YouTube To Kill IE6 Support On March 13 282
Joel writes "Over six months ago, Google announced it would start phasing out support for Internet Explorer 6 on Orkut and YouTube, and started pushing its users to modern browsers. The search giant has now given a specific kill date for old browser support on the video website: 'Support stops on March 13th. Stopped support essentially means that some future features on YouTube will be rolled out that won't work in older browsers.'"
Finally (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
FINALLY
Re: (Score:2)
__try_finally
Re: (Score:2)
FINALLY!
Re:Finally (Score:4, Informative)
Finally, but in replacement, Youtube is likely upgrading to their new "beta" interface they've been testing for quite some time, which has (IMO) really poor functionality, and looks like the Hulu.com's interface designer's scrappy younger brother designed (which is totally unusable, btw). No wonder they're dropping IE6 support; the new interface is such shit IE6 probably can't handle it.
I think I'll cut support too. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
>>>will simply see a screen telling them they need to upgrade.
Why do that? Why not just simply treat IE6 users the same way you treat IE5 or IE4 users (give them the webpage, but it may not render properly).
Maybe they have a good reason for not upgrading (like owning a PowerMac or other old computer that won't anything but IE5 or IE6).
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, it looks like any impact will be extremely minimal, at least in the very short term. The only way we'll ever be rid of this thrice cursed browser is when enough company execs can't get their daily fill of kitten jumping into box videos and start asking their IT guys why.
IIRC, support for IE6 will be phased from most (if not all) Google services including Google Apps, Gmail, etc. So there's still a good chance. Also, this now gives an excuse for a lot of people, preferably including other big players, to do the same, which will hopefully happen sooner than later.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
For most companies if Google does it then it is good enough for your company too.
I have wanted to do AJAX based apps for a Long time, however I got a lot of push back. When Google Maps came out I could say that Google is using it. And it gave me a green light to improve my Web Applications.
That same with IE 6 now that Google isn't supporting it, you can make a case that you shouldn't need to do so as well, And your Boss should be happy to upgrade, Either to Firefox if he is still on Windows 2000 or lower.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Those same IT guys that have blocked YouTube to preserve bandwidth and impose IE6 so they don't have to update the Company Intranet?
IE6 is here to stay :(
Re:Finally (Score:5, Insightful)
RIP IE6
Burn in HELL, IE6!!
w00t! (Score:2, Funny)
With Youtube comes great power :)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As long as html5 is patent-free, ok. Otherwise it is clearly unacceptable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
That is why the the "industry driven" bit is there. It's an incompletely specified spec, which leaves it to be filled in with industry "standards".
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Like HTML 1-4 then. They don't specify formats for images, for example. PNG, GIF, and JPEG are all outside of the HTML spec.
There is such a thing as scope, when it comes to specs. Some things do not belong in a spec.
How does H.264 decoder hardware actually work? (Score:2)
As I understand it, Theora is simple enough that a handheld device that relies on dedicated hardware for H.264 can sometimes decode Theora at 320x240 or 480x272 partly or fully in software.
But how does H.264 decoder hardware actually work? Does it involve putting an H.264 stream on one pin and getting decompressed RGB video on another? Or is the codec split between a CPU that parses the bit stream and a DSP that performs things like cosine transform and YUV conversion, operations that should be reusable
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, they're usually a "black box" you throw data at and get back video. See Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No simple answer. Some stuff basically takes the full compressed video into the hardware, and then you trust it when it says that video i
Re: (Score:2)
personally, I am not fond of html5 either. The competing standard XHTML 2 is better (for instance is specifies the DOM structure, effectively eliminating most cross browser javascript issues), but it breaks backwards compatibility. With HTML 5 we will still need to use cross browser compatibility libraries or custom javascript for every nit picking issue with each browsers DOM model.
Re: (Score:2)
Good Riddance! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem is merely one of semantics.
IE6 == web browser // Major problem // No problem
IE6 != web browser AND IE6 == Corporate network app viewer
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
IE6 == web browser // Major problem // No problem
IE6 != web browser AND IE6 == Corporate network app viewer
Just use Firefox or Chrome + IETab. I don't get it why those big corporations don't understand this.
Re: (Score:2)
Good riddance? Sounds like you assume this means more than it does. Google won't stop IE6 users on YouTube. It's about future features that may not work.
Next up, IE7 (Score:5, Interesting)
IE7 is almost as much of an albatross as IE6 was.
