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!

Norwegian Websites Declare War On IE 6

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 5 years ago | from the we-just-quit-testing-on-ie6 dept.

The Internet 349

Eyvind A. Larre writes "A large and rapidly growing campaign to get users to stop using IE6 is being implemented throughout Europe. 'Leading the charge is Finn.no, an eBay-like site that is apparently the largest site for buying and selling goods in all of Norway (Finn is Norwegian for "Find"). Earlier this week, Finn.no posted a warning on its web page for visitors running IE 6. The banner, seen at right, urges them to ditch IE 6 and upgrade to Internet Explorer 7.' The campaign is now spreading like fire on Twitter (#IE6), and starting to become an amazing effort by big media companies to get rid of IE6! The campaign also hit Wired some hours ago."

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

"Upgrade" to IE 7 (5, Insightful)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 5 years ago | (#26935081)

Is IE 7 really an improvement? If they're going to tell users to upgrade, why don't they encourage a standards-compliant browser?

Re:"Upgrade" to IE 7 (2, Insightful)

f1vlad (1253784) | more than 5 years ago | (#26935131)

IE8 is quite close to compliant. And IE7, yes, it is significant improvement.

Re:"Upgrade" to IE 7 (5, Informative)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 5 years ago | (#26935267)

If by "quite close", you mean "still the least standards-compliant browser available", you're right.

Why not simply encourage them to download Firefox? Or Chrome? Or Opera? Or Safari? Or freakin' iCab, if they're on an old Mac?

Upgrading to IE7 is just going to make them do the same again when IE8 comes around, and it's still going to force me to boot Windows just to test in IE. If I was in that position, I would actively block IE6, and have a large banner for IE7 users suggesting Firefox.

Re:"Upgrade" to IE 7 (5, Interesting)

f1vlad (1253784) | more than 5 years ago | (#26935369)

I guess if you do not give them Microsoft's option, the other side gets pissed off.

In fact a while ago I've created a little script called killie6 [sourceforge.net] , when I posted on linkedin group to ask professional opinion about it [linkedin.com] , many declared it desceptive, violating user's choice, etc, etc.

Re:"Upgrade" to IE 7 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26935665)

In fact a while ago I've created a little script called killie6 [sourceforge.net] ...

I'm dense today. I read this and wondered what a 'killie' was.

Re:"Upgrade" to IE 7 (1)

Hordeking (1237940) | more than 5 years ago | (#26935439)

I get 100 mbit fiber for $65/mo in a small town in Iowa. WTF is taking the rest of you so long?

I'd like to know what town you're in. Everywhere else in Iowa is practically 28.8k dialup.

Re:"Upgrade" to IE 7 (1)

idontgno (624372) | more than 5 years ago | (#26935569)

I'm guessing he's in Bettendorf. Although intentionally calling the Quad Cities [wikipedia.org] "a small town" is a bit disingenuous. So I could be wrong.

Re:"Upgrade" to IE 7 (1)

Hordeking (1237940) | more than 5 years ago | (#26935859)

Quite disingenious. The whole of the quad cities is bigger than Des Moines. Small for me is 0~200. Regular is ~1000. 300,000 people is not a small town.

Re:"Upgrade" to IE 7 (1)

SharpFang (651121) | more than 5 years ago | (#26935861)

Look, if you try to compare a wooden club, an iron mace and a black powder rifle, you know which is the winner. Let's not talk about submachine guns here.

Re:"Upgrade" to IE 7 (5, Informative)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#26935463)

20/100 on the Acid3 is "close"?
Webkit and Presto got 41/100 and 46/100 respectivly when Acid3 was released (now they both pass with flying colors).

Unless all of IE's compliance improvements have been in areas not covered by Acid....

Re:"Upgrade" to IE 7 (1)

f1vlad (1253784) | more than 5 years ago | (#26935583)

By all means, it isn't perfect at all. But don't you agree it's the best effort on their part to date? I would say so.

Re:"Upgrade" to IE 7 (4, Insightful)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#26935635)

But don't you agree it's the best effort on their part to date? I would say so.

Yes, but "best effort" != "close"
"closer", maybe.

Re:"Upgrade" to IE 7 (3, Insightful)

McBeer (714119) | more than 5 years ago | (#26935873)

20/100 on the Acid3 is "close"?

In a way yes. The acid tests are by no means comprehensive. Acid 2 focuses primarily on CSS and Acid 3 focuses on DOM/ECMAscript. A browser can completely tank acid 3 and still render most things just fine. (I use noscript and don't notice ill effects on most websites)

Acid tests aside, IE7 is certainly not the best browser out there, but it is way the hell better then IE6 and probably an easier sell to those still on IE 6.

