Slashdot Mirror
YouTube Phasing Out Support For IE6
Oracle Goddess sends word that YouTube is presenting IE6 users with a banner exhorting them to upgrade to a modern browser, and TechCrunch is reporting that YouTube will be phasing out support for IE6 soon. This Twitter search reflects the jubilation breaking out all over the Net at the imminent demise of this most despised and non-standards-compliant browser. The market share for IE6 is now well down in the single digits.
Good. That's like phasing out of support for cancer.
The market share for IE6 is now well down in the single digits.
According to whom? Even on w3schools.com, which is visited almost exclusively by web developers, more than 14% of people are still using IE6.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
What is needed is a good exorcism. IE6 needs to be cast out from the net and its bloated carcass nailed to a tree as a lesson to others.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
My experiences with large corp and gov't clients tells me otherwise.
IE6 was a decent browser, aside from the fact it was a pain to code for and insecure.
This hamburger is decent, aside from the fact that it's growing mold and smells like urine.
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
So, you're saying it was a decent browser in all ways except what truly makes a decent browser decent?
I can think of a few things that make IE6 (not exclusively, but still) a horrible browser:
ActiveX
Non-standard HTML rendering
Lack of tabs
ActiveX
Lack of support for many standard files (PNG, anyone?)
Crashing when fed simple code
Oh, and ActiveX.
I know quite a few LARGE corporate environments that won't be upgrading any time soon since IE7/8 "breaks" their intranet web apps and they aren't about to budget for updating apps that work on the existing browser.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
IE7 doesn't run on Windows 2000.
if IE6 is not supported by youtube, and many other popular, non work related sites follow suit, wouldnt enterprises prefer to keep IE6 as it would automatically prevent employees from accessing video/social networking sites from work, and additional money would not have to be spent on proxies and other content restriction system??
since their own apps are in house they can keep IE6 forever w/o any problems
This Twitter search reflects the jubilation breaking out all over the Net
Yeah, there's a virtual kegger going on over at Twitter about this. Is that going to be our new gauge of how things are going on in the computing world? Has netcraft confirmed it?
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
IE6 was a decent browser, aside from the fact it was a pain to code for and insecure.
Car analogy:
IE8 is your your new car. It runs smooth, and there are no real complaints about the reliability. The seats are little on the hard side, and you'd like more leg room.
IE6 is your old car. It broke down every other week, belched poisonous black smoke into the cars around it, and the doors didn't close properly. But the seats were soft and you had more leg room.
Your old car was 'decent' the same way IE6 was decent.
And lets face it, IE8's UI isn't terrible. You might not be used to it, or like it as much, but its objectively not all that bad. They've moved things around, and hid a lot of stuff almost nobody used. But the tab support and integrated search alone make the UI superior. I don't find it slow (but I have lots of RAM). I still prefer Firefox, but I no longer loathe using (or developing for) Internet Explorer.
He never claimed that IEs 7 & 8 weren't horrible.
Twitter search? Really? I mean.... Really?!?
+1 Disagree
First, actions like this from massively broad based sites are critical to finally wiping the scourge of IE6 development off the planet. So initial Kudos to YouTube for taking the step.
Of course, YouTube == Google; so no shock that they're willing to disparage IE6, right?
But here's the difference between Google and Microsoft --
The banner shown here, on YouTube (owned by Google) doesn't JUST list Chrome as the upgrade path. It clearly gives equal exposure to Chrome, Firefox, and IE8 -- the biggest competing product to its own browser.
That's the right way to do be competitive in a social networking context. I think we know that if this was say, Bing! or Hotmail, it would show a link to IE8 but that's it. Well, ok, we don't KNOW that, but most of us assume it. I certainly do.
The problem with quotes on the internet, is that nobody bothers to check their veracity. -- Abraham Lincoln
Watching porn.
Was it really that hard to figure out?
Exactly what I was going to say. Provide a simple link to a video file and even lynx could view Youtube.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
In other news, office cubicle productivity has coincidentally soared to heights not seen since before the launch of Youtube... Next up...
This Twitter search reflects the jubilation breaking out all over the Net
All that twitter search shows is that people who use twitter are commenting on it. It does not show jubilation breaking out all over the Net.
You refuse to use XP, Vista, Linux, Opera and Firefox, but IE6 is peachy-keen?
Lol.
I have to agree.
I prefer to use a web browser, not an add-on, extension fluffed "application display system." HTML. No CSS, no mime-types, no scripting.
I can't say when, but /. changed something to make using this site painful 6-12 months ago.
And who cares about corporations who refuse to move on from a tool that even the creator has killed off?
You do. Forget Windows and IE - do you have ANY idea how many POS (Point Of Sale) systems there are out there that still rely on DOS? The answer will scare you. "Upgrading" software is an expense and a potential business risk. Sometimes the rewards are not worth the expense. I have clients that have computer systems that are 10, 15 and even 25 years old and not about the be replaced anytime soon. You can make a very profitable living maintaining and integrating legacy systems and there are lots out there.
Survival of the fittest always wins, always.
And what, pray tell, is your definition of fittest? Unfortunately I can think of many definitions of fittest that don't equal best, modern, up-to-date, robust or (sadly) secure.
Why the hell don't some companies allow the use of another browser?
Cost mostly. Typically they have some old code that will cost money to update and they can't make a business case to do it yet. Usually they'll upgrade in due time but it might take years or even decades.
Funny is they don't figure what actually made youtube succsessful.
Youtube would work in any browser which manages to run Flash in it. That is the trick. Nothing else needed. If Flash runs, Youtube is there even including mobile browsers (e.g. Nokia).
Can't IE really display comments and Google ads? That is all needed for youtube. Flash works in its own way, glory days of "live script" is over really. Sad but true.
IE 6 is still used on large corporations and there is no chance you will be able to "upgrade to chrome" unless you want a visit from BOFH with your manager asking what the hell you are trying to achieve. Yes, a managed client these days won't just stop you, it will also alert admin via security solution, "attempt to install unauthorised software" in recession would be a nice excuse for them.
Oh BTW, unless some miracle happens and a open source/standard commitee invents something which will be a 1.1 MB download, without any dictation of software, completely supported in number 1 pro design suite and various pro video authoring/serving solutions, Flash is there to stay.
HTML5 video would have a huge chance if they were wise to adopt H264 as standard and Dirac as optional codec. Also publicly bitching/whining/attacking both Apple and Adobe which are called "mecca of multimedia" won't really help.