IE9 TV commercial gets a parody: "It's Kinda Fast ... I Guess?"

In March, Microsoft launched a new TV commercial campaign for Internet Explorer 9. The TV spot was also the first place many people got to hear the pop song "Too Close" by UK-based singer Alex Clare. The song has since become a major hit in the UK and the US. It recently peaked at number eight on the Billboard Hot 100 charts.

A couple of months ago, Microsoft launched a new version of its IE9 TV ad, again with "Too Close" as its soundtrack. This week, the parody comedy team World Wide Interweb decided to have some fun and made their own version of Microsoft's IE commercial.

The video, posted on YouTube, calls the clip the "honest version" of the commercial. It comes complete with all of the stereotypical issues people encounter when they use, well, pretty much any web browser (buffering, virus infections, etc). While the video targets IE, the truth is that people encounter the same kinds of issues no matter which browser they happen to be using on their PC.

It's still a funny video, however, and it also shows that Microsoft's IE 9 marketing campaign has become well known enough to generate such a parody. It helps that its background song has become a major hit.

Source: World Wide Interweb

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Thousands of iPhone 5 workers at Foxconn plant on strike

Next Story

Popular Mechanics gives award to Windows 8 and Surface

85 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Great, another video promoting hatred/dislike towards IE or Microsoft that is totally false for the most part (I think). The video would be funny if they were showing real IE9 quirks, but those are so fake. If it's funny, it's only because haters keep deluding themselves.

HAHAHAHA look I usually hate IE, but this video is so lame... IE 9 is the most efficient browser at blocking malware and its not slow at all! Firefox is a lot slower and memory intensive, and let that clipply thing die in piece now.

Eh. The only "bad" thing IE now has is word of mouth. While I use Chrome as my default browser (though I'd considering going back to IE10), IE9 is a good-to-great browser. Flash is crashing big time on Chrome, but IE9 hasn't had any problems.

As I've said before, people maximize IE9's shortcomings while minimizing Chrome's.

A340600 said,
Eh. The only "bad" thing IE now has is word of mouth. While I use Chrome as my default browser (though I'd considering going back to IE10), IE9 is a good-to-great browser. Flash is crashing big time on Chrome, but IE9 hasn't had any problems.

IE10 is even more awesome.... The worst part about IE bad word of mouth is that the same people that had issues with it 10 years ago and have never used it again keep spreading the same bull**** lies.

As I've said before, people maximize IE9's shortcomings while minimizing Chrome's.

This is one of those "it's funny because it's true" parodies. Trouble is, it isn't true, which makes it not that funny either. Most of the things it mocks IE9 for we're fixed long before that version ... and using IE5 on a Mac to illustrate his point just makes him look out of touch. I'm sorry - I know it's just a bit of fun but it touches a nerve for those of us who encounter ignorance like this every day.

Timble said,
This is one of those "it's funny because it's true" parodies. Trouble is, it isn't true, which makes it not that funny either. Most of the things it mocks IE9 for we're fixed long before that version ... and using IE5 on a Mac to illustrate his point just makes him look out of touch. I'm sorry - I know it's just a bit of fun but it touches a nerve for those of us who encounter ignorance like this every day.

This is one reason why I dislike the fanbois that claim to say that IE sucks.... I remember when IE 6 was out, it trumped Netscape in every way possible. It was the browser to beat. Back then IE6 was the most advance browser but yet these same people compare tech from 2001 to tech In 2005+ which we all know it's like comparing a bicycle to a motorcycle in technology years.

I like IE9 and I've made it my default browser twice now for 2 6 month stints but I end up going back to Chrome. Some times sites dont load properly, just your average site but they work fine in Chrome. Also I really want addons for AdBlock+ and NoScript, youtube repart button, little things like that that I miss when I am in IE9.

Richard Cousins said,
I like IE9 and I've made it my default browser twice now for 2 6 month stints but I end up going back to Chrome. Some times sites dont load properly, just your average site but they work fine in Chrome. Also I really want addons for AdBlock+ and NoScript, youtube repart button, little things like that that I miss when I am in IE9.

I know what you mean. I hope someone ends up making them. I just tend to ignore ads in the first place, and not a heavy YouTube user.

alwaysonacoffebreak said,
This is just stupid.

Yup. The video is totally irrelevant and made just to feed the YouTube kids with their prejudiced (actually superstitious) beliefs.

Studio384 said,
Lame... Seriously, who wants Chrome of you can get IE9/10? That are 2 amazing browsers, this video is just stupid.

I use to use Chrome but now IE9 Is the best browser hands down! anyone who disagrees would be an irrational biased fanboy.

tanjiajun_34 said,
IE 9 and 10 is good but just too naggy for me. Thought most of my downloads as unsafe...

I call this bull****!! but considering that IE keeps you safer from virus\spam\click fraud that's well worth it. IE does a scan to make sure your file is save prior to you downloading it, that does not mean your file didn't download.

nickcruz said,

I call this bull****!! but considering that IE keeps you safer from virus\spam\click fraud that's well worth it. IE does a scan to make sure your file is save prior to you downloading it, that does not mean your file didn't download.

Yes I am talking about naggy for me. Not killing my downloads feature. And I thought other browser do a scan as well? Anyway for me its not the scanning. it nags you if you downloading from some source they don't know. Like when I download Chromium nightly build, it complains its unsafe.

tanjiajun_34 said,
IE 9 and 10 is good but just too naggy for me. Thought most of my downloads as unsafe...

stop downloading dodgy pron then (joke!)

the reason I heard that chrome has so many instances in memory is due to it's technology which prevents it from crashing the whole system????? if my memory serves...

ChrisJ1968 said,
the reason I heard that chrome has so many instances in memory is due to it's technology which prevents it from crashing the whole system????? if my memory serves...

Yeah... tab isolation. Internet Explorer was the first mainstream browser to do that.

ChrisJ1968 said,
the reason I heard that chrome has so many instances in memory is due to it's technology which prevents it from crashing the whole system????? if my memory serves...

It opens in individual processes so that if one window or extension crashes it doesn't take the whole browser with it

ChrisJ1968 said,
the reason I heard that chrome has so many instances in memory is due to it's technology which prevents it from crashing the whole system????? if my memory serves...

Actually Chrome tech that keeps it from crashing the whole System SUCKS! the time I would get the whole browser Crash even thought the tech is suppose to keep the browser from crashing completely. On the other hand, IE 9 technology which separates the process does a much better job and it's rare if ever that the whole browser would crash. Now moving to IE10 it's so much better.

