Talk:Internet Explorer 10

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

Error within the article[edit]

I can't help but notice that an error within the article says that the Metro app IE10 browser will not support plugins however as of June 1st the IE10 metro app browser suppots plugins such as adobe flash player and i feel this needs to be changed within the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.82.96 (talk) 19:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fate of this article[edit]

I think we should discuss what we should do with this article. I think it should be merged with either the History of Internet Explorer or Internet Explorer versions articles. The article does not seem to have enough content to be its own article, but there is enough that I do not think it should be deleted. Sfoske70 (talk) 20:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)Stephen Foskey[reply]

If IE 10 has already been announced, there is no point of deleting this article as it will eventually be a full article anyways. IF you ask me, I think we can let it alone for now and continue to expand on it as time progresses.--A9l8e7n (talk) 21:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was not announced. Bring all of these kinds of comments to the deletion discussion.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It has been announced. Look here - Announcement of IE 10 Silvie rob (talk) 19:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it has most certainly been announced now. Should we consider resolving the decision to remove this article? 87Fan (talk) 20:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article describes the upcoming version of Ie 10 and should not be removed.[edit]

  • Also this should not be merged because every other version of Ie has their own article.
  • This also informs people what the release of IE 10 is on.
  • As Microsoft releases more info and a new release there will be more page space to fill up.
  • Add this to the article: The platform Preview is updated every 6-8 Weeks and the next one is releasing around the end of July. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ians18 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree, its pointless now to remove it, better to expand on it as more information arises.--71.138.119.217 (talk) 23:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should keep it, but just a note the preview is supposed to be updated every 12 weeks this time, not 6-8 as posted above Mark (talk) 05:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Windows requirements[edit]

If IE9 is too modern of a version of IE to support Windows XP, it obviously follows that IE10 is as well. But the question is:

Does Windows Vista support IE10?? Georgia guy (talk) 00:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is a valid question for the article, but you needn't have asked it here because everyone is looking to answer it. As far as the sources are concerned however, IEPP 2.10 does not support any operating system earlier than Windows 7. (See IE Blog sourced in the article.) Fleet Command (talk) 08:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to Ed Bott, Windows Vista probably will be supported in the future. --Luca Ghio (talk) 08:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Er... No... not really; he didn't. He is using a lot of "but"s and "if"s. All he is trying to explain is that if Internet Explorer 10 is released after the end of Mainstream support for Windows Vista, it will not support Windows Vista. The rest is his musings. Fleet Command (talk) 11:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S., His article is titled: "Why won't Internet Explorer 10 run on Windows Vista?" Fleet Command (talk) 11:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for my misunderstanding: he actually thinks that it will be more likely that Windows Vista will NOT be supported than vice versa. --Luca Ghio (talk) 12:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think in the intro paragraph we should mention that it was only released for Windows 7. The section should be removed because all additional content is speculation. We just need to be patient. Time will tell all. Until then, let's leave it out of Wikipedia. Captain Stack (talk) 06:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ACID3 score[edit]

Even if it is not changed from IE9, it is still key browser data and should be kept regardless of its change. There is no source saying it will be the same throughout IE10's releases either.Jasper Deng (talk) 16:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the acid score included. It is the same as it was for IE9 and MS has already clearly stated several times it won't support the remaining test to get to 100 as they are superflouos test for features already supported. So it will never do the test for SVG fonts as IE will only support @fontface (WOFF) fonts and simular for the SMIL features for which there are JS equivilants. That info is already in the acid 3 article. Also before reverting someones edit you should either know the edits are incorrect or at least take a minimum of verification that the edits are incorrect. Not reverting just for the sake of reverting. 86.83.239.142 (talk) 19:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The information is still valuable data, and, in addition, people often come to this article for that data.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Than you better fiind a source that relates the notability of the ACID3 score in relation to IE10 quickly or I will remove the unsourced info from the article again as the Wikipedia acid 3 article already provided the info that Microsoft has no intention of supporting ACID3 fully. If you want to add information on conformance scores I suggest you look at the Ecmascript testsuite or the W3C CSS testsuite which are real conformance test for webstandards. 86.83.239.142 (talk) 06:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is sourced, and like I said, people look for this data, and, there's no harm in keeping it, while there is harm in removing it. See [1].Jasper Deng (talk) 16:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Date format — again[edit]

User:Gyrobo changed the date style of the article en masse. I have reverted his change. According to a message in my talk page, his reason is WP:DATESRET. Well, let's see what does DATESRET say:

Well, clause #1 does not apply here, given this edit. (This is the same diff that you have posted in my talk page, Gyrobo): The article was not predominantly developed using one date format.

