Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Kills Apps Support For Internet Explorer 8

Posted by timothy on from the start-at-the-feet-and-kill-up dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Google today [Friday] announced it is discontinuing support for Internet Explorer 8 in Google Apps, including its Business, Education, and Government editions. The kill date is November 15, 2012. After that, IE8 users accessing Google Apps will see a message recommending that they upgrade their browser."

44 of 296 comments (clear)

  1. Lucky bastards by maroberts · · Score: 5, Funny

    I still have to support IE6 :-(

    --

    Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
    Karma: Chameleon

    1. Re:Lucky bastards by nedlohs · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The codebase he supports is supposed to work with a given COBOL system.

      Whereas said web crap that has to support IE6, also has to work with IE7, and IE8, and IE9, and Firefox, and Chrome, and Safari. And it has to "look good" in the recent browsers without looking like crap in IE6.

    2. Re:Lucky bastards by toejam13 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Our company still supports older browsers such as IE5 - IE7, but we strip a huge amount of functionality away. No CSS, no images and as little scripting on the client-side as possible. It is basically provided as-is. And people use it.

      The next big thing for us is to switch from bitmap (PNG, JPG) to vector (SVG) graphics for static images. That means that IE8 and Android Browser 2.x are on the chopping block unless we want to use <object> tags to embed bitmaps as a fallback.

      We're aware that means the end of support for IE on XP. But the OS is over a decade old. Windows 7 is fairly reliable and can run on some fairly geriatric hardware (I've gotten to a W7 desktop with both P2/450 and K6-2/500 systems). The corporate sector is slowly being pushed to W7 kicking and screaming because XP driver support for new laptops is starting to wither. For home users, you have to wonder if they're just being cheap. If they can't fork out for an OS upgrade once a decade, how else will they be like on the consumer side?

      But then you have the Android issue. I'm using Cyanogenmod 7.1 on my own handset, but that's still Gingerbread 2.3.7. And I consider myself lucky to be even that far. There are some fairly recent handsets that are still using Gingerbread. So do we want to relegate them to the legacy site or keep Gingerbread support? Most of those devices are too small to take advantage of SVG anyways. The tablets could, and most of them run 3.x or 4.x which includes full SVG support in the Android Browser.

      Eventually it'll come down to numbers. Is SVG worth it? How much do we save by no longer certifying those legacy browsers? What other gains do we get from retiring support for legacy browsers? How many people are willing to use the legacy site? We just don't know yet.

    3. Re:Lucky bastards by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You don't need to migrate them off XP. You just need to migrate them off IE and to Chrome.

      But, frankly, if you're still on XP, the only lazy around is you. Stop bitching about people not bothering to support your antique setup - they don't have any obligation to do so, and I've heard enough from web developers to know just how painful supporting IE below 9 is.

    4. Re:Lucky bastards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      IE 8 is not the only browser that runs on XP

      Chrome, Safari, Firefox, Opera...

      Google is choosing to require a modern environment so that they can deliver a quality user experience.

      IE 8 is three years old, HTML 5 support is wonky, and it's javascript engine is slow. All reasons why Google released Chrome, to provide an environment that delivers a quality experience to their users.

    5. Re:Lucky bastards by hairyfeet · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually Win 7 is the first one since Win2K Pro (great OS that one was) where I can point to real honest to God improvements and say "THAT, that right there, that's worth upgrading for", such as MUCH better memory management where Windows will actually use available memory for caching instead of slamming the page file when you still have memory free, jumplists and breadcrumbs make it butt simple to get back to where you were working the day before, readyboost can give a real kick in the pants to older systems by moving small I/Os onto a spare flash stick, its simply a much better OS all around.

