Jump to content

Talk:Microsoft Edge

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Limyx826 (talk | contribs) at 08:04, 27 August 2020 (What am I doing?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

What about IE?

Isn't Internet Explorer still going to be included in all versions of Windows 10 or presumably only in certain, enterprise-oriented editions? It would be worth a mention in this article. Thanks... <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 16:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, "As it does not support legacy technologies such as ActiveX and Browser Helper Objects, Internet Explorer will be maintained alongside "Spartan"" ViperSnake151  Talk  16:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Better picture to show its an universal app

A better picture like this one http://az648995.vo.msecnd.net/win/2015/01/Windows10_Phone_Laptop-4C.png should be used to better clarify that this app runs on all types of Windows 10 devices. User:User931 22:13, 05 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Until Spartan is released as a public preview, I would err on including any pictures for now, but it might an idea to include something like that in the future.
 NeoGeneric 💬  03:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spartan on Xbox One

Today in a chat with Xbox Support it is said Spartan will be the Browser on X1 instead of the IE App of now. Only he couldn't say when.

The Spartan team is a seperate team then the IE team — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.105.255.248 (talk) 20:40, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New picture

I thought of asking here first before doing the action. I found a better quality version of the icon. Here it is. You can convert it to the .SVG format if you want. If you don't want this to be used in the article, I understand that. Thoughts? RainingFlight 04:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by RainingFlight (talk • contribs)

It is a good image, but you need to fix the copyright issue tagged on the image file page before this can be used. - Ahunt (talk) 13:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I got it. Thank you! RainingFlight 21:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RainingFlight (talk • contribs)
I put it into the article. - Ahunt (talk) 21:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Release

I would like to change it myself but I'm not sure:

The article states the stable release as "TBA". Isn't the stable version supposed to be released today alongside the release of Windows 10? Or does this last one come only with the preview version?

--Loquetudigas (talk) 15:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sorry, I've just seen the last edit right after posting.--Loquetudigas (talk) 15:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft Edge article on Simple English WIkipedia

Hi all, I just wanted to let you know that I created a Microsoft Edge article on the Simple English Wikipedia. If you would like to help improve it, please click on the link below. Thanks!

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Edge

Daylen (talk) 04:14, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Plug-ins?

Should the article say something about possible plug-in use? Or confirm if not supported. Similar too: "Internet Explorer 11 for Windows RT does not support Java and other add-ons.[14]"?

[Saying something about Java, might not be too relevant in the article, but maybe the general issue of plug-ins (relevant for such as Microsoft's own Silverlight (and Flash)).] comp.arch (talk) 15:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ENGVAR

In case there is any doubt about which version of English to use, this article was started using American English [1] (note the spelling of "rumor"). That, plus Microsoft's ties to the U.S., means it should remain at American English per WP:ENGVAR. Calidum 05:15, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flash and PDF

Edge for Windows 10 desktop appears to be shipped with Flash and PDF reader as integrated components: http://blog.trendmicro.com/trendlabs-security-intelligence/windows-10s-new-browser-microsoft-edge-improved-but-also-new-risks/ John a s (talk) 22:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The ref does explicitly say that, so I will add it to the article. - Ahunt (talk) 22:47, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! John a s (talk) 12:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Microsoft Edge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

in Oceania. I can't locate the island (even while zooming). If Tuvalu is any indication, then this may just be fluctuation in unreliable stats.. but Edge was most popular somewhere in Dec and now also in Jan (could be different islands..). In Dec a lot of browser where most popular..[1] one of Phantom (if PhantomJS – a headless browser – is it it probably just supports unreliable stats in the region..), I had never heard of.. comp.arch (talk) 14:46, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Found it! Under List of island countries: "Dependencies and other notable regions" (then is it?). Niue[2][3] population "around 1,190". It could be just unreliable stats, do I then just delete this section..? Edge would be expected to have an upward trend, but Firefox this huge drop..? Phantom I guess expected to fluctuate... Pitcairn Islands, with only its 60 inhabitants, has more swing (at least with Phantom).[4]

