Google would do better if it offered Chrome as a portable application. This would help all the corporate users like me that are stuck running ie6.

At least they're trying.

Google's strategy is to provide the best for it's users and IMO, people running IE6 are prone to viruses, malware and a poor web experience - offering people a better browser is right in line with their strategy. In addition, all the users on IE6 are holding back the advancement of the web as a platform. If everyone used the latest browsers, the web would develop more smoothly.

Why do you think Chrome went out of beta so early? OEM it will be. By the way, Google Chrome dying? Every time any of the major browsers get a bit faster, safer or more stable, the Chrome team smiles in joy. That's the only reason Chrome was created.

Chrome isn't ready for an OEM deal. Too many web sites don't work with it. It's fast, but I have to switch away from it for many web sites or parts of web sites that I use just so the site works.

No one uses G-Mail.

At my work, the PC users must stay on IE6. The hospital medical records system has not been updated to IE7 or any other browsers (firefox etc). The online purchasing system was just recently updated so we can use Firefox, but not IE 7.

Su suggesting that IE 6 users are lazy or dumb is just not right.

L

Why are users still surfing the Web with IE 6? Why haven't they graduated to IE 7 at least?

Ever tried upgrading IE over a dial-up connection?

I use IE6 while at work due to incompatibility problems with some websites. And I dont have the time to troubleshoot them just because ie 7 is newer, doesn't mean i need to upgrade to it.
On my personal computer i keep ie 6 on just for compatibility sake. rarely there is a website firefox 3 doesnt work with and if i am not using ie tab i keep 6 around as backup. I am not uninformed nor will i NOT EVER UPGRADE but it serves its purpose, backup for compatibility. And i have used opera, safari and netscape on this machine so ie6 users may be so by choice.

Hmm,
It's hard to see where the importance of this lies. Does it matter if Google's browser "fails in the market?" Unless you're in the position of needing to promote Google's corporate agenda.

Really sophisticated users keep in mind Google is suspect with regard to people's security and avoid Google's products (other than their search engine).

Also ignored: regardless of which browser - it's generally asking for more time wasting when one experiments with new browsers or adopts the latest version without first checking on it's advantages and stability. As long as I can remember, it's been this way.

Larry:

It's not a matter of dumb or lazy. Some people just aren't aware other browsers exist.

"Ever tried upgrading IE over a dial-up connection?"

Who's still using dial-up? What is this, 1999?

As a web developer I still need to use IE6 so I guess I am one of those people that do not know enough about the relationship between web browsers.

Bob:

I'm sorry you have to use IE6. Clearly, it's not your choice. I'll admit I didn't think of people who were hostage to IE6 for whatever reason. That's unreal to me. You should consider freeing yourself from that enslavement.

You better sit down for this one because it might just blow your mind (and thus weaken the knees)...

Ever heard of "if ain't broke don't "fix" it"? Perhaps people just use what works until they perceive a problem and only then look elsewhere. And just maybe these people aren't so embarasingly superficial that the "problem" they perceive is simply not having the latest version...

With that said I think chrome is one of the best browsers ever. It did something that I thought couldn't happen: Chrome made me stop using Opera. Yes, MADE me. I can't use Opera now as the decision was made at the subconscious level. Everything was just so natural, fast, and right that basic human instinct took over and made the decision for me. This makes me think that Opera will be hit much harder by chrome than IE or Firefox will in the short term. Long term as Chrome becomes more Firefox like people might just again stick with what they know which may present a dilemma for Chrome.

1. Who uses Dialup? Almost anyone living in rural America.

The reasons are:
- technical; DSL doesn't work that far out, cable isn't availabel.
- political; DSL isn't rolled out, Cable isn't rolled out.
- financial; many aren't willing to pay $200+ installation PLUS $80/mo for satellite.

2. Who says that Firefox 3 is superior to IE7? I've used both extensively, and for my needs, IE7 is far more compatible with the sites I use in my daily business. I have Firefox for the *very* few sites that aren't IE compatible (they claim their site is standards compatible...if a browser, for what ever reason, owns 90% of the market, which one sets the standard????)

BTW, I am a 22 year IT veteran, owned a dialup ISP for 9 years, still own a hosting company on my own servers, design corporate web sites, and am fairly well certified.

