Talk:Internet Explorer/Archive 3

message: Okay, it appears my edit away from northern hemisphere biased language (as user 203.217.65.74, wasn't logged in) was not unanimously received... (if this isn't the right place for this discussion, let me know if there is a style guide or something).
I personally see this as a NPOV issue, terms like "summer" mean something completely different to people across the world, and even if the original source fails to use neutral terms, unless it is a word-for-word quote, an encyclopedia should restore context in cases like this.
Not wanting to get into a revert war, I'll let this sit for a while before making any changes, unless there is a more obvious "neutral" phrase to use here. StuartH 07:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with the edit clarifying that summer means mid-year. I didn't think it was appropriate to say that Microsoft said mid-2005, because they didn't say that and was therefore factually inaccurate. Summer 2005 and mid-year 2005 are very similar, but are not necessarily the exact same time period. -- Schapel 12:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Region Neutral Language 

message: I believe that there should be a feature in the wikimedia core to add "trusted users", and allow them to edit in some cases.. like this.
By the way.. by now (without that feature in the system) we could make a mail adress for people to send new info belonging to this article, and have an special user as an admin, then he could edit the page, and lock it again.
:Something tells me, that wouldn't be very popular. --Lewk_of_Serthic contrib talk 01:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TRUSTED USERS.... 

message: I got this off the MSDN blog. Check it out:
  Thorpe talk 19:10, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wie bother? ;-) --minghong 08:52, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hahahaha. WIE?! WIE?!!!!!! That is retarded. Internet Explorer was already long enough compared to say, Opera, Safari, or Firefox. Now it's Windows Internet Explorer? This browser goes down the shitter more every day. Xizer 02:27, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree. here's a screenshot of the latest version's help | about - nathanrdotcom (Talk • Contribs) 01:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, it used to be Microsoft Internet Explorer. Windows Internet Explorer is technically shorter. ~ AMK1211 00:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Internet Explorer 7 logo 

message: Today, IE developer(?) Christopher Vaughan posted on IEBlog that the history of IE given in the Wikipedia article is superior to Microsoft's own …but we knew that :) — mjb 00:52, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But sadly he linked to Internet explorer instead of the properly named Internet Explorer. :-( --minghong 03:27, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  IEBlog citation 

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

message: In the history section, I removed a statement today that said that around the time Internet Explorer 3 came out (1996), Microsoft and Netscape used their market share to establish de facto standards in advance of the W3C's official ones. While the statement wasn't inaccurate, it didn't seem directly relevant (the discussion should focus on the history of IE, not the history of standards development). It also was not something mentioned in the main History of Internet Explorer article, and most importantly, it seemed to have been written from the point of view that the W3C is a disinterested standards body churning out prescriptive standards with no consideration of current implementations. This, especially in 1996–1997, couldn't have been further from the truth. Netscape and Microsoft are part of the W3C.
There is a misconception among some folks, I think, that the standards always come first. They do contain some new, previously unimplemented ideas, yes, but the recommendations that are produced by the W3C, much like the standards produced by the IETF, in large part reflect Best Current Practice — that is, the competing, standards-defying/extending implementations came first, and the standards that eventually came about reflect the proven successes of those implementations along with compromises for conflicts. They also reflect an evolution of some of the lofty principles that we now take for granted. In 1996 things were not so clear-cut. This is why HTML 3.0 took so long to develop and was eventually scrapped, and it is why HTML 3.2, issued in early 1997, was considered such a disaster — essentially authored by Netscape and Microsoft, it was just a rubber stamp on both browsers.
So, please avoid any unintentional characterizations of the W3C as a disinterested, infallible body producing standards based on principles without regard for previous implementations. It is a group of corporations, mainly, whose recommendations, largely authored by implementers, are often just codifying the de facto standards as much as they're seeking to establish entirely new ones. — mjb 19:28, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relationship to W3C 

