469,366 Members | 2,315 Online
Bytes | Developer Community
New Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Post your question to a community of 469,366 developers. It's quick & easy.

What browsers are using to test?

Hello,

Just wondered what range of browsers, versions and OSs people are using
to test pages. Also, since I don't have access to a Mac, will I have
problems not being able to test on any Mac browsers, or is there some
other way of checking?

TIA

--
Alan Silver
(anything added below this line is nothing to do with me)
Feb 20 '06
152 5295
IEDesigner wrote :
"Gérard Talbot" <ne***********@gtalbot.org> wrote in message
news:46************@uni-berlin.de...

<snip>
Internet Explorer 95.3, Mozilla 0.4 (Published: June 24, 2002)
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-938784.html
<snip>
"Internet Exploder will harm your machine
Wednesday 30 June 2004, 13:54
THE US GOVERNMENT has sent out a warning out to internet users through
its Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT), pleading users to stop
using Microsoft's Internet Explorer."
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=16922
and you can read it all and all by yourself here:
http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/713878

Why You Should Dump Internet Explorer

http://channels.lockergnome.com/news...explorer.phtml
was written by Daniel Miessle who claims
"I'm actually an MCSE and I happen to like quite a few of Microsoft's
products. Rather than lump me into the Microsoft-basher category,
consider for a moment why you use the browser you use"

Firefox usage, as measured by 5 webstats corporations around the world,
has been steadily increasing since its 1.0 release in november 2004:
http://ff.asbjorn.it/#h6

Browser Statistics at w3schools
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp


<snip>
When IE 7 is released, what do you expect current Windows 98, Windows
ME, Windows 2000 users to do? They won't be able to install IE 7. So, if
they want to upgrade their browser to the same level of features
(privacy, security, speed, W3C web standards compliance/correctness,
browser extensions, etc.) of IE 7, then they'll have a choice with Opera
9.x, Firefox 1.x, Seamonkey 1.x, etc.
in the world at large it's 90% IMO and in the opinion of everyone I
talk to. I don't know what you call astute users but I assume you me people who don't use IE. I have no data to support or refute that assumption but I see no correlation between spending and browser preference and I don't
require my visitors to be astute. People visit sites because of content not because of browser preference.

Absolutely. We agree on this. If you visit my website, you'll see that I
honor MSIE 6 as well as I honor any HTML 4.01/CSS2.1/DOM2
compliant/CSS1-box-model compliant browsers. But then, I'm not
responsible for browsers which lack proper PNG support, good DOM 2
support, HTML 4.01 support, complete CSS 2.1 support, correct CSS1 box
model, etc..

Gérard


My name is not Nostradamus


I don't run the Computer Emergency Readiness Team. I did not write
http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/713878

so I have no idea how much such and such OS will cost. Pose real questions and I might answer them. If my name were
Nostradamus
I don't own secunia.org. I don't run secunia.org.

I would predict that if any other browser even comes close equaling IE market share it will have just as many attacks launched on it.
Apache servers are more popular than Windows servers and they have less
known security vulnerabilities, weaknesses, flaws.

In the last 3 years, it has been measured by secunia.org that IE has had
more flaws, also more severe ones, which takes much more time to be
fixed than Firefox flaws and Opera flaws. Again, this is not an
interpretation or an opinion: it's widely admitted as a reliable trend.
Even S. Ballmer admitted publicly that Microsoft response to security
flaws was lagging, not up to par.
The stats you reference reflect the preference of visitors who are
interested in browsers other than IE.


I don't own any of these 5 webstats companies; the stats they report
have nothing to do with preferences of non-IE users.

Gérard
--
remove blah to email me
Feb 27 '06 #101
In article <12*************@corp.supernews.com>, IEDesigner
<IE********@notevenemail.com> wrote:
To be clear, I have only ever said that IE is the most
widely used browser.


To be clear, you have been quite vocal in saying that IE is the only
browser woth coding for, which is an entirely different matter.

--
Jim Royal
"Understanding is a three-edged sword"
http://JimRoyal.com
http://DigitalWind.com
Feb 27 '06 #102
In article <11*************@corp.supernews.com>,
IEDesigner <IE********@notevenemail.com> wrote:
If you read properly you can see that I said I hadn't met anyone who pays
for their connection by the byte or by the minute and I invited the poster
to say if he knows any who do. I did not say there aren't any.


I know plenty of people who do. Many of them are overseas from the
U.S.

I also know plenty of business travelers (including me) who must
occasionally pay by the minute (or at least by the hour, but even
at that rate each minute counts). Ever tried to get online in an
airport, using the airport's wireless service?

-A
Feb 28 '06 #103
In article <7N********************@iswest.net>,
David E. Ross <no****@nowhere.not> wrote:
If the page is designed for all browsers, looks okay with one browser,
complies with the W3C HTML specification, and meets the WAI Web Content
Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 (Level A), I then assume it will indeed
look okay with other browsers on other platforms.


Bad assumption. Here's one example:

In my experience, a CSS-style simple unordered list using graphical
bullets such that the bullets are left-justified properly will look
'okay' on Opera and IE but still be deeply indented in Netscape and
Firefox, which definitely isn't 'okay' if the list must occupy a
fairly narrow horizontal space. Some browsers designed to display
bullets inside a bounding box, and some display them on the outside.

-A
Feb 28 '06 #104
In article <11*************@corp.supernews.com>,
IEDesigner <IE********@notevenemail.com> wrote:
I use IE6 on WIN, the same browser that 90% of the public uses. Don't
believe me? Look at these stats pulled from several million users:
Clueless. The User-agent header isn't a good indicator. Opera, for
example, identifies itself as IE by default. I have proxomitron set up
to identify my browser as IE regardless of what browser I actually use.

Also, visits to one site aren't indicative of visits to my site.
IE has a 90% market share and don't believe any misinformation to the
contrary. The internet is full of self appointed pundits who'd dearly love
to convince you that IE is losing ground (they wish).


It is. If you pay attention to stats like you quoted, you have blinders
on.

-A
Feb 28 '06 #105
"axlq" <ax**@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:du**********@blue.rahul.net...
In article <11*************@corp.supernews.com>,
IEDesigner <IE********@notevenemail.com> wrote:
If you read properly you can see that I said I hadn't met anyone who pays
for their connection by the byte or by the minute and I invited the posterto say if he knows any who do. I did not say there aren't any.


I know plenty of people who do. Many of them are overseas from the
U.S.

I also know plenty of business travelers (including me) who must
occasionally pay by the minute (or at least by the hour, but even
at that rate each minute counts). Ever tried to get online in an
airport, using the airport's wireless service?

-A


Point taken. But you could download a new browser when you're home. Some
browsers are also available on disc for free of for a nominal sum.
IEDesigner
Feb 28 '06 #106
"Gérard Talbot" <ne***********@gtalbot.org> wrote in message
news:46************@uni-berlin.de...
IEDesigner wrote :
I didn't find anything on the MS site about using IE7
on WIN OS's prior to XP. In any event I did not specify IE7.


I am saying that IE7 will NOT be available for Windows 98, Windows ME
and Windows 2000 users. Those users will have to upgrade their browsers
with something else than IE7.

Gérard


Whatever. You specified IE7 as a target not I. How about a link to an MS
page that says IE7 will only work with XP.
IEDesigner
Feb 28 '06 #107
"Jim Royal" <ji******@canada.com> wrote in message
news:270220061825109248%ji******@canada.com...
In article <12*************@corp.supernews.com>, IEDesigner
<IE********@notevenemail.com> wrote:
To be clear, I have only ever said that IE is the most
widely used browser.


To be clear, you have been quite vocal in saying that IE is the only
browser woth coding for, which is an entirely different matter.

--
Jim Royal


Unless memory fails I have not said those words in this thread.
IEDesigner
Feb 28 '06 #108
"Gérard Talbot" <ne***********@gtalbot.org> wrote in message
news:46************@uni-berlin.de...
IEDesigner wrote : I don't run the Computer Emergency Readiness Team. I did not write
http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/713878
<snip>
I don't own secunia.org. I don't run secunia.org.
I would predict that if any other browser even comes close
equaling IE market share it will have just as many attacks launched on
it.
Apache servers are more popular than Windows servers and they have less
known security vulnerabilities, weaknesses, flaws.

In the last 3 years, it has been measured by secunia.org that IE has had
more flaws, also more severe ones, which takes much more time to be
fixed than Firefox flaws and Opera flaws. Again, this is not an
interpretation or an opinion: it's widely admitted as a reliable trend.
Even S. Ballmer admitted publicly that Microsoft response to security
flaws was lagging, not up to par.
The stats you reference reflect the preference of visitors who are
interested in browsers other than IE.


