May 04, 2008

Internet Explorer, or a browser that actually works?

Follow-up to Internet Explorer of Firefox from The randomness of tomorrow, today!

Writing about web page http://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform?key=pHtXzcM6CuvXNF92VcwHzGA

I know I've already done this one, but this time the poll includes Opera, Safari, and "Other"...

If you go for "Other", feel free to leave a comment giving its name.

So please fill in the form, and enjoy the pretty graph:

Browser Preference


- 16 comments by 4 or more people Not publicly viewable

[Skip to the latest comment]
  1. Coincidentally, according to Google Analytics, in the past month I’ve had 1,956 visits to my blog (not necessarily 1,956 different people, of course).

    1. 59.10% (1,156) use internet Explorer
    2. 33.08% (647) use Firefox
    3. 4.60% (90) use Safari
    4. 2.10% (41) use Opera
    5. 0.56% (11) use Mozilla
    6. 0.26% (5) use Konqueror
    7. 0.15% (3) use Playstation Portable
    8. 0.10% (2) use Playstation 3
    9. 0.05% (1) use NetSurf

    From this, and the fact that none of the 6 votes (at the time of this comment) are for IE, we can deduce that 1,156 visits were by people that are embarrassed about using Internet Explorer…

    The breakdown of IE users is also vaguely interesting:

    1. 63.24% (731) IE 7
    2. 36.51% (422) IE 6
    3. 0.17% (2) IE 5.5
    4. 0.09% (1) IE 5.01

    How on Earth can people cope with IE 5!? Even IE 7 isn’t quite good enough!

    I can’t be bothered to copy more figures, but the top 10 browser/OS combos are:

    1. IE + Windows
    2. Firefox + Windows
    3. Safari + Mac
    4. Firefox + Mac
    5. Opera + Windows
    6. Firefox + Linux
    7. Mozilla + Linux
    8. Konqueror + Linux
    9. Safari + Windows
    10. Safari + iPod

    04 May 2008, 17:46

  2. Interesting; for me the split in browsers is somewhat closer (48.35% to 43.27%). I’d like to know which of my housemates was responsible for the four hits off the Wii though.

    I’d also like to know who has the 2560×1600 monitor, so I can kill them and take it for myself.

    04 May 2008, 18:10

  3. I’d also like to know who has the 2560×1600 monitor, so I can kill them and take it for myself.

    I don’t know, but they’ve been here, too…

    04 May 2008, 19:26

  4. Sue

    I think I use internet explorer but I’m not embarrassed about it at all, when I first read this it didn’t really register what IE was, I wasn’t even sure what a browser was to be honest but I know I probably should know and it’s purely laziness on my part that I don’t but I suppose I never really saw the significance until you put the statistics in graph form and it makes it look more interesting.

    05 May 2008, 09:53

  5. Mike Willis

    I’ve always thought it inevitable such polls are always going to come out in favour of something other than IE. Sue’s comment is good example why. Only people who care about the differences in web browsers will bother to participate in such polls and such people tend to not use IE.

    07 May 2008, 13:01

  6. Good point. I’m surprised that no one has voted for Opera or Safari yet, though.

    I quite like Opera, but I much prefer Firefox. One or the main reasons I prefer Firefox is that Opera’s “Widgets” don’t appear to interact with the browser; they just sit there being a clock, or whatever. On the other hand, Firefox’s add-ons can actually change how the browser behaves; I find extensions such as Greasemonkey and TabMixPlus to be fantastically useful.

    07 May 2008, 13:54

  7. Steve Rumsby

    The spread on my blog is pretty much the same as Richard’s above, namely 60% IE, 33% Firefox, 4% Safari, and a sprinkling of others.

    I’ve had one visit from a Wii, one from an iPhone and a couple from an iPod.

    I’ve got some wierd monitor resolutions listed: 2560×1024, 3200×1200, 3520×1200 and the immensely peculiar 800×5000. Some of those must be wrong, surely? Unless they are multiple physical monitors appearing as a single very wide virtual display?

    07 May 2008, 15:22

  8. Unless they are multiple physical monitors appearing as a single very wide virtual display?

    Surely, though, the 800×5000 would be multiple physical monitors appearing as a single very tall virtual display?

    07 May 2008, 15:26

  9. Sue

    There are certain aspects o the internet that interest me a lot but putting technicalities aside (I have a very poor understanding of them) I think I’ve never really fully embraced it because there are things about it that I either don’t understand or don’t like the idea of. I can see that it might be interesting and fun to portray a totally different character to your own but that goes against what I think is the most potentially rewarding application which is to be yourself with lots of strangers when the option not to be is so blatantly obvious.

    08 May 2008, 08:54

  10. Steve: my dual screen set-up at home is 2560×1024 so that’s probably me :D

    800×5000 sounds brilliant! Maybe they really hate scrolling down…

    09 May 2008, 12:52

  11. Steve Rumsby

    It would give you awful neck ache, though, looking at the top of a screen that high. And only 800 wide – how useless is that!

    09 May 2008, 13:03

  12. It would give you awful neck ache, though, looking at the top of a screen that high.

    I’d assumed they’d be physically arranged horizontally…

    And only 800 wide – how useless is that!

    I wouldn’t go so far as useless, but it’s definitely at the very edge of useful.

    09 May 2008, 13:08

  13. Steve Rumsby

    I’d assumed they’d be physically arranged horizontally…

    Ah! For use while lying down, then. I’m beginning to like this idea…:-)

    09 May 2008, 13:10

  14. Ah! For use while lying down, then. I’m beginning to like this idea…:-)

    Not quite what I was thinking, but a much better idea though…

    09 May 2008, 13:14

  15. If you had one set on each side you could make racing games quite interesting.

    Nathan: I’ll think I’ll let you live. :)

    09 May 2008, 13:15

  16. Richard Cunningham

    You can do about a 6000 height on the DCS video wall, it’s better than scrolling down ( http://www.flickr.com/photos/richardcunningham/1337880279/ )

    Large widths tend not to be very useful for most webpages for various reasons like fixed width sites or alternatively long lines of text you can’t track – google maps being a notable exception.

    12 May 2008, 16:05


Add a comment

You are not allowed to comment on this entry as it has restricted commenting permissions.

May 2008

Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su
Apr |  Today  | Jun
         1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31   

Search this blog

Twitter

Google PageRank

Tags

Not signed in
Sign in

Powered by BlogBuilder
© MMXIX