Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Ends Internet Explorer 9 Support In Google Apps

Unknown Lamer posted about 10 months ago | from the if-only-they-did-that-with-ie6 dept.

Internet Explorer 199

An anonymous reader writes "Google has announced it is discontinuing support for Internet Explorer 9 in Google Apps, including its Business, Education, and Government editions. Google says it has stopped all testing and engineering work related to IE9, given that IE11 was released on October 17 along with Windows 8.1. This means that IE9 users who access Gmail and other Google Apps services will be notified 'within the next few weeks' that they need to upgrade to a more modern browser. Google says this will either happen through an in-product notification message or an interstitial page."

cancel ×

199 comments

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

We're stuck on IE 6 or 8 here in business land (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45345595)

Not that anyone uses IE except for when they have to

Re:We're stuck on IE 6 or 8 here in business land (3, Informative)

The MAZZTer (911996) | about 10 months ago | (#45345617)

Here in businessland they just block Gmail and Google Drive anyway...

Re:We're stuck on IE 6 or 8 here in business land (3, Informative)

tepples (727027) | about 10 months ago | (#45346061)

My employer must not be in "businessland" then, because it uses Google Apps mail, and Google Apps mail uses the same codebase as Gmail.

Re:We're stuck on IE 6 or 8 here in business land (0)

fluffythedestroyer (2586259) | about 10 months ago | (#45345687)

With this info [wikipedia.org] , it seems like they're still people that are using IE. I for one, just simply hate Microsofts way of doing with IE as they seem to think its their laws that shall govern how we use the internet because they seem to use a different mechanic behind their browser but with that many people, i don't think Google should end support for IE9.

But I understand why they do it. I've talked and I know some web devs that just simply hate IE9 because its a pain to work with when they create a webpage. They always have to work with some special code and its always extra work. At the end, their clients pay more if they want IE support on their webpage and their clients know that and are aware

Re:We're stuck on IE 6 or 8 here in business land (4, Insightful)

smash (1351) | about 10 months ago | (#45345803)

Well in business land, no other browser is actually supportable. Want reliable proxy autodetect? Most other browsers break on DHCP based WPAD. Want to deploy links, manage security zones, etc via group policy? Good luck. IE runs in the business world because it is actually administer-able via group policy. Mozilla is not.

Re:We're stuck on IE 6 or 8 here in business land (5, Informative)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 10 months ago | (#45345875)

There are addons to manage most if not all browsers. Nor are GPOs the only way to do this.

What you are really saying is incompetent admins can easily do these things with IE so they use it.

Re:We're stuck on IE 6 or 8 here in business land (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45345929)

Incompetent for using a unified management system for all of their duties?

In business land that's called efficient.

Re:We're stuck on IE 6 or 8 here in business land (2, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 10 months ago | (#45345975)

If it does not do what you need then, yes.
Believing the built in one is the only one, yes. Not finding a solution to a business need, yes. All of those would make you incompetent.

Re:We're stuck on IE 6 or 8 here in business land (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45346015)

Sounds like someone doesn't like the fact that Firefox and Chrome sucks for business.

Re:We're stuck on IE 6 or 8 here in business land (0)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 10 months ago | (#45346053)

No, it sounds like I have a business need to use firefox and I made it work for a lot of folks. So can everyone else with two brain cells to rub together.

Re:We're stuck on IE 6 or 8 here in business land (2, Interesting)

smash (1351) | about 10 months ago | (#45346071)

Chrome less so, at least they provide ADM templates. But you still need to deal with automatic updates breaking your certification process (again, IE = easy via WSUS) and the fact that IE is already there. If there is a BUSINESS NEED for Google apps, then maybe the sensible thing to do is to run IE 10 for those users who need it. If there is no business need for an app that WILL NOT RUN in IEx then there's very little sense in deploying an additional browser.

And no, you can't just secure IE by pointing it at a dummy proxy - because the components in it are used throughout Windows and Office for rendering HTML and other stuff. So you need to secure it properly. Adding another browser on top is just adding complexity and additional workload. Unless there is a valid business case for it (I'm yet to see one in the real world) then it is a waste of time (and thus, the company's money) going there.

Re:We're stuck on IE 6 or 8 here in business land (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 10 months ago | (#45346109)

Yes I have a valid business case. Preventing automatic updates is not hard.