I don't own any of these 5 webstats companies; the stats they report
have nothing to do with preferences of non-IE users.
Gérard

Pay attention. A browser is not a server. I did not say you owned those
sites. I spoke of stats and I postulated about vulnerabilities of any
browser that might reach the market share that IE currently has. I still
believe the stats you reference reflect the preference of visitors who are
interested in browsers other than IE (and you have not show evidence to the
contrary) .
IEDesigner
Feb 28 '06 #109
"axlq" <ax**@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:du**********@blue.rahul.net...
In article <11*************@corp.supernews.com>,
IEDesigner <IE********@notevenemail.com> wrote:
I use IE6 on WIN, the same browser that 90% of the public uses. Don't
believe me? Look at these stats pulled from several million users:
<snip>
Also, visits to one site aren't indicative of visits to my site.
IE has a 90% market share and don't believe any misinformation to the
contrary. The internet is full of self appointed pundits who'd dearly
loveto convince you that IE is losing ground (they wish).


<snip>
-A


All PC's with WIN have IE preinstalled. That's more than enough users to
support these stats:
https://dongtaiwang.com/dm/uggc/jjj....gre.pbz/fgngf/
But If you get more than 300,000,000 visitors a month to your site then I'll
discard these stats and switch to yours.
IEDesigner
Feb 28 '06 #110
"Gérard Talbot" <ne***********@gtalbot.org> wrote in message
news:46************@uni-berlin.de...
IEDesigner wrote :


<snip>
The future can be described in one word "maybe". You have your
interpretation of the future and I have mine.
IEDesigner


I did not interpret the quotes from D. Massy and C. Wilson.

The past behavior of all subsequent browser releases from major and
minor browser manufacturers in the last 8 years regarding web standards
support and web standards compliance/conformance/correctness is not an
interpretation: it's something anyone/everyone can verify and measure
reliably.
Your opinion and conclusion go against such undeniable trend.

Gérard


Pay attention. I did not say that you made an interpretation. I said nothing
about standards. I went against nothing except your incorrect conclusions
about other browsers versus IE's market share.
IEDesigner
Feb 28 '06 #111
IEDesigner wrote:
"Gérard Talbot" <ne***********@gtalbot.org> wrote in message
news:46************@uni-berlin.de...
IEDesigner wrote :

I didn't find anything on the MS site about using IE7
on WIN OS's prior to XP. In any event I did not specify IE7.


I am saying that IE7 will NOT be available for Windows 98, Windows ME
and Windows 2000 users. Those users will have to upgrade their browsers
with something else than IE7.

Gérard

Whatever. You specified IE7 as a target not I. How about a link to an MS
page that says IE7 will only work with XP.
IEDesigner

IEDesigner,

How about http://www.microsoft.com/windows/IE/...redirect.mspx?
Read the fine print toward the bottom of the page.

Chris Beall

Feb 28 '06 #112
IEDesigner wrote:
"Alan Silver" <al*********@nospam.thanx.invalid> wrote in message
news:9Y**************@nospamthankyou.spam...
Hello,

Just wondered what range of browsers, versions and OSs people are using
to test pages. Also, since I don't have access to a Mac, will I have
problems not being able to test on any Mac browsers, or is there some
other way of checking?

TIA

--
Alan Silver
(anything added below this line is nothing to do with me)

I use IE6 on WIN, the same browser that 90% of the public uses. Don't
believe me? Look at these stats pulled from several million users:
https://dongtaiwang.com/dm/uggc/jjj....gre.pbz/fgngf/

IE has a 90% market share and don't believe any misinformation to the
contrary. The internet is full of self appointed pundits who'd dearly love
to convince you that IE is losing ground (they wish).


IEDesigner,

I agree with your general assessment. The numbers may not be precise,
but the vast majority use IE.
Why waste time testing for the 10% that don't use IE? If they visit a site
that doesn't work for them they know it's because they're using an obscure
browser. If they're using a PC it came with IE preconfigured and can't be
uninstalled so they can always fall back to it if need be.
Because 10% is 10%. or 15% or whatever. By testing on the most popular
of the fringe browsers (which I would say includes Firefox, Opera,
(Safari if you can), and a text browser) you go from 85-90% coverage to
nearly 100%. It doesn't take long to do that, so why wouldn't you?

The reason I test with IE last is that I think the other browsers
provide a better development environment. Since I use them for
development, I test with them first, then make minimal accommodations
for IE. Sometimes the IE rendering is less than ideal. As long as the
content is usable, I don't worry about it if I'm working for myself. If
a paying client wants to spend money on making IE look better, that's OK
too.
This question has come up here many times before and it's only important to
readers of this and a few other NG's. To the world at large it doesn't mean
diddly.
I agree. But the question is really only of concern to site DEVELOPERS,
not to site USERS. Just because something is of concern only to
developers doesn't mean it has no value. And the world at large may
well take note if a site doesn't work at least minimally in their
browser, whatever it is.

When I buy a stove, I'm not concerned that it will catch fire, but I do
look for the UL sticker that indicates that the designers were concerned
enough to have somebody review their design for safety considerations.
The world uses IE, they don't even know there are other browsers.
I think that's a bit overstated. Firefox seems to be coming up in
casual conversations more and more, even among the folks you list below.
Things change.

Speculation: What will happen when IE 7 comes out and all the users of
Windows 98 (I'm one) realize that:
- IE 6 is obsolete and works less well by the minute.
- They can't get IE 7 without upgrading the OS.
- Upgrading the OS costs a significant percentage of what a whole new
system would be.
- They don't want or need a whole new system.

My guess is they will ask their techno-buddies what to do and will end
up with Firefox or Opera or ????? But nobody really knows.
Still don't believe me? Just ask your neighbors, your mechanic or at the
store where you shop, they'll tell you. They're all using IE.

IEDesigner


Chris Beall

Feb 28 '06 #113
IEDesigner wrote :
"Jim Royal" <ji******@canada.com> wrote in message
news:270220061825109248%ji******@canada.com...
In article <12*************@corp.supernews.com>, IEDesigner
<IE********@notevenemail.com> wrote:
To be clear, I have only ever said that IE is the most
widely used browser.

To be clear, you have been quite vocal in saying that IE is the only
browser woth coding for, which is an entirely different matter.

--
Jim Royal


Unless memory fails I have not said those words in this thread.
IEDesigner

IEDesigner, you did say
"I use IE6 on WIN, the same browser that 90% of the public uses. (...)
IE has a 90% market share and don't believe any misinformation to the
contrary. The internet is full of self appointed pundits who'd dearly
love to convince you that IE is losing ground (they wish).

Why waste time testing for the 10% that don't use IE?"

With an anonymous pseudonym used as a signature like you use, I'd say
you definitely claim IE is the only browser worth coding for.

Gérard
--
remove blah to email me
Feb 28 '06 #114
IEDesigner wrote :
"Gérard Talbot" <ne***********@gtalbot.org> wrote in message
news:46************@uni-berlin.de...
IEDesigner wrote :
<snip>
The future can be described in one word "maybe". You have your
interpretation of the future and I have mine.
IEDesigner

I did not interpret the quotes from D. Massy and C. Wilson.

The past behavior of all subsequent browser releases from major and
minor browser manufacturers in the last 8 years regarding web standards
support and web standards compliance/conformance/correctness is not an
interpretation: it's something anyone/everyone can verify and measure
reliably.
Your opinion and conclusion go against such undeniable trend.

Gérard


Pay attention. I did not say that you made an interpretation. I said nothing
about standards.


You did say
"this notion that standards will somehow make sites future proof is
laughable."
and you added (among several/others)
"I've got a suggestion for devotees to standards. Use plain text (...)"
That was your opinion and your conclusion.
Your opinion goes against a measurable and reliable trend regarding
browser releases in the last 8 years that anyone can verify and measure
reliably. IMO, the best policy when editing a webpage is to write
according to web standards (valid markup code, valid CSS code, strict DTD).

I went against nothing except your incorrect conclusions about other browsers versus IE's market share.
IEDesigner


We disagree on that issue but not by much :) . I think IE5+ is in the
low 80%'s (worldwide); you think IE represents 90% based only on that
unique webstats TheCounter.com. Such difference, hypothetically
speaking, can easily mean/refer to/be explained by user agent string
spoofing in secondary browsers. Icab 2+ can do that, Opera 7+ can do
that (in fact, the default value in Opera 7 was to id as IE6), Safari
can do that, Firefox can do that, lots of browser can do that. The other
way around (IE 6 disguising itself as a marginal browser is rather rare
as it is pointless).

