×

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

296 comments

FUCK THEM IN THEIR ASSHOLES (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41343771)

Good. Fuck IE.

Re:FUCK THEM IN THEIR ASSHOLES (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41343903)

Calm down, it's just a bit of software, not your Uncle visiting you in the night.

Lucky bastards (5, Funny)

maroberts (15852) | about a year and a half ago | (#41343793)

I still have to support IE6 :-(

Re:Lucky bastards (1)

siddesu (698447) | about a year and a half ago | (#41343957)

What's the big deal? Someone I know has to support several COBOL business applications. A lot of the codebase he works with was probably written around the time he was still a youngling.

Re:Lucky bastards (5, Insightful)

nedlohs (1335013) | about a year and a half ago | (#41344037)

The codebase he supports is supposed to work with a given COBOL system.

Whereas said web crap that has to support IE6, also has to work with IE7, and IE8, and IE9, and Firefox, and Chrome, and Safari. And it has to "look good" in the recent browsers without looking like crap in IE6.

Thank you (4, Insightful)

maroberts (15852) | about a year and a half ago | (#41344389)

Couldn't have put it better myself, except you missed out supporting phone browsing too. :-)

I can program in COBOL and its easier than supporting several generations of browsers.

Re:Lucky bastards (0)

Some Bitch (645438) | about a year and a half ago | (#41344475)

Whereas said web crap that has to support IE6, also has to work with IE7, and IE8, and IE9, and Firefox, and Chrome, and Safari. And it has to "look good" in the recent browsers without looking like crap in IE6.

A lot of the web crap that needs to work on IE6 doesn't need to work on anything else, it's antique ActiveX that doesn't and never will work on something other than IE6.

Re:Lucky bastards (2)

Pieroxy (222434) | about a year and a half ago | (#41344607)

Whereas said web crap that has to support IE6, also has to work with IE7, and IE8, and IE9, and Firefox, and Chrome, and Safari. And it has to "look good" in the recent browsers without looking like crap in IE6.

A lot of the web crap that needs to work on IE6 doesn't need to work on anything else, it's antique ActiveX that doesn't and never will work on something other than IE6.

You haven't paid much attention to the web in the last decade have you?

Re:Lucky bastards (5, Interesting)

toejam13 (958243) | about a year and a half ago | (#41344093)

Our company still supports older browsers such as IE5 - IE7, but we strip a huge amount of functionality away. No CSS, no images and as little scripting on the client-side as possible. It is basically provided as-is. And people use it.

The next big thing for us is to switch from bitmap (PNG, JPG) to vector (SVG) graphics for static images. That means that IE8 and Android Browser 2.x are on the chopping block unless we want to use <object> tags to embed bitmaps as a fallback.

We're aware that means the end of support for IE on XP. But the OS is over a decade old. Windows 7 is fairly reliable and can run on some fairly geriatric hardware (I've gotten to a W7 desktop with both P2/450 and K6-2/500 systems). The corporate sector is slowly being pushed to W7 kicking and screaming because XP driver support for new laptops is starting to wither. For home users, you have to wonder if they're just being cheap. If they can't fork out for an OS upgrade once a decade, how else will they be like on the consumer side?

But then you have the Android issue. I'm using Cyanogenmod 7.1 on my own handset, but that's still Gingerbread 2.3.7. And I consider myself lucky to be even that far. There are some fairly recent handsets that are still using Gingerbread. So do we want to relegate them to the legacy site or keep Gingerbread support? Most of those devices are too small to take advantage of SVG anyways. The tablets could, and most of them run 3.x or 4.x which includes full SVG support in the Android Browser.

Eventually it'll come down to numbers. Is SVG worth it? How much do we save by no longer certifying those legacy browsers? What other gains do we get from retiring support for legacy browsers? How many people are willing to use the legacy site? We just don't know yet.

Re:Lucky bastards (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41344225)

XP runs just fine thank you very much! Why change for the sake of change. Screw you GOOGLE! Great now I have to migrate hundreds of users to hotmail since that still supports IE 6 and I do not have time supporting users complaining that their gmail wont work.

XP runs fine and perfectly well on computers and it makes no sense to upgrade such a great system for eye candy. There is no reason why IE 9 can't work on XP nor why IE 8 can't do everything other browsers can do.

Lazy just plain lazy. IE 8 is something still so cutting edge and new that companies are spending 10s of millions upgrading from IE 6 as I write this! You are telling them they can't even support the browser they spend 10 million porting their apps to?!! WTF

Google is out of touch

Re:Lucky bastards (3, Insightful)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about a year and a half ago | (#41344395)

You don't need to migrate them off XP. You just need to migrate them off IE and to Chrome.

But, frankly, if you're still on XP, the only lazy around is you. Stop bitching about people not bothering to support your antique setup - they don't have any obligation to do so, and I've heard enough from web developers to know just how painful supporting IE below 9 is.

