IE6 Addiction Inhibits Windows 7 Migrations

eldavojohn writes "As anyone in the industry will tell you, a lot of money went into developing web applications specific to IE6. And corporations can't leave Windows XP for Windows 7 until IE6 runs (in some way) on Windows 7. Microsoft wants to leave that non-standard browser mess behind them, but as the article notes, 'Organizations running IE6 have told Gartner that 40% of their custom-built browser-dependent applications won't run on IE8, the version packaged with Windows 7. Thus, many companies face a tough decision: Either spend time and money to upgrade those applications so that they work in newer browsers, or stick with Windows XP.' Support for XP is going to end in April 2014. In order to deal with this, companies are looking at virtualizing IE6 only (instead of a full operating system) so that it can run on Windows 7 — even though Microsoft says this violates licensing agreements. IE6 is estimated to have roughly 16% of browser market share, and due to mistakes in the past it may never truly die."

Comments

What do you expect?

[obergfellja]

When people get comfortable enough with something, they don't look for new products to replace it. IE is just another reason why people don't change.

Re:What do you expect?

[bunratty]

The problem was that IE had a 95% share of the market, so developers thought they could get away with developing web applications that would work only on IE 6 for Windows. And, of course, they did. The companies that bought these applications because they didn't realize this would mean that the applications would not work in other operating systems, other browsers, or even other versions of IE are now stuck with IE 6, which means they're stuck with Windows XP. It's worse than vendor lock-in. It's vendor/version lock-in.

Re:What do you expect?

[daid303]

It's vendor/version lock-in.

In other words, Microsoft overdid it. They just wanted to vendor lock-in not the version lock-in. And they are having a hard time recovering from it.

Re:What do you expect?

[mark72005]

If a prepackaged, working solution currently existed to virtualize IE6 and solve all these problems with just the receipt of a licensing fee, this would not be a story.

Similarly, if it were cheap to rewrite all these web applications for IE8, it would also not be a story.

Re:What do you expect?

[Critical Facilities]

It reminds me of when I used to work for a very large, US based Financial Services Provider. They would waste so much money doing things in these roundabout, haphazard ways despite being shown very plainly how planning project progression carefully would save them money and heartburn. Of course, they'd never listen. So, we came up with what we felt best summed up their mission statement:

"There's never enough money to do it right, but there's always enough money to do it again."

Re:What do you expect?

[Goffee71]

Nah, I think the coders/devs/IT depts will see a world of money in upgrading all these old apps (think of it as the Millennium Bug Lite)

Plus, think of all the machine upgrades they can get away with in the name of system requirements and so on, its going to be a right old cake fest

http://www.cmswire.com/cms/enterprise-20/coming-windows-7-update-heralds-death-of-ie6-finally-009013.php

Re:What do you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sensitive data and IE6 in the same sentence.. lol..

Re:What do you expect?

[VGPowerlord]

If a prepackaged, working solution currently existed to virtualize IE6 and solve all these problems with just the receipt of a licensing fee, this would not be a story.

Even better, virtualize the entire OS it runs on since IE6 is such a security hole.

We could call the feature Windows XP Mode and include it with the Professional and Enterprise versions of Windows.

Oh wait, Microsoft already did that.

Re:What do you expect?

[Monkeedude1212]

You don't need to retrain someone to use the app - its the exact same application it just runs in a different browser. You don't need to worry about re-certifying and supporting because you'll have to do that with a virtualized system anyways.

I made a post a bit futher up about how you basically save money in the long run by simply paying the dev costs for that upgrade as opposed to a licensing solution. Licensing something to run an obsolete product is a terrible idea, there are very few circumstances where it would even make sense financially.

Re:What do you expect?

[Volante3192]

In other words, Microsoft overdid it. They just wanted to vendor lock-in not the version lock-in. And they are having a hard time recovering from it.

MONKEY PAAAAAAAAAAAW!!!!

Re:What do you expect?

[jgagnon]

This is probably moot, but Windows 7 can actually be set up to run nearly (very nearly) as well as XP on the same hardware. There are a few things you'd have to shut off and other tweaks to be made, but it actually does run well on the older hardware. As long as you are running the 32-bit version (highly recommended for cases like yours) then drivers shouldn't be a huge deal.

Having said that, I fully understand why your workplace would not upgrade past XP. We're still on XP here even though Windows 7 32-bit runs everything we use here (with a couple minor, limited-use exceptions). Mostly because we have no profitable reason to leave XP behind. We'd still be running the same applications on 7 that we run on XP, so why upgrade?

