Firefox grabs bigger slice of browser pie

The fact that it isn't sweeping people from IE probably indicates that it offers little compelling enough to make people switch. I must say Firefox continues to lack features IE has which makes me not switch (and no, they're not in extensions). I also wish I didn't have to use it on Linux, as its archaic profile system from Nutscrape prevents me from running multiple copies from the same account at once.

IE is much lower than that... http://www.branedy.net/?p=540

I am afraid that Mozilla has caught the Microsoft disease. They now make it work to locate the link to FF 2.x . It is there, but in an obscure corner of their site. Then there is the "cut off" of support, including critical security fixes for FF 2.x as of December, 2008. That kind of rings like a Microsoft technique, and even Microsoft gave users years to switch. Internet Explorer 6 is still supported and will be for years. This, together with the unwanted features like "smart" browsing got me to dump this crap. If Mozilla don't wise up, they are going to find the market share race reverse against them fast.

It is only the ignorant that continue to use the extremely flawed Internet Exploder. Anybody who claims IE is superior (like BB in comments) is either being paid to say so or has a vested interest in perpetuating IE use. One last thought - it is my personal experience that Firefox use is much higher than the 19% stated in this *story*. CD Baric

Don't be such a drama queen... and just go to the Opera! (Pun intended :)

Well, I switched to FF early on and have not looked back(or forward). I occasionally use computers with IE or new FF and both ar horrible. FF 1.5 is way superior to either one and a nice upgrade from the original 1.0 I have also Test installed both FF 2 and 3 and they are just way too slow for real use.

BB: Why would you need to run multiple copies at once? Look in FireFox menu. There's a "New Window" option there if that's what you want. And what "compelling features" is it missing? As a web developer I find the FireBug and Web Developer Toolbar extensions totally indispensable. And as a browser of the web Ad Block Plus is such an utter essential that the web is nearly unbearable without it to me. D: Internet Explorer 6, as far as I'm aware, doesn't exactly get front line support from Microsoft. And besides, anyone who has ever had to develop in it will tell you that it's an utterly appalling piece of crap. Its Javascript engine crawls along like a tortoise with 3 legs and a humvee parked on its back, the GUI is hideous, the CSS support is so hideously flawed that me and my workmates usually spend at least 40% of our time developing new layouts on hacking them to work in IE6, and lets not forget it's laughable security. IE6 is more responsible for machines getting rooted than any other single factor. If IE6 was a race horse the most humane thing you could do with it is put a bullet through its skull. IE remains dominant simply because its the path of least resistance. It's there on any new Windows box you buy. You don't have to download it first.

To Quote a great man... with weird hair... "What sort of chip you got in there a Dorito? FF2 and 3 slow??? Umm... Not really. Win98 is really fast too tho... Perhaps that explains it... Regardless, I use and very much like FF3... Don't use IE7, just install it for users so when they inevitably have an MS app ignore the default browser setting and open it, IE 6 doesn't happen to them.

I've been with FIrefox since version 0.6. Every version update has been better than the last, so I doubt very much that they have been infected with the Vista disease. I find version 3 to be, in all but one area, equal to or superior to version 2. The one exception is the "awesome bar." I don't particularly care for it, but two minutes with Google and about:config was all I needed to turn it back to Firefox 2 behavior. As for features, pretty much every feature IE7 added was a poor man's copy of a feature that had been introduced years earlier in Firefox before it had even reached 1.0. With Firefox 3 now out and IE8 due in the coming months, I'm expecting the same situation. Let's see what Microsoft rips off from Mozilla this time. The only people I know that still use IE are those that call tech support when they break the "cup-holder" included in their desktop towers. Mostly because many of them are too ignorant to know any better. You'd be amazed at the senseless hassles that some people will endure only because they are too scared or too dumb to make the switch to a tested and proven superior alternative. Of course, there is always the faction that have had their brains bought by Microsoft to be their paid astroturfer propaganda machines. To those people, enjoy your virus-choked Windows boxes, assuming Vista gives you enough uptime to even know that you've been infected. Take comfort in the knowledge that your efforts, to the degree that they are effective, serve only to hinder progress and innovation.