Re:Lucky bastards (4, Insightful)

justforgetme (1814588) | about a year and a half ago | (#41344767)

IMHO chrome has become too much of a behemoth. I'd migrate them to Firefox. A fresh OS with chrome on a 7 year old laptop grinds to a halt on the first page. The same setup is perfectly usable with an up to date Firefox

Re:Lucky bastards (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41344423)

IE 8 is not the only browser that runs on XP

Chrome, Safari, Firefox, Opera...

Google is choosing to require a modern environment so that they can deliver a quality user experience.

IE 8 is three years old, HTML 5 support is wonky, and it's javascript engine is slow. All reasons why Google released Chrome, to provide an environment that delivers a quality experience to their users.

Re:Lucky bastards (3, Informative)

hairyfeet (841228) | about a year and a half ago | (#41344481)

Actually Win 7 is the first one since Win2K Pro (great OS that one was) where I can point to real honest to God improvements and say "THAT, that right there, that's worth upgrading for", such as MUCH better memory management where Windows will actually use available memory for caching instead of slamming the page file when you still have memory free, jumplists and breadcrumbs make it butt simple to get back to where you were working the day before, readyboost can give a real kick in the pants to older systems by moving small I/Os onto a spare flash stick, its simply a much better OS all around.

So if you are keeping your users on XP you really are doing them a disservice, it was alright back in the day but its over a decade old now and the tech has made it obsolete, time to move on. Heck I've got several customers running it on a midrange (2.2GHz-3.2GHz) P4 with 2Gb of RAM so it isn't like you even have to toss the boxes. Just let it go man, let it go.

Re:Lucky bastards (3, Informative)

toejam13 (958243) | about a year and a half ago | (#41344501)

XP runs just fine thank you very much! Why change for the sake of change ... XP runs fine and perfectly well on computers and it makes no sense to upgrade such a great system for eye candy.

Except that it does not. Try using Windows XP on a recent Thinkpad or Inspiron laptop. Constant issues with power saving, USB devices and wireless connectivity, just to name a few. Hardware developers simply are not putting their XP drivers through the same level of QA as their W7 drivers, and it shows.

And if you want to use more than 4GB of memory, you're put in something of an awkward position with XP. The x86-64 edition was based on Server 2003 and not XP Professional. It is the red-headed stepchild of the Windows world. I used it for a couple of years with my desktop and it had its share of... quirks.

Then you have the problem with security updates for XP coming to an end. That isn't eye candy, that's core stability.

There is no reason why IE 9 can't work on XP nor why IE 8 can't do everything other browsers can do.

Lazy just plain lazy. IE 8 is something still so cutting edge and new that companies are spending 10s of millions upgrading from IE 6 as I write this! You are telling them they can't even support the browser they spend 10 million porting their apps to?!! WTF

Google is out of touch

I don't think you understand. Microsoft is a for-profit corporation. They want you to move off of XP and onto W7 or W8. Porting DX11 and IE10 back to XP removes incentives for you to upgrade. That isn't lazy, that's just smart business sense.

Re:Lucky bastards (0)

hairyfeet (841228) | about a year and a half ago | (#41344465)

You ran Win 7 on a Pentium 2? Why man good God why? Did you lose a bet or something?

While frankly nobody should be using something THAT old as a day to day system i can say that I've thrown Win 7 on several systems that are more likely what you are gonna find in the wild, socket 754 Semprons and socket 478 P4s and it runs just fine and is pleasant to use on those 7+ year old systems. No Aero of course but its not like you need Aero for anything.

But the fact that you have to run a non MSFT browser on products that are still under support just shows why IE is doomed, they have really shot themselves in the foot by fragmenting the hell out of the userbase. Hell I can't even keep up with what runs on where, is it 7 is the last XP version or 8? And isn't IE 10 supposedly to be for 7 and 8, thus screwing over the Vista users?

IE is just too much of a fragmented mess anymore and I'm just glad I've gotten my customers off the damned thing. Now I give them Comodo Dragon and Firefox (although recently I've started using IceDragon, I like the layout a little better than standard FF) and tell them if they insist on using IE just don't expect any support for it, with Dragon it doesn't matter which OS they are on its just one browser, but IE is just too much of a mess. If you have to support IE? I pity you, I really do.

Re:Lucky bastards (1)

GNious (953874) | about a year and a half ago | (#41344489)

For home users, you have to wonder if they're just being cheap.

I bought a Win 7 Home Premium based PC - it is a decision I've come to regret; I'm not cheap, but that has been a waste of money and of a lot of time trying to get it to update, backup, get on network .. basically everything I've tried has resulted in messages that something unknown failed, or that it isn't supported in Win 7 Home Premium.

Win XP works, works pretty well, and doesn't have a stupid UI that goes in circles when trying to get to network settings.

Re:Lucky bastards (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41344499)

We're aware that means the end of support for IE on XP. But the OS is over a decade old.

And Linux is even older. The software's age is irrelevant, what matters is its marketshare.

I've gotten to a W7 desktop with both P2/450 and K6-2/500 systems

Windows 7 is way too bloated for old machines. A lightweight Linux would run much better, you might even get to run some programs too.

Re:Lucky bastards (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41344747)

And Linux is even older.

But very rarely the Kernel and software (versions) that are used.

