Who Is Still Using IE6? the UK Government 141
strawberryshakes writes "The death knell for IE6 was sounded a couple of years ago, but seems like some people just can't let go. Many UK government departments are still using IE6, which is so old — 11 years old to be exact — it can't cope with social media — which the government is trying to get its staff to use more to engage with citizens."
Behind the Times (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I've been to some large company HQs like Tesco and VW and even large offices for IBM, all still stuck to IE6.
Brand new Tesco by me all their tills, stock control, e-mail, quite literally everything is done within IE6.
Their software requires IE6 and they are not likely to change soon.
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of retailers are stuck on IE6...I think it has to do with the industry's absolute hatred of ever actually spending money on internal improvements until it's become a ridiculous liability.
I know from personal experience that CompUSA used IE6 before they crashed and burned, and Home Depot ran a lot of shit through it as well. At least at CompUSA the workstations weren't restricted from running other browser software, although we'd get bitched at about it from time to time when people would bypass the b
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's quite surprising that unlike say MS Office, IE can't run different versions side-by-side. That causes people to use IE 6 for legacy apps, and Firefox for everything else.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not surprising; it's intentional. Most of IE6 is implemented in various DLLs that are in \windows\system32\, with very little in the actual iexplore.exe file. That's the IE/Windows integration that the anti-trust trial was (partly) about.
Side by side versions would result in conflicting DLLs being installed in system32, which would break things, similar to what happens if you replace some files on an XP SP2 machine with SP3 versions.
Re: (Score:2)
My company (a rather large multinational) requires IE for a number of internal apps. Even the Intranet site won't render properly on Firefox. Yet the outward customer facing website refuses to even try and load on IE6.
Last year they actually officially released firefox (3.6) through internal software distribution channels, for general web browsing, and because new web apps (like new Oracle version) don't work on IE6. We also had problems when Firefox blocked Java. And of course days after sanctioning Firefo
Re: (Score:2)
Home Depot may be using IE6, but the point of sale terminals at Rona (Canadian big box home improvement store, very similar to Home Depot) are still running Windows 2000.
To upgrade from IE6, they'd have to upgrade their entire OS.
So does that large US phone company (Score:1)
Their customer support reps use it. Apparently they have an ActiveX widget that only works on ie6. Sucks to develop other web apps for their use.
Shouldn't name them, but if u are reading this please upgrade.
Re: (Score:2)
And add NZ Governement Departments.
One of our issues stopping a company wide upgrade is other software that has dependancies on IE6 that just aren't stable with 8.
We have the same issue with upgrading office from beyond 2003 (so thankfully our IS department is yet to get the screams of "I hate this ribbon")
Link to Goverment document (Score:3, Informative)
Let go? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not about "letting go" - I'm sure it's about the cost of upgrading thousands (tens of thousands?) of systems. Not just the licensing of the software, but also the cost of execution and management of the upgrade, and then the upgrade of all the applications, training on new versions, rewriting an ass ton of security and management policies, and years of churn getting the kinks out of thousands of systems, and the loss of productivity while switching over, and... (I'm sure with a couple more minutes thought I could come up with five other angles of cost).
The summary makes it seem like they're holding on for sentiment, and that they're shooting themselves in the foot by sticking with tried and true software. The summary hasn't given any voice to the enormity of the task (it's not a simple "derr, click the upgrade button stupid"), nor the idea that this is government money which can and arguably should be used in more critical areas of life.
Are slashdot editors really this shortsighted?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Let go? (Score:5, Insightful)
I recognize you! You work for the [insert government here] ITS department down the hall from my office. You and your just adequate, barely competent colleagues are the reason I'm stuck with a brand new, yet somehow still limping, T520 that takes four minutes to start. You are the reason I can't "exceed the level of my cluster". You are the barrier to innovation. The attitude you just espoused is the reason our monolithic organization is stuck in the stone age. How is it that you guys can take five years and one billion dollars to develop an application that is buggy, user un-friendly, doesn't do the job it's supposed to, and cripples the department it's supposed to be helping by eating their entire IT budget. You and your colleagues have never heard of Brooks' law, are complacent, risk averse, and unimaginative. I hate you.
Re:Let go? (Score:4, Interesting)
Don't go blaming the IT departments so quickly. Blame the contractors, and those who purchase said contracts. While I can certainly point fingers at some terrible in-house public sector IT departments, they're not all bad, not by a long shot.
