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!

MS — Dropping IE6 Support "Not an Option"

kdawson posted about 5 years ago | from the die-already dept.

Internet Explorer 374

An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft wants to see IE6 gone as much as anyone else, but the company isn't going to make the decision for its users anytime soon. The software giant has been pushing IE6 and IE7 users to move to IE8 ever since it arrived in March 2009, but it's still up to the user to make the final decision to upgrade: 'The engineering point of view on IE6 starts as an operating systems supplier. Dropping support for IE6 is not an option because we committed to supporting the IE included with Windows for the lifespan of the product. We keep our commitments. Many people expect what they originally got with their operating system to keep working whatever release cadence particular subsystems have. As engineers, we want people to upgrade to the latest version. We make it as easy as possible for them to upgrade. Ultimately, the choice to upgrade belongs to the person responsible for the PC.'" Of course some big Web sites aren't waiting for Microsoft. Reader Yamir writes, "Google's Orkut, a social networking service popular in Brazil and India, has started warning IE6 users that the browser will no longer be supported. Just last month, YouTube started showing a similar message."

cancel ×

374 comments

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

Hardly (1, Troll)

deadkennedy (1594629) | about 5 years ago | (#29028159)

Supporting it is not an option.

Re:Hardly (1, Interesting)

ILuvRamen (1026668) | about 5 years ago | (#29028315)

actually they did "support" it...they dumped it and released IE7 hehehe. Was there really any other option? I usually consider "not supporting" like a product line that was completely discontinued like...umm...is Netscape still around? IE7 is sort of an update to IE6 in the same way that XP was an update to ME. You can literally buy an upgrade version of XP for windows ME that will alter it into XP so you could consider that the final fix-all support for ME. So saying they "discontinued support" for ME isn't exactly true. If they just made ME and then stopped and had no upgraded version of the product line, then it'd be discontinued support.

Re:Hardly (1)

Brian Gordon (987471) | about 5 years ago | (#29028421)

XP and ME are separate products, with separate support lifecycles.

Re:Hardly (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29028615)

IE 6 and IE7 (and IE8) are separate products, with separate support lifecycles.

Re:Hardly (2, Insightful)

lukas84 (912874) | about 5 years ago | (#29028743)

Not exactly. IE6 is part of Windows XP. If XP is supported, so is IE6. That's basically what TFA says.

And yeah, i really wish XP will have dignified death, not like NT4 - which is still around :(

Re:Hardly (2, Insightful)

Ngarrang (1023425) | about 5 years ago | (#29028925)

Not exactly. IE6 is part of Windows XP. If XP is supported, so is IE6. That's basically what TFA says.

And yeah, i really wish XP will have dignified death, not like NT4 - which is still around :(

What's wrong with NT4? By the time of SP6a, it was a mature, stable OS. The only reason my former company moved away from NT was due to lack of drivers for newer PCs. The OS was stable and the number of system crashes per month for 250 system was less than 5. We kept track to remind people of how bad the Macs were that we replaced, which was a MUCH higher number. This was back in the late 1990's.

And now, XP is a mature, stable OS worth keeping around. It will run on tiny video cards, relatively slow processors and enjoys a level of driver support that surpasses NT4 by a wide margin.

Vista is heralded as the next great OS, and turned out to be ME with an new interface.

Windows 7 is just a redress of the Vista kernal and with a few new tricks added.

I will stick with XP for another few years, thank you very much. I prefer stable and predictable over cutting-edge. Call it an economically-wise business decision...uptime = people working.

Re:Hardly (1)

davester666 (731373) | about 5 years ago | (#29028919)

Well, you can think of the problem in reverse. Microsoft has committed to supporting IE 6 for X amount of time. But, what does 'support' mean?

Does it have to mean what Microsoft wants you to think it must mean, namely that it has to render pages largely the same as it did when it first shipped. They could just as well push out a patch giving it IE 8 rendering.

Now, lots of businesses might have problems with it (if they used MS tools for building internal web sites, which were created to MSHTML standards), but probably few consumers would.

It's a problem for everybody making web sites, because just making it a problem for internal IT groups is too easily quantified into an actual dollar value. The time everybody has to spend either rejecting IE 6 or working around it's issues has no dollar cost associated with it.

