Mozilla: Firefox reaches 2 million downloads in 24 hours

Mozilla recently posted that just 24 hours after releasing Firefox 2.0 (reported by Neowin here) to the public on 24th October, 2 million people downloaded it - that is 30 downloads a second. To compare this figure with Microsoft's IE7 release of only half a million downloads in the first 24 hours, it becomes clear there is a active community that follows Mozilla and anticipates new versions.

Looking back on previous Firefox milestone releases:

  • Firefox 1.0: 1 million downloads in the first 24 hours.
  • Firefox 1.5: 1.5 million downloads in the first 24 hours
  • Firefox 2: 2 million (actually slightly more) people using Firefox 2 in the first 24 hours.
"Maybe we should jump straight to Firefox 10 and see if we get 10 million users in the first 24 hours."

Download: Firefox 2
Download: Internet Explorer 7
News source: MozillaLine

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Top U.S. court intervenes in Microsoft patent dispute

Next Story

Sound Exchange Posts Deadline

140 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

The only thing Mozilla is good for on the Windows side was getting Microsoft to push out a new version of the most popular* web browser so I can enjoy IE7 faster.... FF won't touch my PC.

*Popularity when looking at # of Users

Although I will admit, FF is a godsend on the Mac. See ya later, Safari *shudder*

hahaha look at all these clowns. firefox users saying "if you dont like it dont comment on it" hahahahaha
but they are the same clowns that post in IE release posts saying how crap it is. Fanboys need to all join in on the game of drink all the stuff under the bathroom sink.

Quote - thagame said @ #66
hahaha look at all these clowns. firefox users saying "if you dont like it dont comment on it" hahahahaha
but they are the same clowns that post in IE release posts saying how crap it is. Fanboys need to all join in on the game of drink all the stuff under the bathroom sink.

IE is a flawed development, and it has been for many years now. With each new release, it is more flawed than its predecessor. I loaded up IE7 and it responds even slower than IE6, on the same machine, and installation of Windows, I can install a variety of different web browsers, including but not limited to Opera, Firefox 1.5, and Firefox 2.0, and everything responds very quickly and rendering is very smoothly. I know it's not my system, a friend of mine with a lot better system than I have has told me IE7 responds and renders very slow for him as well.

URRAY FOR OPERA!!!!
Seriously, before I tried opera I was a firefox user, after start using opera... Not a chance going back to FF.

I downloaded FF2 several times so I think the 2 million downloads is very inaccurate or does not really reflect anything that matters. I like the spell check feature, besides that, there's no major improvements that are noticable over FF1.5. I would've love a voice/speech add-on like in Opera, or an Opera Tab extension. I love that feature in Opera, great for having an article being read out loud as I work on other things. I hope the Tab Mix Plus author makes it FF2 compatible soon or else I'll have to switch back to FF1.5. Like many others, FF2 is annoying to me without TMP.

@CrisCross
If you want to use IE, you'll have to go with AvantBrowser or Maxthon. There's no way MS will catch up with those two in terms of features.

All IE7 needs it All-In-One-Mouse Gestures and tabMix Plus and maybe a gmail notifier otherwise im sticking to FFox although i admit im using IE7 more and more now, its just not there yet

well everyone who had firefox have updated and now no one will be doinloadin git, while ie numbers will climb sky high

I used IE 7 and then when FF2 Shipped I decided to try it again. I love FF again and once again have jumped back off on M$ Bandwagon

Yep, after about thirty minutes of surfing w/IE7 and my first random crash of Neowin, went back to the Fox. I actually like the clean interface in IE7, but I just need my extensions... excuse me, now called add-ons

Alright, I've got a dig - why is Shaw sending me emails reading "In partnership with Microsoft, Shaw is pleased to provide Microsoft Windows XP customers with Internet Explorer 7 at no additional charge." ... Were they paid off?

THAT is not 30 downloads a second - liars!

30 downloads a second = 30*60*60*24 - 2.6 million
2 million downloads in 24 hours = 3000000/24/60/60 = 23 downloads a second!

Go to maths class haha!

Quote - SeBsZ said @ #56
THAT is not 30 downloads a second - liars!

30 downloads a second = 30*60*60*24 - 2.6 million
2 million downloads in 24 hours = 3000000/24/60/60 = 23 downloads a second!

