Slashdot Mirror


Google Tells Users To Drop IE6

Kelly writes "Google is now urging Gmail users to drop Internet Explorer 6 (IE6) in favor of Firefox or Chrome. Google recently removed Firefox from the Google Pack bundle, replaced it with Chrome, then added a direct download link for Chrome on Google and YouTube. Google's decision to list IE6 as an unsupported Gmail browser does not affect just consumers: Tens of thousands of small- and mid-sized businesses that run Google Apps hosted services may dump IE6 as well. What's especially interesting is the fact that Mozilla is picking up two out of three browser users that Microsoft surrenders."

27 of 426 comments (clear)

  1. Makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Makes sense, IE6 is just atrocious, most people need to upgrade! Although it does sound a bit anti-Microsoft on Google's part, telling users to switch to another browser, and not offering a direct link to IE7, which anyone on IE6 should really get anyway.

    1. Re:Makes sense by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Insightful

      IE7 being a more natural progression for users of IE6 due to familiarity.

      Actually all of the users that I've switched from IE6 to IE7 were more confused than the users I switched from any version of IE to Firefox. The interface changed quite a bit in IE7 and Firefox (version 2 anyway) seems to have more of a classical interface.

      IE7 also annoys the hell out of me with that stupid "customize your browser" splash screen that refuses to go away on startup until you acknowledge it and save your settings.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    2. Re:Makes sense by someone1234 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not 'different'. Just safer.

      --
      Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
    3. Re:Makes sense by Firehed · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Win2k is a decade old. Stable or not, you can't expect companies to go on supporting it forever. On the Mac side, there's a ton of software that's Leopard-only, dropping support for people who are using any OS more than 15 months old, and there's hardly anything wrong with Tiger. Windows has always had better backwards-compatibility than OS X, of course, but eventually the reason that you'll need to upgrade your OS is because all of your software requires it.

      Of course what you want to do on your computer is your business, not mine, but just keep in mind that developers are going to stop supporting you eventually if you don't stay at least reasonably current.

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
    4. Re:Makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Uhmm, the kicker is, I'm *STILL* running Win2k. And not only that, but I've got drivers from within the last year running on it for both my PCIe Radeon HD3650, and my Logitech Driving Force Pro. Nevermind that Realtek supports most of their chipset hardware all the way back to either Win9x or DOS, depending.

      And the kicker of all this? Basically any game that doesn't require Windows Live and/or have a hardcoded check for XP will run and play fine on it.

      WinXP for all intents and purposes was a rebadge of 2k with some additional eyecandy and a FEW interface changes. But the majority of said interface changes don't affect 90 percent of the applications out there.

      Forced obsolescence is fine if there's a reason, but if your 10 year old OS has everything that a modern app needs to support it, there's no reason to upgrade. (Nevermind that 2k is the last windows version without that annoying Windows Activation stuff, and in fact is the reason I spent 300 bucks on it well after WinXP was out.)

    5. Re:Makes sense by erroneus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      IE7 isn't much better. I had always heard how much extra work was caused by Microsoft's non-compliant browser. The browser alternatives to MSIE are generally known well enough that it was about the right time to start pushing back against the defacto requirement to support the broken browser that has been holding back progress and innovation on the web for years.

    6. Re:Makes sense by Don_dumb · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Win2k is a decade old. Stable or not, you can't expect companies to go on supporting it forever.

      Why not? If there are enough users (especially large businesses) and people paying for support (i.e. licensed or bespoke software) then why cut off customers?

      --
      If this were really happening, what would you think?
    7. Re:Makes sense by h4rm0ny · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ... which is probably why Google recommended Firefox alongside Chrome, because otherwise they would have recommended just Chrome.

      I think Google's main aim is to get people off the IE series, they care less about which browser replaces it for the time being. After all, Google are major funders of the Mozilla project giving them a lot of say so in how it is set up and the direction it goes in (e.g. that Google is the default search option in Firefox is at their request).

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    8. Re:Makes sense by Teckla · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is similar in principle - use dominance in one area (ad supported email accounts) to promote business in a different area (browser technology).

      You would have a point if Google dominated in that area (ad supported email accounts). But, they don't.

    9. Re:Makes sense by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Although it does sound a bit anti-Microsoft on Google's part

      So what. You don't think Microsoft wouldn't shiv them in the back every chance they get. They've only been doing it for 30 years and deserve much more than this little taste of their own medicine.

      And no, I don't consider this "being evil".

      Not only does Microsoft richly deserve this (i.e., real competition), but it's a service to users by helping to improve the Internet ecology as a whole, as the millions of users that are most likely to be pwned over are now being directly told to switch to software that isn't hopelessly insecure. If some people pay the price for allowing themselves to be locked in to the prison that is Microsoft software, well, hopefully they'll learn their lesson.

