Talk:Internet Explorer 9

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


See: Talk:Internet Explorer#Chakra

and: User:Face/Chakra (JavaScript engine)

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

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


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

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

VS uses ie8 even if ie9 is available, right — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshuatee (talkcontribs) 09:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Sunspider tests[edit]

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

There's not an absolute prohibition against self-published sources.
--Gyrobo (talk) 18:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
SunSpider is a public test (made by Apple). Besides, you could go try the test yourself, therefore I don't consider this self-bublished. Illegal Operation (talk) 14:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Although my blog is not classed as a reputable source, I do have tests I conducted independantly, including subspider tests showing the results of IE7, 8 and 9, as well as Firefox 3.5, 3.6, and 4beta6 (and chrome and opera current's and betas). The actual results are linked as well. Ktetch (talk) 01:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The Russian leak of IE9?[edit]

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

NO! Nobody can verify (except MS) if this will be the real UI. We need to wait only a few days and then the beta will be official released. No reason to hurry. mabdul 11:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Moar proof: --Hengsheng120 (talk) 17:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
please: wait a few days and then we have the real beta. then we can verify that this was a real leaked build and then we can add a short comment that there was a leaked build. otherwise it is as every time: faked leaked builds and fakes ui screenshots - as every time! mabdul 17:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. None of these sources are reliable, and the new UI is set to be revealed in exactly one week.
--Gyrobo (talk) 20:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
do want somebody be bold and add a sentence about the "leaked" builds and screenshots? mabdul 22:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality Problem?[edit]

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

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

"an improved JScript engine"

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


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

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

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

A couple things. First, not all articles need a criticism section. The browser isn't even released yet. It only just went into beta. I've also heard little criticism from the media, and I follow pretty closely. Secondly, not all the reaction is negative so having a criticism section is not nearly as objective as a reception section. Thirdly, this article is not a paid advert and even if it was, regular Wikipedia editors could still edit it to a point of neutrality. A lack of a criticism section does not indicate a paid advertisment, and if you held that standard to every Wikipedia article, then you'd conclude nearly everything on the site is a paid advert.CaptainStack (talk) 20:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
But everybody has to criticize IE for it's lack of compatibility! P.S. Microsoft employing EEE to internet browsers? (talk) 21:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Pardon my weasel words, but ask any web designer/developer out there if a discussion of IE is deserving of at least some criticism. And now that it Has been released, I think one is entirely in order. In the same vein as an above commenter, the media review section is overwhelmingly positive, whereas this Computerworld post notes several in the tech media that have some criticism: Just saying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree. Most of this page reads like an ad for IE9. It's like it doesn't even try to hide that fact either. I am not making any accusations here, but seriously, it sounds like "Wow! Super cool! Amazing! Fast! Awesome! The best at everything! Leaves its competition in the dust! Made of raw kickass, refined into absolute winning!" You get my point... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Could you please point to specific text in the page that you believe has a problem? Captain Stack (talk) 19:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Windows XP Not Supported??[edit]

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

because microsoft want their customers upgrading to a newer system. maybe MS had no interest to create so much work on the ie platform supporting all features (especially the hardware acceleration using direct x version XY) that is not supported by xp. as I said: its all about money: MS want that the 10 years old os XP should die (although they are selling it any more!) mabdul 08:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid that I don't understand what this section has to do with the Wikipedia article under discussion. It seems to discuss only the browser and the OS themselves. Tireisias (talk) 18:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Don't think you understood. The problem is: MS is supporting IE9 only under Win Vista and 7 (and maybe under 2003/8?). They stopped supporting XP although XP is NT based as the rest of their actual OSes. Many people won't be able to update their browser if they choose IE. That is the problemn and that is really the right place to discuss. But the real prblem is: we don't have any citations/references or official announcements WHY they (will) do this. mabdul 19:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I doubt anything better than statements of IE9 needing a “modern OS” can ever be found. Kxx (talk | contribs) 04:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Why can't I run Chrome on PC-DOS? Why can't I run FF3 on Win3.1? Why can't I run Safari5 on OSX 10.1? Why can't I use GCC4 with a 1.X Linux kernel? The long answers tend to be technical and outside the scope of any wiki. The short answer is some variation on "you need a modern OS." Don't confuse simplicity with stupidity. RvLeshrac (talk) 09:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
So easy is not the answer! MS is producing the browser and the system. 10 year may be old, but not too old after all! XP is official supported by MS at the moment. So why should MS provide security patches/service packs but not actual software like the IE - if they selling Office for the same os - its all about money! mabdul 11:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Just because XP is supported by MS in terms of patching doesn't mean they have to write other software for it. We're not here to debate whether they should or shouldn't do something. The facts are whether they do or don't and the credible reasons for why those choices were made (such as using leverging advancements in code that doesn't exist in older versions of Windows and won't because of the time and resources it would take to provide that new functionality to the older versions of Windows). —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
FWIW, the reason is because the Direct2D APIs that IE9 uses are not available in Windows XP and Microsoft (understandably) doesn't want to backport them just for IE9.--Alpha456 (talk) 22:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
This really isn't the proper forum to discuss why Microsoft has made certain design decisions for IE9. There's an official blog for that. Anything derived from this conversation would be considered WP:OR at best, WP:SYNTHESIS at worst.
--Gyrobo (talk) 15:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


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

The image displaying a score of 93/100 is of a non-default configuration. It has no place in this article, and I have been removing it as well.
--Gyrobo (talk) 22:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I also get 95/100 on two different computer. Illegal Operation (talk) 00:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

For some reason I consistantly get a 13/100. (talk) 20:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC) The above is USER:UNIT_A4B1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

"Internet Explorer 9" or "IE9"?[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

there is more to css3 than border-radius[edit]

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

I agree that border-radius should not be singled out here; IE9 adds support for many, many CSS3 properties. But just keep in mind that selectors and properties are two distinct concepts. It might be more proper to say, "IE9 adds support for more CSS3 selectors and properties".
--Gyrobo (talk) 22:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
IE9 does not support all CSS3 selectors per MSDN ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 00:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
The selectors listed as unsupported on that table are from various forms specs, not part of the Selectors module.
--Gyrobo (talk) 03:26, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Acid3 scores in the release history table[edit]

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

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

CSS3 Selectors[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Please read:
And for historical reference:
DJR2 (talk) 05:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
While IE9 may not support all the pseudo-classes that exist, it certainly supports all the pseudo-classes specified in the Selectors Module, hence, it supports all CSS3 selectors. I brought up your issue at Talk:Comparison of layout engines (Cascading Style Sheets)#Status of non-CSS3 pseudo-classes.
--Gyrobo (talk) 23:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Nice discussion so far. However, much of it seems like a red herring to me, because we're being distracted by "selectors" when the original author intended "properties" (and they were still factually wrong). The fact that IE9 supports selectors is almost pointless because 99% of CSS is based on basic selectors that are nearly universally supported anyway (although I am glad that they're finally supporting more pseudo-classes). I updated the article to say that it supports "several CSS3 properties", which is far more relevant and important to most front-end developers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Auciker (talkcontribs) 22:50, 1 March 2011
Your "several properties" needs a source to explain what "several CSS 3 properties" means, though. Pointillist (talk) 23:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


I don't really know how to edit (nor comment very well), but the preview has updated to version 6. Sources: —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

SunSpider results[edit]