Branedy.....yeah that site u offer, that's only from one site it kept track off, not the entire web... and Firefox, is only still at 19%, i use both on my machine, and it doesn't bother me at all, i just go with whatever one i happen to open, its a browsers woopy. if u want to get the right market share, wiki it then go the the site they offer.

I tried FF3 on three Vista machines and one XP machine(All had 4GB of memory and dual core processors). I had problems with it on all four machines. It would just randomly close with no warning. That has never happened to me with IE7. FF3 when it did run was the same speed or slower. So I don't know what the big deal is with FF3. There was only a couple of features in FF3 that was any improvement over IE7. But the closing of the program was very annoying. I see no reason to switch from IE7. My experience overall with IE7 is much, much better than anything I saw with FF3. I'll stick with IE on my seven PCs.

I still use Internet Explorer because some pages made on .ASP, Aspx, javascripts doesnt support other browser, only IE. For everything else I use FF. Example: http://www.set.gov.do/prestaciones/default.asp https://www.bpd.com.do/

I recently installed IE7 and FF3 on a freshly installed fully updated copy of xp. The speed difference alone makes it worth while. IE7 is painfully slow at times. So far every extension I've wanted, I've found.

Hey! You! Your opinion? It's WRONG. Every opinion that is not my own is WRONG! You are a drooling moron for not liking the things that I do. You should just hang yourself! This is a PSA from internet trolls^W users everywhere.

My data may be from only one site, but more than 600,000 visits a MONTH is a lot of traffic, and my blog site in Ireland has almost the same ratio of browsers. Maybe only the U.S. has such foolish IE users.

Mention a browser and the race to make the most idiotic comment imaginable is on..

They could probably boost the browser share a reasonable amount by including MSI and GPO support out the box, rather than relying on a 3rd party to implement it. Many companies won't roll out FF3 unless its easily manageable (like IE7 is). It looked like FF3 might get this support, but it appeared to get dropped before the final release. Maybe one day.

but I've never let that stop me before. It's only a browser, chill out dudes. Any person who pushes one form of software over all others and thinks that anyone who uses anything else is thick is probably hard work to spend time with. Inq - RSS feeds in Vista Ultimate SP1 with AVG v8.0.1 are often failing with "Page not found" error message. Using the widget for RSS news. Anyone else getting Page not found?

If you think IE7 is better, it is because you don't have enough tabs. I usually open a lot tabs, like 10-20 at a time, so I can read a page while loading other pages in background. I can use Ctrl-PgUp/Down to flip between them and FF is way snappier. This will make you surf more pages a lot faster. IMO IE6 is more reliable than IE7, and got better customizable interface. IE7 got tabs. So you can't have best of both worlds with either IE. Looking forward to IE8, but it will have compatibility problems with poorly designed web sites. So FF is the way to go. FF is crash proof now.

Unfortunately more than 50% of the websites today are designed only for IE and it's non-standard functioning, hence when you use browsers like FF which are standards compliant the websites don't work as expected. Many of the sites include financial and banking sites. All them work flawlessly in IE but fail in FF. This forces people to use IE just to complete their transaction thus increasing the marketshare of IE :(

"I tried FF3 on three Vista machines and one XP machine(All had 4GB of memory and dual core processors). I had problems with it on all four machines. It would just randomly close with no warning. That has never happened to me with IE7. FF3 when it did run was the same speed or slower. So I don't know what the big deal is with FF3. There was only a couple of features in FF3 that was any improvement over IE7. But the closing of the program was very annoying. I see no reason to switch from IE7. My experience overall with IE7 is much, much better than anything I saw with FF3. I'll stick with IE on my seven PCs. " Here they are... the cupholder crowd and their legendary seven (!) uber-core Vista machines which magically all runs IE7 fine but all crashes with FF3... ..priceless astroturfing, that is.

"Many companies won't roll out FF3 unless its easily manageable (like IE7 is)." I call it heavy BS or cluelessness, sorry - we rolled out FF back when it reached v1.5, without any problem, it was easy. What's so hard?