Talk:Internet Explorer 9/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

MS-EULA again

Latest comment: 11 years ago45 comments8 people in discussion

The version in the last comment in this thread is implemented per consensus in WP:DRN case. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:26, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello.

Not long ago I reverted an edit by Ziiike (talk · contribs) who changed the license type of Internet Explorer from "freeware" to "MS-EULA". A discussion took place in User talk:Codename Lisa § Freeware and MS EULA which seems to have satisfied Ziiike; we reached a consensus.

Today, Schapel (talk · contribs) seems to have done the same controversial change; so it seems we should discuss this once and for all.

First, what is the meaning of MS-EULA? It is short for "Microsoft End-User License Agreement". It means a license agreement of Microsoft Corporation. Contrary to some people's belief, MS-EULA is not a uniform licensing scheme like GPL. Every single Microsoft product has its own unique MS-EULA. That product may be freeware, free and open-source, proprietary or even proprietary and bound a non-disclosure contract.

Now, the word "freeware" tells the reader two things: The product is proprietary software (a.k.a closed source) and the product is available free of charge. Even FSF, which says "freeware" is vague, agrees on these two basic points. Please do take note that there is no single word that represents ten pages of Windows 8's or Internet Explorer's license agreement; and in the infobox, we don't have the luxury of fitting those ten pages. So, "freeware" is perhaps the best compromise for the time being.

Best regard,
Codename Lisa (talk) 16:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Internet Explorer is not freeware. It requires a Windows license to use it [1] You may not use it if you do not have a license for the software., and a Windows license costs money. If IE were freeware, I could run IE legally without paying any money at all. -- Schapel (talk) 17:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi.

That is completely correct. And that is exactly why "freeware" is chosen. "Freeware" is not an accurate type of license. As my dear friend User talk:John Biancato reminded me, a free plug-ins for a commercial product is still freeware. Likewise, a free DLC for a commercial video game is still freeware. You need to pay money for using Windows regardless of whether you have IE9 or not, and you can download IE9 regardless of the fact that you have Windows or not. In addition, the end result of using IE9 is the same as the end result of using any other freeware for Windows, like Opera, CCleaner, etc.: You have to pay money for Windows but not the freeware.

In addition, notable software publishers use the term "freeware" to describe IE9's licensing scheme. See [2], [3], [4]

Now, MS-EULA has a big problem. It has zero sense. Saying "MS-EULA" is the same as saying "some license by Microsoft". Okay, what license? Some license! If you leave the license field empty, it is the same as writing MS-EULA. (This not the case with GPL; GPL clauses are uniformly defined.) Even if freeware didn't seem like a good word,

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 19:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

First of all, MS-EULA is indeed an acronym for Microsoft End-User License Agreement, which may differ not only from product to product, but also from one version of any given product to another version, so MS-EULA is definitely a bad choice of wording. On the other hand, unlike the freeware plugins for commercial products IE is not allowed to be used without valid Windows license. I would note that download sites are not particularly reliable sources for this information, and definitely are not better sources then Microsoft itself. Thus I would recommend using

|license=[[Proprietary software|Proprietary]]<ref>{{citation |url=http://windows.microsoft.com/en-MY/internet-explorer/products/ie-9/end-user-license-agreement |title=Windows Internet Explorer 9 for Microsoft Windows 7, Windows Vista, Windows Server 2008, and Windows Server 2008 R2 |work=[[Mcirosoft]] |accessdate=2012-08-26 |quote=If you are licensed to use Microsoft Windows 7, Windows Vista, Windows Server 2008, or Windows Server 2008 R2 software (for which this supplement is applicable) (the “software”), you may use this supplement.}}</ref>.

— Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi.

I agreed; with a couple of comments.

First, in this specific context, publishers are perfect sources. See WP:COMMONNAME. Second, we don't have to be so vague. "Proprietary; free for license owners of Windows" is also correct. (We can refine the wording.)

