Microsoft Says.. Death To Old Internet Exploders !

[Lew Zealand]

mikebw wrote:
[quote=Speedy]
I still use IE5 for the Mac weekly.

Are you going for some world record on the longest continuous user of a crappy browser?
It's probably the best OS 9 browser available.

[Speedy]

No, it is just handy for what I need to do. And as long as I use my G5 (10.5.8) I'll use IE5 for specific tasks. Otherwise I use Firefox and Safari.

mikebw wrote:
[quote=Speedy]
I still use IE5 for the Mac weekly.

Are you going for some world record on the longest continuous user of a crappy browser?

[cbelt3]

heh.. Tuned on Mosaic last week to show the kids. And guess what ? Much of CERN's site still renders okay.

[digby]

Lew Zealand wrote:
[quote=mikebw]
[quote=Speedy]
I still use IE5 for the Mac weekly.

Are you going for some world record on the longest continuous user of a crappy browser?
It's probably the best OS 9 browser available.
It rocks System 7.5.1, too... (System 8 looks too showy, so I'm staying with what works).

[M A V I C]

JoeH wrote:
[quote=mattkime]
IE6 is not dying fast enough. and i'm not sure this will do enough to help.

PS, cbelt, bad tech choices are not MS's fault.

Well, in this case they are partly MS's fault. Their lack of compatibility between versions of IE has many older software that interfaces with it stuck using an older version to work right. Some applications have had to completely redo their display interfaces to work right with newer versions of IE, that level of code rewrite has not always been cost effective to justify.
Ms's fault? No, you just described their business model. That's the way they work. It's the fault of the company for buying into the MS stack and not planning to buy into changes.

[JoeH]

M A V I C wrote:
[quote=JoeH]
[quote=mattkime]
IE6 is not dying fast enough. and i'm not sure this will do enough to help.

PS, cbelt, bad tech choices are not MS's fault.

Well, in this case they are partly MS's fault. Their lack of compatibility between versions of IE has many older software that interfaces with it stuck using an older version to work right. Some applications have had to completely redo their display interfaces to work right with newer versions of IE, that level of code rewrite has not always been cost effective to justify.
Ms's fault? No, you just described their business model. That's the way they work. It's the fault of the company for buying into the MS stack and not planning to buy into changes.
Lots of companies bought into the MS stack, mostly based on promises MS failed to keep. Many of the changes were unilateral by MS, not something they made it easy to "buy into". Took most of them a while to learn, some never learned that they could not depend on anything MS promised. Afterwards it all depended on how much it would cost to redo things versus the option of sticking with IE 6 or 6.5. Many did just that, it was cheaper. So like I said, still partly MS's fault.

[M A V I C]

JoeH wrote:
[quote=M A V I C]
[quote=JoeH]
[quote=mattkime]
IE6 is not dying fast enough. and i'm not sure this will do enough to help.

PS, cbelt, bad tech choices are not MS's fault.

Well, in this case they are partly MS's fault. Their lack of compatibility between versions of IE has many older software that interfaces with it stuck using an older version to work right. Some applications have had to completely redo their display interfaces to work right with newer versions of IE, that level of code rewrite has not always been cost effective to justify.
Ms's fault? No, you just described their business model. That's the way they work. It's the fault of the company for buying into the MS stack and not planning to buy into changes.
Lots of companies bought into the MS stack, mostly based on promises MS failed to keep. Many of the changes were unilateral by MS, not something they made it easy to "buy into". Took most of them a while to learn, some never learned that they could not depend on anything MS promised. Afterwards it all depended on how much it would cost to redo things versus the option of sticking with IE 6 or 6.5. Many did just that, it was cheaper. So like I said, still partly MS's fault.
First of off, MS didn't promise anything regarding this. Secondly, they're all about generating revenue for their vendors. Deploying a system that wont require major changes every few years is certainly never something they've ever promised. That's the nature of their business. Register for the free level of their partner program and read what they tell their vendors and this will be even more clear to you.

Buying into proprietary IE 6 stuff is completely the fault of the company that bought into it. Again, that's how MS works.

[M A V I C]

Oh, and even if Microsoft "promised" to support IE6 for 10 years, thinking they would live up to it is contrary to how they work.

In reality, MS markets concepts all the time and if a company fell for the marketing spew, that's 100% their own fault.