Jump to content

Talk:Internet Explorer 8/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1


Unresolved Printing Issues?

Is it true that IE8 is unable to properly print .otf OpenType fonts? I tested this on XP with IE8 RC-1 and while the .otf fonts are displayed correctly, printing shows uneven letter spacing. Can anyone confirm this? (If so, this could be mentioned in the article, considering that .otf is the leading professional font format.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Talbotter (talk • contribs) 20:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Infobox dispute ("Windows Component" Vandalism)

For some unknown reason certain users are deliberately going against the established grain, attempting to change the Infobox from Software (as with all previous versions of Internet Explorer) and changing it to "Windows Component". This is nonsense. The only people I can think of who would argue for the "component" are the people paid by Microsoft to edit these things... Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 12:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Two betas in H1 2008?

Why are we so certain that [1] and [2] refer to two different betas? - Josh (talk | contribs) 04:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't reading Remember the dot's edit summary very carefully. Even if they were about to send private invitations to the beta, the blog writer wouldn't necessarily know that, or necessarily be allowed to reveal that information by giving a less vague release estimate then the most recent one, which was given two months before. - Josh (talk | contribs) 04:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

IE 8 standards or quirk mode selection

IE 8 will use standards mode by default, this is an about face from thier previous stance. The web dev would have to use a special call string to use ie 7 mode. refrence at http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2008/03/03/microsoft-s-interoperability-principles-and-ie8.aspx - Tom 18:46, 3 March 2008

While that seems to be what they're saying in the first paragraph, they then go on to imply that IE8 standards mode will still be opted into, but using the same method used for switching IE7 into IE7 standards mode. ("Now, IE8 will show pages requesting “Standards” mode in IE8’s Standards mode.") - Josh (talk | contribs) 00:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Nope, IE8 standards mode (now called "standards mode" like the rest of the world does) will be default. The IE7 rendering mode (called "IE7 standards mode") is the one that will now need opting into using the meta element. --soum talk 00:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

IE7 standards mode by default?

Where is this idea that IE8 was going to use IE7 standards mode, and not quirks mode, by default coming from? - Josh (talk | contribs) 16:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I do not get your question. As per previous announcements, when served with a valid (X)HTML document (with a valid HTML 4/4.01 Strict or XHTML doctype) IE8 was supposed to trigger "IE7 standards mode" by default. "IE8 standards mode" was to be opted-in explicitly using the X-UA-Compatible meta tag. Per current announcement, HTML 4.01 Strict, XHTML as well as HTML5 doctypes will trigger "IE8 standards mode" by default. IE7 mode can be requested by explicit opt-in. Quirks mode is not affected (triggered by no doctype or HTML 4/4.01 transitional doctype). --soum talk 17:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
The article currently says "Originally, this was going to be the other way around, as the browser would use the 'IE7 standards mode' by default". - Josh (talk | contribs) 19:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Please see: http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2008/03/03/microsoft-s-interoperability-principles-and-ie8.aspx J.H (talk) 19:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Updating the article

A long workday ahead. Who's going to get started? --soum talk 12:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Unneeded sections

Why the hell are these sections in the article? 6 IE8 White Papers 7 Features and Technology Overview 8 IE8 Developer Tools

They just copy and paste from the MS websites and offer nothing substanitally encyclopedic. And everything in section 7 is already in section 3. Why do we have to repeat MS' marketing spin? What is not achieved by just linking to the MS pages in EL section, as every other article do? Whatever happened to the copyvio clause? I am removing them. --soum talk 19:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Well you have a point with some that, but the developer tools section I think is still reasonable. Digita (talk) 19:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
No it is not. There are other tools that do work with IE8. On what authority are we to choose the MS-blessed ones over them? MS suggests these tools, let MS list them. We do not have any need to parrot them, nor are we doing anything better than MS. It all comes down as advertising them, which we strive to avoid at all costs. Going forward, this will become a magnet for every other tool ever developed, when there will an advert tag get slapped and eventually deleted. So, lets not keep it in the first place itself. Instead the whitepapers are a better candidate for listing in the EL section, because MS does not have a central list of them all. --soum talk 20:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Look soum, I was just trying to get IE8 Beta 1 content from the launch into the article, not launch some sort of MS crusade. I'll drop this table bit, but I think we ought to summarize some of what was in the launch either way. Digita (talk) 21:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Of course we ought to - thats what we are here for, aren't we? (Cool down buddy, I ain't combative) But what should we summarize? Something that MS already has? Whats the point doing that? I get what you are trying to achieve - make this article a one-stop shop for all resources regarding IE8. But that is not what wikipedia articles are for. They just provide introduction to the subject. Making a list of tangential resources isn't an utility of this article. If that list is important, either make a list article. Or MS already has a great list made, just linking to it is enough. That was my point.
As for symmarizing, what other info was released by MS that isn't already summarized? We need to look at other sources now. We need info on the developer tools, and public reception. But for public reception, I think we should wait for now. Given that this is a dev-oriented beta, incorporating opinion from non-devs isn't that good an idea. We should wait for a end user-oriented beta. --soum talk 21:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I think you have done a fine job soumarizing the IE8 stuff. Without being too particular I was trying to add some detail to the launch paraphernalia (e.g. wp and whatnot). However, it is not a big deal to me soum and I prefer to see us adding new content. Digita (talk) 21:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the platform bit is not needed and isn't on the other IE pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.70.247 (talk) 22:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Acid3 image

