Talk:Browser wars

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Monoculture for worms?

"The near-universal adoption of Internet Explorer has also created a monoculture which has widened the damage done by computer worms, which exploit software vulnerabilities to propagate themselves. The more machines exposing a given vulnerability, the more easily a worm will propagate."

Given the fact that there has yet to be any significant IE "worm", does this really do the article justice? Blaster and Sasser spread without IE. Nearly every definition of the term "worm" indicates compromising a large number of machines without the users having to do anything.

[edit] Chart

Guys, the chart is completely miseading and bad. The percentage on the left only applies to IE/Win, otherwise it would look like Netscape still has a 90%+ share in the early 21st century. It tries to be both a pie chart showing area constrained into a rectangle, as well as a regular chart, and it does neither very well.

Can someone come up with a non-hybrid version that sucks less and is more legible? I'll do it myself if someone posts a link to the initial data that led to the chart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.33.109.95 (talk • contribs)

It's a stacked graph. I've always thought it was obvious. Does it really need to be clarified? -- Schapel 15:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Schapel and personally believe the chart format is excellent; it well visualizes the impact of major events during the "War." 71.49.53.205 18:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I too agree that the chart is good. But I also agree that it is missleading since it is so much out of date. Some statistics show that IE is down to some 53%, having lost their market mainly to mozilla based browsers, such as firefox, mozilla and Safari(?). The chart needs an update. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.225.105.62 (talk) 14:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mobile Devices

Under "Other browser competition", someone who has a good grasp of the mobile devices browser market should flesh out that section. -- Limulus 13:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Right now it reads like an Opera advertisement. Mathiastck 20:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

"Safari, Apple's browser based on WebKit/KHTML, available on iPhone and iPod Touch is also a serious competitor."

SERIOUSLY???? I am not aware of safari being used on any other device than the ones mentioned. The devices dont support any other browser. There is no competition by or for safari in the mobile devices section. The part "is also a serious competitor." seems misleading to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.155.29 (talk) 13:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

YES Seriously, it is the most used mobile browser above IE Mobile Source: http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=10&qptimeframe=M&qpsp=106&qpmr=14&qpdt=1&qpct=0&sample=4 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.181.144.137 (talk) 23:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] misc

"the cause of the success" of computer worms might be a bit too strong. Maybe it should read "a major factor in the success" Lefty 22:49, 2004 Feb 24 (UTC)

Re FrontPage: The current version (from 62.252.0.4) has a paragraph about about web designers not using "best viewed in Netscape" with an explanation that this was because of IE's "more complete support for web standards such as CSS" and obscures the original point about Microsoft's FrontPage producing IE-friendly HTML (at the expense of Netscape interoperability). I've reverted this comment once. In context, this is a list of advantages Microsoft exercised in the browser wars. IMO, releasing and promoting the use of a tool that generated HTML that favored one browser over another was one of the many subtle or not so subtle ways Microsoft used to kill Netscape. The effect (as was desired by Microsoft) was that some web designers stopped using "best viewed in Netscape". Could we perhaps move the bit about "best viewed in" to another place in the article and leave Microsoft's promotion of FrontPage in the list? Rick Block 14:14, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Market share

I pulled this...

However, IE's market share is currently estimated at 85% and dropping at a rate of 1% per 2 weeks.

Interestingly, following the CERT's well-publicized suggestion to use an alternative browser after a flood of IE invulnerabilities, Mozilla Firefox is widely said to gain 1% of the total browser market overnight.

Does anyone have a reliable source for these numbers? Also "widely said" by who? AlistairMcMillan 14:38, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

According to [1], firefox+moz has about 30% of the users, much more than in the graphics on this page. 150.227.16.253 10:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Once again, the stats at W3 Schools are for that one site only. They are not representative of overall browser usage. See the usage share article for more details. -- Schapel 13:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that the 1% statistic is from a Softepedia article that says the statistic is from Net Applications, but Net Applications says that Firefox has 17%, so I'm not sure what exactly is going on with that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.215.67 (talk) 20:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I.E. 6

There has been an update to IE since the article was written. It was bundled with Win XP Service Pack 2

There has not been any major feature-driven update of Internet Explorer for quite some time. Bug fixes are not considered to be "feature updates". In other words, there is no Internet Explorer 6.5 or 7.0, yet. -[Unknown] 03:29, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

Yes there has. IE 6 w/ SP2 has several new features--Will2k 05:24, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

Internet Explorer 6.0 Service Pack 2 is a security related update. While it has "new features" such as the information bar, these are not truly new features as much as security related changes. Windows 2000, for example, is a version of Windows. While there are more than a couple service packs for Windows 2000, Windows XP is the new version, not Windows 2000 Service Pack 4. A new version of Internet Explorer would, in kind, be a new version of it.

