Talk:Internet Explorer 6

Active discussions

SP2/SV1 in infoboxEdit

Do we really need to specify in the infobox what versions of Windows the SP2/SV1 update is available for? - Josh (talk | contribs) 19:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think we need to show support was discontinued for some OS with the latest release. However, I agree its not needed to list all the versions of windows (e.g. x64, mce, etc.) that its available for. Digita (talk) 19:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The "gold release" of IE6 is build 2600. IE6SP1 is build 2800( that is the version for 98,ME,NT and 2000,XP - it was also bundled with XPs servicepack 1 and 1a), and the XPSP2/SP3 version is build 2900 - these buildstamps are shown via "About Internet Explorer".

The only Versions still getting security updates are 2800 on Windows 2000 and the 2900s on XP (2800 on XP does not get updates and those for 2000 don't install on XP )

For the difference between IE 2800 and IE 2900 most important is the "manage Addons", "popupblocker" and the "yellow Informationbar" ( ActiveX prompts on IE6 2800 are handled via a messagebox , there is no Infobar). Build 2900 is XP exclusive. The new functions are not present on a WIndows 2000 IE6 .

There are folks that backport the Windows 2000 securityfixes for IE6 to Windows98,ME and 2000 ( forum at msfn.org, also part of the unofficial SP for 98 ) which shows that it is not a technical reason to not support IE6 on older OS, because the fixes for 2000 do work exactly the same on Win9x with IE6. This just for the info that IE6 holes are present wherever it is installed no matter what the underlying System is DOS or NT.

(When are people going to get it through their head that 9x is not "DOS" or "dos-based"? Since when did dos operate in 32-bit protected mode?!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.98.120 (talk) 05:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Also it should be more emphasized that IE6 is still Windows XP default Browser, even on new OEM discs which have SP3 already slipstreamed into. To tell those people that just have purchased the 2008 edition of XP that their Browser is ancient and outdated is a joke. IF Microsoft really wanted to, they could have update XPSP3s default browser to IE7, but they don't.

78.50.80.232 (talk) 16:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Slow updates criticismEdit

Why does the criticism section use a slow Windows NT update as an example of slow Internet Explorer updates? - Josh (talk | contribs) 15:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


Security section is weakEdit

The Secunia statistics discussion is very weak. The vulnerability counts are out of date (2006) and potentially not very meaningful. Product versions with dramatically different market lifetimes are being compared as apples-to-apples. It's not at all surprising that the one with the longest time on the market has the largest number of accumulated vulnerabilities. The same product divided up into "milestones" would have fewer accumulated vulnerabilities at each milestone than a product which kept the same name over time, because each milestone wipes the count of existing but patched flaws to zero. The fact that Firefox releases major version numbers quickly doesn't indicate anything about its relative security.

Count of unpatched vulnerabilities is also not necessarily a very useful indicator. Many of the unpatched vulnerabilities are sufficiently esoteric as to be unconcerning. Does the fact that they are unpatched reflect on the inherent security of the product development process? Probably not. Does it reflect on the maintenance philosophy? Sure, but not in a useful way.

What is the purpose of the 2004 incident example? Is it particularly noteworthy?

The "generic security flaw" paragraph is a non-sequitur. Not only do nearly all other browsers fall in the same bucket, but nearly every desktop application and plug in in existence does as well. This belongs under an article on generic security considerations of software, not IE 6. A possible way to make it relevant would be to frame it as a comparison against IE7 under Vista and Google Chrome, which take some steps to cut the privileges of the browser. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.32.83.128 (talk) 12:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Internet Explorer 6.pngEdit

The image File:Internet Explorer 6.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Fixed as a fair use rationale has been added to the image in question Eraserhead1 (talk) 11:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

note add note to ...Edit

we should explain why many sites now beginning to force users to switch to other brosers (alo ie7!) and the campain strting with a finnish site (and their wiki on http://ie6.forteller.net/ ) ! somebody want help? i can start to do this on monday or tuesday... mabdul 0=* 15:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


Smart tag (Microsoft)Edit

woud somebody please write something about the ie6beta feature smart tags? mabdul 19:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

web siteEdit

The official web site http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/ie6/ is 404. I didn't find a replacement and I think it is likely there won't be one. —Wrathchild (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

"All you need to do to crash IE"...Edit

God, this bias!

All you need to do to crash Firefox is:

<script>while(1) document.body.innerHTML += document.body.innerHTML;</script>

So what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.196.68 (talk) 21:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not getting a crash from the code you provided, and it isn't biased to note that a snippet of malformed or odd-looking code can have catastrophic results.
--Gyrobo (talk) 23:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Web sites aren't actually "dropping" IE6 support as reported...Edit

Despite several dramatic public statements and articles, very few sites, if any, have actually dropped support for IE6 altogether. On YouTube, I get a message, but it works. Twitter, there's no message and it looks terrible, but it works. Facebook, I get a message only after I log in, "Facebook will work better for you if you upgrade or switch to another browser" but it works. I think it's fair to say, "Beginning to phase out," but IE6 clearly hasn't been "dropped" from any major site.

