ie8 fix
madison

No, Microsoft didn't rush IE 9 into Windows Update

By | April 11, 2011, 2:48pm PDT

Did Microsoft really rush Internet Explorer 9 into Windows Update in a desperate move to catch up with Firefox?

Sorry, conspiracy theorists, but the answer is an emphatic no.

My colleague Mary Jo Foley wrote “Forget June: Microsoft already pushing IE9,” noting an apparent acceleration from a previously reported June schedule. Elsewhere on ZDNet, Steven J. Vaughan Nichols piled on: “Why is Microsoft pushing IE 9 out now? Firefox.” In his view, Microsoft was forced to “push IE9 out early” because Firefox is kicking the stuffings out of IE 9 in adoption rates.

That would be an interesting argument if it were supported by any evidence. Too bad the theory crumbles into little pieces as you soon as do some research. With IE 9, Microsoft is following the exact same schedule as it did with Internet Explorer 8 and Internet Explorer 7, with an identical rollout strategy. Nothing’s been sped up, nothing’s been slowed down. This is how Microsoft releases a new browser.

Don’t take my word for it. Here are the actual timelines for all three major releases of Internet Explorer:

Internet Explorer 7

IE7 marked its Release to Web (RTW) milestone on October 18, 2006. It first appeared on Windows Update two weeks later, in the first week of November 2006. The announcement noted that this would be a slow rollout that would take place over a period of months.

We have now slowly started general AU distribution of IE7 in English, and this will continue over the next few months. For localized versions, we plan to follow this same approach of first releasing to the IE site followed by AU distribution several weeks later.

That shouldn’t have been a surprise: Those plans had been communicated in detail three months before the final release.

Internet Explorer 8

Microsoft made IE8 available for download by the public on March 19, 2009. It showed up on Windows Update two weeks later, in the first week of April 2009. Again, this was part of a plan that had been publicly announced three months in advance, and another public announcement was posted when the updates began rolling out:

Last week, we released IE8 via Automatic Update to users still running pre-release versions of IE8 (Beta 2 or Release Candidate 1). The goal was to make sure users who chose to install IE8 have the latest up-to-date version.

[A couple weeks after that], users still running IE6 or IE7 … will get a notification through Automatic Update about IE8. This rollout will start with a narrow audience and expand over time to the entire user base.

Are you seeing a pattern emerge?

Internet Explorer 9

The official RTW announcement was on March 14, 2011.  It was released to Automatic Updates exactly two weeks later, on March 28, per this post on the Windows Team Blog. As before, it’s a gradual rollout:

[W]e just turned on Windows Update for IE9 RTW yesterday – even then only for existing IE9 Beta and RC users. Windows Update for all our Windows customers will start sometime next month [in April].”

Just as they did with IE 8.

Internet Explorer 9 will not be broadly rolled out on Windows Update until the end of June.

That’s a period of roughly three months to ramp up from RTW to broad availability. The same as with every other major Internet Explorer launch in recent memory.

Which brings us full circle to the Firefox-versus-IE numbers. Microsoft’s core business users are cautious and conservative, and the company’s approach to releasing a new browser has always emphasized slow but steady adoption. Firefox, on the other hand, is an enthusiast’s product. There’s no IT department to plan a wide-scale deployment, no apps that target a specific version of the browser and have to be tested first.

Again, don’t take my word for it—look at the numbers. One year after IE8’s release, here’s how it compared to its predecessors in data from Net Market Share:

  • Internet Explorer 8: 26.61%
  • Earlier versions: 31.57%

Less than half of all Internet Explorer users had upgraded to the most recent version after a year. By contrast, here’s what the numbers for Firefox looked like one year after the release of Firefox 3.0:

  • Firefox 3: 20.53%
  • Earlier versions: 1.88%

Here are the numbers one year after the release of Firefox 3.5:

  • Firefox 3.5/3.6: 20.75%
  • Earlier versions: 2.99%

In both cases, more than 90% of all Firefox users upgraded within the first year. That’s a very sharp curve, quite unlike the incremental growth rate for Internet Explorer.

By the way, on the two-year anniversary of its launch, IE 8 had climbed another 7.8%, to 34.41%. Firefox 3+ had picked up less than two additional points of usage share, at 23.22%.

If you want to look at raw downloads as indicative of anything, be sure you place the numbers in historical context. Of course Firefox will inspire a flurry of downloads at launch. That’s the nature of the audience. Let’s check back in a year and see how things have changed, shall we?

