Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Tells Users To Drop IE6

CmdrTaco posted more than 5 years ago | from the my-mom-still-won't-do-it dept.

Google 426

Kelly writes "Google is now urging Gmail users to drop Internet Explorer 6 (IE6) in favor of Firefox or Chrome. Google recently removed Firefox from the Google Pack bundle, replaced it with Chrome, then added a direct download link for Chrome on Google and YouTube. Google's decision to list IE6 as an unsupported Gmail browser does not affect just consumers: Tens of thousands of small- and mid-sized businesses that run Google Apps hosted services may dump IE6 as well. What's especially interesting is the fact that Mozilla is picking up two out of three browser users that Microsoft surrenders."

cancel ×

426 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Makes sense (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26291007)

Makes sense, IE6 is just atrocious, most people need to upgrade! Although it does sound a bit anti-Microsoft on Google's part, telling users to switch to another browser, and not offering a direct link to IE7, which anyone on IE6 should really get anyway.

Re:Makes sense (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26291029)

Unlike Firefox, IE7 doesn't support Win2k.

Re:Makes sense (5, Informative)

Trashman (3003) | more than 5 years ago | (#26291091)

FYI, Chrome is unsupported on Win2k as well.

Re:Makes sense (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26291311)

It would be nice to compile wine under win2k and thus make available some apps like Chrome.

Iterate is human, recurse is divine :p

Re:Makes sense (4, Insightful)

Firehed (942385) | more than 5 years ago | (#26291347)

Win2k is a decade old. Stable or not, you can't expect companies to go on supporting it forever. On the Mac side, there's a ton of software that's Leopard-only, dropping support for people who are using any OS more than 15 months old, and there's hardly anything wrong with Tiger. Windows has always had better backwards-compatibility than OS X, of course, but eventually the reason that you'll need to upgrade your OS is because all of your software requires it.

Of course what you want to do on your computer is your business, not mine, but just keep in mind that developers are going to stop supporting you eventually if you don't stay at least reasonably current.

Re:Makes sense (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26291517)

Uhmm, the kicker is, I'm *STILL* running Win2k. And not only that, but I've got drivers from within the last year running on it for both my PCIe Radeon HD3650, and my Logitech Driving Force Pro. Nevermind that Realtek supports most of their chipset hardware all the way back to either Win9x or DOS, depending.

And the kicker of all this? Basically any game that doesn't require Windows Live and/or have a hardcoded check for XP will run and play fine on it.

WinXP for all intents and purposes was a rebadge of 2k with some additional eyecandy and a FEW interface changes. But the majority of said interface changes don't affect 90 percent of the applications out there.

Forced obsolescence is fine if there's a reason, but if your 10 year old OS has everything that a modern app needs to support it, there's no reason to upgrade. (Nevermind that 2k is the last windows version without that annoying Windows Activation stuff, and in fact is the reason I spent 300 bucks on it well after WinXP was out.)

Re:Makes sense (1)

ericvids (227598) | more than 5 years ago | (#26291363)

... which is probably why Google recommended Firefox alongside Chrome, because otherwise they would have recommended just Chrome.

Re:Makes sense (1, Interesting)

h4rm0ny (722443) | more than 5 years ago | (#26291119)


Yeah. Stinks of anti-trust. I can well imagine the condemnation if Hotmail subscribers were being told to ditch Firefox and go to IE7. IE7 being a more natural progression for users of IE6 due to familiarity.

yea it does (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 5 years ago | (#26291129)

its so antitrust that win2k doesnt support ie6. i suppose microsoft is reeking of 'antitrust' against itself too....

you were SO enthusiastic to drop a knee jerk comment, you havent even read the 2 people replied to the parent did you.

Re:Makes sense (0, Flamebait)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 5 years ago | (#26291131)

Yeah, because browsing the web is SOOO different on Firefox.

Re:Makes sense (4, Insightful)

someone1234 (830754) | more than 5 years ago | (#26291345)

Not 'different'. Just safer.

Re:Makes sense (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26291381)

Safer how?

Firefox is only safer for those who know how to make it safer, a large majority being those that don't.

Don't give me the ActiveX crap either, it is old, that is a Windows exploit, people can be targeted without doing anything.

Re:Makes sense (1)

andreyvul (1176115) | more than 5 years ago | (#26291411)

NoScript.
I taught my auto shop teacher how to use it after reinstalling XP on his computer.
No problems whatsoever :D

Re:Makes sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26291405)

And faster.

Re:Makes sense (5, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 5 years ago | (#26291177)

IE7 being a more natural progression for users of IE6 due to familiarity.

Actually all of the users that I've switched from IE6 to IE7 were more confused than the users I switched from any version of IE to Firefox. The interface changed quite a bit in IE7 and Firefox (version 2 anyway) seems to have more of a classical interface.

