
Support for older versions of Internet Explorer ends on January 12, 2016 - JoshGlazebrook
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/WindowsForBusiness/End-of-IE-support
======
watson
Am I the only one who finds all the happy faces Microsoft have injected into
the page a bit weird? It feels like they are trying to sell me some bad news
but make me feel happy at the same time.

Don't get me wrong - I think it's a good move to discontinue support for older
IE versions... There is just something with all the smiling and laughing faces
all over the page that make all my alarms go off

~~~
harshreality
Manipulation (aka advertising/PR/marketing) techniques 101. Showing pictures
of happy faces makes the audience (not you in particular, but the average
reader) have more positive feelings about the announcement. There's no other
plausible reason for using a row of random smiley faces as a page separator in
an announcement like this.

~~~
witty_username
But in this case they overdid it, and now it feels a bit like a scam/domain
hijacked website with tons of stock photos. I might not have noticed a single
row, but it has 4 rows!

------
douche
Thank goodness. IE 11 has enough warts and weirdness; having to deal with all
the brokenness in IE 8 was driving my front-end colleagues to alcoholism...

I have a beautiful dream sometimes, where I go to work, and I only have to
care about supporting Chrome...

~~~
isomorphic
> I have a beautiful dream sometimes, where I go to work, and I only have to
> care about supporting Chrome...

I understand the sentiment, but to be clear: Ideally we do not want any one
vendor with a majority browser share. Otherwise someone will get complacent
and we'll have a repeat of the dark times (IE6). Having multiple browser
vendors is good for the web.

~~~
debaserab2
Yeah... but I kinda wouldn't mind if they were all using the same open source
rendering engine under the hood.

~~~
UnoriginalGuy
... But that's exactly what they're saying we DON'T want. A lot of browsers
re-used IE 6's rendering engine because it had a monopoly. That only made the
situation worse.

A browser's rendering engine is the ONLY part that matters, and if anyone has
a monopoly that is "bad" because competition helps innovation.

Each rendering engine winds up, for good and bad, with a small group of people
deciding what features do and do not get put in. If they simply decide that
feature Y doesn't get put in, and that rendering engine has a monopoly then
feature Y is a non-entity as far as the web is concerned.

For example, if Google controlled the web's primary rendering engine do you
think Do Not Track would be in it? NO! It took all of their major competition
to add it before they did, starting with IE.

~~~
jsmeaton
> A browser's rendering engine is the ONLY part that matters

Active X would like to disagree with you. We're currently dealing with a
massive (revenue/company) product that only runs under IE < 10 because it
_still_ uses Active X.

I don't think a common rendering engine is at all a bad thing. Maybe two to
keep them honest. But blink + webkit + trident (?) + Gecko (?) seem like
wasted engineering talent.

~~~
zenir
South Korea has(or had, they may have changed it in the last few months) a law
that enforces the usage of ActiveX for everything which needs security (e. g.
online banking, online shopping)

~~~
dtech
That sounds like a prime example of incredible technical incompetence of the
lawmakers or incredibly good lobbying by MS. Maybe both.

~~~
Ded7xSEoPKYNsDd
It made some sense at the time the law was conceived. SSL was crippled to
uselessness by US export restrictions. IE 6 had a monopoly. So they built
their own much more secure encryption (using ActiveX to plug into IE) and
mandated its use for everything that matters.

The incompetence was in mandating a certain implementation instead of writing
a technology-neutral law requiring a certain security level.

~~~
scholia
Interesting! So bad actions by the US gov led to bad results for US
companies....

~~~
Rhinobird
Bad actions by the US gov led to bad workarounds by other govs

------
tow21
An unfortunate datapoint: for one of our products I'm still seeing >25% users
on IE8.

This is a (primarily UK) product most of whose users are on internal bank
networks. It's come down from about 40% 2 years ago, so it's heading in the
right direction - but I'm not sure I see it going away any time soon.

There's huge organizational inertia inside these banks around IT systems - if
we want to serve them, we need to support IE8 for the foreseeable future.

~~~
rogeryu
They are probably XP users. You can create a small notification on top of your
website, notifying them that they should move to Firefox or Chrome because
their browser is not safe anymore...

~~~
dccoolgai
"they should move to Firefox or Chrome because their browser is not safe
anymore..."

You are assuming that they have a choice. A large chunk of them most likely
don't.

