# YouTube and Digg Warning Users: IE6 Support Going Away



## LarryFlowers (Sep 22, 2006)

YouTube and Digg are warning users that they are no longer going to support IE6 use.

I hope this is the beginning of a trend that has been too long in coming... not that many users are still using IE6, but corporations still are and it's time they got off their collective lazy a$%^& and updated their web based applications. I don't care what they support, IE, FireFox whatever... just get off IE6. It is long past time to do this.

Larry


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

Everyone should at least be on IE7+ now. IE6 has a lot of issues and vulnerabilities in this day and age (just like any old browser).


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

Large companies have had programs built specifically for them using IE6. These companies will hold onto IE6 forever due to the cost of paying for another version of their software.


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

LarryFlowers said:


> not that many users are still using IE6


Here are screen captures from district39.org logs for June and so-far-in-July, 2009. I see more visitors using IE6 than Firefox or IE8. So, according to my statistics, I better make sure that the District 39 website, which is for a non-profit, must still render properly under Internet Exploder 6. And, yes, if you look at the District 39 Browser Compatibility page, I specifically discourage IE6 and recommend both Firefox 3 and Chrome.

And, in business eyes, if youtube and digg are no longer accessable with IE6, that's two less sites for employees to waste time on.


----------



## woj027 (Sep 3, 2007)

I work for the government out here in Oregon, and we are still using IE6, let alone the fact we moved to WinXP on a mass scale 3 years ago, and just got Windows Server 2003


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

woj027 said:


> I work for the government out here in Oregon, and we are still using IE6, let alone the fact we moved to WinXP on a mass scale 3 years ago, and just got Windows Server 2003


Kinda of the same in my Fortune 50 company.

Just got XP about 3 years ago and still using IE6 and Office 2003.
IE 7 and Office 2007 have been in testing for about 2 years but no hope of a rollout anytime soon, maybe 2010 last I heard but now we've got another merger to go thru so it'll probably be 2011, maybe. Plus too many apps will break with the move to IE7 that have no people left around that knows anything about them (do them being outsourced long ago) thus we're stuck at IE6.

Luckily Firerfox doesn't require admin rights to install so I use FF for general web browsing and IE for internal company Intranet and applications.


----------



## Zellio (Mar 8, 2009)

More corporate stupidity. IE 6 will only cost more in the long run for repairs due to holes for hackers and viruses to get into then just upgrading.

Shouldn't be surprising. Today's dumb executives are only now finding out that off shore accounts *cost more money* then keeping the jobs in america. I guess math isn't a requirement for today's executive, only the ability to swindle.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

Time for EVERYONE, EVERYWHERE to get off IE period. All versions.


----------



## Zellio (Mar 8, 2009)

SayWhat? said:


> Time for EVERYONE, EVERYWHERE to get off IE period. All versions.


Most IT techs swear by IE 7 or IE 8. They are the BEST method at locking out people who you don't want visiting certain sites. Firefox or Opera can't do what IE 7 or 8 can do for corporate IT.

That's corporate IT of course. My personal favorite browser is currently Opera beta 10.

But that is IE 7/8, IE 6 is crap. There's no reason any corporation should be using IE 6 unless the bosses are braindead and are looking to lose money due to hacking, which WILL INCREASE since they are now targets, due to more companies using IE7.

IE 6 is a giant security hole. Anybody still using it will find they get hacked alot more.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Naturally, as Windows Mobile moves toward IE6 implementation


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

Zellio said:


> More corporate stupidity. IE 6 will only cost more in the long run for repairs due to holes for hackers and viruses to get into then just upgrading.


Have you actually WORKED for a large-scale enterprise? Corporate IT is considered an _expense_ in many books, and, in this economy, an expense that has to be minimized. Even a so-called "free upgrade" costs money in testing and implementation.

Unlike the users of this board, there is a significant part of the computing population that is resistant to changes. An upgrade from IE6 to IE7/IE8 has some significant changes which requires some training in "where did that function go". Even more so when going from Office 2003 to Office 2007.

In some companies, such as financial and drug companies, they have to have locked-down environments which prevent users from even installing any software. (Some companies have even removed Flash from a normal install) Some have even implemented the draconian Citrix environment where the software sits on a server and accessed through a Terminal server.

