×

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!

Internet Explorer 6 Will Not Die

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the when-undead-is-a-compliment dept.

Internet Explorer 531

caffeinejolt writes "Despite all the hype surrounding new browsers being released pushing the limits of what can be done on the Web, Firefox 3 has only this past month overtaken IE6. Furthermore, if you take the previous report and snap on the Corporate America filter, IE6 rules the roost and shows no signs of leaving anytime soon. Sorry web developers, for those of you who thought the ugly hacks would soon be over, it appears they will linger on for quite a bit — especially if you develop for business sites."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

531 comments

As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... (5, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 4 years ago | (#28181467)

Sorry web developers, for those of you who thought the ugly hacks would soon be over, it appears they will linger on for quite a bit -- especially if you develop for business sites.

Yeah, IE6 is the herpes of the internet. It appears to be gone after heavy medication but if you look under the first layer of skin, there it is.

Oh, and I should point out another untimely mark of IE6: we've all made this hilariously fugly hacks to make crap work in IE6 at some point and those relics of the last millennium are still out there. Which means that browsers still have to support the old rendering ways of IE6. Yes, the doctype [w3.org] will tell the browser what standards to use but I'm betting that the support for rendering HTML 4 is just as annoying as having to patch up old struts 1.x applications and read through nested tables galore in the HTML.

And we all know that 90% of the work out there for developers is maintenance. What a painful irrepressible memory ...

Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... (5, Insightful)

Jurily (900488) | more than 4 years ago | (#28181733)

Oh, and I should point out another untimely mark of IE6: we've all made this hilariously fugly hacks to make crap work in IE6 at some point and those relics of the last millennium are still out there. Which means that browsers still have to support the old rendering ways of IE6.

Or maybe we can just ignore that crap, start designing according to standards, and get this fucking mess finally cleaned up.

In the old days, if you pissed off those with IE6, you lost 90% of your viewers. Now it's totally different. Even IE8 respects standards now.

Let's write off IE6 as obsolete and force those users to upgrade.

Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28181803)

There's always somebody else willing to step in and take the money you turn down by not developing for IE6.

On my personal site however, I'm with you. I'll test for newer browsers. If you're so cheap that you can't download a FREE browser to see the web, fuck ye!

Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... (5, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#28181929)

If you're so cheap that you can't download a FREE browser to see the web, fuck ye!

The excuse: "I can download a web browser for free, but I can't install it because I'm not in the Administrators group."

Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... (3, Funny)

Jurily (900488) | more than 4 years ago | (#28181995)

The excuse: "I can download a web browser for free, but I can't install it because I'm not in the Administrators group."

The answer remains: fuck ye! [portableapps.com]

Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... (4, Informative)

Bashae (1250564) | more than 4 years ago | (#28181859)

I'm a web developer and I'm already doing that. However, people from certain areas of business may have the majority of their users still visiting through IE6. When that happens, your only choices are either to support IE6 or not to work for that client.

Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... (2, Insightful)

alta (1263) | more than 4 years ago | (#28181993)

I agree, so for those of us who can work to kill it off, we should.

We got your back! You keep programming for IE6 because you have to. The rest of us will just use the headers to redirect them to chrome.

Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... (3, Interesting)

gnick (1211984) | more than 4 years ago | (#28181913)

It's not quite that easy.

We're forced to use IE6 at work - Mainly because IT understands the security risks (significant, but understood) and their web-apps are written to support it. Upgrading is too expensive expensive right now - Especially when the suits realize that we'll have to do it again later. Think of the brake-recall equation from Fight Club - The result is tragic, but real-world rather than ideal. So, IE6 endures...

We still have IE6 at work (2, Informative)

Ogive17 (691899) | more than 4 years ago | (#28182009)

And I use to blame IE6 for making /. look like shit but then I go home and use Firefox and /. still looks like shit. It makes me wonder if there's any browser that will load up /. correctly.

Oh yeeeeeeeeah (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28181469)

My boyfriend just shoved my iPhone up my butt after setting it on vibrate and he's calling me now. I'm gonna cum so hard!

Corporate users and backward compatibility (5, Informative)

javacowboy (222023) | more than 4 years ago | (#28181501)

The reason IE 6 won't die is intranet applications that were coded specifically for IE 6 that corporations haven't bothered to make cross-browser. IE 7 (and presumably IE 8) breaks a lot of those sites.

At my current job, we're not allowed to install IE 7 or 8, and don't have the administrator rights to do it. It sucks because as a web developer, I'd like nothing better than to see IE 6 die a quick death.

