Mon Feb 11 23:14:37 2002

This is from my server's livestats(for the day of yesterday):

  AOL 4.x              85      42.50      24.43    
  MSIE 5.x             84      42.00      24.14    
  Unknown            68      34.00      19.54    
  Netscape 4.x      52      26.00      14.94    
  Netscape 5.x      28      14.00      8.05    
  Netscape 3.x      20      10.00      5.75    
  MSIE 4.x               8       4.00        2.30    
  Netscape 2.x      2        1.00         0.57    
  Opera 3.x           1        .5              .29

All versions of MSIE = 24.14+2.30==26.44%(not counting the AOL IE build..I'll explain why in a moment)

All versions of Netscape=14.94+8.05+.57+5.75==29++%

:eek:

Now I know that AOL is an IE build(it would double IE's margin) but I didn't include it because:

A. It renders pages differently than standard IE browsers. Anyone that does web dev knows this and usually makes allowances.(just like web devs do for WebTV, the root of all evil)

B. If you're using AOL, few people open additional IE browsers(I do) and use the in-ISP browser.

Now I know there are many gung-ho "my way or the highway" posters that on this board have suggested to "forget about Netscape users because they're a small minority". Well, even assuming that the unknowns include no Mozilla or Netscape users, the Netscape users have accounted for approximately .25 of all my visitors yesterday(and the pattern holds true for the day before).

Hnnn.. Seems if you're ignoring Netscape users, you're ignoring a substantial amount of customers.

M.

Mon Feb 11 23:17:42 2002

People *still* use Netscape.

Which is one of the great mysteries of the universe :)

Mon Feb 11 23:23:51 2002

   AOL 4.x      709      101.29      27.45    
  MSIE 5.x      534      76.29      20.67    
  Unknown     396      56.57      15.33    
  AOL 5.x        343      49.00      13.28    
  Netscape 4.x 314      44.86      12.16    
  Netscape 5.x 127      18.14      4.92    
  Netscape 3.x  51      7.29      1.97    
  MSIE 4.x         42      6.00      1.63    
  Netscape 2.x  32      4.57      1.24    
  AOL 3.x           18      2.57      0.70    
  WebTV 2.x      14      2.00      0.54    
  MSIE 3.x          2      0.29      0.08    
  Opera 3.x        1      0.14      0.04    

MSIE(Strict) 23%(approx).
AOLIE(strict) 41.5%(approx).
Netscape(strict) 20.25%(approx).
Opera  >1%
WebTV(SUCKS) .5%

It seems to me that if there was ever a market to ignore, it's MS' WebTV, and *not* Netscape.

M.

Mon Feb 11 23:27:02 2002

I, myself, let many a Wintroll convince me that Netscape is marginal, when in fact, it is *quite* substantial.

AOL gives MSIE it's large lead. Without it, IE would barely be beating out Netscape by more than 3%. Sure, this is only the heraldstore's visitors but I doubt it'd be *much* different for other commercial sites.

M.

Mon Feb 11 23:37:46 2002

Here.

M.

Tue Feb 12 00:05:03 2002

Imitation Gruel concludes once more that most people are brainless fucks who by all sensible logic should not be alive.

Tue Feb 12 00:25:03 2002

We get <2%, and our sample size is larger (which can make NS fade into the background) by quite a bit.

Kickass looking site though.

A query: How does it break down into platforms? You know, Windows vs Apple vs "Other" ?

(Edited by PaulHill at 4:27 pm on Feb. 11, 2002)

Tue Feb 12 02:30:06 2002

Still, the 12% Netscape 4.x you appear to get (according to the screenshot) is rather small.

The single biggest browser I have hitting my own server is nimda/CodeRed/etc., with some 50% of all hits.

http://www.anti-flash.co.uk/stats.asp

Tue Feb 12 02:33:43 2002

A. It renders pages differently than standard IE browsers. Anyone that does web dev knows this and usually makes allowances.(just like web devs do for WebTV, the root of all evil)

I know that AOL still seems to fuck over images with their godawful .art format, but given that the rendering engine is identical to that of IE, I'm hard-pressed to see how there could be other differences.

I find it morderately remarkable that no-one who visits the HeraldStore website uses IE 6.

Tue Feb 12 03:55:11 2002

And, how come you dont have a listing for IE 6? Just not enough numbers or?

Tue Feb 12 08:56:36 2002

Tue Feb 12 11:34:11 2002

check those stats out.

Tue Feb 12 12:04:21 2002

or during feb 22 2001 the market share is as follows:

which i got from [url=http://www.statmarket.com/cgi-bin/sm.cgi?sm&feature&stat022201] this article [/url]

regarding IE 6:

[url=http://www.statmarket.com/cgi-bin/sm.cgi?sm&feature&stat090501] As of Sept. 3, 2001, Internet Explorer 6's global browser usage share had risen to 2.4 percent, according to StatMarket, a Web site design and software optimization service and a leading source for data on global Internet user trends.[/url]

Tue Feb 12 12:06:57 2002

so: [url=http://www.cen.uiuc.edu/bstats/latest.html] Check these out. Interesting stats. Also shows macs at ~4% [/url]

Thats interesting no?