That means that "there have been no new versions of Internet Explorer since version 6.0" is totally true. And, my above statement - "There has not been any major feature-driven update of Internet Explorer for quite some time" is also true. Service Pack 2 was not a feature-driven update. It was not a new version - if it was, it would have been called 6.1 or something. This is of course the standard versioning system in computer science, and the way I and Microsoft both describe releases of our software. Had Service Pack 2 been a new version of Internet Explorer, you would see a new version number in your about dialog. It's really that simple. -[Unknown] 05:55, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

What, like the line that says, "Update Versions: SP2"?

"While it has "new features"... these are not truly new features..." Really? Seriously? I would suppose you would call adding central air conditioning to a house a "temperature-related change" and not a "feature addition"?

[edit] history

Can anyone substantiate the first and second paragraphs under history? These attribute specific motives to Microsoft that I don't know are verifiable, or even true. My impression (also probably not verifiable, and perhaps not true) is that Microsoft saw the web and the web browser as a potential threat to Windows as the dominant computer/user interface and therefore had to gain control of it (to limit its functionality and ensure the continued dominance of Windows). The point is if users spend most of their time in a browser, and browsers can run equally well on any OS, the OS becomes irrelevant. I think it's somewhat POV to make any claim about Microsoft's motives in this case (even, perhaps especially, direct quotes from Microsoft about their motives). My suggestion is to delete the entire second paragraph under history and delete the "Microsoft saw the success ..." clause from the first paragraph (leaving the sentence "Microsoft licensed Mosaic ..."). I think the facts are that Netscape was the defacto standard web browser and for whatever reason Microsoft decided to put them out of business. -- Rick Block 19:11, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How are acctual quotes NPOV? Removing this info would be NPOV.

[edit] Pre-Browser Wars

Since, outside of Wikipedia, the IE vs. Netscape wars is considered the first browser wars and the current browser wars with IE vs. Firefox is the second browsers wars, I think we should change

to

--mathwizxp 01:50, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] IE vs Netscape - the takeup by users?

Does any know what the takeup/takeover numbers for IE vs Netscape looked like in the 1990s, versus what the Firefox vs IE takeup/takeover numbers look like? I'm interested to see whether FF is grabbing market share more quickly or slowly that IE did when it first gained a serious foothold. --Richard@lbrc.org 16:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

See the Usage share of web browsers article for data on early adoption of IE. Be careful to compare numbers, because near the end of 1996 IE was included with Windows and therefore gained share very rapidly. -- Schapel 18:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consequences

Because Internet Explorer has the word "Internet" in its name, inexperienced users are sometimes misled into believing that Internet Explorer is the Internet...

To me, this paragraph seemed to be nothing more than unsupported speculation, with some advertisments thrown in for good measure. Can anyone offer a good reason to put it back? Cymsdale 19:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Numerous legends of people calling tech support saying "I deleted the Internet, help!" come to mind... that's probably how that started. It's not worth putting in, unless there's a seperate article on stupid tech support callers. A search returns 163,000 results: [2]

--Planetary 22:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] It was Apache that killed Netscape business model not IIS

I removed

It was Apache that killed Netscape business model not IIS. According to Apache HTTP Server "When first released, Apache was the only viable open source alternative to the Netscape web server (currently known as Sun Java System Web Server). It has since evolved to rival other Unix-based web servers in terms of functionality and performance. Since April 1996 Apache has been the most popular HTTP server on the Internet."

That's simply not true. Sorry.

There was a CCK from Netscape that allowed ISP to configure and brand Netscape Navigator easily

-- 62.178.136.129 16:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] graph at top of article

Hi. I notice the graph shown in this article doesn't cite the source of its data (nor in the description page on the commons wikipedia), therefore I've added a {{Fact}} tag until this is done. I have noticed some similar data, such as this, and I would be interested to see what sort of graph these numbers produce. I think it would be cool to have different shades of one colour for all the Netscape versions, and different shades of another colour for the IE versions. I would do this myself, if I had time. Any offers?! --Rebroad 10:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I've been replacing the browser usage share graphs with data from usage share. I still have the two that list multiple browsers to do (the one in this article, and the one at the top of the usage share article). -- Schapel 13:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture creep

There's too many pictures in this article, to the point where the page looks cluttered. Is there a possibility that some can be removed? Inkbottle 00:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Browser Wars Project Link

The link to "http://www.browser-war.org/index.php" really should be removed..... Look at the image, that's hardly a representitive sample! All in favour say "Ay!"

