Jump to content

Talk:Microsoft/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

Criticized for its "ease of use"???

hi Why is this article criticizing Microsoft for their consumer-friendly products? 99% of the world are computer-newbs, while 1% are computer pros -- writing software to suit the 99% isn't deserving of criticism. Although the geeks criticize it, it's absurd to treat their PoV as the mainstream. Even when taking every possible PoV, it is, at least in the introductary paragraph, just NOT justified to criticize a consumer-directed feature of Microsoft. 202.156.6.54 13:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Could you quote the part of the article you are talking about? I couldn't find it. Pfalstad 17:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
I do remember reading that in some previous version of this article. I don't think it's there anymore, which is good because it was certainly confusing. I think the Common criticisms of Microsoft article explains what whoever put that in might have meant. Greyfedora 00:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
I guess criticism is justified where "user-friendliness" overrides other means. Three words: Windows XP automatic update (okay, that's four, but since when has anything related to Windows been 100% correct?).
As of Service Pack 2 WinXP downloads updates even if the user does not respond positively to the update notifiers, installs it even if the user does not respond positively and even REBOOTS if the user does not respond negatively within so-and-so-many seconds every so-and-so-many minutes the notification pops up.
This feature ensures the user does install critical updates, but it also removes any right of the user to choose when or whether she wants to update or reboot (the latter especially so if the computer has to be left idling for some time and is running a non-resumable download or other process that can't simply be re-initiated without loss after reboot).
Another common issue with Windows' user-friendliness is that the system shields itself from user manipulation so hard that it becomes nigh impossible to change internal settings even if you know what you are doing. An example for this is deleting system files that were leftover from a former installation after re-installing WinXP without formatting the harddisk -- the old files are still recognized and thus can't be deleted through Windows with conventional means (i.e. shell or Windows Explorer).
I think this kind of "dumbing down" is what most people criticize as misguided "user friendliness" and part of the reason that term tends to be frowned on among geeks -- in Microsoft products "user friendliness" oftenly means locking all users out of anything they could break just to prevent that an inexperienced user causes harm -- even when operating as root (or "Administrator").
This conflicts with the geek idea that also lead to Open Source: always allowing the end-user to fix problems or "improve" (=customize) the software -- Ashmodai 14:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • On factual accuracy, your understanding of all of these examples is just plain wrong.
  1. Automatic updates has four settings "Don't tell me" "Tell me, but don't download" "Download but don't auto-install" and "Download and auto-install". The auto-install option lets you set the time when the auto-install should occur for reboots.
  2. What system files are left over after a re-install that can't be deleted? If they were system files before, they still are now. I don't even understand this.
  1. Yes they are. Windows XP automatically installs the updates if I don't respond within a certain time after the download. The option only sets it to notify me when it downloads them and ask me to install them. There does not seem to be a way to prevent it from acting on itself (nor from acting in an opt-out manner) for some reason, or at least not so if you select anything other than "don't do anything" (which I've never tried, but probably eventually acts autonomously as well). This is not related to me, my "Windows skills" or my computer, this is a Windows XP Pro SP2 (yes, this occurs on LEGALLY purchased copies) phenomenon that I've encountered and heard of on more machines than mine and it's a major annoyance.
  2. If you install Windows to a different directory without formatting the harddrive first (because Windows does not come with an "uninstall" option and you can't delete hidden or inaccessible system files from within Windows XP) the old system files remain in place although new ones are created. There is no logical reason Windows should want to keep the old files other than recognizing them by filename (Windows XP doesn't show files that follow a certain naming scheme -- google the Sony Audio-CD copy-protection incident if you don't know what I mean) and thus treating them as if they were still vital. Windows does NOT allow the user to access ALL system files, thus locking the user out of a part of their own computer.
These are factually accurate criticisms and cases of dumbing down the interface. If the user isn't locked out of certain parts of the system for security reasons, then it's not even justified by "user friendliness" and downright offensive: it's preventing the user from accessing his property (I'm not sure the "license" (another reason people hate Microsoft, btw: they actually sell licenses rather than software these days) forbids the user from accessing some files the system creates on the user's harddisk, but even if it does, that's just one more reason for advanced users to loathe Microsoft).
There are many more reasons people hate Windows' "user friendliness", but since specific examples were requested, I only provided specific examples. -- Ashmodai 21:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

194.80.54.120 19:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC) It is simply giving the opinions of the majority of Microsoft customers! And stating the problems it seems to have! I dont see why this should change...