Note: "The Cook Islands and Niue are in free association with New Zealand. See Niue Constitution Act. Tokelau is a territory of New Zealand." and "New Zealand acts on behalf of Niue in foreign affairs and defence issues, but only when requested so by the Niue Government and with its advice and consent" [this sounds/ed like my own small island country, not this small, and our stats ARE reliable..] with this one the smallest actual state (in the region):

"Nauru [..] officially the Republic of Nauru (Nauruan: Repubrikin Naoero) and formerly known as Pleasant Island, is an island country in Micronesia in the Central Pacific. Its nearest neighbour is Banaba Island in Kiribati, 300 kilometres (186 mi) to the east. With 9,488 residents in a 21-square-kilometre (8.1 sq mi) area, Nauru is the smallest state in the South Pacific and third smallest state by area in the world, behind only Vatican City and Monaco." comp.arch (talk) 15:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://gs.statcounter.com/#desktop-browser-oc-monthly-201512-201512-map
  2. ^ http://gs.statcounter.com/#desktop-browser-NU-monthly-201510-201601
  3. ^ http://gs.statcounter.com/#desktop-browser-NU-monthly-201502-201601
  4. ^ http://gs.statcounter.com/#desktop-browser-PN-monthly-201510-201601
- Ahunt (talk) 15:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Successor of Internet Explorer?

Hello. I have known (and still know) that Microsoft Edge was meant to replace Internet Explorer, so does that mean that Microsoft Edge is Internet Explorer's successor? The article does not yet say so, but I vote "Yes.". Gamingforfun365 (talk) 23:17, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After visiting this site, I was trying to add the "Predecessor" parameter, but I now see that it is not possible to add a filled-in parameter to the infobox template in the article. I am now talking about having the "Predecessor" and "Successor" parameters inserted into the template here. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 00:11, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not clear whether Edge can be used in earlier versions of Windows. Any clues?
Kortoso (talk) 22:56, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, Microsoft Edge is available exclusively for Windows 10, you can't get it for any previous version of Windows. Wiki layes (talk) 19:17, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For those of us back on earlier versions of Windows, the lede should say that fact directly.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 15:01, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - Ahunt (talk) 21:35, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Release History: Reference wanted about support policy

In the Release History section, some versions are marked as "Older version, still supported".

However, I can’t find a reference saying what versions are still supported and what versions are not.

—C.P. (talk) 07:35, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The new release history

Hello everyone, I have recently updated the release history, please feel free to edit this new table as you see necessary, my edit changed the dimensions of the table significantly comparing to the older one, what do you recommend, is it suitable now or does it need change ? Wiki layes (talk) 00:37, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just one question. You have coloured your entries beige, which is "latest preview version". Should they all be beige? They can't all be the latest version, can they, or am I missing something here? - Ahunt (talk) 00:48, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, they can't all be beige, but problem is that all versions I added are preview versions, I thought well about how to add them, and after examining Template:Version I thought I might add them as preview versions because they can't be colored in red since they are more recent than the latest stable version, I wonder if I should remove all but the latest preview ? Wiki layes (talk) 01:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If they aren't significant it may just be best to remove them. WP:NOTCHANGELOG has some guidance. - Ahunt (talk) 01:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I made the table initially hidden so it won't take the large space in the middle of the article it used to take, this way it won't draw the reader's attention from reading the main article, what do you think ? Wiki layes (talk) 03:23, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is fine, but I think we still have to fix the colour issue. I think all but the latest preview versions should be re-coloured as "old releases". - Ahunt (talk) 15:05, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here lays the problem, being colored red implies they are older than the latest stable version, which isn't true in this case. Wiki layes (talk) 15:12, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Legend just says "old version", which they are. There is no colour for "old preview version". It doesn't make sense to leave them all as "latest preview version" as they can't all be the latest preview version. . - Ahunt (talk) 15:37, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All but but the latest are now red, what de you think ? Wiki layes (talk) 16:23, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is the best solution, given the colour constraints. Thanks for doing it all. - Ahunt (talk) 16:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It was my pleasure, and thank you for helping me solve the reference error I've made, I got freaked out about messing it up and I couldn't solve it, but it's funny how in this case a preview version is considered old (being colored red) while it's actually more recent than the current stable version (in green), but Windows 10 version history gave me an idea about splitting the table in four, one for each windows version, or even adding old preview to Template:version, but that won't be easy certainly, I'll just consider it an see. Wiki layes (talk) 17:15, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Microsoft Edge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:59, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Power efficiency section removal