Re:What do you expect?

[jgagnon]

Windows XP mode on older hardware sucks royally. Windows 7 can run fine in a 1 GB machine, but try running XP Mode on top of that and see what you get. Now try it again on a 512 MB machine (and a lot of companies still have them - we have at least a dozen 2.4 GHz P4's with 512 MB of RAM).

Re:What do you expect?

[Rob Riggs]

One word describes most of the IT departments in the US: underfunded.

Re:What do you expect?

[Rich0]

These are all big corporations who buy tons of windows licenses.

MS isn't going to sue them because they are running a bunch of IE6-apps on copies of IE6 that they paid for via XP licenses, on copies of Windows 7 that they pay licenses for, supported by Active Directory and Exchange servers that they pay licenses for and client licenses for, etc. Oh, and the reason they're doing it is because MS stopped taking their money for XP extended support contracts and instead they're paying for Windows 7 extended support contracts.

MS would be suicidal to file legal action against companies like this. They're EXACTLY who keeps them in business. No, they're going to do everything they can to make the migration path as smooth as they can. The IT guys at these companies can pick up the phone and have engineers at their beck and call any time they want - they are MS's bread and butter and they know it.

Sure, MS would prefer to leave IE6 behind, and no doubt they'll do what they can to get people to move on. However, the worst they'll actually do is remove official support - they won't be suing their customers.

Re:What do you expect?

[John Hasler]

We are going through the painful process of rewriting and certifying IE6 specific apps and migrating to IE8.

Do you mean that you are going to lock yourself into IE8, or that you are going to rewrite and certify to standards?

Re:What do you expect?

[VGPowerlord]

Windows XP mode on older hardware sucks royally. Windows 7 can run fine in a 1 GB machine, but try running XP Mode on top of that and see what you get. Now try it again on a 512 MB machine (and a lot of companies still have them - we have at least a dozen 2.4 GHz P4's with 512 MB of RAM).

I was under the impression that they would upgrade to Win7 during a hardware refresh.

Re:What do you expect?

[bberens]

The truth about business is that having their "collective heads up their collective behinds" is that it's good business. You don't spend money until you absolutely have to. These are business intranet apps, not core business solutions where it's wise to spend some R&D on these sorts of things. Technology changes so quickly that trying to predict what browsers would look like today would have been a foolish exercise. You have to remember, it was successful for them to NOT SPEND ANY MONEY WHATSOEVER upgrading these webapps to new standards/browsers for the better part of a decade.

Re:What do you expect?

[DrgnDancer]

I dunno. I was around the IT world at the time. It was certainly the case that IE was *the* standard corporate web browser at the time, but even then I recall reading a lot of articles about why writing apps that depended on a lot of these proprietary browser extensions was a bad idea. Precisely for most of the reasons it turns out to have been a bad idea.

People said "Sure it's the standard now, but what about ten years from now... After all Netscape was the standard five years ago."

People said "Even if IE stays the standard how do we know that Microsoft will continue to support all these particular extensions. They seem to still be trying to figure out their strategy in this market."

People said "All these extensions in the browser seem to be asking for security and stability problems."

Meanwhile companies blithely bought (or wrote) tons of these applications. It *never* really seemed like a good idea, except from the point of view that it was dead easy, and thus dead cheap, to do. Well, lots of companies did the dead easy, dead cheap, thing; and like most dead cheap options they got what they paid for. They're highly reliant on an insecure, unstable browser than is no longer the standard and only minimally support by Microsoft (who are going to drop even the "minimal" part soon).

Companies dug their own graves, and now try to blame Microsoft. Microsoft certain deserves part of the blame, they wrote the stupid thing after all, but to be fair to them it's not like they woke up one morning last week and decided to drop support. They said *years* ago that IE6 was a mistake, and that they couldn't keep supporting all the proprietary extensions. If It managers had read the writing on the wall then, they could have long since weaned their companies off of these apps with minimal quarterly impacts (or at the very least be well along on the process). Of course that would mean admitting they made a mistake in the first place.

Re:What do you expect?

[weszz]

The hospital system I work in just moved to IE7 (at great pains) but THERE IS A SOLUTION! (12,500 workstations and 25,000 users)

VMware has a program called ThinApp (useto be Thinstall till they bought it)

This will visualize IE6 and 7. Microsoft and Citrix says this is bad, VMware tells us they have already gone though Microsoft Legal and cleared it with them completely, plus they will support you whereas Microsoft will not.

