This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Criticism of Microsoft article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | Criticism of Microsoft was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
![]() | This article was nominated for merging with History of Microsoft on 24 January 2021. The result of the discussion ( permanent link) was Rejected. |
|
|
I'd like to remind anyone editing this page about
Talk page guidelines.
1.This is not a place for trolling comments
2.Sources must be verifiable. Do not post anything where the sole reference is a forum or non-official blog.
3.Please stay on topic.
4.Be positive (this one is really lacking).
5.Stay objective-no personal points of views.
6.Do not troll.
This is added to the top because no-one seems to be getting it. A better place for this would be the edit notice of the talk page.
Jasper Deng (
talk)
22:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
This article lacks NPOV. In order for Wikipedia to retain its integrity, this article must be held to a higher standard because it discusses a controversial subject. Wikipedia has several tenets that must be followed. Impartiality is one of the cornerstones of Wikipedia and can not be ignored. I can certainly understand users of FLOSS dislike some of the business practices of Microsoft. I am a FLOSS user also.
Problems I have with this article include: 1. Six sources listed are no longer available. Alternatives are available for some of them. FIX the references. Then fix the article for the ones that are missing. General references like "Joel on Software" need web links. HE does have a web site. The UK OEM has been out of business for 5 years, but the reference to their site was added just this year? I smell a shill. 2. The discussion page has what appears to be a comment from a former employee with the username tag edited out leading me to believe someone either hacked Wikipedia, or Wikipedia isn't really for impartiality. Pick one and let me know which it really is. 3. The section on License Agreements states "secretly agreeing with OEMs" with no reference. Ok, something secret can't be reasonably referenced, but if it is secret, how is it you know about it? And if it can't be proven, why is it included in the first place? This comment - this section - lacks in several ways. NPOV is only one of them. This is single sourced when you take into account it can not be verified who answered the phone at the German OEM. 4. This is still a soapbox, as long as these issues remain. It needs cleaned up and locked. Editors of this article have not acted responsibly, and there have been over 800 edits, leading to the state of the article today.
Let me say this clearly. I NEED this article for reasons I will not mention. It needs to be correct if anyone can be expected to use it as any kind of reference. I do NOT want this article deleted. I do want it corrected (soon, I might add) and if it can't be by someone knowledgeable of the relevant issues and done in a way that conforms to the tenets of Wikipedia, then I feel the article should be deleted. It is not impartial, and should not be allowed to exist beyond seven days in its current state.
This article has been around since 2004. You've had enough time to get it right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.88.24.201 ( talk) 07:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
When you post vitriol about Microsoft on Wikipedia, you crap on Wikipedia at the same time. The list above isn't complete. If it isn't corrected soon, I can edit it and all of the content that is questionable will be deleted and I can get the article locked immediately afterward. I know some of you love this article. Show your love. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.88.24.201 ( talk) 14:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I will be challenging this article again in less than a week. It will be accurate in one week or I will challenge it in its entirety. Any person with "connections" to wikipedia and its editors will NO LONGER be able to get their personal preferences expressed here. I know some of you really like this article, but it will have to be cleaned up or it WILL be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.84.112.24 ( talk) 17:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
lulwut?! Ok bud, let's get some facts straight. First, all of the criticisms are accurate and cited. As you can see from this talk page, lots and lots of people are taking time to examine and re-examine the information and adjust things where there are problems. You sound like a true Microsoft Zealot - that is to say a complete fool. Nobody in their right mind would sit here and whine "but I'll tell wiki admins!" when they have edit control. Or, perhaps you don't want people to see your signature attached to edits so they could righteously ban you when YOU taint the article with YOUR perspectives? I see no citations in your complaint, I see no links to corrections, I see no clarifications. All I see is "bla bla I don't like the truth, so I'll accuse everybody of Trolling Microsoft". No, we're not. We're documenting facts, citing them and making sure things remain clear. If you don't like the truth, don't view wikipedia. 156.34.158.128 ( talk) 13:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC) // Signed from my Linux box.