IE7 also annoys the hell out of me with that stupid "customize your browser" splash screen that refuses to go away on startup until you acknowledge it and save your settings.

Re:Makes sense (1)

Paradise Pete (33184) | more than 5 years ago | (#26291283)

Yeah. Stinks of anti-trust.

Yeah. Urging people to use your product is so totally illegal.

Antitrust (2, Informative)

Dobeln (853794) | more than 5 years ago | (#26291303)

I dunno, but nor Microsoft nor Google is likely to have the kind of marketshare in the email space to justify antitrust action. Microsoft is well above antitrust levels with regards to browsers and operating systems, however.

Re:Makes sense (1, Interesting)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 5 years ago | (#26291185)

To many people IE6 is the WinXP/Office2003 of browsers. It may be technically inferior to its successor, but it works the way they're used to, and it runs on their current platform. Microsoft has shoved a bunch of unwanted UI overhauls down the throats of its users with IE7, Vista, and Office2007, and I know a fair number of people who are sticking with the ones before those because of that. And if they can't (as Google seems to be telling IE6 users), then that's a good time to explore other browsers, other OSes, and other office suites.

Re:Makes sense (2, Interesting)

Firehed (942385) | more than 5 years ago | (#26291251)

Precisely what about IE6 work the way it's supposed to? The plethora of rendering issues aside, it is by far one of the most unstable pieces of software I've ever used. And unless you dig very deep into the Windows processes and force it to run in its own process, it crashes your desktop when it goes down.

XP/Vista, fine. I prefer Office 2007's interface by far, but I've never had any memorable issues with any version of office, going back to at least the Win3.11 days (and for what I do, the functionality there is just fine 99% of the time). But IE6 is broken on so many levels that it's just not funny.

Re:Makes sense (1)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 5 years ago | (#26291427)

Please read more carefully: I said "they way they're used to" not "the way it's supposed to". I'm talking about the UI. For example, IE6 has the same set of pulldown menus in the same place they've been since the first time the user encountered Windows. That's familiar. The toolbar is right underneath it left-aligned, where it's been found in most Win apps for years. Again: familiar. But IE7 (like Office2007) defies those long-standing conventions... maybe for the better, maybe for the worse, but it's inarguably different and unfamiliar, and most casual computer users don't like that. Ironically, switching to Firefox or Safari provides these users with a more familiar UI than IE7 does. (Chrome, on the other hand, is the most IE7-like alternative among the top half-dozen browsers... not really the best "upgrade" path for IE6 users.)

Re:Makes sense (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 5 years ago | (#26291547)

You're right which is why it's good that someone is trying to force these idiots to upgrade to a real browser.

Re:Makes sense (2)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 5 years ago | (#26291497)

Do they need a link? All they have to do is click on Windows Update in their start menu.

Re:Makes sense (1)

mini me (132455) | more than 5 years ago | (#26291535)

At this point, someone who fails to realize that newer browsers will provide a better web browsing experience will also fail to realize that your website can look and operate better. Therefore, you do not need to worry about IE6 users at all.

Ha (2, Funny)

Chih (1284150) | more than 5 years ago | (#26291009)

If you use IE6, the terrorists win. Use our browser instead!

Re:Ha (2, Funny)

Nathrael (1251426) | more than 5 years ago | (#26291533)

Ew. You just activated the part of my memory that always replays that sound file from Counter Strike whenever someone mentions the words "terrorists" and "win" :| .

The only way to kill an obsolete, bugridden ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26291013)

... browser is for Google to exploit it's virtual monopoly status.

Somewhere in Redmond.... (3, Funny)

seeker_1us (1203072) | more than 5 years ago | (#26291015)

.... a chair is breaking.

Re:Somewhere in Redmond.... (1)

ucblockhead (63650) | more than 5 years ago | (#26291515)

No it isn't. Microsoft doesn't want anyone using IE 6.

YAY!! (2, Interesting)

Anthony_Cargile (1336739) | more than 5 years ago | (#26291021)

I shall soon follow suite with a little browser sniffing on future sites I design! I can finally stop supporting that shitty browser after all!

Re:YAY!! (1)

thrillseeker (518224) | more than 5 years ago | (#26291269)

Before I start any new web project I review the expected work plan [myconfinedspace.com] .

Wait, There Are People Still Using Firefox? LOL! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26291027)

Re:Wait, There Are People Still Using Firefox? LOL (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26291037)

Please provide link to linux version. LOL!

