11 ms·

Google Apps update alerts: Internet Explorer 8 support discontinued

121 points by cleverjake 14y ago

untog 14y ago
This could be a biggie. IE8 is the last version that works on XP, which I'm sure a great many corporates are running. That said, if you're using Google Apps, you're probably not so averse to installing Chrome for your users.
- corry 14y ago
  Your last point is the key point. Any organization progressive enough to be using Google Apps for anything is unlikely a locked-down IE8/XP environment. i.e. a venn diagram between Google App using orgs and IE8/XP lockdown orgs will have very little overlap.
  - debacle 14y ago
    Google Apps has been around for a while now. Its use is no longer all that 'progressive,' at least in my mind. I've worked with plenty of companies with FoxPro databases and ball mice that are using Google Apps.
    - ericcholis 14y ago
      Ah, FoxPro, tugging at my heartstrings there.
  - EvanAnderson 14y ago
    This leaves a goodly number of Windows XP machines at one of my K-12 educational Customers unable to use Google Apps effectively. I suspect many other public schools will be in the same boat. Chrome has design eccentricities that make it interact w/ some Windows management functionality (redirected "Application Data" folders, specifically) in a very suboptimal manner (maintaining 10MB+ of files in each user's redirected AppData folder is a problem on a server hosting 3,000 users' folders). Installing Chrome on the Windows XP machines isn't a slam-dunk. I suspect we'll just have to bite the bullet and use Chrome while, simultaneously, giving up functionality in Windows to do it.
    - richbradshaw 14y ago
      I hate to break it to you, but you could in fact update from Windows XP. I know it's hard to imagine. :)
      - ktsmith 14y ago
        My wifes school district just moved everyone to Windows 7. It takes 20 minutes for her computer to start in the morning and about five minutes to shut down in the evening. The computer just barely meets the minimum specifications of Windows 7 and so the district isn't going to upgrade the hardware due to budget constraints. Given tight budgets in schools I would be surprised if Windows 7 upgrades are actually feasible for some of them when Windows XP does everything they need on the hardware they already have.
        JoshTriplett 14y ago
        How much of that 20 minutes consists of booting Windows, and how much of it consists of running the myriad policies, scripts, and startup software that "enterprise" environments push out to all their systems and run on every boot? Not exactly a fan of Windows, and newer versions often do boot slower due to added bloat, but you can't chalk 20 minutes up to Windows alone.
        ktsmith 14y ago
        Hard to say, the last time I was there it was about half of the time to get to the login prompt and the other half to get to the desktop.
        27182818284 14y ago
        It shouldn't be that bad. I've seen university machines running windows 7 with less than current hardware and a whole bunch of scripts, antivirus, etc, and they still boot and shutdown in a very reasonable amount of times. Definitely sounds like the hardware rather than the myriad of scripts to me. Shrug.
debacle 14y ago
I don't mean to jump the gun with the profanity here, but this is fucking ridiculous. Anyone who still uses XP but cannot install a third party browser (hint: most of the corporate world) will be 'unsupported' by Google Apps.
- MatthewPhillips 14y ago
  Chrome doesn't need admin privileges to install.
  - eckyptang 14y ago
    On a corporate network, it won't install anyway as it won't go through the firewall and I doubt the IT department will let it be installed. If you do get it through the firewall, you'll probably be removed from the office instantly. Corporates are very protective of their infrastructure and rightfully so.
    - cleverjake 14y ago
      to be fair, this would only really be an issue for companies that use google apps /and/ XP. Therefore, it would behove the company to do what @MatthewPhillips was suggesting.
    - mattmanser 14y ago
      In this day and age this is like sending out a memo saying people can only use Bic pens in the office and anyone bringing a Parker in will be fired. It is, frankly, ridiculous. This is doubly true as the people who want to install these browsers are obviously more computer literate than those without it. You talk about a corporate network as if the people who have these draconian policies are competent, in my experience the very opposite is true, the more incompetent the IT department is, the stricter the policies will be.
      - omh 14y ago
        Some people who have these policies are just lazy and incompetent. But some of us work hard to ensure that we can support all the software our company needs, and this means limiting access to other software that might break things.
chintan 14y ago
I'm sure this is a completely data-driven decision A = Requests to G Apps from IE 8 B = Cost of supporting IE 8 AXE = A<<B
- se85 14y ago
  I sure hope so but i'm not entirely convinced that this effort wasn't at least partially driven by developers without all the facts behind the business side of the equation (which seems to have been overlooked or ignored for whatever reason, unless their IE8 usage statistics are much lower than elsewhere), I doubt it, IE8 is still important enough to worry about for most things, especially when your selling productivity related tools to businesses who are less likely to have upgraded beyond IE8 (statistically speaking). I like the idea of putting product before business, but I can't see Google being the kind of company to do that intentionally. I would really like to know more about their internal reasoning that led to this decision.
