Even Microsoft Wants IE6 Dead

If only other devs used ie6-upgrade-warning.. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-04 10:04 · Score: 4, Informative

I've used ie6-upgrade-warning for some of my projects.

It's quite obnoxious, and usually gets the job done.

Re:If only other devs used ie6-upgrade-warning.. by Pieroxy · 2011-03-04 10:28 · Score: 3, Interesting

Another initiative of the sort: http://ieai.pieroxy.net/. The only difference is that it doesn't necessarily just target the version 6.
Disclaimer: as my nick probably shows, it's mine.

--
Write boring code, not shiny code!
Re:If only other devs used ie6-upgrade-warning.. by atlasdropperofworlds · 2011-03-04 10:42 · Score: 1

So does Chrome, as does IE w/Live Mesh.
Re:If only other devs used ie6-upgrade-warning.. by corychristison · 2011-03-04 10:53 · Score: 1

Thank you for that.
I've been trying to come up with an easy and elegant way warn users they are using IE6, and that they absolutely must upgrade.
Setting this up now.
Re:If only other devs used ie6-upgrade-warning.. by Z00L00K · 2011-03-04 11:00 · Score: 2

There are a few problems around the upgrade:
1. Microsoft wants to ask a lot of obnoxious and hard to understand questions during installation and initialization of newer versions.
2. People are afraid that upgrades will break something.
3. A lot of web sites - especially company internal web sites are still designed for IE6.
4. A lot of companies are afraid of upgrading from IE6 due to concerns of various kinds and "if it ain't broken, don't fix it".
5. If you do a fresh install of XP SP3 you will have to postpone the installation of IE8 until some patches are installed or you end up with a broken browser - which will be fixed if you uninstall and reinstall, but it may have scared a few.
Don't forget that many major companies still runs XP as primary OS because it works, and it does the job. Some have a procedure of progressively upgrade so new computers are deployed with Win7 and old are kept at XP. And some went into the Windows Vista track full ahead - and got a bunch of problems on the way.

--
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Re:If only other devs used ie6-upgrade-warning.. by hairyfeet · 2011-03-04 11:05 · Score: 5, Informative

The problem is you seem to think the users are going "yay lets use crappy IE6!" when of course that isn't the case, it is the fact that all their Intranet will break since it was coded in crappy IE6 ActiveX and good luck getting the suits to pay to upgrade THAT mess!
But there is a good reason why IE6 usage jumps from 9AM to 5PM Mon through Fri, and that is because millions of dollars worth of corporate Intranet apps are written around IE6. Was it stupid? Of course. Do most places have the budget to replace it? Not in this economy they don't.
But if you want o run off the business users that's cool with me, free market and all that. But don't pretend there are millions of consumers running crappy old IE6 just for the fun of it.

--
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Re:If only other devs used ie6-upgrade-warning.. by corychristison · 2011-03-04 11:15 · Score: 2

IE6 is broken, no matter how you want to swing it.
There's no problem with running Firefox or an alternative browser alongside IE6 installed.
People can use IE6 for the Intranet and another browser for everything else.
Thats a case of the local administrators to install it, Intranet works, people can browse the real internet with a browser that actually works.
Easy as that.
If the admins aren't willing to install an updated browser, they are neglecting a huge security hole and don't deserve their jobs.
Re:If only other devs used ie6-upgrade-warning.. by corychristison · 2011-03-04 11:25 · Score: 1

1. Microsoft wants to ask a lot of obnoxious and hard to understand questions during installation and initialization of newer versions.
Chrome, Firefox, Opera, Safari and others do not.

2. People are afraid that upgrades will break something.
Not sure about you, but I'd rather risk having something old break with the benefit of being able to actually browse the web. Things are so far along since IE6 that it really is a completely new world online.

3. A lot of web sites - especially company internal web sites are still designed for IE6.
Installing an alternate browser alongside IE6 will not break it's ability to serve the Intranets while adding the ability to browse the rest of the internet.

4. A lot of companies are afraid of upgrading from IE6 due to concerns of various kinds and "if it ain't broken, don't fix it".
That's a personality problem, not a productivity problem.
I'm a young person so I suppose I am biased and don't count. I don't understand that way of thinking. IE6 _is_ broken, they just don't see it that way, I suppose.

5. If you do a fresh install of XP SP3 you will have to postpone the installation of IE8 until some patches are installed or you end up with a broken browser - which will be fixed if you uninstall and reinstall, but it may have scared a few.
I've done a recent install of XP SP3 (slipstreamed that I built when SP3 came out), I had no issues. This was in a virtual environment.
Re:If only other devs used ie6-upgrade-warning.. by Z00L00K · 2011-03-04 11:34 · Score: 1

OK, maybe they have fixed the problem encountered at point 5, or it only appears under some specific circumstances.
As for the other points - Microsoft will of course want you to upgrade to latest IE, and the alternate browser path is still not removing IE6 from the surface of the earth.

--
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Re:If only other devs used ie6-upgrade-warning.. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-04 11:40 · Score: 1

Installing an alternate browser alongside IE6 will not break it's ability to serve the Intranets while adding the ability to browse the rest of the internet.
I guess you must really not be someone who works in IT for a large corporate entity. Yes, those of us that know how computers work can easily deal with multiple browsers. This computer has Chrome, FF4 Beta 11, and IE 9 RC installed. No problem. However, for those less computer savvy folks (who may be experts in their own fields - that field just isn't computers), we have the "Highlander Problem" ("there can only be one"). Only one of the browsers can be the "default" browser (unless you really do some fiddling with application virtualization and setup rules based on URL). So the user gets a link in their email and they click it. It is to a corp HR site that needs IE 6. What comes up? Firefox? Chrome? If they are the default browser you just broke the user. They call the helpdesk which costs time and money. If IE came up, that site works - but what will make the user ever manually open the better browser to go to other sites? Nothing unless you force it to not allow IE6 outside of the intranet. But that also causes helpdesk calls and non-productive users while they try to "fix" their "computer problem".

It's easy for the tech savvy. For everyone else - not so much.
Re:If only other devs used ie6-upgrade-warning.. by sortius_nod · 2011-03-04 11:50 · Score: 3, Insightful

You hit the nail on the head, and there's nothing that can be done with the disaster that is corporate intranets.
Having had to support these intranets, you have to install at least 2 browsers to have the machine able to access both the intranet sites for work, and internet sites for work. There's always a big "DO NOT UPGRADE IE" policy in every company I've worked for, the good thing about that though is that there's usually an "INSTALL FIREFOX IF A WEBSITE DOESN"T WORK" policy.
I suppose the knife cuts both ways there. IE6/ActiveX was the worst thing that companies bought into, and it's hurting them still, years later. The biggest problem there is that the IT managers are quite happy to accept their kickbacks from MS to have MS still deployed throughout their company. One would think they'd learn after the first time.
Re:If only other devs used ie6-upgrade-warning.. by Penguinisto · 2011-03-04 11:52 · Score: 2

There's no problem with running Firefox or an alternative browser alongside IE6 installed..
Technically, no problem. Business-wise (read: clueless PHB policy-wise), sadly the answer is still often that there is still a problem.

--
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Re:If only other devs used ie6-upgrade-warning.. by grcumb · 2011-03-04 12:02 · Score: 1

I've used ie6-upgrade-warning for some of my projects.
It's quite obnoxious, and usually gets the job done.
Obnoxious? I won't be happy until MS hosts the site at www.sorryforfuckingupyourinternetforadecade.com

--
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
Re:If only other devs used ie6-upgrade-warning.. by Shikaku · 2011-03-04 12:16 · Score: 3, Informative

Wow, that's annoying.
So are driveby infections because people still use IE6.
And the botnets/spam it creates. Pick your poison.
Re:If only other devs used ie6-upgrade-warning.. by PNutts · 2011-03-04 12:28 · Score: 1

1. Microsoft wants to ask a lot of obnoxious and hard to understand questions during installation and initialization of newer versions.
Chrome, Firefox, Opera, Safari and others do not.
Neither does IE but let's not let that get in the way of the fun.
Re:If only other devs used ie6-upgrade-warning.. by PNutts · 2011-03-04 12:32 · Score: 1

5. If you do a fresh install of XP SP3 you will have to postpone the installation of IE8 until some patches are installed or you end up with a broken browser - which will be fixed if you uninstall and reinstall, but it may have scared a few.
What happens if you try an OS that's newer than 10 years old with a patch that's newer than three years old?
Re:If only other devs used ie6-upgrade-warning.. by jonwil · 2011-03-04 12:47 · Score: 3, Insightful

The problem is is that the alternative browsers like Firefox, Chrome, Opera and Safari is that none of those browsers contain the kind of admin features you get with IE.
What IT guys (not necessarily the actual guys down in the trenches doing the work but the PHBs in their cushy office making the decisions) would want:
1.The ability to push a browser installer (both the initial install and any upgrade installs) to the client and have them run automatically without the need to manually upgrade any clients. You cant get proper MSIs from any of the alternative browser vendors, only from 3rd parties.
2.The ability to ensure the browser wont update
(either automatically or initiated by users selecting "update") and can only be updated when IT pushes patches.
3.The ability to ensure only plugins and addons pushed by IT can be installed, upgraded, managed and uninstalled.
and 4.The ability to manage (via group policy or something similar) the features of the browser so the IT people can set settings like proxy servers and can disable features and the end-user cant mess with the settings and changes the admin guys have set.
Re:If only other devs used ie6-upgrade-warning.. by Missing.Matter · 2011-03-04 13:02 · Score: 1

My university uses a page like this on our student portal. Here's what it says:

Before you can enter this site, you will need to fix the following: The Opera browser you are using has a various serious security defects and is not allowed to be used with this application. You must use a supported browser to enter (latest version recommended). Supported Browsers are listed below.
Windows: Internet Explorer Firefox Safari
Macintosh: Firefox Safari
Opera has serious security defects? Chrome? Whereas IE does not? Obnoxious is right.
Re:If only other devs used ie6-upgrade-warning.. by compro01 · 2011-03-04 13:33 · Score: 3, Informative

Chrome does all that just fine. Google is serious about wanting their browser on the business desktop.
http://www.google.com/apps/intl/en/business/chromebrowser.html

--
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
Re:If only other devs used ie6-upgrade-warning.. by jelizondo · 2011-03-04 15:38 · Score: 1

Right!
If all sites deny browsing to IE6 in this economy or any other, they will upgrade.
Have you tried lately to get a new VHS movie?
Right, free market pressure works...