Gérard
--
remove blah to email me
Feb 28 '06 #115
IEDesigner wrote :

[snipped]
I still
believe the stats you reference reflect the preference of visitors who are
interested in browsers other than IE (and you have not show evidence to the
contrary) .
IEDesigner


Onestat.com is a Nederland company and its stats refer to their
customers counters' (worldwide); Websidestory is US market only; XiTi is
European market only; I believe (am not sure) Webhits is European market
only.

All of these stats refer to all browsers, not just non-IE browsers. It
wouldn't make a lot of sense to gather stats only on non-IE browsers.

Gérard
--
remove blah to email me
Feb 28 '06 #116
"Gérard Talbot" <ne***********@gtalbot.org> wrote in message
news:46************@uni-berlin.de...
IEDesigner wrote :
"Jim Royal" <ji******@canada.com> wrote in message
news:270220061825109248%ji******@canada.com...
In article <12*************@corp.supernews.com>, IEDesigner
<IE********@notevenemail.com> wrote:

To be clear, I have only ever said that IE is the most
widely used browser.
To be clear, you have been quite vocal in saying that IE is the only
browser woth coding for, which is an entirely different matter.

--
Jim Royal


Unless memory fails I have not said those words in this thread.
IEDesigner

IEDesigner, you did say
"I use IE6 on WIN, the same browser that 90% of the public uses. (...)
IE has a 90% market share and don't believe any misinformation to the
contrary. The internet is full of self appointed pundits who'd dearly
love to convince you that IE is losing ground (they wish).

Why waste time testing for the 10% that don't use IE?"

With an anonymous pseudonym used as a signature like you use, I'd say
you definitely claim IE is the only browser worth coding for.

Gérard


Well at least you're talking too me and not arguing with yourself as you
have been in your recent posts. The OP asked about testing, hence my
statement. If you wish to test OR code for 10% of the users who don't use IE
that's your prerogative and I have no quarrel with you about that.
IEDesigner
Feb 28 '06 #117
"Chris Beall" <Ch*********@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:vZ*****************@newssvr33.news.prodigy.co m...
IEDesigner wrote:
"Gérard Talbot" <ne***********@gtalbot.org> wrote in message
news:46************@uni-berlin.de...
IEDesigner wrote :
I didn't find anything on the MS site about using IE7
on WIN OS's prior to XP. In any event I did not specify IE7.

I am saying that IE7 will NOT be available for Windows 98, Windows ME
and Windows 2000 users. Those users will have to upgrade their browsers
with something else than IE7.

Gérard

Whatever. You specified IE7 as a target not I. How about a link to an MS
page that says IE7 will only work with XP.
IEDesigner

IEDesigner,

How about http://www.microsoft.com/windows/IE/...redirect.mspx?
Read the fine print toward the bottom of the page.

Chris Beall


Point taken. But it is still in beta and nothing compels MS to stick with
that course. In any event the man in the street is using whatever came on
his machine.
IEDesigner
Feb 28 '06 #118
"Gérard Talbot" <ne***********@gtalbot.org> wrote in message
news:46************@uni-berlin.de...

<snip>
You did say
"this notion that standards will somehow make sites future proof is
laughable."
and you added (among several/others)
"I've got a suggestion for devotees to standards. Use plain text (...)"
That was your opinion and your conclusion.
Your opinion goes against a measurable and reliable trend regarding
browser releases in the last 8 years that anyone can verify and measure
reliably. IMO, the best policy when editing a webpage is to write
according to web standards (valid markup code, valid CSS code, strict DTD).
I went against nothing except your incorrect conclusions
about other browsers versus IE's market share.
IEDesigner


We disagree on that issue but not by much :) . I think IE5+ is in the
low 80%'s (worldwide); you think IE represents 90% based only on that
unique webstats TheCounter.com. Such difference, hypothetically
speaking, can easily mean/refer to/be explained by user agent string
spoofing in secondary browsers. Icab 2+ can do that, Opera 7+ can do
that (in fact, the default value in Opera 7 was to id as IE6), Safari
can do that, Firefox can do that, lots of browser can do that. The other
way around (IE 6 disguising itself as a marginal browser is rather rare
as it is pointless).

Gérard


Is it a spoof that all PC's with WIN have IE preinstalled? If MS builds IE
to comply to standards I think it's because it's convenient for them to do
so. IE still supports proprietary features and IMO it will continue to do
so. The bottom line is that if you test with IE you will satisfy 90% of the
public at large. I have no argument with those who want to test OR code for
the other 10%.
IEDesigner
Feb 28 '06 #119
"Gérard Talbot" <ne***********@gtalbot.org> wrote in message
news:46************@uni-berlin.de...
IEDesigner wrote :

[snipped]
I still
believe the stats you reference reflect the preference of visitors who are interested in browsers other than IE (and you have not show evidence to the contrary) .
IEDesigner


Onestat.com is a Nederland company and its stats refer to their
customers counters' (worldwide); Websidestory is US market only; XiTi is
European market only; I believe (am not sure) Webhits is European market
only.

All of these stats refer to all browsers, not just non-IE browsers. It
wouldn't make a lot of sense to gather stats only on non-IE browsers.

Gérard


We must agree to disagree. Still all PC's with WIN have IE preinstalled.
This supports my contention that 90% of all people use IE.
IEDesigner
Feb 28 '06 #120

"Chris Beall" <Ch*********@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:am*****************@newssvr33.news.prodigy.co m...
IEDesigner wrote:
"Alan Silver" <al*********@nospam.thanx.invalid> wrote in message
news:9Y**************@nospamthankyou.spam...
Hello,

Just wondered what range of browsers, versions and OSs people are using
to test pages. Also, since I don't have access to a Mac, will I have
problems not being able to test on any Mac browsers, or is there some
other way of checking?
Alan Silver

<snip>
I agree with your general assessment. The numbers may not be precise,
but the vast majority use IE.
<snip>
Just because something is of concern only to
developers doesn't mean it has no value. And the world at large may
well take note if a site doesn't work at least minimally in their
browser, whatever it is.
<snip>
The world uses IE, they don't even know there are other browsers.


I think that's a bit overstated. Firefox seems to be coming up in
casual conversations more and more, even among the folks you list below.
Things change.

Speculation: What will happen when IE 7 comes out and all the users of
Windows 98 (I'm one) realize that:


<snip>
- They can't get IE 7 without upgrading the OS.
<snip>
My guess is they will ask their techno-buddies what to do and will end
up with Firefox or Opera or ????? But nobody really knows.
Chris Beall


IE7 is still in beta. IMO MS is not barred from offering it or an alternate
solution to earlier OS's. In any event the man in the street is using
whatever came on his machine. When you say "And the world at large may well
take note if a site doesn't work at least minimally in their browser..." You
imply that sites will fail completely if they aren't coded for browsers
other than IE. I see no reason to believe that. We must agree to disagree on
the idea that the person in the street discuses browsers or has any idea
that there are browsers other than IE. If you want to spend time testing AND
coding for 10% of all users I have no argument with that. All PC's with WIN
have IE preinstalled. The world uses IE but we must agree to disagree on
this point too. As for what the future holds I can only say "maybe".
IEDesigner
Feb 28 '06 #121
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 16:21:49 +0100, IEDesigner
<IE********@notevenemail.com> wrote:
In any event the man in the street is using
whatever came on his machine.
Not anymore s/he is. I find that over one third of my visitors nowadays
uses something other the IE (mainly Firefox).
If you want to spend time testing AND
coding for 10% of all users I have no argument with that.
Once you get the hang of it, you'll find that coding for anything out
there takes hardly any more time, than coding for a specific browser (I
wouldn't even know how to do that, actually). Especially if a site/page is
well structured and the author is using proper markup, making a site
'work' in the range of browsers available (from graphical browsers to
text- and aural browsers or screen readers).
The world uses IE
Maybe your world does. There must be a reason for that :-)
As for what the future holds I can only say "maybe".


One cannot see (far) in to the future. One can only work with current
knowledge and to current (de facto) standards, and hope that any
developments of future browsers go with the (de facto) standards of today
and of tomorrow. If all join in, you as an author can't fail.
--
______PretLetters:
| weblog | http://www.pretletters.net/weblog/weblog.html |
| webontwerp | http://www.pretletters.net/html/webontwerp.html |
|zweefvliegen | http://www.pretletters.net/html/vliegen.html |
Feb 28 '06 #122
"Barbara de Zoete" <tr******@pretletters.net> wrote in message
news:op.s5owbyw9l8uz2z@zoete_b...
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 16:21:49 +0100, IEDesigner
<IE********@notevenemail.com> wrote:
In any event the man in the street is using
whatever came on his machine.