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Ed Bott is an award-winning technology writer with more than two decades' experience writing for mainstream media outlets and online publications.

Disclosure

Ed Bott

Ed Bott is a freelance technical journalist and book author. All work that Ed does is on a contractual basis.

Since 1994, Ed has written more than 25 books about Microsoft Windows and Office. Along with various co-authors, Ed is completely responsible for the content of the books he writes. As a key part of his contractual relationship with publishers, he gives them permission to print and distribute the content he writes and to pay him a royalty based on the actual sales of those books. Ed's books written prior to fall 2011 have been distributed by Que Publishing (a division of Pearson Education) and by Microsoft Press. As of November 2011, Ed is a partner in the independent publishing company Fair Trade Digital Exchange, which exclusively publishes his books.

On occasion, Ed accepts consulting assignments. In recent years, he has worked as an expert witness in cases where his experience and knowledge of Microsoft and Microsoft Windows have been useful. In each such case, his compensation is on an hourly basis, and he is hired as a witness, not an advocate.

Ed does not own stock or have any other financial interest in Microsoft or any other software company. He owns 500 shares of stock in EMC Corporation, which was purchased before the company's acquisition of VMware. In addition, he owns 350 shares of stock in Intel Corporation, purchased more than two years ago. All stocks are held in retirement accounts for long-term growth.

Ed does not accept gifts from companies he covers. All hardware products he writes about are purchased with his own funds or are review units covered under formal loan agreements and are returned after the review is complete.

Biography

Ed Bott

Ed Bott is an award-winning technology writer with more than two decades' experience writing for mainstream media outlets and online publications. He's served as editor of the U.S. edition of PC Computing and managing editor of PC World; both publications had monthly paid circulation in excess of 1 million during his tenure. He is the author of more than 25 books on Microsoft Windows and Office, including the recently released Windows 7 Inside Out.

Related Discussions on TechRepublic

Did you know you can take part in these discussions with your ZDNet membership?
92
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: No, Microsoft didn't rush IE 9 into Windows Update
beijing2008 14th Sep
Thanks very much! happy rolex replicas
So says the 'Microsoft Report'.

Expecting anything else?
@james347

Ed oft times surprises us. You on the other hand ....
0 Votes
+ -
I fail to see any argument here...
LiquidLearner 11th Apr 2011
@james347

Please enlighten us as to where Ed went wrong. His blogs are usually the most thought out and researched on ZDNet. By a long, long shot. He spent time writing this blog, did research, etc. What did SJVN do? Draw some wild conclusions based on some article he read somewhere.

Who do you trust?
@LiquidLearner

Obviously he trusts any article with an anti-MSFT bent, well researched or not. Why let facts get in the way of a good opportunity to trash Microsoft? Fanboy hate, FTW!
0 Votes
+ -
agreed
FADS_z 11th Apr 2011
@LiquidLearner
I bought MAP one year ago this month, following ED's post of subscription of it.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: No, Microsoft didn't rush IE 9 into Windows Update
Pete "athynz" Athens 12th Apr 2011
@LiquidLearner Personally I trust Ed more... I trust SJVN as far as I could throw him and the horse he rode in on. Ed does his research and very rarely is wrong while SJVN on the other hand has had to eat crow on several occasions.
0 Votes
+ -
@LiquidLearner - Gotta love the silence.
0 Votes
+ -
BRAVO Liquid Learner. Great Post.
xuniL_z 13th Apr 2011
You are absolutely correct, Ed Bott's posts are by far the most well researched and intelligent blogs on zdnet.
Yet, because he is a Windows user (one step below a leper to ABM zealots) he takes on the meanest spirited attack posts I have ever seen. Over the years he's had his heritage brought into question (to put it mildly).
Yet he is the only blogger that backs up what he posts with well researched data.
Yes SJVN made a career from MS bashing.
It's typical subjective zealotry and this site has done nothing to address it except hire more ABM bloggers to feed their open source/Apple trolls who are the majority here, evidenced by every poll every taken on this site.
I'm still waiting, after a decade, for Windows to give me problems and stop being the best server/client environment I've ever used (which includes Unix, Novell and other proprietary systems like polyforth and mumps for large end to end HIS systems).
0 Votes
+ -
@james347 ... While ignoring the facts presented in the article (which are well linked and documented), you also seem to ignore the fact that even with its release to Windows Update the download is DESELECTED by default (forcing you through a 3-click process to select it). Even when selected, it still prompts you twice before actually installing.