Whoever made the parody needs a reality check. IE:9 does a fine job. I do use Chrome, and before that was Firefox. But I'd be happy to use IE:9 if I had to.

watchthisspace said,
Whoever made the parody needs a reality check. IE:9 does a fine job. I do use Chrome, and before that was Firefox. But I'd be happy to use IE:9 if I had to.

I used to use Chrome 80 percent of the time before IE10. Now that IE10 is faster the Chrome, I have no need for Chrome.

This is just a terrible video... Thought it was gonna be something relevant, but it's taking humor that was funny maybe back in the XP days.

It could even be the fastest browser in all past/present/future history but if there is no proper, free, ad-blocker for it (no, the TPL lists are nowhere as good as an Adblock Plus plugin) they can keep it. What's the point of having loading times faster by a few milliseconds if you are going to waste several whole seconds closing all those ads that often take the whole screen and sometimes come with countdown timers preventing them to be closed?

Tom Chapman said,
Some of us don't care.
What about all the milliseconds of speed lost due to the extensions.

Those milliseconds are still whole orders of magnitude smaller than the seconds wasted for all those flash video ads to load and for finding the damn close buttons (hoping there is one and that pressing it early doesn't load another AD page) for all those full-page ads. Also, let's not forget the video-in-the-video ads (like youtube's) because Adblock takes care of everything including video ads (unlike those TPL lists straight from the paleolithic) so don't complain the next time you will be forced to watch 30+ seconds ads every time you want to watch something on Youtube.

francescob said,
It could even be the fastest browser in all past/present/future history but if there is no proper, free, ad-blocker for it (no, the TPL lists are nowhere as good as an Adblock Plus plugin) they can keep it. What's the point of having loading times faster by a few milliseconds if you are going to waste several whole seconds closing all those ads that often take the whole screen and sometimes come with countdown timers preventing them to be closed?

I call shenanigans. I have ad block from Fanboy and I don't see a single ad. That is, when I was on IE9. Now using IE 10 and see no ads on it either. Anyway, the only complaint you may possible have is that Fanboy ad block doesn't get rid of the white space left when the ads are taken out.

Also, even though I snickered this parody fails because they shoulda ended it with the Blue Screen of Death. That woulda been funnier.

Wyn6 said,

I call shenanigans. I have ad block from Fanboy and I don't see a single ad. That is, when I was on IE9. Now using IE 10 and see no ads on it either. Anyway, the only complaint you may possible have is that Fanboy ad block doesn't get rid of the white space left when the ads are taken out.

I'll make this clearer: a TPL list can only block URL paths (for example you can block http://www.youwebsite.com/banner) so it's nowhere better than ad blockers from a decade ago. Adblock is a content-filtering plugin therefore it can block and remove elements in the page according to many different characteristics (not just URLS, for example you can filter by any element property), that's why it's far more efficient and accurate. The Youtube ad blocking, as I wrote in my previous post, is one of the example where it works better but I have clearly seen the difference between the twos in many websites (no, it's not just the AD space being left). TPL lists were made to protect the privacy by blocking privacy-invading websites, they wasn't made to block Ads and they will never be as good as Adblock at it.

TPLs and AdBlock can't be compared at all. Read your last sentence and think about it. Of course TPLs are worse than AdBlock if you think of it that way, but one shouldn't compare them in the first place.

I would rather use TPLs than AdBlock anytime. There are many websites out there that rely on ads to keep running (instead of a more traditional donate buttons) and blocking those ads, to me, is abusive of the content you're viewing and an insult to the maker of the content (such as a YouTuber relying on ads to earn revenue from their videos; many vloggers do this for a living, and if them being able to eat for another month means that I should click one ad a day, hell I'd do it for every video I watch).

People still complain about ads because they suck at internet and have no idea what they're doing. Rent a porn cheap and don't steal MP3s and you'll be just fine with those "countdown timer ads" and flash bull****

No good, decent website would allow such intrusive ads to be displayed anyway, so guess who should have more healthy internet habits?

[quote=Gornot said,]TPLs and AdBlock can't be compared at all. Read your last sentence and think about it. Of course TPLs are worse than AdBlock if you think of it that way, but one shouldn't compare them in the first place.[/QUOTE]

Yet there is always somebody saying IE9 with an ad-blocking TPL list is just as good as a firefox with adblock. The TPL lists were not made for that.

[quote=Gornot said,]I would rather use TPLs than AdBlock anytime. There are many websites out there that rely on ads to keep running (instead of a more traditional donate buttons) and blocking those ads, to me, is abusive of the content you're viewing and an insult to the maker of the content (such as a YouTuber relying on ads to earn revenue from their videos; many vloggers do this for a living, and if them being able to eat for another month means that I should click one ad a day, hell I'd do it for every video I watch).
[/QUOTE]

But the privacy-invading websites you block with your TPL are also a source of income for content-makers, doesn't that count?

[quote=Gornot said,]
People still complain about ads because they suck at internet and have no idea what they're doing. Rent a porn cheap and don't steal MP3s and you'll be just fine with those "countdown timer ads" and flash bull****

No good, decent website would allow such intrusive ads to be displayed anyway, so guess who should have more healthy internet habits?[/quote]

Then, apparently, all the internet is evil. Many major websites are ad-ridden and I've seen more than one person thrashing their perfectly working computers or tablets or phone just because they couldn't cope with the amount of crappy resource-demaing flash-ads many websites are filled with.

I'm fine with textual google-like or simple image ads, anything else to me seems forced and feels like the website owners not giving a damn about the visitors, if they don't care why should I? Thanks to adblock I can still browse every website from my 700mhz laptop from 2001-2002 (and it's not slow at all, I also have office 2010 perfectly working without issues), if they expect me to toss a still perfectly working computer or paying the extra bandwith for their 1080p full-screen movie ads they can just go to hell.

Edited by francescob, Oct 6 2012, 7:38am :

francescob said,

snip.

Ok. We get it. You're one of those entitlement types. I don't like paying to see content, and I don't wanna see ads, so I'm just going to freeload off others instead. If that's your perogative, whatever. I don't use adblockers b/c the ads mostly never ever get in the way and I ignore them but still help contribute to the site.

Quikboy said,

Ok. We get it. You're one of those entitlement types. I don't like paying to see content, and I don't wanna see ads, so I'm just going to freeload off others instead. If that's your perogative, whatever. I don't use adblockers b/c the ads mostly never ever get in the way and I ignore them but still help contribute to the site.

And I bet you're one of the people who subscribe to every newsletter, complete every survey, click on every checkbox regarding your personal data sharing with third-party marketing agencies and gladly answer any subsequent telemarketer call because... you know... those are also ways websites earn money. RIIIIIIIGHT? Oh, what do I hear? That's it! It's the sound of DOUBLE HYPOCRITICAL STANDARDS!