Re:Hardly (4, Insightful)

DrLang21 (900992) | about 5 years ago | (#29028433)

I don't understand why dropping support would mean that IE 6 stops working. IE 6 will continue to work just as it always has unless Microsoft intentionally cripples it. Just because the Internet no longer supports IE 6 does not mean that IE 6 does not work.

Re:Hardly (0)

Z00L00K (682162) | about 5 years ago | (#29028541)

Only expect that there are some quirks that shows up on some web pages.

I know that pages that validates on W3C can get some quirks to show in IE6, but nothing serious. What I have seen is a scrollbar that appears for no reason.

Re:Hardly (2, Insightful)

DrLang21 (900992) | about 5 years ago | (#29028817)

That's the point. IE 6 was designed to work with a specific set of web interfaces that Microsoft has limited control over. If websites stop using those interfaces, then all bets are off. IE 6 still works. It just doesn't work with modern standards that it was never designed to work with.

Re:Hardly (5, Informative)

natehoy (1608657) | about 5 years ago | (#29028801)

Right, but any patches would not affect IE6 once IE6 drops off support. When MS drops support on a product, that means you don't get patches for even discovered and documented bugs.

Corporations would scream blue bloody murder.

The same corporations who cannot upgrade from IE6 because so many software vendors made web-enabled applications using then-current Microsoft tools that specifically took advantage of features in IE6 that are not carried forward to IE7 or IE8. Companies purchased these packages because they were Web-enabled, and therefore should be less sensitive to the version of the operating system that the client PCs ran on. Except that software created by Microsoft toolkits back in the early 2000s were NOT "Web Enabled", they were "Microsoft Internet Explorer 6.0 Enabled".

So the companies now have to look forward to an upgrade to massively important and multi-user software packages like Siebel, because only the newer versions can run on a newer browser. But the newer version is not an in-place upgrade because packages like that tend to be integrated to other systems, not standalone apps. So you have companies running Windows 2000 desktops and IE6 because an upgrade to either XP or IE7+ will shatter compatibility.

Our company runs IE6 (but at least we are on XP SP2). If you try to use Firefox on the Intranet, a lot of bits don't work, and that is the primary reason we're told the company isn't going IE7 or better anytime soon. We have a massive Intranet that was all built using Microsoft tools, and upgrading it would be a monumental task.

Re:Hardly (4, Informative)

DrLang21 (900992) | about 5 years ago | (#29028917)

As someone else mentioned, if you're still running Windows 2000 desktops, your support ends officially in 7/13/2010 [microsoft.com] if you are paying for extended support.

If your company is not already looking at what needs fixed to upgrade from IE6 and at least defining a plan of action complete with cost estimates, they are going to get screwed.

Re:Hardly (3, Interesting)

natehoy (1608657) | about 5 years ago | (#29029079)

Fortunately, at my current company, it's "only" the Intranet. Most of the important stuff happens on mainframe and midrange machines, and the greenscreen telnet apps really don't care what OS they run on. (grin)

But I did work for a large multinational when they were implementing Siebel, and the Siebel guys all had to get their brand-new laptops reloaded with Windows 2000 because Siebel "broke" in XP, even on XP running IE6. This was 4 years ago, in 2005.

I don't know if Siebel got their issues with XP and/or more current browsers worked out, but a lot of businesses probably don't want to pay for an upgrade on that scale even if it is an in-place upgrade.

Re:Hardly (1)

Eirenarch (1099517) | about 5 years ago | (#29028815)

Well support also means security patches. It means that updates to other parts of the system will not break IE. Like installing XP SP3 will not force you to install IE8 and Windows Update will work with IE6. If you don't consider this support just consider IE6 unsupported since IE7 was released.

Re:Hardly (1, Interesting)

JonShuler (106808) | about 5 years ago | (#29028699)

Maybe if it was not part of the "OS", they would not have this problem...

A user's perspective (5, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 5 years ago | (#29028169)

I don't want to upgrade from IE6 for one very simple reason: I think the interfaces of the later IE versions suck donkey balls.

Re:A user's perspective (0, Flamebait)

RailGunner (554645) | about 5 years ago | (#29028191)

I don't want to upgrade from IE6 for one very simple reason: I think the interfaces of the later IE versions suck donkey balls.

Just the later ones?

Try Firefox - you can customize just about every aspect of the UI.

Re:A user's perspective (0, Troll)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 5 years ago | (#29028387)

Just the later ones?

Okay, point made -- But it's a level of suck I can tolerate. The later versions leave me wondering why they don't offer free cans of Crisco with the "upgrade".