As for clause #2, I am the first major contributor: It was I who added eleven dates. So, the date style that I used should be kept. Even if I was not the first major contributor, (which I am), the first person who inserted a date used MDY style.

Fleet Command (talk) 05:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Patently incorrect. The first date added to the references section was in YMD format; the person who adds the first date is considered to be the first major contributor in cases like this. That was one of the conclusions reached at Talk:WebP/Archive 1#Date format. --Gyrobo (talk) 13:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1. My diff is two edits (and three hours) earlier than your diff! User:Jlindenbaum (17:00) contributed the first date to the article two ours earlier than User:87Fan (19:59). I am going to assume that it was a mistake and not a lie.
2. Even if you go by the first contributor, the first date ever inserted was MDY date.
3. All this is only done in the absence of the first major contributor. In this case, we do have a major contributor. It is I.
4. WP:DATESNO only allows ISO-style date for long lists. This article has no long list. Even if we assume citations are lists, they are not long.
5. This article does not regard WebP discussion. Stay on topic. Fleet Command (talk) 15:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would go for consistency, and personally use the Month/Day/Year format in articles without problems. I think this is just arguing over the color of the roof (see WP:LAME for the context of that).
Huh? Does that means you agree with my version? Fleet Command (talk) 20:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer consistency, but I really think it doesn't matter.Jasper Deng (talk) 20:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! I was thinking that it matters to you more than it matters to me and Gyrobo. Anyway,... Permission to revert? Fleet Command (talk) 20:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would like to see User:Gyrobo comment here. Going to notify the user. Don't revert unless he/she approves.Jasper Deng (talk) 20:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well done! A very considerate and rational answer. I swear the actual Jasper Deng is abducted by aliens! But I like this new Jasper very much. So, welcome to Planet Earth. I am a human! Fleet Command (talk) 20:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I brought up the WebP discussion is because the exact same issue is being discussed here, and from your responses, I don't believe you read what anyone else wrote in either place. The conclusion of that discussion was that references do constitute the list context DATESNO mentions; also, that while date formats must be consistent within prose, and consistent within references, formats do not have to be consistent across both – hence, you could have MDY for prose, and YMD for references. The first date in this article's prose was MDY, and the first date in this article's references was YMD. Changing them all to DMY was completely inconsistent with DATERET. --Gyrobo (talk) 21:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather have consistency, even if it is not mandatory, in order to have the reader not confused.Jasper Deng (talk) 21:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of consistency, the other IE articles use MDY for prose and YMD for references. I don't want to come off as a guy who shoots down others' ideas, but I wanted to point that out. And also, to point out that the number of references is mounting, which I believe is a good reason to stick with a format that offers better concision. --Gyrobo (talk) 22:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First and foremost: No one changed anything to DMY in this article. You had better see what you revert. Second, I am tired of repeating that YMD is only sanctioned for long lists and nothing in this article is long. Third and most important, these are irrelevant! I am the first major contributor to the article. Should I re-iterate clause 2?
P.S. Don't get other articles involved. Fleet Command (talk) 22:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're getting too many references (WP:OVERLINK). I think we should keep it consistent in the text of this particular article, or if we can't agree, use both styles.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. There is a reason that we don't have a cross-wiki date format. However, there is always a better alternative than multiple styles: {{#dateformat}}. Fleet Command (talk) 22:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, have to go. Later, guys. Fleet Command (talk) 22:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I checked the article's edit history, and FleetCommand, I owe you an apology. I can find no instance where you converted the dates in this article to DMY. But I dispute the assertion that you were the first major contributor to this article. The first major contributor, for the purpose of assigning date formats, is whoever selected the first date, regardless of the total amount of content contributed by that editor. That was one of the conclusions of last year's discussion. --Gyrobo (talk) 22:38, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't. The first date is not some kind of flag that you can plant atop a hill and expect everyone to obey its direction as if it is God himself. And the first major contributor is the first person who has significantly contributed. I am such a person. The first date is only obeyed only and only when there is no major contributor. (But there is one now.) Besides, the first date was an MDY date. I already established that. All your reasoning leads to MDY, which you changed it to the ISO-format, which is not allowed in this context. (i.e no long lists.) Do you have anything new to say? And have you read WP:WIKIHOUNDING? Fleet Command (talk) 08:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The first person to add content that includes a date is the first major contributor for the purpose of assigning a date format to an article. If your claim were true, someone could change an article's default format merely by adding more references. That would defeat the purpose of DATERET. The outcome of the WebP decision last year was that references are a list context, that YMD is appropriate there, and that references and prose are allowed to follow different date formats as long as DATERET is adhered to. --Gyrobo (talk) 21:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I am that person! I have overhauled the article, yet the only thing you did here was to change dates and start an edit warring. The only person who has contributed that much is 174.1.97.241. He is the second major contributor. Jasper Deng also has contributed far more than you. As for WebP article, see Arguments to avoid in discussions: What about article x? Fleet Command (talk) 05:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quote Box[edit]

