Slashdot Log In
Microsoft Ends IE for Mac
Posted by
Zonk
on Sun Dec 18, 2005 05:47 PM
from the who-needs-ie-anyway dept.
from the who-needs-ie-anyway dept.
RandomMacUser writes "A while ago, Microsoft stopped updating IE for Mac, freezing it at version 5. But according to this Microsoft webpage, all support will cease December 31, 2005, and any official distribution with cease January 31, 2006. Also, the webpage suggests 'that Macintosh users migrate to more recent web browsing technologies such as Apple's Safari.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Interesteing Problems (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Interesteing Problems (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Interesteing Problems (Score:5, Insightful)
And switching banks because of browser compatibility isn't an option for most people.
Parent
Re:Interesteing Problems (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Interesteing Problems (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Interesteing Problems (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Interesteing Problems (Score:5, Interesting)
There are certain laws that have been applied to banking websites, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act and other anti-discrimination laws. Besides, it's much easier and cheaper for a bank's web team to design with accessability and browser compatibility in mind up front than do a bunch of back-porting and fixing when the customer complaints start rolling in - or worse, when the customer lawsuits start coming! Most banks I deal with also now hire external services to audit their sites for accessability.
Of course, these are only my opinions and do not officially represent the views or practices of my employer. YMMV. Blah blah blah.
Parent
Re:but how many mac users will complain? (Score:5, Insightful)
Politely complaining is actually a very effective tactic, since "they" know that for every complainer, there's a hundred who stay silent and move to a different business. It has worked for me in on-line banking.
Parent
Re:Interesteing Problems (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Interesteing Problems (Score:5, Insightful)
You wouldn't buy a lawnmower that only worked on 'Black & Decker' grass, you wouldn't buy a knife that only cut 'Chicago Cutlery' brand onions, so why the hell would you do business with a bank that forces you to use tools that you don't want to, namely, Windows and IE?
Parent
(was Interesteing Problems) (Score:5, Informative)
Have you tried spoofing the webserver? (i.e. your browser tells the bank's webserver that it is IE, when it is in fact Safari, Firefox, Opera or whatever). The default .net website sends out custom pages for each type of browser. This is a great temporary workaround and has worked for me many times:
Opera has this capability built in
Firefox and Camino are left as a (trivial) exercise for the reader (a couple minutes searching Google should do it)
Parent
Re:(was Interesteing Problems) (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Interesteing Problems (Score:5, Informative)
Firefox > Help > Inform about an incompatible website...
Fill the details, send.
Parent
Re:Interesteing Problems (Score:5, Interesting)
She told me nothing was going to change.
She was wrong.
I changed banks to one that had Safari / Camino / Firefox browser support.
Parent
Re:Interesteing Problems (Score:4, Informative)
Seth
Parent
Re:Interesteing Problems (Score:4, Insightful)
What everybody else said, let them know. But do it with a letter. A real one. That still makes a big difference.
Parent
Re: This highlights the actual problem, which is.. (Score:5, Insightful)
No, really. If the server does all the work and uses nothing but standard CGI, then the web site will work for everyone. Everyone. If you really stick to basics, sites that deal with numbers can work for such crufty old things as text browsers without a glitch. If you must have images (say, for graphing your banking activities) then sticking to JPEG and GIF will again gather in by far the widest array of users.
Every time some developer chooses client-side processing of any kind, they are locking out users. Which is form over function, and as such, I think is a very poor decision.
It's one thing to be bleeding edge when you're showing off and nothing depends on it; it's entirely another to get the blood from your legitimate clients because you want to use new stuff.
Parent
Hmmm. (Score:5, Funny)
In other news, the RNC chairperson suggested 'that Republicans migrate to other parties such as the Democratic party', and North Korean leader Kim Jung-Il suggest that 'North Koreans embrace alternative political systems, such as capitalism'...
What the? (Score:5, Funny)
Chalk one up for truth in advertising. (Score:5, Funny)
Well, getting hacked *IS* exciting. Downloading antispyware updates would be a new experience for most Mac users.
At least they're honest.
Parent
What? (Score:5, Funny)
Wait, is this supposed to help M$? (Score:5, Informative)
Speaking of Safari (Gap.com) (Score:5, Interesting)
I got caught in the net to catch them by some messed up code (using Firefox on Linux) as my wife gets the "we don't support safari" error message from gap.com.