Re:Wait, There Are People Still Using Firefox? LOL (1, Troll)

Anthony_Cargile (1336739) | more than 5 years ago | (#26291083)

That is something that still bothers me about all of this - FF is cross-platform, yet Chrome, Google's new brainchild, is Win-only. "Upgrade! Upgrade!" they cry, but us Linux, Mac, and misc. *nix users are still left in the complete dust! I hope Google releases at least a binary pretty soon, else its going to turn into a FF vs. Chrome battle, the new epic flame war, no doubt with a Google-fund-less Mozilla Foundation struggling to compete!

FF Codebase Is A Stinking Pile Of Garbage (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26291137)

All the funding in the world can't fix the absolute train wreck Firefox codebase.

After finally going through the stinking pile of shit firsthand it became obvious why the Firefox devs in forums like Slashdot would flame anyone and everyone who dared complain about the massive memory leaks and other problems the basketcase of a browser suffers from. The codebase is such a mess that it will never be fixed without a completely from scratch rewrite. And why it took years to finally get just the major memory leaks somewhat under control.

When IE was a total security disaster it was a good temporary alternative. Now that IE has finally gotten its security problems up to a reasonable standard and better alternatives like Chrome out now, hopefully Firefox will just go away and die.

Re:FF Codebase Is A Stinking Pile Of Garbage (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26291197)

All the funding in the world can't fix the absolute train wreck Internet Explorer codebase.

After using the stinking pile of shit firsthand it became obvious why the Internet Explorer devs in forums like MSDN would flame anyone and everyone who dared complain about the massive security and other problems the basketcase of a browser suffers from. The codebase is such a mess that it will never be fixed without a completely from scratch rewrite. And why it took years to finally get just the major security problems somewhat under control.

When Firefox was a total memory leaker it was a good temporary alternative. Now that Firefox has finally gotten its memory problems up to a reasonable standard and better alternatives like Chrome out now, hopefully Internet Explorer will just go away and die.

Re:Wait, There Are People Still Using Firefox? LOL (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 5 years ago | (#26291567)

I didn't think there were many people on Linux that are still using IE6. :P

In other news... (-1, Offtopic)

Terrorwrist (1376873) | more than 5 years ago | (#26291039)

US citizen guilty of spying for Israel. Shoot the bastard. Twice! Where it hurts REAL BAD!!!!!

In other news... (1)

geomobile (1312099) | more than 5 years ago | (#26291043)

IE6 users are greeted with a new "Get faster Gmail" message in the menu bar of the web interface. The link leads to a page that promotes Chrome and Firefox 3.

...the word "urging" was redefined.

Dear God Thank You (5, Funny)

bitcastle (934210) | more than 5 years ago | (#26291057)

IE6 has been a curse on web developers for 8 years. Thats like 80 human years. It must die a swift death.

Re:Dear God Thank You (1)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 5 years ago | (#26291387)

IE6 has been a curse on web developers for 8 years. Thats like 80 human years. It must die a swift death.

Agreed. Sadly, my bank will probably require IE 6 for about 1 more web developer year.

Re:Dear God Thank You (2, Interesting)

r3plicant (1442839) | more than 5 years ago | (#26291503)

Yeah...as soon as I saw the headline I heard every web developer in the world say "yessssssss"

Re:Dear God Thank You (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26291557)

8 years? Are you kidding me? I was happy as hell when IE6 came out. When it did it was the best browser on the Web by a LARGE margin. Now it is old and defunct. However, IE6 stood as the best major browser for about 3 years. Since IE7 was released I have been wishing it a quick painless death. But I refuse to bash an 7.5 year old piece of software that was the best browser available on it's initial release.

Who are they preaching to? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26291061)

Everyone I know uses Firefox, but me (I use Chrome). IE is used by people who have little other choice, or don't really care to research their software. If you care, you've switched. I'd imagine IE is used mainly on computers where users have no options to install third party software (it's not their decision). Mind you, I'm not anti-Microsoft in the least.

Re:Who are they preaching to? (1)

Allicorn (175921) | more than 5 years ago | (#26291171)

I guess you kinda partly answered your own question there. Although I'd suggest that many (most? who knows?) IE6 users are not the folks who don't have a choice but the folks who don't KNOW they have a choice; folks who bought their Win98 or XP machine long long ago now, clicked the big blue "Internet" button on the start menu and have never figured out that "Explorer" was something optional (pretty much MS's intention for bunding all along).

Those folks, getting a whizzy message from one of the tiny handful of Internet brandnames that they know and trust ("Google"), might well be finally encouraged to switch to something other than IE6. And if the big flashing download button that Google provide is a download for Chrome, it'll be Chrome they pick - and most likely stick with for years.

Re:Who are they preaching to? (1)

msobkow (48369) | more than 5 years ago | (#26291351)

It's also used on corporate intranets, where the company still hasn't "certified" newer browsers. Unfortunately I work for one such company. I hate IE6 with a passion!

