In 2003; AMD introduced the first 64-bit processor targeted at the average consumer, the single-cored Athlon 64, onto the market. Six years later, and now virtually all processors produced at the present moment are 64-bit capable. Also most processors used these days have 2 or more cores, enabling approximately 1.7 times or more of the functionality of a single-cored CPU.

Meanwhile, leaving the minority operating systems, such as Linux, and Mac osX – which only runs well on an Apple computer anyway, aside; between 2001 and almost up to the present day the market leader of operating systems, namely Microsoft Windows, has in reality been fairly stagnant. Despite the release of Windows Vista in January 2007, which in many ways went down like a lead balloon from the offing, most people have been using Windows XP since 2001. (Myself included.(Well, since January 2002 to be exact. – I stayed with Windows 98SE until I managed to afford a new computer. – Things were a bit tighter then.) Back in the days when XP was launched, everyone was using a single-cored processor that was only 32-bit capable. In those days 250 megabytes of RAM was considered a vast amount, a 60GB hard-drive had a massive amount of space on it, the Intel Pentium 4 was the latest cutting-edge CPU, (The new machine I bought in 2002 had a first-generation P4 2.8GHz processor installed.) 32MB graphics were considered the norm, and 64MB were considered leading-edge… Nobody but the extreme-geeks wanted 64-bit operating systems; and therefore most of the XP CDs sold were 32-bit. 32-bit became the norm, became known. It was taught that computers went from 4-bits in the 1960s and 70s, (Commodore Pet) to 8-bits (16-colours!) in the 1980s, to 16-bits (DOS) and then to 32-bits (Windows 95 et al.) in the 1990s. – And from there a general feeling amongst the less-computer-literate that this was the ultimate destiny, that technology had no need to progress further than that. Windows 98SE became replaced by the excuse for an operating system known as Windows ME, and shortly afterwards by Windows 2000, which combined the advances made in ME with the lessons learned from ME: The limited and insecure FAT32 file-system which Microsoft had previously hailed as the way ahead, was falling out of favour, and customers had the choice now of using either FAT32 or the far superior NTFS disk-formats. Not far down the road came XP; which built on the lessons learned from 2000, and XP and 2000 were the in-thing. Many people stuck to using 98SE and ME, in addition to those using 2000 and XP.

Support for 98SE and ME was eventually discontinued; but to this day some die-hards still use those operating systems, despite their now being a massive security-risk both in terms of the user and of the rest of the internet-community as a whole. XP became the principle operating system, even holding out extremely well against the newer Windows Vista, which flopped from launch. – This caused consternation among many of the Microsoft faithful; many of whom switched to Linux and Apple’s Mac in protest.

Despite all this; the remaining Microsoft community – which only shrank in size by a few percent due to defectors to Linux and Mac – stayed in the 32-bit frame of mind. A few took up 64-bit computing with Vista after SP1. Even fewer took up 64-bit computing with XP after SP2 and 3.

Meanwhile; Apples Mac community; its numbers swelled with Vista detractors, was already completely 64-bit. Linux distros appeared utilising the 64-bit potential of modern machines also. Microsoft people either didn’t appear to know or care about 64-bit computing: 32-bit computing appeared good enough so why change? There was and still remains a danger of getting stuck in a rut.

What’s the big deal about 64-bit computing then? Why should I want to use a 64-bit operating system as opposed to a 32-bit operating system?

Let me ask you this: (I know a question in answer to a question may be considered lame; but bear with me here.) Why would you want to use a 32-bit operating system as opposed to a 16-bit operating system? Because 32-bit has more capabilities, right? – Like 32 million colours as opposed to 256 colours…

No I’m not saying that there’s several trillion colours in 64-bit…. Well there may in fact be so; but it’s a bit pointless to use that as a reason to upgrade, as the human eye only sees just over 24 million different colours. The main thing about 64-bit operating systems is that they enable your computer to work with more memory. (RAM) – Vastly more in fact: These days applications are demanding more and more RAM and other system resources to be in use on your computer in order to run them. – But there’s a limit to how much RAM you can use per system. If you’re running a 32-bit operating system you can use up to around 3.5 gigabytes of RAM. In 2001 that must have seemed like a colossal amount of memory. These days 2 gigabytes is standard. – On a computer with a 32-bit operating system that is.