CSS support is such, that if you want pixel perfect layout, you are looking at a seperate style sheet; and if you just serve the standards compliant sheet, your page will look like ass.
Update all "ie6 must die" campaigns, to "ie7 must die".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't get your hopes up for IE9.
All IE versions including IE8 have a subtle knife to hold back web progress. IE doesn't style unknown elements without the hideous HTML5 shiv hack [ejohn.org].
Re: (Score:2)
IE7 is almost as much of an albatross as IE6 was.
The benefit of IE7 is that it doesn't support IE6 apps, and there are no IE7-specific apps like with IE6. So upgrading to IE8 or IE9 etc won't be such a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly my thought. Just that I include every IE ever with the Trident engine.
I will only let MS off the hook, if they do a complete rewrite of that mess.
The reason? Because Trident is a MS-typical upside-down pyramid. You know, like Windows ME. Or MS Office.
It desperately needs a redesign of the core architecture.
But I’m fair. If MS really does that, they will get my respect. As that new engine would most likely blow even Firefox out of the water. (Gecko still is way too close to Netscape Navigator 4
IE8 sucks too. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Next up, IE7 (Score:5, Insightful)
If you want to be standards compliant, you'll throw away the outdated notion of a pixel-perfect lay-out. It's all about flexible lay-outs.
Re:Next up, IE7 (Score:5, Insightful)
Amen brother! Now if we could just get rid of all the sucky "web designers" with their pre-historic web concepts.
"Here's a cool picture of a web page I made with Dreamweaver, now you have to make it work for real, and don't take to long and it has to look exactly like my picture." - I got so sick of that crap. Little newb idiots that don't get the concept of liquid layout and insist on "pixel perfect".
IE 6 Not dead in the workplace, doesn't matter (Score:4, Interesting)
But in the break room (Score:2)
They don't want their users watching videos while they should be working.
Yet some companies still keep IE 6 on the PC in the break room.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. I've recently worked for/with a couple of large companies (100,000+ employees) that still included IE6 on XP SP 3 to support some legacy apps. They *ALSO* included Firefox -- or a link to download it internally -- for everything else.
I've seen very few places in the last couple of years that mandated IE6 and IE6 ONLY.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, what workplace do you work in, that hasn’t done any Windows Updates for a couple of years, putting the company as a whole at huge risks?
Even without talking about Firefox... WTF?
I mean all I would need to wreck your whole company to bankrupcy, would be someone from your company surfing on my prepared site...
The holes are well-known. And IE6 won’t be fixed anymore.
That’s all it would take for you to lose your job!!
Now of course I wouldn’d do that to you, as I’m not a
Hooray! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hooray! (Score:4, Funny)
Yes. It's still very usable, and upgrading your computer to something that'll run slower and not make you more productive is dumb.
Important Clarification: (Score:5, Informative)
They are just declaring their intention to no longer subject new features to the "can it be made to work with IE6?" test.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
They are just declaring their intention to no longer subject new features to the "omfg how the f*** can I get this to work in this fscking old Microshit browser???!!" gauntlet of pain.
There, fixed that for you :-)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It should be noted that Google is not breaking youtube for IE6 users(the poor bastards). Doing so would be pretty stupid ...
Correct on both counts. From the fine article:
Implicit in the approach is an attempt to shame the user. That, combined with the presentation of a
Re: (Score:2)
It's not so much that IE6 sucks as that it's outdated. At release, IE6 was a perfectly reasonable choice of browser. It might not have been a *good* browser, but there wasn't much choice, and in particular there were no exceptional alternatives, especially for free, so it was a reasonable one.
The problem is the aforementioned release is nearly a decade ago. If anybody were still using the Gecko/Mozilla codebase from back then (I don't think it was even open sourced yet, though I might be wrong there) you ca
Re: (Score:2)
Doing so would be pretty stupid.
Sorry, but that is very stupid. (Especially since you brought no base argument why.)
People like you always assume doing that would cause raging torch-carrying mobs on the streets, because people are completely unable/unwilling to change anything in their life. (Which is already flawed logic, since becoming a raging mob is already a change.)
Repeat this with me: The only reason people are unwilling to change things, is because you trained them to expect it in the first place!
You know what would happen in real
Interesting precedent, content imposing software (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. They're not imposing anything; IE6 will still "work" with Youtube for basic functionality. Google are simply saying that they will no longer actively support IE6 and therefore cannot be sure that any future additions to the site will work correctly, or at all with it.
