×

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!

The Man At Microsoft Charged With Destroying IE6

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the did-you-say-thermite-or-termite? dept.

Internet Explorer 458

Barence writes "The man in charge of Internet Explorer has told PC Pro that he's been tasked with destroying IE6. Internet Explorer 6 continues to be the most used browser version in the world at the ripe old age of nine. IE6's position as the default browser in Windows XP means many companies still cling to the browser. 'Part of my job is to get IE6 share down to zero as soon as possible,' said Ryan Gavin, head of the Internet Explorer business group. Microsoft has also been giving further previews of Internet Explorer 9, with demonstrations showing two 720p HD videos running simultaneously on a netbook, thanks to IE9's GPU-accelerated graphics."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

458 comments

IE6 is NOT the most popular web browser... (3, Informative)

vistapwns (1103935) | more than 3 years ago | (#32369236)

Re:IE6 is NOT the most popular web browser... (1, Informative)

bi$hop (878253) | more than 3 years ago | (#32369306)

Depends on whom you ask: http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp [w3schools.com] (go Firefox!)

Re:IE6 is NOT the most popular web browser... (1)

vistapwns (1103935) | more than 3 years ago | (#32369338)

hitslink is probably a lot less biased than w3schools, readership wise.

Finland is still awesome in this matter (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32369360)

I had hard time believing those stats as FireFox had only about 25% market share and IE appears to be used by over half the people. Both of these figures sounded very odd compared to what I've seen. But I guess that is true for the world, then. Anyways, I googled browser share by country and Firefox has about 55% share in Finland [statcounter.com] and has stayed constant for at least a year. IE on the other hand is used by one third of the population and has been in slow but steady decline for the whole year.

Re:IE6 is NOT the most popular web browser... (4, Funny)

Mad Merlin (837387) | more than 3 years ago | (#32369450)

No, IE6 is the most common web browser, however (and directly because of the former) it is the least popular web browser.

Re:IE6 is NOT the most popular web browser... (1)

vistapwns (1103935) | more than 3 years ago | (#32369816)

Please look at the link. IE6 is not most popular, most common, most used or any other thing like it.

Re:IE6 is NOT the most popular web browser... (4, Interesting)

Elektroschock (659467) | more than 3 years ago | (#32369584)

In any case, they just have to issue a service pack which replaces IE6 by IE9.

Re:IE6 is NOT the most popular web browser... (3, Informative)

thegarbz (1787294) | more than 3 years ago | (#32369762)

Microsoft has done a lot in the past that has angered large corporations around the world. Can you imagine the backlash when MS rolls out a service pack which breaks the intranets of many of the fortune 500 companies!

Our company has just rolled out a new intranets globally a change from each business unit doing their own thing. It STILL doesn't render correctly in Firefox.

Destroy it by removing it (2, Interesting)

bi$hop (878253) | more than 3 years ago | (#32369256)

How about an automatic update that uninstalls IE6 and replaces it with another browser?!

Karma is a bitch... (5, Insightful)

tlambert (566799) | more than 3 years ago | (#32369436)

Karma is a bitch...

I expect they are now regretting that the barriers they put in place to prevent IE6 being displaced by Firefox, Opera, and other browsers is now effective at preventing IE6 from being displaced by another browser from themselves.

-- Terry

Re:Karma is a bitch... (2, Interesting)

bi$hop (878253) | more than 3 years ago | (#32369460)

Karma is a bitch...

Tell me about it. My "bad" slashdot karma won't go away anytime soon with all my crappy posts.

EOL XP already... (3, Insightful)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 3 years ago | (#32369258)

To kill IE6, kill XP. Here's how.

1. End all security updates for XP.
2. Wait for the first botnet to come up with a XP hack.
3. Say "Sorry, you need to upgrade. Now!" to the crying victims.

Re:EOL XP already... (4, Informative)

Dyinobal (1427207) | more than 3 years ago | (#32369284)

I like my xp install, so I'm gonna vote no.

Re:EOL XP already... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32369490)

Enjoy your botnet, then. Or are you expecting them to support it forever for free?

Hell, you won't even find many people willing to keep a 1.x.y version of Linux alive. A 2.0.y version is hard enough to keep supported nowadays. Yet you feel you're entitled to perpetual support of an old system they want to get rid of?

Time will not stand still for you. Move on.