omh 14y ago
Imagine that you're in charge of a small/medium sized business , stuck on Windows XP and some old email system. You've just persuaded the managers that "The Cloud" isn't so bad, and they've migrated everything over to Google Apps. Now Google have just given you 8 weeks notice about support for IE8. Unlike traditional software, after this date you're screwed - you can't just not upgrade, you're actually cut off from the software you were planning on using. Now, you can probably install Chrome or Firefox. If you're lucky, that won't cause any problems elsewhere. But what happens next time? If Google decide that they don't want to support any client on XP, or perhaps the iPhone? What do you do then? When this starts happening over the next couple of years we'll start seeing a backlash against the current trend towards the cloud.
- jamesaguilar 14y ago
  Tough nails, IMO. Google probably ran these numbers and feels they can afford to lose the few customers they have in this situation. That someone can come up with a sob story that MIGHT happen because of some deprecation doesn't mean there's a case for supporting old browsers.
- NameNickHN 14y ago
  Where should installing Firefox or Chrome cause problems?
  - hmahncke 14y ago
    Sadly, lots of places.
    - NameNickHN 14y ago
      This is just FUD. What places?
      - hmahncke 14y ago
        I didn't mean that to sound like FUD. I work with a number of insurance companies that are on XP/IE7; with a Firefox install requiring approval from a large IT department.
erichocean 14y ago
Once you drop IE8, from an app dev perspective, you're in "modern browser" territory across the board. It's amazing how limiting IE6-8 have been, and continue to be, to the growth of apps on the web. That said, we're building a brand new app and even we support IE6-8! We just do it with a completely separate, basic UI, that we also use for accessibility requirements.
Zenst 14y ago
I'm finding it a little worry recently with the number of companies all focused upon making Microsofts latest version of windows overly appealing via indirect means. What with intel and AMD both releasing chipsets that will only support windows 8 and now a direct blow to winXP users then the preasure for not overly IT aware users to upgrade to windows 8 becomes more and more a forced upgrade down the line. Yes there are alternatives but for many users then they will be very limited in those options and with new hardware limiting there choices even further they will be of the mindset of having no alternative choice. What with microsoft pushing out windows 8 in a vain to avoid the backlash they got from Vista (still prefer that over 7 personaly) becasue they never adopted it internaly when they expected others too. But I'm wondering how many of these limited choice impacts (IE versions, new hardware chipsets) are induced via microsofts influence. That said I can appreciete how versions of IE have there quirks and changes making catering for various versions a utter nightmare, but when users of XP have little choice then to upgrade there OS or install a non microsoft browser then for many users they will end up replacing there entire computer instead of installing chrome, and thats becasue they don't fully know what there doing. Anybody reading here will be a install chrome or firefox brigade but not all users are at our level, some don't even understand binary and it is those that will feel the presure.
Joeri 14y ago
I'm jealous that google can so easily drop support for old IE. Meanwhile I had to go on-site to troubleshoot an issue in a pre-sp2 IE6 environment just last week. They didn't install security updates because "they break some of our in-house apps". For security reasons the system was isolated from the internet, hence the on-site debugging. The bug they had was fixed in sp2, which is why it didn't appear in our test environment. They did have an upgrade planned ... to IE8. So, yes, jealous is the sentiment for me. On the other hand, I've not come across anything that's in modern browsers that I couldn't get to work on IE6, with appropriate (sometimes flash-based) fallbacks. It just requires more work.
cygwin98 14y ago
Hats off to Google for pulling it off. Windows XP and IE6/7/8/9 must die. Though the way Chrome or latest Firefox automatically update themselves may cause IT support staff lots of sleepless nights. The old-school two/three year updating cycle in Windows sysadmin may face unprecedented challenges. I envision the devops sysadmin style and chef-like configuration management and automated environment testing may come to rescue in the Microsoft shops in the near future.
- lambada 14y ago
  It won't matter (as much) for Firefox, as Mozilla have an 'extended support' version for Enterprises. It used to be 3.6, but recently it moved to 10. As the 'enterprise' version uses a different update stream, the only updates will be security updates. They stick with the major version for a year, and provide a twelve-week 'migration' window where both ESRs are supported [0] However, there is no similar scheme for Chrome. [0] http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/organizations/faq/ http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/organizations/faq/
  - cygwin98 14y ago
    Thanks for the pointer. Was not aware of the existence of the Firefox Enterprise.