Re:Corporate users and backward compatibility (3, Interesting)

thedonger (1317951) | more than 4 years ago | (#28181619)

I think there is an overwhelming amount of fear/misinformation among corporate IT and their seeming inability to allow IE6 to die. Fear of the unknown. And maybe a little laziness/love of the status quo.

Two years ago a client of mine (a very large corporation) nearly shit when I set their web site to require 128-bit encryption. Apparently the law of the land forced IE6 and lower encryption for no other reason than it would be way too much work to move 50,000 people to a new standard.

Re:Corporate users and backward compatibility (1)

LoztInSpace (593234) | more than 4 years ago | (#28181805)

- the law of the land
- would be way too much work to move 50,000 people to a new standard

Sounds like a couple of pretty good reasons. What's the issue?

Re:Corporate users and backward compatibility (2, Interesting)

ammit (1485755) | more than 4 years ago | (#28181657)

Ha. The company I work for has just forked out over £900 for a broadband provisioning system. Boy does it SUCK. And the first thing it told me to do??? Use IE6. I have to therefore agree with the above statement. For a girl who loves Chrome despite the fact it can't do half the things I want it to yet... well, just someone kill IE6. IE full stop if possible.

Re:Corporate users and backward compatibility (2, Informative)

notarockstar1979 (1521239) | more than 4 years ago | (#28181705)

This is especially true in the medical field (I'm looking at you Allscripts). You can use IE7, but it breaks the dictation function and a few of the other add-ins.

I hear you... (2, Insightful)

KingSkippus (799657) | more than 4 years ago | (#28181781)

At my current job, we're not allowed to install IE 7 or 8, and don't have the administrator rights to do it.

Ditto. I did, however, install Firefox and use it as my default browser. Some corporate apps don't work (non-standard javascript, mainly), which is why I still have to open some stuff in IE. All of my stuff works in both, some of other people's stuff works in both, and whenever I'm goofing off reading Slashdot and such, I use Firefox.

There is one guy that I work with, though, that insists on "coding to the corporate standard," which in his head means proprietary IE6. He refuses to do things even to the standards that IE6 recognizes that are cross-browser compatible. ("Why do you use that getElementById stuff? It's so much more typing!...") It's like he likes for things to deliberately break in non-IE6 browsers. There's a project underway now to upgrade everyone to Windows 7, and AFAIK, part of that project will be FINALLY ditching IE6. I guess he'll have to go back and recode all of his stuff. Me, I plan on laughing at him when he's working on code that's years old that he should have written right to begin with.

Meanwhile, I have converted so many people at work to Firefox with AdBlock Plus, it's funny. I show them something as simple as CNN on the "corporate standard" browser, then the same page in Firefox. Look ma, no annoyances! Invariably, that's followed by, "Wow, how do I get that? I'm going to use it at home!" I've even converted a few over to using as the default browser on their work machines, which technically, we're not supposed to be doing. Sometimes, they ask me why a corporate application doesn't work. I tell them, "Guess who wrote that one..."

Re:Corporate users and backward compatibility (2, Interesting)

casals (885017) | more than 4 years ago | (#28181941)

IE 7 (and presumably IE 8) breaks a lot of those sites.

On that line we have the infamous "XML Islands" - widely used on BI reports (see "Financial"), giving plain interface operators a harsh time when generating customer reports. Seen a lot of companies going to IE7 and gaining bonus work hours for that. Now, the really interesting thing is the software vendors' default answer to that... basically they just don't care, since the upgrade ratio among their customers is not that great. Lots of these vendors on the next new-millenium-tech-congress. Fancy powerpoint presentations and all. Flamethrowers not allowed, though.

Re:Corporate users and backward compatibility (2, Funny)

Smooth and Shiny (1097089) | more than 4 years ago | (#28181975)

It sucks because as a web developer, I'd like nothing better than to see IE 6 die a quick death.

Instead, it's dying a slow and painful death. Unfortunately, it is YOU experiencing the painful part of it.

/. - are you listening? (4, Funny)

dazedNconfuzed (154242) | more than 4 years ago | (#28181509)

Pay attention to your own news site, CmdrTaco!
Though this is a site for nerds, that doesn't mean that everyone has abandoned IE, or is at least running the latest incarnation thereof. Some of us, for various reasons, are pretty much stuck with using IE6 for browsing /. and are faced with a pile of mis-rendered & incompatible pages (I'm thinking the user account page in particular). We appreciate having /. optimized for FireFox, but would also like such consideration for the more-used IE6 browser.