Re:EOL XP already... (0, Troll)

lengau (817416) | more than 3 years ago | (#32369604)

At least if he were using Linux he could maintain the source himself (if he were really that motivated).

Re:EOL XP already... (4, Insightful)

spazdor (902907) | more than 3 years ago | (#32369316)

you forgot: 0. Design an OS which can viably replace XP. No, Vista doesn't count. 7 is getting there. Maybe.

Re:EOL XP already... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32369408)

7 is well beyond a viable replacement for XP in any useful category you can pick. The time to upgrade is here.

Re:EOL XP already... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32369448)

7 is well beyond a viable replacement for XP in any useful category you can pick. The time to upgrade is here.

++ truth

Re:EOL XP already... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32369482)

really ? old hardware ? old drivers ?
can your 64 bit windows 7 work with my skype usb 6 line home phone system ? nope.
can it work with my ati radeon hdtv wonder capture card for ota video capture ? nope.
can it work with my robotic material handling system at work ? nope.
can it work with my embedded controller development kit at work ? nope.
and no, you dont have alternatives in the marketplace for most of this stuff. you cant
buy new stuff to throw out thousands of dollars of working old stuff just because you want a newer OS.

Re:EOL XP already... (1)

neumayr (819083) | more than 3 years ago | (#32369838)

Except for the Skype thing, computers handling that kind of stuff have no reason to be connected to the Internet.
And I personally, I wouldn't continue support some old software of mine just because some other guy's software relies on it.

So, either firewall that Skype box as much as possible and hope you won't be victim of a Skype exploit, or realize you failed in that particular investment.

Re:EOL XP already... (1)

Pentium100 (1240090) | more than 3 years ago | (#32369580)

Great, when the time comes to reinstall Windows on my dads laptop I'll install Win7.

Windows XP works nicely on a 1GHz Mobile P3 CPU and 512MB of PC133 RAM. Since 7 is a good replacement for XP, it will surely work just as fast as XP works now. Right?

Re:EOL XP already... (3, Informative)

Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) | more than 3 years ago | (#32369708)

You'd be surprised. Some of the machines here at work are similarly specked. I just installed 7 on a 1.2 GHz Mobile Celeron with 512 MB RAM. Wish Aero and indexing turned off it is still fairly peppy. I wouldn't want to do any 3D modeling or CAD work, but it does get the job done.

Re:EOL XP already... (1)

Pentium100 (1240090) | more than 3 years ago | (#32369908)

I actually have Windows 7 installed in a virtual machine on a computer with 3x 700MHz CPUs (the VM has one CPU and 1GB RAM) and am trying to find settings that make it faster (since whatever is reasonably fast on a 700MHz CPU will fly on a 2GHz CPU) and also make the UI look more like 2000/XP, I don't like changes. This is for my eventual purchase of a new laptop when my current one breaks beyond repair because I most likely will not be able to find drivers for XP by then.

Win7 looks to me like an OK OS, though I have not tried anything that could have problems with the included DRM, but for now it looks OK. Not good enough for me to format any of my PCs and reinstall Windows though.

Re:EOL XP already... (4, Informative)

xlsior (524145) | more than 3 years ago | (#32369830)

Windows XP works nicely on a 1GHz Mobile P3 CPU and 512MB of PC133 RAM. Since 7 is a good replacement for XP, it will surely work just as fast as XP works now. Right?


Right. Close, at least.

I know it's popular to slam Microsoft products, but seriously -- Windows 7 is much leaner than Vista was, and overall is pretty similar to XP in performance. It will run on a pentium 3 CPU, and it will run just fine with 512MB of RAM as well. Granted, you'd probably will need to turn of the Aero graphic acceleration on the desktop and some other eyecandy, but in general it's perfectly happy on a 512MB machine... Unlike Vista, which was pretty much a slideshow on anything with less than a gigabyte.

In actual benchmarks XP may edge it in certain areas (There's some CPU penalty for added functionality, of course), but it really is surprisingly usable on older hardware. Microsoft really did a pretty decent job on trying to turn the whole vista trainwreck around.

Re:EOL XP already... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32369724)

Windows 7 has XP mode. You can run everything using Windows Virtual PC (or get VirtualBox for free if you don't like it for some reason). My only gripe would be I can't use multiple screens from within Windows Virtual PC (at least not easily).