Re:A user's perspective (4, Informative)

Abreu (173023) | about 5 years ago | (#29028563)

I am pretty sure someone's made a IE6 theme for Firefox

Re:A user's perspective (5, Informative)

Badaro (594482) | about 5 years ago | (#29028787)

To my surprise, you're right, someone actually did it: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/8885 [mozilla.org]

Re:A user's perspective (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29029207)

There's no way I'm installing an add-on from someone calling themself "Spunker"! That's the last thing I want in my tubes.

Re:A user's perspective (0)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 5 years ago | (#29028909)

I am pretty sure someone's made a IE6 theme for Firefox

Shun the non-believers! Shhhuuuuunnn...

Re:A user's perspective (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29029101)

Actually.... I like the IETAB option in firefox. Shame they won't upgrade it to a more current version. I'm force to use IE at times, some web sites will not even load in FF; yes I know shame on them, but IETAB is out of date and no longer working on a lot of sites apparently.

Re:A user's perspective (4, Insightful)

evilviper (135110) | about 5 years ago | (#29029013)

I am pretty sure someone's made a IE6 theme for Firefox

Yeah, but if they did it was probably functional for 2 whole weeks. from Firefox version 3.0.3 to 3.0.4, and is now unusable. Try to find a Netscape 3 theme for Firefox, and you'll find the same thing

HINT: I use the Firefox default theme (it's not bad) but not by choice.

Re:A user's perspective (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29028195)

when you gonna let me tap that ass?

Re:A user's perspective (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29028327)

girl in training... you must be a big faggot or something

Re:A user's perspective (5, Funny)

Brian Gordon (987471) | about 5 years ago | (#29028457)

I don't want to upgrade from IE6 for one very simple reason:

It is impossible to finish this sentence logically.

Re:A user's perspective (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29029039)

I don't want to upgrade from IE6 for one very simple reason: I use firefox.

Upgrading from IE6 (4, Funny)

Nerdposeur (910128) | about 5 years ago | (#29029199)

Oooh! Pick me! Pick me!

Here goes: "I don't want to upgrade from IE6 for one very simple reason: I don't want to install IE6 in the first place."

Do I win?

But, but, but ... what ... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29028561)

is this IE thing of which you speak?

Why not try using a real browser [opera.com] , one that's not a virus magnet and the one that has the best security reputation by far. It's 100% free as in beer, has an order of magnitude more functionality and you can even make it pretty much like that IE toy, if that makes you feel better.

Re:A user's perspective (1, Insightful)

dhavleak (912889) | about 5 years ago | (#29028571)

I wouldn't call that a simple reason. More like a simplistic one..

Re:A user's perspective (4, Informative)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | about 5 years ago | (#29028611)

Move beyond the interface, please. The interface is not the end-all-be-all of a piece of software, it's just one of the features. IE6 is so deficient in today's browser market that continuing to use it just because you don't want to adjust to a new interface is frankly doing a disservice to yourself. You're sacrificing a ton of legitimately beneficial features in order to keep one that is arguably useful in the first place. I mean, tab support alone is a reason to ditch IE6. I thought the interface for IE8 was a little funky the first time I saw it but now, even though I never use IE to do any decent browsing (only for occasional testing), when it opens up the interface does make sense to me. The navigation buttons are clear, the menus are where they should be, and anything that I can't immediately find is almost always in one of the menus in the new customizable toolbar. It's also very easy to customize which buttons or menus go in there.

Seriously, you're doing yourself a disservice by using IE6. If you insist on using IE instead of a more capable browser like Opera, do yourself a favor and give IE8 a month or so to adjust to. Your web developer friends will thank you.

Re:A user's perspective (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29028783)

You got it wrong. IU is 90% of the average user experience. People should not have to 'adjust' to a new user interface. It works the other way around. And the GP is right - IE 7+ GUI sucks.

Re:A user's perspective (2, Funny)

Vectronic (1221470) | about 5 years ago | (#29029053)

In Soviet Russia, Browser Interfaces You! (IU)

IE7 + GUI sucks. you bet, I only use IE7 in command line only.

(I know, I know, but I had to)

Re:A user's perspective (0)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 5 years ago | (#29028961)

Seriously, you're doing yourself a disservice by using IE6.