Re:Who are they preaching to? (1, Interesting)

MPAB (1074440) | more than 5 years ago | (#26291489)

My workplace hasn't upgraded to IE7 and many pages (including Google's) don't work properly or don't work at all.
I use Portable Firefox from my USB key or even from my user profile at the server. I had to use some tricks to get the proxy configuration, though, but it was 100% worth it and it even upgraded automatically to Firefox 3 without getting blocked by the proxy (which blocks .exe and .zip/.rar)

Advertiser versus advertiser (5, Insightful)

Henry V .009 (518000) | more than 5 years ago | (#26291063)

There is one very big reason for Google to do this, and it's not what many Slashdotters think.

Anybody using Firefox or Chrome has Google as their default home. Anybody using IE has MSN as their default home.

This is a war over who gets to propagandize you with their ads and collect your personal information. There is no good/evil dichotomy here if that's what you're looking for.

Further, I'll end with a categorical statement in order to offend people: Anybody with strong feelings about which web browser is the best is probably spending too much time surfing the web, and is in fact suffering from an internet addiction. IE 7, Opera, and Firefox are all pretty similar from a normal end-user perspective.

Re:Advertiser versus advertiser (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26291115)

IE 7, Opera, and Firefox are all pretty similar from a normal end-user perspective

The gall! We are not normal end users!

Re:Advertiser versus advertiser (4, Insightful)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 5 years ago | (#26291117)

Er yes, "internet addiction".
Is it also possible that you are a web designer or at least the guy who got lumbered with getting the company site to "work on most browsers".
Designers worry about browser bugs and quirks, so the end user doesn't have to.

Re:Advertiser versus advertiser (4, Insightful)

meringuoid (568297) | more than 5 years ago | (#26291149)

Anybody with strong feelings about which web browser is the best is probably spending too much time surfing the web, and is in fact suffering from an internet addiction. IE 7, Opera, and Firefox are all pretty similar from a normal end-user perspective.

IE7 has an Adblock Plus equivalent? News to me. Whenever I have to use IE to browse the web, it's a nightmare. With effective filtering, I've lost my ad-blindness, so now when I go online unprotected I actually see all that crap. Horrible.

Re:Advertiser versus advertiser (2, Interesting)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 5 years ago | (#26291469)

>IE7 has an Adblock Plus equivalent?

A lot of people just install a hosts file that has many ad servers pointing to 127.0.0.1. This is a cross platform solution.

dont bullshit please (5, Insightful)

unity100 (970058) | more than 5 years ago | (#26291163)

if it was, google would drop 7 support and tell them to switch too.

the fact is that, IE6 is WAY outdated now, is not supported anymore, is a gift from heavens for anyone writing exploits, doesnt even support tabs.

excuse me pal, ie6 is early 2000s.

its like the tech world equivalent of saying "dont drop 1930 model cars, even if its 1980s".

Re:dont bullshit please (0, Flamebait)

Henry V .009 (518000) | more than 5 years ago | (#26291457)

You're right, I'm sorry. Google is telling users to upgrade to IE 7, Firefox, or Chrome.

Oh shit, I lied.

Google is telling users to upgrade from IE 6 to Firefox or Chrome. I was right. You, and the rest of the 4 or 5 Slashdotters who piled on to say the same thing are wrong.

But you're all still beautiful people and I value your comments anyway.

Oh shit, I lied again.

There are two very big reasons (2, Insightful)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | more than 5 years ago | (#26291229)

and they are both what /.ers think. IE6 is slower than watching diluted gloss paint dry in sub-zero temperatures, and lots of quite ordinary stuff just doesn't work properly. This is enough for me, I don't also need conspiracy theories. Anybody who is using IE6 nowadays is probably on a corporate network and MSN isn't their default home any more, or they are so clueless that they don't even know what MSN is.

You also missed in your list a last class: software developers writing reasonably modern code whose applications run like the aforementioned drying paint in IE6 and would like corporates to use FF3 or Chrome because then end users will be pleased by the improvement in the way their pages load and run.

Re:Advertiser versus advertiser (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26291245)

blah blah blah

probably spending too much time surfing the web, and is in fact suffering from an internet addiction.

blah blah blah

Wait, why should I care about anyone who does not spend too much time surfing the web?

Re:Advertiser versus advertiser (1)

aix tom (902140) | more than 5 years ago | (#26291419)

I browse, therefore I am? ;-P

Re:Advertiser versus advertiser (5, Insightful)

timeOday (582209) | more than 5 years ago | (#26291285)

Anybody with strong feelings about which web browser is the best is probably spending too much time surfing the web, and is in fact suffering from an internet addiction. IE 7, Opera, and Firefox are all pretty similar from a normal end-user perspective.

