Slashdot Mirror


Internet Explorer 6 Will Not Die

caffeinejolt writes "Despite all the hype surrounding new browsers being released pushing the limits of what can be done on the Web, Firefox 3 has only this past month overtaken IE6. Furthermore, if you take the previous report and snap on the Corporate America filter, IE6 rules the roost and shows no signs of leaving anytime soon. Sorry web developers, for those of you who thought the ugly hacks would soon be over, it appears they will linger on for quite a bit — especially if you develop for business sites."

531 comments

  1. As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sorry web developers, for those of you who thought the ugly hacks would soon be over, it appears they will linger on for quite a bit -- especially if you develop for business sites.

    Yeah, IE6 is the herpes of the internet. It appears to be gone after heavy medication but if you look under the first layer of skin, there it is.

    Oh, and I should point out another untimely mark of IE6: we've all made this hilariously fugly hacks to make crap work in IE6 at some point and those relics of the last millennium are still out there. Which means that browsers still have to support the old rendering ways of IE6. Yes, the doctype will tell the browser what standards to use but I'm betting that the support for rendering HTML 4 is just as annoying as having to patch up old struts 1.x applications and read through nested tables galore in the HTML.

    And we all know that 90% of the work out there for developers is maintenance. What a painful irrepressible memory ...

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by Jurily · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oh, and I should point out another untimely mark of IE6: we've all made this hilariously fugly hacks to make crap work in IE6 at some point and those relics of the last millennium are still out there. Which means that browsers still have to support the old rendering ways of IE6.

      Or maybe we can just ignore that crap, start designing according to standards, and get this fucking mess finally cleaned up.

      In the old days, if you pissed off those with IE6, you lost 90% of your viewers. Now it's totally different. Even IE8 respects standards now.

      Let's write off IE6 as obsolete and force those users to upgrade.

    2. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      There's always somebody else willing to step in and take the money you turn down by not developing for IE6.

      On my personal site however, I'm with you. I'll test for newer browsers. If you're so cheap that you can't download a FREE browser to see the web, fuck ye!

    3. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by Bashae · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'm a web developer and I'm already doing that. However, people from certain areas of business may have the majority of their users still visiting through IE6. When that happens, your only choices are either to support IE6 or not to work for that client.

    4. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by gnick · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's not quite that easy.

      We're forced to use IE6 at work - Mainly because IT understands the security risks (significant, but understood) and their web-apps are written to support it. Upgrading is too expensive expensive right now - Especially when the suits realize that we'll have to do it again later. Think of the brake-recall equation from Fight Club - The result is tragic, but real-world rather than ideal. So, IE6 endures...

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    5. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by tepples · · Score: 5, Informative

      If you're so cheap that you can't download a FREE browser to see the web, fuck ye!

      The excuse: "I can download a web browser for free, but I can't install it because I'm not in the Administrators group."

    6. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by alta · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree, so for those of us who can work to kill it off, we should.

      We got your back! You keep programming for IE6 because you have to. The rest of us will just use the headers to redirect them to chrome.

      --
      Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
    7. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by Jurily · · Score: 3, Funny

      The excuse: "I can download a web browser for free, but I can't install it because I'm not in the Administrators group."

      The answer remains: fuck ye!

    8. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by poetmatt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You can't do that to a business though. Ours hates IE6 and is migrating to firefox support but lets look at it this way: if a client is stupid/stubborn and uses IE6 and brings in 10+ million bucks a year for example, would you be able to just say "sorry, we can't support you" when you know there's competition? Not all people welcome browser changes with open arms even if it's just plain ignorance. You'd be dropped for your competitors faster than you could hit send on that email.

    9. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That may true in a corporate environment, but on your own PC visiting someone else's personal site, that's a very very lame excuse.

    10. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by Max+Littlemore · · Score: 1

      We're still making fugly hacks. I'm building a site for a fleelance media producer and the spec is "it should look great in all browsers". Stupid browser detects to pick the stupid stylesheet hacks for ie6 which read like a joke in that f'n language. Flash isn't around for mobile devices so it has to be javascript, css and markup. That combination is bad enough without ie6 having to lay turds everywhere.

      I spend 90% of the time on graphics and 10% on the actual system. Thanks ms and in particular, thanks ie6....!

      I just hope she doesn't know about lynx...

      --
      I don't therefore I'm not.
    11. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by netsavior · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Most of us do not get to pick our customers, and cannot afford to give the middle finger to a very large potential customer base.

    12. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      I have the *opposite* problem(!) One of my mission critical websites only has a login that works for IE6. Thus I used FF3 everywhere else, but once I day I load up IE6 to check status on some stuff.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    13. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by bunratty · · Score: 1

      Even IE8 respects standards now.

      Yes, IE8 has great support for CSS 2.1.

      Now Microsoft needs to work on supporting JavaScript well. And the DOM. Oh, and XML. Oh, yeah, there's SVG. And HTML5...

      --
      What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
    14. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by exploder · · Score: 1

      No kidding...that's exactly what alta was saying. Those who have to program for IE6 don't have a choice. Everyone who does, however, should do what they can to accelerate its long-overdue demise.

      --
      Yo dawg, I heard you like the Ackermann function, so OH GOD OH GOD OH GOD
    15. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IE6 is the herpes of the internet.

      This is not true. As anyone who has hooked up with somebody from Craigslist will tell you, the herpes of the internet is, in fact, the same as regular old real-life herpes.

    16. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by Smivs · · Score: 1

      There's always somebody else willing to ... take the money you turn down by not developing for IE6.

      Let them have it...and all the hassle !

    17. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      How many windows networks actually implement binary whitelisting?
      You can download and execute binaries, you cannot "install" because you don't have write access to the install locations or registry keys, but there are versions of firefox which can run without needing to be installed...
      I have never seen a windows network where you weren't able to execute your own binaries (which in itself is a huge security hole)...

      I've seen this implemented on unix based systems, but then you won't be lumbered with IE6 if you're using a unix box... You might be lumbered with something like netscape 4 if you have particularly old machines.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    18. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Sadly this is how it goes in a large corporation.

      We're quite large (100k+, Fortune 500) and different websites are maintained by different groups, they fall under 3 categories.

      1) Flat out does not work in Firefox. Javascript is screwed up.
      2) Says it doesn't work in Firefox. Works perfectly fine. (UserAgent testing).
      3) Works great in Firefox but renders wrong in IE6.

      All 3 e-mails to the respective IT departments get the same response "We only work with IE6".

      Every single time I e-mail them an actual fix that shows them how to work. Sometimes it's something easy, but I get the stone wall.

      Funny thing is our outward facing website. The one EVERYONE sees for the first time doesn't work right in IE6 because of some Javascript syntax. I e-mailed corporate IT and all I got was "That's the way it's supposed to look". "No. You PUT THE CODE in there to randomly display an image, it's supposed to display the image. Like it does on Firefox, IE7, IE8, and every other browser browsershots supports." "Nope, supposed to look like that."

        Quite a bit is IE6 specific. Some of the Javascript explodes horribly in FF. Meaning pressing a button does absolutely nothing because the onclick method references something only IE6 understands.

    19. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even IE8 respects standards now.

      Definitely much more than IE6, but not the same way that Firefox, Safari, Opera, and Chrome do.

      I don't see IE8 supporting XHTML, SVG, or HTML5.

    20. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by Bert64 · · Score: 4, Informative

      If your site is correctly formed HTML, then it will degrade gracefully and be perfectly accessible in lynx.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    21. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      And discover that the system administrator, who knows his job, doesn't allow files that the user can create or write to to be loaded for execution. Have a nice day.

    22. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>If you're so cheap that you can't download a FREE IE6 to IE7 or 8 upgrade to see the web, fuck ye!

      Yeah except that IE7 or 8 won't work on my Macintosh OX 10.2. Neither will Firefox 3. So I'm kinda stuck with what I've got. (Oh and before someone says upgrade, do you have $150 laying-around to pay for that cost? Me neither.)

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    23. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What large potential customer base? There's fewer people using IE6 now than there are using Firefox 3, and Firefox users have been getting the middle finger for years...

    24. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by Krneki · · Score: 2, Interesting

      the solution is easy and an old one.

      IE6 for Intranet, Firefox + AdBlock for the Internet.

      --
      Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
    25. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by raphael75 · · Score: 1

      Or we can just say we're not going to make parts or fix Model T's anymore and DROP ie6. Who cares if idiots don't want to upgrade. That's their problem.

    26. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Some users can't upgrade. In my company, we're still using IE6. Not my decision, mind you. As the web master, I'd love to see us move to IE7/8 or (better) Firefox. Unfortunately, we rely on a web-based system that doesn't play well with IE7/8 or Firefox. So until the vendor upgrades their browser support, we're stuck. I'm lucky enough to have rights to install Firefox and use http://www.xenocode.com/browsers/ to run IE7 and IE8 for testing purposes, but 99% of our users are forced to use IE6.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    27. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by awpoopy · · Score: 1
      --
      I say things which affects my Karma negatively. (and I don't care) For instance; All religion is false.
    28. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by JCSoRocks · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Our web application is geared exclusively toward huge corporate customers. Almost all of them continue to run IE6. I would kill to at least be able to get transparent PNG's to finally work. (Ugh). We push people to upgrade every chance we get, but when you're a vendor making an application that has to work on every desktop machine in their environment... you don't have much choice.

      I keep hoping that one day someone will release some brutal worm for IE6 that goes unpatched for months and forces everyone to upgrade. Yes, I'm that desperate to see IE6 go away.

      --
      You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
    29. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by tb3 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Leopard is $118 from Amazon. And you can go cheaper if you buy 'used'.
      Or find a friend who has a spare license left in a family pack.

      Methinks thou doest protest too much.

      --

      www.lucernesys.comHorizon: Calendar-based personal finance

    30. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by FictionPimp · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I switched banks because of IE as a requirement. I moved to mac and was not going to run a virtual machine just to check my balance.

      When I closed the account in person the representative was mind boggled that I would close an account over that. He said "Why don't you just use windows like everyone else?"

      My new bank works fine in safari, firefox, and yes, even IE.

    31. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

      Yeah, IE6 is the herpes of the internet.

      It's funny how people are singling out IE6. As if IE8 doesn't have big problems, or IE4 wasn't a nightmare. I don't think there's been ANY version of IE that didn't have a bad reputation.

    32. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by ChrisMounce · · Score: 1

      Can't you install Chrome without being an admin?

      Someone else mentioned that it's possible to lock things down further (such that only executables in approved directories will run), but I bet it's not as common as just making sure the users aren't admins.

    33. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by ottothecow · · Score: 2, Informative
      Upgrade.

      Your sig is wrong. I like machines that last for 10 years too but if I had a 10 year old PC (until last year, my parents used one regularily) and refused to update my OS, I would be running windows 98SE. Try running a lot of current windows apps on windows 98...it does not work as it is no longer a problem to require XP and drop 98/ME support. The point of a computer lasting 10 years is that it is still updatable to stay reasonably current. Either stick with your old OS and only use old apps or switch to new one for new apps (or buy a new computer)

      --
      Bottles.
    34. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by FictionPimp · · Score: 1

      I tend to use jquery on all my sites. It tends to abstract enough that I'm not writing half as many IE hacks anymore. Style sheets are still an annoyance, but that is trivial to work around.

      Our comapny has to support firefox, IE, and safari. I've found that if you can hit safari then everything else but IE falls into place (assuming properly written html).

    35. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by elashish14 · · Score: 1

      You can try running it from a flash drive. Sometimes you need admin access for that too though.

      --
      I have left slashdot and am now on Soylent News. FUCK YOU DICE.
    36. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by Tuqui · · Score: 1, Insightful

      the system administrator, who knows his job,

      will not let their user's PC still use IE 6.

    37. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by NetDanzr · · Score: 1

      I use Win98SE at home, with older applications (don't need anything better right now). If I remember correctly, the OS came with MSIE 5. So upgrading to 6 would be about as easy as downloading and installing Opera. I did the latter and haven't had any problems. Not even Win98 is a good excuse to keep on using MSIE 6.

    38. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by Hadlock · · Score: 2

      My previous bank (wash mutual) had a blackberry app, my current bank allows me to check my balance & activity through SMS what stone age are you living in that you need a computer to check your balance :) get with the times man!

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    39. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by zullnero · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you go and make Microsoft drop their "Genuine Windows Advantage" program that is generally required for updating your browser, see where that gets you.

      I'll bet a large number of those still using IE6 are doing so because it's still bundled in with every OS pre-Vista, no one wants to download a massive slug like IE7 or 8, they've got a pirated OS, have some bogus ActiveX/custom crap they need for their jobs, or someone told them that by downloading anything from Microsoft, all their personal information would be exposed. When you talk to people who still use IE6, it's usually something like that. I worked with some web developers a few years back that put support for IE6 over almost everything else for generally all of the above reasons.

      For this one, feel free to do the time honored thing and blame Microsoft, because most of the problem is their own stupidity and shortsightedness.

    40. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by diodeus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "This site requires the Firefox plugin for IE6".

      I wish we could sneak in the back door.

    41. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by Yvan256 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You don't need to do a browser detect to send a special CSS to IE6. Use conditional comments, which are perfectly valid HTML comments.

    42. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    43. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      I call FUD. According to Wikipedia 10.2 was released in 2002 (dropped in 2003), 10.3 was 2003 (dropped in 2005) and 10.5 was released in 2005 (dropped in 2007).

      For comparison IE7 and IE8 won't run on the 2002 non-SP versions of Windows XP either. A $129 upgrade in 7 years isn't unrealistic.

    44. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by The_Wilschon · · Score: 1

      If the CEO can't get his funny cat pictures anymore because the website says it doesn't work in IE6, then he'll get something else installed on his computer. If the CEO has IE8 or whatever, then it is likely that the rest of the company will be migrated a little bit sooner than otherwise.

      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
    45. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Oh and before someone says upgrade, do you have $150 laying-around to pay for that cost?

      Uh, yeah I do. Are you saying you don't have a way to raise a hefty $150? I find that very difficult to believe. Either you're in a labor of love that you don't get paid for, you need a new job, or you need to learn how to manage your money. I have 4 bank accounts that have 4 digits and 2 that have 5 digits, and I'm by no means a "rich" guy. When work gives you a paycheck for $1000, that doesn't mean that you should immediately go out and spend $1000. Learn how to manage your money so that you can upgrade from IE6. I never thought an excuse for using IE6 is because you're poor (sorry, if you can't scrounge up $150, you're poor).

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    46. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by FishWithAHammer · · Score: 1

      Uh, I care. As do many people who make money from supporting a wide variety of web browsers. If a client uses IE6, by god the site better look right in IE6 or I don't get paid.

      --
      "You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
    47. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by Onymous+Coward · · Score: 1

      And this is why we should discourage IE8 use.

      Can we please avoid getting ourselves into the exact same mess all over again?

    48. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by gobbo · · Score: 1

      You can buy 10.3 [panther] or 10.4 [tiger] very cheaply on ebay or craigslist etc., a huge improvement over 10.2, which was never really meant to be used very long, it was a transitional version (despite the hype). 10.3 is where OS X first fulfilled its promise; anyone voluntarily running 10.2 after all these years has dubious computer-fu. In other words, you aren't kinda stuck, you're kinda whiny and definitely missing the point.

      You can't run a 10 year old machine with ANY OS from that period and expect to easily surf the modern web without a few upgrades (usually RAM and OS version). Tiger (about $35) runs on a G3 with firewire and 256mb RAM (but turn off stuff like dashboard); and if you only want to spend $15, buy Panther and use the excellent Camino browser.

      All my 6+ year-old windows boxes that got upgraded then converted to Linux boxes have all died and gone to scrap, so I don't keep PC boxes around older than about 4 yrs anymore; but I regularly use a 10-year-old iBook G3 running Panther for all kinds of things, including scanning, video capture and logging, and webmail. That thing just won't die, and is probably the best value I've ever gotten out of a computer. Apple mostly used excellent power supplies, so their desktop machines generally keep going too.

    49. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by Faerunner · · Score: 1

      I'm still using Win2k (though thinking about switching over to Ubuntu or a linux/XP dual boot when I can find the spare change for more RAM) and I am currently browsing using the latest Firefox. My games run fine (sure, it won't handle Sims 3...), Photoshop 7 opens and lags minimally.... it's all good. Honestly, if you don't NEED anything newer for work you can deal really well with a 7 or 8 year old system and slightly less than the latest updates on some programs (for instance, I see no need to upgrade Photoshop when I don't use all of its current features anyway). 10 years is pushing it, though. I would not say I'll be keeping Win2k around much longer.

    50. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by Keeper+Of+Keys · · Score: 1, Redundant

      Then give the administrator a kick up the arse! (S)He's there to serve the users, and to maintain security. By insisting on IE6, they're doing neither.

    51. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Silly shortsighted Coward...commodoer64_love used to enjoy throwing money away, but then he got a Mac, and he no longer had any money to throw away. You see where that $150 went? If he'd not gotten a Mac, he'd have that $150.

    52. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by einhverfr · · Score: 1

      Let's write off IE6 as obsolete and force those users to upgrade.

      That is the approach we take with LedgerSMB. The market share of IE 6 and even 7 is not enough to justify supporting it as a browser when Firefox can be installed side-by-side, and when the cost to doing so is horrible i18n hacks.

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    53. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm a web developer and I'm already doing that. However, people from certain areas of business may have the majority of their users still visiting through IE6. When that happens, your only choices are either to support IE6 with big warnings about security issues and performance that even end users can understand or not to work for that client.

      FTFY

    54. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by bishiraver · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind that up until a short time ago, jQuery itself used ugly user agent hacks. (It's also slow - just look at /. ....)

    55. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by s73v3r · · Score: 1

      Expecting to run a computer for 10 years isn't crazy. Expecting to run a consumer-grade OS for 10 years is, even when you just consider security patches. Either suck it up and buy a copy of Panther or Tiger (~$40 on eBay) if you don't want to shell out the ~$100 for Leopard, or look into putting Linux on that machine.

    56. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I keep hoping that one day someone will release some brutal worm for IE6 that goes unpatched for months and forces everyone to upgrade. Yes, I'm that desperate to see IE6 go away.

      Right now is one of those times when I need an "Agree" adjective in that moderation adjective list.

    57. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by Roadmaster · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, we rely on a web-based system that doesn't play well with IE7/8 or Firefox. So until the vendor upgrades their browser support, we're stuck.

      This is enormously amusing. Many posts say that "hey, as a development firm, I can't afford not to support IE6 because I'll lose customers". Then there's those, like your vendor, who play the opposite game and have you on an outdated browser because their app sucks rocks.

      Someone needs to stand up to this mess. If we assume that the economy is as sucky as they say it is, then you might give the vendor an ultimatum. Either get your mess working with a decent, modern browser, or we take our business elsewhere. Ask any of those companies who need to hold on to clients even if they run IE6. I bet they'll be happy to replace your current vendor. It's a win-win situation and then your IE6-centric vendor can go work for the IE6-centric customer and they can live the rest of their IE6-centric lives happily together.

    58. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by s73v3r · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So do they plan on supporting IE6 forever? If they upgrade the web-apps to be standards compliant, then they really only have to upgrade once, and from there on it should be just a little bit of tweaking for the newer generations of browsers, if anything.

    59. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 1

      The bank requiring IE would annoy me..... ... my reason for leaving would be the attitude of the representative

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
    60. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by einhverfr · · Score: 1

      But not always w3m.

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    61. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by sorak · · Score: 1

      If your site is correctly formed HTML, then it will degrade gracefully and be perfectly accessible in lynx.

      Do you know of any examples?

    62. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "Especially when the suits realize that we'll have to do it again later."

      write to standards, and write using proper software engineering techniques and then that's not much of a big deal.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    63. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You betcha. My corporate IT is standardized to IE6. And this is a global corporation of 70,000+ seats.
      Locally we have people with the newest desktop hardware that have IE7, before our guys read the memo. *cough* So while I wait for my year-overdue machine upgrade, I at least know that tabbed browsing will be forever out of reach.

      Oh well, next week I'm quitting to go back to school. Then I'll have time to re-learn what I've forgotten about web standards in the last 2 years. Prior to this job, I refreshed my webdesign skill set every six months.

    64. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by VGPowerlord · · Score: 1

      I use Win98SE at home, with older applications (don't need anything better right now). If I remember correctly, the OS came with MSIE 5. So upgrading to 6 would be about as easy as downloading and installing Opera. I did the latter and haven't had any problems. Not even Win98 is a good excuse to keep on using MSIE 6.

      That is, if you don't mind all the singing!

      --
      GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
    65. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      There are three ways to get a business to change:
      Money
      Money
      Money.

      Offer a discount to people not using IE 6.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    66. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by Androclese · · Score: 1

      PNG Transparencies in IE5.5 and 6? DONE!

      I found this a LONG time ago. I did not write it, but the link to the authors who did, sits in the comments at the top.

      // Correctly handle PNG transparency in Win IE 5.5 or higher. // http://homepage.ntlworld.com/bobosola. Updated 02-March-2004

      function correctPNG()
            {
            for(var i=0; i"
                                        img.outerHTML = strNewHTML
                                        i = i-1
                                }
                  }
            }
      window.attachEvent("onload", correctPNG);

      function fixPNG(myImage) // correctly handle PNG transparency in Win IE 5.5 or higher.
            {
              if (window.ie55up)
                        {
                        var imgID = (myImage.id) ? "id='" + myImage.id + "' " : ""
                        var imgClass = (myImage.className) ? "class='" + myImage.className + "' " : ""
                        var imgTitle = (myImage.title) ? "title='" + myImage.title + "' " : "title='" + myImage.alt + "' "
                        var imgStyle = "display:inline-block;" + myImage.style.cssText
                        var strNewHTML = ""
                        myImage.outerHTML = strNewHTML
                        }
            }

    67. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by MagusSlurpy · · Score: 1

      How about telling your bosses that IE 6 is dead, so maybe they'll tell the IT managers at my university, which rolled out last week a new registration system which only supports IE6, IE7, and Firefox 2. I really dislike having to go back two significant releases to have to register for classes. . .

      --
      My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells by the seashore.
    68. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by amicusNYCL · · Score: 2, Insightful

      When that happens, your only choices are either to support IE6 or not to work for that client.

      Advocacy goes a long way. The majority of people heading IT departments are reasonable people that can be talked to. In fact, they probably already share your view. It's not going to hurt to advocate to the decision makers in the company why they need to switch away from IE6, including the point that if they delay a switch not only are they going to have to switch anyway in the future, but until they do they're going to be left behind. It's pretty easy with all the other browser choices to illustrate why IE6 is a deficient piece of software without getting into the technical details, I can make my parents and coworkers understand that IE6 is not a good piece of software, that's an easy argument to make (again, considering the other options).

      If the decision makers in the business are hearing that IE6 needs to be dropped, and they're hearing it from their IT staff and their vendors, eventually they're going to get the point. If you take the assumption that they're using IE6 and there's nothing you can do about it, then I think you're part of the problem. You're definitely not part of the solution. Talk to them.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    69. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try Google Chrome. It doesn't need admin privileges.

    70. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by Bashae · · Score: 1

      If you read my post more carefully, you may notice it mentions USERS.

      See, if I write a CMS for (let's say) a microchip factory, there is going to be a LOT less people using IE6 than if I make a website for, for example, a gardening store. In this second case, all my client cares about is that his users, who are his source of income, cannot view the website properly without taking action to change their browser first, and they will consider the website "broken".

      The real problem here is that people doing the right thing may lose touch with part of their customer base.

      But it's none of my business anyway, because I do NOT write nonstandard websites or IE6 hacks ;) I'd refuse the client.

    71. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why bother?
      All my content tends to be in either databases or external files being fed into a layout dynamically. I don't need to worry about supporting IE6- I've got one IE6 friendly "skin", and present the user the option to use that on the start page (I also auto-forward based on UA strings - I don't care, almost noone pretends to be IE6). I don't ever have to touch the actual UI, nor do I need to take IE6 into account elsewhere. All the logic and content loading is being done via server-side scripting, anyway. And frankly, I don't much care if the markup for the IE6 version doesn't validate.

      Between .htc files (for CSS) and old school tricks hard-coded into my brain, I never really found designing for IE6 to be anywhere near the pain in the ass people make it up to be. I still support NS4, via the same method, just in case, without much trouble (and no, you don't need tables, either, Layers work just fine).

      People have just gotten lazy and whiney, I think. Seriously, it takes all of 15-20 minutes to design and test something that works in IE6, and all of 30 seconds to implement a mechanism to serve it to IE6 clients. (What, you fancy yourself a web dev/designer and don't keep a stockpile of stuff that works sitting around waiting for re-use?) Or is it that people are too attached to their web 2.0 gimmicks and javascript frameworks to remember how to do it?

    72. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      solution defeated in one sentence: how do you make clicked links always know which program to open?

    73. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      If it was up to me, we'd upgrade everyone to IE7/8 or Firefox and work in exceptions for the folks who need to use the IE6-only system. Unfortunately, I don't have any say in the matter, so I'm stuck supporting IE6 while the vendor keeps promising an IE7/8 compatible version. As I don't use the IE6-only system, for all I know they could have upgraded it already and just didn't roll out any IE updates yet.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    74. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some did it !
      http://37signals.blogs.com/products/2008/07/basecamp-phasin.html

      So will we have the courage to do so ?