~~~
acdha
The wording on those messages needs to be tailored for that: “Please contact
your system administrator to request a secure browser”

The only way enterprise IT departments will upgrade is when they start having
to take responsibility for security problems. As long as they can lie to their
users and claim there's no need to upgrade, they will.

------
andy_ppp
The document makes things wildly unclear as to which versions of IE are
actually supported by Microsoft.

In practical terms it's still IE9 and IE11 for a while (so far as I can tell)?

[https://support.microsoft.com/en-
us/lifecycle#gp/Microsoft-I...](https://support.microsoft.com/en-
us/lifecycle#gp/Microsoft-Internet-Explorer)

I'm sure there is still a load of Windows Vista SP2 machines around...

~~~
gtk40
My thoughts too. If versions of Windows less than Windows 7 are supported
which cannot run IE11, and IE11 is the only version being supported, are those
older versions of Windows still really supported?

Windows Vista has support through 2017 and Windows Server 2008 has support
through 2020.

~~~
gsnedders
IE9 remains supported on Vista (as it's the last release of IE that runs on
it). IE9/IE11 is all that remains supported on client releases on Windows
(Server and Embedded versions of Windows continue to use pretty much
everything from IE7 upwards).

[https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/gp/microsoft-internet-
ex...](https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/gp/microsoft-internet-
explorer?wa=wsignin1.0) provides a clearer overview of what the supported
version where is. (Note that it excludes OSes that are currently supported by
end support before 12 Jan 2016.)

------
davidjgraph
I love the way they can't even give a straight answer to their own questions:

"Does this mean Microsoft is changing the support lifecycle policy for
Internet Explorer?"

"The latest version of Internet Explorer will continue to follow the component
policy, which means that it follows the support lifecycle and is supported for
as long as the Windows operating system on which it is installed. Focusing
support on the latest version of Internet Explorer for a supported Windows
operating system is in line with industry standards."

A simple yes or no will do.

~~~
robzyb
> A simple yes or no will do.

Haven't they done better than that? Except they've dealt with the possible
issue that the reader has an incorrect understanding of the support lifecycle
policy for Internet Explorer.

------
stephenr
From the document - "older" means < 11.

~~~
jakswa
The latest IE for Vista SP2 looks to be IE9, so it looks like it'll continue
to receive updates. [https://support.microsoft.com/en-
us/lifecycle#gp/Microsoft-I...](https://support.microsoft.com/en-
us/lifecycle#gp/Microsoft-Internet-Explorer)

~~~
stephenr
_Sigh_ I blame Microsoft's confusing description:

> What is end of support? Beginning January 12, 2016, only the most current
> version of Internet Explorer available for a supported operating system will
> receive technical supports and security updates. Internet Explorer 11 is the
> last version of Internet Explorer, and will continue to receive security
> updates, compatibility fixes, and technical support on Windows 7, Windows
> 8.1, and Windows 10.

Not a single mention of Vista/etc.

~~~
taspeotis
Vista left mainstream support three years ago [1].

[1] [http://windows.microsoft.com/en-
au/windows/lifecycle](http://windows.microsoft.com/en-au/windows/lifecycle)

~~~
mtgx
Mainstream supports means no more features, but it's still getting patches, I
imagine.

~~~
toyg
Nope.