Re:/. - are you listening? (5, Insightful)

teg (97890) | more than 4 years ago | (#28181651)

f. Some of us, for various reasons, are pretty much stuck with using IE6 for browsing /. and are faced with a pile of mis-rendered & incompatible pages

Slashdot doesn't render properly in Safari 4 or Firefox 3.5 beta4 either - the comment titles and scores aren't displayed anymore

Re:/. - are you listening? (2, Informative)

awitod (453754) | more than 4 years ago | (#28181701)

It doesn't render correctly with Chrome either.

Re:/. - are you listening? (5, Insightful)

miceuz (754811) | more than 4 years ago | (#28181851)

doesn't slashdot have any bug reporting tools for us to use?

i doubt CmdrTaco is reading anything below +5 insightful ;)

Re:/. - are you listening? (1)

darkvad0r (1331303) | more than 4 years ago | (#28181773)

Slashdot doesn't render properly in Safari 4 or Firefox 3.5 beta4 either - the comment titles and scores aren't displayed anymore

It renders properly here (ubuntu 9.04, ff 3.5b4 from mozilla's site, not from ppa)

Bull (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28181785)

First of all, it's Firefox, not "FireFox". Do you just assume it's spelled that way because you don't care enough to check? Second, there are portable versions of many real browsers, such as Firefox Portable [portableapps.com]. It does not require administrative privileges to run, so you can use it any where, even at work. So, no more excuses for browsing Slashdot with IE6. Got it?

Re:Bull (1)

Explodicle (818405) | more than 4 years ago | (#28182053)

I just downloaded and installed Firefox portable but couldn't access any outside sites. I even copied my IE6 user agent string and pasted it into general.useragent.extra.firefox, still no luck. Our IT department must REALLY want me to use IE6!

Re:/. - are you listening? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28181831)

Pay ...Some of us...are faced with a pile of mis-rendered & incompatible pages (I'm thinking the user account page in particular). We appreciate having /. optimized for FireFox, but would also like such consideration for the more-used IE6 browser.

It doesn't work properly in Firefox, either, especially when browsing with NoScript.

Even with NoScript off, some messages are permanently "Hidden". If those posts are so bad, why not just delete them, Malda?

Re:/. - are you listening? (1)

Lonewolf666 (259450) | more than 4 years ago | (#28181841)

Some of us, for various reasons, are pretty much stuck with using IE6 for browsing /. and are faced with a pile of mis-rendered & incompatible pages

Browsing from work I guess, there cannot be many /. readers who don't have at least one alternative browser on their private machine ;-)

We appreciate having /. optimized for FireFox, but would also like such consideration for the more-used IE6 browser.

No longer more used. According to http://marketshare.hitslink.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qprid=2 [hitslink.com], Firefox 3.0 overtook IE6 in February of this year.

Re:/. - are you listening? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28181853)

I don't see people donating to the 'program for broken-ass old browsers' fund. If that happens, maybe some free resource like ./ would consider that. If you dislike seeing your pages rendered wrong in one browser, then you should be able to figure a way around the 'various reasons' to be 'stuck' using IE6 (Being at work with strict IT policies doesn't count, read slashdot from home if that's the case ;)

Re:/. - are you listening? (1)

Ed_Pinkley (881113) | more than 4 years ago | (#28182037)

FYI, it doesn't work perfectly in IE7 either. Luckily, it is the idle page that messes up most. :)

Re:/. - are you listening? (1)

Kozz (7764) | more than 4 years ago | (#28182063)

OK, let me get this straight... you surf Slashdot with a browser that's crappy (the "crappiest"?) and outdated, that requires all kinds of hacks and get sub-par results... so you want CmdrTaco to lead new development to accommodate you?

I won't claim that Slashdot is written with all HTML standards in mind (we all know different), but just because a site doesn't employ IE6-specific hacks doesn't mean it's "optimized for FireFox[sic]".

I think most people here would argue that we hope the pain you are experiencing (both on /. and elsewhere) is the very reason why you and so many others will start using a modern browser.

It's up to you! (2, Insightful)

Mad Merlin (837387) | more than 4 years ago | (#28181511)

Yes, you web developers. You need to explicitly stop supporting IE6. Give IE6 users a strong warning that IE6 is completely unsupported and not recommended for use, much like Game! [wittyrpg.com] has since about 2005.

Stop writing ugly hacks for IE6.... (3, Insightful)

xgr3gx (1068984) | more than 4 years ago | (#28181531)

And IE6 will go away quickly.
Stop doing the hacks, and let IE6 render them ugly and broken, while compliant browsers will render them correctly.

Re:Stop writing ugly hacks for IE6.... (5, Insightful)

jDeepbeep (913892) | more than 4 years ago | (#28181671)

Stop doing the hacks, and let IE6 render them ugly and broken, while compliant browsers will render them correctly.

