

IE9 could be outdated in a few weeks, Sauce Labs says - admc
http://www.itworldcanada.com/news/ie9-could-be-outdated-in-a-few-weeks-sauce-labs-says/141525
“Microsoft didn’t learn its lesson with the way it approached IE9,” he said. (Jason Huggins)
======
CWuestefeld
tl;dr: Sauce Labs believes that not only should Microsoft rev their browser
much more quickly, but that -- like Chrome -- the update process should be
transparent and pretty much mandatory.

It seems to me that they completely fail to understand the costs associated
with maintenance of corporate systems. It's inconceivable to me that they
could take this so lightly. Having rapid changes (even if they're smaller)
with little control of when they are deployed is a recipe for disaster for
many IT organizations, and thus a good way to get your product kicked out of
the enterprise.

~~~
hugs
I didn't fail to understand it. I worked for years in corporate IT and have
maintained and upgraded enterprise systems (PeopleSoft/Oracle) on slow (1
year+) upgrade cycles. Those days should die. And I came to that opinion from
direct in the trenches experience in that kind of environment.

~~~
dkarl
So you think it's a good idea for Microsoft to continually break crappy
internal web applications that misuse outdated Microsoft technologies? Crappy
internal applications that misuse outdated Microsoft technologies are the
life-blood of business, and that's the biggest factor keeping businesses from
moving away from Windows. Do you think it's time for Microsoft to give that
up?

~~~
Groxx
For the sake of the millions (billions?) of _annual_ man-hours spent
supporting every crappy browser in nearly every crappy _external_ web
application? Probably. I'd be willing to bet (a _lot_ ) that the hours spent
working around the not-recent versions of IE are many many many times larger
than the amount of time needed to fix every site that _relies_ on a not-recent
version of IE.

Enforcing updates would also likely improve IE's market share, as all those
not-recent versions are part of the cause of developers migrating towards
Firefox / WebKit browsers. How much has this _hurt_ Microsoft? Enough to make
it worth losing the stragglers who aren't paying to update anyway?

edit: of course, there's a solution to all this: the ability to specify the
particular version of a browser you're targeting, if it matters. Then at least
a warning can be thrown, and if multiple renderers are included, they can be
used selectively.

~~~
thwarted
Another solution is for Microsoft to create a version of IE that is an
_application_ rather than an operating system extension. One should be able to
install multiple versions of IE on the same machine without them conflicting
and without it breaking features like Windows Update that depend on tight
integration with the browser, even if it means installing as a different user.

The advantages would be twofold. First off, people who _need_ to use a 10 year
old version of Internet Explorer because of crappy internal apps could
continue to do so, and they could install and use a new version of Internet
Explorer for using the real world, modern Internet. Secondly, we'd avoid
having to hear about the (legitimate) woes of developers who need to run
multiple copies of Windows virtually to do testing, or use third-party hacks
to get multiple versions of IE to run on a single copy of Windows.

And I'm suggesting that the above be done for _new_ versions of IE. But it's
just as possible for Microsoft to release an _application_ version of IE6 that
users more recent versions of Windows could install in order to run those
ancient internal web applications. There's benefit here too in terms of
showing people that they need to use an old-and-busted version of a program to
access their internal stuff vs the new-hotness they'd have to use to access
the public Internet. Even rebranding Internet Explorer with a different name
would help toward that somewhat (if you could install it along side the
ancient version of IE6).

~~~
Groxx
I really hate the browser-as-embedded, in part because of this reason. And
because it has always struck me as a _massive_ security time-bomb, because
they're rarely segregated properly. My blood ran cold the first time I
discovered I could open a web page via Windows Explorer.

Similarly, I hate that Chrome only allows one installation, with the exception
of Canary (windows only). What's the point? Give them a unique ID, and
namespace everything! Get clever with hardlinking binaries if nothing's
different, but _sheesh_.

</rant>

That's likely the best solution, yes. I guess we can _hope_ it goes that way
eventually, right?

------
davcro
I started building a new app and was bummed when I discovered Chrome didn't
support the Html5 File API. The next day Chrome 6 was released along with said
API support. Now the canary version includes WebGL support. These guys are
moving FAST. IE9 doesn't stand a chance.

~~~
hugs
Exactly. Is anyone standing up and demanding that Google release more
_slowly_?

~~~
tomjen3
I could totally see somebody in the big companies starting to whine to the
press and demand exactly that, if Microsoft picks up the pace to match
Googles.

I just hope they only whine about it, and don't go to their lobbyists.

~~~
Someone
If Microsoft moves to forced automatic updates of IE, I bet somebody would see
a business opportunity and grab it: take WebKit and hack in IE (and COM
components) compatibility. Such a product could be worth quite a bit to
companies with large IE-only sites.

In fact, the release of IE9 may already be enough to create that market. The
main problem I see with this is that it may be very hard to make a
sufficiently-compatible IE clone.

~~~
chc
Surely it would be easier to hack around the forced updates than to turn
Webkit into Trident.

------
jimbobimbo
While I agree with the notion that there're internal systems that can't keep
up with the fast pace of upgrades, those days are gone - IE9 is standard-
compliant browser. As long as you develop standard-compliant web site, it
doesn't really matter what version of browser you use in the future. Those who
depend on IE6 will stick to IE6 anyway, because IE9 is not compatible* with
IE6 from the day one.

* Probably, it is, in quirks mode or something like that.

------
ollysb
Why not have an IE6 compatibility mode? Central IT could maintain a list of
domains that require the mode to be switched on.

~~~
hellweaver666
Why can't they release ActiveX as a plugin (like Flash, Shockwave etc). Then
the big corporates could use any browser they liked with the ActiveX plugin so
their shitty old apps would continue to work!

Obviously... there would have to be a limit to who could get this plugin - we
don't want people installing ActiveX all over again unless they really need
it!

------
GBKS
IE8 has actually never worked for me since it came out. It takes forever to
start up and gets stuck loading any page so I never get beyond a white screen.

IE9 can only be a step forward.

~~~
harshpotatoes
I've found that once I install chrome, IE8 gets very messed up causing similar
symptoms, but if I go to: internet options -> advanced -> reset internet
explorer settings, everything is fixed for some odd reason...

------
AndrewDucker
Microsoft have breaking changes in the move from IE8 to IE9.

If your company is dependent on hundreds of in-house web apps, or worse -
dependent on bought-in webapps that you can't fix yourself then being forced
to upgrade is insanity.

Sure, Microsoft should release new versions of IE more quickly than they
currently do, but they shouldn't be dropping support for older versions.

~~~
mey
Microsoft has been advertising that IE6 is being depreciated with their
support agreements, any company migrating to Vista/7, and through IE7/IE8 and
IE9 developer previews. Any IT department that hasn't picked up that hint
that's been running for the past 4 years has no excuse. Just like Microsoft
doesn't support Win95 anymore, they do have explicit ends to the support of
their applications, and IE6 is certainly one of them.

