Firefox 4 downloads top 7 million in 24 hours

A year-long development cycle apparently wasn't enough to sour users on Firefox 4, with Mozilla's browser downloaded more than seven million times in the first 24 hours after its release on March 22.

In a blog post spotted by Engadget, Mozilla CEO Gary Kovacs said Firefox 4 had been downloaded 7.1 million times in that first 24 hours. While that figure is behind the 8.3 million downloads Firefox 3 clocked up in its first 24 hours in 2008, it is well ahead of the 2.35 million downloads Internet Explorer 9 racked up in its first 24 hours after release.

At the time of writing, the browser had clocked up nearly 14.7 million downloads, with the majority coming from Europe and North America. Mozilla has set up a live counter of downloads here.

Based on the Gecko 2.0 engine, Firefox 4 features an all new user interface, new ways to organize tabs, a revamped add-on manager, support for HTML5 video standards, multitouch support on Windows 7 and a range of performance and security enhancements.

Final versions of Firefox 4 for Android and Maemo are expected to be released in the next couple of weeks, according to Mr Kovacs.

''If you are one of the more than 400 million users of Firefox already, or if you are brand new to Firefox, welcome to 4, we hope you enjoy the freedom,'' he said.

Mozilla has indicated a desire to move to a faster release schedule following Firefox 4, with mozilla.org co-founder and Mozilla CTO Brendan Eich telling developers that users could be running the fifth version of Firefox just months after Firefox 4 is released.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

FaceTime issues on iPad 2

Next Story

iOS 4.3.1 confirmed, goes hands-on

34 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Doing very fine with 3.6. I see absolutely no reason to update, being that there is an addon for just about every possible thing imaginable that do not work for any other version well.

Matthew Jones, you are comparing Apples and Oranges! IE9 only runs on Windows Vista, Windows 7, And their Server Counterparts! Mozilla Firefox runs on Windows, Mac, and Linux! Not 2 mention the fact that most people running IE 8 or Older still are NOT receiving IE9 through WU yet!

NesTle said,

so all the 40-50% that yet don't see the need to upgrade can't have a true html5 browser...
there's a lot of netbook that have XP and seriously my father don't need to upgrade his computer to check email read some news, but sooner or later he will need html5.
Yes there is... it's called Chrome. ;-)
And it is available for all major platforms [as any decent browser should be] and is also 100% free, open source [as any decent browser should be].
Chrome is currently the only browser that has implemented full HTML5 support, including WebGL (3D) + Canvas (2D) hardware-based video acceleration independent of closed-source DirectX 10.x/11.0 Windows Vista/2008/7-only APIs.
Unfortunately Mozilla Firefox 4.x went the M$ Windows way -> HTML5 only on Windows Vista/2008/7 PCs. I really hope this will change in future releases.

KavazovAngel said,
It doesn't really show anything, because if IE9 was pushed it would have passed the 20 million mark.

As of February 2011
17.3% of web users use IE8 or IE9 (beta)
37.7% of web users use Firefox 3.6 or 4 (beta)
source: http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

Neither was pushed, if they both had been, Firefox would have still had more downloads, since even in the article is states "'If you are one of the more than 400 million users of Firefox already"

I downloaded it twice myself. Never did install the first download and second download was installed for all of long enough to type a reply here and see how the cursor lagged behind my typing.

Immediately uninstalled that slow thing!!

cork1958 said,
I downloaded it twice myself. Never did install the first download and second download was installed for all of long enough to type a reply here and see how the cursor lagged behind my typing.

Immediately uninstalled that slow thing!!

do you have 16KB ram? how did you ever managed to run this on windows 3.11?

Nikos_GR said,
I wonder how many ffoxes have been "automatically" updated.

I was wondering the same thing, manual downloads of FF4 versus automatic downloads by users who had no idea FF4 was released.

Nikos_GR said,
I wonder how many ffoxes have been "automatically" updated.