You can't secure IE or Office by that metric at all. Just today I read about another zero day using tiffs.

Re:We're stuck on IE 6 or 8 here in business land (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 10 months ago | (#45346127)

To clarify, we have webapps that for obvious reasons do not run on IE. It was cheaper to make firefox work for us than to make all the IE needed workarounds.

Re:We're stuck on IE 6 or 8 here in business land (1)

smash (1351) | about 10 months ago | (#45346317)

Good for you. however I would wager that your case is pretty atypical vs. the rest of the business world. Any reason you didn't go for chrome-frame instead?

Zero days aren't exclusive to IE.

Re:We're stuck on IE 6 or 8 here in business land (1)

su5so10 (2542686) | about 10 months ago | (#45346369)

> Any reason you didn't go for chrome-frame instead? Chrome frame is being retired Jan 2014. http://blog.chromium.org/2013/06/retiring-chrome-frame.html [chromium.org]

Re:We're stuck on IE 6 or 8 here in business land (1)

smash (1351) | about 10 months ago | (#45346523)

Oh neat. Another "fuck you, enterprise customers" from google then.

Re:We're stuck on IE 6 or 8 here in business land (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 10 months ago | (#45346377)

We started this a long time ago. Chrome was not an option then. It only came out in 2008.

Nope, but IE has more than its fair share.

Re:We're stuck on IE 6 or 8 here in business land (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | about 10 months ago | (#45346165)

If it does not do what you need then, yes.

You're missing the (valid) underlying point. These administrative tools do work for busy corporate sysadmins, as long as they use IE as their standard in-house browser.

If Mozilla and Google want to play at moving things around every few weeks and not offering meaningful long-term stability, they are simply not as good as Microsoft for business users who need a stable platform to run their intranets and custom apps.

If Mozilla and Google want to circumvent normal security policies and provide potential vulnerabilities in corporate networks as a result, then again they are simply not as good as relying on IE.

Serious organisations have more requirements than supporting some half-baked beta version of a new CSS feature that no-one with real web sites will be using for a few years. IE caters to those requirements. In several cases, Firefox and Chrome do not. That means IE is the better browser for those people. It might not be a popular sentiment with web-design-blog-reading-geeks, but it's a self-evident reality to the guys who are actually running IT for these organisations, and denying it won't change that.

Re:We're stuck on IE 6 or 8 here in business land (3, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 10 months ago | (#45346207)

I am a busy corporate sysadmin.
That is why I am saying this. I am using firefox for a lot of folks as IE cannot properly render the web sites these employees have to use.

Serious organization normally means lots of deadwood and you and I both know it.

Re:We're stuck on IE 6 or 8 here in business land (2)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | about 10 months ago | (#45346241)

You obviously have to cater for your own users, but if they really are running into work-related sites that don't work on recent versions of IE with any regularity, your case is an outlier.

Re:We're stuck on IE 6 or 8 here in business land (1, Insightful)

smash (1351) | about 10 months ago | (#45346371)

This is pretty much the underlying case, yes. However I would add to this: additional complexity in your environment is bad, and should be avoided if possible.

Whether you decide to standardize on Linux + Firefox or Windows + IE or whatever your platform is - keep the absolute minimum of items required to do the job you need it to do.

Every additional item you add to your platform is another round of testing, another set of patch maintenance, another threat surface to secure, etc. Even if the program is FREE, supporting it will cost you time and therefore money.

In my case, for example (and I suspect we are not unusual as far as enterprise customers go) we have to deal with several applications (both inside and outside of the company) which are supported in IE, and actually break in Chrome or Firefox. We have zero business applications which we can not make work in IE, so for us it is a no brainer.

Re:We're stuck on IE 6 or 8 here in business land (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 10 months ago | (#45346413)

Sure but your use case is not everyones use case.

Heck, we have a department that runs IE and Firefox for the dumbest reason ever: They need two separate browser sessions and having two copies of any one browser open at a time confused them. Yes, we changed the title bar, and colors and anything else you can imagine. They literally were confused because they look similar.