The article should mention unfair terms in MS EULAs in detail. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Azrael Nightwalker ( talk) 20:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
This article is very biased. ~Kevin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.19.191.2 ( talk) 07:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC) "While Microsoft has historically treated employees very well, Microsoft has received several complaints about their treatment of employees." What is this supposed to mean?? -Nick Stu ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.6.184.113 ( talk) 12:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
What about to include some facts from Microsofts 2008 ANNUAL REPORT? Cnet comments it...-- Kozuch ( talk) 10:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
While I appreciate new section, I removed a part with blog sources per WP:RELIABLE. If someone thinks the sources are good enough, try to prove here or find additional ones. Here it is:
Mary Jo Foley: "[I was] blacklisted by Microsoft for writing a story based on an internal memo penned by Mark Lucovsky (now with Google, ironically) that acknowledged 63,000 bugs were still left in Windows 2000 when the product shipped. I was barred from executive interviews at the Windows 2000 launch as a result of my story. My "punishment" lasted for a few years. Certain Windows execs refused to speak to me or meet with me for ages because of that story. I believed, and still believe, that I was just doing my job as a reporter." [1]
Peter Wright: "I'm on Microsoft 'influencer' lists, email lists where Microsoft people try to get me to tow the company line and say great things about them and their products because it's perceived that I have an audience. The times that I've deviated from that line though I've found myself well and truly out in the cold. One particular 'evangelist' even went completely silent on me after I pulled out of a speaking engagement due to appendicitis. Nothing was said, but the sentiment was obvious. On this very blog I announced InkuDoku, a Sudoku for Tablet PC. Soon after I did, Microsoft released the one they ship with UMPC for free, and a program manager actually emailed me with an offer of cash if I'd write an article merging my work with theirs, along with an apology for shooting my work in the head – purely accidentally of course." [2] ---
Mary Jo Foley has covered the tech industry for 20 years for a variety of publications, including ZDNet, eWeek and Baseline. She has kept close tabs on Microsoft strategy, products and technologies for the past 10 years. In the late 1990s, she penned the award-winning "At The Evil Empire" column for ZDNet, and more recently the Microsoft Watch blog for Ziff Davis.
In this context of overt censorship, I think it worth mentioning that Microsoft bought NBC - a large television news network and turned it into MSNBC. So a company with a demonstrated willingness to distort and censor the news, owns one of the biggest news media outlets. I bet there is a heck of a lot more of this blacklisting and undue influencing going on that we have not heard about. [8] Of course the fact that most of the rest of the news outlets are controlled by Murdoch who is not even a citizen (except in some phony baloney paperwork), really ought to bother people too, but somehow it doesn't ever seem to get much publicity, gee I wonder why? 21:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.21.186.78 ( talk)
I've never heard of DSE making a point of selling Linux systems. They do sell some discs, but I think the practice is going as they charge a lot for just a disc that can be downloaded freely. They do mark al their own products as Linux 2.x compatible. Aronzak ( talk) 12:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Considering the enormous extent of Microsoft products, mainly Windows and Internet Explorer, this article should be much longer. Browsers should be mentioned, at least a link should be added referring to the browser wars. It's not like there hasn't been criticism in the media concerning Microsoft. Of course, the length of this article should reflect the massive criticism expressed towards Microsoft. Also, it seems that 'monopoly' is only mentioned once in the article, much more attention should go towards that aspect of Microsoft. 87.72.122.147 ( talk) 12:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
well, someone could document the Windows 3 shenanigans and especially the Dr. DOS rip-off. How about all of the little companies that they drove out of business? What really happened to GeoWorks? But that is such old news that I doubt anyone cares. However, did you know that a bunch of the features in Microsoft products such as Word did not actually work? They were just there so that they could score a check-mark in a magazine review. But the reviewers were either too lazy or too time pressured to actually try the features and see if they were usable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.21.186.78 ( talk) 22:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Removed the line " Apple Inc. has always marketed home computers with their own non-Microsoft but proprietary operating system." because grammatically it makes no sense since it does not fit at all with the content of the paragraph. I'm certain a very lengthy discussion could ensue as to whether or not it's even relevant to the issue (considering Apple's hardware is also proprietary, so like any proprietary electronics they don't have an obligation to run third-party software, but still do so), but I don't think that's relevant here either. This isn't an Apple vs. Microsoft debate. Untilzero ( talk) 18:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Lacks NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.88.24.201 ( talk) 12:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Do you mean overcomplicated? 86.156.51.15 ( talk) 15:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I've just removed both of the above paragraphs.
For a start, neither of them belong on this page. They are both criticisms of Microsoft's products, not Microsoft itself; the distinction having been made in Wikipedia a while ago for very good reasons.
