Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Internet Explorer Microsoft Graphics Software IT

The Man At Microsoft Charged With Destroying IE6 458

Posted by timothy
from the did-you-say-thermite-or-termite? dept.
Barence writes "The man in charge of Internet Explorer has told PC Pro that he's been tasked with destroying IE6. Internet Explorer 6 continues to be the most used browser version in the world at the ripe old age of nine. IE6's position as the default browser in Windows XP means many companies still cling to the browser. 'Part of my job is to get IE6 share down to zero as soon as possible,' said Ryan Gavin, head of the Internet Explorer business group. Microsoft has also been giving further previews of Internet Explorer 9, with demonstrations showing two 720p HD videos running simultaneously on a netbook, thanks to IE9's GPU-accelerated graphics."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Man At Microsoft Charged With Destroying IE6

Comments Filter:
    • by Mad Merlin (837387) on Thursday May 27, 2010 @06:39PM (#32369450) Homepage

      No, IE6 is the most common web browser, however (and directly because of the former) it is the least popular web browser.

    • by Elektroschock (659467) on Thursday May 27, 2010 @06:50PM (#32369584)

      In any case, they just have to issue a service pack which replaces IE6 by IE9.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by thegarbz (1787294)
        Microsoft has done a lot in the past that has angered large corporations around the world. Can you imagine the backlash when MS rolls out a service pack which breaks the intranets of many of the fortune 500 companies!

        Our company has just rolled out a new intranets globally a change from each business unit doing their own thing. It STILL doesn't render correctly in Firefox.
        • by adona1 (1078711) on Thursday May 27, 2010 @08:56PM (#32370814)
          This is the key. My company also rolled out a new intranet and only supports IE6 (in fact, they've issued warnings around the company that Firefox isn't secure as it doesn't received 'regular security updates'. Oh, the fun).

          However, the person they roped in to build the intranet included a few comments in the source code, specifically "Internet Explorer 6 is fucking terrible" "I had to hack this code to even get it to work" and an entire subfolder named "IE6sux".

          So that's what MS has to deal with, corporations who figure if it ain't broke then there's no reason to fix it. Problem is, they don't actually realise what 'broke' is.
          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by Machtyn (759119)
            My current company requires IE6 for certain ActiveX components that don't work on IE8. There is a massive certification process for all software to get certified on Win7, though. All internal software are getting upgraded from VB to C#.NET. (yay)

            Of course, they're going from one insecure browser (IE6) to another insecure browser (IE8) (gotta have ActiveX).
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Hurricane78 (562437)

            The real problem is experts who don’t have the balls to stand up to the management, and tell them that they know better (after all, that is the reason the are paid, no?), and that if they hire experts to then not listen to them, they are idiots and will fuck up their company. So what is the reason again, to work for a boss who deliberately destroys the company? I would go straight to the big boss, and tell him that that idiot is fucking up his company, and list all the ways that he hurts him and costs

      • As I understand it, that won't work. IE 6 won't run on anything newer than Windows XP, and IE 9 won't run on anything older than Windows Vista. XP runs IE 6 through 8; Vista runs IE 7 through 9.
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Yvan256 (722131)

        Can't be that hard to rotate the last character of the product name by 180 degrees.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by pyrbrand (939860)
      And Ryan Gavin isn't the head of Ryan Gavin isn't the head of IE, Dean Hachamovitch is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_Hachamovitch [wikipedia.org] I think PC Pro UK may just like playing it loose with the details if they serve a narrative.
  • EOL XP already... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by LostCluster (625375) * on Thursday May 27, 2010 @06:20PM (#32369258)

    To kill IE6, kill XP. Here's how.

    1. End all security updates for XP.
    2. Wait for the first botnet to come up with a XP hack.
    3. Say "Sorry, you need to upgrade. Now!" to the crying victims.

    • Re:EOL XP already... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Dyinobal (1427207) on Thursday May 27, 2010 @06:22PM (#32369284)
      I like my xp install, so I'm gonna vote no.
    • by spazdor (902907) on Thursday May 27, 2010 @06:25PM (#32369316)

      you forgot: 0. Design an OS which can viably replace XP. No, Vista doesn't count. 7 is getting there. Maybe.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 27, 2010 @06:34PM (#32369408)

        7 is well beyond a viable replacement for XP in any useful category you can pick. The time to upgrade is here.

        • Great, when the time comes to reinstall Windows on my dads laptop I'll install Win7.

