IE8 is leaps and bounds better than IE6. In IE8 you barely even need to tweak sites to get them to look right. I'd be tickled pink if IE8 was all I had to worry about. IE9 is going to be much better than IE8 -- by leaps and bounds -- but it's still in beta. At least the release candidate is out. Some people are never satisfied and always need something to complain about. I'm sure you'll find something else once IE9 is out (it doesn't work on their 10 year old operating system).
Edit: So much idealism in this thread and not enough people being realistic.
Here are the facts:
-Web developers hate IE. All versions of it.
-We live in a world with IE.
-Microsoft IS NOT going to suggest that people download Firefox or Chrome.
-It IS NOT in their interest to do so.
-The next best thing is for them to suggest IE8 and then IE9.
-It is in the users' best interest who don't know any better and it is in Web developers' best interest that people are at least using something better than IE6 or IE7
-Windows XP is 10 years old.
-The only thing that's going to be holding back users from upgrading to IE9 is refusal to upgrade their decade-old operating system.
-It would be like people being mad at Apple because the latest version of Safari isn't compatible with OS9.
I find it amazing that people seem to be more concerned about upgrading the browser than upgrading the OS. The delta between XP and Win7 is so much larger than IE8 and IE9 that having this discussion is almost embarrassing.
While I get that this may make the life of the HTML5 dev easier -- its just dwarfed by the importance of getting people off of a dangerous OS.
While in theory it would be nice to see MS support XP with IE9, I much prefer they use any means to get people off this OS. I'd even love to see them offer Ubuntu or Win7 as upgrade path. There's just no reason to be on XP. And everything we do to make their lives seemingly easier, really keeps this in this precarious situation.
Thing is: I don't care if you run XP or Win7 (or Mac OS X or Ubuntu for that matter) because my software does not run on top of the OS but on top of a modern browsers. So the IE8/9 difference matters to me, the OS difference does not. Don't forget that most (or at least a lot of) people here on HN develop or run web apps.
Within the scope of this discussion, that's somewhat facetious. The main reason cited for wanting people to move off IE6 is security concerns rather than HTML5 support, and for good reason - I don't care whether people can use the latest-greatest version of gmail, I care whether they're unduly liable to become part of a botnet that can bring down gmail for everyone.
That's not my reason, and I've never once mentioned it. I don't care a bit about other people's security. It's an important issue, but life is short, and I've got other stuff to worry about.
My applications have to run in people's browsers...if there are a significant number of people using crappy old browsers (of which IE8 is one), it affects my life and my use of time.
"Since when did Hacker News become about pandering to software development subfields?"
Since always.
But, that's not the point. This whole conversation is about Microsoft referring people to a site that will help them upgrade their browser...the majority of people seeing the message and following those steps, will be upgrading to a browser that just isn't up to snuff.
The page it links to does not show people how to upgrade their OS. You're the one taking this conversation in an entirely unrelated direction, and bringing OS security into the discussion. I'm complaining because the whole IE countdown thing is a nuisance rather than a help.
And, again, the OS people run is not my concern. The browser with which they use my applications, however, is my concern. Getting people to upgrade their OS is Microsoft's problem, not mine. But, by recommending an old browser for their users that haven't upgraded from XP, they're making their problem into my problem. I'm tired of dealing with Microsoft's problems, and I don't think it's fair that they use their market clout to keep putting their problems on my plate.
But, that's not the point. This whole conversation is about Microsoft referring people to a site that will help them upgrade their browser...the majority of people seeing the message and following those steps, will be upgrading to a browser that just isn't up to snuff.
Expecting Microsoft to advocate people moving to a non-Microsoft product is idiotic.
I'm tired of dealing with Microsoft's problems, and I don't think it's fair that they use their market clout to keep putting their problems on my plate.
Let me get this straight -- your main complaint is that it's not fair?!
Yeah, I like it when people I work with, directly or indirectly, play fair. When they don't, I feel I have every right to criticize them for it, which is what I've been doing.
I believe Microsoft is doing the web (and me, as a developer for the web) a disservice, and I'd like them to stop damaging the web (and me).
Not true. First of all, I wouldn't use Windows at all on a machine I depended on for security. The fact is my XP box has never had a bug on it. It's fully patched, services off, behind a nat, with firefox and noscript. Acl's can be improved but I've never bothered. I admit it takes a lot of upfront prep to get XP safe to use, but it can be done if one has the knowledge.
Who said I know anything about web development? Greybeard here that learned on the Vic-20.
Yes. A number of security augmentations in Windows 7 required significant modifications to the operating system kernel and user space environment (almost to the point of a rewrite in some cases). These modifications cannot happen in Windows XP without turning Windows XP into Windows 7.
ASLR is mostly enabled, especially in 64-bit binaries. W^X protection is always enabled on 64-bit binaries. Service hardening and privilege separation are enabled by default always.
They should make a free Windows 7 Basic basic (basically XP but newer ;p) upgrade. That way people would have a option but that IF they have a PC capable of running a basic version of Windows 7.
Actually, the need to upgrade anything and everything is a bit overdone. What, in particular, is your problem with XP?
The MS monopoly thrives on the need for a regular update, needed or not. Windows XP is a great OS IMHO - it's a shame MS found it convenient to ditch support for it.
OSes aren't new. We've been doing them a long time. MS may say there are things missing from XP but it satisfies a lot of needs - for example, it runs Firefox quite well.
Now browsers, in particular, are still in a state of flux. With browser, in particular, upgrading matters. That also might not continue forever but its true now.
The browser you use impact me because I care about what you see. The OS you use does NOT impact me because only you see it.
I think you're being a bit unreasonable here. IE9 relies on parts of Windows that just don't exist in XP. Windows XP is ancient by software standards. Sure, Chrome et al. work in all operating systems, but you're upset at Microsoft because they don't want to support an operating system that they want people off of already. It's their decision and I'm glad they want people to upgrade. People got mad because users didn't want to get off of Windows 98 because of how dated it had become but fewer people are upset at the "Windows XP is good for a lifetime" crowd.
IE9 is coming and it's much better. When the people holding back on upgrading finally upgrade then you'll have your better Web.
That's exactly the point- since they're holding off on upgrading their OS, potentially for a much longer time, they won't even have the option of updating their web browser. An OS upgrade is a much more monumental decision than a browser upgrade, and the inertia is much greater.
At any rate, the fact that IE9 can't backport parts of its OS dependencies is kind of an implementation detail. We're saying Webkit has no problems providing a self-contained modern browsing experience, so IE9 doesn't have to be any different.
Webkit has no problems providing an experience that the IE team thinks is subpar (in particular, lacks full 2d graphics acceleration).
Similar for Gecko: it's doing compositing acceleration on WinXP, but not 2d acceleration.
Now maybe the argument is that IE9 should support such a mode of operation. But by the same argument, Firefox should still have a supported PPC version of Firefox 4 (even though it's JIT can't generate PPC code, so JS would be interpreted and hence very slow). Some people _are_ making that argument, by the way, but the general consensus is that this sort of decision about what sort of quality they're willing to put their name on is up to the Mozilla project. Why does the IE team not get the same courtesy?
I realize that you may disagree with their quality metrics (e.g. you may think that a modern JS JIT is a must-have requirement for a modern web browser but 2d graphics acceleration is not). But it's not clear to me that this is obvious, or that this will even be true in a year.
I agree that people need to upgrade from XP and into something better than all but I understand texel's point. Upgrading to Windows 7 or a Mac involves money, upgrading to Linux is an option that most aren't ready to take. Switching those XP users to Chrome/Firefox is the most likely chance we have to get them to a level where they can use all the new web technologies we want to throw at them. And I have a personal bias too, IE9 doesn't support WebGL which the software I'm developing depends on thus IE is not an option for my users.
So the problem is actually users refusing to upgrade their OS, not Microsoft not supporting XP after 10 years. It seems like we jump on people for not upgrading anything -- except when it comes to their OS.
You are a Microsoft astroturfer, right?
(Before downvoting, people, read up on this. Microsoft does it. "coderdude"'s "website" is a vaguely Microsoftian coming-soon page...)
What? I'm almost flattered that you went through so much trouble to peg me as a Microsoft astroturfer. :)
I hate Internet Explorer. Do not get me wrong on this point. I hate it with a passion. I just know that IE8 > IE6 and that MS isn't going to link to Firefox or Chrome. If everyone was on IE8 (not even IE9) I would still be a happy camper.
Also, what part of my coming soon page is Microsoftian? Now you've got me curious. (Obviously so that I can fix that so that others can't figure out my true motives.)
Edit: Aw bummer. I was kind of flattered until I realized you created that account 15 minutes ago to troll. Your other contributions to HN:
IE8 is better than IE6, but if someone is going to upgrade their browser, they should upgrade to the best one available. On windows XP, they can't get IE9, but they can get Chrome, Firefox, or Opera.
It'd be like making a trip to a gas station and filling up to half a tank. Because half a tank is better than an empty tank, right? But... while you're going to all that trouble, why not top it off?
Of course this strategy is good for Microsoft, but web designers should be doing what's good for the web.
>IE8 is better than IE6, but if someone is going to upgrade their browser, they should upgrade to the best one available. On windows XP, they can't get IE9, but they can get Chrome, Firefox, or Opera.
As I said in an earlier comment, it's not in Microsoft's best interest to move people off Microsoft browsers but it is in developers' best interest to have them move to at least IE8. It's a much better browser that requires very little hackery to get layouts working on. When people finally stop dragging their feet and upgrade their decade old OS then we will have a better Web experience. Don't get on Microsoft about this, blame the people who refuse to upgrade their software.
I know it's in developers' even better interest to have all users using Chrome or Firefox. I've said this numerous times and I don't think anyone is arguing against that. But there isn't going to be a link on Microsoft's site to Firefox. I can't figure out why people keep bringing this up. It's not like it hasn't occurred to me -- I'm a designer too. I know how much it sucks fixing IE problems in layouts. What I also know is that there are waaay fewer problems with IE8 than with IE6 and since this is the best we can hope for that's what I'm trying to convey here.
I learned not to attribute to malice what could be explained by incompetence, but, sadly, incompetence alone cannot explain a company the size of Microsoft being unable to offer a modern standards-compliant browser.
That's why it's great news that Microsoft wants users to upgrade to at least IE8. They will have IE9 once they upgrade their ancient OS as well.
We all know how you feel about Microsoft. Your comment being down-voted into oblivion at the bottom of this page is a good show of how you're approaching my comment. Microsoft is making good progress here.
> That's why it's great news that Microsoft wants users to upgrade to at least IE8.
Which is the worst browser you can easily download these days.
> They will have IE9 once they upgrade their ancient OS as well.
After they failed miserably to move Windows users out of IE6, forgive me if I am a little skeptical when they suggest the move from IE7 and IE8 to IE9 will be an easy one.
>Which is the worst browser you can easily download these days.
This isn't some utopia where we can all get what we want. If I had my way there would be no IEs. I hate Internet Explorer. The reality of the situation though is that IE8 is the best option available [for people who don't know any better] in the world we live in. IE9 will soon be the best option for people who have an up-to-date operating system. Then we can all whine about XP users refusing to upgrade their old software so that we can also have more up-to-date browsers surfing the Web.
>After they failed miserably to move Windows users out of IE6, forgive me if I am a little skeptical when they suggest the move from IE7 and IE8 to IE9 will be an easy one.
Most users have IE8 already. The move to IE9 won't take as long as you think. I'd like to know where you got the impression that Microsoft failed to move huge swathes of people over to IE8. IE is installed via automatic updates.
> > Which is the worst browser you can easily download these days.
> This isn't some utopia where we can all get what we want.
Now you are just completely missing the point.
Microsoft is asking YOU, to waste your time, your bandwidth, and your visitor time to download IE8 if they are using IE6.
now i could argue "This isn't some utopia, MICROSOFT, where we can all get what we want." see what i did there?
now, it's your time. your site. you can very well show a banner telling IE6 users to download firefox or chrome or opera. Hell, it's my dam site. on some of my online games that i wrote for fun i even ridiculize people that show up with IE6.
I can't believe you're claiming it's better for ANYONE for Microsoft to recommend the worst current browser to the 50% of their client base (XP users) when Opera, Chrome, Safari, and Firefox run on that system!
My claim is that it's best for Microsoft to keep their users on their software, which it is. Given that this is what will happen (Microsoft isn't going to suddenly start suggesting people download Firefox) then the next best thing is for them to suggest people upgrade to IE8 and eventually IE9. I hate IE just as much as the next guy but in this reality this is the best option available to us.
Sure, it's best for humanity that people use Chrome or Firefox but I'm not arguing ideals here. I'm looking at the facts of the situation and rolling with them.
“My claim is that it's best for Microsoft to keep their users on their software, which it is.”
Pardon me, but you posted 20 comments to this discussion and your only “claim” is backed up by you saying “which it is”? Then what is your point? Not to be rude, but why say anything at all?
How does anyone know it’s “best to keep them on their [old] software”? If no one used IE8, would not Microsoft also be free to use newer web standards to create better, faster-loading web apps with less development time? What benefit to Microsoft is there having IE8 users?
Edit: Your reply still doesn’t show how you figure it’s better for Microsoft to have people on IE8 than on (say) Chrome, despite my possible counter-argument. You say market share for market share’s sake is good? Why?
>Pardon me, but you posted 20 comments to this discussion and your only “claim” is backed up by you saying “which it is”?
Ok then, it's not in Microsoft's best interest to keep users on IE? If you don't think the logic is plain enough to stand on its own please tell me why. How is it good for Microsoft to lose market share? That was my claim. It isn't good from their point of view for themselves to lose users. I don't think I need a citation there.
>How does anyone know it’s “best to keep them on their [old] software”?
IE8 isn't their old software. It's their current software. IE9 is the new software which hasn't been released to their users.
>If no one used IE8, would not Microsoft also be free to use newer web standards to create better, faster-loading web apps with less development time?
Their plan is to migrate to IE9 which is a good browser. This is their plan for being able to create better, faster-loading Web apps with less development time. The best part is we all benefit from this.
>What benefit to Microsoft is there having IE8 users?
Migration path to IE9. In the mean time it's better for the entire world that IE6 users become IE8 users and eventually upgrade to IE9. Literally it would be best if they were Chrome or Firefox users but let's don't get silly -- most users don't care and it's not Microsoft's job to sell those users on other people's software.
You ignored everything parent actually meant. Nice strawman.
Not to mention that you suggest migrating XP users to IE8 instead of e.g. firefox provides a "migration path" to IE9? Which you just defended as OK for Microsoft to not provide to XP users.
With a bunch of webdevelopers we tried to give IE9 some complicated stuff and I have to tell you, it is really buggy.
It is just an other buggy browser in the series and it is way behind on the standards side of things. They are doing things other browsersmakers did in their release more then a year ago.
-Microsoft IS NOT going to suggest that people download Firefox or Chrome.
I really don't understand the benefit of IE having its own rendering engine. While I can't imagine MS abandoning IE, I can't see any business reason (other than hubris) for them maintaining a worst-of-breed rendering and JS engine at great cost to themselves.
(And just for the record, basically agree with you on all points.)
They're not 'web' apps, they're apps built to a specific platform.
Many of those are internal intranet apps, and some are not even networked - they're actual apps that use the IE rendering engine for UI.
You may not like that they're not built to your "web" standard (or whatever that standard was 10 years ago), but other people just care if their apps still work.
These apps are built to a Windows platform, and not a web standard. A platform that the current IE rendering engine is a component of. MSFT has a commitment to backward compatibility for some very strong business reasons.
And people build to MSFT's platforms and buy their operating systems, in part, because of this commitment to compatibility.
They are broken from the _user's_ perspective, yes.
They are not necessarily broken from the app developer's perspective.
Changing IE so as to break them would cause MS a good bit of grief (and depending on the contracts they have with people might cost them money directly).
Because a lot of companies rely on IE's rendering engine. There are a lot of sites (mostly internal but external as well) that use technologies like ActiveX which only work on IE's engine. For example, almost every site served up by an ip camera uses an activex plugin to view video.
I don't see any reason why ActiveX couldn't be bolted on to Webkit. As for backward compatibility they update their engine all of the time; perhaps quirks mode could be left as the old engine.
No one uses OS 9 anymore. Loads use XP. Get it? It's Microsoft's mess to clean up, and browser-wise, three separate efforts can do it! If Microsoft can't, they should pass the ball to someone who can.
Anything else hurts the web.
You may have posted the most one-sided, thick-skulled, baseless comment I've ever seen on HN.
Geeks are always bitching. I think this is better than doing nothing. They can't exactly erase the past. I think its a step in the right direction. IE9 is going to be better but still not perfect. But, again, at least its better. I am all for better. Though I would link users to alternative browser... why can't the complaining geeks just use their own banner.
I disagree. I think he mentions a really valid point. Getting users to upgrade from IE6 is good thing, but it's even better to upgrade to Firefox or Chrome instead of IE8.
How is that a valid point? In what alternate universe is it a good idea for Microsoft to attempt to convert their users to a non-Microsoft browser (from Microsoft's stand-point)? Even if it's good for the users, it's their users, and it's entirely logical for them to want to keep them.
> In what alternate universe is it a good idea for Microsoft to attempt to convert their users to a non-Microsoft browser (from Microsoft's stand-point)?
Exactly.
It's stupid for Microsoft, but everyone else would benefit from no longer having to cope with Internet Explorer. Heck. Even Microsoft would stop spending money developing their browsers and that would certainly improve their bottom line (much like abandoning MeeGo will improve Nokia's). As it is, Microsoft does whatever benefits them, regardless of how much it does hurt everybody else.
The only people "coping" with IE are Web developers. Most users that have something greater than IE6 never even notice that poor experience nor do they know any better to begin with -- I don't even think a lot of users could tell the difference if you showed them. Try showing your grandmother why Chrome is better. I know I would have a hard time "selling it."
>Heck. Even Microsoft would stop spending money developing their browsers and that would certainly improve their bottom line
Are you just anti-Microsoft trolling? This doesn't follow any kind of logic. "They would sure benefit from having millions of users not use their Web browser." What?
Some of the least technically inclined people I know massively prefer Chrome to Internet Explorer. Chrome has a noticeable speed advantage, nags less and within an hours casual use it has their favorite sites one click away when they open the browser. These are all noticeable improvements, even to users who couldn't care less about web standards.
It's also much easier to sell Chrome than, e.g. Firefox. My current browser of choice is Firefox 4, but whenever I'm setting up someone's computer, I give them Chrome.
If I gave them Firefox, they'll have the attitude of "I want the old one back!". For chrome however, they already use Google, so they're happy using "Google" to view other pages. And while I worry a little about Possibly accidentally creating a Google = the Internet opinion in them, transparent automatic updates prevent this having consequences like the IE = the Internet attitude others have.
I tried to get my open source-hostile roomate to care about firefox for a year and a half and he never gave a shit, and then one day he downloaded Chrome and never looked back. Something about how it had the most room for the page.
That choice was forced on them by regulators. They didn't choose it.
The parent said that he didn't think it was best for our industry, but that it wouldn't be in Microsoft's best interest to do it.
Does Microsoft believe it's in the industry's best interest to recommend other browsers? I doubt it. My guess is that they still believe in their own vision of the future and want to keep their customers so they have a chance to build it.
Your HN profile says you love technology and the Internet but your comment doesn't support that claim at all. We don't just want people off IE6, we want people on modern browsers.
Everyone needs something to bitch about. You bitching about how geeks need something to bitch about is a prime example, not to mention all of us bitching about you bitching about our bitching.
Your HN profile says that you have a high karma and a high average comment score. This implies you know the culture of the site quite well. It would be really nice if you tried to uphold the quality of conversation by avoiding personal attacks.
> Your HN profile says you love technology and the Internet but your comment doesn't support that claim at all. We don't just want people off IE6, we want people on modern browsers.
The problem is people are making a big deal out of MS suggesting developers encourage users to upgrade to IE8. Of course MS is going to say that. Developers are big boys and girls, however, and if they want, they can suggest other browsers as well... like they've been doing for years now.
So, this response to MS is worthless. It's saying something everyone who cares already knows about, and encourages those who don't know to do something.
Yes, the best bet would be if everyone switched over to Firefox, open and free standards, cherry pie for everyone, no patents, along with coffee and tea. Everyone running the same standard OS that takes care of updating for you.
But that's not going to happen.
Basically: MS encourages people to move off IE6 to IE8. These are for people who are still on IE6... people who probably don't know Mozilla, don't use Apple, and have no clue who Opera is. Google Chrome makes no sense.
Geek gets upset they suggest IE8 and posts a worthless self-masturbatory rant about how MS wants people to use IE over FF, O, or Webkit. This post then gets posted to HN, where, but some odd miracle, it sparks two types of posters.
Those who are happy MS is helping get people off IE6. Thank god for small miracles.
Then those who are pretty much adding nothing to the discussion by repeating what the original post said. HN's version of AOL's "me too".
The issue is less that they link to their own browser, and more that the likely outcome is that it will push the adoption of another nearly obsolete browser.
Hey, I don't know if you've noticed the pattern over the past 15 years, but there's always another "obsolete" browser. You can't "win", it's just about the progress. There is no point in the past 15 years where you've been able to just code to the latest beta of your favorite browser and nothing else.
That's true, but on the other hand, as TFA points out, IE8 is the latest that a WinXP user can ever get from Microsoft, which is two-years old and practically outdated now. Linking IE6 users to IE8 is progress, sure, but useless given that they could be running Chrome or Firefox, which are actually modern browsers.
Yea, I think the real problem here is that IE9 is not available for XP, which is the newest version of Windows shipping with IE6, so they are stuck upgrading them to IE8.
Are you trying to say you think it's more effective to encourage users to buy Windows 7 (and most likely a new computer to support it) than to encourage them to install Firefox or Chrome for free?
Not much progress going from one non-html5-compliant browser to another. It still means everyone's stuck having to support flash and other proprietary plugins. IE9 at least allows us to move forward with modern standards.
It is not just new stuff like HTML5. XHTML 1.0 is already 11 years old and is not supported in IE8, forcing it to be served using the HTML MIME type and parsed as HTML. Often XHTML served this way becomes invalid even if it was originally valid. I wrote an article on Reddit about this.
> Hey, I don't know if you've noticed the pattern over the past 15 years, but there's always another "obsolete" browser.
He's saying that they'd get a more modern browser by going to something other than IE, given that their OS can't possibly support the latest version of IE. We know there's nothing you can do to be up-to-date forever.
I didn't say it was shady or even controversial, just that it isn't as good a deal as it seems. I had a whole "jumping from the fire back into the frying pan" analogy lined up, but couldn't make a snappy title out of it.
To some extent, it is a good thing that the warning banner is ugly because it will annoy the users, increasing the chances that they'll do something (i.e. upgrade to a newer browser) to get rid of it.
marginal improvement is still improvement. we could just chill out and accept that microsoft has the right to promote its product and we have the right not to put the banner on our sites.
"Given that everyone using IE6 is, at best, running Windows XP, and given that Microsoft have stated that IE9 won't be available for pre-Vista SP2 OSs, the most recent version of Internet Explorer they could ever hope to upgrade to is IE8."
I've got no real reason to. XP works fine, and it's secure enough. Java isn't installed, and flash is enabled on a case-by-case basis (<3 Flashblock). The odds of me suffering an exploit will go down as hacking efforts shift to the newer versions. This is after not suffering _any_ attack, malware or otherwise, in all the years since XP came out, so I'm not terribly concerned.
I'll probably have this laptop (and XP) for another year or so.
Now, try convincing someone who _doesn't_ know much about computers to upgrade. All these "everyone should upgrade" declarations I keep seeing won't do it.
Because it would have to come through a vector that I haven't completely walled off, and those are exceedingly rare (like the WMF thing ages ago). I keep up on vulnerabilities, and I'd do a paranoia reinstall if I suspected I were affected by one.
It would be one of these:
* Noscript exploit
* Simultaneous Flashblock + Flash exploit
* Image-based exploit
* Renderer exploit
And those are extremely rare. My software stack is also pretty stable, and it's all from trustworthy vendors/projects.
Yeah, even as someone who works with computers all day I only upgraded my desktop less than a year ago. Sure there are a few nice things that Windows7 does but coming at it from the regular users perspective, unless things stop working that they use frequently there isn't a lot of motivation to upgrade. So unless games stop supporting XP, browsers as a whole move away from it, computers actually start doing something a lot cooler with the latest version or some exploit starts owning all XP installs I can't see a great amount of motivation for the average user.
My bosses aren't the most tech-savy people on the planet, but even they realise that it costs them more to pay their developers to build with IE6 in mind than to simply supply people with IE6 a unstyled page to use.
Developers need to cut the nonsense and just stop supporting IE6 completely. Hell, our sales tripled (three purchases) from IE6 users when we unstyled their pages. In this day and age there is no need to support such out-of-date browsers.
I think that's a good point. You can still have a functional web page working in an older browser. Graceful degradation. I use a modern browser, but I turn off a lot of the functionality - so the web works for me. Accessible websites get a thumbs up from me - you are catering for more than just ie6, by doing so.
Why do Microsoft have such a difficult time, to this day, developing a decent web-browser? With their near infinite financial resources, surely it is no accident that IE has so many issues, uses tons of proprietary code, and doesn't support, for example, the <canvas> tag until IE9.
Like a good capitalist you may argue that MS is not in the business of supporting standards, or it is not their job to make the lives of web developers easier. You'll argue that they are a business, and by locking in companies by using proprietary code, MS is being smart. To this I'd say that Google and Apple aren't exactly running charities yet they manage to produce web browsers that a truly first rate.
I already do this on my own site. Visitors on IE6 get a big warning at the bottom telling them they're using a dangerously out-of-date browser, and provides a link to Firefox first, then IE8 second. Even if I can get just one person to use FF instead of IE, the world will be a better place.
With Win7, using Chrome, the site offers IE9 only, not IE8.
I'm quite pleased to be seeing this from MS, no need to be snobby about it and put down IE overall. If it wasn't for the free availability of IE in Windows, we wouldn't be using the web 24 hours of every day.
Netscape Navigator was free to consumers, and was the fastest growing software product in history before Microsoft started bundling IE. We'd still be using the web anyway.
The free availability of IE bundled with Windows just stifled competition in the browser space, causing stagnation of the web until other companies with deep pockets financed alternatives. (Apple - Webkit and Safari, and Google - Firefox and Chrome)
If Microsoft had kept developing IE at the same rate as they did between IE3 and IE6, I doubt anyone would be putting them down.
How long until someone plays on this idea and makes one of these warnings that work on any outdated browser, including ie8, and points them to a choice of chrome, opera, firefox etc... has this already been done? I'd so use it on my sites.
Its come to this. That its almost that a company is sorry that it ever made a piece or software like IE6. When people do insane things for a really long time. The next insane move starts to look really sane...
I don't design for tech impaired ducks, but if I would I'd refuse to suggest to them an upgrade from one pile of shit to another. Maybe pile of shit 9 will smell less, let's pray.
Ugh, we all know 99% of English-speaking users on IE6 are forced to use it at their workplace. That's going to be so annoying.
Maybe those IE6 Business-users should get their user-agents changed to:
"Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1) - YES I KNOW IE6 IS OLD, TELL MY BOSS"
Getting rid of Microsoft doesn't imply going to Apple. You must realize that there are other entities in this market, frequently offering better products, often for free.
Getting rid of a company that despises fair competition, that promotes bogus standards in order to confuse the market instead of doing something it once did adequately: build products its users want, would be quite good for the market.
But you get some points for writing an answer. It seems others just opted to downvote what they don't like to read.
What market? It's damn hard finding PC's preinstalled with linux (that have normal sized screens), and it's not easy finding compatible devices for those PC's.
Sure, nerds always have choice, but for joe sixpack it's microsoft or apple. There is no other choice.
> It's damn hard finding PC's preinstalled with linux
I always wonder why things like these happen...
> and it's not easy finding compatible devices for those PC's.
Funny. Just about everything I plug into my Linux notebooks works flawlessly. Even my non-jailbroken iPod has no problem syncing with it.
The 90's called. They want their excuse back.
> Sure, nerds always have choice,
Sure we do. We, nerds, have choice and we can create choice where there is none. We nerds can jailbreak locked-up tablets, phones and videogames. But we also want to help Joe Sixpack get a better, safer computer, if, for no other reason, to stop the spam zombies.
Actually, we do things like these because we are generous. We want everybody to have cool toys.