Go to maths class haha!


LMAO!

"To compare this figure with Microsoft's IE7 release of only half a million downloads in the first 24 hours"

This reminds me of the episode of Futurama where Richard Nixon becomes Earth President.

News anchor: "Nixon has zero votes...and the robot vote is open...and the robot vote has closed...Nixon wins the election!"

Same thing will happen when IE is rolled out to hundreds of millions of machines as a "critical security update". Firefox: 3 million. IE: 300 million!

Firefox users have some kind of trauma with iexplorer, IMHO if firefox is all but popular is fine, but some people think that firefox must be popular and rules over the universe. Why?. i don't known.


when comparing FF to IE, I have one thing to say that makes FF better than IE and this is something that NO ONE can deny:

W3C Standards Compliancy. FF is, and IE isn't, enough said.

Okay, I will deny it. FF is not yet 'fully standards compliant', even if it is a lot better than IE. Nothing is completely 'standards compliant', and stop spreading that myth. Afaik, Opera comes closest at the moment.

Have to be honest here. Since switching to Linux, I have learned to like Firefox even more than Opera. In fact, just removed Opera from my second machine. 5 more to go! Opera just seems to hekry-jerky anymore. Nothing SMOOTH about it at all.

Still don't like Firefox on Windows though. As herky-jerky as Opera is in Windows too, I still prefer it over Firefox there.

Use Seamonkey as my browser of choice in Zenwalk 3.0 though!

Everything about Firefox and Mozilla gets people talking and shouting. Even the download count. Life is more than this. Oh well...

Looking back on previous Firefox milestone releases:

* Firefox 1.0: 1 million downloads in the first 24 hours.
* Firefox 1.5: 1.5 million downloads in the first 24 hours
* Firefox 2: 2 million (actually slightly more) people using Firefox 2 in the first 24 hours.

figures seem just a tad suspect...

It's a well established fact that Firefox's usage share has been increasing, so that makes me wonder what's suspect here?

That their numbers just happen to coincide with their version numbers? LOL

Quote - Jugalator said @ #51.1
It's a well established fact that Firefox's usage share has been increasing, so that makes me wonder what's suspect here?

That their numbers just happen to coincide with their version numbers? LOL

That seems to be the exact thing he's claiming is suspect. It does seem pretty coincidental, I have to say...

Downloaded both, not surprised FF had more downloads, it's as easy as a single click and save as. People already on FF would update anyway, I'm pretty sure users who're regularly on IE don't even know IE7 was out, I'm talking about the reaallly casual user who never ever download a piece of software to use, like some of the friends I know that wouldn't bother using opera or firefox and still stick with IE6.

There's also those who're anti-ms than a firefox fan =P

Who cares what the number of downloads is the right one. I'm just glad that FF gave enough competition to IE to make them move fast on its development.

So at the end we all win (yes and that includes other browsers also )

Two things..

Did they count my download before the official announcement on their site? (Guessing not)


And, they probably didnt count the download of 6-8 3rd party builds posted in the mozillazine forum..

The reason that they got so many downloads is that mainly tech people use Firefox, it took so long for IE 7 to get that many downloads because the newbs that still use IE can't even download a jpeg.

I've uninstalled FF 2.0 too - it's tres buggy and keeps freezing on me even when it's a nude install. Stupid Mozilla are ruining what was a decent browser.

Whatever happened to slimming it down? It's still so clunky.

I'm not one of them I will stick with Opera 9 and IE7 thank you. No FireFox, no iPods/iTunes/Podcasts in my house thank you.

IE 7 isn't in update list, but it should be in ~2 weeks if I remember correct, talking about the FF 2.0. There are a lot of articles over the internet now about who will win. Most it will be FF 2.0. Firstly, a you can see download counting is in FF2.0 side. I still remember one new "IE7 released, 24 hours - vulnerability".

And as I know, FF 3.0 is now in alpha version, tested few months ago, and it look terrible, but what do you want?... It's still in aplha...

About the speeds, there was made tests, now I can't remember exactly... Wait... (http://www.24fun.com/downloadcenter/benchjs/) I think Safari won in speed...

