Talk:Internet Explorer/Archive 3

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

Wikipedia:Microsoft notice board

Note: to start this off I'm posting this to a few Microsoft articles.

I have kicked this off as I think we can do a lot better on many of our Microsoft related articles. Internet Explorer and Windows XP are just a few examples of a whole bunch of people getting together to fix up issues of NPOV, fact and verifiability of an article. I think that no matter whether you like Microsoft or not that we could definitely do with a review of: a) the articles that we already have, and b) the articles that we should have in Wikipedia! - Ta bu shi da yu 02:08, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

IE caused macs in the 90s to freeze and shutdown. evern when not on. Steve wozanake told apple about it but no one belived him.

Definately. P.S. I hate the argument that said "this edit was made by a [non-IE_browser]-fan(boy), this must be biased against MS". This is undoubtedly not true (not false either, as it is unknown). --minghong 06:04, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yet it's unfortunate how many people allow their anti-MS bias to creep into the articles they edit. Rhobite 06:06, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
The problem is that wikipedia attracts a great deal of OSS advocates (the whole idea of a wiki encyclopedia is a very liberal concept). Most of these guys are hard-wired with a distaste for Microsoft. It comes with the territory, and its a great shame for articles like this one. --Beachy 15:00, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Actually, its the economics of OSS that have me, an avid conservative, on their side. It's cheaper. :) --Lewk_of_Serthic contrib talk 01:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I am an open source advocate and a MS fanboy. I believe some projects should be open source, others shouldn't. I am biased becuase I want to make a living as a programmer. Lincoln F. Stern 15:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Region Neutral Language

Okay, it appears my edit away from northern hemisphere biased language (as user, wasn't logged in) was not unanimously received... (if this isn't the right place for this discussion, let me know if there is a style guide or something).

I personally see this as a NPOV issue, terms like "summer" mean something completely different to people across the world, and even if the original source fails to use neutral terms, unless it is a word-for-word quote, an encyclopedia should restore context in cases like this.

Not wanting to get into a revert war, I'll let this sit for a while before making any changes, unless there is a more obvious "neutral" phrase to use here. StuartH 07:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm fine with the edit clarifying that summer means mid-year. I didn't think it was appropriate to say that Microsoft said mid-2005, because they didn't say that and was therefore factually inaccurate. Summer 2005 and mid-year 2005 are very similar, but are not necessarily the exact same time period. -- Schapel 12:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see some anonymous contributor has reverted it already. Folks, it is widely accepted practice to put contextual clarifications in a quotation. When doing so, editors typically use [brackets], which you have to wrap in nowiki tags here. I asked about the issue in general at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Seasons and a footnote option was also suggested. — mjb 17:18, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


I protected the page because of all the vandalism lately. Redwolf24 21:41, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about that. It's just that Internet Explorer is becoming less and less popular nowadays.
…and this is a valid excuse how exactly? - jredmond 21:45, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Well, Internet Explorer sucks ass, and people wish to show their hatred towards it. I think protecting the page is a valid reason because of this. Xizer 21:48, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
And that's coming from one of the people whose pro-Firefox edits were reverted. This article has a long and torturous history, thanks mainly to Firefox advocates who like to treat certain Wikipedia articles like soapboxes rather than as information resources. The vandals just give their cause a bad name. It is hard to take seriously any pro-Firefox, anti-IE people like minghong (who at least attempts to treat the article as a serious topic and to keep an encylopedic tone), when shouting 'penis', linking to goatse, and writing 'IE sucks Get Firefox!' is the most informative contribution that their peers seem to be capable of. — mjb 22:49, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
^^: Should I feel honoured? P.S. trolls suck. --minghong 12:23, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
It's a shame, because if you are pro-Firefox, you don't have to be anti-IE. Internet Explorer 6 isn't as bad as some people say, it's just that people are starting to consider Firefox a more viable browser. Internet Explorer, to me, is usable but not the best. Notice how I choose my words.  :) If only we could get this type of logic into these vandals..... I have a screwdriver here. Can anyone help me? -x42bn6 07:28, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Can't you see it was a joke? Don't take that so seriously… --minghong 04:14, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

What, exactly do people have against IE anyway? I use both FireFox AND IE, and find that each has strengths the other does not making a useful double-team. People need to grow up a little bit methinks... --Grey Area 13:35, 26th July 2005 [GMT]

Troll. 19:53, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
First, IE has lots of bugs that make it difficult to write web pages that look correct. Often, making it look correct in IE means making it look bad in other browsers that actually have fewer bugs. Second, IE has the worst standards support of all the major browsers, and since it has an 80%+ share of the market, it means web developers can't use lots of fancy features that would make web development easier and make their pages look nicer. Third, IE has many serious security vulnerabilites that are responsible for a large percentage of the malware plaguing so many Windows computers. All this information should now be on Wikipedia in a fairly decent NPOV style. Let us know if it's not clear, or something is presented in a way that suggests a non-neutral point of view. -- Schapel 15:17, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
The rendering issues and standards support issues ONLY became 'important' when Firefox and the new wave of Unix and Mac OS X browsers came along with their higher level of support for standards. Still, the only people who are affected by it are coders who are trying to make sites and applications compatible with more than one browser. These people (well, and people who just want to bash IE) complain very loudly about it, just like the generation before them complained very loudly about people still using Netscape 4 when IE was infinitely superior in the exact same ways that Firefox, et al., are superior to IE. There are tons of people using IE who are oblivious to these issues or who happily code around them (at a cost of compatibility) and who suffer no ill effects because of it. These issues are too-often overstated and that's why I put some effort into pushing the security issues to the top of the criticisms article, and carefully qualified the way the standards support issue is framed. — mjb 18:46, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
People who are aware of the issue and care about the integrity of the Web—they don't deserve to be bad-mouthed. Anyway, things are looking up. [1] Michael Z. 2005-07-26 19:18 Z

Firefox: The official browser of trolls. Cut the vandalism out, you open-source hippies. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:49, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Hey you ass monkey. Guess what? You're trolling right now. You just insulted everyone who uses Firefox. Xizer 04:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
I agree, flame wars should go here Frenchman113 00:29, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
Internet Explorer 7 Beta has been released. 01:56, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
"This page is protected from editing until disputes have been resolved on the discussion page." What disputes, specifically, need to be resolved in order to get the page unlocked? IE7 beta is out along with much information rapidly emerging its changes/features so far. But none of that new info can be reflected in the article until whatever lock-worthy disputes are (a) stated plainly and (b) resolved. So let's get on with it. (Redwolf24, is vandalism is the only reason for the lock? If so, then please correct the template to vprotected and suggest how long the lock is expected to last. It's already been 4 days in response to 2 days of vandalism. Also, it would help if you stated why it's necessary to lock everyone out. Can't this be addressed through individual user warnings/blocks [2]? Constructive editing could then continue, and responsible editors would be free to resume reverting any new attacks, just as they did on the 24th/25th. -Cate8 03:35, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
Agree. But for the mean time, you can update the sub-articles, e.g. history of Internet Explorer. P.S. Beta 2 sounds promising… --minghong 04:14, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Xizer totally. IE is <vulgarity /> and people wish to divulge this fact , natuarally. Therefore the page must be protected. Simple. --Celestianpower talk 18:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

