Talk:Internet Explorer 11

SPDY and WebGL on Windows 7

Not sure if IE11 supports SPDY on Windows 7. http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2013/07/25/ie11-developer-preview-for-windows-7-enabling-next-generation-sites-and-apps-faster.aspx only mentions it for Windows 8.1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.104.100.34 (talk) 16:31, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't. Gparyani (talk) 16:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

JavaScript performance

The source http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/benchmarks/SunSpider/SunSpiderResultsIE11GA.png is just a PNG hosted on an MS website. Clearly this is not an unbiased source, and there are no instructions for how someone could independently verify their results. I've edited that article to make it more clear that this is a claim made by Microsoft, only referring to one type of performance and only using one benchmark. (As an aside, running the same benchmark on my windows 7 laptop *was* faster in IE11 than Google Chrome 30). Robbie.coomber (talk) 15:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be good to include some 3rd party benchmark results that include other tests. The fact that Microsoft is only touting one benchmark sounds very biased. It would also be worthwhile to include other metrics, like WebGL and % support for the latest standards. While IE is getting a lot better at standards support, they have been the bane of developers for years because of their abysmal support and according to caniuse.com, IE 11 is still dead last among desktop browsers and only beating 3 out of 8 current mobile browsers: IE10 mobile (beating themselves), Opera Mini (cloud rendered; very, very non-standard), and Android Browser (which I assume will eventually be dropped). Jbo5112 (talk) 20:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I agree. It is against our WP:NOTADVERT and WP:ABOUTSELF policies. I have deleted the claim for now, until we have independent sources. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 21:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Independence

This article seems to be written by somebody trying to sell IE11. Only positive properties are taken in account. Tell us also about the problems! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.175.121.52 (talk) 11:22, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Wikipedia is a place in which you must first prove there is such a thing as a problem. So, if you have a source, I am listening.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 00:01, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Importance to users upgrade from Windows 7 to Windows 8

If the user upgrade from Windows 7 to Windows 8 when Internet Explorer 11 has installed, you'll restore to Internet Explorer 10. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.82.120.201 (talk) 05:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

No, the version of Internet Explorer carries over. For example, when you upgrade Windows XP with Internet Explorer 8 to Windows Vista, Windows Vista will still have Internet Explorer 8, not Internet Explorer 7. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 20:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Both examples are correct. "No, the version of Internet Explorer carries over" is wrong.I'm afraid that's incorrect. Vista will have IE7, not 8.New versions of Windows overwrite the previous version's components, even if they are newer. IE10 for Windows 7 is not the same IE10 for Windows 8.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 19:18, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

To fix the problem of reverting back to Internet Explorer 10 after upgrading from Windows 7 to Windows 8, just reinstall Internet Explorer 11 on Windows 8 or update to Windows 8.1, which includes Internet Explorer 11. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 20:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

For upgrades between other versions of Windows, just reinstall the version of Internet Explorer that was on your computer before upgrading: reinstall Internet Explorer 8 if you upgrade from Windows XP to Windows Vista; reinstall Internet Explorer 9 if you upgrade from Windows Vista to Windows 7 SP1. If you upgrade from Windows Vista to Windows 7 RTM without SP1, you must install SP1 first and then reinstall Internet Explorer 9. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 21:12, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

If you upgrade from Windows 7, 8, or 8.1 to Windows 10, you will have both Internet Explorer 11 and the Microsoft Edge Browser (previously codenamed Project Spartan). GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Updates

Is somebody able to keep the version table history updated? I'm running IE11 on a Windows 8.1 machine and version 11.0.3 has the build number 11.0.9600.16518, which is not reflected in the table. BigBenzino (talk) 16:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. It is very difficult for two reasons:

1. Wikipedia has no interest in growing size by showing numbers mean very little to the majority of people of the present and the future time. Unless it is a major release or major update with significant due weight, it won't go in there.
2. We need strong sources; one's that cannot be interpreted ambiguously by listing several version numbers.

In fact, I say there is no point tracking every minor change in version numbers because from a the point of view of a person that can see all version numbers in the world, it is a very fluid thing that sometimes changes every few days. Tracking all this to what end? Does human race have an insatiable love for numbers, especially when they change?