Re:EOL XP already... (4, Funny)

ZeroFactorial (1025676) | more than 3 years ago | (#32369348)

Much simpler solution:

Pay google a meager sum to add some javascript that displays an "upgrade to IE9" link instead of google search for people still running IE6.
Do the same thing on Bing.

Sure, you could get around it with a user-agent switcher - but if you're savvy enough to do that, chances are you're not running IE6...

Re:EOL XP already... (5, Informative)

Verunks (1000826) | more than 3 years ago | (#32369520)

Much simpler solution: Pay google a meager sum to add some javascript that displays an "upgrade to IE9" link instead of google search for people still running IE6. Do the same thing on Bing.

google already does that on youtube and google docs

Re:EOL XP already... (1)

Elektroschock (659467) | more than 3 years ago | (#32369624)

1. Or develop a small script for website users: Whenever you use IE6 you get prompted to upgrade.

2. Get is on a popular porn site

3. IE6 dead

Re:EOL XP already... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32369772)

Doesn't help those of us using IE6 at work. Would desperately like to upgrade, but have no ability.

Re:EOL XP already... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32369784)

I would be willing to bet that Google search is used FAR more frequently than Youtube at work.... wait... oh.... yeah... good point.

Re:EOL XP already... (1)

guspasho (941623) | more than 3 years ago | (#32369362)

So in other words:

1. End all security updates for XP.
2. ?????
3. Profit!

Re:EOL XP already... (-1, Troll)

Anomalyx (1731404) | more than 3 years ago | (#32369612)

2. Cause total chaos, since the (large, 6000+ employee) hospitals for which I work run almost exclusively XP machines. We have servers running Server 200[X] and nix, and a number of Windows 7 machines that you can count on your fingers, but otherwise, everything is XP. We skipped Vista entirely. This would be an extremely chaotic and labor-intensive upgrade. We're already in a state of chaos trying to get into SP3 now that SP2 is getting support yanked, and SP2 has been what our systems run on for a long time. Plus we probably can't afford all the new licences, since Obama-care has basically trashed our finances.

Re:EOL XP already... (1)

guspasho (941623) | more than 3 years ago | (#32369674)

What the hell were you doing running SP2 this long anyway?

Re:EOL XP already... (2, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#32369760)

There is a ton of enterprise software that is not approved to be run on anything newer than XP SP2. This is pretty normal lag for this sort of expensive garbage.

Re:EOL XP already... (1)

JerkBoB (7130) | more than 3 years ago | (#32369916)

Plus we probably can't afford all the new licences, since Obama-care has basically trashed our finances.

How has it done that? I am genuinely curious... My wife works for a hospital, too, but I haven't heard anything about trashed finances. If anything, things are looking up, as there will eventually be better insurance coverage for lots of the people who show up.

Re:EOL XP already... (1)

migla (1099771) | more than 3 years ago | (#32369568)

Apart from the fact that people should run morally decent Free software and spread that gospel, how does other people running IE6 hurt me, you and the rest of mankind? (not a rhetorical question)

Re:EOL XP already... (1)

Dragonslicer (991472) | more than 3 years ago | (#32369746)

Apart from the fact that people should run morally decent Free software and spread that gospel, how does other people running IE6 hurt me, you and the rest of mankind? (not a rhetorical question)

There's the vast number of botnets that operate by being able to easily infect home computers.

Re:EOL XP already... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32369630)

This is stupid. What in the world does XP have to do with it?
All XP systems with updates turned on have IE8 installed.
The problem is all the commercial intranet systems that won't run under anything but IE6.
I don't know how Microsoft can fix that.

Re:EOL XP already... (1)

Ponder Stibions (962426) | more than 3 years ago | (#32369668)

Kill, XP, and you also kill the last version of Windows to ship without IPv6 enabled by default. It's time has come. Maybe for businesses MS should offer heavily discounted licenses for updating!

Also, mod parent up, this talks sense. If you don't like the constant push upgrade of MS, get yourself Linux and take one of the long stable release cycles, eg Ubuntu LTS.

Re:EOL XP already... (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#32369794)

The cost of the licenses is a tiny tiny fraction of the costs to update, probably below 1% for many Enterprises. The real issue is all the "Enteprise" grade apps that will work on nothing newer, the testing that has to go into each and every thing and the man hours dedicated to making this not kill your businesses productivity.

Re:EOL XP already... (2, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#32369730)

4. Watch businesses go else where

Enterprises just got to XP a few years ago, it will be another 2-5 years before most of them are over to Win 7.

