Talk:Internet Explorer 9

Sorry!

I don't really know how to edit (nor comment very well), but the preview has updated to version 6. Sources: http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2010/10/ie9-preview-6-available-now-with-sekrit-beta-ui.ars http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/info/downloads/Default.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.8.72.176 (talk) 17:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Chakra

See: Talk:Internet Explorer#Chakra

and: User:Face/Chakra (JavaScript engine)

All help is appreciated. Cheers! theFace 09:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Now the article is at Chakra (JavaScript engine). mabdul 16:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Question

Should it really be listed as a "component of Microsoft Windows"? I mean technically it can only be used on Windows, but with the EU not allowing it to ship with Windows PC's. You also have the fact that it is no longer needed to Microsoft Update, at least with Win7. Just seems like it dosent exactly fit with v9, but with the older more "traditional" IE versions (1-7). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.65.63 (talk) 15:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Technical you only need Trident as a component for Windows. But as a fact, that every IE were included in/delivered with some Windows-version (except IE1), it makes to a Windows component like the WMP or other applications. mabdul 16:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Sunspider tests

I have removed the portion with the Sunspider tests, because they come directly from Microsoft so they can't be approached as neutral.—Preceding unsigned comment added by AppliArt (talk • contribs)

There's not an absolute prohibition against self-published sources.
--Gyrobo (talk) 18:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

SunSpider is a public test (made by Apple). Besides, you could go try the test yourself, therefore I don't consider this self-bublished. Illegal Operation (talk) 14:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Although my blog is not classed as a reputable source, I do have tests I conducted independantly, including subspider tests showing the results of IE7, 8 and 9, as well as Firefox 3.5, 3.6, and 4beta6 (and chrome and opera current's and betas). The actual results are linked as well. Ktetch (talk) 01:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The Russian leak of IE9?

Should the picture of IE9 be replaced with the photo that Microsoft Russia accidentally posted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.64.188.39 (talk) 10:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

NO! Nobody can verify (except MS) if this will be the real UI. We need to wait only a few days and then the beta will be official released. No reason to hurry. mabdul 11:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Moar proof: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4QPxbubSug --Hengsheng120 (talk) 17:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

please: wait a few days and then we have the real beta. then we can verify that this was a real leaked build and then we can add a short comment that there was a leaked build. otherwise it is as every time: faked leaked builds and fakes ui screenshots - as every time! mabdul 17:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. None of these sources are reliable, and the new UI is set to be revealed in exactly one week.
--Gyrobo (talk) 20:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

do want somebody be bold and add a sentence about the "leaked" builds and screenshots? mabdul 22:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality Problem?

The whole tone of the article bothers me, but especially expressions like:

"IE9 features multiple improvements and features in the User Interface. These include a trim, clean Streamlined Design"; I suspect that "trim, clean" comes straight out of some MS source, and it's funny how the article is full of 'improved' this and 'faster' that, but no bugs, problems, or 'issues' are listed.

"an improved JScript engine"

My software counts 3 examples of the the word "improved" in the user-visible text of that article, and 10 examples of the string "improvement". Come on!

Thanks.

Tireisias (talk) 22:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The entire Improvements on previous versions section does read like the Internet Explorer 9 Beta Guide for Developers. I think it's more of a "this article is written like an advert" problem than a "this article isn't neutral" problem.
--Gyrobo (talk) 22:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The fact that there's no criticism section (and believe me there's plenty of justifiable criticism about IE9) just leads me to believe that this is a paid advert for Microsoft (not that Wikipedia is exactly credible anyway) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.32.252.135 (talk • contribs)

A couple things. First, not all articles need a criticism section. The browser isn't even released yet. It only just went into beta. I've also heard little criticism from the media, and I follow pretty closely. Secondly, not all the reaction is negative so having a criticism section is not nearly as objective as a reception section. Thirdly, this article is not a paid advert and even if it was, regular Wikipedia editors could still edit it to a point of neutrality. A lack of a criticism section does not indicate a paid advertisment, and if you held that standard to every Wikipedia article, then you'd conclude nearly everything on the site is a paid advert.CaptainStack (talk) 20:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

But everybody has to criticize IE for it's lack of compatibility! P.S. Microsoft employing EEE to internet browsers? 69.136.72.16 (talk) 21:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Windows XP Not Supported??