So why have I removed them, rather than moving them to more appropriate pages? To take the paragraphs one at a time:
-- simxp ( talk) 18:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Ikip ( talk) 23:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
This section is doubled up with a similar section earlier in the article. Don't have time to merge the two right now, so can someone please do it? Ingolfson ( talk) 00:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Microsoft has been criticised for its so-called "Windows tax" (sometimes called the "Microsoft tax"). Users who buy a new computer with Windows pre-installed and do not wish to use Windows on that computer can request a refund. The refund is for the extra price charged for having Windows pre-installed on the computer before purchasing. The Windows refund process is not always straightforward. [3] [4]
Personally, I don't like the second link being from a possible biased source: if this article was originally posted elsewhere, or if a better alternative can be found, that would be ideal. -- DanielPharos ( talk) 02:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Why is there no mention of the DOS being so similar to CP/M? And no mention of the "Doublespace/Stacker" controversy. This Wiki page is terribly lacking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.24.6.168 ( talk) 14:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm likely not the best person to write about this, but I'm surprised that there is no criticism directed at the clumsiness of Microsoft UIs, or broadly their lack of sophistication when it comes to the design of any human-machine interfaces. It seems apparent to me that MS overburdens their UIs to the detriment of overall usability. It is the ubiquity of their tools that seems to buttress them against the impacts of the sheer lack of usability (i.e., familiarity with such behavioral quirks would tank any less powerful player's offerings).
I wish someone could write to this. I doubt this is a unique observation. Anyone agree? Any takers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.56.194.131 ( talk) 14:08, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Please familiarize yourselves with the WP:TALK policy, avoid the trolls and start using this and other talk pages regarding the Microsoft articles, for discussions about improving the articles, and not for speculation and/or soap-boxing, or as a forum for discussing various topics, related or not, to the article in question. Thanks. - Meewam ( talk) 22:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Recently, an exploit involving .lnk-files was discovered and patched [14]. Unfortunately, by that time Windows XP SP2 support had already been dropped, depite it being widely used (still 10+% I believe). Microsoft got a lot of flak for this: some users CAN'T update to SP3 (install fails). Even though the patch *seems* to function just fine on SP2, it's not supported and the pointed-to patch refuses to install. Maybe a small section here can be devoted to that? (PS: I'm a bad writer. Not it!) -- DanielPharos ( talk) 21:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Do you have any references to support that this has led to increased criticism? IRWolfie- ( talk) 12:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Only half the initial paragraph of the copyright enforcement section appears to be about copyright enforcement. It seems to be mostly a series of different issues thrown together. Does anyone have a suggestion on how to restructure it or change the section title? IRWolfie- ( talk) 18:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
A NY Times article that should get incorporated if it hasn't already been: [16] An excerpt:
"one of the authorities’ newest tactics for quelling dissent: confiscating computers under the pretext of searching for pirated Microsoft software. [...] As the ploy grows common, the authorities are receiving key assistance from an unexpected partner: Microsoft itself."
-- Limulus ( talk) 08:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Much of the article is outdated. For instance, after the buyout by oracle, opensolaris has been discontinued. And google no longer participates in Chinese censorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.190.11.248 ( talk) 23:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
This link was just posted under "Related media" in External Links: Microsoft's Best Buy lies about Linux Debunking Microsoft's lies about Linux.
This link seems to violate Wikipedia:External links#Important points to remember number 11, and it's obvious this blogpost is written by a heavily biased person (and without proper 'sourcing' in this post, it might be violating number 2 as well). Also, this link should be used (if at all) as a reference for some text; it isn't suited as an external link to this article. If somebody is willing to write a section for this link (preferably adding some more references too), please do so. Or maybe it should be moved to Studies related to Microsoft#.22Get the Facts.22; it might fit better there? -- DanielPharos ( talk) 12:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps one of the most important subtopics is missing - critics of MS Software development and programming techniques. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.178.201.108 ( talk) 22:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Microsoft scams currently redirects to this article (not to a specific section). I doubt whether this is appropriate, since the article seems not to contain any information about a specific scam, and the redirect may have been created in violation of NPOV. Any suggestions? SoledadKabocha ( talk) 22:05, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
In all friendliness: Why did the section get deleted that I posted on the ongoing problems with Outlook? Does widespread user criticism not count as criticism? This is not a rhethorical question, please enlighten me. Otherwise I have to assume censorship by Microsoft. Was the section damaging to MS's reputation and business? Perhaps. But it was perfecty neutral, also, as far as I can see. Please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.98.156 ( talk) 23:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC) - Update: maybe was my own mistake. Posted it again, if it sticks around please ignore the above question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.98.156 ( talk) 23:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Xbox One has been heavily criticized & it's got Microsoft's name all over it. Even if they did back down on most of their plans due to backlash, it should still be addressed.