Citrix will tell you to build a 2003 server and send it out that way, Microsoft will tell you to make a virtual XP box and go that way. Both way too much overhead with virus scanning software, patching etc...

This could be the answer, and it does work. Thinapp is a pretty amazing program for $10 per device.

We are looking at doing a full Win 7 migration based on Microsft's App-V and Thinapp with some apps on our Citrix servers, and our support will drop like a rock after it.

Rebuild a PC and the apps get sent to it virtually, so we would be able to rebuild a Pc in under 30 minutes from the start of re-image to completed. Right now we are at about an hour to get from kicking off the re-image to all the vertical apps installed.

Re:What do you expect?

[yuna49]

Everyone wants to blame Microsoft for everything, the real blame is on the standards bodies.

I don't think so at all.

Berners-Lee's original draft for HTML appeared under the auspices of the IETF in 1993. By the end of 1995, HTML was already at version 2.0. The first W3C "recommendation," HTML 3.2, was released in January of 1997.

ASP 1.0 was released in December of 1996. PHP 1.0 had existed since June of 1995, and people were already writing web applications in existing languages like Perl before then. PHP 2.0 was released in November of 1997; I remember writing some PostgreSQL-backed applications in that language soon thereafter. This whole "there wasn't any alternative to Microsoft" perspective on early web application development that I've seen here recently on Slashdot has no basis in reality. If anything, the array of free tools and the pace of their development quickly surpassed anything Microsoft had to offer.

I also don't think you can exempt Microsoft from blame for whatever delays you might think took place in the W3C standards meetings either. After all, Microsoft had, and still has, a seat at the W3C table. At the time they wanted nothing to do with a standards-based Internet. This history of HTML at the W3C site makes for interesting reading about that early period. (Microsoft isn't the only guilty party here, of course. The first HTML "Editorial Review Board," set up when the more open IETF working group failed to reach a consensus, included representatives from IBM, Microsoft, Netscape, Novell, and the W3 Consortium. One outcome of these head-to-head negotiations was Microsoft trading away the MARQUEE tag in return for Netscape giving up BLINK!)

Re:What do you expect?

[amicusNYCL]

This will visualize IE6 and 7.

Why the heck would you want to do that? Wouldn't it be more effective to virtualize them?

Re:What do you expect?

[sjames]

It's not as if there weren't PLENTY of warnings that sooner or later that would come back to bite them in the ass, they just ignored them all and painted themselves into the corner as fast as they could.

The few apps developed way back then that worked on multiple browsers still work on the latest and greatest.

What forethought by Microsoft

[ByOhTek]

They used IE6 to E^3 (Embrace, Extetnd, Extinguish) Windows 7 long before it even came out!

IE Patch

[alphatel]

It's like smoking: If you don't quit, they'll eventually pass laws that force you to.

Re:IE Patch

[FreonTrip]

That, or the filthy habit catches up with you.

Re:IE Patch

[FreonTrip]

It's akin to wading in filth when you haven't had any shots. Paranoia is probably a more appropriate response - on a system with IE6 installed, the only places I visit are Windows Update and Mozilla, to download Firefox. Doing anything else is basically throwing a malware fiesta, and advertising your computer as a buffet..

Re:IE Patch

[somersault]

I live in Scotland.

I'm happy for them to ban smoking anywhere. If it wasn't dangerous to health then of course they shouldn't ban it. But smokers do not, and should not, have any right to force their smoke onto other people.

Car exhausts aren't great either, but at least they don't smell so bad, and usually aren't right there next to you.

The Browser That Wouldn't Die

[jejones]

Seems appropriate for Halloween.

So sue them.

[Hatta]

In order to deal with this, companies are looking at virtualizing IE6 only (instead of a full operating system) so that it can run on Windows 7 -- even though Microsoft says this violates licensing agreements.

Then Microsoft should sue them. That would teach them, right? After all, violating intellectual property licenses is the same as theft.

Re:So sue them.

[pak9rabid]

I doubt that Microsoft actually would sue them. You don't bite the hand that feeds you.

Let me guess, you're dressing up as Captain Obvious for Halloween?

Re:So sue them.

[Hatta]

I went as Captain Obvious one Halloween. No one got it.

