World's first 'tax' on Microsoft's Internet Explorer 7

puffishoes

Dravokivich wrote: »

It is never a Sys Admins decision.

Well that's not true in a lot of smaller companies it is as there's only one person to make it.

If MS is not offering support for IE6 well no IT department should be regardless of who's making the decision.

puffishoes

Einhard wrote: »

Hilarious that on top of all the other petty snobberies in the world, we now have browser snobbery!

this is not new.

Dravokivich

puffishoes wrote: »

Well that's not true in a lot of smaller companies it is as there's only one person to make it.

If MS is not offering support for IE6 well no IT department should be regardless of who's making the decision.

Take note of 3 things:

1) I said corporate environments, which would refer to a large user base.
2) My comment was for SW versioning which is generally upto Change Control, "Sys Admins" (which isn't even a term used in IT) are generally participents, but don't determine policy.
2) The OP references IE7, not IE6.

Pushtrak

I was happy with Chrome for a long time. Though, got fed up of it crashing and having that sign in to google thing that was part of chrome, and application specific passwords. It'd crash, and suddenly predictive text on urls was gone. Normally you type the first letter of whatever site you want to go on to, and it'll come up, but if it crashes you'll have to sign in and feck about with application specific passwords again.

Have moved on to Opera now, though. I moved to Chrome because I wasn't happy with Firefox any more. Though I hear the latest version is quite good. I haven't had Opera crash one me yet in the 2 weeks I've been using it. The home page is great, you can set as many pages to the speed dial as you want. Have something like 70. Biggest issue is that when a new version comes out it doesn't seem to want to automatically update as per the other browsers which isn't great but in terms of performance am finding it a lot better. No crashes, very few slowdowns.

I can't imagine going back to IE except when on another PC when I'm downloading another browser.

puffishoes

Dravokivich wrote: »

Take note of 3 things:

1) I said corporate environments, which would refer to a large user base.
2) My comment was for SW versioning which is generally upto Change Control, "Sys Admins" (which isn't even a term used in IT) are generally participents, but don't determine policy.
2) The OP references IE7, not IE6.

You referenced IE 6.

puffishoes

Pushtrak wrote: »

I can't imagine going back to IE except when on another PC when I'm downloading another browser.

I generally flick around most of the well known ones.

IE 9 is pretty solid I think the IE bashing will be attached to IEx regardless tho.

Dravokivich

puffishoes wrote: »

You referenced IE 6.

Whoops my mistake sorry, meant to say legacy or something of the sort. dam.

Stark

Stark wrote: »

Would you expect to be able to buy stuff online using Netscape 3?

No, just put up a screen that says that that version is no longer supported and to use something else. There are alternatives, just don't try to take extra money off people who probably don't know better and are quite likely not well off.

I don't support companies that encourage "planned obsolescence", I disagree with the principal that we must replace perfectly working stuff with newer stuff just because someone decides it's too old!

If it is no longer capable of doing the job intended or is wasteful relative to current models, then that's a different story.

SmilingLurker

I was looking at stats for a company that does 85+% of its business online. All Irish people would know the brand. A huge amount of work goes into ie6.... The company had hits from ie5!!!!

Excellent idea. Supporting old ie cost the company in question a fortune... Which all customers had to pay indirectly.

IE upgrades are free for licenced software. If unlicensed, I do not approve, but chrome and Firefox and others are free and better.

Kev_2012

Eoin wrote: »

So don't fix them and display a message recommending that the customer uses a different browser, rather than this type of arrogance from this company.

Many companies want their work to look well cross-browser, the extra cost in fixing these issues is very high. Why should design and software companies have to foot the bill for the end user's ignorance? This is a message to update the browser by the way, it's just making sure that it is changed rather than suggesting it.

Dravokivich wrote: »

...you should know that in corperate environments there tends to be a big emphasise on version control for the software used by the end user.

A lot of people doing online shopping, might wish to do so while on lunch, but would be put off here if they are required to use IE6 in work.

Well if that's what it takes. I really don't understand why it is such a big deal to run Windows updates. These are most often for security reasons also, so it would be fairly negligent of the IT support staff/company not to have these run automatically tbh.

hardCopy

Deleted User wrote: »

No, just put up a screen that says that that version is no longer supported and to use something else. There are alternatives, just don't try to take extra money off people who probably don't know better and are quite likely not well off.

I don't support companies that encourage "planned obsolescence", I disagree with the principal that we must replace perfectly working stuff with newer stuff just because someone decides it's too old!

