Talk:Microsoft/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions about Microsoft. 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 5

Flag this entry

This entry needs a clean-up. It's very disjointed.

Technical Critcism Section Changes

"(although it can also be argued that most of these "third-party driver" bugs...." This uses passive voice. This needs a reference or should be ommitted Evanreiser 21:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

this addition today is also obviously not written from a NPOV, i'm going to revert the additon unless there are objections for rewordingEvanreiser 00:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Ehhhh...someone wants to make that point. I actually think there's some basis for making that point. It's just poorly worded (POV), and needs a "fact" tag and someone has to substantiate it if it's going to stay in.

--Jason C.K. 04:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed --Evanreiser 15:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Possible sources for additional information to emend article (from old external links)

Microsoft Versus — 'Dissecting Microsoft'
Conference call transcripts — 'Microsoft's most recent conference call transcripts'
CNN — 'Microsoft CEO before the US Congress (includes audio)'
Court TV's complete coverage of Microsoft anti-trust case

Cka3n 23:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Criticism Section

Does it really make sense to have a criticism section on the Microsoft page? I dont think you'll find many other articles that contain a criticism section in any encyclopedia. I think this section should be moved to Criticism of Microsoft and replaced with a link there.

I feel like the Criticism section of this page has degenerated into a 'Complaints disguised as Criticism' and fail to represent a NPOV.

For Example "it make people wonder if the only fact of Windows having more users really explain it having 99,99% incidence of all known viruses (see comparison table of viruses incidence in OS)." The reference here is from a transcript of a conversation from 18months ago. This should not be on the Microsoft Article Page.

I'd like to remove this latest addition [1]

Please discuss this here:

--Evanreiser 20:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

On wiki there seems to be a number of articles where having an "appropriate" length criticism section is seen as ok (with link to other article covering in more detail). Wiki is developing some guidelines about this. If you feel something is POV, either tag it with {{fact}} or somesuch, or find your own citation, or re-word it to be NPOV, or start a talk topic about the issue, or some combination of the above. I'm not in favor of removing that info. Re-wording it would be fine. If you can get consensus that the citation is insufficient, you could then tag it as requiring additional citation.

--Jason C.K. 20:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you will find criticism sections in many other articles at least here on Wikipedia. I will admit, however, that they tend to be very controvercial and a source of POV edits and are incredibly difficult to gain a concensus, much less remove any POV tendancies. Two articles in particular I've been involved with that are incredibly controvercial because of the criticism sections are First Vision and People to People Student Ambassador Program.

There are two good reasons why I think a critcism section perhaps ought to be moved to a whole other page:

Article length
Sidetracking from the main article. Especially if the criticism section is overwhelming the main article due to length.

Even with all of this, it is still useful to have a criticism section in the main article, but perhaps cleaned up quite a bit more and it should only be a short summary of just a paragraph or two. In this case, I think the current criticism section could be shortened somewhat because the seperate article is availble to go into depth about the topic. I don't see a reason to completely eliminate this section, however. --Robert Horning 21:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, looking at it more, that edit seems like too much detail for the main page. Perhaps you should move it to the Criticisms Talk page and let it get put in there whenever if anyone is interested in doing so.

--Jason C.K. 00:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to plan on removing the criticism section from this page and merging adding it to the Criticism of Microsoft page. If anyone would like to help do this or seriously objects please note it here in the near future. --Evanreiser 23:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone should edit this

As i am not a member of Wikipedia.org i cant fix this. But go to the ms page, search for "Bill gates is a fucking tosser" and delete it. Its written in the "2000–2005: Legal issues, XP, and .NET" section —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.89.16.183 (talk) 21:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

Somone shuld add the year to the date of the release of windows 1.0. "1985–1995: OS/2 and the rise of Windows /n On November 20 Microsoft released" to "1985–1995: OS/2 and the rise of Windows /n On November 20 1985 Microsoft released"--Sjefen6 08:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, you could add it too; you don't need to ask for it. · AO ^Talk 10:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Editing of this article by unregistered or newly registered users is currently disabled.

And sadly I have just registerd. --Sjefen6 09:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Wait four days, then you will be able to edit it. ffm ^yes? 16:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)rep

Is "headquartered" a word now? If not, then someone should fix it (I can't get an edit to go through.) K K 01:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It does sound odd, but it is in the dictionary! --^Walafrid | _talk 07:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

"the head-fake" reference should be removed

It’s stated that MS’s decision to drop work on OS/2 was ‘frequently referred to in the industry as "the head-fake"’

I recommend removing this. The reference cited is from a lawsuit filed against Microsoft by Novell, hardly an impartial source. And the link justifying this in the Wikipedia article is to a web page whose author states things like this: “How can we possibly be so foolish as to let Microsoft control everything?”

The question is not whether it was fair to refer to Microsoft's action as a "head-fake," nor whether the people referring to it was such were impartial. The question is whether it is true that the action was frequently referred to in the industry as "the head-fake," and it was.

And I have to say that, having personally been in an audience of several hundred developers at a Fortune 500 company, and personally heard Microsoft representatives specifically advising us to give OS/2 priority because it was the future, while Windows was just a little stopgap toy thing aimed at the home market, that I and my colleagues all certainly felt at the time that Microsoft had been deliberately misleading. This was just months before Windows 3.0 came out, and it had a degree of fit and finish that showed that Microsoft had to have been working on it for a while.

Now, Microsoft is a big company, and the people touting OS/2 may have been out of touch with the reality at Microsoft, or working for managers whose personal careers were tied to OS/2. They may even have believed that the bad advice they were giving was good advice. But it was, nevertheless, bad advice and it did real damage to the companies to took it.

The people I feel sorriest for were some of the small and midsized companies that really put all their resources on OS/2. What was the name of the company that thought it was going to be in the catbird seat because it had the first real word processor for OS/2? They tried desperately to port it to Windows, but it was too late... by the time they got there, Amí (remember Amî?!) and Microsoft Word had beaten them to it. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

(A more balanced view can be found in the book “In Search of Stupidity” by Merrill Chapman: “In the early 1990's IBM was frantically working on its nascent OS/2 operating system, working alongside Microsoft as a trusted partner. IBM had the cash and talent to ensure that OS/2 would own the desktop. So why did OS/2 miserably fail? It was primarily IBM's own ineptitude in marketing OS/2 which led to Windows 95 taking over the desktop. The desktop was IBM's to lose and that is precisely what it did.”) 71.212.26.33 21:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this was pretty well-known opinion in the industry. I easily found another ref, I'll add it to the article. The existing ref has the actual complaint text there, in text and as a PDF, and I think Groklaw is considered a decent source for filed legal documents.

--Jason C.K. 05:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

One second, i see lots of info. Another, it says nothing but Buy a Mac. Wat the hell? someone fix please.68.21.6.210 00:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Introduction length?

