| 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 |
 |
Internet Explorer 7 reaches 100 million installations | |
|
||
| Time: 00:12 EST/05:12 GMT | News Source: Microsoft | Posted By: Kenneth van Surksum | ||
|
Tony Chor, Group Program Manager at Microsoft reports that Internet Explorer 7 has passed 100 millionth installations: I’m pleased to report that on January 8th, we had the 100 millionth IE7 installation. However, even more important than installations is usage. According to WebSideStory (the company we use to measure browser usage), as of this week, over 25% of all visitors to websites in the US were using IE7, making IE7 the second most used browser after IE6. We expect these numbers to continue to rise as we complete our final localized versions, scale up AU distribution, and with the consumer availability of Windows Vista on January 30, 2007. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 322 Last | Next |
The time now is
7:56:11 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 2960 (24.254.95.224) at 1/15/2007 7:54:49 AM |
|
Are they simply counting downloads as installations?
What about removals. TL |
| #2 By 21705 (142.213.176.140) at 1/15/2007 8:24:45 AM |
| I'm not in yet... seems there is no need to rush when I read all around the web. |
| #3 By 21705 (142.213.176.140) at 1/15/2007 8:29:31 AM |
| Also, anyone have any comments about IE7pro? Some comments says Microsoft should have done it that way in the 1st place. |
| #4 By 37 (76.210.78.134) at 1/15/2007 9:16:18 AM |
| Wow...now THAT is a Firefox spanking if I have ever seen it. |
| #5 By 2960 (24.254.95.224) at 1/15/2007 11:00:42 AM |
|
Not really. This is useless information...
Just like everyone says the # of FireFox downloads is useless information. It swings both ways guys :) TL |
| #6 By 2459 (69.22.113.215) at 1/15/2007 2:27:39 PM |
| Notice the post refers to installations, not downloads. They are likely tracking the number of activations rather than just the number of downloads, which won't be totally reliable, but is a better indicator than downloads. If IE's activation routine includes information that differentiates the system it's installed upon (pretty sure it uses some info from the Windows installation) then, like Windows or Office, it won't increment the number of activations for those that occur on the same system multiple times, but it could fail to catch systems that are close enough in configuration to appear to be the same to the algorithm. |
| #7 By 37 (68.190.114.234) at 1/15/2007 4:43:53 PM |
| TL always the antagonist ;) Like I care how many either one has installed. But you proved my point. It only took you an hour and 45 minutes before you can in on opensource damage control ;) |
| #8 By 12071 (203.185.215.144) at 1/15/2007 5:38:54 PM |
|
#4 Sure is... and it only took for IE7 to be listed on Windows Update as a high-priority update so that all those millions of Windows users would automatically have it downloaded for them.
I'd imagine that a company like Opera or Mozilla would LOVE to be able to rate their product as a high-priority update... what a distribution channel! Must be great to own it all and be able to [ab]use it as much as you like! I sometimes wonder why other companies have issues with this. |
| #9 By 32132 (64.180.219.241) at 1/15/2007 8:13:26 PM |
|
#8 Automatic download. Not automatic install.
Firefox did automatically update (download and install) the many 1.x versions (for the 60+ security fixes they came out with in 2006). |
| #10 By 11888 (65.94.112.15) at 1/15/2007 10:08:22 PM |
| I've probably downloaded and installed IE7 about 5 times now in different virtual machines that get blown away. |
| #11 By 32132 (64.180.219.241) at 1/15/2007 10:58:57 PM |
| #10 Do you think that has much effect on the WebSideStory stats? |
| #12 By 12071 (124.168.196.214) at 1/16/2007 4:30:27 AM |
|
#9 Hmm, so which is...
- Do you have difficulty understanding the difference between updating from a 1.x to a 1.y vs. a 6.0 to 7.0 where the main purpose of that update as you pointed out is to ensure that users have the latest patched version? or - Do you have difficulty understanding the difference in the target market (i.e. single browser vs. a facility made for every single user of Windows regardless of which browser they are running - why is someone running Opera getting IE7 as a high-priority update?) This isn't news... the only way it could potentially be news is if everyone BLOCKED the IE7 high priority update! What's next... is Microsoft going to make all their applications that are losing market share automatic high-priority updates that pops up with a helpful message to all the users telling them they have new updates ready to be installed - how helpful! |
| #13 By 12071 (124.168.196.214) at 1/16/2007 4:32:22 AM |
| #11 It sure seemed to matter when you (and the rest of the fan boys - where it lketchum? - i miss him telling other people what information they can and cannot spread!) were announcing how many times you had downloaded Firefox. Why wouldn't this be the exact same thing? Hypocrite! |
| #14 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 1/16/2007 8:01:55 AM |
|
Man... I get a cup of coffee and get dinged when I'm not even in the thread.