Quick, have some advertising agency tattoo some ADs on your forehead or some random website in Guatemala will have to close.

Edited by francescob, Oct 6 2012, 8:07pm :

Quikboy said,

Ok. We get it. You're one of those entitlement types. I don't like paying to see content, and I don't wanna see ads, so I'm just going to freeload off others instead. If that's your perogative, whatever. I don't use adblockers b/c the ads mostly never ever get in the way and I ignore them but still help contribute to the site.

I agree with you completely, but little-known fact: it's spelt prerogative.

Mulsivaas said,
I agree with you completely, but little-known fact: it's spelt prerogative.

You agree? Where were you when browsers stopped blocking popups/popunders, that also were source of revenues for websites? And when IE8 did a crackdown on third-party cookies? Where were you all? Come on, tell us, don't be so hypocritically shy!

I laughed at it. I do not think it is that fast. Still like chrome or if i have to firefox. only use IE when I need it for certain websites at work.

Anyway the original ad was good but so is the parody.

moloko said,
I laughed at it. I do not think it is that fast. Still like chrome or if i have to firefox. only use IE when I need it for certain websites at work.

Anyway the original ad was good but so is the parody.

nothing good about the parody as it claims to be honest but does all the bull**** claims most dumb fanbois from other platform claim that are the norm.

Retarded video. There isn't really much to complain about IE9, much less IE10. Sites load crazy fast and render properly, also it has the lowest memory and CPU usage than any other modern browser.

Lprd2007 said,
Retarded video. There isn't really much to complain about IE9, much less IE10. Sites load crazy fast and render properly, also it has the lowest memory and CPU usage than any other modern browser.

True. I really don't get what this video has to do with IE9 at all XD

Lprd2007 said,
Retarded video. There isn't really much to complain about IE9, much less IE10. Sites load crazy fast and render properly, also it has the lowest memory and CPU usage than any other modern browser.
Not to mention the security benefits. It even has DNT... which doesn't mean much yet, but at least Microsoft is trying to protect their users.

Also I did the BingItOn test and found Bing to have better results.

Ive literally had more crashing and freezing problems with Safari on OSX than I have with IE9 on 7, but IE9 is much much slower than safari or any other browser for that matter and it still has terrible CSS compliance.

Let's make this clear for once: CSS compliance is different from non-finalized "alpha" standards support (HTML5 and CSS3 are still not final). IE9 when released was perfectly compliant with the standard, finalized specs that were currently available at the time.

Supporting non-finalized standard can be bad, for example other browsers added support for linear-gradient, then BOOM! the syntax of the release-candidate draft changed breaking entirely from previous syntax (before you specified the direction with "TOP", now you have to use "TO BOTTOM") so whoever used the non-finalized syntax ended up screwed. How fun is that?

Stop with this HTML5/CSS3 obsessive "hipsterism": don't blame who waits for the proper standards before implementing them, blame whose who take decades to finalize the damn standards instead.

Edited by francescob, Oct 6 2012, 5:21am :

francescob said,
Stop with this HTML5/CSS3 obsessive "hipsterism": don't blame who waits for the proper standards before implementing them, blame whose who take decades to finalize the damn standards instead.

You're absolutely correct... the CSS3/HTML5 standards body (W3C) is notoriously slow at finalizing anything but if everyone waited for them to put out a final, ratified, finished spec, the web would look like it did in 1997.

Using HTML5 is far from "hipsterism", it's a matter of innovators making use of the latest technologies to push the boundaries of what we thought was possible on the internet, even if they're not "official" yet. Browser manufacturers who don't keep up will be left behind.

Can you imagine if everyone waited until a standards body said it was ok before trying anything? We'd be stuck in the stone ages...

IE9 is a massive improvement over previous versions. Microsoft has to step it up, though. If they want to be competitive, they have to position themselves ahead of the pack. That means not only supporting the latest draft spec, but creating entirely new, innovative features and technologies, that may someday be adopted by others (and formalized by the W3C-- like they did for drag & drop).

But because IE9 doesn't support the history API, websockets, or offline storage, people who want to build their amazing sites and products using these features will have to wait for the lowest common denominator to catch up, while falling behind someone who said "screw the standard-- we can just tell IE9 users to use a better browser".

cyberdrone2000 said,
But because IE9 doesn't support the history API, websockets, or offline storage, people who want to build their amazing sites and products using these features will have to wait for the lowest common denominator to catch up, while falling behind someone who said "screw the standard-- we can just tell IE9 users to use a better browser".

Microsoft actually did this, guess with which browser? IE6. The browser EVERYBODY seems to hate yet the browser nobody remembers how much innovative it actually was when it came out in 2001. Supporting non-finalized features has meant millions of website breaking, not to mentioning web-apps, for decades.

The W3C just RECENTLY realized they may not even finish finalizing HTML5/CSS3 by the end of this century and started finalizing single features to try to contain the problem so all this mess was ALL W3C's fault. Microsoft gets crapped on if they don't implement the latest "innovative" features and gets crapped on if they implement them and then they stop working because somebody at W3C decides it's cool to specify the gradients by the whole opposite direction.

If the web wants to progress IE must die, vanish, disappear from the face of earth. Windows XP users are stuck with IE8, Vista users are stuck with IE9: thanks to IE we'll be stuck with CSS2 for years and years to come, while all the other browsers users will always have the latest version with all the finalized HTML5/CSS3 goodies.

francescob said,

Microsoft actually did this, guess with which browser? IE6. The browser EVERYBODY seems to hate yet the browser nobody remembers how much innovative it actually was when it came out in 2001. Supporting non-finalized features has meant millions of website breaking, not to mentioning web-apps, for decades.

The W3C just RECENTLY realized they may not even finish finalizing HTML5/CSS3 by the end of this century and started finalizing single features to try to contain the problem so all this mess was ALL W3C's fault. Microsoft gets crapped on if they don't implement the latest "innovative" features and gets crapped on if they implement them and then they stop working because somebody at W3C decides it's cool to specify the gradients by the whole opposite direction.

If the web wants to progress IE must die, vanish, disappear from the face of earth. Windows XP users are stuck with IE8, Vista users are stuck with IE9: thanks to IE we'll be stuck with CSS2 for years and years to come, while all the other browsers users will always have the latest version with all the finalized HTML5/CSS3 goodies.


If Microsoft actually updated their sh`tty browser more than every 3 years, things would be completely different. IE9 wasn't that bad when it came out. Now it's already outdated crap.

@Leo said,

If Microsoft actually updated their sh`tty browser more than every 3 years, things would be completely different. IE9 wasn't that bad when it came out. Now it's already outdated crap.

