Slashdot Mirror
The Man At Microsoft Charged With Destroying IE6
Barence writes "The man in charge of Internet Explorer has told PC Pro that he's been tasked with destroying IE6. Internet Explorer 6 continues to be the most used browser version in the world at the ripe old age of nine. IE6's position as the default browser in Windows XP means many companies still cling to the browser. 'Part of my job is to get IE6 share down to zero as soon as possible,' said Ryan Gavin, head of the Internet Explorer business group. Microsoft has also been giving further previews of Internet Explorer 9, with demonstrations showing two 720p HD videos running simultaneously on a netbook, thanks to IE9's GPU-accelerated graphics."
To kill IE6, kill XP. Here's how.
1. End all security updates for XP.
2. Wait for the first botnet to come up with a XP hack.
3. Say "Sorry, you need to upgrade. Now!" to the crying victims.
If IE9 is supposed to destroy the previous versions of IE then they better support IE9 on XP.
XP is still a solid operating system and currently has the highest market share.
No one is going to upgrade their OS just because there is a new browser from Microsoft.
If they really want IE6 usage to reach zero, the people at MS will have to swallow some pride and realize that there are some of us who refuse to 'upgrade" like little sheep. Otherwise, IE6 will still be around for quite some time. Oh, wait, Firefox 3.6 runs on Win2k...never mind...
The problem, in the simplest terms, is that there are too many IE6 only sites and applications that are currently working "well enough", particularly internal to companies, and mucking with something that works already is a non-starter for many management types. No matter how much sense it makes to us, to them it's just money spent and risk taken to get back to where they currently are, functionality wise.
Could IE introduce a sort of "browser virtual machine" where IE9 would start up what would internally amount to a sandboxed version of IE6 if it ran into an IE6 only site? (Of course, that begs the question of recognizing such a site, but presumably Microsoft would stand some chance of recognizing such behaviors since they created IE6 to begin with.) If you can't kill the old applications, you've got to work with them if you want to kill IE6 - perhaps IE9 could borrow a page from the VMWare/VirtualBox world and sort of do a "browser within a browser" to try and maintain compatibility while isolating the IE6 badness from any sane webpage? OSX provided a bridge for old Mac applications when they appeared on the scene which amounted to an old Mac within the new environment, so perhaps that's another possible model.
Dunno if it's workable even in principle, but I don't see how else to move stubborn IE6 users.
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
IE6 will die ... eventually. When WinXP dies.
But Microsoft pushed for too many IE6-specific extensions for their development products.
Now companies NEED to run IE6 or spend time and money (and pain) re-writing the crappy apps that have evolved over the last 9 years.
To replace IE6, you need to wait for WinXP to die or you need to offer IE6 compatibility in the new browser.
I keep hearing about how IE9 will support HTML 5. I would much rather hear about how it will fully support HTML 4 and CSS 2. I'll even settle for its supporting 95% of HTML 4 and CSS 2.
I keep hearing about how IE9 will support HTML 5 media elements like <video> and <audio>. I'd much rather hear about IE9 correctly rendering nested, cascading <object> elements as HTML 4 describes.
Get the HTML 4 stuff working before trumpeting about HTML 5 functionality, please. God knows you've had enough time.
The Internet is full. Go away.
Karma is a bitch...
I expect they are now regretting that the barriers they put in place to prevent IE6 being displaced by Firefox, Opera, and other browsers is now effective at preventing IE6 from being displaced by another browser from themselves.
-- Terry
starseeker wrote; "but presumably Microsoft would stand some chance of recognizing such behaviors since they created IE6 to begin with."
Since when did Microsoft start caring about backward compatibility? Do you even know who we are discussing here? Microsoft has been rather craven about forcing users of its applications to upgrade. They don't make money by allowing people to stay with older operating systems and applications. And now that Apple has passed them in market capitalization, the heat is on to improve profitability. They don't know of any other way to make money than to force people to upgrade.
Best regards.
demonstrations showing two 720p HD videos running simultaneously on a netbook, thanks to IE9's GPU-accelerated graphics
How about demonstrating flawless backwards compatibility with ancient activeX plugins on Oracle financials running under winXP...
