Talk:Internet Explorer 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


InPrivate Filtering Subscriptions[edit]

This is a feature whereby you can subscribe to a list of websites to block content on (usually adverts and tracking-elements) for the InPrivate Filtering feature and have that list updated automatically whenever the host updates it.

But... does anyone actually know of any places you can obtain such a list? Seems to be a feature that's died unnoticed as Googling I can't find any sites offering such a service. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.194.40 (talk) 17:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Untitled[edit]

Where can I find the cache? I mean the files the browser automatically stores temporarily? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.74.21.139 (talk) 10:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

(assuming "C" is the drive letter for the volume on which Windows is installed):

  • Adobe Flash Cookies: C:\Documents and Settings\<username>\Application Data\Macromedia\Flash Player (on Windows XP)
  • Adobe Flash Cookies: C:\Users\<username>\AppData\Roaming\Macromedia\Flash Player (on Windows Vista and 7)
  • Adobe Flash Cookies: C:\Documents and Settings\<username>\Local Settings\Application Data\Macromedia\Flash Player (on Windows XP)
  • Adobe Flash Cookies: C:\Users\<username>\AppData\Local\Macromedia\Flash Player (on Windows Vista and 7)
  • Cookies: C:\Documents and Settings\<username>\Cookies (on Windows XP)
  • Cookies: C:\Users\<username>\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Windows\Cookies (on Windows Vista or 7)
  • History: C:\Documents and Settings\<username>\Local Settings\History (on Windows XP)
  • History: C:\Users\<username>\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\History (on Windows Vista or 7)
  • Temporary Internet Files (Cache): C:\Documents and Settings\<username>\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files (on Windows XP)
  • Temporary Internet Files (Cache): C:\Users\<username>\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files (on Windows Vista or 7)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.194.40 (talk) 17:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

A component of Microsoft Windows[edit]

How to understand this? The EU commision have ruled against Microsoft as far as i remember? --84.44.152.40 (talk) 10:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Only for Windows 7. The ballot box isn't available in XP or Vista. It would be sort of late for the EU to complain right now. ConCompS talk 06:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

This isn't a component of Microsoft Windows. This should be changed. 93.97.178.107 (talk) 14:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

"Missing features" section[edit]

I've trimmed this section down, and added a reference - the full reasoning behind my actions can be found here. Controversially, I've removed the claim that SVG is supported by "all major browsers apart from IE8" - this should be cited, though I'm certain it's true (I can't personally think of a browser without SVG support, and I was surprised that IE8 didn't have it). Less controversially (perhaps), I've removed the part about SVG being a W3C recommendation - it was unclear to me whether this meant that W3C recommends SVG for browsers, or whether the SVG spec is simply a "recommendation" published by W3C (W3C seem to use the term "recommendation" the way IETF use "request for comment"). Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 11:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia lowers its standards to such supposition only for MS-related articles? How is it a "feature missing" - you know what else is a "missing feature of IE8"? Tetris. And a DVD-burner. Including this section only helps provide evidence that Wikipedia cannot maintain uniform standards. This doesnt even have the weight to be called Original Research, it's little more than a out-of-the-blue attack.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.47.86.27 (talkcontribs)
Supposition? The issue here is that SVG is a near-universal standard, and one that MS planned to implement in IE8, so its absence from IE8 is notable. I can't think of any other major browser that implements Tetris out-of-the-box (though it wouldn't surprise me if browsers that support plug-ins can offer Tetris...), and I'm willing to go out-on-a-limb and definitely state that no browser offers DVD-burning... So - what's your proposal for improving the article? Should we remove all reference to SVG and let the reader erroneously believe that SVG support is supported? Or would some spin be preferable to you? Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 10:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
What you call a universal standard I would call a marginal standard that is over complex for its uses and has little value and there is hardly any decent support for SVG (even other browsers only provide limmited support for SVG) and which would probably benifit from a standard plugin that all browsers could user a an add on so that all browser would have simular SVG support. hAl (talk) 19:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
...all of which is your own opinion. It remains notable that As of 2009, all major Windows browsers have committed to some level of SVG support, except for Internet Explorer even as of version 8. So, in the absence of the IP, what's your solution? Remove all reference to SVG and let the reader erroneously believe that SVG support is supported? Or gloss over the matter? Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 20:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Remove it. Oh well. I was really hoping that we'd find some WP:NPOV way to describe IE8's SVG support, but it's your call. Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 20:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Why removing it, Tim Berners-Lee himself has expressed concerns about the fact that IE8 do not support SVG[1][2]. If I search in the article for the text SVG, I found nothing. Maybe we don't need a "Missing Features" paragraph, but this article is in need of a "Standards support" one, with the line about the fact that it does not support SVG at all. Plus the article (which ref was removed) said interesting things about the reason why SVG was not supported: There's suspicion, though, that the reason has more to do with Microsoft's internal politics, with the company wanting graphics and drawing in IE done using Silverlight instead. OK it's a suspicion related by an article, but it's worth mentioning. Ans Firefox support for SVG is very good IMHO (OK that's my opinion). Hervegirod (talk) 21:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
My thoughts precisely. This all came about because there was concern about the paragraph being non-neutral; I think that concern was well-founded, but removing the entire paragraph is complete overkill. I think "Standards support" might also be controversial (what defines a standard, for example? The origianl incarnation of the paragraph described SVG as a W3C "recommendation", without really saying what "recommendation" meant - is it a de facto standard, like an IETF RFC, for example, or simply a suggestion?) but I'm certain there's a neutral way to describe IE8's support for SVG without hiding the gory truth from the poor reader ;-) Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 21:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
There's a "Standards support" paragraph for Opera, and a "Standards" paragraph for Firefox. So having a "Standards support" paragraph for IE8 is natural. However, HTML / XHTML / CSS / Javascript / SVG / etc... standards are what allows to judge a web browser interoperabiity. ACID3 has tests which specifically test SVG compliance. For the "recommendation" wording, it's the way W3C calls their standards. However I think we should use a simpler wording, as it is the case for the Firefox and Opera Hervegirod (talk) 22:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I just looked more at the article, and I think that the "Rendering engine" paragraph is more on how IE8 is compliant to web standards. I think it should be renamed "Standards support" and become a top-level paragraph. It's odd it is now under "Features". The only feature which is mentioned is the fact that you can witch between being "compliant" or fallback to old IE behavior. Hervegirod (talk) 22:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
If the other browser articles use "Standards support" I'm happy with that - any WP:NPOV-concerns are addressed by consistency across articles. Thanks for researching this! Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 22:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
If nobody has already done by then, I propose to do it myself tomorrow - it's very late in France ;) I think it's a fairly simple change / move of the existing text (apart the SVG part, of course) Hervegirod (talk) 22:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Cool - that gives HAl and the IP a chance to comment. Cheers - and good night! TFOWRThis flag once was red 22:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


Criticism?[edit]

Why is there no criticism section? --Robinson weijman (talk) 11:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Probably because the early editors of this article used the IE7 article (no criticism section) as a model. See this for more insight. If you think the article needs a dedicated criticism section, please make the case for it. 98.71.197.202 (talk) 09:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Market share[edit]

HAi posted 18% earlier, and I checked one source (I thought HAi had placed a link in an edit summary, but I can't see it now). Vanilla-IE8 was around 15%, and three variants bumped the share up to just over 18%. I've just checked the three sources and get a .net error on the first, 15.33% at the second, and a grey box over the third. Could I suggest instead of a precise figure we say "over 15%"? And try and find reliable references? ;-) I'm happy with the 18% figure, by the way, as it is (or, at least, was) supported by one reference I've seen, but as other references suggest a lower figure a compromise may be more appropriate. Thoughts?

Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 21:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Found it, no thanks to anyone. :p "Over 15%" is fine. ¦ Reisio (talk) 17:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I think it may have been the link Reisio posted: [3] (I'm getting a really uninformative 500 error right now, but earlier the numbers did add up to 18%, honest!) Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 21:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
In the netapplications figures the IE8 numbers are split between standard mode and compatibility mode. Standards mode being 15.1% and compatibily mode being 2.46% . To have an accurate figure for IE8 you need to add those figures. hAl (talk) 09:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I see no such presentation of IE8 in compatibility mode being at 2.46% at http://marketshare.hitslink.com/do you have a link to this? After you provide a link, we can discuss whether or not one ref cumulatively reporting 18% trumps two other refs saying 15%. ¦ Reisio (talk) 17:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure why you do not see it as the the netapplication reference used several times in the in the articles show that percentage for IE8 in compatibility mode. hAl (talk) 05:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Because it has a great big pie chart at the top with one number, and then many small numbers at the bottom. It contradicts itself. ¦ Reisio (talk) 06:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
The pie chart is misleading. It shows only IE8 in standards mode marktetshare. hAl (talk) 09:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Mmmm, I did eventually notice the numbers below. ¦ Reisio (talk) 20:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

{reindenting} Just adding numbers for compat mode to standards wouldn't get the numbers using IE8 - if I visit a site and click compat mode on then my visit is registered twice. A large part of the compat mode uses (at least early on) will be to fix coding errors on a site and won't represent different visitors (IE6 fixes being picked up by IE8 when it doesn't need them, etc.). 15%+ seems the most certain statement. Pbhj (talk) 11:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

To me, there is no difference between 6 and 8[edit]

The problem existed in 6 still appears in 8 --222.67.212.133 (talk) 10:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

You're probably in quirks mode. ¦ Reisio (talk) 19:21, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
8-6 = 2. 160.39.221.14 (talk) 19:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Muah :D ¦ Reisio (talk) 19:21, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

internet explorer 8.0[edit]

sir i want to know how to change the default page of internet explorer 8.0, however i have change its home page to my local site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.153.16.190 (talk) 14:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Go to the website you want to be your new homepage, then click the down arrow on the right side of the icon of a house and choose "Add or Change Home Page...". Select "Use this webpage as your only homepage" and click [OK]. Alternatively, go into Internet Options in Control Panel and change it there.

If it won't change (defaults back each time):

  • Could be a manufacturer policy.
  • You may have malware. A tool like Microsoft Security Essentials or SUPERAntiSpyware should help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.194.40 (talk) 16:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Unable to delete Temporary Internet Files[edit]

--222.64.216.101 (talk) 08:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

by following the instruction from microsoft site --222.64.216.101 (talk) 08:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm using IE 8.0.6001.18702 --222.64.216.101 (talk) 08:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi! This talk page is for discussing how to improve the article: some of the editors here may not even use IE (I use Firefox and Chrome on Linux, for example). You may get a better/quicker response at the Reference desk, which is the place to go on Wikipedia for questions not directly related to Wikipedia. Good luck! TFOWRThis flag once was red 11:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Drag and drop[edit]

http://www.ghacks.net/2009/05/10/4-internet-explorer-8-annoyances/#comment-806027 says that IE8 dropped support for drag and drop. Is this based on user experiences alone, or did Microsoft actually announce they have eliminated this feature? --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Works for me, inwards and outwards. I'm removing it from the list of removed features. – Fayenatic (talk) 16:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

infobox[edit]

Why does the article has two infoboxes?--Dddiiiiiii (talk) 12:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't any more. I've just removed the second and moved the information into the first. me_and (talk) 12:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

SmartScreen privacy[edit]

It might very well be of interest to mention the privacy risks involved with the smartscreen process?

As seen under: [[4]]

"Every website and download is checked against a local list of popular legitimate websites, if the site is not listed the entire address is sent to Microsoft for further checks."

Further information can be seen here: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee126149%28WS.10%29.aspx

Privacy issues with the SafeBrowsing solution for firefox is mentioned clearly in the article: [[5]] .

Even though that solution may very well be less privacy-intrusive?

