I'll bet that nobody counted the thousands of people who uninstalled this buggy software. CNET just finished a survey of it's members who 86ed IE-7 and went back to the old version or a third party browser...

Firefox is increasing considerably the number of users without forced installations. MS has reached the 100 million installation milestone by autoupdates (something as viewing their own image in a mirror). They are aware of their power. BTW, you see it also when they say they will stop supporting all their precedent OS, the ones that almost we all are running now, after two years from the Vista start: the ultimatum is a cruel decision. Many users have just bought XP and in my opinion will simply keep using it and not react the way MS wants, by upgrading hardware and software to buy Vista in a 2 years term, while others will change to any of the other existing OS the same way many have already chosen FF, or even downgrade to Windows 98 SE if they run an old machine.

Dito. IE7, at best, was no better than 6. Besides, I don't like what they did with the toolbars.

youi know how ms windows has got bugs in it well
would you belive it ... one cannot connect to Hotmail or my space with IE7

I can just fine...

Seeing how hotmail is a MS product, I would highly doubt that you would not be able to connect to it.

pebkac

This is a no brainer. Microsoft forced their users to upgrade to IE7 through their Automatic Update.

More like, made it available to their users via Automatic Update. 90% of the public wouldn't have known a new, more secure, and more functional version of IE was available otherwise. The option to accept it or deny it is up to the user.

Nope

The only advantage IE7 has is the rendering engine. Apart from that it's actually worse than IE6 because it changed registry for plug-ins. Common plug-ins such as Flash, Shockwave, QT, Cortona VRML need to be reinstalled several times so IE7 can pick them up. Several people that I know had many problems with IE7 upgrade.
Thanx MS for your new look, and "below average" geek code.
As for other browsers I can't say which is the ultimate one. If you think of the web just because of Yahoo or Google looks, than Firefox is just fine. But for multimedia applications Firefox is the worst in rendering engine - try watching 5-10 MB streaming video on Firefox and you'll start laughing (no comments about larger files). On the other hand, Opera is fine with exception to DHTML incompatibility which earns them a "thumbs down" too (so much for their claim of W3C compliance).
So, if anyone picks the best features of IE, Firefox and Opera and combines them into a new browser, then let me know because I'll be the 1st to use it. Until then, I'll continue using multiple browsers...

It's called Maxthon, and it's been my browser of choice for past 2 years or so. Fast, stable like a rock, 100% compatible since it runs on Trident (IE rendering engine)... Maxthon 2 (now in beta) will blow everything else out of the water once it becomes "final" (probably in 2-3 months) when using it with IE7 core. Maxthon 1.5 is still an awesome browser for the time being. The amount of features it supports out-of-the-box is simply mind boggling...

Firefox and thunderbird do the exact same thing and will install and update automatically (it also has an option to stop this from happening same with MS)

If people are being "forced" to install it its because they obviousily need it if they don't know its ok to download maybe they shouldn't be near a pc? (I just installed ie7 on two pcs this weekend and not once did it force me it asked me if I wanted to install it as I could have said no but the people like IE they don't like opera or firefox because both of them don't work correctly with certain flash and media sites they visited)

How many IE7 are pushed to users via auto-update? Anecdote from a novice user when he discovered IE7 recently: "IE7 is the best browser, it has tabs".

That's why adding too many features isn't gonna make ppl switch to Firefox in the long run... People have very basic needs, and a little fresh look, slightly better security, and only the most obviously lacking features (from earlier versions) - is sufficient to make almost all "average users" very happy.

I feel really happy with Maxthon 2 beta working on Windows 98 SE (no need for me to upgrade Windows until today, it works OK since 1999, fast and reliable).

My IE7 gives me the message that it must shut down several times every day.

But both Firefox and Opera freeze when I use them and I have to reboot.

Anyone have any suggestions how I can prevent this?

Doesn't sound like a 3rd party software issue. Either your OS installation is hosed (requiring a format/re-install), or your hardware is bad.