Gamey

A link to GAMEY should be on the Microsoft article. 205.213.5.250

coding

If your coding special things into it like html comments and using special code for ampersands and such at least take the time to do it right, I just had to go through and fix quite a bit of broken coding which included removing entirely a couple of malformed html comments. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 20:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup

Man, has this article become ugly since the day it was a featured article. It's become a mess - what happened to it? Most notably, the 'Criticism' section? I'm going to go back through the edit log and see if I can figure out what happened. - Brian Kendig 14:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Turns out that the 'Criticism' section was subverted by an anon three days ago who pasted what appears to be unformatted copy from some web page. I reverted the part he messed with. I am shocked that statements such as Microsoft is one of the most corrupt corporations in the world survived without having been reverted sooner. - Brian Kendig 14:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I just put a Cleanup tag on the article; it's just messy. For example; there are three separate places which say that the company was founded in 1975: the second paragraph (as "Micro-Soft"), the top of the 'History' section, and the top of the '1975-84' section (as "Micro-soft"). The article's second and third paragraphs are redundant and should be merged with what's below. The '2000-05: legal issues' section title implies that the legal issues started in 2000 - they started at least ten years earlier, but the section itself begins with a mention of 1998! - Brian Kendig 15:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I deleted a duplicate paragraph about "velvet sweatshops" in the criticism section. 70.66.48.96 20:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
My edit has been reverted, by mistake I suspect. I received this message: "Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. Tεxτurε 20:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)"
70.66.48.96 20:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm gonna try deleting that duplicate paragraph again. If it gets reverted again I'll let someone else handle it. 70.66.48.96 21:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Sorry about that. Anon IPs deleting criticisms is quite common. Although, I couldn't figure out who would be defending Microsoft... - Tεxτurε 21:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Sure, when I have a chance. The cleanup tag exists for a reason. - Brian Kendig 18:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Criticize MS for DRM?

Who criticizes Microsoft for DRM? You may not like the idea of DRM, but that's not Microsoft's fault. They (like Apple and Real) make DRM technology that is only as restrictive as the content provider chooses to make it. If Geffen records wanted to release a WMA CD that let you burn it, rip it, re-encode it, etc, they could.

By providing a DRM option, digital content that would otherwise not be offered at all is now possible. I don't think the DRM debate has anything to do with Microsoft.

  • The fact that microsoft use it themselves for activation, they seem to be using it as a way to force incompatibility much like apple but that doesnt mean what apple does is a good thing. It is the whole trusted computing thing that should be criticised, they want to be able to throw client-side restrictions of any sort onto anyones machine. They actively encourage the use of DRM as they know people need then need their proprietary tools to use the 'content'. "Would otherwise not be offered" is a bully tactic the 'content' providers use, "if you dont give us DRM we wont make anymore stuff" but lets say they dont get their way, do they just randomly wind up the business in the fear that someone might send a few more copies than they would like to their friends? -159.134.52.82 18:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

01:54, 20 October 2005

What would be wrong with reverting to 01:54, 20 October 2005, the time when Raul654 marked the article as Featured. That comes out to approximately 3:00 20 October 2005 --Ancheta Wis 03:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Nothing except that you lose all the changes people have made - a lot of which were good. The problem is that the article tanked too much so I just reverted it. My specific comments are in the above section. WhiteNight T | @ | C 21:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

humour - did he actually say that or was it meant to be a joke

Despite once claiming that neither he nor Steve Jobs “will merit an entry in a history book,” Gates has never suffered from a lack of self-regard. As far back as 1993, after Bill Clinton’s election, he informed a friend at a dinner party, “I have as much power as the president.” (Melinda, evidently aghast, kicked him under the table.) [1]

I'm quite sceptical of this claim. Clinton was elected in November 1992 IIRC (I'm not an American) so if it was not long after he was elected it would be at the end of 1992. Perhaps it was after he ascended took office in the beginning of 1993. However B&M got married Jan 1 1994. I know very little about the history of their relationship but from what I do know, I'm sceptical they would have been going to dinner with friends at the beginning of 1993... Nil Einne 17:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi folks,