Re:Lucky bastards (1)

Moby Cock (771358) | about a year and a half ago | (#41344241)

At work, I still have to use IE6. It's just dreadful. Practically no websites render correctly and it is painstakingly slow.

As they should (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41343841)

Oh, wait, forgot to read the summary, let alone the FA. Yes, IE8 support should be stopped. Only support current browsers. Some day we'll all realize what browsers are, little mini OS's.

Re:As they should (3, Informative)

Sir_Sri (199544) | about a year and a half ago | (#41344055)

Only support current browsers

8 was released in 2009. IE9 last year. I'm not really sure it matters for google, but if you do custom web applications 3 years isn't really a long time to have to keep it alive.

The big thing with IE8 is that it's the last IE for windows XP. Which is why it has a larger markeshare than IE9 still. marketshare from June [hitslink.com] and more marketshare by a lot. (25% vs 18%).

If windows 8 looked like it was about to take off like a rocket and Windows XP was on a rapid trajectory to obsolescence then sure, but that isn't really what's happening. Windows XP is slowly dying away, but it's still slowly, and especially in the business market lots of potential customers are locked into the browser on XP for the moment.

Granted, google probably has a lot of metrics and they probably know this isn't a problem for *their* products, but for the us little guys it's a different problem.

Re:As they should (1)

HJED (1304957) | about a year and a half ago | (#41344235)

Hm, its going to be fun in NSW government schools for a while when this happens, student email is provided by Google apps and currently the government issue laptops (all students in year9+ have them) are running IE 8, with the only way to upgrade to recall and reimage all of the laptops (because they are so locked down).
Many of the schools still have desktop computers running XP, because of this I doubt that google did look at a lot of metrics because creating that kind of issue for one of its largest Australian customers is probably not a good idea.

Re:As they should (2)

tokul (682258) | about a year and a half ago | (#41344455)

They'll just load google chrome plugin for IE. Which is what google probably wants. Yet another workstation with google stack on it.

Re:As they should (2)

sjames (1099) | about a year and a half ago | (#41344255)

XP users do have the option to install the latest and greatest Chrome, Firefox, or Safari.

Re:As they should (1)

FirephoxRising (2033058) | about a year and a half ago | (#41344355)

I was just thinking this, the Medicare side of DHS (Dept Human Services in Australia) has Firefox built into their images as they are XP based and IE8 is crap. Lots of internal stuff uses IE, but Firefox is their for newer sites and some internal stuff.

Re:As they should (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41344533)

Not if your computer is locked down by your IT department.

Re:As they should (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | about a year and a half ago | (#41344529)

Well if this doesn't help XP finally be put to rest maybe the announcement that the next photoshop won't run on XP [cnet.com] will finally do it.

The ones I feel sorry for are the Vista users, they get no love at all even though their OS is supported until 2017. All the ones I've seen that have killed XP support seem to go from XP straight to 7, no Vista support at all. Poor Vista users, first you get a crappy OS then everyone ignores you.

Re:As they should (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41344591)

The big thing with IE8 is that it's the last IE for windows XP. Which is why it has a larger markeshare than IE9 still. marketshare from June and more marketshare by a lot. (25% vs 18%).

Worse, its the last IE that works in Server 2003, which is still used (insanely) in a lot of RDP/Citrix thin client installations.

Another nail for XP (5, Informative)

juventasone (517959) | about a year and a half ago | (#41343877)

The summary leaves out the interesting part: IE8 is the latest version available for Windows XP. And there's no place that XP exists more than business, education, and government. This is Google's way to get sysadmins comfortable with Chrome in the workplace.

Re:Another nail for XP (1)

mkraft (200694) | about a year and a half ago | (#41343929)

Or Firefox or Safari.

Most businesses are starting or have already switched to Windows 7 since support for XP officially ends in 18 months.

Re:Another nail for XP (2)

pspahn (1175617) | about a year and a half ago | (#41343977)

Yeah, but what is support anymore? In a world where your device is not much more than a dumb | smart client (browser as OS, essentially), the device is replaceable. Simply. No more worrying about an entire hardware stack, all you care about is the browser and the web.

I think it has been highly insightful of Googoo to develop the apps they have. I use them fairly often, and mostly because of the convenience. And hey, if it enlightens some M$ drone to the benefits of an alternative back office, the all the better.

Re:Another nail for XP (1)

Bert64 (520050) | about a year and a half ago | (#41344531)

Support is required because even tho you might be using the device as a dumb client, it's really an extremely complex piece of equipment with plenty of places where security holes could be found, and with no support from the one vendor capable of supporting it those holes will never be fixed.

On the other hand, if that's what you're using it for them it's ridiculous to run such a complex system... Run something as simple as possible which is still being actively updated, plenty of lightweight linux distros, chromeos, firefox os etc.

Re:Another nail for XP (2)

rudy_wayne (414635) | about a year and a half ago | (#41344069)

Or Firefox or Safari.

Most businesses are starting or have already switched to Windows 7 since support for XP officially ends in 18 months.

The ending of support is irrelevant. What "support" could you possibly need for XP? Anyone who is currently running XP will continue to do so until their last computer dies and cannot be repaired.