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 16:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Internet Explorer 11 Update

So, yeah, apparently, it's not allowed to update information here. And why? Because according to Codename Lisa, we can't mention small updates. Seriously? Have you ever seen the version table of Firefox and Chrome on Wikipedia? They are huge, and contain every single version number, even when it is a patch (on which I agree, is over the top). But Internet Explorer gets a feature update, an update that ends support for the original RTM release, and we are not allowed to note it? And the sources where there, so don't come complaining with that. --YannickFran (talk) 22:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it is worthwhile to talk about the forthcoming update to IE 11 on Windows Phone 8.1 and the changes that will come with it, but it isn't out yet, right? Redmond Mag, standards impact, BetaNews. --Pmsyyz (talk) 13:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi.

It is great to see you, YannickFran, but I am surprised that you are actually arguing about the one point that I didn't disagree with you. I never said it is unimportant. What I said is:

1. Updates don't go into the table. That's a release table, not an update table. Its entries have the property of being full standalone downloads of IE, without incrementing update number. (Just the build number.)
2. You have claimed that IE 11.0.9600.16384 is no longer supported by turning its cells red. In effect, it means it won't release any further support or updates. But the same edits contradicts this by listing an update just underneath it. Coupled with the mistake of listing an update inside a table, it is in effect claiming that another version of IE is out.
3. There is a third problem that I didn't mention in my edit summary is that your source does not verify any of your claim. Sure, the source says there is such thing as Enterprise mode but it doesn't say it comes with version 11.0.9600.17031. For all that matters, Enterprise mode is probably part of the original Internet Explorer 11 release.

Since this isn't the first time we are having this type of conversation, I am obliged to tell you that you are spending your time making a monster out of me while your fellow Wikipedians, who assume good faith, would have have by now worked a compromise and resolved the problem.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 15:21, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

"Just the build number", well yes, that's how an X.Y.BBBB.DDDDD versioning scheme works. X nor Y nor B have to go up for a major, minor or patch update. This isn't an X.Y.Z version scheme. There is a difference. Microsoft has officially announced that it's required to upgrade to the latest version of Windows and Internet Explorer to keep getting updates. You won't get updates anymore if you stick around on version 11.0.9600.16663, then it's end of the line and Windows Update will keep saying that you're up-to-date. That looks pretty much like end of support. 11.0.9600.17031 and upwards is a different version of IE. It's the same as Firefox going from 3.0 to 3.1 (but they use an X.Y.Z versioning scheme). So if Mozilla would drop support for 3.0 but keeps updating 3.1, that would, according to you, mean that Firefox 3 is still supported, as 3.1 is an update to this version and as it is an update, it - the original version - is supported. It's also hard to find a compromise when every change that's made is reverted.--YannickFran (talk) 16:06, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I find it very easier to find a compromise when everything is reverted. But when verification fails, the revert is nevertheless wholesale, like it or not.

Your conclusion of end of support here is a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources and a wrong conclusion too. Microsoft announcement says: "Beginning January 12, 2016, only the most current version of Internet Explorer available for a supported operating system will receive technical support and security updates, as shown in the table below." Table shows Internet Explorer 11 receives support on Windows 7 and 8. In other words, the previous version refers to IE10 and earlier and it is not going to happen until 2016. In addition, Internet Explorer updates are cumulative, meaning that the latest update installs all updates to that date. All in all, what you are doing is radically different.

Finally, updates don't go into the table. That's a release table, not an update table. That's just common sense.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 21:12, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

After four years...

I have to disagree with Codename Lisa on two points.

(1) Continually reverting changes by other users is not an effective way to eventually achieve compromise.

(2) Stating "Finally, updates don't go into the table. That's a release table, not an update table. That's just common sense." is not a clear argument. The table is under a "History" section, with categories marked "version", and there's no indication that updates are not part of the history, or that they don't constitute versions — or, indeed, that updated versions are not "released". Please back up your statements with WP Manual/Guideline links, or definitions of those terms from reputable sources that support your point. Talking about "common sense" is unhelpful, and could be interpreted as a sly insult to those with other opinions.

—DIV (120.17.222.106 (talk) 11:50, 7 March 2018 (UTC))

Hello.

When you revive a discussion after years, you are expected to at least be familiar with our basic policies or have the slightest idea why we do things.

(1) Our policy is "content without source are challanged and deleted", not "compromise with unreferenced contents". Edits by dignified editors who have proven their worth to the project receive a {{Citation needed}} but that's not their rights; it is a privilege we grant them out of respect.