While I've been on wikibreak for a couple of months this article just accumilated a lot of issues :\ - the criticism section was terrible and a lot of the NPOV I worked so hard to get in there was killed (there was even an edit war by anons over whether DRM was either "much hated" or "much loved" :\). I also agree with Brian's criticisms - but a lot of those also exist in the featured version. Anyway, I've reverted it back to the version at the time at which the article was tagged featured - I know a lot of edits will get temporarily lost and I'm sorry about that - I am definately going to incorporate those but for now I think we are doing a better service to our readers by providing the featured version of the page while I incorporate the changes over the coming days.

WhiteNight T | @ | C 21:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, it is got the new version mostly with the criticism cleaned up. I'll finish copyediting the following days :). Thanks to everyone for waiting! WhiteNight T | @ | C 08:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Halloween documents

Why is there no mention of them? I'm sorry, but I'm not sure why this is a featured article — no offense to the people who did a lot of hard work on this. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Could you please explain? The reason why the halloween documents are not here is because we are only dealing with general criticisms on this page due to length... if you have any other criticisms etc. please share WhiteNight T | @ | C 07:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Sure... the problem is that Microsoft have had a considerable number of legal troubles, none of which I can see in the article. Just one that comes off the top of my head is the trouble they had with Go Corporation - this was big news at the time. Also seem to remember problems with a dispute with Apple about the use of a Windowing system: this was a big one for them and they eventually won, but yet this is not mentioned here (unless I've missed it). - Ta bu shi da yu 07:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The apple one is already given a brief mention in the history - perhaps it should be expanded? Article length is a problem for FA of course... I guess my question is

  1. Where do you think it should go?
  2. How long do you think the criticism should be?

I'm also finishing up Brian Kendig's criticisms as well :). I was going to mention this anyway on this talk page but to be honest it has been really quiet here we no responses whatsoever... Thanks for your time :). WhiteNight T | @ | C 07:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I would like to note that I am well aware of most of the legal troubles etc. and if something is not here it is more than likely by choice in order to keep the article pithy. Anyway, I think me and you could fix this thing up easily in a matter of hours to address your concerns (I can just do it myself too if you'd like :)). WhiteNight T | @ | C 07:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Cool, I have a source, when I get home I'll dig it up and add it. While we are about it, are we able to start use the new <ref> system? To see how it works see the article I wrote: Windows 2000. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Yep - thanks for reminding me - I just switched it :) WhiteNight T | @ | C 08:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Origin of the name

Is there any truth in the suggestion that Microsoft is named after a part of Bill Gates's anatomy? 83.71.37.250 19:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

No, there is not. Rhobite 20:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
OK, thanks for confirming that. It's an amazing coincidence though. 83.71.61.164 15:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
You've seen Bill Gates's penis? (I guess this is what part of his anatomy you're talking about.) You're one sick human! Nil Einne 17:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Microsoft Works

Should something be included about Microsft Works? Foxjwill 18:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe there should, especially since Works is the predecessor to Office, and the latest version of Works is still bundled with some new computers. Wesmills 22:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed - I'm not sure how that didn't get included but I'm definately going to put in some info about that (later it was bundled with another semi-successful product, bookshelf, as well). WhiteNight T | @ | C 05:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Microsoft Publisher

In the article it says that Microsoft Publisher was first released with Office 2003; however, I have a previous version of Microsoft Publisher. Foxjwill 18:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The article is stating that the Publisher product was brought under the Office brand as of 2003, i.e. Microsoft Office Publisher. What they'd done with 2003 was roll Publisher into the Office Professional package as standard, not as an add-on. There were "Office XP Professional with Publisher" and "Office XP Small Business" editions (available only from OEMs) which had Publisher included. That said, the Publisher 2002 box had the Office styling and logo on it. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that Publisher and those other applications were added to the Office suite as of 2003, not the office brand. Warrens 18:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Microsoft is for Sheezy

Microsoft, as I like to call it, Mircrasoft, is the coolerst company in the universe, except for Coca Cola. --QDJ Keeping it real. 00:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Did I mention that I use Microsoft. --QDJ ''Keeping it real.'' 00:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Uhm, are you on medication? ;) - Brian Kendig 19:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Good work

Terrific work, all - the article's looking a whole lot better now than it was in December! - Brian Kendig 19:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I EMPHATICALLY SECOND THAT!!!! WhiteNight T | @ | C 06:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

MS Abbreviation

Pages about MS products refrain from using the MS abbreviation, as in MS Windows. As an effect, they tend to call products just Windows, Word etc which is quite ugly. They justify this saying that 'MS isn't an encyclopedic abbreviation for Microsoft'. I propose changing this by mentioning that MS is indeed a common abbreviation for Microsoft, as this self same pages attests.