Should we remove the power efficiency section? Recently Marquis de Faux (talk) removed an independent test dismissing Microsoft results stating that the reference is a youtuber even if it was verified by multiple independent third parties. As Microsoft made the tests to suit them. Should we remove the section to maintain a neutral point of view? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.33.10.238 (talk) 07:41, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello
You must not confuse neutral point of view with neutralized (or neutered) point of view. What you are proposing is the latter.
The second fundamental policy of Wikipedia requires "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." So, no, we won't be removing anything in this regard, and if we did, it won't be called "maintain[ing] a neutral point of view".
As for Marquis de Faux, removed the sentence out of misunderstanding the policy. (Of course, I can't know for sure but that's the best good-faith assumption I can make.) As such I reverted his action. That BetaNews was a secondary source. A secondary source is one that takes a primary source, much like that certain YouTube video and republishes it in its own words, providing editorial oversight. In effect, a secondary sources might say exactly what the primary source said, only for Wikipedia, it is more reliable.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 09:10, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
The article reads, "Another set of independent tests dismissed Microsoft results and proved Chrome has the best battery performance" implying some sort of study from a legitimate organization or academic source. The source of the "tests" is a YouTuber. I am not sure exactly of the policy in this case, but it seems questionable to me that a secondary source publishing what an unreliable primary source says would legitimize the findings of the unreliable primary source. Marquis de Faux (talk) 22:49, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Marquis de Faux
"YouTuber" is a derogatory term for a person who frequents YouTube a lot; I'd appreciate if you avoid that, not just because of WP:CIVIL, but because labeling introduces bias into assessment, and also because it is inaccurate: the upstream source is a content creator, not a binge watcher.
That said, YouTube must be treated as a medium, not a publisher or work. The reliability of the contents on it is decided by the same three factors that decides the reliability of all other sources: Content (in terms of quality), author (in terms of credentials and reputation) and editorial oversight (in terms of presence, credentials and reputation). Alone, the upstream source on YouTube would have been a self-published source without editorial oversight. BetaNews added this missing element. Tell me: If BetaNews had published the exact same thing, would you still have said that it is unreliable?
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 06:30, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Codename Lisa,
I have never seen the term "YouTuber" used in a derogatory context, and according to the Oxford Dictionary, a YouTuber is, "A person who uploads, produces, or appears in videos on the video-sharing website YouTube" and the Google definition is similar, including content creators. The term is also commonly used by media outlets to describe people who own YouTube channels example1 example2 example3
Therefore, I believe that the term YouTuber is appropriate in this case as it accurately describes the upstream source and is not a derogatory term. I would not have said the source is unreliable if BetaNews published a study saying the same thing. However, I would have still identified the source as "a study conducted by BetaNews found that...etc." The current "series of independent tests" is vague and I believe it is appropriate to at the very least identify the source of the study. Marquis de Faux (talk) 01:44, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. Go ahead then.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 07:10, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cisco Talos security issue

Hello

I just reverted an attempt to write about the so-called Cisco Talos security vulnerability on the grounds of poor reliability of the sources used: Revision 799799404.

The thing that I didn't say in my edit summary is that I actually have more reliable source myself: Softpedia. While these two "sources" try to accuse Microsoft of laziness and inaction, Softpedia says something extra: Microsoft has said it is not a vulnerability, rather, it is by design! In the meantime, sources that care about their reputation and accuracy of their publications have said nothing about this so called security vulnerability.

