Talk:Internet Explorer/Archive 2

message: Microsoft have released a beta of a product called Windows AntiSpyware. They bought a software house that produced an anti-spyware tool -- I have put some details and screenshots up on the web --Beachy 18:54, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool site :-) Is that specifically an add-on for Internet Explorer, or does it specifically relate to IE? Otherwise, we could put that info into its own article and refer to it from here! - Ta bu shi da yu 06:02, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It specifically relates to IE in that there wouldn't be an anti-spyware product market without IE. *ducks* :p It's not specifically related to IE really though. --Tubedogg 18:51, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just want to share a joke with you guys, don't put it in the real article: . --minghong 14:51, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Microsoft AntiSpyware 

message: It seems to me that the article on Internet Explorer does not really need to contain extensive descriptions of technologies that are found in Mozilla Firefox but not in Internet Explorer. Perhaps some of the material about Firefox technologies — and Firefox security — should be moved to the Mozilla Firefox article.
This would also help remedy some of the above complaints about the disparity of structure between the two articles, viz. Beachy's repeated complaints that this article deals more with problems with IE while the Firefox article deals with the popularity and growth of that browser.
I would, however, like to warn against hypotheticals. It is not our place, here or at Mozilla Firefox, to speculate about potential security problems that have not actually been demonstrated. We need to stick to what is and not waste our time on what might be. For example, It's quite true that there might be, one day in the near future, spyware that attacks Mozilla Firefox. There is no magic Open Source Security Pixie-Dust that would categorically prevent it. However, to date there is not any spyware attacking Firefox. Since Wikipedia is about confirmed and refernced facts rather than about original research and speculations, we really need to be careful to restrain our speculations and focus on things that actually exist today. --FOo 20:38, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally agree. Beachy you should stop your wild imagination for a while... ;-) --Minghong 21:20, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hehe, well perhaps you ought to take out all that stuff about the projected rise of Firefox ;-) Beachy 21:37, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not going to say again. Check the statistics then. Time will tell. --Minghong 22:01, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm outta here - guys, I've been proved wrong more times than I care to mention, but it's been a pleasure to lock horns with knowledgeable people like yourselves. Hopefully this and the Firefox article will be free of edit-wars for some time to come :-) --Beachy 15:53, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is about IE, not Firefox 

message: Note: Since the content being discussed below has been moved to the Criticisms of Internet Explorer article, any further discussion of this topic should take place on Talk:Criticisms of Internet Explorer.
Which browsers completely comply with W3C standards?  I thought a good majority of browsers were not fully compliant, and if so I think that is worth a small mention in this section.  I haven't checked lately, but for a long time Opera did not comply, and I thought one of their stated objectives was to make a reference browser for the purpose of testing compliancy (not sure about this).  --Paraphelion 06:34, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know, no browsers completely comply with web standards.  Amaya probably comes closest. The problem with IE is the degree of its lack of support for standards. The first paragraph should be changed to clarify this point. Schapel 08:19, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was going to add something like 'Like most web browsers, ' to that paragraph, but was reluctant after reading about all the controversy on this talk page.  Perhaps it should be 'Like nearly all, '. --Paraphelion 08:51, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Although it is factually correct that no browser has complete and correct support for the standards, the main point of this section is that IE has far worse standards support than the other major browsers (e.g. Firefox, Opera, Safari). This is what leads to the "design for IE" vs. "design for standards" issues described in the Consequences. The first paragraph needs to be changed to match the rest of this section. Schapel 16:35, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is odd, then, that this section does not talk about IE's standards compliance in the context of comparing them to other major browsers, however even if it did, and perhaps it would be more so in that case, I think it is worth at least a minor reference of the kind that I added. --Paraphelion 18:41, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, the section certainly does compare IE's standards compliance to that of other browsers. Look for "Unlike other browsers" and "This leads to problems for users who use other web browsers." Maybe this point needs some further clarification. It looks to me to be the main point of the entire section. Schapel 14:08, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: But it is Trident that is being compared here isn't it?  It is the rendering engine that is responsible for supporting or not supporting standards. AlistairMcMillan 18:44, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  it is, but it's not a web browser, it's the engine for the web browser, if we wanted to get very technical about it... I could have written "like nearly all rendering engines" I guess.. but I'm not sure that's better. --Paraphelion 18:41, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Web Standards

message: I'm up to number 27, if anyone else wants to help convert this to references! See Wikipedia:Cite sources for more info. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:45, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: I think that the "Why I support IE..." article, written by Beachy, is not neccessary since they are "an undergraduate" and not a web developer or part of a web standards project. They are not necessarily part of an internet project or even actively use the internet...
: When I wrote that article I was actually working as full time developer for an investment bank in Canary Wharf, London. I'm soon to graduate and return there. Am I an active Internet user? Well, I've been making web sites since 1996, including one for a printing company  that netted them a multi-million pound contract to produce Pokemon cards (I was 16 at the time). Whilst in London I wrote and installed a system to broadcast local information via the web and a TV channel to a housing estate in Chelsea. I also developed a Firefox extension for my dissertation. 
: I can see why you prefer to hear the opinion of the web standards project. They make it nice and easy to understand their point of view. Nice soundbites and annecdotes to fuel an argument they consider to be black and white, good vs evil. My article was written in the hope that people could expand their outlook and consider both sides of this debate objectively. My time was, in the most part, wasted. --Beachy 14:52, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Link 

