Talk:Internet Explorer/Archive 5

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

stability

i take back what i said (168476867 [1], 3.3 criticism/stability), sorry alllllot! for that unsourced comment. by Juggernaut0102 (talk) 09:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


OS/2

I just edited the table, OS/2 can run the 16 bit Windows 3.1 versions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.79.120.199 (talk) 14:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Why aren't IE 4 and 5 listed this way? Josh (talk | contribs) 23:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
IE4 & 5 should realy be seporated in the table because IE4 dosn't run in OS X, only threw OS classic (9) running inside OS X and then we might as well list every thing that can run inside virtual pc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AJenbo (talkcontribs) 07:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

"Standalone" Internet Explorer

This section doesn't make much sense. Why do people want multiple versions of IE? Perhaps if that was explained, then it would make a lot more sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.208.225 (talk) 05:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Developers need it to test on multiple versions. Not such an issue with Safari and FF because they have had reasonable standards compliance for years. It helps the development cycle; dev in FF, check in IE8 (aaaaah!), check in FF check in IE8 (aah!), check in FF check in IE8, check in IE7(aaaaaaaaaaaaaah!), and so it goes on. Macgruder (talk) 06:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

"hackers have successfully separated several versions of Internet Explorer, making them standalone applications."

Unless these people have proven experimentally through systematic and extensive testing (equivalent to Microsoft in-house testing), this should read "some hackers believe they have successfully separated several versions of Internet Explorer, making them standalone applications." or similar.

Frankly, no serious developer would ever take the chance on this working - they would use virtual machines instead. This is a good example of people going to great lengths to avoid perceived effort, yet accepting unknown risk as being equivalent to acceptable or no risk. This is sadly all too common in the industry. [PEC] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.92.142 (talk) 21:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

IE Mobile/IE for Mac

Why is Internet Explorer Mobile mentioned as a separate application while Internet Explorer for Mac is not? Internet Explorer for Mac does for example not use Trident. Helpsloose (talk) 23:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

IE 4 for Mac was the same but IE 5 wasn't. --AJenbo (talk) 20:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

IE7 XP and Vista version

I would like to bring attention to the fact that the version of Internet Explorer 7 for XP is not the same as the one for Vista. XP cannot ever have a version of IE7 with .6000 (it it is reserved for Vista/Server 2008). There are differences between the two versions for XP and Vista, which can be found in the Wikipedia article on Internet Explorer 7. Stephenchou0722 04:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

yup. There also exists differences between the IE8 beta for xp and vista and the version in windows 7 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.166.49 (talk) 03:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

About Acid2 compliance

According to Håkon Wium Lie, inventor of cascading style sheets:

In the middle of all this joy and excitement, there is a concern. It seems that IE8 will not display Acid2 correctly by default. Instead of following established conventions for how to switch between quirks and standards mode, it seems that Microsoft plans to introduce a new opt-in scheme based on the <meta> tag. And, since we cannot change the Acid2 test at this stage, it will not trigger IE8 standards mode. This issue must be addressed if IE8 is to be considered to pass the test. [2]

This statement is quite explicit, but is reinforced by other statements about IE8's new "opt in" standards mode. —Remember the dot (talk) 01:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Internet Explorer had the "standards mode" since IE6 and has always been "opt in" since inception. Not just IE, it is present in all other browsers as well, where also it is opt-in. And unless opted in, NONE of the browsers will display the test correctly. The opting in is controlled by the declaration of a doctype. The HTML 4.01 doctype ACID2 page uses triggers standards mode, thus it is already opting in.
The only thing of contention here is Hachamovitch's use of the phrase "IE8 standards mode" (never was IE8's new "opt in" standards mode ever mentioned by the official sources in public) in the blog entry. Due to Microsoft's previous attempt at the W3C to get another rendering mode, people have become confused as whether the phrase means regular standards mode in IE (in that case no problem) or whether a new mode. Since no thrid party can have anymore knowledge (sans for, maybe, MS partners) than we have, we should not iterate their less-than-informed theoretizing as canon.
From the quote you gave, "it seems that" is the keyword. It is his "understanding" that things are so. But nowhere I have seen do they (MS) state so. (I spent more than five hours hunting around in the W3C mailing lists to see if they ever said anything with the meta tag). At least, provide a ref to let anyone verify the meta tag stuff? Or provide refs independently confirming the fact (not those which repeat his words)? Or provide the source of his suspicion (so that we can let them make the inference for themselves rather than have HWL make it for them)? So, lets hold the criticism back till we know for sure they need the criticism. --soum talk 03:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Before we continue this debate, please go watch Chris Wilson's "IE Past, Present, and Future" presentation for yourself: [3] [4]
About 37 minutes and 40 seconds through the presentation, you will see Chris Wilson, Internet Explorer Platform Architect, say "The adoption of any such opt-in switch today is zero." Perhaps the opt-in mechanism will be a <meta> tag, perhaps it will be an HTML comment, perhaps something else entirely. But whatever it is, the Acid2 test does not have it. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