Re:"Upgrade" to IE 7 (2)

gnick (1211984) | more than 5 years ago | (#26935163)

Yes, it's a huge improvement over IE6. Tabs alone make it much nicer IMO. Of course, here at work, IE 6 is all that we're allowed to have installed without a signed exception from management and IT.

Of course, it's still a pile of fetid dingo's kidneys compared to some of the competition. I'd rather see the sites encourage users to upgrade to FF, Opera, or even Safari or Chrome rather than just tie them to IE...

Let's expand it, eh? (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 5 years ago | (#26935225)

"Yes, it's a huge improvement over IE6. Tabs alone make it much nicer IMO. Of course, here at work, IE 6 is all that we're allowed to have installed without a signed exception from management and IT."

Hmm...sounds like we need to expand this push to get rid of IE6, into something much larger.

Get rid of Windows? A nice plus in your case would sound like getting rid of management.

:)

Re:"Upgrade" to IE 7 (1)

von_rick (944421) | more than 5 years ago | (#26935315)

I can see why companies would want to support browsers whose compatibility issues they are knowledgeable about. it now seems like the known issues in IE6 are way too many to keep their sites compatible with IE6.

IE7 and FF(2 and 3) are quite a significant improvement over IE6. And then there are companies that build some web interfaces using Java and VB and mix up several technologies which makes their sites to malfunction regardless of which brower or OS you choose. The payroll system in our university has such a site.

Re:"Upgrade" to IE 7 (1, Insightful)

bit trollent (824666) | more than 5 years ago | (#26935199)

Yes, from a web developer's point of view, IE 7 is a huge upgrade.

There are still some differences between Firefox and IE 7, but they are much smaller than the horribly broken browser that is IE6.

This isn't so much about the guy using the web browser as it is about the guy who has to write the html for it.

By the way...

I think whoever came up with HTML and CSS was smoking crack. There are so many inconsistencies and bizarre rules that it's impossible for me to believe that a sane person came up with all this.

Whenever I see an inconsistency between how Firefox and IE do something, half the time I side with IE. I know standards matter, but how 'bout putting down the crack-pipe and putting your ego in check next time you come up with "standards" that millions of people have to deal with.

I say this as somebody who writes high profile web applications that must look right in all major browsers (including IE6).

Re:"Upgrade" to IE 7 (5, Insightful)

Rei (128717) | more than 5 years ago | (#26935363)

Oh come on. Every time I have to make a webapp work across all browsers, 9 times out of ten, if a bit of code works perfectly fine in every browser but one, that one is IE. And IE7 is still chock full of problems. Random example (I could point to hundreds): As a home project, I'm in the middle of cross-platform debugging for a Google Maps-integrated electric vehicle simulator [rechargeamerica.net] . If you design a vehicle in it (rather than just using a preset), you can submit it to me to consider for inclusion as a preset. It's emailed so I'm made aware of it right away and have a chance to scour over the numbers that they're providing to make sure it makes sense. The easiest way to do this is just with a mailto HREF that supplies a body. Fine, right?

Well, IE (incl. 7) has a tiny GET limit, and this applies to mailtos as well. It only allows 2083 characters. By comparison, Firefox, Safari, Opera, etc are for all practical purposes unbounded. 2083 characters is too small to hold all of the vehicle stats, such as the tables of how efficient the drivetrain and battery pack are under hundreds of different conditions. So, IE throws a cryptic error when it sees it. There are workarounds, of course, such as a web form that submits mail by CGI, but you know what? No. I'm getting sick of pandering to a lousy browser in project after project. I've in general decided to take the same approach that these sites are taking: disable any feature that IE has trouble with, and tell them to use a better browser if they want to have that feature available to them.

Re:"Upgrade" to IE 7 (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26935727)

Maybe because it is a HTML (version 1?) standard for GET and the other browsers ignores it?

Stop complaining just because you are too lazy to do it in another way.
 

Re:"Upgrade" to IE 7 (3, Informative)

diskis (221264) | more than 5 years ago | (#26935771)

Well, you should stick to the HTML spec. GET requests should never cause an action, like sending that mail. POST requests are designed to allow actions. I don't know about the byte limit on POSTs, but I know you can upload files of several MB. Should be enough for an email.

There is a reason for distinctions between GET and POST. A webcrawler for instance should be able to safely follow any link/form with a GET request. If you trigger mails with a GET request, you can easily get the googlebot to accidentally send you some email.