The intro seems very large, I think some of the detail should be merged into the rest of the article. Hmm? Stormx2 22:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

History of Microsoft

It appears there already exists a subpage containing the history of Microsoft (though not sure which is the latest version - the sub-article or the main article). As this main article has become way too long, I propose all the history content is removed from here and replaced with a summary. I would do this myself but this is a featured article so I'm being careful. Also I am a bit confused about the status of the History of Microsoft page and whether there are significant differences.--Konstable 07:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I have merged the two versions, there weren't too many differences. I have now removed the history content from the main article, it would be good if someone more familiar with the history would write a summary. (I made my own attempt, but it didn't look too well)--Konstable 04:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I reverted your removal of this section. Don't break WP:SUMMARY form with the expectation that someone else will fix it for you. Do it yourself, or don't do it at all. The article can lose it's featured status with this kind of sloppiness. -/- Warren 04:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh no, don't improve Wikipedia, just keep articles featured - that is way more important. Who cares about readability, quality, progress, etc.--Konstable 12:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Rather than complaining and reverting, feel free to think of a way to do this, or try helping write a summary yourself. It is not my, or anyone else's, duty as you infer - this is a wiki where the whole beauty is collaboration. The sub-page has existed since March 2006 and this article still maintains the full text (which itself makes a long artilce). If you are concerned about it losing FA status, well, it is already violating criteria 4 of FA and is probably twice as long as it should be. I will consider nominating it for FA Review.--Konstable 13:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Not to sound combative, but this has been attempting many times before; and it has never been done properly. It really is a herculean task; the best for now is probably to just clean it a bit and cut a little neccesary. Of course, another thought would be to keep the full history there and trim about 50% here as suggested somehow. RN 04:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I've three points to make:

I saw the split tag and had a quick look here for the discussion. Obviously too quick, because this didn't catch me eye. Under the spirit of Being Bold I went ahead and tried to cut the section down to a summary. Warrens suggested I was being discourteous, that was not my intention. It was an honest mistake.
Now that I have found the discussion, I still find it hard to understand what the problem is. The section is 100% duplicated on the main article. I invite all involved in this discussion to view my edit which was an attempt at summary style: [2]. I am pretty knowledgeable on corporate issues but admit to having little knowledge of in-depth computing issues. Still I think my edit cut it down to bare important facts.
I stumbled onto this issue because of the FAR. If this section cannot be condensed to summary style by some degree count me in as a support vote for de-featuring; The section is totally against policy. Mark83 23:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Some edits

Removed unsourced info

Ownership

Bill Gates 9.51%. (As February 2007), (64% at the establishment, 40% in June 1986, 22.3% in September 1997 and 11% in 2001)
Capital Research & Management Company 4.39%
Steve Ballmer 4.16%
Barclays Global Investors UK Holdings Ltd 4.16%
State Street 2.64%
The Vanguard Group 2.29%
AXA 1.46%
FMR Corporation 1.41%

04:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

"Accounting Ratios" table

This article is already fairly large, and really don't see the point in adding this statistical data that probably would never appear in an encyclopedia... if anyone really wants it they can add it back :D. For example, who comes to article to read "Gross Property, Plant & Equipment Turnover" of Microsoft? If someone does, then perhaps we seperate corporate article... RN 04:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Accounting Ratios

Microsoft Corporation Accounting Ratios
Fiscal Year^[1]	2006	2005	2004	2003	2002
Fiscal Year End Date	6/30/06	6/30/05	6/30/04	6/30/03	6/30/02
Receivables Turnover	4.8	5.5	6.3	6.2	5.5
Receivables - Number of Days	67.1	59.1	54.2	57.7	55.8
Inventory Turnover	6.8	11.7	11.1	7.0	12.4
Inventory - Number of Days	53.2	30.9	32.4	51.4	29.0
Gross Property, Plant & Equipment Turnover	6.1	6.2	5.7	5.3	4.8
Net Property, Plant & Equipment Turnover	14.5	17.0	15.8	14.5	12.5
Depreciation, Depletion & Amortization -
% of Gross Property, Plant & Equipment	13.7%	13.9%	12.6%	17.9%	17.2%
Depreciation, Depletion & Amortization -
Year to Year Change (Millions $US)	10.6	6.7	-27.3	7.6	-25.2
Depreciation, Depletion & Amortization -
Year to Year % Change	12.0%	8.2%	-25.0%	7.5%	-19.9%

"Microsoft in fiction"

Removed as it seems like a trivia section in disquise, also currently doesn't seem to have much to do actually do with the company RN 05:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Microsoft in fiction

In William Gibson's 1984 novel Neuromancer, a microsoft is a small wedgelike piece of software that a human can access via insertion in an implant in their nervous system.

Criticism retouch

I did a retouch - I also removed a sentence that seems that maybe it was refuting something from another version of the article or something (at the end of the edit) RN 05:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion points for FARC

There are some "drastic" things one could do if they were desperate to cut this article down:

remove the part on Logos and slogans... actually i wrote most of that but looking back on it months later may be mostly trivia
just remove the criticism section and make it a see also - that would cut 7k of prose right there but I'm not sure who would think that is a good idea

Just those two things would bring it back to the original prose size... and

About the only way I can think of to shorten the lead to is to compact the part about the founding and move a tiny bit to history
Remove the microsoft.com and maybe put a quick mention about the first site in 1993 from http://www.microsoft.com/misc/features/features_flshbk.htm
Cut even the remotely important stuff from history - this is a tough one...
Try to cut down the product divisions, the most you could probably do is about two sentences...

Just some ideas... feel free to come up with your own :D RN 06:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Could this possibly be split out into individual articles and linked? I know that's the lame way to do it, but it might be worth considering. //BankingBum 07:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC) ^$$

I yanked about 4k from the history section. Yeah, it's definitely tough. I'm going to keep working on this in the next day or two. The trick here is to find the right balance between software releases, business expansions, legal issues, and leadership shuffles. Diversity makes for good reading! We can probably de-emphasise the details of OS releases because the main articles themselves can explain that stuff... -/- Warren 08:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I yanked another k this morning and we are down to 44k - half way there to the original 39k. One thing we could do is yank the founding and other mentions in the second intro paragraph up to the IPO point and put about two words in history about it. RN 17:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Any promotion of homosexuality should be removed from the article. It is not an issue of diversity. Scripture and the Catholic Church in the name of Jesus teach that immoral activity such as homosexuality is a mortal sin if engaged in knowingly and purposefully. Of course we should respect all people. This article is not the place to preach however this article is not the place to promote an agenda that is against faith either. At the very least, this article should be neutral on the subject. As it stands, the article promotes homesexuality. Coder1024 19:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

New Microsoft Portal

Please help out with the new Microsoft portal at Microsoft portal. --Wiki Fanatic | Talk 06:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The great FAR rework

As one sees I yanked a bunch and move a bunch to History to Microsoft and tried to summarize that - article down to 32k prose size. Did I mess anything up? Anyone got any comments? Post here please :D:D:D RN 07:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

SALES

Should it be said that the Xbox 360 has sold over 20 million units, worldwide!?!!

I thought Wikipedia had a policy of deleting advertisements that masquerade as articles.

this page reads like an advertisement

Am I the only one who is of the opinion that the article on Microsoft Corp reads too much like an advertisement? It seems to be heavily biased as being pro microsoft, and seems to minimize the flaws and criticisms.

Climie.ca 15:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC) Cam

Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia and the objective is provide information. We aren't any type of press or polytical party we should provide information as possible if are veriafiable. If you want improve the article to turn it more neutral just do it and come back here to discuss your changes. --Ciao 90 21:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I actually agree on this point, much of the information provided is POV pro-ms. I can't see why, I always thought wiki editors would be advocates of free alternatives, seeing as wikipedia itself is a free alternative to commercial encyclopedias. To be specific, there's a lot of POV in the business culture section, which features a lot about their positive work ethic and Bill Gates' charity work. I personally find him being the largest giver to charity incredibly ironic, seeing as he has recently threatened lawsuits against non-profit organizations! --Yoda 12:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

How is stating the "positive" work ethic and the company's charity work POV, especially when it uses published sources to do so? Also, what does that have to do with lawsuits against other non-profit organizations? Two totally different things... however, if you have ideas on rewording it, have opposing data, or something else let me know :). Really this isn't meant to be an advocate for either side... RN 21:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Outsourcing

The section on outsourcing (in "Criticism") is not sourced. It is somewhat true, but limited in scope, and why would it be a criticism? Billg has recently testified to Congress to allow for the immigration of more highly-skilled foreign workers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ClarkLewis (talk • contribs) 04:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

Windows Vista screenshot comment

"Windows Vista had majors changes, mostly within its interface."