Accelerated Graphics? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32369272)

How is HW acceleration of graphics going to help anything on a netbook unless you have a ION chipset?

Re:Accelerated Graphics? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32369310)

It'll show you that an Atom can accelerate more than a GMA 950 can.

Re:Accelerated Graphics? (0, Offtopic)

Cryacin (657549) | more than 3 years ago | (#32369848)

Two atoms are talking:

Atom 1: I say! I've lost an electron.

Atom 2: Really?

Atom 1: Why yes! I'm quite positive!

The Joker (4, Funny)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 3 years ago | (#32369276)

Do you want to know why I use a knife? Guns are too quick. You can't backup all the... little emoticons. In... you see, in their last moments, browsers show you who they really are. So in a way, I know IE, Firefox, Mozilla, and Opera better than Ryan Gavin ever did. Would you like to know which of them were crashers?

Assigned to be a hero (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32369286)

Part of my job is to get IE6 share down to zero as soon as possible

We love you already, man!

Re:Assigned to be a hero (1)

gyrogeerloose (849181) | more than 3 years ago | (#32369528)

Part of my job is to get IE6 share down to zero as soon as possible

We love you already, man!

Indeed. Godspeed, Ryan Gavin, godspeed.

Support IEX9 on XP (5, Insightful)

figleaf (672550) | more than 3 years ago | (#32369298)

If IE9 is supposed to destroy the previous versions of IE then they better support IE9 on XP.
XP is still a solid operating system and currently has the highest market share.

No one is going to upgrade their OS just because there is a new browser from Microsoft.

Re:Support IEX9 on XP (2, Insightful)

AdmiralXyz (1378985) | more than 3 years ago | (#32369356)

Will people please stop with this stupidity? Microsoft isn't releasing IE9 for XP, not out of some evil plan to force you to upgrade, but because XP just doesn't have the technology: IE9 uses the Direct2D and DirectWrite APIs for its hardware acceleration, and these APIs didn't exist until Windows Vista. Writing security patches for an old operating system is one thing, but it's totally unreasonable to expect Microsoft to completely rewrite the graphics layer of a decade-old, non-current OS that will be EOL'd in two years' time.

Re:Support IEX9 on XP (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32369592)

Firefox 4.0 will support Direct2D and DirectWrite API when available.
Firefox 4.0 will work on XP.

The real problem is there 'lack of will' on Microsoft's part and not a 'technical reason' as they would like us to believe.

Re:Support IEX9 on XP (1)

Elektroschock (659467) | more than 3 years ago | (#32369644)

So what? Just another Service Pack.

Re:Support IEX9 on XP (4, Insightful)

thegarbz (1787294) | more than 3 years ago | (#32369872)

"Hey Boss Boss, I got a crazy idea. XP is our most widely deployed operating system"
"But it'll be EOL in 2 years"
"Yeah beside the point, but how about we release a service pack completely re-writing the graphics APIs"
"..."
"That way people can run IE9 on windows XP. You see people won't need to upgrade to our new OSes"
"..."
"Everyone content with a 9 year old operating system can keep using it if we add new technologies. It saves them buying a completely new OS."
"..."
"Yeah sure ok we may be breaking some older systems with a service pack that completely screws with the graphics layer, and yeah it'll cost a few thousand manhours to write the code, but think how happy our clients will be when we remove all incentive for them to upgrade by backporting our great new features into the old dog."
"..."
"..."
"Get out. NOW!"
"yessir"

Re:Support IEX9 on XP (2, Interesting)

guspasho (941623) | more than 3 years ago | (#32369698)

Uses, or requires? It should be trivial to NOT require those technologies.

Re:Support IEX9 on XP (3, Insightful)

zuperduperman (1206922) | more than 3 years ago | (#32369758)

It's not stupidity. Somehow every other browser maker manages to get by on XP and do so with good performance, yet it's too much for Microsoft the MAKER of the OS itself to figure it out? Believing that story is "stupidity".

If XP doesn't support the acceleration then you just write an emulation layer for that part and tell people that the XP version of IE9 is slower and they should upgrade windows to get some awesome speed boosts.

