5 ms·

It's entertaining but it's not insidious. It's a nice bit of additional PR for the "IE Sucks" movement, but no one will use this. The people who are using IE6

It's entertaining but it's not insidious. It's a nice bit of additional PR for the "IE Sucks" movement, but no one will use this. The people who are using IE6, by and large, don't have the ability to install stuff on their machines. Assuming any of them know/care what browser they are running. Most of the time when I answer support emails with "What browser are you running?" the response is "I don't know-- how do I check that?".

mquander 17y ago
I agree that this won't make any difference to people who are totally clueless about browsers and browser compatibility, but extending the idea might make life easier for others; if you could run IE6 in "IE-mode" for a whitelist of sites that you knew required compatibility, "Chrome mode" for all other sites, and toggle between them on demand, wouldn't that be pretty useful? Assuming that you have any need for IE at all, of course. Of course, when you think about that scenario, it starts to seem insidious the other way around. People might be less and less motivated to write cross-compatible websites if it becomes easier and easier to work around incompatibility.
natrius 17y ago
Are all users allowed to install browser plugins? That seems like the motivation for this. Otherwise, it seems pretty useless. IE 6 is the main problem, and the problem exists due to a lack of administrator privileges.
- thezilch 17y ago
  I wouldn't consider IE6 the "main problem." In fact, IE -- at large -- or the Microsoft, IE team should be considered the main problem. Even IE8 is horribly far behind in CSS, HTML5, JS, et al implementations -- the very thing this plugin seeks to circumvent, in more than JUST IE6. I agree with the notion that it is still useless to those IE users that don't have privileges to install addons/plugins. However, perhaps in those IT shops where administrators are required to keep around legacy browsers for legacy plugins / software, this is a attainable middle-ground for the administrators to give their users a better foot to stand on.
brodie 17y ago
Really? It looks like a site has to opt-in in order to use Chrome Frame, so you could almost look at it like Flash. Consider the following scenario: YouTube releases a suite of new features, but they require some new functionality from HTML5. This is fine for Firefox, Safari, Opera, etc., but if you're using IE it'll prompt you to install Chrome Frame, just like it prompts you to install Flash. I could see it getting to the point where people instinctively do this just as they do with Flash. Hell, maybe it could even be used to subvert Flash itself. Suddenly IE users everywhere are viewing <video>-based YouTube videos.
- boucher 17y ago
  Window is bundled with flash. So is Mac OS X. That's why it's so prevalent. So most people never have to actually install flash. I don't see any reason to believe this particular plugin will take a different trajectory than Gears, which has almost no adoption.
  - marcusbooster 17y ago
    Flash got it's biggest install jumps when MySpace required it for uploading pictures.
    - blasdel 17y ago
      You're leaving out the fundamental detail -- Myspace was forcing upgrades to Flash 9, and the impetus was active Myspace worms that were exploiting security holes in Flash.
  - brodie 17y ago
    That's a very good point about it being bundled already. However, has Gears really been pushed that much by Google? I mean, even as an advanced user, I know that it exists and that various web apps use it, but it seems to be in the background and not all that advertised. I don't even use it myself. I think a new browser engine offers a lot more opportunity for more tangible, up front enhancements to a user's web experience than client-side offline storage would, at least in an immediate sense.
trunnell 17y ago
...don't have the ability to install stuff on their machines But their IT departments can install it. Those IT departments usually want to upgrade because they have to write internal web apps and they feel the pain, too. But they can't upgrade due to various legacy apps that are tightly coupled to IE6. This lets them have their cake and eat it, too.
- arebop 17y ago
  In my experience working in IT, the cost of MSIE6 is implicit and invisible and there's even some fear about security and legal problems related to free software. These companies are still targeting MSIE6 first and sometimes only in completely new applications; it's support for other browsers that is explicitly considered as an optional expense.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
rbranson 17y ago
Good point, and the install isn't exactly as snappy as the ActiveX-based plugins such as flash. Here's a blog post that details the steps. http://rickonrails.wordpress.com/2009/09/22/chrome-frame-aint-so-hard/ http://rickonrails.wordpress.com/2009/09/22/chrome-frame-ain...