          Windows XP works nicely on a 1GHz Mobile P3 CPU and 512MB of PC133 RAM. Since 7 is a good replacement for XP, it will surely work just as fast as XP works now. Right?

          • Re:EOL XP already... (Score:4, Informative)

            by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) on Thursday May 27, 2010 @07:02PM (#32369708)
            You'd be surprised. Some of the machines here at work are similarly specked. I just installed 7 on a 1.2 GHz Mobile Celeron with 512 MB RAM. Wish Aero and indexing turned off it is still fairly peppy. I wouldn't want to do any 3D modeling or CAD work, but it does get the job done.
            • I actually have Windows 7 installed in a virtual machine on a computer with 3x 700MHz CPUs (the VM has one CPU and 1GB RAM) and am trying to find settings that make it faster (since whatever is reasonably fast on a 700MHz CPU will fly on a 2GHz CPU) and also make the UI look more like 2000/XP, I don't like changes. This is for my eventual purchase of a new laptop when my current one breaks beyond repair because I most likely will not be able to find drivers for XP by then.

              Win7 looks to me like an OK OS, tho

              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                by spazdor (902907)

                You might get better performance in the VM if you give it 2 virtual CPUs. Depending on the specifics of your hardware, even if you use CPU affinity settings to force it to only execute on one CPU, you may find that concurrent processes get handled a little more gracefully.

                Sorta like 'hyperthreading', but implemented in software.

          • Re:EOL XP already... (Score:5, Informative)

            by xlsior (524145) on Thursday May 27, 2010 @07:12PM (#32369830) Homepage
            Windows XP works nicely on a 1GHz Mobile P3 CPU and 512MB of PC133 RAM. Since 7 is a good replacement for XP, it will surely work just as fast as XP works now. Right?


            Right. Close, at least.

            I know it's popular to slam Microsoft products, but seriously -- Windows 7 is much leaner than Vista was, and overall is pretty similar to XP in performance. It will run on a pentium 3 CPU, and it will run just fine with 512MB of RAM as well. Granted, you'd probably will need to turn of the Aero graphic acceleration on the desktop and some other eyecandy, but in general it's perfectly happy on a 512MB machine... Unlike Vista, which was pretty much a slideshow on anything with less than a gigabyte.

            In actual benchmarks XP may edge it in certain areas (There's some CPU penalty for added functionality, of course), but it really is surprisingly usable on older hardware. Microsoft really did a pretty decent job on trying to turn the whole vista trainwreck around.
            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              by nschubach (922175)

              But it doesn't have all the features of XP. Off the top of my head:
              1. Non-customizable start menu like XP (yeah, you can type what you want, but there are advantages to having dynamic menus)
              2. Tree Views don't have line options anymore (removed in 7, were still available in Vista) In fact, the whole operation of the Tree View of folders is totally fucked up now. It tries too hard to estimate what you want to do.
              3. Movable address "toolbars" so you could customize the layout and look of your Explorer W

          • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

            by abigsmurf (919188)
            Did you also moan about a 133mhz MMX system with 32mb of ram not running XP when upgrading from 95?
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Just Some Guy (3352)

            Windows XP works nicely on a 1GHz Mobile P3 CPU and 512MB of PC133 RAM. Since 7 is a good replacement for XP, it will surely work just as fast as XP works now. Right?

            It's odd. On one hand, you like your dad well enough to maintain his computer for him. On the other, you won't give him anything newer than 9 years old. My suggestion: go to Target, pick up an HP Mini with twice the CPU and RAM, a hard drive about 15 times bigger, and vastly better graphics. For $300, you can go back to passive-aggressively neglecting him for another decade.

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Windows 7 has XP mode. You can run everything using Windows Virtual PC (or get VirtualBox for free if you don't like it for some reason). My only gripe would be I can't use multiple screens from within Windows Virtual PC (at least not easily).
    • by ZeroFactorial (1025676) on Thursday May 27, 2010 @06:29PM (#32369348)
      Much simpler solution:

      Pay google a meager sum to add some javascript that displays an "upgrade to IE9" link instead of google search for people still running IE6.
      Do the same thing on Bing.

      Sure, you could get around it with a user-agent switcher - but if you're savvy enough to do that, chances are you're not running IE6...
      • Re:EOL XP already... (Score:5, Informative)

        by Verunks (1000826) on Thursday May 27, 2010 @06:46PM (#32369520)

        Much simpler solution: Pay google a meager sum to add some javascript that displays an "upgrade to IE9" link instead of google search for people still running IE6. Do the same thing on Bing.

        google already does that on youtube and google docs

        • 1. Or develop a small script for website users: Whenever you use IE6 you get prompted to upgrade.