Just a few short years ago, Linux users such as myself were becoming decidedly second-class citizens on the web, with many pages not working at all or not working right. Microsoft-specific extensions were polluting the web and making it hard to enjoy without paying Microsoft. I'm not talking about something that could have happened, that did happen. The fact that Firefox came through and won enough market share to make web developers take notice so it doesn't matter so much which browser you use is a HUGE victory. Thanks Firefox!

Re:Advertiser versus advertiser (2, Interesting)

base3 (539820) | more than 5 years ago | (#26291337)

Amen. Thanks to Firefox, web "developers" who code for IE only now do so at their peril and I also remember the bad old days when this was not the case.

Re:Advertiser versus advertiser (3, Insightful)

nine-times (778537) | more than 5 years ago | (#26291551)

Yeah, remember when there were tons of websites that would refuse to display, only giving you the message, "Please upgrade to IE 5.5" (or whatever)? The wouldn't even render improperly, they'd just refuse to display at all.

Can you imagine major sites doing that now?

I agree! (5, Funny)

tkrotchko (124118) | more than 5 years ago | (#26291373)

"and is in fact suffering from an internet addiction. "

Internet Addiction users probably also suffer from sex addiction, money addiction and food addiction.

I personally suffer from addictophobia, so let me assure everyone that internet addiction is real. So all of you stop snickering out there. In fact, if you're reading slashdot, you're probably an internet addict. Here are the symptoms:

1) Constantly have a browser window up in your computer
2) Check your email more than once a day
3) Know browser shortcut keys. You know what cntl-D does, alt (or apple) backspace does, how to quit your browser without using the mouse.
4) Understand the importance of metatags
5) Knows how to spell URL
6) Users Ad Block Plus

This is a serious addiction.

Next week, we'll be covering work addiction (a tragic state where most of your waking hours are spent at a business doing stuff that some person tells you), water addiction (heart breaking... you require water every time your mouth gets dry. You end up in a condition known as "thirsty").

Finally, we'll be covering sleep addiction. Some of those addicts are known to spend 1/3 of their day in a completely motionless catatonic state. Tears are staining my browser as I type.

Re:I agree! (2, Funny)

Twinbee (767046) | more than 5 years ago | (#26291563)

Sleep addiction has been covered before: "Sleep Is An Addictive Illness [skytopia.com] "

Re:Advertiser versus advertiser (4, Insightful)

owlnation (858981) | more than 5 years ago | (#26291433)

IE 7, Opera, and Firefox are all pretty similar from a normal end-user perspective.

No. Here's why. Two words: adblock, flashblock.

No other single innovation on the web has changed my whole experience of the web. Casual user or not. The web is truly awful without these essential tools.

Nobody should be using IE6 anyway (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26291069)

Nobody should be using IE6 anyway, it is an out of date browser and Google is just highlighting that.

Although they don't promote it, IE7 is a supported browser.

Re:Nobody should be using IE6 anyway (0)

Pentium100 (1240090) | more than 5 years ago | (#26291151)

I still use IE6.

I use IE (any version) for exactly 3 things:

  • Windows Update
  • www.bitdefender.com online scan
  • Check to see how my website looks on it.

And for them, IE6 is faster than IE7.

Re:Nobody should be using IE6 anyway (1)

grahamd0 (1129971) | more than 5 years ago | (#26291447)

I still use IE6.

I use IE (any version) for exactly 3 things:

  • Windows Update
  • www.bitdefender.com online scan
  • Check to see how my website looks on it.

And for them, IE6 is faster than IE7.

You do yourself and the people viewing your site a disservice.

IE6 and IE7 share very similar layout properties when working "correctly", but they vastly different rendering quirks and bugs. If you're not familiar with the differences and building your pages accordingly, a page could very well look perfect in one of them and totally out of whack in the other.

You should really check your site in both IE6 and IE7 if you intend to support both browsers.

Re:Nobody should be using IE6 anyway (1)

Pentium100 (1240090) | more than 5 years ago | (#26291531)

Usually my web pages are quite simple, but IE6 does not support some css feature or whatever, then I insert a conditional statement that IE6 executes, I have IE7 on another PC. And my first priority is Opera and Firefox, since I am using those browsers to view all websites (except windows update and bitdefender).

On the other hand I agree that people shouldn't be using IE (especially <7) for main browsing.

Who needs the Quickie Mart^W^WIE? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26291081)

Yesterday my father came to me saying he wanted to switch to "FoxFire". Anything that promotes awareness of how horrid IE is, such as this, can only be a good thing (unless, of course, you're forced to use IE6 for whatever silly reasons).

Who Cares? (0)

fotbr (855184) | more than 5 years ago | (#26291109)

Imagine that. A company is using some of their products to promote other products of theirs. Shocking, I know, that a company would do such a thing.