(2) "Wikiedia is not a change log." (That's a fundamental policy, by the way.) We don't dignify every single bit that Microsoft releases with a table entry. That bit must have due weight. (Some people mistakenly say "notability". But I digress...) But they don't; updates for Internet Explorer 11 were so useless and effectless that Microsoft lost its monopoly on the web browser market.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 12:18, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

P.S. If you haven't noticed, I have completely changed my argument. Things have changed in the intervening years. Four years ago, entirely different things were expected from Microsoft. (See Pmsyyz's comment above.) In comparison to what you did today, YannickFran's edit had orders of magnitude more quality: [1] We expected Microsoft to release so many feature updates that we needed an updates table. But it didn't. The one YannickFran added was the last one. Actually, I am putting that back. —Codename Lisa (talk) 12:28, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

External links: link offline?

"Exploring IE: A Blog for Internet Explorer Customers at The Windows Blog"
The link above seems to be offline. If this is not a temporary problem, please follow Link rot. --Sappalott (talk) 09:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Sappalott

The link is not responding even now.

Furthermore, while we do keep dead links used as sources, external links are not kept.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 13:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Update: It appears the blog has moved to blogs.windows.com/ie/. It is still not clear whether it contains the old contents. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 13:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I removed the link today. Usage of a replacement has been renounced, because it seems not so much relevant for the lemma.  Done --Sappalott (talk) 09:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Fake version numbers?

Hi.

I noticed that a user called Cayuga has updated the version number of Internet Explorer 11 several times but has failed to supply a source. The problem is that I cannot seem to find any reliable source that has the words "11.0.16" or "11.0.15" in it. I noticed that Softpedia has stopped listing version numbers after 11.0.11.

All this makes me think whether any update after 11.0.11 is fake.

I am not accusing anyone of version number vandalism yet; but I do believe that version number vandalism is a very real threat. Therefore, I am invoking Wikipedia:Verifiability to revert to that well-sourced version. If anybody has a source – and by that I do not mean the original research act of telling me "Oh, I see it in my computer!" – that person is more than welcome to come forward.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 05:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

They aren't fake. The current version of Internet Explorer is 11.0.20 (and 10.0.27 and 9.0.39). Microsoft never refers to IE updates like that, but these are real versions of Internet Explorer as can be found in the "About Internet Explorer" dialogue boxes.--84.195.214.118 (talk) 13:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Version numbers depend on the Windows version installed.

According to the article, the current version of IE11 is:

Stable release 11.0.24 (11.0.9600.18057) / 13 October 2015; 48 days ago

However, that seems to be the version number for the Windows 8.1 version of IE11. Should we update it to Windows 10's IE11's version number, which is 11.0.25 (11.11.10586.0) since Windows 10 is the latest OS to include IE11?

Billybobjoe321 (talk) 01:19, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Request for change -- Infobox / operating system

I would change myself but I don't want to do it wrong. It says under operating system (in infobox): "Windows Server 2008 R2 and later[3]" but that is actually not correct. For instance, Windows server 2012 (NOT R2) was released later than 2008r2, but is not compatible/supported. Here's a couple sources on that, hopefully someone can polish up this bit of the article!

https://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/ie/en-US/193b638a-2e49-4357-9885-57e003298b60/can-i-get-internet-explorer-11-for-windows-server-2012-?forum=ieitprocurrentver ^addresses my example

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/internet-explorer/ie11-deploy-guide/system-requirements-and-language-support-for-ie11 ^exhaustive list of compatible Operating systems , excerpt below

Windows 10 (32-bit or 64-bit) Windows 8.1 Update (32-bit or 64-bit) Windows 7 with SP1 (32-bit or 64-bit) Windows Server 2012 R2 Windows Server 2008 R2 with SP1 (64-bit only)

216.36.146.3 (talk) 19:06, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

You're right. Windows 7 SP1, 2008 R2 SP1, and the versions that come with IE11, are the only versions that support IE11. I've fixed this in the infobox. - Josh (talk | contribs) 23:05, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

ActiveX

Please can the article mention ActiveX. I (like millions of others) have to use IE11 sometimes for the simple reason it is the only (supported) way to run legacy ActiveX applications in 2019. John a s (talk) 17:59, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Quality of writing

The article needs to be edited for readability and grammar. I found a sentence fragment in the first paragraph, and as I continued to wade through the article, found other problems with the writing.

I was surprised that such a prominent article had so many quality problems. BKF01 (talk) 14:39, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Latest stable version is not listed in History section

Latest stable version "11.0.220 (11.0.19043.1266) / September 30, 2021; 8 months ago" mentioned in infobox is not included in version table in History section. Could this version and maybe other omitted be included in that table? Thank you! Adam Hauner (talk) 15:45, 16 June 2022 (UTC)