          2. Get is on a popular porn site

          3. IE6 dead

        • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

          by Anonymous Coward

          I would be willing to bet that Google search is used FAR more frequently than Youtube at work.... wait... oh.... yeah... good point.

    • by guspasho (941623)

      So in other words:

      1. End all security updates for XP.
      2. ?????
      3. Profit!

    • by migla (1099771)

      Apart from the fact that people should run morally decent Free software and spread that gospel, how does other people running IE6 hurt me, you and the rest of mankind? (not a rhetorical question)

      • Apart from the fact that people should run morally decent Free software and spread that gospel, how does other people running IE6 hurt me, you and the rest of mankind? (not a rhetorical question)

        There's the vast number of botnets that operate by being able to easily infect home computers.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by h4rr4r (612664)

      4. Watch businesses go else where

      Enterprises just got to XP a few years ago, it will be another 2-5 years before most of them are over to Win 7.

  • The Joker (Score:5, Funny)

    by Monkeedude1212 (1560403) on Thursday May 27, 2010 @06:22PM (#32369276) Journal

    Do you want to know why I use a knife? Guns are too quick. You can't backup all the... little emoticons. In... you see, in their last moments, browsers show you who they really are. So in a way, I know IE, Firefox, Mozilla, and Opera better than Ryan Gavin ever did. Would you like to know which of them were crashers?

  • Support IEX9 on XP (Score:5, Insightful)

    by figleaf (672550) on Thursday May 27, 2010 @06:24PM (#32369298) Homepage

    If IE9 is supposed to destroy the previous versions of IE then they better support IE9 on XP.
    XP is still a solid operating system and currently has the highest market share.

    No one is going to upgrade their OS just because there is a new browser from Microsoft.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by AdmiralXyz (1378985)
      Will people please stop with this stupidity? Microsoft isn't releasing IE9 for XP, not out of some evil plan to force you to upgrade, but because XP just doesn't have the technology: IE9 uses the Direct2D and DirectWrite APIs for its hardware acceleration, and these APIs didn't exist until Windows Vista. Writing security patches for an old operating system is one thing, but it's totally unreasonable to expect Microsoft to completely rewrite the graphics layer of a decade-old, non-current OS that will be EOL
      • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 27, 2010 @06:51PM (#32369592)

        Firefox 4.0 will support Direct2D and DirectWrite API when available.
        Firefox 4.0 will work on XP.

        The real problem is there 'lack of will' on Microsoft's part and not a 'technical reason' as they would like us to believe.

      • So what? Just another Service Pack.

        • by thegarbz (1787294) on Thursday May 27, 2010 @07:16PM (#32369872)
          "Hey Boss Boss, I got a crazy idea. XP is our most widely deployed operating system"
          "But it'll be EOL in 2 years"
          "Yeah beside the point, but how about we release a service pack completely re-writing the graphics APIs"
          "..."
          "That way people can run IE9 on windows XP. You see people won't need to upgrade to our new OSes"
          "..."
          "Everyone content with a 9 year old operating system can keep using it if we add new technologies. It saves them buying a completely new OS."
          "..."
          "Yeah sure ok we may be breaking some older systems with a service pack that completely screws with the graphics layer, and yeah it'll cost a few thousand manhours to write the code, but think how happy our clients will be when we remove all incentive for them to upgrade by backporting our great new features into the old dog."
          "..."
          "..."
          "Get out. NOW!"
          "yessir"
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by guspasho (941623)

        Uses, or requires? It should be trivial to NOT require those technologies.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        It's not stupidity. Somehow every other browser maker manages to get by on XP and do so with good performance, yet it's too much for Microsoft the MAKER of the OS itself to figure it out? Believing that story is "stupidity".

        If XP doesn't support the acceleration then you just write an emulation layer for that part and tell people that the XP version of IE9 is slower and they should upgrade windows to get some awesome speed boosts.

        Whichever way you spin it Microsoft is doing this by *choice*. They *chos

        • by MightyMartian (840721) on Thursday May 27, 2010 @07:42PM (#32370174) Journal

          The other browser makers have a vested interest in as wide a level of compatibility and interoperability as possible. Microsoft's vested interest is the exact opposite. Microsoft needs to have the killer app that will drive everyone towards the latest version of its operating system.

