Jump to content

Talk:Microsoft

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jacoplane (talk | contribs) at 18:51, 10 October 2006 (cvgproj). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Featured article is only for Wikipedia:Featured articles. Template:Mainpage date Template:V0.5 Template:Todo priority

WikiProject iconVideo games FA‑class Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game
FAThis article has been rated as FA-class on the project's quality scale.
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

When editing and wikifying please remember to Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context

Archive
Archives
  1. Archive 1 (January 31 2005)
    • Mostly POV issues.
  2. Archive 2 (September 27 2005)
    • Discussions on whether MS really does eat thier own dog food, backwards compatability, ease of use, various bias issues, Wikipedia:Microsoft notice board, Logo stuff, and wikipedia has MS's attention :).
  3. Archive 3 (May 1 2006)
    • Featured article discussion, overlinking of dates, DRM criticism, Halloween documents, Works and other missing stuff, more neutrality debates including ease of use again and whether to axe the criticism section altogether, to use M$ or to not use M$, addition of dubious "vision", two or one XBox picture(s), and is Microsoft for "Sheezy"?

Criticism

Upon reading the criticism section, which by its very nature is not NPOV, I can't help but think that criticism of Microsoft products belongs on pages related to those products, other than in a very generic sense of there being criticism on those products. Legitimate criticism in this article seems to me to be more related to Microsoft corporate criticism. Anyone agree? 12.207.87.61 02:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


edits by 70.159.21.50

see this diff.

There was a lot of stuff added, and some of it is good. Some of it is stuff we've already discussed at great, great lengths (i.e. M$ etc.). I've added back the additions to the intro cleaned up already (which are actually what this needed as I thought the intro was getting a little too pro-MS, so this was good) - so, I'll go paragraph by paragraph here -


The big problem here is that A) it is criticism in the product divisions section which is just meant to describe its products, and B) no references whatsoever. This is actually good stuff but should probably be in the criticism of microsoft article


This is in the logo section. I actually sort of like this myself, but I think we'd really need an example and some references.


I don't have any real strong objections to this myself, but previous consensus was a big NO on the M$. Also, a reference would help here as well, as none of the current ones back this up IIRC :\.

Just another star in the night T | @ | C 00:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first section is definitely most suited for the Criticism article; I'd be surprised if such a thing wasn't in there already. The second section, I agree that a sentence or two about parody sites would be a good addition. As for "M$" and the like, if we're going to add that, we might as well start adding sections on pejorative, juvenile alternate names to every article: E$$o, "Big Dick" Cheney, and whatever other things people dream up. Such things may have a place in criticism articles, but not in a main article. Warrens 00:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arcon5

This link: Arcon5 - 'Microsoft News' Keeps on getting added. It has a very poor alexa and google rating which seems to suggest spam. Should we have it here? Just another star in the night T | @ | C 00:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

194.80.54.120 19:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC) It seems to have a reasonable PageRank for the Arcon5 HomePage! Seems to get updated quite regularly! I dont see why not![reply]

CamelCased vs. bi-capitalized

Sort of a slow-brewing change. I'm not sure which is better myself, but originally it was "bicapitalized" which I believe was an error and was then changed to CamelCased (because presumebly bicapitalized is not a word), then I changed it back to the (correct?) bi-capitalized, and perhaps CamelCase was changed because people thought it was too neoligism or something. Anyway, someone feel free to change it to what they think is best. Just another star in the night T | @ | C 17:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xbox 360

How about mentioning the launch of the Xbox 360 when it mentions gaming.--iceman 18:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edition N

Does anybody know if Internet Explorer is left out of this "Edition N"? I think the browser is just included, because I can nowhere find that it's not. I only find that Media player, Movie maker and some sample mp3's are left out. http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2005/jun05/06-08XPNEuropePR.mspx http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2005/jun05/06-06EUFactSheet.mspx

I don't think so - I'm pretty sure the only thing left out was the media player (and possibly some DirectShow filters), but then I'm in America so I'm not entirely authoritative on the issue :). Just another star in the night T | @ | C 04:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dubai image

Wow - that is one KICKASS image. I say, with people coming in just dropping images/info like that I think it really illustrates the strengths of wikipedia. All you really need is one sane maintainer with some free time and a lot of determination and you can have a rather authoritative article. Just another star in the night T | @ | C 04:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

!

Somebody have written something that can't be tolerated. --Sundström 19:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What have they written that can't be tolerated? RN 19:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is some of the anti-Sony vandalism that some anon user put into the article earlier on. Warrens 22:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft Acquisitions

Maybe, add links to other articles of companies Microsoft have acquired! Wont take that much room!

The current BSOD image could be replaced with eg. Image:Windows_XP_BSOD.png.