Tue Feb 12 12:08:45 2002

Tue Feb 12 12:11:12 2002

me needs a life...

Tue Feb 12 12:24:48 2002

Cheers.

Tue Feb 12 15:53:13 2002

Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0b; Windows NT 5.0; .NET CLR 1.0.2914)

.NET server?

Tue Feb 12 17:41:36 2002

from Riso posted at 3:53 pm on Feb. 12, 2002

Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0b; Windows NT 5.0; .NET CLR 1.0.2914)

.NET server?

Win2K with a .NET beta and an IE 6 beta installed.

Tue Feb 12 23:02:47 2002

I don't doubt you for one second, actually.

We get <2%, and our sample size is larger (which can make NS fade into the background) by quite a bit.

Kickass looking site though.

Kickass site? What site? That screen cap is from an online-based third party app.

I didn't put that together.

A query: How does it break down into platforms? You know, Windows vs Apple vs "Other" ?

I'll let you know tomorrow, I just got home from jury duty and I don't have access through my slow modem. The images would take forever.  I do remember our stats saying Apple was approx 11% or somesuch. Not a lot but definitely more than most BF posters give credit for. I'll post a screenie manana.

Still, the 12% Netscape 4.x you appear to get (according to the screenshot) is rather small.

*boggle* Please Pete, I've already mentioned that I prefer IE 4.5 over NS 4.5 but, honestly, 1/10 users is hardly something to ignore.

And that's just version four. Add 6, mozillas and 3 and you get close to one in THREE.

The single biggest browser I have hitting my own server is nimda/CodeRed/etc., with some 50% of all hits.

http://www.anti-flash.co.uk/stats.asp

LOL.

It renders pages differently than standard IE browsers. Anyone that does web dev knows this and usually makes allowances.(just like web devs do for WebTV, the root of all evil)
I've seen you say this a number of times, and I've never seen it demonstrated in practice.

I dumped all my screenies but never fear. I have to rebuild the heraldstore, which is why it's in total disarray and I'll be happy to show you the differences in rez AND in rendering as I build the new page.

There ARE differences because the browser has an IE engine but AOL fucks with it someHOW and causes images to slide away from one another and for font work to cripple unless you use CSS1/2. Since I avoid CSS1 because it hammers NS 3/4 IE 3/4, I get screwed unless careful. I'll be happy to post screenies. You'll see.

I actually have a viewer for AOL IE on my Dell and one for MS WebTV on my Mac. Both to check BEFORE I post a page.

I know that AOL still seems to fuck over images with their godawful .art format, but given that the rendering engine is identical to that of IE, I'm hard-pressed to see how there could be other differences.

I find it morderately remarkable that no-one who visits the HeraldStore website uses IE 6.

I don't use IE 6.

I use IE 5.

Prolly most ppl do too. As for the rendering, I disagree. AOL does SOMETHING to the IE to cause it to crap itself. ART files and ARTII files are not the only problem. It represents JPEGS at low rez(I'll get some screens tonite for you) and some tag work boinks on the browser.

Maybe it only boinks on Mac AOL? Maybe they're really sloppy about that but I distinctly remember that the new version of www.heraldstore.com fucked over the first time I posted it a year ago. Again, when I start to rebuild it tomorrow, I'll share some pics.

Hey, Madan, do your stats have Mozilla in the netscape line? I am assuming so.

Your guess is as good as mine. I don't see Mozilla(maybe netscape?) and I don't see some other browsers.If you check my screen(taskbar), you'll see at least four browser types(I'm always checking various browsers to make sure the page looks identical) and I've gone to hstore wi each. My guess is that it lumps them by rendering type?

And, how come you dont have a listing for IE 6? Just not enough numbers or?

*shrug*

Would mozilla and conq show up as  Unknown?

*shrug*^2

M.

Tue Feb 12 23:26:36 2002

Tue Feb 12 23:55:37 2002

Kickass site? What site? That screen cap is from an online-based third party app.

I didn't put that together.

I know this. I meant the herald store.  Nice, uncluttered easy-to-navigate, and elegant.  Top marks.

Wed Feb 13 00:43:11 2002

:)

Wed Feb 13 02:47:15 2002

Unfortunately, the company, which started out with 9 personnel, my direct boss, me as techie(that's a laugh), three reserachers, two phone ppl, one mailer and one photo specialist is now down to 2 people. One reasercher and me(part time).

As a result, we're losing the entire merchandise arm(which didn't move fast enough for them). Funny part was that the VP of operations wanted the site to net 1 million(net not gross) on the first year. Huh?

HUH?

Uh, yeah, right.