Whichever way you spin it Microsoft is doing this by *choice*. They *chose* to use APIs not available to XP in the first place. Then they *chose* not to bother back-porting an emulation layer for the XP version to use. These choices are devastating to we developers who now confront the reality that the so-called "HTML5" revolution is, in reality, going to take 3 - 4 years more to arrive - holding back the entire internet because one single company couldn't bothered to spend a few developer hours.

Re:Support IEX9 on XP (4, Insightful)

value_added (719364) | more than 3 years ago | (#32369894)

a decade-old, non-current OS

Your points are generally valid, but let's skip the exaggerations. I'll quote from Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] to make things easy:

Windows XP was first released on October 25, 2001, and over 400 million copies were in use in January 2006. It was succeeded by Windows Vista, which was released to volume license customers on November 8, 2006, and worldwide to the general public on January 30, 2007. Direct OEM and retail sales of Windows XP ceased on June 30, 2008.

So according to the above, Windows XP is, at most, 3 years past the time it was last sold retail. To use a car analogy, if you bought a new car off the showroom floor a few months after at the end of the model year, did you buy a used car?

But even that is overly-simplified. The real world is always more nuanced and complex that, particularly with respect to enterprise customers. For that, you can consult the microsoft site, or talk to your sales rep.

So no, XP is not a decade old. More importantly, XP (and IE6) is very much in use and relied on.

Re:Support IEX9 on XP (4, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#32369358)

Also, make it possible to keep IE6 installed for the Intranet. I suspect that most current IE6 deployments are corporate networks where IE is required for the Intranet, and therefore used everywhere. Make IE8 able to install along side IE6, but designate some domains or IP ranges for use by IE6. When you click on a link, it opens in IE8 by default, but if it's on one of the IP ranges designated as your corporate Intranet (configurable when you prepare it for installation) then it loads with IE6. Or just uses the old rendering engine. For bonus points, uses the old rendering engine in a sandbox where it can't escape even if it's completely compromised.

The goal isn't to get rid of IE6, it's to get rid of IE6 from the Internet. If you can keep it around for the Intranet, but prevent it from being allowed to access any sites other than the ones designated as needing it, then that would be fine. Until, of course, those sites can be fixed, but the middle of a recession isn't the best time to ask companies to upgrade core infrastructure that still works.

Re:Support IEX9 on XP (4, Informative)

Shados (741919) | more than 3 years ago | (#32369620)

I've worked for a few companies who did this, but using Citrix to do this. So if you needed to access the IE6 only app, you used a shortcut on your desktop or something that would open a remote IE6 running in a controlled environment that only had access to the legacy app and nothing else. It was surprisingly easy to setup, too. Citrix (like WinServer2008 or X) lets you run remote apps as if they were local, so its pretty seamless to end users, and the client (as far as I know) doesn't even need to be Windows.

Pretty much the best solution in this case, or for any legacy app thats preventing you from upgrading or changing platform.

Re:Support IEX9 on XP (3, Insightful)

diegocg (1680514) | more than 3 years ago | (#32369778)

They could do this if Windows wasn't a crappy product that has a browser tightly with the OS. Firefox (and many other sane software) can have multiple versions installed and used at the same time (the Firefox Portable Edition for example). But due to the way IE is "designed", somehow it needs to be "integrated" to work properly. That's why trying a IE beta is such pain, you are forced to get rid of your stable version and keep a unstable version that can break multiple things.

Re:Support IEX9 on XP (5, Insightful)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 3 years ago | (#32369932)

NNNnnoooooo!!!!!!!!! ...death..gurgle...

I work at a company that operates exactly as you specify. Some intranet software requires IE6. And sometimes particular versions of it too. Then some department installs an app that requires IE7 and the intranet app breaks. In one case, a manager suggested everyone install a virtual machine to run the apps that require IE6. That's just ridiculous.

For some reason, corporate intranet software is always the worst-designed garbage. Killing IE6 will force these imbeciles to stop writing these garbage ASP+VB6 ActiveX apps.

middle of a recession isn't the best time to ask companies to upgrade core infrastructure that still works.

But the infrastructure doesn't work. Companies keep paying more IT staff to come-up with complex workarounds rather than fixing miniscule bugs. This will force the issue. It is happening anyway - soon we won't be able to get XP machines anymore. Already we have to pay to downgrade from Windows 7. Soon the hardware won't support Windows XP drivers.

With IE6 compatibility mode. (2, Insightful)

khasim (1285) | more than 3 years ago | (#32369366)

IE6 will die ... eventually. When WinXP dies.