          Of course, unlike even a few years ago, the growing success of third party browsers means that the chief piece of software that could drive users hanging back into upgrading is being removed, while at the same time that newfound competition in the browser market means Microsoft is less able to use the old tactic that worked so well with IE6 in deliberate non-compliance and incompatibility, because to do so would in fact now likely cost it even more market share in the browser world.

        • [Lack of IE 9 on XP is] devastating to we developers who now confront the reality that the so-called "HTML5" revolution is, in reality, going to take 3 - 4 years more to arrive

          Google provides a downloadable browser helper object that enables all HTML5 features in Internet Explorer. It's called Google Chrome Frame.

      • by value_added (719364) on Thursday May 27, 2010 @07:18PM (#32369894)

        a decade-old, non-current OS

        Your points are generally valid, but let's skip the exaggerations. I'll quote from Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] to make things easy:

        Windows XP was first released on October 25, 2001, and over 400 million copies were in use in January 2006. It was succeeded by Windows Vista, which was released to volume license customers on November 8, 2006, and worldwide to the general public on January 30, 2007. Direct OEM and retail sales of Windows XP ceased on June 30, 2008.

        So according to the above, Windows XP is, at most, 3 years past the time it was last sold retail. To use a car analogy, if you bought a new car off the showroom floor a few months after at the end of the model year, did you buy a used car?

        But even that is overly-simplified. The real world is always more nuanced and complex that, particularly with respect to enterprise customers. For that, you can consult the microsoft site, or talk to your sales rep.

        So no, XP is not a decade old. More importantly, XP (and IE6) is very much in use and relied on.

    • by TheRaven64 (641858) on Thursday May 27, 2010 @06:30PM (#32369358) Journal

      Also, make it possible to keep IE6 installed for the Intranet. I suspect that most current IE6 deployments are corporate networks where IE is required for the Intranet, and therefore used everywhere. Make IE8 able to install along side IE6, but designate some domains or IP ranges for use by IE6. When you click on a link, it opens in IE8 by default, but if it's on one of the IP ranges designated as your corporate Intranet (configurable when you prepare it for installation) then it loads with IE6. Or just uses the old rendering engine. For bonus points, uses the old rendering engine in a sandbox where it can't escape even if it's completely compromised.

      The goal isn't to get rid of IE6, it's to get rid of IE6 from the Internet. If you can keep it around for the Intranet, but prevent it from being allowed to access any sites other than the ones designated as needing it, then that would be fine. Until, of course, those sites can be fixed, but the middle of a recession isn't the best time to ask companies to upgrade core infrastructure that still works.

      • by Shados (741919) on Thursday May 27, 2010 @06:53PM (#32369620)

        I've worked for a few companies who did this, but using Citrix to do this. So if you needed to access the IE6 only app, you used a shortcut on your desktop or something that would open a remote IE6 running in a controlled environment that only had access to the legacy app and nothing else. It was surprisingly easy to setup, too. Citrix (like WinServer2008 or X) lets you run remote apps as if they were local, so its pretty seamless to end users, and the client (as far as I know) doesn't even need to be Windows.

        Pretty much the best solution in this case, or for any legacy app thats preventing you from upgrading or changing platform.

      • by diegocg (1680514) on Thursday May 27, 2010 @07:07PM (#32369778)

        They could do this if Windows wasn't a crappy product that has a browser tightly with the OS. Firefox (and many other sane software) can have multiple versions installed and used at the same time (the Firefox Portable Edition for example). But due to the way IE is "designed", somehow it needs to be "integrated" to work properly. That's why trying a IE beta is such pain, you are forced to get rid of your stable version and keep a unstable version that can break multiple things.

      • by MobyDisk (75490) * on Thursday May 27, 2010 @07:22PM (#32369932) Homepage

        NNNnnoooooo!!!!!!!!! ...death..gurgle...

        I work at a company that operates exactly as you specify. Some intranet software requires IE6. And sometimes particular versions of it too. Then some department installs an app that requires IE7 and the intranet app breaks. In one case, a manager suggested everyone install a virtual machine to run the apps that require IE6. That's just ridiculous.

        For some reason, corporate intranet software is always the worst-designed garbage. Killing IE6 will force these imbeciles to stop writing these garbage ASP+VB6 ActiveX apps.

        middle of a recession isn't the best time to ask companies to upgrade core infrastructure that still works.