--
Be very, very careful what you put into that head, because you will never, ever get it out. - Cardinal Wolsey
Re:If only other devs used ie6-upgrade-warning.. by TheLink · 2011-03-04 15:47 · Score: 1

If it becomes accepted enough maybe the malware authors might start using it too, if they aren't already doing it. ;)
--
- Too many replies beneath your current threshold
Re:If only other devs used ie6-upgrade-warning.. by TheLink · 2011-03-04 15:52 · Score: 1

Yeah, if I were a malware/trojan author I'd copy this:
http://code.google.com/p/ie6-upgrade-warning/
instead of that obnoxious crap ( http://ieai.pieroxy.net/ieai-screenshot.png ).
Get more installs that way ;).
--
- Too many replies beneath your current threshold
Re:If only other devs used ie6-upgrade-warning.. by EdIII · 2011-03-04 16:04 · Score: 1

You missed the biggest problem of all, and the one that makes Microsoft look like farking retards with this announcement:
6. The vast majority of IE 6 usage is by companies that are dependent upon software and services that only run in IE 6, thereby preventing upgrading as an option.
Microsoft knows this. They created this monster with their super crappy .asp and IIS application development platforms. Now that it costs some of these companies thousands to tens of thousands of dollars (and in some cases much more) to migrate to a different platform or hire programmers to come in and get them to the newest MS code, it has effectively screwed them.
The bad economy of course does not help either.
Microsoft should quit its bitching. If they really wanted to kill IE 6 for good they should set up something akin to an international aid foundation to solve these companies problems that were started with their platform to begin with.
But hey... they had the dominant market share to begin with and stuck with their proprietary platforms and thumbed their noses at international standards for so long.
You reap what you sow.
Re:If only other devs used ie6-upgrade-warning.. by jelizondo · 2011-03-04 16:09 · Score: 1

As a former corporate IT manager I find your navieté very refreshing.
Of course we learned the first time around, MS gives you perks and complimentary stuff; the long-haired hippies working in OSS, don't.
Where would you lean?
Please turn-on sarcasm detector and read again...

--
Be very, very careful what you put into that head, because you will never, ever get it out. - Cardinal Wolsey
Re:If only other devs used ie6-upgrade-warning.. by BitZtream · 2011-03-04 16:37 · Score: 2

ActiveX will work in all versions of Internet Explorer, its not 'an IE6 thing' any more than plugins only work in Firefox 1. Its nothing more than a plugin system, you should get a clue about it instead of repeating the idiotic 'ActiveX is evil' meme, it just makes you look stupid.
The problem was early implementations of IE allowing anything ActiveX to install itself ... it would be no different than having Firefox just install any plugin on a page rather than requiring the user to approve it. Now days IE's ActiveX support is pretty much as secure as Firefox's extension system.
People are stuck using IE6 not because of ActiveX, again, they'll work in any version of IE after 6 as well. Its stupid IE6 specific Javascript and HTML that creates the problem, and mostly really stupid things like checking for IE6 specifically rather than IE6 or later.
But hey, don't let reality get in the way of your ignorance. All you do is show how little you know about why IE6 is actually used, your just repeating what you read somewhere else on the Internet.

--
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Re:If only other devs used ie6-upgrade-warning.. by BitZtream · 2011-03-04 16:42 · Score: 1

1) If you think you need MSIs to 'push upgrades or installs' you suck at Windows administration. Just because MS likes to spew them around doesn't mean they are the only method.
2) Simple permissions control this, again, shitty admin.
3) See 1 and 2.
4 is where they all actually fall short.
If 'no MSI FILESA$@!!@#%!@#%' is why they won't roll out another browser, you need to replace your IT people. MS has very good documentation on using other methods to deploy apps to a domain based on group policy without using MSI.

--
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Re:If only other devs used ie6-upgrade-warning.. by sjames · 2011-03-04 17:08 · Score: 1

The thing is, it IS broke. Even MS wants to see it laid to rest now.
The best answer to all but point 3 is install some other browser along with IE6. Only use IE6 for internal apps.
As for point 3, I can't help saying that I and many others warned not to lock web apps in to a particular browser AND demonstrated that it was perfectly possible build apps that worked well with many different browsers. Certain corporate types responded by jamming their fingers in their ears up to their elbows, shutting their eyes tightly, sitting on the floor rocking themselves violently and chanting "All Hail Microsoft". Well, we TOLD them so and now they're stuck.
There, I feel better now.
Re:If only other devs used ie6-upgrade-warning.. by Pieroxy · 2011-03-04 19:57 · Score: 1

Since you are a chrome user, you won't have my site blocked. So your entire argument falls flat.
As for the annoyance, the popup is configurable, so each site owner might word it as he so choose. Pick your wording.
As for being subtle, I don't think your users will notice it then. So you're probably better off with nothing.

--
Write boring code, not shiny code!
Re:If only other devs used ie6-upgrade-warning.. by hobarrera · 2011-03-04 19:57 · Score: 1

jReject is far more flexible (yet same idea) :-) http://jreject.turnwheel.com/
Re:If only other devs used ie6-upgrade-warning.. by deniable · 2011-03-04 20:18 · Score: 1

It's not MS with the kickbacks. They're trying to kill IE6 as well, even if just to sell upgrades from XP. The real culprits are Oracle and all of the other vendors selling their HR/Financial systems that are 'web based' but need specific browsers and other setups. Ours allows IE7 (finally) and now allows a standard JRE instead of jInitiator. We still can't have the Google toolbar. (Thanks Flash installer, for that game of whack-a-mole.)
Re:If only other devs used ie6-upgrade-warning.. by deniable · 2011-03-04 20:20 · Score: 1

I welcome competition in the market to view my pay-slips and write purchase orders. I'm not sure my bosses do.
Re:If only other devs used ie6-upgrade-warning.. by thetoadwarrior · 2011-03-04 20:23 · Score: 1

I don't think that is the case and it's just an excuse. Seriously are you telling me that Viet Nam (at 10% IE6 usage) is a hub of corporations and in fact ones that developed a lot of their functionality in IE6 specific technology? I suspect it's more the case they have a lot of old computers and users that don't know to upgrade their browser.
Re:If only other devs used ie6-upgrade-warning.. by deniable · 2011-03-04 20:27 · Score: 1

What he said. It also comes down to which is more important to the bosses: using the work provided tools to do work or slacking off on random web sites? The people who don't think the Internet has serious work uses are still floating around at the upper levels and it's a real easy value cost comparison for them. It's also easier to fire IT than to fire management.
Re:If only other devs used ie6-upgrade-warning.. by deniable · 2011-03-04 20:28 · Score: 1

You get Vista. :)
Re:If only other devs used ie6-upgrade-warning.. by deniable · 2011-03-04 20:31 · Score: 1

The biggest problem is that when they all jumped on the IE band-wagon there wasn't a lot of competition around. Netscape had wandered off and got lost. Opera was foreign, weird and cost money. I can't think of other big browsers at the time.
Re:If only other devs used ie6-upgrade-warning.. by sjames · 2011-03-04 20:59 · Score: 1

Netscape was still alive and well. Pretty much anyone not on Windows was using it just fine. They didn't have to actually standardize on one of those, just make sure their apps were at least usable on them. The value there is in maintaining the flexibility, not necessarily using it. Opera didn't cost anything to use for testing.
Oddly enough, that exercise would have made their apps a lot more likely to work well in IE 7 and 8 as well.
It's fine to cross a bridge, but did they have to then cut it down, burn it, and seed the area with plague?
Re:If only other devs used ie6-upgrade-warning.. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-04 22:23 · Score: 3, Funny

Many of the IE6 users are aware of the problem but unable to upgrade because of corporate IT policy. Telling these poor folks that they should upgrade is like pouring salt in a wound.
Maybe you could make a webapp that does a reverse dns lookup, and for coporate adresses it will display something like:
"It seems you're stuck using IE6. Working at [company X] must suck. Maybe it's time to look for a new job?"
And a link to monster dot com or similar.
Re:If only other devs used ie6-upgrade-warning.. by Richard_at_work · 2011-03-05 01:03 · Score: 1

But there is a good reason why IE6 usage jumps from 9AM to 5PM Mon through Fri, and that is because millions of dollars worth of corporate Intranet apps are written around IE6. Was it stupid? Of course.
Why was it stupid? IE6 came out in 2001, these people have had a decade of good use out of their expenditure, using features that in many cases you still cannot replicate using Javascript and HTML5 - and they've been able to force the vendor (Microsoft) to support them by continuing to support their browser of choice for that decade! Sounds pretty intelligent to me....
It makes sense to completely dismiss ActiveX *now* and write a rich application in Javascript (jQuery) and HTML5, but that option simply did not exist in 2001, 2002, 2003 etc.
Re:If only other devs used ie6-upgrade-warning.. by Kalriath · 2011-03-05 02:30 · Score: 1

For bonus points, get a Google Apps Premier account with even a single user, and you can get a Google support engineer on the horn if you have any issues with Chrome.

--
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
Re:If only other devs used ie6-upgrade-warning.. by CodeInspired · 2011-03-05 04:16 · Score: 1

Thanks for pointing this out. It amazes me how the real issues get twisted when there are popular phrases like "ActiveX is evil" that become the defacto response every time someone brings up IE. Internet Explorer 6 broke many standards, but it's use of ActiveX was not one of them. ActiveX is still alive today and is very useful when you are able to ensure the target users have the appropriate system configurations. Some applications NEED to execute native code from the browser. ActiveX provides that capability, just like extensions, add-ons, plugins, or whatever new term they come up with.
Re:If only other devs used ie6-upgrade-warning.. by Raenex · 2011-03-05 04:31 · Score: 1

So are driveby infections because people still use IE6.
IE6 still gets security updates, and will as long as XP does, which isn't until 2014. Also, browsers like Firefox also have had drive-by bugs. So, like all browsers, users need to stay on top of security updates.
Re:If only other devs used ie6-upgrade-warning.. by amicusNYCL · 2011-03-05 05:04 · Score: 1

Any site with this would be permanently added to my blocked sites list.
That's OK, people using IE6 don't have a "blocked sites list" that they maintain.

