Microsoft: Breaking up with IE 6 hard to do
It's been roughly eight years since Microsoft released Internet Explorer 6, but in many ways the company is still very much tied to the aging product.
Although Microsoft has released two major versions of Internet Explorer in the past couple of years, for many, the face of Internet Explorer is still IE 6 in all its tabless glory.
In large part, that's because many of Internet Explorer's users are the ones who tend not to change the browser that comes with their operating system--either because that's the type of consumer they are, or because they are working on a work machine in which they are not able to upgrade to a later version of IE or switch to another browser.
Amy Barzdukas, the general manager for Internet Explorer, said in an interview this week that Microsoft's perception is "being built by a browser that was fine technology eight years ago or a decade ago."
But that's frustrating, particularly since Microsoft has invested a fair amount of effort in the last couple of years trying to rebuild IE after letting it languish for several years. Microsoft added things like tabbed browsing and a phishing filter back with Internet Explorer 7, which debuted in October 2006, and earlier this year launched Internet Explorer 8, with anti-malware features as well as a private browsing option and improved standards support.
Even with that work, though, IE 6 remains not only the most widely thought of version of Internet Explorer, but also the most widely used version of the browser, at least by a narrow margin. According to Net Applications, IE 6 accounts for 27 percent of the browser market, compared to 23 percent for IE 7. Microsoft's new IE 8 has more than 12 percent of the market, while Firefox 3.0--the most widely used version of that product--has 16 percent (See chart below).
(Credit:
Net Applications)
Overall, Microsoft has been losing ground for several years to Firefox and other browsers. After reaching near ubiquity in the post-Netscape era, IE's global market share is now less than 70 percent. However, Barzdukas is hopeful that the trend is starting to shift with the release of IE 8.
"To the extent that IE was losing share over the winter, any rate of loss has substantially slowed since we came out with IE 8, and in some geographies IE overall has actually gained significant share," Barzdukas said.
One of the biggest things that could help Microsoft, Barzdukas said, is if more people understood that there were better browser options available from Microsoft. She has taken part of that task upon herself, making a pest of herself when she is at friends' houses for dinner--checking to see what version of the browser they are using.
A growing chorus of Internet users have asked Microsoft why, if it really wants people to move to IE 7 or IE 8, it doesn't just end support for IE 6. After all, there have been plenty of calls for the death of IE 6, particularly from Web developers, who are weary of the work required to make their sites work in multiple versions of Internet Explorer, as well as Safari, Firefox, and other browsers.
For many, Internet Explorer 6, is still the face of Microsoft's browser, even though the product has been updated twice in recent years.
While in many ways, Microsoft would like that too, it is a bit of a double edged sword, since some number of IE 6 users might consider a rival if they were to switch browsers at all.
But Microsoft officials insist they simply can't end support for IE 6, since it shipped as part of Windows XP and Microsoft has pledged to business customers that it will support that operating system--and its components--for some years to come.
"Many PCs don't belong to individual enthusiasts, but to organizations," Internet Explorer chief Dean Hachamovitch said in a blog posting this week. "The people in these organizations responsible for these machines decide what to do with them. These people are professionally responsible for keeping tens or hundreds or thousands of PCs working on budget."
There, IE's fate is tied largely to broader patterns of Windows adoption. Barzdukas said most businesses won't move to a new version of IE unless they move to a new version of Windows that has a newer browser built in. So as many corporations have stuck with Windows XP, so too have they stuck with IE 6.
Beyond the question of adoption of later versions, there is also the question of whether IE doesn't need an even more radical facelift, particularly in the era where the browser is used as an engine to run applications as much as it is a tool to move from Web site to Web site.
In large part, the shifting nature of the browser is what led Google to develop its Chrome browser, and now its Chrome OS, which posits that most computing tasks these days can be done from within the browser.
Microsoft is also at least exploring the possibility that the browser might need a more significant overhaul. Its research unit has a prototype called Gazelle. In an exclusive interview last month, researcher Helen Wang told CNET News that browsers need to act more like an operating system, taking a greater role in determining which Web processes get priority in accessing a computer's resources.
"I think this is the right way to go and I think this can be practical," Wang said. "It will also take a lot of work."
