Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 06:40, 13 February 2024

	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.
Article milestones Date Process Result March 23, 2006 Peer review Reviewed October 21, 2006 Good article reassessment Delisted August 6, 2008 Articles for deletion Kept
Current status: Delisted good article

This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Microsoft High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to Microsoft on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MicrosoftWikipedia:WikiProject MicrosoftTemplate:WikiProject MicrosoftMicrosoft High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Computing Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Software: Computing Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (assessed as Low-importance). Organized Labour High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organized Labour, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Organized Labour on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Organized LabourWikipedia:WikiProject Organized LabourTemplate:WikiProject Organized Labourorganized labour High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Sociology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Law Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Human rights High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. United States Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: Keep, 6 August 2008‎, see discussion. Keep, 2 January 2006, see discussion.

This article was nominated for merging with History of Microsoft on 24 January 2021. The result of the discussion (permanent link) was Rejected.

Archives

Archive 1

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)

I expect better from Misplaced Pages and from users of FLOSS

This article lacks NPOV. In order for Misplaced Pages to retain its integrity, this article must be held to a higher standard because it discusses a controversial subject. Misplaced Pages has several tenets that must be followed. Impartiality is one of the cornerstones of Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, or Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages, you crap on Misplaced Pages 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 NEED this article for reasons I will not mention." If you NEED it so badly, why not fix it yourself? Apparently, in these past years the editors that have worked on this article, haven't been able to meet Misplaced Pages standards (your words, not mine).

Why are you so... agressive? --DanielPharos (talk) 21:22, 8 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.

Unfair EULA terms

The article should mention unfair terms in MS EULAs in detail. Azrael Nightwalker (talk) 20:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfair EULA is definitively missing. Also of interest would be to mention (i) cumbersome refund process (linked with previous) and (ii) (unrelated with previous) copy/clone/extinguish "tendencies" -- like lotus->excel, word perfect->word, netscape->ie, dbase->access and so on.--BBird (talk) 14:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Sources?

Treatment of Employees

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)

It means opinions have been slipped into Misplaced Pages. The former is an opinion, the latter is a fact. An encyclopedia shouldn't have an opinion but should stick to facts instead.Yfrwlf (talk) 15:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It may well be "an opinion" (by definition); but since it's an opinion that is verifiably held by a several independent reliable sources (example), the fact of being an opinion certainly does not preclude it from being on Misplaced Pages. What should be precluded isn't "opinions" per se, but opinions held only be the adding Misplaced Pages edititor, rather than opinions held by reliable sources and properly cited to them. -- simxp (talk) 19:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Right, well I think Nick was just somewhat struck with the seeming contradiction of that sentence, saying Microsoft has historically treated employees well, but then citing that Microsoft hasn't treated some of them well. The first part sounds like a lie because of it. I think it should be changed to "While Microsoft has treated most of its employees well, they have received several complaints." or something to that effect. It's contradictory for the editor to say that Microsoft treats its employees well right before explaining how Microsoft doesn't treat some of its employees well. Perhaps by saying "historically" they meant "most of the time", but making this more clear will certainly help.Yfrwlf (talk) 16:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I worked at Microsoft and it was a real grind... 7 day weeks, sleeping on the floor, being told you couldn't go home until you had fixed a bug in your code -- which only leads to more bugs as you hastily kludge things together. But on the other hand Microsoft did get voted as one of the best places to work... great parties good fringe benefits, they would treat us to movies etc. subsidized gym membership. But things changed over the years. the early days they were very generous with $, but as time went on the bean counters took over and we went from being prized skilled creators, to human cattle HR assets, and they began to squeeze us for every dime. they were too cheap to hire more people and instead worked our team to death, whenever someone left the team they just redistributed the workload; by the end we were on a death march in which each person was expected to do the the equivalent of 3 FT jobs. and then after we shipped they bragged about the obscene profits that they had made, (the entire cost of development and marketing was recouped in the first two weeks). while handing out very unequal bonuses from a small pot with not very much in total dollars. If they had just hired some more people it would have made a huge difference to team morale and productivity, but their lame excuse was that they couldn't afford it. yeah I know all about woolly mammoths, but you still gotta have some people to do the work. So it's a very mixed bag, and a lot of favoritism by mid-level managers ensures that different people have very different experiences. You would also be appalled to know how much software gets written by student interns who get paid very little and Microsoft ships their code -- which is often terrible considering it's probably the first "real" program they have ever written. Ever wondered why scandisk sucked so much? it was written by an intern. The strange thing is that the more money Microsoft made the less generous they became towards their employees. 21:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Microsofts 2008 Annual Report

What about to include some facts from Microsofts 2008 ANNUAL REPORT? Cnet comments it...--Kozuch (talk) 10:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Blacklisting of journalists and others

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: " 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."

