homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.211.190.232
register, free tools, login, search, subscribe, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Accredited PayPal World Seller

Home / Forums Index / Code, Content, and Presentation / HTML
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: incrediBILL

HTML Forum

This 37 message thread spans 2 pages: 37 ( [1] 2 > >     
Google phases out support for IE6
BBC Reports Google phases out support for IE6
scotland




msg:4070851
 2:59 am on Jan 30, 2010 (gmt 0)

The BBC has reported that "Google has begun to phase out support for Internet Explorer 6, the browser identified as the weak link in a "sophisticated and targeted" cyber attack on the search engine."

[news.bbc.co.uk...]

Does Microsoft still provide updates for Explorer 6 - I stopped using it a while ago and now Microsoft seem to push down the latest versions of their browser automatically when you use their newer Operating Systems. A lot of people with older computers will still be running IE6.

Will this affect you? I don't personally use Google Docs.

 

gethan




msg:4070871
 3:44 am on Jan 30, 2010 (gmt 0)

Just spotted this as well, kind of shocking that google employees were surfing the web using IE6...

As a webmaster: I still test my sites with IE6 - but look for graceful degradation rather than trying to make anything perfect in IE6 - it may only be google docs currently but that and facebook, and other big sites putting up pester messages to IE6 users will hopefully bring on the day where I no longer have to code or even test for this browser.

As a web user: IE what?!?

KenB




msg:4070874
 4:01 am on Jan 30, 2010 (gmt 0)

FTA:
Microsoft say support for IE6 will continue for the next four years

Grrr.....

We REALLY need Microsoft to be more aggressive with getting people off of IE6. Not only with this make the Internet a more secure place and reduce a major web development headache, BUT the sooner real users stop using it, the sooner we can block it and thus block all the badbots that spoof it.

piatkow




msg:4070935
 8:19 am on Jan 30, 2010 (gmt 0)

Well my employer runs over 10,000 desktops with IE6.

Remember that upgrading a corporate network is an expensive exercise if everything is tested properly. It isn't done lightly and in the current economic climate there isn't a snowball's chance in hell of getting the investment case past the bean counters.

scotland




msg:4070940
 8:35 am on Jan 30, 2010 (gmt 0)

piatkow

I hope your employer is not a bank!

sem4u




msg:4070957
 10:46 am on Jan 30, 2010 (gmt 0)

I worked for a large insurance company until December. Most people on my floor were still stuck on IE6.

swa66




msg:4070967
 11:34 am on Jan 30, 2010 (gmt 0)

Webmaster:
IE6: die die die

Security folks:
IE = huge risk

Large corporate dinosaur:
no upgrades, IE6 will be just fine

Security folks working for large corporate dinosaur:
IE6 ?! To reduce risk we turn off everything like JavaScript

Just this week had a report of IE6 not rendering my work properly (while I knew it was and was properly tested. Turned out they had blocked JS ... and well the drop down menu in IE6 without JS: it's just not going to work ...

Somebody will need to tell them dinosaurs to get on the wagon or become extinct.

And I'm quite happy it's the likes of Facebook and Google sending a loud and clear message, cause MSFT's message is just plain wrong.

KenB




msg:4070989
 1:13 pm on Jan 30, 2010 (gmt 0)

I worked for a large insurance company until December. Most people on my floor were still stuck on IE6.

Just as bad as a bank using IE6.

lammert




msg:4071000
 2:32 pm on Jan 30, 2010 (gmt 0)

IE6 and Windows 2000 are still in the monthly bug-fix cycle of Microsoft. They have to, because there is still a significant user base in the corporate area. FWIW, Microsoft still supports to some extent MS-DOS installations in embedded applications.

My experience is that what's happening in the outside world doesn't influence the plans of large corporations. They will still continue to use IE6 regardless of Google supporting it or not. My personal idea is that this will push more corporate users to Bing.