For her part, Barzdukas was mum on where Microsoft is headed with Internet Explorer 9 and beyond.
"As is the case with much work (Microsoft Research) does...they are often pushing us to think in new ways, which is part the reason we have them around."
During her years at CNET News, Ina Fried has changed beats several times, changed genders once, and covered both of the Pirates of Silicon Valley. These days, most of her attention is focused on Microsoft. E-mail Ina. 
Amen
I'm sorry but your just grasping for something to troll on.
First of all Opera is just as proprietary as Microsoft is
Second of all OpenOffice looks like notepad compared to Office 2007
FF is better I will give you that.
I think that most IE6 users are in corporations. As it was mentioned in the article: "Many PCs don't belong to individual enthusiasts, but to organizations".
At my work place we still use IE6. I want to upgrade to IE8 and install firefox, but that is impossible. Until the IT people decide to do something about it, we're stuck with IE6. No wonder IE6 is still widely used.
At home things are totally different. I updated my IE to 8, and it works great. Firefox 3.5.2 is great too.
MS also sells Word, Excel, Outlook, Publisher, and Power Point as separate programs, so there ARE people who will upgrade one or more of those programs and not all programs. Comparing that with iWork users is silly, since Keynote, Numbers, etc. isn't sold separately.
How come you're always the first to reply to any MS-related article with some FUD? Have you made it your mission in life to spread FUD about them or something?
I'm going to indulge you this one last time, before writing you off as a mindless lemming.
You say: "People are wary to upgrade their Microsoft products because each time they do, they get burned in some way that ends up benefiting Microsoft."
>> Give some concrete examples of this. You'll need (1) an example of the burn. (2) how the resolution to it benefitted MS.
You say: "Sorry, you can't use the old version of Word as your email editor for your new version of Outlook. You need to send us more money."
>> 1) You're missing a burn. Outlook uses the Word *engine* not Word itself.
2) You don't even need Word installed. You can do a custom office install and deselect Word, and Outlook will still work.
3) You can even mix-and-match differnt versions of Outlook and Word (say Outlook 2007 and Word 2003 for example) on your machine, and both will still work.
4) Nobody even cares what layout engine Outlook uses. There is not one single email app (web mail or thick client) that creates standards-compliant HTML (obviously when composing in HTML mode as opposed to plain text or rich text modes). I repeat -- not one single app. That includes gmail, lotus notes, thunderbird, etc. So what the hell are you complaining about?
There was no need to indulge him that one last time. We've all written him off as mindless lemming a long time ago. Or troll. Or whatever you prefer to call people who spread misinformation and lies simply to try to rile people up. Nobody cares about Macs and he can't get over it.
I have a neighbor who upgraded to IE8 while still using XP, she was hosed due to just how resource hungry IE8 is. I installed Firefox 3.5 after making absolutely sure it wasn't just the system being that sluggish and pages were up and running almost the moment she finished typing them in. If she'd upgraded her entire OS, she wouldn't have been hosed, except for having to upgrade her CPU, RAM, HDD and everything associated with those.
By the way, it's really funny when you, of all people, call someone else a troll. I've read enough of your posts to know a troll when I see one.
@ErrantVenture
While parts of your comment make sense, Opera isn't open source and Linux is far superior to Windows. For example, I'm getting all the "new" benefits of Vista without having to pay for them, on older hardware, running faster, without having to wait for Patch Tuesday or hope for an out of cycle patch every now and again. Linux is more stable, has less need for user maintenance (read as .001% the needed user maintenance for Windows), is more organized (install an app in Linux and it's put in the appropriate category folder, easy to find) and will have a very predictable price indefinitely ($0).
@Lennron
I've known plenty of people who care about Macs. I haven't known that many who actually care about Windows though.
In a perfect world, Microsoft should have not tied Internet Explorer 7 exclusively to the release of Longhorn and instead have it in testing from 2002 for Windows XP systems and then release it in January of 2003. Firefox would have never had a foothold. Then work on cleaning up the mess of Windows Longhorn (Vista) development, incorporate it with it whenever it became ready (November 2006).