We have a big vandalism problem

As someone who doesn't like IE, I would normally encourage wrecking anything IE-related. But this is Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not designed to endorse anything, it is simply designed to inform about it. Why people are vandalizing the IE page is beyond me, but it's becoming a major problem. The page was recently unlocked for 3 hours, and it got raped. I think some better anti-vandalism features need to be added. It seems as if someone has a personal vendetta against IE and is encouraging other people to join them. And look at the history of the IE article - it's a page stretching flooded nightmare. Xizer 00:44, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism is a site-wide problem. Probably nothing can be done… Maybe lock this article for a month? :-( --minghong 01:59, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm sure this has some consequences, but I think anyone who vandalizes this article should be banned for at least a week. Like it was said before, whenever it's unlocked it gets raped. Since this is a common issue, I think it should be dealt with more strictly. Luffy 02:47, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Then how about unprotecting the article, then blocking all vandals (even vandals vandalizing the article for the first time) on sight for a short time? (or a long time?) If the vandal persisted, then we could block the vandal for longer time. And, because this policy is somewhat strict (and because we had to warn vandals before blocking them), I think we should leave a warning message (preferably big and easily-readable one) on the top of the page. Hopefully, by adding such warning (and by blocking vandals), vandals got discouraged and won't vandalize the article again.
( I think we should really unprotect the article, because if we had to protect the article, we could be protecting the article forever, since Internet Explorer is frequently vandalized article in Wikipedia. And if we protected the article, the vandalism itself is not dealt (the vandals don't get punished), while other Wikipedians couldn't improve the article. After all, shall we protect the article, thus preventing the article from being improved, just because of vandals? ) 05:03, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
If people keep repeating their actions simply contact their Internet service provider.  Thorpe talk 19:11, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I think a bit of vandalism slipped through the cracks. This article inaccurately claims IE 6 was released in October 2001, when it was actually released on August 27, 2001. One can find proof of this by doing a google search. A couple links to support my claim are and --D 00:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm personally dumbfounded by the Microsoft attacks, OK they are not perfect but they made the world of Home Computing so accessible ,vandals should keep that in mind. Ive started a new category for supporters of IE 7

[Category:Wikipedians who think Mozilla Firefox sucks] -- The Equaliser 01:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I personally think creating a category called "Wikipedians who think Mozilla Firefox sucks" only serves to further the hatred between browser user communities that is causing the vandalism problems. Anyway, when does supporting one browser mean you're against the others or think they suck? Can't we all just get along? -- Schapel 01:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

> I would think ANTI-MS people are attacking the site all the time, NOT on this page.

all MS related page are being raped.The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) .


I believe that there should be a feature in the wikimedia core to add "trusted users", and allow them to edit in some cases.. like this.

By the way.. by now (without that feature in the system) we could make a mail adress for people to send new info belonging to this article, and have an special user as an admin, then he could edit the page, and lock it again.

Something tells me, that wouldn't be very popular. --Lewk_of_Serthic contrib talk 01:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Reason for non-compliance

As someone who has worked on the Web since 1992 the main reason for non-compliance in IE appears to me to be the miss-match in the IE development cycle and the standards release cycle. Microsoft is a very large company, IE is a very large program. The release cycle for IE involves a huge amount of testing to make sure that there are no unexpected problems with plugins, web sites etc. IE 7 only went out in beta to a small number of front line developers a few weeks back. It will be about a year before the final gold release is out - and that schedule is massively accelerated because it is a security release.

In most cases where IE deviates from the final standard it is close to a version of the draft that was current at the time the specifications were being debated. In a couple of cases Microsoft has said it won't take a particular course of action because it does not fit with their release cycle. In others they have simply had bugs. Firefox has a much easier time being standards compliant because it does not have the release cycle constraint and it does not promise the same degree of backwards compatibility. --Gorgonzilla 05:02, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

That's not true. Other browsers like Firefox also has backward compatibility problem. Otherwise there won't be "quirks mode". One major problem is that even when "standard mode" is used, the rendering result is still not correct in Internet Explorer. If there was major development in IE during 2001 - 2004, its degree of non-complicant should not be that huge. --minghong 09:17, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
If the standard non-compliance just to do with the mis-match between their release schedule and the standards release schedule, please explain how Internet Explorer for Mac managed to have significantly better standards support. AlistairMcMillan 13:31, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
I think Gorgonzilla has a perfectly reasonable point. Open source hobbyists can make browser releases whenever they like, whereas a responsible corporation must consider the bigger picture. --Beachy 21:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
You can certianly view it in another way: earlier release results in earlier feedbacks, hence a better final product. --minghong 06:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
IE7 fixes few if any of the common IE problems such as the weird one where it doubles the margin. Maybe they will improve this in beta 2 but beta 1 wasn't worth releasing, they have just copied the Firefox and Opera interfaces and seem to have left the rendering engine untouched. -- 11:16, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
See the IEBlog, especially the July 29 post about CSS and standards. They are making lots of improvements in beta 2 and beyond. — mjb 17:13, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I got this off the MSDN blog. Check it out:

200px  Thorpe talk 19:10, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Wie bother? ;-) --minghong 08:52, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Hahahaha. WIE?! WIE?!!!!!! That is retarded. Internet Explorer was already long enough compared to say, Opera, Safari, or Firefox. Now it's Windows Internet Explorer? This browser goes down the shitter more every day. Xizer 02:27, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
I tend to agree. here's a screenshot of the latest version's help | about - nathanrdotcom (TalkContribs) 01:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, it used to be Microsoft Internet Explorer. Windows Internet Explorer is technically shorter. ~ AMK1211 00:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

IEBlog citation

Today, IE developer(?) Christopher Vaughan posted on IEBlog that the history of IE given in the Wikipedia article is superior to Microsoft's own …but we knew that :)mjb 00:52, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

But sadly he linked to Internet explorer instead of the properly named Internet Explorer. :-( --minghong 03:27, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Grammerical corrections

"Whilst Netscape Navigator (not the modern versions of Netscape)" Whilst is not correct english, and the parentheses is akward.

"Whilst" is correct English, although "english" and "akward" are not. The parentheses are indeed awkward. --FOo 14:27, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
While "whilst" isn't incorrect, according to the article on American and British English differences, "In Southern Britain the word whilst is used almost interchangeably with while. Whilst is more often used in instruction manuals, legal documents, etc. To Americans the word whilst, in any context, seems very archaic and/or pretentious. Similarly with amid(st), and to a lesser extent among(st). ("In one's midst" is a standard idiom in both)." — mjb 19:28, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Relationship to W3C

In the history section, I removed a statement today that said that around the time Internet Explorer 3 came out (1996), Microsoft and Netscape used their market share to establish de facto standards in advance of the W3C's official ones. While the statement wasn't inaccurate, it didn't seem directly relevant (the discussion should focus on the history of IE, not the history of standards development). It also was not something mentioned in the main History of Internet Explorer article, and most importantly, it seemed to have been written from the point of view that the W3C is a disinterested standards body churning out prescriptive standards with no consideration of current implementations. This, especially in 1996–1997, couldn't have been further from the truth. Netscape and Microsoft are part of the W3C.

There is a misconception among some folks, I think, that the standards always come first. They do contain some new, previously unimplemented ideas, yes, but the recommendations that are produced by the W3C, much like the standards produced by the IETF, in large part reflect Best Current Practice — that is, the competing, standards-defying/extending implementations came first, and the standards that eventually came about reflect the proven successes of those implementations along with compromises for conflicts. They also reflect an evolution of some of the lofty principles that we now take for granted. In 1996 things were not so clear-cut. This is why HTML 3.0 took so long to develop and was eventually scrapped, and it is why HTML 3.2, issued in early 1997, was considered such a disaster — essentially authored by Netscape and Microsoft, it was just a rubber stamp on both browsers.

So, please avoid any unintentional characterizations of the W3C as a disinterested, infallible body producing standards based on principles without regard for previous implementations. It is a group of corporations, mainly, whose recommendations, largely authored by implementers, are often just codifying the de facto standards as much as they're seeking to establish entirely new ones. — mjb 19:28, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Remove now-irrelevant bit of history?