message: Let us talk about new things like Quick tabs, RSS integration, Anti-Phishing, and Very Tighten Security.
Many believe "Quick Tabs" is the best and amazing.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.48.11.253 (talk • contribs) .
:Best of all, when I view Wikipedia with IE7 Beta 2 Preview, the Wikipedia logo magically disappears!  Oh well.  I await any HTML, CSS, and browser fixes here with great patience.  an odd name 05:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, because the Beta is out now. I have it, and I like it. The Beta is present tense, therefore, we are able to talk about IE7 in the present tense. However, if necessary, talk about Beta 2 in future tense, or any other demos in the future tense. But, as of now, we are in the present, as is IE7 Beta. --CanesOL79 15:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, that is your computer's settings. Everything on my computer runs fine, and your situation is a quick fix. Hope everything works out. --CanesOL79 15:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: IE 7 new features

message: It seems to me that this article should not have been moved from Internet Explorer to Windows Internet Explorer. While the latter is what Microsoft may have called some new or beta versions of the product, it fails as a title of a Wikipedia article in two regards.
First, it does not reflect the history of the article's subject. This isn't an article about just the latest version of Internet Explorer, but about the history of that program in its many releases. Therefore, the article should have a title which reflects the history rather than merely the latest version.
Second, it is not the common name by which the subject is referred -- in the press, in technical references, in business discussions of Web browsers, and so on. People talking about Web browsers don't refer to "Windows Internet Explorer", but to "Internet Explorer" (for short, "IE", sometimes "MSIE", but not "WIE".)
On these grounds I propose this be moved back to Internet Explorer. --FOo 08:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree it should be moved back, although I did just fix about 20 double redirects to Internet Explorer, which means I'll have to revert all my fixes if it is moved back. That's OK though, I'd definitely prefer the article at the old name of Internet Explorer. -- Daverocks (talk) 09:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Tricky... I agree with you in principle, but it could also be argued that the correct name for this article is "Microsoft Internet Explorer", given that this has been the official name of the product for several years, as Wikipedia tends to lean in the direction of a full and complete product name where possible (Microsoft Exchange Server vs. Exchange Server, e.g.).  This article is probably best left named "Internet Explorer" due to inertia (there are hundreds of articles linking here), but the variances in names should be clear right from the beginning of the article.  Warrens 10:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I second that. Please…Someone please move it back! --minghong 01:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: d0n3, d00d. --FOo 05:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, now time to revert all my double redirect fixes... -- Daverocks (talk) 09:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name change vs. history 

message: Given that the content of Features of Internet Explorer is almost identical to what's here, I think we should merge the contents here.  Your thoughts? Warrens 03:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What about trimming the content here and leave the details in "Features of Internet Explorer"? This article is getting too long. --minghong 03:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, good idea.  Warrens 05:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from Features of Internet Explorer 

message: I've been having problems with system restore and McAfree Virus Scans, and after Googling it, if found out a lot of other people have it too. It seems IE7's blocks those two programs from running. The only way to fix it is to uninstall IE7. Maybe this should be added into the article... Wizrdwarts
: I don't feel bugs in beta software deserves being added to Wikipedia. All beta software has bugs, thats why it's beta :) Mrjeff 23:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  McAfee/System Restore Problems in IE7 Beta 

message: It's very pro-MS (it's from Microsoft), but still a great overview - http://www.microsoft.com/technet/community/columns/secmgmt/sm0306.mspx - Ta bu shi da yu 22:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excellent security article 

message: The Criticisms section mentions IE's inferiority in handling standards compliant content. But nowhere in the article does it mention that IE has alternate ways of achieving the same thing (VML vs SVG, for example). Does this need not be mentioned? --Soumyasch 17:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It already is mentioned, in the Proprietary extensions section. And VML vs. SVG is a terrible example, because most browsers don't support SVG, and VML is a draft spec from the W3C. You might want to make this point clearer in the Criticisms section by saying the IE's support of proprietary extensions encourages the use of non-standard code that doesn't work in other browsers. -- Schapel 19:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standards compliance 

message: IE seems to have difficulty displaying some pages on Wikipedia, such as Brunei (excessive spacing is created by IE) Shawnc 10:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is with the second picture that pinpoints Brunei's location. Since there is already one that shows the location of Brunei, I thought it is not necessary so I removed it and now it looks Ok in IE7. There shouldn't be a picture in the introduction part anyway. The Country box template is also poorly designed. Yousifnet 05:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia layout problems with IE 