According to the MVP FAQ here, IE8 DOES introduce another (a third) "IE8 standards mode". However, I don't see how it means IE8 "cannot be considered to pass the Acid2" as stated in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.128.181.109 (talk) 04:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

(@Xpclient) Any evidence Abhishek has access to the inner working of the IE team and that he is not under an NDA ro reveal such information and that he is singing the official tune and this is not just a friend-of-a-friend-told-me rumor? --soum talk 11:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
"This Q&A guidance is taken from the MVPannounce mail I received from my MVP lead". As a Microsoft Most Valuable Professional, yes, he does have access to such information. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
You know what an MVP is? S/he is an independent and recognized expert on one or more products. They need not be on MS payroll. And are no way automatically a part of any MS product team. Just by being an MVP you do NOT gain access to such information. And my question is still unanswered: How the hell does he publicize information that is still under NDA (if it were not under NDA it would have come directly from the official sources or the developers). And I asked about Anand, not Vasudev. Vasudev mentions his source, Anand does not. Since he is not officially known to be a part of IE8 project, he does not consitute a source reliable enough for citation. --soum talk 00:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Because Acid2 does not trigger IE8 standards mode. Acid2 assumes that the browser does not require a special trigger in order to render pages correctly. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
The video was made long before any design was finalized. That no way means a new rendering mode HAS BEEN implemented. We have no definite proof of that. Saying they did it just because they were thinking of an implementation is theoretizing at best. Even if they DID implement it, where is the evidence that the HTML 4.01 Strict doctype (the one the test uses) does not already trigger it? Without any concrete evidence that, I will not support stating it as canon.--soum talk 10:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
You needn't look any further than Microsoft's own statements to see that IE8 with the default settings does not pass Acid2:
  • IE8 now renders the “Acid2 Face” correctly in IE8 standards mode. [5]
  • IE8 now correctly renders the Acid2 smiley face in IE8 standards mode [6]
  • What is “IE8 standards mode”? Developers can now write sites based on standards, insert a flag that tells IE to render in IE8 standards mode, and IE will then switch its rendering engine to use this new mode...For compatibility purposes IE8’s rendering engine defaults to “quirks” or “standards” mode. Site developers will need to insert a new opt-in flag to request the page to render using “IE8 standards mode.” [7]
  • The adoption of any such opt-in switch today is zero. [8]
(emphasis mine)
Really, though, the burden of proof is on you. Show me a source that says IE8 renders Acid2 correctly without being in IE8 standards mode. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Where is the proof that IE8 standards mode will not be triggered by ACID2? There is none whatsoever. Even if we believe the MVP mail, it does NOT say the anything about triggering IE8 standards mode. Where does it say in there that the IE8 standards mode won't be triggered by ACID2? Extrapolation on our parts isn't allowed.
If you bring up burden of proof, I invoke the policy: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. It will be on you to prove that IE8 DOES NOT render Acid2 test by default. Not that IE8 PROBABLY OES NOT. But I would not like to do that. The point is still clouded and no definite answer is given yet. So, it should be stated that there is lot of conjecture at this point. State it as canon, and I will oppose. I am sorry to say that if this is not resolved soon, I will have to report the Vasudev citation to WP:RS/N and call an Request for Comment for this entire thing. --soum talk 00:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
As you revert, please be aware of the three-revert rule. In your last edit summary, you stated acid2 was designed s.t. stanards support => passing the test, not the other way round. to quote an article I read somewhere "passing the test does not mean this, this and this is true"
You are thinking of "Everything that Acid2 tests is specified in a Web standard, but not all Web standards are tested. Acid2 does not guarantee conformance with any specification." [9] This is a valid point, but in light of this, I'm puzzled by your recent rewording: "IE8 supports [x, y, and z]...As a result, an internal buld of IE8 passes the Acid2 test in IE8 standards mode."
We know IE8 passes Acid2 in IE8 standards mode. I will concede that we can't say anything about IE8's compliance with the default settings. However, we know nothing about what standards, exactly, it supports. All we know is that in IE8 standards mode, it passes, which only indicates partial support for the web standards tested. We can't say for sure that it includes complete and bug-free support for standards x, y, and z. —Remember the dot (talk) 01:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, but I am well aware of 3RR (Could you please point where I revert without discussion except for the one where you took advantage of me being on a mobile to rob me of the chance of a timely reply?) Anyways, hasn't the level of support for [x, y, and z] been enough to pass the test? So whats the problem? And if you are okay with the change in the last line (that there is a IF in saying that ie8 does not trigger ie8sm) can we consider that chapter closed? --soum talk 01:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
