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.
I think it is worth noting in the "Environmental record" intro that the Greenpeace ranking was comparing hardware companies and only considers Microsoft's hardware products and manufacturing (e.g.) xbox, and mostly not its corporate practices or the software products that are its primary revenue stream -- Windows, for all its flaws, has implemented many power management features, moving them from laptops onto the desktop and server with the specific goal of significantly reducing power consumption. There is a bunch of PR-speak on http://www.microsoft.com/environment/ , but I'm sure there is also something there worth mentioning about Microsoft's positive impacts on the environment. In any case, the limited scope of the Greenpeace ranking should be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.118.30.243 (talk) 02:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Microsoft Page Update
Craig Mundie is no longer on the crew at Microsoft as when they bidded for Xbox, he wanted them to withdraw there bid however the did not and he left them.
Around the picture of Windows Vista, the caption "Windows Vista had major changes, mostly notable within its interface." is strictly true (front-end changes are always more "notable" than other changes by their nature), but implies that this change to interface was the most notable change and that other changes in the operating system were therefore inferior, which is misleading.
Microsoft has been called a "velvet sweatshop" contrasting the perks that employees have enjoyed with allegations of the company working its employees many unpaid overtime hours. The first instance of "velvet sweatshop" in reference to Microsoft originated from a Seattle Times article in 1989.[1] As a Seattle career consultant described it, "they... stretch people to unbelievable limits. It's always push, push, push, and the stakes are constantly being raised." The term has also been used by some of Microsoft's own employees.[2]
</block>
what is the notability?
is this complaint above and beyond or different than similar complaints for other companies?
should this go in an other article - for example...
criticism: overview and pointer to separate article
There is some redundancy and lack of organization in the criticism section: I suggest that an overview paragraph(s) be written along with a pointer to the already substantial article devoted to criticism.
"Later in 1997, Internet Explorer 4.0 was released for both Mac OS and Windows, marking the beginning of the takeover of the browser market from rival Netscape."
to:
"Later in 1997, Internet Explorer 4.0 was released for Mac OS, Solaris, HP-UX and Windows, marking the beginning of the takeover of the browser market from rival Netscape."
Has any other public CEO ever announced intent to dodge taxes by lowering employment? Which Reference Desk is appropriate for that question? 208.54.4.54 (talk) 13:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
user:Scientus keeps repeatedly removing fully sourced information on the environmetal section of this article.
For instance:
Article: Microsoft has phased out the use of polyvinyl chloride plastic in its packaging material, due to environmental concerns
Source: Microsoft, in response to environmental concerns, will phase out all use of polyvinyl chloride plastic by the end of the year, the software giant announced Wednesday
and
Article: Microsoft's newest building on its campus in Hyderabad, India was built as an environmentally friendly structure
Source: Microsoft opened the doors to Building 2 on our new campus in Hyderabad, India. Building 2 is a state-of-the-art building that incorporates sound environmental design and furniture made by local Indian companies
This seems pure anti-MS vandalism. Mayby some other editor can wacht out for abvious anti-Micrsoft edits by this user. hAl (talk) 14:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Scientus was making good-faith edits per WP:RS. The source cited was a blog, and though official-looking, its contributors cannot be verified and it is unknown if they should be considered experts. I have changed the citation, which should clear up any doubt. Unless a direct Microsoft link is considered primary, in which case another can be found. Remember, if someone is removing content based on a lack of reliable sourcing, this does not imply bias (remember to assume good faith) and you're always welcome to find another source. DKqwerty (talk) 17:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, DKqwerty. I will not delete that line anymore. The source could be considered primary, but with concrete claims such as "LEED Gold Certification", the source seems appropriate to the statement, and much better than the blog's extremely vague "sound environmental design". My counter-statements to user:HAl are on my talk. Scientus (talk) 18:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Proposed new external link
I believe that [www.onwindows.com] would be a very compelling addition to the external links section of this page. This site provides an interesting insight and understanding of the often forgotten value that Microsoft partners (over 800,000 of them) play in Microsoft's unique business model. Without Microsoft partners, Microsoft would not have become the business it is today. In this regard, I'd also be happy to submit a first draft of a proposed new section for this page titled "Microsoft partner ecosystem."
Why does the diversity section ONLY cover issues with LGBT? What about race, language, and many other things that make Microsoft diverse? Diversity is a lot more complex then a persons sexual orientation. Dumaka (talk) 18:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Typo
Under the third bulletin point of the enviromental record, the word 'gases' is improperly spelt 'gasses' in regard to 'greenhouse gases'
I just wrote an article on Discount-licensing.com covering their business selling second hand Microsoft software licences. (It is currently an orphan, so any help linking it in would be appreciated.) What I noticed while writing it is that we don't have much about MS's various licensing types. We have Volume license key and Microsoft Software Assurance but nothing on Volume Licensing (distinct from the keys), MS Select, MS Open or the like. This seems like something of an oversight given the complexity and controversy surrounding these areas. --DanielRigal (talk) 09:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, i just checked on that and you're right there is VERY listtle information on the SPLA (and associated SPUR), or the (and my memory fails here as to the name) licensing agreement whcih allows you to resell a microsoft product (such a s SQL Servers) as a packaged installation with your product. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.74.205.178 (talk) 21:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
With the RTM release of Windows 7, it is time to update this segment of the article. Please change:
Platform Products and Services Division
The current logo of Microsoft Windows, the company's signature product.This division produces Microsoft's flagship product, the Windows operating system. It has been produced in many versions, including Windows 3.1, Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows 2000, Windows Me, Windows Server 2003, Windows XP and Windows Vista. Almost all IBM compatible personal computers come with Windows preinstalled. The current desktop version of Windows is Windows Vista.
To:
Platform Products and Services Division
The current logo of Microsoft Windows, the company's signature product. This division produces Microsoft's flagship product, the Windows operating system. It has been produced in many versions, including Windows 3.1, Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows 2000, Windows Me, Windows Server 2003, Windows XP, Windows Vista and Windows 7. Almost all IBM compatible personal computers come with Windows preinstalled. The current desktop version of Windows is Windows 7.