IE6 over 9 years old and it wasn't exactly top of the technology & standards tree when it was released. The only reason it's been supported this long is because XP refuses to die and people have only really started to adopt IE8
Re: (Score:2)
Websites have been "imposing" browser limitations for years, largely because browser interoperability was a huge issue just a few years ago.
Granted, IE6 was a significant contributor to that mess, since IE6 was Microsoft's "extinguish" phase of their attempt to "embrace, extend, extinguish" the Web a decade ago. They provided inexpensive and well-designed web development tools that put out code that only their own web browser could read, then upgraded both the tools and the browser once they realized the wh
And businesses rejoice!!! (Score:2, Redundant)
And businesses lose out!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
YouTube is increasingly becoming an important tool, especially in marketing and training. For example, search for "PMP Certification", "ITIL", "iso 9000" on YouTube. Not to mention any number of technical skill areas.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention that it's trivial for businesses who don't want their users watching videos to simply block the site at the firewall.
Trivial, but more obviously their choice. If YouTube stops working for their people by circumstance beyond their control (it no longer working on the company's chosen standard browser) they'll get less complaints (or at least less complaints that they can't just say "not our fault guv" to) than if it stops working because they explicitly block it.
It could actually work in favor of people getting upgrades. If the PHBs start being inconvenienced maybe they'll demand the upgrade option gets taken seriously. Ac
Great... (Score:2)
Now we'll never get rid of it in corporate IT...
PHB: I hear IE6 can no longer be used for viewing Youtube. IE6 is now mandatory for all employees.
Re: (Score:2)
Yay, but (Score:2)
Most of the people using IE6 are corporations, and not allowing their workers/students to watch youtube would most likely be a feature for them anyways.
IE7 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It implements something vaguely resembling the specs, which is a damn sight better than 6 does.
Ideally, IE6, 7, and all sites designed for them should be cast into a fiery pit and wrought anew respecting proper standards.
But since that is not possible, we shall have to compromise and I will take some improvement over none at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on if the person you are asking knows anything about browsers.
IE7 and 8, and in fact every software with the Trident engine, is not considered a browser at all by professional web developers. ;)
The Trident “engine” ” or rather “upside-down pyramid architecture” — in the deciding factor.
STW (Score:2)
I worked as a researcher at the University of Twente for a project that was funded by STW [www.stw.nl], the Dutch funding agency for applied physics reseach. In 2007 STW forced us to use their new online database which turned out to be powered by MS crapware. It was completely unusable when you tried to approach it with Firefox, and even with IE6 it generated massive amounts of the most horrible error messages when you uploaded a file. After two hours on the phone with one of their 'supporters' who kept telling us to us
An enterprise-ready turd (Score:2)
The various coverage of the absurd longevity of IE6 recently has made me feel pretty good about my decision to move my career away from things Web-related. The pain of trying to make a modern website work with a 9 year old & buggy-as-shit browser is something I never wish to go through. IE6 is something I would maybe fire up for a bit of ironic nostalgia, typing in various URLs, giggling at how badly it renders and remembering that this is what the internet used to be like, before remembering that peopl
Re: (Score:2)
Here's an idea for Mozilla and Google. Make your browsers configurable by Active Directory Group Policy Objects so that they can be locked down in "enterprise" environments like IE can be. This is surely the biggest barrier to corporate uptake of Firefox, Chrome, etc?
I've said it repeatedly, but I usually get shouted down as a luser windoze admin who is apparently incapable of managing my domain(s) correctly. Firefox doesn't even store or read any (user-level) settings from the registry, so I can't just roll my own ADMX templates either.
Clearly what I should be doing is scripting scheduled tasks to run on every machine on the network on a regular basis that edit the prefs.js file in each users' Firefox profile and configures proxy & security settings there - couldn'
DIE! DIE! DIE! (Score:2)
'Nuff said.
Beware the Ides of March (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft does not support Opera.
Nevertheless, I wonder if there is some cut and paste code to automatically ban ie6 users from your website and redirect them to a browser choice website.
Re: (Score:2)
etc.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Of which these sites are also registered:
If I was a proactive sort of person, I would register *ie8*.com from your list, because the day will come where history will repeat itself. Maybe register *ie9*.com too, if you want to be really forward planning.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:One has to wonder (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, IE6 is a decade old. In internet years, that's about four or five generations old. It's time to drag corporations* into the modern age, even if they're kicking and screaming the entire way.
