[HN Gopher] Internet Explorer 11 (IE11) to be retired on June 15...
___________________________________________________________________
Internet Explorer 11 (IE11) to be retired on June 15, 2022
Author : smukherjee19
Score : 252 points
Date : 2021-05-19 18:00 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (blogs.windows.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (blogs.windows.com)
| jb775 wrote:
| Can we just retire the entire Windows operating system already?
|
| I recently started working on a new project that's running on
| Windows Server 2019 and the experience so far has been absolutely
| terrible. One Windows related headache after another.
| skrebbel wrote:
| I smell a lot of nostalgia in this thread, and rightfully so! IE
| has been a terrible browser, but it was _our_ terrible browser.
|
| But fear not! Outlook still uses the HTML parsing engine from MS
| Word (!) to display your HTML emails, and it's not going
| anywhere.
| easton wrote:
| When Outlook becomes a PWA (currently in test, I think it's
| probably two-three years from stable), it'll be rendering mail
| with all the functionality of Blink. Which depending on your
| point of view, means a sigh of relief or time to buy more RAM.
|
| https://www.windowscentral.com/project-monarch-outlook-web-u...
| djxfade wrote:
| But Gmail is already a web app, and only supports a tiny
| subset of modern HTML and CSS. The limitation is of course
| arbitrary, it could in theory support any modern standards.
| But HTML mail is so quirky and full of hacks, that they
| probably have to do it that way to preserve compatibility.
| Apple's Mail app is one of the few modern mail clients that
| can render modern HTML/CSS
| whakim wrote:
| That's true, and I wish that emails could just work like
| everything else on the web. But simply removing Outlook and
| all its baggage from the equation would be a big, big
| improvement on the status quo.
| sebazzz wrote:
| More RAM or worse performance? I doubt it, given the COM
| addons my employer stuffs in my Outlook client. Zipmail among
| others.
| detritus wrote:
| Going a bit further back, IE 5 and 6 were the best browser by
| far. Strange for me to think that my now-beloved Firefox has
| its heritage embedded in Netscape, which at the same time as
| IE5 was an absolute pig.
|
| - ed
|
| for some reason I have it in mind as IE5.5 specifically that
| was The Great IE.
| munk-a wrote:
| I have a version of myself aged in their twenties and working
| in web development that really wants to stab anyone believing
| that IE6 was the best browser.
|
| I won't argue that it wasn't decent at launch, but MS kept
| support for that browser around way too long and failed to
| actually roll out support for new features that customers
| desired. I believe it was the era of IE6 specifically that
| led to the proliferation of top-right-corner.jpg which was an
| absolute abomination.
| Rodeoclash wrote:
| Compared to IE5 and Netscape Navigator 4, it was a great
| browser!
|
| The issue was the length of time that it stuck around for.
| detritus wrote:
| Oh, don't get me wrong - it was a Trojan Horse, and my
| first ever web browsing experience was on Navigator, so it
| was a hard-hearted appreciation at the time.
|
| But from my stand point then, It Just Worked.
| gnu8 wrote:
| Did we forget all about Mozilla already?
| detritus wrote:
| Nope, still using two of their products today, and waiting
| for the moment (as, I think, promised soon?) wherein I
| could donate/pay directly to/for firefox.
|
| I don't broadly support Mozilla's aims (I also don't not -
| I'm an owner of a 1st-gen Firefox phone, for example), but
| we're just talking browsers here.
| adventured wrote:
| It was IE 5.5 that was particularly a champ compared to the
| terrible Netscape Communicator / Netscape 4 product. I
| continued to regularly use Netscape 4 through those years, as
| I didn't like IE, and it was a real dog in most every
| respect. Netscape took their eye off the ball in an attempt
| to further build their business away from the browser
| (Communicator of course was their suite attempt), and failed
| at both things in the process.
| detritus wrote:
| Thanks for confirming - I wasn't sure if I was mixing up
| the version number with Photoshop, which 5.5 was (if memory
| serves) the one that fixed terribly-kerned typesetting in
| v5, and added some new web-export wizziness.
| baud147258 wrote:
| well, maybe my previous team would have finished their migration
| of IE by then
| SLWW wrote:
| F in the chat for IE 11
|
| we will miss you
|
| the last (worthy) MS browser; it is gonna die
| robinjfisher wrote:
| I am just waiting to hear back from a customer on a support
| ticket request where functionality in my app is not working as
| expected.
