×

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!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

353 comments

Praise Xena (5, Informative)

jimmerz28 (1928616) | more than 2 years ago | (#36324886)

I wish more sites would do this, I'm so sick of having to help my parents cause their work websites only work with "Internet Explorer 5.5+"

Re:Praise Xena (1)

Ceiynt (993620) | more than 2 years ago | (#36325312)

If they really want to kill IE6, and other older browsers; Google, Facebook, Youtube, and the American Idol home pages need to cut support cold turkey and provide links to the top three current browsers, in random order(as to prevent the top one from being the most downloaded). Same with IPv6, just start throwing up a page for IPv4 users that says, "Hey! You're using IPv4, and this web site requires you to switch to IPv6. Here's how to change to IPv6. If you can't, call your ISP at ### and tell them you want IPv6!"

Re:Praise Xena (2)

walternate (2210674) | more than 2 years ago | (#36325740)

If they really want to kill IE6, and other older browsers; Google, Facebook, Youtube, and the American Idol home pages need to cut support cold turkey and provide links to the top three current browsers, in random order(as to prevent the top one from being the most downloaded). Same with IPv6, just start throwing up a page for IPv4 users that says, "Hey! You're using IPv4, and this web site requires you to switch to IPv6. Here's how to change to IPv6. If you can't, call your ISP at ### and tell them you want IPv6!"

A very significant portion of remaining IE6/7 users are enterprise users not allowed to change their browser, due to internal apps not being certified. Cutting support like that will only cut traffic to the sites and piss off their users, the users wont be able to do anything about it. Heck, even Microsoft wants IE6/7 to die. About the only hope to kill of this IE6/7 user base is that corporations keep adopting Windows 7 - a project that include testing and updating for compatibility all around.

Re:Praise Xena (3, Insightful)

Scutter (18425) | more than 2 years ago | (#36325770)

A very significant portion of remaining IE6/7 users are enterprise users not allowed to change their browser, due to internal apps not being certified. Cutting support like that will only cut traffic to the sites and piss off their users, the users wont be able to do anything about it. Heck, even Microsoft wants IE6/7 to die. About the only hope to kill of this IE6/7 user base is that corporations keep adopting Windows 7 - a project that include testing and updating for compatibility all around.

Much of which is because many companies won't spend the money on upgrading or testing, even though they know their apps are ancient and need refreshing. As soon as the CEO can't get to his gmail account (or, more likely, Redtube), he'll be screaming at IT to push through the plan to do whatever it takes to fix the problem.

Personally, I'd just like to be able to use transparent images on a web page without having IE6 mangle them.

Re:Praise Xena (2)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 2 years ago | (#36325788)

You kinda missed a point somewhere. If your enterprise must have IE6 for internal apps, fine - use IE6 for internal apps. That dinosaur of a browser will be just fine for running stupid software that should have been deprecated by now.

JUST DON'T BROWSE THE WEB WITH IE6!!! The IT department can install another browser, to exist side-by-side with IE6, on those computers that actually require an outside connection. And, the same IT department should have locked down IE6 to use an internal proxy that has no access to the outside world.

Need IE6? Use IE6 - but stop polluting the intartubez with that trash!

Re:Praise Xena (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | more than 2 years ago | (#36325718)

The list is quite strange imho. What's wrong with firefox 3.5? I'm on 3.6 myself, and have no intention to upgrade until mozilla gets it's "must remove all comforts of a PC in favor of making browser look like it's on a tablet" crap. Which is probably not coming in a couple of years.

Re:Praise Xena (1)

wolrahnaes (632574) | more than 2 years ago | (#36325800)

These are all versions which you have no excuse to still be on, so Google is simply saying that they will no longer test for those browsers or fix bugs found only in those browsers.

Anyone on FF3.5 can move to 3.6, IE7 to 8, and Safari 3 to 4, so there are no valid reasons to still use them. Those browsers don't have any IE6-like hold on a market due to shitty apps coded explicitly for them, nor are there major changes which could throw off a user.

The Adds, however (2, Insightful)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 2 years ago | (#36324896)

The adds will still work fine, I am sure.

Re:The Adds, however (5, Funny)

box4831 (1126771) | more than 2 years ago | (#36324936)

The subtracts, unfortunately, will not be supported.

Re:The Adds, however (0)

CaptainPatent (1087643) | more than 2 years ago | (#36325106)

The subtracts, unfortunately, will not be supported.