So, those of you who have our fundamental policy WP:NPOV in mind, might want to wait and see what transpires.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 12:13, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again
Today, I once again reverted an attempt by 81.34.210.194 to reinstate the material. (Revision 800018106) I'll be frank with you as to why: Verification failed. 81.34.210.194 accused Microsoft of laziness. The sources didn't. Both new sources say "Microsoft stated that this is by design and has declined to patch this issue". Wikipedia is not a battleground for demonstrating your hatred of such-and-such company and sources are not excuses.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 05:56, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I read the original report by Talos, and the corresponding Talos blog post by Vanja Svajcer. Both sources credit "Nicolai Grødum of Cisco". Here is the catch:

CSP defines the Content-Security-Policy HTTP header that allows creation of a whitelist of sources and instructs the browser to only execute resources from the allowed sources specified by the policy. Even if an attacker finds a way to inject a malicious script and successfully launch a XSS attack by injecting a <script> tag with a remote script source, the remote source will not be matched by the list of allowed sources and will not be executed by the browser.

~snip~

There are three main components to an exploitation attempt: setting the Content-Security-Policy for the browser with "unsafe-inline" directive to allow for inline script code, then using window.open() to open a blank new window, and finally calling the document.write function to write code into the newly created blank window object in order to bypass CSP restrictions put on the document.

The boldface part is the problem: setting the Content-Security-Policy for the browser with "unsafe-inline" directive to allow for inline script code is a major hacking undertaking in its own rights!
  1. First, the attacker needs to do either of the following:
    • Find a website that allows unsafe inline scripts: Only then can he or she inject an unsafe script that does the window.open(), document.write (...) song and dance. But if the attacker can inject such an inline script, he or she no longer needs to use this so-called "vulnerability". He or she can inject literally anything, including millions of lines of malicious code! Sky is the limit.
    • Hack the server and alter the CSP to allow inline scripts: If he or she can do that, then all bets are off! The website can be converted to a malicious website altogether! Forget the bad source.
  2. Second, most web browsers have popup blockers. They stop window.open().
  3. Now, imagine the attacker successfully opened a new tab and loaded a script (from a malicious source) into it. Can that script do anything at all? Or does the session isolation or Windows Defender Application Guard stop it?
See, this report is not properly vetted. It is just an accusation without oversight hastily published by some journalist that find anti-Microsoft contents fashionable. Why does nobody posts a link to the post in which Microsoft said it is not a vulnerability? Is there something in that response that makes the original reporter the laughing stock of the security community?
FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 08:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A reference to a Microsoft blog post cannot be used as Microsoft is not an independent source. I think it is important to document that Microsoft does not consider this security improvement important. I do not see any reason to censor this information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.20.62.44 (talk) 19:49, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi.
"...is not an independent source". There is no policy to mandate such a thing. I dare you to show me one.
"I do not see any reason to censor this information." I just gave you one: WP:NPOV.
—Codename Lisa (talk) 04:44, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please, read Wikipedia:Identifying and using independent sources and, please, do not use the Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.38.121.100 (talk) 05:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see if I can put it in simple words, without the use of policies such as WP:V, WP:DUE, WP:RS and WP:N, all of which you are violating. Forget them all. You are a bad person who wrote a lie. I deleted it. To defend it, you wrote more lies.
Was that simple enough for you?
—Codename Lisa (talk) 06:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa! That was brutal! Codename Lisa always chastised me for using such language.
But then again, maybe the situation calls for it. Because without exception, every single time, literally none of the things the Spanish editor wrote appeared in the source, namely Microsoft is slow at fixing bugs, Microsoft dismisses genuine bugs, Edge is less secure: [1][2][3][4]. Clearly the Spanish is here to say Edge is insecure; WP:NOTHERE. Everything else is just an excuse.
FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 13:25, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1 December 2017

Not moved. No consensus to move. Early closure per WP:SNOW as the opposition seems quite unanimos.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Microsoft Edge → ? – I would like to move this page to either Edge or Edge (web browser). It makes sense because it matches similar titles of other browsers such as Firefox, Safari (web browser), and Chromium (web browser) as opposed to Mozilla Firefox, Apple Safari, and Google Chromium. 2601:183:101:58D0:C9FC:59EA:B010:4DA3 (talk) 21:16, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Possible removal from list

An entry in List of colors: G–M contained a link to this page.