Also, I uploaded an accurate/official version of the MS logo (gif, 19k). The current logo (svg, 5k) seems to be hand-drawn or something. Image:Mslogo.gif

Acdx (talk | contribs) 12:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mslogo.gif Replace with a accurate/official version of the MS logo
Mslogo.gif was missing source information and I noticed I had abbreviated Microsoft in the filename. I re-uploaded at Image:Microsoft_logo.gif just in case. Source information now added. I'll update the article. Acdx (talk | contribs) 13:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted it to the SVG version of the logo which SchmuckyTheCat put in place earlier today, but some anonymous editor inexplicably reverted as being "vandalism". The SVG version is preferred as it is of higher quality, has transparency, and resizes better. Warrens 14:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The SVG image in question is inaccurate and by no means "of higher quality". Viewed at the maximum resolution of the gif logo (Image:Microsoft_logo.gif) the SVG logo appears bulgy and does not represent the official logo. It seems like the SVG file was created by automatically tracing a raster image. I also believe the SVG version doesn't conform with the Microsoft logo usage guidelines. Correct me if I'm wrong. Acdx (talk | contribs) 00:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be correct - the svg version doesn't have the registered symbol. Even though the MoS recommends the logo without it (maybe), the fact that it seems to clearly infringe on the logo usage guidelines may render the fair use argument invalid - so I guess it is best to go with the PNG one for now. RN 01:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Use guidelines have nothing to do with fair use. Use guidelines control the conditions under which they give license to copy and display the work, while fair use controls the conditions under which a work can be used without permission of the copyright holder. Nevertheless, I've added the symbol to the image. This had the unfortunate side effect of screwing up the MediaWiki SVG renderer. I had to shrink the logo to work around this bug. I agree however with Acdx that the full resolution logo is not accurate and should be produced from a much larger bitmap version. Note that I am not the original uploader of the SVG. Deco 01:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I found an accurate vector representation of the logo from a Microsoft PDF poster. I'll see if I can get the wiki renderer to display it. Acdx (talk | contribs) 10:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Got it working. The article is now updated with Image:Microsoft_logotype.svg. Everyone probably agrees this is the best version. Again though, the image had to be scaled down for wiki to correctly render a thumbnail. Acdx (talk | contribs) 10:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Big thanks to everyone for resolving the situation! The new svg seems a lot better. RN 20:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to interrupt, but I believe the SVG version is a copyright violation. (See Image_talk:Microsoft_logotype.svg and Wikipedia_talk:Logos#SVG ). I think the PNG version should suffice while the matter is pending. Thanks, GChriss 23:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft

It seems to me that people from microsoft are making microsoft look better because every time there is something bad about microsoft there are double as many sentences about good things —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.109.79.136 (talk • contribs) .

What parts in particular? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.254.21.164 (talk • contribs) .
Most of the "bad things" are written about in greater detail in the Criticism of Microsoft article. Having all that stuff in the Microsoft article would make it extremely large and difficult for a casual reader. The amount of criticism presented in this article is well-balanced relative to the scope of the entire subject of Microsoft, its history, its influence, and its products. Warrens 20:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Recent Vandalism

I've noticed a lot of vandalism in the article's history. I think it might be necessary to protect this article. Targetter 03:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough to worry about. SchmuckyTheCat 03:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As above, despite Gate's announcement the vandlism has been nice and surprisingly light here. RN 17:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You guys are fast

I caught the announcement Bill made yesterday regarding his retirement, and within a day all the appropriate articles are updated. This is a testament to the superiourity of a real-time encyclopedia - not even the online versions of any other encyclopedia see that kind of turnaround. Good job, all. Deco 11:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is the excellence of Wikipedia. I wonder if Encarta has updated? Kilo-Lima|(talk) 12:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this true?

The following line appears in the main text of the Microsoft article: "However, Wilcox's comments fail to consider the fact that Windows is designed to be compatible with a far vaster array of hardware devices compared to Mac OS X, making wizards a necessity to reduce the complexity of installing devices while at the same time ensuring proper functionaility." However, the citation following that sentence (number 57) does not actually contain any information pertaining to the hardware/software compatibility of Windows vs Mac OS. Rather, it only contains information about newer versions of Windows relative to older versions. Given this, this information seems a little POV. Though it may be true (which I'm not entirely sure that it is anymore) that Windows is compatible with a wider array of hardware devices than Mac OS, the citation does not provide evidence of this. Also, even if this is true, how much of this is due to Windows vs Macintosh rather than the fact that the company that produced the hardware selectively develops drivers depending on their target audience. Povins 04:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that has been bugging me as well. It is true, but difficult to back up with citations - removed for now. RN 16:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to have been put back. I don't object to the sentiment, but the way it is now it seems as though the article is making an argument with one of its sources. I think this position should be attributed to someone. Greyfedora 17:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Full edit for reference:

However, Wilcox's comments do not consider the fact that Windows is designed to be compatible with a far vaster array of hardware devices compared to Mac OS X, making wizards a necessity to reduce the complexity of installing devices while at the same time ensuring proper functionaility. [1]

Shakeups

There are a lot of corporate shakeups going on here. Scoble, Gates, Taylor[1], the Xbox guy[2]. Wikipedians are going to be on their toes [3] for a while - we'll need to carefully filter out this stuff. Once it is over maybe we can generalize this as a change in corporate direction, perhaps. RN 16:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SCO Xenix

More of a note to myself about the SCO/Xenix stuff (originally in comments in main page):

OK, There is a definite gap in history here. The REAL questions are:

  1. What happened with Xenix? Was it just "announced" in 1980, or did they really distribute it? Was it not available on IBM systems, which is why they bought DOS?
  2. Why did they purchase DOS? Previous versions of this article stated that they had no operating system at the time, however this appears to be false as they announced Xenix the year before. Also, it appears they actually started developing MS-DOS in 1980 (!).

Maybe another explanation is that they really did have no operating system at the time, bought MS-DOS in early 1980, and then later acquired rights to Xenix as well?

See the references below, as well as the "evil-microsoft timeline" and the sources it cites. Note that some of the source it cites also cites proven wrongs such as the "640k ought to be enough for anybody" bill gates non-quote. http://www.robotwisdom.com/linux/microsoft.html

Now from an anon:

About Microsoft's first operating System. Everybody knows that Microsoft purchases a Unix license from AT&T, then Microsoft uses this license to commercialize AT&A Unix using private label "Microsoft Xenix". It's obviously that Microsoft never has created a Unix-like Operating System, only changed AT&T Unix name to "Microsoft Xenix". Then, Microsoft's first OS wasn't Xenix, in this article must to say: Microsoft's first product distribution was a Unix license from AT&T named as "Xenix". Please read license agreement from Xenix (I have one original Xenix package).

comments about mac business unit

This was turned into a HTML comment along time ago:

The latest Who We Are page doesn't say that it is THE largest - merely one of the largest - http://www.microsoft.com/mac/macbu/default.aspx?pid=whoweare
RN: This seems incorrect to me, the page states that they are on of the larget _groups_ but they are probably still the largest _producer_ of software outside of apple. Needs a reference though.

RN 22:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further reading

Just some non-references:

  • G. Pascal, Zachary (1994). ShowStopper!. The Free Press. ISBN 0029356717.
  • Jim Clark (1999). Netscape Time: The Making of the Billion Dollar Start-up That Took on Microsoft. Saint Martin's Press. ISBN 0312199341. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  • http://security-protocols.com/library/phreaking/ComputerHistory.txt
  • "goingbeyond Microsoft@30". Retrieved 6 December. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)
  • "Windows history (at PC museum)". Retrieved August 5. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)
  • "Windows vs. Macintosh". Retrieved August 5. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)

Some possible references:

RN 01:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed stuff

Uncited:

  1. All three of these projects are currently in beta, and updates are expected at the winHEC (windows hardware and engineering conference).
  2. In 1989, Microsoft announced at Comdex that the 1991 release of Windows 3.0 would be the last version of Windows.[citation needed] Over the next few years, Microsoft continued to issue statements indicating that OS/2 was the future of computing.[citation needed]
  3. Unfortunately, the release of the Xbox 360 has been lackluster compared to other entertainment console releases and the console has yet to show real success. [citation needed]
  4. Xenix was initially used by software maker 3Com (at that time) in order to provide support for the software which implemented the TCP/IP communication protocol.

Verging on trivia:

  1. In 1994, Microsoft created the Microsoft Plus! product support program for its customers, a service that offered cost savings on Microsoft products.[2] The name of that program was later used for several expansion packs for Windows.

RN 05:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicting stuff on Microsoft's website

Heh, I'm hogging the talk page - sorry :).

  1. Founding - nearly every part seems to go out of its way to not mention a specific day. I.E. the fast facts in googles archives and one part does, but current one does not.
  2. As of July 2006, some Microsoft websites conflict with the MSNBC launch date of July 15. The MSN history page states June 15, and the Key Events document states June 5.)

RN 11:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The head-fake"

Does anyone have a nice pithy quotation from Microsoft circa 1989-90 suggesting that OS/2 was their main direction?

My recollection is that Microsoft was very explicit in their statements of direction, and practically said in so many words that Windows was a low-end consumer toy with no significant future and all but explicitly directed developers to concentrate their resources on OS/2.