A look at Features new to Windows Vista confirm this is false. Interface is not mostly major changes in Vista and yes in their various core parts. I think who wrote this is pushing a superficial user user/press perpeception about Vista. And this is pretty biased. --Ciao 90 21:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Update to Board of Directors

Update the Microsoft Board of Directors to include Reed Hastings: Microsoft Board of Directors Adds New Member and Declares Quarterly Dividend Dax Eckenberg 04:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Current members of the board of directors are: Steve Ballmer, James Cash, Jr., Dina Dublon, Bill Gates, Raymond Gilmartin, Reed Hastings, David Marquardt, Charles Noski, Helmut Panke, and Jon Shirley.^[2]

All done. Thanks. -/- Warren 04:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Ongoing problems with sources

I am compiling the list at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Microsoft/archive1; it took me an hour and a half to get through the lead only. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Ad

Now I seem to agree on why everyone thinks this article looks like an advertisement, ever since Microsoft payed Wikipedia to change it.

"Microsoft sells computer games that run on Windows PCs, including titles such as Age of Empires, Halo and the Microsoft Flight Simulator series. It produces a line of reference works that include encyclopedias and atlases, under the name Encarta. Microsoft Zone hosts free premium and retail games where players can compete against each other and in tournaments. Microsoft entered the multi-billion-dollar game console market dominated by Sony and Nintendo in late 2001,[35] with the release of the Xbox. The company develops and publishes its own video games for this console, with the help of its Microsoft Game Studios subsidiary, in addition to third-party Xbox video game publishers such as Electronic Arts and Activision, who pay a license fee to publish games for the system. The Xbox also has a successor in the Xbox 360, released on 2005-11-22 in North America and other countries.[36][37] With the Xbox 360, Microsoft hopes to compensate for the losses incurred with the original Xbox. However, Microsoft made some decisions considered controversial in the video gaming community, such as selling two different versions of the system, as well as providing backward compatibility with only particular Xbox titles.[38][39] In addition to the Xbox line of products, Microsoft also markets a number of other computing-related hardware products as well, including mice, keyboards, joysticks, and gamepads, along with other game controllers, the production of which is outsourced in most cases.[5]"LostNecromancer 00:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

When did "Microsoft payed Wikipedia to change it"? ffm ✎talk 11:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Microsoft.com

Microsoft.com is one of the most popular destinations on the Internet, receiving more than 100 million hits per day. According to Alexa.com, Microsoft.com is ranked 13th amongst all websites for Traffic Rank as on March 30, 2007.[88] This is however at least partly attributed to the default settings of Internet Explorer, which sets the initial homepage of Internet Explorer to Microsoft.com.

As far as I know, MSN is the default homepage of Internet explorer, unless you count the redirect? Matt-thepie 16:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

BSOD

Why on Earth is it appropriate to have a BSOD screenshot take up space in an article about Microsoft the company, if it is not even appropriate to have it at any of Microsoft Windows, Windows NT, Windows XP, or Windows Vista? This makes no sense -- if it is deemed necessary to be referenced in any of the main Wiki pages (bearing in mind it has its own dedicated fanpage), it would surely be more appropriate on one of the Windows pages rather than the page about the company itself! Simxp 01:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Its not approperate, Please see Talk:Apple_Inc. for a HUGE AMOUNT of talk about why the Kernal Panic is not approperate for the corperate article. If a crash screen is inapproperate on one company wiki article, it is inapproperate on antoher. Anyone else's thoughts? I think, much like the apple page, any refrence of Windows crashing should be contained in the approperate sections, like the software or its own "Microsoft Technical Concerns" Wiki article, to be kept in line with how the apple article is.--Zeeboid 13:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Changes made according to the president set by other Software OS Manufacture company wiki articles. thoughts?--Zeeboid 14:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Fully agree. It's got nothing to do with Microsoft the company, unless there's some sort of related info (which would most probably be too weak a link to include anyway). Keep ditched. Oh and it's "precedent", not "president"!Smoothy 15:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Lutz Roeder

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Lutz Roeder, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. 217.50.246.73 19:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

How does this relate to this article? Dave Rebecca 19:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Photo Gallery of MS homepage

Could someone make the pictures be side by side, not 4 and then 1 (me + wikicode = not so good) - - Gunnaraztek 06:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

"As of November 2006," / "Patent claims against Linux" section

"As of November 2006, Microsoft has extended itself to Linux and open source companies to allow Windows server to work harmoniously with servers running Linux."

I think that's a very cloying commentary on the subject, considering the GNU/Linux community reaction to the MS offer, isn't it? It doesn't sound like NPOV to me. "Harmoniously" includes finding a loophole in the GPLv2 that is fixed in the GPLv3. Perhaps an entire section on their patent claims against Linux is necessary, in light of new developments, just like Novell has their own heading: Novell#Agreement_with_Microsoft Phish0202 01:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

FAR removed

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Microsoft/archive2 was removed from WP:FAR by Joelr31; the article just went through a review, and it would be appropriate to discuss these issues on the talk page and re-approach FAR in a month or so if issues aren't resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Microsoft

Hi Sandy... commented at bit at Talk:Microsoft#Ongoing_problems_with_sources - hopefully it helps people understand a bit. Thanks for your work by the way! I don't really plan on editing that much at the moment unfortunately due to time constraints but maybe others are curious :). I'll try to do cleanups when I can though; and don't feel bad about delisting as an FA if it doesn't meet your standards - I still think it is pretty good of course but Wikipedia seems to have changed a lot since I last was around much. RN 11:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed statement

This is however at least partly attributed to the homepage of older versions of Internet Explorer being set to Microsoft.com (msn.com is now the default).

This may be true, but who "partly attributes" it? Source please :). RN 16:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this has been true for probably ten years. It's a bogus statement. SchmuckyTheCat

driver DRM criticism (Peter Gutmann)

Personally, I'm just not sold on this - exactly how is this different then a random blog post? I suppose there is no harm letting it stay in its shortened form though for now. RN 16:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

So... I removed this for now - here's how I tweaked it

- and, perhaps DRM as researcher Peter Gutmann claims^[3] -

Basically though the article already talks about DRM stuff earlier, and I'm just not sure that is a reliable source. Either way, I wonder if this isn't more appropriate for the DRM article? RN 04:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not a "random blog post" because it's not random or from a blog. Peter Gutmann is a well-known name in computer security. He wrote Cryptlib and helped write PGP, and generally has been working with computer security almost as long as the concept has existed. Every once in a while he posts a write-up about some security-related topic of major concern on his website, which is not a blog in any sense of the word. Reverting it back to original form, with a bit of clarification.Masonwheeler 05:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright, but please calm down - your edit summaries are needlessly inflammatory. I'll try to make it as pithy as I can. RN 05:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Typo

In the first section the quote says to "to ...". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommyhp (talk • contribs) 19:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Potential bias, "Working with Microsoft", et. al

I'm not an expert in this field but by often reading news and backgrounds on Microsoft and seeing how the IT world is being mostly negatively influenced by Microsofts business strategies and technical development, I find the tone of this article being slightly disturbing. To give some examples: the introduction reads 'One commentator notes that Microsoft's original mission was "a computer on every desk and in every home, running Microsoft software"—it is a goal near fulfillment' which makes it sound like Microsoft is the cause of the current popularity of the desktop computers. The "Working at Microsoft" section sounds like it has been copied from a brochure (it starts with noting the 100% gay friendly rating - how relevant is that?) For many people, Microsoft is the prototype of a power-abusing monopolist corporation and I think this status does not get enough attention in the article. I must note that my viewpoint may be different than that of most North-Americans, as I live in Europe and Microsoft probably has a better reputation in the USA because big corporations can be the "pride" of a country, while for other countries / continents foreign empire-corporations may automatically be seen in a negative light. Still, trying to see things as objective as possible, I think the article is positively biased. CheesePlease NL 12:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

"This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Microsoft article.This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." PLEASE keep your comments about IMPROVING the article. You were right about the "Working with Microsoft" section though... I've tweaked it a bit. I still think it could use some more tweaking/trimming - any suggestions?RN 16:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you and I will focus on improving the article in the future. The reason I am stating my concerns is that articles like this are being closely monitored and edited by the parties involved (Microsoft in this case has a bad reputation as they are already known for paying people to edit wikipedia). Its unbiasedness is thus something that should be closely watched at all time, not just by me, but by anyone reviewing or editing this article. CheesePlease NL 22:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

