Windows, IE lose web share to Mac OS X, Linux, Safari, Firefox, iPhone

by Stephen Withers Monday, 02 June 2008

The trouble with having a huge market share is that the only way to move is down - and that's exactly what's happening to Windows and Internet Explorer, according to an new report. The question is how much further are they going to fall?

According to the latest Market Share report from Net Applications, Windows' share has dropped from 93.28 to 91.13 percent over the last 12 months. What's taking up the slack? Mostly Mac OS, with a little help from the iPhone. The Mac share has risen from 5.99 to 7.83 percent, and the iPhone's from 0.04 to 0.16 percent - but more of that later.

Linux has scored the biggest proportional improvement over the period, but the growth is coming off such a low base that it is hardly significant.

Growing from 0.46 to 0.68 percent is an achievement, but look at it this way: Windows zealots often describe Mac OS X as irrelevant due to its comparatively small number of users, but on the Net Applications figures Linux is a further order of magnitude behind.

When we look at browser shares, Microsoft is doing even worse with the Market Share report noting a drop from 79.26 to 73.75 percent. Most of that is being soaked up by Firefox, which has gone from 14.45 to 18.41 percent. Safari also has picked up share, rising from 4.58 to 6.25 percent.

No other browser manages to crack the one percent threshold. While Opera last year supplanted Netscape as the fourth force in browsers, it is a long way behind the big three. That said, Opera Mini is responsible for around two and a half times the traffic of Pocket Internet Explorer.

So what was that about the iPhone?

Full article read here:
*www.itwire.com/content/view/18541/1151/

though I definitely thinks Linux share ~=mac

Lol! I hope this thread does not turn into yet another flame war!

well,if M$haft fanboys dont come,then we can have peaceful discussion

^^Lol! Btw praka yaar, dont you think growth of linux is very slow! I mean 0.68% is nothing

Maybe you should advocate Linux and OSS even more than earlier now

well,there is no accurate measure to count the actual Linux users,where Linux is deployed.
I can very well say ,it will be nearer or greater than mac os X's share.

but these guys measure using browser specific details,the details provided by our host etc.
but there are thousands of servers,clients all run Linux

also,it is our duty to spread awareness about GNU/Linux and FOSS in forums such as this ,which used to be a complete window$ one

we have to aggressively show Linux and its benefits.these many n00b's here multiboot different microsoft operating systems and dont know about Linux?then it is our duty to let them know

I am hoping for a day when all major tech magazines in India give as much coverage to Linux as it does to windows!

Talking about accuracy, I agree..It is not possible to measure accurately how many users use specific products etc.

The most common example that I can think of right now is distrowatch Page Hit Rankings! People often mis-interpret the results and end up having wrong information. Like for example PCLinuxOS stayed at No. 1, but it did not mean that majority Linux users were using that during those days!

hey guess what ??
There is every possibility that M$ Vista purposefully crash Firefox....

If 4GB becomes minimum for an OS !! Then its time to phase out all 32bit processors !!
That is Windows 7 Minimum requirements... it should be atleast 10GB of RAM

OMG Microsoft is doomed from 93% to 92%, that is such a huge drop, it's such a big gain for others, a full 1% Microsoft is doomed :lol:

^^93.28 - 91.13 = 1% ??

You are are a true and typical MS user

Pat said:
^^93.28 - 91.13 = 1% ??

You are are a true and typical MS user

LOL. I guess he forgot to open calc.

^^

sorry typo, a full 2%

iMav said:
^^ sorry typo, a full 2%

we never minded !!

2% isn't much bigger than 1. Truth is there is nothing noteworthy about it. What Microsoft would be feeling now is equivalent to how an elephant would feel on a mosquito bite. Nothing.

But then I think why on Earth would anyone want to use IE? The disadvantages outweigh the advantages by 10 to 1. One really has to be a n00b to use IE. Either by chance or by choice.

2% is huge btw! It is 2% of at least 500 million who use Windows? So that means that another 10-15 million (I've got zero math skills) more Mac/Linux users out there who will further spread the joy of christmas.

goobimama said:
(I've got zero math skills)

welcome to the elite club

it doesn.t really matter how many users an OS has. Most of them could just be light users, like those in internet parlours, offices, etc.

What number is more important is Power Users, which is users who use the OS for power, and have a good understanding of their OS and use it. Among Power Users, the statistics are quite different, and though windows is still at the top, its lead is conciderably different, and Linux is far ahead of Macintosh.

Maybe in terms of servers, but as far as notebooks and desktops are concerned, I have come across more Macs than Linux boxes. Windows mainly rules the corporate world.

goobimama said:
Maybe in terms of servers, but as far as notebooks and desktops are concerned, I have come across more Macs than Linux boxes. Windows mainly rules the corporate world.

servers ? there you find NO mac at all. Only windows and linux. Usual boring win server or LAMP server which are as common as stray dogs...
Macs are popular in notebooks, yes.
Desktops ? nope. I think you might have missed quite a few linux machines.
Windows does not RULE corporate world, it DICTATES it.