By that time, the majority of businesses would have at least had IE 7 installed on Windows XP systems, easing the transition while opening the door to a much higher adoption rate for Internet Explorer 8 while still leaving Firefox in the niche Chrome/Safari category.
Other missed opportunities for IE stranglehold included Service Pack 2 for Windows XP, if Microsoft had bundled IE 7 with it, the majority of XP systems right now would be running it. But, SP2 came out in August 2004, which was 2 years before and still in the myths of the decision to still make it exclusive to Longhorn.
Its all in the past now, just have to learn from them and move forward.
And to anyone who thinks this guy is being paid to post this post right here should dispel that notion.
1. Many custom corporate applications were coded to work with IE6 and corporations can't upgrade the browser without breaking their apps.
2. Even though it wasn't tied to SP2, IE7 as well as IE8 was pushed as an update. It wasn't installed on PC's for 4 reasons. The update was denied (see above), the computer wasn't running XP or higher, updates were turned off, or the computer could not recieve updates because windows genuine advantage detected the computer as a pirate copy of the OS.
I do agree with "Unfortunately, much of this is Microsoft's own fault."
Imagine releasing IE 7 in January 2003? It would have been considered the most innovative browser out there: Tabbed Browsed, Gallery View, Phishing Filter, simple, clean design. All of that ended up coming too late (September 2006).
Windows Vista should have been released from August of 2004 too, and Windows 7 released in October 2006. This is how it should have been, but it didn't happen. Sometimes I wish I had a time machine.
Nothing in technology is "the way of the future". At best, it's only the present. It will be the way of the past within a year. And THAT is why companies should avoid locking themselves into proprietary standards like those in IE6
Companies can keep IE6 on their PCs, to use for internal "legacy" apps and install a second "modern" browser, for everything else. When the migration of their legacy apps to current web standards is complete, they can stop using IE6.
Modern browsers offer the advantages of improved security, performance & efficiency (e.g. tabs for multiple websites). That should be justification enough, to implement a two-browser solution.
Except that you can't keep IE6 and install 7 and/or 8.
Fortunately, most corporate customers are switching to at least IE 7.0, mostly because with one instance of the browser running you can have multiple web sites accessed with tabular browsing. Switching to IE 8.0 will take longer, since Microsoft did a number of changes which may "break" corporate applications given that the default mode of IE 8.0 is standards-compliant mode.
Then, they should install Firefox/Chrome/Safari/Opera/etc., as the second browser. The key is to reduce the usage of IE6, to an absolute minimum, so the web can advance more quickly.
Do you work IT in the corporate world? I didn't think so. No! Absolutely NO! You do NOT install multiple web browsers on a corporate PC. Homes - it's okay. But you do not realize that there are more corporate PCs in the world than in homes. The 27-percent of IE6 users more likely are business PCs, since home users are more Windows Vista and Windows 7 users. To tell an employee, "Use IE for Intranet, and Firefox for Internet" just messes with people's minds and adds even more confusion on the part of the users.
I see your vehement objection, I don't see a reason for it.
Why is it that you don't install a second browser on a corporate system? If you have it set up so that only the sites needed by the staff are accessible, then only those sites are accessible, no matter the browser.
Firefox 3.5.2, just by being modern, has better security, better features, better ability to display web pages properly, etc.
I'm seeing no reason to stick with an ancient browser for anything other than legacy apps which can still run on IE6 even with a second browser installed.
Forgot to mention how contradictory your comment is.
You mentioned that home users will more likely be running Vista or Windows 7 and in the very next sentence said it would be too confusing for the employees to use one browser for in house use and one browser for use for anything no in house.
In other words, a user who can go from Vista to XP on a daily basis can't be trusted to know what's inside and what's outside.
Amen
If that was the case they would never release new versions of products think before you post.
I have no idea what you just said. Seriously.
Amen
If Microsoft didn't care about its consumers they would never release new versions of products...
IE 8 is not "completely compliant" and you are forgetting the swiss cheese API that MS created to break to the platform independence of the web: activex.
LOL
They only care about fleecing their customers. If FF hadn't taken a significant amount of market share, that threatened their monopoly, IE6 would still be their most current browser.
IE8 fully supports all current standards.