Encapsulating IE6

[mlts]

A while back, I remember thindownload.com offering IE6 in a Thinstall (Now VMWare ThinApp) package. It was taken down, but something like that would be the best thing for places that need IE6, but don't have the hardware to virtualize an ACE VM just for this program. Even better would be running the IE6 package under sandboxie so when (not if) it gets compromised, the damage is very limited what malware could attempt.

Re:Encapsulating IE6

[NJRoadfan]

Windows 7 Pro, Enterprise, and Ultimate come with a solution at no extra cost..... its called Windows XP Mode.

Re:Encapsulating IE6

[mlts]

Very true. However it isn't as easy to get set up and pushed out on an enterprise basis as a single app file. Another downside is that because XP Mode is complete VM that can easily get compromised, it requires an instance of antivirus for corporate IT reasons. Having a single executable that runs in a "jail" is a lot better performance-wise, and means one doesn't have to set up virtualization on company desktops.

Probably the simplest solution for a company that needs IE6 on desktops for one task or application would be to use Citrix or Terminal server, and just keep a well locked down copy of IE6 on a dedicated server.

Re:Encapsulating IE6

[Harassed]

All very well when you're sitting at home but have you ever worked in a large corporation? Most PCs aren't powerful enough to run a second virtual OS instance and, even if they could, maintaining, patching and securing a second OS on every PC effectively doubles the admin overhead of the network - not to mention the licensing cost of doubling the number of antivirus seats you have etc. Virtual XP mode is only suitable for home users and for very specific cases in larger organisations. For large-scale rollout another solution is needed. If you want to stick with the virtual XP based solution but have it manageable, Microsoft have MED-V which will happily run an seamlessly instanced IE6 (as virtual XP mode does) but is clever enough to automatically switch between the native IE8 browser and the virtual IE6 browser based on which URLs you are visiting. MED-V still suffers from the increased hardware requirements of running a second virtualized OS on a client PC. Other alternatives are to deploy IE6 using Citrix XenApp running on a Windows 2003-based server but this also suffers from the same issues or VMware have just announced full support for IE6 running under ThinApp which is probably the least-worst option for most organisations if it weren't for the licensing angle.

Microsoft have a huge number of tools and information on performing compatibility testing prior to a Win7 rollout and anyone considering it I would highly recommend looking into the (free) Application Compatibility Toolkit (ACT). For more thorough appcompat testing, look at the toolset provided by App-DNA which is fantastic.

Never Upgrade, Never Surrender!

[VoiceInTheDesert]

Just goes to show you that no matter how annoying you can claim Microsoft to be, their user base can be equally so with their instance that decade-old software be their ONLY solution.

You gotta upgrade sometime, people.

Re:Never Upgrade, Never Surrender!

[shentino]

IE6 conveniently breaks Web 2.0 stuff like youtube, facebook, and a lot of other stuff that PHBs simply do not want their employees accessing on the job.

It's brokenness is a feature in this case.

Re:Never Upgrade, Never Surrender!

[gstoddart]

Just goes to show you that no matter how annoying you can claim Microsoft to be, their user base can be equally so with their instance that decade-old software be their ONLY solution.

I don't think you understand the scope of the problem. Not even a little.

Companies and governments have massive amounts of custom code which runs only on IE6. The time, money, and effort to rewrite this would be absolutely huge.

Are you seriously suggesting that organizations just toss out a mission-critical bit of software either because it's old or proprietary? If so, then I think you have absolutely no understanding of what IT works like on a corporate scale.

I believe the entire Government of Canada has to use IE6 because they have apps that tie them to it. I suspect many really large organizations have this issue as well. It's not like these organizations can just stop using that software that they have.

If Microsoft didn't make stuff that was incompatible with everything else by design, companies wouldn't have this problem. But, as long as Microsoft continues to decide that their way is the best way, companies who have had to work around this are the ones who bear the burden.

Re:Never Upgrade, Never Surrender!

[clarkn0va]

You gotta upgrade sometime, people.

My brother is the HVAC chief for one of Canada's larger cities, and he recently purchased Windows 98 on ebay because it is required to run the climate controls in city hall.

Yeah, sooner or later they'll have to upgrade, but if you think IE6 is going to magically vanish tomorrow or even in a couple years when support officially runs out, prepare for a shock.

Re:Never Upgrade, Never Surrender!

[Mongoose Disciple]

lolwat? Netscape was free as in beer long before IE 6 was released, and Netscape had started the free-as-in-speech Mozilla project years before IE6 was released (though it didn't have a browser until Netscape 6, released the year before IE6).