        But the infrastructure doesn't work. Companies keep paying more IT staff to come-up with complex workarounds rather than fixing miniscule bugs. This will force the issue. It is happening anyway - soon we won't be able to get XP machines anymore. Already we have to pay to downgrade from Windows 7. Soon the hardware won't support Windows XP drivers.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by cowboy76Spain (815442)

          For some reason, corporate intranet software is always the worst-designed garbage.

          Because they can asume that they are working in a monoculture where they can be sure which versions of OS, browser and plugins will be already installed. This makes following standards less important in relation to other aspects (speed of development, features, etc.).

          But the infrastructure doesn't work. Companies keep paying more IT staff to come-up with complex workarounds rather than fixing miniscule bugs

          I think you are unde

    • IE6 will die ... eventually. When WinXP dies.

      But Microsoft pushed for too many IE6-specific extensions for their development products.

      Now companies NEED to run IE6 or spend time and money (and pain) re-writing the crappy apps that have evolved over the last 9 years.

      To replace IE6, you need to wait for WinXP to die or you need to offer IE6 compatibility in the new browser.

    • Don't need IE6 on XP (Score:3, Informative)

      by mollog (841386)
      There are other browsers that run well on XP. I never use IE unless I get some boneheaded web site that requires IE.
    • No one is going to upgrade their OS just because there is a new browser from Microsoft.

      But that's what they are counting on. There's no money in providing a free browser upgrade for XP users. Recommendation: Firefox.

  • What statistics show it as most used browser? All the ones I've seen it's way below firefox.
    • What statistics show it as most used browser? All the ones I've seen it's way below firefox.

      Firefox total, or a specific version of Firefox?

  • by Windcatcher (566458) on Thursday May 27, 2010 @06:26PM (#32369318)
    If they really want IE6 usage to reach zero, the people at MS will have to swallow some pride and realize that there are some of us who refuse to 'upgrade" like little sheep. Otherwise, IE6 will still be around for quite some time. Oh, wait, Firefox 3.6 runs on Win2k...never mind...
    • Windows 2000? That's so last decade. Win2K is so old that I remember people gasping that it required 80MB of RAM to just boot up.
    • If they really want IE6 usage to reach zero, the people at MS will have to swallow some pride and realize that there are some of us who refuse to 'upgrade" like little sheep.

      Refuse is absolutely the right word. Win 2K? Seriously? An eleven-year-old OS? You're not being sensible, you're being ornery.

      But hey, if that's what floats your boat, go ahead. I mean, there are still people running vintage Amigas and crap ("Way ahead of its time!", yeah, we can hear you.) But realize that you are a dwindling minority. You guys are outnumbered by Android and iPhone users these days. It's time to embrace your minority status.

  • by guspasho (941623) on Thursday May 27, 2010 @06:28PM (#32369340)

    GPU-accelerated graphics? What a concept!!!

  • by starseeker (141897) on Thursday May 27, 2010 @06:29PM (#32369350) Homepage

    The problem, in the simplest terms, is that there are too many IE6 only sites and applications that are currently working "well enough", particularly internal to companies, and mucking with something that works already is a non-starter for many management types. No matter how much sense it makes to us, to them it's just money spent and risk taken to get back to where they currently are, functionality wise.

    Could IE introduce a sort of "browser virtual machine" where IE9 would start up what would internally amount to a sandboxed version of IE6 if it ran into an IE6 only site? (Of course, that begs the question of recognizing such a site, but presumably Microsoft would stand some chance of recognizing such behaviors since they created IE6 to begin with.) If you can't kill the old applications, you've got to work with them if you want to kill IE6 - perhaps IE9 could borrow a page from the VMWare/VirtualBox world and sort of do a "browser within a browser" to try and maintain compatibility while isolating the IE6 badness from any sane webpage? OSX provided a bridge for old Mac applications when they appeared on the scene which amounted to an old Mac within the new environment, so perhaps that's another possible model.

    Dunno if it's workable even in principle, but I don't see how else to move stubborn IE6 users.

    • by mollog (841386)
      starseeker wrote; "but presumably Microsoft would stand some chance of recognizing such behaviors since they created IE6 to begin with."

      Since when did Microsoft start caring about backward compatibility? Do you even know who we are discussing here? Microsoft has been rather craven about forcing users of its applications to upgrade. They don't make money by allowing people to stay with older operating systems and applications. And now that Apple has passed them in market capitalization, the heat is on to
      • by EvanED (569694) <evaned&gmail,com> on Thursday May 27, 2010 @06:52PM (#32369600)

        Since when did Microsoft start caring about backward compatibility?

