Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Incrementally Dropping Support For Older Browsers

Posted by timothy on from the hey-3.5-isn't-that-old dept.

AmiMoJo writes "Google announced on its blog that it is dropping support for Firefox 3.5, Internet Explorer 7 and Safari 3 from the 1st of August. In these older browsers you may have trouble using certain features in Gmail, Google Calendar, Google Talk, Google Docs and Google Sites, and eventually these apps may stop working entirely."

37 of 353 comments (clear)

  1. Praise Xena by jimmerz28 · · Score: 5, Informative

    I wish more sites would do this, I'm so sick of having to help my parents cause their work websites only work with "Internet Explorer 5.5+"

    1. Re:Praise Xena by walternate · · Score: 2

      If they really want to kill IE6, and other older browsers; Google, Facebook, Youtube, and the American Idol home pages need to cut support cold turkey and provide links to the top three current browsers, in random order(as to prevent the top one from being the most downloaded). Same with IPv6, just start throwing up a page for IPv4 users that says, "Hey! You're using IPv4, and this web site requires you to switch to IPv6. Here's how to change to IPv6. If you can't, call your ISP at ### and tell them you want IPv6!"

      A very significant portion of remaining IE6/7 users are enterprise users not allowed to change their browser, due to internal apps not being certified. Cutting support like that will only cut traffic to the sites and piss off their users, the users wont be able to do anything about it. Heck, even Microsoft wants IE6/7 to die. About the only hope to kill of this IE6/7 user base is that corporations keep adopting Windows 7 - a project that include testing and updating for compatibility all around.

    2. Re:Praise Xena by Scutter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A very significant portion of remaining IE6/7 users are enterprise users not allowed to change their browser, due to internal apps not being certified. Cutting support like that will only cut traffic to the sites and piss off their users, the users wont be able to do anything about it. Heck, even Microsoft wants IE6/7 to die. About the only hope to kill of this IE6/7 user base is that corporations keep adopting Windows 7 - a project that include testing and updating for compatibility all around.

      Much of which is because many companies won't spend the money on upgrading or testing, even though they know their apps are ancient and need refreshing. As soon as the CEO can't get to his gmail account (or, more likely, Redtube), he'll be screaming at IT to push through the plan to do whatever it takes to fix the problem.

      Personally, I'd just like to be able to use transparent images on a web page without having IE6 mangle them.

      --

      "Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
    3. Re:Praise Xena by Runaway1956 · · Score: 2

      You kinda missed a point somewhere. If your enterprise must have IE6 for internal apps, fine - use IE6 for internal apps. That dinosaur of a browser will be just fine for running stupid software that should have been deprecated by now.

      JUST DON'T BROWSE THE WEB WITH IE6!!! The IT department can install another browser, to exist side-by-side with IE6, on those computers that actually require an outside connection. And, the same IT department should have locked down IE6 to use an internal proxy that has no access to the outside world.

      Need IE6? Use IE6 - but stop polluting the intartubez with that trash!

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    4. Re:Praise Xena by asdf7890 · · Score: 2

      What's wrong with firefox 3.5?

      Nothing specifically. I think they are going for "the current stable release" and "the previous major stable release", and are considering 3.6 to be a major release. Presumably they are doing the same with the other browsers (it seems to be the case with IE for instance).

      This could cause a problem in corporate environments where it takes an age to move from one browser to another (hence so many sites still running IE6 and some (like our banking clients) only just moving from that to IE8), so hopefully for their sake (and Google's) Google are using a more refined metric than just "two major versions and nothing else" - perhaps they'll take the %age of people accessing their apps with each browser into account.

      It makes sense to limit what you support from a testing PoV. Testing in FF3.0 and 3.5 (and any point releases likely to have issues different from the latest point release for each version) would obviously increase the testing resource required, and that extra resource might not be worth spending if it only helps a few hundred users. This metric would mean IE8 support will likely last longer than after the release of IE10, due to the number of corporate environments actively using IE8.

    5. Re:Praise Xena by crankyspice · · Score: 2

      These are all versions which you have no excuse to still be on, so Google is simply saying that they will no longer test for those browsers or fix bugs found only in those browsers.

      Anyone on FF3.5 can move to 3.6...

      When they came for the Firefox 3.5 users, I cared not, for I used Firefox 3.6. When they came for me ...

