Talk:Internet Explorer 6

message: Do we really need to specify in the infobox what versions of Windows the SP2/SV1 update is available for? - Josh (talk | contribs) 19:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think we need to show support was discontinued for some OS with the latest release. However, I agree its not needed to list all the versions of windows (e.g. x64, mce, etc.) that its available for. Digita (talk) 19:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  SP2/SV1 in infobox 

message: Why does the criticism section use a slow Windows NT update as an example of slow Internet Explorer updates? - Josh (talk | contribs) 15:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slow updates criticism 

message: The Secunia statistics discussion is very weak. The vulnerability counts are out of date (2006) and potentially not very meaningful. Product versions with dramatically different market lifetimes are being compared as apples-to-apples. It's not at all surprising that the one with the longest time on the market has the largest number of accumulated vulnerabilities. The same product divided up into "milestones" would have fewer accumulated vulnerabilities at each milestone than a product which kept the same name over time, because each milestone wipes the count of existing but patched flaws to zero. The fact that Firefox releases major version numbers quickly doesn't indicate anything about its relative security.
Count of unpatched vulnerabilities is also not necessarily a very useful indicator. Many of the unpatched vulnerabilities are sufficiently esoteric as to be unconcerning. Does the fact that they are unpatched reflect on the inherent security of the product development process? Probably not. Does it reflect on the maintenance philosophy? Sure, but not in a useful way.
What is the purpose of the 2004 incident example? Is it particularly noteworthy?
The "generic security flaw" paragraph is a non-sequitur. Not only do nearly all other browsers fall in the same bucket, but nearly every desktop application and plug in in existence does as well. This belongs under an article on generic security considerations of software, not IE 6. A possible way to make it relevant would be to frame it as a comparison against IE7 under Vista and Google Chrome, which take some steps to cut the privileges of the browser.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.32.83.128 (talk) 12:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Security section is weak 

message: The image :File:Internet Explorer 6.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed as a fair use rationale has been added to the image in question Eraserhead1 (talk) 11:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with File:Internet Explorer 6.png

message: we should explain why many sites now beginning to force users to switch to other brosers (alo ie7!) and the campain strting with a finnish site (and their wiki on http://ie6.forteller.net/ ) ! somebody want help? i can start to do this on monday or tuesday... mabdul 0=* 15:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  note add note to ... 

message: woud somebody please write something about the ie6beta feature smart tags? mabdul 19:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Smart tag (Microsoft)]]

message: The official web site http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/ie6/ is 404. I didn't find a replacement and I think it is likely there won't be one. —Wrathchild (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  web site 

message: Despite several dramatic public statements and articles, very few sites, if any, have actually dropped support for IE6 altogether.  On YouTube, I get a message, but it works.  Twitter, there's no message and it looks terrible, but it works.  Facebook, I get a message only after I log in, "Facebook will work better for you if you upgrade or switch to another browser" but it works.  I think it's fair to say, "Beginning to phase out," but IE6 clearly hasn't been "dropped" from any major site.
There's a list of participating sites on the Microsoft ie6countdown site, but they aren't big players.  "Mike's Web Designs" is one of the single-person shops listed there, and it still works on IE6.  It just doesn't look as good as it does on other browsers.
I'm not sure where to find a third-party article to back up my personal experience, but that's just what I found using IE6 today.--GlenPeterson (talk) 20:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That the pages work, doesn't mean that you either have all features that are presented, nor that the pages are tested in your browser. This can be seen at the fact, that some pages look horrible, but still are working since they use "old markup" (or better saying markup from the first hour, which can't be/won't be replaced) which IE6 understands. You provided the best example that the pages are phrased out. If you check the same sites in a "modern" browser you may recognize features that you don't get in IE6! mabdul 01:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Web sites aren't actually "dropping" IE6 support as reported... 

