Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Conspiracy to Kill IE6

blog.chriszacharias.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 386 posts

Re: A Conspiracy to Kill IE6

#221

Post by tatersolid »

Causality1 wrote: post #135
jrochkind1 wrote: post #2

Oh my, this is amazing. I'm not sure the engineers realized despite their secrecy, it would be noticed by the press immediately after deploy. But the best part is how Google engineers immediately on seeing it figured "oh yeah, we should do that too" (although they apparently got the necessary approvals however that was done at Google, it was easier to do because they figured "well, youtube must have done due dillegen…

Something that stuck out to me was how concerned Google was that even while recommending other browsers next to Chrome, that putting Chrome first in the list could rankle antitrust regulators. Fast forward to 2019 and Windows 10 makes you fight multiple menus and "suggestions" just to switch your default browser away from Edge.

Your comment is demonstrably nonsense. Windows 10 only suggests Edge if you make IE11 your default browser.

If you choose Firefox or Chrome it never suggests that you should switch to Edge.

Microsoft’s lawyers are not stupid.

Re: A Conspiracy to Kill IE6

#222

Post by munk-a »

not2b wrote: post #212
darawk wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They got lucky, IE6 in that sense was ready to die, and they basically declared mutiny with good cause. Ok, and if IE6 had not been ready to die, what kind of catastrophe would have ensued? > Can you imagine any other scenario where insisting your idea is correct above every alternative, to the extent you can bypass the organisation and enforce your idea, could be utterly catastrophic? These developers in particula…

No catastrophe would have ensued. They didn't remove support for IE6. They put up a banner telling IE6 users that support would be removed some time in the future. Only taking the second step (actually removing support) would have any consequences. If a large, powerful contingent demanded that IE6 support be kept indefinitely and persuaded management of this, the banner would have been removed.

With drive following in their footsteps a catastrophe really could have ensued - drive was at that point (I believe? It was a long time ago) already being marketed as good for organizations - any organization stuck with IE6 for stupid corporate reasons may have decided the potential for the site to suddenly stop working was too risky and immediately started migrating to a competitor that offered long term support.

I think a difficulty seeing a catastrophic is because YouTube is not valuable to businesses[1] and when your income source is more distributed (no large contracts) there are less chances to really shoot yourself in the foot. You have to piss off all your customers in a way that - really - you should probably see coming.

[1] I don't mean to deride the service, but it didn't have any commercial tie ins at this point worth mentioning, stuff like professional streamers and hosted partnerships with IP holders came later, at this point they were interesting in pop-culture but not a tool for making money.

Re: A Conspiracy to Kill IE6

#223

Post by int_19h »

themacguffinman wrote: post #80
wvenable wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the problem when looking back on the past; you miss the context. IE6, at the time in 2001, was the fastest most stable browser out there. It was magnitudes better than Netscape Navigator, which was bloated and far more crash happy. IE6 wasn't always terrible; it was just terrible compared what came after -- which is exactly how things should work.

Even if you consider the context and era, Chrome is still magnitudes better than IE because the real problem with IE6 was that it was hard to upgrade. It didn't matter that IE6 was fast at some point because IE didn't auto-update and Microsoft often tied IE to Windows upgrades, which in turn were often tied to new computer purchases or long enterprise contracts. Not to mention IE's significant divergence from standar…

IE was not tied to Windows upgrades, except in a sense that new IE versions would eventually stop supporting old Windows versions (but that's true of all browsers). IE6 was available on Win98+ and NT4+, for example. IE7 and IE8 were XP/2003+.

As far as divergence from the standards, again, that was generally not the case when IE6 shipped - if anything, it was at the bleeding edge, and past it in some ways. The real problem with it was that it wasn't updated fast enough to keep up with the rapid pace of web standards after the initial release; and when IE7 finally came, it had very minor improvements (IIRC the biggest one was PNG transparency?). But that was a different era already.

Re: A Conspiracy to Kill IE6

#224

Post by snuxoll »

tracker1 wrote: post #176
chris_wot wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Notice he said that ADP uses Flash? ADP has always been awful, I only wish they would get taken out by a competitor.