message: I've splitted the contents into history of Internet Explorer, features of Internet Explorer, and criticisms of Internet Explorer. I'm sleepy. Please help summarizing these 3 articles and put the summary into this article. Don't know what to do? See the Mozilla Firefox article. --minghong 21:08, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Blame me if you want. :-P --minghong 08:24, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Please help summarizing

message: I took another crack at the criticism section. It's better than I expected, but I have two issues. One, it's wrong to say that using IE extensions "essentially blocks the websites from access of other browsers". As a Firefox user I know that it's extremely rare to find a web page which "blocks" me entirely due to IE-specific extensions. Whoever wrote this, did you have a specific IE feature in mind? Also further down in the criticism section, IE is criticized for being able to render malformed HTML. It seems pretty silly to complain that IE should be less forgiving.. I think I'm going to ask for this criticism to be cited, please. Also, isn't this the same as Gecko's quirks mode? Mozilla browsers are also very forgiving of poor HTML. Yet that criticism is nowhere to be found in their articles. Rhobite 07:28, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
:Your second point is right. The whole paragraph removed. But the first point is just partially correct. Maybe you can talk a look of many of those Chinese/Japanese websites which are IE-only. e.g. they use object element as an ActiveX wrapper for multimedia content. Users of other browser are blocked from viewing the movie/flash clips. Anyway, I reworded the paragraph to "it could blocks the users of other browsers from using parts of the sites". --minghong 08:41, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I think it's better without that paragraph. Rhobite 17:02, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
The criticism section can be gutted, now that there is a separate article for it. Don't list any specific criticisms here, because it is very quickly turning verbose and ugly, once again. Just list what topics the criticisms deal with, and maybe say who/what kind of people are doing the criticizing and why these topics are sensitive issues for them. Reduce it to bare essentials, and resist the temptation to expand on every little point while summarizing. Report on the fact that there is voluminous criticism, not on all the criticisms themselves. That's what the other article is for. — mjb 01:46, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

text: That seems fine. But the listing of headings in the main article seems to be not so meaningful. What about paraphrasing into a paragraph? --minghong 04:12, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the list. --minghong 04:25, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. I'm afraid any paraphrasing would just end up resulting in further problems. :) — mjb 15:41, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wow.. this is the first time I've looked at the Criticisms section and thought "yes, that's fair." Good work, guys --Beachy 21:28, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section 

message: It seems that the article is rather stable now. Although there were one or two minor "edit wars", a consent was reached. Let's wait for another week before the resubmission so that issues, if any, can settle down. :-) --minghong 01:41, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A 'consent' is not reached by your censorship of valid information. I appreciate your recent reshuffling of sections, and removal of much of the FUD content (or at least you have separated it off into other articles). However, you are not the editor-in-chief of this article, and you do not have the right to remove content simply because you personally disagree with it. Your issue with the 'speculative' content has been resolved. However, you have continued using the word 'speculation' to justify removing other content, most of which is NOT speculative. Quit the edit wars and then suggest this article for peer review. --Beachy 01:55, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is definately not "my censorship" since multiple Wikipedians, inlcuind Paul August, AlistairMcMillan and I, agree on this issue. Quit FUDing Spread Firefox, this is an Internet Explorer article. "Be polite" and "Work toward agreement".--minghong 14:07, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Resubmission to featured article

message: For those that don't know, there is a well-organised campaign to "Spread Firefox" , of which our most vocal editor (Minghong) is an active member . This campaign is responsible for:
*Ballot stuffing the cnet download chart with votes for Firefox 
*Promising various incentives such as referrer points and "unique prizes" to the most effective Firefox spreaders
*Seeking donations in order to advertise Firefox in print media and high traffic websites
*Contacting bloggers in a massive grass-roots campaign
*Infiltrating colleges with advocacy campaigns
We have a section in our article about IE adoption, a significant portion of which talks about IE's decline and Firefox's rise. I believe the Firefox advocacy campaign is very relevant to this, as it has been instrumental in the rise of Firefox usage. I would like to add the following paragraph:
"Much money and effort has been spent on a marketing campaign for Firefox and on the Web, an aggressive grass-roots campaign called Spread Firefox advertises this open source browser as a superior product to Internet Explorer."
Unsurprisingly Minghong would prefer that these details are omitted. Together with one other editor, Minghong has removed this paragraph several times, claiming it is 'speculation,' and 'irrelevant.' What do other editors think about this? Is the Firefox advocacy campaign relevant to the rise of Firefox and the decline of IE? Or am I just going crazy? --Beachy 14:53, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't mention Microsoft's aggresive marketing campaign(s) and other actions that lead to IE's domination of the browser marketplace, so why is it so important to mention Mozilla's marketing efforts?  AlistairMcMillan 15:07, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're wrong, Alistair. There is plenty of criticism of IE's integration with the OS, and this is used to explain the dominance of IE over Netscape. As for the existence of MS's "aggressive marketing campaigns" for IE, I don't think you'll find Microsoft flyposting colleges, ballot stuffing CNET or giving prizes for the best "community marketers." :-) You are simply evading my question. Is the Firefox advocacy campaign relevant to the rise of Firefox and the decline of IE? --Beachy 15:12, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're at university.  You don't have Microsoft posters here or there... or special discounts on Microsoft software for students?  Things like that.  Anyway, I was meaning stuff like the "Best Viewed with..." buttons that you used to be able to stick on your site... isn't that an effort to start a grass roots campaign?  Anyway, I only think this would be notable if Firefox usage had increased without marketing.  I don't see how their use of marketing is notable. AlistairMcMillan 15:18, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You think that the Firefox advocacy campaign would only be notable if it hadn't been successful? I don't follow. BTW thanks for your agreement on my stem-cell post --Beachy 15:38, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

