Jump to content

Talk:Microsoft/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

history: apple

I think the history section lacks mentions to apple. It was a important aspect of how the GUI was copyed form apple (who in turn copied form xerox parc) user avsa (too lazy to log)

Also too lazy to check the facts. As this is discussed on History of the Graphical User Interface I'll leave it to you to read up and get a clue. Oh I forgot, you're lazy. In that case, I'll say it here; Apple didn't copy the GUI from PARC.Graham 06:13, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Longhorn

Was initially to ship in 2003, but slipped to 2006

less like a slip and more like a little sprint (or 10 of them) — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 05:37, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

the era of "open computing,"' the free exchange of digital information that has defined the personal computer industry, is ending

Maybe this quote should be put somewhere on this page?

Paul Pogonyshev 15:28, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Stock options

[1] I think an even more interesting topic on this company that is seriously needed is the effect of stock options on Microsoft profitability. Yeah, i know some people would like to claim options are not expenses, but then nobody try to explain where the options receipients receive their money from. An updated article can be found here [2] and here [3]

US centric

"For example, while many software companies often place an entry level software developer in a cubicle desk within a large office space filled with other cubicles, Microsoft assigns a private or semi-private closed office to every developer or pair of developers. In addition, key decisionmakers at every level are either developers or former developers."

This only applies to the US. In Europe it is nothing special to have seperated rooms.

"Microsoft takes security as a very serious issue. If it did not secure its software and hardware secrets successfully (such as the source code to software) then it could stand to lose its market position. The Microsoft Security System is therefore very complex."

Security is a big issue and a hot top in regards MS products. It was been widely criticised for security problems. The above statement doesn't seem to reflect that very well and sounds almost like a press release from MS

"Diversity

Microsoft was named one of the 100 Best Companies for Working Mothers in 2004 by Working Mothers magazine."

This again doesn't make any sense at all in the context of the article. I don't understand why it is where it is, or why it is there at all.

Unbalanced POV that needs clean up in Controversy seciton

The following POV paragraph at the bottom of the controversy section needs to be balanced by including pro anti trust citations/quotations. POV phrases such as "It is held by many" need to be cleaned up. Any assumed collusion before 2000 between the government and microsoft foes would not excuse illegal activity would it? Is Milton Friedman even notable/relevant these days? There seems to be a large potential for clean up in this paragraph. What does everyone think?

There are also critics of the antitrust proceedings against Microsoft, which they believe to be an unjustified assault on a business who held a large market share merely by outcompeting its rivals. It is held by many that the case against Microsoft was the result of collusion between government and Microsoft's competitors in an attempt to gain an unfair advantage by thwarting the free market through government coercion. Nobel economist Milton Friedman believes that the antitrust case against Microsoft sets a dangerous precedent that foreshadows increased government regulation of what was formerly an industry that was relatively free of "government intrusion" and that technological progress in the industry will be impeded as a result. Friedman, moreover, says that antitrust laws do more harm than good and should not exist.

zen master T 22:44, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree that for such a contentious article, "held by many" should only be used if we have data about how many hold it. I'd change it to "They hold ...", which also avoids the passive voice. As for the question how relevant Milton Friedman is, I would say that this should be discussed on his article. Interested readers can judge this for themselves. The beauty of Wikipedia is that this information is only a mouse click away.
Sebastian 23:45, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)

I meant the question of Friedman's relevance in the context of asking why there is so much of his information/quotations included in the *summary* section for *controversies*? That section is basically listing the alleged controversies in very NPOV fashion but then denounces the anti trust controversy in very POV fashion using friedman. It seems as if at some point specific details on microsoft's controversies were moved to a daughter article while a lengthy POV paragraph where friedman is used to "denounce" the anti-trust controversy is allowed to remain in the controversies *summary* section. It does not make sense to me, that Friedman paragraph needs a lot more NPOV balance or it should be removed entirely as uncleanupable in my opinion. There may also be a need to expand on some other recent Microsoft criticisms and controversies among other things, though the list that is there currently does a good job and a good job at NPOV. zen master T 23:55, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I see. I agree that this paragraph should be moved to the appropriate article. As for how NPOV the current text is: Currently, the overview only talks of lost lawsuits. I don't know much about it, but if Microsoft won any lawsuits, this should be given fair mention in both articles.
Sebastian 00:23, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)

Falsifiability

User:The Anome added the following line to the The future of Microsoft section, "It has also been speculated that Microsoft may be using security concerns to drive users to upgrade their systems, by only making some security fixes available on their latest operating systems." Does non-verifiable speculation belong in a Wikipedia article? I don't think so. It may be a fact that there is a speculation; however, it is not a fact that Microsoft uses security concerns to drive sales.