      So if you are keeping your users on XP you really are doing them a disservice, it was alright back in the day but its over a decade old now and the tech has made it obsolete, time to move on. Heck I've got several customers running it on a midrange (2.2GHz-3.2GHz) P4 with 2Gb of RAM so it isn't like you even have to toss the boxes. Just let it go man, let it go.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    6. Re:Lucky bastards by toejam13 · · Score: 3, Informative

      XP runs just fine thank you very much! Why change for the sake of change ... XP runs fine and perfectly well on computers and it makes no sense to upgrade such a great system for eye candy.

      Except that it does not. Try using Windows XP on a recent Thinkpad or Inspiron laptop. Constant issues with power saving, USB devices and wireless connectivity, just to name a few. Hardware developers simply are not putting their XP drivers through the same level of QA as their W7 drivers, and it shows.

      And if you want to use more than 4GB of memory, you're put in something of an awkward position with XP. The x86-64 edition was based on Server 2003 and not XP Professional. It is the red-headed stepchild of the Windows world. I used it for a couple of years with my desktop and it had its share of... quirks.

      Then you have the problem with security updates for XP coming to an end. That isn't eye candy, that's core stability.

      There is no reason why IE 9 can't work on XP nor why IE 8 can't do everything other browsers can do.

      Lazy just plain lazy. IE 8 is something still so cutting edge and new that companies are spending 10s of millions upgrading from IE 6 as I write this! You are telling them they can't even support the browser they spend 10 million porting their apps to?!! WTF

      Google is out of touch

      I don't think you understand. Microsoft is a for-profit corporation. They want you to move off of XP and onto W7 or W8. Porting DX11 and IE10 back to XP removes incentives for you to upgrade. That isn't lazy, that's just smart business sense.

    7. Re:Lucky bastards by Pieroxy · · Score: 2

      Whereas said web crap that has to support IE6, also has to work with IE7, and IE8, and IE9, and Firefox, and Chrome, and Safari. And it has to "look good" in the recent browsers without looking like crap in IE6.

      A lot of the web crap that needs to work on IE6 doesn't need to work on anything else, it's antique ActiveX that doesn't and never will work on something other than IE6.

      You haven't paid much attention to the web in the last decade have you?

      --
      Write boring code, not shiny code!
    8. Re:Lucky bastards by justforgetme · · Score: 4, Insightful

      IMHO chrome has become too much of a behemoth. I'd migrate them to Firefox. A fresh OS with chrome on a 7 year old laptop grinds to a halt on the first page. The same setup is perfectly usable with an up to date Firefox

      --
      -- no sig today
    9. Re:Lucky bastards by Calydor · · Score: 2

      If they can't fork out for an OS upgrade once a decade, how else will they be like on the consumer side?

      Not nearly as consuming and more like using?

      Seriously, for most people Windows XP -just works- at this point, which is what is important to the average user. They see no need to upgrade so long as they can browse the net, write letters, send and receive email, play their favorite games, all of which XP does perfectly.

      That said I upgraded to Win7 myself just a few months back and I'm never returning to XP. I had no clue how big a difference DirectX11 made over DirectX9 in games - it's like a whole new experience. Of course, without actually SEEING this difference with their own eyes I'm guessing most people will consider it marketing hype if they were told.

      Yes, Win7 is an improvement, the same way a ... BMW is an improvement over a Volvo, but as long as your Volvo gets you to and from work without ever breaking down in the middle of traffic with an 18 wheeler right behind you why would you get rid of the Volvo? It works.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    10. Re:Lucky bastards by RabidReindeer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Where I work there are dozens of COBOL programmers, it's abanking system, very old.

      Unlike IE, COBOL is a standards-compliant platform designed for a long lifespan.

    11. Re:Lucky bastards by Hadlock · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Can you outline this in more detail? Everyone I know that was dragged kicking and screaming in to using Win7 stopped bickering within a day or so of using it. Win7 was the first Microsoft OS my linux buddy liked enough to switch back from linux to Windows for. Your experience is the complete opposite of every other story I've heard out there. I dislike Microsoft for the most part just as much as most people on this site.... but Win 7 is actually pretty nice... reliable even.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    12. Re:Lucky bastards by siddesu · · Score: 2

      web crap that has to support IE6, also has to work with IE7, and IE8, and IE9, and Firefox, and Chrome, and Safari.

