71–80 of 185 posts
It was replaced by IE 8.0, long live the king! :(
With the death of XP I would expect to see a usage drop, not only in IE6 but in IE7 and IE8 too. IE8 is the latest version of IE that can be installed on XP, I would assume that most people using IE8 would be XP users. If anyone has data on IE8 OS versions I would be interested.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If we really want to kill IE[6-8], we need to do something more drastic, and do so with extreme prejudice. How about we all agree upon a certain date on which we intentionally break our websites and services for IE6 users? Maybe for a blog, but I'm not telling 10%+ of my customers to piss off. If the cost of supporting them outweighs the value of their business then I won't support them any more. But I would never…
That's exactly why any hypothetical boycott of IE[6-8] will have to be an industry-wide affair like the SOPA blackout. If everyone boycotts IE[6-8] at the same time, nobody will suffer any competitive disadvantage because of their participation in the boycott.
On a positive note, now that Microsoft has officially withdrawn support for Windows XP, IE6 may meet its long overdue death faster.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If we really want to kill IE[6-8], we need to do something more drastic, and do so with extreme prejudice. How about we all agree upon a certain date on which we intentionally break our websites and services for IE6 users? Maybe for a blog, but I'm not telling 10%+ of my customers to piss off. If the cost of supporting them outweighs the value of their business then I won't support them any more. But I would never…
That's exactly why any hypothetical boycott of IE[6-8] will have to be an industry-wide affair like the SOPA blackout. If everyone boycotts IE[6-8] at the same time, nobody will suffer any competitive disadvantage because of their participation in the boycott.
Anyway, I'm against anything that's intentionally user-hostile as a matter of principle.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know this is a bit pedantic but it's definitely not 'fairly widely' or 'quite a lot' or 'some', there's a tiny, tiny percentage of businesses using it. Our UK website, not aimed at tech savvy, had 0.13% IE6 over the last 2 months compared to 0.32% the year before and when I last looked a significant proportion of that is bots and scrapers pretending to be browsers anyway. Half our traffic comes during the business…
there's a tiny, tiny percentage of businesses using it. Not really. Probably many fortune 500 companies (I know several) continue to use IE6 and pay for virtualizing IE6. That's a significant amount of money in licenses and support. That's why companies such as VMware or Symantec have this feature in ThinApp and SWV.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
These people might be using Microsoft software, but it would be a stretch to call them Microsoft customers. When was the last time they actually coughed up any cash? Besides, this is a bed Microsoft made, so they need to lie in it. The longer people stay with XP / IE 6-8, the worse the Internet gets for everyone. M$ is the only company that can do anything about it, and it's in their best interest to, so they just ne…
No, I mean they are my customers! Right now, today, I have 10%+ users on IE6 through IE8. If I can afford to dedicate the resources to support them, I will. I don't believe in punishing users and I certainly don't believe in turning people away if I don't have to. I'm not sure about XP specifically, but I get way more than 10% of my traffic from IE6-8. IE8 alone is over 10% on some of my business news sites. Don't fo…
There's a difference between having certain simpler layouts (although that probably affects conversion too), and IE6 actually messing up a purchase flow on an e-commerce site.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Any person or business that is stubborn enough to use IE6 nowadays is probably also stubborn enough to keep using Windows XP for another year or ten. No, two things: i) It's not about being stubborn. Companies have invested a lot of money and time to run critical applications. Even if they have the money the risk of migration is high. ii) They have already migrated to newer browsers! they just run IE6 side by side wi…
i) and ii) are both excellent excuses to keep using IE6 on the intranet . But there is no excuse for browsing the public web with IE6 anymore. Especially if there's a modern browser installed side by side with IE6. Ideally, a firewall should be set up so that IE6 can't access anything outside of 10/8, 172.16/12, 192.168/16, and localhost.
"Never passed the ACID test" :) Made my day!
[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid1 [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:About_Tasman_IE5_Mac_OS_X....
meanwhile IE 5 is alive in Wichita Kansas. Error message received today: HTTP_USER_AGENT': 'Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0; Windows NT; DigExt) because the old thing doesn't like URLs without a protocol: //ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.8.2/jquery.min.js <WSGIRequest path:/ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.8.2/jquery.min.js/
what's the benefit of excluding the http:? I'd never seen that prior to a few years ago when the jQuery links started doing it.