M$ spend YEARS ignoring browsers. "IE is good enough." Now that they have competition they care again about their browser. IE9 will be the bestest browser EVER! (What happened to IE8?) Will businesses finally see the light and realize that M$ is ONLY IN IT FOR THE MONEY. I hear the iPeople out there saying "Apple. Apple is better". No they are WORSE. Proprietary software and PROPRIETARY HARDWARE. Think IBM Mainframes baby.
Destroy IE6. How about money back to all the copies of Vista you forced on people who had to buy a new computer? Don't thrust them, microsoft, they will stop caring as soon as the market share is back up to 99.999999999%. Mr. Charged with destroying IE6 will be out of a job. Ready the "This site best viewed in IE9" banners so called webmasters. The internet will suck once more.
demonstrations showing two 720p HD videos running simultaneously on a netbook, thanks to IE9's GPU-accelerated graphics
How about demonstrating flawless backwards compatibility with ancient activeX plugins on Oracle financials running under winXP...
How about not. How about we let that crap die and then dance on its grave.
If your company was foolish enough to build its infrastructure on proprietary vendor-specific crap, then you deserve to get bitten in the ass when those proprietary vendors change their minds. Perhaps in the future you'll think more carefully. If not, well, there's always the VM option.
1. Go to the head of the Office business group.
2. Make sure they drop support for XP in the next version of Office.
IE 6 won't die until XP dies. XP won't die until Office won't run on it.
GO after vendors that still require there users to us IE6 in the work place.
Once it's not in the work place, it will leave the home.
I would love to get rid of it at work, but vendors(I'm looking at YOU Oracle) still have apps that require it.
There slated to get rid of it, but not for 2 more years.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
This is the key. My company also rolled out a new intranet and only supports IE6 (in fact, they've issued warnings around the company that Firefox isn't secure as it doesn't received 'regular security updates'. Oh, the fun).
However, the person they roped in to build the intranet included a few comments in the source code, specifically "Internet Explorer 6 is fucking terrible" "I had to hack this code to even get it to work" and an entire subfolder named "IE6sux".
So that's what MS has to deal with, corporations who figure if it ain't broke then there's no reason to fix it. Problem is, they don't actually realise what 'broke' is.
Between the falling angel and the rising ape
Including IE in Windows and making it the default browser isn't a barrier to using another browser. If it were nobody would be using other browsers today.
I remember back when Microsoft was begging people to use IE6 and write apps to its API. In spite of all of the advice not to go down that path, some IT people did just that. They staked their reputation on that move. And now Microsoft expects these people to go to the BOD and say, "Remember how I begged you to go with IE6 a few years ago? And even though it was going to cost us a bundle in training, tools and development costs, it was going to be worth it. Because Microsoft promised us it was. Well, now they say we've got to spend a bundle more to undo all the crap we did. I know. They lied to us once. But we can trust them this time. Really. They wouldn't do it again, would they?"
The people responsible for tying their companies to IE6 have made it a few steps up the management ladder. If you thought they had some pull back when they made that fateful IE6 decision, what sort of power do you think they have now? Microsoft wants these people to make what could be a carer limiting (or ending) move. They'll have to admit that they bought the Microsoft sales pitch back then, cost the company a bundle of money, and now it looks like it was money down a rat hole. Gavin needs the trust and good will of these people if he ever expects them to buy the next Microsoft package. This doesn't look like a smart way of doing it.
Have gnu, will travel.
Google isn't the only one gagging...
I like to think of online DRM as something akin to a college -- you pay for lessons until you learn something.
The real problem is experts who don’t have the balls to stand up to the management, and tell them that they know better (after all, that is the reason the are paid, no?), and that if they hire experts to then not listen to them, they are idiots and will fuck up their company. So what is the reason again, to work for a boss who deliberately destroys the company? I would go straight to the big boss, and tell him that that idiot is fucking up his company, and list all the ways that he hurts him and costs him money.
Or in short: Geeks, you are the experts, so get some fucking balls! (And start searching alternative jobs, since you should always have at least one or two other places where you can go.)
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.