And, if you are a IT manager, it is much easier to manage one version of the software than three. Why bother with Firefox when Internet Exploder is already pre-installed and does the same thing? Also, how many times have we been stung by "bleeding-edge" technology? Wait 2-3 years, and not only does "bleeding-edge" gets proved, it gets cheaper as well.

An example of this mentality is with my late father who ran an industrial machine shop. Years ago, we had acquired a brand-new 386DX20 with math co-processor and AutoCAD software. A few years later, I asked him about upgrading to a newer system that would improve the speed of the rendering. It was not until I was doing my own personal upgrade three years later to a Pentium 166 (fairly state of the art at that time) before he went ahead and proceeded with the upgrade. Even then, everything had to be configured to work identically to the older system. Why the delay? The older system was working PERFECTLY FINE, just a little slow. :bang


Zellio said:


> Shouldn't be surprising. Today's dumb executives are only now finding out that off shore accounts *cost more money* then keeping the jobs in america.


Source of that statement please?


Zellio said:


> I guess math isn't a requirement for today's executive, only the ability to swindle.


There are high-profile cases which can leave an impression that the sole importance is the "ability to swindle". I believe that there is more of an emphasis that you show a increasing profit and a increasing stock price quarter-over-quarter rather than long term multi-year planning. Many of the CEOs and top management have bonuses and options that are tied in to the stock price. One way to increase margins is to cut down on expenses (see above). This can cause resentment when you want to implement a system that long-term, will result in savings, but has a bit of a steep upfront cost. They see that steep up-front cost, and nix the project.


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

I agree with you Mark. In the corporate world it is not as easy as just hit the upgrade button and go....heck it is VERY easy to upgrade users on a Domain, a few clicks and an entire company can be upgraded. The fact is though that other internal things have to be changed, upgraded, invested in, and many times this is not as simple as it might seem.

It should be done, IE6 is horrible for security, but the fact is many do not and those that are trying it still takes awhile to do and lots of money invested.


----------



## Zellio (Mar 8, 2009)

Grentz said:


> I agree with you Mark. In the corporate world it is not as easy as just hit the upgrade button and go....heck it is VERY easy to upgrade users on a Domain, a few clicks and an entire company can be upgraded. The fact is though that other internal things have to be changed, upgraded, invested in, and many times this is not as simple as it might seem.
> 
> It should be done, IE6 is horrible for security, but the fact is many do not and those that are trying it still takes awhile to do and lots of money invested.


So because it takes money to upgrade, you think it's better to have a giant security hole, that if hacked, will cost tons more?

This is entirely the problem with today's dumb executives. Everything is about the next quarterly earnings.

I hate to break it to you, but the wealthiest men in the world didn't become that way by thinking of only the next quarterly earnings. People like Bill Gates, Rupert Murdoch, etc, thought ahead 5 years or more.

Corporate stupidity and not planning for the future will only ensure that these clowns will never become like that.


----------



## Zellio (Mar 8, 2009)

The simple fact is, yes, hackers could still attack a secure system, but it's ALOT MORE DIFFICULT.

The basis behind this is simply to save short term money. There's an excellent chance you will be hacked alot as hackers target you, which will end up costing the company alot more then just upgrading once, so in the end, staying with IE 6 is basically executives gambling with the company.

This is not anywhere close to a wise investment, it's simply an attempt to save short term profits by gambling.

And another thing is, IE 6 no longer being updated. Every day new attacks are made. Pretty soon companies running IE6 may find themselves in a virus cesspool.


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

No, not just money. A lot of time and effort as well. Not all things are easily upgraded and not all are just solved with money thrown at them. They have to weigh things against other factors like downtime, etc. as well. It seems simple, and it might seem just about money and whether to upgrade or not, but it is not always the case. The whole thing is very complicated in some situations. 

Add in the fact that most execs are not making the decisions directly necessarily or know fully the exact pros/cons of say sticking with IE6....instead they might be making decisions based on whether to keep or change an internal management system that requires IE6 and with other factors it very well might be the right decision to keep the system as it is or make upgrades in other areas at the time.

and IE6 still does work and its not like you run it and you die. Good A/V and lock downs tend to keep it safe....not saying that is an excuse but when there is so much effort and management needed to change something that works, sometimes it can be hard to do at that time and the worth of changing it might not be there at the current time.


This is a common case that happens a lot, the techies do not understand the execs view and the execs do not understand the techies view. Neither is necessarily right or wrong.


