Talk:Internet Explorer Mobile

Article Name

Isn't the official name "Internet Explorer Mobile", and "IE Mobile" is just a shorted version? I think the name should be changed to the proper name. Brianreading 19:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Sources Requests

could the author please provide a source for the following information:

"The next version, Pocket Internet Explorer 4, was the first to support ... Java applets, ..."

because my research shows that there is no Java applet support except via third party software like Esmertec's Java Virtual Machine for Pocket PC.

Censorship

I am trying to add this section to the page:

Comparison to other mobile browsers

Microsoft Internet Explorer Mobile is lacking in terms of speed and rendering quality to other browsers, so newer phones like the Sony Ericsson XPERIA X1 have to incorporate Opera Mobile to be able to compete with other phones with decent mobile browsers like the iPhone or T-Mobile G1.

But the user Brianreading always removes the section. How may I add this section that I really think it is important to the article preventing censorship?

On Wikipedia, there are only three core policies. They are Neutral point of view, Verifiability, and No original research. Basically, the section you'd like to add doesn't comply with any of these policies. This is why it has been removed. It is not a matter of censorship. I suggest you take a look at the aforementioned articles before you do anymore editing here. Brianreading (talk) 10:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

How does it not follow those criteria? Practically every major tech site on the net thinks IE mobile isn't very good. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

See for example:

• http://gizmodo.com/5374876/windows-mobile-65-review-theres-no-excuse-for-this
• http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/06/windows-mobile-6-5-review/
• http://www.mobilecrunch.com/2009/10/06/windows-mobile-6-5-review-it-still-sucks/
• http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-12261_7-10367686-10356022.html

-- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying, but what Wikipedia does is simply illustrate indisputable facts, and allows readers to make their own conclusions. Wikipedia is not a guidebook, and thus opinion pieces such as the ones you have posted have been deemed as unacceptable for statements of unattributed fact. This means that each statement of inferiority about IE Mobile needs to be attributed to its author, but it makes no sense to do so here because of the irrelevance these people have in relation to the subject-matter. For example, while a random tech journalist may say that the browser "sucks", this is not relevant in the same way that someone such as the product manager for IE Mobile, someone involved as a major competitor, etc. is. So again, the most core policy-friendly way to achieve a full picture of how crappy this browser is will be to just contribute pure and simple facts. If the browser really is horrible, that information will stand on its own to illustrate that. You may feel the need to contribute to Comparison of web browsers for a more direct way to illustrate this. Basically, this is a reinforcement of a neutral point of view as no one can dispute something such as whether IE Mobile can pass the Acid3 test, but there are many ways to dispute whether or not IE Mobile is considered "good" or "bad". Brian Reading (talk) 16:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I've just read your linked rules and it isn't true that Opinion pieces can't be used. When in fact they can be used as long as the author is reputable, and Gizmodo et al are clearly reputable sources. Also you are right that any content added would be best to go into detail as to why IE mobile is inferior to the other products on the market as it needs to describe IE mobile. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

You must be misreading my previous statement. I never said those sources couldn't be used. I said that using those opinions pieces as statements of fact that is unattributed is unacceptable. Each opinion must be attributed to an author in the article text. However, again you have to ask yourself if it is appropriate in relevancy. Also, I never claimed that any content added should best go into why IE Mobile is inferior. Any content added should be neutral in viewpoint. That is as I outlined before, not explaining what is "good" or "bad", but simply listing what it can do and its development history. Please don't come to Wikipedia with an agenda to expose, it's not in the spirit of the project. Brian Reading (talk) 23:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

How is comparing the speed of a browser a bad thing? How fast the browser is is really important. Ditto comparisons of the quality of the rendering engine.

Whether or not I should have used critique rather than inferior (which was bad I'm sorry) on the talk page I did make it clear that IE 6 mobile was an improvement over its predecessor to make it balanced. I also made it clear that the opinion was from the author by using "according to Gizmodo and Engadget" in the text. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

PS If you want to stick to hard facts and compare the Acid3 score rather than rendering quality then I'm happy to do that. CNet did a comparison of all the major mobile browsers Acid3 scores here. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I feel that we don't necessarily need to make multiple biased statements on opposite ends of the equation to be neutral. There's no need to worry about balance if we only present what happened in the version history, right? I think it was a perfectly adequate attempt at being neutral in the way you had presented it in the article since you had attributed it, but I'm simply questioning its relevancy here because it mentions two arbitrary mobile browsers. I agree with you that mentioning specifically IE Mobile's Acid3 score would be appropriate here. That CNET source sounds solid. I think mentioning all the other browsers' Acid3 results, as well as all other comparisons, would be much more relevant in the Comparison of web browsers article since that is already existent. My reasoning is that if there were only 2 or 3 mobile browsers around, we wouldn't have that issue, but since there are many, any mention of a small number of them is pretty much arbitrary. We need to paint the whole picture here, which makes a separate article a necessity to remain on-topic. Do you agree? Brian Reading (talk) 11:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I added the Acid3 test result including screenshot to the article. Any more about the test is irrelevant, readers can find what the Acid3 test is and how IE Mobile compares to other browsers by reading that article. --Chris Ssk _talk 11:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