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 20:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

First, the question has nothing to do with titles, so WP:COMMONNAME just isn't relevant, while download sites qualify for several criteria of Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources § Questionable sources. Second, infoboxes are supposed to be succinct presentation of profile data, and the less wordy they are, the more they are useful. You might have noticed that I spent quite a lot of time between delisting your WP:3O request and answering it — all of this time was spent on thinking over brief explanation of the issue, that would be suitable for infobox; the shortest was:

|license=[[Freeware]] for Windows licensees

But it is too long still. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

It isn't required for an info box entry be one or two words, only that it is as succinct as possible while still remaining informative. Many infobox entries are longer than a few words, as there is no arbitrary limit, just best judgement. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, best judgment appears to be not good at all very frequently. There is no point in having Infobox, if parsing it requires considerable time — one may use this time to read an article instead. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The phrase freeware for Windows licensees is tortured. Once you've paid for Windows, you can use any software that comes with Windows without paying extra money. But you might as well use the phrase freeware for X licensees for any software that you pay money for -- once you've paid your money for it, you don't have to pay more. IE is part of Windows, it's proprietary software that you must pay to use. -- Schapel (talk) 20:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Not, actually. It is a software, which is genuinly distributed free of charge, but only for specific uses. Compare it to "free for non-commercial use" for example. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello again. I agree with "Freeware for Windows licensees". So, what do you say, Dennis? Czarkoff? Can we declare a consensus or should I attempt to obtain more participants? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 20:45, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm here via WP:3O, so my opinion doesn't count in determining consensus. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Internet Explorer is freeware for Windows licensees in exactly the same way as Photoshop is freeware for Photoshop licensees. IE is part of Windows, and is not available as a separate download that can be used without a Windows license. It has exactly the same licensing as Windows, proprietary commercial software. You have to pay to use it, so it isn't freeware at all! -- Schapel (talk) 21:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between "X is freeware for Y licensees" and "X is free for X licensees", as the first one resolves to freeware for 86% of desktop users (according to Wikimedia stats of July 2012). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand what your point is. You're saying that because 86% of desktop users pay for Windows, it's freeware for 86% of people, who are the Windows licensees? Windows costs money. It isn't freeware. Every part of Windows which is not available for download and use without a Windows license is proprietary commericial software. Those 86% of users paid Microsoft, directly or indirectly, for the license to run that software. I cannot legally download Internet Explorer under Wine even if it works, because I haven't paid Microsoft money for the right to run it. IE is in no way freeware. It costs money to run. On the other hand, if I could download Minesweeper (or any other part of Windows) and run it under Wine legally, then that would be freeware because I could run it for free without paying Microsoft money. -- Schapel (talk) 22:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Plain wrong. Nobody ever paid Microsoft for using Internet Explorer, and statement that IE license costs money is violation of WP:SYNTH. This is a software, which is licensed free of charge, but has deployment restrictions. Compare it with Adobe Reader, which is free to use for anyone not involved in development of PDF software. Or compare it to any "free for non-commercial use" software. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:19, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Everyone who has ever run Windows has paid money to Microsoft for running Internet Explorer. One of the conditions for running IE is owning a valid Windows license, which costs money. It's in fact a part of Windows, which costs money. I don't need to pay Adobe money to run Adobe Reader. It's freeware -- I can run it without giving the company money. IE is not freeware -- there must be an exchange of money for a license, without which I cannot run it. -- Schapel (talk) 00:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Being nearly part of pay-for-license product is being pay-for-license product: IE is available separately and doesn't necessarily come preinstalled with Windows. It is software that any Windows user can download and use free of charge, if complies with license restrictions. Enforcing the legal use of the only supported platform has nothing to do with licensing costs, which are exactly 0. Moreover, you can't buy a license for IE if you are not going to use it on Windows, so IE definitely is not pay-for-license software. And no, you have to pay Adobe if you develop eg. Evince and want to use Adobe Reader. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

No, users cannot use IE free of charge. They had to pay Microsoft the license for Windows. It's just like saying that any Photoshop user can download and use the newest version of Photoshop if they comply with the licensing, and therefore it is freeware. It's completely misleading. You have to pay to use Photoshop, in exactly the same way you must pay to use Internet Explorer. Explain to me how I can download and use Internet Explorer legally without paying Microsoft any money, and you have an argument for calling it freeware. -- Schapel (talk) 14:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, you can take your PC running Windows and download IE free of charge, as almost all the European IE users currently do. Your argument about Window's price can be easily translated to iPhone: to use iPhone freeware user has to pay for iPhone. Or without IE: users have to buy PC to acquire IE, so the price of PC is also the price of IE. Hope now you see the ridiculousness of this not freeware IE idea.