----------



## Zellio (Mar 8, 2009)

And for you Mark:

http://www.wisegeek.com/does-outsourcing-really-save-money.htm

The current economy is proving how outsourcing loses money. People lose their jobs and then are no longer capable of buying the companies products.

IMO, companies today could be run better if they hired chimps throwing poop at a wall.


----------



## Zellio (Mar 8, 2009)

Grentz said:


> No, not just money. A lot of time and effort as well. Not all things are easily upgraded and not all are just solved with money thrown at them. They have to weigh things against other factors like downtime, etc. as well. It seems simple, and it might seem just about money and whether to upgrade or not, but it is not always the case. The whole thing is very complicated in some situations.
> 
> Add in the fact that most execs are not making the decisions directly necessarily or know fully the exact pros/cons of say sticking with IE6....instead they might be making decisions based on whether to keep or change an internal management system that requires IE6 and with other factors it very well might be the right decision to keep the system as it is or make upgrades in other areas at the time.
> 
> and IE6 still does work and its not like you run it and you die. Good A/V and lock downs tend to keep it safe....not saying that is an excuse but when there is so much effort and management needed to change something that works, sometimes it can be hard to do.


What do you think happens when you get hacked? Not only do you take time and money in getting your machines back online, you spend time and money finding out what happened.

And no, AV can't block everything. Esp. as IE 6 gets older and older.

It's funny that in the other topic you were calling yourself an IT Consultant, yet you defend IE6 and talk about wireless access points, which also cause big security holes. No IT friend I know would ever let anybody with a foreign computer in their area of work, much less let a large security whole like wireless in.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

My organization has over 100K desktops still running IE6 ... I can't tell you how much I hate it and how much I look forward to IE7 simply so I can have tabs.

At least they're currently going through integration testing - my hope is we'll have IE7 by the end of the year.


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

Zellio said:


> What do you think happens when you get hacked? Not only do you take time and money in getting your machines back online, you spend time and money finding out what happened.
> 
> And no, AV can't block everything. Esp. as IE 6 gets older and older.
> 
> It's funny that in the other topic you were calling yourself an IT Consultant, yet you defend IE6 and talk about wireless access points, which also cause big security holes. No IT friend I know would ever let anybody with a foreign computer in their area of work, much less let a large security whole like wireless in.


You have no idea obviously how expensive some of these systems are that need upgrading.

I am not defending IE6, I said before that it is horrible and I truly believe anyone still running it is stupid. Sometimes it is not easy to get away from it though and there lies the problem. It is fully the fault of IT though not planning ahead properly and then getting stuck in a dead end of sorts. No A/V can protect fully against everything, and security holes are an issue...but what I was referring to is that sometimes companies have it locked down so far that people only can surf a few known good sites and thus the security risks are minimal (one office I was at had a whitelist of only around 15 sites that were all vendors and suppliers internal sites known to be very secure). Its still not an excuse as what if one of those sites were compromised? But what ifs can go on forever in the IT world and everything has to be weighed.

Almost all my clients are setup and updated to the latest and greatest ASAP to protect against security holes and issues...but it had to be planned and they have spent a lot of money with some of their internal systems to get it to be flexible into the future like that.

If you want to start the wireless debate, I will tell you right now that that is not always an option to not have wireless in this day and age in the workplace. Your friends are lucky if none of their clients or workplaces require it, but guess what, many do. Sometimes it is just required for one reason or another...when it is you work forward and find the most secure way to implement it for their needs. In some cases, if the wireless clients only need internet, it can involve isolation of the wireless which will protect the internal network extremely well.

If you are trying to tell me that no businesses use wireless securely all I can do is laugh. Why do you think Cisco and others make enterprise wireless systems and extremely secure login and network protection systems? Not every company is the same and they all have their own unique needs.


----------



## Zellio (Mar 8, 2009)

Grentz said:


> You have no idea obviously how expensive some of these systems are that need upgrading.
> 
> I am not defending IE6, I said before that it is horrible and I truly believe anyone still running it is stupid. Sometimes it is not easy to get away from it though and there lies the problem. It is fully the fault of IT though not planning ahead properly and then getting stuck in a dead end of sorts. No A/V can protect fully against everything, and security holes are an issue...but what I was referring to is that sometimes companies have it locked down so far that people only can surf a few known good sites and thus the security risks are minimal (one office I was at had a whitelist of only around 15 sites that were all vendors and suppliers internal sites known to be very secure). Its still not an excuse as what if one of those sites were compromised? But what ifs can go on forever in the IT world and everything has to be weighed.
> 
> ...


