Talk:Internet Explorer 7

message: :Image:EVCert.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 04:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:EVCert.PNG

message: :Image:Favcenter.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 10:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Favcenter.PNG

message: Why does this version have an own page? Other versions have not, I think this should be merged with the Internet Explorer article. Also, Internet Explorer 1 is not even a redirect. Helpsloose (talk) 23:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Merging has been discussed before see the deletion discussion Alexfusco5 23:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I did not see that. And for other readers of this discussion: The Internet Explorer 1 page did not exist when I wrote that. Helpsloose (talk) 00:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Own page? 

message: This article should be merged into Internet Explorer, History of Internet Explorer, and Features of Internet Explorer because it consists of content duplicated from those articles. Per WP:MERGE: There are several good reasons to merge a page: 1. Duplicate - There are two or more pages on exactly the same subject and having the same scope. Themodernizer (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This was discussed before. Result was no consensus. I supported a merge at that time. But now am not sure. IE7 is pretty different from IE6, and as such clubbing all together does not make much sense. Same will be for IE8. How will we separate historical info from current? May be we should go the SQL Server/Visual Studio way. The entire per-version information should be consolidated into the history section in the main article. In fact, the entire series needs to be thought about again. --soum talk 06:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we will be better off in the long run moving to version specific pages (if needed) and not merge everything together. Looking over those pages, a lot of it only relates to IE6 anyway, and as Soum points out, IE8 will end up needing its own page also. Digita (talk) 14:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I have taken the initiative and started an IE6 page, and moved quite a bit of data that only applied to IE6 there. I realized a lot of the duplicated content doesn't apply to anything but IE6, and much of it has not been updated (such as "..The forthcoming Windows Defender monitors", which has been out for years now!). Digita (talk) 15:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't agree with the merger of IE 7 into Internet Explorer article and the two other articles relater to it as this page gives a clearer view of the features, development history of and other information of IE7 which are only displayed briefly in History of Internet Explorer and Features of Internet Explorer articles. Merging this article into the 3 articles will cause them to be too long. Thanks.
GeekGod™ (talk) 08:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Article merge

message: The article currently reads:
It surpassed Internet Explorer 6 in market share by the end of 2007 (although combined Internet Explorer market declined), making it the most popular web browser in the world 
Unfortunately for the quality of the article, this is only according to Net Applications.  Contrast their current data:
Browser Version Market Share for January, 2008
Microsoft Internet Explorer 7.0 	 42.93% 
Trend Microsoft Internet Explorer 6.0 	 32.30% 
Firefox 2.0 	 16.02%
With two other companies' data:
February 18 2008 - OneStat.com
"the global usage share of Mozilla's browsers is 13.76 percent. The global usage share increased 1.04 percent since June 2007. The total global usage share of Internet Explorer is 83.27 percent which is 2.54 percent less as in June 2007. Most people are still using Internet Explorer 6 which is 53.95 percent which is 2.45 percent less as in June 2007. The current global usage share of Internet Explorer 7 is 29.06 percent and increased 1.35 percent since June 2007."
W3Counter (Jan 31, 2008 report)
Global Stats
1  	Internet Explorer 6.0  	40.12%
2 	Firefox 2.0 	22.46%
3 	Internet Explorer 7.0 	21.67%
Each of these companies is looking at the web from a different angle and seeing different things.  We cannot say for sure that IE7 is the first (or even second!) most popular browser online. -- Limulus (talk) 23:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Market Share Statistics

message: Since this is an IE7 article, not an IE article, it is inappropriate to criticise IE in ways that is not relevant to IE7. In particular  giving PNG as an example of Microsoft's lack of standards support when we specifically mention it isn't an issue in IE7 sounds dumb. IE's support of web standards is notoriously poor so I'm sure we can do better then that. Nil Einne (talk) 14:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. CSS 2.1 (heck, even CSS1 and HTML4) is a much better choice. In fact, I am thinking of a table in the main IE article that lists the conformance levels of various IE versions to the popular W3C standardized (or undergoing standardization) specs. --soum talk 16:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  PNG/IE7 

message: Does this version comes with Windows XP Sp3?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.53.228.89 (talk) 03:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No. But if IE7 is already installed, it is updated with the latest fixes. --soum talk 06:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Windows Internet Explorer 7 in Windows XP Sp3 

message: edited the screenshot with the Firefox logo.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.174.194.190 (talk) 04:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Firefox trolling" 