Don't even ask about division.

Re:The Adds, however (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 2 years ago | (#36325262)

The subtracts, unfortunately, will not be supported.

Don't even ask about division.

I tried to divide by zero, but all I got was a corrupted memory leak and a buffer overflow the Chinese Army exploited to steal government passwords ...

Re:The Adds, however (0)

ya really (1257084) | more than 2 years ago | (#36325292)

The subtracts, unfortunately, will not be supported.

Don't even ask about division.

Division is worrisome, but I'm more worried about how it will integrate

Re:The Adds, however (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36325374)

Jeez there's nothing to differentiate these jokes from each other.

Re:The Adds, however (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36325260)

you dumb ass.

links (4, Insightful)

noobermin (1950642) | more than 2 years ago | (#36324904)

as long as google search somewhat works in links, I'm okay.

Re:links (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36325030)

are you on slashdot with an old browser?

if there is one site that tells you you should have an up to date browser, its slashdot.

go update.

Re:links (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36325196)

Nope, Slashdot is now the type of site that makes disabling JavaScript a rather good idea.

Re:links (3, Insightful)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 2 years ago | (#36325210)

Yes, go update your browser so you can get a test of the latest ultra buggy, ultra shitty web 2.0 experience from the slashcode monkeys that will bog down even the fastest browsers running on quad core systems. Oh but don't expect unicode support because that would just be far too much effort to implement.

Re:links (1)

Dahamma (304068) | more than 2 years ago | (#36325316)

It's not even an *up to date* browser - with slashdot you have to be careful about being too old OR too new...

Re:links (4, Funny)

gnick (1211984) | more than 2 years ago | (#36325354)

I'm certain that I'm running the most recent version of Netscape (although I haven't seen any updates in a while). I'm glad they're not dropping me.

Why Firefox 3.5? (2)

commodore6502 (1981532) | more than 2 years ago | (#36324938)

Dropping IE7 and S3 makes sense, but why FF3.5? It isn't that old. It was "born" less than two years ago, and EOL has not arrived yet.

Re:Why Firefox 3.5? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36324988)

RTFA, it has nothing to do with age and everything to do with features. HTML5 support in FF3.5 is extremely limited, and doesn't support the features Google wants to implement.

Also, I typed that before I realized who I was replying to. So, please gather up your sockpuppets and get the fuck out. Thanks.

2 browser years (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36325184)

That's about 10 human years/60 dog years.

Basically Welcomed (1)

drpimp (900837) | more than 2 years ago | (#36324950)

Although I typically like the N-1 support for browsers. Surely there will be the people holding on to older versions, and getting them to upgrade would be prying it from their cold dying hands (or being locked in with lack of OS support ... cough IE and Windows XP). The part that gets tricky is the fact with the browser wars appearing to surface again, multiple version releases throughout the year, and then there is the x.5 versions, where does one stop?

Re:Basically Welcomed (1)

Spad (470073) | more than 2 years ago | (#36325006)

Better than N-1 support is N-1 or, say 24 months, whichever is longer - that way you don't end up having to retire support for browsers every 6 weeks to keep up with the development cycles.

Re:Basically Welcomed (1)

Sancho (17056) | more than 2 years ago | (#36325418)

Surely there will be the people holding on to older versions, and getting them to upgrade would be prying it from their cold dying hands (or being locked in with lack of OS support ... cough IE and Windows XP).

Don't forget websites which only work with specific versions of browsers. That's the only reason I keep a copy of Firefox 3 around--one particular campus site doesn't work with Firefox 4.

Re:Basically Welcomed (1)

garaged (579941) | more than 2 years ago | (#36325660)

Same thing prevents me from droppin FF completly, there is just 1 portal I cannot use 100% on chrome

Should just drop support for IE entirely (3, Funny)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 2 years ago | (#36324952)

Nobody uses that anymore.

Re:Should just drop support for IE entirely (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36325040)

I still need IE to download FF.

If mozilla stops support for IE, how will I download firefox?

Re:Should just drop support for IE entirely (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36325222)

FTP.EXE

Re:Should just drop support for IE entirely (3, Informative)

CaptainPatent (1087643) | more than 2 years ago | (#36325064)

Actually, while I'm no Microsoft fanboy, IE 9 got a lot of things right. Especially when dealing with speed and security.