No, I know tons of businesses use wireless. I don't agree with the practice and neither do my IT friends.

I do agree with this, but I try to plan ahead. What's funny is I'm currently in management classes, and I have everything mapped out ahead of me. I planned everything in advance.

I do have an idea of how expensive they are to upgrade, but I also know of how expensive it will be if hackers were to get ahold of important corporate data.


----------



## Zellio (Mar 8, 2009)

Drew2k said:


> My organization has over 100K desktops still running IE6 ... I can't tell you how much I hate it and how much I look forward to IE7 simply so I can have tabs.
> 
> At least they're currently going through integration testing - my hope is we'll have IE7 by the end of the year.


Tabs... Pssh. I'd be more concerned about business data. I mean how much are you going to have to pay if hackers get ahold of clients credit card numbers?

All of this is playing with fire, and somebody will be burned.

Seriously, if you ask me, why do employees need lcds? Crts get the job done. There's an expense gone. If the crt is dying upgrade it, or if the person has eye issues.

Computer upgrades are important for certain things, esp. better cpus. But security is a must.


----------



## Zellio (Mar 8, 2009)

In all honesty, what is the use of a pretty office, and billboards with your name on them, company jets, etc, if you fall to any script kiddie?

In all honesty, are companies TRYING to mimic Paris Hilton?

Alot of times it seems people are more interested in lcds outside the office with the company logo then doing things with any sort of responsibility.

If it was up to me all non essential company crap would be gone and replaced with directives made to help the company grow over time.


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

The trick is, now that I can see we are starting to come to a bit of an understanding (our viewpoints are not as far off as we might think), that you compartmentalize your assets.

If an employees browser is hacked, there should not be a way for the very sensitive data to be accessed easily from the employees computer. The idea is that you compartmentalize your assets so that they are protected and if one gets compromised, everything does not fall. A hacker might grab hold of an employees system, but now they have to hack into other areas to get anywhere useful.

Now this is way overkill for small or even medium sized businesses in most cases. But large corporate setups like we are talking about here usually should have something implemented like that as it really beefs up security and helps in many other ways too.

Touching on the wireless issue one more time, there is no reason wireless has to be a huge security issue. Implemented properly it should pose very little issue and really not much more than bringing a public internet connection into the office. In fact in some cases even less of a threat! Especially if it is only for internet (which many times really is all IT let wireless be used for), it is very easy to separate it off from anything important.


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

In most cases LCDs will pay for themselves in energy cost rather quickly..

and as far as upgrading, I love it if my company could get out of the antique Unix crap they are using.. no edit,sort,mouse or anything


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

lol, the best is a tax client I have...still has to run a Windows 95 machine that has a few DOS apps on it to be able to open some of the old tax records for some of their clients. Ughh I loathe that thing!

Brings up another good point, sometimes companies are at the will of the software company they use, and that can be nasty as well


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

Zellio said:


> And for you Mark:
> 
> http://www.wisegeek.com/does-outsourcing-really-save-money.htm


That's nice. How about some hard numbers?

(Sorry, not only am I a tech, I'm also a former machinist and a Business Administration-MIS Major)


----------



## Zellio (Mar 8, 2009)

Grentz said:


> The trick is, now that I can see we are starting to come to a bit of an understanding (our viewpoints are not as far off as we might think), that you compartmentalize your assets.


I'm imagining not. I know the costs involved but responsibility trumps it, but I'm also only beginning what is to be a career. As an IT consultant I can imagine time and again companies cutting whatever corners they can which would quickly silence any reason or responsiblity and move you to finding any way you can help the company.

With any luck in 5 years I'll probably be talking just like you. :nono2:

But in all honesty, while you can't 'backseat drive' a company, responsibility isn't something thats created. It's not earned. It's something you do when you grow up. I don't want to discount these words just because I don't have front hand company experience, because this IS what the richest people did do. And I'd rather be a Bill Gates then a... 5 million a year guy.