I'll be checking on that FF3 alpha :D

IE7 downloads can't be compared to Firefox. First because IE7 has just been released in English! While Firefox2 was simultaneously released in all those languages. By the time all localized versions of IE7 are released, it will be delivered by auto update anyway.

Can't be arsed to read every post, but I didn't even know FF2 was out until I read this article and I use FF all day. Just checked my version number and it's still 1.5.0.7, so I'm guessing its download numbers aren't from auto-updating; failed downloads maybe, but not auto-updates for users of FF1.5. :P

Edit: I'm going to download both FF2 and IE7 in a few minutes, so I'm kind of grateful for both download links. I think I'll check a few message boards to make sure these versions are worth upgrading to first, though...

Thats because FireFox.....Extensions, Themes and FFFast.... FireFox owns IE7 and
people know it. Sorry M$ FanBois and Shills.

fast? hardly, IE is generally faster than FF. Extension, themes and speed only come with opera.

Also, using m$ makes you look like a loser, Mr. Im not a Fanboy.

Quote - Shadowdruids said @ #37.1
fast? hardly, IE is generally faster than FF. Extension, themes and speed only come with opera.

Also, using m$ makes you look like a loser, Mr. Im not a Fanboy.

IE is generally faster than IE

can i say BS ?

Quote - webeagle12 said @ #37.2

IE is generally faster than IE

can i say BS ?

learn to even read what you type...

dont believe me go check www.firefoxmyths.com

Quote - Shadowdruids said @ #37.3

learn to even read what you type...

dont believe me go check www.firefoxmyths.com

And you are sure that firefoxmyths.com is THE definitive website on browsers with no unbiased views at all?

WGA is crap. If you are going to put some mandatory check, at least make sure it isnt cracked before you require it for almost every download.
Not to mention it called home without anybody knowing.

Not at all surprising, those who use Firefox have actively gone out and hunted it down and so will be watching for every little release.

That and the fact that there are so many security holes in firefox that they HAVE to update as soon as all the updates come out.

Also Microsoft seems to have lost the plot on IE these days anyway. Far from IE being the FREE browser that was release to kill Netscape, these days Microsoft seem to be going out of their way to fill it up with WGA and all sorts of other crap that no-one wants anyway.

Just because 2.5 million people downloaded it doesn't mean 2.5 million people are using it

I DOWNLOADED it... tried it out, still liked Safari better, and quit using it :P

The numbers are perfectly realistic.
Firefox is the browser of choice for all Linux users, who also tend to stay on top of many updates. That itself will generate a lot of downloads.
Add in the OS X and Windows users, and you have a very believable number.

Those of you claiming it is an auto-update that is inflating the numbers, check the site linked in the news post. It clear states that it is NOT being pushed out automatically, and will not be (It will however, at a point in the future, notify users a newer version exists and provide a link to download and install it yourself -- but this will not be automatic, and it's not being done yet).

Frankly, I don't see why people are surprised. IE may have the largest market share, but in a per-capita sense, Firefox also has a much higher ratio of technically-savvy users who are more likely to update sooner. There is no reason to think that the numbers are at all inflated.

Actually, u'll find that Konqueror (for mac users: the browser Apple rebadged and you know it as Safari -- yeah, read it up..) is quite used by KDE users in Linux... what i find really offensive is that Google counts Konqueror as Safari because it uses KHTML (KDE's HTML Rendering engine which Safari makes use of). I think Safari should count as Konqueror, but thats just me.. the Mac fanatics will diss me for this, but do some research and u'll see Konqueror was around long before Safari and that the Safari engine is a fork (with some contributions back to the open source community) of KHTML

Coming soon: comments from the mac minority of how superior Safari is just because it's got the Apple name on it.

Personally, I use Mozilla Firefox in windows and Konqueror in Linux. Firefox feels great in windows but firefox doesn't blend too well with KDE (using GTK), so Konqueror feels more like the rest of the desktop (when it comes to forms, buttons etc). But of course I think what the parent poster meant is for people that use GTK based desktops like Gnome/XFce.

Just an idea about the linux versions of Firefox.. Mozilla is bending backwards to add some Mac OS X improvements in versions of Firefox, and since they already have the browser on so many different platforms (Windows, Mac, Linux with GTK), it would be interesting if they could also make a QT Linux version to blend in better with KDE. Some may argue about QT's liscense, but it shouldn't apply here since Firefox is open source and using QT without paying requires for you to release your source code.

