MS: Why we can't drop support for IE6

jmke · 11th August 2009, 19:54

For technology enthusiasts, this topic seems simple. Enthusiasts install new (often unfinished or “beta”) software all the time. Scores of posts on this site and others describe specific benefits of upgrading. As a browser supplier, we want people to switch to the latest version of IE for security, performance, interoperability, and more. So, if all of the “individual enthusiasts” want Windows XP machines upgraded from IE6, and the supplier of IE6 wants them upgraded, what’s the issue?

The choice to upgrade software on a PC belongs to the person responsible for the PC.

Many PCs don’t belong to individual enthusiasts, but to organizations. The people in these organizations responsible for these machines decide what to do with them. These people are professionally responsible for keeping tens or hundreds or thousands of PCs working on budget. The backdrop might be a factory floor or hospital ward or school lab or government organization, each with its own business applications. For these folks, the cost of the software isn’t just the purchase price, but the cost of deploying, maintaining, and making sure it works with their IT infrastructure. (Look for “nothing is free” here.) They balance their personal enthusiasm for upgrading PCs with their accountability to many other priorities their organizations have. As much as they (or site developers, or Microsoft or anyone else) want them to move to IE8 now, they see the PC software image as one part of a larger IT picture with its own cadence.

http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/200...g-pov-ie6.aspx

jmke · 11th August 2009, 19:55

Quote:

Separately, a letter to a popular personal technology columnist last week asked if people will somehow be forced to upgrade from their current client software if it already meets their needs.

XP vs Vista/7 ?

I'm using FF 2.x , don't like the newer editions & this one does all I need

12th August 2009, 09:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmke

I'm using FF 2.x , don't like the newer editions & this one does all I need

The difference is, unlike IE6 which still has security issues patched via windows update, outdated versions of Firefox aren't patched for vulnerabilities.

jmke · 12th August 2009, 09:08

I know

12th August 2009, 09:51

You know you want the speed increases with FF3.

jmke · 12th August 2009, 10:03

not really no; tried it, was actually slower and more cumbersome than FF2 for what I use the browser.

11th August 2009, 19:54	#1
jmke Madshrimp Join Date: May 2002 Location: 7090/Belgium Posts: 79,022	MS: Why we can't drop support for IE6 For technology enthusiasts, this topic seems simple. Enthusiasts install new (often unfinished or “beta”) software all the time. Scores of posts on this site and others describe specific benefits of upgrading. As a browser supplier, we want people to switch to the latest version of IE for security, performance, interoperability, and more. So, if all of the “individual enthusiasts” want Windows XP machines upgraded from IE6, and the supplier of IE6 wants them upgraded, what’s the issue? The choice to upgrade software on a PC belongs to the person responsible for the PC. Many PCs don’t belong to individual enthusiasts, but to organizations. The people in these organizations responsible for these machines decide what to do with them. These people are professionally responsible for keeping tens or hundreds or thousands of PCs working on budget. The backdrop might be a factory floor or hospital ward or school lab or government organization, each with its own business applications. For these folks, the cost of the software isn’t just the purchase price, but the cost of deploying, maintaining, and making sure it works with their IT infrastructure. (Look for “nothing is free” here.) They balance their personal enthusiasm for upgrading PCs with their accountability to many other priorities their organizations have. As much as they (or site developers, or Microsoft or anyone else) want them to move to IE8 now, they see the PC software image as one part of a larger IT picture with its own cadence. http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/200...g-pov-ie6.aspx __________________

12th August 2009, 09:08	#4
jmke Madshrimp Join Date: May 2002 Location: 7090/Belgium Posts: 79,022	I know __________________

12th August 2009, 10:03	#6
jmke Madshrimp Join Date: May 2002 Location: 7090/Belgium Posts: 79,022	not really no; tried it, was actually slower and more cumbersome than FF2 for what I use the browser. __________________

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Support for Windows 2000, Windows XP SP2 ends July 2010	jmke	WebNews	0	9th December 2009 10:08
Cedarview Atom 2011 has HD support	jmke	WebNews	0	20th November 2009 12:05
AMD Announces Planned Support For OpenGL 3.1; OpenGL 3.2 Support Expected To Follow	jmke	WebNews	0	4th August 2009 11:33
PRESS RELEASE: MSI P965 Platinum is the First to support ATI CrossFire	piotke	WebNews	0	20th September 2006 16:28
Athlon 64 Revision E: Unofficial DDR500 Support	Sidney	WebNews	1	11th July 2005 08:15
VIA Announces Support from Industry Leader for PCI Express Gigabit Ethernet Implement	jmke	WebNews	0	8th December 2004 14:50
XGI: Support the 'Shaders 3.0', Drop Multi GPU Tech	jmke	WebNews	0	21st October 2004 00:32
KiSS Technology first DVD-player with support for WMV9	jmke	WebNews	2	16th March 2004 14:20
Microsoft Changes Mind on Windows 98 Support	jmke	WebNews	0	13th January 2004 13:04

12th August 2009, 09:51	#5
Rutar Posts: n/a	You know you want the speed increases with FF3.