dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
1408
share rss forum feed


Oleg
Premium
join:2003-12-08
Birmingham, AL
kudos:2

Firefox falls to record low in overall browser share

Firefox's user share on all platforms -- desktop and mobile -- has plunged in the last two months as its desktop browser continued to bleed and its attempt to capture users on smartphones failed to move the needle, new data shows. »www.computerworld.com/s/article/···er_share



Racerbob
Premium
join:2001-06-24
Webster, NY
kudos:1

Yes, I am afraid that the Mozilla organization is having some issues.
--
Try Pale Moon.



Cartel
Premium
join:2006-09-13
Chilliwack, BC
kudos:2
reply to Oleg

Does that include Palemoon?



Oleg
Premium
join:2003-12-08
Birmingham, AL
kudos:2

Unfortunately. Dam Chrome! has killed Every browser there is.



Racerbob
Premium
join:2001-06-24
Webster, NY
kudos:1
reply to Cartel

said by Cartel:

Does that include Palemoon?

No. At least I don't think so.
--
Try Pale Moon.


anonomeX

@71.207.157.x
reply to Oleg

On the other hand, the average IQ of Firefox users is now higher than ever before, at least 50% higher than for users of all the other browsers combined.



carpetshark3
Premium
join:2004-02-12
Idledale, CO
Reviews:
·CenturyLink
reply to Oleg

People tend to use what comes with the computer or phone. It's easier.

Most Android users that post seem to rave about Chrome, or use the native browser. It's also easy to install and work on Android from what I read. Complaints say that FX is "clunky" "non-intuitive"
I'm in the minority, I use Boat Browser. It has a privacy tab, and allows you to dump everything (supposedly) on exit plus you can choose search engine. Boat included Duck as a default. I use a launcher that hides the damn Google search button so I can't hit it by mistake.

Now Android is wanting the total experience with new releases. Pure Google on every page. (I don't want it) Plus Chromecast on your gadget of choice. Doesn't spell anything good for anyone else. Google also requires an account for most services, but that one account gets you Play, Drive, Music, Maps, you name it. Windows and Apple can compete that way, FX can't.

If FX could manage to put the same addons on the phone as they do on computers, I'd be interested. I like NoScript and Tab permissions. (I can turn off images on the fly - which means some ads) Private browsing, etc.

The design changes and the attitude that FX knows what you want has probably turned off others. The attitude drove me to Pale Moon. I happen to know what I want and want to do with it. If the new way is more convenient (one click) leave the old way in too so that those of us who don't mind a little extra effort can still use it.

Safari surprises me. Someone who reads Apple fora should check on why users are abandoning it. Or post why if they know.


bbear2
Premium
join:2003-10-06
94045
kudos:5
reply to Oleg

Thanks for posting this.



Davesnothere
No-BHELL-ity DOES have its Advantages
Premium
join:2009-06-15
START Today!
kudos:7

1 recommendation

reply to Oleg

 
Mayhaps the Microsoft programmers/execs who were responsible for the Metro UI have been moonlighting at Mozilla.

I see glaring parallels of corporate attitude, and of resultant negativity in public sentiment.



MarkRH
Premium
join:2005-02-08
Oklahoma City, OK
reply to Cartel

said by Cartel:

Does that include Palemoon?

It might. I know that at my Webhost in Awstats it makes no difference between Firefox and Palemoon as separate browsers. Probably based on the User Agent string. It sees Firefox in the string and counts them both the same.

Looking at my blog:

Browsers Grabber Hits Percent
Google Chrome No 4,837 34.8 %
Firefox No 3,428 24.7 %
Safari No 2,523 18.1 %
Unknown ? 1,112 8 %
MS Internet Explorer No 814 5.8 %

Yesterday, I updated my version of Irfanview (great program) and Google Chrome is bundled with it now.. you can uncheck it of course.


