This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I'm no MS fan, but I think this article is clearly POV (or thinly veiled) at points. - Grick( ^{talk to me!}) 06:44, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Please explain which points. If you don't explain which points you are disputing, then I'm going to pull the disputed tag. AlistairMcMillan 12:23, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've just gone ahead and rephrased a few points I thought were questionable. Perhaps the tag was a bit overreacting; thanks for waiting before pulling it though. - Grick( ^{talk to me!}) 04:48, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

I'm no microsoft lover, in fact I'm on Debian Linux right now, but I do think this article ought be tagged. It's not the most biased article I've ever seen, but it is still pretty one-sided. 67.142.130.48 ( talk) 04:54, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

It's hard not to come across as anti-Microsoft given the context of the article, so I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt. That said, I am concerned about NPOV in how some articles link to this one. There is obviously a valid context in links from articles like Criticism of Microsoft and Marketing ethics, but I struggle with the links from Index of Internet-related articles, Path dependence, and Standardization. The value to those articles by linking to this one is questionable at best, especially when it's lumped in a "See Also" section. Undisputedloser ( talk) 20:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Since Nokia its destruction by Microsoft we call it Embrace, extend, extinguish and exterminate