mquander 17y ago

I agree that this won't make any difference to people who are totally clueless about browsers and browser compatibility, but extending the idea might make life easier for others; if you could run IE6 in "IE-mode" for a whitelist of sites that you knew required compatibility, "Chrome mode" for all other sites, and toggle between them on demand, wouldn't that be pretty useful? Assuming that you have any need for IE at all, of course. Of course, when you think about that scenario, it starts to seem insidious the other way around. People might be less and less motivated to write cross-compatible websites if it becomes easier and easier to work around incompatibility.

natrius 17y ago

Are all users allowed to install browser plugins? That seems like the motivation for this. Otherwise, it seems pretty useless. IE 6 is the main problem, and the problem exists due to a lack of administrator privileges.

thezilch 17y ago
I wouldn't consider IE6 the "main problem." In fact, IE -- at large -- or the Microsoft, IE team should be considered the main problem. Even IE8 is horribly far behind in CSS, HTML5, JS, et al implementations -- the very thing this plugin seeks to circumvent, in more than JUST IE6. I agree with the notion that it is still useless to those IE users that don't have privileges to install addons/plugins. However, perhaps in those IT shops where administrators are required to keep around legacy browsers for legacy plugins / software, this is a attainable middle-ground for the administrators to give their users a better foot to stand on.

brodie 17y ago

Really? It looks like a site has to opt-in in order to use Chrome Frame, so you could almost look at it like Flash. Consider the following scenario: YouTube releases a suite of new features, but they require some new functionality from HTML5. This is fine for Firefox, Safari, Opera, etc., but if you're using IE it'll prompt you to install Chrome Frame, just like it prompts you to install Flash. I could see it getting to the point where people instinctively do this just as they do with Flash. Hell, maybe it could even be used to subvert Flash itself. Suddenly IE users everywhere are viewing <video>-based YouTube videos.

boucher 17y ago
Window is bundled with flash. So is Mac OS X. That's why it's so prevalent. So most people never have to actually install flash. I don't see any reason to believe this particular plugin will take a different trajectory than Gears, which has almost no adoption.
- marcusbooster 17y ago
  Flash got it's biggest install jumps when MySpace required it for uploading pictures.
  - blasdel 17y ago
    You're leaving out the fundamental detail -- Myspace was forcing upgrades to Flash 9, and the impetus was active Myspace worms that were exploiting security holes in Flash.
- brodie 17y ago
  That's a very good point about it being bundled already. However, has Gears really been pushed that much by Google? I mean, even as an advanced user, I know that it exists and that various web apps use it, but it seems to be in the background and not all that advertised. I don't even use it myself. I think a new browser engine offers a lot more opportunity for more tangible, up front enhancements to a user's web experience than client-side offline storage would, at least in an immediate sense.

trunnell 17y ago

...don't have the ability to install stuff on their machines But their IT departments can install it. Those IT departments usually want to upgrade because they have to write internal web apps and they feel the pain, too. But they can't upgrade due to various legacy apps that are tightly coupled to IE6. This lets them have their cake and eat it, too.

arebop 17y ago
In my experience working in IT, the cost of MSIE6 is implicit and invisible and there's even some fear about security and legal problems related to free software. These companies are still targeting MSIE6 first and sometimes only in completely new applications; it's support for other browsers that is explicitly considered as an optional expense.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]

rbranson 17y ago

Good point, and the install isn't exactly as snappy as the ActiveX-based plugins such as flash. Here's a blog post that details the steps. http://rickonrails.wordpress.com/2009/09/22/chrome-frame-aint-so-hard/ http://rickonrails.wordpress.com/2009/09/22/chrome-frame-ain...