David Herron's Blog

Java-in-browser availability

One of the questions/concerns about Java is, can a web site author assume that it's there? Part of the popularity of Flash or Javascript is it's in all browsers, but the belief is that Java probably is not installed.

I happen to publish a popular non-technical website, and I think the traffic statistics on that site probably illustrate the capabilities of the average computer. I was just reviewing the usage statistics (using Google Analytics) and am astonished by this (reported over the last month)

Unfortunately Google doesn't break down the version numbers, unlike what they do for Flash support (BTW, Flash v9 is around 65%). In the past I'd always seen 95% or more, but to see 99% is quite refreshing.

There are some indications that modern computers are becoming prevalent. For example it used to be that 800x600 displays using 8bit graphics were overwhelmingly popular. In the same results, 800x600 comes in 3rd (11%) with 1024x768 1st (50%), 1280x1024 2nd (12%), 1280x800 4th (11%), and 1440x900 and other resolutions starting at 5th (4% and downward). 32bit graphics on 87% of the displays, and 8bit on less than 1%.

And the browser chart is interesting:

Which makes me wonder, what can we do to end the misery of people using IE on Mac?

So anyway, this is hardly a comprehensive survey and I'm sure someone will post a comment to definitive results. But I find this very interesting.

Comments

• Does the analytics differentiate between Microsoft's Java 1.1 and Sun's versions?

  Posted by: mikaelgrev on August 09, 2007 at 01:32 PM

• I'm very sure Google only looks at the JavaScript-function navigator.javaEnabled() which does *not* tell if the JVM is actually installed. It only tells you it's not turned off. Default it's true, even when the JVM is not installed. So for measuring real JVM-installs it's worthless.

  Posted by: edwin on August 09, 2007 at 02:05 PM

• I've been wondering for years what we can do to end the suffering of the poor souls trapped into thinking Firefox/Mozilla/Netscape are any good...

  Posted by: jwenting on August 10, 2007 at 07:01 AM

• We need statistics on how many computers have non-MS JVM installed. Try collecting the JVM version number, that should be more than enough.

  Posted by: cowwoc on August 10, 2007 at 11:54 AM

• Some (big - well known) companies are willing to run Java Applets as part of their sites, eg BMW UK. Many others dont. Maybe when java.com is confident enough to use applets instead of the current flash on it's front page we will be getting somewhere.

  Posted by: klopperq on August 12, 2007 at 01:28 AM

• java.com can't use applets because it's meant for people who don't yet have Java installed (and thus can't see the applets running).

  Posted by: jwenting on August 12, 2007 at 11:09 PM

• 
  Why cant Sun have at least one good Applet at their website, which demonstrates Java Applet capabilities ?

  I have a Java based website introduction, like those Flash sites.
  Maybe I am the only person who got a Java based Introduction for my website :)

  If you like to check it, http://www.gyanlabs.com/java/java.html

  (you need Java1.5 or above.)

  Posted by: kishoresjava on August 13, 2007 at 05:11 PM

• David, I think you are being a little unfair comparing penetration of all versions of java with the latest version of flash. Even then, the official statistics puts the penetration at around 83% for most markets.

  That Java lacks an equivalent 'penetration statistics page' is evidence of Sun's neglect of in-the-browser java.

  Posted by: marc_ on August 13, 2007 at 06:19 PM

• Firstly, you're showing visits, not visitors. If you have a core set of visitors who visit often and that have Java installed, you may have skewed results. This seems to be a limitation of Google Analytics.

  Secondly, for many applets, version is very important. If any of the users have the old MS jvm, then none of the applets I've ever written would work.

  Thirdly, it may be that urchin.js doesn't detect Java installation very well. This is, I believe, something that Sun is working on for the 'Consumer JRE' (Java installation detection within the browser, that is).

  Fourthly, it would be interesting to see how the visitors found your site - did some of them come across it knowing you as a Java expert and wondering what else you were interested in? This would mean your assertion that the site is non-technical, and therefore is a good cross-section of the browsing public, may be incorrect.

  Posted by: rhysp on August 30, 2007 at 06:00 AM

• One of the earlier comments claimed Google only looks at the JavaScript-function navigator.javaEnabled() and that function only says whether that choice is enabled in the preferences. If so (I haven't checked further) it is a lie that Analytics is telling. As for how the visitors find that site, it's very simple, they are looking for 'Reiki' and type 'Reiki' into a search engine, and that site happens to be one of the first ones listed in every search engine. The site has been there for over 10 years at the same URL, long preexisting my knowledge of Java, and not at all connected with the roles I have which led me to have this blog. If you visit the site you will see indeed that it is the opposite end of the spectrum from 'technical'. It's what I do for myself to find a balanced life.

  Posted by: robogeek on August 30, 2007 at 06:35 AM

• @jwenting: whatever positive feelings you have about internet exploiter would evaporate if you were to run the IE which shipped on earlier versions of Mac OS X. That was IE 5.5 and Microsoft never updated it to anything more recent.

  Posted by: robogeek on August 30, 2007 at 06:38 AM

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.