I was working at Wang Laboratories at the time and attended a couple of Microsoft presentations, and I asked them specifically about this; I believe it was just after Windows 3.0 was released, and I thought Windows was showing a lot of signs of fit and finish and amenities that suggested a high degree of seriousness about it. My recollection is that whatever their literal words were, I and others in the room believed we were getting a clear direction that Windows was not the future and that they wanted developers to develop for OS/2. Since I was working on Macintosh software at the time I would have been in as neutral a position as anyone, with no obvious reason to filter what I was hearing. Frankly, at that time, I found it hard to believe, which is why I pressed them on it. I wish I'd had a tape recorder on me. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the internal memo - "Our disagreements with IBM over OS/2 were that we wanted to push 2.0 and they wanted to push 1.3. Now they have switched to the strategy that we proposed -- even using our marketing slogan "better windows than Windows"." so it seems clear that was thier original intention. I'd welcome any sourced edits on this, that's for sure :). I should mention that I tried for hours to verify the statements that were there via google, but not luck. I've been thinking about digging through the novell court documents to see what else I put there. RN 21:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Logo font

Someone changed Helvecta in the direct quotation there to Franklin Gothic with the edit summary "From memory, Bill Hill mentioned that the logo was done in Franklin Gothic" - I'm unsure which the magazine said, but the original edit with the quotation said Helvecta, so I've changed it back for now. RN 12:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

I added this. I think Microsoft literally has people assigned to this article. Here are just a few points that clearly mark this article as a Microsoft PR piece:

  1. The "embrace extend exterminate" is correct in the body of the article, but in the intro this is shortened to the much cheerier sounding "embrace and extend."
  2. There is no mention (outside of a passing gloss over in the intro) of the original licensing scheme between IBM and Microsoft that is solely and singly responsible for Microsoft market position today --- what is widely considered to be one of the greatest business blunders in history (IBM's decision to license the software rather than pay for it outright.) This is the key to the microsoft story and is almost missing entirely from the article.
  3. On the stability issue (in the deeply relegated criticism section, which some people apparently want to banish entirely to its seperate article) there is almost a paragraph about this "unsigned drivers" business. First, a good operating system should not be crashed by applications, whether they have "unsigned drivers" or "malfunctioning flux capicitators" or whatever else. But second, the fact that this criticism is closely followed by the press statement from microsoft in response just demonstrates how stilted this article is.
  4. The future is sunny! No discussion about Microsoft as becoming the next America Online; no mention of the widespread concerns about Microsoft's future prosepcts given that their entire business model is largely based on leveraging dominance.

This article is so badly written that I'm just wondering about this whole project entirely. Worse, the "recommended article" and the "peer review" and the such like were probably engineered by Microsoft once they got the article they way they liked it. A horrible article, but worse, it is now enshrined in stone. Here's where the project breaks down, when a corporation takes an interest in controlling the article; you don't know what you are reading.

Anyway, thanks.

66.74.157.12 08:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)dave[reply]

No problem - thanks for pointing out your issues with the article - but where is this article badly written? I'll try to respond to them when I get the time, I changed the embrace/extend thing in the lead already. RN 09:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've tried to address most of these:

  1. I've changed the lead
  2. I've tried to clarify the licensing deal here - let me know what you think
  3. I've cut a lot of that passage out to the bare essentials
  4. I've tried to cut out a lot of speculation about features in vista. Note that as per guidelines here we generally cannot speculate about future events as "description of future events is not encyclopedic" as the guideline states

Let me know of any other issues you have :). RN 23:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks, maybe this thing does work after all.

  1. Unless somebody changed it back, the nature of the deal between IBM and Microsoft, whereby Microsoft would retain control of MS-DOS, is still not at all clear in the article. This is the heart of the microsoft story. See [4], For a first hand account of Microsoft's acquisition of QDOS, see [5].
  2. The Linux TCO section is written in a stitled fashion ("the resultant"?) which may be intentional, and the entire section appears to be written to confuse.
  3. The "unsigned driver" thing, I don't know if someone changed it back, but it does not appear any different to me.
  4. The Forrester Research thing on Microsoft security is dubious, as it was probably Microsoft (of microsoft certified partner ) funded. I suggest that it should be taken out unless somebody can come up with something better than corporate funded research.
  5. Non-encylopedic speculation abounds in the response to criticism section (vista won't crash, IE 7 will be secure, etc etc) These are non-responsive to criticism. The criticism is, on the technical side, Windows crashes a lot and is very susceptible to security breaches. It is biased to not let these criticisms stand and instead to put in Microsoft's PR regarding the subject.

Overall, upon review, the article isn't as bad as I first made it out to be. Thanks.