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

It is shown here that after further testing, IE9 does optimize modified codes: unlike earlier report which said that it did not: Illegal Operation (talk) 04:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't see why people want to document every back-and-forth blog post on this issue; I don't believe it's Wikipedia's goal to do something like that. IMHO we should simply state that around PP6/PP7 of IE9 there were some questions asked about the validity of IE9's JS speed tests and provide links to the sources so interested parties can follow up on their own. Based on how emotional people get over topics like this, I don't think everyone will ever be 100% satisfied with any outcome. Some people will always believe Microsoft tried to cheat here, and some people will always doubt anything said about Microsoft by a Mozilla engineer. I'm getting the impression from the way people are editing this article that they're trying to get in the last word that Microsoft did or didn't and it's pretty open to interpretation & belief. (barring that we see a Mea Culpa from Microsoft or Mozilla on this of course) 87Fan (talk) 17:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Agree. The whole thing should be removed as it is not relevant. Illegal Operation (talk) 00:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
dito. mabdul 00:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
I restored the removed section, I think is quite relevant and should be in the article, it may need to be simplified but not totally removed --Chris Ssk talk 20:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
It's not relevant at all. Just because a Mozilla employee came to Wikipedia and add it doesn't mean it's relevant. In face, dead codes optimization has been in IE9 since the very beginning and has been documented by Mozilla on September 9th, 2010, long before Digitizor digged up and spiced the whole story since Internet Explorer 9 Platform Preview 7 is found to beat all other browsers in SunSpider Benchmark. Illegal Operation (talk) 21:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I'm the Mozilla employee who edited this section earlier today. Just wanted to say that I'm perfectly happy with the current state not mentioning this issue at all. I only edited this section because at that time it was actually mentioning Rob Sayre's blog and Microsoft's reply, and I felt that it was mischaracterizing the situation. I agree that it's not Wikipedia's role to report on every polemic issue such as this, so I agree with the decision to remove this section. That said, just to be clear, Rob Sayre's second blog post unambiguously and definitely proves that IE9's Dead Code Elimination code is 1) buggy, in that it compiles incorrectly valid JS code, of which he gives examples in his post, and 2) specially tailored for the 'cordic' part of Sunspider. Although he doesn't use this word, it should be obvious that this qualifies as 'cheating'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

I think it's important to include all information possible. Wikipedia is compendium of knowledge and not censored; we shouldn't be removing content just because it's disagreeable with some parties. If anything, we should be adding to the content, to ensure completion and neutrality.
--Gyrobo (talk) 13:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. Just becuase Mozilla is Microsoft's rival doesn't mean that Mozilla's position is somehow invalid. Reliable sources documented Mozilla's concerns, so I don't see any reason why this information should be excluded. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Mozilla is the one claiming that IE9 sunspider result is invalid and Mozilla is not a neutral party. For example, if Ford Motor Company did a test and claim that the Taurus has better suspensions than the Impala, do you go the Impala article and add "Impala has inferior suspension to the Taurus"?. I discuss every changes I made to the article here on the talk page, but nobody is responding to the talk page unless I made a change to the article which then somebody claim I am in some kind of editing war. I want everybody to do a discussion beforehand not afterward so that conflicted can be avoided. Illegal Operation (talk) 15:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm with you Illegal Operation. Personally I think this whole thing is a case of anti-Microsoft sentiment: I'd bet that articles on other browsers don't detail every nit-pick made against them. Especially those made by the competition. 87Fan (talk) 17:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I also agree, mozilla wants to make ms look bad so they won't be neutral, besides that the whole thing is over 9 milliseconds compared to the length of the test it doesn't really make a difference Mark (talk) 17:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


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

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

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

Fleet Command, Illegal Operation and other people involved, IE9-final is released and this issue was addressed earlier in the development lifecycle. Should we consider removing the Mozilla story now? Also, in the talk section Rehashing IE9 wiki, I have mentioned some benchmarks by Google, Mozilla, Apple, W3C, ECMA yada yada (Acid3 is a joke as compared to these official benchmarks). Those who believe *all* info should be published in the wiki to retain the neutrality, I believe they, would have no problems if I go for the comparison and talk about nitty-gritty of each test (but unfortunately it’s untrue). Conversely, I feel like this is not a good idea to bring up the comparison on the product's wiki and avoid such information which leads to biasness and bulkiness and hence cause distraction to the reader. In short, remove the Moz story & Acid3 from the release history table else incorporate tons of other information which balances and bring about transparency to the reader.
Note: By balance I am implying maximum impartiality. E.g. in Google V8 test MSIE9 is still failing badly behind all the browsers. In other tests ECMA, Sputnik and SunSpider it’s surpassing everything in its way. Please CMIIW. --Pak1standby (talk) 10:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Pre-release vs Final[edit]

The original source for the statement "In preliminary SunSpider benchmarks for the third Internet Explorer 9 Platform Preview, it outperformed the IE8 engine by a factor 10 and also outperformed the newest Firefox 4.0 pre-release" no longer exists: that page now displays the results for the final version of IE9—a reminder that if you use claims from sources that are likely to be updated (or paywalled) in future, it is a good idea to archive them at Personally, I think all the pre-release stuff in this article should be forked to an "Internet Explorer 9 pre-release" article, and the text in this article should be re-built to refer to the final release, using reliable secondary sources wherever possible. - Pointillist (talk) 07:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

New IE9 Beta at Windows 7 Updater[edit]

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

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


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

That's actually a point of contention at #SunSpider results.
--Gyrobo (talk) 19:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Oh I didn't see it thanks. --Malleus Felonius (talk) 15:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
I highly doubt it. IE has a track record for being slow and overall bad. Putting tabs next to the address bar is a horrible move for Microsoft. No room for multiple tabs or viewing of a long address. Also, the only browser to not have a bookmark bar. Ffgamera - My page! · Talk to me!· Contribs 10:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I've been using IE9 Pre-RC (not beta) daily and it's definitely faster than Firefox 4 and Chrome 9. Illegal Operation (talk) 04:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

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

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

What does this show? The screenshots are normally to show the GUI and the level of the layout engine (html2,3,4,5;css and/or js support). but the platform preview can't show anything new than the beta. it has totally no GUI and the rendering engine is the same. mabdul 11:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Thats right, currently preview release in infobox is showing the current release of platform preview (1.9.8023.6000), along the release date and age, rather than Beta (9.0.7930.16406). Imo, that would make sense if both the latest releases of beta and PP versions are displayed there.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
The purpose of screenshots are to demonstrate the GUI that the end users will see, which the betas represent. The platform previews may be more current, but they don't demonstrate the IE9 GUI.
--Gyrobo (talk) 15:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I concur. Fleet Command (talk) 16:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I am not talking about the screenshot. At the left side infobox, where it's written: Preview release 1.9.8023.6000 / November 17, 2010; 13 days ago, can you make it look like: Preview release (Platform Preview) 1.9.8023.6000, (Beta) 9.0.7930.16406. I tried but it didn't rendered..—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Nah! That's overkill. The table is enough. Only a very small minority group (i.e geeks and nerds like me) would like to know that. Of course, I can make that render... but I don't like doing it. 21:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I believe I've updated the infobox in a way that accommodates all viewpoints.
--Gyrobo (talk) 22:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Looks dandy!—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Release Canditate 9.0.8048.6000 (Release Candidate 1)[edit]

Which fortuneteller changed this? Post an exact version number and Release Date 2011 ??? --Lastwebpage (talk) 19:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I reverted it. Per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, of course it's impossible to tell the "build number" of a future release. --Linfocito B ~ Greetings from Colombia. 23:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Actually, that is a IE9 pre-RC build Illegal Operation (talk) 04:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Bugs in Internet Explorer 9 Beta[edit]

Hello, I am currently not skilled enought to edit an article, so I won't mess with it. However, I believe the "question mark bug" should be mentioned in the article: I suggest like this: >>>> Bugs in Internet Explorer 9 Beta

Installation of Internet Explorer 9 Beta causes a question mark to be added to the beginning of the body of every email sent by Windows Live Mail (except Unicode encoded emails). <<<<

References: just google i.e. <<"question mark" mail internet explorer 9 beta>>

Note: In their forums Microsoft advise the uninstallation of IE9 beta to avoid this bug. The bug is present as of 2010-12-31 with all updates installed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ME 7295249134743 (talkcontribs) 11:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

It's beta software and as such has LOTS of known bugs. Listing them in a Wikipedia article is unnecessary -- (talk) 20:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

New Screenshot, where to upload?[edit]

I have a newer screenshot of a more recent version of this software, but I don't know where to upload it. The Wikimedia Commons says "no screenshots!" and a request-to-upload tells me I can't submit an image from my own computer (I took the screenshot myself, so of course it's on my computer).

