popularity. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 316 Last | Next |
The time now is
4:57:41 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 8/28/2002 1:07:34 PM |
|
Well considering the Netscape zealots still running 4.x won't upgrade to 6.x... is it any wonder?
They've got some serious perception issues, and AOL is doing nothing to solve these. They whine about Microsoft, and then release updates to 4.x and promote that instead. |
| #2 By 6859 (204.71.100.215) at 8/28/2002 4:35:11 PM |
| Netscape 7.0 PR1 is (and has been) available... |
| #3 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 8/28/2002 5:08:57 PM |
|
With 3.4% market share of all Netscape versions, somebody remind me why we don't relegate them to negligable and stop wasting development time supporting them (or pretending to support them).
#3 It's quite true that NS7 PR1 is out. A new release of 4.x has also recently been posted. Where is the logic in that? |
| #4 By 3653 (63.162.177.140) at 8/28/2002 5:26:02 PM |
|
Another testiment to the inherent problems with open source. It just don't work.
----- Somebody put a fork in it... its done. ----- do ray me fa so la tee doh - says the fat lady |
| #5 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 8/28/2002 8:29:02 PM |
|
Something as simple as parsing XML shouldn't be too dificult for even the weakest of machines. Since HTML is just one of many XML applications (ok, you might argue that it is SGML, but anyway....), there is no need for a big and beefy machine. Netscape 4.x should not be continued. It was a flawed product from the beginning and continuing it is a detriment to the web community. If Netscape 6.x is too memory or processor intensive for an older machine, it should be rewritten. Releasing a new Netscape 4.x browser makes as much sense as Microsoft releasing Windows 95 d (please no jokes about Windows XP being just that).
I don't take issue with choice. I take issue with foolish dreams. It is a foolish dream and desire to double a development budget to support 3.4% of the market. That is just bad business. |
| #6 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 8/28/2002 8:30:21 PM |
|
bob670 - Great, I think you should use Netscape!
Now quit yer whining. Other people choose products based on the quality and features, not on religious zealotry. If and when Netscape creates a good decent browser than maybe people will use it. But then again, they may not if AOL never advertises it. But either way, it's not Microsoft's fault. |
| #7 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 8/28/2002 11:17:41 PM |
|
"if MS would comply with standards that wouldn't be a need for extra budget. " You justified the release of another NS 4.x browser and yet have the gall to say that Microsoft isn't compying with standards. If I'm not mistaken neither Mozilla, NS 6.x or IE 6 fully supports HTML 4.01, CSS1, CSS2, or XSLT 1.0. What standards are important and which are not? Besides, if Mozilla and Netscape implemented the IE standard, then every site which is coded for IE would work in the other browsers as well.
hellyon, "Those who coded with browser-agnostic standards in mind." equates to lowest common denominator. Quite often to achieve better functioning web sites, authors break with standards because standards don't do what needs to be done. Microsoft may not have fully implemented certain w3c specs, but they have done a fabulous job giving web developers a rich object model and capabilities. |
| #8 By 655 (4.63.34.222) at 8/29/2002 12:02:24 AM |
| The now deceased Windows Magazine noted a couple of years ago that the main reason Netscape was loosing market share was that their browser was buggier that a five year old snickers bar. |
| #9 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 8/29/2002 7:35:20 AM |
|
khyron, thanks!
#14 You have a point with unimplemented standards. There is so much that CSS 2 offers that would be wonderful for the development community. Unfortunately, as far as I know, there isn't a full implementation of it. Aside from unimplemented standards, the first thing that comes to mind as IE specific is behaviors. Among other things, they allow client side web services calls. VML is another. Um, I'm still not sure what you mean by which standards. I was looking for a list - HTML 4.01, SMILE, HTML+TIME, etc. I don't know what standards are included in the ones that exclude the smallest number of users, regardless of browser (including aural, braille and text-only browsers), OS, langauge or disability. " I'm not bringing this up to argue. I'm really interested in what standards you feel are important. There are standards that Mozilla supports that I don't care about in the least. MathML is the first to come to mind. I think more work on CSS 2 or XSLT would be far more useful. #16 It is a perfectly legitimate decision to ignore 3.4% of the market. How many companies write software that only targets the Windows platform? Obviously they feel it isn't worth their development resources to write for other platforms. They feel that Windows (with marketshare far below that of Internet Explorer in the browser market) is a sufficiently large piece of the pie. #17 I've remember at least two IE ban sites. Well one of them hadn't tested and approved the latest version of IE yet. It has since approved it. The other simply wouldn't admit IE users. I can see blocking less that 5% of the market. I do agree that blocking 95% of the market is a bad idea. |
| #10 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 8/29/2002 7:53:29 AM |
|
#18 "if that marketshare was gained by illegally maintaining a monopoly (which has been proven)" Um, it hasn't been proven. It was shown that they have a monopoly. The appeals court gave the plaintiff the option to readdress the browser bundling issue, and they declined. Further, I'd argue that correlation is not causation. The first time I surfed was in August of '98. I was delighted to use an ancient version of IE (I think it was 3.02) on an NT workstation. When I bought a 98 machine with IE 4, one would think I'd have been delighted. As soon as I got myself online I downloaded Netscape 4 and avoided using IE for months. It was with the betas of IE 5 that I converted and dropped Netscape. For me, despite that fact that the software was already on my machine, I still preferred Netscape and used it. I later changed my mind and chose IE. That is the important part, I chose IE. I wasn't forced into it. You can say that I had easier access to IE, but still that isn't forcing.
"The web reached it 'c [sic] current level by maintaining open standards, but not if MS continues." Um, I'm not sure what standards you are referring to. If I'm not mistaken, there is no current Netscape (no, that doesn't include Mozilla) or Internet Explorer browser that fully implements HTML 4.01, CSS 1, or ECMAScript. They have implemented portions of the standards and have added their own extensions. If you mean that the web was built on the open standard of TCP\IP, then I'll agree. If you were referring to markup and formatting standards, then I'll disagree. If your company deals with government mandates to not support Microsoft products, then I'd say you are in a special situation. The marketshare numbers indicate that 96% of the market is using IE. If those numbers are accurate, you won't be loosing much business if you only support IE. This is just like car manufacturers. They only cater to those of us who have drivers licenses. Probably 96% of the population has one and that is enough for the car companies. I haven't seen them go on crusades to help adults get licenses if they don't have them. They probably don't care about the 3% or so who don't have them. I don't think you are a Linux zealot and a Microsoft hater. I think you are a person who has an opinion that differs from mine. I also think you are often wrong (otherwise, I'd have adopted your opinion). I express my opinion, you express yours and we have a discussion. Just because I support Microsoft and prefer their products to their competition, doesn't mean that I agree with all the other people who support Microsoft. On many more than one occasion I have disagreed with daz, sodablue, RMD, etc. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 316 Last | Next |
The time now is
4:57:41 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
