Talk:ActiveX

message: Whoever created this article is not familiar with ActiveX. The article needs a complete rewrite. Michael (talk) 20:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite needed

message: This is one of the worst wiki pages I've read in a long time. It is muddled, confused, and makes no attempt to describe the technology only its defects of which there are a few.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.223.234.100 (talk) 14:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed.--202.77.13.1 05:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Confused

message: Should be something mentioned about this because it does affect the developer's choice in using ActiveX controls in a webpage and thus affects the product. 
When I began using FF I noticed some issues with it because of web designers using AxtiveX but now I rarely, if ever, see it. Krozar (talk) 01:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary, Mozilla would never adopt it even if MS licensed ActiveX control technology unless it is open source. Even if MS does make the technology open source, Firefox and Opera won't include it abusing ActiveX controls of being insecure. So it isn't exactly "lack of support" entirely from Microsoft. Just my two cents :) - xpclient Talk 14:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  This issue seems well explained in the article -- FF doen not inlcude activex plugins because FF is multiplatform and activex is windows only. Not because it is not open source -- Java, Flash, etc are closed but multiplatform.--BBird (talk) 16:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of FireFox and Opera Support 

message: I have always read that ActiveX is the cause for many big security problems. I read nothing about that in the article. Plus the whole article is not very Wikipedia-style.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.96.131.10 (talk) 16:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not informative 

message: I'll include the Delphi info if you could please cite a reliable source. Thanks Dotancohen 13:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: .

message: The article says ActiveX controls debuted in VB4. Back then they were called OLE custom controls. When you look at the Object Linking and Embedding article it says that ActiveX is a set of web-related extensions to OLE. Somehow this whole mess doesn't make much sense. Shinobu 16:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ActiveX controls versus OLE custom controls 

message: Looks like the entire page was copied from another website Fontenot 1031 00:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See below. Shinobu 04:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  corporate looking text with bad style 

message: A rewrite of this page is most definitely needed, and soon. Not only is it not Wikified, it's written like an advertisement. I know nothing about ActiveX or I'd do it myself, but this page needs some serious work. --Pyreforge 12:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole section was a copyvio; I deleted it. A re-write doesn't seem very useful at the moment since the article might be merged with the Automation article anytime. Since the offending text is scrapped, I will remove the POV tag. Shinobu 04:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, most excellent. I had Googled it, but evidently it wasn't completely verbatim. Thanks :) --Pyreforge 12:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't agree that is is written like an advertisement. I come to an ActiveX article, of course it tells me about ActiveX. I go to Java (programming language) and the first sentence tells me about Sun. (I'm not suggesting a re-write of the Java/Sun page either) 218.214.18.240 23:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't written like an advertisement, it was written like an advertisement. The deletion of the massive copyright violation fixed most of the article's problems - apart from its lack of content. --Pyreforge 01:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite needed

message: Not to mention the overlap between OLE and COM articles.
I would hate to see the ActiveX article go: to me OLE automation should be covered by the OLE, COM, or ActiveX articles. I don't mind seeing it in the ActiveX article, because the OLE and COM articles are long enough already, and the OLE basics should be moved back out to OLE or COM. 218.214.18.240 23:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  OLE automation article not great either. 

message: Okay, I think I have a theory about where this article goes wrong: ActiveX is actually a brand name for anything Internet-related. That would explain why no one really knows what it is: we're all techies and can't bend our heads around something that doesn't really define a technology, but is Microsoft marketing speak for a hazily defined concept, and we assumed ActiveX was something and subsequently tried to figure out what it was. Much to the enjoyment of Microsoft's marketing department. Shinobu 08:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brand name? 

message: The ActiveX technology is based on the usage of the IUnknown interface.  I don't see a reason to devote an entire article to ActiveX controls when all of the same information is going to be in this one.  I vote to Merge the ActiveX control article to a section here and try to make a Good Article out of this.  I am more than happy to do the merge and edit myself if there are no complaints. Zab (talk) 10:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge from [[ActiveX control]] 

message: This article needs more sources; it currently only has a single one. Likewise it needs more information, specifically about its features and its security risks. 69.182.169.180 (talk) 02:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Severely lacking

message: "while ActiveX components are only compatible with Microsoft's Internet Explorer web browser and the Microsoft Windows operating system."
Doesn't Firefox, Opera and other browsers make use of ActiveX controls?--79.121.158.225 (talk) 22:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compatible with just Microsoft Internet Explorer? 