Re:We're stuck on IE 6 or 8 here in business land (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45346503)

Someone downmod this M$ $hill fag

Re:We're stuck on IE 6 or 8 here in business land (4, Insightful)

smash (1351) | about 10 months ago | (#45345931)

Add ons? Why would I want to: roll add-ons to thousands of machines, deal with the breakage when the browser is upgraded, add another fucking configuration tool other than group policy and deal with the associated replication issues between my 60 site multinational network?

Never mind re-testing every application in the enterprise for compatibility with the additional browser, and dealing with 2 configuration items instead of one?

When I can just not deploy another browser, secure the one I have and configure it via policy along with everything else?

It's a non-starter mate. I hate windows as much as anyone, but there are things you can reasonably do, and things that are just a fucking waste of time.

Securing IE, which is on every box by default, so needs to be secured anyway, is not rocket science. Like it or not, many line of business applications are only tested or supported in IE. Does it suck? Sure. But it is the reality we face.

Re:We're stuck on IE 6 or 8 here in business land (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 10 months ago | (#45345963)

If you need gmail guess what you do?

It depends on what your company needs. In mine not providing firefox and all those addons would lead me to the unemployment line.

Securing IE is easy if you are not using it. Point it to a proxy that does not exist.

Re:We're stuck on IE 6 or 8 here in business land (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45346261)

If your company needs gmail to get it's work done, I hope you've informed your customers that their communications & business interests with you are subject to third-party security risks, and you have an appropriate legal response strategy in place.

Re:We're stuck on IE 6 or 8 here in business land (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 10 months ago | (#45346485)

We don't use gmail.

Anytime you use email that is a reality. Either from the scanning hardware you use, or service to outside hosting.

Re:We're stuck on IE 6 or 8 here in business land (1)

cpicon92 (1157705) | about 10 months ago | (#45346175)

I'm not saying that this is really comparable to IE's group policy settings, but it's actually possible to lock down Firefox through GP without any add-ons. Firefox can take configuration defaults and lockdown instructions from two files placed in the same folder as the executable. At that point it's a simple matter of writing the files and then deploying them using GP or even a login script.

Somewhat harder than IE, but definitely not a non-starter.

You can actually lock down anything that is configurable from about:config. It's pretty cool. See here:
http://kb.mozillazine.org/Locking_preferences [mozillazine.org]

Re:We're stuck on IE 6 or 8 here in business land (1)

smash (1351) | about 10 months ago | (#45346267)

So now I am relying on a login script to be run to push any changes, which may or may not happen if the user does the typical thing of powering up their laptop, logging in, realizing they forgot to plug the lan cable in and then plugging into the network.

And it is still 2x the work, because IE needs to be configured/secured irrespective of whether it is the default browser because it is installed on every box.

And now I need to test all of our apps against 2 browsers, and every support call related to browsers must establish whether the user is running IE or Browser X.

I'm not saying any of this is impossible or even exceptionally difficult. I'm saying it is needless additional complexity and a waste of time and money. EVEN IF THE BROWSER IS FREE, the cost to the company of supporting it is not.

Re:We're stuck on IE 6 or 8 here in business land (3, Informative)

cpicon92 (1157705) | about 10 months ago | (#45346509)

You don't need to use a login script. GP supports pushing files to client machines seamlessly and natively. It's also less than twice the work, because generally Firefox is going to be their "general" web browser, not the one they use for the intranet. You just need to configure some defaults, and possibly force a proxy or something like that.

The complexity is also not needless. Giving your users a choice of browser is a good thing, not necessarily a waste.

Re:We're stuck on IE 6 or 8 here in business land (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45346135)

Chrome is basically unusable in a corporate environment because it gets updated every few days (sometimes more) and Google doesn't give a fuck if they break things in minor updates. Nobody outside of Google gives a shit if some shitty ad tracking JavaScript runs 0.02% faster when the last update also broke proxy configuration for the twentieth time and the site they need to actually do their job no longer works because of some obscure bug that gets reintroduced every third update because they don't do any regression testing before shitting out releases.

Most companies also don't care about 99% of the new features Google is pushing. They simply need a stable browser with security updates.

Firefox is manageable though.