The article currently states that IE8 supports x, y, and z. IE8 supports x, y, and z, in IE8 standards mode, well enough to pass Acid2. This does not mean that IE8 supports them completely or correctly, as the article currently implies.
The sentence "However, if the ACID2 test does not by default trigger IE8 standards mode, IE8 cannot be considered to truly pass the Acid2 test" is misleading. We already know from Chris Wilson that zero web pages on the web today trigger IE8 standards mode, including the Acid2 page. A better wording would be "However, if IE8 does not pass Acid2 with the default settings, IE8 cannot be considered to truly pass the Acid2 test." —Remember the dot (talk) 02:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
In other words, unless Microsoft changes the default standards mode to be more standards-compliant, IE8 will not truly pass Acid2. —Remember the dot (talk) 02:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
(de-indent) "We already know from Chris Wilson that zero web pages on the web today trigger IE8 standards mode, including the Acid2 page" is NOT true. That was the quote one year back, when the design wasn't frozen. As such we cannot say that nothing has changed for sure. Triggering ie8sm hasn't been discussed in public. So, transitional doctype triggering standards mode and strict doctype ie8 standards mode is as possible as both triggering regular standards mode. We cannot hold their plans as canonical evidence of their actions: thats my point. And "unless Microsoft changes the default standards mode to be more standards-compliant, IE8 will not truly pass Acid2" is not true either. If the Acid2 test (irrespective of the url its served from) triggers the ie8 standards mode without any change, that will be enough. But still, I would support your construct. As for standards support, will saying "Microsoft claims IE8 supports..." be enough for you? --soum talk 02:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I found another Microsoft statement you may be interested in. Go to IE 8: On the Path to Web Standards Compliance - ACID 2 Test Pass Complete and jump to 19 minutes and 15 seconds through the video. You will hear Alex Mogilevsky, a member of the IE team, point at a picture of a failed Acid2 test and state:
"The video in the bottom is a IE7 version of smiley face...What you're looking at is actually IE8. It is what it looks currently in IE8 and it will look exactly like this when we ship IE8 because we are not breaking any compatibility, and this is a compatible mode of IE8. And, uh, most of the web relies on particular behavior including particular incorrect behavior, so the incorrect behavior will still be there unless the new content wants IE to be in standards-compliant mode, and then they will ask us, and then we will show perfectly standard picture."
I don't know how you can interpret this any other way than that IE8 will not pass Acid2 with the default settings. Web sites must "ask" for IE8 standards mode, or else they will get the noncompliant IE7 compatibility mode. And since Microsoft is "not breaking any compatibility", it must be that no page on the web today triggers IE8 standards mode, including the Acid2 test page. —Remember the dot (talk) 03:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter that we don't know what triggers standard mode. We just know that Acid2 doesn't, as demonstarted about 19 minutes into [10]. (The debug version passes, but the other version doesn't, and they actually say that the shipping version will render it that way (fail).) - Josh (talk | contribs) 05:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
You're being way too strong with your wording, dot. Nobody, not even the IE team knows what the final solution will be for separating IE7's standards mode from IE8. According to Chris Wilson, right now it's a META tag, but he makes it clear that this is still under review and that they are in the process of gathering feedback. You really should take that into consideration before writing authoritative prose about what IE8 is going to do. -/- Warren 07:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what's going to trigger IE8 standards mode. We know the Acid2 test doesn't, and we have a member of the IE8 team who explicitly said that the Acid2 test would be broken in the final release. I already removed the <meta> tag speculation. —Remember the dot (talk) 17:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
ok i concede. bt this quote shud b in article.soum talk 05:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
The debate over whether IE8 will display pages in its IE8 standards mode by default or not is moot when it comes to the Acid2 test. The videos of the development UI (see screencap [11]) clearly show a scrollbar which isn't allowed by the test. Thus IE8 does not currently pass Acid2 whether in IE8 standards mode or not. I made an edit to the article which explained this, but it was reverted back to a version which says IE8 passes. Hopefully the explanation here will be enough to have other editors set things right. GreyWyvern (talk) 20:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Acid2 Secn Break