So I find the quote box about how IE10 only runs on Windows 7 to be quite out of place, and rather awkward to look at. The weirdest part is that its contents is so unsubstantial. The article already mentions that the first platform preview only runs on Windows 7 and the way it's put in the box makes it seem like it's an old proverb or some otherwise important quote. Why do we have this quote box? Couldn't this be just integrated into the text, or put in a block quote element? What do you all think? Captain Stack (talk) 07:22, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

dito can't see the need for this quote. If there is no good quote then remove it, or replace it with an adequate quote from the receptions... mabdul 10:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now the quote box is integrated into the text, so I think it is unnecessary. --Luca Ghio (talk) 17:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Critical Response in History Section. Too Early?[edit]

I've noticed that some response from the media has been put into the History section of the page. First of all, if this content remains on the page, it belongs under a "reception" section or something like that. However, this is pre-beta stuff. This is three weeks into development. I'm thinking that since these are platform previews, it makes sense to remove this stuff. It's not fair to compare IE 10 in its early stages to other browsers. When there's a public beta, and especially when it releases to the public, I think we can put in response from the media. What's everyone else think? Captain Stack (talk) 07:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is totally ok so far. Let it in as long as nothing substantial change. (for example a new gui or new platform previews). OTOH these may be good for the reason that all reviewers are impressed that MS released so quickly a new build. mabdul 10:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Windows 7 and later[edit]

As the source says:

When Vista users try to install the IE10 preview, they see a dialog box that reads, "Windows Internet Explorer Platform Preview does not support any operating system earlier than Windows 7," after which the installation process terminates.

Now, please take note that this does not apply to Windows 7 only; it applies to Windows 7 and later. We currently (5 May 2011) do have operating systems that are released later than Windows 7: Windows Server 2008 R2, Windows Home Server 2011 and Windows HPC Server 2008 R2. Fleet Command (talk) 09:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Despite these two sources, [2] and [3], list only Windows 7, I agree with Fleet Command, especially because in the setup file there is: "Windows Internet Explorer Platform Preview does not support Windows Server 2008", which is earlier than Windows Server 2008 R2.--Luca Ghio (talk) 08:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, looks like vandals are not giving up. And now here is a new form: A user has declared that Internet Explorer 10 is only for Windows 8 because the only developer preview of this product available is the one that comes with Windows 8 Developer's Preview. Speculative reasoning really. Fleet Command (talk) 18:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Has Microsoft actually said IE10 would be available for Windows 7? As far as I can see we're basing this on the existence of a tool for testing the IE10 rendering engine on Windows 7. - Josh (talk | contribs) 19:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The official blog?[edit]

This is starting to get irritating: In the past, there was a fight as to whether blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/ or windowsteamblog.com/ie/b/ie is the official blog of Internet Explorer team. Well, I resolved the issue the Wikipedia way: Instead of a descriptive phrase that describes the blog as an official one, write the title of blog.

But looks like some people have nothing better to do these days that coming here and replace the title of the former with an inventive name of their own. Well, this is against Wikipedia:Verifiability and is not allowed in Wikipedia.

If you have a reason for changing the title, please state it here. Otherwise, please refrain from violating verifiability rule. Fleet Command (talk) 23:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would propose another title. The blog "IEBlog" is called here and here as "IE Team Blog", that means: who posts in IEBlog is an Internet Explorer developer. So I would write:
* ''[http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/ IEBlog - The Windows Internet Explorer Weblog]'', the official Internet Explorer developer team's blog at [[MSDN Blogs]]
that will result to:
--Luca Ghio (talk) 09:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I think it satisfies User talk:Pmsyyz too, so I'll act BOLD and put that in the article. Fleet Command (talk) 11:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should we put Platform Preview into the infobox[edit]

Hi.

Today, a user added the Platform Preview version information to the infobox as that of Internet Explorer. I immediately thought "This guy must have been mistaken it for IE; but of course they are different things!" and then immediately reverted his edit. But then, I thought maybe it's just me and maybe most people think Internet Explorer Platform Preview and Internet Explorer are the same thing. After all, it may be a matter of perspective.

So, what do you people think we should do? Should we put the version number of Platform Preview into the infobox? Perhaps someone here can provide a good reason as to which perspective we should choose.

Personally, I don't think so. It looks very strange for a person who is not familiar with the subject to see 2.10.1000.16394 in the infobox. And I think Internet Explorer Platform Preview is something completely different. To me, putting its version into the infobox is akin to putting the release date of the latest cinematic trailer of a video game as the latest version of the unreleased video game.

Fleet Command (talk) 17:09, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So far I have considered the Platform Preview as a common preview release of Internet Explorer, as a part of its release life cycle similar to an alpha version. Instead, the Platform Preview is actually different from a common preview release, because it includes only the rendering engine and it does not follow the same versioning as Internet Explorer. I have never thought about this question, but I am constrained to agree with you. So we could create a new article titled "Internet Explorer Platform Preview", or at least split the version table (for the moment only for Internet Explorer 9) into two tables: "Release history" and "Platform Preview history". I hope I have been clear in my not-advanced English.--Luca Ghio (talk) 19:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am creating a draft for the possible new article "Internet Explorer Platform Preview". If you want you can collaborate.--Luca Ghio (talk) 19:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Technically a PP is a web browser (with a maximum minimalistic GUI) with a new updated Trident layout engine... so, new article? I dodn't know if that is really needed, but I have to check the draft... mabdul 19:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

no   Oh, creating a new article for Platform Preview is definitely out of question due to Wikipedia:Notability mandate: There are very little reliable secondary sources out there that dedicate significant coverage for Platform Preview only, without focusing on Internet Explorer. Experience tells me that your draft will be speedy-deleted!

I say we should cover platform previews in their appropriate IE article and also cover it briefly in Internet Explorer. Even there it should be kept brief. A list of all platform preview releases is bound to be deleted per WP:NOTDIR clause 6 or WP:INDISCRIMINATE.

Fleet Command (talk) 08:01, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, it was just my own proposal: as Internet Explorer for UNIX and Internet Explorer for Mac have separate articles, I thought that Internet Explorer Platform Preview could have an article, too. I would be favorable to a new article, but I consider what a Wikipedian older than me says.
P.S.: Does this list respect WP:NOTDIR clause 6 and WP:INDISCRIMINATE?--Luca Ghio (talk) 09:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As for the two articles, the Unix article is good and is not threatened by the risk of deletion but the Mac one doesn't have significant secondary sources. If you ask me, I'd merge both them with Internet Explorer; but I'm not the owner of Wikipedia.

As for the Internet Explorer versions, however, it is a good list. It does not violate NOTDIR because it only includes notable releases. It does not include minor or cumulative updates published through Windows Update service. For example, you cannot find April 2008 Cumulative Security Update in it. (Though one or two of the items in it may need to be deleted...) With a some work, it can become a Featured List. Fleet Command (talk) 12:07, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IE:Mac don't need to be merged. It only needs more work. The PP article doesn't seem a good idea per Fleet: I don't think it is notable (for it is own article), and maybe referenced (by third party) ... Again: IEMAC is good to have it's own article, PP not, draft looks good (although not publishable). mabdul 20:38, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Crossing it out of my message. Fleet Command (talk) 10:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

acid3 test[edit]

is there a source for IE 10 passing the acid 3 test? I ran the test on windows 8 32 bit a few days ago in the desktop browser (not the metro one) and it got 95 just like the past ones Mark (talk) 01:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind I wasn't aware of the test being changed Mark (talk) 01:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? Acid3 test is changed? Why? Fleet Command (talk) 11:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently so (they've finally removed those 3 niggling tests that the IE team has complained are counter to other standards). IE9 and IE10 now pass 100/100. Details here: https://plus.google.com/107429617152575897589/posts#107429617152575897589/posts 87Fan (talk) 14:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spellchecking[edit]