Racerbob
Premium
join:2001-06-24
Webster, NY
kudos:1
reply to Davesnothere

Well I solved the perceived Windows 8 problem by running Classic Shell. I really do not spend any time in the Metro screen, but I am not totally opposed to it either. As far as the folks at Mozilla, I think that they pi$$sed enough people off by introducing the Australis version. It makes me wonder why they did not choose to stick with a standard UI that people like and are used to AND have the Australis version. In other words, make the under the hood improvements to the browser, but maintain two versions of each new build. So there would be a 30.0 Australis version and also a 30.0 standard UI version that the rest of us would be happy with.



Davesnothere
No-BHELL-ity DOES have its Advantages
Premium
join:2009-06-15
START Today!
kudos:7

1 edit

 
So why would you let Microsoft off the hook and not Mozilla ?

Both outfits did exactly the same thing to us with a forced new UI and no built-in way to change it back, and there is a decent add-on to tame Australis, as very many folks say.

I have now tested that add-on for FireFox and it DOES seem to work.

If you added Classic Shell to FireFox, then why not just add Classic Theme Restorer to FireFox, instead of changing to PaleMoon ?

What am I missing here ?



Racerbob
Premium
join:2001-06-24
Webster, NY
kudos:1

I am not totally letting Microsoft off the hook, but really, the new UI in Windows 8.1 is not bad. It is very easy to get to a classic desktop mode in it if you prefer that environment. Classic Shell is also a quick fix. It does have many settings that I have played with, but for the average user who installs it, it is basically install and be done with it. Windows 8.1 runs rock solid steady for me. Quite happy with it. It is just that I do not run any of the apps that are available.

Classic Theme Restorer on the other hand requires quite a bit of tinkering in order to get everything set just right.

Pale Moon on the other hand requires no add on to set the UI to the way I like it. Also, there is one particular add on that I absolutely cannot do without that will not run properly in FF 30.0. I feel also that the folks who are behind the Pale Moon browser are more in touch with the folks who use their browser and are also aware that many are turned off by the Australis versions.

I know that I present a weak argument, but I like Microsoft and I have used their products for a long time... with the exception of Internet Explorer. I am not disagreeing with your comparisons. It is all a matter of familiarity for me and sliding into Pale Moon just seems "right". Right now for me it is a keeper.
--
Try Pale Moon.



Davesnothere
No-BHELL-ity DOES have its Advantages
Premium
join:2009-06-15
START Today!
kudos:7

2 edits

1 recommendation

said by Davesnothere:

So why would you let Microsoft off the hook and not Mozilla ?

Both outfits did exactly the same thing to us with a forced new UI and no built-in way to change it back, and there is a decent add-on to tame Australis, as very many folks say.

I have now tested that add-on for FireFox and it DOES seem to work.

If you added Classic Shell to FireFox, then why not just add Classic Theme Restorer to FireFox, instead of changing to PaleMoon ?

What am I missing here ?

said by Racerbob:

I am not totally letting Microsoft off the hook, but really, the new UI in Windows 8.1 is not bad. It is very easy to get to a classic desktop mode in it if you prefer that environment. Classic Shell is also a quick fix. It does have many settings that I have played with, but for the average user who installs it, it is basically install and be done with it. Windows 8.1 runs rock solid steady for me. Quite happy with it. It is just that I do not run any of the apps that are available.

Classic Theme Restorer on the other hand requires quite a bit of tinkering in order to get everything set just right.

Pale Moon on the other hand requires no add on to set the UI to the way I like it. Also, there is one particular add on that I absolutely cannot do without that will not run properly in FF 30.0. I feel also that the folks who are behind the Pale Moon browser are more in touch with the folks who use their browser and are also aware that many are turned off by the Australis versions.

I know that I present a weak argument, but I like Microsoft and I have used their products for a long time... with the exception of Internet Explorer. I am not disagreeing with your comparisons. It is all a matter of familiarity for me and sliding into Pale Moon just seems "right". Right now for me it is a keeper.

 
OK, I confess.

I was ribbing you a bit there, because you seemed to be showing the opposite way of handling Windows' and FireFox's transgressions against us.

But some of your followup reasons make good sense, are not weak at all, and are the same as some of mine.

I am grumpy at both MS & Moz for the exact same reason - they each violated my comfort zone and familiarity factor, and left no built-in way back.