Since neither passing acid3 (nor implementation of major specs tested by it, e.g., css3 and svg) were touted as focus of ie8 development, I think the image should not be used here. Instead, because css2.1 full compliance is a stated goal, we should use the image of a test that tests css2 compliance (namely, acid2). Acid3 definitely can be mentioned but not highlighted. --soum talk 19:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Information on beta releases

Have Microsoft released a timetable (or anything similar) about when they plan to release each milestone? It would be good info for the article. --Titan602 (talk) 18:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

No, the only concrete information they have provided regarding any future release of IE8 (or IE in general) is what currently missing CSS 2.1 features will make it to IE8 RTM (which anybody could have figured out since they said full CSS 2.1 compliance)? They haven't said anything else; not even whether they are doing anything with the features they requested feedback via a closed survey (an improved bookmark manager is the only thing coming to my mind) or via webstandards.org (support for more of the DOM spec, native XPath, and JS features). The only known thing related to release schedule is a broader release coming in June, though that information is not from MS directly. --soum talk 18:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I see. They might tell us more at the end of the month. --Titan602 (talk) 20:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Scripting

Should JavaScript be refered to as JScript in this article? --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson (talk) 05:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably not because it would just confuse people even more. —Remember the dot (talk) 21:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, at this point "JavaScript" (as our JavaScript article explains) is used as a pretty generalized term. Saying 'Microsoft's proprietary JScript implementation of JavaScript' would be fine, though, IMO. ¦ Reisio (talk) 23:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be "Microsoft's proprietary JScript implementation of ECMAScript"? 221.217.204.95 (talk) 05:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
It should read "Microsoft's JScript" It seems that the purpose of including "proprietary" is to help OSS advocates frame and malign. Transforming the word "proprietary" into a perjorative is the purpose here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.47.86.27 (talk) 03:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

'Controversy' section

The information under Version Targeting also has information about the criticism and response of the IE7/IE8 standards mode system. I think this should be broken out into another section called maybe Version Targeting Controversy, or simply Controversy for the fact that this is a chronological account of this particular item, and more information may emerge about this as time goes on. Sjetha (talk) 04:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Gee someone has deleted it... :/ Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 18:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Is IE8 expected to support SVG?

http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/button_link.png If so, how well and which SVG version? Will (Talk - contribs) 10:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

It's also my question. Does Internet Explorer 8 support SVG? -- Tofra Talk contributions 15:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Microsoft has consistently refused to support SVG ever since the World Wide Web Consortium chose it over Microsoft VML. Internet Explorer 8 will be no different. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
This bug report seems to indicate that currently IE8 beta 2 doesn't support dynamic VML elements created via javascript either, which previous versions supported. This is a major problem for canvas emulation libraries like google's excanvas. Should this be indicated somewhere?. -- McGrew Talk 21:55 17 November 2008 (UTC)
It may be just that -- a bug report. We probably shouldn't jump the gun on reporting that certain behaviour has changed if we can't clarify whether it's a beta bug or a design decision. If IE8 does get released with a regression in VML support, though, I'm sure we'll have no problem finding some reliable sources on the topic so that we can write about it in the article... Warren -talk- 23:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

WebSlices

"The description of Active Desktop is very nearly an exact description of the new WebSlices feature in IE8. They do exactly what Active Desktop was designed to do --- grab information from the Web, and display it in a kind of widget inside Internet Explorer." - Very nice but very very common. Unfortunately could nobody say to me (teatchers at school, incl.) till now, I could find nowhere resources to get usable informations what Active Desktop really does and what not, what happens concretely if I work with or without it. All reachable informations to this theme are too compact and/or look incomplete and/or confuse. It seams everybody has at the best only a nebulous imagination about it. -- 84.226.18.31 (talk) 23:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