To test, reformat/reinstall the OS, or run off of a "Live" CD. If failures continue, check the CPU/RA/Logic board, you've likely got a hardware issue.

sounds like it could also be spyware or possible virus issues

IE7 Vs. Firefox2 - The usual bulls**t. Firefox is the new king! I mean, I've been using it since the days of Pheonix, then Firebird and back then it was no match to IE6 but now it's da bomb! IE7 is a dreadful waste of time. Even Microsoft's own MSN Spaces is more stable with Firefox! No Joke!

Just a note for apjone, IE7 can open as many tabs as you like. 8 tab limit is rubbish.

These stats are so useless. The really important stats are how many people moved from firefox to IE7.

ITA.

This is not really big news, as most users are forced to use this browser due to their lack of IT knowledge. The fact that it gets pushed down to the user whether they like it or does not make it the most used.
Plus the 8 tab limit is not very useful. Its gui is loud and unfriendly to most average users I have dealt with.
Totally meaningless stats. BTW They could at least talk about fixing the holes in their existing products before planning new products.

Oh, yes, it was such a forced update. * tabs? You must have a weird version, I have yet to encounter such a limit. It's gui is less loud than IE6's and definitely quiet compared to firefox or opera, and the reason it is unfriendly is because it is so streamlined and different. When it was first released, I said the worst thing IE7 had going for it was that it made Firefox more similar to IE6 than itself. BTW, IE7 was released as a fix to holes in an existing product.

IE isn't a new product. IE7 is an upgrade to IE6.

wonder if it has a hidden kill switch ?

Just because it is installed does not mean it is being used :) IE7 is installed on my XP computer but I still use Firefox exclusively.

IE7 sucks bigtime. After I installed it at work, tons of my programs suddenly could not work. After a lot of my company automatically installed IE7 (using the darn MS update program). Found that one of our critical programs could not work with IE7. I had to go manually uninstall from all the affected computers. Then send out email telling non-computer people. Not to auto-install the lastest XP update. And had to explain again and again why cannot.

I hate it when Microsoft does this darn high handed things, with their defect products.

So, either your company is too small to warrant one, or your IT dept dropped the ball. MS offered an IE7 update blocker well before they pushed it though automatic updates, specifically for IT depts expecting compatibility problems with IE7. When I was working at a university, we put off the campus-wide upgrade to SP2 for almost 6 months analysing its impact on every department and finding the solutions before upgrading.

This is a totally meaningless number. It's not split out by voluntary vs forced installs. And that invalidates the statement "that makes the new browser the second most used behind IE6" as well. There is no direct correlation.

What most folks fail to understand is that it is not a count of *existing* installations. It is merely a stat that plays to product interest.

Considering it's an update to a widely used MS product, it's not at all surprising.

Totally meaningless for any use other than perhaps the satiating of mild curiosity.

..and of course, the always amusing frenetic posturing of the anti-ms trolls.

It should be a beta.

since IE7 require WGA

the news could read ...
only 25% of web surfers in US using 'genuine' windows

:-)

It's probably closer to 95% in the US, as WinXP Home comes preinstalled on every freakin' PC in the store. The geeks who build/upgrade to XP Pro are very, very few (less than 5% I'd guess). The reason for "only" 25% is that many ppl are afraid of upgrading to IE7 (so refused it), that some don't have automatic updates, and that MS has not pushed IE7 to everyone. They're doing it slowly and surely... In less than 3 months it'll be 150million, and in 6 months 250million active users of IE7 (not just "people who installed it"), for sure...

Unfortunately I got IE7 forced down my throat! MS does it via security updates and refuses if I do not install IE7. majority of PC setup to allow automatic updats will get IE7 installed automatically. Your reporting is incorrect - you should break up the number of downloads into (A) Free & Willing user downloads and (B) Forced downloads.

Making 100 million copies and giving it for free does not mean there will be 100 million users

majority of PC setup to allow automatic updats will get IE7 installed automatically.

Complete BS.

It asks. Even if you have it set up to automatically download and install updates.

See kids? Don't sniff glue.

Not noted: This counts all the irrelevant IE7 installs on Windows Server 2003 via Windows Update.