1. The code that was shown is just brewed and full of debug constructs and assertions. 2. The formal test period to dig up bugs hasn't started yet. 3. Its only a frame or two worth of screencaps. 4. MS isn't talking about IE8. How can you be so authoritative with such little information?
And if you are basing your conclusion on this shot, how do you know that the scrollbar is not of the part of the chrome of the hosting form but of the rendering engine? May be the form contains other controls below the trident area, and probably the scroll bar is due to that. Its best not to be authoritative. --soum talk 02:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Why an icon not a shortcut on the desktop?

Why is Internet Explorer represented by an icon on the desktop not a shortcut? I am a rare Windows user, and I know that I can safely trash a shortcut but don't have the same confidence with an icon as it suggests I'm trashing the actual app. I suspect that MS don't want users removing it from the desktop but I have no evidence to back this up. Other apps use a shortcut afaik; why not IE ?Macgruder (talk) 06:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It should be OK. I get this when I try to delete the icon: "Are you sure you want to delete the Internet Explorer icon from your desktop? To restore it later, go to Display in Control Panel." An alternative method is, in XP, to go to Control Panel -> Display -> Desktop -> Customize Desktop -> Uncheck "Internet Explorer". -- RattleMan 06:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
The icon is a reference in the registry and not an actual file, the benifit is that if you right click it you get the internet explore options rathere then the default shourtcut options. removing it is compleatly fine. --AJenbo (talk) 21:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

IE 8 on chart

We can't include IE 8 on the OS compatability chart because anything we write there would be either Unknown or original research. - Josh (talk | contribs) 20:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC) Ah, I see. We should be able to place information on it, however, after MIX08. --Titan602 (talk) 16:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Standards support

Do the two "Standards support" (features vs. criticisms) seem contradictory, the first seemingly apologetic, stating "minor implementation gaps" whereas the latter indicates that there are also non-minor issues? Cnj (talk) 23:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The first states "Internet Explorer, using the Trident layout engine, almost fully supports HTML 4.01, CSS Level 1, XML 1.0 and DOM Level 1, with minor implementation gaps. It partially supports CSS Level 2 and DOM Level 2, with major implementation gaps and conformance issues." The minor gaps are in the oldest and most basic standards. The major gaps are in the newer (that is, from 1998-2000) Level 2 standards. Those are the non-minor issues referred to in the second. It doesn't look like there's any contradiction to me. -- Schapel (talk) 23:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
"with minor implementation gaps. "...... "minor" issues? OK, on reading Schapel's response to Cnj I can see the logic here, yeah... Saying that it has minor issues is not an outright denial that it has major issues. Issues are issues though. I would have thought that very old and fundamental flaws would be considered "major" - any issue with CSS1 implementation is a major issue!! Sure, all browsers have issues with that, so maybe it's not even worth mention, but the implication that Internet Explorer doesn't have a massive number of major issues in standards support is practically dishonest. No offense but the implication is easily contendable. Sure, literally "minor implementation gaps" true, but the implication is still way off - so I suggest that it be either omitted (don't like that idea very much, but I'm a webmaster and therefore strongly biased so I can't touch it) or better, that is should be more clear and less subjective in its treatment. Why divide the flaws up and mention minor flaws alone in one part? Major flaws are certainly present in great numbers, and are far more notable than minor ones. Again, I'm really biased on this one and I admit it now to my discredit, so please, to whoever wrote that tiny phrase in there, don't take offense, I agree with it like I said. I can provide a bunch of reputable sources documenting the existence of a few hundred bugs (many of them critical and causing intolerable rendering errors or stability problems and application crashes and hangs) in Internet Explorer seven (with test cases of course), if the need be, thus establishing firmly that no public release of Internet Explorer to date has even usable support for any standards... (no, it's not original research) 125.236.211.165 (talk) 14:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I guess a gab is more total absence of functions rathere then wrong functions, that would alow them to have minor gaps but major flaws.--AJenbo (talk) 15:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


Some mention of the fact that IE is not participating in the whatwg standards group specification for html5, that IE dragged their feet on PNG support for nearly a decade, that svg is still not supported, that they unsuccessfully pushed activeX to tie web development to the windows platform. (ie activeX clearly was never part of Standards... There is plenty of direct referential evidence that indicates this strategy see the Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish#Examples I don't see why this part of IE's history and present position is completely overlooked in this article? Mdale (talk) 17:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Some mention of World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)standards (in general) with respect to IE's non-compliance is a good way to lead off this section: "Standards Support." The more specific examples already provided should follow. Some of IE's non-compliance with certain W3C standards is innovative, but some is deliberately designed by Microsoft to preserve their market share, and that's a big deal. It screws up the entire www. New Orleans,RN (talk) 22:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

IE8 Version Targeting

From a Web Developer's standpoint, the version targeting being implemented in IE8 is a very important issue. I would suggest adding either a section regarding Version Targeting (and not just a subsection of IE8, since this is theoretically going to continue on for all further versions of IE). I personally would say this is an important enough issue to merit its own article, but I'll leave that up to others better versed in Wikipedia's policies. dimo414 (talk) 20:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

What's the difference between Mozilla and FireFox?

When listed on a table (chart) of the most popular web browsers based on the total usage share, Mozilla and Firefox were not together on that list. Why? If anybody knows the answer to this question, I'd just be glad to know it, too. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.85.91 (talk) 02:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

See Mozilla Firefox#History. —Remember the dot (talk) 05:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Did Microsoft ever charge money for IE ???