See, freeware is software that can be used free of charge, not without restrictions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

To run Windows, you had to pay Microsoft money. Part of that money pays for Internet Explorer, which is part of Windows, and requires a Windows license to run. Internet Explorer is not part of the PC, and you can acquire a PC without giving Microsoft any money. You can acquire freeware from company X for the iPhone without giving company X any money. Hope now you see that you must pay money to Microsoft to use IE, and is therefore not free of charge. -- Schapel (talk) 16:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I give up. I don't know how to communicate that you are wrong, and I leave this task for someone with more patience. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Schapel

I do see your points and the value in it; that is why Czarkoff suggested that phrase. But I do not see what do you still disagree with, when your point of view is well integrated into the new wording. Do you have a significantly better idea which have not disclosed yet?

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 17:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to interfere, however, maybe we can say:

Freeware - MS-EULA

Codename Lisa said that every Microsoft software that is MS-EULA licensed has it's own form of License like the GPL, and the MS-EULA, I think anyway. However if the MS-EULA software could be Freeware, open source closed source etc., Perhaps it would be best for all the Microsoft software articles that are dual governed with an actual license and Microsoft's MS-EULA to state the license form and "MS-EULA"? Maybe a possibly?

Ziiike (talk) 02:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC) b>Join WER

Hi.

Actually, I said quite the opposite. I said:

"MS-EULA" is word that gives absolutely zero info to our readers. MS-EULA (Microsoft end-user license agreement) is not a fixed thing. Every Microsoft product has its own unique MS-EULA. Some are free and open-source, some are given to select customers under the terms of strict nondisclosure. (This is in contrast with GPL v2 or CC-BY-SA v3.0 that are fixed things.) Therefore, writing MS-EULA only tells the reader that this product's licensor is Microsoft. We already have "developer" and "author" fields for that.

So, sorry, it is probably not possible. Still, thanks for participating.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 05:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I think 'MS-EULA' is exactly the correct response under the heading 'License'. The question isn't 'what is the cost', or 'what are the terms and conditions', it is 'License'. The answer is 'The Microsoft End User Licence'. To say that it is not a fixed thing is irrelevant as obviously, the context is 'Internet Explorer 9' - the title of the article and of the infobox. 'What is the license for Microsoft Internet Explorer 9?' 'The relevant Microsoft EULA for Microsoft Internet Explorer 9'. The word freeware has all kinds of other connotations that absolutely do not apply to MSIE - freeware not only doesn't require payment, but usually comes with no restrictions on what you do with it, what operating system you run it on (provided you can get it to run); it usually means that there is no support, no updates, no warranty, no one to sue if it screws up your machine or your business. None of this applies to MSIE, or big businesses would not pay out for Microsoft licenses in order to be able to roll out MSIE across all their desktops, and then to buy in all their intranet, training, CRM, Sharepoint and other internal content on the basis that MSIE will run it all per the Microsoft sales pitch. --Nigelj (talk) 17:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The documentation suggests that the question is: "which are the terms of use?", so MS-EULA is exactly the wrong answer. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I was going to say that 'MS-EULA' accurately describes all the relevant terms of use too (if anybody actually reads it). I was going to add that if the infobox designers wanted 'terms of use' they should say so, and not display the word 'license'. But then I looked at the documentation you linked. It forbids "phrases that makes no sense to the reader such as "Microsoft EULA"". So I give up. If the 'owners' of the infobox display the word 'license' and forbid us from stating the license, then it's the blind leading the blind. Put whatever you like, or leave it blank as it is impossible to answer. Just don't, for heaven's sake, say 'freeware' or you will be misleading the corporate software buying drones re support, updates, warranty, etc. --Nigelj (talk) 17:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Nigelj

Did you know that there are over 35000 Microsoft products and each have a separate unique MS-EULA? To say that its license is MS-EULA is redundant at best. Besides, you say license is not about this or that; but do you know what is the definition or objective of a license agreement? A software license agreement describes the costs, liabilities and rights of both licensees and licensors. To say that a software product's license is GPL or Apache license is to specify all of these because these ubiquitous licensing schemes have defined them all. But to say "MS-EULA" is to use another fancy synonym for the word "license". (That's how Microsoft works: Uses big words for small things for which there are already small words.)