Mark

"Who's still using dial-up?"

According to 2008 Pew Research, 55% of American households have broadband, and 10% of American households have dial-up.

"When asked specifically what it would take to get them to switch to broadband:

* 35% of dial-up users say that the price of broadband service would have to fall.

* 19% of dial-up users said nothing would convince them to get broadband.

*14% of dial-up users – and 24% of dial-up users in rural America – say that
broadband service would have to become available where they live."

Ummm, a couple of notes:

1) I have been using Gmail for almost 5 years now. I love the ability to tag and track conversations. I also like the integration with Google Groups and Calendar, now if only I could work it offline when I travel...

2) I am primarily a Firefox user (have been for years) and I prefer it over any flavor of IE. IE just can't match the speed or customization (Adblock, anyone) of Firefox. The thing I hate is that some of our vendor websites have ActiveX plugins that - big surprise - only function in IE. And until recently, they didn't even work in IE 7. I haven't really seen anything great about IE 7 to make me want to upgrade. Tabs? Got those in Firefox. The fancy layout? Stop reminding me of the disaster called Vista. Thanks, but IE can go hang. I'm all for a standards-compliant web.

The other thing that really worries me about IE is the OS integration. Any little glitch and malicious users can use the bug as a vector straight to the kernel. Thanks but no thanks. De-couple the browser from the OS, please.

I must agree with several of the posters who say that they HAVE TO stick with IE6 for various reasons. For us, it is that some of our corporate Web apps are written to IE6 standards (won't even work with IE7). Really dumb, and "sad" to some of us users, but outside of our control. Speaking of control, why does my browser want to set a cookie every time I click on a different location in the comment box?

Fortunately, I have sufficient administrative rights to have installed Firefox and SeaMonkey at the office, and use IE7 and Safari at home in addition. I'm waiting for a more compelling reason than Gmail -- which works just fine on the Mozilla platforms, thank you -- to install Chrome

And no, you did not explicitly use the terms "dumb" or "lazy", but that is your clear implication from phrases such as "probably have never downloaded Web software before beyond perhaps clicking yes to an upgrade invitation". If the shoe fits... I DO "follow the internet software market with gusto", and the browser I "grew up on" was Netscape 3 -- well before it became AOL bloatware or was wounded in the browser wars.

Michael:

Touche. I feel bad for corporate users locked into the IE tower. It must be horrible. Clearly, I wasn't targeting that kind of user, but the majority of consumers using computers. There is a world outside high-tech that we sometimes lose sight of, one where users surf the Web ignorant of browser alternatives and other plug-ins unless prompted by their PCs. These folks are indeed ignorant about Firefox, Opera, Chrome and other Web technologies. My point was that Google is off base targeting these folks for Chrome through IE6. I'd argue Google is preaching to the choir for users who know IE6 is poor but must use it for "various reasons." All the more reason why the Chrome redirect page is ineffective. Such users couldn't use it for work if they wanted to.

@Mark:

I must also respond to the assertion that "if a browser, for whatever reason, owns 90% of the market, which one sets the standard?"

First, IE no longer owns 90% of the market. Now it is down to something less than 80% -- still a lion’s share, but it is eroding.

Second, when IE DID own a 90% share, it was convicted of monopolistic practices by the Department of Justice and agreed to a consent decree. It is having even more severe legal troubles in the European Union.

Third, a market monopoly is not the same as a "standard", which has been agreed to by a governing body such as IEEE, and which evaluates technical as well as market information. It only behaves chiefly like a de facto standard because developers want the widest audience.

If market monopolies were true standards, we would all still be using black Bell Labs analog phones with rotary dialers.

The author of this article comes across as a "tech elitist" who seems to be looking down his nose at anyone not meeting some obscure definition of "savvy"! This attitude is by far the biggest problem in the world of tech blogs and tech magazines!!

I've been working with personal PCs for many, many years (think '8080') and, among other things, started the second ISP in Southern California (which was the first one in LA county). We were the first ISP in California to bundle a web browser (Mozilla 0.9-something) with our software package (alongside a gopher client, email, USENET reader and TCP/IP stack).