Was IE always given away for free by MS prior to it being incorporated into Windows? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.243.154 (talk) 05:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

V1.0 was first part of Microsoft Plus! for Windows 95. It was just one added utility in that package. You can find actual dates somewhere, but it was available for free either immediately after, or very soon after, the Windows 95 launch (August 24, 1995). By the first service release of Win95 (December 1995), it was free as part of the OS. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Also, there were some legal issues to that. Some of the code was licensed from the Mosaic foundation on a per-unit royalty. Microsoft released IE for download before a flat license fee with Mosaic was negotiated. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Many computer magazines (I'm talking about glossy paper versions) had CD-ROMs with freeware, shareware and demos; Internet Explorer was often a regular part. Was IE free? Well the consumers had to buy the magazine or the Microsoft Plus! disc to obtain it but at the bookseller’s there would be stacks of free CD-ROMs with the full versions of IE on. Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 13:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Was this before or after Microsoft said IE would be free? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
It was before IE 4.0 was incorporated in Windows 98, but I don't know when or if Microsoft announced IE as freeware, sorry. Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 18:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

NT4 Workstation shipped with Ie2. In the about box it talks about mosaic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.166.49 (talk) 03:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

IE9

Where the hell is the mention of IE9? I have seen the source - the softpedia article. The author makes it clear: "Of course, it is all speculation on my part". Since when do we insert canonical info based on speculation by some person who is not even affiliated with the project? Again look into the interview that he mentioned. Skip to 00:03:05 (or somewhere around that). The exact quotes is "So you guys busted open Triton? Triton... thats the codename for IE9. I'm just kidding.". It is pretty clear that the mention of Triton was a mistake, and the IE9 part was, by his own admittance, a joke. How the hell can it be held as a canonical proof of IE9. As for the IE8 Readiness Toolkit document, it says "If there ever is IE9..." (or something like that) - it couldn't be any more vague! Of course any example on forward compatibility has to be given with some future event as point of reference. That does not make it canonical, as for the purposes of the example, the reference can as well be imaginary.

Of course, unless judgement day arrives in the near future, there will be an IE9. But twisting jokes and tongue-in-cheek comments and presenting them as the vision of future document is definitely not verifiable. And presenting speculation as facts is definitely original research, not to mention crystal balling. None of that belongs here. The future development section should be removed, until some concrete evidence is presented. That some editor might know better does not matter, we are not reliable sources. Unless it can be verified by any damn person, IE9 does not exist - nor is any future development going on - as far as wikipedia articles are concerned. --soum talk 17:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed it. We have nothing to say about IE9 at this point. —Remember the dot (talk) 17:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll admit I was too hasty here, I missed the this is all speculation part of that source. Sorry guys. Digita (talk)
I do think it is time to create a seperate article! There is a official test build released. There is enough information for another article now! mabdul 19:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
IE 9 Preview

Acid2

It seems odd that Acid2 doesn't get a mention other than saying that improvements in IE8 will mean that it passes. Given the trouble people have had with non-compliance with standards, it seems odd that such an important test only gets one mention.
I also find it odd that there isn't a section on criticisms, given how much has been given to IE over the years. Searching for "critic" brings up only 8 results, many of which are using one word twice for the same point.—[semicolons]— 16:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC) Acid 3 should have a small mention, seeing as IE7 (and, for that matter, 6) are both beaten on this test by IE 5.5! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.185.212 (talk) 12:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Criticism section: yes. That should be a part of any article on programs above Start level. A criticism section is on it's way for f.ex. gedit. A good source of criticisms could be serious bugs on the programs' todo lists, at least for OpenSource programs. Said: Rursus () 18:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Guess what?! There USED to be a whole article devoted to Criticism of IE, but they "merged" it with this one! Yeah, I'd believe that if I SAW a criticism section in this article. I think I'm going to do some research on Google to see what I can find other than the security and standards.--Dullstar (talk) 06:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Windows Internet Explorer

MS used this name for the Internet Explorer 4 executable file in 1997.

If you have a computer with IE 4.0 installed, search for the "Iexplore.exe" file, and then right-click on the icon and select Properties. Click the Version tab. File version is 4.72.3110.0 and Description is.. "Windows Internet Explorer"! Off! (talk) 16:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Internet Explorer Userbox?

Is there already a userbox for IE users? Or should I just make one? I've seen one for Firefox. Is there a UBX for IE? --Michael Muzek (talk) 18:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

ehm, there is a really big template at the end of the page. isn't that enough? for what a ubx? mabdul 0=* 18:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

See also

Could someone explain me why the "See also" heading is all about aggregators and there's not a word about "other browsers" or "list of other browsers" ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.197.146.221 (talk) 15:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

because thi links are already in the temlates and the agreatores hae't anytemplate yet!

