Talk:Criticism of Internet Explorer

message: The Criticisms of Internet Explorer article came into existence in May 2005, and is intended to eventually provide a neutral, concise, yet thorough summary of the criticism that has been heaped upon the Internet Explorer web browser in recent years.
I would like to iterate that the critics are primarly fire fox or non-ie users and thus, it is biased. I will accept the external link oppinions and only those oppinions.
The article's content was separated from its previous home in the Criticisms section of the main article, where it was growing excessively lengthy and where it had been the subject of much debate. The debate was over specific technical issues mentioned in the content, as well as the arguably less-than-neutral way in which topics were often framed.
Please note that relevant discussion that occurred prior to the creation of this article was not moved from Talk:Internet Explorer. When starting a new discussion thread here, please check the following pages to see if there was prior discussion of the topic:
*Talk:Internet Explorer - current discussion
*Archive 1: Discussion prior to January 30, 2005 - topics covered include market dominance; IE for Unix; Mozilla evangelism; Mac OS X image caption; standards; IE features; competing browsers; removal of IE; Microsoft's bug database; edit wars; cost of IE; anti-IE CERT advisory; misc NPOV issues
*Archive 2: Discussion prior to July 9, 2005 - topics covered include NPOV issues; JavaScript; Microsoft AntiSpyware; Embrace, Extend and Extinguish and vendor lock-in; presence of Firefox-related content; BHOs; web standards and degrees of conformance; languages; article headings & organization; PNG; peer review and featured article submissions; Sandbox and Chrome; the criticism section; impact of Firefox advocacy on IE's decline; ActiveX and eBay
If there is prior discussion, please continue it here on Talk:Criticisms of Internet Explorer, not on the old page. — mjb 05:48, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Previous Discussion 

message: actually nvm. Whole page is but a series of uncited rants by FF users.
:Unsigned msg from when? OK, now, I happen to be a firefox user, an epiphany user, an Opera user, and an IE user. That's because I'm a web developer. The article is not biased, it's NPOV true. Before I was forced to develop twice, once for MSIE, once for all other browsers. Now, since IE7, I'm forced to develop thrice - once for MSIE7 too. And no new functionality added (mixed XHTML/SVG highest on my wish list). Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 13:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cause firefox is better. haaa.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.241.72 (talk) 20:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cause I want to

message: Something about its messed handling of digest auth would be nice Tc1415 14:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Digest Auth 

message: Do we really need to assume people are that stupid? —User:ACupOfCoffee@ 18:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the wording on this to "Note that the security features introduced with Windows XP Service Pack 2 (and Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 1) are not available for earlier versions of Windows, including Windows 9x, NT and 2000."  Does that sound better to you? Warrens 19:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Win XP sp2 only available for Win XP 

message: I've been working on a lot of changes and improvements to the article, to help improve the overall encyclopedic value of the article.
Most significantly, I'm converting the article to use REF tags for references, rather than inline external references.  This brings us much more in line with WP:CITE.  I'm also using the cquote quoting style, which looks pretty nice, and gets those important quotes into a position of better readability.
Other things I've done:
* Removed the SecurityFocus vulnerability count; their web site doesn't really give us any easy way of seeing how many outstanding vulnerabilities there are, so the number "27" that was previously in the article was not easily verifiable.  Secunia is a respected source, it should stand well on its own.
* Clarified that the vulnerability that led to Download.ject was specific to IIS 5.  Also removed two of the three external links associated with the subject; one was an invalid URL that didn't point to relevant information, and the other contained a lot of technical detail about the virus, which is suitable for the article on the virus itself, but not this one.
* Added information about UAC and Protected-IE features in Vista.
* Added a counter-balance to the information about Apache having fewer vulnerabilities than IIS.  It's not true anymore!  It certainly was the case prior to IIS6's release, but it isn't now.  I've added Secunia references demonstrating this.
* Removed the link to David Wheeler's paper on how to secure Windows.  Issues of his being unabashedly pro-Linux aside, there are a lot of technical faults in his paper, largely because information he leans on is years out of date.  Apart from that, the paper covers securing many aspects of Windows, and only a small portion is given to Internet Explorer.
* Removed the term "non-standard" from the description of ActiveX.  The ubiquity of ActiveX makes it "standard" in one literal definition of the word, so to describe it as "non-standard" isn't exactly correct.  I rewrote the sentence as "ActiveX controls are also Windows-specific applications and are not portable to non-Windows platforms without significant effort.", which I feel is a pretty accurate assessment.
* In some places where a person or source is cited, I've noted what year it's from.  This will help lend some real context to what's being said.
* The reference for the book "Malicious Mobile Code" has been changed from a Groklaw web link to a proper book citation.
* I expanded a couple of quotations to balance things out a bit more.
* I've found that there were a number of mis-represented dates as well, I'm fixing these as best I can.
... and that's just in the "Security" section of the article, phew!  I'll be working on this for a while longer; I'll update this with further changes I've made.  Warrens 04:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article changes 