 _" End of support refers to the date when Microsoft no longer provides
automatic fixes, updates, or online technical assistance. [...] you will no
longer receive security updates"_

~~~
tempestn
That refers to the end of extended support, which just recently happened for
Windows XP. Vista is under extended support until April 2017, as mentioned on
the page you quoted from.

------
Falkon1313
Apologies for the rant, but this is the second article today that I've seen
about a company discontinuing support for outdated software. (The other being
a gnu rant about Windows not supporting XP.) And there was a third a couple
days ago about an open source community announcing pending EOL of an old
version.

What bugs me is so many negative comments along the lines of "What about all
those poor helpless trillion dollar megacorporations that are stuck on an old
version because they use proprietary custom software? Microsoft is evil
because they don't guarantee to support and repair everything that they've
ever made for free until the heat death of the universe!"

Those companies and organizations are stuck not because of Microsoft, but
because they mismanaged their own proprietary software or web applications.
For more than a decade, they never even bothered to plan for maintenance,
although they routinely plan, budget, and schedule depreciation and
maintenance for everything else in the business - things that move much slower
than software and far far slower than web development. I'm no fan of
Microsoft, but that's their fault, not Microsoft's.

My Windows machine is still on Windows 7 now, and not ready to upgrade to 10
yet due to compatibility issues. But I have 4 more years to get things working
in a virtual environment, or find replacements. Software that I run dates back
to the 70s, so some didn't work by default in 7, but in the end there was only
1 program that I couldn't replace or get working with an upgrade or VM. I
reverse engineered the data to migrate it (it used an obsolete floating point
format from before floating point ops were standard in PCs). If I can do that,
a company or large organization can do it.

For web software, the pace of the state of the art is even faster. Most
anything over a few years old probably needs a rewrite and data migration if
it hasn't been maintained properly (and possibly even if it has). Especially
anything that used old plugins.

But the focus on browser versions is weird. I strongly dislike the practice of
web developers/designers speaking of 'supporting' IE6/IE8 or whatever. That's
a Microsoft product, Microsoft supports it or not, you and I don't. We support
the websites that we build, which we build to current industry standards (such
as they are). If you try to access it using a nonstandard client like IE6,
Arachne running on DOS, Hyperlink on a C64, or a line mode browser on a
teletype, then your experience will be different. The server side will work
fine, but your client may not do what it's not capable of.

You can't expect to stick a blu-ray disc on a record player or shove a flash
drive full of MP3s into an 8-track tape deck and have the end-user experience
be the same. It just doesn't work that way. Sure we can try to build custom
client-side workarounds, but is that worth the cost (especially given that new
browsers are free)?

Overheard at a meeting once:

Client: "Our stats say that'll be fine for our customers, but our executive
team mostly has older versions of IE, so this won't work for them. We don't
want it to look bad to the CEO."

3rd Party Agency Manager: "We'll order new laptops for them and have them
delivered, just tell us how many and where to send them. It will be much
cheaper for you and save us all a lot of time."

~~~
cletusw
> "You can't expect to stick a blu-ray disc on a record player or shove a
> flash drive full of MP3s into an 8-track tape deck and have the end-user
> experience be the same. It just doesn't work that way."

Can anyone disagree with this analogy? If not, I'm going to start using it all
the time!

~~~
talmand
I disagree. It totally depends on what your expected end-user experience for
each of those might be.

------
daurnimator
Interesting that the meta tag for this page is "end-of-xp-support"

------
jp_sc
After that day we only need a really bad 0-day exploit to make everybody
actually update their browser or switch to Chrome.

~~~
Guest192038
Let's save a step, and simply create an exploit that automatically installs
Firefox/Chrome, and uninstalls IE.

------
orionblastar
There are a lot of businesses that use older versions of Windows and use
Internet Explorer as their default web browser and use group policy from a
Windows Server to prevent the install of a third part web browser. Forcing
everyone to use IE.

They will be vulnerable to attacks because of this and they will refuse to pay
money to upgrade from XP or Vista to go to Windows 10. It will be because
their business software only works with older Windows versions. They can't
afford someone to migrate to Windows 10 or they lost the source code after
programmers retired or got fired and took it with them on their personal
laptops because they lacked a source control system.

It is a big mess out there. Colleges are even worse as is the federal
government who use outdated Windows Updates by three years and expired
antivirus products.

~~~
kbenson
In many cases we are talking about organizations using software that requires
not just an obsolete internet explorer version, but an _ancient_ one. There
have been many years to assess and fix this problem, and just because
companies stuck their heads in the sand and expected it would always be
someone else's problem. I have little pity for the companies, but I feel
deeply for the IT employees that will have to deal with the fallout from poor
decision making from management.

Buying or developing technologies that rely on weird proprietary quirks of
_free_ versions of software isn't very sane. There's not even a business model
in place you can rely on to continue to want to support you since it's free.

That brings up an interesting point though, a special NPAPI plugin that aimed
to provide perfect compatibility with older IE versions for a small per-seat
license fee could do really well...

~~~
lucaspiller
> Buying or developing technologies that rely on weird proprietary quirks of
> free versions of software isn't very sane. There's not even a business model
> in place you can rely on to continue to want to support you since it's free.