None yet. Firefox 4 won't be offered by automatic updates to users for another few weeks until Mozilla is reasonably sure that it's safe to do so. The current users of Firefox must have either downloaded it from mozilla.com (or some other download site) or triggered the "Check for updates" button manually.

These numbers are somehow pushed by javascript. Today while trying something, I accidentally made the numbers move slower due to lag.

iAltair said,
These numbers are somehow pushed by javascript. Today while trying something, I accidentally made the numbers move slower due to lag.

but when you refresh the page , they will sync with the server again and catch up

iAltair said,
These numbers are somehow pushed by javascript. Today while trying something, I accidentally made the numbers move slower due to lag.

Yeah it's not accurate, even if the tab is in the background or you bring an app such as notepad into focus the counter slows down drastically.

iAltair said,
These numbers are somehow pushed by javascript. Today while trying something, I accidentally made the numbers move slower due to lag.

Its just a counter which is based on downloads per minute , its not 100% accurate , but gives nice idea

I like the glow app at http://glow.mozilla.org/

update: I see, not really any news, the link is in the article

Nice to see things like that there was a same number of DLs from Prague (1,2 mil citizens) as from LA

update: not any more - LA has 68000, while Prague 48000

Hah, Gary Kovacs, another (x)hungarian CEO, haven't noticed that so far. Would look much nicer as Gary Smith thou. XD

While that figure is behind the 8.3 million downloads Firefox 3 clocked up in its first 24 hours in 2008, it is well ahead of the 2.35 million downloads Internet Explorer 9 racked up in its first 24 hours after release.
Why is IE being compared? Firefox runs on Windows XP, Vista, 7, Mac, and Linux. IE9 only runs on Vista and 7, which even when combined don't have a higher marketshare than XP.

Also afaik IE9 isn't being pushed on Windows Update yet, whereas I think with FF you get an update message if you're running FF3.

Either way, impressive stats none the less.

/- Razorfold said,
Why is IE being compared? Firefox runs on Windows XP, Vista, 7, Mac, and Linux. IE9 only runs on Vista and 7, which even when combined don't have a higher marketshare than XP.

Also afaik IE9 isn't being pushed on Windows Update yet, whereas I think with FF you get an update message if you're running FF3.

Either way, impressive stats none the less.


Microsoft chose to place those restrictions on IE9 out of their own free will. You're free to hop along on only one leg in a 100m dash if you want, just don't complain when you lose.

Samurizer said,

Microsoft chose to place those restrictions on IE9 out of their own free will. You're free to hop along on only one leg in a 100m dash if you want, just don't complain when you lose.

Meanwhile, Firefox, by continuing to support a ten-year-old operating system, adds fuel to the fire of those who refuse to upgrade from XP, thereby holding back the whole computing world and slowing adoption of new technology in general. Dropping support for old operating systems over time is not reckless; it's a strategy which for Microsoft means short-term losses (e.g. in downloads of IE9) but long term gains (in Windows upgrades and in the general potential of the platform)...

Timble said,

Meanwhile, Firefox, by continuing to support a ten-year-old operating system, adds fuel to the fire of those who refuse to upgrade from XP, thereby holding back the whole computing world and slowing adoption of new technology in general. Dropping support for old operating systems over time is not reckless; it's a strategy which for Microsoft means short-term losses (e.g. in downloads of IE9) but long term gains (in Windows upgrades and in the general potential of the platform)...


so all the 40-50% that yet don't see the need to upgrade can't have a true html5 browser...
there's a lot of netbook that have XP and seriously my father don't need to upgrade his computer to check email read some news, but sooner or later he will need html5.

Timble said,

Meanwhile, Firefox, by continuing to support a ten-year-old operating system, adds fuel to the fire of those who refuse to upgrade from XP, thereby holding back the whole computing world and slowing adoption of new technology in general. Dropping support for old operating systems over time is not reckless; it's a strategy which for Microsoft means short-term losses (e.g. in downloads of IE9) but long term gains (in Windows upgrades and in the general potential of the platform)...

