Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Internet Explorer Businesses The Internet Apple

Microsoft Ends IE for Mac 728

Posted by Zonk
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This discussion has been archived.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.

Microsoft Ends IE for Mac

Comments Filter:
  • I'm bummed. (Score:3, Funny)

    by yroJJory (559141) <me@jELIOTory.org minus poet> on Sunday December 18, 2005 @06:48PM (#14287415) Homepage
    Yeah right.

    Long live Safari and Firefox!
    • Agreed, but don't forget where Safari comes from [konqueror.org].

      Reading this on Konq now, an excellent browser with much promised for version 4.
      • by Anonymous Coward
        That's kind of like looking at a supermodel and going, "Yeah, but remember the monkeys."

        If you want to be proud of Safari's ancestry, good for you. Just don't make the mistake of thinking that it means anything.
      • Re:I'm bummed. (Score:4, Informative)

        by toddbu (748790) on Sunday December 18, 2005 @08:55PM (#14288096)
        an excellent browser

        Our experience has been that DHTML support on Konqueror is still far behind both Firefox and IE. We'd love to support it, but we spend enough time putting in hacks for the big two browsers that we really don't want to take the time to make Konqueror work right. It's also why we don't support Opera, although Opera seems to work better than Konqueror.

        don't forget where Safari comes from

        Last I'd read, there wasn't much cooperation between the teams. That makes a bad situation even worse. If we could target Linux/Mac in one step we'd think about supporting Konqueror. Our solution has been to tell our Mac customers to install Firefox and be happy. Most of them thank us for pointing them to a browser that works halfway decently on all sites.

        • Re:I'm bummed. (Score:4, Informative)

          by leathered (780018) on Sunday December 18, 2005 @10:10PM (#14288402)
          "Our experience has been that DHTML support on Konqueror is still far behind both Firefox and IE. We'd love to support it, but we spend enough time putting in hacks for the big two browsers that we really don't want to take the time to make Konqueror work right. It's also why we don't support Opera, although Opera seems to work better than Konqueror."

          3.5 is very much improved and is said to be one of the most standards compliant browsers out there. It now passes Acid2 unlike FF and IE. Not entirely useful to the user but nice to know nevertheless.

          "Last I'd read, there wasn't much cooperation between the teams. That makes a bad situation even worse."

          Yes I remember reading about that. Apparantly the teams are working much closer now and the Konq devs have access to the Safari CVS. Version 4 promises to have the best of both browsers. Don't get me wrong, Firefox is excellent but I love the speed (as fast as Opera IMO) and the integration into my KDE desktop that Konqueror provides.
        • Re:I'm bummed. (Score:3, Insightful)

          by jp10558 (748604)
          Personally, I think limiting to two browsers is as bad as one. Just write a site to standards, and let the users use the browser and UI they like. I hate web sites telling me I can't use the UA of my choice.
          • Re:I'm bummed. (Score:4, Interesting)

            by Metasquares (555685) <slashdot@metasqu a r ed.com> on Sunday December 18, 2005 @10:50PM (#14288565) Homepage
            Coding to standards does not always mean it will display properly on all browsers. Even after writing standard sites, I find that I need to tweak some things to get the site to display well on all browsers that I test with.

            This is particularly bad on IE Mac, which is why words cannot express how glad I am that the browser is being discontinued.
          • Re:I'm bummed. (Score:5, Insightful)

            by toddbu (748790) on Monday December 19, 2005 @12:54AM (#14289057)
            Just write a site to standards

            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.

            • Re:I'm bummed. (Score:4, Informative)

              by smallpaul (65919) <paul@@@prescod...net> on Monday December 19, 2005 @01:58AM (#14289258)

              For example, is padding included in the width of an element, or not? It depends on whether you're using IE or Mozilla. ... Which browser complies with the standards, or do they both? Well, that's anybody's guess.

              No: you could just read the standards or documents written about them:

              http://www.quirksmode.org/css/box.html : "In the W3C box model, the width of an element gives the width of the content of the box, excluding padding and border."..."Mozilla, Konqueror/Safari and Opera 6 and lower follow W3C's standards."

            • Re:I'm bummed. (Score:3, Informative)

              by Dolda2000 (759023)

              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.

              Actually, from CSS 2.1, 8.1:

              content edge or inner edge
              The content edge surrounds the rectangle given by the width and height of the box, which often depend on the element's rendered content.
              padding edge
              The padding edge surrounds the box padding. If the padding has 0
    • by sgant (178166) on Sunday December 18, 2005 @08:15PM (#14287907) Homepage Journal
      Now if only they would end IE for Windows.
      • Yeah, No Kidding (Score:3, Informative)

        by Greyfox (87712)
        I recently discovered that CSS handling in IE is functionally retarded. Apparently a lot of people (particularly web developers) are aware of the problem. Microsoft for the most part insists that the worst bits of it are "features." No web 2.0 for you, IE users. If Microsoft would just discontinue the browser, we could move forward without wasting endless hours trying to come up with workaround's for the one thing Microsoft's always been good at putting out -- bugs!
  • by ben_white (639603) <ben@nosPam.btwhite.org> on Sunday December 18, 2005 @06:50PM (#14287429) Homepage
    I use a Mac and love it, but I am concerned about this development, as there are few websites (including my bank) which don't work with Safari (and my bank's web pages don't load correctly on Firefox).
    • by amembleton (411990) <aembleton@bigfooSTRAWt.com minus berry> on Sunday December 18, 2005 @06:55PM (#14287471) Homepage
      Well, if Mac users cannot get hold of a supported copy of IE, then it might force websites (such as your bank), to test their websites against browsers other than IE.
      • by garcia (6573) on Sunday December 18, 2005 @07:17PM (#14287608) Homepage
        Or, in a more likely scenario, they aren't going to care and they will continue to only support IE for Windows or other browsers that happen to closely mimic its behavior.

        And switching banks because of browser compatibility isn't an option for most people.
      • by ben_white (639603) <ben@nosPam.btwhite.org> on Sunday December 18, 2005 @08:19PM (#14287938) Homepage
        We have already tried to convince our bank to support Mac users. I have a good relationship with the bank and my banker, and she pushed the issue up the management chain. I got a nice letter from the home office that their IT guys estimated that Mac support would affect 1% of their users, and wasn't worth the investment necessary to implement it. They actually asked if they could buy me a PC and a copy of Quicken for the PC to make sure they kept my business.
    • by Hiro Antagonist (310179) on Sunday December 18, 2005 @06:58PM (#14287490) Journal
      Have you told your bank? Because problems like this never get fixed if nobody complains. More importantly, if you tell them that their pages are broken in Firefox/Safari, and they tell you to get IE, switch banks, because businesses tend to listen when they lose customers because of things like this. When you close your accounts, and they ask the reason, tell them why.

      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?
      • by shking (125052) <babulicm@cuu[ ]b.ca ['g.a' in gap]> on Sunday December 18, 2005 @07:45PM (#14287742) Homepage

        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:

        1. from the Terminal command line: defaults write com.apple.safari IncludeDebugMenu 1
        2. start Safari
        3. select Debug > User Agent and choose a browser

        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)

        • by leenoble_uk (698539) on Sunday December 18, 2005 @08:04PM (#14287853) Journal
          Additionally, my bank specifically stated that Safari was not supported. I chose to ignore this warning and indeed the initial setup process failed because I needed to download a secure certificate which involved some IE/Moz specific capability apparently. So I used Firefox to get the certificate and then exported it to the desktop and imported it into Keychain Access. Now my bank's website works perfectly well with Safari.
      • by MTO_B. (814477) on Sunday December 18, 2005 @09:43PM (#14288295) Homepage
        Also, do this.
        Firefox > Help > Inform about an incompatible website...
        Fill the details, send.
    • by Androclese (627848) on Sunday December 18, 2005 @07:18PM (#14287616)
      I had the same problem with Bank One (Chase). I explained to them that they needed to get with the times and update their website; especially considering that IE is full of security holes and no developed for on Mac.

      She told me nothing was going to change.

      She was wrong.

      I changed banks to one that had Safari / Camino / Firefox browser support.
      • by gizmonic (302697) * on Sunday December 18, 2005 @11:31PM (#14288717) Homepage
        How long ago was that? I've been banking online for the past 3 or 4 years with Bank One (ever since they bought First Chicago) and now Chase. I've *never* had a problem using Firefox from my Mac or my PC on thier site. Just curious if this was some time ago as my experience in this century has been that there have been no issues at all. I'm wondering if they saw the light a while back...
    • by SethJohnson (112166) on Sunday December 18, 2005 @07:24PM (#14287643) Homepage Journal
      Wells Fargo is browser-independent.

      Seth
      • by Matey-O (518004)
        More importantly, Wells Fargo ACTIVELY tests and updates support for browsers. I've noticed it won't work for beta versions of browsers, but very very soon after the browser gos gold, support is added. I've been very impressed with their attention to detail on their web related stuff.
    • by Paradise Pete (33184) on Sunday December 18, 2005 @07:58PM (#14287823) Journal
      there are few websites (including my bank) which don't work with Safari (and my bank's web pages don't load correctly on Firefox).

      What everybody else said, let them know. But do it with a letter. A real one. That still makes a big difference.

  • Hmmm. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Caspian (99221) on Sunday December 18, 2005 @06:50PM (#14287431)
    ...the webpage suggests 'that Macintosh users migrate to more recent web browsing technologies such as Apple's Safari.'

    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)

    by omeomi (675045) on Sunday December 18, 2005 @06:51PM (#14287433) Homepage
    The next article down the page says: "Find out how Internet Explorer 5 for Mac can show you the Internet in new, exciting ways." ???
  • What? (Score:5, Funny)

    by trepidation_i_am (868811) on Sunday December 18, 2005 @06:51PM (#14287436) Journal
    They dont recomend Firefox? Well I never..
  • Since when does Microsoft admit it is not the best and recomends a competitor? OK, so they quit support, but still...
  • by Daedius (740129) on Sunday December 18, 2005 @06:52PM (#14287446)
    Guess that just means more firefox users on Mac now. Now with versions optimized toward their architectures now too. [beatnikpad.com]
    • No (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Sunday December 18, 2005 @09:25PM (#14288238)
      It just means they don't care anymore. If Apple isn't going to ship their browser as the default, there's not really a point in releasing it.

      It's pretty much assured that the majority of people will always use the default included browser on a platform. They all work pretty good and the non-tech people just aren't going to put the effort in to get a new one for the most part.

      Well, you take a marketshare that's small already (by many accounts smaller than FF on Windows usage) and take away the default status, it's just too small to justify the development time.
  • by SuperficialRhyme (731757) on Sunday December 18, 2005 @06:53PM (#14287453) Homepage
    Speaking of safari, does anyone know why some websites are locking out safari users?

    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?
    • No idea. Maybe it's a "better safe than sorry" approach, who knows. The least they could do is add a "Click here to continue at your own risk" link.

      My bank says they don't support Safari either, but when I set it to identify as, say, Windows MSIE 6.0, it works like a charm. Same goes for gap.com.

      I guess this is what happens when you spoon feed developers with only one technology. :-/
    • Stange thing is... (Score:4, Informative)

      by Hamster Lover (558288) * on Sunday December 18, 2005 @07:59PM (#14287826) Journal
      if you use Safari Enhancer [lordofthecows.com] to alter the user agent setting to "Firefox" or something similar the page displays fine.

      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.
  • Wasn't MS continuing development of the IE engine for MSN for Mac?
    I remember hearing something about that a long time ago. I could be wrong, just googled and found this [weblogsinc.com] so I guess I must be wrong. But I swear hearing something about them continuing it for paying MSN users.
  • Not surprising (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Bogtha (906264) on Sunday December 18, 2005 @06:55PM (#14287469)

    Back when the most recent MSN redesign was launched, it didn't initially work in Internet Explorer on the Mac [stopdesign.com], and that was way back in January. If Microsoft's web developers don't even bother testing in it, then I don't think it's too important to them.

  • Thanks Santa. I was hoping for something good for Xmas. And did you deliver. You the Man!

    Seriously though, I can't remember the last time I used IE on my Macs. I use Safari a lot, and love the .Mac syncing, so my bookmarks are always the same between the 3 macs I have. In those rare times Safari doesn't work, FireFox is readily available.

    On my XP machine, I NEVER use IE. It's always FireFox......

  • by Bert64 (520050) <bert@noSPam.slashdot.firenzee.com> on Sunday December 18, 2005 @07:00PM (#14287508) Homepage
    The windows version hasn't seen major updates for years... In many ways the mac version is more up to date than the windows version, at least it has vastly superior CSS support.
  • Once A Great Project (Score:5, Interesting)

    by sophiaknows (939814) on Sunday December 18, 2005 @07:04PM (#14287536)
    It's been easy to hate on since MS stopped updating it in like 2001 anyway. But IE 5 for Mac was the best and most standards compliant browser on any platform the day it was released. Awesome work by the original team. Sad it came from MS. Sadder still that they basically abandoned it once their contractual obligations to Apple were up
  • by rekoil (168689) on Sunday December 18, 2005 @07:15PM (#14287598)
    This is most likely due to the upcoming Intel transition. IE is written against the Carbon APIs (and most likely in CodeWarrior), which by all accounts (including Jobs himself) takes substantially more code refactoring to make Intel-compatible than a Cocoa application. IE simply looked at the dev costs of continued maintenance in light of making it Mactel compatible, and said "meh, it's not doing anything for us anyway". And they need those brains working on porting Office:mac, which actually does make MS money. Personally, I haven't launched IE on my Mac in months, so I doubt I'm going to miss it.

    • This is completely a product of the fact that back when MS was facing white hot antitrust heat in the late 90s they made an agreement with Apple to create and support new versions of Office and IE for the Mac for a period of years. Those years are now up. They'll probably release new version of Office because there is still money in it. But supporting IE on Mac gaint them nothing that their overwhelming market dominance doesn't already give em.
  • by stunt_penguin (906223) on Sunday December 18, 2005 @07:22PM (#14287631)
    Couldn't they have just emailed both people still using IE on the Mac and saved themselves the trouble of a whole press release.

    • Actually, the latest comprehensive browser stats that I saw show 30% of Mac users still using Internet Explorer (link [currybet.net]). My anecdotal personal evidence backs this up -- many Mac users I know still don't use Safari.

      I think the reason has to do with the whole OS X upgrade thing. A new version of the OS costs $130, and the only way to upgrade Safari is to upgrade the OS. A lot of OS X users never bother to upgrade from the version that came with their Mac. Consequently, they're stuck on versions that either ne
  • by Nice2Cats (557310) on Sunday December 18, 2005 @07:35PM (#14287694)
    Apple doesn't have to care about IE, because Safari and Firefox do the trick a lot better now anyway. What Apple has to be scared shitless about, however, is Microsoft killing Office for OS X. There is nothing in the Apple universe to replace MS Office at the moment for Joe Average -- NeoOffice/J (OpenOffice for the Mac) works fine for me, but most Apple users I know gag on it not being completely aquified. Without a full office suite -- single programs like Pages doen't count -- Mac sales plummet. And please don't even mention Apple Works, which should be taken out and given a clean, quick, merciful death.

    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)

    by the_rajah (749499) * on Sunday December 18, 2005 @07:37PM (#14287704) Homepage
    The Mac version of Opera works great, too. I've got four browsers on my old iMac G3-333 that runs Tiger. IE, Safari, Firefox and Opera. My linux boxes have Firefox, Opera and Konqueror. My bank's site gives me a non-supported browser warning when I access their site with Opera, but allows me to proceed and, other than some minor rendering problems, works OK.
  • by AnamanFan (314677) <anamanfan&everythingafter,net> on Sunday December 18, 2005 @07:40PM (#14287721) Homepage
    This is the best news I got this weekend!

    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? :rolleyes:

    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.
  • by doormat (63648) on Sunday December 18, 2005 @08:15PM (#14287905) Homepage Journal
    Mainly because I expect to see Apple's market share grow as soon as the intel macs get out the door and people start to adopt them. If you figure if their share increases to 5%, plus the ~10% of firefox+opera users, 15% should be enough of an audience for most websites to realize that IE-only designs are the past and that they need to modernize.
    • by AlXtreme (223728) on Sunday December 18, 2005 @09:51PM (#14288320) Homepage Journal
      5% for any major website should be enough to convince any PHB worth his salt.

      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.
  • Not a surpirse (Score:5, Interesting)

    by plazman30 (531348) on Sunday December 18, 2005 @10:16PM (#14288429)
    People seem to think that IE for Mac in some way used the same rendering engine that the Windows verison uses. This is far from the truth. The Mac version of IE is much more standards compliant and has none of the quirks that IE for Windows has, which pretty much means that it helps no one on the Mac side view IE specific web pages.