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 18:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I see that the relevant phrase was added to the doc in this edit. Perhaps someone would like to ask FleetCommand (talk · contribs) just exactly what they had in mind to use for all the huge range of Microsoft products and add-ons? --Nigelj (talk) 17:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Nigelj

This only means one thing: There has already been a discussion about this whole issue and a consensus has previously been established.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 18:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the 35,000 MS products, if they can't make their license agreements any shorter, and we're not allowed to refer to them by name or link, then you'll have to paste the whole text in. If they don't mention the word freeware right at the top - like "This product is freeware", then we really should not introduce the word as "our" summary of all their work. Can you provide a link to the discussion that led to FleetCommand's edit? --Nigelj (talk) 18:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi.

Why do think we are not allowed? Especially when we can practically do that? I don't remember summarizing fact has ever been against any Wikipedia policy.

As for the writers of the documentation page, let me be frank: I don't endorse your commenting on the contributor instead of the contribution; if you are about to go their talk pages and scold them with some juicy expletives, I don't even want to have the remotest connection with you. If you want to change the consensus, now is the opportunity: Discuss your point view and state your rationale.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 18:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

We certainly can summarize Microsoft's license terms. In this case, IE is proprietary commercial. It's software for which you must have a license to use, and you must pay the company money to get the license. -- Schapel (talk) 19:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Please, reference to reliable source that specifically claims that license for IE costs money. Unless you have reference to back up your claims, please, stop bloating this talk page. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I say we're not allowed to name the license because the infobox documentation says to "avoid specifying phrases that makes no sense to the reader such as "Microsoft EULA"". I was told that this is because "There has already been a discussion about this whole issue and a consensus has previously been established." I asked for a link to the discussion, but haven't seen one. If it is possible to summarise the whole MS-EULA for IE9 into one or two words, we'll have to start with the original text. I don't use Microsoft software, so I can't see it on my machine. Is there a link to it somewhere on MSDN? I don't know if this might help someone find a copy. --Nigelj (talk) 20:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Nigelj, MS-EULA is not a term or a name of any license. It is just an abbreviation Microsoft uses to refer to whatever license of its products in order to avoid ambiguity (for legal purposes). |license=MS-EULA equals to |license=license. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

It should be clear to anyone with any cognitive function a Windows license, required to run IE, costs money. Unless you are going to deny it, I don't think there's any point in continuing. -- Schapel (talk) 22:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

How does this affect the price of IE license? Please, provide a reference to reliable source for your claim, so that improper synthesis you conduct throughout this thread would not be required. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

(Independent view coming from Talk:Comparison_of_web_browsers) We're discussing what the 'License' is for IE. This is a seperate question from how much money it costs. I'd avoid arguements built on our Freeware article: the confusion around tht term is so severe it is largely defined by example. Reading through the above, there are two differnt appropiate summaries of the License for IE: MS-EULA and proprietary and commercial. Pick one, or both. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. This type of erroneous discussion is called false dilemma. Both of your options are problematic but we have many other options; we don't need to pick these. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I've been out a couple days, but in the end, "Freeware for Windows licensees" makes the most sense, or a close variant, since the software doesn't have it's own stand alone license, but is instead has a supplement that attaches to existing MS-EULA (of which there are dozens), so there is no singular license per say, only a single license type, ie: it is freeware but only if you own a licensed (any license) version of Windows (newer versions only). It also expresses the intent of Microsoft, to make it free to Windows owners under their existing license. Again, it doesn't have its own stand alone license, the supplement automatically attaches itself to the individual's current license. There is no singular MS-EULA for this product. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:30, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I hadn't the time to read that long discussion, but why not imply remove that parameter of the infobox? We could add a simple line explaining the situation in the text... Oh and adding a HTML comment so that nobody would readd the license stuff back to the infobox. mabdul 13:44, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The issue is quite easy to explain without "scorched earth"-style actions. The current draft of consensual wording at WP:DRN § Talk:Internet Explorer is:

Markup

Renders as

|license = [[proprietary software|Proprietary]], [[end-user license agreement|requires]] Windows license<ref>{{citation |url=http://windows.microsoft.com/en-MY/internet-explorer/products/ie-9/end-user-license-agreement |title=Windows Internet Explorer 9 for Microsoft Windows 7, Windows Vista, Windows Server 2008, and Windows Server 2008 R2 |work=[[Microsoft]] |accessdate=2012-08-26 |quote=If you are licensed to use Microsoft Windows 7, Windows Vista, Windows Server 2008, or Windows Server 2008 R2 software (for which this supplement is applicable) (the “software”), you may use this supplement.}}</ref>

^ "Windows Internet Explorer 9 for Microsoft Windows 7, Windows Vista, Windows Server 2008, and Windows Server 2008 R2", Microsoft, retrieved 2012-08-26, If you are licensed to use Microsoft Windows 7, Windows Vista, Windows Server 2008, or Windows Server 2008 R2 software (for which this supplement is applicable) (the "software"), you may use this supplement.

— Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:13, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Windows 2000

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Is it true they are realising it now??? no w2k support whatsoever planned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshuatee (talk • contribs) 08:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Right, Win XP also is not supported. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.130.127.173 (talk) 01:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

"Last to implement SVG"??

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The intro claims that IE9:

It is the last of the five major web browsers to implement support for Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG).^[14]

Source [14] links to a SVG Plugin for IE hosted by W3C, which mentions no "last", nor a MS IE9-native SVG support. I cannot make the logic work. If plugins count, then MS IE9 already have SVG support. If plugins don't count, the link doesn't verify that IE9 will ever have SVG support, so "is last to" is just a wild hypothesis.

Iff IE9 actually have native SVG support, then a proper link verifying this should be used instead the W3C link. Iff IE9 mayhap gets SVG support in future, then such a link should be provided. Otherwise the statement "last to implement SVG" is unfounded. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 20:50, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

IE9 version 9.0.8112.16466

Latest comment: 9 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

I just saw my IE9 version updated to version 9.00.8112.16466 (see the IEexplore.exe property). Worth mentioning? --176.249.94.100 (talk) 11:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I think so, it could be added to the release table, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Explorer_9#Release_history) Ziiike (talk) 23:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

What's new with this version? All I know that the version changed with the update of http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkID=248363 --90.223.150.4 (talk) 22:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

It says it is a security update, so you could say that is new, otherwise, I think the point of this version is to fix errors. Ziiike (talk) 00:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The version info can only be viewed if you check the property of "iexplorer.exe." If you view the about screen it shows 9.0.8112.16421. --2.216.55.61 (talk) 15:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Internet Explorer 9 Final Release is shown as: 9.0.8112.16421, also per Release History. However, people keep updating the stable release in the Infobox ~ now currently showing:

Stable release 9.0.26 (April 8, 2014; 3 months ago)

If I look at the Microsoft download page, here (as viewed on a Windows Vista 64-bit system):

Explorer 9

I still see (expand Details) version: 9.0.8112.16421 (release date 3/14/2011 ~ 2011-03-13)

Maybe there are some development releases, but clearly it does seem that v9.0.8112.16421 is the latest (and final) supported release of IE9. Comments?

Enquire (talk) 00:25, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Internet Explorer 9. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Internet Explorer 9. 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://blogs.msdn.com/b/ieinternals/archive/2009/05/29/q-a-64-bit-internet-explorer.aspx
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110108143812/http://www.beautyoftheweb.com/ to http://www.beautyoftheweb.com/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://webfonts.info/wiki/index.php?title=%40font-face_support_in_Internet_Explorer
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/02/14/ie_9_release_candidate_review/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110108143812/http://www.beautyoftheweb.com/ to http://www.beautyoftheweb.com/

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) 03:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Logo of IE9

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

As far as I know, Internet Explorer 9 uses the same logo as 10 and 11 (I tested it by extracting icons of IE9 and IE11 iexplore.exe, and they were identical). I think this article should use the same logo icon as 10 and 11, instead of the current "attempted recreation". —Upwinxp (talk) 09:19, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

There were no objections so I made the change. —Upwinxp (talk) 14:29, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Internet Explorer 10+11 computer icon.png

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

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

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Internet Explorer 10+11 computer icon.png

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

[1] "Windows Internet Explorer 9 for Microsoft Windows 7, Windows Vista, Windows Server 2008, and Windows Server 2008 R2", Microsoft, retrieved 2012-08-26, If you are licensed to use Microsoft Windows 7, Windows Vista, Windows Server 2008, or Windows Server 2008 R2 software (for which this supplement is applicable) (the "software"), you may use this supplement.

[1]