Re:We're stuck on IE 6 or 8 here in business land (5, Informative)

datapharmer (1099455) | about 10 months ago | (#45346315)

Chrome updates are quite easy to control by using their ADM templates and deploying their enterprise msi via your favorite method. Just think of the smaller version increments as hotfixes. Microsoft pushes them all the time. At least with chrome it is more obvious what they are changing and what it might break by looking at the release notes versus digging through a million kb articles because the microsoft patch say "fixes a problem with internet explorer on some systems" or similar useless crap.

Re:We're stuck on IE 6 or 8 here in business land (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45346537)

Except Chrome doesn't separate security updates from all of the other irrelevant bullshit. So you essentially have to maintain a fork to get only the updates you absolutely need. Both IE and Firefox both have a somewhat "long term" release model.

Re:We're stuck on IE 6 or 8 here in business land (3, Informative)

datapharmer (1099455) | about 10 months ago | (#45346269)

Clearly you have never tried to add a trusted root certificate for your internal domain to firefox. As someone who has, let me tell you firefox is not enterprise ready. Chrome at least uses the windows certificate store and has started adding group policy templates. That said, this is just a powergrab at trying to increase market share by forcing xp users to chrome.

Re:We're stuck on IE 6 or 8 here in business land (1, Interesting)

smash (1351) | about 10 months ago | (#45346401)

Haha i forgot about that. Yes, Firefox has a number of areas where they have decided against using the OS-provided method of doing things, and invented their own way of doing it. From network proxy settings, to certificate store, etc. At least both Safari and Chrome appear to try and make use of the existing configuration within the host OS.

Re:We're stuck on IE 6 or 8 here in business land (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45345947)

What do security zones actually do to help you, except allow programmers to get away with abysmally sloppy design within the confines of your "local intranet"? IE contains tons of so-called "security" in order to plaster over crap that should have been handled properly elsewhere. Oh, and do your WPAD over DNS if you really think you need that over a transparent proxy.

Re:We're stuck on IE 6 or 8 here in business land (1)

smash (1351) | about 10 months ago | (#45345981)

WPAD over DNS is a lot more INSECURE than via DHCP, if you have machines that roam from your network.

Re:We're stuck on IE 6 or 8 here in business land (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45346023)

That's why you don't do WPAD at all. Use a transparent proxy and have your roamers VPN in.

Re:We're stuck on IE 6 or 8 here in business land (1)

smash (1351) | about 10 months ago | (#45346123)

Security zones allow you to lock the browser down tighter for all sites that are not trusted. Chrome and Firefox do not have anywhere near the flexibility in terms of per-zone or per-site configuration that IE does.

And like it or not, business are built on, and depend on shitty web apps. Both shitty web apps that are written in house, shitty web apps that are used in house, and shitty web apps that are required to interact with third parties that you have zero control over and were not selected based on any metric the IT department cares about.

Deal with it.

Re:We're stuck on IE 6 or 8 here in business land (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45346243)

Ah, no. I won't deal with that. Shitty webapps inside my walls are a security risk that needs to be fixed where it's broken. That's what I have my people do, and it's worked great for me over the past two decades. If a site needs to be in a different "zone" to work properly, it gets either fixed or canned ASAP. Everything that touches a browser is untrusted by default and I don't care what browser that is or how much you "secured" it.

Re:We're stuck on IE 6 or 8 here in business land (3, Interesting)

smash (1351) | about 10 months ago | (#45346431)

I'm not just talking about apps within my walls. Exhibit a: we are a mining contractor, and we need to fly staff to and from remote sites. A number of our clients use a min-site management system that does accomation bookings, flight bookings, etc. To get on/off site we need to use it. It runs in IE only.

We don't use it, we don't get on site. We don't get on site, we don't earn any money.

It's not our app. We have no control over it and no ability to make decisions regarding it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for web standards and ripping out broken crap, but you don't always have a choice, and you play the hand you're dealt.

Re:We're stuck on IE 6 or 8 here in business land (1)

Bradley Meck (2961599) | about 10 months ago | (#45346103)

I don't always rely on group security policies; but when I do, I make sure they are not in the kernel.

Re:We're stuck on IE 6 or 8 here in business land (1)

krups gusto (2203848) | about 10 months ago | (#45346301)

Hmm... like most work that's done in "business land" - this sounds like work that simply should be discontinued. Ie - if you need to manage access to the internet for your employees - control your network.

