Snicker (IE7)

Discussion in 'Apple' started by Alan Browne, Jun 15, 2012.

  1. Alan Browne

    Alan Browne Guest

    Alan Browne, Jun 15, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Alan Browne

    Wes Groleau Guest

    Wes Groleau, Jun 17, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Helpful Harry, Jun 17, 2012
    #3
  4. Alan Browne

    james Guest

    james, Jun 17, 2012
    #4
  5. Alan Browne

    Alan Browne Guest

    On 2012-06-17 09:10 , james wrote:
    >
    >
    >> ."Alan Browne" wrote in message
    >> news:...

    >
    >
    >> http://www.chicagotribune.com/busin...ernet-explorer-7-tax-20120614,0,3445752.story


    Per Wikipedia Chrome is the top dog.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Usage_share_of_web_browsers_(Source_StatCounter).svg

    For good reason. It's a fine browser (the first year it was a bit dodgy).

    Safari continues to gain. No idea why.

    --
    "Civilization is the limitless multiplication of unnecessary necessities."
    -Samuel Clemens.
     
    Alan Browne, Jun 17, 2012
    #5
  6. In article <>,
    Alan Browne <> wrote:

    > On 2012-06-17 09:10 , james wrote:
    > >
    > >
    > >> ."Alan Browne" wrote in message
    > >> news:...

    > >
    > >
    > >> http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-internet-explore
    > >> r-7-tax-20120614,0,3445752.story

    >
    > Per Wikipedia Chrome is the top dog.
    >
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Usage_share_of_web_browsers_(Source_StatCoun
    > ter).svg
    >
    > For good reason. It's a fine browser (the first year it was a bit dodgy).
    >
    > Safari continues to gain. No idea why.


    Maybe because Mac sales are increasing, and it's the default browser on
    Macs? It's pretty obvious from the graph that Chrome's increase is
    almost entirely due to IE converts. Even if every Safari user had
    switched to Chrome it wouldn't have caught up to IE without a huge
    number of IE users switching as well.

    It looks like the Safari usage share is roughly equal to the Mac share
    in the desktop market.

    --
    Barry Margolin,
    Arlington, MA
    *** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
     
    Barry Margolin, Jun 17, 2012
    #6
  7. Alan Browne

    Alan Browne Guest

    On 2012-06-17 11:20 , Barry Margolin wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > Alan Browne <> wrote:
    >
    >> On 2012-06-17 09:10 , james wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> ."Alan Browne" wrote in message
    >>>> news:...
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-internet-explore
    >>>> r-7-tax-20120614,0,3445752.story

    >>
    >> Per Wikipedia Chrome is the top dog.
    >>
    >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Usage_share_of_web_browsers_(Source_StatCoun
    >> ter).svg
    >>
    >> For good reason. It's a fine browser (the first year it was a bit dodgy).
    >>
    >> Safari continues to gain. No idea why.

    >
    > Maybe because Mac sales are increasing, and it's the default browser on
    > Macs? It's pretty obvious from the graph that Chrome's increase is
    > almost entirely due to IE converts. Even if every Safari user had
    > switched to Chrome it wouldn't have caught up to IE without a huge
    > number of IE users switching as well.
    >
    > It looks like the Safari usage share is roughly equal to the Mac share
    > in the desktop market.


    My comment was TIC. In a recent survey in one of the Mac oriented
    sites, Safari was the favourite by far. IMO a good chunk of that is
    loyalty (as well as the default thing). I personally never liked Safari
    and find it balky in some situations (or did, I don't think I've loaded
    it more than 10 times in the last 3 years).

    Chrome is lean, mean and fast.

    --
    "Civilization is the limitless multiplication of unnecessary necessities."
    -Samuel Clemens.
     
    Alan Browne, Jun 17, 2012
    #7
  8. Alan Browne

    Bread Guest

    On 2012-06-17 15:46:37 +0000, Alan Browne said:

    > Safari was the favourite by far. IMO a good chunk of that is loyalty
    > (as well as the default thing). I personally never liked Safari and
    > find it balky in some situations (or did, I don't think I've loaded it
    > more than 10 times in the last 3 years).


    Most computer users - mac and otherwise - use whatever comes on the
    machine. That means Safari on Macs and IE on Windows. Something has
    to be really really bad before they generally go out of their way to
    replace it, though it looks like Windows users are switching more than
    ever before.

    I've found Safari isn't terrible, just not great. It hangs, sometimes
    just for a few moments, sometimes completely - as do all browsers - but
    Safari does it in my experience more often than either Firefox or
    Chrome.
    >
    > Chrome is lean, mean and fast.


    For my needs, the ability to use certain extensions/plug-ins, and not
    hanging - are the most important issues. Firefox, Safari and Chrome
    all now have decent plug-in support, and lately the one which hangs
    least is Chrome. I have mixed feelings about how Chrome, using my
    Google ID, syncs up information between all my machines - it all means
    that Google is getting a bit more information than I'm terribly
    comfortable with, but nowadays, they're probably getting almost as much
    even if I weren't using Chrome.
     