Hey! No need to be insulting. I don't use IE6; I just refuse to upgrade it. It's part of that whole "integrated into the OS" thing -- I'd burn it in cleansing fire if I could. I have been using Firefox for years, and have IETab installed for those few websites that stubbornly insist on using ActiveX controls (like Windows Update).

Re:A user's perspective (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29029095)

Windows update hasn't been an activeX app since... around IE7? Are you running a fresh version of SP2 or something?

Re:A user's perspective (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | about 5 years ago | (#29029139)

Honestly, I prefer the interface in IE 6 even a bit more than I do Firefox. Heck, really the only reason why I stopped using IE 6 (this was a few years ago, before IE 7 was past beta) for Firefox was that I wanted to eventually convert to Linux and wanted to make sure that I could use the browser. And really, IE 7+'s interfaces simply fail, everything is oversized and it seems to go terribly with XP, especially if you are using the classic theme. I use Firefox mostly because of its similarity to IE and ease of configuration. I tried using Opera but the lack of fine control (I practically live on Firefox's about:config page) and the funky position of the tab bar, made me not use it for long. While Opera, Firefox, Safari and Chrome are all light years ahead of IE 6, I have to say that the interface for IE 6 is very well done.

Re:A user's perspective (1)

badboy_tw2002 (524611) | about 5 years ago | (#29028633)

Are you talking about the buttons in the toolbar or the fact that most web pages start rendering differently (or what some might call "correctly").

Re:A user's perspective (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29028739)

What kind of balls does IE6 suck?

Re:A user's perspective (4, Informative)

cbhacking (979169) | about 5 years ago | (#29028829)

FYI, IE8 allows people to put the buttons back where they were in 6. Both 7 and 8 allow you to permanently show the menu bar, if you want. The new Command Bar in 7 and 8 can be turned off, as can tabbed browsing (no idea why you'd want to, but you can).

Out of curiosity, are you still using Windows 3.x because you also think that the Start menu "suck[s] donkey balls"? Have you even seriously tried to use the new interface, with or without customizing it? Most people seem perfectly comfortable with it.

Re:A user's perspective (1)

gemtech (645045) | about 5 years ago | (#29028929)

amen, brother. I use IE6 at work and at home. And Adobe Reader 6.

Re:A user's perspective (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29028937)

Hope you like using a browser with more holes than your thought process. Then again anyone still using IE after the latest Active X attacks doesn't deserve the disgruntled reply by any ./er

Re:A user's perspective (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29029031)

Don't and soon web sites will look like

Site with CSS3, PNG with alpha etc. [homeip.net]

Now have a look at that site in Firefox 3.5, Chrome, Safari etc.

Windows 2000 (5, Informative)

avandesande (143899) | about 5 years ago | (#29028203)

What is missed is that IE7 will never be offered for windows 2000- so IE 6 support is tied to Windows 2000 life cycle.

Re:Windows 2000 (1, Informative)

RailGunner (554645) | about 5 years ago | (#29028261)

Then the death date of IE6 is 7/13/2010 [microsoft.com] , but only if you're paying for extended support.

Re:Windows 2000 (1)

InlawBiker (1124825) | about 5 years ago | (#29029063)

Also for internal Enterprise apps. Where I work, I can think of 3 important internal apps that do not work 100% with IE7 or IE8. The company won't roll out IE7 or IE8 because it's cheaper just to stay with IE6 than it is to modify or replace those apps. Windows Vista or 7 is the same story - nobody wants to spend money just to keep up with Microsoft's release schedule.

Re:Windows 2000 (0)

El_Muerte_TDS (592157) | about 5 years ago | (#29029185)

That light you're seeing doesn't come from the fluorescent lighting in the office, it's actually the end of the tunnel.
It will only cost more when you keep delaying.

what? (3, Insightful)

Lord Ender (156273) | about 5 years ago | (#29028207)

The first link is about MSFT's logo, not about IE6. What am I missing here?

Re:what? (2, Funny)

clone53421 (1310749) | about 5 years ago | (#29028241)

Apparently kdawson didn't RTFA either?

The real sorce (2, Informative)

Krystalo (1580077) | about 5 years ago | (#29028383)

A quick search shows that this is the article being quoted: http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/08/microsoft-dropping-support-for-ie6-is-not-an-option.ars [arstechnica.com]

Re:The real source (1)

Krystalo (1580077) | about 5 years ago | (#29028403)

and by sorce i meant source, sorry one-handed typing

Re:The real source (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29028807)

TMI man, TMI.

