Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Chrome Firefox Internet Explorer Software Stats The Internet IT

Chrome Hits 20% Share As IE Continues Slide 308

Posted by timothy
from the teeter-tottering-away dept.
jbrodkin writes "Google Chrome's rise in popularity has been remarkably fast and it's just hit a new milestone: more than 20% of all browser usage, according to StatCounter. Chrome rose from only 2.8% in June 2009 to 20.7% worldwide in June 2011, while Microsoft's Internet Explorer fell from 59% to 44% in the same time frame. Firefox dropped only slightly in the past two years, from 30% to 28%. While other browser trackers show Chrome with a lower percentage, there's a reason: StatCounter tracks total surfing, not the number of users. It's the Web's power users who are pushing Chrome to new heights."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Chrome Hits 20% Share As IE Continues Slide

Comments Filter:
  • by cgeys (2240696) on Saturday July 02, 2011 @04:31AM (#36640090)
    Google pays affiliate commissions for every install of their toolbar and chrome. It's perfect bundle for those PC manufacturers who put all kind of stuff on new pc's (like Norton trials etc) and get paid for commissions. IE doesn't give them anything, so they throw in Chrome and make a little extra every PC sold. Chrome and the toolbar also pushed by affiliate marketers who try to get people to install it along their (sometimes shitty) software. So it's no wonder it spreads.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 02, 2011 @04:40AM (#36640116)

      IE gets installed with every windows, and they get commission from installing windows.

      • by phonewebcam (446772) on Saturday July 02, 2011 @05:14AM (#36640212) Homepage

        Incidentally, I Installed Windows 7 recently and was asked to choose between Google, Yahoo and Bing as a search engine. No wonder Google wins everything when it gets listed twice like that [blogspot.com].

      • by jejones (115979) on Saturday July 02, 2011 @06:02AM (#36640362) Journal

        Isn't it more accurate to say they get screwed over if they don't install Windows on every computer they sell?

    • by hairyfeet (841228) <bassbeast1968.gmail@com> on Saturday July 02, 2011 @07:25AM (#36640622) Journal

      I'd add that while I can see why Chrome is climbing (I'm personally giving all my customers Comodo Dragon, based on Chromium because of the speed and added security) I'd add that there is waaaay too many pieces of software out there that has default install set for dumping Chrome. Just the other day I was rushed and found Chrome dropped on my desktop from Defraggler I believe.

      So while I see why some are switching (I personally don't like how Chrome phones home, one of the reasons I'm using Dragon instead) I have to wonder how many got it dropped on their desktop by some freeware. Speaking of dropped the only thing more irritating is how shockwave and some other software are now dropping some Norton Scanner crap on PCs. I don't know how many times I've had to clean that crap off someone's PC this past month.

      So while I personally wish the Chrome team well, and frankly after getting stuck for years cleaning up crap thanks to ActiveX frankly ANYTHING is better than IE, I have to question the wisdom of these stealth Chrome installs. I mean really guys, you are the largest search engine in the world, which gives you a really easy way to advertise Chrome. Do you really need to use sneaky realplayer style tactics just to gain share? It isn't like you have a bad product here, I personally find all the Chromium based browsers much faster, especially on the social and other JavaScript heavy sites. So please end the stealth install program, okay?

      • by Jaktar (975138)

        Just last week I was in a managers office and noticed Chrome on the desktop. One of the companies applications tried to launch in Chrome while he tried to show me something and it default launched in Chrome. He didn't know how it got there.

        I don't recall what it was that he installed but it was another example of an update to an existing program installing Chrome alongside. He had me remove it.

  • Better than IE (Score:3, Informative)

    by Jaro (4361) on Saturday July 02, 2011 @04:39AM (#36640110)

    Better to see some Chrome installs out there because: it runs on multiple platforms, does a hell of a job in supporting web standards and is fast. Although it does crash on occasion, especially with web content. It also dies when you have 60+ Google Maps tabs open.

    For me as a web developer I prefer to see more Chrome installs than IE, just it makes life easier. The only positive thing about IE is that they have gotten better at supporting web standards. Even though stuff that worked in IE 8 doesn't work in IE 9. and stuff made for IE6 and special modifications in IE7 still break IE8 and IE9. But I'm getting off-topic here.

    • by jira (451936)

      > The __only__ positive thing about IE is that they have gotten better at supporting web standards.

