Browser usage stats for July 2011

[InTheCube]

Dude, did you not know these new Web2.0 websites require 3+ GB of memory?! The reason it is loading so slow on your PC is probably because you are not running a 64bit system, nothing to do with infrastructure

I'm running Windows 7 64-bit with 4GB memory and I have both Chrome (x86) and Internet Explorer (x86 & x64) installed. Chrome is much faster than IE (both x86 & x64), just because Chrome is a better browser. So what is the advantage of a 64-bit browser?

Dude, he was kidding. No website could use that much memory, heck I'd be shocked if you could get Firefox with hundreds of tabs open to reach 3GB.

For now, 64 bit browsers are not needed, in fact they are a pain, as browser plugins (like Adobe Flash, etc) have to be rewritten to accommodate 64 bit architectures. I'm pretty sure browser extensions will be affected as well, especially the ones for IE which are tightly integrated into the browser.

 

[zamicro]

I am glad we do not have one dominant browser anymore. Now wesites needs to cater for others as well.

 

[nelwa]

Increase in Chrome I can understand, but Safari? o please not that crap... As a web developer I just wish IE would go away - even now with supposedly "standards compliant" IE9, a lot of things that works in other browsers just don't in IE...so certain things needs checking for IE6, IE7, IE8, IE9 and the rest...that just sucks...

 

[greg0205]

Increase in Chrome I can understand, but Safari? o please not that crap... As a web developer I just wish IE would go away - even now with supposedly "standards compliant" IE9, a lot of things that works in other browsers just don't in IE...so certain things needs checking for IE6, IE7, IE8, IE9 and the rest...that just sucks...

One man's "crap", another man's favorite browser. I'm guessing you're on a Windows machine so I'll let that one slide.
The updates in Safari 5.1 with the launch of Lion make a great browser even better. There was a time I had Firefox and Chrome on my machine 'cos they handled a couple of local sites better than Safari... That time was long ago 'tho.
User stats in the article seem about right 'tho as Apple still only has around 5% of the PC market and the mobile browser stats also seem spot on.
Pleased to see they didn't do a mobile browser thingie for MyBB, I'm guessing most of us use an app for that now anyway.

 

[kingrob]

I'm running Windows 7 64-bit with 4GB memory and I have both Chrome (x86) and Internet Explorer (x86 & x64) installed. Chrome is much faster than IE (both x86 & x64), just because Chrome is a better browser. So what is the advantage of a 64-bit browser?

64-bit apps just run much better on my 64-bit Windows 7 pc. I recently installed Office 2010 Professional 64-bit and it's insanely fast, whereas the 32-bit version was just slow to start. I must admit, 64-bit IE9 is very quick on my pc.

Something I've picked up in Chrome 13....doesn't look like it supports Intel HD graphics for hardware acceleration. Hopefully it's fixed in 14.

 

[Viva]

For now, 64 bit browsers are not needed, in fact they are a pain, as browser plugins (like Adobe Flash, etc) have to be rewritten to accommodate 64 bit architectures. I'm pretty sure browser extensions will be affected as well, especially the ones for IE which are tightly integrated into the browser.

This is what is was getting at. Using a 64-bit browser will probably be a little faster than the 32-bit counterpart, but it's not enough to justify the cost/trouble of development at this point in time for Google/Mozilla/Apple/Opera.

Anyway, I'm glad to hear that Chrome is doing so well and that we are approaching a more balanced market.

 

[MyWorld]

:erm: Dude you must be smoking the good stuff.


Uhm yeah. All the Firefox users are running adblockers & tracking blockers. Pretty sure none of the other browser can match FF's ability to do that. Hell chrome can't even block ads properly.

browser detection is based on the user-agent header. i'm not sure how this correlates to ad blocking.
you can get adblock for chrome. is there some kind of custom config you require which isn't available in the chrome extension?

You can get adblock for Opera as well, works well on this and other sites I have tested.

 

[mdoggie]

Nothing really shocking there. But I'm sure there are those like myself who stay with a browswer just for the familiarity (Mozilla in my case). I just use Chrome to play angry birds

 

[battletoad]

love opera, but some sites just don't cater for it. otherwise chrome and vanilla ff5 are adequate replacements. I should really install that ff mask for opera.

also, editing webpages is easy (heard that feature was ported into ff5). and it seems that if a page displays correctly in opera it'll display correctly most of the time in most other browers (ie 6/7 obviously barred from this statement).

still, whichever browser works best is the one I usually use.barred from this statement).

still, whichever browser works best is the one I usually use.

 

[StevenC]

I used to be a diehard Opera fan and resisted FF for as long as possible but in terms of functionality and addons available for it, it becomes the obvious choice.

When Google actually learn to code a proper download manager and I don't have to use 3rd party software to achieve something decent, then maybe I will look at it again. Also, the addon capabilities of Chrome aren't quite there yet. I have an awesome addon for FF which is the real dealbreaker here called Save Images: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/save-images/?src=api

That nifty little addon lets me configure a hotkey to save a picture INSTANTLY to a predetermined folder with no save prompts or anything like that. Handy for /b/

Only thing Chrome has going for it is the startup time, but that only matters if you are running a Pentium 4. In fact, when I am opening multiple tabs in Chrome, it tends to "freeze" while connecting. This is on a 1mb line, which handles fine on FF.