Talk:Internet Explorer 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Pop-up blocker 2 IE problem 3 Requested merge with Internet Explorer 3.1 Survey 3.2 Discussion 4 Criticism

[edit] Pop-up blocker

I disagree with the pop up blocker comparison of IE6 and 7. When I navigated to the site IE7 blocked all popups from there (tests 1 and 2, I didnt do others). So, I would suggest it be looked into. --soum^সৌমোyasch 09:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, those are not good comparisons and it needs to be improved. Digita 17:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IE problem

some websites including wikipedia pages are not stored in work offline.What is the solution —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eyas Hajeh (talk • contribs) 19:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Requested merge with Internet Explorer

Merge Internet Explorer 7 article with Internet Explorer. --soum^সৌমোyasch 06:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The prior dicussion done at this place in response to rationale was moved to the Discussions section to keep this place clean. Please do not follow up with any discussion here. Thanks.

Rationale:

• Previous versions of Internet Explorer do not have dedicated articles.
• No other browser have different articles for each of their iterations.
• Merging into Internet Explorer does not make the size of the IE article go out of proportions.
• Some of the information in this article is present in other articles like Criticism of Internet Explorer and others. So, there is no point repeating here.

• Comment: This place is not for discussion. The separate place for discussion was given at the bottom. --soumসৌমোyasch 17:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: There was no separate place for discussion when the comments were made. Digita 17:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support - The division of an internet suite between different versions does not exist with any other of the internet suites available on Wikipedia, in addition to (already said) the information on the page is predominately on other pages and just copied onto this one (see History of Internet Explorer for example) Chris (Talk) (Contribs) 14:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support, it is just another version of Internet Explorer for Windows. --minghong 16:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose, this goes against the standards for MS software (such as Microsoft Office/Microsoft Office 2003) that significant changes, as well as being to much for the IE page. In fact, much the older content was already moved to sub-pages of its length and the new content was never there. Digita 16:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, merging does not necessarilly mean copying entire contents of a page into another. Only relevant portions are assimilated into the destination article. --soum^সৌমোyasch 16:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: The relevant portions can't be assimilated without sacrificing the quality of IE7 content and making the IE needlessly larger. Digita 17:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: It can be. The IE7 article contains a lot of redundancy. To start with, the Release History list and tables. Also, the feature list could be summarized a lot without diluting any informational content. Also, the Adoption capability thing can be better expressed in a line (like, "IE7 can be run on this and this OS" and "IE7 in Vista has a superset of features of its XP counterpart, including Protected Mode, Parental Controls and 256 bit ciphers). The per-preview list of enhancements is not needed (the final feature list is the sum of it all). Also, some of the commentary is better suited for the IE companion articles (like the comparative market share table and feature comparison between versions is best kept in history and development articles, respectively). --soum^সৌমোyasch 17:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment: It makes more sense to keep the bulk of IE7 materal together, rather then mix it with historical data from 17 years ago, and version from 8 years ago, all across 5 pages. Digita 17:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Comment: IE7 (and historically, all current versions) got its own section in the IE article. Only when its no more the current version, is the specific section done away with. --soum^সৌমোyasch 18:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I believe that you are referring to the Microsoft Office 2007 article, as Microsoft Office 2003 redirects to the Microsoft Office article. Themodernizer 21:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose: While it is the current release and so much information on the page it makes sense to leave it as it is. I think we should be thinking about creating pages for Internet Explorer 6 etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richardwhiuk (talk • contribs) 18:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC).
  • Comment: The problem with creating subpages for each edition is that we will end up producing one for each edition, which doesn't even show any use. When the predominate use of the product is of the newer editions, there is no point not to make the main page about the current two new pages and then expand upon the older editions in the History of Internet Explorer page. Also, take a look at Windows Media Player, which features an added section on the newest edition of the player, not a new page about the player. Chris (Talk) (Contribs) 19:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Commment:The subpages are only needed when amount of content warrants it, as with any article that is broken up. In the case of IE, many pages have been been created and each has to be evaluated on its own merits- but this doesn't effect the validity of the IE7 page. Digita 00:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support: This article mostly consists of duplicate information from other Internet Explorer articles. Themodernizer 21:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: The bulk of the information is not duplicate;the feature list and many of the references for instance. Also, what duplicate IE7 information there is, can be moved from the those pages to the dedicated IE7 page. Digita 00:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

• Previous versions of Internet Explorer do not have dedicated articles.