Sure, there was a Netscape in those days. Just like there was a Matrix Revolutions and a Highlander 2 and a Star Wars Episode 1.

You know, things that were so bad, we pretend they don't exist because they soured your memory of enjoying the previous versions. Except latter-day Netscape wasn't as good as any of those movies.

Developing for Netscape in those days was like fucking a pickle slicer, except painful. Anyone who was in the trenches of web development in that era can tell you, assuming they didn't get PTSD or block out the bad touch entirely.

Re:Never Upgrade, Never Surrender!

[tlhIngan]

Companies and governments have massive amounts of custom code which runs only on IE6. The time, money, and effort to rewrite this would be absolutely huge.

Are you seriously suggesting that organizations just toss out a mission-critical bit of software either because it's old or proprietary? If so, then I think you have absolutely no understanding of what IT works like on a corporate scale.

I believe the entire Government of Canada has to use IE6 because they have apps that tie them to it. I suspect many really large organizations have this issue as well. It's not like these organizations can just stop using that software that they have.

If Microsoft didn't make stuff that was incompatible with everything else by design, companies wouldn't have this problem. But, as long as Microsoft continues to decide that their way is the best way, companies who have had to work around this are the ones who bear the burden.

It's also why Microsoft spends billions of dollars on backwards compatibility. Microsoft would love to just chuck out the crap on Windows and start afresh. Apple does this - if you don't use published APIs, you'll often find your app breaks in the next OS release. Microsoft would love to do this, but it's too hard.

The vast majority for the backwards compatibility is business - where Microsoft makes their money. Fixing bugs that can break an API is something they have to do carefully because it only has to break one critical application that can keep a company from upgrading, and that can easily be 10,000+ licenses we're talking about.

Some examples
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2006/11/06/999999.aspx - 9000 install scripts to install various products for various employees. Now imagine the need to test, verify and fix. And they have source code.

And it's usually the developer's fault (most developers are stupid and do stupid things). In fact, you can count on a lot of developers (for all OSes) to do crap - pass wrong parameters in (that'll break should the function actually check), do horrendous coding practices (polling loops in your battery powered device), etc. And companies have it worse - between contractors and inhouse developers under pressure to "make it work" and "let's make it flexible and overdesign it".

There's a reason thedailywtf.com exists.

Here's another link showing how Microsoft has to patch against developers:
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2007/07/23/4003873.aspx
Sometimes developers lie to the OS:
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2004/02/11/71307.aspx

Ideally, Microsoft would do something and start fresh. Oh wait, they did. It was called Vista and panned by everyone because things broke.

Re:Never Upgrade, Never Surrender!

[blincoln]

Companies and governments have massive amounts of custom code which runs only on IE6. The time, money, and effort to rewrite this would be absolutely huge.

Lots of people have massive amounts of 16-bit apps. Should Microsoft have included 16-bit support in x64 versions of Windows as a result? Lots of people still use VB6 apps. Should Microsoft continue to support Visual Studio 6? When I upgraded to Windows 7, I was annoyed that the one 16-bit app I still used at home wouldn't work anymore, but I got over it.

Are you seriously suggesting that organizations just toss out a mission-critical bit of software either because it's old or proprietary?

Organizations need to adjust to a world where they can't just build something that works and continue using it as-is indefinitely. That just isn't practical in an environment that also has internet connectivity of some kind. Long-term supportability must include the ability to continue updating the system over time when e.g. the client OS and/or browser are no longer supported by their vendor(s).

Yes, I realize this is painful, and it's a big shift from the world as it was a few decades ago, but that's the tradeoff when internet connectivity is involved. Hopefully it will also make managers realize that meeting a list of feature/behaviour requirements is not enough. The way an application is built is also critical, because obviously it's possible to build something that meets a feature/behaviour requirements list but that will break as soon as any one piece of infrastructure receives a minor update.

Re:Never Upgrade, Never Surrender!

[Anonymous Coward]

Companies wrote those things because they had an immediate business need to get things done. Over time, they added onto them, and the tools became much more entrenched and something they can't get away from.

Yes. It's called "bad design", or in enterprise terms, "short-term focus". Many of those applications can be linked back to the dot-com bubble, when every kid and their dog was hired instantly to "be part of the hype". And because of the hype maybe, both the people hiring and (most of) the contractors were not expecting the application to last ten years.

But we are now ten years from when the bubble burst. I have zero sympathy for the companies that have eschewed investing in their "business-critical" infrastructure for ten years. It reeks of dodoism.