--
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Re:If only other devs used ie6-upgrade-warning.. by Pieroxy · 2011-03-05 05:11 · Score: 2

AC has spoken. Hugh!

--
Write boring code, not shiny code!
Re:If only other devs used ie6-upgrade-warning.. by Omestes · 2011-03-05 05:39 · Score: 1

Not sure about you, but I'd rather risk having something old break with the benefit of being able to actually browse the web. Things are so far along since IE6 that it really is a completely new world online.
This matters if your employees should be browsing the web as part of their actual job. Otherwise Facebook being broken might be seen as a benefit rather than a problem. The only thing that matters is your ancient, crusty, legacy apps that are built around IE6.
My girlfriend works at a very large, Fortune 500, company and they still have IE6. They recently upgraded one of their apps and were forced to also roll out Firefox, but they locked down to the point where it can ONLY open that application, while keeping IE6 as the primary browser.
The hassle is probably worth it to them, from a pure economics point of view, though. Sure, replacing a browser would be nice, but re-buying all of your business essential applications would probably cost a lot of money... a hell of a lot if you need per-seat licensing of tens of thousands of employees.

--
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
Re:If only other devs used ie6-upgrade-warning.. by elsJake · 2011-03-05 06:20 · Score: 1

Use prism "webapps" and problem's solved .... partially
Re:If only other devs used ie6-upgrade-warning.. by hairyfeet · 2011-03-05 06:36 · Score: 1

It was stupid because instead of using Java or gasp! even VB to do the job they tied their tech to a specific browser which was a seriously moving target and anybody could see the writing on the wall that the web would develop past IE6?
It is the same reason why I hate Quickbooks, as they will often tie themselves to a specific version of tech (in their case Flash) instead of a general "must need IE" so that when new versions come along you're boned. You'd be surprised at how many VMs and XP Modes I had to set up just because the QB girl (and it is ALWAYS a "QB Girl", I swear they must have a union or something) couldn't run their version of QB thanks to it being tied to some version of flash that won't run on anything past XP.
I mean I have NO problem with ActiveX per se, or even using a current tech, it is when you tie it to a SINGLE version of a tech that I had a problem. If they would have tested for IE5-IE6 they wouldn't be in this mess, same as if QB only demanded flash instead of Flash version x I wouldn't have had to set up so many VMs.
And as for the person who doesn't believe IE6 is a corporate problem? sorry but its true. I have two customers myself I have to deal with IE6 with, one a local insurance company whose ties to the main office are through an IE6 Intranet, and a small TV sales and repair shop whose sat TV sales have the CC checking and credit approval! through an IE6 Intranet portal, ugh.
So believe me as a primarily Windows guy I have NO problem with using whatever tech works best for a job, just don't tie it to a single version of that tech. If you make it work with the last two or three versions of said tech odds are it will work with two or three tech versions in advance. Otherwise you get what we have here with so many having to figure out how to keep a long dead browser running just so they can use the Intranet, same as I had to jump through hoops to get old Flash running on Windows 7 thanks to QB being hard coded.

--
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Re:If only other devs used ie6-upgrade-warning.. by Grishnakh · 2011-03-07 11:16 · Score: 1

The thing is, those "corporate types" were right. While you may have poo-poohed their brilliant decision to build apps that only worked on one particular browser (and one particular OS, making it impossible to upgrade since to my knowledge, IE6 doesn't work in Windows 7), what do you have to show for your position? Nothing. Meanwhile, those corporate executives got big-ass bonuses, and were able to buy yachts and mansions, and now no longer work for the company. So, years later, you're stuck dealing with the consequences of their decisions, while they're enjoying fancy vacations and cruising in their yachts. Why should they care about what's going to happen to their company 8 years later, after they've moved on?
Re:If only other devs used ie6-upgrade-warning.. by sjames · 2011-03-07 11:25 · Score: 1

That's pretty much intrinsic to management. By the time you get to CEO, you can freely direct a tech company to scrap all existing business and specialize in selling sterilized hamster poop and still deploy the golden parachute safely.
So no, they weren't right, they just had a get out of jail free card.

I'll switch by camperdave · 2011-03-04 10:09 · Score: 3, Informative

I'll switch as soon as the update.microsoft.com website will let me. It keeps throwing 0x8DDD0004 errors.

--
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!

Re:I'll switch by TrancePhreak · 2011-03-04 10:13 · Score: 4, Informative

http://forums.techarena.in/windows-update/451062.htm

Five seconds on Google.

--

-]Phreak Out[-
Re:I'll switch by tlhIngan · 2011-03-04 10:17 · Score: 2

The only machine I have running IE6 is my Windows 2000 machine. Even when Windows 2000 was still supported I kept getting pleas to upgrade.
So I clicked "Upgrade" only to be met with "Your operating system is not supported". You'd think Microsoft would've been able to figure that out when it offered me a chance to upgrade...
Now that Windows 2000 has fallen out of support, there's no upgrade for it. Though, I don't use IE6 on it at all... (Firefox 3.5)
Re:I'll switch by operagost · 2011-03-04 10:41 · Score: 1

Get it here instead.

--

Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Re:I'll switch by schnikies79 · 2011-03-04 10:46 · Score: 2

If it's firewalled, has an updated antivirus and a secure browser, does it really matter? I have an older laptop with w2k on it, not a problem at all.

--
Gone!
Re:I'll switch by Pieroxy · 2011-03-04 10:49 · Score: 1

Can't you install Firefox? Why would you want to upgrade your IE anyways?

--
Write boring code, not shiny code!
Re:I'll switch by schnikies79 · 2011-03-04 11:07 · Score: 1

I'm not saying IE6 is not a problem, it is. The poster was referring running w2k as the problem because it no longer receives security updates from Microsoft.
As I stated, you can secure a operating system that no long has manufacture support.

--
Gone!
Re:I'll switch by The+MAZZTer · 2011-03-04 11:22 · Score: 2

Download the IE8 installer manually and run it. If it doesn't work at least you may be able to get a more sensical error message out of it.
Re:I'll switch by The+Grim+Reefer2 · 2011-03-04 11:41 · Score: 1

Yes it still matters. IE6 is not just about lack of security, it's about lack of features and weird rendering too.
So the real solution is to just drop IE and use Firefox or Opera as both seem compatible with w2k.
You get proper html rendering, you get speed, tabs, many other things, and security too.
Congratulations! You're the second person that missed, "Now that Windows 2000 has fallen out of support, there's no upgrade for it. Though, I don't use IE6 on it at all... (Firefox 3.5)" earlier in the the thread.
Re:I'll switch by MrWin2kMan · 2011-03-04 11:55 · Score: 1

That usually means you've mucked about with your system. There are fairly simple fixes for that error. Or you could simply download the full install from the IE website. http://www.microsoft.com/ie Or you could just switch to Chrome, like I did years ago...

--
Nothing to see here but us trolls...move along...
Re:I'll switch by TapeCutter · 2011-03-04 12:15 · Score: 1

Yeah, I ran win98 like that for 10yrs, the only problem I had was people laughing at me.

--
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Re:I'll switch by PNutts · 2011-03-04 12:49 · Score: 1

If it's firewalled, has an updated antivirus and a secure browser, does it really matter? I have an older laptop with w2k on it, not a problem at all.
Well, the OP didn't mention any of that except he's on an older version of Firefox (3.5). I would argue that the the security updates in the 15 versions of 3.5 and the 16 (so far) versions of 3.6 Firefox do not make his a "secure browser". I'm ok using an older version but from a security perspective that's putting a lot of faith in your perimeter defenses, especially with your laptop when you can't guarantee what's protecting you on a strange network. And if he uses it for e-mail I would say game over, because if you can't be bothered upgrading from FF 3.5 to something newer than I doubt security if your first concern. And yes, he might have an extension that won't work on a newer version blah blah blah.
Re:I'll switch by camperdave · 2011-03-05 10:24 · Score: 1

That usually means you've mucked about with your system.

Mucked about? Yeah, I did a fresh install of XP and loaded video and network drivers. Then I tried to update windows. Boom: Error.

None of the "fairly simple fixes" have worked so far.

--
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Re:I'll switch by MrWin2kMan · 2011-03-05 15:43 · Score: 1

Did you do a fresh install of XP with at the currently supported service pack? Windows Update won't work unless you have at least SP2, you might even need SP3. It's silly of Microsoft to do this, I know, but they only officially support and provide updates for software that is still within their support framework. If you haven't already, make sure you download and install SP3, and while you're at it, download the full installer for whatever version of IE you want. You may still need to visit the TechNet pages and look for the latest Windows Installer package, and perhaps the Windows Genuine Software Advantage package, and install those. Also make sure you haven't tweaked any of the services yet; Windows Update obviously requires BITS (at least set to manual) and Automatic Updates (Automatic) to even function. I've seen this error before, and one of the fixes was installing the updated wuauclt package, so you might try that as well. For a quick and dirty fix, you might try installing the Microsoft Update package, upgrading the standard Windows Update package. There is usually a link for this when you go to the main Windiws Update page.

--
Nothing to see here but us trolls...move along...
Re:I'll switch by camperdave · 2011-03-07 09:18 · Score: 1

I downloaded and installed SP3; now the update site is working.

How did Microsoft ever get to be so popular, anyways?

--
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Re:I'll switch by Grishnakh · 2011-03-07 11:21 · Score: 1

Yep, you've mucked about with your system. You're not supposed to do a "fresh install", you're supposed to load the version of Windows that came with your [brand name] computer, complete with drivers and many helpful extra pieces of software. If you damage your Windows installation, you're supposed to reinstall this preload version, either from an included CD or from a special HD partition.

We can do better by markdavis · 2011-03-04 10:10 · Score: 2

>"Of course they want you to upgrade to a newer Internet Explorer."

And I want you to upgrade to a cross-platform web browser, like Firefox, Opera, or Chrome. Then maybe we can have all sites work on all browsers and on most all operating systems. But we can't always get what we want, can we?