--
Leandro GFC Dutra 20:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

TWO XBOX Pictures?

Is it really neccessary to have both the xbox and xbox 360 pictures on this article? There many more pictures of anything other devices Microsoft sells. So is it safe to say there are too many pictures of the Xbox 360? --Mushroom King 02:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Neuromancer and microsoft

William Gibson in Neuromancer coined the neologism 'microsoft' to refer to a hardwired chip that is plugged directly into the brain. i think this article should have some kind of mention about this use of the word, but a dissambinguation stub seemed a bit too much. ideas? Yaco 23:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Microsoft in Latin

Can someone please start a Microsoft article on the Latin Wikipedia? http://la.wikipedia.org. Yes, it definitely is possible to form Latin words out of modern-day vocabularies. (e.g. "autocinetum" is Latin for "automobile", and there's an article about that over there.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shultz III (talk • contribs) 2006-03-10 21:06:23 (UTC)

Neutrality?

Since when did Criticisms maintain the neutrality of an article? Aren't criticisms BIASED by definition. Why is there a section, in essence, bashing Microsoft in a page thats supposed to just describe what microsoft is and what it does? I dont think it's about what people THINK of Microsoft.

I suggest the removal of this section. Pvt Mahoney 13:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The criticisms section is factually accurate, verifiable, and presents a NPOV of the criticisms that are lodged at Microsoft by various people. There's nothing at all wrong with it being there, especially considering how prevalent criticising Microsoft is in modern culture. Warrens 16:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
But how many of those criticisms are by Microsoft supporters? Pvt Mahoney 19:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
If you need an answer to that, I encourage you to review the rather lengthy history of the article, and the talk page archives, so you can get a sense of the work that's been done to bring the article to where it is now. Reviewing the Criticism of Microsoft article is also a good idea. Note that the length of that article is almost on par with this article, which makes it pretty clear that criticisms of Microsoft is an important aspect of any fairly complete article about the company itself. Most importantly, however, you need to review Wikipedia:Article size, where it is specifically stated that "In most cases, it is a violation of the neutral point of view to specifically break out a controversial section without leaving an adequate summary." Warrens 20:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to have the companies Vision written from a first person persepective? I didn't want to remove that section completely and instead moved it into the body of the article... if anyone feels it could be reworded or needs to be removed then please do so :-) Stuhacking 17:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Vision statements should be included verbatim as they are quoted/statements from the company itself. It would be inappropriate to try and interpret the vision statement Nil Einne 16:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The last paragraph (as of now) in the 'Business culture' section has questionable POV: sounds like it's verbatim from some MS recruiting pamphlet.

You're right. Just another star in the night T | @ | C 15:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Image in Criticism section

The image in the criticism section was removed by Robust Physique 11 March 2006, 06:42 without any reason. I have now added back the image to this section. Off! 03:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Good call. A review of that user's recent edit history and talk page suggests that they've been making a number of disruptive edits elsewhere on Wikipedia as well. Warrens 03:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

M$

Microsoft is very commonly referred to as M$ by users on various forums and critics. I'm sure this should be mentioned in the article. Wikipedia's NPOV states that we should include all important points of view. I believe this is an important point of view, and that M$ should stay in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hildanknight (talk • contribs) 2006-03-14 05:20:25 (UTC)