There is no problem with quoting (this is intended for scholarship and research). Please demonstrate that it doesn't constitute fair use if you consider "non-free quotes" inappropriate here. -- Bahaltener ( talk) 02:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
It gets a bit hard to continue to trust Wikipedia when something that big isn't even mentioned...
Is it just a very unfortunate coincidence that no one has bothered adding information about that yet, or is that type of information being actively suppressed?
-- TiagoTiago ( talk) 17:34, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Criticism of Microsoft. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 15:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Criticism of Microsoft. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 22:46, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Criticism of Microsoft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Criticism of Microsoft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:59, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
I move that the entire Article be Re-titled "Promotion of Microsoft" so as to more-accurately reflect the entirety of the work. 66.25.171.16 ( talk) 20:57, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on Criticism of Microsoft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.stepto.com/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=530When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 10 external links on Criticism of Microsoft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:37, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be something on forced updates from Microsoft that often destroy functions that PC's had before the updates? --------- User:DanTD ( talk) 16:28, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
The content added doesn't accurately reflect the source. The Guardian article says fifty employees signed the petition; the content added to this article says "hundreds". I'd suggest changing the article to "some employees" or "a number of employees". Schazjmd ( talk) 19:16, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Microshaft. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 21#Microshaft until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Hog Farm
Bacon
02:50, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Good morning. I've moved content from Mono to this article, under Criticism of Microsoft#Mono patent concerns. Feel free to flog me if this was too bold.
I have WP:NPOV concerns about this content, but I largely copied it as it was. I can't imagine major revisions or deleting this content without discussion going well, regardless of what article it belongs to.
Jdphenix ( talk) 07:28, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 September 2023 and 15 December 2023. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Terrindeep (
article contribs). Peer reviewers:
Uwudubuwu.
— Assignment last updated by Uwudubuwu ( talk) 23:35, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Criticism of Microsoft article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | Criticism of Microsoft was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
![]() | This article was nominated for merging with History of Microsoft on 24 January 2021. The result of the discussion ( permanent link) was Rejected. |
|
|
I'd like to remind anyone editing this page about
Talk page guidelines.
1.This is not a place for trolling comments
2.Sources must be verifiable. Do not post anything where the sole reference is a forum or non-official blog.
3.Please stay on topic.
4.Be positive (this one is really lacking).
5.Stay objective-no personal points of views.
6.Do not troll.
This is added to the top because no-one seems to be getting it. A better place for this would be the edit notice of the talk page.
Jasper Deng (
talk)
22:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
This article lacks NPOV. In order for Wikipedia to retain its integrity, this article must be held to a higher standard because it discusses a controversial subject. Wikipedia has several tenets that must be followed. Impartiality is one of the cornerstones of Wikipedia and can not be ignored. I can certainly understand users of FLOSS dislike some of the business practices of Microsoft. I am a FLOSS user also.
Problems I have with this article include: 1. Six sources listed are no longer available. Alternatives are available for some of them. FIX the references. Then fix the article for the ones that are missing. General references like "Joel on Software" need web links. HE does have a web site. The UK OEM has been out of business for 5 years, but the reference to their site was added just this year? I smell a shill. 2. The discussion page has what appears to be a comment from a former employee with the username tag edited out leading me to believe someone either hacked Wikipedia, or Wikipedia isn't really for impartiality. Pick one and let me know which it really is. 3. The section on License Agreements states "secretly agreeing with OEMs" with no reference. Ok, something secret can't be reasonably referenced, but if it is secret, how is it you know about it? And if it can't be proven, why is it included in the first place? This comment - this section - lacks in several ways. NPOV is only one of them. This is single sourced when you take into account it can not be verified who answered the phone at the German OEM. 4. This is still a soapbox, as long as these issues remain. It needs cleaned up and locked. Editors of this article have not acted responsibly, and there have been over 800 edits, leading to the state of the article today.