Re:We can do better by MoonBuggy · 2011-03-04 10:23 · Score: 4, Insightful

Cross platform doesn't matter as long as the different pieces of platform-specific software all obey the same standard. It doesn't matter whether your TCP/IP stack was coded in malbolge by Russian monks and only runs on RISC OS, if it supports the standard it won't cause any problems for anybody.
The problem, of course, is that HTML & CSS are very complicated and, some might say, poorly-defined standards whereas TCP/IP, ASCII, and so forth are straightforward and well known. Really, though, your theory that one needs a cross-platform browser to ensure correct rendering implies that none of them are implementing the standards properly, and that's something I disagree with - there may be minor quirks, but on the whole you can expect a well coded site to display more or less accurately, although not pixel-perfect, in all modern browsers. IE6, however, made a complete hash of valid markup ten years ago, and does so to an even greater extent now.
Re:We can do better by neokushan · 2011-03-04 10:27 · Score: 1

Why should the cross-platformness of the browser make a difference to how the site works? If the browser is standards compliant, it shouldn't matter if it's platform agnostic or not. IE9 isn't perfect, but it's about 1,000,000.315 times better than IE6.

--
+1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
Re:We can do better by Pieroxy · 2011-03-04 10:32 · Score: 1

Agreed for TCP/IP, but ASCII? how many times have I stumbled on a website with "?" or chinese characters instead of quotes.... Granted, pure 7-bit ASCII is very well defined, but for the rest it's a little grey area.

--
Write boring code, not shiny code!
Re:We can do better by sltd · 2011-03-04 10:32 · Score: 1

Even still, if people would just stop using IE6, it would suddenly be 200 times easier to develop for the web.
Re:We can do better by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2011-03-04 10:47 · Score: 1

Why should the cross-platformness of the browser make a difference to how the site works?
Because buzzwords like 'cross-platform' often get the word 'insightful' to appear next to yoru post.

--

"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Re:We can do better by markdavis · 2011-03-04 10:48 · Score: 2

>"Cross platform doesn't matter as long as the different pieces of platform-specific software all obey the same standard"
Agreed! So what part of Active-X is standards based?
There are still TONS of sites still require the use of IE. I have to deal with three on a regular basis and it is especially true with hosted, supposedly "web based" business services. IE6 is not the root problem there. The modern root problem is Active-X (and to a much lesser degree, Silverlight). It turns what COULD be a standards-based browser setup into a completely proprietary, MS-Windows, IE-ONLY environment.
If most people chose a cross-platform browser, it would ensure that sites can't pull non-standard stuff and end up dictating which browser AND operating system is used.
Re:We can do better by neokushan · 2011-03-04 10:54 · Score: 1

I haven't been on a site that required ActiveX in years and even that was probably still only Windows update. Oh yeah, I do use windows occasionally, but I find that I spend most of my time using, of all things - Android. So I don't tend to use a cross-platform browser (unless you count Webkit as being the cross-platform "browser"). My originally point still stands - "if the browser is standards compliant" it wont matter what platforms it's available on. As you pointed out, ActiveX is not a web standard, so it's irrelevant to the discussion. The Reason IE6 (And IE in general) has caused so much grief is the sheer monopoly Microsoft once had. It was never just ActiveX, it was all sorts of stupid things the browser did that meant websites would be coded specifically for it, letting other browsers suffer in the process. The thing about ActiveX is that it cannot be "emulated" on other browsers, but then how many actually try to emulate the rest of IE's quirks anyway?

--
+1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
Re:We can do better by markdavis · 2011-03-04 10:58 · Score: 1, Insightful

Perhaps there *is* more to cross-platform than fishing for meaningless "insightful" mods on Slashdot:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2023324&cid=35385012
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2023324&cid=35384960
Re:We can do better by MoonBuggy · 2011-03-04 11:01 · Score: 1

Fair point. For what it's worth, I use OSX on my primary machine and it's been who knows how long since I last came across a website that required ActiveX; the odd time that it has happened it's been easy enough to react with a simple "Oh, well, I'm not doing business with those idiots then". That said, you're absolutely right that OS specific extensions are dangerous, especially in the hands of the market leader - it's still technically a matter of standards rather than of platform-specificity, but you'd be quite right to accuse me of nitpicking were I to push that point any further!
Re:We can do better by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2011-03-04 11:07 · Score: 1

The word you're looking for is 'standards compliance'.

--

"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Re:We can do better by Xtravar · 2011-03-04 11:19 · Score: 1

ASCII, by definition, is 7-bits. The others are 'extended' ASCII hacks and/or Latin-1. /pedant

--
Buckle your ROFL belt, we're in for some LOLs.
Re:We can do better by RobbieThe1st · 2011-03-04 11:22 · Score: 1

I dropped support for it a while back, but I'm not corporate(or getting paid for my work), so I don't care whether or not a few % of idiots still use it.
Re:We can do better by nowen2dot · 2011-03-04 11:22 · Score: 1

I may be wrong, but I believe ASCII never defined anything other than 7-bit. Of course when people began commonly using 8-bits to store a character, the ASCII was extended---incorporated as the first 128 characters of an 8-bit set.

(A quick check on wikipedia suggests ASCII only defined 128 characters.)

--
I've had a perfectly wonderful evening. But this wasn't it. -- Groucho Marx
Re:We can do better by markdavis · 2011-03-04 11:24 · Score: 1

I don't disagree with your posting. I just have to point out that business use of IE-only and Active-X is much, much higher that most home users realize. So while it might not be TECHNICALLY a "web standard", the end result is that MS uses their browser *with* Active-X. So no matter how standards-compliant IE is, as long as developers have the opportunity to use things like Active-X, and do so, they have contaminated the concept of a "web browser" and used that power to (intentionally or not) force a single-platform, single-browser site/environment.
Just today I had to fight yet another such site that left us completely unable to do anything because it was not IE+MS-Windows and it is infuriating. And reading others' posts like "well, I just refuse to do business with such sites" is not always practical or even possible (I know your's is not one of those, but you get the idea).
Re:We can do better by neokushan · 2011-03-04 11:39 · Score: 1

OH I completely agree with that. In fact, my employer is still stuck in IE6 mode because half of the internal sites require us to use IE6. The annoying thing is that not a single one of them actually uses ActiveX and in fact all but one of them does work well enough in other browsers, my employer just doesn't let us use said browsers on them for the simple reason that they don't want to have to support another browser, from a user perspective.
If the site goes wrong (and a lot of them do) and you weren't using IE6, they'll blame the browser. All of these sites are developed and maintained internally as well, so it's not like we're dependant on some 3rd party vendor.
Amusingly, they rolled out IE8 across their entire site once a few weeks ago as part of a big security push and suddenly nothing worked, yet those of us who opted for Chrome or Firefox (Pale Moon in my case as these machines are quite slow) had better compatibility, but IT refused to switch everyone over and decided to just roll back to IE6...

--
+1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
Re:We can do better by camperdave · 2011-03-04 11:46 · Score: 1

Even still, if people would just stop using IE6, it would suddenly be 200 times easier to develop for the web.
Why would that matter? Just develop your site as if IE6 didn't exist. It's not your fault if they don't have a browser capable of viewing your site.

--
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Re:We can do better by yuhong · 2011-03-04 13:00 · Score: 1

Yea, the mess that is the incompatible ASCII extensions. There was the simple single-byte ones, and there was the double-byte CJK ones. Some of them even used the ASCII range for the trail byte to squeeze in more characters! Nowadays UTF-8 is recommended, which is an encoding of Unicode as a multi-byte ASCII extension.
Re:We can do better by Grishnakh · 2011-03-07 11:25 · Score: 1

What public websites are like this? I can't say I've seen a single one. Sure, lots of websites use Flash (either required, or optional), a few use Silverlight (I personally don't know of any except for Netflix's instant viewing), but ActiveX? Where?
Yes, lots of corporate intranet services are stuck with ActiveX, but we're talking about public sites here, not internal-only stuff that only employees of a company need to worry about.
Re:We can do better by Grishnakh · 2011-03-07 11:29 · Score: 1

So your employer isn't planning to upgrade to Windows 7? What are they going to do if they need to update hardware and it doesn't come with XP drivers? Or are they going to do what my last employer did: require everyone to work within an XP virtual machine on top of W7?
Re:We can do better by neokushan · 2011-03-07 11:40 · Score: 1

Update Hardware? What is this you speak of?

--
+1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
Re:We can do better by markdavis · 2011-03-07 13:10 · Score: 1

I never said they were "public" web sites. And nowhere in the article does it say the scope of the issue or the comments is limited to public sites.
You might also want to define "public"... there are lots and lots of Internet-accessible sites that use ActiveX but require logins and are for specific services and were not designed nor managed by the company that needs to use them. Are those "public"? (Keep in mind that just having a login doesn't mean it isn't public..)
But you are correct in that few home-user or non-login type sites require Active-X (thankfully).
Re:We can do better by Grishnakh · 2011-03-07 14:02 · Score: 1

I would define "public" as "open to the public", just like a brick-and-mortar business. Yes, some businesses require a charge to get in (notably, dance clubs and amusement parks), but they are still open to the public, in that they don't discriminate against anyone and anyone is able to go inside (after paying a cover charge, and as long as it isn't filled to capacity).
So a porn site that requires a login to get to the galleries is still a "public site", as is Netflix instant viewing, whereas webmail.youremployer.com is not, because that's only open to employees of the company so they can check their work email from home. Neither is the website for your employer's payroll processor (such as ADP), where employees of a company can go to download their paystubs and W-2s.
Given that, are there any public websites that use ActiveX? I haven't heard of any. Tons of Flash sites, precisely one notable Silverlight site (Netflix), but I've actually never seen a public ActiveX site, not even when IE6 was in vogue.
Re:We can do better by markdavis · 2011-03-07 14:50 · Score: 1

Not trying to be obtuse, but it is still a bit nefarious. There are numerous business sites that we have been requested or required to use that require ActiveX. Sites which:
1) Sit on the Internet
2) Not developed by us
3) Not developed for us
4) Are available to any company that uses their services
5) Do require logins
6) None of which have anything to do with Flash for Silverlight
None of which if I listed would mean anything to you. So they are probably "private" by your definition. That makes it no less damaging to us, however. My point still holds- If more businesses used cross-platform browsers, it would be far more difficult for such sites (just like public sites) to get away with "extending" the browser with proprietary, single-platform "enhancements".
Re:We can do better by Grishnakh · 2011-03-07 15:30 · Score: 1