    75. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by jacqdesign · · Score: 1

      We are all money whores in some way/fashion. And that fact alone means, if you pay me to make it work in IE 6, it will work in IE 6. If web development is your income, which it is for me, then any techno-religious views are irrelevant. Client needs/requirements and time/cost/payment is the bible.

      Having said that, obviously the technical preference is that IE 6 goes away sooner rather then later. And I will be right there celebrating with you.

    76. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm a freelance web developer that mostly gets contracts quoted by the project not by an hourly rate. I figure that supporting IE6 takes 20-30% more in development time for front end work. So if clients want IE6 supported I add this extra to the price, meanwhile explicitly explaining what that extra IE6 tax is all about. They clue in fast when you're talking money.

    77. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by SpecBear · · Score: 1

      That's pretty much my attitude towards IE (and every other browser, actually): I'll support whatever I'm being paid to support. My employer will happily sign off on a spec that requires IE4 compatibility as long as the client writes a big enough check. Sure, we'll tell him it's a waste of money and provide stats on browser market shares. But ultimately the client knows his users better than we do. We'll price it out, and either it's worth the money to him or it isn't.

      For my personal sites I refuse to use browser specific hacks. Over the years I've found that it's better to stick with standards compliant code. I work on them in my spare time, so I want my work to have longevity. A hack could easily break in future browsers, while standard code only becomes better supported as time goes on.

    78. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is why it's so important for those that develop sites for the general public to stop supporting IE6. If high profile sites write off IE6, corporate IT departments will be forced to upgrade their users. And once the locked-down environments that force IE6 on users are gone, there won't be anyone who is forced to support IE6 anymore, so more and more things will be written to be incompatible with IE6.

      What we need is for a majority of the large players to agree to all end support for IE6 on a given date. Make that date well known and far enough in the future that it doesn't take anyone by surprise. And then when that date comes, disable support for IE6. IE6 users can be shown a page with download links for modern browsers so that they can choose a replacement. Get Microsoft, Google and Yahoo behind this and other sites will follow suit. But the key is corporate IT departments. There's so many internal applications that are built specifically for IE6 that they will never upgrade unless they're given no choice in the matter. And the internet needs to drag them, kicking and screaming, into the standards-compliant age.

    79. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 1

      Especially when the suits realize that we'll have to do it again later.

      When?

    80. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by ottothecow · · Score: 1
      Oh yeah, it is certainly fine to keep something old around if it does what you need. The guys sig was complaining that new apps didnt work on 10.2.

      I have an older ibook that I use quite often (because the battery lasts for so long still) and sure...it cant run the newest photoshop (not sure if that is an intel thing or a 10.5 thing) and there is other stuff it cant run but for the most part it works great with older apps.

      --
      Bottles.
    81. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by rubah · · Score: 1

      My copy (student version) was about $78 or so, I think.

    82. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shenanigans, there is only one hack a web developer needs to tackle this.

      http://www.end6.org/js/eng_end6.js

    83. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 1

      If I had $150 to blow, I could think of a lot of better places to send it that fricking Microsoft.

      I have two retail-box Windows 2000 licenses and expect I'll still be using them on my only Windows boxes for some time yet. When they become unsafe/incompatible on the net, they'll be firewalled into safety on the intranet at home. Offline update tools are your friend. I'll be able to patch my W2K boxes to the EOL final updates forever.

    84. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by AnyoneEB · · Score: 1

      Slashdot appears to still work fine on lynx despite having a good amount of AJAX around. Well, I wish the sidebar appeared at the bottom of the page instead of the top, but that is the only noticeable issue.

      --
      Centralization breaks the internet.
    85. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by Snover · · Score: 1

      If you think that's a solution, you need to seriously reconsider what you are doing.

      --

      [insert witty comment here]
    86. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by Lennie · · Score: 1

      Time to upgrade to XP ! ;-)

      I can't say I'm impressed with Vista, 2008 or 7, actually I think 2000 is better then XP.

      But as some point you just have to switch, Ubuntu is definitely my first choice right now.

      --
      New things are always on the horizon
    87. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by Lennie · · Score: 1

      That's the whole point of the article, if you would read TFA, or stats actually, you would see the Corporate filter shows IE6 has the largest browser share, more then IE7 and especially IE8 or Firefox.

      --
      New things are always on the horizon
    88. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by JCSoRocks · · Score: 1

      You'd be surprised. In an effort to get people off of a version of our application that was over 9 years old we practically gave away upgrades to the current version and it was still a monumental effort. That was just for upgrading our application. I can't imagine what it would have been like trying to push an IE upgrade on them - something that could potentially cause other problems. Some people are so completely scared of change that even a significant discount would probably do little to convince them to upgrade. At the same time you also run the risk of devaluing your product.

      Maybe if we jacked up the support costs as the software got older it would make upgrades more appealing. It's not a friendly thing to do but it really does take a ridiculous amount of effort to resolve an issue in a 9 year old application. There are only a few guys left that even know anything about it.

      --
      You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
    89. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by zonky · · Score: 1

      Set firefox as default, and use http://ieview.mozdev.org/ with the whitelist pages set.

    90. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>if I had a 10 year old PC I would be running windows 98SE

      Yes. Then what? I have a laptop with Win98 and it works great. I just finished upgrading it to Firefox 3. Good luck trying to do that with a 10-yr-old Mac. Even my Mac 10.2 won't accept the latest Firefox and it's only 5 years old... which is just pathetic.

      I guess this is what's meant by the "Apple tax" in those television commercials. Macs cost more to operate, simply because the users are constantly forced to upgrade their OS software. I don't enjoy making expensive upgrades (which is why I still have a Win98 laptop and XP-PC).

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    91. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      Yeah but the XP upgrades from SP1 to SP2 to SP3 were free.

      The Apple upgrades from 10.2 to 10.3 to 10.x were not. And they should be. I could understand Apple wanting to charge for a major update, like 10.x to 11.x, but not the smaller upgrades. That's the main reason I have the latest version of XP-SP3 (2008) but I'm still stuck at 10.2. My PC is two years older than my Mac, but the PC is still useful whereas the Mac is not. IMHO Apple's greedy with their constant demands for more money to support incremental 0.1 updates. I won't buy a Mac again.

      I liked their old Quadras when they were demonstrably superior to the Windows 3 junk, but now the difference is so small as to not be worth the biannual $150 Mac luxury tax.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    92. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      Most of the money I earn goes into my half-million-dollar retirement account. I consider that more important than spending $150 every other year on new Mac software (or $1500/year on cable, or $1000/year on a cellphone, or $5000/year on a new car, or the other nonsense Americans waste money upon).

      BTW how much do you have for your retirement? It sounds like you have almost nothing. Probably because you wasted it on non-necessities. I have friend who does that, buying a new Mac, PalmPilot, and Iphone every year. He's wasted ten of thousands.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    93. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      Even if I upgraded to 10.4, how long would it last?

      By the time 2010 rolled-around I'd probably run into the exact-same problem of not being able to run the latest web browsers or software. I consider that too short a time period to be worthwhile.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    94. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by XMode · · Score: 1

      OR could advise them that the version of IE they have is now 2 versions out of date and is broken? Its not like MS charges for IE8 (or 7)

    95. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      It sounds like you have almost nothing. Probably because you wasted it on non-necessities.

      I don't know how you can pretend to know that. My 401k has around $100k in it after 5 years of working, 10-15% of my monthly income goes into that account (my salary started pretty low, but it's better now). I've got another 35 years to continue building wealth before I retire. I also own my house and have stake in several other pieces of land, and I have no debt other than my mortgage, so I'm doing just fine, thanks. I also keep my computer up to date so that I can remain efficient. A few hundred dollars every few years towards maintaining efficiency in work is not exactly a frivolous or wasted expense. I've never spent any money on a Mac, I don't own an iPhone and never will, and I don't waste time with PDAs. My current cell phone is a Blackberry 8150 from several years ago. So I don't sound a whole lot like your friend.

      By the way, I also enjoy my life (and my computer).

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    96. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by Max+Littlemore · · Score: 1

      Not if it's a media site with no point other than displaying and playing samples.

      --
      I don't therefore I'm not.
    97. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by Max+Littlemore · · Score: 1

      I don't really want to use jquery, but I have ben taking the approach of targeting firefox and safari and then fixing ie6 where I need to. Still far to much work to have to do on the presentation when the real problems to solve are business problems on the server side.

      --
      I don't therefore I'm not.
    98. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are making some dangerous assumptions about the products you sell. The assumption you make is 1. the competition offers your clients something they can move to 2. the cost/benefit ratio favours them.

    99. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by insane_coder · · Score: 1

      My company now tells clients that if they want IE 6 support, it costs them 5-10% more. Suddenly when they hear it costs money, they don't want it so much anymore, and consider upgrading since they now have a tangible downside.
      Many design firms actually include pricing calculations based on browsers supported, but they don't give the break down to their clients, so the clients don't realize they're paying a lot for IE 6.

      --
      You can be an insane coder too, read: Insane Coding
    100. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by ottothecow · · Score: 1
      I think you are confusing apple's willingness to push the envelope on new features (at the cost of backwards compatability) with a design flaw.

      Backwards compatability is nice but apple has proven that they are willing to make MAJOR shifts in favor of modern tech (68k to ppc, os9 to osx, ppc to intel). They maintain basic compatability which is great but software that wants to push limits is going to start making function calls to the new features and quickly lose compatibility. A lot of linux software would also fail to function on a 10 year old (or 5 year old) linux release--you update those for free though so there is probably no complaint. I feel like you are just being cheap, the hardware could run a newer OSX but you dont want to pay to upgrade (which is a modest cost every few years compared to new hardware). If this is the case, maybe macs arent for you and you should go the linux route where your updates are free.

      --
      Bottles.
    101. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by jseale · · Score: 1

      It's not quite that easy.

      We're forced to use IE6 at work - Mainly because IT understands the security risks (significant, but understood) and their web-apps are written to support it. Upgrading is too expensive expensive right now - Especially when the suits realize that we'll have to do it again later. Think of the brake-recall equation from Fight Club - The result is tragic, but real-world rather than ideal. So, IE6 endures...

      Yeah, no kidding! So because of being tied to IE6 at work, I have to use Google Reader instead of Feedly (which is much better) to read my RSS feeds. It makes me wish I had a netbook.

    102. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by ottothecow · · Score: 1

      I would go tiger on hardware that started out with 10.2. Leopard probably takes a bit too much system resources and most of the stuff that requires leopard also requires an intel chip (or even G4...wouldnt a 10.2 machine have been G3?)

      --
      Bottles.
    103. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by supernova_hq · · Score: 1

      To make it simply, just give them firefox and put in the ieTab extension. The extension can be configured to automatically activate on certain domains (intranet) and remain dormant for the rest (internet). This solves the problem of the user opening the wrong browser and you getting 10+ generic emails a day of "the system is broken, fix it!"

    104. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by supernova_hq · · Score: 1

      Oh god, why in the hell would you trust your banking to an unencrypted wireless system that can be stolen without so much as a second look???

      Online banking should be done in a secure browser (not IE), with NO remembered passwords. If you can't remember your password, use an encrypted key manager not tied to your browser in any way (keepass, etc).

    105. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by supernova_hq · · Score: 1
      I'm fed up with IT using intranet apps a an excuse for not upgrading! How fucking hard is it to install and configure firefox with ietab?!?
      1. Install FireFox
      2. Install ieTab
      3. Configure ieTab to activate for, and only for, intranet domains

      If enough companies did this, they could continue to use the enterprise apps without complications, and app vendors could convert their systems to standards because most companies would already have firefox installed and would only need to remove the domain from ieTab's list.

      For god's sake, it not fucking rocket science!!!

    106. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by supernova_hq · · Score: 1

      The easiest way is for businesses to use firefox with ieTab configured to activate on intranet domains. It's simple, easy for employees, almost flawless, more secure (for internet browsing) and once most companies are using this system, the app vendors can convert to standards.

    107. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by supernova_hq · · Score: 1

      Have you suggested they install firefox and use ieTab to browse their IE6 specific intranet apps?

      I fixed a machine for someone who had to access their work email from home (some Microsoft webmail crap). It rendered like junk in firefox, so I just installed ieTab and set it to use it on that site. Worked flawlessly!

    108. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by CodeBuster · · Score: 1

      your only choices are either to support IE6 or not to work for that client.

      So don't deal with them if you can possibly avoid it. Clients like that are probably the demanding and cheap type who annoy the crap out of you and then pay half of what was agreed (after arguing about additions to the requirements or interpretation of same) and late. Leave those sorts of clients to your competitors, they mostly aren't worth the trouble anyway.

    109. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by TheoGB · · Score: 1

      As mentioned above, some people's worksites won't let you run binaries. I know this because I've sent people the PortableApps Firefox link before and they've just been unable to run it. That said, I just use a PHP file to generate an overriding stylesheet with extra information based on the browser version. Seems to work fine.

    110. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by rdnetto · · Score: 1

      The answer: Google Chrome. It installs itself to the user's AppData folder, so it doesn't require admin rights.

      --
      Most human behaviour can be explained in terms of identity.
    111. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by tepples · · Score: 1

      The answer: Google Chrome. It installs itself to the user's AppData folder

      And the administrator can make %APPDATA% non-executable. Please see my other comment.

    112. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by rdnetto · · Score: 1

      Then copy it to C:\Program Files by using a Linux LiveCD to get around Windows security :)

      --
      Most human behaviour can be explained in terms of identity.
    113. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by tepples · · Score: 1

      Then copy it to C:\Program Files by using a Linux LiveCD to get around Windows security :)

      And get fired.

    114. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This old chestnut again, if people spent half the time improving code they spend complaining about browsers we'd never see a javascript error again.

      Give it - up IE6 is the standard. Its the most popular browser, the standard browser. Just because bunch of students announce they have produced a standard doesn't make it so. I once tried to make the standard pigeon have five legs - that project has been equally successful.

      As for upgrading browsers...why should people bother? The cash required just can't be justified to the ordinary Joe, any more than buying a new car can be justified because a mechanic is too lazy/inexperienced to open a different toolbox.

    115. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by BenoitRen · · Score: 2, Informative

      The latest SeaMonkey works as far back as Windows NT 3.51. There's no excuse. I use it without problems on Windows 95. OpenOffice before version 3 works fine on Windows 95 as well.

    116. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by tcr · · Score: 1

      I've worked on projects where IE6 had to be a supported platform.
       
      It's not pleasant, but I found it helped to use libraries and frameworks like jQuery, MooTools, YUI, etc. to abstract away the nasty hacks and tweaks for you. Often you would find an interface plugin or component didn't quite cut it in IE6, but there are so many out there that you can just discard it and find another.
       
      Development would take place with Firefox (mainly to use Firebug), with occasional switches to IE to check for things to fix.
       
      IE6 threw a few horrible problems, but the process seemed to minimise the pain.

      --


      Information wants to be beer.
    117. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by saintlupus · · Score: 1

      Just install Debian PPC and quit whining, Trolly McTroll. It'll run the newest Firefox, and faster than OS X, to boot.

      --saint

    118. Re:As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ... by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      10.4 to 10.5 was better than XP to Vista.... I look at it this way, Apple's stuff is good enough they CAN charge for it while Microsoft has so much inertia they can only force people to buy upgrades with new computers by leveraging OEMS. Apple on the other hand had close to 50% of Tiger users upgraded in 6 months... that means a lot of people WANTED to pay for it.

      There won't ever be an "OS 11" it would lose the pretty "X" logo that makes marketing so cool. It will always be "X" probably until 10.23 in 2025. Along the same lines XP is really Windows 5.1 so they duped everybody into paying for an upgrade to Win 2000 like your complaining about Apple doing.

  2. Dinosaurs rule business by oDDmON+oUT · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is simply fossil evidence that confirms it, kind of like a coelecanth.

    --
    Some days it's just not worth
    chewing through my restraints.
    1. Re:Dinosaurs rule business by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Except unlike the coelecanth, IE6 just seems like an artifact left by God to test the faith of young Earth creationists.

    2. Re:Dinosaurs rule business by Cymurgh · · Score: 1

      Except that coelacanths aren't dinosaurs, sure. The scary bit? Wikipedia says "individual coelacanths may live as long as 80 to 100 years". Good luck with that move from IE6...

    3. Re:Dinosaurs rule business by Pollardito · · Score: 1

      The irony is that Microsoft's own ads depict office workers as dinosaurs that need to get out of the stone age, yet they benefit from that same fact

  3. Corporate users and backward compatibility by javacowboy · · Score: 5, Informative

    The reason IE 6 won't die is intranet applications that were coded specifically for IE 6 that corporations haven't bothered to make cross-browser. IE 7 (and presumably IE 8) breaks a lot of those sites.

    At my current job, we're not allowed to install IE 7 or 8, and don't have the administrator rights to do it. It sucks because as a web developer, I'd like nothing better than to see IE 6 die a quick death.

    --
    This space left intentionally blank.
    1. Re:Corporate users and backward compatibility by thedonger · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I think there is an overwhelming amount of fear/misinformation among corporate IT and their seeming inability to allow IE6 to die. Fear of the unknown. And maybe a little laziness/love of the status quo.

      Two years ago a client of mine (a very large corporation) nearly shit when I set their web site to require 128-bit encryption. Apparently the law of the land forced IE6 and lower encryption for no other reason than it would be way too much work to move 50,000 people to a new standard.

      --
      Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
    2. Re:Corporate users and backward compatibility by ammit · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Ha. The company I work for has just forked out over £900 for a broadband provisioning system. Boy does it SUCK. And the first thing it told me to do??? Use IE6. I have to therefore agree with the above statement. For a girl who loves Chrome despite the fact it can't do half the things I want it to yet... well, just someone kill IE6. IE full stop if possible.

      --
      I argue because it's the internet....and I can.
    3. Re:Corporate users and backward compatibility by notarockstar1979 · · Score: 2, Informative

      This is especially true in the medical field (I'm looking at you Allscripts). You can use IE7, but it breaks the dictation function and a few of the other add-ins.

    4. Re:Corporate users and backward compatibility by LoztInSpace · · Score: 1

      - the law of the land
      - would be way too much work to move 50,000 people to a new standard

      Sounds like a couple of pretty good reasons. What's the issue?

    5. Re:Corporate users and backward compatibility by casals · · Score: 2, Interesting

      IE 7 (and presumably IE 8) breaks a lot of those sites.

      On that line we have the infamous "XML Islands" - widely used on BI reports (see "Financial"), giving plain interface operators a harsh time when generating customer reports. Seen a lot of companies going to IE7 and gaining bonus work hours for that. Now, the really interesting thing is the software vendors' default answer to that... basically they just don't care, since the upgrade ratio among their customers is not that great. Lots of these vendors on the next new-millenium-tech-congress. Fancy powerpoint presentations and all. Flamethrowers not allowed, though.

      --
      AT &F1DT0,T0800665544 - Real men, real help desk support.
    6. Re:Corporate users and backward compatibility by Smooth+and+Shiny · · Score: 2, Funny

      It sucks because as a web developer, I'd like nothing better than to see IE 6 die a quick death.

      Instead, it's dying a slow and painful death. Unfortunately, it is YOU experiencing the painful part of it.

    7. Re:Corporate users and backward compatibility by siloko · · Score: 2, Funny

      The reason IE 6 won't die is . . .

      There's a reason IE6 wont't die? Thats strange, everytime I use it it seems to die after about 15 minutes. I suppose that could be me smashing my head against the keyboard . . .

    8. Re:Corporate users and backward compatibility by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      I think the problem is WAY too many of those Intranet sites bought into "have a rich desktop application experience using the web thanks to ActiveX(TM)" and the ActiveX on IE7 and IE8 was way depreciated and had more security than the "sure, just run it!" attitude that was ActiveX on IE6.

      Of course trying to convert this "rich desktop application experience" to use something else like AJAX or Java is going to be a royal PITA and likely cost a good chunk of change, which is why so many companies are loath to change it. They are of the "If it isn't broke, don't fix it, especially if it will cost money" mentality and getting those types to understand that IE6 IS broke and can NEVER be fixed will be pretty much impossible.

      But have hope web developers-It is only five more years until XP is EOLed, which means unless companies revolt and refuse to go to Windows 8 or whatever MSFT has out at that time, then by that date IE6 must surely die. Until then if you want to have any corporate customers you will just have to support the evil that is IE6...dum dum dum EEK!

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    9. Re:Corporate users and backward compatibility by Vu1turEMaN · · Score: 3, Interesting

      My favorite is Kintera's Site Designer. To use it, they require "Internet Explorer 5". Basically, only IE5 or 6 work with it. Their calendar-based addon popup completely crashes IE7 or 8, doesn't even come up in Firefox 1, 2 or 3, and Chrome justs doesn't even load the page.

      Yet for some reason, my organization is paying them 100k a year to manage a large non-profit's site! LOLOL!!!!!

    10. Re:Corporate users and backward compatibility by afabbro · · Score: 1

      You're exactly correct. Most large IT shops are still adjusting to the idea that you may have to tweak your server output based on new clients. Most shops haven't had to do that before...they wrote an app once and while the client might be upgraded periodically, they didn't need to rewrite the server code. This thinking goes back to the mainframe. And by the way, it's completely right - you shouldn't have to change your server output to work with a new client, but thanks to Microsoft, you do with IE. That's outside of the normal flow of corporate thinking/work, which is why IE6 refuses to die.

      --
      Advice: on VPS providers
    11. Re:Corporate users and backward compatibility by DanCentury · · Score: 1

      If you're not testing with IE 7 and IE 8, you can't do your job.

      See if you can get your masters to allow you to install some kind of virtual PC, and run windows images with IE 7 and IE 8. That's what we did at work, and it kept IT's mouths shut because we had IE 6 installed as the browser for the OS.

    12. Re:Corporate users and backward compatibility by thedonger · · Score: 1

      The issue is that it likely won't become any easier to update those 50,000 people (unless massive lay-offs have been planned), and the more revisions/patches/etc. over which the update spans means more regression testing, more time, and even more money.

      --
      Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
    13. Re:Corporate users and backward compatibility by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      Is there not more than a single broadband provisioning system that does what you need?
      When i've been looking at web based apps recently, compatibility with standards compliant browsers is a must, as it will work with our varied clients and provide the least hassle when we update clients in the future. If an app required IE6 that would make it unusable for us or otherwise count as a massive black mark against it.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    14. Re:Corporate users and backward compatibility by Jason+Levine · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'm in a similar situation. Our employees are stuck with IE6 because some internal app (not one I built!) won't support over IE6 (and definitely doesn't support Firefox). So I need IE6 to test internal pages. However, our external website is being browsed on by users with IE6, IE7, and Firefox. Firefox is no problem, that's my main browser anyway. But how do I upgrade to IE7 while still allowing myself the ability to see pages in IE6? Virtual machines are nice, but require me to "boot" a Windows instance just to test one page.

      Luckily, I found Xenocode's tool: http://www.xenocode.com/browsers/ Their program loads a virtual instance of the browser so now I'm running IE6 (native), Firefox (native), IE7 (virtual), and IE8 (virtual). I can have all of my windows open at once and cycle through the browser versions as I make changes to the pages. It's a lifesaver (and free to boot).

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    15. Re:Corporate users and backward compatibility by Bengie · · Score: 1

      The 3rd party app my company uses to host all its work tickets hasn't fixed their app to work with anything other than IE6. It's a hodge-podge of java and activex that REQUIRES the old way of activex handling before MS got sued. That was like, 6+ years ago and their software still hasn't had work around. The funny thing is this app has been upgraded numerous times for all the new SQL standards and features/etc, but the front end is stuck in 2000.

    16. Re:Corporate users and backward compatibility by QuoteMstr · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but I would refuse to work at a place that locked down my personal workstation like that. Or at least I'd ask for extra money on top of what I'd get otherwise.

      As a programmer, I have the knowledge to maintain my own system, thankyouverymuch.

    17. Re:Corporate users and backward compatibility by ammit · · Score: 1

      It doesn't quite work that way. As resellers we have to have the system that we are offered by the company that owns the main networks, and this is what they are offering, poorly written and IE6 dependent. I'm not even a coder and I think I could do better.

      --
      I argue because it's the internet....and I can.
    18. Re:Corporate users and backward compatibility by barzok · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As a programmer, I have the knowledge to maintain my own system, thankyouverymuch.

      Some of the most inept computer users I have ever met are programmers. One in particular told me that if she didn't have kids who needed a computer for homework, she wouldn't even own one.

      You may be able to maintain your system, but many programmers are worse than the non-IT people who are their customers.

    19. Re:Corporate users and backward compatibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All the worst programmers I've known have been women.

    20. Re:Corporate users and backward compatibility by sorak · · Score: 1

      Can you install it on any test systems? I.E., can you at least verify that new code is IE7 compliant, or are you stuck making even more IE6 code?

    21. Re:Corporate users and backward compatibility by barzok · · Score: 1

      OK, what the hell, I'll feed the troll...

      Is it because they were bad at it, but had an interest in the work (IOW, they were trying, but just didn't "get it")? Or because they were in it for the paycheck and had no passion for programming?

    22. Re:Corporate users and backward compatibility by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      well, just someone kill IE6

      Even Microsoft seem to be unable to do so, and not for the lack of trying (witness IE7 and IE8 being pushed as "critical" updates - I would think that /. would actually agree with such categorization for once!).