Hi there. I've searched throughout the article and I see no mention of "Windows 7", so apparently nobody has added info about it. I'd rather not add info that's not referenced to a reliable source, so I can't make this edit request right now. I know I've seen something about it in the news, but could you link to a few reliable sources that clearly verify it's a confirmed operating system? Also, since it's not out yet, I don't think we should list 7 as "the current desktop version of Windows is..." The list of Windows versions could be altered, yes (I'd like a source for the info), but the "current" version still seems to be Vista at this point, so the latter sentence shouldn't be changed IMO. Best, JamieS93be kind to newcomers21:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
This is a link to Microsoft's Windows 7 RTM press release:
This product is currently available to "current customers of the Windows Volume Licensing program, Microsoft Developer Network (MSDN) subscribers and TechNet subscribers," as the press release states. I suggest making Windows 7 the "current desktop version" in this article since the finished (RTM) version of Windows 7 is being distributed (albeit to a limited group, until the October 22nd "general availability" date). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhalcrow (talk • contribs) 03:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC) Per Granit Gashi .!0
Thinly veiled criticism of regulators
"antitrust violations accordingly in today's political-cultural climate of mixed economies and "public interest of society"." sounds like thinly veiled attack on the regulators that have regulated Microsoft, and that if we had been in any other "climate" Microsoft would not have been punished - which is obviously rubbish (see Standard Oil). Can we word this more effectively? --12:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.151.27.227 (talk)
I agree with anonymous. That wording sounds like bald-faced apologetics in action. Microsoft has been found guilty of anti-competitive activity in many courts in many jurisdictions (in and out of the United States) (see http://www.ecis.eu/documents/Finalversion_Consumerchoicepaper.pdf ). The truth is that legal evidence against Microsoft has steadily mounted but according to one journalist "the Bush administration dropped any interest in enforcing the rule of law" ( http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2009/07/15/windows-7-so-great-microsoft-is-giving-it-away-for-free/ ) . Compare also the slap on the wrist GSK received with the outright fraud for the marketing of Paroxetine (Paxil) where they falsified clinical trial results (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GlaxoSmithKline#Paroxetine). Paxil made them billions yet the settlement for illegal conduct was some small percentage of that. The "climate" of regulation (at least in the UK and US) definitely falls in favor of the large players no matter how you spin it.
I agree that the sentence is non-neutral and in any case is a strange diversion into political and economic philosophy certainly unnecessary for the lede of an article on a software company. I've removed the "political-cultural climate" comment, while retaining the facts about Microsoft's antitrust violations. Npdoty (talk) 02:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Because we need a reliable source for the logos, and old logo sources that are deemed reliable by wikipedia are hard to come by on the internets. Believe me, I tried to get as many as I could. RN00:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
IPO
There are currently two sections regarding Microsoft's IPO, and they contain conflicting information. Requires cleanup.
Yes, I don't know why someone created a separate section for it when it was mentioned in the previous paragraph with correct and referenced information, so I just removed it. The only new info it really contained was how much money Bill Gates made and such but that really is a bit too specific for what is supposed to be a general overview of the history. Perhaps it would be better suited to be reworded to be shorter and put into the history article. RN13:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
"Despite this" in modern history section
It sounds a bit biased/odd, but that wasn't my intent. Mostly just to connect the whole paragraph. If anyone has a better phrase to connect it or another idea, please edit it to do so. Also, the layoff may not even be worth mentioning really.... it runs the issue of being a bit too unnoticeable (notable in wikipedia terms) for the main article even if it is. RN00:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
It's kind of weird because it's technically related to the Windows Live line, but you are correct that for whatever reason it is it's own deal so I have worded it in the infobox and elsewhere as a separate product with sources. RN13:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
"David Meyer writing on Zdnet.com pointed out that, "Microsoft has a long history of applying for, and being granted patents for, inventions that many argue—and can sometimes demonstrate—were based on earlier work carried out by others, or based on a common, self-evident idea."[102] This was in response to its 2008 patent application for the ability to progress in page-up or page-down increments with a single keystroke — a method that has been pervasive for decades.[103]"
If one reads the whole text of patent ('background' section may suffice), then it is evident that patent is not about the "ability to progress in page-up or page-down increments with a single keystroke" as david meyer has stated. 'Background' section of patent indeed recognizes this existing method.
However suggest an improvement over how it implemented. So what is patented is a particular way of implemetation and not Page-Up and Page-Down keys.
So, Criticism may be valid but i didn't find the "Page-Up Page-Down" patent as a valid supporting reference. Please suggest if you figured it out differently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.245.168.34 (talk) 04:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Media control
Microsoft owns various media outlets and has control over many more. How come none of this is mentioned in this featured and indefinitely semi-protected article? 85.77.161.87 (talk) 17:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Their media holdings are mentioned at least four times in the article, including the lead. Is there something specific you'd like mentioned? Kuru(talk)01:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
As mentioned above - it's mentioned in the intro, and several times in the article.... is there something in specific you have an issue with? RN08:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Update on this, there are still mentions of this in the history portion, but I've removed a few claims related to MSNBC as they were bought out by NBC a couple years ago. (edit: that's not 100% true, they still joint venture with the website... will update) RN08:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Because no one uploaded it. It's just basic text, so it's probably excempt from copyright which gives it the OK for this article. Not sure how you'd pluck just the logo off of it. Would also need a reliable source of some kind. RN10:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Add the new Datacenter in Ireland to the enviromental section?
The Datacenter recently opened in Ireland have a smarter cooling system than most other datacenters with an open wall to harvest the wind to cool down the Server floors when there is wind, I will find sources asap I get home from work Thor erik (talk) 14:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Suggest to remove "History" section and replace with only the link to "History of Microsoft"
So I compared at least part of the [History] section against [History of Microsoft]. It appears to me that the [Microsoft] article would be better served by either
1) Removing the History subsection of the Microsoft article, and having only the link to the History article. This would allow editors to change only a single copy of the History information.
2) Move the comprehensive History article into the History subsection, and then removing the History article. This would result in a larger Microsoft article, but it would be comprehensive.