Proof that ... (2, Funny)

neonprimetime (528653) | about 5 years ago | (#29028491)

... so many /.ers don't RTFA, that the moderators have decided they don't even need to post a link to the FA!

So NT, 2000, XP, and Vista can die, not IE6? (5, Insightful)

DamnStupidElf (649844) | about 5 years ago | (#29028219)

Come on, Microsoft, if you're trying to end-of-life an operating system that's actively being deployed on Netbooks, what's the problem with turning off support for IE6?

Re:So NT, 2000, XP, and Vista can die, not IE6? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29028603)

Clearly their market... corporations. Or did you think that the average computer user is really a customer of microsoft? They're only tools in selling to businesses. "You don't need to train your employees to use our OS!".

Re:So NT, 2000, XP, and Vista can die, not IE6? (1)

heffrey (229704) | about 5 years ago | (#29028795)

Well I think the point is that ie6 is tied to xp and so shares the same long term support lifecycle. Just because ms won't sell you a new licence for xp doesn't mean that they won't continue supporting and patching it. You don't need to be a genius to understand that.

Re:So NT, 2000, XP, and Vista can die, not IE6? (3, Informative)

cbhacking (979169) | about 5 years ago | (#29028883)

The problem is that *until* they EoL XP, they can't EoL the browser that XP ships with. In other words, they are trying to EoL IE6, but can't for the same reason that they can't EoL XP - it's still being deployed and used! This is not that complicated... once they can get rid of XP (something they've been trying to do for years), they'll probably drop support for IE6 the same day (why support one component of an entire OS that is no longer supported?).

No Article (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29028221)

Where's the article? It just links to something about Microsoft's new logo for their stores.

Thank you Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29028225)

It's hard to believe IE6 is still holding the Internet back as much as it is. I'll be so glad when I no longer need to consider it in my web development process.

I still see about 1 in 6 people using it on my Canadian sites, so I still have to waste dev time on it.

Hopefully this push from Google will really help the situation.

Re:Thank you Google (1)

mini me (132455) | about 5 years ago | (#29028577)

Hopefully this push from Google will really help the situation.

If Google can push, why can't you? In fact, you are in a better position to convert users than Google is since your users may not use any Google services.

Re:Thank you Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29028967)

Do what I do. Charge extra for IE 6 compatibility.

This was my last hope.. (3, Informative)

NecroPuppy (222648) | about 5 years ago | (#29028233)

Since we rarely upgrade software here until it's officially EoL'd, that MS isn't dropping this means no real chance for IE 7 or 8 for another year.

Which means I have to explain to the using class why their browser at work looks different from the one at home. Somehow, "It's a different version" only sinks in for about a week; after that, it's passed through the other end, and they have to be reminded again.

Re:This was my last hope.. (1)

elrous0 (869638) | about 5 years ago | (#29028727)

Sounds like you're working at a real cutting-edge company. I used to work at one of those too. They would still be using Novell Netware 4 if I hadn't made them upgrade.

95/Me/2000 (2, Interesting)

f1vlad (1253784) | about 5 years ago | (#29028239)

Of course not, what about Windows 95/Me/2000 users? One of those systems cannot run IE7 if I recall correctly.

Re: 95/Me/2000 (2, Funny)

elrous0 (869638) | about 5 years ago | (#29028605)

You can have my 486 running Windows 3.1 when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers! It was good enough for 1994 and it's good enough now!

Re: 95/Me/2000 (2, Funny)

f1vlad (1253784) | about 5 years ago | (#29028879)

Absolutely, not arguing that :) my friend, almost like you, is still running Win 95 from home; on top of that he's hosting tiny personal web server on that machine. He spends his spare time (for fun) patching and making sure that machine is secure.

Re: 95/Me/2000 (2, Insightful)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | about 5 years ago | (#29028689)

Something tells me that anyone running any of those OSs is not real concerned with whether or not their software is up to date.

Well... (4, Insightful)

Jugalator (259273) | about 5 years ago | (#29028299)

I'm pretty sure that Microsoft are *happy* that these websites are dropping support and guiding their users in the right direction. That'll make things easier for Microsoft to move forward too. They put their focus behind Internet Explorer 8 now, and of course want to do that. But I can understand their stance -- their customers would raise hell if they just plain made an exception from their product lifecycle policy for the web browser, that just happens to be among the most used products in Windows there is.

