Like many companies, the company I work for is mainly IE6. The older machines are running Windows 2000 and some of our clients applications (applications we have no control over) don't work with IE7.We recently tested Gmail Apps to use for the majority of our agents and one of the biggest problems with the web interface was the lack of features that are available in other browsers. With the newest version of Gmail, this is a problem of the past.
Gmail has been working with IE engineers at Microsoft to fix some of the problems they found with their code and how it works with IE6. In order to see these changes you will need to install the latest updates from Microsoft (or specifically the update described in MS08-022).
New confirmed features for IE6 users include colored labels, invisible mode and Gmail Labs. With Google trying to compete in the enterprise email sector I believe this is a step in the right direction. What do you think about this change?
News source: Gmail Blog
This is retarded.
One way or another, it would be either update IE6 with patches, or update IE7 to work in Win2000.
(or just ignore these items and leave it broken, I suppose)
This is retarded.
On one hand, I agree. On the other hand, this helps users who have no control over which web browser their organization is using.
One way or another, it would be either update IE6 with patches, or update IE7 to work in Win2000.
(or just ignore these items and leave it broken, I suppose)
I would love for IE7 to be ported to 2000 but I don't think that will ever happen. This patch wasn't made to just fix Gmail but to address some other issues with IE6 and Java as well.
It's just not feasible for us to upgrade.
It's just not feasible for us to upgrade.
In my experience, it takes very little time to update a web based application from IE6 to IE7. A few minor CSS tweaks here and there and you're done(maybe some javascript changes). Now I'm not saying there aren't more extreme cases but seriously this excuse doesn't fly and really is just more about laziness.
On my companie's Intranet it took us 30-60 minutes to update all of our applications to support both firefox and IE7. This was something like 30 individual web based tools.
Someone else already made this point.... but I'm going to re-iterate it: If you can't keep up with the times and technology then you're in the wrong business. IT Departments should be working with their web application partners so they can roll out the new browsers. It's part of keeping a secure network. It should be part of their job.
It's just not feasible for us to upgrade.
In my experience, it takes very little time to update a web based application from IE6 to IE7. A few minor CSS tweaks here and there and you're done(maybe some javascript changes). Now I'm not saying there aren't more extreme cases but seriously this excuse doesn't fly and really is just more about laziness.
On my companie's Intranet it took us 30-60 minutes to update all of our applications to support both firefox and IE7. This was something like 30 individual web based tools.
Someone else already made this point.... but I'm going to re-iterate it: If you can't keep up with the times and technology then you're in the wrong business. IT Departments should be working with their web application partners so they can roll out the new browsers. It's part of keeping a secure network. It should be part of their job.
I think you might have misread his post. He didn't say they had problems with his companies applications but rather his suppliers.
Sometimes when companies partner with other companies or when they use their clients systems they can't control how the systems work or what software is needed to get the job done.
I agree with your standpoint on security and it should be part of an IT professionals job to make sure that updates can be rolled out in their environment but sometimes this can't happen.
In fact, when users upgrade to IE7, any problems are therefore because of it, even if the same problems persist on IE6, but that's just the IT department being lazy in our case.
We are working on re-imaging all the machines with a clean slate (no OEM HP crap) as well as rolling out SP3 and IE7 to all machines. We have only found one application (so far) that won't work with IE7. People in IT who don't want to move to newer versions (IE: IE7, SP3, Vista) IMO are just lazy or they are overworked and don't have the time to make the new versions work.
From what I have seen with IE8, soon after the release we will be rolling it out in our offices after testing of all the applications.
Go with firefox MUCH more secure.
yes IE 6.0 may be needed for special internal company applications.
But for everything else firefox should work.
But it just makes sense to have another browser installed with it (Firefox is second most popular in enterprise) because IE6 is no longer suitable for general web browsing due to a lot of websites no longer supporting it.
But it just makes sense to have another browser installed with it (Firefox is second most popular in enterprise) because IE6 is no longer suitable for general web browsing due to a lot of websites no longer supporting it.
At least in my situation 99.99999% of the website my users need to go to work fine in IE6. They shouldn't be surfing the web other then the sites they need to do to do their job.
Also, I do not want to hold classes continuously to show them what should be opened up in which browser and field Questions about the differences between FF as well as IE. I will however work on transitioning these users to one browser (IE7) that will be supported by he majority of applications (IE: Oracle, Citrix, etc).
I also have not seen FF installed on any enterprise users install (other then on IT Systems) in any business I have been in. I would however agree that other then IE FF would be the best alternative "Enterprise" browser.
But it just makes sense to have another browser installed with it (Firefox is second most popular in enterprise) because IE6 is no longer suitable for general web browsing due to a lot of websites no longer supporting it.
At least in my situation 99.99999% of the website my users need to go to work fine in IE6. They shouldn't be surfing the web other then the sites they need to do to do their job.
