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 forethought by Microsoft

[ByOhTek]

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

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: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: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.

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

[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.