They have the same link and message for FF2.x users. Guess what? I'm still not going to downgrade to FF3 and its uselessbar.

Interesting. (4, Interesting)

haeger (85819) | more than 5 years ago | (#26291125)

At my previous job (fairly large company) they've standardized on Win2k on the clients. In fact they're still running it. Guess what browser is included? The client is heavily modified so rolling out a new one isn't an easy task.
From what I've heard they're little above 1 year in planning to switch to Vista, but since there are quite a lot of migration issues I don't see that coming soon. I'd say it's atleast 6 months away, probably more. The company uses some very specific programs written by people that might not be with the company anymore, and all those need to work for business to continue as usual.

So they will continue to surf the interweb with IE6 for quite a while. Other browsers can be installed but that is unsupported and might result in a call from the security department on why you use unauthorized software on your machine. You probably don't want that. And none of the internal applications work with anything but IE6 (IE7 is being tested with the vista change) anyway.

Large organizations are fun.

But you shouldn't read gmail from work anyway so that's not a big problem. As long as most other sites still work. Or perhaps they should use an "external browser" and one "internal" one. Hehe.

Re:Interesting. (3, Interesting)

xdroop (4039) | more than 5 years ago | (#26291221)

Or perhaps they should use an "external browser" and one "internal" one.

You offer this solution in jest, but in fact it is what I advocate to my users.

When Chrome came out, I tried it, and was impressed enough that my personal browsing is now done almost exclusively with it.

However, I still have a bunch of old, stupid network devices and other random corporate applications that either insist on, or just plain work better with, IE as a browser. So my "corporate" browsing is done through IE.

It also makes things easy to separate out visually; ie the IE window is safe to leave up when the boss/customer unexpectedly looks into my cube. :)

Interestingly, this meant that for me, Firefox was the browser left out in the cold -- between IE and Chrome, I no longer need it. I still have it installed, for the one-in-a-$BIGNUM site which insists on it, but it practically never gets started. My usage of it is so infrequent that it seems every time I start it up I have to almost immediately restart it because of some upgrade it has done.

Re:Interesting. (2, Funny)

RCanine (847446) | more than 5 years ago | (#26291299)

Having an external web browser and internal one isn't so bad an idea. Our ridiculous CMS supports only FF2 and IE6, our bug tracker doesn't work in Webkit. So I have three browsers: one for work apps, one for development, one for surfing / docs. Keep crashes from ruining your day too.

Re:Interesting. (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 5 years ago | (#26291307)

perhaps they should use an "external browser" and one "internal" one. Hehe.

Not a bad idea, at least as a stopgap. Does MS support parallel installations of IE6 and IE7?

Re:Interesting. (1)

arkhan_jg (618674) | more than 5 years ago | (#26291323)

IE7 isn't even available for windows 2000, it's XP and vista only, so you're right they're stuck with IE6.

That said - Windows 2000 is in extended support now, and IE6 has unpatched security holes that likely never will be fixed.

Or perhaps they should use an "external browser" and one "internal" one.
That's pretty much what they should be doing, from a security point of view. Keep the buggy and vulnerable modified IE for their internal apps, and switch to something else which actually gets security fixes for external browsing.

how does it feel when they do it to you? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26291165)

That's right Microsoft, you heard me well.

No addons, No chrome (4, Interesting)

egnop (531002) | more than 5 years ago | (#26291201)

As long as there are no addons like adblock possible i'll be sticking to firefox...

Re:No addons, No chrome (1)

garett_spencley (193892) | more than 5 years ago | (#26291319)

As long as there's no Linux version available I'll be sticking with Firefox.

Re:No addons, No chrome (1)

tsa (15680) | more than 5 years ago | (#26291505)

As long as it's not running on all three platforms equally well I'll continue to use Firefox.

Re:No addons, No chrome (1)

Aranykai (1053846) | more than 5 years ago | (#26291423)

Your google skills are fail.

http://www.privoxy.org/ [privoxy.org]

Not only does it work with Chrome, it works with any application, including any version of Internet Explorer.

Big business is slow to respond (4, Insightful)

HaloZero (610207) | more than 5 years ago | (#26291227)

I work for a Very Large Company. Unfortunately, this particular company has built quite a bit of business process around Microsoft's tattered and broken products. For starters, the client engineering group requires that you use a build of IE6. Without several security patches. Why? Because a lot of the web portal applications do not run on anything but IE6. Upgrade to IE7? Unsupported. Chances are, the app won't work, or won't display correctly. For most of the apps that have forms, upgrading to IE7 means you'll never see the 'Submit' button, either because it's not there, or was rendered off of the page (and there's no horizontal scroll). Worse, most of these rely on stupid IE6 javascript tricks that don't quite work right in Firefox or Chrome or Safari. Firefox is semi-usable for most things, though you will eventually hit a page that just won't "Work". Unfortuantely, this corps makes up a not-insignificant chunk of the population. It's groups like that that would need to take care of in-house breakware before an adoption of Firefox or Chrome can be taken seriously.