Businesses are switching to Windows 7 only because all the new computers they buy come with Windows 7 installed. If they could still get new computers with Windows XP installed, they would buy them.

Re:Another nail for XP (4, Informative)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about a year and a half ago | (#41344101)

Businesses don't tend to use the OS install that comes with the machine, they load their own builds they have made and tested themselves.

Support = security fixes.Come 11 April 2014, no more security fixes for XP. Good luck getting Office 2014* that will install on XP as well.

* or 2015, 2016, 2017....

Re:Another nail for XP (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | about a year and a half ago | (#41344483)

Depends on the business. A company with 20,000 to 200,000 employees? Yes, they have their own custom builds. A mom-n-pop retail shop? No, they use whatever comes installed on the machine, or whatever the IT business they've contracted with installs on it.

Re:Another nail for XP (1)

repvik (96666) | about a year and a half ago | (#41344379)

Businesses are switching to Windows 7 only because all the new computers they buy come with Windows 7 installed. If they could still get new computers with Windows XP installed, they would buy them.

What kind of business would do that? The brand new Dells we purchase are reimaged with a ready-made XP-image. We don't care about what OS the computer comes with. This is pretty common, and you apparently know nothing about enterprise management.

Re:Another nail for XP (1)

jimicus (737525) | about a year and a half ago | (#41344441)

Depends on the size of the business. You can't do that (roll out a standard image) without buying a separate license for Windows, which means that it's pretty much limited to larger businesses. Small businesses tend to take what the computer comes with.

Re:Another nail for XP (1)

Jimme Blue (1683902) | about a year and a half ago | (#41343945)

The summary leaves out the interesting part: IE8 is the latest version available for Windows XP. And there's no place that XP exists more than business, education, and government. This is Google's way to get sysadmins comfortable with Chrome in the workplace.

Having read the FA (hanging my head in shame (which is stressing my youvh yypinh dkilld) ), it looks like this is only touching upon the web-access apps.

Does anyone know if there are Google Appliance apps, similar to Google Search appliances? I know that I've run across Google search appliances on small & large scales (various gov-controlled, closed networks), but I've not seen (or recognized) any implementations of their apps on these aforementioned appliances.

It seems to me that affecting _those_ networks would really be turning the screws on XP.

The article seemed somewhat negative... (3, Interesting)

gQuigs (913879) | about a year and a half ago | (#41343913)

whereas I am quite positive about this move. It was Microsoft's choice to not port their more recent browser to XP in an attempt to kill it.

It's quite amazing how much marketshare IE has lost over the last 4 years (http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser_version_partially_combined-ww-monthly-200807-201209). Firefox has lost somewhere in the neighborhood of 4%, while IE has lost 30%+ mostly to Chrome.

It's moslty the US, Australia, and China holding up IE usage (http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser_version_partially_combined-ww-monthly-201209-201209-map)

*Note all of this is according to statcounter, while other sources give different results, still with the same trends though.

Re:The article seemed somewhat negative... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41344145)

I've been trying all of the browsers available for several years and I have to admit that IE 9 isn't really all that bad. It does what it is supposed to do, and it does it fairly well.

I mean, I can view just about every website on the internet with it. It seems to serve its purpose. It has a reason to exist.

As far as I'm concerned, the only major downside is that it doesn't have an option to automatically "save" your progress so you can resume from where you left off when you closed the browser. But aside from that, it does the job of web browsing quite well.

IE 8 does kinda suck, though.

Re:The article seemed somewhat negative... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41344161)

Windows 7 also has XP mode, so I'm not entirely sure what the excuse is these days, aside from just being cheap.

Re:The article seemed somewhat negative... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41344223)

In terms of parity with Firefox and Chrome, IE9 is pretty meh on the CSS3/HTML5/fast JS front. A huge jump over IE8, but still fairly limiting.

IE10 on the other hand is a whole 'nother ballgame. Apart from webgl which they are opposed to out of their general OpenGL-must-die stance (same as CSS shaders using GLES2), IE10 covers basically the same featureset as Firefox and Chrome. I was amused to find that IE10 even had similar CSS bugs to Chrome.

Big businesses won't move (4, Interesting)

Tony Isaac (1301187) | about a year and a half ago | (#41343921)

It takes a LONG time for big businesses to move to new versions of anything. They are just now moving off of Windows XP and IE 7. Many major software systems used by big companies (such as GE Centricity) still don't even support IE 9, so customers of such software can't move forward even if they wanted to!

It looks like Google is taking a page out of Apple's book. It's stunts like this that keep Apple out of the office (for the most part). Microsoft, on the other hand, has a reputation for supporting legacy software just about forever...lots of old DOS programs still work! Microsoft has been rewarded by businesses in a big way.

Is this an opening for Yahoo?

Re:Big businesses won't move (1)

tangent3 (449222) | about a year and a half ago | (#41343953)

Or you know, they could just install Firefox or Chrome to access Google Apps and retain the obselete IE to access the obselete services.