Is there something safari doesn't support that gap.com would need? or what reason is there to lock out your userbase?
Changing the user-agent string apparently fixes things, but who wants to order from a company that doesn't allow you as a customer?
Anyone have any answers as to what breaks on the page in safari?
Stange thing is... (Score:4, Informative)
Not that it matters as I have moved to Firefox as my default browser. I like Safari but I want the Flashblock and AdBlock plugins for Firefox.
Parent
Re:Speaking of Safari (Gap.com) (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's the full message:
We're sorry, but we do not support the version of the browser you are using.
Our site works best with the following browsers:
PC users
Internet Explorer 5.5 and above Download browser
Netscape 7 and above Download browser
Mozilla (including Firefox) 1.0 and above Download browser
Mac users
Netscape 7 and above Download browser
Mozilla (including Firefox) 1.0 and above Download browser
We're working on supporting Safari. Please check back soon.
Parent
Re:Speaking of Safari (Gap.com) (Score:5, Interesting)
I solved the problem by shopping at another online store. The Gap lost about $800 in Chrismtas sales from me that I spent elsewhere. If I was a shareholder, I'd be pissed that they're turning away customers.
I hope they saved at least that much by hiring incompetent web site developers.
Parent
Re:Speaking of Safari (Gap.com) (Score:5, Interesting)
I got a thirty quid voucher and an invitation to return last month, and lo it works with Safari now.
ian
Parent
Re:Speaking of Safari (Gap.com) (Score:5, Funny)
We're working on supporting Safari. Please check back soon.
Well, that's understandable. It can be a chore for retailers to support the web.
Maybe I'll wager $12 that GAP spent more money talking about and implementing the "we don't support Safari" message than it would take to get their site to support Safari. Who wants to take me up on that one?
Go ahead, let me know. Someone analyze their site and let me know what it'd take for Safari support.
Parent
It's not just the mac version (Score:4, Informative)
Once A Great Project (Score:5, Interesting)
A casualty of the Intel transition (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems like a wast of time to me (Score:5, Funny)
Office, not IE, would be the killer (Score:4, Insightful)
I have no idea why Apple let themselves get into this situation where Microsoft can do very serious damage any time they want. What Apple should do is a second Safari -- admit they can't support a complete office suite by themselves and start pushing a version based on NeoOffice/J or OpenOffice. Sooner or later, Bill Gates is going to pull the plug.
Don't forget Opera.. (Score:5, Informative)
Now we can get rid of MacIE! (Score:5, Interesting)
Working for a certain college in Boston, I have to deal with MacIE for all my web applications. Why? Because of PC users.
On our campus, we have eMacs as kiosks in the halls. Using Fruitmenu [unsanity.com], there are three programs in the 'Internet' folder: Safari, Firefox, & MacIE. For the Mac users, they all go for Safari or Firefox. However, PC users will use Internet Explorer. Why? Because that's what they use on the PC, so it must be the same, right?
It wasn't removed due to a bit of bureaucratic mixups and politics. As a web developer, I was breaking one of my rules and using user-agent detection to sniff out MacIE and explicit instructions to use Firefox or Safari on that kiosk.
Now that I can point to Microsoft officially stopping support, it will be a lot easier to get the application removed all together.
Not a surpirse (Score:5, Interesting)
However, the corporate perception of the death of IE is another matter entirely. Though I would hope that the new popularity of FireFox will show IT mamagers that IE is not the only show in town and letting their Mac user use Safari, Shiira, Opera, Camino (my personal favorite) or Firefox is not that bad an option.
I think the Mac platform has far better browser choices than Windows has now. I was really liking K-Meleon there for a while, but I find the UI needs more work.
I was on the MacIE 6 team when it got canned... (Score:5, Interesting)
MacIE 5 was an awesome release, critically aclaimed and everything, with a good development team and a strong testing team, that included daily performance measurement.
And yet, almost immediately after 5.0 was released, the MacIE team was redeployed to work on a set-top DVR box. The notion at the time was that the team would continue to do MacIE work in their spare time, since IE 5 was the leader among Mac browsers and no longer needed a full-time team.
The problem with that notion was that WebTV, the team's new bosses, had no reason to actually schedule any time for real IE work. So later, when that particular set-top box got cancelled, the IE team got redployed for other WebTV work, and since this was now out of MacBU's control, nothing could really be done.