Am I supposed to upload the file elsewhere, say my own hosted server, and then submit it to be included? That seems like it'd be just as bad as submitting my own file. How can I help contribute?

CmdrKeene (talk) 03:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

although this question should be in WP:Help, on the right side of this ENGLISH WIKIPEDIA is a upload link for such purpose! mabdul 03:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I'd like point out that the Beta used in the screenshot is the latest released version, it shouldnt be replaced by a screenshot of one of the leaked builds. Since you asked though screenshots showing copyrighted software (in this case the UI of IE9) are not suitable for commons, you can upload the screenshot on English wikipedia under fair use claim. In this case since there is a screenshot already you should just update it. --Chris Ssk talk 08:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Tracking Protection[edit]

Internet Explorer 8 has a feature called InPrivate Filtering (not to be be confused with InPrivate Browsing) which offers the same feature set as what IE9 calls Tracking Protection with minor differences.

  • InPrivate Filtering had to be turned on every time IE8 was closed and re-opened but with a registry tweak, it could be made permanently on. Tracking Protection remains on once turned on.
  • There are two ways in which both InPrivate Filtering and Tracking Protection build their lists. One is an automated learning way in which the browser learns over time and builds a list by observing the 3rd party servers that users kept interacting with as they browsed the web, and once a server showed up more than a set number of times, the browser would block future connections to it. Second way is by specifying a pre-defined list yourself by clicking Import in "Advanced settings" of IE8 or in case of IE9, going to this page and clicking on a list. In IE8, the first way is the default and the second is optional. In IE9, the second is the default and the first still avaiable by going to Tools menu -> Tracking Protection. Either way, the only difference is a name change and "Tracking Protection" is a feature MS make more prominent by marketing it.

So, I think we can say Tracking Protection is the next incarnation of InPrivate Filtering and not a new feature. The article should highlight that. Like by saying, InPrivate Filtering has been renamed Tracking Protection in IE9 wherein the default behavior is to block third party domains by using pre-defined lists instead of automatically building the list based on the websites the user visited. - xpclient Talk 05:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

InPrivate browsing is still a feature in IE9 and is very different than tracking protection. Tracking protection is simply designed to block sites from tracking your online activity. Inprivate browsing stores none of your cookies, history, cache, or anything locally. They're both completely different things with very different intended purposes. -- (talk) 20:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Obviously, you didn't even read the first line of what I wrote. - xpclient Talk 04:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Criticism/Reception Section[edit]


I've noticed that a section for Criticism has recently been added. I support this section and its content, but suggest that the section be changed to "Reception" be open to the inclusion of all media response, including positive response. Sounds fair right? Any disagreement? Captain Stack (talk) 20:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The section should also be expanded significantly. Most of the coverage I have seen of IE9 has been positive, so we'll need to include those references so the current criticism is not undue weight. –CWenger (talk) 21:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Because an IP add an additional the Reception headline, I removed the Criticism headline and add the correct expand template. Feel free to improve the section ;) mabdul 12:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


criticism, bias or simply trolling?

ahahaha, wheres the criticism section now? my guess would be the "criticism" just became widely accepted like the joke wtg wikipedia aka "trolls united"

Look at #Criticism/Reception Section. mabdul 00:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
how about svg animations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Do you have any reference? mabdul 08:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

w3c? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

BTW, Doug Schepers at W3C says "Since the SVG WG intends to coordinate with the CSS WG to make some changes to animation and to extend filters, it's probably best that IE9 doesn't lock those into their current states. Microsoft is participating in that process, so I'm confident that whatever emerges will end up in a future release of Internet Explorer." (here). - Pointillist (talk) 11:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


do we really need both sections?

oops, as of late feb 2011 microsoft claims that ie9rc is the fastest browser on sunspider. how do we find relieable sources that neither google nor apple have objected thus far?

wait, young padawan. there will be independent source that prove that... or not ... mabdul 00:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I merged both sections as they are really for the same... mabdul 18:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Primary sources for "Improvements on previous versions" section[edit]

This "Improvements" section contains claims like "improved", "significant", "faster" and "outperformed", all of which are either unsourced or sourced to a Microsoft site (IEBlog, MSDN articles, the Windows website and That's a misuse of primary sources. One way to fix it would be to prepend "Microsoft claims" before each statement, but that would be clumsy. Another would be integrate the "Reception" section so that there are secondary sources for the claims. However, the claims refer to specific platform previews, and secondary sources refer to other previews or the release candidate. Even the primary sources have moved on, e.g. the claim about the SunSpider benchmarks for Platform Preview 3 dates from July 2010 but the editor who kindly sourced it unfortunately didn't archive Microsoft's source page, which now refers to the Release Candidate. We could try rewrite the whole thing to refer to the RC, but unfortunately not many reliable sources have reviewed it, since they already reviewed earlier previews.

So it all a bit of a nightmare to source properly at the moment. I suggest we accept this is inevitable until IE9 actually ships, at which point there should be sufficient third-party reviews to source the whole section. In the meantime, we need to display some warning so that readers are aware that the section relies almost entirely on primary Microsoft sources. Is that OK with everyone here? - Pointillist (talk) 11:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

No, not okay with me. Conspiracy theories like this have never been okay with me. Things are not at all so bad that you are trying to make them look like. Also, I hate this popular game of Microsoft bashing which you are playing now. If one source does not verify the associated statement, put a {{verification failed}} tag beside it. Otherwise, don't try to vaccinate people against the "Microsoft"-iness of things by absuing problem tags to put disclaimers in the article because use of primary sources in this case is completely okay. Fleet Command (talk) 06:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
This is just about primary sources. Having trawled through the reviews to write the "Reception" section (diff) – which I hope you will agree is unbiased – I know that it is difficult to avoid using Microsoft as source for many statements. But nevertheless, editors should try to find third-party sources, they should be careful about balance, and they mustn't just cut-and-paste from Microsoft's websites. For example: "has a separate background thread for compiling JavaScript. Windows runs that thread in parallel on a separate core when one is available. Compiling in the background enables users to keep interacting with webpages while IE generates even faster code. By running separately in the background, this process can take advantage of today’s multi-core machines" is a word-for-word copyvio of IEBlog. Labelling basic good editing practices as "conspiracy theories" and saying that I'm "Microsoft bashing" is way over the top. The only thing I want to bash is lazy editing. - Pointillist (talk) 09:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, copyvio is unacceptable. I personally delete copyvio on sight. (That is, if I can tell it.) But why should editors avoid Microsoft sources? I think they shouldn't. Microsoft sources are reliable, especially when it comes to technical matters. Fleet Command (talk) 09:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I do also think that MS sources are ok for this article. This is a widely acceptable methode in referencing technical articles/statements mostly while there are no other sources. This is normally not a problem(since nobody - the company of the product - will tell its users false statements) although speed statements and summaries for the (web) standard support may be proved by an external source for example by ars since there can be discrepants of the reality. mabdul 10:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Windows 2000[edit]

Is it true they are realising it now??? no w2k support whatsoever planned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshuatee (talkcontribs) 08:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Right, Win XP also is not supported. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I hope sane heads will preveal over trolling or advertising tricks.[edit]