I think this article need some information about spellchecker in IE 10. More information in IEBlog: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2011/11/08/typing-with-speed-and-accuracy-in-ie10.aspx . In additional, IE10 has the first browser-based implementation of auto-correct. S0me1 (talk) 14:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but apparantly you were in a hurry to advertise for Microsoft, so much so that you put it in the lead section, did not use any secondary sources and did not include appropriate source information. Fleet Command (talk) 18:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Josh the Nerd: I see your edit and it seems to me that you are putting it as a fact (instead of simple assertion of Microsoft) that Internet Explorer 10 is the first browser to support auto-correct. But remember that Internet Explorer 10 is not yet released; Firefox and Chrome can still beat Microsoft to it. (That would be very funny if they did so.) Fleet Command (talk) 10:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is the first pre-release to have it. I'm okay with changing the wording, as long as it's not something like "did not hesitate to brag." - Josh (talk | contribs) 21:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why? What's wrong with "did not hesitate to brag"? You have a reason to believe that they were being impartial? Fleet Command (talk) 14:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, but we shouldn't be pushing the idea that they were trying to "brag" (a word with negative implications), or implying they should have included more information. - Josh (talk | contribs) 22:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch! It is a "neutral vs. neutralized point of view" discussion. I had better bail. Fleet Command (talk) 12:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Windows 7[edit]

This article is saying that now it's official that the final IE10 not only won't support Windows Vista but also won't support Windows 7. Any official info on this?? Georgia guy (talk) 19:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're wrong because the article says: "The beta and release candidate will be available for Windows 7". Only Developer Preview and Platform Preview 4 don't support Windows 7, but final release will do.--Luca Ghio (talk) 19:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is right. If you check the source about spell-checking and auto-correction, you will find that Microsoft promises a Windows 7 release. Regards, Fleet Command (talk) 17:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As of August 2012, it seems IE 10 won't be available on Windows 7 after all. http://technet.microsoft.com/library/hh846773.aspx only lists Windows 8 and Windows Server 2012 as supported operating systems. MJcx (talk) 07:05, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See this PC Magazine article: Internet Explorer 10 Coming to Windows 7 Next Month | News & Opinion | PCMag.com. 92.100.24.182 (talk) 19:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The IE 10 shipped with Windows 8 Consumer Preview should be Internet Explorer 10 Platform Preview 5[edit]

Refer to the source given. C933103 (talk) 11:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Test262?[edit]

Only 7/11570 now in Release Preview. Sky6t (talk) 01:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Licensing of IE10[edit]

As IE10 is definitely NOT freeware, what licensing does it apply to? It may currently apply to the Windows 8 EULA (available here for a short period of time) or should we expect Microsoft them to publish a separate EULA later on like the one with IE9 (available here)? And in the meanwhile what should we list on the wiki? YTMichael (talk) 14:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Internet Explorer is definately not freeware. There is discussion on the licensing of IE ongoing at Talk:Internet_Explorer_9#MS-EULA_again. Please join in the discussion there. -- Schapel (talk) 16:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is? Huh. Had no idea. Well thanks for notifying. YTMichael (talk) 18:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Actually, that discussion has nothing to do with this one. It is clear that IE10 is nowhere near freeware. I changed the license in the infobox; I hope you like it. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, that's good for now. I guess we'll update it when IE10 is released for Windows 7 which should be in October when Windows 8 releases retail :) YTMichael (talk) 20:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why should IE "definitely NOT" be freeware? I am using IE 9 now, which was not originally part of my operating system, but I could download it for free and use it. It's freeware. (Yes, of course I need Windows. It's Windows software. I also need a PC. And electricity. But I don't see how that matters.) --84.75.56.75 (talk) 16:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IE icon + Modern Style aka Metro Interface[edit]

There are several things I would like to ask all of you and point out. I don't think the new icon should be changed, as there are a lot of icons present and we can't tell with certainty which one is the official one. The previous one in past edits is still shown on the 'Classic' desktop if you will. The following one is shown in Modern Style UI (aka Metro) exclusively. And the one shown here has been extracted from a screenshot I made showing a dialog box (available here). What I think would be best when it comes to icons, is that we leave rollback the one that was used until yesterday (aka the IE9 one) and wait for the official IE10 retail release with Windows 8.