text: We have a significant portion on the fall of IE, but not the rise of Firefox. It is an article about Internet Explorer, so marketing activities of other browsers are not highly relevant here. Feel free to add marketing activities of IE (with references). --minghong 16:39, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

text: The Spread Firefox campaign is responsible for all of those!! It's zealous advocates are to blame for the increased security concerns (by fudding about IE throughout the web). It is responsible for creating the media coverage eg. the 2 page advert. It is responsible for increasing awareness of browser choice (albeit Firefox only). It is definitely responsible for the final point too, as I have already discussed. --Beachy 17:28, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's bold, but definately not true, at least not the whole story. The campaign didn't create holes for IE. The media just want stories, no matter what browser it is. So it is factually incorrect to blame everything to SFX. And as I said before, there may be one or two "zealous" cases, but that doesn't represent the whole campaign/movement. P.S. Try to use some positive word like "proactive" instead of "zealous". That's not polite and is lowering your credibility. --minghong 17:45, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's not confuse the terms 'pro-active' and 'zealous!' SFX is the home of Firefox zealotry. Maybe because you're a part of it, you can't see it for what it is --Beachy 18:02, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That shows how little your understanding of SFX is. "Admit when you disagree based on intuition or taste." --minghong 18:10, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you contest any of the five points I made about Spread Firefox in the first post in this section? They are all examples of zealotry around Firefox. Please stop righteously quoting Wikipedia rules at me. Don't be so patronising. --Beachy 18:18, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is that SFX is just one of the many reasons (that are hard to confirm) for the fall of IE (or rise of Firefox). This had already obsoleted your "5 points". --minghong 18:52, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No. We have jointly come up reasons to explain the rise of Firefox and the fall of IE. As I have shown, SFX is largely behind all of these factors, and referring to it in the Internet Explorer article would neatly encompass the whole argument. You have chosen to remove the SFX paragraph because the campaign is obviously highly zealous and makes Firefox advocates (like yourself) look highly manipulated. --Beachy 19:08, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You showed nothing. As I said, it's hard to confirm the real reason(s) for this trend, given that the thing happened just within a year. We shouldn't be suggesting any reason here. The mentioning of Firefox is, however, based on statistical facts. For the real reason(s), time will tell, e.g. maybe we can add this paragraph back after 2 years, or after some trusty studies carried out by big firms or organizations. P.S. Adding your paragraph made it sound zealous, while the fact isn't. --minghong 19:17, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I really am talking to the wrong person about "Spread Firefox." The organisation claims victory for every million downloads of Firefox, for every 1% market share that IE loses to Firefox. SFX is clearly relevant. However, the obvious zealotry and fanatacism of the campaign makes it look out-of-place in a serious article about IE. We'll leave it out for the time being --Beachy 03:38, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Relevance of Firefox Advocacy Campaigns on Firefox Adoption / IE Decline

message: Can someone confirm that eBay does use ActiveX? AlistairMcMillan 15:23, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely it uses ActiveX. --minghong 16:34, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder whether it would be better then to list a site whose funtionality actually depends on ActiveX, instead of one where the ActiveX content is just optional.  I'll leave it for someone else to decide. AlistairMcMillan 17:14, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I know of a lot of corporate pages that rely on ActiveX, at live.lehman.com, but unfortunately login is restricted to employees/clients --Beachy 18:04, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not well-known. We need big names, except Microsoft (as Microsoft should eat its own dog food). --minghong 18:54, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is amusing that you chose to link answers.com on this topics.. i.e. instead of eating our own dog food by linking to Wikipedia you linked to answers which is our regurgitated dog food. Pcb21| Pete 22:17, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL, maybe answers.com is a more Firefox-friendly website? --Beachy 03:42, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Stop that. It is off topic. (Don't reply this sub-thread). --minghong 07:33, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: ActiveX - eBay