In addition, the entire The future of Microsoft section does not belong because the future is inherently unconfirmed. The future can only be forecasted. The future cannot be foreseen. Other issues for responsible editors to look into is the usage of terms such as "improvement". In the aforementioned section, it is stated that Windows Longhorn "will be an extension of, and improvement on, Windows XP and Windows Server 2003." We cannot be certain that Windows Longhorn is indeed and improvement of Windows XP and Windows Server 2003; however, we can be somewhat certain about what Microsoft plans for Windows Longhorn. Watch out for this. Adraeus 17:01, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I removed the line saying that Microsoft makes some security fixes only available on the latest operating systems.
  • First of all, it's not true. Microsoft makes security fixes available on all operating systems which it currently supports. For example, updates are frequently made available for Windows 2000, despite it having long since been superseded by Windows Server 2003 and Windows XP.
  • Additionally, such a claim doesn't belong in the paragraph about the annual fee subscription licenses.
If the person who added this assertion to the article means to point out that older operating systems (such as Windows 98) are no longer supported, then that's a separate issue. Someone reverted my deletion and added to the statement: ... by making some security fixes, such as the forthcoming IE7 web browser update, only available... but that's also incorrect; IE7 is not a security fix. If I'm wrong, and there are security fixes which are not made available to some operating systems which Microsoft currently supports, then let's point them out in the article. - Brian Kendig 22:52, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
If IE7 is not a security fix, why are Microsoft enthusiastically promoting it as such? For example, as in this statement by one W. Gates: [4] -- The Anome 19:04, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
What statement? I followed your link and there was absolutely nothing to suggest that IE7 is a "security fix" at all. IE7 is a whole new update, much like Office 2003 is an updated version of Office. -- Smoothy 10:48, April 4, 2005 (BST)

Market cap

What was the peak market cap of this company? This page ([5]) say that Bill's initial ownership share (11,142,000 shares, 50, 60% ?) was worth $384 billion when the stock was worth $119.75 (according to Yahoo! $119.94 during ) in December of 1999 ([6]). The close on 30-Dec-99 was $117.12 which split adjusted is $51.99.--Jerryseinfeld 21:01, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

According to their 2000 annual report, Microsoft had 5.28B shares outstanding (remember this is before the 2:1 split in 2003). At a peak price of $119.75, their market cap would have been $632.28 billion. I'm not sure where that $384B figure comes from, but Bill Gates has sold a significant number of shares. I believe he owns about a tenth of the company now. Rhobite 22:31, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

wikipedia has m$'s attention

As seen in this article:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnforms/html/winforms11162004.asp

Don't be too surprised — I've barely met anyone at MS who doesn't know about Wikipedia, and I've seen plenty of citations internally. Wikipedia is ubiquitous. Deco 21:02, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sign image to use

I took a photo of a fancy Microsoft sign (see right) and was wondering if it could fit into this article somehow. Could someone insert it in an appropriate place if so? Maybe a section about the campus. Thanks. Deco 21:06, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vole?

A number of people appear to refer to Microsoft as "The Vole" and sometimes also refer to "Vole Hill, Redmond" as a pointer to Microsoft.

Finding such occurrances is easy, but I can't find any reference to where this phrase arose or what the rationale is for it.

(I suspect it started with www.theinquirer.net as that's where I've seen in most - but why?)

Logo Guidelines

Hey all, came across this URL describing limitations on how the Microsoft logo can be used:

http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/ip/trademarks/corplogo.asp

These don't seem to make an allowance for informational purposes. Whether all these rules can be enforced in law, or will be, is another matter. I think we should keep it on the page — we certainly aren't using it maliciously and if nothing else we have OCILLA. Nevertheless, I was thinking we might avoid some of their wrath if we at least include the attribution notice somewhere:

Microsoft is a registered trademark of Microsoft Corporation

(as if this weren't entirely obvious) 17:34, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Corporations can't prevent the use of their logos for informational purposes. Wikipedia's use of logos falls under fair use and is completely legal. Rhobite 17:37, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
As someone who creates identity guidelines professionally, I say ignore those guidelines. They're not for us. Adraeus 18:13, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Speaking of logo history...

...an hysterically funny and, I think, unintentional diagram appeared in the OS/2 manual circa OS/2 1.3. It was in the promotional-drool-executive-overview section that showed how wonderful OS/2 was. It was supposed to show something about how beautifully the parts of the system worked together.