It's all very well saying this now, but I wouldn't be surprised if at the time
these technologies were seen as JavaScript is now. I remember Adobe Air was
when it came out...

~~~
kbenson
Javascript has a standard (or more accurately, current javascript is the
implementation of a version of the standard). It's a much safer bet that
either there will be backwards compatible implementations later or that you
will have other options. To my knowlesde, IE's feature set was always "what's
supported by the current release".

It's sort of like having a codebase which you can't change which makes use of
a bunch of weird proprietary C extensions from some old compiler, and the
compiler itself not only has the capability to introduce bugs and security
flaws, but has a track-record of doing so. You _know_ it's a ticking time bomb
now, and you _should_ have seen it in the beginning (although so many didn't
:/ )

~~~
orionblastar
Even back in 1997 JavaScript worked differently based on what OS and web
browser you had.

I had open sourced this script to detect the OS and web browser so that it
would run JavaScript code using if statements for each platform to solve
compatibility problems. It should still work today but the ActiveX detection
is broken because of the way JavaScript changed.

[http://www.javascriptsource.com/repository/javascripts/2005/...](http://www.javascriptsource.com/repository/javascripts/2005/09/721471/UserDetail.html)

~~~
kbenson
I understand there were plenty of non-standard features, but keeping to
standard features should have been possible, and JS didn't change that much
between browser versions (and where it did fixed could be implemented, as your
detection script would have helped with).

It took quite a while for some standard JS features to be added[1], but a
mostly stable subset was possible (as evidenced by the sites that worked in
all the major browsers of the time). The real problem was companies not
wanting to devote the time to doing this and taking the shortcut of using the
non-standard IE features MS had included at the expense of browser
interoperability (which would have provided some protection against using
features that would be dropped).

1: [https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-
us/library/s4esdbwz(v=vs.94).a...](https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-
us/library/s4esdbwz\(v=vs.94\).aspx)

~~~
orionblastar
The problem with Internet Explorer at the time I worked with it is that it had
a version of JavaScript called JScript that ran in the background that had
differences with the JavaScript used in Netscape and other web browsers.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JScript](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JScript)

In my experience I had to write JavaScript code that detected the OS the web
browser type and even the processor so that I could use if statements to run
the correct JavaScript code for each platform that worked.

I've been out of it for a decade due to a disability, but I see that Microsoft
has updated JScript and has used some form of JavaScript in Windows 8 Apps as
well. I never really liked Metro/Modern UI and Windows 10 kind of changed it
to Universal Apps.

I like that they have made improvements to JavaScript like Node etc and even
run JavaScript in the OS and the backend as well as the frontend.

~~~
kbenson
Yeah, I'm familiar with jscript, and have used it in the past. You should
check out the "Comparison to Javascript"[1] section of that article. JScript
was just MS's way to get around Sun and the trademark issue. In a lot of ways,
it's the same as Google and Dalvik compared to Java. Same language, different
name to get around legal issues.

Now, I know MS's version of javascript (JScript) had it's own quirks and
issues (such as no trailing comma allowed in objects and array syntax), but it
shouldn't have been too hard with a minimum of testing to make sure it worked
on both IE and Netscape and/or Firebird (before it was renamed to Firefox).
The problem is that many didn't both at all, and didn't even attempt to figure
out which bits that they used were standard parts of Javascript or the
ECMAScript standard and what were MS extensions.

That said, there was a major benefit to people forging ahead with MS specific
extensions. The wide acceptance and update of XMLHttpRequest was spurred by
MS's introduction of that type of call through custom ActiveX objects[2].

1:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JScript#Comparison_to_JavaScri...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JScript#Comparison_to_JavaScript)

2:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XMLHttpRequest#Support_in_Inte...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XMLHttpRequest#Support_in_Internet_Explorer_versions_5.2C_5.5.2C_and_6)

------
sengork
Some of the lower tier (but very common) LAN network hardware requires old
versions of IE to function during firmware upgrades and configuration changes
with no CLI equivalent options.

In most cases the hardware vendors never address the browser compatibility
issue (due to focus on new products) and only provide a warning sign upon
login. Likewise the hardware isn't easy to replace in some environments.

This use case is completely absent from the web browsing traffic usage
patterns on the internet which predominate in browser usage statistics.

~~~
cletusw
Use the old, unsupported, insecure browser only during those upgrades and a
modern browser for everyday use. The end-of-life-ed browsers will continue
functioning, they just won't get updated. Might require use of a VM, but the
cost of that added complexity is vastly inferior to what web developers
worldwide spend supporting those old browsers.