Even if internet explorer was getting frequent updates like other browsers it still wouldn't be available on all versions of windows: the 40% worldwide windows xp users will be stuck with IE8, forever (even in the afterlife), same for Vista users (IE10 is win7/8 only) and a few years from now it will be the same for Win 7.

I really hope Microsoft loses the whole web browsers market: if everybody was a Firefox or Chrome user then web developers could use all the latest web technologies as soon as they're finalized without having to support browsers from up to 10 years before.

IE 6 was more like screw the standards (I think this started with IE 4 or 5). They created stuff that only IE could provide, like directx filters, activex controls and a lot of different methods on DOM.
That wasn't good, wasn't good at all... Besides the DOM stuff, like document.all and attachEvent method, those things can not be implemented on any other browser (because it can't work in another platform besides windows)
IE 6 is certainly the browser that we all love to hate... I remember fighting with transparent png issues, SELECT elements that couldn't get covered (iframes were the only ones that could do this) and CSS issues...

Iridium said,
Ive literally had more crashing and freezing problems with Safari on OSX than I have with IE9 on 7, but IE9 is much much slower than safari or any other browser for that matter and it still has terrible CSS compliance.

IE9 slower than safari? That's a great joke, you should do stand up.

W3C marking something as final is not required for it to be implemented - it just means that it is unlikely to change. In fact, implementing in-progress stuff is part of the normal method, because it means it get rigorously tested. The problem is doing stuff *outside* of the normal process, without agreement from other parties, or refusing to change something that has changed in the standard.

That besides that CSS3 and HTML5 are not single monolithic technologies, both are split into many parts at varying levels of standardization. And if you're not a browser or website developer, you don't need to worry much about it.

francescob said,

Even if internet explorer was getting frequent updates like other browsers it still wouldn't be available on all versions of windows: the 40% worldwide windows xp users will be stuck with IE8, forever (even in the afterlife), same for Vista users (IE10 is win7/8 only) and a few years from now it will be the same for Win 7.

I really hope Microsoft loses the whole web browsers market: if everybody was a Firefox or Chrome user then web developers could use all the latest web technologies as soon as they're finalized without having to support browsers from up to 10 years before.


You do know standards change regulary when they get finalished don't you?
Meaning every single web developer has to keep its website upto par and standards to keep working with the latest and the greatest. For allot of projects, inhouse webapps and what not, this is virtually IMPOSSIBLE. While if you stick with IE, if something works on IE8, it will continue to work on IE8 for the rest of human civilization. And you can absolutely count on MS not breaking or changing any webstandards within a version and only do so with new version point releases.
FF and Chrome have to stay backwards compatible to achieve the same result. And with FF also getting autoupdates, it'll be harder for webdevelopers to keep their websites in check.
IE always has the option to use an older version of trident and render an IE8 only website perfectly fine in IE9 and IE10.

Not finalized standards can change when they get finalized. So go on and create a website with all the not-finished standards and find out in a year you'll have to redo the website due to changed standards.

You can personally not like it, but IMHO it's a very good approach from Microsoft to its most valueable partners, the cooperative world.

Adding ontop of that, FF has a bit more features then IE, but look at how slow and sluggish it is? They cannot keep up and FF cannot get much faster due to a heavier web environment.
Chrome the same, it used to be bloody, bloody fast. But offcourse, a featureless browser runs allot faster then browsers that have been established in the market for long (at the time ff, ie, opera, safari). And in recent time, Chrome has been offering similar build in functionalities and its speed is considerably dropping. Maybe not in benchmarks, but in user experienced speed it has been. And the heavier the web gets, the more it'll get slower.

Oh and btw if IE9 is so _outdated_ why cant no other browser still match its GPU acceleration? Its build in adblocker? or some more functions you need plugins for on FF or Chrome.
With allot more build in functionality and what in other browsers are called addons. IE9 still is on par with speeds compared to FF and Chrome who have been updated every time, vs a browser that only gets security updates and has been released in IT terms a billion years ago.
Took them a long time to match IE9 and when it comes to default functionality, only FF comes close.

[quote=Shadowzz said,]
You do know standards change regulary when they get finalished don't you?
Meaning every single web developer has to keep its website upto par and standards to keep working with the latest and the greatest. For allot of projects, inhouse webapps and what not, this is virtually IMPOSSIBLE. While if you stick with IE, if something works on IE8, it will continue to work on IE8 for the rest of human civilization. And you can absolutely count on MS not breaking or changing any webstandards within a version and only do so with new version point releases.
FF and Chrome have to stay backwards compatible to achieve the same result. And with FF also getting autoupdates, it'll be harder for webdevelopers to keep their websites in check.
IE always has the option to use an older version of trident and render an IE8 only website perfectly fine in IE9 and IE10. [/QUOTE]

The "backward compatibility" you talk about is called by everybody, including Microsoft itself, "QUIRKS MODE". And you know why it's called like that? Because older internet explorer version had so many rendering bugs that the page broke when rendered with a standard compliant browser, so many pages broke that they had to actually emulate all the older rendering bugs in the new engines (the so-called QUIRKS MODE), there's even a page on wikipedia regarding that. Quirks mode emulates BUGS, not older standards.

Standards don't change, only drafts do. Once they have been finalized and they have in-fact become a STANDARD they stay like that forever. That's why you specify an HTML version on your page, because the browser knows the rules to render that. If you made a valid, compliant HTML page 10 years ago specifying the HTML version you used and without using any browser-specific quirk it would still work today, that's what standards are for.

[quote=Shadowzz said,]
Not finalized standards can change when they get finalized. So go on and create a website with all the not-finished standards and find out in a year you'll have to redo the website due to changed standards.

You can personally not like it, but IMHO it's a very good approach from Microsoft to its most valueable partners, the cooperative world.
[/QUOTE]

Having some half-assed support of a feature that breaks from one version to another is BAD (see my linear-gradient example there). If like you said supporting broken features was a good idea Microsoft wouldn't have made a 180° turn with Internet Explorer 9 when they switched to a default, standards-only rendering mode. Before that, the quirks mode was default on EVERY PAGE unless you specified the proper doctypes.