      Very doubtful. The only places I have heard of that still suport IE6 are legacy intranet systems, usually in banks or somesuch, where all the terminals use the same browser version, ie. the same situation you have with an obsolete COBOL system that is still working for various "business reasons".

      Outside of such intranet installation scenarios, everybody and their dog have dropped IE6 support long time ago. If they haven't, they should, as I doubt it has even 1% share these days.

    13. Re:Lucky bastards by MightyYar · · Score: 2

      For home users, you have to wonder if they're just being cheap.

      I have an XP machine (mainly for my wife). Cost is not the issue - it's time. I'd probably have to dedicate about 8 hours to installing the new OS, moving the data, setting up all of the applications, verifying backups still work, etc. At that point, I might as well just get a new computer... which is exactly what I will do when the XP security updates keep flowing. Then I just have to make the age-old Mac vs. PC decision :)

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    14. Re:Lucky bastards by vlueboy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      For home users, you have to wonder if they're just being cheap. If they can't fork out for an OS upgrade once a decade, how else will they be like on the consumer side?

      Home users do not differentiate an OS from their TANGIBLE hardware enough to care to upgrade it separately from their ancient machines; they just settle for whatever new one pops up with a new purchase. The fact is you rarely see noob users looking for an OS to buy in a software store anyway. Part of the issue is that OS's are *not* sold on TV --think of the I'm a Mac ads aimed at selling new machines and the Droid campaign, at selling NEW cell subscriptions. The few that upgrade the ancient Windows machines I mentioned up top see OS versions as akin to over-the-air IOS upgrades, and won't feel the need to pay a cent for change. They'll pirate only half-aware that the are supposed to go to a computer store.

    15. Re:Lucky bastards by JDG1980 · · Score: 2

      But, frankly, if you're still on XP, the only lazy around is you. Stop bitching about people not bothering to support your antique setup

      To the average user, a computer is an appliance: why should they have to replace it when it's not broken? And, frankly, this position has quite a bit going for it. Why should users have to pay more money just because MS decided they couldn't be bothered to keep their browser up to date in XP?

    16. Re:Lucky bastards by GNious · · Score: 2

      Sure - lets see what I still remember...

      Setting up network:
      Got into a new dialog in Windows, trying to change a setting (DHCP -> Fixed IP) on a NIC (dont remember if was wired or wireless).
      The dialog basically had various options, and in the bottom said something like "To do X, click here". This led me to another, similar dialog, which again ended with "To do X, click here". Clicking there led me to the 3rd dialog, similar to the last two, and with "To do X, click here". Clicking led me back to the first dialog.
      I verified this, going through the 3 dialogs a couple of times, re-reading everything to ensure I wasn't misunderstanding it or imagining it or something; Nopes, it was literally leading me in loops in my attempt to set a fixed IP on a NIC.
      So, issue 1: Recursive and asinine dialogs

      Running Windows Update:
      Windows would constantly nag me about updates. I tried to let it update, but always got the message that it couldn't update.
      I tried going to update.windows.com (or similar), since this worked on WinXP, but this just launched the same process as the regular update, and failed.
      Eventually I dug into it, getting an error-code and offer to see what the error-code meant; Turned out that the specific error-code was not in the lists of error-codes Microsoft provided in the documentation. It was an error-code that Microsoft seemingly didn't know.
      Issue 2: Useless and undocumented error-codes

      Using FixIt:
      Microsoft dialogs relating to the failing update suggested downloading and running Microsoft FixIt.
      I downloaded this tool and ran it; It (Microsoft FixIt) reported that it could not download and run Microsoft FixIt - I could down and run the tool, but the tool apparently needed to download and run itself, which it could not do. As a solution to this, it (Microsoft FixIt) suggested that I download Microsoft FixIt and run it to fix Microsoft FixIt ... Ca here I decided to not use the computer for an extended period.
      Issue 3: Stupendously poor and user-unfriendly system design