I'm pretty sure it's a safe bet it's not getting installed unless people want it installed.
0 Votes
+ -
@james347

Yep I expect testing, research and facts and I get it. If you want fantasy then go read SJVN.
0 Votes
+ -
@tonymcs@...
happy
0 Votes
+ -
You have it backwards.....
linux for me 12th Apr 2011
@tonymcs@...
Fantasy, read Ed Bott, Truth SJVN.
You MS shills can never stop trolling anything that isn't Microsoft. Way to ruin an otherworld good tech site.
0 Votes
+ -
Correction: You have it backwards
WinTard 12th Apr 2011
@linux for me

You maniacs give Linux a bad name.

Cognitive dissonance much? You wouldn't couldn't understand anyway.

~~~~~~~~~~
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
~ Winston Churchill
0 Votes
+ -
@WinTard
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
~ Winston Churchill"

Thank you for proving my point, fanatic one......
0 Votes
+ -
@linux for me
Wrong blog...go play around the back alley there dude with Linux blogs.
@james347
Are you surprised.
@John Zern

Apple may fool many people but they do not fool me. James and his weak minded companions are fooled. Some use Apple for their strengths and personal preference and then there are people like James that essentially act as if they are brainwashed by some steve jobs mind controlling device.
@John Zern

grow up. pick you nose instead
0 Votes
+ -
desilvav....what a comeback.
xuniL_z 14th Apr 2011
Thanks for showing "you" wit and intelligence.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: No, Microsoft didn't rush IE 9 into Windows Update
Pete "athynz" Athens 12th Apr 2011
@james347 Ed's blogs are researched and very rarely wrong - and he owns up to the few mistakes he makes. SJVN on the other hand had been wrong more often than not and very rarely owns up to his mistakes. I'd expect SJVN to be held to the same standards as Ed.

Besides the proof of what Ed says is right there in his article. Before the rush to crucify him why don't you take the time to actually read what he wrote rather than just look at the title and respond solely to that?
0 Votes
+ -
@athynz got that righ i trust ed more than rest of so called bloggers on the net even. ed is a good one.
0 Votes
+ -
He is obviously a huge Apple Fanboy if you have ever read any of his posts and unless it is something positive to say about Apple it is a lie to him. He has no interest in documented facts and like many bloggers of the world lives in his own little world of trolls.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: No, Microsoft didn't rush IE 9 into Windows Update
bvonr@... Updated - 12th Apr 2011
@bobiroc I don't think james347 is anybody's fanboy. He is negative in everything he writes at whatever site he is on. I picture him with a permanent frown.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: No, Microsoft didn't rush IE 9 into Windows Update
nickdangerthirdi@... 12th Apr 2011
@james347 first off Ed is about as biased for M$ as I am against apple, but in this case he's right on the fact this is the same policy M$ has used since ie7, but lets keep in mind since it is a windows update, how many people are installing it just because its an update (I am not saying its evil or wrong, in fact I would suggest most people update IE regardless of whether you use it for your primary browser) and dont actually use it? the deal with FF adopters is you know they are going to get it on their own manually, vs IE, where you get it just because its an update M$ recommends, automatically? so honestly the raw download count would become skewed when M$ puts their new browser on windows update, remember its not about downloads, its about what gets used, and every windows machines with FF has IE....
0 Votes
+ -
You are totally wrong Nick.....
xuniL_z 14th Apr 2011
@nickdangerthirdi@... I know so many people that are still using IE7 or even IE6.
The WU of IE is not pushed out as an automatic update.
It's optional and you have to choose it specifically.
Unlike Apple and it's practice of Pre-selecting Safari and QuickHack with itunes updates, MS makes the IE9 update totally a user decision, one in which they have to select it and agree to terms before anything happens.
I think it's BS stating this about MS. It's no more a sure thing people will have the latest IE than it is thye'll have the latest Flash player, which I simply hate Adobe with both Flash and Reader, by default just pop up with their downloads...like 3 times a week...to load fixes on your machine.
Most Windows users have Flash, Adobe Reader and even SUN java. And Sun(Oracle) will sit there pushing Ads at you while it loads an update. I thought I'd seen the worst of advertising with Google.
0 Votes
+ -
slow adoption rates = good ??
Tom6 Updated - 12th Apr 2011
