Still running IE10? Not for long, says Microsoft Microsoft is advising Windows users to update their browsers ahead of a new policy that will see some versions of Internet Explorer no longer supported. The Redmond software giant said that beginning January 12, 2016, it will only support the newest version of its browser available in each operating system. "The newest …
Well I can tell you that the #1 SMB medical cloud app us eClinicalWorks and it works best with IE 10, IE 11 has issues and they do not suggest we upgrade to IE 11 on Windows 7 x64...
I could have told al you dip SH!TS to not tie your application to IE but you had some PHB that said if everyone is doing it we are OK and that it will be so popular there will be automagic migration tools to move from the SH!T code to standards based code and apps so we don't have to lift a finger or use our brains to fix our broken code...
So much for that idea!
It is probably more complex than that given Idiot Explorer's notoriously erratic support of the web standards. With some versions of IE (~6), the support was so bad that one almost had to write a web page twice: Idiot Explorer compliant and standards compliant.
The real problem is too many PHBs with a sort of workable idea demanded the coding was done to IE standards only and not web compliant. Looking at the scores for HTML5 compliance for major browsers at html5test.com, all versions of IE poorly support html5.
Fine, how about MS release a tool to completely uninstall it then
If people do not want to upgrade and microsoft do not want to remove the errors in their coding they can atleast allow users to remove it completely so it doesnt cause any further problems. Those that have corporate web intranet systems that require it can be given a free upgrade.
I can understand MS wanting to drop support to save cash but sadly they took the money when people bought their products and whilst these systems are still "working" they should be required to support them or offer a free alternative.
Based on the stats I can see IE 10's market share is already minimal (2% for most of the year). Most systems on which it could be installed on have already been updated to IE 11 or people are using another browser.
IE 9 is a bit more of a problem because of Vista but again, market share is low (around 4% and falling slowly). Internally it's the largely the same engine as 10 and 11 so there shouldn't be too many problems. The odd glitch maybe. Still, MS should really do what it takes get IE 11 to run on Vista,
What all of us in developer land are really happy about is that people really are stopping using IE 8. Market share has now dropped off a cliff from around 4-5% all year to just over 1% now.
"Fine, how about MS release a tool to completely uninstall it then"
No can do. Internet Explorer is a required and critical part of Windows and removing it from Windows would render Windows unusable. At least, isn't that (more or less) what MS said, under oath, 15 years ago??? If they released an uninstaller for IE now, then it could be argued that they were lying back then.
If they released an uninstaller for IE now, then it could be argued that they were lying back then.
I am someone who quite hates M$, as a quick look at my posts would show :)
Given the flack they've had in the last 15 years, and given that even they now seem to recognise that IE is a worthless pile of steaming brown stuff, they could simply argue that they improved Windoze to not have that shiteware stuck deeply inside it.
That said, it's probably an indication of how they really want to treat their users.. Some disgusting disease-ridden thing buried deeply inside where it can hurt the most.....
We hear this every time MS drops support for anything.
Any PHB who tells their minions to code for a specific version of any software - should know by now what they're getting into. I don't see why Microsoft should be obliged to continue indefinitely supporting its customers' bad business decisions. (And I comment as one whose until-recently employer is still developing for Silverlight, even though it was a pointless choice for them even when it was new.)
TL;DR: Screw 'em.
The timeline is about 6 weeks to upgrade non-compliant websites. This is somewhat different than XP EOL which announced at release and later extended. For many, the time line, particularly since there will about 3 weeks for working with the holidays seems a bit short. Now, if Slurp said, 1 July, no issue.
"For many, the time line, particularly since there will about 3 weeks for working with the holidays seems a bit short. Now, if Slurp said, 1 July, no issue."
There is no issue.
Microsoft has announced these EOL dates over a year ago.
If they're properly coded? Including all the esoteric shyte some "people" insist be put on/in a bloody webpage? None.
Because if between shifting/developing standards, rise and fall of popularity/idiosyncracies of browser [x], and several flavours of Hype du Jour over, say, the past decade or so, people still haven't learned to allow for ( the rather inevitable) EOL of a bit of software, you have to wonder what they're being paid for.
I suspect anyone working in local government (councils) and NHS will probably be on IE8 still for various "legacy" reasons, that dodgy old housing system that only works on IE8 and we haven't been playing the developers for upgrades or support for the past few years etc.
It's about time Microsoft did this, I'm sick of having our standard browser be so damn insecure, perhaps now management will go for the latest IE or maybe even let us move to Chrome, Firefox or even a minority browser.. probably not though.
One risk assessment and we're stuck on IE8 indefinitely.
Not just the NHS; we're on IE8 too for internal apps (just had to go and check, as we're allowed to use slightly more up to date alternative browsers for actual web work - although staggeringly not everyone does; they seem to spend a lot of time complaining about how bad the internet is these days and how many sites don't seem to work properly...) & it's not a public sector organisation.
We are still on IE8 mostly (large american corp, 70,000+ employees), mainly due to some legacy internal apps not liking IE9 or newer, even with compatibility options.