Re:We're stuck on IE 6 or 8 here in business land (5, Interesting)

MobyDisk (75490) | about 10 months ago | (#45346447)

You listed IE-specific solutions, then complain that only IE supports them.

Want reliable proxy autodetect? Most other browsers break on DHCP based WPAD.

Use a transparent proxy. Those stupid proxy servers that you have to configure in each application suck. Most applications don't support it. Secure download sites don't work, secure FTP is unreliable. Even Microsoft's own MSDN download manager doesn't support a proxy server.

Want to deploy links, manage security zones, etc via group policy?

By "deploy links" I take that to mean "shove bookmarks into people's browsers" which is better handled by putting those links on the intranet site. That works with any browser, any OS, with less work. No special corporate policy required.

The primary purpose of security zones is so you can run ActiveX controls. No other browser needs special security settings for ActiveX.

Re:We're stuck on IE 6 or 8 here in business land (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45345921)

They're still supporting IE6, aren't they? I mean, I hope they are!

Re:We're stuck on IE 6 or 8 here in business land (3, Insightful)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about 10 months ago | (#45345725)

Okay... really... I have a hard time feeling bad about that.

The fact is that those companies bought into web apps that worked on ONE browser. That's stupid. As a matter of fact, if you are going to build an app that works on ONE browser on ONE platform why not write the thing in an actual language because the advantage is supposed to be using it on multiple platforms.

Re:We're stuck on IE 6 or 8 here in business land (3, Interesting)

smash (1351) | about 10 months ago | (#45345827)

Sometimes it isn't YOUR company's app you need to use. In the real world, businesses deal with OTHER BUSINESSES.

Re:We're stuck on IE 6 or 8 here in business land (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45345979)

But duuuuuuuuude, everyone everywhere should understand the principles of modern web development! They should have understood it in like, the 90s. Let alone the aughts, which is when I was born!

Also we make heavy use of other businesses applications with no issue. Basecamp works flawlessly in chrome 47.6.543 on my MacBookAir.

Re:We're stuck on IE 6 or 8 here in business land (1)

vitaflo (20507) | about 10 months ago | (#45346009)

Sometimes it isn't YOUR company's app you need to use. In the real world, businesses deal with OTHER BUSINESSES.

And if you want to use Google's app's you'll need IE10 or a modern browser. It goes both ways.

Re:We're stuck on IE 6 or 8 here in business land (1)

tepples (727027) | about 10 months ago | (#45346281)

To what extent do modern web browsers for Windows respect the web policies deployed through Windows group policy?

Re:We're stuck on IE 6 or 8 here in business land (0)

Nerdfest (867930) | about 10 months ago | (#45345937)

I always use the same argument when telling peopl not to buy any iOS devices. ANyone who's had to deal with Windows and Explorer should realize how bad it is tying yourself to a single supplier for both hardware and software,expecially when they have a penchant for eschewing standards. It rarely works out well for the buyer being at the mercy of a single provider.

Re:We're stuck on IE 6 or 8 here in business land (1)

cyber-vandal (148830) | about 10 months ago | (#45346011)

Because it's far easier to deploy a web app than an native app. You only need to update it in one place and as long as the user has the right browser they can access it from wherever. This is of course completely screwed by the arrival of tablets but then that's what happens when monopolies go unpunished.

Re:We're stuck on IE 6 or 8 here in business land (3, Interesting)

smash (1351) | about 10 months ago | (#45345785)

Not quite that bad here, i've gotten rid of almost all of our XP, but we have apps that work in IE9, but not IE10. One app won't work in IE9 yet, and unfortunately it's not our app - we're a contractor and the customer's flight booking app is IE8 or previous only.

Re:We're stuck on IE 6 or 8 here in business land (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 10 months ago | (#45346007)

You run those things via Remote Desktop or use multiple IE installs. I know those suck, but they suck less than using IE8 everywhere.

Re:We're stuck on IE 6 or 8 here in business land (2)

Guspaz (556486) | about 10 months ago | (#45346273)

Even businessland has largely abandoned IE6 in most of the world... the marketshare of IE6 in North America is 0.2%. China is the only country with any significant use of IE6.

Re:We're stuck on IE 6 or 8 here in business land (1)

Tiger4 (840741) | about 10 months ago | (#45346545)

Right on the nose! Coming to you live from IE8 ! I can't wait to get back to my Firefox machine. It is only stuck on FF ESR 17

Between ultra conservative policies and massive filtering, I'm surprised I can even see /. let alone get it to work.