There is plenty of space for criticism of Microsoft in the appropriately titled section and article. The current state of the Microsoft article represents a large amount of effort to present the company in an NPOV manner, and what you're doing is decreasing the quality of the article by throwing politically-motivated terminology into the headline of the article, where it clearly does not belong. I'm going to revert this againIt's been reverted, and you're going to find that I and other editors will do the same, for the same reason -- to preserve overall article quality. Please, PLEASE review the history of the article, and this talk page, before you go making arbitrary decisions about whether or not such a thing belongs in the introductory paragraphs of an article about a publicly traded corporation. Also, don't put yourself in a position where someone needs to waggle a finger at you for violating the three revert rule. Warrens 05:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • M$ is not an important view, it's low-brow ad-hominen attack. If every article on a major company featured nicknames and abbreviations that juveniles thought were important nicknames it'd be a joke. SchmuckyTheCat 05:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Refrence Added

I added Zachary, G. Pascal. (1994). ShowStopper!. The Free Press. ISBN 0029356717. That book talks alot about the inside of Microsoft and its products. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.137.230.201 (talk • contribs) 2006-03-18 01:44:33 (UTC)

Future directions

OK, I've got some questions for you guys - but a quick booyah!!! for keeping this article excellent!

1) How much stuff from the future should we cover here? I see quite a bit of info has been added again in "2006 and beyond" - my question is how much should we describe if at all?

2) The criticism section is getting big again - should any parts go? Is it of good length? Too long, too short?

3) What is missing from the article? I know some stuff about the haloween documents etc. should be added but does anyone have a wishlist at all?

(Of course feel free to make the above edits yourself as well :))

WhiteNight T | @ | C 11:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Booyah! Here's my answers to your questions:
  1. We should be staying focused on announced major products or initiatives that are substantially relevant to Microsoft as a whole company, and/or to a large segment of customers. So, things like Vista and Office 2007, or major expansion efforts in other countries(?), should be there. As it stands now, there's too much conjecture and guesswork, and we should try to avoid that.
  2. I think the size of the criticism section is good as it is. Microsoft is amongst the most heavily-criticised companies in the world, and so no fairly complete article about Microsoft should short-change that. With that in mind, the focus of the criticism presented in this article should accurately summarise what's in the break-out article.
  3. The whole "Product divisions" section needs a bit of work. One might think from reading the first couple paragraphs that they still sell MS-DOS. The entertainment division section mentions the Mac Business Unit twice (it certainly merits a paragraph on its own).
I don't have much of a wishlist, personally, other than for vandals to do their business elsewhere. :-) Warrens 21:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Excellent suggestions - thanks! I think I have taken care of it mostly - let me know what you think :)! Just another star in the night T | @ | C 14:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Removed stuff from "2006 and beyond"

Originally I just commented this stuff out but the references thing in wikipedia actually tags commented out stuff so unused references show up the footnotes if I would left it in -

  1. Photon is the next major revision to the Windows Mobile platform. In December 2005, Microsoft announced that the Smartphone and Pocket PC platforms will be merged for this release. Microsoft has also indicated that this release is still fairly far off in the future. Nothing much is known about this OS yet, apart from special design improvements and greatly improved battery life.
  2. Microsoft will also release its Windows Live products, a set of online services that do not require installation in individual computers, and are thus available to users anywhere they access the Internet. As many as 30-50 Windows Live services are rumored to be in the works[1]. These services are said to be able to interoperate with one another.
    • Appears to be more speculation and really overkill on what we should cover here for future topics
  3. The successor to Windows Vista will be Windows "Vienna", set to release sometime from 2009-2012.The successor to Orcas is code-named Hawaii.
    • Now this is REAL speculation - unless we can get some reliable sources here this has got to go!

WhiteNight T | @ | C 05:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the removal of the last one. As long as an article remains for Windows "Vienna", there should be some mention of it here. If you feel there is insufficient evidence that Windows "Vienna" is currently intended by Microsoft to be the replacement for Windows Vista then go ahead and dispute it there. Note that Vienna is the code name (ala Longhorn) not the name for the final product. Also note things may change, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't include it if it's true at the current time. As for the date, I don't know if we should mention that, it depends whether there is any source to back it up. But clearly the reference to Windows "Vienna" should remain as long as this information remains correct (if Microsoft renames it to something else then go ahead and change it accordingly) Nil Einne 16:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  1. ^ "More Windows Live Services in the Microsoft Pipeline". Microsoft-Watch. Tuesday, February 28 2006. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Microsoft/Archive_4&oldid=1074598905"