Also, I do not want to hold classes continuously to show them what should be opened up in which browser and field Questions about the differences between FF as well as IE. I will however work on transitioning these users to one browser (IE7) that will be supported by he majority of applications (IE: Oracle, Citrix, etc).
I also have not seen FF installed on any enterprise users install (other then on IT Systems) in any business I have been in. I would however agree that other then IE FF would be the best alternative "Enterprise" browser.
I can see your point - why install it if the users don't need it and it is just more work for you to support it if it breaks.
But I don't agree with the point of having to train users which one to use, or getting IE vs. FF questions...
Lets say that there was a business need for Firefox, for exaple: IE6 SP1 on Windows 2000 didn't work with a business app whereas Firefox did, or another example is that the management would like to allow users to browse the web so long as it doesn't interfere with their work.
For the users who don't know what Firefox is and are unaffected by this need, it is just an extra icon which they won't even use. For users who need it for a business application, an extra shortcut can be made to open it up in Firefox without requiring knowledge of what Firefox actually is. If an employee wants to browse the web, they probably wouldn't use Firefox unless they already knew what it was, so they don't need to be trained how to use it.
If any questions did arise about the use of IE6/Firefox from a user eg: "SuperPantsXYZWebsite.com is not working because it says IE6 is not supported", then it goes back to being not your problem - it's not up to you to support the internet - why should to help them with something that is not work related; but at least the ability is there just in case they did actually need to use it.
Just putting it out there for a circumstance where Firefox would be needed in the Enterprise still running Windows 2000.
From my understanding without the windows update you will not see the changes in Gmail code. The changes the IE team made in this update allows the Gmail code to work properly. I could be wrong but I will be testing this on Monday morning.
From my understanding without the windows update you will not see the changes in Gmail code. The changes the IE team made in this update allows the Gmail code to work properly. I could be wrong but I will be testing this on Monday morning.
I get the colour tabs and everything that was with their codebase for IE6 on non-updated IE6 machines.
Surfing the "interwebz" is vehemently blocked by the corporate firewall.
Whoever needs to do some "research" on the web, there's a single PC isolated from the corporate network. It's got the latest stuff, IE8, FF3 etc.
You guessed it, the only access the user has is the keyboard and mouse, the entire PC is encased in some cabinet that can only be opened by arcane dwarvish language.
Of course, with the new-fangled 3.5G phones and employees suddenly having free access to the internetz, MIS is going to introduce a cellphone jammer soon.
Um what?
Stop designing webpages for browsers that don't work properly and, tada, you'll get more browsers that do work properly. It's that simple.
It's the same to say "we will change all the power supply from 110v to 220v because it's more efficient", while is true but it's also a burden for the rest of the users.
There's no better way to wipe out IE6 other than to stop making applications that work correctly in it.
The issue usually lies in the marketing guys fearing users will run and use the competition's product... the fact is, your competition would also like to drop IE6 support and fears the same as you
There's no better way to wipe out IE6 other than to stop making applications that work correctly in it.
The issue usually lies in the marketing guys fearing users will run and use the competition's product... the fact is, your competition would also like to drop IE6 support and fears the same as you
Actually, this is where you are wrong. I don't think Google did this for the average Gmail user but for the companies looking to pay for the Google Apps Premium version.
In our case we are currently running Exchange 2003. We are looking at moving the majority of the regular agents (who just use OWA) to Gmail Apps. With the problems IE6 had with Gmail it was a solution that wouldn't work with over half of our user base. This user base uses Windows 2000 and access customer systems using programs like Oracle and Citrix that do not work in FF. The company is not going to invest the money to replace these machines (at least not all at once). At the time they nixed the idea of using Google's solution but now that this fix is out it will be back on the table again.
Looks like the high paid marketing people do half way know what they are talking about.
In our case we are currently running Exchange 2003. We are looking at moving the majority of the regular agents (who just use OWA) to Gmail Apps. With the problems IE6 had with Gmail it was a solution that wouldn't work with over half of our user base. This user base uses Windows 2000 and access customer systems using programs like Oracle and Citrix that do not work in FF. The company is not going to invest the money to replace these machines (at least not all at once). At the time they nixed the idea of using Google's solution but now that this fix is out it will be back on the table again.
Looks like the high paid marketing people do half way know what they are talking about.
actually, that's where short minded bosses are wrong. what is so wrong about using IE6 *ONLY* for crippled ancient sites and another alternative (and compliant) browser for the rest of the sites?
All the money the company has to invest is 5 minutes multiplied by the amount of PCs they have. sounds like too much? I bet being stranded with IE6 having no access to advanced web apps is much worse
I guess it's true then, two wrongs do make a right.
If MS can make IE7 so it works in W2K, there is absolutely no reason for them not to do so. W2K WAS designed for businesses orginally, you know.
Gmail is one of the few sites my company blocks access to also.
Name one. (that isn't also a problem with IE7)
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.