I didn't even think about it trying to install on one of my servers a few weeks back, but I guess anyplace you can get the numbers.

Everyone knows those file servers are where the browser war REALLY counts!

I downloaded it ... it slowed down my computer to a crawl so I immediately uninstalled it. Never will use that again. Firefox is far superior.

Turn off the phishing filter.

They should include in the article- "in other news, IE6 usage is down 25%...and Firefox and Opera usages have remained the same"

IE7 is merely cutting into IE6's share of the market...as Vista will do to XP... I have yet to meet a Firefox or Opera user who has "switched" their primary browser to IE7.. Just like I doubt you'll seee a Linux user who switches his OS to Vista when its released...nope. Vista shares will rise as XP shares decline...

that's a ridiculous argument. how can you say, "IE7 is cutting into IE6's share of the market" but not say Firefox 2.0 is cutting into Firefox 1.0 or 1.5's marketshare. It's a version update, and I think it's ridiculous either way to pit IE7 against IE6, they're both IE, same company, who cares. Also, Paul Thurott at winsupersite.com switched his primary browser from firefox to IE7 in Windows Vista. There ya go. I also switched from firefox to IE7 in XP. although I use firefox from time to time.

Same holds for your vista cutting into the XP share. same company, same software, different version.

People like you like to twist the figures to make one company look more foolish than others.

Sure I installed IE7...and then uninstalled it three days later when it presented numerous compatibility issues with other software I use daily, such as Outlook Express (!)

Since I almost never use IE anyway, it was really no big deal and I just thought my wife would like it, but guess what?...she switched to Firefox too !

The only good thing I can say about M'soft's handling of IE7 was including an uninstall and making it easy to revert back to IE6. At least that worked.

My auto update on a couple of computers offered me a choice of updating to IE7 or not. When I clicked on the tray icon, I was immediately presented with a choice.

On one computer I didn't update for a month, and on another computer I still haven't updated. No fuss, no problem.

I have it on two computers now, and it works just fine.

Firefox

Let's see, they force it on you through auto update (unless of course you take the time to turn off auto update and don't select IE7 for installation), then the trumpet the number of downloads and installs. Typical Microspud BS.

Dude, even before installing the update for IE7, it warns the user and gives them the option to not install it. This occurs even on installations where the user has turned on fully automatic update installation.

We get it, you hate MS. Bully for you.

Every company pads their stats. It's one of those harsh realities. Get used to it, or get used to disappointment.

Another brilliant bit of nonsense from the PC_Fool. It also tells you if you don't install the update your computer could be at risk. Now which warning do you think the "Mom and Pop" computer user is going to heed? We get that you will defend every bit of crap MS puts out. Get a life.

dude, PC_Tool is right. They give you the option. And their warning is true, if you remain with IE6 your computer could be at risk. IE7 has less vulnerabilities. They want the consumer to know that, but they still have a choice. You cannot deny that you have the choice, unless you're saying that you're easily peer pressured by software.

The solution is to not use IE6 or IE7...Opera and Firefox are better browsers with less risk than both.

MS doesn't give a big rat's butt about the consumer as evidenced by the fact that IE7 was what, ten years in the making? And then only after Firefox got to 10% market share and became a significant threat to their hegemony. The only difference between what they did in 1996 and now is that the anti trust cases brought against them wont let MS force IE7 on users of Windows like they did with the original IE when they drove Netscape out of the market. And to be honest, I see IE7 auto update as a scam that allows MS to circumnavigate the anti trust restrictions placed on them by the Courts.

It also tells you if you don't install the update your computer could be at risk.

..and because IE7 is more secure than IE6, it's telling the user the truth.

*gasp*

OH NOES!!

MS is telling people the truth!! Whatever will we do?!?!?!

We get that you will defend every bit of crap MS puts out. Get a life.

No, I don't...and I already have one, but thanks anyway.

We do, however, get that you will spin damn near anything if it allows you to bash away at MS. The very fact that you believe telling users that the new one is more secure than the old one is a "Bad"™ thing basically proves it.

lmao...

And you can use Windows XP without *ever* touching the browser.