Consider that many users will not realize it is their browser. They will simply decide your site is screwed up, and leave promptly. This is not a mistake to be eager to make in many scenarios.

Re:Stop writing ugly hacks for IE6.... (1)

Explodicle (818405) | more than 4 years ago | (#28182119)

That is why many websites detect and warn the user that yes, it is their browser that is broken.

Re:Stop writing ugly hacks for IE6.... (5, Insightful)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 4 years ago | (#28181683)

And scare away 50% of potential consumers because of a "broken website" ?

Re:Stop writing ugly hacks for IE6.... (1)

harryandthehenderson (1559721) | more than 4 years ago | (#28181743)

And scare away 50% of potential consumers because of a "broken website" ?

How would you scare away 50% of potential customers when IE6 holds just under 20% marketshare?

Re:Stop writing ugly hacks for IE6.... (1)

Scragglykat (1185337) | more than 4 years ago | (#28181911)

Depends on who your clients are I guess... If you are marketing computer upgrades or even new computers... you can only assume that your target audience is running old hardware and software.

Re:Stop writing ugly hacks for IE6.... (1)

ParanoiaBOTS (903635) | more than 4 years ago | (#28182023)

Just because it holds 20% marketshare doesn't mean it doesn't account for a large portion of traffic. Let me break this out for you based on my companies statistics (collected with omniture): 52% IE6 27% IE7 19% Firefox 2% Chrome, Safari, other

Re:Stop writing ugly hacks for IE6.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28181815)

exactly! A startup I used to work for made the decision to not support IE6, something about PNGs. Anyway, the startup flopped big and a major reason was lack of support for IE6. Love it or hate it, IE6 is used by a lot of people, the kind that actually do click on ads and generate revenue for ad supported sites.

Re:Stop writing ugly hacks for IE6.... (4, Insightful)

thedonger (1317951) | more than 4 years ago | (#28181709)

Stop doing the hacks, and let IE6 render them ugly and broken...

A semantically-coded site should render acceptably, unless you are using tons of nested DIVs and crazy CSS/image methods to make a site act like something it wasn't meant to be.

Part of the problem is unrealistic expectations of users and overzealous developers. Are your rounded corners in IE worth non-semantic, difficult to maintain mark up, with poor cross-browser and legacy-browser support?

Re:Stop writing ugly hacks for IE6.... (1)

MemoryDragon (544441) | more than 4 years ago | (#28182083)

Developers are the weakest link on the chain, in my experience it is like that.
Customer wants latest flashy stuff, but still must run on ie6, developer says without me,
customer says, ok then someone else will do it.
If you are in a corporation, developer says I wont do it, pointy haired boss gives a smack on the head!

I have to meet one developer who really still wants to support IE6. At least over here in Europe the situation is way better than in the US, most private users have at least upgraded to IE7, Firefox has become the dominant browsers. Which leaves mostly the corporations on IE6!

Re:Stop writing ugly hacks for IE6.... (3, Insightful)

iamdrscience (541136) | more than 4 years ago | (#28181843)

Stop writing ugly hacks for IE6.... And IE6 will go away quickly.

...and so will your job.

It doesn't matter that getting rid of IE6 is a good idea and this is a good ay to do it. If your job is to write websites for a company and your pages are ugly/unnavigatable/non-functioning for 40% of that companies customers, then you are not doing your job.

Re:Stop writing ugly hacks for IE6.... (1)

miceuz (754811) | more than 4 years ago | (#28181903)

Tried to do this just 2 months ago and the client (a responsible techie from government agency) agreed at first, but 1 month later we had to add iehacks.css as too many agency dinosaurs use ie6...

Not just Corporate America (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28181533)

I work for the United States government. We ordered hundreds of thousands of brand new HP computers last year, with Windows Vista pre-installed. Except our intranet relies on Internet Explorer 6 to function, so they were all wiped and had a Windows XP SP2 image installed. I doubt we'll be upgrading anytime soon, as that would pretty much require a complete rewrite of our entire intranet.

Re:Not just Corporate America (1)

Lonewolf666 (259450) | more than 4 years ago | (#28181967)

Only SP2?
Then I hope you have a very good firewall. And an IT support that took the time to install all the security-critical patches since SP2 for the XP2 image.

in-house apps (5, Informative)

Lord Ender (156273) | more than 4 years ago | (#28181535)

IT departments have no budgets right now. Testing all the in-house apps with IE8 would cost money. Even telling people to press the "render in IE6 mode" button would be quite expensive in terms of calls. So they're just blocking the update.