      "Works with IE" is perfectly OK, "Requires IE" is stupid and evil.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
  2. Advertiser versus advertiser by Henry+V+.009 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There is one very big reason for Google to do this, and it's not what many Slashdotters think.

    Anybody using Firefox or Chrome has Google as their default home. Anybody using IE has MSN as their default home.

    This is a war over who gets to propagandize you with their ads and collect your personal information. There is no good/evil dichotomy here if that's what you're looking for.

    Further, I'll end with a categorical statement in order to offend people: Anybody with strong feelings about which web browser is the best is probably spending too much time surfing the web, and is in fact suffering from an internet addiction. IE 7, Opera, and Firefox are all pretty similar from a normal end-user perspective.

    1. Re:Advertiser versus advertiser by sakdoctor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Er yes, "internet addiction".
      Is it also possible that you are a web designer or at least the guy who got lumbered with getting the company site to "work on most browsers".
      Designers worry about browser bugs and quirks, so the end user doesn't have to.

    2. Re:Advertiser versus advertiser by meringuoid · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Anybody with strong feelings about which web browser is the best is probably spending too much time surfing the web, and is in fact suffering from an internet addiction. IE 7, Opera, and Firefox are all pretty similar from a normal end-user perspective.

      IE7 has an Adblock Plus equivalent? News to me. Whenever I have to use IE to browse the web, it's a nightmare. With effective filtering, I've lost my ad-blindness, so now when I go online unprotected I actually see all that crap. Horrible.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    3. Re:Advertiser versus advertiser by timeOday · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Anybody with strong feelings about which web browser is the best is probably spending too much time surfing the web, and is in fact suffering from an internet addiction. IE 7, Opera, and Firefox are all pretty similar from a normal end-user perspective.

      Just a few short years ago, Linux users such as myself were becoming decidedly second-class citizens on the web, with many pages not working at all or not working right. Microsoft-specific extensions were polluting the web and making it hard to enjoy without paying Microsoft. I'm not talking about something that could have happened, that did happen. The fact that Firefox came through and won enough market share to make web developers take notice so it doesn't matter so much which browser you use is a HUGE victory. Thanks Firefox!

    4. Re:Advertiser versus advertiser by owlnation · · Score: 4, Insightful

      IE 7, Opera, and Firefox are all pretty similar from a normal end-user perspective.

      No. Here's why. Two words: adblock, flashblock.

      No other single innovation on the web has changed my whole experience of the web. Casual user or not. The web is truly awful without these essential tools.

    5. Re:Advertiser versus advertiser by nine-times · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, remember when there were tons of websites that would refuse to display, only giving you the message, "Please upgrade to IE 5.5" (or whatever)? The wouldn't even render improperly, they'd just refuse to display at all.

      Can you imagine major sites doing that now?

    6. Re:Advertiser versus advertiser by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah it has nothing to do with the fact all web developers hate IE6 because it's horribly broken and should have died ages ago.

    7. Re:Advertiser versus advertiser by gad_zuki! · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It works fine and well enough for a large % of ads. Its better than nothing when I have to use something other than firefox. As good as adblock is its still limited to one single browser. Ive been using the hosts file method for ages and I havent noticed an increase of ads lately. I disagree that anything has really been changed in ad delivery since 1996.

      The fact is that a large majority of ads really do come from 3rd parties who use their own servers. Thats how syndication works. You dont host the ads, caselmedia does. Block casel and youre done.

      I also build hosts files to block server names of malware and other unsavory destinations potential spyware might call.

      >so if a site puts ads in a div class="adcolumnwrapper" or so.

      Thats presentation/formatting. The image or flash object still needs to be loaded from the ad server.

      >(This also works for many text ads, BTW.)

      Blocking google text ads takes one line in the hosts file.

      >I'm not saying that NOONE does that anymore

      Just about everyone who does ad blocking in IE uses this method.

  3. dont bullshit please by unity100 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    if it was, google would drop 7 support and tell them to switch too.

    the fact is that, IE6 is WAY outdated now, is not supported anymore, is a gift from heavens for anyone writing exploits, doesnt even support tabs.

    excuse me pal, ie6 is early 2000s.

    its like the tech world equivalent of saying "dont drop 1930 model cars, even if its 1980s".

  4. Big business is slow to respond by HaloZero · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I work for a Very Large Company. Unfortunately, this particular company has built quite a bit of business process around Microsoft's tattered and broken products. For starters, the client engineering group requires that you use a build of IE6. Without several security patches. Why? Because a lot of the web portal applications do not run on anything but IE6. Upgrade to IE7? Unsupported. Chances are, the app won't work, or won't display correctly. For most of the apps that have forms, upgrading to IE7 means you'll never see the 'Submit' button, either because it's not there, or was rendered off of the page (and there's no horizontal scroll). Worse, most of these rely on stupid IE6 javascript tricks that don't quite work right in Firefox or Chrome or Safari. Firefox is semi-usable for most things, though you will eventually hit a page that just won't "Work". Unfortuantely, this corps makes up a not-insignificant chunk of the population. It's groups like that that would need to take care of in-house breakware before an adoption of Firefox or Chrome can be taken seriously.

