Microsoft is celebrating the news that Internet Explorer 6 (IE6) use in the US has officially dropped below one per cent of internet visits. In March, Microsoft assembled a team to push for the destruction of IE6, and have succeeded in reducing the market footprint of the browser. Currently 7.7 per cent of worldwide internet …
Just Serves Those Asshole Developers Right
*spits on Microsoft-only developers*.
This is what happens when you get f@g developers who don't know jack shit about fuck all.
They write web applications that only work with a Microsoft browser.
FUCK DEVELOPERS WHO SHIT ON INTERNET STANDARDS.
FUCK WEBSITES THAT RELY ON IE6.
Just serves you right, too
Because good luck getting a job working for a secure site or a government institution that demands you work with IE6 and ActiveX components.
Oh right, you won't and anyone who takes a job to feed their family is an asshole, right?
Typical Penguin or Apple Bothering fanboy with unresolved anger issues.
Don't try to reason with them. If you really want to get a rise out of them insult Saint SJ or Saint RMS depending on their borderline religious fanatical devotion to either of those two individuals. They're like the Penguin Taliban and Apple-Qaeda. You'll get downvoted every time you post for the rest of your life for your insolence.
In the real world, you have to learn to use and work with every environment out there whether you like it or not. Your boss tells you to write some shoddy half-baked ActiveX crap, you do. You may not like it but you do it.
Dolts like that just make me roll my eyes anymore.
Re: Just serves you right, too
Did you just say "secure site" and "demands IE6"? In the same sentence? In 2012?
And careful with the "it's just a job" argument too.
Well your own rant isn't any better than the original, is it?
@AC 07:47 GMT
Yes, I said "secure site" and "site" didn't mean "website". It meant "place where they shoot you if your phone has a camera on it".
I realise you've never heard of such a thing but we can't all be 2nd-string sysadmins for advertising companies.
@AC 02:51 - Hmmm, religions, eh?
So it's alright to insult other peoples "faiths" then? I take it you consider it acceptable to use the mocking names "Penguin Taliban" and "Apple-Qaeda", and not consider them insults to the millions who do use those systems and don't bother other anyone else with their opinions? So is it also OK to use the N-word, call people under the Jewish or Hindu faiths for example, silly names too?
Sorry but the second you resort to childish name calling you lose all credibility and lower youself to the level of the rather pathetic original poster.
Think about it this way. If an internal site is truly secure (as I believe the MOD requires for some of their sites), then it will probably only be accessible on a server that has no access to the internet (preferably no physical connection, rather than just relying on a switch or firewall to protext it). It will also only be accessible on computers that have been thoroughly locked down (no USB support etc), and with enough security in the building to stop anyone just walking in.
If all the above is true, whether the browser is secure or not is irrelevant, it's unlikely to be hacked.
Secure site = IE6 + Active X?
That would be any oxymoron department like Military Intelligence.
Oh look. Another idiot who thinks "site" means "website".
Re: @AC 07:47 GMT
Oh hi! Yes as it happens I understood "site" to refer to a physical location but good point on highlighting the possible ambiguity given the context. A truly literate person would have probably avoided it in the first place by using a different term in the interest of clarity, but I realise that nobody is perfect.
Other than that, how's your medication going?
V V Oh
As the honcho MS said about IE6 and IE666
Veni - Vidi - Oh Shit
IE6's corpse is still a-kickin!
My blog, last month, 2.5% used version 6. I'd like to believe they're a tech savvy lot....but I've also had hits for IE5 and, God help us, IE2! TWO!?!
IE 5.5 still around
because there are still diehards that use Win9.x I suppose ..
MS obviously doesn't care about internet security or standards, as evidenced by not updating IE8 nor making WinXP able to use IE9, despite many that will use WinXP until the updates stop in April 2014
That would probably be me. I was running IE5 and Netscape Communicator 4.0 on my Windows 3.11 retrogaming PC.
What's wrong with DOSBox? No AWE64 E-MU 8K emulation, that's what.
could just be people reading from their locked down work terminals, like me. This is from IE6. Like others have said, lots of company intranets are IE6 based.
I canot explain IE5 or IE2 though! wow.
I wouldn't be surprised...
... if you spotted a Mosaic among your viewers. Provided it identifies itself as Mosaic in the first place.
A small comment...
It is about time. Of course we need a "nice virus" that kills off ALL instances of IE6 (and even those before). The sooner the better!
Maybe Microsoft should offer a bounty or something like that! Wishful thinking, I know!
surely not ie6 has been around for years and now Microsoft has pressed the kill switch well more a less lol. good job i don't use ie internet explorer for short hehe i use Google chrome its the best ever browser. think its time company's moved away and joined Google chrome. as for ie well its a buggy browser anyway its made buy Microsoft what do you expect. anyway have fun Microsoft trying to get ie market share cause all the other browsers are taken over baby lol.
Perhaps visiting ms, but not my site
Looking at my visitor stats for the last quarter, I see the following. 8.x 36%, 6.x (the infamous one) is in second place with 24%, third is 7.x at 20%, 9.x finally shows at 17%. I get even older stuff, with 1.75% still using 5.x, 0.25% still using 2.x, 0.1% each using 3.x and 4.x.
I did get a single visitor claiming 10.x
As to overall browser use, again over the last quarter, it's 33% IE, 25% Firefox, 19% Chrome, 5% Safari, another 4% mobile Safari, 3% Opera, and Android with 1.4%. There were some visits by Blackberry users, but well below 1%.
Looking at the OS versions, XP takes first with 31%, Win 7 at 27%, Mac OS 11%, Vista 7%, Linux 3%, iPad 2.4%, iPhone 1.6%, Android 1.5%, Blackberry 0.4%. I still get visitors running Win 98,95,ME, and about one visitor a week still running Win 3.x
Re: one visitor a week still running Win 3.x
That's one visitor who doesn't want to disclose his real operating system, then.