I am glad Chris brings up freedom of information and choice. We really need to explore this, but not from the perspective one might think and yes, Fire Fox does have a role, and it's a sad one. "Fire Fox the innocent" "Fire Fox the champion of free and open source software" Not hardly - back to the sad part and the only real argument left in the browser wars - if there ever were any. One cannot mention Fire Fox without mentioning Google - you know, that non-commercial company that isn't operating a network parallel to the free and open Internet? <sarcasm, for the guys that would argue that one, because they had crappy schools> Fire Fox is a tool. <not in the sense of the word "fool" but one could have used it that way for style points, but not here - this subject is deadly serious>. Without Google, there'd be no Fire Fox as we know it and forget right now, any possible valid discussion regarding the merits of one browser over another. Both Fire Fox and IE 7 are powerful browsers. Both are just fine as they are. Forget that discussion and look over your shoulder - in the rear view mirror - ney, look all around you - that would be more accurate - and what you will see should scare the water right out of your Wiii. Google. Pervasive, persistent and proprietary. If you want to really get into an issue that does threaten the freedon of information let me know and we'll start to explore this and why I think that Google is a problem for all of us and how it has perverted what Fire Fox might have been. This post was edited by lketchum on Tuesday, January 16, 2007 at 08:03. |
| #15 By 13030 (198.22.121.110) at 1/16/2007 9:37:32 AM |
|
Nothing like posting before the caffeine has kicked in...
#14: Fire Fox does have a role, and it's a sad one. Actually, Firefox serves another role--it distinguishes the technically savvy from the not very much so. As I've said previously, I do not personally know a single technophile who chooses to use IE over Firefox. I know there's a few out there though and they're certainly thick (not in the "foolish" sense) around here. #14: Fire Fox is a tool. All browsers are software tools to an extent. And just as a sophisticated software developer chooses SlickEdit over Notepad (or even Visual Studio's IDE), a sophisticated web user chooses Firefox over IE. In my opinion, the only techies out there choosing to use IE are MSFT employees, MSFT partners, and other MSFT tools (other definition). Granted, the averaga user just uses whatever is stuck in front of them. #14: Without Google, there'd be no Fire Fox as we know it... Without Firefox, there would be no IE 7. |
| #16 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 1/16/2007 9:46:20 AM |
|
#15, FF is a tool used by Google - that is what I meant. Please re-read my post.
The issue I think we need to discuss isn't FF over IE 7, or IE 7 over FF. |
| #17 By 2332 (66.92.78.241) at 1/16/2007 9:58:51 AM |
|
#15 - "As I've said previously, I do not personally know a single technophile who chooses to use IE over Firefox."
Well, you know one now. I use IE 7 on Vista because it is, by far, the safest browsing experience available. Protected Mode IE is an *innovation* that Microsoft deserves credit for. If you're using Vista and you're not using IE 7, you're exposing yourself to a great deal of risk... if not now, then in the near future. I've written a fairly long blog post about why I think IE 7 on Vista will make Firefox less safe. Read it here: http://www.robertdowney.com/2006/10/how-ie7-on-vista-will-make-firefox.html #15 - "In my opinion, the only techies out there choosing to use IE are MSFT employees, MSFT partners, and other MSFT tools (other definition)." That's not an opinion, it's a statement of fact... and one that is false. While I *might* agree with you if you restrict that to XP or previous versions of Windows, in the world of Vista it is a completely silly statement. #15 - "Without Firefox, there would be no IE 7." I doubt that. There might not be tabbed browsing and some of the other features that Firefox made popular, but there certainly would be an IE 7. Let me stress that I like Firefox. I'm using it right now (at work, where I'm still using XP). But Vista and IE 7 changes the game. Firefox just lost its primary advantage: security through obscurity. Firefox has been the browser of choice for "techies" partly because of features (although those features are all available for IE via plugins), but mostly because of security. I installed it on all my relatives machines because I didn't want them using IE. It was simply too dangerous. As IE 7 on Vista proves to be virtually impervious to attack you'll see the non-zealot techies out there moving back to IE 7. This post was edited by RMD on Tuesday, January 16, 2007 at 09:59. |
| #18 By 13030 (198.22.121.110) at 1/16/2007 10:11:47 AM |
|
#16, I re-read it and I stand behind my last post. However, I will chime in on the privacy aspect.
#14: Google. Pervasive, persistent and proprietary. If you want to really get into an issue that does threaten the freedon of information let me know and we'll start to explore this and why I think that Google is a problem for all of us... Agreed. The control of information (as I've said here before) is the most powerful weapon, not tool or asset, but weapon, an organization can possess. While I admire Google's search capabilities (especially prior to advertising influences), their desire to mine data about me prevents me from using their g-mail or check-out applications. These are the same reasons why I oppose MSFT's passport. I wonder how many people grasp the implication of using search engines and having the searches tied back to their IP? The loss of privacy as all of your purchases are tied together for analysis? How many people realize that the collection and correlation of data about them and their behaviors is the real threat to privacy? |
| #19 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 1/16/2007 10:18:11 AM |
|
#15, I think software developers use all browsers on a continuous basis - building applications that work well in each. I think seasoned developers don't argue about the browsers - though all of them frustrate developers at least some of the time.