But at the same time, if I AM going to make a change, I want to test thoroughly and ask plenty of questions before I follow thru, and that is easier to do with a browser than with a whole OS.

I have not tested the latest updated version of Win 8.1 with that service pack which masquerades as an update - instead have only played with the original 8.0 on someone else's PC, so my experience there is somewhat limited.

Still, if I have to pay hard-earned money for my next OS, then they had damned well better give me what I want, right out of the box !

I DO like PaleMoon for a lot of reasons, but to be fair, I tested FF30 with CTR the other day »Re: [Firefox] Firefox 30 , INCLUDING A SCREENSHOT of the result, and other than my feelings about the politics of it all, I must admit that with CTR, Australis seems functionally tamed, and it didn't take me long to tweak it to that point.

There are even a couple of things which I like BETTER (there, folks, I said it) about the UI of the latest FireFox with CTR added, and I am trying hard to duplicate those in PaleMoon and my current FireFox 24x esr (and having partial success), so that I can stand upon my original principles and end up with PaleMoon anyway.

But doing that has caused me to use some OTHER add-ons with PM and FF esr - ones which I had not used in the past, so I'm using more add-ons, regardless of WHICH way I go.

When I am done with my browser testing, the result will end up with a better UI (for ME) than I had if I had done nothing at all, so regardless of what that IS, it will have been worth the effort.

I have also been testing SeaMonkey, and it runs most of my add-ons, but not 'Tab Mix Plus', which is crucial to my comfort and productivity, AND its menu and toolbars take a good deal more vertical space away from my web pages than ANY of the other browsers do with the appropriate add-ons in place.

BTW, what is the name of the add-on which is essential for YOU ?

And you spoke of familiarity being a strong driving force in your choosing Pale Moon.

Familiarity is also important for me, and as such, that is why I have continued to use one or another version of Windows for so many years.

But Linux has been becoming MUCH more user-friendly during the last couple of years, even for non-geeks, and especially the 'Linux Mint' distro, which I have also been testing on and off, so there is a chance that I may during this year fully install it on one PC, rather than running a 'Live Flash Drive' version, and if THAT goes well, NEXT year may be when this soon-to-be-senior pulls the plug on Microsoft !


carpetshark3
Premium
join:2004-02-12
Idledale, CO
Reviews:
·CenturyLink

Both Pale Moon and SW Iron do have tar files. I have both on Kubuntu.

Doesn't look like usage is going by device. There's a few Chromebooks out there, and being Chrome, what browser is native?

You can't use IE on Linux, but FF and Chrome are usually in a repository and easy to install unless you want to tangle with a tarball.

Look at the security forum - Chrome comes with Flash if you don't uncheck.

Google also adding more services to Chrome on the desktop, so if you use an Android phone, Chrome would be more of a choice for you. One stop everything.

BTW- I don't use Chrome browser, even on the phone. I prefer Boat.



Davesnothere
No-BHELL-ity DOES have its Advantages
Premium
join:2009-06-15
START Today!
kudos:7

 
This is all good to know - Thanks.

I had not learned that PaleMoon had covered Linux (though I should not be surprised), but if they keep using the legacy FF UI there too, it would be a logical choice to consider.

BTW, the Chrome browser for Windows lost MY attention when I realized that they had done away with the legacy menu bar.



ZZZZZZZ
Premium
join:2001-05-27
PARADISE
kudos:1
reply to Oleg

FF lost me months ago after v27,when it messed up so bad.

But does anyone seriously let these results/surveys determine what browsers they use?

Iron and Palemoon are my favorite right now and I'll use them both till they start to screw up and don't do what I want them to do.
--
We must learn to live together as brothers or perish together as fools!

Martin Luther King Jr. (1929 - 1968)



Oleg
Premium
join:2003-12-08
Birmingham, AL
kudos:2
reply to Oleg

Does anyone here remembers Netscape Navigator »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netscape_Navigator i have stared using Netscape when Mozilla has bought it from AOL.