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." ---

I can't vouch for Mr. Wright, but Mary Jo Foley is definitely a reliable soruce. Her bio:

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.

Robert Scoble confirms that she "has been covering Microsoft since the early 1980s."

A Wired interview with her is here. She apparently first interviewed Bill Gates in 1984.

MJF is also the author of the recently published "Microsoft 2.0: How Microsoft Plans to Stay Relevant in the Post-Gates Era"

-- Limulus (talk) 06:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh and MJF references the interview on her site a check at archive.org for the URL given shows that it redirects to the one I had. An old MJF article says: "Robert McLaws, president and chief software architect with Interscape Technologies, the company behind the LonghornBlogs.com Web site"-- Limulus (talk) 09:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

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. 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)

Dubious

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)

I've removed DSE - if it's not true, there's not much to discuss. It wasn't referenced anyway. --Nigelj (talk) 14:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Article too short

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)

Reviewers were given a "reviewer's guide" which they had to follow the steps for different features to review them. Any deviation from the "reviewer's guide" and they and their journal would not be given advance copies or any advertising revenue. 194.207.86.26 (talk) 04:45, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Licensing Agreements

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)

Overcomplexified=

Do you mean overcomplicated?86.156.51.15 (talk) 15:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Oversimplified and Overcomplexified Operating Systems, Security

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 Misplaced Pages 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:

• The "Oversimplified and Overcomplexified Operating Systems" paragraph is not only completely unsourced, but close to being meaningless. The reason for it being unsourced is probably that any source would have to be clear on what it is talking about.

• The "Security" section. To say it is redundant to the excellent security criticisms in the individual (Criticism of Windows Vista#Security, Criticism of Windows XP#Security, Internet Explorer#Security etc. pages would be to falsely imply that it has some useful information in it. It is not unsourced, but for all the good the sources do, might as well be; e.g. I love the use, as a citation for Microsoft products having Planned Obsolescence, of an answers.com search page, which links to the answers.com page on planned obsolescence -- which is a copy, under the GFDL, of the Misplaced Pages page on it. The author of the paragraph also seem to be under several bizarre misconceptions about topics such as the registry ("a the registry system ... allow corporations, spyware and adware companies, malware hackers and hackers in general to illegally configure consumer's computers against their will and consent through the use of various computer language scripts" -- as if someone with the ability to run arbitrary scripts on your computer would be stymed if Windows used, say, ini files rather than a registry), backed up by sources which have little to no relevence to what is being said. Possibly thankfully, the last part of the paragraph gives up even the pretense of being sourced.

-- simxp (talk) 18:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Is any of this currently in the article?

• A Wake-Up Call to Microsoft's PR Team, New york Times, David Pouge, January 25, 2007: "In 1998, the Los Angeles Times reported that Microsoft, during its antitrust trials, hired PR companies to flood newspapers with fake letters of support, bearing ordinary individuals' names but actually written by Microsoft PR staff."
• Bribing Bloggers. eWeek December 27, 2006
• Microsoft Allegedly Bullies and Bribes to Make Office an International Standard, 08.31.07, Michael Calore
• Free blogger laptops get mixed reaction, St. Petersburg Times, Jan 10, 2007
• Your Product, Your Customer, Forbes, May 7, 2007 "When Microsoft tried to promote its new Vista operating system, it sent laptops to influential bloggers. They were trying to control the conversation by seeding their version of the story with powerful voices online. It didn't work. Instead, it provoked a firestorm, with some claiming that Microsoft was trying to bribe bloggers."
• Influential bloggers get free computers, Vista from Microsoft, ITWorld Canada, Jan 4, 2007

Ikip (talk) 23:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Microsoft also vandalized Misplaced Pages and paid users to edit articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.78.227.218 (talk) 17:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

AH! So that's why this page is marked for deletion. 83.142.1.201 (talk) 15:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Alternative titles

• should this article be renamed to "Miniscule Sample of the Summary of Criticisms of Microsoft"?

If you know any notable criticism of Microsoft for which you have references from multiple, independent, reliable sources which is not already represented in the article, feel free to be bold and add it in. -- simxp (talk) 02:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Windows tax

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)

Here's the section in question:

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.