121 points by cleverjake 14y ago

untog 14y ago

This could be a biggie. IE8 is the last version that works on XP, which I'm sure a great many corporates are running. That said, if you're using Google Apps, you're probably not so averse to installing Chrome for your users.

corry 14y ago
Your last point is the key point. Any organization progressive enough to be using Google Apps for anything is unlikely a locked-down IE8/XP environment. i.e. a venn diagram between Google App using orgs and IE8/XP lockdown orgs will have very little overlap.
- debacle 14y ago
  Google Apps has been around for a while now. Its use is no longer all that 'progressive,' at least in my mind. I've worked with plenty of companies with FoxPro databases and ball mice that are using Google Apps.
  - ericcholis 14y ago
    Ah, FoxPro, tugging at my heartstrings there.
- EvanAnderson 14y ago
  This leaves a goodly number of Windows XP machines at one of my K-12 educational Customers unable to use Google Apps effectively. I suspect many other public schools will be in the same boat. Chrome has design eccentricities that make it interact w/ some Windows management functionality (redirected "Application Data" folders, specifically) in a very suboptimal manner (maintaining 10MB+ of files in each user's redirected AppData folder is a problem on a server hosting 3,000 users' folders). Installing Chrome on the Windows XP machines isn't a slam-dunk. I suspect we'll just have to bite the bullet and use Chrome while, simultaneously, giving up functionality in Windows to do it.
  - richbradshaw 14y ago
    I hate to break it to you, but you could in fact update from Windows XP. I know it's hard to imagine. :)
    - ktsmith 14y ago
      My wifes school district just moved everyone to Windows 7. It takes 20 minutes for her computer to start in the morning and about five minutes to shut down in the evening. The computer just barely meets the minimum specifications of Windows 7 and so the district isn't going to upgrade the hardware due to budget constraints. Given tight budgets in schools I would be surprised if Windows 7 upgrades are actually feasible for some of them when Windows XP does everything they need on the hardware they already have.
      - JoshTriplett 14y ago
        How much of that 20 minutes consists of booting Windows, and how much of it consists of running the myriad policies, scripts, and startup software that "enterprise" environments push out to all their systems and run on every boot? Not exactly a fan of Windows, and newer versions often do boot slower due to added bloat, but you can't chalk 20 minutes up to Windows alone.
        ktsmith 14y ago
        Hard to say, the last time I was there it was about half of the time to get to the login prompt and the other half to get to the desktop.
        27182818284 14y ago
        It shouldn't be that bad. I've seen university machines running windows 7 with less than current hardware and a whole bunch of scripts, antivirus, etc, and they still boot and shutdown in a very reasonable amount of times. Definitely sounds like the hardware rather than the myriad of scripts to me. Shrug.

debacle 14y ago

I don't mean to jump the gun with the profanity here, but this is fucking ridiculous. Anyone who still uses XP but cannot install a third party browser (hint: most of the corporate world) will be 'unsupported' by Google Apps.

MatthewPhillips 14y ago
Chrome doesn't need admin privileges to install.
- eckyptang 14y ago
  On a corporate network, it won't install anyway as it won't go through the firewall and I doubt the IT department will let it be installed. If you do get it through the firewall, you'll probably be removed from the office instantly. Corporates are very protective of their infrastructure and rightfully so.
  - cleverjake 14y ago
    to be fair, this would only really be an issue for companies that use google apps /and/ XP. Therefore, it would behove the company to do what @MatthewPhillips was suggesting.
  - mattmanser 14y ago
    In this day and age this is like sending out a memo saying people can only use Bic pens in the office and anyone bringing a Parker in will be fired. It is, frankly, ridiculous. This is doubly true as the people who want to install these browsers are obviously more computer literate than those without it. You talk about a corporate network as if the people who have these draconian policies are competent, in my experience the very opposite is true, the more incompetent the IT department is, the stricter the policies will be.
    - omh 14y ago
      Some people who have these policies are just lazy and incompetent. But some of us work hard to ensure that we can support all the software our company needs, and this means limiting access to other software that might break things.

chintan 14y ago

I'm sure this is a completely data-driven decision A = Requests to G Apps from IE 8 B = Cost of supporting IE 8 AXE = A<<B

se85 14y ago
I sure hope so but i'm not entirely convinced that this effort wasn't at least partially driven by developers without all the facts behind the business side of the equation (which seems to have been overlooked or ignored for whatever reason, unless their IE8 usage statistics are much lower than elsewhere), I doubt it, IE8 is still important enough to worry about for most things, especially when your selling productivity related tools to businesses who are less likely to have upgraded beyond IE8 (statistically speaking). I like the idea of putting product before business, but I can't see Google being the kind of company to do that intentionally. I would really like to know more about their internal reasoning that led to this decision.