[quote=Shadowzz said,]
Adding ontop of that, FF has a bit more features then IE, but look at how slow and sluggish it is? They cannot keep up and FF cannot get much faster due to a heavier web environment.
Chrome the same, it used to be bloody, bloody fast. But offcourse, a featureless browser runs allot faster then browsers that have been established in the market for long (at the time ff, ie, opera, safari). And in recent time, Chrome has been offering similar build in functionalities and its speed is considerably dropping. Maybe not in benchmarks, but in user experienced speed it has been. And the heavier the web gets, the more it'll get slower.
[/QUOTE]

They cannot keep up? Do you have any idea, ANY IDEA of the difference of standards supported by IE versus the standards supported by chrome or firefox? (A little list, and there are more: WebGL, filesystem api, websockets, offline storage, CSS animations, CSS reflections, CSS expressions, CSS filters, grid layout, the flexible box system, all the new input types (date, color, range), local storage)

Internet explorer is and will always be years behind since it gets updated every 3 years and new drafts are released far more often.

[quote=Shadowzz said,]Oh and btw if IE9 is so _outdated_ why cant no other browser still match its GPU acceleration?[/QUOTE]

Firefox had GPU acceleration a whole year before internet explorer added it, and it also works on XP. Also on some of the internet explorer HTML5 tests it became faster IE9 after a few code fixes.

[quote=Shadowzz said,]
Its build in adblocker?
[/QUOTE]
A TPL list is not an adblocker, it only blocks URLs like ad-blockers from 10 years ago. Adblock blocks everything including youtube ADs. There's a whole thread below regarding that.

[quote=Shadowzz said,]
or some more functions you need plugins for on FF or Chrome.
[/QUOTE]
Like what? The useful "SUGGESTED WEBSITES"? The BING integration? Oh god, I don't know how could I have lived without that.

[quote=Shadowzz said,]
With allot more build in functionality and what in other browsers are called addons. IE9 still is on par with speeds compared to FF and Chrome who have been updated every time, vs a browser that only gets security updates and has been released in IT terms a billion years ago.
Took them a long time to match IE9 and when it comes to default functionality, only FF comes close.[/quote]

First you say other browsers have more features and now they have less? Firefox and chrome have bazillions of plugins for EVERYTHING from the most useful to the most stupid things, IE9 still relies on horrible compiled plugins that require separate installers and updaters. You can't even remotely compare the twos.

Edited by francescob, Oct 6 2012, 5:57pm :

francescob said,

Even if internet explorer was getting frequent updates like other browsers it still wouldn't be available on all versions of windows: the 40% worldwide windows xp users will be stuck with IE8, forever (even in the afterlife), same for Vista users (IE10 is win7/8 only) and a few years from now it will be the same for Win 7.

I really hope Microsoft loses the whole web browsers market: if everybody was a Firefox or Chrome user then web developers could use all the latest web technologies as soon as they're finalized without having to support browsers from up to 10 years before.

I think most of you on here just see it from an incorrect perspective!

Technology evolves, standards change. If some users decide to hang on to an outdated operating system (XP), you can't actually blame it on Microsoft that those users will be left behind. Or see it from a different angle: How many people are still using feature phones instead of smart phones? Do developers actually bother to still program featureless monochrome wap pages or do they go for feature-rich full-blown apps and mobile websites? - Correct! Nobody is designing their mobile web pages for a Nokia 7110 anymore even though this devices are still around!

People have their reasons why they don't upgrade their OS and software but blaming Microsoft for this is rather stupid! What is Microsoft supposed to do? Push a kill switch on XP and render all current installed XP versions useless? In a way they did by no longer supporting XP. They also offer upgrade paths to the latest verison of Windows for US $40.00 if you legally own your currently installed version of Windows XP, Vista or 7.

Just think about how long Windows XP has been on the market. By now, those XP users should have saved up $40.00 for the upgrade or a new computer. And if they don't want to upgrade, they can download an alternative browser. Either way, you can't blame this on Microsoft! I don't see Apple releasing the latest Safari browser for OSX9 either nor do I see a way to get the latest Chrome running on OpenSuse 9.0.

Just don't give me that crap argument that companies can't upgrade or switch because of special software or add-ons that only work in IE6. If that is the case, then HR really has to evaluate their IT staff! What have those guys done the past decade?

Tumultus said,
I think most of you on here just see it from an incorrect perspective!

Technology evolves, standards change. If some users decide to hang on to an outdated operating system (XP), you can't actually blame it on Microsoft that those users will be left behind. Or see it from a different angle: How many people are still using feature phones instead of smart phones? Do developers actually bother to still program featureless monochrome wap pages or do they go for feature-rich full-blown apps and mobile websites? - Correct! Nobody is designing their mobile web pages for a Nokia 7110 anymore even though this devices are still around!

People have their reasons why they don't upgrade their OS and software but blaming Microsoft for this is rather stupid! What is Microsoft supposed to do? Push a kill switch on XP and render all current installed XP versions useless? In a way they did by no longer supporting XP. They also offer upgrade paths to the latest verison of Windows for US $40.00 if you legally own your currently installed version of Windows XP, Vista or 7.

Just think about how long Windows XP has been on the market. By now, those XP users should have saved up $40.00 for the upgrade or a new computer. And if they don't want to upgrade, they can download an alternative browser. Either way, you can't blame this on Microsoft! I don't see Apple releasing the latest Safari browser for OSX9 either nor do I see a way to get the latest Chrome running on OpenSuse 9.0.

Just don't give me that crap argument that companies can't upgrade or switch because of special software or add-ons that only work in IE6. If that is the case, then HR really has to evaluate their IT staff! What have those guys done the past decade?

Microsoft decides an operating system with 40%+ marketshare doesn't deserve the latest browser, Microsoft is to blame. That's the only perspective. It's their business choice, they could have chosen otherwise, they claimed hardware acceleration required "exclusively windows Vista/7" but apparently Firefox/Chrome/Opera never had any issue using that on XP (also notice that IE9 works also with VESA drivers (zero GPU acceleration)) so it is clearly because they didn't want to invest the money to port it to XP and preferred to "incentivate" the users to upgrade.

Just because Apple does the same thing it doesn't mean it's good either. Saying that Microsoft can do whatever they want is fine, any company can do that, but that doesn't mean what they did wasn't bad for users and far more bad for web developers that will have to support IE8 for years to come.

Also regarding the cheap 40$ to upgrade windows, good luck upgrading when most manufacturers drop official support just after a couple of years. Remember the Vista capable lawsuit? Intel was still selling Vista-incapable chipsets 6 months before Vista came out and both Microsoft and Intel knew what they were doing, as several leaked papers during the Vista capable process have shown: "I now have a $2,100 e-mail machine." - a phrase straight from a MS executive, that says it all on how straightforward Windows upgrades may be.

francescob said,

Microsoft decides an operating system with 40%+ marketshare doesn't deserve the latest browser, Microsoft is to blame. That's the only perspective. It's their business choice, they could have chosen otherwise, they claimed hardware acceleration required "exclusively windows Vista/7" but apparently Firefox/Chrome/Opera never had any issue using that on XP (also notice that IE9 works also with VESA drivers (zero GPU acceleration)) so it is clearly because they didn't want to invest the money to port it to XP and preferred to "incentivate" the users to upgrade.