Comment IE pages are already spread out over numerous pages 1,2,3, etc.). Digita

Comment: None of them are dedicated to specific IE versions. --soum^সৌমোyasch 17:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Well there is ones like, Internet Explorer for Mac and Internet Explorer for Unix. The existence of the IE7 article could support the reverse logic also, but it can stand on its own merits as a article. Digita

Comment: They are different series of browsers - separate from the Windows versions (at least the Mac version was significantly different later in its lifecycle; still cross-OS froks tend to differ on a lot of aspects). So, there is no problem with that. But IE5:mac does not have its own article, does it? --soum^সৌমোyasch 17:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Exactly! Compared to other browsers, IE has also been drastically different between the different operating systems, such as being noted as using a totally different rendering engine in the newer version for the Mac OS. Chris (Talk) (Contribs) 20:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: The interface and functionality of IE was not that different it all when it started, it was only later it had a different rendering engine and even then the GUI was nearly identical. The IE7 page doesn't have to focus on the various quirks of old versions however. Digita 21:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• No other browser have different articles for each of their iterations.

Comment: No other browser has been out for over 16 years and been as popular, nor has generated as much content on here. Digita 16:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Internet Explorer did not exist as a separate legal entity before 1995. Netscape launched in 1994 and thus existed well before Internet Explorer (the trademark, not the licensed codebase). Even [[Opera (internet suite)|Opera) has its existence since 1994. Netscape at one point of time enjoyed higher market share than IE. And the rendering engine in IE was redone (inherited code was scrapped in, I think, 3.0). So Netscape codebase legacy is older. --soum^সৌমোyasch 17:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment:Netscape has not been continous in the same way as IE, or as popular;its covered under several articles as a result Netscape Navigator, Netscape Communicator, Netscape (web browser). Opera is also older, but again, it has not generated as much content as the IE page, nor been as popular. Digita 18:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: IE was also not being actively developed between 2001 and 2005/6. --soum^সৌমোyasch 18:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: There were service packs for IE released in that time frame, in addition to patches. Digita 18:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Sans SP2, Service Packs are collection of patches. And Sp2 had security features only. Not all-round advancement (which came with IE7). And thats why I said dev halted till around 2005 (without saying any fixed date). But the point it dev was halted for a long time. --soum^সৌমোyasch 18:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: The service packs included significant changes (such as not being compatible with Windows XP without SP2) and were part of MS development of it during that period. Digita 21:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Merging into Internet Explorer does not make the size of the IE article go out of proportions.

Comment: Content is already routinely split off the IE page beacuse it is to large.Digita 16:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Not content pertaining to a single version of IE. --soum^সৌমোyasch 17:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Well there is ones like, Internet Explorer for Mac and Internet Explorer for Unix. The existence of the IE7 article could support the reverse logic also, but it can stand on its own merits as a article. Digita

comment: The main issue with the different operating systems is that the program was different in large, including a different rendering engine and various differences to make it work. At it's base, IE 7 is still basically Internet Explorer for Windows and does not need to be an extra article. As said in a previous comment, we don't have any extra articles for the different versions available on the Mac or Unix, such as IE 5 for Mac and IE 4 for Mac. Chris (Talk) (Contribs) 20:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

comment: At its base, IE has varied significantly in features over its lifetime, with widely varying compatibily between versions of Windows. Whereas IE used to work on windows, the latest release only works with all its features (e.g. 256 encrypto) on Vista. Digita 21:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Another example of a program which has gone through drastic change but isn't composed of multiple articles would have to be Windows Media Player, which actually has information about all the versions in the one article Chris (Talk) (Contribs) 17:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment:Its also another example that doesn't compare well, as it has not generated as much content. If it had as much content as IE (now already over a half-dozen pages), then it to would be split up. Digita 18:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Some of the information in this article is present in other articles like Criticism of Internet Explorer and others. So, there is no point repeating here.

Comment: Most of the content on the page is new or original and not listed elsewhere, such as the feature list. Digita 16:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Most of it was already there before this page was spun off without discussion, or on Windows Vista pages. --soum^সৌমোyasch 17:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: The IE7 page was new page to focus on IE7, and not spun off from any one page. Digita

[edit] Criticism

Some critics say the majority of the new functions is blatantly stolen from Mozilla Firefox. Not having them was a criticism, now having them is also a criticism? Make up your mind, please! --soum (0_o) 17:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)