message: The first paragraph of the History section of the article reads:
"Internet Explorer is derived from Spyglass Mosaic, an early commercial web browser. In 1995, Spyglass Mosaic was licensed by Microsoft in an arrangement under which Spyglass would receive a quarterly fee plus a percentage of Microsoft's revenues for the software. Although bearing a name similar to NCSA Mosaic, which was the first widely used browser, Spyglass Mosaic was relatively unknown in its day and did not use any of the NCSA Mosaic source code[2]."
However, Clicking on "Help" menu in IE and then selecting "About Internet Explorer" brings up a popup which reads: 
"Based on NCSA Mosaic. NCSA Mosaic(TM); was developed at the National Center for Supercomputing Applications at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Distributed under a licensing agreement with Spyglass, Inc." rohith 05:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong Citation? 

message: As a web developer who just had the pleasure of updating a standards compliant site I, after finally completing the project, collected a few of the worst annoyances that needed resolving in the process. When I finished my list it consisted mostly of IE (6) CSS bugs. So I thought I'd come here and have a look at what WP had to say about the causes of my frustrations.
Someone wrote that IE has minor compatibility issues. I don't, cannot agree with that. If IE had the kind of compliance Gecko browsers or Opera have the aforementioned project would have been a work of elegance and it would have taken only one third of the time! I believe most people who have the ability to program complex and standards compliant sites will second that IE CSS bugs in large part force design decisions upon the developer.
The list
CSS:
*IE's inheritance is buggy, forcing me to add normally redundant definitions, making future updates a nightmare (again).
*it's box model is buggy, DIVs with padding/border don't show the expected width, resulting in major layout problems and CSS hacks.
*specific HTML attributes as selectors won't work (eg. input[type=text]), making it a nightmare to style for example form input elements across a site.
*position:fixed won't work, no easy fixed navigation menu for you.
*border-styles (eg. 'inset' and 'outset') are mostly unsupported, although that should be easy to implement.
*applying variable width to an box element by defining right: and left: won't work, big bummer for dynamic ("stretching") layouts. Back to HTML tables? The Web's full of these.
*width:100% from surrounding context won't work, you'll have to add the otherwise redundant info, again making it a pain to maintain a site.
* :before and :after won't work thereby killing my entire dynamic navigation style concept with dynamically selectable style sheets. If you want to style XML this hurts alot more.
Let's not talk about the DOM. (Just try to change the href attribute of an LINK element, eg. external style sheet, in IE. In my case it took 5 lines of JS code for compliant browsers and then 20 lines for IE!)
Don't get me wrong, those were only the worst points.
First you spend n time designing your site, then you spend between n and 2n time 'fixing' it for buggy IE. That's my real life experience.
I think this terrible inefficency in implementing sensible, up-to-date web content should be documented in this article (it isn't!), maybe someone more gifted than me will give it a try?
Thank you for your consideration.
Must. Sleep. Now.
Boo 02:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Criticism of Internet Explorer article discusses IE's problems with standards support in somewhat greater detail than this article does.  Understand that a Wikipedia article on Internet Explorer needs to fairly address the entire subject in a reasonably balanced way, ie. history, features, future development, criticism, and so on.  While IE's many implementation flaws may be really important to you right now because you've just had to deal with them in a professional capacity (and believe me, I feel your pain here!), this article still has a worldwide audience, the vast majority of whom are not web site developers and will have very limited interest in reading what would amount to an esoteric bug list.  Warrens 04:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some stuff to research and write about 

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

message: I've removed the following statement that was recently added to the usage share section of the article:
:"although data collection methods are limited and therefore the usage share of a web browser is subject to overestimation or underestimation"
Reasons for removal:
* The usage share mentioned in the article is "about 85%". The word "about" already implies some margin of error.
* The usage share section links to the Usage share of web browsers article, which has an entire section devoted to the challenges of determining usage share.
rdude 16:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement regarding possible error in statistics 