|
| They sent me a screenshot of what should be a form in a modal but
| the modal has failed to load so it has loaded just the form in a
| new page looking pretty unstyled. The JS for the modal uses
| fetch() so possibly why it broke.
|
| I'm 95% sure that the browser in the screenshot is IE10. I
| pointed them to this announcement if only to make them aware of
| the security risks in running IE10 but it beggars belief that
| anyone would choose to run IE10, individual or enterprise.
| torstenvl wrote:
| Not accusing you of this, but the primary reason people run
| outdated software is a really problematic insistence, mostly by
| front-end people, on using the new-and-shiny instead of the
| tried-and-true. Breaking changes galore - so people stick with
| the past as much as possible.
|
| Example: Office 365 OWA doesn't work well on modern browsers
| other than the latest version of Edge on Windows. But it does
| work fine on browsers that are older or pretend to be older!
| I'm technical enough to spoof my user agent, but Mom & Pop are
| just going to say "I don't like the new one, it broke stuff"
| and that will be that.
| ilkkao wrote:
| Nice, IE mode in Edge works now even in Windows home edition.
| This is new information for me. My old security camera supports
| only IE11.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| Does IE mode support Java Applets? Considering:
|
| https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/398
| lriel wrote:
| I'm currently enjoying nostalgia as I'm currently using IE for a
| full on ActiveX app which has no use the loose obtuse constructs
| of the HTML.
|
| Much live a headcrab, the ActiveX takes over the the full device
| context and reaches deep into the OS. I CAN pulp my own WM
| messages thank you very much Mr browser ... Brakes my alt tab
| from time to time, can't grab focus from a miss Z'd dialog.
| Yes... Nostalgia Nostalgia Nostalgia
| [deleted]
| ivanche wrote:
| It's time for a saveie11.com :)
| gregmac wrote:
| Interesting contrast to the general sentiment about another
| major IE milestone: http://www.ie6death.com/
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| My current employer will be devastated. The user interface of our
| currently in development program requires IE + Java applets.
| thr1123 wrote:
| still not aboard the php 3 hype train?
|
| now it's time to sell it hard to management
| mmastrac wrote:
| This sounds like the stuff I worked on 15 years ago in the oil
| and gas sector (in fairness, IE + applets _were_ the best
| choice at the time).
| cies wrote:
| > IE + applets _were_ the best choice at the time
|
| Depends on the constraints. Qt was around and mature for many
| years in 2006. Ruby on Rails had it's first release mid 2004.
| Django mid-2005.
|
| Again it depends on the constrains, what you can "the best
| choice in 2006" is limping now. Meanwhile an app built in
| 2006 on Qt/RoR/Django would be on a platform that is
| currently still being considered for green field devt.
|
| Without knowing all constraints I'd be willing to say that
| IE+applets was not the best choice in 2006, neither was: GWT,
| WebSphere or any of the MS GUI toolkits around in that year.
|
| I'm still on the fence wrt Vaadin. It was not around in 2006,
| but soon after. Never used it, but it seems to still be
| actively maintained to this day.
| skrebbel wrote:
| I don't think any of this was obvious in 2006.
| cies wrote:
| I know! That's the gamble one makes choosing a
| language/dependency you cannot easily move away from.
|
| But the lack of obviousness does not make IE+applets the
| best choice in 2006.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| That's around when my project was started.
| pram wrote:
| The horror.
| [deleted]
| bydo wrote:
| It's still very common in a lot of niche industries. Though
| apparently it's also still supported, since they just embed
| the entire Trident engine in Edge. So really this is just yet
| another way for Microsoft to try to force Edge on users?
| gibolt wrote:
| I'm really curious what client requirements drove that
| decision.
|
| 'In development'. Does this mean v1 hasn't even shipped yet?