Re:Big businesses won't move (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about a year and a half ago | (#41344109)

Since when did Mozilla or Google offer SLA's for Firefox or Chrome? Microsoft supports IE as its part of the OS.

Re:Big businesses won't move (1)

sjames (1099) | about a year and a half ago | (#41344283)

Apparently not on XP any more. The latest IE won't even install. At least Firefox and Chrome will install.

Granted, XP is ancient now and I don't really blame MS for not supporting it anymore, but it seems they are now actively sabotaging it.

Re:Big businesses won't move (1)

Bert64 (520050) | about a year and a half ago | (#41344549)

Microsoft offer no guarantee whatsoever with IE, they will offer "best effort" support, where the level of effort is directly related to how much you pay them.

Re:Big businesses won't move (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41344357)

Firefox requires a lot of elwork with the gpo plugin and firefox adm to integrated in a domain and then it doesn't come in a msi for centralized distribution

Is there anyone posting who knows what a corporate deployment looks like?

It is not just a question on downloading the setup.exe

However, no pity for the companies that are just being cheap if they cant afford a 300$/3years computer update for they 3000$/month employee, they're not really going anywhere

Re:Big businesses won't move (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | about a year and a half ago | (#41344509)

You'd be surprised just how cheap and stupid a lot of companies are. At my last job, I was getting six figures in pay, but for the longest time they kept me stuck with a shitty, old, slow PC running XP (and I had to use tools that only ran in Cygwin! because they wouldn't get Linux) with a tiny 17" monitor. Builds took forever, wasting tons of my time. After about a year of that, they finally got us new computers, but that was a lot of wasted time there.

I think these companies are just poorly run, by bean-counters mainly. They'll pay a lot for an employee because if they don't, the position will just sit vacant and the work won't get done, so they'll pay "market rate" or maybe a little more if they're getting desperate. But then they'll cut costs in other places, especially IT since it's a cost center. They're too stupid to put the two together (we're paying this guy $50-75/hour, but we're trying to save money by not getting him a $200 large-screen monitor and a $600 computer so he doesn't waste his time compiling software. He makes as much in only 2 days as it costs to pay for these things). Penny wise and pound foolish.

Re:Big businesses won't move (2)

Quick Reply (688867) | about a year and a half ago | (#41343973)

I think that if they are so change-resistent that they can't even deploy Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Google Chrome Frame or Google Apps Sync for Outlook (all of the supported options) then what chance is there that they would even move to Google Apps at all.

Re:Big businesses won't move (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41344573)

DNRTFA, but I think it very likely google will support older IE browsers. As long as they use Chrome Frame.

Just drop support for IE entirely (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41343967)

IE9 and IE10 still suck.

It's well deserved. (4, Insightful)

mosb1000 (710161) | about a year and a half ago | (#41343983)

Anyone still using IE 8 deserves to be left out in the cold. Modern browsers are free, and work much better than that ancient piece of crap. If your IT department doesn't have it's shit together enough to let you run a real web browser, you can't expect most of the internet to work for you either. Don't complain to Google, you should seriously be considering replacing whoever it is who is making your IT decisions for you.

Re:It's well deserved. (1)

rudy_wayne (414635) | about a year and a half ago | (#41344021)

I'm no fan of Internet Explorer, but that's just complete bullshit. IE 8 isn't that old and not that bad. It isn't as good as Firefox or Chrome, but it's not that bad.. I really wonder if there is any legitimate technical reason for not allowing IE8, or if it's just anti-Microsoft bias -- sort of the reverse of what used to happen back when IE was the dominant browser.

For example, years ago when Firefox was just starting to become popular, there were some bank and credit card websites that would not allow me to use Firefox, they insisted that I had to use IE. So I changed Firefox's user agent string to IE and those sites worked just fine. In other words, there was no legitimate technical reason for not allowing browsers other than IE. Just ignorance and /or bias that was not based on any reality.

Re:It's well deserved. (4, Interesting)

mosb1000 (710161) | about a year and a half ago | (#41344087)

You are wrong. There are a number of HTML 5 technologies (especially canvas objects) that IE 8 doesn't support. Many special concessions must be made to support IE 8 from a modern web-based application. It often means writing two versions of you code, one for IE 8 and one for everything else. Supporting IE 8 means limiting the functionality of you application while adding complexity to your code. I'm sure there was a collective sigh of relief among web developers when they heard Google was dropping IE 8, it means their employers will soon follow suit.

They aren't blocking IE 8 users, they're just dropping support for the browser. That means some features won't work correctly or at all, and as time goes on the whole site will stop working as the continue to roll out new features that aren't supported in IE 8.

Re:It's well deserved. (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | about a year and a half ago | (#41344265)

You do not need canvas objects unless you want applet like animations and motions similiar to your phone. What IE 8 lacks is a decent javascript engine. It still is the same as IE 6 with minor tweeks and ajax needs special code just for old IE.

HTML 5 is too early and the css is not compatible as different standards between webkit, trident, and gecko. I would love to see corporate software use standards but face the facts it will alienate them as many are spending millions just to upgrade to IE 8 from IE 6. You are telling htem to throw out that investment they just made for IE 10?? I don't think so!