None of which if I listed would mean anything to you. So they are probably "private" by your definition.
I know it's an arbitrary distinction, but yes, I would consider those "private". To put it in business-speak, it's "B2B" vs. "B2C". All the stuff I listed as "open to the public" is B2C: private businesses offering services to the general public (i.e., individual consumers). The stuff you're talking about is like ADP payroll services which many companies outsource their payroll to, it's B2B, services that are only available to other businesses, and not to consumers at all.
The reason this is significant is that no individual consumer is likely to come across a public-facing website that requires them to use ActiveX, so for their home computer, they're free to use whatever they want, without worrying about being locked out of anything. With businesses, it's different, as long as businesses choose to purchase services from companies that have this ridiculous requirement. But employees will only have to deal with this when they're at work, or using a work-provided computer (if they have to deal with it with their personal computer, they need to demand a work-provided laptop or find a new job!); once they go home they don't have to suffer with IE6 any more.
Why do I think this is an important distinction? Because this isn't the only computer-related annoyance people at work have to put up with, it's frequently one of many. Ultra-slow PCs, lack of backups, lack of software needed to do job, terrible email systems, 15" monitors, PeopleSoft software, I could go on and on with the ridiculous stuff many corporate employees are forced to put up with. It took me a year at my last job to get a newer PC for software development, even though the amount of my 6-figure time I was wasting, waiting for compiling, by having an 8-year-old PC was far more valuable than the amount of money they saved by not upgrading to a modern $1k computer, but that's the way it goes at corporations these days; they're not run by geniuses. Crappy IE6 websites are just another annoyance on top of a long list of annoyances you have to deal with at work, so I don't really see the problem; if my stupid employer wants me to use such sites, they have to provide the IT environment for me to do it with. It's when I'm on my own time that this stuff really matters to me, and ActiveX/IE6 doesn't seem to be a problem at all with B2C websites, so to me this isn't really a big issue.
If more businesses used cross-platform browsers, it would be far more difficult for such sites (just like public sites) to get away with "extending" the browser with proprietary, single-platform "enhancements".
Yes, that's true, but ultimately, it's the stupid customer businesses that are shooting themselves in the foot by buying into services which require ActiveX, or developing and maintaining their own internal sites like this. If they'd grow some balls and either fix their internal IT division, or stop buying from firms with dinosaur technology, they wouldn't be wasting so much money on their IT department in dealing with this stuff. I don't have any sympathy for them; they're the customer, and they're free to walk away. You can't blame the vendor for offering decade-old technology at top dollar and getting a bunch of suckers to keep buying it. They get to rake in the money, and not bother investing any money into updating their technology. If I were running a business selling stuff built on obsolete technology, and customers kept coming to me and throwing money at me instead of going to the competition or doing it themselves, I wouldn't bother updating my technology either, no matter how much trouble it caused my customers.

Wow by LBArrettAnderson · 2011-03-04 10:11 · Score: 1

How old is this news? Honestly, this happened multiple months ago. I'm also pretty sure it was covered on slashdot.

Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-04 10:20 · Score: 1

ie6countdown.com
Registrar Name....: CORPORATE DOMAINS, INC.
Domain Name: ie6countdown.com
Created on..............: Fri, Aug 07, 2009
Expires on..............: Tue, Aug 07, 2012
Record last updated on..: Thu, Mar 03, 2011
Administrative Contact:
Microsoft Corporation
Domain Administrator
One Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052
US
Phone: +1.4258828080
Email:
Re:Wow by Pieroxy · 2011-03-04 10:36 · Score: 1

When it's good, you don't count.

--
Write boring code, not shiny code!

I'm a web developer and I don't like this by WiglyWorm · 2011-03-04 10:12 · Score: 4, Insightful

I'm not sure why I should potentially lower my conversion rate by hassling people to upgrade their browser. That seems like Microsoft's job, not mine.

Maybe they could use the same features that redirect you to msn.com or bing to redirect you to a browser selection page, no? In the mean time, I will just keep including stylesheets for IE6 that do some graceful degredation. It won't look great, but it won't be illegible.

Besides, it seems like most IE6 users in this age are enterprise clients who can't upgrade until their vendors start supporting new browsers, or until the interprise itself gets rid of legacy programs.

Re:I'm a web developer and I don't like this by neokushan · 2011-03-04 10:31 · Score: 1

Surely if you have "degradation" for those who use IE6, you'd want some sort of disclaimer to explain that it's their browser that sucks ass and not your web development skills? Like the way google does it, they effectively say "We don't test against your browser so the site might not work right".
It's funny how the tides have turned from those dark ages when Websites REQUIRED IE and deliberately blocked all other browsers, yet now the shoe is on the other foot, people worry about merely putting up a banner to inform people to upgrade.

--
+1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
Re:I'm a web developer and I don't like this by Pieroxy · 2011-03-04 10:33 · Score: 1

Because you're tired of spending 20% of your web design time supporting 7% of your audience?

--
Write boring code, not shiny code!
Re:I'm a web developer and I don't like this by Pieroxy · 2011-03-04 10:39 · Score: 4, Informative

I am working for a big e-commerce website (think several hundred million euros of yearly revenue) and we are actually putting up a banner for IE6 users. We still test it for now but don't spend time on design. Most websites in France are moving in this direction.
Now, when I won't have to worry about it at all, I'll celebrate a second time !

--
Write boring code, not shiny code!
Re:I'm a web developer and I don't like this by The+MAZZTer · 2011-03-04 11:24 · Score: 1

If your site does not support IE6 you might want something like this to let users know they can get more out of your site by upgrading.
Re:I'm a web developer and I don't like this by Bob_Geldof · 2011-03-04 17:09 · Score: 1

Besides, it seems like most IE6 users in this age are enterprise clients who can't upgrade until their vendors start supporting new browsers, or until the interprise itself gets rid of legacy programs.
Wrong, if you look at the map and the percentages, it looks like poor people running bootlegged versions of outdated windows are the main users of IE6.

--
887321 = 337*2633
Re:I'm a web developer and I don't like this by Count+Fenring · 2011-03-04 19:31 · Score: 1

Cause and effect, dude. People are worried about putting up banners BECAUSE people motherfscking HATED being told "YOU UPGRADE/SWITCH BROWSERS OR YOU'RE NOT WELCOME!"

Beware of what you wish for. by blair1q · 2011-03-04 10:12 · Score: 1

This week one of my machines updated IE9, which then broke Flash in IE9. So I updated Flash, but Adobe says that they don't yet support IE9 at 64 bits, though they do have a Beta version of 64-bit IE9 Flash that they'll download. So far, it hasn't crashed, but I'm checking for a non-Beta release frequently.

Re:Beware of what you wish for. by neokushan · 2011-03-04 10:33 · Score: 3, Informative

IE9 is beta (Release Candidate is still more "beta" than "final"), so you wished to use beta software by installing it in the first place. You could have just used IE8 and had no problems, then upgraded to IE9 when IE9 is ready.

--
+1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
Re:Beware of what you wish for. by blair1q · 2011-03-04 10:46 · Score: 1

I don't take "beta" labels from Microsoft seriously. When Adobe does it, I worry.
Re:Beware of what you wish for. by blair1q · 2011-03-04 10:47 · Score: 1

Ahuh. If I was on that machine I'd point out a few URIs that refuse to operate properly in Firefox, Safari, or Chrome, that show up fine in IE.
Re:Beware of what you wish for. by neokushan · 2011-03-04 10:58 · Score: 1

"Beta" is Alpha, "RTM" is "Beta" and "SP1" is the real "RTM"?

--
+1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
Re:Beware of what you wish for. by Pieroxy · 2011-03-04 11:12 · Score: 1

So what prevents you from using both? Crappy IE-only sites with IE and the rest of the web on FF...

--
Write boring code, not shiny code!
Re:Beware of what you wish for. by yuhong · 2011-03-04 11:45 · Score: 1

So why not use 32-bit IE9?
Re:Beware of what you wish for. by blair1q · 2011-03-04 11:46 · Score: 1

Nothing. That's generally what I do. Run FF for 99.5% of the web, and IE when FF can't find its ass with both hands.
Not sure how anyone got any other idea. I wasn't saying that I was crippled by the IE/Flash thing, just that I didn't like it.
Re:Beware of what you wish for. by liquidweaver · 2011-03-04 12:19 · Score: 1

Ahuh. If I was on that machine I'd point out a few URIs that refuse to operate properly in Firefox, Safari, or Chrome, that show up fine in IE.
Like?

--
mov ah, 4ch
int 21h
Re:Beware of what you wish for. by RichM · 2011-03-04 12:54 · Score: 1

Upgrading to IE9 also breaks launching GTA4 in Steam on Windows 7, just FYI.
Re:Beware of what you wish for. by zombiechan · 2011-03-04 13:17 · Score: 1

Because some people do like IE...
Re:Beware of what you wish for. by toddestan · 2011-03-05 16:27 · Score: 1

I thought that no flash in IE 64 bit was a feature? That's the only version of IE I'll run on my machine.

Argh! iecountdown.com is parked! by Samantha+Wright · 2011-03-04 10:14 · Score: 1

What we really need is a more generalized iecountdown spoof—exactly the same in every way, except trying to get people to move away from IE as a whole. A cursory glance says that the site's pretty generic and easily search-and-replaced into an even more noble effort.

--
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!

Uninstall ? by BillHop · 2011-03-04 10:15 · Score: 1

Obviously, Microsoft issuing an update that would allow uninstalling IE6 from every platform where it lurks is unthinkable.

Re:Uninstall ? by WiglyWorm · 2011-03-04 10:20 · Score: 1

IE6 is litterally built in to windows XP. Every time you open an explorer window, it is working in exactly the way IE works. Haven't you ever typed "My Computer" or "Control Panel" in to an IE address bar? Haven't you ever typed slashdot.org into a windows explorer window?
Re:Uninstall ? by netsharc · 2011-03-04 10:51 · Score: 1

Or just force an upgrade to IE7 or 8. But look at the high percentage in Asia, where they probably have pirated Windows, and never ever update their browser.