But Microsoft pushed for too many IE6-specific extensions for their development products.

Now companies NEED to run IE6 or spend time and money (and pain) re-writing the crappy apps that have evolved over the last 9 years.

To replace IE6, you need to wait for WinXP to die or you need to offer IE6 compatibility in the new browser.

Re:With IE6 compatibility mode. (4, Funny)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 3 years ago | (#32369638)

... or you need to offer IE6 compatibility in the new browser.

Is that what they call brokewards compatibility?

Re:Support IEX9 on XP (-1, Troll)

GNUALMAFUERTE (697061) | more than 3 years ago | (#32369380)

STILL a solid operating system?

It was never solid to begin with. Well, actually, it isn't an operating system either ...

Re:Support IEX9 on XP (0, Troll)

Pentium100 (1240090) | more than 3 years ago | (#32369510)

Well, at least it runs all the non-software I need and supports all the useless hardware I have, unlike REAL operating systems which refuse to run nonsense such as games, some business apps and supports only useful hardware, unlike WiFi, specific laptop hardware and other nonsense like that.

Don't need IE6 on XP (2, Informative)

mollog (841386) | more than 3 years ago | (#32369386)

There are other browsers that run well on XP. I never use IE unless I get some boneheaded web site that requires IE.

Re:Support IEX9 on XP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32369412)

I was going to mod you up, but I instead have this to say: XP is still a popular operating system. Yes, Vista and 7 may be technically superior, but XP is here to stay for the foreseeable future. Because of that Microsoft should release some version of IE9 for it. I don't care if it uses the GPU for hardware acceleration, but at the least have it support HTML5. We don't want to have IE8 be another IE6, in that we can't start fully rolling out HTML5 only (or at least default) multimedia pages.

Re:Support IEX9 on XP (1)

Princeofcups (150855) | more than 3 years ago | (#32369486)

No one is going to upgrade their OS just because there is a new browser from Microsoft.

But that's what they are counting on. There's no money in providing a free browser upgrade for XP users. Recommendation: Firefox.

IE6 is most used? (1)

Ksevio (865461) | more than 3 years ago | (#32369304)

What statistics show it as most used browser? All the ones I've seen it's way below firefox.

Re:IE6 is most used? (1)

Dragonslicer (991472) | more than 3 years ago | (#32369792)

What statistics show it as most used browser? All the ones I've seen it's way below firefox.

Firefox total, or a specific version of Firefox?

Let people run IE7 on Windows 2000 (3, Insightful)

Windcatcher (566458) | more than 3 years ago | (#32369318)

If they really want IE6 usage to reach zero, the people at MS will have to swallow some pride and realize that there are some of us who refuse to 'upgrade" like little sheep. Otherwise, IE6 will still be around for quite some time. Oh, wait, Firefox 3.6 runs on Win2k...never mind...

Re:Let people run IE7 on Windows 2000 (1)

TrancePhreak (576593) | more than 3 years ago | (#32369910)

Windows 2000? That's so last decade. Win2K is so old that I remember people gasping that it required 80MB of RAM to just boot up.

Re:Let people run IE7 on Windows 2000 (1)

ThrowAwaySociety (1351793) | more than 3 years ago | (#32369918)

If they really want IE6 usage to reach zero, the people at MS will have to swallow some pride and realize that there are some of us who refuse to 'upgrade" like little sheep.

Refuse is absolutely the right word. Win 2K? Seriously? An eleven-year-old OS? You're not being sensible, you're being ornery.

But hey, if that's what floats your boat, go ahead. I mean, there are still people running vintage Amigas and crap ("Way ahead of its time!", yeah, we can hear you.) But realize that you are a dwindling minority. You guys are outnumbered by Android and iPhone users these days. It's time to embrace your minority status.

2 720p on a netbook (1)

pantherace (165052) | more than 3 years ago | (#32369336)

Somehow I don't think nvidia ion(2) is going to be 'bog standard'.

I'll be surprised if they can do that on an an intel (only) board, which will likely be 'bog standard'.

Re:2 720p on a netbook (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32369556)

Somewhat related. But does anyone know if there are more performant H264 decoders shipped for Windows than the one included in Win7? How about for Chrome?