    23. Re:Corporate users and backward compatibility by Mr.+DOS · · Score: 1

      I used to use MultipleIEs, but it doesn't seem to work properly in conjunction with IE8 - form input in IE6 has issues. Thanks very much for that link - it'll definitely be useful if I ever have to do any web development on Windows again!

            --- Mr. DOS

    24. Re:Corporate users and backward compatibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a web developer and you can't test your pages in IE > 6?! That's insane! I can understand when corporations get stuck with legacy systems, but to prevent newly developed stuff from being forward-compatible?

      Wow, just wow.

  4. /. - are you listening? by dazedNconfuzed · · Score: 4, Funny

    Pay attention to your own news site, CmdrTaco!
    Though this is a site for nerds, that doesn't mean that everyone has abandoned IE, or is at least running the latest incarnation thereof. Some of us, for various reasons, are pretty much stuck with using IE6 for browsing /. and are faced with a pile of mis-rendered & incompatible pages (I'm thinking the user account page in particular). We appreciate having /. optimized for FireFox, but would also like such consideration for the more-used IE6 browser.

    --
    Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
    1. Re:/. - are you listening? by teg · · Score: 5, Insightful

      f. Some of us, for various reasons, are pretty much stuck with using IE6 for browsing /. and are faced with a pile of mis-rendered & incompatible pages

      Slashdot doesn't render properly in Safari 4 or Firefox 3.5 beta4 either - the comment titles and scores aren't displayed anymore

    2. Re:/. - are you listening? by awitod · · Score: 2, Informative

      It doesn't render correctly with Chrome either.

    3. Re:/. - are you listening? by darkvad0r · · Score: 1

      Slashdot doesn't render properly in Safari 4 or Firefox 3.5 beta4 either - the comment titles and scores aren't displayed anymore

      It renders properly here (ubuntu 9.04, ff 3.5b4 from mozilla's site, not from ppa)

    4. Re:/. - are you listening? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pay ...Some of us...are faced with a pile of mis-rendered & incompatible pages (I'm thinking the user account page in particular). We appreciate having /. optimized for FireFox, but would also like such consideration for the more-used IE6 browser.

      It doesn't work properly in Firefox, either, especially when browsing with NoScript.

      Even with NoScript off, some messages are permanently "Hidden". If those posts are so bad, why not just delete them, Malda?

    5. Re:/. - are you listening? by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 1

      Some of us, for various reasons, are pretty much stuck with using IE6 for browsing /. and are faced with a pile of mis-rendered & incompatible pages

      Browsing from work I guess, there cannot be many /. readers who don't have at least one alternative browser on their private machine ;-)

      We appreciate having /. optimized for FireFox, but would also like such consideration for the more-used IE6 browser.

      No longer more used. According to http://marketshare.hitslink.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qprid=2, Firefox 3.0 overtook IE6 in February of this year.

      --
      C - the footgun of programming languages
    6. Re:/. - are you listening? by miceuz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      doesn't slashdot have any bug reporting tools for us to use?

      i doubt CmdrTaco is reading anything below +5 insightful ;)

    7. Re:/. - are you listening? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't see people donating to the 'program for broken-ass old browsers' fund. If that happens, maybe some free resource like ./ would consider that. If you dislike seeing your pages rendered wrong in one browser, then you should be able to figure a way around the 'various reasons' to be 'stuck' using IE6 (Being at work with strict IT policies doesn't count, read slashdot from home if that's the case ;)

    8. Re:/. - are you listening? by Ed_Pinkley · · Score: 1

      FYI, it doesn't work perfectly in IE7 either. Luckily, it is the idle page that messes up most. :)

      --
      "Long time listener, first time caller."
    9. Re:/. - are you listening? by Kozz · · Score: 1

      OK, let me get this straight... you surf Slashdot with a browser that's crappy (the "crappiest"?) and outdated, that requires all kinds of hacks and get sub-par results... so you want CmdrTaco to lead new development to accommodate you?

      I won't claim that Slashdot is written with all HTML standards in mind (we all know different), but just because a site doesn't employ IE6-specific hacks doesn't mean it's "optimized for FireFox[sic]".

      I think most people here would argue that we hope the pain you are experiencing (both on /. and elsewhere) is the very reason why you and so many others will start using a modern browser.

      --
      I only post comments when someone on the internet is wrong.
    10. Re:/. - are you listening? by WaroDaBeast · · Score: 1

      Posting under Windows 7 RC 7100 with Firefox 3.5 beta4 and everything's displayed properly. The only problem I ran into was a script-related timeout, script that worked anyway after I let it have more time to execute.

      --
      "The body may heal, but the mind is not always so resilient." -- Deus Ex: Human Revolution
    11. Re:/. - are you listening? by abigsmurf · · Score: 4, Funny

      There's also a weird bug in quite a few browsers where it cuts of the end o

    12. Re:/. - are you listening? by cbackas · · Score: 2, Informative

      It works fine in the WebKit nightlies, at least as far as comment titles and scores (Don't see any other problems either). I'd venture to guess it's a problem with the Safari 4 build - webkit itself has been updated a lot since then, and should therefore be working when Safari 4 final comes out.

    13. Re:/. - are you listening? by Mad+Merlin · · Score: 3, Informative

      It also doesn't render correctly in Konqueror 3.5 (AJAX everything in comments broken now) or 4.2 (front page autorefresh doesn't work).

    14. Re:/. - are you listening? by BovineSpirit · · Score: 1

      Most of the time the green background behind the comment titles is missing on Safari 3.2.3. And yes I do realise that using the OS bundled browser to read Slashdot is Not the Done Thing, I'm just very lazy.

    15. Re:/. - are you listening? by mwigmani · · Score: 5, Informative

      Slashdot doesn't render properly in Safari 4 or Firefox 3.5 beta4 either - the comment titles and scores aren't displayed anymore

      The comment titles and scores are being rendered (highlight the page with ctrl-a), the problem is with the CSS - the background image that runs the length of the div element containing the title is being overwritten. This:

      .comment div.title { background:#044 url("//c.fsdn.com/sd/article-title-bg.png") repeat-x left top; }

      get's overwritten by this (appears further down the document):

      .comment div.title { background:#fff!important; }

      You'll notice the issue doesn't occur on some of the alternative stylesheets (Ask Slashdot, YRO, etc). In the meantime, you can hit 'change' in the threshold form to set things straight.

    16. Re:/. - are you listening? by Mystra_x64 · · Score: 1

      I fixed it with UserCSS. It is possible to turn on classic index in preferences that should help too.

      --
      Quick way to get 30% Funny 70% Troll: defend Opera browser on /.
    17. Re:/. - are you listening? by ae1294 · · Score: 1

      You need to follow Microsoft's new "protocol of pain" and run your ie6 in it's own virtual machine inside of the "XP virtual machine" of your new Windows 7 desktop.

    18. Re:/. - are you listening? by just_another_sean · · Score: 1

      This happens in Iceweasel 3.06 as well. Or something similar anyway.

      --
      Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
    19. Re:/. - are you listening? by Rocketship+Underpant · · Score: 5, Informative

      Not to mention that it's 2009, but Slashdot can't even be bothered to work with Unicode yet.
      Here is an em-dash: â"
      Here is some Japanese: æ--¥æoeèzãã
      See?

      --
      He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
    20. Re:/. - are you listening? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Upgrade your version of Chrome. It appears fine on mine.

    21. Re:/. - are you listening? by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 4, Informative

      doesn't slashdot have any bug reporting tools for us to use?

      Yes, yes it does..

    22. Re:/. - are you listening? by teg · · Score: 1

      The comment titles and scores are being rendered (highlight the page with ctrl-a), the problem is with the CSS - the background image that runs the length of the div element containing the title is being overwritten

      I'd already noticed that I could read the titles if I was highlighting the text... thanks for the details and workaround :)

    23. Re:/. - are you listening? by anaesthetica · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yeah, that's called the 'Candlejack bug,' and it seems to be caus

    24. Re:/. - are you listening? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Erm, I'm on FF3.5b4/Mac OS 10.5.7 and it seems ok to me?

    25. Re:/. - are you listening? by Nakor+BlueRider · · Score: 1

      This is really the root of the problem though. I mean, Slashdot won't have much impact on places currently running IE6, but as long as "We're stuck with IE6 so you should code for us" is prevalent at the business level, then it's not going to end. The problem will basically only end at this point when businesses can't use IE6 any more.

    26. Re:/. - are you listening? by Randle_Revar · · Score: 1

      >Slashdot doesn't render properly in Safari 4 or Firefox 3.5 beta4 either

      gecko 1.9.1 works for me

    27. Re:/. - are you listening? by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1253765&threshold=2&commentsort=3&mode=thread&pid=28182635#28183971

      See that post. There's a SourceForge page, but none of the submitted bugs are fixed, and most go unread. So it's pretty much like every other open source project's bug tracker, in that regard.

    28. Re:/. - are you listening? by NevarMore · · Score: 1

      and thats how I found out she had herpes by exploiting the bug where /. cuts off the beginning of posts.

    29. Re:/. - are you listening? by bcrowell · · Score: 1

      In the meantime, you can hit 'change' in the threshold form to set things straight.

      If you do that, you lose the summary. To get it to render right without losing the summary, click on the title of the article, where it appears in the threshold form.

    30. Re:/. - are you listening? by Memroid · · Score: 1

      See! Japanese isn't SUPPORTED on Slashdot, thus it isn't used! So if everybody stops SUPPORTING IE 6....

    31. Re:/. - are you listening? by Krneki · · Score: 1

      Maybe he has some Troll fetish and likes -2 or below.

      --
      Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
    32. Re:/. - are you listening? by bcrowell · · Score: 1

      i doubt CmdrTaco is reading anything below +5 insightful ;)

      Actually I think this suggests something I've suspected for a long time now: that the slashdot crew doesn't read slashdot. If they were reading slashdot, they would presumably have noticed by now that the titles of comments were invisible. (Either that or they've given up on linux, switched to windows, and are using IE as their browser.) The firehose has eliminated the need for them to do a lot of editorial work. They've basically set the system up so that it runs itself, and they just collect their checks every month.

    33. Re:/. - are you listening? by mrdoogee · · Score: 1

      That's why you upgrade your frameworks to Hypnotoad 2. It eliminates any incompALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD

    34. Re:/. - are you listening? by einhverfr · · Score: 1

      titles of comments are invisible? Not on my system (ff3, fedora 10, etc).
      What system are you running?

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    35. Re:/. - are you listening? by blind+biker · · Score: 1

      I've never seen /. render correctly in any browser in the last year.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    36. Re:/. - are you listening? by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      Here's a Safari screen shot showing the comment reply box, which used to work fine but has been broken for awhile now.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    37. Re:/. - are you listening? by bcrowell · · Score: 1

      titles of comments are invisible? Not on my system (ff3, fedora 10, etc). What system are you running?

      Firefox 3 on ubuntu jaunty.

      The invisibility of the titles depends on which version of the story you're looking at. Apparently they have some versions that are cached or something like that. On my system, if I go to the slashdot homepage and then click on one of the "Read more..." links, the titles of comments are white on a white background, so they're invisible.

    38. Re:/. - are you listening? by erlando · · Score: 2, Interesting

      We appreciate having /. optimized for FireFox, but would also like such consideration for the more-used IE6 browser.

      Actually that's exactly what NOT to do. IE6 users need to be constantly made aware that they are using an obsolete browser. The sites being visited by the bosses need to break in IE6. That might turn things around.

      --
      Remember, there are no stupid questions. But there are a lot of inquisitive idiots.
    39. Re:/. - are you listening? by aaaantoine · · Score: 1

      You can tell it's Japanese because of the Yen symbol.

    40. Re:/. - are you listening? by einhverfr · · Score: 1

      The invisibility of the titles depends on which version of the story you're looking at. Apparently they have some versions that are cached or something like that. On my system, if I go to the slashdot homepage and then click on one of the "Read more..." links, the titles of comments are white on a white background, so they're invisible.

      Interesting. On my system only seems to affect pages from science.slashdot.com.

      I wonder if the issue is a missing background image.

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    41. Re:/. - are you listening? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      They did that, it got abused, so they stopped.

    42. Re:/. - are you listening? by bcrowell · · Score: 1

      According to this comment it's bad CSS that only occurs in some subjects. I find that news, science, and tech are messed up, but linux and yro are ok.

    43. Re:/. - are you listening? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slashdot runs soooo slow on my Nokia N810 Tablet. Such a shame too. How is it that a site targeting technically savy people runs so horribly on the technology most desirable to the crowd?

  5. It's up to you! by Mad+Merlin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yes, you web developers. You need to explicitly stop supporting IE6. Give IE6 users a strong warning that IE6 is completely unsupported and not recommended for use, much like Game! has since about 2005.

    1. Re:It's up to you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That works great for personal sites, but if you're a professional web developer, corporate clients will usually insist on IE6 support. (Or at least one will, which is enough.)

      Now, I think there's a good argument that programming (and computer science) will only really progress through the creative work of individuals and researchers working on their own, and that web development for corporate clients is mindless soul-sucking work. (Disclaimer: it's my job, too. I was just working around an IE7 bug.)

      The problem is that corporate commercial web development does a really fantastic job at paying the bills. The only way to reduce the IE6-compatible portion of the internet is to get web developers to stop supporting it at work, and (short of enlightening all companies) realistically that means getting us to get non-web-development jobs so we stop producing so much IE6-friendly code. That sounds like a pretty good idea to me, most of the time, but you should realize it's on par with RMS standing up saying "All software should be free!". As long as other people are raking in the big bucks selling proprietary software to big companies, it's really hard to convince people not to join in.

    2. Re:It's up to you! by binary+paladin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't know about that. When it dips consistently below 5%, maybe.

      What I do though is I generally use the IE6 specific conditional header stuff to grab some css and js and make everything functional but, generally, it's a lesser experience. A lot of the eye candy is stripped and certain things just aren't as nice. It works, and it requires a lot less time than making everything work perfectly and match perfectly. That way I'm free to do fun stuff on the newer browsers and still have functionality on IE6. (jQuery does wonders.)

    3. Re:It's up to you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As developers, we don;t have a choice but to support IE6 or we lose our jobs. I am doing a contract at a very large telcom company (one of the oldest actually) and they are still using 6 as thier standard, though we also test in FF and IE7. We have apps though, that absolutely break in 7 and 8 and look like crap in FF. So no...it's not up to us. We can strongly suggest to the powers that be that we need to move forward to at least 7, but we really don't have that much control. I wish it was just a matter of say...ok...as of today we are not supporting IE6...we are done. That would be SOOOOOOO nice.

    4. Re:It's up to you! by Allicorn · · Score: 1

      make everything functional but, generally, it's a lesser experience.

      Right on, couldn't agree more. I've been doing the same ever since IE7 went out as a Windows Update "critical".

      Any good little clueless Windows user should now automatically find themselves in IE7 hence - anyone who is running IE6 has deliberately refused to upgrade with the times.

      If someone complains a site doesn't work on Netscape 3.2 Gold - you tell them upgrade already! Same with IE6 now.

      That doesn't mean that you put a flashing GIF on the site saying "This site only works with something better than IE6" but it also doesn't mean you have to make the IE6 experience as perfectly tuned as you would for modern browsers. If it's functional and tidy, good enough. Save slick and sleek for browsers that can handle it without requiring floods of css hacks and conditional comments.

      So yes, IE6 hasn't died exactly, but I think many web devs are finding that the amount of effort that needs to go into ensuring sites work right with it is starting to come down as it becomes simply a less important browser.

      --
      OMG!!! Ponies!!!
  6. Stop writing ugly hacks for IE6.... by xgr3gx · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And IE6 will go away quickly.
    Stop doing the hacks, and let IE6 render them ugly and broken, while compliant browsers will render them correctly.

    --
    Shameless plug alert: Game server control panel
    1. Re:Stop writing ugly hacks for IE6.... by jDeepbeep · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Stop doing the hacks, and let IE6 render them ugly and broken, while compliant browsers will render them correctly.

      Consider that many users will not realize it is their browser. They will simply decide your site is screwed up, and leave promptly. This is not a mistake to be eager to make in many scenarios.

      --
      Reply to That ||
    2. Re:Stop writing ugly hacks for IE6.... by Yvanhoe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And scare away 50% of potential consumers because of a "broken website" ?

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    3. Re:Stop writing ugly hacks for IE6.... by thedonger · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Stop doing the hacks, and let IE6 render them ugly and broken...

      A semantically-coded site should render acceptably, unless you are using tons of nested DIVs and crazy CSS/image methods to make a site act like something it wasn't meant to be.

      Part of the problem is unrealistic expectations of users and overzealous developers. Are your rounded corners in IE worth non-semantic, difficult to maintain mark up, with poor cross-browser and legacy-browser support?

      --
      Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
    4. Re:Stop writing ugly hacks for IE6.... by harryandthehenderson · · Score: 1

      And scare away 50% of potential consumers because of a "broken website" ?

      How would you scare away 50% of potential customers when IE6 holds just under 20% marketshare?

    5. Re:Stop writing ugly hacks for IE6.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      exactly! A startup I used to work for made the decision to not support IE6, something about PNGs. Anyway, the startup flopped big and a major reason was lack of support for IE6. Love it or hate it, IE6 is used by a lot of people, the kind that actually do click on ads and generate revenue for ad supported sites.

    6. Re:Stop writing ugly hacks for IE6.... by iamdrscience · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Stop writing ugly hacks for IE6.... And IE6 will go away quickly.

      ...and so will your job.

      It doesn't matter that getting rid of IE6 is a good idea and this is a good ay to do it. If your job is to write websites for a company and your pages are ugly/unnavigatable/non-functioning for 40% of that companies customers, then you are not doing your job.

    7. Re:Stop writing ugly hacks for IE6.... by miceuz · · Score: 1

      Tried to do this just 2 months ago and the client (a responsible techie from government agency) agreed at first, but 1 month later we had to add iehacks.css as too many agency dinosaurs use ie6...

    8. Re:Stop writing ugly hacks for IE6.... by Scragglykat · · Score: 1

      Depends on who your clients are I guess... If you are marketing computer upgrades or even new computers... you can only assume that your target audience is running old hardware and software.

    9. Re:Stop writing ugly hacks for IE6.... by ParanoiaBOTS · · Score: 1

      Just because it holds 20% marketshare doesn't mean it doesn't account for a large portion of traffic. Let me break this out for you based on my companies statistics (collected with omniture): 52% IE6 27% IE7 19% Firefox 2% Chrome, Safari, other

    10. Re:Stop writing ugly hacks for IE6.... by MemoryDragon · · Score: 1

      Developers are the weakest link on the chain, in my experience it is like that.
      Customer wants latest flashy stuff, but still must run on ie6, developer says without me,
      customer says, ok then someone else will do it.
      If you are in a corporation, developer says I wont do it, pointy haired boss gives a smack on the head!

      I have to meet one developer who really still wants to support IE6. At least over here in Europe the situation is way better than in the US, most private users have at least upgraded to IE7, Firefox has become the dominant browsers. Which leaves mostly the corporations on IE6!

    11. Re:Stop writing ugly hacks for IE6.... by Explodicle · · Score: 1

      That is why many websites detect and warn the user that yes, it is their browser that is broken.

    12. Re:Stop writing ugly hacks for IE6.... by greed · · Score: 1

      Oh no it won't.

      That's because some things IE (6 and 7 at last test, don't have access to 8) just don't work the way they should.

      Especially <BUTTON>; IE sends the contents of the button element, not the value attribute. And Microsoft's (original) page on the subject described the defective behaviour, and had a link to the w3c standard as if that document supported Microsoft's claims.

      (I can't find that one now. What I can find is one that says IE 8 will work right in "Document compatibility mode". And you can't, necessarily, turn on document compatibility mode with a DOCTYPE of HTML 4.0 Strict. You may need an IE-specific HTTP header (or http-equiv tag). Or it may not work at all. I'm leaving all my stuff ugly for MSIE, I'm not going to go around adding headers all over the place. Because there's no way of telling if the browser really did go into HTML 4.0 Strict mode. Without doing IE-specific kludges, and I've already got those to make seriously-ugly INPUT elements instead of BUTTON elements. I'm not adding more, especially when Firefox and Opera are both fine and free.)

    13. Re:Stop writing ugly hacks for IE6.... by A12m0v · · Score: 1

      A simple warning with links to the latest version of IE and other browsers.

      --
      GENERATION 25: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
    14. Re:Stop writing ugly hacks for IE6.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So make them realize that it's their browser, forcefully. All you have to do is include this on your site in a script tag.

      for(x in document.write) { document.write(x); }

    15. Re:Stop writing ugly hacks for IE6.... by andy19 · · Score: 1

      I work for an organization that uses Windows 2000 and IE6 primarily. Nobody around knows about Firefox, Safari, Opera, etc. We can't even 'upgrade' to IE7. As a web developer here, I tell them to start using Firefox and pages will miraculously render properly, and I explain how terrible IE6 is.
      Their response: I just want to use what I'm used to.

      There are still plenty of people who won't change. They expect things to work properly in IE6. We can't just stop the hacks and expect people to automatically know to change browsers. Even telling them that's the solution, they won't because people don't like change.

    16. Re:Stop writing ugly hacks for IE6.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Browser? What's a browser? I just want my internets to work! All of them! What does my browsing being broken have to do with that?

      What's this explanation? Stupid wall of text; I don't have time to read all this! When I click the button, I expect my internets to come up so I can download my emails box! Why is this so hard for you geeks to understand?!? At least Microsoft can make a computer that WORKS!"

    17. Re:Stop writing ugly hacks for IE6.... by MemoryDragon · · Score: 1

      It is around 15% nowadays problem is that many of them are corporate people!

    18. Re:Stop writing ugly hacks for IE6.... by Tikkun · · Score: 1

      Consider that many users will not realize it is their browser. They will simply decide your site is screwed up, and leave promptly.

      People may forget that they're driving with snow tires in the middle of summer, but we don't build our roads to work around the ignorance of the drivers that do.

    19. Re:Stop writing ugly hacks for IE6.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Browser? What's a browser? I just want my internets to work! All of them! What does my browsing being broken have to do with that?

      What's this explanation? Stupid wall of text; I don't have time to read all this! When I click the button, I expect my internets to come up so I can download my emails box! Why is this so hard for you geeks to understand?!? At least Microsoft can make a computer that WORKS!"

      exactly!

    20. Re:Stop writing ugly hacks for IE6.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IE 6 may have only a 20% market share, but in the business world it's bigger than that. I run a B2B ecommerce website and 35% of our vistiors last month were on IE 6. We can't just ignore all of them.

    21. Re:Stop writing ugly hacks for IE6.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A semantically-coded site should render acceptably,

      It SHOULD render acceptable, yes. Unfortunately, in IE6, chances are it won't unless you specifically code around IE6's bugs.

      The fact that adhering to the standards is not enough to make a site work in IE6 is precisely why IE6 is despised so much.

      unless you are using tons of nested DIVs and crazy CSS/image methods to make a site act like something it wasn't meant to be.

      What, pray, is wrong with nested DIVs? I'm honestly not sure what you mean by "crazy CSS/image methods", but I'm finding it hard to imagine a "semantically-coded site" without nested DIVs, and neither do I see why it would be acceptable for any browser to choke on them.

    22. Re:Stop writing ugly hacks for IE6.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe they think that those 20% make up 50% of the purchasing power. Perhaps because they are ignorant enough to not update their browser, maybe they are ignorant enough to buy something off your website. That's what we really want to support isn't it?

    23. Re:Stop writing ugly hacks for IE6.... by Late+Adopter · · Score: 1

      You're missing the point.

      HTML *is* the semantic code. CSS *is* the presentation. That's what they're for. The fact that IE6 takes a stab at but misinterprets the CSS instead of just presenting the semantic HTML (for those tags/selectors/attributes) is broken.

    24. Re:Stop writing ugly hacks for IE6.... by Haiku+4+U · · Score: 1

      And scare away 50% of potential consumers because of a "broken website" ?

      Does a customer
      using IE6 to browse
      have any money?

    25. Re:Stop writing ugly hacks for IE6.... by thedonger · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There are multiple layers to the answer. Briefly, a basic site will work regardless. Unobtrusive methods of enhancing a site (or Web 2.0ing, if you prefer) can either use minimal hacks or degrade gracefully. Either way, unnecessary markup (the "crazy CSS/image methods" and "nested DIVs") to achieve the desired result is not semantic. Older browsers don't choke on nested DIVs; rather, they choke on the nutty stuff we try to do with them. On the other hand, screen readers or accessibility tools may choke on non-semantic markup.

      There are very few required hacks to produce a usable, attractive site in IE6. No, it doesn't play nice when it comes to RIAs, but maybe that's a different problem.

      FYI - "Semantic" means that your markup defines your document structure, rather than your markup defining your presentation.

      --
      Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
    26. Re:Stop writing ugly hacks for IE6.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of his customers are idiots, so for him, it's more like 50%.

    27. Re:Stop writing ugly hacks for IE6.... by thedonger · · Score: 1

      I have been writing an application where my instinct was to put one form on the page and tell by the button click what was submitted. After getting my knickers in a twist I opted for as many as twenty forms on the page, which actually made sense after I did it. Maybe it depends on the application, but for me each grouping was distinct enough that using a unique form has made maintenance and troubleshooting easier on the front and back end.