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| >Does this mean v1 hasn't even shipped yet?
|
| yes
| jefft255 wrote:
| That sounds just unbelievable to me, and I've worked at
| government agency doing Lotus Note programming on Windows
| XP past EoL. What was the decision process like, to decide
| to create a new Java applet in 2021??
|
| Edit: I've seen a later comment mentioning it was started a
| while ago. But still... this is a dead platform. To me this
| is on the level of launching a new app targeting Windows
| XP. It's just a disaster
| bartread wrote:
| About 5 years ago I briefly contracted for a large
| multinational, who shall remain nameless, who were still
| running a version of some Lotus thing (I forget whether
| it was Notes or Smartsuite) that was well over a decade
| out of support, and possibly two decades old, running on
| a long since obsolete niche operating system, on hardware
| that probably dated from the 90s.
|
| None of it could be upgraded.
|
| Which would have been fine except that it had
| dependencies, and those dependencies had dependencies,
| and... you get the idea. I got the distinct impression
| that were it to fail or be unplugged every system in the
| business might slowly and inexorably fail over a period
| of days or weeks, eventually grinding all trading
| activity to a halt.
|
| They were trying to figure out what to do about it and,
| fortunately, the guy in charge of replacing it really
| seemed to enjoy that kind of problem but, for all I know,
| they're still running it.
| 908B64B197 wrote:
| > currently in development program requires IE + Java applets.
|
| Why?
|
| Surely it's not a greenfield project.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| It's just a defense program with a very very long timeline.
| suzzer99 wrote:
| Wait, you're serious?
| 908B64B197 wrote:
| I would worry about long term availability.
|
| For that type of project, it might be worth it to write a
| detailed spec for how the back-end talks to the front-end
| so in the future it's possible to write a more modern
| client.
| crazygringo wrote:
| What does it matter? Your users will just run it in Edge using
| IE11 compatibility mode, which "will be supported through at
| least 2029".
|
| I see no devastation here...
| dheera wrote:
| I don't think IE will self-implode, you just won't get
| "support", whatever that means.
| amanzi wrote:
| To be fair, this has been on the cards for the last couple of
| years - should be no surprise to anyone.
|
| Also, if there's a genuine need to keep IE around for longer,
| then you have some options, e.g. deploy Win 10 LTSC for
| specific legacy use-cases, or publish IE11 via Citrix.
| keithnz wrote:
| if you want automatic redirection to Edge for your website, you
| can request it via https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-
| edge/web-platform...
| ramses0 wrote:
| Does this include IE11.dll? (used by some internal MS tools as a
| renderer, eg: Office Add-ins)
|
| https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/office/dev/add-ins/concepts...
| locallost wrote:
| There was a time when I was really good in fixing bugs in IE6.
| This made me go to school because I realized no matter what
| happens, IE will eventually die and my skills will be useless.
| So, final goodbye, although I haven't thought about you much in
| the last years.
| droptablemain wrote:
| I was assigned a Trello task the other day to go ahead and put up
| a warning to IE users (until August).
|
| It was one of the most satisfying tasks I've ever received.
|
| I can't wait to go through the app with a machete and whack away
| all the sloppy IE compatibility code.
| gogopuppygogo wrote:
| We relaunched a 12 year old SaaS app last month and dropped IE
| support. It was the most wonderful feeling to remove support
| for that dumpster fire out of the repos.
| ma2rten wrote:
| That reminds me of a story where in 2009 some rouge youtube
| employees put up a warning that IE6 would be deprecated:
|
| https://blog.chriszacharias.com/a-conspiracy-to-kill-ie6
| willhslade wrote:
| Rogue
| theropost wrote:
| As someone actually working in operations, and keeping our
| current suite of software/apps/etc compatable with these
| upgrades, I say - Microsoft, your documentation is very poor and
| lacking, and I have to invent fixes to your lack of effort...
| probably by design.
|
| It is annoying when we can quickly proof up software, and
| specialized utilities when consulting with business. It is wayyyy
| to much work to port from IE to Edge though.. yeesh, waste of my
| productive time.
| tinus_hn wrote:
| Sad trombone. You could have avoided all that if you had
| written the software to the standards and not to IE. Then you
| didn't use the many years you got to transition.
|
| It's way too much work to port your app? Well guess it isn't
| that important after all. Because whether you want it or not,
| IE is a dead end and it's going away.
| theropost wrote:
| Yup, that is the case - Gov. is slow to react with such poor
| funding. We tend to wait until our hand is forced, and
| support tons of legacy apps - if this was my own PC/network I
| would have been way ahead of this train wreck.
| jefftk wrote:
| _By moving to Microsoft Edge, you get everything described above
| plus you'll be able to extend the life of your legacy websites
| and apps well beyond the Internet Explorer 11 desktop application
| retirement date using IE mode. Internet Explorer mode in
| Microsoft Edge will be supported through at least 2029._
|
| While IE11 as an independent program is going away, the rendering
| engine is still around for 8+y.
|
| Here's hoping that this deprecation removes the expectation that
| things support IE11, however!