IE6 "Compatibility Mode?" (4, Insightful)

starseeker (141897) | more than 3 years ago | (#32369350)

The problem, in the simplest terms, is that there are too many IE6 only sites and applications that are currently working "well enough", particularly internal to companies, and mucking with something that works already is a non-starter for many management types. No matter how much sense it makes to us, to them it's just money spent and risk taken to get back to where they currently are, functionality wise.

Could IE introduce a sort of "browser virtual machine" where IE9 would start up what would internally amount to a sandboxed version of IE6 if it ran into an IE6 only site? (Of course, that begs the question of recognizing such a site, but presumably Microsoft would stand some chance of recognizing such behaviors since they created IE6 to begin with.) If you can't kill the old applications, you've got to work with them if you want to kill IE6 - perhaps IE9 could borrow a page from the VMWare/VirtualBox world and sort of do a "browser within a browser" to try and maintain compatibility while isolating the IE6 badness from any sane webpage? OSX provided a bridge for old Mac applications when they appeared on the scene which amounted to an old Mac within the new environment, so perhaps that's another possible model.

Dunno if it's workable even in principle, but I don't see how else to move stubborn IE6 users.

You must be new here (1, Insightful)

mollog (841386) | more than 3 years ago | (#32369442)

starseeker wrote; "but presumably Microsoft would stand some chance of recognizing such behaviors since they created IE6 to begin with."

Since when did Microsoft start caring about backward compatibility? Do you even know who we are discussing here? Microsoft has been rather craven about forcing users of its applications to upgrade. They don't make money by allowing people to stay with older operating systems and applications. And now that Apple has passed them in market capitalization, the heat is on to improve profitability. They don't know of any other way to make money than to force people to upgrade.

Re:You must be new here (5, Insightful)

EvanED (569694) | more than 3 years ago | (#32369600)

Since when did Microsoft start caring about backward compatibility?

Wait, what? When did Microsoft stop caring about backwards compatibility? Backwards compatibility was, for many years, the greatest asset that Windows had, and IMO is the biggest reason that it became as widespread as it is. It's also the source of many of their biggest security problems.

In fact, in the last few years (with the end of the 9x series kernel, the introduction of XP SP2, the introduction of UAC, and the removal of the 16-bit subsystems in the 64-bit versions of Windows), they have shown a willingness to break backwards compatibility that they had basically never shown a decade ago.

Forcing upgrades is a different matter, and is more concerned with forwards compatibility, which doesn't really have any bearing on this discussion.

Re:IE6 "Compatibility Mode?" (1)

MaximumFrost (1156629) | more than 3 years ago | (#32369454)

While that may be a problem, what IT staffers need to start doing is find ways to show that once security patches for windows XP and IE6 stop rolling in, that the opportunity cost to hold onto those websites and dealing with what users inevitably drag in is far greater then simply hiring a programmer to rework all those "must have" programs into something that's a bit more future proofed.

There is one downside, and that's when you run into a vendor that refuses to use anything newer, claiming that only that really old PoS will do the job they way that it's meant to be. That's the only situation I can see where IE6 will be forced to stay.

Enough with this good enough BS, Windows XP deserves a good burial, it's lived long enough.

Re:IE6 "Compatibility Mode?" (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#32369822)

Many applications enterprises use are very niche market expensive and only supported on XP SP2 or older. It has always been like that, Enterprises are typically the last to move to a new OS, most of them out right skipped Vista.

MS can't do this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32369352)

But google, facebook, twitter, hulu, netflix, and sure as shit can.

Re:MS can't do this (1)

jabuzz (182671) | more than 3 years ago | (#32369852)

I don't know A pretty good start would be if *every* Microsoft site did browser detection, and anyone running IE6 was put in a redirect to a download for IE8. That would make it pretty clear that Microsoft considered it dead.

Killing IE6... (1)

JonChance (1115393) | more than 3 years ago | (#32369382)

simple...

Send out a security update that renames it to Virus Inviter or Security hole, or Pwned or ... you get the idea...

Re:Killing IE6... (1)

Mad Merlin (837387) | more than 3 years ago | (#32369496)

simple... Send out a security update that renames it to Virus Inviter or Security hole, or Pwned or ... you get the idea...

Wouldn't do anything, users don't read.

First HTML 4, then HTML 5 (3, Insightful)

VGR (467274) | more than 3 years ago | (#32369384)

I keep hearing about how IE9 will support HTML 5. I would much rather hear about how it will fully support HTML 4 and CSS 2. I'll even settle for its supporting 95% of HTML 4 and CSS 2.