3 or 4 years went by before enough people in the Mac division wanted to resume work on IE, and when it looked like we might actually need the technology, as a base for MSN-for-Mac, the IE 6 team was formed. It got a firm OS X-only foundation, a new even more complient browser base, and then suddenly it became apparent that Apple was doing their own browser, because, well, there were lots of small clues, but the big clues was that Apple had started calling the old Mac IE team offering them jobs.
By that time the Mac division had formally committed to MSN-for-Mac-OSX, so it's not like we were completely going to stop work. But a meeting was held internally, the outcome of which was that it didn't make sense to build our own browser if Apple was going to bundle one, because the marketshare and mindshare of the distant-second-place browser, on the distant-second-place platform, wasn't worth pursuing. A week later we had a meeting with high-up people at Apple, where they told us they were doing a browser. And the week after that, after confirming it with Bill Gates, who was reportedly sad but understanding of the decision, MacIE was officially shut down.
MSN-for-MacOSX went ahead, and was also critically acclaimed, but once released, indications were that the number of users was about the same as the number of developers. After that, MacBU concentrated once again on the next Office release, and MacIE has been well and truly and permanently dead ever since.
Over the whole sad journey, the single most surprising thing I ever discovered was from a small conversation that went:
Me: "Look, if it makes sense to devote dozens of people to WinIE, then surely it makes sense to devote half a dozen to MacIE!"
Higher-up: <confused look> "There aren't dozens of people on WinIE. WinIE had some great people on it! We need those great people on products that make money!"
Me: "Then why on earth did we pursue IE in the first place? Just so that the DOJ would sue us?"
Higher-up: <confused look>
Some day I hope to get a proper answer on our motivation to do WinIE and MacIE in the first place. It seems to be that we were scared of not having control of the HTML standard. And indeed, now that Firefox is gaining traction, Microsoft has added more people to WinIE again.
Epilogue: All of this made it a lot more easy for me to quit and go work at Google
Reminder: I may or may not be leaving some parts out for NDA reasons.
We need an online db of IE-only corp. websites! (Score:5, Interesting)
I keep hearing "my bank doesn't support firefox", or "The Gap doesn't support firefox". Which bank? Which banks in particular? What other retailers in particular? I want an online list I can refer to!
Where is a webpage I can go to see the list of all the major corporations who develop IE-only websites? This way I can avoid patronizing them with my business altogether. It would save me the time of switching to other competitors (who do "get it") later. It would be nice if each entry in this online db also had a link beside it to where I (and others like me who "get it") can file my complaint about non-conformance to W3C strandards.
If such a page existed and became common knowledge, no corporation in their right mind would want to be on such a list. This public badge of shame would prompt them to hire some real web developers, not loser IE-monopoly-developers who are impersonating real web developers.
Re:winners and losers (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:MS gets wise (Score:5, Insightful)
Although Microsoft may continue to provide security and performance updates, no major new releases are planned, Microsoft Product Manager Jessica Sommer told CNET News.com. Sommer said that, with the emergence of Apple's Safari browser, Microsoft felt that customers were better served by using Apple's browser, noting that Microsoft does not have the access to the Macintosh operating system that it would need to compete.
http://news.com.com/2100-1045_3-1017126.html [com.com]
I call complete and utter whiny bullshit on this. It's not that they CAN'T compete, it's that they don't WANT to compete. OmniWeb dropped their proprietary rendering engine for WebCore/Kit and began focusing even harder on their wonderful UI. Why couldn't Microsoft have done this? Lots of applications have integrated Kit/Core, from third-party Web browser to instant messaging clients. I guess Microsoft doesn't have the resources that some 18-year-old kid with an ADC account does, right?
Irony: "We can't compete because someone else makes the OS and we don't have full access to it." - Microsoft
Call me a fucking waaaaaaaaaaaaaahmbulance, Redmond. You lost on this platform because you couldn't make a good Web browser if you tried, and all you did was blame someone else.
Parent
Re:MS gets wise (Score:5, Insightful)
LOL! Not only is the WebKit framework available to any developer who can drag and drop in Interface Builder [cocoadevcentral.com], but WebCore is available under an open source license! [apple.com] Microsoft has access to the freaking source code. Public relations departments are funny.