Re:in-house apps (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28182081)

Just a quick correction: IE8 Compatability mode renders using the IE7 engine.

Re:in-house apps (4, Insightful)

wolrahnaes (632574) | more than 4 years ago | (#28182141)

They don't even have to do that, IE8 has a list of incompatible sites which can have updates forced to it through AD. Corporate IT puts the entire intranet zone in that list, pushes it out, and magic, everyone can use IE8 and have it render their broken-ass webpages designed by retarded fucksticks (yes I do have major anger issues against anyone building with IE6 as a target). Individual apps can be checked out by IT and/or adventurous users one by one and moved off the list if it works in IE8 mode.

I'm a believer in standards compliance with graceful failure. Write it for proper browsers, then do the absolute bare minimum to make it usable in the shitholes of the internet. If you can, place a notification on those pages explaining their experience is not optimal due to them or their IT department not clicking the goddamn update button. They don't get the nifty stuff, but they get a working site and encouragement to solve the problem thus making the internet better for the rest of us.

Make em change (1)

SpinningCone (1278698) | more than 4 years ago | (#28181537)

Granted most of the web stuff i do isn't critical but lately if its broken in IE6 i don't fix it, actually since you can't parallel install IE i only check 7 on my host and 8 on my VM so i don't even check 6 anymore.

Re:Make em change (1)

Aethedor (973725) | more than 4 years ago | (#28181659)

[quote]since you can't parallel install IE[/quote] Like Obama said: [url=http://tredosoft.com/Multiple_IE]yes we can[/url].

Lets paraphrase (1)

not already in use (972294) | more than 4 years ago | (#28181549)

The summary may be technically accurate, but the point is off. IE6 is dying, quickly. If you happen to develop for it in a corporate context, it really isn't that bad because you are targeting IE6, and *only* IE6. What really hurts is developing for modern browsers, and then having to retrofit IE6, which we can safely say is a thing of the past.

Developers need to grow a set... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28181559)

I built a website for my wedding which will redirect you to a page that tells you to get a new browser if you're using IE6. I provide links to Firefox, IE8, Chrome, Safari, and Opera. We need more people to do this with their sites. I understand it's not realistic for corporate sites, but for personal use sites it can be done. I checked the site statistics for my site and IE6 went from 15% of the hits in April to 0% in May.

Re:Developers need to grow a set... (5, Insightful)

ledow (319597) | more than 4 years ago | (#28181745)

"I checked the site statistics for my site and IE6 went from 15% of the hits in April to 0% in May."

Well, duh, because no sod can see anything in IE6 - visit once and never come back again.

This is the sort of crap that Opera has thrown at it - email a complaint to MSN, the BBC, any large website about parts not working in Opera (although they all do now), and you only ever got "nobody uses Opera to visit us"... OF COURSE NOT! BECAUSE IT DOESN'T BLOODY WORK!

It's like saying "Since we started banning unhappy people, our store recorded that 100% of customers in the store were happy with us!"

Just because it has users... (3, Insightful)

mini me (132455) | more than 4 years ago | (#28181583)

Just because it has users doesn't mean that you have to support it. Internet Explorer quickly rose in popularity in the first place because web developers blatantly stopped supporting Netscape, even though it had the majority market share at the time.

Futhermore, the thing to realize about IE6 users is that they do not care about the web. They don't care that your website has pixel-perfect accuracy, for instance. So why waste your time optimizing your website for their benefit? The natural degradation designed into the HTML specifications still allows them to access the content in a limited fashion. That is all that they want. If they wanted to see more, they wouldn't use IE6.

Re:Just because it has users... (1)

krou (1027572) | more than 4 years ago | (#28181783)

Perhaps because 19% of all internet users translates into a huge whack of prospective clients. In other words, money. And for those of us designing websites for businesses that require a broad audience, loosing a potential 1/5th of your audience is simply stupid. (And it's worth pointing out that some of the numbers I see on our sites are higher than 20%, and are closer to 25%).

I want IE6 to go away as much as anyone else, but the reality is that businesses will keep supporting it in an effort not to alienate prospective customers.

Re:Just because it has users... (1)

MemoryDragon (544441) | more than 4 years ago | (#28182097)

Natural degredation is what i use mostly nowadays, but the problem lies somewhere else, the customers often still demand pixel perfect accuracy and the person having the money basically is always right, even if he is not!