Let me say this clearly. I NEED this article for reasons I will not mention. It needs to be correct if anyone can be expected to use it as any kind of reference. I do NOT want this article deleted. I do want it corrected (soon, I might add) and if it can't be by someone knowledgeable of the relevant issues and done in a way that conforms to the tenets of Wikipedia, then I feel the article should be deleted. It is not impartial, and should not be allowed to exist beyond seven days in its current state.
This article has been around since 2004. You've had enough time to get it right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.88.24.201 ( talk) 07:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
When you post vitriol about Microsoft on Wikipedia, you crap on Wikipedia at the same time. The list above isn't complete. If it isn't corrected soon, I can edit it and all of the content that is questionable will be deleted and I can get the article locked immediately afterward. I know some of you love this article. Show your love. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.88.24.201 ( talk) 14:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I will be challenging this article again in less than a week. It will be accurate in one week or I will challenge it in its entirety. Any person with "connections" to wikipedia and its editors will NO LONGER be able to get their personal preferences expressed here. I know some of you really like this article, but it will have to be cleaned up or it WILL be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.84.112.24 ( talk) 17:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
lulwut?! Ok bud, let's get some facts straight. First, all of the criticisms are accurate and cited. As you can see from this talk page, lots and lots of people are taking time to examine and re-examine the information and adjust things where there are problems. You sound like a true Microsoft Zealot - that is to say a complete fool. Nobody in their right mind would sit here and whine "but I'll tell wiki admins!" when they have edit control. Or, perhaps you don't want people to see your signature attached to edits so they could righteously ban you when YOU taint the article with YOUR perspectives? I see no citations in your complaint, I see no links to corrections, I see no clarifications. All I see is "bla bla I don't like the truth, so I'll accuse everybody of Trolling Microsoft". No, we're not. We're documenting facts, citing them and making sure things remain clear. If you don't like the truth, don't view wikipedia. 156.34.158.128 ( talk) 13:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC) // Signed from my Linux box.
The article should mention unfair terms in MS EULAs in detail. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Azrael Nightwalker ( talk) 20:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
This article is very biased. ~Kevin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.19.191.2 ( talk) 07:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC) "While Microsoft has historically treated employees very well, Microsoft has received several complaints about their treatment of employees." What is this supposed to mean?? -Nick Stu ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.6.184.113 ( talk) 12:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
What about to include some facts from Microsofts 2008 ANNUAL REPORT? Cnet comments it...-- Kozuch ( talk) 10:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
While I appreciate new section, I removed a part with blog sources per WP:RELIABLE. If someone thinks the sources are good enough, try to prove here or find additional ones. Here it is:
Mary Jo Foley: "[I was] blacklisted by Microsoft for writing a story based on an internal memo penned by Mark Lucovsky (now with Google, ironically) that acknowledged 63,000 bugs were still left in Windows 2000 when the product shipped. I was barred from executive interviews at the Windows 2000 launch as a result of my story. My "punishment" lasted for a few years. Certain Windows execs refused to speak to me or meet with me for ages because of that story. I believed, and still believe, that I was just doing my job as a reporter." [1]
Peter Wright: "I'm on Microsoft 'influencer' lists, email lists where Microsoft people try to get me to tow the company line and say great things about them and their products because it's perceived that I have an audience. The times that I've deviated from that line though I've found myself well and truly out in the cold. One particular 'evangelist' even went completely silent on me after I pulled out of a speaking engagement due to appendicitis. Nothing was said, but the sentiment was obvious. On this very blog I announced InkuDoku, a Sudoku for Tablet PC. Soon after I did, Microsoft released the one they ship with UMPC for free, and a program manager actually emailed me with an offer of cash if I'd write an article merging my work with theirs, along with an apology for shooting my work in the head – purely accidentally of course." [2] ---
Mary Jo Foley has covered the tech industry for 20 years for a variety of publications, including ZDNet, eWeek and Baseline. She has kept close tabs on Microsoft strategy, products and technologies for the past 10 years. In the late 1990s, she penned the award-winning "At The Evil Empire" column for ZDNet, and more recently the Microsoft Watch blog for Ziff Davis.