I’m typing this on a computer that I built in December 2008. This computer has 2 GB RAM, an AMD Athlon 64 x 2 dual-core 64-bit capable processor… Yet as with most such computers belonging to most people, it’s currently running a 32-bit XP Professional operating system.

The computer next to it, which I built in April 2009, has 4GB RAM – and today I bought another 4 GB RAM which I intend to fit soon. It has an AMD Phenom triple-cored 64-bit-enabled processor and is currently running Windows 7 RC 64-bit.

My point is that this year a new Windows operating system is going to be launched. – But this is no Vista: This one’s Windows 7. It works almost flawlessly and neither I nor several of my online acquaintances can find anything to complain about with regard to it. – And this is before it’s even been fully released! – OK ‘straight to the point: Which is that 32-bit is so 1990s and 2000s. Next year we’ll be entering the 2010s and, as usual, technology will be moving on at its standard fast-pace.

Windows 7 will be available in both 32 and 64-bit versions. If you have a 64-bit capable computer and buy and/or load 32-bit Windows 7 you won’t be doing yourself any favours. When Windows 95 was released it was possible to run a 16-bit operating system on a 32-bit computer designed to run Windows 95. – Try running one of today’s apps in a 16-bit environment though. It wouldn’t run. Even if it did run; the machines that were around when 16-bit was the in-thing would hardly be capable of running a single app that’s used today. (I tried running XP Home on a computer powered by a Pentium 1 processor. (1996/7 IIRC.) It was 32-bit capable so it ran: Badly and tediously slowly. It took 1/2 hour to boot…)

In a few years your 32-bit operating system won’t be capable of running the applications of the time properly and in multiples, because they’ll need more memory than is able to be utilised by a 32-bit operating system. Remember; a 32-bit operating system can only see about 3.5 gigabytes at one time. A 64-bit operating system can see and use over 16 million terabytes of RAM though. That should be all you need for a few years yet.

Do yourself a favour: When you move up to Windows 7; get a 64-bit version of the operating system (Provided that your system is 64-bit capable.(Most systems built in the last 2 years are 64-bit capable. If unsure ask your retailer or an experienced geek.)) It’s time everyone snapped out of this 32-bit mentality; it’s so yesterday. – It’s like choosing to drive a Reliant Robin in favour of a Porsche.

Let’s all break the mould and go 64-bit. I intend to do so; and it’s in everyone’s best interests to do likewise.

Do you agree?

This is another article on Windows 7: It’s Windows 7 week this week; and since I’ve installed the RC (Release Candidate) of Windows 7 (64-bit) this week, the fact that it is is rather appropriate. – Not forgetting, of course, that Microsoft have officially released the RC to the public this week also.

Below is a listing of all the .msc files in the RC. What are .msc files? According to fileinfo.com, this: -

File Type
Microsoft Management Console Snap-in Control File

Category
System Files

Common?
No

File Description
Additional control added to the Microsoft Management Console in Windows

You’ll notice from the date affixed to the listing that these .msc files were also present in the various beta builds; from build 7000 upwards.

.msc files in Windows are generally useful, as they have a function similar to .com and .exe files: For instance; devmgmt.msc is the device manager, and eventvwr.msc is the event viewer. These files reside in the System 32 subfolder of the Windows folder. The same thing is true of Vista and XP to a certain extent; other than a few of the files might have a slightly different nomenclature in some regards, depending upon the operating system in question.

(Please excuse DS Clock for getting in the shot.)

What I noticed was new in the RC version, and that wasn’t included in the original beta, was the .com (Command) files listed below. As you will note from the listing below; .com files are MS-DOS application files: The 16-bit equivalent of a 32 or 64-bit .exe file. Despite whatever counter-claims may arise; Microsoft are still using DOS in at least part of their operating systems. This may not be a bad thing. – And then again it might? – But no biggie. These files are a throwback to before the days of Windows 95; (Probably revised somewhat since then.) but are still useful to this day.

I don’t intend to teach you DOS at this point. Either you know it or you don’t. If you know DOS then so much the better: You’ll instantly understand what these files are for and what they do. If you don’t know DOS then there’s little point learning it anyway these days. – But if you want to learn it anyway, then there are many online tutorials available. Google is your friend.

However; more than this, Microsoft have added a shedload of .exe files, as well as a gargantuan collection of .dll’s. It’s the .exe files that particularly interest me, and I have to admit that I haven’t even screen-captured all the listings, let alone browsed through them all identifying and comparing them to those of previous operating systems.