      As for the IE8 default behavior, I usually use PHP to write common headers to the HTML document, so adding one more line isn't too big a deal. I'm not thrilled MS decided to default to bad behavior, but until they ask for my opinion I'll assume they aren't interested.

      --
      Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
    28. Re:Stop writing ugly hacks for IE6.... by adamchou · · Score: 1

      A standards compliant site should render acceptably

      Fixed that for you. Screw semantics. We have standards for a reason.

    29. Re:Stop writing ugly hacks for IE6.... by adamchou · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not necessarily. Your job is to consult the client in what is best for them. I've had certain situations where a client wanted some specific fancy AJAX functionality that would have been to costly or impossible to build for IE6. In those situations, its your job to present to them the situation and let them decided upon it.

      Of course, I'm slightly biased so when I presented it to them, I helped them understand why the functionality was important to the site and why IE6 would not be worth building support for.

    30. Re:Stop writing ugly hacks for IE6.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Are your rounded corners in IE worth non-semantic, difficult to maintain mark up, with poor cross-browser and legacy-browser support?"

      Yes, and I can make them work as well, in html5 elems.

      Seriously developers should have an obligation to inform and educate customers and users and emplore them to ditch IE6.

      If not why not just go back to the old tricks and put a "this site will not opperate with IE6, please download X"

    31. Re:Stop writing ugly hacks for IE6.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, until you have to find a way to code around the double-margin float bug, the peekaboo bugs, the improper support for z-index, and the completely weird inexplicable things IE does once you mix up a bit of floating, relative, and absolute positioning with some margins so that you have something besides a single column of plain text.

      And that's if you've somehow managed to find web development clients who are content with pages that have no decoration beyond text and boxes with square corners.

    32. Re:Stop writing ugly hacks for IE6.... by CalebJamesDeLisle · · Score: 1

      That was the only good thing about the browser hijacks, they made people update their damn browsers. I know I ditched IE soon after I had to learn how to remove HomeSearchAssistant.

    33. Re:Stop writing ugly hacks for IE6.... by BenoitRen · · Score: 1

      Indeed. IE6 has bugs. A lot of them. On a site that I maintain, there's a list of images on the left used as a navigation sidebar. Because images are inline elements, I used the display:block CSS on them. But this triggered a bug, creating space above and below each image. It is why I have the following in my stylesheet:

      /* Hack for IE6 and older to work around the list white-space bug.
      Other browsers don't see this because html has no ancestor. */
      * html #game-nav li, * html #general-nav li {
      display: inline;
      }

      The bug is also present in IE7, in a different form. For that I use the following on the two navigation lists:

      font-size: 1px; /* suppress list white-space bug in IE7 */

      Since the lists don't contain text, this works out fine.

      I'd prefer to move to a text-based navigation list, but the webmaster won't let me. Yet.

  7. Not just Corporate America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I work for the United States government. We ordered hundreds of thousands of brand new HP computers last year, with Windows Vista pre-installed. Except our intranet relies on Internet Explorer 6 to function, so they were all wiped and had a Windows XP SP2 image installed. I doubt we'll be upgrading anytime soon, as that would pretty much require a complete rewrite of our entire intranet.

    1. Re:Not just Corporate America by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 1

      Only SP2?
      Then I hope you have a very good firewall. And an IT support that took the time to install all the security-critical patches since SP2 for the XP2 image.

      --
      C - the footgun of programming languages
    2. Re:Not just Corporate America by LoverOfJoy · · Score: 1

      SP3 only came out in May of last year so maybe he got the computers before then.

  8. in-house apps by Lord+Ender · · Score: 5, Informative

    IT departments have no budgets right now. Testing all the in-house apps with IE8 would cost money. Even telling people to press the "render in IE6 mode" button would be quite expensive in terms of calls. So they're just blocking the update.

    --
    A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    1. Re:in-house apps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Just a quick correction: IE8 Compatability mode renders using the IE7 engine.

    2. Re:in-house apps by wolrahnaes · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They don't even have to do that, IE8 has a list of incompatible sites which can have updates forced to it through AD. Corporate IT puts the entire intranet zone in that list, pushes it out, and magic, everyone can use IE8 and have it render their broken-ass webpages designed by retarded fucksticks (yes I do have major anger issues against anyone building with IE6 as a target). Individual apps can be checked out by IT and/or adventurous users one by one and moved off the list if it works in IE8 mode.

      I'm a believer in standards compliance with graceful failure. Write it for proper browsers, then do the absolute bare minimum to make it usable in the shitholes of the internet. If you can, place a notification on those pages explaining their experience is not optimal due to them or their IT department not clicking the goddamn update button. They don't get the nifty stuff, but they get a working site and encouragement to solve the problem thus making the internet better for the rest of us.

      --
      I used to get high on life, but I developed a tolerance. Now I need something stronger.
    3. Re:in-house apps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We thought we blocked the installation of IE8 with GPM in our domain. Didn't work out too well. Now we're getting complaints that the timesheet program is broken. *sigh*

    4. Re:in-house apps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just send the X-UA-Compatible HTTP header or use the meta tag. Then people can use IE8 and it will go into compatibility mode automatically.

    5. Re:in-house apps by afabbro · · Score: 1

      They don't even have to do that, IE8 has a list of incompatible sites which can have updates forced to it through AD. Corporate IT puts the entire intranet zone in that list, pushes it out, and magic, everyone can use IE8 and have it render their broken-ass webpages designed by retarded fucksticks (yes I do have major anger issues against anyone building with IE6 as a target). Individual apps can be checked out by IT and/or adventurous users one by one and moved off the list if it works in IE8 mode.

      In keeping with the GP's point, that is still work. A new web browser means testing all in-house apps against it, doing whatever Windowsy thing exists for pushing it out, managing the distribution, cleaning up the installs that fail for whatever reason, etc.

      It sounds important to the IT guys. From from the business guys' point of view, it is a nonstarter. Can people still do their jobs without it? Yes. Well then, why spend 1,000 hours of IT time on it? At $50/hour in chargeback, that's - forget it!

      Not saying I agree, but that's how managers think.

      --
      Advice: on VPS providers
    6. Re:in-house apps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about the cost of fixing infected computers that became infected from browsing the internet with IE6?

    7. Re:in-house apps by conway98 · · Score: 1

      I agree with you on standards compliance, but I look at it from the the opposite perspective.. I firmly believe in and adhere to the concept of progressive enhancement, as opposed to graceful degradation. As Web developers, our job and our priority should be the delivery of content. In my day to day experiences building websites I have found that most users don't really care that much about what a site looks like. It has become even more evident now that I am building sites targeted at users in a developing country (Colombia). Most users here couldn't tell you what browser or version they are using, and couldn't care less about upgrading as long as they can find the content they want. If presented with the option, most users will upgrade, but the reality is that most don't know any better. I don't think it's my place to tell anyone how they should access the Web. In my situation, I find it best to start by building my sites with valid XHTML. No CSS, no JavaScript. I make sure that the entire site functions with just plain X/HTML. Then, I include the stylesheet presented by for a beautiful web to cover IE6. Sometimes I tweak it slightly if the project requires it, but I can at least be sure that everything renders more or less pleasantly in IE6. Then I create my stylesheet for standards-compliant browsers. I try to avoid any non-standard CSS or any hacks. If I encounter a situation where a hack is the only answer, I re-evaluate my design decisions to see if I can get the same desired result with a different visual effect. Once all of that is working, I layer on my JavaScript to do fancy AJAX stuff.

      Following this methodology, I can assure that almost anyone who visits my site can use it and can have a pleasant experience. The people who care about the appearance of a website and all of the "Web 2.0" functionality most likely have an updated browser and will get the full experience. People using older browsers, or mobile phones can still use my site, and they probably don't care that the version they are seeing is less "flashy". The additional amount of work for me is negligible and I still manage to reach as broad of an audience as possible. I hate dealing with IE6 as much as any Web developer, but I think maybe it's time for our industry to realize that our sites don't have to be pixel perfect replicas in every browser. They can't be. And with the emergence of so many different web enabled mobile devices I feel that that idea becomes even more important. I want my sites to be beautiful for my users, but above all, I want my sites to be useable for my users.

    8. Re:in-house apps by Phroggy · · Score: 2, Informative

      IE8 doesn't have a "render like IE6 would" option; it only has a "render like IE7 would" option. If companies are still forcing IE6, it's quite possible that their intranet sites don't work in IE7, which means IE8's compatibility mode won't work either.

      Also, I've heard that there are some things that work in IE7 that don't work in IE8's IE7 compatibility mode. I haven't been doing web development for awhile, so I don't know what things these might be.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    9. Re:in-house apps by Lennie · · Score: 1

      No it doesn't it's still IE8 trying to render like IE7. Trust me, I _am_ a webdev.

      --
      New things are always on the horizon
    10. Re:in-house apps by Henry+Pate · · Score: 1

      How about running Firefox with the IE Tab addon and IE6 installed? I haven't tested it but I don't see why it wouldn't work.

      --
      Si Hoc Legere Scis Nimium Eruditionis Habes
  9. Make em change by SpinningCone · · Score: 1

    Granted most of the web stuff i do isn't critical but lately if its broken in IE6 i don't fix it, actually since you can't parallel install IE i only check 7 on my host and 8 on my VM so i don't even check 6 anymore.

    1. Re:Make em change by Aethedor · · Score: 1

      [quote]since you can't parallel install IE[/quote] Like Obama said: [url=http://tredosoft.com/Multiple_IE]yes we can[/url].

      --
      It doesn't have to be like this. All we need to do is make sure we keep talking.
    2. Re:Make em change by wastedlife · · Score: 1

      since you can't parallel install IE

      Like Obama said: yes we can.

      Fixed that for you. Slashdot uses HTML syntax, not BBCode.

      Multiple IE is pretty awesome for web development. It is also pretty fun to trounce around the modern web with IE 3.0.

      --
      Said, "It's just like dice but it's got more sides And it tells me who lives and who dies"
    3. Re:Make em change by Dynedain · · Score: 1

      Multiple IE is pretty awesome for web development. It is also pretty fun to trounce around the modern web with IE 3.0.

      Only if you need IE 6 and backwards. As a web developer, I cut off < IE 6 support about 2-3 years ago, basically around when I stopped noticing any Win2K visitors on any of my client's sites. Now the trick is to run IE 6,7,8 simultaneously. I resorted to a second computer with virtual machines as the 'easiest' solution.

      --
      I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
  10. Lets paraphrase by not+already+in+use · · Score: 1

    The summary may be technically accurate, but the point is off. IE6 is dying, quickly. If you happen to develop for it in a corporate context, it really isn't that bad because you are targeting IE6, and *only* IE6. What really hurts is developing for modern browsers, and then having to retrofit IE6, which we can safely say is a thing of the past.

    --
    Similes are like metaphors
    1. Re:Lets paraphrase by MemoryDragon · · Score: 1

      Actually corporate context hurts more, the last big corporate project I was was IE6 is a must IE7 is a must because we are in a transition phase while some will be on IE6 for the years to come, but everything must be flashy and ajax and must absolutely run on IE6.

      Also Firefox must be supported in its latest two incarnations!
      Add to that a shitload of absolutely abstruse security stuff which tried to interfere, and once it did of course the webapp was at fault not the security until you had enough proof to blame it onto security and even then you had to find workarounds.

      That is the corporate context...

  11. Developers need to grow a set... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I built a website for my wedding which will redirect you to a page that tells you to get a new browser if you're using IE6. I provide links to Firefox, IE8, Chrome, Safari, and Opera. We need more people to do this with their sites. I understand it's not realistic for corporate sites, but for personal use sites it can be done. I checked the site statistics for my site and IE6 went from 15% of the hits in April to 0% in May.

    1. Re:Developers need to grow a set... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      i'm guessing your wedding looked something like this: http://www.imdb.com/media/rm2739904256/tt0110982

    2. Re:Developers need to grow a set... by moderatorrater · · Score: 1

      And, for some unknown reason, the total number of hits went down by around 15%, right?

    3. Re:Developers need to grow a set... by ledow · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "I checked the site statistics for my site and IE6 went from 15% of the hits in April to 0% in May."

      Well, duh, because no sod can see anything in IE6 - visit once and never come back again.

      This is the sort of crap that Opera has thrown at it - email a complaint to MSN, the BBC, any large website about parts not working in Opera (although they all do now), and you only ever got "nobody uses Opera to visit us"... OF COURSE NOT! BECAUSE IT DOESN'T BLOODY WORK!

      It's like saying "Since we started banning unhappy people, our store recorded that 100% of customers in the store were happy with us!"

    4. Re:Developers need to grow a set... by MemoryDragon · · Score: 1

      "I checked the site statistics for my site and IE6 went from 15% of the hits in April to 0% in May."

      Well, duh, because no sod can see anything in IE6 - visit once and never come back again.

      This is the sort of crap that Opera has thrown at it - email a complaint to MSN, the BBC, any large website about parts not working in Opera (although they all do now), and you only ever got "nobody uses Opera to visit us"... OF COURSE NOT! BECAUSE IT DOESN'T BLOODY WORK!

      It's like saying "Since we started banning unhappy people, our store recorded that 100% of customers in the store were happy with us!"

      If you can just make a graceful degradation, in my last project I simply degraded the experience for IE6 users, and all others got a flashy version... I know this is not a real option for many projects out there which demand pixel perfect positioning even on IE6 (which is close to impossible without trial and error)
      but if you can simply make a graceful fallback. Even IE itself can help you with it by using conditional includes for CSS!

      If I can I follow nowadays the route, if something cannot be brought to work for IE6 within 5 minutes of fixing time, it is dropped and the blank div is shown period!

    5. Re:Developers need to grow a set... by netsavior · · Score: 3, Informative

      this kind of idiocy pisses me off. I have always had weird browsers on cellphones and other devices... I would rather see a partially broken page than a stuffed shirt jackass page telling me to install a browser that CANNOT be installed on my device or work laptop.

    6. Re:Developers need to grow a set... by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

      I use killie6 on all of my websites. (Quite a few). It's not as intrusive as yours, but it taps into that reflex to click on any thing in IE6 that drops down from the top.

    7. Re:Developers need to grow a set... by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      What parts of MSN don't work with Opera? Hotmail seems fine.

    8. Re:Developers need to grow a set... by ledow · · Score: 1

      Hotmail's buttons regularly break in Opera (basically a few days just after every new version of Opera is released for the past five, six versions?). "Junk" broke in Opera a few months back (would not execute the Javascript, so you couldn't junk messages). Then message highlighting. Attachments broke a while back too. It happens quite regularly, and reliably. At one point, it was even impossible to do anything under "Options" with Opera once you logged in. However, if you set EVERYTHING to pretend to be IE for about 5 sub-domains of live.com and hotmail.com and hotmail.msn.com then it will work just fine most of the time. At least, until they break something again. With stuff set to Identify As Opera, a lot more breaks or you get the "basic HTML" versions.

      I login to Hotmail every day, with the latest version of Opera, and about once every other month myself and my brother (completely seperate network, ISP, machine, version of Opera, even operating system) notice breakage simultaneously and warn each other. Whenever it happens, IE and Firefox work just fine.

  12. Just because it has users... by mini+me · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Just because it has users doesn't mean that you have to support it. Internet Explorer quickly rose in popularity in the first place because web developers blatantly stopped supporting Netscape, even though it had the majority market share at the time.

    Futhermore, the thing to realize about IE6 users is that they do not care about the web. They don't care that your website has pixel-perfect accuracy, for instance. So why waste your time optimizing your website for their benefit? The natural degradation designed into the HTML specifications still allows them to access the content in a limited fashion. That is all that they want. If they wanted to see more, they wouldn't use IE6.

    1. Re:Just because it has users... by krou · · Score: 1

      Perhaps because 19% of all internet users translates into a huge whack of prospective clients. In other words, money. And for those of us designing websites for businesses that require a broad audience, loosing a potential 1/5th of your audience is simply stupid. (And it's worth pointing out that some of the numbers I see on our sites are higher than 20%, and are closer to 25%).

      I want IE6 to go away as much as anyone else, but the reality is that businesses will keep supporting it in an effort not to alienate prospective customers.

      --
      'If Christ had tweeted the sermon on the mount, it might have lasted until nightfall.' - John Perry Barlow
    2. Re:Just because it has users... by MemoryDragon · · Score: 1

      Natural degredation is what i use mostly nowadays, but the problem lies somewhere else, the customers often still demand pixel perfect accuracy and the person having the money basically is always right, even if he is not!

    3. Re:Just because it has users... by Scragglykat · · Score: 1

      Sure... if you are a blogger maybe. If you are only concerned with your friends seeing your site. I work with software that uses a web front-end, and we do work mainly for large corporate clients. So far, all internal systems they have run IE6, with no plans for upgrade in the near future. These are huge companies, spanning North and South American as well as Europe, Asia, pretty much everywhere. I'd say mainly corporations are the ones keeping IE6 alive, but I just got done working on an elderly lady's computer last night, she has a new toshiba notebook, and her spare computer, a desktop, still has IE6 on it. The problem is, the people that have it, don't see the problem in it. The corporations that use it, don't see the point in spending a lot of money to phase it out. It's "tried and true" in their eyes.

    4. Re:Just because it has users... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, you're kind of right. The users don't care... but the guy I'm building the site for, who is paying the bill, does care. Very much so. No, he won't upgrade to a newer browser. Yes, he thinks I'm the world's worst designer if I can't achieve pixel perfect layouts between browsers. And this is not some sort of aberration. I have worked with dozens of clients like this. They don't care about browsers or why they should upgrade, but they sure know what they want their site to look like. And clearly I must be a swindling lying asshole if their site doesn't look and function exactly the same in IE5 on a Mac as it does in Chrome.

    5. Re:Just because it has users... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spoken like somebody who doesn't develop anything for any governments. Users have no control over their browser in many workplace environments and will be mad at you if your app is broken. Changing IT policy somewhere where you don't work is nigh impossible.

    6. Re:Just because it has users... by A12m0v · · Score: 0

      Why didn't the W3C just standardized on IE6-standards.
      Get all the other browsers to match IE6 and get IE6 ported to more platforms. That would have saved us a lot of trouble, no?

      --
      GENERATION 25: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
    7. Re:Just because it has users... by Mad+Merlin · · Score: 1

      Get all the other browsers to match IE6 and get IE6 ported to more platforms. That would have saved us a lot of trouble, no?

      Yeah, like all that pesky progress in the last decade.

    8. Re:Just because it has users... by Bat+Country · · Score: 1

      Except unless your site just plain doesn't work at all in IE6, they'll have no problem with it looking ugly if they're still using IE6. They'll probably blame their "stupid computer" because it's slow and old.

      If you put a polite notice up that their browser is too old and that Microsoft recommends that they update to IE7 or IE8, your site recommends Firefox, and provide links to all of them, IE6 usage on your site starts dwindling. In the year since the management of the large website I maintain put up that notice, IE6 users dropped by 33% (down to 11% of the total visits to the site).

      People do respond to reason, just so long as your reasoning contains words they understand. There will always be people who either cannot update beyond IE6 (ancient version of Windows), aren't allowed to update beyond IE6 (corporate or academic environment), or just plain won't until Microsoft forces them to. These people are already resigned to having problems, with rare exception, because of the spectacular collection of trojans and toolbars and other such cruft the browser has acquired over the years (unless the IE6 installation is well-maintained).

      Don't be too timid about progress because some people either can't or won't update. With sufficient pressure, a solution will happen.

      That's not to say your sites shouldn't degrade gracefully when confronted with a browser which can't handle the new hotness, but that degrading gracefully to a page which ultimately is written to older web standards should be sufficient. These people with old IE6 clearly don't demand perfection, so don't sprain something trying to provide it when "good enough" works.

      --
      The land shall stone them with the bread of his son.
    9. Re:Just because it has users... by mini+me · · Score: 1

      Why would you loose customers? If you stick to the standards, your website will still be usable in IE6.

      It might not look exactly the same way it does in a modern browser, but IE6 users have already shown they do not care about those things. You do, obviously, but you don't use IE6.

    10. Re:Just because it has users... by tepples · · Score: 1

      the customers often still demand pixel perfect accuracy

      You don't know what fonts the user has installed: some operating systems will replace Tahoma and Verdana with DejaVu Sans, which looks similar (humanist sans-serif aka Frutiger-clone) but has different metrics, so you'll get line breaks at different words. If you need pixel accuracy, use PDF or SWF, not HTML+CSS.

    11. Re:Just because it has users... by adamchou · · Score: 1

      Spoken like somebody who doesn't develop anything for any governments.

      I sure as shit hope our government doesn't still use IE6 everywhere. That is a MAJOR security hole that needs to get filled immediately. At least install Firefox or something.

    12. Re:Just because it has users... by Zaiff+Urgulbunger · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The natural degradation designed into the HTML specifications still allows them to access the content in a limited fashion. That is all that they want. If they wanted to see more, they wouldn't use IE6.

      One of the bigger problems I have with IE6 is that when you wrap major content blocks in DIVs and float your content to position it, IE6 will sometimes throw weird bugs where only half the DIV will show... but when you refresh, a little more of it will appear... or sometimes less. Mostly these bugs seem to be "peek-a-boo" problems, and work-arounds are often fairly straight forward but can on occasion take hours to fix!

      Other IE6 crimes include doubling margin sizes; this one isn't too hard to workaround, but since the impact of incorrect margins can mean floated DIV blocks incorrectly placed on the page (not just a few pixels out, but completely screwed up!). Since the work around is to have IE6 specific CSS rules, this increases maintenance costs since when I make a change to the "common" CSS rules, I also have to make the same changes to the IE6 version.

      Otherwise I fully agree with you though! :D
      I'm no longer too concerned with things looking perfect in IE6; they merely need to look acceptable. But whilst IE6 maintains a significant market share (20 - 30% for me in the UK), it still adds to development costs.

    13. Re:Just because it has users... by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      Just because it has users doesn't mean that you have to support it.

      A publicly traded company has an obligation to its shareholders such that if the Cost to support IE6 is less than the Revenue such support will bring in, and they have the hard numbers to back this up, then they must (in theory) do so.

      Now, most companies do get away with strategies that they know to be sub-optimal, but that doesnt make it moral or legal.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    14. Re:Just because it has users... by erlando · · Score: 1

      I'm a web developer paid by the hour. When estimating a project for a client I say to them that I will make their site work in all modern browsers (that is IE7+, FF2+ and Safari 3+). It will render in IE6 but will most likely not be pixel perfect. I will also say that I absolutely can make their site render pixel perfect in IE6 but it will be time consuming.

      At $200+ an hour they always choose to let IE6 go.

      --
      Remember, there are no stupid questions. But there are a lot of inquisitive idiots.
    15. Re:Just because it has users... by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      I use IE6 today for one reason. IT WORKS. I do care about the web, in the sense that I care it works. I barely use FF because when I first tried to use it many sites didn't work. I continue to use IE6 because it works. I don't like a lot of the stupid ui decisions made in recent browsers (tabs? eh?) but I'll upgrade when most sites stop working.

    16. Re:Just because it has users... by BenoitRen · · Score: 1

      Back in the 90s people still upgraded their web browsers, and there were many less surfers back then than now. New surfers would use the latest anyway. This isn't the case anymore.

    17. Re:Just because it has users... by A12m0v · · Score: 1

      whoosh!

      that was sarcasm!

      --
      GENERATION 25: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
  13. Normal people don't upgrade computers every day by DutchUncle · · Score: 1, Insightful

    ... any more than they expect to upgrade their car or anything else. The computer came with stuff, and normal people think the stuff is the computer and the computer is the stuff and that's about it. Internet services reinforce this - it's not even a computer system with a browser (and other utilities) any more, it's a browser-machine that handles different sites. Even Firefox proponents talk about "the browser becoming the OS".

    Normal people just *use* their computers, and they don't want any more complexity than "wheel - gas - brake" in the car.

    1. Re:Normal people don't upgrade computers every day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but if we are talking about home, not corporate users, they will probably have Windows Update on standard settings and will probably have IE 7 or 8 installed and be wondering what happened to the menu bar on "the Internet".

    2. Re:Normal people don't upgrade computers every day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Cars have more complexity than "wheel - gas - break". If you have any sense you get them serviced, change the tyres, top up various fluids and so on and so forth. Either you do it or you pay someone to do it for you. Not moving on from IE6 is akin to owning a car for 8 years and never changing the oil.

    3. Re:Normal people don't upgrade computers every day by ebuck · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, when their computer breaks, they'll replace the entire computer. Then they'll have IE7 or perhaps IE8 depending on when they buy.

      The thing that kills me is that they will likely balk at the differentness of the latest Windows offerings compared to the familiarity of XP. So they'll probably get someone to reinstall XP on their hardware, which will mostly work. You need to wait until XP doesn't support the hardware (even in backwards compatibility) to flush some knuckle heads out of the system.

  14. It's time to start breaking IE6 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No more hacks, no more workarounds. If it works, great, if not, too bad. We gave up on Netscape 4, and it's time to give up on IE6.

  15. Ignorance is another reason for IE6's longevity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are many "web apps" that supposedly don't support anything but IE6. But work fine in other web browsers. I have IE6, FF3, Chrome and Safari on my laptop here at work (I'm a web dev) and have tested many of our supposedly IE only legacy web apps. Other than a problem I found with the web server (IIS) not having mime types set correctly, all those web apps worked fine.