    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.
  • by jbx (90059) * on Sunday December 18, 2005 @11:15PM (#14288661) Homepage Journal
    MacIE had one of the strangest and saddest histories I've seen, of any product.

    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.
    • by jbx (90059) * on Monday December 19, 2005 @02:24PM (#14292525) Homepage Journal
      Jimmy Grewal posted a follow-up to this on his blog, which covers some extra points:

      http://www.jimmygrewal.com/?p=187 [jimmygrewal.com]


      A lot of what he says is true; but the story is more complex than this and there were many other factors that came into play. Issues which he doesn't cover...primarily because he wasn't working on the product much until the last few months of development:

              * - Mac IE was the first real browser running on Mac OS X. We had it running on Developer Preview 2 and it shipped on the Public Beta CD-ROM. That was a great engineering achievement but it came at a very high price. Developing for OS X in those early days was a nightmare and we spent so much time struggling with OS bugs and changing APIs that precious time that could have been used to improve the product was wasted just trying to maintain compatibility with each new beta release of OS X.
              * - Apple was a pain in the ass sometimes. For a company with such great PR, they really were very unprofessional and treated developers poorly. I know that the OS X transition was tough, but there are so many stories I could tell of stupidity at Apple and policies which made no sense...but I won't. I'll just say that Apple had a lot more involvement in the development of Mac IE and it's eventual end than Jorg ["jbx"] gives them credit for. There were times during the last two years of working at Microsoft that I really hated Apple's management...which was very difficult for me being such a loyal fan of their products and having so many friends who worked there.
              * - No clear direction from our management was the last major factor which Jorg touched upon but is important to mention again. Towards the end, we had some major changes in management at the MacBU and the new team was inexperienced both with the products they were managing and how to deal with Apple. They were further handicapped by lack of clear direction by our execs who were too busy worrying about AOL, the DOJ, and our stock price.

      Anyway, enough about the history. Mac IE is dead, and it's up to Apple and the Mozilla team to continue to innovate for us Mac users. Sadly, there are still many very useful features in Mac IE that neither company has replicated in their browsers and there are still too many sites which don't look right in Safari. I remember calling up CNN and ESPN and getting them to fix problems in their websites...it worked and I hope Apple has a group of people doing the same thing.

      Since Microsoft will no longer be offering Mac IE 5 for download on their website, I'm going to provide a community service by linking to it here. It has not been totally replaced and at least I need a place to be able to download it from for my own personal use...but you'll have to know what to click on to download it. ;-)

      If you ever want to know who the people behind Mac IE 5 were, just type "about:tasman" in the address bar of Mac IE and you'll get a list of the people who put their heart and soul into making it such a remarkable and successful product.

      I have to laugh (and cry) a bit at Jimmy's comment concerning Apple's management. Apple has screwed over developers time and time again, even while at the same time giving them lots of lip service and spending lots of time and money on developer programs. The tip of the iceberg: no Mac program written prior to 1999 will run - at all - on the new Intel-based Macs. In fact, most 2001 programs won't either. (By contrast, many 1984 apps *do* run on today's machines) More to the point: A Mac developer from 1998 who was 100% up-to-date on Apple's technologies will find today that those technologies have all been either deprecated (in favor of Cocoa or Intel) or outright eliminated (intelligent memory management through Handles, trap-patching, MixedMode expertise). It's all part of Steve Jobs' "they have no respect for the status quo" - a nice quote until you discover yourself at the receiving end of it.
  • Good, but... (Score:3, Informative)

    by dghcasp (459766) on Monday December 19, 2005 @12:49AM (#14289040)
    Unfortunately, there's still a lot of Mac/OS 9.x computers out there, and IE is about the only browser available for them. Safari needs OSX. Camino needs OSX.

    Someone else made an (admittidly funny) remark about "just email those two users." In reality, for the place I work, our server logs show 6% of all accesses come from IE 5.x on MacOS 9.x systems.

    I'll be very happy when IE 5 finally goes away, but on the other hand, I still see the occasional hit by Netscape 4.x in the logs...

  • by totro2 (758083) on Monday December 19, 2005 @01:02AM (#14289080)
    Hi all,

    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.

FORTUNE'S FUN FACTS TO KNOW AND TELL: #44 Zebras are colored with dark stripes on a light background.

Working...