Why is windows xp not supported, it is in the Windows NT structure, same as Windows 7 and Windows Vista. Alot of people will have to upgrade undoubtedly because of this! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brendenhows (talk • contribs) 04:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

because microsoft want their customers upgrading to a newer system. maybe MS had no interest to create so much work on the ie platform supporting all features (especially the hardware acceleration using direct x version XY) that is not supported by xp. as I said: its all about money: MS want that the 10 years old os XP should die (although they are selling it any more!) mabdul 08:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I don't understand what this section has to do with the Wikipedia article under discussion. It seems to discuss only the browser and the OS themselves. Tireisias (talk) 18:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't think you understood. The problem is: MS is supporting IE9 only under Win Vista and 7 (and maybe under 2003/8?). They stopped supporting XP although XP is NT based as the rest of their actual OSes. Many people won't be able to update their browser if they choose IE. That is the problemn and that is really the right place to discuss. But the real prblem is: we don't have any citations/references or official announcements WHY they (will) do this. mabdul 19:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I doubt anything better than statements of IE9 needing a “modern OS” can ever be found. Kxx (talk | contribs) 04:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Why can't I run Chrome on PC-DOS? Why can't I run FF3 on Win3.1? Why can't I run Safari5 on OSX 10.1? Why can't I use GCC4 with a 1.X Linux kernel? The long answers tend to be technical and outside the scope of any wiki. The short answer is some variation on "you need a modern OS." Don't confuse simplicity with stupidity. RvLeshrac (talk) 09:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

So easy is not the answer! MS is producing the browser and the system. 10 year may be old, but not too old after all! XP is official supported by MS at the moment. So why should MS provide security patches/service packs but not actual software like the IE - if they selling Office for the same os - its all about money! mabdul 11:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Just because XP is supported by MS in terms of patching doesn't mean they have to write other software for it. We're not here to debate whether they should or shouldn't do something. The facts are whether they do or don't and the credible reasons for why those choices were made (such as using leverging advancements in code that doesn't exist in older versions of Windows and won't because of the time and resources it would take to provide that new functionality to the older versions of Windows). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.176.143 (talk) 15:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, the reason is because the Direct2D APIs that IE9 uses are not available in Windows XP and Microsoft (understandably) doesn't want to backport them just for IE9.--Alpha456 (talk) 22:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

This really isn't the proper forum to discuss why Microsoft has made certain design decisions for IE9. There's an official blog for that. Anything derived from this conversation would be considered WP:OR at best, WP:SYNTHESIS at worst.
--Gyrobo (talk) 15:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Acid3

Can somebody explain why we have two different screenshots of IE9 beta's Acid3 score? It fluctuated a lot yesterday but now seems to be stable at 95/100. Having both is just confusing so I removed the 93/100, but it was undone. If nobody can confirm they still get this score I think it should be removed. –CWenger (talk) 21:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The image displaying a score of 93/100 is of a non-default configuration. It has no place in this article, and I have been removing it as well.
--Gyrobo (talk) 22:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I also get 95/100 on two different computer. Illegal Operation (talk) 00:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

"Internet Explorer 9" or "IE9"?

I've seen several edits replacing all occurrences of "Internet Explorer 9" by "IE9", and then several replacing it all back again.

Why the use of the abbreviation? It makes the article read more like a technical document than something that is meant for the general public. Doing a search on Microsoft.com, I also see that the abbreviation is only used in technical documents, and in none of the pages that are meant for the general public.

This in contrast to abbreviations like CSS and SP2, which are actually used in general documents.

Peter (talk) 07:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Acording to google trends the term Internet Explorer 9 is used more than IE9 however IE9 is a valid, and much used term. It is used because Internet Explorer 9 is longer to say and type then IE9 so people use it. So I think IE should be used at least a bit.--Inputdata (talk) 19:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

there is more to css3 than border-radius

I have a question about the line that says "IE9 supports all CSS 3 selectors, border-radius CSS 3 property" why talk about border-radius after you say it supports all css3 selectors border-radius is part of the css3 spec so why the extra comment? It makes it sounds like border-radius is not part of the css3 spec. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inputdata (talk • contribs) 18:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that border-radius should not be singled out here; IE9 adds support for many, many CSS3 properties. But just keep in mind that selectors and properties are two distinct concepts. It might be more proper to say, "IE9 adds support for more CSS3 selectors and properties".
--Gyrobo (talk) 22:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Acid3 scores in the release history table

I dont think they belong there but my removal of the acid3 scores from the release history table was reverted twice. The results are covered later in the article in the development section were they belong. They were just 1 of the many thing being developed and I think including them in the release history gives undue weight. As if the reason for developing IE9 was to get 100/100 in acid3.--Chris Ssk _talk 14:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Acid3 may not be the most comprehensive test suite, but it's an important indicator of overall standards support, and it has been greatly emphasized by vendors and developers. It also presents a very small amount of data that doesn't really take up that much room.
--Gyrobo (talk) 14:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

CSS3 Selectors

Just want to make sure it is clear that people writing and editing this article understand the W3C selector specification and terminology. I made a change just a few minutes ago from IE9 supporting "all" selectors to "most".