J_RaD




msg:4071008
 3:02 pm on Jan 30, 2010 (gmt 0)


Well my employer runs over 10,000 desktops with IE6.
Remember that upgrading a corporate network is an expensive exercise if everything is tested properly

So are you saying your employer also doesn't push windows updates to each workstation?

edacsac




msg:4071019
 3:26 pm on Jan 30, 2010 (gmt 0)

So are you saying your employer also doesn't push windows updates to each workstation?

Where I work, updates are tested beyond belief against all situations in the environment - especially a browser upgrade. There is large amount of work by all involved, and I understand not upgrading. It is costly. Smaller windows updates do not even go out on their own as packaged by MS, and you can't even hit the windows update site from work. Consistent office environment...

hutcheson




msg:4071088
 5:43 pm on Jan 30, 2010 (gmt 0)

>We REALLY need Microsoft to be more aggressive with getting people off of IE6.

Remember that the sole purpose of doing IE6 in the first place was to keep people from getting off IE. (Nailing IE to the side of the OS hadn't prevented the revival of Netscape as Mozilla.)

Is it any surprise that it worked, at least for the IT certified ignoramuses who mixed the "browser is the computer" kool-aid with the "IE is the browser" moonshine? Not only can they not move from IE, they can't even move from IE6.

And yes, my employer fell for it.

KenB




msg:4071091
 6:05 pm on Jan 30, 2010 (gmt 0)

Is it any surprise that it worked, at least for the IT certified ignoramuses who mixed the "browser is the computer" kool-aid with the "IE is the browser" moonshine? Not only can they not move from IE, they can't even move from IE6.

And yes, my employer fell for it.


My last employer before I struck it out on my own (some seven years ago) fell for the same trap. I was their webmaster and I had constant fights over this issue. They had drank so much of the MSFT cool aid that they could not see the trap that they were leading themselves down in regards to web development. I was constantly advocating standards compliance with their internal and external websites so that they wouldn't be beholden to MSIE, but they kept saying IE has 95% of the market so it didn't matter.

I went around and around with them over this issue. I knew that if they married themselves to MSIE too tightly (it was IE5.5 at the time) it would come back to haunt them. Eventually I quit of the issue. Making IE the corporate browser was one thing, but I truly felt that it was utter foolishness not to do the basic design/development stuff that would allow web applications to work on whatever browser was used.

The argument was always that it is more expensive to support multiple browsers, and I'd argue it isn't any harder to design to W3C specifications.

I wonder how much money ended up being wasted by all the companies out there that adopted the MSIE only philosophy only to then have to spend major money just to test and fix stuff when the next version of MSIE came out.

In the end the inability of companies to leave IE6 behind proves that it is much more cost effective to design to W3C specifications and use open technology as this pretty much future proofs a website/webapp against newer versions of browsers. It is also a smarter way to design from a security standpoint as it doesn't lock an organization to an outdated browser just because their webapps don't work on the newer stuff.

swa66




msg:4071112
 6:20 pm on Jan 30, 2010 (gmt 0)

Those not able to upgrade due to having drunk too much MSFT cool-aid in the past: the easy solution is to keep IE6 for the internal apps only and give the users a modern browser on the side to access the Internet at large.

Surely it'll not be IE8 as that one will be hard to maintain next to IE6 without all sorts of side effects, but safari, chrome, firefox etc will co-exist with IE6 quite nicely, will be happy to be the default browser and render modern stuff properly.
A nice side effect of that would be more diversity: we do not need any browser having more than 50% of the market.

The (repeated) actions by Google, Facebook etc. are every time another nail in the coffin f IE6, a fact we can't but rejoice.

johnnie




msg:4071181
 9:00 pm on Jan 30, 2010 (gmt 0)

Besides some man hours, I don't see whats expensive about upgrading to IE8. In fact, considering the amount of hours one can save by using proper browsing technology, I see little cost involved.

