Gossamer Forum
Home : General : Chit Chat :

Browser Stats

(Page 1 of 3)
> >
Quote Reply
Browser Stats
 
Code:
webreference.com
Major Versions Count Share(%)
---------------------------------------------------------
OP 3 3 0.01
OP 4 2 0.01
OP 5 265 0.85
OP ALL 270 0.86
NS 3 62 0.20
NS 4 1897 6.05
NS 5 507 1.62
NS 6 1 0.00
NS 8 1 0.00
NS ALL 2468 7.87
IE 2 1 0.00
IE 3 87 0.28
IE 4 634 2.02
IE 5 18452 58.85
IE 6 6466 20.62
IE 9 2 0.01
IE ALL 25642 81.78

Code:
About.com

Browser Flavors Hosts %
--------------------------------------------
1. Microsoft 5217 81.2
2. Netscape 882 13.7
3. other 323 5.0

Code:
Internet.com
Microsoft Internet Explorer 35437 86.1%
Netscape Navigator 3026 7.35%
Opera 719 1.74%
Lynx 601 1.46%
MSProxy 199 0.48%
Konqueror-2.2.1 (compatible; Konqueror 198 0.48%
Powermarks-3.5 (compatible; Powermarks 101 0.24%

Woohooo...so long Netscape!

I don't know why I go to so much trouble to fix my sites when they don't work in Netscape....waste of time.

Last edited by:

RedRum: Nov 4, 2001, 10:36 AM
Quote Reply
Re: [RedRum] Browser Stats In reply to
Quote:
I don't know why I go to so much trouble to fix my sites when they don't work in Netscape....waste of time.

Because it's highly unprofessional to exclude a significant number of visitors who - for whatever reasons - prefer to use NS. I always try to make my pages at least NS 4-compatible, even if I'd never use that dinosaur privately. Wink

Last edited by:

Tho.mas: Nov 4, 2001, 12:03 PM
Quote Reply
Re: [Tho.mas] Browser Stats In reply to
Hear! Hear!

I agree, Thomas.

Also, what Paul is neglecting to understand is that browser usage across different web sites differs based on audience groups...like my site, which is accessed by many third world countries with less efficient Internet technologies (client and server), I still have a high percentage of low versions of Netscape and Mozilla browser showing up in my stats reports.

Just because the "big" boys are experiencing a dramatic drop in Netscape users is real no excuse to forgo cross-browser compatibility (and cross-system compatability -> OS and also device, for that matter).

I agree, Thomas, it is highly unprofessional to only design sites to work only in upper versions of IE.
========================================
Buh Bye!

Cheers,
Me
Quote Reply
Re: [Chewbaca] Browser Stats In reply to
Interesting to see Lynx still doing the rounds. It used to be the fact that the UK had libraries and Uni's that used the DOS lynx system for internal computers. Most now though have a custom version of IE - in the libraries anyway. Some people somewhere are still using the old dinosaur and even has a market share comparable with opera, according to Internet.com stats.

Interesting indeed.

~ ERASER


Free JavaScripts @ Insight Eye
Quote Reply
Re: [Eraser] Browser Stats In reply to
Lynx browser comprise 10% of traffic to my AnthroTECH sites, and about 2% to my "real" job site at the Business School at CU-Boulder. It is interesting that we have about 10% of a unique Java-based browser (produced by Sun), which is used by Sun business partners who access the B-school web site.
========================================
Buh Bye!

Cheers,
Me
Quote Reply
Re: [Tho.mas] Browser Stats In reply to
You know what, I don't care :)

As I mentioned in my original post I do make an effort to make my sites cross-browser compatible but I'm not gonna bust my butt if 5000 out of 100,000 can't view my site properly.

I may just adopt the tactic of other large websites and boot away Netscape users.