HTML5 isn't a completed standard only something developers have been having wet dreams over when they can stop arguing over what codecs to use then MS will implement it. Why implement a standard that is incomplete?
Yet again you show your M$ windows mentality. If M$ says there's only one way to do things, that's all trolls will ever know.
It's funny you call me a troll yet your the one using M$ real clever.
Why can't you understand simple concepts?
There is a world of difference between shipping a standalone browser and shipping on that the OPERATING SYSTEM needs to run. That you don't understand the difference and aren't appalled by having an OS be dependent on a user land application speaks volumes about your lack of technical understanding.
There is not a single browser in Linux that requires a reboot of the system or X. Update firefox, restart firefox, done!
That's hilarious that you think that. I've upgraded Firefox countless times in Linux, haven't had to restart because of it ever. Don't make claims unless you know for a fact they are right.
@monkeyfun14
While I agree ExWinUser shouldn't be using M$, that doesn't mean you're not still a troll. After all, I've read your posts.
@ExWinUser
Please use the actual names rather than derogatory terms, it will heighten your arguments by making you stand out from the crowd.
Pentest you have to read the whole thing next time, not just what one person posts
Firefox and Chrome show thats there still plenty of innovation left in browsers. IE got lazy after 6.
I did something similar for one of my neighbors. She was using IE8 on her XP installation. After cleaning up her machine, ridding it of the 52 pieces of malware present (yes, IE8 does allow malware to pass through), I finally checked IE8 to see just how it was performing.
Bottom line, I installed FF 3.5 and she's now using it happily. I showed her how two instances of FF 3.5 would boot and load her homepage before IE 8 would even start up.
And from what I know, the IE 7 and 8 upgrades go out automatically, and network admins have to manually set it not to upgrade with a patch. I'm sure there's still other work involved, though.
Amen
Innovating doesn't mean inventing
It means taking a concept and improving on it or changing it up.
Yeah, like Apple.
I read his comment twice. He never confused invention with innovation. He simply said that MS needs to innovate with things nobody else has done.
Invention is a type of innovation.
If it's the first, get a mobile version of FF or download it from outside the school. If they're blocking downloads through browsers other than IE, talk to the IT staff, find out why.
Think of it like this: as long as banks and hospitals continue to use IBM Mainframes and AS/400s, there will forever and ever be a need for COBOL and RPG programmers.
Seven of eight years later, IE7 and later IE8 is released. The web application hasn't been updated since the contract was closed. Here's the dilemma: the company has NO means of upgrading the web application. Is the original contractor responsible? Absolutely NO. Can the company create a new contract to update the application for IE7/IE8 compliance? The company can, but it isn't free. Companies already have their IT budgets tied up in PC and server purchases, conversion of their servers to virtual environments, and making their NOCs greener.
In other words, if the company sticks with IE6 and does not repair the web application, then there's no harm! THAT'S THE PROBLEM! Upgrading web applications for IE7/8 compliance must be treated like the Year-2000 projects - basically involving re-coding web applications and THEN upgrading the thousands of PCs' version of IE within the companies. But that's NOT going to happen.
What should Microsoft do about this? It should offer funding to the companies to make these coding changes. The companies did NOTHING wrong. It is Microsoft's fault that made IE7 so different that even their own versions of Outlook Web Access and other Microsoft-based web interfaces become non-functional, because of changes to things such as ActiveX, framing etc.
Remember this: Back in the early 2000s, ActiveX was supposed to be THE environment of the future for Intranet development. That was a commitment made by Microsoft. Microsoft dropped this commitment, and now Microsoft is expect companies to make the coding re-designs on the companies' budgets? How should I describe shoving a long object into Microsoft's cavity without being vulgar?
- monkeyfun14 has posted 6 comments, alone under this report. (gave up counting after the 6th time)
- we are still waiting for comments from the other Micro$oft marketing member: VEGAMAN_DAN
Whats going on Vega? What kind of working ethics? Gill Bates and the CHAIRman are waiting ...
monkeyfun14 is also getting creative, after found out clearly who his masters are, he is accusing others now for being paid for spreading anti-Micro$oft FUD.
The contributions from those 2 yokels, almost warrant skipping the actual article and just searching for their comments.