Second thing I want to ask.. Should we include a section for IE10 Modern Style UI aka Metro app and include some screenshots which I have up here? If so, I'm going to put it up on Wikipedia (preferably smaller). YTMichael (talk) 15:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Icon must correspond to screenshot. Also we do need a screenshot of IE10 Metro. I think if you take screenshot of IE10 metro showing the front page of Google.com without any user signed in, the screenshot would count as a free screenshot. (You have to link to File:Google.png and license that portion of screenshot as {{PD-textlogo}}{{Trademarked}}.) Let me know if you needed help with licensing. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 13:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I still disagree on the icon, but oh well. I uploaded this file. Should be okay when it comes to licensing. I guess you can check anyway to make sure. YTMichael (talk) 16:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks for the image. I cleaned it up. (You had forgotten insert a license tag for IE but that's okay now.) By the way, I fixed the file link in your message just in the interest of letting you know how to appropriately do it. A colon sign (":") need to precede the file name. As for the icon, I understand how you feel; but please be patient. Time shall show. Wikipedia is full of compromises. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, still got a warning or something. Something about Non-free rationale or something. What's that all about? YTMichael (talk) 22:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Apparently, someone thought the image is copyright-protected, didn't find a non-free use rationale on it and tagged it. I removed the tag and dropped the user a note. He may still send the file to WP:PUF for analysis. As long as you don't panic, you can negotiate to keep the file. Either he is convinced that the file is free, or else we add a non-free use rationale. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 09:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile version[edit]

In the "Mobile version" section of the article, there is information that is unclear (and possibly irrelevant).

"[IE10 on Windows Phone 8 has an] improved JavaScript engine reaching a score of 1,200ms compared to a Samsung Galaxy S III that only managed 1,460ms."

What is this "JavaScript engine score"? Do these numbers correspond to SunSpider tests? Additionally, assuming IE10 on Windows Phone 8 wasn't running on Galaxy S III hardware, are we comparing apples to oranges? Is there any indication that IE10's faster performance can be attributed to the Javascript engine rather than better hardware? Mlms13 (talk) 12:19, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.
I checked the source, and yes, it is SunSpider results. However, I find your question of the cause of result a bit strange. After all, what if it was the result of hardware? Mobile operating systems are not installed on user's choice. So, better hardware is pretty much a genuine avenue of increasing performance. User gets the whole bundle only.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 17:11, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The revised paragraph is certainly an improvement, thanks! My concern with the SGS3 comparison is this: The SGS3 finished the test in 1460ms, the Galaxy Note took more than 3000ms. Assuming the same Android browser was used in both tests, hardware alone accounted for a 1500ms difference. It's not difficult to imagine that the ~200ms difference between the Windows Phone and the SGS3 can also be attributed to hardware, which makes me question its relevance in an article about software. Because the same sentence mentions (twice) "the improved Javascript engine" in IE10, the implication is that the Javascript engine in IE10 is faster than the Javascript engine in the Galaxy S III. This may be true, but unless there's evidence to support that, the comparison to the SGS3 seems misleading.
Mlms13 (talk) 12:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi.
I think you are right: Relevance is a problem independent of the reliability of source.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 07:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Windows Internet Explorer[edit]

I think this should be renamed from Windows Internet Explorer 10 just to Internet Explorer 10. See this site: http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/internet-explorer/products/ie/home I can't find any reference to it as "Windows Internet Explorer". Windows Explorer was renamed to File Explorer and it seems that the word "Windows" was also dropped from Internet Explorer 10. --Neme112 (talk) 16:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support: WP:COMMONNAME says the most common name, which is "Internet Explorer 10". That is about article title of course, but it goes against the rule of consistency to have one article title that is not used or is rivaled in the article. Codename Lisa (talk) 07:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User Agent Strings[edit]

The user agent string section appears to be wrong (and asks for sources). I cannot edit the page without an account (which is probably best since I know nothing about Wikipedia etiquette) but this section can be updated with information from here: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2012/07/12/ie10-user-agent-string-update.aspx 66.170.8.210 (talk) 20:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In desktop IE, a 64-bit version is not a default.[edit]