    Bread, Jun 17, 2012
    #8
  9. Alan Browne

    Lewis Guest

    In message <jrlbtk$6j9$>
    Bread <> wrote:
    > I've found Safari isn't terrible, just not great. It hangs, sometimes
    > just for a few moments, sometimes completely - as do all browsers - but
    > Safari does it in my experience more often than either Firefox or
    > Chrome.


    I used FireFOx pretty much exclusively from 1.0 through about v4 (right
    before the version stupidity started) as it was easily the best browser
    out there. However, since then Firefox has become lethargic and
    problematic. I gave Chrome a go, but found it was a memory hog, was
    unstable, and its internal Flash engine meant I couldn't avoid the
    craptacular Flash animation spam that some sites so love.

    Around Safari 5.0.1 I switched full time to Safari and have found it a
    lot more stable and well-behaved than either FF or Chrome, though I do
    use FF on any windows machine I happen to use. If it's a machine where I
    can install software though, I install Safari.

    It looks like iOS6 will cement my relationship with Safari on the
    desktop as the iCloud tab syncing is a true 'killer' feature.

    >>Chrome is lean, mean and fast.


    Lean? The last time I ran chrome it was using over 1GB of real RAM in
    less than an hour of casual browsing. Safari might get that high after
    several days, maybe, but unless you leave 20+ tabs open its not likely.

    --
    'Tell me, sir Samuel, do you know the phrase "Quis custodiet isos
    custodes?"? (...) It means "Who guards the guards themselves?" (...) Who
    watches the Watch?' --Feet of Clay
    Strange things are afoot at the Circle K
     
    Lewis, Jun 17, 2012
    #9
  10. Alan Browne

    Alan Browne Guest

    On 2012-06-17 16:38 , Lewis wrote:

    >>> Chrome is lean, mean and fast.

    >
    > Lean? The last time I ran chrome it was using over 1GB of real RAM in


    Current instance of Chrome is about a week old and seriously used.

    RAM: 201 MB (real mem) + 315 virtual.

    The "helpers" and such about another 150 MB + 200 virtual.

    eg: 350 MB real mem.

    If I increase that to 5 tabs, one playing video, then add about 55 MB
    per tab opened (real mem) + 65 MB per tab (virtual).

    Shut down the tabs, and all that mem is returned to the OS.

    --
    "Civilization is the limitless multiplication of unnecessary necessities."
    -Samuel Clemens.
     
    Alan Browne, Jun 17, 2012
    #10
  11. Alan Browne

    Lewis Guest

    In message <>
    Alan Browne <> wrote:
    > On 2012-06-17 16:38 , Lewis wrote:


    >>>> Chrome is lean, mean and fast.

    >>
    >> Lean? The last time I ran chrome it was using over 1GB of real RAM in


    > Current instance of Chrome is about a week old and seriously used.


    > RAM: 201 MB (real mem) + 315 virtual.


    > The "helpers" and such about another 150 MB + 200 virtual.


    > eg: 350 MB real mem.


    > If I increase that to 5 tabs, one playing video, then add about 55 MB
    > per tab opened (real mem) + 65 MB per tab (virtual).


    > Shut down the tabs, and all that mem is returned to the OS.


    I'll give Chrome another look then. There's still the Flash issue
    though...

    Safari on my laptop has been running since Friday and is using a total
    of 450-500MB, though nearly 200MB of that is shared.


    --
    Ahahahahaha! Ahahahaha! Aahahaha! BEWARE!!!!! Yrs sincerely The Opera
    Ghost
    Nobody puts one over on Fred C. Dobbs.
     
    Lewis, Jun 17, 2012
    #11
  12. Alan Browne

    Paul Sture Guest

    On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 20:38:15 +0000, Lewis wrote:

    > I used FireFOx pretty much exclusively from 1.0 through about v4 (right
    > before the version stupidity started) as it was easily the best browser
    > out there. However, since then Firefox has become lethargic and
    > problematic.


    I have been using Firefox extensively over the last couple of years,
    mainly for the plugins available. The recent versions appear to have
    addressed the bloat.

    >>>Chrome is lean, mean and fast.

    >
    > Lean? The last time I ran chrome it was using over 1GB of real RAM in
    > less than an hour of casual browsing. Safari might get that high after
    > several days, maybe, but unless you leave 20+ tabs open its not likely.


    Running on a Linux system I recently had 150 tabs open in Firefox.
    Performance wasn't stellar, but it wasn't unacceptable either.
     
    Paul Sture, Jun 18, 2012
    #12
  13. Alan Browne

    Alan Browne Guest

    On 2012-06-17 01:04 , Wes Groleau wrote:
    > On 06-15-2012 16:52, Alan Browne wrote:
    >> http://www.chicagotribune.com/busin...ernet-explorer-7-tax-20120614,0,3445752.story
    >>

    >
    > What do they charge for IE6?


    I'm sure you get that the point the business is trying to make is that
    it is costly for them to adapt their web code so that it handles the
    quirks of IE6 properly. It's a burden. They're just trying to get
    people to upgrade.