Normal people don't upgrade computers every day (1, Insightful)

DutchUncle (826473) | more than 4 years ago | (#28181587)

... any more than they expect to upgrade their car or anything else. The computer came with stuff, and normal people think the stuff is the computer and the computer is the stuff and that's about it. Internet services reinforce this - it's not even a computer system with a browser (and other utilities) any more, it's a browser-machine that handles different sites. Even Firefox proponents talk about "the browser becoming the OS".

Normal people just *use* their computers, and they don't want any more complexity than "wheel - gas - brake" in the car.

Re:Normal people don't upgrade computers every day (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28181801)

Yes, but if we are talking about home, not corporate users, they will probably have Windows Update on standard settings and will probably have IE 7 or 8 installed and be wondering what happened to the menu bar on "the Internet".

Re:Normal people don't upgrade computers every day (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28181837)

Cars have more complexity than "wheel - gas - break". If you have any sense you get them serviced, change the tyres, top up various fluids and so on and so forth. Either you do it or you pay someone to do it for you. Not moving on from IE6 is akin to owning a car for 8 years and never changing the oil.

It's time to start breaking IE6 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28181599)

No more hacks, no more workarounds. If it works, great, if not, too bad. We gave up on Netscape 4, and it's time to give up on IE6.

Ignorance is another reason for IE6's longevity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28181627)

There are many "web apps" that supposedly don't support anything but IE6. But work fine in other web browsers. I have IE6, FF3, Chrome and Safari on my laptop here at work (I'm a web dev) and have tested many of our supposedly IE only legacy web apps. Other than a problem I found with the web server (IIS) not having mime types set correctly, all those web apps worked fine.

Stop support (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28181641)

The only way to kill IE6 is to stop supporting it and clearly stating "If you can't see this page properly please update your browser".

Can't; not root. (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#28181857)

The only way to kill IE6 is to stop supporting it and clearly stating "If you can't see this page properly please update your browser".

The excuse: "It's not my browser; it's the administrator's browser. How do I update another user's browser?"

Hasten the End (1)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 4 years ago | (#28181643)

The end will come when developers simply decide it's not worth jumping through hoops for an antiquated browser and IT departments in corporate America are flooded with calls of "this site won't work - what's wrong with my browser" thereby forcing IT departments to get with the program and update the browsers on their networks. Until then, why should an IT department invest any time and effort into updating the browsers on their systems? The kicker is all that it will take is one major website to take the bold step forward but the question is who has the balls to be first?

Re:Hasten the End (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28181761)

Except that it wouldn't be "What's wrong with my browser?" The question would be "What's wrong with this site? What isn't it displaying correctly?"

Businesses (4, Interesting)

Andy Dodd (701) | more than 4 years ago | (#28181667)

Businesses often stay about one version behind on Microsoft products, or in some cases about a half cycle behind. They wait for a given MS product to get service packed out the wazoo before deploying it.

For example, my employer is just starting to roll out Office 2007 very slowly, and based on my experiences and many other reports, this is typical at most businesses.

Similarly, they are just rolling out IE7 now, when IE8 just came out.

So it's not surprising that IE6 still has a major deployment base considering that IE8 just came out and that many companies stay about one revision behind.

i have a complex strategy for dealing with ie6 (4, Funny)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#28181707)


if(window.XMLHttpRequest){ //proceed as normal
        }
else
        {
        if(window.ActiveXObject){
                document.write "Error 404 Page Not Found"
                }
        }

i haven't had any problems with ie6 since i implemented this holistic approach

I wonder (4, Insightful)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 4 years ago | (#28181715)

Old crap tends to stay around, until something kills it.

What if someone develops a html 5 webapp, using a speedy browser as a base that becomes a killer must have app? Then MS will have no choice or be known as the OS vendor whose browser ain't good enough.

MS isn't trying to limit IE for nothing, it hopes that nobody dares create a webapp that simply doesn't work under IE. Google has shown with Chrome they are thinking of pushing the envelope, wonder what they got in the pipeline that needs Chrome.

IE6 will die when using it hurts the user. Personally, for private web-apps, ie ALL ie is dead. It is amazing what you can make a webapp do when IE support is dropped.

Re:I wonder (1)

schmidt349 (690948) | more than 4 years ago | (#28181991)

Actually, if that happens Microsoft will create a barely functional knock-off, load it down with ActiveX and whatever other proprietary horse hockey they have right now, and bundle it into Windows 7, then shriek that it's an integral part of the operating system now and they couldn't possibly remove it.

Re:I wonder (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28182117)

>MS isn't trying to limit IE for nothing, it hopes that nobody dares create a webapp that simply doesn't work under IE. Google has shown with Chrome they are thinking of pushing the envelope, wonder what they got in the pipeline that needs Chrome.