If I recall the configuration correctly, it showed a pair of meshed circular gears and a long, single worm gear driven by a crank. The worm gear was positioned so that it meshed with both circular gears at the same time, attempting them both in the same direction, while the two circular gears, being meshed, were constrained to turn in opposite direction. In other words, the system was jammed and it would have been impossible to turn the crank or get anything in the system to operate. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:33, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anyone have a copy of this? I'd really like to see it.

Lawsuit?

The racial discrimination lawsuit against Microsoft [7] made big headlines at the time [8] [9], but I'm not sure if it was ever settled or dismissed. Does anyone have more information on this? ElBenevolente 01:40, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

My damn link...

I put a link to this article on here, and it was removed without reasoning, then added it again ant yet again it was removed. I wanna know why you can't have it there, and why any of the other articles are more worth the sapce? They came first or something? ThorRune 15:17, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Microsoft notice board

Note: to start this off I'm posting this to a few Microsoft articles.

I have kicked this off as I think we can do a lot better on many of our Microsoft related articles. Windows XP is just one example of a whole bunch of people getting together to fix up issues of NPOV, fact and verifiability of an article. I think that no matter whether you like Microsoft or not that we could definitely do with a review of: a) the articles that we already have, and b) the articles that we should have in Wikipedia! - Ta bu shi da yu 02:06, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

New version of "Microsoft_sign_closeup.jpg"?

The new version is slightly edited (the dot over the i is corrected).

CURRENT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Microsoft_sign_closeup.jpg

NEW: http://web.comhem.se/~u79700325/Microsoft_sign_closeup.jpg

Well, the original was an unaltered photograph. The dot may have been damaged somehow. If someone does edit it, please edit the original resolution version and upload it to Commons over the old one. Deco 18:02, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Antitrust Case

The Microsoft antitrust case was not a mere criticism of Microsoft. It was a HUGE event, not only in the company's history, but in the history of United States and European Union antitrust law. Microsoft is the world's largest software company - surely the United States and the European Union prosecuting them for antitrust violations is worthy of at least a mention in the main article?!

Sun alone settled for $1.6 BILLION dollars -- this is an astronomical amount. If any other company settled a case for this amount, it would surely be at least mentioned in the company's article.

The only use of the word "antitrust" on the whole Microsoft article was in the wikinews link. This case was

I tried hard to make the Antitrust section as NPOV as possible, and kept it to factual events. If you feel that it could be more NPOV, then please edit it - but the whole antitrust case is a MAJOR event not only in the history of Microsoft, but in the history of the United States, and in the history of the European Union, and should not be moved to a secondary article.

Putting it in the "Common criticisms" secondary article is not enough. A major antitrust case brought by the Federal government is not the same thing as some guy on Usenet saying "Linux is better than Microsoft because x, y, and z. A reader of the article before my edits would not even know that Microsoft was prosecuted at all (much less that they lost)! Kwertii 17:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

First, please discuss before adding that back in - its way too long and inheritly POV.

  1. Whether it was a huge event or not is arguable
  2. It already it mentioned in the common criticisms section - admittedly it should probably be renamed to just criticisms
  3. It doesn't matter how much sun settled for - this article is about Microsoft and ONLY Microsoft
  4. You need references for these factual events in this article or the daughter article
  5. Putting it in the common ciritcisms article IS enough - and the case itself is in its OWN article already I think anyway
  6. Linux should NOT be a subject of this article
  7. Yes they would know Microsoft was persecuted because its documented quite thuroughly in the criticisms article