Now that the IE-upgrades-only-come-with-OS-upgrades plan has been ditched, and since it never actually happened (did it?), do we even need to mention Brian Countryman's statements in this article? It's fine to leave it in the detailed history article, but here in the summary it seems rather irrelevant. I mean, the more time that goes by, the less notable it becomes. Any objections to removing it? Any justifications for keeping it? — mjb 00:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Please excuse my ignorance: is there a reference that it was ditched? --tyomitch 13:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
The article currently says "However, after 2 years, there was a change in direction. On February 15, 2005, Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates announced the new browser version at the RSA Conference 2005 in San Francisco [3]." and it goes on to suggest they're putting out the IE7 betas as standalone downloads. The first one is out now, the second is due soon… — mjb 18:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
But IE7 still requires an OS upgrade (requires at least WinXP). You know, WinXP is not much different from Win2K, but IE7 is not available to Win2K users.
Windows XP has been out for four years without requiring a paid upgrade. Windows 2000 was released almost six years ago. Should MS really spend time supporting an OS that came out six years ago? Contrast that with Apple. Apple's Safari 2.0 is unable to run on OS 10.3, which only came out two years ago. If Microsoft locked people into an Apple-style upgrade cycle, there'd be a revolt. Rhobite 01:44, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
So Safari is just as bad as IE in terms of OS requirement. --minghong 01:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Ditch the irrelevant rubbish. It's just a bit of tat that the OSS zealots can use to imply that Firefox made an impact in Microsoft's decision-making process. --Beachy 22:04, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
I see you're still breaking the rules here, Beachy. Wikipedia policy forbids you from referring to people who disagree with you as "OSS zealots" or their work as "rubbish". If you're interested in continuing to contribute here, please start being civil to your fellow editors. --FOo 22:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
I see you still prefer to pedantically digress from the topic in hand, rather than address personal issues with me on my own talk page, FOo --Beachy 00:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
First, following the rules here is not "pedantic", but rather required. Second, the matter of your breaking the rules is not "personal", but rather public -- you're choosing to break the rules in public, and I'll feel free to discuss it in public. If you decide to quit breaking the rules, then I'll not see a need to bring it up any more. Sounds like a win for both of us, doesn't it? --FOo 00:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
groan -- If you're going to list the rules then let's start by setting things straight. Firstly, other wikipedians were not criticised personally - I merely stated that OSS zealots (not necessarily wikipedia users) can use this information to imply certain things. Secondly wikipedia rules allow content to be criticised (as opposed to users). So I'm perfectly allowed to call a paragraph 'tat.' Your points are both moot. Do us both a favour and delete these four comments - that would be a win for both of us. --Beachy 00:40, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
No deal. As long as you keep making derogatory remarks, I'm going to keep pointing out that you're wrong to do so. It's really unfortunate that you keep this up, because you obviously have a lot of technically valid information to contribute ... if you'd just quit having to attack others (directly or indirectly) it would be a great boon to this and other articles. --FOo 01:07, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
I've reverted the change by Beachy. The discussion here is obviously not finished yet. Please don't start edit war. --minghong 06:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
"Please don't start edit war" pleads Minghong.. as he begins another edit war --Beachy 15:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

IE 7 new features

Let us talk about new things like Quick tabs, RSS integration, Anti-Phishing, and Very Tighten Security.

Many believe "Quick Tabs" is the best and amazing.The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) .

Best of all, when I view Wikipedia with IE7 Beta 2 Preview, the Wikipedia logo magically disappears! Oh well. I await any HTML, CSS, and browser fixes here with great patience. an odd name 05:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

--> Everybody knows Wikipedia has a lot of bug => it's one of the most buggy site on the web=> Administrators fixed the logo bug just today. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) .

Given that IE7 is still in beta, and unlikely to get a general release for several months yet, shouldn't these features be discussed in the future tense? (e.g. "[x] will be introduced in IE7") Blufive 11:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

No, because the Beta is out now. I have it, and I like it. The Beta is present tense, therefore, we are able to talk about IE7 in the present tense. However, if necessary, talk about Beta 2 in future tense, or any other demos in the future tense. But, as of now, we are in the present, as is IE7 Beta. --CanesOL79 15:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

IE7's security is too-tight and too loose at the same time. It blocked system restore and McAfee on my computer! Wizrdwarts 17:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, that is your computer's settings. Everything on my computer runs fine, and your situation is a quick fix. Hope everything works out. --CanesOL79 15:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

"Internet Explorer is no longer integrated with the Windows Explorer shell for better security. Local files typed in IE7 are opened using the Windows Explorer shell and Web sites typed in Windows Explorer shell are opened using IE7." — can anyone with the knowhow add to the main page after this quote whether this is for both XP and Vista? I'd imagine due to the amount of re-coding that may have to be done it would only be 'from go' in Vista, and that XP's WIE and EXPLORER would still be linked in code...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 08:50 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Name change vs. history

It seems to me that this article should not have been moved from Internet Explorer to Windows Internet Explorer. While the latter is what Microsoft may have called some new or beta versions of the product, it fails as a title of a Wikipedia article in two regards.

First, it does not reflect the history of the article's subject. This isn't an article about just the latest version of Internet Explorer, but about the history of that program in its many releases. Therefore, the article should have a title which reflects the history rather than merely the latest version.

Second, it is not the common name by which the subject is referred -- in the press, in technical references, in business discussions of Web browsers, and so on. People talking about Web browsers don't refer to "Windows Internet Explorer", but to "Internet Explorer" (for short, "IE", sometimes "MSIE", but not "WIE".)

On these grounds I propose this be moved back to Internet Explorer. --FOo 08:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I also agree it should be moved back, although I did just fix about 20 double redirects to Internet Explorer, which means I'll have to revert all my fixes if it is moved back. That's OK though, I'd definitely prefer the article at the old name of Internet Explorer. -- Daverocks (talk) 09:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Tricky... I agree with you in principle, but it could also be argued that the correct name for this article is "Microsoft Internet Explorer", given that this has been the official name of the product for several years, as Wikipedia tends to lean in the direction of a full and complete product name where possible (Microsoft Exchange Server vs. Exchange Server, e.g.). This article is probably best left named "Internet Explorer" due to inertia (there are hundreds of articles linking here), but the variances in names should be clear right from the beginning of the article. Warrens 10:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I second that. Please…Someone please move it back! --minghong 01:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
d0n3, d00d. --FOo 05:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Cool, now time to revert all my double redirect fixes... -- Daverocks (talk) 09:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge from Features of Internet Explorer

Given that the content of Features of Internet Explorer is almost identical to what's here, I think we should merge the contents here. Your thoughts? Warrens 03:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

What about trimming the content here and leave the details in "Features of Internet Explorer"? This article is getting too long. --minghong 03:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, good idea. Warrens 05:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

McAfee/System Restore Problems in IE7 Beta

I've been having problems with system restore and McAfree Virus Scans, and after Googling it, if found out a lot of other people have it too. It seems IE7's blocks those two programs from running. The only way to fix it is to uninstall IE7. Maybe this should be added into the article... Wizrdwarts

I don't feel bugs in beta software deserves being added to Wikipedia. All beta software has bugs, thats why it's beta :) Mrjeff 23:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

You Learn Such Interesting Things Here

I'm delighted with the depth and breadth of this article. It contrasts with Microsoft's habit of presenting superficial nonsense as if they were delivering the Sermon on the Mount. I'm sure Microsoft does not intend to do any such thing. It simply happens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) March 4, 2006 0:41 UTC

Addition to Internet Explorer article reverted.