    If it were me and I thought the cost of IE6 "compliance" wasn't worth
    the business earned, I'd simply put up a note that the browser could not
    be used at the store when anyone tried to use it and urge them to move
    up to Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


    --
    "Civilization is the limitless multiplication of unnecessary necessities."
    -Samuel Clemens.
     
    Alan Browne, Jun 18, 2012
    #13
  14. On 12-06-18 7:51 AM, Paul Sture wrote:
    > On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 20:38:15 +0000, Lewis wrote:


    >>>> Chrome is lean, mean and fast.

    >>
    >> Lean? The last time I ran chrome it was using over 1GB of real RAM in
    >> less than an hour of casual browsing. Safari might get that high after
    >> several days, maybe, but unless you leave 20+ tabs open its not likely.

    >
    > Running on a Linux system I recently had 150 tabs open in Firefox.
    > Performance wasn't stellar, but it wasn't unacceptable either.


    There seem to be leaks in Chrome on the Mac. I have to quit and restart
    it every few days.

    Cheers,

    -j

    --
    Jeffrey Goldberg http://goldmark.org/jeff/
    I rarely read HTML or poorly quoting posts
    Reply-To address is valid
     
    Jeffrey Goldberg, Jun 18, 2012
    #14
  15. In article <>,
    Alan Browne <> wrote:

    > On 2012-06-17 01:04 , Wes Groleau wrote:
    > > On 06-15-2012 16:52, Alan Browne wrote:
    > >> http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-internet-explore
    > >> r-7-tax-20120614,0,3445752.story
    > >>

    > >
    > > What do they charge for IE6?

    >
    > I'm sure you get that the point the business is trying to make is that
    > it is costly for them to adapt their web code so that it handles the
    > quirks of IE6 properly. It's a burden. They're just trying to get
    > people to upgrade.


    The article is about IE7 compliance, not IE6. But I suspect that the
    charge is actually for IE7 and older, not just IE7.

    --
    Barry Margolin,
    Arlington, MA
    *** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
     
    Barry Margolin, Jun 19, 2012
    #15
  16. Alan Browne

    Wes Groleau Guest

    On 06-18-2012 23:09, Barry Margolin wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > Alan Browne <> wrote:
    >
    >> On 2012-06-17 01:04 , Wes Groleau wrote:
    >>> On 06-15-2012 16:52, Alan Browne wrote:
    >>>> http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-internet-explore
    >>>> r-7-tax-20120614,0,3445752.story
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> What do they charge for IE6?

    >>
    >> I'm sure you get that the point the business is trying to make is that
    >> it is costly for them to adapt their web code so that it handles the
    >> quirks of IE6 properly. It's a burden. They're just trying to get
    >> people to upgrade.

    >
    > The article is about IE7 compliance, not IE6. But I suspect that the
    > charge is actually for IE7 and older, not just IE7.


    Why? The cost of supporting IE6 might be an order of magnitude higher
    than that of IE7.

    --
    Wes Groleau

    “But, Professor! I didn't plagiarize! I paid someone to
    write the essay for me, and that person plagiarized!"
    — from http://rateyourstudents.blogspot.com
     
    Wes Groleau, Jun 19, 2012
    #16
  17. In article <jrork0$h56$>,
    Wes Groleau <> wrote:

    > On 06-18-2012 23:09, Barry Margolin wrote:
    > > In article <>,
    > > Alan Browne <> wrote:
    > >
    > >> On 2012-06-17 01:04 , Wes Groleau wrote:
    > >>> On 06-15-2012 16:52, Alan Browne wrote:
    > >>>> http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-internet-explo
    > >>>> re
    > >>>> r-7-tax-20120614,0,3445752.story
    > >>>>
    > >>>
    > >>> What do they charge for IE6?
    > >>
    > >> I'm sure you get that the point the business is trying to make is that
    > >> it is costly for them to adapt their web code so that it handles the
    > >> quirks of IE6 properly. It's a burden. They're just trying to get
    > >> people to upgrade.

    > >
    > > The article is about IE7 compliance, not IE6. But I suspect that the
    > > charge is actually for IE7 and older, not just IE7.

    >
    > Why? The cost of supporting IE6 might be an order of magnitude higher
    > than that of IE7.


    But maybe there's diminishing returns from trying to get too
    complicated, if there aren't that many users of each older version.

    --
    Barry Margolin,
    Arlington, MA
    *** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
     
    Barry Margolin, Jun 19, 2012
    #17
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. jOHN
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    512
  2. Simon Morris

    "back" from touchpad not working with IE7

    Simon Morris, Oct 29, 2006, in forum: Laptops
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    379
    Simon Morris
    Oct 29, 2006
  3. S.Lewis
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    545
    BillW50
    Nov 4, 2006
  4. BillW50

    Does Vista come with IE7?

    BillW50, Jan 4, 2007, in forum: Laptops
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    399
  5. Wes Groleau

    Snicker

    Wes Groleau, Sep 5, 2012, in forum: Apple
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    253
    JF Mezei
    Sep 5, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page