  16. Stop support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The only way to kill IE6 is to stop supporting it and clearly stating "If you can't see this page properly please update your browser".

    1. Re:Stop support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...which does only work if you have some kind of monopoly, ie. if you're facebook, google, myspace etc. If you're not, people will just ignore your page and go to the next one of the same kind.

    2. Re:Stop support by jswilson64 · · Score: 1

      And our Corporate IT folks say: If that Web site doesn't work, too bad. The intRAnet works fine in IE6. Get back to work.

  17. Hasten the End by whisper_jeff · · Score: 1

    The end will come when developers simply decide it's not worth jumping through hoops for an antiquated browser and IT departments in corporate America are flooded with calls of "this site won't work - what's wrong with my browser" thereby forcing IT departments to get with the program and update the browsers on their networks. Until then, why should an IT department invest any time and effort into updating the browsers on their systems? The kicker is all that it will take is one major website to take the bold step forward but the question is who has the balls to be first?

    1. Re:Hasten the End by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that it wouldn't be "What's wrong with my browser?" The question would be "What's wrong with this site? What isn't it displaying correctly?"

    2. Re:Hasten the End by MemoryDragon · · Score: 1

      The end will come when developers simply decide it's not worth jumping through hoops for an antiquated browser and IT departments in corporate America are flooded with calls of "this site won't work - what's wrong with my browser" thereby forcing IT departments to get with the program and update the browsers on their networks. Until then, why should an IT department invest any time and effort into updating the browsers on their systems? The kicker is all that it will take is one major website to take the bold step forward but the question is who has the balls to be first?

      I think the solution simply is to raise the costs, lets face it support of IE6 causes 30% additional costs on the development side, supporting IE7 causes around 5-10% with the gap widening every year!
      If you roll out the costs towards the departement who gives the money they will have a second thought of wanting to pay 30% more just to cover a customer base of 5-10% of all possible people (with the rate dropping significantly)

  18. Businesses by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Businesses often stay about one version behind on Microsoft products, or in some cases about a half cycle behind. They wait for a given MS product to get service packed out the wazoo before deploying it.

    For example, my employer is just starting to roll out Office 2007 very slowly, and based on my experiences and many other reports, this is typical at most businesses.

    Similarly, they are just rolling out IE7 now, when IE8 just came out.

    So it's not surprising that IE6 still has a major deployment base considering that IE8 just came out and that many companies stay about one revision behind.

    --
    retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    1. Re:Businesses by fearlezz · · Score: 1

      About half a cycle is normal. This is the case in my company as well. But here, we're speaking about 2 complete cycles. IE8 is (i'm sorry to say this as a Linux fan) a great browser. I haven't seen any instability so far, and I'm sure its stable enough for deployment in 99,9% of all companies.

      --
      .sig: No such file or directory
    2. Re:Businesses by adamchou · · Score: 1

      That argument is normally sound when it comes to things like Microsoft Office that get re-released every year. However, IE7 has been out for something like 2.5 years now. And IE6 was released almost 8 years ago. Staying a cycle behind with regards to IE is absolutely retarded and there is no justification for it (unless they're in the business of collecting buggy software)

    3. Re:Businesses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      very true Andy. Very few businesses are using the bleeding edge current software.

    4. Re:Businesses by Innova · · Score: 1

      Try working at a large conservative insurance company. Windows 2000. Office 2003. IE6.

      Thank goodness I have administrator rights to my PC.

  19. i have a complex strategy for dealing with ie6 by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Funny


    if(window.XMLHttpRequest){ //proceed as normal
            }
    else
            {
            if(window.ActiveXObject){
                    document.write "Error 404 Page Not Found"
                    }
            }

    i haven't had any problems with ie6 since i implemented this holistic approach

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:i have a complex strategy for dealing with ie6 by wastedlife · · Score: 2, Funny

      Who modded this troll? I'm thinking it was an offended ActiveX developer.

      --
      Said, "It's just like dice but it's got more sides And it tells me who lives and who dies"
  20. I wonder by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Old crap tends to stay around, until something kills it.

    What if someone develops a html 5 webapp, using a speedy browser as a base that becomes a killer must have app? Then MS will have no choice or be known as the OS vendor whose browser ain't good enough.

    MS isn't trying to limit IE for nothing, it hopes that nobody dares create a webapp that simply doesn't work under IE. Google has shown with Chrome they are thinking of pushing the envelope, wonder what they got in the pipeline that needs Chrome.

    IE6 will die when using it hurts the user. Personally, for private web-apps, ie ALL ie is dead. It is amazing what you can make a webapp do when IE support is dropped.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:I wonder by schmidt349 · · Score: 1

      Actually, if that happens Microsoft will create a barely functional knock-off, load it down with ActiveX and whatever other proprietary horse hockey they have right now, and bundle it into Windows 7, then shriek that it's an integral part of the operating system now and they couldn't possibly remove it.

    2. Re:I wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      >MS isn't trying to limit IE for nothing, it hopes that nobody dares create a webapp that simply doesn't work under IE. Google has shown with Chrome they are thinking of pushing the envelope, wonder what they got in the pipeline that needs Chrome.

      Wave

    3. Re:I wonder by Canazza · · Score: 1

      wonder what they got in the pipeline that needs Chrome.

      Google Wave.

      --
      It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
    4. Re:I wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "wonder what they got in the pipeline that needs Chrome"

      Probably nothing. Think for a sec about why the largest largest data collection, indexing, and advertising system on the internet might benefit from having people use a browser that is totally under their control.

  21. IE 6 will never die. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That is not dead which can eternal lie. And with strange aeons even death may die.

  22. I hear you... by KingSkippus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    At my current job, we're not allowed to install IE 7 or 8, and don't have the administrator rights to do it.

    Ditto. I did, however, install Firefox and use it as my default browser. Some corporate apps don't work (non-standard javascript, mainly), which is why I still have to open some stuff in IE. All of my stuff works in both, some of other people's stuff works in both, and whenever I'm goofing off reading Slashdot and such, I use Firefox.

    There is one guy that I work with, though, that insists on "coding to the corporate standard," which in his head means proprietary IE6. He refuses to do things even to the standards that IE6 recognizes that are cross-browser compatible. ("Why do you use that getElementById stuff? It's so much more typing!...") It's like he likes for things to deliberately break in non-IE6 browsers. There's a project underway now to upgrade everyone to Windows 7, and AFAIK, part of that project will be FINALLY ditching IE6. I guess he'll have to go back and recode all of his stuff. Me, I plan on laughing at him when he's working on code that's years old that he should have written right to begin with.

    Meanwhile, I have converted so many people at work to Firefox with AdBlock Plus, it's funny. I show them something as simple as CNN on the "corporate standard" browser, then the same page in Firefox. Look ma, no annoyances! Invariably, that's followed by, "Wow, how do I get that? I'm going to use it at home!" I've even converted a few over to using as the default browser on their work machines, which technically, we're not supposed to be doing. Sometimes, they ask me why a corporate application doesn't work. I tell them, "Guess who wrote that one..."

  23. Stop the artificial life support by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Interesting

    A company I work for dropped support for IE6 (not only but also because of my pressure) about a year ago. The impact was minimal. People who came to their page with an IE6 or earlier were asked to update, and they did. According to the logs, people who arrived at the page with an IE6 soon came back with IE7/8 or other browsers.

    Why?

    So far, it seems people don't frankly care what browser they're using. They're just using what they have. And they're usually quite willing to update to something "new and improved", they just don't know that it exists. Now, the average user that visits this client's page isn't too computer savvy (the company is in the adult education sector, the usual visitor of the page wants to be educated), and from the questionary I attached to the booking process nobody was really "annoyed" that they were asked to update. Many were actually happy to learn something new and "better" is out there for them.

    So don't be shy to tell your visitors "hey, there's some new browser out, you might wanna use it for a better browsing experience". People like it.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:Stop the artificial life support by sakdoctor · · Score: 2, Funny

      There should be an HTTP status code especially for this:

      HTTP/1.1 418 - Piss off, and come back when you have a proper browser.

    2. Re:Stop the artificial life support by AndrewNeo · · Score: 2, Funny

      But that'd just be one more thing IE6 wouldn't support, and you'd have to upgrade your browser for!

    3. Re:Stop the artificial life support by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Try working in healthcare.

      GE: "OK, here's your brand new, shiney CT scanner and here's the software it needs."
      US: "Umm, that's Internet Explorer 6".
      GE: "Shiney!"
      US: "Umm, no. It's old and broken and we can't run it on our network". (a blatant lie, but worth a try)
      GE: "Shiney!"
      US: "Will it work on IE 7 or Firefox?"
      GE: "Shiney!"
      US: "Is there someone else we can talk to?

      To GE's credit, they're 'working' on cross browser support and will likely have it by the time they install the new machined. And the core OS appears to be a Linux variant. So there's hope. Just not much.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    4. Re:Stop the artificial life support by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      Yes, absolutely.

      Now that IE8 is out, it is perfectly reasonable to tell IE6 users to upgrade. You don't have to tell them to switch to a different browser (Firefox, etc.), which many users aren't comfortable with (they'll have two different browser icons on their desktop, and one of them doesn't have the familiar blue "e" they've always used). IE8 isn't great, it's a couple years behind the curve, but it passes ACID2 and they're at least trying to fix the bugs. From a developer perspective, it's another browser you have to test for, but it's not a steaming pile of crap. There's absolutely no reason why IE6 users shouldn't upgrade, unless they need to use intranet or vendor sites that break in IE8.

      Having said that, as many others have pointed out, not everyone has the choice, either because they do need to access other sites that only work in IE6, or because their IT department is dumb. Either way, be aware that some people won't be able to switch to a better browser.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
  24. IE7 & IE8's topbar sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If IE's newer versions let you customize the topbar like you can with IE6, I'd gladly switch my work computer over. When you force a crappier UI (like Vista), many users will stick with the better, older version.

  25. Can't; not root. by tepples · · Score: 1

    The only way to kill IE6 is to stop supporting it and clearly stating "If you can't see this page properly please update your browser".

    The excuse: "It's not my browser; it's the administrator's browser. How do I update another user's browser?"

    1. Re:Can't; not root. by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

      As it was said above.
      Portable Firefox. Provide a link, a zip download, something.

    2. Re:Can't; not root. by mini+me · · Score: 2, Funny

      How do I update another user's browser?

      Through one of IE's numerous vulnerabilities?

    3. Re:Can't; not root. by nyctopterus · · Score: 1

      What we need is browser virtualisation in the browser. A browser written in javascript perhaps? That would be elegant!

    4. Re:Can't; not root. by ebuck · · Score: 1

      You hassle your administrator. The only reason he's not providing you a safer, more secure browser is laziness.

      Even if he has a corporate web application that requires IE6 (and no more), holding the entire company back isn't a long term plan. In 2014, do you really think he'll be able to install IE6? He'll have to be writing his own device drivers for Windows XP to get an operating system that will support it.

    5. Re:Can't; not root. by The+Cisco+Kid · · Score: 1

      Who cares what the excuse is. You aren't wasting your time supporting broken MS-ware. If some one is at a company and cant figure out how to update their browser, they will call *their* tech support department, and eventually someone in the 'administrators' office will get the message.

    6. Re:Can't; not root. by tepples · · Score: 1

      In 2014, do you really think he'll be able to install IE6? He'll have to be writing his own device drivers for Windows XP

      Or he'll be booting Windows XP in a virtual machine, like the one in Windows 7 Ultimate.

    7. Re:Can't; not root. by afidel · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You're forgetting the XP virtual machine in Win7, it can be made to run IE6 seemlessly. That wouldn't even be that unusual of a situation for a large enterprise. Back in 2003/04 I was on a team that switched out a VERY large mortgage originator from all the loan processors having two PC's to one. The second PC's were used to run OS/2 with a custom origination software, we were upgrading their XP machines so that they could run VirtualPC with OS/2 as the guest. That app had millions in development costs behind it and was certified in almost every state, there was no way in hell it was going to be scrapped.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    8. Re:Can't; not root. by Nicolay77 · · Score: 1

      Well, we can try to bankrupt the corporations that still use IE6...

      --
      We are Turing O-Machines. The Oracle is out there.
  26. Government Workplaces by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes Canadian government workplaces still use IE6 because IE7 and FF2/3 are still being approved In Ottawa.
    Also the Zune HD will feature a Variation of IE6 Mobile so we have a long road ahead as web developers.

    1. Re:Government Workplaces by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      Having people tied to something they've used for years is one thing...
      Releasing a new product that's horrible crippled is just ridiculous... The iphone has a good mobile browser, Opera is good and because of this other mobile device makers have been improving their offerings too. If MS just come out with a neutered IE6 hopefully it will fail.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
  27. Netscape 4 again by Tridus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The last time something like this happened, it was everybody wishing Netscape 4 would die. But it kept shambling across the Internet like a zombie for years.

    At this point, IE6 will die when the computers still using it get replaced.

    --
    -- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
    1. Re:Netscape 4 again by BenoitRen · · Score: 1

      Reportedly, Netscape 4 is still lurking around! :(

  28. corporate intranet sites and IE 6 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I build and maintain a site which is used almost entirely by subscribers from large asset management firms. Looking at our stats IE accounts for 54% of our traffic with 46% of that from IE6. Firefox manages 39% with 34% from Firefox 3. Nice to see Firefox doing so well but depressing how wildly used IE6 still is.

    The trouble is most corporate intranet sites are so badly written that they don't render correctly on anything other than IE6 and most companies don't see the point in fixing them. Things like MS Sharepoint, which has crap support for Firefox, donâ(TM)t exactly help.

  29. This is the enemy by Kozz · · Score: 1
    --
    I only post comments when someone on the internet is wrong.
    1. Re:This is the enemy by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

      Good idea... if your coworkers don't know you are a dork already, this will definitely clue them in.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    2. Re:This is the enemy by A12m0v · · Score: 1

      I use Chrome you insensitive clod!

      --
      GENERATION 25: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
    3. Re:This is the enemy by Kozz · · Score: 1

      ... if your coworkers don't know you are a dork already...

      ... says the guy also posting to Slashdot.

      --
      I only post comments when someone on the internet is wrong.
    4. Re:This is the enemy by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but folks actually have to TALK to me to find out I'm a dork.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
  30. IE6.... =\ by kagaku · · Score: 1

    We unfortunately use IE6 exclusively here at my office/entire corporation. IE7 is being trial (and we're 'not allowed' but not blocked from installing IE7 or IE8) but 99% of the corporate populace is running IE6. It made things interesting when I inherited an internal app that's "developed" using oracle application express. Giving the entire app an overhaul and trying to integrate stuff such as jquery to makes things a bit more user friendly was quite a challenge when the browser that everyone uses keeps throwing up rendering errors for what seem to be almost no reason. Eventually I said screw it and developed the entire site twice; using browser sniffing to determine what version to send out. The work wasn't justified at the time (only myself and a few others use alternative browsers), but when the company eventually does move to IE7/8 this app will at least be compatible with newer versions. Not only that, but it'll exhibit features that simply aren't available under IE6.

    --
    everyday is another shooter.
  31. Or you can simply drop compatibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Background: Work with government/state/private business so all walks of default browsers

    All it takes is to stop catering to the people who use it. With a div-based layout, sites are frequently very compatible with IE6 with no additional work. But when you start intentionally making concessions, you make an assumption of equal functionality amongst all browsers. When that happens, not only does Firefox and other third party browsers suffer, but IE7 and IE8 as well.

    Without a rational business need to upgrade, many institutions won't. When, as a web developer, you choose to provide IE6 compatibility, you help remove that business requirement. But when you forgo it, it helps to force their hand.

    It's really not the stodgy network and server admins that are holding us back, it's this idea we have to stay compatible. IE 4, 5, 5.5 and most recently, Netscape 4 died without this kind of issue. No one worries about making those compatible. It was time two years ago to let IE6 fall into planned obsolesce.

  32. IE6 actually gaining by GlobalEcho · · Score: 1

    I work for a huge corporation. Since the sysadmins have nothing better to do, they just this month automated a company-wide process of deleting Firefox from all workstations, forcing users to go to IE6 (with alternate browsers available only for web developers)!

    I was gobsmacked.

    1. Re:IE6 actually gaining by mcvos · · Score: 1

      According to the corporate statistics linked in the summary, IE6 just overtook IE7.

      Now that is truly retarded. And retarding even more as we speak.

  33. It's called a "toolbar" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Topbar"? Did you make that up yourself or pick it up from another uninformed person? The term is "toolbar". IE itself uses that term when you customize it. If you want something customizable, use Firefox. No one is telling you to use IE7/8. They're just saying that it's idiotic to use IE6, and that, by doing so, you are holding back the Web. Stop it!

  34. Not if we go on strike by Russ+Nelson · · Score: 1

    IE6 WILL die if enough web developers go on strike and simply stop supporting it. The people running IE6 can make their problem go away one of two ways: pressure each and every website which says "IE6? Go away." Or they can do one thing: upgrade their web browser or install FF. One thing with instant guaranteed success, or many things with likely failure?

    --
    Don't piss off The Angry Economist
  35. LazyCommenter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children!?!

  36. I hate it too but... by gzipped_tar · · Score: 1

    I recently had to submit my thesis to the college library under IE6 + WINE. The library's file submission web-app didn't work with any other browser except IE, and IE6 was well supported under WINE. I hated it but I had to do it anyway...

    --
    Colorless green Cthulhu waits dreaming furiously.
    1. Re:I hate it too but... by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      I wrote my dissertation in TeX. Could I have submitted the DVI files over IE? This was in 1992, I don't know if pdftex was available then.

  37. Save IE6! by meuhlavache · · Score: 1

    We want you to save IE6!

  38. We still have IE6 at work by Ogive17 · · Score: 2, Informative

    And I use to blame IE6 for making /. look like shit but then I go home and use Firefox and /. still looks like shit. It makes me wonder if there's any browser that will load up /. correctly.

    --
    "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    1. Re:We still have IE6 at work by Tanktalus · · Score: 4, Funny

      Rumour has it that the browser that was built in to Duke Nukem Forever loads /. fine.

      *sigh* Now we'll never know for sure.

    2. Re:We still have IE6 at work by Canazza · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Safari does aparently (beta 4)

      Basically, you need a browser that hasn't officially been released to browse /. properly.

      this is the only site I know of that attempts to implement things it knows does not work on the majority of browsers, just because they SHOULD work.
      IE6 was the worst offender for this, but just because a browser isn't perfect doesn't mean it should be deliberatly broken.

      --
      It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
    3. Re:We still have IE6 at work by Randle_Revar · · Score: 1

      Looks fine with gecko 1.9.1 (FF3.5, SeaMonkey2.0a)

    4. Re:We still have IE6 at work by jhesse · · Score: 1

      Must be nice. Whatever they did a couple of weeks back turned the front page into a mess with white article headlines on a white background.

      --

      --
      "I have also mastered pomposity, even if I do say so myself." -Kryten
  39. Re:Bull by Explodicle · · Score: 1

    I just downloaded and installed Firefox portable but couldn't access any outside sites. I even copied my IE6 user agent string and pasted it into general.useragent.extra.firefox, still no luck. Our IT department must REALLY want me to use IE6!

  40. Already died by gmuslera · · Score: 1

    the right term to name its current status is zombie, as most of the machines its run on.

  41. HTML compliance of Acid2 and Acid3 by tepples · · Score: 1

    All the more reason to stop using browser-dependent "features" and write rigidly standards compliant html, I say.

    Apart from those features explicitly designed to test a browser's error handling, Acid2 and Acid3 are intended to be "rigidly standards compliant html". And look how Internet Explorer pukes on them.

    And tone down the CSS and JS freakery; it's "content", not "user experience" (which is mostly "frustration" anyway), you monkeys.

    But what do you call "freakery"? Is the use of JavaScript in things like Gmail "freakery"?

  42. Developers should charge more for IE6 support by atfrase · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There seems like a pretty clear free-market solution to this problem: developing sites that support IE6, with all the requisite hacks and workarounds, is harder. It takes longer, and should cost more. If developers just attach an appropriate premium to this extra work, businesses start having a financial incentive to stop demanding it.

    "Well boss, I got a quote for that intranet app we need developed, and it turns out our IE6 requirement adds 35% to the total cost." "Hrm.. and what's your estimate of the cost of migrating?" "Migrating would cost us more than the 35% on this one project. But looking a year or two out, paying that kind of premium on all future development contracts, switching is way cheaper, and will probably reduce IT expenses for security issues to boot." "Right. Start working on that."

    1. Re:Developers should charge more for IE6 support by zefrer · · Score: 1

      Yeah. Cause no-one has ever thought of doing that

    2. Re:Developers should charge more for IE6 support by ChrisMounce · · Score: 1

      This seems reasonable to me. Businesses don't care about web standards -- they care about money.

      Of course, the web developers would have to work together on this. If only one guy charges a premium, the boss is going to hire someone else. Though you could fight this by lowering prices for web standards work, which in effect is asking the web developer, "How much would you pay to not have to worry about IE6?"

      Still a good idea. Someone mod this guy up further.

    3. Re:Developers should charge more for IE6 support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but that ignores the tons of existing internal sites out their developed for sole use with IE6, lazily programmed just to achieve the desired effect in IE6. It's a cycle in which the IT deptartments are stuck on an insecure IE6, but can't move on for fear of break internal pages. The internal pages don't get fixed because there's no pressure to from an imposing browser upgrade. Without this pressure, it's difficult for the bean counters to justify the work of expanding support for things that "already work".

      Standards-compliant pages should work just fine outside of IE6 with minimal effort (except for JS which is very fuzzy), but that carries the assumption that someone put some thought into the future when developing.

    4. Re:Developers should charge more for IE6 support by wastedlife · · Score: 1

      If all web developers did so, then yes. However, many will not do this and the rest will lose customers to the ones not following this.

      "Well boss, I got a few quotes for that intranet app, and one of them was charging 35% more than everyone else. He claims it is because of our IE6 requirement."
      "Hah, screw that guy!"

      One way around that is for some or many developers offering a discount to drop the IE6 requirement. The developer may have to run at a reduced profit for a while, but eventually companies will start dropping IE6 to save money. This is not fundamentally much different from what you said, so I apologize if this is what you actually meant. I read your post as saying everyone should charge more for IE6 development though.

      --
      Said, "It's just like dice but it's got more sides And it tells me who lives and who dies"
    5. Re:Developers should charge more for IE6 support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Ah yes! Yet again we see the clueless masses who get the mod points around here rearing their ugly heads.

      So, what you want me to do, as a freelance developer, is tell the guy who signs my paycheck that I refuse to work for him because he wants to support an application that I'm not found of? If you don't see the problem with this let me suggest that you go back to junior college and take a couple business courses. As a manager I would see it as you saying "I'm an employee of yours and I refuse to do what is best for your company. Instead I'd rather take the easy route and risk alienating your customers."

      If I were to hire you and you gave me that spiel you'd be out on your ass and I'd let others know about it too. Have fun finding work for anyone who can pay real money for your *cough* services *cough*.

    6. Re:Developers should charge more for IE6 support by atfrase · · Score: 1

      And yet again we see the amusing derision of an AC who sets up straw men to rant at, intentionally misreading the parent. I didn't say refuse, I said charge accordingly.

      Whether you label it an added cost for the extra work of IE6 compatibility, or a discount for standards-only work, doesn't matter.

      And really, every developer should already be doing this to some extent, in that they have to charge according to the time it will take them to do the work. Since IE6 compatibility requires more work, it should cost more. For most shops, the difference would probably just be breaking down the line items of the quote, so the client can see that if they just drop that requirement, the work becomes much easier and therefore cheaper.

    7. Re:Developers should charge more for IE6 support by wastedlife · · Score: 0

      If you are freelance, you figure out how much time you will save by not developing for IE6. If you are charging by the hour, make a note of that in your estimate for your clients. If you are charging a flat rate for the client, then offer a discount based on how much time you will save. For example, if you save 25% of your time, offer a discount of some amount less than or equal to 25% to your customer for not needing to support IE6.

      Tell your boss about this if you are working for a company that develops web applications for other clients.

      If you are working for a company and you develop web applications for internal use, then talk to your boss about how much time you will save by not developing for IE6. If you are salary, you will be able to put that time into another project. If you are hourly, that is money savings to them.

      --
      Said, "It's just like dice but it's got more sides And it tells me who lives and who dies"
    8. Re:Developers should charge more for IE6 support by chord.wav · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If a single small business site doesn't support IE6, nobody cares. What we need is to make a coalition of porn sites and make them stop supporting IE6. That should do it.

      BTW, I charged extra for IE6 support in one of my latest projects. As a result, I ended up doing just the back-end of the site, and some other guy did the front end. Which in this particular case, was a good thing. But YMMV depending on the project. It's a double edged sword so use this strategy carefully.

    9. Re:Developers should charge more for IE6 support by papershark · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This was something that I have had to address a couple of times. The simple truth is that a IE6 website takes me more time. I'm happy to do it, if your happy to pay. I have found that the most compelling argument for clients is the 'SEO' and the suggestion that Google indexing favours valid mark-up.

      This is how i address it the issue for my customers in my FAQ's or if i need to email a reply on the subject

      21. Will my web site work with Internet Explorer 6 (IE6)?

      You may have noticed that this web site does not look right if your are viewing on Internet Explorer 6. IE6 was a good browser in it's day, but it it is almost 9 years old now. When any company has a web site created it must make the choice as to whether it will render on old technology or whether it must be standards compliant for future technology. We could have used any amount of little tricks and hacks to get web site to look closer to as it intended in IE6, but this would have been at the expense of standards compliance and valid code. We have made the decision to inform IE6 users why the site is not rendering as they expected (a situation that probably doesn't surprise them).