If the final version supports all selectors the text can be changed back. However, for someone to say all, they do not understand front-end web development or the W3C spec.

I have been a web developer for over 13 years now. Pseudo-classes and Pseudo-elements allow selection outside of the scope of a typical selector and have been available since CSS1. Pseudo-* allow selection of element properties that are outside of the DOM.

The most simple example one can give of a pseudo selector is a:visited where ":visited" is the Pseudo-class.

IE9 does not support all pseudo-* selectors: Comparison_of_layout_engines_(Cascading_Style_Sheets)#Selectors —Preceding unsigned comment added by DJR2 (talk • contribs) 05:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Please read: http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-selectors/#pseudo-classes

And for historical reference: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS1/#pseudo-classes-and-pseudo-elements

DJR2 (talk) 05:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

While IE9 may not support all the pseudo-classes that exist, it certainly supports all the pseudo-classes specified in the Selectors Module, hence, it supports all CSS3 selectors. I brought up your issue at Talk:Comparison of layout engines (Cascading Style Sheets)#Status of non-CSS3 pseudo-classes.
--Gyrobo (talk) 23:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

SunSpider results

In light of this edit, I thought it prudent to direct all future discussion about the recent SunSpider results here. Rob Sayre, the Mozilla engineer responsible for discovering the alleged cheating, said on his blog that he did not consider IE9's dead code elimination to be "a serious general purpose optimization". This primary account was reported by a secondary source, which provided added analysis, including analysis of Microsoft's response.
--Gyrobo (talk) 03:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

It is shown here that after further testing, IE9 does optimize modified codes: http://apps.ycombinator.com/item?id=1915380 unlike earlier report which said that it did not: http://apps.ycombinator.com/item?id=1913497 Illegal Operation (talk) 04:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why people want to document every back-and-forth blog post on this issue; I don't believe it's Wikipedia's goal to do something like that. IMHO we should simply state that around PP6/PP7 of IE9 there were some questions asked about the validity of IE9's JS speed tests and provide links to the sources so interested parties can follow up on their own. Based on how emotional people get over topics like this, I don't think everyone will ever be 100% satisfied with any outcome. Some people will always believe Microsoft tried to cheat here, and some people will always doubt anything said about Microsoft by a Mozilla engineer. I'm getting the impression from the way people are editing this article that they're trying to get in the last word that Microsoft did or didn't and it's pretty open to interpretation & belief. (barring that we see a Mea Culpa from Microsoft or Mozilla on this of course) 87Fan (talk) 17:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree. The whole thing should be removed as it is not relevant. Illegal Operation (talk) 00:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

dito. mabdul 00:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I restored the removed section, I think is quite relevant and should be in the article, it may need to be simplified but not totally removed --Chris Ssk _talk 20:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not relevant at all. Just because a Mozilla employee came to Wikipedia and add it doesn't mean it's relevant. In face, dead codes optimization has been in IE9 since the very beginning and has been documented by Mozilla on September 9th, 2010, long before Digitizor digged up and spiced the whole story since Internet Explorer 9 Platform Preview 7 is found to beat all other browsers in SunSpider Benchmark. Illegal Operation (talk) 21:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the Mozilla employee who edited this section earlier today. Just wanted to say that I'm perfectly happy with the current state not mentioning this issue at all. I only edited this section because at that time it was actually mentioning Rob Sayre's blog and Microsoft's reply, and I felt that it was mischaracterizing the situation. I agree that it's not Wikipedia's role to report on every polemic issue such as this, so I agree with the decision to remove this section. That said, just to be clear, Rob Sayre's second blog post unambiguously and definitely proves that IE9's Dead Code Elimination code is 1) buggy, in that it compiles incorrectly valid JS code, of which he gives examples in his post, and 2) specially tailored for the 'cordic' part of Sunspider. Although he doesn't use this word, it should be obvious that this qualifies as 'cheating'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.116.210.98 (talk) 23:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Gentlemen, whatever you are doing, edit warring is the wrong way to go. Either reach an explicit consensus or wait for while before assuming consensus per WP:SILENCE. Two reverts in the matter of two hours is definitely edit warring and lack of regard for a Wikipedian's right to contest controversial changes per WP:BRD.