Just because Apple does the same thing it doesn't mean it's good either. Saying that Microsoft can do whatever they want is fine, any company can do that, but that doesn't mean what they did wasn't bad for users and far more bad for web developers that will have to support IE8 for years to come.

Also regarding the cheap 40$ to upgrade windows, good luck upgrading when most manufacturers drop official support just after a couple of years. Remember the Vista capable lawsuit? Intel was still selling Vista-incapable chipsets 6 months before Vista came out and both Microsoft and Intel knew what they were doing, as several leaked papers during the Vista capable process have shown: "I now have a $2,100 e-mail machine." - a phrase straight from a MS executive, that says it all on how straightforward Windows upgrades may be.

Wrong!
Microsoft decides that a MORE-THAN-A-DECADE old operating system is too old to be actively supported - that is more than tripple as long as other companies support their older OSes!

Noone forces developers to support IE8! If IE8 users finally notice that their software is OUTDATED, they'll actually do the right thing and either upgrade their technology or switch to an alternate browser.

I guess you didn't read my above comment at all! Show me only one non-Microsoft operating system that has been supported for a decade or longer. Correct! There is none. Instead you had to upgrade to a newer version of the OS if you wanted your system to support the latest standards. Sure, upgrading your OS on a Windows system isn't cheap, I grant you that! However, blaming Microsoft for no longer supporting a more than 10 years old operating system is rather silly!

Tumultus said,
Wrong!
Microsoft decides that a MORE-THAN-A-DECADE old operating system is too old to be actively supported - that is more than tripple as long as other companies support their older OSes!

Noone forces developers to support IE8! If IE8 users finally notice that their software is OUTDATED, they'll actually do the right thing and either upgrade their technology or switch to an alternate browser.

I guess you didn't read my above comment at all! Show me only one non-Microsoft operating system that has been supported for a decade or longer. Correct! There is none. Instead you had to upgrade to a newer version of the OS if you wanted your system to support the latest standards. Sure, upgrading your OS on a Windows system isn't cheap, I grant you that! However, blaming Microsoft for no longer supporting a more than 10 years old operating system is rather silly!

Just because other companies are worse it doesn't make it wrong. It was ENTIRELY their own choice, they could have ported IE9 just like they ported Office 2010 or Security Essentials, .NET 4.0 or other of their software. Other browsers still work on XP and will work for years, are the Mozilla/Google/Opera developers some kind of magic wizards?

When a web developer has to make a site it can't tell its customers "HEY YO! IMMA GONNA SUPPORT ONLY IE ABOVE 9 BECAUSE XP USERS ARE OLD, UGLY AND DUMB. DHURRR!!", it has to support all the mainstream browsers and IE8 is and will be mainstreams for years to come, forcing developers to support it.

I read your comment but you apparently didn't read mine well: it's not silly when 40 PERCENT OF THE USERS still uses it, that's not a dozens, a hundred or a thousand but instead BILLIONS of users that are still using it. Why almost every company still releases XP compatible software but Microsoft can't? Is Adobe dumb for supporting CS6 on XP? Are Google and Mozilla dumb for still supporting XP? It doesn't matter if it's 10 years old when almost HALF THE USERS are still using it! That's the reason nobody cares about Win2000 anymore despite it being just one year older than XP, because XP still has billions of users while nobody uses 2000 anymore.

francescob said,

Just because other companies are worse it doesn't make it wrong. It was ENTIRELY their own choice, they could have ported IE9 just like they ported Office 2010 or Security Essentials, .NET 4.0 or other of their software. Other browsers still work on XP and will work for years, are the Mozilla/Google/Opera developers some kind of magic wizards?

When a web developer has to make a site it can't tell its customers "HEY YO! IMMA GONNA SUPPORT ONLY IE ABOVE 9 BECAUSE XP USERS ARE OLD, UGLY AND DUMB. DHURRR!!", it has to support all the mainstream browsers and IE8 is and will be mainstreams for years to come, forcing developers to support it.

I read your comment but you apparently didn't read mine well: it's not silly when 40 PERCENT OF THE USERS still uses it, that's not a dozens, a hundred or a thousand but instead BILLIONS of users that are still using it. Why almost every company still releases XP compatible software but Microsoft can't? Is Adobe dumb for supporting CS6 on XP? Are Google and Mozilla dumb for still supporting XP? It doesn't matter if it's 10 years old when almost HALF THE USERS are still using it! That's the reason nobody cares about Win2000 anymore despite it being just one year older than XP, because XP still has billions of users while nobody uses 2000 anymore.

You realize that there are technologies involved which are not or only partly supported in XP, right? One of them is hardware cceleration. Even FF and Chrome had to cut back on functionality for their XP versions. I don't even want to get into other enhancements and changes in technology. Your assumption that an outdated piece of software needs to be supported because many people simply won't or can't let go of it is exactly that got us where we are! If we (developers) stop catering to ancient browsers, those people WILL upgrade or find alternative browsers to get the job done! So, yeah, it is up to the developers entirely! If they want to provide the coolest and latest, they'll have to draw a line and, in extreme cases, they'll have to let users know that their ancient browser isn't supported. If they want to cater to IE8 and below, well, that is entirely up to the devs but stop blaming it on Microsoft!

I would have partly agreed with you if you would have mentioned Vista but your posts focus entirely on Windows XP.

And to get back to my earlier example:
I know a lot of people that still use that good old flip phones / feature phones. They can't get all the coolest and latest apps even though their devices are less than 4 years old. Should I now blame it on Nokia, Samsung or whoever made the feature phone that app developers don't bother catering a wap page for them or should I blame it on the lazy developers which feel it isn't worth their time and effort to provide a mobile page that works even in feature phones?

If web developers can't handle to do their job and program their websites for different platforms, operating systems and browser versions then they may have chosen the wrong job! After all, that is what thei're there for, isn't it?

It was Adobe's choice to release CS6 for XP. It is a business decision and if they see any value in releasing it for XP, fine, but it has nothing to do with the fact that XP is an outdated / out-of-support / EOL operating system.

And yeah, it is silly if your only argument is that "40% are still using it". Lot's of people still have tape decks staying around in form of a walkman or other. They also have that good old LP players. So, with your argumentation, the music industry never should have dropped out of supporting those media formats either! Why can't I get the latest album of band XXX on vinyl?

Silly, really!