I added the following paragraphs to the article, explaining why the use of proprietary standards harms competing browsers:


Developers believe that creating proprietary standards for Internet Explorer is Microsoft's way of forcing users to use Internet Explorer. Many websites are optimised for Internet Explorer, or have features that work only in Internet Explorer; some even show error messages if they are accessed using any browser other than Internet Explorer. Some browsers, such as Opera, are able to spoof themselves as Internet Explorer to gain access to such websites, and thus Internet Explorer's large market share is doubted. Spread Firefox, a campaign designed to promote Internet Explorer's more secure rival, Mozilla Firefox, has a project named Defending the Fox, which aims to find websites that only work in Internet Explorer and alert the webmasters to support Firefox and other Internet Explorer rivals, such as Opera, Safari, Mozilla and Netscape.

The bundling of Internet Explorer into Windows is believed to have caused Microsoft's victory in the browser wars, and Microsoft faced a famous lawsuit in which they submitted false tapes and argued over the definitions of words such as "compete", "jihad", "concerned", "ask", and "we". Since Microsoft won the browser wars, it has not updated Internet Explorer since the release of Internet Explorer 6 in August 27 2001, except for security patches, which Microsoft often takes a long time to issue.

Some versions of Internet Explorer contain Alexa spyware, which tracks the sites users visit.


The edits were reverted by Warrens with reason "removing Firefox evanglism, POV commentary, incorrect definition of Alexa, incorrect information about browser releases, and duplicated info"

I'd like to clarify that the information about Spread Firefox is not Firefox envanglism. The paragraph is about Internet Explorer not adhering to web standards, and webmasters following suit. I wrote that Defend the Fox, a project of Spread Firefox, aims to make webmasters adhere to web standards. I did not promote Spread Firefox in any way.

I think the information I added was presented in a sufficiently appropriate tone to not constitute POV commentary.

Incorrect definition of Alexa: Alexa does track the websites you use, which is a characteristic of spyware. Spybot - Search & Destroy tags Alexa as spyware that it cannot remove. If there is a more appropriate definition, I would like to hear it.

Incorrect information about browser releases - this information was taken from a Wikipedia article.

Duplicated info - I didn't check for this.

Please read the paragraphs and give me feedback. If they should be in the article, please add them back in. They may need to be edited to mantain NPOV before being added. If the paragraphs should not be in the article, delete them and leave a note on my talk page with explanations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hildanknight (talkcontribs)

This addition was correctly reverted because it is unsourced and editorial in nature. Please see WP:NPOV. Rhobite 04:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The section in question is titled "Criticisms", yes, but this doesn't make it a clearinghouse for everyone's grievances about Internet Explorer. The break-out article exists for the very specific reason that if all the criticisms and issues regarding Internet Explorer were placed in this main article, it would be prohibitively lengthy. "Criticisms" here should be succinct and in summary form, per Wikipedia:Summary_style.
Now, for specific issues:
  • Bringing up specific initiatives like "Defending the Fox" is quite clearly an attempt so slide some alternate-browser evangelism into the article. Whether or you disagree with this or not isn't important -- that's the perception. Aside from that, on the scale of the entirety of the subject of Internet Explorer, such a piece of information is extremely minor. It may have a place in the Criticism of Internet Explorer article, however... though you might note from reading that article that Firefox isn't even mentioned once. It doesn't need to be, after all; there are enough issues dealing with Internet Explorer in and of itself that mentioning competing browsers at length doesn't need to occur to have a great article.
  • Alexa is not spyware, per se. It was a feature of IE6 (subsequently removed in IE6 SP2) that, upon user-initiated request, looked at the URL and queried Alexa (a well-known search company) for related links. People call it "spyware" because Spybot says so; does that automatically make it spyware? One might be tempted to say yes, but consider the solution they provide: Instead of calling Alexa's servers to retrieve related site information, they call Google's servers with the same information. That seems about as subversive as the original feature, don't you think? Again, I stress that this feature was only used when a user asked it to. Spyware, as defined here on Wikipedia, is "designed to intercept or take partial control of a computer's operation without the informed consent of that machine's owner or legitimate user". The Related Links absolutely does not match this description, and thus describing Alexa as spyware in this article should not be done.
  • Internet Explorer has been updated with changes apart from security fixes since August, 2001 -- most significantly XP SP2, but a number of smaller changes have been pushed out over the years for various reasons, like disallowing the use of FTP passwords in a URL. The information bar comes to mind, as does the pop-up blocker and the "Manage Add-ons" UI. That all came in mid-2004.
  • Information about the anti-trust case brought by the United States government may have some relevance, but your wording is uncyclopedic and borderline weasel-like.
  • Phrases like "which Microsoft often takes a long time to issue" and "Internet Explorer's more secure rival" are clear attempts at editoralizing.
Hildanknight, we appreciate that you are interested in adding what you feel to be relevant information, and certainly motivated, but all you seem to want to do with any of the several Microsoft-related articles you've edited in recent days is add critical information, deeming it "important". Pretty much all of it has been removed because of concerns of POV or factual accuracy. Yes, it is very hard work to present legitimate criticisms an a neutral fashion, especially when you feel strongly about a subject. It's a challenge we all face as editors, and what you see presented in these articles is the result of a lot of work by a lot of editors. Those of us who are reverting your changes are absolutely not against the criticisms being present in the articles, but they will be heavily scrutinized and fact-checked. I encourage you to focus your efforts on constructive and more positive improvements to these articles... let's aim for stellar, top-notch articles that present the topic at hand in the best way possible, not subjective commentary that reads like a Slashdot rant. Warrens 04:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying with me.
  • Summary style must still give sufficient basic information and briefly touch on the main points. (If I had a school exam question worth 4 marks, asking me to explain the main criticisms of Internet Explorer, the summary should give me sufficient information to get full marks.) In this case, besides Internet Explorer's lack of security, there is also the browser's inadherance to web standards. While this creates a problem for web developers, it also creates a problem for users by forcing them to use Internet Explorer. One of Microsoft's main criticisms is the way it mantains its monopoly - which also applies as a main criticism of Internet Explorer. This should be briefly covered as a main point.
  • Besides Defending the Fox, there are probably more initiatives to encourage webmasters to write cross-browser code. However, since DtF is the only one I know about, I included it in. If you know of any other similar campaigns (not by Mozilla or any IE competitors), please feel free to add them in. I added the Secunia information to show that Internet Explorer was not just insecure, but that it was less secure than its main competitors. If other browsers were equally insecure, Internet Explorer would not be subject to so much criticism.
  • About Alexa - OK, I understand. This information may still be useful, though, because some regard Alexa as spyware, and it does track the sites users visit. I think some articles contain common misconceptions, but labelling them as misconceptions.
  • Perhaps it should say "no major updates or new versions" instead - still, thanks for letting me know!
  • Besides contributing to Criticsm sections of Microsoft-related articles, you may have noticed me adding a Criticsm section to an article on online game BattleOn, which I used to play, as well as contributing to the Criticsm section of the article on NeoPets - which I have been playing for over 4 years and have sufficient information to write about. Perhaps you could review the article I wrote on Google Groups(which also has a Controversy section)? I admit I hate Microsoft, and sometimes have to resist the temptation to vandalize the Microsoft article, although I have instead tried to add constructive information to the Criticsm sections instead. Perhaps I should work on articles related to Google, other websites and Singapore TV shows instead.
  • To sum it all up, I think that although the information I presented deserves merit, it still needs considerable editing before going into the Internet Explorer main article or the Criticisms of Internet Explorer article. Please keep me informed about the editing. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 07:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I admit I hate Microsoft, and sometimes have to resist the temptation to vandalize the Microsoft article—This is not the way to convince your fellow editors that your motives are benign and that you're going to exercise good judgment regarding contributions to this article. If anything, it invites extra scrutiny. If other browsers were equally insecure, Internet Explorer would not be subject to so much criticism. This speculation is plausible, but relies on a vague definition of "insecure" (number of vulnerabilities? severity? ease of exploitation? number of machines affected?) and recent statements by Symantec, while made in reference to the broader (but related) subject of operating systems, shows that commonly held assumptions like this are not necessarily on point.—mjb 07:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I said that tongue-in-cheek. I don't really want to vandalize the Microsoft article, but if there is anti-M$ information that is important or relevant to a Microsoft-related article, I will definitely try and add it in, while trying to mantain an encyclopediac and NPOV manner.
I propose my information be rewritten in an encyclopediac and NPOV manner and added to the summary of the Internet Explorer criticsm (because it criticises the reason for IE's large market share, and it's probably in the main article). The main points:
  • Internet Explorer does not comply to Internet standards. (NOTE: How does that cause a problem and contribute to IE's monopoly? Keep reading.)
  • Many websites optimise their pages for Internet Explorer. Some have features that only work in Internet Explorer. Some even display error messages if the browser used to access them is not Internet Explorer.
  • This forces people to use Internet Explorer, thus contributing to Internet Explorer's monopoly.
  • Some web browsers, like Opera, are able to spoof themselves as Internet Explorer to view IE-comptatible sites correctly. Therefore, IE's large market share is disputed. (NOTE: Some effects of the problem caused by IE's non-compliance to standards)
  • There are campaigns (such as Defending the Fox, a subproject of Spread Firefox, a campaign designed to promote IE's rival, Mozilla Firefox) to encourage webmasters to write cross-browser code and support Internet Explorer rivals like Firefox, Opera, Mozilla, Netscape and Safari. (NOTE: You don't need to put in Defending the Fox, especially if you can find other such campaigns.)
  • Some believe the bundling of Internet Explorer into Windows caused Microsoft's victory in the browser wars.
  • The bundling also sparked a lawsuit in which Microsoft submitted false tapes and argued over the definitions of words such as "compete", "jihad", "concerned", "ask", and "we". (NOTE: This summarizes the case)
  • Microsoft has not released any major upgrades since it won the browser wars in 2001.
  • Some versions of Internet Explorer contain Alexa, which tracks the sites users visit. (NOTE: I took out the word "spyware". You may also add that Alexa was removed in IE 6 SP2 after it caused an uproar by users.)
Please note that the above is in point form, and I'm sure it will be much shorter when written in paragraph form. By breaking the information down into points, I am hoping that someone can present it in an NPOV and encyclopediac manner. Do keep me informed on the editing of my information and anticipated subsequent re-adding. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 02:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Most of these charges aren't true any more - almost all websites work fine in non-IE browsers. IE's standards issues are overblown and relatively minor. They're also covered in the proper article. There's no reason to mention Firefox any more than it's already mentioned in this article. The lawsuit summary is simplistic and one-sided. You didn't even mention who the parties were and what the verdict was, yet you found space to mention a few out-of-context words used by Microsoft. As others have pointed out, IE6 SP2 is a major upgrade. The version of Alexa which was bundled with IE did not "track the sites users visit", as has been pointed out. And there is no evidence that Microsoft removed it because of "an uproad by users". These new criticisms are run-of-the-mill anti-MS FUD. And I would appreciate it if you didn't use the term "M$". Rhobite 13:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Someone added several sentences about Internet Explorer's lack of support for open standards. As a result, I have cleaned up the paragraphs I wrote, and added the cleaned up version to the article.


