Microsoft made their own IE6-countdown site.
ie6countdown.com
ie6countdown.com
* It'd be great if it was more clear that Microsoft itself was behind the site (there's just one little logo at the bottom left).
* The home page seems targeted at developers. It'd be great if they had another page targeted specifically at end users spelling out in clear terms why a.) it's bad for them to still be using IE6 (e.g. throw some scary warnings about viruses in there) and b.) what they can do about it (e.g. upgrade or install an alternative browser if upgrade not possible.)
* Now that I think about it, they need another page like the one above but targeted at enterprises. Again, lay out in clear terms all the horrible reasons for using IE6 on the open Internet. Convince them to install alternative browsers on desktops for general browsing and to restrict the use of IE6 to only those specialized applications which absolutely require it.
My wish list is probably already three items too long, so I think I'll quit while I'm ahead.
Registrant:
Microsoft Corporation
Domain Administrator
One Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052
US
Email: domains@microsoft.com
Registrar Name....: CORPORATE DOMAINS, INC.
Registrar Whois...: whois.corporatedomains.com
Registrar Homepage: www.cscprotectsbrands.com
Domain Name: ie6countdown.com
Created on..............: Fri, Aug 07, 2009
Expires on..............: Tue, Aug 07, 2012
Record last updated on..: Thu, Mar 03, 2011
Administrative Contact:
Microsoft Corporation
Domain Administrator
One Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052
US
Phone: +1.4258828080
Email: domains@microsoft.com
Technical Contact:
Microsoft Corporation
MSN Hostmaster
One Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052
US
Phone: +1.4258828080
Email: msnhst@microsoft.com
DNS Servers:
ns1.msft.net
ns4.msft.net
ns5.msft.net
ns2.msft.net
ns3.msft.netThere should be a website where all coders go to detail how much extra time they had to spend to make their code work in IE and every six months the site sends Microsoft a bill for lost time & productivity!
Sure, but how many people know how to do that? Or even how to find out that information on the web?
Say you were interviewing someone and their resume looks great. You talk to them and feel the same way, and are ready to hire them. The fact that Knuth calls you and says, "this was my best student in 20 years" is only icing on the cake--you were going to hire him anyway.
A car analogy? I spend too much time on /.
Their official Twitter ID gave better update..Could still have been better if the page was made it more clear
There are a couple of dead giveaways: IE is the only browser they mention share for, and IE is the only browser they give a download link for, and the fact that they call it "Windows Internet Explorer".
Think about it from Microsoft's point of view and it will be immediately obvious why they don't do that..
1. tons of pirated intalls that can't be upgraded and 2. botnets from China that over-represent the amount actual ie6 traffic
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxthon
[2]: http://www.useragentstring.com/_uas_Maxthon_version_.php
[3]: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trident_(layout_engine)
Still, I don't think Maxthon explains everything - I have seen a lot of cyber cafes with only IE6 installed. I'll try and make an extra effort to promote Chrome/Firefox/heck, even IE9 next time I'm over there.
IDK why 还原卡 is so popular in China, nearly every public computer has one. Perhaps it's because virus and malware are so rampant in China.
And for Maxthon, it use the system default WebBrowser control, so it's version agnostic, it can be either IE5, 5.5, 6, 7 or 8.
I was expecting India to have a much higher share. But as statcounter's stats[1] suggests, chrome already has ~25% share. IE in general and IE6 in particular are losing market share drastically. This is a welcome trend.
[1] http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser-IN-monthly-201002-201102
Mostly I'd assume it's a function of IE-specific code in webapps and pre-XP OS installations that means that IE6 is not only required but necessary for some purposes.
Some workers in Cyber Cafes don't really know of FF or Chrome. They just think IE is the only way to surf internet.
But there are also cheap Cyber Cafes, which their system really sucks. People can not afford a computer go there, and they don't really care what a browser is.
I can't stop myself from doing it. It's driving me nuts.
Would have preferred it if they found another way of presenting that list to me.
They're using NetApps stats. IE6's share was 21 percent in February of 2010, according to those numbers. That means IE6 share has gone down 43 percent in the past year. I'm guessing the author doesn't know the difference between percentages and percentage points.
Internet Explorer 9 is only available for Windows 7 and Vista. However, we still recommend you download the latest version of Internet Explorer for XP. Get it here:
That's what I see when I click their "Download IE9" link. Looks like we'll get to go through this all again in a few years.
While IE6 has been a pain for 5 years, IE8 will be a pain for 15. We will see a HUGE portion of people not upgrading from WinXP.
Really our only solution there is to get them onto a new browser or convince them that this unsuspecting "Chrome Frame" plugin is the right thing to do.
We have to, really.
Any computer that came with XP preinstalled that is still around 15 years later is going to be so slow that an outdated browser is going to be the least of its worries.
People don't buy new computers unless they really need to. XP is going to be around for a long, long time.
But even w3schools shows XP as the most popular OS by far, and only slowly decreasing:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only people who should be installing Chrome Frame are IT departments in control of hundreds or thousands of desktops that are forced to maintain IE6 because of legacy/vertical applications.
"End users" should, at least for computers they own, be convinced to install a complete browser like everyone else.
Since sites opt in to Chrome Frame using the same X-UA-Compatible mechanism Microsoft introduced for IE7/8 emulation, it shouldn’t be breaking anything — even (especially!) “legacy/vertical applications.”
Added: Heck, why not one targeted toward IT admins, too :)
And the "only" solution is hardly getting them onto a new browser. Moving them to say, Firefox, is only one solution. Another solution would be for MS to produce a standards-compliant browser. IE8 and IE9 are both major steps in this direction. Of course, Chrome itself isn't 100% compliant, and had the advantage of being developed much later in the game, against a well-framed open source stack. And of course, Chrome borrowed all sorts of tricks from IE...
Anyway, there are at least 3 or 4 good solutions for that crowd, only one of which involves Chrome. By the way, I use Chrome and Firefox exclusively. I dislike the piling-on against IE for piling on's sake. To represent IE8 as another IE6 is a little disingenuous, IMO. For what it's worth.
I don't necessarily begrudge MS for not making IE9 run on XP... it can be hard to write code for older platforms, especially when you live entirely in the new one. But other browser makers are making their code work on XP, and they should be promoted as valid choices.
This just feels like a way to browbeat people into upgrading to Windows 7 rather than solving the real problem.
Non-legit Windows is in 2nd place and has larger market share than all other non-MS OS's, per this:
http://www.osnews.com/story/21035/Ballmer_Linux_Bigger_Compe...
The linked article doesn't provide any evidence for correlation of pirated Windows and outdated Windows(or IE).
But here we are. We have a 10-year old browser that still has a huge 12% global usage. Ok, that was a huge error, the good thing it's that MS is actually doing something, but are they learning from the past? I think they don't.
What will IE9 look like in 5 years? I think it will likely be just like IE6-- holding back the web. A little less, but still, barely support for basic CSS3 declarations, struggling with HTML5, no offline web applications, with no history.pushState support, using still old web forms and much more.
IE6 was great for its time. We have learned a lot from it, but the one thing everyone gets is that no matter how good you make it, it will get old. That's the real problem, there's no an easy way to upgrade those users or give them an alternative for their needs (like a standalone version for corporative software crapiness). And IE9 is heading in the same direction.
One of the reasons for being stuck on IE6 is that it's the last IE supported by Windows 2000 (and there are plenty of Windows 2000 workstations still out there).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_system...
1 seems unlikely. 2 also seems unlikely, since if they had a legal obligation to put IE9 on XP, they would probably be putting IE9 on XP. 3 seems deeply implausible.
I suggest that the largest group of people who care about this is not users or companies but web developers. If this is true, then Microsoft has no motive to put IE9 on Windows XP, and plenty of motives not to.
How about demonstrating that they care about UX of current users. They care about good internet experience and they care that their users don't have to use someone else’s free software to still have a vaguely secure and usable internet experience. Or simply just as an opportunity to showcase MS's improvements to their apps and demonstrate the great benefits (ahem) to updating to newer versions of other apps. It could also be a ready advertising opportunity in many countries, have the homepage fixed to an MS page with upgrade offers and info if you're on a legacy OS version. Lastly as a way to softarm Bing as being the default search engine of millions of business users.
Why not design it to work on XP, OSX and Linux from the off? The other browser makers seem to manage it. Perhaps they secretly feel they can't contend in the browser space?
Anyway, they supported it till IE8 and MS has one of the best track records for backward compatibility(if not the best) in the industry. Just see Apple to see how quickly things are deprecated.
I am sure developing IE is an enormous cost since MS has to be careful about not breaking corporate software. The benefit to them by making it for OS X and Linux would be negligible or even negative (how many would even install it? Most run those OSes because they don't like MS).
Indeed, hence why I asked why not design it to work (even in a limited form) with other platforms from the off. I realise going backwards now is not really possible what I was questioning was the original decision.
>I am sure developing IE is an enormous cost since MS has to be careful about not breaking corporate software.
Couldn’t they plug in the past DLLs as other apps do so as to render as if it were IE6 under XP(SP2) or whatever?
--
OT :you say "Most run those OSes because they don't like MS". Do you think this is true? I'd have thought the majority run OSX for [perceived] usability or possibly lifestyle reasons and maybe Linux for price reasons. Personally I run Linux based on a mixture of ease of usability and price. Despite being vehemently against MSIE (due to time served web developing) I thought MSIE8 was quite good and should it be available for my distro I'd give it a trial despite being pretty entrenched with FF. It's not really me that I'd see them marketing too though.
Very easy to happen.
Windows lets programs do whatever they want. Just because you don't actively use them doesn't mean they aren't used by other programs.
(This is also why Linux server admins like to pull every single command and program out of their machine that they don't absolutely need.)
Nonetheless, very good to see Microsoft doing stuff like this.
IE needs to be a standalone application that can be upgraded easily without the risk of breaking everything.
Even non-tech savy consumers get's their browsers updated once they buy a new machine.
But enterprise on the other hand. Boy is that a different story. They will on purpose maintain IE6 for as long as they can because they simply cannot even begin to deal with the support issues when switching.
If you want to make a lot of money on a one off. Develop a method for large enterprise to switch without the headache.
I was going to write something about hoping those developers choke on a bucket of something but decided better of it. ;-) I'm a little pissed after years of fighting with web sites that require Internet Explorer because the developers were retards and used some proprietary MSIE shit.
I think they did learn. Keep in mind that back in IE4/5 era when most of that stuff was created, they were competing against Netscape 4.
But then what are the percents on the ring/pie chart to the side? They don't add to 100%, so they're not percentages of the pie (total IE6 users). But China's percentage there (5.9) doesn't match its percentage in the map (34.5). So, 5.9% of what?
This is a terrible infographic.
On map: percentage of people in that country that use IE6. If there were 300 million people in USA, and 30 million people use IE6 means 10% would show up for USA
On ring: percentage of the world population that uses IE6. If the world population was 6 billion, and 30 million people in USA use IE6, then 0.5% would show up in the ring on the right. It would be better if the ring were bigger, and made to show the 88% of the world that doesn't use IE6 as a gray color.
Then IE7 users will also get the banner ("You are using an outdated browser...")
- Turkey is purple on the map, despite being within the 1-5% (blue) bracket.
- According to the map, Finland has 0.7% IE6 users, but according to the list you get when you hover over the map, it has 0.9%
That aside, it puzzles me that the numbers in East Asia are that high. South Korea and Japan are both wealthy countries with a large number of Internet users. Even if we exclude North America and Western Europe, Eastern Europe does far better, for instance, than South Korea and Japan.
1) In the case of S. Korea, until recently ActiveX was required to do any internet banking (required by law, iirc). 2) Trident is the only major rendering engine that supports vertical text. This is not a big deal for Western users, but might be for East Asia.
I can't speak to the relative market share of IE6 inside the IE slice of the usage pie, though....
EDIT: Apparently the best you can do for IE6 is to 'emulate IE5,' which actually means 'emulate IE7 quirks mode'. Oh well...
Plus this kind of slogan implies something along the lines of "Chinese people are evil communists".
I call BS. Tons of people are still on XP and see no reason to switch. Both corporate and non-corporate alike. XP was selling new licenses at least through last summer (last time I purchased brand new, name brand computers with XP pre-installed.) Those actually counted as Win7 sales from M$ perspective, though.
And if you bought XP last summer... well that was your call. XP was acceptable in 2002. It's 2011.
WinXP doesn't have several of the security features in newer versions of Windows. And even those it does have aren't as good. Such as buffer overflow protection was updated in Win7, but not since XPSP2 for XP.
It's fundamentally less secure top to bottom. Which is why there is exist many vulnerabilities that exist on XP, but not Win7.
UPDATE: For a concrete example, see http://blogs.technet.com/b/srd/archive/2009/03/20/enhanced-g... -- added as a result of http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/Bulletin/MS07-017.... . There are a plethora of these sorts of things that architecturally make Win7 different than XP when it comes to security.
Sticking with XP does not mean I don't want (or can't have) a modern browser. FF and Chrome both happily support XP, I'll get my modern browsing experience that way if MS is incapable of supporting its own OS. The problem with XP not being supported by IE9 is that corporates (or home users) who have (or think they have) some reason not to use something other than IE (or use something else in conjunction with IE) are stuck with IE8.
Upgrading from XP to something newer is not a five minute task. Corporate environments require a lot of testing before a simple update goes out sometimes, so a whole OS change is not a small job. Even for me as a home user it is significant hassle: you can't do an in-place upgrade so I'd have to completely reinstall the OS, re-install and reconfigure all my apps, restore all my data from backups, and so forth. Why would I volunteer for all that work if there wasn't a compelling reason? My work time is quite costly and my personal time, while having no monetary value associated with it, is valuable to me in a number other significant ways. And that is without mentioning I'd have to pay for that upgrade I don't particularly need (and hey, that money is needed, there is vodka and cake to buy!).
I know there are reasons for upgrading but they are not compelling reasons for me. Better firewall? I've got one thanks. Better browser? I've got two of those. DX10/DX11? I'm not that much of a gamer that the difference matters and if a game turns up that doesn't support DX9 I'll just not buy it until I have other reason to install a newer Windows (by which time it'll be in a bargain bucket instead of costing £30+£100 for the game plus Windows) if I ever buy it at all. Interface improvements? Nice as they may be, I can certainly live without them.
To add my own bad analogy to the collection in this thread: upgrading from XP just to be able to run a better browser then IE8 is like saving 2p per gallon of petrol by taking a 1000 mile round trip to get to the cheapest pump in the country.
In fact you can still purchase Windows licenses with the right to downgrade to XP, and will be able to for the life of Windows 7.
I'm a sysadmin and I'm perfectly happy with XP for at least the next year or two. There's no great benefit from Windows 7 that would justify the major effort of reviewing all of our software for compatibility.
There are security benefits. There are usability benefits. There are - you know - software compatibility benefits.
Why are you holding back your company?
if you get rid of China and S. Korea, IE6 is probably less then 5%.
Pardon me? Please clarify what do you mean by this.
I don't include IE6 anymore in my web pages. If it works, ok, if not, well... too bad. In the last year, no customer ever really wanted to have an IE6 site.
The Problem with a site like this from Microsoft is, it is not the normal household PC which is still running IE6. There might be a few, but that number should be close to zero. It is the big companies, who are not switching to a newer version, because they have special software programmed for IE6 with funny activeX elements and big domain stuff behind so they can't simply flip the switch, and if it works, why should they upgrade? They don't want to throw a whole bunch of money at this problem. Thats sad, but you can't do anything about it...
Hopefully Google Chrome and Firefox will kill IE10 in the womb itself.
Click: Click here to see a demo!
--------------------
Recently I finished a CSS book, maybe 500 pages long. About 80 or so pages were dedicated to "and to get this to work in IE6, you have to do this hack." IE7 maybe had 10 pages, and IE8/Firefox/Chrome/Safari/Opera were merely footnotes sprinkled about.
edit: it's no longer available.
We'll still have to code for it at least through 2012.
Come January 2013 though, all bets are off.
Then we'll have the IE7/IE8 bugs until 2020 (thanks Microsoft!)
What happens to the remaining ones?
#2 Korea and China are only heavy (>5%) ie6 users. Whewh I don't support those languages anyways so YAY DEATH TO IE6.