I'm posting AC for business confidentiality reasons: my company provides web software (business stuff, not the main site) for the UK National Institute of Health Research [nihr.ac.uk]. They're our first (and only) public sector client. I had to liaise quite a lot with the previous supplier, with regards to migrating data out of the old system. I simply could not believe how awful it was. It seemed to be designed from the ground up to require maximum maintenance, and apparently there were 5 staff members at the contractor who worked full time on supporting the business logic. Not on updates or new features, just on keeping it working.
When we were negotiating the contact with them, they wanted a clause that said if we failed to provide them with any software at all, they got 50% of their money back. That shocked us. Just how bad is the public sector IT culture that they felt they'd only be entitled to half their money back if they got nothing for it?
The previous suppliers told us they wouldn't be able to provide the data extracts we required until several months after the go-live date, so we then entered into a big wrangle to let us get a copy of their database and do it ourselves. This was a wrangle because they wanted to protect the "trade secrets" or "intellectual property" of the data model itself. Which was awful btw; I ended up with a 35-page print out of it sellotaped together on the wall, manually drawing in lines where all the foreign keys ought to have been.
We got the migration done to the client's satisfaction in the end, but this wouldn't have been possible without a bunch of IT guys at NIHR's end who were pretty damn competant, and very willing to get stuck in. I can't say as much for the contractor's guys, though. We ended up with a TUPE [out-law.com] case against us, with them arguing that we had a legal obligation to hire them on, even though we were providing a completely different system (i.e. one that worked).
Anyway, that's a bit of a rant. In conclusion, if IT seem like they're a wee bit shit, then they might be, or alternatively, they might be having to deal with a lot of shit from elsewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes you've got a valid point -- procurement in government is just as broken as the overall IT infrastructure. On the other hand, if someone isn't willing to raise a stink and put their job on the line to prevent a disaster of that nature, they don't deserve to call themselves a public servant. The "lowest bidder" is not the same thing as the "best value", and you have to be willing to fight for what's right.
Re: (Score:2)
One of the difficulties is that priorities in government sector procurement are often biased in favour of the senior management and doing what is seen to be good politically, rather than usability or manageability.
The difficulty with the govt tender process is that some vendors are unfamiliar with it and don't give the best answers to the questions asked in the initial tender documents.
E.g. I've just been involved with the procurement of a PACS system (digital X-ray archive), and a lot of the vendors simply
Re: (Score:2)
IE 6 was a great bet to make in 2003.
If you read Hall of Fame stories on slashdot there is one called what keeps you on Windows? IE 6 and how great a browser it is was a top response. Compared to Netscape IE 6 was years ahead with this new thing called CSS.
There was no Firefox, Safari, or Chrome back then. People were betting on standards and it was easily assumed that the MS box model and VBscript would be used today just like people view Windows. Shamefully, after reading about how great IE 6 was on slash
Re: (Score:2)
The British army is one of the culprits, I know this because we've developed software for them and still have to support IE6 to this day. They have plans to do away with it but they just get put back further and further.
The problem is how, in a time of budget cuts, can you possibly justify upgrading every computer in the army to IE6 vs. making sure your soldiers fighting in Afghanistan have body armour, helicopters to avoid IEDs and so forth?
It's just not a priority. The threat of cyber attack causing any a
Re: (Score:1)
Are slashdot editors really this shortsighted?
"Posted by timothy"
'nuff said.
Re: (Score:2)
IE9 is a critical security upgrade for IE6 users. Even with anti-virus software bring the machine to its knees a user running IE6 is basically screwed. It is almost always less hassle to upgrade to IE9 then it is to deal with all the IE6 related infections.
I have seen IT departments refuse to skip security patches for fear of the updates breaking stuff, and they get away with by blaming the users for getting infected.
Yeah, tell me about it (Score:5, Interesting)
IE6 is my nemesis.
A lot of these local authorities are slowly starting to upgrade to Win7 platforms (just in time for Win8), but just like a chain being only as strong as it's weakest link, we have to ensure we are developing for the slowest common denominator.
From the dozens of conversations I've had with Council IT teams around the country, it isn't a lack of will or of motivation or of education, but of a real (and partially justified) fear that if they upgrade to Win7, some essential legacy web based application that works flawlessly in IE6 and XP, will fall over when introduced to IE8. This has happened at various places around the country and has cost Councils a pile of money to fix the issue or to replace those legacy systems. In the post recession cost-cutting world, no one wants to be the guy who lands their employer with a huge bill. I expect we wont see the stragglers taking up the challenge until austerity is done and dusted.