      Setting up Media Center:
      (I'll skip the total confusion that was installing drivers for a DVB card, and how it had to be set up ... I hope this was due to the specific vendor)
      While setting up Media Center, I was twice told it would download some kind of software for (1) handling EPG (tv guides) and (2) something with TV cards.
      Both downloads would hang for over an hour, and then report that they were unable to download. Retrying caused the exact same behavior, indicating that nothing was cached from previous downloads, or that it had simply hung for >1 hour without actually downloading anything.
      I manage to google and download 1 of these, which made that step in the Media Center go away; this took 15 minutes, i.e. notably less than the time Media Center spent on not downloading it. The second tool is still missing, but Media Center appears to run without it. It cannot, however, use the DVB card.
      Issue 4: Unable to determine problems with downloads, and possibly offer alternatives, during setup

      Running games:
      The PC is an Shuttle Atom D525, 4 gigabyes RAM, some nVidia onboard graphics and a 60 gigabytes SSD. Part of the intent is to run some minor games on it.
      It failed to run a game because of some texturing issue in nVidia's driver. Turns out Shuttle is using an older nVidia driver with a known bug, and have not updated past it. Going to Microsoft's update-page is useless (update doesn't work, Microsoft doesn't know why), and downloading the appropriate driver directly from nVidia doesn't work, as the driver reports it cannot be used on the system.
      Issue 5: Unable to use generic or OS provided drivers for common graphics system.

      Getting on Network:
      Every so often the computer will report that it doesn't recognize what network it is on, particularly if switching between wired and wireless.
      When this occurs, it thinks it is on a public network, and basically disallows most any network access. It

    17. Re:Lucky bastards by TheoMurpse · · Score: 2

      IMHO chrome has become too much of a behemoth. I'd migrate them to Firefox.

      What? My experience is that Firefox is slower, uses more RAM, and has other problems Chrome does not. I switched from Opera to FF because Opera stopped handling Japanese input correctly. Then I switched from FF to Chrome because FF was so slow compared to Opera and Chrome was not.

    18. Re:Lucky bastards by itkelly · · Score: 2

      Very doubtful. The only places I have heard of that still suport IE6 are legacy intranet systems, usually in banks or somesuch, where all the terminals use the same browser version, ie. the same situation you have with an obsolete COBOL system that is still working for various "business reasons".

      I would have believed like you until a few months ago - but have now done some work for a very large financial organization that supports IE6 on its customer facing platforms - the reason I was given was that they are legally obligated to do so. Everyone I met would love to drop IE6 and they know all the arguments for why their customers should not use it.

      Just because a browser has nearly zero share, doesn't mean some poor person isn't obligated by their business to make sure that any changes they make to a site continue to work in it.

  2. Another nail for XP by juventasone · · Score: 5, Informative

    The summary leaves out the interesting part: IE8 is the latest version available for Windows XP. And there's no place that XP exists more than business, education, and government. This is Google's way to get sysadmins comfortable with Chrome in the workplace.

    1. Re:Another nail for XP by pspahn · · Score: 2

      Yeah, but what is support anymore? In a world where your device is not much more than a dumb | smart client (browser as OS, essentially), the device is replaceable. Simply. No more worrying about an entire hardware stack, all you care about is the browser and the web.

      I think it has been highly insightful of Googoo to develop the apps they have. I use them fairly often, and mostly because of the convenience. And hey, if it enlightens some M$ drone to the benefits of an alternative back office, the all the better.

      --
      Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
    2. Re:Another nail for XP by rudy_wayne · · Score: 2

      Or Firefox or Safari.

      Most businesses are starting or have already switched to Windows 7 since support for XP officially ends in 18 months.