    --
    Informatus Technologicus
    1. Re:Big business is slow to respond by catmistake · · Score: 5, Insightful

      [webapps.... only supports IE6]

      I had the same situation in a department at a university... right around the time IE7 was force-deployed by Microsoft. I saw it coming, so I broke Software Update. I made a proposal that was accepted to mothball ALL the Windows XP Pro workstations for OS X iMacs. I purchased a site license for Parallels, and created a custom VM with that "stripped to the bone" edition of XP Pro off TPB (reserialized with our XP site license using keyfinder). Basically the VM was a kiosk... all it would do/could do is run IE6, and the ONLY site it could load were our webapp sites. The VM was never updated, never patched, never installed any anti-spy/anti-malware/anti-virus... so the VM booted in 15 seconds on these Core 2 duo iMacs. Every evening a cron ran to DELETE the VM, and unzip a fresh VM (that brought everything back to my zeroed original custom VM). All the user saw was clicking a dock icon that would launch the VM, which was set to auto launch IE6 in kiosk mode and bring up their webapp. It works like titties, absolutely beautifully for over 2 years now. When Microsoft's grip gets tighter, I don't understand why more IT hasn't just said "fuck you Microsoft! and fuck this!" and sandboxed the precise function they need... the solutions are legion once you realize a VM can do everything real HW can do.

  5. Support YOUR users, not GOOGLE's users by Temujin_12 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Maybe the web developer pie chart will shift.

    I'm all for dropping IE6. It is now nothing more than a bane to web developers and the advancement of web pages in general. But to stop accommodating IE6 in your websites simply becomes someone else says to do so is naive. You should support whatever your site's visitors need.

    For my wife's site, I can drop support for 800x600 since they comprise of less than 2% of my visitors, and falling (hurray!). Yes, I know fluid design can accommodate all, but sometimes needs necessitate static widths.

    However, IE6 still accounts for ~20% of my visitors, so no matter what Google/Yahoo/Microsoft/etc. says, until that number drops well below 10%, I will still support it.

    --
    Faith is a willingness to accept something w/o complete proof and to act on it. Reason allows you to correct that faith.
  6. This isn't about all IE browsers by assertation · · Score: 5, Insightful

    For me, this isn't about IE in general. IE 6 is a large and costly inconvenience for both web application and web site developers. IE 6 doesn't work in exactly the same way as IE7 & IE8. A person doing web development not only has to make sure that an application or site works in the Mozilla based browsers and IE, but that it works in multiple versions of IE. IE 6 is typically the browser that breaks when new code is developed when that code works in all of the other browsers. Even other versions of IE. Organizations and people are hanging onto IE 6. It is past time for those with muscle to begin nudging people away from IE 6

  7. Re:Chrome's OK but can't use it for anything serio by cdrguru · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Obviously, market share has nothing to do with it. Any business that is serious is going to just use Linux and develop all its software for Linux, right?

    Dream on. Windows has what, 90% market share? Followed by OS X with maybe 7%. Linux is last with perhaps 3%. And if you just count end-user machines and not servers it is probably more like 92%, 7% and 1% for Linux.

    Sure, maybe it will change in the future. But for now the reality is that Linux commands such an incredibly small number of end-user machines that it isn't worth paying attention to for packaged software development.

  8. Re:Dear God Thank You by f1vlad · · Score: 3, Insightful
    --
    o_O
  9. Re:Interesting. by similar_name · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I will never understand why companies will spend so much time, money, rewriting code, testing, and training to migrate from one version of MS software to another and then use the excuse that they can't switch to Open Source because of the cost of migrating.

  10. Re:yea it does by h4rm0ny · · Score: 3, Insightful

    its so antitrust that win2k doesnt support ie6. i suppose microsoft is reeking of 'antitrust' against itself too....

    you were SO enthusiastic to drop a knee jerk comment, you havent even read the 2 people replied to the parent did you.

    And you are so eager to 'correct' someone that you didn't think you're comment through at all (or proof-read for grammar). It is IE7 that is not supported on Win2k, IE6 works fine (well, as fine as it does anywhere. ;) ). So you are wrong on your basic point. However, what I think you are trying to say is that IE7 doesn't work on Win2k and that this is somehow in contradiction to what I said. It isn't, though I invite you to explain how. Google is telling people to stop using IE6 and move to either Firefox or Chrome (which also isn't supported on Win2k, as it happens). Notable as a glaring omission is Google's rival's browser IE7. Google are using their influence in one area (ad-supported email accounts) to promote their products in a different market (browsers) at cost to their rival's product. That's anti-trust.

    Please don't accuse me of knee-jerk responses. My post is more accurate than yours and reasoned through well-enough, I hope.

    --

    Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.