Since Firefox & internet explorer and many other browsers are competing for market share, should it not be considered more neutral to mention similar issues with different browsers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.254.206.11 (talk) 11:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

HTML5 support is much less that "partial"[edit]

What do you, ladies and gentlemen, think about adding a note that IE8 has some very nasty bug concerning HTML5 tags (described on http://paulirish.com/2011/the-history-of-the-html5-shiv/)? Reading this Wikipedia article it looks like the HTML5 support is almost perfect, missing only some bizarre features like <video> or <canvas>, but in reality IE8 has problems with just some basic structures like <header> or <article>. Maybe the phrase "Partial HTML 5 support, including cross-document messaging" should be changed, as in this form it is VERY misleading. Considering my lack of perfection in English language, I do not dare to edit so important page without asking for help of someone more competent. -- Skoot (talk) 11:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

animated-gif performance?[edit]

is it worth mentioning the the absolutely Horrible animated gif rendering performance? (example: http://4x4norway.no/hans/test/hichigo-vs-noob.gif ) 90.149.250.68 (talk) 15:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Only if you have a reliable source.--Luca Ghio (talk) 16:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
It is definitely worth mentioning. It takes nearly a half a minute to load a single gif of 100x100 pixels. If the page should contain many gifs (that would cover most of the screen at the same time), their framerate will never go above 1 per second. However very high-end PCs can probably muscle their way through this. GMRE (talk) 16:17, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I am seeing the exact same behavior in my other web browsers too. I've run a full diagnostic and discovered that the reason is the very slow connection to 4x4norway.no; once the image is fully loaded, its frame rate is quite descent. However, even if it was a concrete evidence of low performance, it would still have counted as original research, which is not allowed in Wikipedia. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 20:29, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect information[edit]

The first point under "removed features" is incorrectly "It is no longer possible to have Internet Explorer automatically open the current session at the next startup. User should now do so manually.".

If the user closes a nonresponsive window, the IE will automatically reopen and there will be a small window on top of it, asking if the same page should be reopened. It should also be noted that this feature is fundamentally flawed, because it will restore the nonresponsive condition. The other option in the small window is to go to the homepage. GMRE (talk) 16:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Judging by what you say, it is not incorrect at all. Only you are confusing automatic session resumption with crash recovery feature. Automatic session resumption in IE7 is similar to what you see in Opera (web browser): When you close the browser, all your tabs are saved; when you reopen it, they are invoked. Crash recovery only recovers tabs when a crash has occurred. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:08, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Extended support deadline?[edit]

From what I understand the year 2020 end of support date applies to Windows 7 IE8 only (something about "Major Parent Product" on the MS policy page) and XP's IE8 wouldn't be receiving updates starting April 8. Correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.57.43.149 (talk) 05:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes of-course, thanks for pointing it out, I forgot this when I added the EOL. -Lopifalko (talk)
Hi. Incorrect. Existing sources say that "Releases known as Components follow the Support Lifecycle of their parent Major Product" but IE8 is not a component of Windows XP; i.e. it does not come with it. It is a component of Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
That is why I wrote that IE 8 on XP had a EOL in 2014, and on Windows 7 an EOL in 2020. Can we change the leader to say 'on Windows XP in 2014[citation needed] an on Windows 7 in 2020[ref]'? -Lopifalko (talk)
Hello again. If you already know it does not have source, then why insert it?
Then again, why insert a comment about Windows XP and Windows 7 but not Windows Server 2003, Windows Vista, Windows Server 2003 R2, Windows Server 2008, Windows Home Server, Windows Server 2008 R2 and Windows Home Server 2011? If we find a source that say IE8 has the same lifecycle as its hosting OS, we write "Internet Explorer 8 has the same lifecycle as the operating systems for which it is released." I won't say no if you added one OS and one date as an example. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 07:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
It is unsupported. [6]. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello ViperSnake151. What exactly am I meant to see in this source to the effect that it is unsupported? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
"As a component of Windows, Internet Explorer follows the support lifecycle of the Windows operating system on which it is installed on. More information is available at Microsoft Support." ViperSnake151  Talk  18:06, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I'd say it is pretty much a rehash of what I quoted earlier. But if you are uncomfortable with free interpretations, all we can do is to wait two more weeks. When no other updates for IE8 on XP came, we find out. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)