June is one of my favorite months. The sun returns (although in the Boston area there are concerned that it has been replaced by clouds and humidity), the kids get out of school (and get sent to camp), and the outdoor pool opens (and I actually swim in it).

In the US browser market, Internet Explorer 8 continues its slow replacement of Internet Explorer 6 and 7, finally overtaking MSIE 6 on June 11 [Stats courtesy of StatCounter].

The great news is that Internet Explorer 6 is slowly falling of the pace, relegated to large companies with proprietary code and a degree of inertia that impedes their movement to accepting new browsers.

The two-month trend does show some very dramatic changes, most notably with Internet Explorer 7 and Firefox 3.

While these changes appear dramatic, the lack of absolute values to base the StatCounter graphs on means that it’s very difficult to determine if these values are a result of a shift in the actual browser market, or a result in decreasing numbers of visitors to sites with the StatCounter tracking code.

Worldwide for June, the primary trend is that the decrease in Internet Explorer 7 is matched almost precisely by the increase in the use of Internet Explorer 8.

Firefox 3 and Internet Explorer 6 remained almost completely unchanged through June, indicating that the US trend is very different than that seen throughout the rest of the world. The tracking trend indicates that Firefox 3 could have overtaken Internet Explorer 7 by the end of July.

Could have is used purposely here, as the release of Firefox 3.5 will fragment the market share for this browser, and it is not likely that it will match the stats for Firefox 3 immediately.

Despite all the claims that the browser war is over, and that applications have moved beyond the browser, it is highly unlikely that this dream will be realized in the consumer browser market until late 2010, when the effect of Windows 7 can be seen on the use of Internet Explorer 8 .

Overall, June 2009 was a month of substantial shifts in the US browser market, which will be further aggravated with the release of Firefox 3.5, and the slow and steady adoption of Internet Explorer 8 by consumer and business users.

UPDATE: TechCrunch has noted the ongoing shifts to the browser share market [here].

Last week, lost in the preternatural shriek that emerged from the Web community around the release of Google Chrome, John Resig posted a thoughtful post on resources usage at the browser. In it, he states that the use of the Process Manager in Chrome will change how people see Web performance. In his words:

The blame of bad performance or memory consumption no longer lies with the browser but with the site.

Coming to the discussion from the realm of Web performance measurement, I realize that the firms I have worked with and for have not done a good job of analyzing this , and, in the name of science have tried to eliminate the variability of Web page processing from the equation.

The company I currently work for has realized that this is a gap and has released a product that measures the performance of a page in the browser.

But all of this misses the point, and goes to one of the reasons why I gave up on Chrome on my older, personal-use computer: Chrome exposes the individual load that a page places on a Web browser.

Resig highlights that browser that make use of shared resources shift the blame about poor performance out to the browser and away from the design of the page. Technologies that modern designers lean on (Flash, AJAX, etc.) all require substantially greater resource-consumption in a browser. Chrome, for good or ill, exposes this load to the user be instantiating a separate, sand-boxed process for each tab, clearing indicating which page is the culprit.

It will be interesting if designers take note of this, or ignore in pursuit of the latest shiny toy that gets released. While designers assume that all visitors run the cutting edge of machine, I can show them that a laptop that is still plenty useful is completely locked up when their page is handled in isolation.

The last two days of using Chrome have had me thinking about the purpose of the Web browser in today’s world. I’ve talked about how Chrome and Firefox have changed how we see browsers, treating them as interactive windows into our daily life, rather than the uncontrolled end of an information firehose.

These applications, that on the surface seem to serve the same purpose, have taken very different paths to this point. Much has been made about Firefox growing out of the ashes of Netscape, while Chrome is the Web re-imagined.

It’s not just that.

Firefox, through the use of extensions and helper applications, has grown to become a Desktop replacement. Back when Windows for Workgroups was the primary end-user OS (and it wasn’t even an OS), Norton Desktop arrived to provide all of the tools that didn’t ship with the OS. It extended and improved on what was there, and made WFW a better place.