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

Zellio said:


> It's funny that in the other topic you were calling yourself an IT Consultant, yet you defend IE6 and talk about wireless access points, which also cause big security holes. No IT friend I know would ever let anybody with a foreign computer in their area of work, much less let a large security whole like wireless in.


In a perfect world, we would be running the latest software, and not worry about backwards compatibility. We also wouldn't worry about employees cyberloafing and going to inappropriate websites.

Unfortunately, this is not a perfect world. The fact is that IE6 is still very commonly deployed in the desktops despite the fact that IE7 is better and more up to date. But, if it can't access an key system that is essential to my day-to-day operations, it is worthless.

Yes, I have dealt with companies who had stooopid IT decisions. Two years ago, a company was locked down with XP-SP1, and was not applying the security updates, despite the fact that SP2 was released in 2004 and SP1 had been EOL-ed for quite a while (released in 2002).

As for wireless, yes, it can be deployed securely if needed. You will need to use WPA2 security and make sure that you are using a long password that consists of upper and lowercase characters, numbers, and special characters. If you are using WEP security, then you have a much bigger security hole than IE6.


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

Zellio said:


> Alot of times it seems people are more interested in lcds outside the office with the company logo then doing things with any sort of responsibility.


Unfortunately, stuff that the managers can touch (LCD monitors) tend to get more importance than up-to-date security (why update something when the old version works PERFECTLY FINE).


----------



## Zellio (Mar 8, 2009)

Mark Holtz said:


> In a perfect world, we would be running the latest software, and not worry about backwards compatibility. We also wouldn't worry about employees cyberloafing and going to inappropriate websites.
> 
> Unfortunately, this is not a perfect world. The fact is that IE6 is still very commonly deployed in the desktops despite the fact that IE7 is better and more up to date. But, if it can't access an key system that is essential to my day-to-day operations, it is worthless.
> 
> ...


WEP? LOL. I remember coming over to my neices house when she had WEP and their were 12 people connecting to her router.

WEP is a joke, any brute force attack can kill it.

I immediately set it up for WPA 2 tkip+aes, and I made this 20 or 30 number password that I did by randomly typing letters, and had her put that on all her pcs.

I ended up later upgrading her to Wireless N.

BTW, you do know WPA can now be hacked by the latest Nvidia cards right? It's one of the security protocols, not both, that can, I believe TKIP?

It's why I use both.


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

Zellio said:


> I'm imagining not. I know the costs involved but responsibility trumps it, but I'm also only beginning what is to be a career. As an IT consultant I can imagine time and again companies cutting whatever corners they can which would quickly silence any reason or responsiblity and move you to finding any way you can help the company.
> 
> With any luck in 5 years I'll probably be talking just like you. :nono2:
> 
> But in all honesty, while you can't 'backseat drive' a company, responsibility isn't something thats created. It's not earned. It's something you do when you grow up. I don't want to discount these words just because I don't have front hand company experience, because this IS what the richest people did do. And I'd rather be a Bill Gates then a... 5 million a year guy.


Its not all about costs and responsibility! You keep bringing that up but there is much more to it which is what I am trying to explain and help you understand.

Sometimes there are lots of other things that have to be weighed into the situation, things that are not just costs vs. protection or responsibility. It really varies by the situation a lot though, which is why it is hard to be specific in explanations of it and it is not a simplistic thing...many times requiring hard decisions that dont have a clear right path.

Now, many companies should just plain upgrade and have nothing in their way of a reason not too besides exactly what you speak of, money....I am talking about the flip side of the coin though where companies have a lot of other things to weigh in other than just "upgrade or not? here's how much it will cost".


----------



## Zellio (Mar 8, 2009)

Grentz said:


> Its not all about costs and responsibility! You keep bringing that up but there is much more to it which is what I am trying to explain and help you understand.
> 
> Sometimes there are lots of other things that have to be weighed into the situation, things that are not just costs vs. protection or responsibility. It really varies by the situation a lot though, which is why it is hard to be specific in explanations of it and it is not a simplistic thing...many times requiring hard decisions that dont have a clear right path.
> 
> Now, many companies should just plain upgrade and have nothing in their way of a reason not too besides exactly what you speak of, money....I am talking about the flip side of the coin though where companies have a lot of other things to weigh in other than just "upgrade or not? here's how much it will cost".


Could you give an example then of the other things that would weigh in?


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

Best I could come up with on the fly that made sense out of a full context of a situation.

