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)
[Irrelevant contributor-admin exchange deleted]
- I apologize for jumping to conclusions. I plan to work on the article, just need to gather sources for info and whatnot. I haven't really used Ie since 6 (I use firefox) so i dont have as much experience with the problems of 7-9--SeanS 18:30, 18 August 2011 (EDT)
Studies have shown that IE9 is by far and away the most secure browser on the market. Should we include both sides of this story? BradB 19:57, 18 August 2011 (EDT)
We should include both sides of the story. Microsoft's claim was already put in; it needs no additional emphasis. The phrase "studies have shown" is not trustworthy; it's the usual lead-in to liberal trickery. You may as well say studies have shown that legal gun ownership "kills kids" (when what you have in mind is a study of the illegal drug sales which defines includes adults up to 25 years old).
Unless you can provide some genuine insight into browser security, you better not get involved in this. --Ed Poor Talk 12:59, 19 August 2011 (EDT)
Start over
Microsoft did not "develop" IE. Significant parts of it were bought or licensed from another company. Don't put anything in the article which is not properly sourced. Please discuss all changes here before making them. --Ed Poor Talk 12:40, 19 August 2011 (EDT)
Quotes
Place your factoids here. If there's a consensus about information here, we can put it in the article.
- Microsoft licensed Spyglass Mosaic in 1995 for US$2 million, modified it, and renamed it Internet Explorer.[1]
References
- ↑ "Microsoft's popular Internet Explorer Web browser is based on Mosaic technology licensed from Spyglass in 1995. Microsoft and Spyglass kiss and make up - January 22, 1997
I suggest that we change this redirect page into an article about the web browser Interent Explorer. I've just begun it. Please help expand the article. U.U (talk) 17:54, 28 January 2016 (EST)