In all that time I found that the most valuable hardware and software were ones that worked reliably and consistently, and had good speed for the price.

As a part of this when running any Windows OS I use Intel CPUs, and where possible Intel motherboards. They are not the best performers, but they provide adequate performance (well, AMD has yet to catch up to Core 2 performance and Intel just released Core i7 which raised the CPU performance bar again so at this point in history Intel is also the top performer). I do, however, prefer the cost savings when using AMD CPUs for *nix based systems that aren't so picky about CPUs such as Linux, FreeBSD, QNX, etc (though I haven't needed to put one together since before Intel released Core 2).

In web browsing that extends to using IE7, which works reliably and consistently with every web site I've ever browsed.

The two biggest things I've learned over the years are:

1. Change for sake of change leads to inconsistent and unreliable operation.

2. Technology NEVER works exactly as promised (NEVER!!).

Well there is a third, unrelated, thing I learned:

3. It's never the phone company's fault there's no data communications, but somehow they are always able to fix it from the central office...

There is nothing wrong with a choice to stay with what works and in many instances reliability trumps ALL other considerations. This can be a personal decision as well as one forced by circumstance (IE- corporate needs, or maybe the fact that your computer only runs Windows 98SE and you can't afford an upgrade, etc).

But to say offhand that decision is wrong because it's not the decision YOU would have made is simply selfish and short-sighted, as well as elitist!

Re: Rob Kingston's comment:
"Google's strategy is to provide the best for it's users"

What?!! Do you work there, Rob? Because it's obvious to anyone who doesn't have a stake that Google is not out to provide for users, but rather to provide for Google.

I use to appreciate Google for their core offering (search) and the fact that they are innovating and making options other than Microsoft, but...

Google is quickly becoming the new Microsoft, by being so impressed with themselves that they disregard real users' real needs, including compatibility.

Case in point: Gmail, comes with too much baggage, and they index your personal email! Who in their right mind wants that?

And then there's the 'google updater service'; malware by any other name would still stink.

I dont' want any more 'services' or other background processes on my system. I'll choose when and if to 'upgrade'.

Another example: Google Earth is totally broken, because they won't maintain back compatiblity. Once they post a new 'beta', you cant even download the older one anymore.

The newer versions force a 'web install', which is a Microsoft thing if ever there was, and is completely evil. There is and always has been one and only one way to install anything, and that is a standalone installer; better yet a zipfile, the whole concept of 'installers' is pure madness, a pathological side effect of the so called Windows 'registry' and Microsoft's narcissistic fascination with COM and making everything in their so called 'operating system' "integrated".

I recently wanted to explore the Google Maps API, but alas, they want to force me to sign up with some 'google account' nonsense, and the terms explicitly state that they WILL break compatiblity with your apps as often as they see fit (oh, they'll give you 30 days to 'fix' what THEY BROKE).

Yep, they are looking more like Microsoft every day.

Which brings me to Chrome: why bother to 'release' a half baked browser? Why couldn't they wait to finish it, or at least get close to having enough usability?

No, they are missing the concept, and the concept is 'end users'. Also known as the 'real world'. They need to stop patting themselves on the back for all having PhD's and do some remedial work on basics, such as use cases and actually thinking things thru.

I tried Chrome and it hung on secured sites like banking and CC. It was highlighted yellow on Gmail.

Oh yah, I'm using IE7 and those porn movies run just fine w/Verizon EV-DO and Gmail.

I fully agree with the comment in regards to IE being a bad way to be on the web due to the security risk to the kernel of the OS caused by the browser being an integral part of the OS and thus having as it were "the keys to the treasure vault of the kingdom."(The other thing that really worries me about IE is the OS integration. Any little glitch and malicious users can use the bug as a vector straight to the kernel. Thanks but no thanks. De-couple the browser from the OS, please.)"
For once the proprietary paranoia in Redmond that keeps Microsoft from sharing the most critical parts of the kernel code with those who are competitors actually protects those of us who recognize this simple fact and use it to guide our choices in how we interact with the web and for those of us in the IT field like myself how we use that knowledge to help protect our clients by steering them away from any form of IE as their primary web interface.