And there you have it. I managed to make this all the coalition government's fault. My work here is done.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
From the dozens of conversations I've had with Council IT teams around the country, it isn't a lack of will or of motivation or of education, but of a real (and partially justified) fear that if they upgrade to Win7, some essential legacy web based application that works flawlessly in IE6 and XP, will fall over when introduced to IE8. This has happened at various places around the country and has cost Councils a pile of money to fix the issue or to replace those legacy systems.
GOOD! Those same groups didn't want to listen when we told them that writing to a single browser with it's non-standard quirks and single-platform pathogen vector of a plugin architecture was a bad idea. I'm going to use this as a warning to my clients: "you don't want to write this to run on IE-only. Remember what happened with IE6 and how much it cost to fix that boondoggle?"
Re: (Score:2)
I see this point of view a lot with web developers and when fully realized, it means that you're stuck writing markup and scripts that are a decade behind current standards.
I argue the reverse. Write for current browsers but provide support for older browsers.
Re: (Score:1)
Are you crazy?
IE 6 is not just a decade old. Its DOM is different, its box model is different, the way it wraps text when a box is full is different, its javascript is different, and I could go on and on.
I am learning IE 6 now and let me tell you I can't make a site look as good. Sure I can get a butt ugly basic site with no floating css or shadows or any graphical animations in CSS 3 and use hacks like CSSPIE which slow IE 6 down to glacial speeds. This does not count the bugs.
I see the bean counters view
Re: (Score:2)
Inconsistency is one thing all browsers share and if you are a developer worth your salt, you learn to innovate around them instead of blaming the technology. And yes, if the bean counters use ie6, you support ie6.
Like I said, by using conditionals to produce extra markup and load css sheets, support isn't that difficult. I also recommend you learn the try/catch block in javascript which is present in IE6.
.
Re: (Score:1)
While you are making separate CSS and doing regression testing, I am making twice the amount of websites doing things that would require flash on your browser, using text shadows, smooth rounded corners, and AJAX that your browser can't handle which works on any modern browser. It will blow yours away.
Please stop supporting old browsers. You are working for free and endangering the security of your workplace and internet and putting external costs onto yourself by giving up your free time after 5pm and the
Re: (Score:2)
Please, mr coward - I'm the guy who reads the specs. I'm the guy who pays close attention to stuff as they are developed so my users to get experience new standards as they are implemented. I'm also the guy who builds his sites to gracefully degrade so people with older browsers can still read the content because at the end of the day, that's WHAT USERS WANT TO DO.
Sure, my sites take longer to create but they work in real world conditions whereas yours probably flops like a dead fish the moment a user ex
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Whats the website?
The statistics I see tell Ie 6 having 1% of all users in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I laugh every time I hear someone say something like, "we can't upgrade because, despite all the warnings over the years about bad development practices, we coded our web infrastructure on non-standard misfeatures/bugs of a single browser and version, and now those misfeatures/bugs are fixed in subsequent versions in this browser. If we had designed around actual standards, we would have been fine, but that was just a little bit harder than sacrificing the future."
It's nice to see stupidity justly rewarded
Re: (Score:2)
We have a load of older apps we use for software development and electronics that only works on XP, meaning we have to keep XP machines around just for that. Old hardware that doesn't work on Windows 7, buggy software that even XP Mode can't fix... It's a pain but the only option is to replace all that stuff at great expense.
Re: (Score:2)
1) feels the need to upgrade what isn't broken
IE6 is very, very broken. Fortunately for us (and unfortunately for people who have to use it), it's also almost completely dead. The day is coming when it will be literally impossible to run an IE6-compatible system without buying expensive legacy-compatible hardware or hosting it inside an emulator.
Consider that IE6 on Windows XP was released in 2001. Two years from now, this will be as ancient as using IE5 (released in 1999) on Windows 98 would be today. Can you imagine how fun it'd be to have to support
Re: (Score:1)
The problem is it is not broken at all to the accountants.
CNN, MSNBC, and all the corporate websites that people use at work all work fine with it. Why upgrade to something we already have? Until these sites stop working the PHBs and the finance people will demand users stay on IE 6 so the share price can keep going up some more.
Trust me to these people we *would* still be running Windows 98 until the end of time and *never* upgrade ever. That costs money after all and we are in the x business. Not an I.T.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is it is not broken at all to the accountants.