      I still use FF 3.6, because certain sites (PACER being the number one most important) don't work reliably on FF 4+. (PACER, at least for my district, has all the polish and technical aplomb of a circa-1997 Perl/HTML 3.2 enterprise site, and it's not likely to change much in the future. Hell, the judiciary is still using WordPerfect!)

      --
      geek. lawyer.
    6. Re:Praise Xena by hairyfeet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Uhhh...maybe they can't, because of cost or the company who sold them the program is out of business? I have a graphics designer that I keep a new old stock machine running for because for certain jobs he simply has to have Macromedia Xres. jobs that would take him 40 minutes in PS he can do in less than 5 in Xres. I have also had to set up several XP Modes for those running Quickbook pro 2005, as that POS program will NOT run unless you have Flash 7, not the latest flash mind you ONLY Flash 7. Have you priced the higher end versions of QB lately? Cheap it ain't.

      Now in both my cases I was able to cook up work arounds, like the NOS box being on a KVM switch along with his new triple core i just built him, with a nice share folder between them so when he runs into a job he needs Xres for he can just drag the file to the other machine and use the KVM. With the QB customers I set them up XP Mode in Windows 7 so the QB girl (and for some reason it is ALWAYS a girl, you'd think they had a union or something) could still run QB 2005 while having a modern OS.

      But what if these options for one reason or another simply won't work? I had to use a NOS for Xres because that thing will NOT run in a VM, nor on anything faster than a PATA or 2Ghz single core. it just won't. And finally let us not forget now that the antitrust has blown over MSFT is back to tying IE to Windows version again, such as IE10 is supposed to be for Win 7 only.

      So as long as Google is willing to support older machines with chrome I don't see a problem with it, but there are tons of single core Athlons and P4s that surf the web just fine and I'd hate to see Google ending up pushing the "throw away working gear" attitude simply because they only want to support the new hotness. I'm typing this on a 1.8Ghz Sempron that makes a great little nettop, low power and quiet as a churchmouse. With an HD4350 AGP I even have hardware accelerated video. So I'd hate to see the upgrade treadmill end up causing myself and other to dump perfectly functioning machines not because of it not being able to do the job, but because Google don't want to support anything older.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  2. The Adds, however by houstonbofh · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The adds will still work fine, I am sure.

    1. Re:The Adds, however by box4831 · · Score: 5, Funny

      The subtracts, unfortunately, will not be supported.

      --
      Miller Lite tastes like water that's somehow managed to rot.
  3. links by noobermin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    as long as google search somewhat works in links, I'm okay.

    1. Re:links by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, go update your browser so you can get a test of the latest ultra buggy, ultra shitty web 2.0 experience from the slashcode monkeys that will bog down even the fastest browsers running on quad core systems. Oh but don't expect unicode support because that would just be far too much effort to implement.

    2. Re:links by gnick · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm certain that I'm running the most recent version of Netscape (although I haven't seen any updates in a while). I'm glad they're not dropping me.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    3. Re:links by obarel · · Score: 5, Funny

      What's "Netscape"? Is that the new Mosaic?

    4. Re:links by Penguinisto · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well, you can still download it and find out!

      (yeah, I was kind of amazed too).

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    5. Re:links by afidel · · Score: 2

      Runs just fine in Chrome Current, it's been fine since a couple days after the redesign when they fixed whatever the bug was that was causing huge CPU usage.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  4. Should just drop support for IE entirely by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 3, Funny

    Nobody uses that anymore.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:Should just drop support for IE entirely by CaptainPatent · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, while I'm no Microsoft fanboy, IE 9 got a lot of things right. Especially when dealing with speed and security.

      I still don't think it's quite as good as the recent versions of Chrome and Firefox, but I think some credit is due to Microsoft on that front.

      --
      Well, back to rejecting software patent applications.
    2. Re:Should just drop support for IE entirely by doublebackslash · · Score: 2

      I really find it odd to admit, but I've found that developing in IE9 is a pleasure in so far as development in IE can be. Seriously! They have dev tools built-in (not as good as firebug, but it is enough to work out kinks!) It supports SVG (I do some things as vectors when I know that they are going to scale for the situation. It is for generic JS tools that are meant to be used anywhere in our web suite. simply:
      var hasSvg = false; try{hasSvg = document.implementation.hasFeature("http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG11/feature#BasicStructure", "1.1");}catch{;}
        and you get a boolean to decide to include SVG graphics or raster). Best of all it, so far, renders everything I've tested on it about pixel for pixel (user inputs aside) as FF4. Even CSS rounded corners!

