Pressure mounts to phase out Internet Explorer 6

[Adam]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8492862.stm

 

Sign the petition!

[JonnoTheDev]

IE6 sucks balls

[oni-kun]

IE6 sucks balls

 

It's the only version i'll use. Comes with XP, stays with XP. I'm not going to download a 300MB clone attempt of firefox and opera's tabs. No way.

[waynewex]

IE6 sucks balls

 

It's the only version i'll use. Comes with XP, stays with XP. I'm not going to download a 300MB clone attempt of firefox and opera's tabs. No way.

 

That's all good and well. Just don't get annoyed when you see that websites show like shit in it.

[oni-kun]

IE6 sucks balls

 

It's the only version i'll use. Comes with XP, stays with XP. I'm not going to download a 300MB clone attempt of firefox and opera's tabs. No way.

 

That's all good and well. Just don't get annoyed when you see that websites show like shit in it.

 

On the sites I go to, IE6 works better than chrome. Much faster. The only thing it faulters in is some odd bug that crashes it here and there, IE7 doesn't even work on half the sites I go to, out of the box, It's disgusting. IE7 is when IE became pointless to even consider. I'd and have used Links opposed to any new IE.

[JonnoTheDev]

The only thing it faulters in is some odd bug that crashes it here and there

LOL. What about the massive security holes! And don't tell me it can be patched. Why do you think it's getting dropped. Use IE6 at your own risk. You won't be able to view YouTube on IE6 soon. Most major sites will fail on it. If you use IE, then use IE8.

I'm not going to download a 300MB clone attempt of firefox and opera's tabs.

Don't know what this means. All 4 browsers on my desktop took about 2 minutes to install.

[oni-kun]

LOL. What about the massive security holes! And don't tell me it can be patched. Why do you think it's getting dropped. Use IE6 at your own risk. You won't be able to view YouTube on IE6 soon. Most major sites will fail on it. If you use IE, then use IE8.

 

What security holes? I don't seem to see any when I browse my sites. Neither do any of the Windows (upd-bloat-ates) apply to any of the sites I go to.

 

Now why add all this code if it's just going to never run? I'll assume you go to a lot of badporn.com sites and need a browser that will cradle you.

[JonnoTheDev]

What security holes?

Read the article from the link on the original post. I dont know where you have been if you haven't heard of this topic.

I'll assume you go to a lot of badporn.com sites and need a browser that will cradle you.

I do a lot of development on adult sites and Internet services, so yeah, you do have to trawl through some shit and dodgy links. You could get targeted through any type of website, doesn't even have to be a website to get hit with a trojan.

[oni-kun]

What security holes?

Read the article from the link on the original post. I dont know where you have been if you haven't heard of this topic.

 

"There is no evidence that moving from the latest fully patched versions of Internet Explorer to other browsers will make users more secure' date='" said Lord West.[/quote']

 

Why must end users be so stupid, they petition for software to be removed so other stupid endusers don't accidentally get xss'd or go to the 'phisher's bank instead. Maybe that phisher should have the right to make a profit off of people like you, apprently.

 

doesn't even have to be a website to get hit with a trojan.

 

Makes a lot of sense there. Do you know nothing but what the media tells you?

[KevinM1]

Even if security isn't your concern, I don't see why you'd stick with a browser that has a dodgy track record with W3C standards and JavaScript efficiency.  And, while anecdotally IE6 may seem/be faster than modern browsers for you, the actual numbers show that it isn't, by a long shot (look at the myriad results from Ars, Gizmodo, etc).

[oni-kun]

Even if security isn't your concern, I don't see why you'd stick with a browser that has a dodgy track record with W3C standards and JavaScript efficiency.  And, while anecdotally IE6 may seem/be faster than modern browsers for you, the actual numbers show that it isn't, by a long shot (look at the myriad results from Ars, Gizmodo, etc).

http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/03/microsofts-own-speed-tests-show-ie-beating-chrome-firefox.ars

 

An comparing IE8 to IE6, Can you believe a fucking 9 yearold (Yes, that was IE6's release date)'s 'crappy icky hole filled' browser still beats performance aspects on modern day browsers?