message: However, many programs which began as third-party extensions to Internet Explorer, such as Macromedia Flash, Macromedia Shockwave, and Sun Microsystem's JavaScript, have gone on to become become de facto industry standards.
:JavaScript is not a sun product, but was created by netscape. similarity to Sun Java is only syntactic. Also, I feel calling it de facto standard is not correct, as JScript and JavaScript to a large extent are compatible. Actually they both are implementation of ECMAscript standard, as is ActionScript of Flash. --soumসৌমোyasch 05:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proprietary extensions 

message: Is there any particular reason (or at least one known to the public) as to why Internet Explorer doesn't have native SVG support? Not even the most recent beta's do. Is there a reason for it? - Рэдхот 16:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably because they haven't written it yet.  Maybe someday, but the general view from MS is that they have to solve their security problems first, and catch up to Firefox and Safari in terms of browser features, before they can move forwards with implementing entirely new standards.  Of course it'd be nice if they could do both at once, but MS probably views IE as a massive money sink anyhow... Warrens 19:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  SVG 

message: We currently have the IE7 logo as the official Internet Explorer logo, but we have a screenshot of, of all things, a Comcast-branded IE6 running on Windows XP. Could I convince someone with a Vista beta to take a screenshot of the main Wikipedia page running IE7 on Vista?  -- Masamunecyrus(talk)(contribs)  14:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since IE7 (or IE7+) hasnt yet been formally released, i guess it would be inappropriate to use their shots in infoboxes. --soumসৌমোyasch 13:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since by now the screenshot is already IE7 (but on XP), I've gone ahead and replaced it with a vista screenshot, and made the shot one of the mainpage whilst we're at it (the comcast XP shot was mainpage, but the replacement was both lower resolution and of the frontpage rather than mainpage). :) njan 19:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The image was meant to be lower resolution - it makes it easier to see stuff in the image without having to make it bigger.  I don't know why the IE6 image was changed in the first place as IE7 is still in development, and I would support replacing any image of IE7 with one of IE6.  J Ditalk 19:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm reverting it -- a second time -- to IE6.  It's not appropriate to show a screenshot of unreleased software as the primary screenshot; we have a section where screenshots of future software can be shown.  The most recent full release of Internet Explorer, as it stands today, is IE6 on XP SP2 and Server 2003.  That's the release we should show.  I've also uploaded the Internet Explorer 6 logo and have replaced the IE7 logo with that.  -/- Warren 21:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  IE7 Logo, IE6 Screenshot 

message: When did MS change it from 7 to 7+? It must have been recently cause I only found out today. Will it be called "7+" in the future as well, as it covers other version numbers? Is this the "ultimate version" or something? Like Adobe made 8.0 to CS, 9.0 to CS2 etc.? Shandristhe azylean 13:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  IE7+ (name) 

message: MSN Messenger 8 (Live Messenger) finally moved as due to the renaming of the software (it includes info about previous MSN versions as well). Are we ever going to move to WIE? (7 & 7+)? --Shandristhe azylean 18:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps after it is properly released is a good time, as there's no point in naming the article about beta software when there's a stable release out already.  J Ditalk 11:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Live Messenger moved, so why can't we? 

message: In the IE7 features list, there is currently an item that reads:
:The DHTML Editing Control is being removed from IE7+ in Windows Vista.[5]
According to the referenced page, the DHTML Editing Control is part of Windows, not Internet Explorer.  Like any other safe-for-scripting ActiveX component it can be *used* by IE, but I don't think it should be included here, as it was a Windows (2000/XP) component. JulesH 13:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  DHTML Edit Control 

message: "It supports XHTML 1.0 to the extent that HTML 4.01 compatibility guidelines are followed."  We could use more on this issue.  Internet Explorer's poor handling of xhtml is holding back the internet, one ought to be able to find out why here. Mathiastck 18:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added some clarification and elaboration on this issue. It is pretty clear that not only is it holding it back, but it is quite deliberate too (though I didn't include that in the article). --Cplot 22:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't believe it's deliberate.  I've read a lot of comments by the IE team on this subject, and their stance is that fully supporting xhtml is a lot more work than they could pull off in this release.  It's more than just adding the ability to recognize the mime-type, the entire parsing engine apparently has to be rewritten. 12.207.87.61 20:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  xhtml 