If it is no longer capable of doing the job intended or is wasteful relative to current models, then that's a different story.

A complete redirect terminates the transaction and prevents the purchase. This way if someone is in too much of a hurry to install a new browser they can just pay the "tax".

Older versions of IE (and most browsers) are no longer fit for purpose.

hooradiation

Deleted User wrote: »

There are alternatives, just don't try to take extra money off people who probably don't know better and are quite likely not well off.

Fair point, internet browsers ARE very expensive.....

Dravokivich

Kev_2012 wrote: »

Well if that's what it takes. I really don't understand why it is such a big deal to run Windows updates. These are most often for security reasons also, so it would be fairly negligent of the IT support staff/company not to have these run automatically tbh.

In such circumstances risks are outlined by IT Management, CTO's sign off on them and then work continues on.

hooradiation

hooradiation wrote: »

Fair point, internet browsers ARE very expensive.....

Does ie8 run on windows 2000 or ME?
How many people use computer that are still windows 2000 or ME?
usually poorer people.

But I did also say people who are not computer literate as well, there are free alternatives but some of these people are incapable of upgrading to use them.

hooradiation

Deleted User wrote: »

Does ie8 run on windows 2000 or ME?

Firefox explicitly supports Win 2k, opera and chrome will also run.

You're welcome.

Stark

Actually Firefox have dropped support for Windows 2000. Too much effort to keep supporting it and it was holding back more useful features. (Versions up to 12 will still run though).

They'd be better off using some variant of Linux than that Windows ME ****e anyway if they're too poor to afford upgraded hardware (which is pretty cheap these days anyway).

hooradiation

Stark wrote: »

Actually Firefox have dropped support for Windows 2000. Too much effort to keep supporting it and it was holding back more useful features. (Versions up to 12 will still run though).

I'm still on 12, which explains that.

Stark wrote: »

They'd be better off using some variant of Linux than that Windows ME ****e anyway if they're too poor to afford upgraded hardware (which is pretty cheap these days anyway).

basically the whole "oh noes the poor" angle is amazing bullshit as is the "but they might be dumb" angle.

If anything people who know fuck all about how computers work are goddamn savants at downloading and installing stuff from the internet, it's not going to beyond them to do it with something useful for a change.

Pushtrak

hooradiation wrote: »

Firefox explicitly supports Win 2k, opera and chrome will also run.

You're welcome.

His point was it'd be far easier to link to a source to download these than to try and make out like its a big inconvenience having an antiquated system. Lots of sites have notes of recommended browsers to use.

puffishoes

Stark wrote: »

Actually Firefox have dropped support for Windows 2000. Too much effort to keep supporting it and it was holding back more useful features. (Versions up to 12 will still run though).

They'd be better off using some variant of Linux than that Windows ME ****e anyway if they're too poor to afford upgraded hardware (which is pretty cheap these days anyway).

Although no proof, if someone is using ME god forbid or win2k I would imagine it's lack of technical knowledge rather than a price/class/cost issue.

My mother for example could afford a copy of Windows 7 but would have no idea why she would need it as for her window 2k would do today what it did 12 years ago for _her_

christmas2012

no way im using that theres enough tax in life already **** that!

JJJJNR

Those in social housing/ghost estates don't have to pay it.

oops got a bit cross-threaded there.

hooradiation

Pushtrak wrote: »

His point was it'd be far easier to link to a source to download these than to try and make out like its a big inconvenience having an antiquated system. Lots of sites have notes of recommended browsers to use.

I fail to see why they are under any goddamn obligation to be nice to people who can't be bothered to avail of free upgrades or alternatives.

This 'tax' costs nothing to get around, the hand wringing over this is amazing to behold.

runawaybishop

Pushtrak wrote: »

His point was it'd be far easier to link to a source to download these

They do

conor.hogan.2

Deleted User wrote: »

No, just put up a screen that says that that version is no longer supported and to use something else. There are alternatives, just don't try to take extra money off people who probably don't know better and are quite likely not well off.

I don't support companies that encourage "planned obsolescence", I disagree with the principal that we must replace perfectly working stuff with newer stuff just because someone decides it's too old!

If it is no longer capable of doing the job intended or is wasteful relative to current models, then that's a different story.

This is what they did, if you did not download another browser then you pay the tax.

IE7 is old, it is hardly "perfectly working" not even MS would recommend it. IE 9 or at least 8 is ok.

Deleted User wrote: »

Does ie8 run on windows 2000 or ME?
How many people use computer that are still windows 2000 or ME?
usually poorer people.