It will die out eventually. Netscape 6.2 is as bad as the rest.
Quote Reply
Re: [RedRum] Browser Stats In reply to
Our top 10 from yesterday:

Code:
152571: 88.86%: Internet Explorer
11079: 6.45%: Netscape
2551: 1.49%: Opera
2165: 1.26%: Netscape (compatible)
1468: 0.85%: WebAuto
286: 0.17%: BigBrother
218: 0.13%: Microsoft Internet Explorer
113: 0.07%: Crescent Internet ToolPak HTTP OLE Control v.1.0
111: 0.06%: MARS VC
109: 0.06%: Googlebot
However, I have to agree with Eliot and Eraser, for the amount of work required to make things compatible, from a business point of view I wouldn't want to lose 10-15% of customers by making it ie only.

Cheers,

Alex
--
Gossamer Threads Inc.
Quote Reply
Re: [Alex] Browser Stats In reply to
I agree....I'm not suggesting anyone do that, it was just a passing comment that I find it irritating that I have to spend hours editing my site for a few measly NS users.

Last edited by:

RedRum: Nov 4, 2001, 2:33 PM
Quote Reply
Re: [RedRum] Browser Stats In reply to
Why do you have to spend hours to customize your pages for NS? If you do not use proprietary M$ codes (Iframe etc.) or IE-targeted Javascripts, I really fail to understand what's so difficult; NS just requires cleaner HTML coding, and what's bad about that? Wink
Quote Reply
Re: Browser Stats In reply to
could be that Lynx browsers are still marginally popular is because going through a site is quicker when looking for "information" and not a pretty design and it knocks off waiting for graphics to load.

Been thinking of down loading it and giving it a whirl but I finally got ADSL so that idea has been put on the back burner.

ahhh hell .... explorer seems to be the only stable and resonably up-to-date browser on the market.

what a pity. So explorer shouldn't be the only one to be blamed. I'm more angry at all the other companies for making products that can't compete with explorer.


openoffice + gimp + sketch ... Smile
Quote Reply
Re: [RedRum] Browser Stats In reply to
Paul,

I am a bit confused about your points,

Quote:
I don't know why I go to so much trouble to fix my sites when they don't work in Netscape....waste of time.

Then you state:

Quote:
You know what, I don't care :)...
I may just adopt the tactic of other large websites and boot away Netscape users.

Fine, you've made a point of not caring about customers or web
visitors who use Netscape.

Then you state:

Quote:
I agree....I'm not suggesting anyone do that, it was just a passing comment that I find it irritating that I have to spend hours editing my site for a few measly NS users.

Would you please clarify your points?

It seems to me that you are frustrated with having to make your
web pages NS compliant, but you understand the need to do that.

Am I correct in this statement?

Like Thomas stated, it shouldn't take you hours to make your
web pages cross-browser compatible.

Thanks.

========================================
Buh Bye!

Cheers,
Me
Quote Reply
Re: [Chewbaca] Browser Stats In reply to
Quote:
It seems to me that you are frustrated with having to make your
web pages NS compliant, but you understand the need to do that.

Correct.

I was just being a fool when I said I'd boot Netscape users away....of course I wouldn't do that....I was just playing devil's advocate.

Last edited by:

RedRum: Nov 4, 2001, 5:00 PM
Quote Reply
Re: [RedRum] Browser Stats In reply to
Thank you for the clarification, Paul.
========================================
Buh Bye!

Cheers,
Me
Quote Reply
Re: Browser Stats In reply to
Such a shame to see Netscape slip in that way. :-(

If Netscape goes, that would mean the end of the <BLINK> tag - and we can't allow that to happen! ;-)

Remember the days when all the major portals like Yahoo! had a Download Netscape logo on their homepage?

And remember the first release of Interent Explorer? Sorry, the first release of the complete rip-off of Mosaic <g>.

Last edited by:

Wil: Nov 5, 2001, 1:21 AM
Quote Reply
Re: [Tho.mas] Browser Stats In reply to
Thomas

I agree with you there. I endorse the Netscape browser for forcing good coding of HTML.