Re:It's well deserved. (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | about a year and a half ago | (#41344517)

Um, isn't IE8 a free download for XP users? Why would corporations spend millions to upgrade to it?

Re:It's well deserved. (1)

truedfx (802492) | about a year and a half ago | (#41344559)

Time is money. Time spent upgrading browsers is time that could have been spent earning money. When IE is required for intraweb sites, there's also the time spent making sure the site works in IE8: they can be very browser-dependent and not support any other browser or any other version of the one required browser. But even then, millions seems like a big stretch.

Re:It's well deserved. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41344795)

When your business still requires IE6 for its intranet and does not work on IE >6, it is quite retarded isn't it?

Re:It's well deserved. (0)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | about a year and a half ago | (#41344155)

I really wonder if there is any legitimate technical reason for not allowing IE8, or if it's just anti-Microsoft bias

The technical reason is that it takes resources to even test it in IE and Google has decided those resources are no longer available.

I realize that you were looking for a reason why the site wouldn't load, but really the simple explanation is that Google just doesn't want to spend the money on it. There's no reason it has to only be about ignorance or bias.

Re:It's well deserved. (4, Informative)

KingMotley (944240) | about a year and a half ago | (#41344273)

Off the top of my head:
Opacity (real opacity, including opacity on PNGs with an alpha channel).
Being able to define colors using RGBA
CSS3 transforms
Fully supporting @font-face for real web fonts
HTML5 video support with H.264/MPEG4 so we can drop flash video players finally
WOFF font support instead of the EOT (IE-only font format)
Box shadows
multiple backgrounds on a single object
CSS3 selectors (:last-child, :nth-child, etc)

Stuff even IE9 doesn't support:
text-shadows
3d transforms
aync on script tags
web sockets
Filereader API (Smarter upload buttons)
CSS3 transitions
CSS3 gradients
HTML5 form elements (date picker, range, integer, etc)

Yes, those are all things that we use on our web site, or wanted to use and either had to write custom fallbacks just for IE, rewrite to use a different (more difficult, less efficient, larger) technique, or just let IE look like crap.

Re:It's well deserved. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41344401)

Dear rudy_wayne,

It is obvious from your statement that you are not a web application developer. Please refrain from making silly comments on subjects in which you are not well versed.

IE 8 does a stand up job rendering static web sites, but that is vastly different from producing and maintaining a web application such as Google Apps.

Re:It's well deserved. (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | about a year and a half ago | (#41344253)

It most surely not free! You are taking millions and BS with fights tooth and nail from the finance and accounting deparmtnets who prefer to see the share price go up rather than take a risk supporting a browswer that already works fine!

Worse intranet software only works on IE 8. Some used to Firefox 3.6 certified, but not anymore. You can thank Mozilla for the 6 week release cycle for that thank you very much! THese companies are liable if it breaks. SO only IE is supported for payrolls ADP app, or siebel's crapware 2012 edition. These intranet software optimized for iE 6 still work fine and are deployed in organizations all over the world.

It is not the same like your computer at home.

Re:It's well deserved. (5, Interesting)

repvik (96666) | about a year and a half ago | (#41344459)

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that.

So we deserve to be left out in the cold, because we have a need for applications that have yet to be upgraded to support IE9+? Our IT department employs 260+ people, and while you may claim that they "haven't got their shit together" I know these people pretty well, and they're pretty competent. IE8 is three years old. That isn't stoneage. And since IE breaks compatibility every single release, that means that more than 600 of the applications we provide (most external, some internal) have to be updated, re-tested and pushed. Almost once a year. Are you f*cking kidding me?
Chrome with their incremental upgrade model is a complete no-go. We can't have the browser suddenly upgrading and breaking a critical system either. Firefox has major revisions every other week, which is even worse for an enterprise setup.

In a small IT shop with Office and little else, being stuck on XP and IE8 would be gross incompetence. For a large company supporting more than 3k applications, it's not so much a choice. And it's not as easy as switching to other applications either, since many of these are specialist apps for which no alternative applications are available.

Re:It's well deserved. (1, Flamebait)

mosb1000 (710161) | about a year and a half ago | (#41344555)

HTML5 has been coming down the pipeline for quite a while now. There're no excuse for not being ready for it. If you're picking external applications, don't pick someone using ancient technology. If you're developing internal applications, future proofing is even easier. If you already know that IE breaks compatibility with every new release, and that they have a great deal of difficulty keeping to standards, so you shouldn't have been using IE in the first place. There has always been a better, more standard compliant browser available. If you're not aware of that, it means you don't know what you're doing. If you'd started to switch to applications compatible with Firefox or Chrome years ago, you'd pretty much be ready for IE 10 today.

I don't know how you can honestly spin this as anything other than gross incompetence. The only reason IT departments operate this way and get away with it is leadership that doesn't have the technical knowledge to understand the magnitude of their incompetence.

Re:It's well deserved. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41344779)

Modern browsers might be free, but the process of installing them on 100,000 PCs is anything but free, even with an automated system. Then there is the testing required to ensure that business critical web applications that have been running perfectly for 5 - 10 years continue running perfectly on the new browser. All of this takes time and costs $$$$.