Well, (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45345607)

why do IE9 need any "special support" at all? standards-incompatible browser?

Re:Well, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45345653)

If I had mod points, you would get a "funny" one!

Re:Well, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45346141)

why do IE9 need any "special support" at all? standards-incompatible browser?

It's because Google likes to do all sorts of non-standard cool things with their website.

If Google apps used normal html instead of bleeding edge javascript (which I like to call javacrap), this problem wouldn't occur.

Choice (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45345635)

Google tells its customers, you've got choices. Upgrade or GTFO, Bitch!

Re:Choice (2)

smash (1351) | about 10 months ago | (#45345841)

Given that IE10 and up are Windows 7 onwards only, I suspect a large proportion of the XP diehards will "GTFO".

Re:Choice (1)

bpechter (2885) | about 10 months ago | (#45345933)

Or run Chrome or Mozilla at a reasonable rev.

Re:Choice (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45346547)

Google is dropping WinXP support for Chrome...

Re:Choice (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45346073)

you are thinking IE8.
It's actually just Vista-users who ever had IE9.

Not quite sure what the requirement is (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45345645)

For my basic email needs, I would have stayed with office 97 were it not for the rest of the package being incompatible with modern file formats.

I write word docs and spreadsheets the same way, and draw the same things in Visio.

I guess I just don't understand this entire web app thing. I don't WANT my stuff stored and running on the Internet, and I have clients that are absolutely nothing but google apps. Having to upgrade my computer to read their stuff (they send links--not attachments--requiring a login to look at what they sent me in email -- what is that?)

Next thing you know the reason will be that they can't easily display autoplay html5 ads without it. I don't need html5 ads when writing documentation, you know? And it already is hard enough to disable autoplay without ruining everything. I should not need to install an application to prevent other applications from running, but then I am not an internet mogul.

Re:Not quite sure what the requirement is (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 10 months ago | (#45345903)

I guess I just don't understand this entire web app thing. I don't WANT my stuff stored and running on the Internet, and I have clients that are absolutely nothing but google apps. Having to upgrade my computer to read their stuff (they send links--not attachments--requiring a login to look at what they sent me in email -- what is that?)

It's pretty simple, really - they're externalizing their IT costs onto you, and other people they work with. Sorry there's not a happy answer.

Re:Not quite sure what the requirement is (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45346143)

Yes, I am aware of that; I just wanted to be unhappy publically. I am a consultant for them, and so those costs are provided right back to them. It's just a strange recurring cost that gives them the feeling of cost savings, without realizing where the real costs are.

They saved their network DR instructions in google docs, too. They couldn't follow them when the network went down one day due an ISP issue, and it didn't occur to them to use their phones to get to that giant cloud infrastructure. of course, they had to use their personal cell phones, since their voip died too.

And that is with redundancy--you see, you can't have ISP1 dedicated voip going over ISP2, because they don't allow that.

Oh well. I shouldn't complain much, but I do not like to see people needlessly suffer, which seems to be mostly what google has enabled many businesses to bring upon themselves. It is profitable for me, but so was the old way -- and the old way had less problems when it was all local with attachments as needed..

Walled Garden (2, Interesting)

0xG (712423) | about 10 months ago | (#45345669)

Although IE* is crap, I can see that Google is heading for the walled garden approach, like Apple.
Use our apps. Best with Chrome...

Re:Walled Garden (2, Insightful)

i kan reed (749298) | about 10 months ago | (#45345713)

Yeah, at some point recentyish Google crossed into completely unlikable territory. While that might drive technically adept people away, their momentum and existing user base can be mined for as much money as possible in the meantime. 10 years ago google was awesome. Today, I wouldn't bat an eye if they got wiped from the face of the planet.

Re:Walled Garden (1)

smash (1351) | about 10 months ago | (#45345855)

If by recently you mean in say, 2004 then you would be correct.

Re:Walled Garden (2)

Nerdfest (867930) | about 10 months ago | (#45345983)

They've done a couple of out of character things lately (youtube play button signing people up for Google+, and XMPP support), but I don't think dropping support for a browser that doesn't follow standards is particularly bad. I think they're still a lesser evil than any of their competitors in most markets. I'm not saying that it's a high bar or anything ...