In the real world, people need solutions now

People that need solutions now have already missed the boat. They make poor businessmen because they lack strategic vision. See, I can do generalized, unfounded and contentless soundbites too ;)

The reality is, when XP and IE6 were corporate standards, that was the toolset you had to work with

Sure. That attitude is fine when you're prototyping, or doing a quick/throw-away/hack job. But when you're designing a "business-critical" application, long-term stability should have been called for. And MS itself had already indicated in 2005 (at the introduction of IE7) that IE7 would only support IE6 as a "compatibility mode" (through META-tags, I believe). That should have been the first clue, even for C?O's, that IE6 was not a suitable toolset (platform) for long-term stability.

Re:Never Upgrade, Never Surrender!

[Rockoon]

You seem to be conveniently forgetting that leading up to IE's dominance, that Netscape was just as broken as Internet Explorer was in regards to "standards", and that furthermore when Netscape 6 was finally released in 2000, it was HORRIBLE and by just about any measure because it was rushed out the door (even though it was many years late to the game.)

In short, IE6 was the ONLY browser that mattered, and the only real competition was a steaming pile of crap that was even worse.

Take a look at my signature. Thats a direct quote from the Apple God, made at their MacWorld Expo, and this quote was immediately prior to introducing BILL MOTHER-FUCKING GATES LIVE ON VIDEO FEED.

You wonder why IE became the standard? It had everything to do with being objectively better than Netscape.

XP Mode?

[dilbert627]

Isn't that the point of XP Mode? To run legacy applications that aren't 7-compatible?

IE6 on WIndows 7

[greap]

I use http://tredosoft.com/Multiple_IE for cross browser testing and IE6 runs fine on Win7. Also you can install IE6 for XP mode with a couple of hacks.

Seems like an opportunity

[Just_Say_Duhhh]

...for some other browser maker to work with these companies to create a compatibility module that would let them use a NEW browser with their old applications. If Mozilla wasn't so busy on Firefox 4.0, they could probably get something coded up to help these companies put IE6 where it belongs (trash bin).

Has anyone from these companies tried running XP in a VM to maintain compatibility, while giving them an avenue to load a new OS, and start rolling out new applications? It would seem like the smoothest way to get over this problem.

Re:Seems like an opportunity

[StuartHankins]

So long as IE6 apps require ActiveX (some do, some don't), this will prevent Firefox from ever working with those apps. Firefox made the decision long ago (a very good decision IMHO) to exclude ActiveX.

Let that be a lesson

[C_Kode]

Let that be a lesson to all those idiots who wrote IE only web applications.

Brilliant!

Re:Let that be a lesson

[Tim C]

Yeah, they must be kicking themselves for having already been paid once, and possibly having been paid again to port their apps over to IE7+...

IE6: bigger mess than Y2K

[CAIMLAS]

IE6 is beginning to be a bigger mess than Y2K. It's not yet such a long-term problem, but the scope is pretty board due to the fact that it's the entire program, not just date fields, which are broken.

Huge Success!

[Pentium100]

Well, Microsoft made IE6 not compatible with standards so that people would make sites compatible with IE (because the majority use IE, since it came with Windows) so that the sites would be less compatible with standard browsers that work on other operating systems, so that people would use Windows and IE, since a lot of sites only worked with IE.

Corporate software also requires IE6, since it comes with Windows XP, why make a program that's compatible with other browsers, except IE and then require that browser when all your users have IE6 by default? Now it is inconvenient, but redoing the app to support standards would be expensive.

So, now IE6 is so entrenched in the corporate environment that not only it prevents the company from migrating to Linux or some other OS, but it also prevents the company from migrating to a newer OS made by Microsoft.

Whoever was in charge of the decision to make IE6 non compatible did a wonderful job - XP and IE6 will live for a long time. It will probably even outlive newer versions of Windows.

Re:Huge Success!

[Cederic]

Exactly. IE6 is fantastic, truly magnificent - it's a poster child for any architect.

Why? Because now we have the perfect "here's how to fuck up your organisation by not following standards" example. With the added bonus that almost any organisation I go to work for will have fallen into exactly that trap.

This is why "integration" is bad. Hmkay?

[linebackn]

I would like to once again take this opportunity to say "I told you so" to all of the idiots who wanted IE "integrated" in to the OS. If IE was a normal application, like every other browser, then you would be able to run IE 6 on Windows 7 along side IE 8 in a fully supported manner without any fancy hacks or virtualization.