message: I see no mention of the apparently ill-fated "IE7+" that came with Vista Beta 2.  It would be interesting to see the story behind it and why this nomenclature was cancelled/changed back to IE7.  --Resplendent (talk) 16:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: IEBlog: Revised IE7 Naming in Windows Vista - Josh (talk | contribs) 16:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  IE7+ 

message: We should add some info about changes between 7.0.5730.11 and la 7.0.5730.13.
about how to install .13 when having .11
about how to install IE7 on XP SP3
A kind of bug exist in the .11 that in some rare case, the website doesn't work well in .11 whereas perfectly in .13 (ex: ajax request fail or wrong calculation of a div position... using JQuery)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.251.177.94 (talk) 11:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  7.0.5730.11 & 7.0.5730.13 

message: IE 5 Web Accessories still works in IE7 - at least the ones I've tried using XP SP3. Details here: 
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/ie6/previous/webaccess/ie5wa.mspx
File download:
http://download.microsoft.com/download/ie5/Utility/1/W98NT42KMeXP/EN-US/ie5wa.exe
This shows how to fix the Zoom bug that distorts the image:
http://www.windowskb.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/ie6-setup/2898/Web-Accessories-for-IE6
78.147.153.8 (talk) 11:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  IE 5 Web Accessories still works in IE7 

message: The market adoption section currenty states this:
Internet Explorer 7 is supplanting Internet Explorer 6. Estimates of IE7's global market share place it between approximately 26% and 47%.
However, to the right of this is a table which shows IE7's market share at 23.66%, contradicting this sentence... xx521xx (talk) 00:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There are problems with both of those; first, the estimate numbers used in the text are old.  Second, the table uses numbers only from one vendor.  Best to stick with the range mentioned in the beginning of the article, that is: "Current estimates of IE7's global market share are generally in the range of 20-30%."  I'll delete the "Market adoption" chunk of the article in just a sec. -- Limulus (talk) 00:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflict of Market Share Numbers 

message: For legal reasons, Internet Explorer is no longer integrated with the Windows Explorer shell. Local files typed in IE7 are opened using the Windows Explorer shell and websites typed in Windows Explorer shell are opened using the default web browser.
I just tested IE 6 on a clean install of Windows XP (with no service pack) inside a virtual machine. Whenever I open a .htm file on my desktop, the file IEXPLORE.EXE opens and runs it. I use IE 7 as my host OS and it does the same thing. When I browse to the file using Windows Explorer and double-click on it, IEXPLORE.EXE opens the file. I look in the task manager and that's what I see. The only time I see EXPLORER.EXE open up a site is in Windows 2000, which comes with IE 5, so the author's choice of words is misleading to the point of inaccuracy.--S1kjreng (talk) 11:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Internet Explorer is no longer integrated with the Windows Explorer shell"? 

message: I believe that the CSS engine was rewritten in it entirety from IE6 to IE7. CSS that rendered something flawed but visible in IE6 did not render in IE7, while frames functional in other browsers were not functional in some beta of IE7. ... said: Rursus (mbork³) 09:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: CSS engine

message: In the last paragraph:
It is also claimed that lack of support in Internet Explorer is responsible for holding back the widespread adoption by webmasters of several new open technology standards[who?]
I believe it was Tim Berners-Lee that claimed that IE was holding back the web, and he also mentioned SVG support.
A few links:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26646919/deck/mny.mobile.msn.com/m/videos/news.mobile.msn.com/mny.mobile.msn.com/en-us/home.mobile.msn.com/en-us/mainnav.aspx
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/224043/berners-lee-unhappy-with-ie8
I'm not really game enough to edit the article - is the first reference good enough? 202.76.136.196 (talk) 06:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The second one claims he is complaining about IE8 (which most likely extends to a complaint about IE7). /Lokal_Profil 12:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standards support -> Lack of Support in IE 

message: first of all,I am confused,wikipedia.org and microsoft and internet explorer are all connected how,also how do I get internet explorer on this computer
:No, Internet Explorer is a web browser by Microsoft and is freely shipped/bundled with Microsoft Windows; Wikipedia is just another web page like Facebook, Google's search engine, Twitter and co, all by different foundations, companies or private persons. mabdul 21:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  internet explorer[[User:Quisha78|Quisha78]] ([[User talk:Quisha78|talk]]) 23:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC) 

message: I don't know if this is considered a valid source: http://www.theie7countdown.com/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.174.40.152 (talk) 17:42, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. This is definitely not a reliable source. In fact, it looks a clumsily-built hoax. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:38, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  usage now below 1% worldwide 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Internet Explorer 7. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20090111001607/http://www.pctechbytes.com/ie/index.php to http://www.pctechbytes.com/ie/index.php
*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: 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