Then I think those accountants are inappropriately insulated from the pain of their decisions. If decade-old software is good enough for other employees, then Office 2000 should be good enough for them.
Re: (Score:2)
I am beginning to resent them greatly. Accountants are also making critical medical decisions and ordering doctors on what to do if you have a crappy HMO as well. Accountants are the ones making almost every business decision and who are becoming the next CEOs.
They are great at reducing costs and that is it. Of course the accountants have Office 2010 they are a profit center and unlike you and I are very important people. But IT, UGH go back to putting out fires, we have real work to take care of etc.
Meanwh
Re: (Score:2)
XP Mode. If they fail, it's indeed the government IT's fault - for not deploying it with the XP machine included.
Yeah - let's kick the can further down the road. That will solve the problem!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Piloting things before nation wide deployment is also fairly normal but this is government we are discussing. Normal is not part of the scenery.
Re: (Score:2)
So the upshot is, people like me will still have to work with IE6 for at least a couple more years.
Same Story in Germany (Score:1)
In Germany most IE6 users also come from government institutions... I guess that with the general laziness of IT admins, we shouldn't be surprised that the ones working for the government are the laziest :)
Re:Same Story in Germany (Score:5, Interesting)
As a IT admin, I can attest we are not all lazy. It more often then not is a matter of pulling upper levels of the business kicking and screaming into modern times by spending some money to make sure things still work. They would often rather spend tons of money maintaining old OSes on modern hardware then make sure old software they feel is critical actually gets fixed to work on modern OSes.
It's even crazier when they then want some ancient IE6 based web app to miraculously work on their shiny new Ipads and don't understand that they simply won't work. I have had a a CEO complain that we need to put IE6 on his Ipad because he needs to run X web app that was made 15 years ago and only works in IE6. He refused to accept that an Ipad will not run IE6, to the point where he even cursed at us and demanded we install Win XP on his Ipad to 'make it work'.
Most of us IT admins know that we have to get this stuff working and get them off of systems often setup before we were even hired. Getting large businesses and governments to do such things though is at times futile.
Re: (Score:1)
If I were Balmer I would port IE 6 for the enteprise version of Windows 8 to give it a competitive advantage in corporate America as well as include the usual modern IE 10.
Without the tie in with ancient compatibility why buy a Windows 8 mobile device or phone? IPhones already have this functionality and once these ancient web apps are upgraded they will work on your top man's IPAD. Then what? No more Microsoft needed.
Worse they are porting Office to the IPAD which is another mistake.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can do that, but the experience is sub-optimal. We've got a few users doing just that with iPads to access a certain program that was written against a (modern) version of IE.
It's slow and the UI is /not/ meant for touchscreens, but it does work.
Re: (Score:2)
Like the other poster mentioned, we actually have tried remote access for that CEO. In fact right before the conversation I mentioned above. He hated the experience and he certainly didn't feel it meet his needs. We do not have an in house development team (they outsourced it ages ago), so we don't have someone to make a custom app for the Ipads just to get this to work reliably. Using the existing apps we had considerable problems getting it to look like it's just an app (and so not confuse him) and the pe
Re: (Score:2)
IETab just runs IE; if your application is bloody-minded about only allowing in IE6, then Firefox plus IETab running IE8 will still get bounced.
Re: (Score:2)
Tell me, how well does that work on an iPad?
The US government isn't much better. (Score:1)
The NSA still uses IE7 internally. Seriously, the NSA. These are the guys who are supposed to be on top of the information world.
To be fair, the standard system image also includes Firefox 10 (that's new as of just a few weeks ago, it was 3.6 prior to that), but most of the people I have to work with use IE7 anyway.
Meh -- Sort of (Score:4, Interesting)
We still use IE6 in certain instances where I work (U.S. Gov't). It isn't part of a standard install, it is a published Citrix app and really only used for specific applications that require it. Our standard install is IE8 and Firefox 3.6.28.
The problem isn't the cost of upgrading workstations. It is there are a couple of critical web-interface apps that require it and are an expensive bitch to upgrade. Older versions of Oracle Financials for one.
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't part of a standard install, it is a published Citrix app and really only used for specific applications that require it.
I know hindsight is 20/20, but I'm assuming modern RFPs require that the system be build so NOT to require a specific version of a specific browser? :)
Re: (Score:1)
Its more profitable to target just one browser.
Since IE is now released on an annual basis it would mean more forced upgrades for customers who want to be secure. It is a great benefit to have the app not work and check the version number on startup or during a connect.
