Handling the slow takeup of IE7
Posted 2 November 2007 at 8:04AM by Simon Dickson in Website development
Believe it or not, it's now just over a year since Microsoft released Internet Explorer version 7. But it seems users have been reluctant to upgrade from the previous version. Although the precise figures tend to vary, there's no argument among those estimating browser market share that Internet Explorer v6 remains the world's most popular web browser. Some measures suggest IE7's share is only half that of its predecessor.
Most web professionals, of course, will have upgraded as soon as IE7 came out - not least because its handling of the CSS styling and layout language was substantially different, and could do horrible things to your page designs. But if over a third of the total audience is still using IE6, we're still some way away from being able to consign it to the history books.
But here's the catch. When you upgrade to IE7, you overwrite your previous IE6 installation. So how can you keep both running on your machine, for testing purposes? The officially recommended approach is to install Microsoft's free Virtual PC software, then download a special 'image' of a Windows XP installation with IE6. But be warned: the former is a 30MB download, and the latter is a whopping 643MB.
Instead, you might want to try something called MultipleIE. It uses a cheeky workaround to allow several different versions of Internet Explorer to sit alongside each other. I've been using it for a while on my XP machine, and it works a treat. The downloadable installer offers you the ability to choose which old versions to install - all the way back to 1996's release of IE3, if you're so inclined. There are some minor issues (including incompatibility with Vista), but if you can install it OK, there shouldn't be anything to prevent you doing any design testing you need.
A quick PS: while researching this piece, I came across one report which suggested that UK users were among the least likely to move away from Microsoft and Internet Explorer. Onestat puts IE's UK market share at 86%, compared with 76% in the US, 69% in Germany, and just 66% in Australia. In most cases, Firefox was the main beneficiary, although Australia reports unusually high usage of Opera.
Tags: browsers, internet explorer, internet explorer 7, microsoft, multiple ie, virtual pc
New feature: Rate this post!
Average rating: 2.9/5
Comments
2. At November 2, 2007 9:08 PM, anjanesh wrote:
the application to use multiple version versions of IE sounds interesting ; would be useful to test pages.
assuming that 10% of users in UK use firefox that is still an good percentage for a browser built on opensource initiative and developed by thousands. IE would not have got this far if it was'nt bundled along with windows operating systems.
latest IE7 exploit - targets a vulnerability in IE7's handling of the uniform resource indicator (URI) commands used by browsers to launch third-party applications.
to simplify the equation switch to firefox.
3. At November 3, 2007 12:06 PM, J LYON wrote:
Come on BT - wake up. You may support IE7 now, but may smaller internet providers still only support IE6 or below. Initially it took BT a while before it supported IE7. I originally had the trial version before BT supported it.
So - BT - look deeper into your comments to find the answer.
J. Lyon at Cravenmodels
4. At November 6, 2007 2:42 PM, alastair wrote:
i agree with anjanesh.
as soon as i had firefox i've never looked back. for web browsing it is superior for speed. the only issue is myspace profiles that use a transparent backround layout that firefox doesnt handle well at all. i dont use firefox for anything other than web so i cant comment on whether its better for other uses. but for web. its better than IE
5. At November 6, 2007 4:07 PM, anjanesh wrote:
cheers Alastair !
further info :
IE8 under development is considering Firefox style undo options for closed tabs.meanwhile ; aplha 8 release of firefox 3 code named Gran Paradiso is available for developer testing (though it wont work with most current add ins and would overwrite current bookmarks) is based on an improved Gecko engine that promises a lot more to the platform.
6. At November 6, 2007 6:54 PM, Steve Ayres wrote:
It seems pretty simple to me; if you have something that works why change it?
It seems Firefox users are very vocal about 'their' browser considering the low percentage of use. A little like mac users, a small but rather loud group.
7. At November 7, 2007 11:06 AM, Graham wrote:
I have to agree with Steve. Surely the majority counts? It seems only computer-literate people prefer firefox.
I test my websites on IE7, Opera (which is very simple, fast, and small), Firefox, BT Browser, AOL/Netscape, and Apple's horrific windows version of Safari - IE7 and IE6 do everything I need a website to do, and the majority of my customers have enough difficulty clicking links and opening .pdf files without worrying about what browser they are using.
The link from Simon for Multiple IE will prove very useful tho! Thanks!
8. At November 7, 2007 3:38 PM, Doink wrote:
If something works but you can make it better then why not make that improvement?
Food/Drink manufactures do it all the time!
Sky revolutionised football coverage and introduced replays. This led up to Andy Gray's beer bottle caps for formations to computer's for tactics.
Mainly because your consumers expect you to do the best possible and if you can make it better you have an unwritten sort of promise to do it.
Firefox is like Mac. They listen to their audience and do attempt to give everyone what they want.
9. At November 7, 2007 4:59 PM, alastair wrote:
yes i seem to notice mac users LOVE thier macs and wont go back to a conventional PC. i particularly like when they say that macs are immune to viruses etc.
no hacker/manufacturer of viruses clearly thinks a mac is worth the bother i say.
10. At November 7, 2007 6:16 PM, anjanesh wrote:
Steve - if firefox had been bundled free with every windows PC you might have been singing different tune.
11. At November 13, 2007 9:22 AM, Mike Poole wrote:
I do hope Microsoft don't make the mistake of thinking that we IE6 users just need to see IE7 to be convinced.
Seen it used it, don't like it, find it clunky to work through - difficult to use file transfers. I'll stay with IE6 until something clearly better - FROM MY PERSPECTIVE - comes along...
Post a comment
As 14 days have passed, comments are now closed for this entry.
1. At November 2, 2007 3:37 PM, Alan W roscoe wrote: