Google dropping IE6 support in 2010

[Core]

Got an email from Google today informing me that they're dropping support for Internet Explorer 6 this year. They'll start with Google Apps in March, and phase out support for IE6 from Gmail etc later in the year.

For those of us who have been eager to try and get people to stop using that absolutely horrendous excuse for a browser, this is great news.:ciao:

 

[catilley1092]

It certainly is great news. Too much time and resources are being spent on an antique browser. It is on my Win 2K Pro laptop, but Firefox 3.6 is my browser. I'm a Microsoft fan, but not IE. IE8 shouldn't even had shipped with Windows 7, given it's unpopularity. IE7 is Windows most popular browser to date. But back to your point: Google breaks their own standards. They are planning to pull out of a Far East Communist country over internet censorship, when they themselves "spy" on it's users and violates their privacy everyday that goes by. Key in you username on the Google search engine, and look at what comes up. Don't be surprised to see 10+ pages of your forum posts. Back to that Far East country: The citizens are hopelessly trapped in their situation, spends years in prison doing hard labor for as much as speaking against the "authorities". And Google comes along and makes things worse for these people. Their posts are no more private than ours are. The people make accusations against the government through Google, they may as well be standing on their rooftops shouting their complaints. So, now you see how Google uses your information. But we live in a free country, and Google isn't on my list of search engines. They have been manually removed. However, it doesn't change the fact that I'm in support of pulling the plug on IE6, too. We shouldn't be Band-Aiding a venerable browser for years when we have more important matters at hand. The support that is going towards supporting IE6 could be developing IE9. We need it, and need it badly.

 

[BetaMan]

First off, http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=betaman&aq=f&aqi=&oq=.

Next, the reason our user profiles come up (or don't) is because w7forums.com is a public site and so are our profiles. W7forums is like the fourth thing that comes up if you type in "windows 7 forums".

And last, HOORAY! Internet Explorer its self is a horribly dreadful browser, no matter what version you're using.

 

[catilley1092]

First off, http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=betaman&aq=f&aqi=&oq=.

Next, the reason our user profiles come up (or don't) is because w7forums.com is a public site and so are our profiles. W7forums is like the fourth thing that comes up if you type in "windows 7 forums".

And last, HOORAY! Internet Explorer its self is a horribly dreadful browser, no matter what version you're using.

I couldn't agree with you more on the IE issue. All of the Active X controls that they use are putting our security at risk. Seems that in 2010, there would be a better way for us than having these controls. And the really bad thing is, they're left behind. I run Windows Live Safety Scanner on a weekly basis, and lots of them are removed. If they didn't need to be removed, the program wouldn't suggest removing them.

 

[Core]

Key in you username on the Google search engine, and look at what comes up. Don't be surprised to see 10+ pages of your forum posts.

Take off the tin foil hat for a second... You are supposed to find your posts when you look up your username (assuming it's unique enough). That's the whole point of a search engine. Webmasters and coders go to painstaking degrees to ensure that their forums and websites are indexed by search engine spiders. That is why posts on pcworld.com etc show up in Bing!, too, when I type in your username; because it's a search engine doing what it's supposed to do, not because Microsoft is out to get you.

If a webmaster doesn't want their website/forum/blog/pr0n stash indexed by a search engine, they can set it up that way. Don't want your posts being found through a search engine? Talk to the webmaster; Google is doing precisely what those who understand what a search engine is supposed to do, want it to do.

 

[Nibiru2012]

We shouldn't be Band-Aiding a venerable browser for years when we have more important matters at hand

I think you mean vulnerable here. Venerable means worthy of reverence. LOL

Besides a discussion of IE 6 is basically useless. Since no one on this forum uses it.

 

[Kalario]

Are there people still using IE6?

 

[Nibiru2012]

Are there people still using IE6?

Apparently in the corporate world they are!

 

[Core]

Are there people still using IE6?

Says Wikipedia:

As of December 2009, estimates of IE6's global market share range from 11-14% with the notable exception of Net Applications, which estimates its usage around 21%. Nonetheless, IE6 continues to maintain a plurality or even majority presence in the browser market of certain countries, notably China and South Korea.

Its use in the corporate world is still very pervasive, even in the United States.

 

[catilley1092]

I still use IE6 on two laptops, but very little.

 

[mattweed9]

And why wouldn't these two or three people still using it upgrade? Can you not upgrade to the newer version on older OS's? I am not running anything but Windows 7, so I don't know.

 

[Core]

And why wouldn't these two or three people still using it upgrade? Can you not upgrade to the newer version on older OS's? I am not running anything but Windows 7, so I don't know.

I'd imagine that for corporate users it's a matter of having to use what's installed, and IT isn't thrilled about rolling out new IE versions on up to thousands of machines, particularly if the existing version does its job. Making it easier for people to hit Facebook while at work isn't high on their list of agendas, I am guessing. It's also theoretically possible that their systems are still running Windows 2000, in which case they can't upgrade to IE7 or higher.

As for home users who run XP or newer OS, and still use IE6... I'm assuming some kind of severe degradation of mental capacity may be involved.

 

[catilley1092]

I'd imagine that for corporate users it's a matter of having to use what's installed, and IT isn't thrilled about rolling out new IE versions on up to thousands of machines, particularly if the existing version does its job. Making it easier for people to hit Facebook while at work isn't high on their list of agendas, I am guessing. It's also theoretically possible that their systems are still running Windows 2000, in which case they can't upgrade to IE7 or higher.

As for home users who run XP or newer OS, and still use IE6... I'm assuming some kind of severe degradation of mental capacity may be involved.

If you have XP and don't care to upgrade form IE6, you don't have to. Why do I say that? I've found Firefox 3.6 to be a superior browser to IE in numerous ways. First, it doesn't take Mozilla months or weeks to close security holes. That's not to say that none exists, but when they become known, action is swiftly taken. The IE8 that is on this Windows 7 PC is the same one that I had with XP Pro when they (Microsoft) sent me an email asking me if I would like to help "improve" IE. I was running IE7 at the time with no problems. IE8 slowed my laptop to a crawl, numerous page errors, video broadcasts breaking up when before they didn't. Late last spring, when Firefox 3.5RC was available, I took it and haven't looked back. Even on this computer, same thing. So just because you have IE6, you don't have to use it. Find a browser that you are comfortable with, it's simple as that. And for that last sentence in your post: There may be mentally challenged or handicapped people on this forum, and I found no humor whatsoever in it. Someone may have seen it as a personal attack against them and may never return. Once again, this is 2010, not 1910, where the mentally ill were locked up for their lives just for being ill. I have a brother in law that has that kind of illness, and if the truth is known, many of us personally knows such a person, and we all don't look down on them. That's an attack on innocent people who can't help themselves, they were born that way and can't help it. I could have came up with a thousand other reasons not to use IE6 than that. I'm outta here on this one, this thread is becoming purely sickening.

 

[Core]

While my comment was not intended to be disparaging toward the mentally challenged, I can see how it could be misconstrued that way, and I do apologize to anyone it offended. That was certainly not my intention.

 

[Nibiru2012]

As for home users who run XP or newer OS, and still use IE6... I'm assuming some kind of severe degradation of mental capacity may be involved.

Core was merely being facetious with this comment, that's all.

 

[BetaMan]

Yes, but if the people who use IE6 are reading this thread right now, aren't they going to upgrade?

 

[catilley1092]

If you have Win 2K Pro (I do, on a laptop), IE6 is the limit. But I do have Firefox 3.6 on every OS that I have. If you have XP, you can upgrade to IE7 or 8. It's your choice, but on XP, IE7 runs better, and happens to be the most popular IE browser for that OS. IE8 runs better on Windows 7 than XP Pro, in fact most apps run better on Windows 7 than XP, period. IE6 will take care of itself when the end of Win 2K support arrives later this year. What will happen then is anyone's guess. But that would be an opportune time to dispose of IE6. There's a lot more to be concerned with than constantly patching IE6. I suppose that Microsoft could bend and force those with XP to upgrade to IE7, through a mandatory critical update. I mean, installing the WGA tool is mandatory, so IE7 could be.

 

[Kalario]

Pushing IE7 to win XP users through an update is not a good idea. You have no idea what downstream impact it will have on users, especially the ones that use IE for intranet also. JMHO

 

[catilley1092]

Pushing IE7 to win XP users through an update is not a good idea. You have no idea what downstream impact it will have on users, especially the ones that use IE for intranet also. JMHO

Well, if the plans are for burying IE6, there has to be a Windows browser to get updates with. IE is an integrated product of every modern Windows OS that has been produced in a long time. It's the current way of pushing IE to XP users, I'm currently setting up a VM with XP Pro, and had to manually block the IE8 update. I doubt Microsoft will offer updates through Firefox, although that would be a great idea. If IE6 is buried before XP support ends, you're going to get IE7 or 8, one way or the other. I'm not endorsing pushing updates on those who doesn't want them, but it's either that or continuing to Band Aid IE6 for another 4 years, which I don't think will happen. Too much time and resources are being spent on a browser that has security holes all in it, this effort needs to be applied to IE8 (or it's successor).

 

[BetaMan]

Well, I mean, it's Google. They've got Chrome ads all over the place. Chrome is NOT bad, in fact, I prefer it over anything else. It's sleek, fast, and light. Everything I need. If you want, you've got themes and add-ons.