There is a great majority of people that still use XP. Every business in the world will continue to support XP for years yet. They would be stupid not to. Ms doesn't support it anymore because they want people to upgrade to Windows 7. Other companies just want sales. Cutting out XP sales would be a serious blow to anyone other than Microsoft.

/- Razorfold said,
Why is IE being compared? Firefox runs on Windows XP, Vista, 7, Mac, and Linux. IE9 only runs on Vista and 7, which even when combined don't have a higher marketshare than XP.

Also afaik IE9 isn't being pushed on Windows Update yet, whereas I think with FF you get an update message if you're running FF3.

Either way, impressive stats none the less.

its being compared, because IE brags with these 2.3 million downloads.. and at least 3 millon of the Firefox ones are from Windows, mac and linux dont have as much users as Windows... at least thats what i see from statistics and people around me

speedstr3789 said,

There is a great majority of people that still use XP. Every business in the world will continue to support XP for years yet. They would be stupid not to. Ms doesn't support it anymore because they want people to upgrade to Windows 7...

Of course MS still supports XP. It will do so until 2013 or 2014 (can't remember which) if you have the extended warranty (which any corporation has).

allwynd said,

its being compared, because IE brags with these 2.3 million downloads.. and at least 3 millon of the Firefox ones are from Windows, mac and linux dont have as much users as Windows... at least thats what i see from statistics and people around me
IE brags? What 1 blog post from the IE dev team is now considered bragging?

I guess you didn't understand the main point of my post so let me make it a bit simpler to understand:
Windows 7 marketshare - 30% give or take
Windows Vista marketshare - 14% give or take
Windows XP marketshare - 48% give or take

IE9 will only run on Vista and 7, essentially limited to 44% of PCs (and since it isn't being pushed via WU, its even less than that). Firefox runs on pretty much all OSes and is being pushed.

Naturally one would expect FF4 to beat IE in terms of downloads. Not saying that it makes the stat any less impressive, just that it doesn't really make sense to compare it to IE.

Timble said,
Meanwhile, Firefox, by continuing to support a ten-year-old operating system, adds fuel to the fire of those who refuse to upgrade from XP, thereby holding back the whole computing world and slowing adoption of new technology in general...

Hmmm... so those who run XP are holding you back? How?
Personally I never gave up XP when I added Vista, & still have no reason to with 7 -- some hardware, software, & tasks just work &/or work better in XP, + it's much easier to monitor installs & check out apps, holding down bloat a bit in my 7 install. Booting into XP also makes backups faster, easier, & the archives smaller, while restoring 7 from backup is a cakewalk. Then there's the fact that *for me* most of my software runs as fast or faster in XP compared to 7 -- stuff that runs faster in 7 is essentially limited to those tasks that benefit from the extra memory available in a 64 bit OS.

At any rate I'm like millions of other users who are 1st & foremost concerned with practicality, i.e. what works best. If that means new tech, great, but if/when the new stuff doesn't work as well, don't blame us pragmatists because *you* lept 1st, & asked questions [like does it work] later. ;-)

/- Razorfold said,
"...Not saying that it makes the stat any less impressive, just that it doesn't really make sense to compare it to IE."

You've got a point IMHO, BUT, what comparison would work better to put the numbers into perspective?... maybe because I still haven't reached appropriate, functional levels of caffeine yet, I don't see an obviously better choice the author could've used. And interpreting stats is seldom if ever 100% accurate anyway -- e.g. just because ie9's installed doesn't mean that's what the user is going to prefer & use most of the time... quite a few apps & some sites [e.g. AMD/ATI driver download] only use Internet Explorer, so as in my case the move to ie9 was worthwhile, but I don't use it unless I have to.

mikiem said,

Hmmm... so those who run XP are holding you back? How?
Personally I never gave up XP when I added Vista, & still have no reason to with 7 -- some hardware, software, & tasks just work &/or work better in XP, + it's much easier to monitor installs & check out apps, holding down bloat a bit in my 7 install. Booting into XP also makes backups faster, easier, & the archives smaller, while restoring 7 from backup is a cakewalk. Then there's the fact that *for me* most of my software runs as fast or faster in XP compared to 7 -- stuff that runs faster in 7 is essentially limited to those tasks that benefit from the extra memory available in a 64 bit OS.