Okay, maybe *you* can. How about your precious average Mom & Pop?

I'd far rather them have IE7(with all the security enhancements it includes), even if they use it very infrequently, than that ancient POS IE6 laying the OS open to attacks IE7 could be preventing.

I find it highly amusing you are suggesting...even to FF users (of which I am one), that keeping IE6 on their machines would be preferable, even unused, to updating it to IE7...even unused.

But hey... To each their own.

Shoving IE7 down the user's throat is just great for both the end user and the web-builder. And no, I am not being sarcastic.

Yes! Someone with some sense!
Web Developers can actually use CSS reasonably properly.

With the addition of the developer bar IE 7 is a reasonably good brower. Face it, they all have their problems.

Unfortunately, there are quite a few browser-based applications that are not compatible with IE7 or Firefox.

They need to adapt or Die. The beta for IE7 was released for 18 months for compatibility reasons.

*gasp*

A version update breaks compatibility?

How *DARE* they!

/sarcasm

40 million freely downloaded and installed
70 million auto installed
60 million uninstalls
35 million reinstalls
30 million crashed pc's will failed installation
==========
100 million installs

yes it all adds up nicely...

I have IE7 installed on 4 different computers but rarely use it on any of them. I prefer Firefox, but need to test HTML and PHP on it. This just shows how skewed their numbers may be.

*edit: There is some crafty wording there: "second most used" based upon installs means that having it installed makes you a user even if you don't use it. Any statistic following that logic is flawed

I have FF installed on multiple machines but hardly ever use it other than to test on.

Goes the same both ways.

Thanks, I hadn't thought of that. /sarcasm

My comment is about flaws in the facts. I have no desire to join in a browser debate.

Any statistic that includes accounting for people with four computers that needs to test HTML and PHP would be skewed. You and people like you are such a tiny and small minority of the 100 million stat that you don't count. In fact, anyone who visits Beta News or any other tech news/blog site is meaningless when it comes to stats. We are not anywhere near the average computer user.

Exactly, but my installations count in their "milestone" and they seem to consider me a user.

What a bogus statement by Microsoft considering it's being pushed in the background while you run Windows Update.

Isn't that more about being shoved down the throats of users versus a user actually clicking on the download link by their own free will?

WOW what an accomplishment Microsoft!!!

And here I thought it was normal for people to be able to opt out of automatic updates, or select which updates they wanted to receive and which to decline. I guess I must just have a really special version of XP.

right click 'my computer' go to properties, choose the automatic updates tab, choose turn off automatic updates, Click 'OK'.

If you don't like microsoft, don't use it. Linux or mac is for you. there is no IE for either OS. Ubuntu is easy to install, try that.

I haven't had any problems with IE7 except when it was a beta product. It certainly does not crash as much as it did before...So that is improvement, right? I think so. I use Flock too!

Most Windows XP users just don't bother configuring Automatic Updates, or don't know
how to They just leave it with the default settings, and allow all updates to be installed.

Essentially, this 100 million downloads figure is simply Microsoft trying to get one up
on the high number of Firefox downloads since 1.0 was released over 2 years ago.

Now I'm not wanting to enter into yet another Firefox vs IE debate, as they tend to get
boring very quickly, but at least all the downloads counted for Firefox have all been
down to people going to the official website, clicking on the download link, and
not including the browsers own built in update system.

I wonder how many of the 100 million IE7 downloads are actually of those where the
official IE7 site at Microsoft.com has been visited, and the download link has been
clicked? I bet it's a small fraction of the 100 million that Microsoft has reported.

Since the "average" computer user is bullied into leaving auto update on with the scare reminder that pops up telling them that their machine is under threat if they don't, they leave it on. This allowed Microspud to pad their numbers I believe

I wouldn't call it bullying. If the average user doesn't know enough to be able to deactivate the warning, should the really be trusted to keep their computer secure?

Despite that disagreement, I do agree that MS is being a bit ridiculous touting figures like this; not because it isn't significant, but because it can be easily assumed from their market share. It's like saying how many people installed hotfix KB12345xxy...except that probably has higher numbers, since it is likely much smaller than IE7 and is more accessible by dial up users.