      The ending of support is irrelevant. What "support" could you possibly need for XP? Anyone who is currently running XP will continue to do so until their last computer dies and cannot be repaired.

      Businesses are switching to Windows 7 only because all the new computers they buy come with Windows 7 installed. If they could still get new computers with Windows XP installed, they would buy them.

    3. Re:Another nail for XP by viperidaenz · · Score: 4, Informative

      Businesses don't tend to use the OS install that comes with the machine, they load their own builds they have made and tested themselves.

      Support = security fixes.Come 11 April 2014, no more security fixes for XP. Good luck getting Office 2014* that will install on XP as well.

      * or 2015, 2016, 2017....

  3. The article seemed somewhat negative... by gQuigs · · Score: 3, Interesting

    whereas I am quite positive about this move. It was Microsoft's choice to not port their more recent browser to XP in an attempt to kill it.

    It's quite amazing how much marketshare IE has lost over the last 4 years (http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser_version_partially_combined-ww-monthly-200807-201209). Firefox has lost somewhere in the neighborhood of 4%, while IE has lost 30%+ mostly to Chrome.

    It's moslty the US, Australia, and China holding up IE usage (http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser_version_partially_combined-ww-monthly-201209-201209-map)

    *Note all of this is according to statcounter, while other sources give different results, still with the same trends though.

  4. Big businesses won't move by Tony+Isaac · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It takes a LONG time for big businesses to move to new versions of anything. They are just now moving off of Windows XP and IE 7. Many major software systems used by big companies (such as GE Centricity) still don't even support IE 9, so customers of such software can't move forward even if they wanted to!

    It looks like Google is taking a page out of Apple's book. It's stunts like this that keep Apple out of the office (for the most part). Microsoft, on the other hand, has a reputation for supporting legacy software just about forever...lots of old DOS programs still work! Microsoft has been rewarded by businesses in a big way.

    Is this an opening for Yahoo?

    1. Re:Big businesses won't move by Quick+Reply · · Score: 2

      I think that if they are so change-resistent that they can't even deploy Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Google Chrome Frame or Google Apps Sync for Outlook (all of the supported options) then what chance is there that they would even move to Google Apps at all.

  5. It's well deserved. by mosb1000 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Anyone still using IE 8 deserves to be left out in the cold. Modern browsers are free, and work much better than that ancient piece of crap. If your IT department doesn't have it's shit together enough to let you run a real web browser, you can't expect most of the internet to work for you either. Don't complain to Google, you should seriously be considering replacing whoever it is who is making your IT decisions for you.

    1. Re:It's well deserved. by mosb1000 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You are wrong. There are a number of HTML 5 technologies (especially canvas objects) that IE 8 doesn't support. Many special concessions must be made to support IE 8 from a modern web-based application. It often means writing two versions of you code, one for IE 8 and one for everything else. Supporting IE 8 means limiting the functionality of you application while adding complexity to your code. I'm sure there was a collective sigh of relief among web developers when they heard Google was dropping IE 8, it means their employers will soon follow suit.

      They aren't blocking IE 8 users, they're just dropping support for the browser. That means some features won't work correctly or at all, and as time goes on the whole site will stop working as the continue to roll out new features that aren't supported in IE 8.

    2. Re:It's well deserved. by KingMotley · · Score: 4, Informative

      Off the top of my head:
      Opacity (real opacity, including opacity on PNGs with an alpha channel).
      Being able to define colors using RGBA
      CSS3 transforms
      Fully supporting @font-face for real web fonts
      HTML5 video support with H.264/MPEG4 so we can drop flash video players finally
      WOFF font support instead of the EOT (IE-only font format)
      Box shadows
      multiple backgrounds on a single object
      CSS3 selectors (:last-child, :nth-child, etc)

      Stuff even IE9 doesn't support:
      text-shadows
      3d transforms
      aync on script tags
      web sockets
      Filereader API (Smarter upload buttons)
      CSS3 transitions
      CSS3 gradients
      HTML5 form elements (date picker, range, integer, etc)

      Yes, those are all things that we use on our web site, or wanted to use and either had to write custom fallbacks just for IE, rewrite to use a different (more difficult, less efficient, larger) technique, or just let IE look like crap.