"fully supports HTML 4.01"

"fully supports HTML 4.01". Does that refer to the current beta version? Because IE7 definitely doesn't (i.e. the q tag). -137.222.114.243 (talk) 20:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Related propose move

Propose move Internet Explorer box model bug to CSS box model problem (Discuss here: Talk:Internet Explorer box model bug#Requested move 2) --Voidvector (talk) 22:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I found colliding facts in 2 Wikipedia articles about history of the browser

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosaic_(browser)

Spyglass licensed the technology and trademarks from NCSA for producing their own web browser but never used any of the NCSA Mosaic source code.

This collides clearly with this Internet Explorer article:

In late 1994, Microsoft licensed Spyglass Mosaic for a quarterly fee plus a percentage of Microsoft's non-Windows revenues for the software. Although bearing a name similar to NCSA Mosaic, Spyglass Mosaic had used the NCSA Mosaic source code sparingly.

Look at the bold sections in these to quotes for the mismatch of these 2 articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eispkell (talkcontribs) 18:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

infobox and os compatibility - editwar

hey folks. come on. don't do the edit-war any more! Digita and Techmdrn reverted youre edits more than two times. let's talk about before do it again! why making such a mess? where are the problems and what are your arguments? mabdul 0=* 19:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Techmdrn is trying to delete some sections without really discussing it. A whole bunch of edits have been reverted in the crossfire and need to be restored. - Josh (talk | contribs) 21:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
i know i it. but want should i do/we it? he don't want talk... mabdul 0=* 04:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
If he keeps edit warring like this, he's heading to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. - Josh (talk | contribs) 17:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

IE 5 Web Accessories still works in IE7

IE 5 Web Accessories still works in IE7 - at least the ones I've tried using XP SP3. Details here:

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/ie6/previous/webaccess/ie5wa.mspx

File download:

http://download.microsoft.com/download/ie5/Utility/1/W98NT42KMeXP/EN-US/ie5wa.exe

This shows how to fix the Zoom bug that distorts the image:

http://www.windowskb.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/ie6-setup/2898/Web-Accessories-for-IE6

78.147.153.8 (talk) 11:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Security Vuln

This Comment "Now, in one sentence, we answer how the security issues, enumerated and detailed ELSEWHERE, affect people such that the volume of criticism for IE is unusually high"

Is interesting. This is original research at best, opinion at worst. There is no evidence that the complaints about IE are greater in volume than other browsers...

The whole section is a weasel worded hit piece, which is frankly the normal mode of any article related to MS in the entire Wikipedia. The bias of personal opinion stinks through this article, specifically that section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.90.147.211 (talk) 11:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


Critics?

Where is the critics section?! Censored truth? Also, can we create an article about reasons not to use Internet Explorer including alternative browsers with screenshots? The truth shall not be deleted! --Subfader (talk) 21:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, there should be a criticisms section. Considering Microsoft's very slow adoption of web technologies (SVG for example) and how it's negativity impacted the growth of the internet due to it's prevalence 138.253.201.111 (talk) 23:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
The criticism section was integrated with the rest of the article a long time ago, as is recommended by Wikipedia guidelines. We already have Comparison of web browsers. - Josh (talk | contribs) 00:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Micro$oft don't do mistakes, IE is flawless... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.131.22.173 (talk) 09:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
It seems all of you want this out of dislike of Microsoft. This thus does NOT constitute NPOV, thus it will NOT be added. Complaints differ from criticism. Jasper Deng (talk) 18:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Market Share Chart

It doesn't make sense to have a chart that compares all IE browsers against other browsers in the market share section of this page. I would expect to see a chart of the different IE versions. To see IE in the context of other browsers, users can follow the link to the main Usage share of web browsers page. Also note that the main usage share page links to this IE page with promises to give more information about the differences between IE versions, so it's confusing to follow the link from that page in search of more IE data only to be presented with the same chart again (which doesn't even distinguish between IE6 and the newer IE browsers, btw, which is just terrible in my opinion.) Brentonboy (talk) 19:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

misuse of source

The cite for "alleged" does not support the statement (although it is arguable that the allegations are in the background, what counts for a reliable source is not something that the reader has to supply their own opinions to complete it). Tedickey (talk) 15:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:Cleanup Request

This article was requested to have an additional section covering "Crticisms of Internet Explorer" added to the article in WP:Cleanup. Here is the request and my reply.