| [deleted]
| brundolf wrote:
| Imagine being the engineer who has to keep maintaining the IE
| codebase for the next 8 years. [shudders]
| eric__cartman wrote:
| I doubt anyone will be actively maintaining it once it gets
| implemented as a rendering engine in Edge. It will probably
| be implemented including the existing bugs as issues and
| remain unchanged until it's late retirement date. Kind of
| what happened with flash player.
| Mountain_Skies wrote:
| While I wouldn't want to do it, if you've been working on
| that codebase for years and you're no longer young and fired
| up about always going for the latest things, it could be a
| good way to sunset your career. A guaranteed position using
| technology you understand rather than being thrown out into
| the job market, struggling to get up to date on the latest
| programming fads so you can compete with people half your
| age, would be nice for many.
| nly wrote:
| What makes you think they won't just lump it on a couple of
| juniors who rarely ever touch it, and even then only for
| critical bugfixes?
| brundolf wrote:
| That's fair! I guess I just assume the codebase is terrible
| (not just because of age, but also judging by the end-
| product) and will remain terrible; why would you do a
| refactor, or optimize something, or add new features when
| it's become a niche project that nobody likes and is on its
| way out? It's probably just patching over critical bugs
| from here forward
|
| It's not just about doing something new; a bad codebase
| that I don't have the opportunity to genuinely improve is
| probably the most miserable type of project I can possibly
| think of
| Uehreka wrote:
| I'm pretty sure almost no one is. There are tons of IE11
| layout bugs (not missing features, straight-up bugs) that
| have not gotten fixed in 8 years. I get the vibe that MS may
| have totally cut off development and all but the most
| critical security maintenance in order to speed the plow of
| Edge adoption.
| als0 wrote:
| This must be what hell is like.
| crazygringo wrote:
| But that'll only be whitelisted for legacy corporate sites/apps
| that need it.
|
| Anything new can safely ignore IE11, because Edge won't be
| using the IE11 engine for it.
|
| This is great, because it'll get corporations to replace the
| actual IE11 executable with the Edge executable.
| daigoba66 wrote:
| > because it'll get corporations to replace the actual IE11
| executable with the Edge executable.
|
| I'm probably just cynical, but nothing caused corporations to
| get rid of IE11 before, and nothing will now.
|
| Working on an enterprise b2b web app, I'm going to have to
| support IE11 indefinitely.
| crazygringo wrote:
| > _and nothing will now_
|
| Yes it will. Microsoft is gradually pulling out all support
| for it, with this year being the big start of that.
|
| Very soon, it'll become more work for admins to maintain
| IE11 installations than it will be for them to migrate to
| Edge with IE11 compatibility mode. Admins tend to choose
| the path of least work.
|
| You're only going to need to support IE11 indefinitely if
| your enterprise app requires IE11. Otherwise, your company
| is probably going to be able to pull the plug at some point
| in the next 2 years, depending on your specific customer
| base.
| ilkkao wrote:
| I think it will. Just tested the IE mode, you need to manually
| enable it for every time. I think it's annoying enough.
| Kneecaps07 wrote:
| In an AD environment, you can push out a centralized list
| that is easy to update. We've found that IE Mode
| unfortunately works very well. I wish it didn't work so well
| because it allows us to keep these IE sites around
| indefinitely.
| joshmanders wrote:
| While it keeps existing IE11 compatible sites around
| indefinitely, it stops everyone else from having to support
| IE11 because that's the default and only browser IT allows
| on the machine.
| [deleted]
| Foe wrote:
| This is what I love about Microsoft. While Google is eager to
| go ahead and cancel Google Cloud Print and say "find an
| alternative before next month", Microsoft would be the company
| to announce it'll be cancelled in 2023, extended support lasts
| until 2029, and you can buy Extended Warranty 365+ for Business
| that lasts until 2067.
| hangonhn wrote:
| I think that's what happens when your root is in enterprise
| software or at least some of your heritage is in enterprise.
| I have no great love for MSFT but I agree with you about
| their willingness to support things well past their expected
| expiration. IIRC they even went so far as to detect programs
| that used some "bugs" in earlier versions of Windows and
| emulated those same buggy behaviors just for those programs.
| thatfunkymunki wrote:
| https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/2hwlrk/new_win
| d... comes to mind, which explains (at least partially) why
| Windows 10 came directly after Windows 8.1
| shaicoleman wrote:
| FYI, You can send an email to Microsoft requesting the your
| website will automatically reopen in Edge when someone visits it
| with IE
|
| https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-edge/web-platform...