--Ryan Norton T | @ | C 18:15, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Your use of the word "persecuted" reveals your bias. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:09, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
1 - Within the context of Microsoft and the Microsoft article, any Federal prosecution and conviction for antitrust violations is indisputably a huge event in the company's history, much less the additional prosecution by the EU. Any article with a "History" section about Microsoft cannot purport to be NPOV and overlook any mention of the Federal court order requiring the company to split into two pieces. Further, the case was a landmark case in the history of technology law - there had never been any kind of antitrust action related to operating systems before.
2 - an antitrust suit is not a "criticism", it is a lawsuit. A Federal court order is not a "criticism", either, it is a legal writ with major implications for the recipient. The history of Microsoft corporation cannot be told without at least mentioning these things.
3 - Microsoft PAID Sun the $1.6 billion dollars; therefore, ipso facto, the event is notable in the history of Microsoft. This is not pocket change, even for Microsoft. Any such huge legal settlement is highly significant in the history of a corporation.
4 - The entire section is based on well known and factual events. Are you suggesting that there is not any well-established basis in fact for writing about the Microsoft antitrust prosecution? That is ludicrous.
5 - again, a successful Federal prosecution is not a mere "criticism". It is a landmark legal case. A Federal court order requiring a major corporation to split into two pieces is not a "criticism", either. The "History" of Microsoft Corporation cannot exclude these events and pretend to be complete and NPOV.
6 - Who said anything about Linux?
Incidentally: RN - do you work for or on behalf of Microsoft or any related entity, own Microsoft stock, or work in the public relations field? Why do you want to avoid mentioning the antitrust suits on the main Microsoft page so badly? Kwertii 19:22, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
It's a major event in the history of the company, it was successfully procecuted and it is more than just a "criticism", and the criticism section should be summarised in this article. Also, having it mentioned is not inherently POV. -- Joolz 19:28, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Oh great I misspell a word and people think I have a bias. If you can see I'm still trying to rework the rest of the history a bit for references and NPOV, and if you look at my edits on the matter you'll see that. Next I was going to add recent history like the antitrust case etc.. Another problem (and a bigger one) is a complete lack of sources in this article (unreferenced conspiracy theories about them using kernel code for office etc.). Someday I want to make this a Featured Article.
  1. I meant in the history of US law its rather insignificant - in the history of MS its obviously significant
  2. Yes I KNOW that - if you can think of something better to rename the section please do so - that's all it is is a name problem, there's no intentional ommisions here (and it seems like all people want to do on this article is just inject random anti-MS stuff, NPOV or not and don't really want to help the quality of the article, which is my real beef, so please excuse me if I'm frustrated on that matter). In fact it would be nice if we could merge the criticism and history sections.
  3. Yes but we can't mention every lawsuit filed against MS here... there's too many. It would be nice if we could summerise all the good ones in a couple of paragraphs (maybe mentioning the apple and sun ones)
  4. It still needs references of some kind - just because its well known doesn't preclude it from the reference requirement. Link to the case docs, link to something!
  5. Yes as mentioned before its a name problem
  6. You mentioned it and before there was a loong pro-linux rant in this article

Again, for 80-millianth time the problem is that this article in general needs attention, and I have no pro-MS bias and if it seems like I do then its a communication problem on my part.

Joolz - yes I know I reworked the current summary dramatically for NPOV etc.. If you think it could be better please be specific or edit it.

Anyway I hope people don't fall silent I really want to make this article better --Ryan Norton T | @ | C 20:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

On point 2 I refer you to WP:FAITH ;) I think we're all trying to improve the article, instead of just removing someone's edit if you believe it's not NPOV enough (as in [10]) it would be more productive if we were to all co-operate on it (e.g. if you thought the section was too long, cut it down) instead of reverting each other's changes. -- Joolz 20:48, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes I'd refer to the same thing... anyway I did the major edit I've been wanting to do here. Admittedly I should have just put up the darn inuse tag. Anyway - do you guys see where I'm headed with this now? Sort of in the direction of the IBM page, maybe less list-heavy and with more references so it can be a FAC. --Ryan Norton T | @ | C 21:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm happy and I'll try and help you with it becoming a FAC, where I can :) -- Joolz 23:46, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Thanks :) --Ryan Norton T | @ | C 23:57, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments, history, misc ventures etc.

If someone can think of a better name please do so. It would be nice if we could mention a couple projects like the IBM page. Also, I made a lot of HTML comments in the code, if anyone can fill in the blanks please do so ::). I think one problem is the history section, which I think what my point with the longish summery of the antitrust case... the main problem is that if we mention that then we probably need a summery of MS vs. Apple at the very least and maybe a bit about MS vs. IBM. It makes it really long and pretty stacked though - it would be nice if we could get something different than a legal case in there (somehow) while we're doing that. --Ryan Norton T | @</font> | C 11:04, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Gates v. Boies videos

The CNN videos from the 1998 trial doesn't work anymore, anybody have an alternative link?--Jerryseinfeld 20:33, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

"Catalog"