CheesePlease, if you are so concerned about the biased nature of this article, please take your own advice and keep your opinions off of the talk page. (MaytrixInk)

I'm a bit upset by the biting reaction to this comment. It offered specific criticisms of the article which received no response - the post was not bashing the subject. It's certainly important to recognize for example that Microsoft was not solely responsible for the fulfillment of "a computer on every desk." Let's please give everyone the benefit of the doubt. Dcoetzee 11:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Dcoetzee. Anonymous Coward has spoken.199.67.238.235 (talk) 06:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Why is it other companies are erased because of advertising? When this page is a blatent advertisement for microsoft? Who did the pay off or maybe they own Wiki. We do not even have the opportunity to edit or erase. What is up with that? Can you say favortism. --Ald69 talk

"Criticism" section

I, per Wikipedia:Criticism, which states the following:

In general, making separate sections with the title "Criticism" is discouraged.

propose to remove the section entitled "Criticism" and merge the content that presently exists within to sections that are more appropriate and are directly related to the material, to avoid creating an article structure which implies a point of view. I believe this would improve the quality of this article. Please give your opinion, if you care to provide it, so that we may reach consensus on what we should do regarding this issue. Iccdel 02:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Been discussed in the archives several times already.... feel free to take a peek. RN 04:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I hate criticism sections too but Microsoft needs one.--68.173.177.238 02:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

As has been noted, WP style says that valid, properly-source criticisms (and God knows there are plenty; we are talking about the Beast That Lies In Redmond) should go in the appropriate parts of the article, not in a separate criticism section. --Orange Mike 13:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I am an expert of 20 years and can show critisism is due (since dos 1.0) - not simply for present issues but a long history of such. There are software wars: reverse engineering and illegality is very much part of the competitive software industry - and MS has been sued and lost many times found guilty. MS actions and defamations to inhibit or delete others, esp linux, cannot be made good. Their bad products (esp. in the past) and actions should not be hidden in some dream of "being nice". The facts are there and provable.

Mostly. I think rewriting history "to sound nicer" against what at *least* half not would but *did* record it - is just wrong. It's like a war of aggression: you record it as such faithfully!

John D. Hendrickson

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.219.179 (talk) 04:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, if we must start talking expertise, I too am an expert in the IT industry and the business side of it, and I still think a criticism section is lousy. You will notice the writers of GWB left it out altogether, instead sprinkling it throughout, as it would be proper here. Instead, it by nature provides an undue weight to the criticism, even if the criticism is particularly strong. The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, any Wikipedia article about something that has been heavily criticized should have that criticism noted in the article, since it pertains to the subject and is a part of it's history. If an encyclopedia spoke all about Vietnam, but left out all the controversy which surrounded it, it would be a very poor article. It would seem to me that this article should contain the criticism sprinkled throughout, where it's relevant, just like the article about George W. Bush does. Microsoft very much needs criticism as the separate page about it is very lengthy, proving that it's a big part of it's history, so a lot of those things should be placed into the main article where appropriate.Yfrwlf (talk) 16:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

People can criticize Microsoft on their own time. I personally don't care about people's criticisms. I don't think we need to fill up Wikipedia with things like that. They are available everywhere else on the internet and I don't think we should clog up a RESOURCE with them. Remember, this is a resource, not a rant site. 69.142.233.248 (talk) 19:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Apple's criticism section has a criticism banner on it. MS has a whole page devoted to criticism of it. Stupid fucking Apple users. WP sucks.

Portals in external link

Are portals part of of wikipedia or are they considered external sites? Portal:Microsoft and Portal:Companies are in the 'external links' section. Should they not be in the 'see also' section? Aeons | Talk 08:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you are right, OpenBSD does this also. The database is locked now so I can't edit it but I will if it isn't changed the next time I look :). RN 06:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Paul Allen

Where is Paul Allen in this article? Answer: a single link on the right hand side. As Co-founder of Microsoft it seems Paul deserves more mention than this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.227.29 (talk) 12:21, August 29, 2007 (UTC) I don't think he deserves more than that! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arielhit (talk • contribs) 12:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Culture

The following statement seems out of place under culture:

Starting around 2005, a blogger claiming to be an employee of Microsoft, dubbing itself Mini-Microsoft, claims that the company has become a "passionless, process-ridden, lumbering idiot," due in part to ineffective management, and calls for the company to be downsized.[48][49]

It does not fit the tone of the rest of the paragraph and might be a better fit with other criticism

Really the problem was that it way too positive-sounding; i.e. you pointed out that even that somewhat light criticism felt out of place which meant that paragraph was unbalanced.

The question I have now is does this proposed paragraph sound too much like an editorial? I specifically tried to avoid this, but any suggestions/comments around this would be great :).

Analysis differs on the effectiveness of the business culture in modern time. A blogger claiming to be an employee of Microsoft, dubbing itself Mini-Microsoft, became infamous around 2005 as a spot for hundreds of employees of the company to complain about various issues with the company such as lack of transparency. Mini-Microsoft itself claims that the company has become a "passionless, process-ridden, lumbering idiot," due in part to ineffective management, and calls for the company to be downsized.^[4]^[5] In January 2007, Microsoft scored first in the Harris Interactive/The Wall Street Journal Reputation Quotient survey of corporate reputations. The survey cited strong financial performance from the company along with strong vision & leadership, workplace environment rankings, and the charitable deeds of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.^[6]

RN 06:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

`Business Culture` section unencyclopedic

The current section on business culture reads like an in-company news-letter (advertising for employees). It is of course unencyclopedic - more appropriate for a personal site, or Microsoft's own employee relations. At the very least, we can start by wording it in a more factual manner - e.g. "in house developers only use microsoft products" - which raises the question: are non-microsoft products discouraged?

Additionally, the line about developers being decision makers is, to say the least, dubious. Economic strategy (e.g. IRR/Oportunity Cost) clearly plays the dominant role in Microsoft's product procurement and development. Laskdfj456 (talk) 00:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit of the article by Microsoft Corp

Edit of the article Microsoft by an address IP who is owned by Microsoft Corp : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1186094 with the address IP 207.46.228.16 = OrgName:Microsoft Corp 80.32.246.17 01:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

perhaps you might catch a clue that microsoft is also a network provider. have you heard of msn.net? sheesh. Anastrophe 01:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it certainly appears to be one of the corporate IPs. I have no idea why any one would care; it was not only four years ago, but it was reverted in the very next edit. Is there a point to this posting? Kuru ^talk 02:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

editing by IP's 'associated with' the subject of an article are not proof of malfeasance. nor are they notable per wikipedia's notability guidelines (unless they were to be so significant that they were reported by a reliable source such as a reputable news organization). wikipedia cannot be a reference for wikipedia, and that's what your edits are. they also constitute original research. so, quite simply, there's zero valid basis for adding that information to the article. Anastrophe 02:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't give only a reference, I also give the source of the Edit. You know that it's important to give the source of a text. For you Anastrophe, is it the same to have an edit by an user who doesn't edit from an address IP who is owned by MS (yes this is true that the user can be a simple trainee unpaid in MS) and one who does ? Yes ? sheesh. And these other links who follow, « c'est du poulet ? » : always each organization who edits an article who talks about this… organization :

the edits are clearly biased ,althought i disagree blocking them. the edits have been replaced by something more objective anyway. (note that the whole free software vs microsoft thing was far from beeing an good article anyway) -- aep