(If you’re expecting me to do so and report the results in the next article then I’ll inform you here that it took me many months to do that with XP, during which Vista appeared, and was looked at and ignored by me – along with most of the corporate world including Intel. – In other words I most likely won’t so you’re out of luck. – But no doubt someone will: The internet’s a big place, and with somewhere around 1/4 billion blogs out there it’s unlikely that it won’t happen.)

The first screen of them, and there are many, is pictured below.: -

- And if you think that’s a vast amount, having looked for yourself; wait until you see the number of .dll’s they’ve added. – That’s well beyond the scope of this article.

What drew my attention to these files in the first place was that I transferred some files and settings over from my 32-bit XP setup on the networked computer next door.(As in; the next computer in that row of computers.) Having transferred all of my personal profile over from XP to 7, I noticed that the thing that stuck out like a sore thumb, and that was missing, was the sound recorder icon that I created in XP.

I looked in 64-bit 7’s System 32 folder for a similar file or icon to the sndrec32.exe found in 32-bit XP, and discovered that there isn’t one. There’s an equivalent to sndvol32.exe, the volume controls, named SndVol.exe, but there’s no SndRec.exe, nor is there any equivalent file as far as I can tell.

This is going to cause problems for me if Microsoft don’t include it in the RTM version: I use the sndrec32.exe function in 32-bit XP via a desktop shortcut to call up the sound recorder, on which I record voice tracks, then use software to mix with music tracks, combine and clean them up, convert to mp3 format, and use the finished product. In fact the intro music for this blog was produced in just that manner. Without the presence of the sound recorder I am a bit stuffed, as are other bloggers who also record in this way.

I don’t know if it’s included in the 32-bit version? I strongly suspect not.

…And I’ve just found out, via Twitter, from Rich Menga of PC Mech.com that I suspected right: It isn’t.

Here’s my last-minute appeal. I do know that Microsoft’s Windows 7 Team read this blog from time to time; especially if I write something on Windows 7. (Logically.) – So I ask those geeks in that team to please include an equivalent to sndrec32.exe in the RTM build.

If it isn’t included I’m sure I’ll get by. – But I see no reason why it can’t be so included. (Having said that; I’m not on the development team, so what do I know?) If it isn’t included it’ll be a big pain in the ass at first. – Like the absence of the Address Bar was when I first installed Service Pack 3 to my Win XP Pro 32-bit installations. – But I carried on regardless, and eventually scrubbed round it and almost forgot about the Address Bar in the end.

- But; dear Microsoft, I appeal to you and beseech thee not to cause me any further pain, and to please include a sound recorder file in the System32 folder of the RTM of Windows 7. (It’s like a bloody prayer this. (“Oh great God of the Sacred Redmond, it is with humility and sworn devotion that we come before thee…”) I just hope it has better results than prayer.) I also speak for those others who cannot live without the sound recorder and would like it reinstated.

- In the name of Bill Gates who gave up his position for us so that Microsoft could move ever onward.

Amen.

“Blasphemer…!”

“Oh rock of ages; don’t you crumble or be leaning still.

Ah, magic moonshine now: A little people magick if you will.”

- Queen 1972.

Ah – Egg on face time: There is a sound recorder exe file in System32. It’s called SoundRecorder.exe Why is it so difficult to find? I partially blame Microsoft for renaming it to something unexpected, and also myself for not looking hard enough.

It appears to only recognise a USB microphone though. All attempts to get it to recognise an analogue mic plugged into the sound card appear futile. I did only try with a single analogue microphone though – So there may be a chance that the one I used was faulty (?)

My thanks to my internet stalker Synapse Syndrome commenting under his gay alter-ego of “Sarah Palin” (aka Syphilis Syndrone.) for this information. Unfortunately I won’t publish his comment as it is rude and obnoxious, plus I’ve banned him from publication already due to the rude and ignorant crassness of his rhetoric, as seen in his previous comments prior to the instatement of the ban. No doubt he investigated the case extremely carefully over the course of a number of days before discovering it, so that he could write a comment full of insults and ridicule. – That was a total waste of time on his part in writing it; but it’s good to know that I have my detractors serving at my feet.

This year, Microsoft forced major retailers to stop supplying XP. In January 2009 even small system builders such as myself will be stopped from supplying XP. Will that be a death knell for XP?