In this context of overt censorship, I think it worth mentioning that Microsoft bought NBC - a large television news network and turned it into MSNBC. So a company with a demonstrated willingness to distort and censor the news, owns one of the biggest news media outlets. I bet there is a heck of a lot more of this blacklisting and undue influencing going on that we have not heard about. [8] Of course the fact that most of the rest of the news outlets are controlled by Murdoch who is not even a citizen (except in some phony baloney paperwork), really ought to bother people too, but somehow it doesn't ever seem to get much publicity, gee I wonder why? 21:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.21.186.78 ( talk)
I've never heard of DSE making a point of selling Linux systems. They do sell some discs, but I think the practice is going as they charge a lot for just a disc that can be downloaded freely. They do mark al their own products as Linux 2.x compatible. Aronzak ( talk) 12:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Considering the enormous extent of Microsoft products, mainly Windows and Internet Explorer, this article should be much longer. Browsers should be mentioned, at least a link should be added referring to the browser wars. It's not like there hasn't been criticism in the media concerning Microsoft. Of course, the length of this article should reflect the massive criticism expressed towards Microsoft. Also, it seems that 'monopoly' is only mentioned once in the article, much more attention should go towards that aspect of Microsoft. 87.72.122.147 ( talk) 12:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
well, someone could document the Windows 3 shenanigans and especially the Dr. DOS rip-off. How about all of the little companies that they drove out of business? What really happened to GeoWorks? But that is such old news that I doubt anyone cares. However, did you know that a bunch of the features in Microsoft products such as Word did not actually work? They were just there so that they could score a check-mark in a magazine review. But the reviewers were either too lazy or too time pressured to actually try the features and see if they were usable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.21.186.78 ( talk) 22:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Removed the line " Apple Inc. has always marketed home computers with their own non-Microsoft but proprietary operating system." because grammatically it makes no sense since it does not fit at all with the content of the paragraph. I'm certain a very lengthy discussion could ensue as to whether or not it's even relevant to the issue (considering Apple's hardware is also proprietary, so like any proprietary electronics they don't have an obligation to run third-party software, but still do so), but I don't think that's relevant here either. This isn't an Apple vs. Microsoft debate. Untilzero ( talk) 18:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Lacks NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.88.24.201 ( talk) 12:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Do you mean overcomplicated? 86.156.51.15 ( talk) 15:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I've just removed both of the above paragraphs.
For a start, neither of them belong on this page. They are both criticisms of Microsoft's products, not Microsoft itself; the distinction having been made in Wikipedia a while ago for very good reasons.
So why have I removed them, rather than moving them to more appropriate pages? To take the paragraphs one at a time:
-- simxp ( talk) 18:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Ikip ( talk) 23:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
This section is doubled up with a similar section earlier in the article. Don't have time to merge the two right now, so can someone please do it? Ingolfson ( talk) 00:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Microsoft has been criticised for its so-called "Windows tax" (sometimes called the "Microsoft tax"). Users who buy a new computer with Windows pre-installed and do not wish to use Windows on that computer can request a refund. The refund is for the extra price charged for having Windows pre-installed on the computer before purchasing. The Windows refund process is not always straightforward. [3] [4]
Personally, I don't like the second link being from a possible biased source: if this article was originally posted elsewhere, or if a better alternative can be found, that would be ideal. -- DanielPharos ( talk) 02:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Why is there no mention of the DOS being so similar to CP/M? And no mention of the "Doublespace/Stacker" controversy. This Wiki page is terribly lacking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.24.6.168 ( talk) 14:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm likely not the best person to write about this, but I'm surprised that there is no criticism directed at the clumsiness of Microsoft UIs, or broadly their lack of sophistication when it comes to the design of any human-machine interfaces. It seems apparent to me that MS overburdens their UIs to the detriment of overall usability. It is the ubiquity of their tools that seems to buttress them against the impacts of the sheer lack of usability (i.e., familiarity with such behavioral quirks would tank any less powerful player's offerings).
I wish someone could write to this. I doubt this is a unique observation. Anyone agree? Any takers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.56.194.131 ( talk) 14:08, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Please familiarize yourselves with the WP:TALK policy, avoid the trolls and start using this and other talk pages regarding the Microsoft articles, for discussions about improving the articles, and not for speculation and/or soap-boxing, or as a forum for discussing various topics, related or not, to the article in question. Thanks. - Meewam ( talk) 22:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Recently, an exploit involving .lnk-files was discovered and patched [14]. Unfortunately, by that time Windows XP SP2 support had already been dropped, depite it being widely used (still 10+% I believe). Microsoft got a lot of flak for this: some users CAN'T update to SP3 (install fails). Even though the patch *seems* to function just fine on SP2, it's not supported and the pointed-to patch refuses to install. Maybe a small section here can be devoted to that? (PS: I'm a bad writer. Not it!) -- DanielPharos ( talk) 21:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Do you have any references to support that this has led to increased criticism? IRWolfie- ( talk) 12:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Only half the initial paragraph of the copyright enforcement section appears to be about copyright enforcement. It seems to be mostly a series of different issues thrown together. Does anyone have a suggestion on how to restructure it or change the section title? IRWolfie- ( talk) 18:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
A NY Times article that should get incorporated if it hasn't already been: [16] An excerpt:
"one of the authorities’ newest tactics for quelling dissent: confiscating computers under the pretext of searching for pirated Microsoft software. [...] As the ploy grows common, the authorities are receiving key assistance from an unexpected partner: Microsoft itself."