You have clients that all use software that only integrates with the management software you currently use. Everything is currently working and running fine but it requires systems with IE6 and Windows XP. The company that created the management software has decided not to support Vista/Win7 or any of the newer browsers till at least 2011.

You can move to a new management software system from another company, but this will require downtime to integrate the new systems, costs to implement them, and most importantly forcing your customers to upgrade their equipment to support the new software which you know will cause some of them to leave and go to your competitors. Your second option would be to stay with the current IE6/XP setup until 2011 when you know your current software company will have an upgrade path that will allow you backwards compatibility with the clients until they upgrade on their own time.


So obviously things are going to come back to money (that is what business is about), but not necessarily just the costs to implement them. The responsible thing for the company in the example could be to keep your current software (that is working fine in your eye) to keep your current customers. That is what I mean by no clear cut path. Remember what I said above, the techies do not always understand the execs view and the execs do not always understand the techies view.

Maybe not the best example above, but I hope you understand what I am getting at. This situation DEFINITELY does not apply to every company and there are a lot of ones just being cheap and stupid that are clinging to old software for no reason other than they dont want to spend money. I agree with you on that point that it is irresponsible of them.


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

Zellio said:


> So because it takes money to upgrade, you think it's better to have a giant security hole, that if hacked, will cost tons more?


Welcome to the world of cost-benefit and risk-reward ratios. Learn to live with then and love them, even if it means living with some drawbacks. And, even the best five-year plans get tossed in the shredder.

You said that you are getting into IT. It is a interesting field. My background is 14.5 years in a small family-owned machine shop (where I was both IT and a machinist), followed by 6.5 years at a small ISP (senior tech level). These were very small businesses, and one learns how to get stuff done with absolutely no budget. This means finding free versions of programs to get the job done.

Now, I've been working 3.5 years in technical support for a major company. This past year, we have been operating under a hiring freeze. That means NO hiring of people. This has also meant NO promotions because we can't backfill the positions. Yet, our call volume has been setting new records. My supervisor knows it, my manager knows it, and the director knows it.

Right now, under the current economy, the five year plan has been replaced by the next quarter plan. The employees are grumbling about, "More work, same pay, no bonus, no raise". Right now, spending money is the last thing the companies want to do. This means that if it works now, there is no need to upgrade at this time.

Yeah, the system sucks at time. You are left scratching your head at what seems to be "foolish" decisions. But, that's the way it is, like it or NOT.


----------



## Zellio (Mar 8, 2009)

Grentz said:


> Best I could come up with on the fly that made sense out of a full context of a situation.
> 
> You have clients that all use software that only integrates with the management software you currently use. Everything is currently working and running fine but it requires systems with IE6 and Windows XP. The company that created the management software has decided not to support Vista/Win7 or any of the newer browsers till at least 2011.
> 
> ...


Hum. I do see what you mean. The customer is always right (Yeah, alot of people ***** at me when I say that, but when it comes to gettting money, the customer is always right as long as they don't do anything illegal), and losing a customer would be bad.

Thanks for that exmaple.


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

Mark Holtz said:


> Welcome to the world of cost-benefit and risk-reward ratios. Learn to live with then and love them, even if it means living with some drawbacks. And, even the best five-year plans get tossed in the shredder.


That is what I have been trying to get at in a way as well, just for some reason couldnt piece it together simply. That is what I get for trying to get in depth after a long day and at 12am! :lol:


----------



## Zellio (Mar 8, 2009)

Mark Holtz said:


> You said that you are getting into IT.


Actually it's a bachelors in Networking Communications Management and a MBA in General Management, so I do have a tiny bit more word value then just an IT, at least if I get a job after school....


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

Zellio said:


> Actually it's a bachelors in Networking Communications Management and a MBA in General Management, so I do have a tiny bit more word value then just an IT, at least if I get a job after school....


That's the way to go IMO.

I do work in IT/Computers for small businesses but my focus is actually business as well.

It is good to try and learn/gain understanding of where both sides come from no matter what side you end up working on


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

Zellio said:


> Could you give an example then of the other things that would weigh in?


*cough*

21 CFR Part 11

*cough*


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

Zellio, we all agree that IE6 sucks.