I don't even think it's possible to run Flash on a Mac currently.

Safari still runs Flash, and it can be enabled per-site in Chrome.

Thank god, because we just switched to ADP and then there’s VMWare....

Re: A Conspiracy to Kill IE6

#225

Post by int_19h »

pjmlp wrote: post #15

Incredible how everyone is rejoicing with this story. Enjoy your new Chrome master.

The banner specifically suggested upgrading to a new version of IE among other choices, so I don't see a problem there. Especially with the randomized order of suggested browsers, this is basically as good-faith as it gets.

I don't like the Chrome monoculture, but it's a different and unrelated issue. IE monoculture was even worse, and it had to die - I just wish the lessons from that weren't forgotten so easily.

Re: A Conspiracy to Kill IE6

#226

Post by tjalfi »

tty2300 wrote: post #214
tracker1 wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IE6 was pretty awesome when it was released... not having to support IE4.x and NN4.x when it hit sufficient market share was really nice. Eventually it became the next boat anchor. IE10-11 is the current boat anchor, and will probably cycle out within the next year. Already have internal apps with no IE support at all, and only the most recent Edge release. The perspective on outdated (insecure) browsers is becoming…

Our enterprise app (not internal) has 80% of users on IE11 :/

Did older versions of your app require IE? If so, their admins may have added your site to Enterprise Mode[0] so that it opens with IE.

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-edge/deploy/emie-...

Re: A Conspiracy to Kill IE6

#227

Post by NeoBasilisk »

Anyone that started developing in the IE9 era or later cannot comprehend how painful it was to develop for IE6. You simply have no frame of reference whatsoever. Any gripes you have about IE9 or later sound like a joke in comparison. Even IE8 was a huge improvement.

Re: A Conspiracy to Kill IE6

#228

Post by gpvos »

user5994461 wrote: post #159
jrochkind1 wrote: post #2

Oh my, this is amazing. I'm not sure the engineers realized despite their secrecy, it would be noticed by the press immediately after deploy. But the best part is how Google engineers immediately on seeing it figured "oh yeah, we should do that too" (although they apparently got the necessary approvals however that was done at Google, it was easier to do because they figured "well, youtube must have done due dillegen…

>>> I don't know how they didn't all get fired. Like, ALL of em, including everyone who set up the special "OldTuber" priv long before. That's really blowing it out of proportions. It's a minor button addition to the UI and they paid attention to not be sued by the European commission for it for anti competitive behavior. It's a job well done with nothing to criticize. It's a BAU example of how works get done in a la…

BAU = Business As Usual

Re: A Conspiracy to Kill IE6

#229

Post by buffalo2391 »

tatersolid wrote: post #221
Causality1 wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Something that stuck out to me was how concerned Google was that even while recommending other browsers next to Chrome, that putting Chrome first in the list could rankle antitrust regulators. Fast forward to 2019 and Windows 10 makes you fight multiple menus and "suggestions" just to switch your default browser away from Edge.

Your comment is demonstrably nonsense. Windows 10 only suggests Edge if you make IE11 your default browser. If you choose Firefox or Chrome it never suggests that you should switch to Edge. Microsoft’s lawyers are not stupid.

This isn't exactly accurate, I've had multiple menus telling me to switch to edge from chrome.

Re: A Conspiracy to Kill IE6

#230

Post by terinjokes »

tatersolid wrote: post #221
Causality1 wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Something that stuck out to me was how concerned Google was that even while recommending other browsers next to Chrome, that putting Chrome first in the list could rankle antitrust regulators. Fast forward to 2019 and Windows 10 makes you fight multiple menus and "suggestions" just to switch your default browser away from Edge.

Your comment is demonstrably nonsense. Windows 10 only suggests Edge if you make IE11 your default browser. If you choose Firefox or Chrome it never suggests that you should switch to Edge. Microsoft’s lawyers are not stupid.

I'm confused. It prompts me all the time to change my default browser to Edge. Microsoft products ignore the default browser bit and open links in Edge, which them opens pop-ups to change my default browser to Edge.

Even the UI for changing the default browser in Settings heavily encourages you to set Edge.

Post reply on HN