Also, you may want to read up on the HTTP/1.1 RFC, which states that a GET request can be of unlimited length, but that clients and servers should beware as there is no guarantee that all software supports more than a 256 bytes long URI. This is one thing you shouldn't blame on Microsoft, as this limitation is fairly ancient, older than any copy of IE :)

Re:"Upgrade" to IE 7 (2, Informative)

Rei (128717) | more than 5 years ago | (#26935921)

GET requests should never cause an action, like sending that mail. POST requests are designed to allow actions.

Oh come on; that's the standard way [google.com] of launching emails: <a href="mailto:address?subject=Subject&body=Body">Mail us</a>. It's not really a GET request; it never gets sent to a server. It's just a way to tell the browser, "bring up an email client". And any crawler that doesn't recognize mailto is an idiot. There's not even an "HTTP" in there.

Re:"Upgrade" to IE 7 (1)

Low Ranked Craig (1327799) | more than 5 years ago | (#26935803)

post.

Re:"Upgrade" to IE 7 (3, Interesting)

QuoteMstr (55051) | more than 5 years ago | (#26935565)

I think whoever came up with HTML and CSS was smoking crack. There are so many inconsistencies and bizarre rules that it's impossible for me to believe that a sane person came up with all this.

Browser implementation, web standards, and hell, even programming languages, APIs and file formats are more evolved than designed. Think of a community of bacteria growing on a petri dish competing for resources and occasionally swapping genes. You'll end up with organisms very different from the ones you started with, and they'll probably have some quirky mechanisms in them.

Like in this culture, today's technology ecosystem is the cumulative result of lots of incremental changes that seemed like the right thing at the time. It's no surprise that we're dealing with the technology equivalent to such inexplicable evolution results as our retinas being wired backwards, the male urethra going right through the prostate (which is very prone to swelling), the birth canal being narrow enough to often cause the mother's death, or thymine (one of the components of DNA) being prone to forming dimers and corrupting the cell's machinery. Again, the decisions that seemed like the right thing at the time result in a system that's thoroughly confusing and that in retrospect appears insane.

Re:"Upgrade" to IE 7 (1)

digitalunity (19107) | more than 5 years ago | (#26935631)

Well the problem here is that we couldn't start with HTML 4 or CSS.

HTML has a lot of backwards compatibility, which is sometimes its own Achilles heel. I believe this is the same thing with Windows and I really hope software vendors join the club and start producing more Vista compatible software.

You are missing the point (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26935667)

The point is not who is smoking less crack, that's certainly debatable. The point is, what have people agreed to accept, whatever crack they may have been smoking. This is what standards are, mutually acceptable levels of smoking crack.

Re:"Upgrade" to IE 7 (1)

ZeroSerenity (923363) | more than 5 years ago | (#26935285)

Such as IE8? Would that suit your fancy?

What about... (5, Insightful)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 5 years ago | (#26935087)

I guess suggesting FireFox or Opera is too big a leap for an established corporation.
Is "I recommend Internet Explorer" the new "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM"?

Re:What about... (4, Informative)

von_rick (944421) | more than 5 years ago | (#26935195)

Especially considering Opera is a Norwegian company, I was expecting them to give thumbs up to their homebrewed web browser. Opera is pretty awesome, all things considered and the current version is certainly lot more compliant and powerful than IE6.

Re:What about... (1)

Foofoobar (318279) | more than 5 years ago | (#26935219)

Hardly. Government IT agencies don't even recommend IE anymore. The financial institution I work for (which hasn't gone out of business) has installed Firefox on all the machines because there have been so many alerts from security agencies saying not to use IE that they decided they needed all their users to have an alternative.

Re:What about... (4, Insightful)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 5 years ago | (#26935221)

It's more like: "...all our custom VBS-based apps that we can't afford to get rid of is IE-based, therefore so is your job."

And if you think there's unavoidable lock-ins now, wait'll SharePoint gets its tentacles into the enterprise at large... "what, no Outlook integration? No automatic login from Active Directory!? We can't have that! Forget your wiki thingy, hire a SharePoint guy already, and let's get this thing rolling! You're wasting my time here!"

Call me a troll if you like, but damn - it's a very slick way to make sure the folks in Redmond have continued income for at least the next decade...

/P

Re:What about... (1)

digitalunity (19107) | more than 5 years ago | (#26935651)

Pretty much. If it weren't for shitty VB script features in Office, many would have ditched it long ago.