I keep hearing about how IE9 will support HTML 5 media elements like <video> and <audio>. I'd much rather hear about IE9 correctly rendering nested, cascading <object> elements as HTML 4 describes.

Get the HTML 4 stuff working before trumpeting about HTML 5 functionality, please. God knows you've had enough time.

Re:First HTML 4, then HTML 5 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32369570)

Check out the preview build and stop complaining
http://ietestdrive.com

Re:First HTML 4, then HTML 5 (2, Informative)

Ant P. (974313) | more than 3 years ago | (#32369572)

While they're at it, DOM Level 1 support would be nice. It's only a year older than IE6.

Re:First HTML 4, then HTML 5 (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32369832)

If you can find any of these bugs in the IE9 platform preview, please report it.

Re:First HTML 4, then HTML 5 (1)

dmgxmichael (1219692) | more than 3 years ago | (#32369878)

IE 8 does fully implement CSS 2.1 (no one implements 2.0 sparky) and HTML 4.01 strict. They just did it 2 years after most other browsers had finished it. Psuedo elements ( :first-child, :nth-child(even) ) et al are CSS 3, large sections of which the competition has already implemented and that is where IE 8 is truly lagging. That and javascript performance.

I've been thinking about advances lately. (1)

3seas (184403) | more than 3 years ago | (#32369466)

If only we have the more efficient software of the past running on the hardware of today, it might not feel that the user experience is slowing down.

There is a saying, "if its not broke don't fix it" but teh software industry doesn't follow that. Instead the software industry figures that any more speed and resources is only for teh developers, not the users.

Dumb Demo... (4, Insightful)

HockeyPuck (141947) | more than 3 years ago | (#32369494)

demonstrations showing two 720p HD videos running simultaneously on a netbook, thanks to IE9's GPU-accelerated graphics

How about demonstrating flawless backwards compatibility with ancient activeX plugins on Oracle financials running under winXP...

m$ and browsers (1, Insightful)

Ice Station Zebra (18124) | more than 3 years ago | (#32369526)

M$ spend YEARS ignoring browsers. "IE is good enough." Now that they have competition they care again about their browser. IE9 will be the bestest browser EVER! (What happened to IE8?) Will businesses finally see the light and realize that M$ is ONLY IN IT FOR THE MONEY. I hear the iPeople out there saying "Apple. Apple is better". No they are WORSE. Proprietary software and PROPRIETARY HARDWARE. Think IBM Mainframes baby.

Destroy IE6. How about money back to all the copies of Vista you forced on people who had to buy a new computer? Don't thrust them, microsoft, they will stop caring as soon as the market share is back up to 99.999999999%. Mr. Charged with destroying IE6 will be out of a job. Ready the "This site best viewed in IE9" banners so called webmasters. The internet will suck once more.

Re:m$ and browsers (4, Insightful)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | more than 3 years ago | (#32369636)

Proprietary software and PROPRIETARY HARDWARE.

I didn't think BSD and Webkit were proprietary software and I certainly didn't think that x86 was proprietary hardware either.

Apple's been promoting a browser-agnostic web experience. They are better. They're contributing to open source. That does make them infinitely better.

When MS ships something like WebKit, Darwin or Grand Central Dispatch, we'll talk about who's better than who in the software field.

not so fast... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32369594)

Tell this twit, before he destroys IE6 that SOME of us use it because our CLIENTS use QUICK BOOKS 5, and while we might want them to upgrade, if they fail to, and upgrade IE, QUICKBOOKS NO LONGER WORKS. If Microsoft was in the OS business instead of generating a cash cow both for themselves and the software companies that play according to their rules, they would take steps to allow others to upgrade as they could afford to, instead of being FORCED, in the middle of a recession, so they can make more bank.

Re:not so fast... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32369884)

Someone tell this twit that it's fucking stupid to use ancient software.

I mean, who the fuck even uses XP anymore? Seriously? Either hop over to Vista/7, get a Mac or install GNU/Linux.

Your obsessive clinging to a single piece of fucking software borders on the fucking insane. There ARE replacements for QB5 that aren't expensive, just takes a bit of time to learn new software, which any halfway smart person can do without spending money on "training".

People in businesses: if you have to waste money on training people how to use a fucking simple piece of software, your best bet is to get rid of that person and hire someone that doesn't need their fucking hand held.

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...