It discourages lazy programmers, like myself(!), which is a very very good thing.

Read up on what W3C have to say about this, and about XML. It practicaly slates IE for encouraging people to code lazy by leaving the last <TABLE> tag off and IE will still render your document properly.

Cheers

Wil

- wil
Quote Reply
Re: [Wil] Browser Stats In reply to
In my opinion creating a website that is compatable in both IE, NS and other browsers is not really that hard. Ok, there are things like Javascript, IFRAMES etc, but with the power of Perl and SSI there is really no real excuse for IFRAMES, and, if coded correctly you could use a bit of cross browser compatable Javascript to detect if they use an IFRAME capable browsere. If not, then just use an ILAYER Wink

However, I also see the point in not worrying about NS users that much. It is quite annoying having to cater for the many browsers available, yet at the same time as Eliot and Alex made the point of, from a business point of view it is worth the extra hours to customize it to work in IE an dNS (and other browsers). I mean, in my stats, I have the following;

Quote:
MSIE: 98.91 % (685567)
Netscape: 1.076 % (7464)
Opera: 0.005 % (40)
Konqueror: 0 % (0)
Lynx: 0 % (0)
Search Engines: 0.002 % (16)
Unknown: 0.002 % (16)

Now, if I couldnt be bothered to sort that out, then I dread to think what some people would think of my site! Tables would be everywhere, images would be screwed with alignments, and most of it would probably not even load in NS!

Personally, I test all of my sites in NS 4.5, NS 6, IE 4 and IE 5. Anyhing newer than that should mean it would work Smile.

Well, just my opinion in this matter Tongue

Andy (mod)
andy@ultranerds.co.uk
Want to give me something back for my help? Please see my Amazon Wish List
GLinks ULTRA Package | GLinks ULTRA Package PRO
Links SQL Plugins | Website Design and SEO | UltraNerds | ULTRAGLobals Plugin | Pre-Made Template Sets | FREE GLinks Plugins!
Quote Reply
Re: [AndyNewby] Browser Stats In reply to
Yeah, but people have fought long and hard to set standards and really it is up to us to adhere to those standards.

I personally do think that it's great that NS and Mozilla will not display your page properly if you miss a closing tag. It is important that we all code correctly and properly or things are going to get way out of hand.

I can appreciate what IE has done with the early days of the net. They have even adopted the <CENTER> tag in the latest releases of their browsers (ughghghg!) and it does make pages more accessible to the majority.

But then again, does it? It encourages lazy coding, and people using special browsers for various disabilities they may have, or lack of system resources they are able to afford, will not be able to view your pages. And that's what TBL and others have all fought hard for against the big corporations for years. It is proven that it does cause major problems for people with screen readers, audio browsers, and text-only browsers. The latter I know from personal experiences.

Quote:
"The power of the Web is in its universality. Access by everyone regardless of disability is an essential aspect."
-- Tim Berners-Lee, W3C Director and inventor of the World Wide Web
I think this will become a lot more evident with the widespread use of XML. Simple facts like XML must be properly nested (which is extremely important, IMO) and elements must be closed (even empty ones). The value assigned to an attribute must be enclosed in quotes. You must have a DOCTYPE header. And so forth ...

With the way a lot of developers are currently coding; the jump to XML will be difficult and will cause a lot more headaches than necessary. But the W3 are standing their ground on this, and insisting that you do adhere to the standards, and have actually written it into the specifications.

Anyway, just trying to get a few of my beliefs as a designer and developer across.

Back to work ...