-- Limulus ( talk) 08:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Much of the article is outdated. For instance, after the buyout by oracle, opensolaris has been discontinued. And google no longer participates in Chinese censorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.190.11.248 ( talk) 23:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
This link was just posted under "Related media" in External Links: Microsoft's Best Buy lies about Linux Debunking Microsoft's lies about Linux.
This link seems to violate Wikipedia:External links#Important points to remember number 11, and it's obvious this blogpost is written by a heavily biased person (and without proper 'sourcing' in this post, it might be violating number 2 as well). Also, this link should be used (if at all) as a reference for some text; it isn't suited as an external link to this article. If somebody is willing to write a section for this link (preferably adding some more references too), please do so. Or maybe it should be moved to Studies related to Microsoft#.22Get the Facts.22; it might fit better there? -- DanielPharos ( talk) 12:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps one of the most important subtopics is missing - critics of MS Software development and programming techniques. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.178.201.108 ( talk) 22:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Microsoft scams currently redirects to this article (not to a specific section). I doubt whether this is appropriate, since the article seems not to contain any information about a specific scam, and the redirect may have been created in violation of NPOV. Any suggestions? SoledadKabocha ( talk) 22:05, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
In all friendliness: Why did the section get deleted that I posted on the ongoing problems with Outlook? Does widespread user criticism not count as criticism? This is not a rhethorical question, please enlighten me. Otherwise I have to assume censorship by Microsoft. Was the section damaging to MS's reputation and business? Perhaps. But it was perfecty neutral, also, as far as I can see. Please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.98.156 ( talk) 23:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC) - Update: maybe was my own mistake. Posted it again, if it sticks around please ignore the above question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.98.156 ( talk) 23:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Xbox One has been heavily criticized & it's got Microsoft's name all over it. Even if they did back down on most of their plans due to backlash, it should still be addressed.
There is no problem with quoting (this is intended for scholarship and research). Please demonstrate that it doesn't constitute fair use if you consider "non-free quotes" inappropriate here. -- Bahaltener ( talk) 02:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
It gets a bit hard to continue to trust Wikipedia when something that big isn't even mentioned...
Is it just a very unfortunate coincidence that no one has bothered adding information about that yet, or is that type of information being actively suppressed?
-- TiagoTiago ( talk) 17:34, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Criticism of Microsoft. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 15:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Criticism of Microsoft. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 22:46, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Criticism of Microsoft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Criticism of Microsoft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:59, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
I move that the entire Article be Re-titled "Promotion of Microsoft" so as to more-accurately reflect the entirety of the work. 66.25.171.16 ( talk) 20:57, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on Criticism of Microsoft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.stepto.com/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=530When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 10 external links on Criticism of Microsoft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:37, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be something on forced updates from Microsoft that often destroy functions that PC's had before the updates? --------- User:DanTD ( talk) 16:28, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
The content added doesn't accurately reflect the source. The Guardian article says fifty employees signed the petition; the content added to this article says "hundreds". I'd suggest changing the article to "some employees" or "a number of employees". Schazjmd ( talk) 19:16, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Microshaft. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 21#Microshaft until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Hog Farm
Bacon
02:50, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Good morning. I've moved content from Mono to this article, under Criticism of Microsoft#Mono patent concerns. Feel free to flog me if this was too bold.
I have WP:NPOV concerns about this content, but I largely copied it as it was. I can't imagine major revisions or deleting this content without discussion going well, regardless of what article it belongs to.
Jdphenix ( talk) 07:28, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 September 2023 and 15 December 2023. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Terrindeep (
article contribs). Peer reviewers:
Uwudubuwu.
— Assignment last updated by Uwudubuwu ( talk) 23:35, 8 December 2023 (UTC)