Having both the History subsection and the History article is poorly redundant, provides no added value, and is confusing since different information is contained in each area (that is, which one of the two should a reader review?)
The breaking off of the history section was part of a result of the featured article review and submission (years?) ago. With the full history section it was deemed simply too large, so the comprehensive article was split off, as per the norm with most articles like this. What (was) here was meant to be a summary of the comprehensive history article. That was a long time ago though, Wikipedia's standards on these kinds of things change constantly over time - back when it was first submitted for a featured article there was a hard byte limit for them, for example.
In fact, I'm just going to revert this and clean it up a bit - it was discussed in length before. Keep in mind that we are actually summarizing two seperate history articles in that section. RN09:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for being interested.
I'm not sure why you reverted this, can you explain? The links to the primary History article are more than sufficient.
Oh, those two articles (History of Microsoft and History of Microsoft Windows). I'd actually suggest that those two articles be combined. There is no Microsoft without Microsoft Windows, and there is no Microsoft Windows without Microsoft. Sliceofmiami (talk) 23:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Sure; first off I understand your position, it's a lot of duplicated text, and since we are summarizing two articles it looks disjointed compared to some articles, mostly due to the scope of what that section is trying to cover. On your points:
See #3 :).
I'm not sure what you mean by books....
Yeah, both the company history and history of windows. The problem is that in peer review and other feedback people wanted a comprehensive article on both, and a comprehensive article on the company history itself is big as-is. We tried leaving it blank with just a link similar to what you edited but then got complaints that it made this article (which is still featured) incomplete, so we (well, I mostly) were forced to summarize it as it is now. As for why I reverted it's due to the above - it's featured and that was discussed in length back in the archives.
I don't expect you to dredge through the massive amount of talk archives this article has, but please read the peer and featered article reviews and nominations - you can see those above towards the top of the page. Once you've done that and still feel the same, or better yet have an alternative solution let me know.
I don't really agree with combining the company and software history either, they are two very different subjects (corporate vs. product). We could merge the company history back in to this article, but then as mentioned people complained about it before. RN01:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
"Launched with a price of $21.00, the stock of Microsoft IPO's peaked at $29.25 and closed at $27.75 by the end of the first trading day, equivalent to about 10 cents when adjusted for the company's nine stock splits as of July 2010.[12][69][70]"
Anyone know what this is trying to say? If it's saying that the first-day end-of-day price adjusts historically somehow to 10 cents (which doesn't make sense to me), then the other first-day prices should be expressed as adjusted as well for that number to have any relevance ... either way, I think this sentence is either mangled badly or the 10-cent comment needs to be dropped. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.254.4.8 (talk) 14:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
It was there to show the worth of the stock relative to today's price, for example how much the stock would be worth if you purchased it when the IPO opened and then sold it today - in finance terms it's kind of important; regardless, "started at" is a bit ambiguous, as it's actually the "opening price" (or offering price) that's 21$ - the "starting price" could be interpreted to mean the price at the beginning of the trading day, which was ~24$ (which no one in finance cares about for whatever reason 99% of the time). Also, "split stocks" makes questionable sense in that context (I could be interpreted to mean that Microsoft split the stocks of the entire nasdaq technically), I think you meant "split its stock". Wall street economics is complex stuff, and apparently I failed at providing the reader with enough context there. Ryan Norton17:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I guess it might make more sense for the common reader to express the after-split price in today's worth rather then the reverse which is what we were doing before. Ryan Norton17:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Ten cents is not up to date to today. The way I read it, the ten cents are the modern-day, post-split equivalent of the $6.75 increase; not the current profit. You state for example how much the stock would be worth if you purchased it when the IPO opened and then sold it today: ten cents does not take into account the current stock price, nor does it take into account the increased number of stocks you would earn prior to a split nor inflation. Thus, ten cents is very specific and the sentence I would add to the article, When Microsoft launched it's IPO in 1986, the opening stock price was $21; after the trading day, the price closed at $27.75, $6.75 higher than the opening price, or ten cents if Microsoft's nine stock as of July 2010 are taken into consideration. just smacks of weight concerns and relevance, not to mention notability. ɳOCTURNEɳOIRtalk // contribs18:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't have an issue with your current version actually; it's correct. However, I will point out that it's not the increase, it really was worth about 10 cents on close. What makes it complicated and apparently confuses literally every financial stock tracker on the internet is the post-split price as they all round differently and the issues you mentioned, plus a lot of them follow Microsoft's line of the stock closing at 28$ and not 27.75$ (again, likely a result of split calculation). Anyway, that's its own quagmire and mentioned in the FAQ.
Back to practical stuff - if we are deciding of getting rid of post-split prices, should we nix the similar mention when it reached it peak? Ryan Norton18:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Wow, that is one of the first times a source has made me more confused... Does it possibly mean this: the IPO was $21 per share. The stock has been split nine times. One of those $21 stocks, purchased at the time of IPO, would be worth ten cents today, after the splits? That is relevant when comparing against current stock prices; my misunderstanding was that the ten cents were the worth of the change. I'm going to assume the info is correct ($21 split nine times doesn't equal ten cents in my mind; 21/(2^9)=.04) and see how to add that back in. ɳOCTURNEɳOIRtalk // contribs18:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
"Wow, that is one of the first times a source has made me more confused... Does it possibly mean this: the IPO was $21 per share. The stock has been split nine times. One of those $21 stocks, purchased at the time of IPO, would be worth ten cents today, after the splits?" - yep[1], maybe just want to cite that source or _something_ similar so this doesn't come up again and say 9 cents as per the source and cite the near-exact date of the source? Yes, it's complicated.... unfortunately I watched CNBC and other finance shows too much and may know too much to write for the average reader - I should note I wrote it at the request of the original FAC back in 2005. Ryan Norton18:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
[1] - by "yep" I mean it would have cost you 9 cents back then instead of $21 taking into stock splits and whatever else (AHHH WALL STREEEET!!!).... Ryan Norton19:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Maybe this will help. If you bought one share in 1986, you'd have 288 of them now (they were not all 2 for 1 splits). So if you spent 9.7 cents buying MSFT stock then (receiving your .0003 share), you'd have shares with a value close to today's closing price (or so, the numbers are a little out of date). You usually see this referred to as the "adjusted close" and it is used to graph the absolute performance of a stock over time (remember that when it does a 2 for 1 split, the face value is cut in half as well). Most adjusted close numbers will include dividends earned as well, which this does not.... Kuru(talk)19:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I am simply an embarrassment of an econ major. I know exactly what's going on now, but I can't think of a single cohesive way to state that in the article. Someone else might want to give it a shot before I mangle something when I try. ɳOCTURNEɳOIRtalk // contribs22:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Nice to see some action on this article besides myself... however, it's kind of incorrect and the actual article contradicts it. For one, the alleged office shenanigans took place in the late 1980s, and the E.U.'s line is that they are still not complying as of ~2 years ago....