BETA 2 release

Unfortunately I didn't remember the site and visited it on a computer that is not my own, but I just read that IE8 BETA2 will be released "by August 28". Jmh010 (talk) 19:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The article needs to be updated fore Beta2

New features:

  • Enhanced address bar to search accross favorites and history (with web page titles too).
  • Visual Search suggestions.
  • Color coded tabs.
  • Caret browsing.
  • Better tab management - Undo closed tabs and duplicate tabs.
  • SmartScreen Filter.
  • InPrivate Browsing mode.
  • Site suggestions.
  • Inline search.
   ....need to figure out the rest. --soum talk 02:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
A summary on google from fox news also mentioned "Porn Mode" (allowings users to hide the audit trail of websites they have visted.). (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,412161,00.html) Jon (talk) 13:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

at above: "Color coded tabs": The tabs are coloured with respect to when and where they were opened to help them be organsied. e.g. if a link was opened in an orange tab, the subsequent tab will be peach [this may not be the case, just an example].

http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2008/08/27/internet-explorer-8-beta-2-now-available.aspx?CommentPosted=true

Copying the Competition

On the above link I posted, look for "Smart Address Bar", does that not seam a copy of Firefoxes "Awesome Bar" (I think opera might have also copied firefox a bit with their address bar(?))Yhulkdsfdd (talk) 06:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

And Firefox 3 copied the unified back/forward history list from IE7, big deal (Opera's Full-text Search is very different from Firefox's Awesome Bar, they are definitely not copied of each other). Ufopedia (talk) 01:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Features removed as usual

I'll post a list if needed but I've already begun discovering *several* features removed in IE8 which were present in IE6/IE7. Worthwhile to list them? - xpclient Talk 07:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It'd be okay as long as it has references from notable sources. For example inline autocomplete has been dropped, which is already mentioned in the article. Ufopedia (talk) 05:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
"The ability to make web pages available offline and synchronize them on a schedule.
The option to delete files and settings stored by addons or ActiveX controls."
I don't see any reputable sources mention them, so it's original research? and I don't think those features were in IE7 anyway, the Delete button for ActiveX controls in IE7 are always disabled. Ufopedia (talk) 06:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Simply be sure to note that features were probably deprecated in favour of new methods. It is unlikely it is less "featureful", merely different.

"Porn mode"

I tried to remove this last night, but it has been reverted... Yes, there are citations, but that does not make it notable; this is a minor bit of trivia that we are giving undue weight to. (It is also nothing new, as a quick web search shows that the term was used back in 2005 to describe Safari's "private browsing" mode. There's no mention of the term anywhere in Safari (web browser).) Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy

My side of the dispute is that although it is true that the term has not been exclusively used to describe IE8's "InPrivate" mode, it has been by far most prominently mentioned in coverage related to IE8's release. The fact that highly visible news outlets such as Fox News, The Sun and many others mentioned the term "Porn mode" as pertaining to IE8's InPrivate mode does easily account for the "DUEness" of mentioning it in a single concise sentence in this article's InPrivate section. Consider that we're merely stating the very obvious in a simple formulation; i.e., the sources don't need to be reliable sources for the claim itself since we're not asserting as fact anything but the very prominent mentioning of the term "Porn mode" in relation to coverage of IE8's InPrivate mode. Everyme 07:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
If a term is generally known and is backed up by mention in well-known news outlets (I see computer world, fox news and the sun), then including a mention of the term in the article is reasonable. Just because the term is not official does not mean we can't talk about it. The important thing is to focus on providing a complete picture for the wikipedia user. (Note: Google turns up 86700 hits for "porn mode" "internet explorer", high enough, I think.) --Regents Park (count the magpies) 13:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. My concern is not with the term itself, but with how it is presented. The articles we use as references didn't come up with the term specifically for IE. However, as it now stands, Wikipedia gives the impression that the term originated with, and solely represents, Internet Explorer's privacy feature (especially since Porn mode now redirects here). This is incorrect, and the text needs to either be removed, or rewritten to reflect the more widespread use. (To be balanced, it should also be incorporated into the articles on Safari, Chrome, and Firefox 3.1.) --Ckatzchatspy 23:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
That sounds fair. I see references to porn mode way back in 2005 with Safari. Let me take a quick look at the text again. --Regents Park (count the magpies) 00:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree. The text as written sounds as if porn mode was coined for IE8. It needs to be changed to reflect the origins of the phrase. Perhaps, "With the InPrivate Browsing feature, users will be able to browse the internet without collecting any cookies, history or other personal information. This 'porn mode' feature is also available on Safari and Google Chrome and will soon be available on Firefox." Or something like that. --Regents Park (count the magpies) 00:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
That wording implies that porn mode is a lexicalised synonym, and therefore even stronger in the direction Ckatz wants to avoid. I'd suggest something along the lines of:
Like similar privacy protection modes in Safari and Google Chrome, InPrivate Browsing has been described as a "porn mode" as noted by Fox News, PC World and many other news outlets.
This would account for the non-exlusivity, but also for the comparatively high-profile coverage the term has received in particular relation to IE8. Everyme 09:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Addendum, regarding the Porn mode redirect: As soon as there are referenced sections in the Safari and Chrome articles, I'd revamp Porn mode as a dab, linking to all three articles. Also, the links in my suggested wording should accordingly be replaced with links to the porn mode sections in those articles. Everyme 09:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
checkY Done see Porn mode and feel free to adjust as you see fit. Since "porn mode" firefox yields 65.000+ results in Google (more than both "porn mode" chrome and "porn mode" safari), I've included it in the dab although the Firefox feature will be first introduced in version 3.1. Note however that the dab cannot replace a due mention of the term in the individual articles. Everyme 10:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I think we should also modify the Safari and Chrome articles to include this term "porn mode", especially Safari, since it is the first notable use of this term.Ufopedia (talk) 12:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Of course, feel free to do so. Or maybe I'll get around to it later. Everyme 14:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The image Image:Internet Explorer 7 Logo.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. --03:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


The IE market share table is shown twice in the article. Once in history, once towards the end. I dont edit articles, so just letting people know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.65.63 (talk) 15:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

"Contents" in IE8

Why can't I use "Contents" in Wikipedia pages in IE8? I click on the link in "Contents" section, but nothing happens. I can use it only in "compatibility mode". --Moscvitch (talk) 01:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Integrating into windiws xp installation files

nlite has the abiliy to directly integrate internet explorer 8 into the setup files. I am taliking about true integration.

"Activities"/Accelerators and WebSlices

Didn't MS claimed that they wanted to make these two features open standards? is there anything released (W3c? Iso?)? mabdul 0=* 15:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Microsoft has released the specifications under the Microsoft Open Specification Promise open licensing. hAl (talk) 12:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
thanks, shouldn't that mention in this article, too? mabdul 0=* 14:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

application/xhtml+xml

There is still no support for application/xhtml+xml, therefore IE 8 is unable to display for example XHTML 1.1. This maybe should be mentioned in the critique section. It is one of the biggest problems with IE 8. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.192.10.239 (talk) 08:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Address bar

Can somebody provie a screenshot for the ie8 (with the highlighted tld) of the Address bar? thx mabdul 0=* 15:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Duplicate infobox

Please limit yourself to one infobox, or at least remove the duplicate information and graphics from the second infobox. —Remember the dot (talk) 19:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

To be added

Category:Windows 7. Article is protected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.138.185.175 (talk) 14:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

inPrivate

The article should state what disadvantages does it have? Is there any reason not to enable it besides the need to store stuff? Does it hurt speed or anything like that? And does it use things like cookies that were saved before it was enabled? 82.81.228.66 (talk) 12:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Those will be part of original research. --staka.talk 20:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Who said I didn't ask for reliable sources? -82.81.228.66 (talk) 00:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
But to include it in the article (otherwise search for a forum) we need a source and don't treat it as WP:OR. (But I'm also very interested in this part!) mabdul 0=* 10:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Read the first line as "The article should quote reliable sources that state what disadvantages does it have.". -82.81.228.66 (talk) 11:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Market Share Compared to Firefox 2.0?

I don't see the point in the following statement: "NetApplicatons is reporting that Internet Explorer 8 usage is catching up to Firefox 2.0. Firefox 2.0 usage dropped to 2.27% in February 2009 while Internet Explorer 8 usage grew from from 0.65% to 1.17% in the same month." What value is comparing the market share of the latest and greatest IE version to an old, no longer supported version of Firefox? It would be more useful to compare the growth rate of IE 8 since it came out to that of other beta-release browsers, past or present. Richcon (talk) 13:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, comparing to an old version of Firefox makes no sense... SF007 (talk) 13:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Bug in Favorites?