--
What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
Re:Uninstall ? by PitaBred · 2011-03-04 13:03 · Score: 1

On Windows 7 if I type a URL into a Windows Explorer window it opens it in Firefox (my default browser).

--
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.

standalone IE by farlukar · 2011-03-04 10:19 · Score: 1

Isn't the standalone method (known since the eolas debacle) sufficient?

--
Ceci n'est pas une .sig

Why not... by mr_lizard13 · 2011-03-04 10:19 · Score: 1

...just make that site best viewed in IE7?

That'll do the trick.

--
"We live in a global world" - Harvey Pitt, former Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman

Re:Why not... by hduff · 2011-03-04 10:50 · Score: 1

...just make that site best viewed in IE6?
That'll do the trick.
FTFY

--
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert

Re:Upgrade to new IE by Haedrian · 2011-03-04 10:22 · Score: 1

Neither does IE6, so there's no real problem.

Saving hours of work by ve3oat · 2011-03-04 10:24 · Score: 2

so more websites can choose to drop support for Internet Explorer 6, saving hours of work for web developers

Gee, if M-S would only discover and use W3C standards, no one would have to use special browser hacks to make their websites work in any variety of different browsers.

Re:Saving hours of work by intellitech · 2011-03-04 10:36 · Score: 1

Standards? What are those?

--
vos nescitis quicquam, nec cogitatis quia expedit nobis ut unus moriatur homo pro populo et non tota gens pereat.
Re:Saving hours of work by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-03-04 12:57 · Score: 1

Gee, if M-S would only discover and use W3C standards, no one would have to use special browser hacks to make their websites work in any variety of different browsers.
When IE6 originally came out, it was more standards conformant than any other browser on the market (Mozilla was still in 0.x beta stage). The fail was in not keeping up in later releases, and in delaying them for as long as they were.
Re:Saving hours of work by deniable · 2011-03-04 20:52 · Score: 1

They have. I think you're looking for time travel to go back and undo their past mistakes. So are they.
Re:Saving hours of work by BitZtream · 2011-03-05 12:45 · Score: 2

Right, because when IE6 came out ... everyone else followed the standards but not MS ... wait ... no ... not really ... FF 1 wasn't exactly worth while and that was as close as you could get.

--
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager

And what about Windows 2000 and older? by systematical · 2011-03-04 10:30 · Score: 1

How do people on Windows 2000 and older switch? Is MS advocating these people use a non-microsoft browser?

Re:And what about Windows 2000 and older? by h4rr4r · 2011-03-04 11:00 · Score: 1

Simple, upgrade the OS, for FREE to one of many non-windows OS. MS would of course prefer you buy a new computer.
Re:And what about Windows 2000 and older? by murphtall · 2011-03-04 12:02 · Score: 1

Why would MicroSoft prefer if you buy a new computer? Microsoft doesn't make any money from you buying a computer unless it's own OS is installed on it. Maybe your new computer is an Apple iPad or Apple MacBook, how would MicroSoft benefit then?
Re:And what about Windows 2000 and older? by Skidborg · 2011-03-04 13:19 · Score: 1

If you haven't bought a new computer and version of Windows in ten years, then you're not a paying customer worth worrying about.

--
Supporter of the +1 Over Dramatic mod option. In memory of apk.

They'd better do this by rsilvergun · 2011-03-04 10:30 · Score: 2

they risk losing market share to Firefox otherwise. There is no Microsoft, there is only XUL ;).

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/

Loop by clinko · 2011-03-04 10:32 · Score: 1

IEVer++
WinVer++
Money++

Sorry MS its your own damn fault by grapeape · 2011-03-04 10:33 · Score: 1

I have a client stuck with IE 6 due to being stuck with a program that wont run on anything newer than windows 2000 and a reluctance of the client to have to buy and learn another system just to be able to upgrade their browser.

Re:Sorry MS its your own damn fault by Pieroxy · 2011-03-04 10:45 · Score: 2

How it is MS's fault? Can't they install Firefox or something? IE6 is not a curse. People browsing with IE6 are !

--
Write boring code, not shiny code!
Re:Sorry MS its your own damn fault by voss · 2011-03-04 12:32 · Score: 2

Firefox 3.6 runs just fine in windows 2000

This website looks great! by snowraver1 · 2011-03-04 10:34 · Score: 3, Funny

It sure does render good using IE6!

--
Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. This comment may not be copied in any way including, but not limited to caching.

The alternatives are not for everyone by tepples · 2011-03-04 10:34 · Score: 1

MSFT is its own worst enemy nowadays, in its core product lines (Office, OS, VS); the fact that there are other alternatives (which are incidentally free and free) also serves to highlight this.

The alternatives are not for everyone. For example, individuals can't make console games without VS (XNA Game Studio uses VS), and you can't make Windows games without a copy of Windows to test on.

Re:Upgrade to new IE by maxwell+demon · 2011-03-04 10:38 · Score: 1

I'd be happy to; does it run on GNU/Linus or FreeBSD?

So now RMS wants Linus to put the GNU prefix even in front of his own name?
But no, I don't think IE runs on Linus. They didn't port it to genetics yet.

SCNR :-)

--
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.

tagged by bluefoxlucid · 2011-03-04 10:38 · Score: 1

hellitsabouttime

--
Support my political activism on Patreon.

Anti-marketing? by molo · 2011-03-04 10:41 · Score: 2

Wow. IMO, they should have left off the "6".

-molo

--
Using your sig line to advertise for friends is lame.

Re:Anti-marketing? by frank_adrian314159 · 2011-03-04 12:11 · Score: 1

They've always had quality problems, you know...

--
That is all.
Re:Anti-marketing? by Confusador · 2011-03-04 22:14 · Score: 1

The nice thing is, you can still accurately quote them as saying "Friends don’t let friends use Internet Explorer".

MS KB914224 by DigiShaman · 2011-03-04 10:41 · Score: 3, Informative

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/914224. In short, stop two services. Windows Update and Background Intelligent Transfer. Next, delete the entire folder called "SoftwareDistribution" located under the root of C:\Windows. Restart both services and try again.

BTW, that folder you deleted will regenerate after starting these services. Don't worry about it.

--
Life is not for the lazy.

Re:MS KB914224 by DigiShaman · 2011-03-05 08:03 · Score: 1

It's all about the Googlefu. My skill is great, young grasshoppa.

--
Life is not for the lazy.

Microsoft's motives are not yours by catmistake · 2011-03-04 10:42 · Score: 1

Yes, most want IE6 to die. But their reasons are not MS reasons.

OTOH there are valid reasons for some companies to remain on IE6... a lack of resources and the desire not to break internal web applications that are still needed and still work. So long as the users remain locked into their internal network, there are no good reasons to upgrade, and plenty not to upgrade. And the same argument could be made for XP, Office, Server or Exchange.

Microsoft needs you to upgrade, though, to bring their plans of vendor lockin to fruition. They need the marketshare, but they especially need your money. There's not much a business user will benefit (assume their business IT is on the ball) afa functionality, but hey... they've given you shiney, now upgrade, dammit.

--
The Admin and the Engineer

Re:Microsoft's motives are not yours by sjames · 2011-03-04 17:53 · Score: 1

It is kind of funny though. MS locked customers in to IE6 on XP so hard that nothing including EOL notices can dislodge it. They now have to compete against their own lock-in to get sales.
Re:Microsoft's motives are not yours by sjames · 2011-03-05 08:06 · Score: 1

I think we're talking about slightly different things. You're addressing differentiation and how to introduce new features to a feature complete product that really should just go into maintenance mode (but that doesn't produce high profits).
I'm talking about the actual lock-in on the corporate desktop. It's not a matter of failing to convince corporate users to update to IE8, they're quite convinced, they want to do that upgrade yesterday. They CAN'T. MS put a bunch of dirty tricks and traps into IE6 and their development software and documentation to trick corporate app developers into producing things that could only ever work in IE. The purpose was to keep Netscape (and then Opera) from dislodging IE as the browser. Unfortunately for MS, the lockin was TOO tight. Even new versions of IE don't work with those critical legacy apps

International version? by fearlezz · 2011-03-04 10:43 · Score: 4, Interesting

So, about 50% of the IE6 users worldwide are chinese... Actually, the top 10 countries with the highest IE6 usage are non-english... and they didn't think of approaching IE6-users in their own language? *sigh*

--
.sig: No such file or directory

Re:International version? by hduff · 2011-03-04 10:52 · Score: 4, Insightful

So, about 50% of the IE6 users worldwide are chinese... Actually, the top 10 countries with the highest IE6 usage are non-english... and they didn't think of approaching IE6-users in their own language? *sigh*
What they really need is a free upgrade path from the pirated versions of Windows.

--
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
Re:International version? by Solandri · 2011-03-04 10:57 · Score: 1

Actually, the top 10 countries with the highest IE6 usage are non-english... and they didn't think of approaching IE6-users in their own language?
Actually, I think this is more a failing of the open source community and the Mozilla foundation to spread Firefox to non-English non-European users. I know in South Korea IE6 was so ubiquitous that entire companies and banks built their systems around it. It was a huge hassle when Vista shipped with IE7 and broke many of those systems. If Firefox had been pitched as well there as it was here, IE6 would never have become the hegemony there that it became, and everyone (Microsoft, Mozilla, Opera, etc) would be having an easier time getting those people to switch from IE6.
Re:International version? by DMoylan · 2011-03-04 13:54 · Score: 1

yes! a free upgrade to vista! they'll pay for the win7 upgrade. through. the. nose. :-)
Re:International version? by ToasterMonkey · 2011-03-04 16:11 · Score: 1

What they really need is a free upgrade path from the pirated versions of Windows.
Why does the upgrade path need to be free? Surely it's worth _something_.

How 'bout just stopping support already? by cstanley8899 · 2011-03-04 10:43 · Score: 1

And when the whiners complain that the website doesn't work then say.... "You must upgrade in order for the website to work." No need to pander to all these stragglers.