So all in all, this feels like a non-story to me.

Re:Well... (1)

sin1man (727691) | about 5 years ago | (#29028741)

It's good that the major websites are beginning to drop support as that will attempt to force people off IE6 which is good. Unfortunately this puts lots of IT people in a tight spot.

At my old company (Fortune 50) There were hundreds of web apps that had been written for managing things like heathcare, training, retirement, etc. Of course all of these programs only worked in IE6. My local IT guy and many users were upset that we were stuck with IE6, but of course any upgrade would require years of redevelopment for the web management apps.

I'm betting that there are many companies in this situation where IE6 is needed for internal systems. It's going to suck for those companies (and their YouTube browsing employees) who can't afford to upgrade their internal apps and therefore can't upgrade their internal browser and therefore will not be able to see big important sites like YouTube.

Holding out for OSS (1)

kiehlster (844523) | about 5 years ago | (#29028313)

I have some ancient version of MS Money that I've used for 10 years or so and it has been working perfectly even on IE7, but IE8 breaks it, so I'm staying on IE7 until I find an OSS money management program that is as good or better than Money and/or Quicken that has Money data file import features. Not much luck so far, sadly. Any good suggestions?

Re:Holding out for OSS (1)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | about 5 years ago | (#29028333)

www.mint.com. It's SaaS, but it rocks and is free. Another option is Wesabe.com. I made the break from desktop money management software a long time ago and never looked back.

Re:Holding out for OSS (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29028493)

so I'm staying on IE7 until I find an OSS money management program that is as good or better than Money and/or Quicken that has Money data file import features.

My suggestion is that you don't hold your breath. OSS as good as commercial? Doesn't exist.

Re:Holding out for OSS (1)

WarJolt (990309) | about 5 years ago | (#29028797)

GnuCash can import QIF files.
There is also a KDE app called kmymoney2.
They look very useful, but I've never used them for real money management.

Re:Holding out for OSS (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29028871)

You may have luck with gnucash [gnucash.org] , but honestly, if you're looking to import a Money file, you may be SOL. Microsoft is well known for its cryptic file formats and total lack of interoperability.

If Money can export your file into something like QIF or OFX, you'll have more options.

IE8 Runs Horribly on My Computer (4, Informative)

nz17 (601809) | about 5 years ago | (#29028391)

I have to tell you, IE8 runs horribly on my desktop computer. When I installed XP over 2000, I upgraded right from 6 to 8 and hated it. The startup time was ridiculous, something like 30 seconds or 60 seconds, and opening a new tab took just as long as starting a new instance of IE8. Even after starting it once, starting it again wasn't must faster. That's my reason that I "downgraded" Internet Explorer to version 7, which really was an upgrade from version 8 in terms of performance, starting in about 3 seconds instead. I suppose that I can't be alone in this - there must be others for whom 7 or 6 runs better than 8 for whatever reason.

I know as far as I'm concerned IE7 fixed a lot of bad things with Internet Explorer that made it a big difference over 6, whereas 8 just seems to be an incremental improvement over 7 that really should not be pushed by Microsoft as a Critical Update. MS is probably coming out with frequent updates like this now just to try to stay competitive with Firefox and Safari and Chrome. I know that the Steam Overlay browser which embeds IE's Trident engine certainly got a speed boost from me going with 7 over 8, and that's the way it's going to stay unless and until Microsoft releases something newer for me to try on Windows XP. With Vista and soon Windows 7 out in retail, I don't think anything else is coming for XP users though.

Good thing I don't even use Internet Explorer as my primary browser then. Long live my mighty combo of Firefox, Opera, and Konqueror!

Re:IE8 Runs Horribly on My Computer (1)

AndrewNeo (979708) | about 5 years ago | (#29029109)

When I installed XP over 2000, I upgraded right from 6 to 8 and hated it.

Wh..what? That means you had to have just upgraded to XP some time this year..

If MS REALLY wanted this, (2, Interesting)

WindBourne (631190) | about 5 years ago | (#29028405)

they would simply stop accepting the browser at ALL OF THEIR SITES. If they did that, nearly all of the rest of the world would follow suite. NOBODY in the development world wants this demoniacal abortion. BUT, while MS continues to accept, then everybody else is forced to accept it.