There's a list of participating sites on the Microsoft ie6countdown site, but they aren't big players. "Mike's Web Designs" is one of the single-person shops listed there, and it still works on IE6. It just doesn't look as good as it does on other browsers.

I'm not sure where to find a third-party article to back up my personal experience, but that's just what I found using IE6 today.--GlenPeterson (talk) 20:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

That the pages work, doesn't mean that you either have all features that are presented, nor that the pages are tested in your browser. This can be seen at the fact, that some pages look horrible, but still are working since they use "old markup" (or better saying markup from the first hour, which can't be/won't be replaced) which IE6 understands. You provided the best example that the pages are phrased out. If you check the same sites in a "modern" browser you may recognize features that you don't get in IE6! mabdul 01:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 July 2012Edit

http://www.browserchoice.eu/BrowserChoice/browserchoice_en.htm was mentioned as always putting IE first and all other browsers in random order. Running it a few times however shows that IE is not always put first.

AlecTaylor (talk) 08:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Your right, that information is wrong, it seems to display the Web Browsers in a random order, I'll fix that. Ziiike (talk) 02:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Fixed by Ziiike. Rivertorch (talk) 04:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Why not mention version numbers in this page?Edit

Nowhere do you mention in this page the specific IE 6 version numbers, such as:

6.00.2462.0000	Internet Explorer 6 Public Preview (Beta)
6.00.2479.0006	Internet Explorer 6 Public Preview (Beta) Refresh
6.00.2600.0000	Internet Explorer 6 (Windows XP)
6.00.2800.1106	Internet Explorer 6 Service Pack 1 (Windows XP SP1)
6.00.2900.2180	Internet Explorer 6 for Windows XP SP2
6.00.2900.5512	Internet Explorer 6 for Windows XP SP3
6.00.3663.0000	Internet Explorer 6 for Windows Server 2003 RC1
6.00.3718.0000	Internet Explorer 6 for Windows Server 2003 RC2
6.00.3790.0000	Internet Explorer 6 for Windows Server 2003 (release)

Why not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djangofan (talkcontribs) 01:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Such contents are not allowed. Wikipedia is not a changelog. See WP:NOTCHANGELOG. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Is IE6 completely unsupported?Edit

SP1 for Windows Server 2003 seems not to be supported anymore. SP2 came out on 13 March 2007, after IE7. Not sure if IE7 came with that SP/required updating to IE7.

See also: [1] Is the source in the Infobox not supporting that IE6 support is active? comp.arch (talk) 23:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi. IE7 did not come with the service pack. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Microsoft's lack of support for IE6Edit

Please do not delete information on the lack of support of IE6. Before my rollback, the page looked as if a troll promoting IE6 removed all of the relevant information regarding the lack of support. There are people who subscribe to the idea of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" when software should instead be assumed to be broken unless proven secure, and this page should let people know that IE6 is too insecure to use these days. It is not the editors' fault that Microsoft tied IE support to Windows. Jesse Viviano (talk) 22:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

