Talk:Internet Explorer/Archive 1

message: I know Microsoft ported IE (version 5 at least, maybe 4) to Solaris and HP-UX, but I don't know any of the details.  The website used to be at http://www.microsoft.com/unix/ie/  
Also, why is Konqueror listed as being a competing browser on Windows?  I'm guessing this is a mistake or a Konqueror fan just wanted to add it.  The win32 port never got off the ground, and running on Cygwin/X doesn't count.
The Konqueror page claims that there is a Windows port -- though it may be through one of the projects you mentioned.
The only IE for Unix released was for Solaris and HP/UX. I was able to confirm that IE v4 and v5 were released for both... not sure about other versions of IE (or other flavors of Unix). See:
MSDN article, MSDN article and Unicode web browsers for Unix and Linux computers
Gecko 00:50, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  IE for Unix; Konq? 

message: Pcb21 - Resetting the tab for space.  In total agreement about fixing the information.  We can try to find better info, and certainly include a warning about just how difficult MS has made it to remove IE. - anon
: www.chrisbeach.co.uk - Microsoft are creating an integrated system that is written in native code and well-cached. To separate the browser into a separately installable piece would be to take a step backwards. I don't see anyone complaining about the fact that Apple manufacture their own machines, with their own OS, their own browser and their own machine-specific peripherals. At least MS bothered to make a version of IE for unix, mac, x-windows, smartphones etc. The arguments against IE/Windows integration originate largely from bitter competitors and are evidently self-serving and biased. The POV trash in this article should be removed, but I know as soon as it is, there will be an uproar from the "Mozilla Evangelists" et al. It makes me sick to see the media twisted like this. It's practically the same as when the Bolsheviks used "revolutionary" media to incite a bloody uprising against capitalism in Russia. And didn't the new communists do a service to the country..
::Thanks for your opinion, but could you please not try to pick fights? I also believe the evils of Microsoft are blown out of proportion by evangelists, but starting fights doesn't serve much of a purpose. Rhobite 00:27, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
::I hate IE myself and all the nonsense that its regular users (including, at once point, my family) have to deal with.  I'll likely never use it again.  However, I still think that the anti-IE POV in this article is way too much.  We need to neutralize it, and I'm open to everyone's ideas about how best to do this, including the anons here.  No other browser article condemns its subject so much, or provides links to uninstallation instructions.  The Wikipedia must be an unbiased reporter.  --Ardonik.talk() 01:18, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
----
What is the factual basis for "Internet Explorer is by far the most widely-used web browser, making up approximately 95% of all browser usage, mainly because it has been shipped as the default browser in all versions of Microsoft Windows since Windows 95."? 
I could not find any objective, conclusive evidence of this.  Maybe we could get some data from the access logs of the wikipedia or another general topic website? Or else this could beter be rewritten as "Internet Explorer is one of the most widely-used web browsers, mainly because it has been shipped as the default browser in all versions of Microsoft Windows since Windows 95." Although I doubt that this is the only reason for its popularity. 
Also, usage under MacOSX has dropped very quickly since the introduction of Safari, so maybe the references to the Mac IE are not really current anymore imho. -- gmlk  16:23, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You can pick more or less any survey you like from the dozens online, and they all say the IE average is upwards of 95%. I don't think a re-write is necessary. As a matter of interest the logs for *.wikipedia.org show IE usage as low as 85 or even 80%. This is because Wikipedia is a open source oriented site. (Compare slashdot where IE usage appears lingers as low as 50%). Pcb21| Pete 22:33, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I've read that it's 90% IE6, 5% IE5, 5% others (mostly Netscape, then Mozilla, then the rest).   — Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 22:43, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: ...and Mozilla evangelism

message: Is it really neccessary to add the word "discontinued" to the image caption for the Mac OS X screenshot?  All it does is make the caption longer, and anyone who wants to know that it's discontinued could read the article.  — 33451 | Talk 12:20, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mac OS X Image Caption 