I still don't think it's quite as good as the recent versions of Chrome and Firefox, but I think some credit is due to Microsoft on that front.

Re:Should just drop support for IE entirely (1)

Capt.DrumkenBum (1173011) | more than 2 years ago | (#36325580)

Really?? I found it unusable. Too many websites that would just not render at all. Not to even mention that stupid graphic hardware accelerator. That feature either needs to detect your hardware, or not turn on my default.

Re:Should just drop support for IE entirely (1)

guybrush3pwood (1579937) | more than 2 years ago | (#36325730)

Too many websites that would just not render at all.

Ironically enough, I bet those sites render perfectly under IE 6.

Re:Should just drop support for IE entirely (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36325758)

Really?? I found it unusable. Too many websites that would just not render at all.

Probably sites detecting that you were using IE and were trying to send garbage specific to older versions of IE. This is why feature detection instead of agent detection is appropriate.

Not to even mention that stupid graphic hardware accelerator. That feature either needs to detect your hardware, or not turn on my default.

It does. http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2398082 [microsoft.com]

Re:Should just drop support for IE entirely (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36325616)

Actually, for my web sites/pages i recently dropped support for Chrome/Iron and Safari.
(IE versions where never supported to begin with)

My apologies to Iron, but Firefox and Opera are both better and there's no reason
not to use them.
Chrome is just Google's spyware. And Safari is simple awful.

Re:Should just drop support for IE entirely (1)

afex (693734) | more than 2 years ago | (#36325070)

you mean MS sharepoint browser?

seriously, its like they design it NOT to work with the other ones...

Re:Should just drop support for IE entirely (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36325288)

Almost half of the internet is nobody? Glad you don't call the shots for anything. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers

Well done, Google (1)

SmilingBoy (686281) | more than 2 years ago | (#36325018)

Bold move to stop supporting IE7 - but it is the only way to go in the long run. I hope that other websites do the same. Once IE8 support is dropped as well (when IE10 comes out in about one year), everything will be pretty good. People should just upgrade, it is not that hard. And don't say that IE9+ don't work on Windows XP. Just update to Win already 7 - XP is 10 years old! And if you really want to use XP, go for Chrome or Firefox.

Re:Well done, Google (4, Insightful)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 2 years ago | (#36325158)

OK. Send me a few grand for all the old system at the office. I need Windows licenses, and a lot of memory.

Re:Well done, Google (1)

casualsax3 (875131) | more than 2 years ago | (#36325574)

What's preventing you from upgrading to IE8 on XP?

Re:Well done, Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36325604)

No, no we must be outraged they refuse to support out dated software then be outraged when someone exploits it. Double the outrage!

Re:Well done, Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36325172)

Google Code's source browser is already broken with IE8.

Re:Well done, Google (1)

CohibaVancouver (864662) | more than 2 years ago | (#36325486)

People should just upgrade, it is not that hard

Please mail me a cheque. My laptop at home is a 1 GHz PIII with 750ish megs of RAM running XP. It works fine, but the only browser that works reasonably well is IE7. Firefox is dog slow. I shouldn't need to buy hundreds of dollars of hardware just to surf the web...

Re:Well done, Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36325586)

This is slashdot. Bootstraps, man! Perhaps you should invest in Bitcoins...

Re:Well done, Google (1)

Colourspace (563895) | more than 2 years ago | (#36325636)

My '59 Edsel runs perfectly well, why should I spend hundreds of dollars on car to go faster than 70 without it shaking like a bucket of bolts? Or make it look like it wasn't designed with AutoCAD Freestyle? Car analogy for ya.

Re:Well done, Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36325696)

If Firefox is "dog slow" on that machine you have bigger problems then old specs.

I shouldn't need to buy hundreds of dollars of hardware just to surf the web...

Where ever you got that laptop for less then that you can surely upgrade for less as well... Oh, you mean you should be able to surf the web with the first computer we started with? Damn clearly I should have just kept my Pentium, let everyone else cope with writing pages fro IE4.

Re:Well done, Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36325776)

Try the latest beta of K-Meleon. It's Gecko based as well, but not a slug like Firefox. I'd put its performance a good notch above IE7. It runs pretty well on my old desktop, a PIII-550 with 512MB of RAM and XP. It'll slow down a bit while loading image-heavy pages, but once it's loaded it runs fine. I imagine it'd be even more cozy on a PIII-1000. It seems to be extremely optimized for low-resource systems-- it even manages memory well on my laptop, which is an old P4-2ghz with Win2K that is reduced to 128MB of RAM due to a stick of memory going bad.