The entry is :

  • Microsoft Edge blue

I don't see any evidence that this color is discussed in this article and plan to delete it from the list per this discussion: Talk:List_of_colors#New_approach_to_review_of_entries

If someone decides that this color should have a section in this article and it is added, I would appreciate a ping.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:45, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that is a referenced colour, can be deleted. - Ahunt (talk) 22:16, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chromium versions missing

The table about all Edge versions is very good. Could someone please add a new column that shows which Chromium version is used in each of the new Edge versions? I cannot find this information anywhere in internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.161.44.237 (talk)

To add it we would need a reference that tells us which versions are used. Basically if you can't find it neither can we. - Ahunt (talk) 16:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:21, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chromium update

Hi folks, imho it would make sense to move either the new or the old Edge to a separate page. They are technically two absolutely different browsers with the same name. Edge (Chromium) doesn't have one line of code in common with Microsoft Edge. So it's not really the same thing in my opinion. What do you think? Reditec (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the new Chromium-based Edge is so different from the EdgeHTML one that it's closer to Chromium than to previous Edge or IE. It would make sense to describe them in two separate articles once there is enough content about Chromium Edge. Specifically, they probably should stay on this page until there is enough content about Chromium one and then it should be moved to "Edge (Chromium-based)" or something similar.
Anton.bersh (talk) 09:38, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think User:Anton.bersh is correct, we should keep it here until there is more material and then revisit it, as a split article now would be very short. Also keep in mind that other browsers that have gone through similar changes, such as Opera (web browser) and GNOME Web have not been split. - Ahunt (talk) 12:55, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the Edge browser looks totally different than before and was totally re-written. So it's more like a new product, than a new major version of Edge. Also the development teams differ and the versioning is different. Reditec (talk) 01:04, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a need for a separate article, because at the moment there isn't enough content and the difference is already clearly laid out - the infobox has "EdgeHTML (2014-2019)" and then "Blink (2019-present)", the intro text says that in 2019 it was rebuilt as a Chromium-based browser, and then in the content, you have "EdgeHTML (2014-2019)" and then "Chromium (2019-present)". Also, will there be much to expand on the EdgeHTML version? Steven (Editor) (talk) 00:15, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These 2 should never be split. First of all, I'm not sure where that is coming from but the team that worked on Spartan and Anaheim are the same teams (with the obvious rotation of developers over the years). Second, because the underlying code changes does not make it a different product. Edge and Edge are the same products: a browser named Edge from Microsoft.

I feel like the people who are editing this article are a little bit to happy to use "Chromium" in every sentence as much as possible. The article on Opera, which has been a Chromium browser for years now, uses the word "Chromium" exactly 4 times in the article. Edge, which has been a Chromium browser for less then a month mentions the word 17 times in the main article (which is down from 25 last week since I removed a bunch of them, and I intend to do more). --YannickFran (talk) 18:26, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Privacy section

Is there any problem adding the following to the privacy section? Microsoft Edge sends the hardware identifier to Microsoft servers making it easy to identify the user.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.48.184.27 (talk) 21:36, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One researcher’s result is not sufficient for this to be WP:DUE weight. The statement you want to add isn’t even true for public internet kiosks (like in a library or school where only one Windows user account is used).—Jasper Deng (talk) 22:31, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How do you propose to fix it? So we can keep this fact? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.174.3.177 (talk) 22:49, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't need to be added at all. The article already has "According to Douglas J Leith, a computer science professor from the Trinity College of Dublin, Ireland, Microsoft Edge is the least private browser. In response, a spokesperson from Microsoft Edge explained that it uses user diagnostic data to improve the product." which is much more neutral than what you propose.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:17, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Windows Vista, XP, ...

I would be interested to know whether the new Microsoft Edge browser can be run on any other operating systems. Even though it is designed to run on Windows from version 7 and up, can it nevertheless run on Windows Vista, XP, ...? And if not, I would be interested to know why not. (Technical reasons? Marketing decision?) —DIV (1.129.106.156 (talk) 01:21, 5 April 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Sounds like this is a question to be asked at Wikipedia:Reference Desk.Herbfur (talk) 21:32, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not to keep the Chromium and EdgeHTML version tables separate