| wrikl wrote:
| TIL - this is cool!
|
| Do you know if there's a way to see that XML list they mention
| anywhere publically? I can't find a link to it on that page.
|
| I guess it should be possible to spin up IE11 in a VM on macOS
| and inspect the network, but would be nice to take a look and
| see which sites are on there.
| xsc wrote:
| https://edge.microsoft.com/neededge/v1
| wrikl wrote:
| Perfect, thank you.
| jl6 wrote:
| Do we expect legacy TLS versions to remain supported under Edge's
| compatibility mode? I note MS deferred the end-of-support in IE11
| for TLS 1.0/1.1 last year and haven't announced a new end date.
| ksec wrote:
| Despite the decline of Mozilla and Firefox in recent years, it
| managed to outlive Internet Explorer!
|
| And I still remember the print ad with the launch of Firefox 1.0.
|
| M$ still have a lot to do to redeem themselves.
| wdb wrote:
| Maybe it will finally force people to upgrade away from IE11 in
| the Finance/Wealth industry.
| mrlonglong wrote:
| Can't they just take it behind the shed and put it out of its
| misery already.
| nikanj wrote:
| Edge can't be automated via COM the same way IE could. I wonder
| what MS is offering as an upgrade path
| saulr wrote:
| Edge supports WebDriver: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-
| us/microsoft-edge/webdriver-ch...
| nikanj wrote:
| Looks like the customer would have to download the Edge
| driver from Microsoft, picking the right version (and
| supposedly update the drivers as Edge auto-updates).
|
| That's a complete non-starter, compared to automating IE that
| just requires our .exe to create an IE object via
| CoCreateInstance(CLSID_InternetExplorerMedium ...), and no
| additional installation by the customer organization.
| lstamour wrote:
| The desktop application is deprecated. The guts of the Trident
| engine will live on forever... probably.
| dheera wrote:
| FireFox?
| nikanj wrote:
| Do you have any links to documentation for automating FF?
| cpeterso wrote:
| Some options for automating website tests in Firefox:
|
| WebDriver: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-
| US/docs/Web/WebDriver
|
| Marionette: https://firefox-source-
| docs.mozilla.org/testing/marionette/I...
|
| Puppeteer:
| https://www.infoq.com/news/2020/04/puppeteer-3-firefox-
| suppo...
|
| I haven't used these tools, so I don't know which is "best"
| or why so many different tools are needed. :)
| mmastrac wrote:
| That's a real end of an era. Internet Explorer's legacy engine is
| going to be relegated to old grayhair horror stories. Not unhappy
| it's going away, but it feels like a big chapter is closing.
| coldpie wrote:
| Rest in peace, <!--[if lte IE 6]>
| JohnBooty wrote:
| relegated to old grayhair horror stories.
|
| The real shame of IE's passing is that we'll forget the lessons
| we learned and therefore repeat that particular disaster. It's
| already happening. I'd be happy to relegate the nightmare of IE
| to old war stories... except the same thing is happening today!
| Different method, nearly the same end result.
|
| We nearly lost the damn open web to the horror of IE6 and the
| peak "embrace, extend, extinguish" version of Microsoft.
|
| Now, of course, we're happily creating another browser
| monoculture and handing the web over to Google. This time,
| we're doing it with a smile instead of a grimace.
|
| Unlike IE6's reign of incompetent terror, Chrome is actually a
| competent browser. Techies are embracing the takeover instead
| of fighting it. It's guaranteed to succeed.
| petre wrote:
| You forgot about Safari, although it's not as atrociuos as IE
| was.
| reificator wrote:
| > _Unlike IE6 's reign of incompetent terror, Chrome is
| actually a competent browser. Techies are embracing the
| takeover instead of fighting it. It's guaranteed to succeed._
|
| IE6 was also a good browser. It didn't _stay_ a good browser
| over the 5-10-15 year lifespan it had (depending on who you
| ask) but at the time of release it was easily the best.
| JohnBooty wrote:
| Arguably the best user experience in some ways- relative to
| other browsers at the time it "felt fast". Partly because
| it used native widgets instead of XUL like Mozilla, and
| also probably because various parts of it probably were
| loaded when Windows booted up.
|
| But it was pretty bad in other ways: security, stability,
| etc.
| rstupek wrote:
| Unquestionably the best at the time.