message: If I remember correctly, there once was a product called Iternet Explorer, and it wasn't from Microsoft, and the name was a trademark. Then Microsoft brought this company to court, and a decision was made that the "name" was generic, and not trademarkable, in Microsofts favour.
Am I right? I can't see this reflected in the article.
See e.g. http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0CGN/is_n128/ai_20844319 
--HelgeStenstrom 17:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Internet Explorer is not a trademark 

message: I've tagged this article for cleanup.  While some parts are better than others, there seem to be an awful lot of problems with improper punctuation, runon sentences, sentence fragments, and such that I don't have time to cleanup myself at the moment.
Armour Hotdog 18:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup Tag 

message: However, CIO Magazine notes that the study was commissioned by Microsoft Stating the fact with this statement is deliberately drawing attention to CIO magazine, and thus POV which is hardly in tune with the doctrine of NPOV maintained and promoted by Wikipedia. Also, this statement makes it seem like Microsoft was hiding it and CIO unearthed it somehow. However, thats far from reality. No one had to make any special notation - that it was Microsoft commissioned was stated by MS itself. From IEBlog, "To help us answer this question, we asked 3 Sharp LLC to conduct a study of the Phishing Filter in IE7 along with seven other products designed to protect against phishing threats. In order to establish an accurate methodology on a level field, they utilized four sources of independent data that are not used to populate the IE7 Phishing Filter service today. They worked hard to build large enough sample sizes of actual phishing sites to draw meaningful conclusions". If this has to be included, some better means should be devised. I would suggest having a community vote before re-including the statement. --soumসৌমোyasch 12:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I deliberately made the statement WP:NPOV by attributing it to the source. I can't imagine a way the statement could be made more NPOV, but you can certainly try. Removing the statement outright it clearly not NPOV, however. -- Schapel 12:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree it should be included, but I removed it to get it into after a discussion, not to promote any agenda or something. I am just searching from the right words to state it. Plus I am in favor of attributing it to the first party (MS) instead of any third party (CIO). May be something like "as per a MS commissioned study (with a ref to the blog entry). --soumসৌমোyasch 14:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Study of phishing filters. 

message: Elements of previous IE versions were loaded into memory upon Windows startup, has this changed with the de-integration of IE7, and if so, has it had a negative effect on startup time? This should probably be mentioned. --NEMT 14:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's never been true.  The integration thing worked mostly in reverse; other parts of Windows used components of Internet Explorer, like the rendering engine.  IE loads fast because they put a lot of time and effort into startup performance, and because they use core OS components for various things (e.g. the common controls library) instead of re-inventing the wheel like Firefox does.  Regardless, it's not for us to speculate on... if you can find a good, technical article on the subject from a reliable source, then we can work from there.  -/- Warren 22:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "other parts of Windows used components of Internet Explorer, like the rendering engine." right, hence "elements of previous IE version were loaded into memory."  Has this changed with IE7? --NEMT 23:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How could it change?  Think about it -- we're talking about Windows itself using components of Internet Explorer.  Third-party applications use IE components in precisely the same way.  There's absolutely no way Microsoft could change this.  The only significant thing that's changed is that Windows Explorer will no longer be able to contain an IE browser session, and vise versa.  -/- Warren 23:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So does IE7 still share the same components with windows explorer as previous versions, with the only change being a functional restriction (no file browsing in IE, no web browsing in WE)? --NEMT 04:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They don't share components. Previously Windows Explorer could load IE DLL's into its own process and have them execute. Now, IE executes in its own process. IE by itself doesnot load. But there are many components (and 3rd party apps) which rely on IE (or parts of it). When any of these load, IE is loaded, at least partially. --220.225.53.35 05:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Loaded into memory?

message: Shouldn’t the main screenshot be of IE7 in Windows XP? Like this one I originally placed on the page. Vista has yet to be released so I think a XP screenshot would be best until Vista’s worldwide launch. Sam Burke 15:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would second that. --soumসৌমোyasch 15:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed.  I'd do it myself but I don't have an XP machine I'm willing to install IE7 on...  -/- Warren 17:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main screenshot 