For home users, sure upgrade whenever. Large business and government is a separate beast that will simply not be able to react so quickly.

A nail for XP? lol np (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | about a year and a half ago | (#41344015)

just load chrome or firefox on XP

I really wonder if MS knows it lost that battle, you have the IE6 crowd using their slow janky, hard coded 640x480 database front ends, and then people like my parents, where "fox, ... fire" has been a part of their everyday existence for over a half decade

IE? whats that, a sporadic TV commercial with nearly 2 decades of pure SHIT to remind us of why we dont use IE in the first place?

Re:A nail for XP? lol np (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about a year and a half ago | (#41344209)

Oh yeah, it's really that easy. Hey clueless guy, sorry, our CRM software (Oasis CRM) at work doesn't accept form data correctly from Firefox 15.0 so it's unusable. I'm not going to test and made a new deployment pack every month either and their CSM versions suck. Since 95% of the systems are XP, IE8 is it. I guess I can cross google off the list for competitive products. You go your workplace and "just switch" to Firefox and let me know how that goes.

Re:A nail for XP? lol np (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41344393)

honestly dude, your CRM should not be crippleware from last century at this point, grow up and evolve already, just cause your boss spent 199$ in 1998 doesnt mean the world stops

Re:A nail for XP? lol np (1)

eWarz (610883) | about a year and a half ago | (#41344315)

Funny you mention fox...fire. Everyone i know calls it that...why?

Re:A nail for XP? lol np (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | about a year and a half ago | (#41344539)

There was a bestselling magazine called Foxfile [wikipedia.org] back in the 70s and 80s that had something to do with Appalachian folklore and traditions. Maybe all the people who know who call it that are older and remember that magazine.

Very Nice (-1, Offtopic)

oliva23 (2730669) | about a year and a half ago | (#41344027)

my best friend's half-sister makes $70 every hour on the laptop. She has been unemployed for five months but last month her paycheck was $21307 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Read more site on this web http://doiop.com/s09ci0 [doiop.com]

And this is what % of Google Apps customers? (1)

Jahoda (2715225) | about a year and a half ago | (#41344031)

If you're a monolithic organization only just now about to start your three-years-in-the-making migration to 7, you're also probably not a Google Apps customer...

Re:And this is what % of Google Apps customers? (1)

HJED (1304957) | about a year and a half ago | (#41344285)

The NSW Department of Education which uses google apps for all student email, has all of their win 7 laptops (one for each yr9+ student) locked on IE8, the only way to upgrade them to IE9 would be recall and re-image every single one. Considering the size of the laptop program is so large that Microsoft actually allowed a final version of win7 to be installed on them before its global launch you'd think google wouldn't want to alienate such a large customer?

User agent detection (1)

Deaddy (1090107) | about a year and a half ago | (#41344133)

It's sad how google still implements user agent detection. Somewhere around 2005 I hoped these funny 'this website is optimized for IE 5'-messages would be a thing of the past soon, although my browser at the time (Opera at the time I guess) obviously was superior or had at least the same capabilities. Yet google is doing the same thing, even worse. While the websites in the past didn't switch to different sites if you had the wrong user agent, or at most included some stupid javascript overlay, google redirects you. In case of google calendar, if you have a user agent string not matching one of the major browsers (for example uzbl, surf or the like), you're asking for trouble, since google won't allow you to use the fully featured version of the calendar and you can only use the non-javascript version (although I hate js, this is one of the few exceptions where js is indeed the better choice). It is one thing not to support some browsers and handle problems that might occur, but at least they should give one the choice to use the service at one owns risk.

I really hoped that at least the worst practices from the late 90s would someday disappear from the net, but with google doing much stupid stuff and getting away with it or even being praised for it, because nobody likes IE, my hope is crushed.

Re:User agent detection (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | about a year and a half ago | (#41344157)

the only time I have noticed it is on link2 -g

running all sorts of generic gecko browsers the only thing it would bitch about is the lack of javascript

what has the world become to (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41344141)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3FVO1u09-o

Google is the New Microsoft (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41344199)

Google is the new Microsoft. Apple is the division of Microsoft that makes good hardware.

IE What? (2)

rueger (210566) | about a year and a half ago | (#41344207)

Just occurred to me that I honestly have no idea what the current version of IE might be. I think I've used it maybe twice in the last year?

Re:IE What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41344305)

It's IE9, which is actually pretty decent. They're coming out with IE10 soon, presumably when Windows 8 is released.

I'll probably get modded down for saying IE doesn't suck.

Re:IE What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41344351)

IE9 still sucks. You only find it comparatively 'good' because the bar has been set very low with earlier versions of IE.

Re:IE What? (1)

dkf (304284) | about a year and a half ago | (#41344675)

Just occurred to me that I honestly have no idea what the current version of IE might be. I think I've used it maybe twice in the last year?

Woah! IE still exists? Really?