I removed this.... I wasn't sure what to with it: Microsoft Active Directory
Microsoft
Microsoft .Net
Microsoft .Net Framework
Microsoft SharePoint Portal Server 2003
Microsoft BizTalk Server 2004
Microsoft Business Solutions Solomon
Microsoft Business Solutions CRM
Microsoft Business Solutions Axapta
Microsoft Business Soltuions Navision
Microsoft Business Solutions Great Plains
Microsoft Windows Server 2003
Microsoft Windows Server 2003 64 bits
Microsoft Visio 2003
Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition
Microsoft Internet Information Server 2003
Microsoft Internet Information Services
Microsoft Windows Server System
Microsoft SQL Server 2000
Microsoft Exchange Server 2003
Microsoft transacción Server
Microsoft SAP.Net Connector
Microsoft SNA Server
Microsoft Source Safe
Microsoft Content Management Server 2002
Windows Terminal Server
Outlook Web Access
Microsoft Office 2003
Microsoft Office 2004 for MacOS X
Microsoft Windows XP
Microsoft Internet Security and Acceleration Server 2004
Microsoft Windows Small Business Server 2003
Microsoft Outlook 2003
Microsoft Front Page 2003
Microsoft Index Server
Microsoft Office Accelerator for Sarbanes Oaxley
Windows Messenger
Microsoft System Management Server 2003
Software Update Services
Microsoft ASP.Net
Microsoft Operations Manager 2005
Microsoft C#
Microsoft Biztalk Server 2004
Microsoft Enterprise Project Management
Microsoft OneNote 2003
Microsoft Visual Studio .Net 2003
Microsoft Right Management Services
Microsoft Live Communication Server
Microsoft Windows Media Player
Microsoft Windows Media Services
Microsoft Internet Explorer
Windows Server 2000
Visual Studio .NET
Microsoft Visual Basic .NET
Microsoft Encarta
Microsoft Money 2006 Small Business Edition
Microsoft Streets & Trips 2005 with GPS Locator
Microsoft Works Suite 2005 (More function at the minor price that OpenOffice)
Microsoft Xbox
Microsoft Xbox 360
MSN® TV 2 Internet & Media Player
Virtual PC for Mac 7.0.2 Update
Microsoft Windows Services for UNIX
Microsoft XENIX Vista 12i. (Complete Open Source technologies, BSD like distribution). Compatible with all Linux Apps, Gnome and MONO.
Microsoft AntiSpyware

Ryan Norton T | @ | C 00:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

messed up futher reading section

I'm unsure if this was just the result of some clever vandals, some but the futher reading section was sprawled in several parts at the very bottom of the page (I thought I removed the futher reading section previously for preperation for the FAC too... I would have made a comment here though so maybe not)

Further Reading

Freiberger, Paul, and Michael Swaine. Fire in the Valley: The Making of the Personal Computer. Berkeley, California: Osborne/McGraw Hill, 1984.*Rivlin, Gary. The Plot to Get Bill Gates. 1999.

  • Wallace, James. Overdrive. 1997.
  • Wallace, James, and Jim Erikson. Hard Drive. 1992.

Ryan Norton T | @ | C 01:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

ARTICLE EXPANDED AND REWRITTEN, LETS MAKE IT A FEATURED ARTICLE

OK, guys. I added a WHOLE BOATLOAD of history and stuff to the intro. I rewrote the product groups/divisions for the new update. I also killed the current activies section and some links. While neat, we'll get killed at FAC for describing future events if we do that. He's the diff (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Microsoft&diff=24152681&oldid=24151264).

Anyway, the article is ready to be made into a FA. COME ON GUYS LETS MAKE A FEATURED ARTICLE OUT OF THIS!!!!!!!

Ryan Norton T | @ | C 15:03, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I made some mods which were (partially) reverted. The below sentence still doesn't look right. I don't want to be rude and revert it back to how I originally had it. Could someone please check and do the needful, please?

"By 1993 Windows had become the most widely used GUI operating system in the world, and in November Microsoft released a the next version of Windows, Windows for Workgroups 3.11." 

Poweroid 20:59, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Thanks! I went ahead and reworked it a bit... how does it look now? Ryan Norton T | @ | C 21:04, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Way too overlinked

Bill Gates was linked about six times, as an example. The text was geting very hard to read, and to edit. Common words like 'office' were linked. Before anyone objects and starts to relink, please read See Wikipedia:Make_only_links_relevant_to_the_context and discuss here. Tony 04:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Revert rationale

Since I was asked, here is my rationale for this revert: [11] The term "microcomputing" has fallen into disuse. It's just "computing" now. "Footholds" is the proper term for a base for further advancement, not "handholds". "Flood" is used wrt markets, but "deluge" is usually not used metaphorically in this way. "Position" is a proper marketing term which refers to a product's intended market and perception. The term "location" is not synonymous. Anyone who has studied marketing can tell you this. Likewise, "dominate" is an acceptable marketing term but "overpower" is not one. I believe the anonymous user simply replaced several words in the article using a thesaurus, for no apparent reason. That is why I reverted. Most of the changes were awkward and reduced meaning. Rhobite 23:28, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Microsoft/Archive_3&oldid=1086824188"