66.74.157.12 00:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)dave[reply]


To 66.74.157.12: No, Microsoft has nothing to do with the writing of this article in an official capacity; the truth of the matter is this: if you are biased against Microsoft for whatever reasons you've got, your judgement about the company is going to be clouded, and your ability to accept neutral, unbiased information that doesn't paint the company in a bad light may be limited as a result. You're hardly unique in this regard, but please be aware that the problem lies with you as a reader, not Wikipedia's editorial system. Wikipedia's Featured Articles are selected by people who believe deeply in well-written, well-sourced articles that adhere to neutral, balanced presentation of all facets of a subject. Microsoft is more or less completely incapable of doing this, and their PR/Marketing speak is certainly not welcome here except perhaps as a source of uncontraversial, factual information (e.g. a release date)... also not welcome here are the rantings of anti-Microsoft zealots who regard Slashdot, The Register, and Daring Fireball as authoritative news resources about the company. We can report on the criticism, of course, but it's not our position to be critical. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view for a summation of how this is done. On the issue of criticism of Microsoft being mostly relegated to a separate article; this is a standard practice on Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Article size). Microsoft is a very large and very complicated subject to cover, and it is of absolutely no benefit to a reader to have everything covered in a single article. We do it only out of necessity and concern for readability. Warrens 00:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will say that, heeded Warrens advice, I do appreciate the criticism and comments!! In fact, I think a lot of those are at least semi-accurate. I'm working on addressing them ATM. RN 05:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"semi-accurate"? sweet! can't ask for more than that, especially when i'm concerned. Okay, notwithstanding a rambly lecture from someone, thanks for the edits! The TCO section is a lot better, but I think that the crash section/unsigned drivers may actually be worse. "Users unfamiliar with the division of resposibilities between apps and os blame Microsoft ..." ? This is just complete bollocks. Try to halt a unix machine not logged in as root and/or not writing a program intentionally desgined to do so. Even then you will face a challenge. Windows crashes. A lot. This criticism should be allowed to stand without a dubious defense. Thanks. Dbaxter42 09:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)dave[reply]

Windows crashes. A lot.
No, it doesn't.
And core dumping a unix machine by executing some moronic kernel level code is easier than it is on Windows. It doesn't happen as much because Unix machines are managed by people trained not to install poorly written code. Go buy some cheap-o computer gizmo from your local electronics outfit. The IHV spent spent ten minutes cobbling together a device driver and the documentation says "just ignore Windows when it says this driver is unstable" right there in the quick install instructions. You install unstable software that runs at the same priviledge as the kernel, and you get an unstable kernel. I don't care what OS you run on. Unix just plain does not have el-cheapo consumer level vendors. SchmuckyTheCat 18:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
well, that's just the point. you can't install anything on a linux box (except the kernel) that has anything to do with the "kernel level." in fact, the thing, with over 40 years of research behind it, will keep running no matter what you try to do it. can't run xwindows? fine, that doesn't affect the operation of the computer anyway, just the applications running on it (like xwindows, or say kde). oh, oops, someone sent me an "executable" that if i accidentally click on will take down my entire computer? really? and that's how this dude made billions of dollars?

66.74.157.12 08:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)dave[reply]

So, anything compiled into the monolithic linux kernel is "installing", can be called on demand, runs in ring0, and can bring down the entire system. This discussion is not about OS advocacy and isn't about improving this wikipedia article. I don't see the point in continuing it. SchmuckyTheCat 18:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have a Linux Web Server and when I was first learning I crashed Linux out of stupidity several times a day. Simple things like killing the wrong process or starting a batch script that ate apart the tiny processor. Also it has problems killing Apache all the time. Dont tell me that Linux is leaps and bounds above Windows anymore. If anything I think the only reason I will use Linux anymore is for A)Free and B)Fedora installs Apache, MySQL, PHP, etc. for me automatically. The neutrality of this article is one of the best I have seen yet, mainly because people who beleive Linux is the savor and people that beleive Windows are the end all be all DIDNT write it.Sir hugo 11:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I got drawn into this cycle calculated to distract from the point that "unsinged drivers" defense, which only cites Microsoft sources, and the speculative and uncited "vista won't crash" is biased public relations material. The criticism about stablity is prevelant. True or not the prevelance of the criticism is a FACT. The documenting of this criticism should be allowed to stand without immediately refuting it and including public relations materials. 66.74.157.12 23:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)dave[reply]

A great article

A great article on a fantastic company. Great work. Bill Gates 07:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.201.230.229 (talk)

BASIC versions

The article somehow manages to skip the fact that in the early 80s, the majority of all microcomputers which had a BASIC interpreter either built-in or as a standard supplement, used a specifically tailored variant of Microsoft BASIC. Even many people who got their first contact with computers with the 8-bit lines of Apple, Atari or Commodore, are unaware of the fact that they were using Microsoft's products from the very beginning. --Viznut 07:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Integer BASIC for the Apple ][ was written by Steve Wozniak, and was not a Microsoft product. When I first became involved in Apple ][ programming was rather late in the game; the "standard" machine was a 48K Apple ][+ with a diskette drive. These machines came with both "Integer" and "Applesoft" (Apple-badged Microsoft) and at that time "Integer" was by no means dead. A fair amount of existing software used it, and many people used both... Integer having better performance. Over time Applesoft came to dominate, though.
It's an interesting point you make. I'd like to know how Microsoft achieved dominance, although I believe it was arguably by having a superior product... in addition to business savvy. Obviously they were good at convincing hardware vendors to bundle Microsoft software, even then. Dpbsmith (talk) 09:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The most widely used operating system?