Tumultus said,
You realize that there are technologies involved which are not or only partly supported in XP, right? One of them is hardware cceleration. Even FF and Chrome had to cut back on functionality for their XP versions. I don't even want to get into other enhancements and changes in technology. Your assumption that an outdated piece of software needs to be supported because many people simply won't or can't let go of it is exactly that got us where we are! If we (developers) stop catering to ancient browsers, those people WILL upgrade or find alternative browsers to get the job done! So, yeah, it is up to the developers entirely! If they want to provide the coolest and latest, they'll have to draw a line and, in extreme cases, they'll have to let users know that their ancient browser isn't supported. If they want to cater to IE8 and below, well, that is entirely up to the devs but stop blaming it on Microsoft!

I would have partly agreed with you if you would have mentioned Vista but your posts focus entirely on Windows XP.

And to get back to my earlier example:
I know a lot of people that still use that good old flip phones / feature phones. They can't get all the coolest and latest apps even though their devices are less than 4 years old. Should I now blame it on Nokia, Samsung or whoever made the feature phone that app developers don't bother catering a wap page for them or should I blame it on the lazy developers which feel it isn't worth their time and effort to provide a mobile page that works even in feature phones?

If web developers can't handle to do their job and program their websites for different platforms, operating systems and browser versions then they may have chosen the wrong job! After all, that is what thei're there for, isn't it?

It was Adobe's choice to release CS6 for XP. It is a business decision and if they see any value in releasing it for XP, fine, but it has nothing to do with the fact that XP is an outdated / out-of-support / EOL operating system.

And yeah, it is silly if your only argument is that "40% are still using it". Lot's of people still have tape decks staying around in form of a walkman or other. They also have that good old LP players. So, with your argumentation, the music industry never should have dropped out of supporting those media formats either! Why can't I get the latest album of band XXX on vinyl?

Silly, really!

Hardware acceleration is not mandatory, actually on some terrible IGPs it can even be slower than CPU rendering. They could have disabled it, or ported only some part of it, if IE9 loads pages even with no graphics drivers installed (VESA mode) what is that, a miracle? Are you telling me that Microsoft programmers really that incompetent to not follow what Mozilla/Google have done for years? It was a marketing choice, it was their choice, and there is nothing wrong on criticizing what they did since developers will have to suffer for years for that.

Developers don't decide ANYTHING. Developers work for other people: you can't tell your customers you're cutting out 25% of the users (current IE8 market) because they think round corners or linear-gradients are cool when done through CSS3.

Your phones example is wrong, your friends have phones that have an extremely small amount of market share: if your friends had a phone that had 40% of the phone market share then yes, they would have the damn right to be annoyed if some popular website didn't support that. Same about the walkman/TAPE decks argument: until almost the majority of the market had a CD player companies kept releasing music on tapes, until the tapes no longer had a market. It's the market share that matters, not how much old the technology is.

francescob said,

Hardware acceleration is not mandatory, actually on some terrible IGPs it can even be slower than CPU rendering. They could have disabled it, or ported only some part of it, if IE9 loads pages even with no graphics drivers installed (VESA mode) what is that, a miracle? Are you telling me that Microsoft programmers really that incompetent to not follow what Mozilla/Google have done for years? It was a marketing choice, it was their choice, and there is nothing wrong on criticizing what they did since developers will have to suffer for years for that.

Developers don't decide ANYTHING. Developers work for other people: you can't tell your customers you're cutting out 25% of the users (current IE8 market) because they think round corners or linear-gradients are cool when done through CSS3.

Your phones example is wrong, your friends have phones that have an extremely small amount of market share: if your friends had a phone that had 40% of the phone market share then yes, they would have the damn right to be annoyed if some popular website didn't support that. Same about the walkman/TAPE decks argument: until almost the majority of the market had a CD player companies kept releasing music on tapes, until the tapes no longer had a market. It's the market share that matters, not how much old the technology is.

So,
Developers don't decide anything. As you agree with me: they get paid and told what to do. So, why are they the ones complaining then? After all, they get told to cater to IE6 users, so, basically, they are being asked to do their job! If they don't like it, they can quit and won't have to worry anymore that they have to code for IE8 and below. Still, IT does not only take orders, they also set boudaries with the "That's possible / impossible!" arguments on the next business meeting. And here once more: if a company decides to cater to IE6/IE7/IE8 users, it is their business decision because they want to get as much user accessibility as they can. But that is exactly that keeps us from moving on and moving beyond outdated technology!

You didn't like my feature phone example, ok, I guess it was a bit too much of a stretch for you, so, I'll pick something else: let's use your CS6 example!

I am owning CS3, legally! Why do I have to buy CS6 to get all the latest and greatest features? Why doesn't Adobe release a free update, so, that my CS3 can do all that advanced stuff users enjoy with CS6? BTW: You may want to research this anyway; there are certain features not available in CS6 under Windows XP.

Basically, you keep repeating the same base argument: you want all the new stuff that has been released lately as a free update for an EoL operating system. Let me break it to you: This is what upgrades or full new versions are for! Adobe is no exception there: you have to buy their latest product to get the latest features.

Just because people bought a version of Windows more than a decade ago, doesn't entitle them to get all the latest for the rest of their lifes. Just check out the EULA you agreed to when installing Windows XP. Pay special attention when you get to the TECHNICAL SUPPORT and UPDATE sections! Microsoft already provides extended support for XP until 2014, so, how much more could you expect for a software that is more than 10 years old? And here it just doesn't matter how many people are still using it! When CS6 came out, most people were on CS5; still, you didn't expect a free upgrade to CS6 or at least an update that would add the same functionality of CS6 to CS5, did you?

If there weren't alternative browsers available on XP, I may have felt your pain but it wouldn't have changed my argumentation since XP is really ancient! If private users or companies can't or won't switch to another browser, well, their problem! If they won't upgrade to a newer version of Windows, well, also their problem! If corporations couldn't find a way of recoding their IE6 add-ons for newer browsers, well, self-inflicted! They had more than 10 years to do so! What did they pay their IT staff for if those guys didn't find a way to embrace newer technologies? They had a decade to do so!

I'm happy to see a healthy debate going on here, not resorting to a slanging match that goes on here all too often. Now please, carry on!

Tumultus said,
So,
Developers don't decide anything. As you agree with me: they get paid and told what to do. So, why are they the ones complaining then? After all, they get told to cater to IE6 users, so, basically, they are being asked to do their job! If they don't like it, they can quit and won't have to worry anymore that they have to code for IE8 and below. Still, IT does not only take orders, they also set boudaries with the "That's possible / impossible!" arguments on the next business meeting. And here once more: if a company decides to cater to IE6/IE7/IE8 users, it is their business decision because they want to get as much user accessibility as they can. But that is exactly that keeps us from moving on and moving beyond outdated technology!