Wave

IE 6 will never die. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28181725)

That is not dead which can eternal lie. And with strange aeons even death may die.

Stop the artificial life support (4, Interesting)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 4 years ago | (#28181789)

A company I work for dropped support for IE6 (not only but also because of my pressure) about a year ago. The impact was minimal. People who came to their page with an IE6 or earlier were asked to update, and they did. According to the logs, people who arrived at the page with an IE6 soon came back with IE7/8 or other browsers.

Why?

So far, it seems people don't frankly care what browser they're using. They're just using what they have. And they're usually quite willing to update to something "new and improved", they just don't know that it exists. Now, the average user that visits this client's page isn't too computer savvy (the company is in the adult education sector, the usual visitor of the page wants to be educated), and from the questionary I attached to the booking process nobody was really "annoyed" that they were asked to update. Many were actually happy to learn something new and "better" is out there for them.

So don't be shy to tell your visitors "hey, there's some new browser out, you might wanna use it for a better browsing experience". People like it.

Conclusion? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28181813)

All the more reason to stop using browser-dependent "features" and write rigidly standards compliant html, I say. And tone down the CSS and JS freakery; it's "content", not "user experience" (which is mostly "frustration" anyway), you monkeys.

Don't believe me? Do you use google for the way its output looks or for the links it gives you? Well?

HTML compliance of Acid2 and Acid3 (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#28182099)

All the more reason to stop using browser-dependent "features" and write rigidly standards compliant html, I say.

Apart from those features explicitly designed to test a browser's error handling, Acid2 and Acid3 are intended to be "rigidly standards compliant html". And look how Internet Explorer pukes on them.

And tone down the CSS and JS freakery; it's "content", not "user experience" (which is mostly "frustration" anyway), you monkeys.

But what do you call "freakery"? Is the use of JavaScript in things like Gmail "freakery"?

IE7 & IE8's topbar sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28181833)

If IE's newer versions let you customize the topbar like you can with IE6, I'd gladly switch my work computer over. When you force a crappier UI (like Vista), many users will stick with the better, older version.

It's called a "toolbar" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28181981)

"Topbar"? Did you make that up yourself or pick it up from another uninformed person? The term is "toolbar". IE itself uses that term when you customize it. If you want something customizable, use Firefox. No one is telling you to use IE7/8. They're just saying that it's idiotic to use IE6, and that, by doing so, you are holding back the Web. Stop it!

Government Workplaces (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28181873)

Yes Canadian government workplaces still use IE6 because IE7 and FF2/3 are still being approved In Ottawa.
Also the Zune HD will feature a Variation of IE6 Mobile so we have a long road ahead as web developers.

Netscape 4 again (4, Insightful)

Tridus (79566) | more than 4 years ago | (#28181889)

The last time something like this happened, it was everybody wishing Netscape 4 would die. But it kept shambling across the Internet like a zombie for years.

At this point, IE6 will die when the computers still using it get replaced.

corporate intranet sites and IE 6 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28181891)

I build and maintain a site which is used almost entirely by subscribers from large asset management firms. Looking at our stats IE accounts for 54% of our traffic with 46% of that from IE6. Firefox manages 39% with 34% from Firefox 3. Nice to see Firefox doing so well but depressing how wildly used IE6 still is.

The trouble is most corporate intranet sites are so badly written that they don't render correctly on anything other than IE6 and most companies don't see the point in fixing them. Things like MS Sharepoint, which has crap support for Firefox, donâ(TM)t exactly help.

IE6.... =\ (1)

kagaku (774787) | more than 4 years ago | (#28181915)

We unfortunately use IE6 exclusively here at my office/entire corporation. IE7 is being trial (and we're 'not allowed' but not blocked from installing IE7 or IE8) but 99% of the corporate populace is running IE6. It made things interesting when I inherited an internal app that's "developed" using oracle application express. Giving the entire app an overhaul and trying to integrate stuff such as jquery to makes things a bit more user friendly was quite a challenge when the browser that everyone uses keeps throwing up rendering errors for what seem to be almost no reason. Eventually I said screw it and developed the entire site twice; using browser sniffing to determine what version to send out. The work wasn't justified at the time (only myself and a few others use alternative browsers), but when the company eventually does move to IE7/8 this app will at least be compatible with newer versions. Not only that, but it'll exhibit features that simply aren't available under IE6.

Or you can simply drop compatibility (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28181921)

Background: Work with government/state/private business so all walks of default browsers

All it takes is to stop catering to the people who use it. With a div-based layout, sites are frequently very compatible with IE6 with no additional work. But when you start intentionally making concessions, you make an assumption of equal functionality amongst all browsers. When that happens, not only does Firefox and other third party browsers suffer, but IE7 and IE8 as well.

