Is it time to bury IE6

[cwdjrxyz]

As much as many detest IE6 and even some major commercial sites do not
support it well anymore, I have concluded that dropping support for
IE6 is a bit premature for me. I just looked at the hits I receive on
2 domains for a one month period.

One domain gets many domestic US and some foreign hits. For IE, there
are still many IE6 hits as well as many for IE7 and IE8. There are a
few hits for the IE9(still in beta).

The second domain is for the faq of an international Usenet group, and
it gets hits from around the world. I get fewer IE6 hits than for the
first group, and IE8 is the most frequent IE browser used.

I have not had any hits for IE browsers earlier than IE6 in a long
time.

Dropping IE6 would avoid a lot of special code just for IE6,
especially for css. It also would help avoid using both the dreaded
ActiveX object for IE and an ordinary object for other browsers in
some cases when writing media code.

 

[Neil Gould]

As much as many detest IE6 and even some major commercial sites do not
support it well anymore, I have concluded that dropping support for
IE6 is a bit premature for me. I just looked at the hits I receive on
2 domains for a one month period.

One domain gets many domestic US and some foreign hits. For IE, there
are still many IE6 hits as well as many for IE7 and IE8. There are a
few hits for the IE9(still in beta).

The second domain is for the faq of an international Usenet group, and
it gets hits from around the world. I get fewer IE6 hits than for the
first group, and IE8 is the most frequent IE browser used.

I have not had any hits for IE browsers earlier than IE6 in a long
time.

Dropping IE6 would avoid a lot of special code just for IE6,
especially for css. It also would help avoid using both the dreaded
ActiveX object for IE and an ordinary object for other browsers in
some cases when writing media code.

What's more, you can avoid all those hits you get from IE6 users!

 

[Adrienne Boswell]

Gazing into my crystal ball I observed cwdjrxyz <[email protected]>
writing in @fj16g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:

As much as many detest IE6 and even some major commercial sites do not
support it well anymore, I have concluded that dropping support for
IE6 is a bit premature for me. I just looked at the hits I receive on
2 domains for a one month period.

One domain gets many domestic US and some foreign hits. For IE, there
are still many IE6 hits as well as many for IE7 and IE8. There are a
few hits for the IE9(still in beta).

The second domain is for the faq of an international Usenet group, and
it gets hits from around the world. I get fewer IE6 hits than for the
first group, and IE8 is the most frequent IE browser used.

I have not had any hits for IE browsers earlier than IE6 in a long
time.

Dropping IE6 would avoid a lot of special code just for IE6,
especially for css. It also would help avoid using both the dreaded
ActiveX object for IE and an ordinary object for other browsers in
some cases when writing media code.

A computer at my doctor's office is running IE5. It is also running and
ancient version of Firefox (I use that). The other computers are all
running IE6.

 

[dorayme]

A computer at my doctor's office is running IE5. It is also running and
ancient version of Firefox (I use that). The other computers are all
running IE6.

But you still believe he is giving you the best modern
treatments? <g>

 

[Adrienne Boswell]

Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Sherm Pendley

Got to agree with you there. Especially given that modern medicine
*is* technology.

sherm--

It's a therapist that works with a lot of people below the poverty line,
and is funded by the state of California - need I say more? It's a local
office, the main office may be more up to date.

My MD, on the other hand, in a way annoys me because all the assistants
come in with lap tops to take notes. All the lap tops do have modern
browsers, and they are able to surf the Internet with them - I had my
doctor look something up for me once. My MD's office is also part of a
major hospital that uses da Vinci Robotic surgery. That's the hospital
where I had my son, Spane, 8 years and 1 day ago.

 

[Neil Gould]

Understood! CA's budgetary woes are epic. :-(

Even so, IE 8 runs quite well on even a 10-year old PC with XP - the
type of machine on which one would typically find IE6 - and it could
be installed by simply running software update, without doesn't cost
a dime.

So, the presence of IE6 shows that SU hasn't been run in years, which
in turn shows a machine that has boatloads of unpatched security vuln-
erabilities. If it's used to access patient records, leaving it in
such a state is along the same lines as leaving the file cabinets and
office doors unlocked when the office is closed.

For a doctor, banker, lawyer or other professional with access to his
or her clients private information, this isn't a question of upgrading
to the latest "shiny" just to stay trendy; it's a matter of exercising
the due diligence one expects of a professional. Failure to take even
the most basic, zero-cost precautions indicates a lack of respect for
client privacy that I would find unacceptable.

I disagree with your premise and your conclusions. No IE version above IE6
will run on a W2k machine, and there is a population of _business_ users
that are still running networks with W2k workstations. Whether or not a
newer OS would serve those businesses better depends on many things that
have little or nothing to do with YouTube. Professional site developers
understand this, and expend the effort to make their sites accessible to as
many users as possible. So, I take notices that one's browser is out-of-date
as the first clue that a site is most likely to be a waste of time, and head
to those who primarily want to communicate rather than dazzle somebody with
pointless flashiness.