Re:What about... (1)

dotancohen (1015143) | more than 5 years ago | (#26935255)

Take a look at the site in my sig in IE. I've been telling IE users for years to upgrade. As I do it for a hobby and not for the money (though the money is nice) I don't care about turning some visitors away. And coding for Firefox, then cleaning up in Opera takes me only two or three hours at most. IE? Two or three days of cleanup after that. No, thanks

By the way, before Adsense removed the Firefox referrals program, I was making more money on Firefox conversions alone from that one site than I was making from the advertisements on my five biggest sites combined. People are more than glad to ditch IE, once they realize that there exists something else.

Re:What about... (1)

Thelasko (1196535) | more than 5 years ago | (#26935493)

I guess suggesting FireFox or Opera is too big a leap for an established corporation.

I don't understand what it is about corporate environments and IE6. My company's IT department forces everyone to use IE6.

Re:What about... (1)

hobo sapiens (893427) | more than 5 years ago | (#26935603)

Because many Intranet developers (not all) are inept boobs who shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a text editor, much less some what-you-see-is-all-you-get software like dreamweaver. And since corporations have invested big bucks into stupid software developed by cretins, they cannot afford to upgrade. Doing so would mean rewriting these apps. And that like costs money or something.

Re:What about... (1)

diskis (221264) | more than 5 years ago | (#26935821)

Internet Explorer can be locked down with group policies, Firefox & company cannot.
Also, at the two previous megacorporations I've worked at IE6 was not "forced" on anyone. You simply needed it to actually work, because all the corporate internal webapps were IE6 only... :(

Re:What about... (2, Informative)

nowonder (11583) | more than 5 years ago | (#26935815)

Actually many of the participating pages tell you to get Firefox, Opera, or a newer version of IE. This includes some commercial web sites.

Oh really? (1)

the_humeister (922869) | more than 5 years ago | (#26935089)

"A large and rapidly growing campaign to get users to stop using IE6 is beeingimplemented throughout Europe.

That must really put a sting on MS...

Re:Oh really? (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 5 years ago | (#26935429)

Not only that, the summary says "the banner seen at right..."

I understand it's a straigh cut-and-paste from the Wired story, but is it possible for the Slashdot "editors" to actually do some, you know, "editing"?

Re:Oh really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26935465)

Yeah, this shit quality pisses me off! And it's not like this is the first time.

Fuck the lazy bastards!

Re:Oh really? (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#26935589)

And here I thought my banner blindness was just a little overactive...

Re:Oh really? (1)

Endo13 (1000782) | more than 5 years ago | (#26935527)

Way to spoil your own joke. =(

But thank god they're not using wasps...

Well, that's a retarded press release.... (1, Insightful)

tjstork (137384) | more than 5 years ago | (#26935119)

Some Norwegian guys == all of Europe
A press release on Wired == Big Media

Getting rid IE is good and all, but does like Slashdot hire out to India to write their article summaries? The retardation is growing daily.

Re:Well, that's a retarded press release.... (-1, Troll)

qoncept (599709) | more than 5 years ago | (#26935381)

Getting rid IE is good and all, but does like Slashdot hire out to India to write their article summaries? The retardation is growing daily.

[my emphasis]

No, they have wops and micks do it. Now is, I suppose, when you show me how your post wasn't racist.

Re:Well, that's a retarded press release.... (1)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 5 years ago | (#26935655)

He said "India", not "Indians".

Geez, don't you understand English? You must be an Indian working in a call center in India. For AOL.

Re:Well, that's a retarded press release.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26935785)

The retardation is growing daily.

I'm afraid it's too late. Slashdot has already gone full retard.

Re:Well, that's a retarded press release.... (1)

nowonder (11583) | more than 5 years ago | (#26935845)

Some Norwegian guys == all of Europe
A press release on Wired == Big Media

You got this wrong. It's in big media all over Europe, but the web sites are mostly in Norway so far. I saw a lot of coverage by traditional media in Germany.

Re:Well, that's a retarded press release.... (1)

fm6 (162816) | more than 5 years ago | (#26935877)

Don't be rude to India. Yeah, call center zombies with thick Hindi accents are a pain to deal with, but at least they know how to follow flow charts!

Re:Well, that's a retarded press release.... (1)

Tired and Emotional (750842) | more than 5 years ago | (#26935927)

> call center zombies with thick Hindi accents

Yes, its a pain. I only speak Hindi with a thick English accent and they have trouble understanding me.

As for retardation, we could have done with more of that in Victoria recently.

Microsoft sending out a lot of press releases (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26935125)

Microsoft is sure sending out a lot of press releases lately..

Boring (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26935139)

Way too many Windows stories on the front page recently. This is Slashdot, lest we forget.