Re:Walled Garden (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about 10 months ago | (#45346019)

IE 9 is not very far from standards compliance, in any sort of pragmatic sense. I usually don't have to worry about CSS/javascript issues causing problems anymore when I develop code for websites(because I ignore IE 7 and before).

Re:Walled Garden (4, Interesting)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 10 months ago | (#45345843)

Yeah, I started using Apps for nonprofits for a local group, and sometime in the early summer, the spreadsheets stopped working for anything but Chrom[e,ium], as far as columns lining up with the row markers. There's an open issue on it, lots of people bitching about current Firefox being broken, but no fixes or response from Google.

Obviously, I need to switch to a different solution, since I can't force all my volunteers to use a particular browser.

Google is a loss anyway (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45345693)

Not that IE is worth keeping up with but we're talking about Google here. Not one damn was given today.

Release March 2011 (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45345695)

It was released March 2011. Google is dropping support after 2.5 years. This is nothing more than another vector to advertise Chrome.

IE 9? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45345697)

Still in testing, most everything else is on IE 8.

So WTF would I roll out IE 10? much less 11?

Re:IE 9? (2)

Horshu (2754893) | about 10 months ago | (#45345767)

Because they're the latest versions, and they're free?

Re:IE 9? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45346029)

Ever deployed a new browser across a company spanning dozens of countries / languages and many hundreds of (partly ancient) web apps ? That's where the costs are: testing and deploying. Sure there are tools for both, but none catches 100% in our experience, so you need to factor in a lot of support and therefore costs.

Re:IE 9? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | about 10 months ago | (#45346047)

They're only the latest version if you're on a recent version of Windows. Many people aren't.

Re:IE 9? (1)

tepples (727027) | about 10 months ago | (#45346319)

IE 10 is not free if your PC runs Windows Vista.

We're stuck on 9 (4, Interesting)

cant_get_a_good_nick (172131) | about 10 months ago | (#45345709)

Hell, we moved off of 6 sometime this year. We don't personally run Google Apps, but we can't be unique in having IE restrictions such as that.

We're also a Linux firm, and the latest Firefox you can run on our Linux (RedHat AS 5, moving to 6) is Firefox 17. Chrome/Chromium won't even run at all.

Re:We're stuck on 9 (1, Insightful)

Big Hairy Ian (1155547) | about 10 months ago | (#45345765)

Ahh Google shooting itself in the userbase again. RIP IGoogle

Re:We're stuck on 9 (5, Insightful)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 10 months ago | (#45345987)

What's the polite way to say "Google doesn't want you as a customer"?

Re:We're stuck on 9 (1)

Lendrick (314723) | about 10 months ago | (#45346355)

> "Google doesn't want you as a customer if supporting your old browser costs more than the revenue you bring in"?

FTFY

Re:We're stuck on 9 (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 10 months ago | (#45346027)

You might as well wait for RHEL 7 by now.

Re:We're stuck on 9 (1)

vladmihaisima (772832) | about 10 months ago | (#45346167)

We're also a Linux firm, and the latest Firefox you can run on our Linux (RedHat AS 5, moving to 6) is Firefox 17.

You make it sound like it is very old. Firefox 17 first release was around one year ago and is quite modern browser when compared with IE 9.

As a Web Designer... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45345717)

As a web designer, I can only heartily support any effort to push people towards the newer versions of IE (or, better yet, away from it entirely...).

Re:As a Web Designer... (1)

hcs_$reboot (1536101) | about 10 months ago | (#45345795)

Of course. And I'm glad to hear such news, IE9 upgrade to be encouraged... But there are still many companies using IE7, or even the unfamous IE6.
In what world do they live?

Re:As a Web Designer... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45345961)

I live in the regulated world of medical diagnostics. So in my world any hardware or software change including web browser upgrades require a painful and time consuming (ie expensive) validation process. Add this to the huge number of companies that had all of there internal intranet apps written specifically for old versions of IE updating these apps can cost millions of dollars some times to update.

  So its easy to understand why old out dated browsers are still being used... The new ones are too expensive to start using even though they are free.