Firefox serves that purpose in the browser world. With its massive collections of extensions, it adds the ability to customize and modify the Web workspace. These extensions even allow the incoming content to be modified and reformatted in unique ways to suit the preferences of each individual. These features allowed the person using Firefox to feel in control, empowered.

You look at the Firefox installs of the tech elite, and no two installed versions will be configured in the same way. Firefox extends the browser into an aggregator of Web data and information customization.

But it does it at the Desktop.

Chrome is a simple container. There is (currently) no way to customize the look and feel, extend the capabilities, or modify the incoming or outgoing content. It is a simple shell designed to perform two key functions: search for content and interact with Web applications.

There are, of course, the hidden geeky functions that they have built into the app. But those don’t change what it’s core function is: request, receive, and render Web pages as quickly and efficiently as possible. Unlike Firefox’s approach, which places the app being the center of the Web, Chrome places the Web at the center of the Web.

There is no right or wrong approach. As with all things in this complicated world we are in, it depends. It depends on what you are trying to accomplish and how you want to get there.

The conflict that I see appearing over the next few months is not between IE and Firefox and Safari and Opera and Chrome. It is a conflict over what the people want from an application that they use all the time. Do they want a Web desktop or a Web container?

I am writing up a client presentation for next week, and I just realized just how flawed Internet Explorer is. Microsoft claims that the browser is standards compliant. Yet it still doesn’t support HTTP pipelining.

And the frustrating part? They won’t tell us why. I have my suspicions, which include TCP stack issues and a flawed HTTP handling mechanism that is still based on Windows 95 architecture, but an explanation from Redmond would be nice.

Every (and I mean every) other browser can do this.

Microsoft, it’s time you detached your Web browser from your OS, like you’ve forced everyone else to do.

Tags: HTTP, pipelining, RFC 2616, Firefox, Opera, HTTP Pipelining, Internet Explorer

As a Web performance analyst, this is the sort of graph that melts your mind and makes you want to scream at the gods|goddesses to rain a plague of locusts on the offending System|Network|Web Site Administrators.

Click for a larger version

This is a classic display of the “run in circles, scream and shout” problem identification and resolution process.

One-half of the Opera Web servers at http://www.opera.com/ are not responding.

50%.

They have three separate public IP addresses, and it is clear that behind those IPs are many more NAT|VIP machines that respond to requests.

Did I mention that one-half of the machines at all three IP addresses are not responding to HTTP requests?

Has anyone at Opera noticed this?

Sometimes I feel like even the echoes aren’t listening anymore.

Technorati Tags: GrabPERF, Web performance, Opera, Opera Web browser, www.opera.com

As the Web moves toward the delivery of services, I have been ruminating on the continuing importance of browsers.

Scoble writes:

Oh, well, back to my RSS news aggregator. That’s where I spend 90% of my Internet time now anyway. Are you still using a Web browser? Good. I’ve been telling audiences that those of you still using Web browsers are wasting your time. I think that Opera might be more concerned by that.

I agree. I use Firefox to handle large applications, such as my employers interface, and my blog editor, but beyond that, it has become less and less important in my everyday online life.

This is the trend. HTTP and HTTPS will be the vehicles to deliver this data. Web servers will become more and more important, but as transformation and application servers for back-end data, not as presentation and image servers.

This is a long-term trend. But it also explains things like the decline of Slashdot. Although they have had an RSS feed for a long time, their bleeding-edge readers found that Slashdot was no longer bleeding-edge. Information is flowing faster and in a more personalized manner through aggregator, desktop and online.

I agree with Scoble (something that happens infrequently): the browser war may be irrelevant. The Web Application era has begun.

Scott Berkun has written a very thoughtful essay on building a better browser (#37 – How to build a better web browser). Scott cut his chops on MSIE 4 and 5, so he has seen the inside of the process used to kill the reigning champion (at the time, Netscape).

Very interesting perspective, placing browser development in an historical (if you can call just over a decade historical) perspective.