Re:Big business is slow to respond (1)

jfengel (409917) | more than 5 years ago | (#26291301)

When you standardize on something, it continues to work, at the cost of being unable to integrate anything new.

GMail was invented more recently than whenever this company standardized on W2K and IE6. It's a new feature of the web, and you guys can't have it. It's up to management to decide what the cost of doing business is worth to them.

It sounds in this case like the cost is pretty considerable, unfortunately. Old apps don't upgrade cheaply.

Re:Big business is slow to respond (1)

catman (1412) | more than 5 years ago | (#26291401)

I think you and I are working for similar companies, where I work we're ~90K FTEs world wide. I see the same weird behavior on our local intranet site - In October, we were told to ditch all browsers except IE 6 from company PCs, FOR SECURITY REASONS. I never surf the web from my company laptop anymore, if I need a file I'll download it to my private laptop and transfer it, after checking with all available tools.

Re:Big business is slow to respond (1)

CitizenDan (698227) | more than 5 years ago | (#26291443)

I'm in the same boat. Multiple key apps that I use at the office either work poorly or don't work at all in IE7 (our company portal among them). These apps are all third-party affairs that we don't have any other driving need to update, so they'll continue along indefinitely.

Re:Big business is slow to respond (5, Insightful)

catmistake (814204) | more than 5 years ago | (#26291499)

[webapps.... only supports IE6]

I had the same situation in a department at a university... right around the time IE7 was force-deployed by Microsoft. I saw it coming, so I broke Software Update. I made a proposal that was accepted to mothball ALL the Windows XP Pro workstations for OS X iMacs. I purchased a site license for Parallels, and created a custom VM with that "stripped to the bone" edition of XP Pro off TPB (reserialized with our XP site license using keyfinder). Basically the VM was a kiosk... all it would do/could do is run IE6, and the ONLY site it could load were our webapp sites. The VM was never updated, never patched, never installed any anti-spy/anti-malware/anti-virus... so the VM booted in 15 seconds on these Core 2 duo iMacs. Every evening a cron ran to DELETE the VM, and unzip a fresh VM (that brought everything back to my zeroed original custom VM). All the user saw was clicking a dock icon that would launch the VM, which was set to auto launch IE6 in kiosk mode and bring up their webapp. It works like titties, absolutely beautifully for over 2 years now. When Microsoft's grip gets tighter, I don't understand why more IT hasn't just said "fuck you Microsoft! and fuck this!" and sandboxed the precise function they need... the solutions are legion once you realize a VM can do everything real HW can do.

Re:Big business is slow to respond (2, Interesting)

MPAB (1074440) | more than 5 years ago | (#26291513)

My bank's page works in IE7, FF and Opera; but I cannot log in if using Chrome.

IE7/8 for WINE? (1)

cgreentx (990146) | more than 5 years ago | (#26291277)

Someone really needs to figure out a way to get IE7/IE8 running under WINE. The only thing I still use IE6 for is for applications that are IE only when I'm on my Mac or Linux system.

What's that sound? (3, Funny)

sigzero (914876) | more than 5 years ago | (#26291289)

It's the sound of nobody moving to Chrome.

What's the IE share at the end of 2009? (1)

schwit1 (797399) | more than 5 years ago | (#26291327)

50%? IE needs to be relegated to windows update only.

Moloch tells losers fairytail/nightmare is tenuous (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26291331)

1000 years of darkness coming to an end? could happen.

Support YOUR users, not GOOGLE's users (4, Insightful)

Temujin_12 (832986) | more than 5 years ago | (#26291355)

Maybe the web developer pie chart [tinypic.com] will shift.

I'm all for dropping IE6. It is now nothing more than a bane to web developers and the advancement of web pages in general. But to stop accommodating IE6 in your websites simply becomes someone else says to do so is naive. You should support whatever your site's visitors need.

For my wife's site, I can drop support for 800x600 since they comprise of less than 2% of my visitors, and falling (hurray!). Yes, I know fluid design can accommodate all, but sometimes needs necessitate static widths.

However, IE6 still accounts for ~20% of my visitors, so no matter what Google/Yahoo/Microsoft/etc. says, until that number drops well below 10%, I will still support it.

Re:Support YOUR users, not GOOGLE's users (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26291417)

Not being able to create a website that degrades gracefully is the weakest form of web development.

You are one of those people.

All is fair (4, Interesting)

fermion (181285) | more than 5 years ago | (#26291369)

Netscape did not play tough, and look what happened to them.

