Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Internet Explorer Microsoft

IE Not Faring Well In the EU Ballot 325

unixcrab writes "Most PC users hit the web using Internet Explorer by default, simply because that's what came along with Windows. Now, after antitrust investigations, European users get a choice of browser to install via ballot screen, and initial reports are not good for 'ol IE. According to Statcounter, IE use in France has dropped 2.5 percent since last month's implementation of the ballot, 1.3 percent in Italy, and 1 percent in Britain. It's still early days, and it'll take more than this to chip away from IE's 62 percent lead in the browser war, but it's certainly not a good trend for Microsoft. With that in mind, we're going to have to ask you to place your bets now."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

IE Not Faring Well In the EU Ballot

Comments Filter:
  • Re:1% drop !? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Kufat ( 563166 ) <kufat.kufat@net> on Monday March 22, 2010 @10:24AM (#31567874) Homepage

    No, that's not what they're saying. They're saying that IE's TOTAL market share has dropped by 2.5%, 1.3%, and 1% in the above countries, in ONE MONTH, which would tend to suggest that a substantial portion of the installs from that month utilized an alternate browser. Remember, not every computer user in the EU installed Windows 7 this month!

  • Link to Stats (Score:5, Informative)

    by muxxa ( 729961 ) on Monday March 22, 2010 @10:32AM (#31568036)
    IE has a natural downward trend anyway, so the cited percentage drops should be taken in context:

    Germany showed a slight increase:

  • DOJ v MS (Score:1, Informative)

    by SgtChaireBourne ( 457691 ) on Monday March 22, 2010 @10:34AM (#31568096) Homepage when given a choice, people sometimes choose different browsers? This is news? This sounds like the argument

    Actually, the case was "United States v. Microsoft []", which means that it was the government of the United States of America coming down on his Billness for actively and maliciously going out of his way to screw up the market.

    Again, the browser ballot does not make any kind of remedy, not even a little, against the original complaint in the EU. MSIE is still bundled on Windows and even if you install Chromium or Firefox, MSIE is still there making botnets. Many regions have good environmental regulations and are able to prevent pollution. Windows can be treated the same way.

  • Re:1% drop !? (Score:3, Informative)

    by The MAZZTer ( 911996 ) <{moc.liamg} {ta} {tzzagem}> on Monday March 22, 2010 @10:45AM (#31568354) Homepage
    It does not just appear on new installs but also after Windows Update installs a patch.
  • by sopssa ( 1498795 ) <> on Monday March 22, 2010 @10:46AM (#31568370) Journal

    You're linking to old articles, other one from 2007 and other one from beginning of 2009. Things have changed since then, like this ballot screen shows now.

    The later article didn't explain what illegal tying, but did you know Google also pays people to tie their products in - almost all of Firefox revenue is coming from Google and in turn they set Google as the default search engine. Same thing for Opera and other browsers and even some manufacturers (I think HP)

  • Re:1% drop !? (Score:5, Informative)

    by 16Chapel ( 998683 ) on Monday March 22, 2010 @10:46AM (#31568378)
    You don't have to install Win7 to see this - I got the ballot box on my WinXP box, after it auto-updated.

    Ironically, I thought it was malware and closed it via the task manager.
  • The ballot order (Score:3, Informative)

    by poor_boi ( 548340 ) on Monday March 22, 2010 @10:47AM (#31568414)
    The ballot has 12 browsers organized into two groups. Each group is randomized amongst itself for purposes of display order. The first group is always displayed first and consists of: Internet Explorer, Google Chrome, Apple Safari, Firefox, and Opera The second group consists of: Maxthon, Avant Browser, AOL, K-Meleon, Flock, Sleipnir, and Slim
  • by tepples ( 727027 ) <> on Monday March 22, 2010 @10:52AM (#31568506) Homepage Journal

    Why is Mozilla waiting until 30th before releasing the patch?

    The beta patch is out now. Mozilla is waiting to upgrade the general public in order to make sure the patch doesn't introduce worse problems.

  • Percentages...? (Score:5, Informative)

    by capnkr ( 1153623 ) on Monday March 22, 2010 @10:53AM (#31568516)

    {snip}it'll take more than this to chip away from IE's 62 percent lead in the browser war,{/snip}

    Before we work on getting rid of the whole OS (good idea BTW ;) ), we should start by getting the effin' journalists to check [] their numbers [] and do some decent reporting - IE isn't even at 62%, much less @ a 62% lead over *any* other browser... The *only* thing IE leads in is, as you have pointed out, default installs.

  • Re:why would I care? (Score:5, Informative)

    by aldld ( 1663705 ) on Monday March 22, 2010 @11:02AM (#31568764) Homepage
    Because if you ever do web development, you are required to hate Internet Explorer.
  • by poetmatt ( 793785 ) on Monday March 22, 2010 @11:09AM (#31568944) Journal

    what google's doing is not tying. What MS does, is indeed tying. I think you might want to try to understand legally what that means before you make such an incorrect statement.

    It's one thing to pay someone to bundle, it's another to refuse someone from being able to unbundle (essentially the issue of illegal tying).

    Ever tried to remove internet explorer from windows? Yeah, just a little bit of tying there. /sarcasm.