80.32.246.17 02:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

familiarize yourself with wikipedia's policies first. then we can have a discussion. Anastrophe 02:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Which policies : « This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. » I talk about an Edit. « Be polite » I'm. « Assume good faith » I'm not evil. « No personal attacks » I don't attack an user. « Be welcoming » I began my subject in your profile by « Dear Anastrophe » and finished it by « sincerely yours ». « No original research » It's not unpublished facts ! « Neutral point of view » I only give the proof of an action. I don't say if it is good or bad. I let people have their own point of view. « Verifiability » I give the links and the way to link informations together. Is there a policy that I don't follow ? Thanks, 80.32.246.17 03:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have missed my question - why do we care about an addition which was promptly and completely reverted four years ago? You seem to be failing to look at the impact of those edits. Kuru ^talk 03:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I'm tired. At home it's 5:30 am and I didn't sleep of all the night with this story. And I'm more tired to read the same facts here : Talk:Occidental_Petroleum#Criticisms.2C_Scandals.2C_Controversies. And always the same way to change the subject in each 'Talk' : « do you follow the policies ? » 80.32.246.17 03:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

To answer to your question : it was done 31 July 2007 for this one. And the others are not protected like Microsoft. It's easier to resume : we could protect the articles who are by address IP who are owned by the corporation. Thanks, 80.32.246.17 03:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Kuru, I guess this is the kind of crap we're going to have to put up with now that that "Wikipedia Scanner" tool has shown up. I guess people are hoping to dig up "dirt" for whatever reason. The anonymous IP above is welcome to find something far more interesting and useful to contribute to the encyclopedia than pointing out a single, relatively uncontroversaial edit from four years ago that has no bearing on the article as it stands today. This is an encyclopedia, not a witch-hunt. -/- Warren 03:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

(written in response to 80.32.246.17's last post) you're making egregious assumptions. for one, WP:AGF. an edit by an IP address 'owned by' whatever corporation is not inherently wrong or suspect. it may be, but we cannot assume that it inherently is. if you look at the edit history for that one freaking edit on this article that came from an IP of microsoft, you'll also see that it was the only edit of microsoft they made, the rest being banal edits to other articles dealing with the northwest united states. you're assuming bad faith. Anastrophe 03:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Si, si. This is just turning into a general rant on COI edits to other pages now. This one is an utter non-issue. Please find an appropriate talk page to vent and keep to the topic here: improving the MS article. Perhaps Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest, WP:AN or one of the village pump flavors would be a better place for your concerns? Kuru ^talk 03:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

To Anastrophe : OK that's right. I just see a possible "hole" (sorry my level in English is low) in WP : don't block anonymous users who use an address IP from a corporation (different with one who rents IP addresses). 80.32.246.17 04:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

that would still violate good faith. just because an edit comes from an IP owned by XYZ corporation does not mean that edit was sanctioned, condoned, or even encouraged by that corporation. It's just as likely that someone from XYZ corporation could post information detrimental to XYZ corporation if they had a 'grudge' or grievance of some kind with the company. furthermore, with the general state of information (in)security in large corporations, it's also possible for someone to use someone else's computer at XYZ corporation to post obviously detrimental information or whatever, with the goal to implicate the other employee. you just can't make assumptions of intent based upon an IP being owned by XYZ corporation. edits will stand or fall on their own merit or lack thereof. Anastrophe 04:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

To Kuru : OK This is my last post here. Thanks for your answers. 80.32.246.17 04:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

What I think might be appropiate for wikipedia article

I think we should add more criticisms about Microsoft. I know it won't look good for their company but what if it's the truth. I belive all views even the bad views (Neutral point of view like in wikipedias guidelines) should be respected not just by all wikipedia members, and even moderators or article change patrollers.

I believe we must debate about if we should add to the Microsoft article about how Microsoft is controlling how many computers you put Windows XP/VISTA on by using Product Activation cause theres proof on that.

What do you all say should we discuss this on the talk page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.148.148.27 (talk) 07:06, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

That's not a criticism; that's a product feature. (Few, if any, commercial programs allow you to install on an infinite number of computers.) I yield to few in my hatred for the Beast that Lies in Redmond; but this article is not a venue for MS-bashing. --Orange Mike 18:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC) (and please sign your posts)

If people didn't pirate software, we wouldn't have Product Activation. And Product Activation isn't limited to just Microsoft/Windows either. Evils Dark (talk) 00:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

To first (unsigned at IP 24.148.148.27) commentor: Since this is an encyclopedia article it should contain no criticisms of Microsoft's work, merely facts regarding their organisation and work. Therefore the various positive and negative critisms that appear in the article should be deleted and no other critisms should be inserted. This is common policy throughout Wiki. However, facts - whether fortunate or unfortunate for the organisation - should be inserted. Eg, if it where an indisputable fact that they contributed to some illegal activity in such-and-such a year, that fact should be indeed included. Or if it were indisputable fact that they have contributed to such-and-such a praisworthy cause throughout their lifetime, that fact too should be included. Personal opinion on the applicability of a product feature such as Product Activation is irrelevant. However the fact that many of their products utilise this feature might be relevant, though without any further bias and even then only to highlight limitations of use built into ther systems where these are uniquely relevent to the company in some way. Jubilee♫clipman 03:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Microsoft Venus

I found almost no mention of the the Microsoft Venus project on wikipedia, apart from this: List of computer technology code names#V.

Could someone include it in the appropriate Microsoft article(s)? Here are some resources:

Ǣ0 ƞS 07:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

in line with the company's original mission of "a computer on every desk and in every home, running Microsoft software"

What is an actual source for this mission statement? I know MSFT has asserted that this was their "original" vision, but I fail to find any citation before 1985 (I've searched LexisNexis, Google Books, and some other sources). According to Roy A. Allan's book "A History of the Personal Computer: The People and the Technology", this message was developed by MSFT's marketing people around 1984. The references actually given after this sentence aren't real references to this point. The earliest quote I can find is from ComputerWorld. If Allan is correct, there should be some earlier advertisements. Anybody have pointers? --Psm 20:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Okidoki, no comments on this, so I'll adjust the intro accordingly (to correctly date the vision to around 1985 rather than 1975).--Psm 19:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Where is the info links to Microsoft Press and other Mafia Members

There is no information on the Microsoft Wiki page in relation to Microsofts' Media Interests, or who they pay off (like rupard). Nothing about Disney and IBM, or SL acting as Mafia (and thats being nice)

There is Nothing in regards to Print Media and trademark law suits which is supported by Microsoft who included Un-Protected Trademarks in un-addressed junk mail in my country (under licence with Advertisers to Promote products while the same Microsoft seeks anti-spam laws to prevent EPA complaint being sent via e-mails, as if the EPA does anything anyway)

Infact there is little here on what Microsoft has done to the world (a lot of it isn't good, but good for profits - like reselling 3D over and over again until DRM SL)

Nothing about DRM and how Microsoft has used user entered data to extort money, and nothing about the Microsoft cyber squatting web browers redirecting to their own web sites where they show ads. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.54.191.137 (talk) 09:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Advertising with Old Media

Needs section on how Microsoft and its syndication partners in 'old press' discredit other internet sites, and to the point of seeking laws. While promoting DRM and other technologies that lock users into Microsoft supported products.

This wiki entry needs links to things like TCN9 showing EBAY TV Ads stating 'how safe we are' compaired with the made-up-boogie-man-under-the-bed.