There has recently been debate over whether or not the EdgeHTML and Chromium version tables should be separate or kept together. My opinion is that the tables should be kept separate. This is because Chromium Edge is almost completely different from Legacy Edge, and has a completely different development history and cycle. The Firefox version history article is split between numerous major release cycles and versions, and the early versions 1-4 even have their own article. The History of the Opera web browser article also splits the article between major revisions. In summary, merging the history of what's essentially two separate products doesn't make sense to me. It's also inconvenient, as some people may be searching for information on only one of the Edge browsers, but now they're forced to look through the entire article. It just makes more sense to separate the version history tables to me.Herbfur (talk) 15:26, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it makes sense to keep them separate. Even the version numbering points to this as a the solution. - Ahunt (talk) 16:02, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Let's first make something clear: when there isn't a consensus, you first have to reach one before you change the page. Not first change and then force a concensus. The page remains as it was until this discussion is finished. Second, the way software is developed is rarely a reason to split a version table, it doesn't impact the user and even in this case it isn't more than a speed up and decoupling of Edge's development from Windows. The later being a perfect example; it's version table doesn't differentiate between NT and non-NT, nor does it care for the fact that Windows regularly went through different development methods; because it doesn't matter.
You can't compare this to Firefox's and Opera's history either (never mind that Opera doesn't even have a version table, so this is a terrible argument). These 2 browsers have a history of over a decade and major updates to these browsers, at the time, were major "events" in these browsers history where the user experience often drastically changed which is why the various early version of Firefox have their own article, just like Internet Explorer. Updates to browsers have become *much* less notable, which is why they don't get their own page anymore (or why nobody bothers with it), and that even includes Anaheim. We don't differentiate between Blink and WebKit on Chrome's version history either. Major changes in a development cycle isn't an argument. Not to mention that, unlike Edge's version table, Firefox also shows minor updates and patches which is also why it has been split up. Edge's version table is much closer to that of Chrome, which - again - is just a single table, all be it on its own page.
This is also repeating an argument made earlier as to if Edge and Edge should have their own page. The conclusion was that there was no need for it because there was no notable reason for it: it's the same product. And that's what this article is about. A product, not a version of that product. The table is supposed to represent the evolution of Edge, not of it's underlying foundations that are largly irrelevant to the article to start with.--YannickFran (talk) 08:29, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see you did it again without a consensus. Repeating the same argument over and over again without any proof of it isn't going to help. Regardless, let me split it up and make some clear cases for all of them.
* The new and old edge browsers are completely separate products: the simple fact that you have to refer to them as "the new" and "the old" already makes clear that they aren't "completely separate products".
* not a "major rewrite" of the software: then what is it? Just an update to the software? If it isn't a major rewrite than it absolutely doesn't have to have its own table. When software gets a "major rewrite" it's often started from scratch and hardly any project starts from an entirely empty codebase, especially not browsers. Within the context of Edge, this is "just" a "major rewrite".
* They have a different development history: well of course, they are 2 different versions of a product. Internet Explorer 10 and Internet Explorer 11 have different development histories as well. But that isn't the point now, is it? This is a table giving an overview of that development history. Them being different is the point.
* both versions are continuously being developed right now: no, Edge Anaheim is being developed, Edge Spartan is being maintained, and only for another year. The browser's version number is coupled to the OS's, but in reality there is no difference between Edge 44.17763 and Edge 44.19041 and whatever other updates will follow within the next year (which is why their changelog spans all 4 releases). You're misrepresenting Edge's situation here.
* Users can clearly notice the difference between the two: users can - if they try - see the difference between *every* version of Edge. Between every version of any product even. But again, you're pointing out that these 2 versions are different and thus deserve their table showing that progress to be split, but again, that's just a pointless argument. If they weren't different, we wouldn't need a table. IF this would be the argument, I guess we're gonna need to split up the version table on Microsoft Windows between every single version of Windows, which, of course, would be nonsense. "Noticing a difference" is an incredibly subjective way of splitting up anything, because where do you draw the line? People probably noticed when Edge 80 suddenly turned their Edge UI dark after Edge 79's white default UI. So should Edge 79 have its own table, followed by a table for Edge 80?