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)

It's fine. The "Windows tax"/"Microsoft tax" are already mentioned in the section "Licensing agreements". DanielPharos - that paragraph which has been removed was (co-incidentally) on the Criticism of Microsoft Windows page before it was moved to this article. TurboForce (talk) 12:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I know: User_talk:Meewam#Windows_Tax. I just thought plainly deleting it might not be a smart thing, if anybody decided one of the two references was useful for the larger section. --DanielPharos (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Missing criticism

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)

Forgive my ignorance, but wasn't the similarity between CP/M and DOS by design? How is that criticism? Also, feel free to add that information with proper references. (Or drop some more info about this here on the talk-page). --DanielPharos (talk) 20:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

If we count every design concept MS copied, a split article will be needed (if not two or more splited articles). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.79.125.55 (talk) 15:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

MS-DOS/PC DOS was ported from QDOS, which was a clone of CP/M. From the Misplaced Pages article on CP/M; "In 1980 IBM approached Digital Research to license a forthcoming version of CP/M for their new product, the IBM Personal Computer. Upon their failure to obtain a signed non-disclosure agreement, the talks failed, and IBM instead used Microsoft to provide an operating system." And; " and Microsoft delivered PC-DOS based on a CP/M "clone," 86-DOS" 86-DOS was formerly known as QDOS. So gates went ahead and bought QDOS and ported that to work on the IBM PC, since QDOS was a copy of CP/M. I think that fact is worthy of being in the article. There was also an Intellectual property dispute over PC DOS by Digital Research founder Gary Kildall. DavidRavenMoon (talk) 03:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Please provide a reference that 86-DOS is an CP/M clone/copy. The author of 86-DOS denies any such statements:

It appears that all that's proven at this point, is that 86-DOS implements the CP/M API, similar to how Wine implements Windows' API. And this is not illegal or controversial, and thus not valid criticism. --DanielPharos (talk) 20:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

User Experience & User Interface Design Criticism?

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)

Policy regarding talk pages

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)

Not patching widely used Windows's

Recently, an exploit involving .lnk-files was discovered and patched . 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)

For instance, but many can be found: google something like "microsoft lnk sp2" without quotes. Also, it was mentioned in a recent Security Now! episode. --DanielPharos (talk) 20:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Copyright Enforcement Section

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)

Russia Uses Microsoft to Suppress Dissent

A NY Times article that should get incorporated if it hasn't already been: 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)

Because "Microsoft executives in Moscow and at the company’s headquarters in Redmond, Wash., asserted that they did not initiate the inquiries and that they took part in them only because they were required to do so under Russian law." I'm not sure if this is Criticism of Microsoft, of criticism of Russia. It's the same as the censorship discussion between Google and China. Can one really criticize a company for following the law in a country? Incorporating it is fine, just do it in a fair and balanced way. --DanielPharos (talk) 09:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The major criticism from that article is NOT that Microsoft is 'following the law', but rather:

* their lawyers have gone well beyond that and "have staunchly backed the police"

* they turn a blind eye to the abuse of the anti-piracy laws and refuse to denounce the government's actions against opposition groups

* it has been asserted that this was done "because the company feared jeopardizing its business in the country."

They're An interesting follow-up from Brad Smith "Senior Vice President and Microsoft General Counsel" -- Limulus (talk) 23:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC) See also -- Limulus (talk) 23:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Outdated information

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)

WP:NOTNP it also includes historical information. 194.207.86.26 (talk) 04:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion about link from External links

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 Misplaced Pages: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)

Here we go again! Microsoft have been caught lying and we have a disagreement over the truth. The external link I added pertains the the "ExpertZone" lies in which Microsoft have been caught red-handed LYING about Linux. Example page.

As a valid Criticism of Microsoft, would you readers please discuss here the ExpertZone and finding good external links about ExpertZone and its rebuttals. Thank you. TurboForce (talk) 20:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

By all means, write a section about it, and add proper refs! --DanielPharos (talk) 21:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Software development and programming

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)

What kind of criticisms are those? Can you provide a link to them? --DanielPharos (talk) 11:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

"Microsoft scams" redirect

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)

According to its history, it was the outcome of an AOD: Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Microsoft_Scams --DanielPharos (talk) 20:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

References

1. http://www.windows-now.com/blogs/robert/archive/2006/09/20/Mary-Jo-Foley-Exit-Interview.aspx
2. http://web.archive.org/web/20061220010912/http://peterwright.blogspot.com/2006/09/good-bye-microsoft-pete-has-now-left.html
3. http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/columns/the_microsoft_tax_revisited
4. http://www.linux.com/archive/articles/59381

Outlook issue immediately deleted - why?

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 criticism.

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.

• Attempt to cull used game market.
• Trying to nix backwards compatibility.
• Family Sharing would only be demos.
• Voice recognition used for ads.
• Having ads at all on an expensive machine that runs pricey games.
• Always-online 12 hour check-in DRM.
• Exclusion of gamers with no internet connection.

Vendor lock-in quotes fair use

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)

What about all the privacy issues with Win10 and related updates to previous versions?