All tab process will be 64 bits only at the time when Enhanced Protected Mode is enabled. And Enhanced Protected Mode is disabled by default. However, frame process is 64-bit by default. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.189.125.251 (talk) 13:09, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Where did you hear that? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:41, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fastest release cycle?[edit]

I'm not really sure how IE 10 qualifies as the fastest release in the "browser wars". It was a preview build (i.e. alpha or beta) a month after the release of a stable point release. The length between releases of major stable versions has been nearly a year and a half between 9 and 10. Most of the other browsers, Chrome and Firefox for example, have concurrent alpha, beta and stable releases at any given point in time, beating out IE's month gap between a stable and alpha/beta release. For time between stable releases, the other major browsers tend to release every 3 months, again beating out IE's year and half. As such, I think the following line should be removed.

I would have done it myself, but I didn't want it to be considered original research, and all I could think to link to was the wikipedia Firefox Release History page.

Potatman (talk) 16:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I read this as "Fast for IE" not "Fast among all browsers." At the very least I agree this statement can be reworded. 87Fan (talk) 17:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Hello. Please do not be shy about removing such statements; you have compared some sources and have not conducted any interview of your own with developers. WP:NOR does not apply here. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 07:38, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it safe to stop calling things Metro?[edit]

With Windows 8 fully released I think it's safe to call things the proper way.

This is The IE 10 App File:IE10 ModernUI.png.

This is IE 10 File:IE10 Wikipedia.png

Ariesk47 (talk) 12:47, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not officially released until 30 October 2012, apparently. Ziiike (talk) 18:48, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Drop "Metro app" and call it what? "Modern UI"? "Windows Store app"? "Windows 8 app"? All of these are official. Please consult Talk:Metro (design language) for consensus. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 09:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No no no no no. I'm talking about defining the differences between the regular IE and the Metro one. Not talking about renaming the Metro names. Ariesk47 (talk) 19:53, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again. So, we just call it "app"? In my country app is used to refer to all application software alike, not just mobile apps; this may or may not be the case in other countries. We need to consult mainstream sources or a corpus to see if it appropriate. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to MSDN itself Microsoft seems to be replacing Metro with Microsoft design language. And they have replaced Modern UI previously shown here and in all of their MSDN documentation with Microsoft design language. Whilst it would be silly to move the existing files that contain Modern UI or Metro in their name(s), from now on we should make our best efforts to use Microsoft design language. --YTMichael (talk) 22:52, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Looks like it is time for another page move request and a full scale discussion to put this issue to rest for the foreseeable future. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:18, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources said:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmsyyz (talk • contribs)

Stable release update history[edit]

If there is going to be a stable release counter for IE10 updates, please keep the build number accurate at all times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.146.144.86 (talk) 20:45, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I just installed IE10 on my machine... the latest stable version is 10.0.12 (released on Dec 10, 2013)... not 10.0.11, but I'll be damned if I can figure out how to change it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymous (talk • contribs)
Hi. Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information and certainly not a changelog. There is not going to be a stable release counter for IE10 updates. (So, there is nothing to agree with.) Statistics in Wikipedia articles require context. So long as there is no prose on the significance of updates, there is not going to be a listing of update.
That said, I would have probably conceded – by updating the infobox number – if there was a good source on the latest build number. The source given, MS13-097 lists a very colorful range of build numbers for IE10, including two numbers (16750 and 20859) for iexplore.exe. Why the article should choose 16750 as the latest build number?
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 19:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the Dutch language version of Wikipedia lists it correctly under their IE10 article. And after upgrading to IE10 yesterday, my "About Internet Explorer" dialog box shows 10.0.9200.16750 as the current version, with a hyperlink to that Microsoft KB article. I honestly couldn't figure out why the higher number (20859) isn't part of the build number. Oh well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymous (talk • contribs)
I am afraid Dutch language version of Wikipedia does not supply any sources. Looking up the version number in the about dialog box after installing IE10 and updating it is original research. We need source for stuff like 10.0.12. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you start the article Internet Explorer 11?[edit]

Why not? I've long been expecting to see this article, and its public preview version has just come out :) Sky6t (talk) 12:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Internet Explorer 10. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:04, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Internet Explorer 10. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:01, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:52, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:52, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Internet_Explorer_10&oldid=1207728703"