omh 14y ago

Imagine that you're in charge of a small/medium sized business , stuck on Windows XP and some old email system. You've just persuaded the managers that "The Cloud" isn't so bad, and they've migrated everything over to Google Apps. Now Google have just given you 8 weeks notice about support for IE8. Unlike traditional software, after this date you're screwed - you can't just not upgrade, you're actually cut off from the software you were planning on using. Now, you can probably install Chrome or Firefox. If you're lucky, that won't cause any problems elsewhere. But what happens next time? If Google decide that they don't want to support any client on XP, or perhaps the iPhone? What do you do then? When this starts happening over the next couple of years we'll start seeing a backlash against the current trend towards the cloud.

jamesaguilar 14y ago
Tough nails, IMO. Google probably ran these numbers and feels they can afford to lose the few customers they have in this situation. That someone can come up with a sob story that MIGHT happen because of some deprecation doesn't mean there's a case for supporting old browsers.
NameNickHN 14y ago
Where should installing Firefox or Chrome cause problems?
- hmahncke 14y ago
  Sadly, lots of places.
  - NameNickHN 14y ago
    This is just FUD. What places?
    - hmahncke 14y ago
      I didn't mean that to sound like FUD. I work with a number of insurance companies that are on XP/IE7; with a Firefox install requiring approval from a large IT department.

erichocean 14y ago

Once you drop IE8, from an app dev perspective, you're in "modern browser" territory across the board. It's amazing how limiting IE6-8 have been, and continue to be, to the growth of apps on the web. That said, we're building a brand new app and even we support IE6-8! We just do it with a completely separate, basic UI, that we also use for accessibility requirements.

Zenst 14y ago

I'm finding it a little worry recently with the number of companies all focused upon making Microsofts latest version of windows overly appealing via indirect means. What with intel and AMD both releasing chipsets that will only support windows 8 and now a direct blow to winXP users then the preasure for not overly IT aware users to upgrade to windows 8 becomes more and more a forced upgrade down the line. Yes there are alternatives but for many users then they will be very limited in those options and with new hardware limiting there choices even further they will be of the mindset of having no alternative choice. What with microsoft pushing out windows 8 in a vain to avoid the backlash they got from Vista (still prefer that over 7 personaly) becasue they never adopted it internaly when they expected others too. But I'm wondering how many of these limited choice impacts (IE versions, new hardware chipsets) are induced via microsofts influence. That said I can appreciete how versions of IE have there quirks and changes making catering for various versions a utter nightmare, but when users of XP have little choice then to upgrade there OS or install a non microsoft browser then for many users they will end up replacing there entire computer instead of installing chrome, and thats becasue they don't fully know what there doing. Anybody reading here will be a install chrome or firefox brigade but not all users are at our level, some don't even understand binary and it is those that will feel the presure.

Joeri 14y ago

I'm jealous that google can so easily drop support for old IE. Meanwhile I had to go on-site to troubleshoot an issue in a pre-sp2 IE6 environment just last week. They didn't install security updates because "they break some of our in-house apps". For security reasons the system was isolated from the internet, hence the on-site debugging. The bug they had was fixed in sp2, which is why it didn't appear in our test environment. They did have an upgrade planned ... to IE8. So, yes, jealous is the sentiment for me. On the other hand, I've not come across anything that's in modern browsers that I couldn't get to work on IE6, with appropriate (sometimes flash-based) fallbacks. It just requires more work.

cygwin98 14y ago

Hats off to Google for pulling it off. Windows XP and IE6/7/8/9 must die. Though the way Chrome or latest Firefox automatically update themselves may cause IT support staff lots of sleepless nights. The old-school two/three year updating cycle in Windows sysadmin may face unprecedented challenges. I envision the devops sysadmin style and chef-like configuration management and automated environment testing may come to rescue in the Microsoft shops in the near future.

lambada 14y ago
It won't matter (as much) for Firefox, as Mozilla have an 'extended support' version for Enterprises. It used to be 3.6, but recently it moved to 10. As the 'enterprise' version uses a different update stream, the only updates will be security updates. They stick with the major version for a year, and provide a twelve-week 'migration' window where both ESRs are supported [0] However, there is no similar scheme for Chrome. [0] http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/organizations/faq/ http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/organizations/faq/
- cygwin98 14y ago
  Thanks for the pointer. Was not aware of the existence of the Firefox Enterprise.