Nothing in regards to the fact M$ will send Viri files over the wire (illegal in my country) which passes though a ISP selling M$ AV and SL

Sources? Documentation? Which is "my country"? What are "Viri files"? --Orange Mike 13:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hold on, you're really asking someone who types M$ for unbiased references? *grin* --Blowdart 14:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I yield to few in my hatred for the Beast which Lies in Redmond. Partisans can be sources of valid information; but that doesn't mean I'll bite for just any old unsourced allegation. --Orange Mike 14:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

In-line citations

"...Bill Gates' vision "to get a workstation running our software onto every desk and eventually in every home".[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]"

"...marketing MS-DOS to manufacturers of IBM-PC clones, Microsoft rose from a small player to one of the major software vendors in the home computer industry.[21][22]>[23][24][25][26][27] The company expanded into new markets with the release of the Microsoft Mouse in 1983, as well as a publishing division named Microsoft Press.[19]"

Is all that necessarily? I would think two or three should do. This is a FA. Rocket000 12:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not exactly a fan of such referencing. While it is a feature article, surely seven or eight sources in succession is overkill if they all say essentially the same thing or are referring to a specific quote?--Rcandelori 14:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I did that on things that are likely to nitpicked to death, thus ensuing lots of pointless talkpage babble :). Feel free to trim the sources down to what you folks think are best. RN 22:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the quote wrong anyway? "A computer on every desk and in every home, running Microsoft software." is the original mission statement. Anonymous 9:39, 08 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.16.37 (talk)

Removed advertisement

There was a mention in the article of "FirstMention.com" in a context that was clearly an attempted plug. There was no link, and the website name was mentioned seperately and was in bold text. Qc 19:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

EU fine

The section entitled "2007 EU antitrust €497 million fine" under History was misplaced and/or inappropriately labelled. It's inappropriate to have that as an entire section of the history (especially when the Vista section specifically says "present"), and even then, something without the specifics of the deal would be a better header. Paliku 22:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I was of the same view, but I would not have removed it altogether. The separate title should have been removed and the remaining paragraphs added to the 2005-present section. I actually changed it to 497 million euros rather than $613 million due to volatile foreign exchange rates making the US dollar figure unreflective of the actual amount fined. --Rcandelori 05:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I suppose so, and I agree somewhat. It is just kind of tricky because the case spans two timelines already with two different judgements and I don't think it should span too much on this page because European_Union_Microsoft_antitrust_case handles most of it. Maybe something along the lines of "Due to failure to comply with the first judgement, another one was handed down" etc. so it makes it apparent that it is indeed a continuation from the first one. RN 22:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

With the recent €899 million fine the total is now €1.68 billion which seems mentioning worthy to me, also because it's the highest fine ever given by the EU to a company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kegher (talk • contribs) 10:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I have added details of the 497 million euro and 899 million euro fines. Given their record-breaking size, it would be irresponsible for the encyclopaedia to not include this information.--Rcandelori (talk) 03:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Alexa

Apparently, one of the editors feels there should be a top-level section entitled Microsoft.com, which consists entirely of Alexa rankings for the domain. If there's going to be a section about online services and dealings, I'm all for it - but the section as it currently stands is unacceptable. Aside from being given unnecessary weight, featured articles are discouraged from having single-paragraph sections. Paliku 23:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Really, it should be in another section in the article (not the lead since leads aren't supposed to contain new information). I'm just not sure where, but it should definately go SOMEWHERE in my opinion. RN 22:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

What Gives?

Why don't you guys have an article on Microsoft.com? It's one of the most popular websites on the internet and alot more popular than some of the other websites you have articles on. Check out these Alexa ratings,

Microsoft.com - 17

Home of the Underdogs - 35,259

MemphisRap.com - 169,363

Oyez.org - 169,455

MLB.com - 381

Naukri.com - 622

216.103.196.1 (talk) 03:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I suspect it is that "popular" only because there are millions of computers updating their software from that site every now and then. With the site of an OS monopoly, what do you expect? Furthermore, does the site merit an article merely because it has a high rank on Alexa? - Redmess (talk) 08:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

What Gives? - More

How in the world has this page lasted so long without mentioning the vast amount of SERVER technology that helps the world spin? I mean even NASDAQ uses MS SQL 2005 for their databases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.9.27.149 (talk) 00:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Pictures of RedWest

While working at RedWest, I took some pictures of this beautiful campus. In my opinion, it's pretty hard to make it looks ugly -- but unfortunately, the photographer for the article has accomplished that quite successfuly. Please review some of my pictures and think about postimg them instead of the current RedWest pictures (section "Business culture").

I suggest you to review the following:

Thanks in advance! Andrew Abcpp (talk) 06:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with your statement that the images are "ugly". The buildings are more interesting then the nature around the buildings, and there is only one picture required/relevant to show the surrounding environment in the article. Your second image might replace the current one, because it looks even better, but otherwise no more images are required I think. You'll have to put your images under cc-license and upload them to do so. Anoko moonlight (talk) 19:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, Anoko. I did upload the second image and put it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cafeteria_Way_at_Redmond_West.jpg

Speaking about your statement that the buildings are more interesting, I tend to agree. Some of the building are marvelous (like the new Visitor Center) and worth to be photographed. Some of the landscaping -- as a pure representation of the corporate culture -- worth photographing too. The second image in this section is named "Landscaping in the RedWest campus" and the main subject of it is the landscape, not buildings. I agree, that this is a good way to show how the company cares about employees. However, I'm suggesting to replace it with one of the following images which shows the RedWest waterfall:

What do you think about the waterfall?

Thanks in advance!

Andrew Abcpp 76.121.98.177 (talk) 21:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Philippine legal issue

It's unclear to me why an entire long paragraph is dedicated to a lawsuit against Microsoft in the Philippines. As much or more text is dedicated to this single lawsuit than to the European Union's anti-trust findings and the resolution (which included the creation of a new SKU of Windows). As I understand it, large technology companies are sued very frequently and I see no particular reason for this lawsuit to be described in this encyclopedia article. I propose that the paragraph be removed. Npdoty (talk) 00:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed... I've removed the paragraph. People are certainly welcome to contribute to Wikinews if they are interested in writing about news events such as a group filing a lawsuit. -/- Warren 00:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

OK to add a link to External Links under Microsoft?

Hello, I have a community site which Microsot users can search for addons -> www.microsoftdynamicsaddons.com

Can I edit the page to add that under external links, or can someone add it for me? Is it appropriate to add it?

I use wikipedia for reference but really don't edit, and I don't want to upset any balance or break the rules! Please excuse my question if this is not the right forum!

Thanks, TallMikey --TallMikey (talk) 01:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

No. A "Microsoft user" won't necessarily be able to use any of those add-ons; somebody who has a Microsoft Natural keyboard plugged into a machine running FreeBSD, for example, is a "Microsoft user", as is somebody who runs Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Office on their PC but doesn't use or manage Microsoft Dynamics, doesn't know anybody who does, and doesn't work in an organization that does. This page is about Microsoft-the-corporation in general, not about any of its particular products. If that link belongs on any page, it'd belong on the page for Microsoft Dynamics - and you'll find it's already on that page (currently, it's the first link under "External links"). Guy Harris (talk) 01:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I've made it the second link on that page - Microsoft's own page for the product is more important to a page about the product than a page with a collection of add-ons; the goal of that page is primarily to inform people about Microsoft Dynamics, not to point to add-ons for the product. Guy Harris (talk) 01:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

OK Guy, thanks for your assistance, that makes sense. One more quick (wikipedia general) question if you don't mind - I am the administrator for that web site, would it be OK / appropriate to create a wikipedia page for that site? --TallMikey (talk) 17:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The criteria for inclusion is notability. Generally that means multiple third party sources have written about the subject. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

2006–present: Vista and other transitions

Refering to "2006–present: Vista and other transitions"

At the very end it says:

On 1st February, 2008, Microsoft made an unsolicited bid to purchase the fully diluted
 outstanding shares of Yahoo for up to $44.6 billion,[47] following the company's struggle
 against rival search-engine company, Google, though this offer was later rejected on the
 10th.

It is February 9th so it is impossible that on February 10th the offer was rejected.

Please anyone with the power to edit the article, delete or get a fiable source.

Pakitos (talk) 18:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Missing link in article

MSX. Marc Mongenet (talk) 15:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

M$

M$ needs to be mentioned somewhere. Today, it is a very well-known abbreviation of Microsoft that has been used zillions of times (well, almost if ) on forums, blogs and personal websites about computing, software, hardware, games et.c. PCWorld, pcguide, macworld, ubuntu forums is some of the best examples. It should not be mentioned in the intro, but perhaps in the criticism section of the article. What do you think? M$ and Micro$oft are used to emphasize the allegation that Microsoft has business practices that focus on making money rather than producing good products, if this happened to be something you have never heard of before. Soccers08 (talk) 15:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a platform for your political messages 64.229.207.39 (talk) 12:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

This can be reasonably mentioned and linked in the appropriate section of the Criticism of Microsoft article. Dcoetzee 20:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I would hardly call Microsoft attempting to increase their revenue a valid criticism of a company.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This busi·ness –noun

1. an occupation, profession, or trade: His business is poultry farming.