You didn't like my feature phone example, ok, I guess it was a bit too much of a stretch for you, so, I'll pick something else: let's use your CS6 example!

I am owning CS3, legally! Why do I have to buy CS6 to get all the latest and greatest features? Why doesn't Adobe release a free update, so, that my CS3 can do all that advanced stuff users enjoy with CS6? BTW: You may want to research this anyway; there are certain features not available in CS6 under Windows XP.

Basically, you keep repeating the same base argument: you want all the new stuff that has been released lately as a free update for an EoL operating system. Let me break it to you: This is what upgrades or full new versions are for! Adobe is no exception there: you have to buy their latest product to get the latest features.

Just because people bought a version of Windows more than a decade ago, doesn't entitle them to get all the latest for the rest of their lifes. Just check out the EULA you agreed to when installing Windows XP. Pay special attention when you get to the TECHNICAL SUPPORT and UPDATE sections! Microsoft already provides extended support for XP until 2014, so, how much more could you expect for a software that is more than 10 years old? And here it just doesn't matter how many people are still using it! When CS6 came out, most people were on CS5; still, you didn't expect a free upgrade to CS6 or at least an update that would add the same functionality of CS6 to CS5, did you?

If there weren't alternative browsers available on XP, I may have felt your pain but it wouldn't have changed my argumentation since XP is really ancient! If private users or companies can't or won't switch to another browser, well, their problem! If they won't upgrade to a newer version of Windows, well, also their problem! If corporations couldn't find a way of recoding their IE6 add-ons for newer browsers, well, self-inflicted! They had more than 10 years to do so! What did they pay their IT staff for if those guys didn't find a way to embrace newer technologies? They had a decade to do so!

Yes, developers are asked to do their job, but having to support older browsers for years makes them waste more time/money for developing websites. Don't they have the right to criticize what Microsoft is doing? Why should their work be made a misery requiring them to use XP/Vista virtual machines for the next years to test every damn page and they should shut up about it?

And Adobe requiring you to upgrade for minor features (like when CS5.5 came out) makes it ethical? How? As I said just because other companies do that or worse it doesn't mean it's right. Adobe abuses of that, just like Microsoft and other companies, because they control the market and since there are no decent alternatives they milk the money from their customers as much as they can. As I can say companies can do whatever they can, of course, that doesn't their choices can't be criticized. Anybody can have their own opinions, right? Free speech, and stuff like that.

I keep repeating the same argument because you don't seem to get it. I don't care if there are other browsers, I care that 25% of the users, due to Microsoft's choice, are stuck with IE8, therefore web developers are forced to support it, for years, because Microsoft pulled the support for an operating system that has still an enormous amount of market share. Developers can't do ANYTHING about that and just have to suffer the consequences: they can't magically put a banner on your website telling IE8 users to go to hell and download another browser to use the website, it doesn't work like that. They just shout "YOU GO TO HELL I HAVE A DELL!" and leave and you lose their business, it's that simple.

francescob said,

Yes, developers are asked to do their job, but having to support older browsers for years makes them waste more time/money for developing websites. Don't they have the right to criticize what Microsoft is doing? Why should their work be made a misery requiring them to use XP/Vista virtual machines for the next years to test every damn page and they should shut up about it?

And Adobe requiring you to upgrade for minor features (like when CS5.5 came out) makes it ethical? How? As I said just because other companies do that or worse it doesn't mean it's right. Adobe abuses of that, just like Microsoft and other companies, because they control the market and since there are no decent alternatives they milk the money from their customers as much as they can. As I can say companies can do whatever they can, of course, that doesn't their choices can't be criticized. Anybody can have their own opinions, right? Free speech, and stuff like that.

I keep repeating the same argument because you don't seem to get it. I don't care if there are other browsers, I care that 25% of the users, due to Microsoft's choice, are stuck with IE8, therefore web developers are forced to support it, for years, because Microsoft pulled the support for an operating system that has still an enormous amount of market share. Developers can't do ANYTHING about that and just have to suffer the consequences: they can't magically put a banner on your website telling IE8 users to go to hell and download another browser to use the website, it doesn't work like that. They just shout "YOU GO TO HELL I HAVE A DELL!" and leave and you lose their business, it's that simple.

Nah,
I am just getting tired of it now. You ignore the fact that XP is old and EoL and you try to rectify your point of view with ethics. In business, there are no ethical rules. But to be honest, Microsoft did a very ethical thing by providing support on XP for such a long time. If users don't want to upgrade, it is up to them and not Microsoft's fault. If web developers want or have to target those ancient browsers, this is also can't blame on Microsoft. Convince your boss why it is important to move on and beyond IE6, not the other way around!

And just a lost note: you really want the latest and greatest, so, upgrade! Don't expect it in a 10+ years old operating system!

(I am out now!)

Tumultus said,
Nah,
I am just getting tired of it now. You ignore the fact that XP is old and EoL and you try to rectify your point of view with ethics. In business, there are no ethical rules. But to be honest, Microsoft did a very ethical thing by providing support on XP for such a long time. If users don't want to upgrade, it is up to them and not Microsoft's fault. If web developers want or have to target those ancient browsers, this is also can't blame on Microsoft. Convince your boss why it is important to move on and beyond IE6, not the other way around!

And just a lost note: you really want the latest and greatest, so, upgrade! Don't expect it in a 10+ years old operating system!

(I am out now!)

And you ignore the fact that 40% of the people use it, I perfectly know that XP is extremely old but that's how things are: it's 11 years old yet 40% of the people is still using it, that can't be ignored. You can't avoid supporting it, you can't tell those people to leave your website, you can't do ANYTHING about it, only Microsoft could have done something about that, extending support or, I don't know, making some deals with Mozilla or Google or Opera to provide an alternative re-branded browser for all the old users. They chose not to, in order to push the adoption of newer versions of Windows (and it didn't work really well especially with the Vista disaster) but who's really taking the toll of this choice are the developers that while on other browsers can immediately use all the latest technologies (note how how all Firefox/Chrome users are always updated to the latest version) they have their hands tied by older versions of IE.

Also I never said that I use XP, I usually upgrade immediately as soon as new version of Windows is released, but that doesn't mean I justify tossing away a perfectly capable and working computer to run the latest operating systems just to view some web pages (that's all most people do nowadays) when I could just install a perfectly-working browser from another company. Remember that Atom CPUs, smartphones and tablets have lowered a lot the common denominator of CPU requirements for rendering web pages: even a pentium 4, while not capable to run Win8 because of the NX bit requirements, could still be able to easily render most websites for years and years.