Re:If MS REALLY wanted this, (5, Insightful)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | about 5 years ago | (#29028599)

But they aren't trying to KILL IT, they just want it to DIE.

Like you're rich Uncle.

Re:If MS REALLY wanted this, (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29028991)

Au contraire!

I and a bunch of us keeping coding to the IE 6 STANDARD and our we use tables for EVERYTHING - we even put FLASH in our tables!!

Our EVIL knows no bounds!

BWahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

Re:If MS REALLY wanted this, (4, Insightful)

British (51765) | about 5 years ago | (#29029055)

"ithey would simply stop accepting the browser at ALL OF THEIR SITES."

Except for that one site that lets you upgrade to IE 7 or 8. That would be an important one.

ROTF, LMMFAO, TRFME (0, Flamebait)

davidsyes (765062) | about 5 years ago | (#29028495)

Tears running from my eyes...

"We keep our commitments."

Gods.... Like, did they keep commitments to deliver the vaporware they used to gas to death a slew of companies over the past 20+ years that offered an add-on to or superior product than ms' wares? That spokesperson must not have seriously studied ms' history, or is too enamored with the company to be honest about it.

Re:ROTF, LMMFAO, TRFME (1)

rilister (316428) | about 5 years ago | (#29028843)

"That spokesperson must not have seriously studied ms' history, or is too enamored with the company to be honest about it."
You seem to have some serious misconceptions about what a "Spokesperson" role is...

just so you know (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29028583)

Just so you know the "Extended Support" of windows XP will end 08/04/2014 ... are we gonna be stuck with ie6 in government until then ?

it's other companies..... (2, Funny)

Em Emalb (452530) | about 5 years ago | (#29028631)

My company works with several 3rd party vendors* who are locked into IE6. They haven't even ported their software to IE7, much less 8.

It's horrible. The good news is a couple of those 3rd party vendor programs do work in firefox.

*yeah, yeah. I know. It's a horrible business practice, but the good news for us and them is we're a rabbit's whisker away from dropping them for additional vendors.

Re:it's other companies..... (1)

Em Emalb (452530) | about 5 years ago | (#29028671)

damnit, I hate getting interrupted when I'm typing something. I meant "different" not additional. /me waits for 2 minutes.

Good Riddance (1)

drunken_boxer777 (985820) | about 5 years ago | (#29028661)

Yeah, sure it was great for MS to support a product that was made obsolete 3 years ago by the release of IE7, and then doubly-obsolete by the release of IE8.

Do people really expect product support for a release of software 8 years old that has been superseded by two version upgrades? I hope not. Especially since they got it for 'free' with their operating system. (Ha!)

I use IE6 almost every day.... not by choice (2, Informative)

Gadgetfreak (97865) | about 5 years ago | (#29028691)

I suspect that's the case for many people, at least in the US. It's on my company PC, which I have no control over. The scary part? I work for a gov't contractor. A big one. And the IT people have no interest whatsoever in trying something new.

Even my 11 year old laptop, which is still alive, runs FireFox on Win98. Not very quickly, mind you, but faster than it ran IE.

For reference, it's a Gateway (Gateway 2000 at the time) original Pentium 200 MHz "MMX" with 48 MB of RAM. And it only has a 10-base wired ethernet card anyway, so it's not like browser speed matters much.

Re:I use IE6 almost every day.... not by choice (1)

interval1066 (668936) | about 5 years ago | (#29029153)

I never use IE, by choice.

Re:I use IE6 almost every day.... not by choice (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29029165)

I suspect that's the case for many people, at least in the US. It's on my company PC, which I have no control over. The scary part? I work for a gov't contractor. A big one. And the IT people have no interest whatsoever in trying something new.

This is what many of the 'ban IE6' campaigners don't get; a lot of the remaining IE6 users are managed corp/gov users that don't decide this for themselves or even can influence it in any way. You ban them from your website, they can't do anything about it. The best hope for getting rid of a large part of the remaining IE6 users on the web is actually Windows 7. That these companies finally see a sufficient set of reasons to move (or be pushed..) off 8-year old XP and move to Windows 7.

anon (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29028715)

M$ is full of shit once again. "we want people to upgrade to the latest version. We make it as easy as possible for them to upgrade. Ultimately, the choice to upgrade belongs to the person responsible for the PC"

Can they say the same when it comes to windows messenger or live or whatever the fuck they wanna call it these days?? they FORCE you to upgrade to latest version and make sure the "older" version cant connect online

Slashdot Posters - Dropping Money "Not an Option" (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29028757)

Slashfags earlier today reiterated their hatred for spending money on anything.
Amidst the cries of "information wants to be free", kdawson could be heard saying the only thing he'll ever pay for is more of cmdrtaco's hot, spicy meat.