Also, it is true the criticism got Microsoft to change their behaviour, it's implicitly implied in the corporate section when it says it formed a antitrust oversight commitee. I guess I could spell it out for the reader, but after reading the history section it should be pretty obvious why it exists. Ryan Norton07:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, for taking so long to respond, but I was trying to say that the company's behavior today is nothing like what it used to be. Even companies like Google and Apple today deal with more severe cases of being accused for having a monopoly (Apple in the music industry and Google in search, especially lately as Google just took over Yahoo Japan's search engine and they now have well over 90% of search share there). I thinks its inaccurate to make the reader assume that Microsoft is still actively involved with the regulators. Even if Microsoft hasn't responded to all of the E.U.'s charges, the E.U. and other regulators have largely changed Microsoft's behavior and attitude when entering new markets to the point where they cant find much success in any other markets. I think that effect regulators have had on Microsoft is huge. The very latest changes that were made to the article are much better, but the E.U. is starting to shift its focus from Microsoft, and when your a big and successful company like Microsoft government regulators will always be watching you and people/organizations will always be suing you, so I think to say that there still involved in lawsuits is nitpicking and obvious. The cases against Microsoft today are minor, and things that any company of it's size would have face. --Interframe 03:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Interframe (talk • contribs)
No problem, this is a pretty stable article so even I sometimes take some time to respond. I agree with most of what you said; indeed I don't even mention the control the U.S. has over MS' OEM agreements now as a result of the antitrust legal cases - perhaps I should. It's a delicate balance - they are still sued every now and then *cough*Novell&E.U.*cough* so we technically have to say they are still under SOME criticism, as even now they still run the rather tricky Windows Server comparison website - basically a much tamer version of "get the facts" and such. So really all the points are still true, just to an exponentially lower level. The problem is that being an encyclopedia, we have to cite sources for such claims, and no one is going to write straight out that fact because it's common knowledge, so we have to word it carefully. Especially because if we say just the 1990s there might be an edit war started or something which is what I want to avoid while at the same time keeping it as factual as possible. Ryan Norton22:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I've done a rather huge revamp of the page such as well as cleaning up years worth of edits and putting back in some stuff that was lost in the wiki time machine. Feel free to comment. Note: This was also done during the 3rd peer review.
“Large media corporations (including the movie companies and record companies), together with computer companies such as Microsoft and Intel, are planning to make your computer obey them instead of you.”
Removed because while a great quote doesn't belong in a summary, especially since we just spelled it out beforehand.
Microsoft also actively manipulates standards bodies to create standards that Microsoft effectively controls, regardless of technical or market suitability.[4]
Groklaw... way too sketchy of a source for the claim.... need more, even if it references a couple RS, it doesn't for the whole article - I may have put this in myself a long long time ago though ;p
In what is described as an "end of an era" by The New York Times, Apple surpassed Microsoft for the first time in ten years as the top technology company in market capitalization on May 26, 2010; Apple's sales came mostly from music and hand-held devices as opposed to the software (mostly Windows and Office) Microsoft develops.[5] Although the company's market cap at the time of the report was stagnent for years, Microsoft still had more short-term investments as of the report as well as higher revenue and nearly triple the net income of Apple for the fiscal year of 2009.[6][5][7]
After taking the trouble to write that decided it's a bit too nascent and violates my own comment about description of future events a little.
According to statistics taken in 2009, the company's client line of Microsoft Windows operating systems and Microsoft Office line of productivity software hold over a 90% market share in their respective areas.[8][9]
Something else I wrote for the intro, but ended up deciding it was unneccesary.
In April 2005, Microsoft received wide criticism for withdrawing support from Washington state's H.B. 1515 bill that would have extended the state's anti-discrimination laws to people with alternate sexual orientations.[10] Microsoft was accused of bowing to pressure from local evangelical pastor Ken Hutcherson who met with a senior Microsoft executive and threatened a national boycott of Microsoft's products.[11] Microsoft also revealed they were paying evangelical conservative Ralph Reed's company Century Strategies a $20,000 monthly fee.[12] Over 2,000 employees signed a petition asking Microsoft to reinstate support for the bill.[13] Under harsh criticism from both outside and inside the company's walls, Microsoft decided to support the bill again in May 2005.[13][14]
Removed due to concerns about the article promoting LGBT stuff..... which is sort of correct, so we'll stick to the fundamentals.
There are several other aspects to the corporate structure of Microsoft. For worldwide matters there is the Executive Team, made up of sixteen company officers across the globe, which is charged with various duties including making sure employees understand Microsoft's culture of business. The sixteen officers of the Executive Team include the Chairman and Chief Software Architect, the CEO, the General Counsel and Secretary, the CFO, senior and group vice presidents from the business units, the CEO of the Europe, the Middle East and Africa regions; and the heads of Worldwide Sales, Marketing and Services; Human Resources; and Corporate Marketing. In addition to the Executive Team there is also the Corporate Staff Council, which handles all major staff functions of the company, including approving corporate policies. The Corporate Staff Council is made up of employees from the Law and Corporate Affairs, Finance, Human Resources, Corporate Marketing, and Advanced Strategy and Policy groups at Microsoft. Other Executive Officers include the Presidents and Vice Presidents of the various product divisions, leaders of the marketing section, and the CTO, among others.[15][16]
Anothor one I wrote. Mildly interesting but after consideration follows the "unneccesary detail" (sp) part, is impossible to keep up to date - and the source is an archived webpage.