      Perhaps IE9 has some flaws, but it is everything I need it to be! Hooray web standards!

      --
      md5sum /boot/vmlinuz
      d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e /boot/vmlinuz
  5. IE7 is the only real issue by Kelson · · Score: 2

    Most browsers out there have pretty good update rates, driven by automatic updaters or a userbase made up of people who want the latest and greatest.

    Firefox 3.5? 3.6 has been out for what, a year? 4.0 for several months. By the time this policy goes into effect, Firefox 5 will be out. And while Firefox users are slow to update compared to Chrome, Opera, etc. users, they're still a lot faster than IE users.

    There's nothing (other than policy or preference) preventing anyone running IE7 from upgrading to IE8 at least. The minimum OS for IE7 was Windows XP, which can run IE8, and AFAIK there isn't a huge install base of IE7-specific web apps out there like there was with IE6 and ActiveX. And unlike the jump from IE6 to IE7, there isn't a huge change in user interface, so it should be a comfortable jump. People just need some encouragement to do it.

  6. RHEL and Debian by kvvbassboy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    RHEL and Debian use Firefox 3.5, AFAIK. I guess it it will be okay, as long as they keep the simple HTML version, or switch to Chromium.

  7. Google www services are shit by kyrio · · Score: 2

    They already dropped support for any version of Opera years ago!

    1. Re:Google www services are shit by BtEO · · Score: 2

      Most, if not all of those have patches in browser.js. Google have long since proven they aren't able/willing to test in Opera (they are only a small start-up after all :P )

  8. Re:Well done, Google by houstonbofh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    OK. Send me a few grand for all the old system at the office. I need Windows licenses, and a lot of memory.

  9. Do they care only about toys? by KiloByte · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Uhm right, but Firefox 3.5 is what is in recently released major STABLE distributions. Sure, you can play with unstable versions at home if you don't mind crashes -- heck, I use Debian sid and Firefox 7.0a1 here, but I wouldn't put them anywhere something that is supposed to stay up reliably. This includes any version of Chrome -- which doesn't receive a modicum of maintenance other than "move to this shiniest but buggiest trunk". Bleeding edge is, well, bleeding and sharp.

    You can't expect businesses to drop things that work and jump to something new every a few months. This costs money... will you pay for unnecessary upgrade costs? What else, will you demand people to replace their cars of less than two years age because there's a new model out there?

    There is a point where maintaining old junk is pointless, but these guys are ridiculous.

    --
    The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    1. Re:Do they care only about toys? by Eponymous+Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      A couple of things:

      * Not supported isn't the same thing as doesn't work
      * Don't use Google if it is costing you significant time and money to do so

      Firefox 3.5 is almost 2 years old now and is no longer supported by Mozilla. If you are using it, it's time to step up to at least 3.6.

    2. Re:Do they care only about toys? by Eponymous+Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I forgot to add that if you think it is expensive for businesses to keep up with software releases, you should see how expensive it is when they don't.

    3. Re:Do they care only about toys? by Charliemopps · · Score: 2

      If something is supposed to stay up reliably, I wouldn't put a browser on it in the first place.

    4. Re:Do they care only about toys? by cdrudge · · Score: 2

      You can't expect businesses to drop things that work and jump to something new every a few months. This costs money... will you pay for unnecessary upgrade costs? What else, will you demand people to replace their cars of less than two years age because there's a new model out there?

      There is a point where maintaining old junk is pointless, but these guys are ridiculous.

      Firefox 3.5 was released 2 years ago. 3.6 was released nearly 18 months ago. It's not every few months. It's been almost 18 months. If your business depends on a particular version of Firefox, then run them side by side if need be.

      While not all businesses can just deploy the upgrade to all their PCs, most probably can. This isn't updating an OS, upgrading a domain controller, or changing platforms. Any company that has has extensive procedures for rolling out updates across their enterprise probably isn't using GMail, Google Docs, Google Calender, GTalk, and Google Sites.

  10. I bet nobody saw that one coming... by pep939 · · Score: 2

    All-Web-Company Google bring out their own browser, sure took them a while to drop the competition.

  11. And people cheered them with IE6 by Andtalath · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Dropping legacy support is not a very good thing to do when legacy means a couple of years.

  12. Poor summary by DocJohn · · Score: 4, Informative

    As usual, the summary leaves out an important modifier -- this only applies to Google APPS, not Google.