The companies workaround was to deploy an enterprise version of Firefox, and tell everyone to use that for everything other than the borked intranet sites.
Personally I installed IE 11 anyway (Win 7), and just have IE8 in a VM for the few occasions when it's needed.
local government (councils) and NHS will probably be on IE8 still for various "legacy" reasons,....One risk assessment and we're stuck on IE8 indefinitely.
Only so long as the risk assessment includes a caveat that the board of the council/trust acknowledges and underwrites the security and data risks and potential penalties of running obsolete and unsupported software.
Then again, its the public sector, stick your fingers in your ears, and join in with me: "Lalalaa-alalala..alalala..alalalaaalalaaaaa".
I take considerable umbrage at the idea that all public sector systems are affected in this way, especially as I was part of a rollout at a certain public sector organisation that spent quite a bit of time and effort and money to make sure that this didn't happen.
Then once that was done, I was given the boot...
Well I'd propose sensible people should know that the moment a new version of an application is released the current version will become obsolete at some point and you should probably start the process of updating and checking for issues as soon as possible instead of when the end is finally announced.
Don't most other browsers just update you now regardless of your desire.
I also use Firefox, but I am really not that sure if it is my dislike of Chromium/Chrome or my own habits. The first version of Chrome that everyone shat a brick about didn't have RSS feeds as bookmarks (natively, perhaps via and addon), since that I have to admit I have barely tried it. But either way, at least like Firefox, Chromium consistently adheres to web standards.
MS made it quite clear when it was announced, and the almost exact parallel in patching schedules since then has demonstrated, that Edge is just IE11 with the back-compat cruft taken out. It is touch and go whether we'll actually see something branded as IE12, but you can think of Edge as IE12 and you won't be far wrong.
We're both here, so it worked. Not much point in complaining about it, when you knew in advance what to expect?
I skip the article and go straight to the comments and get rewarded: the schizophrenic policy of dropping support for IE 10 and IE 9 on Windows but maintaining it for Vista. This is increasingly the case for most of El Reg. The article could have had some value if it at least included data from El Reg's own website statistics, but as we know they never do.
The question recently came up in discussions about a customer site: recommendation is to drop support for IE 9 and blame Microsoft.
They spent all that time generating a browser that had all this fancy non-standard stuff, which everyone then programmed in to their systems; there is hardware that is running web interfaces that use this s**t.
And now they kill the non-standards compliant browsers to a rate where I am going to have to maintain a machine runnign an unsupported operating system (Vista) just so that I can run a browser to talk with the old kit.
(actually, the old kit will get replaced in due course... but what I hate is how companies like M$ do all this crap and don't give a damn about the customer. Also, curse the hardware manufacturers, as they should have had more of a clue than to rely on non-standards kit in the bloody first place.)
It's not like there hasn't been plenty of time for people/company to fix legacy non-standard sites.
MS made it very clear they were moving towards standards compliance and away from fancy non-standard stuff back in 2008/2009, when IE 9 launched (beta in 2008, release in 2009).
AC, as I work for a company that has failed on both the above points, with old intranet sites that have not been updated for years, and newer sites (including their primary internal Help Desk site) using things like ActiveX etc. :-/
PaleMoon's UI is much nicer than standard Firefox, but it's still nigh unusable on an 8" touchscreen. I've got a Dell Venue 8 Pro and it's actually quite a handy little slab, but Edge is the only browser that's really usable via touch on it. Opera is better than FF or Chrome, but it's still not 'good'.
...would be a 500 Billion Euro class action lawsuit to demonstrate that Microsucks can't just decide to stop supporting defective software that they have sold to the public under the guise of being a secure and reliable product when it is neither. Migrating to IE11 or IE 200006 still won't provide a secure, reliable, defect free product that Microsucks is charging for but not delivering and unable to properly secure and/repair despite chronic security updates - which often create more security issues. Holding Microsucks accountable for all defective code should be mandatory and the financial consequences for knowingly selling defective software, extreme to deter this outrageous exploitation of society as has been ongoing since the 80's.
that some businesses have applications which rely on certain standards-breaking quirks of IE 6, but the only times I have ever used their browser product were in ''net cafes or hotels where downloading an alternative would have taken too much time, only to be eliminated by a re-boot, except at the many hotels where. if one wanted to be randomly malicious, one could have a field day.
Not being randomly malicious, I generally just erase the mass of stored passwords and login names, of course, usually after logging out. I tell the staff, they are generally clueless, but that is not the fault of IE.
However, using it at times over the years, it is clear that any 'idea' MS has ever had was based on
1. trying to break the Internet to make it an MS monopoly (sure, they don't do it much now, but it was a guiding strategy under Gates after he worked out that he'd missed the Internet bus) and
2. lame copying of features from others.
Why does anybody (except for the businesses with programs depending on quirks in IE 6), bother to boot it up?
Even the name is supremely lame. 'Hey, those people have "navigator", why don't we call ours something really different, like, say "explorer"?'
Pathetic.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