But it doesn't have to be a security hole for a company. You'd have to hack thru massive corporate firewalls and security to break in. But then how to people get most viri? Email attachments. So secure *that* and you really lock down problems. My company rarely gets any type of hacks and the ones that do happen are the spam stuff that emails itself around but since ActiveX is *really* locked down to the point of barely functioning it doesn't do much damage.

The biggest security issue really is people using their laptops on unsecured wireless networks like at Starbucks and not using the VPN.

Why is IE6 still around here? I can't say the real answer but the biggest is because they were planning on going to Vista which would have come with IE7 but that project was killed a while ago due to Vista's death and budget cuts. On top of that there are *thousands* (I'm not kidding) apps in the company that rely on IE6 that will break with IE7/8. Seriously. AND most of the people that programmed those apps were let go loooooong ago. Thus it will cost millions to reprogram those apps. So you wait for them to naturally be replaced with new apps that come around and don't rely on IE6.

Would I have upgraded 80K people in 50+ countries to IE7 years ago? Sure. But then I'm not in charge of the budgets which keep getting cut every month. Company isn't getting hacked every day like you think happens because of the heavy security protocols in place on the network. You can take over my personal machine but it won't get you very far.

Last major upgrade this company did was from Win 95/IE4/Office 98 to XP/IE6/Office 2000 about 5 years ago. Took almost 2 years to get it all done. Office 2003 upgrade came 2 years ago. We'll probably get Office 2007 early next year but still XP/IE6. The company does push out monthly windows security updates so at least that happens.


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

I would like to see IE6 disappear like most of you guys as it has cost me a decent amount of my life working around its issues, but there is an actually reason that IE6 lives in corporate. 

A number of years back people created Applications that were IE only. These apps were created because MS dominated the browser Market. Developers would be forced to develop IE only apps because of two reasons. 

1) Cost to develop to develop multi-browser version was cost preventive in most cases. 
2) Management did not care as IE dominated the market. 
3) MS did not care to make the browser standards based because they dominated the browser market. Infact at the time they were doing things to further make this a reality like ActiveX. 
4) Since then MS has never went and updated IE6 to improve this issue. IF they had 4 years or so back we would not be having this condition. 

As a result of this behavior, corporations have a number of legacy web applications that will only run on IE6. Add that with the glacier pace corporate IT moves and you have a formula for a very slow migration cycle. MS has as much to blame as corporates for creating this environment. 

Sure MS is saying enough is enough now.. but unless MS steps up and helps big time in making sure all IE6 apps run ("Unchanged") in IE8 and provides some nice incentives to move their customer basis over it will continue to move at the slow pace it is moving. 

MS created this mess.. In my opinion they need to do more than lead the battle cry. They need to do what ever it takes to help these corporations move on. If that means help these companies move their legacy apps forward that is what they need to do. They need to eat some of the costs of this transition... 

YouTube and Digg are consumer sites and it does not surprise me of the move they are making. It makes sense given their customer base and I applaud them for it. However, it is not their user that are held hostage by IE6. Corporations are the ones that are in this hole, MS put them in there, MS needs to champion this transition with more than just words. They have to jump in to the trenches and battle next to the companies to move on.


----------



## turey22 (Jul 30, 2007)

Mark Holtz said:


> Now, I've been working 3.5 years in technical support for a major company. This past year, we have been operating under a hiring freeze. That means NO hiring of people. This has also meant NO promotions because we can't backfill the positions. Yet, our call volume has been setting new records. My supervisor knows it, my manager knows it, and the director knows it.
> 
> Right now, under the current economy, the five year plan has been replaced by the next quarter plan. The employees are grumbling about, "More work, same pay, no bonus, no raise". Right now, spending money is the last thing the companies want to do. This means that if it works now, there is no need to upgrade at this time.
> 
> Yeah, the system sucks at time. You are left scratching your head at what seems to be "foolish" decisions. But, that's the way it is, like it or NOT.


I know this thread is for IE6 but if the employees are just sitting down and taking calls why are they nagging about more work if that what they already do. I don't know what they do but it sounds like what they do is take calls.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

Zellio said:


> Tabs... Pssh. I'd be more concerned about business [other stuff]


The thread is about IE6, so I'll address only the browser portions of your quote. I said I was looking forward to IE7 simply for the tabs, which to me meant "at the least". It comes with lots of other things, but just having tabs is enough for me to long for it simply so I can eliminate open browser windows.


----------