OpenOffice.org has been ported to work better with KDE, so I can't see why a more widely used application like Firefox can't be.

I like Konqueror. But it has this "does-it-all file explorer + internet browser" vibe that I hated when Windows integrated IE onto windows.
I haven't used konqueror for about 2 years, but that was my impression. When it comes to rendering, it did a very good job though.

I love all the IE Fanboys on this site who will take any chance they have to lash out at anything other than what they consider to be the best browser. Have any of you considered the fact that there are some people who simply prefer to use another browser besides IE? It might be for ideological reasons, it could be for practical reasons (such as someone who runs linux), or they might simply not like IE. Regardless of what anyones reasons for thier affiliations are, they are entitled to them.

Quote - ghostwind said @ #26
I love all the IE Fanboys on this site who will take any chance they have to lash out at anything other than what they consider to be the best browser. Have any of you considered the fact that there are some people who simply prefer to use another browser besides IE? It might be for ideological reasons, it could be for practical reasons (such as someone who runs linux), or they might simply not like IE. Regardless of what anyones reasons for thier affiliations are, they are entitled to them.

Get a mirror.

Quote - Skoogie said @ #26.1

Get a mirror.

Maybe I wasn't clear on my point. I personally do not care which browser people use. the point it that people should not take unsubstanciated cheap-shots at firefox, or IE for the fact of the matter... Both are good browsers with thier strengths and weaknesses...

pretty impressive havent looked back since firefox 1.0 sure the standard ui isnt that great but the skins you can get for it are ace

I got to be honest, I installed Firefox 2.0 on my Vista machine and could not figure out what's all the buzz is all about. IE 7.0 looks better, easier to use as far as usability and seems to load pages a bit faster also.

One thing I noticed, when you install Firefox it changes windows settings without any warning and becomes the default browser, including links and it even changes the "Internet" shortcut on the START menue.

I remember that back in the days MS was blasted for doing this and it seems that the open source community are learning from MS.

You bring up some interesting points there. I imagine Firefox would look pretty crappy on Vista, but keep in mind that Vista isn't standard yet. I imagine quite a bit of work will be done fir Firefox 3.0 to fix that up.

And I agree it shouldn't set itself as the default automatically, since some people will install it just for developing websites. It used to have an option...

And BTW, the Internet link in the start menu bases itself off of the default browser as I remember, and supposing you're talking about links on your computer that lead to websites, they do too. That's what's going on with the "default" part of "default browser". It becomes the "default". But enough of my nit-picking, I agree they should put the option back in the installer.

Sorry, but firefox does not automatically set itself to be the default browser. If you first run it and firefox is not the default, it will ask you if you want it to be the default. Or you can make it the default in the options. But it does not do it on the sly behind your back.

Maybe he's one of those "CLICK OK" people who doesn't know what's actually in the message box, because they push the button so fast just to get to the end of the installation and test the bloody thing.

Kinda weird that there's an IE7 download link in the post. If you were reporting the number of copies of Vista sold, would you give a link to Apple's website?

Quote - boogerjones said @ #22
Kinda weird that there's an IE7 download link in the post. If you were reporting the number of copies of Vista sold, would you give a link to Apple's website?

Agreed...

What's up with that, Neowin?

Because the article mentions IE7, directly, and is about the relative numbers of downloads of each. Or perhaps we should just start removing IE links from any FF article and FF from any IE article. Oh and then just remove any links to any downloads at all, lest Neowin look to be favouring anything at all in the world ever.

I downloaded Firefox 2.0 on the first day it came out however I don't use it as my primary browser.
I just use it for financial uses. Everything else I use IE7.

I've downloaded it once and installed it on about 5 different machines. Also, at work it has been installed on many computers, but since we use a proxy server, Mozilla's servers would only have seen one download instead of about 30.

So while some people have downloaded it many times for just one machine, there are others who have downloaded it once for many machines.

Aaand... Since IE 7 was a regular FTP download, the same happened on that browser, both as for download pumping and proxy downloads. Additionally, neither IE 7 nor Firefox 2 has their auto-update services enabled yet.

The question is: Are the users who downloaded it still using it?