I'm Firefox user, and i heavily rely on firefox to carry out my browsing. Yet i read a lot of opinions, that are either fanatically loving IE 9, or fanatically hating IE 9. A this point, i belive these opinions are either form microsoft people posing as users or microsoft competition posing as users trolling each other. At this rate, i cannot find any real or usefull review or opinion, so unlike such people, i will give MSIE 9 a chance. i will test it to see if i like it, for my browsing for my criteria. After that i will decide if i like it or not. Beta and Release candidate versions, are not final and complete code, so i will not bother messing arround with them. I will wait the final release, i will download te final release, and i will test the final release of IE 9 before making any decisions. (talk) 15:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

and there is now the ad? Do you want to help use improving the article? Your own opinion doesn't matter in any encyclopedia... mabdul 17:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding HTML5 Media[edit]

According to the source (44 atm) it seems to me that you would need to install a codec to get WebM or similar to work through the Media Foundation. Although a plug-in would be accurate description, it would appear a bit misleading to me. GeirGrusom (talk) 08:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

You can find the plug-in for WebM for IE9 here: [1]. There may be some minor issues with some video card drivers but on my computer it works perfectly in IE9. There are no problems anymore with the videosite YouTube playing in IE9. JoJan (talk) 09:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Rehashing IE9 wiki[edit]

Well, its time to rehash the wiki. Do we need the release-history table anymore? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pak1standby (talkcontribs) 14:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Why not? maybe there will be a sp1 or a 9.1. other browser articles have a similar table (seamonkey) included or at least every release as text (firefox 3.6). mabdul 17:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
That's right, but there is sufficient content about those interim releases in Development section, should we consider tailoring it? Also, the Acid3 test is stretched too much in this table and rest of the article. There are number of other benchmarks, none of them is made by MS but apple, google, mozilla and ECMA, like:
…in each of which IE9 have significant improvement over IE8. Is there a specific reason to choose Acid3? AFAIK , its even unofficial as opposed to W3C and ECMA benchmark testsuits. I don’t think dropping Acid3 from table would cause vandalism. CMIIW. --Pak1standby (talk) 18:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Did you have any statistics? I mean did you or anybody can post reliable sources and we can include this in the IE9 article. The BIG problem is that Acid3 is really popular and Opera and WebKit pass these tests. The other (new) tests are not tested constantly by the press. mabdul 19:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I personally find the development history and the release table interesting. I also think that Acid 3 has become a bit of a rubber stamp and from what I understand (not that i'm a web developer) it's not a very comprehensive test. This means that you can make a browser pass 100% that sucks to develop for and you can have one that doesn't pass 100% that is fine. I also believe the last 5 standards that IE9 doesn't pass are unconfirmed HTML5 tests that are likely to be dropped or changed. Further details regarding Acid 3 and standards compliance should be added I think. Captain Stack (talk) 23:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I was thinking exactly the same way, that ACID3 test is the right criteria to technically compare everything about the brower, until I found a post on MSDN by IE personnel claiming that these tests don't actually measure how "well" the standard is followed by the vendor (it’s the matter of subjectivity instead). And then I encountered this ticket, about HTML's base element, which was submitted on connect website (feedback portal for MS products). Apparently MSIE9 was behaving weird and IE8 and other browsers were having a correct behavior. But, if you start reading the comments, you will see w3c standard ( is not detailing the nitty-gritty of that standard which covers all the scenarios, and every browser has its own implementation. FF varies from Safari and IE etc. etc. Later in the comments, it was evident that MSIE9 has made the correct implementation. Untimately, a web-developer or designer start complaining about the wrong implementation of the standard unless they cross-examine all the possible scenarios. JMHO, there should be some website which educates the clientele community, the full understanding of committed standard by ECMA and W3C with enhanced examples covering all the possible scenarios attached to the standard. Conversely, the test cases of Acid3 might not be covering all the scenarios relating to the standard, but why not make the comparison with the official test-beds which do incorporate some level of subjectivity (more in-depth analysis):
PC = dell inspiron 1564 (corei3, 4GB RAM)
MAC = MacAir OSX 10.6.6
IE9 fails only 18 out of 10456 tests <-- which is the best thus far compared to any browser, any version till date
IE9 fails only 66 out of 5246 tests <-- which is the best thus far compared to any browser, any version till date
IE9 on PC: 549.4ms +/- 2.3% <-- compared to Chrome 10.8.63beta on Mac: 2832.1ms +/- 23.2%, Safari 5 on same PC: 677.3ms +/- 10.1%, FF4RC1 on same PC: 756.5ms +/- 4.6%
IE9 on PC: 25694.2ms +/- 1.0% <-- Chrome 10.8.63beta on Mac: ???, Safari on same PC: 31504.2ms +/- 11.2%, FF4RC1 on same PC: 11379.8ms +/- 3.6%, but far better than IE8 !!
IE9 on PC scores: 662 <-- Chrome 10.8.63beta on MacAir OSX10.6.6: 1721, Safari on PC: 997, FF4RC1 on PC: 886, but far better than IE8 !!
Finally, MS's GPU-accelarated-graphics test
IE9 on PC: 1784 rev/s <--- Chrome 10.8.63beta on MacAir OSX10.6.6: 0 (ZERO!!!) rev/s (failed!!), Safari on PC: 12 rev/s, FF4RC1 on PC: 1764 rev/s
Also, check out for CSS2.1 standards support in various browsers.
If you collectively compare these, it is evident that the vendor-specific test suites have some level of biasness involve. Like MS, Google-V8 & Mozilla. Googlelab’s sputnik on the other hand is however strictly following the ECMA standards similarly webkit’s sunspider test. But ECMA test suite and CSS results are most appropriate if you are seeking greater reliability.
Now in Release History table, if I make a column for webkit's sunspider or other 'known' tests in which MSIE9 is at the top, it won't be fair either for a wiki page. We need to compile a detailed comparison sheet for it, probably separate wiki pages "Comparison b/w web-browsers in terms of standard support" and "... in terms of performance support", like those already exist for ECMA and CSS support. --Pak1standby (talk) 23:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
OK. I know all of these test and that only "all tests" represent a "full picture" of the reality. But you missed something: a) we have not any reliable source and b) you tested this only with one IE 9 (final?) version. what about the platform previews? Even if you would test them, you are not a reliable source... mabdul 00:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
But after all this atleast existence of Acid3 test, which is not an official benchmark, alone can be reconsidered to remove from release history section, which is indeed the very first section among the contents of wiki page.--Pak1standby (talk) 00:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Would anyone please post some image which depicts the GPU-acc-graphics rendering in IE9? Also, for the pinned sites etc. Would be great if we post the images for SunSpider, ECMA and other benchmarks too instead of Acid3 alone to demonstrate IE9-final's significant improvement over IE8 (since we don't have refrenced-data/citations for the prev nightly/under developed releases. atleast we can plug a screenshot of the benchmark results) ?? --Pak1standby (talk) 00:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
OK, that is indeed possible. Have in the moment only access to win xp PCs, so anybody else have to do this... mabdul 13:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
i happen to have a designated for abusue w2008r2 handy though im hardly a relieble source — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshuatee (talkcontribs) 18:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

{{Infobox web browser}} versus {{Infobox Windows component}}[edit]

Recently, our friend User:Illegal Operation replaced the {{Infobox web browser}} in the article with a {{Infobox Windows component}}. I contested his edit per WP:BRD and it is now time to talk.

I strongly believe that Infobox Windows component that Illegal Operation added is redundant. You see, it gives no useful information to the reader. Screenshot, logo, name, type, support status and operating system information are equally conveyed by both templates. However, that is the very limit of Infobox Windows component template. It gives no additional useful information. (Actually, it did contain links to other versions of IE, but we have a whole infobox for that.)