      But is is a pretty important one, no?

    • by rtb61 (674572)

      It really depends upon how chrome bit's in Android are counted with smart phones. Likely the big gain is simply Android based smart phones, so for Firefox really neither here nor there but for M$ youch, market share disappearing hand over fist. Of course next up will be the Android netbooks and Tablets with Chrome as default, those targeted at the education market could number in the hundreds of millions but there will be a bit of a face between Chrome and Firefox on those platforms, with poor old IE getti

    • by mcvos (645701)

      Sites like Google+ also work far better in Chrome than in any other browser. (It works in Firefox, but not as smoothly, and in Opera, bits are missing. Haven't tested the others yet.) Google offers a lot of free web services, and Chrome often gets the most out of them. No surprise its popularity is growing.

      Firefox of course has the advantage of its huge number of extensions available. IE is not as bad as it was, but still not as good as the others. And though it pains me to say it, Opera is not as great as

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Seriously? It's Google who just pushes their software. On our network, several users 'suddenly' had Chrome installed. If I remember correctly, it was bundled with Google Earth. None of them of course paying attention to the fact they got more than they bargained for. The very few "power" users - or in our case the people who just want to pretend they know anything about it, could install Google Chrome on their PC's without admin rights... Yes, Google's very sneaky with their setups. The only way to prevent

    • Google Evil (beta) (Score:5, Interesting)

      by ShakaUVM (157947) on Saturday July 02, 2011 @05:14AM (#36640210) Homepage Journal

      >>It's Google who just pushes their software. On our network, several users 'suddenly' had Chrome installed.

      Yeah. I wanted to put the Google photo screensaver on my mom's computer. So a quick Google search, and here it is - http://pack.google.com/screensaver.html [google.com]

      So you click on "get google photos screensaver" and it takes you, not to a link to the download, but to a page for "The Google Pack" which has a bunch of checkboxes for various software options.

      None of which are the screensaver. But Chrome is checked by default, as is Google Desktop. So a non-technical user might think that Google Desktop = hey, free screensaver. So they might download that. And get Chrome. (And all the other bloatware like Avast! antivirus found here:http://pack.google.com/pack_installer.html). I knew that it was probably part of Picasa, so I unchecked all of the bloatware options, and just downloaded Picasa, which indeed had the screensaver my mom wanted, and there you go.

      But the point is:
      1) Google is acting evil (if my mom had tried to do this herself, she'd be stuck with a horrible antivirus product - or two, there's two in the Pack)
      2) Chrome installs are up because of their evil.

      Giving free advertising to Chrome on Google.com is borderline evil, too. Leverage of monopolistic powers and all.

      • by Spad (470073)

        Leverage of monopolistic powers is not evil, *abuse* of a monopolistic position is evil.

        Do you really expect the Chrome team to be paying the Search team to put adverts for Chrome on Google.com? Do you really think that any other company wouldn't (doesn't) do the same thing? Now, if they refused to advertise other browsers, or tacked on a "But Chrome is better" tagline under each one, then I'd agree that they're being evil.

        That said, I do agree that they shouldn't things as products that are only available

        • by node 3 (115640)

          Leverage of monopolistic powers is not evil, *abuse* of a monopolistic position is evil.

          Not quite. Leveraging a monopoly is generally consider abusing a monopoly. Fortunately for Google regarding the topic at hand, they don't have a monopoly. But if they did, then tying Chrome to their monopoly service would be highly likely to run afoul of antitrust laws.

        • by TheLink (130905)

          Do you really think that any other company wouldn't (doesn't) do the same thing?

          The difference is not many other companies use "Don't be evil" as part of their semi-official code of conduct: http://investor.google.com/corporate/code-of-conduct.html [google.com]

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Firefox used to be in the Google Pack. Was that evil?

      • by thegarbz (1787294) on Saturday July 02, 2011 @07:29AM (#36640650)

        Giving free advertising to Chrome on Google.com is borderline evil, too. Leverage of monopolistic powers and all.

        Sigh this again.

        Google search does not dictate the terms by which people use it to search the web.
        Google search does not have the sole product in the market, and users are free to use any alternative at any time without reprise.
        Google search does not have a lack of viable competitors.

        These are the terms which define a monopoly. People choosing to use Google search does not make Google search a monopoly, and pimping their other products on their page is not even remotely anti-competitive.