message: Perhaps a mention of the fact that it has taken Microsoft 5 years to add PNG alpha support, tabs, and pretty much nothing else, is needed? They haven't done anything (besides PNG) to ease the ridiculous amounts of extra code needed to make a standards-compliant site work in IE. PNG support and tabs seem like they would take a week to implement and a couple months to test, which means the IE team has been standing around with their heads up their asses for 5 years. Pitiful. I'd add it myself but I could never write about this in an NPOV way. - Noclip 12:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason why it takes so long for MS to develop something for IE is prioritization. In the field of computers, .NET is the highest priority, then Windows, then Office then many many others and then comes IE. Jancikotuc 18:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text: IE7 has inconsistent support of PNG.  One PNG format image will look fine on a colored background or on top of a GIF background, but if you stack 2 PNG images on top of each other (such as an IMG over a background), the transparencies won't work.  So basically, 5 years of development, and STILL nothing.Applesanity 18:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  5 years of development, no results 

message: I have not seen any discussion of the irritating feature of IE - including the latest version - whereby whenever there is a change of page the screen blinks for a noticable period of time, even when most of the page content is unchanged. This does not happen with Firefox and some other browsers.
Why is this, and why has it not been addressed in the latest IE version?
Geoff97 22:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt that could be considered an Encyclopedic fact. Remember that this is an Encyclopedia not a forum where to complain about I don't know what obscure problem with your browser. We also need to avoid original research.  -- AdrianTM 10:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The IE blink when changing page 

message: Actually the user can define wherether when opened another tab, it has to display a blank page or the homepage in IE as of IE 7.0 RC1. So i had to delete the following message as inaccurate: ===IE7 tabbing===
While beta versions of IE7 include a useful feature for opening multiple web pages in a "tabbed" layout the "open new tab" command opens a blank page rather than the default startup page
Illuminati 23:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  IE7 tabbing 

message: To describe this section as OR is a misunderstanding of that policy. The source contains crticism and highlighting this is perfectly OK. TerriersFan 21:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I motivated my revert this way: I don't think "hoaxes" is encyclopedic material, also you'd have problems proving that hoaxes represent a form of criticsm. -- AdrianTM 21:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The text of the hoax manifestly contains criticisms. Whilst the hoax may not be encyclopaedic the concept of using a hoax website as a form of criticism certainly is. TerriersFan 21:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's wait for a 3rd opinion on this issue, I remain at my opinion that's not something encyclopedic and a hoax is a hoax, not a criticism. -- AdrianTM 23:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hoaxes

message: This article is completely POV.  It talks about problems that have already been resolved (such things would only be appropriate in a "History of Criticisms of Internet Explorer" page).  Also, a criticisms page is inherently POV.  After this article is cleaned up, it should be merged with Internet Explorer.  For the record, I am a FFX evangelical (see my user page). -Kingy 20:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV (Again) 

message: The article currently states that MSIE provides full implementation of ECMAScript. Isn't E4X also a part of ECMAScript too that no version of IE currently implements? In any case, someone with sufficient knowledge please include E4X discussion in the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdoubledragon (talk • contribs) 06:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ECMAScript Implementation 

message: 1) This section needs sources. 
2) IE tries to make technical error messages more user friendly. These friendly messages do not help experts (webmasters, administrators, etc) but do not hinder average users (they would not have any clue what went wrong if shown more detailed error messages)
I'm not sure what kind of source you're looking for. It's as much of a fact as anything else, not something theres really going to be a huge reference for. I could take some screenshots if that would help without violating the no self-research rule, but really I don't see the point. It's just a 'feature' Microsoft forced upon us with the only way to disable it being a registry edit.
I'd also disagree with your statement that they don't hinder average users. I was an "average user" once. Thanks to there always being things over my head always making me want to learn more and advance my knowledge, I'm now your typical techie. I know plenty of others like that. No formal computer schooling, no book reading, just enough not being pampered that eventually you just start learning things on your own. By babying users you remove that possibility and hinder them by putting a bag over their head and telling them theres nothing outside of it. Kind of like cars with the "service engine" light instead of actually telling you whats wrong. Cars have the excuse of not having proper means of display and it costing a lot more to feed real debugging info to you though, computers don't.
Sorry for the long rant, but they don't call it a talk page for nothing. --Semi 18:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear Error Messages 