------
tempestn
Wow, I'm _all_ for EOL'ing old versions of IE, but I'm surprised at the
complete lack of notice (on a corporate scale). Was this known to be in the
works for a while?

My thinking is just that most larger companies will have zero chance of
hitting a January deadline, and once the deadline passes, there's really no
urgency to upgrade by any particular time. I would think a ~12 month deadline
might be more effective in getting people to upgrade (as well as resulting in
fewer compromised browsers).

~~~
paulirish
This was announced in August 2014:
[http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2014/08/07/stay-up-to-
dat...](http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2014/08/07/stay-up-to-date-with-
internet-explorer.aspx)

~~~
tempestn
Cool, thanks. Perhaps a year and a half is too long! More likely I just didn't
notice at the time since I don't use IE.

------
zmmmmm
It's pretty interesting to see Microsoft edging out onto this limb of
abandoning their long held policy of supporting their software for long
periods of time. There is pretty much no alternative, so on the one hand it is
not like their enterprise customers have anywhere else to go. On the other
hand, it's one less argument for companies to stick with Microsoft if they are
already on the edge. I'll be interested to see how it turns out if they keep
pushing in this direction.

~~~
WorldMaker
This IE "change" isn't so much an abandoning of their long held policies as
clarifying them and fixing some wrong assumptions companies had made in the
past. Microsoft's support policies for the OS components has long held that
what they will provide (extended) support for is the most recent Service Pack
version that has kept up with Windows Updates. For various reasons, companies
have tried to take advantage of the fact that IE is an OS component to qualify
it for extended support and also taking advantage of the concept that IE
updated/versioned at a slightly different pace from Windows Service Packs to
assume that they could claim the extended support timeframe for an individual
IE release as if it were entire OS versions.

The amazing thing is that Microsoft took this long to correct what should have
been an obvious mistake: that IE versions apply like other Windows components
and they should only need to support the most up to date one for that OS
version.

The kind thing here is that Microsoft has taken ownership of that mistake,
publicly admitted that they made it and that the fix was coming, and given
companies more than a year and a half (and advertising to that effect, such as
the site linked here) to adjust to the fix.

------
qxxx
ok, microsoft wont support it.. but my customers will support it forever. As a
webdeveloper i have still customers that are using internet explorer 8 because
it is their company policy (big company)

~~~
alkonaut
Making a corporate decision to stay on a 6 year old browser that doesn't
receive security updates because "that's the one we certified" (or whatever
the reason may be) is madness.

The whole point of microsofts' action here is to say that it doesn't work like
that. If you have an infrastructure of webapps/intranets/whetever then you
must carry the _continuous_ cost of making sure they sure they work on new
browsers _all the time_ , because old browsers will be quickly become
insecure.

------
hartror
We _still_ have customers with IE6. Risk adverse institutions like airports
_really_ don't want to upgrade things.

~~~
thanksgiving
I'd say they are not very risk averse if they are still using IE6. In fact,
I'd say they are living on the edge. I hope the CTO has a really nice golden
parachute because they will need it when (and not if) the proverbial poop hits
the proverbial fan.

~~~
larister
I hope they _don't_ have a golden parachute

~~~
douche
How about a parachute _made of_ gold...

------
gglnx
[https://support.microsoft.com/en-
us/lifecycle#gp/Microsoft-I...](https://support.microsoft.com/en-
us/lifecycle#gp/Microsoft-Internet-Explorer)

As Vista is still supported, the IE9 lives on.

------
Theodores
So does this mean I no longer have to test my website with Windows IE (6!)
7-10 at all ever, under any circumstances? And be able to tell clients that
IE11 onwards is all that has to work in IE-land?

