Hacker News Reader

Comment by snowpalmer | Hacker News Reader

Some organizations don't allow it by company policy, regardless of whether it can be installed.

I've still yet to wrap my mind around the Chrome frame from an IT perspective. Even with thin clients, you could install FireFox or Chrome on your XP VM, and it'd result in less CPU overhead. I'll admit, IT is not my specialty nor is mega corporate politics, but I'd would venture to guess the cost of IE6-8 in IT overhead would negate any cost of deployment of Chrome or FireFox ESR.

Anyone care to enlighten me as to why?

Chrome Frame was brilliant: users still click on the blue e, all of the horrible enterprise loathware apps continue to work but pages which opt-in are suddenly much better looking and faster.

Large organizations, particularly those which train non-IT workers to follow consistent workflows like to avoid any changes. Chrome Frame was great because it was a minimally disruptive opt-in for a better web; Chrome for Business requires you to switch to Chrome for everything and whitelist legacy apps/sites – that might happen if someone at the C level is really scared about security but it's way more risk and the shops in question are among the most risk averse.

Sadly, it's not about logic in a lot of these cases.

Some I.T. policies also disallow chrome frame. Google had provided a policy loop hole which helped ie6 look like a legitimate option. Its not anymore...

I think its time enterprise I.T managgers update their thinking, and I think the less comfortable backwards compatible tools that exist, the better.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com