Small, flaming rings (3, Interesting)

NeverTheMachine (1612583) | about 5 years ago | (#29028781)

I find it sad that a decision by a single company can create small, flaming hoops for the Internet to jump through. I'm happy that the browser (r)evolution we're experiencing is helping this, though. With all this sudden competition, it's not only forcing the browsers to whip up into Interwebs standards but also get rid of the monopoly that Microsoft has over the browser market. Hopefully, we'll never be at this strange crossroads again. Gogo capitalism!

Hell, I'm amazed Microsoft doesn't just annoy the IE6'ers into submission. That doesn't seem out of their league.

Re:Small, flaming rings (1)

Cruxus (657818) | about 5 years ago | (#29028945)

Funny capitalism made this mess in the first place: "...the cause of and solution to all of life's problems" much?

From a user's point of view... (5, Insightful)

QuietLagoon (813062) | about 5 years ago | (#29028877)

As engineers, we want people to upgrade to the latest version. We make it as easy as possible for them to upgrade.

.
Quite to the contrary. Microsoft makes it very difficult for users to upgrade to the latest version. FireFox and Opera both still support the current versions of their browsers on Windows 2000. Yet Microsoft had dropped Windows 2000 from their list of OS's supported by their newer browsers long ago, even when Windows 2000 was supported by Microsoft.

Have you ever wondered why all the other browser developers can support Windows 2000 while Microsoft is completely unable to? I mean, if the Microsoft engineers say they want to make it easy for people to upgrade, then I'm sure there must be some fundamental technical issue with IE that stymies the engineers, and prevents them from doing what they say they want to do. What is the problem that prevents Microsoft from bringing newer versions of IE to Windows 2000?

If it's not our core business.... We don't care (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29028913)

I work for one of the largest media companies in the UK which is owned by the largest media company in the world - We still use IE6 :(. It's madness. Though Firefox 3+ is used primarily

Damned if they Do... (1)

Bieeanda (961632) | about 5 years ago | (#29028975)

Seriously, if they did go ahead and somehow force IE6 to stop working, or refuse to provide support for it, this thread would be filled with people screaming about MS screwing the end user, and waiting impatiently for the DOJ to come swooping in.

Oracle (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29029001)

At work we are forced to use IE6 because JD Edwards EnterpriseOne appears to have been coded specifically for the steaming piece of shit. Firefox and Opera both will not function properly. My job makes me want to kill myself.

It's just keeping its promise. (3, Insightful)

sam0737 (648914) | about 5 years ago | (#29029059)

Think about that...

Ubuntu LTS is to be supported for 5 years, but only with limited backported software, not even the most important software package like major upgrade of gnome, firefox, open office are always available in the backport repro.

while Every release of Windows is LTS, and as long as 10 years! Also, new core software upgrade are usually offered even after a long time. (IE8, Live Messenger 9, Office 2007 on XP, a 6 years old product!)

On Linux? Even if you get the source, the chance of compiling the latest software bits on a 6 years old box is unlikely...Either kernel updates are needed, or glibc, or missing libraries, or the dependent libraries needs new GCC...usually end up upgrading GCC+Glibc+Kernel+whatsoever to get some new software. Or to put it simply, either spend a few days to figure that out, compile and install the dependencies else where, or to upgrade the distro.
Hey but I just want that new software, but keeping all my old software and configure...they didn't break and I don't want to touch them.

Besides unstable hardware support, I have been using Linux for 10+ years and this is the single thing that I hate most...when will debian package support libraries of different version installed side by side...?

Think about it...I think Microsoft is really doing an excellent job here. Although DLL Hell induced problem sometimes do happen (but a lot less since XP...), but still when they are still adding new features for a 6 years old OS. What else can you expect?

It really might be "Not an option" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#29029191)

Several very large corporation (the one I work for included) still use IE6 purely because some in-house web based systems were designed to run in IE6, and work very poorly with IE7/8, Firefox etc. Upgrading these systems to work properly on modern and more compliant browsers is an extremely costly exercise, and this is a market MS would like to keep happy.

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>