Anyways, after a lot of work, the VP of Finance decided that she'd rather cripple the entire store because per her reasoning:

It was better for the Miami Herald to keep a web store that was breaking even/losing a little, which has no ties to their core business...

while keeping a tangential newspaper(Star and Street) which were both bleeding money.

*shrug*

To make a long story short, most of the links on the front page don't work. The graphics have been damaged in some places and so I basically have to redo the landing page, the main branch pages and prune the rest of the ASP down to Photos, Research and Back Issue services.

I like the page now and, oddly enough, I got quite a bit of complimentary approval for the design. Funny, since it was the design I thought would work the least.

Anyways, since I was in jury duty today, I couldn't start the refit. I have *no* idea what I'm going to do.

I'll think of something.

Hit, the service software is LiveStats. It's installed on the shared host we have the store on.

If you do a Google Search, you should be able to find it.

My problem is that it's clashing with numbers given to me by www.web-stat.com

I've seen ws's asp code and their code *should* provide the right numbers but I'm wondering how LS can be wrong if they're installed *on* the server and function for the hstore only.

*shrug*

At least I managed to read up on my network security during the 8 hr wait at the court house.

Peter or Paul probably knew this and might be able to address this but the author, Crume, indicates that Unix is more stable than NT in the respect that it supports casing for passwords, which increases the difficulty of cracking a password, exponentially. Apparently L0phtcrack is supposed to crack a pw in under 4 min. if only lowercase letters are used. If both upper and lower case are used, it increases the time to crack up to 30+ years!

If either P's could comment, I'd like to verify the truthfulness.
Although I SHOULD have been reading my ASP book but since I forgot most of the stuff I picked up the last "learning binge" I had, I'm sticking to the easy stuff until I get motivated again.

M.

Wed Feb 13 04:25:53 2002

Peter or Paul probably knew this and might be able to address this but the author, Crume, indicates that Unix is more stable than NT in the respect that it supports casing for passwords, which increases the difficulty of cracking a password, exponentially.

He may be trying to talk about case sensative usernames which are merely a pain in the ansu. (at least, that's my opinion.)

Wed Feb 13 20:12:05 2002

Wed Feb 13 21:10:25 2002

Hn.

Wed Feb 13 22:27:22 2002

L0phtcrack

This thing only works if you
1) can get access to the SAM, which is protected
2) dont use any special characters.

Would mozilla and conq show up as  Unknown

No.

Wed Feb 13 23:28:58 2002

Wed Feb 13 23:32:43 2002

Also you have to have Administrator rights just to access the sam, and if a malicious user has Administrator rights, they can do plenty of damage without having to use L0pht.

Thu Feb 14 04:40:58 2002

*boggle* Please Pete, I've already mentioned that I prefer IE 4.5 over NS 4.5 but, honestly, 1/10 users is hardly something to ignore.

And that's just version four. Add 6, mozillas and 3 and you get close to one in THREE.

Version 4 is the only version that needs ignoring.

Mozilla is pretty W3C-conformant.  As are most Mac browsers, newer versions of Opera, and IE 5.5 and 6.  If you stick to conformant code you don't need to target any particular browser -- good code will work in all of those properly.

It's NS 4 that needs to be not supported.

I dumped all my screenies but never fear. I have to rebuild the heraldstore, which is why it's in total disarray and I'll be happy to show you the differences in rez AND in rendering as I build the new page.

There ARE differences because the browser has an IE engine but AOL fucks with it someHOW and causes images to slide away from one another and for font work to cripple unless you use CSS1/2. Since I avoid CSS1 because it hammers NS 3/4 IE 3/4, I get screwed unless careful. I'll be happy to post screenies. You'll see.

I don't use IE 6.

I use IE 5.

If on a Mac, I have no idea what's current and what's not.

Prolly most ppl do too. As for the rendering, I disagree. AOL does SOMETHING to the IE to cause it to crap itself. ART files and ARTII files are not the only problem. It represents JPEGS at low rez(I'll get some screens tonite for you) and some tag work boinks on the browser.

Maybe it only boinks on Mac AOL? Maybe they're really sloppy about that but I distinctly remember that the new version of http://www.heraldstore.com fucked over the first time I posted it a year ago. Again, when I start to rebuild it tomorrow, I'll share some pics.

Peter or Paul probably knew this and might be able to address this but the author, Crume, indicates that Unix is more stable than NT in the respect that it supports casing for passwords, which increases the difficulty of cracking a password, exponentially. Apparently L0phtcrack is supposed to crack a pw in under 4 min. if only lowercase letters are used. If both upper and lower case are used, it increases the time to crack up to 30+ years!

L0pht requires  the use of a dictionary, so it is easily defeated by using funny made up words, like sploogalicious.

Also you have to have Administrator rights just to access the sam, and if a malicious user has Administrator rights, they can do plenty of damage without having to use L0pht.