Re:As a Web Designer... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45346169)

So there you go.. In your line of business the usual case for webapps being cheaper apparently doesn't necessarily fly. If you have these grotesque auditing requirements, having your apps written and built (yes, built, as in compiled, packaged, versioned as a unit) in a proper programming language that supports this would help.
Simple example: write C++, Java or whatever against a specific set of external libraries. Compile, package, slap a version number on the box and audit. This deploys onto the OS-du-jour and you're fixed. Change the OS? Recompile the app, go for a short-track audit as it's provable that no code actually changed and be happy on your new OS. Can't do that? Fix your bug-list and any RFC's, roll 'em up, repackage, re-audit and be just as happy.
With a webapp you'll be up shit creek every time the browser maker releases any kind of patch, or you'll be left with a "browser" that won't safely or reliably do anymore browsing for you. Browsers are not meant for mission-critical audited-into-a-pulp applications. Browsers are internet-facing. They get attacked a lot and because of that they move around a lot. That's no base for an application that has a write-off time counted in decades.

Re:As a Web Designer... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45346001)

They live in a world where no valid business case was made to justify the upgrade. Either the case simply wasn't made at all, or it was made wrongly. My prediction is that many businesses will shoot themselves in the foot quite royally by upgrading to Windows 7 and expecting a similar 12-year run using IE9 like they had with XP on IE6.

Re:As a Web Designer... (1)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | about 10 months ago | (#45346087)

As a web developer, I can only heartily support any effort to push people away from Google. YMMV, but I don't think they are a net positive contributor to the industry for either developers or users any more. I think they are more running on momentum earned from doing some good/useful things a few years ago than they are doing new good/useful things today.

As A Computing Consumer... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45346375)

As a web designer, I can only heartily support any effort to push people towards the newer versions of IE (or, better yet, away from it entirely...).

That's great. What website do you "design" again?

As a user or consumer or computing, I have many many more concerns than your website or personal taste/interest. I HAVE to deal with MANY websites and applications that may or may not share your desires/tastes. I have to get business done, both personal and professional, and don't have time or interest in your opinion, your desire to use the latest shiny, or to chase browser versions and the incessant bugs that rolling upgrades bring and regress. Once I have a working solution, I don't wish to be forced to change at your whim and there is just no excuse for something that has worked for years to suddenly stop working because YOU decided it was best for me.

But, my entire rant is just a pointless waste of time. I am 99.999% sure that I have never been to nor ever will visit any of YOUR sites. Furthermore, should I trip and land on one of your pages and it gives me ANY trouble at all, I'll just gleefully move on.

Uh oh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45345835)

Bad news for Koreans

Re:Uh oh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45346197)

Bad news for Koreans

No, good news for Koreans. It helps them to not fall into the cloud trap.

No bueno (1)

Nimey (114278) | about 10 months ago | (#45345967)

We've got a number of programs and a few outside websites that require IE9 or older. Good thing that we're cool with letting our users have Firefox and Chrome, though some of them really like IE and would rather use that instead.

Re:No bueno (1)

N0Man74 (1620447) | about 10 months ago | (#45346025)

IE 9 requires at least Vista. Making IE 10 the requirement means you can't even use Vista, you have to have at least Windows 7 (or switch browsers).

Re:No bueno (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45346475)

You also can't use IE10 on an Amiga. XP is nearing end of life. Either pay Microsoft's price to upgrade your god-damn software, or go get yourself a free OS.

yo, google. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45346373)

a browser that ships/shipped with a currently supported version of windows, IS a currently supported browser. that includes ie6 (winxp, eol 4/2014), ie7 (vista, eol 4/2017), and ie8 (win7, eol 1/2020).

do what you want with ie9, but seeing how it's the latest ie for vista, which is supported for a number of years yet, it really should have the shelf-life of at least that os version, even though it didn't ship bundled with an os from microsoft.

this is nothing more than an effort by google to trick people into downloading, using, and giving up their privacy with, chrome.

Internet Explorer on Windows Vista? (0)

thue (121682) | about 10 months ago | (#45346529)

So you need IE>9 for Google Apps. Since IE 10 is not supported on Windows Vista or Windoes XP, that means no more Google Apps on IE on those OSes. Windows XP is EOL in April 2014, so no big deal, but Windows Vista is supported by MS until April 2017.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>