I downloaded it about 6 times already and then I uninstalled it.

Quote - Nexx295 said @ #14
The question is: Are the users who downloaded it still using it?

I downloaded it about 6 times already and then I uninstalled it.


Astroturf much? You're not the first person CLAIMING to have downloaded it multiple times, then promptly uninstalled it.

yeah right...

This time around firefox 2 release wasnt hyped up, and there aren't ads all over the place like with FF1. So I really think that MOST of those who downloaded firefox 2 are actually firefox1 users who are simply upgrading it.

Quote - Davebo said @ #14.1


Astroturf much? You're not the first person CLAIMING to have downloaded it multiple times, then promptly uninstalled it.

yeah right...


I'm not CLAIMING. I DID uninstall it. I download and install it only to see if my web sites are compatible with Firefox - after I'm done with the testing I uninstall it.

The question is: Are the users who downloaded it still using it?

I downloaded it about 6 times already and then I uninstalled it.


Note that this also definitely holds true for IE 7 as well, with its unorthodox, unconfigurable UI, that featured a browser still using standards of its own in many cases. To those users, switching (back?) to alternative browsers would seem like a better choice. Firefox 2's similarity to 1.x seem to make it a safer bet that it won't scare away its users. Also, Microsoft is of course also counting the downloads made by uninformed pirates that can't even run the browser without hassle, and who knows which percentage of those just didn't bother fixing so they could avoid the checks and used e.g Firefox?

Quote - Jugalator said @ #14.4
Also, Microsoft is of course also counting the downloads made by uninformed pirates that can't even run the browser without hassle, and who knows which percentage of those just didn't bother fixing so they could avoid the checks and used e.g Firefox?
And that's MS' problem, how?

Go! Go! Go! I am sure there will be great releases for FF in the future too. IE will die a slow death by version 9.
FF is the future.

Quote - mohan_168 said @ #12
Go! Go! Go! I am sure there will be great releases for FF in the future too. IE will die a slow death by version 9.
FF is the future.

Ooo Lord... lol

How ever many downloads it is, it's better than IE - people who download FF are doing so completely because they want to. IE7 will be given to everyone by auto-updates so it kinda null-ifies any download counts on IE because it is as good as guaranteed a certain amount once it hits auto-updates.

Then maybe you too should read the comments as someone else stated:

No it is not. Firefox 2 is not being pushed to firefox 1.5 users via the firefox auto-update system. First of all, only Firefox 1.5.0.8 (not yet released) has the capability to do a major auto-update to 2.0. And secondly, even when 1.5.0.8 is released, Mozilla may wait for Firefox 2.0.0.1 before offering it to 1.5 users via their update system.

Quote - Computer Guru said @ #11.1
loooooooooool

Read the comments my friend:
IE7 is NOT an autoupdate yet.
Firefox IS an autoupdate.

Sorry!

With a handle like yours you should be ashamed. Guru - riiiight....

Get your facts straight, son...

loooooooooool

Read the comments my friend:
IE7 is NOT an autoupdate yet.
Firefox IS an autoupdate.

Sorry!


If you were a computer guru, you would also find out that Firefox's auto-update system isn't active yet.
You as well as the others claiming it is, is simply making assumptions without checking the facts.

Unlikely. Any download manager worth its salt can follow redirects, but it will follow it once to get the real download location, and then swarm the download from there. Thus one click on a download link will increment the download counter by one, yet the download manager will still be able to accelerate the download using parallelism.

Evidently you dislike firefox. In this thread you've claimed Mozilla have somehow inflated Firefox's download numbers (Dirty count? What the hell is that?), you've talked gobsh!te about firefox 2 being pushed to firefox 1.5 users via the update system (totally wrong) and now this.

Whilst you are of course entitled to any opinion you want about Firefox, kindly stop spreading nefarious misinformation about it.

Firefox 2.0 IS an autoupdate, so anyone who uses Firefox has already upgraded pretty much, for IE7 you gotta know that there is actually IE7 cause its not an autoupdate unless you use Windows Update wich surprisingly most people dont. At least for me it was an autoupdate.