Re:IE What? (2)

DarkXale (1771414) | about a year and a half ago | (#41344763)

Both IE9 and IE10. IE9 is still the latest on Windows Vista and 7, but Windows 8 (which is released for MSDN and others) uses IE10.

I Can't Wait (1)

eWarz (610883) | about a year and a half ago | (#41344313)

I can't wait. Hopefully this will help put the final nail in the coffin for non compliant browsers and we can all move on with our lives. Do you know how much time and effort it takes to get a site working on IE6-8? The answer is: too much.

Hummm..I'm forced to ask (0)

A_Non_Moose (413034) | about a year and a half ago | (#41344373)

is there a reliable way to change IE9 or 10 to look normal or like IE8 like I can do with firefox?

Particularly:
no unified buttons
menu bar
normal size address bar (not the tiny one IE9 has)

There's a few other minor things, but the 3 above have made me switch back because IE9+ just puts me off quickly....like the
longest I've tolerated it was an hour and a half.

Re:Hummm..I'm forced to ask (2, Informative)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about a year and a half ago | (#41344411)

no unified buttons

Clarify?

menu bar

You can activate it by pressing Alt as usual. Then you can go and check View -> Toolbars -> Menu bar to keep it on if you want.

normal size address bar (not the tiny one IE9 has

Do you refer to the fact that address bar is on the same line with tabs, and is squeezed to the right? If so, then right-click on any tab, and select "Show tabs in separate row".

Re:Hummm..I'm forced to ask (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | about a year and a half ago | (#41344419)

use firefox/chrome/IE9+ for a whole week and forget about it like the rest of the world?

Cloud problem (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41344383)

When other companies decide which browser to use inside a company, things can get messy. This is actually a really bad property with applications in the cloud. I run most of my stuff locally.

Re:Cloud problem (1)

jimicus (737525) | about a year and a half ago | (#41344453)

Bit of a shame you're an AC and so many won't see what you've said - but you're absolutely right. As soon as you start to run the business on web-based applications, you find you have to run your IT to the beat of someone else's drum.

Things start to get messy when one application will only work in IE 8 or below (and not firefox/chrome) and another won't work in any version of IE below 9. Though I suppose you could always put an icon on the desktop that fires up Chrome for just a specific application.

Chrome is rubbish for buisiness (1)

cycler (31440) | about a year and a half ago | (#41344433)

I usually feel alone in some of my thoughts and opinions bu tI hope I have some friends out there.
As an administrator I can't understand why Chrome catches on. I have never seen any worse browser.
From an admin point of view that is.

* I can't set the local cache size (what browser in their right mind saves 1GB(sic!) on the local hard drive?)
* It saves it's EXE in the Windows profile. I thought Program Files existed for a reason....
* We have re-routed MyDocuments to a home directory. Chrome default saves downloads in Downloads under MyDocuments. EVERY single file! Attachments from mail or not doesn't matter. 99% can be deleted but I still need to check with the user for the of chance that he/she has edited something in the folder.

In short, I hate it.
(If someone has any answers to these issues I would be grateful to be informed of such answers. And don't bother with command-line switches, are the invoked when the user starts the browser on a link?)

/C

Re:Chrome is rubbish for buisiness (2)

Skylinux (942824) | about a year and a half ago | (#41344487)

* It saves it's EXE in the Windows profile. I thought Program Files existed for a reason....

The Program Files folder requires admin permissions to write to. So storing the exe in profiles makes it possible to install and update a program without admin rights.

Re:Chrome is rubbish for buisiness (1)

truedfx (802492) | about a year and a half ago | (#41344575)

It saves it's EXE in the Windows profile. I thought Program Files existed for a reason....

The second result of a Google search for "chrome program files" [ghacks.net] points to this download page [google.com] . I can't verify this exact page still works (I'm on Linux right now, so Google doesn't give me a Windows download), but I do have Chrome installed in Program Files on my Windows system.

Re:Chrome is rubbish for buisiness (2)

Z34107 (925136) | about a year and a half ago | (#41344745)

I'm going to assume you're managing a large XP network with roaming profiles, because none of your complaints make sense otherwise. I'm also not a Windows admin, so forgive some lack of familiarity.

* I can't set the local cache size (what browser in their right mind saves 1GB(sic!) on the local hard drive?)

Did you redirect the entire Application Data folder onto a network share? If you did, stop it--it's huge even without Chrome's cache. If you didn't, stop worrying about a gig of local disk.

* It saves it's EXE in the Windows profile. I thought Program Files existed for a reason....

This is so non-administrators can install and update Chrome.

* We have re-routed MyDocuments to a home directory. Chrome default saves downloads in Downloads under MyDocuments. EVERY single file! Attachments from mail or not doesn't matter. 99% can be deleted but I still need to check with the user for the of chance that he/she has edited something in the folder.

So go change Chrome's download folder. This isn't rocket science [dropbox.com] . Google also provides an MSI installer [google.com] and group policy objects, which I'd imagine makes that easier.

And do you really spend time deleting individual files out of other users' Documents folders? Windows has supported disk quotas since NT, and it probably costs more to pay you for an hour of download deleting than just buying a new disk for the file server.

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...