What is truly irresponsible is companies who market web based applications that handle any form of sensitive and or personally identifiable data and are still tied to and/or limited to ANY form of IE (such as the Morningstar financial advisor software that will ony work fully with IE). ANY application vendor that produces a product that involves the transmission of sensitive data over the web should make sure that their product is fully functional with the browsers that are not gateways to the OS kernel of the clients using their application. The big risk is not that the data will be intercepted between points on the web but that if the websites using these apps are compromised in any way that the machines on either end of the data stream will be open to attack and ALL of the data contained on them will be at risk.
This is simply not an acceptable risk in todays environment where identity theft is such a severe risk.

If you are in a business that uses web based apps that handle sensitive data, whether it is your own or it is your clients', then demand that the vendor producing that application work to insure that you are able to use browsers other than IE that protect your infrastructure (individual computers/servers) and the data contained within them by not being an integral part of the OS.

The only reason IE has the market share it does is because it comes with windows. Thats it. If chrome came with windows, it would have the 60% or whatever that IE has.
Thing is - 60% of people do NOT CARE which browser they're using, and IE does what they need.

Thats how microsoft has always been successfull. They make third rate software, but they position themselves to win anyway.

I think a quote from the movie "pirates of silicon vallery sums it up very well:

Steve Jobs: Ours is better. We make better stuff.
Bill Gates: You dont get it! That doesn't MATTER!

Yes, my name is Floyd and I'm a 'tech elitist'.

But I'm NOT trying to reform. If caring about how and whether things work right (like a browser) makes me an elitist, then I plead guilty.

If caring about the security and integrity of my daily use computer makes me an elitist, then guilty again.

If actually understanding that 'operating system' is NOT a marketing term, that it actually has a very specific meaning, and that the consequences of ignoring that meaning are bad for all involved, then guilty again.

Here are the empriical facts, folks: IE7 is seriously flawed, as every other version of IE, because in a perverse way, it *is* part of the so-called operating system.

Maybe Chrome will get better, and we still have Firefox and Opera, and Safai and Konqueror, and a few even more obscure browsers.

And hey, guess what, it's not that hard to write your own, all the protocols are published.

Oh, but that might open you to charges of being a 'tech elitist'.

Google Chrome is an utter disaster. I've already had 3 customers tell me that it crashed their entire system, requiring a restore to the system prior to the install of Chrome. Their

You mortals know nothing about business over the next 15 years users will still be using a Microsoft browser. Just like we are with an OS, people choose not to use Microsoft products because the hate Microsoft. Linux will never be the #1 OS and if they ever were hackers will finds ways to exploit it like we do Windows. Chrome, Firefox or any other broswers will will not over take IE anytime soon. It's common business people. And for the people who say that IE is flawed of course it is no software is perfect, hell nothing is perfect. I thought Firefox waas suppose to be more secure than IE when is came out. It's the nature of business if another company was in the same position we would be saying the same things.

C.D. Hunter
Network Security Architect

Mr. Boulton:

I don't quite understand your perspective and criticism of both Microsoft and Google. Most of the flack that Microsoft takes is unwarranted, especially the same re-run criticism you are offering for IE. Any way you look at it, IE is still the industry standard and does not deserve the unrealistic beating it takes every day from instigators such as yourself. Google takes the same non-sense because it has been pretty good at what it does. Competitors are crying in envy and instigators just like hearing themselves pound their chests. There is NO BROWSER that does all of the things that IE does! Some do things differently and at times that is a good thing. Competition brings out the best in all arenas of the industry. I seem to recall the same statements concerning how wonderful and innovative Netscape WAS! It was competitive and I for one am sorry to see it go but it was NO MATCH for IE. Competition and creativity go hand in hand. Often companies learn from mistakes but the key is learning. Microsoft has made some major marketing errors and made some products that were not very successful. However, they do listen to those that use their products and offer suggestions, constructive criticism and ideas. Just saying something is terrible and is used by only the "casual cruiser" of the Internet shows a lack of basic understanding of who uses IE and why. Each of the current browsers and current OS products has some benefits and some weaknesses. Many will fail within the next calendar year. Perhaps some will be termed "terrible" but are they really? Have they been terrible or have they been successful enough to stimulate ideas? Windows itself is another example of Microsoft paying attention, perhaps not at the speed that some of us would like to see, but nonetheless getting on-board with good suggestions made in the correct manner to stimulate attention in a POSITIVE direction. How many of us remember the early Microsoft OS products on all of the original microcomputers? We have come a long way from there. The Microsoft OS packages have ALWAYS been very inexpensive for what they do. They keep getting better. Yes we pay for development but we eventually get our money's worth. It may be three steps forward and one step back but the direction and the product are generally VERY positive, and certainly worth the price. So why BASH them?