Davesnothere
No-BHELL-ity DOES have its Advantages
Premium
join:2009-06-15
START Today!
kudos:7

 
I used NS starting from version 2 or 3 in Windows 3.1x, and also the later tabbed versions which led to FireFox.

NS was MUCH better than IE during that period !

IE5 was the first half decent web browser from MS, IMNSHO.



ZZZZZZZ
Premium
join:2001-05-27
PARADISE
kudos:1
reply to Oleg

I used NS for years till there was an issue with the download process it used......it was supposed to be spyware/adware..........can't remember exactly.



darcilicious
Cyber Librarian
Premium
join:2001-01-02
Forest Grove, OR
kudos:4
Reviews:
·Frontier FiOS
reply to Oleg

said by Oleg:

Does anyone here remembers Netscape Navigator »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netscape_Navigator i have stared using Netscape when Mozilla has bought it from AOL.

Hell, I remember Mosaic, and the Internet before all the AOL users were let loose on it.
--
♬ Dragon of good fortune struggles with the trickster Fox ♬


carpetshark3
Premium
join:2004-02-12
Idledale, CO
Reviews:
·CenturyLink

I used Netscape Navigator from the start. I simply couldn't stand IE's MY this and MY that. (they still do it. At least the damn icon that used to say "My computer can be renamed to "shithead" )

I miss Opera 8. That version had a bunch of skins - Netscape, IE, Safari and even that white text on a blue background with no images one. Lynx?


EdmundGerber

join:2010-01-04
kudos:1

1 recommendation

reply to darcilicious

said by darcilicious:

said by Oleg:

Does anyone here remembers Netscape Navigator »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netscape_Navigator i have stared using Netscape when Mozilla has bought it from AOL.

Hell, I remember Mosaic, and the Internet before all the AOL users were let loose on it.

Even then it was magic, wasn't it? Clicking a link and ending up 'elsewhere'. Today's internet is OK - but it's never recaptured that sense of wonder I had in 1993.


ZZZZZZZ
Premium
join:2001-05-27
PARADISE
kudos:1

1 recommendation

Very true......the 1st year I had a computer ,I looked around the room one day and it was pitch black.

I realized that I had been sitting there for close to 12 hours surfing and totally lost track of time.



darcilicious
Cyber Librarian
Premium
join:2001-01-02
Forest Grove, OR
kudos:4
Reviews:
·Frontier FiOS
reply to EdmundGerber

said by EdmundGerber:

Even then it was magic, wasn't it? Clicking a link and ending up 'elsewhere'. Today's internet is OK - but it's never recaptured that sense of wonder I had in 1993.

I can remember (shortly after Netscape was launched) working at Intel (labs) when Yahoo (as a directory, pre-search engine days) first launched their home page with three dimensional navigation buttons and how excited the team I worked with got...
--
♬ Dragon of good fortune struggles with the trickster Fox ♬

SafireDonkey
Premium
join:2006-10-29
89000
reply to Oleg

1 word explanation : Australis



JTM1051
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-08
Moorpark, CA
kudos:1
reply to Oleg

Re: Netscape Communicator / Mozilla

said by Oleg:

Does anyone here remembers Netscape Navigator »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netscape_Navigator i have stared using Netscape when Mozilla has bought it from AOL.

Not True -- if you've had read the article you provided the link to you would had known this.
"...In March 1998, Netscape released most of the development code base for Netscape Communicator under an open source license. Only pre-alpha versions of Netscape 5 were released before the open source community decided to scrap the Netscape Navigator codebase entirely and build a new web browser around the Gecko layout engine which Netscape had been developing but which had not yet incorporated. The community-developed open source project was named Mozilla, Netscape Navigator's original code name. America Online bought Netscape; Netscape programmers took a pre-beta-quality form of the Mozilla codebase, gave it a new GUI, and released it as Netscape 6. This did nothing to win back users, who continued to migrate to Internet Explorer. After the release of Netscape 7 and a long public beta test, Mozilla 1.0 was released on 5 June 2002. The same code-base, notably the Gecko layout engine, became the basis of independent applications, including Firefox and Thunderbird. ..."
Used Netscape Communicator 3.0 thru 4.8. For Netscape/ AOL Versions 4.5 thru 4.8 I downloaded the SillyDog701 Base Install - Navigator, Messenger and basic multimedia plug -- NO AIM (AOL Instant Messenger. I staid with Netscape Communicator 4.8 until to the Mozilla Suite 1." (aka Mozilla browser) was released:
»www-archive.mozilla.org/products/mozilla1.x/
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Ap···on_Suite



The "SillyDog701" site's "Netscape Browser Archive" is still up and been the site to get the latest on Netscape since 1999: »sillydog.org/narchive/
Netscape timeline: »sillydog.org/netscape/verinfo.php


Davesnothere
No-BHELL-ity DOES have its Advantages
Premium
join:2009-06-15
START Today!
kudos:7

4 edits

 
Ah Yessssss, Silly Dog !

I got much of my Netscape from there too, same range of versions as you did.

Downloads were often smaller as they left out the optional stuff.

Hey we were still on F-N DIALUP during part (or was it all ?) of that period, and that was one situation in which size DID matter !

As for the strange reference to Netscape's lineage, I caught that too, but dwelled more upon the typo in the same sentence (stared), and so did not take the rest of the statement seriously.

I did however, read the Wiki article, and have been meaning to mention here that found an error in it, having to do with which was the first browser to offer tabbed browsing, a feature which I (contrary to my usual late-adopter habits) embraced immediately when Netscape offered it.

Actually, the error is in HERE : »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browser_wars , in another Wiki article which is linked from the Netscape one.

The second browser war :

After the defeat of Navigator by Internet Explorer, Netscape open-sourced their browser code, and entrusted it to the newly formed non-profit Mozilla Foundation - a primarily community-driven project to create a successor to Netscape.

Development continued for several years with little widespread adoption until a stripped-down browser-only version of the full suite was created, which included features, such as tabbed browsing and a separate search bar, both that had previously only appeared in Opera. The browser-only version was initially named Phoenix....

 
My problem in this quoted section is that it states that prior to Mozilla Phoenix, only Opera had offered tabbed browsing.

Instead, Netscape ALSO had tabs before the end of its development, and that could have been before Phoenix, unless there was a major time overlap between the release dates of Netscape's final versions and Phoenix's first.

Yes, further research suggests that there WAS an overlap in the development of later Netscape and early Mozilla offerings, at a time during which the two dev groups shared the source code, and best as I can tell, Netscape 7.0 introduced tabbed browsing during August of 2002.

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netscape_%···owser%29

This was just before Phoenix version .1 did, which is reported to have been in September 2002.

»allthatiswrong.wordpress.com/201···rowsing/

More importantly, Opera did not introduce tabbed browsing until AFTER the other two, in the early part of 2003.

I have found further sources which support the same date sequence.

= = = = =

I wonder whether there also exists a silly CAT site ?

Hmmmm....


jig

join:2001-01-05
Hacienda Heights, CA
reply to Oleg

Re: Firefox falls to record low in overall browser share

i blame Australis, and the same type of developer choices that led to Australis being the default in the install.
--
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam.


Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
kudos:5
reply to Davesnothere

Re: Netscape Communicator / Mozilla

That's all wrong. Mozilla Suite 1.0 June 2002 introduced tabbed browsing and shortly after that Tabbed Browsing Extensions which was the first extension ever created for a Mozilla browser came to Mozilla Suite. I used it then (what got me hooked on tabbed browsing) and am still using it today on Fx and Pale Moon. The extension was not available for Fx 2 or 3 (but was for Fx 1.5 and earlier) and for Fx 4 and onward it has been broken down into several smaller extensions. But all the smaller extensions used together on current Fx or Pale Moon is basically TBE (by the same dev). The last time TBE was used on Mozilla Suite was 7.0 just before it was retired and SeaMonkey was born in its place. TBE is not on SeaMonkey and that is the reason I have Pale Moon as my default browser instead of SeaMonkey.
--
When governments fear people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. Thomas Jefferson