Whats the point if the customer pays for it and never upgrades again? You go out of business.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes and no. We actively avoid it, but sometimes they sneak in.
For example, I still see occasional things bought that require a specific version of Java to work. "Sun JRE 5.1.2 - 5.2.4 only" type of stuff.
From an end-user perspective, proprietary is evil. There is a potential for you to get left hanging so we really try and avoid it.
Code to interfaces, test on implementations (Score:2)
It's not that hard to make a web app that is future proof, as long as you write it to comply with the specs from W3C. I have developed a web app, so I know that not everything is specified unambiguously and not all browsers follow the spec to the letter, but it yields much better results than coding to one specific browser version.
In our web app, over a period of about 5 years, the only regression on a browser upgrade I can recall is that IE8 would misrender VML. The very use of VML was a forced deviation f
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You have clearly never developed a web app. So Win 98 apps should magically still work on Win 7?
Most of them do, if the developer made an effort to do things properly.
Re: (Score:3)
Not sure why these things are called "Web App" when it's really an "IE APP".
Hopefully (probably not) this will leave a bad enough taste in people's mouths NOT to create applications that only run on one vendor's browser and even worse one vendor's browser at a specific version.
The other side of the coin: (Score:3)
Obviously sticking with IE6 is misguided, but I've seen the opposite side. I've worked in IT for 20+ years, and I've never seen any organization as cavalier about software upgrade costs as my provincial and federal governments. Entire departments would be upgraded to the latest version of Microsoft Office as soon as it came out. It had nothing to do with product features, or whether the previous version was sufficient for their needs. (And I'm not talking about file format changes, which caused a legitimate need for upgrading). The cost to taxpayers for unnecessary software upgrades must be be significant.
Re: (Score:2)
Governments often do not purchase software licenses from Microsoft through the same retail channels as businesses or home users, instead they usually have negotiated licensing agreement that entitles them to the latest version of certain CALs and common software suites under a specified annual cost. There isn't necessarily a cost for the upgrade, especially for products like Microsoft Office.
Here in Alberta, our provincial government has a licensing agreement for K-12 education that includes Office. However
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:but... (Score:5, Insightful)
New PC, old OS. Microsoft did a really good job locking people into IE. So good that many people still haven't escaped.
Not entirely MS fault. (Score:2)
I have to keep IE6 around because we have a ton of corporate apps that work on nothing but. I don't chalk that up to MS fault, but poor development. Transition should be interesting.
Re:but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure you can. Buy more than 100 seats of Windows 7 Pro, with Software Assurance, and self-downgrade before the initial install. Besides, most 100+ seat businesses use a custom OS image anyways. Easy enough to make it an XP Pro image, if you can find drivers for everything.
Re: (Score:2)
And MS doesn't mind either because you buy 2 licences:
-The OEM version that comes with the new PC
-the Software Assurance version that bought extra.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a damned good racket, but it can be done. Just give enough money to MS, and they'll let you do anything you want.
Mind you, XP is solidly into security-patches-only support, and even that's drawing to a close, so I'd imagine the UK is looking into installing lots of firewalls over the next year or two, or they're even less intelligent than I gave them credit for.
Re: (Score:1)
Using it for intranet-only stuff (presumably, because there's something proprietary in there that would cost a lot of money to upgrade or replace) does not present the same level of risk, provided you set it up so that IE6 can *only* access the intranet stuff, not the outside-world internet. (This can be done with judicious use of IE6's security
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need Software assurance. New PCs sold with Windows 7 Pro licenses (eg the laptops and workstations businesses buy) come with Downgrade rights to WindowsXP pro.
These businesses already have their XP Pro VL key and image, and are allowed to use it to reimage these new PCs to XP. You don't NEED a VL copy, you can use other versions, but activation becomes a PITA in a hurry.
Re: (Score:2)
I should mention you can do this reimaging without any additional charge. The Windows7 Pro OEM that came with the machine is the only incremental amount you give MS.
Re: (Score:2)
That's true, I was mainly thinking of purchasing managers who will totally sign off on a huge package of SA Windows licenses because it makes audits simple, but then buy all the machines with Windows 7 Super-Cripple edition or the NoOS option. If you're careful to only buy Win7 Pro, you can downgrade from right there, no other purchases involved.
Re: (Score:3)
Governments have a way of getting special deals that aren't available to people on the street.