The introduction to the article features the following: "In Microsoft Windows, the company was selling what would become the most widely used operating system in the world..." Surely this isn't true. Windows may well be the most widely used Personal Computer operating system, but I very much doubt if it is the most widely used of all operating systems on all computers.Cymruisrael 10:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

following the strict definition of "computer", the above poster may be right! --62.1.132.112 11:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is more used? Most appliances and cars use either a propreitary software or a Windows CE derived OS now adays. Using the broad term of operationg system a Windows branded OS is probably still the most used.Sir hugo 12:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure? Check this article - TRON Project Cymruisrael 13:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That article is about as reliable as this one. Neither has citations to prove their point. The TRON OS appears to be used in alot of microprocessor designs this would give it a leg up it would seem but it doesnt specify what companies use it in their products. So really neither article should be making a claim like this until some proof is given either way.Sir hugo 14:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In which case, both articles should be corrected. Cymruisrael 14:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's clearly the most used desktop operating system. It also comes out ahead if you count desktops + servers (because desktops far outnumber servers). Embedded systems, however, far outnumber both. However, most embedded systems do not have an operating system in the same sense that a computer does - they tend to do only a subset of the requisite jobs, which makes it a highly debatable topic. Raul654 21:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even if a larger number of computers use one or more competing operating systems does not make the statement untrue. Example: The statement, "Chinese is the most widely-spoken language in the world," does NOT imply that Chinese is spoken by 3+ billion people, only that no other language is spoken by more people than is Chinese. If Microsoft Windows is NOT the most widely-used OS, what conceivable rival do you propose? Are you seriously suggesting that any other single computing system (Chip+OS) is more pervasive than the WinTel hegemony? Remember that each Nokia phone model-group uses a distinct operating system, as does nearly every calculator, toaster, DVR and automobile. This objection seems nothing more than pernickety-ness run amok. Love it or loathe it, Windows has an overwhelmingly dominant position in this market space. IMHO, the statement should stay. Kevin/Last1in 22:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, with four different sources - microsoft, microsoft encarta, bbc, associated press - I think it is adequately referenced now (unless it is required to have lots of statistics for a single claim). RN 11:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures and such

Overall, I found this to be a well written article, thanks to everyone for their hard work. One request: can we get some other pictures besides the numerous shots of various MS campuses? That motif got old by the second one. I know we need some pictures and what we need may be hard to come by. I recommend replacing most of those campus entrance pictures with some good old fashioned screen shots of the various programs and/or their splash screens. I think program screen shots would allow for a better reader connection to the article. "Oh yeah! I used that one in college!" For example, I literally shuddered when I saw the blue screen of death picture. Saw a lot of that screen in years gone by. Looking for more of a "Oh yeah!" than a "Who cares." The trouble, I am guessing, is finding said pics. I will take a look around. Would appreciate it if anybody can post ones they may have or find. Thoughts? Am I off base here?Thepearl 15:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that was really hard. Nearly every screen shot I was looking for already exists on Wikipedia in various sub articles. Can we reuse pictures from these pictures? My thoughts, replace at least a 3 (of the 6) campus photos with some screen shots. Perhaps in a progression for comparison: ex. Windows 3.0 next to Windows 98 next to XP? And also a pic of the current Board of Directors? I know layouts are sacred, so I won't make any changes without some consensus. Thepearl 15:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really nice Article

However, obviously its appearance on the main page has caused the stock to tank over 2%. You guys have got to watch your incredible influence. User:thechosenone021 18:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse engineering & unfair advantage

In the article the reference Chen, Raymond, "What about BOZOSLIVEHERE and TABTHETEXTOUTFORWIMPS?", The Old New Thing, 16 October 2003. Is used to assert that the office team was reverse engineering windows calls. Now I've read the article & it looks like what he's saying is that 3rd Parties were doing the reverse engineering not MS insiders - I'd change it but I think we need more concensus. Thoughts? Megamanic 09:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. To be honest what is there now is really filling up the article - at the least I'd like to trim it down to a single sentence (something like "Novell alledged XXX in a suit which is also alluded to by XXX from Microsoft Press"). RN 19:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it does clog up that section, however this controversy is central to the story of the rise of the MS apps division. Maybe it needs to be in a different section - linked to by this section. I'm old enough to remember the massive disappointment when Wordperfect for Windows came out - I was a huge WP fan in DOS days but Word just blew it away in the Windows arena. Same with Lotus 123. It's hard to believe two big companies (and they were huge circa 1990) could so comprehensively drop the ball and produce sucky Windows versions of their apps without some external cause, and as BOZOSLIVEHERE points out people were reverse engineering the APIs because there wasn't any comprehensive documentation - stuff which Maguire clearly indicates that Microsoft Apps team members had access to by talking to the graphic library leads. It's therefore not unreasonable to conclude that MS was leveraging its O/S division's primacy in order to give Apps a head start as Novell will be asserting in court... Megamanic 02:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK - I had a go and it and just made the claim. We can make a seperate subarticle if we need it. - here's what was removed:

but internal sources at Microsoft assert that the Office team did not have access to the Windows source code at the time, and relied on reverse engineering instead.[3][citation needed] Although this assertion is debunked by no lesser source than a Microsoft insider writing for Microsoft Press[4] which includes numerous examples of internal communication and requests between different teams inside Microsoft - access that developers from other companies simply would not have had.

RN 23:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The term "microsoft"

Apart from the famous company, there is also the term "microsoft" in William Gibson's "Neuromancer". Seeing as this book is considered cyberpunk classics, I think it's worth having its little article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yvu (talk • contribs) .

Neuromancer references that term. SchmuckyTheCat 16:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No more uncited statements!

This massive article now officially has no marked uncited statements. Yay! Doogie2K (talk) 17:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the citation there! Yeah, I fact-checked this thing several times, but I do see that I missed the mention about it being the most "widely used" OS along with the not-so-precise reference about the Office defense. Also, I forgot to mention the early Microsoft Basic stuff. All good points. :) RN 01:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can really only take credit for the GameSpot citations. Wikifairies must have fixed the rest. :) Doogie2K (talk) 23:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MikeRoweSoft

Didnt Microsoft sue this guy named Mike Rowe and his company MickRowSoft for supposedly stealing the Microsoft name then stop sueing him and give him an xbox and games and supposedly now there taking over his company ? - Matt Husdon

At first I thought, that's ridiculous. But, it's true: http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/internet/01/26/mikerowesoft.settle.ap/ Deco 01:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Current State of Page

Can somoene please fix the page. What appears to be a side bar has ended up strewn accross the page.

Not the logo again?

It appears the logo is back to the worst possible -- a very low quality svg image which reveals bulges and distortions when viewed at a larger size and also appears to be missing the (R) sign requested by microsoft. I once replaced this with an accurate vector edition of the logo extracted directly from a microsoft pdf poster, but it was later believed that this was a copyright violation, and the svg was rendered as png, which was then used. Now it seems we're back to square one.

SVG is a great, flexible image format and I, as well as Wikipedia, encourage its usage, but please, let's put quality first. Let's either make it the accurate svg or the accurate png but not this inaccurate, what appears to be software traced from a low-resolution raster image, svg. I can upload either of the accurate logos. Acdx 21:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The png one is back now. ---Majestic- 21:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. Acdx 10:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

Criticisms should not be segregated into their own section or article but dispersed throughout an article according to our NPOV policy. Criticism of Microsoft should be integrated into this article accordingly. 72.60.227.118 17:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. Read the POV fork guideline for the "Criticism of..." section(s). As long as a summary and link to the criticism article is provided in the main article and rebutting material is allowed in the criticism article, then by current guidelines, there is no need for the merge (especially given the considerable size and limited overlap of both articles independently). There is discussion of "criticism articles" and a suggested guideline at Wikipedia:Criticism and you're welcome to argue violation of WP:NPOV on the Criticism of Microsoft article independent of your merge request, but since your basis for discussing the merge is that existence of a criticism article is NPOV and current guidelines allow for it (and discussion of the new policy to remove criticism articles is beginning to move towards keeping them to help isolate opinion from fact), your merge request is ill-advised. ju66l3r 18:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to be honest ideally wikipedia could do that. However, the fact is that there is SOOOO much information that it is basically impossible to do it all in one article - and right now things look really good, especially compared to pretty much every other article. One thing we could do is rename "Criticism of Microsoft" "Microsoft controversies" if that is less POV. However, as stated, it is basically impossible to merge the two together - they are already way past the usual length limits on their own. If someone does manage to do this it would be pretty neat, but keep in mind this is a featured article and that is a good article - and you risk loosing the quality of both if you were to do so. DEFINATELY work on it in userspace and get consensus before trying to put here. So, no merge for now I say. RN 20:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. It's common to name pages that have criticisms of something "Criticism of *". I don't see how a page title that shows the content will contain criticism is POV, it's just a good description of the content. POV = Microsoft has bad software (or Microsoft has bad software because of X). NPOV = John Doe, a student at MIT has stated that Microsoft has bad software because of X. -AlexJohnc3 My Talk Page 19:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Err, I wasn't saying it was POV - just a suggestion to stave off requests like this. Some do frown upon criticism articles/sections and prefer them to be inline with the rest of the article(s), so if possible to make all camps happy that would be ideal :). It certainly isn't my personal opinion though, and as it is right now I don't really see a problem - the criticism article itself is NPOV in tone but lacks Microsoft's response to most of the criticisms. Especially a merge would probably destroy both articles so I would of course oppose it strongly. RN 22:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's too much text in this article for a merger to be feasible. -/- Warren 01:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I aggree: too much info- on both articles- to merge. Although i think the points about including some criticism on points through microsoft is valid. A limited amount? or/ and a link to criticisms? cilstr 22:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yep, way too much content and is an adequate article on its own. Mambo Jambo 12:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose the merger.