 

Yes! The magic anti-trojan filled boat.. bloat of modern browsers need to be upgraded to, or else we'll die! The media tells us! The media's numbers tell us!

[KevinM1]

Even if security isn't your concern, I don't see why you'd stick with a browser that has a dodgy track record with W3C standards and JavaScript efficiency.  And, while anecdotally IE6 may seem/be faster than modern browsers for you, the actual numbers show that it isn't, by a long shot (look at the myriad results from Ars, Gizmodo, etc).

http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/03/microsofts-own-speed-tests-show-ie-beating-chrome-firefox.ars

 

An comparing IE8 to IE6, Can you believe a fucking 9 yearold (Yes, that was IE6's release date)'s 'crappy icky hole filled' browser still beats performance aspects on modern day browsers?

 

There's no mention of IE6 in that article.  This discussion is not about IE8.  Your point is?

[oni-kun]

There's no mention of IE6 in that article.  This discussion is not about IE8.  Your point is?

And comparing IE8 to IE6 [...]

 

It's not far off the tree. I'd be glad to dig out one hundred different machines and run tests on them, but the 'internet's aren't tests, the internet with 'perfect' configurations in those results are not tests!

 

Commit browser suicide on something that is simpler, and may be faster. Now we move on to the more bloated and complex stage of 'who can build the largest browser library that runs faster than good ol' IE.'

[Philip]

I have a suspicion oni-kun is just messing with you guys... but if not:

 

A more recent article than the one oni posted shows IE8 didn't win a single speed test:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/168623/browser_speed_tests_latest_firefox_is_faster_but_not_as_fast_as_google_chrome.html

 

Also - its not about speed. Sure IE6 might be able to win in a speed test (although I kinda doubt it), but perhaps thats because its just flying through the render process ignoring complaint code

[oni-kun]

I have a suspicion oni-kun is just messing with you guys... but if not:

 

I wasn't aware it took 9 years to come up with a browser that complied to these RFC 'standards' that can't load nearly half of the aformentioned test websites without quirks mode on.

[premiso]

It's the only version i'll use. Comes with XP, stays with XP. I'm not going to download a 300MB clone attempt of firefox and opera's tabs. No way.

 

300mb clone attempt? Last I checked firefox download was no bigger than 10MBs, parhaps the install is bigger, but to download it takes less than 30 seconds on internet speeds today.

 

'crappy icky hole filled' browser still beats performance aspects on modern day browsers?

 

Actually I can believe that. Given this logic you should still be using a Linux Terminal for your OS and Lynx Browser to browse on. As the "non-flashy" browsers will beat the performance of any graphical / flashy browser and the same goes with the operating system.  Now, if you prefer to not have the perks of say IE8, which is the Addons it can handle, Tabbed Browsing, search feature built in for whatever engine you want and more conformed to standards. Go right ahead and stick to IE6. As it will perform as you want it. For me, I like my Addons from Firefox and I like the ability to skin Firefox and have Tabbed Browsing. Those are just my preferences, performance is not as much of a priority as functionality is. I can use a Graphical OS and Browser, and I do want them to be a bit more flashy even though it will hit the performance a little bit.

 

Obviously you just care about performance over functionality, which is your choice, for me I like a mixture of both.

[PugJr]

It seems like all browsers these day suck. They were supposed to be improved but they have only gotten worse. IE8 crashes a lot and has many, many problems with flash. So I go to IE7, no problems.

 

Then firefox 3.5. What was the improvment over FF2.0? FF3.5 also happens to crash some amount (Not to the degree of IE8) but FF2.0 worked flawlessly for me.

 

Maybe I should try out Chrome, but after so many years, you would think someone would have made a browser that just works. Also another thing, what the heck is with the browsers headers? They are HUGE.

[Daniel0]

My combo is Firefox + Adblock Plus + Vimperator + Tree Style Tab (+ some other less significant stuff). Works well for me. I don't care what browser people use as long as they keep it reasonably upgraded. If they don't, they shouldn't expect that things will continue to work for them at least.

 

Also another thing, what the heck is with the browsers headers? They are HUGE.

 

I assume you mean the user agent string. See this: http://webaim.org/blog/user-agent-string-history/

[PugJr]

 

I assume you mean the user agent string. See this: http://webaim.org/blog/user-agent-string-history/

 

Yup, thats what I meant by. Thanks for the link, as it cleared up why they are so bloated. 

[oni-kun]

 

I assume you mean the user agent string. See this: http://webaim.org/blog/user-agent-string-history/

 

Yup, thats what I meant by. Thanks for the link, as it cleared up why they are so bloated. 

I wouldn't consider it to be bloated, although a lot of browser strings contain useless information.. (IE, Chrome and FF all say Mozilla, for example)

 

If you think that's bloated, look at the browsecap.ini PHP requires to use the get_browser function:

http://oni-kun.com/browsecap.ini

[trq]

Funny you should mention this. An email I received from Google yesterday:

 

Dear Google Apps admin,​

 

In order to continue to improve our products and deliver more sophisticated features and performance, we are harnessing some of the latest improvements in web browser technology.  This includes faster JavaScript processing and new standards like HTML5.  As a result, over the course of 2010, we will be phasing out support for Microsoft Internet Explorer 6.0 as well as other older browsers that are not supported by their own manufacturers.

 

We plan to begin phasing out support of these older browsers on the Google Docs suite and the Google Sites editor on March 1, 2010.  After that point, certain functionality within these applications may have higher latency and may not work correctly in these older browsers. Later in 2010, we will start to phase out support for these browsers for Google Mail and Google Calendar.

 

Google Apps will continue to support Internet Explorer 7.0 and above, Firefox 3.0 and above, Google Chrome 4.0 and above, and Safari 3.0 and above.

 

Starting this week, users on these older browsers will see a message in Google Docs and the Google Sites editor explaining this change and asking them to upgrade their browser.  We will also alert you again closer to March 1 to remind you of this change.

 

In 2009, the Google Apps team delivered more than 100 improvements to enhance your product experience.  We are aiming to beat that in 2010 and continue to deliver the best and most innovative collaboration products for businesses.

 

Thank you for your continued support!

 

Sincerely,

 

The Google Apps team

[oni-kun]

Funny you should mention this. An email I received from Google yesterday:

 

M$ Hotmail requires a recognized browser, I go as a custom UA and it says to upgrade. But even if I am on an ancient browser {Lynx (1992, but 2003b revison), Links (1999)} with spoofed UA it works fine with JS and all. I see no performance differ, except the gain from no images being and (unsupportedbymanybrowsersCSS3) being removed.

 

Their warnings are idealistic, at best. Why believe them?

[Daniel0]

Their warnings are idealistic, at best. Why believe them?

 

Idealistic? They're not saying they'll block IE6. They're saying that they will stop supporting it. Basically they won't make any efforts trying to get things working (functionally and aesthetically).

 

Basically, adamant and/or ignorant users who aren't upgrading are preventing them from using newer technologies. Dropping support for older browsers alleviates that. Note that they aren't only phasing out support for IE6, but also versions like FF2, Safari 2, Chrome 3, etc.

[Adam]

Sorry to dreg up an old post, but yeah this went no where. I received an email from them today, in short it says:

 

It is not straightforward for HMG departments to upgrade IE versions on their systems.  Upgrading these systems to IE8 can be a very large operation, taking weeks to test and roll out to all users. To test all the web applications currently used by HMG departments can take months at significant potential cost to the taxpayer. It is therefore more cost effective in many cases to continue to use IE6 and rely on other measures, such as firewalls and malware scanning software, to further protect public sector internet users.

http://www.hmg.gov.uk/epetition-responses/petition-view.aspx?epref=ie6upgrade

 

I love how two faced the Government can be: "at significant potential cost to the taxpayer" ..really? Everyone suddenly forgotten about the recent expense claims scandals? ID cards? etc. MPs would rather build a mote around their house than upgrade technology.

[zq29]

I don't mind if they spend my taxes on migrating away from IE6.