- wil
Quote Reply
Re: [AndyNewby] Browser Stats In reply to
As Eliot correctly stated: it depends on your target audience. Here are my stats:

Quote:
Internet Explorer 77.38%
Netscape 12.61%
Unknown/Other 3.86%
AOL's Browser 2.83%
Spider/Crawler 1.95%
Cache/Proxy server 0.67%
Opera 0.46%
WebTV 0.16%
Powermarks bookmark thing 0.06%
iCab 0.02%
Lynx 0.00%


Nearly 13% of NS users are a few thousand too many to be neglected, even for a non-profit site. Wink
Quote Reply
Re: [Tho.mas] Browser Stats In reply to
You should see my locahost stats.... 100% Mozilla ;-)

- wil
Quote Reply
Re: [Wil] Browser Stats In reply to
Quote:
It encourages lazy coding,

Yeah but just think, if 100% used IE then it wouldn't matter if the code was crap as long as it looked good lol
Quote Reply
Re: [Wil] Browser Stats In reply to
Here are some stats from one of the sites on our server:

Code:
25.93% MSIE 5.5; Windows 98
14.56% MSIE 5.5; Windows NT 5.0
6.69% MSIE 5.5; Windows NT 4.0
5.84% MSIE 5.0; Windows 98; DigExt
5.57% Netscape 4.73 [en] Win98; I
3.55% MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0
3.02% MSIE 5.01; Windows 98
2.61% MSIE 5.5; Windows 98; Win 9x 4.90
2.26% MSIE 5.5; Windows 95
1.74% MSIE 6.0; Windows 98
1.59% MSIE 5.01; Windows NT 5.0
1.41% MSIE 5.0; Windows 98; DigExt; BellSouth
1.35% MSIE 5.5; Windows 98; SYMPA
1.16% MSIE 6.0; Windows 98; yie6-uk
0.88% MSIE 5.01; Windows 98; AtHome0107

Last edited by:

RedRum: Nov 5, 2001, 4:49 AM
Quote Reply
Re: [RedRum] Browser Stats In reply to
In Reply To:
Yeah but just think, if 100% used IE then it wouldn't matter if the code was crap as long as it looked good lol
Ouch, don't tell me you use Frontpage, Paul... Sly
Quote Reply
Re: [Tho.mas] Browser Stats In reply to
Do you think WiredON's main page would be HTML 4.01 Transitional if I used FP :)


....whilst I'm on the subject....I'm getting "abused" for not wanting to make my pages cross-browser compatible yet mine is the only one that fully validates with W3C TongueTongueTongueAngelicAngelicAngelic

Thomas...yours gives a FATAL ERROR lol

Oh what do you know, Eliots give a FATAL ERROR too.

Oh would you believe it...Wil's site gives a WARNING and FATAL ERROR

That'll teach you!! :) j/k


Last edited by:

RedRum: Nov 5, 2001, 5:20 AM
Quote Reply
Re: [Wil] Browser Stats In reply to
Paul,
I realy fail to understand the fixation you have with MIE.
Just because a product has a large market share, does not necessarily make it a good product.
The only reason it has that market share is because Bill has the money to make it so.
Because of the security problems of MIE, which allow 3rd party Scum Ware to invade your PC and hijacks your site traffic, steal your advertising and collect your private information, there is now a boycot on MIE and Micro$loth stuff in general by webmasters world wide.
The most suitable alternative to MIE seems to be Netscape, and if us webmasters have our way (which we will), you may well see Netscape and others grabbing a far larger share of the market in the near future.
You may be cutting your own throat with this MIE and bugger the rest attitude.
Test your sites with as many different browsers and as many different versions as you can find, because there are a lot of us out there who are not MIE lovers.
I don't know why I bothered to write this, because as you said you realy don't care.

Bob
http://totallyfreeads.com




Quote Reply
Re: [lanerj] Browser Stats In reply to
You mustn't have read all my posts properly.

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


It seems to me that you are frustrated with having to make your
web pages NS compliant, but you understand the need to do that.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Correct.

I was just being a fool when I said I'd boot Netscape users away....of course I wouldn't do that....I was just playing devil's advocate.

Quote:
you may well see Netscape and others grabbing a far larger share of the market in the near future.

A famous song springs to mind - "Day Dream Believer"

Last edited by:

RedRum: Nov 5, 2001, 5:22 AM
> >