  • by causality ( 777677 ) on Monday March 22, 2010 @11:20AM (#31569164)

    That seems like an overly simple solution. Wouldn't whatever OS that takes its place present the same issues after people decide to try exploiting it? I know windows is far from being the perfect OS, but what would happen if say Ubuntu got 80% market share?

    Many of us believe that a Linux distribution with a decent default configuration is inherently more secure and less exploitable than the average Windows system that ships with new PCs. There are several reasons for this. Access to source makes it easier to build binaries with protections against buffer overflows and other exploits. The wide variety of distributions combined with the extreme configurability of each, down to the ability to replace most core system components with alternative implementations, means that Linux tends to avoid the problems that come with a monoculture.

    Centralized package managers make it much easier to keep all of your software up-to-date. Compare that to Windows where Windows Update can only service Microsoft software and all of your other programs are on their own. Also, Linux distributions are not known for abusing their update mechanisms by pushing WGA and other non-customer-friendly components. They have no "piracy" fears that would tempt them to do so.

    I used to look at widespread Windows worms and wonder at the fact that so many of them exploit already-patched vulnerabilities. It amazed me that people weren't updating, and I think the lack of trust towards Microsoft has much to do with that. If those people did trust Microsoft to provide updates that are high-quality and only in the customers' interests, then there'd be no reason not to allow automatic Windows Updates. For these reasons, it's both easier to keep all software updated in Linux and more likely that users will do so.

    Or are you advocating that nobody gets a majority share (which i suppose is the ideal way do to things)? But then you run into issues of compatibility between systems yadda yadda.

    It'd be nice if no single OS had an overwhelming majority of marketshare. I don't think there'd be compatibility issues. Bear in mind that you're posting to a Web site using ASCII and HTML and JavaScript, all of which are open standards usable on Windows, Macs, and *nix. Incompatibility is really just a synonym for "vendor lock-in". Right now, vendors like Microsoft can get away with that if they have enough marketshare. More diversity in OSs would just compel them to use open standards, otherwise their customers would find themselves on a network where everyone else can communicate and they cannot.

  • Re:Percentages...? (Score:4, Informative)

    by somersault ( 912633 ) on Monday March 22, 2010 @11:29AM (#31569356) Homepage Journal

    Actually, from that first graph you link to, IE has ~160% of the market share that FF (the 2nd most popular browser) has, so "62% lead" could make sense.

  • While you may not be able to choose, Google is opening its Adwords network [] to third parties.

    We have launched a new capability in AdSense allowing Google-certified ad networks compete directly within AdSense, which means that advertisers from these third-party networks will be able to compete with AdWords advertisers to show on the Google Content Network.

  • by bunratty ( 545641 ) on Monday March 22, 2010 @01:35PM (#31571890)

    Microsoft has still not issued a patch for their Charset Inheritance Cross-Site Scripting Vulnerability [] that was found three years ago. The flaw exists in the current version of IE 8.

    You may remember in January there was a flaw in Internet Explorer [] that Microsoft knew about for several months before they delivered a patch. Before the patch was delivered, the flaw was widely exploited by Operation Aurora.

    Now, you're trying to equate those fuckups to Mozilla holding back on releasing a patch for two weeks when there's no sign that the vulnerability is being exploited at all? In case you can't see what the difference is, Microsoft delays patches far longer and gives black hats far more opportunity to exploit the vulnerabilities. How do you think all those botnets get created?

  • Re:Choice?! (Score:3, Informative)

    by TheRaven64 ( 641858 ) on Monday March 22, 2010 @01:43PM (#31572056) Journal
    Depends on the version of DirectX. I haven't bought any new games for a few years, and WINE has pretty much caught up with them now. The most recent game I own, I think, is Homeworld 2. I played that under WINE on my Mac a few weeks ago. It uses DirectX 9, which is the last version supported on Windows XP. I'm not sure what the status of DirectX 10 is with WINE, because I haven't got any games that use DirectX 10.
  • Re:Choice?! (Score:3, Informative)

    by causality ( 777677 ) on Monday March 22, 2010 @02:47PM (#31573178)

    But Windows isn't a "good deal"; it's actually quite expensive and overpriced, given that the same functionality is available even in free operating systems.

    How do I get a free OS to run DirectX-apps?

    I currently use WINE to play Fallout 3 and Mass Effect 2 (which was released recently on Jan. 26, 2010) and have played several other games successfully. For ME2, I had to patch WINE to fix a stability issue and a mouse issue, but this was no big deal and is unusual; most games WINE can run don't require this. The "Winetricks []" script makes it very easy to download (from and install the DirectX runtimes with a single command, facilitating the process.

    It's quite rare that I encounter a game that simply will not work with WINE, though for some games I have had to take steps that would quickly frustrate someone who is not technically inclined and therefore not interested in how it works. For folks who don't want to deal with the effort, there are commercial versions of WINE that play more games out-of-the-box. Considering its complexity and the magnitude of the project, I am most impressed with what WINE can do.

  • Re:Next Step (Score:3, Informative)

    by TheRaven64 ( 641858 ) on Monday March 22, 2010 @08:24PM (#31577818) Journal
    This was one of the things that Be Inc tried. They wanted to do dual-boot installs of Windows and BeOS and let users choose the one to keep after a trial period. Microsoft threatened to stop offering OEM discounts for anyone who shipped Windows in a dual-boot configuration.

What this country needs is a good five cent ANYTHING!