Without a rational business need to upgrade, many institutions won't. When, as a web developer, you choose to provide IE6 compatibility, you help remove that business requirement. But when you forgo it, it helps to force their hand.

It's really not the stodgy network and server admins that are holding us back, it's this idea we have to stay compatible. IE 4, 5, 5.5 and most recently, Netscape 4 died without this kind of issue. No one worries about making those compatible. It was time two years ago to let IE6 fall into planned obsolesce.

IE6 actually gaining (1)

GlobalEcho (26240) | more than 4 years ago | (#28181937)

I work for a huge corporation. Since the sysadmins have nothing better to do, they just this month automated a company-wide process of deleting Firefox from all workstations, forcing users to go to IE6 (with alternate browsers available only for web developers)!

I was gobsmacked.

Not if we go on strike (1)

Russ Nelson (33911) | more than 4 years ago | (#28181987)

IE6 WILL die if enough web developers go on strike and simply stop supporting it. The people running IE6 can make their problem go away one of two ways: pressure each and every website which says "IE6? Go away." Or they can do one thing: upgrade their web browser or install FF. One thing with instant guaranteed success, or many things with likely failure?

LazyCommenter (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28181997)

Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children!?!

I hate it too but... (1)

gzipped_tar (1151931) | more than 4 years ago | (#28181999)

I recently had to submit my thesis to the college library under IE6 + WINE. The library's file submission web-app didn't work with any other browser except IE, and IE6 was well supported under WINE. I hated it but I had to do it anyway...

Already died (1)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 4 years ago | (#28182073)

the right term to name its current status is zombie, as most of the machines its run on.

Developers should charge more for IE6 support (5, Interesting)

atfrase (879806) | more than 4 years ago | (#28182101)

There seems like a pretty clear free-market solution to this problem: developing sites that support IE6, with all the requisite hacks and workarounds, is harder. It takes longer, and should cost more. If developers just attach an appropriate premium to this extra work, businesses start having a financial incentive to stop demanding it.

"Well boss, I got a quote for that intranet app we need developed, and it turns out our IE6 requirement adds 35% to the total cost." "Hrm.. and what's your estimate of the cost of migrating?" "Migrating would cost us more than the 35% on this one project. But looking a year or two out, paying that kind of premium on all future development contracts, switching is way cheaper, and will probably reduce IT expenses for security issues to boot." "Right. Start working on that."

IE6 will not die (true), FF overtakes IE (false). (3, Informative)

Khopesh (112447) | more than 4 years ago | (#28182109)

This is misrepresentative and a sign of false hope; IE has lost no ground to FF according to that chart:

IE7 + IE6 + IE8 = 43.51 + 18.23 + 8.26 = 70.0% share
FF3 + FF2 + FF1 = 18.58 + 1.45 + 0.17 = 20.2% share

This is unchanged from the average (71.6% v 19.84%) or the oldest data in Dec '08 (70.8% v 20.8%).

There is no growth here, just the obvious resistance to change in the corporate world, which will be more reflected in Windows (IE6) than anything else.

.

We'll only really see the demise if IE6 when the corporate world fully adopts the next OS, which would be Windows 7, a year or three after its first service pack (assuming MS plays it smart). That means we're stuck with IE6 for at least another 2-3 years.

(Yes, I know that a large percentage of corporate deployments are still on Windows 2000. If they're moving to XP but aren't already too far along, it will hopefully be with IE7 or IE8, or even something else entirely.)

Bundled with XP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28182115)

Microsoft should do the right thing and force a compulsory upgrade to IE7/8 for every copy of XP. The only reason this thing won't die is that it comes bundled with XP and people don't know any alternatives exist.

Windows 2000 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28182133)

I would love to upgrade to IE7 or IE8 but unfortunatly mircosoft decided Windows 2000 wasn't worthy.

Firefox is out of the question as our intranet uses ActiveX (our intranet works perfectly Firefox apart from this small problem)

IE6 exists because of illegal Windows XP copies (5, Insightful)

AtomicInternet (1567987) | more than 4 years ago | (#28182139)

Think about this: if you have a legit copy of Windows XP you're HARASSED to upgrade to the latest version. If you have an illegal copy, you're either smart enough to ignore the harassment, or you constantly fail the required product validation before upgrading.

I think this proliferation of IE6 is because it was the last upgrade that didn't require validation. It lives on through piracy, which also promotes insecure computers that don't have the latest updates.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...