GoddersUK 20:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

All the silly "browser wars" links should be removed. They don't seem to have anything to do with the content of this article, but rather are hawked by browser fanbois as a way of claiming their browser is best or most popular. -- Schapel 04:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Repetitive sentences

The paragraph "The first browser war" and the sub-paragraph "Internet Explorer dominance" both include a similar sentence: "It was faster and it adopted the W3C's published specifications more faithfully than Netscape Navigator 4.0. Unlike Netscape, it provided the possibility for truly "dynamic" pages in which the flow of the text and images of the page could be altered after the page was loaded." Shouldn't it be changed? 154.20.151.165 04:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Best viewed with IE/Netscape logo

Where can I get one of those "Best viewed with..." logos?Astroview120mm 20:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

You might try searching with Google, but you might also visit http://www.anybrowser.org/campaign/. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inclusion of Safari in 2nd browser wars and not Opera

I don't even use Opera so don't call me an unhappy fanboy. But it seems unfair to me that the article seems to suggest that Safari just entered the browser war and therefore gets special mention within the 2nd war section but Opera, which has been around (on the windows platform) for longer and has greater or comparable market share, is not given a single mention within that section, but is instead shunted off into the "other browsers" section. I think in the interests of fairness some sort of discussion needs to be had as to what requirements need to be met by a browser to qualify it as a major player in the 2nd war. Something like minumum market share. Otherwise we could argue all day between different browser loyalists about whether or not a browser deserves mention. Ninj4 13:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Opera has been around a lot longer you are correct but Safari has a (comperativly) much larger market share. Source: http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.181.144.137 (talk) 23:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] PSP

As far as I'm aware the psp browser is Netfront. Definitely not mozilla as the article claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.37.231.136 (talk) 23:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Firefox 2.0.0.6 on Ubuntu.png

Image:Firefox 2.0.0.6 on Ubuntu.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opera 3rd on Windows?

In the "Windows" section of "Other Browser Competition" it's claimed that " Opera is the third most popular browser on Windows" and is not sourced. I've not been able to find any market share statistics that only show WIndows browsers so i havn't changed it but i would argue that with nearly 6x more marketshare (overall) Safari is likely to be the third on Windows as well. Does anyone have statistics to either prove or disprove this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.181.144.137 (talk) 19:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

I've had a bit of a go-over on the page as it was a bit of a disaster, but more sources are required, its lacking some detail (it's a little biased towards IE IMO) and the second browser war is extremely badly written - it needs to explain better how market-share shifted, how there was a movement towards supporting FireFox (and its features such as extensions and IE's security reputation which led to its takeup) leading to the reformation of the IE team and the fact there has been an increased push towards W3Cs standards rather than browser-centric code. There should be more on the antitrust action and eventual settlement, and the lack of mention of IE5's incorrect box model or ActiveX also bugs me. -93.96.212.203 (talk) 01:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] all over again?

It seams to me (but may be hard to cite) that the browser wars are starting up again. It started with the release of Firefox 2 at the same time as IE 7. Then again (I may be wrong) with Firefox 3 and Opera 9.5. Now it seams that IE 8, Opera 10, Safari 4 and Firefox 4 may be released close together (though Firefox may be quite a while in the future). Also browsers seam to be borrowing aspects of other browsers, like firefoxs awesome bar on IE8 and Opera 9.5. Is IE8 becoming standards compliant to win the competition back? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yhulkdsfdd (talk • contribs) 07:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Google Browser (chrome)

In addition to the above, google is launching a browser called chrome, aimed at competing against firefox and ie.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7593106.stm

Yhulkdsfdd (talk) 17:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chrome major competitor?

This sentence in the opening paragraph seems skewed to me: "The term is used to denote ... the competition between the dominating Internet Explorer and several emerging browsers that has been since 2003, most notably including Mozilla Firefox and not until recently, Google Chrome."

While Chrome may someday be worthy of being mentioned in such a prominent place in the article, I think it's very premature at this point - as of this writing it's only been in open beta for two days. It's just too early to say whether or not it will leave a significant mark on the Browser Wars. Arsivis (talk) 05:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Relativity of browser statistics

I have not found any subject in the article about the relativity of browser statistics. There are many ways of measuring the browser market shares and as many way to ditsort them.

I'm referring to an article on http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/nostats.html to know what I'm talking about. A paragraph should be dedicated to this matter when it comes to brower wars.

Bxlbjorn (talk) 11:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Internet Explorer 1.0.png

The image Image:Internet Explorer 1.0.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article. That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --03:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Goals

Maybe this is a dumb question, but what is the advantage of winning the browser war? Does is bring in revenue? I can't really see how. If someone has a good answer, it's probably worth adding the article. 67.193.131.167 (talk) 22:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 1st broswer war

First browser war is ***wrong***, that's the second browser war. The first one was called the Mosaic Wars, and Netscape won that one (IIRC, this was around NS 2.0 or 1.1N) and some of the competitors were TEXT-based browsers 70.51.8.158 (talk) 09:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Google Chrome not developed to be the most used browser

"Their goal is to compete with Microsoft's Internet Explorer and Mozilla Firefox and eventually become the most used web browser." is a wrong statement as Google doesn't mention that anywhere on its site about why it developed Google Chrome[3].

Hence i am removing the same -  Äõc §aмέέЯ  10:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)