~~~
joshschreuder
You can tell your clients you only support whatever you want, and they can
tell you they won't be a client of yours anymore unless you support what they
want.

~~~
robzyb
It depends on what type of client / relationship we are talking about. It
might go like this:

Theodores: I only want to support IE11+

Client: No. What if our users have older browsers?

* later *

Theodores: I only want to support IE11+

Client: No. What if our users have older browsers?

Theodores: That should be exceedingly rare, Microsoft have actually pulled
support for those versions recently. See this link.

Client: Oh, ok then, great. IE11+ it is.

------
kriro
Random thought that popped into my head when reading this (apart from the
obvious...stockhappyness): I'm curious and know very little about this topic
in general. How does an announcement like this affect 0-day prices? My guess
is that IE11- 0-days should skyrocket for a bit but then fall because for a
while they'll be really valuable and no patches will come but then eventually
too many people migrate to the higher version? Could 0-day prices actually be
a decent way to forecast future adaption?

------
pilif
Of course this doesn't change anything for the 70% of our users who are still
on XP and Vista. At best we get IE9, at worst IE8

~~~
thanksgiving
You should start nudging people to use alternative browsers. I'd suggest
Mozilla Firefox. You do not need administrative privileges to use Mozilla
Firefox and with the extended support releases, there is no reason why
anything other than legacy internal services (running on internal network)
should use Internet Explorer at all.

Assuming your application does not need IE specific features, what are some
reasons that prevent you from nudging users this direction?

~~~
kalleboo
Related: "Today, we’re announcing the end of Chrome’s support for Windows XP,
as well as Windows Vista" [http://chrome.blogspot.com.au/2015/11/updates-to-
chrome-plat...](http://chrome.blogspot.com.au/2015/11/updates-to-chrome-
platform-support.html)

------
kentbrew
Just updated [http://noaiee.com](http://noaiee.com) to reflect the new
countdown deadline and discovered that conditional comments aren't working in
IE10. Anyone know how to detect IE10 without using JavaScript?

------
gamesbrainiac
This is good news for those who aren't using older versions of Windows (older
than Windows 7). For everyone else (which is still a lot of people), this is
very bad news.

~~~
UnoriginalGuy
Actually it is not a lot.

Windows XP already lost support for their latest release of IE years ago, so
this doesn't impact them.

This may impact Windows Vista and Windows Server 2003 but both are out of
mainstream support, and Vista's numbers are extremely low overall. Supposedly
1.74-1.77%.

------
jgalt212
Our front-end team welcomes this news, but I still think a non-trivial amount
enterprises who do their own security work will still be using IE 8 into 2017.

------
kyberias
Are there any guesses when the support for IE 11 ends? Or when will Microsoft
remove IE from Windows? Never?

~~~
WorldMaker
The impression I get from this site and similar blog posts:

IE 11 ends with Windows 10. Edge the Browser isn't classified as a Windows
component, to my knowledge, and so also shouldn't classify for "extended
support" like IE has in the past. It certainly sounds like the intention is to
drop IE entirely once Edge has feature parity and user adoption on its side.

(Things are a bit trickier when talking about EdgeHTML the Renderer which I
would think is a Windows component still, given that it runs some of the
Windows Universal Platform, but here also the benefit of forking it from IE is
that they can keep the support policies clear from day one as opposed to
having to fix up things after the fact like they did here.)

~~~
kyberias
Edge cannot have feature parity. For example, it will not support plugins. I
don't think they can drop IE from Windows due to enterprise use and LOB
applications.

~~~
WorldMaker
By parity here I do not meant "exact same feature set" or even really
"equivalent feature set", but "enough features to get the job done and feel
like a real browser". For instance, Chrome-style JS extensions (~plugins) are
coming soon enough.

Beyond that, if an enterprise has not gotten the message not to build LOB
applications as browser plugins and not to build for one and only one browser
model any time since IE6 has been deprecated, then IMNSHO they deserve what
they get when IE11 dies as the last "IE". Given the support timeline expected
for Windows 10, enterprises have presumably roughly a decade of extended
support to adapt before IE dies. Really hope enterprises are paying attention
to that (but of course we know a bunch will not and will complain in ten years
about lack of support and those of us that got the memo today can proudly mock
them then).

------
ollie87
My work ICT department recently upgraded us.

To IE 9. :(

------
hackerboos
Are they just going to do what they did with XP and extend support to those
that have the cash?

------
Zardoz84
Oh... And we must support IE 8 ¬¬

------
_ao789
everyone smiling there is a frontend dev

~~~
err4nt
we'll still have to support it, now I can just consider more recent versions
of IE as 'legacy support' which it is.

My definition of a modern browser is one that self-updates, this is essential
for security. There are plenty to choose from, but if you're using a browser
that doesn't keep itself up to date you're asking for security problems.

------
dfar1
Best Christmas gift ever!

------
nowprovision
How will I sleep tonight...