Criticism of Internet Explorer - This article is now a redirect page (apparently it must have once been an article because of what's on the talk page) to the Internet Explorer article. The article was practically deleted, not "merged" because there is no Criticism section. I think we should add the section or restore the article. I don't want to be told off for vandalism if I do it myself, so I'm going to mention it here. Just in case. Sorry in advance if this is the wrong location for it (note: I have also dropped a note on the talk page of the article somewhere in there just because someone else had already mentioned it there).--Dullstar (talk) 06:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I have placed this comment on the users talk page. I will wait for further feedback before removing from cleanup.
Hi, I work on WP:Cleanup and have reviewed your request for a Internet Explorer Criticism article, or to have it integrated into the current IE article. According to the talk page of the article, the relevant criticisms were integrated into the appropriate sections of the article. Additionally, many of the other areas were added to the Comparison of Web Browsers article. Based on the feedback on the sites discussion page, the format that exists along with the comparison article should accurately convey the pros and cons of the article. I will leave this comment on cleanup, and remove the cleanup item in a few days if there seems to be consensus.Bobinit (talk) 22:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate that the fact that the information exists in the article. I think the best choice here would be just to consider organizing it better. I never noticed it before in the article. NOTE: This is just an update to the cleanup request. --Dullstar (talk) 08:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Since it has been a week and no other options were presented by the community, Dullstar and I agree that it is best to close out the cleanup request. He has volunteered to contribute some article editing int he future that will provide more clarity for readers with regard to issues that face IE users.Bobinit (talk) 03:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

use of unreliable source

The link to zoominfo is unreliable for more than one reason. The content there is more/less random web-scapings. The pertinent part related to 1994 points to an obsolete url; the cached version in turn happens to be an extract from Slivka's resume as cited on a page where he's an officer. (There's no reliable third-party involved in any of that) Tedickey (talk) 00:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

What is "Yes" vs "Dropped" in IE compatibility chart?

In the IE compatability matrix, for IE6 it says "Yes - SP1" for win-2k, but it says "Dropped - SP1" for win-98. What exactly is the intent or meaning of "Dropped" ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.83.223 (talk) 02:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

easy to explain: If you look at Internet Explorer 6#Supported platforms and release history, you will notice that on win 9x there isn't any update above ie6sp1: "Vulnerability patch. Last version supported on Windows NT 4.0, 98, 2000 or Me." That means you found "a bug" in this chart ;) mabdul 05:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Something fundamental missing

I tried to skim the version sequence of IE:s to see where IE:s implementation of CSS changed fundamentally. In 2004 the CSS implementation deviated very far from CSS standard, and it was virtually impossible to design a framed document that worked in IE and also worked in the other browsers. Thereafter the implementation of CSS from one version of IE to next, moved to near-to-compliancy (no browser complies, so "near" is good enough). That information need to be clearly visible in the text. ... said: Rursus (mbork³) 08:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe, based on the article on IE6 that the paradigm shift was between IE6 and IE7. I suspect the CSS engine in Trident was rewritten in its entirety, since IE7 didn't support CSS files that was adapted for IE6, so for a while a CSS author was forced to write three CSS variants, one for IE6--, one for IE7, and one for the complying browsers. ... said: Rursus (mbork³) 08:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
No two and a half. But IE6 and IE7 couldn't coexist on the same computer. ... said: Rursus (mbork³) 08:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Could some insiders to tabulate the software features.... please....

from IE 1 to IE 8
a similar suggestion has been made to Talk:Windows XP#Could some insiders to tabulate the service pack features.... please....--124.78.209.6 (talk) 10:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

"Most vulnerable browser"

"As of 2010[update] IE has been attacked numerous times by hackers, malwares or some kind of security flaws such as software bugs, therefore many security experts consider it as the most vulnerable browser.[3][4][5]"

Each of these 3 footnotes is a link to information about one specific vulnerability. To support the statement above, at least two opinions by acknowledged security experts would be required. It's also unclear which version of IE this statement is about. This is typical Anti-MS writing, not the kind of objective, well-researched opinion I'd expect on Wikipedia.

A well-written section about security should be clear about affected versions (how secure is the current version vs. historic information about older versions) and give specific information about the strenghts and weaknesses of IE. I think a neutral discussion should point out that IE6 is considered to be very insecure (but with citations this time), that the number of dangerous vulnerabilites was relatively low for IE8, that (depending on the version of Windows) IE8 includes many effective measures to mitigate bugs (not every bug becomes an exploitable vulnerability), and criticize the speed with which bug fixes are created and distributed compared to other browsers. (But please, not another criticism of Patch Tuesday that fails to mention its intention. We've had enough of those.)

In any case, information about older versions should be clearly marked. It's frustrating to read about IE and find outdated and lengthy discussions about the times when virtually every ActiveX control on the machine was acessible for web sites.