message: http://www.browserchoice.eu/BrowserChoice/browserchoice_en.htm was mentioned as always putting IE first and all other browsers in random order. Running it a few times however shows that IE is not always put first.
AlecTaylor (talk) 08:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed by Ziiike. Rivertorch (talk) 04:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 14 July 2012 

message: Nowhere do you mention in this page the specific IE 6 version numbers, such as:
 6.00.2462.0000	Internet Explorer 6 Public Preview (Beta)
 6.00.2479.0006	Internet Explorer 6 Public Preview (Beta) Refresh
 6.00.2600.0000	Internet Explorer 6 (Windows XP)
 6.00.2800.1106	Internet Explorer 6 Service Pack 1 (Windows XP SP1)
 6.00.2900.2180	Internet Explorer 6 for Windows XP SP2
 6.00.2900.5512	Internet Explorer 6 for Windows XP SP3
 6.00.3663.0000	Internet Explorer 6 for Windows Server 2003 RC1
 6.00.3718.0000	Internet Explorer 6 for Windows Server 2003 RC2
 6.00.3790.0000	Internet Explorer 6 for Windows Server 2003 (release)
Why not?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djangofan (talk • contribs) 01:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. Such contents are not allowed. Wikipedia is not a changelog. See WP:NOTCHANGELOG. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why not mention version numbers in this page? 

message: SP1 for Windows Server 2003 seems not to be supported anymore. SP2 came out on 13 March 2007, after IE7. Not sure if IE7 came with that SP/required updating to IE7.
See also:  Is the source in the Infobox not supporting that IE6 support is active? comp.arch (talk) 23:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. IE7 did not come with the service pack. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is IE6 completely unsupported? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Internet Explorer 6. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/article/0%2Caid%2C125772%2Cpg%2C3%2C00.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070603084409/http://www.axistive.com/smil-standards-and-microsoft-internet-explorer-6-7-and-8.html to http://www.axistive.com/smil-standards-and-microsoft-internet-explorer-6-7-and-8.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.microsoft.com/australia/technet/ie8milk/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20031002010203/http://www.microsoft.com/windows/WinHistoryIE.mspx to http://www.microsoft.com/windows/WinHistoryIE.mspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Internet Explorer 6. 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:
*Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20131111225355/http%3A//www.browserchoice.eu/BrowserChoice/browserchoice_en.htm to http://www.browserchoice.eu/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100520035954/http://windows7news.com/2010/05/16/microsoft-compares-internet-explorer-6-to-spoiled-milk/ to http://windows7news.com/2010/05/16/microsoft-compares-internet-explorer-6-to-spoiled-milk/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: ...which actually made IE6 be IE6′, where the prime represents that it's still IE6, but with added features (like tabs). Is it actually just a modified IE6, or is it newer IE? EDIT: I found the link: this is the video. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 15:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  I did see a video, where someone tries to install IE8 on older Windows... 

message: Windows XP can be destroyed without service packs using this. That's a big security flaw. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 16:35, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A very big security flaw

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:42, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The verbatim source code of  the archived page referenced in special:diff/1088366956 is:
<HTML>
<HEAD>

<TITLE>Windows XP Basics</TITLE><FRAMESET  ROWS="*,35">
    <FRAME NAME="body" SRC="start_desktop.htm" MARGINWIDTH="0" MARGINHEIGHT="0" SCROLLING="auto" FRAMEBORDER="0">
    <FRAME NAME="footer" SRC="footer.htm" MARGINWIDTH="0" MARGINHEIGHT="0" SCROLLING="No" FRAMEBORDER="0">
</frameset></HEAD><BODY SCROLL=no></BODY></HTML>
Adding it here as a reference in case it ever goes offline.
The "saved from" comment was presumably not contained in the original hypertext file bundled with Windows XP, but the rest presumably was. I have not yet verified whether it is this exact code, but the uppercase tags that were ostensibly popular back then to distinguish them from inner text content suggest it is. An oddity is that the closing frameset tag is in lowercase.
There is another mirror of the Windows XP HTML tour at NeoCities, but its style sheet uses position:fixed and its hypertext uses lowercase tags, meaning it was modified from the original.
Elominius (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone uploaded the HTML tours to the archive in several languages. It is apparent from any of those HTML files, here for example (downloading is not necessary for viewing its source code since the archive serves user-uploaded HTML files with content-type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 since 2021), that the "" comment was actually in the original. Corrected above. And the lowercase closing </frameset> tag was also contained in the original. Elominius (talk) 19:24, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appendix: frameset source code