Microsoft has often been described as having a developer-centric business culture. A great deal of time and money is spent each year on recruiting young university-trained software developers and on keeping them in the company. For example, while many software companies often place an entry-level software developer in a cubicle desk within a large office space filled with other cubicles, Microsoft assigns a private or semiprivate closed office to every developer or pair of developers. In addition, key decision makers at every level are either developers or former developers. In a sense, the software developers at Microsoft are considered the "stars" of the company in the same way that the sales staff at IBM are considered the "stars" of their company.[17]
For fun, Microsoft also hosts the Microsoft Puzzle Hunt, an annual puzzle hunt (a live puzzle game where teams compete to solve a series of puzzles) held at the Redmond campus. It is a spin-off of the MIT Mystery Hunt.[18]
Business culture stuff removed due to sourcing concerns (first paragraph has books without page numbers, for instance) and the fact that it's horribly outdated. Would be nice to have though and properly dated.
^Cite error: The named reference 10-K was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^Charles, John. "Indecent proposal? Doing Business With Microsoft". IEEE Software (January/February 1998): 113–117. * Jennifer Edstrom (1998). Barbarians Led by Bill Gates: Microsoft from inside. N.Y. Holt. ISBN0-8050-5754-4. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) * Fred Moody (1995). I Sing the Body Electronic: A Year With Microsoft on the Multimedia Frontier. Viking. ISBN0-670-84875-1. * Michael A. Cusumano (1995). Microsoft Secrets: How the World's Most Powerful Software Company Creates Technology, Shapes Markets and Manages People. Free Press. ISBN0-684-85531-3. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
It has very little to do with that passage, plus it's a SUMMARY - if it's really relevant put it in the history article, with a WP:RS. However, it really appears to belong in an article about DOS, not Microsoft....
"Save the blibbet" mention in marketing - too much trivia?
Been thinking about this for a while. The passage in question:
Dave Norris, a Microsoft employee, ran an internal joke campaign to save the old logo, which was green, in all uppercase, and featured a fanciful letter O, nicknamed the blibbet, but it was discarded.[1]
Question: While somewhat historical, is it too much trivia or even related enough to the impact on the company itself? Seems questionable. Ryan Norton09:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Introduction paragraph
Why is it that the introductory paragraph to this article is unnecessarily negative? It is alright to point out the flaws of a company, but I don't think this should be done in this section. Apple Inc's introductory paragraph on the other hand... well... go see for yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.99.54 (talk) 11:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Which part are you talking about in particular? The first paragraph doesn't have anything outright negative in it, so I assume you are talking about the second one which mentions the critics and such. That paragraph has been watered down to its lowest point already; is this is the issue? Also, comparing articles is fraught with problems - Apple for example doesn't have an article "award", while this does; in other words Apple's article techinically sucks compared to this one, but we're working on it. Anyway, feel free to suggest an alternate wording. Ryan Norton12:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Edit request from Reginesmicrosoft.com, 8 October 2010
{{edit semi-protected}}
Microsoft provides IT consulting ("Microsoft Consulting Services") and produces a set of certifications handled by the Server and Tools division. The company is one of the companies at the forefront of offering certifications. It introduced a wide range of certifications for entry level to advanced IT and business professionals for domains ranging from networking, system administration, database management to programming, business administration, web development and other advanced technologies. Microsoft Certifications ensure whether or not information technology and business professionals have the necessary skills to successfully implement business solutions using Microsoft technology and software.
The requirements for each Microsoft certification are different and are specific to job roles: Microsoft Certified Technology Specialist (MCTS) certifications validate in-depth technology skills and experience using Microsoft technologies; Microsoft Certified IT Professional (MCITP) & Microsoft Certified Professional Developer (MCPD) certifications validate a comprehensive and current set of job roles skills required to be successful in an IT job. Microsoft Certified Master (MCM)/ Microsoft Certified architect (MCA) are the highest level of certification provided by Microsoft and are designed for the most certifications provide highly experienced IT professionals worldwide to validate with validation of their deep technical and architectural expertise. The Microsoft Office Specialist (MOS) certification validates user skills with the Microsoft Office suite of products.
In 2010, Microsoft introduced Microsoft Technology Associate (MTA) certifications to validate foundational knowledge in key Microsoft technologies. These are currently offered to students through the IT Academy Program. Microsoft Press, which publishes books, e-books and reference materials is also managed by the division.
Hi, New2dallasarea! I think another issue is that your proposed addition is not word neutrally; it reads promotionally ("The company is one of the companies at the forefront of offering certifications"; who considers it at the forefront? "Microsoft Certifications ensure whether or not information technology and business professionals have the necessary skills to successfully implement business solutions using Microsoft technology and software"; who says it ensures anything, and who considers an implementation successful? etc.). The email address in the section title is a MS one, so I am guessing that you have your company's interests in mind when posting this. Please be aware that you have a conflict of interest in this situation, as you seem to be trying to post material related to your job, which is strongly discouraged. You may also wish to read the business FAQ, which may be especially helpful if you were told by your company to post this information. /ƒETCHCOMMS/03:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
One minor note is that you should never bother to assert any affiliation with Microsoft (or any other company) because:
We don't believe it: Lot's of less-than-benevolent editors continually try to assert they are acting on the behalf of this and that.
It will probably have zero bearing on our behavior towards you, as Fetchcomms mentioned above. Your identity does not exempt your contributions from the guidelines set forth by Wikipedia:Five pillars.
It is in the category of cloud computing vendors. Since this seems to be a category overlap vendors/providers, I've suggested a merger of the two. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Thanks ShmuckyTheCat. The distinction seems to be that "vendors" have 'products' available and "providers" make cloud computing 'services' available.