This is a totally separate issue from the browser one chooses to use to view web pages - where many liked FF or super-sets for IE 6 until IE 7 came along - especially in Vista. After IE 7, many people who used browsers other than IE went back to IE in version 7. I say this based upon what I see in our own logs and analysis of the behaviors evidenced amongst a better known grouping - our own customers. The term "technically literate" when used in association with one's use of Fire Fox, is unfortunate - it classes people inappropriately and probably inaccurately, as well. I for one do not consider myself to be technically literate. Despite having worked with and having developed information technologies for nearly four decades, I still have to devote many hours each day to study and labs, just to try and keep up with the basics. I have seen this to be true of even our best people and they too, have to hustle to keep up with such a capable industry. I don't agree that the use of one browser over another is any indication of technical literacy. In the context of viewing web pages it reflects a preference at most and opposite developers it is irrelevant as nearly all browsers will be used and their influences incorporated. |
| #20 By 32132 (64.180.219.241) at 1/16/2007 10:53:22 AM |
|
#12 Microsoft made IE6 to IE7 upgrade an optional install distributed via AU. That way most people will get a chance to upgrade relatively painlessly, but still will have the option to decline.
Firefox made IE 1.x to 2.x a BLACKMAILERS non-optional upgrade by announcing End of Life for Firefox 1.x for April 2007. The Firefox team are scum for EOLing Firefox 1.x in 6 months. Microsoft did it the right way, but you hypocrites prefer the BLACKMAIL method exercised by Mozilla. |
| #21 By 2960 (24.254.95.224) at 1/16/2007 2:33:11 PM |
|
#7,
I am not an open-source fan. The only program anywhere near my systems that is OS is FireFox. I was simply making a point. If number of downloads for FireFox have never counted for anything in the past, then they can't count for IE either for the same reasons. And I used mainly IE until IE 7 came out. IE7 is a wretched application. TL |
| #22 By 32132 (64.180.219.241) at 1/16/2007 3:27:56 PM |
|
#21 Downloads are not the same as installations.
Besides, Firefox is overrepresented in weblogs because of prefetching. |
| #23 By 13030 (198.22.121.110) at 1/16/2007 3:47:06 PM |
|
#17: Well, you know one now.
Still, not personally. (I don't buy in to the whole virtual relationship baloney.) Firefox has been the browser of choice for "techies"... You and lketchum seem to differ on this point. #19: I think seasoned developers don't argue about the browsers - though all of them frustrate developers at least some of the time. Actually, I think seasoned developers--being argumentative, nerdy-types by nature--spend too much time arguing about browsers (and many other things no one else cares about). The very inconsistency in rendering alone provides and unending catalyst to bring out the soapbox or haul out the dead horse and beat it some more. IE, however, was particularly good in the past when it came to frustrating developers... I for one do not consider myself to be technically literate. Paper-thin humility. I still have to devote many hours each day to study and labs, just to try and keep up with the basics. This industry is evolving and expanding too fast to be an all-encompassing guru. Specialization is the only viable option. #20: The Firefox team are scum for EOLing Firefox 1.x in 6 months. Why do you care? You don't use Firefox. You would never allow anyone around you in a work capacity to use it. So, why would you care? I care about IE because a portion of my work either requires it to function (e.g. legacy SAP DCOM junk) or requires it for testing (e.g. rendering). |
| #24 By 32132 (64.180.219.241) at 1/16/2007 6:36:09 PM |
|
#23 "Why do you care? You don't use Firefox. You would never allow anyone around you in a work capacity to use it. So, why would you care? "
I feel pity for those who were conned into thinking that Firefox actually cared abouts its users. |
| #25 By 37047 (216.191.227.68) at 1/17/2007 11:38:30 AM |
|
According to the InformationWeek article at
http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=196901142 While Microsoft had the WebSideStory numbers correct, it didn't tell the whole story, says Geoff Johnston, an analyst with the Web metrics company. "[The growth of IE 7] seems to be exclusively at the expense of IE 6," says Johnston. "It's not eating into the Firefox share at all." Firefox's share of the U.S. browser market, says Johnston, is at 14%, and has continued to grow each of the last three months. "I thought that IE 7 might flatten Firefox's growth, but it's not taken a hit from IE 7. All the movement there has been internal, from IE 6 users upgrading," he says. Another Web metrics vendor, Net Applications, confirmed the switch to IE 7 in its most recent data, and also noted the continued slide of IE overall. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 322 Last | Next |
The time now is
7:56:11 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
