Difference between revisions of "Talk:Internet Explorer"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Reverted edits by MrMorganH (talk) to last revision by Ed Poor)
(Admin warning to SeanS)
Line 7: Line 7:
  
 
This article is lightweight and haphazard. I'm going to delete it if no one helps me fix it up. Better to have nothing, than something this lame. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 15:35, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
 
This article is lightweight and haphazard. I'm going to delete it if no one helps me fix it up. Better to have nothing, than something this lame. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 15:35, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
 +
 +
:Recent additions by SeanS don't sound correct to me. Did you summarize MS propaganda, or what?
 +
 +
:My impression is that Internet Explorer is the number one source of computer viruses, i.e., it's so bad at security that often just visiting a bad website with Explorer results in immediate infection. So let's not talk about "a focus on Internet Security" as if this were something MS was succeeding with. And what you wrote contradicts the lede.
 +
 +
:Come to think of it, it's hard to believe this was an innocent error. I need you to submit a [[Conservapedia:Writing plan]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 16:55, 18 August 2011 (EDT)

Revision as of 14:55, 18 August 2011

This article could be expanded a great deal. I'd like to know about the history of IE, and its place in the history of the web browser in general.

  • What about the fight with Netscape Navigator?
  • How popular is it, and how would we measure its popularity if they simply give it away with each copy of Windows?
    If you don't buy a Mac, you get IE preinstalled. Most users don't even know how to download and install new software, so staying with what it came with doesn't mean much.
  • What are its security problems, in more detail? Why hasn't Microsoft addressed these? Are there solutions or alternatives?
  • Most interesting would be the web standards aspect. How about the CSS box model, for example? Or the need for JavaScript programmers to write every piece of code twice: once for IE, plus once for FireFox and other standards-compliant browsers.

This article is lightweight and haphazard. I'm going to delete it if no one helps me fix it up. Better to have nothing, than something this lame. --Ed Poor Talk 15:35, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

Recent additions by SeanS don't sound correct to me. Did you summarize MS propaganda, or what?
My impression is that Internet Explorer is the number one source of computer viruses, i.e., it's so bad at security that often just visiting a bad website with Explorer results in immediate infection. So let's not talk about "a focus on Internet Security" as if this were something MS was succeeding with. And what you wrote contradicts the lede.
Come to think of it, it's hard to believe this was an innocent error. I need you to submit a Conservapedia:Writing plan. --Ed Poor Talk 16:55, 18 August 2011 (EDT)