Is the topic of Gay and Lesbian Employees of Microsoft really worth mentioning in a see also section? It would be more closely related to other LGBT articles.Ryan Vesey (talk) 03:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
While I cannot disagree with the second paragraph, I feel that it is hardly approprate to locate discussion of critical views in the introduction. The gist of this type of tactic is as a topid reading: "(1st paragraph) George W Bush was the 43rd President of the United States, and (2nd paragraph) a lot of people don't like him." The effect resolves to an anonymous hit-and-run attack, like to a drive-by pie in the face. This effect is exacerbated by use of the "weasel words" "Critics of Microsoft..." as the opening volley. Locating the second paragraph (even verbatim) somewhere in the body of the article would be more fair game. Helotrydotorg (talk) 00:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)helotrydotorg
Further, the last sentence of the second paragraph is unclear : "Known for its interviewing process with obscure questions, various studies and ratings were generally favorable to Microsoft's diversity within the company as well as its overall environmental impact with the exception of the electronics portion of the business". I can't/won't correct it, as I don't know enough about the subject, but it should at least read in a way that is unambiguous. Alpalfour (talk) 06:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
That depends what is your definition of partner. But you can contact Microsoft. Be polite and provide a good reason. They will help you. Fleet Command (talk) 12:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Microsoft said it wants to 'disrupt'... definitely it's not neutral point of view... but that's their problem, not ours. The source should be neutral not the people who made the news. This should be added. This's directly quoting what they said. Also Relations between Nokia and Microsoft should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.201.86.94 (talk) 12:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
can we add in market capitalisation figure to company details box (top right of page)
best to reference List_of_corporations_by_market_capitalization wiki page rather than the ref that List_of_corporations_by_market_capitalization page references!
Partly done: I see no reason to list all versions of Microsoft Office for Mac, so I have updated it to Office 2011 as this is the latest version. Mato (talk) 12:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
"Pac-Man" logo?
In the marketing section, it twice refers to the Pac-Man logo (once in the text, and once under the logo), yet provides no source to suggest that people refer to this logo as the Pac-Man logo. The "o" has a wedge, removed, but the author then specifically explains the creator's thought process on the slash, which has nothing to do with Pac-Man. The Pac-Man reference should be removed unless someone can cite a source showing this is a common reference. 99.98.221.223 (talk) 23:54, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
No section about Windows 7
I've noticed that there is a section to the article entitled "# 1.3 2006–present: Vista and Cloud computing". There's no section about win7, it's just mentioned briefly in the 2006-present section. It's got to be changed, because 7 completely changed the way people interact in a Windows environment. Also, it implies that Windows has not moved beyond Vista. I'm pretty bad at writing articles, so I'd like someone to step up and write this section.
Thank You!!!
According to Forbes 400, only 3 Microsoft billionaire exists as of March 2011. Bad luck to Jon A Shipley and Nathan Myhrvold. Could someone change 4 billionaires to three? thank you
I am the Blood 09:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blood3 (talk • contribs)
Per WP:CITELEAD, do we really need the {{fact}} and whatnot in the paragraph on criticism of Microsoft? Especially when it comes to the {{who}}, it would be prohibitive to list them all in the lead; but we do this in the relevant sections, so there shouldn't be problems with weasel words. It also seems that stuff is well enough cited elsewhere in the article. causa sui (talk) 23:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Edit request from , 11 November 2011
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Good day, I received a strange e-mail from your Co. and I don't know if is about a joke, a fraud or real.
I would like to forward to you this e-mail,but I don't know how, and then to answer to me what is the truth .
I am from Bucharest ,Romania, Europe, my name is Elisabeta Blaga and my e-mail= eldoblagasm@yahoo.com
I hope to I'll receive soon your advice and how to sent to you the strange e-mail.
Thank you!
109.101.224.66 (talk) 21:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
We are not actually related to microsoft, I suggest you try microsoft.com, although usually if you recieve a strange email its best to ignore it--Jac16888Talk21:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Although this article is one of our featured articles, it currently has a {{refimprove}} tag at the top, and an empty section. Is anyone willing to get this article back in line with our featured article criteria? If not, then I think I will list this at featured article review after a reasonable period of time has elapsed. It would be a shame for it to lose its featured status, but claiming that articles that are tagged for cleanup are among Wikipedia's best work is not so good for our image. — Mr. Stradivarius♫13:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Where is the Skype business unit in the organization structure?
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The idea behind Microsoft Geeks Days is to create a development hub at Microsoft Egypt that connects more than 90 applicants from 45 university developers or designers fulfills of brilliant ideas they want share and publish it through a local/global community like Microsoft Geeks Days with the professionals. These days will offer those a very successful movement towards their goals and aims through exchanging the experiences in web development field or designing and put it in a challenge at the forefront, The event will bring exposure to current issues in business, newly launched products in the market, and surprising students’ activities. That’s why all participants from visitors, contributors and sponsors will experience increased exposure and benefits from the event.
Mission
1. To create a web development hub where developers, designers and professionals can meet together and share their experiences and their knowledge.
2. To create a mobile development hub where developers, designers and professionals can meet together and share the experiences and their knowledge.
3. To enhance the knowledge of the applicants and labor market challenge.
4. To create an environment suitable for the applicants to highlight and refine their talents in various fields.
5. To offer an opportunity to support and assist Windows Phone and Windows Azure communities.
6. To define the role of the applicants to the most important sectors that help develop the community of Windows Phone and Windows Azure etc.
7. To demonstrate the role of applicants' activities in developing and building a successful individual.
8. Main Target to increase the number of WP7 and Azure Developers in Egypt and increase the number of applications submitted in the Market like "Yalla Apps" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amrkhamise (talk • contribs) 02:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Edit request on 2 June 2012
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
please add Microsoft SharePoint Serevr 2010 in Microsoft Business division. It is one of the best collaboration software in the recent times which drives more than 2 billon in profit to Microsoft in just 1 yesr. Also include about the impact of Microsoft technology in overall IT and ITes market worldwide. Today more than 40% of the world IT and ITes market is driven by Microsoft technology. It includes a huge partner and technology specialist eco system which is very important to most of the world's major IT companys.