Re:Boring (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26935281)

sorry, if you were looking for the slashdot of old. today real tech and science articles just don't make the cut. it's the meaningless babble that gets all the fanbois in a frenzy and that's what generates the hits that keep cmdrtaco's pockets full of coin.

just check out the post counts on articles. if it's low that means it's a subject that either requires thought or can't be heckled by a bunch of idiots who like to think they're intellectual giants because they got an a in 8th grade math.

Re:Boring (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26935435)

Yeah we need more articles about Linux distros changing the colour of their default theme.

Good luck with corporate destkops! (2, Insightful)

javacowboy (222023) | more than 5 years ago | (#26935147)

I work for a medium-sized bank that has strict and outdated IT policies. All Windows XP workstations are set up with non-admin accounts, including developers. IE 6 is installed and we're not allowed to update to IE 7.

I don't even have a Windows PC at home, but at work, I'm officially effectively forced to use IE 6 (even though I've found a way to install Firefox as a non-admin user).

It's employees in companies like mine that will not be able to convert to IE 7 or another browser, even if they really want to.

Re:Good luck with corporate destkops! (1)

Bryansix (761547) | more than 5 years ago | (#26935171)

Even though you have a MAC you are not an island unto yourself and if you are like many of the people on here you publish content to the web and therefore care which browser base is the largest.

Re:Good luck with corporate destkops! (1)

javacowboy (222023) | more than 5 years ago | (#26935207)

Even though you have a MAC you are not an island unto yourself and if you are like many of the people on here you publish content to the web and therefore care which browser base is the largest.

Did I say I didn't care? As a former web developer, I would just as soon see IE 6 disappear off the face of the Earth. It's companies like mine that will prevent that from happening, which is a real shame.

Re:Good luck with corporate destkops! (1)

Teun (17872) | more than 5 years ago | (#26935237)

But then employees like you are not supposed to browse 'Ebay-like' sites from company equipment.

It's a bit like where I work, the IT dept. is acutely aware of the advantages of Firefox and they'll allow you to install it but the PHB's tell us all of our intranet is IE6 'compliant' and that's Good Enough.

That'll change quite rapidly when their favourite golf or investment site baulks at IE6 :)

Re:Good luck with corporate destkops! (1)

rbrausse (1319883) | more than 5 years ago | (#26935357)

> All Windows XP workstations are set up with non-admin accounts, including developers.

as an admin I understand this policy

our users [not a bank but a service provider for clinical studies - only sensitive data, not sensitive money :)] have also only users without admin rights, the only exception are local admin users without network access.

since I get the approval for this procedure I have much less work with fixing messed up setups - and my developers don't play around with strange new tools/games/apps/whatever (just testing, *really*)...

they CAN get root access to there machines (the local admin account) but they are *not* allowed to use such a privileged account for the daily work. and to be honest: the worst in Windows is the attitude to use the computer with admin rights

Re:Good luck with corporate destkops! (1)

zoips (576749) | more than 5 years ago | (#26935763)

Unless they whitelist programs that you can execute, you can just go to the Mozilla FTP server [mozilla.org] , find the nightly that corresponds to the latest release version of Firefox, and download the zip file [mozilla.org] . No installation necessary.

About Time! (5, Insightful)

MazzThePianoman (996530) | more than 5 years ago | (#26935149)

I have to waste so much time adapting my code to work with IE6 when it works perfectly fine in FF 1.5 thru 3, Chrome, Opera, Safari and even IE7. We talk about needing a stimulus; you have any idea how many man-hours are wasted because of IE6 quirks?

Re:About Time! (1)

MillionthMonkey (240664) | more than 5 years ago | (#26935273)

I have a copy of IE6 and I'll never give it up. I need it for testing IE6 bugs.

Re:About Time! (4, Insightful)

amn108 (1231606) | more than 5 years ago | (#26935339)

Just do what I used to do, when I was doing web development (and they payed me for it) - Disable CSS linking for IE6 altogether by not sending the <link type="text/css" rel="stylesheet" ... />. If you use PHP, just read the HTTP user agent header and if it is IE 6, do not output the LINK element. If you are as good as you seem to be, catering for webstandards and all, chances are your webpage is readable WITHOUT stylesheets, and NOBODY has complained to me yet about bad looking black on white webpage. It is when things stop working they complain, but when there is no style at all they see, there is nothing to complain about. Webpages are free, since visitors seldom pay to see them, I do not feel guilty discriminating against a web browser, since it cannot display stylesheet properly anyway. The rest of CSS quirks that work differently in Firefox and Opera can be worked out, but IE6 is just too alien for my web-dev tastes. I used to ask for extra money to do IE6 web-dev before, but of course nobody wanted to see that part of the budget, so instead they get a no-style (X)HTML page which works. Even in Lynx, with proper mime type and headers. If your boss or a client threatens to break your kneecaps for leaving out IE6 support brutally like that, make a simple stylesheet from scratch just for IE, small one, with fonts, colors and backgrounds, no fancy box model usage and selectors it has not even heard about. It might end up looking decent, ant it only took you a quarter.