Developers believe that Internet Explorer's use of proprietary standards is Microsoft's way of forcing users to use Internet Explorer. A large number of websites are designed for Internet Explorer, and when viewed in other browsers, such pages may not render correctly, may lack important functionality or may even display an error message. As a result, some rival browsers, such as Opera, have the option of spoofing themselves as Internet Explorer, and thus Internet Explorer's large market share is questioned. Some campaigns, such as Defending the Fox (a sub-project of Spread Firefox), encourage webmasters to write cross-browser code.

The bundling of Internet Explorer into Microsoft Windows is believed to have caused Internet Explorer's victory in the browser wars. This issue was raised in the famous United States v. Microsoft lawsuit, in which the United States Department of Justice sued Microsoft for abusing monopoly power. During the case, Microsoft submitted false tapes and argued over the definitions of words such as "compete", "jihad", "concerned", "ask", and "we". On April 3, 2000, Microsoft was found guilty abusing monopoly power, but won an appeal on September 6, 2001.

Microsoft has tried to address these concerns with the launch of Internet Explorer 7, which contains security enhancements, has greater adherence to open standards, and is a standalone application no longer bundled into Windows.


As you can see, I have attempted to make the info less POV. For starters, I have removed mention of other browsers. Although I put in Defending the Fox, briefly mentioning that it is a part of Spread Firefox, I did not include any additional information about Spread Firefox. I did not list "Firefox, Opera, Safari, Mozilla and Netscape", instead writing that Defending the Fox aims to encourage webmasters to write cross-browser code.

I also gave a more balanced summary of US v M$. I included who the parties were and what the verdict was, although I kept the statement about Microsoft's conduct. In addition, and most importantly, I have mentioned that Microsoft is trying to address these problems in IE7.

I hope that this is better presented and less POV than my previous addition. However, it may still require slight cleanup, and I welcome anyone who is able to improve on the paragraphs - but not those who blindly revert. Internet Explorer's monopoly is one of the main criticsms of Internet Explorer and Microsoft, and it deserves mention even in a summary.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I've removed your latest attempt to inject needless POV and weasel-wording into this article, for the exact same reason as last time. Even your immature use of "M$" gives you away as a biased critic whose only purpose here is to disrupt. Quit it. Warrens 14:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
In accordance with your wishes, I will stop editing Microsoft-related articles. If I wish to make any changes, I will post them on talk pages, and if I continue to receive negative feedback, I will withdraw from editing or discussing about any Microsoft-related article. I have other articles to work on, such as articles related to other websites, and Singaporean TV shows and films. The usage of M$ is entirely out of habit (I regularly use it on forums, some Microsoft-related, partially to save characters or typing time). Sorry for wasting your time.
I joined Wikipedia in the middle of February 2006 and still consider myself relatively new. (Check my edit history - you will find edits suggesting I am often "lost".) I remember that one of the very first guidelines included the statement that "biased content can still be useful" and that one should "remove the bias" and keep the content intact. There are still many things I do not understand about Wikipedia, especially pertaining to policy. In this case, I would appreciate information on how to write summary style (what should and should not be included), editoralizing and how to make POV edits NPOV. Such information and feedback would help me improve my future edits, whether on M$-related articles or not.
Please read Wikipedia:Requests for feedback, an initiative I created for this purpose - getting feedback to improve future edits, which I believe reveals the better side of me as a Wikipedian. I am currently seeking feedback on two articles I wrote on Google Groups and Homerun (please post feedback at RFF). I understand Wikipedia has a policy of not biting newcomers. Someone left a polite note on my talk page regarding this - while I am grateful to them for this, the note does not offer any feedback that could help me improve. Even if I lose this "dispute", I wish to learn something from it.
I agree that my first addition was somewhat POV, and as mentioned, have attempted to clean up the POV (as said, "remove the bias and keep it intact") in my second edit. For example, I provided a more balanced coverage of US v M$ and added that M$ has tried to respond to criticisms with IE7. Although an improvement, it still might not be sufficiently NPOV, and I am therefore encouraging other editors to edit/improvise/cleanup my paragraphs to make them more NPOV, and of a higher quality. As a side note, I have discovered a campaign called Viewable with Any Browser, which can replace Defending the Fox. While I will no longer edit this article, I am willing to discuss with editors about improvements to my paragraphs. The ball is now in your court. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 10:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Excellent security article

It's very pro-MS (it's from Microsoft), but still a great overview - - Ta bu shi da yu 22:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Standards compliance

The Criticisms section mentions IE's inferiority in handling standards compliant content. But nowhere in the article does it mention that IE has alternate ways of achieving the same thing (VML vs SVG, for example). Does this need not be mentioned? --Soumyasch 17:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

It already is mentioned, in the Proprietary extensions section. And VML vs. SVG is a terrible example, because most browsers don't support SVG, and VML is a draft spec from the W3C. You might want to make this point clearer in the Criticisms section by saying the IE's support of proprietary extensions encourages the use of non-standard code that doesn't work in other browsers. -- Schapel 19:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia layout problems with IE

IE seems to have difficulty displaying some pages on Wikipedia, such as Brunei (excessive spacing is created by IE) Shawnc 10:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem is with the second picture that pinpoints Brunei's location. Since there is already one that shows the location of Brunei, I thought it is not necessary so I removed it and now it looks Ok in IE7. There shouldn't be a picture in the introduction part anyway. The Country box template is also poorly designed. Yousifnet 05:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Wrong Citation?