As for the the comment that was removed, I don't see why. Saying that reliable sources report that IE Mobile lacks compared to other browsers is valid criticism. As per WP:CRIT criticism is OK and can either be in a section or integrated throughout an article as long as this complies with WP:NPOV, WP:SUMMARY, and WP:POV FORK --Chris Ssk _talk 12:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

@Brian The other two browsers I mentioned aren't arbitrary but are the two biggest players in the market. Opera is the standard additional browser supplied with Windows Mobile and Blackberry phones and Webkit engine is used for the standard browsers on the Palm Pre, Android, iPhone and Symbian. Aside from the Blackberry browser (which I believe is going to be switched to WebKit shortly - source) that covers all the major players. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

PS I would agree that there would be no point in mentioning a couple of browsers if most of them weren't based on Webkit :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Readded the content. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to add my 2 cents, I still think this addition is very weak and quite obscure considering how inferior ie mobile is to other mobile browsers (as per the already listed sources). I can't help but feeling this is being buried 81.97.166.238 (talk) 09:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

And you are basing this on reviews of an out of date version of the browser? Illegal Operation (talk) 02:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

ms mobile explorer

in the mobile browser article is described a ms mobile explorer [1] which was bought and known as HitchHiker before and avaible (version 2) on Benefon Q, Sony CMD-Z5, CMD-J5, CMD-MZ5, CMD-J6, CMD-Z7, CMD-J7 and CMD-J70.

is this the same like this the ie mobile? mabdul 0=* 18:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I will create a new article since I read enough press releases. The proposal is at User:Mabdul/Microsoft Mobile Explorer, if somebody want help me... mabdul 21:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Just so you know, press releases are not a viable basis on which to write a new article. They are not independent sources. Brian Reading (talk) 23:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

this article is a joke/advertisement

"Currently it's a relatively feature-rich browser" - really? Windows enthusiasts have always recommended using NetFront or Opera because PIE/Mobile IE is terrible. It has terrible support for modern browser standards. IE is so bad it was removed from the ACID3 test results in wikipedia because it can't even run them, let alone "score."

Why is Microsoft adding pure lies to Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.42.104 (talk) 21:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that's been there for several years. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:30, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Two years later, things change so much that the statement is true once again. Illegal Operation (talk) 01:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Criticism section missing

There is no criticism in this article. 1 criticism I have for IE mobile is that it cannot open a pdf file within the browser itself the way a computer IE would do it. The mobile IE lacks that feature, unlike ios safari in iphone. Pdf has to be externally downloaded — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.170.85 (talk) 12:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Every version should have criticism integrated right into it as every different iteration has it's own unique features and issues.

Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 10:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

@Namlong618: Per WP:CRITGHETTO, a criticism section is not sanctioned in this case. This article is written in summary style. Fleet Command (talk) 10:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

@FleetCommand: (our resident stalker), I stated that there was no such need for a separate criticism section, merely that any issues or criticism should directly be integrated in every section for every version E.G. Internet Explorer Mobile 10 [information] and then has issues with [issue] so the article won't appear like an advertisement, and your reaction is oddly only against me and not to the person who first proposed it, if you have something personally against me just tell and quit acting like a child/troll. --Namlong618 (talk) 13:46, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, now you are calling me a stalker because I participated in a talk page discussion. Can someone please tell him that he is wrong? Fleet Command (talk) 21:34, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Namlong618, unlike a user talk page, an article talk page is strictly visited by reviewers, people like Fleet Command, myself and the rest of your teammates on Wikipedia. By the way, what is "version E.G."? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 03:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Internet Explorer Mobile. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://browserwatch.internet.com/news/story/microsoft94.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100218182001/http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2010/feb10/02-15MWC10PR.mspx to http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2010/feb10/02-15MWC10PR.mspx

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 03:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Internet Explorer Mobile. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100311082208/http://blogs.msdn.com/iemobile/archive/2005/10/04/Randal.aspx to http://blogs.msdn.com/iemobile/archive/2005/10/04/Randal.aspx

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 13:04, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

POV: you're using this in 2014

I could have put anything here 2600:6C5E:6A00:7772:FE19:10FF:FE7D:76F9 (talk) 19:55, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I have an idea update maybe I should have do something.

I can't put stuff in here because I can't even laugh. 2600:6C5E:6A00:7772:FE19:10FF:FE7D:76F9 (talk) 20:00, 2 April 2022 (UTC)