*After all, we know it's only corporations that still use IE6 because nobody in their right mind _chooses_ to remain with IE6 on their personal computers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:One has to wonder (Score:5, Funny)
It's time to drag corporations* into the modern age, even if they're kicking and screaming the entire way.
It's just that the users will be the one that will be kicking and screaming. One of my colleagues was unable to play videos from YouTube, was frustrated, but assumed that there's no way of doing that. She didn't notice the (a) continue to video link, (b) upgrade to one of these comment. Someone should upgrade the users first. :D
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's time to drag corporations* into the modern age, even if they're kicking and screaming the entire way.
Actually, this will most likely not have ANY affect on Corporate use of IE6, as most Corporation Masters hate things like YouTube as Time wasters. So it is with great glee that they will continue to demand using IE 6 for as long as they can.
Re: (Score:2)
Except, that the time wasters themselves are the PHBs.
As a web guy forced to deal with this corporate bullshit, the excuse is always "we have critical apps" but nobody can ever name them.
The REAL reason is they have unpatched windows2000 servers with huge security holes in them, unpatched windows2000 workstations with huge security holes in them and they are either too stupid, lazy, or cheap to do anything about it.
So they continually foist "we need this" shit on everybody else.
The "need" for IE6 by
Re: (Score:2)
You're right, but for the wrong reasons.
PHB are avert to change, and that is why you still have all those legacy systems in place. Those systems do exactly the same thing they did 10 years ago, and therefore "don't need to be changed".
At some level, they are right, but who wants to go back to DOS just because it did exactly what it was supposed to do?
The hardest thing an organization can do is "manage change", yet it is this "change" that drives innovation.
When I run into a PHB that is like that, I simply a
Re: (Score:2)
I work with a number of international nonprofits. Tracking data from their sites indicates that IE6 is still in use for 20-25% of their traffic. Admittedly, some of these sites get traffic from poorer countries where the technology is not at par with the U.S., but still... on those sites, we need to continue IE6 compatability.
Re: (Score:2)
Those kicking and screaming will be the employees at the corporations who're surfing YouTube instead of doing their work.
When the uproar finally reaches a volume that upper management can hear it, the first question will be "Why are you watching YouTube videos on our time?" That might be enough for the decision to be made that IE6 stays in order to make the employees more productive.
Seriously, if you're a corporate exec making the technology decisions and you're faced with the choice:
Upgrade the browsers a
Re: (Score:2)
This message is brought to you by both.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh ... it is really easy to install IE8 on XP.
He didn't say otherwise, but merely that upgrading from IE6 "often means a Windows OS upgrade", which is true for anybody using Windows 2000.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
From a market perspective, they would be morons to lock out any potential customers; but you'd probably have to prove pretty deliberate malfeasance in order to get anything legally actionable,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For the next version of Exchange supports the full OWA on all modern browsers (and IE6 for good measure). Pretty sure it doesn't actually work with Firefox 1.0, although I haven't tried.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
If IE6 weren't from Microsoft, but still had the same endemic big security problems, being actively exploited from everywhere, not interest in fixes from the making company and being used still by 10-20% of internet, specially in the corporate world, probably Google would phase out the support anyway.
Regarding Microsoft/Bing, Firefox never had so big holes, and so actively exploited, like IE6. And anyway old versions have very low usage, and odds are high that that users dont visit bing (most of its nice
Re: (Score:2)
No, there would be no outcry if Microsoft Bing does not support Netscape 6. In fact, does it now?
Google IS dumping older versions of FF (Score:5, Informative)
RTFA
Google IS dumping older versions of Firefox as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
yup, my eeepc 901 is as updated as the base distro will let me be, and youtube is about to drop support for that also. If I cared I would put a different linux on it, but loss of youtube access just isnt going to kill me. Many current flash sites wont work at all, without a big declaration of non-support, the boxes just dont do anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but no-one cares, since Firefox users already switched on their brain, to install FF in the first place. So they are usually already using the latest version. :)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Nobody would even notice. Does ANYBODY actually use Bing?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Stupid mods, read first: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_about_the_word_ [wikipedia.org]"niggardly"
To quote a famous African-American actor:
"ENGLISH, MOTHERFUCKER! DO-YOU-SPEAK-IT?"
Re: (Score:2)
I'm guessing there's a reason they posted AC....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, youtube wouldn't stop bitching about me using an older version of firefox (to escape the craptastic "awesome bar") on every. single. fucking. page. I finally had to resort to changing the general.useragent.extra.firefox to 3.6.
There are better options [lmgtfy.com].