| gogopuppygogo wrote:
| Chromium is open source...
|
| Seems like a better approach in every way than the old
| mosaic/trident closed source mess.
| JohnBooty wrote:
| There are obvious benefits to Chromium being open-source,
| but you're kidding yourself if you think that gives you an
| ounce of control over the direction of web standards and
| the web as a whole.
|
| Sure, you can look at (most of) Chrome's source code, and
| fork it all day long if you want. But it will amount to
| little when it comes to actual control of the web. You
| simply won't have the marketshare to steer the direction of
| the web standards themselves.
|
| The end result will be the same as we suffered with IE's
| dominance: _de facto_ control of the web by a single
| entity.
|
| But at least the ride to hell will be nicer.
| andrewclunn wrote:
| From a business standpoint, getting businesses who are dependent
| on IE 11 to adopt Edge is a great idea. This will certainly help
| Microsoft's browser share. On the other hand, A LOT of IE users
| do so because they are running version of Windows that themselves
| are no longer supported. I'm going to be very wary of what my
| grocery store's POS system is running on in about a year.
| userbinator wrote:
| I hope someone finds a way to use its interface with a better
| rendering engine, which I think is the best part of IE - no
| infantile HUGE buttons, patronising error messages, or other
| dumbed-down things, just a serious UI with good ideas like per-
| zone trust security settings and user stylesheets built-in. It
| also doesn't have gobs of phone-home "telemetry".
|
| (Firefox is a close second but is clearly starting to become
| user-hostile too... and now you may realise much of why they want
| to kill IE and dumb down Firefox: herding users is easier when
| they're turned into obedient and docile consumers, instead of
| masters over how they decide to consume your content.)
| qbasic_forever wrote:
| I am genuinely curious, what do you think is the end game of
| this apparent conspiracy by browser creators to reduce the
| intelligence of users through simplified user interfaces? They
| will convince them to buy more things... somehow? And that
| benefits the browser creators... somehow?
| superjan wrote:
| It is undeniably happening. One benefit is you ship the same
| UI for all screens. For several billion people, the power
| user features mostly serve to shoot themselves in the foot,
| and then they blame the browser manufacturer. On their phone
| the software either works, or it does not without
| explanation, in which case you need an expert, and for most
| people this is perceived as an improvement. Desktop software
| development is pushed in the same direction. Fewer people
| complain, and its a lot simpler than doing fine grained
| settings and informative error messages.
| xnx wrote:
| The most important feature any browser ever included was auto-
| update. If IE had included this, things would be quite different.
| joecool1029 wrote:
| It sorta did through Windows/Microsoft update. They just didn't
| focus on releasing major editions often or at all for Windows,
| but it got security patches and minor point releases all the
| time.
| cesarb wrote:
| Actually, IIRC the very first versions of Windows Update were
| an ActiveX control. You had to use IE to run it, so from a
| certain point of view, that was IE updating itself.
| chungy wrote:
| The very first version was a native application for Windows
| 95 and 98 (First Edition). It was retired in short order in
| favor of the ActiveX page.
| cesarb wrote:
| Interesting. Do you know of anywhere that has screenshots
| of that native application, for curiosity's sake? When I
| first used Windows Update in Windows 9x, it was already a
| (very slow) ActiveX applet.
| tpmx wrote:
| It's kinda weird to see Edge having its own auto-update system
| on Windows. (Which of course has a system-wide auto-update
| system called Windows Update.)
|
| Makes me think of this:
| https://ritholtz.com/2013/07/organizational-charts-of-amazon...
| tims33 wrote:
| It is nice to see the long internet nightmare known as Internet
| Explorer come to a conclusion.
|
| What is the next thing we should wish to see die on the internet?
| sedatk wrote:
| Its failures aside, some of the things that Internet Explorer
| have brought to our life:
|
| - DOM
|
| - CSS (first browser to support CSS, to be more specific)
|
| - Events
|
| - IFRAMEs
|
| - AJAX
|
| - favicon.ico
| coldpie wrote:
| Browsers funded by ad companies.
| petepete wrote:
| AMP and cookie pop-ups are top of my list.
| stevencorona wrote:
| I work on a SaaS app in the healthcare space where IE11 is the
| preferred browser, and was getting worried watching all of our
| favorite tools begin to completely drop IE11 support (Tailwinds,
| Bootstrap) - effectively punishing us for the sins our customers
| IT orgs.