      Please note that we can create web sites that render on a 2001 browser. But we cannot guarantee 2009 functionality and security. And given that an IE6 focused development is based around creating 'valid code', and then hacking it to work in the browser the ultimate result is a longer development process with compromised functionality for the vast amount of users.

      Both Google and Facebook are sending the same message... you can use out site with IE6, but with limited functionality. We don't think continued support is viable given that web trends suggest that less than 4% of web surfers will be using this browser by the end of this year. In short we feel that the tipping point for support for this old software has passed in preference for stability in future browsers. And we are advising our Clients of the same.

      However we recognise that statistics can be misleading, just because a small amount of people use IE6, it could be a significant amount of people that you are trying to target. Sometimes focusing development to a browser could be your best strategy. And we will do all we can help you with that.

      It is worth pointing out that Microsoft themselves admit that IE6 is 'less safe' than later browsers
      We urge you to use and encourage your employees to use a W3C Standards compliant browser such as Firefox, Safari, Opera, Google Chrome or Internet Explorer 8. These Browsers are free, and all are easy to install on any computer they are continually updated to be secure and more reliable they have more function and they are faster.

    10. Re:Developers should charge more for IE6 support by matt20102 · · Score: 1

      While I would like to see every browser support every web standard, as they are written, I've yet to encounter a situation wherein a small change couldn't be made to make any sites I've coded work in FF 2&3, IE6+, Opera, and Safari. Having to code in substantial 'hacks', browser detection schemes, or similar workarounds tells me that the developer who thinks this is 'necessary' either doesn't have a good design for the page layout, is a pure standards idealist (the kind who thinks that standards are a moral crusade akin to civil rights), or, potentially, works in an environment with a 200+ page coding standards book.

      I would love to see some of the newer features, like display:table-cell, work across the board but I'm not going to lose sleep or hair over it. Neither should you. 'Having' to spend extra time to develop cross-browser could very well translate into job stability anyway...

  43. IE6 will not die (true), FF overtakes IE (false). by Khopesh · · Score: 3, Informative

    This is misrepresentative and a sign of false hope; IE has lost no ground to FF according to that chart:

    IE7 + IE6 + IE8 = 43.51 + 18.23 + 8.26 = 70.0% share
    FF3 + FF2 + FF1 = 18.58 + 1.45 + 0.17 = 20.2% share

    This is unchanged from the average (71.6% v 19.84%) or the oldest data in Dec '08 (70.8% v 20.8%).

    There is no growth here, just the obvious resistance to change in the corporate world, which will be more reflected in Windows (IE6) than anything else.

    .

    We'll only really see the demise if IE6 when the corporate world fully adopts the next OS, which would be Windows 7, a year or three after its first service pack (assuming MS plays it smart). That means we're stuck with IE6 for at least another 2-3 years.

    (Yes, I know that a large percentage of corporate deployments are still on Windows 2000. If they're moving to XP but aren't already too far along, it will hopefully be with IE7 or IE8, or even something else entirely.)

    --
    Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.
  44. IE6 rules the roost ? by viralMeme · · Score: 1

    It would do seeing as it's on every PC sold with a Windows Operating System.

  45. Bundled with XP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Microsoft should do the right thing and force a compulsory upgrade to IE7/8 for every copy of XP. The only reason this thing won't die is that it comes bundled with XP and people don't know any alternatives exist.

  46. Windows 2000 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would love to upgrade to IE7 or IE8 but unfortunatly mircosoft decided Windows 2000 wasn't worthy.

    Firefox is out of the question as our intranet uses ActiveX (our intranet works perfectly Firefox apart from this small problem)

  47. IE6 exists because of illegal Windows XP copies by AtomicInternet · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Think about this: if you have a legit copy of Windows XP you're HARASSED to upgrade to the latest version. If you have an illegal copy, you're either smart enough to ignore the harassment, or you constantly fail the required product validation before upgrading.

    I think this proliferation of IE6 is because it was the last upgrade that didn't require validation. It lives on through piracy, which also promotes insecure computers that don't have the latest updates.

    1. Re:IE6 exists because of illegal Windows XP copies by NJRoadfan · · Score: 1

      Didn't MS turn off the mandatory WGA checks in the IE 7/8 installers a while back?

    2. Re:IE6 exists because of illegal Windows XP copies by wastedlife · · Score: 3, Informative

      IE7 and 8 are not available for Windows 2000, which is still in use in a lot of companies. Also, most larger companies run WSUS to manage update deployment, this means they can selectively block updates that they do not want from being deployed. This includes IE7 and IE8.

      I'm sure some of the numbers are from piracy, but if you are smart enough to pirate Windows and evade detection, you are probably smart enough to use a more modern secure browser like Firefox, Chrome, Safari, or Opera.

      --
      Said, "It's just like dice but it's got more sides And it tells me who lives and who dies"
    3. Re:IE6 exists because of illegal Windows XP copies by wkurzius · · Score: 1

      Partially true, but I think anyone who's smart enough to pirate a copy of XP is also smart enough to not use IE6. It's still there, but laying dormant.

      In this case it's about active versions of IE6, like at the school I teach at. They never upgraded to 7, and I'm not holding my breath on them rolling forward to 8 over the summer. Lazy/reluctant IT and ignorant XP users are the reasons IE6 is clinging to life.

    4. Re:IE6 exists because of illegal Windows XP copies by wastedlife · · Score: 2, Informative

      I just checked and it seems that Microsoft does not require validation for IE7 any longer. They do not prompt for validation to download the IE8 installer, but at only 16 MB it probably phones home to grab the rest during install which is something a Windows pirate would probably not want even if WGA is not required.

      --
      Said, "It's just like dice but it's got more sides And it tells me who lives and who dies"
    5. Re:IE6 exists because of illegal Windows XP copies by EvilIdler · · Score: 2, Informative

      IE7 stopped requiring the validation at some point.

    6. Re:IE6 exists because of illegal Windows XP copies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think this proliferation of IE6 is because it was the last upgrade that didn't require validation. It lives on through piracy, which also promotes insecure computers that don't have the latest updates.

      IE 8 doesn't require Genuine Windows validation check.

    7. Re:IE6 exists because of illegal Windows XP copies by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      HARASSED? How so? Sure I've got a upgrade to SP3 pending, but I know SP3 forces IE7 on me. So I don't upgrade. The icon sits in my tray. I ignore it, he ignores me. Not sure what harassment you are talking about.

  48. Nuke It From Orbit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    It's the only way to be sure.

  49. Judgmental IE6 splash pages by superdana · · Score: 1

    I'm sure many of you have seen Joe Lifrieri's judgmental IE6 splash pages. But for those of you who haven't, enjoy:

    http://www.thedonutproject.com/2009/05/22/overly-judgemental-ie6-splash-pages/

  50. How to block portable apps by tepples · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The answer remains: fuck ye!

    Administrator's response: Fuck executables outside %SystemRoot% and %ProgramFiles%.

    1. Re:How to block portable apps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've never had a problem installing vanilla Firefox when not an Admin.

    2. Re:How to block portable apps by XedLightParticle · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Then the corp network you're trying on is probably not using these restrictions.

      The place i work is very relaxed regarding executables and installs, because it is necessary to be able to test and so forth as a developer, so each user is in the local administrators group.

      Yes of course i have Firefox installed, it works great and i prefer it over any newer IE, anyway if I try to download and install a newer IE than IE6, i'm not allowed to, and why? because of some internal webapps they don't want to untangle from IE6 compatible into standards compliant.

      So the major benefit of webapps is void, it's not platform independent and it's not future proof, some day even the standards of today will be void, so what webapps are is an infinite job security for web developers.

      Unfortunately I can't avoid IE6 completely, because it comes installed with the certificates needed to browse our intranet, this browser won't die right away, too many non-tech users on corporate networks around the world, and some places they're even more restrictive when it comes to executables, which is a good thing for the non-techs ("I can have those smileys for my msn?"). The internet should have had more courage back in the IE4-5-6 days, but everybody just accepted, many even made pages that only worked for IE, this is just the aftermath of ignorant/lazy web developers.

      --
      If I was as pragmatic and objective as I claim to be, would I be commenting?
    3. Re:How to block portable apps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Ultimate Response:

      Fuck their policy: http://blogs.technet.com/markrussinovich/archive/2005/12/12/circumventing-group-policy-as-a-limited-user.aspx

      In short, if they don't whitelist each and every single executable that you're allowed to run, and each an every one of those programs respect policies and have no exploitable bugs, then you can defeat their policy (on Windows).

      Happy hacking! :-)

    4. Re:How to block portable apps by jslater25 · · Score: 4, Informative

      I've worked for a number of companies that would respond to your 'happy hacking' by simply terminating your employment. Happy hunting (a new job)!

    5. Re:How to block portable apps by Americano · · Score: 1

      And the standard Corporate Security response to your "Ultimate Response":

      You're fired.

      If the choice comes down to being able to earn a living versus conforming to web standards, well, fuck web standards.

      I'm fortunate enough to be able to run Firefox on my work system, but if I install things that are not on a very specific list of "okay things," I will incur the wrath of system administrators (and by extension, corporate security).

    6. Re:How to block portable apps by amicusNYCL · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If the network overlords are requiring IE6 in favor of Firefox, then someone needs to have a chat with them.

      The software I'm developing for corporate clients is Javascript-heavy stuff, where IE6 has some performance problems (not functionality issues, just performance). IE8, Firefox, Opera etc handle it just fine. If a corporate client comes to us and has a problem because they can't execute Javascript (it's required), or things are just a little too slow to render because they're using IE6, I just get them to put me in touch with the IT people at their company. You might be surprised how reasonable these people are. I've gotten some clients set up with Chrome even.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    7. Re:How to block portable apps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is common for corporate IT to apply policies to "secure" the environment (a very odd idea when discussing the mandatory use of IE6, bu anyway...), but amazingly rare for them to actually survey your usage. They probably wouldn't know that you had defeated their precious policy unless it unleashes a fault that they have to deal with; in which case your unemployment would be a just reward for your lack of responsibility over your self-granted power.

      If you're going to do wrong things for the right reasons, you'd better be able to ensure that the consequences don't invalidate your reason; otherwise, all that's left is you doing the wrong thing.

      On the other hand, if you know what you're doing and are responsible about it, it's most likely that they'll never find out, and everyone is therefore happy.

      To be honest, I've never had the misfortune to work in such a place. I can't actually even imagine a place that requires the use of a web browser for external sites but doesn't permit other browsers at least installed in a user-only context. But, speaking for myself, I think that if this kind of behavior is likely to get me fired from such a place, then some other similar behavior - as likely as not, not actually against any actual official policy - would get me fired sooner or later anyway. I don't intend to absolve myself of responsibility by saying so, but that kind of punishment for evading that kind of policy, is not the kind of organization I could possibly control myself in. If they're that restrictive, then I *will* be breaking some kind of policy sooner or later, deliberately or not. It's just a matter of time. And I both accept responsibility for, and have no regrets for, that attitude.

    8. Re:How to block portable apps by Keeper+Of+Keys · · Score: 1

      I've never known FF to install itself outside of %ProgramFiles%. Did you mean %ProgramFiles%/Microsoft?

    9. Re:How to block portable apps by mobets · · Score: 1

      That is true, but if you aren't a local administrator, you don't have write access there.

      --

      It was me, I did it, I moved your cheese
    10. Re:How to block portable apps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      who gave you a mod point? you have never heard of firefox portable have you? it stores itself and all preferences on an external drive, such as a usb thumb drive. it is however, trivial for a sysadmin to setup a security policy in NT which prohibits all executable and an override policy to allow executables in specific directories. if you disallow write access to those directories by the user, it becomes slightly more fun figuring out a way to download pr0n with corporates bandwidth. in XP a ms office exploit could probably get you a nice overflow and let you execute a "document". in properly configured vista or 7 your best bet would be a linux live distro. (i notice a lot of admins are great at securing their OS but NEVER bother to set a BIOS password. then you just need to get past the filters in the corporate proxy (with an exploit or a secondary proxy if your only in blacklist mode and not whitelist mode, or arp spoof the gateway and proxy themselves depending on whether your connection is switched or routed.

    11. Re:How to block portable apps by Keeper+Of+Keys · · Score: 1

      I don't see any mod points on my post, and I don't deserve any - I didn't bother following Jurily's link, and portable FF was quite far from my mind (though I am aware of it, so take away another one). But if I worked in a place like you describe, I wouldn't last long. How do you stand it? Or is working around the admins' policies part of the fun?

    12. Re:How to block portable apps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      tell your admin to get with the times and install FF 3 tell him about the undue security risks associated with using IE6 or for that matter any IE. The NSA has told ppl not to use IE for at least 3 years!

      I'm putting a link to download FF on all my sites

    13. Re:How to block portable apps by Thinboy00 · · Score: 1

      [snip] I've gotten some clients set up with Chrome even.

      Why?

      --
      $ make available
    14. Re:How to block portable apps by oatworm · · Score: 1

      My network overlords require IE6, but it's worse than you think. We have a ton of custom web apps that were designed explicitly around IE6's wonky behavior. They don't work right under Firefox or even IE7. Consequently, until those apps are rewritten (yeah right), we're stuck with IE6 and Windows XP until the end of time.

    15. Re:How to block portable apps by HaloZero · · Score: 1

      This is so true that it's sad.

      And, of course, the apps were originally outsourced to India, developed by GroupX. Now, GroupY will be brought in to re-tool them, and management asks 'But it already works. Why do we need to update it?'

      The business doesn't see it as a value - it's not broken, to them, and therefore doesn't need to be fixed (or have a dime spent on it).

      --
      Informatus Technologicus
    16. Re:How to block portable apps by RollingThunder · · Score: 1

      A very common and painful situation. We have a few that are like that as well.

      Luckily our security team has a high enough clout that they're putting the screws to the app maintainers of these broken IE-6 only webapps, and making them fix them to work with IE7 and IE8.

    17. Re:How to block portable apps by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Because of its Javascript performance, it helps a lot with the interface compared to IE.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    18. Re:How to block portable apps by supernova_hq · · Score: 1

      Or is working around the admins' policies part of the fun?

      What did you think lunch breaks were FOR??

  51. Their nerdy friends do it for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, but, if enough of these people's sites break, they will call their techie friends, and those friends will enable Windows Update and/or install Firefox.

  52. Kill IE6 by fearlezz · · Score: 1

    The primary reason IE6 is still around, is that we do not care enough to kill it. Of course there are some corporations that refuse to upgrade their software. But in their refusal to upgrade, they make theirselves vulnerable to attacks. As sites still support IE6, home users have no reason to upgrade as well, making themselves vulnerable to attacks.

    Botnets sending viruses and spam have a great benefit from this practice. Easily said: These few companies are holding the whole internet hostage. For a few bucks saved in the company, millions of other users are at higher risk. I'd say lets all annoy the shit out of IE6 users until they upgrade.

    I'm running a site that has a few thousand visitors daily. I've just implemented a oneliner that gives IE6 users a 600x100px red warning they should switch.

    --
    .sig: No such file or directory
  53. The "understood" security risks by Gary+W.+Longsine · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I know that you are simply repeating the excuse you have been given by your IT people, but they are smoking crack. The "understood" security risks are that using IE 6 to surf the web is probably the most efficient way to funnel malware into the Norton AntiVirus malware collection system. The real truth in most of these companies, if you scratch the surface, is that they have a mountain of HTML code for internal custom applications which assumed all the flaws in IE6, and they don't have a budget, nor a plan, for updating those apps. If you're the CIO or CEO, demand a plan. If they can't produce one, fire them, and get people who know what they're doing.

    --
    If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
    1. Re:The "understood" security risks by McFadden · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I tend to take a less generous view. I think any IT department that can't figure out a strategy to upgrade IE6 is either useless or fucking lazy. I simply don't believe in this mythical "mountain of HTML code" that has so many problems that couldn't be fixed in a relatively short space of time by a competent professional.

      I've heard these kinds of excuses time and time again, and on every occasion I've asked the IT admin staff responsible to give me some solid examples of where the problems lie (i.e. actual apps/code that moving to IE7/8, Firefox, Chrome or whatever would break and couldn't be fixed within minutes). Never seen a single example yet. They don't even know because they don't have a clue.

    2. Re:The "understood" security risks by Jurily · · Score: 1

      The real truth in most of these companies, if you scratch the surface, is that they have a mountain of HTML code for internal custom applications which assumed all the flaws in IE6, and they don't have a budget, nor a plan, for updating those apps.

      Oh definitely. That happens when they're on a real tight deadline, and they have to get everything working, and they cut corners knowing full well that it's going to be a nightmare to upgrade, but they have no choice but hope they won't be the ones who have to do it.

      And they scrub their names off everything real carefully, because they know the next guy to touch that codebase is going to hunt them down with a chainsaw.

    3. Re:The "understood" security risks by remmelt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      YEAH! That only leaves the problem of not having a budget.

    4. Re:The "understood" security risks by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      I tend to take a less generous view. I think any IT department that can't figure out a strategy to upgrade IE6 is either useless or fucking lazy. I simply don't believe in this mythical "mountain of HTML code" that has so many problems that couldn't be fixed in a relatively short space of time by a competent professional.

      Here's what the business owner would say: "What we have works now, why should I pay a competent professional to REDO pages already done when I've got other things that actually will be worth my money." Its the same reason Win2k is still around; it's working fine, and there are other, better things to spend that money on than replacing something which isn't broken.

    5. Re:The "understood" security risks by gbjbaanb · · Score: 3, Informative

      Most of it isn't down to the IT department to upgrade their web pages and ActiveX controls, but the 3rd party vendors who supply the 'mission critical' apps that need to work. I'm talking companies like SAP or Siebel whose ability to change direction makes an oil tanker look zippy.

      Most IT departments do have a strategy to upgrade:

      1. buy upgrade of vendor for tens of thousands of dollars.
      2. change and configure the new system at cost of more tens of thousands of dollars
      3. install on new servers (that cost.. you get the idea by now) and pilot it
      4. roll it out to users, if it actually works and provides the features the old version did.

    6. Re:The "understood" security risks by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      A mountain of HTML code would be relatively easy to fix..
      A mountain of proprietary binary applications that you don't have source for and that generate HTML code when executed on the other hand... Or HTML code that becomes "unsupported" if you modify it...
      I have encountered companies which have a number of apps bought from third parties which depend on IE6 and which they can't modify, or would lose support if they did.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    7. Re:The "understood" security risks by cml4524 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I simply don't believe in this mythical "mountain of HTML code" that has so many problems that couldn't be fixed in a relatively short space of time by a competent professional.

      If I say I don't believe in you, will that make you disappear?

      I have one application sitting here right in front of me that is comprised of over 5618 files (about half of which are ASP or HTML) that were orginally built around IE5. When IE6 came out they broke. When IE7 came out, they broke. IE8 won't even render half the site.

      The people who were commissioned to build it were done and gone years before I started working here. I have no documentation, the code is laced with inline SQL, .HTCs, and, in some places, 7 or 8 layers of includes. The database is undocumented, I'm the only person in the company who understands any of it.

      COULD it be fixed? Yes. But it would take months for me to do it, and it would cost too much to hire someone else. Scrapping it and rebuilding it is the only viable option, but management spent a ton of money on this app and nobody will admit that it's a disaster and a $1 million+ mistake.

      Whether you admit it or not, a lot of early web code out there was written by a lot of people who never had any business being anywhere near the profession. It's not going away any time soon.

    8. Re:The "understood" security risks by gnick · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The "understood" security risks are that using IE 6 to surf the web is probably the most efficient way to funnel malware into the Norton AntiVirus malware collection system.

      You're only half-way there. "Understood risks" can be explained up the chain. Other risks can not. If you have no funding to document risks in new software, you can't pass them up for approval. In the corporate world, that's fine - You only need to get it past your CIO.

      In the government world, it means you need to pony up for your IT staff to write up new security docs or live in an insecure (but approved) IT world. Ugly, but true.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    9. Re:The "understood" security risks by afidel · · Score: 3, Informative

      How about, the version of enterprise apps x,y,z,q, etc that we run are certified and supported running in IE6 with ActiveX controls a,b,c,d,l,m. We have a strategy of moving to the current version of those apps over then next N years as we reach the current systems end of life (which may be extended from the originally planned EOL by the lack of capital for the replacement systems). The only possible strategy for us would be to move to Firefox for general web browsing but that requires significant additional effort and buy-in from the users. Sorry but I'll use my limited resources and political capital for projects that make sense to me and the business, not to make some web developers life easier.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    10. Re:The "understood" security risks by FictionPimp · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I suggest you find a new job. That is a time bomb. Any management who won't admit that in 5 years a important part of the business logic is not going to work. Microsoft is going to stop supplying security patches for IE6. It's a fact, at that point you are going to have to run a very insecure browser while you do what you are saying is too expensive to do. Only now you have even more risk then starting the project before it's an emergency.

      What happens when new hardware simply will not run XP and you have no choice?

      My company just went though this. Luckily they listened to me and were proactive. We had tons of PHP4 code, a lot of it incompatible with php5. I pointed out plans from several projects we use to drop PHP4 support and the fact PHP itself was getting ready to drop support.

      So we got approval to start the project. It took us 2 years of modest work in addition to our normal projects. We also made sure all new projects were fine with PHP5. While we were at it, we rewrote everything to conform to a standard that worked in all major browsers at the time IE6, firefox, and safari.

      We also came up with a unified plan for the future. Doing things like putting an end to little access databases and random mysql servers. Unifying that took even more work as we had to reverse engineer work from developers long gone.

      Now we have a very flexible framework to work in that allows us to quickly change directions as trends change in our field. Boss wants a site to work on his blackberry, no problem. He suddenly switches to an iPhone, again no problem. He goes bonkers and moves to linux, guess what, no problem.

    11. Re:The "understood" security risks by jswilson64 · · Score: 1

      The company I work for is stuck on IE6 for the "our intranet was coded for it" excuse, and has disabled the ability to update IE, even includes IE7 removal code in login scripts. And the IT dept doesn't really give a fig if the outside world doesn't render properly; IE is installed for viewing the intRAnet, period. And to all of you spouting hard-core "you need to update, period" comments: there's a thing called "a budget" - most companies have one. A line item to "re-code all the intRAnet so it renders properly so we can update to IE7 so the intERnet will render properly" won't last long in today's fiscal environment reality.

    12. Re:The "understood" security risks by cml4524 · · Score: 1

      Oh, I don't need to flee for another job or anything like that. Nobody blames me for the poor state of the system, they just won't work with me to make it right. Not the most rewarding work I've ever done, having to run around and hotfix catastrophes each time Microsoft issues a security fix, but it's nothing I feel compelled to run from. I've pointed out several times that it will inevitably collapse. When it does, I'll be responsible for "fixing" it, but I won't get blamed or yelled at. Like I said, not the most rewarding work, but it's not nearly as bad as it could be given the state of things.

      I actually have some systems for a sister company that I was able to get almost uninhibited control over. They run on PHP 5.2.6 and Server 2008. They're coded to either HTML 4.01 Transitional or XHTML 1.0 Transitional standards, CSS is entirely separated from the markup, Javascript not loading doesn't break anything, etc. etc. That stuff runs great. I rarely even have to look at it. Amusingly, nobody who's preventing me from fixing the other system seems to notice that.

    13. Re:The "understood" security risks by Tokerat · · Score: 1

      I've heard these kinds of excuses time and time again, and on every occasion I've asked the IT admin staff responsible to give me some solid examples of where the problems lie (i.e. actual apps/code that moving to IE7/8, Firefox, Chrome or whatever would break and couldn't be fixed within minutes). Never seen a single example yet. They don't even know because they don't have a clue.

      At my old company (name withheld), the problem was Java; they "claimed" (and I cannot back this up; I've never worked with Java before) that since their Java applets which ran, say the HR website, where created with an older version of the JDK, they needed specific Java Runtime libraries to be installed (1.4, perhaps? I can't remember) or else they wouldn't work. I proved this true once by clicking on the "Update your Java Runtime!" balloon that came up every morning, and lo and behold they hadn't blocked it (another, shoddy application we used required Admin access to our local machines. NICE and secure) and the application broke. The catch: They said the older libraries don't work with newer versions of IE.

      Many forms also did a submit via JavaScript, which I understand was a bit different in IE6 than what is normal; another employee installed Firefox and nothing worked at all. (Needless to say, they also flew off the handle about "possibly insecure software" being installed. Meanwhile, we run IE6)

      --
      CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
    14. Re:The "understood" security risks by FlyingBishop · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Try putting Firefox in front of a user. At my last job, my boss used IE6. Everyone in the office assumed that she was too backwards to upgrade. I went in and told her her browser was out of date, and that she should upgrade it, but I really thought she should use Firefox instead. Her response - "I'll use whatever you think I should use."

      Most users can't tell the difference between IE6 and Firefox if you port your apps. You can safely tell the rest to shut up and deal. Just change the 'Mozilla Firefox' icon to say 'Internet.' If you like, 'Internet (Mozilla Firefox.)'

      All the user sees is a slight change in Window dressing, and a shiny new toy.