One day people will start to realize that bashing MS does Wikipedia no good. This mindsetting discredits Wikipedia more than it does MS. Yes, MS has done things, and there are more modern browsers than IE, but we still need to base criticism in reality and be neutral. It's like climate scientits exaggerating everything because they think the solid core of their theories are not frightening enough to influence the public or policy makers. We know what good this does. Please don't do this to Wikipedia. --Motherofinvention (talk) 16:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

How many vulnerabilities does it take to be the most vulnerable browser? I'd say one is plenty, though the IE family certainly has had more than that (even discovered in the past month). ¦ Reisio (talk) 18:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
If "one is plenty", then there's lots of competition. Editors should be be aware of reliable sources, and not rely on blogs and personal opinions Tedickey (talk) 18:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Look at Comparison_of_web_browsers#Vulnerabilities: As of today, IE8 has 0 extremely or highly critical, one moderately critical that cannot be exploitet in protected mode (default in Vista and 7). All kinds somehow critical bugs are from February. That's worse than Firefox (assuming the extremely critical one is actually a hoax), but much better than the historic performance of IE which most opinions on the net are based upon. I assume the same holds true if you look at the average number of open vulerabilities during the history of IE8 (i.e., Firefox being better), but still you cannot make that claim without basing it on data.
On the other hand, many recent bugs in IE have shown the power of the multiple security barrieres in IE8 and Vista/7: While a bug exists in IE6 to IE8, it can often only be exploited in IE6 or only on XP systems or with protected mode (PM) off. So while MS is slow fixing bugs, it could be argued that IE8 in PM seems to be better protected against zero-day attacks. (Especially when it comes to exploits that affect the user's system, not just the current page such as in XSS.)
This is a very complex situation, and that makes it quite hard (if not impossible) to provide neutral judgement on which browser is "more secure" (a very generic term that should include stuff like privacy too) or even "less vulnerable".
If you think you can solve this problem in your head without resorting to original research, with no sources or quotations, you clearly miss the standards of Wikipedia. --Motherofinvention (talk) 11:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

judgement on which browser is "more secure"

This is not up for debate — the question was is IE the most vulnerable… you will be hard pressed to find any expert who doesn't think it is.

¦ Reisio (talk) 17:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Well then, it shouldn't be much trouble to find a reliable source for the specific claim. The links now provided as references to that statement do not support it, they are simply links to a few reports of vulnerabilities, and such could be found for any browser. The claim is a criticism, a highly negative one at that, and therefore cannot stand in a WP article without good sources for the actual claim. Note that supporting the claim with a conclusion made by an editor, even though the conclusion is based on facts from WP:RS, also counts as WP:OR (specifically WP:SYN). See also WP:VER. Jeh (talk) 18:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Chakra

I wrote a little stub in my userspace about the new JavaScript engine in IE9: User:Face/Chakra (JavaScript engine).

I'm uncertain about posting this in mainspace because I couldn't find a lot to write about and because MS' announcement stated that the engine is "internally known" as Chakra.[12] I'm not sure if this means that it's a working title. I assume that it will become the real name as well (many articles have already called it so). Still, I thought I'd posted here to ask for opinions.

Feel free to edit my stub whatever you want. Cheers, theFace 10:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I will help ;) mabdul
He, thanks! Anyone else? - theFace 14:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

?

why did my section get deleted!?! 68.140.73.155 (talk) 05:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

which section? look in history: mostly users give any reasons why they revert some edits. mabdul 10:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Human conformation. no reason given 68.140.73.155 (talk) 04:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Because talk pages of Wikipedia are not forums. They are only meant to for discussions related to Wikipedia. Please consider posting your problem with Internet Explorer to a help and support forum elsewhere. In Wikipedia, we delete any topic that does not comply with Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Fleet Command (talk) 06:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Since you also add a edit summary, I can't find the changes. Please give me a) a date or b) the link to the old version. mabdul 08:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
By all means, Mabdul. The topic in question had been posted in this talk page on 17 June 2010 and was subsequently removed by Tedickey just two hours later. here is a link. I found it by looking up the contributions log of 68.140.73.155. Fleet Command (talk) 09:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
THX, read you're comment after I made my oiwn (page was opened a few hours). Couldn't find the requested part because I was looking in the article o.O FleetCommand is totally correct with his comment why the part was removed! mabdul 10:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Month of Bugs

Aside from POV-pushing, the Month of Bugs topic isn't topical TEDickey (talk) 21:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Merge

internet explorer 1 should be merged into this article. it just doesnt have enough info th have its own article --ChckMeOwt (talk) 07:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

disagree - it's sourced (independently of this topic), and this topic is overly long TEDickey (talk) 08:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Oppose The topic is notable and may have an individual article of its own, per Wikipedia policies; hence it is better to keep an individual article for the sake of consistency in format. This article is already large and could be summarized in certain areas. Fleet Command (talk) 15:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Oppose for similar reasons as Fleet Command; this article is already fairly sizable. It's so small when compared to, say, Internet Explorer 2, because there's nothing that can be said about improvements or expansions from previous versions, since it's 1.0 software. I'd like to see more about the development of the browser, but that's a reason to expand Internet Explorer 1 rather than to merge it. EVula // talk // // 16:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Oppose it has enough information. as an alternative: search and add more to the article! (idea: bill gates said that the www wouldn't succeed so ms started late in the development. has anybody a reliable source for that?) mabdul 18:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Official site location

I updated the target location for the Official site link as it was redirecting to the new target. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RE OBrien (talkcontribs) 17:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)