People would have been better off sticking with web stuff that only worked in Netscape 4. I'd need to double check, but I am pretty sure Netscape 4.8 will run fine under Windows 7.

But, of course, when Windows 9 comes out, people will still be stuck on Windows 7 and IE 8.

Re:This is why "integration" is bad. Hmkay?

[Tim C]

If IE was a normal application, like every other browser, then you would be able to run IE 6 on Windows 7 along side IE 8 in a fully supported manner without any fancy hacks or virtualization.

Prove that the problem isn't due to the IE6 installer (can you even download it (legally) any more?) doesn't expect certain specific versions of Windows and refuse to run if the version string doesn't match.

But, of course, when Windows 9 comes out, people will still be stuck on Windows 7 and IE 8.

I'm running IE9 beta on my Windows 7 machine at home.

To be fair, I agree with the central point of your argument (code to standards, don't force upgrade unnecessarily) but your arguments don't hold water.

Re:Quirksmode

[ifrag]

This should be a one-line fix to their existing systems to enable IE8 legacy/quirks mode.

One line... really? Perhaps you have not noticed how fail the "compatibility mode" in IE8 actually is. If that component actually worked as advertised then maybe it would be simple to get it working but it doesn't. What they have today is far from having a quick fix option.

Simple Solution

[kevinmenzel]

Run IE6 in "XP mode", available in Windows 7 Professional, Enterprise, and Ultimate. Come on, is this really that hard? You can put the icon on the desktop and everything!

Re:Simple Solution

[Nimey]

That's no longer true. MS have released a patch allowing it to run on non-virtualizable processors.

Mistakes?

[QuietLagoon]

IE6 is estimated to have roughly 16% of browser market share, and due to mistakes in the past it may never truly die."

I do not think they were "mistakes" in the past. On the contrary, they were conscious decisions on Microsoft's part to make IE6 incompatible, thus making developers write pages for IE6 (~runs better on IE6~). It was Microsoft's attempt to kill non-Microsoft web standards.

Now Microsoft is haunted by their own strategy.

Corporate Reality

[whosaidanythingabout]

As a product manager for a SaaS provider our largest client ( a very large chemical company that you all know of ) is stuck on IE6. No matter how much we plead with them the group we deal with has their hands tied because the IT department refuses to upgrade. Having worked in IT in the past it is understandable. There are HUGE costs associated with the migration of thousands of user desktops to a new browser and the users are never going to be allowed to install anything on their desktops themselves. So it is a stalemate. Out newest applications appear flawed on IE6 due to javascript memory leaks. We have told support to inform users to just stop and restart their browser when the performance is unbearable. I can only pray that IE6 never runs on Windows 7 or we will prolong the pain and suffering.

What do you expect? I expect standards

[Kludge]

If your corporate IT standards mandate ...

That's the point: standards.

Unless your company is developing its own browser and its own OS, making it's own corporate standard on browsers is stupid.
The standards that should have been followed here are the W3C standards. Not the "standards" of one company with one browser on one operating system.

Before 2000 there were computer standards in place. Not following those standards is now an obvious huge failure and now companies will be paying for it.

Re:What do you expect? I expect standards

[gorzek]

IE was (and still is, in some places) a de facto standard. Calling it "stupid" doesn't change that fact.

Back around 2000 the browser wars were very much alive and compliance with W3C standards was largely mythical, to say nothing of fractious JavaScript implementations.

Corporations had to settle on something. Microsoft won out primarily because the browser was a) bundled and b) made by the same company as the operating system. It was just less hassle all around to go with IE at the time.

We can look back now and say it was stupid to standardize on a browser with such a non-standard implementation, but that's because we have the benefit of various standards-compliant browsers now, and the notion that you should be able to view a particular site with any browser you choose has achieved wide penetration. At the time, it was thought one browser would "win" and control the standards for all practical purposes, and most people banked on Microsoft. It was an understandable gamble at the time even though it looks foolish in hindsight.

Re:What do you expect? I expect standards

[gorzek]

Actually, we didn't all know that Microsoft would lose the browser wars. Remember, at one time they had very close to 100% market share in the browser space. Had they maintained such dominance they would have effectively controlled Web standards. It wouldn't matter what the W3C said, it would only matter what Microsoft implemented.