Doing an action in the Favorites (in the Menu Bar) with right click closes the Favorites.. is that a bug? It completed the action and showed us the result in IE7. --staka.talk 20:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Windows XP screenshots

might be worth adding, as a significant number of IE8's target users run it under WinXP. --NEMT (talk) 21:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia accelerator

Where I get Wikipedia accelerator for IE8? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.79.212.153 (talk) 11:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

At: www.ieaddons.com hAl (talk) 12:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Features subsections

Does every new or changed feature really need its own subsection? All it does is make the TOC huge, and the headings look exactly the same as just Bolding the titles, currently. I can't find any MOS policy saying it's good or bad one way or the other, but to me it seems that consolidation of sections is the best policy, if possible. --Resplendent (talk) 16:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Windows 7 compatibility

What's up with the Windows 7 column in the Releases section? It seems like we just took each IE8 build and lined it up with the closest Windows 7 build. - Josh (talk | contribs) 19:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Final release

Do you think the material is good enough for the new release?

--88.107.191.206 (talk) 20:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)Robin

HP Smart Selection

IE8 is not compatible with the "HP Smart Selection" printing utility so the latter has to be disabled. I found HP Smart Selection very useful so I am not pleased. Biscuittin (talk) 15:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

internet explorer 8 complaints

according to http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/261182,microsofts-internet-explorer-8-hits-snags.html users are switching back to ie7 and microsoft is getting a lot of complaints. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.245.18.200 (talk) 19:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that site also says that its 4 gigs, when its closer to around 25 megs. If it missed that simple statistic then I think we can pass on that till we find a more reputable site.--Ryudo (talk) 02:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

it requires a 4gb cache which it has reserved Markthemac (talk) 23:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Not a worthwhile source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.47.86.27 (talk) 03:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

IE is becoming worst browser day by day. IE 6.1 was the lightest version of IE and was quite stable and uses a very less amount of memory. IE 7 & 8 are the heaviest and worst ever browsers of the universe unlike Firefox,safari & opera. IE is useing a bundle of memory with its every new version. Do something microsoft , are you guys sleeping or what. --Adyniz (talk) 07:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, did you really just imply that IE 6 was better than IE 7&8? IE 7 was better in nearly every way, and IE8 just builds upon that. IE8 actually can use less memory than firefox, but if you have lots of free memory, it uses more. And why shouldnt it? It using more unused is a GOOD thing. Empty ram doesnt help you. And when you need that ram, IE8 takes up less memory.--Ryudo (talk) 04:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

One month after release??

"One month after final release, on April 18, 2009, the market share jumped to 4.63%"

It is currently May 2nd, about 2 weeks after release. How can this statement be true! --HappyDog (talk) 02:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

It's saying that April 18 is one month after final release, not that April 18 is the final release. - Josh (talk | contribs) 02:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh - I see. Perhaps reword it to "On April 18, 2009, one month after final release, the market ..." --HappyDog (talk) 02:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

wikipedia.org always shows in "Compatibility View"

Maybe this post should have gone somewhere else.

It seems that pages from wikipedia.org are always shown in "Compatibility View". This can, however, be changed be choosing "Tools" - "Compatibility View Settings" and unchecking "Include updated website lists from Microsoft".

Does anybody know why Microsoft has put wikipedia.org on a list of sites that are to be shown in "Compatibility View"? One would hope that wikipedia.org complied with new standards? /83.221.140.244 (talk) 15:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The "Updating needed" tag on the article

I see that its pretty much up-to-date. Any reason why it is still here? --soumtalk 14:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. This template is in every article bad, because the adder doesn't mentioned what he wants to be updated! ;( mabdul 17:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

ie7 and ie8pro integration

Is it necessary to have ie7 installed for integration with ie8 pro? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.78.108.192 (talk) 02:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Release history

I suggest removing the release history section as it is no longer of much use to the article. hAl (talk) 08:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


Software infobox as for all other major browsers

Maybe this article could reach one day FA if it would have a Software infobox as Firefox, Safari, Chrome, and Opera do have, which includes mentioning:

  • Developer: Microsoft
  • Releases: stable, initial, preview. Mention IE1's public birthday
  • Programming language it was written in (if it's not a secret by Microsoft)
  • Operating system support (Windows, Mac OS)
  • Size
  • Type: web browser, (FTP?)
  • License
  • Website

Kazkaskazkasako (talk) 23:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Internet_Explorer_8/Archive_1&oldid=1136821573"