Get real, FF has many times warned me I had to update or something bad would happen. They have counted me as a separate download for thier stats many times over.

Can you show me some evidence that Firefox counts updates as separate and complete browser downloads?

The average computer user is incapable of selecting whether to download, not download, install, or not install from a simple radio-button selection dialog?

Really?

Wow, they're dumber than I thought.

...and if *that's* bullying, you've lead quite a charmed life.

right click 'my computer' go to properties, choose the automatic updates tab, choose turn off automatic updates, Click 'OK'.

It's not even that hard. After first run, it asks you in a big blue window whether you'd like to enable it, or configure it later.

If you choose to configure later, click on the pop-up asking you about it, and it brings you right to the configuration dialog.

Couldn't really be any easier.

It's like the old Linux troll seen on Slashdot occasionally, describing a quake install on Linux vs windows.

User: “How do I get Quake 3 to run in Linux?”
Zealot: “Oh that’s easy! If you have Redhat, you have to download
quake_3_rh_8_i686_010203_glibc.bin, then do chmod +x on the file. Then
you have to su to root, make sure you type export
LD_ASSUME_KERNEL=2.2.5 but ONLY if you have that latest libc6
installed. If you don’t, don’t set that environment variable or the
installer will dump core. Before you run the installer, make sure you
have the GL drivers for X installed. Get them at [some obscure web
address], chmod +x the binary, then run it, but make sure you have at
least 10MB free in /tmp or the installer will dump core. After the
installer is done, edit /etc/X11/XF86Config and add a section called
“GL” and put “driver nv” in it. Make sure you have the latest version
of X and Linux kernel 2.6 or else X will segfault when you start. OK,
run the Quake 3 installer and make sure you set the proper group and
setuid permissions on quake3.bin. If you want sound, look here [link
to another obscure web site], which is a short HOWTO on how to get
sound in Quake 3. That’s all there is to it!”

User: “How do I get Quake 3 to run in Windows?”
Zealot: “Oh God, I had to install Quake 3 in Windoze for some lamer
friend of mine! God, what a ****ing mess! I put in the CD and it took
about 3 minutes to copy everything, and then I had to reboot the
****ing computer! Jesus Christ! What a retarded operating system!”

lol, nice comparison.

Yah, when i upgraded from pre 1.0 to 1.0, all updates for 1.0 (i think), from 1.0 to 1.5, and yet again from 1.5 to 2.0.

"Microsoft announced Friday it has hit the 100 million installation milestone for Internet Explorer 7, a figure that makes the new browser the second most used behind IE6. Web analytics firm WebSideStory reports that 25 percent of all Web surfers in the United States are now running IE7."

So that means that all 400 million Americans living in the US use the internet, right?

EDIT: Here I am rereading what I wrote and I have no idea where I drew that conclusion from. I must have been tired or something. lol

100 million worldwide, not just the US.

Yeah, but what about users that frequently format their computers and re-install ie via windowsupdate or otherwise. Bet there counting double or triple somewhere along the line.

what about all the people who installed it and the removed it when they found out what an incomplete product it is

Again, these numbers are not precise for anything but what the article SPECIFICALLY states they are for, people. Here it is: "Web analytics firm WebSideStory reports that 25 percent of all Web surfers in the United States are now running IE7." That's all it says. The rest is just explaination which could be worded to fool you so just ignore it and use your common sense.

Remember this statement: Numbers never lie, but what they claim to represent could be misinterpreted. These real numbers represent a rough estimate of the number of computers online with cookies enabled, out of a total of x amount tested, this many were IE7, this many were IE6, and this many were Firefox. Could have polled in "firefox" districts to mislead us, as they could have polled mostly "IE" districts, but of those polled, the numbers estimated in the results are correct.

Why would you go back to IE6 when you could use Firefox or Opera?

Since you obviously think that IE6 is always a bad choice--why would you ask the question when all you will do is cut down the answer?

By the way, the word 'compatibility' comes to mind (to answer your question)