Re:How 'bout just stopping support already? by bloodhawk · 2011-03-04 11:29 · Score: 1

because in the real world many of these sites are business's turning over millions and millions of dollars and quite frankly when it comes to a choice of breaking 10% of there users (ie stopping 10% of their revenue) or spending extra and keeping maximum revenue then the choice is not so easy. Many can prompt or push towards upgrades but ultimately if your business depends on users using you then you really want to support everyone regardless of how retarded they are.

Money is money whether it comes from a retard using ie6 or a selfrighteous idiot using firefox, for these businesses technology is secondary to making money.
Re:How 'bout just stopping support already? by cstanley8899 · 2011-03-04 11:54 · Score: 1

Yeah I guess you'd need Microsoft to somehow force it so that way you can just blame them and not whatever company.
Re:How 'bout just stopping support already? by cstanley8899 · 2011-03-04 12:03 · Score: 1

I wonder too... at what point can you convince a company you are designing a site for to stop supporting a certain browser?
Re:How 'bout just stopping support already? by bloodhawk · 2011-03-04 17:01 · Score: 1

If it is purely a business aimed at profit this is easy, it is at the point where revenue from those users is insufficent to cover the cost of support.

IE 4? by CohibaVancouver · 2011-03-04 10:44 · Score: 1

I use IE 4 on Windows NT 4, you insensitive clod!

Re:IE 4? by MemoryDragon · 2011-03-04 10:56 · Score: 1

Actually you are not so far off, we got a coplaint last year by a customer who was seriously complaining that a site was freaking out on his ie 5.5.
I first thought this was a joke, but the guy was dead serious!
Re:IE 4? by maxwell+demon · 2011-03-04 11:57 · Score: 1

Actually you are not so far off, we got a coplaint last year by a customer who was seriously complaining that a site was freaking out on his ie 5.5.
I first thought this was a joke, but the guy was dead serious!
Well, he probably heard that IE6 is bad, and thus decided not to upgrade ...

--
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Re:IE 4? by Saint+Stephen · 2011-03-04 13:49 · Score: 1

pfft, I'm still running Netscape Navigator 1.0 with Trumpet Winsock on Windows for Workgroups 3.11. Leet!
Re:IE 4? by MemoryDragon · 2011-03-05 20:55 · Score: 1

More a case of a person who thinks the Internet hasnto adjust to his personality not vice versa.

Re:Fx3 still supports Windows 2000 by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2011-03-04 10:54 · Score: 1

You appear to have clicked the wrong upgrade button. Try this upgrade button

You, on the other hand, might want to read his entire post. It's only fourth sentences long - and, tricky devil that he is, it's in the last one that he rendered your response pointless.

--
#DeleteChrome

As of IE9 by tepples · 2011-03-04 10:55 · Score: 2

Gee, if M-S would only discover and use W3C standards

As of IE9, Microsoft is doing a far better job of this than it ever used to. But then IE9 could just be Microsoft's trojan horse to get users off Windows XP and onto Windows 7.

Re:As of IE9 by Sulphur · 2011-03-04 12:27 · Score: 1

As of IE9, Microsoft is doing a far better job of this than it ever used to. But then IE9 could just be Microsoft's trojan horse to get users off Windows XP and onto Windows 7.
What's a horse?
Re:As of IE9 by cbhacking · 2011-03-04 17:28 · Score: 1

Hell, IE8 was actually standards-compliant, it was just to an outdated standard (HTML < 5, CSS2, etc.) It won't do fancy new stuff, but at least it won't break horribly on legit code either.
IE9 is actually pushing at the bounds of the "standards" (draft standards, really) but is still in RC. Its support is quite good, though. There are some "standards" it doesn't implement yet that a few other browsers have, but the reverse is also true.

--
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...

Re:China? by FrostDust · 2011-03-04 10:56 · Score: 1

That's what I was thinking when I first saw the headline.

Windows Update won't let you get Service Pack 2, and in turn IE7/8, unless you pass the WGA anti-piracy check. Also, going along with your premise, I assume the average person isn't going to bother trying to circumvent the WGA for just a new browser, when it'd be much easier to just install another browser.

So, unless Microsoft releases a version of IE8 compatible with XP SP1, or disables the WGA requirement, Internet Explorer 6 won't die out until the physical decay of every last Windows XP computer occurs.

Past Time by Dracos · 2011-03-04 11:02 · Score: 1

The appropriate time for this website was at least 5 years ago.

IE7 for Windows 2000? by bigsexyjoe · 2011-03-04 11:03 · Score: 1

Well, if they were serious they'd just make IE 7 available for Windows 2000. Of course their motive for turning against IE 6 is just to force people to upgrade to XP or beyond and give them money...

--
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free

The fastest way to get rid of IE6 by Kosi · 2011-03-04 11:17 · Score: 1

Many websites still contain special workarounds to make the pages work in IE6. Just remove them (or replace them with a redirection to ie6countdown.com), and the users will upgrade immediately. And for those stubborn corporate users, who still do not get it, MS should just quit offering support for machines with IE6. Both measures should have been taken years ago.

Re:The fastest way to get rid of IE6 by Shados · 2011-03-04 11:23 · Score: 1

Microsoft has pretty strict support timelines for each of their products, provided up front, and, rightly so, stick to them.
So they'll stop supporting IE6 when all the products that requires it are out of their support time frame. (I think all of the relevent ones are in extended support now? So almost done)
Re:The fastest way to get rid of IE6 by Kosi · 2011-03-04 11:33 · Score: 1

I know, and the timeline for IE6-support should have ended years ago. How can they expect their customers to switch if they support such old crap that long?
Re:The fastest way to get rid of IE6 by Shados · 2011-03-04 11:36 · Score: 1

And yet, when they refuse to give primary support to stuff thats just a few years younger (the bullshit that is Windows XP), people go batshit insane on these very forums...
Re:The fastest way to get rid of IE6 by Kosi · 2011-03-05 02:46 · Score: 1

There is some difference.
- IE doesn't cost license fees.
- Second, upgrading your OS may break applications you are running, while upgrading your browser usually has no such downsides.
- A XP machine running smoothly with IE6 will do so with IE8, too, but maybe it will not be sufficient for W7.
- Upgrading the OS platform in a corporate environment is a much bigger task than upgrading a browser.
Re:The fastest way to get rid of IE6 by Shados · 2011-03-05 03:01 · Score: 1

Upgrading the OS platform in a corporate environment is a much bigger task than upgrading a browser
The ironic part is that in all companies I worked for that went to upgrade away from XP, far and away the biggest hurdle was the browser =P
Re:The fastest way to get rid of IE6 by Kosi · 2011-03-05 04:43 · Score: 1

Why that? Except for those cases where some idiots made the intranet IE6-only, upgrading IE is not a problem. In my experience the biggest hurdles are self-made "applications" that do not work on the new OS version. Many companies that upgrade Windows will also switch to a newer version of Office with that, causing countless little VBA "tools" to cease working and the morons who made them to whine.

Goal achieved in Germany by maxwell+demon · 2011-03-04 11:28 · Score: 1

According to StatCounter, in Germany IE6 is at 0.88%.
However, despite of this I don't think Microsoft likes it: Here total IE usage is below 25% :-)

--
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.

This Should be in Mandarin by Araes · 2011-03-04 11:43 · Score: 1

As of posting, China by far dominates IE6 use at 34.5% (5.9% of total world use) Followed by India at 12.3%. I would guess a lot of those are from pirate copies of Windows.

IE6 is barely present in the English speaking world anymore (average of 3%).

In its current form, this site is preaching to the choir.

Re:This Should be in Mandarin by bunratty · 2011-03-04 12:33 · Score: 1

South Korea is not far behind China at 24.8%. I think it's largely because until recently, you had to use a particular ActiveX plugin to do online banking with Korean banks, and ActiveX works only with Internet Explorer. Of course, that is probably not the whole story, because anyone running Windows XP and higher could at least run a newer version of IE. Whatever the reason, they could stand to make a Korean version of the site, because Korea has become a tech leader, and perhaps getting Koreans to upgrade would help Chinese to upgrade too.

--
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.

Re:Driven by Corporate Intranets by screwzloos · 2011-03-04 11:44 · Score: 1

We're in the same boat here. One of the backbones of our staff system runs on a custom installation of Oracle Forms, which requires an ancient version of Jinitiator that doesn't exist under anything but IE6. It's really pretty sad, but it's not going away anytime soon.

While it is certainly mission critical, that's not the biggest problem. What we're facing is that it has been millions of dollars and endless man hours to implement. Even if we had to replace it, we couldn't. Those resources aren't available anymore. So we limp along with it.

At least I'm not slashdotting with IE6, but I can't speak for my coworkers.

Re:Actually by camperdave · 2011-03-04 11:48 · Score: 1

MSFT is its own worst enemy nowadays, in its core product lines (Office, OS, VS); the fact that there are other alternatives (which are incidentally free and free) also serves to highlight this.

Give me a decent alternative to OneNote and I'll switch.

--
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!

Re:MySpace already commands Browser Upgrades by Chaonici · 2011-03-04 12:13 · Score: 1

> Seriously, I change the user-agent to "iphone" or "lynx" and the webpage just becomes more efficient all of a sudden

Durr.

In other news, grass is green, water is wet, and cuddling with a toaster in the bathtub can still hurt.

People using IE6 aren't interested by scdeimos · 2011-03-04 12:15 · Score: 1

The services company I work for deals with multi-site corporates around the world. Some of these corporates are still running IE5.5 on Windows 2000 desktops, having never ever wanted or needed to upgrade to Windows XP. These companies just aren't interested in upgrading. Sometimes its because their cheap, but mostly it's because they have legacy apps that won't work on newer browsers or OSes - so they're either unwilling or unable to make the switch.

Whilst Microsoft has *finally* ended support for Windows 2000, they continue to encourage situations like this by extending Windows XP support up until 2014!. If they really want corporates to stop using these old browsers and OSes maybe they should remember that they are a software company and help them to move forward. That helps to line their pockets, too.

How to eliminate IE6 by HiggsBison · 2011-03-04 12:18 · Score: 1

The easiest way to eliminate IE6 is to open-source it. Then, by Microsoft's rules, no one can have it.

--
My other car is a 1984 Nark Avenger.