|
| This brings me hope. But only a little. I'm sure they'll find a
| way to keep running it.
| mrweasel wrote:
| >in the healthcare space where IE11 is the preferred browser
|
| Do you know why that is?
|
| I noticed that there are prominent links to a Korean and
| Japanese version, presumably because Internet Explorer is still
| used to a large extend in those two countries. Korea had some
| crypto stuff that only worked in IE, but that was years ago.
| Why haven't those markets moved on more modern browsers?
| otterpro wrote:
| I worked at a hospital about 10 years ago, and at that time
| only IE was available on our PC. PC workstation was locked
| down for security reason and users were not allowed to
| install 3rd party software without approval (including
| chrome, etc). Also Chrome's browser extensions were security
| concerns (esp for medical records, HIPPA regulations, etc) It
| was also a time when IE was used in enterprise for mostly
| legacy web app that was written long ago. We were also using
| command line apps (TUI-based) at that time, mostly for nurse
| and doctors, but we were migrating to the fancy web apps.
|
| As for Korea, IE was mostly for ActiveX, but now most Korean
| website supports modern browsers ie Chrome.
| ampdepolymerase wrote:
| Do modern healthcare TUIs support UTF-8?
| ocdtrekkie wrote:
| > users were not allowed to install 3rd party software
| without approval (including chrome, etc)
|
| This should be, and always should be, the case. Chrome is
| such a bad actor in allowing userspace install, we mark it
| as malware to prohibit unauthorized installation. Chrome
| Enterprise policies don't seem to be able to disable this,
| marking it as malware is the only way out...
|
| That said, we offer two modern browsers to everyone in our
| environment, Edge and Firefox.
| wrs wrote:
| Same as anywhere else, I suppose: because changing it costs
| time/money and has no obvious value. In regulated areas like
| health care there can also be a recertification or audit
| support cost if you change something.
| ehutch79 wrote:
| Isn't IE11 support a potential HIPPA violation?
| Ensorceled wrote:
| How? Like, what part of HIPPA do you think applies to the
| browser the app is running in?
| axelthegerman wrote:
| Only hope is more and more services actually having the balls
| to drop IE11, e.g. Office 365.
|
| Imagine Google would not support IE11, I'm sure the pressure to
| upgrade these browser would be much higher (not sure about the
| health care space though)
| nicoburns wrote:
| This announcement is a much better hope: IE11 being replaced
| by edge, which will also have a modern rendering engine,
| which will be only one anyone needs to support.
| technion wrote:
| Just to be clear here: retired for windows 10.
|
| People talking about certain spaces (eg healthcare) where Citrix
| on windows server is the norm are going to support ie11 for the
| lifespan of windows 2019. So don't pop the cork just yet..
| dspillett wrote:
| _> Internet Explorer 11 desktop application will be retired ...
| on ..._
|
| Woo. And, indeed, hoo.
|
| _> for certain versions of Windows 10_
|
| Ah. And there begineth the weasle words. I'm guessing there will
| be significant organisations in finance/wealth management (our
| general area) and other industries that will still demand IE11
| support for some time after that date.
|
| I think first a combination of our move towards "more smaller
| clients, not being beholden to a few large ones", the reducing
| budgets if those big clients, and the fact the others are more
| up-to-date, will mean we'll be able to say "Support IE11 or will
| go elsewhere? OK then, see you around." long before IE11 really
| exits the industry. Whether the company will have the balls to go
| through with that, is something I'll find out in future, but I'm
| allowing myself a little hope.
| zamadatix wrote:
| Reality is much simpler - as mentioned directly below that
| section "Note: This retirement does not affect in-market
| Windows 10 LTSC or Server Internet Explorer 11 desktop
| applications." and those version already have precommitted
| support lifecycles that extend well past this date. Nobody
| needs to ask/push for an extension, that's what those versions
| exist for and support is already committed to nearly 2030.
| acheron wrote:
| And yet when I see a site that asks you to use Chrome I know that
| the true spirit of IE lives on.
| parenthesis wrote:
| The other day I had a website accuse me of using an outdated
| version of Safari (I was using Firefox version 88).
| luke2m wrote:
| The other day I had Google Drive tell me not to use IE (I was
| using Epiphany)
| skeeter2020 wrote:
| "Please apply using Chrome, as applications are only supported
| using Chrome on desktop." -- lever.co job
| posting
|
| sigh...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-05-19 23:00 UTC)