Toh maine kya bola? I did say you Linux servers rule didn't I? There must be what, like four-five Mac servers in the world?

goobimama said:
Toh maine kya bola? I did say you Linux servers rule didn't I? There must be what, like four-five Mac servers in the world?

actually, I never said Linux Servers Rule. I just indicated the statistical position of them in webservers.

as for mac servers, you yourself know why they don't exist ;-)

Personally, I don't know. I mean, if a Mac server can power a site like Apple.com, I don't see why it won't be ideal in other conditions. But then again, what do I know, I'm a Mac user.

goobimama said:
Personally, I don't know. I mean, if a Mac server can power a site like Apple.com, I don't see why it won't be ideal in other conditions. But then again, what do I know, I'm a Mac user.

simple answer:
who in their right mind would want to make the PC he bought thats so good looking and highly expensive, with lots and lots of eyecandy and suits like iLife which can entertain you for ages, into a server ?

Xserve | Mac OS X Server

This reminds me of a conversation I had with someone the other day. She mentioned that she was having trouble starting the Apache web server on Linux. Some DUTK or something like had to be configured and it wasn't responding (exact words might vary). Then I mentioned how one starts the Apache web server on a Mac...

goobimama said:
Xserve | Mac OS X Server

This reminds me of a conversation I had with someone the other day. She mentioned that she was having trouble starting the Apache web server on Linux. Some DUTK or something like had to be configured and it wasn't responding (exact words might vary). Then I mentioned how one starts the Apache web server on a Mac...

ah the usual... people trying to use linux without knowing how it works always end up like that :lol:

Once you figure out how it works, things will be a breeze.

I am more comfortable on Ubuntu than in windows xp now. Infact, my windows XP got damaged beyond repair by another of those zillion odd bugs/viruses. It only works in safe mode. But I am tooo lazy to reinstall it, despite obtaining SP3, nLite, Drivers, and other tools needed to install it.

Have you ever wondered how easy it is to install a Mac ? Absolutely no drivers ? The same thing happens with linux for me. But windows is hell I say you. Try installing it once and you, who are used to the ease offered by a mac, will suicide. It doesnt even have a non interactive mode so that we can click a few options and be done, and go and have some fun outside while it installs.

@gowtham:dont make goobi come into heat.you will feel sorry for later :))

cats can be dangerous.

I got my dad switch from IE to Firefox n he loves his new browser

Another loss for M$...

Another bug for the M$haft AKA Gates firewall :lol:

praka123 said:
@gowtham:dont make goobi come into heat.you will feel sorry for later cats can be dangerous.

I just said him that him being used to the ease of mac install, he will find windows very difficult. Anything wrong ?

C

No doubt IE is losing market share. My recent experience at work said it all. CSS in IE (6 & 7) sucks big time. What worked flawlessly with FF (2&3) and Opera (highly standards compliant) kept failing on IE. Lost one whole day in debugging it to make it work on that crappy browser (client wants IE and FF compatibility).

The page itself was very complex. Plenty of dynamically generated DIVs with absolute positioning using dynamic CSS along with plenty of real-time AJAX based DnD.

If it was not for IE, I'd have moved on doing something more creative.

Sorry IE fans, but the torture I experienced due to that crap was massive.

Well, Safari & FF render my site in a mess on Windows & Ubuntu respectively. IE 6 is not good, 7 & 8 work like a charm.

C

Could you please check whether your site complied with W3C standard CSS? Also, did it have all those dynamically generated and absolutely positioned DIVs along with AJAX based real-time DnD of objects within the screen?

Yes a page designed only for IE without other browsers in mind would not work on other browsers because IE is the only browser which deviates from web standards to such a huge degree. Please don't fight on this too. I said it from my experience on the previous day at work.

^^ Wordpress theme, a theme designed by someone else was coded for all browsers, but there were poblems, I had to manually change a lot of code with my very limited knowledge of html & absolutely 0 knowledge of CSS.

No. It is not W3C compliant, if you are referring to the site that checks it and tells you where the errors are. I tried a couple of other Wordpress based sites, they too weren't compatible so left it.

IE 8 renders sites as FF or Opera, try the beta. Personal experience, a horrible 1 trying to make sites look the same on safari, ff,IE & Opera.

that is the problem.IE dont follow standards atleast until IE8; that too not fully standard compliant.this makes www a bad place for other browser users,when sites are optimized for IE.
even for that matter ,firefox3 fails acid3 with around 71/100

@chandru:try epiphany-webkit

It works for me in Debian!

C

@iMav

No it is not about the validation site. I just meant if the CSS was written as per the standards at W3C site.