Not anymore s/he is. I find that over one third of my visitors nowadays
uses something other the IE (mainly Firefox).
If you want to spend time testing AND
coding for 10% of all users I have no argument with that.


Once you get the hang of it, you'll find that coding for anything out
there takes hardly any more time, than coding for a specific browser (I
wouldn't even know how to do that, actually). Especially if a site/page is
well structured and the author is using proper markup, making a site
'work' in the range of browsers available (from graphical browsers to
text- and aural browsers or screen readers).


<snip>
As for what the future holds I can only say "maybe".


One cannot see (far) in to the future. One can only work with current
knowledge and to current (de facto) standards, and hope that any
developments of future browsers go with the (de facto) standards of today
and of tomorrow. If all join in, you as an author can't fail.
--
______PretLetters:


IMO your stats may well reflect the preference of visitors who are
interested in browsers other than IE. If you had 300,000,000 visitors a
month I would find you observation persuasive. Look here for 300,000,000
hits worth of stats:
https://dongtaiwang.com/dm/uggc/jjj....gre.pbz/fgngf/
All PC's with WIN have IE preinstalled. It's no stretch to think that 90% of
those people use IE. We likely have different ideas about what constitutes
"well structured" and "proper markup". As I said I have no argument with
those who want to spend their time testing and coding for browsers other
than IE. Thank you for your concern about my success as an author, a 90%
chance is good enough for me.
IEDesigner
Feb 28 '06 #123
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 18:01:56 +0100, IEDesigner
<IE********@notevenemail.com> wrote:
"Barbara de Zoete" <tr******@pretletters.net> wrote in message
news:op.s5owbyw9l8uz2z@zoete_b...
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 16:21:49 +0100, IEDesigner
<IE********@notevenemail.com> wrote:
In any event the man in the street is using
whatever came on his machine.
Not anymore s/he is. I find that over one third of my visitors nowadays
uses something other the IE (mainly Firefox).

One cannot see (far) in to the future. One can only work with current
knowledge and to current (de facto) standards, and hope that any
developments of future browsers go with the (de facto) standards of
today
and of tomorrow. If all join in, you as an author can't fail.

IMO your stats may well reflect the preference of visitors who are
interested in browsers other than IE. If you had 300,000,000 visitors a
month I would find you observation persuasive. Look here for 300,000,000
hits worth of stats:
https://dongtaiwang.com/dm/uggc/jjj....gre.pbz/fgngf/
O, that's rather smart. I don't try to click on a URI that starts with
'https', especially if all the rest is as obscure as this one is. I don't
trust what I can't see. Where would this address lead me?
All PC's with WIN have IE preinstalled. It's no stretch to think that
90% of
those people use IE.
Well, this used to be what people took for granted. Used to be.
We likely have different ideas about what constitutes
"well structured" and "proper markup". As I said I have no argument with
those who want to spend their time testing and coding for browsers other
than IE.
And as I said: it is _not_ an extra efford to do all browsers authoring
instead.
Thank you for your concern about my success as an author, a 90%
chance is good enough for me.


90% As in 2/3? :-) And that for todays market? How about 100% of todays
and the futures markets with no extra efford, just by authoring according
to (de facto) standards? I'd put my money with the latter.
--
______PretLetters:
| weblog | http://www.pretletters.net/weblog/weblog.html |
| webontwerp | http://www.pretletters.net/html/webontwerp.html |
|zweefvliegen | http://www.pretletters.net/html/vliegen.html |
Feb 28 '06 #124
IEDesigner wrote :
"Gérard Talbot" <ne***********@gtalbot.org> wrote in message
news:46************@uni-berlin.de...

<snip>
You did say
"this notion that standards will somehow make sites future proof is
laughable."
and you added (among several/others)
"I've got a suggestion for devotees to standards. Use plain text (...)"
That was your opinion and your conclusion.
Your opinion goes against a measurable and reliable trend regarding
browser releases in the last 8 years that anyone can verify and measure
reliably. IMO, the best policy when editing a webpage is to write
according to web standards (valid markup code, valid CSS code, strict DTD).
I went against nothing except your incorrect conclusions
about other browsers versus IE's market share.
IEDesigner

We disagree on that issue but not by much :) . I think IE5+ is in the
low 80%'s (worldwide); you think IE represents 90% based only on that
unique webstats TheCounter.com. Such difference, hypothetically
speaking, can easily mean/refer to/be explained by user agent string
spoofing in secondary browsers. Icab 2+ can do that, Opera 7+ can do
that (in fact, the default value in Opera 7 was to id as IE6), Safari
can do that, Firefox can do that, lots of browser can do that. The other
way around (IE 6 disguising itself as a marginal browser is rather rare
as it is pointless).

Gérard


Is it a spoof that all PC's with WIN have IE preinstalled?
If MS builds IE
to comply to standards I think it's because it's convenient for them to do
so. IE still supports proprietary features


Lots of browsers do support extra features, proprietary features. But
then don't do this at the expense of web standards support and
implementation like IE 4, IE 5.x, IE 6 have demonstrated.

and IMO it will continue to do so. The bottom line is that if you test with IE you will satisfy 90% of the
public at large.
Not necessarly. IE 7 will support many more CSS 2.1 properties that IE 6
does not. Same thing with IE 6 versus IE 5.x. Conformance and
correctness of implementations (HTML elements, attributes, CSS
properties, DOM attributes and methods, etc) are also involved in IE.
Therefore, it's not enough to test with IE 6 or IE 7 to automatically
assume that earlier versions of IE will do/render the same.
IE7 beta 2 already supports HTML 4.01 <abbr> element which IE6 does not.
On my own site, I reported 5 regressions in IE7 beta 2. Many others have
too.

I have no argument with those who want to test OR code for the other 10%.
IEDesigner


IEDesigner, anyone coding to strict DTD, with valid markup code, valid
CSS code and with sound design coding techniques (ie not table design)
should render without a problem in IE 6, IE 7, Opera 8.5+, Safari 2.x,
Firefox 1.x, Icab 3 and - what you call - "obscur" browsers. There is no
extra time involved.

Gérard
--
remove blah to email me
Feb 28 '06 #125
IEDesigner a écrit :
"Gérard Talbot" <ne***********@gtalbot.org> wrote in message
news:46************@uni-berlin.de...
IEDesigner wrote :

[snipped]
I still
believe the stats you reference reflect the preference of visitors who are interested in browsers other than IE (and you have not show evidence to the contrary) .
IEDesigner Onestat.com is a Nederland company and its stats refer to their
customers counters' (worldwide); Websidestory is US market only; XiTi is
European market only; I believe (am not sure) Webhits is European market
only.

All of these stats refer to all browsers, not just non-IE browsers. It
wouldn't make a lot of sense to gather stats only on non-IE browsers.

Gérard


We must agree to disagree.


A wide majority of reasonable people would think that you are stubborned
here.
Still all PC's with WIN have IE preinstalled.
The first judge involved in the anti-monopolist suit against Microsoft
wanted to put an end to this. That's why Win95b was created so that
people could uninstall IE from it as a followup to the judge request.
IE comes so closely bundled with the os that a break in the browser
often compromises the whole system: a pure non-sense! This is one
reason, and a big one, why using IE is riskier than another like Opera
or Seamonkey or Firefox.
This supports my contention that 90% of all people use IE.


Gérard
--
remove blah to email me
Feb 28 '06 #126
IEDesigner wrote :
"Chris Beall" <Ch*********@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:am*****************@newssvr33.news.prodigy.co m...
IEDesigner wrote:
"Alan Silver" <al*********@nospam.thanx.invalid> wrote in message
news:9Y**************@nospamthankyou.spam...
Hello,

Just wondered what range of browsers, versions and OSs people are using
to test pages. Also, since I don't have access to a Mac, will I have
problems not being able to test on any Mac browsers, or is there some
other way of checking?
Alan Silver
<snip>
I agree with your general assessment. The numbers may not be precise,
but the vast majority use IE.
<snip>
Just because something is of concern only to
developers doesn't mean it has no value. And the world at large may
well take note if a site doesn't work at least minimally in their
browser, whatever it is.


<snip>
The world uses IE, they don't even know there are other browsers.

I think that's a bit overstated. Firefox seems to be coming up in
casual conversations more and more, even among the folks you list below.
Things change.

Speculation: What will happen when IE 7 comes out and all the users of
Windows 98 (I'm one) realize that:


<snip>
- They can't get IE 7 without upgrading the OS.