Arthur :-)
Keep eating up that stuff those propaganda sites spread anything to keep you happy right. Tools (:
How much do you get paid by Micrsoft for spreading Microsoft propaganda.
Also what is that job title? Propagandist?
Of course it is not Microsoft's fault that some web developers allow themselves to get locked into a specific browser. But this has in fact occurred.
OK, now I'm convinced that some of you guys just aren't getting the point.
#1. A corporate user may NOT install ANY PROGRAM on their corporate PC. Why? Because you could lose your job. Period.
#2. What reason would a company have for upgrading their 50,000+ computers in order to allow their employees to shop online while they are supposed to be working? While our jobs may be enhanced by being able to go online in order to locate resources, it is difficult to justify this to the corporate weenies who have to worry about making every PC behave within the corporate environment and within budget. You should have seen the loss of productivity the last time we had to upgrade one of our apps that we use to track our jobs.
BTW, my company is a sub of the biggest corporation in the world and we are not allowed to move past IE6.
@forever4now, what if a small company have no enough budget for upgrading because some of their funds are already tied up to something else?
In this regard, they have to lend money or apply for loan to other institution just for upgrading purposes and of course with interest or else they will not get new project and loss more money...?
Can you give us some pretty advice on how to get the project without spending or losing more money?
THEY DID NOTHING FOR YEARS,
UNTIL COMPETITION _MADE THEM_ IMPROVE IT.
In other words, yes we are losing market share globally, but saying this gives it a positive spin.
"We are losing overall, but we are winning over here."
However I think that Apple is gaining and Microsoft is diminishing.
Will be interesting to see if Apple can over take Microsoft.
Google Ads as a revenue stream has already overtaken Windows as a revenue stream and I can't see Microsoft gaining in Office. People are a lot more IT savvy than they were say 5 years ago.
IE we need to copy Google this time.
Please provide proof as this is the first I've heard of Gazelle and all the articles I'm seeing are circa 2009 whereas Google Docs has been around longer than that as well as other Web-based applications from other contributors.
But Chrome is a fully developed broswer with these features and Gazelle is still running around in the African bush.
If you want an example of Web based applications older than Google Docs try Outlook Web Access.
Are you MonkeyboyMicrosoft in disguise or a new Microsoft employee?
- by windowzdroolz August 13, 2009 9:38 PM PDT
- For everyone saying internet explorer would have been innovative with tabbed browsing in 2002 or whatever, it wouldnt have. Tabbed browsing was created in 1998 and used in the netcaptor browser. Late 2001, opera and mozilla both were capable of tabbed browsing and safari was capable shortly afterward. I am only somewhat sickened when i hear people get excited about the "new" features that the security hole known as internet exploder has.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- by tm_anon August 14, 2009 12:29 AM PDT
- Almost your entire comment was good.
- Like this
-
- by t8 August 14, 2009 4:17 AM PDT
- Well Linux has BSD code and so does OSX, so I suppose it is a correct comment to a degree.
- Like this
-
- by DrtyDogg August 16, 2009 4:48 PM PDT
- Actually an add in to IE 5 allowed for tabbed browsing.
- Like this
-
- by MeepMan September 8, 2009 6:36 PM PDT
- Yes, and where is IE 5 now? In the bottom of the of the Internet Explorer waste plant. It has been reused and recycled in Microhoo's great plan to release a web browser that actually displays the percentage earned on the acid3 test, something IE7 did not do. Or was the percentage that little yellow number in the light purple box? I'm not sure. I know it wasn't the yellow number in the top left corner, as that said 100.
- Like this
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (130 Comments)reasons to go to linux:
1) operating system on a different partition than the user directory, viruses can't do anything without root password. don't be stupid with your root password
2) comes with fully functional browser capable of rendering html webpages (konqueror, opera, firefox, etc...)
3) uses a filesystem not developed in the early 1990's (ntfs)
4) free
There are more reasons, but if youve read this far your probably already convinced. If you want a quality computer and a quality os go with mac. Their computers do not break unless you run into them with a fork lift (oops) and osx is based off of linux. plus theyre pretty.
OSX is based off of BSD, not Linux. Otherwise, I agree with your comment. By the way, thanks for using the actual names for each product.