The first paragraph of the History section of the article reads:

"Internet Explorer is derived from Spyglass Mosaic, an early commercial web browser. In 1995, Spyglass Mosaic was licensed by Microsoft in an arrangement under which Spyglass would receive a quarterly fee plus a percentage of Microsoft's revenues for the software. Although bearing a name similar to NCSA Mosaic, which was the first widely used browser, Spyglass Mosaic was relatively unknown in its day and did not use any of the NCSA Mosaic source code[2]."

However, Clicking on "Help" menu in IE and then selecting "About Internet Explorer" brings up a popup which reads:

"Based on NCSA Mosaic. NCSA Mosaic(TM); was developed at the National Center for Supercomputing Applications at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Distributed under a licensing agreement with Spyglass, Inc." rohith 05:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Some stuff to research and write about

As a web developer who just had the pleasure of updating a standards compliant site I, after finally completing the project, collected a few of the worst annoyances that needed resolving in the process. When I finished my list it consisted mostly of IE (6) CSS bugs. So I thought I'd come here and have a look at what WP had to say about the causes of my frustrations.

Someone wrote that IE has minor compatibility issues. I don't, cannot agree with that. If IE had the kind of compliance Gecko browsers or Opera have the aforementioned project would have been a work of elegance and it would have taken only one third of the time! I believe most people who have the ability to program complex and standards compliant sites will second that IE CSS bugs in large part force design decisions upon the developer.

The list


  • IE's inheritance is buggy, forcing me to add normally redundant definitions, making future updates a nightmare (again).
  • it's box model is buggy, DIVs with padding/border don't show the expected width, resulting in major layout problems and CSS hacks.
  • specific HTML attributes as selectors won't work (eg. input[type=text]), making it a nightmare to style for example form input elements across a site.
  • position:fixed won't work, no easy fixed navigation menu for you.
  • border-styles (eg. 'inset' and 'outset') are mostly unsupported, although that should be easy to implement.
  • applying variable width to an box element by defining right: and left: won't work, big bummer for dynamic ("stretching") layouts. Back to HTML tables? The Web's full of these.
  • width:100% from surrounding context won't work, you'll have to add the otherwise redundant info, again making it a pain to maintain a site.
  •  :before and :after won't work thereby killing my entire dynamic navigation style concept with dynamically selectable style sheets. If you want to style XML this hurts alot more.

Let's not talk about the DOM. (Just try to change the href attribute of an LINK element, eg. external style sheet, in IE. In my case it took 5 lines of JS code for compliant browsers and then 20 lines for IE!)

Don't get me wrong, those were only the worst points.

First you spend n time designing your site, then you spend between n and 2n time 'fixing' it for buggy IE. That's my real life experience.

I think this terrible inefficency in implementing sensible, up-to-date web content should be documented in this article (it isn't!), maybe someone more gifted than me will give it a try?

Thank you for your consideration. Must. Sleep. Now.

Boo 02:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC) (In case it helps, the website I worked on was

The Criticism of Internet Explorer article discusses IE's problems with standards support in somewhat greater detail than this article does. Understand that a Wikipedia article on Internet Explorer needs to fairly address the entire subject in a reasonably balanced way, ie. history, features, future development, criticism, and so on. While IE's many implementation flaws may be really important to you right now because you've just had to deal with them in a professional capacity (and believe me, I feel your pain here!), this article still has a worldwide audience, the vast majority of whom are not web site developers and will have very limited interest in reading what would amount to an esoteric bug list. Warrens 04:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Why is the logo the WIE one - surely shouldn't it be MSIE? Computerjoe's talk 08:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Statement regarding possible error in statistics

I've removed the following statement that was recently added to the usage share section of the article:

"although data collection methods are limited and therefore the usage share of a web browser is subject to overestimation or underestimation"

Reasons for removal:

  • The usage share mentioned in the article is "about 85%". The word "about" already implies some margin of error.
  • The usage share section links to the Usage share of web browsers article, which has an entire section devoted to the challenges of determining usage share.

rdude 16:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Proprietary extensions

However, many programs which began as third-party extensions to Internet Explorer, such as Macromedia Flash, Macromedia Shockwave, and Sun Microsystem's JavaScript, have gone on to become become de facto industry standards.

JavaScript is not a sun product, but was created by netscape. similarity to Sun Java is only syntactic. Also, I feel calling it de facto standard is not correct, as JScript and JavaScript to a large extent are compatible. Actually they both are implementation of ECMAscript standard, as is ActionScript of Flash. --soumসৌমোyasch 05:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


Is there any particular reason (or at least one known to the public) as to why Internet Explorer doesn't have native SVG support? Not even the most recent beta's do. Is there a reason for it? - Рэдхот 16:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Probably because they haven't written it yet. Maybe someday, but the general view from MS is that they have to solve their security problems first, and catch up to Firefox and Safari in terms of browser features, before they can move forwards with implementing entirely new standards. Of course it'd be nice if they could do both at once, but MS probably views IE as a massive money sink anyhow... Warrens 19:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

IE7 Logo, IE6 Screenshot

We currently have the IE7 logo as the official Internet Explorer logo, but we have a screenshot of, of all things, a Comcast-branded IE6 running on Windows XP. Could I convince someone with a Vista beta to take a screenshot of the main Wikipedia page running IE7 on Vista? -- Masamunecyrus(talk)(contribs) 14:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Since IE7 (or IE7+) hasnt yet been formally released, i guess it would be inappropriate to use their shots in infoboxes. --soumসৌমোyasch 13:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Since by now the screenshot is already IE7 (but on XP), I've gone ahead and replaced it with a vista screenshot, and made the shot one of the mainpage whilst we're at it (the comcast XP shot was mainpage, but the replacement was both lower resolution and of the frontpage rather than mainpage). :) njan 19:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
The image was meant to be lower resolution - it makes it easier to see stuff in the image without having to make it bigger. I don't know why the IE6 image was changed in the first place as IE7 is still in development, and I would support replacing any image of IE7 with one of IE6. J Ditalk 19:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm reverting it -- a second time -- to IE6. It's not appropriate to show a screenshot of unreleased software as the primary screenshot; we have a section where screenshots of future software can be shown. The most recent full release of Internet Explorer, as it stands today, is IE6 on XP SP2 and Server 2003. That's the release we should show. I've also uploaded the Internet Explorer 6 logo and have replaced the IE7 logo with that. -/- Warren 21:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

IE7+ (name)

When did MS change it from 7 to 7+? It must have been recently cause I only found out today. Will it be called "7+" in the future as well, as it covers other version numbers? Is this the "ultimate version" or something? Like Adobe made 8.0 to CS, 9.0 to CS2 etc.? Shandristhe azylean 13:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The Vista version is being called ie7+, to differentiate it from the xp version, bcoz MS considers it slightly different due to its parental controls and low privilege mode. xp version is still ie7. --soumসৌমোyasch 14:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Live Messenger moved, so why can't we?