<snip>
My guess is they will ask their techno-buddies what to do and will end
up with Firefox or Opera or ????? But nobody really knows.
Chris Beall


I think Chris' guess is a good one.
IE7 is still in beta. IMO MS is not barred from offering it or an alternate
solution to earlier OS's.


[snipped]

Tecnologically speaking, MS is "barred" from offering IE 7 to Windows98,
WindowsME, Windows 2000 users. According to IE dev., improvements in IE
7 must imply under-the-hood improvements in the os.

Gérard
--
remove blah to email me
Feb 28 '06 #127
IEDesigner wrote :
"axlq" <ax**@spamcop.net> wrote in message
[snipped]
All PC's with WIN have IE preinstalled. That's more than enough users to
support these stats:
https://dongtaiwang.com/dm/uggc/jjj....gre.pbz/fgngf/
But If you get more than 300,000,000 visitors a month to your site then I'll
discard these stats and switch to yours.
IEDesigner


We've told you before and now, axlq and I are telling you again. Browser
"sniffing" based on user agent string is unreliable. The users of
"obscur" browsers (like Icab, Safari, Firefox, K-meleon, Opera 7.x,
etc..) use it to identify itself as IE6; the reverse is rarely true.

Gérard
--
remove blah to email me
Feb 28 '06 #128
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006, Gérard Talbot wrote:
IEDesigner wrote : [more drivel]
We've told you before and now, axlq and I are telling you again.
Browser "sniffing" based on user agent string is unreliable.


Sooner or later, you'll realise that the troll is impermeable. You may
as well put it into your killfile, as many others will - I am sure -
have already done.
Feb 28 '06 #129
Answer to last question first. "No." I use Firefox as default but
oftentimes it is necessary to me to switch over to IE to view a page
correctly. I do not just abandon the site just because Firefox can't
render it properly (actually I am quite surprised at the number of
times I have had to do this. Firefox is not the end all to all I had
anticipated it, by all the religious fanatacism associated with it.)
And opinion matters little. What are the numbers on the sites you
manage?
The only opinions that matter are of those I expect to visit the site.
If I can only get 90% of the web community and the other 10% aren't
interested enough in my site to momentaily switch over, the question
is, do I really want to deal with them? That's like saying if Wal-Mart
won't build a store within walking distance of my house, then I won't
shop there. True, there are those without cars but do they really have
the money to make the building of the Wal-Mart profitable?
Yeah, but if the layout is broken, they won't buy anything. A
badly-rendered site erodes the online customer's frail confidence.
I have had to switch over several times to view amazon.com and Ebay. My
confidence has not been shattered in these reputable sites because
Opera or Firefox is not 100% compatible.

Build for content, not browsers...

Jim Royal wrote:

Yeah, but if the layout is broken, they won't buy anything. A
badly-rendered site erodes the online customer's frail confidence. And opinion matters little. What are the numbers on the sites you
manage?

And if your sites are not rendering properly in non-IE browsers, aren't
you DRIVING AWAY these customers, thus selecting out non-IE users from
your site stats?

--
Jim Royal
"Understanding is a three-edged sword"
http://JimRoyal.com
http://DigitalWind.com


Feb 28 '06 #130
"Gérard Talbot" <ne***********@gtalbot.org> wrote in message
news:46************@uni-berlin.de...
Lots of browsers do support extra features, proprietary features. But
then don't do this at the expense of web standards support and
implementation like IE 4, IE 5.x, IE 6 have demonstrated.
<snip>
Not necessarly. IE 7 will support many more CSS 2.1 properties that IE 6
does not. Same thing with IE 6 versus IE 5.x. Conformance and
correctness of implementations (HTML elements, attributes, CSS
properties, DOM attributes and methods, etc) are also involved in IE.
Therefore, it's not enough to test with IE 6 or IE 7 to automatically
assume that earlier versions of IE will do/render the same.
IE7 beta 2 already supports HTML 4.01 <abbr> element which IE6 does not.
On my own site, I reported 5 regressions in IE7 beta 2. Many others have
too.
<snip>
IEDesigner, anyone coding to strict DTD, with valid markup code, valid
CSS code and with sound design coding techniques (ie not table design)
should render without a problem in IE 6, IE 7, Opera 8.5+, Safari 2.x,
Firefox 1.x, Icab 3 and - what you call - "obscur" browsers. There is no
extra time involved.

Gérard


You introduced IE7 into this discussion. Nothing wrong with tables. I answer
your post below with a recap:
IE has a 90% share:
All PC's with WIN have IE preinstalled. It's no stretch to think that 90% of
those people use IE.
IMO your stats may well reflect the preference of visitors who are
interested in browsers other than IE.
If you had 300,000,000 visitors a month I would find you observation
persuasive.
Look here for 300,000,000 hits worth of stats:
https://dongtaiwang.com/dm/uggc/jjj....gre.pbz/fgngf/
Is it a spoof that all PC's with WIN have IE preinstalled?
Are average people aware of other browsers?:
My face to face research indicates that people in the street do not normally
discuss browsers or even have any idea that there are browsers other than
IE.
The world uses IE but we must agree to disagree on this point.
The man in the street is using the browser that came on his PC which is IE.
What the future holds:
IE7 is still beta.
IMO MS is not barred from offering IE7 or an alternate solution to earlier
OS's.
As for what the future holds I can only say "maybe".
You have your interpretation of the future and I have mine.
Testing and coding for browsers other than IE:
If you want to test and code for other browsers I have no argument with
that.
About standards:
If MS builds IE to comply to standards I think it's because it's convenient
for them to do so.
IE still supports proprietary features and IMO it will continue too.
We likely have different ideas about what constitutes well structured or
proper markup.
If you want to make your sites future proof I suggest ascii.
I have no argument with those who want to test and code for browsers other
than IE.
About vulnerabilities in IE:
I postulate that any browser that reaches the market share that IE currently
has will likely suffer as many attacks.
Whether vulnerabilities in such a browser can be fixed in a timely manner is
a question for the future.
The bottom line:
I respect your right to voice an opinion about what you consider to be a
better browser.
The bottom line is that if you test with IE you will satisfy 90% of the
public at large.
IEDesigner
Mar 1 '06 #131
"Gérard Talbot" <ne***********@gtalbot.org> wrote in message
news:46************@uni-berlin.de...
IEDesigner :


<snip>
...my contention that 90% of all people use IE.

We must agree to disagree.


A wide majority of reasonable people would think that you are stubborned
here.
Still all PC's with WIN have IE preinstalled.


The first judge involved in the anti-monopolist suit against Microsoft
wanted to put an end to this. That's why Win95b was created so that
people could uninstall IE from it as a followup to the judge request.
IE comes so closely bundled with the os that a break in the browser
often compromises the whole system: a pure non-sense! This is one
reason, and a big one, why using IE is riskier than another like Opera
or Seamonkey or Firefox.

Gérard


Stubbornness is not necessarily a fault. It could be argued that tying IE to
the OS provides added usability and reduces overhead. However I do not
oppose an uninstall option for IE. See my recap below about majorities and
vulnerabilities:
Are average people aware of other browsers?:
My face to face research indicates that people in the street do not normally
discuss browsers or even have any idea that there are browsers other than
IE.
The world uses IE but we must agree to disagree on this point.
The man in the street is using the browser that came on his PC which is IE.
About vulnerabilities in IE:
I postulate that any browser that reaches the market share that IE currently
has will likely suffer as many attacks.
Whether vulnerabilities in such a browser can be fixed in a timely manner is
a question for the future.
IEDesigner
Mar 1 '06 #132
"Gérard Talbot" <ne***********@gtalbot.org> wrote in message
news:46************@uni-berlin.de...
IEDesigner wrote :
"axlq" <ax**@spamcop.net> wrote in message


[snipped]
All PC's with WIN have IE preinstalled. That's more than enough users to
support these stats:
https://dongtaiwang.com/dm/uggc/jjj....gre.pbz/fgngf/
But If you get more than 300,000,000 visitors a month to your site then I'll discard these stats and switch to yours.
IEDesigner


We've told you before and now, axlq and I are telling you again. Browser
"sniffing" based on user agent string is unreliable. The users of
"obscur" browsers (like Icab, Safari, Firefox, K-meleon, Opera 7.x,
etc..) use it to identify itself as IE6; the reverse is rarely true.