@Jesse Viviano: Hi. Thanks for saying "please" but mere politeness is not enough for justifying doing the wrong thing. (Although calling editors "troll" is a personal attack.) Windows XP's support is ended and Windows XP article is already saying it. Shouting it all over Wikipedia, especially in irrelevant articles such as this is ... well, by definition, it spamming and trolling. Infobox is saying "Windows XP and earlier (Desktop editions): Unsupported". I don't see anything Internet Explorer in it. (In addition, as I showed in Windows XP article with ample sourcing, the statement "Desktop editions" is also wrong about Windows XP.)
Furthermore, there are things in your mass counter-revert that have nothing to do with IE's support. For example "and download manager (dropped)" is unreferenced. Statements such as "Support ended on September 30, 2004" said about a specific version of IE are purely wrong because the fact that it is supported is manifest by the fact that it has received an update! How that fact eludes you, I don't know.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 02:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
I am not trolling. I am not shouting it all over Wikipedia. First, Wikipedia's articles should contain a summary of the relevant facts on the topics they cover. The lack of support is a major problem that should be given more prominence especially in the infobox along with the other discontinued versions of browsers. It is as if someone minimized the fact that Lance Armstrong's Tour de France victories were revoked due to doping. Second, I should have remarked that as 6.05 was a beta version that was not officially supported instead of leaving the word (dropped) in the table. I screwed that up because I was multitasking (Nvidia released production OpenGL 4.5 drivers today, so I was updating the articles on the GPUs that got the new OpenGL version. I also had been trying to call people and do online research on fire alarms because the fire alarms in the house I am living in started to fail due to old age). Further, where is the reference that IE 6.05 was ever officially released into production? It apparently was a beta version that never got official support, so one could make a case that it does not belong in the table. Third, spamming is inserting unsolicited advertisements. I am not doing that. Placing major facts into relevant articles that improve them even if they are redundant across articles is neither spamming nor trolling. Fourth, you have the wrong spot in the BRD cycle. Your minimization of the facts regarding the lack of support from Microsoft was the BOLD in the cycle. I did the revert and started the discussion. Fifth, when I saw the article, I honestly thought that someone had tried to perform stealth vandalism (vandalism on niche topics that most editors and visitors who are not knowledgeable in the niche would have trouble spotting and correcting like a vandal who corrupts the least significant digit in the atomic mass for an element in the article about that element). That is why I wrote about trolls in the first place. I then found out that it was you who was making good faith edits that were strange to me. As for the words "Desktop editions", I will agree with you that they were wrong because they run on laptops and workstations as well. Better words would have been "Client editions". As for Microsoft releasing an update after the end of official support, it violated its own policy because many IT people figured for having a month of being current on patches after the supposed last patches were released in their migration plans. Microsoft would not do anymore patches after that, and now IE6 is full of zero day vulnerabilities on the client operating systems it runs on. The other Windows editions based on the XP code like certain point of sale versions and Windows Server 2003 R2 still get patches. Jesse Viviano (talk) 04:01, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I'm not sure what Lance Armstrong, dope, fire alarm, OpenGL and Nvidia have to do with all this but the rest of the message, although to the point, is equally irrelevant. For one thing, you couldn't have suspected an act of a stealthy vandalism because these changes were all additions on 6 December, which I reverted the same day, exactly 30 minutes after they were added. Second, I am not event convinced that the information added were correct, let alone relevant. The contribution says IE6 is supported on Windows Embedded POSReady 2009 because that Windows is still supported. Well, I have a question: Does Windows Embedded POSReady 2009, which has come out even later than Windows 7, have IE6? Or does it come with IE8? Or, being a POS OS, does it even have IE? WP:SYNTH is not acceptable.
Next, I am not even convinced that Microsoft ever did anything in the way of support for IE6, let alone accepting that such vast coverage for cutting the support of something that has 0.96% market share, after 12 years, has due weight. People must move on, especially from such a security fiasco; they can stay, but they mustn't expect 2277 bytes worth of coverage with nothing stronger than WP:SYNTH as its support.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 06:12, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
You still cut off well-cited material like the Ars Technica article by Lee Hutchinson that I added that listed the end date of IE6 on XP in your over-zealousness to kill the SYNTH stuff and minimize the impact on the end of support. That is stronger than SYNTH. Jesse Viviano (talk) 22:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
When something is synthesized, it is by definition, not well-cited. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:28, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
If you checked our policy on synthesis, the source cited is allowed to draw the conclusion, and then it becomes well-cited. Therefore, it fails to match our definition on synthesis. The relevant quote from WP:SYNTH is ""A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article." In this case, the reliable source is Lee Hutchinson's article. Therefore, putting the stuff supported by Mr. Hutchinson's article is acceptable. Jesse Viviano (talk) 02:46, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Seriously sir, through assuming good faith in you, I may only conclude that you have so far been exceedingly careless in your assessments. Therefore, I am compelled to ask you to pay a little more attention to what I am going to say. (If real-life is keeping your mind busy, I will gladly reserve your right to have this conversation at another convenient time.)
To reiterate, I have so far raised several objections including due weight for covering IE6 support, factual accuracy of the coverage, relevance of the facts presented, and the way several sources are used to induce a wrong conclusion that is supported by neither. To have the material back, all of these must be resolved; one isn't enough. To summarize:
  • WP:DUE: Mentioning the expiry of support for IE6 lacks due weight because it is is an instance of WP:GEVAL. (The dominant point of view is that IE6 is so catastrophically insecure that one must flee from it, regardless of its support status.)
  • WP:SYNTH:Two groups of sources are used in the article: One is a source that says IE's support status is tied to the OS's support policy; Another, a group of sources that cite Microsoft support policy for a select group of OSes. Using these two, the article contends that the support for IE on these select group is expired. This is a faulty synthesis of published material because there is no proof that these select group of OSes even ship with IE at all. (Some of them are supposed to run on devices that are never meant for web browsing.)
  • Factual accuracy: The word "support" is thrown about so haphazardly that there is no telling whether it entails "system requirements", "software maintenance" or "free technical support period". Indeed, while one group of sources cite Microsoft support policy, other statements give support expiry dates for update packages or specific builds that do not tally the original claim and have no sources. Also, the article mistakenly said that all non-desktop editions of Windows XP are supported, whereas non-desktop editions such as Media Center, Tablet PC and Professional for Embedded Systems also have expended their support period.
  • Relevance: "Support for Windows XP is expired". Do you see anything IE6-specific in this sentence? The answer is "no" because support is no longer provided for Windows XP or any of its components, be it IE6, IE7, IE8, DirectX 9, or Paint. When something is so XP-specific, it is irrelevant for this article.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 11:41, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Internet Explorer 6. 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.

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 03:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Internet Explorer 6. 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.

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 13:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I did see a video, where someone tries to install IE8 on older Windows...Edit

...which actually made IE6 be IE6′, where the prime represents that it's still IE6, but with added features (like tabs). Is it actually just a modified IE6, or is it newer IE? EDIT: I found the link: this is the video. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 15:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC), edited by Alfa-ketosav (talk) 07:04, 2 March 2019 (UTC).

A very big security flawEdit

Windows XP can be destroyed without service packs using this. That's a big security flaw. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 16:35, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Return to "Internet Explorer 6" page.