MSN Messenger 8 (Live Messenger) finally moved as due to the renaming of the software (it includes info about previous MSN versions as well). Are we ever going to move to WIE? (7 & 7+)? --Shandristhe azylean 18:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps after it is properly released is a good time, as there's no point in naming the article about beta software when there's a stable release out already. J Ditalk 11:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

DHTML Edit Control

In the IE7 features list, there is currently an item that reads:

The DHTML Editing Control is being removed from IE7+ in Windows Vista.[5]

According to the referenced page, the DHTML Editing Control is part of Windows, not Internet Explorer. Like any other safe-for-scripting ActiveX component it can be *used* by IE, but I don't think it should be included here, as it was a Windows (2000/XP) component. JulesH 13:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


From the intro paragraph "PCWorld has ranked IE as the eighth worst product of all time". This is hardly NPOV and also only minimally relevant. Anyone object if I remove it?--Frenchman113 on wheels! 19:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I would say that one commonly held view is that IE is an awful product. I think it would be POV to remove this reference, to try to make it sound like people don't have that view. -- Schapel 20:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
But the way that the sentence is placed pushes a POV. Not to mention it makes the article look unprofessional when you have that kind of statement as its own paragraph. Instead, I think it should be replaced with a general statement that many users criticise IE.--Frenchman113 on wheels! 13:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
How does one do that without using weasel words?
I guess I'm the trouble maker that posted this :-D I think that it should be placed somewhere in the article in context, but it doesn't have to be the main paragraph. In fact, it seems it has since been removed from there. - Mjg0503 15:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


"It supports XHTML 1.0 to the extent that HTML 4.01 compatibility guidelines are followed." We could use more on this issue. Internet Explorer's poor handling of xhtml is holding back the internet, one ought to be able to find out why here. Mathiastck 18:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I added some clarification and elaboration on this issue. It is pretty clear that not only is it holding it back, but it is quite deliberate too (though I didn't include that in the article). --Cplot 22:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't believe it's deliberate. I've read a lot of comments by the IE team on this subject, and their stance is that fully supporting xhtml is a lot more work than they could pull off in this release. It's more than just adding the ability to recognize the mime-type, the entire parsing engine apparently has to be rewritten. 20:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Windows update w/o IE

Can't you use windows update w/ the Ie tab extension on firefox? Thus if you remove IE from your computer, you can still update w/ windows update. 14:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think IE Tab will work without Internet Explorer; it depends on Internet Explorer being there. Programs don't install a copy of Internet Explorer with them, they use whatever's already on the system. talk to JD wants e-mail 14:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
This may sound stupid, but why not use the integrated Windows Update tool in XP? (right click My Computer, etc).

Internet Explorer is not a trademark

If I remember correctly, there once was a product called Iternet Explorer, and it wasn't from Microsoft, and the name was a trademark. Then Microsoft brought this company to court, and a decision was made that the "name" was generic, and not trademarkable, in Microsofts favour.

Am I right? I can't see this reflected in the article. See e.g. --HelgeStenstrom 17:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup Tag

I've tagged this article for cleanup. While some parts are better than others, there seem to be an awful lot of problems with improper punctuation, runon sentences, sentence fragments, and such that I don't have time to cleanup myself at the moment.

Armour Hotdog 18:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Study of phishing filters.

However, CIO Magazine notes that the study was commissioned by Microsoft Stating the fact with this statement is deliberately drawing attention to CIO magazine, and thus POV which is hardly in tune with the doctrine of NPOV maintained and promoted by Wikipedia. Also, this statement makes it seem like Microsoft was hiding it and CIO unearthed it somehow. However, thats far from reality. No one had to make any special notation - that it was Microsoft commissioned was stated by MS itself. From IEBlog, "To help us answer this question, we asked 3 Sharp LLC to conduct a study of the Phishing Filter in IE7 along with seven other products designed to protect against phishing threats. In order to establish an accurate methodology on a level field, they utilized four sources of independent data that are not used to populate the IE7 Phishing Filter service today. They worked hard to build large enough sample sizes of actual phishing sites to draw meaningful conclusions". If this has to be included, some better means should be devised. I would suggest having a community vote before re-including the statement. --soumসৌমোyasch 12:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I deliberately made the statement WP:NPOV by attributing it to the source. I can't imagine a way the statement could be made more NPOV, but you can certainly try. Removing the statement outright it clearly not NPOV, however. -- Schapel 12:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I also agree it should be included, but I removed it to get it into after a discussion, not to promote any agenda or something. I am just searching from the right words to state it. Plus I am in favor of attributing it to the first party (MS) instead of any third party (CIO). May be something like "as per a MS commissioned study (with a ref to the blog entry). --soumসৌমোyasch 14:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Loaded into memory?

Elements of previous IE versions were loaded into memory upon Windows startup, has this changed with the de-integration of IE7, and if so, has it had a negative effect on startup time? This should probably be mentioned. --NEMT 14:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

That's never been true. The integration thing worked mostly in reverse; other parts of Windows used components of Internet Explorer, like the rendering engine. IE loads fast because they put a lot of time and effort into startup performance, and because they use core OS components for various things (e.g. the common controls library) instead of re-inventing the wheel like Firefox does. Regardless, it's not for us to speculate on... if you can find a good, technical article on the subject from a reliable source, then we can work from there. -/- Warren 22:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
"other parts of Windows used components of Internet Explorer, like the rendering engine."
right, hence "elements of previous IE version were loaded into memory." Has this changed with IE7? --NEMT 23:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
How could it change? Think about it -- we're talking about Windows itself using components of Internet Explorer. Third-party applications use IE components in precisely the same way. There's absolutely no way Microsoft could change this. The only significant thing that's changed is that Windows Explorer will no longer be able to contain an IE browser session, and vise versa. -/- Warren 23:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
So does IE7 still share the same components with windows explorer as previous versions, with the only change being a functional restriction (no file browsing in IE, no web browsing in WE)? --NEMT 04:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
They don't share components. Previously Windows Explorer could load IE DLL's into its own process and have them execute. Now, IE executes in its own process. IE by itself doesnot load. But there are many components (and 3rd party apps) which rely on IE (or parts of it). When any of these load, IE is loaded, at least partially. -- 05:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

IE 7.0

Updated current release to 7.0 due to official release today (18th) and release of yahoo modified version. (final build 5730 can be extracted from the file downloaded from Yahoo).

Now that 7.0 is properly released, should the article be moved about and reorganised so that it focuses more on 7.0, and less on 6? jd || talk || 21:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It hasn't been "properly" released... Microsoft's own web site and the official IE blog mention nothing of it! Sources, people, sources... -/- Warren 22:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay, well that just shows how much I would actually believe without proof... Well, when IE is properly released, should the article be moved about and reorganised so that it focuses more on 7.0, and less on 6? jd || talk || 22:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
We'll want to focus on IE7, yes, but that glut of development information should be kept... History of Internet Explorer is probably the right place for that. I'm not sure what we should do with the list of new features. Should we keep it? Or should we just integrate it into Features of Internet Explorer and this article? -/- Warren 22:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
After IE7 is released, they won't be new anymore; they'll be current. I think integrating it into this article and the Features of Internet Explorer is a good idea. jd || talk || 22:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Since the IE site given now displays a download for Internet Explorer 7 and no longer says "Release Candidate 1" like it used to, does that make the release official? Jas123 00:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
A BBC article says "The new program is available as a free download on 19 October, but many will get it as an automatic update to Windows XP in November." and the Microsoft website homepage says that "Internet Explorer 7 is here"
this article should be renamed to internet explorer 7 since thats what it's primaraly discussing.