Gérard


See my recap below about sniffing/spoofing:
IE has a 90% share:
All PC's with WIN have IE preinstalled. It's no stretch to think that 90% of
those people use IE.
IMO your stats may well reflect the preference of visitors who are
interested in browsers other than IE.
If you had 300,000,000 visitors a month I would find you observation
persuasive.
Look here for 300,000,000 hits worth of stats:
https://dongtaiwang.com/dm/uggc/jjj....gre.pbz/fgngf/
Is it a spoof that all PC's with WIN have IE preinstalled?
IEDesigner
Mar 1 '06 #133
On Wed, 01 Mar 2006 17:54:26 +0100, IEDesigner
<IE********@notevenemail.com> wrote:
The man in the street is using the browser that came on his PC which is
IE.


Repeating this over and over and over again, doesn't make it right, you
know ...

--
______PretLetters:
| weblog | http://www.pretletters.net/weblog/weblog.html |
| webontwerp | http://www.pretletters.net/html/webontwerp.html |
|zweefvliegen | http://www.pretletters.net/html/vliegen.html |
Mar 1 '06 #134
On Wed, 01 Mar 2006 17:58:36 +0100, IEDesigner
<IE********@notevenemail.com> wrote:
See my recap below about sniffing/spoofing:


<snip: Why don't you put this in a page and post the URL for future
reference. Safes us a lot of rereading your dogma's.>

--
______PretLetters:
| weblog | http://www.pretletters.net/weblog/weblog.html |
| webontwerp | http://www.pretletters.net/html/webontwerp.html |
|zweefvliegen | http://www.pretletters.net/html/vliegen.html |
Mar 1 '06 #135
"Barbara de Zoete" <tr******@pretletters.net> wrote in message
news:op.s5o0v8n6l8uz2z@zoete_b...
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 18:01:56 +0100, IEDesigner
<IE********@notevenemail.com> wrote:


<snip>
IMO your stats may well reflect the preference of visitors who are
interested in browsers other than IE. If you had 300,000,000 visitors a
month I would find you observation persuasive. Look here for 300,000,000
hits worth of stats:
https://dongtaiwang.com/dm/uggc/jjj....gre.pbz/fgngf/


O, that's rather smart. I don't try to click on a URI that starts with
'https', especially if all the rest is as obscure as this one is. I don't
trust what I can't see. Where would this address lead me?
All PC's with WIN have IE preinstalled. It's no stretch to think that
90% of
those people use IE.


Well, this used to be what people took for granted. Used to be.
We likely have different ideas about what constitutes
"well structured" and "proper markup". As I said I have no argument with
those who want to spend their time testing and coding for browsers other
than IE.


And as I said: it is _not_ an extra efford to do all browsers authoring
instead.
Thank you for your concern about my success as an author, a 90%
chance is good enough for me.


90% As in 2/3? :-) And that for todays market? How about 100% of todays
and the futures markets with no extra efford, just by authoring according
to (de facto) standards? I'd put my money with the latter.
--
______PretLetters:


The link is OK. Trust it or not I don't care. What PC's sold with WIN do not
have IE preinstalled? See my recap below about testing / coding and IE's 90%
market share:
IE has a 90% share:
All PC's with WIN have IE preinstalled. It's no stretch to think that 90% of
those people use IE.
IMO your stats may well reflect the preference of visitors who are
interested in browsers other than IE.
If you had 300,000,000 visitors a month I would find you observation
persuasive.
Look here for 300,000,000 hits worth of stats:
https://dongtaiwang.com/dm/uggc/jjj....gre.pbz/fgngf/
Is it a spoof that all PC's with WIN have IE preinstalled?
Are average people aware of other browsers?:
My face to face research indicates that people in the street do not normally
discuss browsers or even have any idea that there are browsers other than
IE.
The world uses IE but we must agree to disagree on this point.
The man in the street is using the browser that came on his PC which is IE.
About standards:
If MS builds IE to comply to standards I think it's because it's convenient
for them to do so.
IE still supports proprietary features and IMO it will continue too.
We likely have different ideas about what constitutes well structured or
proper markup.
If you want to make your sites future proof I suggest ascii.
I have no argument with those who want to test and code for browsers other
than IE.
IEDesigner
Mar 1 '06 #136
On Wed, 01 Mar 2006 18:12:48 +0100, IEDesigner
<IE********@notevenemail.com> wrote:
"Barbara de Zoete" <tr******@pretletters.net> wrote in message
news:op.s5o0v8n6l8uz2z@zoete_b...
The link is OK. Trust it or not I don't care.
And you don't care to tell what's in there either. Okay. Byebye
What PC's sold with WIN do not
have IE preinstalled? See my recap below about testing / coding and IE's
90%
market share:


You're just boring the crap out of me anyway with your trolling on about
nothing.

--
______PretLetters:
| weblog | http://www.pretletters.net/weblog/weblog.html |
| webontwerp | http://www.pretletters.net/html/webontwerp.html |
|zweefvliegen | http://www.pretletters.net/html/vliegen.html |
Mar 1 '06 #137
"Gérard Talbot" <ne***********@gtalbot.org> wrote in message
news:46************@uni-berlin.de...
IEDesigner wrote :
"Chris Beall" <Ch*********@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:am*****************@newssvr33.news.prodigy.co m...
<snip>
I agree with your general assessment. The numbers may not be precise,
but the vast majority use IE.
<snip>
Speculation: What will happen when IE 7 comes out and all the users of
Windows 98 (I'm one) realize that:
<snip>

My guess is they will ask their techno-buddies what to do and will end
up with Firefox or Opera or ????? But nobody really knows.
Chris Beall
I think Chris' guess is a good one.
IE7 is still in beta. IMO MS is not barred from offering it or an

alternate solution to earlier OS's.


[snipped]

Tecnologically speaking, MS is "barred" from offering IE 7 to Windows98,
WindowsME, Windows 2000 users. According to IE dev., improvements in IE
7 must imply under-the-hood improvements in the os.

Gérard


My face to face research indicates that most people who can't fix their PC
do sometimes ask a friend for help. If that friend doesn't find a solution
then they will most likely buy a new PC or keep using their current PC if
possible. In either scenario they will still be using IE. If MS is barred
from offering IE7 (which you introduced into this discussion) then they are
not barred from offering an alternate solution to earlier OS's. It's
software so anything is possible. See my recap below about people's
awareness of browsers other than IE:
Are average people aware of other browsers?:
My face to face research indicates that people in the street do not normally
discuss browsers or even have any idea that there are browsers other than
IE.
The world uses IE but we must agree to disagree on this point.
The man in the street is using the browser that came on his PC which is IE.
IEDesigner
Mar 1 '06 #138
"Barbara de Zoete" <tr******@pretletters.net> wrote in message
news:op.s5quyjdgl8uz2z@zoete_b...
On Wed, 01 Mar 2006 17:54:26 +0100, IEDesigner
<IE********@notevenemail.com> wrote:
The man in the street is using the browser that came on his PC which is
IE.


Repeating this over and over and over again, doesn't make it right, you
know ...

--
______PretLetters:


It does indicate that IE is the most widely used browser.
IEDesigner
Mar 1 '06 #139
"IEDesigner" <IE********@notevenemail.com> wrote in message
news:12*************@corp.supernews.com...

<big snip>

<obfuscation of my post by Barb snipped>
IE has a 90% share:
All PC's with WIN have IE preinstalled. It's no stretch to think that 90% of those people use IE.
IMO your stats may well reflect the preference of visitors who are
interested in browsers other than IE.
If you had 300,000,000 visitors a month I would find you observation
persuasive.
Look here for 300,000,000 hits worth of stats:
https://dongtaiwang.com/dm/uggc/jjj....gre.pbz/fgngf/
Is it a spoof that all PC's with WIN have IE preinstalled?
IEDesigner


Your humor is wanting. Read the last line again or any line for that matter.
I'll bet you dislike WIN as much as you do IE.
IEDesigner
Mar 1 '06 #140
"Barbara de Zoete" <tr******@pretletters.net> wrote in message
news:op.s5qu56dbl8uz2z@zoete_b...
On Wed, 01 Mar 2006 17:58:36 +0100, IEDesigner
<IE********@notevenemail.com> wrote:
<more obfuscation by Barb snipped>
<snip: Why don't you put this in a page and post the URL for future
reference. Safes us a lot of rereading your dogma's.>
--
______PretLetters:


Your humor is not improving. I'll bet you already have a page with your
dogma's.
IEDesigner
Mar 1 '06 #141
"Barbara de Zoete" <tr******@pretletters.net> wrote in message
news:op.s5qvs2vil8uz2z@zoete_b...
On Wed, 01 Mar 2006 18:12:48 +0100, IEDesigner
<IE********@notevenemail.com> wrote:
<snip>
And you don't care to tell what's in there either. Okay. Byebye
What PC's sold with WIN do not
have IE preinstalled? See my recap below about testing / coding and IE's
90%
market share:


You're just boring the crap out of me anyway with your trolling on about
nothing.
--
______PretLetters:


I interests you or you wouldn't read and reply to my posts. I told you
what's in that page, here it is again:
IE has a 90% share:
All PC's with WIN have IE preinstalled. It's no stretch to think that 90% of
those people use IE.
IMO your stats may well reflect the preference of visitors who are
interested in browsers other than IE.
If you had 300,000,000 visitors a month I would find your observation
persuasive.
Look here for 300,000,000 hits worth of stats:
https://dongtaiwang.com/dm/uggc/jjj....gre.pbz/fgngf/
Is it a spoof that all PC's with WIN have IE preinstalled?
IEDesigner
Mar 1 '06 #142
IEDesigner wrote :
"Gérard Talbot" <ne***********@gtalbot.org> wrote in message
news:46************@uni-berlin.de...
IEDesigner wrote :
"Chris Beall" <Ch*********@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:am*****************@newssvr33.news.prodigy.co m...
<snip>
I agree with your general assessment. The numbers may not be precise,
but the vast majority use IE.
<snip>
Speculation: What will happen when IE 7 comes out and all the users of
Windows 98 (I'm one) realize that:
<snip>

My guess is they will ask their techno-buddies what to do and will end
up with Firefox or Opera or ????? But nobody really knows.
Chris Beall I think Chris' guess is a good one.
IE7 is still in beta. IMO MS is not barred from offering it or an alternate solution to earlier OS's.

[snipped]

Tecnologically speaking, MS is "barred" from offering IE 7 to Windows98,
WindowsME, Windows 2000 users. According to IE dev., improvements in IE
7 must imply under-the-hood improvements in the os.

Gérard


If MS is barred
from offering IE7
It's not an hypothesis: IE 7 to run on Windows requires underlying os
improvements.

(which you introduced into this discussion)

I thought you introduced it into the discussion, just after Gus Richter
did. Anyway, IE 7 beta 2 is a reality, not a fiction.
then they are
not barred from offering an alternate solution to earlier OS's. It's
software so anything is possible. See my recap below about people's
awareness of browsers other than IE:
Are average people aware of other browsers?:
My face to face research indicates that people in the street do not normally
discuss browsers or even have any idea that there are browsers other than
IE.
The world uses IE but we must agree to disagree on this point.
We never disagreed on this with you: yes, a wide majority of windows
users use IE 5+. But pointing up only 1 webstats for 2 months is not the
whole picture. As mentioned before, your 2 single months of stats ignore
the deep, slow but steady trend of users switching to non-IE browsers.
Every serious webstats company unanimously agree, converge on this; it's
been the case since november 2004.
Also the user agent string detection is unreliable: you never
acknowledged that.
The man in the street is using the browser that came on his PC which is IE.
IEDesigner


That too can change or could have been different. An anti-monopolist
ruling could force PC builders to not necessarly install IE on Windows os.

Gérard
--
remove blah to email me
Mar 2 '06 #143
"Gérard Talbot" <ne***********@gtalbot.org> wrote in message
news:46************@uni-berlin.de...
IEDesigner wrote :


<snip>
If MS is barred
from offering IE7


It's not an hypothesis: IE 7 to run on Windows requires underlying os
improvements.

(which you introduced into this discussion)

I thought you introduced it into the discussion, just after Gus Richter
did. Anyway, IE 7 beta 2 is a reality, not a fiction.
then they are
not barred from offering an alternate solution to earlier OS's. It's
software so anything is possible. See my recap below about people's
awareness of browsers other than IE:
Are average people aware of other browsers?:
My face to face research indicates that people in the street do not normally discuss browsers or even have any idea that there are browsers other than IE.
The world uses IE but we must agree to disagree on this point.


We never disagreed on this with you: yes, a wide majority of windows
users use IE 5+. But pointing up only 1 webstats for 2 months is not the
whole picture. As mentioned before, your 2 single months of stats ignore
the deep, slow but steady trend of users switching to non-IE browsers.
Every serious webstats company unanimously agree, converge on this; it's
been the case since november 2004.
Also the user agent string detection is unreliable: you never
acknowledged that.
The man in the street is using the browser that came on his PC which is IE. IEDesigner


That too can change or could have been different. An anti-monopolist
ruling could force PC builders to not necessarly install IE on Windows os.

Gérard


IMO you are being stubborn now, but you may disagree. Gus Richter introduced
IE7 and you took up the subject by disputing what I said about it (if it
matters now). Which took the conversation away from the point I made that IE
has a 90% share today as we speak. Even if what you say about IE7 is true (I
say again) MS is not barred from offering an alternate solution to earlier
OS's, it's software so anything is possible. An anti-monopolist ruling
*could* force MS to unbundle IE from the OS. I do not oppose this idea but
judging from the success the courts have had thus far I expect to see pigs
fly first.
I see six years of stats at theCounter:
https://dongtaiwang.com/dm/uggc/jjj....gre.pbz/fgngf/
In November '04 theCounter gave IE5 and IE6 a total of 91% of the browser
market. In February '06 that number dropped to 90% total so yes, as you say,
IE has lost ground.
Ignore the stats I cite if it pleases you, assume they're spoofed if it that
pleases you too. The reality (which you ignore) today as we speak is that:
All PC's with WIN have IE preinstalled (and this will likely be the case for
the foreseeable future). It's no stretch to think that 90% of the people
using those PC's use IE. My face to face research indicates that people in
the street do not normally discuss browsers or even have any idea that there
are browsers other than IE. They use what came on their computer which is
IE.
Incidentally there is no "we". There are only individuals expressing their
own opinions.
IEDesigner
Mar 2 '06 #144
Gérard Talbot wrote:
The man in the street is using the browser that came on his PC which
is IE.
IEDesigner


That too can change or could have been different. An anti-monopolist
ruling could force PC builders to not necessarly install IE on Windows os.

Gérard
--
remove blah to email me


The last PC I bought (in October) came with Firefox on it.

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
http://mozilla.edmullen.net
http://abington.edmullen.net
Mar 2 '06 #145
IEDesigner wrote :
"Gérard Talbot" <ne***********@gtalbot.org> wrote in message
news:46************@uni-berlin.de...
IEDesigner wrote :
<snip>
If MS is barred
from offering IE7

It's not an hypothesis: IE 7 to run on Windows requires underlying os
improvements.

(which you introduced into this discussion)

I thought you introduced it into the discussion, just after Gus Richter
did. Anyway, IE 7 beta 2 is a reality, not a fiction.
then they are
not barred from offering an alternate solution to earlier OS's. It's
software so anything is possible. See my recap below about people's
awareness of browsers other than IE:
Are average people aware of other browsers?:
My face to face research indicates that people in the street do not normally discuss browsers or even have any idea that there are browsers other than IE.
The world uses IE but we must agree to disagree on this point.

We never disagreed on this with you: yes, a wide majority of windows
users use IE 5+. But pointing up only 1 webstats for 2 months is not the
whole picture. As mentioned before, your 2 single months of stats ignore
the deep, slow but steady trend of users switching to non-IE browsers.
Every serious webstats company unanimously agree, converge on this; it's
been the case since november 2004.
Also the user agent string detection is unreliable: you never
acknowledged that.
The man in the street is using the browser that came on his PC which is IE. IEDesigner

That too can change or could have been different. An anti-monopolist
ruling could force PC builders to not necessarly install IE on Windows os.

Gérard


IMO you are being stubborn now, but you may disagree. Gus Richter introduced
IE7 and you took up the subject by disputing what I said about it (if it
matters now).


So what, for God's sake? IE7 beta 2 is a reality. The people using IE7
beta 2 are most likey included (under the IE6 stats) in the stats you
get from thecounter.com.

Which took the conversation away from the point I made that IE has a 90% share today as we speak. Even if what you say about IE7 is true (I
say again) MS is not barred from offering an alternate solution to earlier
OS's, it's software so anything is possible.
Then send your resume to Microsoft: they are hiring. If you think you
can make IE7 work on Windows98, WindowsME, Windows2000 despite what MS
engineers have been saying and are saying, then go ahead and deliver!