Parent
Re:MS gets wise (Score:5, Insightful)
There was no way Microsoft was going to let it's main "competitor" die off. If Apple disappeared, it would allow enough space in the desktop market for a new, real competitor to enter (like Linux - at the moment Linux has to compete with both Windows *and* OS X, making it much harder to be accepted as a mainstream consumer desktop OS).
A long as Apple is in the picture taking up the number 2 position, Microsoft has a safety against real competition on the desktop, simply because of how certain brand markets tend to operate (Coke vs. Pepsi, Intel vs. AMD, etc). Now that Apple is doing well, there is no reason for Microsoft to pay extra money to keep Apple in the game. They can just sit back and watch Apple act as an albatros in the plans of Linux and any other potential desktop competitor, safe in the knowledge that Apple itself will never actually grow beyond a certain percentage of the market.
Parent
Re:Who is really suprised? (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:Demonstrates IE's market dominance (Score:4, Insightful)
'all' developers coding on Unix platforms? WTF? The majority have never even used it.
OSX just isn't standard enough for cross platform work, btw. the kernel is Unix but the filesystem layout is nonstandard (not to mention the case insensitive filesystem). I also doesn't run X by default so GUI work is out.
Parent
Re:Microsoft admit defeat? (Score:5, Informative)
I'm hoping this will provide all sorts of benefits for not only Mac users, but also the web community as a whole.
The IE on the Mac was so significantly different than the current version of Windows IE that it gave a false sense of security to the Mac using community. They thought that since they had IE, their web experience would be the same as their Windows-using friends. They were wrong.
Now that they're being forced to use one of the other browsers, it will become very apparent that a)the other browsers have some nice features and b) the other browsers are ignored by a certain subset of the web community.
Once the Mac Faithful have a better understanding of just how much they've been marginalized over the last few years, hopefully they'll use their vocalness to aid the fight for web content providers to provide standards-compliant, works-on-any-browser web sites. They'll crow about Safari passing the Acid Test and they'll point out that all browsers should pass this test.
Since the Safari-using community will grow overnight and its percentage of users will be added to the likes of Firefox as a large alternate web browsing community, the content providers will (hopefully) increasingly start writing standars-compliant web sites so all of their customers will be able to use their content. After all, it's a lot harder to ignore 20% than 10% of your potential audience.
One more great thing. Mac users love Apple products so they'll use Safari way more than Firefox. This will help keep web browser usage diversified. If we could get as much as 20% web usage as one of these two and 10% of web usage as non-IE mobile browsing then content providers will increasingly find it silly to support IE only, while also finding it silly to support only one of the other browsers. Diversity is a very good thing for everyone.
TW
Parent
Re:I'm bummed. (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Javascript vs. Jscript (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:I'm bummed. (Score:5, Funny)
*ducks*
Parent
Re:I'm bummed. (Score:5, Insightful)
Standards are often silent on lots of details, and it's really up to the browser devs on how to do an implementation. For example, is padding included in the width of an element, or not? It depends on whether you're using IE or Mozilla. Go to the microsoft.com home page in IE and Firefox and see how the left nav behaves differently when you hover over an element. Which browser complies with the standards, or do they both? Well, that's anybody's guess.
I hate web sites telling me I can't use the UA of my choice.
And I hate the two guys that use Billy-Bobs-Web-Browser-That-He-Wrote-In-A-Weekend telling me that I should support his browser. Of course it's in our best interest to support the widest possible audience, but you have to weigh that off against the richness of the experience. I don't want to give 100% of the people a crappy UI because 0.001% of my potential market doesn't support a feature.
That being said, we would like to support another browser in the Linux/Mac space if possible. It will keep the Mozilla folks on their toes and get them to fix some really nasty problems like memory leaks.
Parent
Re:Could be a big mistake... (Score:5, Interesting)
I had a conversation about this with my boss some time ago, and stated that our e-commerce websites (very non-tech oriented) had gone over the 5%-boundry when it came to firefox users.
His face went pale. 5% of all users means 5% of ad and sale income. Multiplied by the numbers we get, this is a serious enough difference for him to consider: the difference was more than both our salaries combined. He ordered thorough testing on IE, Firefox, Opera and Safari, and full adherence to web standards some time later.
Gotta love capitalism.
Parent