Quote - Neo-Lenin said @ #7
Firefox 2.0 IS an autoupdate, so anyone who uses Firefox has already upgraded pretty much, for IE7 you gotta know that there is actually IE7 cause its not an autoupdate unless you use Windows Update wich surprisingly most people dont. At least for me it was an autoupdate.


oooo autoupdate... no wonder 2mil in 24hours....

Quote - Neo-Lenin said @ #7
Firefox 2.0 IS an autoupdate, so anyone who uses Firefox has already upgraded pretty much, for IE7 you gotta know that there is actually IE7 cause its not an autoupdate unless you use Windows Update wich surprisingly most people dont. At least for me it was an autoupdate.

No it is not. Firefox 2 is not being pushed to firefox 1.5 users via the firefox auto-update system. First of all, only Firefox 1.5.0.8 (not yet released) has the capability to do a major auto-update to 2.0. And secondly, even when 1.5.0.8 is released, Mozilla may wait for Firefox 2.0.0.1 before offering it to 1.5 users via their update system.

Quote - Trong said @ #7.2
Wait until IE 7 goes on Windows for ie should Update. 10 trillion in 10 seconds!


if you have to force it into peoples pcs. you know your product is crap

Quote - Skoogie said @ #7.1


oooo autoupdate... no wonder 2mil in 24hours....

If that was the case, that would mean that those 2 millions actually use firefox!!

And this time I'm pretty sure the 2 millions that downloaded FF2 actually use it.

Quote - werejag said @ #7.5


if you have to force it into peoples pcs. you know your product is crap


IE7 has many improvements, not just in the browser itself but the way it deals with security aswell. You can prevent IE7 being installed on to your computer. Just like you can prevent Firefox from updating. But then you face more security risks.

I wanna know how many actually install the browser after they dload it and keep on using it. Maybe out of 2mil, 500k uninstalled it after testing. Who knows...

I'm still using it, and have been since version 1.
I personally believe that FF2 combined with a couple of choice extensions (Tabbed Browser Preferences and IE Tab (yes, I still use IE for some websites)) make it one of the best browsers I have used to date. Also, as someone who has been brought up with computers and cant spell, I love the inbuilt spell checker!

I wanna know how many actually install the browser after they dload it and keep on using it. Maybe out of 2mil, 500k uninstalled it after testing. Who knows...

I wanna know how many tried to download IE 7 pumping its number, only to find out they couldn't run it due to WGA and then not bothering to change from their former browser, whatever it was.

Quote - Jugalator said @ #6.2
I wanna know how many tried to download IE 7 pumping its number, only to find out they couldn't run it due to WGA and then not bothering to change from their former browser, whatever it was.

If that gives innaccurate results, it's nothing to do with MS, people just shouldn't steal software.

Quote - Hurmoth said @ #4
Congrats to Mozilla! Firefox 2 is awesome, can't wait for Firefox 3 :P

Followed by IE8, the "Oucho". Sorry Hurmie, us consumers love the competition.

I personally think Mozilla are lying out of their arses tbh. Hopefully they won't make Firefox 10 and die way before then

Quote - PiracyX said @ #3.1
I personally think Mozilla are lying out of their arses tbh. Hopefully they won't make Firefox 10 and die way before then

Ditto. I, personally, had to download it numerous times as it kept stopping half-way through. I also re-installed Windows after initially installing it. Probably counted them as separate downloads. I'd like to know the number of unique IPs that downloaded it.

Quote - guylaroche said @ #3.2

Ditto. I, personally, had to download it numerous times as it kept stopping half-way through. I also re-installed Windows after initially installing it. Probably counted them as separate downloads. I'd like to know the number of unique IPs that downloaded it.

I downloaded it once on my Linux machine at work, and once on my Mac at home. Both installations gave me no trouble at all.

Well I downloaded it once and used that one download to give it to some of my roommates, so there's always people like me who just download it once and distribute it to many people/different machines.

IE7 had 3 million in 24 hours.
I don't trust Mozilla's numbering scheme... their dirty count a couple of months ago convinced me enough.

Why would you blindly trust Microsoft's numbering then?
Both are obviously counting their own numbers in their most favorable way, being about their own products.

I mean, can you find a better reason to be biased?

There's nothing worse than people complaining about competitors without any proof, and blindly trusting their favorite company's number when they're in the same situation.