Google has been a gift to all of us. How many of us have ever paid Google a cent? How many of us are critical of one of the many products and services they provide to the world at no direct cost? They fact is, love them or hate them, they have VERY positively changed the industry in a very short amount of time. I don't think they care much one way or the other how YOU personally feel about Chrome. They are looking to provide a free, functional and beneficial product for a sector of the industry that for some reason other than just complaining, wants to use an alternative to IE. Is it because eventually they will go into the hardware and software business to challenge Microsoft? Time will tell. For the moment, enjoy the thoughtfulness of Google. As they have with everything they have created, they will have a very high quality product in short order thanks to beneficial feedback.

In time, every manufacturer or producer incorporates the best ideas of competitive products into the product they build. I don't see that as stealing but do see it as intelligent progress. Both Microsoft and Google have excelled at it. Neither have ever said that what they have today is the ultimate, final, finished product... they never will.

This is one of my favorite subjects... Google... the company with no real innovation (only improvements on existing technology) and who blatantly do evil things under the guise of "Do no Evil".

First, Chrome. I'd call it a good first release for a beta browser but it isn't and its far from the IE killer that its being touted as/aimed at being. Why might you ask?... Well mostly because its trying to solve problems that don't exist in the market. Yes its JavaScript engine is a great advancement on the technical side but who cares?... Joe Schmoe consumer doesn't... most corporate users don't. Most IT departments don't want the additional overhead on their machines. Even most tech folks like the idea of it at first and then bail when they start living with the warts of the app. My personal Chrome experience was 30 minutes of browsing (with no perceptible performance or feature difference from either IE 7 or Firefox 3) and then a full app crash when I tried to access my bank's secure site and my web based mail account (not Gmail). This was immediately followed by my uninstalling the app. Thanks guys! You gave me nothing I didn't already have except for the bitter metallic taste of chrome in my mouth... and I probably won't try Chrome again until they give me a compelling reason to do so (that would be in a few versions... if Chrome even lives that long). They would have been much better served in the battle with MS/IE to have contributed their technical improvements (like the JS engine) to the Firefox community. The basic rules of business are, you want to be #1 or the strong #2 in a market. If you can't be, you don't enter that market... Chrome is like #4 or #5 in the browser space and can only hope to become #3 without eating their open source, non-profit partner (Firefox)... a decidedly "evil" thing to do. Plus they will only hurt the other alternative browsers (like Opera, Safari for Windows, etc.) and likely will never remove Firefox as the strong alternative (I could see Firefox getting up to 50% and swapping the lead back and forth with IE). Chrome is just too little, too late and currently doesn't even meet minimum entry criteria for the browser market.

Second... Google not being evil... I call BS on this one as loud as I can. Chrome is an excellent example of their evil practices... their fundamental software release model is evil... Chrome (with no accountability) will likely force the other smaller alternative browsers out of business just because of Google's sheer marketing force (not because it better meets the users needs, not because its a better browser, but because Google can tell its BS opinion of itself and its technology to more people than a company like Opera can). They most often do this under the guise of "Beta"... which is short hand for "we are actually acquiring market share and engaging in competitive practices in a business mode which makes us completely unaccountable to our shareholders, revenue statements, regulation, etc.". The other best example I can think of was Google Maps... huge market share right now (they eclipsed MapQuest in the US as the #1 online mapping service in 2008). They acquired most of their market share as a "beta" app and only relatively recently came out of Beta with ZERO new feature/function enablement (Huh?!?!?). So what's the difference? What does Beta even mean anymore? In short they kill off competitors with free "beta" software and then, only when they own most of the market, will they try to monetize the app (however they please to do so mind you) with an official 1.0 version and only then become accountable as a P&L center. Does that sound like an above board tactic to you? Is that giving the consumer what they need or want? Is that even a good practice for shareholders (they potentially will own and have to maintain markets which they might not be able to monetize)? Especially when the story they are telling you to your face is different from what they are doing.