People also assumed Microsoft would maintain backward compatibility as they'd done in large part since the MS-DOS days. It was not clear that MS would eventually abandon their custom HTML implementation in favor of W3C standards--and they only did so because adoption of other browsers forced them to.

Once again, it's unfair to take the situation in hindsight and say everyone who settled on IE6 was stupid. From a corporate standpoint, it was the most attractive of limited options.

Anyone choosing to standardize on a specific browser now, I would call a fool: the implementations are similar (and compliant) enough at this point that if your site doesn't work on all major browsers, you're doing something wrong. We also have much better tools now. The situation today is just a lot different than it was when IE6 came out, and it should be examined accordingly.

Re:What do you expect? I expect standards

[TheRaven64]

Back in the distant past, there used to be the notion of a second source. That is, for every product that you buy - especially ones that your business depends upon - you should have at least two potential suppliers, even if you never actually bought anything from the second one. There are several reasons for this. If the first supplier goes bust, you have a backup. If there is a second supplier, then the first supplier can't raise prices too much or they will suddenly find that they are no longer the first supplier.

Back when IBM made the PC, they insisted on a second source for every single component, with two exceptions. The BIOS, they wrote in house. The operating system, they regarded as a commodity, which therefore didn't need a second source. You'd think that other companies might learn from this mistake.

Part of the economic attraction of open source is that it automatically comes with a second source; any open source product that you buy (by definition) comes with the rights to get someone else to maintain it for you.

If you build your internal infrastructure on top of one company's products and do not have an alternate supplier, then you are saying to that company 'we are willing to pay whatever you decide to charge in the future'. This was known well before IE4 was released, and I was certainly not the only person at the time saying that building intranet sites depending on a particular browser was a stupid idea. I have absolutely no sympathy for companies that decided to save a small amount of money in exchange for a large cost later on.

Re:What do you expect? I expect standards

[jc42]

Corporations had to settle on something.

No, they didn't. Any manager with even minimal competence understands that the computer industry has always been in a state of rapid change. Nobody with a grain of sense will "standardize" on something that's controlled by another corporation and likely to change in unpredictable ways in the near future. Standardizing on IE was a sign of incompetence; standardizing on one version of IE was (and still is) a sign of utter, hopeless incompetence.

Sensible managers (and I've known a few of them) knew all along that the sane approach has always been to treat the browser arena as highly unstable. Sensible business practice is to plan for the changes that you know will come, and demand that your own web stuff be as generic as possible. It's easy enough to collect a set of browsers and test against all of them. I've done this since the Web became the hot new thing, and so have lots of other people. Not doing this may be common business practice, but it's still a sign of incompetence.

It was just less hassle all around to go with IE at the time.

Indeed. And it's a good example of the short-sighted "don't look beyond the current fiscal year" attitude of much of the corporate world. We've known for a couple of centuries that this leads to economic disasters. The people who make corporate decisions like this should be exposed and ridiculed in public. They shouldn't be held up as example of "how things are done".

Re:What do you expect? I expect standards

[hairyfeet]

I would add that what everyone seems to be forgetting about that time is.../does Darth Vader voice...The power of ActiveX! /voice end. Folks you have to remember that when IE6 came out it gave the developer a HELL of a lot of power which made writing some pretty powerful "apps" using nothing but some code fed to IE. Hell that was the problem, in that whomever was in charge of security at MSFT wasn't there the week ActiveX came out and nobody seemed to realize having THAT much power over the OS might be a bad idea.

You could find out exactly what hardware they had through ActiveX, what programs they had installed, you could call just about any app that came with windows like WMP, hell even the lower level system apps like CMD, ActiveX just gave you crazy amounts of power. At the time I tried to warn some of the SMBs I was dealing with but I had to be honest and there simply wasn't anything that gave that amount of power using only the browser. Of course we know NOW that having that level of power is a supersized Bad Idea(TM) and that if you need that level of power it is better to write a native app that can take advantage of OS level security, but at the time we were still in the "On the Internet!" phase for the most part and companies wanted everything run through the browser. But part of the reason corps are not wanting to give it up is if you see what they have their "apps" doing frankly it would be a nightmare to recode that for any other browser, simply because you're not allowed those deep hooks.

Mod Parent Up

[zooblethorpe]

Somebody please mod the parent post up. Second source (i.e. backup) is a fundamental part of proper risk management, something that the corporate world has largely fallen away from in certain aspects of IT.

<pure_speculation>Makes me wonder if the surge in MBAs over the past few decades has anything to do with this.</pure_speculation>

Cheers,