message: User:138.38.32.84 removed the "Removing Internet Explorer" section with the comment:
:(Irrelevent and distinctly POV (see discussion). Consider - Due to recent vulnerabilities found in Firefox by US-CERT and Secunia, should we not be providing an equivalent section for Firefox?)
The section certainly needs work, and will hopefully be discussed and improved, but I don't see how it could be called irrelevant or POV.  The information is factual and at least one person (me) found it helpful.  As for an equivalent section for Firefox, that depends what you mean.  If you are suggesting a "Removing Firefox" section, it would be pretty short since the package includes an uninstaller (forced integration with the OS just isn't an issue for most programs).  If you mean a section listing security vulnerabilities in different versions, I personally would find that helpful: it would be useful to be able to look up whether some program version has outstanding security issues, and this is precisely the kind of fast-moving information Wikipedia offers that a conventional encyclopedia never could. Saucepan 03:09, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Analogy with Firefox

message: AlistairMcMillan removal summary: "Remove invalid points. Please point to a browser in talk that does not have an easy to use interface and an integrated search facility (with multiple engines).)".  I just wanted to point out that there ARE in fact browsers, and have historically been browsers, which did not have easy-to use interfaces and integrated search.  The first that springs to mind is lynx (as it's text based).  If we're talking about graphical browsers only, old versions of IE, netscape, and mosaic did not have interfaces which were always easy to use, and certainly didn't have integrated search engines (as current engines like google didn't even exist).  Just wanted to point out that it's not necessarily obvious/invalid.  --ABQCat 07:42, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well that is just fan-diddly-tastic.  If you take a second to look at my User page, do you think there is even the teeniest tiniest remotest chance that I've not heard of Lynx?  Since 99.9% of people are likely to be using a modern graphical browser how about we limit the comparisons to modern graphics browsers?  Including stuff like "easy to use interface" and "integrated search" stinks of desperation.  Should we include "color pictures" too??? AlistairMcMillan 08:21, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I did actually look at your user page before I posted, but I do think there's room here for some mention of "comparable user interface to... including such features as... " if you get my point?  Clearly yes, the wording as it was was a bit "desperate" if you like, but it could be useful to include some of that information in a manner less like an advertisement and more like a comparison or feature overview.  My 2 cents, anyway.  Notice I didn't put the text back in as I think it's fine to leave out, but as I said, it could still be modified to be informative and useful.  --ABQCat 09:23, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have no problem talking about listing actual user interface features that make IE stand out, for example the recent pop-up window notification bar (or whatever they call it) (and before anyone points it out I know some other browsers have them too), but just saying "easy to use interface" is a joke. AlistairMcMillan 09:47, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ease of use is not a joke when talking about software, although to the layman it may seem a "gimme". Some people make a career out of making software "easy-to-use," and Microsoft have done a vast amount of research on the topic. IE is different from most of the other browser offerings since it is well integrated into the OS, and is 100% native to Windows. This makes its look-and-feel immediately intuitive to anyone who's used Windows software. Firefox has made a good effort with its XUL based interface, but the components used are non-native and differ in colour, size etc. Additionally, when it comes to more "complex" functions of the browser like security and privacy controls, IE is easier to use for the average consumer because of its setting of simple "security levels" --Beachy 02:13, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: These are opinions. Some people find it easier to use; others do not. As it happens there is a branch of engineering which studies usability. One of the findings of usability researchers seems to be that usability is not always intuitive. That is, what seems to one person to be "easy to use" because it is simplistic may well be "hard to use" for other people, or in other ways — for instance, a tool may be very fun to use, but lead to a high rate of mistakes. (Children's safety scissors are easy to use safely, but not easy to cut a straight line with.) Unless we have usability studies in hand, Wikipedia should probably refrain from making editorial comments about "usability" in articles — it is almost certain to reflect the idiosyncratic point of view of the writer rather than anything reality-based. —FOo 05:34, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Edit summary:"Compromise on Native widgets. Please point to a relevant browser (i.e. not Lynx) that doesn't have search engine integration before restoring search assistants."  AlistairMcMillan, I was wondering if a comparison to PREVIOUS versions of IE would be appropriate, if you're looking for comparable browsers.  Old versions of IE (before that damned MSN default search, ~version 4.0) had high browser-share, also, similar widgets, etc.  The thing they lacked was integrated search.  So perhaps something like "since verion xx, IE has had easy-to-use integrated search capabilities, similar to other modern browsers"?  --ABQCat 07:44, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was assuming the Pro/Con comparison was with other competing browsers.  My preference would be to add listings of the feature additions/changes to the Internet Explorer#Release History .28Windows.29 section. AlistairMcMillan 11:51, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: "Useability" is opinions (unless we can come up with some research on the topic). As for the controls being 100% Windows native (and therefore immediately intuitive), the feature stands. If you want to make comparisions, they go in Browser Comparison. Personally I think all the "negative features" should be removed as they are subjective and circumstantial. --Beachy 16:57, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Subjectivity ain't the best thing, I agree, but what's your objection to circumstance based on? A circumstatial fact is still a fact, & thus deserving of mention in a NPOV article (though I agree about that there's a difference between features & unique features). Besides, non- or only partial support of CSS2, MIME, PNG, etc. is most definately not circumstantial, and nor is tabbed browsing, though that's not really a valid point anyway - just a comparison to alternatives which should be on the appropriate page. On another note, the bit about W3C vs. defacto standards is quite POV in itself - so's this statment, I guess - because standards are important, & the note makes light of that. If IE twists standards, that's bad for the internet itself. --SirPavlova 15:34, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  positive features 