The Real Reason by 0xG · 2011-03-04 12:20 · Score: 1

They want to get people off Windows 2000. IE7+ are not supported on Win 2K. A significant number of corporate and home users are still on Win2K. If they can convince everyone to get off IE6, what those users will find is that they have to replace a (functioning) OS with their odious "phone home monthly" OSs.

--
A pox on web designers who feel that window.innerWidth == screen.availWidth

Re:The Real Reason by toddestan · 2011-03-05 16:20 · Score: 1

Windows 2000 is well less than 1% by now. They've dropped support for it, which means that most corporate computers have probably migrated away from it by now (at least for PCs connected to the internet). Windows 2000 never really had a big marketshare among home users - my guess is that there are probably more Windows 98 computers out there than 2000 by now.

The site has some valueable information. by CFD339 · 2011-03-04 12:45 · Score: 1

It is useful for me to be able to tell my clients, who generally insist on web sites supporting IE6 and above, as well as Firefox and Safari -- that according MICROSOFT, this is a bad idea.

Further, it is useful in helping me make the case to not have to support IE6; because the site shows only 12% of browsers are IE6 and something like half of those are in China (who my customers aren't generally targeting). In fact, In the USA it is now less than 1% of browsers.

Armed with this cart from Microsoft, I can say to my client "Ok, it's going to cost you 30% more for me to build your web site if I have to support IE6 and it will only help you with something like 1/2 of 1 percent of potential browsers. (BTW: I totally just make up that 30% more number to make the point, but I think that might be a fair place to start if I had to put a number on it).

--
The problem with quotes on the internet, is that nobody bothers to check their veracity. -- Abraham Lincoln

Re:100%? by orngjce223 · 2011-03-04 12:51 · Score: 1

The site uses a silly little javascriptlet to make that number come down from 100%; with scripts on it goes down to 12.0%. Which seems slightly more reasonable, as a number.

--
Note: I was 13 when I wrote most of this. Take with several grains of salt.

Re:The problem isn't individuals by smash · 2011-03-04 13:06 · Score: 1

Firefox dhcp wpad is broken. It is also not network location aware. It is a major pain in the arse if you have proxy requirements.

--
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.

Microsoft Mock Funeral for IE6 by WebManWalking · 2011-03-04 13:10 · Score: 2

Microsoft's Giorgio Sardo begins his "HTML 5 and Internet Explorer 9" video with a mock funeral for IE 6 at http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2010/07/17/seven-must-see-videos-and-presentations-for-web-app-developers/

UK government is still on ie6 by zaax · 2011-03-04 13:15 · Score: 1

Thats 40% of the UK employed population then. The UK government is still on ie6 and will not be moving off it.

Kickbacks? by DragonHawk · 2011-03-04 13:21 · Score: 1

"IT managers are quite happy to accept their kickbacks from MS to have MS still deployed throughout their company"

Damn, I haven't been getting any kickbacks. Where do I sign up? How much is ~100 Windows PCs worth? If I ditch our Linux PCs will that get me more money?

--

dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.

Re:Kickbacks? by guruevi · 2011-03-04 14:05 · Score: 2

100 Windows PC's won't cut it. Once you get near the 4 digits or if you're a high profile developer you could be talking. And yes, the people that sell the OS to a company (internal or external) DO get kickbacks. I worked for one of those Microsoft Gold Certified Partners, it's disgusting when you read the contracts. I nearly got fired once for recommending Linux to one of our biggest clients even though it would fit their needs better.

--
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Re:Kickbacks? by surement · 2011-03-04 14:12 · Score: 1

...Why would you go with Microsoft for your business if you aren't getting kickbacks?

Re:Fx3 still supports Windows 2000 by Ambiguous+Coward · 2011-03-04 13:22 · Score: 1

No, you see, that's the joke, that FF is an "upgrade" from IE! Ha ha ha! Ho ho ho! Oh, my side, I seem to have developed a stitch. I hope he'll be here all week, and I'll remember to tip my waitress.

--
Their may be a grammatical error, misspeling, or evn a typo in this post.

Vendor lock-in gone wrong by next_ghost · 2011-03-04 13:48 · Score: 1

When vendor lock-in goes wrong, it ends up being version lock-in. Version lock-in only happens when you twist open standards. Once you lose market share to standard-adhering competition, you'll have to implement the standard properly as well and some of your customers will get stuck with the twisted implementation, unable to upgrade at all. Funny thing is that Microsoft still hasn't learned this lesson and they're trying all over again with OOXML. I really hope that one is going to backfire as well.

Re:Fx3 still supports Windows 2000 by mortonda · 2011-03-04 14:06 · Score: 1

You, on the other hand, might want to read his entire post. It's only fourth sentences long .

Oh cmon... this is slashdot! Impressive that he read the second sentence!

Not a bad idea, but a bit premature... by Millennium · 2011-03-04 14:09 · Score: 1

Seriously, they should wait to kick off this IE6-must-die campaign until IE9 is released (which is, admittedly, supposed to be Real Soon Now). That way they could offer a version of IE that's actually more or less on par with the other browsers they mention. IE8 is a major improvement over its predecessors, but it's still a clear step down.

Holy fuck Scandinavia by AndyAndyAndyAndy · 2011-03-04 14:19 · Score: 2

They lead the world in even in this?

--
It's always confirmation bias!

Fx3.6 even by tepples · 2011-03-04 14:27 · Score: 1

Firefox 3.5

Try this upgrade button

he rendered your response pointless.

How is it pointless to upgrade from Firefox 3.5 to 3.6? (Yeah, right by accident, but whatever.)

Where are the hackers?? by quixote9 · 2011-03-04 15:06 · Score: 1

That ie6countdown.com site needs a big "Get Firefox" button in the middle. Get to work!

ahem by shentino · 2011-03-04 16:24 · Score: 1

Dear microsoft

Why should we upgrade when your stone age browser breaks Web 2.0 stuff like facebook, youtube, and all that other obnoxious crap I don't want my little peons accessing anyway?

Sorry pal, but I have no incentive to cooperate here. We have too much of a good thing and we're keeping IE6 till hell freezes over.

Respectfully:

-- PHBs around the world.

How to get IE6 below 1% by scrib · 2011-03-04 17:26 · Score: 2

1. Microsoft stops patching IE6.
2. Find remote code execution exploit.
3. Deploy Trojan Updater to remove IE6 and install new browser.

A browser that automatically updates itself without asking would be a good choice for any stragglers at this point.

--
Help! Help! I'm being repressed!

Just Stop Developing For IE6 by Onymous+Coward · 2011-03-04 17:52 · Score: 1

Yep.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_explorer#Market_share_history_overview_by_year_and_version

IE6 at 17% of market and plummeting. Time to drop it from dev efforts.

If you're inclined to think "hey, that's still 1 in 6 people!", consider they're probably not a segment that'll be buying anything from you anyway. Except maybe denture cream.

Extra credit: Reconsider giving newer versions of IE special dev effort, too. They're made by the same company that brought you IE6, who didn't mind stalling web tech for over half a decade.

A lot of us Win2k users would *like* to... by Windcatcher · 2011-03-04 18:22 · Score: 1

...except that IE7 won't install. We'll have to limp along with unofficial IE6 patches unless that changes.

IE6 will never die by Stiletto · 2011-03-04 20:18 · Score: 1

IE6 will never die... not as long as we still have retarded companies running retarded corporate IE6 "intranet" software written by retards for retarded executives who thought purposely locking themselves to one vendor wasn't collectively one of the most tragically retarded IT decisions ever made in history.

Re:WAIT by deniable · 2011-03-04 20:50 · Score: 1

It wasn't that great in Lynx either.

Simple fix to that by Nicolas+MONNET · 2011-03-04 21:50 · Score: 1

Push a shortcut to their desktop for the web application that requires IE6 that opens it with IE6.

Push a shortcut called "The Googlez" that starts Firefox or Chrome for general purpose web browsing.

Re:Driven by Corporate Intranets by isorox · 2011-03-05 00:19 · Score: 1

Looks like Microsoft is hitting at the wrong target audience. A lot of IE6 usage comes from corporations, which build many of their intranet applications to work with it (often using ActiveX). There's a *lot* of crappy code out there, which is not easy to migrate. Still those applications are mission critical. So those corporations are stuck with IE6 on the client computers. And of course those users browse not only their intranet with IE6 but the internet as well.

The solution is to disable proxy use by IE, and have Firefox installed for normal browsing.

Really? by JasoninKS · 2011-03-05 02:16 · Score: 1

Savings hours of works for web developers? Really? Here's an easy solution...quit building web sites that cater to IE 6! If people can't use the web anymore, they'll have to upgrade.

Google Chrome Frame by tepples · 2011-03-05 02:38 · Score: 2

I'm not sure why I should potentially lower my conversion rate by hassling people to upgrade their browser.

Because you may already be lowering your conversion rate by making the site look broken in IE6 due to necessary scripts and CSS not working correctly.

Besides, it seems like most IE6 users in this age are enterprise clients who can't upgrade until their vendors start supporting new browsers

Enterprises that want both IE6 for the intranet and a modern browser for public sites can deploy Google Chrome Frame. This way, sites that request Chrome in the user agent get Chrome, and intranet sites get IE6.

Re:Actually by Kalriath · 2011-03-05 02:56 · Score: 1

That's kind of funny, considering Eclipse is a steaming pile of crap when compared to VS (or hell, even compared to Notepad). Seriously, it uses more RAM and starts slower than Firefox, which is an amazing achievement worthy of a Guiness World Record. And the UI is worse than GIMP.

--
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".

MIME type HCML by epine · 2011-03-05 07:04 · Score: 1

Aren't the MIME headers or some rot supposed to solve this problem? IE6 documents need a distinct MIME header. It's not HTML, we all know that (unless the H stands for Hemocyanin). Maybe these legacy apps could identify themselves as HCML.

If an application doesn't comply with a standard, it shouldn't be opening up documents which advertise themselves as that document type.

Then like everything else, IE6 opens it's own documents, an standard documents are opened by standard applications. Wow, who would have guessed we already have a solution for this immense kerfuffle.

Slashdot Mirror

Even Microsoft Wants IE6 Dead

212 of 285 comments (clear)