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
5.1 Financial
"On July 20, 2012, Microsoft posted its first quarterly loss ever, despite earning record revenues for the quarter and fiscal year. Microsoft reported a net loss of $492 million; the 2007 acquisition of advertising company aQuantive for $6.2 billion was deemed a failure and blamed as the biggest of "one of many managerial and operational missteps" the company has made in recent years.[95]"
This is written in a fairly bias way, as it fails to say that the company made a operating profit of $6.9 billion, but that the 2007 acquisition of advertising company aQuantive was written down as a "goodwill impairment charge" for $6.2 billion, and a further $500 million was a "deferred revenue" charge added to this [Source http://www.microsoft.com/investor/EarningsAndFinancials/Earnings/PressReleaseAndWebcast/FY12/Q4/default.aspx]. The article as written makes no reference to either of these things and instead appears to unfairly take a negative view on the matter rather than an impartial one.
I agree. It sounds like the press trying to get more hits on their website by writing misleading "news-worthy" stories with a negative spin that grabs attention. Not appropriate or reliable source for an encyclopedia. --Interframe (talk) 03:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Done. I trimmed it. They can read the source if they want POV from those outside wikipedia. If it is reverted then seek consensus and open the request again.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
In the Logo history box, the 2nd one, "Where do you want to go today", uses Citations 11 and 12, neither of which have to do with the logo. That seems incorrect. Can someone take a look? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.130.252.254 (talk) 17:18, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
I believe the article no longer meets the criteria with 1c and 2c concerns, paragraph 4 of "2006–2010: Windows Vista, mobile, SaaS and Windows 7" is unreferenced. Some criteria 3 concerns include File:1981BillPaul.jpg is dead link. Is anyone possible to work on article to fix? JJ98 (Talk / Contribs)09:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Article concerns
I believe the article no longer meets the criteria with 1c and 2c concerns, paragraph 4 of "2006–2010: Windows Vista, mobile, SaaS and Windows 7" is unreferenced. Some criteria 3 concerns include File:1981BillPaul.jpg is dead link. Is anyone possible to work on article to fix? JJ98 (Talk / Contribs)09:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Article concerns
I believe the article no longer meets the criteria with 1c and 2c concerns, paragraph 4 of "2006–2010: Windows Vista, mobile, SaaS and Windows 7" is unreferenced. Some criteria 3 concerns include File:1981BillPaul.jpg is dead link. Is anyone possible to work on article to fix? JJ98 (Talk / Contribs)09:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Article concerns
I believe the article no longer meets the criteria with 1c and 2c concerns, paragraph 4 of "2006–2010: Windows Vista, mobile, SaaS and Windows 7" is unreferenced. Some criteria 3 concerns include File:1981BillPaul.jpg is dead link. Is anyone possible to work on article to fix? JJ98 (Talk / Contribs)09:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Article concerns
I believe the article no longer meets the criteria with 1c and 2c concerns, paragraph 4 of "2006–2010: Windows Vista, mobile, SaaS and Windows 7" is unreferenced. Some criteria 3 concerns include File:1981BillPaul.jpg is dead link. Is anyone possible to work on article to fix? JJ98 (Talk / Contribs)09:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Article concerns
I believe the article no longer meets the criteria with 1c and 2c concerns, paragraph 4 of "2006–2010: Windows Vista, mobile, SaaS and Windows 7" is unreferenced. Some criteria 3 concerns include File:1981BillPaul.jpg is dead link. Is anyone possible to work on article to fix? JJ98 (Talk / Contribs)09:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Article concerns
I believe the article no longer meets the criteria with 1c and 2c concerns, paragraph 4 of "2006–2010: Windows Vista, mobile, SaaS and Windows 7" is unreferenced. Some criteria 3 concerns include File:1981BillPaul.jpg is dead link. Is anyone possible to work on article to fix? JJ98 (Talk / Contribs)09:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Article concerns
I believe the article no longer meets the criteria with 1c and 2c concerns, paragraph 4 of "2006–2010: Windows Vista, mobile, SaaS and Windows 7" is unreferenced. Some criteria 3 concerns include File:1981BillPaul.jpg is dead link. Is anyone possible to work on article to fix? JJ98 (Talk / Contribs)09:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Article concerns
I believe the article no longer meets the criteria with 1c and 2c concerns, paragraph 4 of "2006–2010: Windows Vista, mobile, SaaS and Windows 7" is unreferenced. Some criteria 3 concerns include File:1981BillPaul.jpg is dead link. Is anyone possible to work on article to fix? JJ98 (Talk / Contribs)09:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Article concerns
I believe the article no longer meets the criteria with 1c and 2c concerns, paragraph 4 of "2006–2010: Windows Vista, mobile, SaaS and Windows 7" is unreferenced. Some criteria 3 concerns include File:1981BillPaul.jpg is dead link. Is anyone possible to work on article to fix? JJ98 (Talk / Contribs)09:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Article concerns
I believe the article no longer meets the criteria with 1c and 2c concerns, paragraph 4 of "2006–2010: Windows Vista, mobile, SaaS and Windows 7" is unreferenced. Some criteria 3 concerns include File:1981BillPaul.jpg is dead link. Is anyone possible to work on article to fix? JJ98 (Talk / Contribs)09:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Article concerns
I believe the article no longer meets the criteria with 1c and 2c concerns, paragraph 4 of "2006–2010: Windows Vista, mobile, SaaS and Windows 7" is unreferenced. Some criteria 3 concerns include File:1981BillPaul.jpg is dead link. Is anyone possible to work on article to fix? JJ98 (Talk / Contribs)09:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Article concerns
I believe the article no longer meets the criteria with 1c and 2c concerns, paragraph 4 of "2006–2010: Windows Vista, mobile, SaaS and Windows 7" is unreferenced. Some criteria 3 concerns include File:1981BillPaul.jpg is dead link. Is anyone possible to work on article to fix? JJ98 (Talk / Contribs)09:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Article concerns
I believe the article no longer meets the criteria with 1c and 2c concerns, paragraph 4 of "2006–2010: Windows Vista, mobile, SaaS and Windows 7" is unreferenced. Some criteria 3 concerns include File:1981BillPaul.jpg is dead link. Is anyone possible to work on article to fix? JJ98 (Talk / Contribs)09:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Article concerns
I believe the article no longer meets the criteria with 1c and 2c concerns, paragraph 4 of "2006–2010: Windows Vista, mobile, SaaS and Windows 7" is unreferenced. Some criteria 3 concerns include File:1981BillPaul.jpg is dead link. Is anyone possible to work on article to fix? JJ98 (Talk / Contribs)09:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Article concerns
I believe the article no longer meets the criteria with 1c and 2c concerns, paragraph 4 of "2006–2010: Windows Vista, mobile, SaaS and Windows 7" is unreferenced. Some criteria 3 concerns include File:1981BillPaul.jpg is dead link. Is anyone possible to work on article to fix? JJ98 (Talk / Contribs)09:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Article concerns
I believe the article no longer meets the criteria with 1c and 2c concerns, paragraph 4 of "2006–2010: Windows Vista, mobile, SaaS and Windows 7" is unreferenced. Some criteria 3 concerns include File:1981BillPaul.jpg is dead link. Is anyone possible to work on article to fix? JJ98 (Talk / Contribs)09:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
in the logo section replace the last line by this
Each color represents a major product of the company: blue for Windows (hence the Windows 8 logo), green for Xbox, red for Office, and yellow for the Bing.