        Wait, what? When did Microsoft stop caring about backwards compatibility? Backwards compatibility was, for many years, the greatest asset that Windows had, and IMO is the biggest reason that it became as widespread as it is. It's also the source of many of their biggest security problems.

        In fact, in the last few years (with the end of the 9x series kernel, the introduction of XP SP2, the introduction of UAC, and the removal of the 16-bit subsystems in the 64-bit versions of Windows), they have shown a willingness to break backwards compatibility that they had basically never shown a decade ago.

        Forcing upgrades is a different matter, and is more concerned with forwards compatibility, which doesn't really have any bearing on this discussion.

  • by VGR (467274) on Thursday May 27, 2010 @06:32PM (#32369384)

    I keep hearing about how IE9 will support HTML 5. I would much rather hear about how it will fully support HTML 4 and CSS 2. I'll even settle for its supporting 95% of HTML 4 and CSS 2.

    I keep hearing about how IE9 will support HTML 5 media elements like <video> and <audio>. I'd much rather hear about IE9 correctly rendering nested, cascading <object> elements as HTML 4 describes.

    Get the HTML 4 stuff working before trumpeting about HTML 5 functionality, please. God knows you've had enough time.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Ant P. (974313)

      While they're at it, DOM Level 1 support would be nice. It's only a year older than IE6.

    • IE 8 does fully implement CSS 2.1 (no one implements 2.0 sparky) and HTML 4.01 strict. They just did it 2 years after most other browsers had finished it. Psuedo elements ( :first-child, :nth-child(even) ) et al are CSS 3, large sections of which the competition has already implemented and that is where IE 8 is truly lagging. That and javascript performance.
  • he can work his way up through the newer versions...

  • If only we have the more efficient software of the past running on the hardware of today, it might not feel that the user experience is slowing down.

    There is a saying, "if its not broke don't fix it" but teh software industry doesn't follow that. Instead the software industry figures that any more speed and resources is only for teh developers, not the users.

  • Dumb Demo... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by HockeyPuck (141947) on Thursday May 27, 2010 @06:43PM (#32369494)

    demonstrations showing two 720p HD videos running simultaneously on a netbook, thanks to IE9's GPU-accelerated graphics

    How about demonstrating flawless backwards compatibility with ancient activeX plugins on Oracle financials running under winXP...

  • Think he'll get off?

  • Easy! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Gerald (9696) on Thursday May 27, 2010 @07:41PM (#32370148) Homepage

    1. Go to the head of the Office business group.
    2. Make sure they drop support for XP in the next version of Office.

    IE 6 won't die until XP dies. XP won't die until Office won't run on it.

  • by geekoid (135745) <dadinportland&yahoo,com> on Thursday May 27, 2010 @08:00PM (#32370356) Homepage Journal

    GO after vendors that still require there users to us IE6 in the work place.
    Once it's not in the work place, it will leave the home.

    I would love to get rid of it at work, but vendors(I'm looking at YOU Oracle) still have apps that require it.
    There slated to get rid of it, but not for 2 more years.

  • Corporate users (Score:5, Insightful)

    by PPH (736903) on Friday May 28, 2010 @01:10AM (#32372298)

    I remember back when Microsoft was begging people to use IE6 and write apps to its API. In spite of all of the advice not to go down that path, some IT people did just that. They staked their reputation on that move. And now Microsoft expects these people to go to the BOD and say, "Remember how I begged you to go with IE6 a few years ago? And even though it was going to cost us a bundle in training, tools and development costs, it was going to be worth it. Because Microsoft promised us it was. Well, now they say we've got to spend a bundle more to undo all the crap we did. I know. They lied to us once. But we can trust them this time. Really. They wouldn't do it again, would they?"

    The people responsible for tying their companies to IE6 have made it a few steps up the management ladder. If you thought they had some pull back when they made that fateful IE6 decision, what sort of power do you think they have now? Microsoft wants these people to make what could be a carer limiting (or ending) move. They'll have to admit that they bought the Microsoft sales pitch back then, cost the company a bundle of money, and now it looks like it was money down a rat hole. Gavin needs the trust and good will of these people if he ever expects them to buy the next Microsoft package. This doesn't look like a smart way of doing it.

When the weight of the paperwork equals the weight of the plane, the plane will fly. -- Donald Douglas

Working...