message: The previous ref is an interesting one and raises an issue discussed in several sources e.g.   (the best one probably being the earlier one) of the popularity of ActiveX in Korea and perhaps China which the article doesn't discuss Nil Einne (talk) 03:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Korea and China 

message: I'm pretty certain the article is incorrect when it says that you can create ActiveX controls with the .NET Framework, whether C# or any other dialect. You can use ActiveX components, through the shims offered in the Interop facilities of .NET, but it certainly doesn't support writing ActiveX components.
Can anyone provide a link that contradicts this?  
Update - I've just noticed the link that is there. It does not support what it claims to support: this is an article about consuming .NET framework components from an COM object / ActiveX control; it says nothing at all about writing ActiveX controls in .NET, so I'm going to remove that bit. 92.23.133.194 (talk) 13:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/asiatech/2011/12/05/how-to-develop-and-deploy-activex-control-in-c/ is pretty much what is required to write an Activex with .Net. The majority of the work is passing IE's security. If not writing the ActiveX for IE, making the control visible to COM is good enough for many RAD frameworks.--Skyfiler (talk) 07:15, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  .NET support of ActiveX 

message: The Other_ActiveX_technologies section currently starts off, "Microsoft has developed a large number of products and software platforms using ActiveX objects. Some remain in use as of 2009:".  The last bit about, "... as of 2009 ..." leads me to believe this section could use a review by someone familiar with the current state of other ActiveX technologies.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.14.235.217 (talk) 21:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review: Other_ActiveX_technologies Updated Review needed 

message: Comment from User:178.77.8.179...
: Note: I've tried to see this book (I had to register to open-group in order to do that), but the book doesn't exist there: 7. "Documentation for ActiveX Core Technology". The Open Group.
I've reported the issue to the OpenGroup on their website. We'll see what happens. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 13:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: OpenGroup have fixed their link. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 16:44, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to book is broken 

message: The article lacks a section on security. Even Microsoft recommends that one stays away from them if possible: "Here's a good rule to follow: If an ActiveX control is not essential to your computer activity, avoid installing it." http://www.microsoft.com/security/pc-security/activex.aspx Mlewan (talk) 06:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Security risks 

message: Marketing people like to create new terms, even if it is nothing new. They are intentionally confusing because they care more about impressing than making sense. Technical people are frustrated by that. I think ActiveX is an example of a confusing term. It is difficult to get clear technical definitions of terms like ActiveX and Automation. My understanding of a critical feature of ActiveX is that they have a UI whereas Automation does not. These days, we usually just say COM Object and I am not sure if COM Object includes ActiveX. I wish this article would be more clear about whether ActiveX is a COM Object or if they are separate. Sam Tomato (talk) 23:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: ActiveX includes ActiveX Controls (which at minimum needs to support IUnknown), Active Scripting, Active Document, ActiveX Server Framework (ActiveX Server Scripting and ActiveX Server Controls). In most cases, especially in the context of Internet Explorer, ActiveX often means ActiveX Controls just like a man often means an adult male instead of a person. Anyway, neither UI nor automation is critical for an ActiveX. An ActiveX can be without UI (e.g. the Microsoft.XMLHTTP object used in Ajax), or automation support (if it does not care about scripting access). Even IOleObject is optional if event (IConnectionPointContainer) is sufficient for communication with the container, or even event is not needed since the control does not need to push unsolicited response to the container. Because existing ActiveX are so different (they each implement a different set of interfaces) the least common denominator is just IUnknown. --Skyfiler (talk) 18:12, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marketing people are intentionally confusing 

message: What, exactly, is an Active X control?  A definition is needed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.206.183.230 (talk) 00:31, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition Needed