Windows 8 have a section. This is the biggest re-design of Windows ever. Yet it's barely mentioned. If you wanted me to write it, I have been using the builds scince last year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.99.183 (talk) 01:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Edit request on 8 January 2013
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
World's largest software maker by revenue incorrect
Microsoft is no longer the largest software company in the world by revenue. Apple Inc. has that honor. Can this be rectified in the first paragraph of the main article? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by Cranialsurge (talk • contribs) 18:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
It's probably best to use "As of" or similar to date the claim to the source. Although currently Apple is still considered primarily a hardware company. Either way those kind of claims are always murky, the trick when dealing when dealing with these issues is to elaborate on the source while summarizing out enough to meet WP:LEAD. Ryan Norton03:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. The company is also currently under investigation by the DOJ for allegations of bribery. This might be pertinent to the page as well. Jodayagi (talk) 21:36, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Legal issues and lobbying
Echoing the above thread, it's weird to not have a bit larger section on this, pertaining to United States v. Microsoft. I understand that the case has its own page, but it barely gets a mention on this page. That seems wrong, given that case in particular had a significant impact on the company.
The page might also benefit from listing the company's lobbying efforts, given that they are a huge player in Washington, D.C., and the Obama campaign benefited tremendously from the company donations. Jodayagi (talk) 21:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Multitasking
Although Windows 95 did have something like preemptive multitasking, it rarely made use of it. Only for pure 32 bit software and drivers multitasking could be preemptive. Anything 16 bit made multitasking turn cooperative again, there was no mechanism for capsulation, process isolation and to enforce the OS's exclusive control over the hardware, as could be demonstrated by two lines of Assembler in a DOS window: CLI; JMP 100 which immediately freezes all Win 9x/ME versions, just as any hung 16 bit software did. At the time, real preemptive multitasking was only available on Windows NT, OS/2 and various Unices. 134.247.251.246 (talk) 12:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Cooperation with the United States Government
This section should be expanded to include the deliberate spying on customers for the US government, e.g. through Skype. ♆ CUSH ♆07:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Not rendering
The page is not rendering at all for me. It fills the screen with special characters. Does anyone else have the same problem? — Ganeshk (talk)19:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Codename Lisa, removing images is not a good solution to help the readers with other resolution. If the problem is layout, let's fix the layout, not delete the content. Besides, I have 1280x1024, not Full HD and everything was fine for me.
Please discuss first actions like this. I'll try to fix this, please check the new layout with you screen and tell me if it's fine. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 18:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi.
First, the problem is both the layout and contents, not just layout.
On layout side, 1280x1024 is bigger than standard HD. I tried the article on several screen sizes devices, including tablets and even a Nokia N97. Your current proposal looks awful on an 800x600 screen.
On content side, even on large screens like big tablets, too many images increase article load time and distract reader's attention with a rainbow of colors. Increased payload size is problematic for mobile users and metered connections. Just because something is free, it doesn't mean one should get. (It is like hanging oneself with a free noose.)
Finally, I don't see why the same article should display the same image three times. WP:FA is too sensitive about not cluttering the article with images.
No action Coordinates checked and confirmed to be quite accurate. (GeoLocator returned 47° 38′ 22.61″ N 122° 7′ 42.17″ W, meaning that the article coordinates are very good for such a large complex.) Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 02:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2014
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Hi,
The 300px photo on top of this page:
| image = Microsoft building 17 front door.jpg
| image_caption = Front lobby entrance of building 17, one of the largest buildings on Microsoft's main campus, Redmond
is not a good representative of Microsoft campus style. I suggest using one of the photos that Microsoft officially provides to represents its campus. Microsoft campus photo gallery: http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/news/imagegallery/corporate/
Actually, we do have a freely licensed photo of Campus Commons. (File:The Microsoft Commons.jpg) But I don't think that or any picture of the Campus Commons is a good representative of Microsoft as a company. Microsoft is the software giant and certainly not a friendly giant or lovely giant. Building 17 better represents this concept. On the other hand, Campus Commons is not an image of a company at all. The only worst image to use would be the image of restrooms.
microsoft.com, 8 October 2010
Not done for now:Can you find a source?--Talktome(Intelati) 02:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:15, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Partly done: I see no reason to list all versions of Microsoft Office for Mac, so I have updated it to Office 2011 as this is the latest version. Mato (talk) 12:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Done in lack of opposition. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.
Not done Please provide a reference for your suggested change? -Nathan Johnson (talk) 21:37, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
No action Coordinates checked and confirmed to be quite accurate. (GeoLocator returned 47° 38′ 22.61″ N 122° 7′ 42.17″ W, meaning that the article coordinates are very good for such a large complex.) Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 02:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