message: Cleanup tag placed on article. Please do not simply remove, rather volunteer to pitch in.
A lot of the material is now dated as parts of it relate only to IE6 or earlier, and the article needs to say so explicitly where appropriate. Need to change from present tense to past tense in many instances. Volunteers to help clean up these points? CecilWard 13:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup needed, now need to say IE6 explicitly in many places 

message: "The lack of support for PNG alpha channel in versions prior to IE 7 has resulted in a reduced usage of the PNG image format on web pages." 
Is there any proff of this? 
Pod 11:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proof of detremental effects on PNGs?

message: I commented out the subsection about how IE7 doesn't support standards.  The entire section consisted of a single sentence saying that IE7 doesn't support standards.  There was no mention of which standards, no further explanation, nothing.  I would support uncommenting this section, but only if it can be greatly expanded.  Otherwise it is meaningless. Roachmeister 15:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed vague section about IE7 

message: I removed the section about download size. Wikipedia:No original research is Wikipedia policy and this section was nothing more than an exercise in presenting a Wikipedian's research on the subject.   -/- Warren 15:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed section about download size 

message: I think it's worthwhile that some mention be given to Internet Explorer's lack of support for another open standard, SVG. --Rktur 17:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  SVG 

message: Can't anyone put this on their whatchlist and prevent it from being... vandalized!? What's with the billion [citation needed] tags? I know I have to assume good faith but adding [citation needed] after a statement that XHTML is the successor of HTML is just Idk... vandalism. Or is it some really evil irony? I think both articles are explicit about the fact that XHTML is the successor of HTML and W3C apparently doesn't care if Microsoft thinks that we should stick to good ole HTML.
What's with adding three [citation needed] tags in a paragraph where the first sentence (having two references) has been explicit about the subject matter? It reminds me of the clause of not using wikipedia policies (e.g. "articles must have reliable sources") to subvert what the policies were actually intended for. 354d 07:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The XHTML one was kind of ridiculous, sorry, my apologies. I've removed it. And no, of course I don't get paid for this. My only reward is the satisfaction from the knowledge that this is one more  article that fanboys have a hard time dumping hatred on Microsoft and letting it stand as an unchallenged fact. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 07:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Criticism sections and articles are BAD (they should be avoided in Wikipedia), if somebody doens't take care of them they are magnet of original research and unsourced info. I actlually like to see the info where it says that XHTML is the successor of HTML, even if that might be obvious for some people but as Wikipedia put it if the info is obvious you can surely find a reference for that, if you can't find then that's WP:original research. -- AdrianTM 18:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  omg! Does Microsoft pay them to edit this article? 

message: u canot be serios. --Henry W. Schmitt 06:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  r u serios? 

message: It's seems more than half of this article is stuff like "IE does (such and such bad thing)." rather than actual coverage of people criticizing IE. Can someone help me fix this? Josh (talk | contribs) 06:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-criticism 

message: I think the material from this article should be integrated in Internet Explorer page. Ideally it should be integrated organically not in a "Criticism" section that would attract unreferenced and poor quality contributions. Criticism articles and sections should be avoided (that's Wikipedia recommendation). BTW, since I will probably be accused of promoting I don't know what special interest, let me make it clear that I opposed a "Criticism" section/articles about Firefox and Opera too and I just proposed to remove a "Criticism of Linux" link. Software is not a piece of art that requires a criticism and praises or reviews section, if there are notable, encyclopedic downsides they should be mentioned inside the main article, but not in a separate troll-attracting section. Thanks. AdrianTM (talk) 15:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge to [[Internet Explorer]] article

message: *  -- AdrianTM (talk) 15:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Votes

message: I have removed the WikiProject tag, as this article is either a redirect or deleted. If you oppose, please restore the tag. Thank you, fahadsadah (talk,contribs) 16:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiproject Computing