Re:Well done, Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36325834)

Well, that's what you get for choosing closed-source. Your hardware is fine, but for the price of upgraded software licenses, you might as well get a new computer. You should have known this day would come.

You can always upgrade to Debian. By now, all the hardware in your laptop should be supported XD

IE7 is the only real issue (2)

Kelson (129150) | more than 2 years ago | (#36325052)

Most browsers out there have pretty good update rates, driven by automatic updaters or a userbase made up of people who want the latest and greatest.

Firefox 3.5? 3.6 has been out for what, a year? 4.0 for several months. By the time this policy goes into effect, Firefox 5 will be out. And while Firefox users are slow to update compared to Chrome, Opera, etc. users, they're still a lot faster than IE users.

There's nothing (other than policy or preference) preventing anyone running IE7 from upgrading to IE8 at least. The minimum OS for IE7 was Windows XP, which can run IE8, and AFAIK there isn't a huge install base of IE7-specific web apps out there like there was with IE6 and ActiveX. And unlike the jump from IE6 to IE7, there isn't a huge change in user interface, so it should be a comfortable jump. People just need some encouragement to do it.

Re:IE7 is the only real issue (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36325384)

With Mozilla's new "early and often" major numbered releases Google will be dropping support for Firefox 4 and possibly even 5 by the end of the year. That's flat out ridiculous.

Re:IE7 is the only real issue (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36325420)

People just need some encouragement to do it.
 
Hence the reason for dropping FF 3.5.

RHEL and Debian (5, Interesting)

kvvbassboy (2010962) | more than 2 years ago | (#36325092)

RHEL and Debian use Firefox 3.5, AFAIK. I guess it it will be okay, as long as they keep the simple HTML version, or switch to Chromium.

Re:RHEL and Debian (1)

ifiwereasculptor (1870574) | more than 2 years ago | (#36325552)

Yes, 3.5.19 to be exact. It does ship Chromium 6, which is better, but if there's one area in which Debian's slight lag really bugs me is web browsing. Back when I was using Debian 64-bit, I got stuck with Firefox 3.0 for quite a long time. Mozilla doesn't provide a 64-bit binary. Neither does Opera. I did compile 3.5 eventually, but it took about an hour and I had to go through the whole process once a week, when a new bugfix would come out. It sucked.

Re:RHEL and Debian (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36325724)

But what about FF5, FF6, FF7, etc. You know, the new numbering scheme?

Google www services are shit (2)

kyrio (1091003) | more than 2 years ago | (#36325130)

They already dropped support for any version of Opera years ago!

Re:Google www services are shit (1)

Shikaku (1129753) | more than 2 years ago | (#36325464)

I'm using the latest (11.11) Opera right now and Gmail, Calendar, Reader, Documents, and Reader all work fine, with no warnings or errors. Which services are broken?

Re:Google www services are shit (1)

Jim Hall (2985) | more than 2 years ago | (#36325626)

> I'm using the latest (11.11) Opera right now and Gmail, Calendar, Reader, Documents, and Reader all work fine, with no warnings or errors. Which services are broken?

Try Opera with Google Spreadsheets. I could never get that to work reliably in Opera. Specifically, open a Google Spreadsheet, then navigate down a few dozen cells. Does the highlight still line up with the cell?

However, I've never had a problem with Firefox (Linux/Win), Chrome (Linux/Win), Safari(Mac), or Camino(Mac).

Re:Google www services are shit (2)

BtEO (960491) | more than 2 years ago | (#36325672)

Most, if not all of those have patches in browser.js. Google have long since proven they aren't able/willing to test in Opera (they are only a small start-up after all :P )

Re:Google www services are shit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36325694)

its not that the services are broken. they are not supported. that does not mean that google tries to break things on opera, they just don't care if any of the features work. the reason why they all work is because opera developers are fixing things on their side.

Stuck with IE7 (1)

w0mprat (1317953) | more than 2 years ago | (#36325152)

I have to use IE7 and half the internet doesn't work.

If Slashdot drops support for IE7 my productivity will be even higher.

Re:Stuck with IE7 (1)

dstyle5 (702493) | more than 2 years ago | (#36325372)

Working in the QA world I've found that IE7 is rather its own "beast". Stuff that works fine in IE8 and FF3.6 doesn't in IE7 and stuff that is broken, albeit in slightly different ways in FF3.6/IE8 works in IE7.