Google is becoming a company that we should all be worried about, but they are playing a predictable games. MS grew because it offered the cheapest product on the block that more or less worked. Google is doing the same thing. The problem is that MS is now that inefficient behemoth with a business model that assumes a cut of every PC sales and aftermarket revenue. This is an environment where all Google needs to survive is a fraction of penny from every hit.

Google now offers cheaper products than Microsoft, read free to the user, and few people seem to worry about the opportunity costs in terms of privacy and all that. This is in the same way that no one worry about the issue with MS in terms of being assumed a pirate rather than a paying customer.

Beyond all this, why would any sane person with a competing product want to have anything to do with MS. MS could come up with an update to IE tomorrow that would break google apps. We all know that MS has the motive, and the will to break other peoples software is well documented. This justifies asking people to move away from IE because the day that MS does break Google is the day that google will lose a lot of good will. People will blame Google and not MS.

Not supporting IE is a gutsy move. It shows that Google is willing to play hardball. It shows that google is no longer the feel good get along with everyone company, but a company that is willing to dominate and create monopolies. Good for those that want a competitor to MS. Bad for those of us that want a quality product delivered by a company that treats the end user as a customer, not just a proxy to earn third party money.

Chrome's OK but can't use it for anything serious (1)

kindbud (90044) | more than 5 years ago | (#26291389)

Because I don't use Windows for anything serious, except personal online banking, and my bank doesn't support Chrome. So I use Firefox from work to access my bank, where I run Linux.

Chrome for Linux, if you're serious, Goog. This wanking around with Windows-only is making you look like another me-too outfit.

Re:Chrome's OK but can't use it for anything serio (3, Insightful)

cdrguru (88047) | more than 5 years ago | (#26291445)

Obviously, market share has nothing to do with it. Any business that is serious is going to just use Linux and develop all its software for Linux, right?

Dream on. Windows has what, 90% market share? Followed by OS X with maybe 7%. Linux is last with perhaps 3%. And if you just count end-user machines and not servers it is probably more like 92%, 7% and 1% for Linux.

Sure, maybe it will change in the future. But for now the reality is that Linux commands such an incredibly small number of end-user machines that it isn't worth paying attention to for packaged software development.

Re:Chrome's OK but can't use it for anything serio (1)

kindbud (90044) | more than 5 years ago | (#26291479)

When did I say anything about Linux only? Firefox manages to put out versions of its product for all desktop OS, with far less resources that the Goog has. There's no apparent reason why Google is less capable than the Mozilla Foundation. What do you think is the stumbling block? I think it's because Chrome is based on some Windows-only 3rd-party libraries and Chrome is a quick hack. Care to offer another plausible explanation why the mighty Google can't sustain a product on as many platforms as a non-profit can?

This isn't about all IE browsers (5, Insightful)

assertation (1255714) | more than 5 years ago | (#26291439)

For me, this isn't about IE in general. IE 6 is a large and costly inconvenience for both web application and web site developers. IE 6 doesn't work in exactly the same way as IE7 & IE8. A person doing web development not only has to make sure that an application or site works in the Mozilla based browsers and IE, but that it works in multiple versions of IE. IE 6 is typically the browser that breaks when new code is developed when that code works in all of the other browsers. Even other versions of IE. Organizations and people are hanging onto IE 6. It is past time for those with muscle to begin nudging people away from IE 6

When will Slashdot support IE7? (1)

michaelmalak (91262) | more than 5 years ago | (#26291449)

Is Slashdot ever going to resume supporting IE7? Whenever I want to see moderation breakdowns on comments, the firehose rainbow threshold widget, or even just all the comments in a thread, I have to temporarily switch to Firefox. (No, I don't have any particular reason I'm using IE7 -- just habit, I guess.)

Kinda funny... (1)

techdojo (1409685) | more than 5 years ago | (#26291501)

I find it amusing that after Microsoft used their app (Windows) to edge out Netscape, Google is using their apps to edge out Microsoft.

Capitalism at it's finest! The best sword is a double-edged one, says I.

_____________________________________
http://techdojo.org/ [techdojo.org]

Another step that makes sense (2, Insightful)

Keyper7 (1160079) | more than 5 years ago | (#26291511)

So far, I think none of Google's actions contradicted my personal opinion on their intentions with Chrome. I still believe their main objective is to force the use of web standards by evenly distributing the browser marketing between Gecko, WebKit and... whatever IE's engine is called. From this point of view, it makes sense that they are still funding Mozilla and chose an engine supported by default on Macs.

And no, they don't want standardization because of some altruistic ideals. It's just easier to develop web applications that way. And getting rid of the anomaly called IE6, which behaves differently from 7 and 8 to the point of being considered a different engine, is a very logical next step.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>