What do you think guys? Which one should we keep? Fleet Command (talk) 09:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe Windows component would be more appropriate like IE8 and other IE family pages. Your call! --Pak1standby (talk) 09:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
What do all the other web browser use as an infobox template? IE should use the same thing. Anything different is just trolling. 87Fan (talk) 17:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
At the moment IE9 is not a component of Win. It is a additional package. Should in future be released a windows version with ie9 preinstalled then it can get the other infobox tempalte. mabdul 18:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
What is used on other IE pages does not apply here. IE9 was released on its own, unlike the previous versions that were released as part of an OS, {{Infobox web browser}} is more appropriate. --Chris Ssk talk 20:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
On its own?? IE9 is a component of windOS. When you update IE8 to IE9, all the associated components such as JS engine, desktop-gadgets, MSXML, MSHTML, n/w components etc. are updated. Checkout the answer of the last question "Okay, so why offer 64bit IE at all? " on (talk) 00:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
There are several reasons that I've chosen {{Infobox Windows component}}. 1) For consistency. Previous versions of Internet Explorer uses the {{Infobox Windows component}}. 2) Internet Explorer 9 IS part of Windows. Sure, it didn't shipped with Windows 7, but it comes through Automatic update. 3) Internet Explorer update Trident engine and other components which is part of Windows. Illegal Operation (talk) 00:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Alright, people, please pay attention. First, in Wikipedia, voting does not replace consensus. So, if some of you think something, you must also provide reasons. (If you don't, your vote might be ignored.)

Second, consistency is not enough a good reason. Consistency with something that is wrong is unwarranted. If you want consistency, first find out the right choice (which is not necessarily one of the two I mentioned above) and then we enforce consistency across all IE articles.

Third, infobox is merely a form of information presentation. There is no obligation (be it moral, legal, policy-based, guideline-based or otherwise) as to which infobox to use based on the nature of the Internet Explorer software as a Windows component. Even if there is a need, we can change infobox template. But we here don't discard useful encyclopedic information simply because an arbitrary name of a template that none other than hardcore Wikipedians knows what it is.

Eventually, I think only one thing dictates which infobox to use: Do we need to say something that our infobox does not support saying it? Fleet Command (talk) 07:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

At the moment IE9 won't be shipped by Windows update. My Win7 copy don't get it even as an optional copy. Maybe because I'm from Germany (EU)? mabdul 13:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
No, Internet Explorer 9 was offered on download. Go to [2] to download it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deadly Coordinates (talkcontribs) 14:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The Internet Explorer 9 section of the "Internet Explorer" page needs serious work[edit]

Hey guys. The Internet Explorer 9 page is in pretty good condition (always room for improvement!) but the "Internet Explorer 9" section of the general "Internet Explorer" page is really quite a mess. It has all sorts of weird things like "Some industry experts predict that Microsoft will release IE9 as a major out-of-band version that is not tired to any particular version of Windows". Stuff like this needs to be cleaned out now that the final version has been released. I think a rewrite of the section would help majorly, or perhaps lifting a lot of content from the specific "Internet Explorer 9" page that is much more updated and well written. Would write a draft myself, but Internet Explorer isn't really my forte. I'd love some help on this one, thanks Captain Stack (talk) 08:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok so I did write a draft myself (read it below this section). I think it flows much better. It needs refs (I'll begin to add them myself). I'd please like some thumbs up from other editors before I put this in the article. Feel free to add hyperlinks, refs, and edit for spelling/grammar/flow/content. When I feel the draft is worthy, I'll add it to the main article. Thanks a lot. Captain Stack (talk) 09:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Draft of improved "Internet Explorer 9" section[edit]

[[File:Windows Internet Explorer 9.png|thumb|right|200px|Internet Explorer 9 running on Windows 7]]

Main article: Internet Explorer 9

Internet Explorer 9 was released on 14 March 2011. Development for Internet Explorer 9 began shortly after the release of Internet Explorer 8 (19 March 2009). Microsoft began taking feedback and suggestions through Microsoft Connect. Microsoft first announced Internet Explorer 9 at PDC 2009 and spoke mainly about how it takes advantage of hardware acceleration in DirectX to improve the performance of web applications and improve the quality of web typography. At MIX 10, Microsoft showed and publically released the first Platform Preview for Internet Explorer 9, a frame for IE9’s engine not containing any UI of the browser. Leading up to the release of the final browser, Microsoft released updated platform previews approximately every 6 weeks which featured improved javascript performance, improved HTML, CSS and DOM standards support as well as additional new HTML5 standards support. Ultimately, 8 platform previews were released. The first public beta was released at a special event in San Francisco, which was themed around “the beauty of the web”. The release candidate was released on 10 February 2011 and featured improved performance, refinements to the UI, and further standards support. The final version was released during the South by Southwest (SXSW) music and film festival in Austin, Texas on 14 March 2011.

Internet Explorer 9 only runs on Windows Vista and Windows 7 and supports several CSS 3 properties (including border-radius, box-shadow, etc.), embedded ICC v2 or v4 color profiles support via Windows Color System, and has faster JavaScript performance. It also features hardware accelerated graphics rendering using Direct2D, hardware-accelerated text rendering using DirectWrite, hardware-accelerated video rendering using Media Foundation, imaging support provided by Windows Imaging Component, and high fidelity printing powered by the XPS print pipeline. IE9 also supports the HTML5 video and audio tags and the Web Open Font Format.

93 languages supported[edit]

I think this is a good info to add to this article. But I'm not sure which section it should go to.

Internet Explorer 9 top for dialect support, 93 languages now available -Abhishikt 20:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry, it is already in the article infobox. I used a better source. Fleet Command (talk) 20:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Your source is primary, which is not necessarily better. I looked at the comments on that page and saw: Mozillian 25 May 2011 11:02 PM. 53 of these IE 9 are partially translated language packs, "Windows 7 Language Interface Packs (LIPs) provide a translated version of the most widely used areas of the user interface." Mozilla provides 86 fully translated versions of Firefox so the comparison is not entirely honest here. Could you please check that? It is possible the infobox should read "40 languages (complete) plus 53 (partial support)". Thanks - Pointillist (talk) 22:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
WinRumors is a self-published personal blog that only reblogs Microsoft source. Hence, we'd better quote the reliable source, IEBlog. As for the comment, comments are not reliable sources. Let's keep the sentiments aside: Right now, we want a number for the infobox only. IEBlog is a good enough source. Fleet Command (talk) 07:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm happy to let it go—it isn't likely that we'll find a genuinely better source for such a specific piece of data, and I suppose translating the most widely used areas of the UI is sufficient, because anyone doing advanced stuff on the Wintel platform probably needs some command of techie English anyway. - Pointillist (talk) 11:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh, yeah. That too. I do have the experience myself: You can't really translate a piece of software for a tribe that until yesterday worshiped Xerj, the God of Oververse and discovered the computer just today. Fleet Command (talk) 17:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


What is the official slogan of Internet Explorer 9? Deadly Coordinates (talk) 14:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

"Fast is Now Beautiful". --Pak1standby (talk) 15:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Criticism section is lacking completly[edit]

I found this (again) from 16 feb 2011:

In February 2011, Firefox developer Paul Rouget was widely reported in the media as "slamming" Microsoft for its description of Internet Explorer 9 as a "modern browser",[1][2] stating that it is two years out of date with competing browsers such as Firefox and Chrome, lacks support for a substantial part of modern browser standards, and shows poor compliance in industry standard and independent compliance tests (themselves criticized by Microsoft).[3]

Other developers and users criticize the abandonment of the Windows XP operating system, which at February 2011 still had 55% market share compared to 34% for Vista and Windows 7 combined, and note that contrary to Microsoft's claims that this was due to inability to support hardware acceleration, other browsers can and do use hardware acceleration on Windows XP.[4] Along with lack of a spellchecker, this was reported as "one of the most frequently encountered criticisms" of IE9.[4]