Wikipedia:Criticism states the following about POV forks: "This can only be done if a split of the main article is unavoidable due to article size, and if splitting off the reception history is seen as the most appropriate way to perform that split (so: subject to consensus of wikipedians, preferably discussed on the "main" article's talk page prior to the split);"

There is some debate on whether Criticism articles should exist at all. In my opinion, for some topics, there is too much criticism for it to be adequately covered in the article on the topic, and in such cases, Criticism articles are needed to offer sufficient coverage of criticism. For example, Microsoft and Wikipedia are very controversial, so we need articles like Criticism of Microsoft and Criticism of Wikipedia to cover the criticism in sufficient depth. In such cases, not having a Criticism article would not be NPOV, as this would not provide a balanced view. If a topic is controversial, the reader should be made aware of this, even if the article does not take a stance.

As both the Microsoft and Criticism of Microsoft articles are very long, it is obvious that we need the Criticism of Microsoft article to offer sufficient coverage of the criticism. As someone mentioned, Microsoft is a featured article, and Criticism of Microsoft is a good article (I nominated it), and we should consider many factors before merging the articles.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Financial Numbers

They were put in there, based on Microsoft's latest financial earnings statements (reported revenue of $41.xx billion), so on, yet were reverted.

Why?

If I reverted it, I probably reverted it because it messed up the annual report reference. Also, they're 2006 annual report doesn't appear to be out yet [6], which is what is used for the main reference for numbers like that here. Beyond that though, if you can update the numbers by all means please do just remember to update all the number mentions, references etc. if possible. RN 04:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Their numbers were stated in a press release that was available at Microsoft's PressPass area (IIRC) as part of their earning statements at the beginning of July. Revenue, Net Revenue, and Operating Profit were all updated, but later reverted. Annoying.
Sorry about that - I just updated it. RN 05:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed MS business culture paragraph

This was removed by someone mid-july:

Employees of Microsoft are expected to be comfortable with ambiguity in that they may not, for example, know with any degree of certainty when a product will ship, what it will be called, or what features will be included. Managers at Microsoft are expected to have a general attitude of long-term strategic wariness, to be ready for any challenge from the competition or the market, and to keep in mind that being the largest software company in the world is not seen as a form of safety or a guarantee of future success. For instance, future competitors could rise from other industries, or computer hardware companies could try to become less dependent on Microsoft, or consumers could decide not to upgrade their software as often.[5]

I admit it drags on/advertish... so just noting it for now. RN 11:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?

Under "Controversy":

"Ironically, by attempting to reduce complexity in products, Microsoft has also come under fire for making its products more accessible to those lacking advanced technical knowledge of computers and software through these same wizards, which some believe has allowed people to perform complex tasks without any underpinning knowledge."

Microsoft has come under fire for this? Why not just replace the sentence with "Microsoft has come under fire for making computers easier to use, which some believe has allowed people to do things they otherwise couldn't?", in order to bring out the absurdness of the statement?

I fail to see how this is even rooted in factual reality. It seems more like someone decided that there was a good place to throw in another anti-Microsoft comment, under the guise of "some believe that...", and stick it under the "Controversy" section. I say we can it.

192.88.124.201 19:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, so I've been bold and removed it, since I tried for 20 minutes to figure out how to make it more NPOV without success. Wyv 21:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalisim

The page has recently faced vandalism. Someone please verify which is the better version. Thanks. --Bhadani 14:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Add Info

Could someone add information about the early use of the mouse by microsoft, how they were the first major group to use it.

  1. ^ Paul Thurrott (2001-08-24). "Windows XP Software and Hardware Compatibility". Windows SuperSite. Retrieved 2006-05-26. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference thocp2 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Chen, Raymond (16 October 2003). "What about BOZOSLIVEHERE and TABTHETEXTOUTFORWIMPS?". The Old New Thing. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  4. ^ Maguire, Steve (August 1994). "Debugging The Development Process". Microsoft Press. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
  5. ^ Cite error: The named reference bb was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Microsoft&oldid=80663073"