I take all browser usage stats with a pinch of salt, but Win 3.x? Really?
"...add-ons for IE8 and IE9, dubbed UniBrows, that enable them to run IE6 legacy code."
Cool - now write an add-on for ie9 that makes it run standard html5 and css3
Seriously, "Standard HTML5"? :D HTML5 is a mess due to backwards compatability requirements and kow-towing to people who couldn't bring themselves to even comply with *transitional* XHTML standards. There is no browser that fully implements HTML5 and no-one seems to really agree on precisely what counts as the complete specification anyway. Surely you are having a laugh.
This would have happened quicker if Microsoft had allowed their newer browsers to be installed on older versions of their operating system.
When you say "allowed their new browsers to be installed on older versions of their operating systems", do you actually mean "done substantial additional work for free to make their software work on ancient legacy systems?" Or do you actually think they set about plotting how to make their software not work on Windows 2000 because, somehow, it would have if they had "allowed" it to.
I think you mean "were not so stupid to make it an OS component so it could be installed on multiple platforms like any other sane browser".
There, fixed it for you!
Re: plotting to make their software not work
My vote definitely goes with the latter. In the time-frame of interest, just about every third-party software vendor in the known universe managed to write apps that also ran on 2K, even if they used XP-only features for a few things. It wasn't hard then and the equivalent trick isn't hard now.
any chance my desktop support team will see this?
nope, didn't think so, IE6 is still installed on our desktops here :(
which is why most of us have circumvented the security and installed Firefox instead.
Thereby leaving management
with a ready-made reason for terminating your employment should they tire of you.
The beta runs fine on older versions of windows so the issue is not a technical one. The reason they don't 'allow' it is to make it a benefit of upgrading to the new OS.
Really? Well if the beta runs okay on Windows 2000, then maybe it wouldn't have taken too much additional work to make it run on that O/S but it still would have meant a lot more costs in terms of testing. I know that I would throw a major fit if as I was writing a software application, my manager came along and told me "by the way, make sure it works properly on Windows 2000". I imagine you would too. Better to just say 'no'.
MSIE is tested?!
They could have released it as "unsupported". Though I see your point, if it's integral to the OS you could end up breaking part of it.
We had a website for a conference we were organizing, when people mentioned they could not read certain bits. We checked and rechecked our HTML (which we had run through various validators etc). We then asked what browser they were using: answer IE6. I forget which W3C standard made IE6 bork, but we could not be arsed to change it.
We simply added a statement stating that our site was optimized for Firefox/Opera/Safari/IE7 and left it at that. As it was a conference for computer scientists, we assumed they would be able to install a decent browser.
i am currently using...
... IE6 to view this site, and type this.
We use IE6 at work for our internal Intranet systems. Everything we use is built for IE6. We have no way to install other browsers either, so this means we struggle to browse a lot of 'modern' sites. I couldn't scream loud enough about this.
Easy way to fix this. Just tell us what dinosaur of a company you're working for so the rest of the world can point at them in horror at their dusty old IT systems.
Of course your manager might not be best pleased.
Well we've still got around 2000 W2K PCs - you try justifying the replacement cost in the current environment. particualriy as around half of them are in around 95 remote sites and would need a fair bit of resource as well.
Only mickeysoft is celebrating the death of IE6???????
Please tell BT - a supposedly "modern" telecoms/IT company to STOP THE FUCK USING IE6 - thank you
I work for BT and am using IE8 at work and have been for quite a while now!
...how long before they stop foisting all their other buggy, bloated rubbish on us?
IE6 still used in UK
I manage a web site where the majority of visitors are from UK local & central government and about 15% of the visits are from IE6 so there's some way to go yet...
as Marlon Brando said
...; The evil that men do lives after them, The good is oft interred with their bones, So let it be with Caesar ....
If there was any good in IE6
Should we all stick User Agent on Firefox...
...and go visit them pretending we are using IE6?
Actually, South Korea was *really* IE6 centric
Article: "Surprisingly, South Korea – one of the most wired countries in the world – still has over 7 per cent of users on IE6"
Actually, *I'm* actually surprised it was that low! South Korean IE6 use is (or was) notoriously high.
This dates back to the late-90s when their government- considering the current 40-bit SSL inadequate for e-commerce and being unwilling to wait for the 128-bit version- created their own e-commerce encryption system called SEED. This was originally available via Netscape plugin or an ActiveX control, but only the latter was kept up-to-date.
SEED is apparently widely-used in Korea (though not really anywhere else), and as ActiveX is IE-specific and more problematic (i.e. secure!) in later versions of IE, IE6 has been very resilient there.
Having looked this up, apparently it's changed recently, with the Korean government themselves trying to get people to move off IE6. Still, it shows you how long the millennial IE6-centric situation has survived post-Firefox.
I'm really surprised that in a browser related article's comment section almost no one seems to mention Chrome, concentrating instead on Firefox. Last time I checked Chrome is about to overtake Firefox in usage, and for good reason in my opinion: it's faster and gets out of the way, it's very stable and a pleasure to use. I switched a couple years back and never looked back, except when I'm on a Mac, then I use Safari which I think is pretty decent too.
Not to say that Firefox is a bad browser at all, or that the gargantuan task it performed by being the first real alternative to IE to become popular is without merit, rather the contrary.
Originally misread this as:
"South Korea – one of the most WEIRD countries in the world". Thought that would've been a bit offensive.
Re: a bit offensive
Yeah, but in fairness it is right next door to one of the most weird countries in the world.
ideapete, your honcho’s phrase in full would be “Veni — vedi — cacavi!”