Well since you accepted you do not know about CSS, I'll leave it at this. But for me making the page work well on FF and Opera was a breeze only IE was a pain. Even the Javascript used for showing tooltips worked smoother with the two than IE 6/7.

IE 8, hmmm... I heard a lot about compliance in it. Let me wait till our client demands IE 8 compliance wihtout IE 6/7 compliance before commenting on it.

True that. One first makes a site in Firefox (in my case Safari), and then has to figure out workarounds for IE. Always the case. And while IE 7 has increased in usage, it is pretty much equal to IE 6 users. Not that IE 7 solves all the problems, it is only marginally better than IE 6.

C

AFAIK, Safari is supposed to be ACID compliant. Will check my old page (without IE fixes) on the one single Mac system (for a customer wanting Safari compliance on Mac OS X) at our office and post how it goes here.

Once Vista increases IE7 users will increase, the thing is that a lot of people are on XP and 6 is default there. IE 8 has media hype around it so it's acceptance will not be based on 7's release or success.

chandru.in said:
AFAIK, Safari is supposed to be ACID compliant. Will check my old page (without IE fixes) on the one single Mac system (for a customer wanting Safari compliance on Mac OS X) at our office and post how it goes here.

Safari for Windows uses the same Webkit engine. So pages render identically on both systems.

vi$ta share not seems to increase anyway!

praka123 said:
vi$ta share not seems to increase anyway!

but 3.14rated vista share seems increasing

Thanx for this interesting news Praka123. Must post it on my site soon

Incidentally the last para says :

Net Applications figures are derived from data collected by the company's visitor statistics service for web site operators, and are based on around 160 million visitors per month. That's big enough to provide some credibility, but without knowing the mix of sites it's hard to say how much trust can be put in the exact percentages.

It could be that the nature of the sites involved may lead to some bias towards or against particular operating systems or browsers, for example if they do not render.

T

FF3 d-day would further increase FF mrkt share

but the bias is to Linux ,I think.they dont even want to accurately measure the total users of Linux!

iMav said:
IE 8 renders sites as FF or Opera, try the beta. Personal experience, a horrible 1 trying to make sites look the same on safari, ff,IE & Opera.

LOL

Welome to the developer world

I know how I made my site compatible with IE & others. It still does not appear correctly on IE 6. The sidebar appears at the bottom in ie 6. If I code it to work properly for IE 6, the other browsers display it horribly wrong. Maybe I am mising something.

^^^ Haven't you heard of an ie6 stylesheet? Just make IE6 render some portions of your website differently while 'proper' browsers can use the main stylesheet.

^^I tried that sh1t too. I guess I did something wrong.

My stats:
MS Internet Explorer 64.6 %
( Msie 8.0 0.3 %, Msie 7.0 52 %, Msie 6.0 12.2 %)
Firefox 17.3 %
Opera 7.5 %
Unknown 5.8 %
Safari 2.8 %
Lynx 0.8 %
Mozilla 0.4 %
Konqueror 0.3 %

@iMav-
"Disclaimer

This site looks best in IE 7 and or Firefox. Use of Opera is at personal risk. Avoid Safari even though it is free of cost."

Haha. what a disclaimer you have put on your site

C

Ah noted just now.

What a disclaimer? Why avoiding the 2 most standard's compliant browsers?

^because you know him?

C

narangz said:
@iMav-
"Disclaimer

This site looks best in IE 7 and or Firefox. Use of Opera is at personal risk. Avoid Safari even though it is free of cost."

Haha. what a disclaimer you have put on your site

chandru.in said:
Ah noted just now.

What a disclaimer? Why avoiding the 2 most standard's compliant browsers?

hehe, well I am not a fan/user of Opera (therefore said use at personal risk) & Safari does not display my site's navigation bar correctly (therefore avoid it).

narangz said:
LOL Welome to the developer world I know how I made my site compatible with IE & others. It still does not appear correctly on IE 6. The sidebar appears at the bottom in ie 6. If I code it to work properly for IE 6, the other browsers display it horribly wrong. Maybe I am mising something.

I did not even bother about IE 6. It was at my uncle's place that I realized the site doesn't render correctly on IE 6. I was like to hell with IE 6, use 7 or don't visit my site.

i never thought its this tough to make a site run smoothly on all browsers...

C

^^That too even across consecutive versions of IE a site breaks terribly. I guess this is the "Wow" effect.

iMav said:
I did not even bother about IE 6. It was at my uncle's place that I realized the site doesn't render correctly on IE 6. I was like to hell with IE 6, use 7 or don't visit my site.

Even I don't have IE 6. Noticed that at some friend's place. As I don't have it, I can't check it by changing the codes, hence wrote site requirements at the bottom.

chandru.in said:
^^That too even across consecutive versions of IE a site breaks terribly. I guess this is the "Wow" effect.

ever heard of software development