Even Windows fanboys realise that MS's new releases are unlikely to work well straight-away. It is difficult to file bug-reports and updates are about 'security' rather than fixing problems. Also it's not easy to roll-back if things don't work and then try the upgraded version later, unless you are a geek and have high enough permissions. All this gives business users good reason to be cautious and conservative. Corporate thinking is to wait until at least the equivalent of SP1 because they have learned they can't trust the new product.

All in total contrast to FireFox. FireFox is for people that want to surf reasonably fast and safely rather than unenthusiastically limp, crawl and stumble. Gamers use it because it is fast. Business and corporate users for productivity and security.
Regards from Tom
0 Votes
+ -
RE: No, Microsoft didn't rush IE 9 into Windows Update
nickdangerthirdi@... 12th Apr 2011
@Tom6 actually the biggest issue with IE adoption in the corporate environment is the fact that lots of corps have home grown apps that dont always work in the new version, this is especially true since IE has been working to conform to the standards it should have been setup to conform to years ago, which if they had, then corporations never would have written these apps to be IE specific. In fact IE is a relatively safe browser from the browser side of things the biggest issues with IE is third party plug ins (acrobat reader and flash most notably at this point)...
@james347 with all respects to your opinion James, your FActs here on teh MS reports are probably lightly influenced ont eh topic. Look threw teh history of the IE browser then see how close it is with Ed's. IE and MS has done this for a long time and the only time it failed really was with Vista. Well MS learned heavy with Vista and now avoid that. This is probably why they are quoting 3 months in advance now more so then XP Days. I haven't looked at the release dates versus MS announcements, but I dont' think that I need to, as teh information in this blog is Consistent with what I remember about the IE history in releases. All Browsers work this way, and release dates brought forth more frequently only hide the real usage. Like Google, there almost monthly alerts to new versions comming up only influences downloads, and of course the user base for a week to 3 weeks dfown the road are gonna be in favor of that version, then by the time user base starts to lesson, a new version comes out. Enthusiasts will follow the new software releases, and give fair chances. So yes Chrome is a Good Browser if it is your thing, but really with the developers timeline of frequent releases, influences false numbers, and makes a app just look great
Thanks very much! happy rolex replicas
0 Votes
+ -
I believe this is due to the limited audience for IE 9. FireFox 4 is available for a wider audience (all versions of Windows, OS X and Linux, compared to two versions of Windows only).
0 Votes
+ -
Not strictly true
Bill4 11th Apr 2011
@Rick_K
Only two versions of Firefox are available for OS X, none of which are mine (4). The MS listings go back much further. These supported OSes are from the Firefox web site:

Operating Systems
* Windows 2000
* Windows XP
* Windows Server 2003
* Windows Vista
* Windows 7
* Mac OS X 10.5
* Mac OS X 10.6
@Bill4
Yeah, I found that the hard way after upgrading my MacBook that runs Tiger. No Firefox 4 for that machine.
0 Votes
+ -
@Rick_K
Sorry, not all version of Mac OSX though, you have to upgrade it to Leopard or Snow Leopard. No Tiger is supported by Firefox.
0 Votes
+ -
@Rama.NET
But still FireFox supports more than just two versions of one OS, which was the point I was making. If I am not mistaken, I could be, IE 9 only supports Windows Vista and Windows 7. Firefox supports OS X and Linux, as well as Windows 2k and above.

Edit: thanks Badgered, for pointing that one out.
0 Votes
+ -
And I'm sure people using Windows 7/Vista
Michael Alan Goff 11th Apr 2011
will refuse to use IE9 on that basis, right?
@Rick_K If I am not mistaken, I could be, IE only supports Windows Vista and Windows 7.

Minor clarification: should read IE9
@Badgered
Well since the blog was about IE 9 I kind of figured people would get that. But since many on here are a bit slow on the uptake, your point is well taken.
I have to wonder how the IE 9 adoption rates and market shares are being (or will be) reported - do they take into account Windows systems that are not compatible? IE 9 can only be installed on Windows Vista or newer systems, and XP still owns a major market share. When various sites and/or browser vendors report on browser market shares, do they filter by that? The answer might shed some light on the real picture; market share as a percentage of only compatible systems.
0 Votes
+ -
Eiterway, IE9 is a very worthy upgrade. Grats to the IE team. IE9 has won me back to using IE over Chrome. Sorry, FF is still my primary, but I'm no longer ashamed of having an instance or two of IE open now.
@Cylon Centurion 0005
Eiterway, IE9 is a very worthy upgrade.