      And as for the bit about making developers' lives easier, that's fine. Use IE8. However, you need to have a strategy to update any internet-facing unencrypted programs (especially an ubiquitous browser) every year. The security issues will not wait more than a few months for you to catch up.

    15. Re:The "understood" security risks by s73v3r · · Score: 1

      So if they only need to access the intRAnet, why do they even have access to the outside intERnet?

    16. Re:The "understood" security risks by Fred_A · · Score: 4, Funny

      I suggest you find a new job. That is a time bomb.

      Wait ! Not yet !
      First document it on The daily WTF and /. and *then* find a new job. There's no sense in letting the good bits of your current job go to waste. Of course, this thing will blow in some one's face sooner or later. You probably don't want to be around when it happens.

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    17. Re:The "understood" security risks by kullnd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I, being in IT, have been strong handed into keeping IE6 running due to the fact that I still have THREE! 3rd party vendors that we depend on which have not updated their crap to work in anything else --- I upgrade and my users can't do their job, simple as that. My job is to ensure that my users can do their job, so therefore we use IE 6 and that will not change until I can perform that upgrade without breaking shit. I don't consider myself "useless" or "fucking lazy", just someone who lives in the real world of business and how shit really works.

      --
      +++ATH0 NO CARRIER
    18. Re:The "understood" security risks by SnapShot · · Score: 1

      At least you have some good submissions for The Daily WTF. :-)

      --
      Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.
    19. Re:The "understood" security risks by mrdoogee · · Score: 1

      I highly recommend getting your escape plan ready, that app is going to explode sooner or later and you'll regret it if its on your watch.

    20. Re:The "understood" security risks by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      And again, why would a business spend that much money if they feel the system they already have in place works?

    21. Re:The "understood" security risks by DisKurzion · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Sorry but I'll use my limited resources and political capital for projects that make sense to me and the business, not to make some web developers life easier.

      Here's some business sense for you:

      Business is all about minimizing risk. By trying to minimize current costs, you could end up spending a lot more in the long run simply because you're increasing the risk (in the form of increased damages, or increased likelihood of happening). Is it better to have a small staff work on training and upgrading a new system now, so that you are prepared to switch over quickly, or to have your entire IT staff cleaning up a mess because one of your employees visited an exploit site?

      The only possible strategy for us would be to move to Firefox for general web browsing but that requires significant additional effort and buy-in from the users.

      Seriously? Significant effort? I've got your strategy right here:

      1. Lock down IE6 to only be usable with your enterprise applications, making it unusable for any other web browsing. (A proxy setting would make this trivial)

      2. Install $BROWSER.

      3. Send email to users, stating web browsing will no longer be possible in IE6, and they must use $BROWSER. If they don't like it, too fucking bad. There are plenty of qualified people looking for jobs that could do what they do for less pay.

      Total effort required:
      1 hour for a system admin to make a group policy change to IE.
      Deploy Firefox (only hard if you don't have any sort of remote installation)
      10 minutes to compose email.

      Savings: The risk that some idiot employee takes down your whole network due to an exploit for an unsupported browser.

    22. Re:The "understood" security risks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whether you admit it or not, a lot of early web code out there was written by a lot of people who never had any business being anywhere near the profession.

      Most likely, they were junior high school students on summer break. Because back then "everybody knew" that only they could "really understand" the Web.

    23. Re:The "understood" security risks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dont be so quick to blame the IT Dept. We use an Autodesk product (Buzzsaw) which is requires IE7 or older. I have no magic stick which could change this, and Autodesk won't offer a solid timeline for updates. What am I meant to do? Changing to another platform would be too costly, & time consuming. And I'm not even accounting for any possible hitch-ups during a migration. About 95% of our users are too clueless to know what firefox is, and the other 30 are ignorant arseholes like yourself.

    24. Re:The "understood" security risks by ameoba · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't it be nice if there was a a tool that let you run outdated software, including all of its OS dependencies, in a little walled garden, allowing you to run modern software for all other uses?

      It'd be even cooler if we could get major OS vendors to provide this functionality as part of the OS

      --
      my sig's at the bottom of the page.
    25. Re:The "understood" security risks by geekoid · · Score: 1

      The programmers were incompetent.

      The money saved from upgrading it to make it standard compliance and properly written will save more money over the long run. Why? because they wouldn't need a full time person for it.

      Hiring someone to help for a few months, would cost what? 100ga, tops How much does it cost you in time to maintain that pile of crap?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    26. Re:The "understood" security risks by Gary+W.+Longsine · · Score: 2, Insightful

      All of those problems can be fixed, too, by a competent IT department. The fact that they persist, today, years and years after these issues *should* have been fixed (noting also that many of which there was no excuse for creating in the first place) is a testimony to the very sorry state of affairs in enterprise IT these days. The rules are pretty simple, for a CIO. Fire everyone who told you to deploy applications in .asp. Fire anyone who told you that Windows was just as secure as UNIX. That pretty much wipes out your staff. Now, go find a bunch of eager young beavers who actually grok computers and networks and start over.

      --
      If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
    27. Re:The "understood" security risks by thadmiller · · Score: 1
      As a designer/developer, I completely agree with this post; you must be proactive while you have the chance. Parent states...

      nobody will admit that it's a disaster and a $1 million+ mistake

      We all know it can be quite painful updating old code or code that was written by people who shouldn't even be using a computer, but how many millions of $ will be lost when IE6 is not an option? And now your company is not painfully upgrading, it's down.

    28. Re:The "understood" security risks by afidel · · Score: 1

      Cool, I'll try that and get back to you from the unemployment line. Like I said I'm not burning political capital to force through a change when the rest of our security systems minimize the risks from IE6. As you said there are plenty of qualified people looking for work and that includes IT people. In a year or two when our 3 mainline apps are upgraded to versions that support IE7/8 I'll push through the upgrade. The browser's already almost a decade old, 18-24 months more usage isn't really going to hurt.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    29. Re:The "understood" security risks by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      FictionPimp is exactly right, but I wanted to reply to your post. These problems are not going away. You need to proactively fix them, you can't just sit there and wait for things to get better. You need a plan.

      At the company I'm working at, when I got here we were working on version 5 of a web application done entirely in ASP/VB using SQL Server. I supported version 5 through its life, I added several features and called it version 6 (most of the new features done in Javascript instead of VBScript), and all the while I was working on version 6 I was constantly on my boss about wanting to rewrite the thing from scratch with a completely different architecture. Functionally equivalent, but better architecture. He agreed that the application was a beast that had evolved for years without a design document of any kind and that we needed a rewrite in order to solve some of the fundamental performance issues, including the database structure and the ineptitude of VB. Years later we finally found funding to rewrite the application, and it took me over a year (about 2000 hours, actually) to redesign and rewrite the entire thing using PHP, MySQL or PostgreSQL, and the ExtJS framework. The new version is years and years ahead of the previous version, and we now have a product that we are able to resell. Now we've got 5 of our clients migrated to the new application, and I'm adding new features to it daily. None of this would have happened if I had accepted the status quo of version 6, but I saw a situation that my experience told me was a problem, and I created a plan to fix it. That's how these things happen.

      Your attitude that this stuff isn't going away any time soon and that there's nothing you can do about it is a defeatist attitude, you're not helping anything. You're also not helping your company, you should take the responsibility on yourself to recognize this is a problem for your company and figure out how to fix it. In other words, man up and get to work. If you turn a blind eye when you see a problem in your company, frankly you don't deserve to be employed.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    30. Re:The "understood" security risks by DavidTC · · Score: 2, Interesting

      My question is why the fuck don't 'trapped' businesses mandate, say, Firefox for web browsing, and use IE6 only for the internal crap.

      In fact, hook IE up an internal proxy so it can't be used elsewhere.

      IE 6 is too insecure and too broken to use as a web browser, period. If a business needs it because of internal code, fine. And the fact that they can't use IE7 or 8 at the same time means they can't upgrade, but there are other browsers out there.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    31. Re:The "understood" security risks by svirre · · Score: 1

      Bull.

      In our buisness (30000 employees), we have hundreds of web apps floating around. IT don't have any kind of central management of them as they are developed by specialized functions within the company.

      You might consider this silly and all, but the fact is that we are not a software company, and buisness apps will live their own lives outside any kind of release management other than what the developer himself deals with. Hence changing from IE6 will only happen when we absolutely have to.

    32. Re:The "understood" security risks by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 1

      The majority of people in this discussion, in fact the most vocal majority, are IT people. It doesn't 'cost' them money, it 'makes' them money.

      And that's how management will see it.

    33. Re:The "understood" security risks by Crazy+Taco · · Score: 1

      I think any IT department that can't figure out a strategy to upgrade IE6 is either useless or fucking lazy. I simply don't believe in this mythical "mountain of HTML code" that has so many problems that couldn't be fixed in a relatively short space of time by a competent professional.

      This actually is true though, believe it or not. I am a web developer for a very large fortune 500 company, and you have to consider how things work in a really large corporation. They have been developing apps for IE 6 for years. Once written and no longer actively developed, these apps are put into maintenance "keep the lights on" mode more or less, and you can often have a single developer in charge of supporting 8-12 of them, while at the same time doing development with a team on some new application. Now I know a lot of people say 90% of the work done on software is support, but that hasn't been true in my observations, perhaps because most of our programmers are quite competent. At the very least, there's a curve involved where most of that support is done within a year, at most two years, after the app is released. At that time most of the bugs are found, and after that, aside from very occasional bug fixes, the apps can be left alone, with many of them managed by a single person.

      So here's the point: while one person can manage 8-12 stable apps without much difficulty, it does become a mountain when they have to convert ALL of them to IE 7 compatibility, especially when you don't have to work on them much and don't know the code that well. My organization has been working towards an IE 7 conversion plan for probably 1.5-2 years now, and it looks like we will be finally making the switch this fall. And nobody's "smoking crack" (as another poster said) for not having gotten it done faster or having a faster plan, or even making the "mountain of HTML" excuse. Unless you stop all current development of new applications, it DOES take a while. The only part that I think might be a little bit of "smoking crack" is the fact that IE 8 got released during the conversion plan, and we aren't just going to switch to that and catch up while we're at it. But I do think they have a plan for moving to 8 a year after we hit 7, so it's not like we are going to sit still either.

      In conclusion, if you ever worked for a really big business, you wouldn't make you ungenerous statements. Big objects have big inertia, and big codebases.

      --
      Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it.
    34. Re:The "understood" security risks by nametaken · · Score: 1

      Wow, that's a definite no-win, and it is in fact time to scrap that app.

      And when they start their next one, realize that there's no web app on earth that requires thousands of ASP or PHP pages. If you're looking at a possibility of that many pages, someone has done something horribly wrong.

    35. Re:The "understood" security risks by zuperduperman · · Score: 1

      What about a simpler plan which seems obvious to me but obviously has some fatal flaw:

      1. offer virtualized IE6 environment for running stupid legacy app

      Whatever happens all these companies are looking down the barrel in a few years when XP support starts to end (since XP is the last platform where you can run IE6 at all). Already Win2K is falling off a cliff, which I hope spurs some amount of migration forward as people realize they have the choice of upgrading to an OS that is already almost 8 years old or going to something newer and end up on Vista or 7 (sans IE6).

    36. Re:The "understood" security risks by zuperduperman · · Score: 1

      I already wrote this in a comment somewhere else, but surely your answer is to wrap this whole sucker up in some kind of virtual machine image, isn't it?

      I routinely run these images just to test IE6 - licensing aside, it's simple and almost optimal way to run some software (basically anything I don't trust not to foul up my registry with crap). After all, support for the OSes that run IE6 is going to end one day. You're gonna have to deal with this some time. Not to mention that Win7 comes with it XP and virtualization built in.

    37. Re:The "understood" security risks by Philip_the_physicist · · Score: 1

      The problem with the Java updates would probably have been caused by the fairly significant changes made to the language in Java 5. If the company had access to the source, they should (assuming all the devs had followed standards and none of the 1.4 methods had been removed from Java 1.5/1.6[1]) have been able to recompile (unmodified) against the new libraries and then work fine.

      [1] this would be surprising if they weren't deprecated in 1.4

    38. Re:The "understood" security risks by Homer1946 · · Score: 1

      3. Send email to users, stating web browsing will no longer be possible in IE6, and they must use $BROWSER. If they don't like it, too fucking bad. There are plenty of qualified people looking for jobs that could do what they do for less pay.y.

      Wow!! And that would make you a real prick. I am sure all those lousy users deserve that kind of treatment...

    39. Re:The "understood" security risks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only possible strategy for us would be to move to Firefox for general web browsing but that requires significant additional effort and buy-in from the users.

      I love how appealing to the lowest common denominator means that your competent users are required to expend additional effort to use an inferior browser and get no choice about "buying in" to it, while the idiots get to keep using their steaming pile of crap because "it's too hard to change".

    40. Re:The "understood" security risks by initialE · · Score: 1

      What you could do to mitigate - wrap a layer of citrix around it. Put the entire app accessible only through the browser of a xenapp server, then get everyone to connect through that server. Of course, we're talking cost here. - client licenses for terminal server, citrix, and the loss of ... every benefit of a web app. But it is doable.

      --
      Starbucks, Harbuckle of Breath.
    41. Re:The "understood" security risks by omz13 · · Score: 1

      COULD it be fixed? Yes. But it would take months for me to do it, and it would cost too much to hire someone else. Scrapping it and rebuilding it is the only viable option, but management spent a ton of money on this app and nobody will admit that it's a disaster and a $1 million+ mistake.

      Management refusing to admit they screwed up... I'm shocked! ;-)

    42. Re:The "understood" security risks by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      No, management will see it as a cost, because the time spent on something WHICH ALREADY WORKS could be spent doing something else the company actually wants done. Are you really this dense? Did you miss all the posts where companies are refusing to allow newer browsers FOR THE SAME REASON I JUST STATED??

    43. Re:The "understood" security risks by jp10558 · · Score: 1

      We've ended up using Firefox 3 and trying to inform most users to use that. The issues we've had is that there isn't a (known to me anyway) way to centrally administer it. So if I need to set a new proxy setting, or need to change users home pages, it's not exactly something I can push out. And it's a bunch more work that IE to manage updates, so we just changed write access and let it update itself, hoping doing so breaks as few things as possible (like when 3 came out, and our timecard system didn't work in it, but had worked fine in FF2...).

      --
      Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3
    44. Re:The "understood" security risks by jp10558 · · Score: 1

      I hear this a bunch, but the problem I ran into in the trial right off was that lots of programs inherit the IE proxy setting now, including perhaps Firefox (or is this an option in v3? I'm not entirely sure but I remember something like this)... So if you've got an app that is otherwise fine, but its update checker, or its web functionality or something else stops working... Some of these don't have an option not to use the IE settings, or actually use the embedded IE (not sure what happens for say, Office 2003 help)...

      So now you get to
      a) replace a bunch of apps and hope you can find ones that don't do this
      b) try and potentially analyze the apps sites they want to access and whitelist (and the whitelist seems a bit cludgey too to me)
      c) do something else?

      --
      Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3
    45. Re:The "understood" security risks by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      I think MS beat you to that idea - offer virtualized XP with IE6 environment for running stupid legacy app.

  54. WinXP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    I've also found that there are a large number of folks who are still using old versions of WinXP with not-so-legit site licenses or corporate licenses who don't want to upgrade to Vista and don't intend to now pay for a license for an OS they have been using "free" for years and are stuck with IE6 because they can no longer perform windows updates.

  55. that's a good question by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    my solution was

    div.blah{
    -moz-border-radius: 3em;
    -webkit-border-radius: 3em;
    }

    how do i handle ie6,7,8? i don't. its called gracefully degrading. the site is uglier in ie than firefox/ safari/ chrome (and ugly in opera too: opera has no border-radius yet)

    oh well

    and there are other issues where the shoe is on the other foot. for some reason, ie, safari, chrome, and opera all render border-style:groove correctly, while mozilla seems to do some funky ugly thing with the style. then other bugs only effect the webkit browsers safari and chrome. its pretty much a given that every rendering directive i put in html or css or javascript, one of the 5 browsers i design for (opera, ie, chrome, safari, firefox) will render it wrong. well, not wrong, just different. but here's the key: if the "alternative" style is not truly heinous or interferes with UI, i just let it slide. so every site looks different in every browser

    oh well

    what i don't understand are these anal retentive developers who are so insistent on every pixel being exactly the same in every browser. just let some browsers look a little goofy, just let it slide, move on, no big deal

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:that's a good question by Dhalka226 · · Score: 1

      what i don't understand are these anal retentive developers who are so insistent on every pixel being exactly the same in every browser. just let some browsers look a little goofy, just let it slide, move on, no big deal

      Spoken as somebody who doesn't do website development for a living.

      I do, and I can tell you this: No developer I have ever come across likes IE6; no developer likes having to spend fairly large chunks of the development time of a project bashing their heads against browser-specific quirks. The people who pay the bills, however, tend to care very deeply--and that means the developers care as well. "Hey guys, this site is going to look borked for 20% of your visitors" doesn't fly, nor should it.

      That said, if you code in a standards-compliant way, just about every browser that isn't IE5 or earlier works very nearly the same. Not necessarily pixel-perfect, but awfully close. Generally close enough that we CAN let it slide (mostly text breaks in different places, and usually due to things like anti-aliasing/ClearType). IE6 tends to require a little hacking, but the more experience you get in doing so, the less time you ultimately have to spend whacking at things with crowbars to make IE6 happy. In other words, with experience you can draw IE6 closer to that "awfully close" realm.

      As far as your example, I don't particularly understand why you'd use a draft-version CSS property instead of just adding an extra div or two (depending on if you're rounding the top or all the edges) with a small image. This isn't the sort of difference I would simply chalk up to the fact that the web isn't a pixel-perfect medium. This is a change that if you're doing this for money you're going to need to get the client to sign off on as heartily as they signed off on the original design mockups. Don't get me wrong: I LOVE the fact that those CSS properties are coming down the road, and it will be ridiculously helpful and save quite a bit of time once they arrive with force enough to rely on them. That's just not now.

  56. slashdot is rendering for by circletimessquare · · Score: 2, Funny

    ie9 and firefox5

    they're way ahead of the curve man

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  57. Lie, Damn Lies, Statistics... by HerbanLegend · · Score: 1

    I dunno. These numbers seem very low to me for Firefox. I've recently reviewed other statistics sites and I've never seen FF given such a low marketshare. I think this might be a case of everybody's statistics differing. Now, show me the data for Google Analytics on googleanalytics.com (where the tracking script is loaded from) and I'd be willing to call those figures "authoritative."

    DJB

  58. Of course not by ryanvm · · Score: 1

    Why anyone thought IE8 would replace IE6 is beyond me. The people running IE6 are obviously not accepting the automatic updates from Microsoft. If they were they'd have been running IE7.

    Now, expecting IE8 to replace IE7 is certainly a logical conclusion, but that doesn't really help us much...

  59. Apply end6.org to your web site! by dwheeler · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Go to www.end6.org, download the little Javascript app, and apply it to your web site. Then, the first time the user goes to that site, they see a nag screen telling them to update their web browser. If they start seeing them on every site, they'll begin to get a clue.. while those whose companies will NOT allow change can at least get work done (it's not THEIR fault!). I installed in on my site, www.dwheeler.com, though in my case I complain about obsolete IE7 too.

    --
    - David A. Wheeler (see my Secure Programming HOWTO)
  60. None of this surprises me. by jskline · · Score: 1

    The fact is that there are many "coders" out there working on corporate sites that will only work around IE and it's active-X controls. It's no wonder they manually apply updates via managed server, and disallow updates to IE because it breaks their enterprise application code; and we don't want any over-worked enterprise coders now do we??!! :-0

    --
    All content in this message is copyright (c) 2008. All rights reserved. RIAA is prohibited here.
  61. This is why I left the business by DanCentury · · Score: 1

    I finally, and happily, left the web development business this year, and dealing with IE 6 and the goblins that support it was one big reason why I wanted out.

     

  62. Reason is pirated copies of XP unable to update! by DJRikki · · Score: 1

    I know thats why 2 of my own PC's are on IE6. WGA and Windows Update wont run any longer so no IE7/8 for those PC's.

  63. but by perryizgr8 · · Score: 1

    but i thought ie8 was an automatic update? shouldn't that have cured the ie6 disease?

    --
    Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
  64. Already with you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this morning I took five minutes to write a simple smarty block plugin: {ie6} ie6-only code here {/ie6}
    Now everyone who loads the page with their user-agent set to IE6 will receive a banner:
    WARNING: Your browser is reporting that it is highly insecure and outdated. Security upgrades have been available for over a decade, please select the reason you continue to put yourself and others at serious risk of virus infection and identity theft: (ajax-enabled dropdown or fallback to simple form). Once filled out, links to upgrades are provided.

    I really just did it because I want to know _why_ people use it.

  65. bots? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There may also be old bots (or libraries) which simply have their UserAgent still set to IE6...

  66. Re:Bull by Bert64 · · Score: 1

    Err, you probably have a proxy...

    --
    http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
  67. Should of allowed IE7+ on Win 2k by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well if Microsoft really wanted to outst IE6, they should of allowed IE7 on Windows 2000. There's plenty of Win 2k machines out there in corporations across america. Why? Because they are just 'good enough' and still can get the job done. F- Microsoft for not letting IE7 or IE8 work in Windows 2000. I hope they read this.

  68. Re:Bull by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IE6 probably provides your domain credentials via NTLM to an invisible proxy somewhere near your network porder. Firefox doesn't do NTLM (thank you!) so it will fail authentication every time which limits your access to outside networks.

  69. Who's fault? by Flammon · · Score: 1

    Microsoft. They sat on their ass after illegally crushing Netscape while setting the web back 5 years.

  70. Depression by specific_pacific · · Score: 1

    I make websites/applications for a living and have a company with designers and developers. IE6 has always been the bane of my existence. So much so that I feel like changing careers so I never have to work with it again. I thought it'd get easier but it's just one extra thing I have to do to get the website done.

    We're thinking of charging extra for IE6 compatibility, but I live in China and the majority of IE6 or 3rd party software which use IE6's rendering engine are in abundance. It's as close as I can feel to hating my job every time IE6 comes into the workflow.

    I hope you're reading this Microsoft - you've made the web a very unfun place for many years.

    1. Re:Depression by Peganthyrus · · Score: 1

      There is a chunk of Javascript that can get you 90% of the way to IE compatibility a lot of the time. Saves days of my life.

      --
      egypt urnash minimal art.
  71. gah. by apodyopsis · · Score: 1

    did we try holy water and a stake yet?

    I used to loathe IE6 - I used Opera until FF rescued me with an ad free alternative.

  72. Yeah, umm, good luck with that. by jonadab · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Feel free to continue trying to use it to browse the web. Heck, you can try to use IE4 if you want, what do I care?

    But as a web developer I quit testing in IE6 a year or so ago, and at this point I no longer test in IE7 either, since IE8 is on Automatic Updates, so any Windows system connected to the internet *should* have it, unless somebody has gone out of their way to avoid it, which is Their Problem(TM) as far as I'm concerned.

    I haven't gone out of my way to *break* IE6 and 7, and in fact I haven't done any significant sweeping changes to the website at work since IE8 came out, so for now it almost certainly still works fine in IE7, and well enough in IE6 to be usable if you can ignore things like the lack of proper transparency support. The old legacy IE6 stylesheet that I developed for IE6 several years ago is still there and probably still has things covered pretty well. For now.

    But, next time my boss comes to me and says, "I think we should change the website up again", IE6 and 7 will probably break. I don't test in them any more. How would I? All of the computers have been upgraded to IE8.

    Web developers can't make users upgrade their browsers. But neither do we keep supporting ancient browsers forever and ever. You can upgrade or not, your choice. But don't come whining to me if the site doesn't look right in NCSA Mosaic. I try to support a wide variety of browsers, but I've got limits, and anything that came out more than three years ago is generally beyond the limits, unless it's still the *current* default browser for one of the major platforms (as was the case with IE6 well beyond three years until IE7 finally hit Automatic Updates, for instance). More than three years old and *used* to be the default browser? Sorry, I've gotta draw the line somewhere. Feel free to send me a screenshot showing the problem, but I make no promises.

    --
    Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    1. Re:Yeah, umm, good luck with that. by rpresser · · Score: 1

      ...IE6 and 7 will probably break. I don't test in them any more. How would I? All of the computers have been upgraded to IE8.

      If there's the faintest possibility of you changing your mind and wanting to test in IE7 at least, check out Xenocode browser sandboxes.

  73. Explain what's wrong with this site by tepples · · Score: 1

    The question would be "What's wrong with this site? What isn't it displaying correctly?"

    Which is why user-agents that self-identify as IE 6 would get a link "What's wrong with this page?" near the top to a page explaining the situation:

    Microsoft Internet Explorer version 6 (IE 6) was introduced in 2001. Because IE 6 does not follow the latest developments in web standards, we are presenting a more basic view to users of IE 6. For the best viewing experience, please upgrade your web browser or ask your system administrator to do so.

  74. As Khan would say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IE6 tasks me, IE6 tasks me & I shall have it... I'll chase it around the moons of nebia, & thru the antaris malestrom & round perditions flames before I give IE6 up..

  75. Stats? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are these stats even correct? I usually go by this http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

    1. Re:Stats? by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      That website is used by tech people who's work field is the Web itself. The results there are as meaningless as doing a poll about car brand ownership with the CEOs of fortune 500 companies.