So IE 5 is still good then (1)

genner (694963) | more than 5 years ago | (#26935155)

My users seem to think so.

Re:So IE 5 is still good then (1)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | more than 5 years ago | (#26935245)

So you've developed a website that allows connections from the past? That's awesome. Sort of. I guess you could sell them stock tips.

Twitter? (1)

djrogers (153854) | more than 5 years ago | (#26935201)

Really? What's the incidence of correlation between twitter users and IE6 users? I'm guessing pretty damn close to zero.

Who cares about users (1)

NotQuiteReal (608241) | more than 5 years ago | (#26935319)

Twitter people who RUN web sites...

IE7? (1)

Tree131 (643930) | more than 5 years ago | (#26935217)

Can someone please give me a rhetorical answer of what is so good about IE7 that's not already there in Firefox, and why I should waste my time and resources upgrading....

Re:IE7? (3, Informative)

jafiwam (310805) | more than 5 years ago | (#26935619)

IE is built into a lot of places in Windows. Help displays, Windows Explorer uses it, etc.

By upgrading, you upgrade those displays too.

IE6 (IIRC) has issues, and probably has unpatched or undiscovered security issues that will root your computer if you run across the wrong stuff.

Even if you never use IE for anything, you should upgrade it and keep it patched. It's free, and doesn't hurt anything and you can continue to use whatever your favorite browser is.

Re:IE7? (2, Informative)

hobo sapiens (893427) | more than 5 years ago | (#26935661)

You're not a web developer then?

IE7 is a pile of dog crap compared to Firefox. But compared to IE6, IE7 is a chocolate bar.

IE6 is getting to be like 8 years old. Think of how much the web has changed in 8 years. I cannot think of any real web developers who *like* IE6. It fails at even the most mundane stuff.

The Scourge Continues... (1)

Crashspeeder (1468723) | more than 5 years ago | (#26935233)

Now we only have to worry about IE7 and the perpetual crashing of IE8 (though that's more of the user's problem than mine). Now if only FF3.1 would be released final then we'd be all set on becoming more standards compliant.

Somehow I don't see IE6 being phased anytime soon with the exception of some really awesome malware targeted specifically for IE6 (hint hint).

What about IE4? (1)

OrangeTide (124937) | more than 5 years ago | (#26935239)

Because I'm still running a on a Macintosh Performa. It's only worth selling someone in ebay and the like if you can use the computer you're selling to post the auction.

I'm sticking with IE6 (-1, Flamebait)

Harald Paulsen (621759) | more than 5 years ago | (#26935247)

Why? To piss these people off ofcourse!

I love my IE6.

Oh hey (1)

kjzk (1097265) | more than 5 years ago | (#26935251)

I wonder if IE6 will counterattack with more page loading errors and botched layouts. I'm scared.

It's good to see some action (3, Insightful)

dave562 (969951) | more than 5 years ago | (#26935287)

Althought a lot people like to complain about IE6 sucking, it takes an organization standing up and taking action to actually change things. Microsoft, like the record companies, and all the other "evil" organizations out there will only continue to shovel shit if people continue to consume it. IE7 has been out for a while at this point and there isn't any reason for anyone to be running IE6. It takes action from the community to change things. The community needs to say, "We aren't going to support IE6 because it sucks. Here, run this other browser that works great."

Re:It's good to see some action (1)

AlHunt (982887) | more than 5 years ago | (#26935881)

>IE7 has been out for a while at this point and there isn't any reason for anyone to be running IE6. It

I'll let my win98, P3 box with 128 megs of RAM know right away. IE7 has this silly idea that it won't run on Win98. Ubuntu, similarly, doesn't think much of 128 megs of RAM. RIMM modules being hard to come by, the situation isn't likely to improve any time soon.

I know it's outdated hardware. It does everything else I require of it. I just don't do anything "secure" on it and evidently I won't be surfing any more Norwegian websites. I'll go update my bookmarks.

Will /. Join the War on IE6? (1)

denis-The-menace (471988) | more than 5 years ago | (#26935297)

Title says it all

Maybe we should have a poll?