Personally, I think its just a matter of corporate inflexibility. Processes are wound up so tightly, no one can get anything done. Combine this with clueless management, and you got your IE6.

tedster




msg:4071199
 9:39 pm on Jan 30, 2010 (gmt 0)

corporate inflexibility

...and corporate security, and corporate intranets/extranets that lean heavily on proprietary IE coding. It gets very expensive, very fast.

lammert




msg:4071235
 11:11 pm on Jan 30, 2010 (gmt 0)

Besides some man hours, I don't see whats expensive about upgrading to IE8.

Many corporate financial software, enterprise resource systems and production control systems have web interfaces. Upgrading the browser may trigger possible incompatibilities with the software in the heart of their business process. In my own environment I have seen large companies going bankrupt during such upgrades, sometimes for reasons like not being able to create invoices during a prolonged period of time.

No large company or institution will upgrade their central software and the browsers to access it if there is no compelling reason to do so. The last compelling reason was the "Millennium Bug". Those companies are now stuck software-wise in the year 2000 and they will stay there for some time as long as economy is not getting better to give them the money and buffer to survive a central software upgrade or incompatibilities with a rolled out browser and that central software.

Here on WebmasterWorld we mostly think of browsers as the access medium to websites. But for many companies it is the access medium to their business process and web surfing is just secondary activity.

KenB




msg:4071236
 11:20 pm on Jan 30, 2010 (gmt 0)

...and corporate security, and corporate intranets/extranets that lean heavily on proprietary IE coding. It gets very expensive, very fast.

Security has little to nothing to do with it, because if security was the driving goal, then corporations would have dropped IE6 years ago. No one can reasonably argue that IE6 is more secure than IE8. To even attempt to argue this is a joke.

It is the leaning heavily on proprietary IE coding that makes things very expensive very quickly. It is not proprietary IE coding alone that is to blame, however, short sightedness and dismissing W3C HTML and CSS specifications is also to blame. Often times corporate intranets/extranets break not because of some IE6 specific functionality, but because the code was sloppy and relied on bugs in IE6 that were subsequently fixed.

Designing and coding to W3C HTML and CSS specifications as well as avoiding the use of messy browser hacks is an insurance policy against the future. All browsers, MSIE included, have steadily become better about adhering to W3C standards. It is MSIE's tighter adherence to standards that is causing non-compliant websites/webapps that depend on IE6 bugs to break in IE7/8.

Corporations have only their own IT departments to blame for their problems.

lammert




msg:4071243
 11:49 pm on Jan 30, 2010 (gmt 0)

There is no IT department to blame in many corporations because there is no problem as long as the primary process is running smoothly. IE6 is a tool for them to do a job, just like a screwdriver or a hammer. If the tool fits the job then it's fine.

smallcompany




msg:4071275
 1:06 am on Jan 31, 2010 (gmt 0)

IE6 - corporate or personal, old or new computer (until Windows 7, many put XP on those that came with Vista), nobody cared.
All they cared about was to continue running XP which by default runs IE6, because XP run well. Plus, for corporate, they usually have 3 or more years of hardware change cycle (based on the warranty and whatever else).
Then, enough "computer illiterate" people still knew how to turn automatic updates off on their personal PCs, just because they were annoyed by MS's pop-ups, and therefore stay on IE6.

In regards of corporate applications, I think their developers should test new browser version the latest when that new browser is officially out.

Finally, while there are tons of reasons for corporate environment to stick to one browser for long time, in many cases, it is about smart a.. IT managers with bunch of certificates that like to be the smartest in the world. Actually, I don't think there is a boss that is not the smartest in his/her group. I remember my corporate life... phew...

UserFriendly




msg:4071305
 2:13 am on Jan 31, 2010 (gmt 0)

No support for IE6? Hey, I don't even bother testing in IE7 any longer.

Actually, truth be told, I use Linux for development, so I test in Firefox (Gecko), Opera (Presto), Konqueror (KHTML), Epiphany (WebKit), and Lynx, and they all render compliant HTML and CSS beautifully. But I've no convenient way of testing in Internet Explorer and, surprise, it's the only one that causes trouble.