It gets a bit hard to continue to trust Misplaced Pages 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)

That subject has been tied-up in another article: Draft:Microsoft privacy controversies --DanielPharos (talk) 08:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Why is it a draft instead of already being posted and linked here, and with a POV template or whatever are the complaints added? --TiagoTiago (talk) 12:00, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Because it was involved in an AfD: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Microsoft Spyware (2nd nomination). But please be bold! --DanielPharos (talk) 13:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://startup.nmnaturalhistory.org/gallery/computernotes.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060129211717/http://www.asa.org.uk:80/asa/adjudications/non_broadcast/Adjudication+Details.htm?adjudication_id=38475 to http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications/non_broadcast/Adjudication+Details.htm?adjudication_id=38475

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060129211717/http://www.asa.org.uk:80/asa/adjudications/non_broadcast/Adjudication+Details.htm?adjudication_id=38475 to http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications/non_broadcast/Adjudication+Details.htm?adjudication_id=38475

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:46, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5sfayBi29 to http://www.cs.vu.nl/~ast/brown/

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-512681.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.infoworld.com/articles/op/xml/00/05/15/000515oplivingston.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.consumerfed.org/pdfs/CFA_tunney_comments_20020125.pdf
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5sfbUCm8X?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.businessweek.com%2F2000%2F00_20%2Fb3681219.htm to http://www.businessweek.com/2000/00_20/b3681219.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cs.vu.nl/~ast/brown/

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:59, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Move to Retitle this Article

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)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090316131744/http://www.abanet.org/intelprop/spring2004/course_materials/02_webbink.pdf to http://www.abanet.org/intelprop/spring2004/course_materials/02_webbink.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060924134603/http://www.opensource.org/advocacy/shared_source.php to http://www.opensource.org/advocacy/shared_source.php
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/67DPqarro?url=http://www.bestpricecomputers.ltd.uk/products/nowindows.htm to http://www.bestpricecomputers.ltd.uk/products/nowindows.htm
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120629191556/http://www.krsaborio.net/research/1980s/89/890423.htm to http://www.krsaborio.net/research/1980s/89/890423.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.businessweek.com/2000/00_20/b3681219.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications/non_broadcast/Adjudication%2BDetails.htm?adjudication_id=38475
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150113004913/http://windows-now.com/blogs/robert/archive/2006/09/20/Mary-Jo-Foley-Exit-Interview.aspx to http://www.windows-now.com/blogs/robert/archive/2006/09/20/Mary-Jo-Foley-Exit-Interview.aspx
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.stepto.com/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=530
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101030092419/http://www.psdisasters.com/2009/08/microsoft-poland-at-least-they-left.html to http://www.psdisasters.com/2009/08/microsoft-poland-at-least-they-left.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090921150717/http://news.ciol.com/Global-News/News-Reports/Microsoft-apologizes-for-web-photo-racism/26809124128/0/ to http://news.ciol.com/Global-News/News-Reports/Microsoft-apologizes-for-web-photo-racism/26809124128/0/

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bestpricecomputers.ltd.uk/products/nowindows.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090109213315/http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/159/1017159/cost-of-windows-tax-calculated to http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/159/1017159/cost-of-windows-tax-calculated
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090406172423/http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/465/1020465/man-wins-damages-from-acer-over-voleware-refund to http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/465/1020465/man-wins-damages-from-acer-over-voleware-refund
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071017002507/http://businessweek.com/magazine/content/01_47/b3758010.htm to http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/01_47/b3758010.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070502084953/http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_39/b3952001.htm to http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_39/b3952001.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.businessweek.com/2000/00_20/b3681219.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cs.vu.nl/~ast/brown/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090825053521/http://www.microsoft.com/businessproductivity/default.mspx to http://www.microsoft.com/businessproductivity/default.mspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070429124745/http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_09/b3822610_tc102.htm to http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_09/b3822610_tc102.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080308224208/http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/biztech/05/09/microsoft.flaw.ap/index.html to http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/biztech/05/09/microsoft.flaw.ap/index.html

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:37, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Defective updates

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)

Military ties

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)

"Microshaft" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Microshaft. The discussion will occur at Misplaced Pages: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)

Added new section for Mono patent concerns

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)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender, Race and Computing

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)

• Delisted good articles
• Old requests for peer review
• C-Class Microsoft articles
• High-importance Microsoft articles
• WikiProject Microsoft articles
• C-Class Computing articles
• Mid-importance Computing articles
• All Computing articles
• C-Class software articles
• Low-importance software articles
• C-Class software articles of Low-importance
• Low-importance Computing articles
• All Software articles
• C-Class organized labour articles
• High-importance organized labour articles
• WikiProject Organized Labour articles
• C-Class sociology articles
• Low-importance sociology articles
• C-Class law articles
• Mid-importance law articles
• WikiProject Law articles
• C-Class Human rights articles
• High-importance Human rights articles
• WikiProject Human rights articles
• C-Class United States articles
• Mid-importance United States articles
• C-Class United States articles of Mid-importance
• WikiProject United States articles