        Google have ONE product that is a monopoly and that is internet advertising. You can apply the above rules to see:
        Google does dictate the terms by which people run advertisements in a non-negotiable way.
        Google does not have the sole product in the market, but advertisers are not free to use alternatives due to a lack of customer base by the alternatives.
        There is no viable alternative to Google's advertisements due to a lack of customer base by the alternatives.

        This is a monopoly.

      • by molnarcs (675885)

        But the point is: 1) Google is acting evil (if my mom had tried to do this herself, she'd be stuck with a horrible antivirus product - or two, there's two in the Pack) 2) Chrome installs are up because of their evil.

        Giving free advertising to Chrome on Google.com is borderline evil, too. Leverage of monopolistic powers and all.

        I agree with 1) but I don't see 2) as evil. I mean ... how do you propose they tell people about Chrome. Google is an advertising company. Wherever they put a Chrome link you'd consider it an advertisement and a proof of their evil. So what can they do? Develop Chrome than keep it a secret? Make a blog post on their blog that nobody reads (except maybe 0.0000000001% of all Internet users). Even 1) would be OK - I have no problems with their own software - grandma will not use them, but they won't do any har

    • by DJRumpy (1345787)

      You do know you can easily prevent this in newer flavors of Windows by preventing the executable from running? Pre-creating directories is clunky at best, and not a good way to go in a larger environment IMO.

      Just use a Software Restriction policy to prevent it. Easily managed, and easily updated in case the EXE folder, or EXE name changes.

    • Or better, figure out why so many of your users are deliberately installing a browser alongside the one you normally offer. So you force IE6 on them because of some intranet app. Great. Must you really make them suffer with it on everything else? Put another way: what reason is there to want to forcible prevent people from using Chrome (or Firefox or Opera or ...) if it makes them happier or more productive?

  • by masterwit (1800118) * on Saturday July 02, 2011 @04:48AM (#36640134) Journal

    I wonder if this rise in popularity can be attributed to the Chrome ads on Google's homepage we've seen in the past...

    The article did not provide much analysis but rather a "news report" style...oh well.

    • by JAlexoi (1085785)
      The power of marketing - do not underestimate it.
      • Indeed, quality determines whether a product will be successful (Firefox), advertising determine who successful will be (Chrome).
        • by Tridus (79566)

          You know that Chrome is actually better then Firefox at a fair bit of stuff, right?

          Not to mention that if an enterprise wants to deploy something that isn't IE, Chrome provides some tools to do that while Firefox tells them to screw off. One of these is better for market share then the other.

    • Dude, there's a Chrome billboard at my local train station. They're aiming for the casual browsing populace.

  • by gl4ss (559668) on Saturday July 02, 2011 @04:52AM (#36640150) Homepage Journal
    if you go with fresh ie to google.com it's like going to spam city. it has an advert bar at the top to change your homepage to google(a big one, 2x the size of ie's program bar), what's worse the "yes" choice isn't yes, in finnish it's "sopiihan se" which translates roughtly to "oh that's okay" - softening the menu, but it's straight out of spam advertiser course to do that, yes/no would be sufficient, but it woudl be better that they wouldn't do that at all, it's using their monopoly in search to try to push their browser. and it does a "would you like to install a faster way to browse" pop-over on the google logo for installing google chrome. it's an atrocity, really - and it's like if ms and google have traded places.

    also the stats are a bit suspect. (I roll with firefox normally)
    • by coolmadsi (823103)
      I have heard stories of people having Yahoo or Bing as their default homepage and when they want to search for something, they type "google" into the search bar, go to Google from the results, and then search from there. In that case the "oh that's okay" could imply that it is targeted to users who do that who didn't know they could change their homepage to google.com so they don't have to search from it from their current homepage before actually searching on google.

      The summary says "StatCounter tracks t
    • by excelsior_gr (969383) on Saturday July 02, 2011 @05:41AM (#36640276)

      You said it, as well as someone else above, and it goes like this: "Google is using its search monopoly to push Chrome"

      Google does not have a monopoly in search. You can go e.g. to Bing with no consequences. Doing so will not prevent you from using any other programs, features of your hardware etc. The stuff that is online is just there. They do not need a specific search engine in order for them to be found or (nowadays) a specific browser to be viewed. You can type the address in the bar and navigate to your target directly (I know that is starting to change, but this is another story).