Poorly worded summary. (1)

mmell (832646) | more than 2 years ago | (#36325160)

They're only discontinuing support for OLDER versions of these browsers. The summary almost makes it seem like Google will only support Google Chrome.

I don't blame 'em - it's bad enough to have to cross-develop for multiple browsers, cross-developing for current and past versions of older browsers literally doubles the difficulty involved - especially where an older version doesn't supply some critical functionality (like HTML5).

Re:Poorly worded summary. (1)

LtGordon (1421725) | more than 2 years ago | (#36325436)

They're only discontinuing support for OLDER versions of these browsers. The summary almost makes it seem like Google will only support Google Chrome.

Yes. I can see how the summary made this point unclear.

Google Incrementally Dropping Support For Older Browsers

Google announced on its blog that it is dropping support for Firefox 3.5, Internet Explorer 7 and Safari 3

funny how (1)

nimbius (983462) | more than 2 years ago | (#36325164)

as i slowly come to realize each day i am the product of corporations like google.com and not the consumer, I am incrementally dropping support for their "cloud" applications.

Do they care only about toys? (5, Insightful)

KiloByte (825081) | more than 2 years ago | (#36325246)

Uhm right, but Firefox 3.5 is what is in recently released major STABLE distributions. Sure, you can play with unstable versions at home if you don't mind crashes -- heck, I use Debian sid and Firefox 7.0a1 here, but I wouldn't put them anywhere something that is supposed to stay up reliably. This includes any version of Chrome -- which doesn't receive a modicum of maintenance other than "move to this shiniest but buggiest trunk". Bleeding edge is, well, bleeding and sharp.

You can't expect businesses to drop things that work and jump to something new every a few months. This costs money... will you pay for unnecessary upgrade costs? What else, will you demand people to replace their cars of less than two years age because there's a new model out there?

There is a point where maintaining old junk is pointless, but these guys are ridiculous.

Re:Do they care only about toys? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36325368)

>You can't expect businesses to drop things that work
it will stop working soon enough it seems.

also, if updating is so hard, cant you use something that automatically updates the system?

i am sure there are enough possibilities. if you use IE you can let the windows updater take care of that. chrome also autoupdates. im sure you can find a way to update firefox automatically.
the costs may be a little bit, but the costs for companies like google to keep supporting old shit that doesn't work well is pretty big too.

Re:Do they care only about toys? (1)

KiloByte (825081) | more than 2 years ago | (#36325498)

Uhm, there is a vital thing about autoupdates: they should never, ever make gratuitous changes. Fix security bugs, data loss ones, major annoyances, perhaps minor typos that can't bring regressions. Bringing in a whole major release means your software is not stable.

Re:Do they care only about toys? (4, Informative)

Eponymous Coward (6097) | more than 2 years ago | (#36325396)

A couple of things:

* Not supported isn't the same thing as doesn't work
* Don't use Google if it is costing you significant time and money to do so

Firefox 3.5 is almost 2 years old now and is no longer supported by Mozilla. If you are using it, it's time to step up to at least 3.6.

Re:Do they care only about toys? (2, Insightful)

Eponymous Coward (6097) | more than 2 years ago | (#36325456)

I forgot to add that if you think it is expensive for businesses to keep up with software releases, you should see how expensive it is when they don't.

Re:Do they care only about toys? (1)

KiloByte (825081) | more than 2 years ago | (#36325632)

As you say, "almost 2 years old". So how often do you expect people to roll out major upgrades to something that works well? There is a world of difference between changing the browser on your home box and on aunt Lucy's one as well and having some extension cease to work and buttons being moved to other places and major testing of all software in a large organization to see if they still work after that change. The only way to make this manageable is to do major upgrades every X years or when there's actual need to do so; otherwise you'd have to either skip testing or have a big part of your employees and customers' time spent on unproductive upgrades for the sake of upgrading.

Re:Do they care only about toys? (2)

Charliemopps (1157495) | more than 2 years ago | (#36325700)

If something is supposed to stay up reliably, I wouldn't put a browser on it in the first place.

Obligatory /. google bashing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36325248)

Whatever happened to don't be evil?

