4 ms·

Why so goddamn long? Microsoft should kill it now for the benefit of humanity.

acdha 8y ago
IE is the standard system browser, which means it's going to be supported through the end of the lifecycle for every version of Windows it shipped on. Since they decided not to make Edge available for Windows prior to 10, that also means there's no upgrade path. https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/13853/windows-lifecycle-fact-sheet https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/13853/windows-lifec... has these dates currently: Windows 8.1: January 10, 2023 Windows 7: January 14, 2020 Windows 10 Enterprise 2015: October 14, 2025 Now, if they did backport the Edge-chromium to the earliest versions they'd have the option of pushing that as a browser option but they'd still need a compatibility shim for the many, many Windows apps which use an embedded browser instance to display something.
- babypuncher 8y ago
  I stand by the belief that if Microsoft wanted to make IE a core part of the operating system, then it should get support for new web standards for as long as the OS gets security updates. A 10-year out of date browser just isn't useful, even if it is "secure". And by being the default, they are ensuring that many users are stuck with it. IE prevents me from using a lot of JavaScript and CSS features that have been around for years, all because 40% of my users work for companies or government entities that don't let them install Chrome or Firefox. "Web standards compliance" updates that get rolled out with security updates would solve this problem.
dmitriid 8y ago
Because tech churn only exists on HN. In the real world there are countless systems relying on tech that is considered ancient by HN standards (but in reality often isn't). If there's a factory controller running some management software that requires Windows and IE, it's not unlikely that it will be cheaper to buy Microsoft, kill off all of its products, and only keep Windows and IE supported indefinitely than retrofitting/upgrading/updating those controllers. BTW. Speaking of "goddamn long". If you traveled anywhere by air, it's likely your booking ultimately went through Amadeus [1] which commands 42% of the world's GDS market [2] They decommissioned their last mainframe in 2017[3]. Yes, mainframe. Because it's oh so easy to "kill something now for the benefit of humanity". But first you have to prove that killing some tech actually will benefit humanity. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amadeus_CRS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amadeus_CRS [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_distribution_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_distribution_system [3] https://www.thecompanydime.com/mainframe/ https://www.thecompanydime.com/mainframe/
- babypuncher 8y ago
  The difference here is that those mainframes aren't used by people to interface with the internet as a whole. People shouldn't be building things in web technologies if they aren't willing to keep up with them, which isn't that hard. Unless your web app is poorly designed (i.e. reliant on browser-specific bugs or proprietary features), then an evergreen browser shouldn't be a major concern. If your crap is so mission critical that this is still a concern, then web technologies are entirely the wrong stack to be working in.
  - dmitriid 8y ago
    Chrome is evergreen, right? Oh, wait, it regularly drops or destroys features that people rely on (often with no warning). And IE10/11 are not that old. When people were developing for them they were current. Just because you've never developed software that needs to be supported for ore than two months, doesn't mean no one does. > If your crap is so mission critical If it's mission critical, it's not crap. Crap is stuff that is "not hard to keep up with the web technologies that change every two months".

IE is the standard system browser, which means it's going to be supported through the end of the lifecycle for every version of Windows it shipped on. Since they decided not to make Edge available for Windows prior to 10, that also means there's no upgrade path. https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/13853/windows-lifecycle-fact-sheet https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/13853/windows-lifec... has these dates currently: Windows 8.1: January 10, 2023 Windows 7: January 14, 2020 Windows 10 Enterprise 2015: October 14, 2025 Now, if they did backport the Edge-chromium to the earliest versions they'd have the option of pushing that as a browser option but they'd still need a compatibility shim for the many, many Windows apps which use an embedded browser instance to display something.

babypuncher 8y ago
I stand by the belief that if Microsoft wanted to make IE a core part of the operating system, then it should get support for new web standards for as long as the OS gets security updates. A 10-year out of date browser just isn't useful, even if it is "secure". And by being the default, they are ensuring that many users are stuck with it. IE prevents me from using a lot of JavaScript and CSS features that have been around for years, all because 40% of my users work for companies or government entities that don't let them install Chrome or Firefox. "Web standards compliance" updates that get rolled out with security updates would solve this problem.

dmitriid 8y ago

Because tech churn only exists on HN. In the real world there are countless systems relying on tech that is considered ancient by HN standards (but in reality often isn't). If there's a factory controller running some management software that requires Windows and IE, it's not unlikely that it will be cheaper to buy Microsoft, kill off all of its products, and only keep Windows and IE supported indefinitely than retrofitting/upgrading/updating those controllers. BTW. Speaking of "goddamn long". If you traveled anywhere by air, it's likely your booking ultimately went through Amadeus [1] which commands 42% of the world's GDS market [2] They decommissioned their last mainframe in 2017[3]. Yes, mainframe. Because it's oh so easy to "kill something now for the benefit of humanity". But first you have to prove that killing some tech actually will benefit humanity. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amadeus_CRS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amadeus_CRS [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_distribution_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_distribution_system [3] https://www.thecompanydime.com/mainframe/ https://www.thecompanydime.com/mainframe/

babypuncher 8y ago
The difference here is that those mainframes aren't used by people to interface with the internet as a whole. People shouldn't be building things in web technologies if they aren't willing to keep up with them, which isn't that hard. Unless your web app is poorly designed (i.e. reliant on browser-specific bugs or proprietary features), then an evergreen browser shouldn't be a major concern. If your crap is so mission critical that this is still a concern, then web technologies are entirely the wrong stack to be working in.
- dmitriid 8y ago
  Chrome is evergreen, right? Oh, wait, it regularly drops or destroys features that people rely on (often with no warning). And IE10/11 are not that old. When people were developing for them they were current. Just because you've never developed software that needs to be supported for ore than two months, doesn't mean no one does. > If your crap is so mission critical If it's mission critical, it's not crap. Crap is stuff that is "not hard to keep up with the web technologies that change every two months".