Just wait until they can exert real force in the apps market... they are going to make MS look like a bunch of choir boys. Don't believe me? Try this on... they have the ability to control most of their users data and traffic in some way. What is to stop them from deciding to start charging "a small fee" for access to Gmail or your office docs just out of the blue one day... once they have enough millions of users that they can make a substantial impact on their revenue numbers. They are telling you its okay that they read your e-mail so they can sell ads (WTF!!!) to keep the service free (and what happens when they hit hard times and their ads stop selling?... their options are 1) kill Gmail and the user is screwed or 2) start charging for Gmail and then its "Pay or you're screwed"). They have your search, mail, etc. data and are actively collecting it further (at the individual level). This is like your neighbor building a nuclear bomb in his basement telling you that its just an academic exercise... even if he doesn't intend to use that bomb (and do you really trust that intention?), it could still go off. And the general public lets them (even celebrates them) because they say they claim to "do no evil"... What is the first thing that a con man says before he takes your wallet and destroys your life... he says "Trust me"!

I agree with the earlier poster who berated the "elitists" who populate blogs and tech message boards like this. For most people who frequent eweek.com and similar sites, I.T. is either a living or a hobby. But probably 90% of people see computers as merely a tool to do what they need to do; not a hobby, a project or an obsession. When you mention Firefox to them, they might think of an old Clint Eastwood movie or a sports car. If you mention Linux, they might think it's an android out of a sci-fi movie.

Microsoft understands this, and that is why they've been successful from a business, if not necessarily a technical perspective. They don't care about a bunch of geeks whining about standards compliance and kernel vulnerabilities, because we're not the ones who pay the bills. They're quite content to let the Mac-o-philes, the Linux-heads and the Firefoxers brag about the technical superiority of their preferred products on forums like this. That's why they've been so successful from a business perspective. It isn't about technical excellence as much as positioning, and that is where Google has a lot of catching up to do.

The average user still thinks of Google as "merely" a search engine, and that's all they will ever use it for. They'll use the email client that came with the machine (Windows Mail or Outlook Express) and the preinstalled browser (IE). If they are not an I.T. hobbyist or professional, then geeky concepts such as Web 2.0, cloud computing and standards compliance fly over their heads.

Whenever I've designed a system or web application, I always put it through the mother-in-law test. In other words, if my mother-in-law can't figure out how to use it, then the design is fundamentally unsound. Again, this is where Microsoft has typically excelled. To an average user, their products are simple to use and are, by and large, reliable. So why fix what isn't broken? My mother-in-law is never going to edit an xorg.conf file to improve her computing experience, install a new web browser when IE works perfectly well, change to a new operating system that doesn't have that nice little green "Start" button on the lower left corner of her screen. Microsoft gets this, which is why the user experience is usually so consistent across all their apps. It may not be as elegant or "cool" as we geeks would like, but it works.

I don't think Microsoft is too bothered about Chrome, because it will struggle to gain market share in an already crowded field of browsers. Which ultimately could be good for IE, since Chrome's main competitors are likely to be Firefox and Opera. Why? Because all three of those browsers are competing for the same 20-25% of tech savvy users. Without a compelling feature that will get my mother-in-law rushing to adopt a new browser, or a major OEM deal that preinstalls Chrome on millions of new machines, I can't see it being any more successful than Opera. It will find a niche, for sure, but I predict IE will still remain dominant for years to come.

@x (aka troll)

No one uses G-Mail? ROFLMAO!
Can I interest you in a piece of ocean-front real-estate?

After reading many of these posts, all I can say is 'wow'.

Just because non-IT people don't install the latest IE, Firefox or whatever doesn't mean it's okay!

People using old versions of IE... or heck, Windows 98... remind me of people who blindly drive their cars, not knowing how to change a tire or how to check their oil level. People who can't tell the difference between IE and the Internet itself are often like people who don't know what engine oil is!