An anti-monopolist ruling *could* force MS to unbundle IE from the OS. I do not oppose this idea but
judging from the success the courts have had thus far I expect to see pigs
fly first.
I see six years of stats at theCounter:
https://dongtaiwang.com/dm/uggc/jjj....gre.pbz/fgngf/
In November '04 theCounter gave IE5 and IE6 a total of 91% of the browser
market. In February '06 that number dropped to 90% total so yes, as you say,
IE has lost ground.
Ignore the stats
For the last time, you are relying on the stats at thecounter.com, not
all the stats available from serious webstats companies; these
thecounter.com stats rely on javascript support and on user agent string
detection. They do not tell everything. A wide majority of experts agree
that webstats are not precise and are not entirely reliable; what is
reliable is the trend over a long period of time (12 months or more) and
based on several webstats companies. Webstats companies do not all
disclose their methods; some do not take into consideration cached
webpages; others cover/include only specific regions (like US market)
while others only include Europe or their own clients; some consider
"hits", some only consider "visits", etc.

I cite if it pleases you, assume they're spoofed if it that pleases you too.
The spoofing may be marginal (say, 1 or 2%) but it is a phenomenon that
no one seriously dispute. The spoofing occurs more regarding marginal
browsers (e.g. Icab).

The reality (which you ignore) today as we speak is that: All PC's with WIN have IE preinstalled
No one has argued that.
(and this will likely be the case for
the foreseeable future).
Oh, you're Nostradamus now? So, tell me how much will Windows Vista
cost? FYI, lots of countries are now turning to open source softwares
(like Open Office suite): China has, Brazil has and a long list of
governments have. They are sick of Windows security problems and waiting
for months to have security flaws fixed.
It's no stretch to think that 90% of the people
using those PC's use IE.
If it was so simple, then we would notice such trend everywhere, not
just at thecounter.com webstats.

In 1996-7, IE was preinstalled on Windows and Netscape 4 had huge
browser share numbers/percentage.
My face to face research indicates that people in
the street do not normally discuss browsers or even have any idea that there
are browsers other than IE. They use what came on their computer which is
IE.


I installed Firefox and Thunderbird at the office where I worked. I was
even paid to do so. And, yes, the people (secretary, account people,
managers) there did not imagine/had no idea there were other web
softwares besides Internet Explorer and Outlook Express. Only my boss
knew (and knew about/heard of Firefox because it was regularly a topic
of discussion among his friend back in october 2004). The transition
efforts put on the staff was minimal. It does not take a long training
to an Outlook Express user to get his/her emails when using Thunderbird.

Gérard
--
remove blah to email me
Mar 2 '06 #146
"Ed Mullen" <ed@edmullen.net> wrote in message
news:wu******************************@comcast.com. ..
Gérard Talbot wrote:
The man in the street is using the browser that came on his PC which
is IE.
IEDesigner


That too can change or could have been different. An anti-monopolist
ruling could force PC builders to not necessarly install IE on Windows os.

Gérard
--
remove blah to email me


The last PC I bought (in October) came with Firefox on it.

--
Ed Mullen

I imagine you could buy a PC without WIN and IE already preinstalled. But my
face to face research does not indicate that this is what 90% of the people
I talk to are buying.
IEDesigner
Mar 2 '06 #147
IEDesigner wrote:
"Ed Mullen" <ed@edmullen.net> wrote in message
news:wu******************************@comcast.com. ..
Gérard Talbot wrote:
The man in the street is using the browser that came on his PC which
is IE.
IEDesigner

That too can change or could have been different. An anti-monopolist
ruling could force PC builders to not necessarly install IE on Windowsos.

Gérard
--
remove blah to email me


The last PC I bought (in October) came with Firefox on it.


I did not say my PC did not have IE on it.

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
http://mozilla.edmullen.net
http://abington.edmullen.net
Mar 2 '06 #148
"Gérard Talbot" <ne***********@gtalbot.org> wrote in message
news:46************@uni-berlin.de...
IEDesigner wrote :
<snip>
So what, for God's sake? IE7 beta 2 is a reality. The people using IE7
beta 2 are most likey included (under the IE6 stats) in the stats you
get from thecounter.com.
<snip>
Then send your resume to Microsoft: they are hiring. If you think you
can make IE7 work on Windows98, WindowsME, Windows2000 despite what MS
engineers have been saying and are saying, then go ahead and deliver!


<snip>
I see six years of stats at theCounter:
https://dongtaiwang.com/dm/uggc/jjj....gre.pbz/fgngf/
In November '04 theCounter gave IE5 and IE6 a total of 91% of the browser market. In February '06 that number dropped to 90% total so yes, as you say, IE has lost ground.
Ignore the stats


For the last time, you are relying on the stats at thecounter.com, not
all the stats available from serious webstats companies; these
thecounter.com stats rely on javascript support and on user agent string
detection. They do not tell everything. A wide majority of experts agree
that webstats are not precise and are not entirely reliable; what is
reliable is the trend over a long period of time (12 months or more) and
based on several webstats companies. Webstats companies do not all
disclose their methods; some do not take into consideration cached
webpages; others cover/include only specific regions (like US market)
while others only include Europe or their own clients; some consider
"hits", some only consider "visits", etc.

I cite if it pleases you, assume they're spoofed if it that
pleases you too.


The spoofing may be marginal (say, 1 or 2%) but it is a phenomenon that
no one seriously dispute. The spoofing occurs more regarding marginal
browsers (e.g. Icab).

The reality (which you ignore) today as we speak is that:
All PC's with WIN have IE preinstalled


No one has argued that.
(and this will likely be the case for
the foreseeable future).


Oh, you're Nostradamus now? So, tell me how much will Windows Vista
cost? FYI, lots of countries are now turning to open source softwares
(like Open Office suite): China has, Brazil has and a long list of
governments have. They are sick of Windows security problems and waiting
for months to have security flaws fixed.
It's no stretch to think that 90% of the people
using those PC's use IE.


If it was so simple, then we would notice such trend everywhere, not
just at thecounter.com webstats.

In 1996-7, IE was preinstalled on Windows and Netscape 4 had huge
browser share numbers/percentage.
My face to face research indicates that people in
the street do not normally discuss browsers or even have any idea that there are browsers other than IE. They use what came on their computer which is IE.


I installed Firefox and Thunderbird at the office where I worked. I was
even paid to do so. And, yes, the people (secretary, account people,
managers) there did not imagine/had no idea there were other web
softwares besides Internet Explorer and Outlook Express. Only my boss
knew (and knew about/heard of Firefox because it was regularly a topic
of discussion among his friend back in october 2004). The transition
efforts put on the staff was minimal. It does not take a long training
to an Outlook Express user to get his/her emails when using Thunderbird.

Gérard


Get a grip. Just because I don't roll over and buy everything you say is no
reason to lose your composure.
I modified my statement about IE7 just for you. But that is still no reason
why MS can't offer an alternate solution (workaround, update or whatever you
care to call it) to users of earlier OS's. It's software so anything is
possible but we can agree to disagree on this point if it will keep you
calm. I'm not looking to work for MS but if they came knocking I wouldn't
dismiss them either, who would?
I invited you to disregard the stats I cited. I invited you to assume they
were spoofed. What more can I do? As for what was in 1997 I remind you that
we're talking about 2006.
Price may be an issue for some who wish to upgrade but Vista and IE will be
installed on countless PC's purchased by consumers, small businesses and
corporations too. As long as this trend continues I believe IE will have no
trouble keeping it's current market share of 90%. As for vulnerabilities in
IE I repeat: I postulate that any browser that reaches the market share that
IE currently has will likely suffer as many attacks. Whether vulnerabilities
in such a browser can be fixed in a timely manner is a question for the
future. Average users out number government users by many magnitudes. What's
important is that average people choose MS and IE over any other OS or
browser by a very large margin.
Many (nearly all?) corporate environments are using IE and seem likely to do
so for the foreseeable future. Many corporate environments have a large
investment in MS software and are in no hurry to scrap it. The reality
(which you still ignore) today as we speak is that: All PC's with WIN have
IE preinstalled (and this will likely be the case for the foreseeable
future). It's no stretch to think that 90% of the people using those PC's
use IE. My face to face research indicates that people in the street do not
normally discuss browsers or even have any idea that there are browsers
other than IE. They use what came on their computer which is IE. As long as
that situation exists it effectively nails the coffin lid on every other
browser.
Considering your passion about the subject I think you should quit your job
and get involved with open source projects.
IEDesigner
Mar 2 '06 #149
> An anti-monopolist ruling
*could* force MS to unbundle IE from the OS. I do not oppose this idea but
judging from the success the courts have had thus far I expect to see pigs
fly first.
Can you make me some photos of them?
MS is forced by European Law to unbundle IE from Windows, it became
valid for Windows XP and MS paid $700 Million because they needed to
much time ($5 million per day).
They wanted to offer the OS as Windows XP Reduced Media Edition but
got some on their noses again, now it's Windows XP L/N.

Make your home before! :-] *eg*
IEDesigner


Ciao
Niels

Mar 3 '06 #150

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.