    3. Re:It's well deserved. by repvik · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that.

      So we deserve to be left out in the cold, because we have a need for applications that have yet to be upgraded to support IE9+? Our IT department employs 260+ people, and while you may claim that they "haven't got their shit together" I know these people pretty well, and they're pretty competent. IE8 is three years old. That isn't stoneage. And since IE breaks compatibility every single release, that means that more than 600 of the applications we provide (most external, some internal) have to be updated, re-tested and pushed. Almost once a year. Are you f*cking kidding me?
      Chrome with their incremental upgrade model is a complete no-go. We can't have the browser suddenly upgrading and breaking a critical system either. Firefox has major revisions every other week, which is even worse for an enterprise setup.

      In a small IT shop with Office and little else, being stuck on XP and IE8 would be gross incompetence. For a large company supporting more than 3k applications, it's not so much a choice. And it's not as easy as switching to other applications either, since many of these are specialist apps for which no alternative applications are available.

    4. Re:It's well deserved. by jkroll · · Score: 2

      Why is it that it's always company intranets that break with new browsers?

      Because company intranets/portals contain lots of links to third party apps and are limited by what those vendors support. When you have major software companies like SAP which have products that only added IE 9 support in major upgrades provided in the last two months, it is no surprise that lots of corporations aren't on the leading edge of supported browsers. Support for Chrome or recent Firefox (including extended support release 10) is virtually non-existent among lots of enterprise software, so those aren't options either.

  6. Re:As they should by Sir_Sri · · Score: 3, Informative

    Only support current browsers

    8 was released in 2009. IE9 last year. I'm not really sure it matters for google, but if you do custom web applications 3 years isn't really a long time to have to keep it alive.

    The big thing with IE8 is that it's the last IE for windows XP. Which is why it has a larger markeshare than IE9 still. marketshare from June and more marketshare by a lot. (25% vs 18%).

    If windows 8 looked like it was about to take off like a rocket and Windows XP was on a rapid trajectory to obsolescence then sure, but that isn't really what's happening. Windows XP is slowly dying away, but it's still slowly, and especially in the business market lots of potential customers are locked into the browser on XP for the moment.

    Granted, google probably has a lot of metrics and they probably know this isn't a problem for *their* products, but for the us little guys it's a different problem.

  7. IE What? by rueger · · Score: 2

    Just occurred to me that I honestly have no idea what the current version of IE might be. I think I've used it maybe twice in the last year?

    --
    Three Squirrels
    1. Re:IE What? by DarkXale · · Score: 2

      Both IE9 and IE10. IE9 is still the latest on Windows Vista and 7, but Windows 8 (which is released for MSDN and others) uses IE10.

  8. Re:As they should by sjames · · Score: 2

    XP users do have the option to install the latest and greatest Chrome, Firefox, or Safari.

  9. Thank you by maroberts · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Couldn't have put it better myself, except you missed out supporting phone browsing too. :-)

    I can program in COBOL and its easier than supporting several generations of browsers.

    --

    Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
    Karma: Chameleon

  10. Re:Hummm..I'm forced to ask by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2, Informative

    no unified buttons

    Clarify?

    menu bar

    You can activate it by pressing Alt as usual. Then you can go and check View -> Toolbars -> Menu bar to keep it on if you want.

    normal size address bar (not the tiny one IE9 has

    Do you refer to the fact that address bar is on the same line with tabs, and is squeezed to the right? If so, then right-click on any tab, and select "Show tabs in separate row".

  11. Re:As they should by tokul · · Score: 2

    They'll just load google chrome plugin for IE. Which is what google probably wants. Yet another workstation with google stack on it.