2. the purchase and sale of goods in an attempt to make a profit.

3. a person, partnership, or corporation engaged in commerce, manufacturing, or a service; profit-seeking enterprise or concern.

Dav115 (talk) 16:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Ownership

Could there be a section about who owns Microsoft and in what proportions? (Sorry if I've missed it somewhere) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.144.251.120 (talk) 04:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

other origin theories

Microsoft was realy founded by Andrew Moore, not Bill Gates. He is just the front man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.133.94 (talk) 19:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I think there ought to be a pic of Bill Gates.Gladboy101 (talk) 21:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Original Founders

There should be a list of the founders of this very recent start-up company that has become one of the world's biggest in about 30 years! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.151.191 (talk) 10:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

There were only two founders: Bill Gates and Paul Allen. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 02:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Microsoft Bob

No mention of the failed (and hilarious) Microsoft Bob!

Please add mention of it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Panarchy (talk • contribs) 08:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

You can find it at the detailed History of Microsoft which was spun off from this article, or at List of Microsoft software applications, and of course it has its own article as well. There is no need to add mention of every single product here. Kuru ^talk 12:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

"Naked" PCs

Wow, no mention of Microsoft's "Naked PC" campaign, either. They used it as justification for them making agreements with most all consumer PC retailers to only carry Windows, and to have Windows installed on all computers, and to not have an option to get a computer without Windows. This is part of their license agreement with these companies if they are to receive Microsoft's retail discount for Windows. This is extremely important, as it takes away the ability for consumers to put on a different operating system without paying for Windows, and is a blatant attempt at market dominance. By removing that option for consumers, it also shrouds the price from them that Windows costs the retailer. Thus, consumers can't see the "special discount", which has always been far cheaper than buying Windows directly off the shelf, and thus cannot see the money they would be saving by not buying it off the shelf and cannot see this discount business practice directly. In most all stores in the U.S. today, you cannot buy a PC without Windows, even if you ask for it to be removed or for the license to be rejected and for a refund. In France and the EU in general, I don't have all the links, but I know this has been challenged several times. In places where someone was able to get a refund for Windows, it has been very difficult to say the very least, and takes arguing with customer service representatives for hours. There has been a lot of news coverage of this, like Microsoft getting China to ban "naked PCs", and at one time Microsoft had a Naked PC website, which has since been removed, with a picture of a freezing naked man on a beach no less. If someone could add some more references to all of the happenings about this topic, and add it to the main page, that would be great.Yfrwlf (talk) 17:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Discounted Costs for Windows

Discounts that Microsoft gives educational and government institutions, retail stores, OEMs, and different world markets, should also be mentioned. First off, to receive these discounts, you have to agree to a license with Microsoft. This gives Microsoft the power to do things ranging from preventing consumers from getting PCs without Windows to agreements not to sell or use non-Microsoft software. By not being forced to sell their software at a standard price across the board, or simply by being exclusive toward specific organizations about it's special discounted rates and agreements, it gives Microsoft the ability to use their software as a leverage to artificially enforce market dominance. A personal example is that in a school district I worked for, our IT department was offered a heavy discount on Windows Server 2003 and Windows XP, but to get it we had to give up using Linux for six years and had to be locked into Microsoft as our vendor.Yfrwlf (talk) 18:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The second strategy for giving discounts is that by practically giving away software to these organizations, you create dependence on it, so the students and employees are inclined or need to purchase their own versions for use at home where they may be unable to get such discounts. Teachers may even require them to do so, so that they can do their homework. This is done by many other companies, and should be mentioned someplace in the article.Yfrwlf (talk) 18:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

A third thing that should be stated about this subject is that software is "free" in the sense that it's simply information that can be copied an infinite number of times. An example of the power of this fact is Microsoft selling Windows for $3 in China. Because software is infinitely reproducible, the only time Microsoft would ever "lose" money is by not getting it, or in other words making a copy of software of course is not directly damaging, so selling it at any price is possible if the company wants to do it. This means that if you don't want to use Microsoft's software, and would never pay them for it or buy it from them, Microsoft would much rather having you use it for free, than not using it at all. This means that they can do things like sell Windows XP for $1 even. Through licenses and copyright laws, they are able to direct their software to specific exclusive industries and areas, and not offer anyone else the special deal, in order to compete in specific markets at whatever price they want. One reason they want this is that if they keep Windows use high through no matter what, developers will continue to develop for their platform, and the need for these programs in turn will drive the demand for Windows. This "catch 22" scenario that Microsoft helps promote as much as they can is one thing which helps them keep competing operating systems like Apple OS X, Linux, and others at bay.Yfrwlf (talk) 18:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of Microsoft is available by clicking the link. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Microsoft offering money to people to edit wikipedia in their favour

This is mentioned on many other pages and i think it should be mentioned on the main microsoft page, that they have been caught offering money to wikipedia members to edit wikipedia articles with a bias towards microsoft, see http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16775981/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xavierorr (talk • contribs) 11:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It shouldn't be mentioned because that isn't what happened. WillOakland (talk) 02:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

WillOakland; your reference...? Anoko moonlight (talk) 12:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Here. WillOakland (talk) 19:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Considering your reference, your objection is that they did not say "with a bias towards Microsoft"? I agree, they did not ask to edit the article with a bias, just to improve it. It remains noteworthy that they did contract the guy to edit Wikipedia. Anoko moonlight (talk) 21:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

In the whole span of Microsoft's history, no, not particularly noteworthy. The story ran its course in a week and most of that attention was based on misreprentations on various blogs. WillOakland (talk) 20:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

You're right. Anoko moonlight (talk) 20:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Add

+ List of Microsoft codenames in See also -> Lists —Preceding unsigned comment added by FxJ (talk • contribs) 15:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to remove date-autoformatting

Dear fellow contributors

MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether or not dates are autoformatted. MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Disadvantages of date-autoformatting

(1) In-house only

(a) It works only for the WP "elite".
(b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
(c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.

(2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences

(a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.

(3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates

(a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
(b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
(c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.

(4) Typos and misunderstood coding

(a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
(b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
(c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.

(5) Edit-mode clutter

(a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.

(6) Limited application

(a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
(b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. Does anyone object if I remove it from the main text (using a script) in a few days’ time on a trial basis? The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. Tony (talk) 06:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

No objection here. 67.185.253.244 (talk) 01:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
No objection here either. Joshuagross (talk) 08:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Microsofts 2008 Annual Report

What about to include some facts from Microsofts 2008 ANNUAL REPORT? Cnet comments it...--Kozuch (talk) 10:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

"Relatively strong sales of [Vista and Office 2007] helped produce a record profit in 2007"

Hi. I've been something of a troll on the MS Vista page a few times (only on the Talk page, but nonetheless was not being helpful), so some of you may want to completely ignore me, but I hope you will not.

I was reading through the article mostly because I was curious about MS's origins, and came across this line in the article, unreferenced. I added {{fact}} because I was under the impression that Vista, at the very least, has sold very poorly. I did a quick search to check, but only came up with various bloggers accusing MS of artificially inflating Vista sales numbers, which is obviously not a great source. So what's the deal? Has Vista sold better than I was aware? Or is this a case of Office making up for the low sales of Vista? Or is it just wrong? I don't want to remove the line myself because I don't actually know otherwise myself, and obviously I'm a bit biased; I rather strongly detest Vista for a variety of reasons (though I like Microsoft in general and really love Office). So can anyone clear this up? --DragoonWraith (talk) 02:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

This is market news - so the key is relatively. To the extent that investors base decisions on projections, differences cause news articles and stock price movement. MSFT did well through the end of 2007, as would/should be expected due a major event like the the release of an operating system. But the question of is Vista doing well, and are investors bullish on Microsoft are a separate issues. As of now, it's back down to where it's been for the past five years; mostly horizontal movement. Blablablob (talk) 06:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, so "relative" to what? Previously very poor sales? How does Vista's sales at the end of 2007 compare to other versions of Windows? That would seem like the obvious thing to compare Vista's sales to.