message: I've recently become convinced (see Talk:Plural of virus) that "pro & con" lists are a fundamentally Bad Thing for Wikipedia articles. All they do is give people a place to stack up ranting-points in favor of their POV. They actively discourage real exposition or exploration of issues, since they're so prone to arms-race between the "pro" and "con" sides.
And here, on this article, we have yet another example: a pro & con list that has been the focus of escalation, deleting, "pruning" by folks on both sides of an issue, and which doesn't seem to actually expose or explore the issues that it hints at. I'd like to propose a different way to describe IE's "features":
* Distinguishing features. These are features that any browser could (legally and technically) support, but IE stands out from other browsers because it does support them today. Examples: Ruby characters; .NET (other browsers could support it via Mono).
* Proprietary features. These are Microsoft-proprietary features; things that no other browser can support, because the technology is either legally encumbered by Microsoft or relies on compatibility with another Microsoft part. Examples: Outlook integration; ActiveX.
* Common features. These are (non-obvious) features that both IE and other browsers support, but that not all common browsers do support. Example: cookie and pop-up controls; being distributed free of charge.
* Missing features. These are features that most other common browsers do support, but IE does not. Examples: tabbed browsing; PNG and CSS standards.
* Concerns and problems. These are ongoing concerns and difficulties that are specific to IE. This doesn't include each individual security problem, but does include general categories of problems that affect IE users and not users of other browsers. Example: Spyware.
I think this might be a way to describe the "positive and negative features" more neutrally, to invite further description of them -- while at the same time excluding vague and subjective "pros" and "cons". Thoughts? --FOo 02:26, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody seems to hate this idea right away, so I'm implementing it. Feel free to revert me if you think it's awfully terrible, but I do think it's an improvement over a "pros & cons" list. I haven't rewritten any of the "features" previously listed -- I've just regrouped them. --FOo 23:30, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's an improvement. Good work. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:23, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another idea on the "features" list 

message: Beachy and Alistair, please quit edit-warring over the Maiffret quote. It doesn't matter that the guy's title is "Chief Hacking Officer" (if, indeed, it still is). It's a tongue-in-cheek title anyhow; that's the whole point -- it's intended to play with both the "street cred" of being a "hacker" and the "business cred" of a CXO-level title. --FOo 03:34, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please stop edit warring 

message: Can someone add references? See Wikipedia:Cite your sources for info on how to do it. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:02, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: I'm going to take the liberty of removing the tag because I think that all concerns over fact have been addressed. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:27, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factually accuracy 

message: Comments from a Reg reader: Feel free to use the quote.  And thanks for 
asking!
Merry XMas!
t
----- Original Message ----- 
From: Chris Beach
To: Tim Mullen, SecurityFocus
Sent: Saturday, December 25, 2004 8:44 AM
Subject: Reg reader comment: WinXP SP2: stop moaning and get downloading
A Reg reader has the following comments to make on the story WinXP SP2: stop 
moaning and get downloading:
Tim,
I thoroughly agree with your article on SP2 ("Stop moaning and get 
downloading"). I'd like to quote the first paragraph on the Wikipedia 
article on Internet Explorer, but another editor has reminded me that your 
article is copyright.
I'd really appreciate if you'd give me permission to use your quote on this 
page, since it contains a lot of anti-MS and even some anti-SP2 sentiment, 
which needs to be balanced
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Explorer
Regards
Chris Beach
:Good work Chris, but can we move it out of the lead section and into the security section? Lead sections shouldn't have long quotes, they should summarise facts with detail staying in the main article. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:18, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done --Beachy 00:46, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Permission to use quote from Tim Mullen