4 ms·

Staying at FF3.6 wouldn't make them the most out-of-date by a longshot. A majority of our site's corporate users are on IE6! But it seems to me that part of th

Staying at FF3.6 wouldn't make them the most out-of-date by a longshot. A majority of our site's corporate users are on IE6! But it seems to me that part of this problem is that they're trying to accomplish two things with the browser, that for their needs might be better separated into two. For internal corporate apps, there's probably little reason to upgrade. In particular, the security risk posed by accessing internal systems on a backlevel browser is pretty minimal. They could retain FF3.6 for use in this context. For general web browsing (research, etc.), you really want to be as up-to-date as possible, but there shouldn't be any repercussions to doing so. If you're accessing the internal apps on your old FF3.6, then you can have a separate "external browser" that's kept current. So my suggestion is to stick where you are for the internal apps, and separately install Chrome or IE or something for external access. Set up configurations that restrict each browser to only be able to access its intended sphere.

bluedanieru 15y ago
If the reason behind the upgrade is to take advantage of a new and more performant JavaScript interpreter, you might want that used for internal apps first, if anything. It depends on whether the sticking point is security or backward compatibility.
jrwoodruff 15y ago
I can't imagine trying to get everyone in a large corporation to use the right browser for the right thing. Most normal people barely understand that IE is not the internet, let alone understanding the difference between websites, web apps and internal and external servers. In a very small company, maybe, but not in corpo-land.
- CWuestefeld 15y ago
  There would certainly be a training issue, but I think people would get it if their system were configured so that each browser is only able to access its intended targets. Something as simple as giving the internal-only one a different, non-standard icon might help. Using policies in IE6, it should be easy enough to disable access to internal sites. And in FF3.6 (for the internal apps) it's probably trickier (and I don't know how to deploy the policy), but one might point it to a non-existent proxy, and tell it not to use that proxy for internal sites.
- eli 15y ago
  Sounds like there's a business idea here.
- rpearl 15y ago
  Wait... what IS the difference between a webapp and a website?
  - sukuriant 15y ago
    Buzzwords, Ajax, HTML 5
cageface 15y ago
The reason a lot of people are still stuck on IE6 is that they wrote apps that depended on a lot of non-standard IE6-specific behavior. Apps coded to today's web standards should age much more gracefully and place fewer constraints on browser upgrades going forward.
sfgfdhgfdshdhhd 15y ago
Exactly, how hard can it be to have two versions installed. Most browsers even have the ability to launch the browser without menus, address bar etc solving the "learning problem". Just create a shortcut to your internal app and pretend it's a native application with an old version of the browser and use the latest for browsing/research/etc. Just because ONE application requires IE6 doesn't mean everything has to go through IE6.
nothis 15y ago
What actually are those apps that truly require a browser? What's the benefit of binding a program to a web browser? There has to be one, otherwise it wouldn't be done so often, but I have a hard time seeing it. What are some concrete examples?
- sukuriant 15y ago
  Just a list of things I came up with thinking for a few moments. These are all my thoughts and I don't have much to back up these positions, except for life experiences (and I'm pretty young): * Small download, * Controllable data, * Instant, transparent upgrade, * easier to get good/better demographics on usage, * can more easily charge for usage, * easier to get money via advertisements, * works on Windows/Linux/Mac, because it's browser dependent, * fewer steps to usability: - goto website, signup vs - goto website, install this program, go to program, start program. It's confusing and scary for a non-power-user. * People feel safer going to a website than installing this rogue application on their computer (though not so with a handheld device, it would seem). [another I thought of while reading what I wrote after fixing some display-errors] * A/B testing easier to evaluate

bluedanieru 15y ago

If the reason behind the upgrade is to take advantage of a new and more performant JavaScript interpreter, you might want that used for internal apps first, if anything. It depends on whether the sticking point is security or backward compatibility.

jrwoodruff 15y ago

I can't imagine trying to get everyone in a large corporation to use the right browser for the right thing. Most normal people barely understand that IE is not the internet, let alone understanding the difference between websites, web apps and internal and external servers. In a very small company, maybe, but not in corpo-land.

CWuestefeld 15y ago
There would certainly be a training issue, but I think people would get it if their system were configured so that each browser is only able to access its intended targets. Something as simple as giving the internal-only one a different, non-standard icon might help. Using policies in IE6, it should be easy enough to disable access to internal sites. And in FF3.6 (for the internal apps) it's probably trickier (and I don't know how to deploy the policy), but one might point it to a non-existent proxy, and tell it not to use that proxy for internal sites.
eli 15y ago
Sounds like there's a business idea here.
rpearl 15y ago
Wait... what IS the difference between a webapp and a website?
- sukuriant 15y ago
  Buzzwords, Ajax, HTML 5

cageface 15y ago

The reason a lot of people are still stuck on IE6 is that they wrote apps that depended on a lot of non-standard IE6-specific behavior. Apps coded to today's web standards should age much more gracefully and place fewer constraints on browser upgrades going forward.

sfgfdhgfdshdhhd 15y ago

Exactly, how hard can it be to have two versions installed. Most browsers even have the ability to launch the browser without menus, address bar etc solving the "learning problem". Just create a shortcut to your internal app and pretend it's a native application with an old version of the browser and use the latest for browsing/research/etc. Just because ONE application requires IE6 doesn't mean everything has to go through IE6.

nothis 15y ago

What actually are those apps that truly require a browser? What's the benefit of binding a program to a web browser? There has to be one, otherwise it wouldn't be done so often, but I have a hard time seeing it. What are some concrete examples?

sukuriant 15y ago
Just a list of things I came up with thinking for a few moments. These are all my thoughts and I don't have much to back up these positions, except for life experiences (and I'm pretty young): * Small download, * Controllable data, * Instant, transparent upgrade, * easier to get good/better demographics on usage, * can more easily charge for usage, * easier to get money via advertisements, * works on Windows/Linux/Mac, because it's browser dependent, * fewer steps to usability: - goto website, signup vs - goto website, install this program, go to program, start program. It's confusing and scary for a non-power-user. * People feel safer going to a website than installing this rogue application on their computer (though not so with a handheld device, it would seem). [another I thought of while reading what I wrote after fixing some display-errors] * A/B testing easier to evaluate