* As for consensus? Actually, the editor who merged the version tables was acting against consensus. The version of the page prior to the dispute had the tables split.: this is the original edit that is under dispute here, I could be blind, but the edit before it clearly shows a singular table.
Regardless, the points of my previous comment here still stand, too. Bringing Opera's history page into the fold especially seems like a bad-faith-argument given that there isn't a version table on that page at all (and Firefox's is an entire different beast too). You know which browser *does* have a version page that only marks up the major versions? Google Chrome version history, and we list them all in one big table. Even at the moment that they switched render engine. Even at the moments they revamped their entire UI. But again, I mentioned this already and you don't even bother with it. Please discuss this first properly.--84.194.198.206 (talk) 18:27, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, first off, WP:GF, you are violating that policy by declaring my comments to be in bad faith.
  • Microsoft literally markets the new edge to be a separate browser than the old edge. Its support documentation treats the legacy edge and chromium edge separately. The argument that because a new and an old moniker is used implies that it is the same product is false. The fact that the Russian Empire (1721-1917), Russian Republic (1917), Russian SFSR (1917-1991), and Russian Federation (1991-present) share the name "Russia" doesn't make them the same country. Although they occupy roughly the same geographic region, they are completely separate incarnations of Russian governments througout history, which have received their own articles.
  • This is more than just a major rewrite. It's a new product entirely. While it has the same name, Microsoft is marketing it as a new browser, not just a major update to the old browser. When you go to download page for the browser, it says that it is the NEW MICROSOFT EDGE. Not just the improved edge, but a new Microsoft Edge. Like I've said earlier, Microsoft even maintains separate documentation for the legacy edge and new edge. The way it's rolled out and developed also indicates that it's a completely separate browser. Users who want the new edge need to download it themselves, it isn't updated over the legacy edge. When the new edge is installed, it HIDES the old edge, but doesn't replace it. It's possible to have both the old edge and the new one running at the same time with registry settings. This wasn't the way Opera handled its transition to Chromium. It was simply treated as a new version of Opera, not a new browser. But the way Microsoft handles and markets the browser makes it clear that they treat the legacy and chromium edges as separate browsers. The version number even jumps from 44 to 79, clearly indicating that this is a separate browser.
  • Maintaining the old browser means that patches and updates are still being developed for it. It's the same as with Windows 10 v1903 and v2004. While version 1903 is only getting security patches, it is still being updated and if you go over to Windows 10 version history, you'll see that it has a separate table. Because it's a separate version of Windows 10. Just like the new edge is separate from the old edge. The section in question on this article even has separate sections for the two different edges and their development histories. It makes no sense to treat the sections separately but then merge the version history.
  • You were the one who brought up the whole "Notice a difference" argument by saying that there isn't an impact on the user. I personally don't think it's significant whether or not a noticeable difference exists on the user side. Windows 98 looks a lot like Windows 95, but they are treated separately because they're different products, just like the two edges. Whether or not two entities are separate is not to be judged by how they are used.
  • You said there was a consensus not to split the article, but the consensus in that decision was to wait until there was more information on the new edge. Not that they were the same, that was your opinion. The majority of the editors in the discussion back then said that we shouldn't split only because the article on the new edge would be a stub.
  • As for development history, I mean a consistent series of releases relating to a project, it has nothing to do with an individual release. That's frankly an irrelevant argument.
  • You also talked about updates being less notable, but this is an exception to the rule. This isn't just an update anymore, it's a completely separate browser. As established through earlier discussions and the policies of Microsoft, this is something most people agree on.

The chromium edge and the legacy edge are not the same browser. This is something most people agree on and something Microsoft has made pretty clear. The tables need to be separate, and one day, this article should be split. Herbfur (talk) 17:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I must note the table has a "Browser engine" row which changes from EdgeHTML to Blink, but I agree the tables should be separate. As for splitting the article one day, I disagree — better to keep it together, the Legacy Edge is effectively gone, users are being updated to the Chromium one via Windows Update, new versions of Windows 10 will have the Chromium one preinstalled, and the recently announced end of support in 2021. The lead summarises the change and I don't think there will be much content to add for Legacy Edge. Steven (Editor) (talk) 01:12, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How in the world I participate in this talk? Was it like this? Limyx826 (talk) 08:04, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Researchers Say Microsoft Edge’s Telemetry Has the Worst Privacy of Any Major Browser
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Microsoft_Edge&oldid=975192170"