Re:Will /. Join the War on IE6? (1)

Samschnooks (1415697) | more than 5 years ago | (#26935433)

Only if MS makes a sneak attack against /. in Hawaii. That's will get us into the war. Until then, most Slashdotters are isolationists. We're perfectly happy with Firefox, Opera, etc...

as someone who needs to code for many browsers (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 5 years ago | (#26935301)

good

please drive ie6 usage into the basement, so i don't have to support it anymore. i don't want to have to refer to ActiveXObject, when I want an XMLHttpRequest, ever again, thank you

on a related note, i have a recent server log that indicates someone just visited my site in january with IE3

IE3!?

some sort of masochist?

Re:as someone who needs to code for many browsers (0, Flamebait)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#26935573)

It's better then 6

Re:as someone who needs to code for many browsers (1)

dwye (1127395) | more than 5 years ago | (#26935641)

Maybe a Perl script setting a fake Browser string to avoid later complexity?

Re:as someone who needs to code for many browsers (1)

vux984 (928602) | more than 5 years ago | (#26935809)

IE3!?

Possibly. It came bundled with Win95OSR2, so it might be someone with a really old system that never upgraded anything.

Its more likely someone with a fresh install of Win95 or NT4 for testing purposes somewhere. Probably who is trying download a more modern browser but is having trouble finding one because microsoft.com, windows update, etc pukes on browsers that old.

Come on Microsoft! Windows update should detect the really old browsers and redirect to a PLAIN html page with downloads for NT service backs, IE redistributables, and so on. For that matter firefox.com should also provide very graceful degradation for browsers that old too (which last time I checked, it did not.)

And while I'm dreaming, they should degrade to a low resolution low color page too.

Because if I'm using IE3 or 4 I'm almost always trying to bootstrap a fresh install of a legacy OS... meaning that while I'm trying to upgrade IE3/4 to something more modern I'm also usually stuck at 800x600 or even 640x480 in 16 colors...)

Nothing is more annoying than trying to download video drivers from a site that is designed to be viewed exclusively at 1024x768 in 24bit+ color with flash animations and png transparency, and fancy css/dhtml/ajax... Hello!! I'm here to download video drivers, why is this site designed to assume I already have them with no fallback -- if I show up at nvidia.com or support.dell.com with an antique browser have the decency to take pity on me, and let me bybass your flashy web2.0 hi-color hi-res crap... and take me straight to the damn drivers in plain ugly html 1.0 with old fashioned download links.

So, the Ebay equivalent in finland is (1)

JCCyC (179760) | more than 5 years ago | (#26935307)

norwegian.fi ?

Re:So, the Ebay equivalent in finland is (1)

Dionysus (12737) | more than 5 years ago | (#26935521)

finn basically means find in Norwegian.

Funny... (1)

Max Romantschuk (132276) | more than 5 years ago | (#26935311)

...I've been doing this on my personal site for years, but never thought big commercial ones would do it. Then again, the amount of man hours lost on IE6-related issues just for me personally is huge, and I can't even begin the think globally...

What about Windows 2000? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26935323)

It seems like it would be more prudent to suggest upgrading to Firefox or something considering IE7 isn't even available for Windows 2000.

Yes, a lot of us still use Windows 2000 because it's not encumbered by all the activation bullshit (which makes development difficult because I change my hardware all the time).

Re:What about Windows 2000? (1)

rbrausse (1319883) | more than 5 years ago | (#26935499)

so what?

the "hey, please upgrade"-banner is maybe wrong for your OS but there are many alternatives out there.

if this small info box annoys a win2k user it doesn't needs a rocket scientist to find other alternatives for ie6.

Re:What about Windows 2000? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26935827)

Yeah but mostly the only people still running IE6 are on Windows 2000. It doesn't make sense to tell them to upgrade to IE7.

Funny (1)

dedazo (737510) | more than 5 years ago | (#26935349)

I can read that campaign page with IE6.

But anyway, to echo some of the comments above, good luck with this at the corporate level. People who organize these things are usually completely ignorant about how companies deploy and upgrade the browser.

Having said that, I hope IE6 does die off. It will take a looong time though, unfortunately.

Now think about your dad! (1)

Gizzmonic (412910) | more than 5 years ago | (#26935377)

I use Innernet Explorer to visit Sites like DadSpot. I can't stop thinkin' about your dad's email address!

It's about time (1)

JayTech (935793) | more than 5 years ago | (#26935415)

I'm a web designer, and this comes as good news to me; the sooner IE6 hits low use numbers, the sooner I don't have to waste time coding a zillon hacks to get stuff like PNG support to work. They should be pointing people to Firefox / Chrome / etc though, not IE7.