Quote - Jugalator said @ #3.6
There's nothing worse than people complaining about competitors without any proof, and blindly trusting their favorite company's number when they're in the same situation.

Well said.

Quote - Jugalator said @ #3.6

Why would you blindly trust Microsoft's numbering then?
Both are obviously counting their own numbers in their most favorable way, being about their own products.

I mean, can you find a better reason to be biased?

There's nothing worse than people complaining about competitors without any proof, and blindly trusting their favorite company's number when they're in the same situation.


I think there's a huge difference between 3 million (as reported by MS) and 1/2 a million (as reported by Mozilla). Who's is more likely? Can you conjure up downloads from nothing? Does 1/2 a million for IE7 even sound likely to you? Did Mozilla count the downloads before the official download start time and pack that into the '24 hours' post-release?

I agree with your point, it's all competition, but the IE team is not the one tellig Mozilla how many downloads they got.

I downloaded it directly by myself, but in general, was it noted as an autoupdate? Giving people the message: download now.

Nine Reasons To Skip Firefox 2.0
http://it.slashdot.org/it/06/10/28/2115202.shtml

grandgator writes,
"Hyped by a good deal of fanfare, outfitted with some new features, and now available for download, Firefox 2.0 has already passed 2 million downloads in less than 24 hours. However, a growing number of users are reporting bugs, widening memory leaks, unexpected instability, poor compatibility, and an overall experience that is inferior to that offered by prior versions of the browser. Expanding on these ideas, this list compiles nine reasons why it might be a good idea to stick with 1.5 until the debut of 3.0, skipping the "poorly badged" 2.0 release completely."
OK, maybe it's 10 reasons. An anonymous reader writes,
"SecurityFocus reports an unpatched highly critical vulnerability in Firefox 2.0. This defect has been known since June 2006 but no patch has yet been made available. The developers claimed to have fixed the problem in 1.5.0.5 according to Secunia, but the problem still exists in 2.0 according to SecurityFocus (and I have witnessed the crash personally). If security is the main reason users should switch to Firefox, how do we explain known vulnerabilities remaining unpatched across major releases?"

Mozilla Ships Firefox 2.0 ... It's a Dud
http://www.windowsitpro.com/windowspaulthu...rott_93992.html

"I don't like it. The new Firefox "visual refresh" replaces the previously clean Firefox UI with muddy and vague-looking icons. So, one of the first things I did was download a theme that returned the old Firefox 1.5 look and feel. The built-in phishing protection is truly third-rate. There are two antiphishing options: Mozilla's weak blacklist-based protection (yes, seriously) and Google's antiphishing technology, which is both poorly rated and a privacy nightmare. The new Options dialog box is a miasma of choices, some of which are hidden in embedded tab controls. It's ugly, confusing, and illogical.
Firefox doesn't offer many truly neat features.
Firefox 2.0 is free, but it's a woefully minor improvement over Firefox 1.5 that suffers from various incompatibility problems, especially with themes and other add-ons. I wouldn't recommend this new version, to be honest. I'll be sticking with Firefox 1.5 at least for now. I recommend you do the same, or switch to the surprisingly solid IE 7.0."

Jesus H Christ, what a troll post...

PLEASE skip the horrible formatting next time -- you reminded me of my spambox.

And Thurrott obviously don't use Firefox for its extensions, but in some sort of plain form. Obviously he may find it inferior.

franzon...did you sneeze on your keyboard or something?

If you don't like it, don't comment. Especially DON'T spend god knows how long making a post almost unreadable.

Quote - jhatcher16 said @ #1.3
If you don't like it, don't comment.

I disagree with that. However, there are ways of debating that without 'trolling' and posting comments like "ff suxs!!".

Quote - Jugalator said @ #1.2
Jesus H Christ, what a troll post...

PLEASE skip the horrible formatting next time -- you reminded me of my spambox.

And Thurrott obviously don't use Firefox for its extensions, but in some sort of plain form. Obviously he may find it inferior.


I'm glad to see you have no idea about whch you speak. He uses extensions, he's just not happy with the fact FF2 got labelled as such, when it's more like an interim release. Doesn't make it 'bad' though :)

And to those complaining about the 'troll' post, get over yourselves, it's not a troll, it's repostings of (valid) articles about the FF2 release.