      My point is, what Google is doing is different than, e.g. what MS was doing with Windows and IE6 and Windows Media Player. Not having Windows in the 90's meant you could not use your hardware properly (driver issues), you could not play most of the audio and video formats and you could not view a lot of websites appropriately.

      Google is just exercising aggressive marketing strategies, that's all (and I don't like that either). But in this case, unlike 10 years ago, you have other options. Use them!

    • by Kjella (173770)

      I tried it now using a fresh install of IE9 (since I don't ever use it for anything) and first time I went to google I got a top bar asking if I'd like to change my home page to google, same size as their menu line with "Web Images Videos etc." and a small box in the upper right corner below the menu line "for faster video browsing, install Google Chrome". I answered no to the homepage question, X'd out the Chrome box, closed down IE. Opened up IE again, and now it looks exactly like Google in Chrome. So ye

      • by Kjella (173770)

        "for faster video browsing, install Google Chrome"

        "for faster web browsing", of course.. mental typo

    • They still have to compete against an inferior browser that is pre-installed and can't be removed from the user's machine and still, in some instances, ignores your preferred browser choice. MS also uses this to push their awful search engine.
  • "Surfing" (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Can we please stop saying 'surfing' and use 'browsing' instead? 'Surfing' just sounds silly.

  • It's the ADS (Score:2, Insightful)

    by AftanGustur (7715)

    StatCounter tracks total surfing, not the number of users.

    Meaning that it's counting the ads and other stuff Firefox users are blocking.

    Let's face it, Google thrives on advertising, it is the bread and butter of it's revenue stream and Google Chrome will never get even half of the ad-blocking capabilities Firefox users have.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by kronosopher (1531873)
      I'm confused, if Chrome doesn't do ad-blocking then what's this? [google.com] Are you saying that AdBlock for chrome is different in some significant way? If yes, please provide a citation.
      • by AftanGustur (7715)
        I stand corrected, it looks like they have accepted ABP, they didn't for quite a long time.
        • by coolmadsi (823103)
          It's been available for quite a long time now. There was one when Chrome was first getting popular, but it still downloaded ads and only hid them due to a limitation in the add-on API, so it wasn't as good as the Firefox one (but bearable to use). Now with some updates to the API, I think they do stop them from downloading as well.

          In a slightly related topic, I had been browsing without Flashblock on Chromium for a while because I had issues using the add-on, but there is a new one now that is quite decen
      • I'm confused, if Chrome doesn't do ad-blocking then what's this? Are you saying that AdBlock for chrome is different in some significant way? If yes, please provide a citation.

        Check out Ghostery for Chrome. It doesn't work reliably - reload a web page multiple times and it will block only a random subset of all the web-bugs on that page. The developers attribute it to a deficiency in Chrome's API and, last I checked, there was no expected fix from Google.

      • by BZ (40346)

        Last I checked, adblock for chrome prevented _showing_ the add, but not fetching it from the server. Which means the ad impression gets counted.

  • Many and I mean many businesses are coming up with plans to dump Firefox and use IE again thanks to Asa's big mouth. I read about them on slashdot all the time, and while some of you say it is an opportunity for Chrome, all I have to say is it is proof why you should only stick to Microsoft standards at work. No one ever gets fired for choosing them. ... end gripe

    Either way IE 9.01 is now included by default with a Windows Update without a prompt so it's marketshare will increase. It may piss off a lot of u

  • by RoLi (141856) on Saturday July 02, 2011 @05:22AM (#36640234)

    Firefox could have become the rock solid browser that "just works".

    The only reason we have standards like those set by W3C is stability.

    There is no need for rapid releases any more because the major problems have been solved years ago. I am still using Firefox 3.0 as my default browser and while I had to install Chrome because Google-Translator mysteriously stopped working, otherwise I had no problems with it.

    Because of the good extension-system, Firefox could be a rock-solid browser while all the experimental stuff and new functionality is done in extensions.

    But no. Mozilla decided that Firefox has to be like Chrome. Of course not really like Chrome because to get the advantages of Chrome would require a complete rewrite of Firefox, so Mozilla settled for a completely nonsensical release-policy completely with automatic non-wanted upgrades ("What is my computer doing now? Oh, my browser changed again!").

    Mozilla should understand that the 90s are over and people are no longer buying a new computer every 2 years and upgrade their software even more often. The new features (ALL of them) are not needed in the default install. They could be tested using extensions but there is absolutely no reason any more to change ANYTHING just for change's sake.