Not immediately, no; but if the pre-beta code reports are anything to go by, then Windows Seven may well be the start of the end for this almost seven-year-old operating system.

Some reports I’ve heard indicate that Microsoft will be launching Seven in October 2009. According to PCWorld.com:

"The word on the blogosphere is that Windows 7 should be released to manufacturing in October 2009 with general availability by November".

Microsoft haven’t yet released anything concrete yet as far as I know – Other than declaring that the new OS will be launched in the latter half of 2009, however some bloggers may be privy to insider information that I have not yet received.

Windows Vista; the disaster of an operating system in many ways, and the major trigger of the minor popularity-loss for the Softies, which did more good for its predecessor XP and the Apple Mac with its osX Unix operating system than anything else, has kept most of those users who continue to use Microsoft’s operating systems (Including myself.) with XP for the time being. In fact this blog’s visitor count indicates that almost 5 times more visitors use XP than use Vista, with a third as many people as those using Vista on a Mac using osX.

Seven is coming; and in my opinion we’ll probably be seeing most of those who upgraded from XP to Vista upgrading to Seven in 2009; as well as probably at least two-thirds of the XP users. That will be probably just as much a death knell for Vista as it will be for XP, if not even more so.

Seven will work on the same hardware as Vista; so there’s really no reason for Vista users not to upgrade. XP users boxes will be starting to clap out in a lot of cases, so those affected will no doubt upgrade equipment and operating system too.

If you have a perfectly good computer that’s still running XP, and either you can’t afford to, don’t want to, or simply can’t move to Seven because of the hardware requirements, then don’t worry:

Currently, as stated in the Microsoft XP Product Support Lifecycle page, partially shown above; they will continue mainstream support for XP until April 2009 – As they are currently doing that is – after which they’ll only be continuing support regarding security issues from that date until the currently scheduled day in April 2014 when XP becomes obsolete.

Then XP will go the way of 9x and ME. By then, however, Seven’s successor will probably have been long released, Vista will have been condemned, and maybe even a successor to Seven’s successor will be in beta?

One of my computers that I recently built from scrap components probably isn’t capable of running anything greater than Vista Home Basic. It has a 64-bit capable motherboard running a 32-bit AMD Sempron 1800MHz processor in a socket configuration that’s already almost obsolete; AMD socket 754. I don’t think they made any dual-core processors in that socket, and even if I could upgrade to a single-core Athlon 64 by buying second-hand, I wouldn’t bother upgrading to Vista. – So that’s one computer which’ll be running XP to 2014; if it lasts that long, that is.

Feel free to comment generally on anything you like in this article: There is a comment box below for that purpose. Have a good day/evening/night/morning, wherever you are on the planet.

November 1st is, surprisingly, the first day of the month (Not much gets past me!): Here are the percentages of users, out of a total numerous original visitors since July 2008, who are using a certain one of a number of various operating systems. (There is a reason why I’m presenting these figures, which will become evident further down.):-

(The percentages are rounded off to the nearest full 0.1 percentage point above the actual decimalised percentage points less than 0.1; which is why the total percentage figure adds up to a fraction just under 100%.)

24838 of my (original) visitors were using Windows: That’s approximately 92.5%.

1124 of my (original) visitors were using a Mac: That’s approximately 4.1%.

764 of my (original) visitors were using Linux: That’s approximately 3.1%

I want to deal with Windows specifically from this point. No favouritism intended; and well done to the Mac users – That’s a fairly good figure, which demonstrates that the Apple community is growing. Well done also to the Linux users: A figure of 3.1% shows that Linux usage is increasing – Great news for the open-source community.

Windows users; all 92.5% of you: You’ve proved some things to my mind. I want to share them with you. I have touched on some of them before in previous statistical reports that I’ve presented:-

I feel that 3 months of usage statistics in the latter-half of the year is an ample sample (Poetry!) to indicate a usage trend for the year as a whole; So I’m going to present and share with anyone reading, the Official 2008 kkomp.com Windows Usage Analysis. (Percentages are rounded off to the nearest 1/100th decimal point above.) Behold:-

75% of you Windows users are using Windows XP.

15% of you Windows users are using Windows Vista.

4.3% of you Windows users are using Windows 2K.

1.7% of you Windows users are using Windows Server 2008.

*And the obsolete ones still in use:*

1.6% of you Windows users are using Windows 98 and 98SE

1.5% of you Windows users are using Windows NT4.