Main screenshot

Shouldn’t the main screenshot be of IE7 in Windows XP? Like this one I originally placed on the page. Vista has yet to be released so I think a XP screenshot would be best until Vista’s worldwide launch. Sam Burke 15:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I would second that. --soumসৌমোyasch 15:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. I'd do it myself but I don't have an XP machine I'm willing to install IE7 on... -/- Warren 17:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted the screenshot to a XP one, hope everyone is ok with it. Sam Burke 17:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


Alright, so I notice a couple of issues have come up for renaming. First, it is Internet Explorer 7 on the Microsoft homepage now, no long just "Internet Explorer". Second, it is officially called Windows Internet Explorer now. However, I think that we should leave the article as its current name because the "7" just denotes the version and the "Windows" is more of a brand name (e.g. Song PlayStation is not at Sony PlayStation). Any thoughts? Sasquatch t|c 22:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

IE Removal

Now that IE7 is called Windows Internet Explorer, the title of the article should be changed to that. Also since WIE can be installed and uninstalled, should a person be able to easily remove IE from Windows completely? 13:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Requested move to Windows Internet Explorer

The official name of the browser is Windows Internet Explorer. The page should be moved. Please voice your opinions on this. Themodernizer 02:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. --Jvd897 21:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Better, Microsoft Internet Explorer. --Weatherman1126 (talk) 03:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
"Microsoft Internet Explorer" was the old name of the product. It's "Windows Internet Explorer" as of version 7. -/- Warren 03:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Hah, sorry. Haven't used IE in ages. --Weatherman1126 (talk) 01:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Microsoft has changed the name, so should we. --Voidxor 04:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This article is not just about the current version, but about the entire history. We have had huge problems in the past with advocates attempting to expurgate that history, focusing only on the latest release. Let's not encourage that. --FOo 04:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
The article is about the current version. The history should be a subsection of the article. Themodernizer 22:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Though the name change is unforunately one of the most significant changes in this release I don't think it requires a change in the article name. "Internet Explorer" evokes the same browser (largely unchanged) however MIcrosoft decides to rebrand it. --Cplot 05:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Agree completely with Voidxor rohith 14:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.", in this case internet explorer is plenty precise enough and a prefix that emphasises its tie in with windows doesn't really change that. Plugwash 16:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, same as humble. --minghong 07:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment A few users have raised the point that article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize. In that case, why is the article about the Windows OS from Microsoft named Microsoft Windows? Isn't Windows (Operating System) enough? In any case, we still refer it to as simply Windows in everyday speech, now, don't we? rohith 17:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Hah! Forgot to add this. Why does Wikipedia use Mebibyte, Kibibyte and Gibi byte, instead of Megabyte, Kilobyte and Gigabyte, which are more commonly used? rohith 18:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

? re: Mac OS X versions of IE

Should the line in: which reads: "Only the Windows version remains in active development; the Mac OS X version is no longer supported." also say that the Mac OS X version is ~ actively broken ~ in Mac OS 10.4.x ? If so, who broke it and why? Is it another Apple vs MS battle? Is it just evolution? I suspect it is deliberate IE non-compliance with W3C standards. In my experience, it's the largest single problem switching people to new Macs: a few sites just require IE, period. Many thanks to all for the dedication and skill in preparing this wiki. very best regards from New Orleans, Sgsmith, nola 23:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

IE Mac and IE Windows are fundamentally different browsers. If someone is switching to Mac OS X because it can run IE thinking it"s the same IE that works with a site requiring IE, then they are very mistaken. Most sites that claim to work only with IE are also mistaken. Making Safari or Mozilla pretend to be IE will typically enable the site to work just as well (perhaps better since you don't have to use IE). --Cplot 05:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
MSIE/Mac's brokenness definitely isn't deliberate non-compliance; when version 5.0 came out, it was hands-down the best standards-compliant browser, on Mac or Windows (to the embarrassment of the MSIE/Win team). But best in 2000 sucks in 2006, and the browser only had a minor update to work with Mac OS X, so things like text rendering and Unicode support are obviously behind.
And in my experience, most sites which require MSIE won't work in the Mac version anyway. The problem is caused by ignorant web developers or dinosaurian content management systems, which assume computer is synonymous with Windows boxMichael Z. 2006-11-10 19:10 Z
The breaking of characters not in the systems 8 bit character set is a major issue for any wiki, cms or similar too and may make some decide to actively block IE mac (there was talk of actively blocking IE mac from editing wikipedia because of this at one stage,we now have an ugly but functional workaround in place) Plugwash 13:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

--do not remove this line


I added a link to IE4Linux's website, if you disagree with it, please explain your reasons. 16@r 21:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with adding link to IE4Linux. This is really minor project, not worth linking to. Would you add this link to the Linux article as well ? It is as relevant there as it is here. Wikiolap 05:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
No, I think it's not useless, because in the article it said that IE can be runned on Windows, Mac OS X, Solaris and HP-UX but actually it can also be runned on Linux. If it really mind you really, I could write a few lines explaining that it is possible instead of this external link. 16@r 12:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I think it is better to put short mentioning in the article that IE can run on Linux rather then add the external link. Thanks. Wikiolap 17:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


I proposed the merger because a criticisms of anything page is inherently POV. This article should use Mozilla Firefox as its model (how ironic) and not only merge its critisisms page with itself, but also remove the criticisms section and spread out said criticisms throughout the entire article. -Kingy 20:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia:Summary style and Wikipedia:Content forking. That's why there are separate articles for history, features, and criticism. Integrating the contents of Criticism of Internet Explorer would more than double the length of the article and would result in something that's extremely lop-sided -- worthy of an NPOV tag and ongoing edit wars, which, I guess, would be a good way of modeling it after the Firefox article, eh? ;-) -/- Warren 22:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
We're in the process of correcting the issue >( . Also, if you read my comments on that page, you would see that I proposed the cleaning and shortening of that article before any merger was made. -Kingy 05:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Spreading criticism throughout the entire article would introduce NPOV violations into the article. It is preferable to keep such content in a separate article in order to facilitate management of such content. Themodernizer 03:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

IE Version

I realised I had version 7.0.5730 of Internet Explorer so I re-downloaded it to upgrade it thinking it would be upgraded to version 7.0.6000 as stated in the article. There was no change. Is this an error or is that version number only apply to the Windows Vista RTM version? Thanks. --Lakeyboy 05:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

IE 7.0.5730.11 is the WinXP SP2 version and what's stated in the article is the Vista RTM version. AMK1211 01:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Could I suggest that this is mentioned in the article to avoid this confusion? Most preferably where the latest version is written? Is it possible to mention both current versions without using the latest_preview_release - or is this unnecessary? --rjcuk 21:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I have updated the page History of Internet Explorer with these all-important details on the version differences. --rjcuk 22:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Internet Explorer 8

I just moved the brief reference to IE8 into the intro. Previously it had a "Future" section of its own, but there was nothing more than that quick mention in the entire section, so I thought getting rid of it would streamline the article a bit.

If anyone wants to add more info about IE8--though not much is known at this point, as far as I know--then the "Future" section might be worth bringing back. It could also go under History.... Tophtucker 01:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


Vista has been officially released, so has IE7+, why is there still an IE7 XP image? Please, someone replace it -Kingy 22:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I've put up a temporary fix -Kingy 22:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone have a high resolution image of the full IE7 image? (With the "Windows Internet Explorer 7 text to the right of the logo) --Smoothtofu 21:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

IE is not a web browser

Web browsers format HTML information for display but the IE doesn't claim to be able to process the Internet media type text/html. I suggest to reword the article and put it into the Category HTTP clients. -- mms 08:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

That's silly. The fact that IE doesn't completely implement every technical recommendation and standard you would want from a web browser doesn't stop it from being a web browser. No serious IT professional would make that argument. El T 12:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)