  12. Re:Chrome is rubbish for buisiness by Skylinux · · Score: 2

    * It saves it's EXE in the Windows profile. I thought Program Files existed for a reason....

    The Program Files folder requires admin permissions to write to. So storing the exe in profiles makes it possible to install and update a program without admin rights.

    --
    Everyone who buys Wild Hunt will receive 16 specially prepared DLCs absolutely for free, regardless of platform.
  13. Re:Chrome is rubbish for buisiness by Z34107 · · Score: 2

    I'm going to assume you're managing a large XP network with roaming profiles, because none of your complaints make sense otherwise. I'm also not a Windows admin, so forgive some lack of familiarity.

    * I can't set the local cache size (what browser in their right mind saves 1GB(sic!) on the local hard drive?)

    Did you redirect the entire Application Data folder onto a network share? If you did, stop it--it's huge even without Chrome's cache. If you didn't, stop worrying about a gig of local disk.

    * It saves it's EXE in the Windows profile. I thought Program Files existed for a reason....

    This is so non-administrators can install and update Chrome.

    * We have re-routed MyDocuments to a home directory. Chrome default saves downloads in Downloads under MyDocuments. EVERY single file! Attachments from mail or not doesn't matter. 99% can be deleted but I still need to check with the user for the of chance that he/she has edited something in the folder.

    So go change Chrome's download folder. This isn't rocket science. Google also provides an MSI installer and group policy objects, which I'd imagine makes that easier.

    And do you really spend time deleting individual files out of other users' Documents folders? Windows has supported disk quotas since NT, and it probably costs more to pay you for an hour of download deleting than just buying a new disk for the file server.

    --
    DATABASE WOW WOW
  14. "... recommending that they upgrade their browser" by olau · · Score: 2

    IE8 users accessing Google Apps will see a message recommending that they upgrade their browser.

    Oh, just like the ugly box I occasionally see on google.com when I'm visiting with any other browser than Chrome?

    As a web developer, it's good that Google is moving people off of the old browsers. While IE 8 does have much better selector support than IE 6 and fixed a lot of bugs, some of the really convenient styling stuff didn't show up until IE 9.

    Although, it's also a bit ironic, as I gather the stock browser on all but the most recent Android have a bunch of issues. And I'm not seeing Google stepping up to fix that by some kind of semi-forced upgrade - it's actually a very similar situation.

  15. Re:Home users with pre-2006 PCs by ifiwereasculptor · · Score: 2

    Well, tell me why an Athlon 64 wouldn't be perfectly fine to view e-mail, pay your bills, a few older games etc. I have one from 2003 and, coupled with a GeForce FX 5200 - crappy even for its day -, I can even play a few Source games. Why should I have to upgrade my hardware - or OS, for that matter - when it's still perfectly capable to comfortably accommodate my workflow?

    This is all rhetorical, of course, since said system is running Debian and, other than the aforementioned GeForce on Gnome Shell, has no issues with hardware support.

  16. Re:Home users with pre-2006 PCs by DeathFromSomewhere · · Score: 2

    Because the rest of the world has moved on. If you don't want to keep up that's fine, but don't expect everyone else to cater to you.

    --
    -1 overrated isn't the same thing as "I disagree".
  17. Quit deciding to use IE... by erac3rx · · Score: 2

    On the one hand I feel bad for folks that work in IT for companies that have apps they use which require IE. On the other hand, it's getting *really* tough to have sympathy. In a world where you have web browsers like Chrome and Firefox that are available on every major platform *and* free, what type of organization decides to use applications that only work in some version of IE? And furthermore, what is stopping those organizations from just installing FF or Chrome on every user's machine so they can access whatever applications they need to use that don't work right in IE? Nothing. Unlike IE, FF and Chrome work on basically every version of everything.

    Quit making stupid choices, then complaining when those choices hurt you.