But I did also say people who are not computer literate as well, there are free alternatives but some of these people are incapable of upgrading to use them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Windows#Usage_share

0.10% ??

xp, vista, 7 (and 8) all support IE8+

Capt'n Midnight

mcmoustache wrote: »

Wtf! When did people stop sending GET requets to servers, receive html and just imagine what the page might look like?

I feel old.

Maybe they are using POST.

Capt'n Midnight

Breakdown of time for modern web design

http://www.boogdesign.com/b2evo/media/breakdown.png

UglyBolloxFace

I agree with this.

The rendering involved for IE is a significant amount.

If a customer can't do the simple task of downloading/using a compatible browser in order to use their website without the IE tax, well then they deserve to be ripped for this tax.

It's just a tax on stupidity when ye think of it.

DjFlin

UglyBolloxFace wrote: »

I agree with this.

The rendering involved for IE is a significant amount.

If a customer can't do the simple task of downloading/using a compatible browser in order to use their website without the IE tax, well then they deserve to be ripped for this tax.

It's just a tax on stupidity when ye think of it.

Why dont the developers just, I dunno, NOT develop for old versions of IE. Lots of websites simply say "Get a good browsers or you're not getting in."

Anyone who is using an old browser is probably the person who knows nothing about computers, ie, my grandmother, still rocking XP with IE6 and Outlook 2003.

And thats why their charging this tax, because my grandmother isnt going to understand what it is, and will probably just pay it.

Its not a tax on stupidity, its a scam.

DjFlin

DjFlin wrote: »

Why dont the developers just, I dunno, NOT develop for old versions of IE. Lots of websites simply say "Get a good browsers or you're not getting in."

Anyone who is using an old browser is probably the person who knows nothing about computers, ie, my grandmother, still rocking XP with IE6 and Outlook 2003.

And thats why their charging this tax, because my grandmother isnt going to understand what it is, and will probably just pay it.

Its not a tax on stupidity, its a scam.

+1
That's the main point of my original post, people who don't upgrade are being ripped off, though to be fair, those people are seldom going to be on-line shopping anyway.

conor.hogan.2

Deleted User wrote: »

+1
That's the main point of my original post, people who don't upgrade are being ripped off, though to be fair, those people are seldom going to be on-line shopping anyway.

So you think not letting them see the site is better than informing them to upgrade or else continue but pay a higher price?

Any home user is now on at least XP which can use IE8. Even Enterprise is on XP at least beside 0.10% on ME/2000.

Stark

For the record, they're not actually charging a tax, it's all a publicity stunt.

dublinman1990

You guys are saying a lot about private companies not having the option of switching to different browsers.

Would the Public Service take a more different approach due to costs or availability of different browsers than obviously not pay a tax to use their sites?

Kev_2012

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Breakdown of time for modern web design

http://www.boogdesign.com/b2evo/media/breakdown.png

Pff amateurs with their tables :rolleyes:

opinion guy

I don't understand why so many are getting bent out of shape over this.

The affected customers are under no obligation to buy.

If they choose not to upgrade their browser, and then they further choose to purchase at a higher price because they refuse not to upgrade their browser (rather than you know - buying somewhere else) - then they have no one to blame other than themselves.

hatrickpatrick

I'm an amateur web designed and I briefly studied web engineering.
Our assignments sometimes came with a tag, "This project must render correctly in the following browsers."

There would be a collective groan from the entire class if it said "FireFox, Safari, IE". You would know that the project was going to take many more hours of hair ripping, desk punching frustration just because of the last two letters tacked on to the objective.

Microsoft mistakenly believed that their monopoly gave them the power to swim against the tide, and they were wrong. They stubbornly refused for far too long to make their browser standards compliant, presumably because "We're microsoft, everyone else can f*ck off and do things OUR way", which resulted in newer browsers being able to do far more things than IE ever could.

MS may have finally copped on now and started releasing browsers that work, but it's too late. The horrendously bad name IE earned for itself is now permanently etched into the minds of most heavy internet users and web developers, and to be honest I'd be absolutely shocked if the brand name ever recovered. It doesn't matter if IE 9 is ok. Web developers won't even get as far as the digit 9, they'll stop reading at the letters IE and say "Not a chance, just f*ck off!"

Dude111

Nerdkiller1991 wrote:

Anything to get the old folk off of IE6, please.

Why,nothing wrong with IE6!

Seanchai

Speaking of poor old Netscape Navigator I'm so old I remember when a Norwegian company named Opera produced the world's first browser as Gaeilge. It was years before Firefox followed suit.