    From TFA:

    For this reason, soon Google Apps will only support modern browsers. Beginning August 1st, we’ll support the current and prior major release of Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer and Safari on a rolling basis. Each time a new version is released, we’ll begin supporting the update and stop supporting the third-oldest version.

    Google will still support all older browsers on its search engine. It wouldn't make sense to discriminate there.

    --
    Psych Central
    http://psychcentral.com/

  13. LULZ by rudy_wayne · · Score: 2

    from TFA:

    August 1st, we’ll support the current and prior major release of Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer and Safari on a rolling basis. Each time a new version is released, we’ll begin supporting the update and stop supporting the third-oldest version.

    So if you are using Firefox and they stick to their announced release schedule, you will have to change to a new version of Firefox every 6 months.

    eg.
    v4 - now
    v5 - in 3 months
    v6 - in 6 months

    v4 is then the third oldest version and no longer supported. 3 months later v5 is the third oldest and no longer supported. Lather, Rinse, Repeat.

    1. Re:LULZ by osu-neko · · Score: 2

      So if you are using Firefox and they stick to their announced release schedule, you will have to change to a new version of Firefox every 6 months.

      Incorrect. You will have to change to a new version of Firefox every time Google Apps starts depending on a feature of the latest two Firefox versions that is not in your version which they don't test on anymore. This is very, very unlikely to be every six months. Probably not even every two years...

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
  14. Re:Good Move by musikit · · Score: 2

    I'm sorry. Even as a software developer i have stopped hitting the "upgrade" button on all things except for Opera, and Firefox. why? because every release just moves up more into confusing user interfaces, more tracking, or charging for services that were free with previous versions.

    examples:
    biggest one XCode. 3.5 was free 4.0 costs $6.00. granted $6 is nothing. i don't care... but why am i being charged for a product that was free? what is the incentive to upgrade? Well i needed to code and i didn't have XCode 3.5 downloaded anymore (cleared space a while ago) so i paid to get 4.0. OMG is this thing horrible. the installer requires approx 30gig of free space.... the UI is horribly designed making me Apple doesn't know what developers want or need. strangely though as i expect they use XCode exclusively in house.

    Skype. As an old AIM user i like a buddy list window and when i double click friends a new window open up allowing me to chat with them. the new skype doesn't allow me to do that anymore. i click on a friend and the window resizes and shows me buddy details. and when im talking with friends everything is tabbed with no option (that i saw) to make everything window based. so thankfully i had an old copy in downloaded. i deleted the new copy and reinstalled the old and will continue to use the old until the copy no longer allows it to connect to there network.

    Firefox (maybe all browsers soon). i like the address bar. i like a search bar. i like them separated. why are they 1. getting rid of the bar and 2. why did they combine the search and address bar... so i dont use firefox as my main browser anymore. just as a browser for sites that dont work in opera.

    Opera: every release since 10 has only added bloat to the browser. i love opera but i have a hard time lately running opera 11.11 and xcode and the same time on my 4 year old mac. yes my computer is 4 years old. i know i want a new one but i cant afford it right now. what is my incentive to upgrade when they will just add more bloat and not do anything to reduce memory consumption?

    software in the 90's followed the KISS mentality and all was good. you had tons of little executables to do little tasks. can we bring those days back? i dont need 1 app that does everything. i need 1 app that does 1 thing and only 1 thing very well and very cleanly and does it very lightly.

  15. Re:Oh noes!!1 by Xtifr · · Score: 2

    Switch to Iceweasel? :)

  16. They already did by Danny+Rathjens · · Score: 2

    The Google Apps dashboard is already broken when trying to access it with firefox-3.5.16 from debian stable. You get the menus but the main content area with user management options and the like is just blank. I couldn't even figure out how they broke it looking at the source thanks to the obfuscation. I had to use chromium just to use a very simplistic html form - which is ridiculous. It seems we are quickly leaving the Extend stage and diving right into the Extinguish stage.

  17. So basically what they're doing is... by countertrolling · · Score: 2

    They're dropping support for anybody who can't/won't buy multi hundred dollar hardware/software 'upgrades' every two years... which of course sucks when you have to replace all your perfectly functional stuff for no real logical reason. Totally bogus! I already ran into this problem with a fresh Tiger install and Google wouldn't even display the results of a search I was doing. I had to spend wasted hours on many updates first.. and it's all coming out of the client's wallet. If not for the damn zombies who have to have the latest shiny gimmick because of the ads they saw, this wouldn't be happening.

    --
    For justice, we must go to Don Corleone