Basically, my impression is that Vista has sold quite poorly, and Microsoft is attempting to convince the public that this is not the case because when things sell poorly other potential customers start wondering why, and Microsoft does not want that. Which is a perfectly acceptable marketing strategy for a corporation to take, but it shouldn't be on Wikipedia unless the sales actually are "strong" in some sense. And if they are "strong" relative to something non-obvious (for example, if we're saying that the sales are "strong" compared to previously very weak sales, that says nothing about how strong the sales are besides the fact that they're better than they were), it should be explained what exactly that statement means.

Also, "record profit", at the very least, should be relatively easy to find a citation for. --DragoonWraith (talk) 16:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic

Large parts of this article would more appropriately go into an outlet for marketing or in a community user group.

There are notable elements missing; and there is much on that which is un-notable or subjective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blablablob (talk • contribs) 23:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Factual Error

The first sentence of the second paragraph of the "1975–1985: Founding" section under the History section of the article states: "On August 12, 1981, after negotiations with Digital Research failed, IBM awarded a contract to Microsoft to provide a version of the CP/M operating system, which was set to be used in the upcoming IBM Personal Computer (PC)." This cannot be correct. August 12, 1981 was in fact the date that IBM introduced the Personal Computer (model 5150). Therefore, IBM must have contracted with Microsoft prior to that date, since it is impossible that IBM could have shipped PC-DOS version 1.0 on 5.25" floppy disks with the PC on the same day that they contracted with MS to produce it, nor could MS have have had even an MS-DOS source code listing ready to give to IBM on the same day the contract was made. As many sources will attest, Bill Gates only began work to develop 86-DOS into PC-DOS after he and his associates had made a deal with IBM; thereafter, IBM was heavily involved (administratively) with Microsoft in the customization of 86-DOS for the PC. MS bought all rights to 86-DOS in July of 1981, after much of this work had been done. If some contract relating to MS/PC-DOS was signed on the day IBM introduced the PC, it was only a formality and not significant in plotting the history of either company; at that point IBM had no other choice. I found no mention if August 12, 1981 in association with the IBM - MS deal in any other Wikipedia article about MS-DOS, nor in any of a few other web references about the early history of DOS found through Google.

(Microsoft also provided to IBM a port of Microsoft BASIC for the PC's ROM, in a manner similar to the way they had ported BASIC for many other microcomputers of the late 1970s and early 1980s after the Altair 8800.)

This error has apparently been standing at least since August 12th of this year (ironically and/or coincidentally). (I didn't look past the first history page for the article.) Would someone please correct this? To simply delete the errant date of contract would suffice, but it might be nice to revise the paragraph in order to mention Microsoft's full purchase of 86-DOS in July of 1981.

71.242.27.236 (talk) 08:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Typo: CSO not CRSO [Craig Mundie (CRSO)]

On the information pane Craig Mundie is listed as the CRSO, while he is the CSO. The WikiLink goes to CSO, but the text is incorrect. --CraSH (talk) 23:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

FAR needed

This article has been gutted and destroyed since it's FAR last year, which left it looking like this. I suggest a revert to that version, and clean up from there, and a WP:FAR is needed to reevaluate the featured status of this article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Haven't logged in forever - but I agree that the current state is not very desirable. While I managed to address most of your concerns last FAR, you made some especially good points about the lack of hardcover sources for the history at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_review/Microsoft/archive1 which I never entirely addressed. Keep fighting the good fight! RN 21:51, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Greenpeace rating

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/greener-electronics-guide-nov2008

That is the latest rating from Greenpeace, I don't know how to create a reference thing.

Microsoft is still the 2nd worst but has improved their rating from 2.2 to 2.9. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.185.225.86 (talk) 15:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Demoted

This article should be demoted from featured status because it has too many cleanup tags (see the criteria for featured articles). Something has to be done about this or else the article should be demoted.

Topology Expert (talk) 14:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Market Cap

Can someone update the market cap number to reflect the stock price drop in the past 6 months? I am pretty sure it's no longer $230 billion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.231.131.236 (talk) 07:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Xbox

are they working on a new one thats what some people are saying DCsniper207 (talk) 18:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Geographic location - addresses

I can't find anything on the "reality" of Mirosoft in the article - Where, precisely are they? i.e what is their address? I have quickly looked for head offices of other large organisations either such as Exxon or BP but I could not find addressesthese either. Why are these not published here?

Big IT companies (NOT big companies generally) however generally choose not to publish their addresses. Go to the BP or ExxonMobil websites and I'm sure you will find their corpoate hedqarter's details and even telephone numbers.

It is clear enough why IT companies like M$ and Google should choose to hide their location. Presumably it is to avoid being deluged with mail. But the question is surely: "why should they NOT be deluged with mail?". If their customers were happy bunnies, able to get the info they needed at the touch of a button, as the ads suggest is normal in the world of IT, then they wouldn't want to write in or visit. The reason M$ and others are deluged with contact requests is clear. Their products are very poor quality, do not match their description, fail to operate as described, etc. Why should it be considered at all reasonable that their customers complain forcibly to them? Isn't this legitimate? In the short term such contact may slow down the fall of prices or even push them up but on the other hand it would drive more competitiona dn better quality longer lasting more suitable and fit for purpose products. Currently the big boys can use their monopolistic mscles to smother any challengers.

sincerely LookingGlass (talk) 13:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Microsoft stores

I dont know if this is mentioned in the article, but Microsoft is planning to open its own retail store, similar to the Apple Store. I saw this a few hours ago on G4TV, so I dont know if thats a reliable source. I'd say G4 is, since its a TV channel devoted to technology. - 97.102.154.152 (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

See the section on "2006–present: Vista and other transitions". Kuru ^talk 18:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

New Microsoft Store page

I have created a Microsoft Store page so anyone who could help build it will be appreciated —Preceding unsigned comment added by Worldprofile (talk • contribs) 21:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

No Significance?

Self explanatory, all this has is some info on history,products, ect. when pages about software companies that are'nt pursuasive get deleted. its making me think, do companies need awards to have a reliable wikipedia page? if not, pray tell. because i've spent nearly an hour making a wiki page on a software company, that WAS reliable, with all reliable links, ect, and it got deleted. did i mention that the software company used for the page did'nt have any awards? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Derynj1 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

^ CorporateInformation Snapshot of Microsoft Corporation
^ "Microsoft Board of Directors". PressPass. Microsoft. Retrieved 2007-03-26.
^ Peter Gutmann (2007-04-07). "A Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection". Retrieved 2007-06-24. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
^ Danny Westneat (2006-05-28). "Microsoft's mystery insider". Seattle Times. Retrieved 2007-06-30. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
^ Jay Greene; et al. (2005-09-26). "A Rendezvous With Microsoft's Deep Throat". BusinessWeek. Retrieved 2007-06-30. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)
^ Ron Alsop (2007-01-31). "How Boss's Deeds Buff a Firm's Reputation". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2007-01-31. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

[1] CorporateInformation Snapshot of Microsoft Corporation

[2] "Microsoft Board of Directors". PressPass. Microsoft. Retrieved 2007-03-26.

[3] Peter Gutmann (2007-04-07). "A Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection". Retrieved 2007-06-24. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

[4] Danny Westneat (2006-05-28). "Microsoft's mystery insider". Seattle Times. Retrieved 2007-06-30. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

[5] Jay Greene; et al. (2005-09-26). "A Rendezvous With Microsoft's Deep Throat". BusinessWeek. Retrieved 2007-06-30. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)

[6] Ron Alsop (2007-01-31). "How Boss's Deeds Buff a Firm's Reputation". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2007-01-31. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]