Re: (Score:3)
This is pretty standard in the Microsoft volume licensing agreement. There's lots of corporations doing the exact same thing. How do you think XP hung around so long after it wasn't for sale anymore?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They never buy NEW pc ?? Last time I installed some for my company I didnt had the choice, IE6 wasn't there...
FTFS:
Many UK government departments are still using IE6
Not all ... though even one is too many these days. Let's hope they don't have any IE 5 or old Netscape browsers hiding in unused bathrooms in the basement.
Re: (Score:2)
They just put an old OS on. At the hospital I work at, there are a number of critical applications (like parts of electronic patient records, and other custom made apps) which only work on IE6.
That means the brand new workstations we took delivery of last month (dual quad core Xeons, 4 GB RAM, Fire GL Pro cards) have all been loaded with XP 32-bit SP1, in order to get IE6 and avoid some features of SP2 which break a number of other apps.
To be honest, it's a miracle that they're stable, as I can't believe th
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Dude, eleven isn't old.
I'm forty-four and I can't cope with social media either.
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, eleven isn't old. I'm forty-four and I can't cope with social media either.
If you were a web browser, you'd be featured in the Smithsonian, with maybe a small paragraph on Wikipedia on the history of web browsers, at best.
Re: (Score:2)
Eleven is extremely old in Internet years.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Shoot IE 8 just supported 1998 CSS 2.1 standards. The frustrating thing is all the other browsers are cutting edge now. IE 9 is ok, but that long lapse shouldn't be an excuse. Ms should be ostracized for it!
Imagine a world where we had to still support gcc 2.95 and VC++ 5, but it also had to compile in GCC 4.6 and VS 2010, and made sure all our code would compile flawlessly without error between those 2 versions? The changes in C++/C are huge with STL support and so on.
The whole point of switching to intran
Re: (Score:2)
Firefox's distant relative, Netscape existed at the time, I remember using it back in 1999, so IE wasn't the only choice.
Re: (Score:1)
Yikes, Netscape's CSS support made IE 6 look like a compliant saint.
Webmasters back then made sites that looked liked Craigslist and stuck with tables and HTML because Netscape blew so bad. I eventually switched to IE 6 in 2002 and couldn't believe the difference and how much better it was and faster. It sucked goatballs of course but back then what choice did you have? Netscape 4.7 came out in 1998 was already 4 years old! Just a minor improvement over Netscape 4.5 which came out in 1997.
By 2001 Netscape w
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is a huge difference between specifying the default browser for the desktop and specifying a web app should only work with that browser. One is a reasonable decisi
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure I'd qualify IE 6 as 11 years old . Sure it was released in 2001, but until October 2006, it was the only browser offering from Microsoft. So I think that I would almost like to say that it's less than 6 years old.
So, your 11-year-old child would only be five because she didn't have any siblings until six years ago? Good luck with that.
Re: (Score:3)
So, your 11-year-old child would only be five because she didn't have any siblings until six years ago? Good luck with that.
No, see, that's how it works with computer software; the date we're interested in isn't the date of introduction but the date of supersession. In this case that was only six years ago. Until, say, a year before that tops it didn't make sense to try to aim for IE7, and if you were committed to using a platform browser you were therefore targeting IE6. I was glad someone had figured out what year all this had happened because I didn't want to look it up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, I guess it all boils down to the definition of superceded, because there were plenty of browsers around when IE6 was introduced: Netscape, Galeon, Opera, Konqueror
Many organizations were cowed into depending on a Microsoft-only platform, so none of the alternatives really applied for them, and since that accounts for shitloads of seats and users today, they are highly relevant. If you were drinking the Microsoft Kool-Aid you were anti-Netscape, and none of those alternatives were really credible alternatives at the time. These days, Webkit and Opera are both highly credible, I'm not trying to badmouth anything, but back then realistically it was between Nutscrape and
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, but what of that has anything to do with the definition of how old something is?
The last time something was shipped when its successor was not available a download away is its age. Check out how old Windows XP is by this definition (shipped on many small systems until very recently) and be agog.
Re: (Score:1)
The reasoning for this is they need to be certified for medical use. It takes *YEARS* to be certified. Once certified hospitals like to keep their investment around for a long time at least 5 years.
I upgrades a hospital last year and they just got certified to run IE 7! IE 8 was still being tested. Hospitals have many legacy devices that all send things like PDFs of xrays, lab reports, and other things accessible by IE and Exchange 2003. They do not integrate well with modern standards. Not to mention are v
Re: (Score:2)
Even scarier: I visited a hospital recently where the desktops are still Windows 2000