Depends on the cost of said upgrade. If it cost $200 to upgrade to Windows 7, is it still worth it? There are many that do not see value in paying the cost of Microsoft?s upgrades. This is probably the reason that FireFox is being adopted at three times the rate of IE 9.
0 Votes
+ -
@Rick_K

There's more benefits to upgrading off XP and just IE9.
0 Votes
+ -
@Rick_K
Just like it was for me, the cost to upgrade from windows XP to Windows Se7en Ultimate 64-Bit could be $0 for you.
Aargh wink
I never take SJVN comments seriously, because he never backed his comments, numbers in any of his blogs. Like @LiquidLearner mentioned above he reads one or two personal blogs and claim them as true and takes them as basis for his argument. He never put stuff with concrete stuff. SJVN is proving Dana is more qualified to write for Open Source than him.
0 Votes
+ -
@Rama.NET

I've seen he likes to bring up the fact that Microsoft has been slowly cutting support for XP as well, as often as he can. As if he was trying to guilt Microsoft into thinking that is wrong.
0 Votes
+ -
The question is: Why should anybody care?
wackoae Updated - 11th Apr 2011
IE9 is years behind schedule. It is way past overdue.

So why should anybody care if MS released it earlier or not? IE6 is a security hazard, IE7 is garbage and IE8 is a stinky turd. IE9 is not perfect, but it is a HUGE improvement over the previous versions.
0 Votes
+ -
RE:Why should anybody care?
Badgered 12th Apr 2011
@wackoae Why should anybody care?

IE9 is not perfect, but it is a HUGE improvement over the previous versions.

I think you just answered your own question.
0 Votes
+ -
Wackoae. Whose schedule, yours?
xuniL_z 18th Apr 2011
@wackoae you know as well as anyone, I would hope, that MS has always geared their systems for programmability and powerful technologies that within the firewall you can't beat. The vast majority of sites use .NET, IIS, SQL and MS Servera and client apps to build the most easily managed and most powerful all around system you can get, all that comes with the ability to mold your system to admin's goals and strategies with minimal or very easy programming. That is the beauty of it.
Even ActiveX controls, for all of the security knocks it gets, is extremely powerful inside a secure network.
Winddows server AD/GP is so powerful there is no reason any ActiveX web control should be a security issue any longer with network admin having total control over the use of said controls; that is where and when they are used.
And even then, knowing this fact, the MS OS model has now for years been on par with other OSes, in fact better than OSX based on need for vulnerability fixes, security professional research and of course to pwn2own.
There is no real wrap against MS software that is not w/o double standarnds in every bash uttered.
Linux servers are hacked often enough and most of the time they are just acting as passive devices passing along whatever comes their way, ignoring viruses and malware as though it's just normal traffic and passing it on the end users to deal with.
Patches daily for Linux distros doesn't sound like a system designed right the first time, as most open source fanatics claim. Apple is not targeted by social engineering for obvious reasons...they work with email address freely available on the internet. What terrorist or criminal, who is not a total moron, would write malware for Apple knowing their mass mailing of thousands will only touch a few users, where targeting MS will result in 95% hits? Let's take reality into account.
Bottom line is no OS is perfect,they all have their strengths and it's not "illegal" nor "immoral" nor "wrong" for IE to not be at a standards level YOU believe it should be.
It's faster than Chrome though, that much even SJVN had to admit and eat crow after doing Chrome slanted testing and with overwhelming evidence he was not doing it right, has to face the facts after doing it right and finding IE9 is actually faster.
It's smart filter finds 60% of more bad sites than Chrome or Firefox combined.
And FF by the accounts of industry professionals and anyo9ne that uses it, has become a bloated browser, only ever coming into the mainstream after having Google engineers on site assisting with it and pumping huge amounts of cash into it (remember when Google was using FF for it's frontend and controling pretty much what direction and features FF should have?
0 Votes
+ -
Translated: Sehr interessant... aber nicht dumm! wink
~ Wolfgang von Arte (from behind a bush)
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
Wow, a Laugh-In reference?
Ed Bott 12th Apr 2011
@klumper

Haven't heard that catchphrase in a LONG time. wink
0 Votes
+ -
Nice Article
bobiroc 12th Apr 2011
I especially like the documented facts. It is amazing when the facts are shown how quickly a blogger that just makes stuff up can quickly be dismissed.

Of course you are not going to turn the typical trolls that come here and basically spread hate & lies about anything they do not like

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix
ie8 fix