The bottom line is that all browsers have quirks when it comes to really
sophisticated presentations, and when using CSS, one has to accommodate
those quirks. At least Microsoft makes it reasonably easy to accommodate
various IE version's quirks and still maintain valid HTML / CSS. The same
can't be said for all others, including some of the majors, like Safari.

 

[Neil Gould]

W2K is also out of date, with many unpatched security vulnerabilities
that *can't* be fixed with a simple click on software update.

That doesn't change the facts that some businesses are using W2K. OS
vulnerabilities is OT in this ng, so I won't address that at all beyond
saying that if SU was a big enough problem, no businesses would be running
W2k, would they?.

I said nothing about YouTube. In fact, I *explicitly* said that my
point has nothing to do with being "trendy."

Your premise is based on professionals running _XP_, and my response pointed
out that not all professionals are doing so, and for those folks, IE
browsers newer than IE6 is not a possibility. My mention of YouTube is
merely an example of the kinds of sites that discourage IE6 users.

I didn't say anything about putting a "best viewed by" notice on one's
site, or about dazzling anyone with pointless flashiness.

Maybe you should try reading what I actually wrote, instead of
responding to what you imagine. You won't look as foolish that way.

I read, comprehended, and responded to what you wrote. Unfortunately, the
same can't be said for your response to my post.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

I disagree with your premise and your conclusions. No IE version above IE6
will run on a W2k machine, and there is a population of_business_ users
that are still running networks with W2k workstations.

True, so running a newer version of IE my be out of the question, but
you can still use a fully supported new browser, i.e., Firefox, Chrome,
Opera... Far better than running a unsupported, buggy, vulnerable
browser when your do have an alternative.

 

[dorayme]

True, so running a newer version of IE my be out of the question, but
you can still use a fully supported new browser, i.e., Firefox, Chrome,
Opera... Far better than running a unsupported, buggy, vulnerable
browser when your do have an alternative.

It does sound very reasonable to switch from IE for any
particular individual, but when it is a company with a big IT
department, and they control what the staff use, the inertia is
great.

 

[Neil Gould]

It does sound very reasonable to switch from IE for any
particular individual, but when it is a company with a big IT
department, and they control what the staff use, the inertia is
great.

Exactly. So, the decision to "bury IE6" support depends in part on whether
one needs to communicate with those businesses. To that end, note that many
of the "biggies", including Google, eBay, CNet, etc. work just fine with
IE6. What sites offer more value to the general public than those, but
*doesn't* support IE6?

Also, for many sites, the amount of HTML4/CSS2 custom code required for IE6
is not significantly different than for IE7, IE8, or Safari, and can be done
without invalidating the HTML or CSS. A good design for a road will not
require travellers to drive a Ferrari.

 

[dorayme]

Exactly. So, the decision to "bury IE6" support depends in part on whether
one needs to communicate with those businesses. To that end, note that many
of the "biggies", including Google, eBay, CNet, etc. work just fine with
IE6. What sites offer more value to the general public than those, but
*doesn't* support IE6?

Also, for many sites, the amount of HTML4/CSS2 custom code required for IE6
is not significantly different than for IE7, IE8, or Safari, and can be done
without invalidating the HTML or CSS. A good design for a road will not
require travellers to drive a Ferrari.

Quite so.

 

[Doug Miller]

Also, for many sites, the amount of HTML4/CSS2 custom code required for IE6
is not significantly different than for IE7, IE8, or Safari, and can be done
without invalidating the HTML or CSS. A good design for a road will not
require travellers to drive a Ferrari.[/QUOTE]

OTOH, I'm quite sure that most modern highway engineers don't bother
themselves with considering whether their roads will accomodate a Model T.

 

[Joy Beeson]

OTOH, I'm quite sure that most modern highway engineers don't bother
themselves with considering whether their roads will accomodate a Model T.

But all roads will accommodate a Model T, and penny-farthing bicycles
have an easier time on modern roads than on the roads they were
designed for.

 

[Mike Duffy]

But all roads will accommodate a Model T

I'm not sure if they can attain the minimum speed on most major divided
highways. (~45 MPH = ~60 km/hr). This is about the maximum possible
speed of a Model T.

 

[Lewis]

I'm not sure if they can attain the minimum speed on most major divided
highways. (~45 MPH = ~60 km/hr). This is about the maximum possible
speed of a Model T.

That fast? Is that downhill? With a tail-wind?

I seem to recall being told they went about 30, maybe 35. 40 on a really
good day.

 

[Kristjan Robam]

Reply to the topic author:
Isn't it already too late?

Kristjan

 

[Tim Streater]

Reply to the topic author:
Isn't it already too late?

I don't believe I've ever used it.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

I don't believe I've ever used it.

Consider yourself blessed.

 

[Tim Streater]

Consider yourself blessed.

Or IE7, IE8, IE9 ...

 

[Kristjan Robam]

Then youre probably too lazy to try newer ones, new to the computer world or
just poor, because I think IE is the best browser in the world and it's
newer versions are always better.

Kristjan