    What we need is at least one browser-alternative that aims at creating a bug-free browser instead of a perpetual usability experiment.

    • Mod parent up!

    • by theweatherelectric (2007596) on Saturday July 02, 2011 @06:13AM (#36640382)

      Mozilla should understand that the 90s are over and people are no longer buying a new computer every 2 years and upgrade their software even more often. The new features (ALL of them) are not needed in the default install. They could be tested using extensions but there is absolutely no reason any more to change ANYTHING just for change's sake.

      Compared to Firefox 3.0, Firefox 5 has significant performance improvements in its JavaScript and render engines. You can't reasonably implement those changes as an add-on because it will be too slow. You really are missing out if you're still using Firefox 3.0. Firefox 5 is faster and more capable.

    • by pmontra (738736)

      I'm using the same computer since the end of 2006 (an Intel T7200 CPU) and it's getting faster and faster.

      The browsers I use are faster (FF4 is faster than FF3, FF5 looks as fast as FF4), the operating system is faster (I'm on Linux since 2009 coming from XP, I used to have a boot-to-Firefox time of 5 minutes, I get there in 1 minute now), the filesystem is noticeably faster (the ext3 to ext4 switch). Even the software I use to work is faster than it used to be (Java, OpenOffice, Ruby, PostgreSQL among the

    • by Pharmboy (216950)

      What we need is at least one browser-alternative that aims at creating a bug-free browser instead of a perpetual usability experiment.

      Well then....Chrome. Seriously, it is smaller, faster, easier, with upgrades that don't change the experience. I gave up on Firefox once I tried Chrome. Firefox is still ok, but like IE, just too bloated, too many features I don't use.

      • by tero (39203)

        Firefox has been a real dog for a long time. Sluggish rendering, big memory footprint and lately strange design decisions and release cycles.

        The *only* thing that has kept me using it is the NoScript addon. The rest, Chrome does much better.

      • by gaspyy (514539)

        Actually, not to troll or anything, but IE9 feels much lighter and faster than Firefox. Personally, I'm using Chrome 95% of the time, including for development (their dev tools are almost as good as Firebug). I use IE9 from time to time but I open Firefox ONLY when I absolutely need it for Firebug (mostly Firebug plugins and to test).

    • Why in the world would you stick with Firefox 3 when Firefox 5 is out and superior in every way? I'd say Firefox 4 was also superior. Firefox 3 wasn't that bad but it's Javascript performance was shit.
    • by BZ (40346)

      > because the major problems have been solved years ago.

      That's the point. They haven't been. For example, the major problem of web sites not having a good way to describe non-document layouts is _still_ not solved.

  • that one of the areas where if found chrome most useful is to read local (offline) documents. Starts faster than anything else for this purpose.

  • by 93 Escort Wagon (326346) on Saturday July 02, 2011 @05:47AM (#36640296)

    It's the Web's power users who are pushing Chrome to new heights.

    So.. "power users" now equates to "people who have the most free time on their hands"? Because I really don't see how surfing a bunch of web page makes one a "power user". If anything, I'd think people who have no idea what they're doing, or who are just killing time, are far more likely to visit more web pages.

    • by silanea (1241518)
      A bunch of web pages which participate in those tracking programmes, mind you. That excludes lots of websites with a narrower focus or a smaller but more highly specialised user base. And anyone even remotely interested in privacy.
  • "It's the Web's power users who are pushing Chrome to new heights."

    I think that depends on the definition of power users. Because judging by customization and advanced features, Firefox or Opera would be better choices for power users.

    Most Chrome users I know are the exact opposite of power users, they like Chrome because it's simple, it "just opens pages".
    Nothing wrong with that if it works for you. But the point of tweaking and customizing a browser is not to make life more complicated, but to eventually

  • by David Gerard (12369) <slashdot@NOSpam.davidgerard.co.uk> on Saturday July 02, 2011 @06:46AM (#36640482) Homepage

    Wikimedia browser share [wikimedia.org] gives Chrome at 15.6%.

    (This is just one site, of course. But (a) Wikimedia has no interest in pushing the numbers (analysts' business model is selling out) (b) it's a top-10 general interest site used by normal people, not just geeks (c) this is worldwide.)

    • If StatCounter was shilling for Chrome, you'd think they'd report IE's share lower. As it is, they give it more marketshare than Wikimedia does [wikipedia.org].