Besides, the fact that you "feel" something should not be here is not a good reason to remove that something; subdue your feelings and realize that you don't own Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and everything that complies with its policies (especially well-sourced material from notable people or reliable sources) is allowed in it. To remove that thing, you need to reach a consensus after providing a good reason for deletion. And no, voting is not a replacement for consensus.

Fleet Command (talk) 07:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it's important to include all information possible. Wikipedia is compendium of knowledge and not censored; we shouldn't be removing content just because it's disagreeable with some parties. If anything, we should be adding to the content, to ensure completion and neutrality.
--Gyrobo (talk) 13:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Just becuase Mozilla is Microsoft's rival doesn't mean that Mozilla's position is somehow invalid. Reliable sources documented Mozilla's concerns, so I don't see any reason why this information should be excluded. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Mozilla is the one claiming that IE9 sunspider result is invalid and Mozilla is not a neutral party. For example, if Ford Motor Company did a test and claim that the Taurus has better suspensions than the Impala, do you go the Impala article and add "Impala has inferior suspension to the Taurus"?. I discuss every changes I made to the article here on the talk page, but nobody is responding to the talk page unless I made a change to the article which then somebody claim I am in some kind of editing war. I want everybody to do a discussion beforehand not afterward so that conflicted can be avoided. Illegal Operation (talk) 15:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm with you Illegal Operation. Personally I think this whole thing is a case of anti-Microsoft sentiment: I'd bet that articles on other browsers don't detail every nit-pick made against them. Especially those made by the competition. 87Fan (talk) 17:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I also agree, mozilla wants to make ms look bad so they won't be neutral, besides that the whole thing is over 9 milliseconds compared to the length of the test it doesn't really make a difference Mark (talk) 17:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I grant that both group are at least to some extents right: What Mozilla writes is definitely reinforced by (if not totally fueled by) competitive spirit and also sentiments. Generally speaking, sentiments, especially passion, is power drive in human. Both Microsoft and Mozilla have employees that are passionate about their work. However, this fact alone is not enough for removal of the aforementioned contents. Wikipedia policies never mandate a lack of sentiments. All that Wikipedia:Neutral point of view mandates is impartiality in reporting what primary sources report. Otherwise, Wikipedia is at perfect liberty to neutrally report a gist of the discussions, arguments and even accusations that occurs between the competitors.

Right now, in my humble opinion, everything seems to be in order.

Fleet Command (talk) 00:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

New IE9 Beta at Windows 7 Updater

Windows 7 installed new update to IE9. But they didnt change any version number. What are we going to do here? 85.150.205.53 (talk)

It isn't a new build, just a reliablity update. You are confusing it with the new IE9 build that was leaked. Illegal Operation (talk) 02:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Speed

I had heard that the speed of IE9 is one of the best out of current browsers; if someone could find a source for this, I would appreciate it.--Malleus Felonius (talk) 17:46, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

That's actually a point of contention at #SunSpider results.
--Gyrobo (talk) 19:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh I didn't see it thanks. --Malleus Felonius (talk) 15:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Preview release should display both the latest versions of Platform Preview & Beta

We know that Microsoft is throwing two kinds of preview releases during the development of IE9; platform preview and beta. Please make the preview release tuple of infobox show both the Platform Preview (1.9.8023.6000) and Beta (9.0.7930.16406) with their respective date and age (if possible). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.178.219.237 (talk) 06:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

What does this show? The screenshots are normally to show the GUI and the level of the layout engine (html2,3,4,5;css and/or js support). but the platform preview can't show anything new than the beta. it has totally no GUI and the rendering engine is the same. mabdul 11:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thats right, currently preview release in infobox is showing the current release of platform preview (1.9.8023.6000), along the release date and age, rather than Beta (9.0.7930.16406). Imo, that would make sense if both the latest releases of beta and PP versions are displayed there.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.178.219.237 (talk) 12:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of screenshots are to demonstrate the GUI that the end users will see, which the betas represent. The platform previews may be more current, but they don't demonstrate the IE9 GUI.
--Gyrobo (talk) 15:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I concur. Fleet Command (talk) 16:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I am not talking about the screenshot. At the left side infobox, where it's written: Preview release 1.9.8023.6000 / November 17, 2010; 13 days ago, can you make it look like: Preview release (Platform Preview) 1.9.8023.6000, (Beta) 9.0.7930.16406. I tried but it didn't rendered..—Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.178.219.237 (talk) 19:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Nah! That's overkill. The table is enough. Only a very small minority group (i.e geeks and nerds like me) would like to know that. Of course, I can make that render... but I don't like doing it. 21:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe I've updated the infobox in a way that accommodates all viewpoints.
--Gyrobo (talk) 22:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks dandy!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.178.219.237 (talk) 23:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)