Thank god (1)

robmclarty (2211220) | more than 2 years ago | (#36325264)

No comment on the quality of Google's services or their breadth of support (e.g., Opera), but thank god a major player is taking things to the future. I'm a web developer and every single individual client that can form words with their mouth wants their website to work on every possible platform they know about (which usually just means some crummy version of IE because that's what came with their computer). At least now I can point them to this article and ask them if they think their company is somehow more important than Google (read "so valuable that their company deserves even greater support than one of the biggest companies on the internet"). All I'm saying is this might make things however slightly easier to make cool things for the web. So, for that reason, I have a small smile on my face :)

Re:Thank god (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36325458)

I hear you, but firefox 3.5 is hardly 2 years old. I hope they are going to do some sort of gentle degradation of features, because I am sure there are a lot of people on 3.5 or below. A lot of corporate users just got ON IE7.

The other side of this coin is that apps like gmail are starting to get bloated. The other day I saw the "importance" flag or whatever it is, and I just sat there thinking that this is everything gmail was supposed to be railing against! Labels were supposed to be eradicate the need for such things.

Don't get me wrong, I think phasing out is a good thing- I flirted with focusing on web development after I saw ajax made it possible to do some cool things, but then I tried to build an advanced (for the time) gui at work and we had to support IE6. I spent literally 80% of my time trying to get the thing to work in IE6, and it was still an order of magnitude slower than firefox or IE7- it drove me away from web development entirely. It just seems they are kind of pushing things a little too hard here.

Oh noes!!1 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36325280)

My stable Debian box comes with the Firefox 3.5. Dear Google, what would I do now?

Older Browsers? I thought they meant IE6 (1)

Liambp (1565081) | more than 2 years ago | (#36325300)

and Netscape Navigator.

IE7 and FF 3.5 are hardly ancient history.

I bet nobody saw that one coming... (2)

pep939 (1957678) | more than 2 years ago | (#36325310)

All-Web-Company Google bring out their own browser, sure took them a while to drop the competition.

And people cheered them with IE6 (3, Insightful)

Andtalath (1074376) | more than 2 years ago | (#36325330)

Dropping legacy support is not a very good thing to do when legacy means a couple of years.

Re:And people cheered them with IE6 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36325726)

Dropping legacy support is not a very good thing to do when legacy means a couple of years from now.

FTFY. Firefox 3.5 is shipped in the latest stable Debian. And we all know how often Debian updates...

Almost awesome (1)

itchythebear (2198688) | more than 2 years ago | (#36325344)

The title and summary fail to mention that this is specifically only for google apps. I'm sure google search will still work for older browsers. I got really excited at first before i went and read the actual blog post. Still a step in the right direction though.

Poor summary (4, Informative)

DocJohn (81319) | more than 2 years ago | (#36325380)

As usual, the summary leaves out an important modifier -- this only applies to Google APPS, not Google.

From TFA:

For this reason, soon Google Apps will only support modern browsers. Beginning August 1st, we’ll support the current and prior major release of Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer and Safari on a rolling basis. Each time a new version is released, we’ll begin supporting the update and stop supporting the third-oldest version.

Google will still support all older browsers on its search engine. It wouldn't make sense to discriminate there.

--
Psych Central
http://psychcentral.com/ [psychcentral.com]

Re:Poor summary (1)

TarMil (1623915) | more than 2 years ago | (#36325670)

It wouldn't make sense to discriminate there.

It would make so little sense that it probably didn't even occur to the summary author that it could be interpreted that way.

Re:Poor summary (1)

Skyshroudelf (2031210) | more than 2 years ago | (#36325704)

Google will still support all older browsers on its search engine. It wouldn't make sense to discriminate there.

-- Psych Central http://psychcentral.com/ [psychcentral.com]

To fair I am not sure the Google search site would deny any web browser, as it would still make them money.

A little early for firefox 3.5 (1)

systematical (1394991) | more than 2 years ago | (#36325684)

but I'm not complaining. Google dropping support for old browsers like IE7 is a huge help to web developers everywhere. I only wish that Yahoo and Google would join with Google so none of the major search engines supported these out-dated browsers anymore.

Bad News (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36325692)

For those 3 people still using those browsers.

Fuck Google (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36325802)

Fuck Google

With that kind of attitude... (1)

deblau (68023) | more than 2 years ago | (#36325804)

I may have to start incrementally dropping my use of Google's products. You know, for one of their competitors' products. When their short-sightedness compels me to do so because they don't provide applications I want for the technology I have.

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...