Way I see it, if Microsoft won't release a cross-platform version of the rendering engine, why should I waste time testing to see where their piece of junk breaks?

rise2it




msg:4071320
 3:11 am on Jan 31, 2010 (gmt 0)

Pfff....I still have some Win2K machines running IE 5.5, which I think is STILL the most stable Windows setup I've ever had.

Yes, I do have machines running new versions, but every new version of everything just seems to turn into bloatware.

Take Adobe Reader - other than downloading a form from an IRS website, I don't think I've ever run into anything else that wouldn't work with 10 year old Version 5, which opens a heck of a lot faster than the newer versions, probably because it's 1/5th the size.

ogletree




msg:4071333
 4:00 am on Jan 31, 2010 (gmt 0)

I just took a look at a bunch of website stats with all kinds of different traffic and I'm seeing anywhere from 18% to 20% IE6 compared to other IE versions.

KenB




msg:4071335
 4:19 am on Jan 31, 2010 (gmt 0)

Same here. About 20% of my MSIE users and 13% of my overall users are reported as using IE6

KenB




msg:4071493
 4:50 pm on Jan 31, 2010 (gmt 0)

Here's another article on Google's end of IE6 support from ComputerWorld:

[computerworld.com...]

poppyrich




msg:4071564
 7:37 pm on Jan 31, 2010 (gmt 0)

Bluff and bluster. Makes a good story. What the heck does "has begun to phase out" mean.
It could be anything. Is Google about to drive tens of millions of customers away?
Fat chance.

blend27




msg:4071908
 2:21 pm on Feb 1, 2010 (gmt 0)

Don't you need a Genuine copy of Windows OS to even upgrade to IE7/8? So it is somewhat good for MS-Windows Revenue. At the same time if there is "Download Chrome - Free" it is not.

I am not talking about the Large Corp. Networks / Government, and Good Luck to Google trying to go that route on those fronts. Last Corp I worked for gave me Admin Rights to my dev machine but all windows update sites and any extensions that end with ZIP/RAR/EXE were filtered by firewall. And if you brought your own on a memory stick there was a tech standing next to you in 5 minutes, writing you up for violating company policy.

albo




msg:4071986
 4:13 pm on Feb 1, 2010 (gmt 0)

Did any of you folks see the idea at website ie6nomore?

hutcheson




msg:4072450
 3:30 am on Feb 2, 2010 (gmt 0)

>Security has little to nothing to do with it, because if security was the driving goal, then corporations would have dropped IE6 years ago.

There's a big gap between "nothing" and "the driving goal".

The IE trap was not based so much on HTML lockins as it was on plugins--Microsoft invited all or sundry to use IE with hand-crufted plugins as the front end for all sort of large clumsy corporate-IT-type projects. That was then. Now IE 8 doesn't support those plugins. What's a poor corporate drone to do, to enhance job security? And job security is inevitably more important than data security.

How about replacing the software on top of IE? Well, I pushed a manager three levels up to ask HIS boss about that. The answer, near as I can quote what was repeated to me, "I spent 35 million dollars for that system, and I'd look a right fool if we stopped using it."

So what are we doing? Gearing up to spend 35 million dollars for the update.

I don't call this "stupidity". I don't call it "ignorance". I call it "bloody malice." But ... it happens.

And you also have to remember Microsoft marketing techniques. For large customers who are looking to desert the sinking ship, Microsoft won't talk to the techies. They'll get a vice-president to call the CEO--and tell him that his techies are plotting to do all sorts of nefarious things ... MBA-to-MBA, that kind of big lie is often believed, because, well, in many companies, at that level of corporate activity, being a paranoid half-canine of uncertain ancestry is not just a prerequisite, it's part of the job description.

So a corporate edict goes out: Nothing to drink but Microsoft Kool-Aid! Any techie with the guts to stand up for the best for the corporation gets fired. And another 35 million dollars gets drained out of the productive portion of the economy.

KenB




msg:4072466
 3:56 am on Feb 2, 2010 (gmt 0)

Hence I hated corporate IT land.

This 37 message thread spans 2 pages: 37 ( [1] 2 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Code, Content, and Presentation / HTML
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved