IE6countdown.com – a wolf in sheep's clothing
statichtml.com
statichtml.com
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.
This isn't about "finding something to complain about". I want a modern web, and I want Microsoft to get out of the way of that happening.
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.
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.
Please. 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.
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?!
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).
Who said I know anything about web development? Greybeard here that learned on the Vic-20.
Backward compatibility prevents most of these from being utilized fully, a shame.
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.
Uh, and Win7 doesn't run on a lot of hardware and MS probably isn't going offer Ubuntu anytime in the next supereon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epoch_(geology)#Terminology).
IE9 is coming and it's much better. When the people holding back on upgrading finally upgrade then you'll have your better Web.
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.
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 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:
"Shut. Up."
"You ignored everything parent actually meant. Nice strawman"
I'm pretty sure someone is just really uncomfortable with the things I'm saying so they created this account to help combat my lies.
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.
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.
Why wouldn't they just install this? http://code.google.com/chrome/chromeframe/
Microsoft is obviously doing this to keep IE relevant.
Yes, but that is today. As the web moves forward and these users are stuck on IE8 we have the same problem again.
A brick is leaps and bounds better than IE6
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.)
From just the other day :http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2281045 and http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/APIWar.html
Ditching the current rendering engine would break a ton of apps.
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 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).
You're kidding, right?
I've heard (I don't own or use Windows) that they were legally forced to enable choice in Windows (like shown on screenshots at http://www.freeemailtutorials.com/microsoftWindows/defaultWe...)
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.
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.
>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?
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.
Well... At least they have a "don't be evil" in their corporate values. ;-)
I meant he raises a good point on whether (from a web developer's perspective) you should use this Microsoft banner at all.
And just because it's the logical thing for them to do, it doesn't mean it's a good idea for our industry.
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.
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.
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".
Yes. I'm bitching.
My company is B2B and we stopped supporting IE6 at all around the time I started working here. We just suggest clients either upgrade or deal with it.
Sure, XP is an obsolete OS. Modernizing the whole stack is a much better solution than adding a modern browser to an obsolete OS.
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.
Except install Chrome.
It would be preferable to encourage people to run pretty much any other browser on XP, because they are all being actively updated with new features.
The point, which doesn't have anything to do with Microsoft-bashing: Don't run this banner on your site.
unless they upgrade Windows. Which they should.
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.
Just curious, how do you know you haven't suffered any attack?
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.
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 the idea - startle the IE6 user with a logo that is so atrocious that they give in ("Uncle, uncle, OK, I'll do it!!")
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'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.
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.
Yeah, prettiness, that's what IE 6 users really care for.
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.
Sure, nerds always have choice, but for joe sixpack it's microsoft or apple. There is no other choice.
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.
In time they will, but now now and not in the next couple years.
Sorry. Too late to edit.