0.4% of you Windows users are using Windows ME.

0.4% of you Windows users are using Windows 95.

I’m going to class Windows NT4 as an obsolete operating system. I would rather say obsolescent; but for this analysis I’m classifying it as obsolete. I’m also stating as a fact that Windows 98 and 98SE, ME, and 95, are also obsolete operating systems.

That’s 3.9% of you Windows users who are using an obsolete operating system, or 2.4% if you don’t count NT4 as obsolete.

To those 3.9/2.4%: Did you know that, since your operating system is obsolete, it is a security risk? Microsoft have stopped patching it or issuing critical updates and bug fixes for it. That means that, since it became obsolete, it can harbour the newly-discovered security threats which can affect other Windows computers. It could be part of an advanced botnet already, and you have absolutely no way of knowing what criminal gang has your computer exploited to do their work. It could be being used as a spam server. It could be relaying illegal pornography. It could be standing by to participate in a DDOS attack on a mainstream server. It may be a virus storage facility if you don’t have antivirus or can’t be bothered to update your antivirus: True, the viruses may not be able to affect your computer itself; but you can bet your rear-end that they’re affecting others.

Worst of all you could have the authorities calling and arresting you for criminal cyber activities that you knew absolutely nothing about: How does distributing child pornography sound? Participating in a directed DDOS attack designed to deprive a company of its right to a healthy internet connection, or designed to commit sabotage and theft of company classified secret information by electronic means? Assisting in the distribution of unsolicited illegal advertising? Assisting in the distribution of computer viruses likely to cause a nuisance and inconvenience to the general public on an international level as well as possibly causing millions in losses?

The lawsuits could be colossal and cost you millions and/or your freedom. – And all because you couldn’t be bothered to spend a few bucks/pounds, whatever, on a new operating system and/or a new computer. If you get nicked it’s your own fault; and ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the (British) law. (Probably most other countries’ legal systems also.)

Is it really worth taking the risk?

If you’re 100% sure you know what you’re doing, are an experienced and knowledgeable geek + internet security expert, and are running the OS as a bit of nostalgia, then good luck to you. Otherwise ditch the obsolete OS, sell the 486 or whatever old heap you’re running it on to a museum, buy new, and stay safe online. Don’t make yourself and others suffer as a result of your own lethargy.

End of lecture. I know I’ve said similar before. This is repetition for emphasis. It is important. Please address the issue  post-haste, for your own sake as much as that of others. To the other Windows users who aren’t using an obsolete OS: Keep it up. – That means keep your antivirus and antispyware updated at all times. Scan your computer regularly. Install all the updates and patches issued by Microsoft. – Why not go check Windows Update right now to see if there’s anything you missed?

To change the subject; I am astonished that 5 times more people are still using Windows XP rather than Windows Vista. I read an article on PCMech.com by David Risley entitled "Is Windows Vista Really a Failure?". In answer to that question just look at the statistics. Go figure!

I’m looking forward to Windows Seven: I think Microsoft have learned their lesson with Vista. (The first public beta comes out early next year BTW.).

Today is a “Bank Holiday” in the UK; which is Brit talk for “skive”: That applies to the employed-only populous though: I’m continuing much as usual here, although I did get a chance to finally see a few people I’ve been meaning to see for a while earlier.

It’s been a bumper weekend as far as hits are concerned on this blog; and my thanks to all who made it so: I hope you found the information that you were looking for and that it was useful to you.

In this blog entry I’m going to be focusing on operating systems and browsers with regard to the statistics of this blog from the last six days, and try to give my perception of exactly what this means for their respective markets.

Let’s look at some figures in terms of overall percentages for the operating systems used:

I apologise for the fact that the illustration’s not that clear: Nevertheless it can clearly be seen that Microsoft Windows XP is by far the leading o.s. at 75.8% (Of just over 1000 original hits.) ; beating Windows Vista into an un-commanding second-place at only 8.8%. To me that shows a big failure notice for Microsoft’s latest operating system and confirms the fact that people are sticking to XP for the time being, or downgrading their Vista installation to XP where possible. If this graph were to be taken as a representative sample it would indicate that for every person using Vista, there are 8.61 people still using XP.

What of the rest? Unbelievably in third place behind Vista is the obsolete Windows 98 at 4.3%: This also speaks volumes about Vista, as this says that nearly half as many people as those who currently use Windows Vista would rather use an obsolete operating system than Vista.