At any rate I'm like millions of other users who are 1st & foremost concerned with practicality, i.e. what works best. If that means new tech, great, but if/when the new stuff doesn't work as well, don't blame us pragmatists because *you* lept 1st, & asked questions [like does it work] later. ;-)

Let's get real, though. There are no line of current applications that really benefit from running in an operating system that can barely address more than 3gigs of memory, has numerous handle issues and has poor multi-core support. The XP kernel is horribly dated by the standards set in Vista/Win7.

It really does remind me of Win98. I moved from NT4 to Win2k. However, most Win98 didn't move to Win2k. When XP was released, I actually move right away. A number of Win98 users did not seem to shift until around 2003 to 2004. This would make XP a relatively new system when Vista came out, and still viable to them when 7 was released.

As for development, not moving to newer operating system, no matter the OS hurts new applications. Developers write applications for the widest market possible. If more people were to move away from XP we might actually get better looking applications, more integrated and more secure applications.

The legacy of XP is actually turning more into a curse day by day. It really allowed Microsoft to maximize their OS in a time when they had serious competitors, but it might end it has turned into a dark shadow. XP in a lot of ways is great because it is a dumbed down simple approach to computing... Vista and 7 are a bit more complex, though in a lot of ways more powerful.

This user friendless created upgrade issues with Vista. Win7 has helped a bit, but honestly it still does not really compare to the ease of use of XP. An analogy, if Win7 is legos, than XP would be construction blocks.

Finally, I am not really sure what computers you are referring to that run better with XP. All modern systems generally have at least 4gigs (exclude Netbooks) and more likely 8gigs. They are very multi-processor friendly with ULW or 2 or more cores. Many have 4 cores. These scenarios don't benefit XP at all. They make for tricky driver issues. Some vendors are really no longer providing XP drivers and, or providing drivers that are essentially crippled.

speedstr3789 said,

There is a great majority of people that still use XP.

XP doesn't have a great majority. It barely (BARELY!) has a majority of Windows users (50.1% of the XP/Vista/7 users according to February 2011 median market share). Several of the stats show it as actually being less, but i was being kind to your argument by using the median. And it does not have a majority of the overall market (41%, according to the same stats).

/- Razorfold said,

Also afaik IE9 isn't being pushed on Windows Update yet, whereas I think with FF you get an update message if you're running FF3.

Nope, Firefox didn't push updates to anyone who is not running a beta or release candidate of that current version. So, people who are using, say 3.6 didn't get pushed to 4, but anyone using 4 Release Candidate 1, for example would be. However, it's understood with the beta that you are going to be updated as they develop; it was expected.

IE9, however, is being pushed through auto update to all users. I can't find the date it will/did happen, though MS released a tool to prevent it for IT professionals who don't want to be updated.
http://www.microsoft.com/downl...b793-4d17-837d-01776bf2bea4

Edited by Raine Dragon, Mar 24 2011, 2:48pm :

/- Razorfold said,
IE brags? What 1 blog post from the IE dev team is now considered bragging?

I guess you didn't understand the main point of my post so let me make it a bit simpler to understand:
Windows 7 marketshare - 30% give or take
Windows Vista marketshare - 14% give or take
Windows XP marketshare - 48% give or take

IE9 will only run on Vista and 7, essentially limited to 44% of PCs (and since it isn't being pushed via WU, its even less than that). Firefox runs on pretty much all OSes and is being pushed.

Naturally one would expect FF4 to beat IE in terms of downloads. Not saying that it makes the stat any less impressive, just that it doesn't really make sense to compare it to IE.


apparently its you who dont understand... why would they even bother announcing their download statistics? saem goes for firefox too, its so lame