      They could be getting bribed to do it though. Or, maybe they just use different metrics and are drawing from different samples. Don't be so quick to assume the worst of everyone (or so quick to assume that just because someone is "non-commercial" that they're unbiased).
    • by KiloByte (825081) on Saturday July 02, 2011 @07:37AM (#36640688)

      And even more important, unlike StatCounter and other junk, they do show users with properly configured AdBlock.

      Chrome's AdBlock is crippled, it allows you to remove only visual components but not tracking junk, that's why Chrome's stats seem better.

  • by blind biker (1066130) on Saturday July 02, 2011 @07:08AM (#36640554) Journal

    I think the median of several browser stat websites, as calculated by the Wikipedia entry for browser usage share makes much more sense, than taking one particular site's data - besides, StatCounter has always been biased in favor of Chrome. Not any political kind of bias, mind you, just the way they collect their stats seems to favor Chrome.

    • by Kjella (173770)

      Wikipedia doesn't have June numbers yet. W3C has seen it rise from 16.8% [w3counter.com] to 18.7% [w3counter.com] in the last month. That's a 1.9% increase, statcounter has 1.29%, hitslink only 0.59% and Wikimedia still isn't ready yet, but it's likely the WP average will go up from 16.2% to 17.3-17.4% for June. Either way there's no denying Chrome is climbing fast.

  • by retroworks (652802) on Saturday July 02, 2011 @07:22AM (#36640606) Homepage Journal

    Simplified: Browsers A, B, C are introduced in order to billions of users. Browser A starts with 100% of Market, using Marketing tools like bundling, until Browser B is introduced. Browser B does not have marketing dollars but over time achieves 30% share, Browser A falls to 70%. Browser C is introduced, using Marketing tools similar to Browser A, and in shorter period of time takes 20% share, mostly from Browser A. A now = 50%, B = 30%, and C = 20%.

    65% of Slashdot comments are then griping about Browser C using Marketing tools of Browser A.

    The real challenge is to think of something interesting to say on this topic. It's like commenting on which of your neighbors schoolkids is the smartest looking. Oh and sorry Netscape, you were the first A, but I wasn't talking about you.

  • Ironically, Google Toolbar is the only thing that stops me from switching from Firefox to Chrome. If Chrome could access my Google bookmarks as easily as Firefox could, I'd switch in a heartbeat. But every time I launch Chrome, it says I should import my bookmarks from Google Toolbar. I click on the option to do that, and it doesn't do it.

    I'm still holding off upgrading to FF5, as it says my Google Toolbar will not work. Whether I stick with FF or not depends on whether or not Google Toolbar gets updated to

  • by bedouin (248624) on Saturday July 02, 2011 @08:30AM (#36640870)

    I find it sad that an audience who ran away from MS a decade ago is willing to embrace something so easily from an arguably much more sinister source. Personally I have stopped using Google for searches (DuckDuckGo) and never embraced GMail except as a throwaway account.

    • by Ash-Fox (726320) on Saturday July 02, 2011 @08:53AM (#36640932)

      I find it sad that an audience who ran away from MS a decade ago is willing to embrace something so easily from an arguably much more sinister source.

      Care to follow up with information on more sinister stuff than the Halloween documents [wikimedia.org], patent trolling [cnn.com] and the numerous anti-competitive practices [wikimedia.org] to lock out alternatives, as I am unable to find them in search.

      I look forward to reading your sources.

    • by hercubus (755805)

      I find it sad that an audience who ran away from MS a decade ago is willing to embrace something so easily from an arguably much more sinister source

      Enemy, shmenemy.

      Microsoft was a bland bureaucracy that produced the worst sort of bloated corporate junkware. They were monopolistic pigs with contemptible table manners (think Ballmer here). At times I frakking hated them.

      Google however has been a meritocracy that creates stuff that is often pretty cool. Google has an appetite like any other corporate beast but so far they've been more refined which I appreciate. So far I have little cause to fear or hate them.

      So Microsoft took my money and gave

    • by theurge14 (820596)

      I think what we can take away from this is that generally most people want a fast browser that works over all other concerns.

  • If you look at the places where the most amount of time is spent on the web I doubt "power users" is the term you want to use...

"There is nothing new under the sun, but there are lots of old things we don't know yet." -Ambrose Bierce

Working...