Let’s tot up the percentages of all Windows usage excluding Vista: We’ve already got XP at 75.8% and Windows 98 at 4.3%. Also there’s Windows 2000 in sixth place at 1.7%, NT4 at 1.1%, Server 2003 at 0.7%, ME at 0.6%, 95 and CE at 0.1% each.

I make that 84.4% of everybody, using Windows but avoiding Vista. Total Windows usage including Vista = 93.2%.

What of the others? Well there are two Linux groupings on this graph: “Linux” and “Ubuntu Linux”. I’m going to add those two together and call them “All Linux”; giving 2.4% of total: That’s not that bad a representative score for Linux in all honesty, and indicates some growth in the usage of Linux; I think somewhere in the region of 0.5% growth of market share.

Now Apple: There’s Mac OS X coming in at 2.9%, and the iPhone at 1.5%. I’m going to add those together and call them “Apple Platforms”; giving 4.4% of overall usage. This shows significant growth for Apple too; somewhere in the region of a whole percent if I remember correctly.

Obviously this isn’t an official survey, and the statistics gleaned from this are only representative of my viewers. If it were an official survey of a small cross-section of users, and there must be at least some parallel with the official figures, it would indicate that:-

• XP remains the prominent OS of choice.
• Vista is a failure.
• Linux usage is growing fairly fast.
• Apple usage is growing even faster.

To clarify; with apologies for the non-clarity of the graph again:-

• Internet Explorer 6: 50% (!),
• Internet Explorer 7: 23.7%,
• Firefox 2: 8.4%,
• Internet Explorer 5: 6.1%,
• Firefox 3: 4.5%,
• Safari: 3.8%,
• Opera: 0.9%,
• Firefox 1: 0.9%
• Konqueror: 0.7%

The other categories are “Firefox” (No number) 0.6%, Firefox 1.5 0.3%, Generic Gecko 0.1%, and Internet Explorer (No number) 0.1%.

I think what I’ll do is group Firefox, Firefox 1.5, and Firefox 1, together and call them “Not Firefox 2 or 3″, giving 1.8%.

Also I’ll group Internet Explorer and IE5 together and call them “Not IE6 or 7″, giving 6.2%.

OK; so IE6 appears to be a clear favourite: Strange that; I thought that since M$ were distributing IE7 as an auto-upgrade then everyone would start using it. I certainly do, and I prefer it to IE6 – I’m in the minority there it seems. IE7, which I use in XP, comes in second with less than half as many users as IE6. If we assume that all Vista users use IE7, then only 14.9% of XP users have adopted IE7. Fair enough.

Firefox 2 in third. Hmm: Although Firefox 3 was a record download it certainly isn’t a record Firefox; 2 still being the prevalent choice out of the Firefox versions.

Strangely enough IE5 with all its many vulnerabilities and its funny GUI has more users than Windows 98, indicating that people are using it with other Windows versions such as ME and 95.

Firefox 3 with just over half as many users as Firefox 2 eh? : That should be a concern to Mozilla perhaps?

Safari at 3.8% – Well there’s the iPhone accounting for some of it, though I’m surprised its usage is that high.

Even more surprising to me is that Opera’s usage is so low at just 0.9% in comparison to Safari’s beating it by more than a factor of 4 times: Maybe some people know something I don’t?

The rest is pretty much academic anyway – So; in conclusion:-

• IE6 is still the most popular browser.
• IE7 isn’t a failure, but it appears that most people would choose IE6 rather than IE7.
• Firefox as a whole has gained a good foothold and is becoming popular.
• Firefox 3 didn’t go down as well as anticipated.
• IE5 seems to have a cult-following.
• Opera is, in my opinion, underrated.
• Safari is, in my opinion, overrated.

I found that statistical analysis quite exhilarating: I hope you found it interesting and maybe in some ways useful.

What do you think? Are you at all surprised by these results? Do you think that this study is a fair analysis that could be used as a representative cross-section poll of users? Do you think these results are typical? What would you expect the results of an official poll to be; similar, or different? Please feel free to comment.

Update: September 1st 2008:-

I’m getting some good hits from loads of Open-Source browsers all of a sudden: Keep ‘em coming! (IE6 is still in the lead.)

 I’m now going to have to review some of these and blog about them. Excellent!

Click Here