  76. No. It's up to the developers of the alternatives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't know what fantasy world you're living in, but in reality people will keep their browser and never visit your site again. Yeah, yeah, nothing of value was lost and all that. But then why have a website in the first place? Or do you consider the browser someone uses the most important part of someones personality? And there are more bizarre browsers out there than IE6 (especially mobile/embedded ones), what do you present them? If you're using nice semantical markup, pages might not render 100% OK, but they will be readable. If not, you're doing it wrong and your "The page looks crappy because of your IE6" translates nicely to "I'm too lazy/inept to fix my website and too much of an arsehole to admit something is wrong."
    So why are people still using IE6 you ask? Well, from what I've heard (small social circle, yeah, yeah, I'm a nerd, ~50 people, not all using IE6) the reason people don't upgrade is because IE7/8 and Firefox use too much memory and frankly run like tar on their computers. Buying a new computer is a hassle because you have to port all your settings and stuff and something always goes wrong, count on a week productivity lost. Then there is Iron/Chrome, which does run nicely, but it has an eyeball grinding Fisher-Price interface with Vista influences that's an order of magnitude worse than a misrendered page every now and then.
    You want people to drop IE6? Make other browsers run with a private working set of 20 MB. Make it so that your eyes don't hurt while using them. And make it take over Windows' internal HTML rendering control, because otherwise you'll have RSS readers, forum checkers, and so on, that are still and always will be little IE6's. If IE6 won't die, it isn't the user's fault. The people behind the competing browsers are to blame 100%.

  77. Re:Bull by zoips · · Score: 1

    Setup the proxy correctly in Firefox then try. Even at Microsoft you can use Firefox just fine and no one gives a crap.

  78. I hope it is not as bad as Cher and cockroaches... by motherpusbucket · · Score: 1

    as we know they'll survive nuclear attack. I guess IE6 could be added to the list.

    --
    "You can't really dust for vomit" --Nigel Tufnel
  79. Educate the users, then. by pyrr · · Score: 1

    We used to do this when they didn't have the ability to use frames, had too old of a browser, or used an unsupported browser. I used to have a couple different versions of websites to be both compatible with IE and Netscape, but now there's no reason for that. If I was implementing a site these days that was complex enough that IE 6 would choke on it, I don't think I'd even bother to make an alternate version. I'd just make a simple error page stating that the visitor was using an unsupported browser and have download links to mozilla.com and maybe microsoft.com.

    To the "...but your CLIENTS might need it!" argument which others have mentioned, would you really want a client like that? Being hopelessly behind due to organizational incompetence manifests itself in many ways, and one is using horribly outdated software. The customer is not always right, and taking-on a customer who's chronically wrong will bring worlds of grief. Part of good business management is being willing to "fire" your customers and not take jobs that will be more trouble than they're worth. The best case scenario is you somehow manage to make the customer happy and get paid. The more likely scenario is that nothing will make them happy, everything you do will be wrong because they don't have any clue what they actually want or how to implement it, they'll provide the wrong specs and then revise themselves time and time again, and then they'll not pay you & they'll mention how much you suck to the rest of their contacts. After a couple such experiences, I learned that I needed to screen my customers in much the same way that they reviewed the bids folks submitted to them. I haven't had a significant problem with a client since I took that mindset into bidding on jobs.

    1. Re:Educate the users, then. by nahdude812 · · Score: 1

      Back in that era, corporations didn't have mandatory browser versions like they do today. They still officially run IE 6 at work across all users. There are bits of COTS software that were hard-coded to IE 6 and fail miserably on IE 7 (and worse on other browsers). We warned them of such lock-in at the time, but it was not understood then how ubiquitous the browser would become, and the decision for lock-in looked pretty tempting back then (besides, IE 6 really was the best browser in 2001).

      The cost benefit is simply not there for a lot of companies to upgrade, some of these systems would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to replace, if not into the millions. You can either spend a million dollars and two years working on upgrading all these appliances, or you can stick with what already works and avoid software purchases which require versions incompatible with your platform. That's how the decision makers see it: expensive and no obvious benefit, or free and no obvious down side. It's just as easy to say no to a IE7+-only software package as it is to say no to an OS X-only package: if it's not compatible with the platform, it's not a candidate.

      Furthermore users are not allowed to install their own browser. I'd love to ditch IE 6 as much as the next guy (actually probably quite a bit above average as it's a constant neverending thorn in my side), but we don't have the luxury of dictating our clients' browser requirements. They're our client, they tell us what the requirement is, we're just the vendor who quotes it that way.

  80. Re:Bull by FictionPimp · · Score: 1

    Or they use a proxy server and you need to setup Firefox to use that as well.

  81. they think i caused by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    all of their 404 errors ;-)

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  82. amateur pirates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you're doing it wrong.

  83. Firefox vs IE... why? by s4lt3d · · Score: 1

    Would someone mind explaining why Firefox vs IE is such a big deal. I don't see what either company gains out of this stupid competition. Its not like firefox or ie make any profit any time I use either of their products. It seems like this is just a game of who's balls are bigger.

    1. Re:Firefox vs IE... why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From 1995 or so until March 2008, the browser wars were fought between browsers that supported standards (like Firefox and Opera) and browsers that did not (like Netscape version 4 and IE versions 1 through 7). In March 2008, Microsoft released IE 8 which supports standards. For the first time since 1995 or so, every major browser's current release supports web standards.

      From now on, the same HTML, CSS, and Javascript should look and work pretty much the same in any browser, no matter what browser the user chooses.

      Now the new browser wars are being fought over standards compliance, features, security, reliability, and performance. This is competition that will benefit end-users tremendously.

      Unfortunately, usage of IE 6 continues for various reasons. This slows down the arrival of web nirvana.

      Another milestone will occur in the future. Microsoft has announced that support for IE 6 will end on July 13, 2010. http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifesupsps/#Internet_Explorer

  84. Crappy webpages by drolli · · Score: 1

    There are ton of small administrative web-tools in companies out there which only run when using ie6

  85. Looking at the wrong problem by odin84gk · · Score: 1

    I would love to get IE7 or IE8 working on my PC here at work, but I cannot do this because I don't have the permissions for the installation. I tried. The application that you need to install never recognized that it was already installed, so it keeps trying to install itself. (Yes, I have a legit machine. I even have that stupid windows code sticker on my PC). If Micro$oft cared that much, they would let me install it without going through the WGA. In the mean time, I will happily use my Firefox to take care of business.

  86. Hey hey, my my by hamburgler007 · · Score: 0

    IE6 can never die.

  87. Portable Firefox = No Excuses to Use IE6 by WebmasterNeal · · Score: 1

    I'm tired of people complaining about how they're stuck with IE6 at their company and can't install other programs. Why not download Portable Firefox which requires no installation and use that?

    --
    "During My Service In The United States Congress, I Took The Initiative In Creating The Internet." -Al Gore
    1. Re:Portable Firefox = No Excuses to Use IE6 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Firefox is way better than IE6, no doubt about that. But if I had decided my company runs IE6 and one of my users would run an unauthorized executable, i'd clearly have to chop of his hands. There is a reason why users have only as much permissions on a computer as needed!

  88. antitrust fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thank our judicial system for letting microsoft get away with being a monopoly and pushing their browser onto every windows machine, the whole world must suffer seemingly indefinitely. The whole microsoft vs. netscape case failed to provide justice. While we are add it windows media player sucks @$$, and countless people in the world are suffering from being pushed into this "default" video player. Sadly most people aren't computer literate enough to know there are options, and that's the whole problem with microsoft's practices...

  89. Internet Explorer 6 Will not Die??? by theeddie55 · · Score: 1

    I find that rather strange. When I used it many moons ago it seemed to die about every 20 minutes or so.

  90. easy way to implement that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's a real easy way to implement that. Add this code to any web page. Anyone with IE 7, IE 6, or previous will get a message to upgrade. No one else will see the message.

    <!--[if lte IE 7]>
      To view this site, you will need to <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/ie/">upgrade Internet Explorer</a>, or <a href="http://www.getfirefox.com">get another browser</a>
      <![endif]-->

  91. Two Words: Regulatory compliance by DRAGONWEEZEL · · Score: 1

    Those two words makes it tough for some business' to move from ie6. In healthcare, everything has to be tested, and FDA approved. ie7 didn't last long, so hoping they start dev now for 8 and move to that (or ff or whatever browser). Even in a greatly structured organization. Just because we have to do something "right now" doesn't mean we can do it "right now." though I agree there should be more done to move in this direction faster, some entities are large beyond comprehension. Healthcare is one of them.

    --
    How much is your data worth? Back it up now.
  92. Enough whining about it. by wiedzmin · · Score: 1

    Really, how is this a story? This should be tagged "duh", it has been repeated and restated so many times. Yes it's not going away, yes the enterprises love it - get over this already, please. How about we start writing about possible ways of making the transition easier, instead of continuing to carry the same whining torch around? Thank you.

    --
    Bow before me, for I am root.
  93. End of life? by Zaiff+Urgulbunger · · Score: 1

    Doesn't IE6 get end-of-lifed around June 2010? I can't believe any corporate would consider running IE6 after that... they could reasonably be sued by their own customers if say they lost data due to a hack.

    1. Re:End of life? by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 1

      A lot of companies don't have a choice. They depend on Web-based "enterprise" applications internally that're hard-coded to work only with IE6. They can't or won't upgrade those applications, and they don't have any replacement, so they have to continue to use IE6 if they want to operate. Even upgrading to IE7 or IE8 isn't viable, the webapps refuse to work with those versions.

  94. Acceptable in IE6 by suggsjc · · Score: 1

    The way I approach IE6 is to get it to an "acceptable" level of usability but not go out of my way to make it look as good as say the latest Firefox. For instance, I don't put any PNG transparency hacks, etc.

    At my site, ~40% of my traffic is Firefox, ~30% is IE of which ~5% is IE6 (or below...all grouped together). FWIW, I used the YUI as a reference design for my layout and using BrowserShots nearly every browsers handles the layout (more or less) correctly.

    --
    When I have a kid, I want to put him in one of those strollers for twins and then run around the mall looking frantic.
  95. and we believe these people why? by Peganthyrus · · Score: 1

    Who are these guys? What's their methodology for getting data?

    When I go to their home page to see if I can discover these things, a bar on the side tells me that I'm running "Operating System
    Mac OSX - Puma 10.4.11". This does not make me wanna trust these people.

    --
    egypt urnash minimal art.
    1. Re:and we believe these people why? by Arimus · · Score: 1

      Agree... for my system they got alot of info right but this bit strikes me as ODD to say the least... 0.660% and use a broadband connection

      So of all the people they have info on only another 0.66% of them use Broadband... :)

      Me smells something...

      --
      --- Users are like bacteria -> Each one causing a thousand tiny crises until the host finally gives up and dies.
  96. Can't RTFA... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This site requires Adobe Flash Player 8 (or above) to view the charts. Please click on Ok to install Flash.

  97. Costs too much money apparently by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's because companies (like AT&T for example) don't want to spend the money to upgrade beyond IE6 internally, even though you'd think they would be a leader.

  98. IE6 Support Is Not "Free" Either... by EXTomar · · Score: 1

    There is a cost to staying with IE6 as well so I'm not sure why people cling to the idea that cash strapped IT departments need to stay with IE6. They day will come when the cost of maintenance of software to support IE6 is greater than it is for other solutions. Kicking the can down the road until then is a recipe for disaster where no one should support software like this without a "end of support" plan.

  99. if ie6 is really so insecure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    then someone should be able to code up an exploit that force installs IE7 or IE8 (and ff while you're at it).
    that'd kill IE6, if its really so insecure...

  100. Been there too by einhverfr · · Score: 1

    When we forked LedgerSMB from SQL-Ledger, the project was pretty much as you describe.

    My suggestion:
    1) Analyze the db.
    2) Start building a NEW application which is properly structured and engineered (rather than merely written quickly) and as this happens use headers to redirect to/from the old application.
    3) Eventually retire the old application.

    This may take a year or even two. However, in the end it will save your employer a ton of money, headaches, and outages.......

    --

    LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
  101. Gracefully Degrade or get off the Soapbox by halcyonandon1 · · Score: 1

    First, Forgive me if I didn't look closely enough, but I'm not seeing how these statistics are substantiated. On your first link it says one thing and on the other its completely different and what makes this source so valid over something like http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp Now to the point: So what if ie6 is a dev pain, that isn't news. Yes, you build for current standards, but you should also build so your site will gracefully degrade, not just regarding client-side script (JS), but with your markup and styles as well. Just because a visitor can't receive your site exactly the way you want them to, doesn't mean you should instruct them to upgrade just for your site. I'm sorry but if a front-end developer's biggest complaint is accounting for ie6, they should just deal with it and stop whining about ie6 usage and new standards that conflict with the browser. ...Or you can ignore ie6 and its users and justify your elimination of a user market share however you see fit. Please just stay off your soapbox because trying to get others to hop on your bandwagon using a broken record is just annoying

  102. Easy peasy by geekoid · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "If you upgrade to a newer version of IE, or Firefox we will give you 5% off next year."

    You will save that in not needing to maintain for the pile of crap.
    It's business, money talks.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:Easy peasy by poetmatt · · Score: 1

      What you're saying is idealist and all, but not even closely attributed to reality in an enterprise. The costs to migrate off of everything you have, in the short term, are much higher than the longterm savings that IE8/firefox will give. Not everything is magically black and white like you say.

      Hell, I'd love to get into a position so I can make that kind of statement like you just said and have it actually be listened to but let me assure you at many companies that is an idea that there isn't even an position for: common sense software basically.

    2. Re:Easy peasy by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      The costs to migrate off of everything you have

      ...will always be there, regardless of when you choose to migrate. You're not losing any money by migrating now, in fact it's a better decision to migrate now versus later because you can migrate to a platform that is able to easily be upgraded in the future, and you can do it at your leisure. Businesses can now see that it wasn't a great idea to bind all of their processes to IE6 specifically. The sooner they can get off that model, the better, for them. It's in their own interest to migrate. You can even make the point that if they delay migration, they're taking a huge risk that if their environment is not compatible with future software than they *have* to migrate, at that point with a small timeframe and great expense. Might as well plan for a migration now, when there's no rush, right? I don't think there's any company out there who plans on using a browser released in 2001 as their platform of choice for the next 30 years.

      There are a ton of reasons to migrate, the only reason not to migrate is that it might take some work, and only if your processes are specifically tied to IE6 (as opposed to just testing your stuff to make sure it works). People who take the attitude that they can't change a company's policies are not helping the situation. The IT staff and the decision makers are able to be reasoned with, believe it or not.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    3. Re:Easy peasy by poetmatt · · Score: 1

      You're arguing with the wrong person. It makes perfect sense to me and you.

      It does not, unfortunately, when argued from a business perspective. If your business is in financially hard times right now, how are you going to make the case to spend more to save more later? It's kind of a hard case at that point. Most companies do not understand how big of a priority IT is, and/or maybe it isn't? Who are we to speak for that. 9 times out of 10 though, it's either a lack of understanding or other priorities. Of course it's in their interest as opposed to my own, but those types of phrases will fall on dead ears in a business meeting unless you are the IT director. There is no way to say such a phrase appropriately in a business setting if you don't have the clout to get people to listen to it. In the end, corporate politics trumps necessary IT changes.

      Also, migration doesn't happen overnight. there's lots of in house testing at smart companies, etc, to make sure things work. Companies aren't that flexible outright until they can shed off the IE6 the problems that has. It's not like "oh hey, we're done with IE6, lets go swap to chrome. Sure, that'll handle our CSS fine! /whoops"

    4. Re:Easy peasy by Tycho · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, give higher final cost projections to support IE 6 and a lower figure to drop support of IE 6. If these businesses are run by extreme hypercapitalists, dropping IE 6 support should have some sort of business case when IE 6 costs more. If their workers still need IE 6 for other situations, install FireFox 3, make FF the primary browser and IE 6 can be used only when necessary. IE6 and IE8 can't coexist on the same system, but FF3 and IE6 can.

      --
      Impersonating Tycho from Penny Arcade since before there was a PA.
  103. IE6 End-of-Life is 13-Jul-2010 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Microsoft will no longer provide any updates for IE6 come 13-Jul-2010. That means no security patches which means many businesses will have to move to something else. My company will tell our clients that come that date.

    http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifesupsps/#Internet_Explorer

  104. Please see my other comment by tepples · · Score: 1

    Portable Firefox.

    Please see my other comment about Portable Firefox.

  105. It's up to corporate IT budgets by tknd · · Score: 1

    The web developers are often just working with what's there and are told what to do otherwise they won't get paid. The real driver for the IE6 cancer is large corporations with old web apps they don't want to bother to upgrade to newer standards. The web apps were developed for IE6 and work in IE6, but nobody wants to pay the money to have them tested and upgraded to IE7,8 or Firefox.

  106. Software restriction policy by tepples · · Score: 1

    I have never seen a windows network where you weren't able to execute your own binaries

    What you've never seen does exist. Please see my other comment.

  107. IE=70.00% by Ichijo · · Score: 1

    IE7 + IE6 + IE8 = 43.51 + 18.23 + 8.26 = 70.0% share

    In fact, it's exactly 70.00%. That's a suspiciously nice, round number. Has someone been cooking the data?

    --
    Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
  108. IE Tab by Isaac-Lew · · Score: 1
    For all the people that have to use IE 6/7/8 to view and/or access websites...why not use IE Tab?

    http://ietab.mozdev.org/index.html

  109. could be useful for targeted marketing by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    What if customers that run IE6 are also the same customers that rack up huge costs in tech support calls or often have systems too obsolete to run your software? Seems like a good way to dramatically reduce exposure to those customers if your website intentionally lacks support for IE6.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  110. Late to the party by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To the /. powers, I run IceWeasel and your website only works well with user-agent switched to IE6. Remember when you point a finger at someine, three fingers point back at yourself. Or whatever.

  111. problems won't go away with IE 6 by Alrescha · · Score: 1

    "especially if you develop for business sites"

    Two business sites that I need to visit on a regular basis don't work with Safari or Opera - but they work with IE and Firefox. Not to start a war, but if your code is specific to *any* browser, it's probably broken.

    A.

    --
    ...bringing you cynical quips since 1998
  112. not going away any time soon by Gary+W.+Longsine · · Score: 1

    Yup. It's a much bigger problem than people realize. Many companies are very dependent on a mountain of applications which were built exactly in the manner of the one you describe. Management didn't budget for maintenance of the application, so IT staff are "maintaining" it by responding to crisis situations which float to the top of priorities and put other work on hold. Maintenance of applications is a cost that is nearly always underfunded or not funded in corporate IT. Heck, most companies can't even tell you how many custom applications they have. They don't even know until they break how critical they have become to some process or another. The converse happens occasionally, too, where a "critical" application breaks and nobody notices for quite a while. That happens less often, though.

    --
    If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
  113. Have to Agree by Mutatis+Mutandis · · Score: 1

    We are also more-or-less stuck with IE6 at work, because this is the "supported" browser of the IT department. Those of us who still retain adequate user rights to do it have installed Firefox -- and actually that is the unofficial advice we get from the people in the IT department if we report browser problems!

    Very little of our internal applications doesn't run under Firefox. More is broken under IE6... Yet IT continues to install and support IE6 as default browser. (I don't know whether they are trying to fudge IE6 onto Windows Vista!)

  114. Not allowed to use FireFox at work by incognito84 · · Score: 1

    The technicians where I work disallow everyone to use anything other than IE6,7 and 8 on their work PCs. I had FireFox for awhile and they said it was inadvisable to use as it was "full of spyware / malware." There are a bunch of pre-approved applications we're allowed to use and the staff are very inflexible about it.

  115. IE6 support already dropped by scarlac · · Score: 1

    Actually our company recently dropped IE6 support unless specifically asked for.

    The reason?
    All statistics from monitored sites and campaigns are showing roughly a 1% drop per month of IE6 and we are currently raging from 12% to 18% (with a single one at 23%). Most users seem to be upgrading to IE7 which is fine. The general Firefox share is consistently larger than the IE6 share which only makes sense if you are comparing "the lowest common denominator"... which we are.

    How do we deal with our clients?
    We advice them. If the client specifically asks for IE6 we will explain the budget implications (which is the truth of IE6). Actually we've had several clients who are positive of the way we handle it since they can suddenly ask for much more without being told "well, it won't perform/look good/work in ie6". We've had no complaints yet and the current trend tells us there is no need to worry.

    According to my experience I find reason to doubt the conclusion that IE6 will not die. It may sound optimistic but I project that IE6 will be irrelevant to most developers within 12 months.

    Seph

  116. Of course it's still around by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My current workplace has IE6 as the default browser because of websites that were written explicitly for it. Fortunately, I have local administrator, so I installed Firefox.

    I used to be the sysadmin for a high school. My base image has only IE6. Why?

    - The teacher portal frontend was IE6-only. Even if I included Firefox, many teachers' brains would explode if they had two browsers.

    - Ditto for the computer labs. If I put Firefox in labs, teachers would accuse me of "taking the Microsoft Internet off the computers".

    The web design teacher/school webmistress was largely computer illiterate, designing the school's website straight out of "Web Design for Dummies". I offered to include Opera, Mozilla, and Firefox in her lab to let students view their work in multiple browsers, and she couldn't even respond to the question. She later called me at home to complain to me that the school's website, which she wrote 100%, didn't work in Mozilla. Doh!

    I even offered to give her web design students directories on an internal IIS server, so they could see their pages on a real web server instead of just with UNC paths. She refused this offer, yet every year when funding came out, told me she wanted to get a web server for her classes. I'd tell her I could just set up IIS on an existing server, and I was not going to stuff another server into my already-overheated server room. Her head would explode from information overload, and the conversation would repeat the next year.

  117. Fuck IE6 and fuck people who use it by SnapperHead · · Score: 1

    By using IE6 you are personally responsible for holding back innovation. Countless development time is wasted supporting the completely broken browser. If the company you work for is still using IE6, then they are a serious problem. Well, personally I would never work for a company that is a Windows shop, but that is a whole other story.

    All my development supports modern browsers only. If you can't or won't upgrade, then too bad ... its not my problem. The percentage of IE6 users against all my sites is very low, sub 10% of users. But even if it was 25% or more ... it still wouldn't cause me to waste precious development time on a pile of shit browser.

    When you visit some of my sites you are given a warning that the site will be broken in IE6 and that you need to upgrade.

    This is what happens when you get in bed with Microsoft, you will get screwed in the end.

    --
    until (succeed) try { again(); }
  118. Wake me by mrwolf007 · · Score: 1

    when IE is down to 66.6%.

  119. Killing support for IE6. by MikeFM · · Score: 1

    This summer I'm killing support for IE6 from all my sites. IE7 is the new dino. Very little revenue comes from IE6 users anyway although they still make up about 10% of my traffic.

    --
    At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
  120. And better by coryking · · Score: 1

    Do what I did on my website and detect when a user is on IE6 and give them a nice fat message saying "Upgrade you bozo. See these screenshots of how nice this site looks on a real website (links to screenshots)? You are missing out!".

    Dont just drop the hacks, tell the IE6 users you are dropping the hacks and show them pictures of what they are missing out on!!

  121. That is why you detect IE6 by coryking · · Score: 1

    And give them a message and screen shots of what your website would look like if they upgraded to a modern browser.

  122. I'm not saying it's MS Fault but... by Jekkaman · · Score: 1

    If microsoft included Internet Explorer 7 in Service Pack 3 or future service packs IE6 usage would be vastly reduced.(Since XP is mainstream and it comes with ie6..)

  123. Bad browser.... Die, die, die! by youn · · Score: 1

    Vade Retro Satajax!

    --
    Never antropomorphize computers, they do not like that :p
  124. Candidate webapp: youtube? by jonaskoelker · · Score: 1

    What if someone develops a html 5 webapp, using a speedy browser as a base that becomes a killer must have app?

    Last I heard, Google is losing money on youtube, per unit of traffic.

    If they convert youtube to HTML 5 (or in other ways break it for IE 6, and tell the users that it doesn't work in IE 6), would people switch?

    If no, then the IE 6 users would go away, and Google would lose less money. If yes, then woo-hoo ;) maybe if Google advertised Chrome as a replacement...

    But... is it evil to use your power to make people do something they don't really want? If Google felt Opera was better than Firefox and tried to force me to switch, I definitely wouldn't be happy with them, so I think it's bound to generate some ill will.

    Also: if your corporate IT overlords won't let you use anything other than IE 6, you just lose, so the web app needs to be a must-have to corporate users (and more so than their IE 6-only web apps).

  125. IE 6 will not die? by mgcarley · · Score: 1

    I have one word for this: aaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrggggggh!

    Of course, there are ways around it. I find the most effective is to include something like

    <!-- Additional IE/Win specific style sheet (Conditional Comments) -->
                <!--[if IE]>
                <style type="text/css" media="all">@import "/fix-ie.css";</style>
                <![endif]-->

    or

    <!--[if lt IE 7]>
        <style type="text/css" media="all">@import "/fix-ie.css";</style>
        <![endif]-->

    between and . Then I don't necessarily have to hack the stylesheet, it will just load and override the previously defined elements.

    --
    Founder & COO, Hayai India (hayai.in) / USA (hayaibroadband.com) // t: @mgcarley