The suspicion that fanboys and marketing department removed criticism doesn't seem far fetched. There's numerous problems with the browser hodgepod from Microsoft.Electron9 (talk) 17:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it makes much more sense to have a "Reception" section and include a more holistic collection of the industry response to Internet Explorer. I've heard a lot of praise for IE9 and furthermore, having a section for responses from Chrome and Firefox seems questionable. Of course the folks of Mozilla won't have anything nice to say about Internet Explorer, but they're not representative of the industry response. Captain Stack (talk) 19:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
The whole existence of a criticism section is blatant violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, one of the main pillars of Wikipedia: Such section, turns articles into a battlefield where proponents fill the entire article while opponents fill a separate criticism section. However, the articles must instead be written from a pragmatic standpoint and explanation of strong points and shortcomings must come together whenever context mandates.
And, Electron9, please do not accuse others being "fanboys" without evidence. Please comment on the contents, not people. Fleet Command (talk) 19:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
A whole article with only traces of that there may be problems with the product seems too good to be true. I read of several problems with this browser compared to earlier versions. At least problems should be listed in an easy to find way.Electron9 (talk) 01:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
That is true. I don't generally object, but as far as Wikipedia concerns, we need neutral point of view as well as citation from the reliable source. The criticism that you brought above is riddled with weasel words. "Widely slammed" by whom? "Most frequently encountered", where and by whom?
The only reliable source that I see above is PC Pro, and that is acceptable only on the condition that the accuracy of Mozilla developers' statement be testified via other independent sources. Unfortunately, you will see that independent sources contradict this statement on the point of standard compliance.
So, generally speaking, you are more than welcome to find reliable sources and add criticism to the article. But be aware that you will not find much: Internet Explorer 9 is a surprisingly good web browser, especially in comparison to its predecessor. I can register major objections to it, but unfortunately reliable sources are yet unwilling to take mine into consideration. Fleet Command (talk) 09:30, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Only good in comparision with it predecessors, not with competitors. There's been several compatibility issues, most likely Javascript. That ought to be included. Microsoft has yet again interpretated the standards in a "unique" manner. I'll see if I find the time to lookup material on this. Electron9 (talk) 13:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Criticism about image quality[edit]

I found that high quality jpgs are rendered fine in IE9 but at reduced quality in Firefox and Chrome on my Windows 7 machine. But on my Mac or Windows XP machine the jpgs are rendered fine in all browsers. Anyone else notice this? I have a sneaking suspicion Microsoft is doing something dodgy to make the images not render well on the other browsers on my Windows 7 machine with IE9 installed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

So I uninstalled IE9 and now the image quality on Firefox and Chrome has been restored! (talk) 09:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Which images are you talking about?--Luca Ghio (talk) 13:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
No such issue here. Anyway, we need source if this is to go into the article. Fleet Command (talk) 18:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

IE10 is in beta[edit]

Stupid site hated my link to the Microsoft's official site. It's not exactly like MS are hiding the link, though. Just try to go download IE9 and it'll ask if you want to try out IE10.

This article will be obsolete in about 2 months... (talk) 08:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Your link already exists in the "External links" section. See Internet Explorer 10 article.--Luca Ghio (talk) 13:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

animated-gif performance?[edit]

is it worth mentioning the the absolutely Horrible animated gif rendering performance? (example: ) (talk) 15:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Only if you have a reliable source.--Luca Ghio (talk) 16:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

IE9 version 9.0.8112.16466[edit]

I just saw my IE9 version updated to version 9.00.8112.16466 (see the IEexplore.exe property). Worth mentioning? -- (talk) 11:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I think so, it could be added to the release table, ( Ziiike (talk) 23:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

What's new with this version? All I know that the version changed with the update of -- (talk) 22:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

It says it is a security update, so you could say that is new, otherwise, I think the point of this version is to fix errors. Ziiike (talk) 00:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The version info can only be viewed if you check the property of "iexplorer.exe." If you view the about screen it shows 9.0.8112.16421. -- (talk) 15:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Internet Explorer 9 Final Release is shown as: 9.0.8112.16421, also per Release History. However, people keep updating the stable release in the Infobox ~ now currently showing:
  • Stable release 9.0.26 (April 8, 2014; 3 months ago)
If I look at the Microsoft download page, here (as viewed on a Windows Vista 64-bit system):
I still see (expand Details) version: 9.0.8112.16421 (release date 3/14/2011 ~ 2011-03-13)
Maybe there are some development releases, but clearly it does seem that v9.0.8112.16421 is the latest (and final) supported release of IE9. Comments?
Enquire (talk) 00:25, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


Smartscreen has page Microsoft_SmartScreen (talk)

Xbox 360[edit]

Internet Explorer 9 is available on the Xbox 360, however, only in a beta build (as of system software 2.0.16091.0). If this can be mentioned, here is the best reference to use for now (from the blog of Larry Hryb):

<ref>{{cite web | url = | title = 2012 Xbox LIVE Update Public Beta Now Available | author = [[Larry Hryb]] | date = 2012-07-26 | accessdate = 2012-07-28 }}</ref>

Lightsup55 ( T | C ) 01:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

MS-EULA again[edit]

The version in the last comment in this thread is implemented per consensus in WP:DRN case. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:26, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

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


Not long ago I reverted an edit by Ziiike (talk · contribs) who changed the license type of Internet Explorer from "freeware" to "MS-EULA". A discussion took place in User talk:Codename Lisa § Freeware and MS EULA which seems to have satisfied Ziiike; we reached a consensus.

Today, Schapel (talk · contribs) seems to have done the same controversial change; so it seems we should discuss this once and for all.

First, what is the meaning of MS-EULA? It is short for "Microsoft End-User License Agreement". It means a license agreement of Microsoft Corporation. Contrary to some people's belief, MS-EULA is not a uniform licensing scheme like GPL. Every single Microsoft product has its own unique MS-EULA. That product may be freeware, free and open-source, proprietary or even proprietary and bound a non-disclosure contract.

Now, the word "freeware" tells the reader two things: The product is proprietary software (a.k.a closed source) and the product is available free of charge. Even FSF, which says "freeware" is vague, agrees on these two basic points. Please do take note that there is no single word that represents ten pages of Windows 8's or Internet Explorer's license agreement; and in the infobox, we don't have the luxury of fitting those ten pages. So, "freeware" is perhaps the best compromise for the time being.

Best regard,
Codename Lisa (talk) 16:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Internet Explorer is not freeware. It requires a Windows license to use it [3] You may not use it if you do not have a license for the software., and a Windows license costs money. If IE were freeware, I could run IE legally without paying any money at all. -- Schapel (talk) 17:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
That is completely correct. And that is exactly why "freeware" is chosen. "Freeware" is not an accurate type of license. As my dear friend User talk:John Biancato reminded me, a free plug-ins for a commercial product is still freeware. Likewise, a free DLC for a commercial video game is still freeware. You need to pay money for using Windows regardless of whether you have IE9 or not, and you can download IE9 regardless of the fact that you have Windows or not. In addition, the end result of using IE9 is the same as the end result of using any other freeware for Windows, like Opera, CCleaner, etc.: You have to pay money for Windows but not the freeware.
In addition, notable software publishers use the term "freeware" to describe IE9's licensing scheme. See [4], [5], [6]
Now, MS-EULA has a big problem. It has zero sense. Saying "MS-EULA" is the same as saying "some license by Microsoft". Okay, what license? Some license! If you leave the license field empty, it is the same as writing MS-EULA. (This not the case with GPL; GPL clauses are uniformly defined.) Even if freeware didn't seem like a good word,
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 19:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Searchtool-80%.png Response to third opinion request:
First of all, MS-EULA is indeed an acronym for Microsoft End-User License Agreement, which may differ not only from product to product, but also from one version of any given product to another version, so MS-EULA is definitely a bad choice of wording. On the other hand, unlike the freeware plugins for commercial products IE is not allowed to be used without valid Windows license. I would note that download sites are not particularly reliable sources for this information, and definitely are not better sources then Microsoft itself. Thus I would recommend using

|license=[[Proprietary software|Proprietary]]<ref>{{citation |url= |title=Windows Internet Explorer 9 for Microsoft Windows 7, Windows Vista, Windows Server 2008, and Windows Server 2008 R2 |work=[[Mcirosoft]] |accessdate=2012-08-26 |quote=If you are licensed to use Microsoft Windows 7, Windows Vista, Windows Server 2008, or Windows Server 2008 R2 software (for which this supplement is applicable) (the “software”), you may use this supplement.}}</ref>.

— Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I agreed; with a couple of comments.
First, in this specific context, publishers are perfect sources. See WP:COMMONNAME. Second, we don't have to be so vague. "Proprietary; free for license owners of Windows" is also correct. (We can refine the wording.)
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 20:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
First, the question has nothing to do with titles, so WP:COMMONNAME just isn't relevant, while download sites qualify for several criteria of Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources § Questionable sources. Second, infoboxes are supposed to be succinct presentation of profile data, and the less wordy they are, the more they are useful. You might have noticed that I spent quite a lot of time between delisting your WP:3O request and answering it — all of this time was spent on thinking over brief explanation of the issue, that would be suitable for infobox; the shortest was:

|license=[[Freeware]] for Windows licensees

But it is too long still. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
It isn't required for an info box entry be one or two words, only that it is as succinct as possible while still remaining informative. Many infobox entries are longer than a few words, as there is no arbitrary limit, just best judgement. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 20:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, best judgment appears to be not good at all very frequently. There is no point in having Infobox, if parsing it requires considerable time — one may use this time to read an article instead. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
The phrase freeware for Windows licensees is tortured. Once you've paid for Windows, you can use any software that comes with Windows without paying extra money. But you might as well use the phrase freeware for X licensees for any software that you pay money for -- once you've paid your money for it, you don't have to pay more. IE is part of Windows, it's proprietary software that you must pay to use. -- Schapel (talk) 20:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Not, actually. It is a software, which is genuinly distributed free of charge, but only for specific uses. Compare it to "free for non-commercial use" for example. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello again. I agree with "Freeware for Windows licensees". So, what do you say, Dennis? Czarkoff? Can we declare a consensus or should I attempt to obtain more participants? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 20:45, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm here via WP:3O, so my opinion doesn't count in determining consensus. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Internet Explorer is freeware for Windows licensees in exactly the same way as Photoshop is freeware for Photoshop licensees. IE is part of Windows, and is not available as a separate download that can be used without a Windows license. It has exactly the same licensing as Windows, proprietary commercial software. You have to pay to use it, so it isn't freeware at all! -- Schapel (talk) 21:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
There is a huge difference between "X is freeware for Y licensees" and "X is free for X licensees", as the first one resolves to freeware for 86% of desktop users (according to Wikimedia stats of July 2012). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand what your point is. You're saying that because 86% of desktop users pay for Windows, it's freeware for 86% of people, who are the Windows licensees? Windows costs money. It isn't freeware. Every part of Windows which is not available for download and use without a Windows license is proprietary commericial software. Those 86% of users paid Microsoft, directly or indirectly, for the license to run that software. I cannot legally download Internet Explorer under Wine even if it works, because I haven't paid Microsoft money for the right to run it. IE is in no way freeware. It costs money to run. On the other hand, if I could download Minesweeper (or any other part of Windows) and run it under Wine legally, then that would be freeware because I could run it for free without paying Microsoft money. -- Schapel (talk) 22:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Plain wrong. Nobody ever paid Microsoft for using Internet Explorer, and statement that IE license costs money is violation of WP:SYNTH. This is a software, which is licensed free of charge, but has deployment restrictions. Compare it with Adobe Reader, which is free to use for anyone not involved in development of PDF software. Or compare it to any "free for non-commercial use" software. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:19, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Everyone who has ever run Windows has paid money to Microsoft for running Internet Explorer. One of the conditions for running IE is owning a valid Windows license, which costs money. It's in fact a part of Windows, which costs money. I don't need to pay Adobe money to run Adobe Reader. It's freeware -- I can run it without giving the company money. IE is not freeware -- there must be an exchange of money for a license, without which I cannot run it. -- Schapel (talk) 00:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Being nearly part of pay-for-license product is being pay-for-license product: IE is available separately and doesn't necessarily come preinstalled with Windows. It is software that any Windows user can download and use free of charge, if complies with license restrictions. Enforcing the legal use of the only supported platform has nothing to do with licensing costs, which are exactly 0. Moreover, you can't buy a license for IE if you are not going to use it on Windows, so IE definitely is not pay-for-license software. And no, you have to pay Adobe if you develop eg. Evince and want to use Adobe Reader. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
No, users cannot use IE free of charge. They had to pay Microsoft the license for Windows. It's just like saying that any Photoshop user can download and use the newest version of Photoshop if they comply with the licensing, and therefore it is freeware. It's completely misleading. You have to pay to use Photoshop, in exactly the same way you must pay to use Internet Explorer. Explain to me how I can download and use Internet Explorer legally without paying Microsoft any money, and you have an argument for calling it freeware. -- Schapel (talk) 14:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, you can take your PC running Windows and download IE free of charge, as almost all the European IE users currently do. Your argument about Window's price can be easily translated to iPhone: to use iPhone freeware user has to pay for iPhone. Or without IE: users have to buy PC to acquire IE, so the price of PC is also the price of IE. Hope now you see the ridiculousness of this not freeware IE idea.
See, freeware is software that can be used free of charge, not without restrictions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
To run Windows, you had to pay Microsoft money. Part of that money pays for Internet Explorer, which is part of Windows, and requires a Windows license to run. Internet Explorer is not part of the PC, and you can acquire a PC without giving Microsoft any money. You can acquire freeware from company X for the iPhone without giving company X any money. Hope now you see that you must pay money to Microsoft to use IE, and is therefore not free of charge. -- Schapel (talk) 16:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I give up. I don't know how to communicate that you are wrong, and I leave this task for someone with more patience. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Schapel
I do see your points and the value in it; that is why Czarkoff suggested that phrase. But I do not see what do you still disagree with, when your point of view is well integrated into the new wording. Do you have a significantly better idea which have not disclosed yet?
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 17:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to interfere, however, maybe we can say:

Freeware - MS-EULA

Codename Lisa said that every Microsoft software that is MS-EULA licensed has it's own form of License like the GPL, and the MS-EULA, I think anyway. However if the MS-EULA software could be Freeware, open source closed source etc., Perhaps it would be best for all the Microsoft software articles that are dual governed with an actual license and Microsoft's MS-EULA to state the license form and "MS-EULA"? Maybe a possibly?

Ziiike (talk) 02:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC) b>Join WER

Actually, I said quite the opposite. I said:

"MS-EULA" is word that gives absolutely zero info to our readers. MS-EULA (Microsoft end-user license agreement) is not a fixed thing. Every Microsoft product has its own unique MS-EULA. Some are free and open-source, some are given to select customers under the terms of strict nondisclosure. (This is in contrast with GPL v2 or CC-BY-SA v3.0 that are fixed things.) Therefore, writing MS-EULA only tells the reader that this product's licensor is Microsoft. We already have "developer" and "author" fields for that.