I agree there are a lot of elitist people in IT. True. But there are also a lot of ignorant people outside IT. And then there are the people in the middle of that spectrum. It's not a matter of elitism or stupidity... it's an issue of education. It's about being informed.

Getting back to the main point of discussion, I don't necessarily have a problem with Google Chrome (competition is good), but I do think we need to keep a watchful eye on Google. I think they have some good products, but they do have the potential for major abuse. I can see why privacy advocates are up in arms about the company.

And Microsoft... the end does not justify the means. What good has come from them has been coupled with just as much bad... if not more.

Anti-trust laws exist for a reason - a violation is a violation. Period. I can only wonder how much better we'd be if the justice department hadn't overturned Jackson's initial ruling and split Microsoft into smaller pieces.

The fact is, technology users need to be better educated about the technology they use. I'm not talking about firmware, encryption algorithms, or network protocols. We IT people need to find a better way to educate people and try harder to eradicate computer illiteracy.

Utahnix:

Best response to this yet, thanks. I'm in the middle of that spectrum and marvel at people who still use IE6 because they don't know there are better options out there.

To be fair too, I worked for a company which used a lot of web applications, especially Avaya IP phones. These applications would crash IE 7, and fail to run in Firfox or Chrome. We had to use IE 6 there was no other choice, unless you were prepared to deal with constant crashes in IE.

It's strange. Everybody who commented on this blog sounds techie and leet. Are you using that crappy OS?

GOOGLE IS EVIL THOUGH THEIR SERVICE IS GOOD AND FAST... ALL THE INFO THAT IS BEING INTUT TO GOOGLE IS BEING SAVED AND CAN BE RECALL BY THE USA FBI...... NOT ONLY THAT WHEN U PRESS THE ARCHIEVE BUTTON IN THE GMAIL BINGO UR INFO IS BEING SHARED BY USA GOVERNMENT :p

F GOOGLE IN THE ASS... FOR SAYING DO NO EVIL.. THOUGH THEY R EVIL....

OVER ALL FIREFOX IS COOL

USEING GOOGLE BROWSER... ALL THE WEBSITE YOU VISIT USING IT ARE BEING LOGED AND SENT TO GOOGLE MAIN DATABASE COMPUTERS.. THESE ARE ALL FACTS...
MS DO SUX BUT THEY DON'T DO CHEAP THINGS LIKE GOOGLE... MAKING THEIR CUSTOMERS SEE THEY R INNCENT AND THEY R NOT.... THATS WAT I HATE ABOUT GOOGLE...

OVER ALL FIREFOX AND OPERA WEB BROWSER ARE THE BEST OF THE BEST.

INSTALL COMODO FIREWALL AND SET IT TO ANNOYED MODE AND SEE WAT GOOGLE CHROME DOES LOL

The reason people still use IE 6 is sometimes because they are still using an older OS. If you're still on NT or windows 2000 (both present in many environments where the upgrade even to XP hads't been made), then IE 6 is as far as you can go. This is in fact what sets Firefox apart from the rest. While my desktop is Vista (cough, crashes way too much), I have an old laptop that's windows 2000. I use Firefox on it, cause Chrome and the latest IE aren't supported for it. This is one big reason multiple browsers in the market, standards compliant, is a good thing. The more power Microsoft has with IE, the more they can say that if you want the latest "safest" version, while you may be able to download it for "free" ... But wait, ahhh, you have to buy a whole new OS to use it. Too bad.

The Google Updater service really *IS* malware.

Today I wanted to download the new Google Earth 5.0, but they only let you download the Updater. When clicking on it, it connects to their service, but - you first have to download Google Chrome, before being able to download Google Earth!

WTF???

Are they serious? I have already a browser and just wanted to update my Earth from 4.x to 5.0.

They are becoming more evil than Microsoft ever was...

IE users, specifically users who are still on IE6, will most likely view these ads as some kind of adWARE. I have seen that the majority of these users are very suspicious and weary of change. Their IE6 works, so they don't want to change. If they will not even upgrade to IE8 (why MS doesn't just force, or prompt for an update is beyond me) they will never even try something with a name as modern and risky sounding as 'Chrome.' My own Mother is afraid of Firefox, because she thinks the icon looks like a tomato..