IE 7 does not install in Windows 2000 (1)

macraig (621737) | more than 5 years ago | (#26935417)

Would they also expect me to upgrade my entire otherwise perfectly functional operating system, just so I can install a different version of Microsoft's mostly useless browser? The better choice is not to use Internet Explorer at all.

Re:IE 7 does not install in Windows 2000 (1)

macraig (621737) | more than 5 years ago | (#26935483)

Addendum: Wouldn't this be yet more fine evidence that Internet Explorer has been and is too closely embedded in the operating system? IE7 won't even install, but Firefox and Opera have no issues at all with Windows 2000 (this is being submitted from FF3). What is it about IE7 that makes it so utterly dependent upon Windows XP?

Not "Throughout Europe" (1)

Gonoff (88518) | more than 5 years ago | (#26935431)

Popular culture throughout the world may struggle against IE in all its forms but we have no hope while ill-educated MBAs wearing expensive suits are in charge.

Here in the UK, for example, our health service has millions of PCs. We are told we must run IE6 because the national programme will not run on anything else.This is tested and found to be incorrect but that is what the Suits command.

Apparently, it will not run on FF although I haven't heard of it tested with IEtabs

Crockford Predicts IE6's Decline (4, Interesting)

weston (16146) | more than 5 years ago | (#26935479)

In his latest blog entry [yahoo.com] , Douglas Crockford postulates that companies using IE6 are probably among the less efficient and competent ones, and therefore among the more likely to be weeded out by the invisible hand as times get tough.

Hope he's right.

Re:Crockford Predicts IE6's Decline (1)

hobo sapiens (893427) | more than 5 years ago | (#26935741)

In the last year, I have worked for two major corporations, who even in this economic climate, are doing pretty well. Both were still stuck on IE6 and still are as far as I know. I generally tend to think Crockford is right on, but I don't think he is here.

There are so many apps targeted toward IE6 (by this, I mean they pass the "hey, it works in IE test".) I don't think IE6 has achieved its dominance my means of stupid corporations, anyhow. I think it has achieved its dominance from stupid web developers. One place I worked at was a very large telco, and they wanted to upgrade to IE7 a few years ago. Know what held things up? Myopic web developers screaming about how it would break their apps. Sad. No, I don't think these corporations will be out of business. But the inept web developers, if there is any justice, will be forced to either upgrade their skills or work at WalMart.

Not as bad as it used to be (1)

amn108 (1231606) | more than 5 years ago | (#26935557)

Ugh, I remember the days when IE6 was all the rage, and how difficult it was to explain to management that the future of web is W3C standards and how important it was to design websites with future in mind, according to standards, and how easy it was (even at the time) to switch to Firefox or Opera. Nobody important enough listened, and we were payed to heed and implement those awful CSS hacks for that horrible, horrible commercial abomination of a web browser that is IE6. I had had so much of it already then, even now I can't bring myself to use any version of it to read web pages. This is Microsoft caring for its users at its 'best'. Talk about reputation. Stubborn as they were, keeping to their bad code, excusing themselves for their corporate stock holders.

But then again, there were the days when we used to slice images in Photoshop and Dreamweaver and cooked up monstrous HTML-spaghetti webpages out of such ingridients as tables, javascript browser detection of the if(useragent.indexOf("MSIE"))... kind, and a really bad mix of inline DHTML events and the worst part of it all - document.write - IEs best tool for the DHTML job. Those websites were so fragile, they would collapse on browser switch twice a day for free, but I remember they were payed for in hundreds of thousands if not millions of norwegian crowns. Yuck. The only thing that matters is the looks - if it looks like it works, it must be working.

OS Support (1)

BrettofSeattle (221294) | more than 5 years ago | (#26935601)

I'm guessing the reason why some many users stick with IE6 is that it is the most up-to-date browser for their version of Windows. IE7 support starts at XP and Firefox 3 starts at Windows 2000. IE6 supports 98, ME, and even NT 4.0.

Re:OS Support (3, Informative)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#26935689)

[IE6] is the most up-to-date browser for their version of Windows.

Most up-to-date IE; but certainly not the most up-to-date browser.
Firefox 2 is slightly newer than IE 7, and it runs on Windows 98.

Opera. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26935739)

Even FireFox struggles to catch up to it.

Microsoft-Free Fridays (4, Informative)

Jantastic (196238) | more than 5 years ago | (#26935891)

This reminds me of Dave Winer's 2001 idea of Microsoft-Free Fridays [scripting.com] from the (2001) days Micrsoft played with the idea of implementing smart tags in IE6. An Apache mod was crafted [slashdot.org] for it.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?