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

message: Now that IE7 is called Windows Internet Explorer, the title of the article should be changed to that. Also since WIE can be installed and uninstalled, should a person be able to easily remove IE from Windows completely? 70.111.218.254 13:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  IE Removal 

message: The official name of the browser is Windows Internet Explorer. The page should be moved. Please voice your opinions on this. Themodernizer 02:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded. --Jvd897 21:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Better, Microsoft Internet Explorer. --Weatherman1126 (talk) 03:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Microsoft Internet Explorer" was the old name of the product.  It's "Windows Internet Explorer" as of version 7.  -/- Warren 03:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hah, sorry. Haven't used IE in ages. --Weatherman1126 (talk) 01:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The article is about the current version. The history should be a subsection of the article. Themodernizer 22:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: *Comment Hah! Forgot to add this. Why does Wikipedia use Mebibyte, Kibibyte and Gibi byte, instead of Megabyte, Kilobyte and Gigabyte, which are more commonly used? rohith 18:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move to Windows Internet Explorer

message: I added a link to IE4Linux's website, if you disagree with it, please explain your reasons. 16@r 21:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with adding link to IE4Linux. This is really minor project, not worth linking to. Would you add this link to the Linux article as well ? It is as relevant there as it is here. Wikiolap 05:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I think it's not useless, because in the article it said that IE can be runned on Windows, Mac OS X, Solaris and HP-UX but actually it can also be runned on Linux. If it really mind you really, I could write a few lines explaining that it is possible instead of this external link. 16@r 12:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is better to put short mentioning in the article that IE can run on Linux rather then add the external link. Thanks. Wikiolap 17:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  IE4Linux 

message: I proposed the merger because a criticisms of anything page is inherently POV.  This article should use Mozilla Firefox as its model (how ironic) and not only merge its critisisms page with itself, but also remove the criticisms section and spread out said criticisms throughout the entire article. -Kingy 20:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please review Wikipedia:Summary style and Wikipedia:Content forking.  That's why there are separate articles for history, features, and criticism.  Integrating the contents of Criticism of Internet Explorer would more than double the length of the article and would result in something that's extremely lop-sided -- worthy of an NPOV tag and ongoing edit wars, which, I guess, would be a good way of modeling it after the Firefox article, eh? ;-)   -/- Warren 22:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We're in the process of correcting the issue >( .  Also, if you read my comments on that page, you would see that I proposed the cleaning and shortening of that article before any merger was made. -Kingy 05:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Spreading criticism throughout the entire article would introduce NPOV violations into the article. It is preferable to keep such content in a separate article in order to facilitate management of such content. Themodernizer 03:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger 

message: I realised I had version 7.0.5730 of Internet Explorer so I re-downloaded it to upgrade it thinking it would be upgraded to version 7.0.6000 as stated in the article. There was no change. Is this an error or is that version number only apply to the Windows Vista RTM version? Thanks. --Lakeyboy 05:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IE 7.0.5730.11 is the WinXP SP2 version and what's stated in the article is the Vista RTM version. AMK1211 01:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could I suggest that this is mentioned in the article to avoid this confusion? Most preferably where the latest version is written? Is it possible to mention both current versions without using the latest_preview_release - or is this unnecessary? --rjcuk 21:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have updated the page History of Internet Explorer with these all-important details on the version differences. --rjcuk 22:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: IE Version

message: I just moved the brief reference to IE8 into the intro. Previously it had a "Future" section of its own, but there was nothing more than that quick mention in the entire section, so I thought getting rid of it would streamline the article a bit.
If anyone wants to add more info about IE8--though not much is known at this point, as far as I know--then the "Future" section might be worth bringing back. It could also go under History.... Tophtucker 01:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Internet Explorer 8 

message: Vista has been officially released, so has IE7+, why is there still an IE7 XP image?  Please, someone replace it -Kingy 22:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've put up a temporary fix -Kingy 22:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Screenshot... 

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

message: Web browsers format HTML information for display but the IE doesn't claim to be able to process the Internet media type text/html. I suggest to reword the article and put it into the Category HTTP clients. -- mms 08:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's silly. The fact that IE doesn't completely implement every technical recommendation and standard you would want from a web browser doesn't stop it from being a web browser. No serious IT professional would make that argument. El T 12:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IE is not a web browser