Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 18th Jan 2010 22:00 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 404812
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Comment by Chris Nillissen
by nt_jerkface on Tue 19th Jan 2010 02:40
in reply to "RE: Comment by Chris Nillissen"
Even that's a bit off, I think. It's more like being engulfed in flames because your car had a poorly built fuel tank, and the company wanted to charge you hundreds of dollars to fix it.
MS isn't trying to make money by fixing IE6. They've told companies to upgrade to a newer version.
As I pointed out before there was no need for Google to connect to the internet with IE6. You can keep an instance of IE6 for testing or old activex apps while having an alternative browser for internet surfing.
This is another case of cheapskate companies refusing to spend money on old systems. I've seen this crap so many times. I know of a very large pharm company that uses IE6 on all the workstations because it works with google and they don't want to spend a dime on support unless something breaks.
RE[3]: Comment by Chris Nillissen
by jack_perry on Tue 19th Jan 2010 23:32
in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Chris Nillissen"
"Even that's a bit off, I think. It's more like being engulfed in flames because your car had a poorly built fuel tank, and the company wanted to charge you hundreds of dollars to fix it.
MS isn't trying to make money by fixing IE6. They've told companies to upgrade to a newer version. "
Which, if you're running Windows 2000, requires what, now? An upgrade to a new OS; i.e., spending money!
This is another case of cheapskate companies refusing to spend money on old systems.
Because Windows 2000 remains such a sorry OS?
RE[2]: Comment by Chris Nillissen - win2k.. sweet
by jabbotts on Tue 19th Jan 2010 17:35
in reply to "RE: Comment by Chris Nillissen"




Member since:
2005-07-06
Even that's a bit off, I think. It's more like being engulfed in flames because your car had a poorly built fuel tank, and the company wanted to charge you hundreds of dollars to fix it.
Once we get the story straight, it becomes clear that Thom's analogy works quite against his argument. My son just happened to tell me the other day that his school uses Windows 2000 on classroom computers. Thom implies that it's close to irrelevantland, but I've got good money that says they're using IE6. Any takers?