So, sorry, it is probably not possible. Still, thanks for participating.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 05:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I think 'MS-EULA' is exactly the correct response under the heading 'License'. The question isn't 'what is the cost', or 'what are the terms and conditions', it is 'License'. The answer is 'The Microsoft End User Licence'. To say that it is not a fixed thing is irrelevant as obviously, the context is 'Internet Explorer 9' - the title of the article and of the infobox. 'What is the license for Microsoft Internet Explorer 9?' 'The relevant Microsoft EULA for Microsoft Internet Explorer 9'. The word freeware has all kinds of other connotations that absolutely do not apply to MSIE - freeware not only doesn't require payment, but usually comes with no restrictions on what you do with it, what operating system you run it on (provided you can get it to run); it usually means that there is no support, no updates, no warranty, no one to sue if it screws up your machine or your business. None of this applies to MSIE, or big businesses would not pay out for Microsoft licenses in order to be able to roll out MSIE across all their desktops, and then to buy in all their intranet, training, CRM, Sharepoint and other internal content on the basis that MSIE will run it all per the Microsoft sales pitch. --Nigelj (talk) 17:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
The documentation suggests that the question is: "which are the terms of use?", so MS-EULA is exactly the wrong answer. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, I was going to say that 'MS-EULA' accurately describes all the relevant terms of use too (if anybody actually reads it). I was going to add that if the infobox designers wanted 'terms of use' they should say so, and not display the word 'license'. But then I looked at the documentation you linked. It forbids "phrases that makes no sense to the reader such as "Microsoft EULA"". So I give up. If the 'owners' of the infobox display the word 'license' and forbid us from stating the license, then it's the blind leading the blind. Put whatever you like, or leave it blank as it is impossible to answer. Just don't, for heaven's sake, say 'freeware' or you will be misleading the corporate software buying drones re support, updates, warranty, etc. --Nigelj (talk) 17:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Nigelj
Did you know that there are over 35000 Microsoft products and each have a separate unique MS-EULA? To say that its license is MS-EULA is redundant at best. Besides, you say license is not about this or that; but do you know what is the definition or objective of a license agreement? A software license agreement describes the costs, liabilities and rights of both licensees and licensors. To say that a software product's license is GPL or Apache license is to specify all of these because these ubiquitous licensing schemes have defined them all. But to say "MS-EULA" is to use another fancy synonym for the word "license". (That's how Microsoft works: Uses big words for small things for which there are already small words.)
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 18:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I see that the relevant phrase was added to the doc in this edit. Perhaps someone would like to ask FleetCommand (talk · contribs) just exactly what they had in mind to use for all the huge range of Microsoft products and add-ons? --Nigelj (talk) 17:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Nigelj
This only means one thing: There has already been a discussion about this whole issue and a consensus has previously been established.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 18:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the 35,000 MS products, if they can't make their license agreements any shorter, and we're not allowed to refer to them by name or link, then you'll have to paste the whole text in. If they don't mention the word freeware right at the top - like "This product is freeware", then we really should not introduce the word as "our" summary of all their work. Can you provide a link to the discussion that led to FleetCommand's edit? --Nigelj (talk) 18:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Why do think we are not allowed? Especially when we can practically do that? I don't remember summarizing fact has ever been against any Wikipedia policy.
As for the writers of the documentation page, let me be frank: I don't endorse your commenting on the contributor instead of the contribution; if you are about to go their talk pages and scold them with some juicy expletives, I don't even want to have the remotest connection with you. If you want to change the consensus, now is the opportunity: Discuss your point view and state your rationale.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 18:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
We certainly can summarize Microsoft's license terms. In this case, IE is proprietary commercial. It's software for which you must have a license to use, and you must pay the company money to get the license. -- Schapel (talk) 19:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Please, reference to reliable source that specifically claims that license for IE costs money. Unless you have reference to back up your claims, please, stop bloating this talk page. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I say we're not allowed to name the license because the infobox documentation says to "avoid specifying phrases that makes no sense to the reader such as "Microsoft EULA"". I was told that this is because "There has already been a discussion about this whole issue and a consensus has previously been established." I asked for a link to the discussion, but haven't seen one. If it is possible to summarise the whole MS-EULA for IE9 into one or two words, we'll have to start with the original text. I don't use Microsoft software, so I can't see it on my machine. Is there a link to it somewhere on MSDN? I don't know if this might help someone find a copy. --Nigelj (talk) 20:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Nigelj, MS-EULA is not a term or a name of any license. It is just an abbreviation Microsoft uses to refer to whatever license of its products in order to avoid ambiguity (for legal purposes). |license=MS-EULA equals to |license=license. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

It should be clear to anyone with any cognitive function a Windows license, required to run IE, costs money. Unless you are going to deny it, I don't think there's any point in continuing. -- Schapel (talk) 22:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
How does this affect the price of IE license? Please, provide a reference to reliable source for your claim, so that improper synthesis you conduct throughout this thread would not be required. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • (Independent view coming from Talk:Comparison_of_web_browsers) We're discussing what the 'License' is for IE. This is a seperate question from how much money it costs. I'd avoid arguements built on our Freeware article: the confusion around tht term is so severe it is largely defined by example. Reading through the above, there are two differnt appropiate summaries of the License for IE: MS-EULA and proprietary and commercial. Pick one, or both. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi. This type of erroneous discussion is called false dilemma. Both of your options are problematic but we have many other options; we don't need to pick these. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I've been out a couple days, but in the end, "Freeware for Windows licensees" makes the most sense, or a close variant, since the software doesn't have it's own stand alone license, but is instead has a supplement that attaches to existing MS-EULA (of which there are dozens), so there is no singular license per say, only a single license type, ie: it is freeware but only if you own a licensed (any license) version of Windows (newer versions only). It also expresses the intent of Microsoft, to make it free to Windows owners under their existing license. Again, it doesn't have its own stand alone license, the supplement automatically attaches itself to the individual's current license. There is no singular MS-EULA for this product. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 13:30, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
I hadn't the time to read that long discussion, but why not imply remove that parameter of the infobox? We could add a simple line explaining the situation in the text... Oh and adding a HTML comment so that nobody would readd the license stuff back to the infobox. mabdul 13:44, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
The issue is quite easy to explain without "scorched earth"-style actions. The current draft of consensual wording at WP:DRN § Talk:Internet Explorer is:
Markup Renders as
|license = [[proprietary software|Proprietary]], [[end-user license agreement|requires]] Windows license<ref>{{citation |url= |title=Windows Internet Explorer 9 for Microsoft Windows 7, Windows Vista, Windows Server 2008, and Windows Server 2008 R2 |work=[[Microsoft]] |accessdate=2012-08-26 |quote=If you are licensed to use Microsoft Windows 7, Windows Vista, Windows Server 2008, or Windows Server 2008 R2 software (for which this supplement is applicable) (the “software”), you may use this supplement.}}</ref>
License Proprietary, requires Windows license[1]

  1. ^ "Windows Internet Explorer 9 for Microsoft Windows 7, Windows Vista, Windows Server 2008, and Windows Server 2008 R2", Microsoft, retrieved 2012-08-26, If you are licensed to use Microsoft Windows 7, Windows Vista, Windows Server 2008, or Windows Server 2008 R2 software (for which this supplement is applicable) (the “software”), you may use this supplement. 
— Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:13, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

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

"Last to implement SVG"??[edit]

The intro claims that IE9:

It is the last of the five major web browsers to implement support for Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG).[14]

Source [14] links to a SVG Plugin for IE hosted by W3C, which mentions no "last", nor a MS IE9-native SVG support. I cannot make the logic work. If plugins count, then MS IE9 already have SVG support. If plugins don't count, the link doesn't verify that IE9 will ever have SVG support, so "is last to" is just a wild hypothesis.

Iff IE9 actually have native SVG support, then a proper link verifying this should be used instead the W3C link. Iff IE9 mayhap gets SVG support in future, then such a link should be provided. Otherwise the statement "last to implement SVG" is unfounded. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 20:50, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Internet Explorer 9. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

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

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Internet Explorer 9. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

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

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)